Republic of Lithuania: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Lithuania

Republic of Lithuania: 2021 Article IV Consultation-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the Republic of Lithuania
Published September 01, 2021 at 07:01AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Safe and Healthy Schools Lead With Support, Not Police

Safe and Healthy Schools Lead With Support, Not Police

As schools begin to reopen for the new school year, students like J.W. are dreading the return to hallways patrolled by police officers who are trained and ready to detain, handcuff, and arrest students.

After being bullied in his Texas high school one day, J.W., a 17-year-old Black student with emotional and intellectual disabilities, had an outburst and tried to use a coping strategy in response — going to the “chill-out” room. This is an approach that students with disabilities use to help self-regulate their emotions and avoid escalation. When J.W. found the chill-out room occupied, he had a fallback strategy: Leave school and walk home to cool down. School officials responded by blocking his way out and radioing in the school-based police officer.

Instead of trying to de-escalate the situation, the officer pressed J.W. against a door and fired a taser gun directly on J.W.’s body until he fell onto the floor face-down. J.W. was handcuffed after 15 seconds of tasering. He was taken to the hospital and missed several months of school while experiencing intense anxiety and PTSD. In the face of these facts, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the tasing of J.W. was an act of school discipline that couldn’t be challenged under the Fourth Amendment. We recently filed an amicus brief in support of J.W. arguing that in dismissing his claims, the court dangerously and incorrectly suggested that students lose their constitutional protections against excessive force — including from police officers — when they enter schools.

Sadly, while J.W.’s experience was singularly horrifying, his encounter was one of many. Nationally, students of color and students with disabilities are up to two times more likely to be referred to police and arrested in schools. During the 2017-2018 school year, students with diagnosed disabilities represented 16 percent of national enrollment, but nearly 30 percent of arrests in school.

In response, communities across the country are pushing their schools to divest funding from police and reinvest funds in student mental health and other supportive services. But federal funding plays an important role — not only in actual dollar sums, but in determining which educational services are deserving of investment — and Congress must do its part. That’s why we’re calling on Congress to pass the Counseling not Criminalization in Schools Act, critical legislation that would eliminate federal funds for police in schools and instead redirect those funds to supportive services for students.

Passing the Counseling not Criminalization in Schools Act is an essential step Congress can take to make our schools safe and healthy learning environments. Federal funding has played a pivotal role in seeding and expanding the presence of police in schools. The Department of Justice’s COPS Office awarded $50 million to 160 school districts and municipalities for school police in 2020 alone. At the same time, there are 14 million students in schools with police and no nurses, social workers, or psychologists across our country.

Black and Brown students are more likely to attend policed schools. As a result, tens of thousands of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students, including girls of color, students with disabilities, LGBTQ students, and other marginalized students, are over-criminalized, physically and mentally harmed, and funneled into the school-to-prison-and-deportation pipeline every year.

The ACLU recently wrote to the Department of Education outlining the devastating consequences of police in schools witnessed through our work across the country. In South Carolina, where the ACLU is challenging the criminalization of students for being “disorderly,” “disturbing,” “boisterous,” or “obnoxious,” almost three quarters of juvenile disorderly conduct arrests occur in school. Police in schools arrest Black students for disorderly conduct more than six times as often as their white classmates. Students with disabilities are charged with disorderly conduct instead of receiving emotional and mental health supports through school-based service plans. School policing drives harmful contacts with the criminal and juvenile systems; it also undermines the goals of the education system.

Schools that received federal funding to hire more police actually experienced a decrease in graduation rates, while those that employed more mental health providers saw improved student engagement and graduation rates. Schools that used other types of supports, including restorative and trauma-informed practices, saw beneficial results, including reduced disciplinary incidents, suspensions, dropouts, and expulsions. Investing in mental health resources, support personnel, and interventions that promote positive student interactions can make schools safer and healthier learning environments, while also helping to combat the discriminatory school-to-prison pipeline that targets students of color and students with disabilities.

Instead of funding the policing, tasing, and handcuffing of our students, Congress should redirect funding to proven solutions — including mental health professionals who are trained to support students. The Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act would eliminate the use of federal funds for maintaining police in schools and give schools $5 billion in grant funding to help hire counselors, social workers, and other trauma-informed support personnel instead. We need to invest in proven school-based supports and mental health services for our students. It’s time for Congress to take action.

What you can do:

Fund Schools, Not Police

Send your message

Published August 31, 2021 at 10:44PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3jtiuci

ACLU: Safe and Healthy Schools Lead With Support, Not Police

Safe and Healthy Schools Lead With Support, Not Police

As schools begin to reopen for the new school year, students like J.W. are dreading the return to hallways patrolled by police officers who are trained and ready to detain, handcuff, and arrest students.

After being bullied in his Texas high school one day, J.W., a 17-year-old Black student with emotional and intellectual disabilities, had an outburst and tried to use a coping strategy in response — going to the “chill-out” room. This is an approach that students with disabilities use to help self-regulate their emotions and avoid escalation. When J.W. found the chill-out room occupied, he had a fallback strategy: Leave school and walk home to cool down. School officials responded by blocking his way out and radioing in the school-based police officer.

Instead of trying to de-escalate the situation, the officer pressed J.W. against a door and fired a taser gun directly on J.W.’s body until he fell onto the floor face-down. J.W. was handcuffed after 15 seconds of tasering. He was taken to the hospital and missed several months of school while experiencing intense anxiety and PTSD. In the face of these facts, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the tasing of J.W. was an act of school discipline that couldn’t be challenged under the Fourth Amendment. We recently filed an amicus brief in support of J.W. arguing that in dismissing his claims, the court dangerously and incorrectly suggested that students lose their constitutional protections against excessive force — including from police officers — when they enter schools.

Sadly, while J.W.’s experience was singularly horrifying, his encounter was one of many. Nationally, students of color and students with disabilities are up to two times more likely to be referred to police and arrested in schools. During the 2017-2018 school year, students with diagnosed disabilities represented 16 percent of national enrollment, but nearly 30 percent of arrests in school.

In response, communities across the country are pushing their schools to divest funding from police and reinvest funds in student mental health and other supportive services. But federal funding plays an important role — not only in actual dollar sums, but in determining which educational services are deserving of investment — and Congress must do its part. That’s why we’re calling on Congress to pass the Counseling not Criminalization in Schools Act, critical legislation that would eliminate federal funds for police in schools and instead redirect those funds to supportive services for students.

Passing the Counseling not Criminalization in Schools Act is an essential step Congress can take to make our schools safe and healthy learning environments. Federal funding has played a pivotal role in seeding and expanding the presence of police in schools. The Department of Justice’s COPS Office awarded $50 million to 160 school districts and municipalities for school police in 2020 alone. At the same time, there are 14 million students in schools with police and no nurses, social workers, or psychologists across our country.

Black and Brown students are more likely to attend policed schools. As a result, tens of thousands of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students, including girls of color, students with disabilities, LGBTQ students, and other marginalized students, are over-criminalized, physically and mentally harmed, and funneled into the school-to-prison-and-deportation pipeline every year.

The ACLU recently wrote to the Department of Education outlining the devastating consequences of police in schools witnessed through our work across the country. In South Carolina, where the ACLU is challenging the criminalization of students for being “disorderly,” “disturbing,” “boisterous,” or “obnoxious,” almost three quarters of juvenile disorderly conduct arrests occur in school. Police in schools arrest Black students for disorderly conduct more than six times as often as their white classmates. Students with disabilities are charged with disorderly conduct instead of receiving emotional and mental health supports through school-based service plans. School policing drives harmful contacts with the criminal and juvenile systems; it also undermines the goals of the education system.

