Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/24/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB69 | |
| HB108 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 108-FIDUCIARY ACCESS TO DIGITAL ASSETS
1:13:32 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 108, "An Act adopting and relating to the Revised
Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act."
[Chair Claman passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.]
1:14:12 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt CSHB 108, Version 30-LS0210\U as the
working document. There being no objection, Version U was
before the committee.
1:14:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN, in presenting CSHB 108, Version U, advised that in
2015, 74,000 Alaskans, 9.9 percent of Alaska's population, were
over the age of 65. Due to the increasingly computer savvy
senior population, fiduciary access to digital assets is more
important than ever. He explained that this legislation
provides fiduciaries the legal authority to manage assets, such
as computer files, digital photographs, and electronic
communications.
1:15:46 PM
DEBORAH BEHR, Commissioner, Uniform Law Commission, Alaska
Uniform Law Delegation, presented her testimony as follows:
Good afternoon. I'm Deborah Behr and I'm a Uniform
Law Delegation member from the State of Alaska.
Alaska has been a member of the Uniform Law Delegation
since about 1914. And, Uniform Law Commission is a --
what I consider to be a state right's organization.
Each state sends their representative to meet annually
to deal with problems that cross state lines, like
commerce, like digital assets. And, we come up with a
solution after great negotiations that works for all
of the states. And this bill is the result of that in
terms of digital assets. Twenty -- twenty-four states
have already enacted it, it is the law in 24 states.
And it is presently pending on 18 states, of which of
those 18 states - 2 are sitting on governors' desks.
So this is a -- an actively moving bill and it has
been generally accepted in other states. And, the
Uniform Law Commissioners have reviewed the -- the
Alaska delegation have reviewed the CS and we do
support the CS and the changes to it.
What I thought I'd do is give an overview of the bill
and then ask if you folks have any questions. The Act
itself was the result of senior groups coming to the
Uniform Law Commission and saying that they had
difficulties when a family -- when a family member
died and the fiduciary -- in typical cases a husband
and wife, the wife is the fiduciary, she's the one
that the husband trusted to deal with her -- his
assets when he passed on. And, there's a problem in
digital assets right now. The law has not kept pace
with digital assets, such that in a typical case, the
husband -- and the example of digital assets is like
the family photo album. In my house, my husband takes
all the family photos, puts them on some cloud or some
-- some server that I don't quite understand, and has
a -- they're password protected or encrypted so that
the average person can't get to his photos. He has
also signed a contract with the custodian of those
photos and in that contract they agree to keep them
confidential, people can't generally have access to
it. And, that's generally where the problem is with
digital assets and why they're different than your --
your deed, your house, your car, whatever will
transfer at your death. Because they are password
protected and there's also been a contract promise
between -- in my case, it would be my husband that
passed away, there would be a contract promise between
the custodian Google, Facebook, whatever, to keep my
husband's documents on file with them confidential.
1:18:27 PM
So, we -- we reported -- we received cases from all
over the United States about people wanting to get
even the most basic thing like the family photo album.
And when they would go to Google or Facebook for it,
and they'd say, "Geez, we'd really like to help you
but your husband, the decedent - the user, when he
signed the Terms of Service Agreement with Google or
Facebook, he asked for us to keep it confidential.
That's our standard form and we're stuck with that.
Please get a court order." Court orders are expensive
to get and there's a delay in getting them, and it's
also at a time for families when it's very stressful
for them, there's been a death in the family, there's
been a disability in the family, and it just takes
time. And, in some cases that time has actual money
costs of family. One example that someone gave me was
where someone had -- became disabled and he was a sole
proprietor of a business. He has all his business
records in the cloud, paperless in his office and
somebody had to come and run his business while he
recuperated. Well, the problem is, the husband at
that point did not have capacity to say what his
passwords were or even where they were -- where the
digit assets were located. So, it ended up being a
big mess for the family. The family defaulted on
loans, they had to pay extra interest that they
wouldn't have to deal with. And so, that's -- those
are the kinds of problems that came to the Uniform Law
Commission.
1:19:58 PM
Why we thought a uniform law was important across
state lines, because first of all, digital commerce
goes across states lines. We don't have any choice in
that. And also, residents of Alaska travel a lot.
