It was reported Thursday that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is preparing to reintroduce a bill that would limit just how much the government can invade privacy before seeking a warrant.

The Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant if it wishes to examine communications stored in the cloud. Currently, only a subpoena is needed to force US companies to forfeit electronic communications which are more than 180 days old.

The bill would also put restrictions on what kind of information the government can force a US company to divulge when that data is stored overseas. Hatch is expected to say that “Without an appropriate legal framework, the current state of affairs regarding extraterritorial use of warrants puts the privacy of American citizens at risk for intrusion by foreign governments.”

Hatch, the President pro tempore of the Senate, has served in the upper chamber of the US Congress since 1977. He epitomizes the “establishment” of the Republican Party. His work on this matter of privacy, in addition to his cosponsorship of “Audit the Fed,” may very well reflect a changing of attitudes in the modern-day Republican Party. While it is difficult to know the motives for a bill like this, it speaks volumes to the influence that the libertarian wing of the party has gained over the past few years.

While there is still plenty of work to be done if we wish to use the Republican Party as a vehicle for promoting our ideas, we should definitely see the positives in the fact that changes in perception on the issues of transparency and privacy are becoming clearer.

For decades, the Republican Party has been the stalwart of national defense, never willing to give an inch if such a change would in any way prevent the police from doing their jobs. Particularly after the events of September 11, 2001, it became commonplace in conservative circles to claim that “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.” This school of thought became so prominent that many Democrats and self-professed liberals joined in as well. However, with the national realization of seemingly endless foreign entanglements, as well as technology becoming a larger part of our lives, Americans have rightfully begun to second-guess just how much national security can be attained through the sacrifice of individual liberties.

The oft-repeated quote by Benjamin Franklin that, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” has become of particular relevance in modern-day America. What was once a black-and-white issue of “catching the terrorists” has now become more muddled, particularly since the revelation from Edward Snowden that the NSA regularly monitors the calls and e-mails of all Americans.

It seems that government grows ever-larger, rights become more constrained and narrow. While to many, they are two distinct issues, one must ponder to decipher any real differences between overreach by police officers and the same indiscretions by the federal government. Both bodies feed off one another; the government creates more laws and agencies to constrain our freedom, while the police are given seemingly unlimited power and resources to enforce them. No matter what may be the provided “purpose” for any law: national security, general welfare or economic equality, the same results of police state action seem to appear.

Senator Hatch’s bill is a welcome change of pace for the federal government, as for one of the rare times in recent memory, citizens are being empowered at the behest of the government, rather than the other way around. Hopefully, this bill is a sign of more positive things to come in the 114th Congress.