vox--2020-02-24--The continuing disaster aid crisis in Puerto Rico, explained

GUÁNICA , Puerto Rico — Puerto Ricans are still living in tents more than a month after earthquakes hit the southern part of the island on January 7 , damaging more than 800 homes .
The earthquakes were devastating for an island still working to rebuild from the damage caused when Hurricane Maria hit in 2017 .
Earthquake recovery efforts have been slow , frustrating many .
In effort to speed things up , the House of Representatives passed an emergency aid bill in early February — a bill the Senate does not seem likely to take up .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicated to reconstruction ; without these funds , the southern part of the island faces major delays in longterm recovery .
Homes that have crumbled from the quakes will remain piles of debris , and without a place to go , Puerto Ricans will be forced to remain in tent shelters with minimal resources and access to health care .
These tent shelters , which were intended to be temporary , were set up by the Puerto Rican government after a 6.4-magnitude earthquake hit the island , an earthquake that was followed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one being a 5.9-magnitude quake just four days after .
And the shelters , and those who live in them , remain at the mercy of more difficult to predict quakes : Even now , earthquakes of at least a 3-magnitude continue to shake the shorelines of Puerto Rico daily .
The situation is untenable , which is why the House bill was initially a source of hope for those looking to the federal government for aid .
But it now appears no such aid is immediately forthcoming , and Puerto Ricans affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in federal policy due to living in a US territory — find themselves with little recourse .
Why the House ’ s Puerto Rico aid bill has stalled in the Senate , briefly explained The House bill , which passed 237-161 on February 7 , allocates $ 4.7 billion for disaster recovery : $ 3.26 billion would go toward community development block grants to help long-term reconstruction ; $ 1.25 billion to restore infrastructure ; $ 100 million to restart school operations ; $ 40 million to disaster nutrition assistance ; and about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs .
The bill also contains tax breaks to help the island that is struggling with more than $ 70 billion in debt .
These are all hefty financial promises , particularly considering that only $ 1.5 billion of the $ 20 billion in aid for Hurricane Maria have been delivered to the island .
“ Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico need our help , ” said House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey ahead of a vote on the bill .
“ Unless we step up to the plate right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With this bill , we can provide families and communities swift relief and put Puerto Rico on the path to long-term recovery.
” Despite is passage in the House , it ’ s unlikely the Senate will take up the bill , several senators told Vox .
Many cite concerns about Puerto Rico that mirror those held by the White House , namely , that Puerto Rico has a history of corruption and mismanagement .
And while the fairness of that characterization is easily debatable , it is true that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of mismanaging resources : For instance , multiple cabinet officials were fired by the governor after a warehouse full of supplies for Hurricane Maria was found untouched in January .
“ Puerto Rico has a long history of inadequate financial controls over regular government operations , which forced the Congress to appoint a financial control board in 2016 , ” a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said in early February .
“ Multiple high-profile cases of corruption have marred distribution of aid already appropriated and have led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This stance led the White House to say President Donald Trump would veto the House bill if it were to pass in the Senate .
Despite this , there are some senators who have signaled a willingness to pass aid legislation .
Most recently , Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) announced he ’ d spearhead a new , bipartisan aid bill — although it remains unclear what it will look like or how it will be different from the House version .
“ I hope the Senate will do its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubio wrote in a statement to Vox .
“ I ’ ve already talked with Chairman Shelby , who is the chairman of the spending committee .
He agrees we want to do something here .
We ’ re going to be working on coming up with a spending plan for Puerto Rico aid that can pass the House , pass the Senate , and the President will sign.
” The question , however , is whether there is any bill the president would in fact sign .
The earthquake victims ’ quality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delay in aid Another White House criticism of the House legislation is that it was passed too quickly .
The reality , however , is that the people affected by the earthquakes have already been waiting too long for adequate aid , Helga Maldonado , regional director of Escape — a nonprofit organization that works to prevent child and domestic abuse in Puerto Rico — told Vox .
Maldonado and Escape have been working on the ground to provide food , sanitary supplies , and psychological support to earthquake-ridden areas .
Increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the shoulders of normal citizens like Maldonado as Puerto Ricans wait for more substantial federal aid than they have received so far .
In the city of Guánica , the epicenter of the earthquakes , at least 350 people have been living in tents provided by the government for the past month .
Inside the white tents that flap in the wind , people sleep on fragile cots and store their few belongings in a plastic boxes .
A single medical tent is stationed at the entrance of the shelter , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next to it .
Religious groups and nonprofits regularly set up tents on the edge of the encampment , providing over-the-counter medicine , sanitary products , water , and other necessities .
FEMA provides some aid to those affected by the earthquakes : as of January 16 , the agency granted 7,573 applications and approved $ 16,879,614.92 for individual and household assistance programs .
In a statement to Vox , FEMA also added that each individual received an average amount of $ 2,294.45 .
Maldonado , however , tells a different story .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s seen most FEMA grant recipients receive between $ 500 to $ 600 — nowhere near enough money to rebuild a house .
Those who feel they should have received more can file an appeal , but in order to do so , they have to pay a structural engineer out-of-pocket to check the state of their homes — a service that could cost up to $ 1,500 .
And while Congress delays on providing additional aid to Puerto Rico , the people in these shelters simply spend their time waiting , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s said he ’ s trying to be patient , but he never anticipated living in a tent for this long .
He wears a wristband that indicates his house has experienced some damage ( green means little to no damage , yellow means mild damage , and red means unlivable conditions ) , and says the walls in his house are cracked and the balcony fell .
Engineers sent by the government told him that his house was safe to live in , but given the structural damage the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I thought I was going to receive help a lot quicker , ” he said .
“ And even when I do receive any sort of financial help , I have to be slow to rebuild because I have to make sure that all the quakes are over and done with because there ’ s no point in building a home if it ’ s just going to come right back down.
” Though he finished filing paperwork right after the first waves of earthquakes , he ’ s yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a $ 500 check won ’ t be nearly enough to begin repairs .
Although he understands bureaucracy is delaying the government ’ s response , he said he wishes the aid process “ was based on the people and what the people need.
” When the government fails , it ’ s the community that has to step up The people of Puerto Rico are no strangers to the government ’ s delay in helping post-natural disasters .
Following Hurricane Maria , some communities were left without electricity for almost a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particularly hard blow .
And the island has only received $ 1.5 billion of the $ 20 billion approved by Congress for long-term Maria recovery .
( The Department of Housing and Urban Development finally lifted a $ 8 billion hold on disaster aid last month . )
That delay has meant delays in rebuilding .
For instance , over 850,000 households experienced damage to their home structure due to Maria — and about 30,000 families still live under makeshift blue tarp roofs two years after the hurricane .
The delays in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they had to prepare for future disasters , Maldonado said .
Escape was ready when the earthquakes hit : following Hurricane Maria , the organization steadily began to collect canned goods in a warehouse , preparing a makeshift food pantry .
Preparations like these meant that when the earthquakes came , those in need could immediately receive the sort of aid seen in the viral videos of ordinary Puerto Ricans driving to the southern part of the island to deliver supplies such as food and water .
But while the people may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Maldonado said the government has failed to learn from its mistakes .
“ It ’ s frustrating because the response didn ’ t change , ” she said .
“ You think that it ’ s the logical [ response ] to start preparing themselves for something else seeing that they weren ’ t able to respond to Maria , but it ’ s really sad to see that the government has been benefiting from this state of emergency .
They ’ re filling up their pockets and in a way dancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The unity among Puerto Ricans is inspiring — but equally frustrating — because this responsibility shouldn ’ t lie on the shoulders of ordinary citizens , according to Patricia Matos López , a community organizer with the group Bici-Caño .
“ The government always tells the people ‘ We are going to help you , give you the funds , ’ but it never comes , ” she said .
“ You need to move , contact organizations and get the help to the people .
Be real — not for the money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real and give us the help we need.
” Internal reports from FEMA reveal that the agency acknowledges it failed the people of Puerto Rico , especially after Hurricane Maria .
According to one report , FEMA emergency-supply warehouses around the island were nearly empty prior to the hurricane and the agency had not held a disaster planning assessment since 2012 .
This time around , FEMA has said it has learned from the mistakes of the past and “ remains committed to supporting the government of Puerto Rico with its ongoing recovery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to helping people before , during and after disasters.
” Activists , however , say that more needs to be done — especially because an unfair mental burden falls upon organizers , who are often also victims of the natural disasters , when the agency fails .
Maldonado said she ’ s personally had to deal with the layers of trauma caused by both being victim and a caretaker of others .
Although her house survived the earthquake , she said she ’ s crushed to see the destroyed buildings in her town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been able to personally visit the tent shelters in Yauco yet because she ’ s not mentally or physically ready , but she ’ s taking “ baby steps ” to prepare herself .
Maldoando , however , said she and other community organizers will continue their work because the government has given her no other choice , saying Hurricane Maria and the recent earthquakes has made it clear that the only people those in the community can count on are themselves .

