Police Info Request on GPS Tracking in Wisconsin - Your Cell Phone Knows Where You Were Last Night . . . Who Else Does?

This blog post by ACLU staffer Allie Boehm was originally posted on the national ACLU's Blog of Rights.

On August 3, 34 ACLU affiliates filed 379 public records requests in 31 states around the nation, including in Wisconsin, to seek information about how our local law enforcement agencies are using our cell phone location information to track us.

Chances are you’re walking around with a tracking device in your purse or pocket – a cell phone. Location data from your cell phone can make it easy to get directions or locate the nearest coffee shop, leaving no doubt that your cell phone knows where you are. Even if you use a dumb phone, cell phones constantly send out signals searching for the nearest cell tower in order to make sure your calls actually go through – and companies can estimate your location based on your proximity to nearby towers with ever-improving accuracy. The amount of time they store this information, and in how much detail, depends on the cell phone provider. (Remember the public outrage over Apple’s surreptitious storage of iPhone and iPad user’s location information a few months ago?)

Check out our interactive map to see what agencies we've requested records from in YOUR state!

What’s revealed by this perpetual tracking can be intensely personal; as a court recently found, one’s location might reveal “whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.”Okay, I hear you thinking, “Right, but I’m not a criminal. Why should I care?” Think again. Law enforcement’s use of cell phone location data has been widespread for years. In fact, just last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Matthew Olsen, current general counsel for the National Security Agency and President Obama’s nominee to head the National Counterterrorism Center, whether the government can use cell phone location data to track Americans in the United States. Olsen replied, “There are certain circumstances where that authority may exist.” Cagey much?

Here’s what we do know: in 2010, FBI agents investigating a series of bank robberies demanded the records of every cell phone that was near each bank when it was robbed. That same year, Michigan police officers sought information about every cell phone near the site of a planned labor protest.

You might be asking yourself, “how can they do this?” Our laws simply haven’t kept pace with new technology. Furthermore, while we believe that law enforcement should always be required to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to access cell phone location information, the scary truth is that they don’t always obtain said warrant, and courts don’t always insist that they do.

What’s more, much of this jurisprudence is shrouded in secrecy, leaving the public in the dark about when our location information is sought and under what standards. And you were wondering why we only had two examples.

In order to lift the veil on this secrecy – and uncover some more examples of when, why, and how law enforcement agencies are using our cell phone location data to track us – 34 ACLU affiliates are filing public records requests with 379 agencies seeking information including:

• whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to access cell phone location data;
• statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data;
• how much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones and
• other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data.

We’ll keep you posted on what we learn. In the meantime, Sen. Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) have introduced bills that would create location privacy protections for law enforcement and the commercial sector. You can urge your representative and senators to support this legislation right now.

Supporting the Wyden/Chaffetz bill is just one way to Demand our dotRights -- we shouldn’t have to pay for our cell phones with our privacy rights.

You can read more about this nationwide info request in the LA Times or on Wisconsin Public Radio where the ACLU of Wisconsin was quoted on why GPS tracking is a matter of basic privacy concern. Stay tuned to the Cap City Liberty blog or follow us on Twitter @ACLUofWisconsin for updates as we learn more about police practices across the state.

Response to Congressman Petri's Tepid Criticism of Invasive TSA Airport Screening Methods

The ACLU has issued a guide for travelers to know their rights during invasive screenings at airports. Our elected leaders could take a strong leadership role in reining in what is clearly an imbalance in the privacy-security compromise we make when traveling during the "war on terror." But Congressional leaders' response is tepid at best.


Wisconsin's U.S. Representative Tom Petri and Rep. John Mica of Florida sent a letter to Transportation Security Administrator John Pistole that the ACLU of Wisconsin says isn't enough in light of the flood of complaints from travelers. We're disappointed that Congressman Tom Petri has not responded adequately to the concerns that residents of Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District and other Americans have over the Transportation Security Administration’s new screening procedures at airports.

Petri and Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who are leading Republican members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, criticized the TSA’s new pat down methods, suggested ways to improve aviation security and made warm statements about balancing security and civil liberties. Their criticism of the new pat down methods leaves current TSA policy mostly unscathed. They don’t actually address specific concerns regarding Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) after saying they have concerns. Their letter is tepid, despite reading in part, “We have concerns that TSA is not achieving the proper balance between aviation security and the privacy rights of United States citizens.”

The American Civil Liberties Union believes that the Congressmen should have included in their letter:

1). Questions regarding the effectiveness of Advanced Imaging Technology raised by Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its September 2009 testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee. The Washington Post quotes the GAO "while officials said [the scanners] performed as well as physical pat downs in operational tests, it remains unclear whether the AIT would have detected the weapon used in the December 2009 incident," in written testimony to the House Homeland Security Committee.

2) Evidence that scanned AIT images are stored. Basic privacy protections should include the trust passengers have in the TSA that images of their scanned bodies cannot be stored or shared.

3). Outrage that invasive pat downs fail to provide a less humiliating alternative to travelers who wish to opt out of AIT scanning.

The ACLU and ACLU of Wisconsin wish to help travelers who value security and their own privacy. Please share this website which outlines passengers' rights during airport screenings: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/know-your-options-airport

Privacy Rights: Selling a Book to a Resale Shop in Greenfield? "Say Cheese!"

The City of Greenfield Common Council approved a ordinance in April that puts the civil liberties of sellers of books and CDs to resale shops in jeopardy. While it may be well-intentioned, Greenfield's ordinance (PDF) threatens the privacy rights of anyone trying to sell a long list of used items, including books and CDs, at commercial, resale establishments.

Common Council resolution No. 2695 re-wrote the pawnbrokers' ordinance. It requires all types of secondhand article dealers to electronically record information in a database about used items and the people who sold the items to the store. The stores would then have to report this information daily to the Greenfield Police. And most troubling from a civil liberties perspective, the merchants have to take photographs of the seller and provide them to police as well.

The ACLU of Wisconsin is concerned that the new ordinance treats all sellers as potential criminals even though there is no particular suspicion that they have done anything wrong and there apparently is little, if any, evidence that the items they are selling (like used books, exercise equipment or baby clothes) are items that are typically "fenced." It is especially troubling that "expressive materials," such as used books or films on DVD or video, when sold will result in a record of the sellers' tastes and opinions.

The Greenfield Common Council is likely to take another look at this new ordinance as soon as the Tuesday, September 21, 2010 meeting at 7:00 p.m. Check the council’s online calendar for the meeting’s agenda and location. Alders have heard complaints from area businesses and need to hear from residents about why this ordinance is too broad to implement.

For residents of Greenfield, please contact Mayor Michael Neitzke and your Council member to encourage them to amend the ordinance so that it will not threaten civil liberties. The City Clerk’s Office can provide you with the name of your alderperson and their contact information. Contact the City’s Clerk’s Office at 414-329-5219. You can find a complete listing of alderpersons online.

Email us at liberty@aclu-wi.org if you have contacted your alder and he or she is willing to fix this overbroad and instrusive ordinance.

Sunday: Pub Politico with Dr. Zimmer in Madison, Take Action on Obama's Privacy Advisory Board

Did you hear on NPR this week about how NO ONE is on Obama's Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board? The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and was originally established by the Bush administration. Congress made the board more independent in 2007 but it hasn't had any appointments since.

The President needs an independent body to give input on the civil liberties and privacy implications of laws from the Patriot Act renewal to full body scanners at airports. The ACLU signed on to a coalition letter demanding that this Board get appointments as soon as possible.

This is just one example of how the American Civil Liberties Union is watching out for privacy rights - and you can take action on this issue in Madison this weekend...

On Sunday, the ACLU of Wisconsin will welcome University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor and Internet privacy expert Dr. Michael Zimmer at the next monthly installment of Pub Politico. Dr. Zimmer will discuss “Failures in Self-Regulation in Online Privacy” and other trends in social networking, Internet search engines and data privacy.

Participants will be invited to send their own letters to the President on the PCLOB issue.

