Public fears over the H1N1 flu virus seem to be subsiding (despite occasional flare-ups such as emergency bans on ) as the virus appears not to be as dangerous as was initially feared. At the ACLU we have been monitoring the course of the H1N1 because there is always a danger that fears aroused by a disease epidemic may lead to civil liberties violations. In the past, disease outbreaks have sometimes prompted government officials to respond with irrational fears, discriminatory behaviors, and panicked, coercive measures. These heavy-handed reactions — in the form of forcible quarantine, travel bans, and compulsory treatment — have nearly always proven detrimental to the goal of limiting the spread of disease.
We have released a white paper entitled Maintaining Civil Liberties Protections in Response to the H1N1 Flu. The paper provides:
- an overview of the state of science of the virus.
- an analysis of federal and state actions taken to date
- a discussion of possible civil liberties concerns surrounding the government's response to the flu, both looking forward and in years to come.
Thankfully, levels of public fear are currently not so high to allow for panicked government responses and unnecessary restrictions on individual rights and liberties. However, H1N1's unpredictability, high transmission rate, and a number of reported severe cases among the young mean that it is likely to persist for some time as a serious health concern. As such, it is imperative that the nation engage now in conversation about appropriate responses to the current outbreak so that civil liberties concerns are considered part of — and not contrary to — a public health mitigation effort.
It is possible to safeguard privacy and liberty while still protecting public health, and now is the perfect time to set standards for things like vaccination and treatment programs that will keep us — and the Constitution — healthy.
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.