April 14, 2025 • 35 mins
Bloomberg legal reporter David Voreacos discusses President Trump and the President of El Salvador indicating they will not bring a wrongfully deported man back to the US. Trial attorney David Ring, a partner at Taylor & Ring, discusses the Menendez brothers chances of getting out of prison. Cybersecurity and privacy expert Collin Walke, a partner at Hall Estill, discusses the privacy concerns raised in a suit against Weight Watchers. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How can I return him to day eulat states, I
could I smuggle him into the United States or whether
I do, of course, I'm not gonna do it.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
It's like let meet. The question is for busterous, how
can I smuggel the terrorist into the United States.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
I don't have the power to return him to the
United States.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
So you can release the inside of Alabas.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Yeah, but I'm not releasing I mean, we're not very
fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
Speaker 6 (00:30):
The President of L Salvador, Naibu Kelly, said in the
Oval office today that he would not return a man
who was wrongfully deported to his country. This was backed
up by US Attorney General Pam Bondi's seemingly incorrect interpretation
of the Supreme Courts ordered that the Trump administration facilitate
(00:51):
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is released from custody in L Salvador.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.
That's not to us. The Supreme Court rule President that
if as El Salvador wants to return him, this is
international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him,
we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
Speaker 6 (01:14):
And Secretary of State Marco Rubio basically said, there's nothing
to see here, even though the issues in the case
have been litigated all the way up to the Supreme
Court and are now back before a federal judge for
another hearing tomorrow.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
I don't understand what the confusion is. This individual is
a citizen of Olsavador. He was illegally in the United
States and was returned to his country. That's where you
deport people back to their country of origin. Except for Venezuela.
That wasn't refusing to take people back of places like that.
I can tell you this, mister President. No, the foreign
policy of the United States is conducted by the President
of the United States, not by a court, and no
(01:51):
court in the United States has a right to conduct
the foreign policy of the United States. It's that simple,
end of story.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
No one in the Trump administration mentioned that Garcia was
not given due process before he was deported and that
there was a court order forbidding his deportation to El Salvador.
Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. David start
by telling US, who Brego Garcia is and how he
ended up in an El Salvador prison.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
A Brego Garcia is a migrant from l Salvador who
lived in Maryland outside of Washington. He has a wife
and three children who are US citizens. He had been
working as a day laborer. He had been picked up
by immigration authorities in twenty nineteen, and they said in
(02:44):
proceedings that year that he was a member of MS thirteen,
which is a criminal gang. A Brego Garcia and his
attorneys steadfastly denied that. What's clear coming out of those
twenty nineteen proceedings is that an immigration judge ruled that
(03:04):
he could not be deported to Al Salvador because he
would be subjected to persecution and extortion by another criminal gang,
and so that meant that he could not be sent
lawfully by the United States back to his native Al Salvador,
So skipping ahead, in the middle of March, he was
(03:27):
picked up by US immigration authorities who said that he
was an MS thirteen member. And at that point the
Trump administration had said that MS thirteen is a foreign
terrorist organization, and they now interpret that to mean that
they had the authority to remove him from the United
(03:48):
States back to his native Al Salvador, where he was
flown on March fifteenth in one of three planes with
about two hundred and fifty alleged gang members else staying
in a notorious prison in Al Salvador.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
So let's skip the lower court and just go right
to the Supreme Court ruling, which Trump advisor Stephen miller
I would say wrongly characterized the Supreme Court ruling as
being in Trump's favor nine nothing, So explain what the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously last.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Week on April tenth. The Supreme Court said that the
Trump administration needed to take steps to bring back Abrego
Garcia because he had been wrongly deported, and that is
in fact something that the Justice Department admitted that he
was wrongly deported because of the twenty nineteen ruling that
(04:44):
he could not be sent back to Al Salvador, And
so the Supreme Court said that the government needed to
facilitate his release from custody in Al Salvador and sent
it back to the District court judge in Maryland to
work out how to facilitate this return. The judge has
(05:07):
asked for daily updates since then from the government on
how they were going to facilitate this return, and the
Trump administration has been silent on that question, has not
said what they were doing. And it became clear Sunday
night and on Monday what their real intention is, and
(05:30):
that is that they don't believe that the Supreme Court
ordered Abrigo Garcia returned to the United States, and they
don't believe that any US courts have the authority to
dictate foreign policy. They believe this is a question of
foreign policy and that it's up to the El Salvadoran
(05:51):
President Bukelly to decide whether to send him back to
the United States. And bu Kelly answered thatively today from
the Oval Office.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
So we saw this remarkable tour de force in the
Oval Office, where you had President Trump, the Secretary of
State Marco Rubio, you have the Attorney General Pam Bondi,
the Vice President basically saying that they don't have to
return him, that it's up to L Salvador.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Right, and the L Salvador and President Bukelly said he
can't send him back. He doesn't have the power to
return him to the United States. He said, how can
I return him to the United States? I smuggle him
into the United States. I'm not going to do it.
Speaker 6 (06:38):
This is such an unusual situation because the man who
was wrongfully depored is actually a citizen of L. Salvador.
If he was a Venezuelan, it would be a different story.
But now he's actually back in his native country.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
But that gives more force to the Trump administration argument
that he's an L. Salvador citizen and that the president
cannot send him back to the United States. But the
question was was he wrongly deported from the United States
originally because of this twenty nineteen order that said he
(07:15):
couldn't be sent there.
Speaker 6 (07:17):
It doesn't appear that the Trump administration has asked L.
Salvador to send him back, or that they intend to
ask L. Salvador to send him back.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
They put it to the Salvador and President point blank
in the Oval office today, will you send him back?
And he said no.
Speaker 7 (07:34):
I Mean.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Part of this, I think is they're afraid that if
they open the doors of the prison, let's say to
this one guy, that then they're going to have more
and more people trying to use that as a president
saying well, I don't belong here either. I mean the
vast majority of Venezuelans who were deported to L. Salvador
(07:54):
to that prison have no criminal record.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
The immigration law, as I understand in the United States,
is stacked very much against migrants, and so the government
has a great deal of authority to deport people. The
cases that have reached the Supreme Court were unusual variations
from that law. The one involving the Alien Enemies Act,
(08:18):
which is not the normal immigration law that the United
States uses, and this one where a migrant said that
I have a specific order that says I cannot be
sent and so he was denied his due process. I
think the Supreme Court is not necessarily saying that Trump
administration cannot use regular immigration laws to deport people. It's
(08:42):
just that they have to give due process to everyone
they deport.
Speaker 6 (08:46):
Tomorrow, there's going to be a hearing before the Federal
Court judge. And last Friday's hearing was also kind of
remarkable because they wouldn't even tell her where he was
at that time. Now we do know they've can firm
right that he is in the L. Salvador prison.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Correct. They wouldn't tell her where he was. They told
her over the weekend that he was alive and in
that El Salvador prison that's built to hold terrorists, as
the Salvadorans would say, but they won't say what they're
doing to try to return him. And this judge has
(09:24):
had very harsh words for the Justice Department in its
handling of the case. So one has to assume that
she won't be pleased with this turn of events at
the hearing on Tuesday.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
So, I mean, it seems like this could go back
to the Supreme Court, as she issued a ruling. Since
the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
She has not The Supreme Court returned it to her
to essentially work this out under their ruling, and she's
trying to do that and asking the Justice Department, what
are you doing to comply? And now we know their
answer is we don't believe we have to comply. So
it's possible she could cite people from the Justice Department
(10:09):
for contempt or the Department of Homeland Security. It's also
possible that the plaintiffs in this case, mister Abrigo Garcia's lawyers,
might go back to the Supreme Court. This is a
very unusual situation and it's hard to know how it's
going to play out.
Speaker 6 (10:25):
That hearing tomorrow will be very, very interesting, and I
know you'll report back to us on it. Thanks so much, David.
That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis coming up next on
The Bloomberg Law Show. Thirty five years after they were
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole
for murdering their parents, the Menendez brothers have a chance
(10:48):
to be released, but the LA District Attorney is fighting
against their release, saying they haven't taken responsibility for their actions.
I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Today, who's actually probably the biggest day since they've been
in custody.
Speaker 6 (11:07):
This is a critical week for the Menendez brothers. Thirty
five years after they were convicted of shooting their parents
to death and their Beverly Hills mansion and sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. They're getting
a chance to argue to a judge that they've been
rehabilitated and should be released from prison. It comes after
(11:27):
hearing last week over the current LA District Attorney, Nathan Hackman,
trying to rescind the prior district attorney's request that the
brothers be resentenced.
Speaker 7 (11:38):
While the Menendez brothers persist in telling these lies for
the last over thirty years about their self defense defense,
and persist in insisting that they did not subborn any
perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not
meet the standards for Ree's sentence sake.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
The brothers joined last fri hearing by zoom as prosecutors
displayed graphic photos from the crime scene, taking hours to
paint them as serial liars. The Menendez brothers' attorney Mark
Geragos called DA Nathan Hoffman a nineties Neanderthal for his
dismissal of the allegations of sexual abuse in the case,
(12:19):
but at the end of the hearing, Judge Michael Jessic
denied the DA's request and the re sentencing hearing will
go forward on Thursday and Friday. Garrigos called it the
biggest day since the brothers have been in custody.
Speaker 8 (12:34):
Justice one over politics. It's been a long time coming.
Speaker 6 (12:40):
My guest is LA trial attorney David Ring, a partner
at Taylor Ring. With this fighting between the current DA
and the former DA, have the Menendez brothers become sort
of like a political pawn.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
In a way, yeah, they did. The backstory is that
in Los Angeles a few months the district Attorney was
George Gascone and the public did not favor him after
his four years in office. They wanted him out, and
he's very liberal and progressive. And here's the one who
brought this motion for resentencing that Basically, the DA's office
wants Lyle and Eric Menendez to be resentenced, knowing that
(13:17):
that would likely lead to them being released from prison. Well,
George Gascone got defeated badly in the November election and
the new DA is Nathan Hawkman, who's a tough on
crime sort of DA, and he came in and reversed
course and basically said, no, Lyle and Eric need to
stay in prison for the rest of their lives. This
(13:39):
was a cold blooded murder and I'm totally against them
being released. So yes, in a way, it's become a
bit political here.
Speaker 6 (13:48):
The District Attorney Hawkman is saying that they haven't admitted
to the lies they told at trial, and so they
haven't taken responsibility for their crime, so he wants them
to say they lied it trial. Is that basically it?
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, Nathan Hakman the new DA. He's convinced and many
in the DA's office are convinced that this defense, this
self defense that Lyle and Eric came up with back
in their trials back in the nineteen nineties, was fabricated,
that they weren't sexually abused at all, that they had
absolutely no reason at all to murder their parents, and
(14:24):
they did it for one reason and one reason only,
that is for greed for money for their parents' inheritance.
And so you know, he truly believes that, and he says,
the whole status of the case now is the Menenta's
brothers still making the same arguments they did thirty five
or forty years ago, saying we were sexually abused, we
(14:44):
obviously have the right to kill our parents, but we
felt like they were going to turn around harm us
in some way. And so Hawkman and the DA is like, no,
we're not buying that at all. And so that's really
what it comes down to is Hawkman saying, these two
convicted murders haven't shown any remorse whatsoever. They're still making
(15:05):
all these same arguments they made many years ago for resentencing.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Is there anything that says that they have to admit
to their crime, or is it about whether they've been
rehabilitated in prison.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well, it's a little bit of both, because what's going
to happen is, you know, the Menendez brothers and their
lawyers are going to come in and say, hey, we've
been model prisoners, We've served our time. We were sexually
abused and people didn't really understand sexual abuse back in
the nineteen nineties and have a much better understanding of
(15:37):
it today, which you know is kind of a sympathy
ploy and you know, we're in our fifties and we
deserve to be released. We're not a risk to society anymore.
Counter that to the DA, who's going to come in
and say they've shown no remorse. This was a cold
blooded murder. These guys deserve to spend the rest of
their lives in prison. They've shown no insight, they've shown
(16:00):
no contrition, and basically they're just saying the same things
they did forty years ago that didn't help them in
their trial and got them convicted.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
There was a hearing on Friday over the DA's motion
to rescind the request for resentencing, and the prosecution, in
a three hour presentation, showed the graphic crime scene photos.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
They did do that, and look, let's face it, this
is closely watched by the media and by the public,
so there's a little bit of a dog and pony
show going on in that courtroom. You know, if this
was just some run of the mill case that no
one was paying attention to, you probably wouldn't see that
type of evidence or photographs like that produced in that
(16:44):
type of hearing. But you know, they're playing to the
media and the public a little bit, and they want
people to remember how heinous and horrific these shotgun slings were.
And so that's why they're trying to introduce the photos
at the hearing the other day, and absolutely you introduce
all of that evidence again at this upcoming hearings.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
What the judge said is there's no new information. None
of this is really new. They've stuck with their story.
It goes to whether they've been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Yeah, and I don't want to get too technical. So
the hearing from a few days ago, it was basically
the DA Nathan Hawkman was coming in saying, hey, I
want to withdraw this motion that my predecessor, George Gascon brought.
I don't even want it heard. I want to rescind
it all together, and the court, the judge said you
(17:37):
can't do that. Look, the DA's office brought it, and
the DA's office doesn't get to change their mind just
because the new DA has come in. So really all
the judges ruled on and says this hearing is going
to go forward, and really what we're going to see
at this two day hearing that's coming up, that's when
we're going to see both sides really put on kind
(17:59):
of a any trial at one side saying the Menenda's
brothers deserve to be released, and the district attorneys saying
they absolutely don't deserve to be released. And so you're
going to see a lot of arguments and a lot
of evidence at this upcoming two day trial.
Speaker 6 (18:14):
The Menandez brothers attorney Mark Geragos framed this as the
biggest win they've had since they've been incarcerated. Do you
agree with that?
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I do agree with that. It's a big win. You know,
the Menenda's brothers have really exhausted almost all other avenues
through the courts to be released. You know, they've they've
exhausted their appeals and their habeas corpus attempts and all
that stuff, and so this re sentencing is their best
shot to get released from prison, and the fact that
(18:47):
this judge is actually contemplating it and is going to
hear arguments and evidence over it is a victory for
them because it puts them one step closer to getting
released or at least getting their sent reduced, so they
get hearing in front of the parole board, and so
they're one step closer that they've never been before to
(19:07):
having a good shot at being released from prison. So yeah,
it was it was a victory for Gergos and the
Menendez brothers.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
The Menendez family members were angered that the prosecutors showed
those gruesome crime photos, and they claim that shock over
the photos sent the brothers eighty five year old and
to a hospital critically ill. The family member said the
violent graphic display violated Marci's Law California's Bill of Rights
(19:37):
for Victims, which states that victims are entitled to be
treated with fairness and respect, and the DA apologized for
not giving prior warning that there was going to be
this graphic evidence. Most of their relatives support the release
of the Menendez brothers and aren't none too happy with.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
This new DA Well interesting, like the public is wildly
divided on this case, so are the relatives. You have
a group of relatives who want Eric and Lyle freed,
who think they've served their time and who think they
had some sort of justification for the murders. And then
you have at least one or maybe some more other
(20:17):
relatives who are like, no, that was a cold blooded
murder and they should stay in prison for the rest
of their lives. You have this polarization of this case,
which is what makes it so fascinating, that makes this
hearing that's coming up fascinating as to whether or not
the judge is going to decide whether he's going to
reduce their sentence. And if he reduces their sentence, there's
(20:40):
a very good chance they get out on parole.
Speaker 6 (20:43):
They also have a request for clemency and with the
governor that's another route out of prison. If this doesn't.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Work exactly correct, they really have two paths to try
to get released from prison. The one we've talked about
already is this resentencing. Look, they were they were sentenced
to life without the possibility of parole. So if they're
re sentenced and they're given, you know, forty years with
the possibility of parole. Well, they're eligible for parole, so
(21:11):
that's how they get out. That's path number one. Path
number two is the California Governor Newsom can grant them clemency,
meaning basically on his own, he can say, I'm reducing
your sentence to thirty years with the possibility of parole,
and that's their other avenue for getting out if the
(21:31):
re sentencing fails. You know, if you're reading the tea leaves,
it looks like Governor Newsom might be leaning in that
direction to maybe grant them clemency if they don't get
re sentenced.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
And once again, that resentencing hearing will take place on
Thursday and Friday. Thanks so much, Dave. That's David Ring
of Taylor and Ring. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg. According to a class action lawsuit, weight Watcher's
websites allegedly shared users' personal information, including health related data,
(22:05):
with third party tracking services like Google, Facebook, and Amplitude.
Several services on WeightWatchers international websites encourage providing personal data,
sometimes health related, in an effort to personalize a weight
loss journey, but a lawsuit alleges that WW International provided
(22:26):
that data and other identifiable information to third parties despite
promises in its privacy policy. Joining me is an expert
in cybersecurity and data privacy. Colin Walkee, a partner at
Holestal So Colin what kind of information did WeightWatchers allegedly
give out.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And how so WeightWatchers was able to give out this
information utilizing pixels that were on their website from companies
like Facebook, Splash, Meta Google for analytics purposes. And their
allegations are that essentially every question that you answered on
their website up to and including you know, are you
(23:06):
living with type two diatabetes? Have you used any weight
loss medication? You know, do you have a history of cancer?
Blood pressure? All of these sorts of sensitive information, low testosterone,
All of these questions were questions that you were supposed
to answer when you went to the website that had
these pixels on them and share that information then with
third parties.
Speaker 6 (23:27):
The sharing with third parties was deliberate or was it
a mistake?
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Well, it appears that it was deliberate. I mean, according
to the allegations, certainly weight Watchers knew about utilizing pixels
in relation to healthcare information because the Federal Trade Commission
has issued warnings to that, and in fact, weight Watchers
was sued once before regarding these types of issues, and
so weight Watchers knew that pixels were being utilized and
(23:53):
continued to do so in spite of warnings from the
Federal Trade Commission. So, for example, like fitbit, it couects
healthcare information, but it's not a hippoprotected entity, and so
they can do whatever they want with that information. So consequently,
the FEC came out and said, no, you need to
start treating healthcare information wildly different than any other type
of information and protect it better, ie, don't use pixels
(24:16):
on website.
Speaker 6 (24:17):
They had a privacy policy, right, and they pledged that
they wouldn't share the information without written consent.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
That's correct, but you have to read between the lines
on their privacy policy because they do not that they
share this information with third parties. And that part of
the problem with privacy policies. One, if you actually took
the time to read all of them, you know, you
would never actually utilize a website. You'd just be reading
all these vague details. And then two, because there aren't
requirements on what privacy policies have to contain. With certain
(24:46):
nominal exceptions, they can get away with making broad statements
like we don't sell or share your data to third parties,
and at the same time they can still do it
because they'll share that information for marketing purposes or other
sorts of quote unquote internal business purposes. And so if
you're utilizing the information for internal business purposes i e. Analytics,
then you can get away with sharing this type of
(25:08):
information with certain parties. So it's really all about wordsmithing.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
They're suing them for exactly what.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Yeah, so for several different violations. One, there's a couple
of state law claims involved in this as well as
unjust enrichment because you're taking individual private information and then
profiting off of it. They've included a claim for intrusion
upon to seclusion, which is a common law claim, a
violation of the California Code as well as the New
York General Business Code, and violations of the Electronic Communications
(25:39):
Privacy Act. So they have two or three common law
claims and two statutories.
Speaker 6 (25:43):
Weight Watchers is reportedly facing bankruptcy if it does go
into bankruptcy, what happens with the data?
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So that's all part of the question, right. So first
and foremost, this class action law to filed against weight
Watchers was filed on April nine, so they're still at
the beginning stages. And in fact, I do not believe
that wait Watchers has answered yet. If it's the case
that WeightWatchers is in fact going to file for bankruptcy,
the question becomes is it going to be like a
twenty three and me situation in which they're looking for buyers,
(26:11):
ie a Chapter seven or something along those lines, or
is it going to be something more like a Chapter
eleven where it's a true restructuring, in which case WeightWatchers
wouldn't necessarily sell or give away this information to any
third parties, but would retain it for their future use,
you know, after they've addressed all of their debt issues.
But all that said, it goes right back to what
we saw with twenty three and meters filing bankruptcy, which is,
(26:34):
if it's the case that they go ahead and liquidates company,
these are assets, which is part of the reason why
the plane eff stued for unjust En Richmond. And this
is the private type of information that's going to be
sold in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Speaker 6 (26:45):
So you can go on these sites and they give
you options about whether you want to share your information
or not. Does any of that matter in reality?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, so you've got to remember there's a slight difference
between for example, accepting cookie right or rejecting cookies, which
is one way that they can obtain your information. But
anytime you fill out a form, the form and that
information is going to be stored with that company. So
even if you opt out of all cookies, you might
still be consenting to them utilizing this information. Because remember
(27:19):
all state laws at this stage are opt out and
with the exception of Colorado, which is a minor exception
for sensitive information, but otherwise these are all opt out statuses.
And what that means is is while you may decline cookies,
once you've submitted your information to that company, they can
basically do anything that they want with that information, up
to including selling it to third party.
Speaker 6 (27:40):
So then as you respond to the questions or fill
out forms, you should just consider that information is gone.
Whatever information I'm giving them.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
I don't think that most consumers realize how unprotected their
data is once you go on the Internet and you
interact with the third party for all intents and purposes,
that information is then going to be retained by them
and they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
And so the concept of privacy no longer exists because
we have divided human beings from their data. What the
(28:14):
reality is is human beings are data. What we do
on a daily basis is being collected, and so consequently
we need to make sure or we need to try
and obtain right to our data, not just privacy laws
and those sorts of things, but actual rights, because then if,
for example, weightwatcher says we don't sell your information or
(28:34):
give it away to third parties, and meta gets hacked
and all of a sudden you find out that they've
got WeightWatchers information in their website, you now have a claim,
plain and simple, because they stole your property and used
it without your consent. But right now, there are no
laws on the books they even except for a few
minor exceptions, that say your data is yours. Otherwise your
(28:56):
data is whoever you.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
Give it to, So then it would take a law
to change this.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
That's correct. So, for example, in Oklahoma, and this is
the only law that I'm aware of on the books,
but I would love to see it in other states.
In Oklahoma, there's a law that says if you upload
health care information to Oklahoma's Health Information Exchange, which is
a database that most states have where if you get
injured in one part of the state, a doctor in
another part of the state can look up that information
(29:22):
and the Health Information Exchange. And the law says that
all of the information and data that you upload to
the Health Information Exchange, you quote retain a property right
in that healthcare data, but then gives them a license
to use it. So there is a statutory instantiation of
your property rights in your healthcare data. Now how far
(29:45):
does that extend, Probably not much further than your healthcare data.
But you can see how we would be able to
pass the law that would cover any type of data
that you give over to third parties.
Speaker 6 (29:53):
So a few months ago, I got to notice that
a company had been hacked, and it was a company
that was so somehow involved in processing claims for one
of my doctors. So you're giving information to your doctors
and somehow that information is getting hacked.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
So that's another great example. So within HIPPA there are
rules that permit third parties to utilize this data on
behalf of the covertant. So for example, your doctor, he
gives this over to a third party so that they
can essentially manage it, but not utilize it without his permission.
Here's the problem is that I would be shocked in
a sound whether many, if any health care entities actually
(30:33):
then go to their business associates and bet their cybersecurity
protocols instead. Business associate agreements typically say that you know
you're going to comply with HIPPA and you're going to
comply with my instructions, but there's no verification, there's no
auditing that in fact, that's what they're doing with that data.
And in healthcare space, it is all over the place
(30:54):
because you're sharing information with testing facility, with third party
billing companies, so your data gets spread all over the place,
and you're hoping and praying that somebody's actually imply with
that business associate agreement.
Speaker 6 (31:06):
And their solution is usually to give you something like
a year of free credit monitoring. But what can you do.
You really don't have a choice but giving information in
some of these situations.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
That's a very good point and not only that, but
what are you going to do about the data breaches themselves.
I mean, in HIPPA, if somebody has breached in less
than five hundred healthcare records or access the reporting entity,
it does not have to report that hack until February
one of the following year. So you, as a consumer,
how are you going to protect yourself when you find
out about this hack a year later? You're not. And
(31:39):
in fact, I've been an advocate that we need to
rethink our breach notification laws altogether, because just like you said,
what do you do when you get that piece of paper?
You throw it away or you call a credit agency
to monitor your credit. That's about all that you can
do at the moment. There needs to be more meat
on the bones when it comes to data breach notification requirements.
Speaker 6 (31:58):
And for a moment, I want to turn to to
the issue of DOGE accessing personal data of Americans. I
was surprised in appeals court I think it was last
week cleared the way for DOZE to access people's private
data at three federal agencies. And then on Friday, a
Manhattan judge said that one person, one member of does
(32:22):
could have access to sensitive payment and data systems at
the Treasury Department. I mean, this is another case of
information that you have no control over that the government.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Has absolutely and it's not just information that you've supplied
through for example, social security information and those sorts of things,
but it's all that information plus whatever else that the
government can aggregate from data brokers, which they have full
range and free access to just by asking the data
brokers to give them copies of that information. And so
(32:53):
it is very concerning, especially when you have individuals that
haven't necessarily been vetted through proper credentialing, background checks and
those sorts of things. But that's the problem is is
how much are we going to trust our governments, whether
that's a Democrat sitting in there or a Republican how
much do we want to trust them with our data?
And just think about it this way. Every time that
you go to the airport, you have that bio information
(33:15):
screen face check when you go to check in. That
information is then stored and utilized so that, for example,
if you're in New York City and there's a street
camera that can pick you up, they can then reidentify
you fairly quickly, and not just that, but your gate.
All sorts of unique aspects about you are stored not
just by third parties, but by the government as well.
The thing is is that I do not think that
(33:36):
people appreciate the surveillance state that we live in at
the particular moment. If we want to identify any particular
person in the United States right now, at this moment,
where they're at, if they have a cell phone, we
can do that fairly easy.
Speaker 6 (33:48):
So you mean that all the TV shows and movies
that show a law enforcement agency tracking someone's every move
are true? It is.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
It is. It's a very sery situation in which we're
living in front of. I mean, for example, you know,
one of the questions on Weight Watchers was, you know,
have you made yourself vomit within the past week. What
you could imagine then that information being sold to some
diet pill company who then sends a targeted ad towards you,
And now you're getting you know, fluff medication from some
(34:21):
third party that probably doesn't work as opposed to from
your actual healthcare provider. And so it's really concerning how
we're giving away this information, how can be utilized.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
So what do you do when a website asked for
your information.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
So again it's all about risk and so certain websites
I have to use, but I will tell you I
don't use apps on my phone at all. I have
like five apps that didn't come pre stored, and it's
because I'm more concerned about them tracking me on my
phone and where I'm at, more so than necessarily what
I'm uploading the website. Because the reality is is we
live in the world in which we have to upload
information to websites every day. So it's a matter of
(34:56):
managing your risk.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
So then when you check don't follow me, uh huh,
that doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Well, it can, I mean it can to some degree,
but you just never know. I mean there's a lot
of backdoors, and so I just prefer not to even
risk it.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
So I guess the only solution is to go back
to an analog world.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
I think that's the way people are going to realize
they need to be safe.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
Yeah, whenever I talk to you, Colin, I make a
pledge to be more careful about my data. Not that
it can help much, but thanks for the warnings. That's
Colin Walkee of hall Estel And that's it for this
edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
(35:39):
www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How can I return him to day eulat states, I
could I smuggle him into the United States or whether
I do, of course, I'm not gonna do it.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
It's like let meet. The question is for busterous, how
can I smuggel the terrorist into the United States.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
I don't have the power to return him to the
United States.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
So you can release the inside of Alabas.
