Brad Daw Facing Pressure on HB150

Tribune:

Rep. Brad Daw is defending his sponsorship of a new law that expands the Attorney General's office ability to demand information on internet and cell phone customers without getting a warrant.
Daw's Republican opponent, Calvin Harper, says delegates in Orem House District 60 need to know about Daw's support of the bill, which Harper says is unconstitutional and ripe for abuse.
"This is America, still," he said. "Do we really want people, no matter who they are, going and checking up on us, getting information from our cell phone providers, our internet providers? ... I'm all about letting the police do their job, but let's play fair. Let's not spy on people, because this is so subject to abuse down the road."
Pete Ashdown, president of the internet service provider XMission and a vocal critic of Daw's HB150, sent a letter to delegates in Daw's district blasting the legislation as an invasion of privacy that violates the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches.
"I wanted the delegates who were planning to re-elect this person fully aware of my point of view on HB150 and why I thought it was unconstitutional," said Ashdown, a Democrat.
On Monday, Daw responded in a letter to delegates that included the endorsement from two top officials with the Attorney General's Internet Crimes Against Children task force and explained why Daw sponsored the legislation.
Daw said his bill balanced the need to enforce the law with an individual's right to privacy.
The new law allows the attorney general's investigators to obtain an administrative subpoena demanding internet providers and cell phone companies turn over customers' addresses, phone numbers, usage information and bank account numbers if law enforcement suspects an individual is using the service in a stalking or child kidnapping case.
Last year, the Legislature gave the attorney general the authority to demand that information in child sexual exploitation cases. Investigators issued about one subpoena a day since gaining the authority.
Daw said without the authority, investigators have to go to a judge or to the U.S. Attorney's office to get a subpoena for the information that "often put abducted children at grave risk," although he did not know of a specific example where that has occurred. He said he was relying on information provided by the attorney general's office.
Daw said he asked Jessica Farnsworth, the section chief for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, for an endorsement and said her colleague, ICAC chief Ken Wallentine offered his, as well. The ICAC is also planning to give Daw an award for his work on the legislation.
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said in an e-mail he supports his employees being involved in political campaigns and they can use their official titles, provided it is clear they do not speak for the attorney general or the office.
"My opponent is making it a major issue," Daw said. "As I talk to most people, there's some who have concerns about privacy, but it's a small handful. But that's OK. I'm happy to explain it to whoever and tell them what I did and why I did it."
Delegates in the Orem district could decide the race at the Utah County convention on Saturday or send both to a primary run-off.

Originally, Daw's bill sought to allow law enforcement to issue the warrant-free subpoenas to investigate any "criminal activity," but it was watered down after lawmakers objected to the breadth of the proposal.
The legislation was opposed by groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union on the left to the Utah Eagle Forum and The Sutherland Institute on the right.

Senator Dayton and Rep Daw Push-Polling

Rolly:

Two Utah County legislators have collaborated on a survey sent to their constituents that raises the concept of push-polling to new heights.
The survey -- at least on a couple of questions -- is worded to get the response obviously favored by lawmakers sending the questionnaire.

Sen. Margaret Dayton and Rep. Brad Daw, both Orem Republicans, sent the 13-question survey to get constituents' views on issues facing the Legislature. Each question is followed by a list of responses constituents can choose from that best fits their views.

But the 13th question, which focuses on the ethics reform petition most legislators hate, does not include a response that allows constituents to say they favor it.
Respondents can check a box if they prefer to have laws made through the legislative process rather than by initiative; if they are aware that the Ethics Commission has no accountability to anyone and has lifetime appointments; if they are dumb enough to sign the 21-page petition without reading it; and if they would prefer laws that create more transparency in lobbyist activities and that would cap campaign contributions. Constituents are reminded such a law would prevent lower income candidates from running for office.

Question 12 is about the initiative to create an independent commission to make recommendations on redistricting. It asks, "As a taxpayer would you prefer to see redistricting done by recommendations by an unelected redistricting commission (most expensive), regional public meetings (fairly expensive) or by legislators who communicate with their local constituents (least expensive)?"

It seems they have already answered that one for you, doesn't it?

HB 139 bad for residents, business

One of my favorite companies around is XMission. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the founder of XMission is US Senate candidate Pete Ashdown.

I have never been a paying customer of XMission. However, I have used their free wireless internet numerous times at the Salt Lake City Library, Gallavan Plaza, and other locations where I have attended political events. XMission provides this access in public places free of charge to taxpayers.

And the thanks they get?

House Bill 139, sponsored by Rep. Bradley M. Daw. (R-Orem)

What does HB139 do?

*makes it a violation of Title 13, Chapter 11, Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, to sell a device capable of wirelessly accessing the Internet without labeling the device to reflect that fact;
*defines terms;
*requires a person maintaining a public wireless network to attempt to restrict access to a minor;
*provides for a civil penalty against a person who does not restrict access to a puublic wireless network if a minor accesses material harmful to minors through that network; and
*provides for enforcement by the Division of Consumer Protection.

If bolded the most glaring part of the bill. It will require the use of either checking a picture ID or a credit card. However, kids can easily get their hands on a Visa gift card that works like a "real" credit card just by waling into a WalMart or Albertsons and buying one.

This is an example of the government getting involved where parents should be involved. If you really think that your child would use a public WiFi point to access porn, than you really need to concentrate on your parenting. Not to mention buying your kid a PSP, iPod Touch or laptop may not be the best idea.

I encourage all of you to email not only your representative, but also the entire House Public Utilities and Technology Committee, where HB 139 currently sits.


Rep. Michael E. Noel, Chair mnoel@kanab.net
Rep. Aaron Tilton, Vice Chair atilton@utah.gov
Rep. Jim Bird jbird@utah.gov
Rep. Melvin R. Brown melbrown@utah.gov
Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck rchouck@utah.gov
Rep. Janice M. Fisher jfisher@utah.gov
Rep. Lynn N. Hemingway lhemingway@utah.gov
Rep. Fred R Hunsaker fhunsaker@utah.gov
Rep. Steven R. Mascaro steven_mascaro@comcast.net
Rep. Kay L. McIff kaymciff@utah.gov
Rep. Bradley A. Winn bwinn@utah.gov

I'll be watching this bill and keeping you up to date on it.

-Bob