Debra Messing, Stephen Fry, Alyssa Milano, Mark Ruffalo, Arjun Gupta, Lilly Wachowski, Neil Gaiman, Amanda Palmer, Zoe Keating, and more have penned an open letter insisting "countless lives must come before pharmaceutical company profits."

In a new open letter, 70+ creators across the spectrum of the arts are speaking up to support the sharing of lifesaving COVID-19 medical technology such as vaccines, ventilators, and tests with countries around the world. The letter comes during a lobbying blitz aimed to stall World Trade Organization negotiations on a waiver requested by 100+ countries that would allow them to make generic versions of desperately needed medical supplies.

Amid the arguments against sharing essential technologies to fight the pandemic and avoid devastating new virus variants, lobbyists for major creative industries offered a flimsy assertion that the waiver would damage creators’ intellectual property rights. This letter is a firm and clear response from creators themselves against this assertion.

Signatories include actors Debra Messing, Stephen Fry, Alyssa Milano, Mark Ruffalo, and Arjun Gupta; directors Lilly Wachowski and David Wain; Authors Neil Gaiman and Courtney Milan, as well as musicians Amanda Palmer and Zoe Keating. The letter is still accepting signatures at NoCovidInOurName.com

"Sharing life saving technology will not harm musicians, actors, writers, or other creative professionals. In fact, it will save many of us who live in countries throughout the world, while also allowing us to once again travel, perform, and share our creative work with the world. It is absurd that some of the associations that claim to represent creators’ interests are instead fighting for big pharma," the letter reads.

Read the full letter and see the current list of signatories here.

"Lives are at stake," said author @neil-gaiman, a Newbery and Carnegie Medal recipient. "There are no profits that make up for losing our loved ones."

"A global pandemic that happens every 100 years is not a time for business as usual," said Emmy-award winning actress Debra Messing. "The death toll, to date, is beyond catastrophic. We have a moral obligation to make saving lives the primary, the only, consideration."

"Whether it is because you believe in sharing the fruits of science and prosperity with all the human family around the world, or whether it is because you are fearful that the virus’s continued proliferation daily increases its opportunity to mutate into more and more efficient variants, it is surely clear that now is the time for our vaccines and bio-technology to be made available to all nations," said actor Stephen Fry, known for his many roles in celebrated films such as Gosford Park and V for Vendetta.

New York Times bestselling author Courtney Milan addressed the intellectual property concerns directly: "All IP regimes depend on cooperation and buy-in from every stakeholder. IP rights are strengthened by recognition that we must view them in the light that is compatible with saving lives during crisis."

"It’s extremely disturbing to see organizations that purport to represent the interests of creators acting in such stark opposition to the health, safety, and business interests of the entertainment and creative industries," concluded Lia Holland, Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future, one of the organizations that helped to organize the letter. "While pharmaceutical companies stand to profit from desperation-fueled pricing the longer the pandemic stretches, creators can only lose in a world where we can’t gather to enjoy and celebrate their art."

Today, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), along with Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), introduced the Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act, which aims to prohibit online platforms from deploying algorithms that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, ability, and other protected classes, while also seeking greater transparency by requiring more information on how these algorithms work and what information they collect.

Fight for the Future opposes reckless changes to Section 230 that could harm marginalized communities and human rights. We support strong federal data privacy legislation, robust antitrust enforcement, and the restoration of net neutrality. We’ve called for an outright ban on surveillance-based advertising, and immediate industry-wide moratorium on non-transparent forms of algorithmic manipulation of content and newsfeeds. We don’t agree that more aggressive content moderation on its own will address the harms of Big Tech, and we fear that without structural changes, more aggressive platform moderation and content removal will disproportionately harm marginalized people and social movements. 

                                                      ###

Shoppers planning to take advantage of Memorial Day sales should know which stores are using racist, dangerous surveillance technology.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new website and scorecard that tracks whether or not top retailers use, don’t use, or might use facial recognition on people in their stores. Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger, Lowes, and Macy’s are among the stores flagged as using facial recognition on shoppers and workers. Walgreens, McDonald’s, 7-11, and Best Buy are among retailers that have not clarified their policies. Home Depot, Target, Costco, CVS, Dollar Tree, and Verizon confirmed to Fight for the Future that they are not using facial recognition in their stores.

Walmart says it uses the technology to reduce shoplifting. An Albertsons in Albuquerque used facial recognition on a shopper who had allegedly stolen from the store in the past. And Kroger, Lowes, and Macy’s have all faced lawsuits for using facial recognition in stores in Illinois, where the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act makes it illegal to do so without consent.

Screenshot of email Fight for the Future received from Target

Screenshot of email Fight for the Future received from Verizon

"People deserve to know if a store is using invasive and biased surveillance technology to discriminate against customers and employees, and with so many major retailers using or potentially using the technology no one is safe," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), campaign director at Fight for the Future. "It may seem futuristic, but the reality is that stores can track every move you make, sync video with data about your income, past purchases, and other behaviors, then make decisions about how much to charge you, how to treat you, and even whether or not to allow you into the store. These practices are unfair, augment bias, and are an invasion of your privacy."

"Up until this point, stores have tried to keep their use of surveillance technology quiet to avoid public scrutiny. We can’t let this continue under-the-radar any longer. The dangers are too great," added Seeley George.

Over the past year, facial recognition vendors have used the pandemic in an effort to expand use of the technology, calling it a hands-free option for everything from paying for products to taking temperatures. But these sales pitches ignore how the technology causes serious harms: someone who participated in a protest could have their image flagged and be banned from a store; an algorithm could wrongfully accuse a person with a disability of being intoxicated and security could throw that person out of a store; a shopper who relies on SNAP could be flagged as low priority for customer support; a worker could be tracked all day and be disciplined for taking too many bathroom breaks; a store could voluntarily hand all of this data over to government entities like ICE.

In fact, according to Senator Ron Wyden, the Pentagon is already using surveillance data purchased from corporations to evade warrant requirements. Facial recognition systems used by police around the country have led to false arrests of Black people, and disabled students have been sounding the alarm about discriminatory biometric monitoring in education throughout the pandemic. Last year, Portland, Oregon, became the first city in the country to ban commercial use of facial recognition in places of public accommodation, with one City Commissioner stating: "1984 by George Orwell is a dystopian novel, not a business plan."

Fight for the Future demands that retailers using facial recognition stop immediately, and is calling on lawmakers to pass legislation that bans stores and other corporations from using facial recognition.

"Retailers that value equity, racial and disability justice, privacy, and the constitutional rights of their customers should champion those values," Seeley George concluded. "We highly encourage any retailers who are not using facial recognition to promote their decision both on their front door and online. We applaud retailers who recognize that customers and employees alike cannot meaningfully consent to such voyeuristic practices."

The effort is part of Fight for the Future’s broader BanFacialRecognition.com campaign, which has been endorsed by more than 40 major grassroots civil rights organizations. Fight for the Future has also worked with Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and other musicians to lead a successful campaign to keep facial recognition technology out of US music festivals. The group also worked with Students for Sensible Drug Policy to get more than 60 prominent colleges and universities to confirm they won’t use facial recognition on campus. Fight for the Future is calling for legislation at the local, state, and federal levels to ban facial recognition use by police, government, and corporate/private entities.

####

No matter what the courts decide, we need to end app store monopolies in order to protect human rights and freedom of expression around the globe

Today marks the end of the high profile court battle between Epic and Apple. But while the trial has often been framed as a spat between two large companies, the overall debate over Apple’s app store monopoly has enormous implications for human rights, freedom of expression, and the future of technology. 

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in human history against SOPA/PIPA and in defense of net neutrality, as well as nationwide protests opposing the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to weaken its encryption on iPhones, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to the groups Director, Evan Greer (she/her):

When you buy a phone, it’s your phone. You should be able to install whatever software you want on it. That’s just common sense. But the app store monopoly is not just a consumer issue, it’s a human rights issue. 

Apple’s stranglehold over what software can run on more than 1 billion people’s phones creates a choke point that authoritarian regimes have repeatedly abused to censor apps used by protesters, journalists, and marginalized groups like LGBTQ folks and religious minorities.

The reality is that the Epic vs Apple case is not going to solve this problem, no matter what the judge decides. We need to build a mass movement that forces Apple to end its draconian policy against allowing people to "side-load" whatever software they want onto devices that they own. And we need to demand strong Federal data privacy legislation and robust antitrust enforcement not just focused on Apple, but other Big Tech giants like Facebook, Google, and Amazon. 

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, we will continue fighting to ensure that the future of technology is based on openness and basic rights, rather than walled gardens, government censorship, and corporate greed.

Fight for the Future is behind AbolishTheAppStore.org, a campaign calling on Apple to end its app store monopoly and allow iPhone users to install whatever apps they want, including alternative app stores. The group also issued a joint-statement with China-based anti-censorship organization Great Fire, explaining how Apple’s restrictive app store policies have enabled government censorship and undermined human rights.

###

This week Amazon Publishing announced its first-ever deal to allow public libraries the ability to lend a small selection of ebooks and audiobooks from their imprints. For years, Amazon has banned libraries from accessing every digital book it controls, despite outcry from activists, librarians, and authors. This crack in the armor of Amazon’s mission to "turn the library card into a credit card" is proof that organizing works, even against the goliath of Amazon’s monopoly.

When we first heard that Amazon had stopped stonewalling public libraries, we were excited by the victory—but then we learned more. Nothing has changed in the struggle for equity in e- and audio- book distribution except that Amazon has found "a clever way for Amazon to counter criticism over its refusal to work with libraries thus far without getting in too deep." We do not even need to update our website WhoCanGetYourBook.com because tens to hundreds of thousands of digital books, including titles by Trevor Noah and Michael Pollan, are still blocked for public libraries.

The thing is, Amazon is such a monopoly that when in this instance they say "ebooks" and "audiobooks" they don’t mean the 40,000+ Audible Original audiobooks that they won’t let libraries touch, or the untold thousands of works that are self-published exclusively for readers who pay Kindle. They are referring to the approximately 10,000 titles that Amazon Publishing imprints like Thomas & Mercer, Montlake, and 47North have acquired—a sliver of the works that publishing activists are fighting for equitable access to.

And what’s worse—Amazon isn’t allowing libraries to actually purchase these e- and audio- books. They are only on loan to libraries through restrictive licensing agreements that are meant to extract taxpayer money from public institutions over and over. Amazon can revoke access, change the price, or delete a book they don’t like from existence at any time, as they did with Orwell’s 1984 in 2009. When it comes to Amazon’s digital books, the corporation remains in ultimate control of what’s available at the public library. And without the ability to own digital books, libraries cannot perform essential functions for our society such as preservation, accessibility, and stable collection development.

One win that advocates can truly celebrate in this deal, however, is that these e- and audio- books will not be used by Amazon to spy on library patrons. The Digital Public Library of America cut a licensing deal that shields library patrons from Amazon’s prying eyes by keeping all patron data within their app—as opposed to letting Amazon slurp up all the data of public library patrons who opt to read an ebook on Kindle.

With this deal, Amazon could have pioneered equitable access to all their digital books. Instead they’re just slinking a small portion of the books they control into line with a terrible status quo. But those who are fighting for the future of public libraries can still take heart—this deal shows us that Amazon is feeling the pressure of activists, authors, and librarians. We will continue to demand terms for public libraries that are truly worth celebrating: the right to own and preserve all digital books just like paper books.

This statement can be attributed to Lia Holland (she/they), Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future.

When we first heard that Amazon had stopped stonewalling public libraries, we were excited by the victory—but then we learned more. Nothing has changed in the struggle for equity in e- and audio- book distribution except that Amazon has found "a clever way for Amazon to counter criticism over its refusal to work with libraries thus far without getting in too deep." We do not even need to update our website WhoCanGetYourBook.com because tens to hundreds of thousands of digital books, including titles by Trevor Noah and Michael Pollan, are still blocked for public libraries.

The thing is, Amazon is such a monopoly that when in this instance they say "ebooks" and "audiobooks" they don’t mean the 40,000+ Audible Original audiobooks that they won’t let libraries touch, or the untold thousands of works that are self-published exclusively for readers who pay Kindle. They are referring to the approximately 10,000 titles that Amazon Publishing imprints like Thomas & Mercer, Montlake, and 47North have acquired—a sliver of the works that publishing activists are fighting for equitable access to.

And what’s worse—Amazon isn’t allowing libraries to actually purchase these e- and audio- books. They are only on loan to libraries through restrictive licensing agreements that are meant to extract taxpayer money from public institutions over and over. Amazon can revoke access, change the price, or delete a book they don’t like from existence at any time, as they did with Orwell’s 1984 in 2009. When it comes to Amazon’s digital books, the corporation remains in ultimate control of what’s available at the public library. And without the ability to own digital books, libraries cannot perform essential functions for our society such as preservation, accessibility, and stable collection development.

One win that advocates can truly celebrate in this deal, however, is that these e- and audio- books will not be used by Amazon to spy on library patrons. The Digital Public Library of America cut a licensing deal that shields library patrons from Amazon’s prying eyes by keeping all patron data within their app—as opposed to letting Amazon slurp up all the data of public library patrons who opt to read an ebook on Kindle.

With this deal, Amazon could have pioneered equitable access to all their digital books. Instead they’re just slinking a small portion of the books they control into line with a terrible status quo. But those who are fighting for the future of public libraries can still take heart—this deal shows us that Amazon is feeling the pressure of activists, authors, and librarians. We will continue to demand terms for public libraries that are truly worth celebrating: the right to own and preserve all digital books just like paper books.

Following the Israeli military’s bombing of offices of international press outlets including the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, an effort has emerged in Congress to block a planned $735 million weapons sale to the Israeli government, led by Reps Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). But realistically for the effort to move forward, it would need the support of the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair by Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY). 

Today, human rights and press freedom organizations Fight for the Future, Freedom of the Press Foundation, MediaJustice, MPower Change, and National Lawyers Guild issued the following joint statement: 

Freedom of the press is an essential human right. The Israeli military’s bombing of international press offices actively interfered with the ability of journalists to document the situation on the ground in Gaza, including their ability to document human rights abuses and potential war crimes. Especially in light of numerous reports of social media censorship targeting Palestinians, it’s crucial that reporters in Gaza are able to do their jobs safely and without military interference. 

The U.S. government should not be selling weapons to a government that has shown repeatedly it will use them to attack media outlets and journalists. As Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep Gregory Meeks must allow a vote on the proposal to halt the arms deal. If he fails to do so, he’s actively working against freedom of the press, democracy, and human rights around the globe.

On May 4, 2021, Fight for the Future joined Access Now, Union of Musicians and Allied Workers, as well as a global coalition of more than 180 artists, human rights organizations, and musicians, to send a letter to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek. The letter called on the music streaming giant to make a public commitment to never use, license, sell, or monetize its new speech-recognition patent technology.

The signers of the letter, which includes organizations like Amnesty International and Color of Change along with musicians like Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Laura Jane Grace, Sadie Dupuis, and Talib Kwelil gave Spotify until May 18th, two business weeks, to respond. So far the company and its CEO have failed to respond or even acknowledge the letter, beyond pointing reporters to a previous statement they issued, which fails to meet our demands.

"Ignoring a letter like this from human rights groups and artists is completely unacceptable" said Evan Greer (she/they), a musician who signed the letter, and the director of Fight for the Future. "Spotify claimed that they have no plans to implement this incredibly harmful surveillance technology, but when we asked them to publicly commit to that, they’ve gone silent. It seems their billionaire CEO Daniel Ek is too busy (not) buying a sports team to respond to the concerns of artists who have literally billions of streams on his platform and prominent privacy and civil rights groups from around the world. Spotify must completely and publicly reject the premise of this technology and commit to never using, licensing, selling, or monetizing their speech recognition patent."

"Spotify’s radio silence makes you wonder whether they plan to profit off the dangerous technology they developed," said Jennifer Brody (she/her), U.S. Advocacy Manager at Access Now. "The global digital rights community is deeply concerned about the proliferation of tech that claims to be able to detect emotion and gender. We are disappointed that Spotify has stopped engaging, yet we will continue to call on the company to do the right thing and abandon the harmful tool."

Tom Morello (he/him), guitarist of Rage Against the Machine signed the letter and said, "You can’t rock out when you’re under constant corporate surveillance. Spotify needs to drop this right now and do right by musicians, music fans, and all music workers.”

Sadie Dupuis (she/her) of Speedy Ortiz and Sad13, and a member of the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers, said “Instead of wasting money developing creepy surveillance software, Spotify should be focused on paying artists a penny per stream and being more transparent about the data they’re already collecting on all of us.”

Access Now and Fight for the Future organized the letter, signed by human rights groups including Amnesty International, Color of Change, Mijente, Derechos Digitales, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Musicians signing include Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Talib Kweli, Laura Jane Grace (Against Me!), of Montreal, Sadie Dupuis (Speedy Ortiz, Sad13), DIIV, Eve 6, Ted Leo, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Downtown Boys, Anjimile, illuminati hotties, Mirah Yom Tov Zeitlyn, The Blow, AJJ, Kimya Dawson, and more.

The groups and artists behind the letter plan to continue escalating efforts to pressure Spotify.

The first mass mobilization of parents to raise awareness and demand real online protections for their kids launched this morning, with parents joining forces in an unprecedented campaign to end child surveillance. The privacy-first demands of EndChildSurveillance.com are backed by stories of harm from parents in the US.

Parents are sharing stories about youtube recommending videos to six year olds that tell them to kill themselves with a kitchen knife; invasive educational tools failing to recognize their child’s face; school systems spending millions of dollars on racially biased security systems that misidentify Black people at much higher rates, and more. These stories add to the grim picture of the digital lives of children in the US today—where surveillance capitalist business models force kids to endure harmful exploitation and manipulation so that tech companies can pad their bottom line.

For years, digital rights groups sounded the alarm on the exploitation of vulnerable people’s private data online. Now, with the children’s ad market valued at $1.7 billion, 67% of Google Play apps for kids under 5 giving away data to third party advertisers, and Facebook allowing advertisers to market pill parties and anorexia to teens as recently as this month, parents have had enough.

"Parents across the country are worried that their kids’ information is insidiously being used by big tech companies to make a profit. These companies are purposefully designing their platforms to addict children, collect their private information, and sell access to them," said Justin Ruben (he/him), co-Director of ParentsTogether Action. "From exposing our children to inappropriate content to handing their information over to unscrupulous advertisers, tech companies have shown that there are no limits to what they will do to make money."

At EndChildSurveillance.com, parents will find an explainer video as well as a breakdown of the four pillars of child surveillance, based on the demands of the Stop Spying On Kids letter released by 18 human & digital rights groups earlier this year. Parents can learn more and take action by signing a variety of petitions to Congress and Big Tech companies like YouTube—laying the foundation for escalating actions in the fight to protect kids from Big Tech’s harmful surveillance business model.

"The way these companies manipulate and exploit children is a human rights disaster," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns & Communications Director at digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future, which is helping to organize the campaign. "No one should be able to search ‘TikTok account of insecure girl under 12 with red hair who just did bad on her english test and walks down a street near me alone at the same time every school day’—but these companies are collecting all of that data without anyone’s consent right now. And we have no idea what they’re doing with it. All these databases are vulnerable to hackers—if child data isn’t outright sold to literally anyone who can pay. Most kids in this country cannot learn, cannot communicate with their friends and family, cannot even walk down the street without data about them being harvested and logged forever."

Under constant surveillance and manipulation from advertisers and educational tech companies, children’s mental health is also suffering. Black kids are often misidentified or ignored by ‘snake oil’ school surveillance tech, while others are being served social media ads that prey upon their insecurities. All kids are being harmed. EndChildSurveillance.com calls for a ban on addictive apps, a ban on voyeuristic advertising, the end of educational stalkerware, and a hard stop on the chronic surveillance of children.

Renee Cheatham (she/her), is part of a lawsuit against the Lockport school district for installing an expensive, flawed, and racially biased facial recognition biometric surveillance system at her son’s school. "I send my son to school to learn and to be in a safe environment for learning—but he feels like he’s in prison, under a lens of toxic surveillance that is wasting taxpayer money on fake solutions that misidentify people and retired police officers that want to carry loaded guns. This is a serious safety issue for our children, Black and brown kids are under attack. We need restorative justice in this Lockport community, not some surveillance system ramping the school to prison pipeline again in our schools. It all ties together."

Dr. Janice Wyatt-Ross Ed.D (she/her) is speaking out after her daughter was required to use a stalkerware-like eproctoring app, Proctorio, at her school: "My daughter Amaya could not easily sit down to take a biology quiz like her White classmates because proctoring software would not "recognize" her as a person. She took the test at noon with sunlight streaming through her window, and turned on all the lights in her room. It still didn’t work. She tried 10 times. She literally had to shine an LED flashlight in her face before the software would allow her to take the quiz. This type of bias piles additional stress and anxiety onto kids of color who are already dealing with the challenges of remote learning, and it tells them they don’t belong."

Courtney, a parent in Columbus, OH who preferred that their last name not be used, reached out to Parents Together with the following story of addictive apps recommending harmful content: "My 6-year-old daughter was watching an innocent-looking Roblox video on YouTube Kids. Then at one point it was saying "kill yourself" and "get the knives” I locked up our knives because I was afraid. I don’t trust YouTube."

Amanda, a parent in Gilbert, LA who preferred that their last name not be used, shared the following story about voyeuristic advertising preying on their daughter: "My 11 yr old daughter has been watching TikTok and using SnapChat for a while…She has recently shown signs of being depressed and I honestly believe it’s due to watching all the different things people post on social media. She even opened a secret account where she gained thousands of followers and almost a million views on this account dedicated to being sad and depressed. We have since blocked all social media apps from her phone."

Parents will be sharing stories like these with the press in support of the campaign to end child surveillance this Thursday May 20th at 9 am ET on Fight for the Future’s livestream.

"The internet and technology are so big and fast-paced, the only meaningful way to defend children online is to put digital privacy first. We need to make it so that tech companies can’t make money off of exploiting children, and reduce the data-stalking of everyone in the process," Holland continued. "Investors profit when parents believe that more surveillance and more data makes kids safer. It is time to reject this lie. Big Tech companies want their next generation of customers to be fully addicted, surveilled, and exploited from cradle to grave. Unless something changes, that’s exactly what they will have. Data on kids is the new oil until our legislators say otherwise."

In a Friday night news dump, President Joe Biden revoked that executive order. But we remain concerned about increasing misguided attacks on Section 230 from both Democrats and Republicans.

"President Trump’s executive order to blow up Section 230 and put the government in charge of speech on the Internet was deeply silly and blatantly violated the First Amendment,” said Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight for the Future, “but it was just one among a series of attacks that have continued against Section 230, from both sides of the aisle. Misguided directives, whether they come in the form of Executive Orders from President Biden directly or from Congress, have the dangerous potential to stifle human rights and online free expression by enabling censorship of legitimate content and make it harder for platforms to remove harmful (but not illegal) content – thus making all bad parts of the Internet worse while burning the good parts to the ground."

After the Executive Order, Fight for the Future released a campaign, https://www.saveonlinefreespeech.org, which allowed visitors to easily submit a comment to the FCC opposing the executive order and similarly misguided proposals to gut Section 230, by filling out a form and selecting from a dropdown menu of humorous adjectives describing the order, such as "ass-backwards,” “despicable,” and “legally unsound.” The comments were submitted directly to the FCC’s public docket, which so far has been mostly filled with nonsense, including identical astroturf comments backed by AT&T –– some that still include boilerplate “XYZ group” language –– and hundreds of comments from an anti-LGBTQ hate group backing the executive order.

Fight for the Future also led a campaign to release a letter along with 70+ other human rights and social justice groups opposing repeal of or overbroad changes to Section 230, addressed to the Biden/Harris administration. Some of these groups included Access Now, Data for Black Lives, Muslim Justice League, Sex Workers Outreach Project, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

Fight for the Future opposes reckless changes to Section 230 that could harm marginalized communities and human rights. We support strong Federal data privacy legislation, robust antitrust enforcement, the restoration of net neutrality. We’ve called for an outright ban on surveillance-based advertising, and immediate industry-wide moratorium on non-transparent forms of algorithmic manipulation of content and newsfeeds. We don’t agree that more aggressive content moderation on its own will address the harms of Big Tech, and we fear that without structural changes, more aggressive platform moderation and content removal will disproportionately harm marginalized people and social movements. 

###

Bombshell after bombshell dropped from the lips of Apple’s representatives during the first week of the trial between Epic and Apple—exposing a human rights disaster shrouded in security theater. Apple’s testimony has been revelatory in terms of the company’s eagerness to accede to authoritarian and corporate interests, complete disregard for meaningful review of apps submitted to their store, and in terms of the concrete numbers on massive security breaches that affected millions of people.

Apple’s willingness to censor apps on behalf of authoritarian governments has been well-documented, and enables human rights abuses around the world. This week, they unsuccessfully argued that their walled garden approach provides security and quality of experience to their customers. Unfortunately, Apple’s power to unilaterally censor human rights tools is one of the worst manifestations of their monopoly. Far from keeping customers safe, Apple is putting people in harm’s way by denying them modern tools of resistance and safety. 

During the trial, Apple posited that customers who are dissatisfied with the App Store can just get a new device. That is a deeply privileged perspective. iOS customers invest a significant amount of money in hardware and software, in addition to time and effort to learn how to use their devices. Leaving Apple’s ecosystem comes at prohibitive cost for many. A significant number of people who would like the freedom of choice that comes with other vendors are trapped in their costly iOS investment.

The choice to leave the App Store is fiscally impossible for developers as well—for many, leaving the App Store means renouncing their main source of revenue. Apple’s monopoly works against the creative freedom of developers by being the only meaningful option available.

Unfortunately, despite their massively profitable monopoly, Apple is unable to keep up with even the most basic review of apps submitted for their store. App Store reviewers are not required to have substantive technical skill, and yet are the only safeguard between malicious apps and over a billion people. Apple’s 500-person review team must process 100,000 apps per week—an astronomical amount that truly demonstrates the fallacy of their walled garden approach. 

Just because the Apple review team verifies that an app launches without crashing does not mean it is safe from security breaches, frauds, and scams. On the stand, Apple’s own security professionals admitted that the company’s app review process would not deter a sophisticated attacker, and listed multiple examples of approved apps that not only defrauded users, but posed grave health dangers. These harms are happening to millions of users.

During this first week of trial, Apple admitted the stunning full extent of a 2015 XcodeGhost malware attack that infected 2,500+ apps on the App Store. Over 128 million customers were affected: 70 million in China, and 18 million in the US. 

The App Store is pure security theater that only creates a false sense of safety among people who use it. The iOS operating system, just like the operating system of any other digital device, is what ultimately determines customer safety. This is why Apple’s walled garden doesn’t extend to Mac laptop users. Apple’s primary argument for the App Store is hollow.

Through the process of the US legal system, we have definitively learned that the App Store is not, as its website says, "designed to be a safe and trusted place for users to discover apps created by talented developers around the world," and that some things, such as profit, are indeed "more important than maintaining users’ trust."

In his testimony last Monday, economist David Evans noted that Apple’s App Store profits are "vastly higher" than most online stores. We have been giving Apple the power to decide what news we read, what shows we watch, what games we play, and what digital tools we use for too long—all while contributing to Apple’s astronomical profits. It is time to end Apple’s monopoly and reclaim our freedoms and fundamental rights. 

"None of Apple’s attempts to convince us that they act fairly in a highly competitive environment can pass scrutiny," added Benjamin Ismail, of GreatFire’s AppleCensorship.com project. "Apple’s behavior is authoritarian and one only needs to read the App Store review guidelines to see the company’s claims itself. There is no competition between Apple and other companies when it comes to the App Store. Apple owns the App Store, which is the only marketplace for iOS devices, and exercises its right to life and death over apps, sometimes to axe a competitor and others to please repressive regimes. In the latter cases, Apple’s right might literally become one of life and death when applied to Chinese activists, which is terrifying but first and foremost intolerable".    

"When one of the largest companies in the world is abusing one billion people and a whole ecosystem of creators, no one should tell people to ‘just buy a new phone,’" added Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director with Fight for the Future. "Big Tech companies have been allowed to reap unfathomable profits by decimating human rights and exploiting creative people. A whole generation of innovators who grew up on inspiring stories of how Steve Jobs thought outside the box are being denied the right to do so themselves—and a whole generation of activists in authoritarian countries are being harmed in the name of eking out even more profit. Apple’s security charade has gone on for far too long."

"This issue has largely been portrayed as a spat between big companies: mobile giants like Apple and Google vs app giants like Epic and Spotify", said Evan Greer, Deputy Director at Fight for the Future (she/her). "But this issue is much bigger than that: it’s about whether the future of technology is open and accessible or locked down into walled gardens that benefit incumbents and elites. Apple’s stranglehold over what software can run on iPhones creates a choke point that governments have used to crack down on political dissent, target marginalized people like LGBTQ folks, and worse. App store monopolies aren’t just a competition issue, they’re a human rights issue."

The FCC should also move immediately to restore net neutrality

The New York Attorney General’s office has announced that after a multi-year investigation they now have proof that the nation’s largest broadband companies funded a massive campaign of fraud that flooded the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with fake comments using stolen names and addresses in an attempt to influence the agency’s net neutrality proceeding. Broadband for America and its Big Telecom members are also implicated in funding more than 500,000 fake emails to Congress that attempted to create the appearance of public support for the repeal of net neutrality. 

The investigation began after Fight for the Future first uncovered the slew of suspicious-looking comments back in 2017. We published a blog post detailing our findings that led to multiple media investigations, and built Comcastroturf.com, a tool that allowed Internet users to check whether their personal information had been stolen and used to submit a fake comment to the FCC opposing net neutrality. Comcast sent us a cease and desist notice in an attempt to censor the site. We fought it and won. 

We organized a letter to Ajit Pai from dozens of people who had had their names and addresses stolen and used to submit fraudulent comments that they did not agree with, and a petition from more than 15,000 people calling on the FCC to investigate the fraud. One of our campaigners even rode her bike around the Tampa area knocking on doors of people we suspected may have been impersonated. We located and communicated with multiple people who were outraged to find that their deceased family members names and addresses had been used to submit fake comments. We called on Congress to investigate, leading to multiple bipartisan letters, and sparking a Government Accountability Office review. 

Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to director Evan Greer (she/her), who also posted a lengthy twitter thread on the issue:

As the first organization to uncover these fraudulent comments and call for them to be investigated, we are not at all surprised to learn that this criminal activity was funded by the very same Big Cable companies that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against and spreading lies about net neutrality. No wonder Comcast was so worried about the Comcastroturf.com tool we built to help expose this fraud that they sent us a cease and desist notice about it.

The first thing that should happen is for the FCC to immediately reverse the fraudulent and unpopular repeal of net neutrality, given that we now know the process was irrefutably tainted by a corporate funded fraud campaign. But the executives of the companies who funded this illegal influence campaign should be facing criminal charges. The New York Attorney General found that telecom higher-ups had multiple "red flags" that the improbable flood of comments they were generating at an implausibly low cost were fraudulent—including news coverage, objections from one of their own vendors, and complaints from the victims themselves—and yet they continued to fund these operations. According to the report, one of the executives involved was himself a former FCC commissioner.

And fraudulent comments were only the tip of the iceberg: given today’s reporting, it certainly seems like the most likely source of funding for the "Dark Basin" cyberattack by a hacker-for-hire firm in India*—which targeted our organization and other net neutrality advocates with a sustained and sophisticated phishing campaign—is the same constellation of unprincipled lobbyists and unsupervised contractors. We call for a full investigation into whether they were hired or funded by Broadband for America or an individual telecom company.

