What kind of content do YOU think should be featured at one of the biggest technology events of the year?
SXSW Interactive gives the public a substantial say in its programming. This past March, our panel with Edward Snowden was the festival's , and we're eager to get back to Austin in March 2015 to discuss the cutting edge intersections of privacy and technology.
Check out our panel submissions below and throw a few votes our way.
With Ben Wizner (ACLU) and Bruce Schneier (Cryptographer and Privacy Specialist)
Once we could live lives of practical obscurity. No longer. Conveniences of modern life – from smartphones to smoke detectors – have become digital informants, giving governments and corporations detailed information about us.
The problem is often framed as one of privacy. But that doesn't come close to capturing what's threatened by the explosion of data and the zeal with which it's collected, stored, and analyzed. Free speech, security, and equality are just a few of the values imperiled by mass surveillance.
But the situation isn't hopeless. There's nothing inevitable about technology overpowering liberty, and there are solutions – legal, regulatory, and technological – to help us regain control over our data and our lives.
Join Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology project and legal advisor to Edward Snowden, for a conversation with Bruce Schneier, the country's leading public interest technologist, about the world we're creating and how we can fight back.
Vote .
With Chris Soghoian (ACLU) and Matthew Prince (CloudFlare)
The Snowden disclosures have been bad news for many U.S. tech companies. As foreign customers seek to protect themselves and their data from the NSA, the losses to U.S. companies may run into the billions. In particular, the cloud computing sector and ad-supported companies whose business models depend upon data collection are most at risk.
It doesn't have to be this way. The Snowden stories don't have to be bad news. A handful of U.S. tech companies have realized that privacy can be a competitive advantage, that building secure products designed to resist surveillance and government coercion can be good for business. For such companies, the combination of paranoid engineering and a brave legal team have enabled them to offer products that protect user data from many threats, including those hand-delivered by men and women in dark suits.
Vote .
With Nicole Ozer (ACLU of California), Monika Bickart (Facebook), Jeffrey Rosen (National Constitution Center), Matthew Zimmerman (Twitter)
Online platforms are now the town square for creativity and social and political connection. This means that many of the most important decisions about content, access, and speech are now concentrated in the hands of a few private actors. When does art cross the line and get flagged on Facebook? Which tweets are staying up or coming down? How much censorship is just too much or not enough? Who should be the deciders? And how do you get your voice heard when you think content should be taken down or put back up? Join policy experts from the top platforms, the ACLU's Nicole Ozer, and Professor Jeffrey Rosen from the National Constitution Center to discuss what's happening now and the future of free speech.
Vote .
With Matt Cagle (ACLU of California), Nicole Ozer (ACLU of California), Jules Cohen (Microsoft Corporation), Laura Berger (Federal Trade Commission)
It's not just smartphones anymore. Smart fridges tell us when our eggs have gone bad. Smart thermostats track our energy use. Smart monitors allow us to keep track of our children. As the devices we use every day become smarter, they become far more useful. But they also collect new kinds of information – about our most intimate habits and interactions – multiplying the risks to privacy. Hackers, data brokers, and even the government may gain new kinds of keys to our homes and personal lives. So how can companies building the Internet of Things protect privacy in this new data frontier?
This panel will discuss how companies, policymakers, and consumers can be smart about privacy in the Internet of Things.
Vote .
With Roy Rodenstein (SocMetrics) and Rob Fishman (The Niche Project, Inc.)
For a nonprofit, the budget can severely restrict its ability to conduct outreach on a cause. The ACLU found a way to reach millions of people with a budget that will shock you! The Dream: collaborating with celebrities who tell their fans what you need them to do. The nonprofit fantasy is that celebrities would line up to give the nonprofit free access to millions of fans. The Reality: Tons of money and energy spent chasing a dream with little chance of success. But that doesn't mean that harnessing someone's influence is out of reach. Today, technology enables anyone to cultivate a personal brand, broadcast it worldwide, and earn influence to become powerful enough to challenge traditional paid media outlets. For little cost, your nonprofit can collaborate with an influencer whose existing brand message and audience align with your nonprofit's mission. Learn how the ACLU surpassed its outreach goals by harnessing influence to reach youth about the Constitution .
Vote .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.