Maine Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
THE DIGITAL WORLD
Truth & Safety
Is Your State Protecting You From Government Surveillance? A 50-State Guide
Your face can be scanned by a camera you never noticed. Your movements can be reconstructed from location records held by a private company. Your purchases can be analyzed, your communications requested, and an artificial-intelligence system can help a government agency decide that you deserve closer attention. Much of this can happen without the average person knowing which rules apply.
Montana Senator Ken Bogner recently summarized five protections his state has pursued in an Instagram video that inspired this national comparison: preserve cash, restrict continuous facial recognition, limit government use of artificial intelligence, require warrants for electronic information, and close the loophole that lets government buy personal data from commercial brokers.
This guide asks a simple question: how closely does each state match those five protections? The answer is an uneven national patchwork. Use the state index below to jump directly to your state.
The Five Protections
1. Cash and CBDC protection
Does state law preserve a practical right to use physical cash or restrict state participation in a central-bank digital currency?
2. Facial-recognition limits
Are police or other agencies subject to warrants, narrow permitted uses, notice rules, corroboration requirements, or bans on continuous face surveillance?
3. Government AI limits
Must agencies disclose, assess, limit, or provide human oversight for government AI systems?
4. Electronic-data warrants
Does state law require judicial authorization for important communications, devices, location information, or stored data?
5. The data-broker loophole
Can government buy personal information from a commercial broker that it would otherwise need legal process to obtain?
How to Read the Overall Assessment
The overall assessment summarizes how completely a state addresses all five areas together. It is a comparative editorial rating, not an official government grade or a legal conclusion. Only enacted statewide protections receive full weight.
Strong
Meaningful statewide protections cover nearly all five categories. Important exceptions or uncovered technologies may still remain.
Meaningful statewide protections cover nearly all five categories. Important exceptions or uncovered technologies may still remain.
Moderate to strong
Several substantial protections are in place, but at least one important category remains weak or unaddressed.
Several substantial protections are in place, but at least one important category remains weak or unaddressed.
Developing
The state has taken meaningful action in one or more categories, but major gaps remain across the full five-part test.
The state has taken meaningful action in one or more categories, but major gaps remain across the full five-part test.
Limited
Few protections are clearly established statewide, or the state relies mainly on federal law, local ordinances, narrow rules, or proposed legislation.
Few protections are clearly established statewide, or the state relies mainly on federal law, local ordinances, narrow rules, or proposed legislation.
Find Your State
Select a state, then open its compact card to see all five results.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
The 50-State Guide
These summaries are designed for quick comparison. “Federal baseline” means federal constitutional and statutory protections still apply, even when no comparably broad state statute was confirmed.
Alabama Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Alaska Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Arizona Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Arkansas Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
California Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer safeguards only
Colorado Overall: Moderate to Strong
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Connecticut Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Delaware Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Florida Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Georgia Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Hawaii Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Idaho Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Illinois Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Indiana Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Iowa Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Kansas Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Kentucky Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Louisiana Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Maryland Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Massachusetts Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Michigan Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Minnesota Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Mississippi Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Missouri Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Montana Overall: Strong
- Cash and CBDC: Protected
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Strong
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Strong
Nebraska Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Nevada Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
New Hampshire Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
New Jersey Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
New Mexico Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
New York Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
North Carolina Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
North Dakota Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Ohio Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Oklahoma Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Oregon Overall: Moderate to Strong
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer safeguards only
Pennsylvania Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Rhode Island Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Protected in retail
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
South Carolina Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
South Dakota Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Tennessee Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Texas Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer safeguards only
Utah Overall: Moderate to Strong
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Vermont Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Partial
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Virginia Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Consumer privacy only
Washington Overall: Developing
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Strong or meaningful
- Government AI: Partial
- Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
West Virginia Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Wisconsin Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Limited
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
Wyoming Overall: Limited
- Cash and CBDC: Partial
- Facial recognition: Limited
- Government AI: Limited
- Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
- Data broker loophole: Open gap
What the Comparison Reveals
No state except Montana clearly satisfies all five tests as a coordinated package. Several states perform well in one or two categories, but the gaps rarely line up. A state may protect consumers from private-sector data sales while still allowing government agencies to buy commercially available information.
Cash protection also requires careful language. Requiring a store to accept paper currency is not the same as preventing a state agency from participating in a central-bank digital currency. The strongest policy protects access to cash while preventing compulsory participation in a traceable government payment system.
The data-broker loophole remains the largest national weakness. Consumer privacy laws often give people rights against businesses, but those rights do not automatically require government agencies to obtain a warrant before purchasing location or behavioral data.
The Bottom Line
Useful technology does not have to mean unchecked surveillance. Facial recognition can help locate a missing child, electronic records can identify a violent offender, and AI can help a public agency process routine work. The safeguard is due process: narrow authorized uses, independent judicial review, transparency, human accountability, meaningful penalties, and no purchasing around the warrant requirement.
Montana has given the country a useful five-part test. Every resident should be able to ask where their state stands, which gaps remain, and whether their representatives are prepared to close them.
Continue to Part Two
Part Two examines laws that states have already enacted, presents five model provisions, and explains how citizens can approach their legislators with a focused request.
Read Part Two: Five Laws Every State Should Consider
Editorial and Legal Note
This public-interest guide was reviewed in September 2026 and summarizes a fast-changing area of law. It is not legal advice. State statutes contain definitions, exemptions, delayed effective dates, agency-specific rules, and judicial interpretations that cannot be fully reproduced in a short national guide. Readers should consult the linked sources and current official code before relying on a provision in a legal matter.
Sources and Further Reading
- Instagram. Ken Bogner, “Is Your State Doing Any of These?” August 28, 2026
- Montana Legislature. Montana Code Annotated 46-5-603, Governmental Entities May Not Purchase Data
- Electronic Frontier Foundation. Montana Becomes First State to Close the Law Enforcement Data Broker Loophole
- National Conference of State Legislatures. Cryptocurrency, Digital or Virtual Currency and Digital Assets 2025 Legislation
- National Conference of State Legislatures. Cryptocurrency, Digital or Virtual Currency and Digital Assets 2026 Legislation
- Stateline. Facial Recognition in Policing Is Getting State-by-State Guardrails
- Electronic Privacy Information Center. State Facial Recognition Policy
- ACLU of Northern California. California Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- U.S. Department of Justice. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
- White and Case. U.S. Data Privacy Guide
- Cash Card Kiosk. State Cashless Laws: Which States Require Businesses to Accept Cash?
- Cash Essentials. New York State Mandates Cash Acceptance by Merchants
- Center for Democracy and Technology. The Data Broker Loophole
- Brennan Center for Justice. Closing the Data Broker Loophole
- Federal Reserve. Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation
