Hacker News Reader

Comment by indubitable | Hacker News Reader

What exactly is supposed to have been "unlawful" here? Companies regularly sell your information to anybody willing to pay for it. In this case that selling actually had some overlap with improving lawfulness in an area. As for 'selling', this article omits the information that desk clerks were receiving a 'bounty' of $x per illegal immigrant caught.

I'd certainly understand some outrage if we lived in a nation where there was any value whatsoever put on strong individual privacy protections, but we live in one that's rather the opposite - and so I'm not seeing the issue.

View on HN

Here be filing:

http://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Anot...

Apparently Washington has a "Consumer Protection Act" that makes deceptive practices illegal and a "Washington Law Against Discrimination" that includes "anti-discrimination protections in places of public accommodation".

We're shaping up to have yet another very interesting state vs fed battle occur.

Doubtful. The privacy policy clearly states they may give info to LEO's. They are generally welcome to do so in almost all states.

It's also pretty much not deceptive by law (happy to point you at the law of deceptive practices if you like).

The most likely outcome is a loss by Washington. If the state wins, the most likely outcome is congress will immunize corporations from suit in these situations, which imho, would be worse than losing the lawsuit (and probably done in a way with significant collateral damage to consumer protection)

Uhh, in what way do you figure that a business operating in Washington trumps State Law by "including it in their privacy policy"?

Thanks for the solid information. I just looked up the laws that the AG is suing on:

- [1] RCW 19.86.02 = Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

- [2] RCW 49.60.030(1)(b) = The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement [without discrimination against race/creed/color/...]

- [3] RCW 49.60.215 = It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons ... PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

I am still unclear on what the violation is supposed to have been. The first two charges are about unfair commercial practices and refusing service based on race - neither of which seem to really apply here. The third makes a specific exception for conditions that apply to all customers - and in their terms they specifically state, to all customers, that they may give their information to law enforcement.

[1] - http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.86.020

[2] - http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.030

[3] - http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.60.215

I'm curious how this would turn out. Devil's advocate for a moment...

1) So freaking vague it could mean anything.

2) I can understand the discrimination claim but the easy counter is that latino-sounding names doesn't necessarily imply race, creed, or color.

3) I'm not really sure on this one but I would argue that the persons affected were not prevented from getting a room. Plus one could argue that if an illegal is discovered at the hotel then there could be damages from law enforcement conducting a raid. I need someone to explain the context on this one.

Might be an interesting lawsuit.

Well it's a violation of their own privacy policy, which is why the Wa. state AG is suing them:

   From: https://www.motel6.com/en/faq.html | https://web.archive.org/web/20171124044157/https://www.motel6.com/en/faq.html
   What we will and will not do with Guest Information

    1.     We will not sell trade or rent Guest Information to 
   parties outside the Company, our franchisees and affiliates, 
   or permit our affiliates to sell such information to parties 
   outside of our group of companies, franchisees and affiliates.

Well you're being rather disingenuous. Those exact terms [1] also include:

    Compliance with Law

    This is a United States Site and is subject to the laws of the United States. 
    We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be
    required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation, pursuant to a 
    court order, or in compliance with any applicable law, regulation, rule or ordinance.

[1] - https://www.motel6.com/en/faq.html

This is about them voluntarily giving guest information to ICE without informing the guests. Which caused actual harm to at least 6 residents in the state of Washington. There's no federal law saying that hotels must provide detailed guest info (name, DOB, drivers license, car license plate, room number, and other info) and the hotel. So my plain reading of their terms would suggest that data should only be shared "during the discovery process in litigation [or] pursuant to a court order"

Washington state however has a statute that protects consumers from such data sharing.

(Also, I added a link to the terms in an edit that also fixed formatting. Wasn't my intention to be deceptive by omitting it)

"So my plain reading of their terms would suggest that data should only be shared "during the discovery process in litigation [or] pursuant to a court order""

Uh? "We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, or may be required to disclose it during the discovery process in litigation ..."

A court is going to say these are two different sentences talking about two different things. One where they voluntarily may do it whenever they want, and one where they may be required to do it anyway by court order.

You're plain reading of the terms skipped over the first part:

"We may disclose Guest Information to law enforcement agencies, ..."

They are saying right there that they may disclose such information. Whether they are breaking state law is a matter for the courts to decide. Apparently the Supreme Court already decided such a matter. I disagree with that decision, if such information should be kept private then it should be illegal for a hotel to require such data. They should only require the information to charge for the room or accept cash with little or no information. Why does the hotel require such information in the first place?

But all this does is create yet another bump in the road for law enforcement to do one of the easiest parts of their job, asking a third-party for information.

Washington does not have any such statute protecting consumers from data sharing. The exact laws the AG is trying to sue for are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16072592 The actual laws he's citing do not seem appropriate for this case. One of them being refusal of service based on race, another law specifically does not apply to things that apply to all customers (and their terms specifically opt all consumers into information sharing), and the final is unfair commercial practices which is intended for things like selling a used vehicle as a new one.

Again, if there were laws against companies selling or sharing information then I think this would be a major issue and my stance would also change 180 degrees. I also very much wish those laws existed, but they do not. And pretending they do only masks our complete lack of consumer privacy protections in the US.

The wording looks a little ambiguous to me (not a lawyer; I'm sure there are rules about how to parse this sort of odd sentence structure), but I would take that to mean that they'll provide data if there's a court order or law forcing them to. Not if the law enforcement agency just asks for it without a warrant.

FWIW: Historically, such statements have not been viewed in other jurisdictions or courts to mean they could not/would not provide information to LEOs.

IN fact, this very privacy policy also includes the standard term that they may disclose info to LEO's, you just omitted it.

If your agreement with your customer says "we do X with your data", and you actually do Y, then at the very least you may be civilly liable, and it may also be some form of consumer fraud.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com