VIDEO: RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN DEALING WITH ICE, HSI, CBP AND POLICE

 

KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND INVOKE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN DEALING WITH ICE, HSI, CBP AND THE POLICE

Report: Whistleblower leaks personal data of 4,500 DHS and ICE agents to doxxing website 13JAN26

Ring Cameras and Law Enforcement Access 20JAN26

VIDEO: PROFILING IS STILL ALIVE AND ACTIVELY USED BY POLICE AS WELL AS ICE, HSI AND CBP IN AMERICA

 

( VIDEO ) KKKRISTI NOEM LIES ABOUT PROCESSING DETAINEES & ICE memo outlines plan to deport migrants to countries where they are not citizens 13JUL25

 SEE what God has to say about how we are to treat the least among us and then look at what NOT MY pres drumpf / trump, NOT MY vp vance, their entire neo-nazi cabinet, especially Sec of Homeland Security fascist fotze kkkristi noem, the fascist gop / greed over people-republican party all guided by the "christian" nationalist heritage foundation / project 2025. Verse of the day: Thus says the Lord: Act with justice and righteousness and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place. - Jeremiah 22:3 Voice of the day: War is not healthy for children and other living things.- Lorraine Schneider. Prayer of the day: God of justice, let us fight against war and oppression, to protect those who are most vulnerable. Listen to Sec of Homeland Security fascist fotze kkkristi noem lie about processing detained immigrants. This from the Washington Post.....

ICE memo outlines plan to deport migrants to countries where they are not citizens

The dramatic shift in policy could result in thousands of people being sent to places where they lack family ties or even a common language.

Updated July 13, 2025

Federal immigration officers may deport immigrants to countries other than their own, with as little as six hours’ notice, even if officials have not provided any assurances that the new arrivals will be safe from persecution or torture, a top official said in a memo.

Todd M. Lyons, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote in a memo to the ICE workforce Wednesday that a Supreme Court ruling last month had cleared the way for officers to “immediately” start sending immigrants to “alternative” countries.

People being sent to countries where officials have not provided any “diplomatic assurances” that immigrants will be safe will be informed 24 hours in advance — and in “exigent” circumstances, just six. Those being flown to places that have offered those assurances could be deported with no advance notice.

If the State Department “believes those assurances to be credible,” then ICE may deport someone to that country “without the need for further procedures,” Lyons wrote in the memo, obtained by The Washington Post.

The United States has rarely deported people to countries where they are not citizens, and lawyers warned that thousands of longtime immigrants with work permits and families in the U.S. could now be uprooted and sent to places where they lack family ties or even a common language.

Among those who could be targeted are thousands of immigrants with final removal orders who have not been deported to their native countries because a judge found that they might face danger there. Others are those with deportation orders to countries such as China or Cuba that do not always cooperate with deportations because of their frosty relationship to the U.S.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem, whose agency oversees ICE, confirmed on “Fox News Sunday” that the agency had the policy in place. The memo is “incredibly important to make sure we get these worst of the worst out of our country,” she said.

“This is the same operation we had in the past, that people can go to third countries,” Noem said. “Many times, if other countries aren’t receiving their own citizens, other countries have agreed that they would take them in … and take care of them until their home country would receive them. That’s what this memo was confirming and that’s all been negotiated with that country through the State Department.”

Immigrants who state a fear of being deported will be screened for possible protection, Lyons wrote in the memo, but immigration lawyers said the government’s plan does not give immigrants enough time to assess the danger they might face in a country that the government has selected for them.

“It puts thousands of lives at risk of persecution and torture,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is challenging the third-country removals on behalf of immigrants in an ongoing federal lawsuit filed in Massachusetts.

The alliance filed the lawsuit in March arguing that the U.S. government was violating federal law and sending immigrants to places where they could be harmed or killed, without giving them a chance to argue against it, including a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico, where he had been kidnapped and raped.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy barred the government from removing immigrants without giving them a “meaningful” opportunity to challenge it. On June 23, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority paused the judge’s decision in a brief, unsigned statement that did not explain its reasoning, but it cleared the way for the removals to resume.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a stinging dissent with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the court’s decision would put people at risk. “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,” she wrote. “In this case, the Government took the opposite approach.”

