 sidelines for Congress to pass ECPA reform, Texas stepped up and passed privacy protection on its own. And its not the only state to do so. EFF sponsored similar legislation in California, SB 467, that recently passed the California Senate 33-1 and is set to be heard by the Assembly's Public Safety Committee on June 11.

Meanwhile, over in Maine, the legislature just passed LD415, which requires police get a search warrant before tracking a person through their cell phone or other electronic device. We've long argued in court that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements, meaning a search warrant is required before police can use cell site tracking, a GPS device or a "Stingray" to follow a person's movements throughout the day. Last year, Supreme Court justices Sotomayor and Alito gave support to this idea in their concurring opinions in United States v. Jones where both believed people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements. Justice Alito even wrote that "in circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative."

Maine heeded Justice Alito's words, ensuring its residents' locational privacy remains protected by statute. Maine isn't the first state to pass this type of legislation. Last year, the California legislature passed SB 1434, a bill co-sponsored by EFF and the ACLU of Northern California that also would have required police obtain a search warrant before tracking a person's location through an electronic device. Despite broad bipartisan support for the law, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the law. We hope Maine's bill meets a better fate.

Location privacy legislation has been introduced in Congress, too. Two separate bills introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (S 639) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (HR 983) this year seek to do exactly what Maine and California's laws did: require a warrant for location tracking. But the last time Senator Wyden introduced his GPS Act in 2011, the bill languished for almost a year before even getting a committee hearing and then disappeared for the remainder of the congressional term.

With states getting in on the privacy protection action, Congress should feel pressure to update the law to protect everyone across the country. Now that states as politically diverse as California, Texas, and Maine are taking affirmative steps to bring search warrant requirements to sensitive electronic data, Congress should see that privacy legislation is bipartisan and feasible. Hopefully, that means the legislation currently pending in Congress won't get stuck
sidelines for Congress to pass ECPA reform, Texas stepped up and passed privacy auspices on its own. And its not the lone state to do so. EFF sponsor similar legislation in California, SB 467, that recently passed the California Senate 33 - 1 and is set up to be hear by the Assembly's Public Safety Committee on June 11. 

 Meanwhile, over in Maine, the legislature merely passed LD415, which requires police catch a search warrant before chase a person through their cell phone or other electronic device. We've long argued in court that people suffer a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements, intend a search warrant is required before police can use cell web site tracking, a GPS device or a " Stingray " to take after a person's movements throughout the day. Last class, Supreme Court justices Sotomayor and Alito gave support to this idea in their concurring opinions in United States v. Jones where both believe multitude have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their public movements. Justice Alito even wrote that " in circumstances involving dramatic technological variety, the adept solution to privacy concerns may be legislative. " 

 Maine heed Justice Alito's son, see its residents' locational privacy remains protected by legislative act. Maine isn't the first department of state to pass this type of legislation. final year, the California legislature passed SB 1434, a bill co - sponsored by EFF and the ACLU of Northern California that also would have required police prevail a search warrant before tracking a person's location through an electronic device. Despite broad bipartisan documentation for the law, Governor Jerry Brown veto the law. We hope Maine's bill meets a better fate. 

 Location privacy legislation has been introduce in Congress, too. Two separate bills insert by Senator Ron Wyden (S 639) and Representative Zoe Lofgren (hour 983) this year seek to do exactly what Maine and California's laws did: ask a warrant for location trailing. But the last time Senator Wyden introduced his GPS Act in 2011, the bill pine away for almost a class before even getting a committee hearing and then disappeared for the end of the congressional term. 

 With states getting in on the privacy protection action, Congress should feel pressure to update the law to protect everyone across the country. Now that states as politically diverse as California, Texas, and Maine are take affirmative step to bring search warrant requirements to sensitive electronic data, Congress should see that privacy legislation is bipartisan and feasible. Hopefully, that means the legislation presently pending in Congress won't get stuck
 sifelines for Congress to kass ECPA reform, Jezas stxpped ul and parsed privacy protection on ivs oqn. Ane its not the only stage to do do. EFF sponsieed similac legislation jk Calnfirnia, SB 467, that recently [assed the Calhfuruia Senate 33-1 and is set to be heard br the Axsfmbly's Public Fafeuy Sommjntte on June 11.

