SENSITIVE MATERIALS. THIS IMAGE CAN BE OFF OR DISTURB Abortion rights opponents join nationwide protests as leaked Supreme Court opinion suggests potentially overturning abortion rights decision of Roe v. Wade, in New York City, USA, May 14, 2022.
Caitlin Ochs | Reuters
Friday’s Supreme Court decision annulling the right to abortion raises new questions about whether and how tech companies should protect the information of users seeking reproductive health care.
Tech companies can face user privacy issues related to reproductive healthcare whether they want to or not. That may be the case if they are ordered by a court to hand over certain types of data, such as a user’s location at an abortion clinic, search history or text messages.
Even before the decision became official, legislators call Google and Federal Trade Commission to ensure data for online consumers seeking such care is protected in the event of Roe v. Wade is overturned. The letters came after Politico report on a leaked draft decided to reduce protections.
The official decision puts online platforms in a difficult position. While major tech companies have spoken out on political issues that align with their values, including advocating for certain types of privacy legislation and immigration reform that will protect the workforce their rights, but getting into a contentious issue of abortion rights could lead to a backlash from either side.
Advocates of people who have sought abortions or who have been prosecuted after a miscarriage say they have faced privacy concerns in states with restrictive abortion laws. .
“We’ve seen, but we predict, tech companies will be issued subpoenas,” said Dana Sussman, deputy executive director of National Advocates for Pregnancy, a nonprofit organization. for people’s search history and search information. Everyone.
“The point is, if you build it, they’ll come,” said Corynne McSherry, legal director at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. “If you create a huge database of information, then what you are creating is like a nest for law enforcement to find you, you are a third party and try to get that information if they think it’s useful for prosecution.”
That’s why a group of Democrats led by Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore. And Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., wrote to Google last month about concerns that “extensive collection and record-keeping practices of cell phone location data would allow it to become a tool for far-right extremists seeking to suppress those seeking reproductive health care. That’s because Google stores historical location information on hundreds of millions of phone users. intelligence that Google regularly shares with government agencies.”
Data privacy experts concerned about the impact of the court’s ruling say there are ways both tech companies and their users can try to better protect their information in post-Roe era.
The Danger of Digital Technology in a Post-Roe World
Sussman points to two cases that could herald how prosecutors in the post-Roe era will seek to use digital media as evidence in cases of criminalizing abortion.
The first is from Purvi Patel, who in 2015 was sentenced to 20 years in prison after being charged with murder and abandonment of a child after allegedly having an abortion. Patel told doctors at an Indiana emergency room that she had suffered a miscarriage that resulted in stillbirth. The prosecution used text messages between Patel and a friend, including a discussion of ordering drugs at the pharmacy for the purpose of abortion, as evidence against her.
In 2016, an appellate court reduce the severity of the chargesdiscovered that the law was not intended to be used against women because of their own abortions, and Patel has been released released from prison when her sentence was also reduced.
The second case is of Latice Fisher, who in 2018 was indicted by a Mississippi grand jury on second-degree murder after she gave birth to what her attorney said was a fetus. According to reports at the time, prosecutors used Fisher’s search history, which included searches for abortive and abortifacient drugs, according to reports at the time, as evidence. against her. The district attorney later dropped the charge.
After the defenses put in place by Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, an unusual case in favor of abortion rights, is dropped, “we will see existing laws reinterpreted to extend their application to conduct during pregnancy”, including schools miscarriage and self-managed abortion, says Sussman.
Although many advocates of anti-abortion laws say they should focus on those providing the procedure, Sussman predicts prosecutors will inevitably go after those seeking services.
“I think it’s just unrealistic,” says Sussman of the idea that anti-abortion laws won’t target people who are pregnant. “And I think it’s not accurate at all, both because we’ve seen it and also because when you make a law that defines a fetus as a person, you criminalize a person who is pregnant. No any question about that.”
