News & Commentary

Over the years, the north steps of the State Capitol have seen some fierce advocacy by queer youth from across the state of California. The ACLU of California is keeping that legacy alive in the 2013 legislative cycle. The GSA Advocacy & Youth Leadership Academy (GAYLA) is a three-day intensive training in the legislative process and advocacy that brings the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) students to the forefront of the discussion. Today, it culminates with Queer Youth Advocacy Day, a day where youth speak their minds and voice their concerns directly to their representatives.

I grew up outside Boston and used to watch the Marathon as it ran by, near where we lived. My heart goes out to the City of Boston and everyone impacted by recent events.

The ACLU of California welcomes the federal comprehensive immigration reform bill announced late Tuesday night by the Senate Gang of 8. This historic bill has the potential to advance the civil rights and liberties of all Californians and to set the stage for a roadmap to citizenship for the nearly 2.6 million undocumented immigrants who currently live in our state.

Tonight, the Redding City Council will consider whether to put the City on the path toward becoming a drone testing site. The ACLU of Northern California has urged the City Council not to approval the proposal at this juncture. (You can read our letter to the City Council here.) The proposal currently before the City Council is nothing more than a blank check. It offers the community no assurances whatsoever that their privacy will not be invaded, and it provides the City Council with no role in overseeing the process of transforming Redding into a drone test site. Drone proponents have emphasized that the integration of drones into domestic airspace is inevitable. While that may be the case, it is therefore all the more essential that Redding, under the leadership of its City Council, take this opportunity to advance not only technology, but also civil rights, privacy, and core values of our constitution. Drones pose significant threats to privacy because they can easily be used for warrantless mass surveillance. Before any community makes the important decision whether to unleash drones into the skies, it should undertake a participatory and informed debate, and it should ensure that meaningful privacy safeguards are in place. At this juncture, essential information about the drone proposal are lacking.

Tech companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft publicly proclaim their support for user transparency. And data broker Acxiom has recently announced plans to let consumers see what data the company collects about them. So why are the industry groups that represent these companies lobbying against AB 1291, the California Right to Know Act, a bill to give consumers transparency about how their data is being collected and shared? It's mighty odd.

When you search online, shop, or use a mobile app, do you know what personal information is being collected about you and your family? Any idea just how much sensitive information about your location, health, finances, religion, sexual orientation, buying habits, and more is ending up in the hands of data brokers, online advertisers, applications, and other third parties? And how it is being used and potentially abused? We don't know a lot about what's happening behind the scenes to our own personal information and many companies want it to stay that way.

A Justice Department document obtained by the ACLU of Northern California shows that federal investigators were routinely using a sophisticated cell phone tracking tool known as a "stingray," but hiding that fact from federal magistrate judges when asking for permission to do so.

Read the ACLU's analysis of the Prop 8 oral argument today.

This week a federal judge ordered a bond hearing for a woman who has been detained without due process by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for nearly a year and a half. Bertha Mejia, a grandmother with deep family ties in California and with no violent criminal history, was classified by ICE as a "mandatory detainee" because of misdemeanor convictions for stealing groceries. That classification made her ineligible for a hearing before an immigration judge where she could present evidence that she posed no danger to the community or risk of flight—even as her immigration case dragged on for months with no end in sight.