Montana passes state law to protect individuals electronic data from Search and Seizure.

[ToolAA]

Personally I think this is a big deal.

Basically Montana voters overwhelmingly supported a change to the state constitution to include “Electronic Data” as part of their “HOME Property” and this protected against unreasonable search or seizure without a warrant. No different than having a printed document in your home safe.

The second article linked goes into more detail about how currently information is collected by federal agencies and openly shared with local law enforcement. Previously information obtained through such surveillance could be admissible in court. Now such information should be inadmissible if obtained without a warrant.

Personally, I think Marylanders should be interested is similar measures. I’ve written my own useless state representative to initiate privacy protection measures in Maryland, but they have gone unanswered. In the past my efforts have been more focused on the collection and sale of personal information by business, and I’ve felt that MD should adopt similar measures as CA where citizens can request and obtain personal information collected by companies doing business in the state, and business would be required to delete such information upon request from a resident. I think the constitutional amendment passed in Montana addresses a different but similarly important privacy protection Initiative.

Anyway, check them out and let me know what you think. Would you like to see similar measures on the Ballot in MD in the future?

Montana passes electronic data privacy ballot measure

Montanans appear to have passed a ballot measure that will make state and local governments obtain a warrant in order to access private electronic data and communications.

www.kxlh.com

HELENA — Montanans appear to have passed a ballot measure that will make state and local governments obtain a warrant in order to access private electronic data and communications.

Unofficial results showed Montana voters overwhelmingly favoring Constitutional Amendment 48 by a margin of 82% to 18% with 339,772 votes counted as of 1:40 a.m. Wednesday.

The measure changes just 11 words in the Montana Constitution, but they’re focused on a big topic: the use of people’s electronic data.

C-48 specifically add “electronic data and communications” in a list of items protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Supporters say that could include emails, chat messages and much more.

Currently, Article II, Section 11 of the state constitution reads:

“The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.”
C-48 would update that language to:

“The people shall be secure in their persons, papers, electronic data and communications, homes, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place, to seize any person or thing, or to access electronic data or communications shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing."
Opponents of the measure said it wasn’t needed since, in most cases, state law already requires a warrant before government entities can get data off an electronic device. However, there are exceptions if the owner consents and in certain emergency situations.

Montana Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment to Treat Electronic Data as “Persons, Houses, Papers and Possessions” | Tenth Amendment Center

Montana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment that elevates the privacy of a person’s electronic communications and data to the same level as “persons, houses, papers and possessions.”

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com

IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE
While a state constitutional amendment only binds state agencies and not the federal government, the amendment will also set the foundation to help protect Montanans from the ever-growing federal surveillance state.
The passage of the amendment sets the foundation to limit state and local surveillance and minimize the amount of personal information collected and stored by state and local governments. By doing so, it will also impact federal surveillance programs that depend on state and local support.
The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through fusion centers and a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[md_rick_o]

Definitely agree this should be nationwide. This is especially important in the digital age. Not sure the idiots in this state would agree though.

 

[systemmaster]

Go look at Richardson v. Maryland from August this year. They are already moving to more scrutiny with cell phones.

Where the Montana law will fall flat is with records from social media, cell phone companies, etc because those records are no longer the property of the individual but are property of the business.

The government spends a pretty penny buying the information people freely provide to private companies who aggregate that info and package it up for government sale.

 

[ToolAA]

Go look at Richardson v. Maryland from August this year. They are already moving to more scrutiny with cell phones.

Where the Montana law will fall flat is with records from social media, cell phone companies, etc because those records are no longer the property of the individual but are property of the business.

The government spends a pretty penny buying the information people freely provide to private companies who aggregate that info and package it up for government sale.

To your point I agree that it is the responsibility of the individual to limit what data they share online. It‘s also why I believe that individuals should be able to easily reauest the deletion of their personal information once they choose to end their business relationship with a company.

 

[systemmaster]

To your point I agree that it is the responsibility of the individual to limit what data they share online. It‘s also why I believe that individuals should be able to easily reauest the deletion of their personal information once they choose to end their business relationship with a company.

That would be nice, however big tech has too much control over the government to let them take money out of their pocket. They can't even reform section 230 let alone do much more.

 

[Doctor_M]

I like it.

 

[Conundrum]

Governor Dutton hard at it.