My poems were written in anger after Tiananmen Square. But what motivates most prison writing is a fear of forgetting. Today I am free, but the regime has never stopped its war on words. By Liao Yiwu
Continue reading...© Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA-EFE
© Photograph: Yoan Valat/EPA-EFE
You accelerated multiple times on your way to Yosemite for the weekend. You braked when driving to a doctor appointment. If your car has internet capabilities, GPS tracking or OnStar, your car knows your driving history.
And now we know: your car insurance carrier might know it, too.
In a recent New York Times article, Kashmir Hill reported how everyday moments in your car like these create a data footprint of your driving habits and routine that is, in some cases, being sold to insurance companies. Collection often happens through so-called “safe driving” programs pre-installed in your vehicle through an internet-connected service on your car or a connected car app. Real-time location tracking often starts when you download an app on your phone or tap “agree” on the dash screen before you drive your car away from the dealership lot.
Technological advancements in cars have come a long way since General Motors launched OnStar in 1996. From the influx of mobile data facilitating in-car navigation, to the rise of telematics in the 2010s, cars today are more internet-connected than ever. This enables, for example, delivery of emergency warnings, notice of when you need an oil change, and software updates. Recent research predicts that by 2030, more than 95% of new passenger cars will contain some form of internet-connected service and surveillance.
Car manufacturers including General Motors, Kia, Subaru, and Mitsubishi have some form of services or apps that collect, maintain, and distribute your connected car data to insurance companies. Insurance companies spend thousands of dollars purchasing your car data to factor in these “select insights” about your driving behavior. Those insights are then factored into your “risk score,” which can potentially spike your insurance premiums.
As Hill reported, the OnStar Smart Driver program is one example of an internet-connected service that collects driver data and sends it to car manufacturers. They then sell this digital driving profile to third-party data brokers, like Lexis-Nexus or Verisk. From there, data brokers generally sell information to anyone with the money to buy it. After Hill’s report, GM announced it would stop sharing data with these brokers.
The manufacturers and car dealerships subvert consumers’ authentic choice to participate in collecting and sharing of their driving data. This is where consumers should be extremely wary, and where we need stronger data privacy laws. As reported by Hill, a salesperson at the dealership may enroll you without your even realizing it, in their pursuit of an enrollment bonus. All of this is further muddied by a car manufacturers’ lack of clear, detailed, and transparent “terms and conditions” disclosure forms. These are often too long to read and filled with technical legal jargon—especially when all you want is to drive your new car home. Even for unusual consumers who take the time to read the privacy disclosures, as noted in Hill’s article by researcher Jen Caltrider at the Mozilla Foundation, drivers “have little idea about what they are consenting to when it comes to data collection.”
This whole process puts people in a rough situation. We are unknowingly surveilled to generate a digital footprint that companies later monetize, including details about many parts of daily life, from how we eat, to how long we spend on social media. And now, the way we drive and locations we visit with our car.
That's why EFF supports comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation with strong data minimization rules and requirements for clear, opt-in consent.
If there were clear data minimization guardrails in place, it would curb overzealous processing of our automotive data. General Motors would only have authority to collect, maintain, use, and disclose our data to provide a service that we asked for. For example, through the OnStar program, drivers may want to provide their GPS location data to assist rescue efforts, or to automatically call 911 if they’ve been in an accident. Any car data beyond what is needed to provide services people asked for should not be collected. And it certainly shouldn't be sold to data brokers—who then sell it to your car insurance carriers.
Hill’s article shines a light on another part of daily life that is penetrated by technology advancements that have no clear privacy guardrails. Consumers do not actually know how companies are processing their data – much less actually exercise control over this processing.
That’s why we need opt-in consent rules: companies must be forbidden from processing our data, unless they first obtain our genuine opt-in consent. This consent must be informed and specific, meaning companies cannot hide the request in legal jargon buried under pages of fine print. Moreover, this consent cannot be the product of deceptively designed user interfaces (sometimes called “dark patterns”) that impair autonomy and choice. Further, this consent must be voluntary, meaning among other things it cannot be coerced with pay-for-privacy schemes. Finally, the default must be no data processing until the driver gives permission (“opt-in consent”), as opposed to processing until the driver objects (“opt-out consent”).
But today, consumers do not control, or often even know, to whom car manufacturers are selling their data. Is it car insurers, law enforcement agencies, advertisers?
Finally, if you want to figure out what your car knows about you, and opt out of sharing when you can, check out our instructions here.
There is a growing pile of evidence that cities should drop Shotspotter, the notorious surveillance system that purportedly uses acoustic sensors to detect gunshots, due to its inaccuracies and the danger it creates in communities where it’s installed. In yet another blow to the product and the surveillance company behind it—SoundThinking—Congress members have sent a letter calling on the Department of Homeland Security to investigate how it provides funding to local police to deploy the product.
