May, 20 2010, 10:55am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Rachel Myers, ACLU national, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Jennifer Rudinger, ACLU of North Carolina, (919) 834-3466
Request for Amazon User Records Unconstitutional, Says ACLU
Group Will Join Lawsuit If North Carolina Department of Revenue Keeps Up Demand for Private Information
RALEIGH, NC
The American Civil Liberties Union and the
ACLU of North Carolina today sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary
of Revenue Kenneth Lay reiterating concern over a recent request by the
state Department of Revenue (NCDOR) for the private records of
Amazon.com customers. The letter informs Lay that the ACLU will take
legal action on behalf of North Carolina residents who are Amazon.com
customers if NCDOR persists in its demand for their constitutionally
protected private information. Specifically, the letter says the ACLU
and its clients will intervene in an existing lawsuit brought by
Amazon.com to stop NCDOR from collecting individually identifiable
information that could be linked to specific purchases made on
Amazon.com.
According to the lawsuit filed by
Amazon in the Western District of Washington in April, NCDOR issued a
request to Amazon for the purchase records since August 2003 of
customers with a North Carolina shipping address in order to impose
taxes on the purchases. Amazon has apparently already provided the NCDOR
with product codes that reveal the exact items purchased - including
books on the subjects of mental health, alcoholism and LGBT issues.
Amazon has withheld individually identifiable user information,
including names and addresses that could be linked back to the
individual purchases, but asserts that the NCDOR continues to insist
that such information be disclosed. In its letter today, the ACLU
asserted that such disclosure would violate the constitutional rights of
thousands of North Carolina consumers to read and purchase the lawful
materials of their choice, free from government intrusion.
The following can
be attributed to Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech,
Privacy and Technology Project:
"The Constitution guarantees
Americans the right to read and buy the lawful materials of their choice
without the government keeping tabs on the details of their purchases.
Amazon was right to stand up for the rights of its customers and to
refuse to turn over their personal information to the North Carolina
Department of Revenue."
The following can
be attributed to Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the ACLU of
North Carolina:
"The ACLU is not taking issue with
the Department's authority to collect taxes on the value of these
purchases, but there is no legitimate reason why government officials
need to know which North Carolina residents are reading what books or
purchasing which specific brands of products. We hope to be able to work
out a satisfactory resolution to this matter so that consumers in North
Carolina can rest assured that their privacy is protected."
The full text of the letter is below
and online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/aclu-letter-north-carolina-department-revenue-secretary-kenneth-l
May 20, 2010
Via Facsimile
Secretary Kenneth Lay
North Carolina Department of Revenue
501 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
re: Amazon.com LLC v. Lay,
2:10-cv-00664 (W.D. Wash.)
Dear Secretary Lay:
We are writing to follow up on our
fax dated April 21, 2010, regarding the Department of Revenue's request
for private customer records concerning the items that North Carolina
residents have received through Amazon.com. We write to inform you that
we have clients - North Carolina residents who are Amazon customers and
whose private records are at stake - who are gravely concerned about
government access to their purchasing records. The information
requested will reveal which North Carolina residents, including our
clients, have received which specific books, movies, and other
expressive and private items from Amazon. Our clients are prepared to
intervene in the lawsuit in the Western District of Washington to
protect their constitutional rights if necessary, but we write this
letter in the hope that the Department might agree to a solution that
would protect our clients' fundamental rights and avoid unnecessary
litigation.
According to Amazon's lawsuit, the
Department has issued information requests to Amazon that seek a broad
set of information regarding all sales to customers with a North
Carolina shipping address since August 2003. The Department has already
received detailed data from Amazon about these purchases, including the
specific product code for each purchase, which reveals the full
description of each purchased item. These product descriptions reveal
highly expressive and private information about consumer choices: for
example, whether a person has received a book on alcoholism or home
workshop weaponry, a movie like "Brokeback Mountain," or "sexual
wellness" items such as sex toys.
Amazon appears to have turned over
this detailed information already. We understand, based on press
reports, that the Department is now taking the position that it does not
want some of this information, such as the titles of books purchased,
and that its information request did not seek to obtain such
information. Amazon appears to dispute this account. We would
appreciate receiving a copy of the information requests, redacted if
necessary to protect taxpayer information, so that we could make an
independent determination.
In any event, the fact remains that
whatever the requests called for, the Department is now in possession of
this highly sensitive and personal information, and if the Department
persists in its demand that Amazon now additionally provide detailed
user information, including names and addresses, the constitutional
rights of our clients and tens of thousands of North Carolina consumers
will be violated.
