Chinese television maker Skyworth has issued an apology after a consumer found that his set was quietly collecting a wide range of private data and sending it to a Beijing-based analytics company without his consent.

A network traffic analysis revealed that a Skyworth smart TV scanned for other devices connected to the same local network every 10 minutes and gathered data that included device names, IP addresses, network latency and even the names of other Wi-Fi networks within range, according to a post last week on the Chinese developer forum V2EX.

The data was sent to the Beijing-based firm Gozen Data, the forum user said. Gozen is a data analytics company that specialises in targeted advertising on smart TVs, and it calls itself China‘s first “home marketing company empowered by big data centred on family data”.

[…]

“Isn’t this already the criminal offence of spying on people?” asked one user on Sina.com, a Chinese financial news portal. “Whom will the collected data be sold to, and who is the end user of this data?”

The reaction online eventually prompted Skyworth to respond.

The Shenzhen-based TV and set-top box maker issued a statement on April 27, saying it had ended its “cooperation” with Gozen and demanded the firm delete all its “illegally” collected data. Skyworth also said it had stopped using the Gozen app on its televisions and was looking into the issue.

Gozen issued a statement on its website on the same day, saying its Gozen Data Android app could be disabled on Skyworth TVs, but it did not address the likelihood that users would be aware of this functionality. The company also apologised for “causing user concerns about privacy and security”.

On its official WeChat account, Gozen said in a post from 2019 that it has been working with Skyworth since 2014. Its latest post, which included its apology, said the company collected data for viewership research that includes “television ratings for households and individuals, viewership analysis, advertising analysis and optimisation”. Neither company provided information on the scope and depth of the data collection.

[…]

The revelations about Skyworth and Gozen come amid a national crackdown on the rampant collection and use of user data. Beijing recently introduced new regulations for protecting personal data and curbing its collection through mobile apps.

New rules introduced in March

define for the first time

personal information considered “necessary” for apps in 39 different categories, including messaging and e-commerce. Users should be able to decline to provide data that is not necessary for an app to function, according to the new rules. Users of live-streaming and short-video apps, for example, should be able to use such apps without providing any personal information.

[…]

There have been no reports that Skyworth or Gozen are being investigated. Still, the disclosure and corporate statements have fanned fears among users in China, where Skyworth was the third biggest TV brand by sales volume in 2020, behind

Xiaomi

and

Hisense

, making up more than 13 per cent of the market. Globally, the company was the fifth-largest TV maker, according to data from Trendforce, behind Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics, TCL and Hisense.

Source: Chinese TV maker Skyworth under fire for excessive data collection that users call spying | South China Morning Post

For a second year, the nation’s surveillance court has pointed with concern to “widespread violations” by the F.B.I. of rules intended to protect Americans’ privacy when analysts search emails gathered without a warrant — but still signed off on another year of the program, a newly declassified ruling shows.

In a 67-page ruling issued in November and made public on Monday, James E. Boasberg, the presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, recounted several episodes uncovered by an F.B.I. audit where the bureau’s analysts improperly searched for Americans’ information in emails that the National Security Agency collected without warrants.

Rather than a new problem, however, those instances appeared largely to be additional examples of an issue that was already brought to light in a December 2019 ruling by Judge Boasberg. The government made it public in September.

The F.B.I. has already sought to address the problem by rolling out new system safeguards and additional training, although the coronavirus pandemic has hindered the bureau’s ability to assess how well they are working. Still, Judge Boasberg said he was willing to issue a legally required certification for the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program to operate for another year.

“While the court is concerned about the apparent widespread violations of the querying standard,” Judge Boasberg wrote, “it lacks sufficient information at this time to assess the adequacy of the F.B.I. system changes and training, post-implementation.”

Because of that, he added, the court concluded that “the F.B.I.’s querying and minimization procedures meet statutory and Fourth Amendment requirements.”

[…]

Source: Court Chides F.B.I., but Re-Approves Warrantless Surveillance Program – The New York Times

WordPress announced today that they are treating Google’s new FLoC tracking technology as a security concern and may block it by default on WordPress sites.

For some time, browsers have begun to increasingly block third-party browser cookies [1, 2, 3] used by advertisers for interest-based advertising.

In response, Google introduced a new ad tracking technology called Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLoC, that uses a web browser to anonymously place users into interest or behavioral buckets based on how they browse the web.

After Google began testing FLoC this month in Google Chrome, there has been a consensus among privacy advocates that Google’s FLoC implementation just replaces one privacy risk with another one.

