SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The retail giant was also ordered to pay more than $30 million last year after allegedly surveilling customers with its tech products.
Months after Amazon was fined more than $30 million for allegedly spying on customers in their homes, a French data watchdog on Monday announced it had ordered the retail giant to pay another $35 million for what it called "excessive" tracking of warehouse employees' activity.
France's National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) informed Amazon France Logistique, which runs the U.S. company's warehouses in the country, of the fine late last month after investigating scanning devices used by employees.
Several features of the tools violate the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), according to the group.
The technology-focused news outlet The Registerreported that all employees at Amazon's French warehouses are given scanners that document their tasks, including when they pick up an item or place it in a delivery box.
CNIL found that the "inactivity indicators" on the scanners were "too precise" and could lead "to the employee potentially having to justify each break or interruption."
Another feature used to measure the speed at which the scanner is used and one that stored data history for 31 days were also deemed "excessive" by the watchdog.
CNIL's investigation found that before April 2020, temporary employees at the warehouses weren't informed that their data would be collected by the scanning devices and that no workers were sufficiently told that the facilities were equipped with video surveillance systems.
In violation of Article 32 of the GDPR, said the watchdog, "access to the video surveillance software was not sufficiently secure, since the password was not sufficiently robust and the access account was shared between several users."
The group said it determined the amount of Amazon's penalty by taking into account "the fact that the processing of employees' data by means of scanners differed from the methods of monitoring of traditional activity because of the scale at which they were implemented, both in terms of their completeness and permanence, and led to a very tight and detailed monitoring of the work of employees."
The EUobserver, which reports on democracy within the bloc, noted that the fine was announced on the same day that Amazon refused to participate in a European Parliament hearing on working conditions in its warehouses.
The fine comes less than a year after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) determined that an Amazon employee had used its Ring security cameras to spy on female customers for several months, prompting the company to agree to a settlement worth $5.8 million.
Amazon also agreed to a $25 million settlement after being accused to failing to delete audio when parents requested they be erased from Alexa speakers.
The company said Tuesday that it "might appeal" the CNIL's decision and that the watchdog's conclusions about its surveillance practices were "factually incorrect."
In the U.S., progressive law professor Zephyr Teachout called the fine "excellent" and expressed hope that policymakers will soon pass "clear American laws that recognize just how harmful extreme monitoring is."
"Contract law is not the key," said Teachout. "Basic dignity is."
Amazon's focus on closely monitoring employees' activities has led to numerous injuries among workers, according to a survey by the University of Illinois Chicago's Center for Urban Economic Development last October. The center found that out of 1,484 employees, 70% had been forced to take unpaid time off due to sprains, strains, and other injuries sustained while rushing to keep up with Amazon's demanding quotas.
"We see clear evidence in our data," said researchers, "that work intensity and monitoring contribute to negative health outcomes."
With their dangerous crusade for an anti-encryption bill in Congress all but dead (for now), the FBI and US Justice Department are now engaged in a multi-pronged attack on all sorts of other privacy rights - this time, with much less public scrutiny.
A report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office harshly criticized the FBI last week for its little-discussed but frequently used facial recognition database and called on the bureau to implement myriad privacy and safety protections. It turns out the database has far more photos than anyone thought - 411.9m to be exact - and the vast majority are not mugshots of criminals, but driver's license photos from over a dozen states and passport photos of millions of completely innocent people. The feds searched it over 36,000 times from 2011 to 2015 (no court order needed) while also apparently having no idea how accurate it is.
Worse, the FBI wants its hundreds of millions of facial recognition photos and its entire biometric database, including fingerprints and DNA profiles, to be exempt from important Privacy Act protections. As the Intercept reported two weeks ago: "Specifically, the FBI's proposal would exempt the database from the provisions in the Privacy Act that require federal agencies to share with individuals the information they collect about them and that give people the legal right to determine the accuracy and fairness of how their personal information is collected and used."
In Congress, Senate Republicans are pushing for a vote this week on controversial new warrantless surveillance measures that would let the FBI use unconstitutional National Security Letters to get email records and internet browsing history from countless US citizens - without going to a judge or court at all. The Senate leadership is bringing the measure up to vote by invoking the Orlando attack, despite the fact that we know the FBI had no problem surveilling the Orlando killer when he was previously investigated. It is a blatant attempt to exploit the tragedy in order to gain powers the FBI has long asked for (powers, by the way, the FBI is already reportedly using, despite the justice department telling them it's basically illegal).
