State legislation offers a good window into how people are feeling about technology. Whereas Congress' agenda tends to reflect the business community's needs, state legislation tends to be much more for the people, by the people, if you know what I mean. Just this morning, sifting through a few state-law proposals, I learned that (1) folks are deeply unsettled by Google Street View and file-sharing software, (2) somebody in Louisiana doesn't think it's fair for businesses that purchase software to have to compete with businesses that don't, and (3) it's OK to surreptitiously slip a RFID chip in a bottle of wine but not in a human body.

Google Street View: A Dangerous Weapon
The state of Louisiana appears to be on the verge of treating Google Street View like a firearm or some other dangerous weapon. Senate Bill 151, which unanimously passed the Senate April 19, would create a minimum one-year sentence enhancement for using an "internet, virtual, street-level map" in the commission of a crime against against a person or property. If the underlying offense is an act of terrorism, the minimum sentence enhancement is 10 years. The House has yet to act on the bill.

File-Sharing Privacy
In Georgia, on April 13, the House passed S.B. 470, a computer security/anti-spyware measure that is directed to just one kind of program: file-sharing software. (Similar legislation -- H.R. 1319 -- was passed by the House but not the Senate in 2009.) Under Georgia S.B. 470, distributors of file-sharing distributors must:

• provide the user with "clear and conspicuous notice" and obtain consent regarding which files on the user's computer will be shared with the public;
• require affirmative steps to activate public file-sharing features of the software; and
• require the re-display of these notices each time the list of publicly available files on the user's computer changes.

 File-sharing software makers must not have very good lobbyists. I can't think of any other explanation why legislatures would impose more notice burdens on software programs that people actually do want than on software that people don't know about, don't understand, or don't want. Perhaps the copyright piracy battles have made it politically expedient to single this form of software out for special treatment. Nothing makes political action easier than finding a bad guy (e.g. Jack Valenti's "Boston Strangler") and then crafting a satisfying script for legislators to perform.

Think about it: These legislators have a cell phone in their pocket tracking and recording their every movement, they drive past dozens of surveillance cameras on their way to work, they live in a country where Deppity Dawg can fax a suhpeenie to their Internet service provider and obtain all of their email correspondence and other stored data, where all of their online activities are mined and processed for later use by government and marketers ... all without a legislative response. And yet they are able to stand up and vote, with a straight face I imagine, to protect consumer privacy vis-a-vis file-sharing programs. Oh well. S.B. 470 has already passed the state Senate, so it is now ready for the governor's signature.

Use of Pirated Software as Unfair Trade Practice
The Louisiana Senate passed a piece of legislation, Senate Bill 415, that forbids a person from developing or providing a service using stolen or misappropriated property, "including but not limited to computer software that does not have the necessary copyright licenses ...."

It's difficult to see just what Louisiana lawmakers are driving at here. An earlier version of S.B. 415 appears to have been directed at software developers who use pirated software to produce products that compete with Louisiana software developers. The earlier version of the law stated: "It shall be unlawful for a person to develop or manufacture computer software products, or to develop or supply services, while knowingly using stolen or misappropriated computer software, including software that does not have the necessary license agreements ...."

Perhaps state legislators were concerned about Copyright Act preemption. Later amendments broadened the reach of S.B. 415 beyond mere copyright infringements, and also dropped the word "knowingly" from the bill. Violations of S.B. 415 are considered to be a deceptive or unfair practice under Louisiana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, La. R.S. 51:1401. Even though the drafters removed the mental state requirement from the bill, the state unfair trade practices law, of which it would be a part, is generally directed at intentional conduct.

A violation occurs each time a product is sold or service delivered in violation of the law. Thus, a business that uses a piece of unlicensed software could find itself liable for every product that goes out the door. If passed, S.B. 415 would be a powerful weapon for one competitor to wield against another. Remedies include actual damages, treble or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. In special cases, injunctive relief is also available.

S.B. 514 awaits action by the House.

No RFID Implants Without Consent
In New Hampshire, the Senate on April 21 passed H.R. 478, a measure that outlaws the insertion of a radio frequency identification (RFID) device into a human being without informed consent. The state legislators were less daring on the topic of requiring that consumers have notice of the presence of RFID devices in retail items. Retailers argued that giving consumers notice of the presence of RFID tags might have a negative effect on sales. Language requiring this notice was in earlier versions of H.R. 478, but it was not present in the Senate-passed version. (A similar thing happened in Washington state earlier this month, when legislators removed -- just prior to passage -- a provision from H.R. 1011 that would have required consumer opt-in consent to the collection and use of data from RDIF devices.) H.R. 478 awaits the governor's signature.