International Poll Shows Millennials Have Positive Opinion of Edward Snowden
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today released the results of an international poll showing that majorities of millennials familiar with Edward Snowden around the world have an overwhelmingly positive opinion of him and believe that his disclosures will lead to greater privacy protections.
The poll, conducted in late February, surveyed 18- to 34-year-olds in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, and the Netherlands. The most favorable views of Snowden are in continental Europe, where between 78 and 86 percent of millennials familiar with Snowden have positive opinions of him. In the United States, 56 percent of millennials have favorable opinions of Snowden.
“The broad support for Edward Snowden among millennials around the world should be a message to democratic countries that change is coming,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “They are a generation of digital natives who don’t want government agencies tracking them online or collecting data about their phone calls.”
Opinions of millennials are particularly significant in light of January 2015 findings by the U.S. Census Bureau that they are projected to surpass the baby-boom generation as the United States’ largest living generation this year.
The poll also showed millennials in each country say Snowden’s disclosures will lead to more protection of privacy rights. In Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, 54 to 59 percent said they thought Snowden’s actions would lead to more privacy protection.
This optimism may be somewhat surprising given the direction that some of the governments in the countries polled are heading. The parliaments of Canada, France, and the Netherlands are considering expansive surveillance powers similar to those of the USA Patriot Act, and Australia recently enacted such a law. In the United Kingdom, a recent report from a parliamentary committee recommended a more transparent legal framework to govern electronic surveillance, but it concluded that British intelligence services’ bulk collection of email and phone data did not amount to mass surveillance because the communications were only being collected and not actually read.
But while governments are attempting to preserve and expand their ability to spy on people, technology companies have recognized that the public demands greater privacy protections and are increasingly taking measures to circumvent surveillance. Apple, Google, Whatsapp, and others have adopted new forms of encryption and tools to protect consumer privacy. On March 25, the Reform Government Surveillance coalition, which includes Google, Apple, AOL, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo, joined civil rights groups and trade associations in sending a letter to U.S. lawmakers calling for the government to end the bulk collection of data.
“Efforts to rein in government surveillance are inevitable given the sure rise of the millennial generation and its broad support for Edward Snowden,” Romero said. “Old folks just don’t get it. The new generation will fix it if we don’t.”
Similarly, international bodies responsible for establishing human rights norms are also taking steps to rein in the surveillance state. The U.N. Human Rights Council voted on March 26 to appoint a special rapporteur to monitor the state of privacy rights worldwide, a move that was prompted by concern over U.S. surveillance practices and the security of digital information. Once a human rights expert is selected to be the rapporteur, he or she will visit various countries, conduct research, document rights violations, and ultimately help shape the evolution of the applicable human rights law.
The ACLU has long called on the U.S. government to end its mass surveillance programs. In June, Congress will have a chance to end a major one when key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire, including Section 215, which the National Security Agency claims as the basis for its bulk collection of Americans’ phone call records.
“Any effort to fix Section 215 of the Patriot Act would only make a bad law a little less bad,” Romero said. “Congress should see the writing on the wall and let the NSA’s unconstitutional mass phone spying program end with the whimper it deserves.”
The ACLU has also called on the U.S. government to offer clemency to Snowden for exposing the National Security Agency’s illegal spying apparatus. Last month, the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called on the U.S. to allow Snowden to return home without fear of criminal prosecution. The resolution, which will be debated for adoption by the PACE general assembly in June, also calls on member states to offer asylum to Snowden if the U.S. is unwilling to drop its charges.
“The government will look back in shame at its effort to prosecute Snowden for blowing the whistle on the NSA,” said Romero. “I don’t think there is any doubt that Snowden will inevitably take his rightful place in U.S. history as a whistleblower and patriot.”
A Los Angeles Times op-ed written by Anthony D. Romero published today on the poll is at:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0421-romero-millennials-privacy-20150421-story.html
The poll results are at:
https://www.aclu.org/snowden-poll-results
More information on NSA spying is at:
https://www.aclu.org/nsa-surveillance
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, 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’s 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 “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The 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.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ 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 “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s 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’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ 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,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” 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
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – 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, American Civil Liberties Union 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 ACLU’s National Security Project: “While 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’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – 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’s 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’s 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’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — 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’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” 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’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. 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,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU 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.