Vietnam: Technical Assistance Report-Taxpayer Compliance Risk Management–Tourism Compliance Improvement Plan
Published April 28, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
United Republic of Tanzania: 2023 Article IV Consultation and First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for the United Republic of Tanzania
Published April 28, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Moldova: Third Reviews Under the Extended Credit Facility and the Extended Fund Facility Arrangements, and Request for a Waiver for Nonobservance of Performance Criterion-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Republic of Moldova
Published April 27, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Colombia: Review Under the Flexible Credit Line Arrangement-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Colombia
Published April 27, 2023 at 05:00PM Read more at imf.org
National Crisis in Policing Awaits United Nations Delegation
In May 2020, a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on the neck of George Floyd for nine and a half minutes, ending his life. Nearly three years later, starting this week, United Nations experts on racial justice will embark on a first-of-its-kind visit to the United States to examine what has — and hasn’t — changed since George Floyd’s murder sparked a nationwide movement for Black lives.
Unfortunately, while calls for reform grew louder after Floyd’s murder, concrete action has failed to materialize and Black people continue to face the brunt of police brutality. In January, five Memphis officers beat Tyre Nichols to death in a relentless, extended assault. In June 2022, eight officers in Akron, Ohio fired a total of 94 shots, 46 of which hit and killed Jayland Walker. Countless other Black people have been targeted by police for simply going about their daily lives.
Two years ago, then-U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michele Bachelet warned of “insufficient” police reforms playing out across the country. Like many cities, Memphis and Akron both adopted packages of “reforms” after the widespread 2020 protests against police brutality. But these modest changes were not enough to prevent needless violence at the hands of police.
These extrajudicial killings represent a massive human rights violation that falls most heavily on Black people, who are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans.
Deadly police violence is a national crisis in the United States. It happens in every part of the country, from California to New England, from Minnesota to Texas. Fatal shootings by police kill Americans literally every day, averaging three people per day since 2015. Despite years of protests and greater public awareness, the number of people shot to death by police has increased every year since Michael Brown was killed in 2014, with an average of 1011 official homicides yearly from 2015-2022, and a death toll exceeding 8,000 souls. This scale of death by police happens in no other nation on earth. These extrajudicial killings represent a massive human rights violation that falls most heavily on Black people, who are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans.
Civil society groups from across the country pleaded with the United Nations Human Rights Council to take a leading role in investigating systemic racism in U.S. policing systems. In April 2021, the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in law enforcement (EMLER) was created, with a mandate to examine excessive use of force, over-policing, racial profiling, and other human rights violations by U.S. law enforcement, including their roots in slavery and colonialism. For the first time, experts from this mechanism will hear from victims, families, and officials about how the human rights violations they have been documenting for two years impact communities in the U.S.
The U.N. experts will visit six U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and New York City. They will hear from local and national government officials, law enforcement representatives, civil society organizations and grassroots groups, academics, and victims of police brutality and their families. Following the two-week visit, EMLER will recommend reforms to bring police conduct into line with recognized human rights standards.
With Congress locked in a kind of moral paralysis, this visit must produce an in-depth and objective examination of how historic patterns of discrimination affect policing in America and lay out a clear path for authorities to radically reform law enforcement and ensure it effectively protects all communities equally.
One of us, Collette Flanagan, addressed the Human Rights Council in Geneva last year, in memory of her son, Clinton Allen, who was killed by Dallas police 10 years ago. She closed by affirming that while “police forces … are almost a world power in themselves,” those who speak out are a power as well. Our hope is that this panel of independent international experts will help us to make our appeal irresistible.
National Crisis in Policing Awaits United Nations Delegation
In May 2020, a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on the neck of George Floyd for nine and a half minutes, ending his life. Nearly three years later, starting this week, United Nations experts on racial justice will embark on a first-of-its-kind visit to the United States to examine what has — and hasn’t — changed since George Floyd’s murder sparked a nationwide movement for Black lives.
Unfortunately, while calls for reform grew louder after Floyd’s murder, concrete action has failed to materialize and Black people continue to face the brunt of police brutality. In January, five Memphis officers beat Tyre Nichols to death in a relentless, extended assault. In June 2022, eight officers in Akron, Ohio fired a total of 94 shots, 46 of which hit and killed Jayland Walker. Countless other Black people have been targeted by police for simply going about their daily lives.
Two years ago, then-U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michele Bachelet warned of “insufficient” police reforms playing out across the country. Like many cities, Memphis and Akron both adopted packages of “reforms” after the widespread 2020 protests against police brutality. But these modest changes were not enough to prevent needless violence at the hands of police.
These extrajudicial killings represent a massive human rights violation that falls most heavily on Black people, who are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans.
Deadly police violence is a national crisis in the United States. It happens in every part of the country, from California to New England, from Minnesota to Texas. Fatal shootings by police kill Americans literally every day, averaging three people per day since 2015. Despite years of protests and greater public awareness, the number of people shot to death by police has increased every year since Michael Brown was killed in 2014, with an average of 1011 official homicides yearly from 2015-2022, and a death toll exceeding 8,000 souls. This scale of death by police happens in no other nation on earth. These extrajudicial killings represent a massive human rights violation that falls most heavily on Black people, who are killed by police at more than twice the rate of white Americans.
Civil society groups from across the country pleaded with the United Nations Human Rights Council to take a leading role in investigating systemic racism in U.S. policing systems. In April 2021, the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in law enforcement (EMLER) was created, with a mandate to examine excessive use of force, over-policing, racial profiling, and other human rights violations by U.S. law enforcement, including their roots in slavery and colonialism. For the first time, experts from this mechanism will hear from victims, families, and officials about how the human rights violations they have been documenting for two years impact communities in the U.S.
