New York Bill Would Help Protect Privacy, Thwart Some Federal Surveillance

ALBANY, N.Y. (Jan. 20, 2017) – A New York electronic data protection bill would end warrantless collection of cell phone data and ban the use “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. Passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in New York, but would also hinder at least two aspects of the federal surveillance state.

Details

Mississippi Bill Would Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

JACKSON, Miss. (Jan. 18, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Mississippi House would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Mississippi, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

New Hampshire Bills Would Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

CONCORD, N.H. (Jan. 15, 2017) – Two bills introduced in the New Hampshire House would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed laws would not only protect privacy in New Hampshire, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

Oregon Bill Would Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

SALEM, Ore. (Jan. 14, 2017) – A bill filed in the Oregon Senate would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Oregon, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

Connecticut Bill Would Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

HARTFORD, Conn. (Jan. 13, 2017) – A bill filed in the Connecticut House would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Connecticut, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

New Mexico Bill Takes on Stingray Spying, Bulk Warrantless Data Collection; Would Also Hinder Some Federal Surveillance Programs

SANTA FE, N.M. (Jan. 12, 2017) – A electronic data privacy bill introduced in the New Mexico Senate would ban the use “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations and restrict warrantless collection of cell phone data from third parties. Passage of the bill would not only protect privacy in New Mexico, but would also hinder at least two aspects of the federal surveillance state.

Details

Missouri Bill Would Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Jan. 9, 2017) – A bill filed in the Missouri House would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in the Show Me State, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

New Illinois Law Prohibits Warrantless Stingray Spying, Hinders Federal Surveillance Program

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (Jan. 1, 2017) – Today, an Illinois law went into effect banning the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The new law will not only protect privacy in Illinois, but will also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details

South Carolina Bill Would Ban Stingray Spying, Hinder Federal Surveillance Program

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Dec. 19, 2016) – A bill prefiled in the South Carolina House would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications.The proposed law would not only protect privacy in South Carolina, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Details