How Covenant Eyes, a Parental Control App, Led to False Accusations and Legal Issues
Covenant Eyes, a parental control app aimed at curbing online pornography use, has been at the center of a legal dispute. The app is designed to monitor internet usage on devices, particularly those of minors, and can send alerts to parents or designated accountability partners regarding potential explicit content views. Although the app may seem useful on paper, its limitations and potential for legal consequences have raised concerns about the infringement of privacy and constitutional rights.
The case of Hannah, a user of the app, sheds light on some of the issues with Covenant Eyes. After installing it on all four phones in her home, she and her husband faced legal trouble after he was accused of violating his bail terms by visiting the adult website Pornhub. Court records cite Covenant Eyes’ report as the reason for revoking his bail, even though Hannah claims that her phone had made a network request to the website’s servers as part of a background app refresh, and not by intentionally visiting the site. Covenant Eyes itself states that it cannot determine whether the user “intentionally viewed” a webpage because “some apps generate background activity without the member’s consent.”
Hannah’s case illustrates how the app’s alerts can be misleading and how they can lead to legal issues and violations of privacy and constitutional rights. The following are some of the concerns raised by Covenant Eyes’s usage:
– Legal Implications: Covenant Eyes’ reports are not always accurate and can contain misleading information that can be used against a person in court. It has the potential to violate constitutional rights such as the First and Fourth Amendments as it allows continuous and suspicionless searches of people’s devices. Moreover, indiscriminate monitoring could collect sensitive data, including a user’s communications with their attorney, which could impede their ability to prepare a defense.
– False Accusations: The app’s limitations can easily lead to false accusations. The alerts do not distinguish between intentional and unintentional visits to explicit websites, leading to unwarranted accusations. Furthermore, alerts can be triggered by background app activity, meaning that the user did not intentionally visit the website, as was the case with Hannah’s husband.
– Infringement of Privacy: The app can be seen as an infringement on privacy as it allows someone to monitor another’s device without consent. Moreover, the data collected by the app is shared with Covenant Eyes, raising questions about data privacy.
– Negative Psychological Impact: The app’s design could have negative psychological impacts on users, particularly minors. Constant monitoring could lead to feelings of guilt, shame, and anxiety, leading to mental health issues and negatively impacting relationships within the family.
– Limited Efficacy: While the app is designed to deter pornography use, it may not be the most effective solution. It does not address the underlying reasons why someone may be viewing explicit content, such as mental health issues, traumatic experiences, or unhealthy relationships.
Overall, the case of Hannah brings to light the serious implications of using Covenant Eyes and other similar parental control apps. While it may seem like a way to keep children safe, it is important to consider its limitations, potential for false accusations and legal troubles, and infringement of privacy and constitutional rights.
Additional Piece
While parental control apps such as Covenant Eyes may seem like a way to protect minors online, their potential negative impact on mental health and relationships deserves attention. With the increase in online connectivity and screen time, parents may feel the need to monitor every online move of their children, leading to feelings of mistrust and anxiety. According to a 2020 survey by the Pew Research Center, around 61% of parents say they are concerned about their child’s screen time, yet this concern is not always accompanied by knowledge on how to deal with it. The survey found that 50% of parents say their child’s screen time has increased since the pandemic started, leading to a need for solutions beyond parental control apps.
Rachel Hutt, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says that while parental control apps can be helpful in some cases, they should not be the primary solution. Instead, parents should talk to their children about internet safety, set boundaries and consequences, and model healthy online behavior. Additionally, parents can explore a range of resources aimed at promoting safe and responsible internet use, such as educational apps, social media literacy programs, and online courses. By focusing on holistic solutions, parents can help children develop positive internet habits and mitigate the negative effects of too much screen time.
