Feds Settle Lawsuit by Bradley Manning Supporter Over Border Laptop Search
We announced some excellent news last night: the U.S. has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by David House over the government's 2010 search and seizure of his laptop and other electronics at the airport as he was coming back from a vacation in Mexico. House was at that time involved in the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization dedicated to raising funds for the legal defense of the soldier who has since admitted providing classified documents to WikiLeaks. You can read the settlement here.
When he was stopped, House's electronics stored the identities of members and supporters of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Given the controversial nature of that cause, House and others were deeply concerned that the government seizure of this material would frighten others from lending their time and money to the organization. The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Massachusetts brought the lawsuit on House's behalf, charging that the government targeted House solely on the basis of his lawful association with the group, and doing so violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association as well as his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
In the settlement, the government agreed to destroy all copies of House's devices, and to turn over documents related to its investigation of him and his devices. The government also admitted that House was on the Department of Homeland Security's "Lookout" list used by agents at border checkpoints, which is why he was stopped and searched in the first place. Our hope is that these documents will shed light on what happens after an individual's electronics are taken at the border, a process that unfortunately has been largely shrouded in secrecy so far.
Through the lawsuit, House learned that even after the government returned his electronic devices, it kept copies of the data they contained. And not only did the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who seized his devices search them, they also provided a copy to the Army's Criminal Investigative Division (Army CID), which they asked for "technical and subject matter assistance." Army CID has played a central role in the investigation of Bradley Manning. The agency ultimately determined that it would not use the information on House's electronics, and destroyed its copy, but ICE retained its copies.
This illustrates one of the ways in which electronics border searches are so concerning: once border agents have a copy of your data, it can easily be copied many more times and shared with other government agencies, increasing the possibility of individual or institutional abuse of the information as well as data breaches.
The government assertion of power at the border is vast and intimidating: it claims it can search or confiscate any person's laptop, cell phone, or other electronic device for any reason, and keep these devices for as long as it takes to search them.
In March 2012, the U.S. district court judge in the case rejected the government's effort to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that even if the government does not need suspicion or a warrant to search a laptop at the border, that power is not unlimited and First Amendment rights remain intact. The settlement announced today is the result of months of negotiations following that decision.
David House has explained the significance of the settlement in a statement:
When my laptop was seized on American soil, I made a pledge to the everyday working people, clergy, and U.S. service members who make up the heart of Mr. Manning's financial contributors: that their generosity would not be met with retaliation from corrupt elements within our government, and that their personally identifying information, placed at risk by the seizure, would be reclaimed from those who had ordered it seized
Today, with a settlement to reclaim this data realized through the pressure of the courts and the hard work of the 老澳门开奖结果, I have made good on my pledge. The government's surrender of this data is a victory through vital action not only for the citizens put at risk, but also for anyone who believes that Americans should be free to support political causes without fearing retaliation from Washington.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.