Schools that received federal funding to hire more police actually experienced a decrease in graduation rates, while those that employed more mental health providers saw improved student engagement and graduation rates. Schools that used other types of supports, including restorative and trauma-informed practices, saw beneficial results, including reduced disciplinary incidents, suspensions, dropouts, and expulsions. Investing in mental health resources, support personnel, and interventions that promote positive student interactions can make schools safer and healthier learning environments, while also helping to combat the discriminatory school-to-prison pipeline that targets students of color and students with disabilities.

Instead of funding the policing, tasing, and handcuffing of our students, Congress should redirect funding to proven solutions — including mental health professionals who are trained to support students. The Counseling Not Criminalization in Schools Act would eliminate the use of federal funds for maintaining police in schools and give schools $5 billion in grant funding to help hire counselors, social workers, and other trauma-informed support personnel instead. We need to invest in proven school-based supports and mental health services for our students. It’s time for Congress to take action.

What you can do:

Fund Schools, Not Police

Send your message

Published August 31, 2021 at 06:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3jtiuci

ACLU: Things to know about the revival of Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy

Things to know about the revival of Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy

After a whirlwind of court actions this month, the Biden administration will be forced to restart a Trump-era border policy that trapped tens of thousands of people seeking asylum in dangerous conditions in Mexico while they awaited their court dates. The Remain in Mexico Policy, also known as Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) created a humanitarian disaster at the border and has been the subject of ACLU lawsuits since it was first instituted in 2019. Here’s what you need to know about the past, present, and future of this harmful policy and its implications for people seeking asylum.

The Remain in Mexico policy is illegal and unspeakably cruel.

In the ACLU’s litigation on the Remain in Mexico policy, courts found the program unlawful, but the government was allowed to continue implementing it while the case proceeded. Under the policy, people fleeing persecution in their home countries have been forced to wait in dangerous cities in Mexico while their cases were processed, which could take months or even years. The whole purpose of the policy was to punish people for seeking asylum by trapping them in miserable and dangerous conditions.

Indeed, people who were sent to Mexico have consistently been subjected to horrific crimes and exploitation, including kidnappings, rape, and other violent attacks. Human Rights First documented over 1,500 publicly reported cases of “murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violent assaults against asylum seekers and migrants forced to return to Mexico by the Trump Administration under [MPP].”

President Biden made a campaign promise to end the MPP program on day one because it “created a horrifying ecosystem of violence and exploitation, with cartels kidnapping, violently assaulting, and extorting migrants.”

Biden followed through on his promise and rescinded the policy, but it wouldn’t be long before the administration’s decision was challenged in court.

The states of Texas and Missouri sought to reverse the Biden administration’s decision to end the Remain in Mexico policy, which ultimately led to Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision.

After the Biden administration suspended the Remain in Mexico policy, the states of Texas and Missouri sued. On August 13, a district court judge ordered the federal government to restart the program. The federal government requested that the Supreme Court stay the district court’s order pending review of that order on appeal. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the federal government’s request.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied the stay, meaning the Biden administration must reinstate the policy as the litigation continues.

The Supreme Court ruling is a setback, but the Biden administration has a path to ending the program again.

The Supreme Court decision suggested that any problem with the termination of Remain in Mexico was essentially procedural—that is, the government did not say enough when terminating the program to demonstrate that it had sufficiently weighed the potential consequences of its decision. It pointedly did not endorse the states’ claims that the government is actually required to return people to Mexico under the immigration statutes. (As our amicus brief explained, those claims were egregiously wrong.)

Thus, the Biden administration can re-terminate the program with a fuller explanation, in a manner that addresses the purported procedural defect. Taking this step is an obvious and direct route to again ending MPP, so if the Biden administration is still serious about following through on its campaign promise to end MPP, it must do so promptly.

The Biden administration must not use this decision as cover for abandoning its commitment to restore a fair asylum system.

Troubling news reports suggested that the Biden administration was considering reviving its own version of the policy even before the Supreme Court decision. And the administration has continued to endorse a separate Trump era-policy that causes many of the same harms, summarily and unlawfully expelling people seeking asylum using “Title 42” health authorities. Under no circumstances should the Biden administration roll out any “MPP 2.0” — that is, any program that requires people seeking humanitarian protection to return and wait in Mexico while their cases are processed. And it must end the Title 42 expulsions.

President Biden was right to end MPP, and to promise to restore access to asylum. He must not abandon that commitment now.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 28, 2021 at 12:54AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/38lHs6Q

ACLU: Things to know about the revival of Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy

Things to know about the revival of Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy

After a whirlwind of court actions this month, the Biden administration will be forced to restart a Trump-era border policy that trapped tens of thousands of people seeking asylum in dangerous conditions in Mexico while they awaited their court dates. The Remain in Mexico Policy, also known as Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) created a humanitarian disaster at the border and has been the subject of ACLU lawsuits since it was first instituted in 2019. Here’s what you need to know about the past, present, and future of this harmful policy and its implications for people seeking asylum.

The Remain in Mexico policy is illegal and unspeakably cruel.

In the ACLU’s litigation on the Remain in Mexico policy, courts found the program unlawful, but the government was allowed to continue implementing it while the case proceeded. Under the policy, people fleeing persecution in their home countries have been forced to wait in dangerous cities in Mexico while their cases were processed, which could take months or even years. The whole purpose of the policy was to punish people for seeking asylum by trapping them in miserable and dangerous conditions.

Indeed, people who were sent to Mexico have consistently been subjected to horrific crimes and exploitation, including kidnappings, rape, and other violent attacks. Human Rights First documented over 1,500 publicly reported cases of “murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, and other violent assaults against asylum seekers and migrants forced to return to Mexico by the Trump Administration under [MPP].”

President Biden made a campaign promise to end the MPP program on day one because it “created a horrifying ecosystem of violence and exploitation, with cartels kidnapping, violently assaulting, and extorting migrants.”

Biden followed through on his promise and rescinded the policy, but it wouldn’t be long before the administration’s decision was challenged in court.

The states of Texas and Missouri sought to reverse the Biden administration’s decision to end the Remain in Mexico policy, which ultimately led to Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision.

After the Biden administration suspended the Remain in Mexico policy, the states of Texas and Missouri sued. On August 13, a district court judge ordered the federal government to restart the program. The federal government requested that the Supreme Court stay the district court’s order pending review of that order on appeal. The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the federal government’s request.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied the stay, meaning the Biden administration must reinstate the policy as the litigation continues.

The Supreme Court ruling is a setback, but the Biden administration has a path to ending the program again.

The Supreme Court decision suggested that any problem with the termination of Remain in Mexico was essentially procedural—that is, the government did not say enough when terminating the program to demonstrate that it had sufficiently weighed the potential consequences of its decision. It pointedly did not endorse the states’ claims that the government is actually required to return people to Mexico under the immigration statutes. (As our amicus brief explained, those claims were egregiously wrong.)

Thus, the Biden administration can re-terminate the program with a fuller explanation, in a manner that addresses the purported procedural defect. Taking this step is an obvious and direct route to again ending MPP, so if the Biden administration is still serious about following through on its campaign promise to end MPP, it must do so promptly.

The Biden administration must not use this decision as cover for abandoning its commitment to restore a fair asylum system.

