Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2008 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 160 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 332 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 65(FIN)
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving
personal information, credit report and credit score
security freezes, protection of social security
numbers, care of records, disposal of records, identity
theft, credit cards, and debit cards, and to the
jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
amending Rules 60 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and providing for an effective date."
Senator Olson MOVED to ADOPT SCS HB 65(FIN), labeled 25-
LS0311\F, Bannister, 4/10/08, as the working document.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
4:47:27 PM
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, reviewed the
changes to the new SCS. On page 2, line 19, the word "and"
was changed to "or". On page 3, line 25, the words "to
state residents" were added for clarification. On page 5,
line 31, language was deleted that was added as an amendment
in the previous committee that referred to radio frequency
devices. Page 8, line 28, through page 9, line 18, is the
section of the bill that describes the exceptions for the
fifteen minute time limit on removing a security freeze.
Mr. Peterson continued to explain that on page 11, lines 21-
24, changes were made to the amount that a consumer credit
reporting agency may charge a consumer for lifting a freeze.
Previous language stated that if a consumer makes more than
two requests, then the company may charge $2. That language
was problematic. On page 13, lines 17-18, language was
inserted to conform to the previous exceptions for the
fifteen minute time limit. On page 16, line 8-9, the
language was added referring to AS 21.36.460 and AS
21.39.035.
Mr. Peterson turned to page 19, lines 1-4, a new subsection
that refers to exceptions for accessing a person's social
security number, and lines 8-12, which defines "insurer".
On page 28, line 7, the words "or expiration date" were
added after "credit card number". On page 29, lines 8-14,
a new definition for credit report, cross referencing
federal code, was inserted. On page 30, line 22, the
effective date was changed from January 1, 2009, to July 1,
2009, to conform with the start of the next fiscal year.
4:51:41 PM
Senator Elton referred to the change made on page 11, line
21, about the charge to consumers. He asked how many
agencies a consumer would need to contact to establish a
freeze. Darwin Peterson deferred to Karen Lister.
KAREN LISTER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, reported
that it would be three credit reporting agencies.
Senator Elton assumed that the cost would be $15, not $5.
Ms. Lister agreed.
4:53:08 PM
Ms. Lister presented an overview of the bill and listed the
7 articles that deal with all areas of personal information
and the rights and protections the consumer has and can
expect from individuals that handle their personal
information:
Breach of Security Involving Personal Information
Credit Report and Credit Score Security Freeze
Protection of Social Security Number
Disposal of Records
Factual Declaration of Innocence after Identity Theft;
Right to File Police Report Regarding Identity Theft
Truncation of Card Information
General Provisions
4:58:03 PM
Senator Thomas inquired who currently has access to personal
information. Ms. Lister replied that the Fair Credit
Reporting Act provides guidelines that control access and
disclosure of that information. Those guidelines are
referenced many times in the bill. Credit reporting
agencies are subject to those requirements.
5:00:02 PM
Senator Olson asked, if the bill passes, if doctors will
still be able to use Social Security numbers for reporting
purposes. Ms. Lister said they would. She referenced that
information in the bill.
Senator Olson found that information on page 20, lines 29-
31.
5:00:42 PM
Senator Huggins asked how long of a delay there would be
before the person is informed if their security file is
lost. Ms. Lister deferred to the Attorney General's Office
to report on the "allowable delay" term.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that an amendment was forthcoming.
AT EASE: 5:02:07 PM
RECONVENED: 5:03:52 PM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1:
Page 1, line 3, following "debit cards,":
Insert "disclosure of the names and addresses of
permanent fund dividend applicants,"
Page 2, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 43.23.017 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the
department may release the names and addresses of
permanent fund dividend applicants to a legislator of
this state and to the legislator's office staff."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 30, line 6:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 30, line 10:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 30, line 19:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 4"
Page 30, line 21:
Delete "Section 6"
Insert "Section 7"
Page 30, line 22:
Delete "secs. 7 and 8"
Insert "secs. 8 and 9"
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED.
5:04:13 PM
MILES BAKER, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, presented an
overview of the amendment. The amendment would insert an
addition to AS 43.23.017, which is the section in statute
regarding who has access to the names and addresses of
Permanent Fund Dividend applicants. Prior to 2004,
legislative offices had access to that data. In 2004
legislation was passed which had the unintended effect of
eliminating legislative access. Currently, local, state,
and federal government agencies can access the PFD list, but
legislative offices cannot. The amendment would allow
legislators and their staff would have access to the list.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Senator Elton OBJECTED. He inquired if there were any
restrictions on legislative use of that information.
5:07:17 PM
Mr. Baker related that the department could not release
confidential information and he assumed that legislative
offices would do the same. The issue was not specifically
addressed in the amendment.
Senator Elton said he was comfortable with having access for
official purposes. He thought it should be restricted to
only official purposes.
Mr. Baker reported that he had discussed this with Legal
Services and the original suggestion included the wording
"legislative offices for official business". That was the
intent of the amendment, but in discussions with Legal
Services it was decided that Amendment 1 contained the best
description. He related the history of the discussion of
the wording.
5:10:59 PM
Senator Elton MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment: on line
10, before the period, add the words "for official use."
Co-Chair Stedman agreed with that friendly amendment.
Senator Elton WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted, as amended.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment, on
page 4, line 1, insert "credit" after "consumer". This was
recommendation by Legal Services.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
5:13:27 PM
MARIE DARLIN, AARP, CAPITAL CITY TASK FORCE, testified in
support of the bill. She related that the subject of this
bill has been a concern of AARP's for a long time. It has
been thoroughly reviewed and discussed since last year.
AARP believes that HB 65 will be one of the most
comprehensive identity theft bills in the U.S. She referred
to a letter of support by AARP (copy on file.) She asked
for the Committee's support of the bill.
5:16:26 PM
Co-Chair Stedman referred to a letter from legal services
dealing with interstate commence. He inquired if the bill
creates a problem with interstate commerce.
Ms. Lister replied that she does not see a problem, but
would like to have a legal explanation.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, reported that this kind of legislation
has been passed in 42 states and is not a concern.
5:18:24 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to REPORT SCS CSHB 65(FIN) from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED. He reviewed the two fiscal
notes.
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
SCS CSHB 65(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee with "no
recommendation" and with indeterminate fiscal note #3 by the
Office of the Governor and fiscal note #5 by the Department
of Administration.
AT EASE: 5:19:32 PM
RECONVENED: 5:27:44 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|