Why Kamala Harris Must Break the Cycle of Unlawful and Abusive Government Surveillance
Since this nation’s founding, the executive branch has been granted — or has claimed — immense power to enforce the law, including the power to surveil, investigate, and impose criminal or other sanctions that deprive individuals of their freedoms. Today, national security agencies — including those with law enforcement, intelligence, homeland security, and defense functions — combine their expansive authorities with unprecedented digital tools that peer into our lives and collect immense amounts of information about us.
Campaign-trail promises to review and rein in the use of executive authority and surveillance tools are too often broken when a presidential candidate — Republican or Democrat — wins office, much to the detriment of our system of checks and balances, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. We’re calling on Vice President Kamala Harris to break this cycle if she’s elected in November. Her administration must protect us from Big Brother digital surveillance; end unjustified and discriminatory domestic surveillance and investigation of activists, communities of color, and disfavored groups; and implement strong safeguards for artificial intelligence and data privacy.
Learn more in our breakdown.
Harris on Surveillance
The Facts: The government has vast, unprecedented powers to peer into people’s private lives. Right now, it exploits at least three sources to conduct sweeping surveillance of Americans: Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes the collection of communications between U.S. persons and people outside the United States; Executive Order 12333, which allows the government to conduct bulk surveillance outside the U.S. and results in the collection of Americans’ private data; and the government’s use of commercial data brokers to purchase massive quantities of our private data.
Through these far-reaching surveillance methods, the federal government obtains access to incredibly sensitive information about Americans that can paint a detailed portrait of our private thoughts, relationships, and actions. The government regularly searches through that data for intelligence or domestic law enforcement purposes without a warrant and without notice or other significant safeguards necessary to protect our rights.
Domestic national security and counterterrorism policies and programs also pose a singular threat to Americans’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Federal agencies regularly exercise their authority and wield technology to disproportionately and wrongly surveil, investigate, watchlist, question, and detain at the border, and deny immigration benefits to vulnerable communities. These efforts often discriminate against racial and religious minorities and those who dissent against government policies, denying them the ability to participate as equals in our democracy.
Lastly, the federal government’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) urgently needs greater oversight and stronger safeguards to protect our privacy. Federal agencies are using algorithmic systems and AI to, among many other things, determine public benefits levels, assess families for child welfare proceedings, score incarcerated individuals for early release, and identify individuals for criminal investigations. Using AI in this manner can restrict our rights, and increase the risk of discrimination.
Why It Matters: When executive branch officials claim expansive powers to surveil and investigate individuals without meaningful judicial review and congressional oversight, these powers are all too easily abused.
Through dragnet surveillance, for example, the government regularly searches through troves of American’s data for intelligence or domestic law enforcement purposes without a warrant and without notice of its spying. Domestically, the FBI has spied on Muslim communities and, more generally, treated non-violent civil disobedience and vandalism as justification for conducting national security investigations of civil rights, social justice, and environmental activists. Recently, in 2020, the Justice Department deployed joint federal-state law enforcement partnerships to conduct “counterterrorism” investigations against racial justice protestors. The Department of Homeland Security, too, has focused its surveillance authorities on political and other constitutionally-protected speech, as well as activities far outside its homeland security mandate, including those of: journalists, racial justice demonstrators in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, and people simply reacting online to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In addition, U.S. national security agencies and the military are seeking to integrate AI into some of the government’s most profound decisions, including: who it surveils; who it places on government watchlists; who it subjects to intrusive searches at the border; who it labels a “risk” or “threat” to national security; and even who or what it targets with lethal force. These programs have not been meaningfully tested for efficacy, and have little to no safeguards or transparency.
The ACLU will push a Harris administration to rein in uses of surveillance that discriminate against people in the United States or invade their privacy.
The ACLU will endeavor to uphold our system of checks and balances, safeguard privacy, and enforce the Bill of Rights for all. Return to All Memos >>
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
How We Got Here: For more than 40 years, the government has used mass warrantless surveillance authorities — like Section 702 of FISA and Executive Order 12333 — in secret. People whose privacy rights are violated have had very little legal recourse due to the government’s refusal to disclose even basic information about this surveillance. On the rare occasions when people have brought legal challenges, the government’s use of the “state secrets privilege” has often thwarted court review of these intrusive spying programs.
Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ use of national security investigative authorities flows in part from the USA Patriot Act of 2001, which enacted — for the first time — a definition of “domestic terrorism.” That definition is vague, covering acts deemed “dangerous to life” that “appear to be intended to” intimidate or coerce the public or the government. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have used this definition to claim expansive investigative authorities that restrict our civil liberties. At the same time, federal nondiscrimination guidance permits profiling on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and other protected characteristics. As a result, recent history is rife with federal agencies’ use of its expansive authority to unfairly target people of color and other marginalized communities for surveillance, investigation, prosecution, and programs like watchlisting,
Additionally, national security agencies are increasingly developing and deploying AI systems, presenting immense risks to the rights and safety of people in the U.S. and abroad. While Congress and the Biden-Harris administration have taken steps to increase transparency, trust, and fairness in the AI tools used by many agencies, national security have been largely exempted from these important measures.
Our Roadmap: The ACLU will push a Harris administration to rein in surveillance use that discriminates against or invades people’s privacy.
In court, we will maintain our track record of exposing and challenging federal agencies’ infringements of individuals’ privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights. We will support and defend protestors, racial and religious minorities, immigrants, and others who are subjected to abusive surveillance, investigation, prosecution, and coercive measures like wrongful watchlisting. We will also sue federal agencies that abuse their coercive powers to illegally invade Americans’ privacy, or discriminate based on race, ethnicity, and other protected characteristics.
Although members of both parties have been quick to empower the executive branch in the name of national and homeland security, the ACLU has built a durable bipartisan coalition of advocacy organizations and former and current policymakers to push for limits on government surveillance. We will work with our allies to implement specific measures to rein in overbroad and unwarranted surveillance, and to change the politics around surveillance and individual liberty so that politicians are more likely to defend them. Across the country, the ACLU is already responding to attacks on dissent against the government, and rallying allies around the need for robust separation of powers, strong due process protections, and limits on executive power.
At the state level, we urge leaders to restrict the information they provide to federal agencies and departments. For example, the ACLU has successfully advanced state and local laws to increase community control over policing and championed legislation to restrict “reverse” warrants and end purchases of personal information from data brokers. These efforts would reduce the pool of data available to law enforcement, including federal law enforcement. In addition, we will urge state and local governments to end, or sharply limit, their participation in fusion centers and other state-federal intelligence hubs that have been rife with abuse.
What Our Experts Say: “Despite perennial campaign trail promises to rein in surveillance powers that violate our privacy and civil liberties, once in office, presidents from both parties have all-too-often doubled down on the same powers that consistently lead to abuse. Regardless of who is president, the ACLU will continue to shed light on the government’s warrantless spying on Americans and challenge wrongful and discriminatory surveillance in court to vindicate the rights of people who are harmed.” — Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project
“As a senator, Kamala Harris had a strong record of opposing legislative efforts to expand or extend surveillance powers. As vice president, she recognized the ‘moral, ethical, and societal duty’ to protect Americans from potential harms of AI. If elected president, we hope she brings that same fire to the White House and commits to restoring checks and balances to mass surveillance.” — Kia Hamadanchy, ACLU senior policy counsel
What You Can Do Today: The ACLU has long advocated for robust legislation that safeguards against all kinds of government overreach, including the unlawful warrantless surveillance of our private communications. Show your support by
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.