New York lawmakers are advancing legislation that would require social media companies to comply with law enforcement search warrants within 72 hours, raising concerns among civil rights advocates about potential infringements on digital privacy protections. The bill, A8022, currently awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul’s consideration, aims to accelerate law enforcement access to user data from social media platforms, a response to delays encountered during investigations involving digital evidence.

The legislation follows heightened attention to digital privacy rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Chatrie v. United States, which affirmed that location data stored on smartphones is protected under the Fourth Amendment. The Court’s decision emphasized that law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant before conducting geofence searches that map users’ location history. This ruling was widely praised for clarifying protections in the evolving landscape of digital privacy law.

Supporters of the New York bill point to the case of a 16-year-old in Washington State who died after unknowingly purchasing fentanyl-laced pills through Snapchat. The prescribing authorities and law enforcement involved faced weeks-long delays while waiting for social media companies to respond to warrants, highlighting challenges in timely access to critical data during investigations. Proponents argue that the 72-hour response requirement would help ensure quicker resolution of such cases and support public safety efforts.

However, critics caution that the proposed timeframe could undermine due process and privacy safeguards by limiting social media platforms’ ability to scrutinize warrants and resist overly broad or unjustified data requests. They emphasize that law enforcement does not always act uniformly in the public interest, particularly for marginalized groups such as immigrants and LGBTQ communities. Civil rights advocates warn that accelerated compliance timelines risk enabling unchecked access to private information, potentially facilitating abuse.

The bill’s broad definition of law enforcement and absence of carve-outs for federal agencies also raise concerns about data requested in joint state-federal investigations potentially being transferred without sufficient oversight. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security reportedly issued hundreds of subpoenas to major platforms seeking identities behind anonymous accounts related to immigration enforcement activities, illustrating existing tensions over government access to digital data.

Observers note that if enacted, New York’s legislation may serve as a precedent for other states and possibly federal policy, potentially leading to even stricter deadlines and diminished privacy protections nationwide. Advocates urge Governor Hochul to consider amendments to address these risks before signing the bill into law.

Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York, a grassroots advocacy organization focused on advancing LGBTQ rights and privacy, underscored the importance of safeguarding digital privacy even amid calls for more rapid law enforcement access. She warned that hasty legislation could contribute to expanding surveillance infrastructure with lasting implications beyond its immediate intent.