GUÁNICA, Puerto Rico — Puerto Ricans are still living in tents more than a month after earthquakes hit the southern part of the island on January 7, damaging more than 800 homes.
The earthquakes were devastating for an island still working to rebuild from the damage caused when Hurricane Maria hit in 2017. Earthquake recovery efforts have been slow, frustrating many. To try to speed things up, the House of Representatives passed an emergency aid bill in early February — a bill the Senate does not seem likely to take up.
In part, the bill provides block grants dedicated to reconstruction; without these funds, the southern part of the island faces major delays in long-term recovery. Homes that have crumbled from the quakes will remain piles of debris, and Puerto Ricans will be forced to remain in tent shelters with minimal resources and access to health care.
These tent shelters, which were intended to be temporary, were set up by the Puerto Rican government after a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit the island, an earthquake that was followed by a series of aftershocks — including a 5.9 magnitude quake just four days after. And the shelters, and those who live in them, remain at the mercy of more difficult to predict quakes: Even now, earthquakes of at least a 3 magnitude continue to shake the shorelines of Puerto Rico daily.
The situation is untenable, which is why the House bill was initially a source of hope for those looking to the federal government for aid. But it now appears no such aid is immediately forthcoming, and Puerto Ricans affected by the earthquakes — lacking a say in federal policy as residents of a US territory — find themselves with little recourse.
Why the House’s Puerto Rico aid bill has stalled in the Senate, briefly explained
The House bill, which passed 237-161 on February 7, allocates $4.7 billion for disaster recovery: $3.26 billion would go toward community development block grants to help long-term reconstruction; $1.25 billion to restore infrastructure; $100 million to restart school operations; $40 million to disaster nutrition assistance; and about $20 million to assist with energy needs. The bill also contains tax breaks to help the island that is struggling with more than $70 billion in debt.
These are all hefty financial promises, considering that only about $1.5 billion of the $20 billion in aid for Hurricane Maria had been released by the end of 2019.
“Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico need our help,” said House Appropriations Committee Chair Nita Lowey ahead of a vote on the bill. “Unless we step up to the plate right now, we further jeopardize their safety and security. With this bill, we can provide families and communities swift relief and put Puerto Rico on the path to long-term recovery.”
Despite the bill’s passage in the House, it’s unlikely the Senate will take it up, several senators told Vox.
Many cite concerns about Puerto Rico that mirror those held by the White House, namely, that Puerto Rico has a history of corruption and mismanagement. And while the fairness of that characterization is easily debatable, it is true that some of the island’s officials have been accused of mismanaging resources: Several cabinet members, for example, were fired by the governor after a warehouse full of supplies for Hurricane Maria was found untouched in January.
“Puerto Rico has a long history of inadequate financial controls over regular government operations, which forced the Congress to appoint a financial control board in 2016,” a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said in early February. “Multiple high-profile cases of corruption have marred distribution of aid already appropriated and have led to ongoing political instability on the island.”
This stance led the White House to say President Donald Trump would veto the House bill if it were to pass in the Senate.
Despite this, there are some senators who have signaled a willingness to pass aid legislation. Most recently, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced he’d spearhead a new, bipartisan aid bill — although it remains unclear what it will look like or how it will be different from the House version.
#PuertoRico needs more help after the recent earthquakes added to its already existing challenges.
From my role on the Senate Appropriations Committee we will work on an aid plan that can pass in both the Senate & the House & be signed by the President. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 10, 2020
“I hope the Senate will do its own disaster relief for Puerto Rico,” Rubio wrote in a statement to Vox. “I’ve already talked with Chairman Shelby, who is the chairman of the spending committee. He agrees we want to do something here. We’re going to be working on coming up with a spending plan for Puerto Rico aid that can pass the House, pass the Senate, and the President will sign.”
The question, however, is whether there is any bill the president would sign.
Earthquake victims’ quality of life is harmed by the aid delay
Another White House criticism of the House legislation is that it was passed too quickly. The reality, however, is that the people affected by the earthquakes have already been waiting too long for adequate aid, Helga Maldonado, regional director of Escape — a nonprofit organization that works to prevent child and domestic abuse in Puerto Rico — told Vox.
Maldonado and Escape have been working on the ground to provide food, sanitary supplies, and psychological support to earthquake areas. Increasingly, the burden of recovery has fallen on the shoulders of citizens like Maldonado as Puerto Ricans wait for more substantial federal aid than they have received so far.
Here in the city of Guánica, the epicenter of the earthquakes, at least 350 people have been living in tents provided by the government for the past month. Inside the white tents that flap in the wind, people sleep on cots and store their few belongings in plastic boxes. A single medical tent is stationed at the entrance of the shelter, with a handful of quarantine tents lined up next to it. Religious groups and nonprofits regularly set up tents on the edge of the encampment, providing over-the-counter medicine, sanitary products, water, and other necessities.
FEMA has provided some aid to those affected by the earthquakes: As of January 16, the agency granted 7,573 applications and approved about $17 million for individual and household assistance programs. In a statement to Vox, FEMA also noted that each individual received an average amount of about $2,290.
Maldonado, however, tells a different story. So far, she said she’s seen most FEMA grant recipients receive between $500 to $600 — nowhere near enough money to rebuild a house. Those who feel they should have received more can file an appeal, but to do so, they have to pay a structural engineer out-of-pocket to check the state of their homes — a service that could cost up to $1,500.
And while Congress delays on providing additional aid to Puerto Rico, the people in these shelters simply spend their time waiting, including 49-year-old fisher Marcos A. Villa Lassala.
He’s said he’s trying to be patient, but he never anticipated living in a tent for this long. He wears a wristband that indicates his house has experienced some damage (green means little to no damage, yellow means mild damage, and red means unlivable conditions), and says the walls in his house are cracked and the balcony fell. Engineers sent by the government told him that his house was safe to live in, but given the structural damage the building suffered, he strongly doubts the evaluation.
“I thought I was going to receive help a lot quicker,” he said. “And even when I do receive any sort of financial help, I have to be slow to rebuild because I have to make sure that all the quakes are over and done with because there’s no point in building a home if it’s just going to come right back down.”
Though he finished filing paperwork right after the first waves of earthquakes, he’s yet to receive money from FEMA — and anticipates that a $500 check won’t be nearly enough to begin repairs. Although he understands bureaucracy is delaying the government’s response, he said he wished the aid process “was based on the people and what the people need.”
When the government fails, it’s the community that has to step up
The people of Puerto Rico are no strangers to the government’s delay in helping post-natural disasters. Following Hurricane Maria, some communities were left without electricity for almost a year because a long-neglected power grid took a particularly hard blow.
And the island has only recently received more than a small fraction of the $20 billion approved by Congress for long-term Maria recovery. (The Department of Housing and Urban Development finally lifted an $8 billion hold on disaster aid last month.)
That delay has meant delays in rebuilding. For instance, more than 850,000 households experienced damage to their home structure due to Maria — and about 30,000 families still live under makeshift blue tarp roofs two years after the hurricane.
The delays in Hurricane Maria aid meant community organizers knew that they had to prepare for future disasters, Maldonado said. Escape was ready when the earthquakes hit: following Hurricane Maria, the organization steadily began to collect canned goods in a warehouse, preparing a makeshift food pantry.
Preparations like these meant that when the earthquakes came, those in need could immediately receive the sort of aid seen in the viral videos of ordinary Puerto Ricans driving to the southern part of the island to deliver supplies such as food and water.
This day was dominated by Samaritans who gathered supplies, left their homes and headed into the earthquake affected zones to hand out what they could. We saw them everywhere along the southwestern coast. pic.twitter.com/6MGYumlMjb — David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) January 12, 2020
But while the people may have learned from the tragedies of 2017, Maldonado said the government has failed to learn from its mistakes.
“It’s frustrating because the response didn’t change,” she said. “You think that it’s the logical [response] to start preparing themselves for something else seeing that they weren’t able to respond to Maria, but it’s really sad to see that the government has been benefiting from this state of emergency. They’re filling up their pockets and in a way dancing on the pain of other people.”
The unity among Puerto Ricans is inspiring — but equally frustrating — because this responsibility shouldn’t lie on the shoulders of ordinary citizens, according to Patricia Matos López, a community organizer with the group Bici-Caño.
“The government always tells the people ‘We are going to help you, give you the funds,’ but it never comes,” she said. “You need to move, contact organizations and get the help to the people. Be real — not for the money, not for the votes. Be real and give us the help we need.”
Internal reports from FEMA reveal that the agency acknowledges it failed the people of Puerto Rico, especially after Hurricane Maria. According to one report, FEMA emergency-supply warehouses around the island were nearly empty prior to the hurricane, and the agency had not held a disaster planning assessment since 2012.
This time around, FEMA has said it has learned from the mistakes of the past and “remains committed to supporting the government of Puerto Rico with its ongoing recovery efforts from Hurricanes Irma and Maria and to helping people before, during and after disasters.”