Since President Donald Trump took office promising mass deportations, officials have sent immigrants from Venezuela to a notorious mega prison in El Salvador, dispatched eight immigrants from Cuba, Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos, Sudan and Mexico to a conflict zone in South Sudan, and illegally deported a Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego García, to El Salvador even though an immigration judge’s order forbade it. The Trump administration brought Abrego back to the U.S. last month after the Supreme Court ordered them to facilitate his return, but in recent days government lawyers have said they could deport Abrego to a third country instead.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the memo on Saturday, or say how many immigrants are at risk of being deported.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, the lead lawyer on a federal lawsuit in Maryland that successfully fought to return Abrego to the U.S., said the deportation procedures in the Lyons memo are “clearly inadequate” to prevent immigrants from being deported to countries where they might be at risk.

“It is definitely thousands upon thousands of people,” he said. “This is a category of people who understood themselves to be out of the woods.”

While in some cases immigrants could be deported to a country that has provided assurances that newcomers will be safe from torture or persecution, Lyons also outlines how officials should proceed if they are deporting people to a country that has not provided those guarantees.

In those cases, officers must follow a more limited procedure than the one Murphy had laid out in federal court in May after ICE attempted to deport immigrants to South Sudan. The judge said officers should screen the men to determine if they have a legitimate fear of removal, give them access to a lawyer and at least 10 days to challenge their removals. The Supreme Court ruling set aside that process, and the men were deported to South Sudan in recent days.

The Lyons memo says ICE can deport someone to a third country that has not offered any safety guarantees within 24 hours of notifying them where they are being sent. Officials will not ask immigrants if they fear being deported to that country, he wrote. Lyons’s memo is based on guidance Noem issued in a March memo, but provides additional details.

Immigrants who express a fear of being deported in the 24-hour period will be screened for possible humanitarian protection under federal law and the Convention Against Torture, which Congress ratified in 1994 to bar the government from sending immigrants to a country where they might face torture.

The screenings will “generally” occur within 24 hours to determine if migrants could merit immigration court proceedings, humanitarian protection, or if they should be deported to another alternate country.

However, Lyons wrote that “in exigent circumstances” immigration officers may deport someone as soon as six hours after notifying them of the third country.

In such cases, immigrants must be provided “reasonable means and opportunity to speak with an attorney” beforehand, he wrote, and the DHS general counsel or ICE’s top legal adviser must approve it.

ICE increasingly targets undocumented migrants with no criminal record

The Trump administration is increasingly targeting unauthorized immigrants with no criminal record as it ramps up arrests, a Washington Post analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data shows.

Immigration during Trump’s second term

Trump’s aggressive crackdown: Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement one of his top priorities. He issued a series of executive orders that include declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying hundreds of troops there and attempting to end birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized immigrants and foreign visitors. The administration has also largely closed access to the asylum process on the southern border, suspended refugee resettlement and ended temporary humanitarian protections for thousands of people from countries including Venezuela, Honduras and Nicaragua. In March, Trump invoked the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan migrants to a notorious jail in El Salvador without a court hearing. The administration has also removed migrants to conflict-ridden South Sudan. Data shows that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are increasingly targeting migrants with no criminal record.

More resources diverted: Trump promised during his campaign to deport millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally, and administration officials have directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to aggressively ramp up the number of people they arrest, from a few hundred per day to at least 3,000. To meet these goals, the administration has enlisted personnel from the FBI, U.S. Marshals, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In July, Congress passed a massive spending bill that will funnel nearly $170 billion toward border security and immigration enforcement. Those funds will allow the administration to hire nearly 20,000 immigration officers and double the number of beds available in immigration detention centers.

Pushback in the courts: Advocacy groups and others have filed lawsuits over many of Trump’s policies. Thus far, the Trump administration has had mixed success in fighting challenges to its immigration agenda. The Supreme Court green-lit the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to remove temporary protected status for Venezuelans; ruled that the Trump administration had illegally deported Kilmar Abrego García to El Salvador and ordered officials to “facilitate” his return; and most recently backed the president’s request to scale back lower-court orders that had for months blocked the administration’s ban on automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors. But the high court still has not weighed in on the merits of several of Trump’s most aggressive measures, including his use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants to El Salvador or the legality of birthright citizenship.

By Maria Sacchetti

Maria Sacchetti covers immigration and Homeland Security for the Washington Post, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and immigration courts. She previously reported for The Boston Globe and the Orange County Register. She lived for several years in Latin America and is fluent in Spanish

By Carol D. Leonnig

Carol Leonnig is an investigative reporter, four-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and author of three best-selling books who has worked at The Washington Post since 2000.

By Marianne LeVine

Marianne LeVine is a national political reporter for The Washington Post

Your privacy, your phone company and the NSA & The first phone company to publish a transparency report isn’t AT&T or Verizon 11&9JAN14

THIS is what makes me proud to be a member of Credo Mobile and Credo Action, have been for the past 10 years.....

The first phone company to publish a transparency report isn't AT&T or Verizon.

Dear Craig, This week CREDO made headlines by becoming the first telecom carrier to publicly report government requests for private information about our subscribers. We issued this first-ever telecom transparency report in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's dragnet that collects information about the phone calls, emails and other communications of virtually all Americans. The headline in the Washington Post read: "The first phone company to publish a transparency report isn't AT&T or Verizon." It's your phone company, CREDO. Read the first-ever telecom transparency report by clicking here. This is a very big deal. In addition to the Washington Post article, the influential tech site Mashable wrote a piece from the industry perspective: "Small Carrier 'CREDO Mobile' Publishes Industry's First Transparency Report". And Wired offered a longer piece with an historical perspective titled "Telecom Believed to Be at Center of Gov Court Fight Files Surveillance Transparency Report". We're proud of our long history defending civil liberties and fighting against abuses of power that threaten our constitutional rights to privacy, not just for our phone customers like you, but for all Americans. Despite the shocking revelations of NSA abuses, the U.S. government continues to defend unconstitutional programs to systematically spy on Americans. So it's up to companies like ours to lift the curtain to the extent allowed by law and fight for our constitutional rights. CREDO opposes overreaching government surveillance of American citizens, and has fought for full repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and to that end is working to pass Rep. Rush Holt's Surveillance State Repeal Act. During the Bush Administration, CREDO fought against the unprecedented federal wiretapping of American citizens without any court order and the cover-up that followed, including advocating for an end to the retroactive immunity granted to protect telecom companies from facing charges for colluding with the NSA in the illegal wiretapping of Americans. True reform of our surveillance state will require action by Congress or the courts. Until full repeal of these laws is successful, CREDO is endorsing the USA Freedom Act to halt the dragnet indiscriminately sweeping up the phone records of Americans under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and to provide much-needed transparency for National Security Letters and other warrantless spying on our citizens. It's also important to note that we oppose Sen. Feinstein's recent intelligence bill (the so-called "FISA Improvements Act") which, under the guise of reform, does nothing to prevent the rampant 4th and 1st Amendment abuses that have become routine practices of a rogue NSA and other intelligence agencies, and in fact would codify the bulk collection practices of the NSA that so many Americans oppose. CREDO has given nearly $2,000,000 to civil liberties groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Demand Progress, and American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. We want you to know that with support from your phone and credit card bills, you are not only part of a company and an activism organization fighting overreach of the NSA and our surveillance state -- you're also providing much needed resources to groups who are pursuing an aggressive strategy in the courts to have these laws declared unconstitutional in the face of inaction by the White House and Congress. We are proud to have an aggressive legislative agenda backed up by the activism of CREDO Action, with its nearly 3.5 million members. In the last year alone, our activists have made over 5,800 phone calls, sent 10,967 individual letters in the mail, and submitted more than 1,100,000 petition signatures and public comments protesting abuses of our 4th and 1st Amendment rights by the NSA, FISA courts, and federal law enforcement authorities. And now, as a telecom carrier, our transparency report represents a small and achievable step forward towards improved civil liberties protections and NSA reforms advocated by CREDO. You can take action now to fight for our civil liberties with the following actions: Tell Congress: Repeal the USA Patriot Act by passing Rep. Rush Holt's Surveillance State Repeal Act Tell Congress: Stop the NSA's phone surveillance dragnet by passing the USA Freedom Act Join Daniel Ellsberg and tell Congress to investigate NSA abuses Tell your Senator: We need real reform of the NSA, not Senator Feinstein's sham bill While we're proud of how high our transparency report raises the bar for other telecoms like AT&T and Verizon in terms of frequency of reporting and detail of information provided about government requests, it's important to note that due to existing U.S. surveillance statutes that CREDO is on the record opposing, such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act, our report and those of other service providers may fall short of full transparency. Under such statutes, gags may be imposed on telecom companies that prohibit