Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Privacy bill would tighten rules on sharing driver and device location to block use by immigration enforcement
Summary
House Bill 711 would strengthen Maryland privacy law to protect geolocation data from phones and vehicles, limit redisclosure of driver records for immigration enforcement, and require procedures for custodians; supporters cited ICE access to commercial data and urged clarifications to allow compliance with judicial warrants. Opponents warned of custodial burdens and asked for a knowledge standard.
Delegate Lauren Charcuttine introduced HB 711 as an update to Maryland’s privacy and public‑records rules that would block certain uses of driver and device geolocation data for immigration enforcement, clarify that phone and vehicle location are sensitive, and narrow the purposes for which custodians may disclose records for law‑enforcement requests.
Community groups, legal scholars and civil‑liberties organizations described cases where commercial and DMV‑derived data have been used to locate and detain people, and urged the committee to close loopholes that allow third‑party data brokers and certain public‑records disclosures to be repurposed for immigration enforcement. Laura Moy (Georgetown Law) and the ACLU testified the bill aims to protect sensitive location data and prevent the creation of back‑door surveillance by private vendors and aggregated databases. Witnesses asked the sponsor to clarify that the bill permits disclosure in response to judicial warrants and would not block emergency‑response uses.
Local government associations and technology and trade groups raised practical concerns: the Maryland Association of Counties and the Attorney General’s office said the proposed registration/denial duties would create significant implementation burdens for custodians and could require additional staff and fees to operate. Privacy‑industry witnesses requested a knowledge standard for compliance with federal subpoenas and said definitions (e.g., adding "mobile device" and "vehicle" to precise geolocation) may need refinement to avoid unintended effects on legitimate services such as elder‑tracking apps.
Sponsor and advocates said they would work on clarifying language to preserve disclosure under judicial warrants and to make custodial obligations workable; the hearing closed with no vote.
