By Yaman Salahi, Arthur Liman fellow
This is the second in a two-part series of posts covering the impact of proposed changes to two major Los Angeles Police Department programs related to intelligence-gathering.
Do you know who your Facebook friends are?
Now that the Los Angeles Police Commission has approved new guidelines that allow LAPD to vastly expand its online spying operations, you should think twice.
Under the old guidelines, any kind of undercover work by LAPD intelligence officers was supervised by the Undercover Committee, a subcommittee of the civilian Police Commission. The Undercover Committee determines whether undercover investigations meet certain legal standards before they are opened.
But the new rules take online investigation using fake identities out from under the purview of that committee. Now the Committee’s approval will only be required if LAPD officers using a “fictitious online persona” engage in “ongoing interactive communications” with an “identified person or group.”
What exactly does that mean? It’s not clear. The term “ongoing interactive communications” isn’t defined anywhere in the new policy. It might mean that an undercover officer can “friend” you on Facebook and lurk in the background, watching what you and your friends post. It might also mean that undercover officers can “Like” pages belonging to groups like the Muslim Student Association and monitor the activity there. It could allow undercover officers to message you some number of times before it counts as “ongoing” communication — once? Five times? Ten? Twenty? The policy just isn’t clear.
Although it’s not clear what “ongoing interactive communication” is, we at least know what it isn’t, sort of. At the September 28 Commission hearing, Deputy Chief Michael Downing clarified that approval for online investigative activity would not be required if the officers were simply looking at “open source” information, like articles on the Internet. Chief Downing also cited access to chat rooms as one form of online undercover activity that would not require reasonable suspicion or supervisory approval.
But that’s precisely the kind of invasive and intrusive police activity that our society has consistently rejected. In 1975, the California Supreme Court heard White v. Davis, a case in which a UCLA professor alleged that LAPD sent undercover officers into university classrooms to take notes on what professors and students were saying. The Court commented that the “presence of secret police” in certain spaces would result in comments being “recorded by police officers, filtered through the minds of the listening informers, often incorrectly misstated to their superiors and sometimes maliciously distended.” The Court decried the chilling effect of widespread police surveillance: “Only a brave soul would dare to express anything other than orthodoxy under such circumstances.”
The kind of police spying challenged in White v. Davis is exactly what the old rules were meant to prevent. In the early 1980s, a scandal broke when it was revealed that LAPD had a secret squad dedicated to snooping — the creepily named Public Disorder Intelligence Division, or PDID. PDID’s job was to spy on politicians, celebrities, and judges, and it compiled millions of pages of information about lawful activities in its intelligence files. The suit that the ACLU filed against theBoard of Police Commissioners resulted in a settlement that called for rules limiting LAPD’s ability to spy on law-abiding citizens — the same rules that the Police Commission is now eroding.
What’s the difference between sending secret police into classrooms and sending them into the online spaces and social networks where so much public debate now takes place? Not much.  The threat to our freedom is just as great whether secret police infiltrate our lives on the Internet or otherwise. The new policies, however, treat the increasing use of these tools as an open invitation for more police surveillance of citizen activity, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and government.
Unless the Commissioners address these issues soon, be careful with your next Facebook status update. LAPD’s “fictitious online personas” might be reading, and they might get the wrong idea.
 

A bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this weekend will help ensure that public school districts don't charge students illegal fees to participate in educational activities.
The American Civil Liberties Union of California and the law firm Morrison & Foerster announced Monday that in response to the new law they will dismiss their class action lawsuit, Doe vs. State of California, filed two years ago. The suit alleged that the imposition of such fees violated the California Constitution, which has provided for "free school" since 1879.
AB 1575, authored by Democratic state Assemblyman Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, requires the California Department of Education to provide guidance and updates on the "free schools guarantee" to superintendents and administrators every three years starting in 2014.
If districts charge illegal fees, the new law also provides for a modified uniform complaint process at schools so parents and students may resolve their concerns locally without costly litigation. Public school districts must establish this complaint process by March 1.
"This legislation provides a statewide mechanism to identify instances where students have been charged illegal fees and promptly puts an end to the practice," Dan Marmalefsky, a partner at Morrison & Foerster, said in a statement. The firm worked pro bono on the case.
"The state will now play an active role in stopping illegal fees, which is precisely what we sought to accomplish when we filed this lawsuit."
The lawsuit was based on an online investigation the ACLU conducted during August 2010. It found that at least 32 schools throughout California required students to pay for educational materials.
The suit alleges that requring students to pay discriminates against lower-income children and results in an unfair system that favors wealth.
"There are budget problems in the state and it's having problems ensuring schools get the money they need [but] you can't pass that cost along to school children and their families," said David Sapp, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "In tough budget times, it's tough budget times for families as well," said Sapp.
In a March 2011 survey by UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access, 19 percent of California high school principals reported that their schools required students and families to pay for instructional materials in violation of the free school guarantee.
Lara introduced a similar bill in January 2011. It would have included a comparatively shorter response period during the complaint process and regular compliance audits. The bill passed in both houses but was vetoed by Brown last October; he said at the time that it "goes too far."
"Equal educational opportunity in free public schools is the bedrock of our democratic society, promising that every child will have a chance to achieve the American dream," Lara said in a statement released Monday. "AB 1575 ensures the 'free schools' guarantee is applied equally to all children in our state and remains a meaningful protection in our Constitution."
The bill was supported by organizations including the California State PTA, California Federation of Teachers, L.A. Unified, California Assn. of School Business Officials and California Assn. of Suburban School Districts.
By Tami Abdollah, KPCC
Tami Abdollah can be reached via email and on Twitter (@latams).

By Joey Hernández, LGBTQ Student Rights Advocate

After a long, lazy summer break, the first month back to school can seem like a blur of activity and excitement. But for 8 out of 10 LGBTQ students, the first month of school means getting bullied by their classmates.

8 in 10 is a lot of harassment, and I know how it feels. In middle school, I was one of those bullied kids. I was taunted, called names, and shoved through the halls. How I walked, how I held my books, and how I spoke were all ammunition for my bullies. I endured fist-fights and slurs for weeks -- until I asked for help. When I opened up to my GSA Advisor about being bullied, she directed me to all the right places. There were policies and procedures already in place to protect my safety. My principal stepped in and let me know that protecting her students was her top priority. Together, we filed a complaint and made an action plan. Supportive teachers and administrators helped me understand that my sexuality wasn’t an open invitation to getting beaten up. And for me, school became school again.

What I didn’t know then -- and what students need to know now -- is that the law is on our side. The California Education Code protects actual or perceived LGBTQ students from all forms of harassment, discrimination and bullying. Seth’s Law, which came into effect on this past July, requires teachers to intervene in instances of bullying when it’s safe to do so.

The most crucial component of learning about all the laws that protect LGBTQ students is that every student, parent and community member has a voice. All public school districts and schools are required to have a complaint process, the most common being the Uniform Complaint Form supplied by the California Department of Education. To file a complaint, all you have to do is fill out the form and give it to your principal; for more tips and information read our guide. It’s not just a piece of paper: a principal must read and address the problems outlined in the form.

The LGBTQ Students Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California works to educate the students about their rights and help make school communities safe for them to learn and grow.  We strive to facilitate discussion and collaboration to protect the civil liberties of LGBTQ and allied students. Every student who is being bullied, as I once was, needs to know that they have the right to a safe school -- not a battlefield of slurs and punches.

For more information about the ACLU/SC or the LGBTQ Student Rights Project, email us at LGBTQ-SRP@aclu-sc.org.