And so you want to make sure that their expectations
are followed and then the bill basically says that you
look at the residency of where the user, in this case
my deceased husband, would be -- what kind of law
would apply. So, in this case it would be Alaska law
applied.
So, what is the solution that the Uniform Law
Commissioners came up with? And, this -- this is a
result of a two-year public process, its open public,
anybody can come to our meetings. Google, Facebook,
the industry was there, senior groups were there, and
just anybody who cared to. And, after the end of a
two-year process it came up with what I call and "opt
in" system. So that the decedent, the person when
they're alive has to say to Google or Facebook, this
is how I would like my digital assets handled. And,
it's called an "online tool," that's the buzz word for
it. So, Google or Facebook will have an online tool
so that when you open the account, it will come up as
a separate electronic document that you will decide
whether you want to use it or not. You don't have to,
there's no requirement that you do. And, if you do
use it, then that sets the clear path for the family
photos to go to whoever the decedent had wanted at the
time that he opened the account with Google or
Facebook. And, you can change it readily, and the
nice thing about it, people have asked me about it,
you don't need a lawyer to do the online tool. You
can have a different person who has access to your
family photos, or your music, whatever makes sense.
Like in your financial records, you may not want your
children to have access to them, you may want your
brother who's a CPA to do them if you pass away. But,
your music or the family photos can have children,
something like that might be just fine. So, it's an
opt in system, person does nothing, they don't --
can't take the benefits of the online tool, but the
online tool is available for them.
1:22:10 PM
Okay, what happens if there is no online tool, or the
person just decides not to use it, or in the case of
probably all of us in this room, we have open digital
accounts years ago and this tool wasn't available.
Okay, so the tool isn't available, you go onto, what
is called the -- you look at the person's will and
this bill also covers trusts, powers of attorneys,
guardianship and conservatorship. But, I'm going to
focus on wills because it is easier to understand. If
it is very clear in the will who you want your digital
assets to go to, then that -- the bill sets a priority
system for that. The issue that came up in, when we
were dealing with this, is most wills are the typical,
I give all my assets to my wife, or I give all my
assets to my husband. And, that generally will --
causes a problem because you don't know whether it's
digital assets and you also have this contract that
your husband signed, or your wife signs saying that
they would like to have this doc -- digital assets
treated in a confidential manner. So, if it's clear
enough in the will that you can see it, the digital
assets were intended and there is expressed consent in
there "I want my fiduciary, my wife, or whoever, to
get access to them." Then that's the trigger, that's
the second level of the online system.
The third level of -- supposing you have no online
tool, wasn't available or you just didn't cho -- you
were in a hurry and buzzed through that screen on it.
Your will is a general will or a lot of Alaskans have
no wills. So, you have no will, what happens next?
It's the Terms of Service Agreement applied. And,
that's the Terms of Service Agreement that my husband
signed with Google or Facebook. They are generally
going to mean you've got a court case out of it
because of -- in the Terms of Service Agreement there
generally, you are going to keep this confidential and
so you are basically stuck with a court case on it.
So, but if somebody chooses to do nothing, the -- and
doesn't do an online tool, their will doesn't address
it, then you will look at the Terms of Service
Agreement.
1:24:26 PM
This system has been supported by industry, Google,
Facebook, have -- and technical groups have supported
it, senior groups nationwide, our National Academy of
Elder Attorneys have supported it. In Alaska we're
very pleased that the Alaska AARP has supported it, a
major trust company in Alaska have said "Yes, this is
a problem in Alaska" and they support it, and Alaska
Commission on Aging. You will see those endorsement
letters in this file.
The other interplay with digital assets is, there is a
federal law on this issue dealing with electronic
communications and how you store them, but they have
to be confidential. So, the bill sets up a system for
a special treatment for email, because I think
everybody in this room, when you write an email, you
don't think people are going to be reading over your
shoulder and looking at how you're doing it and all
that. So, how the bill sets up a structure for email
is, if you give consent, express consent - my
fiduciary, my wife can have access to the email, no
question, you can get it onto the bill. The other
option is a court order because courts right now can
monitor that when it's appropriate. If the person has
not done an express consent, and there's no court
order, then the best that the fiduciary gets is -- in
this bill - is what is called the "Catalog of
Electronic Communications." And, what that sets up is
just the "to, from, and the date and the addresses on
it." Not the subject line, not the body of it.