The U.N. experts will visit six U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and New York City. They will hear from local and national government officials, law enforcement representatives, civil society organizations and grassroots groups, academics, and victims of police brutality and their families. Following the two-week visit, EMLER will recommend reforms to bring police conduct into line with recognized human rights standards.
With Congress locked in a kind of moral paralysis, this visit must produce an in-depth and objective examination of how historic patterns of discrimination affect policing in America and lay out a clear path for authorities to radically reform law enforcement and ensure it effectively protects all communities equally.
One of us, Collette Flanagan, addressed the Human Rights Council in Geneva last year, in memory of her son, Clinton Allen, who was killed by Dallas police 10 years ago. She closed by affirming that while “police forces … are almost a world power in themselves,” those who speak out are a power as well. Our hope is that this panel of independent international experts will help us to make our appeal irresistible.
Burkina Faso: Request for Disbursement Under the Rapid Credit Facility-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Burkina Faso
Published April 25, 2023 at 05:30PM Read more at imf.org
Republic of Kazakhstan: Technical Assistance Report-Government Finance Statistics (October 10-21, 2022)
Published April 25, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Idaho Attorney General's Abortion Opinion Shows Overturning Roe Was Only the Beginning
When the Supreme Court overturned a half-century of precedent last June and eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion first recognized in Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion politicians claimed that the court was doing nothing more than sending the issue back to the states, allowing each to decide for itself how to regulate abortion. Late last month, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador made crystal clear just how false that claim was.
In response to an inquiry from an anti-abortion state politician — asking on behalf of a constituent who wants to ban abortion nationwide — Attorney General Labrador issued a letter, declaring that Idaho’s total abortion ban “prohibits an Idaho medical provider from … referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services.”
Idaho cannot ban truthful speech about the availability of legal abortion services in other states without violating the First Amendment.
According to the Idaho attorney general, a health care provider who gives any support or aid to a person seeking an abortion outside of Idaho — even in places where abortion remains legal — has broken Idaho law. In other words, under the attorney general’s misguided opinion, providing a woman with a referral for abortion care out of state, or even simply giving her information about the availability of abortion in a state where it’s legal, would violate the ban and could cost health care providers their licenses and livelihoods, and even put them at risk of facing criminal penalties.
This dramatic and far-reaching interpretation of Idaho law violates the free speech rights of health care providers in Idaho who desire to give their patients complete information, in accordance with their professional and ethical duties, and their consciences. Idaho cannot ban truthful speech about the availability of legal abortion services in other states without violating the First Amendment.
The interpretation is also premised on the attorney general’s dangerous and unprecedented view that Idaho law applies to abortions provided outside of Idaho’s borders — in states like Washington, Oregon, or California, where abortion remains legal. Not only is this interpretation wrong on the face of Idaho law, it also violates the Due Process Clause, which prevents the arbitrary and unpredictable denial of liberty, as well as the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, which forbids states from regulating commerce (including health care) that occurs wholly in another state. This kind of interstate meddling reveals the bad faith behind the claim that, after Roe was overturned, abortion access would be governed state by state.
We’re showing up in Idaho and across the country to make sure that every person has the right to make the best decisions for their health and future, regardless of where they live.
Permitting the attorney general’s interpretation of Idaho law to stand would have far reaching implications for a wide range of conduct, from abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care; to any activity about which states have divergent policies. Indeed, it is already severely impacting the care that health care providers in Idaho can provide to their patients. Today, as a result of the attorney general’s opinion, doctors have been forced to deny critical information to people in need of care. And, in situations where an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant patient, the attorney general’s interpretation can be downright dangerous by denying patients information about their options and potentially delaying them from accessing the care they desperately need.
That’s why two physicians in Idaho represented by the ACLU, along with our allies at Planned Parenthood and the law firm WilmerHale, have challenged Attorney General Labrador’s unconstitutional interpretation of Idaho’s abortion ban in federal court. Earlier this week, the court held a hearing where we urged the judge to temporarily prevent the attorney general, the state boards of nursing and medicine, and Idaho’s local prosecutors from taking any steps to enforce Idaho’s ban against individuals for providing referrals for or information about out-of-state abortion care, or for actually providing that care in states where it’s legal. We hope the court will swiftly act to protect the constitutional rights of Idaho providers and the health of Idaho patients by issuing a preliminary injunction that would block the attorney general and other enforcers from applying Idaho’s ban in the manner contemplated in his opinion.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned less than a year ago, there has been an unrelenting barrage of attacks on abortion — even in states that have already completely outlawed this vital reproductive health care. We’ve always known that the war on reproductive freedom would not end with Dobbs, and Idaho’s latest attempt to punish those helping pregnant individuals access abortion care in the states where abortion remains legal is just the latest chapter in this ongoing fight. Anti-abortion extremists are sure to continue to push similar efforts to impose abortion bans far beyond hostile states’ borders in their campaign to eliminate abortion access nationwide. The only question is whether the courts will let them. We’re showing up in Idaho and across the country to make sure that that every person has the right to make the best decisions for their health and future, regardless of where they live.
Morocco: Request for an Arrangement Under the Flexible Credit Line-Press Release; Staff Report; and Statement by the Executive Director for Morocco
Published April 24, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Is the Government Tracking Your Social Media Activity?
The Biden administration has been quietly deploying and expanding programs that surveil what people say on social media, using tools that allow agents and analysts to invisibly monitor the vast amount of protected speech that occurs online. For years, these kinds of tools have been increasingly used for a range of controversial law enforcement and intelligence purposes. But some of the most troubling programs continuously monitor the social media posts of non-citizens to decide who gets to live, study, or stay in the United States.
If you’re an immigrant or visa-holder in the United States and believe you’ve been affected by this social media monitoring, the ACLU wants to hear your story.
Social media accounts are extensions of ourselves. A single social media account can reveal a map of our family and friends; a catalogue of our personal preferences and political views; and, of course, a comprehensive diary of our thoughts and speech. Given the trove of information available online, social media surveillance threatens our rights to speak freely and live without fear of constant government scrutiny.
