ACLU of Northern California - Technology and Civil Liberties 
ACLU Statement: New Law Falls Woefully Short of Protecting Californians’ Privacy
Primary Media Contact: Daisy Vieyra, 916-442-1036 x613Sacramento – Today, Governor Brown signed into law AB 375, legislation labeled as a privacy measure but which fails to truly achieve its purported goal.In response, Nicole Ozer, Technology and Civil Liberties Director for the ACLU of California, released the following statement:“Concern for privacy is at an all-time high in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and yet California has enacted a law that utterly fails to provide the privacy protections the public has demanded and deserves. Nobody should be fooled to think AB 375 properly protects Californians’ privacy.This measure was hastily drafted and needs to be fixed. When that happens next year, effective privacy protections must be included that actually protect against rampant misuse of personal information, make sure that companies cannot retaliate against Californians who exercise their privacy rights, and ensure that Californians can actually enforce their personal privacy rights.The California legislature needs to pay heed to the public’s need and desire for proper privacy protections. Millions of Californians depend on it.” # # # File Under : Technology and Civil Liberties
Media Contact: Tenoch Flores, (415) 254-5970Sacramento – Today the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection passed SB 1186 (Hill), advancing the legislation to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration before going to the full Assembly. The bill would require public debate and that law enforcement obtain the permission of local elected leaders prior to acquiring new surveillance technology.The following statement is attributed to Matt Cagle, Technology & Civil Liberties Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California:With today’s vote, California legislators have again made clear that they get the message: public safety in the digital age must include local community oversight of decisions about surveillance technology.SB 1186 arrives as Californians of all backgrounds express concern about the federal government’s exploitation of powerful technology. Earlier this year, California communities like Oakland and Davis adopted ordinances requiring community oversight of how surveillance technology is deployed and used. At the same time, Culver City and San Pablo rejected license plate surveillance systems that ICE has sought to exploit. And just this week, over 600 employees from Salesforce, one of the largest employers in the Bay Area, expressed public concerns about federal immigration authorities’ abuse of their technology, joining their counterparts at Amazon and Google in ringing the alarm.SB 1186 ensures all California communities have a voice and a seat at the table when local law enforcement seeks to procure surveillance technologies including drones, license plate readers, and social media monitoring software.As the Trump Administration tries to power its abusive deportation machine with every available resource – including local law enforcement surveillance databases – SB 1186 gives Californians an important tool to fight back.SB 1186 is supported by a broad coalition of organizations, including ACLU of California, American Friends Service Committee, Asian Law Alliance, Black Lives Matter Sacramento, California Immigrant Policy Center, Centro Legal de la Raza, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice – Ventura County, Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, Coalition for Justice and Accountability, Color of Change, Council on American-Islamic Relations – California, Courage Campaign, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Fair Chance Project, Fools Mission, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Greenlining Institute, Indivisible California, Media Alliance, Oakland Privacy, OCCORD – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, Our Family Coalition, Presente Action, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Restore the 4th SF-Bay Area, San Francisco Peninsula People Power, San Jose Peace & Justice Center, techLEAD San Diego, Tenth Amendment Center, and The Utility Reform Network. File Under : Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Privacy and Government Surveillance Technology and Civil Liberties
Stop Secretive Surveillance (SB 1186)