“One of the most common questions we get at the local ACLU office is about people’s right to privacy in the electronic age,” said community advocate Stacy Harbaugh. “The ACLU of Wisconsin is working to defend the rights of individuals in an ever-changing digital landscape. Just because information is easy to share and technology changes, your right to privacy does not.”

Pub Politico is a monthly political salon-style discussion group that invites experts to share information on current legislative and social justice issues. The event will be upstairs at the Brocach Irish Pub, 7 W. Main St. in Madison at 2:00 p.m. Pub Politico is free and open to the public.

Dr. Michael Zimmer is an assistant professor in the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and an associate at the Center for Information Policy Research. With a background in new media and Internet studies, the philosophy of technology, and information policy, Zimmer studies the ethical dimensions of new media and information technologies, with particular interest in privacy, social media, information ethics, access to knowledge, and value-conscious design. More information about Dr. Zimmer’s research can be found on his blog, http://michaelzimmer.org/.

GPS Tracking: Turning Science Fiction Into Reality

As a fan of the The Wire, I can find lots of plot twists and exciting scenes that illustrate the basic constitutional balance between the rights of individuals and the power of law enforcement. The Wire portrays police who follow the rules and those who don't as they wiretap, search, photograph and otherwise conduct their investigations into complex criminal cases.

In one episode, Detective Leander Snydor has followed a drug dealer to a house which might link him to other criminal relationships. Snydor skillfully walks past the dealer's car, fixes a GPS tracking system to the underside of the vehicle, and walks away with a whistle.

That might seem like smart cop work when aimed at an enormous, fictional drug ring in the mean streets of Baltimore. But GPS is no longer HBO fiction. In Madison, Wisconsin, where law enforcement agents used GPS to track someone suspected of violating a restraining order without first getting a warrant, it's very, very real. Unfortunately, according to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, we should let go of the expectation that police need permission to track our movements.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in State of Wisconsin v. Sveum that the use of a GPS device was not a "search or seizure" and didn't fall under the Fourth Amendment. The consequence of this reasoning is that the police are free to track individuals' vehicular movements wherever they go and without any approval by a court. This is true even though tracking someone's movements can give a detailed picture of someone's personal associations—they can be tracked to churches, bars, protests or their doctor's office.

While a GPS tracking device isn't as invasive as a strip search, we expect the Fourth Amendment to protect us from police spying by making it a requirement that law enforcement agents demonstrate to a court that they have a strong reason to believe that such tracking will turn up evidence of a crime.

On Friday, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a friend-of-the-court brief (PDF) with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to urge justices to reverse the lower court's decision. While we can all agree that the police should help enforce a restraining order, allowing them the power to obtain information on the location of anyone's car and movements, for any reason or for no reason at all, without a valid warrant, is unconstitutional.

GPS tracking shouldn't be used by police or other government agencies without a judge's agreement that the tracking is based on a good reason to believe it will turn up evidence of a crime. Without court oversight or just cause for the use of this technology, our private lives as revealed by our movements can surely turn our country into a Big Brother reality.

In the brief (PDF), the ACLU and EFF argue that, whether or not the U.S. Constitution applies, the Wisconsin Supreme Court should conclude that Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution protects this state's citizens from such intrusive police surveillance.

This blog is cross-posted with the national ACLU's Blog of Rights.

Big Brother Honadel’s Call to Fingerprint Poor Children Gives Businessmen a Bad Name

Today State Representative Mark Honadel (R-South Milwaukee) sent out a media release announcing his plan to introduce legislation to require fingerprinting of poor children in the Wisconsin Shares day care program every day at check-in and check-out. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin opposes treating our children – including poor children -- like parts at an auto supply store or boxes of cereal at a grocery store. ACLU of Wisconsin Executive Director, Chris Ahmuty said today that, “the children in the Wisconsin Shares program, many infants under age one, are not inventory.”

Ahmuty went on to ask what Rep. Honadel would have poor parents say to their youngsters when they discover that more well-to-do children are not fingerprinted.

Rep. Honadel has criticized the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families for not adopting an automated attendance system at day care centers more quickly. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “As a businessman I could make this happen in a couple of months.”

“Technology can be an important tool for government, just like it can for businessmen such as Rep. Honadel,” Ahmuty said, “But just because a technology exists does not mean that we should ignore our values. Unlike businessmen, like Rep. Honadel, government must operate within the limits proscribed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which protect Wisconsin residents from government abuse and safeguard their privacy. Fortunately, the Department of Children and Families, thus far, is being more deliberative and compassionate than Rep. Honadel.”

This issue got some news coverage on Green Bay radio station WTAQ’s website, as well as Milwaukee radio station WTMJ’s website.

The ACLU of Wisconsin will continue to monitor changes to the Wisconsin Shares program to ensure that state actions protect the rights of poor children and families. Read more about the work the ACLU is doing nationally on technology and liberty.

Today is Data Privacy Day - It's About More Than Your Credit Card and Social Security Number

Today is Data Privacy Day and it is an opportunity to remind everybody that while we enjoy the ever-changing and evolving technologies available to us, from Facebook to medical record sharing, we should always know that our data and our information belongs to us. Any searching or sharing of our information needs our permission.

A year ago, Wisconsin Senator Erpenbach took the lead on authoring a resolution recognizing Data Privacy Day (PDF) in Wisconsin. We now have an official statement about what data privacy means to our state government. In this statement, and in the continued educational work of the ACLU of Wisconsin, privacy rights are more than protection against credit card fraud and identity theft: it is a practice of safety, protection and practices for everybody.

"Privacy rights need to be defended year-round," said ACLU of Wisconsin Executive Director Chris Ahmuty. "Today is a great day to recognize how we can protect ourselves against identity theft, encroaching surveillance and data insecurity."

Nationally the ACLU has been in the center of courtrooms, legislative hearings and the media to show what is wrong with public video surveillance, why the Real ID program doesn't secure our identities and should be overturned, and how government surveillance technology is outpacing legal restraints to abuses of power.

Read more about the work that the ACLU is doing nationally to support privacy rights. Aspects of privacy rights that we work on include biological technology privacy (our DNA is our own), consumer privacy (don't spy on what I buy), Internet free speech and privacy (make those Facebook photos private!), medical privacy (sharing electronic records is great for doctors, but shouldn't be searched by non-medics), students rights (with cell phones and their non-directory information), and workers' privacy (from camera surveillance to lack of protection of personal records).

Too Many Cameras on Madison's State Street?

On January 1st, the Wisconsin State Journal published an article on the success of the use of surveillance cameras on State Street in downtown Madison. The ACLU of Wisconsin expressed an initial concern with the cameras, mostly because of the ubiquity of surveillance and the need for continued vigilance on the potential for abuse of surveillance tools. The spread of the use of surveillance cameras downtown was suggested for local business too.

Since then, police say that cameras have greatly helped with fighting crime (no percentage decrease in crime was noted in the article, but a murder that got a lot of press was mentioned to have been solved). We commented on the article in an interview yesterday with WORT FM’s In Our Backyard:



It’s true that surveillance cameras can be excellent tools in identifying perpetrators who break laws. But there are also reports from across the nation (and in the UK where CCTV surveillance is huge) about the abuse and misuse of cameras. If someone used a panable, zoomable surveillance camera to spy without cause or warrant into one of the residential apartments along State St., how would residents know they were being watched? Ideally Madisonians trust police and business owners to do the right thing. But our community needs more assurance that surveillance cameras aren’t at risk for abuse.

And while we are talking about privacy and technology, is anyone else freaked out about the full body scans they are putting in airport security checkpoints? Travelers on the news are being quoted as saying that they would welcome scanners to feel safe on airplanes, but at what point will smart terrorists find a way to get explosives past even this technology? Where will American’s breaking point be where humiliation at the airport is too much to consider giving up privacy as the price of safety?

Senate Judiciary Extends Patriot Act... But Thanks To US Sen. Feingold for Some Privacy-Protecting Amendments

National ACLU Says: Bill Does Not Go Far Enough To Protect Americans’ Privacy

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the USA PATRIOT Act Extension Act of 2009 last week, a bill which falls far short of restoring the necessary civil liberties protections lacking in the original Patriot Act. The bill, passed by the committee after two sessions of debate, makes only minor changes to the disastrous Patriot Act and was further watered down by amendments adopted during markup. The American Civil Liberties Union had endorsed the JUSTICE Act, an alternative bill that would heavily reform not only the Patriot Act but other overly broad surveillance laws.

Amendments that were offered but failed by voice vote included an amendment by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to curb the abuse of the overly broad National Security Letter (NSL) statute and another offered by Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) to allow the “lone wolf” provision to expire (the never-used provision that targets individuals who are not connected to terrorist groups). An amendment also failed that would make it more difficult for recipients to challenge the gag order that comes with receiving an NSL.

However, there were two amendments included in the final bill – both offered by Senator Feingold – that are victories for privacy: The Department of Justice would be ordered to discard any illegally obtained information received in response to an NSL and the government must notify suspects of “sneak and peek” searches within seven days instead of the thirty days currently outlined in the statute. “Sneak and peek” searches allow the government to search a home without notifying the resident immediately.

“We are disappointed that further changes were not made to ensure Americans’ civil liberties would be adequately protected by this Patriot Act legislation," said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. This truly was a missed opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the Patriot Act and stand up for Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. The meager improvements made during this markup will certainly be overshadowed by allowing so many horrible amendments to be added to an already weak bill. Congress cannot continue to make this mistake with the Patriot Act again and again. We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution.”

To learn more about the ACLU’s work on the Patriot Act, go to: www.reformthepatriotact.org.

DNA Collection Expansion Too Costly, Too Invasive, and Too Distracting

On October 9, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin urged state lawmakers to oppose legislation that would expand profiles in the state DNA data bank to include individuals merely arrested, not convicted, on a felony charge. State Senator Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) and State Representative Ann Hraychuck (D-Balsam Lake) are co-sponsors of Senate Bill 336, which has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"DNA technology has great ptential for addressing crime," said ACLU of Wisconsin Executive Director Chris Ahmuty, "but we must use it and any developing technology wisely. When police are looking for a needle in a haystack, we shouldn’t be adding more hay to the stack. But that's exactly what SB336 does by collecting and analyzing DNA samples from individuals who have not been convicted of a violent crime."

While it is clear that the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratories’ DNA data bank system needs better management, a dramatic expansion of DNA collection without adequate checks and balances and funding at a time when the State and its counties have serious funding problems is like throwing water on a drowning swimmer.

This proposal allows the state crime laboratories to maintain the DNA profiles of persons who are never charged for as long as a year. During that year the DNA profile is likely to be shared with the federal DNA data bank (CODIS) making it virtually impossible to remove it from state, federal and even international DNA data banks. DNA collection is an invasive search that jeopardizes the constitutional rights of Americans, if it is not done judiciously.

Expanding DNA collection to arrestees has undermined the use of DNA to solve crimes across the nation. In March, the Inspector General at the United State Department of Justice released an audit that found that state laws expanding DNA collection have led to significant delays in DNA analysis. Audits in Illinois and Michigan have similarly found massive backlogs due to increased DNA collection.

And in Milwaukee, recent media reports reveal that the Sheriff David Clarke’s own department failed to collect DNA samples from over 350 convicted felons this year at the County Correctional Facility – South.

Finally, expanding DNA collection will perpetuate, if not increase, the racial disparities that are acknowledged to exist in Wisconsin’s criminal justice system. When a disproportionate number of minorities are arrested, they will create unwarranted racial disparities in the DNA data bank, making them permanent suspects who need to be investigated, while white perpetrators may not even be in the data bank.

The ACLU of Wisconsin urges legislators to re-direct their efforts to improve the state’s DNA data bank system by mandating regular audits, improving the expungement process, and concentrating on eliminating existing backlogs. Legislators should not adopt a more is always better approach when it undermines constitutional rights, without improving pubic safety in a fiscally responsible way.

To read more about this issue, see the article quoting the ACLU in the Leader-Telegram, the Wisconsin State Journal, and a critical opinion piece from a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writer who makes the case that our criminal justice system cannot handle the DNA collection now, let alone collecting from the thousands of people who are arrested each year. There were also ACLU quotes in the Oshkosh Northwestern and an editorial from that paper that questions the reactionary bill. An editorial was also printed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

ACLU Online News - national issues update

August 28, 2009 - ACLU Online News

Attorney General Holder Announces Appointment of Special Prosecutor to Investigate Torture

On Monday, the ACLU obtained the detailed official record of the CIA’s torture program.

>>Take action and learn more.

On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder made the long-awaited announcement of the appointment of a special prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether federal laws were violated during the interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody.

Attorney General Holder said his decision to appoint a special prosecutor was in part influenced by the contents of a CIA inspector general report made public the same day as part of an ACLU lawsuit. The IG report documents in disturbing detail the level of the torture committed and the extent to which laws were broken.

As anyone who has seen the details of this appalling report can tell you, this investigation is necessary and long overdue, and Attorney General Holder should be commended for taking this important first step. However, the very limited scope of the investigation he launched is nowhere near as thorough and broad as the torture investigation America really needs.

According to early reports, prosecutor John Durham’s mandate will be limited to roughly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated U.S. torture laws and other statutes. Moreover, Durham will conduct a 'preliminary' investigation meant to determine whether a full investigation is appropriate.

In addition to the long-awaited IG report, the ACLU also received more than 60 documents, dating from 2002 through 2007, in response to two ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for documents related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody overseas. Included are memos, letters, and documents between the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the CIA about the torture and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody.

Collectively, the OLC documents, along with the CIA Inspector General report, further underscore the need for a full investigation into the torture of prisoners and those who authorized it.

>>Take Action: Urge Attorney General Holder to conduct a thorough investigation of the Bush torture program.

>>Learn more about the documents released on Monday.


Rendition Program to Continue Under Obama’s Watch

On Monday, the Obama administration made the disappointing announcement that it would continue the Bush administration practice rendition -- the practice of kidnapping individuals suspected of terrorism and rendering them to other countries to be detained or interrogated -- but that it will monitor all cases to ensure that suspects are not mistreated.

As a party to the U.N. Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is under an absolute obligation not to commit torture or to facilitate its occurrence. By instituting a rendition program that relies on flimsy “diplomatic assurances,” the Obama administration is turning its back on U.S. obligations under the U.N. Convention.

The administration’s announcement forms part of the Justice Department’s new recommendations on the interrogation and transfer of individuals. The newly revamped rendition program would rely “on assurances from the receiving country” to prevent torture. These so-called “diplomatic assurances” -- written guarantees from the receiving state that a person would not be subject to torture -- are not a new concept. They were also employed by the Bush administration in the universally condemned “extraordinary rendition" program and proved singularly ineffective in preventing individuals from being tortured after transfer.

A rendition program with “diplomatic assurances” as its centerpiece will be ineffective at preventing torture. We urge the administration to uphold its absolute obligation to prevent torture. Any transfer it engages in must fully comply with domestic and international human rights law. Anything less will mark a return to the unlawful “extraordinary rendition” program.

>>Learn more about the ACLU’s work to end extraordinary rendition.

>>Learn more about the ACLU's work to defend human rights.


ACLU Mourns Senator Edward Kennedy

The ACLU this week mourns the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy, a stalwart champion and defender of civil liberties with a record of public service marked by unending compassion and progress.

Sen. Kennedy often worked with the ACLU to defend the values and ideals inherent in the United States Constitution, fighting to ensure free speech, equality and justice for all people, particularly the disadvantaged. He consistently was the voice for the marginalized and fought in the Senate for those struggling to live free from discrimination throughout the country. Senator Kennedy’s leadership, courage, and compassion will echo throughout the halls of Congress for generations to come.

>> Learn more about Sen. Kennedy’s numerous legislative accomplishments.


Guantánamo Detainee Mohammed Jawad Returned Home To Afghanistan

ACLU client Mohammed Jawad was released from Guantánamo and returned to Afghanistan over the weekend, ending nearly seven years of illegal detention by the U.S. government.