Through our ongoing FOIA lawsuit, the ACLU has obtained documents showing that a wide range of government agencies are monitoring and retaining the speech of U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike — whether or not those individuals are suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. Agencies continue to pour millions of dollars into technology that enables this sustained tracking of social media activity.
In recent years, the government has ramped up its efforts to monitor the social media activities of non-citizens. At least two Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs involve the monitoring of non-citizens who have come to the U.S. for school, work, or other reasons. Under the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Program, DHS monitors the online activities of individuals in the U.S. on student or business visas — from the moment they apply for a visa throughout their stay in the United States. Under another program known as Continuous Immigration Vetting, DHS may monitor social media and a number of other sources for “derogatory information” about non-citizens, starting when a person applies for an immigration benefit until they become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Who Social Media Surveillance Hurts
The government’s social media surveillance can have immense consequences. For example, in August 2019, CBP officers denied entry to Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian student from Lebanon traveling to start his freshman year at Harvard. Ismail, like other non-citizens hoping to enter the United States, was likely subject to the State Department’s policy requiring nearly all visa applicants to disclose their social media handles. After an hours-long interrogation about Ismail’s political views, religious affiliations, and friends’ social media posts, Ismail’s visa was canceled and he was promptly deported.
While Ismail was eventually allowed to pursue his studies in the U.S., the government continues to engage in the suspicionless social media monitoring of non-citizens, including many Black and Brown immigrants and visitors who want to become citizens or pursue degrees here. Once DHS collects this information, it may use it to guide immigration decisions, including those involving deportation, visa revocations, and naturalization.
Suspicionless monitoring of social media infringes the rights of people who are living in the U.S. and are protected by the First Amendment. Individuals who suspect they are being surveilled may fear expressing themselves freely out of concerns over government scrutiny or retaliation. This is a loss for the people whose speech is chilled and for all those who benefit from vibrant online conversations and exchanges of ideas.
Government surveillance also often disproportionally targets racial and religious minority communities and those who dissent against government policies. The ACLU has called on both DHS and the Justice Department to reform their policies that allow biased profiling and investigations. And of course, surveillance undermines our basic notions of privacy. Even individuals who post publicly online do not expect the government to digitally archive their online activity without any suspicion, or to scrutinize their friends, contacts, and associations on social media platforms.
Social Media Surveillance is Ineffective and Inefficient
Social media surveillance is also ineffective and lacks empirical support. Analyzing social media is notoriously difficult, given the sheer volume of information and the many ways in which individuals’ online messages can be misinterpreted — especially when those posts span many different languages and cultures. One office within DHS recently rejected a proposal to expand the agency’s collection of social media information after concluding that the monitoring had little utility. The Biden administration has also reportedly considered halting social media vetting for some categories of refugees given concerns about “the efficiency of the process.”
Given the harms of this surveillance, and its demonstrated lack of effectiveness, DHS should end its existing social media programs. Until then, we need to know more about how the government monitors our social media and the impact of this surveillance on communities and individuals.
If you think you are or have been affected by this surveillance, we want to hear from you. Please fill out this form or email us directly at sms_intake@aclu.org. The ACLU will keep strictly confidential any information you provide and will not share it outside the ACLU without your permission.
Is the Government Tracking Your Social Media Activity?
The Biden administration has been quietly deploying and expanding programs that surveil what people say on social media, using tools that allow agents and analysts to invisibly monitor the vast amount of protected speech that occurs online. For years, these kinds of tools have been increasingly used for a range of controversial law enforcement and intelligence purposes. But some of the most troubling programs continuously monitor the social media posts of non-citizens to decide who gets to live, study, or stay in the United States.
If you’re an immigrant or visa-holder in the United States and believe you’ve been affected by this social media monitoring, the ACLU wants to hear your story.
Social media accounts are extensions of ourselves. A single social media account can reveal a map of our family and friends; a catalogue of our personal preferences and political views; and, of course, a comprehensive diary of our thoughts and speech. Given the trove of information available online, social media surveillance threatens our rights to speak freely and live without fear of constant government scrutiny.
Through our ongoing FOIA lawsuit, the ACLU has obtained documents showing that a wide range of government agencies are monitoring and retaining the speech of U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike — whether or not those individuals are suspected of any criminal wrongdoing. Agencies continue to pour millions of dollars into technology that enables this sustained tracking of social media activity.
In recent years, the government has ramped up its efforts to monitor the social media activities of non-citizens. At least two Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs involve the monitoring of non-citizens who have come to the U.S. for school, work, or other reasons. Under the Visa Lifecycle Vetting Program, DHS monitors the online activities of individuals in the U.S. on student or business visas — from the moment they apply for a visa throughout their stay in the United States. Under another program known as Continuous Immigration Vetting, DHS may monitor social media and a number of other sources for “derogatory information” about non-citizens, starting when a person applies for an immigration benefit until they become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Who Social Media Surveillance Hurts
The government’s social media surveillance can have immense consequences. For example, in August 2019, CBP officers denied entry to Ismail Ajjawi, a 17-year-old Palestinian student from Lebanon traveling to start his freshman year at Harvard. Ismail, like other non-citizens hoping to enter the United States, was likely subject to the State Department’s policy requiring nearly all visa applicants to disclose their social media handles. After an hours-long interrogation about Ismail’s political views, religious affiliations, and friends’ social media posts, Ismail’s visa was canceled and he was promptly deported.
While Ismail was eventually allowed to pursue his studies in the U.S., the government continues to engage in the suspicionless social media monitoring of non-citizens, including many Black and Brown immigrants and visitors who want to become citizens or pursue degrees here. Once DHS collects this information, it may use it to guide immigration decisions, including those involving deportation, visa revocations, and naturalization.
