California bars tech companies from complying with other states’ abortion-related warrants

[BlueTex]

California just made it harder for states that prohibit abortion to use social media evidence.

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search warrants, unless those warrants are accompanied by a statement that the evidence sought isn’t connected to an abortion investigation.

The prohibition also bars companies in the state from complying with out-of-state law enforcement requests related to abortion, including subpoenas and wiretaps.

California bars tech companies from complying with other states’ abortion-related warrants

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search…

www.mercurynews.com

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's a shame that he/they had to take action to prevent women from being tracked down by the right.

 

[Mycroft]

California just made it harder for states that prohibit abortion to use social media evidence.

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search warrants, unless those warrants are accompanied by a statement that the evidence sought isn’t connected to an abortion investigation.

The prohibition also bars companies in the state from complying with out-of-state law enforcement requests related to abortion, including subpoenas and wiretaps.

California bars tech companies from complying with other states’ abortion-related warrants

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search…

www.mercurynews.com

Why make it about abortion? Why not make the law apply to ANY out of state law enforcement requests?

 

[BlueTex]

Why make it about abortion? Why not make the law apply to ANY out of state law enforcement requests?

Why not? Does it piss you off that they made it just about abortion?

 

[Mycroft]

Why not?

Why make distinctions? What's so special about abortion?

Does it piss you off that they made it just about abortion?

Nah...doesn't piss me off. Only government corruption pisses me off.

 

[BlueTex]

Why make distinctions? What's so special about abortion?


Nah...doesn't piss me off. Only government corruption pisses me off.

They don't want California companies to participate in the prosecution of women seeking abortion services.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why make it about abortion? Why not make the law apply to ANY out of state law enforcement requests?

How does that make any sense? California is banning cooperation where the charge is not applicable in CA ... which may not even be legal due to "full faith and credit" but we'll see. They could extend that to marijuana investigations, imo, but there's no reason to extend it to investigations of fraud or murder which remain illegal in CA.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why make distinctions? What's so special about abortion?

It's legal in CA. Not everything is, obviously.

 

[LostInSeattle]

I don't understand how one state can bar a company from complying with a legal warrant from another state, per Article IV Section1 as post #7 noted.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

California just made it harder for states that prohibit abortion to use social media evidence.

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search warrants, unless those warrants are accompanied by a statement that the evidence sought isn’t connected to an abortion investigation.

The prohibition also bars companies in the state from complying with out-of-state law enforcement requests related to abortion, including subpoenas and wiretaps.

California bars tech companies from complying with other states’ abortion-related warrants

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search…

www.mercurynews.com

It's like some dystopian Sci-Fi movie where the government is hunting folks just for living. Shades of Logan's run.

 

[BlueTex]

I don't understand how one state can bar a company from complying with a legal warrant from another state, per Article IV Section1 as post #7 noted.

You should read the article..

 

[Athanasius68]

The states that are banning abortion, or restricting them to the legal standards generally seen n Europe, are not prosecuting the women who seek out abortions.

It's just scare tactics by Newsom that progressives have fallen for.

 

[LostInSeattle]

You should read the article..

Just did. First time I clicked the link it appeared to be paywalled. Tried again and succeeded. Weird.

Anyway, it seems to hinge on the "choice of law" clause, but according to Wikipedia that applies to torts and common law issues, not criminal statutes. I don't know whether that makes a difference.

 

[ElChupacabra]

They don't want California companies to participate in the prosecution of women seeking abortion services.

What will be interesting to see is what happens to decisions businesses make in terms of where they locate. I can't imagine companies being too keen on having to be caught in the middle of this kind of battle when it isn't one they want to be in.

 

[snakestretcher]

Why make distinctions? What's so special about abortion?


Nah...doesn't piss me off. Only government corruption pisses me off.

If you really need to be told I suggest you speak to a few women for an explanation of why abortion is 'special'. Or remain ignorant.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I don't understand how one state can bar a company from complying with a legal warrant from another state, per Article IV Section1 as post #7 noted.

It's a jurisdictional issue. Other states do not have the right to mandate what people or business' do outside their jursidiction.

This is also a case of California telling red states to "suck it".

 

[LostInSeattle]

It's a jurisdictional issue. Other states do not have the right to mandate what people or business' do outside their jursidiction.

But if a company HQed in state "X" does business with people in state "Y", then don't those specific business activities come under state "Y"'s jurisdiction?

