Utah Moves Forward On Plans To Let Attorney General Have All Sorts Of Info On Internet Users With No Judicial Oversight
from the and-this-won't-be-abused? dept
Tim writes in to let us know of a proposal in the state legislature in Utah (known for passing some bizarre internet related legislation in the past) that would grant prosecutors stunning freedom to spy on internet users without much oversight. Specifically, the bill would let prosecutors in the Attorney General's office demand names, addresses, phone numbers, and bank information from mobile phone operators and ISPs -- without a judge reviewing the request. Last year, apparently, the legislature passed a similar law that was just limited to sex-related crimes -- and prosecutors are now requesting info under that law approximately once per day, which seems like a pretty high number. The new law was originally intended to cover all crimes, but was limited to felonies as well as cyberstalking and cyberharassment claims (which, again, seem broad). It seems quite likely that such a law would be greatly abused.Of course, the politicians supporting this claim that it's necessary to keep people safe:
"If we charge our law-enforcement folks with trying to protect us and trying to catch these people," [sponsor of the bill, Rep. Brad] Daw said, "we need to always be trying to review the capabilities these criminals have and the tools technology gives to them and make sure we have adequate tools in place."Except that makes no sense. Prosecutors could get a judge to grant a subpoena already. Why do they need to do this with no judicial review? This isn't about protecting people and catching criminals. You already had a process to do that. It's just that it had oversight. So what's the excuse for taking away the oversight?
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: judicial oversight, privacy, subpoenas, utah
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
other then idiot laws whats UTAH famous for
the revolution will come and the lawyers will be the first to go....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The "oversight" might take time! They don't have time! The criminals are downloadin' bits and bytes off the cyberspace every minute!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
revolution is brewing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It gets worse than what Mike described (It's been amended since the article was published):
* It provides that "There is no cause of action against any provider or wire or electronic communication service," who complies with these subpoenas.
* The only oversight is that the have to report how many of these subpoenas they used the previous year. No report on how many led to locking up criminals. No report on which crimes were being investigated, etc.
* They've played some weird wording that makes it so can use these subpoenas for any online crime investigation as long as someone in their agency is also investigating a serious crime:
When a law enforcement agency is investigating a sexual offense against a minor, an offense of stalking under Section 76-5-106.5 , or an offense of child kidnapping under Section 76-5-301.1 , and has reasonable suspicion that an electronic communications system or service or remote computing service has been used in the commission of a criminal offense. [They crossed out "the criminal offense and changed it to "a criminal offense"]
You'd think that with the recent news of how the NSLs were abused, legislatures would think twice about giving state police the same privilege.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judicial Oversight
What is it about computer crime that makes legislatures so free with throwing away human rights wholesale?
Who'd a thought that Malevolent Mouse would become the poster boy for an Orwellian future?
(*sign of the times... I'm being cautious about saying what I mean.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Judicial Oversight
It's still new, duh (I already thought of this). Hence, we still haven't developed equitable laws to govern it and a reasonable public consensus of what those laws should be, that is, a consensus that transcends the influence of a corrupt mainstream media. That's also why cableco/telco monopoly have prevailed under the nonsense natural monopoly pretext and it's why the FCC laws get to go against the public interest, it's still relatively new and so we as a society haven't really experienced the harm caused by such systematic tyranny to be able to develop a culture that will sufficiently resist the laws governing these new technologies from getting worse and worse.
The way it works is this. New technology comes out and benefits many people. The public hasn't yet experienced harmful regulation of such technology to know that regulating it in certain ways can be harmful to the public. So eventually governmental laws slowly step in that restrict the free use of such technology in ways that unfairly benefit the top one percent. Eventually, through hardship and experience, the public learns about how harmful such regulation is. Over the years resistance and resentment for such laws build until the resentment reaches a critical mass and the laws are eventually done away with. At this point bringing back laws like this would be very difficult because the public is now more "immune" to such laws and hence the public knows to resist them more strongly at their outset before they go anywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Judicial Oversight
Slavery is something the population has dealt with for thousands of years and now there is a strong resistance against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So long, Utah
You have a beautiful state, filled with fun activities, amazing scenery, interesting people, fascinating history.
It makes us sad that you've gotten so bizarre. We wish we could continue our nine-year tradition of vacationing both winter and summer in your state, adding tens of thousands of dollars per year to your economy.
We realize our absence will be felt by the small business owners far more than the resource barons and pontifical religionists. We're sorry if our waning interest accelerates the greed-fueled drilling, mining, deforestation, and paving of your unparalleled natural treasures.
But you've become so creepy. All the church/state confusion, the homophobia, the tangled mess of oddly-enforced laws, the pretentious and overwrought hand wringing about dictatorially defined morals -- it's just too much.
Even our kids, who've always preferred your outdoor adventures and natural history to the artifice and marketing of theme parks and thrill rides, are balking at your uptight image.
We'll miss you. Really. It's just that, like that grumpy old man who's narrow in his worldview and proud of his ignorance, you're simply repulsive to be around. Vacations are supposed to be fun, and so many other states, regardless of their politics, are free of the pall of hate you carry.
Thanks for the memories, sorry you couldn't pull it together,
Four families
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So long, Utah
Well, it just got a whole lot worse.
Utah just became the first state in the U.S. to criminalize miscarriage and punish women for having or seeking an illegal abortion. Utah's "Criminal Miscarriage" law:
expands the definition of illegal abortion to include miscarriages
removes immunity protections for women who have or seek illegal abortions
treats women as presumptive criminals and leaves them open to criminal prosecution
But even among states that punish illegal abortions, this "Criminal Miscarriage" law is unique. It not only punishes individuals who perform illegal procedures; it punishes women."
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/AFY_Will/2010/2/24/In-Utah-Miscarriage--Criminal-Homici de
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2010/02/19/this_week_in_crazy_madsen/
http://www.sltrib.co m/utahpolitics/ci_14451448
Any Other Questions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil plot
It's to cover up their evil plot to take over the world. I, for one, welcome our new Mormon overlords. More wives for all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check and Balance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
*blink*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So long, Utah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So long, Utah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it possible ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]