Because the person did not express, during his life --
his or her lifetime, that they would want their
electronic communications viewed by a third party,
even a spouse. And, that's absolutely appropriate.
The fiduciaries in this area have said they can do a
lot with the name and the email address. They can go
and -- if you see 10 emails from Wells Fargo and the
banks, they pretty much have a good idea you have some
financial relationship with Wells Fargo and they can
go forward and deal with them. And, a big issue that
I've done some research recently on is, closing
accounts. There's a whole lot of fraud in this area
when somebody leaves a digital account open after
someone dies. People will go in and open credit cards
on it, they will send out flyers saying "I'm ill and I
need contributions for my medical care." You really
need to close these accounts and this will allow you
to identify the accounts and go forward with it.
1:27:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Ms. Behr referred to pictures
and Facebook, and asked whether this would let someone into a
regular Facebook account.
MS. BEHR responded that, currently, Facebook has what is called
a "Legacy Form," so if a person opens a Facebook account today,
her understanding is that the person can say "If I pass away,
this is -- the person can have access to my private part of
Facebook." She commented that she is not an expert in
electronics and can get way ahead of herself easily, but her
understanding is that there is a public part of it where anyone
can look at it, and then there's a private part where the person
has to friend people and people have to come into it, that's the
part that this bill deals with. It also deals with email
communications. The definition of digital asset is pretty
broad, and it can include things that have a value, like domain
names, bit coins - electronic currency. So, it's a big issue
nationwide and a big issue that affects seniors.
1:29:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to people with prior Facebook
accounts, and asked whether Facebook is amenable to sending a
notice with a link to the legacy form.
MS. BEHR stated that she does not represent Google or Facebook
and doesn't want to speak for these businesses. She did
acknowledged that [the legacy form] is there and people have
been using it. In response to the subset of Representative
LeDoux's question, she said that people have asked her about
training, and the senior groups advised that they will actively
offer education on this topic, and she was advised by the Alaska
Bar Association's Committee on Probate that it is interested in
making sure everyone is aware of it. Also, when searching [the
internet], she found that a tremendous amount of material was
out there. She commented that she doesn't believe it has
trickled up to Alaska much, but it is an issue because Alaska
does have a major trust company that reported it was a real
issue for them.
1:30:27 PM
MS. BEHR continued her testimony as follows:
What happens if I'm a fiduciary and my -- the
decedent, my husband whatever, has said "Yes, you may
have access." All the duties and responsibilities the
fiduciary has such as like, protecting information,
checking on copyrights, things like that. They have
the same responsibilities that you have for other
assets that are in the estate. And, the bill sets up
what kinds of things that they have to give to the
Google or Facebook to get the information. It's
usually things like a certified death certificate,
things like that.
If -- the bill does provide immunity for Google or
Facebook if they do it right, according to the bill,
and if they respond appropriately within 60 days.
And, that's a big deal because right now, this can
languish on for long periods of time while Google is
checking with its attorney or you're getting a court
order. There's no real parameters of trying to get
things out. This puts a limit of 60 days to make sure
that things are done appropriately according to the
bill.
Okay, the bill does not apply to digital assets of
employers. So like there's a lot of private employers
that pretty much allow people to use the business
computer for their own use. It does not -- this bill
does not deal with that, that's separate and apart.
Sec. 1 of the CS, and how it differs from the base
bill, amends the Alaska statutory form of power of
attorney bill to allow people, if they use the canned
statutory form of power of attorney, that they can
specifically give consent for access to electronic
documents. And that was sort of brought to my
attention when I testified last time, that there was
an amendment that needed to be done there, and that's
appropriate.
1:32:41 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Ms. Behr's example of photographs and
another example of emails, and noted that it sounds like the
bill specifically distinguishes those two. For example, a
person might be comfortable giving someone complete access to
their Facebook account, but wanted to treat emails differently.
In that case, the emails may be set up so that the information
people would have access to would be the communication, who it
was going to, and who it was coming from, only. This bill
allows that distinction to be made, he quiered.
MS. BEHR answered that one of the concerns of privacy groups was
to make sure that the content of the email was confidential.
