ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases
from the privacy-anyone? dept
Back in March, we wrote about the surprising effort by the North Carolina government to force Amazon to hand over a list of details on every purchase made by anyone in the state. Amazon already provides a ton of information to the government. In fact, I think many would argue it provides too much info:It routinely provides the Revenue Department with "voluminous information" about its sales to North Carolina addresses as part of routine audits of the company's compliance with sales and use tax laws. The information includes the date and total price of each transaction, the city, county and ZIP code to which each item was shipped and Amazon's standard product code for each item, which allows officials to see the description of every product purchased.Already that seems like a privacy violation. However, to state officials, that's not enough info. They want actual names and addresses of who bought what and have threatened Amazon if it does not comply. The ACLU has now stepped in to defend Amazon, noting that North Carolina's demands from Amazon are unconstitutional violations of users free speech, anonymity and privacy rights. Specifically, the ACLU has filed a case against the state on behalf of six anonymous North Carolina residents who don't believe the government should have a right to look at what they purchased:
- Jane Doe 1, who purchased books on self-help and how to get a divorce and a restraining order after her former spouse developed substance abuse problems and threatened to kill her;
- Jane Doe 2, the general counsel of a global corporation, who has purchased books and movies with overt political leanings as well as books that may reveal her religious beliefs;
- Jane Doe 3, who has purchased books on mental health in order to better understand the conditions afflicting her former spouse, including "Stop Walking On Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone Your Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder," as well as books about cancer, including "Cancer: 50 Essential Things To Do: Revised and Updated," by Greg Anderson. She has also purchased books on atheism. She is not public about her personal beliefs and doesn't want others to find out;
- Jane Doe 4, who has received several politically-charged items through Amazon from her parents, including "Obama Zombies: How The Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation," by Jason Mattera. Jane Doe 4 is a law school student who would like to one day work in the public sector, and she is concerned that her career prospects may be impaired if her personal and political beliefs are disclosed;
- Jane Doe 5, the parent of Jane Doe 4, who is a Florida resident, but whose information has been caught up in NCDOR's request. She does not want the government to know which books she has decided to purchase for her child;
- Jane Doe 6, whose purchases include books with sensitive and potentially controversial subject matters; and
- Cecil Bothwell, an elected city official, author and proprietor of a publishing house who has both purchased and sold potentially controversial books on Amazon. He is an atheist, which his political opponents seized on following his election because of a provision in the North Carolina Constitution that purports to prohibit anyone who "shall deny the being of Almighty God" from holding public office. He is joining the lawsuit on behalf of himself and his readers and customers, whose information has also been sought by NCDOR.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: north carolina, privacy
Companies: aclu, amazon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Plan B
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plan B
Anyway, if the lawsuit doesn't pan out on the side of privacy (and common sense) then Amazon can always elect to stop selling to people with a North Carolina shipping or billing address. That should stir up enough angry citizens to get North Carolina to back down, I imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plan B
since when did a company, US or foreign, ever stopped a specific market because of a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plan B
Is that close enough to a business leaving a market because of a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plan B
If they did that in my state I would never purchase from them again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Plan B
Well not a lawsuit, but Google left the biggest market in the world over a government that wanted too much control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put a big disclaimer of what will happen on that state when you buy something, disclose what the government is asking and what you are forced to give out end let the population do the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The world is getting silly now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACLU
How has this not been challenged and changed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACLU
How can you have a government that does not force religion on to people but then won't then allow them to serve in government? That doesn't make any sense....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACLU
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ACLU
The States have been largely free to do what they want WRT eligibility requirements. Hell, until only (relatively) recently you had to have a certain color of skin to hold any public office anywhere in the old south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ACLU
That is not correct. Williams V. Rhodes was a case about state elections (Ohio in this case).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACLU
"Show me anywhere that the Constitution or Bill of Rights says anything like "separation of church and state." I'll help you out...it doesn't! It just says that the government can't prohibit people from exercising their religion freely or to establish a national religion (think church of england)."