Summary
The case of Hannah, a user of Covenant Eyes, a parental control app aimed at reducing pornography use has raised concerns about its limitations and legal consequences. The app’s alerts can be misleading, leading to false accusations and violations of privacy and constitutional rights. Its indiscriminate monitoring could collect sensitive data and hinder a person’s ability to prepare a defense, potentially violating the First and Fourth Amendments. Moreover, the app’s design could have negative psychological impacts on users, particularly minors. It is essential to explore holistic solutions such as educational apps, social media literacy programs, and online courses to mitigate the negative effects of too much screen time and develop positive internet habits.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Molly Greene, legal and strategy director at The Appeal, calls the censorship alarming. “It is incredibly concerning to hear readers say that they can no longer access our website as a result of this app,” she says. “This type of abuse of the judiciary to restrict people’s autonomy and ability to access critical information about the criminal legal system is exactly why The Appeal exists.”
Less than a week after Covenant Eyes was installed on all four phones in their home, Hannah received a call from her husband’s probation officer saying that her husband had violated the terms of his bail. According to Hannah, the officer said that Covenant Eyes detected that her phone had visited Pornhub. Court records reviewed by WIRED cite a visit to the adult website as the reason for revoking her bail.
But Hannah claims that her husband did not touch her phone and that no one had ever visited Pornhub. Instead, she says, her phone had made a network request to the website’s servers as part of a background app refresh from a frequently visited tab in her Chrome browser.
WIRED tested Hannah’s claims that Covenant Eyes flags background network activity from websites that are intentionally unseen. Using an iPhone, we visited Pornhub so many times that it was a frequently visited tab in Google Chrome. Then we installed Covenant Eyes and rebooted our phone. Within minutes, Covenant Eyes alerted our designated accountability partner that a request was made to Pornhub from our test device, even though we never touched it.
This is a known issue with Covenant Eyes. The alert Covenant Eyes sent when it detected a network request to Pornhub explicitly stated that the software cannot determine whether the user “intentionally viewed” the webpage because “some apps generate background activity without the member’s consent.” The company have public documentation about the deficiency.
This limitation in Covenant Eyes means that Hannah’s husband may not have violated the terms of their bond. Furthermore, the terms of her husband’s bail do not prohibit Hannah from viewing pornography, and it would be impossible for probation officers to know who was using the device from Covenant Eyes’ reports alone. However, in the motion to revoke Hannah’s husband’s bail, the only evidence prosecutors presented was information from the Covenant Eyes report.
According to Kate Weisburd, an adjunct professor at George Washington University Law School, challenging probation and probation violations is difficult, especially when they are based on electronic evidence. Courts are largely reluctant to find due process issues with electronic surveillance, she says, and overworked defense attorneys often lack the ability to challenge.
Hannah printed the Covenant Eyes documentation and hand-delivered it to the prosecutors, the judge, and the probation department. She never heard back. As a last resort, Hannah emailed Covenant Eyes CEO Ron DeHaas. In an email exchange that Hannah shared with WIRED, DeHaas apologized. “Hannah, I’m sorry you’re going through this,” DeHaas wrote. “I’ll have our legal department follow up with you.”
Hannah says the legal department never reached out.
constitutional errors
Jonathan Manes, an attorney with the Illinois office of the MacArthur Justice Center, says the surveillance facing Hannah’s family likely violates several of their constitutional rights. “This feels like an extraordinarily intrusive violation of the family’s First Amendment rights to be able to access the Internet and communicate without being monitored,” he says. Manes adds that because the software allows continuous and suspicionless searches of the devices of people who have not been charged with any crime, it potentially violated the family’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Lastly, Manes notes that by indiscriminately monitoring whatever the phone displays, the app could collect sensitive data including the family’s communications with their attorneys, as Hannah feared. “She’s interfering with her right to speak in confidence with her lawyer,” he says of Hannah’s husband. “It’s impeding her ability to prepare a defense and exercise that Sixth Amendment right.”
https://www.wired.com/story/anti-porn-covenant-eyes-bond-revoked/
—————————————————-