To paraphrase , we all know that technology is the cause of — and solution to — all of life’s problems.
We like technology at the ACLU — but we also want everyone to have their eyes wide open when it comes to the privacy risks that can accompany the latest electronic gear, from smartwatches to internet-connected home appliances.
Smart Speakers
Realize that when you plug in an Amazon Echo, Apple HomePod, or Google Home, you’re switching on a microphone that’s always on inside your home. In theory, it only transmits information when you say the wake word, like “Alexa.” But sometimes they can transmit what you’re saying.
And there’s the question of what happens to the data when they are supposed to be recording. You do have the option to , but there have been cases of police asking companies to turn it over.
Video Doorbells
These are essentially doorbells with video cameras in them. They can show you who’s at your door and give you the ability to video chat with them. Amazon even has plans to equip them with facial recognition. There are also similar cameras for placing inside your home.
One concern with these devices is that they can be — and this goes for of internet-connected devices in and around the home. There’s also the possibility of bugs in the code that can send video where it isn’t supposed to go, like when a caused people to get video feeds from their neighbors’ cameras.
Smartwatches and Fitness Trackers
Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit are collecting a lot of very personal information about you — everything from your heartrate to how well you’re sleeping. Anytime you generate a collection of data that’s so intimate, it becomes a target for hackers — and it can also potentially be . So you need to ask yourself if this is a dataset about yourself that you want to create.
Drones
Let’s turn the privacy issue around the last item on our list: With drones you should be sure to respect other people’s privacy and not run afoul of “peeping Tom” laws.
You also need to make sure that you follow the Federal Aviation Administration’s fairly strict for drones, which include mandatory registration, keeping it below 400 feet, and staying away from aircraft.
%3Ciframe%20allow%3D%22accelerometer%3B%20autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%3B%20gyroscope%3B%20picture-in-picture%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FT3guCApYJYs%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fweb18-gadgetgiftguide-560x315.jpg%22%20width%3D%22560%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
All in all, tech can make life easier — just be aware of all the potential implications that come with using it that might not be so apparent at first glance. When you use gadgets that are connected online, you’re often creating revealing data about yourself that could possibly be accessed by the government or hackers. The companies that make the products also have the information too, so you should think about how much you trust them with your privacy.
Sign up for the and get our finest content from the week delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.