Categories
Join Us At:
|
The FBI's War against Dr. King Revisited Over the course of two decades, the FBI went to war against Dr. Martin Luther King, even though the civil rights leader never knew he was under attack. As Dr. King’s political power, stature and influence grew, the FBI, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, grew increasingly obsessed with King. In turn, they used various tactics in the ‘50s and ‘60s to try and discredit him, such as mounting a full-court press to portray him as a Communist provocateur, attempting to disrupt tributes after Dr. King won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 and repeatedly bugging his hotel rooms. The FBI so viewed Dr. King as a threat that they even tried to covertly besmirch his reputation after his assassination, when Congress in 1969 first considered making his birthday a national holiday. These shameful actions were detailed in a 2002 ACLU report that highlighted one of the sorriest chapters in FBI history, in order to bring attention to the dangers of domestic spying. “His ‘crime’ was to challenge the laws enforcing segregation and preventing the right to vote,” the report said. “His ‘crime’ was to protest the Vietnam war and to denounce policies that did not address widespread poverty in this country.” After a Senate committee in 1976 exposed the FBI’s campaign against King, the Justice Department issued a set of guidelines that limited the scope of acceptable surveillance and infiltration of religious and political organizations. Regrettably, the attacks on 9/11 sent the government spiraling away from such protections. No doubt, Hoover would have been the cheerleader-in-chief for the Patriot Act. It would have made his job so much easier. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement can obtain orders to secretly enter your home without telling you that a warrant was issued, even in ordinary criminal cases. It allows you to be labeled a terrorist if you belong to an activist group. It allows the government to ask for a wiretap without telling a judge who is being monitored and why. And it enables the FBI to force libraries, Internet service providers and others to provide “tangible things” ostensibly tied to a terrorism probe. But the person or entity can never disclose they received such a demand from the FBI. Of course, Hoover did a lot of things like that without telling anyone. The law was an afterthought. No more. Now the law is the problem. Tags: FBI, Patriot Act
This Week in Civil Liberties (10/28/11) In which states did ACLU lawsuits put a halt to suspicionless, mandatory drug testing? Which Senators are working to show that the Patriot Act has a secret interpretation that violates the rights of American citizens? What can be done to protect immigration detainees vulnerable to being sexually abused while in detention? Victories in Florida and Missouri: No Illegal Drug Testing The Patriot Act, 10 Years Later Battling Prison Rape: Immigration Detainees Deserve Protection, Too Immigration detainees are extremely vulnerable to being sexually assaulted and abused, just one of the many hidden horrors of our nation’s inhumane immigration detention system. Language and cultural barriers, histories of state-sanctioned abuse in their home countries and a fear that reporting abuse will result in deportation all increase the likelihood that detainees will not feel safe reporting sexual abuse and that perpetrators will not be held accountable. Act now by joining the ACLU in demanding that the Obama administration ensure that all immigration detainees have the full protection of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. This is your week in civil liberties. Let us know if this is useful or if you'd like to see changes. Share your thoughts: ideas@aclu.org Learn more about your rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: drug testing, immigration detention, Patriot Act, prison rape
The Patriot Act Anniversary Week Round-Up So. The Patriot Act turned 10 on Wednesday, October 26, 2011. And all we got were violations of our civil liberties. Well, that and this really awesome infographic, which contains information like this fun fact: Did you know that under the relaxed National Security Letter (NSL) standards in the Patriot Act, between 2003 and 2005, the FBI issued 143,074 NSLs, and reported a big, whopping zero terrorism prosecutions as a result? Zero, zilch, none, nada. So what was the FBI using their shiny, new terrorism-fighting-intelligence-gathering powers for? Well, they did refer 17 criminal money laundering cases, 17 immigration-related cases, and 19 fraud cases. And the other 143,021 NSLs? Well, thanks to the gag order that accompanies them, the innocent people whose personal information was sought from third parties will never know.
