It’s been a very eventful week since we launched the Pardon Snowden campaign.
Since then, people worldwide have turned their attention back to the most famous whistleblower of our generation. Dozens of news and opinion pieces have considered his role in exposing the contours of U.S. mass surveillance, and moviegoers have watched Joseph Gordon-Levitt portray him in an based on his life.
The ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch launched the Pardon Snowden campaign with a press conference last Wednesday, with Ed himself appearing via live video. “Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined, three years ago, such an outpouring of solidarity," he said in profuse thanks to his supporters.
Watch his full statement:
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FBpG2t2hGPFg%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20width%3D%22560%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
The launch of the campaign sparked a deluge of commentary, much of it joining the call for pardon or urging leniency in light of Snowden's contributions. We’ve seen the opinion pages of just about every major paper in the country weigh in, with pro-pardon contributions in the , , the , (), and .
Meanwhile, in a cynical move aimed at poisoning an honest discussion about Snowden’s case, the House Intelligence Committee – perhaps fearing the swell of support building behind the whistleblower – sent President Obama a letter arguing against a pardon. The released with the letter, a three-page executive summary of a classified report, was rife with blatant falsehoods about Snowden’s medical, academic, and professional history – falsehoods easily disproved. That members of Congress would peddle such transparent misrepresentations suggests a vexing disrespect for the truth and the public they purport to represent.
The report earned a from Barton Gellman, the veteran journalist who led the Washington Post’s reporting on the Snowden disclosures. His response was a gratifying read for Snowden’s many supporters, but also a sad confirmation of the deeply rooted failings of the institutions entrusted with overseeing our intelligence agencies.
And we haven’t even gotten to last weekend, when the Washington Post printed an arguing against pardon. The Post, you’ll remember, received the Snowden documents through Gellman, and the paper earned the Pulitzer Prize for public service for its reporting on the disclosures. The irony of the editorial board throwing its paper’s source under the bus after reaping such benefits from him wasn’t lost on anyone. Glenn Greenwald quickly published a blistering response on , and the Washington Post itself followed up with two powerful op-eds in favor of pardon – one by media columnist (and former New York Times public editor) Margaret Sullivan, the other by , publisher and editor of the Nation. In Sullivan’s words:
Snowden acted carefully, responsibly and courageously — and squarely in the public interest. The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, wrote this in 2014 about the revelations whose publication in The Post he championed: “In constructing a surveillance system of breathtaking scope and intrusiveness, our government also sharply eroded individual privacy. All of this was done in secret, without public debate, and with clear weaknesses in oversight.”
Five days later, the hubbub over the editorial doesn’t show signs of letting up.
Elsewhere, discussions around other aspects of the Snowden disclosures are in full swing – many of them positive, though some have trotted out tired misconceptions about what he revealed to the public (personally, nothing) and whether he could have effected change by going through internal channels (he couldn’t). Trevor Timm . We’re also seeing more useful conversations – like, for example, those making the point that people overseas have rights, too. (See strong arguments from , and .)
All that in just over one week.
But let’s not forget what this is all about. Obama has 118 days to bring home the whistleblower whose actions prompted all this debate – about the democratic limits of mass surveillance, the role of the press, and our most fundamental rights. .
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.