Photosynthesis » ACLU-VA Privacy Rights’s Portfolio

13 bills are being tracked.

Telecommunications providers; notices of data releases to federal agencies. (HB13)

Patron: Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires telecommunications providers to inform customers when their private information is released to federal agencies.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Electronic communication or remote computing devices; warrant requirement for certain records. (HB17)

Patron: Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)
Status: passed

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before gathering individual data using new technologies. This bill simply applies to cell phones requirements that already apply to the use of GPS tracking by law enforcement.

One person has commented on this bill »

Traffic light signal photo-monitoring; amends provisions related to implementation of systems. (HB116)

Patron: Del. Joe Morrissey (D-Highland Springs)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports repeal of the state statute authorizing the use of photo-monitoring systems for traffic enforcement. Data available now shows that these programs, compared to extended yellow lights, do not actually make us safer. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that, although red-light cameras decrease side-impact collisions by 25 percent, they cause a 15 percent increase in the number of rear-impact crashes. There are also constitutional due process concerns about the use of this technology. Use of the cameras to record traffic infractions require you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the usual constitutional requirement. Moreover, the systems in place make it difficult for most drivers to effectively challenge the tickets in court. Sometimes these systems don’t send out tickets for weeks. The driver may not be able to remember, much less prove, where he/she was four weeks ago. There are also privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of information from these cameras for dragnet surveillance. As is the case will all of the new technologies, whether red-light cameras, drones or license plate readers, the greatest concern is not knowing how the pictures and data collected will be used beyond the initial reason given. In this case, the greatest rationale for continuing to use these cameras is the revenue streams that they are producing for localities and the possible use of the data for purposes other than traffic enforcement and safety.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Electronic devices; search without warrant prohibited. (HB173)

Patron: Del. Peter Farrell (R-Henrico)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before gathering individual data using new technologies.

One person has commented on this bill »

Photo-monitoring; systems to enforce traffic light signals. (HB255)

Patron: Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge)
Status: signed by governor

The ACLU of Virginia supports repeal of the state statute authorizing the use of photo-monitoring systems for traffic enforcement. Data available now shows that these programs, compared to extended yellow lights, do not actually make us safer. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that, although red-light cameras decrease side-impact collisions by 25 percent, they cause a 15 percent increase in the number of rear-impact crashes. There are also constitutional due process concerns about the use of this technology. Use of the cameras to record traffic infractions require you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the usual constitutional requirement. Moreover, the systems in place make it difficult for most drivers to effectively challenge the tickets in court. Sometimes these systems don’t send out tickets for weeks. The driver may not be able to remember, much less prove, where he/she was four weeks ago. There are also privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of information from these cameras for dragnet surveillance. As is the case will all of the new technologies, whether red-light cameras, drones or license plate readers, the greatest concern is not knowing how the pictures and data collected will be used beyond the initial reason given. In this case, the greatest rationale for continuing to use these cameras is the revenue streams that they are producing for localities and the possible use of the data for purposes other than traffic enforcement and safety.

There are 2 comments about this bill »

Traffic light signal photo-monitoring; criminal investigation. (HB446)

Patron: Del. David Bulova (D-Fairfax)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes this bill that would explicitly allow the use of information from photo-red traffic enforcement systems and traffic monitoring cameras, generally, in "criminal investigations." The ACLU believes that a warrant should be required before law enforcement may access or use data and pictures about individuals gathered for other purposes by these and other proliferating technologies. The ACLU of Virginia supports repeal of the state statute authorizing the use of photo-monitoring systems for traffic enforcement. Data available now shows that these programs, compared to extended yellow lights, do not actually make us safer. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that, although red-light cameras decrease side-impact collisions by 25 percent, they cause a 15 percent increase in the number of rear-impact crashes. There are also constitutional due process concerns about the use of this technology. Use of the cameras to record traffic infractions require you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the usual constitutional requirement. Moreover, the systems in place make it difficult for most drivers to effectively challenge the tickets in court. Sometimes these systems don’t send out tickets for weeks. The driver may not be able to remember, much less prove, where he/she was four weeks ago. There are also privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of information from these cameras for dragnet surveillance. As is the case will all of the new technologies, whether red-light cameras, drones or license plate readers, the greatest concern is not knowing how the pictures and data collected will be used beyond the initial reason given. In this case, the greatest rationale for continuing to use these cameras is the revenue streams that they are producing for localities and the possible use of the data for purposes other than traffic enforcement and safety.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Electronic devices; search without warrant prohibited. (HB813)

