March, 16 2012, 04:08pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone: 415-436-9333 x177,Email:,press@eff.org
Sunshine Week: EFF's Current Freedom of Information Act Lawsuits
In honor of Sunshine Week, yesterday we reviewed what EFF's Freedom of Information Act requests revealed in the past year. Today, we'll take a look at the FOIA lawsuits we filed last year and the information we hope the suits will provide.
Secret Interpretation and Use of the Patriot Act
SAN FRANCISCO
In honor of Sunshine Week, yesterday we reviewed what EFF's Freedom of Information Act requests revealed in the past year. Today, we'll take a look at the FOIA lawsuits we filed last year and the information we hope the suits will provide.
Secret Interpretation and Use of the Patriot Act
On the 10th anniversary of the Patriot Act, EFF sued the Justice Department for its refusal to release information concerning the controversial provision of the PATRIOT Act known as Section 215. In early 2011, multiple Senators warned that the FBI believed Section 215 allowed them "unfettered" access to innocent Americans' private data, like "a cellphone company's phone records" in bulk form. "When the American people find out about how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act," said Wyden on the Senate floor in May, "they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry." Unfortunately, the Senators could not give further details since the Justice Department interpretation was classified.
After receiving no response to our FOIA request, EFF (and the ACLU in a separate case) sued the Justice Department demanding the release of DOJ's secret interpretation and information concerning how the federal government is using Section 215. The DOJ released their first batch of documents in the case yesterday, and as the ACLU noted, the DOJ has confirmed they in fact do have a secret interpretation of the law. EFF will have more on the document release shortly.
Drones
Last month, Congress passed a bill allowing the FAA to authorize more domestic drone flights in the United States. The agency estimated a staggering 30,000 drones could be flying in around the United States by 2020.
EFF staff attorney Jennifer Lynch explained the capabilities of surveillance drones in January:
Drones are capable of highly advanced and almost constant surveillance, and they can amass large amounts of data. They carry various types of equipment including live-feed video cameras, infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. Some newer drones carry super high resolution "gigapixel" cameras that can "track people and vehicles from altitudes above 20,000 feet[,] . . . [can] monitor up to 65 enemies of the State simultaneously[, and] . . . can see targets from almost 25 miles down range." Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions, and one drone unveiled at DEFCON last year can crack Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone conversations--without the knowledge or help of either the communications provider or the customer. Drones are also designed to carry weapons, and some have suggested that drones carrying weapons such as tasers and bean bag guns could be used domestically.
Yet before Congress passed the law, the FAA had already been authorizing drone flights for a variety of law enforcement agencies. The FAA refused to make any information available to the public about who specifically has obtained these authorizations or for what purposes. On January 10, EFF sued the Department of Transportation and FAA for the information.
The use of surveillance drones could dramatically alter the legal and technical landscape for privacy in the United States, and the FAA should not be permitted to shield from the public information concerning the use of drones within our borders. The FAA should be required to follow the law and release this information immediately.
Secret Surveillance Memo
In May 2011, EFF filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department to demand the release of a secret legal memo used to justify FBI access to Americans' telephone records without any legal process or oversight.
As we stated at the time, "A report released last year by the DOJ's own Inspector General revealed how the FBI, in defending its past violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), had come up with a new legal argument to justify secret, unchecked access to private telephone records. According to the report, the DOJ's Office of the Legal Counsel (OLC) had issued a legal opinion agreeing with the FBI's theory."
EFF suspects that the FBI and OLC wrongly concluded that, when conducting national security investigations, government officials are free to obtain records of Americans' communications without legal process, despite clear federal privacy laws to the contrary. EFF is litigating the case so the public knows and understands how the DOJ has interpreted federal surveillance and privacy laws.
FBI's Plan to Expand Federal Surveillance Laws
In early 2011, EFF received documents in response to a 2-year old FOIA request for information on the FBI's "Going Dark" program, an initiative to increase the FBI's authority over electronic surveillance. The documents--the first ones we received from a lawsuit filed in 2010--detail a fully-formed and well-coordinated plan to expand existing surveillance laws and develop new ones. But these documents represent only a small fraction of the documents we expect to receive in response to this and a more recent FOIA request.
However, the lawsuit is not over. EFF is currently in the middle of summary judgment briefing in this FOIA lawsuit, where we will be arguing that the government is improperly withholding information from almost 3,000 pages of records that could explain to the American public how the FBI, DOJ and DEA have been pushing to expand federal electronic surveillance laws over the last few years.
We first heard about the FBI's Going Dark program in 2009, when the agency's Congressional budget request included an additional $9 million to fund the program (on top of the $233.9 million it already received). Late last year, the New York Timeslinked the program to a plan to expand federal surveillance laws like the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). We issued FOIA requests to the FBI in 2009 for information on Going Dark and in 2010 for information on the agency's plans to update CALEA.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
(415) 436-9333LATEST NEWS
Trump-Appointed Judge Halts Biden Rule Capping Credit Card Fees
"The U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," one advocate said of the ruling.
May 12, 2024
A Trump-appointed judge on Friday delivered a win for big banks when he granted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a temporary injunction halting a Biden administration rule that would cap credit card fees at $8.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule, which would have gone into effect May 14, could save U.S. consumers more than $10 billion each year. The decision to pause its implementation, issued by U.S. District of the Northern District of Texas Judge Mark Pittman, will cost ordinary Americans around $27 million each day it is in effect.
"In their latest in a stack of lawsuits designed to pad record corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, the U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," Liz Zelnick, the director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.
"It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The CFPB issued the rule on March 5 as part of the Biden administration's commitment to crack down on "junk fees." However, the Chamber of Commerce and other banking trade associations—including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association—quickly sued to block it. The executives of Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase sit on the boards of the groups behind the suit, according toThe Washington Post.
"Banks make billions in profits charging excessive late fees," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Saturday in response to the ruling. "Now a single Trump-appointed judge sided with bank lobbyists to block the Biden administration's new rule capping these junk fees."
Accountable.US also criticized the fact that the suit was before Pittman at all, arguing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the suit in Texas federal court so that it would end up under the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 19 Republican-appointed justices out of a total of 26. The chamber has filed nearly two-thirds of its lawsuits since 2017 with courts covered by the 5th Circuit.
"The U.S. Chamber and the big banks they represent have corrupted our judicial system by venue shopping in courtrooms of least resistance, going out of their way to avoid having their lawsuit heard by a fair and neutral federal judge," Zelnick said. "It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."
The 5th Circuit's treatment of the case has also come under fire, as Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett has not recused himself despite the fact that he owns tens of thousands of dollars in Citigroup shares. While Willett has argued that Citigroup is not a party to the case, it belongs to trade groups that are, and any ruling on credit card fees would significantly impact the bank. Collectively, all the judges on the 5th Circuit have invested as much as $745,000 in credit card or credit issuing companies, according to the most recent publicly available information.
Donald Sherman, Gabe Lezra, and Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel of Citizens for Ethics in Washington wrote: "Judge Willett's refusal to recuse, and the lack of transparency about the rationale, reinforces the need for more judicial ethics reform to ensure that everyday Americans and government agencies have a level playing field when they go into court against corporate interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups, Dems Don't Buy Johnson's Claim He Won't Push Federal Abortion Ban
"Mike Johnson's flip-flopping on abortion just proves our movement is winning and that Republicans know they're losing," one advocate said.
May 11, 2024
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would not attempt to ban abortion on the federal level, a claim that earned instant skepticism from reproductive rights groups.
Johnson's remarks came as part of an interview published by Politico on Friday, as Johnson responded to questions from Politico's Ryan Lizza and Rachael Bade:
Lizza: Some like lightning round questions: Do you anticipate putting forward any legislation on abortion before the election?
No.
Bade: If there is Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the White House next year, do you anticipate passing any sort of nationwide abortion ban?
No, I don't.
President Trump said this is in the states' purview now. After the Dobbs decision, I think that's where it is. Look, I am a lifelong pro-lifer. I’m a product of a teen pregnancy. And so I believe in the sanctity of human life. It's also an important article of faith for me. But I have 434 colleagues here. All of us have our own, philosophical principles that we live by, but you have to have a political consensus.
In response to Johnson's answer, Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju said it reflected a growing awareness among Republicans that restricting abortion is not politically popular. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, every electoral attempt to protect abortion rights on the state level has succeeded.
"Mike Johnson's flip-flopping on abortion just proves our movement is winning and that Republicans know they're losing," Timmaraju said.
However, she pointed out that "'leaving abortion to the states' is not a moderate position, as 21 states are already enforcing horrifying bans with devastating consequences."
"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights."
Further, she warned against taking Johnson at his word.
"Voters have made it clear to the GOP that we will not tolerate abortion bans," she continued. "Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans have shown time and time again they are willing to do anything in their power to restrict our reproductive freedom, and we can't trust them."
Other abortion rights and pro-democracy campaigners issued similar warnings.
"The technical political science term for this is 'lying,'" Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin wrote on social media in response to the interview.
Activist Olivia Julianna pointed out that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had calledRoe v. Wade "settled precedent" before helping to overturn it in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Elected Democrats also expressed suspicion.
Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) pointed out that Johnosn was one of 127 Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill to ban abortion at the federal level.
"If he really isn't for a national abortion ban, he should withdrawal his co-sponsorship first thing when we are back next week," Frost wrote on social media.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote that "these people have been working to ban abortion and deny women the freedom to control our own bodies their entire careers."
"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights," she said.
In a second post, she asked incredulously, "I'm really supposed to believe Mike Johnson, the lifelong anti-abortion zealot, is suddenly just going to leave it alone?"
