Request For Amazon User Records Unconstitutional, Says 老澳门开奖结果
Group Will Join Lawsuit If North Carolina Department Of Revenue Keeps Up Demand For Private Information
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
RALEIGH, NC 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of North Carolina today sent a letter to North Carolina Secretary of Revenue Kenneth Lay reiterating concern over a recent request by the state Department of Revenue (NCDOR) for the private records of Amazon.com customers. The letter informs Lay that the 老澳门开奖结果 will take legal action on behalf of North Carolina residents who are Amazon.com customers if NCDOR persists in its demand for their constitutionally protected private information. Specifically, the letter says the 老澳门开奖结果 and its clients will intervene in an existing lawsuit brought by Amazon.com to stop NCDOR from collecting individually identifiable information that could be linked to specific purchases made on Amazon.com.
According to the lawsuit filed by Amazon in the Western District of Washington in April, NCDOR issued a request to Amazon for the purchase records since August 2003 of customers with a North Carolina shipping address in order to impose taxes on the purchases. Amazon has apparently already provided the NCDOR with product codes that reveal the exact items purchased 鈥� including books on the subjects of mental health, alcoholism and LGBT issues. Amazon has withheld individually identifiable user information, including names and addresses that could be linked back to the individual purchases, but asserts that the NCDOR continues to insist that such information be disclosed. In its letter today, the 老澳门开奖结果 asserted that such disclosure would violate the constitutional rights of thousands of North Carolina consumers to read and purchase the lawful materials of their choice, free from government intrusion.
The following can be attributed to Aden Fine, staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project:
"The Constitution guarantees Americans the right to read and buy the lawful materials of their choice without the government keeping tabs on the details of their purchases. Amazon was right to stand up for the rights of its customers and to refuse to turn over their personal information to the North Carolina Department of Revenue."
The following can be attributed to Jennifer Rudinger, Executive Director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of North Carolina:
"The 老澳门开奖结果 is not taking issue with the Department's authority to collect taxes on the value of these purchases, but there is no legitimate reason why government officials need to know which North Carolina residents are reading what books or purchasing which specific brands of products. We hope to be able to work out a satisfactory resolution to this matter so that consumers in North Carolina can rest assured that their privacy is protected."
The full text of the letter is below and online at: www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/aclu-letter-north-carolina-department-revenue-secretary-kenneth-l
May 20, 2010
Via Facsimile
Secretary Kenneth Lay
North Carolina Department of Revenue
501 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
re: Amazon.com LLC v. Lay, 2:10-cv-00664 (W.D. Wash.)
Dear Secretary Lay:
We are writing to follow up on our fax dated April 21, 2010, regarding the Department of Revenue's request for private customer records concerning the items that North Carolina residents have received through Amazon.com. We write to inform you that we have clients 鈥� North Carolina residents who are Amazon customers and whose private records are at stake 鈥� who are gravely concerned about government access to their purchasing records. The information requested will reveal which North Carolina residents, including our clients, have received which specific books, movies, and other expressive and private items from Amazon. Our clients are prepared to intervene in the lawsuit in the Western District of Washington to protect their constitutional rights if necessary, but we write this letter in the hope that the Department might agree to a solution that would protect our clients' fundamental rights and avoid unnecessary litigation.
According to Amazon's lawsuit, the Department has issued information requests to Amazon that seek a broad set of information regarding all sales to customers with a North Carolina shipping address since August 2003. The Department has already received detailed data from Amazon about these purchases, including the specific product code for each purchase, which reveals the full description of each purchased item. These product descriptions reveal highly expressive and private information about consumer choices: for example, whether a person has received a book on alcoholism or home workshop weaponry, a movie like "Brokeback Mountain," or "sexual wellness" items such as sex toys.
Amazon appears to have turned over this detailed information already. We understand, based on press reports, that the Department is now taking the position that it does not want some of this information, such as the titles of books purchased, and that its information request did not seek to obtain such information. Amazon appears to dispute this account. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the information requests, redacted if necessary to protect taxpayer information, so that we could make an independent determination.
In any event, the fact remains that whatever the requests called for, the Department is now in possession of this highly sensitive and personal information, and if the Department persists in its demand that Amazon now additionally provide detailed user information, including names and addresses, the constitutional rights of our clients and tens of thousands of North Carolina consumers will be violated.
Moreover, merely limiting the request to the type of product purchased and not including the specific brand or title of the product would still reveal information about North Carolina residents 鈥揺.g., that they have purchased "condoms" or "yeast infection kits" 鈥� that the State is not permitted to collect. To the extent the Department believes it needs to learn what type of products were purchased, please explain why that specific information is necessary so that we can better understand the Department's position.
We want to reiterate that we are not challenging the Department's authority to impose a tax for these purchases or to conduct an audit. We are concerned, however, about the apparent breadth of the information requests, which sweep up constitutionally protected information that the Department does not need to determine tax liability. It is clearly established law that the Constitution forbids the government from collecting such information. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. 570, 572-73 (W.D. Wis. 2007); In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords, Inc., Nos. 98-MC-135-NHJ, 98-MC-138-NHJ, 26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599, 1600 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 1998); Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1052 (Colo. 2002).
As one court has already ruled in upholding the constitutional rights of Amazon customers against government intrusion into their expressive choices: "[I]f word were to spread over the Net鈥攁nd it would鈥攖hat the [government] had demanded and received Amazon's list of customers and their personal purchases, the chilling effect on expressive e-commerce would frost keyboards across America." In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Amazon.com, 246 F.R.D. at 573.
To ensure that our clients' and North Carolina consumers' constitutional rights are not violated, and to minimize the clear chilling effect from the Department's information requests, we respectfully ask that the Department:
- Destroy the records that it has already received from Amazon that reveal what products were purchased by North Carolina customers;
- Make a public statement acknowledging that it does not need records from Amazon or any other entity that reveal the specific products or the type of products that were purchased by each customer;
- Agree to take all necessary steps to change its existing policy and practice and to institute a new policy and practice to ensure that the Department does not issue overbroad information requests in the future to entities such as Amazon that call for the disclosure of constitutionally protected customer information, such as what products were purchased by each customer.
We have reason to believe that the Department has issued similar information requests to entities other than Amazon and that the Department has received similar customer information which is constitutionally protected in response. Please confirm whether that is correct. That the requests to Amazon are not the only such requests that have been made makes it all the more imperative that the Department cease issuing such overbroad requests that are sweeping in constitutionally protected information.
Please let us know how the Department wishes to proceed. If we do not hear back from you by May 28, 2010, our clients will be forced to intervene in this lawsuit to protect their rights. I will be out of the office for much of this week and all of the week of May 24, 2010, so please contact Aden Fine at (212) 549-2693 to discuss this matter further. We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Rudinger
Executive Director
老澳门开奖结果 of North Carolina
P.O. Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
Aden Fine
Mariko Hirose
老澳门开奖结果 Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Related Documents
National Security
+2 Issues
Amazon.com, LLC v. Kenneth R. Lay
National Security
+2 Issues
Amazon.com, LLC v. Kenneth R. Lay
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
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 -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.