Suspicionless monitoring of social media infringes the rights of people who are living in the U.S. and are protected by the First Amendment. Individuals who suspect they are being surveilled may fear expressing themselves freely out of concerns over government scrutiny or retaliation. This is a loss for the people whose speech is chilled and for all those who benefit from vibrant online conversations and exchanges of ideas.
Government surveillance also often disproportionally targets racial and religious minority communities and those who dissent against government policies. The ACLU has called on both DHS and the Justice Department to reform their policies that allow biased profiling and investigations. And of course, surveillance undermines our basic notions of privacy. Even individuals who post publicly online do not expect the government to digitally archive their online activity without any suspicion, or to scrutinize their friends, contacts, and associations on social media platforms.
Social Media Surveillance is Ineffective and Inefficient
Social media surveillance is also ineffective and lacks empirical support. Analyzing social media is notoriously difficult, given the sheer volume of information and the many ways in which individuals’ online messages can be misinterpreted — especially when those posts span many different languages and cultures. One office within DHS recently rejected a proposal to expand the agency’s collection of social media information after concluding that the monitoring had little utility. The Biden administration has also reportedly considered halting social media vetting for some categories of refugees given concerns about “the efficiency of the process.”
Given the harms of this surveillance, and its demonstrated lack of effectiveness, DHS should end its existing social media programs. Until then, we need to know more about how the government monitors our social media and the impact of this surveillance on communities and individuals.
If you think you are or have been affected by this surveillance, we want to hear from you. Please fill out this form or email us directly at sms_intake@aclu.org. The ACLU will keep strictly confidential any information you provide and will not share it outside the ACLU without your permission.
Union of the Comoros: Second Review Under the Staff-Monitored Program-Press Release; and Staff Report
Published April 20, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Sweden: Financial Sector Assessment Program–Technical Note on Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision
Published April 20, 2023 at 07:00AM Read more at imf.org
Five Things to Know About NSA Mass Surveillance and the Coming Fight in Congress
One of the most sweeping surveillance statutes ever enacted by Congress is set to expire at the end of this year — creating an important opportunity to rein in America’s sprawling surveillance state.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the U.S. government to engage in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, including phone calls, texts, emails, social media messages, and web browsing. The government claims to be pursuing vaguely defined foreign intelligence “targets,” but its targets need not be spies, terrorists, or criminals. They can be virtually any foreigner abroad: journalists, academic researchers, scientists, or businesspeople. And in the course of this surveillance, the government casts a wide net that ensnares the communications of ordinary Americans on a massive scale — in violation of our constitutional rights.
As Congress debates the reauthorization of Section 702, it’s vital that we tell our representatives in Congress that we want an end to warrantless mass surveillance. Here’s what you need to know to follow the debate and speak up for your right to privacy.
1. The NSA uses Section 702 to conduct at least two large-scale surveillance programs.
The government conducts at least two kinds of surveillance under Section 702:
PRISM: The NSA obtains communications — such as international messages, emails, and internet calls — directly from U.S. tech and social media companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft. The government identifies non-U.S. person accounts it wishes to monitor, and then orders the company to disclose all communications and data to and from those accounts, including communications with U.S. persons.
Upstream: Working with companies like AT&T and Verizon, the NSA intercepts and copies Americans’ international internet communications in bulk as they flow into and out of the United States. The NSA then searches for key terms, such as email addresses or phone numbers, that are associated with its hundreds of thousands of foreign targets. Communications determined to be to and from those targets — as well as those that happen to be bundled with them in transit — are retained in NSA databases for further use and analysis.
Critically, while Section 702 does not allow the NSA to target Americans at the outset, vast quantities of our communications are still searched and amassed in government databases simply because we are in touch with people abroad. And this is the bait-and-switch: Although the law allows surveillance of foreigners abroad for “foreign intelligence” purposes, the FBI routinely exploit this rich source of our information by searching those databases to find and examine the communications of individual Americans for use in domestic investigations.
2. Section 702 surveillance is expanding.
The scale of Section 702 has been growing significantly over time, meaning more and more Americans are caught in this net.
When the government first began releasing statistics, after the Snowden revelations in 2013, it reported having 89,138 targets. By 2021, the government was targeting the communications of a staggering 232,432 individuals, groups, and organizations. Although the government often seeks to portray the surveillance as “targeted” and narrow, the reality is that it takes place on a massive scale.
Indeed, the government reported that in 2011, Section 702 surveillance resulted in the retention of more than 250 million internet communications (a number that does not reflect the far larger quantity of communications whose contents the NSA searched before discarding them). Given the rate at which the number of Section 702 targets is growing, it’s likely that the government today collects over a billion communications under Section 702 each year. But these statistics tell only part of the story. The government has never provided data on the number of Americans who are surveilled under PRISM and Upstream, a number that is surely also increasing. That is a glaring gap in its transparency reports.
3. Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool.
Although Congress intended Section 702 to be used for counterterrorism purposes, it’s frequently used today to pursue domestic investigations of all kinds. Both the FBI and CIA have access to some of the raw data produced by this surveillance, and they increasingly use that access to examine the private communications of Americans they are investigating — all without a warrant.
FBI agents routinely run searches looking for information about Americans as part of criminal investigations, including those that have nothing to do with national security. Based on the most recent reporting, agents conduct millions of these U.S. person queries — also known as “backdoor searches” — each year. The only limitation on backdoor searches is that they must be “reasonably likely” to retrieve foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.
The standard for conducting backdoor searches is so low that, without any showing of suspicion, an FBI agent can type in an American’s name, email address, or phone number, and pull up whatever communications the FBI’s Section 702 collection has vacuumed into its databases over the past five years. These searches are a free pass for accessing constitutionally protected communications that would otherwise be off-limits to the FBI, unless it got a warrant.
Evidence that agents have refused to comply with this low bar for conducting searches has piled up. Agents have violated the FBI’s own rules over and over, accessing Americans’ private communications without any legitimate purpose. They have dipped into Section 702 data for information about relatives, potential witnesses and informants, journalists, political commentators, and government officials, including a member of Congress.
4. Section 702 violates our constitutional rights, but the courts have failed to intervene.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Government agents are required to obtain a warrant to access our emails, online messages, and chats. Large-scale, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private communications is at odds with this basic constitutional principle.
Section 702 also violates the Constitution by inhibiting freedom of speech and association. The reasonable fear that the U.S. government is spying on communications may deter journalists, lawyers, activists, and others from communicating freely on the Internet. We all have a right to exchange messages with our friends, family, colleagues, and clients abroad without worrying that the government is reading over our shoulder.
Because Section 702 is unconstitutional, the ACLU and others have attempted to challenge it in court. But the courts have failed to protect our constitutional rights. Instead, courts have repeatedly dismissed civil cases challenging Section 702 — citing government claims of secrecy — and have declined to rule on claims in criminal cases that the government’s backdoor searches violate the Fourth Amendment. This year, we brought one of these cases to the Supreme Court, but it refused to consider it.
5. Congress has the power to stop Section 702 surveillance.
Given the courts’ inaction, it is up to Congress to stand up for our rights. Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted Section 702. Members of Congress should not vote to renew this law without fundamental reforms to protect Americans’ privacy.
These reforms should include:
Putting an end to rampant backdoor searches of Americans by requiring agents to obtain a warrant before searching Section 702 databases for an American’s private information.
Narrowing the scope of Section 702 surveillance by imposing stricter rules on who the government can “target,” thereby limiting the number of Americans whose communications are swept up in the course of this spying.
Limiting how long the government can retain information collected under Section 702 and how the NSA shares that information with other agencies.
Ensuring that the government notifies individuals when Section 702 information is used against them in court and provides those individuals with sufficient information to obtain full and fair court review.
Increasing transparency about the number of Americans’ communications searched and collected through Section 702 surveillance.
Beyond reforming Section 702 itself, Congress should also adopt broader safeguards that protect Americans in the face of bulk surveillance and strengthen court oversight when the government engages in spying for intelligence purposes.
Five Things to Know About NSA Mass Surveillance and the Coming Fight in Congress
One of the most sweeping surveillance statutes ever enacted by Congress is set to expire at the end of this year — creating an important opportunity to rein in America’s sprawling surveillance state.
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the U.S. government to engage in mass, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, including phone calls, texts, emails, social media messages, and web browsing. The government claims to be pursuing vaguely defined foreign intelligence “targets,” but its targets need not be spies, terrorists, or criminals. They can be virtually any foreigner abroad: journalists, academic researchers, scientists, or businesspeople. And in the course of this surveillance, the government casts a wide net that ensnares the communications of ordinary Americans on a massive scale — in violation of our constitutional rights.
As Congress debates the reauthorization of Section 702, it’s vital that we tell our representatives in Congress that we want an end to warrantless mass surveillance. Here’s what you need to know to follow the debate and speak up for your right to privacy.
1. The NSA uses Section 702 to conduct at least two large-scale surveillance programs.
The government conducts at least two kinds of surveillance under Section 702:
PRISM: The NSA obtains communications — such as international messages, emails, and internet calls — directly from U.S. tech and social media companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Microsoft. The government identifies non-U.S. person accounts it wishes to monitor, and then orders the company to disclose all communications and data to and from those accounts, including communications with U.S. persons.
Upstream: Working with companies like AT&T and Verizon, the NSA intercepts and copies Americans’ international internet communications in bulk as they flow into and out of the United States. The NSA then searches for key terms, such as email addresses or phone numbers, that are associated with its hundreds of thousands of foreign targets. Communications determined to be to and from those targets — as well as those that happen to be bundled with them in transit — are retained in NSA databases for further use and analysis.
Critically, while Section 702 does not allow the NSA to target Americans at the outset, vast quantities of our communications are still searched and amassed in government databases simply because we are in touch with people abroad. And this is the bait-and-switch: Although the law allows surveillance of foreigners abroad for “foreign intelligence” purposes, the FBI routinely exploit this rich source of our information by searching those databases to find and examine the communications of individual Americans for use in domestic investigations.
2. Section 702 surveillance is expanding.
The scale of Section 702 has been growing significantly over time, meaning more and more Americans are caught in this net.
When the government first began releasing statistics, after the Snowden revelations in 2013, it reported having 89,138 targets. By 2021, the government was targeting the communications of a staggering 232,432 individuals, groups, and organizations. Although the government often seeks to portray the surveillance as “targeted” and narrow, the reality is that it takes place on a massive scale.
Indeed, the government reported that in 2011, Section 702 surveillance resulted in the retention of more than 250 million internet communications (a number that does not reflect the far larger quantity of communications whose contents the NSA searched before discarding them). Given the rate at which the number of Section 702 targets is growing, it’s likely that the government today collects over a billion communications under Section 702 each year. But these statistics tell only part of the story. The government has never provided data on the number of Americans who are surveilled under PRISM and Upstream, a number that is surely also increasing. That is a glaring gap in its transparency reports.
3. Section 702 has morphed into a domestic surveillance tool.
Although Congress intended Section 702 to be used for counterterrorism purposes, it’s frequently used today to pursue domestic investigations of all kinds. Both the FBI and CIA have access to some of the raw data produced by this surveillance, and they increasingly use that access to examine the private communications of Americans they are investigating — all without a warrant.
FBI agents routinely run searches looking for information about Americans as part of criminal investigations, including those that have nothing to do with national security. Based on the most recent reporting, agents conduct millions of these U.S. person queries — also known as “backdoor searches” — each year. The only limitation on backdoor searches is that they must be “reasonably likely” to retrieve foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime.
The standard for conducting backdoor searches is so low that, without any showing of suspicion, an FBI agent can type in an American’s name, email address, or phone number, and pull up whatever communications the FBI’s Section 702 collection has vacuumed into its databases over the past five years. These searches are a free pass for accessing constitutionally protected communications that would otherwise be off-limits to the FBI, unless it got a warrant.
Evidence that agents have refused to comply with this low bar for conducting searches has piled up. Agents have violated the FBI’s own rules over and over, accessing Americans’ private communications without any legitimate purpose. They have dipped into Section 702 data for information about relatives, potential witnesses and informants, journalists, political commentators, and government officials, including a member of Congress.
4. Section 702 violates our constitutional rights, but the courts have failed to intervene.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Government agents are required to obtain a warrant to access our emails, online messages, and chats. Large-scale, warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private communications is at odds with this basic constitutional principle.
Section 702 also violates the Constitution by inhibiting freedom of speech and association. The reasonable fear that the U.S. government is spying on communications may deter journalists, lawyers, activists, and others from communicating freely on the Internet. We all have a right to exchange messages with our friends, family, colleagues, and clients abroad without worrying that the government is reading over our shoulder.
Because Section 702 is unconstitutional, the ACLU and others have attempted to challenge it in court. But the courts have failed to protect our constitutional rights. Instead, courts have repeatedly dismissed civil cases challenging Section 702 — citing government claims of secrecy — and have declined to rule on claims in criminal cases that the government’s backdoor searches violate the Fourth Amendment. This year, we brought one of these cases to the Supreme Court, but it refused to consider it.
5. Congress has the power to stop Section 702 surveillance.
Given the courts’ inaction, it is up to Congress to stand up for our rights. Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted Section 702. Members of Congress should not vote to renew this law without fundamental reforms to protect Americans’ privacy.
These reforms should include:
Putting an end to rampant backdoor searches of Americans by requiring agents to obtain a warrant before searching Section 702 databases for an American’s private information.
Narrowing the scope of Section 702 surveillance by imposing stricter rules on who the government can “target,” thereby limiting the number of Americans whose communications are swept up in the course of this spying.
Limiting how long the government can retain information collected under Section 702 and how the NSA shares that information with other agencies.
Ensuring that the government notifies individuals when Section 702 information is used against them in court and provides those individuals with sufficient information to obtain full and fair court review.
Increasing transparency about the number of Americans’ communications searched and collected through Section 702 surveillance.
Beyond reforming Section 702 itself, Congress should also adopt broader safeguards that protect Americans in the face of bulk surveillance and strengthen court oversight when the government engages in spying for intelligence purposes.
RuPaul’s Drag Race Finale Highlights ACLU’s Defense of Trans Rights
The highly anticipated finale of RuPaul’s Drag Race will feature incredible ensembles, sensational lip sync performances, and of course, the revelation of the season 15 winner. Alongside the competition, the finale will also highlight a joint effort with the ACLU to help defend constitutional rights and creative expression in the LGBTQ community. With our nationwide network of affiliates, supporters, and advocates, we’re showing up to fight back against hate, and holding politicians accountable for their anti-trans agenda — and you can join us.
ACLU employees represented the ACLU on the red carpet during the April 1 taping of the finale, which featured drag queens from past and present seasons. During tonight’s airing of the finale, the ACLU’s Drag Defense Fund will also get a special shoutout as a way to mobilize against mounting legal attacks against drag performers.
What is the Drag Defense Fund?
In partnership with production company World of Wonder, MTV, and RuPaul’s Drag Race, the ACLU’s Drag Defense Fund will support the ACLU’s work defending LGBTQ rights, including censorship of drag performers themselves. The ACLU is committed to the importance of drag as a First Amendment right and an important form of artistic expression. It will also fuel the ACLU’s expansive advocacy work in support of the LGBTQ community, which includes everything from courtroom battles, to guidance on state-level legislation, to challenging LGBTQ censorship in classrooms.
What’s at Stake in the Drag Community?
Drag performance has always been a hallmark of the queer community, allowing members to express themselves openly and joyously. Due in large part to the explosive success of RuPaul’s Drag Race over the years, drag performers have received widespread fanfare and support. But in the past few months, dozens of bills have also been introduced in states around the country that restrict how and where drag queens can perform. One recently-passed Tennessee bill bans drags shows in public spaces around the state, effectively criminalizing them.
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, and RuPaul’s Drag Race judges Ross Matthews and Michelle Visage being interviewed on the red carpet for the season 15 finale.
Credit: Danielle Silber
These bills censor a fundamental human right to freedom of expression and attempt to remove LGBTQ people from public life — a strategy that ACLU Ambassador for Transgender Justice and former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Peppermint recently explained.
“It is sort of a catch all that allows them to attack a word or a notion or an idea, drag, when really what they’re talking about is transgender folks,” she said on a recent episode of our At Liberty podcast. “Trans issues, trans rights, you know, anything having to do with gender and sexuality, they’re trying to dismantle that — dismantle any of the progress that we’ve had on that, and turn us into the boogeyman.”
One Part of a Larger Battle for LGBTQ Rights
These legislative attacks against drag performers, coupled with the anti-trans legislation across the country, underscore an unsettling trend. These bills are bald attempts to prevent people from expressing themselves authentically and restrict their right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. The majority of this legislation specifically targets trans youth and aims to obstruct their ability to find support and access health care. These attacks not only undermine drag queens and trans youth, but the broader LGBTQ community, and the very foundations of gender justice.
How We’re Fighting Back Against Anti-LGBTQ Attacks
Many Drag Race alumni — and RuPaul — have come forward to promote the fund, speak out against the targeted legal attacks, and uplift drag queens as champions for equal rights.
“Drag has influenced everything about my queer identity — as a performer, as a trans individual, drag has just blurred all of the things I love and am into getting to be this kind of walking art installation that is also a protest,” drag queen and season 15 finalist Sasha Colby said of the art form.
