02/11/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Security Breach of Personal Information of State Employees and State Retirees | |
| HB283 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 283 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2010
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Max Gruenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): SECURITY BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION OF STATE
EMPLOYEES AND STATE RETIREES
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 283
"An Act relating to the purchasing of and restrictions
concerning alcoholic beverages."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 283
SHORT TITLE: PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD
01/15/10 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/10
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) L&C, JUD
01/27/10 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/27/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/27/10 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/29/10 (H) L&C RPT 5DP 1DNP
01/29/10 (H) DP: LYNN, BUCH, HOLMES, T.WILSON, OLSON
01/29/10 (H) DNP: NEUMAN
01/29/10 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER JUD
02/11/10 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General
Commercial/Fair Business Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the overview regarding the
security breach of personal information of State employees and
State retirees.
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Administration (DOA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Assisted with the overview regarding the
security breach of personal information of State employees and
State retirees.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 283.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to
questions during discussion of HB 283.
PAUL GROSSI, Staff
Representative Harry Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Crawford, responded to a question during discussion of HB 283.
BONNIE HAYES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and responded to a
question during discussion of HB 283.
JERRY McCUTCHEON
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested a change to HB 283.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:36 PM
CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives Ramras, Holmes,
Dahlstrom, Gatto, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
^Overview(s): Security Breach of Personal Information of State
Employees and State Retirees
Overview(s): Security Breach of Personal Information of State
Employees and State Retirees
1:08:52 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be
an overview regarding the security breach of personal
information of State employees and State retirees.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:11 p.m. to 1:16 p.m.
1:17:22 PM
CLYDE (ED) SNIFFEN, JR., Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Commercial/Fair Business Section, Civil Division (Anchorage),
Department of Law (DOL), explained that PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) discovered in early December 2009 that it had lost some
personal information belonging to State employees and State
retirees, and notified the State of Alaska of that loss on
January 19, 2010. Shortly thereafter, PwC provided the State
with a list of the information it had lost; PwC had that
information in connection with litigation between the State and
Mercer, an actuarial firm hired by the State. A settlement
agreement between the State and PwC has since been reached,
stipulating the steps that PwC would be taking to address the
security breach and protect the Alaskans whose personal
information was involved in the breach, including, among other
things, either providing for a security freeze on a person's
credit reports - and adjustments to that freeze - or, though a
third-party vendor, providing free credit monitoring and
identity theft protection for two years - with option for a
third year, or longer, if there is evidence of identity theft
resulting from the breach - and reimbursement for any losses
individuals experience as a result of the breach.
MR. SNIFFEN said notices to those affected State employees and
State retirees would be mailed tomorrow, without cost to the
State, which would be indemnified from any claims related to
this breach. The settlement, he assured the committee, would
not release PwC from any affected individual's claims. He
characterized the settlement as a very strong one, one aimed at
maximizing protection from identity theft, and noted that one
important provision of the settlement includes a rebuttable
presumption that any identity theft [experienced by affected
State employees and State retirees] stemmed from this breach
rather than from something else. People, via a unique
identifier provided in the aforementioned notification letters,
will be able to begin signing up for the aforementioned
protections as early as next week.
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to questions, indicated that the State
was and is in compliance with recently enacted State law
addressing such breaches, and that although PwC might have been
out of compliance with that law in terms of timely notification,
it would be in compliance with that law as long as it continues
to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. He added
that he couldn't imagine a scenario where things could have
occurred in a timelier manner. In response to further
questions, he offered his understanding that Mercer, in order to
perform the actuarial analysis [the State hired it to perform],
required the State to provide it with the names, social security
numbers, and dates of birth [of State employees and State
retirees].
1:29:24 PM
KEVIN BROOKS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Administration (DOA), added that several years
ago, back when Mercer was originally given the information it
needed in order to perform its analysis for the State, social
security numbers were commonly provided. Now, of course, due to
the proliferation of identity theft, such information is not
given out without a very good reason for doing so.
MR. SNIFFEN went on to explain that a person could find out
whether his/her or his/her spouse's personal information was
included in the information that was lost, by calling the
Division of Retirement & Benefits via a toll-free number.
MR. BROOKS added that the only information given to Mercer
regarding a spouse would have been the spouse's age.
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to questions, explained that nothing
can be done to make the lost information unusable by anyone who
already has it; that that information could be used by identity
thieves to open new accounts for cash, goods, and services; and
that the best thing that could happen is for the State to
receive some kind of assurance that the lost information has
instead been destroyed.