Activists, however, say that more needs to be done — especially because an unfair mental burden falls upon organizers, who are often also victims of the natural disasters, when the agency fails.
Maldonado said she’s personally had to deal with the layers of trauma caused by both being victim and a caretaker of others. Although her house survived the earthquake, she said she was disheartened to see the destroyed buildings in her town of Yauco. She told Vox she hasn’t been able to personally visit the tent shelters in Yauco yet because she’s not mentally or physically ready, but she’s taking “baby steps” to prepare herself.
Maldonado, however, said she and other community organizers will continue their work because the government has given her no other choice, adding that Hurricane Maria and the recent earthquakes have made it clear that people in the community can only count on each other.


vox--2020-02-24--The South Carolina primary is a critical springboard for Super Tuesday

Bernie Sanders is coming in hot to the South Carolina primary — the last early contest before Super Tuesday — where a win could make or break former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ If Joe Biden wins by a small margin , then I think his campaign is on life support , ” says Anton Gunn , Barack Obama ’ s 2008 South Carolina political director .
“ If he comes in second or worse , I think he ’ s done.
” South Carolina , unlike Iowa and New Hampshire , has an incredibly diverse Democratic electorate : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic voters are African American , compared to less than 5 percent in the first two states .
That could mean good news for Biden , who enjoys strong support among older African Americans , but the pressure is on .
After his fourth and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire , and a distant second placement in Nevada , a whole lot is riding on how he does in the South .
And Biden isn ’ t the only one facing the squeeze .
The outcome in South Carolina is widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states — and a critical springboard for Super Tuesday : Barring one recent exception in 2004 , when Sen. John Edwards won the primary , multiple Southern states tend to go the same way as South Carolina .
The state ’ s voters will cast their ballots one week after the Nevada caucuses on Saturday , February 29 , with polls opening at 7 am ET and closing at 7 pm ET .
South Carolina does not have early voting , but people can vote ahead of time via mail-in absentee ballots or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they vote , however , they won ’ t be able to write-in any candidates .
As the first major test of African American support , South Carolina could seriously help cull the field .
“ For [ any candidate ] , that almost is the death knell for their campaigns if they don ’ t do well in South Carolina , ” Johnnie Cordero , the head of the state ’ s Democratic Black Caucus , told Vox .
The state ’ s results , after all , are set to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inroads among Biden ’ s black supporters , and could use South Carolina to further prove his strength .
Moderate candidates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have to show that they can rally support from nonwhite voters , and Tom Steyer needs to demonstrate that his massive investments in the state can translate to real votes .
From a practical standpoint , South Carolina — like New Hampshire — won ’ t be dealing with the same technical complications the caucuses have faced .
Since 1980 , the state has employed a primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard secret ballot enabling voters to pick their top choice .
The state is also among a handful that have an open primary system , which means that Republicans or independent voters can participate in the Democratic contest .
Since it was added as an early state in 2008 , South Carolina has a history of sending a decisive signal in the Democratic primary — one that is desperately needed this year .
Who could win in 2020 — and who needs to Joe Biden is betting big on South Carolina , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical for his stalling candidacy .
His chances don ’ t look as good as they used to : While Biden once held a double-digit polling lead in the state — buoyed by deep ties with South Carolina lawmakers and his work with former President Obama — his polling margins have declined significantly .
“ People aren ’ t going to vote for someone who can ’ t win , ” Dahli Myers , Richland County vice director and a Biden-turned-Sanders supporter , told Vox .
“ If you ’ re the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to get elected somewhere.
” It ’ s likely Biden could still eke out a win , though it ’ s not expected to mirror the landslides once secured by Obama or Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016 .
As his campaign notes , though , a single-digit margin of victory would still be larger than some of the margins winning candidates have seen in prior states .
“ I don ’ t think anybody realizes the depth of the affection of the state [ for Biden ] , ” emphasizes Marguerite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina gubernatorial candidate .
State experts note that a close outcome would be disappointing , largely because the campaign had set such high expectations .
Others who ’ ve been circling Biden ’ s lead are Sanders , whose base of voters has remained steady in the state , and Steyer , who ’ s invested more than $ 18 million in advertising .
Steyer has gotten a massive spike in support from African American voters in the latest polls , gains that state experts say are the result of investments he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hiring minority vendors , and plenty of outreach .
“ If you ’ re black , you probably get two to three mailers from Steyer a week , ” says Democratic strategist Clay Middleton , a former adviser for Sen. Cory Booker ’ s campaign .
“ I even saw his commercial on the weather channel.
” Due to his lack of broader profile , though , it ’ s unclear how much of the enthusiasm Steyer has generated will materialize at the polls — and whether a strong performance in South Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races down the line .
Sanders ’ s steady strength , meanwhile , marks a major difference from his showing in 2016 , when he lost to Clinton by nearly 50 points .
When it comes to the remaining frontrunners , Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar , as well as former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , have been lagging the state ’ s top three candidates , though all have seen strong performances in recent debates and primaries .
The state will indicate if Klobuchar and Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support among African American voters , have made any real progress on this front .
The significance of the South Carolina primary South Carolina has always been significant , both because it ’ s the first state where African American voters are a major part of the electorate and because of its ability to foreshadow how candidates will do in a number of Southern states down the line .
This year , its primary is taking place just three days before Super Tuesday , when more than 1,300 delegates will be allocated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Alabama , Louisiana , Georgia , and Mississippi — have voted for the same Democratic nominee as South Carolina , giving this candidate a windfall of delegates .
Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright attributes this trend to the fact that many of these states have similar demographics as South Carolina ’ s electorate , which in addition to being majority African American is also majority women .
“ Right after South Carolina , a lot of Southern states with similar demographics hold contests , ” says Gibbs Knotts , a College of Charleston @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the South , a book dedicated to examining the role of the state ’ s primary .
This cycle , in particular , given the size of the Democratic field , the state is poised to help with the winnowing process and clearly indicate who will perform well in diverse states .
“ If you can not pick up black support in South Carolina , how the hell are you going to get it three days later elsewhere ?
” says Middleton .
Many experts in the state emphasized that the quirks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of South Carolina but also demonstrate why candidates shouldn ’ t ignore the state .
“ I hope this election serves as a wake-up call for candidates whose strategies center on Iowa and New Hampshire , ” state Rep. Kambrell Garvin , a Warren supporter , tells Vox .
Several South Carolinians also emphasized that voters were determined to put their own imprint on the election , dismissing the idea that the whiter early states set the tone for the race .
According to Knotts ’ s research , the results in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a quantifiable effect on the South Carolina primary , though this year is set to be more scrambled because of how competitive the pool is .
“ We will be doing something different than what you ’ ve seen in Iowa and New Hampshire , ” state Sen. Marlon Kimpson tells Vox .
“ We have more African Americans in Sumter , South Carolina , than the entire state citizenry of New Hampshire.
” How to win in South Carolina Winning in South Carolina is all about hiring local — and putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this is hand to hand , person to person .
People want to see you .
They expect you to drop by and have a cup of coffee and iced tea , and talk on the front porch , ” says Willis , who ran for governor in 2018 .
To build a strong ground game , campaigns need to have a team that has strong ties to the region .
“ The first thing that works is to have a campaign staff that is from South Carolina , not flown in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are born and raised in South Carolina , or have a long history in the state as a campaign operative , ” says Gunn .
“ The first question from a South Carolina voter is , ‘ Where ’ d you grow up ?
’ ” Gunn also calls on candidates to hire staffers that reflect the diversity of the state , urging them to employ a team that ’ s predominantly women and at least 75 percent African American .
Hiring local vendors for campaign needs whether that ’ s graphic design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And establishing a field presence across the state ’ s seven congressional districts that connects with voters both at home and in local gathering spots like churches and community centers is integral .
“ The campaigns who win are the ones who are literally knocking on doors — going to people ’ s cookouts where they are , ” says Gunn .
Because the state is both accessible and influential , organizing in South Carolina can have an effect beyond its borders .
Although there ’ s a wide mix of rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to traverse the state ’ s 46 counties rather quickly .
“ From the low country to the upstate is a four-and-a-half-hour drive , ” says Middleton .
“ You could cover the entire state in two days and hit urban and rural areas alike .
You cover three other state media markets : Charlotte , Savannah , Augusta.
” The Democratic electorate in South Carolina is by far the biggest of any of the four early states — with nearly 370,000 voters participating in the 2016 primary .
It also tends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the other early states .
“ South Carolina Democrats are more religious ; they are a little more moderate than national Democrats , ” says Knotts .
The race is much more fluid — and fractured — this year than in the past For the past two Democratic cycles , the winner was pretty apparent .
Obama and Clinton both won their primaries in 2008 and 2016 with double-digit margins .
In 2020 , that outcome is likely to be more muddled .
“ Normally , we have a pretty good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win .
