Ⓐnarcho Queer • Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

By the end of Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, the number of blacks and latinos stopped by the NYPD will exceed the population of black and latino people living in NYC.

The number of stops involving young black men in 2011 (168,124) exceed the city’s population of young black men (158,406). 90% of them were innocent (were not arrested or given a summons) yet accounted for 41.6% of the stops despite making up only 4.7 of NYC.

Since Bloomberg took office, stop and frisks increased 600%. This March the NYPD CONDUCTED THEIR 5 MILLIONTH STOP AND FRISK. The number is truly staggering when you consider that the population of NYC is 8.3 million. In comparison, the population of Los Angeles, America’s second largest city, is only 3.8 million.

Out of those 5,000,000 stop and frisk encounters, 4.4 million or 88% were innocent (were not arrested or given a summons) and 86% were Latino or Black.

In Brownsville, Brooklyn, where over 96% of the residents are black or latino, 93 out of 100 residents were stopped by the NYPD.

Probably the most enraging fact about the stop and frisk method is that it has revealed that WHITES ARE MORE THAN TWICE AS LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITH A WEAPON THAN BLACKS/LATINO’S.

Only 1.9 percent of frisks in 2011 turned up weapons and interestingly, according to the NYCLU, “a weapon was found in only 1.8 percent of blacks and Latinos frisked, as compared to a weapon being found in 3.8 percent of whites frisked.”

The most enraging facts about Bloomberg’s/NYPD’s Stop And Frisk method. 

Source 1/Source 2/Source 3

Source: anarcho-queer

FBI To ACLU: Nope, We Won’t Tell You How, When, or Why We Track You Back in August 2012, we reported on how the American Civil Liberties Union was compelling the FBI to fully disclose how it interprets the results of the United States v. Jones case—a unanimous Supreme Court decision establishing that law enforcement does not have the authority to put a warrantless GPS tracker on a suspect’s car. As we reported then, other types of high-tech surveillance and monitoring by law enforcement continue on a nearly daily basis around the country. Cops are using everything from tap and trace, ping data, license plate surveillance, and other techniques as a way to keep tabs on suspects and innocent citizens without going through the threshold of a judicially reviewed probable-cause-driven warrant. Now, the ACLU has received a response to its query—with nothing. The FBI sent the ACLU back pages (PDF) upon pages (PDF) that are heavily redacted, providing zero insight into what this policy actually is. The ACLU first caught wind of the two FBI memos in question after hearing FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann speak at a legal conference in San Francisco in February 2012. In a 12-minute video posted online, Weissmann spoke about two memos: one focused on the use of GPS tracking on forms of transportation beyond cars, the other regarding how Jones applies to tracking methods outside of GPS (presumably like cellphone ping data). “Is it going to apply to boats, is it going to apply to airplanes?” Weissmann asks in the video. “Is it going to apply at the border? What’s it mean for the consent that’s given by an owner? What does it mean if consent is given by a possessor? And this is all about GPS, by the way, without getting into other types of techniques.” And those questions remain wholly unanswered. “The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking—possibly for months at a time—or whether the government will first get a warrant,” Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney, wrote on Wednesday. “This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies—like the Justice Department’s secret opinions about the Patriot Act’s Section 215—that simply should not exist in a democratic society. Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?” Needless to say, the ACLU says its fight isn’t over, and it will move this further up the legal chain.
Pop-upView Separately

FBI To ACLU: Nope, We Won’t Tell You How, When, or Why We Track You

Back in August 2012, we reported on how the American Civil Liberties Union was compelling the FBI to fully disclose how it interprets the results of the United States v. Jones case—a unanimous Supreme Court decision establishing that law enforcement does not have the authority to put a warrantless GPS tracker on a suspect’s car.

As we reported then, other types of high-tech surveillance and monitoring by law enforcement continue on a nearly daily basis around the country. Cops are using everything from tap and trace, ping data, license plate surveillance, and other techniques as a way to keep tabs on suspects and innocent citizens without going through the threshold of a judicially reviewed probable-cause-driven warrant.

Now, the ACLU has received a response to its query—with nothing. The FBI sent the ACLU back pages (PDF) upon pages (PDF) that are heavily redacted, providing zero insight into what this policy actually is.

The ACLU first caught wind of the two FBI memos in question after hearing FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann speak at a legal conference in San Francisco in February 2012.

In a 12-minute video posted online, Weissmann spoke about two memos: one focused on the use of GPS tracking on forms of transportation beyond cars, the other regarding how Jones applies to tracking methods outside of GPS (presumably like cellphone ping data).

“Is it going to apply to boats, is it going to apply to airplanes?” Weissmann asks in the video. “Is it going to apply at the border? What’s it mean for the consent that’s given by an owner? What does it mean if consent is given by a possessor? And this is all about GPS, by the way, without getting into other types of techniques.”

And those questions remain wholly unanswered.

“The Justice Department’s unfortunate decision leaves Americans with no clear understanding of when we will be subjected to tracking—possibly for months at a time—or whether the government will first get a warrant,” Catherine Crump, an ACLU staff attorney, wrote on Wednesday.

“This is yet another example of secret surveillance policies—like the Justice Department’s secret opinions about the Patriot Act’s Section 215—that simply should not exist in a democratic society. Privacy law needs to keep up with technology, but how can that happen if the government won’t even tell us what its policies are?”

Needless to say, the ACLU says its fight isn’t over, and it will move this further up the legal chain.

