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