To not hold these corporations, executives, and former high-ranking public officials accountable for this blatant attack on the democratic process would be an outrage. It would be a green light for the rich and powerful to fund criminal activity in order to achieve their political goals against the will of the people. We believe the people who committed this crime, and those who funded it, should face criminal charges. This is white collar crime in its most dangerous form, because it affects the functioning of democracy itself. If our laws are not sufficient, Congress should strengthen them. And in the meantime, these executives should be fired, and lawmakers should investigate whether Ajit Pai or any other public officials had knowledge of their crimes.

Net neutrality is one of the most popular pieces of public policy of the last century. If there’s one thing everyone can agree on it’s that we don’t want our cable and phone companies controlling what we can see and do on the Internet, or screwing us over more than they already do. It’s no wonder Big Telecom had to resort to funding criminal activity to create phony opposition. Fortunately, it seems their money will have been wasted. We’re going to restore net neutrality, and they’re going to lose.

###

Facebook’s surveillance capitalist business model is fundamentally incompatible with human rights. And its monopoly power is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and freedom of expression. When we focus on these individual, high profile moderation decisions like the Trump ban, we are utterly missing the point. Big Tech’s harms are rooted in their practices of data harvesting and algorithmic manipulation. The vast majority of people who are silenced by Big Tech platform censorship are not former Presidents or celebrities, they are marginalized people, particularly sex workers and politically active Muslims who live outside the U.S. We can go back and forth all day about where the lines should be drawn, but simply demanding more and faster removal of content will not address the very real harms we are seeing. It’s quite telling that Facebook refused to answer several of the Oversight Board’s questions about its algorithms and actual design decisions. We need to strike at the root of the problem: break Big Tech giants, ban surveillance advertising and non-transparent algorithmic manipulation, and fight for policies that address this parasitic business model while preserving the transformative and democratizing power of the Internet as a powerful tool for social movements working for justice and liberation.

Facebook is actively trying to solidify its monopoly power by pushing for false solutions, like weak privacy legislation that protects their data harvesting business model, and changes to Section 230 that would be devastating for freedom of expression while crushing Facebook’s competition from smaller companies and websites. It’s more important than ever that we look at issues like content moderation and platform power in an intersectional way. The most dangerous thing that could happen right now is if the public accepts the idea that lawmakers should just do "something, anything" about Big Tech. We need thoughtful policies that actually address harms, not more partisan dunking and working of the refs.”

Fight for the Future opposes reckless changes to Section 230 that could harm marginalized communities and human rights. We support strong Federal data privacy legislation, robust antitrust enforcement, the restoration of net neutrality. We’ve called for an outright ban on surveillance-based advertising, and immediate industry-wide moratorium on non-transparent forms of algorithmic manipulation of content and newsfeeds. We don’t agree that more aggressive content moderation on its own will address the harms of Big Tech, and we fear that without structural changes, more aggressive platform moderation and content removal will disproportionately harm marginalized people and social movements. 

###

Today, Access Now, Fight for the Future, Union of Musicians and Allied Workers, and a coalition of over 180 musicians and human rights organizations from around the world sent a letter to Spotify calling on the company to make a public commitment to never use, license, sell, or monetize its speech-recognition patent technology.

Spotify claims that the technology can detect, among other things, "emotional state, gender, age, or accent" to recommend music. This technology is dangerous, a violation of privacy and other human rights, and should not be implemented by Spotify or any other company.

On April 2, 2021, Access Now sent a letter to Spotify calling on the company to abandon the technology in the patent. On April 15, 2021, Spotify replied to Access Now’s letter, stating that the company "has never implemented the technology described in the patent in any of our products and we have no plans to do so." 

While the coalition is pleased to hear that Spotify has no current plans to deploy the technology, it begs the question: why was Spotify ever exploring its use? Even if Spotify doesn’t use the technology, the company could profit from the surveillance tool if another entity deploys it. Any use of this technology is unacceptable.

The artists and organizations signing the letter write: "Spotify claims that the technology can detect, among other things, "emotional state, gender, age, or accent" to recommend music. This recommendation technology is dangerous, a violation of privacy and other human rights, and should not be implemented by Spotify or any other company."

"Claiming to be able to infer someone’s taste in music based on their accent or detect their gender based on the sound of their voice is racist, transphobic, and just plain creepy," said Evan Greer (she/they), a musician who signed the letter and the director of Fight for the Future, "It’s not enough for Spotify to say they’re not planning on using this patent right now, they need to commit to killing this plan entirely. They should be focused on paying artists fairly and transparently instead of developing dystopian surveillance tech."

Tom Morello (he/him), guitarist of Rage Against the Machine signed the letter and said, "You can’t rock out when you’re under constant corporate surveillance. Spotify needs to drop this right now and do right by musicians, music fans, and all music workers."

Sadie Dupuis (she/her) of Speedy Ortiz and Sad13, and a member of the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers, said "Instead of wasting money developing creepy surveillance software, Spotify should be focused on paying artists a penny per stream and being more transparent about the data they’re already collecting on all of us."

"Spotify’s claim that they have no plans to deploy its dangerously invasive tech is largely smoke and mirrors," said Jennifer Brody (she/her/hers), U.S. Advocacy Manager at Access Now. "If the company actually wants to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights, Spotify must publicly declare to never use, license, sell, or monetize its harmful spyware."

"An assurance that Spotify currently isn’t planning to use this invasive and frightening technology isn’t enough. In the interest of serving ads and making the platform more addictive, they filed a patent to specifically surveil and discriminate by gender, age, accents, and more. Spotify must completely reject the premise of this technology and commit to never using, licensing, selling, or monetizing their speech recognition patent," said Lia Holland (she/they), Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future. "Our global coalition of artists, performers, and organizations are disgusted and disturbed by surveillance capitalism and the abusive business models it perpetuates. Spotify must close the door on speech recognition and throw away the key.”

Access Now and Fight for the Future organized the letter, signed by human rights groups including Amnesty International, Color of Change, Mijente, Derechos Digitales, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. 

Musicians signing include Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Talib Kweli, Laura Jane Grace (Against Me!), of Montreal, Sadie Dupuis (Speedy Ortiz, Sad13), DIIV, Eve 6, Ted Leo, Anti-Flag, Atmosphere, Downtown Boys, Anjimile, illuminati hotties, Mirah Yom Tov Zeitlyn, The Blow, AJJ, Kimya Dawson, and Evan Greer, who helped launch the StopSpotifySurveillance.org campaign with the music video for the song "Surveillance Capitalism."

###

Basic human rights and meaningful safety reforms for our digital devices are at stake as two tech industry behemoths wage a legal war over the nuances of digital payment systems

On Monday a California court will hear opening arguments from video game developer Epic Games, creator of Fortnite, and Silicon Valley giant Apple. The impact of the court’s ruling will have a profound impact on what freedoms and protections people are allowed for the technology products they own, such as their smartphones.

"What you choose to put on your phone is your business, plain and simple," said Dayton Young (he/him), Product Director at Fight for the Future. "When we allow Apple to completely control every app that we install on our iPhones and iPads, we are giving Apple the power to decide what news we read, what shows we watch, what games we play, and what digital tools we use. Time and again, Apple has proven that they are willing to censor pro-democracy content, appease authoritarian governments, and trample on our basic human rights for profit. It is simply too dangerous to let them continue to hold monopoly power over the App Store."

Apple currently forces iPhone owners to install software exclusively through the iOS App Store. Apple says that this is to protect iPhone owners from malicious apps and spyware, but that argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny; security overview of iPhone apps is infamously superficial. Meanwhile, Apple Mac owners are free to install any apps or software they want. So either Apple is lying about iPhone security to protect their cut of all app sales and in-app purchases, or Apple is intentionally selling millions of Mac computers that leave customers vulnerable to hacking and malware.

Notably, Apple’s "walled garden" approach to app installation hasn’t kept the App Store from being overrun by fake apps and multimillion-dollar scams. That’s because Apple employees charged with reviewing apps reportedly review between 50 to 100 apps per day, spending as little as one minute to determine whether an app is appropriate for iTunes. Apple’s argument that App Store review is necessary for security is simply dishonest and endangers people with the false perception of safety.

"App Store review is security theater," said Ken Mickles (he/him), Chief Technology Officer at Fight for the Future. "You can’t tell if an app is malicious by poking at its user interface for 5 minutes. iPhone security comes down to sandboxing and app notarization, neither of which depend on the App Store."

Even worse, Apple’s complete control over what people install on their personal devices is a disaster for human rights. The App Store monopoly has been co-opted by authoritarian governments to censor important information and attack pro-democracy movements, removing the New York Times from the iOS App Store in China and banning apps made by religious minorities in Pakistan. Here in the US, Apple prevented people with iOS devices from accessing Drone+, a news app that used publicly-available information to notify people every time a drone strike occurs. The list of shocking abuses goes on and on and on.

The digital rights activists at Fight for the Future don’t want to leave this important decision up to the courts, so they’re calling on Congress to pass legislation that will end Apple’s App Store monopoly and ensure people everywhere can install whatever they want on the devices they own. If you’d like to contact your lawmakers in Congress — or if you’d like to learn more about the dangers of Apple’s business model — please visit AbolishTheAppStore.org.

On Wednesday, members of the Senate Judiciary exposed Big Tech’s censorship, digital privacy, and monopoly activities during a lengthy hearing with representatives from Apple and Google. Now human rights organization Fight for the Future is asking everyone to visit www.AbolishTheAppStore.org and demand that Congress pass strong laws to protect the public from further abuse.

"When you buy a phone, it’s your phone," said Evan Greer, Deputy Director at Fight for the Future (she/her). "You should have the basic right to install whatever software you want on it. Period. This issue has largely been portrayed as a spat between big companies: mobile giants like Apple and Google vs app giants like Epic and Spotify. But this issue is much bigger than that: it’s about whether the future of technology is open and accessible or locked down into walled gardens that benefit incumbents and elites. Apple’s stranglehold over what software can run on iPhones creates a choke point that governments have used to crack down on political dissent, target marginalized people like LGBTQ folks, and worse. App store monopolies aren’t just a competition issue, they’re a human rights issue."

In a rare showing of bipartisan consensus, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle condemned Apple and Google for trampling on consumers’ rights in pursuit of greater profits. Sen. John Ossoff (D–GA) pointed out the prevalence of fake reviews and scam apps in the App Store, while Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) attacked Apple for pulling pro-democracy apps from the App Store at the behest of the Chinese government during recent political protests in Hong Kong.

But strong words alone won’t convince Big Tech companies to protect the public from disinformation and manipulation; meaningful legislation is needed. That’s why Fight for the Future has launched a website, www.AbolishTheAppStore.org, which makes it easy for anyone to send a message telling members of Congress to abolish Apple’s App Store monopoly and allow people to load whatever apps they want on the devices they own. 

It’s a seemingly small change … but with big implications. After all, allowing 1 billion iPhone users around the world to decide for themselves what does and doesn’t go on their devices prevents Apple from censoring apps and content. Such a move would also create more competition and undermine monopoly behavior that reinforces the power of Big Tech, like Apple’s 2016 sweetheart deal with Amazon. 

For more information — or to contact your lawmakers — please visit

www.AbolishTheAppStore.org

. 

For years, Apple has maintained monopoly control over the App Store, preventing iOS users from installing software not purchased through the App Store on their iPhones and iPads. But that may be coming to an end, as Congressional lawmakers have begun scrutinizing the Silicon Valley giant’s business practices. 

With the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to hear testimony from tech companies, app developers, and media organizations, digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new website, AbolishTheAppStore.org, to ensure that lawmakers hear from ordinary people who have been impacted by Apple’s monopoly.  

"By centralizing software distribution through the App Store, Apple is upholding the unjust laws of authoritarian regimes and restricting innovation in the mobile software industry," said Ken Mickles, CTO at Fight for the Future (he/him). "We believe that iOS should work like every other general purpose computing system, including Apple’s own MacOS. Developers should be free to create — and users should be free to install — software directly onto the devices that they own without asking for Apple’s permission."

While many of Apple’s competitors — like Google, Microsoft, or Samsung — also engage in various anti-competitive business practices, none of them force customers to purchase or install software exclusively through a proprietary storefront. Even people who own an Apple Mac laptop or desktop computer have the ability to install software from the open web. But not iPhone users. That’s good business for Apple, but it comes at a price; Apple has notoriously cooperated with authoritarian governments to remove apps from the App Store, preventing people around the world from accessing important information about political protests, religion, and LGBT+ topics. 

"If you buy a phone, it’s your phone. You should have the right to install whatever software you want on it," said Evan Greer, Director of Fight for the Future (she/her). "By forcing iOS users to download apps exclusively through the App Store, Apple has created a choke point that governments use to censor political dissidents or discriminate against vulnerable people. Apple has also granted sweetheart deals to companies like Amazon for App Store participation, further empowering Big Tech companies at the expense of small businesses and human rights."

To learn more — or to contact your representatives in Congress in support of a free and fair digital marketplace — please visit AbolishTheAppStore.org

More than 20 civil and human rights organizations are expanding the fight against facial recognition and calling for a ban not only on government and law enforcement use of the technology, but also private and corporate use.

The letter, which highlights recent abuses by corporations including Uber Eats, Amazon, and Apple, states that this technology threatens to suppress workers’ rights to organize, makes frontline workers susceptible to harassment and exploitation, puts personal biometric data in danger, and exacerbates existing biases.

The letter says that "In a world where private companies are already collecting our data, analyzing it, and using it to manipulate us to make a profit, we can’t afford to naively believe that private entities can be trusted with our biometric information. A technology that is inherently unjust, that has the potential to exponentially expand and automate discrimination and human rights violations, and that contributes to an ever growing and inescapable surveillance state is too dangerous to exist."

While the call to ban law enforcement and government use of facial recognition has grown, and lawmakers have banned this use in many cities (and introduced a federal bill), Portland, OR is the only city to ban private use of facial recognition thus far. The organizations point to the Portland legislation as a template for other lawmakers to address the concerns with private and corporate use of the technology, and call on "local, state, and federal elected officials, as well as corporate leaders, to ban the use of facial recognition surveillance by private entities."

"There is zero reason to believe that corporations can use this technology responsibly, especially at a time when these companies are already collecting our data and using it to manipulate us for profit," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Director of Campaigns and Operations at Fight for the Future. "This technology is inherently discriminatory and dangerous, no amount of regulation can address that. In order to protect people in workplaces, stores, restaurants, hospitals, transit and beyond, we must ban it."

"Opt-in consent based regulatory frameworks will not address these harms," added Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director at Fight for the Future. "If employees have to agree to being under constant facial recognition surveillance in order to have a job, that’s not meaningful consent. If a patient has to agree to have their biometric information collected in order to receive care at a hospital, that’s not really consent. Even more innocuous uses, like getting your face scanned to buy a burrito come with significant risks. The vast majority of people have no idea what the dangers of this technology are, and putting the onus on them fails to recognize power imbalances."

"Facial recognition technology poses serious threats to personal freedom. Letting this tool of authoritarian control spread throughout the private sector has serious implications for worker organizing rights and heightens the risk of catastrophic biometric data breaches,"  said Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director at Oakland Privacy. "You can’t replace your face, The troubled record of facial recognition technology in identifying darker skinned people and youth poses severe dangers for people too often criminalized. Facial recognition technology should be put back in the bottle. We don’t need it and the dangers can’t be regulated away."

"Facial recognition being prone to racial bias is not its only problem. If it were 100% accurate, it would be horrifying. If you’re tracked wherever you go, your movements are laid bare for any company or government to exploit. Facial recognition deployments strip away your whole right to be let alone, in the name of more efficient advertising and policing. It’s not worth it,” said Alex Marthews, National Chair of Restore The Fourth.

"Corporate facial recognition fuels racist policing of Black, brown, and immigrant communities," said Aly Panjwani, Policy & Advocacy Manager at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "Facial recognition is biased, broken, and dangerous to the livelihood of working-class people. This technology exists to monitor, exploit, and incarcerate and must be banned."

"The companies that develop and sell facial recognition technology need to recognize and confront its inherent dangers – and they need to stop it now," said Michael Connor, Executive Director of Open MIC, a nonprofit which has organized corporate shareholders to oppose the spread of facial recognition. Connor noted that a shareholder proposal at Amazon highlighting the human rights risks of the company’s facial recognition product won more than 40 percent of the independent shareholder vote at Amazon’s 2020 annual meeting, with yet another vote scheduled at this year’s upcoming 2021 annual meeting.  "Investors increasingly understand the dangers of facial recognition," Connor said. "Managements and boards of directors should take note."

"Facial recognition is one of the most dangerous forms of surveillance ever invented. We know that its use — both by private and government entities — puts Black and brown communities already targeted by state violence at an even higher risk of arrest and incarceration. And we know that it’s already being used to target & silence protesters, deport migrant families, and control and surveil workers by their employers at Amazon warehouses and beyond. It’s clear to us that the dangers this technology poses can’t be “reformed” or “regulated” and we cannot trust tech companies — who are making enormous profits off of this tech — with the surveillance tools they already have. We must ban corporate & private use of facial recognition and fight for a surveillance-free future for all of us,“ added Laura Barrios, Campaign Manager, MPower Change.

"Corporate use of facial recognition will serve as an end-run around bans on government use of the technology and is a profound danger to the public in its own right. Face surveillance is too powerful for any entity to use because it enables widespread and surreptitious tracking of individuals on the back of cheap and omnipresent devices, cameras. The harms of facial recognition, both when it errs and when it is accurate, fall predominantly upon people of color, low-income individuals, and migrants. The use of this technology threatens to turn everyone into a suspect. FRT also permits unprecedented surveillance of workers, both on the job and off the clock. The only responsible step is for corporations to stop using facial recognition," said Jeramie Scott, Senior Counsel and Director of the Surveillance Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"Let’s face it, the new gold standard for corporate power is private data, and owning your face is about as personal as it gets. Furthermore, corporations using facial recognition technology further exacerbates the criminalization of Black and Brown people," said Matt Nelson, Executive Director of Presente.org, the nation’s largest Latinx digital organizing group. "Profiting from a surveillance state is an unethical, dangerous racket and has no place in a future democracy that works for all of us."

The release of this letter comes after a handful of recent cases that highlight the growing problem of facial recognition being used by corporations: the hack of more than 150,000 Verkada security cameras that include facial recognition software and are used in offices, gyms, hospitals, jails, schools, police stations, and more; Disney’s announcement that it will be testing facial recognition at the entrance to the Magic Kingdom, and the incidences with Uber Eats, Apple, and Amazon previously mentioned.

Organizations signed onto the letter include Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Cryptoharlem, Daily Kos, Data for Black Lives, Demand Progress, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Fight for the Future, Greenpeace USA, Massachusetts Jobs with Justice, MediaJustice, Mijente, MPower Change, Muslim Justice League, Oakland Privacy, Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative), Presente.org, Privacy PDX, Public Citizen, RAICES, Restore the Fourth,  RootsAction.org, Secure Justice, S.T.O.P. (Surveillance Technology Oversight Project), and United We Dream.

##############

Cases like this are becoming increasingly prevalent: Amazon delivery drivers now have to  agree to AI surveillance, including facial identification, or else lose their job, and Apple recently banned facial recognition on employees visiting manufacturing sites, but failed to apply this ban to also protect factory workers. This level of surveillance creates many problems, including suppressing worker efforts to organize and engage in collective action. In each of these cases frontline and marginalized workers are being targeted and their safety and rights are being undermined in favor of corporate surveillance, control, and power.

These cases clearly show how private use of facial recognition by corporations, institutions and even individuals poses just as much of a threat to marginalized communities as government use. Corporations are already using facial recognition on workers in hiring, to replace traditional timecards, and to monitor workers’ movements and "productivity"—all of which particularly harm frontline workers and make them susceptible to harassment, exploitation, and put their personal information at risk.

Using biometric surveillance technology in retail stores, hospitals, and healthcare settings, at concerts and sporting events, or in restaurants and bars will exacerbate existing discrimination. In the same way that Black and brown communities are targeted by police, companies can target certain communities with their facial recognition surveillance. A store could use a publicly available mugshot database to ban everyone with a criminal record from the store, which would disproportionately harm Black and brown people who are over-policed and over-represented in these databases. The impact of this would be compounded by the fact that facial recognition is notoriously bad at correctly identifying Black and brown faces. Overall this feeds a system of mass criminalization, where Black and brown people are treated as guilty everywhere they go.

Biometric surveillance is more like lead paint or nuclear weapons than firearms or alcohol. The severity and scale of harm that facial recognition technology can cause requires more than a regulatory framework. The vast majority of uses of this technology, whether by governments, private individuals, or institutions, should be banned. Facial recognition surveillance is inherently discriminatory. It cannot be reformed or regulated; it should be abolished.

In 2020, Portland, OR, passed a groundbreaking ban on private use of facial recognition, which smartly bans use in places of public accommodation as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. We believe this ordinance should be used as a template for more city, state, and federal legislation that bans private and corporate use of facial recognition surveillance. 

In a world where private companies are already collecting our data, analyzing it, and using it to manipulate us to make a profit, we can’t afford to naively believe that private entities can be trusted with our biometric information. A technology that is inherently unjust, that has the potential to exponentially expand and automate discrimination and human rights violations, and that contributes to an ever growing and inescapable surveillance state is too dangerous to exist.

We call on all local, state, and federal elected officials, as well as corporate leaders, to ban the use of facial recognition surveillance by private entities. The dangers of facial recognition far outweigh any potential benefits, which is why banning both government and private use of facial recognition is the only way to keep everyone safe.

Signed,

Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Cryptoharlem
Daily Kos
Data for Black Lives
Demand Progress
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Fight for the Future
Greenpeace USA
Just Futures Law
Massachusetts Jobs with Justice
MediaJustice
Mijente
MPower Change
Muslim Justice League
Oakland Privacy
Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative)
Presente
Privacy PDX
Public Citizen
RAICES
Restore the Fourth
RootsAction.org
Secure Justice
S.T.O.P. (Surveillance Technology Oversight Project)
United We Dream

Press contact: press@fightforthefuture.org

Image by analogicus from Pixabay features rows of gleaming gold Oscars trophies.

2020 is the first year that streaming-only works are eligible for Academy Awards, due to a pandemic exception. In their availability assessment, Fight for the Future and Library Futures considered titles nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, as well as Lead Actress and Actor—prominent awards whose trends forecast the future of the film industry. This lack of public library availability among these major categories sets a dangerous precedent in the age of streaming giants—not only that they are growing as major arbiters of culture, but now as arbiters of access as well.

In a new blog post, Library Futures and Fight for the Future are calling on Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Studios to make their content available to public libraries on the same terms as theatrical releases. The streaming giants are setting a dangerous new precedent for the most important films of the year—that important cultural works and knowledge are only for people with disposable income.

Among the works nominated for the most prominent award categories, Netflix’s Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, Pieces of a Woman, and The Trial of the Chicago Seven; Amazon Studios’ Sound of Metal, and Hulu’s The United States vs. Billie Holiday are unavailable for public libraries to purchase, preorder, or even license for their collections.

Since VHS tapes democratized access to films, many library users have enjoyed the opportunity to view important cultural works by borrowing them. But in the digital age, Big Tech is prioritizing profit and data surveillance over libraries and the diverse, often low-income people who rely on them.

"When so many rural, urban, and low-income people lack affordable high speed internet access or disposable income, tech giants are exacerbating inequality by locking important knowledge and art behind a paywall," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future. "This inequity is particularly staggering when you consider the content of the unavailable films themselves—the themes of protest, persecution, racial equity, and gender equity that are essential to our times. Do they truly believe that the most compelling stories to inspire change should be only for people in upper class communities?"

"During the last major financial crisis in 2008, users flocked to the library to gain access to an enormous collection of content, including recent films. These collections supported patrons from every income level and background, and circulation shot up all over the country," said Jennie Rose Halperin (she/her) Executive Director at Library Futures. "Now, paying for access to all of the Academy Award nominated films on three separate streaming platforms would cost almost $400 per year – and that’s assuming you can afford internet access at all. As streaming has moved from distribution to content production, streaming services have moved to prohibit libraries and under resourced communities from purchasing films in a digital or physical format."

With more data on where facial recognition is used, the urgency for legislation banning government and law enforcement use of facial recognition heightens.

Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News broke the story that employees at law enforcement agencies across the country have run thousands of facial recognition searches using the controversial Clearview AI app. The investigative research included data from a confidential source that shows nearly 2,000 agencies that have used the application in some fashion.

This data has now been added to the Ban Facial Recognition Map: https://www.banfacialrecognition.com/map

This interactive map, created by digital rights group Fight for the Future, shows where facial recognition surveillance is happening, how it’s spreading, and where there are efforts to rein it in. It is also a resource for people to take action and send messages to their lawmakers, calling on them to ban law enforcement and government use of the technology.

With the addition of this data on Clearview use, all 50 states, except Vermont—the only state that has banned law enforcement use of facial recognition, plus DC and the Virgin Islands, are represented on the map.

The states with the most taxpayer-funded entities that have used Clearview are:

• California* (140)
• Florida (116)
• Alabama (103)
• New Jersey (101)
• Texas (100)
• Illinois (99)
• Georgia (72)
• North Carolina (64)
• Pennsylvania* (63)
• New York (61)

*States with local bans on law enforcement use of facial recognition

"Although it’s terrifying to add nearly 2,000 more places to our map where we know facial recognition is threatening communities, this data highlights what we already know: that law enforcement is using facial recognition in ways that fundamentally threaten any semblance of human rights, due process, and exacerbate existing discrimination. The only way to stop this is to ban it," said Caitlin Seeley George, director of campaigns and operations at Fight for the Future. "Since officers often use Clearview without their department’s knowledge or consent, this is the first time we’ve seen how widespread this use is. It’s clear that no amount of regulations can protect us when officers are already using Clearview in secret. The only solution is a ban."

The good news is that cities, counties, and states are taking action to combat law enforcement use of facial recognition and are banning the technology. In the past few months Minneapolis, MN, Madison, WI, and New Orleans, LA have banned facial recognition. Last year Senators Markey and Merkley and Representatives Jayapal and Pressley introduced federal legislation to ban law enforcement and government use of facial recognition, and they are expected to reintroduce the legislation again this year.

Fight for the Future has teamed up with the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW) to launch a campaign demanding Spotify abandon a patent it filed to use artificial intelligence voice recognition software to target music and ads. The campaign is accompanied by a music video for the song "Surveillance Capitalism” from Evan Greer, with proceeds donated to the #JusticeAt Spotify campaign

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has teamed up with the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW) to launch StopSpotifySurveillance.org. The campaign calls on Spotify to drop reported plans to use artificial intelligence and voice recognition software to spy on listeners’ conversations, conducting emotional surveillance and manipulation to target music and advertising. The campaign comes after human rights group Access Now sent a letter to Spotify demanding they abandon the surveillance patent last week.

The campaign is accompanied by a dystopian new video for the song “Surveillance Capitalism” from trans femme indie-punk artist Evan Greer (she/her), which blends layers of melodic indie punk guitars with audio samples from anti-surveillance activists and icons like Chelsea Manning, Jacinta Gonzalez of Mijente, Malkia Cyril of Media Justice, and author Ursula K Leguin.

• See the campaign site here: StopSpotifySurveillance.org
  
  
• See the video here: https://youtu.be/NvBHFLFllJ8

The video release provides a sneak peak at the song off Greer’s new album Spotify is Surveillance, which drops this Friday, April 9th on Get Better Records and Don Giovanni Records. Greer plans to donate all artist proceeds from the song to the Union of Musicians and Allied Workers to support their existing #JusticeAtSpotify campaign, calling for better pay, an end to Payola, and more transparency.

Greer says, "The fact that Spotify filed a patent for this type of emotional surveillance and manipulation is beyond chilling. It’s not enough for them to say that they have no plans to use this technology right now, they should publicly commit to never conducting this type of surveillance on music listeners. Surveillance capitalism as a business model is fundamentally incompatible with basic human rights and democracy, regardless of whether it’s being employed by Facebook, Amazon, or Spotify. The song and video highlight the fact that the Internet has the potential to profoundly transform our society for the better, abolishing false scarcity and enabling universal access to human knowledge and creativity, while ensuring marginalized and independent artists and creators are fairly compensated for our labor. But if we allow a small handful of companies to dominate the web and the music industry with a parasitic business model based on surveillance and exploitation, we’re headed for the opposite: a dystopian future where algorithms decide what we see and hear based on profit, rather than artistry."

UMAW and Fight for the Future are encouraging artists and concerned listeners to sign the petition at StopSpotifySurveillance.org, and are calling for the company to publicly commit to not using voice recognition surveillance on the platform.

"Faculty need support and using e-proctoring as a way out of that is not a good pedagogical solution for anyone.”

Today, staff at the University of Michigan-Dearborn who support faculty development and digital education, released a paper in To Improve the Academy (TIA) titled "What happens when you close the door on remote proctoring? Moving towards authentic assessments with a people-centered approach." But even as the campus bucks the trend of using eproctoring apps to monitor students during online assessments (many of which don’t actually eliminate cheating), it can’t keep them off campus entirely due to McGraw-Hill’s partnership with embattled eproctoring app Proctorio and McGraw-Hill’s failure so far to remove it for UM Dearborn users.

"Administrators and teaching and learning staff at University of Michigan-Dearborn made the decision to avoid adopting remote proctoring technologies and to instead invest in instructional design staff and faculty development programming to help faculty transition to authentic assessments," the paper’s abstract states. "Remote proctoring services require access to technology that not all students are not guaranteed to have, can constitute an invasion of privacy for students, and can discriminate against students of color and disabled students."

But little did UM-Dearborn staff know that even as they were speaking out against the harms of eproctoring, McGraw-Hill was bringing Proctorio to all the campuses that use their McGraw-Hill Connect textbook platform. When confronted on February 5th by staff at UMich-Dearborn and asked by upper administration to turn off the e-proctoring option, McGraw-Hill said they would remove eproctoring from the materials it provides to the institution within two weeks. Since the initial request, staff at UM-Dearborn have reached out to McGraw-Hill on several occasions. On March 22nd McGraw Hill responded with an apology and assumed fault for the delay. They said that the removal should be completed shortly but as of the date of this release the removal has yet to occur.

"They said it would be two weeks, it’s been two months" said Autumm Caines (she/her), Instructional Designer at The Hub for Teaching and Learning Resources at UM-Dearborn, and a coauthor on the TIA paper, "It is profoundly disrespectful of the pedagogy that we advocate for. We put out this paper that focuses on rejecting remote proctoring and embracing people-centered supports for authentic assessments—we cannot make it more clear that we are looking for real solutions, not snake oil profiteering, on our campus."

"McGraw-Hill’s failure here is outrageous, especially as they have been aware of the controversy surrounding Proctorio since at least December," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future, a digital rights organization leading the charge against discriminatory and invasive eproctoring software. "Rolling out a controversial technology without the knowledge, consent, or oversight of customers is in incredibly poor form for one of the world’s largest textbook companies. Failing to make a simple modification to turn off that same controversial tech makes you wonder what is actually going on behind the scenes in McGraw-Hill’s deal with Proctorio. Do Proctorio’s false representations of its customer list stem from this very McGraw-Hill feature? Is McGraw-Hill refusing to turn off this option for its customers in order to help Proctorio falsify a larger customer list than it actually has?"

“Faculty need support and using eproctoring as a way out of that is not a good pedagogical solution for anyone," said Sarah Silverman (she/her), the lead author of the TIA paper. "We want to support instructors in assessing their students, and there is a lot more involved in that than simply preventing "cheating." I encourage instructors to develop assessments that engage students in an authentic task to show how they can apply their knowledge. A great side effect of this type of assessment is that it is not conducive to cheating, making eproctoring unnecessary."

Outcry from students and human rights experts, as well as investigations into the foundations of the technology itself, is compelling universities to turn their backs on eproctoring. Those seeking to evolve their remote learning practices can consult the TIA paper, in which "lessons learned and recommendations are provided for other educational developers or institutions who want to resist remote proctoring on their Campuses."

The full text of "What happens when you close the door on remote proctoring? Moving towards authentic assessments with a people-centered approach" is available at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tia/17063888.0039.308?view=text;rgn=main. Its coauthors are available for comment by reaching out to Autumm at acaines@umich.edu or Sarah at sarahsil@umich.edu.

K-12 schools across the country are on the verge of holding remote-proctored state assessment tests, putting millions of children on camera and potentially subjecting them to the same snake oil facial recognition & biometric AI features universities are abandoning in the wake of backlash over racial bias, ableism, discrimination, privacy, and efficacy concerns.

In 2020, federal K-12 student testing requirements for states were waived due to the pandemic, but in 2021 education technology company lobbyists have caught the scent of pandemic recovery money, and are advocating for remote tests that educators insist will be useless at best, and harmful at worst.

Members of major state testing consortium SBAC, including California, have a contract with opaque educational technology vendor Cambium, a company that advertises controversial artificial intelligence and scoring algorithms for their tests. Members of major state testing consortium PARCC, including New Jersey, have a contract with Pearson to administer their tests. Pearson is partnered with embattled eproctoring company ProctorU. At least one institution in Texas uses Proctorio on K-12 students, collecting footage that at least 400 people may have access to. It is unclear whether Texas will use Proctorio to eproctor the upcoming federally-mandated exams.

"We need to recognize this moment in student privacy, surveillance, and data collection for what it is—an epic data heist leading to the use of predictive algorithms that could negatively impact students’ future opportunities," said Roxana Marachi (she/her), associate professor of education at San José State University. "The push to eproctor these tests is based on a false premise—that the existence of data, no matter how flawed, false, or incomplete, matters more than the students themselves. The converging harms of e-proctoring, AI, and other data collection technologies in K-12 education are invisible to most school leaders, parents, educators, and students. Our privacy laws and practices have not kept up with the rapid influx of invasive educational technologies and it’s the height of hypocrisy for testing proponents to suggest that administering these tests will in any way serve the interests of underserved youth."

Testing windows are already open in some states as of last week. Others are awaiting word on whether they will receive the testing waiver that Ohio was recently denied, creating a situation in which many hours of testing for individual students must be rolled out and scored in a matter of weeks. Some full-time teachers have just been provided 400 pages of test prep training for tests starting May 3. Others have yet to be provided any information at all.

Also unclear amidst this hurried testing rollout is how writing and other assessments will be scored—if, as with College Board’s Accuplacer test from this school year, they will be graded with the sorts of Automated Scoring AIs that caused outrage in Britain last year.

"The scope of this edutech cash grab, on the backs of children as young as eight years old, is truly astounding," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future, a group pushing back against child surveillance and eproctoring. "Just like at the university level, surveillance companies are swooping in to sell inequitable products that may include racist add-ons like facial recognition, and ableist anti-cheating algorithms that track so-called abnormal behavior like eye movement. On top of it all, these remote tests require stable internet connections that many kids just don’t have and constitute a major privacy violation. The only thing these tests will accurately assess is how many of our tax dollars surveillance & spyware companies will co-opt to harm the privacy and equitable education of vulnerable students. The normalization of child surveillance technologies in education must end immediately."

Over 500 education researchers and scholars have co-signed a letter urging Education Secretary Cardona to grant states waivers to halt this year’s federally mandated standardized tests, noting that the tests will exacerbate inequality and produce invalid data. This letter comes following another endorsed by over 200 education deans and leaders that emphasizes how "the shift to online education widens long-standing inequities and injustices in education."

Today, Fight for the Future held a livestream event with Dr Joan Donovan of Shorenstein as well as experts from the ACLU, Wikimedia, Access Now, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Reframe Health and Justice, who explained why gutting Section 230 won’t stop the spread of harmful content and disinformation online. 

The event came just ahead of a hearing in the House Energy & Commerce Committee where lawmakers questioned the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Too often, reporting around these hearings focuses only on the statements of Big Tech CEOs and lawmakers, ignoring voices from civil society groups and smaller web platforms who have a crucial perspective to share. Earlier this year we also issued a letter signed by 70+ racial justice, civil liberties, LGBTQ+, and human rights groups opposing repeal or gutting of Section 230 and urging lawmakers to pass the SAFE SEX Worker Study act to examine the public health impact of SESTA/FOSTA before making further changes to Section 230.

During the hearing, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressed support for changing Section 230. That’s because such changes will help Facebook and harm human rights, without addressing harms like disinformation. Here are some quotes from participants in our event:

Evan Greer (she/her), Director of Fight for the Future, said: "Of course Facebook wants to see changes to Section 230. Because they know it will simply serve to solidify their monopoly power and crush competition from smaller and more decentralized platforms. Facebook can afford the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that will be needed to navigate a world where Section 230 is gutted or weakened. And they’ve shown repeatedly that they don’t care about the impact that Section 230 changes could have on the human rights or freedom of expression of marginalized people – they are happy to sanitize your newsfeed and suppress content en masse in order to avoid liability or respond to public criticism. Zuckerberg’s support for changes to Section 230 is about maintaining Facebook’s dominance and monopoly control, nothing more. Instead of helping Facebook by gutting Section 230, lawmakers should take actual steps to address the harms of Big Tech, like passing strong Federal data privacy legislation, enforcing antitrust laws, and targeting harmful business practices like microtargeting and nontransparent algorithmic manipulation."

Dr. Joan Donovan (she/they) of the Shorenstein Center: "The internet still exists: Platforms are built on top of it, Facebook is a product, Facebook is not the internet. Speech is like the cassette tape that goes in the boombox of the internet. The problem is messy and the solution is going to come in many different ways, there is no Section 230 magic bullet. One thing we can do that is not 230-related: We can pump up the volume on timely, local, relevant content. We can create within timelines and newsfeeds, room for local journalism, room for things that are not trying to trigger emotional responses, information that is not often shared because it is not sexy but people do want and don’t always get in their feeds. What this looks like is asking for public interest obligations for social media and this doesn’t require us to go in 230 necessarily and do anything significant. It’s really important that we all come together - universities, civil societies, the law community - and come at this with an orientation that we don’t want to destroy the benefits that the internet has brought to us, but at the same time we want to put community safety at the center of design."

Kate Ruane (she/her) of the ACLU: "When it comes to disinformation specifically, amending Section 230 is unlikely to truly address the problem. One of the issues we face is that disinformation has no clear definition, and to the extent that it simply means ‘speech that is false,’ it will often be protected by the constitution, for better or for worse … It’s unclear to me what Section 230 changes to address disinformation will actually do to address the problems other than encouraging problems to continue to deploy ever stricter censorship regimes, which we know disproportionately silence people of color, the LGBTQ community, Muslims, other marginalized groups, and people who express dissenting views. But that doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands when it comes to disinformation. There is a lot we can do … meaningful privacy restrictions can also be tremendously helpful. If we limit the data these companies can collect and then empower users to limit the ways that companies can use that data, it will be harder and harder for disinformation campaigns to target people in the first place … I think we need to be talking about those things, rather than changing Section 230."

Sherwin Siy (he/him) of the Wikimedia Foundation: "The Wikimedia Foundation hosts projects like Wikipedia–we provide the servers, and work on the software and interfaces for it–but Wikipedia is written by tens of thousands of users, who change what’s on the site several times each second. Section 230 means that, should one of those edits defame someone or cause trouble, neither the Foundation nor any other editor gets blamed for that one person’s action.  It also means that the communities on these projects have the ability to create and enforce their own standards for how content gets moderated–and for the most part, that content moderation deals with how encyclopedic something is, not whether or not it’s illegal or abusive. Section 230 isn’t just about what is and isn’t decent–it’s about making sure a website, and the community on it, can set standards around things like not accepting original research, or self-promotion, or even creating standards around biographical information that respect article subjects’ rights that go beyond what’s required in the law. Having standards like these helps communities strive together to make Wikipedia as accurate and reliable as it can be, and Section 230 is a necessary part of making that happen.”

Lawrence (Larry) Walters (he/him), General Counsel for the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and attorney with Walters Law Group: "Requiring tech companies to moderate more user content through proposed Section 230 reform will not stop disinformation online, but will lead to greater censorship of constitutionally protected speech. Big Tech wants content regulation so they can claim they are simply following the law when shutting down disfavored speakers. This approach helps no one but a few large online platforms. The first attempt to tinker with Section 230, through FOSTA, was an unmitigated disaster resulting in censorship of protected expression and increased danger to sex workers. Congress should learn the hard lesson taught by FOSTA by fostering a free Internet by rejecting any further weakening of Section 230 immunity."

"Repealing Section 230 will not solve the disinformation crisis," said Jennifer Brody (she/her), U.S. Advocacy Manager at Access Now. "Disinformation wouldn’t be effective without coercive micro-targeting, and micro-targeting wouldn’t exist without invasive data harvesting practices. If we are serious about stopping the dangerous fire hose of lies online, we cannot overlook the importance of passing a rights-respecting federal data protection law in the United States."

"As a community who has experienced being the target of legislative reforms and the unintended consequences, sex workers, and people associated with the sex trade have born the brunt of what happens when reforms to 230 do not consider marginalized communities, or create quickly drafted, budget-neutral bills," said Kate D’Adamo, Partner at Reframe Health and Justice and long-time sex workers’ rights advocate. "While this conversation is centered on disinformation, it is using the same flawed starting point - to assume that 230 is the problem and that additional liability is the solution.What we need is not simply additional avenues for civil suits. What we need is transparency with how platforms are making decisions, accountability and redress for those who are constantly kicked off for exercising basic survival, and a serious investment in anti-violence efforts."

 ###

Given Amazon’s Ring technology directly threatens Black and brown communities, 20+ racial justice, civil liberties, and privacy rights organizations are calling on you to rescind your recommendation of all Amazon Ring products.

Ring cameras surveil millions of Americans, from children playing in the park to people visiting health clinics to protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. Alongside the massive growth of this private network of cameras, the tech giant is aggressively expanding their police partnerships. With over 2,000 partnerships, Amazon’s doorbell, floodlight, mailbox, and dash cameras record and collect data on our whereabouts, our homes, and our communities. This massive surveillance dragnet poses an existential Orwellian threat to the daily lives of the public at large and to our democracy—but for Black and brown communities Amazon Ring technology could put their lives in immediate danger.

Putting Black lives in danger is part of Amazon Ring’s business model. The tech giant weaponizes racist, fear-mongering culture by using racially-coded language and dog whistles to promote Ring products and partnerships. Simultaneously, they have sold their racist Rekognition facial identification technology to police departments. Amazon marketed Rekognition to police with the full awareness of two damning facts: first, that police misuse facial recognition, and second, that Rekognition disproportionately misidentifies Black and brown people, transgender people, and women. 

On top of it all, Amazon’s Neighbors app is designed to gamify profiling Black and brown people via racist neighborhood surveillance. Amazon’s private surveillance network fuels the criminalization of Black and brown people by amplifying existing racism in our communities and policing––further subjecting communities of color to repressive police violence and feeding a system of mass incarceration. 

Amazon Ring is also being used to surveil, intimidate, and punish Black Lives Matter protesters. Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released records obtained from Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) showing detectives requesting footage of Black Lives Matter protests from Ring users. This video was used by detectives to identify and track protesters who took to the streets in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. LAPD did not act alone. Liaisons working for Amazon Ring helped the department send bulk footage requests to regions throughout the city.

It’s not surprising Amazon helped police use their surveillance dragnet to track down the very protesters fighting to dismantle the racist, repressive, militarized law enforcement system Amazon profits from. Roughly half of the police departments partnered with Amazon "are responsible for over a third of fatal police encounters nationwide"—a shocking statistic given that only around 7% of our nation’s police departments had a Ring partnership at the time. In one specific instance, a woman shared footage of an unidentified man on her porch on Amazon Ring’s Neighbors app, which is patrolled by police. The man was later shot by sheriff’s deputies.  

It is surprising that you continue to recommend people buy Ring products. These devices threaten Black lives–that renders them ineligible for best in their category endorsements. 

Some of the consumers using your reviews to make purchasing decisions live in Black and brown communities. They have Black and brown loved ones, undocumented family members, and activists friends. Through your recommendation, they are unknowingly tracking the people they love for police agencies. A purchase incorrectly believed to keep them and their loved ones safe actually endangers their lives. In assessing a product’s safety, it’s incumbent upon you to evaluate these harms and the negative impacts these products have on society along with the other criteria you take into consideration. 

Your outlets all declared Black Lives Matter. You have the power now to act in accordance with that belief. Rescind your recommendation of Amazon Ring cameras and update all relevant guides.

Sincerely, 

Action Center on Race and the Economy (ACRE)

Athena Coalition

Backbone Campaign

Color of Change

Demand Progress Education Fund

Fight for the Future

Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Jobs With Justice

Kairos

LAANE

Media Alliance

MediaJustice

Mijente

MPower Change

Oakland Privacy

Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative)

Partnership for Working Families

Presente.org

Public Citizen

S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project

Secure Justice

Threshold

###

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, March 24th
CONTACT: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Today, more than twenty racial justice, worker advocacy, privacy, and civil rights organizations released a joint letter calling on the editors of CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter to rescind their recommendations of Amazon Ring cameras given the threats Ring technology poses to Black and brown communities. 

See the letter here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-03-24-joint-letter-from-20-racial-justice-and-civil/

"Putting Black lives in danger is part of Amazon Ring’s business model. The tech giant weaponizes racist, fear-mongering culture by using racially-coded language and dog whistles to promote Ring products and partnerships," the letter’s signatories write. "Amazon’s private surveillance network fuels the criminalization of Black and brown people by amplifying existing racism in our communities and policing––further subjecting communities of color to repressive police violence and feeding a system of mass incarceration."

The letter goes on to discuss Amazon Ring representatives helping Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) detectives obtain footage of Black Lives Matters protesters.

"It’s not surprising Amazon helped police use their surveillance dragnet to track down the very protesters fighting to dismantle the racist, repressive, militarized law enforcement system Amazon profits from. Roughly half of the police departments partnered with Amazon "are responsible for over a third of fatal police encounters nationwide"—a shocking statistic given that only around 7% of our nation’s police departments had a Ring partnership at the time. In one specific instance, a woman shared footage of an unidentified man on her porch on Amazon Ring’s Neighbors app, which is patrolled by police. The man was later shot by sheriff’s deputies."  

CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter all posted statements declaring solidarity with Black Lives Matter during protests last summer. However, they have failed to back up their statements with action as they continue to recommend racist Ring products. By awarding Amazon Ring cameras "best in their category” or only enacting temporary suspensions, these outlets are complicit in the violence police wage against Black and brown communities. Despite the outlet’s claims that reviews are neutral, there is no neutrality when it comes to racism.

The signing organizations include: Fight for the Future, Action Center on Race and the Economy (ACRE), Athena Coalition, Backbone Campaign, Color of Change, Demand Progress Education Fund, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Jobs With Justice, Kairos, LAANE, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, Mijente, MPower Change, Oakland Privacy, Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative), Partnership for Working Families, Presente.org, Public Citizen, S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Secure Justice, and Threshold.

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 Myaisha Hayes, Campaign Strategies Director at MediaJustice, (pronouns: she/her): "The only recommendation Tech Review Editors should be making to consumers is to not buy Amazon Ring. These outlets can’t seriously declare that “Black Lives Matter” while advertising surveillance products that harm us. Those of us familiar with the history of Black activism understand that our right to organize and protest has always been under constant attack. Just a few years ago, the FBI labeled Black activists as “Black Identity Extremists” and warned all local law enforcement agencies that Black protesters posed a significant threat to our public safety. This shameful history and practice of undermining Black led Movements is great business for corporations like Amazon that provide the state with racist surveillance tools to track down and cage our loved ones.  As things stand now, millions of households have been deputized by Amazon Ring to expand and digitize the state’s racist policing—and tech review editors are perpetuating this oppression."

The following can be attributed to Jessica Quiason, Deputy Research Director at Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), (pronouns: she/her): "Ring is just one component in an endless arsenal of privately-owned, profit-driven tech that expands on state systems of surveillance and policing of Black and Brown people. These cameras invite the police to have their eyes and ears on our very doorsteps while also creating a profit for Amazon which is more and more invested in expanding the powers and reach of the State. We cannot surveil and police our way to safety. Communities keep communities safe, through public investments and democratic decision-making where our voices and expertise are centered, not law enforcement and corporate executives."

The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): "Any tech review site that recommends Amazon Ring is complicit in exacerbating the racist police violence and surveillance that’s getting people killed in Black and brown communities. Full stop. Recommending surveillance devices that measurably increase racial profiling is unconscionable. Product review sites do not recommend or review stalkerware used by abusers because this technology is inherently harmful and recommending it would be immoral. Amazon Ring is no different. If sites like Consumer Reports, CNET, and Wirecutter don’t rescind their recommendation of Ring, they’re saying they’re okay promoting racism and shilling for a product that’s incompatible with civil liberties and democracy."

The following can be attributed to Color Of Change Vice President Arisha Hatch: "Surveillance technologies rely on algorithms with racial biases and privacy vulnerabilities baked into their software, posing a grave threat to Black people’s safety and wellbeing. Since 2018, Color Of Change and our millions of members have demanded that Amazon address the concerns of civil rights advocates and the larger public about the company’s attempts to peddle products, such as Ring, that enable state-sponsored discrimination and police violence against Black and brown communities.

Despite Amazon leadership’s knowledge of the dangerous consequences of their surveillance products, they continuously choose to prioritize profit over our lives by marketing these products as ‘security’ tools and building on racist fears to sell them. Amazon was quick to publicly support Black Lives Matter amid the racial justice protests last summer, but those words ring hollow in the face of their complicity in fueling discriminatory policing tools and practices.    

Given the media’s role in holding corporations accountable for unethical practices as well as journalists’ position as trusted gatekeepers of factual information, we call on CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter to immediately halt the promotion of Amazon’s Ring and similar facial recognition products in your respective outlets. Failure to do so will only further enable corporate giants like Amazon to abuse their power to churn profits at the expense of Black lives."

###

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, March 24th
CONTACT: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Today, more than twenty racial justice, worker advocacy, privacy, and civil rights organizations released a joint letter calling on the editors of CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter to rescind their recommendations of Amazon Ring cameras given the threats Ring technology poses to Black and brown communities. 

See the letter here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-03-24-joint-letter-from-20-racial-justice-and-civil/

"Putting Black lives in danger is part of Amazon Ring’s business model. The tech giant weaponizes racist, fear-mongering culture by using racially-coded language and dog whistles to promote Ring products and partnerships," the letter’s signatories write. "Amazon’s private surveillance network fuels the criminalization of Black and brown people by amplifying existing racism in our communities and policing––further subjecting communities of color to repressive police violence and feeding a system of mass incarceration."

The letter goes on to discuss Amazon Ring representatives helping Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) detectives obtain footage of Black Lives Matters protesters.

"It’s not surprising Amazon helped police use their surveillance dragnet to track down the very protesters fighting to dismantle the racist, repressive, militarized law enforcement system Amazon profits from. Roughly half of the police departments partnered with Amazon "are responsible for over a third of fatal police encounters nationwide"—a shocking statistic given that only around 7% of our nation’s police departments had a Ring partnership at the time. In one specific instance, a woman shared footage of an unidentified man on her porch on Amazon Ring’s Neighbors app, which is patrolled by police. The man was later shot by sheriff’s deputies."  

CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter all posted statements declaring solidarity with Black Lives Matter during protests last summer. However, they have failed to back up their statements with action as they continue to recommend racist Ring products. By awarding Amazon Ring cameras "best in their category” or only enacting temporary suspensions, these outlets are complicit in the violence police wage against Black and brown communities. Despite the outlet’s claims that reviews are neutral, there is no neutrality when it comes to racism.

The signing organizations include: Fight for the Future, Action Center on Race and the Economy (ACRE), Athena Coalition, Backbone Campaign, Color of Change, Demand Progress Education Fund, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Jobs With Justice, Kairos, LAANE, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, Mijente, MPower Change, Oakland Privacy, Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative), Partnership for Working Families, Presente.org, Public Citizen, S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Secure Justice, and Threshold.

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 Myaisha Hayes, Campaign Strategies Director at MediaJustice, (pronouns: she/her): "The only recommendation Tech Review Editors should be making to consumers is to not buy Amazon Ring. These outlets can’t seriously declare that “Black Lives Matter” while advertising surveillance products that harm us. Those of us familiar with the history of Black activism understand that our right to organize and protest has always been under constant attack. Just a few years ago, the FBI labeled Black activists as “Black Identity Extremists” and warned all local law enforcement agencies that Black protesters posed a significant threat to our public safety. This shameful history and practice of undermining Black led Movements is great business for corporations like Amazon that provide the state with racist surveillance tools to track down and cage our loved ones.  As things stand now, millions of households have been deputized by Amazon Ring to expand and digitize the state’s racist policing—and tech review editors are perpetuating this oppression."

The following can be attributed to Jessica Quiason, Deputy Research Director at Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), (pronouns: she/her): "Ring is just one component in an endless arsenal of privately-owned, profit-driven tech that expands on state systems of surveillance and policing of Black and Brown people. These cameras invite the police to have their eyes and ears on our very doorsteps while also creating a profit for Amazon which is more and more invested in expanding the powers and reach of the State. We cannot surveil and police our way to safety. Communities keep communities safe, through public investments and democratic decision-making where our voices and expertise are centered, not law enforcement and corporate executives."

The following can be attributed to Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, (pronouns: she/her): "Any tech review site that recommends Amazon Ring is complicit in exacerbating the racist police violence and surveillance that’s getting people killed in Black and brown communities. Full stop. Recommending surveillance devices that measurably increase racial profiling is unconscionable. Product review sites do not recommend or review stalkerware used by abusers because this technology is inherently harmful and recommending it would be immoral. Amazon Ring is no different. If sites like Consumer Reports, CNET, and Wirecutter don’t rescind their recommendation of Ring, they’re saying they’re okay promoting racism and shilling for a product that’s incompatible with civil liberties and democracy."

The following can be attributed to Color Of Change Vice President Arisha Hatch: "Surveillance technologies rely on algorithms with racial biases and privacy vulnerabilities baked into their software, posing a grave threat to Black people’s safety and wellbeing. Since 2018, Color Of Change and our millions of members have demanded that Amazon address the concerns of civil rights advocates and the larger public about the company’s attempts to peddle products, such as Ring, that enable state-sponsored discrimination and police violence against Black and brown communities.

Despite Amazon leadership’s knowledge of the dangerous consequences of their surveillance products, they continuously choose to prioritize profit over our lives by marketing these products as ‘security’ tools and building on racist fears to sell them. Amazon was quick to publicly support Black Lives Matter amid the racial justice protests last summer, but those words ring hollow in the face of their complicity in fueling discriminatory policing tools and practices.    

Given the media’s role in holding corporations accountable for unethical practices as well as journalists’ position as trusted gatekeepers of factual information, we call on CNET, Consumer Reports, Digital Trends, TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, and Wirecutter to immediately halt the promotion of Amazon’s Ring and similar facial recognition products in your respective outlets. Failure to do so will only further enable corporate giants like Amazon to abuse their power to churn profits at the expense of Black lives."

###

WHAT: 

Fight for the Future is organizing a virtual press conference on Thursday March 25th, at 11am ET ahead of the Senate Energy and Commerce committee hearing on mis- and disinformation. The event organized by Fight for the Future will be livestreamed, and journalists can RSVP to participate in a Q&A on Zoom. 

WHY: 

Big Tech’s role in spreading disinformation and undermining democracy is a big problem. But many lawmakers have misguidedly latched on to the idea that the way to fix it is gutting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the most important laws protecting free expression and human rights in the digital age. And too many news articles on the debate focus only on the perspective of industry spokespeople, CEOs, and politicians. At our event, you’ll hear from civil society, disinformation experts, and human rights organizations about why blowing up Section 230 won’t address the harms of Big Tech and disinformation, and what we should do instead.

WHO: 

• Dr. Joan Donovan, Research Director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

• Jennifer Brody, U.S. Advocacy Manager, Access Now

• Kate D'Adamo, Sex Workers Rights Advocate & Partner, Reframe Health and Justice

• Kate Ruane, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU

• Lawrence (Larry) Walters, General Counsel for the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and attorney with Walters Law Group

• Sherwin Siy, Lead Public Policy Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

• Evan Greer, Director at Fight for the Future

WHERE:  

Public YouTube link - https://youtu.be/T0FwW2vuxPQ

Reporters who wish to RSVP for the Q&A: please email press@fightforthefuture.org

WHEN: 

Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 11am ET

This is an initiative by Fight for the Future, a non-profit dedicated to promoting digital rights. 

For press inquiries, please contact us at: (508) 474-5248 or press@fightforthefuture.org

High school students partner with Fight for the Future to launch Invisiclip and advocate for a future without invasive facial recognition

High school seniors Evan Alfandre and Will McCormack first learned about facial recognition while working on a project for school. After realizing the dangers of the technology, and how it’s silently being used in communities across the country without most people even knowing about it, they decided to do something about it.

Invisiclip was born: a universal clip-on, flip-up piece that can attach to any pair of glasses or sunglasses. The product is minimally invasive, about 1" wide by 2" long and covers the wearer’s nose, and is effective against both Infrared and Visible light facial recognition technologies. 

"The more that we learned about the dangers of facial recognition software, the more we desired to find a solution to the problem," said McCormack (he/him). "Initially, we just wanted to get an A on our project, but when we realized we could really make a difference, our goals changed."

The Invisiclip founders reached out to Fight for the Future to help promote their product and to partner up in the call to ban facial recognition. "We found out that Fight for the Future is a leading activist group in this area, so we connected with them in an effort to share ideas, publicize our invention, and keep people safe," said Alfandre (he/him).

Fight for the Future is a national digital rights advocacy organization that has been leading the charge to ban both government and private use of facial recognition, has blocked the technology from being used at music festivals and college campuses, and has helped local activists pass laws banning the technology in Massachusetts, Oregon, California, and other states.

"When Will and Evan reached out to us, we were both impressed by their ingenuity, and also a little sad," said Caitlin Seeley George, Campaign Director with Fight for the Future (she/her). "High school students shouldn’t have to worry about how surveillance technology is threatening their rights and their future. I remember reading 1984 in high school, but kids these days are living it. That’s just wrong."

Fight for the Future partnered with Invisiclip to help promote their product, and are selling it on their online store. Will and Evan hope that the product can help keep people safe from the privacy violations created by the prevalence of security cameras and facial recognition software, but ultimately believe that we need to pass laws to ban the use of the technology.

"Partnering with Invisiclip is an opportunity to share this tool that people can use against facial recognition, and highlight why a ban on facial recognition is important for young people who don’t want a future where they’re under constant surveillance," added Seeley George.

Promotional Video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GB1KNELaLZSTha32rIXQ3J2NgUdMFKxp/view

Promotional Flyer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EswnoAbyKPbeJBN_e86M_VMNoGSto5m9/view

#####

Nearly 20 million people in America use cryptocurrencies, and if you aren’t one of those people yet, you will be soon enough.

Cryptocurrency ATMs are popping up in corner stores and gas stations all over the nation. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express are investing in cryptocurrency trading platforms and rolling out crypto-rewards credit cards. The Chair of the US Federal Reserve is talking openly about his designs for a state-backed digital dollar. It’s only a matter of time before cryptocurrencies become fully integrated into every aspect of the modern financial system … and that’s exactly what makes the government’s new proposal for cryptocurrency surveillance so dangerous.

An indecent proposal

Cryptocurrencies work by recording every transaction ever made in a publicly-available database called a blockchain, providing cryptocurrency users with verifiable proof of every purchase, sale, and transfer that occurs. In order to protect your privacy, the blockchain replaces your personal information with a digital key. But anyone who can connect your digital key to your real-life identity can track all of your activity on the blockchain.

The US Treasury is currently considering a proposal — officially titled Requirements for Certain Transactions Involving Convertible Virtual Currency or Digital Assets — that will give government agents the power to do exactly that. This new rule will mandate that cryptocurrency exchanges provide your personally identifiable information and your digital key to the government whenever you make large transactions. Once the government has this data, they’ll be able to spy on your spending, no warrant or subpoena necessary.

Think it can’t happen? Think again. In fact, governments all around the world are currently abusing cryptocurrency regulations to spy on the public and silence political dissent.

Different countries, same abuse

Lawmakers in India recently announced new legislation to ban cryptocurrencies and create a state-backed digital rupee. Because India has regulations in place that are similar to the US Treasury’s Requirements for Certain Transactions Involving Convertible Virtual Currency or Digital Assets, the Indian government will be able to identify every person in India who has purchased cryptocurrencies through official exchanges and force those people to sell their digital assets under the threat of hefty fines or imprisonment.

Indian officials were reportedly inspired by the Chinese government’s regulations, which stamped out cryptocurrency trading back in 2018 in order to pave the way for a state-backed digital yuan — complete with government tracking — that was rolled out to the public late last year.

The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) recently announced a crackdown on cryptocurrency usage as part of an effort to choke off financial support for political activists who are using bitcoin to crowdfund food, water, medical care, and legal costs for people who have been organizing nationwide protests against police brutality and government corruption.

The Indian, Chinese, and Nigerian governments have all justified these increased financial surveillance programs and human rights violations by claiming that cryptocurrencies are used for money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities. Don’t believe a word they say. In fact, studies show that cash is far, far more likely than bitcoin to be used for money laundering.

Unfortunately, some US politicians and bureaucrats are repeating these bogus arguments, paving the way for authoritarian cryptocurrency regulations in America.

Coming to America

In her first official comments as Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen attacked cryptocurrencies for their alleged connections to criminal activities. She then doubled down on her comments just a few weeks later. But the Treasury’s own internal files reveal that big banks like JP Morgan Chase, HSBC, and Wells Fargo are the true culprits of widespread financial crimes, helping drug cartels and terrorist organizations move staggering amounts of dirty money in defiance of international law. Janet Yellen certainly knows the truth about money laundering, yet she continues telling lies and stoking fear about cryptocurrencies. Why?

The US government has a long history of conducting surveillance against its people. Nearly everyone in America has been victimized by government spying programs that collect our phone records, Internet activity, emails, and other private information. The Treasury’s new cryptocurrency proposal will expand this invasive surveillance state even further into our personal lives without having any meaningful impact on crime. Make no mistake; that’s by design.

Policymakers at the Treasury must reject Requirements for Certain Transactions Involving Convertible Virtual Currency or Digital Assets and any other rules or regulations that would allow unreasonable government control over the digital currencies we’ll all be using in the years to come. Otherwise, it won’t be long before millions of ordinary Americans like you and me are left vulnerable to government surveillance on every financial transaction we make.

I’d bet my bottom bitcoin on it.

Fight for the Future is demanding transparency on an Amazon.com algorithm that places free-with-subscription books by white authors—frequently white men—above searched-for books.

In escalating spats between Amazon and public libraries, it is becoming clear that Amazon is interested in "replacing the library card with a credit card" by curating a collection of over 1 million exclusive and free-with-subscription books for Amazon’s own Kindle Unlimited. By algorithmically promoting Kindle Unlimited books in top-line ads tailored to pique the interest of readers searching for a specific non-Kindle Unlimited title, the world’s largest bookstore frequently displays 3 or more works of white, often less-popular authors before showing the searched-for book.

"The largest bookseller in the world is undercutting the few diverse authors getting published in a disturbingly undiverse industry," said Lia Holland (she/they), Campaigns & Communications Director at digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future. "By advertising titles in a similar genre free with subscription, Amazon is drawing customers searching for diverse authors away from them. They’re doing this because they want to capture and surveil readers in their Kindle or Audible systems, amassing data that will help them to continue to grow their monopoly power. Amazon isn’t a book company, after all. It’s a data company—it knows exactly what it’s doing here."

Fight for the Future searched every book in Parade’s 2020 list ‘20 Upcoming Books By Black Female Authors You Don’t Want to Miss’. Kindle Unlimited books by apparently white authors were promoted above the book that was actually searched for at least 70% of the time. 12 of the 14 Kindle Unlimited authors promoted appeared to be white men.

For example, in a search for debut author Yodassa Williams’ The Goddess Twins, Amazon first shows a selection of books by David Estes, then lists The Secret Princess by Melanie Cellier as the first search result with a discreet "sponsored" disclaimer. Both the Estes and Cellier books are Kindle Unlimited works with a $0.00 free-with-subscription price tag. Both Estes and Cellier appear to be white.

Latinx authors in Remezcla’s 15 Books by Latino & Latin American Authors to Add to Your 2020 Reading List fared slightly better. Of the 14 books available on Amazon, 9 had Kindle Unlimited or Amazon-sold textbooks promoted above them. In 7 instances, those books were by authors who appear to be white. One of the promoted Kindle Unlimited authors had no profile details on their Amazon author page and no information online. The other identified as Latinx.

For Harpers Baazar’s 14+ LGBT Books to Look For in 2020 list, 11 of the 14 titles had Kindle Unlimited or Amazon-sold textbooks promoted above them. Real Life: A Novel by Brandon Taylor, about growing up black and queer in the midwestern United States, had Kindle Unlimited M-M romance novels written by a white woman in Australia promoted on top of his debut novel. Four other authors on Harpers’ list also had the same ad for the same M-M romance books promoted over theirs.

"It’s already hard enough for queer youth to find books where their experiences are represented without Amazon algorithmically burying them to push their own ‘free’ content," said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of Fight for the Future and a transgender rights activist. "This is just one more example of Amazon abusing their data harvesting and monopoly power to silence and exploit marginalized people in pursuit of profit."

Libraries, public schools, and other booksellers are banned from offering at least 10,000 of Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited titles. Amazon’s Audible platform boasts at least 40,000 exclusive titles.

Amazon’s algorithm is concerning for any author, book-lover, or publisher that does not directly support this walled-garden business model, as highlighted in an eLending position paper endorsed by the Canadian Urban Library Council: "In fact, because Amazon advertises on behalf of its own authors, it actively can impede discoverability. For example, an exact match author search on Amazon for Brandon Sanderson, an award-winning fantasy author for Tor, returns five products from two separate Kindle Direct Publishing authors. The first book written by Brandon Sanderson is 6th on the page."

Amazon is under increasing pressure for how it manages Kindle and Audible titles. In February, Fight for the Future launched WhoCanGetYourBook.com to illustrate how most-vulnerable readers, libraries, and public schools are being left behind by marketing practices such as exclusives and embargoes that Amazon is popularizing. Amazon is also currently the subject of an ebook price-fixing lawsuit.

Net neutrality activists relaunch the Battle for the Net, demanding the Biden administration end the revolving door at the FCC and restore the open Internet

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, affordable and reliable Internet access has never been more important. Many people are still working from home, children are still learning online, and people looking for information about where and when to get a vaccine often require the Internet. But nearly 80 million people in the U.S. still do not have adequate broadband at home—with poor families and people of color disproportionately disconnected.

More than 20 organizations are joining forces to call on the Biden administration to address this ongoing issue. Battle for the Net has long been the grassroots hub for information and action regarding net neutrality. Now, Fight for the Future and Demand Progress are working with a coalition of digital and civil rights organizations to re-focus this fight by demanding the Biden administration appoint a fifth commissioner with no telecom industry ties to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

"The Biden Administration has said getting people online during the pandemic is a top priority, and if that’s the case we need a real champ appointed to the FCC, ASAP—someone who isn’t beholden to big telecom companies because they used to work for them. The last thing we need is some Democratic version of Ajit Pai," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), director of campaigns and operations at Fight for the Future. "A fully functional FCC will be able to ensure kids can keep learning without being forced to sit outside fast food restaurants, it will be able to start the process of reinstating net neutrality, and it will be able to stop greedy ISPs from imposing data caps and kicking people offline."

"Americans desperately need a return to an FCC that is an empowered advocate for the public, not the telecom industry," said Mark Stanley, director of operations for Demand Progress. "The Biden administration has a historic opportunity to close the digital divide for millions, ensure net neutrality, and protect consumers against ISP abuses. It is no longer a question of whether broadband internet access is an essential service. It is, and it is critical that Biden’s nominee is someone who understands this reality and supports Title II classification for broadband."

While the Biden administration has yet to announce a candidate for the fifth commissioner position, some of the names being floated include candidates with ties to the telecom industry. This is a major concern for the groups on Battle for the Net — they highlight that the seat should not be filled by anyone with media or telecom industry history, to ensure they prioritise fighting for people instead of industry. The groups also highlight that it is critical the fifth commissioner supports the Title II classification for broadband access that was repealed by the Trump FCC, which was chaired by former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai. Critically, Title II classification provides the necessary legal authority for the FCC to ensure net neutrality and network reliability, expand affordability, and protect consumers against ISP abuses, including unfair data caps.

In the past, BattleForTheNet.com has hosted campaigns that have resulted in millions of actions in support of net neutrality, thousands of calls to legislators to pass the Save the Internet Act, and helped organize websites and companies around events like the historic 2014 Internet Slowdown Day of Action — one of the biggest days of online activism ever.

Organizations participating in the current action to push the Biden administration to appoint an open Internet champion as the fifth commissioner to the FCC include:

Fight for the Future
Demand Progress
Free Press Action
American Family Voices
California Clean Money Action Fund
Center for Popular Democracy Action
Common Cause
Daily Kos
Friends of the Earth Action
MediaJustice
OpenMedia
Other98
People For the American Way
Presente Action
Progress America
Public Citizen
RootsAction.org
Social Security Works
The Nation
The Zero Hour
United Church of Christ, OC Inc.
Watchdog.net
Win Without War

Wired just reported that Uber Eats drivers in the UK are being fired because of the company’s faulty facial identification software. Uber requires drivers to submit selfies to confirm their identity, but when the technology fails, and isn’t able to match photos of the drivers with their accounts, drivers get booted off the system and are unable to work, and thus unable to pay their bills. This isn’t the first time this has happened — in 2019 a Black Uber driver in the US sued the company for its discriminatory facial recognition.

This case clearly shows how private use of facial recognition, by institutions and even individuals, poses just as much of a threat to the future of human civilization as government use. And it’s one of countless examples of how this technology automates and exacerbates existing power imbalances to control, target, and discriminate.

Workplaces are using facial recognition in recruitment, to replace traditional timecards, and to monitor workers’ movements and "productivity." Retailers and restaurants can use it to harvest data on our purchases and then target us with specific messaging and products, making decisions about what options are presented to people.

It’s widely known that most facial recognition algorithms exhibit systemic racial and gender bias. This is causing real harm that must be addressed now. But at the same time, we have to worry about the future when the tech improves, but the bias inherent in the systems in which they are being used persists. In the same way that Black and brown communities are over-policed, companies can target certain communities with their surveillance. Even with perfectly performing algorithms, a store could use a publicly available mugshot database to ban everyone with a criminal record from the store, which would disproportionately harm Black and brown people who are over-policed.

Over the past year, the movement to ban facial recognition has gained momentum. Cities and towns have banned it; Fight for the Future led a campaign with Students for Sensible Drug Policy that’s gotten more than 60 colleges and universities to commit to not use it, and another campaign with Tom Morello and other artists that got more than 40 of the worlds largest music festivals to pledge not to use it; and federal legislation banning government and law enforcement use of the technology was introduced last year (and will be reintroduced again for the new Congress).

So far, much of the campaigning against facial recognition has focused on banning government and law enforcement use of the technology, and that makes sense. But solely focusing on government use doesn’t fully address the issue.

Some argue that we can’t ban private use of facial recognition without giving the government too much power over individual choices, and say that we should instead create a regulatory framework governing how it can and can’t be used. But these types of rules normalize and codify its use and are unjustly applied to certain groups.

Biometric surveillance is more like lead paint or nuclear weapons than firearms or alcohol. The severity and scale of harm that facial recognition technology can cause requires more than a regulatory framework. The vast majority of uses of this technology, whether by governments, private individuals, or institutions, should be banned. Facial recognition surveillance cannot be reformed or regulated, it should be abolished.

Our friends at EFF have suggested that an opt-in consent framework is enough to address the potential harms of private use of facial recognition. We disagree. While we support harm reduction legislation like the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (BIPA), which requires private companies to get permission to collect your biometric data before doing so, these measures are not sufficient, and specifically fail to protect the people most vulnerable to discrimination and abuse.

Policy that relies on companies gaining "informed consent" is dangerous. It puts the onus on the individual to understand the risks associated with handing over their sensitive biometric information, which may not be clear, and disproportionately harms Black, Brown, and poor communities.

This approach also assumes that people are able to opt out of situations that require facial recognition. If the only hospital in your area uses facial recognition on patients (or visitors, staff, doctors, and nurses), you might not have the opportunity to find another hospital to address your health emergency. As facial recognition is being deployed by airlines in airports, it isn’t reasonable to tell people to find other ways to travel if they don’t want to use facial scans to check in, or force people to wait in much longer lines at airports to avoid facial recognition technology. If a private school or college is using facial recognition and a student (or parent, for K-12 schools) must give consent in order to attend, or teachers, janitors, and administrators have to consent in order to work there, that isn’t actually a choice. In the Uber Eats driver case, Uber gives drivers the option for AI or human verification, but the system in place for human verification doesn’t actually work. Requiring workers to accept facial recognition as a condition for employment is not meaningful consent for someone who needs a job.

Even seemingly innocuous use cases create problems. A music festival or sporting arena using facial recognition for ticketing could offer discounts or shorter lines for those who consent. This harms people who agree without understanding the risks, who could be tracked by event organizers to see what food they bought, how often they went to the bathroom, or what artists they came to see. That data could be sold to other corporations and used for profiling or advertising, and could end up in many databases without their knowledge. This scenario also puts the people who have to pay more or wait longer to protect their privacy and biometric data at a disadvantage. Is it really "informed consent" if someone is heavily incentivized to use the option that lets a corporation collect your biometric data?

Regulations also allow the technology to be normalized, and to spread. Companies promote their facial recognition tech as convenient (and, in light of the pandemic, touch free and thus, "safe"), and we’ve seen adoption for everything from unlocking phones to checking in at the airport. These applications of convenience may make people more comfortable with the technology, embed it in our day-to-day lives, and make it harder to ban it moving forward, while still posing the same threat.

It is worth noting that legislative bans on facial recognition — including the groundbreaking Portland, OR ban on private use of facial recognition — have an exception for people accessing their private technologies like cell phones. While we generally advise people not to use biometrics to unlock their phone, and that systems should only offer this when the biometric data is being stored on device and not in the cloud, we think this exception is reasonable.

We also think there can be a reasonable exception made for research. Research like that of Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru, which helped expose the racial and gender bias built into facial recognition algorithms, should absolutely be allowed to continue. And again pointing to the Portland, OR ban on private use of facial recognition, which smartly bans use in places of public accommodation as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, this research would be allowed. We believe this research can continue without allowing the technology to be used on the public at large.

In a world where private companies are already collecting our data, analyzing it, and using it to manipulate us to make a profit, we can’t afford to naively believe that private entities can be trusted with our biometric information. A technology that is inherently unjust, that has the potential to exponentially expand and automate discrimination and human rights violations, and that contributes to an ever growing and inescapable surveillance state is too dangerous to exist. The dangers of facial recognition far outweigh any potential benefits, which is why banning both government and private use of facial recognition is the only way to keep everyone safe.

"We apologize to any proctologists we offend with this message," said a representative for Fight for the Future. "Unlike Proctorio’s Mike Olsen, they help people and don’t belittle basic human rights."

Image description: Mike Olsen’s try-hard black and white LinkedIn profile picture overlaid with the website URL and hashtag #InvestigateProctorio

Fight for the Future has launched a new website laying out the case against embattled e-proctoring app Proctorio, and their blundering CEO Mike Olsen. The website, which can be found at both MikeOlsenTeenageLapCam.com and ProctorioIsWorseThanAProctologyExam.com, highlights the disparities in social good between the racist, ableist e-proctoring app and a rectal exam.

Most recently in the news for lying about having clients like Duke University on their website homepage, and for its racist facial analysis tech forcing a young woman of color to take an exam while shining a flashlight on her face, Proctorio is facing serious scrutiny from clients and regulators alike. The University of Washington joined a growing number of institutions that will not renew their contract with Proctorio last week.

"Students have been organizing for over a year now to try and stop Mike Olsen from filming their laps and invading their bedrooms," said a representative for Fight for the Future, organizers of ProctorioIsWorseThanAProctologyExam.com and BanEProctoring.com. "Universities are actively complicit in one of the most preventable gaffes of the COVID-19 pandemic—an egregious, racist, ableist, invasion of student privacy by a CEO who likes to intimidate teenagers on social media."

"We don’t like Mike," Fight’s representative continued. "He’s simply not the ‘Artful Hacker’ he describes himself as on Twitter. His company is a dumpster fire and we encourage anyone working there to expose the trash and abuse that’s undoubtedly happening behind the scenes at Proctorio. When students can’t count on universities or their elected representatives to stand up for their rights, they have to count on activists and we’re here for anyone who wants to join that fight."

The website also includes a list of Olsen’s most ridiculous behavior, with direct quotes including "It’s hilarious, students pretending to care where their data goes. Whether they’re cheating or not, I don’t really care, but then they go out and they just say things. They don’t do any research, they just make things up." and "If you’re gonna lie bro… don’t do it when the company clearly has an entire transcript of your conversation."

Image description: A screenshot taken from Bellingcat’s website in which Riley June Williams is making an in-video Nazi salute. Below the image a note reads "Editors note: This video has had the sound temporarily removed at the request of the copyright owner of the music featured in the original clip."

Once again, our current copyright system is failing. This time, it’s obstructing coverage of the ongoing Capitol riot saga by removing the audio from evidence in an ongoing investigation. The "heil Hitler" video of a woman who is accused of stealing Nancy Pelosi’s laptop has been censored by a DMCA copyright claim.

The video, which Bellingcat broke and identified as being of Riley June Williams, shows Williams dancing with an audio overlay in which she states: "Hammer was right all along. There is no political solution. All that is left is acceleration. Heil Hitler."

But due to a copyright claim from representatives of electronic music artist DJ Hyper, whose song "Spoiler" was used in the video, Bellingcat has had to err on the side of removal and censor the audio, including Williams’ "heil Hitler" statement.

Fight for the Future has downloaded a copy of the uncensored video in the event that Twitter and other social media platforms also uphold a DMCA claim on the footage, and it is available to journalists by emailing press@fightforthefuture.org.

"Increasingly, copyright is being misused as a tool of censorship not only for creators, but now also for newsworthy information with journalistic importance," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future. "Copyright infringement should play no role in whether or not we are able to recognize and respond to hate. But here we are in a twisted world in which the copyright maximalist work of the lobbyists of the RIAA is protecting a neonazi trying to hide from the consequences of participating in a failed coup, just because she played a few seconds of a copyrighted song in her video. Where is the line here? If some white supremacists claim responsibility for a hate crime in a video with a Metallica soundtrack, will we never be able to hear that video because of Metallica’s copyright? The copyright system is totally broken in our country."

In February, police were caught playing pop music while being filmed with the intention of making videos of them impossible to post on mainstream social media outlets. Copyright maximalists have forced major internet platforms to adopt automated content ID systems that remove all audio from a video, regardless of whether the video is of a concert or a cop. Recently, copyright maximalist band Metallica was censored during their own performance on Twitch because of Twitch’s copyright ID system.

Image description: A screenshot taken from Bellingcat’s website in which Riley June Williams is making an in-video Nazi salute. Below the image a note reads "Editors note: This video has had the sound temporarily removed at the request of the copyright owner of the music featured in the original clip."

Once again, copyright maximalists are abusing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and acting as censors of the artists, creators, and thinkers they purport to protect. This time, they’re obstructing coverage of the ongoing Capitol riot saga by censoring evidence in an ongoing investigation. The "heil hitler" video of a 22 year old nazi who is accused of stealing Nancy Pelosi’s laptop has been censored by a DMCA copyright claim.

The video, which Bellingcat broke and identified as being of Riley June Williams, shows Williams dancing with an audio overlay in which she states: "Hammer was right all along. There is no political solution. All that is left is acceleration. Heil Hitler."

But due to a copyright claim from representatives of electronic music artist DJ Hyper, whose song "Spoiler" was used in the video, Bellingcat has been forced to censor the audio, including Williams’ "Heil Hitler" statement.

Fight for the Future has downloaded a copy of the uncensored video in the event that Twitter and other social media platforms also process a DMCA claim on the footage, and it is available to journalists by emailing press@fightforthefuture.org.

"Increasingly, copyright is being abused as a tool of censorship not only for creators, but now also for newsworthy information with journalistic importance," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns and Communications Director at Fight for the Future. "Copyright infringement should play no role in whether or not we are able to recognize and respond to hate. But here we are in a twisted world in which the lobbyists of the RIAA are protecting a Nazi trying to hide from the consequences of participating in a failed coup, just because she played a few seconds of a copyrighted song in her video. Where is the line here? If some white supremacists claim responsibility for a hate crime in a video with a Metallica soundtrack, will we never be able to hear that video because of Metallica’s copyright? The copyright system is totally broken in our country."

In February, police were caught playing pop music while being filmed with the intention of making videos of their interactions impossible to post on mainstream social media outlets. Copyright maximalists have forced major internet platforms to adopt automated content ID systems that remove all audio from a video, regardless of whether the video is of a concert or a cop. Recently, copyright maximalist band Metallica was censored during their own performance on Twitch because of Twitch’s copyright ID system.

Image description: a Twitter-sized rectangular image that reads "The digital book revolution is not the paragon of accessibility that has been advertised" with a graphic of falling books above the text and the URL WhoCanGetYourBook.com below.

The digital book revolution is not the paragon of accessibility that has been advertised. Fight for the Future’s new tool highlights how predatory digital book distribution is increasing digital inequity while harming core institutions like public libraries, public schools, and independent booksellers.

WhoCanGetYourBook.com offers letter grades in accessibility and availability for books, laying bare prohibitive licensing costs, exclusive deals such as Amazon’s Audible Originals, and usability concerns that are keeping popular books out of the hands of our nation’s most-vulnerable readers.

"With the rise of ebooks and audiobooks, barriers that prevented blind people like myself from gaining equitable access to books could be a thing of the past," said Sina Bahram (he/him), President of Prime Access Consulting, Inc. "Instead, the education, research, and enjoyment of disabled people are all caught in the crossfire of publishing profits. I hope that this project will prompt authors and publishers to center people with reading differences as well as people with income and transportation barriers. Disabled readers must be included in publishing’s digital revolution."

The ‘Who can get your book?’ quiz offers authors and publishers a letter grade, granting one point for each equitable decision in how a book is released. For example, Trevor Noah’s Born A Crime receives a letter grade of D, based on the memoir’s lack of availability in audiobook format due to an exclusive with Amazon’s Audible—as well as restrictive licensing agreements for the ebook.

Access issues with audiobooks in particular don’t stop there. Despite an orientation to equity of access and rare download-and-own options for ebooks, PM Press’ Pictures Of A Gone City still received a C grade because the audiobook they paid to produce via Amazon’s ACX Services is only available on Audible.

"This current forced reality is almost completely inimical to everything we aspire to do with the dissemination of ideas, and our belief that ideas actually matter," said Ramsey Kanaan (he/him), Publisher, PM Press. "Amazon indeed has a complete monopoly. They are the only—at this particular moment—realistic model both for the creation and dissemination of independent audiobooks. And, they are affordable only because they force all of the creative labor back on us. Then, to ensure total market share, Amazon demands an audiobook exclusive. And hence they dictate how and where such products are made available, and at what price. Our problems with audiobooks via Amazon are a microcosm of the wider problematics and tensions of disseminating ideas (any ideas) in publishing’s so-called marketplace. It is very analogous to the landlord/renter relationship, where the former has all the power, can dictate all of the terms, and if you don’t want to ‘play’ by such 'rules’, one is free to become unhoused elsewhere."

Exacerbated by the pandemic, public schools sit on the other side of this monopolistic equation—and not only for modern works. The Diary of Anne Frank is costing Menifee Union School District $27 per student per year in ebook format—which is the only format they are able to offer many students during the pandemic. Because this California school district is restricted by state law from using services like Kindle or Epic that may offer more affordable ebook licenses in exchange for permission to collect invasive amounts of data on students, they don’t have many options.

"I hope that authors and publishers will consider the ramifications of their decisions to limit access and what that means," said Chrystal Woodcock (she/her), Library Media Supervisor at Menifee Union School District in California. "My biggest fear is that the idea of ownership will go away in the same ways it has within the software industry. A shift away from print books and to these limited-use licenses could be the end of libraries. Libraries are a great equalizer that give learning opportunities to people of all socio-economic backgrounds. We do need to continue to fight for access.”

"The US has come to a place where conspiracy theories and disinformation are free online, whereas real human knowledge is only for those who can pay," said Lia Holland (she/they), Campaigns & Communications Director with Fight for the Future. "Publishing’s ecosystem has become incredibly complicated, obscuring who is being most harmed by the dog-eat-dog war between monopolistic Amazon and the few remaining large publishers. Those most harmed are disabled people, rural people, low income people, those who speak English as a second language, and young readers. This tool empowers all of us to finally recognize what is going on, and demand better."

Publishing and ebook lending data from 2020 shows that authors in particular stand to benefit from supporting the continuation of cultural institutions that serve disabled and low income readers. With library ebook lending up a record 33% in 2020, the publishing industry saw sales rise an astounding 8%, including a 16-22% increase in ebook sales. Meanwhile, overall sales for independent bookstores were down 28% in 2020, and the increase in online sales did not make up for loss of in-store sales revenue for the majority of bookstores.

"Bookstores are the heart and soul of our communities," said Mark Pearson (he/him), Co-Founder and CEO of Libro.fm, the audiobook platform that shares profits with 1,300+ independent bookstores. "The silver lining is that booksellers are entrepreneurial, resilient, and nothing will stop them from curating books for their customers, not even a global pandemic or Amazon’s Audible. As a result, sales of digital audiobooks through Libro.fm’s partner stores had a dramatic increase from 2020. We are optimistic about the long-term potential for bookstores to compete online in all formats. At the same time, Audible Exclusive audiobooks—also known as Audible Originals— hurt bookstores because they are consistently missing out on sales for big releases. When they aren’t able to sell audiobooks that are in high demand, potential customers will opt for Audible over their local bookstores."

Valuable exclusive deals with authors such as Michael Pollan continue to increase Amazon’s monopolization of the market—leaving readers who cannot afford Audible, or who will not support anti-competitive practices and invasive data collection, without access. Audiobooks are of particular value to disabled readers, illiterate readers, and readers who have less leisure time. They also serve low income and rural readers by being available without requiring transportation, and help English learners with pronunciation and fluency.

"With a basis for comparison in this tool, we can now confront the true impact of an embargo or an exclusive on the institutions that have created and sustained generations of book lovers," Holland continued. "What grades would last year’s top 10 bestsellers get? What about top LGBTQ+ or racial justice books? Which publishers are making the most equitable choices with their new releases? The results are heartbreaking."

“Libraries are facing a threat to their very existence due to unscrupulous business practices and legal challenges to the right to lend," said Jennie Rose Halperin (she/her) Executive Director at Library Futures. "As libraries provide increased digital services to their users, it is crucial that they maintain continual access and safeguard an accessible, equitable, open future for everyone, no matter their background. The problems are manifest, but we believe that librarians and the public can fight back through collective action and a better awareness of the issues surrounding digital enclosures.”

Image description:  A square image that shows Trevor Noah’s "How accessible and available are specific books in the US?" scorecard for his book ‘Born A Crime’, accessible via the website, with the Public Schools Audio section expanded. Trevor Noah’s letter grade for accessibility and availability on this book is a D. The URL WhoCanGetYourBook.com is below the scorecard and at the top there is a graphic of falling books.

After spending more than $6 million on lobbying and even more on litigation, Big Telecom companies like AT&T and Verizon have just been dealt a crushing defeat in California, as a federal judge rejected every one of their arguments against the strongest state-level net neutrality law in the country, saying California could start enforcing it. 

Judge John Mendez, a federal judge in Northern California, issued the scathing decision immediately, from the bench, after a two-hour hearing on AT&T and Comcast’s claim that California had no right to protect its residents. 

"Telecom lobbyists used every dirty trick in the book to try to kill off California’s gold standard net neutrality law. They spent millions on lobbying. They drove misleading robo-calls to senior citizens. They propped up fake astroturf organizations, paid off an academic, and lied through their teeth. And they still lost," said Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, "That’s because net neutrality is one of the most popular policies of the last century. People from across the political spectrum can agree that we don’t want our cable and phone companies controlling what we can see and do on the Internet, or killing off startups to solidify the monopoly power of Big Tech giants. We’ve been saying it for years and we’ll say it again: all you telecom lobbyists are bound to lose. Now we’re one step closer to net neutrality being the law of the land. The Biden administration should act quickly to appoint a net neutrality champion (with no ties to the telecom industry) to the FCC, and Congress should pay attention to what happened in California, and ensure that any future legislative protections are at least as good as California’s law–– rock solid, with no loopholes for devious ISPs to abuse."

SB 822 is widely regarded as the "gold standard" net neutrality law in the US. After furious Internet activism, it passed the California legislature by an overwhelming margin, complete with the blessing of the Miguel Santiago, who became an ardent supporter of the bill after facing massive public outcry and the threat of crowdfunded billboards in his district.

The fight over SB 822 has implications for the entire nation, and came amidst widespread public outcry following reports that Verizon throttled service to firefighters battling the worst wildfire in the state’s history. The now-repealed FCC Open Internet Order would have provided the possibility of redress for the fire department. SB 822 would allow the State Attorney General to investigate such incidents. More than 1,000 firefighters and other first responders have already signed on to an open letter calling for the restoration of the 2015 net neutrality protections.

Giant Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast poured enormous amounts of money into lobbying efforts to stop SB 822 and managed to gut it once in committee. They were even been caught funding astroturf front groups, who  targeted seniors with misleading robocalls, and ran outrageous Twitter ads generating tweets targeting California assembly members that look like they’re from real constituents.

Fight for the Future played a significant role mobilizing grassroots momentum to pass SB 822, driving tens of thousands of calls and emails to state legislators and garnering nationwide media attention.

###

This Wednesday, major textbook company McGraw-Hill was the subject of a Twitter protest for their partnership with controversial e-proctoring software company Proctorio. Over 20 human rights organizations called on the company to stop pairing invasive, racist, and ableist e-proctoring software with its course materials.

Organizations that called for McGraw-Hill to #BanEProctoring included the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, Mijente, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, NYU’s AI Now Institute, Yale Privacy Lab, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, ParentsTogether, Fight for the Future, and more.

The Council on America-Islamic Relations tweeted: "CAIR is calling on @MHEducation to listen to students and human rights experts and end their relationship with academic spyware company @Proctorio"

Students for Sensible Drug Policy tweeted: "The pandemic is no excuse to disrespect and surveil students with deeply problematic apps such as @Proctorio. Today we call on @MHEducation to immediately end their partnership with #Proctorio and #BanEProctoring."

Yale Privacy Lab encouraged their followers to "join the call to #BanEProctoring", also announcing a three-panel event on the issue in March.

The founder of X-Lab, an organization focused on the intersection of technology and human rights, tweeted: "Having once worked on @MHEducation’s digital platform, I’m particularly disturbed by their use of @Proctorio – there’s a reason racial justice and human rights groups are sounding the alarm on this disturbing surveillance app."

More tweets are available at BanEProctoring.com or by searching the hashtag #BanEProctoring. During the action day, at least 578 tweets were sent by organizations and their supporters demanding that McGraw-Hill end their partnership with Proctorio.

This day of action comes as McGraw-Hill is considering its partnership with Proctorio. McGraw-Hill agreed to meet with Fight for the Future and ParentsTogether in January, after the organizations delivered a letter from over 2000 concerned parents—as well as 1200 additional emails from concerned citizens in a 24 hour period. During the meeting, McGraw-Hill stated they were unaware of the broad media coverage of concerns about Proctorio, their CEO, and e-proctoring software in general. Further, they stated they had not consulted with any racial justice, privacy, or human rights experts before entering their partnership with Proctorio.

In light of the deep concerns of the experts McGraw-Hill failed to consult, and the mounting interest of legislators, they agreed to consider whether privacy-violating, racist, and ableist technology fit with McGraw-Hill values.

"It has been over a month since McGraw-Hill became aware that they were normalizing a deeply problematic and unjust technology," said Lia Holland (she/they) Campaigns & Communications Director at digital rights organization Fight for the Future. "So far, they have done absolutely nothing to stand up for equity for the most marginalized students they serve. Their inaction is actively harming and traumatizing students in the middle of a global pandemic—the time to act is now. McGraw-Hill had better wake up to the fact that profiting from Proctorio’s technology is a deplorable action, one they are going to be held accountable for."

"Students and parents across the country are increasingly speaking up to say using racist, ablest, and invasive software in schools and universities is unacceptable," said Justin Ruben (he/him), co-director of ParentsTogether. "By endorsing this harmful educational technology, McGraw Hill is holding back equitable access to education for all students."

Today Senators Warner (D-VA), Hirono (D-HI), and Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced a new bill that they say is intended to address real-world harm caused by Big Tech companies business practices. Unfortunately, the bill is written in such a way that it would have enormous unintended consequences, similar to repealing Section 230 entirely. 

Digital rights group Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to director Evan Greer (she/her):

We absolutely agree that Congress needs to take meaningful action to address the real world harm being done by Big Tech companies’ surveillance capitalist business models. But unfortunately this bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression. It creates a huge carveout in Section 230 that impacts not only advertising but essentially all paid services, such as web hosting and CDNs, as well as small services like Patreon, Bandcamp, and Etsy. 

While it appears the bill’s sponsors intended to make targeted changes to Section 230, as written this bill essentially guts Section 230. It would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google while crushing small sites and rendering the Internet almost completely unusable for activism and organizing. We urge lawmakers to pass the SAFE Sex Worker study act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, and hold hearings about the potential human rights and civil liberties implications of changing Section 230 before advancing legislation that could do tremendous harm.

We hope to work with the bill’s sponsors and supporters to work toward meaningful policy changes to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their role in undermining democracy and basic rights. We urge swift action on measures such as strong data privacy legislation and enforcement of antitrust and civil rights laws.

Fight for the Future recently helped organize a letter from 70+ racial justice, LGBTQ+, sex worker advocacy, and human rights organizations warning lawmakers about the potential harms of overly broad or uncareful changes to Section 230. We urge lawmakers to read it and take these concerns seriously. (Please note: we do not speak for any of the groups who signed the letter in terms of their support or opposition to any specific legislative proposal.)

###

CNBC and other outlets are reporting that Amazon is planning to install artificial intelligence enabled cameras on its fleet of thousands of delivery vans, monitoring and recording 100% of the time when vehicles are in motion.

