05/02/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB207 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 207 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2007
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Les Gara
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 207
"An Act relating to questionnaires and surveys administered in
the public schools."
- MOVED CSHB 207(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 232
"An Act relating to the sale, distribution, and purchase of
alcoholic beverages; relating to a state database for records of
certain purchases of alcoholic beverages; relating to the
relocation of a license to sell alcoholic beverages; relating to
procedures for local option elections for control of alcoholic
beverages; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 207
SHORT TITLE: STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
03/19/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/07 (H) HES, JUD
04/03/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/03/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/10/07 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/10/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/12/07 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
04/12/07 (H) Moved CSHB 207(HES) Out of Committee
04/12/07 (H) MINUTE(HES)
04/13/07 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) 2DP 2NR
04/13/07 (H) DP: CISSNA, WILSON
04/13/07 (H) NR: FAIRCLOUGH, NEUMAN
04/25/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
04/25/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/02/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COGHILL, GARA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/31/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) L&C AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
04/16/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/23/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/23/07 (H) Moved CSHB 65(L&C) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/07 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 3NR 1AM
04/24/07 (H) DP: GATTO, NEUMAN
04/24/07 (H) NR: BUCH, LEDOUX, OLSON
04/24/07 (H) AM: GARDNER
05/02/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 207.
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 65.
CRAIG E. DAHL, President & CEO
Alaska Pacific Bank;
Alaska Bankers Association (ABA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 65.
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Senior Attorney
West Coast Office
Consumers Union (CU)
San Francisco, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
JOHN BURTON, Vice President
State Government Affairs
ChoicePoint Asset Company ("ChoicePoint")
Alpharetta, Georgia
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
LORI DAVEY, Owner
Motznik Information Services, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
KENTON BRINE, Manager
Northwest Region
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCIAA)
Olympia, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
GRETCHEN GUESS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
CYNTHIA MINIER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
TOM HIPSMAN (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
HB 65.
JERRY BURNETT, Director
Administrative Services Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
proposed amendments to HB 65.
MEAGAN FOSTER, Staff
to Representative Les Gara
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of proposed amendments to
HB 65, provided information on behalf of Representative Gara,
one of the bill's joint prime sponsors.
ANNE CARPENETI
Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 65.
FRANK BAILEY, Special Assistant;
Legislative Liaison/Communications
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Amendment 10 to
HB 65.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:09:56 PM. Representatives Holmes,
Gruenberg, Dahlstrom, Coghill, Lynn, and Ramras were present at
the call to order. Representative Samuels arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Gara was also in
attendance.
HB 207 - STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS
1:10:12 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 207, "An Act relating to questionnaires and
surveys administered in the public schools." [Before the
committee was CSHB 207(HES).]
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 207, Version 25-LS0680\K, Mischel,
4/30/07, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:10:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
offered that Version K addresses the concern that parents
understand the content of the surveys, and clarifies that
"written notice" must include: the date the survey is to be
administered; a description of the content of the survey; the
name of the sponsor of the survey; and the name of a person to
contact at the school district regarding the survey. Version K
also now stipulates that a written denial of permission to
participate in a survey may be submitted to either a teacher or
the principal.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, referring to the 2005 Alaska YRBS,
noted that on the front page it says in part: "If you are not
comfortable answering a question, just leave it blank." He
opined that it is important for the students to know that they
are not obligated to answer all, or even any, of the questions
in the survey, and that this should be clarified in the law and
be made clear to the parents. He indicated that he would be
offering an amendment to ensure that the required written notice
to parents also include the information that the student is not
obligated to answer all or any of the questions in the survey.
He also said he wants to ensure that students don't feel
pressured to participate in the survey just because all their
classmates are participating.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then removed his objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Version K was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked how the legislature could ensure
that students won't be put in an embarrassing position for not
participating in the survey.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her understanding that most
schools simply allow students who are not participating in a
survey to go to the library until the other students have
completed the survey.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't want teachers to single
out students who are not participating in the survey.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that that same problem will exist
regardless of whether the bill passes.
1:16:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, which, along with handwritten corrections, read
[original punctuation provided]:
pg. 2, after line 18 add
(8) notice of the opportunity for the student not
to answer specific questions or the entire survey
The committee took an at-ease from 1:17 p.m. to 1:19 p.m.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked whether there were any objections. There
being none, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
1:20:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 207, Version 25-LS0680\K, Mischel, 4/30/07, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVES DAHLSTROM and LYNN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN opined that HB 207 will be taking parents
out of the loop, and characterized the 2005 Alaska YRBS in
members' packets as an invasive questionnaire containing
inappropriate questions. The questions such surveys ask, he
suggested, will lead children to give consideration to the very
behaviors they ought to avoid such as suicide, drug and alcohol
abuse, and sexual intercourse; children will conclude from these
questions and the way they are phrased that such behaviors are
normal. After noting that the first question in the 2005 Alaska
YRBS asks whether the participating student is 12 years old or
younger, he said he is concerned about the invasion of privacy
that such a survey constitutes regardless of any good that might
come from the information gleaned from it. He relayed that he
would be voting "No" on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS relayed that he will be voting to move
the bill from committee, though he is not sure how much he'd
believe the statistics garnered from such surveys.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that he has concerns that the
surveys don't clearly inform the student that he/she doesn't
have to answer all or any of the questions; thus, he would
prefer that such surveys stipulated that point on each page of
the survey. Something should also be done, he opined, to ensure
that the surveys are administered in such a way that those
students who are not participating in the survey aren't singled
out in front of their classmates. For example, perhaps a parent
should be given the opportunity to review the survey before it's
administered and, then, if he/she objects to certain questions,
they could be redacted from his/her child's survey.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether legislators would be
comfortable answering similar questions in a survey specifically
designed for legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM maintained her objection to the motion.
1:28:37 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Coghill,
Samuels, Holmes, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting the
proposed CS for HB 207, Version 25-LS0680\K, Mischel, 4/30/07,
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Dahlstrom and
Lynn voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 207(JUD) was reported
out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 5-2.
HB 65 - PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
1:29:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
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." [Before the committee was CSHB 65(L&C).]
1:30:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, speaking as one of the bill's joint
prime sponsors, remarked that at one point he didn't have a
problem with giving out his social security number or his credit
card number, but a couple of years ago his credit card number
was used by someone else to buy $8,000 worth of prepaid phone
calls. He then relayed that HB 65 does several things:
Section 1 adds to AS 40.21.110 - Care of Records - a reference
to proposed AS 45.48.500-550; Section 2 gives the administrative
law judge jurisdiction over [violations of proposed AS
45.48.010-090]; Section 3 adds to Title 45 a new Chapter 48 -
Personal Information Protection Act. He indicated that there
will be several amendments intended to address issues raised by
the different articles in proposed AS 45.48, issues such as
accountability and the ability to perform.
1:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that proposed Article 1 -
Breach of Security Involving Personal Information - describes
what a person who owns or uses personal information must do in
case of a breach of information, mandates how notification of a
breach of information must occur, and describes what constitutes
an allowable delay in notification of a breach of information.