MR. BROOKS added that the State has since changed its procedures
and now uses unique identifying numbers in place of social
security numbers.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed dissatisfaction with the steps the
administration has taken thus far to address this security
breach.
MR. BROOKS, in response to questions, reiterated that the State
no longer uses social security numbers as identifiers, and said
that in addition to that change, certain areas of the State
Office Building are now off limits to casual passerby, and that
the State has obtained software that automatically encrypts data
that has a format similar to that of social security numbers.
He offered his belief, though, that the threat of identity theft
may not ever fully disappear, and noted that from what he's
heard, daily attempts are being made to breach the State's
network.
1:44:10 PM
MR. SNIFFEN added that in this instance, the State was not in
any way at fault; the breach occurred via a subcontractor used
by a vendor that the State hired. He then reiterated some of
the terms of the agreement between the State and PwC. He, too,
surmised that the problem of identity theft isn't going to
disappear, and opined, therefore, that people, regardless of
whether they are part of the group involved in the current
situation, should be taking steps to protect themselves, and
noted that some of the possible steps people can take are
outlined in the information that's been provided to the affected
[State employees and State retirees], and that those steps are
free and not that onerous.
MR. BROOKS mentioned that he, himself, had to address fraudulent
credit card charges last year, and surmised that everyone must
take personal responsibility for being diligent regardless of
the State's role in this particular situation. Again, PwC had a
legitimate business reason for having the information, and the
State has taken and is still taking steps to address the
situation, regardless that it was not the State that lost the
information.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that the information was not lost due to
a failure on the part of the State, that that information did
not include account numbers, and that identity thieves commonly
use the type of information that was lost to open new accounts
for cash, goods, and services. Identity thieves also sometimes
attempt to access existing accounts, and so it's important for
people to also monitor their existing accounts. He explained
that the reason the State isn't automatically contracting for
the services offered via the settlement agreement on behalf of
the affected individuals is that each person must set up an
account himself/herself so that the third-part vendor can then
contact him/her directly about possible problems; it should not
be onerous for affected individuals to set up those accounts.
1:54:41 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in having the State do more for
the affected individuals, and in being notified within a month's
time regarding what those additional steps might entail.
MR. BROOKS agreed to do so, and indicated that the State would
be evaluating affected individuals' response to the provisions
of the settlement agreement, and would consider taking further
steps. In response to a request, he noted that the
aforementioned toll-free phone number is 1-800-821-2251, and
reiterated that the aforementioned notices will contain people's
unique identifier.
MR. SNIFFEN added that the notices would also have some other
toll-free phone numbers that could be called to receive
additional help. In response to a question, he explained that
all the affected individuals would have a notice mailed to them,
but that is no guarantee that everyone will receive his/her
notice, and so anyone questioning whether he/she should have
received notice could call the aforementioned toll-free phone
number to find out.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:04 p.m. to 2:09 p.m.
HB 283 - PURCHASE/CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL
2:10:17 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 283, "An Act relating to the purchasing of and
restrictions concerning alcoholic beverages."
2:10:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 283, disclosed that upon coming out of church on the
evening of December 24, 2004, his wife was hit by a [repeat]
drunk driver, and his son was missed by just inches. His focus,
he relayed, has since been [to work on legislation that would
help] prevent such a tragedy from happening to others.
Obviously, punishment is not enough - there are still thousands
of drunk drivers on the road every day. As the result of
existing law, there are now 2,133 marked driver's licenses and
State identification (ID) cards carried by people who have
proven they can't handle alcohol, and existing law provides a
monetary incentive for alcoholic beverage licensees to check a
customer's driver's license or ID card. House Bill 283 [in
part] would amend current law by raising the civil fine that
could be awarded to licensees, from $1,000 to $2,000. Included
in members' packets is a draft letter of intent stating that it
is the legislature's intent that half of that civil fine award
be shared with the licensee's employees and/or agents who
confiscate the ID card or driver's license of someone prohibited
from purchasing alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that Brown Jug, Inc. ("Brown
Jug"), just one liquor store out of many, as a matter of course,
confiscates the driver's licenses and ID cards of underage
persons attempting to purchase alcohol, and has collected
approximately $2 million in civil fines since the civil fine
provision has been in effect. He said he would like more
licensees to start checking and confiscating driver's licenses
and ID cards from all who are precluded from purchasing or
consuming alcohol. House Bill 283 would also add - to the list
of those who could be prohibited from consuming or purchasing
alcohol - [under proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13)(A), a person who
is convicted of a felony and the behavior was substantially
influenced by consumption of alcohol, or, under proposed AS
12.55.015(a)(13)(B), is convicted of a third or subsequent
crime, even if it's a misdemeanor crime, and the court finds
that prohibiting him/her from consuming alcohol is necessary to
protect the public]. Under the bill, the court would have the
discretion to order such a prohibition, but it would not be
mandated to do so, and any such person would then have his/her
driver's license or State ID card marked to reflect that he/she
is prohibited from consuming or purchasing alcohol.
