FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 6, 2020
CONTACT: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a petition urging members of Congress to renounce a bill that threatens free speech and privacy online

Today, Senators Lindsey Graham (R–SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D–CT) released the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act — or EARN IT Act, for short. But digital rights group Fight for the Future has already responded by rallying more than 12,000 people to oppose this dangerous legislation.

If passed into law, the EARN IT Act would give the Attorney General sweeping powers to establish and enforce a set of “best practices” that tech companies must follow to protect minors from sexual exploitation online. But let’s be very clear: this bill will make all of us — including children — less safe, not more safe. 

You see, the EARN IT Act deliberately fails to define the specific best practices tech companies must follow, allowing the Attorney General to effectively change the law with little-or-no oversight from the Congress. Any company that refuses to comply with the Attorney General’s demands could lose important legal protections provided by CDA 230, putting the company at risk of crippling lawsuits and criminal prosecution. In practice, this means that the Attorney General can determine what happens on digital platforms, and threaten to shut them down if they don’t obey.

Graham and Attorney General William Barr have both spoken out against tech companies that use digital encryption systems to keep people safe from hacking, data breaches, and government surveillance. And the EARN IT Act seems tailor-made to grant them the authority to effectively kill digital encryption. But the EARN IT Act is written so broadly that it could also be used to force tech companies to validate identities, retain communications, and even restrict access to content. 

Fight for the Future has launched an online petition urging Congress to reject the EARN IT Act, and the petition has already attracted over 12,000 signatures. The digital rights organization plans on submitting copies of the petition and signatories to key members of Congress as a show of opposition to the bill.

“The EARN IT Act will make children less safe, not more safe,” said Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, “Encryption protects our airports, power plants, and the water treatment facilities that our children drink from. This bill sets the stage for backdoors in encryption that put everyone in danger. And it potentially opens the floodgates for widespread Internet censorship in the process. This is one of the most misguided pieces of Internet legislation we’ve seen in a decade. We’re not going to let this happen.”

Anyone wishing to sign Fight for the Future’s petition can do so here:  https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/dont-let-congress-kill-encryption/

Across the country today, students, alums, and faculty took action to defend their campuses from the aggressive marketing onslaught of facial recognition companies.

Their message was simple, and backed by 150+ faculty and 40+ civil society groups like the ACLU, FreedomWorks, and Color of Change: facial recognition on campus makes everyone less safe. It should be banned.

Here are our top five favorite moments from this national day of action.

1. Oakland Community College’s Panel Changed Minds

Oakland Community College’s Students for Sensible Drug Policy chapter organized a panel ahead of the action day, because their spring break is this week. Lawyers from the ACLU of Michigan and Detroit Justice Center spoke for over an hour on the wide impact facial recognition might have on the educational environment.

Sarah Noon, the organizer of the panel who is set to graduate this spring, said that the words of the panelists changed people’s minds, “even the administration.”

Sarah’s panel happened only because of her own bravery, and with help from the ACLU of Michigan, the Detroit Justice Center, and Fight for the Future. Her campus sought to violate the first amendment rights of her organization by cancelling this panel without cause, and denying their student government a symbolic vote on the issue of facial recognition. Students fought back with the support of FFTF and the ACLU of Michigan, and the school made a 180––a big win for free speech AND the fight against facial recognition.

2. Students painted their faces and wore masks to gather petition signatures at Kent State University and University of North Georgia Oconee

Students at Kent State University and University of North Georgia Oconee tabled all day to collect petition signatures and raise awareness on the issue. They wore masks, painted faces, and showed that resisting the erosion of our civil liberties can also be fun.

Reuben Francis (he/him), a student at Kent State, said “I participated today because facial recognition technology poses a grave threat to our future. If utilized as a tool of oppression, it has the potential to suppress all dissent and enable the automated monitoring of the entire population. That’s why I believe we need to take action to nip this problem in the bud before this kind of technology becomes unstoppable.”

They likely got the idea from Dekaylee and Rachel, these rad drag artists who made a video promoting the day of action with “instructions” for doing wild makeup looks that fool facial recognition.

Students & activists! Tune in as drag artists Dekaylee and Rachel show how protesting the erosion of your basic rights for the March 2 action day to #BanFacialRecognition can be fun and creative. 🎨 Sign your campus up to join the protest at https://t.co/c1Y04rWyEe https://t.co/Mr2jKtRdky

 — @fightfortheftr

Brooke Trogdon (they/them), a student at University of North Georgia Oconee, said “I believe that facial recognition should be banned from campus because not only is facial recognition a violation of privacy, but it perpetuates marginalization of people who have already been put at risk by the prison industrial complex. Tl;dr: Facial recognition creates more fear and less safety than it protects.”

Drew Warren (he/him), another student at University of North Georgia Oconee, said “I think this issue is important because for many people it seems like the elimination of our privacy is inevitable. However, we used to think that the use of lead paint would be inevitable until our government finally eliminated its use. If we can place bans on dangerous materials and weapons, we can demand the banning of technology that infringes on basic rights such as privacy.”

3. Dominique Coronel, a student at DePaul University, and a first generation Mexican-American college student, delivered letters in solidarity with the most vulnerable in society.

“As a first generation Mexican-American college student, I am disturbed by ICE’s mass deportations and imprisonment of refugees and migrants. Now that we know they are likely using facial recognition, I’m even more compelled to participate in campaigns to ban the technology from campuses. Education should be a safe place, but this technology hurts the most vulnerable people in society. Young people understand that, and we know that its spread must be stopped to prevent a dystopian future,” Dominique Coronel (he/him) said.

4. Students at Yale rally and present a letter to the president, plan to push for city-wide ban in New Haven

Students, faculty, and members of the Yale Privacy Lab gathered and presented a letter to the administration. They also announced plans to organize for a ban facial recognition on a city-wide level in New Haven.

5. The Boston Teachers Union comes out swinging against face surveillance in schools

The BTU joins with teachers, students, civil rights and immigrant rights groups across the nation today in support of a ban on dangerous and inaccurate facial recognition technology in schools and universities. https://t.co/Yfrwghf4X1

 — @BTU66

Boston Teachers Union represents more than 10,000 teachers in the Boston area. They tweeted their support for the day of action, the first public statement from a teachers union (that we know of) opposing facial recognition surveillance in schools. That’s a big deal!

6. “Oberlin College does not currently use nor is it currently considering the use of facial recognition systems.”

In response to the letter delivery at Oberlin, an alumna received an email stating that the campus has no plans to use the technology, joining over 60 other campuses like Harvard, MIT, and UCLA.

Our scorecard is working, and over 500 emails have been sent to administrators at campuses that are or may be planning to use facial recognition across the country on the action day alone.

Letters have also been delivered to American University, University of Georgia, University of Oregon, and Western Kentucky University, with more action days planned once students finish their finals and return from spring break.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 28, 2020
CONTACT: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

McGovern has long history of fighting for civil liberties, and now he can wield his power as Rules Committee Chairman to protect privacy

As three FISA surveillance authorities, including an notoriously abused provision of the PATRIOT Act, are set to expire on March 15th, Congressman Jim McGovern (MA-02) will likely play a decisive role in the debate about them due to his role as Chairman of the House’s Committee on Rules. Now digital rights organization Fight for the Future — which was founded in Worcester, in the heart of MA-02 — is calling on McGovern to urgently join the fight for privacy. 

The expiring provisions include Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which was used by the NSA to justify collecting telephone metadata from essentially all Americans, as first revealed to the public by Edward Snowden in 2013. While some privacy advocates are urging reforms to the provisions, Fight for the Future is urging lawmakers to let the provisions expire.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee cancelled a vote to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act provisions after privacy advocates pushed for amendments meant to protect Americans from continued abuse of the government’s massive surveillance powers. The House and Senate are now left at an extraordinary impasse, with some lawmakers suggesting that the only way these key provisions of the PATRIOT Act can be reauthorized is by embedding them into an emergency bill to fund an emergency response to the coronavirus. 

As Chairman of House Rules, McGovern is in charge of deciding what will get a vote on the House floor, and whether amendments to it will be allowed. McGovern — who voted against the PATRIOT Act when it first passed — should make sure that any PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill goes through “regular order."  This means that the bill would go through the House Judiciary Committee, get a "clean” vote from the House of Representatives without being attached to any other legislation, and that members would be allowed to offer amendments to it. 

Jim McGovern has long been a champion for civil liberties and for “regular order” that would empower all lawmakers who care to protect the oppressed and those victimized by expansive presidential power to have their voices heard. Mass surveillance is always a threat to vulnerable communities, speech, and the very foundation of our democracy — but it is especially clear why that is so when our government is led by authoritarians like Donald Trump. 

“Since being passed into law in 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been routinely abused to spy on hundreds of millions of Americans,” said Dayton Young (he/him), Director of Product at Fight for the Future. “Federal courts have found that the PATRIOT Act violates the Constitution, and that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have broken numerous other laws in their execution of this misguided — and dangerous — legislation. It’s best if lawmakers simply let the PATRIOT Act expire once and for all, but it’s absolutely unconscionable that Democratic leaders would block any meaningful attempts at reform. Lawmakers should listen to the concerns of their constituents instead of trying to ram reauthorization down our throats by tying it to funding for the coronavirus response.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE on February 27, 2020
Contact: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

The letter comes days before a student led day national of action planned for this Monday

More than 150 college and university faculty members, staff, researchers, and others with academic positions have signed on to an open letter echoing the demands of students who are organizing to keep facial recognition surveillance off of higher education campuses. The letter was published online today, just days before students are planning a national day of action including protests and letter deliveries on campuses across the country. 

See the letter and list of signers here: https://onezero.medium.com/an-open-letter-from-faculty-and-staff-against-campus-facial-recognition-5ee5cf47cdc6

“Facial recognition poses a unique threat to safety, civil liberties, and academic freedom on campus,” the letter reads, “Facial recognition is invasive, enabling anyone with access to the system to watch students’ movements, try to analyze facial expressions, monitor who they talk to, what they do outside of class, and every move they make … We want to lend our support to students organizing to keep facial recognition off of our campuses. Students should not have to trade their right to safety and privacy for an education. Since facial recognition technology poses too many threats that cannot be avoided, it should not be used at all.”

The signatories include prominent security expert and lecturer Bruce Schneier, facial recognition experts Evan Selinger and Woodrow Hartzog, and Dr. Kimberlé Crenshaw, known for the theory of intersectionality, who was one of the UCLA faculty members falsely matched with a mugshot photo during a test Fight for the Future ran using Amazon’s commercially available facial recognition software. 

“Facial recognition has no place on college campuses,” said Kimberlé Crenshaw after UCLA caved to student pressure and abandoned its plan to implement facial recognition on campus, “I’m glad the administration listened to the community and is abandoning this plan. Other school administrators should follow suit. Racially biased surveillance does not make our communities safer.”

Evan Sellignger, a professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology who has written about facial recognition for the New York Times among other outlets, added: “Since higher education is a special institution where higher norms should prevail, a high standard of care is needed when considering whether to make changes that will fundamentally transform campus culture. Since adopting facial recognition technology will threaten academic freedom and student wellbeing, including the safety of those who are most vulnerable, there’s only one responsible choice to make. The technology must be rejected.”   

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 27, 2020
Contact: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

A bombshell story just published by Buzzfeed News sheds light on the client list of Clearview, one of the most controversial companies selling facial recognition surveillance software. The list, which includes more than 2,000 law enforcement agencies, also includes employees at major corporations including Macy’s, Best Buy, Verizon, and AT&T, as well as a number of colleges and universities. The company’s failure to secure this list also underscores exactly why facial recognition surveillance makes us all less safe, not more safe. If Clearview can’t even keep their client list secure, how can we trust companies like them to safeguard the sensitive biometric information they collect?

“This is a crisis for our democracy,” said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of Fight for the Future, “Lawmakers need to get off their butts, do their jobs, and pass legislation to ban the use of facial recognition surveillance, not just by government agencies but by corporations too. There are so many terrifying, abusive, and discriminatory ways that private companies could use this type of biometric surveillance. Clearview is just the tip of the iceberg. Even if they shut down tomorrow there would be a dozen even shadier companies ready to take their place. The only solution is for Congress to ban facial recognition. And they should do it yesterday.”

Fight for the Future has been leading a national campaign backed by dozens of other grassroots organizations calling for an outright ban on law enforcement and government use of facial recognition. Today we are officially expanding our efforts to explicitly call for lawmakers to also ban private individuals, institutions, and corporations from using this technology in public places, for surveillance purposes, or without the subjects’ knowledge and affirmative consent, such as unlocking a phone. Even seemingly innocuous uses of facial recognition, like speeding up lines or using your face as a form of payment, normalize the act of handing over sensitive biometric information and pose a serious threat to security and civil liberties.

“What the hell is a company like Verizon doing with this technology?” added Greer, “Are they using it to target activist groups like Fight for the Future who are opposing their attacks on net neutrality and Internet privacy? Are they using it to monitor their own employees? Whatever they’re doing with it, they shouldn’t be allowed to. This technology is as dangerous as nuclear or biological weapons. Lawmakers need to stop dragging their feet and ban facial recognition.” 

The news comes on the same day that 150+ university faculty issued an open letter echoing student demands to ban the use of face surveillance on college campuses. Students across the country are planning a national day of action this Monday, March 2nd involving protests, teach-ins, and letter deliveries. We will be urgently escalating our efforts targeting the colleges and universities that appear in Clearview’s client list. Those schools are setting themselves up for major backlash from students. Protests recently forced UCLA to abandon its plans to implement facial recognition on campus. 

Columbia University previously issued a statement to Fight for the Future saying “We do not have facial recognition technology on this campus nor do we plan to have any.” But the school appears in Clearview’s client list. Florida International University apparently ran more than 200 searches. What were they looking for? Targeting students who attended protests? Looking for undocumented students? Busting students for smoking weed? Just stalking students they found attractive? We have no way of knowing.

Based on Buzzfeed News reporting, it seems likely that a university employee was using the technology without the administration’s knowledge. This underscores the need for administrators to enact policies to ban the use of this technology on their campuses and hold employees accountable if they conduct unethical experiments on students with invasive, racially biased facial recognition software.

Fight for the Future worked with Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and other artists to lead a successful campaign to keep facial recognition technology out of US music festivals and live concerts. More than 40 of the worlds’ largest festivals including Coachella, Bonnaroo, and SXSW confirmed they won’t use the tech at their events.

Deputy Director Evan Greer concluded, “People are organizing everywhere to keep facial recognition surveillance from invading more and more of our public spaces. These campaigns are helping draw a line in the sand and slow down the spread of this Orwellian technology. That can buy us some time, but it can only do so much. The clock is ticking for lawmakers to ban facial recognition before it’s too late.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 24, 2020
CONTACT: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Fight for the Future opposes weak sauce reforms offered by the House Judiciary Committee, calls for a full sunset of Section 215 surveillance powers 

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is set to expire on March 15th, but Democratic lawmakers are considering reauthorization of this intrusive and ineffective legislation. That’s right: the very same Democratic lawmakers who voted to impeach Donald Trump for abusing his power may be about to reauthorize his tremendous surveillance authority.

In response, digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new website calling out this hypocrisy and urging Democrats and progressives in Congress to vote against renewing the dangerous surveillance program: 

Here’s the link: www.democratsforafascistdystopia.org

In its current form, Fight for the Future opposes the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act offered by the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee. We believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed in its entirety, and that at the very least lawmakers should allow the sections that are up for reauthorization to sunset in March. We think the bipartisan Safeguarding Americans Private Records Act offers much more meaningful reform and should be the bare minimum for any lawmaker who claims to uphold the constitution and basic human rights. 

“Democrats like Adam Schiff say that Donald Trump is a criminal, a tyrant, and the puppet of a foreign government. They impeached him for it. So why the hell are they working to ensure he has essentially limitless power to spy on all of our phone calls?” said Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director of Fight for the Future. “Democrats who vote to reauthorize these Orwellian surveillance authorities –– even if they tack on some weak reforms –– are committing the ultimate hypocrisy. They’re Democrats for a Fascist Dystopia.”

For years, US law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been collecting hundreds of millions of records on American citizens, including phone records, medical records, firearm sales records, and even library records. Yet the government’s own Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) found that the bulk data collection program was almost completely ineffective at identifying and preventing terrorism, and the NSA had to shut down its replacement mass surveillance program, known as the Call Detail Records program, after it repeatedly sucked up innocent people’s data unlawfully.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was previously set to expire in December 2019, but Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of extending the Orwellian surveillance program for another three months. DemocratsForAFascistDystopia.org lists Democratic leadership as well as those leading committees of jurisdiction who can control upcoming votes in the House to extend Section 215 once more.

“It’s time for progressive lawmakers and Democratic leadership to live up to progressive values,” said Dayton Young (he/him), Director of Product at Fight for the Future. “These same Democrats recently impeached Donald Trump for abusing his power. Why would they trust the president and members of his corrupt administration with the power to spy on the American public – including people of color, journalists, and political activists? It doesn’t make sense. Democrats can finally put an end to this unconstitutional and dangerous surveillance program by letting Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act sunset. But do they have the guts to stand up for what they believe?”

###

Before the administration reversed its position, we tested facial recognition on UCLA sports teams and faculty. The results were disturbing.

UCLA is known for its strong academics and winning sports teams. But the school almost became known for something far more sinister: as the first university in the United States actively planning to use facial recognition surveillance on campus.

Today, in a major victory for the movement against facial recognition, our Deputy Director Evan Greer received a statement directly from the UCLA’s Administrative Vice Chancellor saying that the school is abandoning its plan in the face of community backlash in the lead up to a national day of action on March 2 to ban facial recognition from campus.

“We are beyond excited by the potential agenda-setting a top school like UCLA might bring about nationwide through the prohibition of facial recognition software and through listening to the students, workers, faculty and local community,” said Matthew William Richard, a 3rd year Political Science Major at UCLA and Vice-Chair of the Campus Safety Alliance, “We hope other universities see that they will not get away with these policies. We hope UCLA continues their progress by specifically codifying this prohibition of software and creating infrastructure to legitimize our voices going forward; together we can demilitarize and democratize our campuses.”

“Facial recognition has no place on college campuses,” added Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, “Let this be a warning to other schools: if you think you can get away with experimenting on your students and employees with this invasive technology. You’re wrong. We won’t stop organizing until facial recognition is banned on every campus.”

Here’s the back story of how this happened:

UCLA’s administration had proposed using invasive biometric surveillance technology in the school’s CCTV cameras, constantly scanning the faces of everyone on campus and checking them against a database. Students at UCLA fought back. But the administration tried to assuage fears by claiming the technology would be used in “limited” ways. The school’s position was in stark contrast to more than 50 prominent institutions, including MIT, Harvard, Brown, and Columbia, who had already issued statements confirming they have no plans to use facial recognition.

We are disappointed to learn that @UCLA is sending this misleading email to people contacting them about #FacialRecognition. We at the "internet website" have made no errors. People are contacting them because the university is ACTIVELY PLANNING to implement invasive surveillance

 — @fightfortheftr

Fight for the Future and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy have been running a nationwide campaign to stop facial recognition from spreading to college campuses. To illustrate just how dangerous and discriminatory UCLA’s proposal was, we ran a test. We used Amazon’s commercially available facial recognition software, Rekognition, to scan publicly available photos of UCLA’s basketball and football teams, as well as a number of faculty, and compare them to a mugshot database. We began working with a major news outlet to release our findings. That outlet reached out to UCLA’s administrators, and we received the statement from them less than 24 hours later.

The results were disturbing — but predictable. We scanned over 400 faces, of which 58 photos of student athletes or UCLA faculty members were falsely matched with images from the mugshot database. The vast majority of incorrect matches were of people of color. In many cases, the software matched two individuals who had almost nothing in common beyond their race, and claimed they were the same person with “100% confidence.” UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, who is white, was not matched to a mugshot photo.

This is unsurprising. Even the best facial recognition algorithms exhibit systemic racial and gender bias, which is why security experts and dozens of civil society groups have called for this type of surveillance technology to be banned outright.

What would these mismatches mean in practice? If used on campus, this technology would lead to a range of consequences with varying levels of severity: students could be unable to get into their dorms or other campus buildings; students might be incorrectly marked as ‘absent’ from a class they attended; a student or staff member’s image could be incorrectly matched with a photo of someone marked as a threat, which could result in traumatic interactions with law enforcement or even false arrest.

“Facial recognition has no place on college campuses,” said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a prominent UCLA law professor who was incorrectly matched with a mugshot photo in our test, “I’m glad the administration listened to the community and is abandoning this plan. Other school administrators should follow suit. Racially biased surveillance does not make our communities safer.”

A study by the Daily Bruin showed that UCLA police already disproportionately stop, search, and arrest black and latino people. Using facial recognition on campus would have automated and exacerbated existing discrimination. Beyond students and faculty, many university employees are people of color at high risk for misidentification if biometric surveillance is used at UCLA. And the perspectives of food service and custodial staff are often ignored by administrations.

Rashad Robinson, President, Color Of Change said, “These findings illustrate the danger facial recognition technology poses for Black people on college campuses nation-wide. While numerous universities are looking to deploy this technology on their campuses, study after study, including the latest from Fight for the Future, has confirmed that racial bias is a feature, not a bug, of facial recognition technology. Schools who insist on using these faulty systems, after repeated proof that they are ineffective, should be held accountable for knowingly choosing to put Black people in harms way. It’s time for a federal moratorium to protect our communities from this new tool for racist mass incarceration and encourage more productive investments in Black safety and freedom. We applaud UCLA’s decision to follow the recommendations of advocates and students to keep Black students and staff safe by canceling their plans to introduce facial recognition technology on campus.”

Even if facial recognition algorithms improve in the future, this technology is inherently dangerous. The biometric data collected is a target for hackers and stalkers, and many schools are ill-equipped to safeguard this data. In the wrong hands, these systems, and the data they generate, could be used to harm students, faculty, and staff.

The potential for abuse is staggering. Using facial recognition, an administrator could track someone everywhere they go on campus. Students: this means they could know where you party, who you associate with, who you hook up with, what protests you go to, what you do outside of class.

Companies that sell facial recognition software are aggressively marketing their technology to colleges and universities, claiming that it can be used for all sorts of things from campus surveillance to accessing buildings and meal plans to taking attendance to determining whether students are paying attention in lectures. There is little evidence to support their claims.

BREAKING: students across the country are planning a national day of action on March 2 to keep #facialrecognition off college campuses. Retweet to spread the word and get in touch with @fightfortheftr and @SSDP if you want to help! https://t.co/tIMEtv30XU https://t.co/IPcquL94aN

 — @fightfortheftr

More than 40 civil liberties, racial justice, immigration, and consumer protection groups have issued an open letter to university administrators calling on them to commit to not using facial recognition on campus. Thousands of students, faculty, and alumni have signed our petition. Student groups across the country are planning a national day of action on March 2nd.

The test we ran shows how dangerous, and blatantly racist it would be if UCLA had gone ahead with their proposal to implement facial recognition on campus. And it should be a warning to other schools who are considering using this technology. If administrators care about their community members’ safety and basic rights, they should follow the lead of dozens of other institutions and clearly commit to not using facial recognition on campus.

Media contact: press@fightforthefuture.org or 978–852–6457

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 20, 2020
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org  

More than 60,000 people have signed a new petition calling on Federal Judge Anthony Trenga to release Chelsea Manning.

Chelsea Manning has been incarcerated for more than 11 months for her principled refusal to give testimony before a grand jury convened to investigate and prosecute journalists. She is being held in jail and fined $1,000 per day for up to 18 months or until she agrees to cooperate.

Chelsea has not been charged with any crime, but is being held under “coercive confinement.” The UN Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, considers this to be a violation of international law and has called upon the U.S. Government to release her immediately.

Chelsea has a conscientious objection to all Grand Jury proceedings, due to their secrecy and history of prosecutorial abuse, including a long history of targeting and harassing activist communities.

The petition was organized by Fight For the Future and is backed by several other organizations including Defending Rights & Dissent (DRAD), RootsAction.org, Media Alliance, Daily Kos, Demand Progress and Freedom of the Press Foundation. Prominent musicians including Michael Stipe of REM and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth have helped amplify the effort, as has Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 13
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Leading consumer, privacy, and civil liberties organizations say that facial recognition doesn’t make campuses safer, and call on administrations to protect students privacy by committing to not using facial recognition.

A coalition of more than 40 leading consumer, privacy, and civil liberties organizations released a sign on letter today led by Fight for the Future to add their support to the growing campaign urging administrators to keep dangerous facial recognition technology off of college and university campuses. The signers span the political spectrum and include the ACLU, FreedomWorks, National Center for Transgender Equality, Liberty Coalition, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Color of Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jobs with Justice, Consumer Federation of America, Mijente, Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, and the National Immigration Law Center.

Many of these groups are engaged in efforts to pass legislation at the local, state, and federal levels to rein in facial recognition technology. But because this invasive technology poses a profound threat to academic freedom, they are speaking out against its use in schools. The groups state in a letter, released today, that “exposing students and educators to facial recognition profoundly limits their ability to study, research, and express freely without fear of official retaliation.”

“Just imagine you’re in college—exploring new ideas, meeting new people, going to parties, dating, attending rallies,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “Now imagine doing all of that while under constant surveillance, not knowing who is watching you, what’s happening to your biometric data, or what the implications of that may be. There is no way to protect students’ rights and ability to thrive at college when the school uses facial recognition technology.”

“While we ultimately believe that facial recognition should be banned across the board, we’re specifically calling out colleges and universities because they are being targeted by unscrupulous companies, aggressively marketing their tech to colleges and claiming that facial recognition can increase campus safety, streamline attendance, and even measure whether students are paying attention. But the truth is there is no justifiable reason to use it,” continued Greer. “Claims that it increases safety are unfounded, and using it as a tool of convenience puts the privacy and rights of students and faculty at risk, for little-to-no benefit.”

“Face surveillance is invasive, unethical, and it doesn’t work, especially on young people, women, and people of color,” said Jake Martinez, director of youth programs at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This mass surveillance experiment does not belong in our public spaces, and certainly not in our schools. Students should not have to give up their privacy and take part in this dangerous project as a prerequisite to stepping foot on campus.”

This letter is released just days after the campaign announced a National Day of Action to Ban Facial Recognition from College Campuses. On March 2, students and faculty at schools across the country will organize to reject facial recognition’s false promises of safety, and stand against the idea of biased 24/7 tracking and analysis of everyone on campus.

The campaign, led by Fight for the Future and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, also launched a scorecard of nearly 100 top colleges and universities in the United States that tracks whether they currently use, don’t use (and don’t plan to use), or refused to say if they use facial recognition on campus. Dozens of schools have clarified that they don’t use or plan to use the technology, while about one third have not responded. Three schools—George Washington University, Duke University, and American University—gave vague statements that implied they may have plans to use facial recognition in the future. And UCLA and Tufts University currently use or have plans to use the technology on its campus.

Campuses that have stated they have no intention of using facial recognition include Boston College, Brown University, Columbia University, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, DePaul University, MIT, Michigan State University, Georgia Tech, NYU, Hampshire College, Kent State University, Rice University, University of Florida, Oregon State University, UPenn, and John Hopkins University. University of San Francisco clarified that it abandoned its controversial facial recognition program in 2016. Activists made multiple attempts to contact every institution on the scorecard. More than 30 schools did not respond after multiple attempts, including Harvard, Yale, Oberlin, Howard University, Ohio State, Reed, and Sarah Lawrence College.

Student groups across the country are also circulating an open letter demanding that facial recognition be banned from their campuses, and are organizing to introduce student government resolutions using a toolkit created by Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Thousands of students, faculty, alumni, and community members are signing petitions calling for a complete ban on the non-personal use of facial recognition on their campus. 

Already, school systems across the country are quietly spending millions conducting unethical experiments with facial recognition software, using it to scan, analyze, and collect sensitive biometric information on tens of thousands of students, parents, and faculty. However, the technology is not widely used at U.S. colleges and universities. This campaign aims to ensure it stays that way. 

###

To school administrators:

On behalf of leading consumer, privacy, and civil liberties organizations, we are calling on administrations to commit to not using facial recognition technology (for non-personal reasons, e.g. when used to unlock personal phones) in schools. This invasive and biased technology inherently violates the liberty and the rights of students and faculty and has no place in our educational institutions.

Facial recognition technology isn’t safe. It’s biased and is more likely to misidentify students of color, which can result in traumatic interactions with law enforcement, loss of class time, disciplinary action, and potentially a criminal record. The data collected is vulnerable to hackers, and we’ve seen that schools are ill-equipped to safeguard this data. In the wrong hands, these systems, and the data they generate could be used to target and harm students. Also, facial recognition is invasive, enabling anyone with access to the system to watch students’ movements and analyze facial expressions, as well as monitor who they talk to, what they do outside of class, and every move they make.

This type of invasive technology poses a profound threat to academic freedom. Exposing students and educators to facial recognition profoundly limits their ability to study, research, and express freely without fear of official retaliation. Students should not have to trade their right to privacy for an education.

Already, school systems across the country are quietly spending millions conducting unethical experiments with facial recognition software, using it to scan, analyze, and collect sensitive biometric information on tens of thousands of students, parents, and faculty. Publicly they claim this is about security, but school administrators have already admitted to using this technology to target students for being late or minor rule breaking.

Before this dangerous technology spreads any further, we call on school administrators — at public and private grade schools, colleges, and universities — to pledge not to use facial recognition on students and faculty in buildings or on campuses, and we demand our elected officials pass legislation to protect our students and faculty across the country from the constant surveillance of facial recognition technology.

Signed,

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government

Access Now

ACLU

ACLU Massachusetts

Black Alliance for Just Immigration

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

Color of Change

Constitutional Alliance

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Cyber Privacy Project

Daily Kos

Defending Rights & Dissent

Demand Progress

Detroit Community Technology Project

Detroit Digital Justice Coalition

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Fight for the Future

Free Press Action

FreedomWorks

Jewish Voice for Peace

Jobs with Justice

Liberty Coalition

Media Alliance

Mijente

Mpower Change

Muslim Justice League

National Center for Transgender Equality

National Immigration Law Center

NYCLU

Oakland Privacy

Open Media

Other98

Popular Resistance

Privacy Times

Restore the Fourth

Roots Action

Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.)

United We Dream

X Lab

Student groups are organizing on March 2 to deliver an open letter to campus administrations around the country, and stage creative protests to draw awareness to the dangers of facial recognition.

With more than 50 universities across the US declaring they do not plan to use facial recognition, and UCLA announcing policies to implement the technology amidst protest, students and activists are escalating our campaign to stop invasive biometric surveillance technology from invading college campuses. Today we’re announcing a national campus day of action on March 2nd. Students across the country will organize to reject facial recognition’s false promises of safety, and stand against the idea of biased 24/7 tracking and analysis of everyone on campus.

In a campaign document that is being distributed by Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the NYCLU, and Fight for the Future, campus groups can learn more about what to plan for their day of action, and how to receive support from fellow organizers. Students will deliver thousands of petition signatures and an open letter to administrators. On some campuses they will also organize tabling events or creative acts of protest.

Momentum is growing, as thousands of students, faculty, and alumni have signed a petition to ban the technology, 400 concerned community members have emailed UCLA over the past week, and a facial recognition vendor removed their page marketing to college campuses when questioned by a reporter.

Whatever color a campus is on our scorecard, student groups from every campus are invited to participate in solidarity with those whose safety is being threatened by facial recognition. The goal is to get as many campuses to participate as possible.

While there have been several reports indicating that elementary and grade schools are experimenting with facial recognition, the technology is not widely used at US colleges and universities. Let’s keep it that way.

If you want to get involved or help coordinate a Day of Action event on your campus, email team@fightforthefuture.org

Media inquiries: press@fightforthefuture.org or 978–852–6457

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

This Thursday, the House Committee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing on facial recognition, in the wake of a major Federal study exposing widespread racial bias, and slew of news stories about Clearview, a particularly invasive facial recognition company selling its tools to law enforcement. Calls to ban the use of this dangerous surveillance technology have never been louder. Just this month 50 prominent universities including MIT, Brown, and Columbia confirmed that they won’t use facial recognition on campus in response to a campaign launched by Fight for the Future and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. Students at UCLA are revolting against possible use on campus. The European Union is considering a moratorium on the tech, and several US states are advancing legislation to stop its use.

Fight for the Future supports an outright ban on all government and law enforcement use of facial recognition, and a ban on most private and institutional use as well. Deputy Director Evan Greer (she/her) issued the following statement ahead of tomorrow’s hearing:

“The debate over facial recognition will determine the fate of human society. 

Clearview is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s a window into what the future looks like if we don’t draw a line in the sand here and now. Congress needs to stop messing around and pass legislation to ban the use of face surveillance technology nationwide. Artificial intelligence powered monitoring is as dangerous as nuclear or biological weapons. Lawmakers need to listen to security and civil rights experts before it’s too late. Weak, industry-friendly “regulation” of facial recognition will only serve to speed up the spread of this technology.

Biometric surveillance poses a unique threat to public safety and basic liberty. There’s no safe way to use this technology. Even if biased algorithms improve, face scanning surveillance will automate and exacerbate existing forms of discrimination. It’s software for tyranny. Activists are organizing to slow the spread of facial recognition. Now lawmakers need to do their jobs and ban it.”

Fight for the Future’s BanFacialRecognition.com campaign has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban government and law enforcement use of facial recognition. A slew of US cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, Oakland, CA, Brookline, MA, and Cambridge, MA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

Facial recognition companies are aggressively marketing their technology not just to law enforcement and government agencies, but also to commercial airlines, retail stores, hotels, casinos, healthcare institutions, K-12 schools, theme parks, and casinos. 

Commercial use of facial recognition poses just as much of a threat to human rights and privacy as government use. But resistance is having an impact. Fight for the Future’s successful campaign to ban facial recognition at music festivals dealt the first major blow to the commercial spread of facial recognition in the US. Alongside artists like Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, the group pushed 40 of the worlds largest music festivals (including Coachella, SXSW, and Bonnaroo) to clearly state they have no plans to use face recognition at their events. Morello and FFTF deputy director Evan Greer wrote about the significance of the victory in a widely shared Buzzfeed News op-ed, and the Associated Press declared “Concert promoters are turning away from facial recognition.”

Fight for the Future also made headlines when the group conducted live facial recognition surveillance last month in the halls of Congress and around D.C., using Amazon’s commercially available Rekognition software. The group conducted more than 13,700 facial scans, and correctly identified one member of Congress in real-time: Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California. But the software also falsely identified 7 journalists and 25 Amazon lobbyists, and it even thought that it spotted singer Roy Orbison, who of course has been deceased since 1988 (RIP). This action underscored the message that facial recognition is invasive and dangerous when it works, but it’s also dangerous when it doesn’t work.

