Specifically, when can someone else, who sues your doctor, obtain your records? According to the decision the Ohio Supreme Court issued today (PDF) in Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region only under specific and limited circumstances. In this case, John and June Roe claimed that a Planned Parenthood clinic had improperly provided their teenage daughter with an abortion. With the financial support of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, their lawyers filed the suit, and then, in a court process called "discovery," demanded that Planned Parenthood turn over the medical records of all the minor patients the clinic had seen over a 10-year period. The Roes were willing, however, to receive the records with personally identifying information "redacted" — essentially blacked out with a Sharpie.

The ACLU became involved to help stop this potential invasion of medical privacy. When the Roes’ attempt to obtain the private medical records reached the Ohio Supreme Court, we filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Ohio Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics; the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians; the Society for Adolescent Medicine; the National Association of Social Workers; the National Center for Youth Law; the Center for Adolescent Health & the Law; the Ohio NOW Education and Legal Fund; the Ohio Domestic Violence Network; ACTION OHIO Coalition for Battered Women; Break the Cycle; and Women Empowered Against Violence, Inc. As our brief explained, these organizations entered the case to protect the minors whose records were at stake in the case, who were never asked for and never gave their permission for anyone to see their medical records, and who therefore had no opportunity to object to this violation of their privacy.

Our brief argued that disclosure of the records — even in redacted form — would undermine minors’ confidence that their reproductive medical information would be kept private, and thereby drive them away from seeking this critical care.

In today’s ruling (PDF), the court made the important point that the records would not lose their privileged (private) status simply by being redacted.

Those who seek to harass and deter providers of abortion care will not stop, but today’s ruling is a victory for the medical privacy and medical wellbeing of minors in Ohio.

On Friday, Steve Bierfeldt, treasurer of Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, and Larry Schwartztol, fearless ACLU attorney, appeared on CNN to talk about our new lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security.

We filed the lawsuit on Steve’s behalf after he was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials for nearly half an hour for passing a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. He was carrying the cash in connection with his duties as the Director of Development for the Campaign for Liberty, a political organization that grew out of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign.

We wrote about the case on Thursday. The CNN segment further underscores the TSA "mission creep" – using post-9/11 heightened security measures as an excuse to exceed their search authority – to which Steve was subjected. Watch it here:

Today, we filed a new lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over unlawful TSA search and detention practices. The case was filed on behalf of a traveler who was illegally detained and harassed by TSA Agents at the airport for carrying approximately $4,700 in cash.

On March 29, 2009, the plaintiff in the case, Steven Bierfeldt was detained in a small room at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and interrogated by TSA officials for nearly half an hour after he passed a metal box containing cash through a security checkpoint X-ray machine. He was carrying the cash in connection to his duties as Treasurer of Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty. Steven’s experience is part of a troubling pattern of the TSA transforming its valid but limited search authority into a license to invade people’s constitutional right to privacy.

Steven was detained and questioned as he returned home from a Campaign for Liberty event transporting proceeds from the sale of tickets, t-shirts, stickers and campaign material. He repeatedly asked the agents to explain the scope of their authority to detain and interrogate him and received no explanation. Instead, the agents escalated the threatening tone of their questions and ultimately told him that he was being placed under arrest. Steven recorded audio of the entire incident with his iPhone, which you can listen to here.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In a press release we issued about the case today, Steven states:

I do not believe I should give up my constitutional rights each time I choose to travel by plane. I was doing nothing illegal or suspicious, yet I was treated like a potential criminal and harassed for no reason. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that TSA considers simply carrying cash to be a basis for detention and questioning. I hope the court makes clear that my detention by TSA agents was unconstitutional and stops TSA from engaging in these unlawful searches and arrests. I do not want another innocent American to have to endure what I went through.

ACLU attorney Ben Wizner who is counsel in the case, explains:

Airport searches are the most common encounters between Americans and law enforcement agents. That’s why it is so important for TSA agents to do the job they were trained to do and not engage in fishing expeditions that do nothing to promote flight safety. It is, of course, very important to ensure the safety of flights and keep illegal weapons and explosives off planes. But allowing TSA screeners to conduct general purpose law enforcement searches violates the Constitution while diverting limited resources from TSA’s core mission of protecting safety.

