Tag: data collection

Your Bank Data Could Become A Profit Center – And You’ll Pay the Price

A forthcoming federal rule on open banking may allow banks to charge new fees for access to consumer data, a move critics say would harm consumers and runs counter to other parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Open banking allows consumers to authorize banks and other financial institutions to securely share their financial data electronically with third-party providers.

Why now?

The White House was reviewing the anticipated rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as of last week, according to reporting by Bloomberg Law. The rule would help shape the federal framework for open banking in the U.S., building on a broad provision contained within the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Dodd-Frank was passed to enhance transparency and accountability and strengthen consumer protections in the financial industry after the economic crisis of 2008. The law is just under 850 pages long, and Section 1033 – which provides the legal basis for the open banking ecosystem that has evolved in the U.S. – was not one of its central provisions. Section 1033 is about one page long and it ensures that Americans have the legal right to access their own financial data upon request. Financial institutions must provide consumers’ financial data relevant to the sought-after financial product or service in “an electronic form usable by consumers.”

The law gives the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau broad authority to define and standardize this process, which is partly why affected industries have anticipated federal rulemaking on open banking for more than a decade.

The Biden administration issued the long-awaited rule in late 2024, which required banks to provide data directly to third parties authorized by consumers and prohibited banks from charging third parties fees for accessing the data, among other provisions. Banks pushed back, suing the bureau claiming it was exceeding the authority it was granted under Section 1033 and challenging those provisions in court.

Banks have said the rule would require them to build and maintain costly interfaces for third-party access while preventing them from being able to recoup those costs.

Last summer, JPMorgan Chase & Co. submitted proposed fees to data aggregators like Plaid for accessing Chase customers’ financial data.

The Trump administration has said the Biden administration’s rule was unlawful, “arbitrary and capricious” and began working on a rewrite of the rule last August. The lawsuit is essentially paused until the new rule is released, and the court ordered that enforcement of the Biden rule be stayed.

The Trump administration’s version reportedly includes a provision that would allow banks to charge volume-based fees to fintech companies to access consumer financial data, meaning banks could begin charging fintech companies once they make more than a certain number of requests for customer data.

Who pays the price?

News that the Trump administration’s rule would include a data-rationing provision prompted numerous objections from fintech companies and consumer advocacy groups, who argued that if banks didn’t pay for the data sharing, consumers ultimately will.

“Inevitably, if [the cost] is on the third party, it’s going to go back to the consumer,” said Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who formerly led a CFPB task force on federal consumer financial law and served in a leadership role at the Federal Trade Commission.

A third party is really a false choice, according to Zywicki, and between consumers and banks, he thinks banks are the much better option.

“The bank already has built-in incentives to collect the data, keep the data safely, use the data, and under law would already be required to share the data with consumers for them to be able to use it to shop for themselves,” Zywicki told The Center Square, “To then say, OK, now you have to also let Plaid access my data or Mint access my data, so they can go find me a better savings account than recommended to me or suggests this product instead of that product just strikes me as the only way to really make sense on this.”

The five largest banks in the U.S. reported a record-worthy second quarter. JPMorgan reported its highest quarterly profit in history, Goldman Sachs had its best second quarter ever, and Citigroup enjoyed its best quarter in a decade. Bank of America also posted strong results, while Wells Fargo beat Wall Street expectations. Collectively, they brought in $49 billion in profits.

Zywicki and other sources who spoke to The Center Square also maintained that banks have already done much of the work to build an open banking ecosystem and any costs they might incur to share data with more third parties would be relatively small.

“Banks already are collecting and holding information securely… They’ve already got to share the information for free with the consumer. It’s just a matter of whether a third party can get the information on behalf of the consumer,” Zywicki added.

But there’s another cost to consumers that could be even greater than any immediate impact on their wallets, advocates warn, and that’s the cost of continued fervent fintech innovation.

“We have already seen the nation’s biggest banks take advantage of regulatory ambiguity to impose fees and throttle access. Further uncertainty could stop the next great startup from forming and prevent consumers from accessing affordable financial products,” said Miranda Margowsky, head of communications for the Financial Technology Association.

Fintech innovation can do more than help consumers manage their finances. Startups like Carefull, a fintech company that analyzes customers’ financial activity for unusual patterns, can help detect warning signs of dementia or cognitive decline, potentially years before a clinical diagnosis.

“The goal here is to create a competitive framework where… small banks, for example, or fintech providers, or whoever can compete against the big banks that are currently holding the data,” Zywicki said. “It’s not really much of a fair playing field if banks can continue to use this information to market their [own] products.”

Keep reading

Beware, AI cameras in the classroom filming your children and gathering personal data

There’s a new and dire threat to privacy that parents of school children need to be aware of and be prepared to fight against.

AI surveillance in the classroom.

