Massachusetts Wants To Make Surveillance Easier, While Texas Is Making It Harder

from the two-different-states,-two-different-views dept

It appears that Massachusetts and Texas are taking two rather different approaches to allowing surveillance of its citizens. Texas this week signed into law a bill that prohibits accessing emails by the government without a warrant. The bill is pretty simple: it goes beyond what the current federal law, ECPA, allows, in saying that if law enforcement wants to access someone’s emails, they need a warrant (something that many of us think should be required under the 4th Amendment already). Meanwhile, it appears that Massachusetts is going in the other direction, pushing a bill that would make it much easier to wiretap anyone’s phones. Specifically, the bill would do the following:

1) Remove the requirement that an electronic wiretapping warrant be connected with organized crime, or indeed with serious crimes more generally. Potentially, even minor crimes like marijuana possession could become eligible for wiretapping by state authorities.

2) Double the length of an authorized wiretap, from 15 to 30 days.

3) Legalize mass interception of communications at telecommunications switching stations, rather than through individual wiretaps on individual phone numbers.

All of them are deeply concerning, with the last one being potentially unconstitutional. But that first one may have the most immediate direct impact, since it would basically give law enforcement the ability to go after anyone they suspect of almost any offense and hit them with a wiretap. If you think that wouldn’t be abused, you haven’t been paying attention to how law enforcement (especially local law enforcement) has abused all sorts of powers in the past.

The EFF has put together a petition to try to get Massachusetts lawmakers to realize what an incredibly bad idea this would be.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Massachusetts Wants To Make Surveillance Easier, While Texas Is Making It Harder”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

perhaps execute this on the bloody moron who is behind it, then lay on the desk in front of him all the printed pages of conversations etc between him and whoever over a period up to the date of a meeting. see how that person then starts to squirm! like so many bad ideas, they are only bad when the person who is instrumental in the introduction and execution of them is the subject. while anyone else is the subject, there’s nothing wrong at all!!

Pragmatic says:

There’s “apparently liberal” and “actually liberal.”

Apparently liberal representatives are corporate shills in liberal clothing.

Actual liberals are all in favor of upholding the Constitution.

I can’t help wondering if the spirit of Massachusetts is indeed the spirit of America if these are the kinds of laws they are making.

In any case, “More welfare” is the wrong approach to an economic downturn. What we need is “more jobs” to put more money into the system for public services. FYI, Massachusetts representatives, spying on us ain’t a public service.

Loki says:

The problem with the Texas bill is that it only applies to state and local authorities, and clearly has no control over federal authorities (obviously). The bigger question is that, while state and local authorities are constrained from gathering this information directly, can it be “interpreted” in such a way that agencies can do an “end run” around it and just get the data directly from the feds?

We already know that government agencies are becoming increasingly efficient at manipulating language to suit their desires.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Except the Feds don’t really like to share. They know they are getting it illegally, which is one of the reasons it was secret in the first place. Sharing their ill gotten gains with local law enforcement will only open them up to further scrutiny about how they obtained the information in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The answer to that is to make the warrant mandatory for the mere possession of it regardless of where you got it from such that if you want to use it, you have to prove you got the warrant BEFORE you requested it even from the federal government otherwise it is not admissible as evidence in a case.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

well, as long as they aren't reading my 'correspondence'...

i know that mike/et al have discussed this on occasion, BUT, it appears to me to be THE overriding issue to pin down:
searches and seizures of papers and effects has NOT been modernized to include shit that 99.99% of us WOULD consider as being covered under these inalienable rights…

fucking gummint is acting as if it ain’t china ink written with a quill on handmade hemp paper in an envelope with a wax seal on it, then it ain’t covered no more…

THAT is bullshit, plain and simple…

art guerrilla
aka ann archy

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...