Concerns have been raised about data protection after Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the citizens’ constitutional right of abortion in the US, was announced. This concern is especially evident in 13 states that have made ending a pregnancy illegal.
What data could be used to incriminate someone? How can the authorities access it? And what are the tech companies doing?
Gina Neff (Professor of Technology and Society at University of Oxford) tweeted the following day: “Right now, I mean this instant. Delete any digital trace of any menstrual track.”
Her message has been liked more than 200,000 times and retweeted 54,000 time.
Period trackers such as Clue and Stardust, which are designed to predict when women’s next period will be, can often be used by women to prevent or try to conceive.
If law enforcement has access to the data, there are concerns that the apps could be used as a tool to punish people who want termination.
Natural Cycles, a high-profile app, claims that it is a digital contraceptive.
It did however tell the BBC Monday that it was working to create an anonymous user experience.
It stated that the goal was to make it impossible for anyone – even Natural Cycles, – to identify the user.
It sounds like they are considering encryption. What about messaging services? This is the private and confidential communication between close friends.
Security experts and privacy advocates prefer end-to-end encryption messaging services like Signal and WhatsApp to discuss sensitive topics.
They cannot view the contents of messages and they do not store or receive them. Only the receiver’s and sender’s devices can decode them.
This is however only applicable if the devices themselves are not stolen or unlocked by anyone else.
The police in the United States need a warrant to search electronic devices such as laptops or phones. This is similar to the warrant required to search a home. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments provide protection.
There are exceptions to this rule. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, says that the US police can search the house without a warrant if they have “probable cause to believe there are incriminating evidence” or if the electronic device is under immediate threat.
The Fifth Amendment gives individuals the right to refuse to unlock devices even if they are taken. However, the reality is not clear according to many lawyers.
“Courts have come to conflicting conclusions about whether or not the compelled encryption of a password – or biometric identifier protected device — runs afoul the Fifth Amendment,” stated the Congressional Research Service in a 2020 report.
Even if the device is not seized, a subpoena is issued by the authorities to tech companies, asking for the data of an individual.
Google and Apple are not only able to provide cloud and back-up services to their customers with their own storage but they also have their own user data including internet activity.
Google claims that even though something is deleted by a user, and therefore is not visible to them – such as a browser’s history – some of the information may still be kept “to comply with regulatory or legal requirements”.
These firms can contest any official demand they receive, but they are under pressure to comply.
The New York Times reported in 2021 that Apple had only challenged 4% of customer account data requests. The majority of requests were granted by Apple with 80 to 85 percent.
Google’s transparency report shows that it provided “some data” to 82% of requests for information within the first six months in 2021. Out of almost 51,000 cases there were 20,701 subpoenas, and 25,077 search warrants.
Are tech companies now in a position to reexamine their data practices?
A number of high-ranking members of the US Congress, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, wrote an open letter asking Google to reduce its data collection and storage, including location information. This was in response to concerns that it could be used for abortion prosecutions.
They wrote that “No law requires Google collect and keep records about its customers’ every move.”
The tech companies have yet to comment on whether or not they intend to change the way they collect and handle customer data following the ruling.
This information was requested by the BBC.
Many large US companies, such as Meta, the owner of Facebook, and Disney, have stated that they will pay for expenses for employees who need to travel to another country for medical care, which may include abortion.
People who live in states that ban abortion may be prosecuted if they go out of state to get one. Although it is possible that this is the case, it is not a common practice for other laws, which can vary from one state to another, like gambling.
Dr Stephanie Hare, author and co-author of Technology is not Neutral says that although companies’ commitment is a welcome first step, it is not sufficient.
She said, “That’s only going help a very limited amount of people. Assuming some of them want this information to their employer in the beginning.”
“What these companies are going to do to limit data collections on all users and how they can protect user data from being used against their healthcare decisions is what we need to know.”
This privacy guide has been published by the EFF:
Professor Alan Woodward from University of Surrey believes that it is unlikely that law enforcement will begin to search for this type of personal information online when they are researching abortion.
He said, “They are unlikely to be going after people thinking about having an abortion.”
“But, if they are gathering proof after the event, and if someone has been arrested, that evidence could include browser history, email, or messages.