Troubling news reports suggested that the Biden administration was considering reviving its own version of the policy even before the Supreme Court decision. And the administration has continued to endorse a separate Trump era-policy that causes many of the same harms, summarily and unlawfully expelling people seeking asylum using “Title 42” health authorities. Under no circumstances should the Biden administration roll out any “MPP 2.0” — that is, any program that requires people seeking humanitarian protection to return and wait in Mexico while their cases are processed. And it must end the Title 42 expulsions.

President Biden was right to end MPP, and to promise to restore access to asylum. He must not abandon that commitment now.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 27, 2021 at 08:24PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/38lHs6Q

Romania: Selected Issues

Romania: Selected Issues
Published August 27, 2021 at 07:15PM
Read more at imf.org

Gabon: Request for a Three-Year Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; Supplementary Information, and Statement by the Executive Director for Gabon

Gabon: Request for a Three-Year Extended Arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; Supplementary Information, and Statement by the Executive Director for Gabon
Published August 26, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Kingdom of the Netherlands—Curaçao and Sint Maarten: 2021 Article IV Consultation Discussions; Press Release and Staff Report

Kingdom of the Netherlands—Curaçao and Sint Maarten: 2021 Article IV Consultation Discussions; Press Release and Staff Report
Published August 25, 2021 at 04:00PM
Read more at imf.org

Kingdom of the Netherlands—Curaçao and Sint Maarten: Selected Issues

Kingdom of the Netherlands—Curaçao and Sint Maarten: Selected Issues
Published August 25, 2021 at 04:00PM
Read more at imf.org

Botswana: Technical Assistance Report—National Accounts Mission

Botswana: Technical Assistance Report—National Accounts Mission
Published August 24, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

Jordan: Second Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan

Jordan: Second Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan
Published August 24, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: Apple’s New ‘Child Safety’ Plan for iPhones Isn’t So Safe

Apple’s New ‘Child Safety’ Plan for iPhones Isn’t So Safe

Apple recently announced upcoming changes in how it handles photos on iPhones. These changes are a step toward significantly worse privacy for all iPhone users, and are especially troubling for activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, members of oppressed groups like LGBTQ people, people of color, those facing religious persecution, and other vulnerable people.

We are concerned that governments will exploit these changes to conduct far-reaching surveillance, and that the new system could normalize government spying on our personal phones and computers, leaving no remaining places where digital privacy is still possible. This should worry everyone: Privacy is central to our identities and our autonomy — our ability to control information and our sense of self, as well as our interactions with others, free from government intervention.

Apple announced several changes at once, but the most worrisome part of its new plan is a system to scan for certain photos on iPhones — specifically, “child sexual abuse material,” or CSAM. It plans to do this scanning on iPhone users’ pictures before they are backed up to Apple’s iCloud servers. Future iPhones will use cryptography — fancy math — in an effort to ensure that, if everything works as advertised, Apple learns only when a user has uploaded a threshold number of images that match known CSAM.

Privacy advocates, technologists, and human rights groups quickly pointed out that Apple is building a new form of surveillance, a tool that scans material on your phone (client-side scanning) rather than on its servers (server-side scanning). This poses serious risks to privacy and civil liberties. Apple can already scan and view images uploaded to iCloud if it wants to because the company has the keys to decrypt iCloud backups. Apple backed away from an earlier attempt to lock itself out of users’ iCloud data. And it already turns over iCloud photos to law enforcement in some cases. Without encrypting these backups with keys the company does not have, they remain subject to government intrusion. Now Apple plans to scan material on the iPhone too.

Apple appears to be making three promises about this client-side CSAM scanning:

• Only iCloud Photos: Apple says the system will only scan images uploaded to iCloud via the Photos app.
• Only a single global CSAM database: Apple says the system cannot be used to target people, or to search for anything other than CSAM because the images will only ever be compared against a single, global database CSAM of “hashes,” or image fingerprints.
• Accountability through visibility: Apple says the public can audit whether Apple is holding to these commitments.

Here’s our take on those claims:

Accountability through Visibility

Apple is notoriously litigious when it comes to people analyzing their software. The latest turn: It only recently decided to settle litigation against a company called Corellium for distributing a tool that makes it easier for people to analyze the iPhone operating system. On forums where researchers obtain prototypes and software for analysis, Apple appears to have had a “double agent” who shared with Apple the personal information of journalists who had relationships with leakers and sellers.

We don’t have confidence that Apple will support researchers trying to understand its scanning system. And even with strong transparency (fully free/libre open source software, binary transparency, visible software updates, etc.), what would happen if Apple were to renege on any of its promises, either for business reasons or under government coercion? Could anyone stop it, and would there be any meaningful consequences?

Only a Single Global CSAM Database

China recently legally banned a set of Karaoke songs. Ukraine recently upheld a ban on communist and Nazi imagery. Hong Kong is prosecuting union members over production of a series of children’s books. Brazil ordered the arrest of tech executives based on their company’s refusal to comply with government orders related to banned material or government assistance. Thailand prohibits images insulting the king. How will Apple respond to demands that it find a way to search for these materials on iPhones? In a different context — personalized iPhone cases — Apple censors political content sometimes without legal justification, internal consistency, or transparency.

Given the widespread interests of governments around the world, we cannot be sure Apple will always resist demands that iPhones be scanned for additional selected material.

While Apple is building a tool to scan photos against a single, globally installed CSAM database, other databases could be added to the system. Apple could be compelled by legal or economic pressure to add a database of images labeled as “terrorism,” “hate speech,” or some other “objectionable” content as defined by regimes around the world. This system could be transformed into a tool for censorship and broad surveillance. It could be very hard for the company to resist making such a change in the face of legal obligation or political pressure.

Only iCloud Photos

Finally, once this system is deployed, Apple will be under pressure to scan more than just iCloud photos. Entities pushing for surveillance will argue that if Apple can gather information about some images on the iPhone, why not all of them? Governments likely want to know about photos shared in encrypted iMessage conversations, or even privately taken photos that were never shared with anyone. From photos, the pressure will grow to scan the other sensitive and revealing types of information stored on a phone, such as conversations, search histories, health data, and more.

If Apple acquiesces to these pressures, and iMessage conversations are scanned, other encrypted messaging systems would be under even more pressure to follow suit, scanning images and text before or after they are sent. As the operating system vendor, Apple could face demands to scan images sent or received through other encrypted messaging apps, since those apps use the OS to store images and display them to the user. Any of these outcomes would be a devastating blow to the public’s ability to conduct secure confidential communications.

What Happens on Your iPhone…

Some observers have speculated that this new plan is a precursor to Apple securing iCloud backups in a way that even Apple cannot see them, by end-to-end encrypting them with keys the company does not have. This speculation is exciting, but Apple has made no such representations. If Apple’s proposed system is offered as a tradeoff that gives the public end-to-end encrypted photos in iCloud, then we ought to be having that conversation in full. But the scheme as currently proposed is worse than the status quo, and has genuinely dangerous potential.

Society needs private space — for discussion, for communication, and for emotional and social growth and transition. Moreover, when governments can easily intrude into our “private sphere,” we lose more than just privacy and control over our information: free speech, security, and equality suffer as well. We have already seen all too often how governments misuse and abuse surveillance to target political opponents, disfavored groups, and protestors. Private companies building tools that could greatly expand surveillance pave the way for even greater abuses of power. The data on our mobile devices reflect our thoughts, our conversations, and what we see around us. Governments want to know this stuff. We have to be sure, then, that Apple is not creating a system that will ultimately be used to destroy the remaining private space contained on our devices.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published August 24, 2021 at 11:41PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3sH2ma5

ACLU: Apple’s New ‘Child Safety’ Plan for iPhones Isn’t So Safe

Apple’s New ‘Child Safety’ Plan for iPhones Isn’t So Safe

Apple recently announced upcoming changes in how it handles photos on iPhones. These changes are a step toward significantly worse privacy for all iPhone users, and are especially troubling for activists, dissidents, whistleblowers, members of oppressed groups like LGBTQ people, people of color, those facing religious persecution, and other vulnerable people.