Active Our Work Legal Docket Legislation Know Your Rights Need Legal Help? Stop Secretive Surveillance (SB 1186) Author : Senator Jerry Hill Share: Californians deserve a voice and a seat at the table when it comes to law enforcement’s acquisition of surveillance technologies. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case in California, where law enforcement’s use of this technology invades our private lives and has played a nefarious role in the federal government’s racist deportation campaign that's tearing California families apart. It’s time to bring transparency, oversight, and accountability for law enforcement’s use of technologies – such as drones, social media surveillance, and license plate readers – which allow police to track and even detain us as we go about our daily lives.SB 1186 restores power to local communities and makes sure our voices are heard. SB 1186 requires public debate and a vote by local elected leaders prior to law enforcement’s acquisition of new surveillance technology. The bill also requires written rules for existing surveillance technology in order curtail the possibility of civil liberties and civil rights abuses by local law enforcement. With SB 1186, California can finally say no to an intrusive police presence and the secretive surveillance that enables it.Learn moreA New Bill Restores California’s Power to Fight Secret Surveillance (May 3, 2018)A California City Fights Off ICE’s Digital Deportation Machine (Feb. 13, 2018)ACLU of California - Making Smart Decisions About Surveillance: A Guide for Community Transparency, Accountability & Oversight (April 2016)Santa Clara County Passes Groundbreaking Law to Shine a Light on Secret Surveillance (June 7, 2016)Take action: Urge California assemblymembers to pass a strong SB 1186 to rein in secret and discriminatory surveillance Updates Approved 06/26/2018 Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee - Approved Approved 06/19/2018 Assembly Public Safety Committee - Approved Passed 05/31/2018 Senate Floor - Passed Approved 05/25/2018 Senate Appropriations Committee - Approved Approved 04/17/2018 Senate Judiciary Committee - Approved Approved 04/03/2018 Senate Public Safety Committee - Approved Introduced 02/15/2018 Introduced Issues : Privacy and Government Surveillance, Technology and Civil Liberties
Over 150,000 People Tell Amazon: Stop Selling Facial Recognition Tech to Police
150,000 People to Amazon: Stop Selling Facial Recognition Tech to Police On Monday afternoon, civil rights, religious, and community organizations are taking their demand that Amazon stop providing face surveillance technology to governments, including police departments, to the company’s headquarters in Seattle. On Monday afternoon, civil rights, religious, and community organizations are taking their demand that Amazon stop providing face surveillance technology to governments, including police departments, to the company’s headquarters in Seattle. The groups will deliver over 150,000 petition signatures, a coalition letter signed by nearly 70 organizations representing communities nationwide, and a letter from Amazon shareholders.Add your name to the petition today >>>Monday's action is a part of a nationwide campaign to stop the spread of face surveillance technology in government before it is unleashed in towns, cities, and states across the country.By making this dangerous technology cheaply and easily available, Amazon is uniquely positioned to spread face surveillance throughout government agencies, and it has been working behind the scenes to do so for years. Documents obtained by the ACLU reveal Amazon is aggressively marketing its Rekognition face surveillance tool to law enforcement in the United States, and even helping agencies deploy it.Amazon’s size and power — and its nearly ubiquitous Amazon Web Services cloud system — make it easy for the company to offer its face surveillance software as a service for very little money, lowering the bar for even small-town police departments to track people going about their daily lives. App developers can also build easy-to-use face surveillance software for police using Rekognition.Among other capabilities, the technology provides governments the ability to rewind backwards in time to see where we’ve been, who we’ve been with, and what we’ve been doing.So far, Amazon doesn’t seem to be getting the message. The company recently defended its push to provide mass surveillance to governments by saying its customers must follow the law, and that it is not aware of “reported law enforcement abuse.” Here’s what Amazon is really saying to the public: So long as we don't know what governments are actually doing with Amazon products, it's fine to use them for mass surveillance and to target communities of color, immigrants, and protesters. And because Amazon doesn’t say how it will monitor for abuse, it is predictable that governments will violate rights by using Rekognition to track people and crowds. In fact, these are the very use cases that Amazon promotes.Immigrants’ rights, racial justice, and civil liberties advocates nationwide are demanding that Amazon stop making face surveillance technology available to the government. They are guided by a long history of surveillance technologies being used against vulnerable communities, including protest groups like Black Lives Matter, immigrants, and religious minorities.Face surveillance dramatically expands government power to track those groups and chill First Amendment-protected activity like engaging in protest or practicing religion. Rather than roll this technology out wholesale without public accountability, Amazon should listen to the voices of those impacted communities.In Boston, coalition partner Student Immigrant Movement (SIM) is organizing with other organizations and Boston residents to bring community control over the Boston Police Department through the #AllEyesonBPD campaign. Valeria Do Vale, the lead coordinator of SIM, sees the local anti-surveillance efforts and the demand on Amazon as central to SIM’s work to protect immigrant communities in Massachusetts and nationwide.