The ACLU will always show up to defend our LGBTQ community, especially amid these ongoing legislative attacks. Along with mobilizing our Drag Defense Fund, we will continue to push back against censorship, hold legislators accountable for their anti-LGBTQ agendas, and take legal action to protect our communities. With your help, we’ll be stronger than ever. Join us as we work to preserve our right to freedom of expression, inclusive communities, safe schools, and the right to be who we are without fear.
RuPaul’s Drag Race Finale Highlights ACLU’s Defense of Trans Rights
The highly anticipated finale of RuPaul’s Drag Race will feature incredible ensembles, sensational lip sync performances, and of course, the revelation of the season 15 winner. Alongside the competition, the finale will also highlight a joint effort with the ACLU to help defend constitutional rights and creative expression in the LGBTQ community. With our nationwide network of affiliates, supporters, and advocates, we’re showing up to fight back against hate, and holding politicians accountable for their anti-trans agenda — and you can join us.
ACLU employees represented the ACLU on the red carpet during the April 1 taping of the finale, which featured drag queens from past and present seasons. During tonight’s airing of the finale, the ACLU’s Drag Defense Fund will also get a special shoutout as a way to mobilize against mounting legal attacks against drag performers.
What is the Drag Defense Fund?
In partnership with production company World of Wonder, MTV, and RuPaul’s Drag Race, the ACLU’s Drag Defense Fund will support the ACLU’s work defending LGBTQ rights, including censorship of drag performers themselves. The ACLU is committed to the importance of drag as a First Amendment right and an important form of artistic expression. It will also fuel the ACLU’s expansive advocacy work in support of the LGBTQ community, which includes everything from courtroom battles, to guidance on state-level legislation, to challenging LGBTQ censorship in classrooms.
What’s at Stake in the Drag Community?
Drag performance has always been a hallmark of the queer community, allowing members to express themselves openly and joyously. Due in large part to the explosive success of RuPaul’s Drag Race over the years, drag performers have received widespread fanfare and support. But in the past few months, dozens of bills have also been introduced in states around the country that restrict how and where drag queens can perform. One recently-passed Tennessee bill bans drags shows in public spaces around the state, effectively criminalizing them.
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, and RuPaul’s Drag Race judges Ross Matthews and Michelle Visage being interviewed on the red carpet for the season 15 finale.
Credit: Danielle Silber
These bills censor a fundamental human right to freedom of expression and attempt to remove LGBTQ people from public life — a strategy that ACLU Ambassador for Transgender Justice and former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant Peppermint recently explained.
“It is sort of a catch all that allows them to attack a word or a notion or an idea, drag, when really what they’re talking about is transgender folks,” she said on a recent episode of our At Liberty podcast. “Trans issues, trans rights, you know, anything having to do with gender and sexuality, they’re trying to dismantle that — dismantle any of the progress that we’ve had on that, and turn us into the boogeyman.”
One Part of a Larger Battle for LGBTQ Rights
These legislative attacks against drag performers, coupled with the anti-trans legislation across the country, underscore an unsettling trend. These bills are bald attempts to prevent people from expressing themselves authentically and restrict their right to bodily autonomy and self-determination. The majority of this legislation specifically targets trans youth and aims to obstruct their ability to find support and access health care. These attacks not only undermine drag queens and trans youth, but the broader LGBTQ community, and the very foundations of gender justice.
How We’re Fighting Back Against Anti-LGBTQ Attacks
Many Drag Race alumni — and RuPaul — have come forward to promote the fund, speak out against the targeted legal attacks, and uplift drag queens as champions for equal rights.
“Drag has influenced everything about my queer identity — as a performer, as a trans individual, drag has just blurred all of the things I love and am into getting to be this kind of walking art installation that is also a protest,” drag queen and season 15 finalist Sasha Colby said of the art form.
The ACLU will always show up to defend our LGBTQ community, especially amid these ongoing legislative attacks. Along with mobilizing our Drag Defense Fund, we will continue to push back against censorship, hold legislators accountable for their anti-LGBTQ agendas, and take legal action to protect our communities. With your help, we’ll be stronger than ever. Join us as we work to preserve our right to freedom of expression, inclusive communities, safe schools, and the right to be who we are without fear.
We're Challenging the Racist Practice That Excludes Black Jurors from Death Penalty Cases
Leo Jones, a Black man, was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white Florida jury in 1982 for the killing of a white police officer.
The conviction rested on a key witness who later recanted his testimony, and a coerced confession from Mr. Jones, which was written by the police officers interrogating him. Both officers were later fired for a pattern of misconduct, including police brutality.
Despite the serious doubts around Mr. Jones’ conviction, the state of Florida executed him in 1998 by electric chair. Mr. Jones’ case is emblematic of pervasive issues in death penalty cases.
Juries are an integral part of our justice system.
One of the first lines of defense against miscarriages of justice is a diverse, representative jury which is much more capable of fairly weighing evidence, holding the government to its high burden, and protecting the rights of those accused of crimes than an all-white jury.
Juries are an integral part of our justice system. Their goal is the determination of truth and the fair and equitable application of law. Other than voting, serving on a jury is the most substantial opportunity that most citizens have to participate in the democratic process.
But in death penalty cases, juries are rigged to be more conviction-prone, friendlier to the prosecution, and to exclude Black community members.
This is because of a process known as death qualification, which dictates that to serve on a death penalty jury, a prospective juror must be willing to impose the death penalty. Those unwilling to impose the death penalty are excluded from jury service. Black people are more likely to oppose the death penalty — and as a result, are disproportionately excluded from death penalty juries.
But in death penalty cases, juries are rigged to be more conviction-prone, friendlier to the prosecution, and to exclude Black community members.
