Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by chromas on Saturday April 20 2019, @09:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense? dept.

Utah Bans Police From Searching Digital Data Without A Warrant, Closes Fourth Amendment Loophole:

In a major win for digital privacy, Utah became the first state in the nation to ban warrantless searches of electronic data. Under the Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (HB 57), state law enforcement can only access someone's transmitted or stored digital data (including writing, images, and audio) if a court issues a search warrant based on probable cause. Simply put, the act ensures that search engines, email providers, social media, cloud storage, and any other third-party "electronic communications service" or "remote computing service" are fully protected under the Fourth Amendment (and its equivalent in the Utah Constitution).

HB 57 also contains provisions that promote government transparency and accountability. In most cases, once agencies execute a warrant, they must then notify owners within 14 days that their data has been searched. Even more critically, HB 57 will prevent the government from using illegally obtained digital data as evidence in court.

In a concession to law enforcement, the act will let police obtain location-tracking information or subscriber data without a warrant if there's an "imminent risk" of death, serious physical injury, sexual abuse, livestreamed sexual exploitation, kidnapping, or human trafficking.

Backed by the ACLU of Utah and the Libertas Institute, the act went through five different substitute versions before it was finally approved—without a single vote against it—last month. HB 57 is slated to take effect in mid-May.

Third party doctrine, begone?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:44PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20 2019, @03:44PM (#832601)

    I'm not sure how to take that comment. Either this is a rare display of good statesmanship (i.e. a bill where every party concerned believes they have something to gain from) or there was a aura of fear surrounding the vote. I'm hoping it's the former, does anyone know more?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Tokolosh on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:26PM

    by Tokolosh (585) on Saturday April 20 2019, @04:26PM (#832619)

    This might be far-fetched, but maybe the thought process was "I swore to uphold the Constitution, so therefore I should support this bill."

    Haha, sometimes I crack myself up.