ACLU of Vermont Statement on Border Patrol’s Proposed “Video Surveillance System Project”
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is inviting public comments on a proposal to construct eight surveillance towers in northern Vermont, at sites across the towns of Derby, Franklin, Highgate, Richford and Troy, along with two sites in Champlain, New York. Similar surveillance towers have already been erected in , including in the southwest, with profound, negative impacts on local communities.
ACLU of Vermont Executive Director James Lyall: “Vermonters value their privacy and are proud to live in vibrant, welcoming, and tightknit communities. CBP’s proposed surveillance towers would accelerate the gradual militarization of our region and threaten the privacy, civil liberties, and safety of countless local residents. This proposal should be forcefully rejected.
Anyone who doubts the impact that surveillance towers would have on Vermont communities can look to other border regions where similar towers – accompanied by Border Patrol checkpoints, roving patrol stops, surveillance drones, and other increasingly intrusive measures – have profoundly deteriorated quality of life and resulted in widespread abuses, to the point that those communities are virtually unrecognizable. Vermonters should not allow the federal government to do the same thing to our communities under the false pretense of “border security.”
Even putting aside the many grave problems with the construction of surveillance towers in Vermont communities, Vermonters could not find a less trustworthy federal agency to undertake this proposal. We must not forget that CBP has a toxic internal culture, is responsible for heinous, widespread and continuing human rights abuses nationwide, and operates with no meaningful oversight or accountability.
We have witnessed Border Patrol agents abducting protesters off of American streets, forcibly separating thousands of children from their parents, and routinely violating the rights and liberties of countless travelers. Rather than constructing surveillance towers and militarizing our communities, we should be dismantling and replacing a rogue agency that in no way represents our laws or our values.”
Information about how to submit public comment is available here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.