Frank Landymore of Futurism.com reports, in a May 18 article, on a sinister plan hatched by the University of Washington to film pre-school children during class time. If this is going on in Washington, you have to believe it’s going on, at least in the planning stages if not already happening, across the 50 states.

The article reports that a planned University of Washington study would’ve had preschool teachers wear cameras to “record first-person footage of everything in the classroom,” including the children they were instructing, and use that footage to train AI models.

Remember, those behind the global technocracy movement believe the only value a human being will hold in the new society they are trying to create, is the data sets they produce. This was stated in the wide open a few years ago by World Economic Forum adviser Yuval Noah Harari. Without your personal data to be stolen, manipulated, and sold for profit, you are nothing to them but a useless eater.

Part of the plan is to create a “digital twin” of every person on earth as an anchor to the new digital control grid.

So why wouldn’t the Epstein class of entitled billionaire elites who harbor perverted, twisted views of children, want a daily video record of everything your child does in school? Every word uttered. Every facial expression. Every action and reaction. Year over year for comparison’s sake. Then they can use this data to create algorithms that predict everything your child will grow up to become before he or she is 10 or 12 years old?

Harari, an Israeli historian and chief adviser to the WEF, has said that if he had access to artificial intelligence when he was younger, he believes he would have discovered he was a homosexual at age 11 or 12 instead of at 17. In fact, a Newsweek article from September 8, 2017, made the case that AI can predict “with startling accuracy” whether a person is gay or straight.

But this particular story, in the case of Washington State, has a positive outcome. It exemplifies the kind of parental awareness and bold activism that is needed to shut down the illegitimate use of AI technology in the classroom.

Keep reading

Even Therapists Have Become a Data Mine

There was a time when people could still speak privately. You could sit across from a therapist, talk about your marriage falling apart, your depression, your fears, your finances, or the darkest moments of your life believing those conversations would remain between two human beings. That world is dying rapidly because everything now must be digitized, stored, analyzed, and monetized.

A woman using the therapy app Talkspace discovered that transcripts from her therapy sessions ended up being produced in court during litigation involving her former employer. Let that sink in for a moment. These were not vague notes scribbled down by a therapist. These were detailed digital records discussing her personal life, emotional state, relationships, and finances. The machine remembered everything.

This is what society has become. They tell people to seek help, open up, trust the system, use the apps, go digital, and then they quietly turn human vulnerability into searchable data.

People still fail to understand the danger because they continue believing these technology companies are merely offering services. They are not. They are harvesting human behavior at industrial scale. Every click, every message, every location, every search, every emotional breakdown becomes data to be stored forever.

Talkspace executives reportedly bragged to investors about building one of the largest mental health data banks in existence containing roughly 140 million exchanges between patients and therapists. Human suffering itself is now an asset class. Depression has become data. Trauma has become machine learning material. Your private thoughts are now inventory sitting on corporate servers.

When someone went to therapy, the therapist might keep handwritten notes locked away in a cabinet somewhere. Those notes were incomplete, temporary, and human. Today every word can be transcribed, archived, searched, copied, subpoenaed, breached, or fed into artificial intelligence systems. The conversation never dies because the machine never forgets. And people wonder why society feels colder and less human.

What happens when people realize their darkest thoughts may someday appear in court? What happens when employers, insurance companies, governments, or AI systems can gain access to deeply personal psychological information? You destroy trust itself. People stop speaking honestly. They stop trusting institutions. They begin living cautiously because they know every word may someday be weaponized against them.

This is where the entire digital age has been heading from the start. First they harvested shopping habits. Then browsing history. Then location data. Then biometrics. Now they are harvesting the individual’s inner psychological life. Nothing is sacred anymore because everything has a price.

Keep reading

Google Partners with the Pentagon to Sell Your Data

There has always been this convenient belief that Big Tech operates independently from government, as if the data you store, search, and upload exists in some neutral corporate space, but that illusion is breaking down rapidly as the lines between Silicon Valley and Washington disappear in real time.

Google has now entered into a classified agreement with the Pentagon allowing its artificial intelligence systems to be used for “any lawful government purpose,” which is a phrase that sounds benign until you understand what it actually means in practice.

This is not a narrow contract tied to a single project. It opens the door for integration into mission planning, intelligence analysis, and even weapons targeting systems operating on classified networks, and once those systems are embedded, the distinction between commercial technology and state infrastructure effectively disappears.

At the same time, Google does not retain control over how that technology is ultimately used, because under the terms being reported, the company has no ability to veto lawful government operations, meaning once access is granted, the downstream application is no longer in their hands.  Please be reminded that Google has been collecting data on everyone and everything for decades: Google Maps, Google Search, Google Photos, Google Drive, Gmail, etc.