Source: anarcho-queer

Israel Admits To Giving Ethiopian Women Birth Control Shots A government official has for the first time acknowledged the practice of injecting women of Ethiopian origin with the long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera. Health Ministry Director General Prof. Ron Gamzu has instructed the four health maintenance organizations to stop the practice as a matter of course. The ministry and other state agencies had previously denied knowledge or responsibility for the practice, which was first reported five years ago. Gamzu’s letter instructed “all gynecologists in the HMOs not to renew prescriptions for Depo-Provera for women of Ethiopian origin if for any reason there is concern that they might not understand the ramifications of the treatment.” Gamzu also instructed physicians to avail themselves of translators if need be. Gamzu’s letter came in response to a letter from Sharona Eliahu-Chai of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, representing several women’s rights and Ethiopian immigrants’ groups. The letter demanded the injections cease immediately and that an investigation be launched into the practice. About six weeks ago, on an Educational Television program journalist Gal Gabbay revealed the results of interviews with 35 Ethiopian immigrants. The women’s testimony could help explain the almost 50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel’s Ethiopian community. According to the program, while the women were still in transit camps in Ethiopia they were sometimes intimidated or threatened into taking the injection. “They told us they are inoculations,” said one of the women interviewed. “They told us people who frequently give birth suffer. We took it every three months. We said we didn’t want to.”
Pop-upView Separately

Israel Admits To Giving Ethiopian Women Birth Control Shots

A government official has for the first time acknowledged the practice of injecting women of Ethiopian origin with the long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera.

Health Ministry Director General Prof. Ron Gamzu has instructed the four health maintenance organizations to stop the practice as a matter of course. The ministry and other state agencies had previously denied knowledge or responsibility for the practice, which was first reported five years ago. Gamzu’s letter instructed “all gynecologists in the HMOs not to renew prescriptions for Depo-Provera for women of Ethiopian origin if for any reason there is concern that they might not understand the ramifications of the treatment.” Gamzu also instructed physicians to avail themselves of translators if need be.

Gamzu’s letter came in response to a letter from Sharona Eliahu-Chai of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, representing several women’s rights and Ethiopian immigrants’ groups. The letter demanded the injections cease immediately and that an investigation be launched into the practice.

About six weeks ago, on an Educational Television program journalist Gal Gabbay revealed the results of interviews with 35 Ethiopian immigrants. The women’s testimony could help explain the almost 50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel’s Ethiopian community. According to the program, while the women were still in transit camps in Ethiopia they were sometimes intimidated or threatened into taking the injection. “They told us they are inoculations,” said one of the women interviewed. “They told us people who frequently give birth suffer. We took it every three months. We said we didn’t want to.”

Source: anarcho-queer

Bronx Residents Accosted by NYPD Win Landmark Court Ruling Deeming “Stop and Frisk” Tactic Illegal

A federal judge has ruled that New York City police are not allowed to routinely stop pedestrians outside of private residential buildings in the Bronx. The stops are part of the so-called Clean Halls program, which has prompted allegations of police harassment by some residents who say they are being accosted outside of the buildings in which they live.

Previous data on the New York Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy has shown African-American and Latino men make up a hugely disproportionate share of those stopped. We’re joined by Molly Kovel, staff attorney with the Bronx Defenders and part of the legal team in the case, and by Abdullah Turner, a Bronx resident whose building is enrolled in the Clean Halls program and who says he was unfairly arrested while waiting for a friend inside.

Source: anarcho-queer

Court Allows Obama Administration To Keep Drone Strike Targeting American Citizens A Secret The President Barack Obama administration does not have to disclose the legal basis for its drone targeted killing program of Americans, according to a Wednesday decision a judge likened to “Alice in Wonderland”. U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon of New York, ruling in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times, said she was caught in a “paradoxical situation” (.pdf) of allowing the administration to claim it was legal to kill enemies outside traditional combat zones while keeping the legal rational secret. The opinion comes months after 26 members of Congress asked Obama, in a letter, to consider the consequences of drone killing and to explain the necessity of the program. The use of drones to shoot missiles from afar at vehicles and buildings that the nation’s intelligence agencies believe are being used by suspected terrorists began under the George W. Bush administration and was widened by the Obama administration to allow the targeting of American citizens. Drone strikes by the Pentagon and the CIA have sparked backlashes from foreign governments and populations, as the strikes often kill civilians, including women and children. In the end, however, the government’s claim of national security trumped the Freedom of Information Act. According to Judge McMahon: … this court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret. Despite numerous public comments on the CIA’s drone attacks in far-flung locales such as Yemen from various government officials, including former CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the government is taking the position in court that it would have to eliminate American citizens* with one of its drones if it explained the legal basis of the program. In 2011, Obama acknowledged particular CIA drone strikes at a Joint Chiefs of Staff ceremony. Within hours of the CIA drone strike that killed U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan in Yemen, the president publicly lauded the move as “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates” and then acknowledged the U.S. government’s role, stating that “this success is a tribute to our intelligence community.” The authorities have conceded, however, that a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion addresses the issue, but maintain that it does not have to be made public. “It is beyond the power of this court to conclude that a document has been improperly classified,” the judge wrote. Politico’s Josh Gerstein, who first reported the opinion, notes that such a statement by the judge is false, and that in “very rare cases” judges “have done so.” Meanwhile, survivors of three Americans killed in 2011 by targeted drone attacks in Yemen, including survivors of al-Awlaki, have sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution. The case directly challenges the government’s decision to kill Americans without judicial scrutiny. The suit (.pdf) is being litigated by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU. It seeks unspecified damages and maintains the drone attacks have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas. (Other estimates of the campaign come to widely different conclusions.) The suit, the first of its kind, alleges the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen — prohibiting the use of lethal force unless “at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.”
Pop-upView Separately

Court Allows Obama Administration To Keep Drone Strike Targeting American Citizens A Secret

The President Barack Obama administration does not have to disclose the legal basis for its drone targeted killing program of Americans, according to a Wednesday decision a judge likened to “Alice in Wonderland”.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon of New York, ruling in lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times, said she was caught in a “paradoxical situation” (.pdf) of allowing the administration to claim it was legal to kill enemies outside traditional combat zones while keeping the legal rational secret.

The opinion comes months after 26 members of Congress asked Obama, in a letter, to consider the consequences of drone killing and to explain the necessity of the program. The use of drones to shoot missiles from afar at vehicles and buildings that the nation’s intelligence agencies believe are being used by suspected terrorists began under the George W. Bush administration and was widened by the Obama administration to allow the targeting of American citizens. Drone strikes by the Pentagon and the CIA have sparked backlashes from foreign governments and populations, as the strikes often kill civilians, including women and children.

In the end, however, the government’s claim of national security trumped the Freedom of Information Act. According to Judge McMahon:

… this court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules — a veritable catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.

Despite numerous public comments on the CIA’s drone attacks in far-flung locales such as Yemen from various government officials, including former CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the government is taking the position in court that it would have to eliminate American citizens* with one of its drones if it explained the legal basis of the program.

In 2011, Obama acknowledged particular CIA drone strikes at a Joint Chiefs of Staff ceremony. Within hours of the CIA drone strike that killed U.S. citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan in Yemen, the president publicly lauded the move as “another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates” and then acknowledged the U.S. government’s role, stating that “this success is a tribute to our intelligence community.”

The authorities have conceded, however, that a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion addresses the issue, but maintain that it does not have to be made public. “It is beyond the power of this court to conclude that a document has been improperly classified,” the judge wrote.

Politico’s Josh Gerstein, who first reported the opinion, notes that such a statement by the judge is false, and that in “very rare cases” judges “have done so.”

Meanwhile, survivors of three Americans killed in 2011 by targeted drone attacks in Yemen, including survivors of al-Awlaki, have sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution.

The case directly challenges the government’s decision to kill Americans without judicial scrutiny.

The suit (.pdf) is being litigated by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU. It seeks unspecified damages and maintains the drone attacks have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas. (Other estimates of the campaign come to widely different conclusions.)

The suit, the first of its kind, alleges the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen — prohibiting the use of lethal force unless “at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.”

Source: anarcho-queer

Photo Caption:Whistleblower Mark Klein provided this photo of a secret room in a San Francisco AT&T switching center, which he claimed housed data-mining equipment that enables the government to spy on electronic communications. Senate Approves Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers The Senate on Friday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the President George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which was expiring Monday at midnight, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The House approved the measure in September. President Barack Obama, who said the spy powers were a national security priority, is expected to quickly sign the package before the law Congress codified in 2008 expires in the coming days. Over the past two days, the Senate debated and voted down a handful of amendments in what was seen as largely political theater to get Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to lift a procedural hold on the FISA Amendments Act legislation that barred lawmakers from voting on the package. In the end, the identical package the House passed 301-118 swept through the Senate on a 73-23 vote. Amendments senators refused to enact included extending the measure for just three years, another one requiring the government to account for how many times Americans’ communications have been intercepted, and one by Wyden prohibiting U.S. spy agencies from reviewing the communications of Americans ensnared in the program. The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public. After Obama signs the legislation Friday, the spy powers won’t expire until December 31, 2017. The law is the subject of a Supreme Court challenge. The Obama administration argues that the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups suing don’t have the legal standing to even bring a challenge. Related: Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law
Pop-upView Separately

Photo Caption:Whistleblower Mark Klein provided this photo of a secret room in a San Francisco AT&T switching center, which he claimed housed data-mining equipment that enables the government to spy on electronic communications.

Senate Approves Warrantless Electronic Spy Powers

The Senate on Friday reauthorized for five years broad electronic eavesdropping powers that legalized and expanded the President George W. Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The FISA Amendments Act, (.pdf) which was expiring Monday at midnight, allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States. The communications may be intercepted “to acquire foreign intelligence information.”

The House approved the measure in September. President Barack Obama, who said the spy powers were a national security priority, is expected to quickly sign the package before the law Congress codified in 2008 expires in the coming days. Over the past two days, the Senate debated and voted down a handful of amendments in what was seen as largely political theater to get Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) to lift a procedural hold on the FISA Amendments Act legislation that barred lawmakers from voting on the package.

In the end, the identical package the House passed 301-118 swept through the Senate on a 73-23 vote.

Amendments senators refused to enact included extending the measure for just three years, another one requiring the government to account for how many times Americans’ communications have been intercepted, and one by Wyden prohibiting U.S. spy agencies from reviewing the communications of Americans ensnared in the program.

The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.

After Obama signs the legislation Friday, the spy powers won’t expire until December 31, 2017.

The law is the subject of a Supreme Court challenge. The Obama administration argues that the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of other groups suing don’t have the legal standing to even bring a challenge.