“We got involved with the #AllEyesonBPD campaign for the same reason we signed on to the Amazon demands: Immigrant communities are extremely vulnerable to police surveillance, and we cannot allow any company to make it easier for local law enforcement to track and catalog people’s movements,” Do Vale said.“Even in sanctuary cities like Boston, we’ve seen that local police share information with ICE behind closed doors — and that information ends up getting our people deported,” Do Vale continued. “For immigrants and our families, surveillance systems like this can mean the difference between freedom and deportation. That’s why we are demanding that Amazon stop selling this tool to government agencies: The stakes are too high.”Oakland, California, recently adopted a strong surveillance technology ordinance that requires public debate and strict oversight by elected leaders whenever city agencies seek to acquire or use such technologies. Oakland is also considering a measure that would prohibit city agencies from doing business with ICE contractors.“We are fighting on all fronts to protect the personal information of Oaklanders from federal agencies such as ICE,” says Brian Hofer, chair of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission and core member of Oakland Privacy, a signatory to the Amazon letter. “By helping governments deploy dangerous mass surveillance, Amazon is choosing to put diverse communities like ours at risk.”And in California’s Santa Clara County, home to nearly 2 million people, local elected leaders acting under their own surveillance oversight ordinance voted in January 2017 to impose a moratorium on the use of face surveillance with officer body cameras. This followed a robust local debate. Zahra Billoo, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in the San Francisco Bay Area, considers Amazon’s face surveillance as a threat to public safety:CAIR-SFBA works in communities that live under fear of and actual surveillance. Guilt and innocence matter less to law enforcement today than vague descriptions, ethnic identities, and activism. Rekognition amplifies these concerns by increasing access to and use of surveillance systems, under the guise of public safety while instead empowering the police departments who use it with increased access and authority.Seattle has long had a strong, active, and diverse coalition supporting public transparency around surveillance technologies. Among other victories, this coalition recently won passage of the Seattle Surveillance Ordinance, one of the strongest ordinances of its kind. Groups in the area representing domestic violence victims, immigrants, diverse faith communities, labor, and various ethnic communities all signed onto the call for Amazon to stop selling face surveillance technology to governments.“Muslim communities already feel under attack under the current federal administration,” said Jasmin Samy of coalition partner Council on American-Islamic Relations-Washington. “Surveillance technologies have been used against our communities in the past — for example, in New York City, automated license plate readers were used to track vehicles coming to and from mosques. Face surveillance in the hands of government will only accelerate that trend, making this kind of chilling effect on our faith more pervasive."The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any nation on earth, by far. Our criminal legal system is beset by racial discrimination and disparities at every stage of the system, from stop and frisk to arrest, all the way through prosecution, incarceration, probation, and parole. This bias is pervasive in the mug shot databases that can serve as the foundation for face surveillance systems.And across the country — even in cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities — police departments are putting immigrants at risk by sharing information with ICE. At law enforcement “fusion centers” nationwide, state and local police work closely with the FBI, which has routinely faced criticism for targeting Muslims, its general hostility to the Islamic faith, and its conflation of dissent with terrorism, most recently by identifying Black Lives Matter activism as “Black Identity Extremism.”Historically, police departments have unleashed new surveillance technologies without waiting for community input or even laws to govern their use. This is intolerable with a technology like Rekognition, which gives law enforcement an authoritarian form of control to wield in the dark.We cannot blindly stumble into an artificial intelligence-powered surveillance state overseen by corporations interested in expanding their profit margins and police departments committed to exercising limitless power. True public safety — especially for people of color, Muslims, immigrants, and dissidents — requires that we stop the spread of face surveillance before it’s too late.IF YOU HAVEN’T SIGNED THE PETITION TO AMAZON, IT’S NOT TOO LATE. WE ONLY WIN IF WE FIGHT >>>Kade Crockford is the director of the ACLU of Massachusetts Technology for Liberty Project. This blog post was originally published on ACLU.org.
ACLU Foundation of Northern California v. DOJ (Location Tracking)
Active Case Our Work Legal Docket Legislation Know Your Rights Need Legal Help? ACLU Foundation of Northern California v. DOJ (Location Tracking) August 21, 2015 Share: On April 13, 2012, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and San Francisco Bay Guardian, an independent newspaper, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seeking information about the federal government’s use of location tracking technology to monitor and surveil suspects.Recent revelations have made clear that government agencies are engaged in seeking and acquiring the location information of individuals for tracking and surveillance purposes, utilizing varying technologies and varying legal standards that frequently fall short of constitutional protections designed to protect the public from intrusive government searches.Access to information about how the United States Attorneys for the Northern District are seeking or obtaining location information and whether these activities comport with constitutional rights is necessary for a meaningful and informed public debate over these pressing public policy issues and pending legislative debates.When the DOJ provided no adequate response, we filed suit.On July 31, 2012, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed suit on behalf of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and San Francisco Bay Guardian in the federal court in San Francisco to enforce the statutory right to obtain the requested documents.After the ACLU Foundation of Northern California filed suit, the government produced shocking documents showing that the Justice Department had been less than “explicit” with federal magistrate judges about the surveillance technology being used by the government. The government sought to withhold a substantial body of documents responsive to the FOIA request. The parties bi-furcated the issues in the case and addressed in separate cross-motions for summary judgment the government’s obligations to produce policies and procedures on location tracking and actual applications filed in court for location tracking information.On Sep. 30, 2014 the district court ruled that the Department of Justice must disclose its policies and procedures, in particular, a portion of the agency’s manual called the “USA Book” pertaining to location tracking. The district court also ruled that the government must conduct a more thorough search for actual applications for location tracking that it filed in court.The government has appealed the portion of the district court’s order requiring it to disclose the USA Book. The appeal is now pending in the Ninth Circuit.In Aug. 2015, the government produced pursuant to a settlement agreement a declaration about the applications for location tracking information that it has filed in court. That declaration shows that the government routinely gathered location data without probable cause warrants. Once the government provided us with that declaration, we voluntarily dismissed the portion of our lawsuit seeking actual location tracking applications. The appeal relating to the USA Book is still pending.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal on the USA Book on December 12, 2016.On January 18, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in our favor. The decision prevents the government from cloaking its surveillance policies in secrecy simply because they were written by lawyers or because they implicate potential criminal prosecutions. The case has been remanded to the district court where the public will finally get an opportunity to learn about the government's surveillance policies. Learn moreACLU wins Transparency for Government Surveillance Policies (January 18, 2018) ACLU Foundation of Northern California Suit Shows the DOJ Gathered Location Data Without Probable Cause (Aug. 26, 2015)ACLU Foundation of Northern California Sues Government for Information About "Stingray" Cell Phone Tracking (July 8, 2013)Justice Department Emails Show Feds Were Less Than "Explicit" with Judges on Cell Phone Tracking Tool (Mar. 27, 2013)Fighting for Transparency (July 31, 2012) File Under : Privacy and Government Surveillance, Technology and Civil Liberties Case Developments Filing 09/09/2016 The Government's Reply Brief Filing 07/14/2016 ACLU Answer Brief Filing 05/16/2016 The Government's Opening Brief Ruling 08/21/2015 Stipulation of Partial Dismissal Filing 08/19/2015 Declaration of Patricia Kenney re: applications for location tracking information Filing 06/22/2015 Plaintiffs-Appellees' Answering Brief Ruling 09/30/2014 Order on Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (re: applications for location tracking information) Ruling 09/30/2014 Order on Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (re: policies and procedures for location tracking information) Filing 12/20/2013 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement as to Part 1 Filing 12/12/2013 The Government's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as to Part 1 Filing 10/25/2013 Plaintiff's Opposition and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Part 1 Filing 09/23/2013 Declaration of Patricia J. Kenney in Support of the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Part 1 Filing 09/23/2013 The Government's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Part 1 Filing 08/08/2013 Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Filing 07/22/2013 The Government's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Filing 06/27/2013 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Filing 06/06/2013 The Government's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Filing 07/31/2012 Complaint
