The biggest thing to come out of Texas may turn out to be a blow to Internet freedoms: legislators there are considering a bill that would compromise privacy on the Web for all residents of the Lone Star State.<\/p>\n
Lawmakers in the State Senate are expected to vote Monday on a
\nbill that, if passed, would compel Internet Service Providers
\n(ISPs) anywhere in the world to fork over private Web records if
\nthat information could aid in a criminal investigation.<\/p>\n
Federal legislation already in place would likely trump any
\nattempts from Texas prosecutors to pry personal ISP records or
\nother online communications from the likes of social networking
\nsites, but the efforts on behalf of Lone Star lawmakers to get the
\nball rolling on a new cyber-spy bill are indeed very real. Last
\nweek, its companion bill in the State House of Representatives
\npassed unanimously, and similar outcome in the Senate is all now
\nexpected any moment. Now should SB 1052 proves victorious in the
\nSenate, an Internet surveillance bill written in Texas but with
\ninternational implications could be added to the law books later
\nthis year.<\/p>\n
Ben Sherman of the Burnt Orange Report cautioned in a blog post
\nlast week that the bill could be very dangerous to all Americans if
\npassed because it would let local authorities seize electronic
\nrecords held on servers outside of Texas.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe bill requires any Internet provider to people in Texas
\n(that is – just about the entire Internet) to respond to search
\nwarrants for online communications in 4-30 days. That is an
\nextremely narrow window which makes it difficult for Internet
\nproviders to keep users’ other information private<\/i>,\u201d he
\nwrote.<\/p>\n
Following the failed attempts to pass cybersecurity bills on a
\nnational level, as seen most recently in the stalled Cyber
\nIntelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a number of state
\nand local governments have considered bills that would bring the
\ntools asked for in aborted federal acts into the hands of
\nprosecutors in Texas.<\/p>\n
Whereas CISPA sought to find a way to ease the sharing of
\npotentially dangerous information between third-party businesses
\nand the federal government, the efforts coming out of Texas would
\nensure that ISPs and any other businesses that operate over the Web
\nwould have to relinquish user data if a police officer argues there
\nis probable cause it is pursuant to an investigation.<\/p>\n
\u201cInternet communications companies often hold information and
\ndata vital to prosecute an offense under state law, particularly
\nrelating to Internet crimes. Although the certain electronic
\ncommunications may take place within a state, law enforcement
\nofficers must apply for a local search warrant in an Internet
\ncompany’s jurisdiction, often found out of state<\/i>,\u201d wrote the
\nbill\u2019s author, Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas). \u201cThis
\nlimitation hampers law enforcement\u2019s efforts to obtain evidence on
\nInternet criminals, who are able to remove or change identifying
\ndata much faster than law enforcement can obtain warrants.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n
Sherman, however, thinks the law could be used broadly to bring
\nany sort of online evidence under the magnifying glass of
\nprosecutors, causing a widespread fishing exhibition that will
\nallow law enforcement to essentially request any sort of electronic
\ncommunication of any business that operates online.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe electronic communications at risk include all online
\ncommunication – emails, Facebook messages, tweets and messages on
\nprivate list servers<\/i>,\u201d wrote Sherman. \u201cAdditionally, the bar
\nis set extremely low for police officers to prove that they may
\nfind something important in a person’s online
\ncommunications<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indeed, SB 1052 only asks that probable cause \u201cmust be
\nsupported by the oath or affirmation of the authorized peace
\nofficer<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is almost not a standard at all<\/i>,\u201d insisted Sherman.
\n\u201cWith a bar so low and a reach so broad, such legislation will
\nlead to widespread abuse and exposure of private information, and
\nenable politically motivated \u2018investigations.\u2019 This is government
\noverreach and Texans of all political ideologies should oppose it.
\nIf this bill becomes law, any investigation that can be brought
\ninto the Texas jurisdiction would have all the tools of CISPA, in
\nwhich any private online activity can be easily seized by the
\ngovernment, at its disposal. That is terrible news not only for
\nTexans but for all Americans<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe bill<\/i>,\u201d acknowledged Sen. Carona, \u201creciprocates
\nthe electronic data search warrant process with other states
\nalready implementing similar statutes, which would allow Texas to
\nserve data search warrants directly to out of state companies as
\nwell<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
Later in the text, the bill is described as extending \u201cthe
\njurisdiction of district judges by granting them privileges to
\nissue data search warrants beyond the physical boundaries of the
\nstate for computer data searches only<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n
The House version of the bill \u2013 nearly identical to Sen.
\nCarona\u2019s version \u2013 passed on May 7 with no opposition. Rep. John
\nFrullo (R-Lubbock) co-authored that bill and told lawmakers in the
\ncapital that passing the bill would be instrumental in stopping
\npredators who stalk children online.<\/p>\n
“Under current law<\/i>,” Frullo said, “Texas judges’
\nability to order a search ends at the state line. In our
\ntechnology-driven society, this limitation hampers law
\nenforcement’s efforts to go after the evidence needed to prosecute
\nthose who commit these horrible crimes and exploit our
\nchildren.<\/i>“<\/p>\n
\u201cPredators are hurting, exploiting and assaulting our
\nchildren through the use of the internet. That needs to stop<\/i>,\u201d
\nhe said in a press release earlier this year. After this week\u2019s
\nvote, his colleagues in the Senate will decide if they are willing
\nto join his side \u2013 and at what cost to privacy.<\/p>\n