We are concerned that governments will exploit these changes to conduct far-reaching surveillance, and that the new system could normalize government spying on our personal phones and computers, leaving no remaining places where digital privacy is still possible. This should worry everyone: Privacy is central to our identities and our autonomy — our ability to control information and our sense of self, as well as our interactions with others, free from government intervention.

Apple announced several changes at once, but the most worrisome part of its new plan is a system to scan for certain photos on iPhones — specifically, “child sexual abuse material,” or CSAM. It plans to do this scanning on iPhone users’ pictures before they are backed up to Apple’s iCloud servers. Future iPhones will use cryptography — fancy math — in an effort to ensure that, if everything works as advertised, Apple learns only when a user has uploaded a threshold number of images that match known CSAM.

Privacy advocates, technologists, and human rights groups quickly pointed out that Apple is building a new form of surveillance, a tool that scans material on your phone (client-side scanning) rather than on its servers (server-side scanning). This poses serious risks to privacy and civil liberties. Apple can already scan and view images uploaded to iCloud if it wants to because the company has the keys to decrypt iCloud backups. Apple backed away from an earlier attempt to lock itself out of users’ iCloud data. And it already turns over iCloud photos to law enforcement in some cases. Without encrypting these backups with keys the company does not have, they remain subject to government intrusion. Now Apple plans to scan material on the iPhone too.

Apple appears to be making three promises about this client-side CSAM scanning:

• Only iCloud Photos: Apple says the system will only scan images uploaded to iCloud via the Photos app.
• Only a single global CSAM database: Apple says the system cannot be used to target people, or to search for anything other than CSAM because the images will only ever be compared against a single, global database CSAM of “hashes,” or image fingerprints.
• Accountability through visibility: Apple says the public can audit whether Apple is holding to these commitments.

Here’s our take on those claims:

Accountability through Visibility

Apple is notoriously litigious when it comes to people analyzing their software. The latest turn: It only recently decided to settle litigation against a company called Corellium for distributing a tool that makes it easier for people to analyze the iPhone operating system. On forums where researchers obtain prototypes and software for analysis, Apple appears to have had a “double agent” who shared with Apple the personal information of journalists who had relationships with leakers and sellers.

We don’t have confidence that Apple will support researchers trying to understand its scanning system. And even with strong transparency (fully free/libre open source software, binary transparency, visible software updates, etc.), what would happen if Apple were to renege on any of its promises, either for business reasons or under government coercion? Could anyone stop it, and would there be any meaningful consequences?

Only a Single Global CSAM Database

China recently legally banned a set of Karaoke songs. Ukraine recently upheld a ban on communist and Nazi imagery. Hong Kong is prosecuting union members over production of a series of children’s books. Brazil ordered the arrest of tech executives based on their company’s refusal to comply with government orders related to banned material or government assistance. Thailand prohibits images insulting the king. How will Apple respond to demands that it find a way to search for these materials on iPhones? In a different context — personalized iPhone cases — Apple censors political content sometimes without legal justification, internal consistency, or transparency.

Given the widespread interests of governments around the world, we cannot be sure Apple will always resist demands that iPhones be scanned for additional selected material.

While Apple is building a tool to scan photos against a single, globally installed CSAM database, other databases could be added to the system. Apple could be compelled by legal or economic pressure to add a database of images labeled as “terrorism,” “hate speech,” or some other “objectionable” content as defined by regimes around the world. This system could be transformed into a tool for censorship and broad surveillance. It could be very hard for the company to resist making such a change in the face of legal obligation or political pressure.

Only iCloud Photos

Finally, once this system is deployed, Apple will be under pressure to scan more than just iCloud photos. Entities pushing for surveillance will argue that if Apple can gather information about some images on the iPhone, why not all of them? Governments likely want to know about photos shared in encrypted iMessage conversations, or even privately taken photos that were never shared with anyone. From photos, the pressure will grow to scan the other sensitive and revealing types of information stored on a phone, such as conversations, search histories, health data, and more.

If Apple acquiesces to these pressures, and iMessage conversations are scanned, other encrypted messaging systems would be under even more pressure to follow suit, scanning images and text before or after they are sent. As the operating system vendor, Apple could face demands to scan images sent or received through other encrypted messaging apps, since those apps use the OS to store images and display them to the user. Any of these outcomes would be a devastating blow to the public’s ability to conduct secure confidential communications.

What Happens on Your iPhone…

Some observers have speculated that this new plan is a precursor to Apple securing iCloud backups in a way that even Apple cannot see them, by end-to-end encrypting them with keys the company does not have. This speculation is exciting, but Apple has made no such representations. If Apple’s proposed system is offered as a tradeoff that gives the public end-to-end encrypted photos in iCloud, then we ought to be having that conversation in full. But the scheme as currently proposed is worse than the status quo, and has genuinely dangerous potential.

Society needs private space — for discussion, for communication, and for emotional and social growth and transition. Moreover, when governments can easily intrude into our “private sphere,” we lose more than just privacy and control over our information: free speech, security, and equality suffer as well. We have already seen all too often how governments misuse and abuse surveillance to target political opponents, disfavored groups, and protestors. Private companies building tools that could greatly expand surveillance pave the way for even greater abuses of power. The data on our mobile devices reflect our thoughts, our conversations, and what we see around us. Governments want to know this stuff. We have to be sure, then, that Apple is not creating a system that will ultimately be used to destroy the remaining private space contained on our devices.

Stay informed about our work

Sign up

Published August 24, 2021 at 07:11PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3sH2ma5

Jordan: Second Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan

Jordan: Second Review Under the Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility, Request for Augmentation of Access, and Modification of Performance Criteria-Press Release; Staff Report; Staff Statement; and Statement by the Executive Director for Jordan
Published August 24, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project Exists Because of Jim Hormel’s Generosity

ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project Exists Because of Jim Hormel’s Generosity

James C. Hormel, the first openly gay U.S. ambassador, died on Friday, August 13. Former director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project Matt Coles reflected on the long friendship between Hormel and the ACLU.

Jim Hormel was a fine human being. In a lot of circles, Jim was known as a philanthropist identified with LGBTQ causes. That was true enough, but he was so much more than that. Jim could have given a fraction of what he did and he’d still have been a very generous supporter of human rights; that and one of the most important supporters of LGBTQ work of all time. He could have concentrated his generosity on LGBTQ issues and still have been an extraordinary supporter of liberty; but he had a much broader vision. He could have just given money and counted it as more than enough; but he did the hands-on work as well.

Take his support of LGBTQ work. At a time when the LGBTQ community had nothing — no federal discrimination protection, protection in one (count it) state, and virtually no relationship protection anywhere — Jim, along with the late Brooks McCormick, gave the ACLU the money to start what is now the LGBTQ & HIV Project. He kept supporting it, year after year — and not just with cash. He held fundraisers at his home. He personally introduced it to other people who might want to help. Look at almost every major LGBTQ group in the Unites States over the last 40 years and you’ll find Jim Hormel was a major supporter, often one of the first. That early support was crucial to the survival of so many groups that made a difference.