Also, within federal law, the content of an email has special
privacy rights, which is why it requires an express consent to
get at the content of an email, or a court order, she said.
1:33:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understands that the Uniform Law
Commission decided a bill was appropriate in this instance, and
asked why this would not be handled simply by encouraging those
who write wills and templets for wills to make sure this was
addressed in that will somewhere.
MS. BEHR explained that there is still the problem with Google
or Facebook. For example, in the event her husband was deceased
and he signed a contract with a third party to keep his
information confidential with a third party, she has no
relationship with that third party. That, she explained, is the
overlay that makes this different from your house, car, or
whatever. Also, her husband's photographs or business records
are password protected or encrypted, and just putting it in a
will does not deal with this major issue of the spouse not being
a party to the contract. She asked, why Google would give her
access to an account when Google doesn't know whether the two
parties have any relationship with each other even though they
are still married.
1:35:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether the Uniform Law Commission
distinguishes between emails and photographs on the one hand,
and digital asset passwords on the other hand. In the event his
spouse were to die or vice versa, the passwords would be the
most sought after for bank accounts, or any number of different
reasons. Those passwords would be part of the digital assets
but do not necessarily fall in under Facebook or Google, but
rather it is electronic information that was saved somewhere, he
said.
1:36:16 PM
MS. BEHR pointed out that passwords are an interesting and
difficult issue because passwords are generally linked with a
particular account, such as bank account, Facebook, or whatever,
and a person must know the password to have access. The problem
with passwords is that they change, people have accounts that
they don't necessarily, even for themselves, remember the
password. A system must be provided in that situation where,
for example a sole proprietor had a stroke and the [fiduciary]
didn't know where the accounts or passwords were located. She
related that "You have to be able to go directly into the
accounts and be able to have a relationship with Google,
Facebook, whoever has the electronic assets." She explained
that the bill allows several ways to obtain the documents such
as, in the case of a guardianship or conservatorship wherein
they are limited to financial records. The bill sets up a
system to deal with that because passwords change, and also a
person doesn't want a booklet sitting around with passwords in
it, she said.
1:38:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this has any impact on
"our legislative Facebook accounts?" She referred to former
Representative Gruenberg, and how it would have impacted the
situation with Representative Gruenberg.
MS. BEHR responded that she was unaware of the situation with
former Representative Gruenberg.
1:38:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Chair Claman to discuss the
situation in that "they didn't have the ability to access some
of his important legislative work and items in his office."
1:39:06 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN related that with respect to Representative
Gruenberg and Facebook, Representative Gruenberg, for whom this
room is named, liked books, papers, and the old style way of
doing things and if he had a Facebook account, no one saw it.
He opined that there were issues involving his actual papers and
who had custody of the papers, and the email communications were
probably more undertaken by his staff than Representative
Gruenberg. He said was unsure how this would fit into that but
in terms of the motivation for the bill, he could assure
Representative Reinbold that Representative Gruenberg's recent
death had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. The Uniform
Law Commission asked him, as the House Judiciary Standing
Committee chair, to introduce this bill due to the increasing
need, on a national level, to address these issues. He added
that as someone fairly familiar with the Uniform Law
Commission's process, this legislation seemed like a good bill
to bring forward due to the issues it raised.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that in the world of an estate setting, or a
severely disable person who can no longer manage their affairs,
he believed the courts would view access to financial
information from a bank, with that password, would be important
information to let the estate know of their assets, how much
money there was, and what other assets they have that need to be
managed. Whereas, email communications and privacy concerns
enters into a different realm in terms of where does privacy
come in. He related that his executors would have an interest
in knowing where the money was, which is different from emails
in the realm of privacy.
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that most people do not have a will and
the bill makes it easier in the instance of an interesse. It
creates ways for family members to figure that in, and it also
creates a forum for the contractual relationship between places
like Facebook and email carriers to be able to deal with those
things without a will setting out what to do.
1:43:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this bill would have any
impact on a person's work account or a public office and said,
for example, she has a "Representative Reinbold" Facebook
account.
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that the Facebook account reflects a
relationship between you and Facebook even though you have that
relationship in your representative capacity, and your Facebook
account is not formally part of what the Legislative Affairs
Agency manages. Therefore, that becomes a relationship between
you, the individual who happens to be a representative, and
Facebook. Whereas, your email communications in your
Representative Lora Reinbold account, managed by Legislative
Affairs Agency, gets into the more complicated questions about
public officials, public records, and who controls those.