In response, Fight for the Future launched a campaign calling on Amazon to halt the program, which they openly admit could be used for law enforcement surveillance and to investigate minor crimes like package theft. In case they take them down, here’s a link to internal training videos that Amazon is circulating to their drivers about the program on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/evan_greer/status/1357122709403164680

A quote from Evan Greer, Deputy Director of Fight for the Future (she/her):

"This amounts to the largest expansion of corporate surveillance in human history. Amazon wants to turn their massive delivery fleet into an army of mobile Ring surveillance cameras. These devices will exacerbate the unsafe and inhumane working conditions that Amazon’s contract delivery drivers are already subjected to. And they’ll violate everyone’s basic rights by constantly collecting and analyzing footage of our neighborhoods, our homes, and our children. It seems inevitable that Amazon will find some easy way to share video with their 2,000+ law enforcement partners––the privacy policy obtained by CNBC clearly states that they can and will share footage with police. And there are essentially no laws in place to limit what commercial purposes Amazon can use this enormous trove of video footage for. Per usual, Amazon is sacrificing security. They are not even responding to questions about how the devices are secured. If the connection isn’t end to end encrypted, this is a security disaster waiting to happen. Hackers already targeted insecure Ring cameras. If they target these devices, it could cause major accidents or get someone killed. We’re demanding that Amazon immediately stop the roll out of this unsafe program, and we call on Congress to launch a full investigation into Amazon’s surveillance empire."

This surveillance program is especially disturbing in light of AWS’ Andy Jassy becoming Amazon’s new CEO. He has been a staunch defender of Amazon’s surveillance products, including their controversial Rekognition facial recognition software.

###

Robinhood, E*Trade, Charles Schwab, and other stock brokers halted trading on Gamestop shares today, wiping out millions in gains for retail investors while reducing losses for powerful hedge fund investors

Earlier today, many top financial service firms — including Robinhood, E*Trade, Charles Schwab, and TD Ameritrade — and others halted purchases on Gamestop shares in a move that wiped out millions of dollars in gains for retail investors while protecting the position of powerful hedge fund investors. In response, digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new campaign, FuckWallStreet.online, which provides frustrated investors with the resources necessary to contact their lawmakers and file formal complaints with the SEC in pursuit of justice.

"This is an outrage, plain and simple," said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him). "Managers at hedge funds like Citron and Melvin Capital bet billions of dollars that Gamestop shares would tank, but retail investors proved them wrong. Now brokerages like Robinhood and E*Trade punishing retail investors for being right, restricting access to Gamestop shares and causing the stock price to plummet. They are literally choosing winners and losers in the stock market, taking millions of dollars away from ordinary people and giving it to hedge fund investors."

The situation started when hedge fund managers tried to short video game retailer Gamestop (GME). But these hedge fund managers overinvested in their position, creating a short interest of 150% … meaning the hedge fund managers had borrowed more GME shares than actually existed in order to execute their money-making scheme. Members of Reddit’s Wall Street Bets online community realized that they could capitalize on the situation by purchasing GME shares and holding them, forcing the stock price up as hedge fund managers became more and more desperate to stop their losses. 

As a result, GME skyrocketed to nearly $500 per share, up from a mere $4 price point last fall. That’s when popular brokerage firms stepped in, restricting investors from buying more GME. In a matter of hours, GME’s price sank below $200, wiping out massive gains for retail investors while allowing powerful hedge fund investors to minimize their losses.

"Robinhood and companies like them have made it perfectly clear that they are only interested in serving the interests of Wall Street," said Joe Thornton, Video Producer and Campaigner at Fight for the Future (pronouns he/him). "When it matters, they are more than happy to screw over small investors. Their stated goal of ‘democratizing finance for all’ was nothing more than aesthetics."

Fight for the Future encourages everyone to visit FuckWallStreet.online to learn more about the situation, contact Congress, and file a complaint about this blatantly anti-consumer behavior with the SEC.

To the Biden/Harris Administration and the 117th Congress:

In the wake of this latest act of white supremacist violence directed at the U.S. Capitol, it’s more urgent than ever that lawmakers take steps to address systemic racism and injustice, and to hold Big Tech companies accountable for their role in undermining democracy and amplifying harmful content. However, repeal of or injudicious changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would only make the situation worse. 

Gutting Section 230 would make it more difficult for web platforms to combat the type of dangerous rhetoric that led to the attack on the Capitol. And certain carve outs to the law could threaten human rights and silence movements for social and racial justice that are needed now more than ever. 

Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech. It makes it possible for websites and online forums to host the opinions, photos, videos, memes, and creativity of ordinary people, rather than just content that is backed by corporations. 

The danger posed by uncareful changes to Section 230 is not theoretical. The last major change to the law, the passage of SESTA/FOSTA in 2018, put lives in danger. The impacts of this law were immediate and destructive, limiting the accounts of sex workers and making it more difficult to find and help those who were being trafficked online. This was widely seen as a disaster that made vulnerable communities less safe and led to widespread removal of speech online. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ro Khanna have sponsored legislation to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA. Lawmakers should pass this bill and examine past mistakes before modifying Section 230, and should hold hearings on the human rights and civil liberties implications of altering the law before legislating further. Overly broad changes to Section 230 could disproportionately harm and silence marginalized people, whose voices have been historically ignored by mainstream press outlets. For example, social media platforms would be unlikely to host viral videos of police violence that have spurred nationwide uprisings for racial justice if they faced constant litigation from law enforcement for doing so.

We share lawmakers’ concerns with the growing power of Big Tech companies and their unwillingness to address the harm their products are causing. Google and Facebook are just some of the many companies that compromise the privacy and safety of the public by harvesting our data for their own corporate gain, and allowing advertisers, racists and conspiracy theorists to use that data to target us. These surveillance-based business models are pervasive and an attack on human rights. But claims that Section 230 immunizes tech companies that break the law, or disincentivizes them from removing illegal or policy-violating content, are false. In fact, Amazon has invoked Section 230 to defend itself against a lawsuit over its decision to drop Parler from Amazon Web Services due to unchecked threats of violence on Parler’s platform. Additionally, because Section 230 protects platforms’ decisions to remove objectionable content, the law played a role in enabling the removal of Donald Trump from platforms, who could act without fear of excessive litigation.

Repealing Section 230 would make it even harder for platforms to engage in good faith moderation of hateful speech and disinformation. It could lead thousands of smaller companies and alternative platforms to be shut down, therefore crushing competition and making Big Tech even more powerful. This is why Big Tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg have said they are open to 230 reforms, because they know it would only reinforce their influence. 

We concur that Congress should act to address the harms of Big Tech through meaningful legislative action on data privacy, civil rights and others fronts, and enforcement of existing antitrust laws. But  uncareful efforts to poke holes in Section 230 could result in the exact opposite outcome. Lawmakers must consider the intersectional consequence that this will have on activists, sex workers, Black and brown communities, Muslim communities, LGBTQ+ folks, disabled people and other marginalized communities before they make a change that could profoundly alter the state of digital free speech and human rights. 

18 Million Rising
Access Now
Adult Industry Laborers & Artists Association
Advocating Opportunity 
Assembly Four
Black and Pink
Black and Pink Massachusetts
CARES - Community AIDS Resource and Educations Services 
Carolina Are, Researcher, Activist, Blogger at Blogger On Pole
Common Cause
Community United for Safety and Protection 
Convocation Design and Research
COYOTE RI- Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics
Dangerous Speech Project
Data for Black Lives
Defending Rights and Dissent
Detroit Community Technology Project
Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project
Equality North Carolina
Fight for the Future
Freedom Network USA
Free Press Action
Friends of Sabeel, North America
Global Forum for Media Development
Global Voices
Hacking//Hustling
Hollaback!
House of Tulip
Ishtar Collective
Indigenous Friends Organization
Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice
Institute of Information Cyprus (101.cy)
International League of Advocates
Joy Buolamwini, Founder Algorithmic Justice League
Kairos Action
Lucy Parsons Labs
Media Justice
Michael Karanicolas, Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information
Montgomery County (MD) Civil Rights Coalition
Movement Alliance Project
Mpower Change
Muslim Justice League
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights 
National Lawyers Guild
Other 98
OpenMedia
Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative)
PDX Privacy
PEN America
Popular Resistance
Positive Women’s Network - Ohio
Public Knowledge
Prostasia Foundation
Presente.org
Ranking Digital Rights
Reframe Health and Justice
Renata Avila, Race & Technology Fellow, HAI, Stanford University
Sasha Costanza-Chock, Senior Research Fellow, Algorithmic Justice League
Sero Project
Sex Workers’ Action Program of Hamilton
S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
SWOP - Sex Workers Outreach Project
SWOP Behind Bars
SWOP Brooklyn
The 6:52 Project Foundation, Inc.
The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center
Transgender Law Center
UltraViolet
URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity
US People living with HIV Caucus
Wikimedia Foundation
Win Without War
WITNESS
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
X-Lab

A group of more than 70 organizations have sent a letter to Congress and the Biden/Harris administration warning against responding to the violence in the U.S. Capitol by renewing injudicious attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The groups, including racial justice, LGBTQ+, Muslim, prison justice, sex worker, free expression, immigration, HIV advocacy, child protection, gender justice, digital rights, consumer, and global human rights organizations urge lawmakers to consider impacts on marginalized communities before making changes to Section 230, and call on lawmakers to take meaningful action to hold Big Tech companies accountable, including enforcement of existing anti-trust and civil rights law, and passing Federal data privacy legislation. 

See the letter here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-01-27-letter-from-70-human-rights-and-social-justice/ 

"Gutting Section 230 would make it more difficult for web platforms to combat the type of dangerous rhetoric that led to the attack on the Capitol. And certain carve outs to the law could threaten human rights and silence movements for social and racial justice that are needed now more than ever," the letter’s signers write, "Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech. It makes it possible for websites and online forums to host the opinions, photos, videos, memes, and creativity of ordinary people, rather than just content that is backed by corporations."

The letter urges lawmakers to pass the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, the last major change to Section 230, and to hold hearings on the human rights, freedom of expression, and civil liberties concerns associated with changing the law, before legislating further.

Signers of the letter include: 18 Million Rising, Access Now. Adult Industry Laborers & Artists Association, Advocating Opportunity, Assembly Four, Black and Pink, Black and Pink Massachusetts, CARES - Community AIDS Resource and Educations Services, Carolina Are - Researcher, Activist, Blogger at Blogger On Pole, Common Cause, Community United for Safety and Protection, Convocation Design and Research, COYOTE RI- Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics, Dangerous Speech Project, Data for Black Lives, Defending Rights and Dissent, Detroit Community Technology Project, Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project, Equality North Carolina, Fight for the Future, Freedom Network USA, Free Press Action, Friends of Sabeel - North America, Global Forum for Media Development, Global Voices, Hacking//Hustling, Hollaback!, House of Tulip, Ishtar Collective, Indigenous Friends Organization. Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, Institute of Information Cyprus (101.cy), International League of Advocates, Joy Buolamwini - Founder Algorithmic Justice League, Kairos Action, Lucy Parsons Labs, Media Justice, Michael Karanicolas - Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information, Montgomery County (MD) Civil Rights Coalition, Movement Alliance Project, Mpower Change, Muslim Justice League, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Lawyers Guild, Other 98, OpenMedia, Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative), PDX Privacy, PEN America, Popular Resistance, Positive Women’s Network - Ohio, Public Knowledge, Prostasia Foundation, Presente.org, Ranking Digital Rights, Reframe Health and Justice, Renata Avila - Race & Technology Fellow, HAI, Stanford University, Sasha Costanza-Chock - Senior Research Fellow, Algorithmic Justice League, Sero Project, Sex Workers’ Action Program of Hamilton, S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, SWOP - Sex Workers Outreach Project, SWOP Behind Bars, SWOP Brooklyn, The 6:52 Project Foundation, Inc., The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center, Transgender Law Center, UltraViolet, URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, US People living with HIV Caucus, Wikimedia Foundation, Win Without War, WITNESS, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, X-Lab

Tawana Petty, National Organizing Director, Data for Black Lives, said, "Big Tech companies’ surveillance minded business practices automate and exacerbate white supremacy and injustice. We need lawmakers to take meaningful action to address this, rather than continuing their misguided attacks on Section 230. Gutting this foundational law could lead to widespread silencing of marginalized voices and social movements, and make it harder for platforms to address harmful content. If Congress is serious about addressing systemic injustice in the wake of the racist attack on the U.S. Capitol, they should listen to the communities most impacted, rather than doubling down on their empty talking points." 

"This is not a game. Section 230 is one of the most important laws protecting freedom of expression and human rights in the digital age," said Evan Greer (she/her), director of Fight for the Future, "Lawmakers need to listen to the communities who are most impacted by systemic injustice before they enact legislation that could do enormous harm to vulnerable communities, silence activists, and put lives in danger. Any lawmaker who pushes for changes to Section 230 without first supporting the study bill to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA is being reckless. Big Tech companies’ business model is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and social justice. But we don’t need headline-grabbing bills that do more harm than good. We need thoughtful policy, informed by lived experience, now more than ever."

"Unregulated tech companies have been allowed to make up their own rules for decades and as a result they’ve weakened democracy, enabled violent white supremacists and facilitated the spread of disinformation" said Erin Shields National Organizer with MediaJustice, "The role of platforms should rightfully be scrutinized as we assign blame for the violent attack on the Capitol. But repealing Section 230 would only further entrench tech companies as judge and jury over content on the Internet, a role they’ve proven ill equipped to perform without harming the speech and safety of people of color and other marginalized voices. Solutions need to be focused on breaking up tech’s concentration of power, wealth, and control. Anything short of that is insufficient".

Alex Andrews of SWOP Behind Bars said, "FOSTA fallout has harmed sex workers and their families and done nothing to reduce trafficking or improve the lives of sex trafficking victims.  The shuttering of online platforms forced online sex workers into more dangerous modalities and made it impossible to survive. Because our organization advocates for the decriminalization of sex work, we could easily face prosecution for "promoting" prostitution and we can’t advocate for our clients under these conditions. We beg our lawmakers to listen to our stories and understand the desperate need to provide more resources for economically disadvantaged people who have little access to services and support."

"Free Press Action is deeply concerned about white supremacist organizing, recruiting and fundraising on the internet, and has led corporate accountability campaigns launched by Change the Terms and Stop Hate for Profit to stop the spread of hate, racism and disinformation online," said Free Press Action senior policy counsel Gaurav Laroia, "We also are critical of the failure of Big Tech companies to adequately invest in content moderation to keep people often targeted with hate and disinformation - women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, immigrants - safe online. And while we remain open to surgical modifications to Section 230, we are concerned that repeal of Section 230 or over-broad modifications could decrease the incentives and ability for social media companies to responsibly moderate third party content on their sites. We call on Congress to enact structural legislative reforms that uproot business models that feed on hate and disinformation, such as comprehensive data privacy and digital civil rights legislation." 

Ricci Levy, President and CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation said, "If Congress wants to ensure online censorship on a massive scale, repealing Section 230 is an option. If instead, lawmakers hold fast to their constitutional duty to promote the right to free expression, the First Amendment of the Internet should remain as is."

"The world’s eyes are on the U.S. as the country struggles with social media platforms’ role in the January 6 insurrection and related white supremacy," said Jennifer Brody, U.S. Advocacy Manager at Access Now. "However, knee-jerk attempts to change Section 230 will only do further damage to at-risk communities already facing the brunt of social media platform concentration and power. Congress instead should approach Section 230 deliberations thoughtfully and place human rights at the center of any reform, which must tackle tech companies’ profit incentives that lead to the amplification of harmful content."

"In the age of mass disinformation — and massive unchecked corporate power — Section 230 provides vital protections to Latinx and migrant communities," explained Matt Nelson, Executive Director of Presente.org, the nation’s largest Latinx digital organizing group. "Last fall, Presente, our partners, and allies were censored by Facebook after organizing a National Day of Action to stop the Coastal GasLink pipeline. Section 230 protects our communities from Big Tech wielding its power to silence Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) social movements that protect our human rights," concluded Nelson.

###

Digital rights group Fight for the Future warns that President Joe Biden’s hand-picked Secretary of the Treasury has baselessly tied cryptocurrency use to money laundering and terrorism

As one of his first acts as President of the United States, Joe Biden issued a freeze on all Federal regulatory processes for up to 60 days in order to allow members of his administration to review and approve all proposals from the previous administration. Unless the Director of the Office of Management and budget makes an exception, FinCEN’s recent proposal to allow warrantless surveillance on cryptocurrency transactions will be included in this freeze. 

While this seems like a big win for cryptocurrency users and privacy advocates everywhere, the Biden administration may yet prove to be just as hostile to cryptocurrencies as the Trump administration. In fact, Biden’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen just this week urged lawmakers to "curtail" the use of Bitcoin due to completely false claims that cryptocurrencies are "mainly" used for money laundering and terrorism.

"In his first speech as President, Joe Biden promised to defend the truth and defeat the lies," said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him). "So why is his hand-picked Treasury Secretary spreading dangerous lies about cryptocurrency? Studies have shown that illegal activity accounts for just one third of one percent of all cryptocurrency transactions … far below the amount of fiat currency used for criminal purposes. When Janet Yellen decides to get serious about stopping money laundering, she should focus her attention on JP Morgan, HSBC, and every other big bank implicated in the FinCEN files that were leaked last year instead of unfairly targeting cryptocurrencies."

The UN estimates that somewhere between 2% and 5% of global GDP is connected to money laundering and other illegal activities each year. And FinCEN’s own files show that much of this criminal behavior is facilitated by big banks using fiat currency. In contrast, data from Chainalysis shows that 0.34% of cryptocurrency transactions are associated with criminal activity, and that only a small fraction of all the Bitcoin ever mined is even used for transactions at all.

"Decentralized technology has the potential to create a more equitable future by taking power away from powerful gatekeepers and putting it in the hands of ordinary people," continued Young. "Systems built on blockchains can help bring financial independence to those who are struggling to compete in corrupt economies, and provide freedom of expression to marginalized people everywhere. As Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen will have enormous control over the future of this revolutionary technology. It would be irresponsible for her to implement any new regulation until she understands the facts of the matter. We urge her to reject any efforts to increase financial surveillance and instead pursue policies that protect our privacy, promote equality, and encourage innovation."

While no decision will be made on the Trump Administration’s proposal for invasive cryptocurrency regulation until after Janet Yellen is confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury, FinCEN is still actively accepting comments. Fight for the Future is urging everyone to visit StopFinancialSurveillance.org to learn more about this dangerous proposal and file an official comment with FinCEN.

After weeks of negative publicity and thousands of comments from privacy advocates and cryptocurrency users, FinCEN has extended the open comment period for a controversial rule change. If passed, this new surveillance regulation would not only require financial institutions to collect, store, and transmit information about cryptocurrency users to the federal government, but it would also provide the government with the means to track every single transaction cryptocurrency users have ever made on public blockchains. 

"Cryptocurrency users won’t let the government bully them into accepting invasive financial surveillance," said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him). "FinCEN’s clumsy attempt at midnight rulemaking has backfired, and the public has forced them to delay their decision until the Biden-Harris Administration takes office. So now we’re calling on the Biden-Harris Administration to listen to the public and reject the previous administration’s assault on our privacy rights. We need more than just a change in leadership at the Treasury; we need a change in values and ideology if we hope to stop financial surveillance."

According to FinCEN’s statement, the public will have an additional 15 days to comment on sections of the rule involving cryptocurrency transactions over $10,000, and 45 more days to comment on recordkeeping and counterparty reporting requirements. These extended comment periods will begin when the updated proposal is published on January 15th, 2021.

Fight for the Future has created a website, StopFinancialSurveillance.com, which makes it easy for members of the public to file a comment with FinCEN on this dangerous new rule. The website also provides a breakdown of the rule and its wide-ranging implications on cryptocurrencies and privacy rights. Anyone and everyone who is concerned about the government intruding on financial freedom is encouraged to visit StopFinancialSurveillance.com and file a comment.

Image by Joshua Koblin: A black lives matter protester holding a sign that says "History will repeat Itself unless we stop it!"

How the US acts in response to crisis sets precedents that we live with well beyond the moment. Fear during a crisis often compels rapid, ill-advised action. Many of the worst tools used by those who seek to undermine our democracy were born in the aftermath of 9/11, with the hasty consent of Congress.

Crisis is a test of us as a country—and historically we have failed. We are now on the cusp of a slower-moving, but no less dire crisis than the Capitol riot: the crisis of squandering momentum in shortsighted action.

In the coming weeks, we fully expect that Democrats and Republicans will demand more surveillance, more powers for police and FBI, and more government-mandated censorship of our public discourse online. They will do this out of the misguided belief that dismantling the mechanisms of protest, speech, and resistance in this country will make us safer. Unfortunately, these oppressive, authoritarian actions disproportionately endanger the wrong people—those fighting for racial equity, clean water, and a sustainable future.

Censorship always silences marginalized voices first, whether the legislation is SOPA/PIPA, SESTA/FOSTA, or the repeal of Section 230. Surveillance always criminalizes Black, brown, Muslim, and LGBTQ+ dissent the most—and funding expanded surveillance leads to universally harmful technologies like facial recognition or the bulk data collection revealed by Edward Snowden. Expanded policing deepens the systemic injustice that plagues this nation, devouring resources desperately needed for community development and advancement.

White supremacists like those who took the Capitol are not a new phenomenon for the communities most impacted, although they may be seen as new by white people who suffer fewer of their effects. White supremacists have employed violent tactics throughout the history of this country with the intent of disrupting democracy and denying equal representation to communities of color. The disruption we are experiencing is a symptom of a larger ill. The systemic empowerment and validation of white supremacy and supremacists is what has led to centuries of racial and economic violence, conditions under which democracy simply cannot thrive.

Attacking the right to protest and the right of free speech is what democrats and republicans will knee-jerk to in the coming days. What they should attack instead are our failed institutions that are grounded in white supremacy.

White supremacy deals in economies of artificial scarcity to divide people. It insists that there are not enough human rights to go around. Artificial scarcity is at the heart of Capitol rioters’ choice to "take care of their own" by blaming other everyday people for their suffering. White supremacy displaces victimization onto the most powerful in a community, granting them permission to defend and perpetuate unbearable economic violence.

Our electoral system is a white supremacist system. Our criminal/judicial system is another. A third is surveillance capitalism. All those who point out that there is something wrong with the amplification of hate on the internet are correct—but individual speech isn’t the problem. Calls for censorship are little more than victim-blaming in a surveillance capitalist system where the economic violence is extracting views and clicks from humans with algorithms that prioritize hateful messages.

The scarcity of electoral resources is artificial. The scarcity of justice is artificial. The scarcity of space online to grow the goodness of humanity is artificial. All of these artificial scarcities are a traditional hallmark of a white supremacist institution.

And the impacts of white supremacy-fueled culture war on our democracy, on our public discourse, on justice and on our human rights, will all only get worse until we address the root cause of this artificial scarcity. We have to reimagine these institutions, and doing so can only happen on a foundation that centers the basic rights and needs of people.

So we call on democrats, who now have a mandate for reform and no excuses across all three branches of government: start with what people need, and rebuild institutions from there. Reform the internet, starting with rights to access, privacy, and free speech. Reform the electoral system, starting with the right to equal representation. Reform the judicial system, starting with the right to justice.

Don’t take away rights out of fear. Fear is how this moment happened in the first place.

How the US acts in response to crisis sets precedents that we live with well beyond the moment. Fear during a crisis often compels rapid, ill-advised action. Many of the worst tools used by those who seek to undermine our democracy were born in the aftermath of 9/11, with the hasty consent of Congress.

Crisis is a test of us as a country — and historically we have failed. We are now on the cusp of a slower-moving, but no less dire crisis than the Capitol riot: the crisis of squandering momentum in shortsighted action.

In the coming weeks, we fully expect that Democrats and Republicans will demand more surveillance, more powers for police and FBI, and more government-mandated censorship of our public discourse online. They will do this out of the misguided belief that dismantling the mechanisms of protest, speech, and resistance in this country will make us safer. Unfortunately, these oppressive, authoritarian actions disproportionately endanger the wrong people — those fighting for racial equity, clean water, and a sustainable future.

Censorship always silences marginalized voices first, whether the legislation is SOPA/PIPA, SESTA/FOSTA, or the repeal of Section 230. Surveillance always criminalizes Black, brown, Muslim, and LGBTQ+ dissent the most — and funding expanded surveillance leads to universally harmful technologies like facial recognition or the bulk data collection revealed by Edward Snowden. Expanded policing deepens the systemic injustice that plagues this nation, devouring resources desperately needed for community development and advancement.

White supremacists like those who took the Capitol are not a new phenomenon for the communities most impacted, although they may be seen as new by white people who suffer fewer of their effects. White supremacists have employed violent tactics throughout the history of this country with the intent of disrupting democracy and denying equal representation to communities of color. The disruption we are experiencing is a symptom of a larger ill. The systemic empowerment and validation of white supremacy and supremacists is what has led to centuries of racial and economic violence, conditions under which democracy simply cannot thrive.

Attacking the right to protest and the right of free speech is what democrats and republicans will knee-jerk to in the coming days. What they should attack instead are our failed institutions that are grounded in white supremacy.

White supremacy deals in economies of artificial scarcity to divide people. It insists that there are not enough human rights to go around. Artificial scarcity is at the heart of Capitol rioters’ choice to "take care of their own" by blaming other everyday people for their suffering. White supremacy displaces victimization onto the most powerful in a community, granting them permission to defend and perpetuate unbearable economic violence.

Our electoral system is a white supremacist system. Our criminal/judicial system is another. A third is surveillance capitalism. All those who point out that there is something wrong with the amplification of hate on the internet are correct — but individual speech isn’t the problem. Calls for censorship are little more than victim-blaming in a surveillance capitalist system where the economic violence is extracting views and clicks from humans with algorithms that prioritize hateful messages.

The scarcity of electoral resources is artificial. The scarcity of justice is artificial. The scarcity of space online to grow the goodness of humanity is artificial. All of these artificial scarcities are hallmarks of a white supremacist institution.

And the impacts of white supremacy-fueled culture war on our democracy, on our public discourse, on justice and on our human rights, will all only get worse until we address the root cause of this artificial scarcity. We have to reimagine these institutions, and doing so can only happen on a foundation that centers the basic rights and needs of people.

So we call on democrats, who now have a mandate for reform and no excuses across all three branches of government: start with what people need, and rebuild institutions from there. Reform the internet, starting with rights to access, privacy, and free speech. Reform the electoral system, starting with the right to equal representation. Reform the judicial system, starting with the right to justice.

Don’t take away rights out of fear. Fear is how this moment happened in the first place.

FinCEN has pushed back the comment deadline for its latest cryptocurrency surveillance proposal from January 4th to January 7th because government officials can’t count to 15

In late December, FinCEN — a department of the US Treasury — announced a new proposal threatening the financial privacy of cryptocurrency users everywhere. FinCEN voided the typical 60-day period for public comments on this proposal, opting instead for a 15-day comment period that would end on January 4th, 2021. But FinCEN filed their new proposal on December 23rd, 2020, meaning that the 15 day comment period should end on January 7th, NOT January 4th. 

FinCEN’s press releases and official filings all initially touted the January 4th deadline. While Regulations.gov — the government’s official website for leaving public comments on proposed regulations — has been quietly updated to accept comments through January 7th, 2021, the language in the proposal itself continues to reflect the original, incorrect deadline of January 4th.

"This is a shit show," said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future (pronouns he/him). "FinCEN tried to rush this dangerous new proposal through the approval process over the holidays when nobody was paying attention. Well, apparently they weren’t paying attention, either. And as a result, they’ve misled the public in all of their press statements and official filings. If FinCEN can’t be reliable, accountable, or transparent in their processes now, why should we trust them with our sensitive financial and personal information? Simply put, we shouldn’t. While we strongly urge FinCEN to drop this effort to increase financial surveillance, we think these irregularities should — at the very least — delay the rulemaking process and extend the comment deadline to the typical 60 day period."

This is not the first controversy surrounding FinCEN’s rollout of this particular regulation. Previously, privacy advocates reported that Regulations.gov redirected users to a beta version of the website on Tuesdays and Thursdays, breaking existing links and possibly preventing people from voicing their opposition to FinCEN’s new rule. 

To raise awareness of FinCEN’s new cryptocurrency regulation, Fight for the Future is joining with the Blockchain Association, Coin Center, and EFF to host an AMA on reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/ today, January 6th at 3:00pm. 

Anyone who would like to leave a comment with FinCEN can do so at Fight for the Future’s campaign site StopFinancialSurveillance.org.

Historic turnout, especially from young Black voters, in the Georgia runoff election appears to have flipped control of the Senate. Now that Democrats will likely control the House, Senate, and the White House, the party has no excuse but to act aggressively to reverse the damage done by the Trump administration’s policies and enact legislation to protect Internet freedom, human rights, privacy, and democracy.

Fiercely nonpartisan digital rights group Fight for the Future issued the following statement, which can be attributed to director Evan Greer (she/her): 

Democrats have no excuse. They need to get to work right away protecting people’s basic rights in the digital age. This means quickly confirming a new chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who will restore net neutrality and ensure everyone has affordable Internet access in the midst of a pandemic. It means finally passing strong Federal privacy legislation that outlaws the data harvesting and surveillance capitalist practices of Big Tech companies. It means putting a stop to dangerous attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and standing up for online freedom of expression and human rights. It means passing legislation to ban facial recognition, and putting a stop to racist police surveillance partnerships with companies like Amazon Ring. It means fixing copyright legislation like the DMCA to ensure that Internet users’ and online creators are protected from abuse and censorship. It means ending the mass government surveillance programs enabled by the PATRIOT ACT. It means taking a thoughtful approach to decentralized technology and cryptocurrencies and reversing the Trump administration’s attempts to expand financial surveillance.

The Internet has changed the rules for what is and isn’t possible in Washington, DC. It gives us a powerful tool to expose corruption and hold our elected officials accountable. Now is not the time for partisan bickering and half measures. It’s time to get shit done. No matter which party is in power, we will fight every day to demand real policies that ensure technology is a force for empowerment and liberation rather than a force for exploitation and oppression.

###

Mitch McConnell has just filed a bill that attempts to tie $2,000 stimulus checks to a FULL REPEAL of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, who are leading a major grassroots campaign to defend Section 230 and human rights online, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to their very pissed off Deputy Director Evan Greer (she/her) who really hoped to be on vacation this week:

This is absurd. And dangerous. A full repeal of Section 230 would throw the Internet into chaos. It would open the floodgates for massive Internet censorship and online abuse. Even Mitch McConnell knows that. This seems to be a cynical play to use Section 230 as a ‘poison pill’ to make sure we don’t get $2,000 stimulus checks that people desperately need in order to feed their children and avoid eviction in the middle of a pandemic. Ironically, if Section 230 were to be repealed entirely, Donald Trump and many of his supporters would be among the first to be banned from social media, which would cease to exist in its current form. Repealing 230 would also forever solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google, who will be the only ones with enough money and lawyers to navigate a world where they become liable for users’ posts. Congress should stop playing with people’s lives, pass a clean COVID relief bill, and then get to work taking real action to rein in Big Tech abuses, like passing strong Federal data privacy legislation, enforcing existing antitrust laws, and restoring net neutrality protections at the FCC. Rank and file Democrats and Republicans should speak out clearly against this ridiculous attack on Section 230 and demand a vote on a clean COVID stimulus bill immediately.”

