Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/21/2007 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 7
"An Act relating to false caller identification."
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT the work draft to HB 7,
labeled 25-LS0057\L, Bannister, 2/20/07. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:08:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, sponsor, warned the committee that
the name seen on one's Caller ID may not be the person who
is actually calling. He presented various scenarios of
false information appearing on Caller ID systems. He termed
HB 7 a proactive bill.
2:10:47 PM
DIRK MOFFATT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, explained that
the CS in front of the committee today has changed a lot
from the House Judiciary Committee version. He explained
that the technology to fool Caller ID is not new. A simple
calling card can put false information on a Caller ID
system.
Mr. Moffatt related that HB 7 says if someone makes a false
identification call, attempting to defraud, that person is
guilty of a Class B or a Class A misdemeanor, depending on
how many calls are made.
2:13:05 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked why there are two classes of
misdemeanor. Mr. Moffatt replied that originally it was a
Class B crime, but the addition of Class A addresses someone
who makes many of calls. The number five came from a scheme
to defraud statute.
2:14:08 PM
Representative Crawford spoke in support of the bill.
Representative Gara recalled seeing the bill last session.
He mentioned candidate poll surveys where a candidate's name
is concealed, wondering if the bill addresses that
situation. Representative Lynn replied that the bill
applies to all false Caller ID's. Mr. Moffatt emphasized
that the aim of the bill is at those who attempt to defraud.
Representative Gara asked about research polls. Mr. Moffatt
opined that they are not fraud.
2:16:43 PM
Representative Hawker referred to a memo (February 8, 2007,
Theresa Bannister, Legislative Legal Services) in members'
packets that may raise due process issues. He requested an
explanation of those issues and whether or not they have
been resolved. Mr. Moffatt deferred to Mr. Sniffen and
Terry Bannister to answer that question.
2:17:55 PM
SONIA SUBANI, AARP Alaska, related that older persons are
more vulnerable to telephone fraud. She related a personal
experience of fraudulent Caller ID.
Co-Chair Meyer closed public testimony.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained the differences between the
various versions of HB 7. He reported that in the Judiciary
Committee the focus was on the definition of a violation and
how to make the crimes specific to the display of
information as it appears on someone's phone. The intention
was to make the bill easier to understand and enforce.
2:23:14 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how many complaints there have been
regarding this issue. Mr. Sniffen said that there have been
many indirect complaints from victims of identity theft.
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if it would be difficult to prove
this as criminal action. He suspected that most would fall
under civil action. Mr. Sniffen replied most would fall
under the civil division rather than the criminal side.
Legal efforts would be focused on the criminal class - Class
A offenses. Co-Chair Meyer asked if Mr. Sniffen was
comfortable having two classes of misdemeanors. Mr. Sniffen
said he could understand the sponsor's logic for having the
two classes. Co-Chair Meyer said he would go along with the
Judiciary Committee's version of the bill.
Representative Lynn noted that the degree of violation was a
concern of the Judiciary Committee.
2:27:40 PM
Representative Crawford asked what the rules currently are
for client identification regarding polls. Mr. Sniffen
related that there are rules regarding telemarketing, but
not for political polls. Intentional deception would be
considered fraud.
Representative Crawford asked if it is a crime if a pollster
gives the impression that a poll is research. Mr. Sniffen
replied that if a reasonable consumer would be misled, then
it would be fraud.
2:30:42 PM
Representative Gara posed a hypothetical situation involving
two political opponents. He wondered if such conduct is
currently allowed. Mr. Sniffen thought that the bill was
directed at more obvious conduct.
2:32:05 PM
Representative Hawker asked if the due process questions
were addressed. Mr. Sniffen replied that one of the issues
was ambiguous language as to the number of calls that would
qualify for Class A and Class B. Representative Hawker
asked Ms. Bannister to reply.
2:33:17 PM
THERESA BANNISTER, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
thought work draft version L was fine.
Representative Hawker questioned the meaning of "the call or
other conduct resulting in false information being displayed
to fewer or more than five recipients". He wondered about
multiple calls to the same recipient. Mr. Sniffen thought
that each separate display would be a separate violation.
Ms. Bannister explained that it depends on the type of the
call. Representative Hawker summarized that if one
perpetrator made 10 calls to the same recipient it would be
a Class B misdemeanor - fewer than five recipients. Ms.
Bannister said yes. Representative Hawker asked if that was
the sponsor's intent.
Mr. Sniffen explained the intent was if someone made five
displays on a Caller ID system it would count as a Class A
misdemeanor. Representative Hawker termed that conflicting
testimony. Ms. Bannister suggested the language could be
re-written. Co-Chair Meyer suggested going back to the
original bill.
2:38:12 PM
Representative Lynn replied that he was agreeable to going
back to the original bill, but did not want to undo the work
of the Judiciary Committee. Co-Chair Meyer thought the bill
was confusing as worded. He asked Ms. Bannister if the bill
was returned to "one call, one crime" if any due process
issues would come up.
Ms. Bannister did not believe the original [A] version would
be problematic. Mr. Sniffen clarified that the difficulty
with the K version would be in section (a) "A person may not
knowingly make a call and insert false information into a
caller identification system with the intent to defraud."
It would be hard to determine who inserts the false
information, a person who inputs information into a
computer, or the operator who makes the phone call. The
"caller identification system" is defined in Version K to
mean a listing of a caller's name, telephone number, or name
and telephone number that is shown to a recipient of a call
when the recipient answers. Mr. Sniffen thought that was
confusing and was intended to mean a telephone. Version L
tried to clarify that language. He suggested using Version
L and re-working (c).
Co-Chair Meyer stated his intent to hold the bill over and
to work further with the sponsor on it.
2:43:02 PM
Representative Stoltze referred to the abuse of privacy
provisions related to phones for people with disabilities.
He wondered if that circumstance could be addressed. Mr.
Sniffen was not familiar with federal laws.
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Chenault questioned how many cases have occurred in
Alaska. Ms. Subani did not know.
Co-Chair Chenault observed that there were several zero
fiscal notes associated with the legislation, with the
exception of the Department of Public Safety. He pointed
out the lack of a fiscal note from the Department of
Corrections. In response to a hypothetical scenario by Co-
Chair Chenault, Mr. Sniffen agreed it was fraud.
2:49:37 PM
Discussion followed regarding zero and indeterminate fiscal
notes that would result from increased costs. Co-Chair
Chenault suggested that the number of cases would increase
and costs would ensue.
CSHB 7 (FIN) was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|