Data privacy

Google’s New AI-Powered Customer Service Tools Spark Back-to-Back Class Action Lawsuits

zion.mercado Blog , , , , , , ,

Google’s New AI-Powered Customer Service Tools Spark Back-to-Back Class Action Lawsuits

Zion Mercado 

 

Google recently began rolling out “human-like generative AI powered” customer service tools to help companies enhance their customer service experience.[1] This new service is known as the “Cloud Contact Center AI,” and touts a full package of customer service-based features to help streamline customer service capabilities.[2] Companies who utilize the new service  can create virtual customer service agents, access AI-generated insights providing feedback on customer service interactions, store and manage data on a specialized “Contact Center AI Platform,” and consult with Google’s team of experts on how to improve the AI-integrated systems.[3] However, one key feature that has recently come into controversy is the ability for customers to utilize real-time AI-generated responses to customer inquiries which can then be relayed back to the customer by a live agent.[4] This is known as the “Agent Assist” feature.

Agent Assist operates by “us[ing] machine learning technology to provide suggestions to . . . human agents when they are in a conversation with a customer.”[5] These suggestions are based on the company’s own data and conversations.[6] Functionally, when Agent Assist is in use, there are two parties to the conversation: the live customer service agent, and the customer. The AI program listens in and generates responses in real time for the live customer service agent. Some have argued that this violates California’s wiretapping statute by alleging that the actions of Google’s AI program, which is nothing more than a complex computer program, are attributable to Google itself.[7] Those who have done so have alleged that Google, through its AI-integrated services, has been listening in on people’s conversations without their consent or knowledge.[8]

The wiretapping statute in question is a part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), and prohibits the intentional tapping, reading, or any other unauthorized connection, whether physically or otherwise, with any communication being transmitted via line, wire, cable, or instrument without the consent of all parties to the communication.[9] It is also unlawful under the statute to communicate any information so obtained or to aid another in obtaining information via prohibited means.[10]

In 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Google on behalf of Verizon customers who alleged that Google “used its Cloud Contact Center AI software as a service to wiretap, eavesdrop on, and record” calls made to Verizon’s customer service center.[11] In the case, District Court Judge Rita F. Lin granted Google’s motion to dismiss on grounds that the relationship between Google and Verizon and the utilization of the Cloud Contact Center AI service fell squarely within the statutory exception to the wiretapping statute.[12] Now, the wiretapping statute does contain an explicit exception for telephone companies and their agents, which is the exception upon which Judge Lin relied; however, that exception is narrowed to such acts that “are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility or telephone company.”[13]

Continue reading →

Surveilled in Broad Daylight: How Electronic Monitoring is Eroding Privacy Rights for Thousands of People in Criminal and Civil Immigration Proceedings

devin.b.forbush Blog , , , , , , ,

Surveilled in Broad Daylight: How Electronic Monitoring is Eroding Privacy Rights for Thousands of People in Criminal and Civil Immigration Proceedings

By Emily Burns   

What is electronic monitoring

Electronic monitoring is a digital surveillance mechanism that tracks a person’s movements and activities[1] by using radio transmitters, ankle monitors, or cellphone apps.[2] Governmental surveillance through electronic monitoring, used by every state in the U.S. and the Federal Government, functions as a nearly omnipotent presence for people in two particular settings: people in criminal proceedings and/or civil immigration proceedings.[3]

In 2021, approximately 254,700 adults were subject to electronic monitoring in the United States, with 150,700 of them in the criminal system and 103,900 in the civil immigration system.[4] While people outside of these systems hold substantial privacy rights against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures of digital materials through Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the rise of electronic monitoring forces people to “consent” to electronic monitoring in exchange for the ability to be outside of a jail cell. [5]

Within the criminal context, this means that as a condition of supervision, such as parole or probation, certain defendants must consent to “continuous suspicion-less searches” of their electronics and data such as e-mail, texts, social media, and literally any other information on their devices.[6]

