Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/24/2000 03:45 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 24, 2000
3:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to the disclosure of subscriber information by
Internet service providers."
- MOVED CSHB 273(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 401
"An Act relating to computer networks and to electronic mail
advertisements."
- MOVED CSHB 401(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 410
"An Act relating to the crime of unauthorized interception and
distribution of electronic messages; and relating to privacy of
information provided to and electronic messages handled by
Internet service providers."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD [Portions of SSHB 410 were
incorporated into CSHB 273(L&C)]
HOUSE BILL NO. 345
"An Act relating to state employee health insurance."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 273
SHORT TITLE: INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/10/00 1891 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/00
1/10/00 1891 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/10/00 1891 (H) L&C, JUD
3/24/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 401
SHORT TITLE: COMPUTER NETWORKS AND SPAM ADS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/00 2218 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/16/00 2219 (H) L&C, JUD
3/24/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 410, portions of which were
incorporated into CSHB 273(L&C).
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 273.
PETER TORKELSON, Staff
to Representative Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 273.
BILL McCAULEY, Manager
Data Processing
Legislative Affairs Agency
Terry Miller Legislative Office Building
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 273 and HB
401.
PETER GOLL
Board of Directors
Alaska Civil Liberties Union
P.O. Box 261
Haines, Alaska 99827
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 273.
JANET SEITZ, Staff
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 401 on behalf of the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Murkowski, Harris, Brice and Cissna.
HB 273-INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
[Portions of SSHB 410, which never had a hearing on its own, were
incorporated into CSHB 273(L&C).]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 273, "An Act relating to the disclosure
of subscriber information by Internet service providers."
Number 0287
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, came forward
as the sponsor of SSHB 410, a significant portion of which was
incorporated into HB 273 [Version H].
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA came forward to testify as the
sponsor of HB 273. She informed members that she had introduced
the bill because a few constituents had explained to her the
ramifications of logging on to the Internet and having Internet
Service Providers [ISP] sell a person's information, which may
include such things as address and telephone number.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that the bill allows the
consumer to opt in to having his or her information sold. The
consumer must actually allow it. She referred to a privacy
policy for America On-Line, Incorporated [AOL], included in the
bill packet. AOL's privacy policy statement indicates that "you
can choose not to receive such information if you don't want to
by letting us know on the registration screen when you sign up
for the product or service." She said this is a privacy right,
to allow people to have privacy if they choose to, and it isn't
an onerous requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that Representative Dyson's bill,
SSHB 410, contained a section that would require not only the
opt-in where the consumer says, "This is what I want to happen,"
but also requires the company to come back and tell [the
consumer] a little bit about what the company is doing with the
information. She said there are a lot of other ideas out there.
Between Representative Dyson's office and hers, they felt that
the two bills were so similar that they could be meshed.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that in the original bill, a
person's electronic mail address could not be disclosed. She
feels that this needs to be excluded from the bill because she
does not believe anyone has any "high privacy right over just
that."
Number 0619
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for
HB 273, Version H [1-LS1156\H, Bannister, 3/24/00] as a working
draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Peter Torkelson of his staff to
explain the portions of his bill [SSHB 410] that are being
incorporated into HB 273.
PETER TORKELSON, Staff to Representative Fred Dyson, came forward
to testify on HB 273, Version H. He explained:
The portion of our bill that really fit well with
Representative Kerttula's was the portion that said
when you activate an account, you - the ISP, the
Internet Service Provider - should tell the new
subscriber a little bit about what you do with their
information, about what type of information that you -
the ISP - are holding that might be accessible to
someone who's looking for information about people.
And also, perhaps, as an ISP, you should tell people
under what circumstances you'll be reading their e-mail
or tracking which web sites they hit, or under what
circumstances will you be disclosing that information
to law enforcement. I mean, can they call and just
say, "Hey, I want to read Joe's e-mail."? ... So, tell
them what the deal is. That, in a way, would kind of
inform people as to whether or not they have a
reasonable expectation of privacy about this type of
information.
And I've been talking to some of the Internet service
providers' security people, and they said, "Yeah,
that's probably a good idea." They have assured me,
just for the record, that they do not release any of
that information without a court order, a search
warrant for instance. ...,In a way, we're not really
trying to force them into something they're not doing
now. We just think it's fair for them to tell new
subscribers that that is the case. And they could read
your e-mail with a search warrant. It's not something
that just disappears into the netherlands of
cyberspace.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA expressed appreciation to Representative
Dyson and Mr. Torkelson for working hard on the bill. She
referred to page 2, lines 5 through 10, of HB 273, Version H,
which read:
(1) of a criminal offense, a court, upon application
of the agency seeking information that is relevant to
the investigation, has issued an order authorizing the
disclosure of the subscriber information without the
affirmative consent of the subscriber; or
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that a distinction is made
between a criminal case and a civil case. A warrant is needed in
a criminal case. Right now, however, in a civil, administrative
case, the Office of the Attorney General would obtain a written
request and get the information. She said, "If the Internet
service provider said no, they would still be forced to get a
subpoena or get further action, but right now they would still
like to maintain the flexibility that they have in the other area
of consumer protection." She thought this was reasonable enough
to include in the original draft of the bill. She said she sees
a difference between this and criminal prosecution.
Number 0884
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether Mr. Torkelson recalled a case
involving a naval airman in Hawaii whose superiors went to AOL
seeking information. They discovered he was gay and dishonorably
discharged him from the Navy. The airman sued, and the courts
determined that it was a blatant violation of privacy.
MR. TORKELSON replied that he was not familiar with that
particular case. He indicated there have been quite a number of
cases in which employees have been terminated for use of the
Internet through the company network, however. He believes the
court has upheld those in every case.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the gist of the case he
mentioned was that the man's superiors were basically on a witch
hunt.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she does not remember that case,
either, but finds it disturbing. She thinks it is a good example
of why persons should opt to not have their information
disclosed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he recalled the case that Representative
Halcro referred to.
Number 1017
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what form "affirmative consent"
has to be in.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to page 4, line 19, of Version
H, which states that "affirmative consent" means a written
statement signed by a subscriber authorizing an ISP to distribute
information.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the intent of Version H is to
couple SSHB 410 and HB 273.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied yes. She then informed members
that an amendment should be made on page 5, line 8, of Version H,
deleting "electronic mail address". She asked Bill McCauley to
explain the amendment.
BILL McCAULEY, Manager, Data Processing, Legislative Affairs
Agency, explained that all of the information outlined in Section
2, page 5, lines 8 through 11, is private information. The
discussion of a person's e-mail address would open up a Pandora's
Box if it is viewed as private information. Technically, a
person's e-mail address is not private information. He noted,
"If you want to deal with the issue of people distributing e-mail
addresses for spamming purposes (building e-mail addresses), that
probably should be addressed somewhere else, but it's not private
information."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "You'd hand them out, then, to a
phone number in a phone book?"
MR. McCAULEY replied yes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if the bill has a further referral to
the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered yes.
[In response to an inquiry from Chairman Rokeberg, Julia Coster,
Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section, Civil Division,
Department of Law, indicated she had no testimony but was
available to answer questions.]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:02 p.m. and returned at
4:07 p.m.
Number 1279
PETER GOLL, Board of Directors, Alaska Civil Liberties Union,
testified via teleconference from Haines. He stated:
I also have a personal interest in the legislation as a
former member of the House and chair of the House
Judiciary Committee, and as a person who uses e-mail
and Internet commerce and is concerned about privacy of
electronic communication as a citizen.
I'd like to thank the committee very much for hearing
these bills and for taking action. I'd like to
respectfully thank the sponsors, Representative Dyson
and Representative Kerttula, for bringing forward what
I consider to be one of the most timely of all issues
that the legislature has to face, that being responding
to the massive changes in electronic communication and
making sure that state law is adequate to manage those
changes in this case with regard to the constitutional
right to privacy.
Essentially, I understand that the committee has -- or
at least my understanding is that some of the language
from Section 2 of HB 410, dealing with notification of
Internet service provider subscribers of possible use
of their private information, and the language in the
CS ... of HB 273, dealing with the requirement that
there be an affirmative agreement by the subscriber,
that ... his or her information be (indisc.) before it
is used.
I understand that these two sections have been combined
to some extent in your committee substitute. Assuming
that that is correct, I guess I'd like to gratefully
thank the committee for taking that action. I think
it's wonderful to see you consolidating multi-partisan
views on behalf of this issue and moving it forward.
We certainly, as an organization - and many people
around the state, as individuals, I think - would like
to make clear our support for what you're doing and
encourage you to continue.
