June, 29 2016, 10:15am EDT
ACLU Challenges Law Preventing Studies on 'Big Data' Discrimination
First Amendment Lawsuit Brought on Behalf of Academic Researchers and Journalists Who Fear Prosecution Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
WASHINGTON
A group of university professors and journalists filed a lawsuit today arguing that a federal computer crimes law unconstitutionally criminalizes research aimed at uncovering whether online algorithms result in racial, gender, or other illegal discrimination in areas such as employment and real estate.
The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges a section of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that makes it a crime to violate a website's terms of service. Those terms, which are arbitrarily set by individual sites and can change at any time, often prohibit things like creating multiple accounts, providing inaccurate account information, or using automated methods to collect publicly available data like search results and ads.
Those same practices are used by researchers to test whether sites are, for example, more likely to show higher interest rate loan ads to people of color or show higher paying jobs to men who search employment listings. Studies like these necessarily require researchers to create dummy online identities and record what content is served up to those identities.
The discriminatory results are often the result of algorithms relying on "big data" analysis to classify people based on their web browsing habits or other information collected by data brokers -- and then steer them towards various products or services.
Equivalent studies to find discrimination offline -- for example, where pairs of individuals of different races attempt to secure housing and jobs and compare outcomes -- have been encouraged by Congress and the courts for decades in order to ensure that civil rights laws like the Fair Housing Act are not being broken. Such laws prohibit practices that result in discrimination, regardless of whether it is intentional.
"The work of our clients has a clear social benefit and is protected by the First Amendment," said Esha Bhandari, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "This law perversely grants businesses that operate online the power to shut down investigations of their practices."
The plaintiffs include Christian Sandvig, an associate professor of information and communication studies at the University of Michigan, and Karrie Karahalios, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Illinois. They are conducting a study to determine whether the computer programs that determine what to display on real estate sites are discriminating against users by race or other factors.
"Being able to run socially beneficial studies like ours is at the heart of academic freedom," said Sandvig. "We shouldn't have to fear prosecution just because we're doing our jobs."
The other academic plaintiffs are Alan Mislove and Christo Wilson, associate and assistant professors of computer science at Northeastern University, respectively. They are conducting a study to test whether the ranking algorithms on major online hiring websites produce discriminatory results by systematically ranking specific classes of people -- such as people of color or women -- below others.
"Big data-based targeting opens up vast potential for discrimination against marginalized communities, including people of color, women, and others," said Rachel Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "This law stymies the ongoing fight for civil rights as our day-to-day habits and transactions move steadily online."
The ACLU also represents First Look Media, which publishes The Intercept. The journalists there wish to investigate websites' business practices and outcomes, including any discriminatory effects of big data and algorithms. The work of journalists often involves collecting public data from websites and other activities that may violate terms of service. The lawsuit argues that the potential for prosecution under the CFAA has an impermissible chilling effect, violating the freedom of speech and of the press protected by the First Amendment.
In reports from the White House and the Federal Trade Commission, the federal government itself has recognized the potential danger for big data algorithms to reinforce racial, gender, and other disparities.
The lawsuit, Sandvig v. Lynch, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The attorneys on the case are Bhandari and Goodman of the ACLU and Arthur B. Spitzer and Scott Michelman of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital.
Today's complaint is here:
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/sandvig-v-lynch-complaint
A blog post written by the attorneys on the case is here:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-challenges-computer-crimes-law-thwarting-research-discrimination-online
This press release is here:
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-challenges-law-preventing-studies-big-data-discrimination
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Asked If He Must Uphold the US Constitution, Trump Says: 'I Don't Know'
"I'm not a lawyer," the president said in a newly aired interview.
May 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump refused in an interview released Sunday to affirm that the nation's Constitution affords due process to citizens and noncitizens alike and that he, as president, must uphold that fundamental right.
"I don't know, I'm not a lawyer," Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker, who asked if the president agrees with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that everyone on U.S. soil is entitled to due process.
When Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment—which states that "no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"—Trump again replied that he's unsure and suggested granting due process to the undocumented immigrants he wants to deport would be too burdensome.
"We'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," Trump said, echoing a sentiment that his vice president expressed last month.
Asked whether he needs to "uphold the Constitution of the United States as president," Trump replied, "I don't know."
Watch:
WELKER: The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process
TRUMP: It might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials pic.twitter.com/FMZQ7O9mTP
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 4, 2025
Trump, who similarly deferred to "the lawyers" when asked recently about his refusal to bring home wrongly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, has unlawfully cited the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly remove undocumented immigrants from the U.S. without due process. Federal agents have also arrested and detained students, academics, and a current and former judge in recent weeks, heightening alarm over the administration's authoritarian tactics.
CNNreported Friday that the administration has "been examining whether it can label some suspected cartel and gang members inside the U.S. as 'enemy combatants' as a possible way to detain them more easily and limit their ability to challenge their imprisonment."
"Trump has expressed extreme frustration with federal courts halting many of those migrants' deportations, amid legal challenges questioning whether they were being afforded due process," the outlet added. "By labeling the migrants as enemy combatants, they would have fewer rights, the thinking goes."
Some top administration officials have publicly expressed disdain for the constitutional right to due process. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, wrote in a social media post last month that "the judicial process is for Americans" and "immediate deportation" is for undocumented immigrants.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent wrote in a column Saturday that "Miller appears to want Trump to have the power to declare undocumented immigrants to be terrorists and gang members by fiat; to have the power to absurdly decree them members of a hostile nation's invading army, again by fiat; and then to have quasi-unlimited power to remove them, unconstrained by any court."
