Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Legislation Affirms Privacy Rights Against NSA Spying Methods

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the but-only-for-prius-owners dept.

Privacy 96

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."

cancel ×

96 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

america is over (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47050915)

vote with guns.

So... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47050917)

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

Re:So... (3, Interesting)

Guest316 (3014867) | about 5 months ago | (#47051063)

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.

Re:So... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47052995)

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'.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47051157)

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

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

Have fun commenting.

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

Re:So... (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about 5 months ago | (#47051659)

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.

Re:So... (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47052963)

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.

Re:So... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#47054933)

Why do you even allow corporations to donate to politicians? Why isn't they a low cap on donations so that ordinary people can have somewhat equal influence?

Re:So... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47055587)

Because judges have ruled that corporations [wikipedia.org] are people too, and that money [wikipedia.org] is equal to speech.

Ergo, corporations and rich people can have more 'speech' by virtue of having more money.

Like it or hate it, that's the law of the land.

Re:So... (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 5 months ago | (#47053109)

He's not. He just has no idea what net neutrality is. Thus, he votes the way the money tells him, and there's no money in net neutrality.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051377)

Exactly. By disagreeing with the majority, he has no rights. Too bad we can't do the same to the rest of the Republicans in the rest of this country. They always stand against freedom by fighting for the right to dissent.

Re:So... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47053009)

Exactly. By disagreeing with the majority, he has no rights. Too bad we can't do the same to the rest of the Republicans in the rest of this country. They always stand against freedom by fighting for the right to dissent.

Nice strawman; but by asserting nobody has any useful 4th amendment rights, I'd argue that it becomes just to assert that he doesn't. Slightly different.

It isn't a matter of how many voted for or against; but what they voted for or against.

Re:So... (2)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 5 months ago | (#47051459)

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.

Re:So... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#47051879)

Maybe that person has a good reason for voting against it.

Well, in that case, it's a good thing about legislators in representative democracies that they can be held accountable and asked for explanations. ;-)

Re:So... (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 5 months ago | (#47052885)

What the hell is with this fad of people claiming that the US is a "representative democracy"? The USA was founded as a Democratic Republic. It's bad enough that corruption has turned us into an Oligarchy, we don't need people trying to confuse what we are any further. We need to restore our country, not have people making up false claims.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47052955)

What the hell is with this fad of people claiming that the US is a "representative democracy"?

Probably because that is what has been force feed to us by the school system since at least the late 70's.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47054951)

What the hell is with this fad of people claiming that the US is a "representative democracy"? The USA was founded as a Democratic Republic.

A democratic repulic can be a representitive democracy. Both appear true for the USA, at least in principle.

Re:So... (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 5 months ago | (#47051621)

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

Re:So... (1)

chihowa (366380) | about 5 months ago | (#47052695)

She's not in the California state legislature, though. Back to civics class for you!

Re:So... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#47053029)

Unfortunately, the graduated from the state level and now infests congress(a fairly prime senate seat, no less). I'd be delighted to see her relegated to the little league, ideally some horrid little municipality in the ass end of nowhere; but such is not to be.

Silly law (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47050931)

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

Re:Silly law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051079)

They won't lose. The federal government cannot force state government officers to do its bidding. They can enjoin state officers from doing things which are illegal under federal law, but that's the opposite of what's happening here. You'd have a point if California was trying to pass a law which made it illegal for federal officers to do what they're doing.

That said, I doubt it'll do anything substantial. Law enforcement is a boys club, and boys love the idea of doing secretive things with spy agencies and big governments. Half of our television shows are based on this premise (the other half being heroes fighting a corrupt government.) We fantasize about it constantly. Most any police department would be happy to cooperate with the NSA and DoJ, presuming it doesn't cost them anything, no matter what the state legislature says about the matter.

Re:Silly law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47053069)

Half of our television shows are based on this premise (the other half being heroes fighting a corrupt government.)

And television is such an accurate depiction of reality.

Re:Silly law (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 5 months ago | (#47051085)

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

Nope... There is no need to do anything because the law is pointless.

The NSA already gets warrants..... Of course, from a secret court, but they are warrants none the less.

What can a State do? Require one of THEIR state judges sign the federal warrant? Yea, like that's going to happen.

Now what MIGHT happen, is the Attorney General of the state might sue the federal government in a vain attempt to enforce their law. I'm pretty sure the case would fail just past the doorway in federal court in short order.

