[HN Gopher] FTC takes action against Gravy Analytics, Venntel fo...
___________________________________________________________________
FTC takes action against Gravy Analytics, Venntel for selling
location data
Author : gnabgib
Score : 53 points
Date : 2024-12-03 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov)
| perihelions wrote:
| Here's a few previous threads (about "Venntel" or "Gravy
| Analytics" specifically),
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25288341 ( _" My Phone Was
| Spying on Me, So I Tracked Down the Surveillants"_, 170 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24896456 ( _" CBP Refuses to
| Tell Congress How It Is Tracking Americans Without a Warrant"_,
| 98 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32689862 ( _" [Here's] The
| Manual for the Mass Surveillance Tool Cops Use to Track Phones"_,
| 96 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24709347 ( _" The IRS is
| being investigated for using location data without a warrant"_,
| 80 comments)
| us0r wrote:
| "FTC Bans Location Data Company" no not really.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2123035gravyana...
|
| As I skim that it just feels like a pile of shit that does
| nothing but create a few jobs to make reports. It doesn't bind
| the management. They can literally go do the same thing tomorrow.
|
| Oh wait... "Gravy Analytics is now part of Unacast!"
|
| Why isn't Unacast a party? Where is the monetary fine?
| fallingknife wrote:
| Yeah government doesn't want to end the surveillance. They want
| to access it. This action serves that purpose and also makes
| more work for bureaucrats and lawyers. It's a real win-win from
| a DC perspective.
| armanhq wrote:
| Are we skimming the same thing here? Section II explicitly
| binds the management and prohibits sale of precise sensitive
| location data. This is a consent decree - not sure what the FTC
| banning a company would look like exactly - using your example,
| Unacast would be bound by the terms of the decree. FTC's
| shuttering a line of business for these companies and requiring
| guardrails (which sure, might create jobs for reporting
| but...those data governance jobs for this type of data
| specifically should probably exist?), seems like an ok remedy
| imo. For context:
|
| > "II. Prohibitions on the Use, Sale, or Disclosure of
| Sensitive Location Data IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents
| and Respondents' officers, agents, and employees, whether
| acting directly or indirectly, must not sell, license,
| transfer, share, disclose, or otherwise use in any products or
| services Sensitive Location Data associated with the Sensitive
| Locations that Respondents have identified within 90 days of
| the effective date of this Order as part of the Sensitive
| Locations Data Program established and maintained pursuant to
| Provision III below."
| ranger_danger wrote:
| How can the FTC make any enforceable rules now that Chevron is
| gone?
| josefritzishere wrote:
| This is the best question here. The FTC can still make and
| enforce regulations. But the regulatees can now take those
| enforecements to federal judges who may modify or vacate the
| enforcement action, or even the regulation itself.
|
| The loss of chevron does not end regulation. It creates a
| morass of inconsistent and inexpert judicial inturpretations.
| It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
| freejazz wrote:
| > It was the worst supreme court decision in decades
|
| That's saying a lot considering that the presidential
| immunity decision is going to create the same kind of
| uncertainty surrounding presidential conduct which is likely
| not going to be resolved for decades.
| philjohn wrote:
| See also Citizens United.
| freejazz wrote:
| Not of this decade and didn't result in years of
| litigation to figure out what the 'precedent' meant.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Even worse than near-blanket immunity for the President? I
| guess we'll find out in January!
|
| But yeah, the inconsistent rulings from the bench will be a
| total dumpster fire.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Why do you think there will be inconsistent rulings?
| Wouldn't any such case be accompanied by subject matter
| expert opinions and testimony?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Judges aren't perfect and they aren't completely
| apolitical. If they were, we wouldn't need appeals courts
| and SCOTUS.
|
| With Chevron in place, that imperfection was somewhat
| managed by deferring to the experts in the executive
| branch who were tasked with implementing the rules
| provided by Congress.
|
| Without Chevron, a non-expert judge has to decide whose
| experts they believe.
|
| Additionally, the removal of Chevron opens to doors to a
| massive number of cases that likely wouldn't be filed
| under Chevron. So, we're also adding caseload to an
| already overburdened justice system.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| But experts aren't perfect either... I'm not sure how
| good of an argument this is if it just boils down to
| trusting a different set of experts and believing one is
| somehow inherently better than another? Or maybe I
| misunderstand.
| wrs wrote:
| The whole point of having a regulatory agency is that you
| hire full-time experts in the field and rely on them to
| build a coherent and stable system of rules and
| enforcement. As one of the regulated parties, this gives
| you some solid ground to stand on.
|
| If this can all be second-guessed in court, then it
| becomes more of a crap shoot based on a series of judges'
| rapport with the selected experts _du jour_ , who are
| selected primarily based on the suitability of their
| opinion, rather than their expertise.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| What says the full-time experts won't have the "wrong"
| opinions?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Nothing. That was the case with the ATF bump stock ban a
| few years ago - eventually it was deemed executive
| overreach. But, the bar for proving that was higher with
| Chevron in place (went to appeals, where without Chevron
| it could go either way in district court based on a
| single judge's opinion).
| ranger_danger wrote:
| District court ruling can't also be appealed?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yes, that's happened with the bump stock ban.
|
| If you believe the government is usually wrong or often
| acting in bad faith, you might applaud the overturning of
| Chevron.
|
| If you think the executive should be allowed to implement
| the often vague directives from Congress without fear of
| being overwhelmed in court, then you might think the
| overturning of Chevron will kill the government's ability
| to function.
|
| Personally, I'm not keen on the end of Chevron. But it
| probably isn't going to lead to complete dysfunction
| either.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| You can't blindly rely on people with power to always do
| the unselfishly correct thing. Such power corrupts, and
| there needs to be a somewhere to turn when that power is
| abused.
|
| This is why I like the Chevron decision a lot!
| alistairSH wrote:
| Fair question... with Chevron, the experts in the
| executive were just presumed to be acting in good faith,
| particularly in the face of vague legislation.
|
| The bar to overturning those executive rules is now
| potentially much lower.
|
| Take the ATF's bump stock ban (overturned prior to
| Chevron being killed, IIRC)... - Congress has effectively
| banned machine guns (for normal people to own) - ATF
| decides bump stocks make machine guns - Bump stock owner
| sues ATF, claiming they overreached - Courts initially
| upheld ATF rule (deferring to ATF experts) - Appeals
| courts overturned lower court ruling, claiming bump
| stocks don't meet the definition spelled out by Congress.
|
| As much as I hate it, the appeals court is technically
| correct. The law passed by Congress was narrowly tailored
| and bump stocks don't meet that rule.
|
| So, this was a case where Chevron was actually "worse"
| than "no-Chevron".
|
| But, it's easy enough to imagine the reverse. Congress
| says "hey EPA, make the air clean!" with little or no
| guidance on the mechanism they want followed. EPA does
| its best, but now gets sued by any big industry that
| wants to pollute. With Chevron in place, implementing
| that vague law is still possible. Without it, EPA does
| it's best and often ends up losing to the other side's
| experts (and very likely the various districts decide
| differently, leading to inconsistent application of the
| law across the country, until/unless SCOTUS takes a
| case).
|
| The simple answer is to require Congress to write
| detailed laws. But, that's not really possible (given the
| scope of the government). And exacerbated by the
| dysfunctional state of affairs we've seen in Congress
| these last few decades.
| lesuorac wrote:
| "can now take" isn't really accurate.
|
| You could always appeal the rulings from federal agencies in
| court and that's how we lost chevron [1].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v
| ._Ra...
| dpierce9 wrote:
| Chevron eliminated discretion regarding how an agency
| interprets what powers it has been given if the law is unclear
| about such things.
|
| It does not eliminate the ability to make and enforce rules if
| those powers/rules are clearly within the scope of the law.
|
| I have no idea about this FTC decision on this second point but
| agency lawyers tend to be pretty careful about such things.
| alistairSH wrote:
| It doesn't really remove the discretion within the executive
| branch agencies. They still have to do some level of
| interpretation of what Congress really wanted.
|
| Removal of Chevron effectively means a judge then gets to
| second-guess that interpretation. Previously, they were
| supposed to defer to the SMEs in the executive.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > Despite understanding that precise geolocation data is
| sensitive information that requires consumers' consent,
| Respondents fail to take reasonable steps to confirm consumers
| consented to Respondents' collection, use, or sale of this data
| and consumers do not, in fact, consent to the collection, use,
| and sale of their location data by Respondents.
|
| Is there some actual law that this is based on? I am sympathetic
| to arguments that this _should_ be a law, and is sketchy and
| gross, but the legal requirement of active consent for
| geolocation data seems to be something the agency is just
| declaring to be true and daring lawsuits to challenge.
| evoke4908 wrote:
| > seems to be something the agency is just declaring to be true
| and daring lawsuits to challenge
|
| I'm _pretty sure_ that this is exactly how it 's supposed to
| work. Federal agencies like the FTC have (had?) the authority
| to make rules and reinterpret existing rules with the force of
| law.
|
| In the (present) US government, it really can't work any other
| way. Without this sort of autonomy, any action by the FTC, EPA,
| etc would require congressional approval, which would mean that
| they effectively would never be able to function at all. Law
| moves far, far too slowly. FTC needs autonomy to go around the
| law to react to rapidly changing markets and technologies.
| Notionally their actions should be codified by Congress after
| the fact, but Congress is incapable of doing anything useful
| within 20 years.
| colechristensen wrote:
| This puts a bit of a weird spin on it.
|
| Especially after recent supreme court decisions, which I
| support, Congress has to give an agency specific authority
| within defined boundaries in order to make regulations which
| have the force of law.
|
| Congress doesn't have to get down to the very specifics (like
| for example emissions standards numbers for cars), but it
| does have to be specific enough (can't say: EPA, you're
| responsible for environment stuff, make whatever laws you
| feel like).
|
| For example the origination of the FTC https://en.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...
|
| The legislation charges the FTC with preventing unfair
| business practices, defines what it means by unfair, and then
| gives authority to address these things through
| administrative actions or the courts.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| IANAL the tech developed and then laws started to form.. slow
| walking the laws took over due to internal law enforcement and
| intelligence agency desire to use the data. Tech companies
| brutally compete with winners emerging controlling billions in
| cash flows. Both US political parties are completely complicit
| behind closed doors. "motivated individuals" by the tens of
| thousands built the tech and drank the kool-aide, reaping many
| mini-millionaires (reading right now?) $0.02
| dylan604 wrote:
| great, so look for EULA/ToS updates soon to be released by all
| of the other players in this area with explicit permission
| granted hidden behind legalese weasel words
| staticautomatic wrote:
| It's based on Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair
| and deceptive practices. The vast majority of "FTC cases" you
| read about are Section 5 cases.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Huh. It was ok the last 4 years but not next year.
| janalsncm wrote:
| A really good book on this topic is Byron Tau's _Means of
| Control_. His contention is that this surveillance data has made
| NSA warrantless wiretaps old news. Cops don't need to do the
| spying themselves, they can simply buy the info.
|
| I am of the opinion that at this point, Americans only believe we
| are less surveilled than people elsewhere. It's not visible so
| people forget about it. Yet it is so deeply embedded into the
| government that it will never be removed.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There's the old saying that "we are free only as much as we
| don't have guns in our face telling us we're not". The reigns
| placed on our freedom are just unrecognized by the vast
| majority of people so they feel they have more freedom than
| what they might appreciate.
| gmfawcett wrote:
| > we are free only as much as we don't have guns in our face
| telling us we're not.
|
| Is this actually an old saying?
| whatshisface wrote:
| It's at least thirty minutes old.
| revscat wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure if I understand the point you're
| making, but let me try an analogy.
|
| We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to
| our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically
| requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are
| structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car,
| whether they want to or not.
|
| If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be
| dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of
| the network effects of this requirement.
|
| So while you are technically free to not buy a car,
| realistically you are forced to do so.
|
| Is that approximately what you mean?
| pictureofabear wrote:
| Not just police... the NSA as well.
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/tech/the-nsa-buys-americans-i...
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I would say it's more like the American people are so
| propagandized in favor of free markets and enterprises and so
| poisoned at the notion of the Government doing literally
| anything that they utterly don't care about how thoroughly and
| completely our freedoms have been subsumed by capital
| interests, as long as they aren't "big government me no like."
|
| Government death panels? Orwellian, literally 1984, communist,
| socialist. Your insurance company refusing to cover your cancer
| treatment? Well that's the free market bub, can't argue with
| it. Sorry you're gonna die.
|
| Like I'm being hyperbolic, sure, but I am being _that_
| hyperbolic?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| > without obtaining verifiable user consent for commercial and
| government uses.
|
| and if they did obtain it, this data should have trackable
| provenance, should be revokable, and there should be payment and
| royalties to the user for its use and continued use
| dylan604 wrote:
| >should be revokable
|
| this data will self-destruct in five seconds?
|
| unless you plan on making it DRM protected, how else do you
| make data revokable? it's just text that can at worst be screen
| scraped into whatever format they want/need. plus, as we all
| know, DRM encryption keys tend to have a way of being broken or
| discovered or whatever other method of being rendered useless.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| nothing to do with DRM
|
| we can just copy a regulatory regime seen in other
| industries: non-compliant offerings are outright illegal and
| anyone trading in it can be sanctioned outright, while
| compliant offerings have this feature set.
|
| the feature set can have a standardized way of tracking
| provenance, which the user can look at and revoke its
| compliance if desired, by signing a cryptographic signature
| that produces the expected address that approved consent to
| begin with. the same address's public key would be used for
| royalty payment. there are many examples of this working in
| standardized ways in some networks.
| afavour wrote:
| Not everything has to be a tech solution. Legislate that
| companies must delete the data and punish them if they don't.
| Much like GDPR.
| lenerdenator wrote:
| How nice of the FTC to do this.
|
| I mean, it won't matter come January 21st, but it's a nice
| thought.
| abnercoimbre wrote:
| Are these Lina Khan's final days?
| lenerdenator wrote:
| It's when an administration that thinks that any and all
| regulations are job-killing and burdensome takes power, with
| a Congress and SCOTUS to match.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I would like to see action against car makers like Honda and
| Subaru and Ford for selling location data from the car's GPS
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-03 23:00 UTC)