any discussion of certain types of requests for customer information, such as National Security Letters (NSLs) and orders under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, as well as whether such hypothetical orders have been complied with or whether they have been challenged in court. Thank you for being part of CREDO -- as a customer we couldn't do this work without you. If you'd like to share this update with your friends on Facebook, click here. To share on Twitter, click here. To share a link, cut and paste this URL: http://act.credoaction.com/signup/customer_transparency/?source=email_link Sincerely, Michael Kieschnick, CEO CREDO TRANSPARENCY REPORT - 2013 CREDO has a long history of defending civil liberties and fighting against abuses of power that threaten Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy. We are working for full repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act. Until such time as full repeal can be achieved, as well as afterward, we strongly believe there should be as much transparency as possible regarding government surveillance, and that our customers have the right to know when governmental entities request access to their information or communications. Accordingly, we are today publishing a transparency report detailing the number of governmental requests for customer information1 and the content of customer communications we received in 2013 that are not subject to a legal order not to disclose, and publish similar reports on a quarterly basis going forward. It is our policy to notify our customers, whenever allowed by law, of the existence of a governmental request for their information. It is important to note that it may not be possible for CREDO or any telecom carrier to release to the public a full transparency report, as the USA PATRIOT Act and other statutes give law enforcement the ability to prevent companies from disclosing whether or not they have received certain orders, such as National Security Letters (NSLs) and Section 215 orders seeking customer information. CREDO has and continues to publicly advocate for the repeal of laws such as these that infringe upon our customers’ constitutional right to due process. NUMBER OF REQUESTS TO CREDO Number of governmental requests for customer information pursuant to subpoena, summons, court order, or other process: 15 Number of emergency governmental requests for customer information2: 1 Number of governmental requests for which some or all information requested was produced3: 14 (88%) Number of governmental requests for which customer communication content information requested (including wiretap requests) was produced: 0 Number of customer accounts for which customer information was produced: 15 Note: Our report does not include information requests consented to by the customer (e.g., to trace a lost or stolen phone) or civil requests. ORIGIN, LOCATION, AND TYPE OF REQUEST CREDO provides US-based telecom services. Type of Request Requesting Agency Was some or all of requested customer information provided? Customer State Administrative Subpoena DOJ/DEA Yes IL Administrative Subpoena County District Attorney Yes MA Administrative Subpoena DOJ/DEA Yes CA Emergency Request City Police Department Yes NY Summons to Produce Records Homeland Security/Police Department Yes CA Subpoena Duces Tecum Construction Contractors Board Yes OR Prosecuting Attorney's Subpoena County Attorney/City Police Dept. Yes IA Grand Jury Subpoena DOJ Yes MA Administrative Subpoena Police Department Yes NV Summons to Produce Records State's Attorney No MD Subpoena County Circuit Court Yes AL Subpoena Duces Tecum County Sheriff's Office Yes FL Subpoena DOJ/DEA Yes FL Subpoena DOJ/FBI No CA Subpoena DOJ/FBI Yes CA Administrative Subpoena DOJ/DEA Yes NY CREDO ADVOCACY AND FUNDING CREDO supports the repeal the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and the passage of Rep. Rush Holt’s Surveillance State Repeal Act. Until full repeal can be achieved, CREDO has worked specifically to reform the worst abuses of both acts. This includes fighting to roll back the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, and fighting to make FISA Court opinions public so that the American people know how the secret FISA court is interpreting the law. CREDO endorses the USA Freedom Act and the Amash Amendment, both aimed at halting the indiscriminate dragnet sweeping up the phone records of Americans. CREDO also opposes Senator Feinstein’s FISA Improvements Act which would codify the NSA’s unconstitutional program of surveillance by bulk collection. In addition to our civil rights activism, we also are a committed funder of civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. Transparency Report Release Date: January 8, 2014 1 Customer information refers to non-content information such a customer’s name, address, bill information, or handset or account information. Regarding the content of customer communications, CREDO does not receive or store the content of customer communications. This report includes only CREDO’s requests and does not include requests that may have been directed to another carrier. 2 CREDO evaluates emergency requests to ensure they satisfy the requirements of 18 USC § 2702(c)(4) and/or (b)(8). 3 Includes requests for which CREDO had no responsive information. http://www.credomobile.com/misc/transparency.aspx

The first phone company to publish a transparency report isn’t AT&T or Verizon

• By Brian Fung

(philcampbell / Flickr)

