Opinion | Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century via Proposal 2

Nearly every American owns a cellphone that can track their every movement and store sensitive information. But this convenience doesn’t mean Michiganders give up their expectation of privacy. On Nov. 3, voters have a chance to ensure that our right to privacy in digital matters is respected by law enforcement when they vote on Proposal 2.

This ballot proposal would require law enforcement to acquire a search warrant before accessing a person’s electronic data and communications. This may seem like a commonsense protection of privacy. But, currently, law enforcement is able to access Michiganders’ data — essentially at will.

This issue has been a big deal in Michigan for the better part of a decade. In 2011, as a result of suspected criminal activity in Detroit, the FBI acquired several months’ worth of Timothy Carpenter’s cellphone location records without a warrant. These records revealed more than13,000 locations Carpenter had visited, yet the FBI didn’t even have to ask a judge to get that information.

Skorup and Boyack

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational institute in Midland. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a free-market think tank in Utah.

Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union took on Carpenter’s case, which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2018, the court held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cellphone location records and that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

But here’s the problem: The Supreme Court’s decision only applied to location data. It didn’t apply to the rest of the data that people access every day – financial documents, photos, calendar appointments, and more. Law enforcement can still access this information without a warrant. In fact, law enforcement could conceivably access enough information to put together a profile of virtually every citizen in the state. Location data may be protected, but so much other data that paints an even better picture of a person is still open to access and abuse.

One thing is certain: Americans don’t like the status quo. Approximately 88 percent of Americans say it is important that there isn’t anyone watching or listening to them without their permission. Unfortunately, the law hasn’t caught up.

Other states have taken steps to solve this problem. It started in Missouri in 2014. After the passage of a bill in the state legislature, a remarkable 75 percent of voters added much broader data protections to the state constitution through a referendum.

Last year, Utah followed suit. Lawmakers introduced a bill stating that a government entity may not obtain, use, copy, or disclose any third-party data without first obtaining a warrant — unless the owner has consented or a judicially recognized exception to a warrant exists. After unanimous support from the Utah Legislature, the bill became law.

Now Michigan has a chance to set the standard. In June 2019, Michigan state Sen. Jim Runestad introduced Senate Resolution G, which is similar to the protection enacted in Missouri. After a year in the Michigan Legislature, it passed and has become Michigan Proposal 2: Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment.

Justice Samuel Alito once wrote, “It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future.”

Rather than punt this issue to the slow-moving courts, it’s imperative that state legislatures continue discussing, as well as passing these updated protections for the electronic communications and data of various individuals.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Monica WilliamsClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

JSK
Fri, 10/23/2020 - 9:00am

It sounds like a national problem. If every State makes their own laws it may be not as strong of a law. Why not get it right for all if possible? ACLU could help craft this. Good luck.

Barry Visel
Fri, 10/30/2020 - 6:33pm

The proposal is a good one, but it greatly misses the point. Our personal info should not be collected and saved in the first place, by anyone. Have you ever wondered what legal right credit reporting organizations have any right to our information? Did you know MI sells our info they collect because we have to give it to them to get a drivers license? Privacy is out of control...but does either major party care? Ha!