Utah Senate Passes Bill That Would Lock The Government Out Of Warrantless Access To Third Party Records
from the enjoy-your-new-home-turf,-NSA dept
Perhaps no state has unrolled and rolled up a welcome mat set out for a federal guest faster than Utah. What was once a shiny new installation with 5-10,000 jobs attached swiftly became a PR black eye after Ed Snowden exited the NSA and sprung a leak.
Suddenly, the sweetheart deal on water given to the NSA seemed like an attempt to curry favor with domestic spies, placing local politicians on the receiving end of reflected wrath from the general public. Utah's government reversed course, setting itself up as a champion of the people. An attempt was made to shut down the spy center's water supply. It never made its way into law, but the anti-panopticon tone was set. But the state is still moving forward with efforts taking on the federal government, engaged in the always-awkward grappling of the The Man sticking it to The Man.
Bills forbidding state agencies from participating in domestic surveillance have been introduced elsewhere in the country. Few of these have moved forward. But the Utah legislature -- burned by its close ties with the spy agency non grata -- has proven more tenacious than most. As Molly Davis reports for Wired, the Utah government is one step away from locking the government out of access to third party records.
On March 12, Utah legislators voted unanimously to pass landmark legislation in support of a new privacy law that will protect private electronic data stored with third parties like Google or Facebook from free-range government access. The bill stipulates that law enforcement will be required to obtain a warrant before accessing “certain electronic information or data.”
The shift towards greater privacy protections may have been prompted by the NSA data sinkhole currently hoovering up water outside of Bluffdale, but this law would affect every other state and federal agency that has made use of the Third Party Doctrine ever since its unwelcome appearance over 40 years ago.
This is very good news for Utah residents, considering the number of third parties collecting data has expanded exponentially over the past two decades. The same court that handed the government the Third Party Doctrine recently gave a little something back to the people, ruling that cell site location info has an expectation of privacy. This alters the contours of third party/government interactions, with every record grabbed without a warrant could result in a legal challenge that restores a bit more of the Fourth Amendment.
Until then, states are free to limit government access to these records on their own. Voluntarily turning over info to private third parties should not be interpreted as citizens turning over this information to everyone and their government-deputized dog.
More states should be like Utah -- a phrase that's probably never been uttered before. Hopefully, more states will follow this lead and get out ahead of the tech curve by providing their residents with these same protections.
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: 4th amendment, domestic surveillance, third party doctrine, utah, warrants
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good news, but...
The bill stipulates that law enforcement will be required to obtain a warrant before accessing “certain electronic information or data.”
While I certainly appreciate them passing the law, and hope that more if not all states adopt similar laws, the fact that there even exists a need for a law like this is just completely screwed up, and highlights how out of control numerous government agencies are.
'If you want to go rifling through someone's personal data, violating their privacy, you need a warrant' should not be something that needs to be spelled out, again, as that should be seen, and treated as, the absolute minimum requirement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next, make it illegal for them to sell this data. I can't even really justify making law enforcement need a warrant if it's not actually private in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bet the Government sues Utah
The billions spent on this facility are now going to be wasted so the agencies in charge might end up billing Utah for the cost of replacing it in another state. I'm willing to bet Utah would be bankrupted over that expense instead of enjoying the tax revenue from the people working in that building.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good news, but...
Hate to break it to you, but literally, all data sent over the internet for the past few years is being recorded and can be tied directly to you after the fact. They have enough blackmail material from previous decades of illegal searches that they have no one in power that can force them to stop. No one watched the watchers and it turned out they had agendas of their own. Your personal data is available in databases that cross-reference everything you have done, and everyone you have interacted with online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can a state government limit the federal government like this? It's great they will limit their agencies from engaging in these sorts of searches, but I think the federal government will still be able to, even in Utah.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure the standard is that a State can pass a more restrictive law then a Federal version (if there is even one) but not less restrictive. So unless there is an actual federal law that says they can obtain this information without a warrant (as opposed to being given a "go ahead it is not illegal" by the courts) then the States can put in a limitation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good news, but...
Pointless with the Patriot Act and it's like still active.
The intel agencies don't "do" warrants. If you don't give them everything the ask for, they just hit you with an NSL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good news, but...
"for the past few years"
Since its inception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pushing the Boundries
Utah has long been the forerunner of innovative legislation:
https://loweringthebar.net/2019/03/utah-legalizing-fornication.html
It's been a hard battle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Almost there
I sure hope the Utah legislators realize that the NSA, CIA, DIA, and others are not 'law enforcement agencies' and expand the definition to all government agencies in the actual final legislation. I also hope that they specifically include phone companies, electric companies, other utilities, email providers (even if they don't have a 'presence' in their state), and cell phones, personal computers and tablets, thumb drives, portable hard drives, cloud accounts, and/or any other data retention method that exists, or will exist in the future. Then, when they get it right, the language could be presented to Congress, where this should be happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue is really not going to like this, is he?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see this as Utah stating "Hey big data centers! Come here and you will reduce your risk footprint!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Whenever Poochie's not onscreen, all the other characters should be asking, "Where's Poochie?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No more than any of us like you posting this at every opportunity to incite his retardation. You and Chip both need to get a real hobby.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It very probably is Blue. Remember all those times he posted "out_of_the_blue's heroes, ladies and gentlemen"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Either way, the law will limit state and municipal governments, which is a start. If two-thirds of states did it, we'd have the numbers to amend the federal Constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I believe it was Thad(might have been someone else) who made the argument that that is Blue, desperately trying to present the facade that people actually care about them beyond the usual point and laugh when they show up. Far as I can see it's a valid conjecture, given the only thing more pathetic than Blue would be a fan of Blue. Flag and ignore either way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freedom is Just Another Word for Privacy
Utah Senate Passes Bill That Would Lock The Government Out Of Warrantless Access To Third Party Records
One small step forward in casting off the repressive yoke of an authoritarian federal/state governments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder what would happen, theoretically, if every machine in that complex were to be infected with a virus that wiped out every last bit of information stored there and rendered the drives inoperable? And if it were to spread to all of the NSA's other machines across the country?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
zippy, 28 Mar 2019 @ 1:42pm
I wonder what would happen, theoretically, if every machine in that complex were to be infected with a virus that wiped out every last bit of information stored there and rendered the drives inoperable? And if it were to spread to all of the NSA's other machines across the country?
Such a theoretical occurrence (sabotage via deus ex machina) would loosen the governments tyrannical surveillance grip on the nation/world (ie the ability to blackmail persons, industrial espionage, insider stock trading schemes, etc) and liberty/privacy would flourish.
Alas, such a proposition at this stage is but a dream.
Although dreams can become reality with enough sacrifice and hard work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This only works to limit state agencies' interactions with Google, Facebook, et al. Unless the company is based in Utah, the federal government will not be affected by this law. An FBI agent in Salt Lake City will still be able to use the 3rd-Party Doctrine to access Facebook and Twitter because they're California-based companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, I don't see anyone rooting for Blue Balls these days. Just an overwhelming sense of dread that we will be back with caps, multi-posts, incoherent rants, and cabbage law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you don't give them anything they ask for...
NSLs should never have been legal in the first place. And at this point the term national security has become as meaningless as terrorist or weapon of mass destruction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dread? Meh, that'd be more than they're worth, something like that would just be a chance to stress-test the flagging system again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Have you read the bill? It doesn't restrict the federal government at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More states should be like Utah -- this is a phrase that has been uttered much before, and will continue to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]