This is also a case of California telling red states to "suck it".

It's an interesting analog to Texas' new law regarding censorship by social media firms.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

But if a company HQed in state "X" does business with people in state "Y", then don't those specific business activities come under state "Y"'s jurisdiction?

Even if the company is HQed in state "X" and has offices in state "y", the legal issues for the company will default to state "x" and be handled on the laws of state "x" in most matters. Labor issues being the primary exception to this.

It's an interesting analog to Texas' new law regarding censorship by social media firms.

That law is not going to fly because it's a 1st Amendment violation and will get squashed. In the meantime, Texas has no legal authority to force its draconian reich wing laws on companies based outside of their state.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Even if the company is HQed in state "X" and has offices in state "y", the legal issues for the company will default to state "x" and be handled on the laws of state "x" in most matters. Labor issues being the primary exception to this.

But if this concerns a criminal investigation and not the civil actions covered by the choice of law clause? I honestly don't know.

That law is not going to fly because it's a 1st Amendment violation and will get squashed. In the meantime, Texas has no legal authority to force its draconian reich wing laws on companies based outside of their state.

We'll see. It's already been upheld on appeal by the 5th Circuit. It seems quite likely to go to the SCOTUS and it's not clear at all to me how that court might rule. This isn't a question that breaks down obviously along ideological lines.

We're in a new era where the old paradigms don't work. Are internet companies to be considered common carriers, like telecom was? If we allow censorship by those companies, how is it overseen, if at all?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

But if this concerns a criminal investigation and not the civil actions covered by the choice of law clause? I honestly don't know.

This is a complex issue and it depends on the issue at hand as well as where the "alleged" offense occurs. In terms of one state seeking data or information from a company based out of state, wherein the information sought is stored out of state, then the state where the company is based would have jurisdiction. In any event, the state in question could serve a subpoena and the company, on whom it was served, can then contest it and filed to have it quashed.

In the current times, this will likely be requests by states trying to charge women who leave state to get an abortion with homicide or other crimes. If the woman in question is outside the state seeking to charge her, the state in which that woman goes to for an abortion, can refuse to provide information on her whereabouts; likewise the current state can refuse to participate in extradition if the accused. This would then likely become a federal issue and I do not believe the federal system is going to send a woman home to be charged with crime in one jurisdiction for doing something that is completely legal in the jursidiction where she was when she did it.

We'll see. It's already been upheld on appeal by the 5th Circuit. It seems quite likely to go to the SCOTUS and it's not clear at all to me how that court might rule. This isn't a question that breaks down obviously along ideological lines.

We're in a new era where the old paradigms don't work. Are internet companies to be considered common carriers, like telecom was? If we allow censorship by those companies, how is it overseen, if at all?

 

[The AntiDonald]

The states that are banning abortion, or restricting them to the legal standards generally seen n Europe, are not prosecuting the women who seek out abortions.

It's just scare tactics by Newsom that progressives have fallen for.

This is America. What in the hell does Europe have to do with anything? Newson is doing nothing more than fighting fire with fire. Republicans want to impose their will on American women when the overwhelming majority of all citizens are against it. Screw all republicans who think that way. They are a bunch of assholes.

 

[PirateMk1]

California just made it harder for states that prohibit abortion to use social media evidence.

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search warrants, unless those warrants are accompanied by a statement that the evidence sought isn’t connected to an abortion investigation.

The prohibition also bars companies in the state from complying with out-of-state law enforcement requests related to abortion, including subpoenas and wiretaps.

California bars tech companies from complying with other states’ abortion-related warrants

A new law signed Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom forbids California-based businesses from giving up geolocation data, search histories and other personal information in response to out-of-state search…

www.mercurynews.com

Well that will be a double edged sword.

 

[Athanasius68]

This is America. What in the hell does Europe have to do with anything? Newson is doing nothing more than fighting fire with fire. Republicans want to impose their will on American women when the overwhelming majority of all citizens are against it. Screw all republicans who think that way. They are a bunch of assholes.

Since states aren't prosecuting women who seek abortion, there is no fire to fight.
Newsom is just throwing some red meat to you guys.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Since states aren't prosecuting women who seek abortion, there is no fire to fight.
Newsom is just throwing some red meat to you guys.

Several states, including Texas, have been working on laws that do exactly this.

 

[Athanasius68]

Several states, including Texas, have been working on laws that do exactly this.

there have been proposals that have gone nowhere.