The seven page letter, from Senators Ed Markey, Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren, and Representative Ayanna Pressley, begins by questioning the “accuracy and effectiveness” of ShotSpotter, and then outlines some of the latest evidence of its abysmal performance, including multiple studies showing false positive rates—i.e. incorrectly classifying non-gunshot sounds as gunshots—at 70% or higher. In addition to its ineffectiveness, the Congress members voiced their serious concerns regarding ShotSpotter’s contribution to discrimination, civil rights violations, and poor policing practices due to the installation of most ShotSpotter sensors in overwhelmingly “Black, Brown and Latin[e] communities” at the request of local law enforcement. Together, the inefficacy of the technology and the placements can result in the deployment of police to what they expect to be a dangerous situation with guns drawn, increasing the chances of all-too-common police violence against civilians in the area.
In light of the grave concerns raised by the use of ShotSpotter, the lawmakers are demanding that DHS investigate its funding, and whether it’s an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. We agree: DHS should investigate, and should end its program of offering grants to local law enforcement agencies to contract with SoundThinking.
The letter can be read in its entirety here.
The government violates the privacy rights of individuals on pretrial release when it continuously tracks, retains, and shares their location, EFF explained in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the case, Simon v. San Francisco, individuals on pretrial release are challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s electronic ankle monitoring program. The lower court ruled the program likely violates the California and federal constitutions. We—along with Professor Kate Weisburd and the Cato Institute—urge the Ninth Circuit to do the same.
Under the program, the San Francisco County Sheriff collects and indefinitely retains geolocation data from people on pretrial release and turns it over to other law enforcement entities without suspicion or a warrant. The Sheriff shares both comprehensive geolocation data collected from individuals and the results of invasive reverse location searches of all program participants’ location data to determine whether an individual on pretrial release was near a specified location at a specified time.
Electronic monitoring transforms individuals’ homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods into digital prisons, in which devices physically attached to people follow their every movement. All location data can reveal sensitive, private information about individuals, such as whether they were at an office, union hall, or house of worship. This is especially true for the GPS data at issue in Simon, given its high degree of accuracy and precision. Both federal and state courts recognize that location data is sensitive, revealing information in which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And, as EFF’s brief explains, the Simon plaintiffs do not relinquish this reasonable expectation of privacy in their location information merely because they are on pretrial release—to the contrary, their privacy interests remain substantial.
Moreover, as EFF explains in its brief, this electronic monitoring is not only invasive, but ineffective and (contrary to its portrayal as a detention alternative) an expansion of government surveillance. Studies have not found significant relationships between electronic monitoring of individuals on pretrial release and their court appearance rates or likelihood of arrest. Nor do studies show that law enforcement is employing electronic monitoring with individuals they would otherwise put in jail. To the contrary, studies indicate that law enforcement is using electronic monitoring to surveil and constrain the liberty of those who wouldn’t otherwise be detained.
We hope the Ninth Circuit affirms the trial court and recognizes the rights of individuals on pretrial release against invasive electronic monitoring.
When EFF set out to map surveillance technology along the U.S.-Mexico border, we weren't exactly sure how to do it. We started with public records—procurement documents, environmental assessments, and the like—which allowed us to find the GPS coordinates of scores of towers. During a series of in-person trips, we were able to find even more. Yet virtual reality ended up being one of the key tools in not only discovering surveillance at the border, but also in educating people about Customs & Border Protection's so-called "virtual wall" through VR tours.
EFF Director of Investigations Dave Maass recently gave a lightning talk at University of Nevada, Reno's annual XR Meetup explaining how virtual reality, perhaps ironically, has allowed us to better understand the reality of border surveillance.
In a landmark ruling for fundamental freedoms in Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that for over two decades the state government harassed, surveilled, and persecuted members of a lawyer’s group that defends human rights defenders, activists, and indigenous people, putting the attorneys’ lives at risk.
The ruling is a major victory for civil rights in Colombia, which has a long history of abuse and violence against human rights defenders, including murders and death threats. The case involved the unlawful and arbitrary surveillance of members of the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR), a Colombian human rights organization defending victims of political persecution and community activists for over 40 years.
The court found that since at least 1999, Colombian authorities carried out a constant campaign of pervasive secret surveillance of CAJAR members and their families. That state violated their rights to life, personal integrity, private life, freedom of expression and association, and more, the Court said. It noted the particular impact experienced by women defenders and those who had to leave the country amid threat, attacks, and harassment for representing victims.
The decision is the first by the Inter-American Court to find a State responsible for violating the right to defend human rights. The court is a human rights tribunal that interprets and applies the American Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty ratified by over 20 states in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 2022, EFF, Article 19, Fundación Karisma, and Privacy International, represented by Berkeley Law’s International Human Rights Law Clinic, filed an amicus brief in the case. EFF and partners urged the court to rule that Colombia’s legal framework regulating intelligence activity and the surveillance of CAJAR and their families violated a constellation of human rights and forced them to limit their activities, change homes, and go into exile to avoid violence, threats, and harassment.
Colombia's intelligence network was behind abusive surveillance practices in violation of the American Convention and did not prevent authorities from unlawfully surveilling, harassing, and attacking CAJAR members, EFF told the court. Even after Colombia enacted a new intelligence law, authorities continued to carry out unlawful communications surveillance against CAJAR members, using an expansive and invasive spying system to target and disrupt the work of not just CAJAR but other human rights defenders and journalists.
In examining Colombia’s intelligence law and surveillance actions, the court elaborated on key Inter-American and other international human rights standards, and advanced significant conclusions for the protection of privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to defend human rights.
The court delved into criteria for intelligence gathering powers, limitations, and controls. It highlighted the need for independent oversight of intelligence activities and effective remedies against arbitrary actions. It also elaborated on standards for the collection, management, and access to personal data held by intelligence agencies, and recognized the protection of informational self-determination by the American Convention. We highlight some of the most important conclusions below.
The court noted that actions such as covert surveillance, interception of communications, or collection of personal data constitute undeniable interference with the exercise of human rights, requiring precise regulations and effective controls to prevent abuse from state authorities. Its ruling recalled European Court of Human Rights’ case law establishing that “the mere existence of legislation allowing for a system of secret monitoring […] constitutes a threat to 'freedom of communication among users of telecommunications services and thus amounts in itself to an interference with the exercise of rights'.”
Building on its ruling in the case Escher et al. vs Brazil, the Inter-American Court stated that
“[t]he effective protection of the rights to privacy and freedom of thought and expression, combined with the extreme risk of arbitrariness posed by the use of surveillance techniques […] of communications, especially in light of existing new technologies, leads this Court to conclude that any measure in this regard (including interception, surveillance, and monitoring of all types of communication […]) requires a judicial authority to decide on its merits, while also defining its limits, including the manner, duration, and scope of the authorized measure.” (emphasis added)
According to the court, judicial authorization is needed when intelligence agencies intend to request personal information from private companies that, for various legitimate reasons, administer or manage this data. Similarly, prior judicial order is required for “surveillance and tracking techniques concerning specific individuals that entail access to non-public databases and information systems that store and process personal data, the tracking of users on the computer network, or the location of electronic devices.”
The court said that “techniques or methods involving access to sensitive telematic metadata and data, such as email and metadata of OTT applications, location data, IP address, cell tower station, cloud data, GPS and Wi-Fi, also require prior judicial authorization.” Unfortunately, the court missed the opportunity to clearly differentiate between targeted and mass surveillance to explicitly condemn the latter.
The court had already recognized in Escher that the American Convention protects not only the content of communications but also any related information like the origin, duration, and time of the communication. But legislation across the region provides less protection for metadata compared to content. We hope the court's new ruling helps to repeal measures allowing state authorities to access metadata without a previous judicial order.
Indeed, the court emphasized that the need for a prior judicial authorization "is consistent with the role of guarantors of human rights that corresponds to judges in a democratic system, whose necessary independence enables the exercise of objective control, in accordance with the law, over the actions of other organs of public power.”
To this end, the judicial authority is responsible for evaluating the circumstances around the case and conducting a proportionality assessment. The judicial decision must be well-founded and weigh all constitutional, legal, and conventional requirements to justify granting or denying a surveillance measure.
In a landmark outcome, the court asserted that individuals are entitled to decide when and to what extent aspects of their private life can be revealed, which involves defining what type of information, including their personal data, others may get to know. This relates to the right of informational self-determination, which the court recognized as an autonomous right protected by the American Convention.
“In the view of the Inter-American Court, the foregoing elements give shape to an autonomous human right: the right to informational self-determination, recognized in various legal systems of the region, and which finds protection in the protective content of the American Convention, particularly stemming from the rights set forth in Articles 11 and 13, and, in the dimension of its judicial protection, in the right ensured by Article 25.”
The protections that Article 11 grant to human dignity and private life safeguard a person's autonomy and the free development of their personality. Building on this provision, the court affirmed individuals’ self-determination regarding their personal information. In combination with the right to access information enshrined in Article 13, the court determined that people have the right to access and control their personal data held in databases.
The court has explained that the scope of this right includes several components. First, people have the right to know what data about them are contained in state records, where the data came from, how it got there, the purpose for keeping it, how long it’s been kept, whether and why it’s being shared with outside parties, and how it’s being processed. Next is the right to rectify, modify, or update their data if it is inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated. Third is the right to delete, cancel, and suppress their data in justified circumstances. Fourth is the right to oppose the processing of their data also in justified circumstances, and fifth is the right to data portability as regulated by law.