1:45:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked Ms. Behr to answer, as the former
regulatory review [supervisor].
MS. BEHR advised that she had nothing to follow up with as to
Chair Claman's answer.
1:45:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that when the discussion is about
digital bank account information, she opined there must be a
procedure where the executor goes to the bank after someone
dies, and the bank provides the information. The digital
account is contained in the app, she said.
MS. BEHR said that she noticed that younger attorneys at the
Department of Law are moving their private personal financial
accounts to be totally paperless. In the situation where a
person has a totally paperless account, the concern is the
executor locating the account and how they will find the
account. In this bill, a person can receive a Catalog of
Communications which depicts the following: To, From, Date of
emails. For example, her husband recently received something
from the bank advising that his tax return form was available
and it was around tax time, this information offered a pretty
good idea of some financial relationship. Trust companies
believe this bill is a good idea because a person has to be able
to gather information where the assets are located. The
executor still has to go to the bank and fill out its paperwork
according to the banking and stock broking laws. She pointed
out that this bill helps to locate assets the family or
fiduciary didn't know were available.
1:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she likes the idea of this
law and she wasn't trying to give Ms. Behr a hard time, but if
she was the executor of her brother's estate and didn't know
where he banked because everything was totally paperless, if she
had any relationship with her brother she would probably know
where he worked and where they were depositing his checks.
MS. BEHR agreed that that was definitely is a possibility, but
there are people without a strong relationship with an employer
or they are self-employed. This bill covers a multitude of
situations, and it addresses the electronic age and brings the
law into conformity with the paperless world, she explained.
Therefore, it will become more and more difficult to locate the
assets that a fiduciary and executor have a duty to gather,
monitor, and pay bills.
1:50:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked how the Uniform Law Commission
looked upon instances where a third party might have an interest
in whether or not certain records are disclosed. For example, a
legislator specifies in their will that they want all of their
digital assets available to their wife. Although, because they
work for the legislature there are confidentiality expectations
with regard to communications that might, in all likelihood, be
part of those records. Or, someone works for the Army, or
whoever, and their employer thinks it has an interest in the
spouse not having access to those kinds of records, he offered.
1:50:44 PM
MS. BEHR pointed out that this bill does not change other laws.
She referred to copyright, and noted that in the event she
receives an asset that is copyrighted, she can't blast it all
over the newspaper because she has to follow copyright law. In
the event she was trying to get a death benefit for her
husband's estate, and acquired confidential medical information,
she has to treat those records confidentially, just as her
husband would. She reiterated that this bill doesn't change
other laws, and it doesn't change how she receives military
benefits, or goes into someone's bank account because she still
has to conform to the law the legislature adopted in banking,
stock, military benefits, and such.
1:51:36 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER referred to industry buy in, and noted Ms.
Behr mentioned that Google and Facebook were supportive of this.
He asked whether this was a universal buy in, such that
Microsoft and Yahoo are buying in, and whether there was 100
percent buy in, or whether some companies are not on board with
this.
MS. BEHR explained that, first of all, this bill would not have
passed in 23 or 24 states, and pending on two governor's desks
if people had serious problems with it. She reiterated that it
has been an open public process, and she specifically asked at
the national office if they had received complaints or any
serious opposition, and she was told "No."
1:52:53 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER inquired as to whether any thought was given,
since there was work with the industry, whether the industry was
willing to change the user license agreements or terms for their
sites. He commented that that might be a way to assure everyone
that they have to do this, rather than possibly having to change
their will.
MS. BEHR answered that Google and Facebook would say, if they
were at the witness table, that they are following federal law.
Federal law has certain privacy restrictions on electronic
communications; therefore, even if the user agreement was
changed, there would still be the problem with federal law
requiring that it be confidential, and that they have the
consent of the person before "you can get into the content of
their electronic communications." She offered that the nice
thing about the online tool is that it allows industry to
develop the kind of online tool they want for their business.
She said she would imagine that Facebook has something different
than Wells Fargo because the needs are different. She related
that she heard Facebook was setting up legacy pages wherein a
person can explain that their loved one passed away, the
location of the service, and where to send donations.
