QUESTION
What are the drawbacks of Maryland's targeted approach to banning geolocation data collection near sensitive locations?
2:43:29
·
88 sec
Albert Fox Cahn explains that a targeted ban on geolocation data collection near facilities like mental health clinics and reproductive health centers cannot effectively protect individuals visiting those sites.
- A blanket ban on geowarrants and mass geolocation tracking, like the proposed NYC bill 539, would be more effective.
- With a targeted approach, gaps in location history could reveal someone visited a sensitive site.
- Google faced pushback and struggled to consistently implement targeted limits after the Dobbs decision.
- Google ultimately moved to device-side data storage as a solution.
Jennifer Gutiérrez
2:43:29
We came across that Maryland recently enacted their digital privacy law that really that prohibited the use of geofencing near, like, mental health facilities and reproductive or sexual health facilities.
2:43:42
What is your opinion of that more targeted approach here?
Albert Fox Cahn
2:43:47
We don't think that a targeted ban on geolocation data collection actually can be affected, effective.
2:43:56
At protecting people who go to those facilities be compared to a blanket ban on geo warrants and those sorts of mass geolocation tracking or the type of bill we see with 539.
2:44:10
Because when you simply have those more narrow protected facilities versus the broader ban, you'll just see GAAP in people's location history, which can be indicative of the fact that they went to just such a facility.
2:44:28
And there is a lot of pushback against Google when they initially responded to the Dobbs decision by limiting the geolocation collection around those sensitive sites.
2:44:39
And it also turned out it was really hard to implement.
2:44:42
And so Google eventually moved completely to device side data storage as a way to respond to that issue.
2:44:50
Because they found that they couldn't consistently operationalize those more targeted limitations.