This is where the narrative people have been told begins to collapse, because for years the assumption was that your data sat within a corporate ecosystem governed by terms of service and internal policies, yet what is now being constructed is something entirely different, a shared infrastructure where private data, artificial intelligence, and state power intersect.

Keep reading

Federal In-car Monitoring Mandate Expands Data Collection and Control Powers

A federal mandate rooted in a 2021 bipartisan law is set to reshape every new car sold in the United States, and potentially the boundaries of personal mobility itself. By the 2027 model year, vehicles will be required to include systems that monitor drivers for impairment and can intervene if necessary. Supporters frame it as a safety breakthrough. Critics call it a “kill switch.”

The policy has broad political backing. It passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans and has remained intact across administrations, including under the recent Consolidated Appropriations Act, which preserved both funding and the mandate. In January, that support was tested when the House voted down an amendment that would have stripped funding for the requirement, effectively keeping the rule on track.

One of the most persistent critics is Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who continues to lead opposition alongside a small group of lawmakers. Massie warns that Congress is normalizing continuous monitoring inside privately owned vehicles, a shift he argues carries implications far beyond roadway safety.

The Law

The requirement comes from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, specifically Section 24220. The law directs regulators to establish a safety standard for what it calls “advanced impaired driving prevention technology.”

The statute defines that technology as a system that can

(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;

It also allows for systems that can “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver … is equal to or greater than” the legal limit, with authority to intervene. The law sets the objective, not the method.

It also cites research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimating that such technology “can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually.”

The mandate and its funding were reaffirmed in early 2026, when President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, ensuring the requirement remains in force.

From Safety Feature to Standard Equipment

Driver monitoring is not new. It is already embedded in many modern vehicles, especially those equipped with advanced driver-assistance systems.

General Motors says its Super Cruise system “tracks the driver’s head position and/or the driver’s gaze” and alerts the driver when attention drifts. Chevrolet describes the system as using a camera mounted on the steering wheel to track “head and eye movement.”

Similarly, Ford’s BlueCruise uses “a driver-facing camera and infrared lighting” to confirm that the driver remains focused on the road. Subaru’s DriverFocus system uses comparable technology, capable of alerting occupants if the driver appears drowsy or distracted.

Today, these systems primarily issue warnings. Under the federal rule, similar technology could become standard in every new vehicle. It would not simply prompt the driver. It could help determine whether the vehicle should start or continue operating.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) describes the current landscape in similar terms. Its 2026 report to Congress explains that indirect systems infer driver state “through camera-based monitoring and vehicle inputs.” It also notes that most current systems are designed to detect “drowsiness, inattention, and sudden sickness,” not alcohol impairment.

That distinction matters. A system designed to detect distraction is not automatically capable of reliably identifying intoxication. Yet the mandate moves in that direction, turning optional in-cabin monitoring into a required compliance system.

Keep reading

Pokémon Go — The Largest Mapped Data Collection Ploy in History

When Pokémon Go was released, it appeared to be a harmless game encouraging people to go outside and explore, yet beneath that surface was a far more sophisticated system that directed human movement into very specific locations where data was needed most, turning millions of users into mobile data collectors. The placement of Pokémon, Gyms, and PokéStops was not random, but concentrated around landmarks, businesses, and dense urban corridors, meaning players were repeatedly funneled into high-value mapping zones, often returning to the same locations over and over again, capturing them from multiple angles, at different times of day, and under varying conditions, which is exactly how high-quality spatial datasets are built.

For many reading this, particularly those who never played the game, it is important to understand what this actually looked like in practice, because this was not some passive background process, it required people to physically walk through neighborhoods, parks, shopping districts, and even residential areas while holding up their phones, actively scanning their surroundings to “catch” virtual creatures that did not exist. The game encouraged users to point their cameras at real-world objects, move around them, and interact with the environment. The system was capturing detailed imagery not just of public landmarks but also of surrounding areas, including streets, entryways, and private homes, all embedded in what appeared to be a simple entertainment experience.

Keep reading

Massachusetts Agrees to Delete Data From App It ‘Secretly Installed’ During Pandemic

Massachusetts officials have agreed to delete data from a contact tracing application that people said was installed on their phones without their permission during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Under a settlement agreement approved by a federal judge on March 31, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health “shall (a) destroy any Primary Data in the Department’s possession, custody, and control, which the Department, exercising all due diligence, has located and … that was made available to the Department from the COVID Exposure Notification Setting on Android Devices; and (b) certify in writing to Class Counsel that such data has been destroyed and will not be provided to any third party.”

The state’s health commissioner also promised not to have data collecting applications installed on people’s phones without their permission for five years.

The settlement came in a case brought by plaintiffs who said the app in question, known as MassNotify v.3 or Exposure Notification Settings Feature-MA, was “secretly installed” on their phones without their permission.