Black opposition and skepticism about the death penalty is unsurprising, given racial bias in the administration of the death penalty, the line between racial terror lynchings and capital punishment, and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.
We are challenging the racist death qualification jury selection process in cases in Florida and Kansas.
In Duval County, Florida, a study of 12 capital cases since 2010 (where 11 out of 12 people on trial were Black) involving more than 800 jurors found Black jurors were twice as likely to be removed as white jurors because of death qualification. We are representing two men in Duval County, who are challenging how the jury will be selected in their capital trials.
In Kansas, where we are challenging the state’s death penalty law, our expert report found that death qualification would similarly change the composition of the jury in Sedgwick County, Kansas, putting a thumb on the scales in favor of the death penalty, while disproportionately excluding Black women.
It’s an endless cycle of discrimination: Exclude skeptical Black jurors, disproportionately condemn Black people to death with whitewashed juries, prompt distrust in a racist system, and repeat.
Black exclusion from jury service is deeply embedded in and a shameful reality of our nation’s founding. Not until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1875 Civil Rights Act were Black people — newly recognized as citizens in the eyes of the law — legally guaranteed the right to serve on juries.
Even with the passage of these important guarantees, discrimination remained the reality, especially in the former confederate states. Overwhelmingly, Black people accused of crimes (often falsely) continued to be judged and sentenced by all-white juries. Conversely, Black people who were victims of racial violence and racial terror did not find justice in the courts — the white perpetrators of violence, if even brought to trial, judged by all-white juries.
It is no accident that racial disparities in mass incarceration and racial bias in the death penalty go hand –in hand with the exclusion of Black Americans from juries. All are part of the project of upholding white supremacy, much as Congress’s 1836 “gag rule” meant that no petitions to end slavery would be considered. But we are capable of changing as a nation, and we aren’t doomed to repeat the past.
Ending death qualification moves us toward overcoming the shameful history of exclusion, terror, and injustice endured by Black Americans.
Participation in the jury, a voice in the just administration of criminal laws — these are essential acts of citizenship and democracy. When we have juries that represent all of us and include all of us, we strengthen our democracy, making it fairer and more just. We have the opportunity to write a new story and leave behind a better inheritance for our nation.
We're Challenging the Racist Practice That Excludes Black Jurors from Death Penalty Cases
Leo Jones, a Black man, was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white Florida jury in 1982 for the killing of a white police officer.
The conviction rested on a key witness who later recanted his testimony, and a coerced confession from Mr. Jones, which was written by the police officers interrogating him. Both officers were later fired for a pattern of misconduct, including police brutality.
Despite the serious doubts around Mr. Jones’ conviction, the state of Florida executed him in 1998 by electric chair. Mr. Jones’ case is emblematic of pervasive issues in death penalty cases.
Juries are an integral part of our justice system.
One of the first lines of defense against miscarriages of justice is a diverse, representative jury which is much more capable of fairly weighing evidence, holding the government to its high burden, and protecting the rights of those accused of crimes than an all-white jury.
Juries are an integral part of our justice system. Their goal is the determination of truth and the fair and equitable application of law. Other than voting, serving on a jury is the most substantial opportunity that most citizens have to participate in the democratic process.
But in death penalty cases, juries are rigged to be more conviction-prone, friendlier to the prosecution, and to exclude Black community members.
This is because of a process known as death qualification, which dictates that to serve on a death penalty jury, a prospective juror must be willing to impose the death penalty. Those unwilling to impose the death penalty are excluded from jury service. Black people are more likely to oppose the death penalty — and as a result, are disproportionately excluded from death penalty juries.
But in death penalty cases, juries are rigged to be more conviction-prone, friendlier to the prosecution, and to exclude Black community members.
Black opposition and skepticism about the death penalty is unsurprising, given racial bias in the administration of the death penalty, the line between racial terror lynchings and capital punishment, and racial disparities in the criminal legal system.
We are challenging the racist death qualification jury selection process in cases in Florida and Kansas.
In Duval County, Florida, a study of 12 capital cases since 2010 (where 11 out of 12 people on trial were Black) involving more than 800 jurors found Black jurors were twice as likely to be removed as white jurors because of death qualification. We are representing two men in Duval County, who are challenging how the jury will be selected in their capital trials.
In Kansas, where we are challenging the state’s death penalty law, our expert report found that death qualification would similarly change the composition of the jury in Sedgwick County, Kansas, putting a thumb on the scales in favor of the death penalty, while disproportionately excluding Black women.
It’s an endless cycle of discrimination: Exclude skeptical Black jurors, disproportionately condemn Black people to death with whitewashed juries, prompt distrust in a racist system, and repeat.
Black exclusion from jury service is deeply embedded in and a shameful reality of our nation’s founding. Not until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1875 Civil Rights Act were Black people — newly recognized as citizens in the eyes of the law — legally guaranteed the right to serve on juries.
Even with the passage of these important guarantees, discrimination remained the reality, especially in the former confederate states. Overwhelmingly, Black people accused of crimes (often falsely) continued to be judged and sentenced by all-white juries. Conversely, Black people who were victims of racial violence and racial terror did not find justice in the courts — the white perpetrators of violence, if even brought to trial, judged by all-white juries.
It is no accident that racial disparities in mass incarceration and racial bias in the death penalty go hand –in hand with the exclusion of Black Americans from juries. All are part of the project of upholding white supremacy, much as Congress’s 1836 “gag rule” meant that no petitions to end slavery would be considered. But we are capable of changing as a nation, and we aren’t doomed to repeat the past.
Ending death qualification moves us toward overcoming the shameful history of exclusion, terror, and injustice endured by Black Americans.
Participation in the jury, a voice in the just administration of criminal laws — these are essential acts of citizenship and democracy. When we have juries that represent all of us and include all of us, we strengthen our democracy, making it fairer and more just. We have the opportunity to write a new story and leave behind a better inheritance for our nation.
