At Liberty Podcast

At Liberty Podcast
How to Stop Your City From Spying on You
July 11, 2019
Surveillance technology is slowly encroaching on every part of our lives. With regulation at the federal level slow to materialize, local governments are taking action. Two American cities — San Francisco, Calif. and Somerville, Mass. — recently passed local laws to ban the use of facial recognition technology by police and other government agencies. Is local advocacy our best bet for keeping the surveillance state at bay? Kade Crockford, director of the Technology for Liberty Program at the 챬 of Massachusetts, discusses a growing local movement to protect privacy.
This Episode Covers the Following Issues
Related Content
-
News & CommentaryAug 2025
Racial Justice
Privacy & Technology
Will Giant Companies Always Have a Monopoly on Top AI Models?
Part 2 of my dive into how likely LLMs are to either centralize or distribute powerBy: Jay Stanley -
News & CommentaryAug 2025
Privacy & Technology
+2 Issues
Flock’s Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance
Build it (an authoritarian tracking infrastructure) and they (expanded uses) will comeBy: Jay Stanley -
News & CommentaryJul 2025
Privacy & Technology
AI Could Exacerbate Inequality, Experts Warn
At the 챬’s Civil Rights in the Digital Age AI Summit, leaders convened to evaluate the civil rights landscape of artificial intelligence and tech, and how we can call for policies that center privacy, fairness, and equity.By: Ijeoma Mbamalu -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
Texas Social Media Law Violates First Amendment, 챬 Argues
SAN ANTONIO – The 챬, the 챬 of Texas, and several other legal advocacy groups filed an amicus brief today in CCIA v. Paxton, arguing that a Texas law that restricts social media content for minors violates the First Amendment. “If allowed to go into effect, this law will stifle young people’s creativity and cut them off from public discourse,” said Lauren Yu, legal fellow with the 챬’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government can’t protect minors by censoring the world around them, or by making it harder for them to discuss their problems with their peers. This law would unconstitutionally limit young people’s ability to express themselves online, develop critical thinking skills, and discover new perspectives, and it would make the entire internet less free for us all in the process.” The brief argues that House Bill 18 (“the SCOPE Act”) restricts young people’s ability to use social media and blocks them from viewing content they have a constitutional right to see. The law, which was enjoined by a court last year, would require minors to register their age with social media platforms and would require platforms to filter content based on an overly broad definition of “harmful to minors” that includes any content that “promote, glorifies, or facilitates” a long list of topics, including eating disorders, bullying, and self-harm. “The government should not be able to decide what’s best for every child,” said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney from the 챬 of Texas. “This law would isolate kids who need community support, hinder families who want their children to learn about the world around them, and open the door to sweeping bans — from Romeo and Juliet to content that is critical of the government. What’s framed as protecting our children is harming them — by censoring their access to the ideas and information they need to prepare for their futures.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that minors have robust First Amendment rights, including online. Even when the goal is to protect children, the brief argues, the government cannot infringe upon core expressive activity. The brief was filed in support of Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice. CCIA & NetChoice originally filed suit against H.B. 18 in 2024. The amicus brief was filed in the Western District of Texas and was signed by the Cato Institute, the Student Press Law Center, TechFreedom, Wikimedia, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. The brief can be viewed online here.Court Case: CCIA v. PaxtonAffiliate: Texas