Landmark US Court Decision Rules that Privacy Under the Fourth Amendment Applies to Smart Meters

Wiki
image_pdfimage_print
The Seventh US Circuit Court handed down a landmark opinion that the Fourth Amendment protects energy-consumption data collected by smart meters, because that data reveals intimate details about personal activities in the home that would be unavailable to the government without a physical search. The court held that residents have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this data and that the government’s access of it constitutes a “search.” More than 40% of American households have a smart meter and the number will likely reach 80% by 2020. Law enforcement agencies are already trying to obtain the data from energy companies without warrants. -GEG

The Seventh Circuit just handed down a landmark opinion, ruling 3-0 that the Fourth Amendment protects energy-consumption data collected by smart meters. Smart meters collect energy usage data at high frequencies—typically every 5, 15, or 30 minutes—and therefore know exactly how much electricity is being used, and when, in any given household. The court recognized that data from these devices reveals intimate details about what’s going on inside the home that would otherwise be unavailable to the government without a physical search. The court held that residents have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this data and that the government’s access of it constitutes a “search.”

This case, Naperville Smart Meter Awareness v. City of Naperville, is the first case addressing whether the Fourth Amendment protects smart meter data. Courts have in the past held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect monthly energy usage readings from traditional, analog energy meters, the predecessors to smart meters. The lower court in this case applied that precedent to conclude that smart meter data, too, was unprotected as a matter of law. On appeal, EFF and Privacy International filed an amicus brief urging the Seventh Circuit to reconsider this dangerous ruling. And in its decision, released last week, the Seventh Circuit wisely recognized that smart meters and analog meters are different:

“Using traditional energy meters, utilities typically collect monthly energy consumption in a single lump figure once per month. By contrast, smart meters record consumption much more frequently, often collecting thousands of readings every month. Due to this frequency, smart meters show both the amount of electricity being used inside a home and when that energy is used.”

The Seventh Circuit recognized that this energy usage data “reveals information about the happenings inside a home.” Individual appliances, the court explained, have distinct energy-consumption patterns or “load signatures.” These load signatures allow you to tell not only when people are home, but what they are doing. The court held that the “ever-accelerating pace of technological development carries serious privacy implications” and that smart meters “are no exception.”

This is critical precedent. Last year, roughly 65 million smart meters had been installed in the United States in recent years, with 88% of them—over 57 million—in homes of American consumers; more than 40% of American households had a smart meter. Experts predict that number will reach about 80% by 2020. And law enforcement agencies are already trying to get access to data from energy companies without a warrant.

In this case, a group of citizens called Naperville Smart Meter Awareness challenged Naperville’s policy of requiring every home to have a smart meter, objecting on Fourth Amendment and other grounds. The district court held that smart meter data—despite being collected directly a city utility, not any non-governmental third party—was subject to the so-called “third party doctrine.” In other words, the lower court reasoned that simply because the utility company held the data, it was automatically devoid of constitutional protection.

Read full article here…

Related Post

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Freedom

Jim Fetzer, Author of ‘Nobody Died at Sandy Hook’, Denied Jury Trial and Ordered to Pay Sandy Hook Victim’s Father $450,000

October 18, 2019 Kevin Barrett and The Wrap 2

Jim Fetzer was sued by Lenny Pozner, father of six-year old Noah Pozner, who was reportedly shot to death. Lenny Pozner claimed Fetzer’s writing caused him to suffer from PTSD. A jury ordered Fetzer to pay $450,000 in damages to Pozner for defamation, based on accusations that Noah Pozner’s birth certificate was fake.

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

2
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
CindyLarry Wallace Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Larry Wallace
Guest
Larry Wallace

I am sure this court ruling will be shoved under the rug like all the other protestations against Smart meters. Unfortunately the American people are going to be forced to make their protests more physical. But these protesters will not receive a check from George Soros to do so!!

Cindy
Guest
Cindy

Energy companies are getting around this by bribing you to become willing participants in their data collection. My electric company installed the meter even after my husband told them they could NOT because he has a heart condition. They waited for us to leave and did it while we were gone. Now they continue to send notices asking us to sign up for a “cost-savings” plan where your energy is automatically cut back during times of districtwide high energy usage. They’ve been offering cash up-front as well as lower monthly minimum bills to do this. NO WAY. Yet, I know… Read more »