SIgn Of the Times: Calif. Privacy Protections Signed Into Law

The EFF reports a spot of bright news from California: Governor Jerry Brown today signed into law the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act. CalECPA, says the organization, "protects Californians by requiring a warrant for digital records, including emails and texts, as well as a user's geographical location. These protections apply not only to your devices, but to online services that store your data. Only two other states have so far offered these protections: Maine and Utah." The ACLU provides a fact sheet (PDF) about what the bill entails, which says: SB 178 will ensure that, in most cases, the police must obtain a warrant from a judge before accessing a person's private information, including data from personal electronic devices, email, digital documents, text messages, and location information. The bill also includes thoughtful exceptions to ensure that law enforcement can continue to effectively and efficiently protect public safety in emergency situations. Notice and enforcement provisions in the bill provide proper transparency and judicial oversight to ensure that the law is followed.

Comments

Protect yourself

[WarJolt]

You should still encrypt your cell phone and if you're going to put anything online you don't want public you should encrypt it before putting it there.

unusual politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting thing about this news item is we have both blue Democratic as well as Red Republican states enacting electronic privacy laws. So here is at least one issue that apparently cuts across the usual liberal - conservative boundaries.

Enforce against the feds?

[blindseer]

The state passes a law requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before collecting electronic evidence against you, so what happens if an agent of the federal government violates that law? As I understand our federal system even federal agents cannot break state law. Realistically though I doubt heavily that any federal agent is going to get arrested under this law.

Curious though, states seem quite willing to break federal law by passing laws legalizing the trade and consumption of marijuana. The federal government has chosen to yield to state laws on this part of law. Perhaps the feds will also recognize state authority on the search and seizure of electronic evidence?

Right, I don't think so either.

Re:Enforce against the feds?

[The_Laughing_God]

Of course a state can enforce its laws against the Feds.

Local police can issue parking tickets to or tow Federal vehicles, even those with Federal plates.

Federal vehicles must be registered to some state, and must meet the safety/emissions inspections laws of that state (e.g. Federal agencies can't buy non-California certified models to be registered in California). Similarly, states have sued and won Federal agency compliance/cleanup of environmental hazards per state, not Federal, standards law (federal laws may have an impact when it is "federal/military property" such as a state park or military base, but not, say, an FBI Bureau office in a commercial building)

Note: the above apply to Federal agencies (legitimately called "the Feds"), but the same general principle applies to Federal agents ("a Fed")

While a homicide committed by a Federal agent in the commission of his/her duties has Federal implications, it is also a local crime; local police can detain/arrest and interrogate a Federal officer, pending further disposition. Other felonies, short of murder, are more clearly handled by state law, without any question of jurisdiction: drunk driving, theft, etc.