The justice department, meanwhile, is busy attempting to implement a new rule for the court system that would make it much easier for the FBI to hack into computers worldwide - including those of hacking victims. Using the obscure process for amending the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the department has convinced the courts that they should be able to get one warrant to potentially hack thousands of computers, and shouldn't have to comply with the normal rules involving getting the court order in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has noted, "this is a recipe for disaster," and it is being done by circumventing the normal democratic process. Several organizations (including Freedom of the Press Foundation, the organization I work for) have called on Congress to put a stop to it.
Also, in the courts, the Justice Department has continued to argue that the US government doesn't need a warrant to gather Americans' cell phone location information—even though that type of information can give authorities their precise whereabouts 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Justice Department convinced the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last month to overturn its previous ruling that police need a probable cause warrant to get such information. The court agreed with the justice department that cellphone users don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" around their location, even though it is some of the most intimate information that exists, giving law enforcement officials a detailed picture of your life that even your close friends and family may not know.
Last year, the FBI director disingenuously tried to claim that the pendulum "has swung too far" in the way of privacy despite the fact that the agency has virtually unprecedented access to all sorts of information on Americans. If it wasn't clear before, it should be now: they plan on using any means necessary to further erode the rights of hundreds of millions of citizens in their crusade against privacy.
Today the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) finally published its exhaustive report on the FBI's face recognition capabilities. The takeaway: FBI has access to hundreds of millions more photos than we ever thought. And the Bureau has been hiding this fact from the public--in flagrant violation of federal law and agency policy--for years.
According to the GAO Report, FBI's Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services unit not only has access to FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) face recognition database of nearly 30 million civil and criminal mug shot photos, it also has access to the State Department's Visa and Passport databases, the Defense Department's biometric database, and the driver's license databases of at least 16 states. Totaling 411.9 million images, this is an unprecedented number of photographs, most of which are of Americans and foreigners who have committed no crimes.
The FBI has done little to make sure that its search results (which the Bureau calls "investigative leads") do not include photos of innocent people, according to the report. The FBI has conducted only very limited testing to ensure the accuracy of NGI's face recognition capabilities. And it has not taken any steps to determine whether the face recognition systems of its external partners--states and other federal agencies--are sufficiently accurate to prevent innocent people from being identified as criminal suspects. As we know from previous research, face recognition is notoriously inaccurate across the board and may also misidentify African Americans and ethnic minorities, young people, and women at higher rates than whites, older people, and men, respectively.
As the Report points out, many of the 411.9 face images to which FBI has access--like driver's license and passport and visa photos--were never collected for criminal or national security purposes. And yet, under agreements we've never seen between the FBI and its state and federal partners, the FBI may search these civil photos whenever it's trying to find a suspect in a crime. As the map above shows, 18 more states are in negotiations with the FBI to provide similar access to their driver's license databases.
The states have been very involved in the development of the FBI's own NGI database, which includes nearly 30 million of the 411.9 million face images accessible to the Bureau (we've written extensively about NGI in the past). NGI includes more than 20 million civil and criminal images received directly from at least six states, including California, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Virginia. And it appears five additional states--Florida, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, and Arkansas--can send search requests directly to the NGI database. As of December 2015, FBI is working with eight more states to grant them access to NGI, and an additional 24 states are also interested.
The GAO Report spends a significant number of pages criticizing FBI for rolling out these massive face recognition capabilities without ever explaining the privacy implications of its actions to the public. Federal law and Department of Justice policies require the FBI to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of all programs that collect data on Americans, both at the beginning of development and any time there's significant change to the program. While the FBI produced a PIA in 2008, when it first started planning out the face recognition component of NGI, it didn't update that PIA until late 2015--seven years later and well after it began making significant changes to the program. It also failed to produce a PIA for the FACE Services unit until May 2015--three years after FACE began supporting FBI with face recognition searches. As GAO notes, the whole point of PIAs is to give the public notice of the privacy implications of data collection programs and to ensure that privacy protections are built into the system from the start. The FBI failed at this.
The single bright spot in the report reiterates that FBI decided not to allow searches of civil photos enrolled in NGI to "better protect individuals' privacy." This is a hollow victory, however, because if you've ever been arrested for any crime at all--including blocking a street as part of a public protest--your civil photos will be linked to your booking photo and subject to face recognition searches along with all the other 29.7 million images in NGI.
The GAO's findings are especially shocking, given the timing. Just over a month ago the FBI demanded its face recognition capabilities be exempt from several key provisions of the federal Privacy Act--and provided the public with only 30 days to respond. Over and over, the FBI's secret data collection practices confirm why we need more transparency, not less. In the coming weeks, we'll be asking you to sign on to our comments to the FBI's proposal. Help us send a message to the FBI that its practices are unacceptable and must change.