California mulls law to protect your e-privates from warrant-free cops California is considering a new law that would make police searches of electronic devices such as phones and laptops subject to the same controls as filing cabinets, drawers and other physical objects. State Senator Mark Leno of San Francisco has put forward a bill that would require the authorities to obtain a search warrant …
They should be bringing this up to the US Supreme Court. A state law does nothing to prevent the Federal Government from grabbing the data . Besides, all those companies are technically registered in Vermont and/or Ireland so a judge could declare that the law doesn't apply to them. Plus they could just wander over to the datacenter outside of the sate to grab the same information.
All that being said, getting a Federal precedent in front of the SCOTUS will do a hell of a lot more for the privacy of the people (EG, sue the US Federal Government / local police on the grounds of violating the Sixth Amendment and just keep appealing until they get to the US Supreme Court) Hell they could even get a local police department and the ACLU/EFF to cooperate and purposefully manipulate the case to reach that high up.
A state law is not the way to go:
1. The wording of the law, as referenced, seems a bit loose and ambiguous in certain areas.
2. As an earlier poster suggested, locals will outsource to the FBI or Immigration officials.
3. The backstop alternative will be to enlist the MPAA or RIAA include the target in an infringement suit and obtain a subpoena.
A federal law makes more sense, and would be a much better use of the interstate commerce clause than many previous ones. Most targets will be either US persons entitled to Constitutional protection under the fourth and fourteenth amendments or companies arguably engaged in interstate commerce.
While state laws have no jurisdiction over federal agents, in passing this law, California provides more protection than people in the state had previously. Also, there is a long history of states leading the way with progressive legislation with the federal system only catching up once a tipping point is reached.
Basically, this is a good start.
There already is a federal law on the matter:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
A shame everyone is willing to trample all over the highest law in the land.
The idea that data on a piece of paper is somehow different to digital data and requires stronger protection is simply absurd. The advent of digital storage has simply been used by law enforcement and government to circumvent hard won protections by the back door. Closing the disparity is too long overdue.
Governments (and the police forces) have effectively used the lack of specific legislation as justification that digital 'data' doesn't qualify for the same protections as its physical equivalents.
The amusing (not really) thing is that those same governments are quite happy to refer to copyright violations of digital media as identical to theft of physical copies.
So, if you download a copy of a movie in digital form and store it on your laptop then that is the same as stealing a DVD and storing it in your desk drawer, apparently. BUT, if you have some sensitive, private, and personal correspondence stored on you laptop in digital form that is totally different from having the same sensitive, private, and personal correspondence stored in you desk drawer.
Obviously . . .
It is not clear to me from the article whether personal data synced to Apple or Google[*] or whatever will be similarly protected under the proposed law. If not, either the law won't mean much or criminals will stop syncing - and, as if on cue, anyone who does not sync will be immediately suspect and obtaining a warrant won't be a problem ("He obviously has something to hide, Your Honor...").
[*] Both Californian companies.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
