One California state senator has a fairly simple idea: what if a city or county government had to affirmatively and publicly approve any acquisition or use of a stingray? A new bill pushing for just that cleared its first committee hurdle in California on Wednesday, as Senate Bill 741 passed the state's Senate Committee on Governance and Finance by a vote of seven to zero.

SB 741’s language is pretty straightforward, as authored by Sen. Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo):

No local agency may acquire or use cellular communications interception technology unless approved by its legislative body by adoption of a resolution or ordinance authorizing that acquisition or use. The legislative body of a local agency shall not approve a resolution or ordinance authorizing the acquisition or use of cellular communications interception technology, unless the resolution or ordinance is adopted at a regularly scheduled public meeting of the legislative body at which members of the public are afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment upon the proposed resolution or ordinance. The resolution or ordinance shall set forth the policies of the local agency as to the circumstances when cellular communications interception technology may be employed, and usage and privacy policies, which shall include, but need not be limited to, how data obtained through use of the technology is to be used, protected from unauthorized disclosure, and disposed of once it is no longer needed. If the local agency maintains an Internet website, the cellular communications interception technology usage and privacy policies shall be posted conspicuously on that site.

The bill is related to another bit of proposed stingray legislation also in the early stages of the lawmaking process—SB 178 would go so far as to impose a warrant requirement for stingray use.

Giving our say-so

For now, SB 741 bill has a long way to go before it becomes law in California. It needs to pass both the Senate and Assembly and must be signed by the governor.

The Senate committee comments note the bill is currently supported by the Bay Area Civil Liberties Coalition, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and a group called "Small Business California." But the bill has opposition from local law enforcement and also from other civil liberties groups, according to the committee:

Some civil liberties advocates suggest that SB 741 may not go far enough. They suggest that SB 741’s public disclosure requirements, which allow the public to consider and comment upon local IMSI policies, are an insufficient response to this problematic surveillance technology. Instead, they want legislators to consider statewide standards that will address some of the broader privacy and unreasonable search issues raised by IMSI catchers.

Catherine Crump, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a former lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, believes the bill would be a positive step. She sees it as similar to a handful of existing legislation in other areas.

"This bill reminds me of the surveillance notification ordinances passed by both Seattle and Tacoma," she told Ars in an e-mail. "After all, local communities have the best sense of what policing is truly necessary in their area. Nothing in the bill prohibits law enforcement agencies from acquiring or using cellular communications interception technology. What it does do is to make sure that elected representatives and members of the public have the opportunity to weigh in before they do so. Given that this technology has a substantial impact on people’s privacy rights, communities ought to have a say in decisions like this."

Disclosure of stingray use (aka the use of cell-site simulators or IMSI catchers) has been a hot button issue in the US recently. Limited information about the devices has started to trickle out as a result of public records requests and related lawsuits, but by and large authorities have attempted to keep information from becoming public. Earlier this year, Ars reported on how the FBI is actively trying to "prevent disclosure" of stingray use, going so far as to distribute a pre-written press release for local law enforcement agencies to use.