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