How tech platforms can protect reproductive health data
For technology platforms, EFF proposed in a blog post that minimizing data collection and storage can best reduce the risk of that data becoming the subject of an investigation. The group recommends companies cut back on behavior tracking, cut back on the types of data they collect to only what’s necessary, and encrypt data by default so it can’t be easily read by others.
The EFF also urges companies to push back against what they see as unwarranted demand, such as asking search engines to provide information for a search term like “abortion” or warranties by system. geography requests data on every device in an area, such as an abortion clinic. If they still have to comply with the requirements, companies should at least notify users about them if they are not prohibited from doing so, the group writes.
“I think companies are quieting down a bit, but I’m pretty sure they’re thinking about it,” McSherry said.
“Tech platforms have a key role to play here,” said Sussman, adding that companies should use their vast resources to challenge court orders over information-related information. abortions or miscarriages.
“The reality is, prosecutors offices have a certain amount of resources,” Sussman said. “And if they think the best way to use their resources to improve the quality of life in their community is to fight for the digital footprint of pregnant people, then they will.” must use those resources, and they don’t “There are no infinite resources. So if tech companies can make it a lot harder for them to access this information, that will play a huge role in preventing their ability to bring prosecutions.”
One Meta The spokesperson said the company pushed back on overly broad requests for information, pointing out the company government request policy says it “may refuse or ask for more specificity for claims that seem too broad or vague.” The policy also states that Meta will notify users and advertisers when they receive such requests, unless they are prohibited from doing so.
While many tech companies tend to be as politically neutral as possible, McSherry said, “companies should always protect user privacy no matter what. And here’s the opportunity. let them do it.”
McSherry predicts that if tech companies don’t take steps to protect the information of users seeking abortions, their employees will likely push them to do more, just as they did in the past. Other problems.
How consumers can protect their own data
While companies minimizing the collection and retention of their own data is the most obvious way to reduce the risk of that data being exposed, experts focusing on digital rights and surveillance say. There are several ways consumers can reduce their own risk.
McSherry said it’s important to remember that “privacy is a community act.” That means consumers need to think not only about the privacy and security of their own devices and services, but also those of friends, family, and the providers with whom they communicate.
That’s because even under some applicable state laws like those in Texas, prosecutors can seek subpoenas for information from third parties they believe may have somehow helped a person. pregnant seeking abortion.
“Once again, however, the responsibility of protecting ourselves from unjustifiable criminalization rests with those with the fewest resources,” says Sussman. “I also just want to warn people to make sure they don’t share information with a lot of people, which again, is also very difficult if you need the support of family, friends and the community. But everyone People are very intentional about who they share information with, because it’s not just one’s digital footprint that will matter but people with the information can also participate here in one way or another. “
The EFF doesn’t endorse specific products, but McSherry suggested some basic ways for users to strengthen their data privacy protections.
The first is to use a search engine or browser that minimizes data collection or retention by default, like DuckDuckGo, Firefox or Brave, and using a private browsing window that won’t save search history.
Second, consumers should communicate sensitive information only through encrypted messaging services, like Signal.
EFF also suggested in a blog post about the protection of sensitive information that users set up secondary email addresses and phone numbers for contact with which they do not want to be connected too closely. They point to Protonmail and Tutanota as two email service providers with strong security services and Google Voice as an option to generate an extra phone number.
The group also recommends browsing the Internet while on a virtual private network, which can mask a computer’s IP address. It also suggests installing browser extensions that can enhance privacy, disabling mobile advertising identifiers, and enabling location services only when necessary. When visiting a sensitive site that may be subject to enhanced surveillance, the EFF adds, it may make sense to turn off devices completely to minimize location tracking.
McSherry expects that renewed data privacy concerns arising from the court decision could have a much larger effect on how consumers think about privacy protections broadly. more widely.
“Until now, I don’t think most people have thought much about the law enforcement aspects,” McSherry said. “I think most people think, ‘well, those commands are probably just used against the bad guys’… I don’t think that’s necessarily true. But it means this situation where Now you can see how it affects millions of people. of people, I think, will lead to a re-establishment of the way people think about data privacy in general. And that, I think, is just possible. is a good thing.”
