News & Commentary

Is it harder to take candy from a baby or a border agent?

In criminal cases, defendants have a right to know what evidence the government plans to use against them and how the government gathered that evidence. This basic due process principle is essential: it allows defendants to test in court whether law enforcement officers obtained evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But in a new legal brief, the government has refused to confirm or deny whether it relied on constitutionally questionable mass surveillance programs to gather evidence for a criminal prosecution.

Leaks of classified and highly secretive information from U.S. government databases by the likes of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have naturally garnered massive press attention, exposing some deeply problematic U.S. military and national security programs and activities. Meanwhile, however, a lesser-publicized phenomenon has also been occuring with some frequency recently: breaches of corporate databases holding highly sensitive information on millions of Americans.

There's a wave of transparency reports sweeping the nation. In recent months a plethora of companies – including Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, and Twitter – have released these detailed documents, which describe the number of requests they get from the government to divulge their users' information and how they comply. Many of these reports are recent developments – Apple released its first report last week – and almost certainly spurred in some part by companies' desire to reassure users in light of the NSA scandals. Nonetheless it's a welcome development. As we have repeatedly said, the only way we can learn how our data is used is if companies tell us.

Dad usually suggests we leave a little early because leaving is the 'elephant in the room' that we're all trying to avoid. "Ya'll go on and head home and get some rest. Don't worry about me, I'm fine." It's the same stuff every time.

Recent reports have revealed that several companies are currently pushing “intelligent street lights” that are capable of being loaded with various kinds of sensors including, as Reuters reported late last month,

Ever wonder what could land you in prison for the rest of your life? For 3,278 people, it was nonviolent offenses like shoplifting a few cameras from Wal-Mart, stealing a $159 jacket, or serving as a middleman in the sale of $10 of marijuana.
That's rig

Today the Hawaii Senate cast the final vote needed to advance the marriage bill to the desk of the governor, who will sign in the next day or two, sealing Hawaii's position as the 16th state with the freedom to marry. This brings to a close an intense two-and-a-half week special session, which included the longest hearing in Hawaii's legislative history (over 55 hours of testimony were heard by the House Judiciary and Finance Committees). And this is the culmination of a more than 20-year journey, which began in 1990 when three couples filed a lawsuit seeking marriage equality. While the lead plaintiff in that lawsuit, Ninia Baehr, now lives in Montana (where she is the deputy director of the ACLU of Montana, continuing her work for LGBT rights), today's historic vote will have a deep impact on couples across the state of Hawaii, a few of whom have shared their stories here.

In 2003, California passed a landmark piece of legislation called the Shine the Light law, which gave Californians the right to learn how companies share their personal information for “direct marketing purposes.” Now that ten years have passed since that law was enacted, my colleagues at the ACLU of California have written a report evaluating how the law has turned out—and looking at the role of transparency in general when it comes to private companies and their handling of privacy.