Privacy & Security

As technology provides new ways to gather information and databases proliferate, the need for privacy protections becomes more urgent.

Privacy & Security

What you need to know

1942-1946

President Franklin Roosevelt interned 120,000 Japanese Americans in the name of national security.

The technological advances that have brought enormous benefits to humankind also make us more vulnerable than ever before to unwanted snooping. As technology provides new ways to gather information and databases proliferate, the need for privacy protections becomes more urgent.

From using the telephone to seeking medical treatment to applying for a job or sending an e-mail, Americans' right to information privacy is in peril. Personal and business information is being digitized through an ever-expanding number of computer networks in formats that allow data to be linked, transferred, shared and sold, usually without our knowledge or consent.


The Latest

Press Release
Placeholder image

Five UPenn-affiliated Groups and Civil Liberties Attorneys Move to Join Lawsuit Opposing EEOC’s Demand for Jewish List

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, Democracy Defenders Fund, and Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin and Schiller filed a motion to intervene in EEOC v. The University of Pennsylvania on behalf of five organizations affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania.
News & Commentary
Image of DNA closeup

The Fourth Amendment must prevail

SB 912 accomplishes nothing that a warrant couldn’t currently provide. But by erasing any meaningful distinction between those arrested and those convicted, it succeeds in undermining constitutional rights to due process, counsel, and the presumption of innocence.
Press Release
Placeholder image

ACLU-PA Responds to DOJ’s Lawsuit Pressuring States to Turn Over Unredacted Voter Rolls

The ACLU-PA will stand with voters to protect their constitutional right to privacy against the federal government’s illegal fishing expedition for highly personal information.
Press Release
ACLU-PA logo

ACLU-PA Statement in Response to Commonwealth Court Ruling in Election Review Case

HARRISBURG - A series of lawsuits challenging subpoenas issued by the Pennsylvania Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee will continue, after a ruling today from Commonwealth Court denying “summary relief” to all parties in the litigation.
Court Case
Feb 11, 2026

J. Doe v. DHS

The “MontCo Community Watch” Facebook and Instagram accounts aim to spread awareness of immigration enforcement activity in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and to share alerts, documentation, and resources to help inform residents within Montgomery County - regardless of their immigration status-of their rights, due process, and the human dignity all their neighbors inherently hold. Additionally, the accounts inform the local community where ICE agents are publicly conducting immigration enforcement activities within Montgomery County. On September 11, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued two administrative Summonses to Meta Platforms, Inc., citing a federal statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1509, focused on customs investigations relating to merchandise. In the Summonses, DHS demanded constitutionally protected information far outside the scope of the statutory authority—including the identity of the Meta users associated with the MontCo Community Watch social media accounts and IP addresses from which each account had been accessed. The Summonses included no substantiating allegations and did not mention any specific crime or potential customs violation that might trigger an inquiry under the cited statute. In October, we filed an urgent motion to quash the administrative subpoenas on behalf of our client "J. Doe," the account manager, arguing that the subpoena was unlawful on both constitutional grounds, as it violated Doe’s First Amendment rights, and statutory grounds. Our motion sought to protect the identities of those associated with MontCo Community Watch from being exposed to a government agency targeting the community watch group for simply exercising their rights to free speech and association. DHS agreed to withdraw the subpoenas following our legal challenges; however, given DHS’s abusive pattern of issuing these unlawful administrative subpoenas and retreating once they face litigation, we seek to hold them accountable. In February, we filed a motion for the federal government to cover legal fees for their baseless attempts to access our clients' data.
Court Case
Feb 02, 2026

Doe v. DHS

In October 2025, our client, “Jon Doe,” read an article in the Washington Post detailing questionable conduct by DHS attorneys attempting to deport an Afghan asylum seeker. In order to express his concern with the government’s actions, Doe sent a short email to the lead DHS attorney named in the Washington Post article, whose official DHS email address he found via a simple Google search. In his email, Doe urged the attorney to “[a]pply principles of common sense and decency” in the asylum seeker’s case. Four hours later, DHS issued an Immigration Enforcement Subpoena to Google, seeking a variety of private information about Doe, his email account, and his use of Google services. Google notified Doe of the subpoena, and he was shocked and frightened by the government’s demand for his personal information. Several weeks after DHS issued the subpoena, two DHS agents and a police officer showed up at Doe’s home and interrogated him about the email he sent. In February, we filed a motion to quash, arguing that the subpoena is unlawful on both constitutional and statutory grounds. Doe’s email to a government official on a matter of public concern is protected under the First Amendment’s free speech and petition clauses. The issuance of the subpoena constitutes unconstitutional retaliation by the government, and has impermissibly chilled Doe’s expression. Our brief also argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1225(d), the federal statute DHS relied upon to issue the subpoena, does not grant authority to issue subpoenas outside the scope of immigration enforcement investigations—meaning that this subpoena retaliating against Doe for his lawful speech lacks statutory grounds.
Court Case
Oct 09, 2025

United States v. Pennsylvania, et al.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center, and ACLU’s Voting Rights Project have filed a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit over the federal government’s demand that Pennsylvania turn over its entire voter registration rolls, including with voters’ sensitive personal data such as drivers’ license numbers and partial social security numbers. The motion to intervene was filed on behalf of seven Pennsylvania voters, many of whom were the target of baseless mass challenges to their mail ballots during the 2024 election cycle that resulted from faulty data-matching techniques. The voters’ experiences have heightened their concerns about the privacy of their voting data. Other plaintiffs are two non-partisan, good government organizations dedicated to voter engagement: the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Common Cause. If intervention is granted, the civil rights groups will seek to prevent the federal government from forcing Pennsylvania to turn over the entirety of its voter registration database and to protect sensitive data within the voter rolls.
Court Case
Oct 04, 2021

Costa v. Corman (Commonwealth v. Dush)

On October 4, 2021, the ACLU of PA filed a motion to intervene on behalf of three advocacy organizations and eight individual voters in a lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania attorney general challenging subpoenas issued by a state Senate committee for personally identifying information of voters.