American Civil Liberties Union

In the digital age that we live in today, we are constantly exposing our personal information online. From using cell phones and GPS devices to online shopping and sending e-mail, the things we do and say online leave behind ever-growing trails of personal information. The ACLU believes that Americans shouldn’t have to choose between using new technology and keeping control of your private information. Each week, we feature some of the most interesting news related to technology and civil liberties that we’ve spotted from the previous week.

Government asks: when can we shut down wireless service? [ars technica]
"Here was a regional government agency blocking wireless access in response to a public protest. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed complaints."

What surveillance tool used by law enforcement could lead to nightmarish privacy infringement?

This week, the White House confirmed the existence of what program that has been kept secret by the CIA?

“Liking” on what social network is not protected by the First Amendment, according to a federal judge in Virginia?

Which state wants to replace one private prison contractor with another?

Which state is being sued by an ACLU affiliate for its discriminatory voter ID law?

“I Like Ike” is one of the most well-known and catchiest political slogans of all time. According to a decision that was issued by a federal judge in Virginia a few days ago, however, the modern-day equivalent—saying that you "like" a political candidate by using Facebook's "like" feature—is not even worthy of the protections of the First Amendment. That decision is wrong, whether you like or dislike Facebook. 

The court’s decision appears to be premised on its belief that pressing a button to say that you “like” something—in this case, a candidate running for election to be a city’s Sheriff— is not “substantive” enough to be protected by the First Amendment. In the court’s words: “[M]erely ‘liking’ a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection . . . It is not the kind of substantive statement that has previously warranted constitutional protection. The Court will not attempt to infer the actual content of [the plaintiff’s] posts from one click of a button on [the candidate’s] Facebook page.”