<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > ACLU</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/aclu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:53:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>ACLU seeks human rights probe into Padilla case</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/aclu_seeks_human_rights_probe_into_padilla_case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/aclu_seeks_human_rights_probe_into_padilla_case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jose Padilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13121758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The civil liberties group are asking the Organization of American States to investigate the U.S. government]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK (AP) -- A civil liberties group asked the Organization of American States' human rights commission Tuesday to investigate the U.S. government for what it says are violations of the rights of convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla.</p><p>The American Civil Liberties Union says the U.S. violated Padilla's rights when it labeled him an "enemy combatant" a decade ago and subjected him to interrogation that amounted to torture, including sleep and sensory deprivation in solitary confinement.</p><p>The watchdog legal group told The Associated Press it had filed a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which serves as the human-rights investigation arm of the Washington-based OAS.</p><p>The U.S. has argued in the past that it is not bound by the commission and views its findings as "only recommendations that the United States can ignore or it can follow," according to Steven Watt, the ACLU lawyer who filed the petition. But the findings could still prove awkward for the U.S., which sees itself as a leader on human rights and is quick to criticize other countries it views as falling short on that front.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/aclu_seeks_human_rights_probe_into_padilla_case/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/11/aclu_seeks_human_rights_probe_into_padilla_case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four huge corporate power grabs possibly worse than Citizens United</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doe v. Tanenbaum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon Papers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13119117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These court cases offer a chilling reminder how close America has come to becoming an outright plutocracy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a> Court-awarded corporate power is growing beyond the world of campaigns and elections, often at the expense of individual rights and Americans' ability to bring businesses to court.</p><p>A handful of recent decisions highlight this less-watched area of corporate clout. In two rulings this year, federal courts have concluded that secular for-profit businesses have First Amendment religious rights. In another ruling, a business that challenged its inclusion in a federal consumer product complaint database won and then successfully sealed federal court records, with the judge saying that protecting the firm’s economic reputation was a higher constitutional priority than keeping court records public.</p><p>In other instances, federal courts have upheld arbitration agreements that customers must sign for a range of services that include daily necessities, blocking people from going to court when disputes arise. And in the patent law arena, a range of individuals -- from farmers who want to protect their seed stock to health advocates concerned about privatized cancer research -- have been losing to corporations that have patented seeds and even human genes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/09/4_huge_corporate_power_grabs_that_never_came_to_pass/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Go to church, or go to jail!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/go_to_church_or_go_to_jail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/go_to_church_or_go_to_jail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Fix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13113921</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A drunk-driving teen in Oklahoma is sentenced to a decade's worth of sermons. Is that even constitutional? ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.thefix.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://www.thefix.com/sites/all/themes/thefix/images/logo.png" alt="the fix" align="left" /></a>  A year ago, two buzzed Oklahoma teens lost control of their pickup truck, drove off the road and smashed into a tree, ejecting and killing the passenger. The driver, <strong>Tyler Alred,</strong> confessed to drinking earlier in the evening, and blew a 0.07 on the breathalyzer, above the legal limit for a minor. In August, Alred pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter, and was sentenced to four years to life, with parole. But a judge named <strong>Mike Norman</strong> changed Alred's sentence to 10 years deferred—meaning no jail time—provided he graduates from high school, passes regular drug and alcohol tests, performs community service … and goes to church every Sunday for a decade. If that seems constitutionally dicey—well, the Oklahoma ACLU and the US Supreme Court agree.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/go_to_church_or_go_to_jail/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/03/go_to_church_or_go_to_jail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privacy concerns grow over FBI data gathering</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/privacy_concerns_over_fbi_data_gathering/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/privacy_concerns_over_fbi_data_gathering/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Independent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Franken]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13054261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Watchdogs fear the organization's new facial-recognition system will collect information on innocent civilians]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.americanindependent.com"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/06/TheAmericanIndependent.jpg" alt="The American Independent" align="left" /></a> In July, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., opened a Senate hearing on the privacy and civil liberties implications of facial-recognition technology by affirming some incontrovertible facts. “You can change your password. You can get a new credit card. But you can’t change your fingerprint, and you can’t change your face,” Franken said. “Unless, I guess, you go to a great, you know, deal of trouble.”</p><p>Franken was expressing concerns about the <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/ngi" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Next Generation Identification</a> system, a database the FBI has been steadily building over the past several years that harnesses the data-gathering power of an emerging slew of forensic technologies. When fully deployed, NGI will allow the bureau to integrate a vast array of forensic data culled from local and state law enforcement agencies, including fingerprints, palm prints, scar and tattoo records, and facial photos. Multiple reports peg the cost of the facial-recognition software upgrade alone at <a href="http://www.livescience.com/23068-fbi-launches-software-to-id-faces-in-photos.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">$1 billion</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/privacy_concerns_over_fbi_data_gathering/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/privacy_concerns_over_fbi_data_gathering/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACLU challenges Bay Area police drone plans</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/18/aclu_challenge_bay_area_police_drone_plans/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/18/aclu_challenge_bay_area_police_drone_plans/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alameda County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oakland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bay Area]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13045202</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alameda County will experiment with drones. Activists and residents demand details]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The sheriff of California's Alameda County announced this week that he is considering the use of unmanned drones for domestic policing. Sheriff Greg Ahern, whose policing purview includes Oakland and Berkeley on the east side of San Francisco Bay, will test unmanned drones -- first used in combat -- in an upcoming policing exercise, <a href="http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/10/alameda_county_sheriff_conside_1.php">SF Gate</a> reported.</p><p>The ACLU of Northern California, alongside other civil rights organizations, announced on Thursday that they will question and challenge the sheriff's plans. According to the <a href="http://occupiedoaktrib.org/2012/10/17/say-no-to-drones-in-alameda-county/">Occupied Oakland Tribune</a>, "The ACLU of Northern California has sent County Sheriff Ahern a public records request, asking for basic information about why drones are needed, how much they would cost to acquire, operate and maintain, and how the drones would be used."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/18/aclu_challenge_bay_area_police_drone_plans/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/18/aclu_challenge_bay_area_police_drone_plans/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Morgan Stanley sued for subprime discrimination</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/morgan_stanley_sued_for_subprime_discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/morgan_stanley_sued_for_subprime_discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morgan Stanley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subprime Loans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mortgage Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13041052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A class-action suit alleges that the investment bank steered black borrowers to bad mortgages]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The American Civil Liberties Union Monday filed a class action lawsuit against investment bank Morgan Stanley alleging racial discrimination in subprime mortgage practices.</p><p>As Colorlines <a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/10/aclu_sues_morgan_stanley_for_discrimination_in_subprime_mortages.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">noted</a>, "The class-action lawsuit, submitted in a federal court a stones throw from the New York Stock Exchange, alleges that Morgan Stanley [via now-bankrupt financial agent, New Century Mortgage Company] intentionally steered blacks in the Detroit metropolitan region into subprime loans. Blacks who were credit-worthy and qualified for traditional mortgages were caught up in Morgan Stanley’s biased dragnet."</p><p>Of the 9 million foreclosures since 2007, four out of 10 have been against people of color. Both Bank of America and Wells Fargo have settled discrimination lawsuits over steering black and Latino borrowers into subprime loans. "Race was laced throughout Wall Street’s activities," Colorlines' Imara Jones commented.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/morgan_stanley_sued_for_subprime_discrimination/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/15/morgan_stanley_sued_for_subprime_discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rights groups: Ban solitary confinement of youths</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/rights_groups_ban_solitary_confinement_of_youths/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/rights_groups_ban_solitary_confinement_of_youths/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[From the Wires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights Watch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solitary Confinement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/rights_groups_ban_solitary_confinement_of_youths/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ACLU and Human Rights Watch say the government should ban solitary for offenders under 18]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NEW YORK (AP) — State governments should abolish the use of solitary confinement for offenders under 18, whether as a punitive or protective measure, two of America's leading advocates for prisoners' rights said in report Wednesday.</p><p>Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said brief periods of isolation may be needed as a security measure. However, they contend that longer spans of solitary confinement can cause serious psychological and physical harm to young people, including heightened risk of suicide.</p><p>Solitary confinement of adults also can be harmful, the report said. "But the potential damage to young people, who do not have the maturity of an adult and are at a particularly vulnerable, formative stage of life, is much greater."</p><p>The report, "Growing Up Locked Down," said lack of detailed state data made it impossible to estimate the number of juveniles subjected to solitary confinement and other forms of isolation at any given time. But it described the practice as widespread, notably among juveniles held in adult facilities.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/rights_groups_ban_solitary_confinement_of_youths/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/10/10/rights_groups_ban_solitary_confinement_of_youths/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Documents show spike in warrantless surveillance</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/documents_show_spike_in_warrantless_surveillance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/documents_show_spike_in_warrantless_surveillance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wire-tapping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13024572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ACLU publishes government records obtained via FOIA]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to government documents obtained by the ACLU, the Justice Department's use of warrantless phone and internet tapping has increased 600 percent in the past decade.</p><p>Using methods that don't require a probable-cause warrant, the DoJ has been able -- with little effort -- to track phone and internet communication information, including numbers dialed and email senders and recipients. Under the Obama administration, between 2009 and 2011, there was a 60 percent rise in orders from the DoJ for warrantless tapping, with 37,616 original orders sent to judges in 2011 compared to less than 6,000 in 2001.</p><p>In order to surveil communications using "pen register" or "trap and trace" methods, federal agents need only send an order to a federal judge to ceritfy that the information being gathered (phone numbers, email addresses) is relevant to an ongoing investigation. To read the content of emails or listen in to calls, a warrant is needed.</p><p>The ACLU's Noami Gilen's posted on the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-justice-department-documents-show-huge-increase">organization's blog</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/documents_show_spike_in_warrantless_surveillance/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/28/documents_show_spike_in_warrantless_surveillance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$1 million to pepper-sprayed protesters</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/university_of_california_to_pay_1_million_to_pepper_sprayed_protesters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/university_of_california_to_pay_1_million_to_pepper_sprayed_protesters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pepper-spray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UC Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Occupy Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University of California]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13022571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sitting Occupy demonstrators were doused at the University of California, Davis]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's a good news week for pepper-sprayed Occupy protesters. On Monday Salon <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/24/weird_news_occubaby_on_the_way/">noted</a> that a young woman famously pepper-sprayed by an NYPD officer is expecting a baby with the medic who helped her stung eyes. Now, the ACLU<a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/state&amp;id=8825868"> reports</a>, the University of California will pay out a $1 million settlement to demonstrators doused in pepper spray during a demonstration at U.C. Davis last November. Each of the 21 plaintiffs will receive $30,000, plus an additional $250,000 will go to cover the suit's legal costs.</p><p>Images of "pepper-spray cop," campus police officer John Pike, blasting sitting demonstrators with orange pepper spray garnered viral attention. The district attorney determined Pike's behavior "not objectively reasonable," but <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/20/161476207/no-criminal-charges-for-pepper-spray-cop-or-other-officers">did no</a>t seek criminal charges.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/university_of_california_to_pay_1_million_to_pepper_sprayed_protesters/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/university_of_california_to_pay_1_million_to_pepper_sprayed_protesters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Distress spreads in Arizona over &#8220;Show-your-papers&#8221; law</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/21/distress_spreads_in_azover_show_your_papers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/21/distress_spreads_in_azover_show_your_papers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SB 1070]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jan Brewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal immigrants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13018333</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Immigrant rights activists prepare concerned citizens now that SB 1070 is in effect ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earlier this week Arizona's controversial SB 1070 law went into effect, allowing police officers to conduct immigration checks on any individual they stop.</p><p>Immigrant rights activists, having protested and fought the legislation in court for two years, have now geared up to deal with its impact on the ground.</p><p>A bilingual hotline, hosted by ACLU of Arizona and established by immigrant rights activist Lydia Guzman to advise on issues around SB 1070, has already been inundated with calls from concerned parties.</p><p>ACLU of Arizona executive director Alessandra Soler told Salon Friday that she expects in the next couple of weeks that calls will come in reporting stops and detentions by police. As of now, the hotline, which launched in June, has received more than 3,500 calls from people seeking advice on preemptive action.