Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/2008 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR13 | |
| HB320 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 320 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
An Act relating to breaches of security involving
personal information, credit report and credit score
security freezes, consumer credit monitoring, credit
accuracy, protection of social security numbers, care
of records, disposal of records, identity theft,
furnishing consumer credit header information, credit
cards, and debit cards, and to the jurisdiction of the
office of administrative hearings; amending Rule 60,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, SPONSOR, commented on the
amendments to the work draft \L version, previously adopted
by the Committee on 2/13/08. He mentioned the need for
discussion, whether to keep the Permanent Fund reporting
inclusion. He preferred leaving it out of the bill.
Representative Coghill referenced Amendment 1, the risk harm
component of reporting located on Page 4, Line 3, which
creates a new subsection.
3:08:37 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. (Copy on File).
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Page 4, after Line 3, inserting a new subsection (c)
"Notwithstanding (a) of this section, notification is
not required, if after an appropriate investigation or
after consultation with relevant federal, state, or
local agencies responsible for law enforcement, the
person or government entity determines that no
reasonable likelihood of harm to the consumers whose
personal information has been acquired has resulted or
will result from the breach. Such a determination must
be documented in writing and the documentation must be
maintained for five years."
Page 14, Line 28, after "discovering", inserting "or
notification of".
Representative Coghill explained the proposed language would
address concerns with a breach of information, maintaining a
notification requirement. Notification could attempt to
balance risk and harm. The amendment clarifies the risk
assessment. There has been an attempt to provide reasonable
effort when information has been compromised. He voiced
support for the amendment.
3:11:43 PM
Representative Hawker concurred with the appropriateness
associated with the risk of harm provision. He cautioned
that the language does not accomplish the intent. One of
two things which must occur is an appropriate investigation
or a consultation with the agency. He was not sure what "an
appropriate investigation" was or who would make that
determination; the burden of decision will be vested to the
information provider.
3:14:12 PM
Representative Gara thought that language stipulates a "good
neighbor" aspect. The bill indicates that it is mandatory
to tell. The companies came forward saying that they do not
want to always tell; if a decision is made, no one gets the
information. Representative Gara offered three choices:
· If personal privacy is violated, they must be
informed.
· The companies want a standard indicating that if the
person finds out that their information has been
breeched and determine that they have been harmed,
then the company has to notify them. He commented,
the consumer might never find that out.
· Middle ground: If the company determines that the
information was accidentally released and no one
will ever see it, as long as it is documented, they
would not have to send out the notices.
Representative Gara supported Amendment 1, which he thought
would provide reasonable middle ground.
Representative Coghill added, it would accompany acquisition
of information. He differed from ideas of Representative
Gara regarding the companies' responsibility during the
assessment process. He realized the risk in information
taken, which requires an investigation and consultation with
the enforcers. There also would be a need for the
reasonable likelihood of harm, which is the standard
language.
3:17:10 PM
Representative Coghill pointed out that Section B provides a
similar standard making exposure of time possible without
unreasonable delay. There are ways to determine that the
companies did not take reasonable efforts; i.e., soft
standards.
Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:19:31 PM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, #25-
LS0311\L.3, Bannister, 2/18/08. (Copy on File). Co-Chair
Meyer OBJECTED.
Page 6, Line 16, following "however" inserting "(1)";
Page 6, Line 19, following "$50,000", inserting "; and
(2) damages that may be awarded against the information
collector under (A) AS 45.50.5311 are limited to actual
economic damages that do not exceed $500; and (B) AS
45.50.537 are limited to actual economic damages".
Representative Gara advised that there had been concerns
regarding the actual economic damages. Legislative Legal
wrote the bill to clarify that the person could not receive
non-economic damages, however, left out the limitation
needed on Page 6.
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:20:14 PM
Representative Nelson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, #25-
LS0311\K.2, Bannister, 2/07/08. (Copy on File).
Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
Page 1, Line 1, deleting "the disclosure of permanent
fund dividend applicant records,"; Page 2, Line 4
through Page 3, Line 18, deleting all material and then
renumber the following bill sections accordingly: Page
29, Line 17, deleting "sec. 5", inserting "sec. 3";
Page 29, Line 21, deleting "sec. 5", inserting "sec.
3"; Page 29, Line 24, deleting "sec. 5", inserting
"sec. 3"; Page 29, Line 26, deleting "sec. 6",
inserting "sec. 4".
Representative Nelson commented that the Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD) application being distributed to business
owners was counter-intuitive to the bill. She maintained
that Alaska should not need be in the business of
distributing personal information.
Vice-Chair Stoltze added that the amendment seeks to return
the State to the policy of privacy for dividend application
information; he did not think the request should be stuck
inside a privacy bill and recommended other avenues for
delivery by considered. He mentioned concerns expressed by
victims of domestic violence. He thought that would be a
worthy discussion.
Representative Hawker indicated his opposition to Amendment
3, which seeks to remove language added in the House
Judiciary Committee following extensive discussion. He
reiterated that it would be inappropriate to treat the two
databases of the registered voters in a different manner
than the Permanent Fund database. There was language added
placing an appropriate sidebar around access and utilization
of that data. He encouraged that the Committee consider the
protection of individuals as well as presumptive evidence.
He wanted to see the language of the bill preserved.
3:25:15 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the information on the
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) is the most current by
necessity. It is not as common to update information on
one's driver's license or voter registration card because
the nature of the dividend is that applicants want to
receive their checks. He maintained the need for extra
effort to protect individuals.
3:26:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to ADOPT Amendment
3.
IN FAVOR: Nelson, Stoltze, Thomas, Gara
OPPOSED: Hawker, Kelly, Meyer
Representatives Joule, Crawford, Harris and Chenault were
not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4-3).
Representative Nelson requested the amendment be HELD for
RESCIND at the next meeting, when enough members are
present.
Representative Thomas asked if the social security numbers
listed in the PFD information, would be distributed. Co-
Chair Meyer remembered that was optional information.
Representative Nelson pointed out that Representative
Coghill has sponsored numerous pieces of legislation
attempting to protect individual's social security numbers.
Representative Hawker requested clarifying testimony from
authorities.
3:29:07 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, #25-
LS0311\K.1, Bannister, 1/20/08. (Copy on File).
Representative Nelson OBJECTED.
Page 2, Line 22, following "information" inserting
"except applicant information about individuals who are
under 18 years of age".
Representative Hawker explained that the amendment provides
language determined by the Department of Revenue and another
interested party's to resolve concerns of access of
children's information. He understood that the Department
of Revenue fully supports the amendment.
Representative Kelly asked if the sponsor was in supported
the amendment. Representative Coghill affirmed.
Representative Nelson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, it was adopted.
3:30:22 PM
Representative Gara recommended that Amendment 3 be
addressed on the House Floor. Representative Nelson did not
agree, maintaining her request.
Representative Kelly anticipated an answer to the social
security question relative to Amendment 3. Representative
Coghill recommended that the Permanent Fund Dividend
representative address that issue.
3:31:57 PM
JERRY BURNETT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, responded to the query
regarding whether or not social security numbers could be
released with PFD information under the bill as written.
The answer is that the bill limits information to only names
and addresses not social security numbers. There is a
limitation in the bill regarding what applicant information
can be distributed.
HB 65 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|