Location Privacy Act Approved By California Legislature 65
New submitter wermske writes "Ars Technica and ZDNet report the Location Privacy Act of 2012 (SB-1434) was passed by the California legislature on Wednesday. The California Location Privacy Act, co-sponsored by the ACLU of California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, updates California privacy law to reflect the modern mobile world by providing needed protection against warrantless government access to a person's location information. Recent reports indicate that cell phone tracking is routine and few agencies obtain warrants for such surveillance. The need for this protection resurfaced last week when warrantless GPS tracking appeared again in the national news — a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant. The scope of the Location Privacy Act would include gathering GPS or other location-tracking data from cell phones, tablets, computers, automobiles, etc. The next stop is the governor's desk; however, there is concern that Governor Jerry Brown may not sign this act into law. In 2011, Gov. Brown vetoed an attempt at enforcing stricter privacy rules."
Federal Supremacy (Score:1)
Wouldn't the federal government trump state law here? Why would they care that it was illegal on the state level if they were doing Official Federal Government Snooping?
Re: (Score:1)
Things are federally legal and locally banned/restricted all the time.(guns is an obvious one)
I would assume this would mean the fed could still track you without a warrant, but any state/city etc police would need one.
IANAL
Re: (Score:1)
Er, medical marijuana is the other way around. It is banned federally, so even though CA allows it, it is still illegal.
Re:Federal Supremacy (Score:5, Informative)
This could be clarified very easy by reading the Tenth Amendment. And since the 10th was ratified AFTER the actual 1786 constitution, it supercedes anything that was written at that time. Powers not given to Congress are reserved to the Member States of the Union.
The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested (see the case of the Amish farmer who was arrested because he sold milk to non-residents, but is still allowed to sell to PA residents).
Back to topic: If California's government wants to ban themselves from taking cellphone or ISP records of conversations without a warrant, they can. That won't stop the federals though if your conversation crosses the CA line.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I have heard, it has been limited to federally controlled areas like National parks.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I have heard, it has been limited to federally controlled areas like National parks.
There is much more going on. Examples [ocregister.com] of federal [latimes.com] efforts [theatlanticwire.com] as well others [scpr.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The 10th says that Congress does not have the power to ban a substance inside a state. Therefore California can legalize marijuana. Or Pennsylvania can legalize natural milk. Or ____ can legalize automatic weapons. Only when you cross state lines can you be arrested
Where have you been living last couple decades?
As I understand it, almost anything can be banned by utterly stretching the "interstate commerce clause" and supported by the supreme court. Recently, there had been numerous crackdowns on the totally legitimate (by CA law) marijuana dispensaries.
Or are you describing how things should be if we lived in a sane world?
Re: (Score:2)
"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Certainly there is not a word in the constitution that gives that power to the Justices any more than the other branches. The Constitution wisely divided this power among all three branches and the state governments." - Thomas Jefferson (and close friend of James Madison, the actual author of the Constitution).
Madiso
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court has already weighed in favor of the feds, see Gonzalez v Raich (June 2005). So the federal law making possession an offense still holds. There are reports of arrest here and there, but as I understand the feds are not willing to push it and are limiting the number of arrest they make.
But if you are caught in a federally controlled like a National park, all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Federal Government occasionally steps in when there's a "risk" that it could cross state lines. Drugs, kidnapping, and bank robbery are some examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Well here is what you do to that. First the state and local governments grow a pair and start passing laws that restrict what the federal government can do within the boarders of the state. This is all perfectly legal according to the 10th amendment.
Then you start enforcing these laws at the local level. When the TSA pedo goons molests a child during a search, you arrest them and charge them. When FBI/AFT/DEA agents kick down the doors to a perfectly legal marijuana shop, you file charges against th
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
What's the difference between a Federal agent and God?
God doesn't think he's a Federal agent.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself moron. Medical marijuana is perfectly legal in some states. I never said it as legal on the federal level.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Local (i.e. non-federal) law enforcement would be required to comply with the state law.
Basically, the Federal Constitution provides the minimum rights afforded to everyone in every state. No state can have a law which would reduce those rights. The states are entirely free to give people more rights and freedoms, however. Many States do just that. In some states there are provisions of the state constitution which are word-for-word copies of parts of the federal constitution, but which have been interprete
Re: (Score:2)
>>>No state can have a law which would reduce those rights.
That's only been true since about 1900 in a gradual process by the SCOTUS called incorporation. Prior to that point states didn't have to obey the Constitution. For example Congress is barred from establishing an official state religion, but the many States continued to have their own state/taxpayer supported religion upto ~1840.
>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest som
Re: (Score:1)
>>>One example in the search and seizure area is routine traffic stops. SCOTUS says you can arrest someone for not wearing a seatbelt and haul their butt to jail.
Yeah but they also ruled any evidence found is not admissable, because the officer had no cause to randly pull-over your car and impede your travel. He can ticket you for the safety violation of not wearing a belt, but if he finds drugs then he is exceeding the purpose of the stop & the evidence must be thrown out.
Who said it was random? You weren't wearing a seat belt. If he can arrest you he can search your car. There are a couple of different exceptions that allow this search without a warrant. One is called the "search incident to arrest." This allows the officer to search your person and your immediate vicinity when you are arrested. It is well established that this includes your car (though probably not the trunk).
Of course if you are arrested for that seat belt ticket, the officer isn't required to leave your
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the federal government trump state law here? Why would they care that it was illegal on the state level if they were doing Official Federal Government Snooping?
I dunno. Are federal personnel allowed to violate state laws? ALL state laws? Let's say, for instance, that there's a state law that prohibits sex with chickens, but no such federal law. Can an FBI agent get amorous with chickens with impunity? And if not, what exactly makes snooping GPS records different?
It's not real clear from the article exactly what the bill provides for. Can a cell company voluntarily hand over the data? Would the cell company be liable if it turned over the data without a warr
California (Score:1)
Evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Proof that a broke clock (California) is right twice a day.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean a broken clo-- ohhhhh.
I see what you did there. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Only the densely populated areas are blue. When people are packed densely, competition for housing drives up rents and prices, competition for jobs drive down wages. Those who cannot compete cry for government intervention to distort the market in their favor. Politicians who seek to secure voting blocs are all too eager to dole out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is easier to be lazy than to be ambitious.
Actually, it's more like when people are sparsely populated they have no compassion for their neighbors and are uneducated and that's why they're red. See, I can make shit up and generalize as well as you can. Also, please note that, for the most part, Red states get more from the feds than the give, and Blue states give more then they receive. Yes, that's a fact. Look it up. It's easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Guess what, without California the US is nothing
California would be *nothing* without Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (you know where they get all that water and power they need).
While I live in California and do enjoy a little ribbing, we in Northern California get most of our water and power from local reservoirs and gas fired power plants.
They would be nothing without Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Arkansas (you know where they grow a good majority your food).
California grows and raises pretty much every crop and product you can name, and exports a significant majority of it, we'd do just fine without anyone else, although some farmers would starve if they weren't selling their entire crop to other states.
It is overpopulated and under-taxed for the amount of social programs there and the amount of goods needed to be self sufficient.
We don't have a taxation problem, we have a stupid legislature spending problem. They got high
Re: (Score:2)
8% income tax and 9% sales tax?? Boo fucking hoo, you're getting off fucking light.
We're bent over and reamed here in the UK for 25% income tax (minimum with a ridiculous low threshold of £4800-something) and 20% VAT, and we're not even offered a fucking reacharound, so if you want to complain about something come live over here for a fucking year and pay over £6 for a gallon of gasoline.
Whiney little Yank cunt.
Re: (Score:1)
They would be nothing without... Oklahoma... (you know where they grow a good majority your food).
Pretty sure all they grow out here is fat people...
Re: (Score:2)
California should just leave the rest of the other 49 fucking bible thumping states to their own demise.
As a Californian I have to say that California seems to be hurdling headlong into demise regardless of what the other 49 are doing.
Oh, and BTW; if I hear one more comment from any of my so-called "liberal" friends that the GOP is the party that promotes busting of the Bill of Rights by the Fed, I'm going to invite them here so I can sock them in the mouth.
We want our Governator back! (Score:1)
GPS signals coming from a phone? (Score:2)
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legis
Re: (Score:2)
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me that most of the populace things that GPS is something your phone/mapper TRANSMITS. The damn TV shows are no help at all.
It's only a matter of time, sayeth history (Score:2)
If the old king would have abused the power, we, the free people of the US, need to prevent its use withot a warrant.
Shame on people who think otherwise. You don't deserve the vote in a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
Shame on people who think otherwise. You don't deserve the vote in a free society.
I always prefer that sentiment in the original German.
Jerry Brown against (Score:1)
Anyone know why Jerry Brown is against privacy protections? I thought he was big on civil liberties rather than being a "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" type.
Is he still traumatized by 9/11 or something?
Re: (Score:2)
He got elected, that's what happened. Before election, civil liberties are a good issue to win votes. After election, civil liberties are nothing but an obstacle.
Re: (Score:1)
But he has been elected before. He served two terms as governor in the late 70's & 80's.
I was under the impresion that he was a proponent of civil liberties during his previous stint. Is that not correct or did he change his views?
Re: (Score:1)
"Don't do anything wrong..." - Don't be a stupid, short-sighted, ignorant cunt. There, now we're even. I forgive you.
GPS signal from phone? (Score:1)
I had no idea that phones produce "GPS signals". Fascinating.
Summary Wrong (Score:2)
GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone
The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gps [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone
The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gps [wikimedia.org]
Likely, the summary is dumbed down from "the GPS location data (determined by receiving signals from satellites) that is transmitted to the carriers' cell towers." But I, too am tired of that portrayal of GPS; thank you TV shows.
It's quite obvious what's happening here (Score:2)
Governor Brown is not acting in the interests of his constituents (and no, large corporations with an interest in individuals' data are not constituents), hence needs to be removed from office. Immediately.