Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Legislation Affirms Privacy Rights Against NSA Spying Methods

Posted by Soulskill on from the but-only-for-prius-owners dept.

New submitter amxcoder writes: "A recent bill making its way through the California state legislature reaffirms 4th amendment protections against NSA-style wiretapping of cell phones and computer records, and declares that the NSA's data collection methods and practices are unconstitutional. The bill has passed the California Senate with only a single opposing vote. It would require a warrant to be issued by a Judge before the state's law enforcement and other departments can assist federal agencies in obtaining these records. Similar bills in other states are trickling through the legislative process, but California's is the furthest along. At the least, it will establish that a state of 38 million people are unhappy with the NSA's methods."

19 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who's up for 24/7 full documentation of the every move, utterance, and action, of the asshole who voted against it?

    1. Re:So... by Guest316 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFA also says the CDAA opposed it as well, for being "too vague." This could be a genuine issue. For one, it could have unintended secondary effects (such as being open enough to be abused in ways it was never intended), or itself be ruled unconstitutional for being too wide-sweeping in its vagueness. This is just speculation for now as I try to dig up more info.

      For that matter, I'm not sure of the utility of a state law reaffirming the Constitution's constitutionality. But it could be interesting to see what this one dissenter is all about.

    2. Re:So... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the guy according to the vote log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
      I'm emailing him now.

      Here's videos of him:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/result...

      Have fun commenting.

      His political contributers:
      http://maplight.org/california...

    3. Re:So... by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      I'm not, because that would make you just as bad as the NSA.

      Maybe that person has a good reason for voting against it. The article itself is very scant on details, but it does have near the bottom:

      It was opposed by the California District Attorneys Association, which said the bill was too vague.

      So maybe the intent of the law is quite good; I think we can all agree with that. However, it is possible that the law is poorly written.

      This would not be the first well intentioned yet poorly written law in history.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    4. Re:So... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2

      It was probably Dianne 'what do you have to hide' Feinstein, who ironically went apeshit when the FBI went through one of her computers.

    5. Re:So... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      His political contributors are indeed interesting, telecoms, casinos, and indian tribes. Presumably the tribe thing also has something to do with casinos. I don't quite get what casinos have to do with the NSA and the constitution though.

      The maplight site is really interesting. I looked up my congressman, Greg Walden, to see what light Maplight would shed on his corrupting influences. Most of his money comes from cable companies. No wonder he is opposed to net neutrality.

      Thanks for pointing out Maplight.

      You need to take contributions with a grain of salt. Most big industries decided the best course of action is to pretty much donate to EVERY campaign where the opponent isn't outright opposed to what you do for business. If you go look at what the cable industry as a whole donates, you'll see its well over 90% of politicians.

      The real bribery is what they do for the candidate after he leaves office. While in office, it's a race to the bottom to see who can garner enough favors in industry to get the big lucrative post-carer "Thank you" gigs. Presidents, for example, become millionaires after they leave office just from speaking engagements at major industry junkets. They aren't paying $300k for an hour with Bill Clinton because they like to hear him talk. Businesses don't work like that. They got something in return for that speaking engagement and it sure as hell wasn't advice.

    6. Re:So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      District Attorneys are the highest level prosecutors in a given jurisdiction. This doesn't mean that they are ignorant of the law; but their professional imperatives are in line with easy and efficient prosecution, rather than pesky procedural inconveniences.

      They may be right in this case; but I'd want to see some solid argument that 'too vague' actually means 'too vague' rather than 'has the potential to step on my toes'.

  2. Silly law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The DOJ will simply take the State of California to court. CA will lose.

  3. NSA is a Federal Agency by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)

    If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:NSA is a Federal Agency by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This applies to California State law enforcement. California certainly does have jurisdiction over their own employees.
      It requires a court order signed by a judge before California state employees assist the Feds. This is something that Federal law and NSA skirt around. In California, it should slow them down.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:NSA is a Federal Agency by bobbied · · Score: 2

      ...and California, much as it likes to think it's a country unto itself, has NO jurisdiction over the NSA, over their methods, even over their agents (when acting in an official capacity and all those other qualifiers)

      If it makes the CA legislature feel good about themselves to do this, great! But it means about as much as the lot of them threatening to hold their breath till the NSA stops spying...