We oppose attempts by the tech industry and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 28, 2020
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Amazon’s Ring doorbell app gives personal information to third-parties like Facebook, according to a new report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

EFF’s investigation revealed that the Ring app provides information  — including customer names, private IP addresses, and sensor data — to marketing companies who use this digital footprint to  track and spy on customers.   

This latest security issue comes on the heels of a Medium article written by more than 350 Amazon employees, publicly criticizing the Amazon’s policies and products.  Max Eliaser, a software development engineer, even called for Ring to be shut down, saying “The deployment of connected home security cameras that allow footage to be queried centrally are simply not compatible with a free society. The privacy issues are not fixable with regulation and there is no balance that can be struck. Ring should be shut down immediately and not brought back.“

The public criticism of Amazon’s policies and products by its own workers supports warnings from privacy rights organizations and their supporters. In fact, over 50,000 people have participated in Fight for the Future campaigns urging local elected officials to stop police partnerships with Ring, and calling for Congress to investigate the online retail giant for privacy violations. Fight for the Future also issued a product warning about the dangers of Amazon Ring devices after a slew of recent hacks.

Faced with mounting criticism and evidence of the dangers Ring poses to the public, Amazon has doubled down its commitment to Ring. 

Earlier this month, the company announced its commitment to aggressively expand  partnerships with local police departments － currently 789 and counting. The technology giant has entered international markets, as well, offering Ring products in Canada and the United Kingdom.

But wherever Amazon goes, trouble follows. Ring’s security flaws persist around the world, causing public outcry. Reports have emerged that Ring employees have been spying on customers. And US Senators felt so concerned about Amazon granting Ukrainian workers access to Ring’s surveillance footage, they sent a letter pressing the company to address its sloppy security practices. Amazon’s response has been less than encouraging, suppressing news coverage about its controversies and ignoring lawmakers’ justified concerns about personal and national security.

“Report after report provides evidence of the privacy, civil liberty, and security issues associated with Ring. Yet, there has been no action from federal regulatory agencies or elected officials. In their silence, Amazon continues to expand their surveillance empire and millions of people are left vulnerable to security attacks and rights violations. Lawmakers need to take immediate action to investigate Amazon and put an end to Ring, said Evan Greer, deputy director Fight for the Future. “As Amazon’s own employee acknowledged, the issues with Ring are beyond regulation. The dangers with Amazon’s surveillance empire and devices pose an imminent threat to us all. To protect ourselves, we must end Amazon-police partnerships, recall Ring devices, and prevent any future sales both here and abroad.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, January 28
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Fight for the Future & Students for Sensible Drug Policy launched a scorecard that shows whether universities have clarified their plans to use biometric surveillance that will destroy student privacy, campus safety, and academic liberty.

In response to Fight for the Future & Students for Sensible Drug Policy’s nationwide campaign to ban facial recognition from university campuses, dozens of institutions of higher learning have responded to clarify whether or not they use, or plan to use this technology that threatens the liberty of their students and staff.

See the scorecard here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/campus 

A new scorecard provides information about facial recognition use for nearly 100 top university campuses in the United States—whether they currently use facial recognition, don’t use (and don’t plan to use), or refused to say. 45 schools have given statements clarifying that they are not using and have no plans to use. More than 30 schools have not responded or refused to comment, and two campuses have been reported by CNET to be actively using facial recognition—Stanford, and the University of Southern California. Both did not return requests for clarification, though we have heard from reporters that Stanford claims they are no longer using the tech on campus. A facial recognition vendor claims that small number of colleges have restaurants on campus with facial recognition payment options. At least some of those schools say they no longer use the system, and we were not able to verify that others were actually on the campuses they claimed to be on. 

Additionally, three schools issued ominously vague statements that implied they may have plans to use facial recognition in the future. George Washington University’s assistant director of media relations Crystal L Nosal stated that they are not currently using facial recognition technology, but also said “there is no way to predict the future and it would be disingenuous to give a position on something other than what we are doing right now.” Duke University’s executive director of news and communications Keith Lawrence, when asked about future plans to install facial recognition technology, declined to “comment further.” An American University spokesperson refused to give any information about the institution’s plans, providing the following statement: “As a private university, AU reserves the right to implement security measures to mitigate risk and protect our community from threats to their safety and security. To that end, security enhancements are undertaken only after a thorough review to ensure they meet the standards of general community acceptance which balance security with expectations of privacy.”

Campuses that have stated they have no intention of using facial recognition include Boston College, Brown University, Columbia University, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, DePaul University, MIT, Michigan State University, Georgia Tech, NYU, Hampshire College, Kent State University, Rice University, University of Florida, Oregon State University, UPenn, and John Hopkins University. University of San Francisco clarified that it abandoned its controversial facial recognition program in 2016. Activists made multiple attempts to contact every institution on the scorecard. More than 30 schools did not respond after multiple attempts, including Harvard, Yale, Oberlin, Howard University, Ohio State, Reed, Sarah Lawrence College, and UCLA.

“As this campaign continues, we’re ready to up the pressure on campuses that haven’t shared their facial recognition policies,” said Erica Darragh, board member at Students for Sensible Drug Policy (pronouns: she/her). “Students deserve to know whether they are being experimented on with what was characterized as ‘Black Mirror-like technology’” (language used by Representative Ocasio-Cortez in a house oversight hearing this month). “The idea that your campus could spy on you, that this technology could automate racial prejudice, and that the whole system could be exposed so all your inalterable personal details are stolen lead us to conclude that the technology is a huge threat to students and to society. If a university’s facial recognition system gets hacked, students can’t just change our faces and our lives like a credit card number.”

Student groups across the country are circulating an open letter demanding that facial recognition be banned from their campuses, and organizing to introduce student government resolutions using a toolkit created by Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

Thousands of students, faculty, alumni, and community members are signing petitions on the campaign homepage, calling for a complete ban on the non-personal use of facial recognition on their campus. 

“College students should not be used as lab rats. Everyone, including faculty, staff, and community members have a right to know if administrations are using or planning to experiment with dangerous facial recognition technology on campus,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “Whether it’s used for Big Brother style monitoring of student behavior or for more mundane purposes like accessing meal plans or dorms, biometric surveillance technology on campus puts students’ physical safety at risk and violates their most basic rights. This technology is unsafe, discriminatory, and politically toxic. We are known for our ruthless campaigning. There’s nowhere to hide. College administrators need to get on the right side of history by committing to not use facial recognition on campus –– or prepare for battle.”

While there have been several reports indicating that elementary and grade schools are experimenting with facial recognition, the technology is not widely used at US colleges and universities. This campaign aims to ensure it stays that way. 

This effort is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban government and law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

###

Contact: Sarah Roth-Gaudette, press@fightforthefuture.org

Organizations behind SaveDotOrg.Org and local activists deliver more than 30,000 signatures to the ICANN offices on the day of their final board meeting before decision to approve the sale

LOS ANGELES, CA — Today, NTEN, Fight for the Future, and EFF, as well as science fiction author and journalist, Cory Doctorow, and dozens of local activists, gathered to protest the corporate takeover of 10 million websites that use the .Org domain. Activists wearing shirts that read “some things are not for sale” chanted and carried a large banner with the words “Stop the .Org Sale”. (See photos.)

“This is one of the last places on the Internet that is reserved for organizations that fight for the public good, and not commercial profits,” said Sarah Roth-Gaudette, Executive Director of Fight for the Future, one of the organizations involved in today’s protest. “ICANN Board members should stop the sale of the .Org domain to Ethos Capital and seek input from the civil society groups who rely on this powerful symbol of the public interest.”

Following the protest, members of the group delivered more than 30,000 signatures demanding that the ICANN Board vote to stop the sale of the .Org top-level domain to a private equity firm.

In December, the Internet Society (ISOC), with no warning or public input, announced their plans to sell the control of the .ORG top-level domain registry (called the Public Interest Registry, or PIR) for an undisclosed amount to a for-profit private equity firm called Ethos Capital. Little is known about this firm, though it was founded six months ago, combines the money of several prominent Republican families in the United States, and includes former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadi as an adviser. “Any number of terrible things could happen as a result of this sale,” added Roth-Gaudette. “Organizations could be censored by the financial squeeze of increased costs, or by the fear of Ethos selling off information - potentially to authoritarian states that want to silence dissent or human rights efforts.”

A coalition of more than 600 organizations, ranging from the Girl Scouts and the YMCA to Greenpeace, came together at savedotorg.org, and a groundswell of public support has resulted in a combined total of more than 30,000 petition signatures (Note: Fight for the Future ran a separate petition from savedotorg.org).

###

EMBARGOED until 6am EST on Tuesday, January 14
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Fight for the Future and Students for Sensible Drug Policy are combining forces to prevent dangerous and discriminatory biometric surveillance from destroying student privacy, campus safety, and academic liberty

Fresh off a highly successful campaign to stop the use of facial recognition at concerts and music festivals, digital rights group Fight for the Future has teamed up with Students for Sensible Drug Policy to launch a nationwide effort to ban facial recognition from university campuses across the USA. The groups made the announcement today, and launched a website and toolkit for student groups across the country. 

See the campaign page here: banfacialrecognition.com/campus

Tech and security companies are marketing facial recognition technology to schools as a form of security and convenience. But in reality this technology decreases actual security on campuses, and opens up a pandora’s box of privacy, civil liberties, and equity issues.

Students, faculty, alumni, and community members are signing petitions calling for a complete ban on the non-personal use of facial recognition on their campus. At campuses around the country, including George Washington in DC and DePaul in Chicago, student groups are organizing to introduce student government resolutions to ban facial recognition. 40 major university administrations including Stanford, Harvard, and Northwestern will be contacted to clarify if they are using this problematic technology.

“Facial recognition surveillance spreading to college campuses would put students, faculty, and community members at risk. This type of invasive technology poses a profound threat to our basic liberties, civil rights, and academic freedom,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “Schools that are already using this technology are conducting unethical experiments on their students. Students and staff have a right to know if their administrations are planning to implement biometric surveillance on campus. Grassroots organizing stopped facial recognition from ruining music festivals. Now we’re going to stop it from invading university campuses.”

“Contaminating learning environments with this technology will only harm those it claims to protect. It is untrue that facial recognition makes anyone safer,” said Erica Darragh (she/her), board member at Students for Sensible Drug Policy. “Students should not have to trade their right to privacy for an education, and no one should be forced to unwittingly participate in a surveillance program which will likely include problematic elements of law enforcement. This automation of racial and political profiling threatens everyone, especially students, faculty, and campus guests of color. Students have an obligation to prevent this technology going mainstream, beginning with university campuses, where we have the most power and we know how to win.” 

“Facial recognition technology isn’t safe. It’s biased, and more likely to misidentify students of color. The data collected is vulnerable to hackers, and in the wrong hands could be used to target and harm students. And it’s invasive, enabling anyone with access to the system to watch students’ movements, analyze facial expressions, monitor who they talk to, what they do outside of class, and every move they make,” Evan Greer concluded.

While there have been several reports indicating that elementary and grade schools are experimenting with facial recognition, the technology is not widely used at US colleges and universities. That said, there are exceptions. University of San Francisco, for example, implemented face scans at some of their dormitories in 2018. This CNET article mentions another vendor who claims their tech is being used at Stanford and University of Southern California. Facial recognition vendors are aggressively marketing their technology to schools, including colleges and universities. So unless we draw a line in the sand, it’s almost inevitable that this invasive surveillance will continue to spread. . 

This effort is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban government and law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 6, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

In response to widespread criticism, lawsuits, and Congressional scrutiny, the company has launched a new “privacy dashboard” that utterly fails to address concerns 

Amazon’s controversial surveillance camera company, Ring, is making a feeble attempt to regain trust. So feeble, it’s pathetic. In the wake of a string of harrowing reports of Amazon cameras being hacked and used to spy on families and children –– as well as widespread concerns about the ways that Ring’s partnerships with police undermine civil liberties and encourage racial profiling –– the company has unveiled a new “privacy dashboard,” which amounts to little more than a cosmetic redesign accompanied by a press release. 

Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer issued the following thoughts in response to Ring’s announcement:

 “I honestly expected Ring to do a better job pretending to care about user privacy, but this is a total joke. 

 Amazon is still putting the responsibility on users to protect these devices, knowing full well that they won’t. You can’t sell a car without seat belts or airbags and then say the driver should have installed them when they get in a crash. Amazon is selling cheap, insecure, Internet- connected surveillance cameras and convincing people to put them inside their homes, knowing that they put those people in danger. Their rushed PR cover up doesn’t even begin to fix that. 

 Despite a string of terrifying stories about Ring cameras being accessed in the most grotesque ways, the company doesn’t appear to be making any meaningful changes to their product. Instead, they’ve basically given their app a re-design and called it a new feature. They’re still not requiring users to have two-factor authentication, something that should be a default on a product as sensitive as a surveillance camera that might be placed inside a child’s bedroom. There’s no indication that Ring has addressed the gaping security holes that Motherboard identified, like the fact that they’re not rate limiting login attempts, leaving their devices vulnerable to brute force attacks and credential stuffing, or doing basic IP detection to tell a user that someone is attempting to log in to their account from multiple different countries at the same time. There’s also no indication that they plan to require users to use strong passwords or will prevent them from using passwords that are known to be exposed from previous data breaches. 

 The fact is that even if Ring fixed all of its security flaws, these devices would still be dangerous. Ring’s entire business model is based on thinly veiled racism –– spreading fear and convincing people that they need Amazon’s surveillance devices to keep their families safe from a dangerous outside world. But the evidence suggests that Ring devices actually put families at greater risk. 

And there’s a bigger story here. Ring’s announcement is solely focused on the privacy of its users. The company doesn’t even pretend to care about the privacy, safety, or civil liberties of Ring owners’ neighbors, community members, delivery workers operating in their area. Their announcement does nothing to address the serious concerns raised by racial justice, immigration, and civil liberties groups about the dangers inherent in a world full of privately owned surveillance devices. Allowing users to opt-out of receiving requests from police for footage won’t stop police from vacuuming up enormous amounts of sensitive data on our communities. And Amazon has openly admitted that there are no limits on what police can do with that footage, or how long they can store it once they’ve collected it. 

Crime has been steadily falling for decades. But Amazon wants you to be afraid. They want you to distrust and spy on your neighbors. Their surveillance-based business model is fundamentally at odds with community safety and basic rights. These devices are corrosive for our society. They encourage racial profiling and over-policing of vulnerable communities.

Before you buy one of these devices, ask yourself: is it worth ushering in a dystopian surveillance state to watch someone steal a package that the police will do nothing about and Amazon will just replace with the click of a button? Is there a better way to address issues like petty crime and income inequality that doesn’t put our most basic rights at risk?”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 30, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture just issued an official letter to the US Government calling for the release of Chelsea Manning “without delay,” and condemning her continued incarceration as “an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This is the second time the UN has decried Chelsea’s treatment as torture. 

The condemnation from world human rights leaders comes as thousands of people have already taken action on a new petition effort at FreeChelsea.com, backed by groups like Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Daily Kos, Roots Action, Media Alliance, and Defending Rights and Dissent. The groups will deliver the signatures to the judge at the end of January.

Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (she/her) said: “The US government’s treatment of Chelsea Manning amounts to a coordinated campaign of harassment and psychological torture. Coercive confinement is widely seen as a violation of human rights. Congress should ban this practice, and Judge Anthony Trenga should release Chelsea immediately, in accordance with International law and basic human decency. If Chelsea is not immediately released, US lawmakers should launch investigations into her ongoing detention. Individuals who want to support Chelsea should sign the petition and spread the word about FreeChelsea.com.“

Organizations can join the campaign by contacting team@fight for the future.org

The UN rapporteur, Nils Melzner, wrote: “More specifically, the practice of coercive detention appears to be incompatible with the international human rights obligations of the United States under, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 15 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as wellas under Articles 2, 7 and 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ratified by the United States of America in 1994 and 1992 respectively.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 23, 2019
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Following harrowing reports of Ring devices being hacked, Gizmodo issued a do not buy warning for Amazon Ring devices and Wirecutter suspended their recommendation.

These hacks are not the only security concerns. Reports of leaked user’s Wi-Fi passwords and home addresses have plagued Ring in recent months. 

Given the threats these devices pose to security and privacy, Fight for the Future calls on tech review sites to rescind their recommendations as Wirecutter and Gizmodo did. 

Consumer Reports and Tom’s Guide responded that they have not determined if they will rescind their recommendation but are discussing internally. Business Insider, Digital Trends, igeeksblog.com, PC Magazine, Safety.com, TechHive, and TechRadar have have yet to respond.

“Tech reviews and guides play an important role in people deciding which devices to buy,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “The reviewers we’ve reached out to recommended Ring as the best in their category. Meanwhile, report after report details security issues, concerns, and leaks with Ring technology. These devices are not safe. It’s important reviewers honor the public trust and suspend their recommendation.”  

Last week, Fight for the Future, issued a Product Warning about Ring, along with Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, and other advocacy groups.

 ###

Recently, a man hacked into a Ring camera to watch an 8 year old girl and speak to her. He introduced himself as Santa Claus and then proceeded to have a conversation with the young girl through a Ring camera her parents had installed in her bedroom.

Since this chilling incident, there have been new reports daily of other users and their families being harassed by people who’ve broken into their Ring devices. And several investigations that show Ring has failed to implement even some of the most basic security measures.

In light of these reports, Gizmodo issued a do not buy warning for Amazon Ring devices and Wirecutter suspended their recommendations. Our organization, Fight for the Future, issued a Product Warning about Ring, along with Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, and other advocacy groups.

People depend on tech blogs, guides, and review sites for accurate information about the safety of products when deciding whether to purchase a device. We are asking other tech review sites to suspend their recommendation of Amazon Ring cameras and update all relevant guides immediately. Please contact the sites below and ask them (politely!) to stop, in light of all the information we now have.

Business Insider
Twitter: @businessinsider
Email: corrections@businessinsider.com

Consumer Reports
Twitter: @ConsumerReports + @danwroc
Email: externalrelations@cr.consumer.org

Digital Trends
Twitter: @DigitalTrends
Email: news@digitaltrends.com

PC Magazine
Twitter: @PCMag + @dancosta
Email: Dan_Costa@pcmag.com

Safety.com
Twitter: @thesafetycom
Email: safetyinfo@safety.com

TechHive
Twitter: @TechHive + @BrowniesHQ
Email: mbrown@techhive.com

Tech Radar
Twitter: @techradar
Email: team@techradar.com

Tom’s Guide
Twitter: @tomsguide + @mikeprospero
Email: mark.spoonauer@futurenet.com

Amazon Ring devices are not safe. For more information on the dangers associated with these products visit: RingSafetyWarning.com and check out our recent op-ed in NBC news.

Update on December 24, 2019:
igeeksblog. com rescinded their recommendation of Amazon Ring cameras.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 19, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Today, New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced plans to introduce “the strongest net neutrality protections in the United States.” Leading digital rights group Fight for the Future, which has been behind the largest online protests for net neutrality in history, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (she/her):

“Net neutrality is coming back with a vengeance. When all is said and done, Comcast and Verizon will wish they had never picked this fight with the Internet.

Tens of millions of people from across the political spectrum have spoken out in support of net neutrality, the basic principle that protects free expression and fairness on the Internet. It’s encouraging to see New York state following the lead of California in pushing for strong protections at the state level. But we’ll need to see the bill text. 

With net neutrality policy, the devil is in the details. Comcast and Verizon employ an army of lawyers and lobbyists who will be pushing for loopholes or weaknesses they can exploit. In order to restore the protections that millions of people fought for in the 2015 Open Internet Order, state level legislation needs to include not only the bright line rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization, but also the essential protections from the text of the order itself. 

The governors’ announcement is encouraging. It appears this bill would ban harmful zero rating practices, one of the sneakiest ways that ISPs are attempting to abuse their gatekeeper power and screw over consumers. It also appears that it would allow people to take their ISP to court over violations. But the press release does not mention anything about a general conduct rule that would allow officials to prevent ISP abuses, or protections surrounding interconnection agreements. We’ll look forward to learning more about the bill.

We’ll be watching this legislation closely, and will be prepared to mobilize our army of net neutrality supporters to fight for the strongest bill possible. We’ll also continue pushing at the Federal level for Congress to pass the Save the Internet Act, which would reverse the FCC’s reckless repeal and restore the common sense rules that never should have been taken away in the first place.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 17, 2019
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

At the height of the holiday shopping season, and in light of a slew of harrowing news reports of serious security and privacy breaches, digital rights and consumer privacy groups are issuing an official product warning to inform the public that Amazon Ring cameras are not safe.

See the product warning site here: RingSafetyWarning.com.

The warning was issued by a number of groups focused on privacy, security, and civil liberties, including Fight for the Future, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Consumer Action, Free Press, Demand Progress, Presente, Defending Rights and Dissent, Mijente, and Constitutional Alliance. The groups issuing the product warning are encouraging members of the public NOT to buy Ring camera devices, and to educate their family and friends about the dangers associated with them, especially during the holiday shopping season.

Last week, a man hacked into a Ring camera to watch an 8 year old girl and speak to her. He introduced himself as Santa Claus and then proceeded to have a conversation with the young girl through a Ring camera her parents had installed in her bedroom. Since this chilling incident, there have been new reports daily of other users and their families being harassed by hackers who’ve broken into their Ring devices.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Multiple security issues with Ring products, which already raised significant privacy and civil liberties concerns, have been reported over the past several months. Amazon’s Ring doorbells leaked user’s Wi-Fi passwords. Ring’s Neighbors app discloses users’ home addresses. In response to Senate inquiry, Amazon acknowledge they have no safeguards in place to protect users’ footage when shared with 3rd parties. 

“Amazon is not taking the steps necessary to protect their users,” said Ken Mickles, Chief Technology Officer of Fight for the Future. “Amazon knew user’s Wi-Fi passwords had been leaked and were compromised. They issued no warning to users to change their password nor did they take additional measures to ensure greater protection like requiring two-factor authentication. It was just a matter of time before hackers took advantage of these blatant security vulnerabilities.” 

In an op-ed for NBC News, Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer writes, “For too long we’ve been sold a false choice between privacy and security. It’s more clear every day that more surveillance does not mean more safety, especially for the most vulnerable. Talk to your family and friends and encourage them to do their research before putting a private company’s surveillance devices on their door or in their home. In the end, Amazon doesn’t care about keeping our communities safe; they care about making money.” 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org 

“This is the single largest display of public opinion on the issue, and the message could not be more clear”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, leaders of grassroots organizations delivered more than 75,000 petitions to members of Congress calling for an outright ban on government use of facial recognition technology. 

“This is the single largest display of public opinion on the issue, and the message could not be more clear: people understand that this technology is dangerous when it works and when it doesn’t, and the only way to protect our privacy and our civil rights is to ban its use,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, one of the organizations involved in today’s delivery. “We’re calling on Congress to stop stalling and take immediate and definite action to protect people against the many and unavoidable dangers of facial recognition.”

The petition delivery was intended to be before a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on the national security implications of facial recognition technology. But that hearing was postponed and committee members stated that they’ll wait to bring up the issue again in the new year. “This technology is spreading incredibly quickly. We don’t have time for Congress to slow-walk this or turn it into a partisan circus,” added Greer. “This is an issue of our safety and our civil rights, and this technology is already causing undue harm to real people. We keep hearing that the impeachment making everything slow down, but it isn’t slowing down the spread of facial recognition. We need our representatives to stop punting and get to work.”

“The rapid spread of facial-recognition technology has outpaced our ability to keep its many abuses in check. In particular, this dangerous technology allows law enforcement and corporate actors to monitor and identify individuals without their knowledge or consent,” noted Sandy Fulton, Government Relations Director at Free Press Action Fund. “If past experience is any guide, law enforcement disproportionately surveils people of color, religious minorities and dissident groups in ways that undermine their rights to privacy, free expression and free assembly. We can only imagine how dangerous this new spying capability is when used at a protest or religious gathering. The technology is less accurate when used to identify—or rather, so often misidentify—people of color, raising incredibly troubling racial justice issues. No regulations could account sufficiently for the serious threat facial recognition technology poses.”

The group delivered petitions to Representatives Maloney and Jordan of the House Oversight Committee to highlight to public demand for action. The group also delivered petitions to Senators Coons and Lee who recently introduced a bill related to facial recognition that falls short of the type of legislation needed. “This bill would do nothing to prevent the type of invasive facial recognition surveillance that is already being conducted across the country,” said Greer. “And it contains gaping loopholes that authorize government and law enforcement to deploy facial recognition surveillance in all kinds of abusive ways. We hope this massive display of support for a ban on government use of facial technology will encourage the Senators to rewrite their legislation to actually protect people from the technology.” The group also called on Senate and House leadership to commit to moving legislation on facial recognition forward.

In addition to delivering these petitions, Fight for the Future conducted live facial recognition surveillance last month in the halls of Congress and around D.C., using Amazon’s commercially available Rekognition software. The group conducted more than 13,700 facial scans, and correctly identified one member of Congress in real-time: Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California. But the software also falsely identified 7 journalists and 25 Amazon lobbyists, and it even thought that it spotted singer Roy Orbison, who of course has been deceased since 1988 (RIP). This action underscored the message that facial recognition is invasive and dangerous when it works, but it’s also dangerous when it doesn’t work.

The petitions came through BanFacialRecognition.com, which is the largest campaign dedicated to stopping the spread of facial recognition, comprised of nearly 40 organizations representing more than 15 million members, including: 18 Million Rising, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Color of Change, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Daily Kos, Defending Rights and Dissent, Demand Progress, Detroit Community Technology Project, Detroit Digital Justice Coalition, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Greenpeace USA, Jewish Voices for Peace, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, Mijente, MoveOn, MPower Change, Muslim Justice League, National Lawyers Guild, Oakland Privacy, Open Media, Other 98%, Popular Resistance, Presente Action, Privacy Times, Restore the Fourth, RootsAction, San Francisco Public Defender, Secure Justice, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, United We Dream, Privacy Times, and X-Lab.

###

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, December 10
CONTACT: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

A Gizmodo investigation just revealed that it’s possible to obtain the locations of Ring doorbell cameras from post on Amazon’s Neighbors App. Amazon has continuously deflected criticism and claimed it is dedicated to user privacy.  The company insisted Ring users have a “choice in what information, if any, they share with law enforcement.”

It turns not only can law enforcement access the exact location of users, but anyone, anywhere can find out where users live. Gizmodo was able to locate geographic coordinates for more than 20,000 camera. Some of the coordinates placed you directly in front of the Ring device, while other coordinates were a couple hundred feet yet identifiers from posted videos made it easy to locate the user’s home. 

“People have been misled into buying these devices because Amazon tells them it will keep their family safe. But it’s a lie. Amazon’s surveillance network puts us all in danger,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “Any bystander caught by a Ring device could be located using the geographic coordinates found.  People can be tracked going into buildings, like clinics, for private appointments. Children captured on video could be located by people with malicious intentions. The possibilities are endless. Amazon has failed to put any protections in place. Now, we’re all vulnerable to the consequences of their dragnet. We need Congress to investigate, and hold Amazon accountable for these dangers.” 

Last month, Fight for the Future and 17 other organizations launched a campaign InvestigateAmazon.com. The campaign calls for lawmakers to fully investigate Amazon’s surveillance empire and bring Amazon executives, including Ring CEO Jamie Siminoff, before Congress to answer questions. Tens of thousands of people have already taken action calling on Congress to investigate. 

###

This weekend, dozens of musicians will perform at Amazon Web Service’s Intersect Festival, a manifestation of Amazon’s desire to build toward a monopoly over the music industry.

Sparked in part by outcry from artists who did not know Intersect was presented by Amazon, over 1000 musicians rallied under our No Music For ICE banner to sign a letter demanding that Amazon terminate contracts enabling the gross abuse of human rights. Then, on Black Friday, dozens of artists escalated their commitment by removing their music from the Amazon streaming platform.

Today, we launched a parody site, Complicitfest 2019, to reveal what’s really happening this weekend at Intersect: nomusicforice.com/complicitfest

“No Music for ICE plans to continue protesting until our demand is met — that Amazon ceases to provide technology powering ICE’s detentions and deportations,” Sadie Dupuis of Speedy Ortiz said in a statement. “But it was the October announcement of AWS’ Intersect festival that initially inspired us to organize, and to sever all future connections between our work and the human rights atrocities that drive Amazon’s profit. We’re commemorating the festival’s start with a reminder of what Intersect is really built on, and what abuses it’s distracting from. Complicitfest is our parody, but the real harm caused by Amazon, AWS, and Palantir’s collaboration with ICE is no joke.”

Amazon’s efforts to break into the music industry, which also include sponsoring music festivals like Coachella, are an effort to co-opt our art and use it to whitewash their brand and the evil it is doing in the world. Festivals like Intersect, big sponsorship dollars, and big music licensing deals for Amazon Prime shows like The Expanse (listed as a presenter of Intersect), are a trojan horse for the music industry. Through these efforts, Amazon has already gained enough power to make some artists afraid to join us. And, they’re right to be nervous — if Amazon becomes the hand that feeds culture, then culture workers won’t be able to resist without major career consequences.

Intersect festival is only a symptom of a larger problem with Amazon’s monopoly, and Amazon’s choices to abuse human rights. We’re calling for artists to use their platforms (especially those bankrolled by Amazon) to elevate the voices and causes oppressed by Amazon — at Intersect, and at every event sponsored by Amazon in 2020.

We will not be exploited by Amazon.

We will not be exploited to enable human rights abuses.

We will not be exploited to normalize invasive facial recognition technologies.

We will not be exploited to gloss over inhuman warehouse working conditions.

We will not be exploited to put mom n pop shops out of business.

We will not be exploited to help Amazon gain a monopoly that will ultimately either silence our dissent, or silence us permanently as artists.

“Amazon seems hellbent on bonegrafting itself to US government agencies that routinely violate human rights. They market racist facial recognition software to ICE. They openly lie about the details of their Ring surveillance partnerships with police. And their streaming platform offers the artists some of the worst per-play pay of any platform,” said Don Giovanni Records artist and deputy director of Fight for the Future, Evan Greer. “Artists don’t need Amazon. Amazon needs us. They’re trying to invade the music industry to score cool points for their brand. They think organizing music festivals and partnering with hip artists will distract from the fact that their surveillance capitalist business model is fundamentally at odds with democracy and human dignity. This is our moment. Artists are drawing a line in the sand. And we’re just getting started.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 5, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Following swift backlash, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has reportedly dropped its proposal to require all travelers in and out of the US, including US citizens, to have their “mugshot” taken in what would have been a radical expansion of the government’s facial recognition surveillance programs.

“Innocent people shouldn’t have to get their mugshot taken or get their face scanned in order to travel. Ubiquitous facial recognition at airports would be a reckless step toward a dystopian future that we won’t want to leave to our children,” said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of Fight for the Future, “It’s great to hear that the widespread opposition to the spread of this technology forced the US government to shelve the proposal for now. But we’ll need to remain vigilant. Congress should pass laws to ban the use of facial recognition for surveillance purposes. Without a ban, our basic human rights are at risk”

Fight for the Future is behind the BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

Fight for the Future recently made headlines by dealing the first major blow to the commercial spread of facial recognition in the US. Alongside artists like Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, the group pushed 40 of the worlds largest music festivals to clearly state they have no plans to use face recognition at their events. Morello and FFTF deputy director Evan Greer wrote about the significance of the victory in a widely shared Buzzfeed News op-ed. The group also conducted live facial recognition surveillance inside the halls of Congress, to show that face surveillance algorithms are dangerous even when they work properly. 

We oppose attempts by the tech industry (including Amazon) and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

Fight for the Future is a tiny but ruthless team of artists, strategists, and technologists who work to defend our most basic rights in the digital age. Working from our kitchen tables, DIY co-working spaces, and coffee shops, we’ve been behind the largest online protests in human history, and have led the fight on some of the most critical issues of our time, from the SOPA blackout to government surveillance to net neutrality.

Over the last year, we’ve been fighting an uphill battle against unprecedented threats to Internet freedom, online privacy, human liberty, and free expression. In this post we’ll quickly lay out our priorities for 2020, and recap the crucial work that we did in 2019 with the help of our 2 million+ supporters. People like you :-)

None of this work is possible without your support. Please chip in now, all donations are matched until the end of the year!

Thanks for all you do. Don’t hesitate to contact us with ideas.

-Sarah, Evan, Vasjen, Ayele, Caitlin, Dayton, Joe, Terri, Ken, Meredith, and Lia of Fight for the Future

The battle for the net rages on: our priorities in 2020

Restore net neutrality

When Ajit Pai repealed the open Internet protections we all fought for, we sparked an unprecedented backlash and channeled Internet outrage into effective action. Now, in the wake of a major Federal court decision, we’re building an online army to fight for strong net neutrality laws at the state level — and beat back attempts to pass trojan horse legislation in Congress.

Ban facial recognition

In the last year we’ve become one of the leading voices mobilizing opposition to the spread of invasive facial recognition surveillance technology. We’re exerting strategic pressure on Congress to get the strongest legislation possible at the Federal level, while providing “air support” for grassroots campaigns to ban this type of surveillance at the local and state level. We’re one of the only groups that is also working to rein in private and commercial use of facial recognition, with plans to organize against its spread to schools, commercial airlines, sporting events, and more.

Oppose for-profit surveillance

We helped expose the fact that Amazon has quietly entered into hundreds of surveillance partnerships with police departments across the US. Now we’ve built a powerful coalition of dozens of civil rights and civil liberties groups and tens of thousands of people fighting to end this privately-owned surveillance dragnet. We’re also using our mass mobilization playbook to fight for strong privacy legislation that reins in Big Tech’s data harvesting practices, and pushing hard for Silicon Valley giants to cut ties with government agencies that violate human rights.

Defend decentralized tech

While they’ve been somewhat of a magnet for scammers and Wall Street renegades, decentralized technologies and cryptocurrencies have enormous potential to democratize the Internet, communications, and economies. We’ve seen time and again that when politicians try to regulate technology that they don’t understand, ordinary people get screwed. We’re preparing a major new campaign in 2020 to fight for policies that protect public interest, privacy, and liberatory potential of decentralized technologies.

Stop censorship and fight for the Internet we want

In the last year we’ve seen increasingly dangerous calls for Internet censorship coming from both Democrats and Republicans. We’ve never been at higher risk of losing some of the basic free speech protections that have shaped the Internet. Meanwhile, we’ve seen few proposals that actually provide solutions to the real problems we face as a connected society, like online hate, harassment, and misinformation. This is our battlefield. We’ll educate. We’ll be ready to kill bad bills. And we’ll fight for real platform accountability and transparency to build the Internet we want to leave to our children.

With your help, here’s what we did in 2019

Trying to list everything we did in the last year would take ages, and we’re too busy gearing up for our campaigns in 2020. So, here’s some of the highlights:

We stopped surveillance from ruining music festivals

We drew first blood in our effort to stop the spread of invasive biometric surveillance. In a few short weeks we mobilized headlining artists and thousands of music fans and more or less cut off the live music industry from facial recognition technology. More than 40 of the world’s largest festivals, including Coachella, Bonnarroo, and SXSW, issued statements in response. Ticketmaster, which had previously invested in facial recognition for concert entry, publicly backed away from the tech. In an op-ed for Buzzfeed News, Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello and our deputy director Evan Greer wrote about the significance of this victory, and how we can replicate it in other industries.

We kept the fight for net neutrality alive

Even as the fight has dragged out, we’ve remained relentless in our focus on restoring net neutrality, the basic principle that makes the Internet awesome. Using our unique digital-first playbook we harnessed the reach of major websites like Tumblr, Etsy, and Mozilla to mobilize millions of people to support the Save the Internet Act, beating back every attempt to water it down. We crowdfunded billboards and organized protests. The groundswell led to the House of Representatives voting overwhelmingly to reverse Ajit Pai’s repeal. When the bill was blocked in the Senate, we organized an epic all-day livestream that reached 1.2 million people and featured celebrities who helped keep the issue in the news. Now we’re fighting to make open Internet protections a key issue in the 2020 election, and preparing to launch a massive effort to get strong state level net neutrality bills -– like the one we fought for and won in California — enacted across the country.

We mapped the spread of facial recognition, and launched the largest campaign ever to ban it

Facial recognition is spreading like an epidemic. We launched BanFacialRecognition.com, the largest grassroots effort ever calling for an outright ban on government use of this dangerous surveillance tech. More than 30 major organizations have endorsed the campaign, and its messaging has been echoed by 2020 hopefuls. To show the urgent need for action, we built a groundbreaking map that shows the spread of facial recognition in the US, and where there are local and state efforts to stop it. We helped local activists get bans passed in a handful of US cities, and are supporting efforts at the state level in Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York. We even deployed a team of activists to conduct live facial recognition surveillance inside the . halls of Congress, and tracked down a House Rep in real time. Our work helped catapult opposition to facial recognition into the cultural mainstream, making it one of the most talked about tech policy issues of 2019.

We organized gamers to fight for free expression

When online gaming giant Blizzard punished a professional gamer for speaking out about the protests in Hong Kong, we helped generate an international backlash that left the company scrambling to do damage control. We created a Discord channel where more than 1,000 gamers worked together to organize online pressure campaigns calling on major gaming companies to make content moderation decisions based on the needs of users, not pressure from governments. Our effort culminated in hundreds of gamers showing up to protest in person at Blizzard’s annual conference, BlizzCon, generating widespread media coverage.

We exposed Amazon’s surveillance empire

After our original research revealed that Amazon’s Ring doorbell company had entered into dozens of surveillance partnerships with police, researchers and journalists were able to uncover hundreds more, eventually forcing the company to release the full list. We then launched the first ever campaign opposing these partnerships, helping tens of thousands of people sign petitions to their local, state, and federal officials. Our work led to the first city councilor speaking out against Amazon’s surveillance partnerships, and several Senators have now sent oversight letters investigating Ring’s privacy and security practices. Now, dozens of civil rights, immigration, and civil liberties organizations are working with us to demand a full Congressional investigation and continue to fight these partnerships at the local level.

We sounded the alarm about Internet censorship

When the White House leaked a dangerous proposal that would have gutted CDA 230 — known as the “26 words that invented the Internet” — and put the FCC in charge of policing online speech, we spurred tens of thousands to take action. After the trial balloon landed with a thud, the Executive Order never saw the light of day. We opposed similarly misguided proposals from Democrats like Beto O’Rourke as well. As a fiercely nonpartisan organization, we’re uniquely positioned to shoot down bad tech policy ideas, regardless of which party they come from. We also refuse to gloss over real problems like online hate hate and harassment — we’re working with and learning from a huge range of organizations, startups and more to build a vision for the Internet we all want, where everyone has a voice and people’s privacy and safety are protected.

We fought the reauthorization of the Patriot Act

When House leadership included a reauthorization of the Patriot Act in a must-pass spending bill, we swung into action with a rapid response campaign to sound the alarm. Despite an almost complete media blackout, AOC, Justin Amash, and Ilhan Omar and a handful of other lawmakers ended up voting against the Continuing Resolution because of the inclusion of surveillance authorities. Many directly cited our efforts when explaining their votes.

We took telecom giants to task at the FCC and beyond

When Motherboard revealed that Internet Service Providers were regularly selling cell phone users location data, we sprung into action and generated massive online backlash, helping tens of thousands of people demand an investigation. Every major carrier has sense promised to end the practice. Laer, launched a rapid response campaign opposing the FCC’s reclassification of SMS messages to telecom companies censoring text messages. Senator Markey has now introduced a bill that would address this issue. Our campaign drove large numbers of comments to the FCC on an issue that would have otherwise flown under the radar. We’ve also worked with a broad coalition of public interest groups opposing the mega merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, helping the public understand the dangers of this type of telecom consolidation.

We called out Big Tech’s role in human rights abuses

From supporting Google employees who successfully killed the company’s plan to contract with the Pentagon to organizing high profile protests at Salesforce’s annual conference over their contract with US Border Patrol, we’ve been holding big tech companies accountable for the role they play in supporting government agencies that carry out human rights abuses. Our SpeakOut.tech campaign is helping build public support for Silicon Valley whistleblowers, and we can see it’s working: just last month a GitHub employee leaked to us an internal email about the company’s contract with ICE, which helped generate widespread media coverage and employee organizing. Most recently, we worked with more than 1,000 prominent indie musicians to launch NoMusicForICE, an effort for artists boycotting Amazon over their role in ICE’s family separation policies.

We used our tech and strategy expertise to support the Digital Climate Strike

As an organization, we focus on fighting for digital rights. But we’re always looking for ways to lend our digital-first playbook to other movements for good. Back in September, we worked with an ad hoc coalition of organizations, tech workers, and companies to help organize a Digital Climate Strike to coincide with the youth-led Global Climate Strike. We applied our signature tactic of mobilizing websites to reach massive numbers of people. More than 6,000 sites joined the strike, including WordPress, Tumblr, Patagonia, Kickstarter, and Imgur. In the end, our efforts helped drive more than 40% of all traffic to the climate strike landing page.

We make obscure issues mainstream

Our specialty is breaking down complex issues so that everyone can understand them, and then harnessing the power of the Internet to turn that collective understanding into the political power we need to win. In the last year alone our work has been covered by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, Rolling Stone, ABC News, Fortune, NBC, Associated Press, NPR, Politico, Billboard, Buzzfeed, Vice, CNET, Ars Technica, CBS News, Pitchfork, Wired, The Guardian, Fast Company, Wall Street Journal, and ESPN.

We stay small, but we pack a punch

Fight for the Future has no central office. As a remote team, we can keep our costs low and recruit the best talent. We’re currently at only 10 full time staff but we consistently fight far above our weight class, often generating more impact than organizations many times our size. This year we rounded out our campaigns team with two new full time campaigners, and have been working with a contractor who has roots in the music industry, expanding the network of artists and influencers we work with. We’ve continued to develop our world-class design and development team, technologists who understand how the Internet works and who are full strategic members of our team, not just contractors who build websites. Every team member is a master of their own domain, but also a Swiss Army Knife so we can adapt quickly to the needs of a political situation. Our small size keeps us nimble and collaborative. We’re not planning to get any bigger — our goal is to be a finely tuned “A-Team” that wins victories everyone says are impossible, not to become a big NGO.

Our budget is a fraction the size of many other organizations. There are so many worthy causes to give to at this time of year. We hope you’ll include us in your giving — our small size and ruthless focus on winning means that your donation will go a long way. Please give what you can before the end of the year.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 29th 
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Amazon’s litany of Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals may be overshadowed by widespread activism bringing attention to their abuse of warehouse workers, their technology powers ICE’s detention-deportation infrastructure, and their ever-expanding surveillance empire invades our homes and neighborhoods. 

Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, issued the following statement: “Amazon’s success is rooted in mass exploitation. Their warehouse employees are literally maimed fulfilling the company’s quotas. Their products record everything we do. This week we find out they considered combining Ring doorbell cameras and facial recognition technology to automatically compile a “watch list” that anyone could end up on for doing absolutely nothing. Amazon doesn’t care. Their widespread assault on our security, constitutionally protected rights, and communities will continue until Congress takes action. Lawmakers needs to launch a full scale investigation into the tech titan’s nationwide surveillance network.”  

This week Fight for the Future and other groups launched a campaign petitioning lawmakers investigate Amazon and bring their executives, including Amazon Ring CEO Jamie Siminoff, before Congress to answer questions about their business practices and the threats their nationwide surveillance network pose. 

Fight for the Future is also helping amplify No Music For ICE, a coalition of artists who are boycotting Amazon over their involvement with ICE’s human rights abuses. This week, dozens of artists, including prominent indie acts like Deerhoof, Speedy Ortiz, and Downtown Boys escalated their efforts by issuing takedowns to remove their music from Amazon’s streaming and digital platforms. More than 1,000 artists have signed the broader NoMusicForICE.com open letter, and the effort has been widely covered by music and culture outlets. 

The groups worked in conjunction with the Athena coalition to mobilize supporters in a week of action highlighting the impact of Amazon’s surveillance dragnet. 

###

UPDATE: After Gizmodo contacted Amazon about our site being censored, they have now unblocked it. More info soon if we get it.

Welp. This happened.

This week Fight for the Future and more than a dozen other civil liberties groups launched a new campaign calling for a full congressional investigation into Amazon’s surveillance-based business practices, data harvesting, and privacy violations.

Now Facebook is blocking our campaign’s website. When users try to share InvestigateAmazon.com, Facebook blocks it and shows this error message, saying the link “goes against” their “Community Standards.”

Maybe Facebook doesn’t love the idea of Big Tech monopolies facing congressional scrutiny? As we told Gizmodo:

“Whether this was intentional censorship, some technical glitch, or just a mistake made by an overworked human or robot, the end result is the same,” she said, “the campaign page that we made to give people a voice in their democracy is being blocked by a Silicon Valley giant. This underscores the fundamental danger of having a tiny handful of companies with so much power. This is why we need lawmakers to investigate and take meaningful action to rein in Big Tech companies like Facebook and Amazon.”

If you want to check out the campaign that Facebook apparently doesn’t want you to see, head over to InvestigateAmazon.com, and then I guess share this post and maybe Facebook won’t block that?

We, the artists behind No Music For Ice, are calling for our fellow musicians to cut ties with Amazon, until they end their contracts with ICE.

In an escalation of our NoMusicForICE campaign, we just issued takedown notices to pull our music from Amazon’s digital platform, and you can too. We’re calling on musicians & labels who oppose ICE’s human rights abuses to join us during the holiday season. Read on for why, and how, you can join us in a collective digital takedown, in solidarity with groups fighting Amazon’s support of ICE nationwide. Mass takedowns will begin on Black Friday and continue throughout Amazon’s all-important holiday shopping season.

Connect with us at NoMusicForICE.com

Back in October, Amazon announced that it would be hosting Intersect festival, an Amazon Web Services-sponsored experience described on the official website as a “place where music, technology, and art converge.” News of the festival sparked public criticism, with musicians and journalists disavowing Amazon for providing digital infrastructure that powers Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Many musicians who joined the conversation agreed: it is time to say NO to ICE and the tech companies that power it, like Amazon.

A group of artists and volunteers created No Music For ICE to harness our collective power and organize against Amazon. Inspired by the No Tech For ICE campaign led by groups like Mijente, as well as petitions and letters created by tech workers at Amazon and Google, we wrote an open letter to Amazon pledging to reject events or partnerships sponsored by Amazon.

The letter included a series of demands for Amazon:

• Terminate existing contracts with government agencies that commit human rights abuses.
• Stop providing cloud services to organizations (such as Palantir) that power deportations.
• End projects that encourage racial profiling and discrimination like Amazon Ring’s surveillance partnerships with police.
• Reject any future engagements with such bad actors.

This letter gained coverage on almost every major news outlet in the United States, and was co-signed by over 1000 musicians — including Atmosphere, Jay Som, Deerhoof, Alejandro Escovedo, CAKE, Ted Leo, members of Fugazi, Damon and Naomi, The Blow, Mirah, Priests, Thursday, Car Seat Headrest, Taina Asili, Hurray for the Riff Raff, and Immortal Technique.

Today, we are calling on musicians to take the next step: do what we did and remove your music from Amazon. A mass, collective takedown is an escalation, another step in musicians acting in solidarity with the numerous groups across the country protesting to shut down ICE and end family separations, deportations, and other horrors.

Amazon is aggressively trying to compete in the music sales and streaming markets, with mixed results. Based on a few numbers for major “rock” acts an industry insider shared with us recently, Amazon Streaming accounted for only around 4% of first week streams. Amazon MP3 digital sales equated to 3% total of album sales, excluding ticket/album bundle sales. Pulling down your music kicks Amazon where it already hurts, and it’s easy to do.

If you are on a label or otherwise have a distribution deal, write to your label or distributor directly. Ask if they can help you issue a takedown request to Amazon for digital sales and streaming. It’s easy to opt out, and it should only take a few days for your music to be removed from their platform. Our organizers with distribution from ADA and Redeye, like Get Better Records,Speedy Ortiz, Downtown Boys, and Evan Greer were able to do so quickly and painlessly. Check out our “How to” guide below to learn more about how to issue Amazon takedowns.

During the holiday shopping & travel season, when music sales are often at their peak, wouldn’t it be great if your art didn’t feed the infrastructure that allows government agencies to abuse human rights on a mass scale? Join us! Learn more & tell us you’re pulling your music at http://nomusicforice.com/

And now — a message to Amazon. You can’t use our music to hurt the most vulnerable among us. You are complicit in some of the greatest human rights violations of our time, and history will place you among the villains. We aren’t going to join you on that list.

We know that music can change things, and we will use music to end Amazon’s contract with ICE.

How to Remove Your Music From Amazon

If you have a label and/or a distribution deal.

1. Write to your label or distributor directly.
2. Ask if they can help you issue a takedown request to Amazon for digital sales and streaming.
3. It’s easy to opt out, and it should only take a few days for your music to be removed from their platform. Our organizers with distribution from ADA and Red Eye, like Get Better Records and Speedy Ortiz, were able to do so quickly and painlessly. Artists on Don Giovanni Records had the same experience.
4. Change your avatar for this holiday season to signify that you said NO to Amazon + ICE.
5. Take the pledge & and tell us why you removed your music from Amazon at NoMusicForIce.com

If you are independent and/or do not have a distribution deal.

Note: removing your music from Amazon may be permanent, and could apply to streaming services Amazon owns in the future. We’ll add more info, ask your distributor for clarification if you have questions.

1. Log in to your account of the service (for ex: Distrokid) that helped you upload digital music to Amazon
2. In the distribution settings on your service, you can select stores you would like to deliver to, and do not want to deliver to. If the service you used does not have this option, email customer support.
3. Remove Amazon from the list of stores where you want your music delivered.
4. If this doesn’t work, email customer support and say:
   “I would like to take down my music from Amazon. Please remove my music from Amazon digital sales & streaming, effective immediately.”
5. Change your avatar for this holiday season to signify that you said NO to Amazon + ICE.
6. Take the pledge & tell us why you removed your music from Amazon at NoMusicForIce.com

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, November 25th
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org 

Amazon may face Congressional scrutiny as it approaches all-important Holiday shopping season.

Today, more than a dozen civil rights organizations, launched InvestigateAmazon.com, a major new campaign petitioning lawmakers to bring Amazon executives, including Amazon Ring CEO Jamie Siminoff, before Congress to answer questions about their business practices and the threats their nationwide surveillance network pose. The groups, with millions of members between them, will flood lawmakers with calls and emails throughout this holiday week.

The participating groups－which include Fight for the Future, Media Justice, Color of Change, CREDO Action, Demand Progress, Constitutional Alliance, The Tor Project, MPower Change, Presente, Secure Justice, RootsAction, Council on American-Islamic Relations-SFBA, Nation Digital Inclusion Alliance, Justice For Muslims Collective, Restore The Fourth Inc., New York Communities for Change, Media Alliance, X-Lab, and Media Mobilizing Project－say in their call on Congress to investigate Amazon that:

• Surveillance is at the heart of Amazon’s monopolistic business model. 
  

• Amazon’s Alexa records our conversations. Their Rekognition technology identifies our faces and tracks our movement in the public sphere. Their Ring doorbell company partners with local police to provide backdoor, warrantless access to mass surveillance footage collected from millions of American homes and neighborhoods.
  

• Amazon’s ever-expanding surveillance empire threatens our privacy and civil liberties, especially in brown and black communities already vulnerable to racial profiling and heightened surveillance. 
  

• These threats are coupled with security concerns. Ring cameras don’t use end to end encryption and have already leaked customers’ Wi-Fi passwords to open networks leaving users vulnerable to cyber-attacks, hackers, and foreign governments. 
  

Amazon’s Ring partnerships with police departments are noted as one of the most egregious examples of their surveillance empire.

There has been widespread concern about Amazon-police partnerships. Last week, U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Chris Coons of Delaware and Gary Peters of Michigan sent a letter to Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos questioning Ring’s data security and the possibility of the system being hacked or accessed by foreign governments. 

The Senators’ letter comes out on the heels of Sen. Markey releasing findings from this investigation into Amazon’s Ring. His findings reveal Amazon fails to provide any meaningful safeguards to protect civil liberties.

While the groups are encouraged by the Senator’s efforts, they maintain the need for a full congressional investigation with hearings, and eventual legislation to prevent surveillance based business models, like Amazons, from harming the public, other businesses, and our democracy.

The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): “ During this holiday season, people are going to buy Amazon’s product unaware of the surveillance features and the threats they pose to their personal data and civil liberties. Meanwhile, Amazon gains access to video footage and sensitive audio recordings from millions more Americans and their families. Amazon’s surveillance empire is spreading at an alarming rate. Sen. Markey’s investigation confirms that Amazon has zero protections in place to protect our security and civil liberties. At this point, lawmakers need to escalate the investigation and hold hearings demanding answers and accountability from Amazon when it comes to their surveillance empire and monopolistic business practices.”

The following can be attributed to Jelani Drew, campaigner manager at CREDO Action: "Amazon has too much access to our everyday lives and is relentlessly trying to gain more through surveillance technology. Amazon’s Ring in particular is a perfect yet horrifying example of how Amazon, in partnership with law enforcement, is effectively making each and every one of our homes an extension of the police. Congress needs to intervene immediately to put an end to this heightened corporate surveillance that makes us less free and less safe.“ 

The following can be attributed to CAIR National Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas: "Amazon devices are in our homes listening to our most intimate conversations and affixed to front doors where they create an in-real-time record of all that happens in our neighborhoods,” said CAIR National Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas. “This pervasiveness, combined with Amazon’s privacy-averse disposition, creates an unprecedented threat to the civil liberties of all Americans.”

The following can be attributed to Alex Marthews, Restore The Fourth: “Amazon’s police partnerships run Rings around the Fourth Amendment. We should be able to expect to move around freely in public without being scanned as potential suspects.”

The following can be attributed to Scott Roberts, Senior Criminal Justice Campaign Director at Color of Change: “Color of Change is deeply concerned by Amazon’s ever-growing for-profit surveillance empire. As the nation’s largest online civil rights organization we know many of our members have no choice but to interact with Amazon and their products, and we understand how that puts their safety at risk. We know mass surveillance and “broken windows” policing don’t keep our communities safe, and we must hold corporations like Amazon accountable for their attempts to profit from these failed policing practices. Targeted mass surveillance only increases law enforcement’s reach into our lives and creates opportunities for injustices in vulnerable communities. Congress should act immediately to ensure the safety of Black and brown communities from Amazon’s various surveillance practices.”

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 20th, 2019
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Amazon has confirmed that civil rights organizations were correct about the threats Ring technology and police partnerships pose to privacy and civil liberties in statements to U.S. Senator Edward Markey.

Yesterday, Senator Markey released disturbing findings from his investigation into Amazon Ring. His findings reveal Amazon fails to provide any meaningful safeguards to protect data, privacy, or civil liberties. With over 600 partnerships across the country, millions of Americans are being swept up in captured video footage without any knowledge of the threats. And now Amazon openly admits that it has enacted no policies or oversight to protect them. They are completely vulnerable to the whims of whoever gains access to surveillance footage whether it be Amazon employees, police departments, or hackers taking advantage of Amazon’s lax security protections.

“Amazon plays on people’s fears to sell them surveillance products, and then turns around and puts them and their neighbors in danger,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “Through consumer products like Ring, Amazon is collecting footage and all the data needed to build a nationwide surveillance network. They leverage government relationships to promote their own products, gain consumer trust and secure their position in the market. This is an unprecedented assault on our security, constitutionally protected rights, and communities. Amazon’s admissions to Senator Markey show that we need an immediate full scale Congressional investigation into this tech titan’s surveillance practices.”  

Some of the most important findings in Sen. Markey’s investigation:

• Once footage is collected, police departments are free to store indefinitely and share with any 3rd party they choose.
  

• No compliance mechanisms in place to prevent users from collecting video footage of neighbors, bystanders, or surrounding neighborhood.
  

• No evidentiary standard for police departments to request footage. They only need a case number to request surveillance en masse. Their request spans video footage within a radius of .5 miles in 12 hours segments up to 45 days old.
  

• Ring using facial recognition technology and selling users’ biometric data are both inevitable as market demand for them increases. 

• No security requirements in place to protect user data once police gain access to footage.
  

“Amazon Ring’s policies are an open door for privacy and civil liberty violations. If you’re an adult walking your dog or a child playing on the sidewalk, you shouldn’t have to worry that Ring’s products are amassing footage of you and that law enforcement may hold that footage indefinitely or share that footage with any third parties,” said Senator Markey. “Amazon is not doing enough to ensure that its products and practices do not run afoul of our civil liberties.”

###

UPDATE: Congress just reauthorized the Patriot Act as part of the Continuing Resolution must-pass spending bill. A handful of Democrats bucked leadership to oppose mass surveillance. Now we have 3 months to build support for legislation to rein in government spying. More soon!

This is not good. The Patriot Act is the hastily passed law that enables the US government’s most grotesque mass surveillance programs. We know for a fact that the government has used it to violate our constitutional and human rights. But House Democrats just included a three month straight reauthorization of the Patriot Act in the “Continuing Resolution” must pass spending bill. And the Congress is voting on it TODAY.

By kicking the can down the road, Congressional leadership is taking the pressure off of negotiators, foiling one of our best chances to finally get meaningful reform that reins in the mass government surveillance. We need to get as many members of Congress as possible to vote against the Continuing Resolution unless the Patriot Act reauthorization is removed.

Wow. House Democrats are ignoring civil liberties & including a three month straight re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act (with zero reform) in the Continuing Resolution. Very cool way to resist Trump by ensuring he continues to have terrifying authoritarian surveillance powers.

 — @evan_greer

Representatives like AOC, Justin Amash, and Ilhan Omar have already tweeted that they will vote against this. Please retweet, thank them, and amplify that so we can get other reps on board. This is not a partisan issue, so contact your reps regardless of which party they’re part of.

Our friends at Restore the Fourth have a simple tool that lets you look up where your reps stand on surveillance and tweet at them. Below are the 20 or so members of Congress who are either most likely to vote against the CR today or who have the most control over the process. Tweet and call them right now and tell them: “Vote NO on the Continuing Resolution because it reauthorizes the Patriot Act!”

• Speaker Nancy Pelosi | (202) 225–4965 | @SpeakerPelosi
• Leader Steny Hoyer | (202) 225–4131 | @LeaderHoyer
• Rep Karen Bass | (202) 225–7084 | @RepKarenBass
• Rep Earl Blumenauer | (202) 225–4811 | @RepBlumenauer
• Rep Suzanne Bonamici | (202) 225–0855 | @RepBonamici
• Rep Judy Chu | (202) 225–5464 | @RepJudyChu
• Rep David Cicilline | (202) 225–4911 | @RepCicilline
• Rep Yvette Clarke |(202) 225–6231 | @RepYvetteClarke
• Rep Steve Cohen | (202) 225–3265 | @RepCohen
• Rep Rosa DeLauro |(202) 225–3661 | @RosaDeLauro
• Rep Tulsi Gabbard | (202) 225–4906 | @TulsiGabbard
• Rep Paul Gosar | (202) 225–2315 | @RepGosar
• Rep Pramila Jayapal | 202–225–3106 | @RepJayapal
• Rep Jim Jordan | (202) 225–2676 | @Jim_Jordan
• Rep Ro Khanna | 202–225–2631 | @RoKhannaUSA
• Rep John Lewis | (202) 225–3801 | @RepJohnLewis
• Rep Zoe Lofgren | (202) 225–3072 | @RepZoeLofgren
• Rep Thomas Massie | (202) 225–3465 | @RepThomasMassie
• Rep Frank Pallone | (202) 225–4671 | @FrankPallone
• Rep Ayanna Pressley | (202) 225–5111 |@AyannaPressley
• Rep Maxine Waters | (323) 757–8900 | @RepMaxineWaters

Share this post everywhere. Tweet and call all of those reps. Retweet the tweets below to help sound the alarm online. We can’t let politicians in DC reauthorize the Patriot Act without a fight. We need to show them we’re still paying attention so that when this comes back up in 3 months, we can win.

Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dog https://t.co/O6t8h6zkgs

 — @AOC

Democratic leaders are using a spending bill (CR) to sneak through a reauthorization of the Patriot Act. On Monday, I submitted an amendment to remove the Patriot Act provisions, and they blocked my amendment. The vote is this week. Tell your rep in Congress to oppose the CR!

 — @justinamash

Yeah...no. Count me out. https://t.co/3MsfgzdVsc

 — @IlhanMN

Today, activists working with digital rights group Fight for the Future conducted live facial recognition surveillance in the halls of Congress and the area surrounding Capitol Hill, to show why this technology is so dangerous that it should be banned.

Politicians in Washington, DC seem to think facial recognition surveillance is just fine. So we decided to see how they like it. We conducted nearly 14,000 face scans inside the halls of Congress. Then we almost got arrested. Learn more: https://t.co/OLYyWX8U4H https://t.co/0mWwZhYaMJ

 — @fightfortheftr

Our message for Congress is simple: make what we did today illegal.

Using Amazon’s commercially available Rekognition software — running on smartphones strapped to our heads — our team ran 13,732 biometric face scans in Washington, DC. By comparing live footage against a database we had assembled, the system successfully identified a member of Congress in real time: Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California.

Amazon’s facial recognition software also *thought* that it had identified 7 journalists and 25 Amazon lobbyists that we had pre-loaded into the database. But all of those matches turned out to be incorrect. The software even thought that it spotted singer Roy Orbison who of course has been deceased since 1988 (RIP).

This underscores our message: facial recognition is invasive and dangerous when it works, but it’s also dangerous when it doesn’t work. In our case, it’s easy to laugh when the software thinks a member of our team is an Amazon lobbyist, or when it thinks a random staffer is a prominent journalist. But law enforcement agencies are using flawed facial recognition software right now — and the potential harm of a mismatch is staggering. It could land an innocent person in prison, or worse. And current facial recognition algorithms exhibit systemic racial bias, exacerbating existing forms of discrimination in our criminal justice system.

Our team worked its way through the Rayburn office building of the House of Representatives, scanning thousands of people’s faces. We livestreamed the whole thing at ScanCongress.com

That page includes a tool that lets anyone upload a photo that we can check against the footage we collected to tell you if we scanned your face. If you were in DC today, or know someone who was, tell them to check.

We did this to prove a point and to pressure Congress to pass laws to ban facial recognition surveillance, so we’re going to delete all the footage and all the biometric data when we’re done. We also chose our location carefully: inside the capitol where everyone is already under video surveillance. But anyone else could easily do what we did, and right now it’s perfectly legal. A government agency can do this to monitor a marginalized population. A corporation can do it to harvest our biometric data and sell it for profit. A creepy stalker could do it to find their target in a crowd of people.

After several hours of scanning thousands of faces, our team of activists were approached by Capitol Hill police and threatened with arrest if they did not leave the Capitol grounds. They were thrown out not because they were using facial recognition surveillance — that’s perfectly legal until Congress gets off their butts and passes laws to ban it — but because police claimed they were violating a law against blocking passageways. Of course, they weren’t blocking passageways and we have the whole thing on video to prove it. It seems that Congress thinks facial recognition surveillance is just fine as long as its used on all of us but not them.

While our action was still going on, news reports started to emerge that Senators Coons and Lee had introduced a new bill related to facial recognition. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of the type of legislation we need. It would do nothing to prevent the type of invasive facial recognition surveillance that we conducted today. And it contains gaping loopholes that authorize government and law enforcement to deploy facial recognition surveillance in all kinds of abusive ways.

Fight for the Future opposes this bill, and attempts by tech industry lobbyists to push for weak “regulation” of facial recognition. This technology is so dangerous that the only appropriate policy is an outright ban on government use and use for surveillance in public places. Several cities have already enacted bans, and more are poised to follow suit. Last month, we ran a successful campaign that got more than 40 of the worlds largest music festivals, including Coachella and SXSW, to make it clear they’re not using this privacy destroying, unsafe technology.

We will continue to update this post with photos and video as they come in. Tell everyone you know in Washington, DC to head over to ScanCongress.com to learn more, find out if we scanned their face, and contact their lawmakers demanding that they take action to ban facial recognition surveillance.

The photos and video in this post are available for use by press. Credit: Fight for the Future. Contact us: team@fightforthefuture.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 14, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

“This should probably be illegal,” Fight for the Future action will show why face surveillance should be banned

Digital rights group Fight for the Future is currently conducting live facial recognition surveillance in Washington, DC, using Amazon’s commercially available Rekognition software to scan thousands of people’s faces and cross-check them with a database to track down members of Congress, Amazon lobbyists, and members of the press. The whole fiasco is being livestreamed at ScanCongress.com, which will show a live count of the number of faces scanned. 

The action shows that facial recognition surveillance is dangerous both when algorithms work and when they don’t. Three activists are wearing white jumpsuits emblazoned with “Facial Recognition in Progress” and headgear equipped with a phone running facial recognition software. The trio are scanning faces at major metro stops and busy areas around Capitol Hill, looking for members of Congress and journalists, and around K street, looking for Amazon lobbyists. In the process, the group will collect biometric data on potentially thousands of DC residents and commuters. 

See the livestream at ScanCongress.com 

Photos and video available for use by press here. (We will update throughout the day)

Following the protest, Fight for the Future will release a web tool at ScanCongress.com that allows people who were in DC on Thursday to upload a photo and check whether their face was scanned. All the photos, and the facial recognition data, will be destroyed after two weeks.

“This should probably be illegal,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “but until Congress takes action to ban facial recognition surveillance, it’s terrifyingly easy for anyone –– a government agent, a corporation, or just a creepy stalker –– to conduct biometric monitoring and violate basic rights at a massive scale. We did this to make a point. And we’re going to delete the data that we collect. Someone else could use the same technology to do unimaginable harm. We need an immediate ban on law enforcement and government use of face surveillance, and should urgently and severely limit its use for private and commercial purposes.”

The action is part of Fight for the Future’s BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

Fight for the Future recently made headlines by dealing the first major blow to the commercial spread of facial recognition in the US. Alongside artists like Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, the group pushed 40 of the worlds largest music festivals to clearly state they have no plans to use face recognition at their events. Morello and FFTF deputy director Evan Greer wrote about the significance of the victory in a widely shared Buzzfeed News op-ed.

Fight for the Future opposes attempts by the tech industry (including Amazon) and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

### 

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 7, 2019
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Today, Cyberscoop reported a major security vulnerability in Amazon’s Ring doorbell app. Amazon’s Ring doorbells, which have already raised significant privacy and civil liberties concerns, have now been shown to be deeply insecure, exposing users Wi-Fi passwords to hackers. 

With this Wi-Fi information, hackers can access customers’ personal home networks. It only gets scarier from there as hackers could use customer’s webcams to spy on them and their children, gain access to their bank accounts, and retrieve personal information necessary for identity theft. 

“This is a classic example of how more surveillance does not mean more safety,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future. “Amazon has consistently shown reckless disregard for privacy and civil liberties, but this is terrifying on a whole other level. Putting insecure cameras and listening devices around your home puts your family in danger. Congress should immediately investigate the threat posed by Amazon’s rapidly spreading, for-profit surveillance dragnet.”

Amazon’s surveillance network doesn’t only threaten our privacy and civil liberties, but our security as well. Meanwhile, millions of Americans continue to buy Ring products unaware of the dangers the technology and surveillance partnerships with police pose.

With over 550 partnerships across the country and millions of Americans potentially impacted, we need Congress to intervene. More than 10,000 people have already written their lawmakers calling on them to investigate Amazon’s surveillance empire and their troubling partnerships with law enforcement.  

####

Crowds of protesters are gathering outside Blizzard’s annual convention, BlizzCon, in Anaheim, CA today. Gamers and activists from across the political spectrum showed up to make their voices heard, calling for gaming companies to stand up for basic human rights and freedom of expression for all.

Big crowd of protesters outside #BlizzCon2019, coming together from across the political spectrum to demand freedom of expression and basic human rights for all. Not at the protest? You can take action at https://t.co/bTfbckHcU8 https://t.co/KWFjyrqP4Z

 — @fightfortheftr

Several different groups self-organized the protests, alongside gamers and volunteers who coordinated on reddit and discord. The morning kicked off with volunteers from Freedom Hong Kong, who handed out more than 4,000 T-shirts to convention attendees.

There is a very passionate group of people handing out "Free Hong Kong" t-shirts by the entrance of #BlizzCon2019

 — @Zorine

At 12pm PST, the “official” Gamers for Freedom protest supported by digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing massive online protests against SOPA and for net neutrality, began. Protesters held signs reading “You can’t control us,” “Our world is worth fighting for,” and “Every voice matters” (a Blizzard slogan). Fight for the Future opposes Blizzard’s punishment of Hong Kong gamer Blitzchung and their policy that imposes a draconian blanket ban on all political speech.

“Decisions about how to moderate online speech are some of the most important decisions of our generation, and have profound implications for the future of humanity. Companies should not be making these decisions under pressure from ANY government, whether it’s China, the US, or the UK,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “Blizzard’s attempt to quell this controversy is cowardly and it’s only going to backfire. This is not just about Blitzchung or Hong Kong — they need to make a clear commitment to not act as the speech police on behalf of governments in general. A blanket ban on all political speech is inherently at odds with basic free expression. It’s taking sides with the status quo, and those who wish to suppress free speech. How you determine what is “political” is a political decision in and of itself.”