American Institute of Economic Research senior fellow Robert Wright, who lives in Massachusetts, said the app was downloaded onto his Android phone around July 1, 2021, without his knowledge. Johnny Kula, a New Hampshire resident who travels to Massachusetts on a daily basis for work, also said he discovered the app on his phone around the same time, and that it was back on the phone later in 2021 after he uninstalled it.

The plaintiffs’ claims echoed reviews from app store users complaining they had not downloaded the app, but it appeared on their phones. The app, which allowed people to say they had tested positive for COVID-19, and alerted others who had recently been close in location to those people, was downloaded more than one million times, according to court filings. Similar applications were developed by at least 24 other states.

Keep reading

FBI Resumes Buying Americans’ Location Data Without Warrants

The FBI is buying Americans’ location data again. Director Kash Patel confirmed it to lawmakers on Wednesday, confirming what we already knew: that it has resumed purchasing commercial surveillance data, including detailed location histories, from data brokers.

The brokers feeding that data pipeline source much of it from phone apps and games that people use daily without realizing they’re being tracked.

By the time a precise location record reaches a federal agency, it may have originated from a weather app or a mobile game, passed through an advertising middleman, and been packaged for resale, with the person who generated it never consulted or notified.

Senator Ron Wyden asked Patel directly whether the FBI would commit to not buying Americans’ location data without a warrant. Patel declined. The agency “uses all tools…to do our mission,” he told the committee.

He followed up by confirming that “we do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,” adding that it “has led to some valuable intelligence for us.”

Wyden called that arrangement exactly what it is: the government buying what it cannot legally seize. Purchasing information on Americans without a warrant is “an outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment,” he said, referring to the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The workaround is not unique to the FBI. Federal agencies are generally required to convince a judge that probable cause exists before demanding private records from a tech or phone company.

The commercial data market offers a way around that requirement entirely. Agencies simply purchase what they would otherwise need a warrant to obtain, creating a market for data grabbing and exploiting a legal gap that courts have not yet addressed.

Wyden and other lawmakers introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act last week, which would require a court-authorized warrant before any federal agency can purchase Americans’ data from brokers. The bill is bipartisan and bicameral. Without it, the gap that lets agencies buy their way around the Fourth Amendment remains open.

Keep reading

FTC Says Companies Can Collect Kids’ Personal Data, As Long As It’s Called “Age Verification”

The FTC just told companies they can collect children’s personal data without parental consent, as long as it’s for “age verification.”

That’s the practical effect of a policy statement the agency issued this week. Under COPPA, websites collecting data on kids under 13 generally need verifiable parental consent first. The FTC’s new statement carves out an exception: gather whatever personal information you need to verify someone’s age, and the Commission won’t come after you for it.

The agency calls this child protection. The infrastructure it’s enabling looks different.

Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said “Age verification technologies are some of the most child-protective technologies to emerge in decades,” and framed the announcement as a tool for parents.

What the statement actually does is green-light personal data collection from minors, on the theory that knowing someone’s age requires knowing who they are first.

The exemption is conditional. To avoid enforcement, sites must delete age verification data “promptly” after use, restrict third-party sharing to vendors with adequate security assurances, post clear notices about what they’re collecting, and use methods likely to produce “reasonably accurate” results. These requirements are unverifiable by the people whose data gets collected, and enforced by an agency that just announced it won’t enforce.

COPPA supposedly exists precisely because children’s personal data is sensitive and companies can’t be trusted to protect it without legal pressure.

The FTC’s new exemption uses that same sensitive data as the price of admission for age verification, then steps back from enforcement. The agency is weakening the law’s protections in order to expand the infrastructure that the law was supposedly designed to regulate.

Keep reading

Palantir, Fractal And Your Personal Data Privacy – Get used to being used, because YOU are the product

Who controls the data the government collected from you for a generation?

Your insurance company collected data on your driving – so did your Lexus – who owns that data?

You told your doctor about controlled substances you used – and now it gets brought up in an interview.

If you can’t exclude someone from using your data, then you don’t control it. That means you really don’t own it. It’s that simple.

What does “own” mean here, let’s define the terms.

Owning the data means you can do anything you want with it – share it, sell it, mine it or build an A.I. language model with it.

From birth until the last Social Security check gets cashed, your data is collected by federal and state agencies, corporations and of course the internet.

Your teen daughter puts every waking moment on Facebook or Instagram – so who owns those hundreds of images?

TSA Pre Check, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, government or military retirement, Tri-Care, veterans hospitals, and of course, the IRS – gather more data about every citizen than has ever been gathered in the history of mankind.

Each agency gathers different data, at different times, for slightly different purposes. And those purposes may change over time.

Who owns the rights to that data?

It’s a far stickier question than you think.

The knee jerk response is the government owns the data. They collected it for their purposes, so it’s theirs.

The government will certainly say so.

Keep reading