</p><p>"People are asking very smart questions," she said, "such as whether a passenger in a car needs to carry identification." But there is concern that police officers might stop a car for a driving violation and conduct immigration checks on all passengers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/21/distress_spreads_in_azover_show_your_papers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/21/distress_spreads_in_azover_show_your_papers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arizona &#8220;show-your-papers&#8221; law begins</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/arizona_show_your_papers_law_begins/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/arizona_show_your_papers_law_begins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illegal immigrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jan Brewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Undocumented immigrants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13016888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Police can carry out immigration checks on anyone who is stopped and suspected]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As of yesterday, police in Arizona are now authorized to perform immigration checks on any person they stop and suspect of being in the United States illegally. The controversial "show-your-papers" state law provision, upheld by the Supreme Court this summer, has enraged immigration activists who see the provision as opening a floodgate for racial profiling. A federal judge lifted an injunction on the provision this week.</p><p>As Reuters <a href="http://http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-usa-immigration-arizona-idUSBRE88I1FB20120920">reported</a>, the American Civil Liberties Union has set up a hotline where individuals questioned or detained under the law can call in. "[We'll] be looking very carefully to monitor for civil rights violations in the state," Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, one of a coalition of groups that challenged the law, told Reuters.</p><p>Around 50 activists demonstrated outside ICE agency offices in Phoenix late Wednesday to protest the law going into effect. Undocumented activists are working to spread information and advice to fellow immigrants who are in the country illegally; some groups are advising undocumented individuals to leave any papers detailing their country of birth at home, and to give only their name and birthday to police if stopped.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/arizona_show_your_papers_law_begins/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/arizona_show_your_papers_law_begins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drones: Hidden in plain sight</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/15/drones_hidden_in_plain_sight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/15/drones_hidden_in_plain_sight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ProPublica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13011654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the government talks about a drone program it won't acknowledge exists]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Drones have become the go-to weapon of the U.S.’s counter-terrorism strategy, with strikes in <a href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/multimedia/Yemen/code/Yemen-strike.php">Yemen</a> in particular increasing steadily. U.S. drones <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/yemen-drone-war/">reportedly killed</a> twenty-nine people in Yemen recently, including perhaps ten civilians.</p><p>Administration officials regularly celebrate the drone war’s apparent successes — often avoiding details or staying anonymous, but claiming tacit credit for the U.S.</p><p>In June, a day after Abu Yahya Al-Libi was killed in Pakistan, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/05/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-secretary-education-arne-dunca">White House spokesman Jay Carney trumpeted</a> the death of “Al Qaeda’s Number-Two.” Unnamed officials confirmed the strike in at least ten media outlets. Similarly, the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki by a CIA drone last September was confirmed in many news outlets by anonymous officials. President Obama <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/30/remarks-president-change-office-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-ceremony">called Awlaki’s death</a> “a tribute to our intelligence community."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/15/drones_hidden_in_plain_sight/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/15/drones_hidden_in_plain_sight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four ways your privacy is being invaded</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/four_ways_your_privacy_is_being_invaded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/four_ways_your_privacy_is_being_invaded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13007846</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Slowly but surely, government and telecommunications companies have forged a police-corporate surveillance complex]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.alternet.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a> Americans' personal privacy is being crushed by the rise of a four-headed corporate-state surveillance system.  The four “heads” are: federal government agencies; state and local law enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites &amp; Internet “apps” companies; and private data aggregators (sometimes referred to as commercial data warehouses).</p><p>Conventional analysis treats these four domains of data gathering as separate and distinct; government agencies focus on security issues and corporate entities are concerned with commerce. Some overlap can be expected as, for example, in case of a terrorist attack or an online banking fraud.  In both cases, an actual crime occurred.</p><p>But what happens when the boundary separating or restricting corporate-state collaboration, e.g., an exceptional crime-fighting incident, erodes and becomes the taken-for-granted operating environment, the new normal?  Perhaps most troubling, what happens when the traditional safeguards offered by “watchdog” courts or regulatory organizations no longer seem to matter?  What does it say that the entities designed to protect personal privacy rights seem to have either been effectively “captured” or become toothless tigers?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/four_ways_your_privacy_is_being_invaded/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/11/four_ways_your_privacy_is_being_invaded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Study: Divided classes promote stereotypes</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/study_divided_classes_promote_stereotypes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/study_divided_classes_promote_stereotypes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feministing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12999095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new report from the ACLU confirms what feminists have long suspected: Single-sex classrooms don't help kids learn]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent <a href="http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/doe_ocr_report2_0.pdf" target="_blank">report by the ACLU</a> confirms what many of us feminists/gender advocates/smart people might already suspect: that single-sex education programs, often based in ridiculous, unfounded, and outdated gender stereotypes, don’t help kids learn and in fact can be detrimental to their social and educational experience. According to the ACLU, administrators and educators are increasingly constructing single-sex classes and curricula based on the unfounded theory that boys and girls are “hard-wired” to learn differently, leading to b<a>oys and girls across the U.S. being separated into different classrooms for all their academic classes and  taught using radically different methods</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/study_divided_classes_promote_stereotypes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/09/02/study_divided_classes_promote_stereotypes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Death penalty opponents&#8217; unlikely allies</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/retooling_the_death_penalty_debate_salpart/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/retooling_the_death_penalty_debate_salpart/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Crime Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Death Penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12987617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Across the country, family members of murder victims have come out against capital punishment]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Victoria Coward remembers hearing the gunshots ring out from Edgewood Park, not far from her New Haven, Conn., home in June 2007. Later that night her worst fears were realized when detectives knocked on her front door.</p><p><a href="http://www.thecrimereport.org/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/04/crime-report-logo.png" alt="The Crime Report" align="left" /></a></p><p>Her 18-year-old son, Tyler, was dead from gunshot wounds to the head and chest.</p><p>Two years later, when police arrested and charged Jose Fuentes-Pillich, a 23-year-old who she thought was Tyler's friend, Coward had already joined a campaign against the death penalty.</p><p>When she contacted Fuentes-Pillich after his conviction in 2010, she explained why she didn’t wish him dead.</p><p>“I told him it would be wrong for me to say, ‘You should die.’ That’s not in me. That’s in God’s hands … the first thing I need to do is forgive you for taking my son’s life,” Coward recalled in an interview with <em>The Crime Report</em>.</p><p>Connecticut became the 17thstate to abolish the death penalty in April. As opponents step up their national campaign, they are discovering some surprising allies among people like Coward — challenging the long-held stereotype that the families of murder victims automatically support capital punishment.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/retooling_the_death_penalty_debate_salpart/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/retooling_the_death_penalty_debate_salpart/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Racial profiling on an &#8220;industrial scale&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/racial_profiling_on_an_industrial_scale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/racial_profiling_on_an_industrial_scale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10133371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ACLU uncovers an FBI program that pairs Census data with "crude stereotypes" to map ethnic communities]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New <a href="http://www.aclu.org/mapping-fbi-uncovering-abusive-surveillance-and-racial-profiling">documents</a> obtained by the ACLU show that the FBI has for years been using Census data to "map" ethnic and religious groups suspected of being likely to commit certain types of crimes.</p><p>Much is still not known about the apparent large-scale effort in racial profiling, partly because the documents the ACLU obtained through public records requests are heavily redacted.</p><p>The FBI <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-response-to-aclu-report">maintains</a> that the mapping program is designed to "better understand the communities that are potential victims of the threats," but the ACLU says it is plainly unconstitutional.</p><p>To learn more about the FBI program, its implications for civil liberties and the questions that remain unanswered, I spoke to Michael German, policy counsel at the ACLU's Washington office and a <a href="http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/intelligence-expert-and-former-fbi-agent-joins-aclu-national-securi">former</a> FBI agent.</p><p><strong>What is the new information that has come to light here?</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/racial_profiling_on_an_industrial_scale/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/22/racial_profiling_on_an_industrial_scale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dennis G. Jacobs: Case study in judicial pathology</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/jacobs_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/jacobs_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2011/09/22/jacobs</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ACLU scores a big victory over government lawlessness, but the dissenting judge's ugly outburst speaks volumes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The last decade has spawned a massive expansion of the domestic Surveillance State.&#160; Worse, the U.S. Government has vested itself with the virtually unchallenged ability to operate this surveillance regime in full secrecy and even beyond the reach of judicial review, which is another way of saying:&#160;above and beyond the rule of law.