Related: Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Dismiss ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Wiretapping Law

Source: anarcho-queer

The Truth About Obama's Immigration Enforcement

The Obama administration has established an undeniably harsh record on immigration and border enforcement, including:

  • Record-breaking deportations of more than 1.5 million individuals in his first term (more than in any other single presidential term), almost half of whom had no criminal records, leaving hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizen children without parents and in foster care
  • Unprecedented detention levels of immigrants (429,000 in the last fiscal year), using a record number of detention beds (34,000) – without individualized assessment of who requires jail-like detention – at a wasteful cost of $2 billion annually
  • Nationwide deployment of the Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities program, despite opposition of many state and local leaders based on damage to community policing and public safety, rising fear among victims and witnesses of crime, and racial profiling.
  • Continuation of the controversial DHS 287(g) program that deputizes state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws when immigration enforcement is a federal matter, as the litigation against Arizona’s racial profiling law SB 1070 reinforced.
  • Historically high enforcement resources along the Southwest border, leading to manifold abuses by Customs and Border Protection including a series of fatal shootings
  • Record spending on border and interior enforcement such that Rep. Hal Rogers, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, identified a “mini industrial complex” of bloated border spending

The ACLU has strongly criticized the administration’s record in this area, including our full-page New York Times ad published following the president’s re-election. As a result of the administration’s harsh enforcement policies, immigrant communities nationwide have suffered permanent deportation and family separation.

This has occurred despite these policies being unnecessary – unauthorized immigration rates and border apprehensions have plummeted to the lowest level in 40 years, and new census data released last week confirm a sustained drop in unauthorized immigration. Furthermore, as we highlighted in an earlier post, these enforcement policies are fiscally irresponsible.

It’s important that we all understand the truth about the administration’s record on immigration enforcement and call on it to end its abusive, discriminatory, and wasteful programs.

Source: anarcho-queer

Does Using Certain Privacy Tools (Like Tor and VPNs) Expose You to Warrantless NSA Surveillance? ACLU Files FOIA to Find Out

Can using privacy-enhancing tools (such as Tor or a Virtual Private Network) actually expose you to warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency? This week, the ACLU sent off four FOIA requests to federal agencies in order to try and answer this question.

To understand why we think that may be the case, we have to go back to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008. That act was not a high-point for civil liberties or the rule of law. It included a provision giving immunity to the telecom companies that violated the law by assisting the NSA with its warrantless wiretapping program. Although the get-out-of-jail-free card given to the phone companies is the most well-known aspect to the FAA, there is much more to the law, and many other things that give privacy advocates reason to worry.

Under the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the government was required to provide specific, targeted requests aimed at foreign powers or their agents before lawful surveillance was permissible. But the FAA created an additional, broader surveillance system, enabling the government to conduct surveillance without particularized suspicion where a “significant purpose” is to obtain “foreign intelligence” and where the surveillance is targeted against persons “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.”

Although the FAA defined several key terms, it did not provide a definition for a person “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” In that ambiguity lies the source of our concern.

To understand why, it’s important to understand how the privacy tools work. The Tor Project (Tor) is an anonymizing network that provides censorship and surveillance resistant internet connectivity to activists, journalists, researchers and privacy advocates around the world. There are an estimated 500,000 users of Tor. These include law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the United States, which was the intention of the US Naval Research Lab when it invented the underlying technology and funded the early development of the project. Tor is also used by activists, journalists and the general public in Iran, Syria, China and other countries with authoritarian governments, which has led to significant funding for Tor from the US State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. However, Tor is also used by many people in the United States—it is estimated that approximately 15% of the users of Tor are located in the United States.

When someone browses the web using Tor or a VPN service their Internet traffic appears to originate at the Tor or VPN server, rather than from their home connection. Thus, a US citizen located in Chicago who uses a Tor exit server in France will, to Google or Facebook, appear to be a user in France. Likewise, someone in Iran connecting to the web via a Tor exit server located in San Francisco will appear to the New York Times as a web surfer from San Francisco.

If the NSA is engaging in surveillance of foreign networks and it encounters traffic originating from a foreign Tor exit server, it will have no way of knowing if that traffic originally came from the United States or another foreign computer. Likewise, the NSA has no way of knowing if traffic exiting a US Tor exit server is actually from domestic users, or foreign. That is, after all, the point of Tor. This presents a pretty interesting and troubling legal question. Tor is extremely popular in countries like Iran, where the NSA is actively monitoring communications networks. However, Tor is also popular with users in the United States, whose communications the NSA shouldn’t be monitoring.

When the traffic of Iranian, Chinese, British and American citizens is combined and anonymized such that the true origin of the traffic cannot be determined, which set of the intelligence rules does the NSA follow? Certainly, a US citizen shouldn’t have his or her communications traffic intercepted by the NSA simply because they want to watch the latest season of Downton Abbey streamed directly from the UK.

In order to try and shed a bit of light on this issue, last week, we filed FOIA requests with DOJ, the FBI and NSA. A copy of the NSA request can be download here, and the DOJ request is here.

Source: anarcho-queer

Supreme Court Says It’s Okay To Record Cops In Illinois The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order Monday that essentially allows people in Illinois to record police officers, the Chicago Tribune reports. The justices declined to review a lower court ruling that found the state’s “anti-eavesdropping law” to be in violation of a person’s free speech rights when used against anyone who records police officers. By refusing to review the case, the high court leaves the ban on the law in place. The law set out a maximum prison term of 15 years. In 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places. Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization “continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police.” Photo Caption: A Chicago police officer threatens to arrest a man for recording him at a checkpoint (video)
View Separately

Supreme Court Says It’s Okay To Record Cops In Illinois

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order Monday that essentially allows people in Illinois to record police officers, the Chicago Tribune reports.

The justices declined to review a lower court ruling that found the state’s “anti-eavesdropping law” to be in violation of a person’s free speech rights when used against anyone who records police officers.

By refusing to review the case, the high court leaves the ban on the law in place.

The law set out a maximum prison term of 15 years.

In 2010 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to block prosecution of ACLU staff for recording police officers performing their duties in public places.

Harvey Grossman, legal director of the ACLU of Illinois, said the organization “continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police.”

Photo Caption: A Chicago police officer threatens to arrest a man for recording him at a checkpoint (video)

Source: anarcho-queer

ACLU Files Lawsuit After Puerto Rico Limits Protest Rights

The lawsuit comes a week after Gov. Luis Fortuno approved the new code that restricts certain types of protests and establishes a three-year prison sentence for violators.

“The statute is evidently intended to suppress speech, to stop people from protesting against government policies,” William Ramirez, local ACLU director, said Tuesday.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to stop Justice Secretary Guillermo Somoza from enforcing the new law as it relates to protests and demonstrations. A portion of the new code states that those who disrupt, interrupt or prevent legislators from performing public duties or cause disorder while in the immediate view and presence of lawmakers will be charged.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the new code uses vague language and does not offer police or potential offenders any guidance about what kind of conduct would be considered criminal.

“It’s just plain old unconstitutional no matter how you look at it,” Ramirez said. “What would disturb one legislator may not disturb another legislator.”

The spokespeople for the police chief and justice secretary did not immediately return messages for comment. Fortuno spokesman Edward Zayas said he would soon comment. Fortuno has previously denied that the code would infringe on the rights of protesters.

Ramirez said he worries the statute, which goes into effect Sept. 1, would likely be applied unevenly and that police would target only certain kinds of protesters.

In 2010, students at the University of Puerto Rico launched a 62-day strike to protest an $800 fee to offset budget cuts. Many were injured in clashes with police who used batons, tear gas and pepper spray. Later that year, there were similar clashes during a protest in front of the seaside Capitol building over a motion that closed legislative sessions to the press and public.

As a result of those clashes, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in late June accusing police of using excessive force and violating civil rights. The new lawsuit was added to the previous one as an amended complaint to speed up the court process, Ramirez said.

The lawsuit also demands that Police Chief Hector Pesquera create an official policy on how to handle public demonstrations and use of force. Pesquera has previously said that the department already has developed a use-of-force policy approved by federal justice officials

Source: anarcho-queer

Pentagon And CIA Sued For Killing American Citizens With Drones Survivors of three Americans killed by targeted drone attacks in Yemen last year sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging Wednesday they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution. “The government has killed three Americans. It should account for its actions. This case gives us an opportunity to do that,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press call. The suit, (.pdf) being litigated by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks unspecified damages and highlights the government’s so-called unmanned drone “targeted killing” program that the ACLU and the center maintain have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas. The suit, the first of its kind, alleges the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen, prohibiting the use of lethal force unless “at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.” The case directly challenges the government’s decision to kill Americans without judicial scrutiny. At bottom, Jaffer said, “the question is whether the government is justified in killing without charging them or trying them for anything.” The suit is brought on behalf of cleric Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who the Obama administration claimed was a recruiter and planner for al-Qaida, who was known for his blog, Facebook page and YouTube videos. The U.S. authorities claim he had contacts with the 9/11 hijackers, the underwear bomber and others. He was killed Sept. 30 last year. Also killed was Samir Khan, the editor of the English magazine Inspire, which allegedly was published by Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Two weeks later, the cleric’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was killed in a separate Yemen attack. The defendants include Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, U.S. Navy Adm. William H. McRaven and U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Votel. Citing U.S. officials, the Washington Post has reported that the son and Khan were not intended targets. The Justice Department did not immediately respond for comment. The administration refuses to release the Justice Department memo that legally justifies targeting Americans, and according to the New York Times, President Obama approves or denies who gets added to the “kill list.”
Pop-upView Separately

Pentagon And CIA Sued For Killing American Citizens With Drones

Survivors of three Americans killed by targeted drone attacks in Yemen last year sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging Wednesday they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution.

“The government has killed three Americans. It should account for its actions. This case gives us an opportunity to do that,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press call.

The suit, (.pdf) being litigated by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks unspecified damages and highlights the government’s so-called unmanned drone “targeted killing” program that the ACLU and the center maintain have killed thousands, including hundreds of innocent bystanders overseas.

The suit, the first of its kind, alleges the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen, prohibiting the use of lethal force unless “at the time it is applied, lethal force is a last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.” The case directly challenges the government’s decision to kill Americans without judicial scrutiny.

At bottom, Jaffer said, “the question is whether the government is justified in killing without charging them or trying them for anything.”

The suit is brought on behalf of cleric Anwar Al-Aulaqi, who the Obama administration claimed was a recruiter and planner for al-Qaida, who was known for his blog, Facebook page and YouTube videos. The U.S. authorities claim he had contacts with the 9/11 hijackers, the underwear bomber and others. He was killed Sept. 30 last year. Also killed was Samir Khan, the editor of the English magazine Inspire, which allegedly was published by Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

Two weeks later, the cleric’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, was killed in a separate Yemen attack.

The defendants include Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, U.S. Navy Adm. William H. McRaven and U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Votel.

Citing U.S. officials, the Washington Post has reported that the son and Khan were not intended targets.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond for comment. The administration refuses to release the Justice Department memo that legally justifies targeting Americans, and according to the New York Times, President Obama approves or denies who gets added to the “kill list.”

Source: anarcho-queer

A Tale of Three States: Executing the Mentally Disabled Georgia: On Monday, the State of Georgia stands ready to strap Warren Hill to a gurney, place IV lines in his arms, and pump his body with poison until he dies. Warren Hill has an IQ of 70, and is intellectually disabled (mentally retarded).  That was the finding of a Georgia trial judge who held a hearing and looked at the relevant evidence – applying United States Supreme Court precedent barring execution of the intellectually disabled under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the court ruled that Hill could not be executed. But then by a narrow vote of 4-3, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Hill could be executed, despite the lower court’s finding. The high court did not quibble with the lower court’s finding that Hill is intellectually disabled, but it ruled that Hill had failed to prove his disability beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the standard of proof Georgia created when instructed not to execute the mentally retarded in Aktins v. Virginia. That is the highest burden of proof known in our criminal justice system, reserved in all other cases for the prosecution when it seeks to convict and deprive a person of his liberty and possibly his life. No other state in the country erects such a high burden on a defendant to prevent an unconstitutional execution. Undaunted by the entreaties of humanitarians such as President Jimmy Carter, un-shamed by editorials decrying Georgia’s backward burden of proof, and unmoved by the pleas of the family members of the victim and the jurors who first sentenced him to death not to execute Hill, the State of Georgia appears ready to move forward with Hill’s execution. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole has unfortunately already denied Hill relief. Now only the Supreme Court can intervene to stop this miscarriage of justice.  Texas: As soon as tomorrow, Texas plans an equal injustice. Keeping pace as the leading execution state in America (more than quadrupling the next highest state, Virginia), Texas will have ready its execution chamber for Yokamon Hearn, despite clear and consistent evidence that he is brain damaged. What’s worse, the jury who sentenced Hearn to die, and could have considered his brain damage as a basis for sparing his life, never learned of this evidence because his trial attorney was incompetent. To top off this farce of a “criminal process,” the appellate attorneys charged with raising the error of the trial attorney’s failures also failed to do that.  The United States Supreme Court, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Gov. Rick Perry all have the opportunity to stop this miscarriage of justice. Please urge the Board and Governor to do so here. Ohio: Albeit on a much smaller scale than Texas, Ohio also keeps its execution chamber humming. But now Ohio teaches that punishment can be tempered with mercy, particularly when an intellectually disabled person faces execution. Last week, Gov. John Kasich reviewed the case of John Jeffrey Eley, who had been condemned to die for killing a store clerk in 1987. Gov. Kasich studied the case, learned that Eley was intellectually disabled, and learned that this evidence had never been considered at Eley’s original trial. One week ago today, the governor then did the only just and humane thing: he commuted Eley’s sentence to life in prison without parole. It’s not too late for Georgia and Texas to learn from Ohio.  If they fail to do so, it will only be more evidence of the failed government policy that is the death penalty.
View Separately

A Tale of Three States: Executing the Mentally Disabled

Georgia: On Monday, the State of Georgia stands ready to strap Warren Hill to a gurney, place IV lines in his arms, and pump his body with poison until he dies. Warren Hill has an IQ of 70, and is intellectually disabled (mentally retarded).  That was the finding of a Georgia trial judge who held a hearing and looked at the relevant evidence – applying United States Supreme Court precedent barring execution of the intellectually disabled under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the court ruled that Hill could not be executed.

But then by a narrow vote of 4-3, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that Hill could be executed, despite the lower court’s finding. The high court did not quibble with the lower court’s finding that Hill is intellectually disabled, but it ruled that Hill had failed to prove his disability beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is the standard of proof Georgia created when instructed not to execute the mentally retarded in Aktins v. Virginia. That is the highest burden of proof known in our criminal justice system, reserved in all other cases for the prosecution when it seeks to convict and deprive a person of his liberty and possibly his life. No other state in the country erects such a high burden on a defendant to prevent an unconstitutional execution.

Undaunted by the entreaties of humanitarians such as President Jimmy Carter, un-shamed by editorials decrying Georgia’s backward burden of proof, and unmoved by the pleas of the family members of the victim and the jurors who first sentenced him to death not to execute Hill, the State of Georgia appears ready to move forward with Hill’s execution. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole has unfortunately already denied Hill relief. Now only the Supreme Court can intervene to stop this miscarriage of justice. 

Texas: As soon as tomorrow, Texas plans an equal injustice. Keeping pace as the leading execution state in America (more than quadrupling the next highest state, Virginia), Texas will have ready its execution chamber for Yokamon Hearn, despite clear and consistent evidence that he is brain damaged. What’s worse, the jury who sentenced Hearn to die, and could have considered his brain damage as a basis for sparing his life, never learned of this evidence because his trial attorney was incompetent. To top off this farce of a “criminal process,” the appellate attorneys charged with raising the error of the trial attorney’s failures also failed to do that. 

The United States Supreme Court, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Gov. Rick Perry all have the opportunity to stop this miscarriage of justice. Please urge the Board and Governor to do so here.

Ohio: Albeit on a much smaller scale than Texas, Ohio also keeps its execution chamber humming. But now Ohio teaches that punishment can be tempered with mercy, particularly when an intellectually disabled person faces execution. Last week, Gov. John Kasich reviewed the case of John Jeffrey Eley, who had been condemned to die for killing a store clerk in 1987. Gov. Kasich studied the case, learned that Eley was intellectually disabled, and learned that this evidence had never been considered at Eley’s original trial. One week ago today, the governor then did the only just and humane thing: he commuted Eley’s sentence to life in prison without parole.

It’s not too late for Georgia and Texas to learn from Ohio.  If they fail to do so, it will only be more evidence of the failed government policy that is the death penalty.

