SB 112-15: Stopping Surveillance Act (Passed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

STOPPING SURVEILLANCE ACT

1. No person who rents or leases real property pursuant to a federal program shall require the renter or lessee or any agent or invitee thereof to use a cellphone or other internet application in order to enter or access the real property, nor limit entry or access to such real property to any person based on a social credit rating, score, or other determination of societal value calculated by a computer algorithm.

A. A violation of this paragraph shall be a misdemeanor punishable by disgorgement of any profits, imprisonment for no more than 1 year, and a fine of $10,000.00 per individual person whose rights were violated. Any technology used to commit a crime under this paragraph shall be subject to forfeiture. Any data collected in violation of this paragraph shall be subject to forfeiture.

B. A person whose rights were unlawfully violated pursuant to this paragraph may maintain a civil action to recover actual damages, punitive damages of up to $10,000, reasonable legal costs, and any equitable relief necessary to enforce this act.

2. No federal department, agency, or contractor shall violate the privacy of another by using or permitting a toilet owned by him to perform or conduct a scan or analysis of any part of the body or bodily fluid or waste product of another person, nor shall any such toilet be used to collect data on any other person, nor shall any data obtained from such toilet be sold or transferred to another.

A. This shall not apply if the person using the toilet affirmatively consents to the scan, analysis, collection, sale, or transfer. Requiring consent as a condition of using such toilet shall not be considered affirmative consent.

B. A violation of this provision shall be a misdemeanor punishable by disgorgement of any profits, imprisonment for no more than 4 years, and a fine of $40,000 per individual person whose data was sold. Any toilet used to commit a crime under this paragraph shall be subject to forfeiture. Any data collected in violation of this paragraph shall be subject to forfeiture.

C. A person whose privacy was unlawfully violated pursuant to this paragraph may maintain a civil action to recover actual damages, punitive damages of up to $10,000, reasonable legal costs, and any equitable relief necessary to enforce this act.

3. This act shall take effect 50 days from the enactment

Sponsor: Deputy PPT Utah Neoliberal

Debate is now open on this bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Interesting bill to limit government invasions of privacy. It bans social credit score door locks like in that episode of black mirror as well as covert toilet scans.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nice work UNL!

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment. 24 hours to object.

1. No person who rents or leases real property pursuant to a federal program shall require the renter or lessee or any agent or invitee thereof to use a cellphone or other internet application in order to enter or access the real property, nor limit entry or access to such real property to any person based on a criminal background check, a credit report, or a social credit rating, score, or other determination of societal value calculated by a computer algorithm.

...

[S019]

Objection

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hearing an objection we will now proceed to a vote on the amendment lasting 40 hours or until everybody votes, whichever occurs soonest. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[S019]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

aye

[Senator-elect Spark]

Aye

[Utah Neolib]

Aye

[SevenEleven]

Nay.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Aye

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Aye

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye

[Saint Milei]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[S019]

So anyone care to explain why someone shouldn't have the right to not choose to sell their home to a criminal?

[WD]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

So anyone care to explain why someone shouldn't have the right to not choose to sell their home to a criminal?

What are you talking about? The amendment says housing projects and section 8 landlords cant install software based locks on their doors that require use of a phone that exclude people based on credit reports or background checks.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Amendment approved by a vote of 9-3-0-6.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I move for a final vote. 24 hours to object.

[S019]

Objection

So anyone care to explain why someone shouldn't have the right to not choose to sell their home to a criminal?

What are you talking about? The amendment says housing projects and section 8 landlords cant install software based locks on their doors that require use of a phone that exclude people based on credit reports or background checks.

So why should people be required to let criminals in their home?

[West_Midlander]

Objection

So anyone care to explain why someone shouldn't have the right to not choose to sell their home to a criminal?

What are you talking about? The amendment says housing projects and section 8 landlords cant install software based locks on their doors that require use of a phone that exclude people based on credit reports or background checks.

So why should people be required to let criminals in their home?

Pro-Big Brother

[Mr. Reactionary]

Objection

So anyone care to explain why someone shouldn't have the right to not choose to sell their home to a criminal?

What are you talking about? The amendment says housing projects and section 8 landlords cant install software based locks on their doors that require use of a phone that exclude people based on credit reports or background checks.

So why should people be required to let criminals in their home?

Because they take money from the federal government.