In 2021, Near, a company that specializes in collecting and selling location data, boasted that it was “the world’s largest dataset of real-world human behavior,” including data on “1.6 billion people in 44 countries.” Did. Last year, the company went public (via a SPAC) at a valuation of $1 billion. Seven months later, the company filed for bankruptcy and agreed to sell the company.
But for the “1.6 billion people” Near says its data represents, the important question is: What happens to Near’s mountain location data? By purchasing a company’s assets, any company can gain access to it.
The possibility that this data, including location data collected by Nia from sensitive locations such as abortion clinics, could be sold in bankruptcy has raised alarm in Congress. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) last week told the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), citing the office’s investigation into the India-based company, that Nia’s “outrageous practices… We sent a letter to the department asking it to protect people and investors.
Wyden’s letter also asks the FTC to “immediately terminate Near’s bankruptcy to ensure that all location and device data about Americans held by Near is promptly destroyed and not sold, including to other data brokers.” He asked them to intervene in the process. The FTC took such action in 2010 to prevent XY Magazine, a magazine aimed at young gay men, from using 11 years’ worth of subscriber personal data during bankruptcy proceedings. The agency requested that the data be destroyed to prevent misuse.
Wyden’s investigation revealed that Near Inc. used location data to target the anti-abortion group Veritas Association in order to target ads to visitors to family planning clinics and try to deter women from seeking abortions. This was spurred by a report in the Wall Street Journal in May 2023 that it was licensed to Wyden’s investigation revealed that the group’s geofencing campaign focused on 600 family planning clinics in 48 states. The paper also revealed that Near sold location data to the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies.
As of publication, Near had not responded to a request for comment.
According to Near’s privacy policy, all data collected by Near may be transferred to a new owner. It’s under the heading “Who do I share my personal data with?” It lists “potential buyers of our business.”
These types of clauses are common in privacy policies and are a normal part of businesses that are bought and sold. The problem is complicated when the company being sold owns data that contains sensitive information.
This week, a new bankruptcy court filing showed Wyden’s request was granted. The order places limits on the use, sale, licensing, and transfer of location data collected from sensitive locations in the United States and requires companies that purchase data to establish detailed policies regarding such data. The law requires the establishment of a “sensitive location data program” and continuous data security. Monitoring and compliance includes creating a list of sensitive locations such as reproductive health care facilities, clinics, places of worship, mental health providers, correctional facilities, and shelters. The order requires companies to stop collecting, using and transferring location data unless consumers explicitly consent.
In a statement emailed to The Markup, Wyden said: “At my request, I am intervening to ensure that the sensitive location data of Americans stored by this data broker is not misused again. I applaud the FTC for doing so.”
Wyden called for protecting sensitive location data from data brokers, citing new legal threats to women since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling overturning the abortion rights ruling. Roe vs. Wade. “The threat posed by the sale of location data is particularly clear for women seeking reproductive health care,” Wyden wrote.
The bankruptcy order also provided a rare glimpse into how data brokers license data to each other. Near’s contract list included deals with multiple location brokers, advertising platforms, universities, retailers, and city governments.
It’s unclear from the filing whether the agreement is more like a data license, a license for data from a company, or both.
This article was originally published on The Markup and republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives. license.
