Filed August 2026 in Boston, MA
Submitting was tough. I had to make changes to the proposal after I had some signatures, and those people couldn’t come back. I was worried. There are so many reasons people cannot sign–including family needs, working for the industry, or politics.
Yet, local supporters rallied and I have to say people do care, we are all fighting, and this shows hope.
Our petition initiative for safer technology is now successfully filed. I’m also seeing support grow.
Now we begin the legal defense to industry critique. Last year, 4 technology lawyers critiqued a different proposal that was easy to defend based only on Massachusetts law then.
This year legal defense will be very different and tough. Our state supreme court issued a ruling that federal telecommunications law applies, and preempts state law. Perhaps now all federal laws apply, from information technology to utility law. Others may have access to legal AI and online legal information–I can access this without AI at a lesser level online and at local law libraries, but I don’t have the breadth of knowledge needed.
Another reason legal defense will be tough is because of the submission. Last year’s proposal was to simply require that companies develop safer tech based upon health and environmental impacts. This would have forced a federal preemption legal challenge–and, as we saw, our state court chose to approve federal preemption specifically in regard to health.
We need legal asssistance–I’m reaching out, but please let me know if you are aware of relevant legal expertise.
This year’s submission does an end run around federal preemption and retains industry pressure. I can’t say whether certification will succeed yet, but I can say that the concept is sound based on current law.
The framework proposed increases tech understanding, transparency, and supports accountability. An office of research and technology optimization is created that can not only recommend safer technology, but monitor and provide court testimony in support of safer technology. Currently, industry has a legal edge in acquiring legal expertise, this would shift the balance. Even though federal courts have knocked down
Because Massachusetts requires single subject petitions, this petition focuses on non-ionizing radiation.
The petition creates a framework, however, to evaluate the technology from all angles. This is not just about public or environmental health: vital to life. This is also an analysis of how non-ionizing radiation impacts civil liberties: vital to democracy.
There’s more to it, but I’m very tired at the moment. In sum, several tech industries will oppose this bill.
To win, we need a strong ground game. Please volunteer, and please start asking individuals, organizations, and businesses to join in support. There will be volunteer trainings near the end of August. Please donate. Donations may need to go towards legal support, and towards materials and publicity. Your publicity, offline, is the best kind.
The key to success is publicity: knowledge and political pressure. Publicity is necessary because industry will try to subvert the law.
We must introduce awareness and public pressure bottom up so that our legal and political system simultaneously (1) is pressured and (2) understands that industry’s promises and threats are nothing but a sleight of hand to steal the resources and structures we need for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And hopefully publicity will increase financial support. Right now, we are running on empty. A little from a lot of people can go a long way towards easing our financial needs.
For now, we the people are the force. May the force be with you!
~ Kirstin, Chair, Safer Tech at LastTreeLaws.com