FTC Warns Tech Companies Against Misusing Health Data (cnn.com) 32
Tech companies and data brokers that misuse or misrepresent how they handle Americans' personal data, including reproductive health information, may find themselves on the hook with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency warned this week. From a report: On Monday, the FTC renewed its vow to investigate or sue companies that use Americans' digital data in unfair or deceptive ways, following an executive order by the Biden administration that explicitly called for it and other agencies to consider steps to protect abortion-seekers. Since the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, civil liberties experts have warned that Americans' extensive digital footprints could give away whether they have visited an abortion clinic or sought information on how to access an abortion, prompting questions about the security of that data.
"The misuse of mobile location and health information -- including reproductive health data -- exposes consumers to significant harm," the FTC said in a blog post. "The exposure of health information and medical conditions, especially data related to sexual activity or reproductive health, may subject people to discrimination, stigma, mental anguish, or other serious harms." It added: "The Commission is committed to using the full scope of its legal authorities to protect consumers' privacy. We will vigorously enforce the law if we uncover illegal conduct that exploits Americans' location, health, or other sensitive data."
"The misuse of mobile location and health information -- including reproductive health data -- exposes consumers to significant harm," the FTC said in a blog post. "The exposure of health information and medical conditions, especially data related to sexual activity or reproductive health, may subject people to discrimination, stigma, mental anguish, or other serious harms." It added: "The Commission is committed to using the full scope of its legal authorities to protect consumers' privacy. We will vigorously enforce the law if we uncover illegal conduct that exploits Americans' location, health, or other sensitive data."
Police (Score:4, Interesting)
If abortion is illegal in your state and you get one in your state, the police can subpoena whatever the heck they want to prosecute you for it.
There's not much stopping you from going to another state to get one. Laws only apply in states where you physically are. I'm sure some states will try to do some sort of end-run around that but it won't fly in court.
Re:Police (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure some states will try to do some sort of end-run around that but it won't fly in court.
Not until your case gets to the Catholic Court, anyway. Then they will 100% definitely give them the right to go after your records in other states for what's a crime in your state, if it's abortion-related.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the US this is a classic resurrection of the state rights. States rights was no so much about states governing their states, but states governing people who leave the state. So if a person, which was called contraband, left the states rights people wanted to go to the other state and recapture the contraband with normal legal authority. Just that some paid for that pers
Re:Police (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems to me if this "state's rights" as you list it, continues, it's going to tear this country apart as states try to overreach their well..reach, going after people who left said state, because they did something that state doesn't like.
"Once a Texan, always a Texan" will carry a whole new meaning...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A casual reader of your comment could take it as an endorsement for slavery. Is that not what you were going for? Hopefully it was a 1d failure at 4d satire.
Re: (Score:2)
maybe they could print a serial number on your arm and add a state mnemonic so that we can all tell which state you are 'from'. foreheads are ok, too, if you have no non-printed room on your arm.
calling orwell, hawthorne and godwin. to the courtesy phone, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some states will try to do some sort of end-run around that but it won't fly in court.
It shouldn't fly in any court - it's a form of interstate commerce. But if it appeals all the way to the Supreme Court it seems that anything goes.
Re: (Score:2)
But in the end this move is just for show.
Re: (Score:2)
A private operation paid for out of state is not "public health" - it is much closer to commerce than "public" health. A state can definitely regulate what happens inside the state. It cannot regulate what happens outside of it.
Yes, they think they can stop you [Re:Police] (Score:5, Informative)
There's not much stopping you from going to another state to get one.
The Missouri bill has civil penalties for women who travel to another state with the purpose of getting an abortion, and anybody who helps them.
Such laws have been proposed in other states as well, but not yet passed.
Whether these laws will hold up in court is anybody's guess.
Laws only apply in states where you physically are. I'm sure some states will try to do some sort of end-run around that but it won't fly in court.
"You" may be sure of this, but this has not yet been tested in any court decision. Some discussions:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/... [bloomberglaw.com]
https://www.poynter.org/fact-c... [poynter.org] lists several precidents
In principle, the interstate commerce clause in the constitution would let Congress say that states can't prohibit women from crossing state lines to get an abortion. In practice, it's not clear that Congress has the votes to pass such a law.
Re: (Score:2)
"You" may be sure of this, but this has not yet been tested in any court decision.
That's because it's settled law. A state can't prevent it's citizens from doing something in other states. This applies to drug laws, gambling, fireworks, guns, alcohol, etc...
That doesn't mean a state can't pass a law doing so. It won't make it very far in federal court, and I doubt that the supreme court would open the can of worms to say states *can* regulate behavior in other states.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it's settled law. A state can't prevent it's citizens from doing something in other states. This applies to drug laws, gambling, fireworks, guns, alcohol, etc...
Just wait, the Catholic Court will fix that. There is already precedent in federal law, in that it is illegal to visit another country for the purpose of engaging in behavior which is illegal in the USA. This always struck me as being particularly dominionist — it implies that the USA thinks it runs the whole world, or that it owns every "citizen" making us all its slaves, or both. (My money is on the last option there. It's expensive and difficult even to relinquish your US citizenship. It's like hav
can of worms [Re:Yes, they think they can stop you (Score:2)
"You" may be sure of this, but this has not yet been tested in any court decision.
That's because it's settled law.
"Settled law" means law that has court decisions that can be quoted as precedent. Until we get those decisions, no, it's not settled law.
In any case, we currently have four supreme court justices who were quoted, in their confirmation hearings, as saying "Roe v. Wade is settled law"... who then signed on to an opinion overturning it.
...
and I doubt that the supreme court would open the can of worms
ROFL! You can't be serious.
This supreme court has no problem opening a can of worms.
Re: (Score:3)
[Emphasis mine.]
Just to be clear, we're talking about police investigating suspected abortions (unless we're presuming guilt). So, therefore, there is no need to actually get an abortion, in order for information about you be subpoenaed.
if the FTC is warning them (Score:1)
then it's already too late.
once they've done something illegal they'll just stall it in the courts for years.
and if they lose, a fine that will mean absolutely nothing.
meanwhile if they are making money handling your data illegally, then they'll just keep doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is an on-going problem, and the folks most affected will be women in their late teens to early 20s. So people will be moving in and out of the "most affected" group.
The problem you describe is real, and applies to a lot of conditions, of course, but this is and edge case.
Sounds like hot air to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Until government agencies get serious about throwing C-suite asses in jail and taking offending companies to the brink of bankruptcy while compensating victims, this kind of announcement is meaningless bluster. Any fines likely to be levied will simply be considered a cost of business, and it will be "business as usual".
Making shareholders suffer significant losses, while also making sure that decision makers literally have "skin in the game" in the form of risking jail time, is the only way this announcement will be anything more than a PR stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth. The FTC is essentially saying, "Gosh darn it, we really, really, really mean it this time. Maybe. Why can't you just behave? You want some ice cream?"
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. How many people were charged or went to jail after the OPM and Equifax debacles? Zero.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not misusing it! (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:2)
Tech companies warn FTC they're laughing so hard they can't breathe.
need help? (Score:2)
I know, call the too-little-too-late department. The FTC is a joke.
"light-touch regulation" (Score:2)