SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Michigan Votes to Require Warrants for Police to Seize and Search Digital Devices
Michigan votes to require warrants for police to seize and search digital devices:
Voters in the US state of Michigan have decided that searches of laptop, phones, and associated electronic data will require a search warrant going forward.
Michigan Proposal 20-2 to require a search warrant to access a person's electronic data and electronic communications passed overwhelmingly, with 88.7 percent (nearly four million people) voting "yes," and only 11.3 percent voting "no."
At the same time, the proposal amends the Michigan Constitution to bring the existing protections from unlawful and unreasonable searches of homes, documents, and other personal possessions up to date, and include electronic data and communications on people's devices.
The goal of Proposal 2 was to make sure the new rules explicitly state a private citizen's electronic data is equally protected, thus removing any vagueness and various interpretations. Currently, law enforcement must have a warrant before searching a home and somebody's personal belongings, including papers and other items, but electronic versions of these stored on devices like phones and laptops are not mentioned in the language of the legal solutions that far predate the technological transformation of society.
Massachusetts Voters Approve Ballot Expanding Open Repair Data in Blow to Auto Industry
Massachusetts voters approve ballot expanding open repair data in blow to auto industry:
(Reuters) - Voters in Massachusetts on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure forcing automakers to provide expanded access to mechanical and electronic repair data and allow independent shops to repair increasingly sophisticated technology.
The decision delivers the first significant win in a fight over who will control the $390 billion U.S. auto data aftermarket in the digital age.
[...] "This referendum...means that despite advances in technology, owners will be able to have their repair data shared directly with their trusted independent shops," Bill Hanvey, president and CEO of the Auto Care Association said in a statement, adding the group worked with cybersecurity experts to ensure privacy during data transfers.
Under the state's ballot measure, approved by 75% of voters, on-board diagnostic and mechanical data will have to be made available via an open-platform app for 2022 vehicle models and beyond.
Four states vote to legalize marijuana.
Arizona, New Jersey, South Dakota and Montana all passed legislation Tuesday permitting the possession of weed by adults, which means 15 states have legalized recreational weed or voted to legalize it.
See more on the story here.
As a life long resident of the red state of South Dakota, I'm glad to see people who need this for medical purposes can have access and the police can spend their time on serious crimes instead of wasting it on recreational marijuana users.
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Friday November 06 2020, @09:45PM (9 children)
That's not going to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The first time a state tries to force its electors to choose a candidate that didn't win their state election it will result in a lawsuit and the law will be ruled unconstitutional. Although, I think it might be interesting to see what would happen in those deep blue states if a republican wins the popular vote.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 07 2020, @12:22AM (8 children)
Electors can vote in whatever way their state law says they can.
That's why Faithless Electors [wikipedia.org] are a thing in certain states and the Supreme Court has ruled that it's fine.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 07 2020, @05:25AM (7 children)
Huh? I thought I had read that the courts have ruled that faithless electors can be prosecuted by their states.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday November 07 2020, @01:49PM
They can. But in some states, it's not illegal to be a faithless elector. Also, in some other states, the penalty for being a faithless elector is only a fine, so sometimes somebody will be a faithless elector, plead guilty to the charges, and pay the fine.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday November 08 2020, @04:36PM (5 children)
Even if they can prosecute faithless electors, someone voting for the candidate their state selected is not a faithless elector.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday November 08 2020, @08:30PM (4 children)
No, but I thought the implication from the post I was responding to was that it was OK for faithless electors to vote in a way different from what their state expected of them.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @03:20PM (3 children)
That's true, but the whole premise of the national popular vote initiative is that the states who sign on would be expecting their electors to vote for someone other than who their residents voted for. The electors would be forced to be faithless, either to the voters in the state or to the state law. Which is why I don't think it would hold up in court.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @04:51PM (2 children)
That doesn't make sense. If a state passes a law in accordance with the national popular vote initiative, then electors can't be forced to vote against state law, because the law now says they to vote according to this initiative. Obviously, this new law would supersede any old laws about binding electors to the state's own popular vote. As for the voters in the state, if this is what the state law says, the voters have no say. They elected a government (in this scenario) that passed this law, so that's the law. If they don't like it, they can elect a new state government that repeals the law.
I don't see how this could possibly be unconstitutional: the constitution doesn't say anything about how states choose electors, and in the old days, in wasn't by popular vote at all, but rather the state legislature chose the electors. States can choose electors any way they want. If the people don't like it, it's their job to elect new legislators. There's nothing that prevents a state from removing the popular vote altogether and, say, having the governor choose the electors himself.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 09 2020, @05:36PM (1 child)
Do you really think this would fly with voters?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 09 2020, @07:46PM
Sure, why not? If the voters vote for it, then yes, it would fly. If they vote against it, then obviously it won't fly. I guess we'll find out eventually if the voters want this or not.