Backdoor, warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment.
WATCH: @savingprivacy General Counsel Gene Schaerr explains why Congress must enact a FISA warrant requirement.
.@CenDemTech joins 20+ orgs demanding the release of FISC opinion that, per @RonWyden, identifies surveillance problems “directly related to Americans’ constitutional rights.”
https://t.co/JAvMIEZaXC
AI promised a brighter future, but also apparently seems to be ushering in a new paradigm of surveillance abuse: police are increasingly pulling over drivers due to AI deeming their driving patterns are "suspicious."
https://t.co/JvjuW6GVXe
FISA Section 702 might have lapsed, but debate over its renewal continues, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle create fresh uncertainty over the statute's future.
https://t.co/l7Pleym5Dq
Two Democratic senators claim the administration is illegally withholding FISC findings from Congress until lawmakers renew FISA Section 702.
https://t.co/uJfSlEatdS
Sens. @RonWyden@SenAdamSchiff demand that the administration immediately declassify a surveillance court opinion detailing the warrantless surveillance abuses under FISA Section 702.
https://t.co/cw9bxtQOdi
After Twin Cities suburbs took down Flock cameras, county sheriffs began adding more ALPRs, raising questions re: how the technology is used across jurisdictions.
https://t.co/ezxHVAY1S8
While the San Diego City Council has voted to eliminate Flock ALPRs, the move has created friction and uncertainty about whether the technology will actually be removed.
https://t.co/qXC5YVWVZ5
Florida's "Safe Screens Act" has the noble intention of protecting children online. Unfortunately, it's also a highly effective way to chill lawful speech and destroy privacy.
https://t.co/ctDzmBGA6b
6/ Communities deserve to know who can search their movements, under what rules, and with what checks for compliance. Those answers should be public before cameras are installed, with regular opportunities for residents to challenge the system. Full story: https://t.co/D7wTFyxWQi
5/ Officials should face meaningful consequences for abusing surveillance tools, and people harmed by that abuse should have a way to enforce accountability. Above all, historical tracking of Americans should require a probable-cause warrant.
4/ But an authorized user can still conduct an unauthorized search. Agencies therefore need tamper-resistant audit logs, documented investigative purposes, routine independent reviews, and prompt investigation of suspicious activity.
3/ The public is asked to accept surveillance on the assurance that trained officials will use it for legitimate purposes. That assurance collapses when access continues after an officer’s authority ends. Privacy cannot depend on someone remembering to disable an account.
2/ Such access led to the misuse of Flock to track the daily movements of romantic interests and ex-wives. And these are just the abuses we know about. Consider what that means for anyone whose movements become searchable.
1/ Police officers are required to turn in their badges and their guns when they leave a department. Leaving should also end an officer’s power to track Americans, yet at least 11 former officers retained Flock access after leaving their jobs.
.@Cornell announces an end to its contract with Flock, after at least four other Flock contract across Tompkins County were ordered to end their relationship with the company earlier this year.
https://t.co/G5Eyt3pmlF
1/ Nothing concentrates a senator’s mind on privacy quite like discovering that the government has been examining their phone records. The question now is whether senators will translate their indignation into protections for the people who elected them.
@SenMikeLee@ChrisCoons 4/ Will Congress protect everyone’s privacy? Lawmakers should consider listening more closely to their constituents’ concerns. Until they extend to Americans the privacy protections they demand for themselves, senators’ message will remain: “Privacy for me but not for thee.”