

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Amina Fazlullah (202) 546-9707 x336
A coalition of ten consumer and privacy
advocacy organizations today called on Congress to enact legislation to
protect consumer privacy in response to threats from the growing
practices of online behavioral tracking and targeting.
"Developments
in the digital age urgently require the application of Fair Information
Practices to new business practices," the groups said. "Today, electronic information from consumers is collected, compiled, and sold; all done without reasonable safeguards."
The groups noted that for the past four
decades the foundation of U.S. privacy policies has been based on Fair
Information Practices: collection limitation, data quality, purpose
specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness,
individual participation, and accountability. They called on Congress
to apply those principles in legislation to protect consumer
information and privacy.
Behavioral advertising, where a user's
online activity is tracked so that ads can be served based on the
user's behavior, was cited as a particular concern: "Tracking people's
every move online is an invasion of privacy. Online behavioral tracking
is even more distressing when consumers aren't aware who is tracking
them, that it's happening, or how the information will be used. Often
consumers are not asked for their consent and have no meaningful
control over the collection and use of their information, often by
third parties with which they have no relationships."
The coalition outlined its concerns and
recommended principles for consumer information privacy legislation in
letters sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, its
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.
Read the Principles here: https://www.uspirg.org/privacy-legislative-primer
Read a copy of the letters here: https://www.uspirg.org/Waxman-letter
https://www.uspirg.org/Boucher-letter
https://www.uspirg.org/Rush-letter
Read the two page overview here: https://www.uspirg.org/privacy2pgr
"Consumers must have their privacy
protected as they conduct business and personal matters online,"
explained Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy. "Ensuring that our financial, health, and household
transactions have adequate safeguards must be a top Congressional
priority."
Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has
indicated that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the
Internet will consider consumer privacy legislation this fall. Hearings
were held this summer.
"The rise of behavioral tracking has
made it possible for consumer information to be almost invisibly
tracked, complied and potentially misused on or offline. It's critical
that government enact strong privacy regulations whose protections will
remain with consumers as they interact on their home computer, cell
phones, PDAs or even at the store down the street. Clear rules will
help consumers understand how their information is used, obtained and
tracked," said Amina Fazlullah of U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
"In the event of abuse of consumer information, this legislation could
provide consumers a clear pathway for assistance from government
agencies or redress in the courts."
"Respect for human dignity is at the
core of our concerns, but we are also worried that online behavioral
tracking can be used to target vulnerable consumers for high-price
loans, bogus health cures and other potentially harmful products and
services," said Susan Grant, director of Consumer Protection at
Consumer Federation of America.
"Technological advances have made it
far too easy to surreptitiously track individuals online," said Melissa
Ngo of Privacy Lives. "Congress needs to step in and enact legislation
that will protect consumer privacy rights no matter what technology is
used to collect their data."
"When a consumer goes
online, they expect that the information collected from the pages they
visit will be kept private from companies trolling the Web looking for
personal information," said Joel Kelsey, of Consumers Union. "We are
setting a very dangerous precedent for American families if we allow
advertisers and Internet companies to monitor our every click and
analyze our every Web stroke, just to sell our information off without
our knowledge."
"Limiting
commercial tracking of our online activities may also help protect
privacy against the government, which often gets information about us
from private companies," said Lee Tien, of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation.
"Behavioral ad technology represents
the cutting edge of insidious surveillance. It is essential that
national policy puts privacy first so that consumers can fully
participate online without fear of unfair data collection and use,"
said Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times.
So far the online industry has argued
that self-regulation provides adequate consumer protection. The
coalition said formal regulation is necessary.
"The record is clear: industry
self-regulation doesn't work," said Beth Givens, Director of the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse "It is time for Congress to step in and
codify the principles into law."
"We've seen in industry after industry
what happens when the fox is left to guard the chicken coop --
consumers lose," said John M. Simpson of Consumer Watchdog.
