Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2012 03:00 PM House HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB98 | |
| Presentation: Fasd | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2012
3:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Alan Dick, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Bob Miller
Representative Charisse Millett
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 98(JUD)
"An Act relating to biometric information."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: FASD
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 98
SHORT TITLE: BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
03/11/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/11/11 (S) STA, JUD
03/15/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/11 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/17/11 (S) Moved CSSB 98(STA) Out of Committee
03/17/11 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/18/11 (S) STA RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
03/18/11 (S) DP: WIELECHOWSKI, GIESSEL, MEYER,
PASKVAN
03/21/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/28/11 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/06/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/06/11 (S) Heard & Held
04/06/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/11 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/11 (S) Moved CSSB 98(JUD) Out of Committee
04/15/11 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/11 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 1DNP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/16/11 (S) DP: COGHILL, WIELECHOWSKI
04/16/11 (S) DNP: PASKVAN
04/16/11 (S) NR: FRENCH
04/16/11 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/16/11 (S) VERSION: CSSB 98(JUD)
04/17/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/11 (H) HSS, JUD
03/27/12 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 98 as the prime sponsor of
the bill.
SAM GOTTSTEIN, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "SB 98 -
Biometric Information" and answered questions.
CHRISTOPHER OSWALD, Director
State Government Affairs
Western Region
Reed Elsevier
New York City, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
ERNEST PRAX, Staff
Representative Wes Keller
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
JASON GIAMO, Co-Chair
Alaskan Citizens for Privacy
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 98.
HORST POEPPERL
Borealis Broadband, Inc.
Privacy Now Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 98.
PAUL RESENZWEIG
Heritage Foundation
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
WALTER HAMILTON, Chairman & President
International Biometrics & Identification Association (IBIA)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
JIM HARPER, Director
Information Policy Studies
The Cato Institute
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
MAX MERTZ, CPA
Alaska Board of Public Accountancy
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during discussion of SB 98.
TERI TIBBETT
Coordinator
Alaska FASD Partnership
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the FASD Partnership panel.
DIDI RAYMOND
Mental Health Clinician
Department of Corrections (DOC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the FASD presentation.
TRISH SMITH, Director
Prevention and Intervention Services
Volunteers of America Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the FASD presentation.
STEPHANIE JOHNSON, Mental Health Clinician
Nome Youth Facility
Youth Facilities
Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Health and Social Services
Nome, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the FASD presentation.
MICHAEL JEFFREY, Judge
Superior Court
Barrow, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the FASD presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:03:43 PM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the House Health and Social Services
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.
Representatives Keller, Miller, Kerttula, and Seaton were
present at the call to order. Representatives Millett, Dick,
and Herron arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 98-BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
3:04:36 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 98(JUD), "An Act relating to biometric
information." He noted that technology had made it easier for
personally identified information, but that it also raised many
questions, with many ramifications. He questioned whether it
was possible to completely erase information, once it had been
digitized. He stated that SB 98 would not be moved from the
committee at this meeting. He established that, as there were
many perspectives to biometrics, he would not allow any
disrespect during discussion of the proposed bill. Noting that
there were many witnesses, he asked that some of the questions
might be responded to in writing.
3:08:09 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, confirmed
that people were passionate about protection for their rights to
privacy, as stated in the Alaska State Constitution. He noted
that proposed SB 98 had passed unanimously from the Senate, with
ten co-sponsors. He listed three important aspects of the
proposed bill: it required consent before collection of the
biometric information; it did not allow disclosure of the
personal information without consent; and, it allowed for the
use of alternative identification. He stated that a variety of
disparate groups supported the proposed bill.
3:11:08 PM
SAM GOTTSTEIN, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced slide 1, "Privacy in the Constitution,"
and read Article 1, Section 22 of the Alaska State Constitution:
The right of the people to privacy is recognized and
shall not be infringed. The legislature shall
implement this section.
3:11:44 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN moved on to slide 2, "Genesis of Alaska's Right to
Privacy," and shared that its existence was the result of a
ballot initiative. He explained that the right to privacy,
according to "Alaska's Constitution: A Citizen's Guide" by
Gordon Harrison, "was prompted by fear of the potential for
misuse of computerized information systems, which were then in
their infancy." He stated that Senator Wielechowski shared this
concern for potential misuse of information.
3:12:33 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN directed attention to slide 3, "Legislative
Obligation to Protect," and stated that the 1972 ballot
initiative for the right to privacy was approved by more than 86
percent of Alaskan voters. He reported that the initiative
affirmed that the legislature had a constitutional obligation to
protect Alaskan's privacy, a protection which was stronger than
those privacy protections in the U.S. Constitution.
3:12:59 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN pointed to slide 4, "DNA Privacy Protections," and
reported that the legislature had unanimously passed strong
protections for Alaskans genetic (DNA) information in 2004. He
noted that the proposed bill had unanimously passed the Senate,
as well. He compared the similarity of the proposed SB 98 with
the 2004 legislation, as private industry argued against privacy
protections, stating a difficulty for fulfillment of fiduciary
responsibilities. He reminded that the legislature had a
constitutional obligation to protect the privacy of Alaskans.
3:14:10 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked if the legislation should be based on abuses
and harm done, as privacy was subjective.
3:14:33 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN expressed his agreement that privacy was
subjective. He opined that some private information could be
gleaned from biometric information.
CHAIR KELLER suggested that the legislation be directed toward
privacy violations that caused harm.
MR. GOTTSTEIN stated that the biometric information needed to be
defined, slide 5, "What are Biometrics?" as listed on page 4 of
the proposed bill. He listed fingerprints, hand geometry
recognition, vein recognition, retinal scans, and facial
mapping, as examples.
3:15:48 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN, presenting slide 6, "Biometric Privacy is similar
to Genetic Privacy," described that biometric information was
similar to DNA, noting for example, that certain fingerprint
characteristics or iris scans could be linked to diseases and
genetic disorders. He declared that, as private health
information could be derived from biometric information,
biometric information should be afforded the same protections as
previously afforded by the legislature for DNA.
3:17:47 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN furnished slide 7, "Federal Privacy Laws Lacking,"
and asked if it was necessary for state privacy laws, as federal
protections already existed. He stated that the U.S.
Constitution did not explicitly give a right to privacy, unlike
the Alaska State Constitution, and that federal law focused on
specific sectors for privacy protection. He gave examples of
legislation for privacy to federal government, health care, and
financial institutions, and observed that no federal law
protected biometric information.
MR. GOTTSTEIN considered slide 8, "Other States address
Biometrics," and stated that Alaska was not the only state to
pass similar legislation. He reported that 18 other states had
laws on biometrics, and explained that California's strong
privacy laws had resulted in the disclosure of a data breach.
He pointed to an analysis of Illinois, Indiana, and Texas by
Legislative Research Services, which highlighted the variety of
policy decisions for application of protections [Included in
members' packets].
3:20:38 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN, explaining slide 9, "The Need for Biometric
Privacy," stated that, without legislative action, an Alaskan's
privacy could be exploited for financial gain. He shared that,
from a digital image of a fingerprint, a new set of fingerprints
could be created. He described an example of facial mapping
[Included in members' packets] which allowed a store to
photograph a customer, and then, as the person wandered the
store, change the price of items based on previously collected
personal data. He clarified that biometric information could
not be replaced, emphasizing that it was the most private of
information.
3:22:49 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked if privacy should extend to the right for
people to misrepresent themselves.
3:23:12 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN, in response, offered his belief that someone
would not have the right to misrepresent themselves, opining
that it was illegal. Moving on to slide 10, "Biometrics easy to
duplicate," he disclosed that modern biometric data was easily
duplicated, and stolen, stating that this was the way that
modern identification systems would most threaten practical
obscurity and the privacy it afforded many people.
3:24:07 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN declared that data breaches did happen quite
frequently, as shown on slide 11, "Data breaches are common,"
and he gave an example of a data breach at Lockheed Martin.
3:25:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked about the data breach in Alaska.
MR. GOTTSTEIN, in response, reported that the breach occurred in
January 2009, when a Division of Retirements and Benefits
subcontractor lost a laptop computer or data card containing
records which could have been compromised. He offered his
belief that no compromise had occurred, but that precautions
were taken.
3:26:26 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN reported that more than 30 million sensitive
records were compromised in 2011.
3:27:04 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked if the aforementioned loss of data was a
breach of privacy, dealt with by contractual law. He asked if
the right to privacy was for your choice to give biometric
information.
MR. GOTTSTEIN, in response, said that it depended on the
contract or agreement. He gave an example of medical school
testing agreements, which allowed the testing agency to give
applicant fingerprints to law enforcement agencies without
disclosing this to the applicant. He presented slide 12, "SB 98
Increase Privacy Protections," which explained the proposed
bill. He stated that proposed SB 98 would increase reasonable
privacy protections with clear notification and authorization
for the uses of the biometric information. He noted that there
would not be any distribution or sale of information except by
agreement, and there would be safe storage requirements for the
biometric information. He shared that the proposed bill would
require disposal after the use of the biometric information, and
it would allow citizens the right to civil suits for any
violations.
3:29:13 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN proffered slide 13, "SB 98 Gives Alaskans a
Choice," and stated that the proposed bill preserved choice by
Alaskans. He directed attention to proposed AS 18.14.040, and
explained that Senator Wielechowski would present an amendment
with proposed changes for language clarification to this section
about alternate identification. This proposed amendment would
include the removal of "occupational" from page 2, lines 13 and
17; page 2, line 16, would include "a passport or an"; and page
2, line 17 would remove the sentence beginning with "In this
section."
3:30:29 PM
CHAIR KELLER clarified that the proposed amendment would not yet
be offered.
3:30:47 PM
MR. GOTTSTEIN summarized slide 14, "Conclusion," stating that
the proposed bill was a compromise which added reasonable
protections and preserved choices, without banning the
collection of biometric information. He opined that this was
the next manifestation of privacy protections for Alaskans.
3:31:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER, noting that biometric information could
be gathered and distributed quickly, asked what precautions
could be put in place for violations to biometric information
used, stored, or sold in jurisdictions outside Alaska.
3:32:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, in response, said that the state could
only enforce violations which occurred within Alaska. He
directed attention to page 3, lines 11-19, the "Right of action"
provision, stating that there was a right to civil action
against a person who knowingly violated this chapter, and
applied to any individual over whom the State of Alaska had
jurisdiction. He expressed the difficulty of jurisdiction over
individuals who lived out of the state. He declared the
necessity for a federal or international ban to fully enforce
this.
3:33:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for a definition to distinguish
"knowingly" from "willingly."
3:34:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI offered to get the legal definitions. He
offered his belief that knowingly included actually knowing the
action was occurring.
3:35:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER suggested that willingly or recklessly be
inserted in the language of the proposed bill.
3:36:00 PM
CHRISTOPHER OSWALD, Director, State Government Affairs, Western
Region, Reed Elsevier, explained that Reed Elsevier was the
parent company of LexisNexis Risk Solutions and was a
"recognized leader in data driven capabilities and technology in
the risk sector." He stated that identity verification and
authentication products provided customers with a higher level
of security than traditional methods. He declared that his
company used biometric technology to match unique physical
characteristics which allowed quick identity authentication. He
agreed that biometrics, as an emerging technology, created
legitimate concerns for its use and implementation. He reported
that Reed Elsevier worked to maintain a safe warehouse for
biometric data. He explained its relationship with Prometric, a
worldwide professional licensing and testing service, for
administering educational testing procedures. He gave an
example of its work worldwide with certified public account
(CPA) examinations, pointing out that a biometric identification
system was now used during administration of the examinations.
He said that this system verified the candidate's identity,
identified and mitigated the risk of testing fraud from
unauthorized candidates, improved test center security, and
provided protection for the content and intellectual property of
the examinations.
3:39:38 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked to clarify whether the biometric information
was used more to protect the intellectual property than to
identify the candidates.
MR. OSWALD explained that the CPA exam was "getting ripped off
by professional test takers who were memorizing questions, then
putting them out there on the internet for sale." He said that
some people were unprepared for the exam, so they would hire
people to take the exam for them. He stated that biometric
identification protected the exam and the profession. He
explained that the process between LexisNexis and Prometric
included a notification to the candidate applicant, which stated
that the personal information data would not be used for any
other purpose, without permission. He stated that this was the
consent from the candidate applicant, and that any candidate
could deny this consent, although the CPA state exam board might
not allow them to take the exam. Upon verification of identity
through Prometric, the candidate was enrolled in the biometric
system with a fingerprint scan, which was stored in the
LexisNexis data base for any future exam identification.
3:43:21 PM
CHAIR KELLER asked what Prometric did with the information after
completion of the exams.
MR. OSWALD said that the information was destroyed when the
candidate successfully passed the examination. He emphasized
that the biometric data was only held in safe keeping for the
customer, and, as it was not owned by LexisNexis, it was not
available for sale or any other use by LexisNexis.
3:44:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why, if a person presented
verifiable identification, that same identification would not be
acceptable at a later date, in lieu of biometric data.
MR. OSWALD explained that the CPA exam could be re-taken for
many years, and that more than a few pieces of identification
were necessary for validation. He pointed out that additional
background information was collected on the application, which
also had to be verified upon entrance to the examination site.
He stated that biometric information was more efficient,
reliable, and convenient for the exam applicant, and allowed for
immediate validation should the person leave the room at the
test center.
3:48:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked what would happen if the information
was sold.
MR. OSWALD replied that there were ethical questions and
concerns for emerging technology. He said that Biometrics was
contractually obligated not to sell the data, and that no other
data was co-mingled in storage with the biometric data.
3:49:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK expressed his concern for a lack of
consequence for fraudulent use.
MR. OSWALD, in response, said that there was a risk of large
penalties, as it would "chill the technology." He expressed his
concerns with the proposed bill, as it was legislating use of
the technology. He opined that biometric data could enhance
someone's privacy, as, unlike key cards and identifications, the
biometric data could not be lost.
3:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT opined that the need for biometric
information to secure a testing room when leaving to use the
bathroom was "lame." She asked why multiple pieces of
identification could not be used for validation, no matter the
location. She expressed concern with giving any biometric
information as there could not be a guarantee of its security.
She pointed out that even if LexisNexis destroyed the biometric
information, Prometric would still retain it. She acknowledged
concern for the use of her social security number, even though
it could be replaced; whereas, biometric data could not be
changed and replaced. She stated that the technology for theft
was equal to that of the data collection companies.
3:54:17 PM
MR. OSWALD, in response, expressed his understanding for the
concerns. He directed attention to a number of examples of
security issues [Included in members' packets]. He offered
examples of ways to compromise conventional security.
3:55:50 PM
CHAIR KELLER reminded that fingerprints were only one aspect of
biometric information.
3:56:08 PM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, said that CPAs were available to explain the need
for the biometric policy for CPA exams.
3:57:02 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, offering examples to the history for
various security breaches suffered by LexisNexis, including 2005
and 2009, asked if there were any other security breaches.
MR. OSWALD explained that there would be breaches to every
system to protect information, and he asked what the harm was in
the breach. He noted that the LexisNexis biometric information
was all encrypted, which was useless without the algorithmic
key. He stated that LexisNexis was always striving for greater
improvement to stay ahead of the fraudsters.
3:59:15 PM
JASON GIAMO, Co-Chair, Alaskan Citizens for Privacy, stated that
he was also a certified management accountant and certified
internal auditor. He said that the issues were clear, and
declared that, as a United States passport was sufficient
identification to travel throughout the world, it was sufficient
identification to take a test. He emphasized that elected
Alaskan lawmakers had a role to play in the protection of
individual privacy, which was guaranteed in the Alaska State
Constitution. He stated that the fingerprinting of innocent
people for identification was becoming more widespread, even
though it was in violation of the Alaska State Constitution. He
reiterated that a passport was sufficient identification to take
a test, and stated that no significant fraud for the CPA exam
had been reported. He declared that the possibility of an
identical twin trading places during an examination was
nonsensical. He pointed out that the Prometric policy required
that a person carry identification during the exam process. He
expressed his concern that the release of fingerprints to "a
global, foreign owned, data mining firm" would not enhance
privacy. He agreed with Mr. Oswald that breaches of data
security would occur, and he reminded the committee that, as
fingerprints could not be changed, this breach of security would
last as long as a person was alive. He referred to a report
from Privacy Rights.org, which stated that 223 million data
records of U.S. residents had been exposed through security
breaches in the last three years.
MR. GIAMO, referencing a letter from Reed Elsevier dated
December 28, 2011, said that Reed Elsevier was storing more than
1 million fingerprints of individuals from 80 countries. He
questioned the right to deny Alaskans the opportunity for
professional licensing because they were unwilling to submit
their fingerprints to a biometric data base in order to take an
examination, declaring this to be a key issue. He pointed out
that, in addition, there was a fee to each individual for this
collection of fingerprints. He asked that the committee review
the contracts among the data security and data storage
companies.
MR. GIAMO asked how the sale of data would be traced, much less
regulated, after the fact. He declared the importance for the
preventative aspects of proposed SB 98.
4:05:58 PM
HORST POEPPERL, Borealis Broadband, Inc., Privacy Now Alaska,
stated that he had been an informational technology (IT)
professional for 25 years, pointing out that this was his fourth
testimony on proposed SB 98. As a representative of the IT
industry, he reported that the IT industry was governed by
ethics rules, and that the misuse of data was grounds for
dismissal, as it was a most serious breach of professional
ethics. He declared that businesses now existed which violated
these ethics daily, selling personal data solely for profit. He
explained that Google had software programs which collected
personal data from e-mails and other sources, with the
capability to reveal an individual's personal life. He declared
that this data for personal habits, including purchases and
travel, was worth millions of dollars to "the right company" for
marketing. He reported that the website, privacy rights.org,
chronologically listed privacy data breaches, and reported that
his personal data had been lost five times in the last eight
years. He stated that the argument for data release and
distribution to protect national security was "absurd in the
extreme and [was] a downright Orwellian argument." He suggested
speaking to anyone who had to deal with the money, time, and
aggravation from the personal harm arising from identity theft.
He expressed his desire for even "tighter privacy action,"
stating that legislating after data collection was impossible.
He pointed out that it was almost impossible to delete personal
data once it had been collected and stored. He expressed
support for proposed SB 98.
4:12:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease. [Due to technical
difficulties, the initial part of the teleconferenced testimony
was indiscernible.]
4:15:51 PM
PAUL RESENZWEIG, Heritage Foundation, opined that committee
members should be skeptical of any discussion which included
sloganeering, such as 1984, minority report, or Orwellian, and
stated his skepticism for the arguments of proponents to
proposed SB 98 which misidentified. He offered his belief that
fingerprints were a better means of identification than paper
identification. He declared that identity enrollment with a
biometric required authentication through biographic sets of
information. He pointed out that identity enrollment included a
host of sociological questions with answers only known to the
individual, such as what was your childhood phone number, or
your high school. These questions verified the identity, as
they were linked to the fingerprint, and provided an
identification of the individual which was more sophisticated
than a passport. He directed attention to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report 10-922T, which detailed
instances of fraud in procurement of passports. He stated that
many countries were moving toward use of fingerprint
identification, as a better way of identity assurance, in lieu
of passports. He professed his agreement that there was risk
inherent in the accumulation of biometric data, but opined that
there was a lower risk than that from the accumulation of
biographic data. He also acknowledged that there was a risk for
fraud for professional occupation examinations. He suggested
that any determination needed to be a value judgment as to which
method had a more realistic risk. He declared that any
legislation with an alternate identification requirement would
increase the likelihood of fraud.
4:21:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the Alaska State Constitution
had different requirements than many other state constitutions.
He asked for more information from the witnesses who suggested
not protecting the privacy of Alaskans, as to how the
legislature could meet its responsibility to protect the privacy
of Alaskans.
CHAIR KELLER asked that Mr. Resenzweig submit a written
response.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether there had been any cases
of fraud with the Alaska CPA examination.
CHAIR KELLER replied that the CPA testifiers would respond.
4:23:21 PM
WALTER HAMILTON, Chairman & President, International Biometrics
& Identification Association (IBIA), explained that IBIA was a
non-profit trade association. He stated that he was also a
technology consultant. He offered his belief that proposed SB
98 was the result of a misconception regarding biometric
technology. He proposed that there was less potential for harm
from the collection of personal biometric data than there was
from the collection of other sensitive personal information,
such as credit cards or financial information. He reported that
IBIA believed that biometric data should be treated as
personally identifiable information and properly protected,
noting that the biometrics industry had supported standards for
the protection of biometric data for the last ten years. He
expressed his concern that the proposed bill singled out a
specific technology as a threat to society. He declared that
password hacking was the source of most data breaches, stating
that the data breaches would have been prevented if the data
owner had been using biometric authentication of their
authorized users, instead of passwords. He stated that IBIA did
not object to legislation which defined reasonable standards for
the protection of the personally identifiable information, or
the inclusion of biometrics in the definition of personally
identifiable information. He opined that the proposed bill
would have "a chilling effect on the deployment of a technology
which is significantly beneficial to the citizens of Alaska."
CHAIR KELLER acknowledged that the written testimony submitted
by Mr. Hamilton was available.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his belief that the proposed bill
did not prohibit the data collection, it prohibited mandatory,
unwilling collection of data. He asked Mr. Hamilton for his
specific objection to SB 98.
MR. HAMILTON offered his belief that the option for an
alternative form of identification was less secure, and could
weaken the security of the overall system. He agreed that
alternate forms of identification would be allowed in the rare
circumstances for individuals physically unable to provide a
biometric modality.
4:28:59 PM
MR. HAMILTON stated that commercial biometric data was stored in
a template format, and not used in the original collected image.
He acknowledged that law enforcement used the original images.
4:30:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify whether the data
collectors prohibited, or preferred not to use, the original
images for storage of the collections of facial data and retinal
scans.
MR. HAMILTON replied that commercial practices matched the
registered biometric sample with the presented sample, which was
compared as a template, not as a raw image. For operational
efficiency, the data was in a template format and, as the images
were not used by commercial entities, they were generally
discarded.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify whether the data was
"generally discarded," or was there a legal prohibition from
retaining the data.
MR. HAMILTON clarified that there was no legal prohibition for
retaining the data.
4:31:43 PM
JIM HARPER, Director, Information Policy Studies, The Cato
Institute, explained that he had studied the public policy for
means of identification without encountering the dangers to
liberty and privacy. He stated that both technology and privacy
values were changing, making it difficult "to pin down the right
answers." He declared his support for the intentions of SB 98,
although he expressed his concern "that a bill like this is the
right way to go." He directed attention to the written
testimony he had submitted [Included in members' packets]. He
offered his belief that the definition for biometric data in the
proposed bill would not stand up over time, as it did not
precisely address the concerns for biometrics. Addressing the
issue of notice and consent, he declared that consumers did not
act to protect their own privacy, as they often regarded it as
interference and more paperwork. He opined that education over
time was more successful for showing consumers how things
worked. He reported that it was a very complex and costly
burden to revoke permission for data use, once it had been put
into a system. He offered his belief that outlawing the use of
biometrics for marketing was too broad, and did not think about
future systems, suggesting that the draconian penalties imposed
by a potentially unintentional error would keep people from
providing biometrics. He proposed that the bill have a "lighter
touch" and that "an eye on the longer haul would serve Alaskans
well." He suggested ensuring that contract and tort liability
applied for Alaskans in Alaska should any harm be suffered due
to the collection and use of biometrics. He suggested that
Alaska clarify whether there was a third party doctrine under
its constitutional law, as Alaska could then determine that
biometric information shared with a third party, under
contractual or regulatory protections, would get constitutional
protection for that data. He suggested an investigation to
determine whether the CPA exam was controlled by an occupational
cartel that required the biometric requirements. He suggested
prevention of the use of biometrics in national identification
systems, noting that other states had denied the federal
government access to state identity data.
4:37:28 PM
CHAIR KELLER invited Mr. Harper to testify in future discussion
to any blind spots.
4:38:05 PM
CHAIR KELLER invited the remaining witnesses, whose testimony
would not be heard, to submit written testimony.
4:39:12 PM
MAX MERTZ, CPA, Alaska Board of Public Accountancy, stated that
the Alaska Board of Public Accountancy had concerns with
proposed SB 98, as the Alaska CPA community was very concerned
for the ability for CPA candidates to be tested. He shared that
he had been Chair of the board during the time that Prometric
developed and implemented biometric imaging for the CPA
examinations. He clarified that Prometric owned and
administered the CPA examination process and the security
protocol for biometric imaging of fingerprints, in conjunction
with the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) and National
Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA), and that the
Alaska CPA community did not have direct control over this. He
explained that the security protocol was developed because of
the threat of question strippers, who can remember verbatim four
or five questions and then sell them after the exam, and proxy
test takers, who are hired to take the exam. In response to an
earlier question from Representative Kerttula, he said that he
was not aware of this occurring in Alaska. He reported that
there had been almost 1 million tests administered, with only
one objection, and that the Alaska Board of Public Accountancy
had extensively reviewed the process prior to agreement to the
use of biometric imaging. He reported that the CPA exam was
computerized in 2004, prior to which it was a pencil and paper
examination. He reported that, as the electronic administration
process was very expensive, the distribution was now limited to
Anchorage and Fairbanks. He declared that the four part exam
was very difficult, noting that the pass rate, when taking all
four parts at the same time, was 4 percent; therefore, most
candidates had to take multiple trips to Anchorage or Fairbanks
for the examination. He stated that the Anchorage and Fairbanks
test sites would be discontinued unless the administration
process included biometric imaging. He expressed his concern
that the committee would find an acceptable solution. He
relayed that both Prometric and NASBA agreed that there was not
acceptable alternative identification for repeat test takers.
He requested an exception to allow biometric imaging for
occupational licensing examinations, asking that proposed AS
18.14.040 is clarified to include this.
4:44:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reflected that, as most of the prior
testimony had indicated that fraudulent monitors and test takers
were prevalent, Alaska was not yet plagued by these actions.
4:45:36 PM
MR. MERTZ explained that, prior to the implementation of
electronic examination in 2004, the tests were scheduled twice
annually, on the same day, with the testing times coordinated
nationally so that all the tests were taken concurrently. He
said that a significant amount of reported fraud, from 2004 -
2008, resulted in the implementation of biometric imaging.
4:46:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked how Mr. Mertz had been identified
for his CPA examination.
MR. MERTZ, in response, said that it had required the standard
normal identification.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked how the CPA business had survived
without biometrics.
MR. MERTZ replied that although biometrics had resolved common
the instances of fraud after the initial exam, there was still a
problem with fraud on the initial test.
4:47:57 PM
CHAIR KELLER reflected that breeches had existed under the older
system, as well.
CHAIR KELLER said that SB 98 would be held over.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
^Presentation: FASD
Presentation: FASD
4:49:41 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be
a presentation on FASD (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder).
TERI TIBBETT, Coordinator, Alaska FASD Partnership, said that
all the participants were members of the Alaska FASD Partnership
Steering Committee, as well as participants in the "FASD and the
Legal System" work group. The panel would discuss the
priorities from the work group, which the partnership was
pursuing relative to FASD and the justice system.
4:51:18 PM
DIDI RAYMOND, Mental Health Clinician, Department of Corrections
(DOC), explained that she worked as the statewide coordinator
for a national best practice release program, APIC (Assess,
Plan, Identify). She said that the program worked with the
mental health clinicians inside the DOC correctional facilities
to put together plans for the release of those inmates with
serious mental illness. She noted that this program was in
effect up to 90 days prior to release and up to 60 days after
release, working as a transitional program for release. She
shared that the program included mental health court, mental
health commissions, and supervision of individuals with
psychotic disorders on felony probation or parole. She said
that all the programs were geared toward severely mentally ill
individuals, and that those people with FASD were offered
services, such as housing and continuity of medication, under
APIC. She declared a need for the individualized services
geared for this group. She shared that her group also
supervised released individuals with severe mental illness,
including FASD, who most benefited from ongoing supervision.
She reported that DOC had moved toward a justice model which
took into account the cost and the quality of life for the
community, the individual, and the family by working to reduce
recidivism, reduce the number of victims, and bring communities,
families, and individuals together.
4:54:15 PM
TRISH SMITH, Director, Prevention and Intervention Services,
Volunteers of America Alaska, shared that she served on a family
care wellness court for the children of the participants in the
programs. She said that wellness court taught the children that
the problems of the parents were not the fault of the children,
and allowed the children to deal with their own defense
mechanisms to their parent's problems. She reported that she
had identified possible FASD in a number of women, many of whom
who had been exited from the programs for not following all the
rules. She spoke about the difficulties for many of the
participants when they did not have any program structure. She
offered her belief that the wellness court programs were adapted
to better meet the needs of those affected by substance abuse
and would be even better if FASD was also addressed on an
individual basis.
4:56:59 PM
CHAIR KELLER directed attention to proposed HB 367, which dealt
with FASD, stating that it was scheduled to be introduced in the
next House Health and Social Services Standing Committee
meeting.
4:58:08 PM
STEPHANIE JOHNSON, Mental Health Clinician, Nome Youth Facility,
Youth Facilities, Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of
Health and Social Services, explained that she handled crisis
intervention and identification for specific mental health
issues, including FASD. She said that she travelled with the
youth when they were transitioning back into the community, and
she looked for safe support systems and school programs, as the
program goal was for success. She reported that there was now a
focus to target non-conventional ways to help kids find a
purpose in the community, including elders and cultural
practices to entwine the kids. She decried that often when
youth were forced to leave the community, they were moved to
treatment facilities in the cities. She reported that many
facilities were no longer accepting youth diagnosed with FASD or
IQs lower than 70. She relayed that this increased the
difficulty for placement for these youth. She explained a
teaching family model for a group home with five youth, and a
Bethel cultural based model which taught trapping and fishing,
with an elder on staff. She stated that kids in experiential
learning programs were doing very well, whereas a non-cultural
approach often lead to being institutionalized. She expressed a
desire for more rural cultural based treatment programs.
5:02:10 PM
MICHAEL JEFFREY, Superior Court Judge, said that he was also on
the statewide FAS Steering committee and the Alaska Juvenile
Justice Advisory committee. He reported that he became involved
with FASD in 1996, at a conference in Barrow. He offered an
analogy for putting a youth with FASD in the judicial system to
that of putting a youth with a club foot on the track team. He
explained that FASD youth often look and talk completely normal,
yet have a social understanding at a middle school level. He
declared that they could not be age appropriate. The conference
gave him an awareness for FASD symptoms in behavior, and an
understanding for what his options as a judge should become. He
listed the difficulties for constant maintenance, but the need
for it. He pointed out the need for smart justice, that
effective treatments both in and out of jail would allow the
person to follow the rules and stay out of trouble. He agreed
that the commission of dangerous activities would result in
consequences, but there was a need for effective programs to
meet the needs of the FAS population. He noted that he
simplified his language and court forms, and slowed down the
court hearings, to respect the need for FAS populations to
better understand.
5:07:32 PM
CHAIR KELLER remarked that effective programs were necessary,
as, although the situation was preventable, the victims had no
choice and were victims for life.
5:07:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK offered some homilies to the need of
physical activity for the developmental process.
5:09:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that adoptive parents of FASD
children had told him that there was no connection between cause
and effect with FASD. He opined as to the difficulty of being
within the justice system if there was not an understanding of
cause and effect.
5:10:58 PM
JUDGE JEFFREY clarified that he was not testifying as a
representative of the Alaska court system, but as an individual.
He expressed agreement that it was an issue. He declared that
the community needed protection, but that community case
management could often have better results than incarceration.
5:12:59 PM
MS. RAYMOND stated that there were also issues with memory,
impulsivity, and judgment with FASD; therefore, it was necessary
for more treatment options specific to this population. She
said that working models existed, but the program capacities
were limited.
5:14:35 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Health and Social Services Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 5:14 p.m.