GUIDES

RESOURCES WE GATHERED

REDRESS FOR COVERT ACTION

https://iapp.org/resources/article/web-conference-eu-u-s-data-privacy-framework-new-independent-binding-redress-mechanism

"APPROPRIATE PUBLIC AUTHORITY" STILL ELUDES US

SURVEILLANCE KEEPS YOU IN DETENTION FROM INFORMATION

CONSTANTLY UNDER ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE GETTING HACKED

THERE IS NO WAY TO ASK FOR HELP IN PERSON FROM ANY AGENCY

EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION HAPPENS COVERTLY OR WITH INTERROGATIONS

ALL FORMS OF COMMUNICATIONS CAN GET BLOCKED OR ALTERED

• The government does not confirm whether individuals who suspect placement on a watchlist are, in fact, watchlisted
• The procedure for challenging erroneous inclusion on watchlists is opaque, one-sided, and non-participatory
• Individuals can submit complaints only if they come to suspect, through encounters with officers that they are on watchlists
• Individuals cannot review or refute any information underlying their placement on the watchlist
• Individuals are not granted a hearing at which they could establish their credibility before a neutral decision maker
• Individuals never receive a confirmation that erroneous information has been removed from watchlist-related files
• non-silent hit subjects are required to be referred to the Office of the General Counsel and the Inspection Division of the FBI
• as a matter for Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB) review when the subject remains in the database after the investigation is closed
• silent hits, on the other hand, “are not considered potential IOBs” and are not referred for such review and are kept secret
• An individual could try to file an administrative appeal through the screening agency where the agency makes such appeals available
• It is unclear if anyone has appealed a redress disposition successfully

The only exception to this policy resulted from litigation challenging the No Fly List redress procedure, which a federal court found unconstitutional in June 2014. See Latif v. Holder, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1134 (D. Or. 2014). Under the government's revised policy, instituted in April 2015, a U.S. person who purchases a ticket, is denied boarding at the airport, subsequently applies for redress through the Department of Homeland Security's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, and is on the No Fly List after a redress review, will receive a letter disclosing that status on the No Fly List. If the individual opts to receive and/or submit further information, the government will provide a second response that includes an unclassified summary of reasons (of varying specificity and length) for the individual's inclusion on the No Fly List. See Notice Regarding Revisions to DHS TRIP Procedures, Latif v. Holder, No. 10- 750-BR, ECF No. 197 (D. Or. Apr. 13, 2015). The plaintiffs in Latif have also challenged the revised redress process as inadequate under the Due Process Clause.

The system poses a serious threat to constitutional rights and civil liberties, as watchlisted individuals may be subject to unwarranted monitoring and surveillance, prolonged detention and questioning, and the stigmatization that comes with such law enforcement scrutiny. In addition, watchlisted individuals face the risk of mistaken dissemination of terrorist watchlist information to private third parties like employers and insurance companies. They may also face discrimination in immigration and naturalization proceedings. Despite the threat to these individuals' due process and privacy rights, they have little recourse to challenge the watchlisting procedures.