In This Issue
In May, Lobbyit spoke with security service providers about Senator Toomey's Private Security Officer Screening Improvement Act (PSOSIA), met with Senator Toomey's office to discuss the bill, and met with Senate Judiciary Committee counsel in this same regard

 
The Private Security Officer Screening Improvement Act 
In the month of May, Lobbyit participated in a conference call with other Security Service providers (and some NCISS members) to discuss Senator Toomey's Private Security Officer Screening Improvement Act (PSOSIA), followed-up with Senator Toomery's staff per the bill, and met with Senate Judiciary Committee minority counsel to discuss the situation.

As an initial step, Senator Toomey's staff confirmed that the hold-up on introduction was in order to find a Democratic co-sponsor. Toomey's office was aware of the outreach conducted by other parties on behalf of PSOSIA, and appreciated the group's assistance.

Lobbyit focused on Senator Feinstein, as she is ranking on Senate Judiciary - the Committee of Jurisdiction for this legislation. Lobbyit utilized NCISS's strong California contingent to seek the Feinstein meeting, but were diverted to Judiciary staff due to the technical nature of our inquiry (not a bad thing).

The bill was not unfamiliar to Judiciary, as they observed its proximity to the Hatch bill that passed late in 2017. But they drilled down immediately on who opposed the Toomey bill, and Lobbyit had to be open about the ACLU and the National Employment Law Project (NELP), based on information relayed by Steve Amitay and others.

Judiciary indicated that, while these concerns persisted, it would be difficult to rally support from the minority members.

Lobbyit will follow up with the security service providers active on this bill, and will update the Committee, as promised, on any developments.

Respectfully,

National Council of Investigative and Security Services
7501 Sparrows Point Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21219


Legislation
 
S. 395 - (Wyden, D-Or) Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act, or GPS Act -- 
House companion - H.R. 3470 (Farenthold, R-Tx-27)
 
This bill makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept the geolocation information of another person; intentionally disclose or use geolocation information knowing or having reason to know that it was obtained in violation of this bill; or intentionally disclose geolocation information knowing or having reason to know it was obtained as part of a criminal investigation with the intent to improperly obstruct with a duly authorized criminal investigation.
 
There are several exceptions to this prohibition against intercepting geolocation information: (1) information obtained in the normal course of business, (2) information obtained while conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, (3) consent, (4) information readily available to the public, (5) theft or fraud involving the device, (6) issuance of a warrant, and (7) emergency circumstances.
 
Geolocation information shall not be used as evidence in a legal proceeding when disclosure of such information would be in violation of this bill.
 
The bill creates a civil cause of action for any person whose geolocation information is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this bill.
 
The bill makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and intentionally obtain, or attempt to obtain, global positioning system (GPS) records from a geolocation information service through fraud or by other means. It also makes it unlawful to intentionally and knowingly sell or transfer GPS records without the consent of the customer. 
 
H.R. 387 - Email Privacy Act
 
Representative Kevin Yoder (R-KS03) introduced the Email Privacy Act in the House on January 9, 2017. On February 7, 2017, the bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The bill currently has 138 cosponsors. 
 
A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage with or otherwise stored, held, or maintained by that service only if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) that:
 
(1) is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) may indicate the date by which the provider must make the disclosure to the governmental entity.
(3) the bill is applicable with respect to any wire or electronic communication that is stored, held, or maintained by the provider.
 
H.R. 923 - To Repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015
 
Representative Justin Amash (R-MI-3) introduced the To Repeal the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 on February 7, 2017. On April 25th, 2017, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Research and Technology. The bill currently has 5 cosponsors.
 
The Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (division N of Public Law 114-113) and the amendments made by such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended by such Act are hereby restored as if such Act had not been enacted into law.
 
H.R. 957 F.A.I.R. Surveillance Act of 2017
 
Representative Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8) introduced the Fourth Amendment Integrity Restoration (F.A.I.R.) Surveillance Act of 2017 on February 7, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. The bill currently has 2 cosponsors. 
 
This bill specifies that an agreement between a federal and state or local law enforcement agency regarding the acquisition or use of a cell simulator device must require such state or local law enforcement agency to use the device in compliance with the federal agency's guidance and policies.
 
The term "cell simulator device" means a device that:
(1) simulates a cell tower to provide an electronic communication service, or
(2) functions as a cell tower to locate cellular devices or identify their unique identifiers
 
S. 631 Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act
 
Senator Edward Markey introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act in the Senate on March 3, 2017. On March 15, 2017, the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill currently has 0 cosponsors.
 
This bill amends the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to provide guidance and limitations regarding the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into United States airspace, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Transportation shall establish procedures to ensure that the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system is done in compliance with the privacy principles.
 
A governmental entity (as defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code) may not use an unmanned aircraft system or request information or data collected by another person using an unmanned aircraft system for protective activities, or for law enforcement or intelligence purposes, except pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as permitted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.


This monthy report is p rovided for NCISS by ... 
 
  
     ...until next month!

Please contact Francie Koehler for questions or issues regarding private 
investigators and Brad Duffy re the same for security professionals. 
 
                       Francie Koehler - Investigations -- or -- Brad Duffy - Security

                                                       null
                                                
    

Permission granted to repost
Lobbyit.com | 1425 K Street, NW | Suite 350 | Washington, DC 20005 | Phone: 202.587.2736 | Fax: 202.747.2727
info@lobbyit.com | lobbyit.com