Privacy & Technology
FBI v. Fazaga
In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI鈥檚 secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs 鈥� Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim 鈥� insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking 鈥渟tate secrets.鈥� The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the 吃瓜直播 of Southern California, the 吃瓜直播, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn 吃瓜直播 Privacy & Technology
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2018
Privacy & Technology
Carpenter v. United States
The Supreme Court ruled that the government needs a warrant to access a person鈥檚 cellphone location history. The court found in a 5 to 4 decision that obtaining such information is a search under the Fourth Amendment and that a warrant from a judge based on probable cause is required.
Court Case
Dec 2016
Privacy & Technology
Sarkar v. Doe - PubPeer Subpoena Challenge
The 吃瓜直播 filed a motion in Michigan state court challenging the constitutionality of a subpoena issued to the website PubPeer demanding that it turn over the identities of anonymous commenters. In March 2015, the trial judge ruled that PubPeer had to unmask one 鈥� but only one 鈥� of the commenters. Both PubPeer and the researcher appealed, and the ruling was upheld in December 2016.
All Cases
73 Privacy & Technology Cases
Court Case
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
吃瓜直播 v. CBP - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Government鈥檚 Aerial Surveillance of Protesters
In December 2021, the 吃瓜直播 and NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information from nine federal agencies鈥攖he United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Protective Service (FPS), Marshals Service (USMS), and Secret Service (USSS)鈥攁bout nationwide aerial surveillance and flight monitoring of protests in 2020 following the death of George Floyd.
Explore case
Court Case
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Free Speech
吃瓜直播 v. CBP - FOIA Case for Records Relating to Government鈥檚 Aerial Surveillance of Protesters
In December 2021, the 吃瓜直播 and NYCLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking information from nine federal agencies鈥攖he United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Protective Service (FPS), Marshals Service (USMS), and Secret Service (USSS)鈥攁bout nationwide aerial surveillance and flight monitoring of protests in 2020 following the death of George Floyd.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Van Buren v. United States
Whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) should be interpreted to create liability for violations of computer use policies, including website terms of service.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Van Buren v. United States
Whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) should be interpreted to create liability for violations of computer use policies, including website terms of service.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Robert Andrews v. State of New Jersey
Whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects an individual from being compelled to recall and truthfully disclose a memorized smartphone passcode, where communicating the passcode may lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence to be used against him in a criminal prosecution?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Privacy & Technology
Robert Andrews v. State of New Jersey
Whether the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects an individual from being compelled to recall and truthfully disclose a memorized smartphone passcode, where communicating the passcode may lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence to be used against him in a criminal prosecution?
Colorado Supreme Court
Sep 2021
Privacy & Technology
National Security
People v. Tafoya
This case concerns whether the government may surreptitiously record the activities around a person鈥檚 home using a remotely operated, pole-mounted video camera for an extended period of time without a warrant. On September 13, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against such surveillance and requires that police obtain a warrant.
Explore case
Colorado Supreme Court
Sep 2021
Privacy & Technology
National Security
People v. Tafoya
This case concerns whether the government may surreptitiously record the activities around a person鈥檚 home using a remotely operated, pole-mounted video camera for an extended period of time without a warrant. On September 13, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against such surveillance and requires that police obtain a warrant.
Court Case
Aug 2020
Privacy & Technology
Guan v. Wolf
The 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 of San Diego, and the New York Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on behalf of five journalists who were subject to unlawful questioning at the U.S. border. The lawsuit claims that border officers violated the First Amendment.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2020
Privacy & Technology
Guan v. Wolf
The 吃瓜直播, the 吃瓜直播 of San Diego, and the New York Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on behalf of five journalists who were subject to unlawful questioning at the U.S. border. The lawsuit claims that border officers violated the First Amendment.