Um, apology NOT accepted. Blizzard didn't even say @blitzchungHS's name nor did they commit to reverse their absurdly draconian and unenforceable "no political speech of any kind" policy. Join us outside #BlizzCon2019 at 12 noon to protest for free expression and human rights https://t.co/6nQSKWgM8Z

 — @fightfortheftr

Inside the convention, Blizzard’s CEO briefly addressed the controversy, but failed to even mention Blitzchung’s name. To be clear, this was not an apology. The company has not changed its position, and is still enforcing a policy that enables censorship at the behest of governments.

As more and more protesters gathered, organizers held a cosplay contest. Many gamers showed up dressed as their favorite Blizzard games characters. Zephronica, a cosplayer who went viral on reddit, was in attendance and spoke out about her journey and the messages she received from family in Hong Kong.

“Believe it or not, other video game companies are watching what we are doing here today … they are all watching this protest right now. Our voices are being heard. We are already making a difference. The US Congress has already made a statement calling on Blizzard to reverse their ban. Wizards of the Coast has already allowed one of their players to publicly support Hong Kong. Also Mitsubishi dropped out of sponsoring BlizzCon. What we need to do is keep up that pressure and send Blizzard and all these other game companies the message: democracy is not negotiable.” -Zephronica

Improved prop for Blizzcon! I still can't believe that we fundraised to go to Blizzcon. Thank you everyone got all your support! I will be there with this cool umbrella I just decorated. #freehongkong #meiwithhongkong #boycottblizzard

 — @meisupportsHK

Fight for the Future made it crystal clear that the protest was about human rights and freedom for all. We oppose censorship and human rights violations regardless of which government is behind them.

If your beef with Blizzard is based in some xenophobic nonsense or bigotry toward Chinese people, fuck you. You're not part of our movement. This is about free expression and basic human rights for all. If that's what you're about, join us outside #BlizzCon2019 right now.

 — @fightfortheftr

Casey Chambers and Torino, two members of the American University Hearthstone team who Blizzard banned from competition for holding up a protest sign in solidarity with Blitzchung after the ban, spoke at the event.

We out here!

 — @Xcelsior_GU

In addition to the speakers, comedian Ron Placone helped host a cosplay contest. Many gamers showed up dressed as their favorite Blizzard games characters or as Winnie the Pooh, a character banned in China. Winners received a free 1 year VPN subscription donated by Private Internet Access, who are also a supporter of Fight for the Future.

The protests have sparked widespread media coverage and discussion on social media. Fight for the Future are encouraging all who support human rights and free speech to continue pressuring Blizzard and other gaming companies to pledge to defend their players right to free expression. You can sign the petition, tweet at gaming companies, donate, and take other actions at GamersForFreedom.com

Gamers and human rights activists are organizing a protest outside Blizzard’s annual convention, BlizzCon, today in Anaheim, CA. We’re calling on all gaming companies to stand up for free expression and refuse to act as censors on behalf of ANY government. Details about the protest are here.

If you can’t make it, you can still make your voice heard. Here are the easiest ways to help turn up the pressure on Blizzard and other companies:

1. Use this handy tool to tweet and email gaming companies en masse and ask them to clarify their position on free expression. You can also tweet at BlizzCon’s sponsors and tell them to pull out. 
   
   
2. Sign the petition at GamersForFreedom.com and share it everywhere.
   
   
3. Make noise online. Run a livestream, post a video, flood #BlizzCon2019 and #BlizzCon hashtags with human rights and free expression content. We have some graphics and memes you can use here. 

When Blizzard first made the terrible decision to punish professional gamer Blitzchung for speaking out about the situation in Hong Kong, there was massive online backlash. It’s clearly having an impact, but we can’t let that energy die down or it will send the message that companies can act as government speech police and get away with it. We won’t let that happen. Please do everything you can. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 31, 2019
Contact: dayton@fightforthefuture.org, (508) 368-3026

On Friday, November 1st, Gamers for Freedom will be organizing protests outside of BlizzCon.  Gamers from around the world will be in attendance to share their voices in support of banned Hearthstone player Ng Wai “blitzchung” Chung, Hong Kong residents standing up for their liberty, and free expression online.  The day will be filled with passionate speakers, fun events, and acts of legal, nonviolent protest.  

Our protest will run from noon until 3:00pm, but there will be plenty of activity before and after the official protest hours.  We encourage anyone in the Southern California area to join us at the Anaheim Convention Center to participate in this important day of political action.

• At 7:00am, as part of the campaign organized by Freedom Hong Kong, 4,000 t-shirts will be handed out to BlizzCon attendees and protesters alike, with assistance from Hong Kong Forum Los Angeles volunteers and community members. The campaign aims to raise awareness of the ongoing Hong Kong protests demanding freedom and democracy, and call for support from the world to join our fight against totalitarianism. The t-shirt giveaway will continue on Nov 2 starting from 7:00am until supply runs out.

• At 12:00pm, Gamers for Freedom will organize along Convention Center Way, holding signs and handing out flyers to BlizzCon attendees.  We will be joined by Zephronica and YX, who have gone viral on social media for their cosplay of the character Mei from Blizzard’s Overwatch game.  Zephronica and YX have also donated 400 t-shirts to hand out to BlizzCon attendees and protesters.
  

• At 1:00pm, Gamers for Freedom will hold a cosplay contest hosted by comedian Ron Placone.  Anyone wearing a costume is eligible to participate.  We will select the 10 best costumes based on crowd reaction, and provide them with a free one-year subscription to VPN service graciously provided by Private Internet Access.

• At 2:00pm, members of the protest will speak to the crowd.  Our featured speakers will be Casey Chambers and Torino, two members of the American University Hearthstone team whom Blizzard has banned from competition for making peaceful political statements during a recent Hearthstone tournament livestream.
  

Gamers for Freedom is a project by Fight for the Future, a non-profit dedicated to promoting digital rights.  To speak with Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the future and organizer of Gamers for Freedom, please email dayton@fightforthefuture.org.

To speak with Freedom Hong Kong, please email Tony at freedomhongkong@protonmail.com.

To speak with Hong Kong Forum Los Angeles, please contact Charles Lam at info@hkfla.org.  

To speak with Ron Placone, please email ronplaconebooking@gmail.com.

To speak with Casey Chambers, please message @Xcelsior_GU on Twitter.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 29
CONTACT: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new campaign calling on Congress to investigate Amazon’s surveillance-based business practices, and the rapidly spreading partnerships between it’s doorbell camera company, Ring and local law enforcement. More than 10,000 people have already written to their member of Congress through the campaign.

There has been widespread reporting on the privacy and civil liberties concerns surrounding these Amazon-surveillance partnership, 35+ civil rights groups sign on to open letter calling on elected officials to address them, and some local police departments, like St. Petersburg Police Department, are refusing to enter into these partnerships. 

But despite these growing concerns, Amazon is aggressively pursuing surveillance partnerships. A little over a month ago, there were 400 cities with these partnerships. Today, there are over 500. As the number of partnerships grows, so do the threats they pose to:

• Civil Liberties. Amazon renders the Fourth Amendment irrelevant by giving law enforcement backdoor, warrantless access to mass surveillance footage.
  
  
• Privacy. Amazon’s Ring doorbell cameras provide footage of millions of American families––from a baby in their crib to someone walking their dog to a neighbor playing with young children in their yard––and other bystanders that don’t know they are being filmed and haven’t given their consent.
  

• Security. Ring cameras don’t use end to end encryption, and reports indicate that Amazon employees and contractors have direct access to some live feeds, raising significant national security concerns. 
  

“We can’t trust Amazon to do what’s necessary to protect us,” said Evan Greer deputy director of Fight for the Future. “Millions of Americans buy Amazon Ring products unaware of the dangers the technology and partnerships pose. Amazon wants to keep it that way. We need Congress to publicly investigate Amazon’s surveillance dragnet and hold a hearing to openly question Amazon Ring CEO Jamie Siminoff on dangers Ring technology and these partnerships pose to this country.”

Amazon’s inability to be transparent and honest exacerbates existing concerns with their surveillance network. Amazon denies integrating facial recognition software with Ring technology—yet Ring’s Ukrainian office reportedly tests facial recognition technology on user footage. They claim that police won’t ever have direct access to user footage—but they experimented with a feature for 911 calls to trigger Ring doorbell cameras to wake up and live stream for police use.

With no accountability and oversight, privacy and civil liberties concerns with Amazon’s surveillance technology and partnerships outpace the NSA’s spying programs. Congress was elected to protect our rights and ensure our security. It’s time they did both when it comes to Amazon.

###

Deerhoof, Ted Leo, Álex Anwandter, Immortal Technique, Speedy Ortiz, Guy Picciotto of Fugazi, Downtown Boys, Xenia Rubinos, Priests, Hurray for the Riff Raff, Riobamba, Evan Greer,  Sheer Mag, Control Top, Diet Cig,  and Jeff Rosenstock among signers of “No Music for ICE” open letter

More than 700 musicians have signed a “No Music for ICE” open letter pledging to boycott participating in Amazon-sponsored festivals or partnerships until the company stops supporting human rights violations through its contracts with ICE and other US government agencies.

“We the undersigned artists are outraged that Amazon continues to provide the technical backbone for ICE’s human rights abuses,” write the artists, in a letter posted Thursday at NoMusicForICE.com by digital rights group Fight for the Future, and at a new Twitter account: @NoMusicForICE. The artists pledge to continue the boycott until Amazon meets the following demands:

• Terminate existing contracts with military, law enforcement, and government agencies (ICE, CBP, ORR) that commit human rights abuses
  
  
• Stop providing Cloud services & tools to organizations (such as Palantir) that power the US government’s deportation machine
  
  
• End projects that encourage racial profiling and discrimination, such as Amazon’s facial recognition product
  
  
• Reject future engagements w/ aforementioned bad actors.

“We will not allow Amazon to exploit our creativity to promote its brand while it enables attacks on immigrants, communities of color, workers, and local economies,” the letter continues. “We call on all artists who believe in basic rights and human dignity to join us.”

The letter was organized by an ad-hoc group of artists and activists including Sadie Dupuis, Evan Greer, Adult Mom, Joey La Neve DeFrancesco, Alex Lichtenauer, @k8_or_die, Carmen Perry of Remember Sports, and Jes Skolnik.

“My music peers’ collective outrage at the announcement of Amazon’s Intersect festival made several of us realize how desperately we need to formalize our concerns,” said Sadie Dupuis of the bands Speedy Ortiz and Sad13. “Cartoonists Against Amazon, No Tech for ICE, Whole Worker, and other groups against Amazon’s partnership with Palantir and support of ICE have set tremendous examples, showing solidarity with those most impacted by invasive technologies. They’ve demonstrated how powerful it can be to take a hard stance against accepting money earned on the suffering of others. Navigating the ethics of the music industry can be tricky, but it shouldn’t be tricky to say no to opportunities that are complicit with ICE. Doing so would be antithetical to many of our missions as artists, and it’s time to say we won’t.”

Greg Saunier of the band Deerhoof said, “One would think that shame would be enough. One would think that providing AI and facial recognition technology to military and law enforcement, during a time of mass deportations, crackdowns on popular protests, and flagrant incidents of police brutality would give one pause. But that’s not the way Amazon works. As Teresa Carlson, vice president of the worldwide public sector of Amazon Web Services, explains Amazon’s priorities during this era of what many are calling a neo-fascist takeover of several world governments including our own, ‘We are committed to our customer, and we are unwaveringly committed to the U.S. government and the governments we work with around the world.’ We musicians are therefore organizing something more than shame. A boycott!”

Jacinta Gonzalez, Senior Campaign Director of Mijente, who are leading the NoTechForICE movement, said: “We’re happy to see musicians making the connections between the human rights abuses carried out by ICE and the for-profit companies supporting them. Amazon is not a passive player in this: the cloud storage they provide for ICE’s services is sophisticated—cutting-edge databases, algorithms, and servers that are tailor-made to fulfill ICE’s needs. Amazon is not a passive vendor in this, and it’s important that in times like these artists take a stand and refuse to take blood money.”

Sammus added, “The powers that be at Amazon have been relentless in their pursuit to make this company indispensable to the ways many of us live – and even with an understanding of Amazon’s complicity and centrality in reinforcing various structures of oppression, it often may feel too difficult to evade their reach. This is one way that we can and must push back. As creatives we have to recognize the power we possess in effecting change and sending a message not just through the art we produce but also the channels through which we share it. We have to draw lines and this is one I am choosing to draw because nobody should ever have to live under the kind terrorism that ICE has inflicted upon countless immigrant communities.”

“Lots of companies do unethical stuff. Amazon seems to enjoy it. They’re trying to bonegraft themselves to government agencies and authoritarian structures to make their monopoly status impossible to challenge. As big tech and surveillance capitalism creep further and further into the music industry, it’s no surprise that artists are fighting back,” said Evan Greer (she/her), queer indie-punk artist and Deputy Director of Fight for the Future.

“Power without accountability is tyranny,” added rapper Immortal Technique.

###

UPDATE: More than 1,000 artists have signed this letter. If you’re an artist, add your name here. 

It has recently come to light that Amazon Web Services, an Amazon subsidiary with known ties to ICE and law enforcement, is hosting a festival marketed as an experience “where music, technology, and art converge.” We the undersigned artists are outraged that Amazon continues to provide the technical backbone for ICE’s human rights abuses (read more). We pledge to not participate in Amazon-sponsored events, or engage in exclusive partnerships with Amazon in the future, until Amazon publicly commits to:

* Terminate existing contracts with military, law enforcement, and government agencies (ICE, CBP, ORR) that commit human rights abuses

* Stop providing Cloud services & tools to organizations (such as Palantir) that power the US government’s deportation machine

* End projects that encourage racial profiling and discrimination, such as Amazon’s facial recognition product

* Reject future engagements w/ aforementioned bad actors.

We will not allow Amazon to exploit our creativity to promote its brand while it enables attacks on immigrants, communities of color, workers, and local economies. We call on all artists who believe in basic rights and human dignity to join us.

Follow @NoMusicForIce on Twitter for updates and information related to this letter. *Note that partnerships refers to Amazon Exclusives, Amazon Originals, Research & Development collaborations, and all other exclusive content partnerships To add your name to the letter, fill out this form.

The undersigned 1,000+ artists:

185668232
Nate Naker
(T-T)b
@KrugSpencer (of Wolf Parade, Swan Lake, more)
@lopoke89
&l0e;
2006ix / prom d8
25th Hour
2nd Grade
5-Track
77 El Deora (Maurice Tani)
A Million Dollars
A.O. Gerber
abackgroundcharacter
Abby Weems / Potty Mouth
absinthe father
Absolute Value
Acne Superstar
Adam Flowers
addy
Adelaide Sandvold
Adele Etheridge Woodson
Adia Victoria
Adirondack Whaling Company
Adorio
Adrian Jade Matias Bell (Nightjars)
Adult Jazz
Adzes
AEONS AND MONUMENTS
AGNAR
Al Riggs
Alanis Alvarez
Alejandro Escovedo
Alenni
Alex Anwandter
Alex Chips
Alex Edgeworth, Bed Bits
Alex Gehring (of Ringo Deathstarr)
Alex Mendoza
Alex Menne
Alicia Velasquez/Alice Bag
Alien birth
Allen deStein
Allison Crutchfield
Allison Wolfe
Ally Einbinder / Potty Mouth
Altemark
alyssa kai (loone, ramshackle glory, cutting room floor)
Alyssa Milman, Puppy Angst/Blushed
Amar Lal
Amber Capwell
AMEA
amiright?
Amy Cadence
Amy O
Anaïs
Ancient Filth
Anders Nils
Andrew Broder
Andrew Lopez
Andrew Weathers
Andy Chervenak
Andy Molholt
Angel Aura
Angela Seo & Jamie Stewart of Xiu Xiu
Angelina Pulido
Anna Altman
Anna Berlin
Anna Burch
another cultural landslide
Another Michael
aol.ghost
Apollo Vermouth
arrange
Arrington de Dionyso
Arson As Art
artemis
Ashley Ninelives
Astra Taylor, Neutral Milk Hotel
Astral Swans
Aswin Sivaraman
Atmosphere
Audrey Zee Whitesides
Augusta Koch (Gladie, Cayetana)
AURA//BLACK
Ava Luna
Awnomy
B Taylor
B. DOLAN
Baby Arms
Baby Jessica
Bacchae
Bacchae
Baker McNamara
Barely March
Barko
Bastard Salt
Baths
Battle Ave.
Baywitch
bbj4Xx
BEACH GOONS
BeastFremont
Beck Kitsis, SIGNAL
Bee Side Cassettes
Ben Babbitt
Ben Donehower
Beth Hamon
Bethlehem Steel
Betsy Tinney
Bexley Moms
Big Harp
Big Huge
Big Joanie
Big Nothing
Big Step
Big Ups
Biitchseat
Birdhouse View
Birdspotter
Bit Shifter
Black Baptist
Black Squirrel, Run!
Blood club
Blubird
Blubird
Blue Stoplights
Bluffs
Blunderspublik
Blushed
Bobby Brown (Rentboy)
boilerma9/RFA
Boneth Ahaneku
Brackish
Branwen Shoop
Bread Boy
Brenda Siegelman ( lighting designer)
Bri Adams (Many Rooms)
Brian Browder
Brian Kupillas
Brigdon Markward
Brillo
Brody Roze
Brooks Ginnan
Brother Saturn
Bruce Pill$
bruce take nap
Bryan Gleason
Buddahfly
Bueno
bunkbed
Burnt Weiners
C.J. Boyd
CAKE
Caleb Churchill
Calico Blue
Calvin Johnson
Cam Bean
Cam LaFlam
Camino 84
Camp Childress
CAMP COPE
Campsite 85
Car Seat Headrest
Carla Lara
Carlos Truly
Carly / CARLY SPARKLY
Casey No
Casey Weissbuch
Casper Skulls
Cat Lau
Cat Scarf
Cau5er
Cave Babies
Cave People
Cecil Frena
ceecide
Celso Cano
Chad Nichols
champ.
chandler-ryan
Charles Harvey
Charley James
Chastity Belt
Cheatin’ at Solitaire
Childish Kidd
Chinga Fools
Choir Vandals
Choked Up
Chris F. 70 y.o.
Chris Sand
Christelle B. Miller
Christine Pallon
Christopher Santiago
Chromadrift
Chrxstal Sarah
Ciemme
Circuit des Yeux
Clear Channel
Clever Girls
Close Friends (CA)
Cognitive Fungus - MC Patten
Cold fronts
Cold Slither
coldblankstare
Colin Robinson
Colleen Green
Conrad Tao
Contour
Control Top
Cora Venus Lunny
Corbin Jones
corey foxton
corey marc fogel
Corner Case
Cortez disecado
Corvus Black
Couch Slut
Crab Legs
Crashing Through The Front Door
CRIMEGOTH
CROOK
Crown MaVericK
Crumbcatcher
Crystal Shit
curerbell
Curious Quail
Curse Word
Curt Oren
Cyanide Tooth
Cynthia Ann Schemmer / Swanning
Dads Trash Collage
Daemion
Dalton
Dama Scout
Damnably Records
Damon & Naomi
Dan Friel
Dandelion Massacre
Dani Lee Pearce
dani riddle
Daniel Francia
Daniel H Levine
Danielle Williams
Danny J. // fka Daniel J. W!shington
daphne di
Darkest Playing Card Company
Dave Godowsky
Dave Sweeten
Davey Dynamite
David Krieger
David Settle
Daze
Dead To A Dying World
Deadlee
debt (Canada)
deepcouch
Deerhoof
Dennis Maya
Devils Delight
Devon Geyer
Devon Welsh
Diana Lynn VanderMeulen
Diet Cig
DIIV
Diners
Disposable America
Disq
Dissonance & Dissent
DJ Cummerbund
DJ DarkGift - DarkGift Media Group
DJ Durbin
dj kush boogie
Doc Roger
Dogbreth
doin’ fine
Dolly Spartans
Domestikwom
Don Giovanni Records
don’t
DOOMSQUAD
Double Double Whammy
Dougie Poole
Downtown Boys
Dr. Martino
Drea
dRiFFt Magazine
DRILL
drooly
Dummy
DUMP HIM
Dustin Price
Dustings
Dylan Baldi (Cloud Nothings)
Dylan Hanwright
DYR
Echo Vessel
El Modernist
Elaine Rasnake
Eli Winter
ella guro
Ellen Kempner
Elliot Fudge
Emilio Rojas
emily guro
Emily Yacina
Emma Lee Toyoda
Emman Alavata
Eric Slick
Erica Dawn Lyle
Erin Anne
Estoc
Euphoriadic Records
Eva Roberts
Eva Treadway (Pllush, The She’s)
EVAC
Evan Caminiti
Evan Greer
Everwalden
Everyone I Know Podcast
Expert Timing
FACS
Fahad Hanif
Faithful
Family Injera
Father/Daughter Records
Fellow Robot
Felte Records
Fern Mayo
Ferrari Garden
Field Guides
Fiona Valentine
Flash Trading
Flasher
Fleetwood Snack
Flick Liver
Flochango & the Moneyshots
Floral Tattoo
Florry
FLS
Flying Fish Cove
For Everest
Forest Management
Foxes in Fiction
Foxhound
Foxxxy Mulder
Francesco Imola
Frankie Rose
Free Children Of Earth
Fresh
Friendship (USA)
from Indian Lakes
fuck yeah, dinosaurs!
Funeral Cone
Future Nest
future of the left
Future Shoxxx
G Disco
G. L. Jaguar / PRIESTS
Gabbo
GABI
Gabriel Kahane
Gabriela
Garcia Peoples
Garth Cummings
Gauche
Gavin Cooley
Gemyni
Generacion Suicida
Geoff Rickly / Thursday
George West
German Error Message
German Error Message
Get Better Records
Ghost Bitch
ghost orchard
Ghost Park
Ghost Safari
Ghost Voice
Ghostbusters VHS
Ghostwater
Ghostwriter
Giancarlo Cortes (Drummer)
Gibbz
Girl Underground Music
Girlpool
Giselle Gabrielle
Glen Robinson
Globelamp
gobbinjr
Going Home Records
Gold Light
Goodbye Works
Goodie
Gorpho
Grace Coleman
Graham Lindsey
Graves
Graydescent
Great Grandpa
Greg Rutkin: LVL UP / Cende
Greg Spence Wolf
Gregory Cordeira/ Goblin USA
Groupie
Guante
Guerilla Toss
Gully Boys
Guppy
Guy Picciotto of Fugazi
Guy Woodhouse
Hakanai
HakWard
Half My Home
halfsour
Hannah Epperson
Hannah Moroz
Hardly Boys
Hark
Harrison Mills (The Grievance Club)
harrison stewart
Harry and the Potters
Harry Phillips
Hayes Waring
Heart Eyes
Heaven’s Club
HEELE
Henry Hank
HEP LAD
Hether Fortune
Holy Gifts
Home Movies
Homeshake
Homeshake
Honeyclub
Hopeful Utopian
Horror Movie Marathon
Human Futility
Humble Narcissist
Hunter
Hunter Hart
Hurray for the Riff Raff
Hurry Up
HXXS
Ilana Bryne
Immortal Technique
Infinite Bliss
Infinity Crush
ings
INSECT FACTORY
insignificant other
Invisible Familiars / Jared Samuel
Irlanda Cortes
Isa Suarez
Isabel Reidy
Isador
Islet
itoldyouiwouldeatyou
Ivan Oliva
Ivy Gray-Klein, Corey Flood
Ivy Hollivana
J. Mamana
J.Smith
Jack Stuart
Jack Washburn
Jackie Mendoza
Jacob Augustine
Jacob Crofoot
Jacquie Cotillard
Jake Laundry
James Holden
Jamie Samaras
Jaryk / WE BUY HOUSES
Javier Peña
Jay Som
Jazper Hodgkinz
Jeff Rosenstock
Jem Shanahan/Empath
Jenn Vix
Jennie Jones
Jerrell Jackson
Jes Skolnik, Daddy’s Boy/National Tattler
Jesse Hall
JesusKidz
JF Robitaille
Jimmy Lo Fi
JJ Demon
jo passed
Jocemite
jodi
Joe Piotrowski
Joe Sexton
Johanna Warren
John Cromley
John Rossiter
John Sutton
Johnny & The Man Kids
Johnny Krush
Jolie Holland
Jon Drake Music
Jon Herroon
Jon Lipscomb
Jon Samuels, Yowler & Friendship
Jonathan “Bällz” Ramer of The Chode’s, Rotted Remains,Devil Fish,Toxic Abuse
Jonathan Reynaldo Bailey
Jonathan Russ
jor
jordan c weinstock!, american poetry club / it takes time records
Jordan Lee (Mutual Benefit)
Jordan Price
JorDat
Jordyn Blakely
Joseph Martin, Compass Lure/Proper Nouns/Fireside Chat
Josephine Shetty, Kohinoorgasm
Josh Hou
Josh Weinberg
Josie Wails (JJ Demon and Greaze)
Josue
Juan Tho
Judy Chong
Judy Nylon
Julia Shapiro
Julian Fader
Juliet Quick
Juniper Ginger
Justin Pardy
Justin Purtill
K / Damage Control
K. Campbell
Kady Rain
Kaeley Pruitt-Hamm
Kaitlin (Most Girls)
Kal Marks
Kalokairi // Proud Panda Productions
kamikaze nurse
Karen Meat
Karl J. Palouček
Kate M. (Hellrazor, The Glow, Potty Mouth)
Katie Alice Greer, Priests / Sister Polygon Records
Katie Von Schleicher
Kawari Sound Recording
Kell
Kelly Hughes
Kelly Moran
Kelman Duran
Kent Osborne
Kiana Saroce
Kieran Harrison
Kindness
King Pine
Kisses
Kitty
Kliph Scurlock
knifepunch records
Knot
Krissy Lassiter, Krissanthemum
Kristel Jax, Brigitte Bardon’t
Kylie V
La Dispute
La Neve
La Peste/No Pretty Things
Lady Queen Paradise
Lady Shiv
Lala Lala
Lamniformes
Land, Man
Landlady
Larz Brogan
Laurie Kearney
Laurie Price
Lavender Milk
Lazy Calm
Lazygirl
Lee Bains III
Lee Street Looters
LEGS
Lemon Tree Records
lempamo
Leo Heikkila, Butterfly
Leor Miller
Lightning Bug
Lil Good
Lil Summoner
Lilah Larson
Lilith
Lily Chambers
Lily Mastrodimos / Long Neck
Lily Wen
lina tullgren
Lisa Boucher
Lisa Prank
Lisa/Liza
Liz Gilbert/Audiosapien Records
Lizdelise
LizRd Women
Lizzi Bougatsos
Locate S,1
Logan lovell
Lola Johnson
Lola Kirke
Lorenzo Gehlen
Los Skagaleros
Lovefingers
Lowercase Roses
Lowercase Roses
Lucas Knapp
lucia l. cervera
Lucy Stone
LuisittoVuitton
Lush Agave
Lydia Ainsworth
Lydia Ainsworth
Lyss
Mac Nero Music
Macie Stewart (Ohmme)
Madeline Babuka Black / Yucky duster
Maeve Aickin
Mains & Monitors
Mal Blum
Man Random
MANEKA
Mango Tree
Manny Rodriguez
marbling
Maria Divina
Mariah Garza
Mariah Garza
Mark Glick, AJJ
Maryam Qudus
Mason Feurer
Mason Lynass
Mass Cessation
Math Erao (Absolute Fantasy)
Matmos
Matt Sturgis
Matt Sweeney
Matty Quick
Mayah Kadish
Maymind
Me and the Aral Sea
Mechanic
Medieval Snails
Meemo comma
MELKBELLY
Melo Davis (MALLRAT)
Melon Painting
Meow Meow Fuzzyface
Merger/Impetus Records
Metrapha
Michael Berdan
Michael Cormier (Friendship, Hour, Michael Cormier, Dear Life Records)
Michael DeForge (Moul D, Creep Highway)
Michael Falcone, Hellrazor / Speedy Ortiz
MIGHTY MENACE
Mike Bellis
Mike Caridi / LVL UP / The Glow
Mike Huguenor
Mike Lerro
Milk Teeth
Mirah
Miserable chillers
MiSs HaZe
mister goblin
Mister Lies
Mitchell Fisher
Mixed Deuce
Molly Drag
Molly Drag
Molly O’Malley
Moniker
Monkoora
Moon by Moon
Moon Gloom
Moon Gloom
moon nite
Moonheart
Morten HD
Mothers
mothpuppy
Mountain Shallows
Mover Shaker
mynameisblueskye
Myst Mach
Naked in Public
Naomi Zamarripa
Nat Baldwin
Natasha Jacobs (Thelma)
Needle Teeth
Neilson Family
neo-detritus
Nervous Curtains
Nervus
Neutral Shirt
Never Forget Pluto
New Balance
New Bomb Turks
Newborn Huskies
Nice Bike
nice dog
Nick Wilkinson & The Featured Players
Nicola Leel
Night Sweats
Night Witch
No Flowers
No One and the Somebodies
No Wonders
Noah Klein
NØCASINO
Nora hansel
NorteyDowuona
Novae
NWR
Oak Alger
objec
Odetta Hartman
odomojuli
Of House
of montreal
of Montreal
OHMME
OKO TYGRA
Olvem
Omega III
Optic Echo
Owen Ashworth
Owen Maley
Oxygin
P.J. the Baptist
Pale Spring
Pamela Black
Pansy
Pardoner
PARTITION
Partner
Party Mountain
Pasha
Pastel
Pastel Motel
Patrick Partida
Paul Matthews
PEARS
Pelada
Period Bomb
Personal Space
Petal
Peter Katz (Peaer)
Petrichor
Petridisch
Phil Harty from Smile for the Sky
Phoebe Defiance
Pictoria Vark
Pictureplane
Pile
PILGRIM
Pill Wonder
Pillowsnake
Pilsner Man
Pinkwash
Pity Sweater
Plains
Planning For Burial
POLARTROPICA
Pom Pom Squad
PONY
Porphereon
Practicing Sincerity
Precious
pressxtocontinue
Pretty Matty
Pretty Purgatory records
Prior Panic
Privacy Issues
Proper Nouns
Prude Boys
Pujol
Puppy Angst
pushflowers
Quetzalcoatl Band
Quiet Light
Rachaels Children
Rachel Aggs
Rachel Alicea-Gibbons
Rachel Levy
Radiator Hospital
Ramona (USA)
Raphi Gottesman
Rat Disco
Ray and the Red Giants
Razor Clam
Rebecca Weingast
Red
Red Alder
Red Widow
Redbait
Rei Clone
ReLeo
Remember Sports
Rentboy
Retirement Party
Rick Sanford
Ricky Eat Acid
Riobamba
Rituals of Mine
Rivulets
Robby Schwartz, The Lionfish
Roger Clark Miller (Trinary System/Mission of Burma/Alloy Orchestra)
Roger Deering
Rose variety
Rose with Teeth
Rosebudd
Rosie Tucker
Ruinr
Ryan Harvey
Ryan Vo
Sabely
Sad Baxter
Sad bug
Sad Cactus Records
Sadbh Shanahan
Sadie Dupuis (Speedy Ortiz / Sad13)
Sailor Boyfriend
Saintseneca
saltlick
Sam Farzin / Media Jeweler
Sam Gas Can
Sam Glassberg
Sam Leidig
Sam Slick
Sam Small
Sami
Sammi Lanzetta
sammus / dr. enongo lumumba-kasongo
Samuel Bell
Santos Ramos
Sarah Holt
Sarah Tudzin - illuminati hotties
Sasha & the Valentines
Sayveeyun
Scarboro
Scarves
SciFiSol
Scooter Jay
Seán Barna
Seas of Winter
Selector Dub Narcotic
Semaphore Mgmt
Shady Bug
Shamir
Sharif Dumani
Sharif Dumani (Sex Stains, Alice Bag, Cody ChesnuTT, Exploding Flowers)
Sharkk Heartt
Shaylee
Sheer Mag
Sheets of Hiss
Shilpa Ray
Shiro
Shiva Linga
Sidefloral
SIGNAL
Simpson
Simulcast
Sinai Vessel
Sinclair Riley
Sjimon Gompers, founder/editor/publisher of Week in Pop
Skrizzy
Skye Golledge
sleepless
Sleepy Freak
Slow Ref
Smutskatt
Snappy Little Numbers
Snot Hostel
Sons of an Illustrious Father
sonya m
Sour Widows
Spectrehaus
spellbinder
Spencer VH
Spin Off
Spoonboy
Spring Rain
Spud Xtra
Squeegees
Squirrel flower
SRSQ
Stacy Peck
stampeter @stampeterct
Star Rats Records
Stary
Stef Chura
Stellaleona
Stephen Pierce (Kindling, Ampere)
Stevie Knipe (Adult Mom)
stoner will & the narks
Stoner Will and the Narks
Store Front
Stormland
STRANGEPRIDE
Strinner
subsad
Summer Cannibals
summerbruise
Sun Kin
Sun organ
Sunbane
Sunik Kim
Sunny Betz
Sunny Betz
SUPER of the Rio Grande Valley
Suzanne
Suzie True
Suzie_Cide
SVUVN
Sweaterteeth
Sweet Peach
Sweet Potato
swim camp
Sylvyr
Taiji Miyagawa
Taína Asili
Tall Child
Tall Texan Records
Tanner Agle
Tara Thiessen
TASH LC
Tasha
Tavishi
Taylor Thomas
Ted Leo
Teen Pope
Terminal Nation
Territory Slugs
Terror Pigeon
Terry Edwards
Thanks Again
thanks for coming
The Ableist
The Acid Flashback at Nightmare Beach
The Black Madonna
The Blank Minds
The Blow- Khaela Maricich & Melissa Dyne
The City and Horses
the cluster flies
The Countermen
The Cowls
The Curls
THE DEEPSEA GOES
The Ensuing Disaster
The Family Stand
The Freqs
The Groans
The HIRS Collective
The Holy Dark
The Homobiles
The Hotelier
The Jolly Melancholy
The Kennedys
The Kominas
The Legion of Decency
The Midgetmen
The Mowgli’s
The New Adventures
The Ophelias
The Paris Buns
The Pica Beats
The Revolutionaries
The Roland High Life
The Romantic Satire
The Sidekicks
The Signal Fire
The Swing Crew
The True Jacqueline
The Turn-UPs
The Way The World Ends
The yellnats
The Zells
Thegrayscarves
Thelma
ther
THEWORLDISTOOLOUD
Thin Lips
Thor CB
Tim Kasher (Cursive, The Good Life)
Tim Keen (Ought)
Time Wharp
Timelapzzz
Tin Fingers
Tiny Deserts
Toddy R
Togs
Told Slant
Tom Wherrett
Tomberlin
tombo crush
toobin
TOPS
Tough Age
Trash Boy
Trash Knife
Trashbitch
Tristan Welch
Tristan Whitehill (Euglossine)
Troy Colby
TURBOSLEAZE
Turnip King
TV Flesh
Two Thumbs Down
two-point conversion
TWO32 (TWO Entertainment, LLC)
Tyler Andere
Tyler Bussey
Umm
Uniform
Unknown Caller
Ushamami
Vaiapraia
valyri
Vasudeva
VCRSLOT
Veladora
Verdigrls
Versing
Vexxed
VIAL
Village of Spaces
Viridi
visibilities
Visions of Empyrean (VoE)
Vivian Girls
Wakesleep/INTERNET CLUB
Walking Bombs
War On Women
Warm Tape
Washer
Water From Your Eyes
Wave Diary
We Are Parasols
Weeping Icon
Werd (SOS)
Wetware Solutions
What Cheer? Brigade
White Hills
WHY?
Wilder Maker
Wildhoney
William Baumle
Wintarslāf
Wishbone Zoë
WitchUrn
Wolf Parade
wolf’s milk
Woodsman
worldsucks
Worst Sumo
WSABI Fox
X Dirty Fingers
Xenia Rubinos
XETAS
YACHT
Yohuna
YOU
Young Mvchetes
Young Yeller / Blood Moon
Young.Canaya
Younger
Yum
Yuppy
Zach Burba, iji
Zack Robbins
ZAH
Zena Kay
ZENIZEN
ZOLA JESUS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 24, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefure.org

Deerhoof, Ted Leo, Álex Anwandter, Immortal Technique, Speedy Ortiz, Guy Picciotto of Fugazi, Downtown Boys, Xenia Rubinos, Priests, Hurray for the Riff Raff, Riobamba, Evan Greer, Xiu Xiu, Mothers, Sheer Mag, and Jeff Rosenstock among signers of “No Music for ICE” open letter

More than 100 musicians have signed a “No Music for ICE” open letter pledging to boycott participating in Amazon-sponsored festivals or partnerships until the company stops supporting human rights violations through its contracts with ICE and other US government agencies.

