Prohibits the use of tracking device to track the location or movement of a person without that person's consent. (8/15/10) (OR SEE FISC NOTE GF RV)
The bill amends existing statutes by defining 'tracking devices' and outlining their lawful use. Exceptions are provided for certain scenarios, such as law enforcement activities conducted under a valid court order, consent from vehicle owners, and specific legal relationships between guardians and their wards. By instituting these regulations, SB399 aims to protect individual privacy rights and sets a legislative precedent for managing emerging tracking technologies. This can potentially lead to significant changes in how businesses and individuals approach consent in tracking practices.
Senate Bill 399, known as the 'Personal Location Privacy Protection Act,' introduces specific regulations regarding the use of tracking devices to monitor the location or movement of individuals. This bill prohibits any use of such devices without the explicit consent of the person being tracked, establishing new legal standards in the context of personal privacy rights. The objective is to safeguard individuals' autonomy from unauthorized surveillance while balancing law enforcement needs.
The reception of SB399 appears to be generally supportive given its focus on protecting individual privacy, an increasingly pertinent issue in the age of advanced technology. Advocates for civil liberties and privacy rights often champion such legislation, viewing it as a necessary measure against undue surveillance. Conversely, there may be concerns regarding the limitations this law places on law enforcement and security operations, highlighting a common tension between privacy and security in legislative discourse.
Notable points of contention surrounding SB399 may arise from the outlined exceptions that permit tracking with consent or under specific legal conditions. Critics may argue that these exceptions can lead to potential loopholes that undermine the bill's primary intention of ensuring personal privacy. The necessity for exceptions—particularly those pertaining to law enforcement—may fuel debates regarding the appropriate balancing of public safety and individual rights.