House passes bill banning Uncle Sam from snooping on citizens via data brokers
- Reference: 1713461348
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/04/18/congress_data_broker_surveillance/
- Source link:
The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (H.R.4639) was passed on Wednesday by a narrow 219-199 majority vote, despite fierce opposition from the White House.
The bill aims to ban the US government from purchasing data on Americans from data brokers, which currently serves as an alternative means to gather information without a warrant.
[1]
The issue has drawn much attention in recent years and the bill has divided both parties, including the Biden administration, which released a fresh statement on Tuesday strongly opposing it.
[2]
[3]
The White House's main argument against the ban is that being able to procure commercially available information (CAI) from data brokers is crucial for intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
It also argues that by banning the government from using data brokers and not any other type of entity, it does little to protect the privacy of US citizens, all while threatening national security.
[4]
The [5]statement [PDF] reads: "The Administration has taken, and continues to take, comprehensive steps to address legitimate privacy concerns related to the unregulated proliferation of commercially available information, including Administration action to protect sensitive health and location information, and President Biden's recent Executive Order to protect Americans' sensitive personal data from countries of concern.
"The Administration looks forward to working with Congress on the responsible collection, retention, and use of commercially available information in ways that protect both privacy and national security."
Obtaining information on US citizens, such as where they work or who they're associated with, has required federal agencies to obtain a warrant per the Fourth Amendment.
[6]
However, certain agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the [7]NSA have been circumventing citizens' constitutional rights by purchasing data from specialized brokerages, hiding behind the excuse that this data was voluntarily handed over.
The IRS was previously [8]caught grabbing cellphone location data via a contractor and used that same excuse to justify its actions, for example.
Duke University researchers also investigated the [9]Department of Defense's use of data brokers last year, publishing all the details in November, an excerpt of which revealed US military personnel and their families' CAI was being sold for as little as $0.12 per record.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a strong proponent of the bill, arguing that people's data is often being collected through the mobile apps they use every day, all without them being fully aware of the practice.
"The bipartisan passage of this bill is a flashing warning sign to the government that if it wants our data, it must get a warrant," [10]said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU.
"We hope this vote puts a fire under the Senate to protect their constituents and rein in the government's warrantless surveillance of Americans, once and for all."
US surveillance in the spotlight
Surveillance-related bills have been flying through Congress. Just last month we saw the House pass a separate bill that placed data brokers in the limelight, but this time the proposals aim to ban the sale of broker data to foreign adversaries.
[11]Reform of USA's Section 702 spying rule may make it to a vote this week
[12]Congress votes unanimously to ban brokers selling American data to enemies
[13]US and Europe try to tame surveillance capitalism
[14]'Scandal-plagued' data broker tracked visits to '600 Planned Parenthood locations'
The Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 was introduced in March, at the same time as the bill that proposed a TikTok ban, and in contrast to H.R.4639 received [15]unanimous approval (414-0) from representatives.
Speaking to The Register at the time, a spokesperson for the House Energy and Commerce Committee said there were no publicly available examples of enemies purchasing US data from brokers.
However, a declassified [16]report [PDF] from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in 2022 mentions that a "large and growing amount" of CAI could be abused by foreign powers.
Today, the Senate is expected to uphold a House vote from last week that would see an expansion of powers afforded to intelligence agencies under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
April 12 saw the House [17]pass the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA)
[18]PDF
, which plans to reinstate FISA's Section 702.These rules are for US intelligence agencies and permit warrantless spying on communications of non-US nationals living outside of the country for the purposes of national security. If those communications also happen to include US citizens, the data is then passed into a database shared by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) which each can query without the need for a warrant.
Before the RISAA bill was passed, an amendment that would have banned warrantless surveillance of US citizens failed to pass a split (212-212) vote.
Another amendment, which would broaden the definition of electronic communications service providers, the subjects of Section 702 data requests, [19]passed without issue . It means if the bill becomes law, US intelligence agencies will have a broader selection of organizations from which they can extract information.
The proposed expansion of powers have been opposed by groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU, which comes as little surprise given the historic [20]abuses of FISA powers that have been publicized, some of which were on a [21]huge scale . ®
Get our [22]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZiGX@fMR7sC2fuBLePEatAAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZiGX@fMR7sC2fuBLePEatAAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZiGX@fMR7sC2fuBLePEatAAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZiGX@fMR7sC2fuBLePEatAAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SAP-HR4639.pdf
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_security/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZiGX@fMR7sC2fuBLePEatAAAABY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/02/nsa_held_hostage/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/22/federal_agencies_american_data/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/07/data_brokers_military_data/
[10] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/house-passes-fourth-amendment-is-not-for-sale-act
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/fisa_section_702_deadline/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/21/congress_votes_unanimously_to_ban/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/05/us_europe_capitalism/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/15/data_broker_location_abortion/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/21/congress_votes_unanimously_to_ban/
[16] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Declassified-Report-on-CAI-January2022.pdf
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/15/security_in_brief/
[18] https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/RCP_7888_xml.pdf
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/17/fisa_section_702/
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/22/us_senator_caught_in_section_702/
[21] https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/22/fbi_fisa_abuse/
[22] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
> The White House's main argument against the ban is that being able to procure commercially available information (CAI) from data brokers is crucial for intelligence agencies and law enforcement.
That's like trying to justify theft by saying that it is vital for the survival of poor people for them to be able to procure goods and food.
The ends don't necessarily justify the means.
No, it isn't. Theft of actual, physical goods denies those goods to the owner. Data can be copied as often as you wish with no loss to the owner. The problem is how it is used. As long as there is strong oversight and data is not retained indefinitely, security services should have access to available data.
The point wasn't that the facts were similar, but that you can't justify wrong-doing just because it makes someone's lot easier.
"banning the government from using data brokers and not any other type of entity, it does little to protect the privacy of US citizens, all while threatening national security."
They do have a point. No one should be collecting data but banning only government from accessing it, where it actually already does exist, is bizarre. We can't use it to defned ourselves aganst criminals and terrorists but can to sell useless tat? That's ridiculous.
Last time I checked, sellers of useless tat didn't claim the right to use a drone fired Hellfire to kill you if they mistakenly ID'd you as a terrorist (or military aged male within 500 meters of someone we've ID'd as a terrorist). I've never heard of Baidu sending a poorly trained SWAT team into someone's house to shoot their dog and look for drugs. Never had Amazon charge me with crimes for using eBay to buy something.
Maybe that whole "legally able to kill you" is the kind of thing whereby a Government should have to work A LOT harder to gather information and use it than "sellers of tat". Dunno? Just me??
Enacting a law in one thing...
...Enforcing the law is another.
I don't imagine it makes much difference to the security services whether snooping / data acquisition is something they are technically allowed to do - they will likely do it anyway (in pretty much all countries).
Easy to get around
If there's a ban on PAYING data brokers, you offer them something in trade so they are "giving" you the data.
Alternatively, if you're the CIA you set up a front company which buys the stuff and gives it to the CIA. Or maybe if the ban is on using taxpayer funds to buy the data you use seized drug money to pay for it so it isn't taxpayer funded.
They will find ways around it.
The sad thing is that it is still perfectly legal for companies to buy/sell my data, the only ban is on the government buying it. While I'm not a fan of that by any means, I'm less worried about the government buying my data than some shady company who has profit as their only motive. My real gripe that is companies are allowed to SELL it to ANYONE, not to whether the buyer has some of my interests at heart (the government) versus none of them (any other company)
"Speaking to The Register at the time, a spokesperson for the House Energy and Commerce Committee said there were no publicly available examples of enemies purchasing US data from brokers."
Does the spokesperson really believe the scum that are these data brokers won't happily take money from anyone who is willing to pay them for the information? I suspect you could be contact them as 'We love taking drugs and beating our spouses organisation' they would still sell you the data if you offered them enough $$$. So some foreign entity who sets up a shell company will have no problems with obtaining US citizens data from them.