###

CONTACT: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

FinCEN — a bureau within the US Department of the Treasury — has proposed a new rule that will allow the government to track a variety of cryptocurrency transactions without the need for a warrant. Notably, FinCEN has voided the typical comment period for rule changes in order to rush this invasive surveillance rule through the approval process before the new administration takes office. In response, digital rights group Fight for the Future has created an online tool that makes it easy for cryptocurrency holders and privacy advocates to submit an official comment to FinCEN in opposition to this bad rule: StopFinancial Surveillance.org

"The US Treasury can’t even keep their own computer systems safe from hackers, and now they want to collect and store sensitive financial information about millions of people all over America in those same vulnerable systems. No thanks," said Dayton Young, Product Director at Fight for the Future, (pronouns he/him), referring to recent news that the US Treasury was hacked by agents of a foreign government. "Cryptocurrencies offer us the possibility of transferring money without the predatory fees of traditional banks, or heavy-handed regulations from bloated government agencies. This new rule will create financial surveillance on an unprecedented scale with little to no impact on the crimes it’s supposed to prevent."

If the new rule is passed, cryptocurrency exchanges will be required to keep records on all cryptocurrency transactions to and from self-hosted wallets over $3,000, and automatically report all transactions involving self-hosted wallets over $10,000 to FinCEN. The government says that this rule will allow them to track money used in criminal enterprises, but this rule will only impact people purchasing cryptocurrency directly from exchanges and will not stop anyone from privately exchanging cryptocurrencies on a peer-to-peer basis. Even worse, similar laws used to identify fraud and money laundering at traditional financial institutions have backfired, allowing these crimes to flourish at some of the world’s biggest, most heavily-regulated banks.

FinCEN knows that if word gets out about this dangerous new rule, popular support will be firmly against the change. That’s why they’ve released their proposal during the holiday season and scrapped the normal comment period for public review. But Fight for the Future hopes that their new website will draw attention to this urgent issue before the shortened comment period expires on January 4th, 2020. To sign the petition or to learn more, please visit Fight for the Future’s campaign site: StopFinancial Surveillance.org

Fight for the Future has learned that three controversial changes to copyright law: the CASE Act, Felony Streaming Act, and Trademark Modernization Act are in fact included in the must-pass omnibus spending bill lawmakers will vote on later today (bill text here). Protocol first reported on the potential inclusion of these provisions in the package earlier this month. The CASE Act would threaten ordinary Internet users with up to $30,000 in fines for engaging in everyday activity such as downloading an image and re-uploading it. 

More than 20,000 people had called on House and Senate leadership to remove these dangerous and unnecessary provisions from the must-pass bill as part of a campaign launched by digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for their role in the massive ‘Internet Blackout’ protests that defeated SOPA/PIPA.

Fight for the Future Deputy Director Evan Greer (she/her) issued the following statement:

This is atrocious. We’re facing a massive eviction crisis and millions are unemployed due to the pandemic, but Congressional leaders could only muster $600 stimulus checks for COVID relief, but managed to cram in handouts for content companies like Disney? The CASE Act is a terribly written law that will threaten ordinary Internet users with huge fines for everyday online activity. It’s absurd that lawmakers included these provisions in a must-pass spending bill.

We’ve seen time and time again that changes to copyright law have profound implications for online freedom of expression and human rights. These types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package. Artists and musicians especially are suffering immensely during the pandemic. Congress should be working quickly to provide immediate relief, not cramming controversial, poison-pill legislation into budget bills to appease special interests. We call on House and Senate leadership to remove the copyright provisions from the Continuing Resolution and move them through regular order so we can have transparent and open debate about the right balance. DMCA abuse and frivolous copyright takedowns are already a huge problem for the next generation of artists and creators, streamers, gamers, and activists. Lawmakers should be working to address these issues and create a fair system that protects human rights and ensures artists are fairly compensated instead of ramming through poorly crafted legislation that could punish ordinary Internet users for engaging in everyday activities like sharing memes and downloading images online."

###

In an open letter, over 2000 parents are calling on textbook publisher McGraw-Hill to end it’s relationship with proctoring app Proctorio. Specifically, parents are demanding an end to pairing proctoring apps, which digital rights experts have characterized as ‘indistinguishable from spyware’, with course materials.

The letter argues that: "Automated proctoring is also a direct and abhorrent violation of our children’s privacy. Proctorio and other companies get access to personal data from our children, including their personal computers, private rooms in their homes, and other data. It is unacceptable that our children must surrender their civil rights, especially while attending a public institution, to complete their education"

Read the full letter below.

The letter comes as a report from Edsurge indicated in November that Proctorio and McGraw-Hill are aiming to expand proctoring app surveillance beyond test-taking to become a part of doing regular homework. Six US Senators recently asked Proctorio and other online proctoring companies to "address the alarmingly long list of equity, accessibility, & privacy issues students are facing on their exam platforms."

"It was bad enough that kids of color are subjected to systematic racial discrimination in classrooms, but now with so much of school online, we have to worry about racial bias in computer software," said Dalia Hashad (she/her), a parent who signed the letter. "Instead of improving things for children of color, discriminatory algorithms make systematic inequalities worse. As a parent, that’s unacceptable."

"Parents are right to criticize McGraw-Hill’s rush to profit off of invasive, racially-biased technologies. There are severe inequities for students of color, neurodiverse students, and low income students with proctoring apps," said Lia Holland (she/they), an activist with digital rights organization Fight for the Future. "Proctorio would not have such an easy entré into schools if McGraw-Hill weren’t violating their own commitments to diversity and inclusion by integrating Proctorio’s half-baked app with coursework. McGraw-Hill’s eagerness to promote what amounts to unethical experimentation on students is unconscionable."

Throughout 2020, McGraw-Hill’s partner, Proctorio, has threatened or taken aggressive legal action against critics, including a staff member and a student. They have also been accused of abusing Twitter’s DMCA takedown process to remove critical tweets, denying a Black student access to a test, and posting private student information on Reddit—among other complaints.

Jennifer Johnson’s son Erik is a freshman at Ohio’s Miami University. Earlier in 2020, Erik posted his concerns about Proctorio and his analysis of their code online, only to receive intimidating messages from Proctorio’s CEO, among other retaliation.

"I don’t think many parents understand the mechanics of what students are being asked to do in order to utilize online proctoring services," said Jennifer Johnson (she/her), regarding her son’s experience with Proctorio. "Parents assume that colleges or universities are keeping the best interest of our students front and center–including privacy, and we are encouraged not to meddle in the day-to-day affairs of student academic life. I was very surprised to hear of the surveillance methods implemented by Proctorio…Allowing strangers—and even professors—access to students’ personal spaces (including personal sleeping areas if testing in a dorm room or bedroom) is highly invasive."

"This is a unique time in history–one that requires extraordinary solutions to educate and assess our future leaders," Johnson continued. "We expect our students, many of whom have only recently reached the age of majority, to abide by the honor codes of institutions of higher learning. Yet during assessments, students are treated in ways that assume the worst possible behavior instead of fostering and reinforcing a positive learning environment. It seems counterintuitive that the very institutions that incubate ideas and promote critical thinking are contracting with for-profit, third-party organizations and anointing these draconian surveillance measures."

"Parents are speaking out about online proctoring software because it exacerbates inequities for students of color and invades student privacy with little accountability," said Justin Ruben (he/him), co-Executive Director of ParentsTogether, a 2.5 million parent organization supporting the letter. "As a company interested in equitably educating kids, McGraw-Hill shouldn’t promote problematic online proctoring software."

FULL LETTER TEXT

An open letter to Simon Allen, CEO of McGraw Hill Publishing, and Terri Walker, head of Inclusion and Diversity at McGraw Hill Publishing from 2000 parents.

We are writing today to request that you end your relationship with Proctorio and all other invasive and racially-biased online proctoring tools permanently. These tools harm students of color, and as an institution that claims to value diversity and inclusion, McGraw Hill should not support them.

Proctorio and other online proctoring tools have a history of racial bias and violating students’ privacy. Writing for the MIT Technology Review, a librarian at UC Denver shared the following story: "A Black woman at my university once told me that whenever she used Proctorio’s test proctoring software, it always prompted her to shine more light on her face. The software couldn’t validate her identity and she was denied access to tests so often that she had to go to her professor to make other arrangements. Her white peers never had this problem."

As has been amplified by the racial justice uprisings, and addressed by the City of Portland’s Director of Equity and Human Rights Dr. Markisha Smith: "Being antiracist means understanding through the use of root cause analysis that the history of surveillance in this country is rooted in slavery, with the earliest examples of controlling the movement of enslaved people being the ‘slave pass’. Being antiracist means ensuring the safety of BIPOC communities first."

Automated proctoring is also a direct and abhorrent violation of our children’s privacy. Proctorio and other companies get access to personal data from our children, including their personal computers, private rooms in their homes, and other data. It is unacceptable that our children must surrender their civil rights, especially while attending a public institution, to complete their education.

Furthermore, Proctorio has threatened legal action against people who have criticized or exposed their invasive practices.

Your Inclusion & Diversity statement states "Our focus on inclusion and diversity will ensure that our team members, products, and customer experiences are relevant and represent the diverse population of customers we serve” We demand that McGraw Hill Publishing cease its performative allyship and end its peddling of racially-biased, invasive surveillance technology immediately.

Sincerely, the undersigned.

This week, DC Lawmakers are going to try to ram through changes to copyright law as part of a must-pass budget bill.

One of the provisions could slap ordinary Internet users with up to $30,000 in fines for engaging in everyday activities like sharing a meme or downloading a photo.

Thousands of people have already taken action demanding House and Senate leadership take this dangerous legislation out of the spending package. Lawmakers are already feeling the heat and seriously considering pulling these copyright changes at the last second.

Time and time again, rushed changes to copyright based on draconian enforcement methods have dangerous implications for online free expression and human rights, and huge impacts on all Internet users, but especially streamers, gamers, and online creators.

Abusive DMCA takedowns are already out of control. Decisions this important should never be made in closed-door negotiations or tacked on to must-pass bills to avert a government shutdown.

If you oppose these draconian copyright changes, please take a moment and sign our petition.

Multiple media outlets have reported that lawmakers are attempting to cram several controversial changes to copyright law in the must-pass spending bill that will likely be voted on this week to avert a government shutdown ahead of a December 18th deadline. 

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for their role in the massive ‘Internet Blackout’ protests that defeated SOPA/PIPA, has launched a new campaign calling on House and Senate leadership to remove these dangerous and unnecessary provisions from the Continuing Resolution. More than 15,000 people have already signed the petition.

Fight for the Future Deputy Director Evan Greer (she/her) issued the following statement:

We’ve seen time and time again that changes to copyright law have profound implications for online freedom of expression and human rights. These types of decisions should never be made in closed-door negotiations between politicians and industry or rushed through as part of some must-pass spending package. Artists and musicians especially are suffering immensely during the pandemic. Congress should be working quickly to provide immediate relief, not cramming controversial, poison-pill legislation into budget bills to appease special interests. We call on House and Senate leadership to remove the copyright provisions from the Continuing Resolution and move them through regular order so we can have transparent and open debate about the right balance. DMCA abuse and frivolous copyright takedowns are already a huge problem for the next generation of artists and creators, streamers, gamers, and activists. Lawmakers should be working to address these issues and create a fair system that protects human rights and ensures artists are fairly compensated instead of ramming through poorly crafted legislation that could punish ordinary Internet users for engaging in everyday activities like sharing memes and downloading images online."

###

Millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet in the midst of a crushing public health and economic crisis, but never fear. Lawmakers in Washington, DC are hard at work ::checks notes:: attempting to end free speech on the Internet?

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a mark-up of Lindsey Graham (R-SC)’s latest piece of legislation attacking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The bill, the Online Content Policy Modernization Act (OCPMA, S. 4632), is as our friends at EFF put it "an unconstitutional mess." A last minute flurry of amendments and a manager’s amendment from Graham have done nothing to address the massive problems with the bill, which would lead to more censorship of online content, not less, and at the same time deter platforms from engaging in good faith moderation of harmful content by opening them up to lawsuits every time they do. Civil rights experts have also warned that the bill would make it harder for platforms to address voter suppression. 

"I wholeheartedly oppose Internet censorship. I also vehemently oppose this bill," said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of Fight for the Future, "People from across the political spectrum are legitimately outraged by the growing monopoly power and abusive business practices of Big Tech companies. But punching holes in Section 230 won’t actually fix any of the problems––it will just make them worse. Lawmakers need to stop this endless partisan posturing and get to work enacting real policies to protect online free expression and human rights, like finally passing strong data privacy legislation and enforcing antitrust laws."

Sadly, Lindsey Graham is not the only lawmaker launching senseless and unconstitutional attacks on the First Amendment and Section 230 this week. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Rep Dan Gosar (R-AZ) announced a bill last night with the promising title "Break up Big Tech." Sounds great in theory. But unfortunately this bill wouldn’t do that at all. Instead it would solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies like Facebook and Google, by crushing their smaller competitors who have more community-based moderation strategies (think Reddit, Wikipedia) under a tsunami of lawsuits.

"Please, for the love of all that is holy, I am begging members of Congress like Tulsi Gabbard to hire staffers who have actually read Section 230 and the First Amendment so that we stop seeing silly legislation like this," added Greer, "I completely agree with all of the concerns this bill raises about microtargeted advertising, algorithmic amplification, and lack of transparency in moderation. But as written it’s profoundly misguided––and dangerous. Ripping up Section 230 will just lead to more silencing of marginalized voices, and more concentration of Big Tech monopoly power. Lawmakers need to stop thinking that gutting 230 is the only mechanism they have to hold Big Tech accountable. Why not just pass a law banning data harvesting and invasive advertising? We’d support that. But using 230 as the lever inherently benefits incumbents who can afford armies of lawyers. It’s the wrong approach."

Can we put a facepalm gif in a press release? Yes, yes we can. And at least for now, you can’t sue Tumblr (the back end of our blog) for letting us do it. 

###

Last week The Hill revealed that Amazon’s years-long ban on libraries loaning its accessible books might finally be loosening thanks to the hard work of library advocates. Amazon is reportedly working on a limited deal with a non-profit vendor that would allow libraries to purchase licenses for some of its ebooks. Unfortunately, that deal does not include audiobooks and also does not meet our core demand: that Amazon simply sell its ebooks and audiobooks to libraries and independent bookstores directly.

Audiobooks such as Trevor Noah’s Born a Crime and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale are part of a collection of over 40,000 titles which Amazon’s Audible refuses to sell to libraries. During the pandemic, audiobook and ebook lending are frequently the only way for low income people to access books.

"Amazon’s whole business model is about domination, surveillance, and exploitation. They have weaponized data to destroy small businesses and prevent their own workforce from organizing—it’s no surprise that these same tactics are being used against libraries," said Lia Holland (she/they), a digital rights advocate with Fight for the Future. "In Amazon’s future, libraries and indie bookstores would become obsolete—replaced by the convenient monopolies of Kindle and Audible. Amazon’s profits grow if they control access to essential human knowledge and information."

A petition calling on Amazon to end its war on libraries and demanding an antitrust investigation into the company collected over 15,000 signatures at the start of the month.

Aggressive restriction of circulation for 40,000 Audible Exclusives is only the tip of the audiobook iceberg for Amazon, which uses its market power to impose embargoes of 90 days to 12 months on new audiobook releases, even through vendors that are not owned by Amazon. These embargoes cripple the ability of libraries to provide new audiobooks to low income and disabled people, and force independent bookstores to miss out on sales during the most marketable moments of a book’s existence.

"Audiobooks are more than just a diversion in the car or on a run," said John Chrastka (he/him), Executive Director of the EveryLibrary Institute. "They allow visually impaired people to enjoy literature, help people with certain cognitive disabilities use educational materials, and offer a gateway to reading for younger listeners. Libraries should be able to lend any audiobook in order to ensure that everyone has access, regardless of income or ability.”

"Controlled Digital Lending, where libraries can purchase an ebook or audiobook and lend it to patrons the same as any other book, is a common sense policy in an increasingly digital world," added Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director of Fight for the Future. "Amazon may be one of the most egregious examples, but publishing companies in general need to stop spending so much time, money, and energy keeping their books out of people’s hands. Our message is simple: just let libraries buy books!"

The Senate just voted 49-46 to confirm Trump nominee Nathan Simington to the FCC. The unprecedented move breaks with decades of tradition––commissioners are usually added to the agency in bipartisan pairs. The sole purpose in this case is to throw sand in the gears of the agency and prevent it from getting to work restoring net neutrality and ensuring people have Internet access in the middle of a public health crisis that has forced millions to work and attend school remotely.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in human history to defend net neutrality and the FCC’s ability to conduct oversight of Big Telecom monopolies, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director Evan Greer (she/her):

"Every single Senator who voted to confirm Nathan Simington betrayed their constituents and their oath to uphold the Constitution. 

We are in the middle of a crushing pandemic. Millions are working from home. Kids are sitting outside Taco Bell to do their homework. People are more vulnerable to abuse by Big Telecom companies than ever before. But Senate Republicans decided to move forward with this deeply cynical move to kneecap the FCC and prevent the agency from moving forward with urgently needed work like restoring net neutrality and ensuring affordable Internet access for all. 

Nathan Simington has no qualifications beyond his loyalty to an outgoing, wannabe autocrat. And it’s clear that he would likely use his post to continue Trump’s senseless attacks on the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the most important laws protecting free expression and human rights in the digital age. Internet users from across the political spectrum should come together to hold lawmakers accountable for this disgusting display of partisanship and corruption. 

Senate Republicans are spitting in the face of the American public. More than 80% of voters from across the political spectrum opposed the agency’s agenda under Ajit Pai. By confirming Simington, they’re not ‘owning the libs’ or ‘sticking it to Biden,’ they’re just hurting our kids, small businesses, and our communities. It’s up to us to make sure they regret it. "

###

IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, December 8th
CONTACT: Evan Greer, press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Today, a coalition of 15+ consumer, privacy, and civil rights organizations launched a new campaign, RescindRing.com. Led by Fight for the Future, Rescind Ring calls on tech reviews to rescind or suspend their recommendation of Amazon Ring doorbell cameras. 

The groups–including Fight for the Future, Action Center on Race and The Economy (ACRE), Athena Coalition, Constitutional Alliance, Demand Progress, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Kairos Action, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, MPower Change, New York Communities For Change, Oakland Privacy, Open Media and Information Companies Initiative (Open MIC), Presente, Secure Justice, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP), and United Church of Christ, OC Inc.–argue product reviewers need to consider the overall impact of a product on society at large in addition to the value to consumers in their assessment. Amazon Ring cameras threaten both society and consumers.

Their poor security leaves consumers vulnerable to hacks and leaks as seen in the past year. Their police partnerships challenge fundamental basic liberties, violate sacred privacy rights, and along with Neighbors App–foster racial profiling and increased criminalization of Black and brown people. This racist targeting is especially worrisome when coupled with the fact that roughly half of the police departments partnered with Amazon "are responsible for over a third of fatal police encounters nationwide." 

And recently some Ring doorbell cameras caught fire, prompting Amazon to recall over 350,000 doorbell cameras. This is the latest example of the tech giant moving too quickly, and being reckless with security and safety, in order to flood our communities with cameras. 

The detrimental result of Ring devices and partnerships on families, communities, and democracy renders them too unsafe for recommendation.

"Tech blogs can’t say ‘Black Lives Matter’ and then give five star ratings to products that exacerbate racism. Amazon Ring cameras are dangerous, not just for the people who buy them, but for their neighbors, their communities, and society as a whole," said Evan Greer (she/her) deputy director of Fight for the Future, "Amazon’s monopoly power and aggressive pursuit of surveillance partnerships with police set them apart from their competitors. Ignoring the broader societal impact of a product does not make your review ‘neutral,’ it makes it reckless and incomplete. Product review sites would not recommend, for example, stalkerware apps used by abusers to track their spouses. They shouldn’t recommend harmful products like Ring, either."

Ken Mickles, Chief Technical Officer at Fight for the Future, added "Beyond the obvious privacy issues, Ring has a terrible track record when it comes to security even for the users who buy them. High profile incidents where Ring cameras were hacked and used to spy on children forced the company to make some improvements, but from a technical perspective it’s just a bad idea to fill your home with internet-connected devices capable of constantly watching and listening. I’d never trust one of these devices on my front door or around my kids. Review sites are putting their credibility at risk by continuing to recommend these products. Oh, and also they sometimes catch fire?"

The campaign targets CNET, Consumer Reports, Gizmodo, Tom’s Guide, TechRadar, and Digital Trends for best in category Ring recommendations made in the past year. Wirecutter, another target, suspended their Ring review last December but are in the process of reviewing the camera for a possible reversal of suspension. The groups plan to mobilize thousands of supporters to get these sites to rescind their endorsement and update relevant guides before the holidays.

Greer continues, "we know these recommendations play a critical role in purchasing decisions people make during the holidays. It’s important reviewers uphold their commitment to consumers and the trust the public puts in their endorsements by withdrawing or suspending their Ring recommendation. Honestly, this should have happened already. Over the summer a man was killed by sheriffs in a Ring related incident. How many people have to be jailed or killed before tech reviewers realize Ring is not safe for anyone."

###

Confirmation could gridlock the FCC, blocking actions to help consumers, workers & students during the COVID-19 pandemic

Nathan Simington worked on efforts to attack free speech online while in the Trump Administration & has almost no relevant experience for the independent agency

[WASHINGTON, DC] – On Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM ET, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) will join representatives from Fight for the Future, Access Now, Free Press, Media Justice, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and United Church of Christ’s media justice ministry, Office of Communication, Inc. on a video conference call rallying opposition to the lame duck confirmation of Nathan Simington to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Simington could be confirmed as early as Tuesday.

Simington has been nominated to fill a vacancy left by President Trump’s abrupt withdrawal of FCC Commissioner Michael O’Reilly’s re-nomination, whose renewal for another term was pulled after he criticized the administration’s Executive Order targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, punishing social media platforms in blatant violation of the First Amendment. Simington was directly involved in drafting and peddling the proposal.

Simington has almost no relevant experience for the position, and had difficulty answering even basic questions about issues under the FCC’s jurisdiction during his confirmation process. In the middle of a health and economic crisis that has kept millions of Americans away from their schools, workplaces, friends, and family, the FCC’s role in protecting online access is critically necessary.

Simington’s confirmation would likely deadlock the Commission indefinitely, blocking the agency’s ability to help Americans access the internet during the pandemic or restore net neutrality. This confirmation would also violate the Senate’s tradition of moving Commissioners in bipartisan pairs.

WHO:                      
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Fight for the Future
Access Now
Free Press
Media Justice
New America’s Open Technology Institute
Public Knowledge
United Church of Christ’s media justice ministry, Office of Communication, Inc.

WHEN:                    
Monday, December 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM ET

JOIN:                        
To join the Zoom video conference, please RSVP to maria_mcelwain@blumenthal.senate.gov.

###

Concerned parents at Fight for the Future have compiled a scorecard showing what family brands are complicit in YouTube’s harmful advertising practices.

With YouTube continuing to be in the news for its surveillance capitalist business practices that harm children, teens, and other vulnerable groups, Fight for the Future has assembled a scorecard for the holiday season.

The scorecard rounds up popular brands that parents at the organization use into three categories: those who proactively avoid advertising on YouTube, those who buy YouTube ads, and those who have not responded to multiple requests for clarification. YouTube does not maintain a library of ads that would allow parents to see which advertisers are paying for access to their children.

The frequently-updated scorecard is available now at WhoIsHarmingKids.com.

"During the busy holiday shopping season, we wanted to assess for ourselves whether our personal purchases were fueling the very practices we are fighting so hard to end," said Sarah Roth-Gaudette (she/her), Executive Director of Fight for the Future. "As parents and privacy advocates, we see real harm coming from YouTube’s addictive video recommendations, targeted advertising, and privacy-violating data collection. Our kids and teens already spend enough time sitting behind a screen—the last thing we want is Google manipulating them into even worse habits."

The scorecard shows brands such as California Baby, Hape, and Babyganics as committed to not advertising on YouTube—while Peak Games’ Toy Blast and Essie nail polish are running ads this November. Interestingly, Wonderful Halos are avoiding YouTube spends this year, despite previously celebrated successes on the platform.

Parents and digital rights activists are available for comment. Please contact lia@fightforthefuture.org for more information.

Today Ajit Pai, the most unpopular FCC Chairman in history, announced that he will be stepping down as President Trump’s term comes to an end. Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in human history to oppose Pai’s repeal of net neutrality, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (she/her):

Ajit Pai will go down in history as one of the most corrupt government officials of the century. His callous attack on net neutrality and blatant coddling of Big Telecom monopolies sparked the largest cross-partisan online backlash in the modern era. As he fades into the background, his smug demeanor and giant Reese’s mug will become cautionary memes –– reminding Internet users what happens when we don’t hold our government accountable.

Pai’s departure cannot come soon enough. We are in the middle of a crushing pandemic. Hundreds of millions of people are working from home and sending their kids to school online. Comcast just announced plans to re-impose arbitrary data caps. Kids are sitting outside Taco Bell to do their homework. We desperately need a functional FCC that will quickly repair the damage done by Ajit Pai and get to work protecting the public from ISP abuses. 

But in an unprecedented and deeply cynical move, the Senate has scheduled a confirmation vote this week on Nathan Simington, Trump’s nominee to join the commission. Simington’s involvement with Trump’s silly and blatantly unconstitutional executive order targeting Section 230 is alarming. And he has essentially no qualifications beyond his loyalty to an outgoing autocrat and stated opposition to restoring net neutrality. If the Senate confirms him, its sole purpose will be to throw sand in the gears, tying up the new FCC for months at a time when the public can’t afford the agency to be kneecapped. 

The Senate should reject Simington’s nomination and let the FCC get back to work. If they don’t, they’re not "owning the libs" or "sticking it to the Biden admin," they’re just hurting working families, small businesses, and our children’s future."

###

Last week, more than 11,000 people signed a petition calling for Amazon to allow libraries to purchase its digital books, and demanding that they cease weaponizing the data that they selectively provide to other publishers.

As the pandemic surges, many libraries are closing their doors and cancelling the lending of physical books. Digital services such as ebooks and audiobooks remain available, but not for any titles that Amazon owns.

Amazon, the bookselling & data giant that owns Kindle, Audible, and Goodreads, refuses to let libraries lend any ebook it publishes, or any audiobook it creates. During the pandemic, checkouts of ebooks from libraries are up 52 percent.

"Amazon’s unchecked and disastrous monopoly is threatening the future of human knowledge and literacy. It is clear to anyone who knows how Amazon operates that public libraries are in danger," said Lia Holland (she/they), an activist with digital rights organization Fight for the Future. "Amazon’s goal is to create the false perception that public libraries are bad for book sales, so that Amazon Kindle and Audible can supplant libraries and cement a monopoly that would remove the possibility of any competition in the digital book marketplace. Children and low income readers of all ages should never be denied accessible books because they can’t afford to pay Amazon."

Industry data suggests 75 to 90 percent of one major book publisher’s ebook sales are made through the data-aggregating Amazon Kindle. In 2019, one of the "big five" publishing houses came under fire for asserting, based on data only Amazon could provide, that libraries were "cannibalizing" their sales, and instituting an embargo on newly released e-book sales to libraries. That publisher cancelled their plans after public outcry.

"Amazon’s behavior here will ultimately hurt all of publishing, but in the short term, right now, it is harming low income people, and disabled people," Holland continued. "Digital books open new realms of accessibility for the reading experience, everything from being able to change font to help with dyslexia to audiobooks for deaf library patrons. To deny these books to public libraries simply because they are in a more accessible format is unconscionable. Especially in this era of disinformation, maintaining access to knowledge and information is an essential investment in the future of humanity—not something that only those who can afford to pay Amazon should have."

Petitioners also called for a government investigation into Amazon’s monopoly power, and legislation that would enshrine the right of libraries to purchase and loan all books, whatever their format.

After Buzzfeed news exposed that more than 25 Los Angeles Police Department employees performed nearly 500 facial recognition searches using the notorious Clearview AI, the department has banned the use of third-party facial recognition software, showing just how politically toxic this technology has become. However, the department continues to permit the use of the technology through its Los Angeles County Regional Identification System, and more than 2,400 police agencies have been found to use Clearview.

"This is exactly why we need lawmakers to get off their butts, do their jobs, and pass legislation to ban facial recognition now," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Campaign Director with the digital rights group Fight for the Future. "How many other police departments across the country have officers who are using this dangerous, biased, technology without even telling their superiors? The real solution is to pass federal legislation that will stop all law enforcement from using Clearview and any other facial recognition systems, and we need the incoming Biden/Harris administration to do everything in their power to stop the use of this technology."

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. In February, the group expanded its 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. The group launched an effort in the spring to keep facial recognition off of college campuses, and got more than 60 schools to commit to not using the tech. The group is also providing support for activists on the ground pushing for bans at the local level, including Portland, Oregon’s recent bans against government and private use of facial recognition.

###

Join us on Thursday, Nov 12 at 7 - 9 PM ET on Chelsea’s Twitch channel 

Come hang out while we play some games on Twitch with digital security expert and activist Chelsea Manning , Evan Greer of Fight of the Future, Janus Rose and Edward Ongweso Jr of Vice Motherboard, and Ernesto Falcon of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

We’ll be chatting about how the election results will impact the top digital rights battles of our time, from net neutrality, to facial recognition, to Section 230, to Big Tech and surveillance capitalism. 

Come join us and feel free to ask anything in the chat!

Today the Senate Commerce Committee is expected to hold a confirmation hearing for Nathan Simington, the telecom lawyer that the outgoing Trump administration has nominated to become a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Simington would be filling the vacancy left after Trump abruptly fired commissioner Michael O’Reilly after he spoke out against the administration’s blatantly unconstitutional executive order that would blow up Section 230 and essentially turn the FCC into online speech police. Simington had a direct hand in drafting the proposal, but otherwise has almost no relevant experience for the position.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in history to defend net neutrality and oppose online censorship, has launched a call-in campaign to drive phone calls to key Senators demanding they oppose Simington’s confirmation. 

The group issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (she/her):

This guy is even worse than Ajit Pai. His only qualifications are his steadfast loyalty to an outgoing wannabe tyrant and his undying love for convoluted attacks on Internet freedom. Simington literally helped write the Trump administration’s deeply silly proposal to blow up Section 230 and put the FCC in charge of policing online speech. And he’s being supported by the same companies that spent mountains of money lobbying to gut net neutrality.

We are in the middle of a crushing pandemic where hundreds of millions of people are at the mercy of their Internet Service Providers while they work from home and send their kids to school online. It’s unthinkable that in this moment, especially in light of the election results, that the Senate would confirm an unqualified crony to the agency that is supposed to provide basic oversight. 

The Senate should reject Simington’s nomination post haste. Ajit Pai should step down and fade into obscurity as a cautionary Internet meme. And the Biden/Harris administration should act quickly to appoint a new chair of the FCC who will restore net neutrality, defend the First Amendment, and fight for Internet access, freedom, and privacy for all.

Fight for the Future and other digital rights groups will be driving calls to key Senators from https://www.battleforthenet.com/call starting today until the Senate votes on Simington’s nomination, if they ever do. 

###

Verizon’s Skyward subsidiary had sought to test drones with military applications on the Willamette River in North Portland, a proposal that met vigorous disapproval from locals.

Last week, the Port of Portland announced it would cancel a pending lease with Verizon for seven acres of riverfront property in one of Portland, Oregon’s most diverse neighborhoods. Verizon and their Portland-based subsidiary Skyward had sought to lease this area to test drones on Verizon’s 5G network along the Willamette river.

"We appreciate the Port responding in support of community members and organizations who organized quickly to oppose this facility," said Cassie Cohen (she/her), Executive Director of the Portland Harbor Community Coalition. "It’s now time for impacted communities to determine a more appropriate purpose for this sacred land, and other river-front parcels like it — including potential zoning changes. There should be a community-centered process moving forward in land use decisions so that this level of conflict does not resurface again."