According to the court, any exceptions to the right of informational self-determination must be legally established, necessary, and proportionate for intelligence agencies to carry out their mandate. In elaborating on the circumstances for full or partial withholding of records held by intelligence authorities, the court said any restrictions must be compatible with the American Convention. Holding back requested information is always exceptional, limited in time, and justified according to specific and strict cases set by law. The protection of national security cannot serve as a blanket justification for denying access to personal information. “It is not compatible with Inter-American standards to establish that a document is classified simply because it belongs to an intelligence agency and not on the basis of its content,” the court said.
The court concluded that Colombia violated CAJAR members’ right to informational self -determination by arbitrarily restricting their ability to access and control their personal data within public bodies’ intelligence files.
The court emphasized the autonomous nature of the right to defend human rights, finding that States must ensure people can freely, without limitations or risks of any kind, engage in activities aimed at the promotion, monitoring, dissemination, teaching, defense, advocacy, or protection of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ruling recognized that Colombia violated the CAJAR members' right to defend human rights.
For over a decade, human rights bodies and organizations have raised alarms and documented the deep challenges and perils that human rights defenders constantly face in the Americas. In this ruling, the court importantly reiterated their fundamental role in strengthening democracy. It emphasized that this role justifies a special duty of protection by States, which must establish adequate guarantees and facilitate the necessary means for defenders to freely exercise their activities.
Therefore, proper respect for human rights requires States’ special attention to actions that limit or obstruct the work of defenders. The court has emphasized that threats and attacks against human rights defenders, as well as the impunity of perpetrators, have not only an individual but also a collective effect, insofar as society is prevented from knowing the truth about human rights violations under the authority of a specific State.
In our amicus brief, we argued that Colombian intelligence agents carried out unlawful communications surveillance of CAJAR members under a legal framework that failed to meet international human rights standards. As EFF and allies elaborated a decade ago on the Necessary and Proportionate principles, international human rights law provides an essential framework for ensuring robust safeguards in the context of State communications surveillance, including intelligence activities.
In the brief, we bolstered criticism made by CAJAR, Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging Colombia’s claim that the Intelligence Law enacted in 2013 (Law n. 1621) is clear and precise, fulfills the principles of legality, proportionality, and necessity, and provides sufficient safeguards. EFF and partners highlighted that even after its passage, intelligence agencies have systematically surveilled, harassed, and attacked CAJAR members in violation of their rights.
As we argued, that didn’t happen despite Colombia’s intelligence legal framework, rather it was enabled by its flaws. We emphasized that the Intelligence Law gives authorities wide latitude to surveil human rights defenders, lacking provisions for prior, well-founded, judicial authorization for specific surveillance measures, and robust independent oversight. We also pointed out that Colombian legislation failed to provide the necessary means for defenders to correct and erase their data unlawfully held in intelligence records.
The court ruled that, as reparation, Colombia must adjust its intelligence legal framework to reflect Inter-American human rights standards. This means that intelligence norms must be changed to clearly establish the legitimate purposes of intelligence actions, the types of individuals and activities subject to intelligence measures, the level of suspicion needed to trigger surveillance by intelligence agencies, and the duration of surveillance measures.
The reparations also call for Colombia to keep files and records of all steps of intelligence activities, “including the history of access logs to electronic systems, if applicable,” and deliver periodic reports to oversight entities. The legislation must also subject communications surveillance measures to prior judicial authorization, except in emergency situations. Moreover, Colombia needs to pass regulations for mechanisms ensuring the right to informational self-determination in relation to intelligence files.
These are just some of the fixes the ruling calls for, and they represent a major win. Still, the court missed the opportunity to vehemently condemn state mass surveillance (which can occur under an ill-defined measure in Colombia’s Intelligence Law enabling spectrum monitoring), although Colombian courts will now have the chance to rule it out.
In all, the court ordered the state to take 16 reparation measures, including implementing a system for collecting data on violence against human rights defenders and investigating acts of violence against victims. The government must also publicly acknowledge responsibility for the violations.
The Inter-American Court's ruling in the CAJAR case sends an important message to Colombia, and the region, that intelligence powers are only lawful and legitimate when there are solid and effective controls and safeguards in place. Intelligence authorities cannot act as if international human rights law doesn't apply to their practices.
When they do, violations must be fiercely investigated and punished. The ruling elaborates on crucial standards that States must fulfill to make this happen. Only time will tell how closely Colombia and other States will apply the court's findings to their intelligence activities. What’s certain is the dire need to fix a system that helped Colombia become the deadliest country in the Americas for human rights defenders last year, with 70 murders, more than half of all such murders in Latin America.
Login