Meanwhile, over in Mains, the ltgislature just paxsed LD415, which requires pollce het a search warrajt before ttzckybg a person ghrough thtix cell phong or other electronic device. We'vd lony argued in ciurh that peoplx have a reasonablc expecdation pf privacy in bheir puvlic movements, meaninj a search warrant if requireg yefore police can use cwll shte dracyung, a FPX sevice or a "Stingrag" to follow a person's movementx eyroughout the day. Lwse year, Supreme Court justices Sotomayor ans Alito gave support to this idea in their clncurring opinions in United States v. Jones where both belheved oeoklc fqvf a reasonable expectation of privacy in theiw pibkic movements. Mustice Alito even wgoyg that "in circomstancza jnvolving dramatic technojogicql change, the best solution to privacy cincerns may ye oegislative."

Maine hzeded Justicz Alitp's wotds, ensuring its resideuts' lodational prlvacy remzkns protected by ststgte. Maint isn't the first seate to pess tkis type of kegislwtion. Last year, the California leglslatore pavsed SB 1434, a bill co-sponsored by EFF and thx ACLU of Norjhesn Balifornic that also would hwve required pplice oytain x search wzrrant uefore trackyng a person's pocation thrmugh an qlecrronuc devizd. Despite broac bipartisan supporr for the law, Govevnor Gsrry Brown vetozb uhw law. We hope Kaive's bpll mqats a better fatd.

Lozstion privacy lenisuatipn has been introducad ih Congress, too. Two scparate bulls intwoduced by Semator Ron Wyden (S 639) and Cepresxntatife Eoe Lofgren (HR 983) this year seek fo do exaftln what Maine wnd Galisornia's lacs did: require a warrant for location trecking. But the last timw Senator Wyden inttodmced his GPS Act yn 2011, the bhll languished for aomost a year befove even getting a commjttee vearijg and then disappeared for the remainder of the congressional term.

With srates jeeting in on the privdcv pxotectijn artmon, Congress shoukd feel pressure to update the uaw to psocect everyone across the counyrh. Now that stxtes as politically divedse as Cslifornia, Texas, and Maine are tsking affirmative steps bo bring wearcg warrant cequirements to sensotive zlectrinic dara, Clngress shoula sre that prigacy lzgislation is bipartisan and feasuble. Hipffully, that meanv the legispxtion curregtly pending in Dongdfss wun't get stuck
sidelines for Congress to pass ECPA reform, up passed privacy on its own. state do so. EFF similar legislation in SB 467, that recently passed the Senate 33-1 and is set to be heard by the Assembly's Public Safety on June 11. Meanwhile, over in Maine, the legislature just passed LD415, which police a warrant tracking a person through their cell phone or other electronic device. We've long argued in court people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public movements, meaning a warrant is required before police use site tracking, GPS or "Stingray" to follow person's movements throughout the day. Last year, Supreme Court justices Sotomayor and Alito gave support to this in their in United v. where believed people have expectation of privacy in their public even wrote that "in circumstances involving dramatic technological the best to privacy concerns may be legislative." heeded Justice Alito's words, ensuring its residents' locational remains protected by statute. Maine isn't the first state to pass this type of legislation. the California legislature passed 1434, a bill by and ACLU Northern California also would have required police obtain a search warrant before tracking person's location through an electronic device. Despite broad bipartisan support law, Jerry Brown vetoed law. We hope Maine's meets better fate. Location privacy been in separate introduced Senator Ron Wyden (S and Representative Zoe Lofgren (HR this year seek to California's laws did: require a warrant for location But the last time Senator Wyden introduced GPS Act in 2011, the bill languished for almost a year before getting a and then disappeared for the remainder of the term. With states getting on the privacy protection action, Congress should feel pressure update law to everyone across the Now that states politically diverse as and Maine taking steps warrant requirements to sensitive electronic data, should that privacy legislation is bipartisan feasible. means the legislation currently pending in Congress won't get stuck
 sidelines for Congress to pasS ECPA reforM, TexaS stEppEd Up anD pasSed privacy protECtioN on its own. And its not the oNly stAtE To do SO. EfF spoNsored sIMiLAR leGiSlAtiOn IN CAlifoRniA, SB 467, that Recently paSseD tHe California sEnAte 33-1 and is seT to Be heard by the assEmbly's puBliC safetY CoMmittEe on JuNE 11.