Moreover, merely limiting the request
to the type of product purchased and not including the specific brand
or title of the product would still reveal information about North
Carolina residents -e.g., that they have purchased "condoms" or "yeast
infection kits" - that the State is not permitted to collect. To the
extent the Department believes it needs to learn what type of products
were purchased, please explain why that specific information is
necessary so that we can better understand the Department's position.
We want to reiterate that we are not
challenging the Department's authority to impose a tax for these
purchases or to conduct an audit. We are concerned, however, about the
apparent breadth of the information requests, which sweep up
constitutionally protected information that the Department does not need
to determine tax liability. It is clearly established law that the
Constitution forbids the government from collecting such information.
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. 570,
572-73 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks &
Afterwords, Inc., Nos. 98-MC-135-NHJ, 98-MC-138-NHJ, 26 Med. L. Rptr.
1599, 1600 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998); Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of
Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1052 (Colo. 2002).
As one court has already ruled in
upholding the constitutional rights of Amazon customers against
government intrusion into their expressive choices: "[I]f word were to
spread over the Net-and it would-that the [government] had demanded and
received Amazon's list of customers and their personal purchases, the
chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across
America." In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. at 573.
To ensure that our clients' and North
Carolina consumers' constitutional rights are not violated, and to
minimize the clear chilling effect from the Department's information
requests, we respectfully ask that the Department:
- Destroy the records that it
has already received from Amazon that reveal what products were
purchased by North Carolina customers; - Make a public statement
acknowledging that it does not need records from Amazon or any other
entity that reveal the specific products or the type of products that
were purchased by each customer; - Agree to take all necessary
steps to change its existing policy and practice and to institute a new
policy and practice to ensure that the Department does not issue
overbroad information requests in the future to entities such as Amazon
that call for the disclosure of constitutionally protected customer
information, such as what products were purchased by each customer.
We have reason to believe that the
Department has issued similar information requests to entities other
than Amazon and that the Department has received similar customer
information which is constitutionally protected in response. Please
confirm whether that is correct. That the requests to Amazon are not
the only such requests that have been made makes it all the more
imperative that the Department cease issuing such overbroad requests
that are sweeping in constitutionally protected information.
Please let us know how the Department
wishes to proceed. If we do not hear back from you by May 28, 2010,
our clients will be forced to intervene in this lawsuit to protect their
rights. I will be out of the office for much of this week and all of
the week of May 24, 2010, so please contact Aden Fine at (212) 549-2693
to discuss this matter further. We look forward to hearing from you
shortly.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Rudinger
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union of
North Carolina
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
Aden Fine
Mariko Hirose
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
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
Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump Plot to Install Nominees Without Senate Approval
"If you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
Dec 04, 2024
Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have
glaring conflicts of interest.
The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."
"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."
Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.
"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.
The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.
"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.
Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.
Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."
Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."
"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Humanitarian Groups Dread 2025 Aid Shortfall as Trump Term Looms
"At a time when the richest people on Earth can go to space as a tourist," said one advocate, "it is incomprehensible that we as an international community are unable to find the necessary funding to provide displaced families with shelter."
Dec 04, 2024
As the United Nations humanitarian agency and its partner organizations launched the annual Global Humanitarian overview on Wednesday to appeal for aid ahead of 2025, officials shared sobering numbers: 305 million people in dire need of assistance, 190 million people the agencies believe they can help next year if funding demands are met, and $47 billion that's needed to help the people facing the greatest threats.
Tom Fletcher, under-secretary-general at the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said governments, particularly those in wealthy countries like the United States, face "a choice" as the world bears witness to starvation, increasingly frequent climate disasters, and other suffering in Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.
"We can respond to these numbers with generosity, with compassion, with genuine solidarity for those in the most dire need on the planet—or we can carry on," said Fletcher at a news briefing. "We can choose to leave them alone to face these crises. We can choose to let them down."
Fletcher and other humanitarian leaders noted that as of last month, just 43% of the $50 billion funding appeal made for 2024 had been met.
Food assistance in Syria has been cut by 80% as a result of the large funding gap, while protection services in Myanmar and water and sanitation aid in Yemen have also been reduced.
Fletcher said that with another major funding shortfall expected in 2025, OCHA and its partners are expecting to be forced to make "ruthless" decisions to direct aid to those most in need—likely leaving out 115 million people.