      Hey, Elections are coming up. Politicians need positive stuff to put in their campaign ads so they pass a pointless law so they can act like they care. This law makes for a good sound bite, so you vote for it, even if it's stupid, pointless and a total waste of time.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:NSA is a Federal Agency by Warhawke · · Score: 2

      It will slow the Feds down about as much as a mild speed bump would slow down an Abrams tank. State agencies cannot preempt a federal administration's scheme. The DOJ would only need to take California to court for enacting a law that obstructs the general scheme and scope of authority of the National Surveillance Agency, and the law will be struck down as unconstitutional. States cannot issue laws that bind or obstruct federal activities, well-intentioned as those laws may be. This is the same reason Arizona's bill to enforce immigration standards, even though under the same general framework as the national immigration laws, were nevertheless held unconstitutional. You might get it tied up for a few months, but the same could be accomplished by simply having state employees voluntarily refuse to cooperate. It's a feel-good PR law, and perhaps a needed one, but it's clearly unconstitutional under the modern regulatory agency / separation of powers framework.

    4. Re:NSA is a Federal Agency by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The "obstruction" here is refusal to render assistance in any way, shape or form. How exactly will the feds enforce that, even if the court rules in their favor, short of completely taking over the government of California?

  4. Now we'll see who's really the master. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Nice federal highway funding there you have there, California. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

    1. Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. by sfcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice federal income tax revenue from California you have there, United States. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

      This is a game that can be played both ways.

      Its actually worse than that. If you remove CA from the US economy, what do you think the jobs/GDP/other national growth metrics for the rest of the US look like over the last 30 years? Can you say perpetual depression? Removing CA from the US would be disastrous, for the other 49 states. Don't kid yourself about the size of the CA economy, its large and growing, unlike the most of the rest of the US. Oh, and we actually pay off our debts. You really think politicians from other states would want to have to explain those numbers to the voters?

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  5. Re:So What? by SammyIAm · · Score: 2

    As pointed out in a few other comment threads (and the article itself): California's legislation will prevent California law enforcement from assisting the NSA without a warrant. The NSA's not actually doing all its own work, and relies on (pressures) other agencies to provide data. This isn't to say the NSA won't find ways to go around law enforcement to spy on U.S. Citizens, but it will at least make it more difficult for them and help protect people in California's privacy.

  6. Re:Worse than that by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know it's against the rules but you should read some more before you go off on a rant:
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/... [digitaljournal.com]
    "The bill, entitled Senate Bill 828, would require a warrant for any information collected through data mining to be admissible in court. Furthermore, it would impose sanctions on companies that share information with the NSA without warrants, and would target utility companies and universities which did the same. "

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  7. Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? by felrom · · Score: 2

    Certainly everyone applauding this will agree that similar laws meant to reaffirm second amendment protections are equally necessary, equally valid, and equally worth fighting for!

    http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

    From the article:

    "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very clear. It says the government shall not engage in unreasonable search and seizure," said the bill's author, Democratic State Senator Ted Lieu, of Torrance.

    Let's try a little modification....

    "The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very clear. It says the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms," said no one in California's legislature, ever.

    Just remember, when you erode one part of the Constitution, you erode them all. Feinstein wants ALL of your rights. Buuuuut... let's hear your reasons why this is different.

  8. You can't fix this with laws by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 2

    when our government can trump them with their " think of the terrorists / kids / national security / state secrets " bullshit.

    They're already breaking constitutional laws on an epic scale, do you really think they give two shits about breaking some more ?

    It's akin to thinking the " no guns " sign on the front door of a bank will somehow magically avert a bank robbery :/

    A nice symbolic gesture perhaps, but laughable if anyone believes it will make any difference.

    The only way this gets fixed is when the companies realize that being in bed with the US govt is great, until you get caught. At which point you've eroded public trust to the point you can't GIVE away your product. You may as well blow out the candles and go home.