Across the United States, nearly every state’s prison system offers some form of tablet access to incarcerated people, many of which boast of sizable libraries of eBooks. Knowing this, one might assume that access to books is on the rise for incarcerated folks. Unfortunately, this is not the case. A combination of predatory pricing, woefully inadequate eBook catalogs, and bad policies restricting access to paper literature has exacerbated an already acute book censorship problem in U.S. prison systems.

New data collected by the Prison Banned Books Week campaign focuses on the widespread use of tablet devices in prison systems, as well as their pricing structure and libraries of eBooks. Through a combination of interviews with incarcerated people and a nationwide FOIA campaign to uncover the details of these tablet programs, this campaign has found that, despite offering access to tens of thousands of eBooks, prisons’ tablet programs actually provide little in the way of valuable reading material. The tablets themselves are heavily restricted, and typically only designed by one of two companies: Securus and ViaPath. The campaign also found that the material these programs do provide may not be accessible to many incarcerated individuals.

“We might as well be rummaging the dusty old leftovers in some thrift store or back alley dumpster.”

Limited, Censored Selections at Unreasonable Prices

Many companies that offer tablets to carceral facilities advertise libraries of several thousand books. But the data reveals that a huge proportion of these books are public domain texts taken directly from Project Gutenberg. While Project Gutenberg is itself laudable for collecting freely accessible eBooks, and its library contains many of the “classics” of Western literary canon, a massive number of its texts are irrelevant and outdated. As Shawn Y., an incarcerated interviewee in Pennsylvania put it, “Books are available for purchase through the Securus systems, but most of the bookworms here [...] find the selection embarrassingly thin, laughable even. [...] We might as well be rummaging the dusty old leftovers in some thrift store or back alley dumpster.”

These limitations on eBook selections exacerbate the already widespread censorship of physical reading materials, based on a variety of factors including books being deemed “harmful” content, determinations based on the book’s vendor (which, reports indicate, can operate as a ban on publishers), and whether the incarcerated person obtained advance permission from a prison administrator. Such censorial decisionmaking undermines incarcerated individuals’ right to receive information.

These costs are a barrier that deprive those in carceral facilities from developing and maintaining a connection with life outside prison walls.

Some facilities charge $0.99 or more per eBook—despite their often meager, antiquated selections. While this may not seem exorbitant to many people, a recent estimate of average hourly wages for incarcerated people in the US is $0.63 per hour. And these otherwise free eBooks can often cost much more: Larry, an individual incarcerated in Pennsylvania, explains, “[s]ome of the prices for other books [are] extremely outrageous.” In Larry’s facility, “[s]ome of those tablet prices range over twenty dollars and even higher.”

Even if one can afford to rent these eBooks, they may have to pay for the tablets required to read them. For some incarcerated individuals, these costs can be prohibitive: procurement contracts in some states appear to require incarcerated people to pay upwards of $99 to use them. These costs are a barrier that deprive those in carceral facilities from developing and maintaining a connection with life outside prison walls.

Part of a Trend Toward Inadequate Digital Replacements

The trend of eliminating physical books and replacing them with digital copies accessible via tablets is emblematic of a larger trend from physical to digital that is occurring throughout our carceral system. These digital copies are not adequate substitutes. One of the hallmarks of tangible physical items is access: someone can open a physical book and read it when, how, and where they want. That’s not the case with the tablet systems prisons are adopting, and worryingly this trend has also extended to such personal items as incarcerated individual's personal mail.

EFF is actively litigating to defend incarcerated individuals’ rights to access and receive tangible reading materials with our ABO Comix lawsuit. There, we—along with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Social Justice Legal Foundation—are fighting a San Mateo County (California) policy that bans those in San Mateo jails from receiving physical mail. Our complaint explains that San Mateo’s policy requires the friends and families of those jailed in its facilities to send their letters to a private company that scans them, destroys the physical copy, and retains the scan in a searchable database—for at least seven years after the intended recipient leaves the jail’s custody. Incarcerated people can only access the digital copies through a limited number of shared tablets and kiosks in common areas within the jails.

Just as incarcerated peoples’ reading materials are censored, so is their mail when physical letters are replaced with digital facsimiles. Our complaint details how ripping open, scanning, and retaining mail has impeded the ability of those in San Mateo’s facilities to communicate with their loved ones, as well as their ability to receive educational and religious study materials. These digital replacements are inadequate both in and of themselves and because the tablets needed to access them are in short supply and often plagued by technical issues. Along with our free expression allegations, our complaint also alleges that the seizing, searching, and sharing of data from and about their letters violates the rights of both senders and recipients against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Our ABO Comix litigation is ongoing. We are hopeful that the courts will recognize the free expression and privacy harms to incarcerated individuals and those who communicate with them that come from digitizing physical mail. We are also hopeful, on the occasion of this Prison Banned Books Week, for an end to the censorship of incarcerated individuals’ reading materials: restricting what some of us can read harms us all.

A previously classified transcript reveals Congress knows full well that American TikTok users engage in First Amendment protected speech on the platform and that banning the application is an inadequate way to protect privacy—but it banned TikTok anyway.

The government submitted the partially redacted transcript as part of the ongoing litigation over the federal TikTok ban (which the D.C. Circuit just heard arguments about this week). The transcript indicates that that members of Congress and law enforcement recognize that Americans are engaging in First Amendment protected speech—the same recognition a federal district court made when it blocked Montana’s TikTok ban from going into effect. They also agreed that adequately protecting Americans’ data requires comprehensive consumer privacy protections.

Yet, Congress banned TikTok anyway, undermining our rights and failing to protect our privacy.

No Indication of Actual Harm, No New Arguments

The members and officials didn’t make any particularly new points about the dangers of TikTok. Further, they repeatedly characterized their fears as hypothetical. The transcript is replete with references to the possibility of the Chinese government using TikTok to manipulate the content Americans’ see on the application, including to shape their views on foreign and domestic issues. For example, the official representing the DOJ expressed concern that the public and private data TikTok users generate on the platform is

potentially at risk of going to the Chinese government, [and] being used now or in the future by the Chinese government in ways that could be deeply harmful to tens of millions of young people who might want to pursue careers in government, who might want to pursue careers in the human rights field, and who one day could end up at odds with the Chinese Government’s agenda.  

There is no indication from the unredacted portions of the transcript that this is happening. This DOJ official went on to express concern “with the narratives that are being consumed on the platform,” the Chinese government’s ability to influence those narratives, and the U.S. government’s preference for “responsible ownership” of the platform through divestiture.

At one point, Representative Walberg even suggested that “certain public policy organizations” that oppose the TikTok ban should be investigated for possible ties to ByteDance (the company that owns TikTok). Of course, the right to oppose an ill-conceived ban on a popular platform goes to the very reason the U.S. has a First Amendment.

Congress banned TikTok anyway, undermining our rights and failing to protect our privacy.

Americans’ Speech and Privacy Rights Deserved More

Rather than grandstanding about investigating opponents of the TikTok ban, Congress should spend its time considering the privacy and free speech arguments of those opponents. Judging by the (redacted) transcript, the committee failed to undertake that review here.

First, the First Amendment rightly subjects bans like this one for TikTok to extraordinarily exacting judicial scrutiny. That is true even with foreign propaganda, which Americans have a well-established First Amendment right to receive. And it’s ironic for the DOJ to argue that banning an application which people use for self-expression—a human right—is necessary to protect their ability to advance human rights.

Second, if Congress wants to stop the Chinese government from potentially acquiring data about social media users, it should pass comprehensive consumer privacy legislation that regulates how all social media companies can collect, process, store, and sell Americans’ data. Otherwise, foreign governments and adversaries will still be able to acquire Americans’ data by stealing it, or by using a straw purchaser to buy it.

It’s especially jarring to read that a foreign government’s potential collection of data supposedly justifies banning an application, given Congress’s recent renewal of an authority—Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—under which the U.S. government actually collects massive amounts of Americans’ communications— and which the FBI immediately directed its agents to abuse (yet again).

EFF will continue fighting for TikTok users’ First Amendment rights to express themselves and to receive information on the platform. We will also continue urging Congress to drop these square peg, round hole approaches to Americans’ privacy and online expression and pass comprehensive privacy legislation that offers Americans genuine protection from the invasive ways any company uses data. While Congress did not fully consider the First Amendment and privacy interests of TikTok users, we hope the federal courts will.

The Constitution prohibits dragnet device searches, especially when those searches are designed to uncover political speech, EFF explained in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The case, Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs, challenges device and data seizures and searches conducted by the Colorado Springs police after a 2021 housing rights march that the police deemed “illegal.” The plaintiffs in the case, Jacqueline Armendariz and a local organization called the Chinook Center, argue these searches violated their civil rights.

The case details repeated actions by the police to target and try to intimidate plaintiffs and other local civil rights activists solely for their political speech. After the 2021 march, police arrested several protesters, including Ms. Armendariz. Police alleged Ms. Armendariz “threw” her bike at an officer as he was running, and despite that the bike never touched the officer, police charged her with attempted simple assault. Police then used that charge to support warrants to seize and search six of her electronic devices—including several phones and laptops. The search warrant authorized police to comb through these devices for all photos, videos, messages, emails, and location data sent or received over a two-month period and to conduct a time-unlimited search of 26 keywords—including for terms as broad and sweeping as “officer,” “housing,” “human,” “right,” “celebration,” “protest,” and several common names. Separately, police obtained a warrant to search all of the Chinook Center’s Facebook information and private messages sent and received by the organization for a week, even though the Center was not accused of any crime.

After Ms. Armendariz and the Chinook Center filed their civil rights suit, represented by the ACLU of Colorado, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the searches were justified and, in any case, officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Ms. Armendariz and the Center appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

As explained in our amicus brief—which was joined by the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—the devices searched contain a wealth of personal information. For that reason, and especially where, as here, political speech is implicated, it is imperative that warrants comply with the Fourth Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Riley v. California that electronic devices such as smartphones “differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense” from other objects. Our electronic devices’ immense storage capacities means that just one type of data can reveal more than previously possible because they can span years’ worth of information. For example, location data can reveal a person’s “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” And combined with all of the other available data—including photos, video, and communications—a device such as a smartphone or laptop can store a “digital record of nearly every aspect” of a person’s life, “from the mundane to the intimate.” Social media data can also reveal sensitive, private information, especially with respect to users' private messages.