Patron: Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before gathering individual data using new technologies.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Cellular telephone, etc.; warrant requirement for use as tracking device. (HB814)

Patron: Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants to obtain and use tracking information from cell phones that is individually identifiable.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Telecommunications records; warrant requirement for certain records to be retrieved. (HB817)

Patron: Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond)
Status: incorporated

The ACLU of Virginia supports legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before accessing personal information maintained by telecommunications providers.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Traffic light signal photo-monitoring; system for traffic light enforcement. (HB973)

Patron: Del. Ben Cline (R-Amherst)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports repeal of the state statute authorizing the use of photo-monitoring systems for traffic enforcement. Data available now shows that these programs, compared to extended yellow lights, do not actually make us safer. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that, although red-light cameras decrease side-impact collisions by 25 percent, they cause a 15 percent increase in the number of rear-impact crashes. There are also constitutional due process concerns about the use of this technology. Use of the cameras to record traffic infractions require you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the usual constitutional requirement. Moreover, the systems in place make it difficult for most drivers to effectively challenge the tickets in court. Sometimes these systems don’t send out tickets for weeks. The driver may not be able to remember, much less prove, where he/she was four weeks ago. There are also privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of information from these cameras for dragnet surveillance. As is the case will all of the new technologies, whether red-light cameras, drones or license plate readers, the greatest concern is not knowing how the pictures and data collected will be used beyond the initial reason given. In this case, the greatest rationale for continuing to use these cameras is the revenue streams that they are producing for localities and the possible use of the data for purposes other than traffic enforcement and safety.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Traffic light signal photo-monitoring; use of system, appeals. (HB1040)

Patron: Del. Johnny Joannou (D-Portsmouth)
Status: passed

The ACLU of Virginia supports repeal of the state statute authorizing the use of photo-monitoring systems for traffic enforcement. Data available now shows that these programs, compared to extended yellow lights, do not actually make us safer. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that, although red-light cameras decrease side-impact collisions by 25 percent, they cause a 15 percent increase in the number of rear-impact crashes. There are also constitutional due process concerns about the use of this technology. Use of the cameras to record traffic infractions require you to prove that you are innocent. That is not the usual constitutional requirement. Moreover, the systems in place make it difficult for most drivers to effectively challenge the tickets in court. Sometimes these systems don’t send out tickets for weeks. The driver may not be able to remember, much less prove, where he/she was four weeks ago. There are also privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of information from these cameras for dragnet surveillance. As is the case will all of the new technologies, whether red-light cameras, drones or license plate readers, the greatest concern is not knowing how the pictures and data collected will be used beyond the initial reason given. In this case, the greatest rationale for continuing to use these cameras is the revenue streams that they are producing for localities and the possible use of the data for purposes other than traffic enforcement and safety.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

Federal government's domestic surveillance programs; joint subcommittee to study. (HJ4)

Patron: Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)
Status: failed committee

The ACLU of Virginia supports establishing a joint subcommittee to study the impact on Virginians of federal surveillance programs.

Be the first to comment on this bill »

License plate reader database; Department of State Police to maintain database. (SB452)

Patron: Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston)
Status: in committee

The ACLU of Virginia strongly opposes the mandate that the State Police create and maintain a license plate reader data base at the state's Fusion Center that can be accessed by any law enforcement agency during any "criminal investigation" without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion that individuals whose information will be accessed are or have been involved in any criminal activity. The ACLU of Virginia is pleased that the patron of this bill chose to ask that it be stricken ending consideration of it.

Be the first to comment on this bill »