Source: anarcho-queer

ACLU Sue School District For Violating Students ‘Right To Read’ Students are suing the state of Michigan and their Detroit-area school district for violating their “right to read.” The class-action lawsuit appears to be the first of its kind, and potentially signals a new wave of civil rights litigation in the United States to enforce laws intended to boost academic achievement, education law experts say. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed what it has dubbed the “right to read” lawsuit on behalf of the nearly 1,000 students in the impoverished district. Two-thirds of 4th-graders and three-quarters of 7th-graders in the Highland Park school district are not proficient on state reading tests; 90 percent of 12th-graders fail the reading portion of the final state test administered in high school, according to the complaint. Nearly 100 percent of the district’s students are African-American. “A child who cannot read will be disenfranchised in our society and economy for a lifetime,” said ACLU of Michigan executive director Kary Moss in a written statement explaining the case. The lawsuit follows a “careful process of investigation that has made clear that none of those [education officials] charged with the care of these children … have done their jobs.” One of the plaintiffs is a student referred to as S.D. An 8th-grader who has been in the district since 1st grade, his reading proficiency level is at a 3rd-grade level at best, the complaint alleges. Yet he “has never received any individualized reading intervention or remedial instruction from an adult” in the district. According to state law, students who do not score satisfactorily on state reading tests in 4th or 7th grade “shall be provided special assistance” to bring skills to grade level within 12 months.
Pop-upView Separately

ACLU Sue School District For Violating Students ‘Right To Read’

Students are suing the state of Michigan and their Detroit-area school district for violating their “right to read.”

The class-action lawsuit appears to be the first of its kind, and potentially signals a new wave of civil rights litigation in the United States to enforce laws intended to boost academic achievement, education law experts say.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed what it has dubbed the “right to read” lawsuit on behalf of the nearly 1,000 students in the impoverished district.

Two-thirds of 4th-graders and three-quarters of 7th-graders in the Highland Park school district are not proficient on state reading tests; 90 percent of 12th-graders fail the reading portion of the final state test administered in high school, according to the complaint. Nearly 100 percent of the district’s students are African-American.

“A child who cannot read will be disenfranchised in our society and economy for a lifetime,” said ACLU of Michigan executive director Kary Moss in a written statement explaining the case. The lawsuit follows a “careful process of investigation that has made clear that none of those [education officials] charged with the care of these children … have done their jobs.”

One of the plaintiffs is a student referred to as S.D. An 8th-grader who has been in the district since 1st grade, his reading proficiency level is at a 3rd-grade level at best, the complaint alleges. Yet he “has never received any individualized reading intervention or remedial instruction from an adult” in the district.

According to state law, students who do not score satisfactorily on state reading tests in 4th or 7th grade “shall be provided special assistance” to bring skills to grade level within 12 months.

Source: anarcho-queer

Courts Should Stop Jailing People for Being Poor Across the country, cash-strapped cities and counties are throwing poor defendants in jail for failing to pay legal debts that they can never hope to manage. On Monday, the New York Times told the story of Gina Ray, whose $179 speeding ticket mushroomed into $3,170 in fines and fees and 40 days in jail when she couldn’t afford to pay it. Gina is one of many swept up in America’s new debtors’ prisons, a growing problem nationwide.  Also this week, the ABA Journal  told the story of the Philadelphia courts’ aggressive efforts to collect unpaid fines and fees, many of which are decades old. Ameen Muqtadir was billed nearly $41,000 for two failures to appear in court dating back to 1991 and 1997—even though he’d been incarcerated at the time of each hearing. Meanwhile, Hakim Waliyyudin spent 12 days in jail while he raised the money to post a $1,000 bond with the court; after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, the court clerk told him that he owed another $9,000 plus $1,500 in collection fees because of a missed court date. Although a free attorney from Community Legal Services ultimately convinced the court to waive the judgment and collection charges against Hakim, many other indigent defendants around the country face further jail time when they cannot pay court-ordered fines and fees.  As the ACLU emphasized in its October 2010 report, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’ Prisons, jailing people for unpaid court debts imposes devastating human costs on men and women whose only remaining crime is that they are poor. Upon release, they face the daunting prospect of having to rebuild their lives yet again, while their substantial legal debts pose a significant, and at times insurmountable, barrier as they attempt to re-enter society. They see their incomes fall, their credit ratings worsen, their prospects for housing and employment dim, and their chances of ending up back in jail or prison increase. Many must make hard choices each month as they attempt to balance their needs and those of their families with their legal financial obligations. They also remain tethered to the criminal justice system—sometimes decades after they complete their sentences—and live under constant threat of being sent back to jail or prison, solely because they cannot pay what has become an unmanageable legal debt. Aggressive collection of legal financial obligations creates a two-tiered system of justice in which the poorest defendants are punished more harshly than those with means. Although courts attempt to collect legal financial obligations from indigent and affluent defendants alike, those who can afford to pay their legal debts avoid jail, complete their sentences, and move on with their lives. Those unable to pay end up incarcerated or under continued court supervision. Perversely, they also often end up paying much more in fines and fees than defendants who can pay their legal financial obligations. Additionally, the imposition of legal financial obligations disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the prisoner population. Courts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment. Further, it creates hardships for men and women who already struggle with re-entering society after being released from prison or jail, and wastes resources in an often fruitless effort to extract payments. In an age when more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before, unnecessarily and unfairly, we should be shutting down debtors’ prisons, not creating more of them.
View Separately

Courts Should Stop Jailing People for Being Poor

Across the country, cash-strapped cities and counties are throwing poor defendants in jail for failing to pay legal debts that they can never hope to manage. On Monday, the New York Times told the story of Gina Ray, whose $179 speeding ticket mushroomed into $3,170 in fines and fees and 40 days in jail when she couldn’t afford to pay it. Gina is one of many swept up in America’s new debtors’ prisons, a growing problem nationwide. 

