ADT Tech Spied On Women For Four Years Before Getting Caught By Accident

from the what's-the-opposite-of-security dept

Another day, another example of why we might want to actually pass at least a basic privacy law for the internet era. The latest problem bubbled up over at home security vendor ADT, after a technician was caught using home security cameras to spy on people for years. More specifically, the tech accessed customer video cameras in 200 homes some 9,600+ times over a period of four years. His preferred targets were attractive women he spied on while they were having sex, bathing, or getting dressed. This was, as US Attorney Prerak Shah was quick to note, a grotesque abuse of trust:

“This defendant, entrusted with safeguarding customers? homes, instead intruded on their most intimate moments,? said Acting U.S. Attorney Prerak Shah. ?We are glad to hold him accountable for this disgusting betrayal of trust.”

The tech simply added his email address to the authorization list for the company’s ADT Pulse accounts, which lets home security customers access cameras when not at home. ADT’s now facing three different lawsuits for failing to “implement adequate procedures that would prevent non-household members from adding non-household email addresses.” Aka, they didn’t engage in some basic due diligence to ensure that employees couldn’t abuse the system. The federal charges were brought some five months after the first lawsuit was filed.

One of the interesting bits is that he appeared to have only been caught by accident, and could easily still be engaging in the same behavior today if not for one attentive subscriber:

“The lawsuit also claims the flagrant security breach was discovered not by the company, but ‘by luck and happenstance.’ A customer, reporting a technical issue, inadvertently revealed the unwanted third-party access,” the lawsuit claims. “But for that event, ADT would be unaware of this invasive conduct.”

So no basic security measures to prevent employees from abusing their authority. No system to notify users when somebody new was added to the email access list for video cameras they provide. ADT didn’t even know this was going on — and if not for a customer being attentive it probably still would be. And this is a security company! It’s notably worse for the parade of “internet of thing” companies that decided we needed to hook every home device up to the internet with zero willingness to embrace or fund basic privacy and security standards.

In ADT’s case, the company is busy trying to dodge responsibility by throwing complaining customers into binding arbitration, a lopsided process that pretends to be better than traditional class actions, but usually winds up with the companies in question getting little more than a wrist slap. When you know that repeated privacy and security violations can be brushed aside with a modicum of billable legal hours, you’re not inclined to try very hard. It’s far easier, and less expensive, to half-ass it, then have your lawyers water down already flimsy after-the-fact penalties.

It’s why properly staffing and funding our privacy regulators, and having a basic privacy law where the expectations are clear and the penalties are notable (and consistently enforced) seems like a no brainer. Though it’s still amazingly not clear how many national privacy scandals are necessary before we finally figure out that our existing “solution” of apathy, wrist slaps, binding arbitration, and intentional policy gridlock aren’t working very well.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: adt

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “ADT Tech Spied On Women For Four Years Before Getting Caught By Accident”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
12 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

ADT attempted to sell me their services when I moved in to my current home. After their scare sell presentation, I asked them, "What do you offer that I can’t do myself with some WiFi cameras, door and window sensors and a cell phone?"

The answer boiled down to "charge you money to watch your home". I asked them: no matter whether you’re bonded or not: why would I want to pay your employees to spy on my home, when I can watch it perfectly well myself without any of the privacy risks?

The guy didn’t have an answer and walked away. That was it until the next week, when the NEXT guy from ADT showed up at the door (which now had a "no soliciting" note on it)… After the same conversation, his supervisor got a phone call.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
OldMugwump (profile) says:

I don't think "a basic privacy law" is going to help here...

I’m pretty sure the tech has been fired, and is likely being sued.

And what he did is probably already illegal.

Simply passing a law doesn’t make the prohibited behavior disappear.

See how well the War on Drugs is working? The streets of America have been drug-free since the Nixon administration!

I remember Al Gore trying to settle concerns about abuse of the Clipper chip by promising to make such abuse…illegal.

Come on, Karl. You’re old enough to know better.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: I don't think "a basic privacy law" is going to help here...

I’m pretty sure the tech has been fired, and is likely being sued.

And what he did is probably already illegal.

The issue here is establishing clear regulatory standards, and holding companies responsible when they violate them.

Simply passing a law doesn’t make the prohibited behavior disappear.

This reasoning is absurd. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean there’s no point in having laws against anything. Why have laws against murder? People still commit murder.

See how well the War on Drugs is working? The streets of America have been drug-free since the Nixon administration!

I was going to list out a few of the many ways in which your comparison is bad, but you know what? Nah. It’s your comparison; it’s not my job to tell you why it’s bad, it’s your job to explain why it’s not.

So, to that end: in what way are privacy laws analogous to the War on Drugs? Besides that both things are laws?

I remember Al Gore trying to settle concerns about abuse of the Clipper chip by promising to make such abuse…illegal.

This analogy is less stupid; the Clipper chip has a lot more overlap with the ADT scandal we’re talking about in that it was a supposed security device that could be backdoored by malicious actors.

That said, there are important differences here. For one, Clipper was rooted in US law enforcement and the surrounding surveillance state, which is fundamentally a different target than a private security firm with employees watching people’s cameras for voyeuristic reasons.

Second, the vulnerabilities in the Clipper chip were inherent to the concept of key escrow, whereas the vulnerabilities in the ADT system are inherent to SaaS. If you’re running software on somebody else’s computer, there’s no way to prevent its owner from gaining access to whatever it is you’re doing with it. There’s no technical solution to this problem, except "don’t use SaaS", which is not a tenable solution for most people.

If we allow that some people are, inevitably, going to use SaaS, the only solution is to set and enforce security policies for companies that offer it. (In this instance, the breach could have been trivially found by simply doing DB audits and looking for instances where the same e-mail address was tied to multiple accounts.)

You are correct that passing a law is no guarantee that people will follow it. (Again, this is true of literally every law.) But laws don’t exist to completely eliminate bad behavior; they exist to disincentivize it and make it less likely to occur.

Leaving security and privacy up to the free market is clearly not working.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I don't think "a basic privacy law" is going to help her

But laws don’t exist to completely eliminate bad behavior; they exist to disincentivize it and make it less likely to occur.

THIS is the key. If the US had a GDPR equivalent, ADT would have just earned themselves a 15% of annual revenue fine. This would ensure they updated their policies so that this never happened again, because it would cost them more for this to happen once than for them to put proper privacy policies in place and enforce them.

With the current US privacy laws (including California), if you break them, you get to apologize and make a nominal political contribution and go back to doing (profitable) business as usual.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I don't think "a basic privacy law" is going to help

To quote the Spartans: "If"

If such a law and the associated regulations were on the books.

If such a regulatory agency was properly funded, staffed, and free from political influence to monitor and enforce said regulations.

As longtime readers of TechDirt can tell you, this here’s ‘Murica, we don’t do things like that around here.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...