Posted on 05/25/2013 5:35:14 AM PDT by Altariel
Hey Texans - hope you like 404 messages.
The Texas CISPA-like bill, SB 1052 - is being debated today and may very well pass the Texas Legislature.
The Texas CISPA bill could soon affect the ability of Texas users to access specific websites -- and every website and Internet provider in the country that serves data to Texans will be forced to comply with the law. Call Governor Rick Perry @ 512-463-1782 and tell him to veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.
Supporters of the legislation have shortsightedly attempted to circumvent the national CISPA law by empowering their own law enforcement agents to use search warrants to seize any electronic data/communications "regardless of whether the customer data, contents of communications, or other information is held at a location in this state or at a location in another state." That is - from any websites or Internet service providers "under a contract or a terms of service agreement with a resident of this state." This is extremely broad and encompasses the endless copyright claims all across the Internet that CISPA targeted.
That means that if you are a company in Iowa, or California, or New York, and you have Texas users who visit your site or have accounts, you could be required to turn over their user data, communications with other users, and any other information about the user that you may be storing - and you could be forced to turn it over in as little as 4 days.
The bill states that the maximum amount of time that a site or Internet service provider can delay turning over records is between 15 and 30 days, depending on the court order. The bill also criminalizes any delay by a website or service provider, and lets the local jurisdiction decide whether to file contempt of court charges against a director/owner of a website or service provider who fails to comply within the short window.
What are websites and Internet service providers going to do, in order to prevent themselves from being at the whim of every court and law enforcement agent in Texas? One simple solution: Texans could be blocked from websites that don't want to comply with an extremely broad definition of "electronic communications".
| This bill also sticks its claws deep into the private communication of tens of millions of Americans across the country. Imagine the Facebook conversations of just one person being handed over. Hundreds if not thousands of people could get swept up in the electronic fervor of one local judge. How many people have you tweeted with? How many people have you re-tweeted? What huge data sets will some local judge be sweeping up with this bill? In short, this bill is dangerous both for all Americans' privacy and Internet access for Texans. How will this data be managed to prevent data leaks? Will every tiny courthouse in the state have the data stored on some non-encrypted hard drive? Who by name will ensure that data leaks don't occur? Will there be some big defense contractor that swoops in to help organize the data? One final question remains- will Texas Governor Rick Perry give the rest of the Internet the finger by signing this bill into law? Call Perry's opinion hotline at (512) 463-1782 and ask if Perry will veto the Texas CISPA bill. We don't know exactly how this bill will affect Internet privacy across the country, but the bill was rushed to vote, and Texas has hastily tried to circumvent laws being debated in Congress. Come this time next week, will Rick Perry be the Governor who turned off the Internet for Texas? |
If the information isn't stored, they can't seize it.
Now this legislation might get Libs in an uproar for a change. This legislation can only be setup for one real reason - to punish dissenters and intimidate them into silence; a fear underhanded cowardly backdoor attempt to attack the 1st Amendment. You give them this power and then only the state operated media will feed you your new sand tell the weak minded public what their opinion should be. Not only should this legislation be defeated but the authors of this horrendous bill be investigated to determine what their incentive and intent was and who directed them.
Tried calling the number but it’s on a loop. Office is closed no one to take calls and you can’t leave a message. Wonder if it’s intentional or not.
Danger Will Robinson!
Note source:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/user/Ben%20Sherman
Bio:
Ben Sherman is a proud progressive and has been a BOR staff writer since 2011. A current undergraduate at the University of Texas, Ben has worked as the Communications Coordinator of the Bill White gubernatorial campaign and interned for ThinkProgress.
—
I don’t know about the content of the Bill, but he is no conservative if he promotes ThinkProgress.
And being an UT undergraduate also makes him deeply suspect. UT is the buckle of the Austin leftie conclave in Texas.
ComDem City.
IIRC, it has to do with child porn, and human trafficking.
OK.
Both of those crimes sound like ComDem acceptable behavior.
I was just saying the author is an admitted Progressive. There must be some other reason he opposes the bill.
I have not read the bill, but am applying my auto bias on the author.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to search warrants issued in this state and other states for certain customer data, communications, and other information held in electronic storage in this state and other states by providers of electronic communications services and remote computing services. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Article 18.02, Code of Criminal Procedure, is amended to read as follows: Art. 18.02. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE. (a) A search warrant may be issued to search for and seize: (1) property acquired by theft or in any other manner which makes its acquisition a penal offense; (2) property specially designed, made, or adapted for or commonly used in the commission of an offense; (3) arms and munitions kept or prepared for the purposes of insurrection or riot; (4) weapons prohibited by the Penal Code; (5) gambling devices or equipment, altered gambling equipment, or gambling paraphernalia; (6) obscene materials kept or prepared for commercial distribution or exhibition, subject to the additional rules set forth by law; (7) a drug, controlled substance, immediate precursor, chemical precursor, or other controlled substance property, including an apparatus or paraphernalia kept, prepared, or manufactured in violation of the laws of this state; (8) any property the possession of which is prohibited by law; (9) implements or instruments used in the commission of a crime; (10) property or items, except the personal writings by the accused, constituting evidence of an offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a particular person committed an offense; (11) persons; [or] (12) contraband subject to forfeiture under Chapter 59 of this code; or (13) electronic customer data held in electronic storage or the contents of and records and other information related to a wire communication or electronic communication held in electronic storage. (b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(13), "electronic communication," "electronic storage," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18.20, and "electronic customer data" has the meaning assigned by Article 18.21. end snip
To access electronic storage/web, the authorities are now required to have a search warrant. This section of the penal code clarifies the process and makes clear that much like a search warrant for a physical location, if a web source impedes execution of the search warrant then that person/entity is subject to penalty under law.
I suspect the UT student is into illegal file-sharing.
So...which state will get all those Texas IT jobs?
Who wants to do business in a state that will force you to spend time and money to turn over info... when another state won’t
I think Alabama just won the lottery
watch for offshore internet servers....
As a rule of thumb, there really is no justification for government controlling or monitoring of the Internet that cannot immediately be turned into either a police-state power, abused for political gain, or be used to force ordinary people to pay exorbitant amounts of money for products or services currently free, or just worth a fraction of that amount, from a single provider.
In other words, just say no.
As far as the “child porn and human trafficking” excuse, it is typically used by scoundrels to get what they want. For example, the National Security Agency wanted backdoor access to all civilian encryption, because the ability to hide information from them “would be used by child pornographers!” Even though child porn has nothing to do with National Security, and the NSA typically ignores it when they find it. Not their job.
Thanks for clarification.
I suspected if a UT Progressive was against it, the intent of the law was not what he was saying. ComDem Progressives all lie.
Ahhh...so we shouldn’t object to government overreach if a progressive also happens to object to it?
We can’t object to anything if one progressive objects to it?
Well said.
I have not read the bill.
I do not know the background.
BUT, I am not buying the talking points of some UT Progressive Student puke.
I am certainly not for Government overreach from any direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.