Specifically you are correct, the exact words 'separation of church and state' do not exist in the constitution, the exact words that do exist are first in artcile 6 (as mentioned by DH) "... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Then in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".
Now couple these with the fourteenth amendment, which in part states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." and you have a nice and tight generalized 'separation of church and state'.
With the above in mind a qualification for public office that requires the elected to affirm the existance or non-existance of god violates the constitution and would easily be struck down if they attempted to enforce such a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACLU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's nice to see that someone still thinks we have a bill of rights
Privacy rights themselves are not guaranteed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore it is often easy for the courts to ignore them entirely or assume that privacy rights may be subordinate to the needs of business models or government convenience. This case shows that at least in some situations privacy rights DO matter and that wholesale sweeping aside of privacy rights tramples all over the principles of democratic society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's nice to see that someone still thinks we have a bill of rights
I agree with your sentiment but need to correct you here. Privacy is a protected right, guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said so. Repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's nice to see that someone still thinks we have a bill of rights
> The Supreme Court has said so. Repeatedly.
True, but the only reason the Court has had to say so is because the Constitution itself does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm.. Amazon already blocked a ton of business's from referring customers to their site when Colorado, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and New York tried to collect tax dollars from Amazon because of their affiliates.
Amazon is one of the few companies that are probably willing to stand up to state governments at the expense of their customers.
http://goo.gl/DX0l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little known fact
Normally a store collects the sales tax for you. You DO OWE IT even if not collected. This is a major flaw in peoples understanding.
If I drive across the border to a state with no sales tax and buy a couch - I owe the "use tax" in my home state. It's just that the other state doesn't collect it for me.
If people paid what they owed - and I'm not saying there is an easy mechanism to track this or even to pay it - then this would not be an issue. You don't have to disclose WHAT you bought - only that you bought something taxable.
Amazon could provide the data - without the actual purchase details - and NC could proceed that way.
As states feel the economic pinch - these loopholes are going to be closed.
As online shopping gains in percent of total sales - tax revenues will decrease as well causing mounting pressure to "tax the internet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little known fact
The fact that most people mark that as $0 is a different problem entirely. If NC wants to accuse an individual of tax evasion, they should subpoena specific information on a case-by-case basis. A state should not have the right to demand any retailer provide their entire database of customer information just because the state's sales taxes are dropping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little known fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Little known fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Little known fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little known fact
If NC wants this sales tax, they should provide Amazon with the staff to collect it for them. That's the easiest solution.
Spying on citizen's purchases creates so many more problems than it solves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little known fact
These States need to be slapped down for their greedy fingers and find better ways to generate revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Little known fact
Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A business point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
I'm not saying this is right, or wrong. It IS perfectly legal. People expect a degree of anonymity when doing things on the internet. There is no person to person activity, its all through a medium. When people realize that the not-so-private nature of their activities results in a profile of them, that's when they raise hell. Those Jane Doe claims are all reasonable, but as mentioned, there is nothing illegal about them. By using the internet in such a way, you essentially accept this risk.
Also, do a search for "Total Information Awareness Program" - stuff like this has and likely is being done by the gov't as we speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
Legal? I don't think so. There are several constitutional basis (plural spelling?) for the right to privacy, though the word is not mentioned. The 4th amendment to protect a person's right to "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches" is to be coupled with the ninth amendment (taking away all of this silly digital distinction nonsense) and glued together with the 14th amendment, requiring a warrant to be issued for the search of personal effects unless there is probable cause.
For practical purposes, having a list of the effects purchased is the same as searching the effects themselves, particularly in the instance of non-unique items.
"Also, do a search for "Total Information Awareness Program" - stuff like this has and likely is being done by the gov't as we speak."