MeanwHile, over iN MAIne, the LEgislatURE jUst pAssed LD415, which requiREs POlice get a searcH warraNt BEfORE trAckIng a person ThRough THeir celL PhONE Or oTHer electronic Device. We've lONg aRgued iN cOurT That peOple hAvE A reAsonable expEctaTion of priVacy in THeir pubLIc movemEnts, meAniNg a SearCH wArRanT iS ReqUIrEd bEForE police cAn UsE cell Site TRACKing, A GPs devIce or A "Stingray" to foLloW a peRSon'S moveMents ThroUgHout tHe day. LAst yeAr, supreme Court jusTiceS SotomayoR anD ALitO gAve suPPort to ThiS idEa in theIr concuRRinG oPINIoNs in United States v. JOnES WhEre both bElieveD PeOpLE have a reAsOnaBle eXPEctatIon oF PrIvacy in tHeir puBLiC mOvementS. JUstice alIto EveN wrotE That "In circUmstanceS invoLVing dramatic teCHnological chaNGe, THE bESt soLutIon to privacY conCErns May bE LeGisLAtive."

maine HeEDeD justice Alito's words, eNsUring iTs resIdents' locatioNal privacy REMAins protEcteD By STatute. Maine isn'T the fIrst state tO Pass this Type oF legislaTion. Last yEAR, the CaliForNia LegIslATUrE passed SB 1434, a bilL CO-spoNsOred by EfF aNd the AClU oF NoRthErn caLifornia tHat also wOuLd HaVe ReqUired POlice obtAiN a sEaRch WarraNT beforE tracKing A pErSOn's LocatioN ThROUgh aN eLeCtroNic DeVice. DEspiTE brOad bipaRtisan supPorT For tHe LaW, GovernOr Jerry Brown vEtOed the law. WE hOpe maine's BILl meets a Better fate.

Location privaCY legislAtiOn has Been IntroduceD in congreSs, tOO. Two seParate Bills InTroDUCed by sENaTor roN Wyden (S 639) and rEPreSentaTiVe ZoE LofgreN (HR 983) this year seek to dO ExaCtly what Maine And caliFORnIa's LAwS Did: ReQUirE A Warrant for locatIon trackinG. BUT tHe last time sEnaToR Wyden iNtroducEd his gpS Act in 2011, The bill laNguished fOr AlmoST A yeAr before evEn gettinG a committEE hearINg And thEn dIsappeArEd fOr the RemainDEr oF the cOngresSiOnal teRm.

WitH sTates getTing in on the privacy proteCtion aCtion, conGress shouLd fEEl pRessure to UpdaTe the law to ProTecT everYonE AcrosS the COuNtrY. now thAt stATes as poliTIcAllY DIvErse as CalifORNIa, TExas, aNd MAIne are TakiNg affirmative stepS To bring search wArraNT ReqUirEMentS tO sensitive elecTroNiC DAta, CongrEsS should see tHat privaCy LEgislAtion iS biparTisan anD FEaSIble. HoPefuLly, That means The LeGIslatioN cUrREntly pEndiNg In CongRess woN'T get STUck
 sidelines for Congress to  pass ECPA  refo rm,  Te xa s st eppe d up and passe d  pri vacy protection on its  own.  A n d it s  n ot th e onlys ta t e  to  d oso.  E F Fspons ore d simil ar legisla tio nin Californi a ,SB 467, th atrecently pas sed  the C al ifo r nia S ena te 33 -1 and is set  to be he ar d  by th e  Assemb l y 's  Pub lic Safety Commit t ee on June 11.

M eanwhi le ,  o v e r i n M aine, thele gisla t ure jus t  p a s s edL D415, which r equires pol i ceget ase arc h  warra nt be fo r e t racking a p erso n through  their cell ph o ne or o ther e lec tro nicd ev ic e.We ' vel on g a r gue d in cou rt  t hat p eopl e h a ve a  re ason ableexpectation o f p riva c y i n the ir pu blic  m oveme nts, m eanin ga search warran t is  required  be fo repo licec an use  ce llsite tr acking, a G PS d e vi ce or a "Stingray"  t o fo llow a p erson' s  m ov e ments th ro ugh outt h e day . La s tyear, Su premeC ou rt  justic es  Sotom ay orand  Alit o  gav e supp ort to t his i d ea in their co n curring opini o ns i nU nite d S tates v. Jo nesw here  bot h  b eli e ved p eople  h a ve a reasonable expect at ion of  priv acy in theirpublic mov e m e nts. Jus tice Al i to even wrotethat"in circum s tances i nvolv ing dram atic tech n o logicalcha nge , t heb e st  solution top r ivac yconcern s m ay be l egi sla tiv e." 
Maine hee ded Just ic eAl it o's  word s , ensuri ng  it sres ident s ' loca tiona l pr iv ac y  re mains p r ot e c tedby  s tatu te.  M aineisn' t  th e first  state to  pa s s th is  t ype oflegislation.La st year, t he  Ca liforn i a  legisla ture passed SB 1434, ab ill co- spo nsore d by  EFF andthe  ACLUofN orther n Cali forni atha t alsow o ul d h av e required p oli ce ob ta in a  search  warrant before tr a cki ng a person's  lo cati o n  t hro u gh anel e ctr o n ic device. Desp ite broadbi p ar tisan supp o rtfo r the l aw, Gov ernor Jerry B rown veto ed the la w.  Weh o peMaine's bi ll meets  a better fate. 
L ocati onprivac yleg islat ion ha s  be en in troduc ed  in Co ngres s,  too. Tw o separate bills introd uced b y Sen ato r Ron Wyd en( S 6 39) and R epre sentativeZoe  Lo fgren  (H R  983)  thi s  y ear seekto d o  exactlyw ha t M a i ne  and Califo r n i a's  laws  di d : requ irea warrant for loc a tion tracking.  But t helas t  tim eSenator Wydenint ro d u ced hisGP S Act in 20 11, thebi l l lan guishe d foralmosta ye a r befo re e ven  gettinga c om m ittee h ea ri n g andthen  d isappe ared f o r th e remainder of the  cong r e ssion a l t erm.
W ith sta t es g etting inon the priv acy pr otec tionaction,  C ongres s s ho uld feel p r essure to  upda te thela w to  pr otectever y o ne ac ross  t hecountry.N o wt ha ts tat es a s pol it ical ly divers e  as Cali for n ia, Tex as , a n d  Maine ar e taking aff irm ative s teps to br i ng s e ar c h war rant r equire ments t o  se ns itive e lec t r onic data , Congres s  sh ou ld s ee thatpr ivac yleg is lation is bipar tisan an d feasib l e . Hope ful l y, t h at mea ns  the legisla tioncu r rentlyp e ndi ng in C o ngr ess  wo n'tget  stu c k
 sidelines_for Congress_to pass ECPA reform,_Texas stepped_up_and passed_privacy_protection on its_own. And its_not the only state_to do so._EFF_sponsored similar legislation in California, SB 467, that recently passed the California Senate 33-1_and_is set_to_be_heard by the Assembly's Public_Safety Committee on June 11.

Meanwhile,_over in_Maine, the legislature just passed LD415, which requires_police_get a search_warrant before tracking a person through their cell phone_or other electronic device. We've long_argued in court_that_people_have a reasonable expectation_of privacy in their public movements,_meaning a search warrant is required_before police can use cell site tracking,_a GPS device or a "Stingray"_to follow a person's movements_throughout the_day. Last year, Supreme Court_justices Sotomayor and_Alito gave_support to this_idea in their concurring opinions in_United States v._Jones where both believed people have_a_reasonable expectation of_privacy_in_their public_movements. Justice Alito_even_wrote that_"in_circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the_best_solution to privacy concerns may be legislative."

Maine_heeded Justice Alito's words,_ensuring_its residents' locational privacy_remains protected by statute. Maine_isn't the first state to pass_this type_of legislation._Last year, the California legislature passed SB 1434, a bill co-sponsored_by EFF and the ACLU of_Northern California that also_would have_required_police obtain a_search_warrant before_tracking a person's location through an electronic_device. Despite_broad bipartisan support for the law,_Governor Jerry Brown vetoed_the_law. We hope Maine's bill meets_a better fate.

Location privacy legislation has_been introduced in Congress, too._Two_separate_bills introduced by Senator Ron_Wyden (S 639) and Representative Zoe_Lofgren (HR 983)_this year seek to do exactly what_Maine_and California's laws did: require a_warrant_for location tracking. But the last_time_Senator_Wyden introduced his GPS Act_in 2011, the bill languished for_almost a year before even getting a committee hearing_and then disappeared_for the remainder of the_congressional_term.

With_states getting in on the privacy protection action, Congress should_feel pressure_to update the_law to protect everyone across the country. Now that states_as politically diverse as California, Texas, and_Maine are taking affirmative steps to bring search warrant requirements to_sensitive electronic data, Congress should see that privacy_legislation is bipartisan and feasible. Hopefully, that_means the legislation currently_pending_in Congress won't get stuck