Amazon
About Amazon's dangerous new facial recognition tech Read more Display Location : Issues Pages Sidebar File Under : Privacy and Government Surveillance Technology and Civil Liberties
SB 1186
SB 1186 can restores CA's power to fight secret surveillance Learn more Display Location : Issues Pages Sidebar File Under : Privacy and Government Surveillance Technology and Civil Liberties
ACLU Applauds California Senate Approval of Bill to Establish Safeguards Before Law Enforcement Can Acquire New Surveillance Technology
Contact: Daisy Vieyra, 916-442-1036 x613SB 1186 will require local elected officials’ approval before law enforcement acquires surveillance technologies like drones, social media surveillance, and facial recognition softwareSACRAMENTO–Today, the State Senate advanced SB 1186 to the Assembly for consideration. SB 1186, introduced by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) requires public debate and a vote by local elected leaders prior to law enforcement’s acquisition of new surveillance technology, among other oversight protections.The following statement is attributed to Matt Cagle, Technology & Civil Liberties Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in response to the bill’s passage:SB 1186 gives all Californians a seat at the table when it comes to surveillance technology used by local law enforcement including drones, license plate readers, and social media surveillance. As things stand, these technologies are frequently deployed in secret without public oversight and used disproportionately to target people of color and other vulnerable communities.California needs SB 1186 to enhance public safety and to give local communities a safeguard against intrusive surveillance technologies and the private companies who profit from them. We are pleased the Senate advanced the bill to the Assembly where we will continue to fight for the bill in its strongest form.SB 1186 is supported by a broad coalition of organizations, including ACLU of California, American Friends Service Committee, Asian Law Alliance, Black Lives Matter Sacramento, California Immigrant Policy Center, Centro Legal de la Raza, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice – Ventura County, Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, Coalition for Justice and Accountability, Color of Change, Council on American-Islamic Relations – California, Courage Campaign, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Fair Chance Project, Fools Mission, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Greenlining Institute, Indivisible California, Media Alliance, Oakland Privacy, OCCORD – Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development, Our Family Coalition, Presente Action, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Restore the 4th SF-Bay Area, San Francisco Peninsula People Power, San Jose Peace & Justice Center, Tenth Amendment Center, and The Utility Reform Network. File Under : Racial Justice Technology and Civil Liberties
Action: No More Secret Surveillance
Action: No More Secret Surveillance Support SB 1186 Image : For years now, local law enforcement has secretly deployed surveillance technologies to that disproportionately target people of color and other vulnerable communities. Police, for example, have used these technologies to monitor #BlackLivesMatter protestors and leaders, while the federal government buys access to surveillance companies’ databases to funnel immigrants into Donald Trump’s racist deportation machine.Email your state assemblymember and ask them to put an end to secret surveillance in California.High powered technologies like drones, social media surveillance, and facial recognition software have quietly invaded our everyday lives by collecting some our most personal and sensitive data without transparency, oversight, or accountability — but not without grave and dangerous consequences.SB 1186 (Hill) returns power back to local communities by giving us a voice and a seat at the table when it comes to deciding if and how local law enforcement can use surveillance technologies.Ask your assemblymember to vote YES on SB 1186.At a time when the federal government has put a target on the backs of immigrant and Muslim community members, people of color face deadly abuses by law enforcement, private companies disregard democratic safeguards just to make a buck. We must reclaim our right to decide when law enforcement can acquire technologies that allow them and the federal government to track and even detain us.All of us deserve to feel safe, especially in our own neighborhoods. Tell your assemblymember you want a say when surveillance proposals are on the table. With your help, we the people can protect one another.