Worse than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051285)

The NSA already goes right to the source for these records. This law is nothing but pandering to an ignorant public. State agencies? They go right to AT&T, Verizon, et al for your phone records. They go right to MS, Google, yahoo and others for the computer records. At best this simply stops teh NSA from using state agencies as gophers. That's it. This law is useless because yet again, the lawmakers do not understand technology or are being willfully ignorant to get re-elected.

captcha: numbers

yeah, that makes sense.

Re:Worse than that (3, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47051575)

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] ... [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. "

Re:Worse than that (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47053107)

"Sorry California, our office in provided that information from our data centre in ."

Re:Worse than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47055185)

Hey look I'm a state that legalized pot...

Hey look I'm the federal government that does not allow pot to be legal. While you let your citizens buy and consume it I will raid your stores and take all their profits.

Pretty much the same thing will happen here, while CA may want to punish companies that comply they can't really get in the way of a federal request.

Re:Silly law (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47051563)

I think the problem is that the NSA doesn't get warrants for most of it's data collection. It just sucks up everything without a warrant. That is the basic problem with the NSA... it doesn't get warrants.
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. "

Re:Silly law (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#47053051)

So all they need is a rubberstamping judge who signs warrants just as broad as the TLA's ask for.
This isn't going to change a thing without transparency.

Re:Silly law (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 5 months ago | (#47053123)

How do you issue a warrant if there is no reasonable grounds of a suspected crime?

Re:Silly law (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#47053227)

How do you issue a warrant if there is no reasonable grounds of a suspected crime?

"Reasonable" is a slimy word. It can mean whatever you want it to mean.
It is reasonable that suspected terrorist Ahmed Badenringbender has the capability and means to e-mail every citizen with a mail account from any number of accounts, ergo we need a warrant to monitor the e-mail of all citizens in order to be certain to capture all e-mail to and from from the suspect.

But even that isn't needed - without transparency, you find a judge willing to rubberstamp all requests. Which is pretty how it has worked up until now whenever ISPs haven't been willing to cooperate without a warrant.

Re:Silly law (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47051147)

On what grounds would they take them to court? The law doesn't say that the NSA or whoever else isn't allowed to collect the information on Californians. I.e. It puts no limits on the federal government. Rather, it merely says that the state and its officials won't assist the feds in the collection of data until the NSA goes through public channels and gets a proper warrant. IANAL, but I don't see how this runs afoul of anything.

Re:Silly law (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052165)

And then what? How will the feds enforce such a decision?

And what happens if a dozen more states join, and also refuse to aid and assist the NSA, despite any ruling by the federal court?

Yes, that would be a rebellion, effectively. But an unarmed, non-violent one (well, unless the feds decide to enforce it by violence). Better than the violent kind, don't you think? And what other options are there when all other avenues of protecting a natural right are exhausted - as seems to be the case on the federal level?

Room 641A (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47050955)

So are they going to unplug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A ?

Re:Room 641A (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#47062571)

Only if AT&T files a complaint. Odds are they will say it is 'voluntary' to avoid reprisals by the federal government.

Aren't States Rights great? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47050961)

Legal marijuana...
Anti-NSA spying laws...

Right up until some state full knuckle-draggers (like California) vote against gay marriage.

NSA is a Federal Agency (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#47051013)

...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...

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (3, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47051057)

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.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (2)

Warhawke (1312723) | about 5 months ago | (#47051663)

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.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052183)

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?

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#47052321)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the Feds NEED California Law Enforcement assistance to spy on Californians.

They don't. Any more than the FBI requires the assistance of local LEOs. The FBI works as it wills, without consulting with the locals unless they absolutely must (usually to get the locals to stop trying to arrest their suspects till the FBI is done with its investigation).

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47052389)

The Feds need the cooperation of California law enforcement and California corporations to spy on Californians. If they have a warrant, this is not a problem. If no warrant, there is a problem.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47052809)

When I worked for the feds, the LEOs could cooperate or be put in jail. Full stop. The feds trump the state.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056197)

The feds only trump the state when the feds are acting within the list of powers enumerated to be within the purview of the feds. Outside of that *narrow* list, the states trump the feds. Read the Constitution some time. It's enlightening *and* informative.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47051059)

...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...

So... you didn't even read the summary before you got on your soap box?

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.

It seems to me they have all the jurisdiction in the world over what the bill covers.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051071)

People seem to forget that the constitution states that powers not in the constitution for the federal government are then powers that belong to the states.