It’s because our devices and the data they contain can be so revealing that warrants for this information must rigorously adhere to the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of probable cause and particularity.

Those requirements weren’t met here. The police’s warrants failed to establish probable cause that any evidence of the crime they charged Ms. Armendariz with—throwing her bike at an officer—would be found on her devices. And the search warrant, which allowed officers to rifle through months of her private records, was so overbroad and lacking in particularity as to constitute an unconstitutional “general warrant.” Similarly, the warrant for the Chinook Center’s Facebook messages lacked probable cause and was especially invasive given that access to these messages may well have allowed police to map activists who communicated with the Center and about social and political advocacy.

The warrants in this case were especially egregious because they appear designed to uncover First Amendment-protected activity. Where speech is targeted, the Supreme Court has recognized that it’s all the more crucial that warrants apply the Fourth Amendment’s requirements with “scrupulous exactitude” to limit an officer’s discretion in conducting a search. But that failed to happen here, and thus affected several of Ms. Armendariz and the Chinook Center’s First Amendment rights—including the right to free speech, the right to free association, and the right to receive information.

Warrants that fail to meet the Fourth Amendment’s requirements disproportionately burden disfavored groups. In fact, the Framers adopted the Fourth Amendment to prevent the “use of general warrants as instruments of oppression”—but as legal scholars have noted, law enforcement routinely uses low-level, highly discretionary criminal offenses to impose order on protests. Once arrests are made, they are often later dropped or dismissed—but the damage is done, because protesters are off the streets, and many may be chilled from returning. Protesters undoubtedly will be further chilled if an arrest for a low-level offense then allows police to rifle through their devices and digital data, as happened in this case.

The Tenth Circuit should let this case to proceed. Allowing police to conduct a virtual fishing expedition of a protester’s devices, especially when justification for that search is an arrest for a crime that has no digital nexus, contravenes the Fourth Amendment’s purposes and chills speech. It is unconstitutional and should not be tolerated.

When you talk to your friends and family on Snapchat or Facebook, you should be assured that those services will not freely disclose your communications to the government or other private parties.

That is why the California Supreme Court must take up and reverse the appellate opinion in the case of Snap v. The Superior Court of San Diego County. This opinion dangerously weakens the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which is one of the few federal privacy laws on the books. The SCA prevents certain communications providers from disclosing the content of your communications to private parties or the government without a warrant (or other narrow exceptions).

EFF submitted an amicus letter to the court, along with the Center for Democracy & Technology.

The lower court incorrectly ruled that modern services like Snapchat and Facebook largely do not have to comply with the 1986 law. Since those companies already access the content of your communications for their own business purposes—including to target their behavioral advertising—the lower court held that they can also freely disclose the content of your communications to anyone.

The ruling came in the context of a criminal defendant who sought access to the communications of a deceased victim with a subpoena. In compliance with the law, both Meta and Snap resisted disclosing the information.

The lower court’s opinion conflicts with nearly 40 years of interpretation by Congress and other courts. It ignores the SCA’s primary purpose of protecting your communications from disclosure. And the opinion gives too much weight to companies’ terms of service. Those terms, which almost no one reads, is where most companies bury their own right to access to your communications.

There is no doubt that companies should also be restricted in how they access and use your data, and we need stronger laws to make that happen. For years, EFF has advocated for comprehensive data privacy legislation, including data minimization and a ban on online behavioral advertising. But that does not affect the current analysis of the SCA, which protects against disclosure now.

If the California Supreme Court does not take this up, Meta, Snap, and other providers would be allowed to voluntarily disclose the content of their users’ communications to any other corporations for any reason, to parties in civil litigation, and to the government without a warrant. Private parties could also compel disclosure with a mere subpoena.

This post was written by EFF legal intern Danya Hajjaji.

Law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant to search data contained in abandoned cell phones, EFF and others explained in a friend-of-the-court brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case, United States v. Hunt, involves law enforcement’s seizure and search of an iPhone the defendant left behind after being shot and taken to the hospital. The district court held that the iPhone’s physical abandonment meant that the defendant also abandoned the data stored on the phone. In support of the defendant’s appeal, we urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court’s ruling and hold that the Fourth Amendment’s abandonment exception does not apply to cell phones: as it must in other circumstances, law enforcement should generally have to obtain a warrant before it searches someone’s cell phone.

Cell phones differ significantly from other physical property. They are pocket-sized troves of highly sensitive information with immense storage capacity. Today’s phone carries and collects vast and varied data that encapsulates a user’s daily life and innermost thoughts.

Courts—including the US Supreme Court—have recognized that cell phones contain the “sum of an individual’s private life.” And, because of this recognition, law enforcement must generally obtain a warrant before it can search someone’s phone.

While people routinely carry cell phones, they also often lose them. That should not mean losing the data contained on the phones.

While the Fourth Amendment’s ”abandonment doctrine” permits law enforcement to conduct a warrantless seizure or search of an abandoned item, EFF’s brief explains that this precedent does not mechanically apply to cell phones. As the Supreme Court has recognized multiple times, the rote application of case law from prior eras with less invasive and revealing technologies threatens our Fourth Amendment protections.

Our brief goes on to explain that a cell phone owner rarely (if ever) intentionally relinquishes their expectation of privacy and possessory interests in data on their cell phones, as they must for the abandonment doctrine to apply. The realities of the modern cell phone seldom infer a purpose to discard the wealth of data they contain. Cell phone data is not usually confined to the phone itself, and is instead stored in the “cloud” and accessible across multiple devices (such as laptops, tablets, and smartwatches).

We hope the Ninth Circuit recognizes that expanding the abandonment doctrine in the manner envisioned by the district court in Hunt would make today’s cell phone an accessory to the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights.

The Canadian House of Commons is currently considering Bill C-26, which would make sweeping amendments to the country’s Telecommunications Act that would expand its Minister of Industry’s power over telecommunication service providers. It’s designed to accomplish a laudable and challenging goal: ensure that government and industry partners efficiently and effectively work together to strengthen Canada’s network security in the face of repeated hacking attacks.

C-26 is not identical to US national security laws. But without adequate safeguards, it could open the door to similar practices and orders.

As researchers and civil society organizations have noted, however, the legislation contains vague and overbroad language that may invite abuse and pressure on ISPs to do the government’s bidding at the expense of Canadian privacy rights. It would vest substantial authority in Canadian executive branch officials to (in the words of C-26’s summary) “direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.” That could include ordering telecommunications companies to install backdoors inside encrypted elements in Canada’s networks. Safeguards to protect privacy and civil rights are few; C-26’s only express limit is that Canadian officials cannot order service providers to intercept private or radio-based telephone communications.

Unfortunately, we in the United States know all too well what can happen when government officials assert broad discretionary power over telecommunications networks. For over 20 years, the U.S. government has deputized internet service providers and systems to surveil Americans and their correspondents, without meaningful judicial oversight. These legal authorities and details of the surveillance have varied, but, in essence, national security law has allowed the U.S. government to vacuum up digital communications so long as the surveillance is directed at foreigners currently located outside the United States and doesn’t intentionally target Americans. Once collected, the FBI can search through this massive database of information by “querying” the communications of specific individuals. In 2021 alone, the FBI conducted up to 3.4 million warrantless searches to find Americans’ communications.

Congress has attempted to add in additional safeguards over the years, to little avail. In 2023, for example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released internal documents used to guide agency personnel on how to search the massive databases of information they collect. Despite reassurances from the intelligence community about its “culture of compliance,” these documents reflect little interest in protecting privacy or civil liberties. At the same time, the NSA and domestic law enforcement authorities have been seeking to undermine the encryption tools and processes on which we all rely to protect our privacy and security.

C-26 is not identical to U.S. national security laws. But without adequate safeguards, it could open the door to similar practices and orders. What is worse, some of those orders could be secret, at the government’s discretion. In the U.S., that kind of secrecy has made it impossible for Americans to challenge mass surveillance in court. We’ve also seen companies presented with gag orders in connection with “national security letters” compelling them to hand over information. C-26 does allow for judicial review of non-secret orders, e.g. an order requiring an ISP to cut off an account-holder or website, if the subject of those orders believes they are unreasonable or ungrounded. But that review may include secret evidence that is kept from applicants and their counsel.

Canadian courts will decide whether a law authorizing secret orders and evidence is consistent with Canada’s legal tradition. But either way, the U.S. experience offers a cautionary tale of what can happen when a government grants itself broad powers to monitor and direct telecommunications networks, absent corresponding protections for human rights. In effect, the U.S. government has created, in the name of national security, a broad exception to the Constitution that allows the government to spy on all Americans and denies them any viable means of challenging that spying. We hope Canadians will refuse to allow their government to do the same in the name of “cybersecurity.”

The government violates the privacy rights of individuals on pretrial release when it continuously tracks, retains, and shares their location, EFF explained in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the case, Simon v. San Francisco, individuals on pretrial release are challenging the City and County of San Francisco’s electronic ankle monitoring program. The lower court ruled the program likely violates the California and federal constitutions. We—along with Professor Kate Weisburd and the Cato Institute—urge the Ninth Circuit to do the same.

Under the program, the San Francisco County Sheriff collects and indefinitely retains geolocation data from people on pretrial release and turns it over to other law enforcement entities without suspicion or a warrant. The Sheriff shares both comprehensive geolocation data collected from individuals and the results of invasive reverse location searches of all program participants’ location data to determine whether an individual on pretrial release was near a specified location at a specified time.

Electronic monitoring transforms individuals’ homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods into digital prisons, in which devices physically attached to people follow their every movement. All location data can reveal sensitive, private information about individuals, such as whether they were at an office, union hall, or house of worship. This is especially true for the GPS data at issue in Simon, given its high degree of accuracy and precision. Both federal and state courts recognize that location data is sensitive, revealing information in which one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. And, as EFF’s brief explains, the Simon plaintiffs do not relinquish this reasonable expectation of privacy in their location information merely because they are on pretrial release—to the contrary, their privacy interests remain substantial.