A Promising California Bill Could Help Communities Stop Secret And Discriminatory Police Surveillance
SB 21 Could Help Communities Stop Secret And Discriminatory Police Surveillance In today's troublesome political climate, local police surveillance must be reined in. California is on the verge of passing Senate Bill 21 (SB 21), a strong bill that, in its current form, would help empower communities and their local elected officials to stop secret and discriminatory use of police surveillance technologies. Making sure state lawmakers enact robust surveillance reform laws is all the more important right now as the Trump administration equips its deportation force with surveillance capabilities, aggressively pursues political activists, and escalates pressure on sanctuary cities. Now is the time to make sure a strong SB 21 — with no further amendments — gets across the finish line.For years, the secret use of surveillance technology has been consistently expanding with virtually no restraints. Law enforcement agencies nationwide, using federal funds, have amassed sophisticated technologies, including Stingray cell phone trackers, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), drones, and algorithm-based policing software.These surveillance technologies are frequently used to target immigrants and communities of color. South Asian, Muslim and Sikh protesters were spied on in San Jose. Baltimore police used facial recognition technology to identify people protesting the police killing of Freddie Gray. And social media surveillance technology in Fresno enabled police to monitor hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter as “threats to public safety.” Residents of Compton, California, have been monitored in their own backyards with high-powered, fly-over cameras and the New York Police Department used license plate readers to track people as they worshiped at mosques. Now immigrant communities living along the United States and Mexico border are facing an invasive new program to scan their eyeballs.Californians want reform, with more than two-thirds supporting both local and state-level rules to rein in police surveillance. If passed in its current form, SB 21 will become the first state law to require transparency and community control over police decisions about surveillance technology. The bill requires a public debate over proposals to acquire new surveillance technologies. It places local communities and elected officials at the center of every decision to approve or reject their locality’s use of surveillance technologies. And should local elected leaders approve the use of a surveillance technology, SB 21 requires the adoption of a council-approved policy governing its use and regular evaluations of its impact on civil rights and civil liberties.>> Take Action: Urge California to pass a strong SB 21 to rein in secret and discriminatory surveillance.The need for surveillance reform is not just a local issue. Sensitive surveillance information about who we are, where we go, and what we do that is collected by local law enforcement often flows, without adequate controls, to the federal government through fusion centers, which collect and share surveillance data from all levels of government, as well as other domestic spying infrastructure. This is not a hypothetical threat. Just ask Oakland, California, which despite being a sanctuary city, discovered that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was using a fusion center to get its hands on Oakland’s license plate reader data. SB 21’s provisions, which empower communities to consider if and how any surveillance information is shared with the federal government, are particularly important in the current political climate.SB 21 builds on the nationwide Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) movement, a reform effort spearheaded by 17 organizations, including the ACLU, that is designed to put local residents and elected officials in charge of decisions about surveillance technology. Last summer, Santa Clara County, California passed a groundbreaking ordinance ensuring consistent transparency, accountability, and oversight procedures for all surveillance decisions in the county. Nashville adopted a CCOPS law earlier this summer, and Seattle just voted to strengthen its first-in-the-nation surveillance ordinance.California’s SB 21 has emerged at a key moment — right now at least 18 U.S. cities are actively considering their own surveillance bills. Oakland is poised to enact a robust ordinance in an effort led by the city’s new Privacy Advisory Commission. In New York City, the ACLU of New York and various community groups are fighting to end the NYPD’s secret use of surveillance technology and prevent any inappropriate data sharing with the Trump administration. Residents in St. Louis are working to pass a CCOPS law as a part of broader efforts to address discriminatory policing in the region.We need strong local and state protections to push secret surveillance into the light, put communities back in control, and prevent abusive practices that all too often target immigrants, people of color, religious groups, and activists.We hope you’ll urge California lawmakers to pass a strong SB 21 – with no further amendments – and in so doing set an example for other cities and states to follow.To learn more about the CCOPS effort and how to start or join an effort in your community, please visit www.CommunityCTRL.com.Nicole A. Ozer is the Technology & Civil Liberties Policy Director with the ACLU of California. Chad Marlow is Advocacy and Policy Counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union.