Did you catch Wednesday’s Washington Post op-ed by Nicholas Merrill, our heroic plaintiff (seriously) who challenged an NSL he received as the owner of a small internet service provider? Spoiler alert: even though the government dropped the demand for information and allowed Merrill to reveal his identity, he still can’t — under threat of imprisonment — tell the person whose information was sought, nor can he identify precisely what information was demanded. Speaking of secrecy, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have been warning of a secret government interpretation of the Patriot Act. Sen. Wyden has gone so far as to say, “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.” Awesome. Well, we’re trying to find out about this secret interpretation. Last May, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about the government's interpretation and use of this provision, and on Wednesday (a.k.a. "the big anniversary"), we filed a lawsuit to force the government to comply with the request. We’ll keep you posted on what (and when) we learn. In the meantime, the Patriot Act has been extended until 2015, but don’t think the government is done secretly demanding your personal information from third parties. This handy dandy timeline illustrates how the Patriot Act was just the beginning of big brother’s power and information grab. And the next front? Cybersecurity. In the interest of so-called internet security, the administration is floating proposals that would sweep up huge amounts of personal information about innocent Americans, simultaneously violating privacy rights and overwhelming the government's counterterrorism efforts with too much data. And if that’s not scary enough, some are even suggesting that the White House be given the ability to turn off the internet in the case of a “cyber emergency.” Do you know what that is? No? Neither do I. And, neither, it appears, do many of the legislators working on the issue. Now that’s something truly scary, just in time for Halloween. Fortunately, there’s still time to urge your legislators not to let cybersecurity legislation follow in the Patriot Act’s abusive footsteps. Please go to our Action Center and take action today! Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Decade of Patriot Act, gag order, National Security Letters, nsl, Patriot Act, spying, surveillance
A Tool in the Government's War on Privacy? Absolutely. But in Its War on Terror? Not So Much… 3,970. That is how many times between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2010, federal judges let the government avoid telling someone that their home or office had been searched, and that law enforcement officers rifled through and potentially even seized their personal belongings. We contacted the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to obtain up-to-date numbers on how frequently the government uses the "sneak and peek" searches (also called delayed-notice searches), a government surveillance tool authorized by the Patriot Act. The report (which we've made available on our website) shows that in 2010, sneak and peek warrants were issued more than twice as often as in 2009, and more than three times as often as in 2008. Federal laws usually require the government to notify you if it searches your property. This notification serves as an essential protection for the exercise of your rights, since it lets you know if you need to protect yourself against unlawful government searches. But, sneak and peek search warrants allow investigators to enter and search an individual's business or dwelling and delay notification for up to 30 days or longer 'if 'the facts of the case justify' it, and then obtain an indefinite number of 90-day extensions. Delaying notice to an ever-growing number of people that their homes and businesses have been searched opens the door for law enforcement to conduct secret searches of individuals without any concerns for accountability, since the subject of their searches will be completely in the dark about what has happened for an indefinite period of time, and essentially unable to exercise their rights. The fact that the government's use of this purported anti-terrorism authority has been increasing significantly in the last few years is one part of the much larger problem of abusive government surveillance practices authorized under the guise of national security. FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that sneak and peek search warrants are an "invaluable tool to fight terrorism." Indeed, that was the stated purpose for including them in the Patriot Act in the first place. But, sneak and peek search warrants are hardly ever being used to fight terrorism. Out of the 3,970 warrants issued, only 37 pertained to a terrorism investigation. That accounts for less than 1 percent of the warrants issued. This abusive "anti-terrorism tool" is really being used to fight the war on drugs (76 percent) and to investigate other crimes that have nothing to do with protecting national security. While the number of sneak and peek search warrants has dramatically increased over the years, the percentage of warrants issued for terrorism investigations has never even reached 1 percent. Congress had the chance to rein in this abuse when it reauthorized portions of the Patriot Act earlier this year, but not surprisingly, it did not do so. Many of our political leaders seem immune to rational arguments about the need for limits on government surveillance authority. After 10 years of abuses, and 10 years of questionable government statements about how "invaluable" these anti-terrorism tools are, the 10 year anniversary of the passage of the Patriot Act is no time to celebrate. It is a time to demand that our government respect our privacy rights again. The government's next attempted power grab for abusive surveillance authorities in the name of national security will be over cybersecurity. This time the government is proposing that communication providers be allowed to routinely turn over our private information to the Department of Homeland Security. Don't let the government hide behind the excuse of security to once again erode our privacy rights. Let's use the 10-year anniversary of the Patriot Act to tell Congress to oppose cybersecurity legislation that violates our freedom. Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Decade of Patriot Act, Fourth Amendment, Patriot Act, search and seizure, surveillance
The Patriot Act's "John Doe," Unmasked but Still Gagged In 2007, The Washington Post made an exception to its policy against anonymous op-eds and ran a piece by Nicholas Merrill, who at the time was legally barred from identifying himself as having been served with a National Security Letter under the Patriot Act. Last year, after challenging the statute with the ACLU, Merrill was able to reveal his name. But he is still prohibited from giving information about the investigation that was launched back in 2004. Yesterday, on the 10th anniversary of the law, the Post printed a new op-ed by Merrill that describes his experience with the law that has fundamentally altered all Americans' relationship with the government: In 2004, it wasn’t at all clear whether the FBI would charge me with a crime for telling the ACLU about the letter, or for telling the court clerk about it when I filed my lawsuit as “John Doe.” I was unable to tell my family, friends, colleagues or my company’s clients, and I had to lie about where I was going when I visited my attorneys. During that time my father was battling cancer and, in 2008, he succumbed to his illness. I was never able to tell him what I was going through.Merrill was also interviewed for an NPR report yesterday on how contrary to the law's original intent, the government is using the Patriot Act mainly for investigations that are not related to terrorism. You can listen here. Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Decade of Patriot Act, FBI, gag order, National Security Letters, Nicholas Merrill, nsl, Patriot Act, surveillance
