This week, our federal online privacy law turns 25. The ACLU is hosting a blog series that will address some of the many reasons why the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is in need of an upgrade! Spread the word using #UpdateECPA, and to learn more about your dotRights, visit www.aclu.org/ecpa.
Back in June, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) filed companion in the House and Senate to protect cell phone users' privacy. The "Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act" (GPS Act) would require law enforcement to get a warrant before they access location information. The goal is to protect privacy by preventing cell phones and other mobile devices from becoming portable tracking devices.
Soon after, Peter Welch (D-VT) joined in to cosponsor the . And only a few weeks ago a number of prominent Republicans and Democrats issued calling for full warrant protection for location information. Signatories included former federal judge and FBI Director William S. Sessions, David Keene, former Chair of the American Conservative Union and former members of Congress Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and Mickey Edwards (R-OK).
Now just this morning, Mark Kirk from Illinois joined as the first Senate Republican cosponsor of the .
Is anyone sensing a theme here?
In a time when the evidence of partisanship is everywhere there are still issues of common ground. Location privacy and the general need to update electronic privacy are clearly such issues.
Changes in technology have resulted in a slowly evolving disconnect between the reality of law enforcement practices and our fundamental values. Americans have embraced cell phones for their convenience and extraordinary functionality. The fact that they also track a user's every movement is an unwanted side effect, sort of like privacy pollution.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" is not policy of the Republican or Democratic parties; it is a unifying American ideal embodied in the Bill of Rights. That is why when it comes to cell phones, politicians from both parties have embraced location privacy, and that is why Congress should .
The federal law protecting electronic privacy is turning 25 years old this week, and unfortunately it hasn't been updated to take account of technologies like cell phones. That is why , and it's also why the ACLU has been at the forefront of efforts to make sure the government gets a warrant before tracking people — through lobbying, litigation, and forcing the disclosure of government records.
If you want to show your support for the GPS Act, !
Learn more about location tracking: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
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.