Not likely, definitely. Core components of TIAP are still being funded, but no longer under DARPA. Instead, they've been funneled off to the NSA and SAIC. They have already used this technology against the USSR in the Cold War, when it was still called the Echelon SIG/INT network. In this instance, they are simply turning it around and pointing it at American citizens....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
The collection of this data by Amazon is legal. Using it may or may not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/2014171272.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Case law from Katz establishes that test, along with society's belief that such an expectation is reasonable. It's a matter of fact, not law as to whether this sharing of information is reasonable or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Stupid english.:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Epectations of privacy have changed dramatically since Olmstead and Katz. Law isn't up to date with technology and society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
At least by including the "expectation" test the court tried to make the doctrine self-correcting. I think if you asked a reasonable person, he'd NOT expect his Amazon order history would automatically be made available.
At least I HOPE that's the case, but even as I write that I have some doubts. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually...
Society seems generally uneducated when it comes to rights and information transmitted through the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be more directed at law enforcement. Despite this, I still wouldn't go around on the internet purchasing books on terrorism, bomb making, etc.
Who knows why NC wants more info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxed at point of sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxed at point of sale
I build websites for small to medium businesses and I generally advise my clients not to sell items to people out of state via the Internet, because of the crazy laws that each state has, that each other state is supposed to respect. :P
It's a tangled mess and I'm not even remotely surprised that Amazon refused to touch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxed at point of sale
Our sales tax laws are State sales tax but often there is county and possibly city taxes added on that would be in line right after the states got their cut. In order to do this properly Amazon would need to follow all sales tax laws in ever city in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxed at point of sale
I think the answer to your questions lies in a Supreme Court ruling a while back that states could not require a business that did not have a physical location in the state to collect sales tax. I believe it involved Quill(office product company) and the state of North Dakota. So in states that Amazon doesn't have a physical location (warehouse, office) they can not be required to collect sales tax. The tax is still due and the consumer is supposed to pay the state themselves. Although I think this rarely happens. Amazon may be required to collect sales tax or VAT for all products being shipped to England as they have a physical location there or other arrangement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then let the citizens of the state go whine at their 'leaders'.
Amazon should time it close to elections too and run some TV ads about why they are doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
Argue all you want, but either Amazon starts collecting sales tax or they provide the information to the state to collect it from the citizens...
Take your pik, but it won't be both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
Wait....let me guess....methadone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
I understand that NC suspects that some of its residents aren't paying their taxes, but the last time I checked, this was America, so all of those citizens are innocent until NC can prove otherwise.
And if NC knows that an individual isn't paying their taxes, they should subpoena their records, legally, prove their allegations, and then fine them, instead of taking an end-run around out civil rights this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If idiots paid their use taxes it wouldnt be asking
IMO, the MOST that Amazon should do is email (or mail me) a reminder at the end of the year of how much tax I did not pay and remind me to use this information to claim my "Use Tax". This report should NOT also be made to my state Tax Department since it is none of their business due to it being, by tax law, my responsibility to track this amount not their responsibility to monitor my out-of-state purchases from companies without an instate presence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not over
But us hippie types, you know the ones that were reviled by the Reaganites, the Nixonites and the other freaks running the government, we told you so 50 years ago.
But why would you listen to your youth when they are only considered fodder for the war machine. I actually hoped I would die before we could no longer reverse the process. But it has got to the point that only outright civil war and a complete rewriting of the constitution will even begin to save this country.
As to the ecology, this planet's screwed. We need to find another one immediately. The damage is done and only our complete removal from the planet will save it.
The States are fighting a losing battle and can be relied on to do nothing but harass the citizenry to try to prop up their corrupt government model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrupt government once again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Founders
Government is inheritly opposed to individual freedom, and privacy. Although our rights have been eroded over the years, it is still very imoressive that the ideals have survived this long with Government having unlimited resources to take away rights. They were geniuses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
car moving
Car Moving | Auto Car Transportation Services | Transport Shipping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]