Fears that funding needs will be far from met in 2025 are arising partially from the election last month of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who pursued significant cuts during his first term to agencies including the U.N. Population Fund, UNAIDS, the World Health Organization, and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
"America is very much on our minds at the moment, we're facing the election of a number of governments who will be more questioning of what the United Nations does and less ideologically supportive of this humanitarian effort that we've laid out in this report," said Fletcher. "But it's our job to frame the arguments in the right way to land and not to give up. And so I'll head to Washington. I'll spend a lot of time in Washington, I imagine, over the next few months, engaging with the new administration, making the case to them, just as I'll spend a lot of time in other capitals where people might be skeptical about the work that we are doing."
Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Secretary-General Jan Egeland, who led OCHA for three years, toldAl Jazeera that U.S. funding under the Trump administration is "a tremendous question mark."
"Should the U.S. administration cut its humanitarian funding, it could be more complex to fill the gap of growing needs," said Egeland.
The U.S. is the largest humanitarian donor in the world, contributing $10 billion last year—but its donations pale in comparison to its military spending, which was budgeted at more than $841 billion in 2024, and the earnings of its top corporations.
As NRC noted, Facebook parent company Meta earned $47.4 billion—about the same amount humanitarian agencies are requesting this year—before income taxes in 2023.
Without naming billionaire SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—a Trump ally and megadonor who's expected to have a role in his new administration—Camilla Waszink, director of partnership and policy at NRC, called out the widening gap between the world's richest people and those in desperate need of humanitarian assistance.
"At a time when the richest people on Earth can go to space as a tourist and trillions of U.S. dollars are used annually on global military expenditure, it is incomprehensible that we as an international community are unable to find the necessary funding to provide displaced families with shelter and prevent children from dying of hunger," said Waszink. "There is an urgent need for a revamp of global solidarity. Existing donor countries must ensure assistance keeps pace with needs and inflation, and emerging economies should compete to become among the most generous donors in the same way they compete to host expensive international sports events."
"It is devastating to know that millions of people in need will not receive necessary assistance next year because of the growing lack of funding for the humanitarian response. With a record number of conflicts ongoing, donors are cutting aid budgets that displaced and conflict-affected people rely on to survive," she added. "Conflicts and a blatant disregard for protection of civilians are driving massive humanitarian needs. It is essential that donors provide funding, but they must also invest in ending conflicts, bringing violations to a halt and preventing new needs from developing."
Fletcher noted that in addition to conflicts like Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the civil war in Sudan, the climate crisis is a major driver of growing humanitarian needs.
"2024 will be the hottest year on record," said Fletcher. "Presumably 2025 will then be the hottest year on record. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires affecting millions. We're on the brink of surpassing the 1.5°C in warming, and that will hit hardest in the countries that have actually contributed least to climate change. It wipes out food systems. It wipes out livelihoods, it forces communities to move from their homes and land. Drought has caused 65% of agricultural economic damage over the last 15 years, worsening food insecurity."
In conflict zones and in regions affected by the climate emergency, said Fletcher, "it's our mission to do more."
"My people are desperate to get out there and deliver because they really are on the frontline," he said. "They can see what is needed, but we need these resources. That's our call to action. And we also need the world to do more. Those with power to do more—to challenge this era of impunity and to challenge this era of indifference."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CEO of UnitedHealthcare—Largest Private Insurer in US—Killed in Apparent Targeted Attack
"This does not appear to be a random act of violence," according to the police commissioner.
Dec 04, 2024
The CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was fatally shot early Wednesday outside of a hotel in midtown Manhattan.
During a press conference, New York Police Department Commissioner Jessica Tisch said that Thompson was killed "in what appears, at this early stage in our investigation, to be a brazen, targeted attack. This does not appear to be a random act of violence." Thompson was taken to Mount Sinai West hospital before being pronounced dead.
Thompson, 50, was believed to be on his way to attend the company's annual investor conference, which was set to take place at the New York Hilton Hotel. Thompson, according to his LinkedIn page, has worked for UnitedHealth Group for 20 years and was named CEO of UnitedHealthcare in April 2021. He was a resident of Minnesota, according to the NYPD.
According to the NYPD, it appears the suspect was "lying in wait for several minutes" before approaching Thompson from behind and firing and striking Thompson multiple times. "Many people passed the suspect, but he appeared to wait for his intended target," said the commissioner.
The shooter, who a detective with the NYPD said appears to be male, then fled the scene, first on foot, and then on an e-bike, and was last seen in Central Park early this morning. There is currently a search underway for the shooter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular