More States Looking To Neutralize The NSA Through Local Legislation
from the a-widening-split-between-the-federal-government-and-its-constituents dept
The NSA's new data center in Utah has provided the flashpoint for legislation targeted at "nullifying" the agency by cutting off its access to public utilities and/or leveraging the powers granted to states to combat federal government overreach. An activist group known as The Tenth Amendment Center proposed a state law that would cut off the new data center's much needed water supply, along with any other public utility or service, like sanitation and road repair, in hopes of (at minimum) forcing the NSA to reconsider its collection tactics, or failing that, to find a new home.
Now, more states are joining the push-back against the agency, again using legislation crafted at the state level to curtail the NSA's overreach, as The New American reports.
Arizona
In Arizona, SB1156, which has 14 Republican sponsors, was introduced by state Sen. Kelli Ward. It would bar the state from providing material support to the agency’s activities and ban any data collected without a warrant from being used in court.New Hampshire
Ward announced her intentions in December to introduce a bill that would keep Arizona from supporting the NSA.
HB 1533 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by two GOP lawmakers and one Democrat. The measure requires law enforcement to obtain “a warrant to search information in a portable electronic device.”New Hampshire's government is also considering another bill (HB 1619), which restores the expectation of privacy to information given to third parties, something the NSA, FBI and others have relied on for years to acquire data without warrants.
Section IV of the bill mandates that “A government entity that purposely violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”
An individual shall have an expectation of privacy in personal information, including personal identifiers, content, and usage, given or available to third-party providers of information and services, including telephone; electric, water and other utility services; internet service providers; social media providers; banks and financial institutions; insurance companies; and credit card companies.As The New American notes, this restoration goes even further than just protecting American citizens. The wording specifically notes this applies to "individuals" rather than just "citizens," extending the protection to non-citizen US residents and visitors.
Tennessee
The Tennessee Fourth Amendment Protection Act was introduced by State Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) late Tuesday evening. Rep. Andy Holt (R-Dresden) will file the companion bill in the House.The entity mentioned in the legislation, OffNow, is a creation of the Tenth Amendment Center, and its legislative activity seeks to nullify the agency through the power of states and their public utilities. With enough support, many states could make themselves inhospitable hosts for the NSA by tying utility access to stipulations like the above. At the very least, state governments who pass laws like these will be "on the record" as not being complicit in the NSA's questionable collection activities. It also indicates they're willing to combat government overreach, which in the age of Real ID, nationalized health care and domestic surveillance, is a good stance to be taking.
Based on model legislation drafted by the OffNow coalition, SB1849 would prohibit the state of Tennessee from “providing material support to…any federal agency claiming the power to authorize the collection of electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant” as required by the Fourth Amendment.
The real test of legislation like those above will be when the NSA offers to set up shop in these locations. Turning down the agency means turning down a whole lot of federal money and additional employment, something that may not sit well with many constituents, and even less so with certain politicians.
New Hampshire's and Arizona's bills will face additional challenges as neither limits the wording to only the NSA's collections/"searches." (New Hampshire's bill only says "federal agency.") Arizona's in particular will affect local law enforcement as well, and if they've become used to a certain level of warrantless access, they won't be too thrilled to give that up. The heaviest push-back there may be from local PDs and sheriffs departments, although the arguments against the bills will be very familiar -- swapping only "crime" (or "drugs") for "terrorism."
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: nsa, privacy, state laws, states, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The states may be "on the record", but they can not override federal laws.
They're federal for such a purpose as to prevent states from interfering.
Worse, this just puts businesses into one hell of a legal bind when they're both breaking one law while following another.
Stupid waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe not a waste of time, after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: maybe not a waste of time, after all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So yeah, Violynne called it right. What they should be doing is getting their reps in the House to vote to defund and disband the NSA. All those sweet, sweet federal dollars can be collected via other schemes such as the planned infrastructure projects being mooted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's the political equivalent of a white mutiny. Sure, you can build a center on land in the state that you bought, but that doesn't guarantee you exemption from requirements for utilities. Sure, we can't try and prevent you from collecting records, but we can declare that none of our state or local courts may used that information to prosecute anyone, and no state or local law enforcement can assist in any resulting action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good. I hope a lot of businesses are sued out of existence over there complicity in these illegal government actions. At the least, maybe they will start to consider how much data they keep on their customers and what is truly needed in the course of business and what is excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Water pressure is really low you say? Well we will send someone out to take a look at that as soon as we have someone available. It will probably be a couple of weeks before we can get to that."
"The roads need to be repaired? Currently all our crews are booked solid on other projects. We will let you know when an opening comes available."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I applaud these measures, but matters are going to get a lot worse before they get better. No way is the NSA going to just roll over and say "welp, we tried. I guess we'll just have to build our own/go elsewhere."
Nope, they'll fight it. And then there will be lawsuits. And those lawsuits will take years to finally come to the Supreme Court where we can finally get a ruling on this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember they tried fighting the laws that passed on pot too but they found themselves overwhelmed to fight a whole state on this issue and decided it best just to allow leave those states alone!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Violynne on Jan 29th, 2014 @ 7:57am
it, it can and will be replaced. Out of curiosity, what do u feel is more important legislation, than protecting peoples rights? I applaud the states for doing what the feds cant or wont do, except drag their feet incompetently as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'The measure requires law enforcement to obtain “a warrant to search information in a portable electronic device.” '
While nice that several states are considering legislation to push back on government and 'law enforcement' overreach and abuse of powers, the fact that such things are even needed is flat out disgusting and disappointing. The idea that those that are supposed to be upholding the law, instead have to be forced to actually follow the law just shows how far they've fallen in the desperate search for more power, more 'safety'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd suggest adding "because drugs", "think of the children", "because hackers" and "because pirates" to the no-go argument list.
Though I'm not sure if that leaves anyone to vote for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else find this worrisome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone else find this worrisome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone else find this worrisome?
They're passing laws that simply reinforce the 4th Amendment, and then make it unlawful to support anyone assisting the law-breakers. (Something that's already illegal... Since an "accomplice" is a thing already)
It creates a due process for the "cutting off of power" to establishments that are breaking the law (in this case, the 4th Amendment-likes).
They have to pass these as state laws, because they have no way to enforce Federal Law (the real 4th Amendment).
They've basically written themselves the jurisdiction to enforce, at the state level, a federal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone else find this worrisome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://watchdog.org/124305/nsa/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me, it speaks to the absolute loss of faith in Congress/POTUS to legislate what the American people actually want.
Everyone knows that federal law trumps state law, but that just means a bunch of cases that can eventually go to the Supreme Court. That means actual rulings on the constitutionality of some federal programs.
The Court can't rule on, or set precedents on things that haven't been brought to court. There need to be arrests or lawsuits for the Court to consider. They don't get to just say "hey, this NSA stuff isn't right." They have to have an actual case brought to them to decide on.
The states are acting to force the Federal Government to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. They're throwing down a gauntlet that says "go on, try to get your arrests and cases heard here... We dare you."
Then the legal system, on up to the Supreme Court gets to act as the check it's supposed to be on un-constitutional laws and programs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i say we bring back 'shunning'...
SHUN THEM ALL ! ! !
turn your backs on them, refuse to talk to them, stop babysitting their kids, don't shake their hands at church, refuse to -when legal- provide them goods/services, let them KNOW you find their UN-American, UN-constitutional activities anathema...
fuck'em, they've deserted their own, they can be on their own without our help or society...
let'em hunker down in their tippy-top secret bunkers and EAT THEIR SURVEILLANCE for dinner, traitors all...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i say we bring back 'shunning'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Fourth Amendment Legislation
A complete list is here: http://www.billtrack50.com/PublicStakeholder/khYMwUMdAEOpDEjYlo3AUg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]