"The more transparency we have gained into the rot of corruption and bad faith at the core of this whole saga, the worse it has come to look," Sargent continued. "Trump himself is exposing it all for what it truly is: the stuff of Mad Kings."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Republicans Set to Give Self-Described 'DOGE Person' Keys to Social Security Agency
"A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security," warned one advocacy group.
May 04, 2025
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday is set to hold a confirmation vote for President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Social Security Administration—an ultra-rich former Wall Street executive who has aligned himself with the Elon Musk-led slash-and-burn effort at agencies across the federal government.
"I am fundamentally a DOGE person," Frank Bisignano told CNBC in March, amplifying concerns that he would take his experience in the financial technology industry—where he was notorious for inflicting mass layoffs while raking in a huge compensation package—to SSA, which is already facing large-scale staffing cuts that threaten the delivery of benefits for millions of Americans.
In an email on Saturday, the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works warned that Bisignano "is not the cure to the DOGE-manufactured chaos at the Social Security Administration."
"In fact, he is part of it, and, if confirmed, would make it even worse," the group added. "We're not going down without a fight. Republicans may have a majority in the Senate, but we're going to rally to send a message: A vote for Trump's Social Security Commissioner is a vote to destroy Social Security!"
"If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
Bisignano, the CEO of payment processing giant Fiserv, has been accused during his confirmation process of lying under oath about his ties to DOGE, which has worked to seize control of Social Security data as part of a purported effort to root out "fraud" that advocates say is virtually nonexistent.
As The Washington Post reported in March, Bisignano testified to the Senate Finance Committee that "he has had no contact" with DOGE.
"But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the claim is 'not true,' citing an account the senator said he received from a senior Social Security official who recently left the agency," the Post noted. "The former official... described 'numerous contacts Mr. Bisignano made with the agency since his nomination,' including 'frequent' conversations with senior executives."
Wyden pointed again to the former SSA official's statement in a floor speech Thursday in opposition to Bisignano, saying that "according to the whistleblower, Mr. Bisignano personally appointed his Wall Street buddy, Michael Russo, to be the leader of DOGE's team at Social Security."
The Oregon Democrat said Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee refused his request for a bipartisan meeting with the whistleblower to evaluate their accusations unless "we agreed to hand over any information received from the whistleblower directly to the nominee and the Trump administration."
"All Americans should be concerned that a nominee for a position of public trust like commissioner of Social Security is accused of lying about his actions at the agency and that efforts to bring this important information to light are being thwarted," Wyden said Thursday. "If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he's even in place as commissioner, who knows what else he'll be able to get away with once he's in office."
"He could lie by denying any American who paid their Social Security taxes the benefits they've earned, claiming some phony pretense," the senator warned. "He could lie about how sensitive personal information is being mishandled—or worse, exploited for commercial use."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Chilling Attempt to Normalize Fascism': Groups Decry Trump Official's Arrest Threats
"We must not allow intimidation and authoritarian tactics to take root in our political system."
May 04, 2025
A coalition of advocacy organizations on Saturday expressed support for Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and warned that the Trump border czar's threat against the Democratic leader marks a "dangerous escalation" of the administration's assault on the rule of law across the United States.
The groups—including All Voting Is Local and the ACLU of Wisconsin—said in a joint statement that Evers' guidance to state officials on how to handle being confronted by federal agents was "a prudent measure aimed at ensuring compliance with state and federal laws while protecting the rights of state employees."
The suggestion by Tom Homan, a leader of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, that Evers could be arrested for issuing such guidance undermines "the foundational principles of our democracy, including the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference," the groups said Saturday.
"To threaten our governor over his legal directive is gross overreach by our federal government, and it is not occurring in a vacuum," they continued, warning that the administration's rhetoric and actions represent a "chilling attempt to normalize fascism."
"Similar occurrences are happening across the nation, including within our academic systems," the groups added. "If we do not reject these actions now, states and other institutions will only lose more and more of their autonomy and power. This is exactly why we underscore Gov. Evers' claim that this event is 'chilling.'"
The threats against Gov. Evers in Wisconsin undermine the foundational principles of our democracy: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the right of state governments to operate without undue federal interference. We must reject this overreach. allvotingislocal.org/statements/w...
[image or embed]
— All Voting is Local (@allvotingislocal.bsky.social) May 3, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Trump administration officials and the president himself have repeatedly threatened state and local officials as the White House rushes ahead with its lawless mass deportation campaign, which has ensnared tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants and at least over a dozen U.S. citizens—including children.
In an executive order signed late last month, Trump accused "some state and local officials" of engaging in a "lawless insurrection" against the federal government by refusing to cooperate with the administration's deportation efforts.
But as Temple University law professor Jennifer Lee recently noted, localities "can legally decide not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement."
"Cities, like states, have constitutional protections against being forced to administer or enforce federal programs," Lee wrote. "The Trump administration cannot force any state or local official to assist in enforcing federal immigration law."
Administration officials have also leveled threats against members of Congress, with Homan suggesting earlier this year that he would refer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to the U.S. Justice Department for holding a webinar informing constituents of their rights.
During a town hall on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez dared Homan to do so.
"To that I say: Come for me," she said to cheers from the audience. "We need to challenge them. So don't let them intimidate you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular