Later this month, three of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire: Section 215 orders; the roving "John Doe" wiretap provision; and the "lone wolf" provision. Rep. James Sensenbrenner has just introduced H.R. 1800, a bill that would reauthorize roving "John Doe" wiretaps and 215 orders for an incredible six years, and would make the unused "lone wolf" provision permanent! These three provisions are extremely troubling, as they are ripe for abuses such as surveillance of innocent people, and racial and religious profiling.

If this bill passes, it would mean that until 2017, the government would have nearly unchecked authority and be subject to little congressional oversight for issuing 215 orders that allow the government to demand "any tangible thing" during an investigation, including credit reports, medical records, business records and even library records — all without any suspicion of wrongdoing. The government would have the same unchecked authority to place roving wiretaps on essentially any phone line, without getting a warrant for a specific, identified individual first.

Rep. Sensenbrenner's bill would also permanently reauthorize the "lone wolf" provision, which allows the government to conduct surveillance on a non-U.S. person, even where that person has no connection to a terrorist organization. The proposed bill would preclude any real congressional oversight of the government's use of this authority, and shielding the government from accountability. This provision has proven to be an unnecessary grant of power, as it hasn't been used a single time since it was passed into law seven years ago.

Rep. Sensenbrenner's repeated claims that there have been no abuses of Patriot Act are misleading and miss the point of what an "abuse" is. Despite the fact that it is almost impossible to identify individual victims of Patriot Act abuses because these surveillance programs are conducted in secret, several reports have revealed rampant abuse by the FBI, and the courts have even ruled some sections of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. But even more importantly, every time the government spies on a person who isn't suspected of doing anything wrong, it violates the Fourth Amendment, and that is without a doubt, an "abuse." H.R. 1800 authorizes the government to continue those abuses for years to come.

In the 10 years since Congress passed the Patriot Act, we have seen reports of continuous abuses of power. These authorities comprehensively undermine one of the bedrocks of our democracy — the right to be free from government surveillance. Despite this, Rep. Sensenbrenner seeks to reauthorize the Patriot Act without amendment and punt further oversight activities a full six years down the road. H.R. 1800 is nothing more than yet another affront to our right to privacy.

With these three provisions set to expire at the end of the month, now is the time to demand more oversight from Congress on all Patriot Act authorities, not less, and to either amend these provisions or allow them to expire. Congress is holding a hearing on the Patriot Act on Wednesday, and considering H.R. 1800 on Thursday. Take action and demand reform now!

(Originally posted on the Blog of Rights.)

Often when the government tries to suppress information about its surveillance programs, it cites national-security concerns. But not always.

In 2008, a few years after the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretapping program was revealed for the first time by the New York Times, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act. That act authorizes the government to engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications without meaningful oversight. As we've explained before (including in our lawsuit challenging the statute), the FISA Amendments Act is unconstitutional.

In 2009, we also filed a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about the government's interpretation and implementation of the FISA Amendments Act. Last November, the government released a few hundred pages of heavily redacted documents. Though redacted, the documents confirmed that the government had interpreted the statute as broadly as we had feared and even that the government had repeatedly violated the few limitations that the statute actually imposed.

Two weeks ago, as part of our FOIA lawsuit over those documents, the government gave us several declarations attempting to justify the redaction of the documents. We've been combing through the documents and recently came across this unexpectedly honest explanation from the FBI of why the government doesn't want us to know which "electronic communication service providers" participate in its dragnet surveillance program. On page 32:



There you have it. The government doesn't want you to know whether your internet or phone company is cooperating with its dragnet surveillance program because you might get upset and file lawsuits asserting your constitutional rights. Would it be such a bad thing if a court were to consider the constitutionality of the most sweeping surveillance program ever enacted by Congress?

(Originally posted on the Blog of Rights.)

ACLU of Illinois' Board president Jill Metz was featured in a recent edition of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin for her work in passing the new civil union legislation:

Even though she is not a registered lobbyist, Metz came down to Springfield on numerous occasions last year to help lobby for the bill in her capacity as the ACLU's board president.

She talked to lawmakers, was on hand for legal questions and was involved in the ACLU's polling and patch-through phone campaign. She also called upon her clients and other members of the LGBT community to share their stories with lawmakers.

"She was able to reach out to constituents all across Illinois to make contacts with legislators," said Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, who sponsored the civil unions bill in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Over the past few years that Harris has been pushing the measure, he has worked closely with Metz and the ACLU. He said he specifically relied on Metz for her legal insight.

"Because her practice touched on a lot of issues that were related to the bill, she was able to help us to fine tune the language," Harris said, adding that the subject of his bill was "Uncharted territory" for lllinois.

While Metz played an integral role within the ACLU's efforts to pass the civil unions bill, Harris said she has done so much more in her Career for the LGBT community.

"She is a fierce advocate for equality and justice," he said of Metz, who was inducted in 2006 into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame.

Download a copy of the article.