In July, U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle granted Jawad's habeas corpus petition and ordered the Justice Department to release him, finding there was no credible evidence to continue holding him. Judge Huvelle had previously issued a ruling throwing out Jawad's supposed "confession" because it was the product of torture.

Two facts stood out with Jawad’s case. First, his age: he was a teenager, possibly as young as 12, when he was captured. And second, Jawad’s former lead military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, left the military commission in September 2008 because he did not believe he could ethically proceed with the case given Jawad's mistreatment and the lack of credible evidence against him.

"While Mr. Jawad's release is a long-awaited victory for the rule of law, there are many other detainees who are still being held illegally,” said Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project and one of Jawad's lawyers in his habeas corpus case. “We are hopeful that the government will act swiftly to close Guantánamo and handle all of the remaining detainees in a manner consistent with America's Constitution and its values. Any detainee suspected of a crime must be charged and tried in the federal courts, which are fully capable of handling terrorism cases. After so many years, the government should have reliable, untainted evidence against any suspect it believes is guilty. If not, it has no justification to continue imprisoning him."

>>Learn more about Jawad's case.


Surrendering Your Fourth Amendment Rights at the Border

On Thursday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) demanding records about the CBP’s policy of searching travelers’ laptops without suspicion of wrongdoing.

The lawsuit was filed to enforce a Freedom of Information Act request filed in June requesting the criteria used for selecting passengers for suspicionless searches, the number of people who have been subject to the searches, the number of devices and documents retained and the reasons for their retention.

In the policy, the CBP asserts the right to read the information on travelers’ laptops "absent individualized suspicion," which means searching all files saved on laptops, including personal financial information, family photographs and lists of Web sites travelers have visited, without having any reason to believe a traveler has broken the law.

And after they’re done searching your laptop, they also reserve the right to search "documents, books, pamphlets and other printed material, as well as computers, disks, hard drives and other electronic or digital storage devices."

This policy includes everyone crossing the border, whether they’re U.S. citizens or not.

Stay tuned for developments in this effort. In the meantime, if your laptop or electronic device has been searched at the border, let us know about it by emailing legalintake@aclu.org.

Green Bay alderwoman stands up by sitting down, privacy rights versus free info, virginity pledges don't work and more

Civil liberties news in review...

Free Speech
Recently there was a little controversy regarding a Green Bay city council alderwoman who did not give a patriotic vets organization a standing ovation when a flag plaque was donated to the city. The essence of the debate was that Alderwoman Jeffreys questioned the inclusion of Columbus Day on the plaque and did not stand to show her disapproval. The council president Wery is demanding a public apology and is suggesting censure while Alderwoman Jeffreys is asserting her free speech rights.

Privacy
This is an interesting article on the issue of background checks and licensed medical professionals. The Wisconsin State Journal was requesting information from the state to do background checks and ran into some major hurdles and privacy constraints. The end of the article points to a law passed in 2000 where Senator Erpenbach added an amendment in order “to cut down on the solicitations (medical professionals) got (and) make it difficult for companies to profit from this information.” The restriction then made it more difficult for the WSJ journalists to seek background information about doctors. This is one more example of the tension between the public’s right to know (is my doctor a crook?) and the privacy rights of individuals (can companies get a way with abusing public, governmental records for profit?).

Reproductive Rights
The conservative Christian Alliance Defense Fund and other anti-abortion groups have dusted up a controversy about the new proposed plan for UW Health’s Madison Surgery Center to start offering abortion services, even up to the second trimester (otherwise unavailable statewide). The ADF is alleging that the plan will violate UW Health staff’s religious right to refuse to participate in medical practices they don’t agree with, and that state funds would be used for abortion services. The UW Health has said that their policy on allowing staff the right to appropriately refuse is clear and fair, and that abortion services would only be paid for by insurance or out-of-pocket payments. The big picture goes beyond the personal, health or economic reasons women need abortion services. With the Bush administration’s last-minute push to change federal Department of Health and Human Services’ rules regarding refusal rights, the civil liberties implications have been put out of balance. Now medical professionals have greater power to dictate the limitations of women’s reproductive options. The Obama administration needs to roll back the unbalanced new rules and the state of Wisconsin needs to pass real legislation that draws a bright line between women’s right to reproductive freedom and the responsibility of medical service providers to have fair policies for both their staff and their patients. See the articles in the Cap Times and in the Wisconsin State Journal. Read more on where the ACLU stands on the balance of reproductive rights and religious liberty.