Ever since we learned that the country's phone companies were handing vast amounts of data to the government under court order, pressure has been mounting for them to publish a Silicon Valley-type transparency report detailing how exactly they're complying.
Now the first such report is out. But instead of coming from industry mainstays such as Verizon or AT&T, the disclosure comes from a little-known, left-leaning service known as CREDO Mobile.
For the unfamiliar, San Francisco-based CREDO is a progressive organization that supports causes like marriage equality and environmental activism. Its wireless service arm is a small part of that, with around 125,000 subscribers. But the operation helps subsidize the broader organization's political activity, and it's probably safe to say that CREDO Mobile customers are generally in it for ideological reasons.
Still, CREDO Mobile operates just like any other phone service. It partners with Sprint and piggybacks off of its network to provide cellular service to its users. And that means it's subject to the same data requests that its larger cousins routinely face.
According to CREDO Mobile's transparency report, federal, state and local authorities summoned user data from the company 16 times in 2013. That isn't a lot. It makes sense.
One of those cases involved a potentially life-threatening emergency. In 14 cases, CREDO Mobile gave up at least some information in response to the requests, which affect 15 individual user accounts. (This last figure is important, because the impact of an aggregate number of requests is hard to judge without knowing how many real people they cover.)
CREDO also does something very unusual: It breaks down each request not only by type, but also according to the agency that made the request and the state in which the target subscriber lives. The report also discloses whether specific data requests yielded any information.
It probably wasn't too difficult for CREDO to pull together this extra data, given its small size. But it's an enlightening move, and one that other companies would do well to consider adopting in their own disclosures.
Other phone companies — including the nation's four biggest wireless carriers — have spoken about their compliance with government data requests before. But they did so in the context of a congressional probe by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Since then, AT&T and Verizon have vowed to publish a periodic transparency report but have not yet done so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/09/the-first-phone-company-to-publish-a-transparency-report-isnt-att-or-verizon/

Exclusive: Inside America's Plan to Kill Online Privacy Rights Everywhere 20NOV13

THE Obama administration continues it's assault on privacy and human rights and civil liberties, this time at the U.N. The German and Brazilian governments should refuse to water down their proposal, doing so gives tacit approval of the American government's actions in their countries, including the spying on their heads of state. They should consider the experience of the American public. We foolishly permitted our Congress to pass the "patriot act", and look how it has been violated, with no consequences for the law breakers. The U.S. government's assurances concerning spying, surveillance, civil liberties and human rights can not be trusted. The American people can give witness to that. From Foreign Policy magazine...

Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 6:10 PM  

The United States and its key intelligence allies are quietly working behind the scenes to kneecap a mounting movement in the United Nations to promote a universal human right to online privacy, according to diplomatic sources and an internal American government document obtained by The Cable.
The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations.
The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.
A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner.

More FP Coverage the NSA Leaks

• Meet the Spies Doing the NSA's Dirty Work
• Spy Copters, Lasers, and Break-In Teams
• The FBI is Helping the NSA Spy, but Senators Don't Want to Know About It

Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations."
But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.
In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.
The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegal surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.
"Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree."
The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms.
"They want to be able to say ‘we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations."
The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.
There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."
The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees.
Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights.
"It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal.
The concession "is regrettable. But it’s not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch’s PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner.
  

Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

 – 

 U.S. Redlines 1)

 

Clarify that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States’

obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extra-territorially.

PP5

 Reaffirming

the human privacy rights of individuals under Article 17 of the ICCPR, that is to privacy and not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to enjoy protection of the law against such interferences and attacks

(new, based on article 17 of the ICCPR)

, and recognizing that the exercise of the right to privacy rights is often understood as an essential requirement for the realizationenjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without interference, and one of the foundations of a democratic society

(new, based on the report A/HRC/23/40 (para 24) of the Special Rapporteur)

,

At the end of the first line, add “that is” before “not to

 

 be subjected.” This addition is

essential in order not to suggest that there are two sets of privacy rights, one under the ICCPR and the other from some other source. We are seeking the same fix in OP1. OP1.

 Reaffirms

the rights contained in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in article 17 ofin the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right to privacy rights, that is and not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with  privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to enjoy protection of the law against such interference or attacks, in accordance with article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(new)

;

In the third line, replace the “and” before “not to be subjected…” with “that is.” It is

necessary to clarify that these are not two separate rights. This is the same edit proposed for PP5. PP10

 Deeply concerned th

at human rights violations and abuses that may result from the abuse of information acquired through the conduct of any surveillance or interception of private communications, including extraterritorial surveillance or interception of private communications, their interception, as well as the collection of personal data, including  particular massive surveillance, interception and data collection

(new)

,

In the first line, change “at” to “that” and delete “violations and.” As the text currently

reads, it suggests that states have international human rights obligations to respect the  privacy of foreign nationals outside the U.S., which is not the U.S. view of the ICCPR.

