When Private Companies Can Torpedo Your Civil Rights

We don’t generally want government getting involved in our private dealings, either business or personal. Why? Because they have a nasty habit of expanding and abusing their power. So we generally don’t clamor for things like forcing businesses to allow concealed carry on their premises, even if that means gun owners are disarmed for a significant portion of their lives when they work for such a business. Private property rights trump the right to carry.

If you work at a place like that and don’t like it, the voluntary nature of employment means you can always work somewhere else that respects your rights. And if you’re a potential customer of a company like that, you can take your business elsewhere.

Sometimes, though, businesses stretch our tolerance for what we’d consider to be voluntary and what we willingly consent to. When the rules of your business relationship subject you to so much fine print that no person could reasonably be expected to actually read, let alone comply with the policies, it’s hard to say that you’ve volunteered to give your rights away by working or doing business there.

A growing number of companies from banks to auto makers to social media websites are guilty of that these days.

A recent article at Open Source Defense shows us that doing business with these companies can be a lot worse than just getting hit with an unexpected fee or having a post deleted. It can extend as far as infringing on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The article quotes a House of Representatives report that reveals a serious allegation against Bank of America . . .

Mr. Hill testified that Bank of America (BoA) provided the FBI — voluntarily and without any legal process — with a list of individuals who had made transactions in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area with a BoA credit or debit card between January 5 and January 7, 2021, and that individuals who had previously purchased a firearm with a BoA debit card or credit card were elevated to the top of the list regardless of when or where the purchase was made.

This, of course, was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Capitol riot, which some have claimed is as bad as 839 9/11 attacks, 63 Pearl Harbors, and at least five Xindi attacks on Florida and Cuba. Combined.

That great offense to the very existence of our democracy, of course, meant that no stone could be left unturned in rooting out the perpetrators, including banks turning over records of our purchases and transactions records. So Bank of America, without receiving a court order, tried to dig up as many gun owners as possible who were in Washington, DC at that time and voluntarily gave the FBI its customers’ personal information.

While Bank of America was under no legal obligation to fork that data over, the issue the House committee is investigating is whether companies feel pressured to provide the data for fear of regulatory reprisals if they refuse, giving government the effective ability to bypass the Fourth Amendment.

That’s likely true, and something that Congress and courts must deal with. As this case makes abundantly clear, we can’t trust these companies to handle our private data in an ethical way that respects our rights.

There likely needs to be some sort of regulations covering not only the sharing of our private data that would/should otherwise be protected by the Fourth Amendment, but also the collection and storage of that data. Like most readers, I don’t propose this lightly and wouldn’t propose such a thing unless there was already a grave danger to us. This case was and is quite dangerous to gun owners, some of whom might even be wrongfully sitting in a jail in DC as a result of BofA’s actions.

The biggest problem with this uncontrolled handover of data is that the possible consequences of being investigated by the FBI can be extremely destructive, even if you’re innocent and had nothing to hide. If the FBI starts poking around asking your employer questions about your recent trip to DC and your gun ownership, your employer might fire you thinking you’re a danger and a risk. Worse, if they come poking around your property without warning at night, it could result in a deadly gunfight.

Think I’m being ridiculous? There’s a man who spent 18 years in prison for having the same name as a murder suspect. Yes, law enforcement authorities can be highly incompetent and ruin innocent lives.

Think privacy violations by big corporations can’t lead to that kind of thing? Consider the story of the innocent Arizona man who was arrested for murder based on location data Google provided police. Had he been wrongfully convicted using this information, he could have faced the death penalty. Fortunately that didn’t happen, but despite being cleared of wrongdoing, he was dragged out of his workplace by police, lost his job, spent six days in jail, and ended up losing his car.

His reputation and ability to get another job were in serious doubt.

Given the way that unethically shared private data can ruin your life, companies need to be held to a much higher standard. They should have no ability to cooperate with government authorities short of warrant or court order. And they should be very clear and open with people about what information has been shared and with whom, not burying vague authorizations to do so in fine print.