Moreover, as EFF explains in its brief, this electronic monitoring is not only invasive, but ineffective and (contrary to its portrayal as a detention alternative) an expansion of government surveillance. Studies have not found significant relationships between electronic monitoring of individuals on pretrial release and their court appearance rates or  likelihood of arrest. Nor do studies show that law enforcement is employing electronic monitoring with individuals they would otherwise put in jail. To the contrary, studies indicate that law enforcement is using electronic monitoring to surveil and constrain the liberty of those who wouldn’t otherwise be detained.

We hope the Ninth Circuit affirms the trial court and recognizes the rights of individuals on pretrial release against invasive electronic monitoring.

Montana’s TikTok ban violates the First Amendment, EFF and others told the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a friend-of-the-court brief and urged the court to affirm a trial court’s holding from December 2023 to that effect.

Montana’s ban (which EFF and others opposed) prohibits TikTok from operating anywhere within the state and imposes financial penalties on TikTok or any mobile application store that allows users to access TikTok. The district court recognized that Montana’s law “bans TikTok outright and, in doing so, it limits constitutionally protected First Amendment speech,” and blocked Montana’s ban from going into effect. Last year, EFF—along with the ACLU, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Reason Foundation, and the Center for Democracy and Technology—filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of TikTok and Montana TikTok users’ challenge to this law at the trial court level.

As the brief explains, Montana’s TikTok ban is a prior restraint on speech that prohibits Montana TikTok users—and TikTok itself—from posting on the platform. The law also prohibits TikTok’s ability to make decisions about curating its platform.

Prior restraints such as Montana’s ban are presumptively unconstitutional. For a court to uphold a prior restraint, the First Amendment requires it to satisfy the most exacting scrutiny. The prior restraint must be necessary to further an urgent interest of the highest magnitude, and the narrowest possible way for the government to accomplish its precise interest. Montana’s TikTok ban fails to meet this demanding standard.

Even if the ban is not a prior restraint, the brief illustrates that it would still violate the First Amendment. Montana’s law is a “total ban” on speech: it completely forecloses TikTok users’ speech with respect to the entire medium of expression that is TikTok. As a result, Montana’s ban is subject to an exacting tailoring requirement: it must target and eliminate “no more than the exact source of the ‘evil’ it seeks to remedy.” Montana’s law is undeniably overbroad and fails to satisfy this scrutiny.

This appeal is happening in the immediate aftermath of President Biden signing into law federal legislation that effectively bans TikTok in its current form, by requiring TikTok to divest of any Chinese ownership within 270 days. This federal law raises many of the same First Amendment concerns as Montana’s.

It’s important that the Ninth Circuit take this opportunity to make clear that the First Amendment requires the government to satisfy a very demanding standard before it can impose these types of extreme restrictions on Americans’ speech.

A bombshell report from WIRED reveals that two days after the U.S. Congress renewed and expanded the mass-surveillance authority Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Paul Abbate, sent an email imploring agents to “use” Section 702 to search the communications of Americans collected under this authority “to demonstrate why tools like this are essential” to the FBI’s mission.

In other words, an agency that has repeatedly abused this exact authority—with 3.4 million warrantless searches of Americans’ communications in 2021 alone, thinks that the answer to its misuse of mass surveillance of Americans is to do more of it, not less. And it signals that the FBI believes it should do more surveillance–not because of any pressing national security threat—but because the FBI has an image problem.

The American people should feel a fiery volcano of white hot rage over this revelation. During the recent fight over Section 702’s reauthorization, we all had to listen to the FBI and the rest of the Intelligence Community downplay their huge number of Section 702 abuses (but, never fear, they were fixed by drop-down menus!). The government also trotted out every monster of the week in incorrect arguments seeking to undermine the bipartisan push for crucial reforms. Ultimately, after fighting to a draw in the House, Congress bent to the government’s will: it not only failed to reform Section 702, but gave the government authority to use Section 702 in more cases.

Now, immediately after extracting this expanded power and fighting off sensible reforms, the FBI’s leadership is urging the agency to “continue to look for ways” to make more use of this controversial authority to surveil Americans, albeit with the fig leaf that it must be “legal.” And not because of an identifiable, pressing threat to national security, but to “demonstrate” the importance of domestic law enforcement accessing the pool of data collected via mass surveillance. This is an insult to everyone who cares about accountability, civil liberties, and our ability to have a private conversation online. It also raises the question of whether the FBI is interested in keeping us safe or in merely justifying its own increased powers. 

Section 702 allows the government to conduct surveillance inside the United States by vacuuming up digital communications so long as the surveillance is directed at foreigners currently located outside the United States. Section 702 prohibits the government from intentionally targeting Americans. But, because we live in a globalized world where Americans constantly communicate with people (and services) outside the United States, the government routinely acquires millions of innocent Americans' communications “incidentally” under Section 702 surveillance. Not only does the government acquire these communications without a probable cause warrant, so long as the government can make out some connection to FISA’s very broad definition of “foreign intelligence,” the government can then conduct warrantless “backdoor searches” of individual Americans’ incidentally collected communications. 702 creates an end run around the Constitution for the FBI and, with the Abbate memo, they are being urged to use it as much as they can.

The recent reauthorization of Section 702 also expanded this mass surveillance authority still further, expanding in turn the FBI’s ability to exploit it. To start, it substantially increased the scope of entities who the government could require to turn over Americans’ data in mass under Section 702. This provision is written so broadly that it potentially reaches any person or company with “access” to “equipment” on which electronic communications travel or are stored, regardless of whether they are a direct provider, which could include landlords, maintenance people, and many others who routinely have access to your communications.

The reauthorization of Section 702 also expanded FISA’s already very broad definition of “foreign intelligence” to include counternarcotics: an unacceptable expansion of a national security authority to ordinary crime. Further, it allows the government to use Section 702 powers to vet hopeful immigrants and asylum seekers—a particularly dangerous authority which opens up this or future administrations to deny entry to individuals based on their private communications about politics, religion, sexuality, or gender identity.

Americans who care about privacy in the United States are essentially fighting a political battle in which the other side gets to make up the rules, the terrain…and even rewrite the laws of gravity if they want to. Politicians can tell us they want to keep people in the U.S. safe without doing anything to prevent that power from being abused, even if they know it will be. It’s about optics, politics, and security theater; not realistic and balanced claims of safety and privacy. The Abbate memo signals that the FBI is going to work hard to create better optics for itself so that it can continue spying in the future.   

Over the last month, lawmakers moved swiftly to pass legislation that would effectively ban TikTok in the United States, eventually including it in a foreign aid package that was signed by President Biden. The impact of this legislation isn’t entirely clear yet, but what is clear: whether TikTok is banned or sold to new owners, millions of people in the U.S. will no longer be able to get information and communicate with each other as they presently do. 

What Happens Next?

At the moment, TikTok isn’t “banned.” The law gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok before the ban would take effect, which would be on January 19th, 2025. In the meantime, we expect courts to determine that the bill is unconstitutional. Though there is no lawsuit yet, one on behalf of TikTok itself is imminent.

There are three possible outcomes. If the law is struck down, as it should be, nothing will change. If ByteDance divests TikTok by selling it, then the platform would still likely be usable. However, there’s no telling whether the app’s new owners would change its functionality, its algorithms, or other aspects of the company. As we’ve seen with other platforms, a change in ownership can result in significant changes that could impact its audience in unexpected ways. In fact, that’s one of the given reasons to force the sale: so TikTok will serve different content to users, specifically when it comes to Chinese propaganda and misinformation. This is despite the fact that it has been well-established law for almost 60 years that U.S. people have a First Amendment right to receive foreign propaganda. 

Lastly, if ByteDance refuses to sell, users in the U.S. will likely see it disappear from app stores sometime between now and that January 19, 2025 deadline. 

How Will the Ban Be Implemented? 

The law limits liability to intermediaries—entities that “provide services to distribute, maintain, or update” TikTok by means of a marketplace, or that provide internet hosting services to enable the app’s distribution, maintenance, or updating. The law also makes intermediaries responsible for its implementation. 

The law explicitly denies to the Attorney General the authority to enforce it against an individual user of a foreign adversary controlled application, so users themselves cannot be held liable for continuing to use the application, if they can access it. 

Will I Be Able to Download or Use TikTok If ByteDance Doesn’t Sell? 

It’s possible some U.S. users will find routes around the ban. But the vast majority will probably not, significantly shifting the platform's user base and content. If ByteDance itself assists in the distribution of the app, it could also be found liable, so even if U.S. users continue to use the platform, the company’s ability to moderate and operate the app in the U.S. would likely be impacted. Bottom line: for a period of time after January 19, it’s possible that the app would be usable, but it’s unlikely to be the same platform—or even a very functional one in the U.S.—for very long.

Until now, the United States has championed the free flow of information around the world as a fundamental democratic principle and called out other nations when they have shut down internet access or banned social media apps and other online communications tools. In doing so, the U.S. has deemed restrictions on the free flow of information to be undemocratic.  Enacting this legislation has undermined this long standing, democratic principle. It has also undermined the U.S. government’s moral authority to call out other nations for when they shut down internet access or ban social media apps and other online communications tools. 

There are a few reasons legislators have given to ban TikTok. One is to change the type of content on the app—a clear First Amendment violation. The second is to protect data privacy. Our lawmakers should work to protect data privacy, but this was the wrong approach. They should prevent any company—regardless of where it is based—from collecting massive amounts of our detailed personal data, which is then made available to data brokers, U.S. government agencies, and even foreign adversaries. They should solve the real problem of out-of-control privacy invasions by enacting comprehensive consumer data privacy legislation. Instead, as happens far too often, our government’s actions are vastly overreaching while also deeply underserving the public. 

One week after it was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate has passed what Senator Ron Wyden has called, “one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history.” President Biden then rushed to sign it into law.  

The perhaps ironically named “Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA)” does everything BUT reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). RISAA not only reauthorizes this mass surveillance program, it greatly expands the government’s authority by allowing it to compel a much larger group of people and providers into assisting with this surveillance. The bill’s only significant “compromise” is a limited, two-year extension of this mass surveillance. But overall, RISAA is a travesty for Americans who deserve basic constitutional rights and privacy whether they are communicating with people and services inside or outside of the US.

