Motel 6 to Pay $12M after Improperly Giving Guest Lists to ICE

Because this never happens XD

Maybe you could make an entrapment argument against the Federal officials. IANAL, so I don't know how that works. (I guess it's not entrapment because the Federal officials weren't trying to get Motel 6 to break the law for the purpose of going after Motel 6.)

And btw, since when has the law ever been enforced fairly, really?

If the police called and asked for my customer list, I’d check whether they had that authority and many other issues before turning it over. I think we had an article on here earlier about ‘second order thinking’ that would cover that... getting an invasive request from the government, and fulfilling it regardless of consequences because you want to ‘help’ or consider them to be like Mom and Dad is first order thinking.

I’m no expert, but it seems increasingly common to have state laws that oppose or are stricter than federal laws, and you do have to be aware of all laws for your jurisdiction down to the county and city. Especially in any voluntary action, you have to consider whether it violates other laws or duties, and if they weren’t legally compelled to do this t was voluntary.

There's all kinds of times when turning over information to the government, or certain agents of government, without a compulsory order is illegal, either under civil or criminal law or both. Sometimes it goes beyond that, and even prohibits such disclosure under otherwise compulsory orders.

I've worked with personal data of federally-funded substance abuse treatment program clients. Beyond (and actually, IIRC, predating) HIPAA protections that also apply, I could not, legally, disclose such information even to an law enforcement agent with a subpoena for the information, without a separate, accompanying federal court order authorizing disclosure of the protected client information. The implementing regulations (42 CFR Part 2) even take the unusual step of specifically calling out a number of nonexceptions to the general rule against disclosure outside of the specific parameters permitted: [42 CFR § 2.13(b)] ”The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in this part apply whether or not the part 2 program or other lawful holder of the patient identifying information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement agency or official or other government official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by the regulations in this part.”

If you work in an industry to which the law—state, federal, local, whatever—applies such protection to the data you hold, you are responsible to know that, abide by it, and not just roll over when someone vaguely waves a badge in your direction.

> If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do want that) then we should set that standard in law.

The State of Washington did that. That's exactly what the case is about.

> (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task?

Probably none, mostly because the law at issue doesn't apply to telcos.

It depends on whether you are in a demographic that believes law enforcement is just or corrupt.

I’ve told my sons if they ever get questioned by the police to not say a word until I get there. Even if they don’t have anything to hide.

I’ve told them how to react when they get stopped by the police and always keep their emotions under control. I’ve told them never to expect fair treatment. All of my paranoia is backed by statistics.

The natural result of this is then everyones rights would constantly be violated. Police would ask and every company would roll over and give out any info that is requested. And when we talk about personal information getting out, the damage is sort of done once it happens. And your only recourse is to then sue the government or get your state AG to possibly do it for you?

If you want to operate a business that takes personal information, it is your responsibility to protect it. Nobody is forcing anyone to start a business but there are inherent risks.

I can come to any bank, and politely ask them to help me out a bit by giving me some money. That's not an illegal (or wrong) thing to do.

Now if the bank does help me out by emptying out their customer's storage cells, someone's going into jail for that.

See, it's fine to help out. It's not OK to do so at someone else's expense. In this case, Motel 6 gave away something that's not theirs to give away, according to the law (namely: their customers' data).

Motel 6 did not break the law by helping out the feds. It broke the law by harming their customers (sharing their customer's data).

In the end, it's normal to ask for help. It's also pretty normal to politely decline to provide it.

Title nitpick: Motel 6 illegally gave away this information. They broke the state law, were sued for that, and lost $12M (and made further commitments on top of that). Why NPR chose to soften it to "improperly" is beyond me; the attorney general quoted in the article uses "illegally" in the same sentence.

I don't think invading privacy is part of the government's job.

Well, maybe they should not, if that help involves violation of other's right to privacy. If your ISP would "help" federal government to watch your communications without a court order, you might be justifiably upset.

Yes, telecoms are guilty in such behavior too, and largely are never punished. That doesn't mean it's ok.

> In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6.

ICE has the right to ask. M6 should have answered "sure, gladly, as soon as we see that warrant".

Had this guy been Latino he would be called a child smuggler.

I think it has less to do with "being cool with Swedes", and more to do with the fact that illegal immigrants are -- statistically speaking -- overwhelming Hispanic, and anyone identifying illegals will have better results among Hispanics.

I don't think anyone is more cool with a Swede conducting a terrorist attack than an Arab. Rather, any tenancy to profile Arabs as terrorists comes from the fact that most terrorists are Arabic.

---

This is not to justify the practice of racial profiling. I merely assert that the motivations for racial profiling stems more from actual statistics and cost-benefit analysis than intrinsic irrational racism as I think you suggest.

Again I don't agree but it's not hard to see why an agent would make that particular decision if they did.

Different teams deal with visa overstaying. In that area, most of illegal immigrants are almost certainly latinos. I guess that if a group of 14 Nigerian males showed up at Motel 6, they'd call ICE too.

It's generally not illegal for ICE (or government more generally) to request information without a warrant (not having a warrant or other compulsory basis just means people are not legally compelled to acquiesce to the request), and the state consumer protection law at issue neither purports to, nor could it Constitutionally, apply to federal law enforcement agencies.

No, crossing the border illegally is the 'root cause' - not ICE. ICE's shenanigans are an artifact of that.

But yes, it seems weird that a private entity is in trouble for doing what a government agency 'required' of them.

These grey areas really need to be sorted out, it seems the laws are still unclear.

I think there are probably a ton of ways to sort the border out if there weren't so many extreme voices on all of this.

ICE only enforce the laws that already exists.

So only two possible parties are at fault here:

1. Congress, if the current laws are bad.

2. Parents, if they are in violation of the law.

Why blame the cops for the arrest of a criminal?

Motel 6 violated Washington law by giving information away without a warrant. ICE can ask nicely for data from anyone, but you only have to comply if they have a warrant or subpoena.

So you may be seeing some amount of guilty consciences here...

China, India, Canada, and Mexico (countries with large populations and those that border the US) would all give me the boot if I tried to illegally immigrate there (and rightfully so). Sovereignty and the rule of law are important.