SD 1838
Updating the Massachusetts Wire Tap Statute
(Co-filing with Attorney General Tom Reilly)
There have been virtually no changes to the Massachusetts wiretap statute since 1968 despite technological advancements in telecommunications and changes in the nature and structure of criminal enterprises and communications.

This legislation would update the state statute and provide law enforcement with the tools to keep pace with new technology and criminal techniques while at the same time maintaining the significant privacy rights already provided under the law. Specifically, the proposed bill makes the following changes, all of which comply with changes instituted to the federal statute:

• Eliminates the need for a showing of “organized crime”.
• Expands the number of designated offenses to keep pace with the changing nature of criminal offenses in today’s high-technology world.
• Updates and expands the protections and scope of the statute to electronic as well as wire and oral communications in a manner that mirrors the federal statute.
• Expands the time limit for interceptions pursuant to a warrant from 15 days to 30 days.
• Eliminates the requirement that law enforcement notify the targeted parties of the interceptions before the interceptions begin, unless they have shown “good cause” for delaying the notification.
• Allows for emergency interceptions (e.g. hostage situation) where a written report follows the initial interception with 48 hours.
  
  SD 1844
  An Act to Protect Victims of Computer Crimes
  (Co-filing with Attorney General Tom Reilly)
  This bill would amend the current law by allowing officials to issue administrative subpoenas to Internet Service Providers (and other providers of electronic communication services). Similar to current laws affecting telephone companies, the subpoenas could only be used to obtain basic subscriber information, not the content of e-mails or web-surfing histories.
  
  Updating the current statute in this manner would help address new technologies and new forms of communication and crime.
  
  In addition, the bill would allow law enforcement to issue subpoenas and obtain search warrants from Massachusetts courts that must be honored by ISP’s throughout the country. This legislation is crucial to protecting citizens from computer and internet crimes.
  
  SD 1843
  An Act To Promote and Protect the Computer Infrastructure of the Commonwealth
  (Co-filing with Attorney General Tom Reilly)
  This bill would create a two-tier penalty structure for those who illegally enter someone’s computer system.
  
  Under the first (lower) tier, breaking and entering a computer system would be punishable by up to 2 ½ years in a House of Correction, or a fine of $2,500.
  
  The second (upper) tier would provide an enhanced maximum penalty of 10 years in state prison or $10,000 for more dangerous or destructive attacks. Conduct subject to the enhanced penalties under the second tier includes:
  - Attacks on computers that cause a substantial threat to the health or safety of one or more persons.
  - Attacks on computers with intent to:
• steal or extort
• obtain information for financial gain or commercial advantage
• obtain private information regarding peoples’ health or finances
• harass
• attack government computers
• transmit viruses and Trojan Horses and create deniability of service attacks
  
  SD 1841
  An Act Requiring the Inclusion of Certain Civil Rights Offense Information in the Statewide Domestic Violence Record Keeping System
  (Co-filing with Attorney General Tom Reilly)
  The proposed legislation would provide a statewide registry of court ordered civil rights injunctions under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act through the existing domestic violence registry. The information would only be accessible to judges and criminal justice agencies.
  
  The proposal would not require either additional funding or resources, because it utilizes the existing domestic violence registry. Courts and law enforcement would therefore use the same system to obtain information about civil rights injunctions that they already use to obtain information about domestic violence restraining orders.