Section 702 allows the government to conduct surveillance of foreigners abroad from inside the United States. It operates, in part, through the cooperation of large telecommunications service providers: massive amounts of traffic on the Internet backbone are accessed and those communications on the government’s secret list are copied. And that’s just one part of the massive, expensive program. 

While Section 702 prohibits the NSA and FBI from intentionally targeting Americans with this mass surveillance, these agencies routinely acquire a huge amount of innocent Americans' communications “incidentally.” The government can then conduct backdoor, warrantless searches of these “incidentally collected” communications.

The government cannot even follow the very lenient rules about what it does with the massive amount of information it gathers under Section 702, repeatedly abusing this authority by searching its databases for Americans’ communications. In 2021 alone, the FBI reported conducting up to 3.4 million warrantless searches of Section 702 data using Americans’ identifiers. Given this history of abuse, it is difficult to understand how Congress could decide to expand the government’s power under Section 702 rather than rein it in.

One of RISAA’s most egregious expansions is its large but ill-defined increase of the range of entities that have to turn over information to the NSA and FBI. This provision allegedly “responds” to a 2023 decision by the FISC Court of Review, which rejected the government’s argument that an unknown company was subject to Section 702 for some circumstances. While the New York Times reports that the unknown company from this FISC opinion was a data center, this new provision is written so expansively that it potentially reaches any person or company with “access” to “equipment” on which electronic communications travel or are stored, regardless of whether they are a direct provider. This could potentially include landlords, maintenance people, and many others who routinely have access to your communications on the interconnected internet.

This is to say nothing of RISAA’s other substantial expansions. RISAA changes FISA’s definition of “foreign intelligence” to include “counternarcotics”: this will allow the government to use FISA to collect information relating to not only the “international production, distribution, or financing of illicit synthetic drugs, opioids, cocaine, or other drugs driving overdose deaths,” but also to any of their precursors. While surveillance under FISA has (contrary to what most Americans believe) never been limited exclusively to terrorism and counterespionage, RISAA’s expansion of FISA to ordinary crime is unacceptable.

RISAA also allows the government to use Section 702 to vet immigrants and those seeking asylum. According to a FISC opinion released in 2023, the FISC repeatedly denied government attempts to obtain some version of this authority, before finally approving it for the first time in 2023. By formally lowering Section 702’s protections for immigrants and asylum seekers, RISAA exacerbates the risk that government officials could discriminate against members of these populations on the basis of their sexuality, gender identity, religion, or political beliefs.

Faced with massive pushback from EFF and other civil liberties advocates, some members of Congress, like Senator Ron Wyden, raised the alarm. We were able to squeeze out a couple of small concessions. One was a shorter reauthorization period for Section 702, meaning that the law will be up for review in just two more years. Also, in a letter to Congress, the Department of Justice claimed it would only interpret the new provision to apply to the type of unidentified businesses at issue in the 2023 FISC opinion. But a pinky promise from the current Department of Justice is not enforceable and easily disregarded by a future administration. There is some possible hope here, because Senator Mark Warner promised to return to the provision in a later defense authorization bill, but this whole debacle just demonstrates how Congress gives the NSA and FBI nearly free rein when it comes to protecting Americans – any limitation that actually protects us (and here the FISA Court actually did some protecting) is just swept away.

RISAA’s passage is a shocking reversal—EFF and our allies had worked hard to put together a coalition aimed at enacting a warrant requirement for Americans and some other critical reforms, but the NSA, FBI and their apologists just rolled Congress with scary-sounding (and incorrect) stories that a lapse in the spying was imminent. It was a clear dereliction of Congress’s duty to oversee the intelligence community in order to protect all of the rest of us from its long history of abuse.

After over 20 years of doing it, we know that rolling back any surveillance authority, especially one as deeply entrenched as Section 702, is an uphill fight. But we aren’t going anywhere. We had more Congressional support this time than we’ve had in the past, and we’ll be working to build that over the next two years.

Too many members of Congress (and the Administrations of both parties) don’t see any downside to violating your privacy and your constitutional rights in the name of national security. That needs to change.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted against considering a largely bad bill that would have unacceptably expanded the tentacles of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, along with reauthorizing it and introducing some minor fixes. Section 702 is Big Brother’s favorite mass surveillance law that EFF has been fighting since it was first passed in 2008. The law is currently set to expire on April 19. 

Yesterday’s decision not to decide is good news, at least temporarily. Once again, a bipartisan coalition of law makers—led by Rep. Jim Jordan and Rep. Jerrold Nadler—has staved off the worst outcome of expanding 702 mass surveillance in the guise of “reforming” it. But the fight continues and we need all Americans to make their voices heard. 

Use this handy tool to tell your elected officials: No reauthorization of 702 without drastic reform:

Take action

TELL congress: 702 Needs serious reforms

Yesterday’s vote means the House also will not consider amendments to Section 702 surveillance introduced by members of the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). As we discuss below, while the HJC amendments would contain necessary, minimum protections against Section 702’s warrantless surveillance, the HPSCI amendments would impose no meaningful safeguards upon Section 702 and would instead increase the threats Section 702 poses to Americans’ civil liberties.

Section 702 expressly authorizes the government to collect foreign communications inside the U.S. for a wide range of purposes, under the umbrellas of national security and intelligence gathering. While that may sound benign for Americans, foreign communications include a massive amount of Americans’ communications with people (or services) outside the United States. Under the government’s view, intelligence agencies and even domestic law enforcement should have backdoor, warrantless access to these “incidentally collected” communications, instead of having to show a judge there is a reason to query Section 702 databases for a specific American's communications.

Many amendments to Section 702 have recently been introduced. In general, amendments from members of the HJC aim at actual reform (although we would go further in many instances). In contrast, members of HPSCI have proposed bad amendments that would expand Section 702 and undermine necessary oversight. Here is our analysis of both HJC’s decent reform amendments and HPSCI’s bad amendments, as well as the problems the latter might create if they return.

House Judiciary Committee’s Amendments Would Impose Needed Reforms

The most important amendment HJC members have introduced would require the government to obtain court approval before querying Section 702 databases for Americans’ communications, with exceptions for exigency, consent, and certain queries involving malware. As we recently wrote regarding a different Section 702 bill, because Section 702’s warrantless surveillance lacks the safeguards of probable cause and particularity, it is essential to require the government to convince a judge that there is a justification before the “separate Fourth Amendment event” of querying for Americans’ communications. This is a necessary, minimum protection and any attempts to renew Section 702 going forward should contain this provision.

Another important amendment would prohibit the NSA from resuming “abouts” collection. Through abouts collection, the NSA collected communications that were neither to nor from a specific surveillance target but merely mentioned the target. While the NSA voluntarily ceased abouts collection following Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) rulings that called into question the surveillance’s lawfulness, the NSA left the door open to resume abouts collection if it felt it could “work that technical solution in a way that generates greater reliability.” Under current law, the NSA need only notify Congress when it resumes collection. This amendment would instead require the NSA to obtain Congress’s express approval before it can resume abouts collection, which―given this surveillance's past abuses—would be notable.

The other HJC amendment Congress should accept would require the FBI to give a quarterly report to Congress of the number of queries it has conducted of Americans’ communications in its Section 702 databases and would also allow high-ranking members of Congress to attend proceedings of the notoriously secretive FISC. More congressional oversight of FBI queries of Americans’ communications and FISC proceedings would be good. That said, even if Congress passes this amendment (which it should), both Congress and the American public deserve much greater transparency about Section 702 surveillance.  

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s Amendments Would Expand Section 702

Instead of much-needed reforms, the HPSCI amendments expand Section 702 surveillance.

One HPSCI amendment would add “counternarcotics” to FISA’s definition of “foreign intelligence information,” expanding the scope of mass surveillance even further from the antiterrorism goals that most Americans associate with FISA. In truth, FISA’s definition of “foreign intelligence information” already goes beyond terrorism. But this counternarcotics amendment would further expand “foreign intelligence information” to allow FISA to be used to collect information relating to not only the “international production, distribution, or financing of illicit synthetic drugs, opioids, cocaine, or other drugs driving overdose deaths” but also to any of their precursors. Given the massive amount of Americans’ communications the government already collects under Section 702 and the government’s history of abusing Americans’ civil liberties through searching these communications, the expanded collection this amendment would permit is unacceptable.

Another amendment would authorize using Section 702 to vet immigrants and those seeking asylum. According to a FISC opinion released last year, the government has sought some version of this authority for years, and the FISC repeatedly denied it—finally approving it for the first time in 2023. The FISC opinion is very redacted, which makes it impossible to know either the current scope of immigration and visa-related surveillance under Section 702 or what the intelligence agencies have sought in the past. But regardless, it’s deeply concerning that HPSCI is trying to formally lower Section 702 protections for immigrants and asylum seekers. We’ve already seen the government revoke people’s visas based upon their political opinions—this amendment would put this kind of thing on steroids.

The last HPSCI amendment tries to make more companies subject to Section 702’s required turnover of customer information in more instances. In 2023, the FISC Court of Review rejected the government’s argument that an unknown company was subject to Section 702 for some circumstances. While we don’t know the details of the secret proceedings because the FISC Court of Review opinion is heavily redacted, this is an ominous attempt to increase the scope of providers subject to 702. With this amendment, HPSCI is attempting to legislatively overrule a court already famously friendly to the government. HPSCI Chair Mike Turner acknowledged as much in a House Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, stating that this amendment “responds” to the FISC Court of Review’s decision.

What’s Next 

This hearing was unlikely to be the last time Congress considers Section 702 before April 19—we expect another attempt to renew this surveillance authority in the coming days. We’ve been very clear: Section 702 must not be renewed without essential reforms that protect privacy, improve transparency, and keep the program within the confines of the law. 

Take action

TELL congress: 702 Needs serious reforms

With Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set to expire later this month, the White House recently released a memo objecting to the SAFE Act—legislation introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Mike Lee that would reauthorize Section 702 with some reforms. The White House is wrong. SAFE is a bipartisan bill that may be our most realistic chance of reforming a dangerous NSA mass surveillance program that even the federal government’s privacy watchdog and the White House itself have acknowledged needs reform.

As we’ve written, the SAFE Act does not go nearly far enough in protecting us from the warrantless surveillance the government now conducts under Section 702. But, with surveillance hawks in the government pushing for a reauthorization of their favorite national security law without any meaningful reforms, the SAFE Act might be privacy and civil liberties advocates’ best hope for imposing some checks upon Section 702.

