California's new digital privacy act: The Snowden effect?

California passed a new law preventing the government from accessing citizens' digital records without a warrant, becoming the fourth state to do so since Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the government's data collection.

Marco Garcia/AP/File
Edward Snowden appears on a live video feed broadcast from Moscow at an event sponsored by ACLU Hawaii, Feb. 14, 2015. The former National Security Agency worker's leak of classified documents about government surveillance has led to state laws offering stronger protections of citizens' digital privacy.

Digital privacy is ramping up, as California passes a law to prevent the government from collecting the kind of en masse private data revealed in Edward Snowden's data leak. 

California became the fourth US state with law of this type when Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into effect Thursday. 

The law includes anything stored in an email, digital document, or text message, as well as location information, the LA Times reported. The bill's sponsors chose these types of communications based on the high-volume data requests that Verizon, Twitter, and AT&T received in 2014. 

Privacy watchdogs hail the bill, known as CalECPA, as a victory for the Fourth Amendment in the digital world.

"It will require that law enforcement get a warrant before poking around in our digital records," wrote the California-based advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.  "If the cops want to search your desk for letters and files, they need a warrant.  But who relies on paper files and letters these days?"

The group described the federal Electronic Communications Act as "outdated" because it allows the government to collect location and call information from phones, as well as view emails that have been stored on a server for more than 180 days. 

Many have pointed to the impact of Edward Snowden's revelations on international law, including the recent Safe Harbor judicial decision that complicated data-sharing across the Atlantic, as the Economist writes:

As the trickle of data crossing the Atlantic built into a tsunami, worries in Europe grew. But it took leaks by Edward Snowden, a contractor for America’s National Security Agency (NSA), showing widespread snooping to nudge the commission into a serious attempt at renegotiation.

Edward Snowden pointed several to legislative and judicial actions sparked by his risky reveal of US government surveillance, in June op-ed in the New York Times.

"Ending the mass surveillance of private phone calls under the Patriot Act is a historic victory for the rights of every citizen," he wrote. "This is the power of an informed public."

California is only the latest example of a state taking action to protect its citizens' privacy. Utah, Texas and Maine each have a privacy law like the one California just passed. Utah's law passed almost unanimously in March 2014 and prevents data collected without a warrant from being used in a criminal case, even if the federal government collected it. 

The laws in Maine and Texas, passed in 2013, require the government to get a warrant to search digital data like the new California law, the Electronic Freedom Foundation said in a release. 

With states as politically diverse as California, Utah, Texas, and Maine "taking affirmative steps to bring search warrant requirements to sensitive electronic data, Congress should see that privacy legislation is bipartisan and feasible," wrote EFF's Hanni Fakhoury. "Will Congress follow?"

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.