ACLU Sues Government to Find Out Secret Interpretation of Patriot Act This week marks 10 years since the Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The ACLU is hosting a blog series that will address some of the sweeping changes to surveillance laws over the past decade. To learn more about the Patriot Act, visit www.aclu.org/patriot. Ten years ago today, the Patriot Act was signed into law, dramatically expanding the government's authority to monitor the activities of all Americans, whether suspected of wrongdoing or not. One section in particular, Section 215, gave the FBI unprecedented authority to obtain "any tangible thing" for an investigation related to international terrorism or espionage. The FBI has the power to use Section 215 to collect records held by businesses such as hotels, banks, stores, and internet service providers. They need to show only that the information is "relevant" to an investigation and, in 2010, every single 215 request was granted. Despite the fact that this kind of dragnet surveillance can affect all Americans, we are largely in the dark about how Section 215 has been applied. Last May we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about the government's interpretation and use of this provision. Our renewed concern about the this "secret law" was prompted by senators' warnings over the significant discrepancy between the government's position on Section 215 and what the public understands it to mean. Today we filed a lawsuit to force the government to comply with the FOIA request. We believe the public has a right to know how the government is interpreting a law that is carried out in secret and applies to all Americans. We know that in 2010, the number of FBI requests for Section 215 orders more than quadrupled from the year before. Today, the Washington Post reports that the reason for the increase is that certain electronic communications service providers stopped honoring National Security Letters (which are issued by the FBI without a judge) demanding electronic communication transaction records. Exactly what types of transaction records that includes remains unknown. We hope our lawsuit will paint a fuller picture of how the government's secret position has been applied and misused at the expense of ordinary Americans as well as what that position actually is. We anticipate that this information will further show that the Patriot Act does not make us safer. Instead, Section 215 and the "secret law" that surround it alienate us from our government and prevent us from fully reflecting about how the Patriot Act has shaped the past decade. To learn more about how the Patriot Act turns ordinary citizens into suspects, check out our new infographic about surveillance under the Patriot Act. Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
The Patriot Act, Cyber-Edition This week marks 10 years since the Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The ACLU is hosting a blog series that will address some of the sweeping changes to surveillance laws over the past decade. To learn more about the Patriot Act, visit www.aclu.org/patriot. Congress is currently considering new cybersecurity measures, including some proposed by the Obama administration. But the plans threaten to make the same mistakes as the Patriot Act, which has its 10th anniversary this Wednesday. The new proposals would sweep up huge amounts of personal information about innocent Americans, simultaneously violating privacy rights and overwhelming the government's counterterrorism efforts with too much data. Despite the fact that many of the government’s current surveillance practices remain shrouded in secrecy, it is trying to get even greater power to watch and listen. An op-ed by ACLU National Security Project Senior Staff Attorney Zachary Katznelson, published Sunday in McClatchy newspapers around the country, warns of the flaws in the current and proposed systems. Once more, information gathering would be incredibly broad, sweeping in law-abiding Americans against whom there is not even a hint of alleged wrongdoing. In the name of making us safe, we once again face the prospect of flooding our systems with excessive information, and hamstringing the officials trying to protect us. The cybersecurity policy eventually implemented will have a direct effect on all Americans. You can take action by telling your representatives to make sure that whatever the government does respects our privacy rights and the constitution. Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: cybersecurity, Decade of Patriot Act, Patriot Act, surveillance
The Patriot Act, 10 Years Later This week marks 10 years since the Patriot Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The ACLU is hosting a blog series that will address some of the sweeping changes to surveillance laws over the past decade. To learn more about the Patriot Act, visit www.aclu.org/patriot. This Wednesday will mark 10 years since the Patriot Act was enacted. Pushed through Congress without debate, the massive surveillance bill was hastily passed just 45 days after 9/11, and was the first of many changes to surveillance laws over the past decade that made it easier for the government to spy on innocent Americans. Since the Patriot Act was first enacted, lawmakers have authorized extension after extension, refusing to make any meaningful changes to the law. This is despite the fact that — according to Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) — there are two versions of the Patriot Act: one that the public sees, and a secret interpretation that the government keeps to itself. Senator Wyden has stated, “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.” Furthermore, since its passage, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General has repeatedly found widespread blatant abuse of the statute. Yet, earlier this year, Congress passed a four-year extension of expiring Patriot Act provisions, which are now set to expire on June 1, 2015. Our new infographic illustrates some of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act, and our new timeline contextualizes the Patriot Act alongside other laws and government surveillance programs expanding suspicionless spying on ordinary Americans (as well as ACLU efforts to fight unchecked surveillance). While much-needed reform of the Patriot Act is likely a few years away, there is something that we can do today to prevent further erosion of our privacy rights. Just as the Patriot Act swept aside long-standing constitutional protections against government prying into private lives, current cybersecurity proposals threaten to expand the government's ability to collect personal information — simultaneously violating privacy rights and overwhelming the government's counterterrorism efforts with too much data. Over the past decade, we have learned that such policies fail on two fronts: they are largely ineffective and they violate civil liberties.
Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Decade of Patriot Act, Mark Udall, Patriot Act, Ron Wyden, spying, surveillance
Surveillance in Post-9/11 America Passed amid the climate of fear and uncertainty that followed the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act fundamentally altered the relationship Americans have with the government. The bill’s passage opened the door to continued efforts to broaden suspicionless surveillance of Americans under the guise of national security, marking the beginning of a massive and unchecked surveillance state in the U.S. As we approach the ten-year mark since the Patriot Act was signed into law, we’ve put together a new timeline that charts shifts in surveillance since 9/11, and unfortunately, it paints a rather troubling picture. Through the Patriot Act and many other surveillance programs put into effect over the last decade, the government is systematically collecting information on wide swaths of Americans who are not suspected of breaking the law or being involved with terrorism, violating the rights of innocent people and squandering precious security resources. But there is still no public evidence that the Patriot Act has been useful in thwarting terrorist attacks. And, since the bill’s passage, there have been several reports outlining widespread blatant abuse of the statute. Ten years later, it is time to stop loosening privacy standards that have been in place for over 200 years, and put an end to the government’s misguided approach that the more information the government collects, the safer we’ll be. Learn more about the Patriot Act: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: FBI, Patriot Act, surveillance
Secrecy About Secrecy: Making Sure the FBI Is Following the Rules on Surveillance Gag OrdersEvery year, the FBI sends about 50,000 "national security letters" (NSLs) to Internet service providers and others requesting information about their customers. Today we filed a lawsuit aiming to make sure that the government is following the rules when it uses this controversial tool. NSLs allow the FBI to collect information that's extremely sensitive — e.g. the names of websites that a person has visited, or the email addresses with which she has corresponded — and to do so without judicial oversight. Unsurprisingly, government reports have detailed significant abuses. Several years ago, the ACLU challenged one particularly troubling aspect of NSLs: the government's ability to silence recipients of NSLs using gag orders. By imposing these gag orders, the FBI cloaked the use (and abuse) of its NSL authority in near-blanket secrecy. In a landmark ruling, a federal appellate court held in 2008 that the gag order provisions were unconstitutional. The Court held that the government could fix part of the problem, though, if it adopted a "reciprocal notice" policy. Under that policy, the government would still issue gag orders, but it would have to inform NSL recipients that they had a right to challenge the orders in court. If NSL recipients informed the government that they wanted to challenge gag orders, the government would bear the burden of initiating court proceedings. And in the course of those court proceedings, judges would actually consider the necessity for secrecy — rather than simply defer to the FBI's view that secrecy was necessary. Earlier this year, we filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to find out whether the government has implemented the reciprocal notice policy, and, if so, how. We want to know, among other things, how many gag orders the FBI has issued, how many times those gag orders have been challenged, and how many times the FBI has lifted gag orders voluntarily. We want to see the documents the FBI uses to impose gag orders, and the documents they use to inform NSL recipients that they have the right to challenge those orders in court. But the FBI failed to release documents in response to our request, and so today we filed a lawsuit to force the FBI to comply with the FOIA. In our view, the public has a right to basic information about how the FBI is using its surveillance authority. That would include information about the FBI's use of gag orders to silence those who are asked (or compelled) to facilitate the FBI's surveillance activities. Learn more about national security letters: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: FBI, gag orders, National Security Letters, nsl, Patriot Act |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