TSA officials have the authority to conduct safety-related searches for weapons and explosives. Since 9/11, TSA agents have been using heightened security measures as an excuse to exceed their search authority and engage in unlawful searches that violate the privacy rights of passengers. Our lawsuit charges that unconstitutional searches and detention by TSA agents have become the norm. For the sake of public safety and constitutional values, these unlawful searches should stop.

You can learn more about the case and hear the audio recording of Steven’s detention and interrogation here.

On June 15, Senator Akaka (D-Hawaii) introduced S. 1261, the "Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009″ or the "PASS ID Act,” which repeals and replaces the Real ID Act of 2005 with new national requirements for driver’s licenses. Sen. Akaka should be commended for his sincere attempt to tackle the constitutional quagmire that is the Real ID Act. Real ID is so inherently flawed that the privacy, constitutional, and security problems it presents simply cannot be fixed.

On its face, PASS ID is a significant improvement from Real ID, but some careful reading of the bill’s language reveals many of the same privacy and constitutional problems. And even though PASS ID claims to be less expensive to implement than Real ID, it’s still bound to be a substantial unfunded federal mandate on states and state taxpayers.

Just like Real ID, your driver’s license will have to be PASS ID-compliant if you plan on using it to board an airplane or enter any federal facility more critical to homeland security than your local post office.

At an April 22 speech before the Anti-Defamation League, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano remarked in relation to Real ID: "The question is: how do you have that relationship [between individuals and their government] in such a fashion that people’s privacy rights are not violated?" That’s the million-dollar question of secure driver’s licenses, but unfortunately, PASS ID is the wrong answer. Sen. Akaka had it right in the 110th Congress when he sponsored S.717, the Identification Security Enhancement Act, which called for a negotiated rulemaking process that brings state and federal officials and nongovernmental organizations to the regulatory table, with an emphasis on civil liberties. Such a process would secure drivers’ personal information, protect privacy, and uphold the states’ ability to determine the rules governing driver’s licenses.

As a Governor, Secretary Napolitano led one of the 23 states that have enacted anti-real ID bills or resolutions. Thirteen states passed binding legislation prohibiting participation in the Real ID program: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. Several more states are now on the way to opting-out. These diverse states share a strong respect for individual privacy rights and a state’s right to control its internal affairs. They refused to participate in Real ID and expose their citizens to the harms of a national ID card. Unfortunately, they will do little better under the PASS ID Act.

The bottom line: a "Real ID lite" is still a national ID.

(Originally posted on the ACLU of Northern California’s Bytes & Pieces blog.)

Ever whiled away five minutes on a Facebook quiz, finding out what cartoon character is your look-alike or how your IQ stacks up? These quizzes may seem like a perfectly harmless way to spend a few spare minutes. But have you stopped to think about what these quizzes are learning about you and how that info could be used? Take our quiz and learn more!

QUESTION 1: When you take a Facebook quiz, the quiz:

A. Is just for fun and doesn’t collect any info about you.
B. Collects the info in your answers, but nothing else.
C. Collects the info in your answers, has access to your profile, and may even be able to access your friends’ profiles.

ANSWER: C.

This isn’t a back-of-the-magazine quiz — Facebook quizzes can collect and store the answers you give. But that’s not all: these quizzes can collect the information in your profile — and even information from your friends’ profiles — in addition to any answers you give.

QUESTION 2: OK, that doesn’t sound good, but my privacy settings will protect my information, right? By default, Facebook’s privacy settings:

A. Prevent any application from seeing anything on my profile unless I install and use that application.
B. Prevent applications from seeing anything on my profile if I have specific privacy settings for specific details on my profile.
C. Allow applications — including those used by my friends — to access to my profile.

ANSWER: C.

Facebook, no stranger to controversy over its policies regarding user data, does not have policies in place that reassure users that their information is automatically kept private. By default, Facebook’s privacy settings let applications access information on your profile even if you have restricted access to a specific network or friend group (as application privacy settings are separate from profile privacy settings). In addition, Facebook’s default settings allow applications run by your friends to pull information from your profile. Surprised? Check out your settings and see for yourself!

QUESTION 3: OK, so quizzes can collect a lot of info — but what can they do with it? The information that quizzes collect:

A. Cannot be retained or used at all
B. Can only be used in connection with Facebook.
C. Could be used, sold, or released in any way the developer chooses.

ANSWER: B — sort of.

Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities requires that application developers limit their use of any user data that they collect. That’s nice - in theory. But in practice, it only works if quiz developers comply with this limit. If they don’t, your information could easily be abused, sold, or released without your knowledge or consent. How do you know if you can trust these developers?