Article 2 - Credit Report and Credit Score Security Freeze -
addresses one's ability to get a security freeze placed on one's
personal information. He mentioned that some forthcoming
amendments will address aspects of Article 2, and that there is
a forthcoming amendment that will delete Article 3 - Consumer
Credit Monitoring; Credit Accuracy - adding that he is amenable
to the latter amendment because existing federal law would take
precedence over it anyway. He also indicated that Article 4 -
Protection of Social Security Number - will have about five
forthcoming amendments pertaining to it.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that there will also be
forthcoming amendments to Article 5 - Disposal of Records; to
Article 6 - Factual Declaration of Innocence after Identity
Theft; Right to File Police Report Regarding Identity Theft; and
to Article 7 - Consumer Credit Header Information. He then
referred to Article 8 - Truncation of Card Information - and
indicated that [proposed AS 45.48.750(f), under Section 4 of the
bill,] stipulates that electronic printers of credit/debit card
receipts may only print the last four digits of the card number,
and that Section 8 of the bill gives that provision an effective
date of 1/1/09. He noted that Article 9 contains general
provisions, and that Sections 4-8 of the bill pertain to the
bill's implementation. For example, Section 5 - proposed AS
45.50.471(b) - defines "governmental agency" and "information
collector"; and Section 6 provides that the indirect court rule
amendment brought about via adoption of proposed AS 45.48.640
shall be noted in uncodified law.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding.]
1:43:33 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL) relayed that the DOL supports the
concept of HB 65 and believes that it will do a lot to address
the problem of identity theft. He mentioned that he would be
offering further comments once discussion begins on the
forthcoming amendments to Article 4 of the bill.
1:44:13 PM
CRAIG E. DAHL, President & CEO, Alaska Pacific Bank; Alaska
Bankers Association (ABA) mentioned that members' packets should
contain a letter by the ABA indicating that the ABA supports the
intention of HB 65 to protect customers' financial information.
Furthermore, he remarked, the ABA believes that the bill should
track federal regulation as closely as possible where
appropriate and acknowledge the federal preemption for those
operating under those regulations. Banks are currently required
to comply with more than 20 federal laws intended to address the
issues surrounding the transfer and protection of customer
information, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, and the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
MR. DAHL, after referring to some of the provisions of those
federal laws, said that the financial services industry is fully
engaged in implementing those provisions, that customer
confidence is key to the industry, and that the industry has
made a commitment to protect customers' financial resources and
privacy. He said that the ABA has reviewed HB 65 and recommends
three changes, outlined in the aforementioned ABA letter that
will enable financial institutions to protect customers' privacy
while also providing responsible information transfers. The
first recommended change pertains to Article 1, and the second
and third recommended changes are addressed by forthcoming
amendments. In conclusion, he urged the committee to accept
those amendments, reiterated that the ABA is seeking to keep
HB 65 in line with existing federal regulations, and said that
the ABA supports HB 65.
1:50:14 PM
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, relayed
simply that the AARP supports HB 65 and hopes that the
aforementioned forthcoming amendments will help the bill.
1:52:49 PM
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Senior Attorney, West Coast Office, Consumers
Union (CU), said that the CU has been assisting state
legislatures across the country that have been grappling with
the problem of identity theft and is pleased to see HB 65
[moving through the process] and is proud to support it. She
relayed that 34 states now have a "notice of breach" provision
similar to that encompassed in Article 1 of the bill, and
characterized Alaska's proposed provision as a strong one and
good in its current form. Furthermore, 33 states and the
District of Columbia now have a "security freeze" provision
similar to that encompassed in Article 2 of the bill, and about
a dozen states have a provision regarding social security
numbers similar to the provision in Article 4 of the bill. In
response to questions, she indicated that the CU believes the
bill is quite strong as currently written - adding that the CU's
interest is based on a model the CU prepared several years ago
after Congress passed the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003 - and that the CU doesn't have any opposition to any
of the amendments that will be brought forth by the bill's joint
prime sponsors, though she may wish to comment on other
forthcoming amendments once they are offered.
1:54:48 PM
STEVE CLEARY, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), relayed that the AkPIRG attempts to
educate consumers on how to protect themselves against identity
theft, and advocates for stronger protections such as are being
offered via HB 65. He noted that 33 states and the District of
Columbia have mandatory notification provisions in their laws,
and that some 25 states have security freeze provisions in their
laws. The other provisions of the bill, he remarked, are also
good for consumer protection, adding that he may wish to speak
to the forthcoming proposed amendments that would affect
"Sections 1 and 2." In conclusion, he offered his hope that HB
65 will be adopted this year.
1:57:09 PM
JOHN BURTON, Vice President, State Government Affairs,
ChoicePoint Asset Company ("ChoicePoint"), after providing some
information about ChoicePoint, said that ChoicePoint has had the
opportunity to work with one of the joint prime sponsor's staff
and has absolutely no opposition to the majority of the bill.
However, ChoicePoint does have some technical concerns related
to drafting and definitions, he relayed; furthermore,
ChoicePoint does have a problem with "Section 7" but has been
given to understand that one of the forthcoming proposed
amendments will be deleting [that provision]. In conclusion, he
indicated that he would like to provide comments later on
"Sections 2 in combination with Section 9, dealing with the
definitions, and ... Article 4 relating to the social security
number provisions."
1:58:36 PM
LORI DAVEY, Owner, Motznik Information Services, Inc. indicated
that she would be commenting on a forthcoming amendment
pertaining to [a proposed new Section 2].
1:59:05 PM
KENTON BRINE, Manager, Northwest Region, Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America (PCIAA), after providing some
information about the PCIAA, relayed that the PCIAA believes HB
65 has improved as it's gone through the legislative process,
and that the PCIAA still has some specific concerns with a
couple of provisions in Article 2. In response to a question,
he offered further information about the PCIAA.
2:01:40 PM
GRETCHEN GUESS indicated that she would be speaking to the
forthcoming proposed amendment as it pertains to permanent fund
dividend (PFD) application records, adding that she'd sponsored
a bill on that issue when she was a legislator.
2:02:46 PM
CYNTHIA MINIER, speaking on behalf of herself, indicated that
she would be commenting on Article 1 of HB 65 and on PFD
[records].
2:03:09 PM
TOM HIPSMAN (ph), after mentioning that he is a private
investigator, indicated that he would be commenting on the
provision in HB 65 related to the PFD database.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:04 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.
2:08:29 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-
LS0311\E.12, Bannister, 5/1/07, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "to":
Insert "the disclosure of permanent fund dividend
applicant records,"
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 43.23.017 is amended to read:
Sec. 43.23.017. Applicant information
confidential. Information on each permanent fund
dividend application, except the applicant's name, is
confidential. The department may only release
information that is confidential under this section
(1) to a local, state, or federal
government agency;
(2) in compliance with a court order;
(3) to the individual who or agency that
files an application on behalf of another;
(4) to a banking institution to verify the
direct deposit of a permanent fund dividend or correct
an error in that deposit;
(5) as directed to do so by the applicant;
[AND]
(6) to a contractor who has a contract with
a person entitled to obtain the information under (1)
- (5) of this section to receive, store, or manage the
information on that person's behalf; a contractor
receiving data under this paragraph may only use the
data as directed by and for the purposes of the person
entitled to obtain the information; and
(7) as provided under (b) of this section.
* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.017 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(b) The department shall disclose applicant
information to a business that requests the applicant
information if the business has a license under
AS 43.70.020, the business, or an agent, an employee,
or a contractor of the business, indicates that the
business will use the applicant information only in
the normal course of business, the person making the
request provides proof of the person's identity, and
the person making the request states that the business
will use the applicant information only
(1) as necessary to implement or enforce a
transaction authorized by the applicant;
(2) to obtain information from law
enforcement agencies or self-regulatory organizations
or for an investigation, if the business is the
practice of law or includes the service of process;
(3) in connection with a civil, a criminal,
an administrative, or an arbitration proceeding,
including the service of process, investigation in
anticipation of litigation, executing on a judgment,
enforcing a judgment, or complying with a court order;
(4) for a legal or beneficial interest
relating to the applicant, if the business holds the
legal or beneficial interest;
(5) on behalf of the applicant, if the
business is acting in a fiduciary capacity on behalf
of the applicant;
(6) to verify the accuracy of information
provided by the applicant, to prevent fraud by the
applicant, or to pursue legal remedies against the
applicant;
(7) in connection with insurance claims,
insurance investigations, or insurance anti-fraud
activities, if the business is an insurer or a person
who provides support services to an insurer;
(8) to comply with federal, state, or
municipal laws, regulations, ordinances, or other
legal requirements; or
(9) for bulk distribution to political
candidates, nonprofit organizations, or persons taking
polls.
(c) In this section,
(1) "applicant" means an applicant for a
permanent fund dividend;
(2) "applicant information" means name,
mailing address, and birth year of an applicant;
(3) "business" means a person engaging in
business."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 30, line 24:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 30, line 28:
Delete "sec. 3"
Insert "sec. 5"
Page 30, line 30:
Delete "sec. 4"
Insert "sec. 6"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
2:09:26 PM
MS. DAVEY relayed that she is in favor of Amendment 1, which
would authorize "re-access" to the PFD files for legitimate
business purposes. She went on to say:
House Bill 65 finally defines what constitutes
personal information and the legal recourses for those
who are negligently careless or criminally intent on
misusing a person's information. As you may recall,
we lost access to the PFD file in 2005; the bill was
supposedly to stop stalkers from finding victims using
the PFD files. The only person who testified at that
time was a Melissa Wyatt from Washington who said she
couldn't apply because her ex-husband could hunt her
down and hurt her somehow, [but] when we looked at her
record we found that she lived in Washington and
didn't appear to be eligible for it.
We also found out about this bill way too late to try
to stop it. We talked to several people in the
committees at the time but we were told that there
would be time to correct this in the next session
before it would become effective. After the session I
received several letters from legislators who
apologized for voting for the bill, saying they didn't
realize they were turning off all access when they
voted for this bill. When we lost [this file], we
lost the best source for ... [a] comprehensive file
for all Alaskans. It's now very difficult to locate
people for legitimate business purposes and to
differentiate criminals from non-criminals with common
names.
Criminals do not necessarily vote, register their
vehicles, purchase hunting and fishing licenses, or
own property, but they do get the PFD check. This is
about accountability and ensuring that the average
Alaskan citizen maintains their personal rights in
society. The voter registration can still be updated
by the PFD file; therefore, those addresses and names
from the PFD file do become public for voters of
Alaska. The only people we're protecting with the
current law are the criminals who do not want to be
found.
MS. DAVEY continued:
This amendment was drafted using the [Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV)] exemptions and "do-not-call"
exemptions. This new version of a limited access PFD
file would be administered in much the same way that
we manage the current DMV file. Right now, the DMV
file is more public than the PFD file, and we are able
to manage to those standards of limited access, and we
would do the same thing ... by reauthorizing access,
for legitimate business purposes, ... [to] the PFD
file, and it will ensure that all Alaskans are not
erroneously denied employment or credit due to lack of
verification procedures.
We commonly have to use several different files to do
background checks on people, and to differentiate the
criminal from the individual. ... It's normal for
employers and other creditors to run background
checks. The criminal file for the state of Alaska has
names and date of birth. We use a series of public
files to cross reference and differentiate individuals
with common names, to compare to the records of the
civil, criminal bankruptcy, and recorder's office
file. The best match is when you can corroborate a
name and a date of birth.
Reauthorizing the access to PFD for ... limited
purposes ... ensures that people with a legitimate
reason and a need to know will once again regain
access and thereby [be] able to differentiate people
... [with] common names and ... make sure the right
people are matched to the right identities. Thank
you.
2:12:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has concerns about the language
in Amendment 1 - proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(9) - that will allow a
business to access PFD applicant information for bulk
distribution to political candidates, nonprofit organizations,
or persons taking polls. He suggested that proposed paragraph
(9) ought to be changed to allow Alaskans who get a PFD to
stipulate [on their PFD application] that they don't want their
information distributed to political candidates or poll takers.
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that according to conversions he'd had with
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division; it could accommodate such
a change but at a cost of about $100,000 or more.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that that cost should be paid
by the businesses that are seeking access to PFD application
information.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that currently
people can access fishing license records and other records that
result from people filling out applications. He asked whether
the PFD application file is the only file that currently can't
be accessed.
MS. DAVEY indicated that it is.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned whether a change similar to
what Representative Gruenberg is suggesting ought to made to all
the statutes pertaining to items that people fill out
applications for such as fishing licenses, hunting licenses, and
pilot licenses. He added, "If you're going to do one, you would
do them all, and that becomes far more cumbersome."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG posited that maybe once it is done for
one type of record, it could perhaps then be done for other
types of records at a lower cost.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what type of information would be
released under Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Amendment 1 - proposed AS
43.23.017(c)(2) defines "applicant information" as being the
applicant's name, mailing address, and year of birth.
MS. DAVEY referred to Representative Gruenberg's concern
regarding Amendment 1's proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(9), and
indicated that the language therein simply [mirrors existing
statutory] do-not-call exemptions. She added:
Before we lost access to the PFD file, it was common
for political candidates and pollsters to use the PFD
file to poll and contact the largest group of
potential voters in a certain area, and nonprofit
organizations - we're talking about Little League and
small schools - ... would try to contact people with
families in order to get them ... to participate in
different levels of sports.
2:18:39 PM
MS. GUESS offered her recollection that when this issue was
initially addressed via legislation four years ago, the
legislation was engendered by a domestic violence (DV) stalking
case. The victim in that case was an Alaskan resident who had
pointed out [to Ms. Guess] that at that point in time anyone
could get on the Internet and download the PFD database; the
victim was worried about the safety of herself and her son.
During discussion of that legislation, a greater policy question
arose - that question being whether part of getting a PFD check
ought to involve having one's name and address made public. The
answer to that question via the adoption of that legislation was
that one's name did have to become public but not one's address.
Another example with a similar policy application, she offered,
involves jury duty: does part of getting a PFD involve "going
in the cycle" for jury duty? As a policy, the legislature has
said that yes, being available for jury is part of getting a
PFD.
MS. GUESS noted that under current statute, one's address as
listed in the PFD records doesn't have to be made public except
for "public good" reasons as outlined in AS 43.23.017. She said
she would not be speaking either for or against Amendment 1
because she views it as being a pure policy decision for the
legislature to make regarding the PFD, privacy, and their nexus.
Referring to Representative Samuels's question, Ms. Guess said:
We did not discuss the other databases too much four
years ago. We were comfortable with the inconsistency
given that we saw that permanent fund dividends were
different than fishing and hunting licenses, and
[given] that special relationship that Alaskans have
with the permanent fund and, some would say, being
part of the owner state.
MS. GUESS said that her one concern with [Amendment 1's] current
language is that the exemptions outlined in its proposed
subsection (b) are only available to a business. She noted that
in drafting the existing exemptions outlined in AS 43.23.017,
the legislature had not wanted someone seeking information under
those exemptions to have to go through a business - one
shouldn't have to buy information from some business if that
information is already publicly available. She asked the
committee to carefully consider whether one should have to go
through a business to obtain the information, or whether anyone
with the same reasons as outlined in proposed AS 43.23.017(b)
should be able to access the information.
MS. GUESS also asked the committee to be aware of situations in
which it distorts the market and provides data to one group that
may compete against another group. She elaborated:
In this case, ... the one that jumps out at me ... was
the nonprofit organization who may compete with a
[for] profit organization. The permanent fund
database is valuable. It ... [contains] the most
recent name and address of every Alaskan, and I don't
think the intent of [Amendment 1] ... or the intent of
the [legislature] ... four years ago was to provide
one group more accurate information when competing
against another group.
2:23:54 PM
MS. GUESS, in response to a question, said that four years ago,
the legislature decided that the PFD database was different than
the hunting license database or the fishing license database,
and again offered her belief that it is up to this legislature
to make its own policy decision on these issues.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his recollection that four years
ago, the rationale was that of all the databases there were in
Alaska, except for the database related to unemployment
insurance benefits, the PFD database was the most accurate and
up to date because everyone wanted to get their PFD.
MS. DAVEY, in response to questions, explained that [before the
law changed] four years ago, the PFD file was on the State of
Alaska's web site in a downloadable access database for anybody
to download - this was certainly unconventional in terms of how
one would normally receive public files - so there was the
potential for the PFD database to be more available than other
databases. She went on to say:
What we normally do with the files is not beyond
somebody with probably above average database skills.
Because the PFD file is so large, in order to
manipulate it, you're going to have to be able to
write sequel queries or at least use an access
database view - which isn't necessarily going to be
the average computer user. So I'd say that there is a
little higher level of technicality needed to be able
to manipulate it, but I don't see any reason why, if
somebody had ... [a] legitimate reason to access the
file, that they shouldn't be able to go to the State
of Alaska's PFD office and purchase the file just as
... I'm proposing to do.
When we use a file, we don't normally sell it to
anybody in its entirety; somebody normally wants a
small section of it, they want a piece of it. ... I'm
... certainly not opposed to saying that it could be
available in bulk distribution to businesses as well
as nonprofits. And we currently do ... have
exemptions with the DMV file for [inspection and
maintenance (I/M)] testing; we print out I/M reminders
for people with I/M tests that are getting ready to
expire, and those are going to private businesses, but
we don't disclose the file to the businesses - we
print the stuff or use a bulk mailer and it never
really goes to the business in those cases.
MS. DAVEY, in response to another question, said that in order
to see whose I/M tests were about to expire, one must have a
contract with the DMV, so a private citizen would not
necessarily be able to access that information; furthermore,
when one does have such a contract with the DMV, one must uphold
certain standards and only release information for certain
legitimate reasons.
2:29:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, on the issue of allowing PFD applicant
information to be distributed to persons taking polls, noted
that there are legitimate polls and then there are "push polls,"
which are really attempts to influence people. He said he would
like to see that point addressed. He then referred to the
language in Amendment 1 wherein proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(2) uses
the term, "self-regulatory organizations", and offered his
belief that that term is meant to refer to the private
investigator industry; however, since that term is not actually
defined anywhere, he questioned whether it should be. He also
questioned whether the phrase, "for a legal or beneficial
interest to the applicant" - as used in proposed AS
43.23.017(b)(4) of Amendment 1 - ought to be defined, and
whether the language of proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(7) could be
used as a loophole to investigate anybody in the world.
MS. MINIER, on the issue of Amendment 1, relayed that she is a
paralegal who uses the PFD database in a legitimate business
context to locate witnesses and clients. She said:
I understand the concern that the permanent fund
information may be used by stalkers, but I believe
they have many other sources. So I guess basically
I'm in favor of [Amendment 1], I believe restricted
access to the permanent fund information should be
allowed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Minier whether she would be
using the PFD database to seek out new clients.
MS. MINIER indicated that she would be using it to locate
existing clients whose addresses have changed; for example, in
working for a law firm that specializes in insurance defense, if
the insured has moved, the law firm has had to hire a private
investigator to locate the insured because the law firm no
longer has access to the PFD database.
2:33:00 PM
MR. HIPSMAN relayed that he is a fraud investigator, and that he
is an advocate of reinstating access to the PFD database.
Taking away access to that database has essentially created
another group of victims because when someone brings a
fraudulent action against a person, that person has the right to
a defense and the PFD database was one of the tools that could
have been used in his/her defense. He suggested that if there
is a concern about abuse of the database, then mandatory
prosecution of such ought to be established.
MS. HILLEBRAND, on the issue of Amendment 1, said that the CU is
not qualified to speak on issues related to the PFD database.
2:35:23 PM
JERRY BURNETT, Director, Administrative Services Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), relayed that the DOR has some
concerns regarding how Amendment 1 would be administered, and
declined to comment on the policy issues it raises. He referred
to the language of Amendment 1's proposed AS 43.23.017(b), and
said it is not clear to the DOR what the intent is. Would
anybody with a business license be individually allowed to
request specific applicant information, and would the DOR have
to enter into a contract with one or more such businesses? He
also indicated that the DOR is not sure what the cost of
administering Amendment 1 would be, but surmised that the DOR
would be entering into specific contracts with anybody that fit
the criteria outlined in Amendment 1.
MR. BURNETT, in response to a question, said that the DOR would
have to obtain legal advice from the Department of Law (DOL)
regarding the definition of the term "self-regulatory
organizations" as used in Amendment 1's proposed AS
43.23.017(b)(2).
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the phrase, "for a legal or
beneficial interest relating to the applicant" as used in
Amendment 1's proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(4) means, and whether it
is just another loophole. He then said that the language of
Amendment 1's proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(7) doesn't seem to be
limited to an insured who's given permission to release the
information, and said he questions how that provision will be
regulated. He reiterated that he has questions about the
language of Amendment 1's proposed AS 43.23.017(b)(9).
MR. SNIFFEN said he would speculate that the term "self-
regulator organizations" means organizations outside of the
state's oversight system - in other words, those organizations
that don't require professional licensure.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the department would then
have to adopt regulations defining terms and setting parameters.
He expressed concern that under Amendment 1 as it is currently
written two people could simply get together and form a "self-
regulating organization".
MR. BURNETT said that the DOR would be looking at adopting
regulations to implement "this chapter."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether "this subject" is defined
anywhere.
MR. SNIFFEN said he is not aware of any existing definitions,
and so regulatory action would be required, both for the term
"self-regulating organizations" and for the phrase, "for a legal
or beneficial interest".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 1's proposed AS
43.23.017(b)(7), and said this language would seem to allow an
insurance company to investigate anything it wants.
MR. SNIFFEN concurred, and acknowledged that the department
might need to define the terms in that provision via regulation.
MR. BURNETT noted that the DOR does have fairly broad regulatory
authority "in this section."
2:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked what kind of burden Amendment 1
would place on the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) or
the Permanent Fund Dividend Division.
MR. BURNETT surmised that the DOR, via the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division, would release the information in its "sequel
server database format," adding that the DOR is not sure how
many business, under the definition provided in Amendment 1,
would be requesting applicant information. He assured the
committee that the DOR intends to adopt whatever regulations are
necessary, assuming that it has sufficient regulatory authority
to do so, and reiterated that the DOR would be entering into
specific contracts with anybody that fit the criteria outlined
in Amendment 1, though the DOR is not sure how much staff time
would be required to provide the requested information. In
response to a question, he indicated that the DOR would be able
to produce a determinate fiscal note before the bill passes the
House.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, referring to Amendment 1's proposed AS
43.23.017(b)(9), relayed that when he gets "a voter list" from
the Division of Elections, he must sign a form stating that he
will only use the list for electioneering purposes and not for
business or other purposes, whereas proposed AS 43.23.017(b)
stipulates that the PFD applicant information will be released
to a business. If that information gets released to a campaign
consulting business, for example, those candidates who use such
a business would have an unfair advantage over those candidates,
such as himself, who don't. He surmised that under Amendment 1,
he would have to employ such a business in order to acquire PFD
applicant information.
MR. BURNETT concurred that Representative Lynn would have to
employ such a business unless he himself has a business license.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN surmised that his campaign organization
wouldn't qualify as a "business."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that a person's date of birth can
be used to differentiate people with the same name, and relayed
his nescience regarding whether other databases provide that
information. He asked Mr. Burnett how many databases were under
the DOR's purview.
MR. BURNETT said the DOR controls a number of databases, most of
which contain completely confidential information. In response
to a question, he noted that unemployment insurance database is
handled by the Department of Labor & Workforce Development
(DLWD).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that with the PFD applicant
database and another database, one could cross reference
information to "guess who's who and what."
MR. BURNETT said that one unique feature of the PFD applicant
database is that it contains the names, addresses, and dates of
birth of all children in Alaska [whose parents have applied for
a PFD].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL [referring to Amendment 1] relayed that
he would be offering an amendment to add phone numbers to the
information that's released, and an amendment to delete the year
of birth from the information that's released.
2:47:49 PM
MS. DAVEY said that such amendments to Amendment 1 would not
work for her company because it doesn't differentiate people by
phone number. She elaborated:
In the criminal file, what we have is the first name,
last name, and a date of birth. What I'm asking for
[via Amendment 1] is just a birth year, so that [for]
people with common names you could tell the difference
between their criminal records. We also have date of
birth in the occupational license file and the hunting
and fishing license file, ... but those aren't
comprehensive ... in the same way that the PFD file
is. So ... I don't know that "phone number" is going
to get us any closer to ... differentiating who's
really who.
MS. DAVEY, in response to a question, listed some of the other
databases that her company has access to. In response to
another question, she relayed that when her company had access
to the PFD applicant database and was trying to determine which
particular person was the one who'd committed a crime, her
company would first look at everybody with that same first and
last name, and, of those, at everyone living in a particular
location during a specific year, and then, of those, at everyone
with the date of birth that matches the criminal file. She
added that she is not sure what the repercussions are when her
company is unable to definitively say that a particular person
is the one her clients are interested in.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he wants to ensure that personal
information is protected, and thus those who are given such
information must be held accountable for keeping it
confidential. He indicated that he is not sure how well HB 65
and Amendment 1 mesh with each other, and so he will be
researching that issue further.
2:52:55 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed a preference for having Amendment 1
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she has a concern in that the bill
pertains to protecting personal information but Amendment 1
appears to go in the opposite direction by allowing such
information to be distributed.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that in the past he has used Ms. Davey's
service in his election campaigns, adding that if he has to mail
out 3,000 pieces of mail to constituents, he would prefer to
send that mail to real, current addresses. Although there are
many different ways to access the personal information of
Alaskans, the PFD applicant list is probably a more
comprehensive and up to date list. He then said, "I would like
for us to call the question on [Amendment 1]."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, indicating that he still has concerns
regarding "executing on judgments and businesses and things like
that," asked that the committee delay voting on Amendment 1.
2:55:26 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS relayed that Amendment 1 would be set aside [with
the motion of whether to adopt it left pending].
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.6, Bannister, 4/30/07, which read:
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "AS 45.48.160(b)"
Insert "AS 45.48.160(c)"
Page 10, line 15:
Delete "(b) or (c)"
Insert "(b), (c), or (d)"
Page 10, following line 20:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) A consumer credit reporting agency may
charge a consumer $2 for placing a security freeze."
Page 10, line 21:
Delete "(b)"
Insert "(c)"
Page 10, line 27:
Delete "(c)"
Insert "(d)"
Page 11, line 8:
Delete "at no charge"
Insert "for $2"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 2 will require a
$2 fee to be paid when a consumer requests a security freeze.
2:59:07 PM
MEAGAN FOSTER, Staff to Representative Les Gara, Alaska State
Legislature, relayed on behalf of Representative Gara, one of
the bill's joint prime sponsors that Representative Gara
believes that "we should charge the consumer ... $2 for placing
a security freeze, for each time a security freeze is placed."
This would help make the consumer accountable for the number of
times he/she is placing a freeze, so that the system is not
abused. She noted that this charge is not mandatory because the
change proposed by Amendment 2 to page 10, following line 20, of
the bill says that the consumer credit reporting agency "may"
charge $2.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he doesn't object to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether $2 would be the maximum
amount that could be charged.
MS. FOSTER said yes, adding that currently, nationwide, there
are many different fee amounts being charged for placing a
security freeze - from no charge to victims of identity theft,
to $15. She said she would be willing to provide further
information regarding what each state allows consumers to be
charged.
MS. FOSTER, in response to a question, indicated that under
Amendment 2, a consumer could be charged the fee each time
he/she requests an agency to place a security freeze. Currently
under the bill, after the second removal of a security freeze,
the consumer is charged $2, so the first two security freeze
requests are free. In response to another question, she
explained that once a security freeze is placed, the consumer
credit reporting agency won't let companies requesting a
person's credit information have that information; security
freezes help protect a person against fraudulent uses of his/her
credit.
3:03:35 PM
MS. HILLEBRAND offered that the proposed fee of $2 is in line
with other states, nearly all of which have a provision ensuring
that no fee - either for placing a security freeze or for
removing one - is charged to victims of identity theft. She
recommended that a similar provision be included in HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS, in response to a question, pondered
whether the fee that's authorized via Amendment 2 should instead
reflect the actual cost of placing a security freeze.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
MS. HILLEBRAND offered that Montana law authorizes a $3 fee, but
that Indiana law currently doesn't authorize a fee, although
many states have chosen a number in the $5 range. However, she
added:
The bureaus have already built out this system,
they're already providing it to a number of states,
and there are already state laws, [so] they'll have to
do it for 33 states plus the District [of Columbia];
the cost of adding Alaska is going to be negligible,
and the bureaus have the ability to continue to make
money on the ... credit file in other ways.
MS. HILLEBRAND went on to explain, for example, that consumer
credit reporting agencies can still sell access to the credit
file to anyone that the consumer has authorized to see it by
lifting the freeze, and can still sell it to the consumer's
existing creditors that are monitoring his/her file to ensure
that he/she is still a good credit risk.
3:06:27 PM
MR. BURTON added that the existing fee structure nationwide is a
patchwork, with most fees falling into the $10 range and that
the process of placing a freeze or lifting a freeze is still a
manual process.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to amend Amendment 2 such that the
fee it authorizes is $10.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Dahlstrom, Coghill,
Samuels, Lynn, and Ramras voted in favor of the amendment to
Amendment 2. Representative Holmes voted against it.
Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of
5-1.
3:08:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to Amendment 2, as
amended.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 2, as amended, was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 3,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.9, Bannister, 4/30/07, which read:
Page 10, line 2:
Delete "certified"
Page 10, line 8:
Delete "certified"
Page 12, line 16, following "mail.":
Insert "Under some circumstances, the consumer
credit reporting agency may charge you $2 to
temporarily lift the freeze."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 3 is technical
clean up language which removes the requirement to use certified
mail when requesting the lift of a security freeze, because the
person is given a personal identification number (PIN) so it is
not necessary for him/her to use certified mail.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to amend Amendment 3, to delete "$2"
and to insert "$10" in order to be consistent with Amendment 2.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no objection, the
amendment to Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS determined that Mr. Burton and Mr. Brine did not
wish to testify on Amendment 3, as amended.
MS. HILLEBRAND recommended not doubling up on the fees to place
or lift the freeze because the $10 fee should cover both fees.
She noted that while these fees vary, more recently, some states
have chosen a much lower fee, in the $5 range.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion that the committee rescinds its
action in adopting the amendment to Amendment 3. There being no
objection, Amendment 3 was returned to its un-amended form.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no objection, Amendment
3 was adopted.
3:10:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 4,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.3, Bannister, 5/1/07, which read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "consumer credit monitoring, credit
accuracy,"
Page 15, line 29, through page 18, line 23:
Delete all material.
Page 18, line 24:
Delete "Article 4"
Insert "Article 3"
Page 22, line 21:
Delete "Article 5"
Insert "Article 4"
Page 25, line 22:
Delete "Article 6"
Insert "Article 5"
Page 27, line 31:
Delete "Article 7"
Insert "Article 6"
Page 28, line 16:
Delete "Article 8"
Insert "Article 7"
Page 29, line 13:
Delete "Article 9"
Insert "Article 8"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the Alaska Bankers
Association (ABA) indicates that Article 3 - Consumer Credit
Monitoring; Credit Accuracy - is not necessary in state law
because the federal FCRA is totally responsible for enforcing
the provisions for consumer credit monitoring and credit
accuracy.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 4 was adopted.
3:11:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 5,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.2, Bannister, 5/2/07, which read:
Page 25, lines 10 - 16:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) "personal information" means
(A) an individual's passport number,
driver's license number, state identification number,
bank account number, credit card number, debit card
number, other payment card number, financial account
information, or information from a financial
application; or
(B) a combination of an individual's
(i) name, address, or telephone number; and
(ii) medical information, insurance policy
number, employment information, or employment
history;"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 5 was suggested
to him by Representative Gara, a joint prime sponsor of HB 65.
Amendment 5 would define and make more explicit the definition
of personal information. The definition in Amendment 5 is more
factual and is supported by the agencies affected and the joint
prime sponsors of HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no objection, Amendment
5 was adopted.
3:13:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 6,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.13, Bannister, 5/2/07, which read:
Page 25, line 30, following "theft":
Delete ";"
Insert "by the victim; and"
Page 26, line 10:
Delete "shall"
Insert "may"
Page 26, lines 11 - 18:
Delete all material.
Insert "determine that a petitioner under
AS 45.48.600 is factually innocent of a crime if the
court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that
(1) the petitioner is a victim of identity
theft;
(2) the petitioner did not commit the
offense for which the perpetrator of the identity
theft was arrested, cited, or convicted;
(3) the petitioner filed a criminal
complaint against the perpetrator of the identity
theft; and
(4) the petitioner's identity was
mistakenly associated with a record of conviction for
the crime."
Page 26, line 25:
Delete "deleted, sealed, or"
Page 26, line 30:
Delete "or fraudulent material"
Insert ", omission, or false information"
RESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 6 pertains to
legal issues of factual innocence, and that he considers this
matter to be a work in progress.
3:14:02 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL),
explained that Article 6 - Factual Declaration of Innocence
after Identity Theft; Right to File Police Report Regarding
Identity Theft - provides a victim of identity theft a procedure
to declare himself/herself factually innocent of a crime. Since
that process does not involve an adversarial proceeding - in
that there are not two opposing parties involved, with a judge
making a final decision - the DOL had concerns about exactly how
to change a record in a non-adversarial proceeding. The bill
does not have a standard to guide a court in how to determine
whether the person listed is factually innocent. But, the DOL
examined Title 12 and found that AS 12.62.180 sets up a
procedure that allows for correction with respect to mistaken
identity, and requires a person to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that he/she is not the person described in the criminal
record. The DOL suggests Amendment 6 helps ensure that
manipulative criminals cannot alter their criminal records.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, in response to a question, explained
that Amendment 6 provides a proactive means for victims of
identity theft to petition the court for discovery. An identity
theft victim is in the precarious position of defending
himself/herself.
MS. CARPENETI gave an example of a person who steals a driver's
license, then drives drunk, is arrested, but gives the stolen
driver's license as identification, so the result is that the
charge of driving under the influence (DUI) is tagged to the
victim's driver's license. She indicated that HB 65 allows a
victim of identity theft to refute the DUI charge by petitioning
the court using documents, for example, an affidavit by the
police officer that asserts he/she was not the driver of the
vehicle, to clear the charge from the victim's record. The
standard, under the bill, is meritorious. The DOL suggests that
the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt be used to determine
the victim did not commit the DUI. And she suggested the bill
not use the words "deleted" or "sealed", but instead use the
term "label" because the record exists, and the court needs to
preserve the record not destroy or seal the record, because the
victim may later need access to the record. Instead, the record
should be preserved and labeled to reflect the action and to
make it clear that the crime was not committed by the victim of
the identity theft, and that there has been a judicial
determination in the matter. The victim would also receive a
certificate to that effect.
3:20:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked about the value a certificate or
order of innocence would have for the victim, and how such a
certificate would be used, for example, in an instance of
identity theft, where the victim petitioned the court and the
court determined his/her innocence and issued him/her a
certificate. She asked if the victim gave the certificate to a
business, whether the business would be required to honor the
certificate and to release the debt.
REPENTATIVE COGHILL related an instance where his staff member
had his/her social security number (SSN) used to obtain credit
cards and charge debt, and has not been able to obtain a legal
instrument, a certificate, or written proof of the identity
theft in order to clear the debt. He offered that Amendment 6
could help provide a legal instrument to clear up bad debt or
adverse action taken on a victim of identity theft.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM expressed her concern for identity
theft victims.
MS. CARPENETI clarified, in response to a question, that the DOL
wants to set the burden of proof standard at "beyond a
reasonable doubt."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added his empathy for the identity theft
victim, who is adversely economically impacted until his/her
name is cleared.
MS. CARPENETI offered that proposed AS 45.48.600-690 deals with
how one changes criminal records, and she did not specifically
know how the bill would work regarding debt but opined that the
victim could obtain the document to take to any business
involved.
MS. CARPENETI indicated that the DOL supports Amendment 6.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced there being no further objection, that
Amendment 6 was adopted.
3:24:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.14, Bannister, 5/2/07, which read:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "furnishing consumer credit header
information,"
Page 27, line 31, through page 28, line 15:
Delete all material.
Page 28, line 16:
Delete "Article 8"
Insert "Article 7"
Page 29, line 13:
Delete "Article 9"
Insert "Article 8"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that this amends the consumer
credit header information and that ChoicePoint has testimony to
give on Amendment 7.
3:25:53 PM
MR. BURTON said he supported Amendment 7 on two grounds. The
data in the subject of Article 7 - Consumer Credit Header
Information - is already highly regulated by the federal FCRA
and the GLBA, which establish permissible uses and restrictions
on how businesses obtain and use the data. The consumer credit
header data [SSN, maiden name of the mother of the consumer, the
birth date of the consumer, and other personally identifiable
information, except the name, address, and telephone number of
the consumer] is the lifeblood of the search tools used by
investigative and law enforcement agencies. This data is
invaluable information that is updated and used by organizations
such as the child support services division (CSED), or by
financial institutions to ensure compliance with the
requirements of the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 ("USA PATRIOT Act").
The data is also used by retailers to combat fraud, and by
insurers to combat insurance fraud. ChoicePoint supports
Amendment 7 to remove Article 7 from HB 65.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced there being no further objection, that
Amendment 7 was adopted.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:27 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
3:30:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 8,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.4, Bannister, 5/1/07, which read:
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Rule 60"
Insert "Rules 60 and 82"
Page 22, line 16:
Delete "and court costs and attorney fees"
Insert "court costs"
Page 22, line 17, following "court":
Insert ", and full reasonable attorney fees"
Page 30, line 24:
Delete "AMENDMENT."
Insert "AMENDMENTS. (a)"
Page 30, following line 27:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) AS 45.48.480(b), enacted by sec. 3 of this
Act, has the effect of changing Rule 82, Alaska Rules
of Civil Procedure, by changing the criteria for
determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded
to a party in an action under AS 45.48.480(b)."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 8 applies to
Rule 60 and 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure and allows
an individual who has been harmed to recover court costs and
full and reasonable attorney fees.
MR. BURTON stated that he did not believe that he has an
objection to Amendment 8 at this time, but said he would let the
committee know if he discovers an issue.
3:32:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether Amendment 8 allows for
full and reasonable attorney fees once a determination that
fraud has occurred has been made and whether the allowable fees
would also include time spent working with other companies to
resolve the unlawful credit card charges or debt.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded that Amendment 8 sets out a
civil penalty that can't exceed $3,000, and allows individuals
to collect court costs and full reasonable attorney fees.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 8 was adopted.
3:33:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 9,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.5, Bannister, 5/1/07, which read:
Page 19, following line 28:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) if the person is engaging in the
business of government and
(A) is authorized by law to request or
collect the individual's social security number; or
(B) the request or collection of the
individual's social security number is required for
the performance of the person's duties or
responsibilities as provided by law;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 20, following line 23:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) the person is engaging in the business
of government and
(A) is authorized by law to disclose the
individual's social security number; or
(B) the disclosure of the individual's
social security number is required for the performance
of the person's duties or responsibilities as provided
by law;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that Amendment 9 allows
government staff who are authorized by law to request or collect
SSNs to do so and to release it when required to disclose it.
The request came from the DNR to provide an exemption for the
DNR State Recorder's Office, and for other purposes such as
allowing the revolving loan fund to serve the public.
3:34:59 PM
MR. SNIFFEN testified that the purpose of Amendment 9 is to
address an issue the DNR State Recorder's Office has because it
is required to accept documents that may contain personal
information, including SSNs, and to record them without
questioning the information listed on documents. Amendment 9
would also apply to other agencies that are required to collect
and dispense information.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL mentioned that a subsequent amendment
will be made to add an effective date of 2008 to cover agencies
like the DNR State Recorder's Office.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment 9 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 10,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.15, Bannister, 5/2/07, which read:
Page 22, lines 15 - 16:
Delete "or $5,000, whichever amount is greater,"
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:37:47 PM
FRANK BAILEY, Special Assistant, Legislative
Liaison/Communications, Office of the Commissioner, Department
of Administration (DOA), explained that Amendment 10 would
absolve state agencies, and eliminate class action lawsuits due
to the language in CSHB 65(L&C) that caps damages at $5,000. He
stated the DOA supports [Amendment 10].
CHAIR RAMRAS noted that the text that remains would then read in
part, "and may recover actual damages" and questioned whether
the state is liable for actual damages but would be relieved of
the $5,000 burden.
MR. BAILEY responded yes.
MR. SNIFFEN also responded yes. He explained that the state
would always be responsible for actual damages, for example, if
a person slides off the road because the road is not plowed
correctly, and the state is sued. He explained that even
without the language in HB 65, the state is still responsible.
He suggested that the committee consider inserting one other
limiter which would say that that civil action can only be
brought to recover actual economic damages, as opposed to all
actual damages. He went on to explain that there are economic
and non-economic damages recognized in the statute, and non-
economic damages pertain to things like pain and suffering, loss
of enjoyment of life, and are very subjective and always go to a
jury because there isn't agreement on the definition of those
items. He opined that the state spends a lot of money defending
those types of claims. The actual economic damage is something
that can be documented, so the state is willing to pay back to
consumers harmed by this conduct, but non-economic damages are
more problematic, and the committee would need to consider that
as a policy call.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL spoke in favor of Amendment 10. He
expressed a preference to leave Amendment 10 intact because of
the potential damage to a person's reputation. He said he did
not know what other hardships might be included in non-economic
damages, but pointed out that the condition of "knowingly
violate" sets up a standard of proof. He spoke in opposition to
Mr. Sniffen's suggestion to limit Amendment 10 to economic
damages.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS questioned the type of standard of proof
and asked whether an employee at DNR who knowingly released a
SSN would be held civilly liable.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the standard "knowingly" is set out
in Title 11, and that that definition means that an individual
must be aware of his/her conduct. He related an instance where
an employee knows that he/she is releasing a SSN but he/she does
not know that he/she is not supposed to release it. He offered
that the standard of proof is somewhat vague so the person might
not have knowingly committed fraud because he/she thought the
action taken was appropriate.
3:42:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked if a party released the SSN but did
not know they should not do so, whether the state would be held
liable.
MR. SNIFFEN concurred that the state would be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked what the personal liability
standard is for an individual who deliberately releases
information that he/she knows is confidential, and his/her
personal liability in doing so.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the state would be responsible for
that employee's conduct to the extent that the employee was
acting within the scope of his/her employment, but not if the
employee was stealing information and attempting to sell the
information, because he/she was acting outside the scope of
his/her duties.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for further clarification of
employees acting in a malicious manner.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that in this case he did not think due
process would apply because the employment contract spells out
the responsibilities of the employee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES questioned whether proposed [AS 45.48.480]
applies to both the state and private businesses.
MR. SNIFFEN responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked whether this section for penalty
provisions falls under an administrative procedure or a civil
court action.
MR. SNIFFEN indicated that the provision applies to a civil
court action and the party would have the right to a jury trial,
unless the person waived his/her right to a jury trial.
CHAIR RAMRAS related that one of his restaurants has antiquated
software that prints out the customer's full SSN. He asked if
one of his employees knowingly steals and uses that information,
would he, as the private sector employer, incur liability. He
speculated that the business would incur significant exposure
since the employer knowingly uses antiquated software.
3:46:28 PM
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the employer might be held liable for
the release of the SSN, and while acknowledging that he cannot
give legal advice, surmised that the employee probably was not
acting within the scope of his/her employment.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked to set Amendment 10 aside, and without
objection, Amendment 10 was set aside [with the motion of
whether to adopt it left pending].
MR. SNIFFEN explained that if one has employees that are acting
on instructions by the employer, the employer would probably be
exposed to some liability.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 11,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.7, Bannister, 5/1/07, which read:
Page 20, following line 17:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A person who knowingly violates (a) of this
section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. In this
subsection, "knowingly" has the meaning given in
AS 11.81.900."
Page 22, lines 18 - 20:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered that Amendment 11 was suggested
by Representative Gara, and that Amendment 11 would add a new
subsection making a person who violates this subsection guilty
of a class A misdemeanor, and he referred to the "knowingly"
standard as set out in AS 11.81.900(a)(2).
3:49:09 PM
MS. FOSTER relayed that Representative Gara had concerns that a
person could be found guilty of a class A misdemeanor simply by
asking for a person's SSN. She stated that Representative Gara
felt more comfortable that a person should be charged with a
class A misdemeanor only when he/she profited from the sale,
lease, loan, or rental of a SSN, which is prohibited under the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked whether a person who does not
personally profit but releases information to [a third party]
who subsequently profits from selling SSNs could be charged with
a misdemeanor.
MS. FOSTER responded that she is not sure, and, in response to
another question, explained that if a state employee was to ask
for an SSN, but was not authorized to do so, he/she could be
charged with a class A misdemeanor under the current bill;
however, under Amendment 11, the same employee could not be
charged with a crime.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS asked for an example to put Amendment 11
in context.
MS. FOSTER relayed that in private industry, many businesses
will ask for a SSN, but under HB 65, the employees could not ask
for the SSN unless the business is exempt, such as a bank.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM advised that the Office of Children's
Services (OCS), Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS),
and some other agencies are also allowed to collect SSNs.
MS. FOSTER concurred, and clarified that state employees can ask
for SSNs if they are authorized under state or federal law to
use the SSNs.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that if the SSN is not required by
law, the employee should not ask the party for the SSN
information.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
3:52:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there was a criminal
penalty for violation of proposed AS 45.48.420, the section
which prohibits a person from selling SSNs to a third person.
MS. FOSTER responded that the proposed Amendment 11 would make
it a Class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the
effect of deleting the penalty provision under proposed AS
45.48.480(c) would be to also delete the penalty for proposed AS
45.48.420.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his understanding that Amendment
11 would target individuals who profit from selling SSNs, but if
an employee was exempt from disclosure that there would not be a
penalty imposed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that HB 65 sets out new
provisions, but that the only section that has a class A
misdemeanor penalty attached to it is proposed AS 45.48.430. He
expressed concern that the penalty provisions would not apply to
the other sections of the bill. He related that person "A"
could create false identification for immigration or other
purposes, and sells the SSNS to person "B", a forger who could
then create the false identification. Under Amendment 11, that
crime would no longer be a class A misdemeanor.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES pointed out that the penalty provision in
Amendment 11 applies only to proposed AS 45.48.420.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG argued that a person violating other
sections of the bill should also be guilty of a class A
misdemeanor.
MS. FOSTER responded that Representative Gara was concerned that
people might ask for a SSN when not required to because they did
not know that merely asking for the SSN would result in criminal
charges.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if there any further objections to Amendment
11, and, hearing none, relayed that Amendment 11 was adopted.
3:56:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 12,
labeled 25-LS0311\E.8, Bannister, 4/30/07, which read:
Page 20, line 4:
Delete "or"
Page 20, line 7, following "benefits":
Insert "; or
(5) if the disclosure does not have
independent economic value, is incidental to a larger
transaction, and is necessary to verify the identity
of the individual"
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 12 was before the
committee and that Representative Holmes has objected.
Representative Coghill advised that the Alaska Bankers
Association (ABA) asked for Amendment 12 so that when fraud is
suspected a bank would have the ability to ask for a SSN to
verify identification.
MR. BURTON stated that ChoicePoint has severe concerns with many
of the provisions in Article 4 - Protection of a Social Security
Number. He asked for guidance in the timing of his testimony.
[Following was a brief discussion regarding how the committee
would be proceeding with regard to HB 65, its proposed
amendments, and public testimony.]
4:01:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection.
CHAIR RAMRAS asked if there were any further objections, and
hearing none, relayed that Amendment 12 was adopted.
[CSHB 65(L&C), as amended, was held over with the motions to
adopt Amendment 1 and Amendment 10 left pending.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|