It's Your Move, Congress: Stand Up for Net Neutrality
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to adopt a new open internet rule. We were critical of this rule when FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski first announced it at the beginning of the month, and we remain skeptical.
First, the good news: the new rule prohibits wired broadband owners — usually telecom companies like Comcast and Verizon that provide cable and DSL service to homes and offices — from discriminating against information by throttling, slowing or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data on the wired Internet. No tampering with legal content moving from point A to point B.
Now, the bad news, and it's pretty bad: the rule is on shaky legal footing and it doesn't apply to wireless Internet — the kind you access on your cell phone. The legal question is particularly frustrating. After the — largely because of questions over FCC authority — the ACLU and many other groups argued that broadband providers offer a telecommunications service and should therefore be regulated like telephone companies. (Don't fall for the others side's tricks; we are not regulating the internet — just making the owners of the infrastructure play fair). Such a change — reclassifying such services to match telephone companies - would provide robust protections. Sadly, the FCC bowed to industry pressure and refused to adopt this change.
Additionally, the failure to incorporate wireless internet in the new rule is hardly forward-thinking. Studies have shown that Americans' use of the Internet is migrating away from home and office use and more towards wireless use. In fact, a shows that 59 percent of adult Americans use the wireless Internet, including a disproportionate number of African-American and Hispanic users.
And with this newly adopted rule, that 59 percent will be at the mercy of big telecoms. For example: say you and a friend are driving around, and you get lost. You both whip out your smartphones: you've got an iPhone with AT&T, but your friend has a Google Android phone on Verizon. Guess whose phone might load Google Maps slower? Or maybe even not load it at all?
Now that the FCC has voted, this issue is in Congress's court. Tell your member of Congress we need strong Net Neutrality protections for the entire Internet, not just the wired one.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.