I'd like to see more states challenging the federal government rather than rolling over. Our federal government has become too large and powerful.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051083)

You are wrong. You are thinking like a Republican instead of like someone that wants change. I know you don't believe in rights or in change for the better, but that is your conservative side speaking. Try to be less of the CON in CONservative and less stuck in the mud, and you'll see that CA has always led the way in freedom and rights. By taking rights from the NSA, they have giving rights. Increasing rights is always about taking rights from the wrong people. That is what you Republicans aren't understanding.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051175)

Apparently you have not heard of the 10th Amendment to the constitution.

And saying "You are wrong" does not make you in the least bit correct, dufus.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051099)

What it needs is a clause to forbid any business (that does commerce in the state) to assist any government agency (state or federal) from monitoring any person in violation of their 4th amendment rights, unless a court order is issued. I'd also argue that it shouldn't be a "secret court order", aka FISA

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about 5 months ago | (#47051121)

...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.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47051187)

...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

They're in luck then, since this law merely deals with state officials over whom they DO have jurisdiction and control over their methods. Specifically, this law places no limits on the NSA or the data it can collect. It merely limits the state's involvement until the NSA comes up with a warrant. Put differently, the feds can still collect all the data they want, and the state can't do anything to stop it, but the state won't be helping them do it any longer. That's it.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47051601)

Reading is a useful skill:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/ [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. "

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47051753)

Reading is a useful skill

So true. Here's the actual bill itself [ca.gov] (it's a short and relatively easy read). I stand by what I said: the bill puts no limits on the feds, and deals merely with the people in the state's jurisdiction. Two things I missed: corporations are affected by this as well, so they can't share the information either, and it also treats evidence obtained by the feds without a warrant as off-limits and inadmissible in state courts (which your quote mentions). Even so, it does nothing to stop the feds from collecting or using that evidence for their own purposes.

So, once again, it does nothing to limit the feds. It merely prevents the state from assisting the feds in these illegal activities or making use of the evidence the feds obtain this way.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47052031)

So... this means nothing?
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.
There are a lot of tech companies in California.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47052103)

So... this means nothing?

Far from it! My assertion was merely that this law does nothing to regulate the federal government, but by no means was I intending to suggest that it was meaningless. Making things harder for the feds and refusing to take part in an illegal activity is always a good (and surprising!) thing, especially when a large state does it, and especially so because it applies to corporations, for the reasons you pointed out.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 months ago | (#47052263)

Not quite.

The supremacy clause in the constitution will require the companies, utilities, and universities to play ball. The state law will have to take a back seat because you cannot violate a law when compelled to comply with a law. Or in other words, if California law made something federal law enforces illegal, then the California law cannot be in force in conflict with the federal law.

I'm told that the warrant-less searches are part of the Patriot act along with NSA letters and installing monitoring equipment or points of access for the NSA is covered by the same and the CALEA legislation- both federal laws.

What this would stop is where the NSA tells deputy Dog that illegal drugs will be in a brown sedan license 12345 heading down interstate 5 between two and four pm and the state pulling them over for a magical failure to use a turn signal claim and find 20 kilos of coke in the glove box. (I know, I'm exaggerating)

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47052317)

I think that one important point is that the Federal warrantless searches are illegal and this law would force that to be tested in court.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Давид Чапел (3032005) | about 5 months ago | (#47055121)

Not quite.

The supremacy clause in the constitution will require the companies, utilities, and universities to play ball. The state law will have to take a back seat because you cannot violate a law when compelled to comply with a law. Or in other words, if California law made something federal law enforces illegal, then the California law cannot be in force in conflict with the federal law.

I am sure the authors of this bill know that the feds will still be able to force the utilities and universities to comply. But to protect themselves from sanctions under state law recipients of federal orders would probably have to show that they really were forced. That might mean that they would have to go to court to oppose the federal order. If they submitted to an order which they could have gotten dismissed or narrowed, they might well be liable under state law.

In effect, the intent of this law is to motivate the holders of information to make the feds work for it. I suppose the feds could go for an injunction against its enforcement, but I am not sure they would get it. In effect they would be argueing that the law hampered them because it forced them to use only clearly justified, narrowly tailored orders in California. That would not play well.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47056295)

The supremacy clause reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Even a federal law, when *not* "made in pursuance" of the Constitution (aka: outside or otherwise in conflict with the list of enumerated powers granted to the federal government), is *not* supreme to state laws.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 5 months ago | (#47058793)

Lol.. yup.

