Twenty years after 9/11, the pervasive power of our government’s mass surveillance regime is clearer than ever — and it’s past time for change. Congress now has the opportunity to enact essential reforms, by looking to the lessons of the last two decades to impose restraints that will protect us in the face of even more powerful and invasive technologies going forward.

There has been bipartisan recognition that the post-9/11 surveillance regime undermines privacy rights, but Congress and the executive branch have not gone nearly far enough to establish strong safeguards against executive overreach and abuse. Executive branch agencies still have entirely too much power and discretion when conducting surveillance for intelligence purposes. Congress must put an end to mass spying — by ensuring that surveillance is targeted, that there is robust judicial oversight, and that people whose lives are invaded by government surveillance can challenge that spying in court.

After 9/11, Congress rushed to pass the Patriot Act, ushering in a new era of mass surveillance. Over the next decade, the surveillance state expanded dramatically, often in secret. The Bush administration conducted warrantless mass surveillance programs in violation of the Constitution and our laws, and the Obama administration allowed many of these spying programs to continue and grow.

Even when Congress and the courts had the chance to impose meaningful restraints, they frequently gave in to the executive branch’s demands for greater surveillance powers. For example, in 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, authorizing the warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private international communications — including our phone calls, emails, chats, and web browsing.

In 2013, Edward Snowden’s revelations about the breadth of U.S. government surveillance shocked the world. The public learned about the NSA’s “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs, which involve the NSA working closely with companies like Google, Facebook, AT&T, and Verizon to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications on a massive scale.

In the face of these disclosures, intelligence officials also admitted that the NSA had for years been secretly collecting records about virtually every American’s phone calls — who’s calling whom, when those calls are made, and how long they last. This kind of information, when amassed by the NSA day after day, can reveal incredibly sensitive details about people’s lives and associations, such as whether they have called a pastor, an abortion provider, an addiction counselor, or a suicide hotline.

In addition, whistleblowers and media reports revealed that the NSA was conducting bulk surveillance abroad, without any judicial oversight whatsoever, under an authority known as Executive Order 12333. In an increasingly interconnected world, Americans’ communications and data are frequently sent or routed abroad, where they’re vulnerable to collection by the NSA. The government has used this authority to tap into the links between Google’s data centers overseas, and to vacuum up 5 billion records per day on the location of cell phones around the world.

When faced with public scrutiny and court review, the government’s claimed justifications for its mass surveillance programs have often crumbled. The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records had produced “little unique value” and largely duplicated far more targeted techniques. And the NSA shuttered at least two other mass surveillance tools after court oversight forced the government to acknowledge persistent privacy violations. In the end, the cost of complying with the rules was greater than any intelligence value the NSA saw in these programs.

The human toll of government surveillance is undeniable. It can have far-reaching consequences for people’s lives — particularly for communities of color, who are wrongly and disproportionately subject to surveillance. The people who feel the impact the most are Muslims, Black and Brown people, people of Asian descent, and others who have long been subject to wrongful profiling and discrimination in the name of national security. Routine surveillance is corrosive, making us feel like we are always being watched, and it chills the very kind of speech and association on which democracy depends. This spying is especially harmful because it is often feeds into a national security apparatus that puts people on watchlists, subjects them to unwarranted scrutiny by law enforcement, and allows the government to upend lives on the basis of vague, secret claims.

In the years since the Snowden revelations, Congress and the courts have placed some limited restraints on the government’s ability to spy on Americans and others. But these restraints are being outpaced by technological advances, such as facial recognition and artificial intelligence, which are fueling the growth of the surveillance state. Today, everyone on the planet is generating more data than ever before—data about our location, our associations, and the most intimate details of our lives. The danger of surveillance becoming normalized is that the very technologies we depend on will instead be used against us, to track us wherever we go and whatever we do.

Congress can ensure this never happens. There are increasingly urgent calls for Congress to impose robust privacy protections across a range of technologies, including government purchases of sensitive location data and the use of facial recognition. At the same time, Congress must place much-needed limits, at long last, on the mass spying programs of the past 20 years. These reforms should bar intelligence agencies from conducting surveillance in bulk and without suspicion, by requiring that spying be targeted and based on specific intelligence needs. They should require far greater judicial supervision of spying that’s currently conducted without a warrant and often without any court oversight. And they should make clear that individuals who are harmed by surveillance can seek redress in our courts.

By reining in mass surveillance, Congress can begin the process of righting the privacy harms of the last twenty years. And looking toward the future, Congress can help ensure that the next generation of Americans are able to speak and associate freely, without fear of unwarranted government scrutiny.

Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties? Some who have refused vaccination claim as much.

We disagree.

At the ACLU, we are not shy about defending civil liberties, even when they are very unpopular. But we see no civil liberties problem with requiring Covid-19 vaccines in most circumstances.

While the permissibility of requiring vaccines for particular diseases depends on several factors, when it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. The disease is highly transmissible, serious and often lethal; the vaccines are safe and effective; and crucially there is no equally effective alternative available to protect public health.

In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.

Vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public, like teachers, doctors and nurses, bus drivers and grocery store employees. And by inoculating people from the disease’s worst effects, the vaccines offer the promise of restoring to all of us our most basic liberties, eventually allowing us to return safely to life as we knew it, in schools and at houses of worship and political meetings, not to mention at restaurants, bars, and gatherings with family and friends.

Here’s why civil liberties objections to Covid vaccine mandates are generally unfounded.

Vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others.

While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. Although this disease is novel, vaccine mandates are not. Schools, health care facilities, the U.S. military and many other institutions have long required vaccination for contagious diseases like mumps and measles that pose far less risk than the coronavirus does today.

In the United States alone, more than 39 million people have been infected with Covid-19 and more than 600,000 people have died. People with intellectual and physical disabilities are more likely to contract Covid-19, and they have much higher rates of hospitalization and death. Children’s hospitals in Georgia, Louisiana and other states are reporting high admissions of infected patients, and many are running out of beds.

Even though the F.D.A. and independent medical experts have found Covid-19 vaccines to be extremely safe and highly effective, a sizable portion of the eligible population has chosen not to be vaccinated. In this context, Covid-19 vaccine mandates — much like mask mandates — are public health measures necessary to protect people from severe illness and death. They are therefore permissible in many settings where the unvaccinated pose a risk to others, including schools and universities, hospitals, restaurants and bars, workplaces and businesses open to the public.

Note: This editorial originally appeared in The New York Times on September 2, 2021.

Last month, the U.S. Census Bureau provided the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico with population counts to use in their redrawing of the electoral district boundaries for representation in Congress, state legislatures, and many county and municipal offices. This data release marks the official start of the once-in-a-decade redistricting process that will determine the allocation of political power and representation at every level of government across the country for the next ten years.

As the redistricting process begins in communities and jurisdictions across the United States, state legislatures have an obligation to ensure fair and equal representation for all people, upholding the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and complying with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The stakes could not be higher. The maps drawn this year will play a vital role in our communities and affect our day to day lives for the next decade. The drawing of district lines can dictate not only who runs for public office and who is elected, but also how financial resources are allocated for schools, hospitals, roads and more. And the representatives who are elected have the power to make decisions that greatly impact the communities they represent, from ensuring safe schools to adopting inclusive immigration policies. The people that live in a district can then in turn influence whether elected officials feel obligated to respond to a particular community’s needs. It is critical that congressional and state legislative district boundaries are not sacrificed to self-interest and political parties in the redistricting process.

Unfortunately, instead of drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries that fairly reflect the population, many states have used the redistricting process to manipulate electoral boundaries to give an unfair political advantage to a particular political party or group—a practice known as gerrymandering. It is a dangerous political practice that harms communities across the country. Instead of drawing fair maps, bad actors slice and dice our communities so politicians can pick and choose who they represent. But voters should be choosing their politicians—not the other way around. The threat of diminished representation from improper redistricting is particularly acute for communities of color, who already face numerous obstacles to meaningful participation in the political process. State legislatures have time and time again drawn maps that relegate voters of color into districts that minimize their political power, fracturing those communities across multiple districts or improperly concentrating them together in a single district. As the Census data released on Thursday confirms, nearly all of the country’s growth over the past decade is attributable to the growth in our nation’s communities of color. Fair maps must adequately reflect that reality.

As redistricting begins nationwide, the ACLU will continue to monitor state legislatures and independent commissions across the country to ensure they heed the fundamental principles of democracy, representation, and equality.