Even if the Republicans did steer clear of a federal ban, it would not be enough to ensure abortion rights in the U.S.
"We demand a federal response to the abortion crisis and call on the press to ask the speaker if he will support federal protections," Timmaraju said. "We demand nothing less from our federal government than locking in the federal right to abortion and expanding access."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Grave Breach' of International Law, Israel Orders More Evacuations in Rafah
"People have stayed in Rafah thinking it's safe and hoping that global pressure would stop an invasion. But now we are abandoned by the world and everyone feels betrayed and let down," one aid worker said.
May 11, 2024
The Israel Defense Forces ordered additional evacuations in central Rafah on Saturday, signalling that Israel will continue with an invasion of the southern Gaza city that has been the last refuge for more than 1.4 million Palestinians displaced since the country began its devastating war on Gaza in October.
The new evacuations follow orders issued Monday for residents and refugees to leave eastern Rafah. Humanitarian agencies said that approximately 110,000 people had evacuated from Rafah before Saturday and that another 40,000 joined them following the most recent orders, according toThe Associated Press.
"We are forcibly leaving after the occupation army threatened us, through recorded calls and in a post published on Facebook. We are leaving because of fear and coercion," Rafah resident Faten Lafi toldAl Jazeera. "We are leaving for the unknown and there are no safe areas at all. All the areas left are unsafe."
"Many people in Gaza are already suffering from famine, but now we are entering a new period of unprecedented hardship."
International humanitarian organizations have warned that an invasion of Rafah would be catastrophic for civilians and aid operations and that there is no credible way to safely evacuate the city.
"The Israeli army does not have a safe area in Gaza. They target everything," Abu Yusuf al-Deiri, who is now in Rafah after fleeing Gaza City, told AP.
The U.S. has said it opposes a Rafah invasion that does not include a workable plan to protect civilians, and President Joe Biden has threatened to withhold certain weapons from Israel if it moves forward with a full-scale Rafah attack, though critics have argued that Israel has made enough incursions into the city to justify cutting off arms now.
"With no guarantee of safety, proper accommodations, or return once hostilities end, this is a grave breach of international humanitarian law, not an orderly evacuation as Israel portrays it," said Itay Epshtain, a senior humanitarian law and policy consultant who works as special adviser to the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Association of International Development Agencies, on social media.
The United Nations Children's Fund has further warned that the "humanitarian area" where Israel is now directing Rafah evacuees—a coastal enclave called Al-Mawasi—is not safe because it does not have adequate supplies and because it has been subjected to air strikes in the past.
"We don't know what we will do," 54-year-old Muhammad Qahman, who arrived in Rafah in January toldThe Guardian. "We are now preparing our things to go to the area designated by the Israeli army, which is supposed to be safe and a humanitarian area, but this is just a lie," Qahman added, referring to Al-Mawasi.
The charity Islamic Relief published a statement in response to the new evacuation orders, which included testimony from a staff member.
"I feel like this is the end," the staff worker said. "It feels like we will all be either trapped and killed in Gaza, or we will all be forced out. People have stayed in Rafah thinking it's safe and hoping that global pressure would stop an invasion. But now we are abandoned by the world and everyone feels betrayed and let down."
The worker added that the humanitarian situation in Gaza had become even more difficult since Israel seized the Gaza side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, making it impossible for supplies to get in.
"Bakeries have stopped working because they don't have fuel, so we don't have bread. We don't have any water supply as that also depends on fuel deliveries, so yesterday we had to pay $50 just to refill our tank. Cars have stopped, so people coming from Rafah to the Middle Area are either walking or packed into vans carrying hundreds of people," they continued. "Many people in Gaza are already suffering from famine, but now we are entering a new period of unprecedented hardship."
Georgios Petropoulos, who works with the U.N. humanitarian agency in Rafah, explained to AP that aid organizations were struggling to support the latest round of displaced Gazans.
"We simply have no tents, we have no blankets, no bedding, none of the items that you would expect a population on the move to be able to get from the humanitarian system," Petropoulos said.
The latest evacuations could also further destabilize Rafah's remaining healthcare infrastructure.
Hospital director Saheb al-Hams said the latest order "threatened" Kuwaiti Specialty Hospital.
"There is no other place for patients and injured people to go to but this hospital," al-Hams told reporters, calling for "immediate international protection."
In addition to the Rafah evacuation orders, the IDF also told "all residents and displaced people" to leave parts of Gaza City, Jabaliya, Zeitoun, and Beit Lahiya in the north of Gaza as it prepares to intensify fighting there.
"It's raining terror again in Jabaliya Refugee Camp and north of Gaza!" British Palestinian activist Shahd Abusalama wrote on social media Saturday. "I heard the bombs falling all around my surviving family everyone was screaming! They're gasping to breathe! My family there survived through way too much. They may not survive this one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular