Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
03/18/2008 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB297 | |
| HB65 | |
| SB263 | |
| SB179 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CSHB 65(FIN)-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
2:09:48 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced CSHB 65(FIN) to be up for consideration;
version SCS CSHB 65(L&C), 25-LS0311\N was before the committee.
He noted the committee received some correspondence from Yahoo
relating to the notification section of the bill and
Representative Coghill thought that concern had been addressed
in the CS; he had been informed that was not the case. Ms.
Bannister, the legislative drafter, was working on language, but
it wouldn't be ready for this committee. So once it was done,
that would "be punted on" to the Judiciary Committee.
KAREN LIDSTER, staff to Representative John Coghill, co-sponsor
of HB 65, said that the sponsor wanted to address the Yahoo
notification issues. She went on to the sectional analysis of
version N. On page 15, line 17, under the subject of exemptions,
"consumer credit reporting agency" was deleted and "a person"
was inserted to correct a technical reference.
2:13:18 PM
On page 16, line 17, "security freeze" language was clarified so
that if a consumer decides to freeze his credit report, all of
it is frozen, not just a part. On page 17, lines 21-22, language
was inserted at the request of the Recorder's Office that it
could accept documents for recording and could give out copies
of documents that had previously been recorded. They did not
want to be in a position of providing information this bill says
they can't. So "request or collect" was deleted and "communicate
or otherwise make available to the general public" was inserted.
Language on page 17, line 23, just clarifies the employees' job
duties relating to a recorded document by inserting
"communicating or otherwise making available".
2:14:55 PM
CHAIR ELLIS said DNR requested this and the private sector
people were concerned that the amended language would apply more
broadly than just to the DNR. He asked if that was correct.
MS. LIDSTER replied that this language could probably apply to
other divisions, but DNR specifically requested it so it could
disclose previously recorded information. Everyone thought it
would be tighter to insert it in the use of social security
number section as well. DNR is happy with this language.
MS. LIDSTER referred to section 45.48.410 on page 18 where lines
11-15 were inserted into the social security number section to
allay vendor concerns that wording in the bill would prevent
them from providing information they believe they were allowed
to provide under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This language tries to regulate
them to protect Alaska residents, but vendors are still not
totally happy with it. The sponsor said he had made significant
concessions in this area. A couple of words concerning those who
are not regulated by the GLBA or the FCRA still need to be
worked out.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if this language strikes a balance.
MS. LIDSTER answered that according to the sponsor, it strikes a
balance.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if Mr. Sniffen helped Terry Bannister draft
this language.
MS. LIDSTER answered yes. She continued on to page 18, lines 29-
31, where a new section was added - subsection (2) talks about
people regulated by the GLBA "for a purpose authorized by that
act" and on page 19, line 1, a new subsection (3) refers to
people regulated by the FCRA. Under the disclosure section of
the social security numbers on page 19, it talks about the third
party that is regulated by the FCRA; the GLBA was not added here
because that was in subparagraph (3).
MAEGAN FOSTER, staff to Representative Gara, co-sponsor of HB
65, said her office is comfortable with the changes.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
supported the changes in version N.
AUDREY ROBINSON, Reed Elsevier, parent company of LexisNexis,
appreciated the work the committee and sponsors had done, but
said the new language still doesn't address their concerns.
Unfortunately it might be just a one to two word issue, but the
assumptions don't quite get to their uses. Unfortunately the
GLBA refers to financial institutions and that is particularly
who is regulated by the act; however use of social security
numbers falls within the purview of that act. While LexisNexis
is compliant with GLBA, they aren't technically regulated under
it (their uses are). LexisNexis' misuse of social security
numbers would still fall within the boundaries of the FCC to
prosecute. The conjunction language saying both "be regulated
by" and "purposes regulated by" are the rub. A fix could be made
simply by changing an "and" to an "or" for them to continue
serving Alaskans (for asset location, location of missing
children, checking to make sure a person opening a bank account
isn't a terrorist).
2:25:28 PM
MS. ROBINSON also mentioned on page 19, line 28, of version N,
subparagraph (3) has the former GLBA language that was changed
in 45.48.410 and 45.48.420 and she asked for conformity purposes
that be changed to reflect the newer language.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if the sponsors thought that updating was wise
to do.
MS. LIDSTER replied it would be no problem.
2:27:05 PM
JON BURTON, ChoicePoint, echoed LexisNexis comments. He was
encouraged that the sponsors recognized the federal issues. The
other issue that remains outstanding is "expressly" versus "not
expressly". He promised to do everything on his end to work
within the framework the sponsors have set up to reach a
solution.
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Consumer's Union, supported the CS. She said
the change on page 19 was purely technical and the concept of
the broader exemptions retain the integrity of saying this is
not a free pass from federal law because federal law really
doesn't govern conduct. Instead, it's when federal law, both
authorizes conduct and regulates the people who engage in it
that the state law would defer to federal law and that is a
reasonable place to draw the line.
2:29:59 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt SCS CSHB 65(L&C), version N.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR ELLIS announced Amendment 1 to be up for consideration.
25-LS0311\N.1
Bannister
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65( ), Draft Version "N"
Page 3, line 4, following "if":
Insert "the information collector's primary
method of communication with the state resident is by
electronic means, or if"
DANA OWEN, staff to Senator Ellis, explained that Yahoo's
concern was that some vendors communicate strictly through email
and this language would allow them to notify customers of a
breach of confidentiality by email if that is their primary way
of communication.
MS. LIDSTER said Representative Coghill supported the amendment.
CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 1. There were no objections
and it was adopted.
CHAIR ELLIS announced consideration of conceptual Amendment 2,
the technical update on page 19 suggested by Ms. Robinson.
CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 2. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
2:34:29 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report SCS CSHB 65(L&C) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|