Advances in technology require upgrades in the law. One such area involves data brokers, which have thus far gone unregulated. Data brokers use artificial intelligence to aggregate information into data profiles about individual Americans derived from consumer use of the internet and connected devices. Data profiles are then sold for profit. Government investigators use a legal loophole to purchase this data instead of obtaining a search warrant, which the Fourth Amendment would otherwise require. Consumers have lacked a reasonable means to fight or correct the information data brokers collect. Americans may not even be aware of the risks of data aggregation, which upends the test of reasonable expectations used in a search warrant analysis. Data aggregation should be controlled and regulated, which is the direction some privacy laws take. Legislatures must step forward to safeguard against shadowy data-profiling practices, whether abroad or at home. In the meantime, courts can modify their search warrant analysis by including data privacy principles.
References
[1]
IBM. What Is Data Profiling? https://www.ibm.com/topics/data-profiling
[2]
Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern, Exec. Order No. 14117, 89 Fed. Reg. 15429, 15421-22, 15428-29 (Mar. 1, 2024).
[3]
Rahnama, H. and Pentland, A.S. (2022) The New Rules of Data Privacy. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/02/the-new-rules-of-data-privacy
[4]
Cohen, J.E. (2013) What Privacy Is for. Harvard Law Review, 126, 1904-1905.
[5]
Swire, P. and Kennedy-Mayo, D. (2020) U.S. Private-Sector Privacy: Law and Practice for Information Privacy Professionals. International Association of Privacy Professionals, 3, 2, 219, 21, 43, 391, 398-402, 147, 42-44, 4-7, 177-178.
[6]
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 484 (1965).
[7]
The Fourth Amendment Protects Individuals from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV.
[8]
Warren, S.D. and Brandeis, L.D. (1890) The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, 193-220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1321160
[9]
Prosser, W.L. (1960) Privacy. California Law Review, 48, 383-423. https://doi.org/10.2307/3478805
[10]
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., Dissenting).
[11]
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967).
[12]
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586-90 (1980).
[13]
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33, 40 (2001).
[14]
Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, Exec. Order No. 14110, 88 Fed. Reg. 75191, 75193 (Quoting 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3)), 75191-93, 75196 (Oct. 30, 2023).
[15]
Congressional Research Service (2024) The American Privacy Rights Act. CRS Re-ports. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11161
[16]
CPPA Applauds Governor Newsom for Approving the California Delete Act (2023) California Privacy Protection Agency. https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2023/20231011.html
[17]
Blueprint for A.I. Bill of Rights: Making Automated Systems Work for the American People. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/
[18]
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 5, 6-7, 11 (2013); Id. at 12 (Kagan, J., Concurring).
[19]
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409-14 (2012).
[20]
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 311 (2018).
[21]
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
[22]
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
[23]
People v. Camacho, 3 P.3d 878, 885 (Cal. 2000).
[24]
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963).
[25]
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984).
[26]
Reid, C. (2024) The Fourth Amendment Covers “Fog Reveal”: Not the Other Way Around. Wake Forest Journal of Law and Policy, 14, 127, 128, 142.
[27]
Doktor, M. (2020) Facial Recognition and the Fourth Amendment in the Wake of Carpenter v. United States. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 89, 552, 555.
[28]
Berger, D.D. (2011) Balancing Consumer Privacy with Behavioral Targeting. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 27, 3, 6-7.
[29]
Stemler, A. (2022) Privacy & Antitrust Reform: How to Avoid the Starfish Problem. Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, 97, 417-429.
[30]
Rodis, A. (2020) Fitbit Data and the Fourth Amendment: Why the Collection of Data from a Fitbit Constitutes a Search and Should Require a Warrant in Light of Carpenter v. United States. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 29, 533, 551.
[31]
Thompson, S. and Warzel, C. (2019) Twelve Million Phones, One Dataset, Zero Privacy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/19/opinion/location-tracking-cell-phone.html
[32]
Joh, E.E. (2014) Policing by Numbers: Big Data and the Fourth Amendment. Washington Law Review, 89, 35-68.
[33]
Ayoub E. and Goitein, E. (2024) Closing the Data Broker Loophole: Congress Must Pass Legislation That Prohibits Government Agencies from Buying Its Way around the Fourth Amendment and Other Legal Privacy Protections. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/closing-data-broker-loophole
[34]
Shenkman, C., Franklin, S.B., Nojeim, G. and Thakur, D. (2021) Legal Loopholes and Data for Dollars: How Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies Are Buying Your Data from Brokers. Center for Democracy and Technology, 23, 24, 11, 34.
[35]
Surden, H. (2014) Machine Learning and Law. Washington Law Review, 89, 87.
[36]
Heilweil, R. (2023) What Is Generative AI, and Why Is It Suddenly Everywhere. Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/2023/1/5/23539055/generative-ai-chatgpt-stable-diffusion-lensa-dall-e
[37]
Wang, M. (2023) Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Field of Law. Arizona Law Journal of Emerging Technologies, 6, 1, 4-5.