&#160;</p><p>Each time U.S. citizens in the post-9/11 era have accused government officials in federal court of violating the Constitution or otherwise acting illegally with how they spy on Americans, the Justice Department employs one of two secrecy weapons to convince courts they <strong>must not even rule on the legality of the domestic spying</strong>: <strong>(1)</strong>&#160;they insist the spying program is too secret to allow courts even to examine it (the&#160;<a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php">Bush/Obama rendition of the "state secrets" privilege</a>); and/or <strong>(2)</strong> because the spying is conducted in complete secrecy, nobody can say for certain that they have been subjected to it, and the DOJ thus argues that the particular individuals suing the Government -- and, for that matter, everyone else in the country -- lacks "standing" to challenge the legality of the spying (<em>because nobody knows on whom we're spying, nobody has the right to sue us for breaking the law)</em>.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/jacobs_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/22/jacobs_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The ACLU on Obama and core liberties</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2011/09/07/liberties</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The leading civil liberties group documents the dangerous continuity between this President and the last one]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>     <strong>(updated below - Update II)</strong>   </p><p>The ACLU&#160;decided to use the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack to comprehensively survey the severe erosion of civil liberties justified in the name of that event, an erosion that -- as it documents -- continues unabated, indeed often in accelerated form, under the Obama administration.&#160; The group today is issuing <a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/report-call-courage-reclaiming-our-liberties-ten-years-after-911">a report entitled <em>A&#160;Call to Courage:&#160;Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11</em></a>; that title is intended to underscore the irony that political leaders who prance around as courageous warriors against Terrorism in fact rely on one primary weapon -- fear-mongering:&#160;the absence of courage -- to vest the government with ever-more power and the citizenry with ever-fewer rights.&#160; Domestically, the "War on Terror" has been, and continues to be, a war on basic political liberties more than it is anything else.&#160; The particulars identified in this new ACLU&#160;report will not be even remotely new to any readers here, but given the organization's status among progressives as the preeminent rights-defending group in the country, and given the bird's-eye-view the report takes of these issues, it is well worth highlighting some of its key findings.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>261</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why we need to police the police</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/police_surveillance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/police_surveillance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[When in Rome]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/05/20/police_surveillance</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cops don't like it, but cellphone videos are an important check on brutality]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What's good for the police apparently isn't good for the people -- or so the law enforcement community would have us believe when it comes to surveillance.</p><p>That's a concise summary of a new trend first reported by National Public Radio last week -- the trend whereby law enforcement officials have been trying to prevent civilians from using cellphone cameras in public places as a means of deterring police brutality.</p><p>Oddly, the effort -- which employs both forcible arrests of videographers and legal proceedings against them -- comes at a time when the American Civil Liberties Union reports that "an increasing number of American cities and towns are investing millions of taxpayer dollars in surveillance camera systems."</p><p>Then again, maybe it's not odd that the two trends are happening simultaneously. Maybe they go hand in hand. Perhaps as more police officers use cameras to monitor every move we make, they are discovering the true power of video to independently document events. And as they see that power, they don't want it turned against them.</p><p>But wait -- why not?</p><p>Though you'd expect that uncomfortable question to evoke dissembling, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Jim Pasco was quite straightforward about it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/police_surveillance/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/20/police_surveillance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Government employer asks man for Facebook login during job interview</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maryland Department of Corrections asks a candidate for his Facebook password. Is this the next privacy frontier?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When do background checks go too deep?&#160;When is a routine security measure a total invasion of privacy? When Facebook is involved, suggests the American Civil Liberties Union.</p><p>The ACLU recently <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/should-employers-be-allowed-to-ask-for-your-facebook-login/71480/">sent a letter</a> to the Maryland Department of Corrections in reference to a blanket policy requiring applicants to submit social media log-ins and passwords for routine background checks, reports the Atlantic's Alexis Madrigal. The letter <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.aclu-md.org/aPress/Press2011/collinsletterfinal.pdf&amp;pli=1">details</a> the experience of Officer Robert Collins, a seven-year veteran of the department, who spoke out about the new policy after applying for a new position. In a statement for ACLU Maryland, Collins <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDaX5DTmbfY">described</a> his employer's request and his reaction:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/facebook_employer_privacy_account_info/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>