Privacy Rights, Boiled by Degrees

​Five Maine lobstermen are suing Maine’s Department of Marine Resources after the agency issued regulations requiring electronic tracking of vessels fishing in federal waters. The plaintiffs allege such tracking violates privacy rights, due process, and equal protection under the Constitution. It’s a red-hot, lobster pot controversy with significant implications on the ever-evolving body of law surrounding geolocation tracking and surveillance.
 
Maine adopted the tracking regulation in December to comply with a requirement issued by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, whose overarching policy objective here is to help protect the North Atlantic right whale. This is certainly a noble objective, but it brings with it troubling implications.
 
Maine Department of Marine Resources Commissioner Patrick Keliher makes the argument that because lobstermen work in a “closely regulated industry,” they have “a greatly reduced expectation of privacy.” It’s a common refrain for those seeking to impose new surveillance measures.
 
But as attorney John Vecchione of the New Civil Liberties Alliance once said, “the expansion of closely regulated-industry theory is a huge, huge danger to liberties for everybody.” Indeed, as society, the economy, and ensuing regulations grow, simply having to get a license could subject any business to warrantless inspections.
 
Such an argument could be used to attach trackers to realtors as they move around from house to house, salespersons, contractors, or any other group of mobile professionals.
 
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, where the case was filed, might take a page from the Fifth Circuit, which in 2023 struck down a U.S. Department of Commerce requirement that would have forced charter boat owners to install, at their own expense, a “vessel monitoring system” that would continuously transmit their boats’ location, regardless of whether it was being used for commercial or personal purposes.
 
In that case, the court found that it “borders on incredible” that the government claimed it failed to notice personal privacy concerns in public comments to its rule. The court, further, found that discovery of prime fishing spots in the Gulf would constitute a hardship for many charter operators.
 
Similarly, attorneys for the suing lobstermen argue that they “jealously guard the whereabouts and the techniques they use to place their traps. This is directly correlated to their ability to make a living.” It’s not just fishing locations that are at risk, however. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that warrantless GPS tracking constitutes an unlawful search. Tracking someone’s movements, it needn’t be emphasized, can reveal quite a lot about their personal and private lives.
 
As the Maine federal court considers these issues, we side unequivocally with the lobstermen. Simply put, there must be a way to balance the privacy interests of fishermen and the policy objective of protecting marine life. Top-down surveillance mandates seem a poor fit.