Speaker 5 (00:26):
Yeah, but I'm not releasing I mean, we're not very
fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
Speaker 6 (00:30):
The President of L Salvador, Naibu Kelly, said in the
Oval office today that he would not return a man
who was wrongfully deported to his country. This was backed
up by US Attorney General Pam Bondi's seemingly incorrect interpretation
of the Supreme Courts ordered that the Trump administration facilitate
(00:51):
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is released from custody in L Salvador.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him.
That's not to us. The Supreme Court rule President that
if as El Salvador wants to return him, this is
international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him,
we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
Speaker 6 (01:14):
And Secretary of State Marco Rubio basically said, there's nothing
to see here, even though the issues in the case
have been litigated all the way up to the Supreme
Court and are now back before a federal judge for
another hearing tomorrow.
Speaker 5 (01:29):
I don't understand what the confusion is. This individual is
a citizen of Olsavador. He was illegally in the United
States and was returned to his country. That's where you
deport people back to their country of origin. Except for Venezuela.
That wasn't refusing to take people back of places like that.
I can tell you this, mister President. No, the foreign
policy of the United States is conducted by the President
of the United States, not by a court, and no
(01:51):
court in the United States has a right to conduct
the foreign policy of the United States. It's that simple,
end of story.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
No one in the Trump administration mentioned that Garcia was
not given due process before he was deported and that
there was a court order forbidding his deportation to El Salvador.
Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. David start
by telling US, who Brego Garcia is and how he
ended up in an El Salvador prison.
Speaker 4 (02:19):
A Brego Garcia is a migrant from l Salvador who
lived in Maryland outside of Washington. He has a wife
and three children who are US citizens. He had been
working as a day laborer. He had been picked up
by immigration authorities in twenty nineteen, and they said in
(02:44):
proceedings that year that he was a member of MS thirteen,
which is a criminal gang. A Brego Garcia and his
attorneys steadfastly denied that. What's clear coming out of those
twenty nineteen proceedings is that an immigration judge ruled that
(03:04):
he could not be deported to Al Salvador because he
would be subjected to persecution and extortion by another criminal gang,
and so that meant that he could not be sent
lawfully by the United States back to his native Al Salvador,
So skipping ahead, in the middle of March, he was
(03:27):
picked up by US immigration authorities who said that he
was an MS thirteen member. And at that point the
Trump administration had said that MS thirteen is a foreign
terrorist organization, and they now interpret that to mean that
they had the authority to remove him from the United
(03:48):
States back to his native Al Salvador, where he was
flown on March fifteenth in one of three planes with
about two hundred and fifty alleged gang members else staying
in a notorious prison in Al Salvador.
Speaker 6 (04:04):
So let's skip the lower court and just go right
to the Supreme Court ruling, which Trump advisor Stephen miller
I would say wrongly characterized the Supreme Court ruling as
being in Trump's favor nine nothing, So explain what the
Supreme Court ruled unanimously last.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
Week on April tenth. The Supreme Court said that the
Trump administration needed to take steps to bring back Abrego
Garcia because he had been wrongly deported, and that is
in fact something that the Justice Department admitted that he
was wrongly deported because of the twenty nineteen ruling that
(04:44):
he could not be sent back to Al Salvador, And
so the Supreme Court said that the government needed to
facilitate his release from custody in Al Salvador and sent
it back to the District court judge in Maryland to
work out how to facilitate this return. The judge has
(05:07):
asked for daily updates since then from the government on
how they were going to facilitate this return, and the
Trump administration has been silent on that question, has not
said what they were doing. And it became clear Sunday
night and on Monday what their real intention is, and
(05:30):
that is that they don't believe that the Supreme Court
ordered Abrigo Garcia returned to the United States, and they
don't believe that any US courts have the authority to
dictate foreign policy. They believe this is a question of
foreign policy and that it's up to the El Salvadoran
(05:51):
President Bukelly to decide whether to send him back to
the United States. And bu Kelly answered thatively today from
the Oval Office.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
So we saw this remarkable tour de force in the
Oval Office, where you had President Trump, the Secretary of
State Marco Rubio, you have the Attorney General Pam Bondi,
the Vice President basically saying that they don't have to
return him, that it's up to L Salvador.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Right, and the L Salvador and President Bukelly said he
can't send him back. He doesn't have the power to
return him to the United States. He said, how can
I return him to the United States? I smuggle him
into the United States. I'm not going to do it.
Speaker 6 (06:38):
This is such an unusual situation because the man who
was wrongfully depored is actually a citizen of L. Salvador.
If he was a Venezuelan, it would be a different story.
But now he's actually back in his native country.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
But that gives more force to the Trump administration argument
that he's an L. Salvador citizen and that the president
cannot send him back to the United States. But the
question was was he wrongly deported from the United States
originally because of this twenty nineteen order that said he
(07:15):
couldn't be sent there.
Speaker 6 (07:17):
It doesn't appear that the Trump administration has asked L.
Salvador to send him back, or that they intend to
ask L. Salvador to send him back.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
They put it to the Salvador and President point blank
in the Oval office today, will you send him back?
And he said no.
Speaker 7 (07:34):
I Mean.
Speaker 6 (07:34):
Part of this, I think is they're afraid that if
they open the doors of the prison, let's say to
this one guy, that then they're going to have more
and more people trying to use that as a president
saying well, I don't belong here either. I mean the
vast majority of Venezuelans who were deported to L. Salvador
(07:54):
to that prison have no criminal record.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
The immigration law, as I understand in the United States,
is stacked very much against migrants, and so the government
has a great deal of authority to deport people. The
cases that have reached the Supreme Court were unusual variations
from that law. The one involving the Alien Enemies Act,
(08:18):
which is not the normal immigration law that the United
States uses, and this one where a migrant said that
I have a specific order that says I cannot be
sent and so he was denied his due process. I
think the Supreme Court is not necessarily saying that Trump
administration cannot use regular immigration laws to deport people. It's
(08:42):
just that they have to give due process to everyone
they deport.
Speaker 6 (08:46):
Tomorrow, there's going to be a hearing before the Federal
Court judge. And last Friday's hearing was also kind of
remarkable because they wouldn't even tell her where he was
at that time. Now we do know they've can firm
right that he is in the L. Salvador prison.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
Correct. They wouldn't tell her where he was. They told
her over the weekend that he was alive and in
that El Salvador prison that's built to hold terrorists, as
the Salvadorans would say, but they won't say what they're
doing to try to return him. And this judge has
(09:24):
had very harsh words for the Justice Department in its
handling of the case. So one has to assume that
she won't be pleased with this turn of events at
the hearing on Tuesday.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
So, I mean, it seems like this could go back
to the Supreme Court, as she issued a ruling. Since
the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
She has not The Supreme Court returned it to her
to essentially work this out under their ruling, and she's
trying to do that and asking the Justice Department, what
are you doing to comply? And now we know their
answer is we don't believe we have to comply. So
it's possible she could cite people from the Justice Department
(10:09):
for contempt or the Department of Homeland Security. It's also
possible that the plaintiffs in this case, mister Abrigo Garcia's lawyers,
might go back to the Supreme Court. This is a
very unusual situation and it's hard to know how it's
going to play out.