This year , there are a lot of people who are still searching for a candidate , ” says Furman University political science professor Danielle Vinson .
According to a Winthrop University poll of the state that was released in mid-February , 43 percent of voters said they could still change their minds .
Much of this uncertainty is attributed to the crowded field and Biden ’ s sluggish start .
“ Part of it is that there ’ s so doggone many of them , ” says Vinson .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in candidates right now.
” Even as Democrats sort out their own selections , South Carolina ’ s open primary means that some Republicans may also elect to vote , particularly since their own primary this year has been canceled .
There ’ s at least one movement from Republicans to vote in favor of Sanders because some GOP voters think he ’ s the candidate most likely to hurt Biden ’ s standing in the state if he does well .
That effort is largely being pushed by grassroots activists , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been quite small in the past .
Ultimately , the results in South Carolina could provide an important clue about which candidates are in it for the long haul .

Bernie Sanders is coming in hot to the South Carolina primary — the last early contest before Super Tuesday — where a win could make or break former Vice President Joe Biden.
“If Joe Biden wins by a small margin, then I think his campaign is on life support,” says Anton Gunn, Barack Obama’s 2008 South Carolina political director. “If he comes in second or worse, I think he’s done.”
South Carolina, unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, has an incredibly diverse Democratic electorate: Sixty percent of the state’s Democratic voters are African American, compared to less than 5 percent in the first two states. That could mean good news for Biden, who enjoys strong support among older African Americans, but the pressure is on.
After his fourth and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, and a distant second placement in Nevada, a whole lot is riding on how he does in the South.
And Biden isn’t the only one facing the squeeze. The outcome in South Carolina is widely viewed as a bellwether for several subsequent states — and a critical springboard for Super Tuesday: Barring one recent exception in 2004, when Sen. John Edwards won the primary, multiple Southern states tend to go the same way as South Carolina.
The state’s voters will cast their ballots one week after the Nevada caucuses on Saturday, February 29, with polls opening at 7 am ET and closing at 7 pm ET.
South Carolina does not have early voting, but people can vote ahead of time via mail-in absentee ballots or in-person absentee voting. Candidates will be competing for the state’s 54 pledged delegates, which are allocated proportionally based on performance, and guaranteed to anyone who hits 15 percent support in the state, or in one of the seven congressional districts.
As the first major test of African American support, South Carolina could seriously help cull the field.
“For [any candidate], that almost is the death knell for their campaigns if they don’t do well in South Carolina,” Johnnie Cordero, the head of the state’s Democratic Black Caucus, told Vox.
The state’s results, after all, are set to be quite revealing. Sanders is currently making inroads among Biden’s black supporters, and could use South Carolina to further prove his strength. Moderate candidates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have to show that they can rally support from nonwhite voters, and Tom Steyer needs to demonstrate that his massive investments in the state can translate to real votes.
Related Joe Biden was the most popular candidate among black voters in the Nevada caucuses
From a practical standpoint, South Carolina — like New Hampshire — won’t be dealing with the same technical complications the caucuses have faced. Since 1980, the state has employed a primary system for presidential elections, including a standard secret ballot enabling voters to pick their top choice.
The state is also among a handful that have an open primary system, which means that Republicans or independent voters can participate in the Democratic contest.
Since it was added as an early state in 2008, South Carolina has a history of sending a decisive signal in the Democratic primary — something that’s desperately needed this year.
Who could win in 2020 — and who needs to
Joe Biden is betting big on South Carolina, but it’s unclear whether his efforts will be enough.
His chances don’t look as good as they used to: While Biden once held a double-digit polling lead in the state — buoyed by deep ties with South Carolina lawmakers and his work with former President Obama — his polling margins have declined significantly.
“People aren’t going to vote for someone who can’t win,” Dalhi Myers, Richland County vice director and a Biden-turned-Sanders supporter, told Vox. “If you’re the most electable, you’re going to have to get elected somewhere.”
It’s likely Biden could still eke out a win, though it’s not expected to mirror the landslides once secured by Obama or Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016. As his campaign notes, though, a single-digit margin of victory would still be larger than some of the margins winning candidates have seen in prior states.
“I don’t think anybody realizes the depth of the affection of the state [for Biden],” emphasizes Marguerite Willis, a Biden supporter and former South Carolina gubernatorial candidate.
State experts note that a close outcome would be disappointing, largely because the campaign had set such high expectations. Others who’ve been circling Biden’s lead are Sanders, whose base of voters has remained steady in the state, and Steyer, who’s invested more than $18 million in advertising.
Steyer has gotten a massive spike in support from African American voters in the latest polls, gains that state experts say are the result of investments he’s made in local staffers, hiring minority vendors, and plenty of outreach.
“If you’re black, you probably get two to three mailers from Steyer a week,” says Democratic strategist Clay Middleton, a former adviser for Sen. Cory Booker’s campaign. “I even saw his commercial on the weather channel.”
Due to his lack of broader profile, though, it’s unclear how much of the enthusiasm Steyer has generated will materialize at the polls — and whether a strong performance in South Carolina will be able to help him in races down the line. Sanders’s steady strength, meanwhile, marks a major difference from his showing in 2016, when he lost to Clinton by nearly 50 points.
When it comes to the remaining frontrunners, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, as well as former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, have been lagging the state’s top three candidates, though all have seen strong performances in recent debates and primaries.
The state will indicate if Klobuchar and Buttigieg, who’ve struggled to build support among African American voters, have made any real progress on this front.
The significance of the South Carolina primary
South Carolina has always been significant, both because it’s the first state where African American voters are a major part of the electorate and because of its ability to foreshadow how candidates will do in a number of Southern states down the line. This year, its primary is taking place just three days before Super Tuesday, when more than 1,300 delegates will be allocated.
Historically, at least four Southern states — Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, and Mississippi — have voted for the same Democratic nominee as South Carolina, giving this candidate a windfall of delegates. Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright attributes this trend to the fact that many of these states have similar demographics as South Carolina’s electorate, which in addition to being majority African American is also majority women.
“Right after South Carolina, a lot of Southern states with similar demographics hold contests,” says Gibbs Knotts, a College of Charleston political science professor and author of First in the South, a book dedicated to examining the role of the state’s primary.
This cycle, in particular, given the size of the Democratic field, the state is poised to help with the winnowing process and clearly indicate who will perform well in diverse states.
“If you cannot pick up black support in South Carolina, how the hell are you going to get it three days later elsewhere?” says Middleton.
Many experts in the state emphasized that the quirks of this cycle not only underscore the importance of South Carolina but also demonstrate why candidates shouldn’t ignore the state.
“I hope this election serves as a wake-up call for candidates whose strategies center on Iowa and New Hampshire,” state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, a Warren supporter, tells Vox.
Several South Carolinians also emphasized that voters were determined to put their own imprint on the election, dismissing the idea that the whiter early states set the tone for the race. According to Knotts’s research, the results in New Hampshire, in particular, have had a quantifiable effect on the South Carolina primary, though this year is set to be more scrambled because of how competitive the pool is.
“We will be doing something different than what you’ve seen in Iowa and New Hampshire,” state Sen. Marlon Kimpson tells Vox. “We have more African Americans in Sumter, South Carolina, than the entire state citizenry of New Hampshire.”
How to win in South Carolina
Winning in South Carolina is all about hiring local — and putting in the time.
“So much of this is hand to hand, person to person. People want to see you. They expect you to drop by and have a cup of coffee and iced tea, and talk on the front porch,” says Willis, who ran for governor in 2018.
To build a strong ground game, campaigns need to have a team that has strong ties to the region. “The first thing that works is to have a campaign staff that is from South Carolina, not flown in, not parachuted in — people who are born and raised in South Carolina, or have a long history in the state as a campaign operative,” says Gunn. “The first question from a South Carolina voter is, ‘Where’d you grow up?’”
Gunn also calls on candidates to hire staffers that reflect the diversity of the state, urging them to employ a team that’s predominantly women and at least 75 percent African American.
Hiring local vendors for campaign needs whether that’s graphic design or tech assistance is important, too. And establishing a field presence across the state’s seven congressional districts that connects with voters both at home and in local gathering spots like churches and community centers is integral. “The campaigns who win are the ones who are literally knocking on doors — going to people’s cookouts where they are,” says Gunn.
Because the state is both accessible and influential, organizing in South Carolina can have an effect beyond its borders. Although there’s a wide mix of rural areas and urban centers, candidates are able to traverse the state’s 46 counties rather quickly.
“From the low country to the upstate is a four-and-a-half-hour drive,” says Middleton. “You could cover the entire state in two days and hit urban and rural areas alike. You cover three other state media markets: Charlotte, Savannah, Augusta.”
The Democratic electorate in South Carolina is by far the biggest of any of the four early states — with nearly 370,000 voters participating in the 2016 primary. It also tends to skew older and more moderate than some of the other early states. “South Carolina Democrats are more religious; they are a little more moderate than national Democrats,” says Knotts.
The race is much more fluid — and fractured — this year than in the past
For the past two Democratic cycles, the winner was pretty apparent. Obama and Clinton both won their primaries in 2008 and 2016 with double-digit margins. In 2020, that outcome is likely to be more muddled.
“Normally, we have a pretty good sense of who’s going to win. This year, there are a lot of people who are still searching for a candidate,” says Furman University political science professor Danielle Vinson. According to a Winthrop University poll of the state that was released in mid-February, 43 percent of voters said they could still change their minds.
Much of this uncertainty is attributed to the crowded field and Biden’s sluggish start. “Part of it is that there’s so doggone many of them,” says Vinson. “We’re just kind of drowning in candidates right now.”
Even as Democrats sort out their own selections, South Carolina’s open primary means that some Republicans may also elect to vote, particularly since their own primary this year has been canceled.
There’s at least one movement from Republicans to vote in favor of Sanders because some GOP voters think he’s the candidate most likely to hurt Biden’s standing in the state if he does well. That effort is largely being pushed by grassroots activists, and the effect of such crossover voting has been quite small in the past.
Ultimately, the results in South Carolina could provide an important clue about which candidates are in it for the long haul.


vox--2020-02-24--The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.

The police want your phone data .
Here ’ s what they can get — and what they can ’ t .
Share All sharing options for : The police want your phone data .
Here ’ s what they can get — and what they can ’ t .
Our lives are in our phones , making them a likely source of evidence if police suspect you ’ ve committed a crime .
But as we ’ ve seen in recent cases of suspected terrorists with passcode-protected iPhones that Apple refused to help the FBI unlock , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a warrant and breaking down a metaphorical door .
When the key to unlock your phone is in your own mind or on the tip of your finger , it becomes a legal question that judges have to rely on decades-old , pre-modern-technology precedent to answer .
And in many places , this question hasn ’ t yet been answered .
Here are some of the main ways the government can get information off of your phone , including why they ’ re allowed and how they ’ d do it .
Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your phone .
What can it get ?
Short answer : Whatever it wants ( with the right court order ) .
Long answer : Depending on what law enforcement is looking for , it may not need physical possession of your device at all .
A lot of information on your phone is also stored elsewhere .
For example , if you back up your iPhone to Apple ’ s iCloud , the government can get it from Apple .
If it needs to see whose DMs you slid into , law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they go through the proper and established legal channels to get it , cops can get their hands on pretty much anything you ’ ve stored outside of your device .
You do have some rights here .
The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure , and a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ( ECPA ) dictates what law enforcement must obtain in order to get the information .
It might be a subpoena , court order , or warrant , depending on what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually does a good job of explaining this in its FAQ . )
A section of the ECPA , known as the Stored Communications Act , says that service providers must have those orders before they can give the requested information to law enforcement .
But , assuming the government has the right paperwork , your information is very obtainable .
“ Basically , anything that a provider has that it can decode , law enforcement is getting it , ” Jennifer Granick , surveillance and cybersecurity counsel for the ACLU ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told Recode .
Note that this only covers service providers .
If law enforcement wants to get WhatsApp messages you exchanged with a friend from your friend ’ s phone , it doesn ’ t need a warrant as long as your friend is willing to hand the information over .
“ You don ’ t have a Fourth Amendment interest in messages that have been received by someone else , ” Andrew Crocker , a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation , told Recode .
If your friend refuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want , they can still get it — they just have to get a warrant first .
Law enforcement wants access to personal data on your phone .
Can they do that ?
Short answer : If your phone is protected by a passcode or biometric unlocking features , there ’ s a chance cops can ’ t gain access to your personal data .
But that ’ s not guaranteed .
Long answer : In addition to data hosted by a third party , there ’ s a lot of information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your phone .
For example , the data in iCloud backups is only as recent as the last time you uploaded it and it only includes what you choose to give it — assuming you back your phone up at all .
Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp don ’ t store messages on their servers or keep track of who is sending them to whom , so the only way for police to access them is through either the sender or receiver ’ s devices .
And as we ’ ve explained above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the person you ’ re communicating with , but it can do so only if they know who it is in the first place .
So how exactly would someone other than you — cops , for instance — get access to that data ?
If your phone doesn ’ t have a password or law enforcement is able to access it using specialized passcode cracking tools like Cellebrite or GrayKey — and they have the necessary search warrant to do so — then it ’ s all theirs .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and law enforcement can ’ t hack into it , the Fifth Amendment may be your friend .
Essentially , the Fifth Amendment says you can ’ t be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony .
( This amendment is perhaps known best to you as that dramatic moment on Law & Order when the person on the stand says , “ I plead the Fifth.
” ) Testimony , in this case , is defined as revealing the contents of your own mind .
Therefore , civil rights advocates say , the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them your phone ’ s password .
Most courts seem to agree with this , but that ’ s not always enough .
There is what is known as the foregone conclusion exception .
That is , a defendant ’ s testimony is not self-incriminating if it reveals something the government already knew , and the government can prove that prior knowledge .
In this case , the defendant ’ s testimony is a foregone conclusion — a predictable outcome .
So , for phone passwords , the government can and does argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone belongs to the defendant .
If the government has enough proof to establish the phone ’ s ownership , that ’ s a foregone conclusion that the defendant would also know its password .
Some courts have interpreted this to require the government also to show it has knowledge of the specific pieces of evidence that it expects to find on the device .
This exception comes from a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling .
In Fisher v. United States , someone being investigated for tax fraud gave documents prepared by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IRS wanted those documents ; the defendant said that producing them would be self-incriminating and therefore was protected by the Fifth Amendment .
The Supreme Court sided with the IRS , ruling that since the existence and location of the tax documents was a “ foregone conclusion , ” the act of producing them didn ’ t tell the government anything it didn ’ t already know .
Obviously , a 44-year-old decision over tax papers doesn ’ t take into account how information can be stored today , nor how much .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the foregone conclusion exception is very narrow and should never apply in these passcode cases , ” Crocker said .
But without further guidance from the Supreme Court , it ’ s largely been left up to interpretation by lower courts , with state courts considering their state constitution ’ s provisions as well as the federal .
The result , Crocker says , is “ a total patchwork of [ decisions from ] state Supreme Courts and federal courts.
” For example , in 2019 , Massachusetts ’ highest court forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s passcode while Pennsylvania ’ s highest court ruled that a defendant could not be compelled to unlock his computer .
Indiana ’ s and New Jersey ’ s highest courts are both considering compelled passcode disclosure cases .
On the federal side , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant could be compelled to unlock multiple password-protected devices , even though the defendant claimed he couldn ’ t remember his passwords .
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals , on the other hand , ruled the other way in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very much in flux , ” Crocker said .
“ Eventually , the US Supreme Court could get involved and resolve this.
” There are other ways to protect your phone .
Some phones can use fingerprints , facial recognition , and iris scanners to unlock instead of passwords .
Law enforcement is allowed to use people ’ s bodies as evidence against them , for instance by compelling them to participate in suspect lineups or provide their DNA .
So , if the police can take your fingerprints , can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone ?
Again , courts are all over the map on this .
“ The issue with biometrics is , is it testimonial ?
” Granick said .
“ The courts have not entirely decided that , but there have been a couple courts recently that said biometrics is basically the modern technological equivalent of your passcode.
” Crocker says courts should consider that the evidence police can get from your fingerprint is much more restricted and known than what they can get when your fingerprint unlocks a phone .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been more likely to rule that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to biometrics than they are that it applies to passcodes .
Yet another factor to consider here is that , while it ’ s impossible for police to read your mind and get your passcode , they can hold a phone up to your face or press your finger on it to bypass the biometric lock .
And while your lawyer can ( and should ) argue that any evidence found this way was illegally obtained and should be suppressed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll win .
“ It ’ s fair to say that invoking one ’ s rights not to turn over evidence is stronger than trying to have the evidence suppressed after the fact , ” Crocker said .
So , all things considered , if you ’ re worried about law enforcement getting access to your phone , your safest bet is to just use a passcode .
Sadly , I have died .
Law enforcement wants to unlock my phone but they can ’ t get my password due to my aforementioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer : Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights generally end when you do .
But other parties have rights , too , and those might be enough to keep the government out of your phone .
Long answer : That brings us to Apple ’ s fight with the Feds .
This isn ’ t about your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights anymore ; for the most part , you lost those when you died .
( That said , law enforcement might have to get the right paperwork if they were looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone — after all , their Fourth Amendment rights are still intact ) .
If law enforcement can ’ t get into your device on its own , it may well be the phone ’ s manufacturer ’ s rights that come into question .
Attorney General Bill Barr claimed last month that the only way the FBI could access a dead suspected terrorist ’ s phones is if Apple unlocked those phones .
The government has made this argument before .
In 2016 , the United States tried to use the All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1789 , to force Apple to create a “ back door ” that would give the FBI access to the San Bernardino shooter ’ s locked phone .
Apple refused , saying the government could not force it to create “ a crippled and insecure product ” that it would not have built otherwise .
But there was no resolution here , as the FBI was able to access the phone through other means and dropped its case before a court could rule on it .
We might get more clarity on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through on his threats and tries to compel Apple to unlock the two phones owned by the gunman in the December 2019 shooting at a Pensacola , Florida , naval air station .
You may have noticed by now that , while many of the cases concerning phones and passcodes are recent — some are even still making their way through the legal system — the cases cited to make legal arguments are decades or even centuries old .
The wheels of justice turn slowly , and judges are often forced to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to inform their rulings about access to devices that hold tremendous amounts of personal information : who we talk to , when , and about what ; where we were yesterday , last month , or three years ago ; what we spent money on or got money for ; our calendars , photos , emails , and contacts .
These devices hold tens or even hundreds of gigabytes of data on almost everything about us .
You may not be able to control what law enforcement can get from someone else or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re dead .
But , with so much uncertainty surrounding what the government can force you to do with it when you ’ re alive , it ’ s a good idea to check out your legal options before handing over that passcode .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.
Share All sharing options for: The police want your phone data. Here’s what they can get — and what they can’t.
Our lives are on our phones, making them a likely source of evidence if police suspect you’ve committed a crime. And there are myriad ways law enforcement can obtain that data, both externally and from the phone itself.
Companies that specialize in cracking phone passcodes and exploiting vulnerabilities are getting better and better at undermining them. And although Apple has tried especially hard to make its phones impossible to break into, more and more law enforcement agencies are using those tools to gain access to devices, even when someone is accused of relatively petty crimes.
While there are a few good primers online that cover the steps you can take to minimize your phone’s exposure to law enforcement surveillance, there’s no way to completely guarantee your privacy.
When it comes to data that can only be obtained from access to your phone, what law enforcement can actually get varies depending on how you lock it down, where you live, and the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency that is investigating you (local police versus the FBI, for instance). Here are some of the main ways the government can get information from your phone, including why it’s allowed to and how it would do so.
Law enforcement wants access to third-party data on my phone. What can it get?
Short answer: Whatever it wants (with the right court order).
Long answer: Depending on what law enforcement is looking for, it may not need physical possession of your device at all. A lot of information on your phone is also stored elsewhere. For example, if you back up your iPhone to Apple’s iCloud, the government can get it from Apple. If it needs to see whose DMs you slid into, law enforcement can contact Twitter. As long as they go through the proper and established legal channels to get it, police can get their hands on pretty much anything you’ve stored outside of your device.
You do have some rights here. The Fourth Amendment protects you from illegal search and seizure, and a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) dictates what law enforcement must obtain in order to get the information. It might be a subpoena, court order, or warrant, depending on what it’s looking for. (WhatsApp actually does a good job of explaining this in its FAQ.) A section of the ECPA, known as the Stored Communications Act, says that service providers must have those orders before they can give the requested information to law enforcement.
But, assuming the government has the right paperwork, your information is very obtainable.
“Basically, anything that a provider has that it can decode, law enforcement is getting it,” Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel for the ACLU’s speech, privacy, and technology project, told Recode.
Note that this only covers service providers. If law enforcement wants to get WhatsApp messages you exchanged with a friend from your friend’s phone, it doesn’t need a warrant as long as your friend is willing to hand over the information.
“You don’t have a Fourth Amendment interest in messages that have been received by someone else,” Andrew Crocker, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode.
If your friend refuses to willingly hand over what the police want, they can still get it — they just have to get a warrant first.
Law enforcement wants access to personal data on my phone. Can they do that?
Short answer: If your phone is protected by a passcode or biometric unlocking features, there’s a chance police can’t gain access to your personal data. But that’s not guaranteed.
Long answer: In addition to data hosted by a third party, there’s a lot of information that can only be gained from access to your phone. For example, the data in iCloud backups is only as recent as the last time you uploaded it, and it only includes what you choose to give it — assuming you back up your phone at all. Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp don’t store messages on their servers or keep track of who is sending them to whom, so the only way for police to access them is through the sender’s or the receiver’s device. And as we’ve explained above, the government can get WhatsApp messages from the person you’re communicating with, but only if it knows who it is in the first place.
So how exactly would someone other than you — police, for instance — get access to that data? If your phone doesn’t have a password or law enforcement is able to access it using specialized passcode cracking tools like Cellebrite or GrayKey — and they have the necessary search warrant to do so — then it’s all theirs. A recent report from the technology and justice advocacy group Upturn showed that law enforcement use of these phone-cracking tools is more prevalent than previously known, and there is little oversight governing how and when those tools may be used, or what information they’re limited to accessing. But if your phone is locked with a passcode and law enforcement can’t hack into it, the Fifth Amendment may be your friend.
Essentially, the Fifth Amendment says you can’t be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. (This amendment is perhaps known best to you as that dramatic moment on Law & Order when the person on the stand says, “I plead the Fifth.”) Testimony, in this case, is defined as revealing the contents of your own mind. Therefore, civil rights advocates say, the government can’t force you to tell them your phone’s password.
Most courts seem to agree with this, but that’s not always enough. There is what is known as the foregone conclusion exception. That is, a defendant’s testimony is not self-incriminating if it reveals something the government already knew, and the government can prove that prior knowledge. In this case, the defendant’s testimony is a foregone conclusion — a predictable outcome.
So, for phone passwords, the government can and does argue that revealing the password only shows that the phone belongs to the defendant. If the government has enough proof to establish the phone’s ownership, that’s a foregone conclusion that the defendant would also know its password. Some courts have interpreted this to require the government also to show it has knowledge of the specific pieces of evidence it expects to find on the device.
This exception comes from a 1976 US Supreme Court ruling. In Fisher v. United States, someone being investigated for tax fraud gave documents prepared by his accountant to his lawyer. The IRS wanted those documents; the defendant said that producing them would be self-incriminating and therefore was protected by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court sided with the IRS, ruling that since the existence and location of the tax documents was a “foregone conclusion,” the act of producing them didn’t tell the government anything it didn’t already know.
Obviously, a 44-year-old decision over tax papers doesn’t take into account how information can be stored today, nor how much.
“The EFF’s position is that the foregone conclusion exception is very narrow and should never apply in these passcode cases,” Crocker said.
But without further guidance from the Supreme Court, it’s largely been left up to interpretation by lower courts, with state courts considering their state constitution’s provisions as well as the federal. The result, Crocker says, is “a total patchwork of [decisions from] state Supreme Courts and federal courts.”
For example, in 2019, Massachusetts’s highest court forced a defendant to reveal his phone’s passcode while Pennsylvania’s highest court ruled that a defendant could not be compelled to unlock his computer. Indiana’s and New Jersey’s highest courts are both considering compelled passcode disclosure cases. On the federal side, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a defendant could be compelled to unlock multiple password-protected devices, even though the defendant claimed he couldn’t remember his passwords. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled the other way in a different case.
“It’s very much in flux,” Crocker said. “Eventually, the US Supreme Court could get involved and resolve this.”
There are other ways to protect your phone. Some phones can use fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scanners to unlock instead of passwords. Law enforcement is allowed to use people’s bodies as evidence against them, for instance by compelling them to participate in suspect lineups or provide their DNA. So if the police can take your fingerprints, can’t they use them to unlock your phone? Again, courts are all over the map on this.
“The issue with biometrics is, is it testimonial?” Granick said. “The courts have not entirely decided that, but there have been a couple courts recently that said biometrics is basically the modern technological equivalent of your passcode.”
Crocker says courts should consider that the evidence police can get from your fingerprint is much more restricted and known than what they can get when your fingerprint unlocks a phone. So far, though, he says, courts have been more likely to rule that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to biometrics than they are that it applies to passcodes.
Yet another factor to consider here is that, while it’s impossible for police to read your mind and get your passcode, they can hold a phone up to your face or press your finger on it to bypass the biometric lock. And while your lawyer can (and should) argue that any evidence found this way was illegally obtained and should be suppressed, there’s no guarantee they’ll win.
“It’s fair to say that invoking one’s rights not to turn over evidence is stronger than trying to have the evidence suppressed after the fact,” Crocker said.
So, all things considered, if you’re worried about law enforcement getting access to your phone, your safest bet is to just use a passcode.
Sadly, I have died. Law enforcement wants to unlock my phone, but they can’t get my password due to my aforementioned death. What happens now?
Short answer: Your Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights generally end when you do. But other parties have rights, too, and those might be enough to keep the government out of your phone.
Long answer: This isn’t about your Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights anymore; for the most part, you lost those when you died. (That said, law enforcement might have to get the right paperwork if they were looking for evidence against someone else on your phone — after all, their Fourth Amendment rights are still intact.) If law enforcement can’t get into your device on its own, it may well be the phone’s manufacturer’s rights that come into question.
Attorney General Bill Barr has made no secret of his disdain for Apple over its refusal to grant law enforcement access to locked and encrypted devices. In May, he called for a “legislative solution” that would force tech companies to cooperate with his demands.
Barr also claimed in January that the only way the FBI could access dead suspected terrorist Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani’s iPhones is if Apple unlocked them. The agency has made this argument before. In 2016, the United States tried to use the All Writs Act, which dates back to 1789, to force Apple to create a “back door” that would give the FBI access to the San Bernardino shooter’s locked phone. Apple refused, saying the government could not force it to create “a crippled and insecure product” that it would not have built otherwise. So far, there’s been no legal resolution: In both cases, the FBI was able to access the phone through other means before a court could rule on it.
You may have noticed by now that, while many of the cases concerning phones and passcodes are recent — some are even still making their way through the legal system — the cases cited to make legal arguments are decades or even centuries old. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and judges are often forced to use decisions about access to pieces of paper to inform their rulings about access to devices that hold tremendous amounts of personal information: who we talk to, when, and about what; where we were yesterday, last month, or three years ago; what we spent money on or got money for; our calendars, photos, emails, and contacts. These devices hold tens or even hundreds of gigabytes of data on almost everything about us.
You may not be able to control what law enforcement can get from someone else or what they do with your phone once you’re dead. But, with so much uncertainty surrounding what the government can force you to do with it when you’re alive, it’s a good idea to check out your legal options before handing over that passcode.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-02-24--Silicon Valley asked Elizabeth Warren to help with a fundraiser. She said no — but only eventually.

Elizabeth Warren ’ s team in recent weeks explored ways to raise money from Silicon Valley donors without violating her ironclad fundraising pledge to not “ sell access to my time , ” Recode has learned .
The Democratic presidential candidate considered an inbound request to have a representative from her campaign — such as an endorser , a staff member , or a high-level volunteer leader — attend a high-dollar event in the Bay Area , according to several people familiar with the discussions .
Those talks coincided with a previously unreported event in San Francisco that raised about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by local physicians and activists .
The back-and-forth between Warren ’ s campaign and her supporters reveals how Warren ’ s promise to not sponsor high-dollar fundraisers is proving to need more definition , just like her pledge not to take money from executives at Big Tech companies .
The candidate last week also backtracked on her refusal to disavow any pro-Warren super PACs when she declined to call on a new group to take down ads airing on her behalf .
This all reaffirms two things : that Warren isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also that she ’ s not completely closed off to considering funding from Big Tech sources .
Warren needs money to campaign in some of the country ’ s most expensive states on Super Tuesday , especially after disappointing results in the first three primaries that have given Bernie Sanders serious momentum .
At the time of these talks , Warren was very close to going broke .
Warren ’ s wealthy backers in the Bay Area have long pushed for the candidate to relax some of her rules on fundraising to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But over the last month or so , these supporters renewed their approach , engaging the campaign to see whether it would be willing to send out Warren endorser Julián Castro , for instance , to headline a fundraiser on her behalf .
The campaign shut down that idea relatively quickly .
But other ideas , such as having a volunteer leader appear , the sources say , were debated more openly by the Warren camp .
Talks between Warren ’ s campaign and organizers were serious enough that some donors expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could align their schedules .
Official invitations never went out , but organizers had told some pro-Warren tech donors about the event .
Ultimately , though , the scheduling issues and the hoops that organizers would have to jump through in order to meet the Warren campaign ’ s exacting standards sapped enthusiasm for a high-dollar event , and so organizers eventually pulled the plug .
Without getting an enthusiastic yes from campaign headquarters , the idea is now widely considered dead , sources say .
The Warren campaign declined to comment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Silicon Valley , Warren certainly has wealthy fans in certain corners of the tech industry who want to back her bid for president .
But Warren has pilloried high-dollar fundraising events as part of a corrupt campaign finance system , and she and rival Sanders have declined to host these closed-door receptions .
That ’ s offered her a cudgel against candidates closer to tech donors and all contributors , such as Pete Buttigieg , who she says is in the pocket of billionaires .
The high-dollar event would ’ ve come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was accommodating of a lower-dollar “ gathering ” held in San Francisco in late January .
About 50 women who support Warren gathered for a fundraiser led by physicians and organized by Jennifer Brokaw , the daughter of the legendary news anchor , according to a copy of the invitation .
The event raised $ 12,000 — but it wasn ’ t easy .
Organizers originally had a $ 100-per-head entry price but suspended that and turned it into a “ suggested ” donation to comply with campaign rules , Brokaw said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ donating poses a hardship.
” They had to make sure that they didn ’ t spend too much money on food and drinks ( the event ’ s signature cocktail : “ Billionaire Tears ” ) .
And they had to hold it in a community space that was open to the public — not , for instance , in someone ’ s private home .
“ It was pretty eye-opening to see that we had really to play by the Elizabeth Warren rules to do anything .
And we did it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Recode .
Almost everyone at the San Francisco event — which was heavy not on tech titans but on doctors and activists — gave at least $ 100 , Brokaw said , beating the event ’ s goal of a $ 10,000 haul .
Warren ’ s campaign offered some support .
Surrogate and activist Tracey Corder , who has traveled and opened offices on behalf of the Warren campaign , spoke at the event , and Warren offered materials like campaign signs and sign-in sheets , Brokaw said .
Corder said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if what attendees heard made them want to back Warren , they could contribute to the campaign using iPads positioned in a nearby room or volunteer .
All told , the two events show just how open to interpretation campaign fundraising rules can be in 2020 , especially for Warren , given her stringent guidelines on donations .
Brokaw said she expects this all to be pretty “ tricky going forward.
” “ It ’ s really clear that money is ruling the day right now .
And I ’ m waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , too , ” Brokaw said .
“ Because her ability to finish out this process and get the nomination is probably going to take more money than the strategy that she ’ s pursuing so far .
But I don ’ t know how she ’ s going to stick with it .
”

Elizabeth Warren’s team in recent weeks explored ways to raise money from Silicon Valley donors without violating her ironclad fundraising pledge to not “sell access to my time,” Recode has learned.
The Democratic presidential campaign considered an inbound request to have a campaign representative — such as an endorser, a staff member, or a high-level volunteer leader — attend a now-canceled high-dollar event in the Bay Area, according to several people familiar with the discussions. Those talks coincided with a previously unreported event in San Francisco that raised about $12,000 for her campaign, hosted by local physicians and activists.
The back-and-forth between Warren’s campaign and her supporters reveals how Warren’s promise to not sponsor high-dollar fundraisers is proving to need more definition, just like her pledge not to take money from executives at Big Tech companies. The candidate last week also backtracked on her refusal to disavow any pro-Warren super PACs when she declined to call on a new group to take down ads airing on her behalf. This all reaffirms two things: that Warren isn’t willing to fundraise the traditional way, but also that she’s not completely closed off to considering funding from Big Tech sources.
Warren needs money to campaign in some of the country’s most expensive states on Super Tuesday, especially after disappointing results in the first three primaries that have given Bernie Sanders serious momentum. At the time of these talks, Warren was very close to going broke.
Warren’s wealthy backers in the Bay Area have long pushed for the candidate to relax some of her rules on fundraising to accommodate their interest in supporting her campaign. But over the last month or so, these supporters renewed their approach, engaging the campaign to see whether it would be willing to send out Warren endorser Julián Castro, for instance, to headline a fundraiser on her behalf. The campaign shut down that idea relatively quickly.
But other ideas, such as having a volunteer leader appear, the sources say, were debated more openly by the Warren camp. Talks between Warren’s campaign and organizers were serious enough that some donors expected the fundraiser to happen if both sides could align their schedules. Official invitations never went out, but organizers had told some pro-Warren tech donors about the event.
Ultimately, though, the scheduling issues and the hoops that organizers would have to jump through in order to meet the Warren campaign’s exacting standards sapped enthusiasm for a high-dollar event, and so organizers eventually pulled the plug. Without getting an enthusiastic yes from campaign headquarters, the idea is now widely considered dead, sources say.
The Warren campaign declined to comment for this story.
Despite her tough talk about Silicon Valley, Warren certainly has wealthy fans in certain corners of the tech industry who want to back her bid for president. But Warren has pilloried high-dollar fundraising events as part of a corrupt campaign finance system, and she and rival Sanders have declined to host these closed-door receptions. That’s offered her a cudgel against candidates closer to tech donors and all contributors, such as Pete Buttigieg, who she says is in the pocket of billionaires.
The high-dollar event would’ve come a few weeks after the Warren campaign was accommodating of a lower-dollar “gathering” held in San Francisco in late January. About 50 women who support Warren gathered for a fundraiser led by physicians and organized by Jennifer Brokaw, the daughter of the legendary news anchor, according to a copy of the invitation.
The event raised $12,000 — but it wasn’t easy. Organizers originally had a $100-per-head entry price but suspended that and turned it into a “suggested” donation to comply with campaign rules, Brokaw said. Supporters could email the campaign if “donating poses a hardship.” They had to make sure that they didn’t spend too much money on food and drinks (the event’s signature cocktail: “Billionaire Tears”). And they had to hold it in a community space that was open to the public — not, for instance, in someone’s private home.
“It was pretty eye-opening to see that we had really to play by the Elizabeth Warren rules to do anything. And we did it in a very grassroots way,” Brokaw told Recode.
Almost everyone at the San Francisco event — which was heavy not on tech titans but on doctors and activists — gave at least $100, Brokaw said, beating the event’s goal of a $10,000 haul.
Warren’s campaign offered some support. Surrogate and activist Tracey Corder, who has traveled and opened offices on behalf of the Warren campaign, spoke at the event, and Warren offered materials like campaign signs and sign-in sheets, Brokaw said. Corder said at the end of her onstage remarks that if what attendees heard made them want to back Warren, they could contribute to the campaign using iPads positioned in a nearby room or volunteer.
All told, the two events show just how open to interpretation campaign fundraising rules can be in 2020, especially for Warren, given her stringent guidelines on donations. Brokaw said she expects this all to be pretty “tricky going forward.”
“It’s really clear that money is ruling the day right now. And I’m waiting to see how they handle all of this, too,” Brokaw said. “Because her ability to finish out this process and get the nomination is probably going to take more money than the strategy that she’s pursuing so far. But I don’t know how she’s going to stick with it.”


vox--2020-02-24--Your free TurboTax alternative now belongs to TurboTax

Financial software giant Intuit just bought itself another online personal finance startup — and the data of that startup ’ s tens of millions of customers .
On Monday afternoon , the company announced that it was purchasing Credit Karma for $ 7.1 billion in cash and stock .
Credit Karma began as a free credit monitoring service in 2007 , but it recently expanded to offer savings accounts as well as tax preparation and filing software , making Credit Karma an up-and-coming competitor to Intuit ’ s popular TurboTax software .
The big selling point for Credit Karma is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — its services are free .
Instead of money , you give Credit Karma your financial data and endure targeted credit card and loan advertisements .
For many , this has been a good deal .
Credit Karma ’ s tax preparation software helped the company more than double its users from about 45 million at the end of 2015 to over 100 million worldwide at the beginning of 2020 .
Put differently , that amounts to many millions of people who are not paying for TurboTax .
Another selling point for Credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ( well , was ) that it isn ’ t TurboTax , which has been dogged by allegations of ethical shadiness .
Last year , a ProPublica investigation revealed TurboTax ’ s decades-long quest to stop the Internal Revenue Service from creating its own free tax software .
TurboTax instead said it would offer free filing options for lower-income taxpayers , but it also made those free options difficult to find and promoted its own “ free ” TurboTax services that ultimately forced many taxpayers to upgrade to its paid services .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed like an appealing alternative to many taxpayers who didn ’ t like the idea of getting ripped off .
Now , not only does the more appealing option for tax services belong to Intuit — now the parent company of both TurboTax and Credit Karma — but your data probably does , too .
Credit Karma ’ s 90 million-plus user base in the United States includes almost half of all American millennials .
( It seems the rumors that millennials are financial dunces who spend all of their money on avocado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also possible that they are using Credit Karma to save money so that they may buy even more avocado toast . )
Credit Karma wouldn ’ t comment on what will happen to their data , so let ’ s take a look at its privacy policy : So yes , it does indeed look like all that financial data will go to Intuit .
But if Intuit decides to change up how it handles your personal information , at least the company says it will give you a heads up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ privacy policies include passages like this because that user data is often part of ( or even all of ) what makes the company being acquired so valuable .
Let ’ s face it : Intuit is not paying $ 7 billion for Credit Karma ’ s easily replicable software or business model .
Just look at what it did to Mint , another online financial manager startup it acquired in 2009 for $ 170 million .
Like Credit Karma , Mint makes money when its users purchase products from affiliates .
Mint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a sneak peek at what ’ s to come for Credit Karma .
It ain ’ t great .
As Fast Company wrote last month , the budget tracker has remained free but it ’ s been operating in what its founder Aaron Patzer described as “ maintenance mode , ” which means the platform is adequately performing its base functions but offering little by way of updates or innovation .
The Credit Karma acquisition is also a reminder that when you give sensitive information over to one company , you aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your data safe ; you ’ re also trusting whatever company acquires it to do the same .
This also could include whatever random company buys up its assets in the event of a bankruptcy .
That dating site you ’ re on ?
That genealogy database you handed your DNA test results to ?
Your doorbell ?
All gobbled up by bigger companies along with your data .
Unless its privacy policy explicitly states that user data will not be transferred even in the case of an acquisition , merger , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that do say this can always change them ) , you should never assume that the company you ’ re giving your personal information to today is the company that owns your personal information tomorrow .
Then again , in an age where antitrust hawks are paying much closer attention to tech companies , there ’ s always a chance the acquisition won ’ t happen .
Intuit and Credit Karma said they don ’ t expect to close the deal until the second half of 2020 , and they ’ ll need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that happens .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Financial software giant Intuit just bought itself another online personal finance startup — and the data of that startup’s tens of millions of customers. On Monday afternoon, the company announced that it was purchasing Credit Karma for $7.1 billion in cash and stock. Credit Karma began as a free credit monitoring service in 2007, but it recently expanded to offer savings accounts as well as tax preparation and filing software, making Credit Karma an up-and-coming competitor to Intuit’s popular TurboTax software.
The big selling point for Credit Karma is that — in stark contrast to TurboTax — its services are free. Instead of money, you give Credit Karma your financial data and endure targeted credit card and loan advertisements. For many, this has been a good deal. Credit Karma’s tax preparation software helped the company more than double its users from about 45 million at the end of 2015 to over 100 million worldwide at the beginning of 2020. Put differently, that amounts to many millions of people who are not paying for TurboTax.
Another selling point for Credit Karma for many of its taxpayer users is (well, was) that it isn’t TurboTax, which has been dogged by allegations of ethical shadiness. Last year, a ProPublica investigation revealed TurboTax’s decades-long quest to stop the Internal Revenue Service from creating its own free tax software. TurboTax instead said it would offer free filing options for lower-income taxpayers, but it also made those free options difficult to find and promoted its own “free” TurboTax services that ultimately forced many taxpayers to upgrade to its paid services. All that in mind, Credit Karma seemed like an appealing alternative to many taxpayers who didn’t like the idea of getting ripped off. Now, not only does the more appealing option for tax services belong to Intuit — now the parent company of both TurboTax and Credit Karma — but your data probably does, too.
Credit Karma’s 90 million-plus user base in the United States includes almost half of all American millennials. (It seems the rumors that millennials are financial dunces who spend all of their money on avocado toast have been greatly exaggerated. It is also possible that they are using Credit Karma to save money so that they may buy even more avocado toast.) Credit Karma wouldn’t comment on what will happen to their data, so let’s take a look at its privacy policy:
We may disclose and transfer information about you to a third party as part of, or in preparation for, a change of control, restructuring, corporate change, or sale or transfer of assets. If such a business transfer results in a material change in the treatment of your Personal Information, you will be notified by e-mail (using the primary email address on your account) or by a prominent notice on our site.
So yes, it does indeed look like all that financial data will go to Intuit. But if Intuit decides to change up how it handles your personal information, at least the company says it will give you a heads up.
This isn’t unusual. Most privacy policies include passages like this because that user data is often part of (or even all of) what makes the company being acquired so valuable. Let’s face it: Intuit is not paying $7 billion for Credit Karma’s easily replicable software or business model. Just look at what it did to Mint, another online financial manager startup it acquired in 2009 for $170 million. Like Credit Karma, Mint makes money when its users purchase products from affiliates.
Mint’s fate under Intuit might give us a sneak peek at what’s to come for Credit Karma. It ain’t great. As Fast Company wrote last month, the budget tracker has remained free but it’s been operating in what its founder Aaron Patzer described as “maintenance mode,” which means the platform is adequately performing its base functions but offering little by way of updates or innovation.
The Credit Karma acquisition is also a reminder that when you give sensitive information over to one company, you aren’t only trusting it to keep your data safe; you’re also trusting whatever company acquires it to do the same. This also could include whatever random company buys up its assets in the event of a bankruptcy. That dating site you’re on? That genealogy database you handed your DNA test results to? Your doorbell? All gobbled up by bigger companies along with your data.
Unless its privacy policy explicitly states that user data will not be transferred even in the case of an acquisition, merger, or asset sale (and even the ones that do say this can always change them), you should never assume that the company you’re giving your personal information to today is the company that owns your personal information tomorrow.
Then again, in an age where antitrust hawks are paying much closer attention to tech companies, there’s always a chance the acquisition won’t happen. Intuit and Credit Karma said they don’t expect to close the deal until the second half of 2020, and they’ll need regulators to sign off on it before that happens.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.