Michigan House Passes Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

“If the federal government continues its mass warrantless surveillance programs, it should get no help carrying them out from the State of Michigan,” Howrylak said. “My bill will certify that the State of Michigan will not assist the federal government in any data collection unless it is 100 percent consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Details

Washington State Bill Would Ban “Material Support” for Warrantless Federal Spying Programs

OLYMPIA, Wash. (Jan. 11, 2018) – A bill introduced in the Washington state House would end state cooperation with warrantless federal spying. Passage of the legislation would not only help protect privacy in Washington, it would help hinder unconstitutional federal surveillance.

Details

Michigan Committee Passes Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 7, 2017) – On Tuesday, a Michigan House committee unanimously passed a bill that would ban “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs. This represents an essential step states need to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end its own spying.

Details

Michigan Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance

LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 29, 2017) – Yesterday, I testified before the Michigan House Committee on Judiciary in support of a bill that would ban “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs, an essential step for states to take in a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end their own spying.

Details

Montana House Passes Bill to Ban Warrantless Collection of Electronic Data

HELENA, Mont. (Feb. 17, 2017) – A Montana bill that would ban warrantless collection of data from an electronic device in most situations unanimously passed the House on Wednesday. Final passage of the legislation would not only increase privacy protections in the state, it would also hinder one practical aspect of federal surveillance programs.

Details