Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
04/15/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| SB98 | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 98-BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
2:14:40 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 98 and asked for
a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt CS for SB 98, labeled 27-
LS0661\T, as the working document.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked his staff to describe the changes.
2:15:35 PM
MICHAEL CAUFIELD, Staff to Senator Wielechowski, sponsor of SB
98, described the following changes:
Page 2, lines 17-19, contains new language that clarifies that
occupational exams are also educational exams, and that the exam
administrator may determine what constitutes an acceptable
alternative ID. He noted that some questions may still arise
with this section.
Page 3, line 18, the phrase "agents of the state," was removed
to ensure that the state is exempt from liability, but not an
organization that contracts with the state.
Page 3, lines 29-30, creates an exemption for voice data
collected for quality assurance purposes, and the exemption for
"facial images in a biometric system" was removed.
Page 3, lines 1-2, "facial images" was changed to "facial
mapping" in the redefinition of "biometric data" on page 4,
lines 1-2.
Page 4, lines 25-26, "facial mapping" was defined as "the use of
digital technology to measure the features of an individual's
face." This was done to ensure that pictures cannot be defined
as biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD said he understands there might be additional
issues with the alternate identification.
2:18:46 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referenced the alternate identification provision
on page 2, lines 12-19, and asked what would happen if someone
administering the LSAT would settle for nothing other than a
fingerprint for identification.
MR. CAUFIELD replied the current draft requires the
administrator to accept another acceptable form of
identification. He acknowledged that it could present a problem
if the administrator said no other form of identification was
acceptable. Proposed amendment 27-LS0661\T.1 addresses the
issue.
2:20:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that version T says the company
that administers the exam cannot require someone to provide
biometric information for identification if they provide
alternate identification that is acceptable to the person
administering the occupational exam. The intent of the provision
is that something like a library card would not be acceptable,
but a passport or driver's license clearly would be acceptable
alternate identification.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what would happen if the LSAT administrator
would only accept a fingerprint as acceptable identification. A
passport was not acceptable.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that would be a violation of the
law.
SENATOR PASKVAN said he worries that a national licensing entity
will say it won't allow the exam to be administered in Alaska.
It would be unfortunate to make it so restrictive that national
testers see that the only alternative is to leave the state. He
noted that the amendment he drafted tries to accommodate that.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the amendment pertains to this section.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if it would be too broad to reword the
provision to say "generally accepted identification."
CHAIR FRENCH suggested he hold the thought until the amendment
was considered.
2:26:51 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to bring Amendment 1, 27-LS0661\T.1,
before the committee for discussion purposes.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR PASKVAN
TO: CSSB 98( ), Draft Version "T"
Page 2, line 12:
Delete "If"
Insert "(a) Except as provided in (b) of this
section, if"
Page 2, line 17, following "examination.":
Insert new material to read:
"(b) If the collection of the biometric
information of an individual taking an
occupational examination is legitimately
necessary to establish the security of the
occupational examination, the person who
administers the occupational examination may
collect the biometric information, but the
person shall comply with the collection and
other requirements of this chapter with
regard to the biometric information, and the
person shall require the person's
contractor, if any, to agree to comply with
the collection and other requirements of
this chapter with regard to the biometric
information.
(c)"
SENATOR PASKVAN said the purpose of the amendment is to address
the problems that administrators of the CPA exam have had with
individuals on the East coast transferring test questions to
individuals on the West coast hours before the test is
administered. The amendment says that if collection of biometric
information is deemed legitimately necessary to secure an
occupational examination, the exam administrator may collect the
biometric information in compliance with the other requirements
of the bill. This is a compromise and a better solution than a
blanket prohibition, he said.
2:30:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he appreciates the intent, but he
objects to the amendment. There are other ways to ensure that
the person taking the test is the singular person credited with
taking the test. Proctors are hired to watch individuals who are
taking an examination, including following them to the bathroom.
As written this is a good bill that provides a lot of
protections for Alaskans, he stated.
2:32:01 PM
SENATOR COGHILL said he can understand both sides of the
question, but is seems as though the test taker is being asked
to surrender a lot in order to secure the integrity of the test.
He wondered if the test administrators shouldn't be more
responsible for ensuring that integrity, and observed that the
amendment appeared to double the reasons for the test
administrators to collect that information.
SENATOR PASKVAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS0661\T.1.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI objected.
2:34:27 PM
A roll call was taken. Amendment 1, 27-LS0661\T.1, failed 2:2
with Senator Paskvan and Senator French voting yea and Senator
Coghill and Senator Wielechowski voting nay.
CHAIR FRENCH referred to page 3, lines 11-16, Sec. 18.14.080,
right of action, and asked if the idea is to penalize people who
lose biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD replied it addresses people who lose or distribute
biometric information.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a discussion about the policy rationale
for subsection (b), which immunizes the state against a claim
for damages for lost biometric information.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI told the committee that the state was
initially concerned that if the information was distributed the
state could potentially be liable for millions of dollars in
damages. He said he isn't a fan of immunizing the state so it
was a tough call, but if that provision hadn't been included
it's likely a fiscal note would have been attached making the
bill more difficult to pass. It would still be illegal for the
state to disclose the information, but an individual couldn't
sue for damages if that did happen. He reiterated that, as a
whole, it's a good bill that moves Alaska forward on protecting
peoples' private information.
2:37:28 PM
CHAIR FRENCH observed that in a number of places the record
clearly reflects the sponsor's reluctance to offer the state
immunity provisions. He expressed similar concern, and suggested
that this is one step forward and perhaps there will be
opportunity to revisit that provision in the future.
SENATOR PASKVAN expressed concerned that the state is being
provided absolute immunity regardless of how egregious its
conduct might or might not be. It's problematic.
2:39:07 PM
CHAIR FRENCH referenced page 2, line 3, Sec. 18.14.020, and
asked if the penalties for disclosing, transferring, or
distributing collected biometric information are contained in
Sec. 18.14.080. It's a civil violation for which there is a
financial penalty.
MR. CAUFIELD answered yes.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if a "bad apple" state employee would be
immunized if he were to intentionally sell another person's
biometric information.
MR. CAUFIELD replied they would be immunized if they were acting
as an agent of the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that if they were acting within
their duties as a state employee they would be immunized, but if
they were acting outside their state duties they would be
liable.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that they could be on the hook for
$100,000.
2:40:32 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN pointed out that Sec. 18.14.080(b), on page 3,
line 17, gives an employee of the state immunity for damages, a
penalty, or both for violations under this chapter.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded he suspects there are creative
lawyers that could figure out violations outside this chapter
for a state employee who did something like that.
SENATOR PASKVAN said his perception is that the immunity is
broad.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's not the intent to ban some other
common law claim, tort claim, or claim under another statute.
2:41:55 PM
CHAIR FRENCH suggested that the general concern is probably
aimed at private enterprise collecting the material, not state
collection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI suggested amending the bill to address the
issue that Senator Coghill spoke to about acceptable alternate
identification. On page 2, line 16, following the word
"information" delete the remainder of the sentence and insert
"if the individual provides generally accepted alternate
identification to the person administering the occupational
examination." It's not a substantive change.
At ease from 2:44 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. to write down the suggested
amendment.
2:45:02 PM
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and announced that the
amendment would be put aside. He asked the will of the
committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CSSB 98( ), version T, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection, CSSB 98(JUD)
moved from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|