Utah legislature considering administrative subpoenas for subscriber info

[thewayne]

"The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill granting the Attorney General's Office the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (text of the HB150). This represents an expansion of a law passed last year, which granted that ability when 'it is suspected that a child-sex crime has been committed.' Since becoming law, last year's bill has led to more than one non-judicial request per day for subscriber information. Pete Ashdown, owner of a local ISP and 2006 candidate for the US Senate, has discussed his position and the effects of this bill." (emphasis mine)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/025225/Utah-Considers-Warrantless-Internet-Subpoenas?art_pos=5


BUT WON'T PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?! You're going to have to show me some pretty solid data that there's more than one child-sex crime happening per day. They're fishing, and they're using administrative subpoenas to do it. There is no way that judges should be out of the loop on this. I can see an administrative subpoena for an Amber Alert situation, but that subpoena should immediately go to a judge for review as soon as one is available. This sucks.

Comments

[thewayne.livejournal.com]

Criminalization of miscarriages? Wow, I hadn't heard about that!

[silveradept]

Yep. Any "knowing, reckless, or intentional" act resulting a miscarriage could then be used to prosecute a woman. It's basically an attempt to close the way out that someone in Utah took last year to abort, after she couldn't afford it, or something of that nature - by having a friend beat her until she miscarried. The judge found that she had acted in a way that was protected from prosecution. The state legislators were incensed, of course, that someone had managed to have an abortion and they weren't able to stop it or charge the person that helped.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070