Section 702 is a serious threat to the privacy of those in the United States. It authorizes the collection of overseas communications for national security purposes, and, in a globalized world, this allows the government to collect a massive amount of Americans’ communications. As Section 702 is currently written, intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement have backdoor, warrantless access to millions of communications from people with clear constitutional rights.

The White House objects to the SAFE Act’s two major reforms. The first requires the government to obtain court approval before accessing the content of communications for people in the United States which have been hoovered up and stored in Section 702 databases—just like police have to do to read your letters or emails. The SAFE Act’s second reform closes the “data broker loophole” by largely prohibiting the government from purchasing personal data they would otherwise need a warrant to collect. While the White House memo is just the latest attempt to scare lawmakers into reauthorizing Section 702, it omits important context and distorts the key SAFE Act amendments’ effects

The government has repeatedly abused Section 702 by searching its databases for Americans’ communications. Every time, the government claims it has learned from its mistakes and won’t repeat them, only for another abuse to come to light years later. The government asks you to trust it with the enormously powerful surveillance tool that is Section 702—but it has proven unworthy of that trust.

The Government Should Get Judicial Approval Before Accessing Americans’ Communications

Requiring the government to obtain judicial approval before it can access the communications of Americans and those in the United States is a necessary, minimum protection against Section 702’s warrantless surveillance. Because Section 702 does not require safeguards of particularity and probable cause when the government initially collects communications, it is essential to require the government to at least convince a judge that there is a justification before the “separate Fourth Amendment event” of the government accessing the communications of Americans it has collected.

The White House’s memo claims that the government shouldn’t need to get court approval to access communications of Americans that were “lawfully obtained” under Section 702. But this ignores the fundamental differences between Section 702 and other surveillance. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement don’t get to play “finders keepers” with our communications just because they have a pre-existing program that warrantlessly vacuums them all up.

The SAFE Act has exceptions from its general requirement of court approval for emergencies, consent, and—for malicious software—“defensive cybersecurity queries.” While the White House memo claims these are “dangerously narrow,” exigency and consent are longstanding, well-developed exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. And the SAFE Act gives the government even more leeway than the Fourth Amendment ordinarily does in also excluding “defensive cybersecurity queries” from its requirement of judicial approval.

The Government Shouldn’t Be Able to Buy What It Would Otherwise Need a Warrant to Collect

The SAFE Act properly imposes broad restrictions upon the government’s ability to purchase data—because way too much of our data is available for the government to purchase. Both the FBI and NSA have acknowledged knowingly buying data on Americans. As we’ve written many times, the commercially available information that the government purchases can be very revealing about our most intimate, private communications and associations. The Director of National Intelligence’s own report on government purchases of commercially available information recognizes this data can be “misused to pry into private lives, ruin reputations, and cause emotional distress and threaten the safety of individuals.” This report also recognizes that this data can “disclose, for example, the detailed movements and associations of individuals and groups, revealing political, religious, travel, and speech activities.”

The SAFE Act would go a significant way towards closing the “data broker loophole” that the government has been exploiting. Contrary to the White House’s argument that Section 702 reauthorization is “not the vehicle” for protecting Americans’ data privacy, closing the “data broker loophole” goes hand-in-hand with putting crucial guardrails upon Section 702 surveillance: the necessary reform of requiring court approval for government access to Americans’ communications is undermined if the government is able to warrantlessly collect revealing information about Americans some other way. 

The White House further objects that the SAFE Act does not address data purchases by other countries and nongovernmental entities, but this misses the point. The best way Congress can protect Americans’ data privacy from these entities and others is to pass comprehensive data privacy regulation. But, in the context of Section 702 reauthorization, the government is effectively asking for special surveillance permissions for itself, that its surveillance continue to be subjected to minimal oversight while other other countries’ surveillance practices are regulated. (This has been a pattern as of late.) The Fourth Amendment prohibits intelligence agencies and law enforcement from giving themselves the prerogative to invade our privacy.  

The First Amendment requires courts to apply a robust balancing test before unmasking anonymous online speakers, EFF explained in an amicus brief it filed recently in a New York State appeal.

In the case on appeal, GSB Gold Standard v. Google, a German company that sells cryptocurrency investments is seeking to unmask an anonymous blogger who criticized the company. Based upon a German court order, the company sought a subpoena that would identify the blogger. The blogger fought back, without success, and they are now appealing.

Like speech itself, the First Amendment right to anonymity fosters and advances public debate and self-realization. Anonymity allows speakers to communicate their ideas without being defined by their identity. Anonymity protects speakers who express critical or unpopular views from harassment, intimidation, or being silenced. And, because powerful individuals or entities’ efforts to punish one speaker through unmasking may well lead others to remain silent, protecting anonymity for one speaker can promote free expression for many others.

Too often, however, corporate or human persons try to abuse the judicial process to unmask anonymous speakers. Thus, courts should apply robust evidentiary and procedural standards before compelling the disclosure of an anonymous speaker’s identity. 

Under these standards, parties seeking to unmask anonymous speakers must first show they have meritorious legal claims, to help ensure that the litigation isn’t a pretext for harassment. Those parties that meet this first step must then also show that their interests in unmasking an anonymous speaker outweigh the speaker’s interests in retaining their anonymity. In this case, the trial court didn’t require the German company to meet this standard, and it could not have in any event.

Courts around the United States have adopted various forms of this test, with EFF often participating as amicus or counsel. We hope that New York follows their lead.

Recognizing the worst in government transparency.

The Foilies are co-written by EFF and MuckRock and published in alternative newspapers around the country through a partnership with the Association of Alternative Newsmedia. 

We're taught in school about checks and balances between the various branches of government, but those lessons tend to leave out the role that civilians play in holding officials accountable. We're not just talking about the ballot box, but the everyday power we all have to demand government agencies make their records and data available to public scrutiny.

At every level of government in the United States (and often in other countries), there are laws that empower the public to file requests for public records. They go by various names—Freedom of Information, Right-to-Know, Open Records, or even Sunshine laws—but all share the general concept that because the government is of the people, its documents belong to the people. You don't need to be a lawyer or journalist to file these; you just have to care.

It's easy to feel powerless in these times, as local newsrooms close, and elected officials embrace disinformation as a standard political tool. But here's what you can do, and we promise it'll make you feel better: Pick a local agency—it could be a city council, a sheriff's office or state department of natural resources—and send them an email demanding their public record-request log, or any other record showing what requests they receive, how long it took them to respond, whether they turned over records, and how much they charged the requester for copies. Many agencies even have an online portal that makes it easier, or you can use MuckRock’s records request tool. (You can also explore other people's results that have been published on MuckRock's FOIA Log Explorer.) That will send the message to local leaders they're on notice. You may even uncover an egregious pattern of ignoring or willfully violating the law.

The Foilies are our attempt to call out these violations each year during Sunshine Week, an annual event (March 10-16 this year) when advocacy groups, news organizations and citizen watchdogs combine efforts to highlight the importance of government transparency laws. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and MuckRock, in partnership with the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, compile the year's worst and most ridiculous responses to public records requests and other attempts to thwart public access to information, including through increasing attempts to gut the laws guaranteeing this access—and we issue these agencies and officials tongue-in-cheek "awards" for their failures.

Sometimes, these awards actually make a difference. Last year, Mendocino County in California repealed its policy of charging illegal public records fees after local journalists and activists used The Foilies’ "The Transparency Tax Award" in their advocacy against the rule.

This year marks our 10th annual accounting of ridiculous redactions, outrageous copying fees, and retaliatory attacks on requesters—and we have some doozies for the ages.

The "Winners"

• The Not-So-Magic Word Award: Augusta County Sheriff’s Office, Va.
• The Poop and Pasta Award: Richlands, Va.
  
• The Error 404 Transparency Not Found Award: FOIAonline
  
• The Literary Judicial Thrashing of the Year Award: Pennridge, Penn., School District
• The Photographic Recall Award: Los Angeles Police Department
• The Cops Anonymous Award: Chesterfield County Police Department, Va.
  
• The Keep Your Opinions to Yourself Award: Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita
• The Failed Sunshine State Award: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
  
• The Self-Serving Special Session Award: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders
• The Doobie-ous Redaction Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Drug Enforcement Administration
• The “Clearly Releasable,” Clearly Nonsense Award: U.S. Air Force
  
• The Scrubbed Scrubs Award: Ontario Ministry of Health, Canada
  
• The Judicial Blindfold Award: Mississippi Justice Courts
  
• It’s My Party and I Can Hide Records If I Want to Award: Wyoming Department of Education
• The Fee-l the Burn Award: Baltimore Police Department
  
• The Continuing Failure Award: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
• The Creative Invoicing Award: Richmond, Va., Police Department
  

The Not-So-Magic Word Award: Augusta County Sheriff’s Office, Va.

Public records laws exist in no small part because corruption, inefficiency and other malfeasance happen, regardless of the size of the government. The public’s right to hold these entities accountable through transparency can prevent waste and fraud.

Of course, this kind of oversight can be very inconvenient to those who would like a bit of secrecy. Employees in Virginia’s Augusta County thought they’d found a neat trick for foiling Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

Consider: “NO FOIA”

In an attempt to withhold a bunch of emails they wanted to hide from the public eye, employees in Augusta County began tagging their messages with “NO FOIA,” as an apparent incantation staff believed could ward off transparency. Of course, there are no magical words that allow officials to evade transparency laws; the laws assume all government records are public, so agencies can’t just say they don’t want records released.

Fortunately, at least one county employee thought that breaking the law must be a little more complicated than that, and this person went to Breaking Through News to blow the whistle.

Breaking Through News sent a FOIA request for those “NO FOIA” emails. The outlet received just 140 emails of the 1,212 that the county indicated were responsive, and those released records highlighted the county’s highly suspect approach to withholding public records. Among the released records were materials like the wages for the Sheriff Office employees (clearly a public record), the overtime rates (clearly a public record) and a letter from the sheriff deriding the competitive wages being offered at other county departments (embarrassing but still clearly a public record). 

Other clearly public records, according to a local court, included recordings of executive sessions that the commissioners had entered illegally, which Breaking Through News learned about through the released records. They teamed up with the Augusta Free Press to sue for access to the recordings, a suit they won last month. They still haven’t received the awarded records, and it’s possible that Augusta County will appeal. Still, it turned out that, thanks to the efforts of local journalists, their misguided attempt to conjure a culture of “No FOIA” in August County actually brought them more scrutiny and accountability.

The Poop and Pasta Award: Richlands, Va.

Government officials retaliated against a public records requester by filling her mailbox with noodles.

In 2020, Laura Mollo of Richlands, Va., discovered that the county 911 center could not dispatch Richlands residents’ emergency calls: While the center dispatched all other county 911 calls, calls from Richlands had to be transferred to the Richlands Police Department to be handled. After the Richlands Town Council dismissed Mollo’s concerns, she began requesting records under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. The records showed that Richlands residents faced lengthy delays in connecting with local emergency services. On one call, a woman pleaded for help for her husband, only to be told that county dispatch couldn’t do anything—and her husband died during the delay. Other records Mollo obtained showed that Richlands appeared to be misusing its resources.

You would hope that public officials would be grateful that Mollo uncovered the town’s inadequate emergency response system and budget mismanagement. Well, not exactly: Mollo endured a campaign of intimidation and harassment for holding the government accountable. Mollo describes how her mailbox was stuffed with cow manure on one occasion, and spaghetti on another (which Mollo understood to be an insult to her husband’s Italian heritage). A town contractor harassed her at her home; police pulled her over; and Richlands officials even had a special prosecutor investigate her.

But this story has a happy ending: In November 2022, Mollo was elected to the Richlands Town Council. The records she uncovered led Richlands to change over to the county 911 center, which now dispatches Richlands residents’ calls. And in 2023, the Virginia Coalition for Open Government recognized Mollo by awarding her the Laurence E. Richardson Citizen Award for Open Government. Mollo’s recognition is well-deserved. Our communities are indebted to people like her who vindicate our right to public records, especially when they face such inexcusable harassment for their efforts.

The Error 404 Transparency Not Found Award: FOIAonline

In 2012, FOIAonline was launched with much fanfare as a way to bring federal transparency into the late 20th century. No longer would requesters have to mail or fax requests. Instead, FOIAonline was a consolidated starting point, managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that let you file Freedom of Information Act requests with numerous federal entities from within a single digital interface.

Even better, the results of requests would be available online, meaning that if someone else asked for interesting information, it would be available to everyone, potentially reducing the number of duplicate requests. It was a good idea—but it was marred from the beginning by uneven uptake, agency infighting, and inscrutable design decisions that created endless headaches. In its latter years, FOIAonline would go down for days or weeks at a time without explanation. The portal saw agency after agency ditch the platform in favor of either homegrown solutions or third-party vendors.

Last year, the EPA announced that the grand experiment was being shuttered, leaving thousands of requesters uncertain about how and where to follow up on their open requests, and unceremoniously deleting millions of documents from public access without any indication of whether they would be made available again.

In a very on-brand twist of the knife, the decision to sunset FOIAonline was actually made two years prior, after an EPA office reported in a presentation that the service was likely to enter a “financial death spiral” of rising costs and reduced agency usage. Meanwhile, civil-society organizations such as MuckRock, the Project on Government Oversight, and the Internet Archive have worked to resuscitate and make available at least some of the documents the site used to host.

The Literary Judicial Thrashing of the Year Award: Pennridge, Penn., School District

Sometimes when you're caught breaking the law, the judge will throw the book at you. In the case of Pennridge School District in Bucks County, Penn. Judge Jordan B. Yeager catapulted an entire shelf of banned books at administrators for violating the state's Right-to-Know Law.

The case begins with Darren Laustsen, a local parent who was alarmed by a new policy to restrict access to books that deal with “sexualized content,” seemingly in lockstep with book-censorship laws happening around the country. Searching the school library's catalog, he came across a strange trend: Certain controversial books that appeared on other challenged-book lists had been checked out for a year or more. Since students are only allowed to check out books for a week, he (correctly) suspected that library staff were checking them out themselves to block access.

So he filed a public records request for all books checked out by non-students. Now, it's generally important for library patrons to have their privacy protected when it comes to the books they read—but it's a different story if public employees are checking out books as part of their official duties and effectively enabling censorship. The district withheld the records, provided incomplete information, and even went so far as to return books and re-check them out under a student's account in order to obscure the truth. And so Laustsen sued.

The judge issued a scathing and literarily robust ruling: “In short, the district altered the records that were the subject of the request, thwarted public access to public information, and effectuated a cover-up of faculty, administrators, and other non-students’ removal of books from Pennridge High School’s library shelves." The opinion was peppered with witty quotes from historically banned books, including Nineteen Eighty-Four, Alice in Wonderland, The Art of Racing in the Rain and To Kill a Mockingbird. After enumerating the district's claims that later proved to be inaccurate, he cited Kurt Vonnegut's infamous catchphrase from Slaughterhouse-Five: "So it goes."

The Photographic Recall Award: Los Angeles Police Department

Police agencies seem to love nothing more than trumpeting an arrest with an accompanying mugshot—but when the tables are turned, and it’s the cops’ headshots being disclosed, they seem to lose their minds and all sense of the First Amendment.

This unconstitutional escapade began (and is still going) after a reporter and police watchdog published headshots of Los Angeles Police Department officers, which they lawfully obtained via a public records lawsuit. LAPD cops and their union were furious. The city then sued the reporter, Ben Camacho, and the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, demanding that they remove the headshots from the internet and return the records to LAPD.

You read that right: After a settlement in a public records lawsuit required the city to disclose the headshots, officials turned around and sued the requester for, uh, disclosing those same records, because the city claimed it accidentally released pictures of undercover cops.

But it gets worse: Last fall, a trial court denied a motion to throw out the city’s case seeking to claw back the images; Camacho and the coalition have appealed that decision and have not taken the images offline. And in February, the LAPD sought to hold Camacho and the coalition liable for damages it may face in a separate lawsuit brought against it by hundreds of police officers whose headshots were disclosed.

We’re short on space, but we’ll try explain the myriad ways in which all of the above is flagrantly unconstitutional: The First Amendment protects Camacho and the coalition’s ability to publish public records they lawfully obtained, prohibits courts from entering prior restraints that stop protected speech, and limits the LAPD’s ability to make them pay for any mistakes the city made in disclosing the headshots. Los Angeles officials should be ashamed of themselves—but their conduct shows that they apparently have no shame.

The Cops Anonymous Award: Chesterfield County Police Department, Va.

The Chesterfield County Police Department in Virginia refused to disclose the names of hundreds of police officers to a public records requester on this theory: Because the cops might at some point go undercover, the public could never learn their identities. It’s not at all dystopian to claim that a public law enforcement agency needs to have secret police!

Other police agencies throughout the state seem to deploy similar secrecy tactics, too.

The Keep Your Opinions to Yourself Award: Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita

In March 2023, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita sent a letter to medical providers across the state demanding information about the types of gender-affirming care they may provide to young Hoosiers. But this was no unbiased probe: Rokita made his position very clear when he publicly blasted these health services as “the sterilization of vulnerable children” that “could legitimately be considered child abuse.” He made claims to the media that the clinics’ main goals weren’t to support vulnerable youth, but to rake in cash.

Yet as loud as he was about his views in the press, Rokita was suddenly tight-lipped once the nonprofit organization American Oversight filed a public records request asking for all the research, analyses and other documentation that he used to support his claims. Although his agency located 85 documents that were relevant to their request, Rokita refused to release a single page, citing a legal exception that allows him to withhold deliberative documents that are “expressions of opinion or are of a speculative nature.”

Perhaps if Rokita’s opinions on gender-affirming care weren't based on facts, he should've kept those opinions and speculations to himself in the first place.

The Failed Sunshine State Award: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

Florida’s Sunshine Law is known as one of the strongest in the nation, but Gov. Ron DeSantis spent much of 2023 working, pretty successfully, to undermine its superlative status with a slew of bills designed to weaken public transparency and journalism.

In March, DeSantis was happy to sign a bill to withhold all records related to travel done by the governor and a whole cast of characters. The law went into effect just more than a week before the governor announced his presidential bid. In addition, DeSantis has asserted his “executive privilege” to block the release of public records in a move that, according to experts like media law professor Catherine Cameron, is unprecedented in Florida’s history of transparency.

DeSantis suspended his presidential campaign in January. That may affect how many trips he’ll be taking out-of-state in the coming months, but it won’t undo the damage of his Sunshine-slashing policies.

Multiple active lawsuits are challenging DeSantis over his handling of Sunshine Law requests. In one, The Washington Post is challenging the constitutionality of withholding the governor’s travel records. In that case, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement official last month claimed the governor had delayed the release of his travel records. Nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit in February, challenging “the unjustified and unlawful delay” in responding to requests, citing a dozen records requests to the governor’s office that have been pending for one to three years.

“It’s stunning, the amount of material that has been taken off the table from a state that many have considered to be the most transparent,” Michael Barfield, director of public access for the Florida Center for Government Accountability (FCGA), told NBC News. The FCGA is now suing the governor’s office for records on flights of migrants to Massachusetts. “We’ve quickly become one of the least transparent in the space of four years.”

The Self-Serving Special Session Award: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders

By design, FOIA laws exist to help the people who pay taxes hold the people who spend those taxes accountable. In Arkansas, as in many states, taxpayer money funds most government functions: daily office operations, schools, travel, dinners, security, etc. As Arkansas’ governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders has flown all over the country, accompanied by members of her family and the Arkansas State Police. For the ASP alone, the people of Arkansas paid $1.4 million in the last half of last year.

Last year, Sanders seemed to tire of the scrutiny being paid to her office and her spending. Sanders cited her family’s safety as she tried to shutter any attempts to see her travel records, taking the unusual step of calling a special session of the state Legislature to protect herself from the menace of transparency.

Notably, the governor had also recently been implicated in an Arkansas Freedom of Information Act case for these kinds of records.

The attempt to gut the law included a laundry list of carve-outs unrelated to safety, such as walking back the ability of public-records plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees when they win their case. Other attempts to scale back Arkansas' FOIA earlier in the year had not passed, and the state attorney general’s office was already working to study what improvements could be made to the law.  

Fortunately, the people of Arkansas came out to support the principle of government transparency, even as their governor decided she shouldn’t need to deal with it anymore. Over a tense few days, dozens of Arkansans lined up to testify in defense of the state FOIA and the value of holding elected officials, like Sanders, accountable to the people.

By the time the session wound down, the state Legislature had gone through multiple revisions. The sponsors walked back most of the extreme asks and added a requirement for the Arkansas State Police to provide quarterly reports on some of the governor’s travel costs. However, other details of that travel, like companions and the size of the security team, ultimately became exempt. Sanders managed to twist the whole fiasco into a win, though it would be a great surprise if the Legislature didn’t reconvene this year with some fresh attempts to take a bite out of FOIA.

While such a blatant attempt to bash public transparency is certainly a loser move, it clearly earns Sanders a win in the FOILIES—and the distinction of being one of the least transparent government officials this year.

The Doobie-ous Redaction Award: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Drug Enforcement Administration

The feds heavily redacted an email about reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance.

Bloomberg reporters got a major scoop when they wrote about a Health and Human Services memo detailing how health officials were considering major changes to the federal restrictions on marijuana, recommending reclassifying it from a Schedule I substance to Schedule III.

Currently, the Schedule I classification for marijuana puts it in the same league as heroin and LSD, while Schedule III classification would indicate lower potential for harm and addiction along with valid medical applications.

Since Bloomberg viewed but didn’t publish the memo itself, reporters from the Cannabis Business Times filed a FOIA request to get the document into the public record. Their request was met with limited success: HHS provided a copy of the letter, but redacted virtually the entire document besides the salutation and contact information. When pressed further by CBT reporters, the DEA and HHS would only confirm what the redacted documents had already revealed—virtually nothing.

HHS handed over the full, 250-page review several months later, after a lawsuit was filed by an attorney in Texas. The crucial information the agencies had fought so hard to protect: “Based on my review of the evidence and the FDA’s recommendation, it is my recommendation as the Assistant Secretary for Health that marijuana should be placed in Schedule III of the CSA.”

The “Clearly Releasable,” Clearly Nonsense Award: U.S. Air Force

Increasingly, federal and state government agencies require public records requesters to submit their requests through online portals. It’s not uncommon for these portals to be quite lacking. For example, some portals fail to provide space to include information crucial to requests.

But the Air Force deserves special recognition for the changes it made to its submission portal, which asked requesters if they would  agree to limit their requests to  information that the Air Force deemed "clearly releasable.” You might think, “surely the Air Force defined this vague ‘clearly releasable’ information.” Alas, you’d be wrong: The form stated only that requesters would “agree to accept any information that will be withheld in compliance with the principles of FOIA exemptions as a full release.” In other words, the Air Force asked requesters to give up the fight over information before it even began, and to accept the Air Force's redactions and rejections as non-negotiable.

Following criticism, the Air Force jettisoned the update to its portal to undo these changes. Moving forward, it's "clear" that it should aim higher when it comes to transparency.

The Scrubbed Scrubs Award: Ontario Ministry of Health, Canada

Upon taking office in 2018, Ontario Premier Doug Ford was determined to shake up the Canadian province’s healthcare system. His administration has been a bit more tight-lipped, however, about the results of that invasive procedure. Under Ford, Ontario’s Ministry of Health is fighting the release of information on how understaffed the province’s medical system is, citing “economic and other interests.” The government’s own report, partially released to Global News, details high attrition as well as “chronic shortages” of nurses.

The reporters’ attempts to find out exactly how understaffed the system is, however, were met with black-bar redactions. The government claims that releasing the information would negatively impact “negotiating contracts with health-care workers.” However, the refusal to release the information hasn’t helped solve the problem; instead, it’s left the public in the dark about the extent of the issue and what it would actually cost to address it.

Global News has appealed the withholdings. That process has dragged on for over a year, but a decision is expected soon.

The Judicial Blindfold Award: Mississippi Justice Courts

Courts are usually transparent by default. People can walk in to watch hearings and trials, and can get access to court records online or at the court clerk’s office. And there are often court rules or state laws that ensure courts are public.

Apparently, the majority of Mississippi Justice Courts don’t feel like following those rules. An investigation by ProPublica and the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal found that nearly two-thirds of these county-level courts obstructed public access to basic information about law enforcement’s execution of search warrants. This blockade not only appeared to violate state rules on court access; it frustrated the public’s ability to scrutinize when police officers raid someone’s home without knocking and announcing themselves.

The good news is that the Daily Journal is pushing back. It filed suit in the justice court in Union County, Miss., and asked for an end to the practice of never making search-warrant materials public.

Mississippi courts are unfortunately not alone in their efforts to keep search warrant records secret. The San Bernardino Superior Court of California sought to keep secret search warrants used to engage in invasive digital surveillance, only disclosing most of them after the EFF sued.

It’s My Party and I Can Hide Records If I Want to Award: Wyoming Department of Education

Does the public really have a right to know if their tax dollars pay for a private political event?

Former Superintendent of Public Instruction Brian Schroeder and Chief Communications Officer Linda Finnerty in the Wyoming Department of Education didn’t seem to think so, according to Laramie County Judge Steven Sharpe.

Sharpe, in his order requiring disclosure of the records, wrote that the two were more concerned with “covering the agency’s tracks” and acted in “bad faith” in complying with Wyoming’s state open records law.

The lawsuit proved that Schroeder originally used public money for a "Stop the Sexualization of Our Children" event and provided misleading statements to the plaintiffs about the source of funding for the private, pro-book-banning event.

The former superintendent had also failed to provide texts and emails sent via personal devices that were related to the planning of the event, ignoring the advice of the state’s attorneys. Instead, Schroeder decided to “shop around” for legal advice and listen to a friend, private attorney Drake Hill, who told him to not provide his cell phone for inspection.

Meanwhile, Finnerty and the Wyoming Department of Education “did not attempt to locate financial documents responsive to plaintiffs’ request, even though Finnerty knew or certainly should have known such records existed.”

Transparency won this round with the disclosure of more than 1,500 text messages and emails—and according to Sharpe, the incident established a legal precedent on Wyoming public records access.

The Fee-l the Burn Award: Baltimore Police Department

In 2020, Open Justice Baltimore sued the Baltimore Police Department over the agency's demand that the nonprofit watchdog group pay more than $1 million to obtain copies of use-of-force investigation files. 

The police department had decreased their assessment to $245,000 by the time of the lawsuit, but it rejected the nonprofit’s fee waiver, questioning the public interest in the records and where they would change the public's understanding of the issue. The agency also claimed that fulfilling the request would be costly and burdensome for its short-staffed police department.

In 2023, Maryland’s Supreme Court issued a sizzling decision criticizing the BPD’s $245,000 fee assessment and its refusal to waive that fee in the name of public interest. The Supreme Court found that the public interest in how the department polices itself was clear and that the department should have considered how a denial of the fee waiver would “exacerbate the public controversy” and further “the perception that BPD has something to hide.”

The Supreme Court called BPD’s fee assessment “arbitrary and capricious” and remanded the case back to the police department, which must now reconsider the fee waiver. The unanimous decision from the state’s highest court did not mince its words on the cost of public records, either: “While an official custodian’s discretion in these matters is broad,” the opinion reads, “it is not boundless.”

The Continuing Failure Award: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Alien registration files, also commonly known as “A-Files,” contain crucial information about a non-citizen’s interaction with immigration agencies, and are central to determining eligibility for immigration benefits.

However, U.S. immigration agencies have routinely failed to release alien files within the statutory time limit for responding, according to Nightingale et al v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al, a class-action lawsuit by a group of immigration attorneys and individual requesters.

The attorneys filed suit in 2019 against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In 2020, Judge William H. Orrick ruled that the agencies must respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days, and provide the court and class counsel with quarterly compliance reports. The case remains open.

With U.S. immigration courts containing a backlog of more than 2 million cases as of October of last year, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the path to citizenship is bogged down for many applicants. The failure of immigration agencies to comply with statutory deadlines for requests only makes navigating the immigration system even more challenging. There is reason for hope for applicants, however. In 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland made it federal policy to not require FOIA requests for copies of immigration proceedings, instead encouraging agencies to make records more readily accessible through other means.

Even the A-File backlog itself is improving. In the last status report, filed by the Department of Justice, they wrote that “of the approximately 119,140 new A-File requests received in the current reporting period, approximately 82,582 were completed, and approximately 81,980 were timely completed.”

The Creative Invoicing Award: Richmond, Va., Police Department

Some agencies claim outrageous fees for redacting documents to deter public access.

OpenOversightVA requested copies of general procedures—the basic outline of how police departments run—from localities across Virginia. While many departments either publicly posted them or provided them at no charge, Richmond Police responded with a $7,873.14 invoice. That’s $52.14 an hour to spend one hour on “review, and, if necessary, redaction” on each of the department’s 151 procedures.

This Foilies “winner” was chosen because of the wide gap between how available the information should be, and the staggering cost to bring it out of the file cabinet.

As MuckRock’s agency tracking shows, this is hardly an aberration for the agency. But this estimated invoice came not long after the department’s tear-gassing of protesters in 2020 cost the city almost $700,000. At a time when other departments are opening their most basic rulebooks (in California, for example, every law enforcement agency is required to post these policy manuals online), Richmond has been caught attempting to use a simple FOIA request as a cash cow.

The Foilies (Creative Commons Attribution License) were compiled by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (Director of Investigations Dave Maass, Senior Staff Attorney Aaron Mackey, Legal Fellow Brendan Gilligan, Investigative Researcher Beryl Lipton) and MuckRock (Co-Founder Michael Morisy, Data Reporter Dillon Bergin, Engagement Journalist Kelly Kauffman, and Contributor Tom Nash), with further review and editing by Shawn Musgrave. Illustrations are by EFF Designer Hannah Diaz. The Foilies are published in partnership with the Association of Alternative Newsmedia. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken an unusually active interest in internet free speech issues. EFF participated as amicus in a whopping nine cases before the court this year. The court decided four of those cases, and decisions in the remaining five cases will be published in 2024.   