Number 1419
I guess I'll conclude by just stating that I'm not sure
what your intentions are today with regard to HB 410,
but I have come to understand that there may be a
feeling that it would be appropriate to delay some of
the provisions dealing with e-mail. I would like to go
on record indicating that if that be necessary, then so
be it, but that the issue of defining for people in
private life, in business, in the workplace, what their
rights and responsibilities are with regard to their
correspondence and e-mail, I think it is a very
important issue and one which needs to be moved
forward, and that the language in the bill is fairly
limited, and some of the language that we've submitted
for your consideration is also fairly limited, and some
of these basic provisions indicating correspondence
which would otherwise be private is equally private
when it's e-mail. It seems to be a pressing matter.
If, in your wisdom, you see any way of incorporating
some of these thoughts into legislation this year, I
think it would serve the people very well.
Number 1513
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he guesses that the portions of SSHB
410 that have not been rolled into HB 273, Version H, have very
little chance of getting through two houses in the remaining time
this session. He noted that it would be a high priority for his
office during the next session.
MR. GOLL wondered if he is correct in assuming that it is
Representative Dyson's and Representative Kerttula's goal, and
that of the committee, to try to bring this forward to closure
this year on the portions being moved forward.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied yes.
MR. GOLL said he understands the reluctance regarding moving
forward too promptly on SSHB 410, given the issues raised. He
stated that workplace issues will come up as a large focus of
conversation, because balancing the needs of employers with the
needs of employees is important. He commented that earlier
sections of the bill make it clear that personal correspondence
is personal even when it is electronic mail. He thinks this is
something which has a great deal of pressure on it for the public
interest. He respectfully urged the committee to consider this a
high-priority issue.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to a letter Mr. Goll had sent
regarding SSHB 410.
MR. GOLL said the letter makes some specific recommendations. He
thinks that one can overstate the complexities of solving the
problems involved. For example, the issue of having employees
and employers agree on the terms of oversight is something which
already exists in much of the law and could be applied here. He
clarified that the recommendations are not germane to Section 2.
With regard to Section 2, the only comment the AKCLU had was that
an affirmative statement by the subscriber should be required
before any information is released about that subscriber.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if Mr. Goll had an opportunity to look
at HB 401.
MR. GOLL indicated that he did not have any comments on HB 401.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if any ISPs had been contacted.
Number 1841
MR. TORKELSON stated that he has been in contact with the two
largest ISPs in Alaska: Internet Alaska and GCI, Incorporated.
He forwarded both of those providers copies of the bill and
requested input. He received an informal response from both.
Both indicated general support for the notice requirement, but
were a little concerned with the portion of the bill which
indicates that "they should disclose the circumstances under
which they can review [electronic] mail and web site traffic on
their servers."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered how the bill deals with that issue.
MR. TORKELSON explained that HB 273, Version H, states that "they
must notify new subscribers of the circumstances under which they
will look at your e-mail and look at your web site traffic."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented:
I think that that position - and I don't mean to sound
pejorative - is like unto the post office saying they
can open mail that's in their building unless they know
or have suspicion and a court order that there's
criminal activity; off-limits, in my opinion. Also, in
the years I have been here, and partly under your
tutelage, Mr. Chairman, I've become more cynical. I
have no knowledge that what I'm about to say is true,
but, in other related industries there are often, as a
secondary market for information that comes from
somebody that's providing services -- I'll be
pleasantly surprised if we don't find out ... that
there is an economic impact resulting from these
restrictions on access to people's electronic
communication. I think that the information is
gleaned, gets marketed, and our efforts here to protect
people's freedom of privacy will restrict the
marketing, in my view, perhaps, sometimes unethical
marketing, of private information. I'll be surprised,
if we get down the road on this bill, if we don't hear
about that.
Number 1969
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated:
I think what Peter [Torkelson] just said was that they
feel that it's on their property, so they should have
free will to look at it. I think [it] highlights the
need for not only information being supplied to
consumers when they sign up, as far as when they can
look at it, but I think we should put in here that they
can't look at it. If you say an Internet service
provider, ... that's just not some faceless
organization. ... Those are employees that can look in
your e-mail. And if something ever happened, what's
the argument? They're just going to say, "Hey, it's on
our property. We can look at it."
