ICE, DOJ Among 7 Federal Agencies Sued for Social Media Surveillance Records
The American Civil Liberties Union claims that seven government agencies violated the Freedom of Information Act in failing to turn over information regarding the monitoring of both U.S. "citizens and noncitizens alike" via social media.
January 17, 2019 at 05:59 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued federal agencies for records related to their “social media surveillance activities.”
The ACLU lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that the “failure” of seven government agencies to respond to a request for information pertaining to the “surveillance of social media users and speech” violates the Freedom of Information Act and raises concerns for freedom of speech and privacy of both “citizens and noncitizens alike.”
“Little information is available to the public on the tools and methods that defendants use to conduct surveillance of social media users and speech, or any policies and guidelines that govern such surveillance,” the complaint said. “Because the government's growing use of social media surveillance implicates the online speech of millions of social media users, U.S. citizens and residents of all backgrounds have an urgent need to understand the nature, extent, and consequences of that surveillance.”
The ACLU attributes the existence of surveillance records to “publicly available information,” including accounts of the Trump administration's increased monitoring of social media accounts of immigrants and visa applicants for “extreme” or “visa lifecycle vetting.” The complaint also points to a 2017 Department of Homeland Security report chronicling the trial of a task force that uses social media to screen individuals applying for immigration benefits. That report likewise noted that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—one of the defendants in the ACLU suit—launched a pilot program as well as expanded social media screening for similar ends.
“It's clear that the federal government is ramping up its use of social media surveillance over the past several years with a focus in part on immigrant communities and communities of color,” Hugh Handeyside, an ACLU Foundation attorney listed on the complaint, said in an interview with The Recorder. “We saw a pretty urgent need for the public to have better perspective on any policies that may constrain them.”
The ACLU complaint said that in 2012, the FBI—one of the defendant agencies—looked to contractors for information on “a planned automated tool” with which the agency could “search and monitor information on social media platforms.” Likewise, the lawsuit indicated that the FBI in 2016 obtained “social media monitoring software that would give it full access to Twitter data.”
The lawsuit accuses every defendant agency of failing to respond to or reasonably search for records in accordance with a May 2018 FOIA request. However, Handeyside noted that the FBI “stands apart.”
“They came back with a Glomar response,” he said, noting the government “couldn't confirm or deny the existence of records.”
“That's a pretty aggressive move. The FBI is trying to go dark on its use of social media surveillance, but it's clear they engage in this kind of surveillance, and the public has a right to know about it,” Handeyside said.
The Department of Justice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, USCIS and the Department of State didn't respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to comment.
Matthew Cagle, a technology and civil liberties attorney at ACLU of Northern California, is also listed as an attorney bringing suit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
SEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New Research Study Predicts Continued Growth for Generative AI in Legal
- 2Litera Acquires Document Automation Startup Office & Dragons
- 3Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
- 4Transforming Dispute Processes in Law: The Impact of Large Language Models
- 5Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250