"Regulations that can be enforced to hold the industry accountable are
essential."
Among the main points that the coalition said should be included in consumer privacy legislation:
About the members of the coalition:
Center for Digital Democracy:
The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) is dedicated to ensuring that
the public interest is a fundamental part of the new digital
communications landscape. URL: https://www.democraticmedia.org
Consumer Federation of America: Since 1968, the
Consumer Federation of America (CFA) has provided consumers a
well-reasoned and articulate voice in decisions that affect their
lives. URL: https://www.consumerfed.org
Consumers Union: Consumers Union is a nonprofit
membership organization chartered in 1936 to provide consumers with
information, education and counsel about goods, services, health, and
personal finance. URL: https://www.consumersunion.org
Consumer Watchdog: Consumer Watchdog (formerly The
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights) is a consumer group that
has been fighting corrupt corporations and crooked politicians since
1985. URL: https://www.consumerwatchdog.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
When freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense. URL: https://www.eff.org
Privacy Lives: Published by Melissa Ngo, the
Website chronicles and analyzes attacks on privacy and various defenses
against them to show that privacy lives on, despite the onslaught. URL:
https://www.privacylives.com
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: The Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse is a consumer organization with a two-part mission: To
raise consumer awareness about privacy and to advocate for privacy
rights in policy proceedings. URL: https://www.privacyrights.org
Privacy Times:
Since 1981, Privacy Times has provided its readers with accurate
reporting, objective analysis and thoughtful insight into the events
that shape the ongoing debate over privacy and Freedom of Information.
URL: https://www.privacytimes.com
U.S. Public Interest Research Group:
The federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) stands
up to powerful special interests on behalf of the public, working to
win concrete results for our health and our well-being. URL: https://www.uspirg.org
The World Privacy Forum:
WPF is focused on conducting in-depth research, analysis, and consumer
education in the area of privacy. Areas of focus include health care,
technology, and the financial sector. URL: https://www.worldprivacyforum.org
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.
"Human life cannot be left to the mercy of a president’s whim."
Amnesty International on Wednesday denounced this week's killing of six more people as US forces bombed another boat the Trump administration said—without evidence—was operated by narco-traffickers.
"Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said Sunday on social media. "Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations. Six male narco-terrorists were killed during this action."
The US has bombed at least 40 vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since last September, killing at least 156 people, according to the Trump administration.
"Amnesty International strongly condemns these acts and reiterates that they constitute extrajudicial killings, a form of murder, prohibited under international law, and represent a grave affront to the most basic principles of humanity and legality," Amnesty said in a statement. "No circumstances justify the arbitrary deprivation of life."
The boat strikes were fraught from the start. In the first known attack, US forces killed nine people in an initial strike and then two men clinging to the boat's wreckage in a follow-up bombing. Legal experts have debated whether those strikes were a war crime or simply murder, and many argue that all of the boat bombings violate international law.
“The United States cannot claim the right to blow up boats with people on board based solely on suspicions of drug trafficking or other allegedly illicit activities," Amnesty International Americas director Ana Piquer said Wednesday. "The rest of the international community cannot normalize these extrajudicial killings, in which the United States military is judge and executioner."
"No president or military has the right to arbitrarily take life."
"Human life cannot be left to the mercy of a president’s whim," Piquer stressed. "No president or military has the right to arbitrarily take life. The level of dehumanization and cynicism reflected in these acts is deeply alarming and should be of global concern."
"It is urgent to demand accountability and immediately end these types of attacks," she added. "Due to the current acquiescence of the attorney general’s office, Congress must step in with its oversight power and investigate."
In addition to bombing boats—and 10 countries—President Donald Trump launched an invasion of Venezuela to abduct its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, who are jailed in the US awaiting trial for dubious narco-trafficking charges.
Earlier this month, Trump also authorized a joint campaign with Ecuador to combat "narco-terrorists" in which US ground troops have been deployed in the Andean nation.