2:16:37 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in dealing with chronic
inebriates, and in requiring - perhaps via an amendment - that
the driver's license or State ID card of [a person under the age
of 21] be marked so as to draw attention to the fact that the
person is [under the age of 21], thereby perhaps stopping people
who've reached the age of 21 from continuing to use the driver's
license or ID card they got when they were a minor to go into
places that sell or serve alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, on the latter issue, said he had tried
to get an amendment included which would have required that
State IDs expire on a person's 21st birthday and that they be
renewed within 90 days, but the drafter said that such an
amendment to HB 283 wouldn't comply with the single subject rule
and could thus engender litigation. As a result, Representative
Crawford relayed, he'd asked that another bill be drafted that
could include such a proposed change.
CHAIR RAMRAS referred to a proposed amendment, labeled 26-
LS1218\E.1, Luckhaupt, 2/3/10, which read:
Page 3, line 22:
Delete "up to the lifetime of the defendant"
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that it is his understanding that the
Cabaret Hotel Restaurant & Retailer's Association (CHARR) is in
favor of this change to proposed AS 12.55.015(a)(13). If this
amendment were to be adopted, the proposed statute would then in
part read, "order the defendant to refrain from consuming
alcoholic beverages for a period of time, including during the
term of any sentence and as a condition of probation, suspended
sentence, and suspended imposition of sentence".
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD indicated that proposed AS
12.55.015(a)(13) is intended to address those people who
continue to get arrested as the result of alcohol consumption,
those who have proven they can't handle alcohol. He opined that
even if HB 283 only stops just one person from abusing alcohol,
it would be a good thing, and offered his hope that the
committee would pass HB 283.
[Chair Ramras turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
2:24:45 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), explained that the DMV
currently puts what's called a "J restriction" on the driver's
licenses and ID cards of individuals who are restricted from
purchasing alcohol as a condition of sentencing. Such driver's
licenses and ID cards have the words "alcohol restricted" in a
red banner across the top. In conclusion, she relayed that the
DMV is supportive of HB 283.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
MS. BREWSTER, in response to comments and a question, explained
that although under current law, a driver's license does expire
90 days after a person's 21st birthday, that law doesn't apply
to ID cards. From the DMV's perspective, it would be ideal if
ID cards were treated similarly. Enforcement, however, is an
issue for the licensees themselves to address be refusing access
to their establishments by those with expired driver's licenses
and ID cards.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to a question, explained
that the existing $1,000 fine provided for in AS 04.16.047(b) is
a civil fine, and offered his understanding that Brown Jug, for
example, "settles it all up at one time during the year" and
then shares a portion of the fines with the employees that
confiscated the driver's licenses and ID cards. He then showed
members a couple of examples of restricted licenses.
CHAIR RAMRAS questioned whether the DMV has the authority to
change what is printed in the aforementioned red banner on
restricted licenses. Could the DMV, perhaps via regulation,
have that red banner indicate that the person is under the age
of 21 until a certain date?
MS. BREWSTER said she would have to research that issue further.
2:38:13 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS offered his understanding that under current law,
when the driver's license of a person who reaches the age of 21
expires, he/she is required to take [an alcohol and drug
awareness and safety examination] prior to getting a new
driver's license. He indicated that he would be working with
the sponsor of HB 283 to address further [the issue of people
using expired driver's licenses and State ID cards to purchase
alcohol].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD concurred. In response to questions, he
offered his understanding that for federal tax purposes, the
civil fines [licensees share with employees] would be treated as
wages. He acknowledged that it can be difficult to collect
those fines, and surmised that that's one of the reasons that
Brown Jug "settles" [up with its employees] just once a year and
then only with regard to those fines that were actually
collected. [Neither existing law nor HB 283] outlines how the
civil fine is to be distributed; that's left up to the
licensees. In response to a question, he reiterated that the
bill would be increasing the civil fine from $1,000 to $2,000,
and noted that members' packets include a draft letter of
intent, which reads [original punctuation provided]:
It is the intent of the Alaska Legislature under
section #2 of HB 283 amending AS 04.16.047(b) to
increase the civil award from $1,000 to $2,000 to
enable licensees to share half of the award with their
employees and or agents. The award is to provide an
incentive to those who sell alcohol to check ID's.
This should aide in the effort to prevent people who
are restricted from consuming alcohol from purchasing
alcohol.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed interest in receiving more information
regarding the distribution of the civil fine.
2:43:49 PM
PAUL GROSSI, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative Crawford,
indicated that the driver's license or ID card would be
confiscated by the licensee or his/her employees and then
brought before the court, which would award the civil fine to
the licensee; that fine would be paid by the offender.
CHAIR RAMRAS, remarking that the aforementioned letter of intent
needs to be reworded, characterized it as too vague and
burdensome on employers, expressing concern that it could result
in employees filing claims demanding payment of their portion of
the fine from their employers, the licensees. The civil fine,
currently something that benefits licensees when awarded, would,
under the letter of intent, become a liability for licensees as
employers. He questioned how the State would collect the fine,
how it would be distributed, and what happens if it isn't shared
with employees, and suggested that further testimony - from the
administration and Brown Jug, for example - is warranted.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered his belief that the letter of
intent won't create a legal expectation by the employee to
receive a portion of the civil fine; that the licensee won't
have to share any of the fine, regardless of whether the person
is still in the licensee's employ; and that the letter of intent
merely indicates that it is the legislature's wish that a
licensee share the fine with the employee who confiscated the
driver's license or ID card of someone who wasn't supposed to be
buying or consuming alcohol, but it is not required. He
indicated that although he is unfamiliar with how the awarding
and distribution of the fine is accomplished now, he surmised
that it would be the same for the proposed fine as it is for the
current fine.
CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he would also like to hear testimony
from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board ("ABC Board"), and
noted that as a licensee, he, himself, hasn't ever pursued the
civil fine.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that current law prohibits the
awarding of the fine directly to the employee - the fine must
instead be awarded to the licensee. In response to a question,
he reiterated that this provision of statute is meant to work as
an incentive for licensees to check driver's licenses and ID
cards; currently, a number of establishments in the state aren't
doing so.
2:52:53 PM
BONNIE HAYES relayed that she has been convicted twice of
driving under the influence (DUI) and has a red banner on her
driver's license. The civil fine isn't really going to be an
issue for people like her, she predicted, because rather than
show someone their restricted ID and risk having it confiscated,
they'll just walk out of the establishment if the licensee or
employee asks to see their ID. It's sufficient that licensees
have this incentive to check the driver's licenses and ID cards
of those seeking to purchase alcohol, she opined, and said she
views current law regarding restricted licenses and ID cards as
a wonderful tool to help her stay sober, adding that for the
most part, it has worked. If a person with a restricted license
or ID card is stopped from buying alcohol, that person will
essentially be stopped from drinking and driving, and so it is
critical that the red banner be put on a person's driver's
license or ID card right away. In response to a question, she
indicated that because $2,000 is a lot of money, the proposed
civil fine provides people like her with another huge incentive
to not purchase alcohol.
2:59:30 PM
JERRY McCUTCHEON opined that HB 283 should be changed to mandate
that everyone's driver's license or ID card be examined by
licensees prior to them selling or providing alcohol; without
such a requirement, HB 283 is basically a "toothless tiger." He
also indicated his belief that the people who have been killed
by drunk drivers would be alive today if [existing Alaska law
regarding drunk driving] were more stringent.
CHAIR RAMRAS expressed favor with the provisions of the bill
that would add more people to the list of those who may be
ordered by the court to refrain from purchasing or consuming
alcohol, but relayed that he is not convinced that the proposed
increase in the civil fine would do anything other than double
the amount of money that gets awarded to licensees, at least
those who can afford to take people to small claims court. He
again opined that the letter of intent would put too many
burdens on the employer, adding that he is not convinced
doubling the civil fine would provide any more incentive for
people to refrain from buying or consuming alcohol.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO indicated that he is questioning whether
deleting the fine altogether would change a DUI offender's
behavior.
[HB 283 was held over.]
3:03:19 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HB283 Ver E.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 02 HB283 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 03 HB283 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 04 HB283-DOA-DMV-01-26-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 05 HB283-LAW-CRIM-01-26-10.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 06 HB283-DHSS-ASAP-01-26-2010.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM HL&C 1/27/2010 3:15:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| 07 HB283 APOA ltr of support.pdf |
HJUD 2/11/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 283 |