1:54:43 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER referred to the industry end and the opt in
systems, and asked whether they are general blanket opt in, such
that Google has Google G-mail, Google-drive, the calendar and
all the different suites. He further asked whether it is opt in
by one or a general "you opt in and everything goes over?"
MS. BEHR replied that she doesn't have the expertise to answer
that question. Although, the bill sets up for them to have an
online tool and she was unsure whether Google has one for each.
It's possible that they do because maybe the needs are
different, but she was unsure, she said.
1:55:42 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that Facebook is a blending of pictures
and media that might be valuable, but a person has Facebook
messenger which is similar to an email chat system. He asked
whether this bill allows a person to delineate between those
two. For instance, say he wanted his future spouse to have
access to all of his pictures but not the messenger part of it
...
MS. BEHR opined that the protections for the content of
electronic communications apply even if it was a blended
account, a person still has to show consent because they have to
get around federal law that says "consent." She noted that she
reviewed some of the standard forms of consent and offered that
it's not something someone easily gives, such that it is similar
to the consent given to doctors to release medical records. She
described that consent as a large couple of sentences so the
person knows what they are doing, and what access they are
giving up. Although, she explained, a more general consent
would be fine for photographs.
1:57:08 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER surmised that Ms. Behr was saying that
Facebook would require the more advanced consent because it has
the photographs that need the general consent, but it definitely
has the messenger portion to ...
MS. BEHR pointed out that she doesn't advise Google or Facebook,
but she can tell them they need to look at federal law, and
federal law requires a pretty good consent on giving out
contents of electronic communications.
1:57:39 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER opened public testimony on HB 108.
1:57:56 PM
KEN HELANDER, Advocacy Director, American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP), said it had been interesting listening to the
testimony and questions because it underscored that this
proposed legislation was the consequence of this digital age and
the increasing role it plays in everyday lives. Society has
long accepted the legally defined role of conservator, executor,
and agent, in carrying out fiduciary duties with respect to
tangible assets on behalf of the deceased individual or an
incapacitated person unable to make decisions. He commented
that the many accounts a person now opens digitally could
include, commerce, banking, entertainment, research, and social
networking, which are all complex and protected by each
account's rules of privacy. He said, "I know we all read the
fine print on those terms of service agreements," but
nevertheless it can be confusing. Financial digital accounts go
beyond banking and into an online brokerage as to how a person
pays their bills, virtual property accounts like virtual
currencies and bit coins, air miles, and he then listed examples
of many more accounts. He explained that each of the different
types of service have its own terms of service agreement, which
is a contract and companies are reluctant to share information
it promised not to share. The importance of being able to close
accounts, avoid unnecessary expenses, prevent unauthorized
account use, or identity theft, requires new approaches in
managing these affairs. He pointed out that the bill gives
Alaskans the right to treat their digital assets in the same
manner they treat their tangible assets, it allows individuals
to effect advanced life planning, and give a trusted family
member the ability to settle the loved ones financial and
personal affairs. He said AARP Alaska supports the passage of
HB 108.
2:01:38 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER, after ascertaining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 108.
2:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there are any deviations
between this bill and what the Uniform Law Commission
recommended for those other states.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that it is not the Uniform Law Commission's
recommendation. He pointed out that during the course of
drafting HB 69, they realized that last year the legislature
changed the statutory Power of Attorney form. Consequently, he
said, a subsection was included into the Power of Attorney form
and he advised that Sec. 1, page 3, of the bill is the
modification to the statutory Power of Attorney form.
2:02:53 PM
MS. BEHR remarked that in the area of uniform law, it is
important that this bill be comparable to what other states do,
and she ran this base bill through the Chicago office of the
Uniform Law Commission who said it was just fine. There are
small style changes that are different for Alaska such that
Alaska's definitions are at the end of the bill and in the
uniform law they are at the beginning, but it substantively
doesn't change anything. With regard to the amendment for the
Alaska Pacific Power of Attorney form, the Uniform Law
Commission would have no comment on that because it is not a
uniform form used in other states, she offered.
[Vice Chair Fansler returned the gavel to Chair Claman.]
2:03:54 PM
[HB 108 was held over.]