Legislature(2007 - 2008)BELTZ 211
01/25/2008 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB151 | |
| HB7 | |
| HB149 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 151 | ||
CSHB 7(FIN)am-FALSE CALLER IDENTIFICATION
2:01:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of CSHB 7(FIN) am.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, sponsor of HB 7, explained that the
bill relates to false caller identification. That means that
your caller ID may not be accurate, he said. This has the
potential to create serious mischief and it could facilitate
fraud. We ought to take proactive steps to make false caller ID
illegal in Alaska, he said.
2:03:25 PM
DIRK MOFFET, Staff, to Representative Bob Lynn, explained that
the technology for false caller ID isn't new, but it's easier
and less expensive. Now someone with a $10 calling card can
alter their caller ID and even change the sound of their voice.
For example, someone could change their caller ID so that you'd
think that Bank of America is calling. He referenced an AP
article that discussed how easy spoof caller ID has become.
MR. MOFFET relayed that Congressman Tim Murphy from Pennsylvania
testified that someone falsely entered his office phone number
on caller ID. That person called his constituents and slandered
the congressman. He only learned about the calls when people
from his district called his office questioning why the
congressman would say such negative things about himself. There
are many other examples, he said.
MR. MOFFET said the bill doesn't address the technology of how
the spoof gets on the caller ID. It simply says that it is a
crime to insert false caller ID information into a caller ID
system with the intent to defraud. HB 7 establishes that this is
a class A misdemeanor.
2:06:23 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted a discrepancy in the penalty between
the bill and the fiscal notes and asked what the sponsor's
intent is.
MR. MOFFIT clarified that the intent is a class A misdemeanor.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked what that penalty includes.
MR. MOFFIT replied it carries a $10,000 fine and 365 days in
jail.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's the maximum penalty.
MR. MOFFIT agreed.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what "intent to defraud" means and whether
the situation with the congressman would be a crime under this
bill.
2:07:49 PM
MR. MOFFIT deferred the question to the Department of Law.
SENATOR THERRIAULT provided a copy of the statutory language for
"intent to defraud."
2:08:40 PM
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law (DOL), read the definition of "intent to
defraud" in AS 11.46.990(11)(A) and (B) and said he believes it
is broad enough to include fraud aimed at financial harm,
deception, reputational injury or other harm. He believes that
the definition is broad enough to include the harassment of the
congressman.
CHAIR FRENCH agreed. He said his interest is to cover situations
where someone is trying to obtain a Social Security number, a
bank account number, an attempt to contact a women's shelter, or
an attempt to harass someone.
2:10:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if each call that goes out with the
same message constitutes a separate offense.
MR. SNIFFEN said DOL would view it that way if the recipients
were different. The Alaska Consumer Protection Act defines a
violation to include every separate transaction that could
potentially affect a consumer. If a call center switchboard
calls 10,000 people with the push of a button, each of the
potential victims would have a claim and so each call would
potentially be a violation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented the example above could send
someone to prison for life and that seems a bit harsh.
MR. SNIFFEN said he'd defer to Ms. Carpeneti, but he believes
the sentencing judge would have discretion.
2:12:14 PM
MR. MOFFET reminded members that this sort of crime is difficult
to detect and catch so the deterrent effect is important.
SENATOR THERRIAULT highlighted typical home electronics and
questioned whether it really would be difficult to detect.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if spoof caller ID is a problem in Alaska.
MR. MOFFET said his research shows it's happening in the Lower
48.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Lieutenant Dial if there have been cases of
spoof ID in Alaska.
2:13:56 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), said it's unclear how many of these cases
are occurring. But DPS suspects that spoof ID is involved in
some theft and deception, impersonation, and extortion cases.
SENATOR McGUIRE said a company is defined as a person and she
doesn't recall if a company can be charged with a crime.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that a company can be charged with
violation of the Consumer Protection Act. In general DOL tries
to identify individuals within the company who are responsible
for making decisions. However, Federal Trade Commission cases
have looked at phone boiler rooms where clerks make illegal
telemarketing calls. If those clerks know that their conduct is
illegal and they continue, it's not a defense to place the blame
on the supervisor. Each of those clerks could be responsible for
their own conduct.
2:15:57 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there's already a law prohibiting
this behavior.
MR. SNIFFEN said he believes this conduct is covered by a
variety of statutes. For example, it could be theft by
deception. Under the Consumer Protection Act the conduct is
arguably already prohibited because unfair trade practice is a
violation. But this would make it clear and it would add the
criminal element to the conduct.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Lieutenant Dial if he foresees any
cost associated with the bill.
MR. DIAL said yes, primarily in the cost for training specific
to this type of crime. The estimate is $25,000 or less.
2:17:54 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold HB 7 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|