2)

 

Clarify that the focus of the resolution is on “unlawful” or “illegal” surveillance and

interception of communications.

PP8

 Emphasizing

that

under ICCPR Article 17, States’

 illegal unlawful surveillance and interception of private communications, their interception, as well as the illegal unlawful collection of personal data, constitute a highly intrusive act that violates the right to privacy 

 rights and may threaten freedom of expression, including the expression of political and religious  beliefs, and may threaten the foundations of a democratic society

(new, based on the report A/HRC/23/40 (para 81) of the Special Rapporteur)

,

Add “under ICCPR Article 17,” or change the two references to “illegal” to “unlawful” to

clarify that this paragraph is addressing the obligations under the ICCPR only. It is essential to collapse the references to surveillance and interception of private

communications into one category that is modified by “unlawful.” Replace “their interception” with “and interception” and move it to after “illegal surveillance.”

We understand this paragraph to be referring to surveillance and interception of the content of communications, both of which should be qualified by

“unlawful.” Recall that the USG’s collection activities that have been disclosed are

lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights, so a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree. We

suggest moving “interception” on the grounds of bad English syntax (which is fair). In that way, we can have “unlawful” modify all the elements of the paragraph.

 

3)

 

Clarify that violations of privacy rights to not necessarily violate freedom of expression.

PP8

 Emphasizing

that

under ICCPR Article 17, States’

 illegal unlawful surveillance and interception of private communications, their interception, as well as the illegal unlawful collection of personal data, constitute a highly intrusive act that violates the right to privacy rights and may threaten freedom of expression, including the expression of political and religious  beliefs, and may threaten the foundations of a democratic society

(new, based on the report A/HRC/23/40 (para 81) of the Special Rapporteur)

,

Move “may threaten” from before “the foundations of a democratic…” to before “freedom of expression.”

 

We need to clarify that privacy violations could “interfere with” freedom of expression and avoid the inaccurate suggestion that all privacy

violations are violations of freedom of expression.

Follow me on Twitter: @columlynch. 

VIDEO & PICS OF THE STOP WATING US RALLY IN D.C. ON 26OKT13

I went to the Stop Watching Us rally in D.C. last Saturday, 26 OKT 13. About 3000 attended, the mood was festive and energetic and committed to changing the law, to reigning in the abuses of our civil liberties and the desecration of our Constitution, especially the 1st and 4th amendments. There were some very good speakers, especially the head of the ACLU, a young lady from Tunisia, former congressman Dennis Kucinich and Rep John Amash r MI, who is leading the fight in congress against nsa spying on the American people. You can sign the letter to congress demanding an end to nsa spying at https://optin.stopwatching.us/ Here is a short video from the rally and some pictures.....

Published on Oct 26, 2013

Thousands came together in Washington, DC on October 26, 2013 to protest the NSA's mass surveillance programs.

http://youtu.be/pdifI2l1mWA

 ACLU (below)






Former Rep Dennis Kucinich D OH(below)

Rep John Amash r MI

JUST A REMINDER....Mass Rally Against NSA Surveillance In D.C. 26OKT13

JUST a reminder....
 

A Rally Against Mass Surveillance 12pm This Saturday, 10/26, in front of Union Station, Washington, D.C. http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-rally-against-mass-surveillance-12pm.html

 

A Rally Against Mass Surveillance 12pm This Saturday, 10/26, in front of Union Station, Washington, D.C.

HERE's more information on the Rally Against Mass Surveillance this Saturday, 26 OKT 13. I will be there, because I still have the right to speak out against my government spying on me and my fellow Americans! Our Democracy, the Republic we love, our civil liberties are at risk and we must act to end the government's mass surveillance program NOW!!!!!

http://youtu.be/aGmiw_rrNxk 

Published on Oct 23, 2013

StopWatching.us is a coalition of more than 100 public advocacy organizations and companies from across the political spectrum. Join the movement at https://rally.stopwatching.us. This video harnesses the voices of celebrities, activists, legal experts, and other prominent figures in speaking out against mass surveillance by the NSA. Please share widely to help us spread the message that we will not stand for the dragnet surveillance of our communications.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties law and advocacy center that has been fighting the NSA's unconstitutional spying for years. Learn more at https://eff.org.

