About the AG

  • Subscribe to the AG's RSS Feed
  • Join the AG's FaceBook
  • Follow the AG on Twitter
  • View the AG's YouTube Channel
  • View the AG's Tumblr Page

Privacy Legislation Pending in 2014

The California Legislature considers many bills on privacy issues each year. This page summarizes some of the currently pending bills. The listing of these bills does not imply a position of support or opposition to any of them.

Links to bills and analyses at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov


  • AB 1256 (Bloom) Invasion of Privacy: Paparazzi This bill would extend trespassing prohibitions to include taking photos or videos of family activity in a way that is “offensive to a reasonable person.” It would make it a crime to “interfere” with person attempting to enter or exit any public or private school grounds, any health facility, or any lodging, including a private residence, hotel, temporary lodging facility, inn, motel, bed and breakfast, or any other location that provides permanent or temporary lodging.

  • AB 1327 (Gorell, Bradford, Quirk) Unmanned Aircraft (Drones) This bill would generally prohibit public agencies from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use of unmanned aircraft systems, as defined, with certain exceptions applicable to law enforcement agencies and in certain other cases. The bill would require reasonable public notice to be provided by public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft systems, as specified. It would require images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under these provisions to be permanently destroyed within 6 months, except as specified. Unless authorized by federal law, the bill would prohibit a person or entity, including a public agency subject to these provisions, or a person or entity under contract to a public agency, for the purpose of that contract, from equipping or arming an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or launched from an unmanned aircraft system and that is intended to cause bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property. The bill would make the restrictions that are applicable to the use of an unmanned aircraft system by a law enforcement agency also applicable to any person, entity, or public agency that uses, operates, or contracts for an unmanned aircraft system. The bill would make images, footage, or data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under its provisions, or any record, including, but not limited to, usage logs or logs that identify any person or entity that subsequently obtains or requests records of that system, subject to disclosure.

  • AB 1524 (Waldron) Unmanned Aircraft (Drones) This bill would require, beginning January 1, 2015, a person or entity that owns or operates an unmanned aircraft, as defined, to place specified identifying information or digitally store identifying information on that unmanned aircraft. The bill would exempt model aircraft, as defined, from that requirement. The bill would make a person or entity that violates that provision liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, or a city attorney to bring an action to recover that fine, as specified.

  • AB 1442 (Gatto) Information Practices Act: Local Agencies This bill would extend the privacy protections of the Information Practices Act, which applies to state government agencies, to local government.

  • AB 1560 (Gorell) Confidentiality of personally identifiable information: Health Benefit Exchange This bill would limit how California Health Benefit Exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) determine the eligibility of an individual when he or she seeks health care coverage. The bill would require individuals to sign written consent forms before the Exchange could release personally identifiable information to 3rd parties. The bill would also require the Exchange to immediately notify the public of any breach of the security of personal information created, collected, or maintained by the Exchange, regardless of the severity of the breach.

  • AB 1658 (Jones-Sawyer) Foster Care: Consumer Credit Reports: Security Freeze This bill would require, at the time of placement, a county welfare agency to notify every consumer credit reporting agency of the placement of a minor dependent under years of age 17 into foster care. It would require, a consumer credit reporting agency, after notification of placement by a county welfare agency to place a security freeze on the credit report of a minor dependent under years of age 17 placed in foster care. By imposing new duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

  • AB 1830 (Conway) Confidentiality of personally identifiable information: Health Benefit Exchange This bill would limit how California Health Benefit Exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) use or disclose personally identifiable information. The bill would require Exchange contractors, subcontractors, volunteers, or vendors to comply with the privacy and security standards the Exchange has adopted in accordance with PPACA.

  • SB 255 (Cannella) Invasion of privacy: Revenge porn This bill would make it a crime to distribute private images of an identifiable person with the intent to cause serious emotional distress.

  • SB 383 (Jackson) Credit Cards: Personal Information This bill would extend limits of merchant information collection for consumer credit card transaction, to online transactions for purposes related to fraud prevention.

  • SB 828 (Lieu, Anderson) Privacy: The 4th Amendment Protection Act This bill would enact the 4th Amendment Protection Act and prohibit the state, a political subdivision of the state, an employee of the state or a political subdivision of the state while acting in his or her official capacity, or a corporation while providing services on behalf of the state or a political subdivision of the state from materially supporting or assisting, as specified, a federal agency or federal agent in collecting electronic data or metadata of any person pursuant to any action not based on a warrant that particularly describes the person, place, and thing to be searched or seized. The bill would prohibit the use of electronic data or metadata provided by the federal government or a corporation that was obtained without a federal warrant, as specified, from being used in a state or local criminal investigation or prosecution. It would also express the Legislature’s intent in this regard and provide that its provisions are severable if part of the act is declared invalid.

  • SB 893 (Hill) Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems This bill would impose restrictions on a person, as defined, that operates an ALPR system by prohibiting the sale of ALPR data, and otherwise prohibiting a person from sharing the data, except with a law enforcement agency or officer, as specified. This bill would provide that ALPR data retained for more than 5 years may be accessed only for law enforcement purposes, pursuant to a warrant or other court order. It would authorize an individual whose information is sold or disclosed in violation of these provisions to bring a civil action and would entitle the individual to recover any and all consequential and incidental damages, including all costs and attorney’s fees.

  • SB 962 (Leno, Skinner) Advanced Mobile Communications Devices This bill would require that any advanced mobile communications device, as defined, that is sold in California on or after January 1, 2015, include a technological solution, which may consist of software, hardware, or both software and hardware, that can render inoperable the essential features of the device, as defined, when the device is not in the possession of the rightful owner. The bill would require that the technological solution be able to withstand a hard reset, as defined. The bill would prohibit the sale of an advanced mobile communications device in California without the technological solution being enabled, but would authorize the rightful owner to affirmatively elect to disable the technological solution after sale. The bill would prohibit a provider of commercial mobile radio service, as defined, from including any term or condition in a service contract with an end-use consumer with an address within the state that requires or encourages the consumer or rightful owner to disable the technological solution that renders the consumer’s smartphone or other advanced communications device useless if stolen. The bill would make a violation of the bill’s requirements subject to a civil penalty of not less than $500, nor more than $2,500, for each violation.

Legislation chaptered in: 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999

Megan's Law

California Registered Sex Offender Database

Search Now

Megan's Law information is also available in these languages:

Site Navigation

Translate Website

  • Google™ Translation Disclaimer

This Google™ translation feature is provided for informational purposes only.

The Office of the Attorney General is unable to guarantee the accuracy of this translation and is therefore not liable for any inaccurate information resulting from the translation application tool.

Please consult with a translator for accuracy if you are relying on the translation or are using this site for official business.

If you have any questions please contact:Bilingual Services Program at (916) 324-5482

A copy of this disclaimer can also be found on our Disclaimer page.

Select a Language Below / Seleccione el Idioma Abajo

Close this box or use the [ X ]