News & Commentary

Documents recently obtained by the ACLU of Northern California from the Department of Justice confirm concerns about the federal government’s use of StingRays – a highly intrusive cell phone surveillance device – and underscore the need for transparency.

Read why more people are using adblockers - not just to avoid annoying commercials, but to guard against tracking and profiling.

Last Thursday, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires a warrant before California law enforcement can seize the contents or metadata of your communications, demand location records from your cell phone provider, or use a StingRay to gather information about your smartphone.

What’s in a name? If you ask Facebook, it’s the text on a driver’s license or a formal document like a utility bill or library card.

If Gov. Brown fails to veto SB 249, the DMV will issue driver’s licenses enhanced with unencrypted computer chips that would make Californians' personal data vulnerable.

UPDATE: The vote has been rescheduled to Tuesday, Oct. 13.

In response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the Sacramento Sheriff has now admitted that it used intrusive cellphone surveillance technology – commonly known as a “StingRay” – without obtaining court approval. Days after this stunning admission, the Sheriff publicly announced a new policy for the use of StingRay technology. While having an actual policy in place is certainly a step in the right direction, the new policy raises serious concerns.

It was a really good week in California for privacy rights. The legislature passed the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA SB 178) with strong bipartisan support. The bill is now on Gov. Brown’s desk, and he needs to hear from all of us that it’s time to update privacy law for the modern digital world and sign CalECPA into law.

After three years of litigation, we’ve finally settled a portion of one of our long-running Freedom of Information Act suits against the federal government for information about its location tracking practices.  A person’s digital location information reveals detailed, private information that the government should only be able to get through a warrant based on probable cause.  As part of this settlement, the government provided us with information about the types of court orders it obtains to get location information.