[38]
Stokel-Walker, C. (2023) Jailbroken AI Chatbots Can Jailbreak Other Chatbots: AI Chatbots Can Convince Other Chatbots to Instruct Users How to Build Bombs and Cook Meth. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jailbroken-ai-chatbots-can-jailbreak-other-chatbots/
[39]
Federal Trade Commission (2022) FTC Report Warns about Using Artificial Intelligence to Combat Online Problems: Agency Concerned with AI Harms Such as Inaccuracy, Bias, Discrimination, and Commercial Surveillance Creep. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-report-warns-about-using-artificial-intelligence-combat-online-problems
[40]
McClurg, A.J. (2003) A Thousand Words Are Worth a Picture: A Privacy Tort Response to Consumer Data Profiling. Northwestern University Law Review, 98, 63-144.
[41]
Kuempel, A. (2016) The Invisible Middlemen: A Critique and Call for Reform of the Data Broker Industry. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 36, 207-234.
[42]
Clifton, A. (2022) Privacy, Network Effects, and Law Enforcement: The Gap between Technology and the Law. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 21, 213, 217, 218, 220-221.
[43]
The Electronic Communications Right Act, 15 U.S.C. § 9401(3).
[44]
Guariglia, M. (2024) Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act Passed the House, Now It Should Pass the Senate. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/fourth-amendment-not-sale-act-passed-house-now-it-should-pass-senate
[45]
Gallagher, R. (2023) Legal Loopholes Help US Spies Buy Americans’ Personal Data: Such Information Can Be Used for an Array of Purposes, a Key Report Has Found. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-06-21/legal-loopholes-help-us-spies-buy-americans-personal-data
[46]
Schilke, R. (2024) House Ends FISA Saga with Passage of Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act. Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/2969992/house-fisa-saga-passage-fourth-amendment-not-for-sale-act/
[47]
Savage, C. and Broadwater, L. (2024) House Passes 2-Year Surveillance Law Extension without Warrant Requirement. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/us/politics/surveillance-bill-fisa.html
[48]
Executive Office of the President (2024, April 16) Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 4639—Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act (Rep. Davidson, R-OH, and Seven Cosponsors).
[49]
House Energy and Commerce Committee (2024) Spokesman Review: Cantwell, Rodgers Strike Bipartisan Deal on Landmark Data Privacy Bill. House Energy and Commerce Committee. https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/spokesman-review-cantwell-rodgers-strike-bipartisan-deal-on-landmark-data-privacy-bill
[50]
Smith, O.D. (2024) Cantwell, McMorris Rodgers Strike Bipartisan Deal on Land-Mark Data Privacy Bill. The SpokesmanReview. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/apr/07/cantwell-mcmorris-rodgers-strike-bipartisan-deal-o/
[51]
Anderson, J. and Rainie, L. (2018) Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-humans/
[52]
Simshaw, D. (2023) Toward National Regulation of Legal Technology: A Path For-ward for Access to Justice. Fordham Law Review, 92, 1, 7.
[53]
United States Courts (2020) Just the Facts: Intellectual Property Cases-Patent, Copyright, and Trademark. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/02/13/just-facts-intellectual-property-cases-patent-copyright-and-trademark
[54]
McKelvey v. State, 474 P.3d 16, 27 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020) (Quoting 1 Wayne R. Lafave, (2012) Search and Seizure, § 2.3(g), at 799-800).
[55]
McClain, C., Faverio, M., Anderson, M. and Park, E. (2023) How Americans View Data Privacy: The Role of Technology Companies, AI and Regulation—Plus Per-sonal Experiences with Data Breaches, Passwords, Cybersecurity and Privacy Policies. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/10/18/how-americans-view-data-privacy/
[56]
Lin, W.C. (2016) Where Are Your Papers: The Fourth Amendment, the Stored Communications Act, the Third-Party Doctrine, the Cloud and Encryption. DePaul Law Review, 65, 1093, 1135-1136.
[57]
Opderbeck, D.W. (2022) Cybersecurity and Data Breach Harms: Theory and Reality. Maryland Law Review, 82, 1001. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4187263
[58]
Security Center, Ltd. v. First National Security Centers, 750 F.2d 1295, 1298-1301 (5th Cir. 1985).
[59]
United States v. Poller, No. 3:22-CR-165 (JAM), 2023 WL 4535338, at *5 (D. Conn. July 14, 2023).
[60]
Kerr, O.S. (2004) The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution. Michigan Law Review, 102, 801-888. https://doi.org/10.2307/4141982
[61]
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 n. 12 (1978).
[62]
Lyon, C. and Myers, J. (2023) California’s Delete Act Could Be Next Frontier beyond CCPA. Bloomberg Law News. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/californias-delete-act-could-be-next-frontier-beyond-ccpa