Speaker 6 (10:25):
That hearing tomorrow will be very, very interesting, and I
know you'll report back to us on it. Thanks so much, David.
That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis coming up next on
The Bloomberg Law Show. Thirty five years after they were
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole
for murdering their parents, the Menendez brothers have a chance
(10:48):
to be released, but the LA District Attorney is fighting
against their release, saying they haven't taken responsibility for their actions.
I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 8 (10:59):
Today, who's actually probably the biggest day since they've been
in custody.
Speaker 6 (11:07):
This is a critical week for the Menendez brothers. Thirty
five years after they were convicted of shooting their parents
to death and their Beverly Hills mansion and sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. They're getting
a chance to argue to a judge that they've been
rehabilitated and should be released from prison. It comes after
(11:27):
hearing last week over the current LA District Attorney, Nathan Hackman,
trying to rescind the prior district attorney's request that the
brothers be resentenced.
Speaker 7 (11:38):
While the Menendez brothers persist in telling these lies for
the last over thirty years about their self defense defense,
and persist in insisting that they did not subborn any
perjury or attempt to suborn perjury, then they do not
meet the standards for Ree's sentence sake.
Speaker 6 (11:58):
The brothers joined last fri hearing by zoom as prosecutors
displayed graphic photos from the crime scene, taking hours to
paint them as serial liars. The Menendez brothers' attorney Mark
Geragos called DA Nathan Hoffman a nineties Neanderthal for his
dismissal of the allegations of sexual abuse in the case,
(12:19):
but at the end of the hearing, Judge Michael Jessic
denied the DA's request and the re sentencing hearing will
go forward on Thursday and Friday. Garrigos called it the
biggest day since the brothers have been in custody.
Speaker 8 (12:34):
Justice one over politics. It's been a long time coming.
Speaker 6 (12:40):
My guest is LA trial attorney David Ring, a partner
at Taylor Ring. With this fighting between the current DA
and the former DA, have the Menendez brothers become sort
of like a political pawn.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
In a way, yeah, they did. The backstory is that
in Los Angeles a few months the district Attorney was
George Gascone and the public did not favor him after
his four years in office. They wanted him out, and
he's very liberal and progressive. And here's the one who
brought this motion for resentencing that Basically, the DA's office
wants Lyle and Eric Menendez to be resentenced, knowing that
(13:17):
that would likely lead to them being released from prison. Well,
George Gascone got defeated badly in the November election and
the new DA is Nathan Hawkman, who's a tough on
crime sort of DA, and he came in and reversed
course and basically said, no, Lyle and Eric need to
stay in prison for the rest of their lives. This
(13:39):
was a cold blooded murder and I'm totally against them
being released. So yes, in a way, it's become a
bit political here.
Speaker 6 (13:48):
The District Attorney Hawkman is saying that they haven't admitted
to the lies they told at trial, and so they
haven't taken responsibility for their crime, so he wants them
to say they lied it trial. Is that basically it?
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, Nathan Hakman the new DA. He's convinced and many
in the DA's office are convinced that this defense, this
self defense that Lyle and Eric came up with back
in their trials back in the nineteen nineties, was fabricated,
that they weren't sexually abused at all, that they had
absolutely no reason at all to murder their parents, and
(14:24):
they did it for one reason and one reason only,
that is for greed for money for their parents' inheritance.
And so you know, he truly believes that, and he says,
the whole status of the case now is the Menenta's
brothers still making the same arguments they did thirty five
or forty years ago, saying we were sexually abused, we
(14:44):
obviously have the right to kill our parents, but we
felt like they were going to turn around harm us
in some way. And so Hawkman and the DA is like, no,
we're not buying that at all. And so that's really
what it comes down to is Hawkman saying, these two
convicted murders haven't shown any remorse whatsoever. They're still making
(15:05):
all these same arguments they made many years ago for resentencing.
Speaker 6 (15:09):
Is there anything that says that they have to admit
to their crime, or is it about whether they've been
rehabilitated in prison.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well, it's a little bit of both, because what's going
to happen is, you know, the Menendez brothers and their
lawyers are going to come in and say, hey, we've
been model prisoners, We've served our time. We were sexually
abused and people didn't really understand sexual abuse back in
the nineteen nineties and have a much better understanding of
(15:37):
it today, which you know is kind of a sympathy
ploy and you know, we're in our fifties and we
deserve to be released. We're not a risk to society anymore.
Counter that to the DA, who's going to come in
and say they've shown no remorse. This was a cold
blooded murder. These guys deserve to spend the rest of
their lives in prison. They've shown no insight, they've shown
(16:00):
no contrition, and basically they're just saying the same things
they did forty years ago that didn't help them in
their trial and got them convicted.
Speaker 6 (16:09):
There was a hearing on Friday over the DA's motion
to rescind the request for resentencing, and the prosecution, in
a three hour presentation, showed the graphic crime scene photos.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
They did do that, and look, let's face it, this
is closely watched by the media and by the public,
so there's a little bit of a dog and pony
show going on in that courtroom. You know, if this
was just some run of the mill case that no
one was paying attention to, you probably wouldn't see that
type of evidence or photographs like that produced in that
(16:44):
type of hearing. But you know, they're playing to the
media and the public a little bit, and they want
people to remember how heinous and horrific these shotgun slings were.
And so that's why they're trying to introduce the photos
at the hearing the other day, and absolutely you introduce
all of that evidence again at this upcoming hearings.
Speaker 6 (17:05):
What the judge said is there's no new information. None
of this is really new. They've stuck with their story.
It goes to whether they've been rehabilitated.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Yeah, and I don't want to get too technical. So
the hearing from a few days ago, it was basically
the DA Nathan Hawkman was coming in saying, hey, I
want to withdraw this motion that my predecessor, George Gascon brought.
I don't even want it heard. I want to rescind
it all together, and the court, the judge said you
(17:37):
can't do that. Look, the DA's office brought it, and
the DA's office doesn't get to change their mind just
because the new DA has come in. So really all
the judges ruled on and says this hearing is going
to go forward, and really what we're going to see
at this two day hearing that's coming up, that's when
we're going to see both sides really put on kind
(17:59):
of a any trial at one side saying the Menenda's
brothers deserve to be released, and the district attorneys saying
they absolutely don't deserve to be released. And so you're
going to see a lot of arguments and a lot
of evidence at this upcoming two day trial.
Speaker 6 (18:14):
The Menandez brothers attorney Mark Geragos framed this as the
biggest win they've had since they've been incarcerated. Do you
agree with that?
