
Refunds for 300M phone users sought in lawsuits over location-data sales - pseudolus
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/lawsuits-att-verizon-t-mobile-sprint-broke-law-by-selling-location-data/
======
Yuval_Halevi
"Despite the carriers' promises, a Motherboard investigation found in January
2019 that "T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T are [still] selling access to their
customers' location data and that data is ending up in the hands of bounty
hunters and others not authorized to possess it, letting them track most
phones in the country"

The problem is that those companies can do these crimes because they know they
can afford to pay the fine and that no one will go to jail

It's absurd.

~~~
SilasX
Wait, why wouldn't bounty hunters be authorized to possess it? Isn't pursuit
of someone who has a bench warrant exactly the kind of lawful purpose this is
supposed to be limited to?

~~~
FireBeyond
Bounty hunters are no different to you or I, in most places (and outlawed in
several states). Some states require licensing as a PI. They have no
connection to law enforcement (and due to abuses, many states ban any
implication thereof, down to the color of vehicles used).

------
negamax
I really want to see this happening because whole "you are the product" line
does not apply here. People pay for these services, that should be the end of
profit motive. If they want to fuel a location data industry, give users a
choice/incentive for that.

~~~
scarlac
Indeed. What people seem to miss is not just that "you are the product" but
more "what stops you from being a product". Many major companies have
shareholders that demand constant growth. The growth are sometimes limited by
the offers a company can provide, so they may start to cannibalize their own
customers in hopes it won't drive them away, just to keep that year-over-year
growth. Eventually it comes down to the consumers ability to push back.

------
lukeschlather
I live in a two-party-consent state and I'm wondering how tortured a reading
of the wiretapping statute it would require for this to qualify. It certainly
seems like my phone's location ought to qualify as "Private communication
transmitted by radio."

~~~
kevas
This is an interesting point. I haven't read the applicable wiretapping laws,
but from my extremely limited understanding, they apply to the conversation
and not the location. As one does not expect privacy when out in the public,
how about when one is in the confines of one's own home? Can they legally
track me in there since I'm not out in public? Do I have the right to privacy
in my own home?

~~~
hamiltonkibbe
If two people are having a conversation about something — let’s say the
location of alice’s backpack — which is immediately obvious to anyone walking
by the coat hook in the front of the office, should that conversation lose
wiretapping protection?

~~~
Forbo
How would someone know the backpack is Alice's unless they were tapping the
conversation? If you're not in the immediate vicinity of the backpack
witnessing her drop it off, then you've gained information that is otherwise
not publicly known. Sure, one could request camera footage showing the event,
but I would hope that the person in possession of said footage would at least
ask for a warrant first.

------
craftinator
Really wish the chief officers were all directly prosecuted for the actions of
the company. They do, after all, receive a majority of the income; why not get
the bad with the good? Actions like selling the live location of customers
wouldn't be so appealing if it meant 10 years in jail.

------
itronitron
>> offered a service enabling law enforcement officers to locate most American
cell phones within seconds

this is additionally concerning given the fact that cell phone numbers are
frequently recycled by phone companies, 'from' the previous owner who is no
longer making payments, and 'to' a new person who is probably a child.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Let's please not go down the "think of the children!" route. It's been abused
quite enough already (albeit to rob us of our privacy and privileges).

~~~
silversconfused
No, you missed a good point. Everyone in the US who needs a phone, has a phone
(gross generalization, but accurate enough). Therefor, the only people getting
new phones are children who newly have a need for a phone.

This is isn't "think of the children" with buckyballs, this is "think of the
children" with phone numbers potentially under questionable surveillance for a
previous owners activities. A perfectly reasonable thing to think about,
especially in the context you presented in parens. Obviously, this shouldn't
be happening for anyone, but children are more likely to feel the effects.

~~~
astura
Um... and new employees, and immigrants, and long term tourists, and people
wanting to change their number...

~~~
sdfsdfsdfsdf3
Short term tourists too. Not everyone has EU style or T-Mobile ONE style
roaming.

------
nkw
This is pretty much doomed to fail because of the pre-dispute mandatory
arbitration clauses coupled with class action waivers contained in the
carriers' contracts. Under the current law surrounding arbitration it is a
practical impossibility for consumers to sue cell phone companies.

~~~
dredmorbius
Called party may well be excluded, though that would likely be another suite.

------
notTyler
It seems like all big companies have to do is create a press release saying
reports of your illegal activities are false, then rely on lawyers,
spokespeople, donated lawmakers and spin to face little to no consequences.

What are the odds that the US actually puts something like GDPR with the
current campaign finance system as it currently is?