MR. TORKELSON replied:
They have indicated at times that this occurs it's
generally to try and protect their network. There have
been highly publicized occurrences of, for instance, in
Alaska some page being replaced with a fraudulent page
to try and defraud people and ... for obvious reasons
that is a direct threat to their business. ... To
protect the integrity of their network, they pursue
that type of stuff with vigor. I think they would say,
in all fairness, that the only times they get into this
is when they are reacting to a direct threat to their
actual network.
They have indicated they have a pretty rigorous review
process before they're allowed to put what's called a
"sniffer" on your account, where it just records where
you're going, and they do not save e-mail from the
past. They only collect e-mail forward from a
particular date, and it's signed by an administrator.
It goes through an internal review process. There is
some protection for reasons that if the word got out
they were looking, it's bad for business.
Number 2074
MR. McCAULEY stated that he agrees with what Mr. Torkelson said.
He pointed out that it is not exactly analogous to a post office
situation. It is his sense that only commercial ISPs are being
discussed. He wondered about other organizations, though, such
as the Legislative Affairs Agency and the Department of
Administration. He said, "When you have problems, you have tools
to go in and investigate the problems. [If] you have problems
with the network, these tools allow you to see this information.
So, it's a necessary tool." He agreed that a privacy problem
exists, but when a problem needs to be resolved, tools are
necessary.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Doesn't the Legislative Affairs Agency
and (indisc.) group monitor all of the traffic on our server in
our program?"
MR. McCAULEY replied, "Yes, we have the ability to. It's not
anything that we do constantly. But if we have a problem, yes,
we go out and see what's happening."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "We have a privacy agreement, do we
not?"
MR. MCCAULEY said yes and explained that there is a policy which
every employee signs.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this puts the employees on notice that
he or she is being eavesdropped upon.
MR. McCAULEY pointed out that they only look when there is a
problem.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if certain "traffic patterns" can be
discerned and then looked into.
MR. McCAULEY responded, "Absolutely."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to a comment Representative Dyson
had made regarding the economic impacts of the bill and the
potential to dampen the use of information for marketing.
Representative Brice said he would not be so quick to say that it
would have a tremendous impact on the secondary market for the
sale of information. He pointed out that telemarketing has
procedures that allow a person to have his or her name removed
from a calling list. He commented:
More or less, that's what we're doing here. We're
setting up a system by which people can tell their
provider that, "No, I don't want to be on those
marketing lists." I don't think it'll have that much
of a negative impact down the road.
Number 2190
MR. TORKELSON indicated that he is assured by Internet Alaska
that they do not resell people's information in any form.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Torkelson had checked with
Double Click.
MR. TORKELSON replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained:
There's a bill going through on driver's license
registrations to allow you to remove from their list,
and its got a negative $200,000 fiscal note. So, what
Representative Dyson is talking about, in some arenas,
has had an impact; but if Internet Alaska isn't doing
it, it shouldn't have any.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded:
I am concerned that the monitoring of traffic is
undertaken by ISPs, particularly for denial-of-service
attack situations that we experienced about a month or
so ago, and it's one of the reasons we have a bill that
I introduced, when an ISP or system can be attacked on
a worldwide basis - when Yahoo! was put out of business
for four or five hours. It's my understanding, when
those types of situations occur, the need to defend
yourself as a system and the actual integrity (indisc.)
of the World Wide Web requires a certain amount of
monitoring as well as other more sophisticated programs
for the (indisc.), but part of that is monitoring the
traffic.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. McCauley to discuss denial-of-service
attacks and security issues.
Number 2264
MR. McCAULEY stated that security is a huge problem. "Hackers"
have the means of finding ways into systems and using the systems
for their own personal purposes. Security is an issue that needs
to be addressed more than it has been already.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if anyone could speak to the level of
monitoring that needs to occur for security purposes.
MR. TORKELSON said he is out of his league, technically speaking,
with respect to that. He did have a specific question for the
security officer at Internet Alaska, who indicated that they
monitor general traffic, but they do not know where the requests
are going. He said:
That's the "sniffing" difference that requires, for
lack of a better word, the authorization of the
supervisor. They'll just go through and pick up
traffic. They don't know whose it is or what it's
doing when that occurs, and that that is, actually,
...,a very small portion of all traffic. There's just
too much.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that traffic can be tracked down.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she had a situation occur when she
logged onto a site which then transferred her to an obscene site.
She could not close down her computer as a result. She wished
that she had been able to track it. She said it is a form of
violation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for an explanation of "cookies".
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that HB 273 does not address
that.