Speaker 1 (18:24):
I do agree with that. It's a big win. You know,
the Menenda's brothers have really exhausted almost all other avenues
through the courts to be released. You know, they've they've
exhausted their appeals and their habeas corpus attempts and all
that stuff, and so this re sentencing is their best
shot to get released from prison, and the fact that
(18:47):
this judge is actually contemplating it and is going to
hear arguments and evidence over it is a victory for
them because it puts them one step closer to getting
released or at least getting their sent reduced, so they
get hearing in front of the parole board, and so
they're one step closer that they've never been before to
(19:07):
having a good shot at being released from prison. So yeah,
it was it was a victory for Gergos and the
Menendez brothers.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
The Menendez family members were angered that the prosecutors showed
those gruesome crime photos, and they claim that shock over
the photos sent the brothers eighty five year old and
to a hospital critically ill. The family member said the
violent graphic display violated Marci's Law California's Bill of Rights
(19:37):
for Victims, which states that victims are entitled to be
treated with fairness and respect, and the DA apologized for
not giving prior warning that there was going to be
this graphic evidence. Most of their relatives support the release
of the Menendez brothers and aren't none too happy with.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
This new DA Well interesting, like the public is wildly
divided on this case, so are the relatives. You have
a group of relatives who want Eric and Lyle freed,
who think they've served their time and who think they
had some sort of justification for the murders. And then
you have at least one or maybe some more other
(20:17):
relatives who are like, no, that was a cold blooded
murder and they should stay in prison for the rest
of their lives. You have this polarization of this case,
which is what makes it so fascinating, that makes this
hearing that's coming up fascinating as to whether or not
the judge is going to decide whether he's going to
reduce their sentence. And if he reduces their sentence, there's
(20:40):
a very good chance they get out on parole.
Speaker 6 (20:43):
They also have a request for clemency and with the
governor that's another route out of prison. If this doesn't.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Work exactly correct, they really have two paths to try
to get released from prison. The one we've talked about
already is this resentencing. Look, they were they were sentenced
to life without the possibility of parole. So if they're
re sentenced and they're given, you know, forty years with
the possibility of parole. Well, they're eligible for parole, so
(21:11):
that's how they get out. That's path number one. Path
number two is the California Governor Newsom can grant them clemency,
meaning basically on his own, he can say, I'm reducing
your sentence to thirty years with the possibility of parole,
and that's their other avenue for getting out if the
(21:31):
re sentencing fails. You know, if you're reading the tea leaves,
it looks like Governor Newsom might be leaning in that
direction to maybe grant them clemency if they don't get
re sentenced.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
And once again, that resentencing hearing will take place on
Thursday and Friday. Thanks so much, Dave. That's David Ring
of Taylor and Ring. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg. According to a class action lawsuit, weight Watcher's
websites allegedly shared users' personal information, including health related data,
(22:05):
with third party tracking services like Google, Facebook, and Amplitude.
Several services on WeightWatchers international websites encourage providing personal data,
sometimes health related, in an effort to personalize a weight
loss journey, but a lawsuit alleges that WW International provided
(22:26):
that data and other identifiable information to third parties despite
promises in its privacy policy. Joining me is an expert
in cybersecurity and data privacy. Colin Walkee, a partner at
Holestal So Colin what kind of information did WeightWatchers allegedly
give out.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And how so WeightWatchers was able to give out this
information utilizing pixels that were on their website from companies
like Facebook, Splash, Meta Google for analytics purposes. And their
allegations are that essentially every question that you answered on
their website up to and including you know, are you
(23:06):
living with type two diatabetes? Have you used any weight
loss medication? You know, do you have a history of cancer?
Blood pressure? All of these sorts of sensitive information, low testosterone,
All of these questions were questions that you were supposed
to answer when you went to the website that had
these pixels on them and share that information then with
third parties.
Speaker 6 (23:27):
The sharing with third parties was deliberate or was it
a mistake?
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Well, it appears that it was deliberate. I mean, according
to the allegations, certainly weight Watchers knew about utilizing pixels
in relation to healthcare information because the Federal Trade Commission
has issued warnings to that, and in fact, weight Watchers
was sued once before regarding these types of issues, and
so weight Watchers knew that pixels were being utilized and
(23:53):
continued to do so in spite of warnings from the
Federal Trade Commission. So, for example, like fitbit, it couects
healthcare information, but it's not a hippoprotected entity, and so
they can do whatever they want with that information. So consequently,
the FEC came out and said, no, you need to
start treating healthcare information wildly different than any other type
of information and protect it better, ie, don't use pixels
(24:16):
on website.
Speaker 6 (24:17):
They had a privacy policy, right, and they pledged that
they wouldn't share the information without written consent.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
That's correct, but you have to read between the lines
on their privacy policy because they do not that they
share this information with third parties. And that part of
the problem with privacy policies. One, if you actually took
the time to read all of them, you know, you
would never actually utilize a website. You'd just be reading
all these vague details. And then two, because there aren't
requirements on what privacy policies have to contain. With certain
(24:46):
nominal exceptions, they can get away with making broad statements
like we don't sell or share your data to third parties,
and at the same time they can still do it
because they'll share that information for marketing purposes or other
sorts of quote unquote internal business purposes. And so if
you're utilizing the information for internal business purposes i e. Analytics,
then you can get away with sharing this type of
(25:08):
information with certain parties. So it's really all about wordsmithing.
Speaker 6 (25:12):
They're suing them for exactly what.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
Yeah, so for several different violations. One, there's a couple
of state law claims involved in this as well as
unjust enrichment because you're taking individual private information and then
profiting off of it. They've included a claim for intrusion
upon to seclusion, which is a common law claim, a
violation of the California Code as well as the New
York General Business Code, and violations of the Electronic Communications
(25:39):
Privacy Act. So they have two or three common law
claims and two statutories.
Speaker 6 (25:43):
Weight Watchers is reportedly facing bankruptcy if it does go
into bankruptcy, what happens with the data?
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So that's all part of the question, right. So first
and foremost, this class action law to filed against weight
Watchers was filed on April nine, so they're still at
the beginning stages. And in fact, I do not believe
that wait Watchers has answered yet. If it's the case
that WeightWatchers is in fact going to file for bankruptcy,
the question becomes is it going to be like a
twenty three and me situation in which they're looking for buyers,
(26:11):
ie a Chapter seven or something along those lines, or
is it going to be something more like a Chapter
eleven where it's a true restructuring, in which case WeightWatchers
wouldn't necessarily sell or give away this information to any
third parties, but would retain it for their future use,
you know, after they've addressed all of their debt issues.
But all that said, it goes right back to what
we saw with twenty three and meters filing bankruptcy, which is,
(26:34):
if it's the case that they go ahead and liquidates company,
these are assets, which is part of the reason why
the plane eff stued for unjust En Richmond. And this
is the private type of information that's going to be
sold in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Speaker 6 (26:45):
So you can go on these sites and they give
you options about whether you want to share your information
or not. Does any of that matter in reality?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, so you've got to remember there's a slight difference
between for example, accepting cookie right or rejecting cookies, which
is one way that they can obtain your information. But
anytime you fill out a form, the form and that
information is going to be stored with that company. So
even if you opt out of all cookies, you might
still be consenting to them utilizing this information. Because remember
(27:19):
all state laws at this stage are opt out and
with the exception of Colorado, which is a minor exception
for sensitive information, but otherwise these are all opt out statuses.
