California Legislators Pushing Warrant Requirement For All Access To Electronic Information, Including That Obtained By Stingrays

from the strong-nod-towards-long-ignored-rights dept

Good news from California: a bill requiring warrants for Stingray device usage (among other things) has passed out of a Senate committee and is headed for an assembly vote.
Among other sweeping new requirements to enhance digital privacy, the bill notably imposes a warrant requirement before police can access nearly any type of digital data produced by or contained within a device or service.

In other words, that would include any use of a stingray, also known as a cell-site simulator, which can not only used to determine a phone’s location, but can also intercept calls and text messages. During the act of locating a phone, stingrays also sweep up information about nearby phones—not just the target phone.
Despite similar bills being killed by governor vetoes in 2012 and 2013, California legislators are still looking to reform the state's privacy laws. For one thing, this new bill would put the state's Electronic Communication Privacy Act in compliance with the Supreme Court's recent Riley v. California decision (warrant requirement for cell phone searches incident to arrest), as Cyrus Farivar points out.

The committee passed it with a 6-1 vote, suggesting there's broader support for privacy and Fourth Amendment protections now than there were in the pre-Snowden days. Of course, the usual opposition was on hand to portray those pushing for a warrant requirement as being in favor of sexually abusing children.
[Marty] Vranicar [California District Attorneys Association] told the committee that the bill would "undermine efforts to find child exploitation," specifically child pornography.

"SB 178 threatens law enforcement’s ability to conduct undercover child porn investigation. the so-called peer-to-peer investigations," he said. "Officers, after creating online profiles—these e-mails provide metadata that is the key to providing information. This would effectively end online undercover investigations in California."
Vranicar failed to explain how an officer conducting an ongoing investigation would be unable to obtain a warrant for PTP user data… unless, of course, the "investigation" was nothing more than unfocused trolling or a sting running dangerously low on probable cause. Nothing in the bill forbids officers from using other methods -- Fourth Amendment-respecting methods -- to pursue those suspected of child exploitation. What it does do is make it more difficult to run stings and honeypots, both of which are already on shaky ground in terms of legality.

Additionally, the bill demands extensive reporting requirements pertaining to government requests for data, and makes an effort to strip away the secrecy surrounding search warrants.
1546.2 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, any government entity that executes a warrant or wiretap order or issues an emergency request pursuant to Section 1546.1 shall contemporaneously serve upon, or deliver by registered or first-class mail, electronic mail, or other means reasonably calculated to be effective, the identified targets of the warrant, order, or emergency request, a notice that informs the recipient that information about the recipient has been compelled or requested, and states with reasonable specificity the nature of the government investigation under which the information is sought. The notice shall include a copy of the warrant or order, or a written statement setting forth facts giving rise to the emergency.

(b) If there is no identified target of a warrant, wiretap order, or emergency request at the time of its issuance, the government entity shall take reasonable steps to provide the notice, within three days of the execution of the warrant, to all individuals about whom information was disclosed or obtained.
This isn't blanket coverage or without exceptions. Officers can still offer sworn affidavits in support of sealing to the court, which may then seal warrants on a rolling 90-day basis at its discretion.

Law enforcement will continue to fight this bill, but its opposition seemingly had no effect on the Public Safety Committee. This bill brings the government into a much tighter alignment with the wording and the intent of the Fourth Amendment. The arguments against it demonstrate that the law enforcement community continues to prize efficient policing over the public's (supposedly) guaranteed rights.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: california, imsi catchers, stingrays, warrants


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 26 Mar 2015 @ 4:18pm

    Good, but depressing at the same time

    The fact that this even needs to be done, that the laws have been twisted so badly that 'You need a warrant to spy on people's private data' even needs to be said, is both depressing, and disgusting.

    Depressing that it's reached this point, disgusting that there are so many out there arguing that people don't deserve such things as privacy, because it makes their jobs slightly harder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Mar 2015 @ 8:05am

      Re: Good, but depressing at the same time

      It's actually more like business as usual.

      No matter which point in time you look at history you will for a fact find that the government has always been doing this.

      It is the natural progression for governments to become a totalitarian/dictatorial/corrupt state. Therefor when our vigilance falters, we will have no choice but to throw off that government and being anew again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2015 @ 5:47pm

    Good for the goose----

    So we need to hack lawmen and prosecutors accounts because there are certainly many laws being broken by them and corruption is rampant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2015 @ 9:17pm

      Re: Good for the goose----

      This is exactly why the government was so afraid of the Anonymous movement. The ability to reveal the widespread abuses and corruption was too great a risk. So they did anything and everything in their power to suborn and corrupt members and tried to use it for their own malevolent purposes. You can't fight evil with evil. They don't negate each other out, they only take us further and further from the freedom that was promised at the start of our country.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Al, 26 Mar 2015 @ 6:07pm

    Not local juristiction

    None of the stingrays appear to be owned by local departments, and the law does not forbid sharing from say the Marshals or other FEDERAL agencies so this law means nothing, looks like a cover.

    NOT US!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2015 @ 8:34pm

    It would be funny if the police couldn't fight against this, because Stingrays are "secret".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2015 @ 9:38pm

    I like how the bill requires law enforcement and service providers to inform private citizens that their private information is being seized and searched. No more compelling service providers to secretly hand over account information about citizens. Finally account holders are being afforded recourse and due process to challenge these secret invasions into our private lives.

    Here's the specific section of the bill I'm referring to:

    "...a notice that informs the recipient that information about the recipient has been compelled or requested, and states with reasonable specificity the nature of the government investigation under which the information is sought."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 7:41am

      Re:

      what are the odds law enforcement will comply with this and not just "forget to follow this law" like do for so many others.

      They either pick and choose what laws they follow while enforcing them on everyone else or they have no clue what the laws are. Since they are police officers that is a scary prospect

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 26 Mar 2015 @ 10:47pm

    Whatever will the cops do?

    Well, it looks like the cops will have to dust off that textbook on parallel construction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 4:12am

    It's about time. I have this fear that law enforcement may start doing their jobs lousily if this bill goes into effect just to 'prove a point'. Then the numbers will obviously 'prove' they were right.

    Do not underestimate the crooks that are in law enforcement key positions now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nicci Stevens (profile), 27 Mar 2015 @ 6:51am

    As cases involving child pornography have been getting thrown out of courts due to improper, inadequate, or non-existent warrants or probable cause documents, one really has to wonder about the counter claim used by LEOs and others who say that imposing the safeguards of the Bill of Rights means those who do so are in favor of sexual abuse or exploitation of children. When courts throw these cases out the usual "think of the children" bs is thrown about, however it is those who usurp the law and the rights of everyone else to impose their idea of justice on the perpetrators.

    Anyone with any degree of sense believes that sexual exploitation of children is repugnant but, as we have seen over and over, law enforcement and overzealous prosecutors can and do fabricate probable cause and even evidence in an effort to convince the public who trust them that they are taking down these dangerous criminals when, as we have seen lately, they're simply putting the public on notice that they cannot prosecute because they cannot uphold and abide the laws and rights they have sworn to do so.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.