The problem id that there will be no one with standing to challange the constitutionality of the federal law so until it is ruled unconstitutional, it will be presumed constitutional.

Sadly, there is a process that needs to take place. They are abusing it and will continue to.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

somedudegeekman (3660883) | about 5 months ago | (#47051201)

...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...

As a CA resident, I'd like it if most of the CA legislature held their breath for that long. We might actually get to change a few seats in the next election!

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 5 months ago | (#47051593)

Read before you post:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/ [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. "

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47052355)

...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...

This does not exert control over the NSA, it just forbids CA employees from assisting them without a CA court order.

Re:NSA is a Federal Agency (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 5 months ago | (#47053139)

Yes, but this is about California law enforcement agencies cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies, essentially voluntarily. The law would make such cooperation not voluntary any more and would require a warrant. Congress would probably have to pass new legislation to change this. Good luck with that.

So What? (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 5 months ago | (#47051051)

The NSA already ignores the US Constitution, the highest law of the land which they are sworn to uphold, or at least their bosses are when they're sworn in. Does anyone really think a state law (from a non-swing state) will matter?

Re:So What? (2)

SammyIAm (1348279) | about 5 months ago | (#47051103)

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.

Now we'll see who's really the master. (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about 5 months ago | (#47051067)

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

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47052101)

Have you been on our roads and see how much the transportation admins get paid? I doubt there would be much of a difference.

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052221)

Nice federal income tax revenue from California [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (3, Interesting)

sfcat (872532) | about 5 months ago | (#47052959)

Nice federal income tax revenue from California [wikipedia.org] 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 [nytimes.com] . You really think politicians from other states would want to have to explain those numbers to the voters?

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about 5 months ago | (#47054077)

Sorry, no succession. The South tried that once 150 years ago. I didn't end well for them.

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47054779)

Sorry, no succession. The South tried that once 150 years ago. I didn't end well for them.

California is not in the southern part of the United States of America. Get yourself to the library and look at an atlas for the country.

Re:Now we'll see who's really the master. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47055777)

I seldom reply to AC trolls, but this one is really funny if you think about it:

1) Did the AC think that all successions fail if they are in the southern side of the country, but succeed if they are in the north, east, or west? Can an atlas predict the success of a war?
2) In 2014, if I need an atlas, I don't go to the library. Perhaps this AC uses a phone book too.

Nice sentiment (1)

somedudegeekman (3660883) | about 5 months ago | (#47051095)

Assuming this thing passes, the end state of the bill isn't acceptable. At best, public awareness incites a response from the DOJ which decides to overrule in the interest of national security. At best, it hastens a growing shrug of the shoulders from the public as the waves of abuse keep coming to light and people go about their business. Let's all retweet "F THE FCC" and it'll be about as effective...but it might get a laugh? Reclassify ISPs as common carriers already... (Damn. Lost my 14 y/o /. ID and the first post I make when I return is a troll...apologies.)

Re:Nice sentiment (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052233)

Overrule what, exactly? Will DOJ order state employees to assist NSA?

Big deal (1)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 5 months ago | (#47051101)

The federal government would need a warrant from a judge if it wants the cooperation of California officials

I'm pretty sure the NSA can already get a lot of information WITHOUT cooperating with state government officials.

Re:Big deal (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#47052155)

This is a good point.

What might be effective is a law that could go after private entities for divulging third party data or providing access to it without a warrant. In other words, slap the cuffs on AT&T, Cisco and other executives. Immunity from prosecution only if they testify under oath about the details of monitoring programs they were coerced into.

Re:Big deal (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052259)

The goal of these bills is not NSA information gathering activity per se, but the infrastructure associated with it - all those data collections centers etc. Note that this bans all kinds of "material support" by any state agency. This doesn't just mean police, but e.g. municipal power companies, as well.

Having said that, NSA does not have any data centers in California (that anyone knows of, at least). They do have them in some other states which have similar bills in the work, though.

dysfunction starts & stays at the top (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051119)

guessing the nsa is simply a civil service organization they would have no ability to function without instructions from the wmd on credit cabalists http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+on+credit+cabal drawn out state legislation is just more dragging out the invasion of our hearts minds & spirits

If we won... (1)

somedudegeekman (3660883) | about 5 months ago | (#47051161)

...and fully stopped the NSA data collection process, what's to stop them from turning around a buying a similar feed from GCHQ?

Re:If we won... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47055043)

Hopefully GCHQ will get slapped as well, by the EU if not the UKs control freak government itself.

Re:If we won... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47057155)

But the point is valid. If everyone (TLAs/GOVs) is spying on us all, stopping the NSA from doing it doesn't help. Crying about how bad the NSA is fits right in to their plans. Stop making this issue about how we control others, and make it about how we protect ourselves from them.

=domll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47051409)

Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? (2)

felrom (2923513) | about 5 months ago | (#47051757)

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/ [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.

Re:Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47052511)

Be careful what you're asking for. "Supporting states' rights", in the context of the Second Amendment, would mean reverting it to its original meaning whereby it only restricted what the Federal government could do, but did not limit any state legislature from enacting gun control laws. So, while it would mean repealing NFA and FOP and Brady's, and would mean no Federal AWB, it would also mean that California is free to legislate the same and more on state level, subject only to the California state constitution (which, in case of California, has no RKBA provision whatsoever).

Re:Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? (1)

felrom (2923513) | about 5 months ago | (#47053165)

McDonald v. Chicago incorporated the second amendment under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, to apply to the states too.

Re:Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 5 months ago | (#47053421)

Sure it did, and in doing so it limited the rights of states to regulate guns.

Re:Does Slashdot suddenly support States' Rights? (1)

felrom (2923513) | about 5 months ago | (#47055003)

States no more have the power to regulate guns than the federal government does. Making that lack of power explicit by incorporating the second amendment under the due process clause deprives the states of nothing. Fundamental rights are fundamental rights, whether it's a state government or the federal government who seeks to take them away from you.

The whole Bill of Rights and the idea of natural rights would all become a silly notion were states in possession of the legitimate power to restrict them. I'm talking political theory here, not practice because we all know in practice the government at all levels shits on your rights without the legitimacy to do so.

This can't be about the Fourth Amendment... (1)

werdna (39029) | about 5 months ago | (#47052243)

The Fourth Amendment only applies to the Federal government, and no state statute can reduce or increase those rights. Of course, the state itself may be limited by the Fourth (through the Fourteenth), and in that case, no state statute can reduce those rights. California may try to pass laws that provide additional protection not governed by the Fourth, provided it does not violate the Supremacy clause, and that's fine, but its unlikely to limit federal activities expressly provided for by federal statute.

There is no real dispute over the right to wiretap without a warrant (although some claim to the contrary, its not the Federal government doing the claiming), at least not since the Bush administration got into hot water over that issue.

As to the applicability of the Fourth to metadata acquisition, the Supreme Court addressed that point more than thirty years ago in Smith v. Maryland. Cases claiming that Smith is somehow inapplicable to the NSA issues are working their way through the courts, and time will tell. But it is still a legal reach to assert
that metadata acquisition somehow violates the Fourth Amendment, without qualification, given the clear Supreme Court law on the subject.

Re:This can't be about the Fourth Amendment... (1)

rossz (67331) | about 5 months ago | (#47052617)

The Fourth Amendment only applies to the Federal government ...

Wrong. The 14th Amendment says otherwise, and the Supreme Court would also disagree with your statement.

What about the California Law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47052923)

... that gives California police officers the right to copy your phone contents when they pull you over?

What about THAT right to privacy?

You can't fix this with laws (2)

nehumanuscrede (624750) | about 5 months ago | (#47053299)

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.

California Legislation Affirms Privacy Rights Agai (1)

danielpauldavis (1142767) | about 5 months ago | (#47053415)

The California legislature doing the right thing? Since when? 1977?

Snooper in Chief? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47053553)

DIdn't California vote for the Snooper in Chief? You know, the one that could stop all the spying tomorrow with a single executive order?

We are not any safer (1)

Harold Hoffman (3661733) | about 5 months ago | (#47054889)

I hope this works, do you really think the power hungry politicians are going to stop spying on each other and the people, to get dirt on them for there own elections. As long as there is tax dollars sent to the government there will be the NSA, and they will get stronger as time goes on and technology gets better. So I'm sure they will definitely continue spying on us. Remember transparency by this US Government, so it will never stop. They will tell us that you the sheep, will stop watching you, the fact is as long as tax dollars are collected it will continue. I have been using http://lookseek.com/ [lookseek.com] for about a year the non tracking private search engine to protect my privacy.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?