QUESTION 4: No worries; Facebook screens developers carefully, right? To be a Facebook developer, a person or company must:

A. Pass a thorough screening by Facebook and provide Facebook with a real name, address, and telephone number.
B. Provide Facebook with a real name, address, and telephone number.
C. Have nothing more than a Facebook account possibly tied to an anonymous email address.

ANSWER: C.

That’s right: these developers — who are able to collect all sorts of information about you and your friends — don’t have to reveal their information to you (or to Facebook) at all. That means it can be hard for Facebook to enforce these developer data use limits - or even to know if they’ve been violated in the first place.

QUESTION 5: All right, I’ve heard enough — I want to do something about it! The best way for me to take action is to:

A. Use Facebook’s privacy settings to limit the information that my friends’ quizzes and applications can see on your profile.
B. Demand that Facebook strengthen its privacy protections so that users can effectively retain control over their own information.
C. Join the dotRights campaign on Facebook to learn more about how I can take control of my online info and Demand My dotRights!

ANSWER: ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Taking control of your own privacy by using the privacy settings that Facebook offers is a good start — but it’s time to start demanding more of the companies who hold our personal information. Tell Facebook that you want better privacy protection for your personal information. Sign up for our email list and join our dotRights campaign on Facebook to learn more about what you can do to control your privacy online. And stick around as we expand our campaign to reclaim control of our personal information and Demand Our dotRights!

Americans have become accustomed to giving up a little privacy, and a lot of convenience, at the border in the name of national security. But when Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) releases a policy (PDF) , as they did in July 2008, which permits officials to subject travelers to suspicionless searches of their laptops, Blackberries, and other electronic devices, we believe that the line between routine and unconstitutional has clearly been crossed. In order to learn more about this alarming policy, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request today with CBP, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to uncover how these suspicionless searches are threatening the constitutional rights of international travelers.

"Based on current CBP policy, we have reason to believe innumerable international travelers — including U.S. citizens — have their most personal information searched by government officials and retained by the government indefinitely," said Larry Schwartztol, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The disclosure of these records is necessary to better understand the extent to which U.S. border and customs officials may be violating the Constitution."

Suspicionless searches of laptops and other storage devices raise grave constitutional concerns. For one thing, the sheer quantity of data contained on a laptop or on personal electronic devices means that these searches invade travelers’ most intimate personal documents — not to mention sensitive business information routinely transported by executives and lawyers. Do you know anyone whose laptop doesn’t contain at least some information they want to keep confidential? Furthermore, by exposing all this information to government review, the policy may deter some travelers from maintaining documents that reflect unpopular or dissenting views, thus chilling the exercise of core First Amendment activities. And removing the requirement that agents first identify a specific basis for suspicion before instituting a search gives border agents unfettered power, which may easily be wielded in a way that discriminates on the basis of national origin or religion.

We’ll keep you updated on what we learn, and please let us know if your laptop or electronic device has been seized or searched at the border.

Last Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives dealt a sharp blow to electronic voyeurs everywhere by placing extensive restrictions on the use of electronic body scanners as part of airport security.

Known more colloquially as virtual strip searches, these machines produce strikingly graphic images of passengers’ bodies when they are utilized as part of the airport screening process. Those images reveal not just graphic images of “naughty parts,” but also intimate medical details like colostomy bags.

That’s why were so excited that Representative Jason Chaffitz (R-Utah) and Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) offered an amendment to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Authorization Act which passed the House last week. In it, they bar the use of these electronic strip searches as the primary means of screening, forbid the storage or misuse of images and make sure passengers have an alternative means of screening.

Frankly, we don’t even think this should be controversial. When body scanners were introduced, they were presented as a secondary security option, to be used in a limited fashion. TSA promised that passengers would have other alternatives. Instead TSA is now using body scanners as the primary search tool in at least six airports. The Chaffetz-Shea-Porter Amendment simply holds TSA to its original stated intention for this intrusive technology.

Since its creation, TSA has gone through a number of unpalatable screening options. First it was full body pat downs, especially of women’s breasts. Now it’s whole body imaging. We hope the Chaffetz-Shea amendment will be a spur to develop another, more privacy protective, search option.

As we move onto the Senate, we’ll be asking: shouldn’t Americans in airports have better options than stripping or groping?

If you want to email your Senator about airport security, please click here.

