News & Commentary

Privacy and Free Speech: It's Good for Business, released today by the ACLU of Northern California, is a first-of-its-kind publication offering hands-on tips for how businesses can build their reputations–while saving time and money–by properly protecting customers' privacy and free speech. The publication is based on dozens of case studies analyzing what prominent companies like Google, Yahoo!, Qwest, ChoicePoint, Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have done right–and wrong– in safeguarding users. (Publication can be downloaded at www.aclunc.org/tech.)

"Companies that overlook the need to build robust privacy and free speech safeguards into new products often pay the price with negative publicity, costly lawsuits, and government investigations. These case studies and tips can help companies avoid having millions read about their privacy and free speech mistakes later," said Nicole Ozer, ACLU of Northern California Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director.

ACLU of Northern California released a new report revealing that California continues to spend more money on the death penalty, even while fewer counties actually send anyone to death row.

If you live or work in San Jose, please speak up for free speech and say no to library internet censorship!

Facebook, hardly a stranger to controversy, set off yet another firestorm recently when it changed its Terms of Use. The previous terms of service explicitly stated that Facebook's license to use user-created content expired as soon as the user deleted the content or cancelled her account:

We have just won a victory for privacy and against biometrics, thanks to many of you!

Today is the second annual Data Privacy Day, an international holiday "devoted to spotlighting computer privacy and protection issues." While Data Privacy Day is only two years old, warnings about online privacy have been popping up since 2000. Nearly a decade later, articles are still being published warning users about old and new risks to privacy online–and how we can protect ourselves.

People are talking about internet content filtering, especially since the ACLU won its case against the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which tried to censor all speech about sex from the internet. But don't be confused between voluntary use of filters as an alternative to a criminal statute and governmentally imposed filters. ACLU First Amendment attorney Chris Hansen explains more about filtering and when it works and doesn't.

The Child Online Protection Act was passed in 1998 in an effort to prevent minors from accessing "material harmful to minors," specifically depictions of sexual activity or nudity, on the Internet. Unfortunately, the Act did in a manner that substantially impaired free speech rights, and its implementation has been barred as likely unconstitutional on several occasions, including by the Supreme Court in a case argued by the ACLU.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU of Northern California filed suit in federal court today to protect the privacy and free speech rights of two San Francisco Bay Area community organizations after the groups' computers were seized and the data copied by federal and local law enforcement. Both organizations, Long Haul and the East Bay Prisoner Support Group (EBPS), are publishers of information for social and political activists.