And did you see this article in the Washington Post about a new study that shows that teens who take “virginity pledges” though programs that focus on abstinence until marriage are just as likely to have sex as teens who don’t? And the study furthermore shows that those teens who don’t take virginity pledges are more likely to use contraception and safer sex practices. The study from Johns Hopkins, which appears in this month’s Journal of Pediatrics, is different because the teens who are compared share similar values, whereas previous studies did not. This lends more evidence to the inadequacy and even legitimate public health concerns with abstinence-only programs. Kudos to Wisconsin Governor Doyle for continuing to refuse federal funds for abstinence-only curricula: even when facing a budget deficit, abstinence-only programs do more harm than good. Read more on why comprehensive sex education is better for students and for our community.

Issue ad regs postponed, drug sniffing dogs in parks, homeless banned and more

Free Speech
Free speech gets muddled in between the lines of rule-making of the GAB at their recent meeting. While the board didn’t take a formal vote at their last meeting (mainly because it is still up in the air whether or not they have the actual authority to regulate issue ads), they will be working on drafting a rule concerning ads and revisit the topic at their October meeting. This subject goes to the heart of free speech, the ability of all organizations to communicate with the public about the issues they care about, and how to make campaign finance and influencing voters fair.


Privacy Rights
Here’s an article about recent sweeps of public parks by police with drug sniffing dogs. The cops made some small busts of drug users, but the article is a rare example of newspapers detailing the boundaries of people’s rights. It also shows how 1.) police lie, and 2.) open air is searchable. For more on how everyone can interact with police while asserting their rights to privacy, to remain silent and to not consent to searches, visit this Know Your Rights page on the ACLU website.


Rights of the Poor
A recent article points out that the Brittingham Park plan to get rid of disorderly loiterers is working. But the article doesn’t ask anyone where the homeless people went or if they experienced an increase of police harassment or discrimination.


Reproductive Rights
Zweifel writes a solid column about the religious right’s support for Republican V.P. nominee Sarah Palin’s daughter. The spin from Palin’s supporters articulates how Palin’s family is human, subject to mistakes and should have their private decisions kept to themselves. Zweifel notes that this perspective comes from religious right figureheads who have been telling the rest of us how to raise our children and teach them (or not teach them at all, in the case of abstinence-only education mandates) about sex. For more on how the ACLU is challenging abstinence only education, visit our reproductive freedom webpage.


Student Rights
Dane County schools update their rules to bring clarity and more modern definitions to their policies. New regs on cell phones are an improvement that recognizes the ubiquity of this personal communications technology. However, it’s as important as ever for students and parents to read their school rules in the student handbook to understand their rights and the boundaries of what is allowed. Read on to get the scoop on how students can get kicked out of school for something that even looks like a gun and a student ID experiment at Verona that would require students to have IDs visible on lanyards at all times.


Check out this upcoming event which features an excellent speaker who is a former board member of the ACLU of North Carolina affiliate and frequent speaker at ACLU national conferences:

Community lecture: “Civil Liberties and the War on Terror – Past, Present, and Future” with Erwin Chermerinsky, Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, UC-Irvine School of Law
When: Friday, September 19, 12:10 p.m.
Where: UW Memorial Union Play Circle Theater
The UW Law School Office of the Dean and the Institute for Legal Studies fall 2008 workshop series will focus on “Ideas and Innovations in Legal Scholarship.” Hosted by Kathryn Hendley, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, this series features current topics shared by legal scholars in our community and from across the country. Professor Howard Erlanger will provide the welcome for Chermerinsky who will doubtlessly give an in-depth, yet accessible talk on the history of threats to civil liberties in times of war and threats to national security. Worth checking out!