Of the four cases decided this year, the results are a mixed bag. The court showed restraint and respect for free speech rights when considering whether social media platforms should be liable for ISIS content, while also avoiding gutting one of the key laws supporting free speech online. The court also heightened protections for speech that may rise to the level of criminal “true threats.” But the court declined to overturn an overbroad law that relates to speech about immigration.  

Next year, we’re hopeful that the court will uphold the right of individuals to comment on government officials’ social media pages, when those pages are largely used for governmental purposes and even when the officials don’t like what those comments say; and that the court will strike down government overreach in mandating what content must stay up or come down online, or otherwise distorting social media editorial decisions. 

Platform Liability for Violent Extremist Content 

Cases: Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh – DECIDED 

The court, in two similar cases, declined to hold social media companies—YouTube and Twitter—responsible for aiding and abetting terrorist violence allegedly caused by user-generated content posted to the platforms. The case against YouTube (Google) was particularly concerning because the plaintiffs had asked the court to narrow the scope of Section 230 when internet intermediaries recommend third-party content. As we’ve said for decades, Section 230 is one of the most important laws for protecting internet users’ speech. We argued in our brief that narrowing Section 230, the law that generally protects users and online services from lawsuits based on content created by others, in any way would lead to increased censorship and a degraded online experience for users; as would holding platforms responsible for aiding and abetting acts of terrorism. Thankfully, the court declined to address the scope of Section 230 and held that the online platforms may not generally be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. 

True Threats Online 

Case: Counterman v. Colorado – DECIDED 

The court considered what state of mind a speaker must have to lose First Amendment protection and be liable for uttering “true threats,” in a case involving Facebook messages that led to the defendant’s conviction. The issue before the court was whether any time the government seeks to prosecute someone for threatening violence against another person, it must prove that the speaker had some subjective intent to threaten the victim, or whether the government need only prove, objectively, that a reasonable person would have known that their speech would be perceived as a threat. We urged the court to require some level of subjective intent to threaten before an individual’s speech can be considered a "true threat" not protected by the First Amendment. In our highly digitized society, online speech like posts, messages, and emails, can be taken out of context, repackaged in ways that distort or completely lose their meaning, and spread far beyond the intended recipients. This higher standard is thus needed to protect speech such as humor, art, misunderstandings, satire, and misrepresentations. The court largely agreed and held that subjective understanding by the defendant is required: that, at minimum, the speaker was in fact subjectively aware of the serious risk that the recipient of the statements would regard their speech as a threat, but recklessly made them anyway.  

Encouraging Illegal Immigration  

Case: U.S. v. Hansen - DECIDED  

The court upheld the Encouragement Provision that makes it a federal crime to “encourage or induce” an undocumented immigrant to “reside” in the United States, if one knows that such “coming to, entry, or residence” in the U.S. will be in violation of the law. We urged the court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which found that the language is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment because it threatens an enormous amount of protected online speech. This includes prohibiting, for example, encouraging an undocumented immigrant to take shelter during a natural disaster, advising an undocumented immigrant about available social services, or even providing noncitizens with Know Your Rights resources or certain other forms of legal advice. Although the court declined to hold the law unconstitutional, it sharply narrowed the law’s impact on free speech, ruling that the Encouragement Provision applies only to the intentional solicitation or facilitation of immigration law violations. 

Public Officials Censoring Social Media Comments 

Cases: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed – PENDING 

The court is considering a pair of cases related to whether government officials who use social media may block individuals or delete their comments because the government disagrees with their views. The First Amendment generally prohibits viewpoint-based discrimination in government forums open to speech by members of the public. The threshold question in these cases is what test must be used to determine whether a government official’s social media page is largely private and therefore not subject to First Amendment limitations, or is largely used for governmental purposes and thus subject to the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination and potentially other speech restrictions. We argued that the court should establish a functional test that looks at how an account is actually used. It is important that the court make clear once and for all that public officials using social media in furtherance of their official duties can’t sidestep their First Amendment obligations because they’re using nominally “personal” or preexisting campaign accounts. 

Government Mandates for Platforms to Carry Certain Online Speech 

Cases: NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice - PENDING 

The court will hear arguments this spring about whether laws in Florida and Texas violate the First Amendment because they allow those states to dictate when social media sites may not apply standard editorial practices to user posts. Although the state laws differ in how they operate and the type of mandates they impose, each law represents a profound intrusion into social media sites’ ability to decide for themselves what speech they will publish and how they will present it to users. As we argued in urging the court to strike down both laws, allowing social media sites to be free from government interference in their content moderation ultimately benefits internet users. When platforms have First Amendment rights to curate the user-generated content they publish, they can create distinct forums that accommodate diverse viewpoints, interests, and beliefs. To be sure, internet users are rightly frustrated with social media services’ content moderation practices, which are often perplexing and mistaken. But permitting Florida and Texas to deploy the state’s coercive power in retaliation for those concerns raises significant First Amendment and human rights concerns. 

Government Coercion in Content Moderation 

Case: Murthy v. Missouri – PENDING 

Last, but certainly not least, the court is considering the limits on government involvement in social media platforms’ enforcement of their policies. The First Amendment prohibits the government from directly or indirectly forcing a publisher to censor another’s speech. But the court has not previously applied this principle to government communications with social media sites about user posts. We urged the court to recognize that there are both circumstances where government involvement in platforms’ policy enforcement decisions is permissible and those where it is impermissible. We also urged the court to make clear that courts reviewing claims of impermissible government involvement in content moderation are obligated to conduct fact and context-specific inquires. And we argued that close cases should go against the government, as it is the best positioned to ensure that its involvement in platforms’ policy enforcement decisions remains permissible. 

This blog is part of our Year in Review series. Read other articles about the fight for digital rights in 2023.

With Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) set to expire at the end of the year, Congress is considering whether to reauthorize the law and if so, whether to make any necessary amendments to the invasive surveillance authority. 

While Section 702 was first sold as a tool necessary to stop foreign terrorists, it has since become clear that the government uses the communications it collects under this law as a domestic intelligence source. The program was intended to collect communications of people outside of the United States, but because we live in an increasingly globalized world, the government retains a massive trove of communications between people overseas on U.S. persons. Increasingly, it’s this U.S. side of digital conversations that are being routinely sifted through by domestic law enforcement agencies—all without a warrant. 

The congressional authorization for Section 702 expires in December 2023, and it’s in light of the current administration’s attempts to renew this authority that we demand that Congress must not reauthorize Section 702 without reforms. It’s more necessary than ever to pass reforms that prevent longstanding and widespread abuses of the program and that advance due process for everyone who communicates online.

U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, and Sen. Mike Lee, with cosponsors Senators Tammy Baldwin, Steve Daines, Mazie Hirono, Cynthia Lummis, Jon Tester, Elizabeth Warren, and Edward Markey, along with Representatives Zoe Lofren, Warren Davidson have introduced the Government Surveillance Reform Act that would reauthorize Section 702 with many of these important safeguards in place.

EFF supports this bill and encourages Congress to implement these critical measures:

Government Queries of Section 702 Databases

Under the Fourth Amendment, when the FBI or other law enforcement entity wants to search your emails, it must convince a judge there’s reason to believe your emails will contain evidence of a crime. But because of the way the NSA implements Section 702, communications from innocent Americans are routinely collected and stored in government databases, which are accessible to the FBI, the CIA, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

So instead of having to get a warrant to collect this data, it’s already in government servers. And the government currently decides for itself whether it can look through (“query”) its databases for Americans’ communications—decisions which it regularly makes incorrectly, even according to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Requiring a judge to examine the government’s claims when it wants to query its Section 702 databases for Americans’ communications isn’t just a matter of standards: it’s about ensuring government officials don’t get to decide themselves whether they can compromise Americans’ privacy in their most sensitive and intimate communications.

The Government Surveillance Reform Act would prohibit warrantless queries of information collected under Section 702 to find communications or certain information of or about U.S. persons or persons located in the United States. Importantly, this prohibition would also include geolocation information, web browsing, and internet search history.

Holding the Government Accountable

A cornerstone of our legal system is that if someone—including the government—violates your rights, you can use the courts to hold them accountable if you can show that you were affected, i.e. that you have standing.

But, in multiple cases, courts interpreting an evidentiary provision in FISA have prevented Americans who alleged injuries from Section 702 surveillance from obtaining judicial review of the surveillance’s legality. The effect is a one-way ratchet that has “created a broad national-security exception to the Constitution that allows all Americans to be spied upon by their government while denying them any viable means of challenging that spying.”

Section 210 of the Government Surveillance Reform Act would change this. This provision says that if a U.S. person has a reasonable basis to believe that their rights have been, are being, or imminently will be violated, they have suffered an “injury in fact” and they have standing to bring their case. It also clarifies that courts should follow FISA’s provision for introducing and weighing evidence of surveillance. These are critical protections in preventing government overreach, and Congress should not reauthorize Section 702 without this provision.

Criminal Notice

Another important safeguard in the American legal system is the right of defendants in criminal cases to know how the evidence against them was obtained and to challenge the legality of how it was collected.

Under FISA as written, the government must disclose when it intends to use evidence it has collected under Section 702 in criminal prosecutions. But in the fifteen years since Congress enacted Section 702, the government has only provided notice to eleven criminal defendants of such intent—and has provided notice to zero defendants in the last five years.

Section 204 of the Government Surveillance Reform Act would clarify that the government is required to notify defendants whenever it would not have had any evidence “but for” Section 702 or other FISA surveillance. This is a common-sense rule, and Congress cannot reauthorize Section 702 without clarifying the government’s duty to disclose evidence collected under Section 702.

Government Surveillance Reform Act

Section 702 expires in December 2023, and Congress should not renew this program without serious consideration of the past abuses of the program and without writing in robust safeguards.

EFF applauds the Government Surveillance Reform Act, which recognizes the need to make these vital reforms, and many more, to Section 702. Requiring court approval of government queries for Americans’ communications in Section 702 databases, allowing Americans who have suffered injuries from Section 702 surveillance to use the evidentiary provisions FISA sets forth, and strengthening the government’s duties to provide notice when using data resulting from Section 702 surveillance in criminal prosecutions must serve as priorities for Congress as it considers reauthorizing Section 702.

 

Take action

TELL congress: End 702 Absent serious reforms