Journal of Science Policy & Governance
Volume 21, Issue 01 | October 17, 2022

Policy Memo: Pirates of Privacy: How Companies Profit Off Your Personal Data by Using Capital Surveillance Methods in Criminal Prosecution

Shayna Koczur
Brooklyn Law School, New York City, NY*
​*Author wrote article while with this affiliation 
​
Corresponding author: [email protected]​
Keywords: privacy; constitutional law; capital surveillance; law enforcement
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG210106​

Executive Summary

Surveillance involves monitoring an individual as a method of obtaining information for future use, and is defined as continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information. Governments are normally restricted by judicial safeguards such as warrants and common law when it comes to surveillance methods of obtaining an individual’s private data. However, private companies are not. When users agree to terms and conditions on technology apps they often are not aware that they are consenting to being monitored and their information could easily be sold, even to the government. This process of capturing and commodifying personal data for profit-making is commonly referred to as “surveillance capitalism”. Surveillance capitalism poses a threat to privacy rights because the methods by which users’ online data is collected are overly intrusive due to the nature of how the data is stored on these apps. Additionally, the data collected by private companies can be sold, distributed, and used against the user’s legal interests and liberties. However, both International Law and the United States Constitutional Law recognize the right to privacy. This raises the question: How do we protect privacy rights when much of our personal data is now stored digitally and on technological applications that society is becoming reliant on for everyday tasks? Privacy laws have not yet adapted to address this modern day challenge. This article discusses the legal understanding of privacy rights, the threat modern-day surveillance capitalism poses to those rights, and possible solutions for updating outdated privacy laws.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of Johnathan McIntosh.
Shayna Koczur is an attorney from New Jersey, currently working as a Law Clerk. She graduated Brooklyn Law school in 2021. Prior to graduation, Shayna interned at the Brooklyn District Attorneys’ office and Union County Prosecutor’s office. She has been published by the Fletcher Forum of World Affairs and by the International Affairs Forum. Prior to law school, Shayna graduated from Bard College with a degree in Global Studies, where her thesis was selected to be presented at St. Petersburg State University in 2018. She has a strong interest in criminal law, international law, and constitutional law.
​
Acknowledgements
This article is dedicated to one of my best friends, Eamon. He was a brilliant software engineer, but an even better friend. His support made me the attorney I am today.

References

  1. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). ​https://casetext.com/case/ashcroft-v-free-speech-coalition?q=Ashcroft%20v.%20Free%20Speech%20Coalition,%20535%20U.S.%20234%20(2002)&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case
  2. Auxier, Brooke. “5 Things to Know about Americans and Their Smart Speakers.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, November 21, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/21/5-things-to-know-about-americans-and-their-smart-speakers/
  3. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. (2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
  4. Fingas, Jon. “Law Enforcement is Using a Facial Recognition App with Huge Privacy Issues.” Engadget, January 18, 2020. https://www.engadget.com/2020-01-18-law-enforcement-using-clearwater-ai-facial-recognition.html 
  5. Hauser, Christine. “Police Use Fitbit Data to Charge 90-Year-Old Man in Stepdaughter’s Killing.” New York Times, October 3, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/fitbit-murder-arrest.html?auth=login-google1tap&login=google1tap 
  6. Kennedy, Lindsey. “Surveillance Capitalism: An Outlook on the Rise of Data Capital.” Best Online Reviews, March 25, 2020. https://www.bestonlinereviews.com/vpn/surveillance-capitalism/ 
  7. Koch, Lee. “What is the Third Party Doctrine?” Koch Law, July 22, 2022. https://www.nydefensecounsel.com/what-is-the-third-party-doctrine/
  8. Korn, J. and Duffy, C. “Search Histories, Location Data, Text Messages: How Personal Data Could Be Used to Enforce Anti-Abortion Laws.” CNN, June 24, 2022.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/abortion-laws-data-privacy/index.html
  9. Legal Information Institute. “Fourth Amendment.” www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
  10. Legal Information Institute. “Probable Cause.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
  11. Morrison, Sara. “A Surprising Number of Government Agencies Buy Cell Phone Location Data. Lawmakers Want to Know Why.” Vox, December 2, 2020. https://www.vox.com/recode/22038383/dhs-cbp-investigation-cellphone-data-brokers-venntel 
  12. United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 1948. www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ 
  13. United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  “Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1966 (HIPAA). https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/hipaa.html 
  14. United States Department of Health and Human Services. “HHS Issues Guidance to Protect Patient Privacy in Wake of Supreme Court Decision on Roe.” June 29, 2022. Press Release. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/hhs-issues-guidance-to-protect-patient-privacy-in-wake-of-supreme-court-decision-on-roe.html
  15. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-jones-1419?
  16. United States v. Warshak, 631 U.S. 266 (2010). https://casetext.com/case/us-v-warshak-27

DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.