Neighbors raised a variety of concerns around the communication and approval process for the facility, as well as its environmental, social justice, and quality of life impacts. Without Portland’s Greenway Overlay Zone notification requirements, the Neighborhood Association would have never heard about the development until construction began. Residents also highlighted the possibility of potentially disastrous collisions with the helicopters, small planes, and birds of prey that frequently fly over the river and neighborhoods. They held protests and packed contentious listening sessions with the Port of Portland and Verizon/Skyward.

"This just goes to show that important decisions regarding publicly owned lands are best made when the community and their public officials work together. All stakeholders must be considered when it comes to the revitalization of our beautiful river," said Matt Stein (he/him), whose Green Anchors Eco-Industrial Park is located next to the cancelled drone testing site. "Portlanders care deeply about restoring the Willamette, and doing what is good both for the river and for our community."

"This is a major grassroots win," said Lia Holland (she/they), an activist with national digital rights organization Fight for the Future who lives in North Portland. "But it also illustrates how much work the City, Port and companies like Skyward that profess human rights and racial justice as core values have before them. Right now, there are few meaningful regulations on drones, data privacy, or law enforcement surveillance collusion in our city — with Portland’s recent bans on facial recognition as a notable exception. The protection of the rights of Portlanders when it comes to new technologies should be on the agenda for City government right now. Innovation won’t slow down. Our representatives need to catch up."

The following neighborhood activists and coalition members are available for comment and interviews:

Art McConville, American Indian Movement — Portland Chapter

Bob Sallinger, Audubon Society of Portland

Cassie Cohen, Portland Harbor Community Coalition

Jan Zuckerman, Stop Zenith Collaborative & Stop Fracked Gas/PDX

John Spence, NW Council of Water Protectors

Jon Smart, Cathedral Park Neighborhood Association

Lia Holland, Fight For the Future

Mamelang Memela, Just Climate

Matt Stein, Green Anchors Eco-Industrial Park

Michael Pouncil, Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group

Sarah Taylor, Linnton Neighborhood Association

Turtle Farahat, Seven Circles Natural Medicine

Please reach out to lia@fightforthefuture.org to get in touch. The photos used in this article are also available, please reach out should you require other sizes.

Residents are planning a rally 11/1 to oppose a drone testing facility in one of Portland’s most diverse neighborhoods, citing environmental justice, racial justice, social justice, and quality of life concerns.

Verizon’s subsidiary Skyward is seeking a land use permit and a lease to build a drone testing facility on the Willamette river. Residents of North Portland, one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Oregon’s largest city, say they were informed of the planned facility only in the past several weeks.

A coalition of neighborhood associations, nonprofits, and local activists are demanding that the City of Portland deny the permits for the facility due to the lack of regulations protecting people, privacy, and wildlife from emergent drone technology, and the murky impacts of the facility both at home and abroad. Their next major action is a protest on Sunday November 1.

The proposed facility would test drones on Verizon’s new 5G network. Neighbors are concerned about the military applications of drone technology, especially given that Verizon already works with the US Marine Corps to test drones. And, at a contentious community listening session hosted by the Port of Portland on October 27, Mariah Scott, President of Skyward, a Verizon Company, confirmed that "Cellular connectivity could be used by [Skyward partner] Parrot and sold into their Department of Defense partnership."

Speaking to their development of spy aircraft for the US military in 2019, Henri Seydoux, Parrot’s CEO and founder, said: "We also perfectly understand how small unmanned aircraft, such as the Parrot ANAFI platform, has the potential to become a key part of the defense system."

On September 15, 2020, Skyward/Verizon announced a partnership to test the Parrot ANAFI drones Seydoux references. Skyward’s Director of Marketing and Communications Jess Moody admitted in the community listening session to altering the text of the September 15th announcement "yesterday or today" after community members had referenced it as a part of their concerns.

"Frankly, we were all gaslit in this community listening session. Before this altered press release and Parrot partnership were brought up, Skyward’s president told a community member she had ‘no idea’ why there were concerns of military drone testing at this facility," said Michael Pouncil (he/him), a North Portland resident and Chair of Portland Harbor Community Advisory Group. "It became abundantly clear over the course of this session that Skyward is no longer a Portland company, but a Verizon company. Their values have fundamentally disconnected from the values of our city."

The Department Head of Skyward and Verizon’s Aviation Development Centers, known as X, told community members in the meeting that they expected this facility would create "five or ten" new jobs, although they aspired to hire more people "in the years to come."

According to analyst firm Envision Intelligence, military drone applications constitute about 70 percent of the market, with consumer applications just 17 percent and non-military uses like filmmaking and climate modeling in the commercial realm just 13 percent.

"It’s pretty clear to me that we’ve got a regulatory vacuum on this topic at the moment," Chris Smith (he/him), who serves on the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission and is running for Metro Council said in a statement. "This may prove to be one of the first cases that prompts the need to consider what kind of regulation, and by whom, is going to be needed for drones."

Smith’s opponent in the Metro Council race, Mary Nolan, joined the community listening session. After at least four participants asked whether or not Skyward’s work would include law enforcement clients or contractors and did not receive an answer, Nolan also asked and also did not receive an answer.

Earlier on the 27th, concerned community members gathered outside of Skyward’s headquarters in downtown Portland to share their concerns.

Art McConville (he/him), NiiMiiPuu (Nez Perce/Cayuse), who serves on the executive steering committee of the Portland Harbor Community Coalition, offered a prayer to open the event: "As a small child I grew up sleeping on the Sacred River banks with mountain stones for pillows. It was all we had in those times. Our neighbors were the fish, flowers, animals and birds, and we still have the Sacred Right to stand as before….without the mindless and selfish technology of man to destroy the balance that belongs to us as a People."

"Verizon has an existing contract with the US Department of Defense, and past instances of this relationship have shown how the Dept of Defense is testing 5g technology to improve the surveillance capacity of drones, including facial recognition," said Jesse Braverman (she/her), a member of Portland Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines. "While this possibility is troubling as it stands, it clearly leaves the door open for other uses in the future, including missile targeting. We know that US military drones are used against human rights and land defenders in countries like the Philippines and Brazil, against migrants at the US-Mexico border, and even to identify protesters in US cities like Portland. This is something our city should not be involved in."

Community members are now gearing up for a protest on November 1 at 12 pm at Cathedral Park, a gem of North Portland that neighbors the site. There will be speakers, education, snacks, and chants. Local kayakers are organizing a flotilla on the Willamette River as part of the event, and all those with watercraft are invited to bring their vessels to the Cathedral Park Boat Launch and join. COVID-safe conduct and masks are required for the event. Those interested in attending can RSVP on Facebook or share the petition page with friends for additional information: https://fftf.link/dronespdx

All photos in this article are available for press and individual use. North Portland residents as well as members of the coalition opposed to the facility are available for interviews. Please contact lia@fightforthefuture.org to be connected, or to request additional image sizes.

The CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter are set to testify before the Senate Commerce committee Wednesday at a hearing expected to focus on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is competing with HIPAA for the most misunderstood law of 2020, and has faced a flurry of proposals ranging from silly and misguided to deeply dangerous and disingenuous. 

Notably, several news outlets are reporting that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg intends to express openness to reforming or "updating" Section 230. This comes as no surprise, after all Facebook was the first Big Tech company to throw free expression and human rights under the bus in the interest of political expediency when they quietly endorsed SESTA/FOSTA, the disastrous legislation resulting from the last time Congress meddled with Section 230. Experts say the bill harmed the very communities it claimed to protect. 

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, which has been leading the grassroots opposition to attacks on Section 230 issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (she/her): 

Blowing up Section 230 would be devastating for human rights and freedom of expression globally. And it will make Big Tech monopolies like Facebook and Google even more powerful in the process. Poking holes in this law would open the floodgates for widespread Internet censorship, and make it harder for websites to set community standards in the public interest. 

It’s no surprise that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has decided to throw the rest of the Internet under the bus in calling for an "update" to Section 230. Messing with this law will only solidify the monopoly power of the largest tech companies, who have armies of lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that any changes are friendly to their business model, while crushing their competition from smaller companies and community-driven platforms like Wikipedia. 

Zuckerberg’s move comes straight out of the same playbook that Big Tech and Big Telecom companies have employed again and again from net neutrality to facial recognition. He’s calling for regulation because he knows his company will have tremendous power to influence it. 

While Section 230 is often incorrectly portrayed as a ‘gift’ or ‘prized liability shield’ for Big Tech, in fact it is a foundational law that has allowed the best parts of the Internet to flourish by enabling websites and apps to host user generated content like videos, photos, memes, music, reviews, comments, and opinions. Section 230 is also the law that makes it so you can’t get sued for retweeting something someone else says. At its core it’s a protection for free expression and the rights of Internet users, not big corporations.

Section 230 is essential for protecting speech that challenges power and authority. Web platforms would never have hosted the viral videos of police abuse that spurred on global uprisings for racial justice this year if they could have faced lawsuits for doing so. Nearly every social movement that challenges the status quo would be quickly silenced online in a world without Section 230. 

Democrats and Republicans have turned Section 230 into a partisan football to kick back and forth as they each attempt to ‘work the refs’ ahead of election day. In doing so they’re putting our most basic rights in danger. Gutting Section 230 won’t do anything to address the real harms caused by Big Tech companies’ surveillance capitalist business models. For progressives raising legitimate concerns about hate speech and disinformation, it will make it even less likely that tech companies moderate content responsibly.

For conservatives alleging political bias on the part of the tech companies, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. If web platforms become liable for the content their users post, right wing accounts like President Trump and Ted Cruz would likely be among the first to be banned. 

Proposals to tinker with Section 230 are a distraction and should be opposed. We need lawmakers to take meaningful action to reign in the growing power of Big Tech companies, like breaking up monopolies, mandating data portability and interoperability, and enacting strong Federal data privacy legislation that makes surveillance capitalist business models illegal. 

From SOPA/PIPA to SESTA/FOSTA we’ve seen again and again just how dangerous it is when politicians turn complex tech policy issues into talking points for their election campaigns. It’s time for Internet users from across the political spectrum to rise up once again and reject the terrible idea of killing off the 26 words that created the Internet."

###

Social media influencers just might determine the outcome of the 2020 elections

On September 28th, Kylie Jenner posted a bikini pic to her Instagram account with a simple message: "But are you registered to vote? click the link in my bio.. let’s make a plan to vote together." The link in Jenner’s bio directed her followers to Vote.org’s voter registration tool, which instantly saw a massive increase in traffic and an 80% boost in voter registration on the popular website. That’s not surprising, considering Jenner has nearly 200 million followers on Instagram … more than the population of France, Italy, and the United Kingdom combined!

Social media is a powerful tool that can be used to reach — and influence — massive amounts of people. That’s why Fight for the Future has launched a new website, SaveDemocracy.Online, to keep track of which influential celebrities are using social media to get the vote out in 2020, and which ones aren’t doing anything. With the click of a button, you can send a message to these celebrities urging them to pitch in and help save democracy.

It may not seem like much, but if we can get just a few artists, athletes, or companies to participate in voter outreach, it could be nothing short of game-changing.

Every vote counts

Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election in large part due to fewer than 80,000 ballots cast in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. And that’s not the first time a presidential election was decided by a small number of people. The 2000 election was famously decided by 537 votes in Florida. Going back even further into America’s history, the 1916 election hinged on 3,773 votes cast in California.

History could be very different if a few hundred or a few thousand more people showed up to the polls in any given election. Unfortunately, low voter turnout has always been a problem in the United States, with participation hovering around 55% for the past hundred years. But there’s reason to hope that 2020 might be different.

Influencers are helping turn out the vote early

Artists, athletes, and even big-name businesses have never been more vocal about the importance of voting. Former First Lady Michelle Obama launched an initiative called When We All Vote, encouraging schools, city officials, and ordinary people all across America to help get out the vote. Celebrities like Shaq, Oprah, Snoop Dogg, and Stephen Colbert have urged their followers on social media to register to vote and show up to the polls. And many tech companies from Airbnb to LiveNation and Spotify have used their platforms to participate in voter registration efforts.

It’s difficult to say just how much each of these efforts has moved the needle … but it’s easy to see that the needle is moving. 61 million people have already voted in the 2020 election, thanks to early voting and an increased demand for absentee ballots. Some analysts believe as many as 150 million ballots may be cast this year, dwarfing the 129 million ballots cast in 2016.

However, there’s no guarantee that people will continue voting at this record-breaking level through November 3rd. It’s possible that mail-in voting has simply replaced in-person voting for millions of people, or that people who see reports of record turnout will decide that they don’t need to show up on election day. That’s why we must continue to keep the pressure on, and continue our efforts to get out the vote.

How you can help

Not every celebrity is using social media to encourage their followers to vote. Not every company is using its platform to participate in voter registration efforts. But every tweet, every Facebook post, and every Instagram story has the ability to drive a few more people to the polls. And yet, some people with the power to influence millions of others are staying silent about the one non-partisan issue that allows us the opportunity to determine our own fate: voting.

We encourage everyone to visit SaveDemocracy.Online and check out our Hall of Fame to see which celebrities are doing the most to help turnout voters in the upcoming election. Then check out our Hall of Shame to see who hasn’t lifted a finger to help out. If you have a Twitter account, we’ve made it easy for you to tweet at these powerful influencers with a click of the button, urging them to pitch in and do their part to save democracy in the USA.

And, of course, please make sure you’re registered to vote and cast your ballot in this year’s election election. You can do it by mail, you can vote early, or you can show up to your polling location on November 3rd. We need to make sure everyone votes so that our elected officials represent each and every one of us.

Our future depends on it.

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) majority will double down on the agency’s deeply unpopular repeal of net neutrality. President Trump’s appointed chairman Ajit Pai will lead the agency in voting to approve an order to reaffirm the repeal, after a Federal court ordered the FCC to address the impact that its move to eviscerate net neutrality had on public safety, among other issues. 

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in human history to defend net neutrality, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director, Evan Greer (she/her): 

Ajit Pai’s corruption and cruelty know no limits. We’re in the middle of a deadly pandemic where people are more vulnerable to Big Telecom’s abuses than ever before, and the FCC is voting against Internet freedom once again. They’re ignoring a mountain of evidence and the voices of the overwhelming majority of people from across the political spectrum. And they’re spitting in the face of our nation’s medical professionals and first responders by specifically ignoring a court order to address the serious public safety issues surrounding their repeal of net neutrality. 

Meanwhile, Trump’s FCC plans to move forward with a deeply silly and blatantly unconstitutional executive order to blow up Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening the floodgates for massive Internet censorship and deputizing Federal bureaucrats as online speech police. 

To summarize: Ajit Pai doesn’t think the FCC should prevent telecom giants like Verizon from throttling firefighters’ connection or blocking websites, but he does think the agency should dictate what you can and can’t say on the Internet. The leadership of this FCC has no legitimacy. They will go down in history as laughing stocks who attempted to kill Internet freedom, but ultimately failed. Net neutrality is one of the most popular policies in modern history. It’s only a matter of time before it’s the law of the land again."

###

With a week to go before election day, Fight for the Future is serving tough love to people who need a scornful push to vote via a series of insulting SMS messages.

As people are hearing lots of encouraging messages about voting, Fight for the Future has created a tool for those people who may need to hear a different message to make sure they vote: insultbot.org

People can sign up on the website or text INSULTME to 68788 to receive daily text messages reminding them to vote. Messages will increase in intensity and aggression through election day, until the recipient confirms they’ve voted.

"Let’s face it: voting is hard. And it’s even harder this year (because everything is harder. #2020)," said Caitlin Seeley George, Campaigns Director at Fight for the Future. "But it’s still absolutely critical for every eligible person to vote. So we’re providing this not-so-friendly reminder tool for those who just need to be poked again and again and again until they vote, and we’re bringing some snarky insults to make it a little different from what people are already hearing."

While we’re seeing historic early voting numbers, and celebrities are getting creative with new ways to encourage voting, millions of eligible voters still haven’t cast their ballots. Young and new voters are particularly likely to not vote, in part because they haven’t established it as a habit. That’s why these types of reminders are critical. The more someone hears they need to do something the more likely they are to do it.

"While this approach of insulting people until they vote won’t work for everyone, we figure that there’s enough feel-good, hope-inspiring, and fear-inducing messaging out there that it’s time to try something different," continued Seeley George. "If we can make a handful of people chuckle while they drop off their ballot, we’ll consider this a success."

And as to who should sign up? Anyone who needs an extra nudge to remember to vote and doesn’t mind being called a sea cucumber or being cursed with incurable supercrabs should text INSULTME to 68788.

#####

CONTACT: press@fightforthefuture.org, 978-852-6457

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new Hall of Fame and Hall of Shame on SaveDemocracy.Online to showcase influential people are flexing their online presence to get the vote out in 2020 and which ones are sidelining democracy. Visitors to SaveDemocracy.Online can use the Hall of Shame to tweet at people like Jeff Bezos and Khloé Kardashian, urging them to use their social media accounts to encourage others to head to the polls this November.

"Social pressure is a major factor in getting people to vote," said Dayton Young (he/him), Product Director at Fight for the Future. "Some of the biggest artists, athletes, and influencers in the world are using social media to get out the vote in 2020, but others are staying silent. We need everyone on the Internet to tell these people that silence is not an option, plain and simple. This is a real strategy to help increase voter turnout and fight back against voter suppression in the days before the election. Let’s do everything we can to ensure a record-breaking turnout at the polls this November."

This strategy is already having a big impact on the election. A recent Instagram post from Kylie Jenner urging her followers to vote boosted online voter registrations on Vote.org by 80%. Shaq made headlines on CNN, CBS, and NBC Sports by announcing that 2020 marked the first time he’s voted. Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D–NY) took time out of her busy Congressional schedule to play video games on Twitch, encouraging millions of viewers on the popular livestreaming platform to vote.

"The Internet is a fundamental part of our society today, and its biggest voices and forces can change the course of history with a tweet," said Shuo Peskoe-Yang (he/him), Campaigner at Fight for the Future. "When you have that kind of influence but do nothing with it, you’re not only neglecting your basic civic duty to your followers, you’re complicit in enabling voter suppression. Whether you’re a billionaire, pop star, or Hollywood celebrity, there’s no excuse for not using your platform to help people vote during a pandemic."

But other big names in business and entertainment have stayed curiously silent on the completely non-partisan issue of voting. For example, Bruno Mars could nudge  43 million people to vote with a tweet, but he hasn’t even mentioned the word "vote" or "voting" in any tweets he’s sent this year. Blake Shelton regularly encourages his 20 million fans on Twitter to vote for him on Country Music Television, but hasn’t mentioned the 2020 elections at all. And perhaps most outrageous, Amazon has outright refused requests to allow its 1.3 million workers paid time off to vote and has neglected to promote voting or voter information on its website. 

To learn about other noteworthy get-out-the-vote campaigns and to see which celebrities have been shirking their civic duty on social media, please visit SaveDemocracy.Online.

###

With a week to go before election day, Fight for the Future is serving tough love to people who need a scornful push to vote via a series of insulting SMS messages.

As people are hearing lots of encouraging messages about voting, Fight for the Future has created a tool for those people who may need to hear a different message to make sure they vote: insultbot.org

People can sign up on the website or text INSULTME to 68788 to receive daily text messages reminding them to vote. Messages will increase in intensity and aggression through election day, until the recipient confirms they’ve voted.

"Let’s face it: voting is hard. And it’s even harder this year (because everything is harder. #2020)," said Caitlin Seeley George, Campaigns Director at Fight for the Future. "But it’s still absolutely critical for every eligible person to vote. So we’re providing this not-so-friendly reminder tool for those who just need to be poked again and again and again until they vote, and we’re bringing some snarky insults to make it a little different from what people are already hearing."

While we’re seeing historic early voting numbers, and celebrities are getting creative with new ways to encourage voting, millions of eligible voters still haven’t cast their ballots. Young and new voters are particularly likely to not vote, in part because they haven’t established it as a habit. That’s why these types of reminders are critical. The more someone hears they need to do something the more likely they are to do it.

"While this approach of insulting people until they vote won’t work for everyone, we figure that there’s enough feel-good, hope-inspiring, and fear-inducing messaging out there that it’s time to try something different," continued Seeley George. "If we can make a handful of people chuckle while they drop off their ballot, we’ll consider this a success."

And as to who should sign up? Anyone who needs an extra nudge to remember to vote and doesn’t mind being called a sea cucumber or being cursed with incurable supercrabs should text INSULTME to 68788.

#####

Students and leading national organizations are calling for a ban on a controversial technology that the Dean of Students said was used to identify peaceful student protesters.

On the heels of the University of Miami’s conflicting answers as to whether they used facial recognition on students protesting for better COVID-19 protection for contract employees, 20+ civil liberties and human rights organizations have signed an open letter to the administration and the Board of Trustees. The letter supports student demands for a ban on facial recognition, and meetings to address surveillance on campus as well as COVID-19 safety concerns.

Many of the organizations signed on represent diverse groups who are harmed by invasive, racially biased facial recognition, including Color of Change, Mijente, Mpower Change, and United We Dream, as well as Miami Law’s own SWANALSA — South/West Asian & North African Law Students Association.

Also represented are leading digital and human rights groups including ACLU of Florida, MediaJustice, Demand Progress, Algorithmic Justice League, The Center for Human Rights and Privacy, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Fight for the Future, as well as Miami Law ACLU and National Lawyers Guild Miami Law Chapter.

"UMiami is struggling to answer to their creepy surveillance practices, and clarify whether they are using their own facial recognition system, or Florida’s state facial recognition database," said Lia Holland (she/her) an activist at Fight for the Future who is supporting students. "Their path forward is obvious. Their own chief of campus police told Forbes that facial recognition doesn’t work. They need to ban facial recognition immediately with a clearly stated policy, and meet with students."

According to the scorecard at BanFacialRecognition.com/Campus, any use of Facial Recognition by the University of Miami would be a move against the tide. Over 60 campuses in the US, from Harvard to MIT, have stated that they do not plan to use facial recognition, technology that has been widely condemned by experts as invasive, ineffective, and plagued by systemic racial and gender bias. After community outcry over a proposed facial recognition surveillance program this spring, UCLA committed to banning facial recognition from their campus.

Students with the UMiami Employee Student Alliance (UMESA), members of which participated and were called to the meeting for the protest in question, are available for interviews via lia@fightforthefuture.org. Fight for the Future is also available to comment.

The letter reads as follows, with a complete list of signatories below:

To the University of Miami School Administrators:

On behalf of leading consumer, privacy, student, and civil liberties organizations, we are calling on your administration to honor the following demands of students at the University of Miami:

#1: Issue a campus-wide policy banning non-personal use of facial recognition technology, and issue a statement that you have done so.

#2: Immediately schedule an open forum with students and faculty/staff to discuss community concerns and clarify how student activists who participated in First Amendment protected protest activities were identified by campus police.

#3: Immediately schedule a meeting with the UMiami Employee Student Alliance (UMESA) to address their COVID-19 safety concerns, the subject of the original protest.

Facial recognition technology is invasive and ineffective. It’s biased and is more likely to misidentify students of color, female students, and transgender/non-binary students, 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.

Invasive surveillance technology poses a profound threat to academic freedom. Exposing students and educators to facial recognition aggressively 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.

More than 60 prominent institutions, including MIT, Harvard, Brown, Columbia, and Florida State University, have issued statements clarifying that they are not currently using facial recognition and have no plans to do so in the future. Due to the lack of clarity on University of Miami’s policy in the press, an outright ban of the technology for nonpersonal use is necessary — so that students, faculty, and staff can be certain they are not being subjected to technology your own chief of police has said "doesn’t work".

Additionally, we would like to express our deep concern around the lack of clarity around the university’s surveillance policies and procedures — as well as potential suppression of student’s first amendment rights on campus. The surveillance program that includes 1,338 cameras at UMiami is Orwellian at best, and creates an environment incompatible with an institution that values academic freedom and the rights of students, faculty, and staff alike.

Sincerely, the undersigned.

ACLU of Florida

Algorithmic Justice League

Center for Human Rights and Privacy

Color Of Change

Defending Rights & Dissent

Demand Progress

Detroit Community Technology Project

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Fight for the Future

J Street U Miami

Lucy Parsons Labs

MediaJustice

Miami Law ACLU

Mijente

MPower Change

National Lawyers Guild Miami Law Chapter

Oakland Privacy

Open MIC (Open Media & Information Companies Initiative)

RootsAction.org

S.T.O.P. — Surveillance Technology Oversight Project

Students for Sensible Drug Policy

SWANALSA — South/West Asian & North African Law Students Association (Miami Law Chapter)

United We Dream

Contact: Eteng Ettah, eteng@mediajustice.org, (510) 698-3800 x 413

Just days after the close of the 2020 season, civil rights groups are launching a new campaign to pressure the NBA to protect fans, players, and staff by banning facial recognition from use at arenas. Fight for the Future and MediaJustice have launched BanFacialRecognition.com/nba to gather grassroots pressure to ensure that plans for the 2021 season do not include this technology that is racially biased, infringes on privacy, and would force those attending games to be a part of a massive surveillance system.

"We’ve seen this year that the NBA cares about safety, but they need to double down on this commitment moving forward by banning facial recognition," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Campaign Director at Fight for the Future. "This is a critical moment because conversations are happening right now about how to get people back to games next year. Facial recognition companies are trying to weasel their way into arenas by calling their tools "safe" and "touch free." But the NBA needs to see past these sales pitches to the truth: that facial recognition is dangerous, and if used in arenas it will create a massive surveillance system that puts the privacy and safety of fans, players, and other arena staff at risk."

Myaisha Hayes (she/her), Campaign Strategies Director at MediaJustice said: "This season, players, coaches, and teams chose to use their high-profile platforms to highlight injustices happening in our country. To continue their show of support for racial justice, they must unite against facial recognition technology. This technology is inherently biased, puts Black and Brown people in danger, and cannot be installed in arenas around the country where hundreds of thousands of people could be subjected to invasive surveillance that then can create opportunities for police to enact more violence against us."

The NBA faced backlash last year after being exposed for using Clearview, a notorious facial recognition tool that has scraped billions of images from social media and other sites across the internet without consent. At the time, an NBA spokesperson said it was just a test and that they were not clients of Clearview. Facial recognition has also been used at Madison Square Garden and by the Dallas Mavericks. "We can’t allow this to become normalized," said Seeley George. "NBA teams that have used the technology should stop, and as discussions move forward about the 2021 season, teams and players should call out any plans to use facial recognition."

Fight for the Future and MediaJustice are part of the national campaign backed by dozens of other grassroots organizations calling for an outright ban on law enforcement and government use of facial recognition, as well as private use of the technology. These groups have run campaigns to ban use of facial recognition, including in music festivals, schools, and as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

###

MediaJustice is dedicated to building a grassroots movement for a more just and participatory media—fighting for racial, economic, and gender justice in a digital age. MediaJustice boldly advances communication rights, access, and power for communities harmed by persistent dehumanization, discrimination and disadvantage. Home of the #MediaJusticeNetwork, comprised of more than 100 grassroots partners, we envision a future where everyone is connected, represented, and free.

Fight for the Future is a national digital rights organization with more than 2.4 million members in the USA that harnesses the power of the Internet to channel outrage into action, defending the most basic rights in the digital age. They fight to ensure that technology is a force for empowerment, free expression, and liberation rather than tyranny, corruption, and structural inequality.

Students at University of Miami are outraged after learning that university police used recognition technology to target and intimidate students protesting the administration’s insufficient COVID-19 safety precautions. Last month, the Dean of Students called a group of students into his office to reprimand them for protesting in an "unapproved" manner by laying in a courtyard alongside faculty and staff to demand greater protections during the COVID-19 pandemic. When a student asked how the list of those called to the Dean’s office had been assembled, the Dean told them that they had been identified using facial recognition technology.

Yesterday, Fight for the Future learned that a University of Miami spokesperson is flat out denying that the school uses facial recognition. Here’s a screenshot of the statement sent by the university’s Executive Director of Communications and Public Relations:

But publicly available documents uncovered by Fight for the Future show that the university is almost certainly lying. The UM Chief of Police has openly bragged about the University’s use of facial recognition surveillance as recently as last week. In an interview with the University of Miami’s campus magazine, David Rivero said:

"We were able to [easily] identify and arrest him" through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s facial recognition software. "We’ve [detected] a few bad guys that way."

Chief Rivero’s resume, available through the University of Miami website, states that he has overseen the creation of the University’s camera system and that that system includes facial recognition. See a screenshot here:

Yet when reporters reached out to the university for comment, they were met with a response that doesn’t line up: "The University of Miami does not utilize facial recognition technology."

Student organizers know what they heard, and they just aren’t buying it.

Mars Fernandez (she/they), graduate student at University of Miami and member of the University of Miami Employee Student Alliance (UMESA), said, "It’s disturbing that facial recognition can be used to summon me and other students for expressing discontent at our university’s handling of a deadly virus and economic crisis. They deny it now, but just last week UMPD Police Chief Rivero is quoted in a campus magazine as using facial recognition. They could have asked subcontracted workers, faculty workers, and student workers how we are and what we need. Instead it appears they use advanced technology to warn us about protesting "correctly," as if they ever would have listened."

"I think it’s a shame that campus law enforcement was tasked with identifying peaceful protesters," added Esteban Wood (he/him), undergraduate student at University of Miami and also a member of UMESA. "Institutions of higher learning should welcome dissent, not intimidate dissenters. It’s deeply troubling to hear that campus leadership uses facial recognition technology."

David Rivero was with the Miami Police Department for 26 years before taking the role of Chief of Police for the University of Miami. This police department has sustained heavy criticism from human rights experts and activists for using facial recognition technology to identify Black Lives Matter protesters this summer.

According to the scorecard at BanFacialRecognition.com/Campus, any use of Facial Recognition by the University of Miami would be a move against the tide. Over 60 campuses in the US, from Harvard to MIT, have stated that they do not plan to use facial recognition, technology that has been widely condemned by experts as invasive, ineffective, and plagued by systemic racial and gender bias.

"It sure seems like the University of Miami is using facial recognition to target and intimidate students who are exercising their First Amendment rights," said Lia Holland (she/her), an organizer with digital rights group Fight for the Future who is supporting student activists. "If that’s not the case, then they need to tell their Chief of Police to stop claiming they use this technology and ban facial recognition from their campus entirely. Be crystal clear and stand up for the rights of students, staff, and faculty alike, following the lead of other campuses like UCLA, and cities like Portland, San Francisco, and Boston."

Students with the University of Miami Employee Student Alliance (UMESA) are available for interviews via lia@fightforthefuture.org. Fight for the Future is also available to comment.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, notorious for his reckless and anti-democratic repeal of net neutrality, just announced plans to move forward with the Trump administration’s nonsensical and blatantly unconstitutional executive order on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 

Fight for the Future’s SaveOnlineFreeSpeech.org campaign recently drove thousands of comments to the FCC opposing the Trump administration’s deeply silly executive order that would blow up Section 230 and put the Federal government in charge of dictating tech platform’s speech policies.

The group issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (she/her):

"Ajit Pai’s plan to move forward with the Trump administration’s deeply silly executive order would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This is the guy who repealed net neutrality because he claimed basic rules that prevented ISPs from blocking websites and apps were "burdensome government regulations." Now he wants to turn the Federal government into online speech police, dictating what social media companies can and can’t allow? 

Trump tweeting in all caps to REPEAL SECTION 230 makes about as much sense as someone organizing a protest to repeal the First Amendment. If he got his way, websites would become legally responsible for the opinions, videos, and memes posted by their users. Social media platforms would likely engage in mass censorship and banning of accounts rather than open themselves up to lawsuits for hosting controversial opinions –– Trump’s accounts would surely be among the first to go. It would strip users of key protections too. Who’s excited to get sued for retweeting something?

The reality is that lawmakers from across the political spectrum are deeply misinformed about how Section 230 actually works. It feels like every week there’s a new misguided proposal in Congress. But repealing Section 230 won’t do anything to hold Big Tech companies accountable or address the harms done by their data harvesting business models. And it won’t do anything to address concerns around biased moderation or the silencing of marginalized voices.

Repealing Section 230 would just make all the bad parts of the Internet worse while burning the good parts to the ground. It’s time to put this bad idea to rest and focus on putting actual policies in place to protect free speech and rein in Big Tech abuses, like enacting strong Federal data privacy legislation, restoring net neutrality, banning micro-targeting and harmful forms of algorithmic amplification, and breaking up monopolies."

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is not alone in its quest to eviscerate Section 230. Vice President Joe Biden has also called to "revoke" the protections, and there are a slew of terrible bills in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans attacking this legislation. Fight for the Future has been leading the charge against some of the worst proposals, including the EARN IT Act, the companion of which was recently introduced in the House.

Fight for the Future is one of the few civil society groups working to defend Section 230 for human rights and free expression reasons, while organizing for actual policy solutions to the very real harms caused by Big Tech business models. 

###

Digital rights group Fight for the Future has compiled a scorecard showing which of the top 100 athletes, artists, influencers, and brands with the highest number of followers on Twitter have sent at least one tweet this year encouraging their followers to vote. The list excludes politicians who are running for office and using the platform to campaign for themselves, as well as many foreign-born entertainers whose core audience may live outside of the United States.

These top 100 Twitter accounts have a combined total of more than 3.1 billion followers. 55 of the top 100 accounts have sent at least one tweet this year encouraging their followers to vote, reaching as many as 1.9 billion people. But 45 of the top 100 accounts — with nearly 1.2 billion followers combined — have taken no action whatsoever. Of course, Twitter currently has 330 million monthly active users, meaning millions of people are seeing multiple messages about voting from many of their favorite celebrities and brands … though millions more might not be seeing anything at all. The full scorecard can be viewed at SaveDemocracy.Online/#scorecard.

"If you can reach millions of people by simply sending a tweet, then you need to send a tweet telling millions of people to vote. Right. Now." Dayton Young, Product Director for Fight for the Future (he/him) continued, saying, "Voting is how we protect our basic rights and ensure that everyone in our communities enjoys the same freedoms and protections under the law. The Internet has made it easier than ever to register to vote, vote by mail, volunteer at the polls, and find a voting location near you. So let’s make sure we’re all using every online tool at our disposal to get out the vote for the 2020 elections."

Notably, NBA Hall of Famer Shaquille O’Neal announced that 2020 is the first time he has ever voted, and he has used his Twitter account to tell his followers that "It has never been more important to exercise your right to vote." Media guru Oprah Winfrey has made numerous posts urging her fans to take part in her OWN television network’s #OWNthevote campaign. And comedian Will Ferrell’s Funny or Die production company tweeted a simple, attention-grabbing message: "Please fucking vote."

Meanwhile, billionaire businessman Elon Musk — who has never shied away from posting his outspoken political viewpoints on Twitter — has stayed curiously silent on the non-partisan issue of voting. Social media influencer Kylie Jenner has directed her followers to visit Vote.org to register to vote, but her older sister Khloé Kardasian has avoided the topic altogether. Perhaps most outrageously, the official Twitter account hasn’t sent a single message encouraging its 58 million followers to participate in the upcoming election, yet rival social media network Instagram has used its official Twitter account, @instagram, to encourage its 35 million followers to vote.

To view the full scorecard and learn more about what you can do to help get out the vote, please visit SaveDemocracy.Online.

###

Today, after Twitter made a moderation decision to hide tweets that contained false information about the danger of COVID-19, President Trump tweeted, once again, calling to "REPEAL SECTION 230." It’s the latest in the administration’s nonsensical attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that allows essentially all user-generated content on the Internet. 

Fight for the Future’s SaveOnlineFreeSpeech.org campaign recently drove thousands of comments to the FCC opposing the Trump administration’s deeply silly executive order that would blow up Section 230 and put the Federal government in charge of dictating platform’s speech policies.

The group issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (she/her):

Trump tweeting in all caps to REPEAL SECTION 230 makes about as much sense as someone organizing a protest to repeal the First Amendment. If he got his way, websites would become legally responsible for the opinions, videos, and memes posted by their users. Social media platforms would likely engage in mass censorship and banning of accounts rather than open themselves up to lawsuits for hosting controversial opinions –– Trump’s accounts would surely be among the first to go. It would strip users of key protections too. Who’s excited to get sued for retweeting something?

The reality is that lawmakers from across the political spectrum are deeply misinformed about how Section 230 actually works. It feels like every week there’s a new misguided proposal in Congress. But repealing Section 230 won’t do anything to hold Big Tech companies accountable or address the harms done by their data harvesting business models. And it won’t do anything to address concerns around biased moderation or the silencing of marginalized voices. 

Repealing Section 230 would just make all the bad parts of the Internet worse while burning the good parts to the ground. It’s time to put this bad idea to rest and focus on putting actual policies in place to protect free speech and rein in Big Tech abuses, like enacting strong Federal data privacy legislation, restoring net neutrality, banning micro-targeting and harmful forms of algorithmic amplification, and breaking up monopolies.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration is not alone in its quest to eviscerate Section 230. Vice President Joe Biden has also called to "revoke" the protections, and there are a slew of terrible bills in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans attacking this legislation. Fight for the Future has been leading the charge against some of the worst proposals, including the EARN IT Act, the companion of which was recently introduced in the House. 

###

As part of their campaign to Save Democracy Online, digital rights group Fight for the Future has launched a new scorecard to track which of the top 100 YouTube channels are helping to get out the vote for the 2020 US elections … and which channels aren’t doing anything. 

The official YouTube channels for The Ellen DeGeneres Show and Billie Eilish have both posted videos urging their viewers to vote, and The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon hosted Derrick Johnson — the President and CEO of the NAACP — who encouraged viewers to "vote like our lives depend on it." But shockingly, none of the other top 100 channels on the world’s biggest video sharing platform have made direct appeals for people to vote during an election year in which so much is at stake.

The scorecard can be viewed at savedemocracy.online/#scorecard. It excludes YouTube channels whose primary audiences are children, outside of the US, or otherwise not applicable.

"YouTube is the second-largest social media platform in the world, with 2 billion monthly users. Its most influential users could move millions of people to register to vote and do their civic duty," said Shuo Peskoe-Yang (he/him), with Fight for the Future. "When you hold that level of influence but do nothing, you’re not being apolitical or neutral. You’re shirking your own civic duty to help your fanbase get to the polls that comes from the power you wield. It’s time you stopped worrying what this means for your subscriber numbers and started doing your part."

Previously, Fight for the Future released a scorecard which showed which of the top 100 websites online participated in National Voter Registration Day. Next week, Fight for the Future will release another scorecard detailing what the top 100 Twitter accounts are — and aren’t — doing to help get out the vote. A new scorecard will be released each week until the election takes place on November 3rd, 2020. In the meantime, Fight for the Future is asking the public to reach out to the top 100 YouTube channels and demand that they do more to promote nonpartisan civic engagement.

"The top content creators on YouTube are doing absolutely nothing at all to help their audience register to vote and show up to the polls this November," said Dayton Young (he/him), Product Director at Fight for the Future. "The 2020 US elections will have far-reaching impacts on issues that affect literally everyone around the world. YouTube stars have a platform capable of mobilizing millions of people, and we need them doing everything they can to encourage others to participate in democracy so that we can build a better future. Starting now."

###

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives have introduced a companion bill to the dangerous and misguided EARN IT Act, legislation that has drawn increasing criticism from experts and human rights groups after it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. More than half a million people have written to their lawmakers opposing the bill at NoEarnItAct.org, and Fight for the Future has driven more than 10,000 phone calls to Senate offices. 

Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO) who introduced the House version of the bill with Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), openly admits that the legislation is "a natural follow-up to FOSTA," the last piece of legislation that poked a hole in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has been roundly condemned by experts for harming the very communities it claimed to protect. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has introduced legislation to study the harms done by SESTA/FOSTA, which led to entire swaths of the Internet such as Craiglist personals ads shutting down. 

"The EARN IT Act is disgraceful. It’s intentionally convoluted legislation that exploits the trauma of abuse survivors in order to score points for politicians looking to get re-elected. This bill won’t make children safer. All it will do is demonize and criminalize encryption technology that protects people’s safety and basic human rights, and open the floodgates for Internet censorship at a massive scale," said Evan Greer (she/her) Deputy Director of Fight for the Future, "Congress didn’t heed warnings from experts and marginalized communities about SESTA/FOSTA, and now that legislation has led to enormous harm and even loss of life. It would be unconscionable for lawmakers to advance this legislation instead of taking real steps to address child safety and the harms done by Big Tech companies."

The EARN IT Act has come under fire from legal experts, human rights advocates, libertarian groups, progressive organizations, child abuse prevention groups, and technologists for threatening end-to-end encryption services and opening the floodgates for widespread Internet censorship. Sex worker advocates demonstrated against the bill in Oakland last month, calling out VP candidate Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) for her support of the legislation, which was made even worse after a last minute manager’s amendment from Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The EARN IT Act is currently stalled in the Senate, and unlikely to come up for a vote during this session due to opposition from Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and other lawmakers. But the introduction in the House makes it clear that Congress is continuing to push this deeply flawed legislation. Fight for the Future will continue mobilizing Internet users from across the political spectrum to oppose it. 

###

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

Today, more than a dozen privacy and civil rights organizations released a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos condemning Amazon’s failure to secure election data and demanding Amazon disclose all instances of security breaches related to election data, the implications of such breaches, and the actions it took to address them.

Last year, Reuters reported three separate instances of voter data being exposed. Amazon responded it was due to user error. Since then, Amazon has released no information about the scale or any further response to these security issues. 

"It’s reasonable to expect a corporation the size of Amazon handling contracts for the government to devote resources to ensuring those accounts are safe. It’s clear that Amazon hasn’t met this expectation and isn’t doing everything they can to stop security breaches because they keep happening," the letter reads. "If a car seat manufacturer didn’t provide proper instructions to make sure people installed their car seats correctly and it put infants in harm’s way, people would blame the manufacturer for its negligence. The car seat manufacturer would be expected to do everything necessary to prevent infants from dying."

Amazon provides election services for over 40 states. With such a large role in election systems, the tech giant cannot simply take responsibility for the infrastructure and leave users of their services to fend for themselves. There is too much at stake.

"Amazon is the most profitable corporation on the planet and Jeff Bezos is the richest person in human history. If a company this size wants to sell its software to governments for election purposes, it has a responsibility to ensure that those systems are properly configured and to be transparent about the steps they’re taking to secure our elections. We can’t let Amazon’s greed corrode what’s left of our democracy, said Evan Greer (she/her), Deputy Director of Fight for the Future.

"But so far Amazon has responded to these disturbing breaches by placing blame and putting the onus on the user to protect voter information, knowing that these systems demand the highest degree of security, transparency, and accountability. This is the same thing Amazon did with the Ring hacks. A man literally hacked into Ring cameras to spy on and harass a child and Amazon blamed it on user error. Our families, our elections, and our democracy are all too important for Amazon’s nonchalant, passive response to security threats. This election is critical. Major issues—like healthcare, immigration, digital rights, and food security—are on the ballot. People’s lives are on the line. Amazon needs to be transparent about these security issues and the steps it’s taking to address these gaps in security."

With the election weeks away, the groups feel it’s incumbent upon Amazon to be transparent about the gaps in the security of the election system so the public can assess the threat and the steps Amazon is taking. 

The signing organizations include: AI Now Institute, Athena, Color of Change, Constitutional Alliance, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Just Futures Law, Kairos Action, Media Alliance, Media Justice, MPower Change, Open Markets Institute, RootsAction.org, Partnership for Working Families, Secure Justice, S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and X-Lab.

###

Dear Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos,

We’re calling on Amazon to disclose all instances of security breaches related to election data, the implications of such breaches, and the actions it took to address them.

Reuters reported that voter information stored on Amazon’s cloud was breached on three separate occasions including a database with nearly every registered American that was exposed to the internet for 12 days. These incidents reveal gaps in security that can be used to manipulate the 2020 elections. Voter information acquired from a hack or leak could be weaponized to suppress votes and spread disinformation, especially in Black and Brown communities that are targeted and systematically disenfranchised in every election. Amazon needs to be transparent about their response to these breaches, so the public can evaluate the security of the election system and the steps Amazon is taking.

Amazon has aggressively expanded into U.S. elections, providing one or more election services in more than 40 states and for both major political parties. Amazon’s election services - including running election websites, storing voter registration information and ballot data, and helping to provide live results on election night - concentrate private voter data and history in a single centralized system. A single breach could have catastrophic consequences for election integrity in dozens of states.

We know bad actors are looking for loopholes, like the cloud security compromises, that they can exploit to influence the outcome of our elections. 

Given the stakes, Amazon should be doing everything they can to secure our elections. Responding to these disturbing compromises by placing blame and putting the onus on the user, like you have in the past, is unacceptable.

We acknowledge that Amazon only claims responsibility for the underlying infrastructure and leaves it to the customer to secure the encryption of the data. But our election system is not an everyday customer, and the public needs transparency about security issues to assess the possible threats to our election system.

If a car seat manufacturer didn’t provide proper instructions to make sure people installed their car seats correctly, and it put infants in harm’s way, people would blame the manufacturer for its negligence. The car seat manufacturer would be expected to do everything necessary to prevent infants from dying.

It’s reasonable to expect a corporation the size of Amazon, handling contracts for the government, to devote resources to ensuring those accounts are safe. Repeated breaches make it clear that Amazon hasn’t met this expectation and suggest it isn’t doing everything it can to protect voter information.

Amazon’s inaction coupled with its practice of centralizing all the voter data it holds in one location puts our elections and our democracy at risk. Counties and states across the country trusted Amazon with their voter and election data. It’s incumbent upon you to do everything necessary to ensure the safety and security of our elections.

Sincerely,

Athena
Color of Change
Constitutional Alliance
Demand Progress
Fight for the Future
Just Futures Law
Kairos Action
Media Alliance
Media Justice
MPower Change
Open Markets Institute
RootsAction.org
Partnership for Working Families
Secure Justice
S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
Woodhull Freedom Foundation
X-Lab

Fight for the Future is releasing a report that tracks the activities of websites, apps, influencers, and YouTube channels, on their efforts to support voter registration and voter access in the lead-up to the 2020 election. Today, the report follows the activities of the Alexa top 100 sites in the US and whether they supported National Voter Registration Day on Tuesday, September 22, 2020 with high visibility promotions on their websites. 

This year’s National Voter Registration Day was likely the largest single push for voter registration in US history, with major social media websites like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter leveraging their platforms with high-visibility notices embedded in their homepages and apps to urge US users to register to vote. Other well known web platforms like Tumblr and Imgur also created similar notices to engage their audiences with front page banners and customized content to promote voter registration.

However, the vast majority of websites surveyed, from commerce giants like Amazon.com and eBay.com to the finance industry like JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo did little to nothing to leverage their platforms to encourage their millions of daily users to register to vote. 

The full results can be found at savedemocracy.online and will be routinely updated in the weeks leading up to Election Day with reports on other slices of the Internet. These will include information on the top 100 YouTube channels by subscribers, Twitter accounts with most followers, and more. The site also provides tools for people and companies to apply to their platforms to push users to register to vote with an easy-to-install widget and banner ads for websites and social media templates for influencers.

"Some social media giants are stepping up in the lead up to what may be the most important election of our lifetimes," said Shuo Peskoe-Yang with Fight for the Future (pronouns he/him), "But it’s no coincidence that the companies most under siege, like Facebook, are the ones who have invested the most in voter registration work. Virtually every other website is shirking their responsibility to drive engagement, making it clear that companies won’t take real action until they’re under pressure to do so. Our platform lets people see who’s doing their civic duty, and who needs to be pushed to participate. With the most important weeks still ahead, there’s still time for them to redeem themselves when it matters the most." 

Comment deadline is Thursday, September 17th at midnight EST! Click here to submit your comment now. 

Politicians in Washington, DC are in a panic about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken aim at this obscure piece of legislation, which has been called the "26 words that created the Internet." The only problem is that they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about. And messing with Section 230 in the ways they’re suggesting could force tens of thousands of websites to shut down, silence the voices of millions of people, and open the floodgates for widespread censorship of our videos, memes, selfies, blogs, and social media posts.

But now the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has launched an official public comment period on a White House executive order that would shred Section 230 and turn the agency, and its boss Ajit Pai, into online speech police. If you think social media companies’ moderation policies are bad now, just wait til government bureaucrats are in charge of it.

The good news is that this executive order is so poorly written, and so blatantly violates the First Amendment, that even Ajit Pai has signaled that he’s against it. So we can still stop this. The FCC deadline for "reply" comments is September 17th. Enemies of Internet freedom ranging from telecom monopolies like AT&T to anti-LGBTQ hate groups have already flooded the agency with hundreds of comments supporting the misguided idea of gutting Section 230. But there’s still time for real people like you and me to submit comments and make our voices heard. If we don’t, politicians will point to the comment docket to justify their next attack on our Internet freedom.

Click here to submit your comment to the FCC to stop the "Censor the Internet executive order. Then share this video everywhere to educate your friends. 

As kids head back to school, parents raise the alarm about invasive surveillance tech being used both in person and for remote learning, and call for lawmakers and school administrators to ban facial recognition.

In less than a week, an open letter from parents opposing the use of facial recognition in schools has already been signed by more than 1,000 parents from all 50 states.

See the open letter at https://www.parentsagainstfacialrecognition.org 

The letter, addressed to lawmakers and school administrators, calls for a ban on the technology in the interest of kids’ safety and specifically highlights the unknown psychological dangers of constant surveillance, the potential physical danger if someone gains access to the data collected by facial recognition systems, and how it will exacerbate discrimination against students of color, girls, and gender nonconforming kids.

The letter is a part of a new effort by Fight for the Future, the digital rights group behind BanFacialRecognition.com, that will specifically focus on K-12 schools. "Momentum is growing to ban facial recognition for good, but we know that companies are specifically targeting schools, which is why we need to ban it now," said Caitlin Seeley George (she/her), Campaign Director and a parent of two young children. "These tech companies care more about making money than on how much their product will hurt children. We’ve already seen how facial recognition has endangered adults, we can’t let this happen to our kids."

Earlier this summer New York became the first state to pass a moratorium on facial recognition in schools (the bill is currently awaiting the signature of Governor Cuomo). At the same time, a school in Kansas announced it is using facial recognition as a part of its plan to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to signing the letter, some parents added their personal comments to share why they don’t want this technology being used on their children.

Taina, a parent from New York wrote: "Raising a Black son in the United States means being constantly vigilant and worried about my child’s safety. Racist surveillance software like facial recognition makes my children less safe at school, not more safe. This technology will just amplify existing discrimination and feed the school-to-prison pipeline. I’m glad that New York has stopped schools from using biometric surveillance on our kids. I hope the rest of the country follows suit, because parents have enough to worry about without greedy tech companies conducting unethical experiments in our kid’s schools."

Suzanna, a parent from California, said "I am against facial recognition for our children. Keeping a data bank on children is conducive to gaining power and control over populations. The time has come for these kinds of tactics to be removed from our society. Equality, equanimity, and the reduction of hierarchy systems of control are the direction which our society will be moving so get aboard and move in the direction of the new paradigm of people caring for people not people controlling people. "

In Massachusetts, Sasha wrote that "Children can’t meaningfully consent to their participation in this kind of technology—as fast as it’s advancing, we need considerable safeguards before adults can even give informed consent themselves! All industry/government level use of this technology needs to be on pause until real ethical benchmarks are in place and can be upheld."

Asher from Florida wrote that this is an "Outrageous attempt to control and penalize kids and major blatant invasion of privacy. Facial recognition has no place in schools."

More comments can be seen on the campaign’s page at https://www.parentsagainstfacialrecognition.org/

Since last year, 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. In February, the group expanded its 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. The group launched an effort in the spring to keep facial recognition off of college campuses, and got more than 60 schools to commit to not using the tech. The group is also providing support for activists on the ground pushing for bans at the local level, including Portland, Oregon’s recent bans against government and private use of facial recognition.

###

Sex workers and supporters braved the hazardous air to project their message on Oakland City Hall last night, specifically calling out Senator Kamala Harris for voting to advance the EARN IT Act to the Senate floor. The bill threatens Internet freedom and the safety of sex workers while failing the issues it claims to address.

Last night, Oakland City Hall lit up with messages protesting the EARN IT Act while sex workers donned respirators and took to the square. Insiders have told Fight for the Future that the bill’s sponsors may try to rush the bill through the Senate this week. At the center of Bay Area sex worker’s ire was Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who voted to pass the EARN IT act out of committee and toward passage.

The protest, organized by sex worker advocacy organizations Bay Area Workers Support (BAWS) and Hacking // Hustling, as well as digital rights nonprofit Fight for the Future highlighted the harms the bill would cause to sex workers.

"The internet has made sex work safer. The Earn It Act threatens sex workers and survivors by taking away our online platforms. We use the internet to connect with community, get support, and protect ourselves. This bill does nothing to prevent trafficking, while taking away our biggest safety tool," said Maxine Holloway, a Bay Area sex worker and advocate who helped organize the action with BAWS.

Digital rights experts characterize the EARN IT Act as SESTA/FOSTA 2.0, two purported anti-trafficking bills that Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have introduced bills to investigate the negative impacts of as a first step toward a possible repeal.

"The devastation that happened after Backpage was seized and SESTA/FOSTA passed was swift and widespread. Two years later, many sex workers are still trying to economically recover. We saw increases in client violence, predatory behavior, and no one can say that anti-trafficking efforts improved. Passing EARN IT without even fully understanding the failures of SESTA/FOSTA is negligent at best and knowingly exacerbating violence at worst," said Kate D’Adamo, a sex worker advocate with Hacking // Hustling.

Sex workers and advocates working against the EARN IT Act are available for comment. Contact lia@fightforthefuture.org for more info or high-res photos available to the press. Thank you to A.E. Marling for the projections.

All photos featured in this post are authorized for use in coverage of this action.

 — @renepakmorrison

 — @unicornriot666

Telecom giant AT&T and an anti-LGBTQ hate group are backing the White House order that would gut Section 230. Fight for the Future plans to drive comments to the FCC opposing it.

Digital rights group Fight for the Future, known for organizing the largest online protests in human history and driving record numbers of comments to the FCC in support of net neutrality, is launching a new campaign to stop a White House executive order that would gut Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, put the FCC and FTC in charge of policing online speech, and open the floodgates for widespread Internet censorship. 

See the new campaign here: https://www.saveonlinefreespeech.org

The page allows visitors to easily submit a comment to the FCC opposing the executive order and similarly misguided proposals to gut Section 230, by filling out a form and selecting from a dropdown menu of humorous adjectives describing the order, such as "ass-backwards," "despicable," and "legally unsound."

"President Trump’s executive order to blow up Section 230 and censor the Internet is deeply silly and blatantly violates the First Amendment," said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of Fight for the Future, "but it’s just one among a series of similarly nonsensical proposals that would kill off the law that makes the best parts of the Internet possible. If one of these attacks succeed it could shut down enormous swaths of the Internet and lead to widespread censorship of our videos, photos, discussions, and opinions."

The comments will be submitted directly to the FCC’s public docket, which so far has been mostly filled with nonsense, including identical astroturf comments backed by AT&T –– some that still include boilerplate "XYZ group" language –– and hundreds of comments from an anti-LGBTQ hate group backing the executive order. 

Below the form, the page seeks to educate Internet users about what Section 230 really does. It reads in part:

Politicians in Washington, DC are in a panic about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken aim at this obscure piece of legislation, which has been called the "26 words that created the Internet." The only problem is that they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about. And messing with Section 230 in the ways they’re suggesting could force tens of thousands of websites to shut down, silence the voices of millions of people, and open the floodgates for widespread censorship of our videos, memes, selfies, blogs, and social media posts.

It continues:

To get concrete, Section 230 is the law that allows you to post "my landlord is a chump" without your landlord suing the site you post it on out of existence. It’s the law that allows people to post videos of police violence online and makes it really hard for the government to censor them. It’s the law that lets people criticize politicians, CEOs, and other powerful people who would rather we all shut up. It’s also the law that allows websites and online forums to make good-faith efforts to remove extremely harmful content, like child abuse imagery or videos encouraging self-harm. 

From SOPA/PIPA to SESTA/FOSTA to the repeal of net neutrality we’ve seen over and over again just how dangerous it can be when politicians who don’t understand the Internet try to regulate it, or turn it into a political talking point for their re-election campaigns. Killing off Section 230 is a dangerous idea that is gaining steam in Washington, DC. If we don’t resoundingly smack it down now, one of these proposals is eventually going to succeed.

The FCC deadline for "reply" comments is September 17th. Fight for the Future plans to mount an online campaign to drive comments to the agency until then. The group seeks to help people think smarter about tech policy issues, instead of turning them into a partisan circus, and is calling for a number of reforms to hold Big Tech companies accountable without threatening free expression and civil liberties. 

###

On Wednesday, September 9, the Portland, Oregon City Council passed two ordinances to ban the use of facial recognition by both public and private entities. This ban, the strongest in the country, is the first to prohibit corporations from using facial recognition in "places of public accommodation". Despite vigorous lobbying efforts from business and tech interests including Amazon, which spent $24,000 in an attempt to defeat the ordinances, Portland has set a new national standard.

"This is a major victory for everyday people," said Lia Holland (she/her), a Portland resident and activist with Fight for the Future. "Facial recognition is akin to nuclear weapons in terms of its benefit to the public—there is none, only a threat. Now, cities across the country must look to Portland and pass similar bans of their own. And Congress should act to pass bans at the federal level. We have the momentum, and we have the will to beat back this dangerous and discriminatory technology."

Both bans passed with a unanimous vote.

"Here, in Portland, we’ve seen freedom of expression being treated as grounds for punishment," Holland said during the hearing. "Black Lives Matter protesters in New York, in Miami, and more have been singled out using facial recognition…This is the perfect tech for tyranny, it is perfect for public control. Passing these bans is how you stand against fascism."

"Corporate use of facial recognition has the potential to be just as dangerous and discriminatory as government and law enforcement use, but with the motivation to manipulate consumers instead of oppress them. These companies are drooling to exploit all the personal details only facial recognition could unlock." Holland also spoke to the corporate ban during the hearing. "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. Imagine being misidentified as a shoplifter at Rite Aid and when you go to pick up your prescription, the doors won’t open. No court, no recourse. Just an algorithm purposely made too complex to scrutinize."

 Activists collected over 1,200 signatures from residents in support of both ordinances, and drove over 100 emails to the city council in protest of a proposed exception that would allow airlines like Delta to collude with Customs and Border Protection to collect facial recognition data on domestic and international travelers at the Portland International Airport. At least 350 testimony comments from Oregonians were emailed to the city in the 24 hours prior to the vote. 

 City Commissioner JoAnn Hardesty has a statement up saying, "With these concerning reports of state surveillance of Black Lives Matter activists and the use of facial recognition technology to aid in the surveillance, it is especially important that Portland prohibits its bureaus from using this technology. #FacialRecognition tech, with its gender and racial bias and inaccuracies, is an intrusion on Portlanders’ privacy. No one should have something as private as their face photographed, stored, and sold to third parties for a profit. No one should be unfairly thrust into the criminal justice system because the tech algorithm misidentified an innocent person." 

The ordinances are available in full here: https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/mapapp/

A new study from the University of Michigan on the use of facial recognition in schools is recommending that lawmakers and school administrators ban the use of this technology in educational settings. The researchers behind the study write that facial recognition in schools "will likely have five types of implications: exacerbating racism, normalizing surveillance and eroding privacy, narrowing the definition of the ‘acceptable’ student, commodifying data, and institutionalizing inaccuracy. Because FR is automated, it will extend these effects to more students than any manual system could."

"Using facial recognition in schools amounts to unethical experimentation on children," said Evan Greer (she/her), deputy director of digital rights group Fight for the Future who have been organizing to ban facial recognition for more than a year, "We’re already seeing surveillance vendors attempt to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic to push for the use of this ineffective, invasive, and blatantly racist technology. It’s time to draw a line in the sand right now. Lawmakers should act quickly to ban facial recognition in schools, as well as its use by law enforcement and corporations."

Read the full University of Michigan study here: http://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/sites/stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/files/file-assets/cameras_in_the_classroom_full_report.pdf 

Contact the study authors: shobita@umich.edu  

Since last year, 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. In February, the group expanded its 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. The group is also providing support for activists on the ground pushing for bans at the local level. Boston just became the largest city on the east coast to ban government use of facial recognition. Detroit City Council is expected to vote soon on whether to renew their police department’s contract with a facial recognition vendor. 

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. The group then worked with Students for a Sensible Drug Policy to get more than 60 prominent colleges and universities to confirm they won’t use facial recognition on campus. 150+ university faculty issued an open letter echoing student demands to ban the use of face surveillance on college campuses. Students across the country held a national day of action in March.

New York recently became the first state in the country to enact legislation stopping the use of facial recognition in schools. Fight for the Future plans to work at the local, state, and federal level to keep students and teachers safe from this technology. 

###

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos got through today’s Congressional hearing without being asked a single question on consumer privacy violations, Amazon Ring’s police partnerships, or selling racially biased facial recognition software to law enforcement regardless the high likeness of disproportionately misidentifying people of color, women and transgender people.

The virtual format of the hearing did little to quell the political circus.  A circus that was inevitable with the joint testimony format Bezos and other CEOs required in exchange for the testimony. The joint testimony allowed the CEOs to avoid questions and provide little depth for those questions that did get answered－obscuring critical details needed for Congressional investigation and accountability. 

Bezos avoided much scrutiny as lawmakers largely focused on the other tech CEOs. Even the committee members who maintained the narrow focus of the antitrust hearing failed to ask Bezos any substantive questions about Amazon’s surveillance network and consumer privacy. 

Fight for the Future deputy director Evan Greer (she/her) issued the following thoughts in response to today’s hearing:

"In the midst of protesters in Portland and other cities being violently policed by federal agents who are using surveillance technology to track down activists and throw them in unmarked vehicles, it’s mind blowing that Bezos was not grilled on Amazon’s private surveillance network. 

We’ve gotten to a point where we blatantly disregard invasive technology vacuuming up data on our children, our families, and our neighbors. Congress failed to hold Amazon accountable for their surveillance based business model that violates privacy rights, civil liberties, and public safety.

It can’t go without mention that this hearing failed epically when it comes to race. Our country is literally having a national conversation on ending systemic racism and somehow doesn’t come up in their questioning of Amazon. How does a company that weaponizes thinly veiled racism to build its surveillance dragnet, uses unfair practices to drive small black-owned businesses out of the marketplace, needed a reporter to tell them a racist company party was bad, and allows their Neighbors App to facilitate racial profiling and the criminalizing of Black and brown people－not get taken to task on its racial issues?  

This is ridiculous. It’s clear we need another hearing with Jeff Bezos by himself where he can’t hide behind other CEOs or be coddled with a "narrow focused" investigation. From Amazon retaliating against warehouse workers’ demands for safe workplace practices in the midst of COVID to building a surveillance state for police and ICE, the technology giant poses an imminent danger to us all.

The only way we’re going to stop them is with a full Congressional investigation, that includes real testimony before Congress and the American people, where Bezos provides meaningful, detailed information that can curb Amazon’s power and put an end to their surveillance state."

50,000 supporters join Fight for the Future and their partner organizations in calling on Congress for a full investigation into Amazon and additional testimony from CEO Jeff Bezos.

###