'); document.write('

Technology And Liberty News

'); document.write('

ACLU of PA Lauds Senate Committee after Passage of Bill to Protect Sportsmen\'s Privacy Rights
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Senate Game and Fisheries Committee passed legislation today to protect the privacy rights of Pennsylvania\'s outdoor sportsmen. The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania applauded the unanimous committee vote on House Bill 181.

Introduced by Rep. Bryan Cutler (R-Lancaster County), HB 181 conforms the power of officers of the Pennsylvania Game Commission to conduct stops and searches with the commonwealth\'s police officers.

"Pennsylvania\'s sportsmen do not give up their constitutional rights simply because they hunt and fish," said Andy Hoover, legislative director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "Outdoorsmen have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures."

Under current law, Game Commission officers can conduct a stop and a search "at any time." HB 181 would require a finding of reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred before a commission officer could stop any means of transportation. The bill also requires a finding of probable cause that a crime has occurred before conducting a search of a vehicle or a person.

"The law today assumes that sportsmen are criminals and grants powers to Game Commission officers under that assumption," Hoover said. "HB 181 fixes a major hole in Pennsylvania law and does so through legislation, not a lawsuit."

HB 181 now heads to the Senate floor for consideration. The bill passed the state House of Representatives in June.
'); document.write('
ACLU Submits Statement On Aviation Security To Key Senate Committees
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union submitted testimony to three key Senate committees who are meeting today to discuss counterterrorism and airline security in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day attack. The Senate Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will hear from government officials on counterterrorism strategy and aviation safety.

In the wake of the attempted attack, the government has announced intensified airport screening of the citizens of 14 nations flying to the United States and there have been calls for the across-the-board implementation of full body scanners for all travelers. In its statement, the ACLU expressed its strong concern over the substantive policy changes being considered, including the expanded use of terror watch lists. The ACLU believes that each of these technologies greatly infringes on civil liberties and faces serious questions regarding their efficacy in protecting airline travelers.

“The government must act quickly to take all reasonable steps to close any holes in our security, but it must also act wisely and in a manner consistent with our values,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “All of these policies should be thoroughly debated regarding their efficacy in protecting air travelers and combating terrorism. New security technologies must be genuinely effective, rather than merely creating a false sense of security, and must minimize privacy violations. We need to ensure that the government enacts procedures that are effective and do not unnecessarily infringe upon our civil liberties.”

The ACLU also pointed out that the efficacy of whole body imaging (WBI) devices, racial profiling and our watch lists must be weighed against both their impact on civil liberties and their impact on the U.S. ability to implement other security measures. The size of our watch list creates numerous false positives, wastes resources and hides the real threats to aviation security, while targeting innocent people. WBI machines, which create strikingly revealing images of the human body, are extremely expensive and a British government study concluded they would not work to comprehensively defend against terrorist threats. Racial profiling, while an assault on the American principle of equal treatment, is ineffective and, worse still, counterproductive to counterterrorism strategies. The time and money spent on these questionable policies is time and money not spent on intelligence analysis or other law enforcement activity.

“Though Congress feels enormous pressure to ‘do something,’ there is no one measure or magic solution, and carelessly surrendering constitutional principles and American values is never the answer,” said Christopher Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel. “Invasive screening mechanisms, enlarging already bloated watch lists, targeting on the basis of national origin – none of these approaches goes to the heart of what went wrong on Christmas Day. They are a dangerous sideshow – one that harms our civil liberties and ultimately makes us less safe.”

The ACLU’s statement is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security-racial-justice-technology-and-liberty/aclu-statement-record-aviation-security-subm
'); document.write('
President Right About Intelligence, Wrong About Watch Lists
'); document.write('
Government Should Protect Civil Liberties While Protecting Safety, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – President Obama today addressed airport security in remarks responding to the Christmas Day attack on a plane headed for Detroit.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"We welcome President Obama\'s emphasis on better information and intelligence sharing between government agencies. Our limited security resources should be invested where they will do the most good and have the best chance of thwarting attacks, and that means developing competent intelligence and law enforcement agencies that will stop terrorists before they get to the airport.

"However, we take issue with the president\'s assertion that the terror watch list system isn\'t broken. The current watch lists, which contain over a million names, are a mess, keeping innocent travelers from flying while failing to identify true terrorist threats. To be effective, no-fly lists must focus on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat to flight safety.