In the civil immigration context, like asylum seekers, immigrants can face a similar “choice:” remain in detention or be released with electronic monitoring.[7]  For immigrants in ICE detention on an immigration bond, this “choice” reads more like a plot device on an episode of Black Mirror than an effect of a chosen DHS policy. While people detained on bond in the criminal system are commonly allowed to be released when they pay at least 10 percent of the bond, ICE requires immigrants to pay the full amount of the bond, which is mandated by statute at a minimum $1,500 with a national average of $9,274.[8] If the bond is not paid, immigrants can spend months or even years in ICE detention.[9] Because many bail bond companies view immigration bonds to hold more risk of non-payment,  companies either charge extremely high interest rates on the bond contracts that immigrants pay or, as in the case of the company Libre by Nexus, ensure the bond by putting an ankle monitor on the bond seeker.[10] For people who must give up their bodily autonomy in order to be released from physical detention by “allowing” a private company to strap an ankle monitor to their body, paying for this indignity comes at a substantial economic cost that many cannot afford: Libre by Nexus charges $420 per month for using the ankle monitor, which is in addition to the actual repayment costs of the bond amount.[11] [12]

Continue reading →

Protecting the Biometric Data of Minor Students

devin.b.forbush Blog , , , , , , ,

Protecting the Biometric Data of Minor Students

by Devin Forbush

 

Introduction

At the beginning of this month, in considering topics to comment on and analyze, a glaring issue so close to home presented itself.  In a letter written on January 24, Jamie Selfridge, Principal of Caribou High School, notified parents and guardians of students of an “exciting new development” to be implemented at the school.[1] What is this exciting new development you may ask? It’s the mass collection of biometric data of their student body.[2] For context, biometric data collection is a process to identify an individual’s biological, physical, or behavioral characteristics.[3] This can include the collection of “fingerprints, facial scans, iris scans, palm prints, and hand geometry.”[4]

Presented to parents as a way to enhance accuracy, streamline processes, improve security, and encourage accountability, the identiMetrics software to be deployed at Caribou High School should not be glanced over lightly.[5]While the information around Caribou high school’s plan was limited at the time, aside from the Maine Wire website post and letter sent out to parents & guardians, a brief scan of the identiMetrics website reveals a cost effective, yet in-depth, data collection software that gathers over 2 million data points on students every day, yet touts safety and security measures are implemented throughout.[6] While this brief post will not analyze the identiMetrics software as a whole, it will rather highlight the legal concerns around biometric data collection and make it clear that the software sought to be implemented by Caribou high school takes an opt-out approach to collection and forfeits students’ privacy and sensitive data for the purpose of educational efficiency.

Immediately, I started writing a brief blog post on this topic, recognizing the deep-seated privacy related issues for minors. Yet, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine beat me to the punch, and on February 13th, set forth a public record request relating to the collection of biometric data to be conducted at Caribou High School due to their concerns.[7] The next day, Caribou High School signaled their intention to abandon their plan.[8] While I was ecstatic with this news, all the work that had been completed on this blog post appeared moot. Yet, not all was lost, as upon further reflection, this topic signaled important considerations. First, information privacy law and the issues related to it are happening in real-time and are changing day-to-day. Second, this topic presents an opportunity to inform individuals in our small state of the nonexistent protections for the biometric data of minors, and adults alike. Third, this reflection can sets forth proposals that all academic institutions should embrace before they consider collecting highly sensitive information of minor students.

This brief commentary proposes that (1) Academic institutions should not collect the biometric data of their students due to the gaps in legal protection within Federal and State Law; (2) If schools decide to proceed with biometric data collection, they must provide written notice to data subjects, parents, and legal guardians specifying (i) each biometric identifier being collected, (ii) the purpose of collection, (iii) the length of time that data will be used and stored, and (iv) the positive rights that parents, legal guardians, and data subjects maintain (e.g., their right to deletion, withdraw consent, object to processing, portability and access, etc.); and (3) Obtain explicit consent, recorded in written or electronic form, acquired in a free and transparent manner.

Continue reading →

The Varying Scope of the Trade Secret Exception

devin.b.forbush Comment , , , , , , , ,

The Varying Scope of the Trade Secret Exception

By William J. O’Reilly

 

Introduction

            Each of the three state data privacy acts taking effect in 2023 carve out an exception for data that can be considered a “trade secret”.[1]> At first blush any exception raises red flags, but this one may have a big enough impact to justify that trepidation. Many businesses could claim that collecting and making inferences about private data is their “trade”, making them exempt from a citizen seeking to exercise their rights. Further, Data Brokers—who should be the most limited by these laws—likely fit neatly into this exception. While the exact scope of the trade secret exception varies by state, past statutes and case law indicate the trade secret exception will fulfil privacy advocates’ fear. However, this can be an opportunity for judiciaries to change and protect citizen rights by interpreting such an exception narrowly, consistent with the respective legislature’s purpose. This narrow interpretation is necessary for the full protection of privacy rights.

Continue reading →