

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.

Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org
Today, 30+ civil rights organizations signed an open
Today, 30+ civil rights organizations signed an open letter sounding the alarm about Amazon's spreading Ring doorbell partnerships with police. The letter calls on local, state, and federal officials to use their power to investigate Amazon Ring's business practices, put an end to Amazon-police partnerships, and pass oversight measures to deter such partnerships in the future.
With no oversight and accountability, these partnerships pose a threat to privacy, civil liberties, and democracy. A few of the concerns highlighted by the organizations:
The signing organizations include: Fight for the Future, Media Justice, Color of Change, Secure Justice, Demand Progress, Defending Rights & Dissent, Muslim Justice League, X-Lab, Media Mobilizing Project, Restore The Fourth, Inc., Media Alliance, Youth Art & Self Empowerment Project, Center for Human Rights and Privacy, Oakland Privacy, Justice For Muslims Collective, The Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), Nation Digital Inclusion Alliance, Project On Government Oversight, OpenMedia, Council on American-Islamic Relations-SFBA, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, MPower Change, Mijente, Access Humboldt, RAICES, National Immigration Law Center, The Tor Project, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication Inc., the Constitutional Alliance, RootsAction.org, CREDO Action, Presente.org, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and United We Dream.
The map released by Amazon Ring shows more than 500 cities with these Amazon-police partnerships. Through these partnerships, Amazon provides police officers with a seamless and easy way to request and store footage from thousands of residents throughout your city, allowing for warrantless surveillance with zero oversight or judicial review. In exchange, police departments market Amazon technology to residents and in some cases use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the resident's purchase.
Leaders from the organizations participating in the campaign issued the following statements, and are available for comment upon request:
The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): "Amazon has created the perfect end run around our democratic process by entering into for-profit surveillance partnerships with local police departments. Police departments have easy access to surveillance network without oversight or accountability. Amazon Ring's customers provide the company with the footage needed to build their privately owned, nationwide surveillance dragnet. We're the ones who pay the cost - as they violate our privacy rights and civil liberties. Our elected officials are supposed to protect us, both from abusive policing practices and corporate overreach. These partnerships are a clear case of both."
The following can be attributed to Myaisha Hayes, National Organizer on Criminal Justice & Tech at MediaJustice: "Ring will undoubtedly digitize discriminatory "neighborhood watch programs", which in so many segregated communities, have always targeted and labeled Black and brown people as suspicious. Now through Ring, local police departments can take full advantage of their access to this information, further criminalizing people who existing in public spaces. Our local representatives must intervene and protect our right to privacy from this invasive technology and dangerous partnership between Amazon and the police."
The following can be attributed to Leonard Scott IV, Campaign Manager on Criminal Justice Color of Change: "Black people and communities are overpoliced and live under the constant threat of police surveillance, which increases mass incarceration's reach. Amazon is seeking to profit from mass surveillance by providing police with even more apparatuses, that we know will be used to target Black and Brown people. Technological tools like facial recognition and camera surveillance are already being used by police departments and cities across the country as a mechanism to over-police Black communities. We know that technology is already flawed and when used improperly and without government oversight, it will be abused and can put people at risk for being misidentified and falsely matched for crimes. With this letter, we call on local, state, and federal officials to put an end to the harmful Amazon Ring police partnerships."
The following can be attributed to Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Media Alliance: "Amazon Ring police partnerships tangle up tax-payer supported public servants into the profit-driven mandates of a private corporation. Having our municipal peace keepers perform as ad-hoc sales representatives for private products with manufacturer-provided scripts is a perversion of the public sector. Ring's provision of the names, street addresses, email addresses and subsidy use of Ring purchasers to law enforcement agencies is unacceptable. What other personal purchase of a household device is promptly reported to the police? Reports to law enforcement of Ring owners who do not consent to having their personal security footage tuned over to police profiles device owners choosing to exercise their privacy rights. Public agencies should stay out of private security. The police work for the people, not for Amazon."
The following can be attributed to Mike Katz-Lacabe, Oakland Privacy: "Law enforcement should not be able to use private companies to engage in surveillance that has not been discussed by the community, approved by elected representatives, and that they don't have the budget to conduct with their own resources. Almost every law enforcement agency would support installation of surveillance cameras at every corner or house, but a society in which we are encouraged to surveil each other is not healthy for a free society. We have enshrined limits on government power in the Bill of Rights and we should not use private companies to circumvent the Constitution."
The following can be attributed to Dante Barry, Executive Director of Million Hoodies Movement for Justice: "There are dire consequences for racial justice when law enforcement agencies enter partnerships with major corporations and create a culture of surveillance under the guise of public safety. Without necessary oversight and community accountability mechanisms, this partnership is dangerous for law enforcement having access to and storing data without a warrant. This partnership threatens racial justice efforts and is a challenge for communities devastated by the impacts of every day gun violence, policing, and surveillance."