[…]

“WordPress powers approximately 41% of the web – and this community can help combat racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and discrimination against those with mental illness with four lines of code,” says WordPress.

WordPress plans to disable FLoC using the following four lines of code, which will cause the blogging platform to issue a HTTP request header tells the browser that FLoC should be disabled for the site.

function disable_floc($headers) {
    $headers['Permissions-Policy'] = 'interest-cohort=()';
    return $headers;
  }
 
add_filter('wp_headers', 'disable_floc');

WordPress explains that though some admins will likely want to enable this technology, those admins probably have the tech know-how to override the above code. WordPress also indicated that they might add a setting that allows admins to control whether FLoC is permitted.

However, WordPress’s concern is that those unaware of this new tracking technology will automatically opt into it without fully understanding what it entails. Therefore, it is in these users’ best interest for WordPress to automatically disable the technology.

[…]

Source: WordPress may automatically disable Google FLoC on websites

Let’s hope they implement this, but if not, then at least we know how to implement it ourselves.

The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.

The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.

[…]

The government’s monitoring of Americans’ social media is the subject of ongoing debate inside and outside government, particularly in recent months, following a rise in domestic unrest. While posts on platforms such as Facebook and Parler have allowed law enforcement to track down and arrest rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, such data collection has also sparked concerns about the government surveilling peaceful protesters or those engaged in protected First Amendment activities.

[…]

The Postal Service isn’t the only part of government expanding its monitoring of social media. In a background call with reporters last month, DHS officials spoke about that department’s involvement in monitoring social media for domestic terrorism threats. “We know that this threat is fueled mainly by false narratives, conspiracy theories and extremist rhetoric read through social media and other online platforms,” one of the officials said. “And that’s why we’re kicking off engagement directly with social media companies.”

[…]

Source: The Postal Service is running a running a ‘covert operations program’ that monitors Americans’ social media posts

Pew Research Center reports that “91% of adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected.”

That incredibly-high statistic must describe victims under authoritarian governments like China, Russia, or North Korea, right?

Wrong.

That study was about US citizens. You know, the land of the free.

91%

That’s the percentage of adults living in the US who agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies.

The sad truth is that governments of every shape and size are ramping up mass surveillance with little-to-no objection.

We live on the internet. But does that interconnection work in their favor, providing more opportunities to pierce our online privacy?

The simplest way to settle that score is to compare how the espionage efforts of the United States and their allies compare to other oppressive regimes.

[…]

Source: Internet Privacy in the Age of Surveillance | CyberGhostVPN Privacy Hub – Latest Privacy and Security News

Well, the US and the UK don’t come out favoribly.

Country / Region	Requests received and processed	URLs requested	URLs accepted	URLs rejected	Percentage of URLs accepted
Austria	45	103	67	36	65%
Belgium	49	421	105	316	25%
Bulgaria	4	10	8	2	80%
Croatia	3	8	4	4	50%
Cyprus	2	2	0	2	0%
Czech Republic	12	20	13	7	65%
Denmark	24	33	19	14	58%
Estonia	8	49	33	16	67%
Finland	32	112	42	70	38%
France	895	2,495	1,065	1,426	43%
Germany	460	1,705	897	807	53%
Greece	5	43	0	43	0%
Hungary	2	3	3	0	100%
Ireland	28	126	85	41	67%
Italy	178	625	417	208	67%
Latvia	13	32	16	16	50%
Lithuania	2	2	1	1	50%
Luxembourg	2	5	1	4	20%
Malta	2	3	1	2	33%
Netherlands	152	854	596	257	70%
Norway	24	50	22	28	44%
Poland	19	172	116	56	67%
Portugal	4	20	10	10	50%
Romania	7	62	28	34	45%
Russia	23	33	17	16	52%
Slovakia	1	2	2	0	100%
Slovenia	8	13	8	5	62%
Spain	143	383	134	242	35%
Sweden	113	315	126	189	40%
Switzerland	68	273	153	120	56%
United Kingdom	539	2,306	1,256	1,026	54%
Total	2,867	10,280	5,245	4,998	51%

Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for European and Russian requests received between July 1 and December 31, 2020 that were processed as of February 15, 2021. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of February 15, 2021. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.

Cumulative “Right to be forgotten” requests, May 2014 – December 2020

 

	Requests received and processed	URLs requested	URLs accepted	URLs rejected	Percentage of URLs accepted
Total	41,613	133,972	62,373	71,562	47%

Note: This table shows the number of URLs that were accepted and rejected for European and Russian requests received between May 2014 and December 31, 2020 that were processed as of February 15, 2021. The number of URLs accepted and rejected may not reflect requests still pending review as of February 15, 2021. For example, processing delays may result if more information is needed to complete the review on a request.

Source: Content Removal Request Report | Microsoft CSR

In some countries apparently it is normal for a single request to make sweeping right to be forgotten deletion requests.

Microsoft has had a busy six months if its latest biannual digital trust report is anything to go by as law enforcement agencies crept closer to making 25,000 legal requests.

Requests for consumer data reached 24,798 during the second half of 2020, up from 24,093 during the previous six-month period, and quite a jump from the 21,781 for the same period in 2019.

“Non-content data” requests, which require a subpoena (or local equivalent), accounted for just over half of disclosures and were slightly down on the same period in 2019. Microsoft rejected 25.81 per cent of requests in the last six months of 2020, up on the 20.14 per cent of the same period in 2019.

As for where those requests came from, Microsoft highlighted a handful of countries including Brazil, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The US was the worst offender (going by quantity of requests) accounting for 5,682 (up from 4,315 for same period in 2019). Germany was not far behind with 4,976 (up from 3,310) while the UK submitted 3,558 requests (a small increase from 3,312 for the same period in 2019).

As well as consumer data, Microsoft received 109 requests from law enforcement agencies for enterprise cloud customer data in the second half of 2020. It was unable to bat back 40, where the company was “compelled” to provide some information. “19 cases,” it said, “required the disclosure of some customer content, and in 21 of the cases we were compelled to disclose non-content information only.”

Still, while that 25,000 figure may seem a little worrying, it is considerably less than the first sets of figures made available by Microsoft. For the latter half of 2013 the total requests were above 35,000.

Away from the criminal side of things, Microsoft also received a comparatively small number of emergency and civil legal requests. Of the latter, it rejected just over 75 per cent in the latter half of 2020.

The report makes for fascinating reading and, while the company is to be applauded for publishing it, the accompanying Privacy Report is an occasionally grim reminder of just how much information Microsoft can slurp from users. Particularly if the customer concerned decides to be helpful and check that Optional diagnostic data box.

[…]

Source: Microsoft received almost 25,000 requests for consumer data from law enforcement over the last six months • The Register

A database containing the phone numbers of more than half a billion Facebook users is being freely traded online, and Facebook is trying to pin the blame on everyone but themselves.

A blog post titled “The Facts on News Reports About Facebook Data,” published Tuesday evening, is designed to silence the growing criticism the company is facing for failing to protect the phone numbers and other personal information of 533 million users after a database containing that information was shared for free in low level hacking forums over the weekend, as first reported by Business Insider.

Facebook initially dismissed the reports as irrelevant, claiming the data was leaked years ago and so the fact it had all been collected into one uber database containing one in every 15 people on the planet—and was now being given away for free—didn’t really matter.

[…]

But, instead of owning up to its latest failure to protect user data, Facebook is pulling from a familiar playbook: just like it did during the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, it’s attempting to reframe the security failure as merely a breach of its terms of service.

So instead of apologizing for failing to keep users’ data secure, Facebook’s product management director Mike Clark began his blog post by making a semantic point about how the data was leaked.

“It is important to understand that malicious actors obtained this data not through hacking our systems but by scraping it from our platform prior to September 2019,” Clark wrote.

This is the identical excuse given in 2018, when it was revealed that Facebook had given Cambridge Analytica the data of 87 million users without their permission, for use in political ads.

Clark goes on to explain that the people who collected this data—sorry, “scraped” this data—did so by using a feature designed to help new users find their friends on the platform.

“This feature was designed to help people easily find their friends to connect with on our services using their contact lists,” Clark explains.

The contact importer feature allowed new users to upload their contact lists and match those numbers against the numbers stored on people’s profiles. But like most of Facebook’s best features, the company left it wide open to abuse by hackers.

“Effectively, the attacker created an address book with every phone number on the planet and then asked Facebook if his ’friends’ are on Facebook,” security expert Mikko Hypponen explained in a tweet.

Clark’s blog post doesn’t say when the “scraping” took place or how many times the vulnerability was exploited, just that Facebook fixed the issue in August 2019. Clark also failed to mention that Facebook was informed of this vulnerability way back in 2017, when Inti De Ceukelaire, an ethical hacker from Belgium, disclosed the problem to the company.

And, the company hasn’t explained why a number of users who have deleted their accounts long before 2018 have seen their phone numbers turn up in this database.

[…]

“While we addressed the issue identified in 2019, it’s always good for everyone to make sure that their settings align with what they want to be sharing publicly,” Clark wrote.

“In this case, updating the ‘How People Find and Contact You’ control could be helpful. We also recommend people do regular privacy checkups to make sure that their settings are in the right place, including who can see certain information on their profile and enabling two-factor authentication.”

It’s an audacious move for a company worth over $300 billion, with $61 billion cash on hand, to ask its users to secure their own information, especially considering how byzantine and complex the company’s settings menus can be.

Thankfully for the half a billion Facebook users who’ve been impacted by the breach, there’s a more practical way to get help. Troy Hunt, a cyber security consultant and founder of Have I Been Pwned has uploaded the entire leaked database to his website that allows anyone to check whether their phone number is listed in the leaked database.

[…]

 

Source: Facebook Says It’s Your Fault That Hackers Got Half a Billion User Phone Numbers

Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems has filed a complaint against Google in France alleging that the US tech giant is illegally tracking users on Android phones without their consent.

Android phones generate unique advertising codes, similar to Apple’s Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA), that allow Google and third parties to track users’ browsing behavior in order to better target them with advertising.

In a complaint filed on Wednesday, Schrems’ campaign group Noyb argued that in creating and storing these codes without first obtaining explicit permission from users, Google was engaging in “illegal operations” that violate EU privacy laws.

Noyb urged France’s data privacy regulator to launch a probe into Google’s tracking practices and to force the company to comply with privacy rules. It argued that fines should be imposed on the tech giant if the watchdog finds evidence of wrongdoing.

“Through these hidden identifiers on your phone, Google and third parties can track users without their consent,” said Stefano Rossetti, privacy lawyer at Noyb. “It is like having powder on your hands and feet, leaving a trace of everything you do on your phone—from whether you swiped right or left to the song you downloaded.”

[…]

Last year, Schrems won a landmark case at Europe’s highest court that ruled a transatlantic agreement on transferring data between the bloc and the US used by thousands of corporations did not protect EU citizens’ privacy.

Source: Google illegally tracking Android users, according to new complaint | Ars Technica

In a recent released research paper, titled “Mobile Handset Privacy: Measuring The Data iOS and Android Send to Apple And Google” [PDF], Douglas Leith, chairman of computer systems in the school of computer science and statistics at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, documents how iPhones and Android devices phone home regardless of the wishes of their owners.

According to Leith, Android and iOS handsets share data about their salient characteristics with their makers every 4.5 minutes on average.

“The phone IMEI, hardware serial number, SIM serial number and IMSI, handset phone number etc are shared with Apple and Google,” the paper says. “Both iOS and Google Android transmit telemetry, despite the user explicitly opting out of this.”

These transmissions occur even when the iOS Analytics & Improvements option is turned off and the Android Usage & Diagnostics option is turned off.

Such data may be considered personal information under privacy rules, depending upon the applicable laws and whether they can be associated with an individual. It can also have legitimate uses.

Of the two mobile operating systems, Android is claimed to be the more chatty: According to Leith, “Google collects a notably larger volume of handset data than Apple.”

Within 10 minutes of starting up, a Google Pixel handset sent about 1MB of data to Google, compared to 42KB of data sent to Apple in a similar startup scenario. And when the handsets sit idle, the Pixel will send about 1MB every 12 hours, about 20x more than the 52KB sent over the same period by an idle iPhone.

[…]

Leith’s tests excluded data related to services selected by device users, like those related to search, cloud storage, maps, and the like. Instead, they focused on the transmission of data shared when there’s no logged in user, including IMEI number, hardware serial number, SIM serial number, phone number, device ids (UDID, Ad ID, RDID, etc), location, telemetry, cookies, local IP address, device Wi-Fi MAC address, and nearby Wi-Fi MAC addresses.

This last category is noteworthy because it has privacy implications for other people on the same network. As the paper explains, iOS shares additional data: the handset Bluetooth UniqueChipID, the Secure Element ID (used for Apple Pay), and the Wi-Fi MAC addresses of nearby devices, specifically other devices using the same network gateway.

“When the handset location setting is enabled, these MAC addresses are also tagged with the GPS location,” the paper says. “Note that it takes only one device to tag the home gateway MAC address with its GPS location and thereafter the location of all other devices reporting that MAC address to Apple is revealed.”

[…]

Google also has a plausible fine-print justification: Leith notes that Google’s analytics options menu includes the text, “Turning off this feature doesn’t affect your device’s ability to send the information needed for essential services such as system updates and security.” However, Leith argues that this “essential” data is extensive and beyond reasonable user expectations.

As for Apple, you might think a company that proclaims “What happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone” on billboards, and “Your data. Your choice,” on its website would want to explain its permission-defying telemetry. Yet the iPhone maker did not respond to a request for comment.

Source: Android, iOS beam telemetry to Google, Apple even when you tell them not to – study • The Register

For years we’ve talked about how the fact that no one really understands privacy, leads to very bad attempts at regulating privacy in ways that do more harm than good. They often don’t do anything that actually protects privacy — and instead screw up lots of other important things, from competition to free speech. In fact, in some ways, there’s a big conflict between open internet systems and privacy. There are ways to get around that — usually by moving the data from centralized silos out towards the ends of the network — but that’s rarely happening in practice. I mean, going back over thirteen years ago, we were writing about the inherent conflict between Facebook’s (then) open social graph and privacy. Yet, at the time, Facebook was cheered on for opening up its social graph. It was creating a more “open” internet, an internet that others could build upon.

But, of course, over the years things have changed. A lot. In 2018, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Mark Zuckerberg more or less admitted that the world was telling Facebook to lock everything down again:

I do think early on on the platform we had this very idealistic vision around how data portability would allow all these different new experiences, and I think the feedback that we’ve gotten from our community and from the world is that privacy and having the data locked down is more important to people than maybe making it easier to bring more data and have different kinds of experiences.

As we pointed out in response — this was worrisome thinking, because it would likely take us away from a better world in which the data is more controlled by end users. Instead, so many people have now come to think that “protecting privacy” means making the big internet companies lock down our data rather than the much better approach which would be giving us full control over our own data. Those are two different things, that only sometimes look alike.

I say all of that as preamble in suggesting people read an excellent Protocol article by Issie Lapowsky, which — in a very thoughtful and nuanced way — highlights the unfortunate conflict between academic researchers trying to study the big internet companies and the companies’ insistence that they need to keep data private. We’ve touched on this topic before ourselves, in covering the still ongoing fight between Facebook and NYU regarding NYU’s Ad Observer project.

That project involves getting individuals to install a browser extension that shares data back to NYU about what ads the user sees. Facebook insists that it violates their privacy rules — and points to how much trouble it got in (and the massive fines it paid) over the Cambridge Analytica mess. Though, as we explained then, the scenarios are quite different.

Lapowsky’s article goes further — noting how Facebook told her that the Ad Observer project was collecting data without the user’s permission, which worried the PhD student who was working on the project. It turns out that was false. The project only collects data from the user who installs it and agrees (giving permission) to collect the data in question.

But the story and others in the article highlight an unfortunate situation: the somewhat haphazard demands on the big internet companies to “protect privacy” are now providing convenient excuses to those same companies to shut down academic research on those companies and their practices. In some cases there are legitimate concerns. For example, as the article notes, there were concerns about how much Facebook is willing to share regarding ad targeting. That information could be really important for those studying disinformation or civil rights issues. But… it could also be used in nefarious ways:

Facebook released an API for its political ad archive and invited the NYU team to be early testers. Using the API, Edelson and McCoy began studying the spread of disinformation and misinformation through political ads and quickly realized that the dataset had one glaring gap: It didn’t include any data on who the ads were targeting, something they viewed as key to understanding advertisers’ malintent. For example, last year, the Trump campaign ran an ad envisioning a dystopian post-Biden presidency, where the world is burning and no one answers 911 calls due to “defunding of the police department.” That ad, Edelson found, had been targeted specifically to married women in the suburbs. “I think that’s relevant context to understanding that ad,” Edelson said.

But Facebook was unwilling to share targeting data publicly. According to Satterfield, that could make it too easy to reverse-engineer a person’s interests and other personal information. If, for instance, a person likes or comments on a given ad, it wouldn’t be too hard to check the targeting data on that ad, if it were public, and deduce that that person meets those targeting criteria. “If you combine those two data sets, you could potentially learn things about the people who engaged with the ad,” Satterfield said.

Legitimate concern… but also allows the company to shield data that could be really useful to academics. Of course, it doesn’t help that so many people are so distrustful of these big companies that no matter what they do it will be portrayed — sometimes by the very same people — as evil. It was just a few weeks ago that we saw people screaming both about the big internet companies willing to cave in and pay Rupert Murdoch the Australian link tax… and when they refused to. Both options were painted as evil.

