News & Commentary

Mainers shouldn’t have to fear that the government could use unmanned drones to spy on our homes and our backyards. Unfortunately, cheap technology and a change in the federal rules make the specter of backyard surveillance a real and terrifying possibility.   The Maine Legislature Judiciary Committee is set to vote as early as today on a bill to put meaningful limits on the use of surveillance drones and to prohibit the weaponization of domestic drones.   Read the full text of the bill here.   Take action TODAY to put meaningful limits in place, before it’s too late!    You can call the Senate at 1-800-423-6900 and the House at 1-800-423-2900. If you aren't sure who your representatives are, click here to search.

As we’ve blogged about before, our electronic privacy laws are woefully out-of-date. The law that protects the privacy of your electronic life — email, cell phone location records, Facebook posts, search history, cloud computing documents — was passed in 1986, the same year I was born. The ACLU has repeatedly called for a reboot to bring these laws into the 21st century, but until that happens there are smaller steps we can take to mitigate the privacy risks of logging onto the Internet.   One of those ways is by passing “Do Not Track” legislation. No matter where you go on the Internet, the odds are you’re being tracked. Legislation introduced last week would establish a Do Not Track mechanism that would function very similarly to a Do Not Call Registry, allowing users to restrict what companies collect about them and regain control of their privacy and online identity.   Online advertisers are creating profiles that contain an unprecedented breadth of personal information. Information as sensitive as the political opinions you express in a chat room can be stored in a database on the other side of the country. The Internet is one of the greatest tools at our disposal to practice our First Amendment rights, but key to technological advancement is our ability to surf and communicate online without the fear of being watched.   Here in Maine, we’re advancing a privacy package in Augusta that includes meaningful and concrete protections for your privacy, whether you’re online or offline. It’s time that Washington does the same.

Each Friday, we’ll bring you updates on the latest civil liberties news from Maine and the nation. This week, we bring you highlights from around the country, courtesy of the nationwide ACLU. “Today is March 1st – the start of Women’s History Month, which is dedicated to honoring women throughout history who have taken part in the movement to advance women’s rights. Over the years, women have fought tirelessly against discrimination to break down the social and economic barriers to gender equality.” Read more. “More than 45 briefs from religious leaders, members of Congress, retired military generals, children's advocacy groups, civil rights groups and others will be filed today in support of Edith "Edie" Windsor's challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).” Read more. “The use of surveillance drones is growing rapidly in the United States, but we know little about how the federal government employs this new technology. Now, new information obtained by the ACLU shows for the first time that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance.” Read more. “During the signing ceremony of the Voting Rights Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson characterized the law as "one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom." Since that day, this landmark civil rights law has steadily and surely defeated and deterred countless discriminatory and varied barriers to the ballot.” Read more.

Talk about great timing.  On Tuesday, the ACLU of Maine and privacy advocates testified before the Judiciary Committee in favor of a bill to put reasonable limits on law enforcement use of drones for surveillance. "An Act To Protect the Privacy of Citizens from Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Use," sponsored by Sen. John Patrick (D-Rumford), would require a warrant in most cases before police could use the unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance. Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union released new information, received in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that shows for the first time that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance over seven years ago. You can read about the released documents here. The revelation of this information underscores why we need strict rules governing the use of drones by the government.  By requiring that law enforcement secure judicial approval before using drones, we can achieve the right balance for the use of these eyes in the sky.