Jim wasn’t narrow in his support of civil and human rights. He wholeheartedly supported all of the ACLU’s work (even the work he disagreed with). He was an early major supporter of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the San Francisco Public Library, People for the American Way, broadly of education, and gave generously and strategically to many, many progressive political candidates throughout the nation.

Jim didn’t just give; he worked. The first time I met Jim was when we were both getting trained to walk precincts to try to convince the voters of San Francisco not to repeal the city’s newly passed domestic partnership law. We lost that election, but Jim was a force in making sure it was a temporary loss. When President Bill Clinton nominated Jim to be ambassador to Luxembourg, Jim was subjected to a torrent of vicious abuse. He put up with it for over two years. When he shared some of the harassment he was enduring with me, I asked why he didn’t just walk away.

“You’ve done your part,” I said. He looked at me with astonishment. “I can’t stop now,” he said. “That would set us further back than when we started.” Jim didn’t need the ambassadorship for validation; he certainly didn’t need it to get a trip to Europe. Jim did it to show that we are worthy, we are all worthy, to serve our country.

Jim was a smart lawyer with an incisive mind and so much LGBTQ work was and is the better for the way he brought it to bear. I always enjoyed talking with Jim, but I also always knew I had to be on my toes. Sooner or later, even running into him on the 38 bus in San Francisco, I’d get tough questions about just how we were going to get equality for LGBTQ people and ideas about ways we could do it better. I always came away from those conversations with ideas about how to do just that. (Yes, he rode the bus; he flew coach on planes as well. I once ran into him on a plane to JFK; he asked me to join him on the trip into town. “Oh boy,” I thought, “A Towncar.” No such luck; he joined me on the AirTrain and the number 7 into the city).

Don’t get the wrong impression though; if the questions were tough, they always came in a spirit of collaboration. We were in this together. He was unfailingly kind to everyone he dealt with and his empathy was limitless. But he also had a wicked sense of humor that was truly disarming. You can tell a lot about a person who runs a business by the atmosphere in their workplace. The people who worked for Jim seemed to absolutely adore him.

It’s a great mistake to think those of earlier generations were better than the people of today. Still, in this case I think it’s fair to say we won’t see Jim Hormel’s like again. Goodbye Jim. I am so very glad I knew you.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/stonewall-50-aclu-100-legacy-fighting-justice-and-equality

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 24, 2021 at 05:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3B95heB

ACLU: Four Problems with the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection System

Four Problems with the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection System

A critical report on the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system issued today by the City of Chicago’s Inspector General (IG) is the latest indication of deep problems with the gunshot detection company and its technology, including its methodology, effectiveness, impact on communities of color, and relationship with law enforcement. The report questioned the “operational value” of the technology and found that it increases the incidence of stop and frisk tactics by police officers in some neighborhoods.

The IG’s report follows a similarly critical report and legal filing by the Northwestern School of Law’s MacArthur Justice Center and devastating investigative reporting by Vice News and the Associated Press. Last week, the AP profiled Michael Williams, a man who spent a year in jail on murder charges based on evidence from ShotSpotter before having his charges dismissed when prosecutors admitted they had insufficient evidence against him.

Shotspotter installs 20 to 25 microphones per square mile in the cities where it is installed, and uses those microphones to try to identify and locate the sound of gunshots. In the past, we have scrutinized this company and its technology from a privacy perspective. Placing live microphones in public places raises significant privacy concerns. After looking at the details of ShotSpotter’s system, we didn’t think it posed an active threat to privacy, but we were concerned about the precedent it set (and others agreed).

But aural privacy is not the main problem with ShotSpotter, it turns out. There are several other very significant civil liberties problems with the technology.

First, as the MacArthur Justice Center details, ShotSpotter is deployed overwhelmingly in communities of color, which already disproportionately bear the brunt of a heavy police presence. The police say they pick neighborhoods for deployment based on where the most shootings are, but there are several problems with that:

• ShotSpotter false alarms send police on numerous trips (in Chicago, more than 60 times a day) into communities for no reason and on high alert expecting to potentially confront a dangerous situation. Given the already tragic number of shootings of Black people by police, that is a recipe for trouble.
• Indeed, the Chicago IG’s analysis of Chicago police data found that the “perceived aggregate frequency of ShotSpotter alerts” in some neighborhoods leads officers to engage in more stops and pat downs.
• The placement of sensors in some neighborhoods but not others means that the police will detect more incidents (real or false) in places where the sensors are located. That can distort gunfire statistics and create a circular statistical justification for over-policing in communities of color.

Second, ShotSpotter’s methodology is used to provide evidence against defendants in criminal cases, but isn’t transparent and hasn’t been peer-reviewed or otherwise independently evaluated. That simply isn’t acceptable for data that is used in court.

The company’s sensors automatically send audio files to human analysts when those sensors detect gunshot-like sounds. Those analysts then decide whether the sounds are gunshots or other loud noises such as firecrackers, car backfires, or construction noises. They also triangulate the timing of when sounds reach different microphones to try to establish a location for the noise, and if it is believed to be the sound of gunshot, they make an effort to figure out how many shots were fired and what kind of gun is involved (such as a pistol versus a fully automatic weapon).

ShotSpotter portrays all of this as a straightforward and objective process, but it is anything but. Vice News and the AP note examples of the company’s analysts changing their judgments on all of the above types of results (which ShotSpotter disputes). In addition, the company uses AI algorithms to assist in the analysis — and as with all AI algorithms, that raises questions about reliability, transparency, and the reproducibility of results. The company turned down a request by the independent security technology research publication IPVM to carry out independent tests of its methodologies.

Further calling into question the appropriateness of ShotSpotter evidence for use in court is a third problem: the company’s apparent tight relationship with law enforcement. A ShotSpotter expert admitted in a 2016 trial, for example, that the company reclassified sounds from a helicopter to a bullet at the request of a police department customer, saying such changes occur “all the time” because “we trust our law enforcement customers to be really upfront and honest with us.” ShotSpotter also uses reports from police officers as “ground truth” in training its AI algorithm not to make errors. A close relationship between ShotSpotter and police isn’t surprising — police departments are the company’s customers and the company needs to keep them happy. But that isn’t compatible with the use of its tool as “objective data” used to convict people of crimes.

Finally, still up for debate is whether ShotSpotter’s technology is even effective. We can argue over a technology’s civil liberties implications until the end of time, but if it’s not effective there’s no reason to bother. A number of cities have stopped using the technology after deciding that ShotSpotter creates too many false positives (reporting gunshots where there were none) and false negatives (missing gunshots that did take place). The MacArthur Justice Center’s report found that in Chicago, initial police responses to 88.7 percent of ShotSpotter alerts found no incidents involving a gun. The company disputes whether this means its technology is inaccurate, pointing out that someone can shoot a gun but leave no evidence behind. But a review of the accuracy debate by IPVM concluded that “while public data does not enable a definitive estimation of false alerts,” the problem “is likely significantly greater than what ShotSpotter insinuates” because the company “uses misleading assumptions and a misleading accuracy calculation” in their advertised accuracy rates.

Given all of these problems, communities and the police departments serving them should reject this technology, at least until these problems are addressed, including through full transparency into its operation and efficacy.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published August 24, 2021 at 05:41PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3B9i1SE

ACLU: ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project Exists Because of Jim Hormel’s Generosity

ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project Exists Because of Jim Hormel’s Generosity

James C. Hormel, the first openly gay U.S. ambassador, died on Friday, August 13. Former director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project Matt Coles reflected on the long friendship between Hormel and the ACLU.

Jim Hormel was a fine human being. In a lot of circles, Jim was known as a philanthropist identified with LGBTQ causes. That was true enough, but he was so much more than that. Jim could have given a fraction of what he did and he’d still have been a very generous supporter of human rights; that and one of the most important supporters of LGBTQ work of all time. He could have concentrated his generosity on LGBTQ issues and still have been an extraordinary supporter of liberty; but he had a much broader vision. He could have just given money and counted it as more than enough; but he did the hands-on work as well.

Take his support of LGBTQ work. At a time when the LGBTQ community had nothing — no federal discrimination protection, protection in one (count it) state, and virtually no relationship protection anywhere — Jim, along with the late Brooks McCormick, gave the ACLU the money to start what is now the LGBTQ & HIV Project. He kept supporting it, year after year — and not just with cash. He held fundraisers at his home. He personally introduced it to other people who might want to help. Look at almost every major LGBTQ group in the Unites States over the last 40 years and you’ll find Jim Hormel was a major supporter, often one of the first. That early support was crucial to the survival of so many groups that made a difference.

Jim wasn’t narrow in his support of civil and human rights. He wholeheartedly supported all of the ACLU’s work (even the work he disagreed with). He was an early major supporter of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the San Francisco Public Library, People for the American Way, broadly of education, and gave generously and strategically to many, many progressive political candidates throughout the nation.

Jim didn’t just give; he worked. The first time I met Jim was when we were both getting trained to walk precincts to try to convince the voters of San Francisco not to repeal the city’s newly passed domestic partnership law. We lost that election, but Jim was a force in making sure it was a temporary loss. When President Bill Clinton nominated Jim to be ambassador to Luxembourg, Jim was subjected to a torrent of vicious abuse. He put up with it for over two years. When he shared some of the harassment he was enduring with me, I asked why he didn’t just walk away.

“You’ve done your part,” I said. He looked at me with astonishment. “I can’t stop now,” he said. “That would set us further back than when we started.” Jim didn’t need the ambassadorship for validation; he certainly didn’t need it to get a trip to Europe. Jim did it to show that we are worthy, we are all worthy, to serve our country.

Jim was a smart lawyer with an incisive mind and so much LGBTQ work was and is the better for the way he brought it to bear. I always enjoyed talking with Jim, but I also always knew I had to be on my toes. Sooner or later, even running into him on the 38 bus in San Francisco, I’d get tough questions about just how we were going to get equality for LGBTQ people and ideas about ways we could do it better. I always came away from those conversations with ideas about how to do just that. (Yes, he rode the bus; he flew coach on planes as well. I once ran into him on a plane to JFK; he asked me to join him on the trip into town. “Oh boy,” I thought, “A Towncar.” No such luck; he joined me on the AirTrain and the number 7 into the city).

Don’t get the wrong impression though; if the questions were tough, they always came in a spirit of collaboration. We were in this together. He was unfailingly kind to everyone he dealt with and his empathy was limitless. But he also had a wicked sense of humor that was truly disarming. You can tell a lot about a person who runs a business by the atmosphere in their workplace. The people who worked for Jim seemed to absolutely adore him.

It’s a great mistake to think those of earlier generations were better than the people of today. Still, in this case I think it’s fair to say we won’t see Jim Hormel’s like again. Goodbye Jim. I am so very glad I knew you.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/stonewall-50-aclu-100-legacy-fighting-justice-and-equality

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 24, 2021 at 10:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3B95heB

ACLU: Four Problems with the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection System

Four Problems with the ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection System

A critical report on the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system issued today by the City of Chicago’s Inspector General (IG) is the latest indication of deep problems with the gunshot detection company and its technology, including its methodology, effectiveness, impact on communities of color, and relationship with law enforcement. The report questioned the “operational value” of the technology and found that it increases the incidence of stop and frisk tactics by police officers in some neighborhoods.

The IG’s report follows a similarly critical report and legal filing by the Northwestern School of Law’s MacArthur Justice Center and devastating investigative reporting by Vice News and the Associated Press. Last week, the AP profiled Michael Williams, a man who spent a year in jail on murder charges based on evidence from ShotSpotter before having his charges dismissed when prosecutors admitted they had insufficient evidence against him.

Shotspotter installs 20 to 25 microphones per square mile in the cities where it is installed, and uses those microphones to try to identify and locate the sound of gunshots. In the past, we have scrutinized this company and its technology from a privacy perspective. Placing live microphones in public places raises significant privacy concerns. After looking at the details of ShotSpotter’s system, we didn’t think it posed an active threat to privacy, but we were concerned about the precedent it set (and others agreed).

But aural privacy is not the main problem with ShotSpotter, it turns out. There are several other very significant civil liberties problems with the technology.

First, as the MacArthur Justice Center details, ShotSpotter is deployed overwhelmingly in communities of color, which already disproportionately bear the brunt of a heavy police presence. The police say they pick neighborhoods for deployment based on where the most shootings are, but there are several problems with that:

• ShotSpotter false alarms send police on numerous trips (in Chicago, more than 60 times a day) into communities for no reason and on high alert expecting to potentially confront a dangerous situation. Given the already tragic number of shootings of Black people by police, that is a recipe for trouble.
• Indeed, the Chicago IG’s analysis of Chicago police data found that the “perceived aggregate frequency of ShotSpotter alerts” in some neighborhoods leads officers to engage in more stops and pat downs.
• The placement of sensors in some neighborhoods but not others means that the police will detect more incidents (real or false) in places where the sensors are located. That can distort gunfire statistics and create a circular statistical justification for over-policing in communities of color.

Second, ShotSpotter’s methodology is used to provide evidence against defendants in criminal cases, but isn’t transparent and hasn’t been peer-reviewed or otherwise independently evaluated. That simply isn’t acceptable for data that is used in court.

The company’s sensors automatically send audio files to human analysts when those sensors detect gunshot-like sounds. Those analysts then decide whether the sounds are gunshots or other loud noises such as firecrackers, car backfires, or construction noises. They also triangulate the timing of when sounds reach different microphones to try to establish a location for the noise, and if it is believed to be the sound of gunshot, they make an effort to figure out how many shots were fired and what kind of gun is involved (such as a pistol versus a fully automatic weapon).

ShotSpotter portrays all of this as a straightforward and objective process, but it is anything but. Vice News and the AP note examples of the company’s analysts changing their judgments on all of the above types of results (which ShotSpotter disputes). In addition, the company uses AI algorithms to assist in the analysis — and as with all AI algorithms, that raises questions about reliability, transparency, and the reproducibility of results. The company turned down a request by the independent security technology research publication IPVM to carry out independent tests of its methodologies.

Further calling into question the appropriateness of ShotSpotter evidence for use in court is a third problem: the company’s apparent tight relationship with law enforcement. A ShotSpotter expert admitted in a 2016 trial, for example, that the company reclassified sounds from a helicopter to a bullet at the request of a police department customer, saying such changes occur “all the time” because “we trust our law enforcement customers to be really upfront and honest with us.” ShotSpotter also uses reports from police officers as “ground truth” in training its AI algorithm not to make errors. A close relationship between ShotSpotter and police isn’t surprising — police departments are the company’s customers and the company needs to keep them happy. But that isn’t compatible with the use of its tool as “objective data” used to convict people of crimes.

Finally, still up for debate is whether ShotSpotter’s technology is even effective. We can argue over a technology’s civil liberties implications until the end of time, but if it’s not effective there’s no reason to bother. A number of cities have stopped using the technology after deciding that ShotSpotter creates too many false positives (reporting gunshots where there were none) and false negatives (missing gunshots that did take place). The MacArthur Justice Center’s report found that in Chicago, initial police responses to 88.7 percent of ShotSpotter alerts found no incidents involving a gun. The company disputes whether this means its technology is inaccurate, pointing out that someone can shoot a gun but leave no evidence behind. But a review of the accuracy debate by IPVM concluded that “while public data does not enable a definitive estimation of false alerts,” the problem “is likely significantly greater than what ShotSpotter insinuates” because the company “uses misleading assumptions and a misleading accuracy calculation” in their advertised accuracy rates.

Given all of these problems, communities and the police departments serving them should reject this technology, at least until these problems are addressed, including through full transparency into its operation and efficacy.

What you can do:

Stop Face Surveillance Technologies

Send your message

Published August 24, 2021 at 10:11PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3B9i1SE

Seychelles: Request for an Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Seychelles

Seychelles: Request for an Extended Arrangement Under the Extended Fund Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Seychelles
Published August 23, 2021 at 07:00AM
Read more at imf.org

ACLU: What is Redistricting and Why Should We Care?

What is Redistricting and Why Should We Care?

Redistricting is the process of drawing the lines of districts from which public officials are elected. When it’s conducted fairly, it accurately reflects population changes and racial diversity, and is used by legislators to equitably allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures. When politicians use redistricting to manipulate the outcome of elections, however, it’s called gerrymandering — a practice that undermines democracy and stifles the voice of voters. Voters should be picking their politicians. Not the other way around.

Sophia Lakin, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, answers some of the most frequently asked questions about redistricting.

What’s the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering?

The process of redistricting is lawful and equitable when it’s conducted properly. It is also frequently a necessary process to reflect changes in population changes and racial diversity after each decennial Census. When redistricting is used as a tool to manipulate electoral outcomes or discriminate against certain groups, it ceases to be lawful and equitable, and we call it gerrymandering.

Why bother with redistricting?

The Constitution and the federal courts require it. It’s also the fair and equitable thing to do. Historically many states did not redistrict to reflect shifts and growth in their populations. In a series of cases in the 1960s, one of which coined the phrase “one person, one vote,” the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “equality” of voting power and that the electoral systems in states which failed to allocate voting power on the basis of population were unconstitutional. According to the 2020 Census data, nearly all of this country’s population growth this last decade was due to the growth in communities of color. Redistricting is an opportunity to ensure that our maps reflect that growing diversity.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1426641430773129217?s=20

Who conducts redistricting?

In most states, the state legislature is responsible for drawing district lines. However, 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington) use special redistricting commissions to draw state legislative districts. Six of these states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Washington) also use a board or commission to draw congressional plans, while 10 states (Maine, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) use an advisory or remedial commission in the event the legislature is unable to pass new plans. Iowa is different from all others in that district plans are developed by nonpartisan legislative staff with limited criteria for developing plans.

Is redistricting the same as reapportionment?

Reapportionment refers to the allocation of representatives to previously established voting areas, as when Congress allocates, or “apportions,” seats in the House of Representatives to the several states following the decennial census. So, for example, based on the population changes captured in the 2020 census, the reapportionment process reshuffled the 435 congressional seats among the 50 states such that certain states like Texas gained congressional seats while some states like New York lost seats. Redistricting is the process of redrawing district lines based on population changes and in some cases may have to take into account a loss or gain of a representative after the reapportionment process.

What is vote dilution?
Vote dilution refers to the use of redistricting plans and other voting practices that minimize or cancel out the voting strength of particular voters, often voters of color. While race-based vote dilution is prohibited by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, the practice continues to ​diminish the true political strength of communities of color in particular by fracturing ​those populations across multiple districts or improperly concentrating them together in a single district. Again, the 2020 census shows that nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Redistricting plans should reflect that reality.

How can we make sure redistricting is conducted fairly?
We all need to be involved in the process. We should stay informed of plans to redraw federal, state, and local district lines; attend meetings where plans are presented and evaluated; contact organizations willing to evaluate proposed plans and offer alternatives; write letters of support or opposition to elected officials and the Department of Justice; and seek needed legal advice. The goal of redistricting is to provide fair and effective representation for all. We can help achieve that goal by actively participating in the redistricting process.

What you can do:

Congress: Protect Our Voting Rights

Send your message

Published August 23, 2021 at 09:27PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3zhZOBS

ACLU: What is Redistricting and Why Should We Care?

What is Redistricting and Why Should We Care?

Redistricting is the process of drawing the lines of districts from which public officials are elected. When it’s conducted fairly, it accurately reflects population changes and racial diversity, and is used by legislators to equitably allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures. When politicians use redistricting to manipulate the outcome of elections, however, it’s called gerrymandering — a practice that undermines democracy and stifles the voice of voters. Voters should be picking their politicians. Not the other way around.

Sophia Lakin, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, answers some of the most frequently asked questions about redistricting.

What’s the difference between redistricting and gerrymandering?

The process of redistricting is lawful and equitable when it’s conducted properly. It is also frequently a necessary process to reflect changes in population changes and racial diversity after each decennial Census. When redistricting is used as a tool to manipulate electoral outcomes or discriminate against certain groups, it ceases to be lawful and equitable, and we call it gerrymandering.

Why bother with redistricting?

The Constitution and the federal courts require it. It’s also the fair and equitable thing to do. Historically many states did not redistrict to reflect shifts and growth in their populations. In a series of cases in the 1960s, one of which coined the phrase “one person, one vote,” the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “equality” of voting power and that the electoral systems in states which failed to allocate voting power on the basis of population were unconstitutional. According to the 2020 Census data, nearly all of this country’s population growth this last decade was due to the growth in communities of color. Redistricting is an opportunity to ensure that our maps reflect that growing diversity.

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1426641430773129217?s=20

Who conducts redistricting?

In most states, the state legislature is responsible for drawing district lines. However, 15 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington) use special redistricting commissions to draw state legislative districts. Six of these states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, Washington) also use a board or commission to draw congressional plans, while 10 states (Maine, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Connecticut, Illinois, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas) use an advisory or remedial commission in the event the legislature is unable to pass new plans. Iowa is different from all others in that district plans are developed by nonpartisan legislative staff with limited criteria for developing plans.

Is redistricting the same as reapportionment?

Reapportionment refers to the allocation of representatives to previously established voting areas, as when Congress allocates, or “apportions,” seats in the House of Representatives to the several states following the decennial census. So, for example, based on the population changes captured in the 2020 census, the reapportionment process reshuffled the 435 congressional seats among the 50 states such that certain states like Texas gained congressional seats while some states like New York lost seats. Redistricting is the process of redrawing district lines based on population changes and in some cases may have to take into account a loss or gain of a representative after the reapportionment process.

What is vote dilution?
Vote dilution refers to the use of redistricting plans and other voting practices that minimize or cancel out the voting strength of particular voters, often voters of color. While race-based vote dilution is prohibited by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, the practice continues to ​diminish the true political strength of communities of color in particular by fracturing ​those populations across multiple districts or improperly concentrating them together in a single district. Again, the 2020 census shows that nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Redistricting plans should reflect that reality.

How can we make sure redistricting is conducted fairly?
We all need to be involved in the process. We should stay informed of plans to redraw federal, state, and local district lines; attend meetings where plans are presented and evaluated; contact organizations willing to evaluate proposed plans and offer alternatives; write letters of support or opposition to elected officials and the Department of Justice; and seek needed legal advice. The goal of redistricting is to provide fair and effective representation for all. We can help achieve that goal by actively participating in the redistricting process.