Also this week, the ABA Journal  told the story of the Philadelphia courts’ aggressive efforts to collect unpaid fines and fees, many of which are decades old. Ameen Muqtadir was billed nearly $41,000 for two failures to appear in court dating back to 1991 and 1997—even though he’d been incarcerated at the time of each hearing. Meanwhile, Hakim Waliyyudin spent 12 days in jail while he raised the money to post a $1,000 bond with the court; after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, the court clerk told him that he owed another $9,000 plus $1,500 in collection fees because of a missed court date. Although a free attorney from Community Legal Services ultimately convinced the court to waive the judgment and collection charges against Hakim, many other indigent defendants around the country face further jail time when they cannot pay court-ordered fines and fees. 

As the ACLU emphasized in its October 2010 report, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’ Prisons, jailing people for unpaid court debts imposes devastating human costs on men and women whose only remaining crime is that they are poor. Upon release, they face the daunting prospect of having to rebuild their lives yet again, while their substantial legal debts pose a significant, and at times insurmountable, barrier as they attempt to re-enter society. They see their incomes fall, their credit ratings worsen, their prospects for housing and employment dim, and their chances of ending up back in jail or prison increase. Many must make hard choices each month as they attempt to balance their needs and those of their families with their legal financial obligations. They also remain tethered to the criminal justice system—sometimes decades after they complete their sentences—and live under constant threat of being sent back to jail or prison, solely because they cannot pay what has become an unmanageable legal debt.

Aggressive collection of legal financial obligations creates a two-tiered system of justice in which the poorest defendants are punished more harshly than those with means. Although courts attempt to collect legal financial obligations from indigent and affluent defendants alike, those who can afford to pay their legal debts avoid jail, complete their sentences, and move on with their lives. Those unable to pay end up incarcerated or under continued court supervision. Perversely, they also often end up paying much more in fines and fees than defendants who can pay their legal financial obligations. Additionally, the imposition of legal financial obligations disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the prisoner population.

Courts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment. Further, it creates hardships for men and women who already struggle with re-entering society after being released from prison or jail, and wastes resources in an often fruitless effort to extract payments. In an age when more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before, unnecessarily and unfairly, we should be shutting down debtors’ prisons, not creating more of them.

Source: occupyallstreets

Court Orders Twitter To Hand Over Occupy Protester’s Tweets A New York judge Monday ordered Twitter to turn over data on one of its users involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, in a case watched closely as a test of online freedom of speech. Manhattan criminal court Judge Matthew Sciarrino ruled that law enforcement had the right to see tweets and other user data from Malcolm Harris, who is being prosecuted for disorderly conduct in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last year. The judge said that the tweets are not private information and thus not subject to the constitutional guarantee of privacy. “If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said in an 11-page ruling. “The constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts. What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.” The ruling reaffirmed the judge’s refusal of a motion by Twitter to quash the subpoena. He did grant Twitter’s request to protect anything tweeted before December 31, or more than 180 days old, without a search warrant. Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said after the ruling: “We are pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the tweets at issue must be turned over. We look forward to Twitter’s complying and to moving forward with the trial.” Twitter said it was studying its next move. “We are disappointed in the judge’s decision and are considering our options,” a statement from the San Francisco firm said. “Twitter’s terms of service have long made it absolutely clear that its users ‘own’ their content. We continue to have a steadfast commitment to our users and their rights.” The American Civil Liberties Union and others have cited the case as a test of free speech online. The ACLU said it hopes the decision is eventually overturned. “The information being requested in this particular subpoena would provide the government with a wealth of knowledge about the user’s communications and geographic locations for a three-and-a-half month period,” ACLU attorney Aden Fine said. “The request covers all of the user’s tweets (no longer available on Twitter), as well as his subscriber information, which includes his personal email address, the IP addresses he used,” Fine said, “The government shouldn’t be able to get this sensitive and constitutionally protected information without a warrant and without first satisfying First Amendment scrutiny.”
Pop-upView Separately

Court Orders Twitter To Hand Over Occupy Protester’s Tweets

A New York judge Monday ordered Twitter to turn over data on one of its users involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, in a case watched closely as a test of online freedom of speech.

Manhattan criminal court Judge Matthew Sciarrino ruled that law enforcement had the right to see tweets and other user data from Malcolm Harris, who is being prosecuted for disorderly conduct in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last year.

The judge said that the tweets are not private information and thus not subject to the constitutional guarantee of privacy.

“If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said in an 11-page ruling.

“The constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts. What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.”

The ruling reaffirmed the judge’s refusal of a motion by Twitter to quash the subpoena. He did grant Twitter’s request to protect anything tweeted before December 31, or more than 180 days old, without a search warrant.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said after the ruling: “We are pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the tweets at issue must be turned over. We look forward to Twitter’s complying and to moving forward with the trial.”

Twitter said it was studying its next move.

“We are disappointed in the judge’s decision and are considering our options,” a statement from the San Francisco firm said.

“Twitter’s terms of service have long made it absolutely clear that its users ‘own’ their content. We continue to have a steadfast commitment to our users and their rights.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and others have cited the case as a test of free speech online. The ACLU said it hopes the decision is eventually overturned.

“The information being requested in this particular subpoena would provide the government with a wealth of knowledge about the user’s communications and geographic locations for a three-and-a-half month period,” ACLU attorney Aden Fine said.

“The request covers all of the user’s tweets (no longer available on Twitter), as well as his subscriber information, which includes his personal email address, the IP addresses he used,” Fine said,

“The government shouldn’t be able to get this sensitive and constitutionally protected information without a warrant and without first satisfying First Amendment scrutiny.”

Source: occupyallstreets

Top