"We are also deeply troubled by the administration\'s decision to subject the citizens of 14 nations who are flying to the United States to intensified screening. Using national origin or religion as proxies for suspicion is nothing less than racial profiling. Such profiling is ineffective, unconstitutional and counter to American values. Instead of profiling, we should be focusing on evidence-based, targeted investigations based on individualized suspicion, which would be both more consistent with our values and more effective at making us safer.

"The president spoke of using smarter screening technology at airports. We hope the administration recognizes that full body screening machines pose serious threats to privacy with uncertain benefits to our safety. The machines should only be used when individualized suspicion suggests they are the best method for screening specific passengers, not as an automatic procedure for all passengers.

"The government must indeed work zealously to make us as safe as possible and to take every reasonable step to make sure security breaches do not happen. But we need to act wisely, and that means not trading away our rights and liberties for ineffective policies."
'); document.write('
Airline Security Must Protect Rights As Well As Safety
'); document.write('
Racial Profiling And Body Scanners Target Civil Liberties But Not Necessarily Terrorists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The Obama administration announced Sunday it will subject the citizens of 14 nations who are flying to the United States to intensified screening at airports, including being subjected to full-body pat downs or body scanners. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the government should adhere to longstanding standards of individualized suspicion and enact security measures that are the least threatening to civil liberties and are proven to be effective. Racial profiling and untargeted body scanning do not meet those criteria.

"We should be focusing on evidence-based, targeted and narrowly tailored investigations based on individualized suspicion, which would be both more consistent with our values and more effective than diverting resources to a system of mass suspicion," said Michael German, national security policy counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office and a former FBI agent. "Overbroad policies such as racial profiling and invasive body scanning for all travelers not only violate our rights and values, they also waste valuable resources and divert attention from real threats."

According to the ACLU, the government\'s plan to subject citizens of certain countries to enhanced screenings is bad policy, because there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist and many terrorists have come from countries not on the list. For instance, the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid is a British citizen, as were four of the London subway bombers, and in 2005 a Belgian woman launched a suicide attack in Iraq.

"Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn\'t reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people," said German. "Profiling can also be counterproductive by undermining community support for government counterterrorism efforts and creating an injustice that terrorists can exploit to justify further acts of terrorism."

In addition to racial profiling, some have called for the across-the-board implementation of full body scanners, which present serious threats to personal privacy and are of unclear effectiveness. According to a UK Independent report on Sunday, British officials have already tested the scanners and were not persuaded that they would be effective for stopping terrorist threats to planes. And according to security experts, the explosive device used in the attempted attack on a Detroit-bound plane on Christmas Day would not have been detected by the body scanners.

"We shouldn\'t complacently surrender our rights for a false sense of security, and we should be very leery of being sold a device presented as a cure-all, especially when the evidence shows just the opposite," added German. "If scanners and other intrusive procedures are used, it should be with their limitations in mind and only when there is reason to believe that an individual poses an increased risk to flight safety, not as blanket measures applied to millions of innocent travelers."
'); document.write('
In Aftermath Of Attempted Attack, ACLU Advocates Effective Security That Respects Privacy
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – In the aftermath of the attempted terrorist attack on a Northwest plane on Christmas Day, there has been controversy over what kind of security measures, such as body scanners and watch lists, are advisable. The American Civil Liberties Union calls for the implementation of effective security policies that pose the most minimal threat possible to Americans\' privacy.

"The attempted attack on Christmas Day could easily have ended tragically, and we\'re all grateful it didn\'t. The government must find out what went wrong and what more can be done to protect our nation against terrorism," said Michael German, ACLU Washington Legislative Office policy counsel and former FBI agent. "But while it\'s important to react quickly, it\'s also important to react wisely and to adopt procedures that will be both truly effective and the least invasive to Americans\' privacy. Electronic strip-searching of innocent people, racial profiling and bloated, poorly managed terrorist watch lists do not stop terrorist attacks, but they do infringe upon Americans\' rights and waste valuable resources."

Full body scanners present serious threats to personal privacy and are of unclear effectiveness. Plastic explosives can be hidden from them as can explosives hidden in body cavities, which Al Qaeda has already used to launch attacks. Body scanners produce strikingly graphic images, creating pictures of virtually naked bodies that reveal not only sexual organs but also intimate medical details such as colostomy bags and mastectomy scars. That degree of examination amounts to a significant – and for some people humiliating – assault on personal privacy to which travelers in a free country should not automatically be subjected. If these machines are used, it must only be when the facts suggest it is absolutely necessary and not on all travelers; in a non-discriminatory fashion assuring the strongest degree of privacy possible; and when subject to strict oversight to prevent against the misuse of the images.

The current terror watch lists, which are bloated and keep innocent travelers from flying, must be seriously revamped. Their unmanageability distracts from and fails to identify true terrorist threats, as the recent event demonstrates. To be effective, no-fly lists must focus on true terrorists who pose a genuine threat to flight safety.

"We must invest our security resources in investigations based upon reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing so we can more effectively identify and stop attackers before they get to any airport. We must also hold our law enforcement and intelligence agencies accountable to ensure that the vast powers they\'ve been given over the past nine years are being used effectively and responsibly," said German. "While we must work fervently to provide the best security possible, Americans can\'t afford to be complacent about giving up civil liberties, especially to ineffective policies that don\'t make us safer. Providing for security and liberty is not a zero-sum game. In America we should strive to be both safe and free."
'); document.write('
Ohio Supreme Court Decision on Cell Phone Searches Protects Privacy and Due Process
'); document.write('
Rules Police Must Have Warrant to Search Cell Phones

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

COLUMBUS - The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio says the ruling issued today by the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of State v. Smith has enhanced the privacy rights of Ohioans. In a first of its kind ruling, the Court said that law enforcement officials must have a warrant in order to search the contents of someone\'s cell phone when seized during arrest. In addition, the Court recognized that modern cell phones contain a great deal of personal information and users have a high expectation of privacy.

ACLU of Ohio Staff Counsel Carrie Davis said, "Today\'s decision by the Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed that even with changes in technology, we do not sacrifice our core civil liberties. Oftentimes, the law fails to keep up with the fast pace of technology, but this decision lays the groundwork for greater privacy protections as the digital age advances."

"The modern cell phone is often not used simply to make and receive calls — many people use them to access the internet, manage finances, house personal photos, catalogue personal contact information and a host of other functions. The Court clearly holds that law enforcement cannot go on "fishing expeditions" and search this information without a warrant," added Davis.

The Court affirmed that police may conduct warrantless searches upon arrest in two narrow exceptions: if the search was necessary to protect the immediate safety of officers or others, and if they believed the individual may delete evidence. However, in the second circumstance, the Court said the officers may only seize a cell phone to prevent the destruction of evidence. They did not give officers permission to search the phone prior to receiving a search warrant.

Today\'s decision by the Ohio Supreme Court marks the first time a state supreme court has ruled on whether a warrant is required to search a cell phone. Previously, there were only a few scattered rulings in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. The ACLU of Ohio filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Mr. Smith.

"As technology continues to advance, we must ensure that our laws protect the rights on which our country was founded. Today, the Ohio Supreme Court took a step in the right direction toward protecting our privacy today, and in the future," Davis concluded.
'); document.write('
NYCLU: Policy Relaxing Scientific Standards for Use of DNA in Crime Investigations Will Lead to Law-Enforcement Abuses and Civil Rights Violations
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – In a split vote, 7-4, New York State\'s Commission on Forensic Sciences approved a policy authorizing law-enforcement to investigate the family members of an individual whose DNA does not precisely match crime scene evidence.

The scientific rationale is that a "partial match" between a sample of DNA from a crime scene and the DNA of someone in the state\'s DNA databank may implicate a blood relative of that individual.

The New York Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes the policy, charging that the new procedure all but invites an abuse of privacy and due process rights by relaxing technical standards for the use of DNA without adequate protection against error and abuse by law enforcement.

"The Commission has opened a Pandora\'s Box," said NYCLU Legislative Director Robert Perry. "The familial search policy raises provocative questions: Will innocent family members become criminal suspects because a relative\'s DNA is a near match with crime scene evidence? Will the police ask, or compel, those family members to submit a DNA sample? And on the basis of an individual\'s \'partial\' DNA match, will other, innocent family members be included in a local suspect watch list or have their own DNA stored in a local police databank?"

The commission members also split, 7-4, on the question of whether the proposed partial-match DNA policy required authorization by the state legislature. The NYCLU contends there are fundamental questions as to whether the policy adopted by the Commission today is authorized under existing law.
'); document.write('
DHS Recommends New Privacy Assessments On Video Surveillance From Grantees
'); document.write('

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – In a move to create stricter privacy guidelines, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the latest version of its grant application today that includes new requirements for video surveillance. It will now be recommended that applicants for DHS grant money perform privacy assessments if grant money is to be used to purchase, install or support cameras. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the new requirement as the first step in pushing back on the proliferation of unchecked video surveillance.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Calabrese, ACLU Legislative Counsel:

“Pervasive video surveillance is, by definition, a threat to privacy. Government-run video surveillance has the potential to radically alter the relationship between the government and the public, and DHS grant money is behind many camera installations across the country. Privacy assessments have never been part of the grant process. With this change, DHS has begun to set a new standard and hold applicants accountable for their use of video surveillance. This is an encouraging step and we urge DHS to make this requirement mandatory in next year’s grant guidance.”

To learn more about the ACLU’s work on curbing the use of surveillance cameras, go to: www.youarebeingwatched.us
'); document.write('
DHS Recommends New Privacy Assessments On Video Surveillance From Grantees
'); document.write('

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – In a move to create stricter privacy guidelines, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the latest version of its grant application today that includes new requirements for video surveillance. It will now be recommended that applicants for DHS grant money perform privacy assessments if grant money is to be used to purchase, install or support cameras. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the new requirement as the first step in pushing back on the proliferation of unchecked video surveillance.

The following can be attributed to Christopher Calabrese, ACLU Legislative Counsel:

“Pervasive video surveillance is, by definition, a threat to privacy. Government-run video surveillance has the potential to radically alter the relationship between the government and the public, and DHS grant money is behind many camera installations across the country. Privacy assessments have never been part of the grant process. With this change, DHS has begun to set a new standard and hold applicants accountable for their use of video surveillance. This is an encouraging step and we urge DHS to make this requirement mandatory in next year’s grant guidance.”

To learn more about the ACLU’s work on curbing the use of surveillance cameras, go to: www.youarebeingwatched.us
'); document.write('
ACLU Questions Surgery Videotape Requirement Imposed By Health Department
'); document.write('
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

The Rhode Island ACLU has asked the state Department of Health to reconsider an order it issued against Rhode Island Hospital on November 2nd, requiring video and audiotaping of surgeries at the facility.

The requirement was part of a more comprehensive order directed at the Hospital after its fifth wrong-site surgery in three years. In a letter sent last week to DOH director David Gifford, the ACLU expressed support for the agency\'s goal of protecting patients, but also raised concerns that implementation of this particular aspect of the order would "lead to a serious and disturbing invasion" of patients\' privacy in many instances.

Among the concerns raised in the RI ACLU\'s letter:
- "It is difficult to think of many more intimate places to be videotaped than on an operating table. Although the order refers to \'patient notice and consent documentation,\' none of the details for this consent is spelled out in the order, nor is it clear how patients will be notified. Just as importantly, we question how meaningful any consent will truly be in such a sensitive setting."
- "The order does not address many other key issues, such as the standards that will govern who has access to the videotapes and under what circumstances, how long tapes will be kept, how the patient will be able to obtain copies, and what limits – if any – will be placed on use of the tapes."
- "Since another part of the order requires an independent medical observer to be in the operating room for every surgery performed at the Hospital for the specific purpose of ensuring that proper procedures are followed … taping surgeries strikes us as redundant at best, and extraordinarily intrusive at worst."
The ACLU letter noted that the DOH order was ambiguous as to whether all or just selected surgeries would need to be taped. Even if the latter, though, the ACLU pointed out that the hospital would be required to tape numerous surgeries of any particular doctor in order to randomly examine a few of his or her surgeries.

The ACLU raised similar concerns about audiotaping surgeries, arguing that "in an operating room – as in most other non-public settings – a recognition by hospital employees that they are being audiotaped can have a potentially chilling effect on their speech and conduct." To the extent the audiotaping is designed to evaluate the group dynamics taking place among the staff in operating rooms, the ACLU argued that "knowledge among the staff that they are being audiotaped will inevitably change the dynamics among the group," and that the change will not necessarily benefit either the patients or employees.

For all these reasons, the ACLU letter urged the Department to revise its November 2nd compliance order and eliminate the taping provisions. The Affiliate is awaiting a response.

UPDATE: The ACLU has since received a response from the Department of Health, and will be monitoring implementation of the requirement.
'); document.write('