“We the undersigned artists are outraged that Amazon continues to provide the technical backbone for ICE’s human rights abuses,” write the artists, in a letter posted Thursday at NoMusicForICE.com by digital rights group Fight for the Future, and at a new Twitter account: @NoMusicForICE. The artists pledge to continue the boycott until Amazon meets the following demands:

• Terminate existing contracts with military, law enforcement, and government agencies (ICE, CBP, ORR) that commit human rights abuses
  
  
• Stop providing Cloud services & tools to organizations (such as Palantir) that power the US government’s deportation machine
  
  
• End projects that encourage racial profiling and discrimination, such as Amazon’s facial recognition product
  
  
• Reject future engagements w/ aforementioned bad actors.

“We will not allow Amazon to exploit our creativity to promote its brand while it enables attacks on immigrants, communities of color, workers, and local economies,” the letter continues. “We call on all artists who believe in basic rights and human dignity to join us.”

The letter was organized by an ad-hoc group of artists and activists including Sadie Dupuis, Evan Greer, Adult Mom, Joey La Neve DeFrancesco, Alex Lichtenauer, @k8_or_die, Carmen Perry and Jes Skolnik.

“My music peers’ collective outrage at the announcement of Amazon’s Intersect festival made several of us realize how desperately we need to formalize our concerns,” said Sadie Dupuis of the bands Speedy Ortiz and Sad13. “Cartoonists Against Amazon, No Tech for ICE, Whole Worker, and other groups against Amazon’s partnership with Palantir and support of ICE have set tremendous examples, showing solidarity with those most impacted by invasive technologies. They’ve demonstrated how powerful it can be to take a hard stance against accepting money earned on the suffering of others. Navigating the ethics of the music industry can be tricky, but it shouldn’t be tricky to say no to opportunities that are complicit with ICE. Doing so would be antithetical to many of our missions as artists, and it’s time to say we won’t.”

Greg Saunier of the band Deerhoof said, “One would think that shame would be enough. One would think that providing AI and facial recognition technology to military and law enforcement, during a time of mass deportations, crackdowns on popular protests, and flagrant incidents of police brutality would give one pause. But that’s not the way Amazon works. As Teresa Carlson, vice president of the worldwide public sector of Amazon Web Services, explains Amazon’s priorities during this era of what many are calling a neo-fascist takeover of several world governments including our own, ‘We are committed to our customer, and we are unwaveringly committed to the U.S. government and the governments we work with around the world.’ We musicians are therefore organizing something more than shame. A boycott!”

Sammus added, “The powers that be at Amazon have been relentless in their pursuit to make this company indispensable to the ways many of us live – and even with an understanding of Amazon’s complicity and centrality in reinforcing various structures of oppression, it often may feel too difficult to evade their reach. This is one way that we can and must push back. As creatives we have to recognize the power we possess in effecting change and sending a message not just through the art we produce but also the channels through which we share it. We have to draw lines and this is one I am choosing to draw because nobody should ever have to live under the kind terrorism that ICE has inflicted upon countless immigrant communities.”

“Lots of companies do unethical stuff. Amazon seems to enjoy it. They’re trying to bonegraft themselves to government agencies and authoritarian structures to make their monopoly status impossible to challenge. As big tech and surveillance capitalism creep further and further into the music industry, it’s no surprise that artists are fighting back,” said Evan Greer (she/her), queer indie-punk artist and Deputy Director of Fight for the Future. 

“Power without accountability is tyranny,” added rapper Immortal Technique. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 24, 2019
Contact: Dayton Young, press@fightforthefuture.org, (508) 368-3026

Before gamers descend on Activision-Blizzard’s annual conference, BlizzCon, to protest their censorship of political speech and free expression, they are planning an online day of action. On October 29, activists & gamers will launch an all-out campaign to demand game developers & BlizzCon sponsors take a stand and state that they will not participate in authoritarian censorship. It’s a way for everyone to protest, even if they can’t show up outside BlizzCon.

Info about the online day of action is here: https://www.gamersforfreedom.com/#online

GamersForFreedom.com includes a scorecard to keep track of which companies have publicly pledged to not censor players the way Blizzard did, and which companies may already be caving to pressure from authoritarian governments. Companies including Epic Games and Immutable have made statements confirming they support free expression. In a statement to The Verge, an Epic spokesperson said that “Epic supports everyone’s right to express their views on politics and human rights. We wouldn’t ban or punish a Fortnite player or content creator for speaking on these topics.”

Three days before the BlizzCon protests, gamers will storm the internet to demand the same courage from others in the industry, using the #GamersForFreedom hashtag. 

“Many people have reached out saying they want to do more, but cannot make it to the protests in Anaheim. Now, they can. We’re calling on every gamer to tweet and email their favorite developers, pros, and event sponsors. We’re calling on artists to send us art of their favorite characters supporting the protest. We’re calling on sponsors to pull out. And most of all, we’re calling on game developers to speak out in solidarity,” said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him). “Game developers have been mysteriously silent, despite the blowback from BlizzCon’s censorship being the talk of the industry. Silence is complicity, and they need to see that this isn’t just going to go away.”

Meanwhile, with their social media overrun by #FreeHongKong comments, Blizzard broke 19 days of silence to announced their schedule Tuesday, with a significant portion of panel programming marked as “Coming Soon!” only days from the event. Current sponsors of the event include Facebook, T-Mobile, Coca Cola, Intel, Nvidia, Samsung, Cisco, HyperX, Corsair, MSI, & ESPN.

Protest organizing has only intensified after Blizzard issued a statement where it attempted to quell backlash by reducing its punishment of Hong Kong-based professional gamer Blitzchung, but doubled down on it’s absurd policy that bans all forms of political speech and free expression. 

Fight for the Future is calling for the protests to be nonviolent and creative, encouraging participants to show up with umbrellas, in relevant costumes, and with signs and banners focused on free expression for all. The group is crowdfunding to support the protests.

“Decisions about how to moderate online speech are some of the most important decisions of our generation, and have profound implications for the future of humanity. Companies should not be making these decisions under pressure from ANY government, whether it’s China, the US, or the UK,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “Blizzard’s attempt to quell this controversy is cowardly and it’s only going to backfire. This is not just about Blitzchung or Hong Kong –– they need to make a clear commitment to not act as the speech police on behalf of governments in general. A blanket ban on all political speech is inherently at odds with basic free expression. It’s taking sides with the status quo, and those who wish to suppress free speech. How you determine what is “political” is a political decision in and of itself.”

“Blizzard, and other companies who are engaging in censorship on behalf of an authoritarian government, are not going to get away with it,” she added. “They have no idea what kind of Internet shitstorm they’ve unleashed. We’re going to make an example out of them to make sure that all companies know that throwing human rights and free expression under the bus to make some extra money will not be tolerated.”

Fight for the Future is coordinating with gamers and activists in a Discord channel and across social media, where game fans from around the world have been voicing their outrage at Blizzard and planning their own creative protests for BlizzCon. More updates to come.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

In a Buzzfeed News op-ed Tom Morello and Evan Greer chronicle how musicians, fans, and activists destroyed major a market for biometric surveillance; LiveNation backpedals from previous investments in invasive and racially biased face scanning technology as Coachella, SXSW, Bonnaroo, and more make statements.

The campaign to ban facial recognition technology from US music festivals was declared a victory in an op-ed by Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello and Evan Greer of digital rights group Fight for the Future. The op-ed explores the campaign that led dozens of major festivals to state they have no intention to use the uniquely dangerous technology. 

Read the op-ed here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/evangreer/stop-facial-recognition-music-festivals-concerts 

After musicians including Morello condemned facial recognition technology on social media, LiveNation was among the first to state that they do not intend to use facial recognition—a startling reversal from what investors in the company that owns Bonnaroo and Austin City Limits were told a year prior. Their Q1 2018 investor report had lauded a new partnership with former defense contractor Blink Identity to bring facial recognition to event entry.

Many other festivals followed suit, with AEG Presents events such as Coachella declining to comment until activists launched a pressure campaign calling on festival sponsors to pull out. Hours into the campaign, AEG Presents’ COO stated via email that “AEG festivals do not use facial recognition technology and do not have plans to implement.”

“We just ruined some surveillance capitalists’ dreams of making millions selling invasive biometric surveillance technology to the live music industry, and we’re not sorry about it,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “We estimate this campaign has done tens of millions of dollars of economic damage to companies selling this creepy, racist software. It’s is the first major blow to the spread of commercial facial recognition in the US, and it should remind all of us that a dystopian future is not inevitable if we’re willing to fight for our rights.” 

Sparked by outcry from major musicians such as Tom Morello and Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Gramatik, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Speedy Ortiz, Downtown Boys, music fans sent thousands of emails to their favorite festivals via Fight for the Future’s website. The website also features a scorecard making clear where festivals stand on the issue.

See the website here: banfacialrecognition.com/festivals/

Facial recognition is not widespread at music events in the US. But reports show Madison Square Garden is already using facial recognition surveillance, and even smaller bars and venues are experimenting with it. 

“These vendors, and the venture capitalists who backed them, saw the live music industry as a huge potential market for biometric surveillance tech, marketed as a convenient ticketing option to concert goers. Now it seems they’ll be sorely disappointed. The story of how we dashed their dystopian profit dreams is a lesson: a future where we are constantly subjected to corporate and government surveillance is not inevitable, but it’s coming fast unless we act now,” write Morello and Greer in Buzzfeed.

“Facial recognition surveillance is uniquely dangerous. It doesn’t keep fans or artists safe, it just subjects them to invasive, racially biased monitoring that will inevitably lead to fans getting harassed, falsely arrested, deported, or worse,“ Fight for the Future’s Evan Greer concluded, "This technology is spreading like an epidemic. We’ve succeeded in stopping it from invading live music events in the US, now we need to fight for an outright ban at the Federal level.”

The campaign is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, Berkeley, CA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

###

Berkeley, CA just became the fourth city in the United States to pass an outright ban on all government use of facial recognition surveillance technology, after a unanimous city council vote on Tuesday. 

“The epidemic spread of facial recognition is a human rights crisis,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “but we still have a chance to draw a line in the sand. The local advocates and lawmakers in Berkeley who passed this ban are showing us the way. Our surveillance nightmares are not inevitable. We’re fighting to ban government use of facial recognition everywhere.”

The victory in Berkeley comes amid growing backlash to facial recognition surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last month Fight for the Future launched our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, along with  an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, were the first cities in the country to ban the technology. A number of other cities are poised to follow suit, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in Massachusetts,  Michigan, and New York legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Fight for the Future has mobilized tens of thousands of people to contact their lawmakers through our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. We launched a separate campaign, supported by prominent musicians like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Amanda Palmer calling on major music festivals to commit to not using facial recognition at their events. In a month we’ve succeeded in securing commitments from many of the world’s largest music festivals, including SXSW, Coachella, and Bonnaroo.

Fight for the Future opposes attempts by the tech industry (including Amazon)  and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 15, 2019
Contact: Dayton Young, press@fightforthefuture.org, (508) 368-3026 

Hundreds of gamers and activists are coordinating on Discord and Reddit to plan Gamers for Freedom protests in defense of free expression

Hundreds of gamers and Internet activists are coordinating online to plan major protests at Activision-Blizzard’s annual conference, BlizzCon, which starts November 1st in Anaheim, CA. The protest organizing has only intensified after Blizzard issued a statement where it attempted to quell backlash by reducing its punishment of Hong Kong based professional gamer Blitzchung, but doubled down on it’s absurd policy that bans all forms of political speech and free expression.

The protest is part of the GamersForFreedom.com campaign that Fight for the Future unveiled last week, which features a scorecard to keep track of which companies have publicly pledged to not censor players the way Blizzard did, and which companies may already be caving to pressure from authoritarian governments. 

Fight for the Future is calling for the protests to be nonviolent and creative, encouraging participants to show up with umbrellas, in relevant costumes, and with signs and banners focused on free expression for all. The group is crowdfunding to support the protests, and has an online petition for those who cannot attend

“Decisions about how to moderate online speech are some of the most important decisions of our generation, and have profound implications for the future of humanity. Companies should not be making these decisions under pressure from ANY government, whether it’s China, the US, or the UK,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “Blizzard’s attempt to quell this controversy is cowardly and it’s only going to backfire. This is not just about Blitzchung or Hong Kong –– they need to make a clear commitment to not act as the speech police on behalf of governments in general. A blanket ban on all political speech is inherently at odds with basic free expression. It’s taking sides with the status quo, and those who wish to suppress free speech. How you determine what is “political” is a political decision in and of itself.”

“This is not going away, she added, “Blizzard, and other companies who are engaging in censorship on behalf of an authoritarian government, are not going to get away with it. They have no idea what kind of Internet shitstorm they’ve unleashed. We’re going to make an example out of them to make sure that all companies know that throwing human rights and free expression under the bus to make some extra money will not be tolerated.”

Like many others in the tech and gaming worlds, we were extremely disappointed to learn that Blizzard banned a professional gamer and confiscated his tournament winnings because he advocated for his own political freedom. But we’ve been encouraged to see the immediate, widespread public backlash. And some game companies — such as Epic and Immutable — have made public pledges to never ban or punish their players for speaking about politics and human rights.

Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him), added: “Gamers deserve to know which companies are willing to engage in censorship on behalf of authoritarian regimes and which companies will defend basic freedom of expression. Blizzard has engaged in blatant censorship and should immediately reverse its decision to ban Ng Wai Chung, restore his tournament winnings, and repair its relationships with the livestream casters. No gamers should be punished for expressing their views on politics and human rights. And no game company should ever ban or penalize players for advocating for their own political freedom. We call on all game developers and publishers to make a public commitment to support the rights of their customers, employees, and fans to freely express their beliefs in America, in Hong Kong, in China, and around the globe.”

Fight for the Future is coordinating with gamers and activists in a Discord channel and across social media, where game fans from around the world have been voicing their outrage at Blizzard and planning their own creative protests for BlizzCon. More updates to come.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 11, 2019
Contact: Dayton Young, press@fightforthefuture.org, (508) 368-3026 

Gamers for Freedom website features scorecard showing which game companies have pledged to stand for free speech

Digital rights group Fight for the Future––known for organizing massive protests against SOPA, for net neutrality, and against government surveillance––is teaming up with gamers, redditors, and Internet freedom activists to call for a protest at Activision-Blizzard’s annual conference, BlizzCon, which starts November 1st in Anaheim, CA and attracts tens of thousands of gamers from all over the world. 

The protest is part of the GamersForFreedom.com campaign that Fight for the Future unveiled yesterday, which features a scorecard to keep track of which companies have publicly pledged to not censor players the way Blizzard did, and which companies may already be caving to pressure from authoritarian governments. 

“This is not going away,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “Blizzard, and other companies who are engaging in censorship on behalf of an authoritarian government, are not going to get away with it. They have no idea what kind of Internet shitstorm they’ve unleashed. We’re going to make an example out of them to make sure that all companies know that throwing human rights and free expression under the bus to make some extra money will not be tolerated.”

Like many others in the tech and gaming worlds, we were extremely disappointed to learn that Blizzard banned a professional gamer and confiscated his tournament winnings because he advocated for his own political freedom. But we’ve been encouraged to see the immediate, widespread public backlash. And some game companies — such as Epic and Immutable — have made public pledges to never ban or punish their players for speaking about politics and human rights.

Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him), added: “Gamers deserve to know which companies are willing to engage in censorship on behalf of authoritarian regimes and which companies will defend basic freedom of expression. Blizzard has engaged in blatant censorship and should immediately reverse its decision to ban Ng Wai Chung, restore his tournament winnings, and repair its relationships with the livestream casters. No gamers should be punished for expressing their views on politics and human rights. And no game company should ever ban or penalize players for advocating for their own political freedom. We call on all game developers and publishers to make a public commitment to support the rights of their customers, employees, and fans to freely express their beliefs in America, in Hong Kong, in China, and around the globe.”

Fight for the Future is coordinating with gamers and activists in a Discord channel and across social media, where game fans from around the world have been voicing their outrage at Blizzard and planning their own creative protests for BlizzCon. More updates to come.

###

Fight for the Future just launched a new campaign in response to Blizzard’s controversial decision to ban a professional gamer from Hong Kong for speaking out about the situation there. 

Here’s the site: GamersForFreedom.com 

It features a scorecard to keep track of which companies have publicly pledged to support the freedom of their players, and which companies have not. We’re also organizing gamers in a discord channel and planning to escalate our protests on this until Blizzard reverses its decision and other companies pledge to not make the same mistake. 

Like many others in the tech and gaming worlds, we were extremely disappointed to learn that Blizzard banned a professional gamer and confiscated his tournament winnings because he advocated for his own political freedom. But we’ve been encouraged to see the immediate, widespread public backlash. And some game companies — such as Epic and Immutable — have made public pledges to never ban or punish their players for speaking about politics and human rights.

Here’s a quote you can attribute to, Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him): 

“Gamers deserve to know which companies are willing to engage in censorship on behalf of authoritarian regimes and which companies will defend basic freedom of expression. Blizzard has engaged in blatant censorship and should immediately reverse its decision to ban Ng Wai Chung, restore his tournament winnings, and repair its relationships with the livestream casters. No gamers should be punished for expressing their views on politics and human rights. And no game company should ever ban or penalize players for advocating for their own political freedom. We call on all game developers and publishers to make a public commitment to support the rights of their customers, employees, and fans to freely express their beliefs in America, in Hong Kong, in China, and around the globe.”

Ng Wai Chung is a professional gamer who has built a successful career playing Blizzard’s Hearthstone. He is also a resident of Hong Kong, where many people have been protesting against the Chinese government since June in an effort to maintain their legally-established freedom from the world’s largest dictatorship.

During a livestream of the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament, Chung donned a gas mask and goggles before announcing, “Liberate Hong Kong. Revolution for our age!” Fearing for their careers, the hosts of the livestream hid their faces during Chung’s protest, then immediately cut to commercials.

BREAKING] Hong Kong Hearthstone player @blitzchungHS calls for liberation of his country in post-game interview: https://t.co/3AgQAaPioj @Matthieist #Hearthstone https://t.co/DnaMSEaM4g

 — @InvenGlobal

Blizzard banned Chung from participating in Hearthstone tournaments for a year, confiscating prize money he’d already won as well. To be clear, this is an American company that is punishing a Hong Kong citizen for saying he wants to have the same political freedom enshrined in the US Constitution.

But the video game giant didn’t stop there; Blizzard also announced it would “immediately cease working with both casters” who happened to be on air during Chung’s protest.

A bad excuse for a bad decision

Blizzard’s official reasoning is that Chung violated the official Hearthstone Grandmaster competition rules by, “[e]ngaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image.”

In what bizarre universe does advocating for your own basic freedoms — like the freedom to protest, or to elect your own leaders — bring you into public disrepute or damage Blizzard’s image? These statements only apply if Blizzard is more concerned with appeasing a brutal dictatorship than supporting the values shared by the people who make, purchase, and play their games worldwide.

Blizzard’s real motivation

Just this week, Chinese companies have suspended ties with the NBA after a basket team executive tweeted support for Hong Kong protesters. And the authoritarian government scrubbed South Park from its tightly-controlled Internet after the raunchy cartoon lampooned Chinese censorship.

Clearly, Blizzard took note; the multi-billion-dollar digital entertainment company doesn’t want to risk access to the lucrative Chinese marketplace. The personal liberty of its own customers and Esports participants, however, is expendable.

Tell Blizzard what you think

Public outcry has been swift, as people everywhere have criticized Blizzard for its terrifying willingness to appease the Chinese government. Blizzard employees even staged a walk-out today to ensure that the world knows not everyone in the company is complicit with its corporate strategy.

We’re asking you to show Blizzard that the real damage done to its corporate image was done by Blizzard itself. Here’s how to help:

1. Tweet @Blizzard_Ent to respectfully voice your opinion.
2. Join the Gamers Fight for Freedom Discord channel to learn about protests, boycotts, and other ways to exercise your rights.
3. Delete your Battle.Net account; visit this link for instructions.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, October 8
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Today, 30+ civil rights organizations signed an open letter sounding the alarm about Amazon’s spreading Ring doorbell partnerships with police. The letter calls on local, state, and federal officials to use their power to investigate Amazon Ring’s business practices, put an end to Amazon-police partnerships, and pass oversight measures to deter such partnerships in the future.

With no oversight and accountability, these partnerships pose a threat to privacy, civil liberties, and democracy. A few of the concerns highlighted by the organizations:

• In the absence of clear civil liberties and rights-protective policies to govern the technologies and the use of surveillance footage, once collected, stored footage can be used by law enforcement to conduct facial recognition searches, target protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, teenagers for minor drug possession, or shared with other agencies like ICE or the FBI.
  

• Ring technology gives Amazon employees and contractors in the US and Ukraine direct access to customers’ live camera feeds, a literal eye inside their homes and areas surrounding their homes. These live feeds provide surveillance on millions of American families––from a baby in their crib to someone walking their dog to a neighbor playing with young children in their yard––and other bystanders that don’t know they are being filmed and haven’t given their consent. 
  

• Amazon has not been transparent about plans to integrate facial recognition into Ring cameras. The Information reported Ring’s Ukraine-based research team accessed customer’s surveillance footage to train image recognition software. As facial recognition software has been shown to disproportionately misidentify people of color, women and transgender people, it further compounds existing civil liberties concerns and expands suspected criminality centered in racial profiling and gender bias.
  

The signing organizations include: Fight for the Future, Media Justice, Color of Change, Secure Justice, Demand Progress, Defending Rights & Dissent, Muslim Justice League, X-Lab, Media Mobilizing Project, Restore The Fourth, Inc., Media Alliance, Youth Art & Self Empowerment Project, Center for Human Rights and Privacy, Oakland Privacy, Justice For Muslims Collective, The Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), Nation Digital Inclusion Alliance, Project On Government Oversight, OpenMedia, Council on American-Islamic Relations-SFBA, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, MPower Change, Mijente, Access Humboldt, RAICES, National Immigration Law Center, The Tor Project, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication Inc., the Constitutional Alliance, RootsAction.org, CREDO Action, Presente.org, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and United We Dream.

The map released by Amazon Ring shows more than 500 cities with Amazon-police partnerships.Through these partnerships, Amazon provides police officers with a seamless and easy way to request and store footage from thousands of residents throughout your city, allowing for warrantless surveillance with zero oversight or judicial review. In exchange, police departments market Amazon technology to residents and in some cases use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the resident’s purchase.

Leaders from the organizations participating in the campaign issued the following statements, and are available for comment upon request:

The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): “Amazon has created the perfect end run around our democratic process by entering into for-profit surveillance partnerships with local police departments. Police departments have easy access to surveillance network without oversight or accountability. Amazon Ring’s customers provide the company with the footage needed to build their privately owned, nationwide surveillance dragnet. We’re the ones who pay the cost - as they violate our privacy rights and civil liberties. Our elected officials are supposed to protect us, both from abusive policing practices and corporate overreach. These partnerships are a clear case of both.”

The following can be attributed to Myaisha Hayes, National Organizer on Criminal Justice & Tech at MediaJustice: “Ring will undoubtedly digitize discriminatory “neighborhood watch programs”, which in so many segregated communities, have always targeted and labeled Black and brown people as suspicious. Now through Ring, local police departments can take full advantage of their access to this information, further criminalizing people who existing in public spaces. Our local representatives must intervene and protect our right to privacy from this invasive technology and dangerous partnership between Amazon and the police.“

The following can be attributed to Leonard Scott IV, Campaign Manager on Criminal Justice Color of Change: “Black people and communities are overpoliced and live under the constant threat of police surveillance, which increases mass incarceration’s reach. Amazon is seeking to profit from mass surveillance by providing police with even more apparatuses, that we know will be used to target Black and Brown people. Technological tools like facial recognition and camera surveillance are already being used by police departments and cities across the country as a mechanism to over-police Black communities. We know that technology is already flawed and when used improperly and without government oversight, it will be abused and can put people at risk for being misidentified and falsely matched for crimes. With this letter, we call on local, state, and federal officials to put an end to the harmful Amazon Ring police partnerships.”

The following can be attributed to Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Media Alliance: “Amazon Ring police partnerships tangle up tax-payer supported public servants into the profit-driven mandates of a private corporation. Having our municipal peace keepers perform as ad-hoc sales representatives for private products with manufacturer-provided scripts is a perversion of the public sector. Ring’s provision of the names, street addresses, email addresses and subsidy use of Ring purchasers to law enforcement agencies is unacceptable. What other personal purchase of a household device is promptly reported to the police? Reports to law enforcement of Ring owners who do not consent to having their personal security footage tuned over to police profiles device owners choosing to exercise their privacy rights. Public agencies should stay out of private security. The police work for the people, not for Amazon.” 

The following can be attributed to Mike Katz-Lacabe, Oakland Privacy:
“Law enforcement should not be able to use private companies to engage in surveillance that has not been discussed by the community, approved by elected representatives, and that they don’t have the budget to conduct with their own resources. Almost every law enforcement agency would support installation of surveillance cameras at every corner or house, but a society in which we are encouraged to surveil each other is not healthy for a free society. We have enshrined limits on government power in the Bill of Rights and we should not use private companies to circumvent the Constitution.”

The following can be attributed to Dante Barry, Executive Director of Million Hoodies Movement for Justice: "There are dire consequences for racial justice when law enforcement agencies enter partnerships with major corporations and create a culture of surveillance under the guise of public safety. Without necessary oversight and community accountability mechanisms, this partnership is dangerous for law enforcement having access to and storing data without a warrant. This partnership threatens racial justice efforts and is a challenge for communities devastated by the impacts of every day gun violence, policing, and surveillance.”

The following can be attributed to Fatema Ahmad, Deputy Director of Muslim Justice League: “From Ring to Rekognition, Amazon’s partnerships with law enforcement will increase the dangerous racial targeting that communities of color already face every day.”

The following can be attributed to Sue Udry, Executive Director of Defending Rights & Dissent: “The exceedingly warm embrace of Amazon Ring by local police will go down as one more sorry chapter in the Big Brother annals. Let’s call it what it will become: neighbors spying on neighbors in the service of the police, free from any bothersome constitutional restraints. Local governments must step in and end any agreements their police have made with Amazon, and ensure none are made in the future.”

The following can be attributed to Alex Marthews, National Chair of Restore The Fourth: “This isn’t about fighting actual crime. This is about the paranoid and mostly white notion that owners of homes and businesses aren’t safe unless the police are pro-actively watching every square inch of public space. Truthfully, communities do better when police intervention is rare than when it is common; we need to free ourselves from the notion that more police eyes means more safety.“

The following can be attributed to Sean Taketa McLaughlin, Executive Director for Access Humbold: “We believe that privacy is essential for protecting freedom of information and expression. Information consumers and creators must have privacy as a fundamental right.  Sometimes people become complacent about these rights until they come under attack - but we know that eternal vigilance is required to sustain a healthy democracy.  

Unwanted surveillance, by public agencies or private companies for commercial gain, has an immediate chilling effect on local voices and harms many aspects of modern life. Public health and safety, education, commerce, culture, arts and civic engagement all suffer when our freedom of information and expression is suppressed. Diverse local voices require open secure networks that respect the personal privacy of all people, supporting our basic human right to ‘seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19).”

The following can be attributed to Brian Hofer, Executive Director of Secure Justice and Chair of the City of Oakland’s Privacy Commission: “These partnerships raise several concerns. Public records have revealed that Amazon is coaching police on what to say to address criticism over these secret arrangements, and also how to avoid the need for a warrant. By turning publicly funded police into their sales team, Amazon has once again shifted its own costs of business onto the taxpayer. Our elected officials must demand answers from their law enforcement officials, and must put a stop to these dangerous practices.”

###

The Washington Post has reported that there are currently more than 400 police departments across the United States who have entered into surveillance partnerships with Amazon’s camera enabled doorbell company, Ring. These partnerships pose a serious threat to civil rights and liberties, especially for black and brown communities already targeted and surveilled by law enforcement. 

A key component of the partnership turns police departments into marketing agencies and police officers into salespeople for Amazon. Amazon provides officers with talking points to promote their technology and products to residents, and requests departments market the products at city events. While Amazon gives participating departments free products for promotion, the majority of the products are privately purchased from Amazon. In some municipalities taxpayer money has been used to subsidize Amazon surveillance products for residents’ use. On the back end, Amazon carefully scripts everything that authorities say about the program, and coaches police on the best talking points to get customers to hand over their footage.

With no oversight and accountability, Amazon’s technology creates a seamless and easily automated experience for police to request and access footage without a warrant, and then store it indefinitely. In the absence of clear civil liberties and rights-protective policies to govern the technologies and the use of their data, once collected, stored footage can be used by law enforcement to conduct facial recognition searches, target protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, teenagers for minor drug possession, or shared with other agencies like ICE or the FBI.

Amazon’s internal corporate policies raise serious privacy concerns. The Ring technology gives Amazon employees and contractors in the US and Ukraine direct access to customers’ live camera feeds, a literal eye inside their homes and areas surrounding their homes. These live feeds provide surveillance on millions of American families––from a baby in their crib to someone walking their dog to a neighbor playing with young children in their yard––and other bystanders that don’t know they are being filmed and haven’t given their consent. Additionally, the technology has no end-to-end encryption leaving this extremely private and sensitive footage vulnerable to cyber-attacks, stalkers, or foreign governments. 

Amazon has not been transparent about plans to integrate facial recognition into Ring cameras. Amazon Ring has denied any connection between their technology and facial recognition software, but according to the Washington Post, Ring filed two patents in November 2018 “that describe technology with the ability to identify “suspicious people” and create a “database of suspicious persons.” Ring’s terms of service allow the company to “access and use your User Recordings” for “developing new Products and Services,” which covers facial recognition. The Information reported Ring’s Ukraine-based research team accessed customer’s surveillance footage to train image recognition software. As facial recognition software has been shown to disproportionately misidentify people of color, women and transgender people, it further compounds existing civil liberties concerns and expands suspected criminality centered in racial profiling and gender bias.  

As Amazon continues to grow in influence, so do the costs and effects of their domination. Freedom of information requests reveal Amazon carefully scripted and regulated the talking points police departments could use in discussing the Amazon-police partnership. Departments were forbidden from using words like ‘surveillance’ in any communication related to the partnership. This level of censorship and control is indicative of Amazon’s business model of using monopolistic practices to vacuum up enormous amounts of data. That data is then leveraged to bolster Amazon’s corporate interests, often at the expense of local businesses and smaller competitors. Amazon’s latest encroachment with the Ring-police partnerships exemplify the company’s willingness to do what it takes to expand their data empire. Once they have this data, there is nothing stopping them from using it for their own profit-driven purposes.   

Amazon Ring partnerships with police departments threaten civil liberties, privacy and civil rights, and exist without oversight or accountability. Given its significant risks, no surveillance partnerships with Amazon Ring should have been established, or should be established in the future, without substantial community engagement and input and elected official approval. To that end, we call on mayors and city councils to require police departments to cancel any and all existing Amazon Ring partnerships, and to pass surveillance oversight ordinances that will deter police departments from entering into such agreements in the future. We further call on Congress to investigate Ring’s practices and demand more transparency from the company.

Sincerely,

The undersigned:

Fight for the Future, Media Justice, Color of Change, Secure Justice, Demand Progress, Defending Rights & Dissent, Muslim Justice League, X-Lab, Media Mobilizing Project, Restore The Fourth, Inc., Media Alliance, Youth Art & Self Empowerment Project, Center for Human Rights and Privacy, Oakland Privacy, Justice For Muslims Collective, The Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI), Nation Digital Inclusion Alliance, Project On Government Oversight, OpenMedia, Council on American-Islamic Relations-SFBA, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, MPower Change, Mijente, Access Humboldt, RAICES, National Immigration Law Center, The Tor Project, United Church of Christ, Office of Communication Inc., the Constitutional Alliance, RootsAction.org, CREDO Action, Presente.org, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and United We Dream.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, October 3, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Festivals including Bonnaroo, Austin City Limits, Pitchfork, Riot Fest, The Governors Ball, and Wanderlust have already stated they are not and do not plan to use invasive and racially biased face scanning technology

Digital rights group Fight for the Future is calling on major music festival sponsors to pull their support for festivals including Coachella, Bumbershoot, and Hangout Music Fest after their parent company, AEG Presents, the second largest event company in the US, failed to state whether it is using controversial facial recognition on fans.

Major festivals like Pitchfork, The Governors Ball, Riot Fest, Bonnaroo, and Austin City Limits issued statements making it clear they have no plans to use invasive and racially biased facial recognition technology. On Wednesday, Insomniac Events, producers of blockbuster EDM festivals including Electric Daisy Carnival, Beyond Wonderland, and Okeechobee, issued the same statement. Paradiso Fest, Sonic Bloom, Summer Meltdown, Lucidity Festival and Punk Rock Bowling posted their commitment to not use the tech publicly. 

Goldenvoice, who runs Coachella as a subsidiary of AEG Presents, explicitly refused to comment when asked to clarify their current policies and future plans regarding the use of facial recognition, saying “we are not looking to add to this conversation at this time.” This non-statement has fueled concerns among activists and music fans that they may be currently experimenting with facial recognition or planning to use it in the future.

The webpage helps concerned music fans to tweet nine major sponsors, including Pandora, Corona, Coca Cola, Uber, and Bose to ask them to suspend their support until the events make their position clear.

See the webpage here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/festivals/

“Over the past two weeks, hundreds of fans have used our site to email or tweet AEG Presents events, and we’ve made multiple attempts to contact the organization for a statement,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “They are definitely aware that their customers are concerned. Live Nation issued a statement to us two weeks ago, and the longer AEG takes to respond, the more concern grows. People deserve to know whether attending Coachella, Jazz Fest, or any AEG event puts them at risk of having their actions at those events in a permanent government database. Facial recognition, even when used in an opt-in manner, poses serious threats to privacy and civil liberties. It’s systematically misidentifies people of color, exacerbating existing forms of discrimination, and it’s been used by ICE to target undocumented families. AEG should clearly commit to not using this invasive and racially biased technology on music fans. They should never put our safety and basic rights at risk just to collect our data and turn it into profit.”

Ticketmaster / Live Nation issued a statement confirming that it is not currently using facial recognition at its events, a positive step given that they previously invested in the technology. But troublingly, they explicitly left the door open to future use on an “opt in” basis, something security and human rights experts warn does not alleviate the concerns with mass collection of sensitive biometric information. All commitments not to use the technology to date are listed on a scorecard on the Ban Facial Recognition website.

Headlining artists like Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Gramatik, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Speedy Ortiz, Melissa Ferrick, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys, Laura Stevenson, Brian Fallon of Gaslight Anthem, Jeff Rosenstock, and B Dolan support the campaign, along with thousands of fans who have posted on social media and signed a petition. 

Facial recognition is not widespread at music events in the US. But Ticketmaster and other event companies have previously lauded their partnerships in the controversial technology, and even smaller bars and venues are experimenting with it. Reports show Madison Square Garden is already using facial recognition surveillance.

“I don’t want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation, or arrest. That’s why I’m joining this campaign calling on @Ticketmaster and others not to use #facialrecognition at festivals and concerts,” Tom Morello, legendary guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave, and Prophets of Rage, tweeted in support of the campaign. 

“Facial recognition surveillance is uniquely dangerous. It doesn’t keep fans or artists safe, it just subjects them to invasive, racially biased monitoring that will inevitably lead to fans getting harassed, falsely arrested, deported, or worse,“ Fight for the Future’s Evan Greer added, "We’re calling on all artists, venues, festivals, and promoters to stick up for their fans’ basic rights and safety by speaking out against the use of Big Brother style biometric surveillance at live music events.”

The campaign is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

###

At FFTF, our core mission is protecting our rights in the digital age, from net neutrality to privacy. But the climate crisis is an existential threat to all of us, so when youth around the world told us to join them, we sprung into action to move the Internet to help.

This week, the Global Climate Strike erupted around the world, and it’s already the biggest strike — as well as the largest youth mobilization — in history. The leaders of the strike are children and youth who have been striking every Friday since August 2018 to protest global inaction on the climate crisis.

So to back them, we did what we do best:

We activated the Internet.

In partnership with an ad hoc coalition of tech companies, nonprofits, and tech industry workers, we organized the Digital Climate Strike to move some of the largest websites on the Internet to spread the word about the strike and drive traffic there. Our team consisted of an ever-expanding army of volunteers from FFTF, ThoughtWorks, 350.org, Greenmelon, Purpose, ClimateAction.Tech, Open Collective, and many others, who moved organizations around the world to pitch in and take action. And in six short weeks, we pushed the digital strike onto every corner of the Internet.

Heat map of users who saw the widget — doesn’t include social media, independently created banners or webpages.

In total, over 10,000 websites joined the digital strike by adding the banner, which appeared to over 1.5 million people, with over 800,000 direct website hits for globalclimatestrike.net. This led directly to over 30,000 people signing up for the global strikes and the climate movement, accounting for 12 percent of total sign-ups.

Here’s what it looked like.

Banner up!

We developed a custom banner modeled after the SOPA/PIPA strikes and asked companies with a web presence to join our campaign to raise the visibility of the strike.

In the weeks leading up to the strikes, websites raised awareness through small banners like these:

…other websites “greened out” with full page banners, like these ones from Wikimedia Foundation, eCommerce Platforms, and many more:

Still others, like Burton and Lush, made headlines by shutting down their websites and stores locations to ensure that their employees could strike alongside the youth.

Some of the biggest websites included Imgur, Tumblr, and Wordpress. Wordpress gave its users a simple, one-click option to add the widget to a webpage, with a blog post explaining how it works and why they joined in. Companies like Tor, Bumble, and Ecosia also published blog posts explaining what was happening and how people could participate.

Some companies, like Seventh Generation, took the additional step of building their own pages about the strike.

At the eleventh hour, some of the true heavyweights joined in. YouPorn joined in with their custom widget and drove an enormous amount of traffic. (We didn’t exactly tell the kids about it though.)

Subreddits and social media

Where big companies didn’t pitch in, their communities did. Subreddits with over 24 million subscribers joined the climate strikes with pinned posts and banners promoting both the digital strike and the global strike.

At the same time, companies, activists, and thought leaders updated their social media with avatar and banner photos promoting the strike. Seventh Generation gets a special shoutout for promoting Tweets about the climate strike!

The biggest story was definitely the millions of people pouring into the streets for the strike, but news outlets picked up the Digital Climate Strike too, from CNN to NBC to the New York Times.

Overall it was a big success: we increased awareness online and drove turnout at the strikes. Thanks to everyone who participated!

As the students said, change is coming and this is just the beginning. They’re striking every Friday. And the internet and tech community is joining in solidarity. Follow us and stay tuned to join all that’s to come!

More photos below

Congress has no excuse and must pass the Save the Internet Act. Internet activists will continue fighting at the state level and demand that all 2020 candidates commit to fully restoring real net neutrality protections 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 1, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Washington, D.C. — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned key parts of the FCC’s resoundingly unpopular repeal of net neutrality, including its attempt to preempt states from passing their own open Internet protections. The decision also forces the FCC to assess the impact of the repeal on public safety, and condemns the agency for failing to do so.

The FCC repeal was met with unprecedented backlash from all corners of the Internet, from internet companies like Reddit, Tumblr, and Mozilla, to activists, entrepreneurs, celebrities, US veterans, and small businesses. Net neutrality has overwhelming bipartisan support, with 86 percent of Americans opposing its repeal in 2017, making it the FCC’s most unpopular action in modern history. The public backlash against the wildly unpopular vote has raged on since the repeal.

Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization that has led many of the largest online protests in history for net neutrality and Internet freedom, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (pronouns she/her): 

“More and more, people are realizing there are things they hate about the Internet. But net neutrality is the basic principle that makes possible all the stuff we actually love about the Internet. It’s the foundation of online freedom, creativity, and fairness. The battle for the future of the web is a defining issue of our generation, and this court decision should light a fire under all of us. Internet: get ready to fight. 

“All eyes are now on the Senate to do its job and pass the Save The Internet Act to fully restore net neutrality. Mitch McConnell and senators opposing net neutrality have absolutely no excuse. If they don’t allow a vote on the bill to restore the open Internet, they’re exposing themselves as corrupt shills for the telecom industry. Similarly, every single 2020 presidential candidate must immediately commit to fully restoring net neutrality protections if elected. 

“Meanwhile, the court decision creates a huge opportunity and a clear path forward for us to fight to restore net neutrality state by state. We fought for and won the strongest net neutrality protections in the country in California with overwhelming bipartisan support, and now we can copy and paste that strategy across the country. Comcast and AT&T are terrified of this exact scenario, so they’ll undoubtedly swarm Washington, DC and attempt to ram through trojan horse legislation that permanently guts net neutrality and prevents states from acting. We’ll be ready to stop them. 

“Telecom lobbyists knew they would outspend us, but they will never outlast us. Activists for a free and open Internet will continue to fight in the courts, in Congress, and in the states until we reclaim a free and open Internet for all. Now, we need all hands on deck at every level to beat back Big Cable’s inevitable attacks and reclaim the Internet.”

This decision comes in the wake of broad public protest against the repeal a year after it went into effect. On June 11th, over 3.5 million people and a coalition of over 100 organizations called on the Senate to pass the Save the Internet Act to reverse the FCC’s vote. Fight for the Future also held an epic, all-day livestream featuring small businesses, US veterans, celebrities, internet companies, and activists united in calling for net neutrality.

While the worst impacts of the repeal had been kept at bay by the ongoing litigation and scrutiny, big ISPs had already started exploring what they can get away with in a post net neutrality world. In just the last year, they have throttled the California firefighters’ data in the midst of deadly wildfires, slowed streaming speeds to popular websites like YouTube and Netflix, and blocked internet access to force customers to view specific ads.

Fight for the Future staff are available for comment about what today’s court decision means for the net neutrality fight ahead.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 26, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org 

At a surprise appearance following Amazon’s annual product launch yesterday, CEO and wealthiest human alive Jeff Bezos told reporters that his company is writing its own facial recognition laws.

This is no surprise. Digital rights activists have been warning that Silicon Valley’s calls to “regulate” facial recognition are a trap, designed to hasten the widespread adoption of this invasive and harmful technology by implementing weak regulations that assuage public concern without putting a dent in corporate profits. 

“Amazon wants to write the laws governing facial recognition to make sure they’re friendly to their surveillance driven business model,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, “But this type of technology is uniquely dangerous. It poses a profound threat to the future of human liberty that can’t be mitigated by industry-friendly regulations. We need to draw a line in the sand and ban governments from using this technology before it’s too late. We know that members of Congress are currently drafting legislation related to facial recognition, and we hope they know that the public will not accept trojan horse regulations that line Jeff Bezos’ pockets at the expense of all of our basic human rights.”

Last month Fight for the Future launched our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, along with an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. Since then, 30+ organizations including MoveOn, Greenpeace, Daily Kos, Color of Change, and CAIR have endorsed that campaign. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA are also considering bans, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts, New York, California, and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Backlash to facial recognition continues to spread. This week, many of the world’s largest music festivals committed to not using the technology after Fight for the Future launched a campaign backed by prominent artists including Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello. 2020 presidential hopefuls Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke have both echoed the call for a federal ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition. Sweden recently banned the use of facial recognition in schools, and lawmakers in the UK are considering hitting the breaks on the tech.

Fight for the Future, which is a non-profit that does not endorse candidates for office, opposes attempts by the tech industry and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, September 25th
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Amazon statements on privacy do not address growing privacy and civil liberties concerns surrounding controversial Ring-police partnerships

Today, Amazon held their annual product launch amid growing concerns about the company’s internal privacy practices, as well as controversial surveillance partnerships between Amazon Ring and local police departments.

Amazon announced “Home Mode” feature for its Ring doorbells. The feature is intended to prevent Ring from recording audio or video footage when residents are home. Of course this does nothing to address the privacy and civil liberties concerns of Ring doorbells recording their neighbors or their neighbor’s children without their knowledge or consent.

“We can’t trust Amazon when it comes to privacy. Amazon claims “customers control their data” yet they had plans for 911 calls to trigger all Ring cameras in the surrounding neighborhood to wake up and start recording. This is what Amazon does. They make empty statements to sell their products and then continue to build a for-profit, surveillance dragnet without oversight and accountability,” says Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future.

Amazon-Ring has entered into partnerships with police departments in over 400 cities, most of the were entered into without any debate or approval from local elected officials or the community. These partnerships provide an end run around the democratic process and pose serious privacy and civil liberties threats. Amazon gives police a warrantless process for requesting and storing unlimited footage, giving them a literal eye inside residents’ homes and the surrounding area, and in exchange, the police department markets Amazon’s surveillance technology. US Senator Ed Markey sent a letter to Jeff Bezos asking questions about the partnerships, and even The Monitoring Association, a security industry trade association, issued a statement expressing concern.  

Fight for the Future has launched a national campaign calling on local elected officials to cancel police departments’ existing partnerships with Amazon Ring and enact policies to prevent them from doing so in the future. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, September 24th
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Controversial Ring police partnerships add to growing privacy and civil liberties concerns surrounding Amazon products

Tomorrow, Amazon will hold their annual product launch amid growing concerns about the company’s internal privacy practices, as well as controversial surveillance partnerships between Amazon Ring and local police departments.

Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, issued the following statement: “Every year Amazon releases new products with surveillance features that record our voices, scan our faces, and harvest our personal information. This is not progress. This not innovation. This is Amazon’s continued effort to build a for-profit, surveillance dragnet without oversight and accountability, and bone-graft itself to the US government because it envisions a future where its monopoly status is impossible to challenge, inextricable from authoritarian structures.”

Amazon-Ring has entered into partnerships with police departments in over 400 cities, most of the were entered into without any debate or approval from local elected officials or the community. These partnerships provide an end run around the democratic process and pose serious privacy and civil liberties threats. Amazon gives police a warrantless process for requesting and storing unlimited footage, giving them a literal eye inside residents’ homes and the surrounding area, and in exchange, the police department markets Amazon’s surveillance technology. US Senator Ed Markey sent a letter to Jeff Bezos asking questions about the partnerships, and even The Monitoring Association, a security industry trade association, issued a statement expressing concern.  

Fight for the Future has launched a national campaign calling on local elected officials to cancel police departments’ existing partnerships with Amazon Ring and enact policies to prevent them from doing so in the future. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, September 23, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Atmosphere, Gramatik, Speedy Ortiz, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys among artists calling on festivals and venues to ban facial recognition

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has released a new scorecard showing where music festivals in the US stand when it comes to using facial recognition on fans. 

Major festivals like Bonnaroo, Austin City Limits, Electric Forest, and Shambhala have issued statements making it clear they have no plans to use invasive and racially biased facial recognition technology. Paradiso Fest, Sonic Bloom, Summer Meltdown, Lucidity Festival and Punk Rock Bowling posted their commitment to not use the tech publicly. 

But several major festivals including SXSW, Coachella, Electric Daisy Carnival, and Pitchfork Music Festival––along with all properties of the major events conglomerate AEG Presents––did not respond to repeated requests from organizers, and have made no commitments, causing concern among fans that they may be currently experimenting with facial recognition or planning to use it in the future. 

Ticketmaster / LiveNation issued a statement confirming that it is not currently using facial recognition at its events, a positive step given that they previously invested in the technology. But troublingly, they explicitly left the door open to future use on an “opt in” basis, something security and human rights experts warn does not alleviate the concerns with mass collection of sensitive biometric information. Goldenvoice, who runs Coachella, gave a non-answer “we are not looking to add to this conversation at this time,” when asked to clarify their current policies and future plans regarding the use of facial recognition.

See the scorecard here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/festivals/new/#scorecard 

“The companies that run major festivals should not be experimenting on music fans by scanning our faces and collecting our biometric information,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “People deserve to know whether their favorite event has plans to use facial recognition technology. Experts say facial recognition is so dangerous it should be compared to nuclear or biological weapons. Festival organizers have a moral imperative to clearly commit to not using this invasive and racially biased technology on music fans. They should never put our safety and basic rights at risk just to collect our data and turn it into profit.”

Headlining artists like Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Gramatik, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Speedy Ortiz, Melissa Ferrick, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys, Laura Stevenson, Brian Fallon of Gaslight Anthem, Jeff Rosenstock, and B Dolan support the campaign, along with thousands of fans who have posted on social media and signed a petition. 

Facial recognition is not widespread at music events in the US. But Ticketmaster and other event companies have previously lauded their partnerships in the controversial technology, and even smaller bars and venues are experimenting with it. Reports show Madison Square Garden is already using facial recognition surveillance.

“I don’t want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation, or arrest. That’s why I’m joining this campaign calling on @Ticketmaster and others not to use #facialrecognition at festivals and concerts,” Tom Morello, legendary guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave, and Prophets of Rage, tweeted in support of the campaign. 

“Facial recognition surveillance is uniquely dangerous. It doesn’t keep fans or artists safe, it just subjects them to invasive, racially biased monitoring that will inevitably lead to fans getting harassed, falsely arrested, deported, or worse,“ Fight for the Future’s Evan Greer added, "We’re calling on all artists, venues, festivals, and promoters to stick up for their fans’ basic rights and safety by speaking out against the use of Big Brother style biometric surveillance at live music events.”

The campaign is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition. Several cities have already banned the controversial technology outright, including  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, and there is growing bipartisan support in Congress to address the issue at the federal level.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, September 24
Contact: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

For nearly one year, federal lawmakers have been working behind closed doors to draft a sweeping federal data privacy law. Although public interest groups representing a broad spectrum of the U.S. public have agreed to key privacy principles, federal lawmakers in Congress have failed to reach bipartisan support for commonsense protections. What’s noteworthy about this process is how little the public knows about it, despite how close industry lobbyists have been to the congressional deliberations. 

Now, more than a dozen grassroots organizations, representing millions of people, have launched a website that makes it easy for people to contact their federal lawmakers and demand real action from Congress for meaningful privacy protections: FightforPrivacy.co. 

The website will also serve as a hub for future online days of action and other initiatives encouraging mass grassroots education and engagement on the issue of privacy in the digital age. 

The endorsing organizations—which include Fight for the Future, Public Citizen, MediaJustice, Consumer Action, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Presente.org, MPower Change, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Ranking Digital Rights, Media Alliance, X Lab, RootsAction, Oakland Privacy, and Coworker.org—believe that any such law must:

* Guard against discrimination. Any federal privacy law must include civil rights protections. People should not be left without protections when algorithms fueled with bias withhold housing and employment opportunities, as has been reported across several online and social platforms. We can and should aim to build a world free of racism and bias.   

* Protect people’s right to sue companies that violate their privacy. People should have a private right of action when companies violate their privacy. Leading public and consumer interest groups agree. So does the Attorney General of California, Xavier Becerra, who publicly asked for a private right of action for California residents given that his office would only have the resources to seriously pursue a handful of cases each year. 

* Act as a floor and not a ceiling for state-level privacy protections. It was only because of state-level privacy laws that Equifax notified all users about its notorious 2017 breach that impacted nearly half of the U.S. adult population. Even if the federal law grants people the strongest protections, state legislatures are better equipped to pass new laws in response to emerging threats. 

If Congress continues down its current course—behind closed doors and away from public consultation–the end result will likely be a fake bill backed by the industry that allows the worst forms of data harvesting and abuse to continue. The time for Congress to get real about privacy is now.

The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future:

“It’s deeply concerning how much face-time federal lawmakers are giving lobbyists as they draft a law intended to protect people from the industries that bankroll those lobbyists. For decades banks, marketers, and savvy technology companies have demanded Congress let them regulate themselves, and they’ve promised time and time again to protect people’s confidential and sensitive information. The results of this approach have been a failure. Most people have given up on their right to privacy, a fundamental principle of a free society. It’s time for lawmakers in Congress to shut out industry and welcome the public to the table—only then will we have privacy protections that matter.”

The following can be attributed to Tracy Rosenberg, Exec Dir at Media Alliance and coordinator at Oakland Privacy

“Technology moves rapidly. It’s a cliché, but the reality of regulating technology is that yesterday’s law is not always applicable to tomorrow’s innovations. Even if the 2019-2020 Congress were able to enact an admirably comprehensive consumer privacy law, new technological capacities may require modifications in the future. States are far more capable of acting quickly and responsively than the federal government. But they are only able to do so if it is not prohibited. To give an example, federal preemption of mortgage finance regulations tied the hands of many states when the subprime mortgage crisis hit in 2007-2008. We don’t know what the future holds until we get there. In 2012, we would not have realized that our light switches would be gathering our personal data. But they are. We shouldn’t pretend that we can pass the one and only federal consumer privacy law today for all time” 

The following can be attributed to Erin Shields, National Field Organizer at MediaJustice (formerly the Center for Media Justice):

“Data privacy is one of the most important issues that the public and Congress will grapple with over the coming years. Companies have shown us time and time again that they cannot be trusted to respect user rights regarding personal data. Congress must act now to protect the digital civil rights of their constituents and not the interests of corporate bottom lines. Too frequently, data is collected coercively or completely devoid of informed user consent, and is then run through unaudited and unaccountable algorithms or bought and sold by data brokers. Who pays the price? Most often communities historically targeted and marginalized, those with the least resources to actualize their fundamental right to privacy. Understanding this reality, MediaJustice is committed to making sure privacy and civil rights remain linked and demanding any proposed legislative solutions center the people of color most impacted by harms and not the corporations and agencies who have caused them. This is not an issue that can be solved by sloppily cobbling together industry-approved solutions, but rather, we ask that congressional members engage critically and thoughtfully with the concepts of data privacy and be willing to offer and fight for meaningful solutions that grasp at the root of data-fueled discrimination.”

The following can be attributed to David Monahan, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood:

“In July, the FTC gave Facebook a meek slap on the wrist, sweeping under the rug a laundry list of misdeeds, including illegal data collection from children as young as five years old. It’s clear that our current regulatory framework is inadequate to protect Americans’ privacy, especially of the most vulnerable: children. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act took effect in 2000 and desperately needs an update – and real enforcement. Without new policies that put kids’ needs above Big Tech’s thirst for data and profit, we are dooming our children to a world of commercial surveillance designed to push consumerism at the expense of wellbeing.” 

The following can be attributed to Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen:

“No one signed up for a surveillance society in which a handful of giant corporations know our most intimate thoughts, track our every movement, control the information we receive and monitor our communications. But that’s the situation in which we all increasingly find ourselves. The solution is a national minimum standard to protect our privacy and digital rights, secure our data, and restrain Big Tech’s abusive and discriminatory practices. Big Tech has a different answer: A weak national standard that overrides the ability of states to adopt stronger standards and hold the tech titans accountable. Our coalition is not going to let that happen.”

The following can be attributed to Linda Sherry, Director of National Priorities at Consumer Action:

“Consumers must have control over their personal information. It’s time for Congress to act on consumers’ growing demands for the right to know, limit, correct and delete data that is collected about them. Lawmakers must pass a strong federal data protection law that requires companies to obtain permission before sharing personal data with others, and holds companies accountable when they abuse the consumer’s trust.”

Contact: Shuo Peskoe-Yang, shuo@fightforthefuture.org, 757-376-1808

Nathalia Clark, nathalia@350.org, +55 61 991371229

Tumblr, Kickstarter, WordPress, Imgur, BitTorrent, are among the companies to support the Global Climate Strike.

Over 6,000 websites and companies are joining the Digital Climate Strike on September 20th, in response to the call-to-action from young people around the world.

Modeled after massive online protests like the SOPA strike and the Internet Slowdown for net neutrality, the Digital Climate Strike will raise visibility about the upcoming youth-led global climate strike. Many of these largest websites in the world are participating, such as Imgur, Tumblr, and Wordpress, by spreading the word on social media, donating ad space, or putting banners on their websites to announce the strikes. Some companies, like Burton, Lush, and Patagonia, will be taking more aggressive action, such as shutting down both their physical and online stores on September 20th and encouraging employees and customers to strike.

Websites can join by contacting Fight for the Future or by visiting the campaign landing page. See the landing page for the campaign here.

“From the SOPA blackout to net neutrality we’ve used the Internet to mobilize people on an unprecedented scale to achieve grassroots victories that were previously thought to be impossible,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization that has been working with an ad hoc coalition of environmental groups, tech workers, and others to organize the Digital Climate Strike. “Politicians and lobbyists want us to think that solving the climate crisis is impossible. We need to channel the power of the Internet to turn the impossible into the inevitable. Our future depends on it.”

Youth around the world have been striking from school on Fridays, demanding action to stop the global climate crisis. These youth are calling for a mass mobilization on Friday, September 20th — three days ahead of a United Nations emergency climate summit — to move world governments to take emergency action and end the fossil fuel era. Over 1,700 strikes are planned in more than 150 countries to disrupt business as usual, and strikers are calling on everyone to join them.

While some companies, like Seventh Generation, Patagonia, and Atlassian are encouraging their employees to participate in the global strikes, many of the largest companies like Microsoft and Amazon have stayed silent. In response, their workers, however, have taken on their own initiative to walk out on September 20th to demonstrate their solidarity with youth strikers. In the case of Amazon, at least part of their action is directed at the company itself for its inaction to address the climate crisis. According to the Not Business As Usual coalition, over 2,000 employers around the world have allowed their workers to strike on September 20th.

“Climate change is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced, and it will affect our generation the most,” said Alexandria Villaseñor, school striker and founder of Earth Uprising. “That’s why at the global climate strike on September 20th, youth must lead the way and demand climate action NOW from our world leaders!”

“This is the tipping point. Today’s youth are not fooled: their futures are being stolen before their very eyes by the fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians. We’re joining them because we refuse to be bystanders while our children are left with an unlivable planet by our inaction,” said Shuo Peskoe-Yang, with Fight for the Future. “There is no room for neutrality. The children are calling on us, and the time to act is now.”

“Climate change is affecting everyone and it’s imperative that we continue to create and push those conversations,” said Bridget Kyeremateng, Tumblr’s Social Impact Lead. “Tumblr’s passionate and driven community is always eager to find ways that they can get involved in their communities and the Climate Strike is a great opportunity to take issues off the platform and onto the streets.” 

“In the digital era, the internet has democratized the connection between people all over the world. Similarly, the climate crisis also knows no borders. It affects everyone and is now the most urgent challenge of our time,” said Sarah Wilbore, Digital Engagement Director at 350.org. “We only have a few years to change things, and this will only be possible with participation and pressure from everyone: civil society, business and governments. We have a joint responsibility to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we can’t delay any further, it must start now.”

“Climate change is disrupting business as usual for everyone. It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in or how big your organization is. Our team cares deeply about this and our clients rely on us for responsible technology,” said Tim Frick CEO of Mightybytes. “Participating in the digital strike is one way for Mightybytes to let people know that addressing climate change is a priority for us.”

The beginning of global climate strike is now only 2 days away. In New York City it starts noon on Friday at Foley Square with a 1pm march to Battery Park. Even if you cannot stay for the rally at Battery Park, everyone who has a lunch break should just use that to join the march! So: grab a sandwich and join. Details on the march here. Let’s make this bigger than anyone expects.

PS If you are wondering why, read my climate crisis posts. If you have time for just one, make it the Alien Invasion Analogy.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 18, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Atmosphere, Gramatik, Speedy Ortiz, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys among artists opposing invasive surveillance at music events 

Last week, digital rights group Fight for the Future launched a new campaign mobilizing artists, music fans, and event organizers to oppose the use of facial recognition surveillance at music festivals, concerts, and events. The page highlights the fact that Ticketmaster / Live Nation has invested in a partnership with a company that makes facial recognition software, but the campaign calls on music festivals and promoters to commit to not using this invasive technology on fans.

Yesterday, a Live Nation representative told a reporter that Fight for the Future’s campaign is “misinformation,” and claimed that they had reached out to Fight for the Future to clarify their position. Today we can confirm that this is false. Fight for the Future has not received any communications from Live Nation about their investment in facial recognition technology, or their future plans to use it. 

“It’s funny, I get a lot of spam emails from Live Nation about buying overpriced tickets for concerts that I’m not interested in, but I haven’t gotten a single email from them about this campaign, even though they’re telling reporters they’ve reached out to us,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. 

Live Nation / Ticketmaster also shared this statement with reporters:

Fight for the Future has the following response, which can be attributed to its Deputy Director, Evan Greer: 

“This is exactly the same talking point that we’re getting from the airline industry. If Live Nation / Ticketmaster isn’t planning to use facial recognition, then why not explicitly commit to that? Even if they only use it in an opt-in manner for entry to events, it still raises significant privacy and civil liberties concerns. And fans will still need to go through a physical search, so it’s not really saving anyone any time, it’s just an excuse to vacuum up lots of data on music fans. 

If Ticketmaster cares about protecting music fans safety and basic rights, they should make an explicit commitment to not use facial recognition at events, now or in the future. 

Once a private corporation like Ticketmaster has collected hundreds of thousands of people’s sensitive biometric information, there’s no telling what they could do with it. They could use it to track people around the festival in order to serve them targeted advertising. They could sell that data to other private companies or hand it over to government agencies like ICE or local police. Once biometric data is collected and stored in a database it’s vulnerable to attacks, like the Customs and Border Protection facial recognition database that was breached. 

As we’ve seen with the airlines, allowing fans to “opt out” of facial recognition doesn’t fix the problems inherent in the technology. Many fans might not be aware of the risks involved with opting in, and others may feel uncomfortable opting out for fear that it could subject them to additional screening.”

Live Nation / Ticketmaster’s claims that they have “no current plans” to use this technology are dubious without an explicit commitment. The original announcement from Blink Identity, the facial recognition company they have partnered with, reads “Plans include the use of Blink’s walking-speed biometric solution at venues to facilitate admission to live shows and more.

At least one sports venue in the UK, which is owned by Live Nation / Ticketmaster, is reportedly planning to use facial recognition as well, casting the company’s statement in further doubt.”

See the original “Ban Facial Recognition at Festivals” campaign page here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/festivals

Headlining artists like Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Gramatik, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Speedy Ortiz, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys, Laura Stevenson, Brian Fallon of Gaslight Anthem, and B Dolan support the campaign, and Washington’s USC Events, the producers of Paradiso Festival, are among the first to commit to not use the technology along with Punk Rock Bowling festival in Las Vegas. 

Ticketmaster and other event companies laud their partnerships in the controversial technology, and even smaller bars and venues are experimenting with it. Reports show Madison Square Garden is already using facial recognition surveillance.

“I don’t want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation, or arrest. That’s why I’m joining this campaign calling on @Ticketmaster and others not to use #facialrecognition at festivals and concerts,” Tom Morello, legendary guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave, and Prophets of Rage, tweeted in support of the campaign. 

“Facial recognition surveillance is uniquely dangerous. It doesn’t keep fans or artists safe, it just subjects them to invasive, racially biased monitoring that will inevitably lead to fans getting harassed, falsely arrested, deported, or worse,“ said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), "We’re calling on all artists to stick up for their fans’ basic rights and safety by speaking out against the use of Big Brother style biometric surveillance at live music events.”

The campaign is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition.

###

To support them, we’ve launched a Digital Climate Strike to get some of the biggest websites on the Internet to raise visibility.

Add the strike to your Tumblr to spread the word! See the instructions here.

Ready to strike? Click here to find a strike near you.

Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization with more than 2.4 million members nationwide has been campaigning for real data privacy legislation, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to deputy director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her): 

“Silicon Valley’s biggest companies know that their business models are fundamentally at odds with user privacy and human rights. That’s why they’ve resorted to misdirection. They’re not calling for meaningful Federal privacy legislation, they’re trying to game the system and get Congress to pass a law that lets them continue harvesting and abusing our sensitive data, and most importantly one that strikes down strong state laws like the one Internet users fought for in California. No one should be fooled by these lobbyists. We need real data privacy protections that guard against discrimination, allow people to sue tech companies that misuse their data, and don’t pre-empt state laws. Learn more at FightForPrivacy.co" 

###

California lawmaker should recuse herself from negotiations on state privacy legislation –– close ties to Amazon Ring creates a conflict of interest

Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin proposed amendments to tear down key provisions of California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The changes she put forth directly benefit companies like her husband’s employer － Amazon. Jon Irwin, her husband, is the chief operating officer for Amazon Ring, a controversial home surveillance product.

Politico reported this potential conflict of interest and Irwin’s key role in pushing forth industry backed privacy reductions. In one key proposal, which was widely criticized by consumer protection groups, Assemblymember Irwin sought to expand the types of data that would not be covered in the CCPA. She also worked to remove “a provision requiring companies to disclose or delete data associated with ‘households’ upon request,” according to Politico. These proposed measures enable companies like Amazon Ring to continue to use our data without consent or accountability. 

Evan Greer, deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, issued the following statement: “We immediately call on Assemblymember Irwin to recuse herself from voting on the CCPA and any future measures related to consumer privacy. Her close ties to Amazon present a significant conflict of interest. The end result of allowing  Irwin to vote would be to compromise landmark consumer privacy legislation and allow Amazon to continue creating a privately owned, for profit nationwide surveillance network without any oversight. We are investigating legal options for filing an official complaint related to this conflict of interest.”

Amazon Ring has received widespread criticism for their partnerships with police departments in over 400 cities. These partnerships provide an end run around the democratic process and raise serious privacy and civil liberties concerns. Amazon gives police a warrantless process for requesting and storing unlimited footage, giving them a literal eye inside residents’ homes and the surrounding area, and in exchange, the police department markets Amazon’s surveillance technology. US Senator Ed Markey sent a letter to Amazon about the partnerships, and even The Monitoring Association, a security industry trade association, issued a statement expressing concern. 

In lieu of federal legislation, the California Consumer Privacy Act is being seen as a national standard for privacy rights legislation throughout the country. The legislation protects Californians’ personal information and gives them the right to know what information is being collected, being sold, and who’s buying it. Such protections are a threat to Amazon Ring’s surveillance-based business model.

Fight for the Future has launched a national campaign calling on local elected officials to cancel police departments’ existing partnerships with Amazon and enact policies to prevent them from doing so in the future. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 11, 2019

Contact: Shuo Peskoe-Yang, press@fightforthefuture.org, +1 (757) 376-1808
Nathalia Clark, nathalia@350.org, +55 61 991371229

Tumblr, Imgur, Kickstarter, WordPress, BitTorrent, are among the companies to support the Global Climate Strike.

Over 1,000 websites and companies are joining the Digital Climate Strike on September 20th, in response to the call-to-action from young people around the world.

Modeled after massive online protests like the SOPA strike and the Internet Slowdown for net neutrality, the Digital Climate Strike will raise visibility about the upcoming youth-led global climate strike. Many of these largest websites in the world are participating, such as Imgur, Tumblr, and Wordpress, by spreading the word on social media, donating ad space, or putting banners on their websites to announce the strikes. Some companies, like Burton and Patagonia, will be taking more aggressive action, such as shutting down both their physical and online stores on September 20th and encouraging employees and customers to strike.

Websites can join by contacting Fight for the Future or by visiting the campaign landing page. See the landing page for the campaign here.

“From the SOPA blackout to net neutrality we’ve used the Internet to mobilize people on an unprecedented scale to achieve grassroots victories that were previously thought to be impossible,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization that has been working with an ad hoc coalition of environmental groups, tech workers, and others to organize the Digital Climate Strike. “Politicians and lobbyists want us to think that solving the climate crisis is impossible. We need to channel the power of the Internet to turn the impossible into the inevitable. Our future depends on it.”

Youth around the world have been striking from school on Fridays, demanding action to stop the global climate crisis. These youth are calling for a mass mobilization on Friday, September 20th — three days ahead of a United Nations emergency climate summit — to move world governments to take emergency action and end the fossil fuel era. Over 1,700 strikes are planned in more than 150 countries to disrupt business as usual, and strikers are calling on everyone to join them.

While some companies, like Seventh Generation, Patagonia, and Atlassian are encouraging their employees to participate in the global strikes, many of the largest companies like Microsoft and Amazon have stayed silent. In response, their workers, however, have taken on their own initiative to walk out on September 20th to demonstrate their solidarity with youth strikers. In the case of Amazon, at least part of their action is directed at the company itself for its inaction to address the climate crisis.

“Climate change is the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced, and it will affect our generation the most,” said Alexandria Villaseñor, school striker and founder of Earth Uprising. “That’s why at the global climate strike on September 20th, youth must lead the way and demand climate action NOW from our world leaders!”

“This is the tipping point. Today’s youth are not fooled: their futures are being stolen before their very eyes by the fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians. We’re joining them because we refuse to be bystanders while our children are left with an unlivable planet by our inaction,” said Shuo Peskoe-Yang, with Fight for the Future. “There is no room for neutrality. The children are calling on us, and the time to act is now.”

“Climate change is affecting everyone and it’s imperative that we continue to create and push those conversations,” said Bridget Kyeremateng, Tumblr’s Social Impact Lead. “Tumblr’s passionate and driven community is always eager to find ways that they can get involved in their communities and the Climate Strike is a great opportunity to take issues off the platform and onto the streets.”

“In the digital era, the internet has democratized the connection between people all over the world. Similarly, the climate crisis also knows no borders. It affects everyone and is now the most urgent challenge of our time,” said Sarah Wilbore, Digital Engagement Director at 350.org. “We only have a few years to change things, and this will only be possible with participation and pressure from everyone: civil society, business and governments. We have a joint responsibility to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we can’t delay any further, it must start now.”

“Climate change is disrupting business as usual for everyone. It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in or how big your organization is. Our team cares deeply about this and our clients rely on us for responsible technology,” said Tim Frick CEO of Mightybytes. “Participating in the digital strike is one way for Mightybytes to let people know that addressing climate change is a priority for us.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

State legislatures in New York, Michigan and Massachusetts are considering bills to rein in facial recognition surveillance and bipartisan legislation is expected in Congress

California could become the first state to pass legislation limiting the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. Yesterday, the state Senate passed AB 1215, a moratorium on the use of facial recognition surveillance in police body cameras, with bipartisan support. The bill attracted strong grassroots support from local, state, and national organizations.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future supported AB 1215 and are leading a national BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 30 organizations, as well as a high profile campaign to halt the use of facial recognition surveillance at music festivals and concerts, supported by artists like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Thievery Corporation, and Amanda Palmer. 

“This is a major victory for civil rights and civil liberties groups on the ground in California who are leading the fight to rein in invasive facial recognition surveillance,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, “But no one should be subjected to automated biometric surveillance––the ultimate Big Brother surveillance weapon––regardless of where they live. That’s why we’re calling on lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level to enact an outright ban facial recognition surveillance.”

California is not the only state considering reining in facial recognition, a uniquely dangerous form of surveillance technology that has drawn comparisons to nuclear and biological weapons in terms of its potential harm to society. There are two bipartisan bills (HB 4810 and SB 342) moving in the Michigan state legislature that would ban law enforcement use of facial recognition in the state. Massachusetts lawmakers will hold a hearing this Fall on a statewide moratorium bill to “press pause” on the use of the technology. And New York state is considering legislation to ban the use of facial recognition in schools. 

Facial recognition surveillance has faced fierce opposition at the local level as well.  San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA, Cambridge, MA, and Emeryville, CA are also considering bans. Community activists in Detroit have been pressuring the City Council and the Board of Police Commissioners to stop police from using facial recognition.

Fight for the Future has launched an interactive map and activist toolkit to support efforts at the local and state level, and is driving phone calls and emails to Congress pushing for legislators to place an outright ban on law enforcement use of the tech. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 10, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Atmosphere, Gramatik, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys among artists opposing invasive surveillance at music events

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new campaign mobilizing artists, music fans, and event organizers to oppose the use of facial recognition surveillance at music festivals, concerts, and events.

See the campaign page here: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/festivals

Headlining artists like Tom Morello, Amanda Palmer, Nahko and Medicine for the People, Thievery Corporation, Gramatik, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, The Glitch Mob, Downtown Boys, Laura Stevenson, Brian Fallon of The Gaslight Anthem, and B Dolan have already supported the campaign on social media, and Washington’s Summer Meltdown Festival just became the first to commit to not using the technology. Ticketmaster and other live music companies have begun investing in the controversial technology, and even smaller bars and venues have been experimenting with it.

“I don’t want Big Brother at my shows targeting fans for harassment, deportation, or arrest. That’s why I’m joining this campaign calling on @Ticketmaster and others not to use #facialrecognition at festivals and concerts,” Tom Morello, legendary guitarist of Rage Against the Machine, Audioslave, and Prophets of Rage, tweeted in support of the campaign.

“Facial recognition surveillance is uniquely dangerous. It doesn’t keep fans or artists safe, it just subjects them to invasive, racially biased monitoring that will inevitably lead to fans getting harassed, falsely arrested, deported, or worse,“ said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), "We’re calling on all all artists to stick up for their fans’ basic rights and safety by speaking out against the use of Big Brother style biometric surveillance at live music events.”

The campaign is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed my more than 30 major grassroots civil rights organizations including Greenpeace, Color of Change, Daily Kos, United We Dream, Council on American Islamic Relations, MoveOn, and Free Press. The groups are calling for local, state, and federal lawmakers to ban law enforcement use of facial recognition.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 9, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

While Bernie Sanders is calling for a federal ban, Harris will only commit to vague “regulations and protections”

Today, 2020 presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris released details of her criminal justice platform. While Senator Bernie Sanders –– and more than 30 major civil liberties, immigration, and public interest groups––have called for a complete federal ban on law enforcement use of controversial facial recognition surveillance technology, Senator Harris’ plan appears to fall far short of that. Instead, it repeats talking points that have been pushed by law enforcement agencies and Big Tech companies like Microsoft and Amazon, calling for vague “regulations and protections,” which experts say would fail to address the harms inherent in facial recognition surveillance. 

“Facial recognition poses a unique threat to human liberty and basic rights –– any candidate who wants to be taken seriously on criminal justice issues should be calling for an outright ban, or at the very least a moratorium on current use of this tech. Senator Harris’ plan says she will work with civil rights and technology organizations, but she already seems to be ignoring us,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, “There is growing consensus among public interest groups and tech experts that law enforcement must be banned from using facial recognition entirely. Industry-friendly regulations will only serve to speed up the adoption and spread of this uniquely dangerous and invasive surveillance technology.” 

Senator Harris’ disappointing position comes amid growing backlash to facial recognition surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last month Fight for the Future launched our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, along with an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. Since then, 30+ organizations including MoveOn, Greenpeace, Daily Kos, Color of Change, and CAIR have endorsed that campaign. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA are also considering bans, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Fight for the Future, which is a non-profit that does not endorse candidates for office, opposes attempts by the tech industry and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 5, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 

Groups representing 15 million+ people plan to flood local, state, and federal lawmakers with letters and calls as bipartisan backlash to biometric surveillance reaches a boiling point

Opposition to facial recognition is reaching a boiling point. Today, more than 30 organizations from across the political spectrum announced they had endorsed the BanFacialRecognition.com campaign calling for a federal ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition technology. The groups, which represent more than 15 million combined members, plan to flood lawmakers with emails and calls from constituents.

There’s growing bipartisan momentum in Congress to rein in facial recognition surveillance. But it’s essential that legislation puts an immediate stop to both current and future law enforcement use of this dangerous, invasive, and biased technology, rather than imposing weak regulations that could actually work to speed up its adoption. Three cities have already fully banned government face surveillance, and legislation has been introduced at the state level in Michigan, Massachusetts, California, and New York.

Organizations participating in the campaign include: 18 Million Rising, Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, Color of Change, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Daily Kos, Defending Rights and Dissent, Demand Progress, Detroit Community Technology Project, Detroit Digital Justice Coalition, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Greenpeace USA, MediaJustice, Mijente, MoveOn, Muslim Justice League, Oakland Privacy, Open Media, Popular Resistance, Presente Action, Restore the Fourth, RootsAction, United We Dream, Privacy Times, and X-Lab.

BanFacialRecognition.com was originally developed by Fight for the Future but is now becoming a hub for a wide range of groups fighting to end government use of facial recognition. In addition to action tools allowing Internet users to pressure their local, state, and federal lawmakers, the page includes an interactive map showing where facial recognition is currently being used in the United States, as well as where there are local and state efforts to stop it. 

Leaders from the organizations participating in the campaign issued the following statements, and are available for comment upon request:

Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): “Facial recognition is one of the most authoritarian and invasive forms of surveillance ever created, and it’s spreading like an epidemic. No amount of regulation can fix the dangers inherent in this form Big Brother automaton. We need to ban this technology outright, treat it like biological or nuclear weapons, and prevent it from proliferating before it’s too late.”

Myaisha Hayes, National Organizer on Criminal Justice & Tech at MediaJustice: “Countless studies indicate that facial recognition is unreliable technology, that it doesn’t accurately identify people with darker skin complexions - especially women - and so we know that this technology will impact Black and brown communities in particularly dangerous ways. Given the history of racist and discriminatory policing, coupled with the horrific deportations we are currently witnessing under this administration, we know this technology will expand the reach of the surveillance state while also causing more harm to already vulnerable communities.  This is why MediaJustice has joined this national fight to urge our Congressional Leaders to protect our communities from this harmful technology.”

Tawana Petty, Data Justice Director for Detroit Community Technology Project: “In Detroit, we are under constant watch through Project Green Light and related surveillance technologies. Project Green Light, coupled with the use of facial recognition threatens the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of Black residents at a scale unheard of since the Tuskegee Experiment. If we do not resist these pervasive and extractive biometric technologies, Detroiters will be further marginalized through digital redlining, spacial racism, and ultimately predictive policing. We know the things that make us safe. Our communities need clean and affordable water, adequate and affordable housing, accessible and healthy foods, resourced public school systems and well lit neighborhoods - - none of these things can be created through surveillance and facial recognition, even if the algorithms are fixed.“

Tracy Rosenberg for Oakland Privacy: “Facial recognition technology isn’t just racially biased and error-prone, in the wrong hands it is a dangerous tool allowing total 24/7 state control of everywhere we go and everything we do. It has no place in a society based on democratic principles and human rights, as the cities of San Francisco and Oakland have declared. Every vulnerable group needs to draw the line in the sand right now and say get outta my face.”

Popular Resistance co-director Kevin Zeese: “The ever encroaching surveillance state is advancing by leaps and bounds. The use of facial recognition technology is another new tech invasion of people’s human rights and provides police who have a history of abuse with a tool they should not have and do not need. This error-prone technology needs to be banned as a stop to stop the advancement of the security state, and part of a broader campaign to reverse the expansion of surveillance which has grown in the 21st Century.”

Adrian Reyna, Strategy Director at United We Dream: “The Trump administration is carrying out the mass deportation and detention of immigrants. They are building out a mass deportation force that must be stopped and every person of conscience must stop any and all efforts that can put more people in harm’s way, including these facial recognition efforts. We have already seen the impact of police and the deportation force unleashed — they are abducting people in their workplaces, in their homes, and keeping entire families in detention indefinitely. Equipping them with facial recognition technology will certainly lead to more raids and further stoke fear among Black and brown communities. The use of this equipment is immoral and destructive. It must be banned nationwide, and United We Dream is committed to see that through.”

Linda Sherry, Director of National Priorities, Consumer Action: “We live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. There is nothing democratic about facial recognition technology–no one is truly free when our faces can be monitored and captured as we go about our daily business. And there’s nothing brave about a secretive surveillance system. Facial recognition technology is notoriously inaccurate and biased. Deploying it on an unsuspecting public in the name of ‘crime fighting’ is a crime in itself. Let’s join forces to stop the surveillance!”

Carolyn Fiddler, Communications Director at Daily Kos: “Facial recognition tech is not only an infringement on human rights and violation of policy – it also serves as yet another unreliable method of fear-based control over people across the country, especially among communities of color. Daily Kos supports a federal ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition surveillance as a crucial step towards stopping increased implementation of invasive, privacy-abridging technologies.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, (508) 368-3026, press@fightforthefuture.org

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) just became the first 2020 presidential candidate to call for a complete ban on law enforcement use of facial recognition surveillance. While other candidates, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker have previously expressed concern about face scanning and biometric surveillance, so far none have incorporated a ban on the technology into their platform. 

“The rapid spread of facial recognition surveillance is one of the most urgent threats to our basic freedom and human rights today. Every single 2020 candidate should be calling for a ban on this invasive, biased, and dangerous technology,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of non-partisan digital rights group Fight for the Future (pronouns, she/her). “Banning facial recognition is not a radical idea. It’s common sense. Allowing government agencies to build a face scanning panopticon with no oversight or accountability is reckless and puts people in danger. There’s growing bipartisan support to rein in biometric surveillance. Any 2020 candidate that wants to be taken seriously on tech and civil liberties issues needs to be calling for a ban.”

The Sanders announcement comes amid growing backlash to facial recognition surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last month Fight for the Future launched our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, along with  an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA are also considering bans, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Fight for the Future, which is a non-profit that does not endorse candidates for office, opposes attempts by the tech industry (including Amazon)  and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 14, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, (508) 368-3026, press@fightforthefuture.org

Yesterday, Amazon announced that they had updated Rekognition, the facial recognition software they’re aggressively marketing to immigration and law enforcement agencies, with new capabilities. Among them: the company now claims their face scanning algorithm can detect “fear.” 

It’s notable how casually Amazon makes this announcement––in a one paragraph blog post––like any other routine software update with a few new features. The implications for human rights are staggering. Face scanning surveillance that claims to be able to detect people’s emotions, inner thoughts, or intentions is an authoritarian government’s dream come true. In the hands of law enforcement, such a tool could be deadly.

“Amazon is going to get someone killed by recklessly marketing this dangerous and invasive surveillance technology to governments,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “Facial recognition already automates and exacerbates police abuse, profiling, and discrimination. Now Amazon is setting us on a path where armed government agents could make split second judgements based on a flawed algorithm’s cold testimony. Innocent people could be detained, deported, or falsely imprisoned because a computer decided they looked afraid when being questioned by authorities. The dystopian surveillance state of our nightmares is being built in plain site –– by a profit-hungry corporation eager to cozy up to governments around the world.”

It’s incredible that Amazon is touting these new features for their face scanning software when the current ones don’t seem to work at all. Their announcement claiming Rekognition can now smell your “fear” came on the same day that the ACLU revealed they had used the software to compare California lawmakers to a mugshot database –– and it incorrectly matched 1 in 5 of them with photos of criminals. The ACLU previously used Amazon Rekognition to do the same thing with members of Congress, with similar results, and the majority of those misidentified as criminals were lawmakers of color. The Orlando Police Department, one of the only departments in the country that has publicly acknowledged it was testing Amazon’s facial recognition surveillance product, abandoned the program, basically saying that it wasn’t workable. 

Amazon’s announcement comes amid growing backlash to facial recognition surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last month Fight for the Future launched our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, along with  an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA are also considering bans, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Fight for the Future opposes attempts by the tech industry (including Amazon)  and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance, such as a bill introduced recently to ban the use of facial recognition in public housing. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

Digital backdoors are dangerous. They were dangerous when the NSA tried — and failed — to implement a clipper chip in every computer in 1993. They were dangerous when the FBI tried — and failed — to force Apple to break encryption on iPhones in 2015. And they’re still dangerous today.

Encryption, Explained

Encryption is a basic form of security, like a lock on the front door to your house. Except instead of a key and a deadbolt, encryption relies on complicated math equations to effectively “lock” data away from prying eyes while it is being transferred over the Internet. Once it has been delivered to its proper destination, the recipient can use a key from the provider to “unlock” the data for use.

As our world increasingly relies on digital infrastructure, encryption becomes necessary to protect everything from personal communications and office printers to air traffic control systems and nuclear power plants. Creating digital backdoors into these systems might seem like a good way to ensure that law enforcement officials can gather evidence or prevent crimes from happening … until you realize that law enforcement officials won’t be the only ones using these backdoors.

Your Safety Is at Stake

Troublingly, Attorney General Barr either doesn’t understand the threat that backdoors create, or he doesn’t care. In a recent speech, Barr proclaimed: “We know of no instance where encryption has been defeated by compromise of those provider-maintained keys.” Yet that’s exactly how hackers compromised an Iranian nuclear facility, as well as banks, power grids, and corporations around the world.

Bad actors already use our digital weapons against us. State-sponsored hackers routinely exploit printers, phones, and routers. Voting systems in 39 states were hacked ahead of the 2016 elections. Weaknesses in encryption services can persist for decades, creating security issues in devices and applications that haven’t even been invented yet.

We don’t need to make our society more vulnerable to hacking; we need stronger encryption to be widely adopted in order to protect everyone from sophisticated, 21st century attacks. That’s why Michael Hayden — a retired four-star general who served as Director of the NSA and Director of the CIA — publicly pushed back against Barr’s dangerous plan to undermine the safety of end-to-end encryption.

Barr talks big about safety, but his recommendations put us all at risk for years to come.

Your Liberty Is at Stake

In many states across the United States, police officers can search databases of your sensitive personal information, often without even reasonable suspicion that you’ve committed a crime. Predictably, this unfettered access has led to thousands of documented cases of law enforcement officers stalking their romantic interests, snooping on neighbors, and harassing journalists. And don’t forget about all the times that telecoms, social networks, and Silicon Valley giants have exploited your sensitive personal data for their gain … even after being warned by Congress not to do so.

If the Attorney General is concerned that his proposed backdoors might be similarly exploited, he hasn’t mentioned it. In fact, Barr has made no comment regarding the legal conditions under which backdoors should be used, nor has he made recommendations on who should have access to these powerful surveillance tools, or what penalties should be enforced against those who would abuse their authority. Instead, he’s content to move fast and break things. But a broken democracy is hard to fix.

Backdoors Will Backfire

We’ve established that backdoors will make all of us more vulnerable to attacks from hackers, rogue states, government misconduct, and corporate recklessness. But at least they’ll help us catch some bad guys, right?

Wrong.

If criminals, drug cartels, and terrorist networks know that they can’t use commercially-available encryption services without being spied on, then they simply won’t use commercially-available encryption services. After all, it developing encryption algorithms requires only knowledge of math and coding. Breaking encryption for the public will simply force lawbreakers underground while putting the rest of us at risk to countless new threats.

Take Action Now

Simply put, there is no way that destroying encryption won’t end in disaster. Encryption saves lives, protects our democracy, and defends against abuse from corporate and government abuse. We should all be terrified about the prospect of our Attorney General forcing tech companies to insert digital backdoors into consumer products.

Congress has considered laws to prevent this sort of authoritarian overreach in the past, and we need them to stop this reckless power grab once and for all. We urge you to visit our website SaveSecurity.org and contact your lawmakers to demand that they save digital security from the Attorney General.

The Guardian recently reported that the US Military is conducting mass surveillance tests across South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Illinois using high altitude balloons carrying hi-tech radar, capable of conducting “persistent surveillance” of enormous areas. Today, Fight for the Future launched a new campaign to mobilize people to contact the Governors of these states and demand they stop the military from conducting unethical surveillance tests on their residents.

Throughout the test period, the military has been watching, recording, and storing the whereabouts of millions of people across the Midwest. “Even in tests, they’re still collecting a lot of data on Americans: who’s driving to the union house, the church, the mosque, the Alzheimer’s clinic,” Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Guardian. The military and the private companies designing the spy balloons determine what happens to the data collected, how it’s used, and how it’s stored without any oversight or accountability from elected officials in the states where the tests are being conducted.

The U.S. Southern Command conducts these mass surveillance tests for the stated purpose of intercepting drug trafficking and addressing perceived threats to homeland security, but they could just as easily be used to crack down on peaceful protesters or target religious minorities. A recent ProPublica article echoes this message with cited studies that repeatedly show mass government surveillance does not make us safer or prevent violent attacks.

Instead of keeping us safe, mass surveillance “poses a grave threat to basic human rights, freedom of expression, and civil liberties,“ Fight for the Future Deputy Director Evan Greer. "These programs are not about stopping violence, they’re about social control.”

As the federal government fails to act on issues of mass government surveillance, it’s up to the states. Governors are elected by the residents of their state to protect their basic rights and privacy. Fight for the Future calls on these Governors to stop the US military from conducting dangerous and unethical tests on their state’s population without informed consent from the public or oversight from policymakers.

###

The nation is still reeling as news surfaces about a recent data breach that exposed the sensitive information of over 100 million people from the bank Capital One. The bank was informed of the breach on July 19 but waited until July 29 to inform the public. This amounts to one of the largest bank-related breaches in history.

Allegedly, the hacker is a former software engineer at Amazon Web Services who discovered an improperly secured Amazon cloud instance—which hosted the ultra-sensitive Capital One data–and successfully breached the instance. 

Now, over 100 million people’s sensitive information, including social security numbers, has been exposed to common criminals across the web, putting people in danger of fraud and stolen identity. 

“As reporters and investigators debate whether Amazon or Capital One messed up—the harsh reality is that Congress messed up too. Big time,” said Laila Abdelaziz, a campaigner at digital rights group Fight for the Future. “Federal lawmakers have been taking huge amounts of money from the technology and banking industries and refusing to do anything meaningful to protect people’s privacy and security. Congress has bowed to industry demands that they regulate themselves, and as a result they’ve endangered the safety of the entire nation. Breaches like this one will continue to happen until Congress passes strong protections demanding private companies build technology with people’s safety and security in mind.”

In 2019 Fight for the Future launched FightforPrivacy.co to help people contact their members of Congress and demand strong privacy protections. The campaign includes a demand for a private right of action. This protection would guarantee people’s right to sue companies that violate their privacy, a basic consumer right notoriously stolen from people via obscure terms and conditions agreements. 

Today, digital rights group Fight for the Future launched a nationwide campaign calling on mayors and elected city officials around the country to stop local law enforcement agencies from partnering with Amazon on an invasive domestic surveillance program powered by Amazon’s smart camera doorbell device — Ring. 

The campaign comes on the heels of an alarming investigative piece by Motherboard that uncovered evidence that at least 200 law enforcement agencies across the country have entered into these private surveillance partnerships. The investigation illustrates how Amazon has supplied local law enforcement agencies with subsidized Ring devices and trainings on Amazon’s Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal surveillance software app — free of charge. These technologies — Ring and its App — and the software trainings amount to a seamless and user friendly dragnet for police departments. 

Amazon provides “heat maps” with locations of lost packages to local law enforcement. Amazon then facilitates the police emailing all the people who own cameras in the “heat mapped” areas asking them to snitch on their neighbors. Law is downstream from culture and Ring’s clear marketing approach, led by CEO Jamie Siminoff, is to sell the idea that these cameras make our neighborhoods safer, even though crime rates have fallen consistently since the early 1990s. Dramatically increasing the number of cameras in a city certainly doesn’t make that city safer for populations that are historically over-policed and surveilled. 

We still don’t even know the full list of cities who’ve partnered with law enforcement agencies. After extensive research we recently launched a map containing the information of approximately 50 cities who we know has signed these partnerships; yet the public still has no idea what the other 150 cities are. The people employed to keep us safe are actively working to put us in more danger by signing these agreements. As we learned this week with the hack of over 100m people’s credit card applications from Capital One and stored on an Amazon server, the creation of one location for all the data of everyone in the country at all times only serves to put all of us at risk. 

These partnerships allow law enforcement to go around accepted principles of crime investigations such as seeking a warrant and interviewing suspects. If a police department wanted to install a surveillance camera on every residence in their city, they would surely be required to gain approval from local elected officials and the public. By building a privately-owned surveillance empire with a disturbingly cozy relationship to law enforcement, Amazon has found the perfect end-run around the democratic process. 

 “Amazon is building a privately run, for-profit surveillance state, and they’re getting local police to market it for them in exchange for VIP access to the panopticon,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her). “This corporate and government overstep allows law enforcement agencies to side-step judicial oversight by asking customers to give up their privacy rights by sharing confidential information with local police departments — which is why we are calling on local elected officials to ban these deceptive partnerships.”

“These types of for-profit surveillance partnerships with police should be banned in every single city,” said Greer. “Invasive surveillance technology is often tested on, and disproportionately used to target poor people and communities of color. More cameras spreading everywhere, with no oversight or accountability, will deeply exacerbate existing injustice in our criminal justice system. It will mean more people in prison, more police abuse, and more families torn apart. Surveillance of neighborhoods by local police and Amazon isn’t about community security, it’s about securing a profit on social control. Everyone deserves liberty and privacy in their own homes –– but the added security from those devices should not come at the cost of the public’s rights to privacy and due process.”

The campaign pressuring local officials to halt partnerships with Amazon Ring also comes on the heels of growing backlash to surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last week Fight for the Future released an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley is also considering a ban, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue as well. 

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 30, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Leading digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a campaign calling on CNN to ask presidential candidates where they stand on restoring net neutrality.

CNN is hosting the democratic primary debates tonight and tomorrow, and Fight for the Future is pressuring the cable news channel to pose a question on net neutrality to the debaters. Fight for the Future has called attention to CNN’s conflict of interest through its ownership by AT&T, one of the largest telecom companies in the world. AT&T has spent millions aggressively lobbying to gut net neutrality and broadband privacy protections.

Net neutrality receives overwhelming bipartisan support among Americans. Over 86 percent of Americans opposed the 2017 repeal of net neutrality under Ajit Pai’s FCC, including 90 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans. The FCC repeal sparked unprecedented levels of backlash and was easily one of the most talked about policy changes of the last decade. It’s absurd that no one has asked the 2020 candidates where they stand on restoring net neutrality.

“Nearly every candidate running for the Democratic nomination has taken big campaign contributions from companies like AT&T. We can’t just assume they will do the right thing. Americans deserve to know whether these candidates will make it a top priority to restore net neutrality,” said Evan Greer, deputy director at Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “The fact that AT&T owns CNN, and could easily pressure them to silence debate on net neutrality, is a perfect example of why we need a free and open Internet. It’s essential for free speech and a democratic society. Net neutrality is clearly one of the most talked about issues of the last decade. If no one at CNN asks the candidates about it, we’ll know why. ”

NBC, a subsidiary of Comcast, hosted the previous democratic primary debates in June, which did not include any discussion of net neutrality. Giant Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast have lavished money on lobbying and misinformation campaigns to kill net neutrality, from astroturfing to massive ad and PR campaigns, and it is unclear to what extent they have ordered their media subsidiaries to avoid any mention of net neutrality, though a 2017 study showed that the major networks had largely ignored the issue, even while other press covered it extensively.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 23, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 508-368-3026 

UPDATE: Politico reports that this bill has now been introduced as of Thursday, July 25. 

CNET is reporting that Reps Yvette Clark (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are planning to introduce a bill this week that would ban the use of facial recognition and other biometric surveillance technology in public housing units that receive federal funding from HUD.

Fight for the Future, a leading digital rights group that has called for a complete Federal ban on government use of facial recognition surveillance, welcomes this legislation, reportedly titled the “No Biometric Barriers to Housing Act.” 

“Facial recognition surveillance should be banned everywhere, but keeping it out of public housing is an excellent start,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her), “This type of invasive surveillance technology is often tested on, and disproportionately used to target poor people and people of color. If public housing units become a panopticon of automated face scanning and monitoring, it will mean more people in prison, more police abuse, and more families torn apart. Surveillance of poor communities isn’t about safety, it’s about social control. Everyone deserves liberty and privacy in their own homes –– no one should have to choose between homelessness and losing their basic rights.”

The new bill comes on the heels of growing backlash to facial recognition surveillance that has been spreading across the country. Last week Fight for the Future released an interactive map showing where in the US facial recognition surveillance is being used, and also where there are local and state efforts to ban it. San Francisco, Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley is also considering a ban, and bills to halt current use of the tech are moving in the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

Fight for the Future opposes attempts by the tech industry and law enforcement to pressure Congress to pass an industry-friendly “regulatory framework” for facial recognition that would allow this dangerous technology to spread quickly with minimal restrictions intended to assuage public opposition. But we support narrower efforts to ban or restrict specifically egregious uses of this surveillance. For more on our position, read our op-ed in Buzzfeed News: “Don’t regulate facial recognition. Ban it.”

###

Fight for the Future just launched a first-of-its-kind interactive map that tracks where in the U.S. facial recognition technology is being used and where it is being resisted, and a tool-kit for local activists who want to help kickstart a ban in their city or state.

This is a major new phase of our BanFacialRecognition.com campaign: a nationwide push to kickstart more local- and state-level efforts to ban facial recognition surveillance.

The map includes known locations where:

• Scans of driver’s license photos and mug shots by law enforcement are reported to be taking place
  
• Facial recognition has begun to invade stores, stadiums, and airports
• Amazon Ring has formed surveillance partnerships with local police (first time this list has been published)
• Pioneering city bans on facial recognition have been or may soon be passed
• Statewide moratoriums on facial recognition are being considered
• Surveillance ordinances that govern procurement processes have been passed
• US senators and representatives have formally issued oversight letters expressing concern over unethical uses of surveillance technology

It’s nearly impossible to create an exhaustive list given the secrecy surrounding the use of facial recognition surveillance, but we’ve compiled a robust list of use cases that have been publicly reported. We’ll be crowdsourcing this information and updating the map as new information surfaces.

Evan Greer (she/her), Digital Rights Campaign Director at Fight for the Future, sees these local actions—which enjoy overwhelming popular support—as part of a growing movement. The campaign calling for a ban on facial recognition echoes academics who have studied facial recognition technology and likens it to the proliferation of nuclear or biological weapons. “Imagine if we could go back in time and prevent governments around the world from ever building nuclear or biological weapons. That’s the moment in history we’re in right now with facial recognition.”

We are on the verge of an unprecedented increase in state and private spying that will be built in plain sight. People are alarmed, and this map and the toolkit arms people everywhere with the resources to both fight back and learn from how others are doing it. It’s going to take all of us to rid this country of this most dangerous technology. 

“We’re seeing growing momentum across the country of people pushing back against this dangerous technology, and we wanted to provide a useful resource to put all this information together.” said Evan Greer (she/her), a campaign director at Fight for the Future. San Francisco,Somerville, MA, and Oakland, CA, recently became the first cities in the country to ban the technology. Berkeley is also considering a ban, and bills to halt current use of the tech are before the Massachusetts and Michigan legislatures. In Congress, there is growing bipartisan agreement to address the issue, but it could easily stall under pressure from law enforcement and big tech.

This is a bipartisan issue. At a congressional hearing in June, Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Jim Jordan agreed that the technology poses a clear threat. Arguing that the technology will turn George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 into a disturbing reality, Jordan said, “Doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on, this should concern us all.”

The Washington Post reported last week that the FBI and ICE have secretly accessed millions of American’s driver’s license photos as part of a nationwide facial recognition dragnet, turning DMV databases “into the bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.” 

Last month, Axon, one of the largest suppliers of police body cameras in America, announced it would not equip its products with facial recognition, saying it could not “ethically justify” doing so. Prior to the company’s decision, several studies uncovered extensive inaccuracies in the technology and embedded biases against women and people of color.

As momentum to ban facial recognition technology in the Bay Area grows, police influence might get in the way of progress. Fight for the Future plans to crowdfund a billboard exposing any council members who block the proposal.

City Council Members in Oakland will vote tonight on an ordinance ordinance to ban the city from buying and using the technology, while . Tomorrow, the Public Safety Committee of the Berkeley City Council will meet (Wednesday, July 17 at 12pm at City Hall) to finalize their own ordinance that would prohibit the city from using facial recognition technology or data obtained from its use. 

While the proposed ban in Oakland is expected to pass following its 4-0 clearance of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee last month, local law enforcement hopes to saddle Berkeley’s ban with exceptions that would render it meaningless.

If the Berkeley ban is stalled, Fight for the Future will launch a crowdfunded billboard in downtown Berkeley to highlight the Council Members who prevent this ban from happening. The group has previously crowdfunded billboards targeting lawmakers across the country over issues like net neutrality and NSA surveillance. 

Fight for the Future is calling on the people of Berkeley to attend tomorrow’s Committee meeting and voice their support for the ban, and for the Committee to send the Ordinance ordinance to the full Council without any watered down amendments. 

“The proposal on the table in Berkeley is clear, direct, and effective,” said Evan Greer, Deputy Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her). “It’s a critical line of defense against invasive surveillance. But police are pushing carve-outs for all different kinds of - you guessed it - invasive surveillance. They’re trying to make it a self-negating law so they can monitor and control the population with impunity.”

“The people of Berkeley know better,” she added. “They support a ban, and they won’t allow the Council to pass an empty shell of a law that doesn’t do what it’s intended to do. You don’t let Big Brother negotiate how much oppressive tech he gets. The answer is: he gets none.” Citing the Council’s responsibility to give Berkeley an ordinance that makes sense, Greer promised a billboard featuring the faces of dissenting council members in the event of a failed or diluted law.

Echoing Greer, Brian Hofer, Executive Director of Secure Justice and Chair of Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, said, “If we’re going to call ourselves the home of the resistance, then East Bay electeds need to start voting like it.”

Earlier this year, San Francisco led the fight against facial recognition when it passed a citywide ban by a 10-1 margin. More recently, the City Council of Somerville, MA voted unanimously to ban all public uses of the technology. 

As Oakland’s vote approaches, City Council President Rebecca Kaplan, an honors graduate of MIT, said, “I welcome emerging technologies that improve our lives and facilitate city governance, but when multiple studies show a technology is flawed, biased, and is having unprecedented, chilling effects to our freedom of speech and religion, we have to take a stand. It is important to build trust and good relationships between community and police and to remedy racial bias, however this flawed technology could make those problems worse. The right to privacy and the right to equal protection are fundamental and we cannot surrender them.” 

