ISP Immunity for Violating Your Privacy!

26
02

2010
15:00

HB150 is back on the floor in the form of a substitute. As far as I can see, the primary difference aside from including the modifications and amendments is this text:

113        (7) There is no cause of action against any provider or wire or electronic
114 communication service, or its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons, for
115 providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of the
116 administrative subpoena issued under this section or statutory authorization.

Which essentially means they won’t hold the ISP liable for violating your privacy without a warrant. How sweet of them. However, this was not in any of my original concerns. It remains unconstitutional and should not be passed.

Issues, Politics | Tags: , , ,

Comments

Comment from Jesse Harris @ 2010.02.26 - 16:57

The House passed it 48-20-7 today. It’s time to hit the Senate and hit them hard.

Pingback from Pete Ashdown’s Journal » HB150 Passes House @ 2010.02.26 - 20:31

[…] as a substitute bill. It narrowed its scope to two crimes, child kidnapping and cyberstalking and threw some dogfood to ISPs who are afraid they might actually be held responsible for their […]

Comment from Tiani Coleman @ 2010.02.26 - 22:24

I mentioned this before. It’s a no loser for them to narrow it down to just adding the investigation of “child kidnapping and CYBERSTALKING” because in 2008 a very bad bill was passed (also requested by the AG) defining cyberstalking so broadly and vaguely that almost any Internet activity could conceivably fall under it.

No legislator wants to be responsible for not saving a life. When someone hears the term “cyberstalking,” they think of a dangerous, mentally unstable pervert . . . but read the law . . . a cyberstalker could refer to almost anyone.

Of course, even if we were talking only about the most dangerous criminals on the verge of, or in the process of, committing their crime, the law needs to be absolutely narrowly tailored, within the confines of the Constitution.

Comment from Jim Anderson @ 2010.03.01 - 13:29

I agree that the new revision concedes nothing from the original. The new limitations, as pointed out by Tiana Coleman [above] are there only for show. When put into action, they are easily broad enough to not hinder any sort of mass info-scrape request made.

And as far as the revision to protect the ISP. Well that should spell it out plainly enough for everyone! That clause alone would, to any rational thinker, expose the bill as having something integrally wrong with it. I mean, if you have to specifically state that if someone following a request [order] will be held not responsible, doesn’t that just as much say that the request being made is suspect? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Comment from UtahMatters @ 2010.04.15 - 08:23

Well, this clause, when read in conjunction with the bil does not allow them to violate my privacy. I am not suspected of inticing a minor, attempting to kidnap a minor, arrange for a felony offense against a minor, so if you give my information out you are not protected.

And to Jim, no that does not make is suspect. With the litigious nature of our society it simply takes away the ability of a suspected criminal to tie op the state in lawsuits costing me and you more of our tax dollars. Don’t you agree that is a good thing? Or do you support a felons right to constantly sue those who contribute to his/her arrest?

Comment from Pete Ashdown @ 2010.04.15 - 08:54

Cyberstalking is loosely defined as making a threat against someone on the Internet. So if your rhetoric gets heated and you make a threat, like “Joe Blow should be hung for treason.” Then any individual in law enforcement or the courts can issue a document to find out who you are, without judicial oversight.

Also you may not be suspected of any crime, but what if you are and innocent? Are your constitutional rights immediately invalid when you fall under suspicion?

Comment from Jim Anderson @ 2010.04.15 - 09:15

What Pete says here is true. Cyberstalking is an intentionally loose term that, in this context, serves only to speak to peoples’ fears so that the bill would sound more palatable. The fact of the matter is that the info they want is already available to them. — Really my point is that. — This bill just serves a a means by which to subvert the “just cause” element required by a warrant and that is a *major* problem.

Boiling down the rhetoric on this and looking at the issue from a “have, or anyone i know, ever been falsely accused of something” perspective, things seem to become a bit more clear. No one should bee able to gain this sort of information about you without some sort of probably cause. Remember, the 4th Amendment was there as a protection for the innocent and the falsely accused! Prove that you have *something* real to substantiate your suspicion and a warrant will be issued. It genuinely seems like a no-brainer.

Oh, and the ACLU of Utah seems to agree. Here’s their perspective on this matter, in a letter written to Gov Herbert: http://www.acluutah.org/HB150VetoLetter.pdf

Sorry, but you are not allowed to comment.

«

»