What you can do:

Congress: Protect Our Voting Rights

Send your message

Published August 23, 2021 at 04:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3zhZOBS

ACLU: Ashley C. Ford on Growing Up With an Incarcerated Parent

Ashley C. Ford on Growing Up With an Incarcerated Parent

One in 12 American children — more than 5.7 million kids — have experienced parental incarceration at some point during their lives. Black Americans are 50 percent more likely than white Americans to have a family member who is formerly or currently incarcerated. At the ACLU, we are working to to significantly reduce the footprint of the criminal legal system in the United States, because we know the ramifications of incarceration are broad, complex and damaging.

Incarceration doesn’t just impact the person incarcerated: its ripple effect can be felt throughout the families and communities — particularly communities of color. Our guest on At Liberty this week understands all of this on a visceral level.

Ashley C. Ford is a writer, podcaster, and educator who deals with topics including race, sexuality, and body image. This June, Ford released her debut memoir, Somebody’s Daughter, which details her experience growing up with a single mom and an incarcerated dad as a Black kid in Indiana. When released, Somebody’s Daughter became an instant New York Times bestseller. Ashley joins us on the podcast to talk about her book, mass incarceration, and what justice means to her from where she stands today.

Listen to Episode 170 of ACLU's "At Liberty" Podcast Below:

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/ashley-c-ford-on-growing-up-with-an-incarcerated-parent/s-zXV119GRc4a

What you can do:

4,000 People Could Be Sent Back to Prison. Contact Biden Now.

Send your message

Published August 21, 2021 at 02:47AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kb1xCD

ACLU: Ashley C. Ford on Growing Up With an Incarcerated Parent

Ashley C. Ford on Growing Up With an Incarcerated Parent

One in 12 American children — more than 5.7 million kids — have experienced parental incarceration at some point during their lives. Black Americans are 50 percent more likely than white Americans to have a family member who is formerly or currently incarcerated. At the ACLU, we are working to to significantly reduce the footprint of the criminal legal system in the United States, because we know the ramifications of incarceration are broad, complex and damaging.

Incarceration doesn’t just impact the person incarcerated: its ripple effect can be felt throughout the families and communities — particularly communities of color. Our guest on At Liberty this week understands all of this on a visceral level.

Ashley C. Ford is a writer, podcaster, and educator who deals with topics including race, sexuality, and body image. This June, Ford released her debut memoir, Somebody’s Daughter, which details her experience growing up with a single mom and an incarcerated dad as a Black kid in Indiana. When released, Somebody’s Daughter became an instant New York Times bestseller. Ashley joins us on the podcast to talk about her book, mass incarceration, and what justice means to her from where she stands today.

Listen to Episode 170 of ACLU's "At Liberty" Podcast Below:

https://soundcloud.com/aclu/ashley-c-ford-on-growing-up-with-an-incarcerated-parent/s-zXV119GRc4a

What you can do:

4,000 People Could Be Sent Back to Prison. Contact Biden Now.

Send your message

Published August 20, 2021 at 10:17PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3kb1xCD

ACLU: One Year Later, U.S. Service Members Are Still Awaiting Their Promised Pathway to Citizenship

One Year Later, U.S. Service Members Are Still Awaiting Their Promised Pathway to Citizenship

Vincent Goo immigrated to the United States from South Korea when he was just 10 years old. Last year, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and he currently serves on active duty as a soldier in Germany. But despite serving this country for more than a year, Vincent still hasn’t been able to obtain citizenship through his military service, as promised by Congress.

Vincent’s dilemma is particularly maddening because for many months, the U.S. military continued to subject him to a Trump administration policy that was struck down by a federal court last year, in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a class of thousands of immigrants who are serving in the military. This week the ACLU returned to court on behalf of these service members and asked it to enforce its order.

For hundreds of years, and currently under the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal law has allowed non-citizens serving during a period of armed conflict to naturalize almost immediately upon entering service. This expedited process allows these service members to enjoy the privileges of citizenship while serving this country, including exercising the right to vote and to travel with a U.S. passport, even while deployed abroad. But Trump’s unlawful policy required immigrant service members to meet new requirements, including serving a minimum period of time, before the military would issue the administrative documents attesting to their honorable service necessary for them to seek citizenship. In its August 2020 ruling, the court ruled that the policy violated federal law and was “arbitrary and capricious” for upending decades of prior military practice without any rationale.

The court also prohibited the Department of Defense from subjecting any service member to the policy and ordered it to process the certifications necessary for service members to apply for citizenship within 30 days upon request. Yet almost a year after the court’s order, many service members continue to report to us that the military is imposing the unlawful policy and, even when they are able to request their certifications, is forcing them to wait far beyond the timeline ordered by the court.

For Vincent, the delays stretched for almost a year. Vincent sought the certification he needed to seek expedited naturalization as soon as he began his service, and again just six days after the court struck down the unlawful Trump policy. He should have been one of the first service members to benefit from the order. Instead, Vincent waited another 11 months to obtain these documents, eight of which he served abroad. Recently, he finally obtained his certification, only after the ACLU notified the government it intended to return to court to seek compliance with the court’s order. Other service members are still waiting for their certifications and continuing to serve, like Vincent did, without the protection or promise of U.S. citizenship.

In our request to the court filed this week, we describe how military officials have refused, for months, to comply with the order. For example, at several of the Army’s basic training bases, service members have been repeatedly told that they need to complete the minimum periods of service vacated by the court in order to be eligible for naturalization. Service members at other military installations have received similar instructions.

The ACLU has repeatedly alerted the government to these failures to comply and has urged it to take specific steps, such as appointing a specific individual to help troubleshoot service members’ certification requests. But the government has refused each of our proposals. Instead of helping service members and ensuring that military officials comply with the court’s order, the government has subjected class members to Kafkaesque ordeals and further delays to their attempts to become U.S. citizens.

The government has repeatedly insisted, for example, that service members push back against their chains of command, even when those very chains of command explicitly apply the unlawful policy to them, or to seek help from their legal assistance offices, some of which have turned them away and others of which have simply parroted the unlawful policy back to them. More recently, the government suggested service members should defy their chains of command and directly approach the highest level officials at their bases, or file formal complaints through the military justice system against their commanding officers. These are unrealistic avenues for new service members to pursue.

Vincent’s experience is a case in point. The ACLU first flagged his situation to the government in October 2020. In response, the government connected Vincent to the legal assistance office on the base where he was then stationed. But that office provided Vincent with an incorrect certification, which was then rejected by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services when he applied for citizenship. Vincent tried to obtain a newly corrected certification for months through multiple channels, including with the assistance of another attorney, all to no avail. The government finally facilitated his certification after we informed it of our clients’ intent to return to court. But Vincent’s situation is not an anomaly. Many other service members are still waiting.

As a result of the government’s failure to follow the court’s order, many service members entitled to citizenship have faced unconscionable delays to naturalization. Some service members, who have lost their immigration status while awaiting citizenship, fear placement in removal proceedings and even deportation. Many are also unable to advance their military careers because certain roles are only available to U.S. citizens.

The ACLU has asked the court to demand an explanation from the Department of Defense and order it to take specific steps to meaningfully implement the order and federal law. Our government promised thousands of service members an expedited path to citizenship. It is past time that they receive it.

We need you with us to keep fighting

Donate today

Published August 21, 2021 at 12:44AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3mlCuiW