And what that means is is while you may decline cookies,
once you've submitted your information to that company, they can
basically do anything that they want with that information, up
to including selling it to third party.
Speaker 6 (27:40):
So then as you respond to the questions or fill
out forms, you should just consider that information is gone.
Whatever information I'm giving them.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
I don't think that most consumers realize how unprotected their
data is once you go on the Internet and you
interact with the third party for all intents and purposes,
that information is then going to be retained by them
and they can pretty much do whatever they want with it.
And so the concept of privacy no longer exists because
we have divided human beings from their data. What the
(28:14):
reality is is human beings are data. What we do
on a daily basis is being collected, and so consequently
we need to make sure or we need to try
and obtain right to our data, not just privacy laws
and those sorts of things, but actual rights, because then if,
for example, weightwatcher says we don't sell your information or
(28:34):
give it away to third parties, and meta gets hacked
and all of a sudden you find out that they've
got WeightWatchers information in their website, you now have a claim,
plain and simple, because they stole your property and used
it without your consent. But right now, there are no
laws on the books they even except for a few
minor exceptions, that say your data is yours. Otherwise your
(28:56):
data is whoever you.
Speaker 6 (28:57):
Give it to, So then it would take a law
to change this.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
That's correct. So, for example, in Oklahoma, and this is
the only law that I'm aware of on the books,
but I would love to see it in other states.
In Oklahoma, there's a law that says if you upload
health care information to Oklahoma's Health Information Exchange, which is
a database that most states have where if you get
injured in one part of the state, a doctor in
another part of the state can look up that information
(29:22):
and the Health Information Exchange. And the law says that
all of the information and data that you upload to
the Health Information Exchange, you quote retain a property right
in that healthcare data, but then gives them a license
to use it. So there is a statutory instantiation of
your property rights in your healthcare data. Now how far
(29:45):
does that extend, Probably not much further than your healthcare data.
But you can see how we would be able to
pass the law that would cover any type of data
that you give over to third parties.
Speaker 6 (29:53):
So a few months ago, I got to notice that
a company had been hacked, and it was a company
that was so somehow involved in processing claims for one
of my doctors. So you're giving information to your doctors
and somehow that information is getting hacked.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
So that's another great example. So within HIPPA there are
rules that permit third parties to utilize this data on
behalf of the covertant. So for example, your doctor, he
gives this over to a third party so that they
can essentially manage it, but not utilize it without his permission.
Here's the problem is that I would be shocked in
a sound whether many, if any health care entities actually
(30:33):
then go to their business associates and bet their cybersecurity
protocols instead. Business associate agreements typically say that you know
you're going to comply with HIPPA and you're going to
comply with my instructions, but there's no verification, there's no
auditing that in fact, that's what they're doing with that data.
And in healthcare space, it is all over the place
(30:54):
because you're sharing information with testing facility, with third party
billing companies, so your data gets spread all over the place,
and you're hoping and praying that somebody's actually imply with
that business associate agreement.
Speaker 6 (31:06):
And their solution is usually to give you something like
a year of free credit monitoring. But what can you do.
You really don't have a choice but giving information in
some of these situations.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
That's a very good point and not only that, but
what are you going to do about the data breaches themselves.
I mean, in HIPPA, if somebody has breached in less
than five hundred healthcare records or access the reporting entity,
it does not have to report that hack until February
one of the following year. So you, as a consumer,
how are you going to protect yourself when you find
out about this hack a year later? You're not. And
(31:39):
in fact, I've been an advocate that we need to
rethink our breach notification laws altogether, because just like you said,
what do you do when you get that piece of paper?
You throw it away or you call a credit agency
to monitor your credit. That's about all that you can
do at the moment. There needs to be more meat
on the bones when it comes to data breach notification requirements.
Speaker 6 (31:58):
And for a moment, I want to turn to to
the issue of DOGE accessing personal data of Americans. I
was surprised in appeals court I think it was last
week cleared the way for DOZE to access people's private
data at three federal agencies. And then on Friday, a
Manhattan judge said that one person, one member of does
(32:22):
could have access to sensitive payment and data systems at
the Treasury Department. I mean, this is another case of
information that you have no control over that the government.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Has absolutely and it's not just information that you've supplied
through for example, social security information and those sorts of things,
but it's all that information plus whatever else that the
government can aggregate from data brokers, which they have full
range and free access to just by asking the data
brokers to give them copies of that information. And so
(32:53):
it is very concerning, especially when you have individuals that
haven't necessarily been vetted through proper credentialing, background checks and
those sorts of things. But that's the problem is is
how much are we going to trust our governments, whether
that's a Democrat sitting in there or a Republican how
much do we want to trust them with our data?
And just think about it this way. Every time that
you go to the airport, you have that bio information
(33:15):
screen face check when you go to check in. That
information is then stored and utilized so that, for example,
if you're in New York City and there's a street
camera that can pick you up, they can then reidentify
you fairly quickly, and not just that, but your gate.
All sorts of unique aspects about you are stored not
just by third parties, but by the government as well.
The thing is is that I do not think that
(33:36):
people appreciate the surveillance state that we live in at
the particular moment. If we want to identify any particular
person in the United States right now, at this moment,
where they're at, if they have a cell phone, we
can do that fairly easy.
Speaker 6 (33:48):
So you mean that all the TV shows and movies
that show a law enforcement agency tracking someone's every move
are true? It is.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
It is. It's a very sery situation in which we're
living in front of. I mean, for example, you know,
one of the questions on Weight Watchers was, you know,
have you made yourself vomit within the past week. What
you could imagine then that information being sold to some
diet pill company who then sends a targeted ad towards you,
And now you're getting you know, fluff medication from some
(34:21):
third party that probably doesn't work as opposed to from
your actual healthcare provider. And so it's really concerning how
we're giving away this information, how can be utilized.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
So what do you do when a website asked for
your information.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
So again it's all about risk and so certain websites
I have to use, but I will tell you I
don't use apps on my phone at all. I have
like five apps that didn't come pre stored, and it's
because I'm more concerned about them tracking me on my
phone and where I'm at, more so than necessarily what
I'm uploading the website. Because the reality is is we
live in the world in which we have to upload
information to websites every day. So it's a matter of
(34:56):
managing your risk.
Speaker 6 (34:57):
So then when you check don't follow me, uh huh,
that doesn't work.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Well, it can, I mean it can to some degree,
but you just never know. I mean there's a lot
of backdoors, and so I just prefer not to even
risk it.
Speaker 6 (35:11):
So I guess the only solution is to go back
to an analog world.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
I think that's the way people are going to realize
they need to be safe.
Speaker 6 (35:18):
Yeah, whenever I talk to you, Colin, I make a
pledge to be more careful about my data. Not that
it can help much, but thanks for the warnings. That's
Colin Walkee of hall Estel And that's it for this
edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
(35:39):
www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and
remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!