MR. TORKELSON explained that HB 273 addresses ISPs, which provide
the "post office." Cookies are sent by the vendors whose sites
people visit.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he is concerned because there are both
good and bad cookies. He asked Mr. Torkelson to define what a
cookie is.
MR. TORKELSON explained that a cookie is a small amount of
information sent to a person's computer and stored on the hard
drive. The information is generally assigned some type of unique
identifying number. The next time a person visits a site, the
site will recognize the identifying number and will remember what
type of sites a person visited. For example, he said, "The last
time they were here, they went to sites about baseball, and, all
of a sudden, you see ads that have to do with baseball products
on your screen." He further explained:
Also, if you log in for, perhaps, Yahoo! Finance, one
of the most popular sites on the [Inter]net, ... it
says, "Remember who I am". You check a little box. ...
It implants a cookie. And the next time you come back,
it says, "Welcome, Peter Torkelson. Here are your
stocks." You don't have to type anything in. That's
the operation of a cookie.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO wondered what a bad cookie is.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a bad cookie is one that is implanted
without a person's knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he did not previously know the
technical term for a bad cookie. He said he had been doing some
research on the Internet and accidentally visited a lesbian
pornography site.
TAPE 00-35, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON further explained that the next time he
logged on to the Internet, that is the site which "popped up".
He said, "It gave me an immense amount of problems explaining
this to my wife."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reiterated that it is a problem. He asked Mr.
Torkelson to explain the controversy with Double Click.
Number 0043
MR. TORKELSON noted that cookies can be very convenient. Web
site providers would be the first to say this. He said:
Double Click chose to build a system where cookies that
were set on your machine recorded the types of sites
you went to and then reported back to them, unknownst
to you. That's really the rub, because Yahoo!, you
say, "Yeah, I want my stock information." But Double
Click had it set up so that while you're just surfing,
at different intervals, ... you would transmit data to
them saying, "This is so and so, and I am back looking
at baseball cards again." And Double Click had a
computer saying, "Bob's looking at baseball cards
again. Send him more baseball ads." They could, over
time, build up, as you can imagine, a very large and
very, very valuable database.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that Double Click is probably one of
the largest advertisers and traffic managers on the World Wide
Web.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he thinks the efforts being made to
protect privacy will have an impact on a secondary market of the
selling of data. The ability to build a profile on a person will
be restricted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered:
In essence here, it's good if we can consent to have a
good cookie. We know it's there, but if it's
nonconsensual, is that good or bad? Should we remove
that? Now, is there an obligation on the part of the
ISP to police that which cause a significant burden on
them to conduct their business in your service? That's
why I'm concerned about it.
Number 0145
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she thinks interstate commerce is
one of the major problems that has been encountered. In her
opinion, it will be left to Congress to control. She stated, "We
early on decided to focus on something in-state, limited impact,
and stake out something that we really can understand and begin
with and go that route." She indicated she shares many of the
same concerns with respect to cookies. She would like to work on
that issue during the interim.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Kerttula if she is
comfortable enough with HB 273 not being intrusive on that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that the Office of the Attorney
General has looked at the bill and is comfortable with it.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said it seems Alaskans are waking up to
some of the privacy issues with respect to the Internet. She
would like to help promote local ISPs in Alaska. She said it
would be nice to be able to promote Alaskan providers as being
really secure.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "We're just adding to their costs by
passing this bill." He asked Representative Dyson if it is
correct that ISPs will not be overburdened to the extent of
inhibiting commerce with this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered, "That's what we understand that
they have told us informally.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked that the bill sponsors continue talking
with statewide ISPs.
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion for a conceptual amendment
[Amendment 1] on page 5, line 8, deleting "electronic mail
address". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to move CS for HB 273,
Version H [1-LS1156\H, Bannister, 3/24/00], as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 273(L&C) moved from
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:42 p.m. and returned at
4:47 p.m.
HB 401-COMPUTER NETWORKS AND SPAM ADS
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 401, "An Act relating to computer networks and to
electronic mail advertisements."
[Due to technical difficulty, part of the testimony on HB 401 was
not recorded.]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, speaking as the sponsor of HB 401, indicated
he had introduced the bill to cover two areas of importance. The
first area deals with denial-of-service attacks. Approximately
one month ago, various Internet firms were shut down by denial-
of-service attacks resulting from the massive, instantaneous
communication of information. This mass of information inundates
systems and renders the system inoperable. HB 401 criminalizes
this activity. The next area relates to anti-spamming
provisions. Spamming is the receiving of multiple faxes and/or
e-mails.
Number 0426
JANET SEITZ, Staff to Representative Norman Rokeberg, came
forward. She said the bill makes activity regarding denial-of-
service attacks criminal mischief in the first degree, a class B
felony. The bill outlaws interrupting public utility services;
that is why, in Section 2, the definition of "utility" was
changed to reflect the inclusion of communication services such
as the Internet and its ancillary services. Section 4 relates to
spamming and provides that an Internet service provider [ISP]
policy is to be obeyed or followed. This section states that if
a policy is violated, then a warning is received. If it is the
second violation "they can kick you off or ... if they can't get
you to stop, they can take other action." Nothing in the bill
forces the ISP to adopt a policy; that is up to the ISP. A
policy is considered to be "published" if it is available in a
written form at no charge, or if the policy is displayed on an
online notice.
MS. SEITZ informed members that the bill also includes a
definitions section. She indicated there is one amendment to the
bill. She said Bill McCauley, Manager, Data Processing,
Legislative Affairs Agency, does not feel that governments are
covered on page 3, lines 25 through 27, because they have their
own electronic mail service. She asked Mr. McCauley if this is
correct.
BILL McCAULEY, Manager, Data Processing, Legislative Affairs
Agency, said that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Well, should it [cover governments]?"
MS. SEITZ responded that it is a policy decision for the
committee to make. She believes that Mr. McCauley would suggest
doing so.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if an amendment needs to be made to
the definition of "electronic mail service provider" to include
governments.
MS. SEITZ suggested "governmental entity, business or
organization" as a conceptual amendment.
Number 0561
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to adopt the committee
substitute to HB 401, Version G [1-LS1470\G, Luckhaupt, 3/23/00]
as a working draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the definition of "utility"
and asked what would constitute an ancillary service to the
Internet.
MS. SEITZ said there was some discussion that something may have
been inadvertently left out. To cover that, "and its ancillary
services" was used. She asked Mr. McCauley what that might
cover.
MR. MCCAULEY replied that it would cover the Internet.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it covers ISPs, and the Internet and its
ancillary services. He said Representative Murkowski's question
was good and begs a reasonable answer, but he is not sure one can
be provided.
MS. SEITZ commented:
I think that it was added to cover WANs and LANs and to
make it clear - that's local area networks [LAN] and
wide area networks [WAN] - that those were part of the
Internet, if anybody ever asked.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is the physical scope of the
Internet. He added, "What we're doing here, in terms of
utilities, is talking about the channel of communication,
basically."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI wondered if this could not include the
person who provides help with a person's Internet service.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "What we're talking about is it
interrupting that - we're disturbing this service."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Seitz if "utility" is a generic
definition that is being fixed.
MS. SEITZ responded yes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if "ancillary services" would be left
in.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI explained that she is concerned that
"ancillary services" might include something unintentionally.
She understands that the purpose is to ensure that nothing has
been forgotten. She wonders whether it more dangerous to forget
something or to include something. She does not know.
Number 0719
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Right now, everything changes so fast
in the Internet world that it's hard to keep up with it." He
wondered if anyone has any questions or suggestions.
MR. MCCAULEY commented:
When you're talking communications, that's telephone,
television, radio, Internet. I don't know if that's
what you intend to include, but those are
communications, utilities.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that is the idea. He said, "We
wanted to amend that to make sure that the Internet and any ISPs
(indisc.) communication services for the purposes of the criminal
statute."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt conceptual Amendment 1,
adding "government entity" on page 3, line 25, after "business".
There being no objection, conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
MS. SEITZ indicated there was another amendment [Amendment 2],
which read:
Page 2, line 24: After "more people"
Delete: "and"
Insert: "or"
Page 2, line 30: After "more people"
Delete: "and"
Insert: "or"
MS. SEITZ explained:
The way the bill reads right now, on line 24 and line
30, the user would have to have been previously sent an
unsolicited advertisement to 25 or more people "and"
previously been warned. It would have to do both of
those things. And the suggested amendment inserts "or"
instead of "and".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. There
being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0972
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CS for HB 401,
Version G [1-LS1470\G, Luckhaupt, 3/23/00], as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached three
indeterminate fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
401(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|