The ACLU of Maine has a drone.  Actually, we have two that we borrowed from Portland residents who are using drones for recreational purposes.  Our ease in obtaining drones in a week's time demonstrates that drones are now relatively cheap, easy to obtain and within the space of a few years may be ubiquitous in the American airspace.  Today was the public hearing before the Maine legislature's Judiciary Committee on LD 236, “An Act to Protect the Privacy of Citizens from Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Use.”  The work session will be held on March 7.  It was a fascinating day.  We were joined by veterans, peace activists, Tea Party leaders, Republicans, and Democrats who support meaningful limits on domestic drone surveillance in Maine. To clarify, where this legislation refers to unmanned aerial vehicles, it refers to what are commonly known as drones.  Drones may be remotely controlled or fly autonomously.  Drones can be equipped with all sorts of technology, essentially turning them into flying video cameras.  Of course, as demonstrated overseas, drones may also be equipped with highly precise weaponry.  The size of drones varies.  Among the smallest available is one that is the size of a dragonfly, and a recent Defense Department initiative is pursuing development of a drone that might be the size of a mosquito – allowing for truly covert remote surveillance. Technology has turned science fiction writers into prophets. In addition to size, a big difference between unmanned and manned aircraft is that manned aircraft have natural limits – high cost, staffing needs (and staff's need to only work so many hours), runways, etc. Drones don't have the same natural limits. They're cheaper. Some can launch from one's hands. "Pilots" can hand off the remote control without the drone landing. Natural limits mean we'll never blanket the sky with manned aircraft 24-7. Those limits just do not exist with drones.  The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads clearly: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This legislation establishes clear Fourth Amendment protections in an area of surveillance activity not contemplated by our Founders.  The warrant requirements in this bill are sensible, allowing for exceptions in the case of emergency or imminent harm.  This bill establishes the rule of law in an area that is largely unregulated. It provides that the right to privacy for our citizenry be protected. At the same time, it establishes clear guidelines that will enhance the ability of law enforcement to use evidence obtained from unmanned aerial surveillance for viable prosecutions in court in cases of suspected criminal activity.  Law enforcement should welcome the provisions of this bill that spell out so clearly when drones can and can’t be deployed to collect information about Maine people.  Effective law enforcement depends on trust within the community, and the absence of rules combined with the specter of vast surveillance undermines the community trust.  When the rules are clear, everyone benefits. At least one representative of law enforcement testified today that it is too soon to regulate drones.  This is a common refrain in the discussion of any emerging technology, and it is the reason that our laws have not kept pace.  Across the country, police departments are already obtaining drones at a rapid rate despite significant local controversy.   In response, at least 21 states across the country are moving to put in place reasonable safeguards similar to this bill.   Some states are pursuing moratoriums on drones, banning their use entirely until the technology is studied more carefully and legislation can be agreed upon.   Last week the Virginia legislature passed a two-year moratorium on drones.  The problem is that once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be too late.  It makes no sense at all to allow untrammeled surveillance of Mainers’ homes and backyards by law enforcement or any other governmental entity. Without the kinds of limits proposed by LD 236, even law-abiding people will be chilled in their movements.  The simple fact is that all people behave differently when they believe themselves to be watched as they go about their daily lives.  This has been the theory behind prison architecture for decades, and indeed, we have come to expect cameras in situations where heightened security is at issue – at the bank or the airport for example.  But Mainers shouldn’t have to fear that unmanned drones would be spying on our homes and our backyards.  Unfortunately, cheap technology and a change in the federal rules make the specter of backyard surveillance a real and terrifying possibility.  Ultimately, the right to privacy is not dead; it is just weakened as new technologies advancing each day proceed without meaningful legal safeguards.  Maine should join the growing number of states that are waking up to the strange new truth that drones are here, they are powerful, and they are virtually unchecked.  The legislature has a unique opportunity to put in place reasonable limitations on drone surveillance and protect Mainers’ privacy before it’s too late.

More and more, we are living our lives electronically. Cell phones, tablets, and laptops are common-place. We communicate with each other over texts, emails, and tweets more frequently than face-to-face conversations. Many personal records exist solely in electronic form - from bank statements to medical records. While electronic data storage is certainly convenient and cost-effective, it also exposes us to both the unintentional and malicious disclosure of personal, identifying information. To date in 2013, there have been 64 privacy breaches in the United States alone. Over 430,000 records were compromised by those breaches. An Act To Amend the Notice of Risk to Personal Data Act To Further Protect Consumers, proposed by Representative Treat of Hallowell, seeks to protect consumers when privacy breaches occur. It would require a company whose security has been breached to notify affected Mainers within 30 days of the breach. As sensitive consumer information is increasingly stored electronically, personal data are vulnerable to new kinds of security breaches. Sensitive records are accessed from every-day devices like cell phones and tablets that are easily stolen and often unencrypted. Records are also susceptible to  hackers, who are growing more sophisticated and always a step ahead of security measures. As a result, breaches are inevitable. The question is not if a breach will occur, but when. That's why it is important that companies whose systems have been compromised notify affected consumers immediately so that individuals can take the necessary steps to protect their identities and privacy. We hope the Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Financial Services will protect Mainers by supporting LD 158.