So, sharing data will inevitably be presented by some as violating people’s privacy, while not sharing data will be presented as hiding from researchers and trying to avoid transparency. And there’s probably some truth in every angle to these stories.

Of course, that all leaves out a better approach that these companies could do: give more power to the end users themselves to control their own data. Let the users decide what data is shared and what is not. Let the users decide where and how that data is stored (even if it’s not on the platform itself). But, instead, we just have people yelling about how these companies both have to protect everyone’s privacy and give access to researchers to see what they’re doing with all this data. I don’t think the “middle ground” laid out in the article is all that tenable. Right now it’s just to basically create special exceptions in which academics are “allowed” — under strict conditions — to get access to that data.

The problem with that framing is that the big internet companies still end up in control of the data, rather than the end users. The situation with NYU seems like a perfectly good example. Facebook shouldn’t have to share data from people who don’t consent, but with the Ad Observer, it’s all people who are actually consenting to handing over their own data, and Facebook shouldn’t be in the business of blocking that — even if it’s inevitable that some reporter at some future date will try to spin that into a story claiming that Facebook “violated” privacy because these researchers convinced people to turn over their own info.

Source: Privacy Laws Giving Big Internet Companies A Convenient Excuse To Avoid Academic Scrutiny | Techdirt

The argument Mike makes above is basically a plea for what Sir Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the internet is pleading for and already making in his companies Solid and Inrupt. User data is placed in personal Pods / Silos and the user can determine what data is given to who.

It’s an idealistic scenario that seems to ignore a few things:

• who hosts the pods? the hoster can usually see into things or at any rate gather metadata (which is usually more valuable than the actual data). Who pays for hosting the pods?
• will people understand and be willing to take the time to curate their pod access? people have trouble finding privacy settings on their social networks, this promises to be more complex
• if a site requires access to data in a pod, won’t people blindly click on accept without understanding that they are giving away their data? Or will they be coerced into giving away data they don’t want because there are no alternatives to using the service?

The New York Times has a nice article on what he’s doing: He Created the Web. Now He’s Out to Remake the Digital World.

[…]

utting a couple of middle men between the app data and the purchase of data helps agencies steer clear of Constitutional issues related to the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision, which introduced a warrant mandate for engaging in proxy tracking of people via cell service providers.

But phones aren’t the only objects that generate a wealth of location data. Cars go almost as many places as phones do, providing data brokers with yet another source of possibly useful location data that government agencies might be interested in obtaining access to. Here’s Joseph Cox of Vice with more details:

A surveillance contractor that has previously sold services to the U.S. military is advertising a product that it says can locate the real-time locations of specific cars in nearly any country on Earth. It says it does this by using data collected and sent by the cars and their components themselves, according to a document obtained by Motherboard.

“Ulysses can provide our clients with the ability to remotely geolocate vehicles in nearly every country except for North Korea and Cuba on a near real time basis,” the document, written by contractor The Ulysses Group, reads. “Currently, we can access over 15 billion vehicle locations around the world every month,” the document adds.

Historical data is cool. But what’s even cooler is real-time tracking of vehicle movements. Of course the DoD would be interested in this. It has a drone strike program that’s thirsty for location data and has relied on even more questionable data in the past to make extrajudicial “death from above” decisions in the past.

Phones are reliable snitches. So are cars — a fact that may come as a surprise to car owners who haven’t been paying attention to tech developments over the past several years. Plenty of data is constantly captured by internal “black boxes,” but tends to only be retained when there’s a collision. But the interconnectedness of cars and people’s phones provides new data-gathering opportunities.

Then there are the car manufacturers themselves, which apparently feel driver data is theirs for the taking and are willing to sell it to third parties who are (also apparently) willing to sell all of this to government agencies.

“Vehicle telematics is data transmitted from the vehicle to the automaker or OEM through embedded communications systems in the car,” the Ulysses document continues. “Among the thousands of other data points, vehicle location data is transmitted on a constant and near real time basis while the vehicle is operating.”

This document wasn’t obtained from FOIA requests. It actually couldn’t be — not if Ulysses isn’t currently selling to government agencies. It was actually obtained by Senator Ron Wyden, who shared it with Vice’s tech-related offshoot, Motherboard. As Wyden noted while handing it over, very little is known about these under-the-radar suppliers of location data and their government customers. This company may have no (acknowledged) government customers at this point, but real-time access to vehicle movement is something plenty of government agencies would be willing to pay for.

[…]

Source: Data Broker Looking To Sell Real-Time Vehicle Location Data To Government Agencies, Including The Military | Techdirt