Rally Against Mass Surveillance

When: Saturday, Oct. 26, 11:30am-3pm
Where: Start at Union Station in Columbus Circle, march to Capitol Reflecting Pool
Details: Marchers will gather at Union Station at 11:30 a.m. in Columbus Circle. At noon we’ll march to Union Square (on 3rd Street and Madison Dr. NW in front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool) where the rally will take place.

As always, we need your help spreading the word. Be sure to RSVP for the event on Facebook (and invite your contacts), download posters, hit up Twitter, email your contacts or call your friends.

See you Saturday,

Josh, Ben, Charlie, Mary Alice, Katherine and the rest of the StopWatching.Us coalition.

The NSA is spying on everyone's personal communications. It’s operating without any meaningful oversight.
On October 26th, the 12th anniversary of the signing of the USA Patriot Act, we're holding the largest rally yet against NSA surveillance. We’ll be handing more than a half-million petitions to Congress to remind them that they work for us — and we won’t tolerate mass surveillance any longer.
A stellar group of whistleblowers, activists, researchers and others from both sides of the political spectrum will be speaking at this historic event. The list includes:

• Congressman Justin Amash
• Former senior NSA executive and whistleblower Thomas Drake
• Social critic Naomi Wolf
• Jona Bechtolt, from electro-punk band YACHT
• Claire L. Evans, also from YACHT
• Lt. Dan Choi, LGBT advocate and U.S. veteran
• Rainey Reitman, EFF
• Bruce Schneier, internationally renowned security technologist
• Craig Aaron, Free Press
• Kymone Freeman, Director of the National Black LUV Fest
• Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson
• Khalilah Barnes, EPIC
• Shahid Buttar, Bill of Rights Defense Committee
• Malachi Byrd, DC Youth Poetry Slam Team
• Wafa Ben Hassine, writer and human rights advocate
• Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich
• Laura Murphy, ACLU
• NOT4PROPHET, Hip Hop MC and community organizer
• Black Alley, DC-based soul-garage band

Location:
Marchers will gather in front of Union Station at 11:30 a.m. by the Christopher Columbus Memorial Fountain in Columbus Circle. Shortly after noon we’ll march to the National Mall at 3rd Street and Madison Dr. NW, in front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool, where there will be a stage set up for our rally speakers, musicians, and performers.
Read more and see a map.

Who we are

StopWatching.us is a coalition of more than 100 public advocacy organizations and companies from across the political spectrum. We came together in June 2013 to demand the U.S. Congress investigate the full extent of the NSA's spying programs. Go here to read our letter to U.S. Congress demanding accountability and reform.
Members of the StopWatching.us coalition include:

PUBLIC ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS:

+ More than 100 others. See the full list.

INDIVIDUALS:

Tim Berners-Lee
Inventor of the World Wide Web

Daniel Ellsberg
Whistleblower of the Pentagon Papers, Author

Gabriella Coleman
Author and academic

Glenn Greenwald
Journalist and lawyer

Ai Weiwei
Chinese artist and activist

Xeni Jardin
Journalist and founding partner of Boing Boing

Eli Pariser
Founder, Upworthy

Wil Wheaton
Actor

Alexis Ohanian
Founder, Reddit

Ben Cohen
Campaign donor

Anil Dash
Entrepreneur, technologist and writer

+ More than 30 others. See the full list.

COMPANIES:

+ More than 20 others. See the full list.

NEWS

Announcing The Stop Watching Us Video

23 Oct 2013 Read more ...

Project Megaphone: Fight Surveillance With 9 Lines of Code

17 Oct 2013 If you own a website, you can help us put a stop to warrantless surveillance.
Read more ...

Get on a bus, or find a rideshare

11 Oct 2013 On Oct. 26, thousands of people — including you — will descend on Washington, D.C., to tell Congress to stop the NSA’s unconstitutional mass surveillance.
Read more ...

Announcing the Rally Against Mass Surveillance

18 Sep 2013 The recent NSA revelations have laid it all out: The NSA is watching us online and on our phones. The NSA has corrupted security and cryptography, undermining the fabric of the Internet. Its overreaching surveillance is creating a climate of fear, chills free speech, and violates our basic human rights — and it operates without any meaningful oversight.
Read more ...
https://rally.stopwatching.us/