The following can be attributed to Fatema Ahmad, Deputy Director of Muslim Justice League: "From Ring to Rekognition, Amazon's partnerships with law enforcement will increase the dangerous racial targeting that communities of color already face every day."
The following can be attributed to Sue Udry, Executive Director of Defending Rights & Dissent: "The exceedingly warm embrace of Amazon Ring by local police will go down as one more sorry chapter in the Big Brother annals. Let's call it what it will become: neighbors spying on neighbors in the service of the police, free from any bothersome constitutional restraints. Local governments must step in and end any agreements their police have made with Amazon, and ensure none are made in the future."
The following can be attributed to Alex Marthews, National Chair of Restore The Fourth: "This isn't about fighting actual crime. This is about the paranoid and mostly white notion that owners of homes and businesses aren't safe unless the police are pro-actively watching every square inch of public space. Truthfully, communities do better when police intervention is rare than when it is common; we need to free ourselves from the notion that more police eyes means more safety."
The following can be attributed to Sean Taketa McLaughlin, Executive Director for Access Humbold: "We believe that privacy is essential for protecting freedom of information and expression. Information consumers and creators must have privacy as a fundamental right. Sometimes people become complacent about these rights until they come under attack - but we know that eternal vigilance is required to sustain a healthy democracy.
Unwanted surveillance, by public agencies or private companies for commercial gain, has an immediate chilling effect on local voices and harms many aspects of modern life. Public health and safety, education, commerce, culture, arts and civic engagement all suffer when our freedom of information and expression is suppressed. Diverse local voices require open secure networks that respect the personal privacy of all people, supporting our basic human right to 'seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers' (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19)."
The following can be attributed to Brian Hofer, Executive Director of Secure Justice and Chair of the City of Oakland's Privacy Commission: "These partnerships raise several concerns. Public records have revealed that Amazon is coaching police on what to say to address criticism over these secret arrangements, and also how to avoid the need for a warrant. By turning publicly funded police into their sales team, Amazon has once again shifted its own costs of business onto the taxpayer. Our elected officials must demand answers from their law enforcement officials, and must put a stop to these dangerous practices."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," said one critic.
Eighty percent of Lebanese people killed in Israel's renewed airstrikes on its northern neighbor were slain in attacks targeting only or mainly civilians, a leading international conflict monitor said Friday.
Reuters, using data provided by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), reported that 666 people were killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon between March 1-16. As of Thursday, Lebanese officials said the death toll from Israeli attacks had topped 1,000.
While Lebanese authorities do not break down the combatant status of those killed and wounded during the war, Israel's targeting of civilian infrastructure, including entire apartment buildings, and reports of whole families being wiped out, have belied Israeli officials' claims that they do everything possible to avoid harming civilians.
Classified Israel Defense Forces (IDF) data leaked last year revealed that—despite Israeli government claims of a historically low civilian-to-combatant kill ratio—83% of Palestinians killed during the first 19 weeks of the genocidal war on Gaza were civilians.
According to Gaza officials, 2,700 families were erased from the civil registry in the Palestinian exclave during Israel's genocidal assault.
"When the international community didn't stop Israel as it deliberately killed nearly 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including 20,000 children, Israel knew they could kill civilians with impunity," Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa said on social media earlier this week. "The result is exactly what we're seeing in Lebanon and Iran right now."
US-Israeli bombing of Iran has killed at least 1,444 people, according to officials in Tehran. The independent, Washington, DC-based monitor Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI) says the death toll is over twice as high as the official count and includes nearly 1,400 civilians.
The February 28 US massacre of around 175 children and staff at an elementary school for girls in the southern city of Minab—which US President Donald Trump initially tried to blame on Iran—remains the deadliest known incident of the three-week war.
As Israeli airstrikes intensify and the IDF prepares for a possible ground invasion of southern Lebanon—which Israel occupied from 1982-2000—experts are warning that noncombatants will once again pay the heaviest price.
United Nations officials and others assert that Israel's intentional attacks on civilians are war crimes. Israel is the subject of an ongoing genocide case filed by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who are accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
"Deliberately attacking civilians or civilian objects amounts to a war crime," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan said earlier this week. "In addition, international law provides for specific protections for healthcare workers, as well as people at heightened risk, such as the elderly, women, and displaced people."
As was the case during Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7, 2023 attack, journalists are apparently being deliberately targeted again. Reporters Without Borders said in December that, for the third straight year, Israel was the world's leading killer of journalists in 2025.
"This was a deliberate, targeted attack on journalists," said RT correspondent Steve Sweeney after narrowly surviving an IDF airstrike on Thursday. "There's no mistake about it. This was an Israeli precision strike from a fighter jet."
"But if they think they’re going to silence us, if they think we're going to stay out of the field, they’re very, very much mistaken," he added.