Tagged: law and technology


How CalECPA Improves on its Federal Namesake

Last week, Governor Brown signed the landmark California Electronic Communications Privacy Act[1] (CalECPA) into law and updated California privacy law for modern communications. Compared to ECPA, CalECPA requires warrants, which are more restricted, for more investigations; provides more notice to targets; and furnishes as a remedy both court-ordered data deletion and statutory suppression.  Moreover, CalECPA’s approach is comprehensive and uniform, eschewing the often irrational distinctions that have made ECPA one of the most confusing and under-protective privacy statutes in the Internet era.

Extended Scope, Enhanced Protections, and Simplified Provisions

CalECPA regulates investigative methods that ECPA did not anticipate. Under CalECPA, government entities in California must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before they may access electronic communications contents and metadata from service providers or from devices.  ECPA makes no mention of device-stored data, even though law enforcement agents increasingly use StingRays to obtain information directly from cell phones. CalECPA subjects such techniques to its warrant requirement. While the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Riley required that agents either obtain a warrant or rely on an exception to the warrant requirement to search a cell phone incident to arrest, CalECPA requires a warrant for physical access to any device, not just a cell phone, which “stores, generates, or transmits electronic information in electronic form.” CalECPA clearly defines the exceptions to the warrant requirement by specifying what counts as an emergency, who can give consent to the search of a device, and related questions.

ECPA’s 1986-drafted text only arguably covers the compelled disclosure of location data stored by a service provider, and does not clearly require a warrant for such investigations. CalECPA explicitly includes location data in the “electronic communication information” that is subject to the warrant requirement when a government entity accesses it from either a device or a service provider (broadly defined).  ECPA makes no mention of location data gathered in real-time or prospectively, but CalECPA requires a warrant both for those investigations and for stored data investigations. Whenever a government entity compels the “the production of or access to” location information, including GPS data, from a service provider or from a device, CalECPA requires a warrant.

Read More


On Reverse Engineering Privacy Law

Michael Birnhack, a professor at Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, is one of the leading thinkers about privacy and data protection today (for some of his previous work see here and here and here; he’s also written a deep, thoughtful, innovative book in Hebrew about the theory of privacy. See here). In a new article, Reverse Engineering Informational Privacy Law, which is about to be published in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Birnhack sets out to unearth the technological underpinnings of the EU Data Protection Directive (DPD). The DPD, enacted in 1995 and currently undergoing a process of thorough review, is surely the most influential legal instrument concerning data privacy all over the world. It has been heralded by proponents as “technology neutral” – a recipe for longevity in a world marked by rapid technological change. Alas, Birnhack unveils the highly technology-specific fundamentals of the DPD, thereby putting into doubt its continued relevance.


The first part of Birnhack’s article analyzes what technological neutrality of a legal framework means and why it’s a sought after trait. He posits that the idea behind it is simple: “the law should not name, specify or describe a particular technology, but rather speak in broader terms that can encompass more than one technology and hopefully, would cover future technologies that are not yet known at the time of legislation.” One big advantage is flexibility (the law can apply to a broad, continuously shifting set of technologies); consider the continued viability of the tech-neutral Fourth Amendment versus the obviously archaic nature of the tech-specific ECPA . Another advantage is the promotion of innovation; tech-specific legislation can lock-in a specific technology thereby stifling innovation.


Birnhack continues by creating a typology of tech-related legislation. He examines factors such as whether the law regulates technology as a means or as an end; whether it actively promotes, passively permits or directly restricts technology; at which level of abstraction it relates to technology; and who is put in charge of regulation. Throughout the discussion, Birnhack’s broad, rich expertise in everything law and technology is evident; his examples range from copyright and patent law to nuclear non-proliferation.

Read More