News & Commentary

When I think about myself as a young adult, I think about a time in my life where I was still very much discovering who I was. I made a lot of mistakes, had a handful of successes and needed a ton of support to grow up.  I was lucky. I had a great family and wonderful friends and a number of mentors and employers and educators who helped me a long the way.  Some young adults aren't as lucky. Others still make choices they will live to regret. Today, I testified on behalf of our organization and our members on LD 353 "An Act To Allow Young Adult Offenders To Be Confined in Juvenile Correctional Facilities and To Comply with Federal Law Requirements" before the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.  The bill would allow young adult offenders (up to age 25) to be housed at a corrections facility that houses juvenile offenders. The young adults and juveniles would be kept separated, according to state and federal standards. The young adults would have access to educational opportunities, vocational learning opportunities and various treatment programs.  We supported this bill because we know that for most people, jail or prison isn't the end of the road. We support the idea of young adults having the opportunity to truly rehabilitate and make different, better choices upon their release. That makes our communities safer and stronger in the long run. Sounds like a win-win to me! 

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.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an extremely important case, Shelby County v. Holder, that focuses on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. Passed in 1965, the act is one of the most effective and enduring pieces of civil rights legislation in American history. The ACLU intervened in the case on behalf of the Alabama NAACP and several African-American residents whose voting rights are directly impacted by the challenge. At issue is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which serves as a “discrimination checkpoint” of sorts. It says that state and local governments with a history of racial discrimination in voting must obtain federal clearance before making changes that affect voting. The Department of Justice has repeatedly used Section 5 to block discriminatory voting laws, including in Texas as recently as August of last year. The provisions of Section 5 have been extended by Congress on four separate occasions, most recently in 2006. Without it, the right to vote for people of color becomes considerably more difficult to protect. Check out our interactive timeline to see how the Voting Rights Act has protected the right to vote since 1965, and continues to do so in light of ongoing restrictive voting laws that target communities of color. It will likely be several months before we know how the justices will rule, but Wednesday’s oral arguments should provide the first clues. We’ll be watching very closely and we’ll keep you informed when the decision is ultimately handed down.

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.

Toda

To identify someone there’s no need for face or license-plate recognition (which may be impractical from above anyhow), cell phone tracking, gait recognition, or what have you. Even knowing where a little green square starts and finishes its day can reveal a lot, because it turns out that even relatively rough location information about a person will often identify them uniquely.  

The photo above is our own Shenna Bellows, speaking at a press conference to support an early voting amendment to our state's constitution. The bill, which had a public hearing earlier today, was brought forward by Representative Mike Shaw of Standish. Representative Shaw and his town clerk both testified about the importance of instituting true early voting across the Pine Tree State. You might be reading this and thinking "don't we already have early voting in Maine?" Not really. Maybe you, like me, go to your town and vote before election day. This is actually called "in person absentee voting", a process that some towns have adopted to help increase voter turnout by allowing voters more options than when the polls are open on election day. There's also absentee voting, which allows you to request a ballot by mail that you in turn mail back, 45 days before the election. We're 100% behind this early voting amendment, because we believe voting is fundamental to our democracy. In fact, the right to vote is tied to so many other rights and is defended throughout our constitution. We support expanding access to voting, not limiting it.  Many Mainers - as many as 27% in the last election - vote absentee! Allowing true early voting, where the votes are counted at the time they are cast, would reduce the burden on clerks who now have to wait to submit absentee ballots after the polls close. We were thrilled to be joined by the League of Women Voters, the Maine Women's Lobby, the League of Young Voters, Representatives Berry and Beavers and a handful of supportive town clerks at today's public hearing and press conference. We're off to a great start and will keep you posted on our progress. 

Last