Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
04/03/2008 08:00 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB65 | |
| HB307 | |
| HB359 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 65-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of HB 65 and asked for
a motion to adopt Version \W.
8:09:06 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to adopt the Senate committee substitute
(CS) for CSHB 65, 25-LS0311\W, Bannister, as the working
document.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection Version \W is
before the committee.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for a brief explanation of the changes.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that Version \W incorporates only the
changes the committee made during the previous hearing. There
are four proposed amendments.
8:10:07 AM
SENATOR McGUIRE joined the meeting.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 25-
LS0311\T.9, Bannister.
SENATOR McGUIRE moved Amendment 1.
A M E N D M E N T 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(L&C)
Page 5, line 30, following "computer":
Insert "or a radio frequency identification
device"
Page 5, line 31, following "form;":
Insert "in this subparagraph, "radio frequency
identification device" means an electronic tagging and
tracking technology that wirelessly transmits
identifying information to a remote reader;"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR McGUIRE explained that radio frequency identification
devices (RFID) transmit and store personal information. She has
conferred with the sponsor and this clarifies in the definitions
that RFID would be covered. This is a rather new technology and
as with other technology, there is potential for abuse. She
noted that this committee passed her more comprehensive RFID
bill, but she has decided to hold that bill for now due to the
considerable, and she feels unjustified, concern about how it
might impact legitimate commerce. She explained that the kinds
of RFID chips used to move commerce and be part of the supply
chain weren't meant to be impacted. She doesn't believe that
they were, and she'll work to clarify that over the Interim. She
is interested in protecting information containing social
security numbers, names, and other personal information.
Amendment 1 defines RFID in a way that is consistent with the
rubric of the bill.
8:12:54 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked the sponsor his view of Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, sponsor of HB 65, agreed with
Senator McGuire; the amendment clarifies, under the definition
and breach of security sections, that RFID is included. It
alerts industry that when they begin to handle personal
information, it will be safeguarded under the RFID issue.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this disallows acquisition of
personal information on RFID chips.
SENATOR McGUIRE explained that the amendment clarifies that if
there is a breach of security on consumer data, the penalties
and disclosure would be the same as under this bill.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI posed the hypothetical example of someone
using a Fred Meyers card that has an RFID chip, and asked if the
inappropriate release of that data is what would fall under this
amendment.
SENATOR McGUIRE replied that's correct.
CHAIR FRENCH withdrew his objection and finding no further
objection, announced that Amendment 1 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 2, 25-LS0311\W.1, Bannister, and
explained that it follows up on the discussion about what to do
when an information collector decides to not disclose. This
essentially says that before someone makes that decision, they
must make an investigation and send written notification to Mr.
Sniffen or his successor [Commercial/Fair Business Section,
Department of Law].
A M E N D M E N T 2
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "consultation with relevant federal,
state, or local agencies responsible for law
enforcement"
Insert "written notification to the attorney
general of this state"
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this would significantly increase
the fiscal note.
CHAIR FRENCH replied he doesn't know but his sense is that it
would reduce the fiscal note because all costs fall on someone
outside government. He understands the point that all the
information will be funneled to a state employee, but Mr.
Sniffen indicated that the burden would be light. The bill next
goes before the finance committee.
8:16:50 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he supports the amendment and reporting
to a central location. "I think this is a very good move," he
said.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, Amendment 2 is
adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 3, 25-LS0311\W.2, Banister, and
objected for discussion purposes.
A M E N D M E N T 3
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 18, line 4, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 7, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 21, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 18, line 24, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 19, line 20, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
Page 19, line 24, following "person":
Insert "subject to"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that this deals with industry
issues related to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and how to
craft a means for legitimate business to operate. This talks
about a person subject to GLBA in Sections .410, .420, and .430
with regard to those who can legitimately use social security
numbers. The idea is to make it so that business can operate
freely, but when there is a breach there are significant
requirements. The concern centered on being able to deal with
people who are subject to GLBA. He thought that was answered,
but this makes it more explicit.
8:18:51 AM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if his intention is for each clause to say,
"to a person subject to or a transaction regulated by the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act for a purpose
authorized by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization
Act."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that's correct.
SENATOR THERRIAULT observed that it ties everything very closely
to GLBA.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed. The aim is to allow commerce to
operate freely, but when someone is operating outside the law
there are clear rules of accountability.
8:20:16 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked whose problem this take care of.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied this addresses the concerns
ChoicePoint and LexisNexis articulated in the last hearing. They
pointed out that although they are regulated by GLBA, their
customers may not be. He tends to agree and this provides them
room to operate.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that what GLBA says about obligations with
respect to personal information is that the subsection shall not
prevent a financial institution, which is what ChoicePoint and
LexisNexis are, from providing non public personal information
to a non affiliated third party. ChoicePoint and LexisNexis are
concerned that the bill might undermine their freedom to operate
in the financial world.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that GLBA and the FCRA are somewhat
different in that one has express language and the other has
permitted language. This seeks to include those laws in their
disparate approach and still allow a good framework to work in
Alaska. The addition of the phrase "subject to" smoothes it out
a bit.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if he's comfortable with the amendment and if
he believes industry is as well.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said yes.
8:23:19 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if the word "person" refers to the data
brokerage company.
CHAIR FRENCH clarified that it applies to the financial
institution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL added that it's the corporate definition
of person.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and announced that without
further objection, Amendment 3 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 4, 25-LS0311\W.3, Bannister, and
objected for discussion purposes.
A M E N D M E N T 4
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65(JUD), Draft Version "W"
Page 20, line 20, following "information.":
Insert "In this subsection, "independent
contractor" includes a debt collector."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that he asked for the phrase
"debt collection" to be removed [from .410(b)(5)] because the
exemption under disclosure of social security numbers was too
broad. But this allows it for legitimate business-to-business
transactions where there's need for identification. Debt
collection is one such example. This allows that to happen under
exemptions for employees, agents, and independent contractors.
He didn't intend for it not to be used for debt collection; he
didn't want it to be the general rule so that everyone could
demand collection of social security numbers for nearly any
purpose under the guise of debt collection.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without further objection, Amendment
4 is adopted.
8:25:58 AM
CHAIR FRENCH found no further amendments or discussion and asked
for a motion.
SENATOR McGUIRE motioned to report Senate CS for CSHB 65, as
amended, and attached fiscal note(s) from committee with
individual recommendations.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, SCS CSHB 65(JUD)
is moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
At ease 8:26:19 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|