“Face surveillance technology is the most radical tool developed in my lifetime, and it will permanently and negatively alter the balance between the government and the governed,” Hofer observed. “Thankfully city council members like Oakland’s Rebecca Kaplan and Berkeley’s Kate Harrison get it.”

Council Member Kate Harrison, sponsor of the proposal in Berkeley, worries that facial recognition could be used to track people “en masse” and weaponized “against [whole] groups.” Elsewhere in the country, facial recognition bans enjoy wide popular support, and recently even garnered rare bipartisan agreement in Congress.

However, according to Greer and Fight for the Future, there is a very real risk that the police lobby will make a national embarrassment of Berkeley. “Berkeley is considered progressive,” she said. “It will want to be on the right side of history with this. It can’t afford not to be.”

The Oakland City Council will vote tomorrow (Tuesday July 16 during the City Council meeting at 5.30pm PST) on an ordinance to ban the purchase or use of facial recognition technology by public agencies. The vote comes in the wake of several national news stories exposing the scope of the surveillance regime that such technology has already enabled. The motion, sponsored by Councilwoman and Council President Rebecca Kaplan, passed through Oakland’s Public Safety Committee with a 4-0 vote but we understand it will meet some opposition on the City Council tomorrow evening. There is some resistance locally from local law enforcement who seek post-hoc facial recognition.

Fight for the Future is calling on the people of Oakland to attend this City Council meeting and voice their support for the ban, and for the Council to pass this motion without any watered down amendments. 

Tomorrow’s vote in Oakland comes just one day before a a Public Safety Committee special hearing in Berkeley to discuss a ban on facial recognition. This takes place at 12 noon.

Cities like San Francisco and Somerville recently took decisive action to ban the technology and protect their residents from the invasive practices it makes possible. And statewide moratoriums are currently before the legislatures in California (only for police body cams), Massachusetts, and Michigan.

Evan Greer (she/her), Digital Rights Campaign Director at Fight for the Future, sees these local actions - which enjoy overwhelming popular support - as part of a growing movement. 

“People are smart,” she said. “As much as big tech companies sell facial recognition as convenient and safe, people have quickly realized that it makes us less safe, not more safe. This type of surveillance leads to social control on a previously impossible scale, exacerbating existing forms of discrimination in our society. This is a watershed moment in human history, and people from across the political spectrum are coming out of the woodwork and mobilizing to stop 1984 from becoming a reality.” .”

Fight for the Future launched a campaign last week for a federal ban, filling a void in leadership on an urgent issue that Greer - echoing academics who have studied facial recognition technology - likens to nuclear proliferation. “Imagine if we could go back in time and prevent governments around the world from ever building nuclear or biological weapons. That’s the moment in history we’re in right now with facial recognition.”

Greer points out that it is a bipartisan issue. At a congressional hearing in June, Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Republican Jim Jordan agreed that the technology poses a clear threat. Arguing that the technology will turn George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 into a disturbing reality, Jordan said, “Doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on, this should concern us all.”

The Washington Post reported last week that the FBI and ICE have secretly accessed millions of American’s driver’s license photos as part of a nationwide facial recognition dragnet, turning DMV databases “into the bedrock of an unprecedented surveillance infrastructure.” 

Last month, Axon, one of the largest suppliers of police body cameras in America, announced it would not equip its products with facial recognition, saying it could not “ethically justify” doing so. Prior to the company’s decision, several studies uncovered extensive inaccuracies in the technology and embedded biases against women and people of color.

“This technology will be catastrophic for the most vulnerable in our society,” Greer said. “But it will subject everyone else to the watchful eye and oppressive whims of the state as never before.” Greer cited the upcoming vote in Oakland, and the ban ordinance under review in Berkeley, as signs of progress in California that the rest of the nation should follow.

Please contact William Fitzgerald william@theworkeragency.com if you’d like to speak with Evan Greer from Fight for the Future, or Brian Hofer from Secure Justice, who’s been working on this in Oakland and Berkeley for years now. 

Last night, a police commissioner in Detroit was arrested for questioning the city’s use of facial recognition at a public hearing.

Commissioner Willie Burton, who is black, was surrounded by police officers and handcuffed from his place at the head of the meeting on Thursday night, shouting “get your hands off me!” as he was taken out of the room with hands behind his back and put into a police car. He was questioning the police department’s use of facial recognition known to be biased against people of color, in a city with a high proportion of black residents.

It’s part of a renewed debate this week on facial recognition technology in Detroit, where the New York Times reported on activists criticizing the city’s use of the tech given its problems: The data used is pulled from Michigan’s 50 million drivers licenses, personal information that is accessed without a warrant and with no consent. The program also allows for police officers to use facial recognition not just on criminal suspects, but on anyone with a “reasonable suspicion” they might assist in solving a crime.

The controversy has so far resulted in a call at the state level to ban facial recognition throughout Michigan for five years. It would be the first state in the country to do so.

It also follows growing momentum nationwide, where different cities and states have already put bans in place or are considering banning the technology. San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts, were the first two cities in the country to ban the tech, but Oakland, Berkeley are considering bans, and Massachusetts and California are considering severely limiting facial recognition’s use.

Congress members from both parties have called the technology dangerous — both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jim Jordan are against it — and even Axon Corporation, the maker of tasers and body cameras, says it will not commercialize it because it cannot ensure its ethical use.

Fight for the Future this week launched a campaign calling for a federal ban on facial recognition. If we rely on piecemeal regulations at the city and state level, this technology will proliferate beyond our control.

For more information contact press@fightforthefuture.org 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, July 9, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing many of the largest online protests in history, has launched BanFacialRecognition.com, becoming the first national organization to call for a complete Federal ban on government use of facial recognition surveillance.

The page features an eerie and dystopian face scanning animation, and allows Internet users to easily contact their local, state, and federal lawmakers. It reads: “Silicon Valley lobbyists are disingenuously calling for light “regulation” of facial recognition so they can continue to profit by rapidly spreading this surveillance dragnet. They’re trying to avoid the real debate: whether technology this dangerous should even exist. Industry and government friendly oversight will not fix the dangers inherent in law enforcement use of facial recognition: we need an all out ban.”

An infographic further down the page drives the argument home: “Facial recognition is unlike any other form of surveillance. It enables automated and ubiquitous monitoring of an entire population, and is nearly impossible to avoid. If we don’t stop it from spreading, it will become the hallmark of authoritarian states, used not to keep us safe, but to control and oppress us.”

“Imagine if we could go back in time and prevent governments around the world from ever building nuclear or biological weapons. That’s the moment in history we’re in right now with facial recognition,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her),  “This surveillance technology poses such a profound threat to the future of human society and basic liberty that its dangers far outweigh any potential benefits. We don’t need to regulate it, we need to ban it entirely.” 

Momentum against facial recognition is growing. This weekend, we learned that ICE and the FBI use facial recognition on millions of Americans’ drivers license photos, getting access to our personal information with no consent. Both Democrat and Republican legislators were outraged—both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jim Jordan, polar opposites in Congress, agree that the use of facial recognition poses a huge threat to civil liberties. 

Cities are involved too: San Francisco and Somerville, Massachusetts, have both banned facial recognition. Even Axon, which makes tasers and body cams for police officers, said it would not commercialize facial recognition because it cannot currently “ethically justify” its use.

We’re joining this outcry to call for a complete ban on facial recognition. It’s time the federal government take a stand now to prevent this technology from proliferating across the country.

###

Tonight the Somerville City Council Legislative Matters Committee voted to ban facial recognition. It goes to a final vote on Thursday but this was the big one.

Somerville follows in San Francisco’s footsteps to become the second city in the country to ban this dangerous and racist technology.

“Some technology is simply too dangerous to exist. Facial recognition can be used to track our every movement, supercharge racial profiling and discrimination, target political dissidents, and control nearly every aspect of our lives. Lawmakers are beginning to agree that this dystopian technology is dangerous, but if we don’t demand they act now, we’re heading for 1984.” - Evan Greer (she/her), digital rights campaign director at Fight for the Future

On Tuesday night the public safety committee on the Oakland City Council will discuss a similar ban. This is the beginning of a grassroots groundwell against facial recognition and mass surveillance. Tech companies and their marketing departments want us to think that facial recognition is an inevitability but we, at Fight for the Future and a growing coalition of supporters across the country, believe that we have a choice. These computer programs are designed to identify and track us at a distance, by analyzing images of our faces, without our knowledge or consent. We are at a turning point in history and it’s up to all of us to decide the future we want.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 21, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Whistleblower has been jailed for 100 days for principled opposition to unconstitutional Grand Jury process

Whistleblower and human rights advocate Chelsea Manning has now been imprisoned for 100 days, and faces outrageous fines that have already forced her to lose her apartment and will soon bankrupt her –– for mounting a principled opposition to testifying before a Grand Jury. Digital rights group Fight for the Future, which has long supported Chelsea and led many campaigns demanding her release from prison, issued the following updated statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her):

“Chelsea Manning is a brave, kind, and principled person who has suffered immensely at the hands of the US government simply for speaking out and standing up for human rights. We unequivocally condemn the decision to jail her and levy fines against her for mounting a principled opposition to testifying before a Grand Jury.

Grand Juries have frequently been used as secretive tools to punish, harass, and entrap activists. There is a long and important history of resisting these acts of government overreach. Chelsea is one of the most principled people I have ever met. Punishing her with more prison time is not going to change her decision –– it will simply cause her more unnecessary suffering.

Even if you believe the government’s pretense that they were attempting to coerce Chelsea to testify, there is no longer any reason to hold her now that Julian Assange has been indicted.

The US government is blatantly targeting and imprisoning Chelsea Manning due to her political views and outspoken activism. She is a political prisoner. She should be immediately released and the fines against her should be dropped.”

Fight for the Future encourages journalists and supporters to follow @ResistsChelsea and @xychelsea for updates.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 18, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

The Democrat controlled US House of Representatives just voted 253-175 against a bipartisan amendment that would have finally reined in some of the government’s most egregious mass surveillance practices. The Amash-Lofgren Amendment would have closed notorious loopholes in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the National Security Agency (NSA) has abused to conduct warrantless surveillance of American citizens’ emails, SMS messages, and Internet activity. More Democrats voted against the bill than Republicans.

Nearly 50 civil liberties organizations –– ranging from right-wing FreedomWorks to civil rights groups like Color of Change and Demand Progress to the ACLU and EFF –– sent a letter in support of the amendment. Millions of people have spoken out against the US government’s mass surveillance programs in recent years, but Congress has failed to act.

“It’s good to know that House Democrats like Adam Schiff are “resisting” Trump by voting to ensure that he has limitless authority to conduct mass warrantless surveillance,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future (pronouns: she/her).

The Democrats who voted against this common sense amendment just threw immigrants, LGBTQ folks, activists, journalists, and political dissidents under the bus by voting to rubberstamp the Trump administration’s Orwellian domestic spying capabilities.

House Republicans should be even more embarrassed. They’ve spent months complaining about the Obama administration’s abuses of FISA and then voted for the status quo when they had an actual opportunity to rein in Big Brother.

This amendment would have finally closed legal loopholes that the US government has abused to conduct sickening and pervasive monitoring and collection of the most intimate details of our lives. Congress should do their job by defending the constitution and enacting comprehensive legislation to ban mass government spying, outlaw use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, and hold corporations accountable for collecting and misusing our data.”

###

Hey Internet, Evan here from Fight for the Future. We’re a digital rights group who you’ve probably heard from a lot on issues like net neutrality, surveillance, etc.

We just got handed a potentially historic opportunity to finally finally close the gaping loopholes in Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act that the NSA abuses to conduct warrantless dragnet surveillance of our Internet activity, email, text messages, etc.

The bipartisan Amash-Lofgren Amendment to H.R. 3055, aka the “minibus” must-pass government spending bill, would do just that. And it’s headed for a vote on the House floor as soon as tomorrow.

This Amendment was ruled “in order” which means that every member of Congress will be forced to vote on it THIS WEEK. We think we might just have enough votes, but we need everyone to CALL THEIR REPS RIGHT NOW at https://www.endgovernmentsurveillance.com

We set up a number that will automatically connect you to your reps and give you a few quick talking points for what to say: 202-759-7766

We also just got word from our friends at the ACLU that there are several other important amendments that limit government use of dangerous facial recognition surveillance. The House Rules Committee still needs to vote on whether these amendments are “in order” or not. If they are, we’ll have to scramble to flood lawmakers with phone calls to ensure they pass.

If you want to help, call the members of the House Rules Committee (ESPECIALLY if your rep sits on the committee) and tell them to allow these amendments to go to a floor vote. When you call your reps tell them to support all amendments that limit government spending on mass surveillance, including facial recognition. Summaries of the new amendments, and link to the actual text, below:

Division A – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Gabbard Amendment #78: Prohibits the use of funds for the purchase of body cameras that are equipped with or subjected to any facial recognition or other biometric surveillance.

Jayapal Amendment #95: Prohibits funding to be used to deploy or implement face recognition technology until certain conditions are met to uphold privacy and civil liberties.

Beyer Amendmnet #104: Bars funds from being used for state and local law enforcement agencies’ purchase or implementation of facial recognition technology.

Division E – Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Clarke Amendment #65: Prohibits HUD from installing or using facial recognition or iris/retina scanning technology in public or assisted housing.

Tlaib-Pressley Amendment #91: States none of the funds in this Act available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development may be used to purchase, lease, or otherwise utilize facial or other biometric recognition software, hardware or system.

Tlaib-Pressley Amendment #92 :States none of the funds in this Act available to the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be appropriated to any program recipient that authorizes the purchase, lease, or other utilization of facial or other biometric recognition software, hardware or system on sites funded by the Department.

Today, June 11th, is the one year anniversary of the FCC repeal of net neutrality going into effect. Senators who support an open Internet are going to the floor to attempt to force a vote on the Save the Internet Act, the bill to overrule Ajit Pai and restore open Internet protections. Fight for the Future is hosting an epic, all-day livestream featuring celebrities, policy experts, small business owners, musicians, US veterans, and guest hosts reading from thousands of comments submitted by Internet users like you. Submit yours comments and then tune in at www.EpicLivestream.com.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 10, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Web companies, video creators, celebrities, gamers, artists, veterans, business owners and policy experts will host all-day livestream, reading from thousands of comments submitted by Internet users

This Tuesday, June 11th, on the one-year anniversary of the FCC’s historically unpopular repeal of net neutrality going into effect, Fight for the Future and its allies will host an epic all-day livestream to pressure Senate leadership to schedule a vote on the Save the Internet Act. Senators who support an open Internet will go to the floor that day and attempt to force a vote using a Unanimous Consent request, while large numbers are expected to watch online.

See a video and page announcing the protest here: https://www.epiclivestream.com

The livestream will feature a lineup of guest hosts –– ranging from small business owners to US veterans to popular gaming streamers to TV celebrities –– who will read from thousands of individual comments submitted by Internet users about why a free and open Internet matters to them. Fight for the Future is collecting the comments through a web form, and has also released an SMS chatbot allowing Internet users to submit their comments from their phones.

Web companies like Tumblr, Reddit, Mozilla, Github, Tinder, BoingBoing, Postmates, OK Cupid, Imgur, Twitter, and Airbnb will be amplifying net neutrality action, while guest hosts on the stream include Nickelodeon star and musician Kira Kosarin, Comedy Central comedian Mike Eagle, and Congressman Ro Khanna, Congressman Peter Welch, as well as experts from organizations like Consumers Union, Open Technology Institute, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Demand Progress, and the Center for Media Justice. Many of those groups will also be participating in a petition delivery to Mitch McConnell’s office on Tuesday morning, which will be featured as part of the livestream.

“It’s not going to happen overnight, but every day that passes without Congress acting to restore net neutrality, the things people love about the Internet are slowly fading away. It’s becoming more centralized, exploitative, and controlled by corporate interests,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “But Internet users are refusing to give up. On June 11th we’ll come together once again and channel outrage into political power. With voters from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly united in support of an open Internet, it’s only a matter of time before net neutrality is restored.”

While the worst impacts of the repeal have been kept at bay by ongoing litigation and Congressional scrutiny, Internet Service Providers have already begun testing the waters to see what they can get away with in a post net neutrality world. In the last year, studies indicated that Sprint throttled Skype, AT&T gave preference to its own video services, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T slowed down access to YouTube and Netflix, and Verizon was notoriously caught throttling data for California firefighters.

More than 6 million people tuned into similar livestreams during the House markup and vote on the Save the Internet Act, showing that the Internet is still outraged by the repeal of net neutrality and demanding that lawmakers act to restore it. In the year since the FCC’s repeal there has been backlash from across the political spectrum, with polls consistently showing that voters of all persuasions overwhelmingly want lawmakers to reverse Ajit Pai’s order. Over the last decade, tens of millions of people have spoken out in defense of net neutrality, making Internet freedom one of the most popular social movements in modern history.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6/5/19
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Digital rights group launches privacy comparison site that enables flight booking for airlines without facial recognition boarding.

Today, Fight for the Future launched AirlinePrivacy.com, an online scorecard and flight booking site that lists which airlines are currently using facial recognition technology and which ones aren’t. The page allows users to directly book flights with privacy-conscious airlines and to sound the alarm by tweeting at the companies who do use facial recognition asking them to end these programs.

The campaign highlights JetBlue and its contract with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but expands its focus to include all airlines that have decided to use controversial facial recognition technology.

AirlinePrivacy.com was launched after over 57,000 people have already signed petitions from Fight for the Future, Demand Progress and CREDO Action calling on JetBlue to drop their biometric boarding program and care about their customer’s privacy.

The campaign is growing after news that JetBlue expanded a biometric boarding program that scans passengers’ faces before letting them on to international flights. JetBlue volunteered as an early adopter of a Department of Homeland Security program mandated by a Trump executive order that aims to introduce facial recognition to all outgoing international flights. Backlash started after a journalist posted their story on twitter. JetBlue responded to this passenger with vague answers and press talking points that did not address how this program is running, where data is collected, or a clear opt-out plan. Facial recognition is increasingly becoming a topic of conversation and is so controversial that San Francisco already banned it, and there is growing bipartisan agreement in Congress to ban or pause it at the federal level.

Leaders from this effort issued these statements:

“Imagine a world where you would get your face scanned not only to fly but to do every day things like pay for groceries. Facial recognition technology does not make us more safe, it creates a world with no privacy whatsoever. This kind of tech has also been proven to be faulty and biased. JetBlue and all airlines that are using this technology put us in real danger by violating our privacy. Biometric boarding programs have no place in our airports” said Jelani Drew, campaigner at Fight for the Future.

“Requiring facial scanning before boarding a flight isn’t just an inconvenience, it’s a creepy and alarming invasion of our privacy. These airlines continue to dodge important questions about who, in the airline industry and in the government, will have access to passengers’ biometric data, for how long, and to what ends? This is an appalling attack on privacy and basic rights by JetBlue and we need to stop it now before it becomes the new normal,” said Tihi Hayslett, Senior Campaigner at Demand Progress.

“JetBlue is an early adopter of a DHS plan that violates our privacy without making us safer,” said Brandy Doyle, Campaign Manager at CREDO Action. “Airlines should be pushing back against this program to protect their passengers, not rushing into a new world of ubiquitous surveillance and unchecked data-sharing.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, May 20, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

FCC Chairman says he will approve harmful Sprint / T-Mobile merger

Today Ajit Pai, the former Verizon lawyer turned least popular FCC chairman in history, announced his support for the T-Mobile / Sprint mega merger. The $26.5 billion deal has faced widespread opposition from Internet freedom, labor, civil rights, and consumer groups. It would reduce the number of national wireless carriers from four to three, leading to higher prices and worse plans, with the biggest impact felt by low income people and communities of color.

Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her) said, “Ajit Pai doesn’t even try to pretend that he works for the public. He seems to take smug pleasure in being a blatant telecom shill. No one is surprised by today’s announcement, but we will keep fighting to block this merger –– which simply put will lead to crappier, more expensive Internet for millions of people.”

In an attempt to sell the deal, the carriers have agreed to several conditions, which fall far short of addressing the harm the merger will cause. Read more from our friends at Free Press here.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, +1-978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Senator Sinema is the only Democrat in Congress who has refused to support the Save the Internet Act to overturn the FCC’s 2017 net neutrality repeal

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has unleashed a giant digital billboard off of I-17 in Phoenix, Arizona, criticizing recently-elected senator Kyrsten Sinema for her failure to support the Save the Internet Act (S.682) to restore net neutrality. Senator Sinema is the only Democratic lawmaker in all of Congress who has failed to support the bill, which recently passed the House of Representatives 232-190 with bipartisan support. Instead, Sinema is helping Big Telecom derail S.682 by creating a disingenuous working group with telecom-backed Senate Commerce committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS), who earlier this year suggested net neutrality was not priority for his committee. Experts and advocates believe this “working group” has no intention of creating a bipartisan net neutrality legislation, and is merely a smokescreen attempting to derail the real effort to reverse the FCC’s repeal.

A letter to constituents obtained by Fight or the Future earlier this week shows Senator Sinema parroting cable company talking points to justify her lack of support for the Save the Internet Act. In her letter, the senator writes that “reclassifying broadband providers under laws designed in the 1930s for utilities may have serious unintended consequences.” These comments bear significant resemblance to talking points regularly used by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and top telecom lobbyists at the NCTA.

PHOTOS of the billboard can be found here. It is located on the south side of I-17 east of 7th Street facing west in Phoenix (map).

The billboard prominently displays Senator Sinema’s face and reads: “SINEMA IS CORRUPT: She’s siding with corporate donors to kill net neutrality so you pay more for worse Internet.” It then encourages constituents to learn more at www.SinemaIsCorrupt.com.

“Apparently the only people Senator Sinema cares about are telecom lobbyists,” said Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer. “Otherwise, how the heck do you explain her refusal to support the Save the Internet Act? The bill just passed the House 232-190 with bipartisan support. Every other Democrat in the House and Senate supports it. A supermajority of Americans support it. She is the only Democratic lawmaker who has failed to put her name on this bill. Even Senator Kennedy –a Republican from Louisiana–has said he’s willing to put his constituents ahead of companies like Comcast and Verizon. But not Sinema. The only way to explain this is corruption, pure and simple. Sinema has decided she’d rather throw her constituents’ Internet freedom under the bus than anger her Big Cable donors.”

In the build-up to the House vote on the Save the Internet Act, over 6 million people tuned in to Fight for the Future’s livestream of the bill’s procedural debates, amendment debates, and final vote, which generated a groundswell of phone calls and letters to Congress. The Save The Internet Act (S.682) currently awaits its final vote in the Senate, where Senator Sinema’s disingenuous working group is providing cover for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to block the vote.

###

Fight for the Future is a community of millions of people whose mission is to ensure that the web continues to hold freedom of expression and creativity at its core. We seek to expand the internet’s transformative power for good, to preserve and enhance its capacity to enrich, and empower. We envision a world where everyone can access the internet affordably, free of interference or censorship and with full privacy.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 10, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Internet activists, startups, and celebrities have been hosting a marathon livestream driving calls and tweets to legislators

In a historic vote spurred by massive grassroots activism, the US House of Representatives just passed HR 1644, the Save the Internet Act to restore net neutrality. Digital rights group Fight for the Future has been hosting a marathon livestream, featuring cameos from from public interest groups like EFF and Public Knowledge, startups like GitHub, Postmates and Gandi.net, and even celebrities like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine. The vote was 232-190.

Despite relentless and disingenuous telecom misinformation campaigns attempting to turn net neutrality into a partisan issue, one Republican champion supported the bill on final passage. Rep Bill Posey (R-FL) sided with the vast majority of Republican voters and supported the restoration of net neutrality. Every single Democrat supported the bill, even in the face of massive pressure from telecom lobbyists to vote against it or support weakening amendments. 

Between the two committee markups and the floor debate yesterday, more than 5 million people have tuned in to the Twitch stream, where viewers are encouraged to contact their representatives using BattleForTheNet.com

The massive burst of attention once again underscores the overwhelming public support for restoring net neutrality protections, and it should give pause to Republican lawmakers who have largely ignored their base on this issue in favor of spewing telecom talking points. Many commenters in the Twitch chat have self-identified as Republicans in support of net neutrality, expressing disappointment in GOP representatives for their disingenuous opposition to the bill.

“We are charging ahead and getting closer to restoring net neutrality every day,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, “President Trump and Mitch McConnell can say whatever they want, but the writing is on the wall: there is overwhelming public consensus in support of real net neutrality and it’s only a matter of time before we win. The politicians standing in the way of Internet freedom are embarrassing themselves -– they’ll go down in history as incompetent, corrupt, and out of touch. Republican, conservative, and libertarian voters don’t want their cable company to control what websites or apps they can visit or where they can get their news. Misinformation and astroturf campaigns can only do so much –– if I were a GOP staffer I’d be telling my boss to get off this sinking ship before it’s too late.”

###

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) as soon as Tuesday afternoon. This is THE bill to overrule Ajit Pai and restore net neutrality, and could be the most important vote affecting the future of the Internet this year.

So we’re hosting an epic all day livestream on Twitch, starting at 9:30am, to show our elected officials that the whole Internet is watching.

Watch it live embedded at BattleForTheNet.com, where you can also contact your reps!

We hosted similar livestreams for the last two committee votes on the bill, and more than 1 million people tuned in! All that public pressure and attention has been keeping the bill alive, and beat back attempt by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon (and the politicians who shill for them) to gut the bill or fill it with loopholes using bad amendments.

The livestream will be hosted by Fight for the Future’s own Evan Greer, and  feature folks from groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumers Union, and Open Technology Institute answering questions and explaining the nuances of the bill. Plus video cameos from supportive members of Congress, staff at web companies  like Postmates, Gandi.net, and Private Internet Access VPN, and … guitar god Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine.

It’s gonna be a party! Help us send a resounding message that the Internet wants net neutrality restored. Want to be part of the fun? Send us a video of you calling your member of Congress in support of HR 1644 to videos@fightforthefuture.org and we’ll add it to the stream!

Go to BattleForTheNet.com to tune into the livestream and take action.

Congress is about to vote on net neutrality. We’re hosting an epic all day livestream leading up to the vote, with cameos from supportive reps, groups like EFF and Public Knowledge, web companies like GitHub, Postmates, Private Internet Access, and Gandi.nt, and guitar god Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine. Tune in!

This is super important. A key House committee is voting on the Save the Internet Act RIGHT NOW and we need Congress to know that the whole Internet is watching. Watch the livestream here:

Click here to tell your lawmakers to pass the Save the Internet Act with no bad amendments.

Unfortunately, telecom lobbyists have been working around the clock to try to derail the bill. Their main strategy right now is to punch it full of holes with bad amendments. So be sure to tell your rep to vote for a clean bill and oppose amendments that weaken it.

Taking action takes just a minute or two and it makes a huge difference.

The vote is imminent and we can’t afford to lose this one! If we pass the bill through the committee it will likely get a vote on the House floor next week. But if the bill is gutted through hostile amendments, then we’re back to square one.

Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) clears another hurdle, bill would restore all key protections repealed by FCC chair Ajit Pai and should be passed as soon as possible

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 3, 2019
Contact: Evan Greer, 978-852-6457, press@fightforthefuture.org

Today the Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) passed a crucial vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, despite a wave of disingenuous attempts by telecom funded lawmakers to derail the bill or gut its key protections with bad amendments.

The bill was reported out of the committee largely unscathed, and will now head to the House floor as early as next week. Digital rights group Fight for the Future has been leading an online campaign to ensure the bills passage, rallying hundreds of thousands of Internet users to watch the livestreams of the committee votes and contact their lawmakers ahead of the floor vote.

The following statement can be attributed to Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her):

“Telecom lobbyists should just give up now. Despite ISP giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying, misinformation campaigns, and buying influence through campaign contributions, they’ve failed to fool the public and efforts to restore net neutrality are moving forward.

It’s embarrassing watching telecom shills in these committee votes attempt to turn this into a partisan issue when it’s actually quite simple: no one wants their cable company to control what they can see and do on the Internet, or manipulate where they get their news, how they listen to music, or what apps they can use.

The overwhelming majority of voters from across the political spectrum want Congress to do their jobs and restore these basic protections that never should have been taken away in the first place. The Save the Internet Act would do exactly that, and any lawmaker who doesn’t want to invoke the wrath of their constituents should vote for its clean passage on the House floor.”

Bolstered by Internet activism and massive public attention, net neutrality supporters on the Energy and Commerce Committee successfully defeated a swath of terrible amendments that would have completely gutted HR 1644. Two amendments did pass, one that simply clarifies the initial intent of the bill, and one that creates a one year exemption from transparency requirements for small ISPs with less than 100,000 subscribers. While such an exemption is unnecessary, given that many small ISPs say they are happy to comply with such requirements, the amendment is closely aligned with the intent of the 2015 Open Internet Order, and does not undermine the core protections within the bill.

Fight for the Future intends to continue organizing Internet users en masse to fight for the restoration of net neutrality and ensure the clean passage of the Save the Internet act.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 29, 2019
Contact: Laila Abdelaziz, laila@fightforthefuture.org

Fight for the Future welcomes the introduction of the “Ending Mass Collection of Americans’ Phone Records Act” as a major first step in restoring civil liberties eroded by the U.S. government’s mass surveillance machine.

Yesterday, Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representatives Justin Amash (R-MI 03) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA 19) introduced the “Ending Mass Collection of Americans’ Phone Records Act.” This bipartisan bill (read the full text here) would permanently shut down the ineffective, and nearly two decades old, National Security Agency (NSA) program surveilling all of our telephone records.

Responding to the bill’s introduction in both the Senate and House, Fight for the Future campaigner Laila Abdelaziz had this to say:

“This bill will once-and-for-all end the NSA’s ineffective and harmful mass surveillance of all of our phone records. It’s a welcome and necessary first-step in a longer fight to dismantle the U.S. government’s sprawling surveillance state.

This bill was introduced on the same day the public learned about a seperate phone records surveillance program based out of the Drug and Enforcement Agency (DEA)—which resulted in the collection of billions of phone records by the DEA without proper legal review. These government programs rely on powerful telecommunications companies that store our record and data in bulk by default. The consequences of such surveillance in a data-driven economy are frightening.

We hope this bill is the first-step in many others taken by this Congress to end the USA PATRIOT Act and restore key civil liberties required for a healthy democratic society.

Fight for the Future is urging everyone to call their members of Congress and ask them to support the “Ending Mass Collection of Americans’ Phone Records Act.” This bipartisan bill is a no-brainer and should be passed and signed into law as swiftly as possible. Furthermore, we urge Congressional lawmakers to investigate the DEA’s phone records program immediately.”

File this under: The worst FCC decision you’ve never heard of…

Late last year the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gave cell phone companies new powers to control our text messages. Carriers like Verizon can now legally block or delay messages from users they don’t like or want to charge more money.

This all started back in December when FCC Chairman Ajit Pai moved to classify SMS text messages as a “Title I” information service under the Communications Act, which would allow cell phone companies to block or delay messages. At the time Pai justified the move by saying it would help prevent robotexts and spam messages — but, as members of Congress pointed out in a letter to the FCC, telephone carriers are already able to stop unwanted messages without this classification.

Right now the FCC is accepting public input on whether or not they should reverse their decision and restore protections against text message blocking — but the deadline for comments is Tuesday, April 2nd. Unless Congress steps in with legislation to overturn the FCC, flooding the FCC with comments is our best shot at convincing the agency to overturn their terrible decision.

Click here to tell the FCC to stop cell phone companies from blocking our text messages before Tuesday’s deadline.

The risks here aren’t just hypothetical. In January, Verizon nearly shut down a free texting app used by schools and community groups after threatening the app with new fees nearly 11 times higher than what they were already paying. And in 2007, action alert texts from NARAL were blocked because Verizon deemed their messages “controversial.”

This is why the experts at Public Knowledge have long called for SMS text messages to be classified as a “Title II” telecommunications services so they can enjoy net neutrality-like protections against blocking by cell phone carriers. This would make it so that when you send a text message, you don’t have to worry about whether your phone company will block it from being delivered. Seems simple, right?

Giving telecom providers these powers is a gross violation of our rights. Just imagine how this could be used to silence or shakedown anybody who relies on text messages to communicate. Cell phone users should not have their messages blocked because a telecom company disagrees with their point of view or wants to make more money off of them.

Consider taking a second to send the FCC a comment asking them to reverse their bad decision before Tuesday’s deadline.

If enough people weigh in, there’s a chance we can convince the agency to reverse its course. If not, we can use our numbers to show Congress–who is ultimately responsible for the FCC–that their constituents need them to step in and set this right.

Like clockwork, Comcast-backed members of Congress on the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology have introduced a slew of terrible amendments that would completely gut the Save the Internet Act (HR 1644) and derail our best chance to restore the net neutrality protections that Ajit Pai’s FCC repealed in 2017.

We can stop these trojan horse amendments, but we need to show the members of the committee that THE WHOLE INTERNET IS WATCHING. So click here to watch the livestream and contact your representatives.

The Save the Internet Act is the only real net neutrality bill in Congress. It’s less than 3 pages long, and it basically says “We Congress hereby tell Ajit Pai to shove it and restore the net neutrality protections he killed.”

Since the bill is so simple and easy to understand, telecom lobbyists have resorted to trying to kill it by punching it full of holes with bad amendments. Here’s a quick summary of what they’re trying:

Three of the amendments would completely replace the text of the Save the Internet Act with one of the free FAKE net neutrality bills introduced last month, essentially replacing a bill that restores net neutrality with one that destroys it.

* One amendment would kneecap the FCC’s ability to provide meaningful oversight of ISP price gouging and monopoly behavior (like throttling firefighters when they reach their data cap), leaving broadband customers vulnerable to getting screwed over more than we already are

* One amendment would attempt to create a carveout for “small ISPs,” which sounds nice on the surface, but it’s actually intended to undermine the overall protections in the bill and would mean that Internet users in rural areas don’t have the same protections as Internet users in big cities. 

As of this morning, there are still four members of the subcommittee who have not said publicly where they stand on the bill or the push to gut it with amendments. Net neutrality affects every single Internet user, whether you’re a gamer, an activist, a business owner, or an educator. We have a real chance to restore the protections that never should have been taken away, but we need to keep the pressure on and make sure lawmakers know they can’t get away with telecom-sponsored shenanigans.

The stakes are high. If we can get this bill out of committee today without it getting gutted by amendments, we have a really good shot at passing it on the House floor. But if it gets scuttled by lobbyists’ sneak attack, we’re back to square one.