Back in late 2005 and early 2006, when the New York Times and USA Today revealed that the phone companies had been providing the National Security Agency (NSA) access to their customers’ calling records and to the content of their electronic communications, the three California affiliates of the ACLU and the ACLU of Illinois sued the phone companies for violating the privacy of millions of their customers. In addition, at the urging of local ACLU offices, a number of state Public Service Commissions began inquiring into the companies’ actions.

These lawsuits were part of a larger group of lawsuits filed across the country, seeking to hold the phone companies accountable for their role in this massive invasion of their customers’ privacy. Eventually, all of those lawsuits were consolidated in federal district court in San Francisco before Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Yesterday, Judge Walker ruled that an immunity provision enacted by Congress last summer requires dismissal of all of the suits against the phone companies. And although we plan to appeal that decision, the ruling – if upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – would give the phone companies a free pass for flouting both the law and the privacy rights of their customers.

The Bush administration’s illegal program of spying on the communications of millions of Americans would never have been possible without the active participation of telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon Communications, Inc. Two sets of federal statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), as well as a number of state laws, explicitly prohibited the phone companies from giving the NSA access to the contents of customers’ communications and to their calling records without court orders. So when the NSA asked for that access without a court order, it wasn’t just the privacy rights of their customers, but the law itself, that required the phone companies to say: “No.” Indeed, that is just what Qwest Communications did when the NSA made its improper demands.

But other phone companies – taking their cue from the Bush Administration – decided they were above the law. And when their outraged customers tried to hold them accountable for their actions, the phone companies and the Bush Administration turned to Congress for help. Last July, Congress caved, and as part of a set of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, attempted to give the telecommunication companies amnesty for having broken the law. (You may recall that the ACLU is also challenging the constitutionality of other amendments included in the package, which vastly expand the power of the NSA to spy on our communications).

Not only did the immunity legislation set a dangerous precedent; it is also unconstitutional. When the government asked Judge Walker to dismiss the cases, relying on the new immunity provision, we argued that Congress lacks the power to take away rights granted under the Fourth and First Amendment. It is unconstitutional for a number of other reasons, as well. We will now make that argument before the court of appeals and ask them to overturn the ruling dismissing these suits.

Civil liberties have become a central focus of the national conversation about the kind of country we want to be. Millions of Americans are looking for signals that restoring the Constitution is a priority among all branches of our government. We must be allowed to get at the truth about illegal eavesdropping. Letting the telephone companies off the hook contradicts a core premise of our democracy: no one is above the law. We can’t the turn the page on one of the darkest, starkest violations of freedom under the Bush Administration unless we are allowed to shine light on the facts.

Jay Stanley of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program is co-chair of this year’s Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference, being held now in Washington, DC. He says:

This year’s theme, “Creating the Future,” is intended to capture not only discussion about the gee-whiz technologies on the horizon, but also a recognition that the policy decisions we make today will shape our lives for years to come. It also reflects a sense that the future is to be created through intelligent policymaking, and is not at the mercy of deterministic technological imperatives or invisible market forces.

Read more here.

Saturday, May 16, 2009, should go down in legislative history as the tipping point for the Real ID Act of 2005. This failed law tried to turn state drivers licenses into a national ID card and impose new burdens on taxpayers, citizens, immigrants and state governments. But the states pushed back

On Saturday — almost four years to that May 11 day that then-President George W. Bush signed the Real ID Act of 2005, Minnesota became the 23rd state to reject it. In the entire state of Minnesota, only one lawmaker voted in support of Real ID.

In signing legislation that prohibits the state from creating a national ID, Minnesota Gov. Timothy Pawlenty joined 22 governors in every corner of the United States. Among the 23 states are governors as far north as Alaska and far south as Louisiana as well as the eastern most corner in Maine and all the way to the western tip in Washington. In fact, you can walk from coast to coast in the United States without ever leaving an anti-Real ID state.

And we would not want to forget to mention Arizona. Janet Napolitano, who opposed Real ID when she was the governor of that state, is in charge of implementing this fruitless law as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

During a January confirmation hearing, Secretary Napolitano promised a review of Real ID. She noted the need for more consultations from states on an initiative which is currently a fiscal burden on them. We agree with Secretary Napolitano’s statements at the Anti-Defamation League; "repeal REAL ID and substitute something else that pivots off of the driver’s license but accomplishes some of the same goals."

It’s time for Congress to repeal Real ID.