Legislature(2011 - 2012)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/21/2011 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB30 | |
| SB98 | |
| SB7 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 30 | ||
SB 98-BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FOR ID
1:33:32 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 98 and noted that
the committee was hearing the version that came from the State
Affairs Committee.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he introduced the bill last year but
time ran out before it made it through both bodies. He decided
to reintroduce the bill when concerns were again raised about
how biometric information is collected and used. The bill
basically does two things. First, AS 18.14.010 which is found on
page 1, lines 5-9, says a person may not retain, analyze,
disclose, or distribute someone's biometric information without
first obtaining the informed consent of that individual. Second,
the language on page 1, lines 10-15, says that an individual is
not required to provide their biometric data for the purpose of
identification if they provide either a passport or some other
form of identification card. The Alaska Constitution has a very
good privacy provision and this bill seeks to continue that
protection now and in the future. Alaskans don't want private
information about themselves like iris scans, hand geometry
recognition, and retinal scans floating around and this bill
seeks to provide that protection. He said his staff member would
answer questions or walk through the bill.
1:36:19 PM
MICHAEL CAUFIELD, Staff to Senator Wielechowski, introduced
himself and offered to proceed at the chair's direction.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the bill interferes with the ability of
the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Public
Safety (DPS), or the Department of Law (DOL), to fingerprint
criminals and retain those fingerprints to analyze in a
database.
MR. CAUFIELD replied the bill provides exemptions for law
enforcement purposes including identification of perpetrators,
investigation of crimes, identification of missing or
unidentified persons, or identification of human remains.
Exemptions are also provided for the Department of
Administration for presenting drivers licenses and any facial
images as well as any biometric information when authorized by
state or federal law. While the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) hasn't endorsed the bill, it has no stated
objection.
1:38:06 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements are covered under the
federal exemption.
MR. CAUFIELD replied anything that's written in state or federal
statute is exempted from this law. He added that the bill may be
amended to expand the exemptions to address DOL's concern about
having private rights of action brought against them.
SENATOR COGHILL questioned how the revocation provision would
mesh with the electronic signature laws that accommodate people
who are physically unable to sign for themselves.
MR. CAUFIELD replied the bill specifically states that a person
can consent to have their fingerprints used for identification
purposes.
1:40:41 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the bill would stop store owners from
capturing images of their customers when on the premises.
MR. CAUFIELD replied the bill still allows the use of security
cameras to keep people from shoplifting and there's also an
exemption for circumstances like grandma taking pictures at a
family picnic.
CHAIR FRENCH asked which aspect of the definition of biometric
system allows store owners to continue to run closed video.
MR. CAUFIELD directed attention to Sec.18.14.090(3)(D),
"comparing the biometric data extracted under (B) of this
paragraph with biometric data stored for the individual for use
in future recognition of the individual;" and said that to run
afoul of the statute the store owner would need to make a
comparison with a past picture in order to monitor the person's
whereabouts. He added that DOL has said that facial recognition
is when you use a machine to identify the person. The packets
contain a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
indicating that facial recognition scans were used at the Tampa
Bay Super Bowl just before 9/11.
CHAIR FRENCH reviewed the report and asked if this bill would
prohibit that sort of police or private security activity from
taking place in the state of Alaska.
MR. CAUFIELD answered yes.
1:44:10 PM
MICHAEL LESMEIER, State Farm Insurance, expressed concern about
what SB 98 would prevent. For example, a private building owner
couldn't use biometric information for building security,
computer security, and a variety of other ways that the
information potentially can be used or could be used in the
future. State Farm doesn't use this information in Alaska but a
company that wanted to would need to have two separate security
systems, one for the people who gave consent and the other for
those who did not give consent. Our judgment is that's not good,
he stated. Perhaps there are situations where this sort of
information is being captured and misused, but State Farm isn't
aware of any and wonders about the wisdom of taking this kind
tool off the table.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if State Farm gathers biometric information
as part of its insurance work.
MR. LESMEIER answered no, but he believes it's used for security
purposes in one building at the home office in Illinois.
CHAIR FRENCH expressed surprise that building security is a core
concern of State Farm.
MR. LESMEIER responded that building security is a legitimate
concern of anybody in private or public business, both during
and after hours. In particular, it's a concern for anyone who
handles confidential information. We may have other concerns as
we study the bill further, but we would urge caution when there
doesn't appear to be an immediate need, he stated.
1:48:07 PM
SENATOR PASKVAN referenced the exemption under Sec.18.14.060 (1)
on page 2, line 18, and wondered if that exemption would satisfy
State Farm's concerns to gather biometric data for internal law
enforcement purposes. What the bill intends to stop is State
Farm or any other company from extracting that data and using it
to target their own customers or others.
MR. LESMEIER said this bill would prevent companies from using
this information to protect buildings, computers, medical
information, and financial information and that's not a good
idea.
CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation of an employer who
requires his employees to consent to a thumbprint scan to
password protect company computer files. He said he didn't know
if that would run afoul of Sec.18.14.050 and create a private
right of action, but he believes that collecting and using that
information for a private business purpose is different than
someone who collects and then uses the information from the
public at large. He opined that collecting biometric information
for the purpose of building security would be problematic
because it affects people who are not employed by the owner of
the building.
MR. LESMEIER said his understanding of the bill is that a
potential employee would have to consent to the thumb scan and
it couldn't be a condition of employment because that would
create a private cause for action. He added that he appreciates
the committee's concern about secondary use of the information,
but the bill goes way beyond that.
1:54:06 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he reads the bill differently. The
purpose of the bill is to protect an individual's privacy by
limiting the secondary transmission and use of this personal
information. He offered to work with the drafter to clarify that
because biometric information does have certain values.
CHAIR FRENCH referenced point three on the sponsor's fact sheet
that indicates that the bill is aimed at organizations that
collect and sell biometric data to third parties without
consent. The fourth point states that biometric data is useful
in fields like medicine and security and the bill doesn't aim to
stop that use, but it has to be with consent.
1:56:25 PM
HORST POEPPERL, Chief Executive Officer, Borealis Broadband
Inc., Anchorage, AK stated strong support for SB 98 because
people today face an onslaught of organizations determined to
extract every piece of personal information possible. This
situation is out of hand, and is becoming more and more
dangerous for the average citizen. Companies buy and sell this
data, and it can also be lost or stolen. The best defense is not
giving up the information in the first place.
The best protection is to not allow the data to be collected in
the first place. The idea that a nation is more secure by
collecting private information is Orwellian at best. In fact, we
need to reverse the data mining that already exists, he stated.
2:00:51 PM
TIMOTHY PEARSON, Executive Coach, Pearson Consulting, Anchorage,
AK, stated support for SB 98. He pointed out that Section 1.22
of the Alaska State Constitution clearly recognizes the right of
the people to privacy without infringement, and states that the
Legislature shall implement this section. We need to look at
what that means and how to apply it in a digital era but the
reasons undergirding that constitutional right are unchanging
and significant, he stated. This bill will help correct some of
the current imbalance given the fact that the power of private
sector databases has significantly altered the balance of power
between the state and the individual.
He suggested the committee review the book "Identity Crisis: How
Identification is Overused and Misunderstood" by Jim Harper and
an article entitled "Big Brothers Little Helpers: How
Choicepoint and Other Commercial Data Brokers Collect, Process,
and Package Your Data for Law Enforcement" by Chris Jay
Hoofnagle.
MR. PEARSON said he would also note that you can't always trust
the people at the top of an organization regarding the security
of personal data; that is where most security breaches occur. He
cited information from a WikiLeaks document in which the head of
TSA offered U.S. citizen fingerprint databases to the head of
the Egyptian secret police in exchange for the Egyptian
government sharing fingerprints of extremists that it had on
file. Trusting that law enforcement agencies will handle such
information securely has been breached such that the safeguards
provided by Section 1.22 of the Alaska constitution deserve to
be strengthened, he concluded.
2:08:12 PM
JASON GIAIMO, Co-chair, Citizens for Privacy in Alaska, and
President, Net Gain Business Consultants of Alaska, Anchorage,
AK, said he doesn't believe that SB 98 would affect anybody who
puts up a surveillance camera in their shop unless they also use
facial recognition software. Actually, he said, the question
boils down to whether Alaskans should be compelled to submit to
fingerprinting that will be stored in a private database. He
thinks the answer is no because it will get lost. The State of
Alaska knows this.
Data mining and biometrics collection is big business; it is
estimated that industry revenues will exceed $7.5 billion in
2012 alone. Corporate revenues from fingerprints, iris, vein
scanning and facial recognition and surveillance make up about
49 percent of that total. The Superintendent of the Los Angeles
unified school district is considering mandatory fingerprinting
of all low income school children or they will be denied
subsidized lunches. A city in Arizona is trying to pass an
ordinance requiring fingerprint ID to receive medicine at a
local pharmacy.
MR. GIAIMO said his involvement started in 2008 when he went to
take the last two parts of the CPA exam in Anchorage. He was
told that policy had changed and his fingerprints were required
as proof of identification; a passport, driver's license, or
birth certificate was no longer sufficient as ID to enter the
exam room. He refused, which was very hard, but he felt it was
important to retain his integrity.
Because he is also a certified internal auditor, he was able to
follow the money trail. He learned that a company called
Prometric Corporation receives a fee for collecting the
fingerprints, and they sell the data to an international data
mining company called ChoicePoint. This company is owned by
LexisNexis who received the largest fine in the history of the
Federal Trade Commission for violating consumer privacy rights,
federal laws, and for making false statements about their
privacy policies. These companies are all about maximizing
profits for shareholders and their goal is to profit from
Alaskans' loss of privacy. View what they say in that context,
he cautioned.
2:15:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 98 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|