BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1993
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1993 (Irwin) - As Amended April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|5 - 1 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires an electronic communication service provider
that generates customer data for more than one million general
public customers to provide, by July 1, 2017, a law enforcement
contact, or contacts, for warrants, emergency disclosure
requests, and exclusive access for law enforcement personnel.
By October 1, 2017, and annually thereafter, these services
providers will be required to report to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) information on their law enforcement contact and
AB 1993
Page 2
information to aid in the use of this contact.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown, but probably minor cost to DOJ. There is a small
number of communication service providers that qualify under the
provisions of this bill.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose/Background. According to the author, "Today most
large tech companies, including telecommunications, internet
search, and social media providers, receive hundreds of
thousands of law enforcement requests for data each year
nationally. These results can be broken down into these
categories: subpoenas, orders, warrants, and emergency
requests.
"These requests are intended to produce evidence or aid in
investigations related to violent crimes, credible threats,
organized crime, terrorist activities, search and rescue
situations- or when law enforcement is trying to find a
missing person, among others.
Industry averages show that roughly 75% of requests result in
some data being produced. Given the increasing volume of these
requests, and varying company guidelines and internal
policies, a level of standardization and expectation needs to
be assured.
"AB 1993 addresses this issue by requiring companies that
generate large amounts of consumer data to standardize their
process for receiving and responding to law enforcement
requests for data to meet industry best practices. AB 1993
AB 1993
Page 3
will ensure that in emergency situations the interface between
law enforcement and companies with data relevant to the
situation meets minimum standards of effectiveness."
2)Support. According to the California State Sheriffs'
Association, "Unfortunately, many law enforcement requests for
data go unnoticed because the receiving entities do not have
designated contacts. This can have adverse consequences for
law enforcement and the justice system as a whole because it
creates a missed opportunity to review potentially
incriminating evidence. Consequently, these internal failures
can provide the suspected criminal with an advantageous
limitation on evidence."
3)Opposition. According to the California Cable &
Telecommunications Association, "AB 1993 would empower
the California Attorney General to dictate how CCTA member
companies operate and work with law enforcement in California,
creating a state specific mandate that can only complicate and
impair work with local law enforcement agencies."
4)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 178 (Leno), Chapter 651, Statutes of 2015, prohibits
a government entity from compelling the production of, or
access to, electronic-communication information or
electronic-device information without a search warrant or
wiretap order, except under specified emergency situations.
b) SB 467 (Leno) of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,
would have required a search warrant when a governmental
agency seeks to obtain the contents of a wire or electronic
communication that is stored, held or maintained by a
AB 1993
Page 4
provider of electronic communication services or remote
computing services. SB 467 was vetoed, Governor Brown was
concerned the bill imposed "new notice requirements that go
beyond those required by federal law and could impede
ongoing criminal investigations."
c) SB 1434 (Leno), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session,
would have required a government entity to get a search
warrant in order to obtain the location information of an
electronic device. SB 1434 was vetoed, Governor Brown
stated, "I am not convinced that this bill strikes the
right balance between the operational needs of law
enforcement and individual expectations of privacy."
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081