By Standing Tall on Tuesday, 15 September 2026
Category: Digital 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.
Moderate to strong
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.
Limited
Few protections are clearly established statewide, or the state relies mainly on federal law, local ordinances, narrow rules, or proposed legislation.

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

Back to state index ↑

Alaska Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Arizona Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Arkansas Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Partial
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Georgia Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Partial
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Hawaii Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Idaho Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Illinois Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Partial
  • Government AI: Partial
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Kansas Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Louisiana Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Partial
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Michigan Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Mississippi Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Missouri Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Nevada Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Ohio Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Oklahoma Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Pennsylvania Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Vermont Overall: Developing
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Partial
  • Government AI: Partial
  • Electronic data warrants: Meaningful state protection
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

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

Back to state index ↑

Wisconsin Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Limited
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

Wyoming Overall: Limited
  • Cash and CBDC: Partial
  • Facial recognition: Limited
  • Government AI: Limited
  • Electronic data warrants: Federal baseline mainly
  • Data broker loophole: Open gap

Back to state index ↑

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
  1. Instagram. Ken Bogner, “Is Your State Doing Any of These?” August 28, 2026
  2. Montana Legislature. Montana Code Annotated 46-5-603, Governmental Entities May Not Purchase Data
  3. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Montana Becomes First State to Close the Law Enforcement Data Broker Loophole
  4. National Conference of State Legislatures. Cryptocurrency, Digital or Virtual Currency and Digital Assets 2025 Legislation
  5. National Conference of State Legislatures. Cryptocurrency, Digital or Virtual Currency and Digital Assets 2026 Legislation
  6. Stateline. Facial Recognition in Policing Is Getting State-by-State Guardrails
  7. Electronic Privacy Information Center. State Facial Recognition Policy
  8. ACLU of Northern California. California Electronic Communications Privacy Act
  9. U.S. Department of Justice. Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
  10. White and Case. U.S. Data Privacy Guide
  11. Cash Card Kiosk. State Cashless Laws: Which States Require Businesses to Accept Cash?
  12. Cash Essentials. New York State Mandates Cash Acceptance by Merchants
  13. Center for Democracy and Technology. The Data Broker Loophole
  14. Brennan Center for Justice. Closing the Data Broker Loophole
  15. Federal Reserve. Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation