News & Commentary

You don't surrender your constitutional rights based on who you work for. That's why the ACLU of Northern California sued on behalf of a deputy sheriff in Trinity County who was censured at work after publishing letters to the editor in the local paper.

This morning, 26 individuals and organizations including the ACLU of California sent an open letter to new Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer asking her to add HTTPS security to Yahoo! Mail. Without secure connections, the email sent and received by Yahoo! users around the world — from dissidents living under repressive regimes to Americans communicating about sensitive topics — is vulnerable to interception by ISPs, WiFi "sniffers," and others. Please join us by telling Yahoo! (via Twitter or Yahoo's feedback form) to take this basic step to protect your email.

In mid-October, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office revealed that it was seeking funds to purchase a drone to engage in unspecified unmanned aerial surveillance. The ACLU of Northern California immediately sent a Public Records Act request seeking answers to three basic questions: 1) Are drones really necessary in our community; 2) How much will they cost to acquire, operate, and maintain; and 3) What safeguards will be in place to protect our privacy? The decision to buy a drone is a hugely important public policy question that needs to be debated through an open and transparent process, with full and informed participation by the community and our civilian elected leaders. This should not be a unilateral decision made by law enforcement. Unfortunately, while the Sheriff s Office has found the time to test a drone this past weekend, it is now dragging its feet in providing information that is responsive to our request and essential for that public debate to occur.

As sheriffs have readily admitted, county jails are not full of individuals who have been convicted of crimes, or even individuals thought to present a high public safety risk to the community. Most people in county jails have not been convicted of a crime. More than 71 percent of the 71,000 Californians held in county jails on any given day are awaiting their day in court. Most of them do not pose a risk to public safety but are stuck behind bars because they simply cannot afford bail.

One year ago today, police fired tear gas, flash bang grenades and lead-filled bags into a massive crowd of Occupy Oakland demonstrators. The ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild sued the Oakland Police Department for its egregious constitutional violations against demonstrators during the October 25, 2011 and November 2, 2011 demonstrations. That lawsuit is ongoing.

You don't lose your First Amendment rights because you have been arrested at a previous demonstration. Censorship in anticipation of possible illegal conduct in the future isn't just creepy, it's also unconstitutional and just plain wrong.

The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed an amicus brief in what will be the first case in the country to address the constitutional implications of a so-called "stingray," a little known device that can be used to track a suspect's location and engage in other types of surveillance. We argue that if the government wants to use invasive surveillance technology like this, it must explain the technology to the courts so they can perform their judicial oversight function as required by the Constitution.

If the First Amendment means anything, it's that students should be able to demonstrate on their own campus without being afraid of police violence. The pepper spraying incident at UC Davis on November 18, 2011 was among the worst examples of police violence against student demonstrators that we've seen in a generation.

Shortly before next week's one-year anniversary of the Oakland Police Department's brutal crackdown on Occupy Oakland, Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern announced that he was seeking funds to purchase a drone to engage in unspecified unmanned aerial surveillance. One of the many unfortunate lessons of OPD's Occupy crackdown is that when law enforcement has powerful and dangerous tools in its arsenal, it will use them. Drones raise enormous privacy concerns and can easily be abused. Before any drone acquisition proceeds, we need to ask a threshold question – are drones really necessary in our community? – and have a transparent and democratic process for debating that question. In addition, if the decision is made to acquire a drone, do we have rigid safeguards and accountability mechanisms in place, so that law enforcement does not use drones to engage in warrantless mass surveillance? The ACLU of Northern California has sent the Sheriff a Public Records Act request, demanding answers to these crucial questions.