Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
04/03/2018 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB118 | |
| HB96 | |
| HB168 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 118-DISCLOSURE OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION
3:48:45 PM
CHAIR MEYER announced the consideration of Senate Bill 118 (SB
118).
3:48:50 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of SB 118, provided an overview as follows:
This bill stems from our constitutional obligation in
Article I, Section 22, the constitution says, "The
right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall
not be infringed, the Legislature shall implement this
by statute." This statute is seeking to protect
personal information that internet websites collect
about us on a daily basis. The internet has
fundamentally changed our world but virtually every
website you click on, every product that you buy,
every medical illness you research, every political
article you research, every religious site you visit
is being recorded, collected and sold. There is little
to stop data-brokers from using the information they
gather from us in whatever way they please.
There is a gentleman named Jeff Chester, he's a
privacy advocate and director for the Center for
Digital Democracy (CDD), and I think he summed it up
very well, he said, "Because there are no online
privacy laws in the United States, there's no stop
sign, there's no slow sign, there's no crossing guard,
the message is anything goes." We've seen that in
recent months with the Facebook-Cambridge Analytical
issue and the other things we are hearing about
massive collections of information on the American
citizens. Websites use up to a hundred tracking tools
to collect personal information. Americans have lost
jobs and have been denied mortgages when data-brokers
have shared incorrect information and scammers use a
data-brokerage list to target vulnerable populations
like seniors. Many mobile apps show location
information and phone numbers. Women and children have
been hurt or killed when location data was shared with
abusers.
This bill seeks to make the internet more transparent,
it simply requires that website owners and online
services tell people what personal information they
are collecting and who it is being provided to. I
would point out that similar legislation has passed
the Illinois state senate and my staff checked was in
third reading in their state house, today. Canada and
the United Kingdom both have laws that allow consumers
to find out what data is being shared about them. The
European Union passed regulations in 2016 which goes
into effect next month which are similar to this bill
and actually goes further than this bill because they
have what they call "Right to Be Forgotten," which is
the right for the consumer to ask websites and the
data-brokerage firms to actually delete the data that
they have collected on them; we are not going quite
that far but this would put us among the leaders in
the nation in protecting Alaskans' internet privacy.
3:52:34 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Senator Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, provided a sectional analysis on SB
118 as follows:
Section 1:
Titles the legislation, the "Right to Know Act."
Section 2:
Enumerates legislative findings relating to Alaska's
constitutional right of privacy and detailing the
importance of transparency and security for consumers,
and business practices related to personal digital
data.
Section 3:
AS 45.48.800, requires the owner of a commercial
internet website or commercial online service to
notify customers of their information sharing
practices, it outlines what information the owner must
include in the notification.
[AS 45.48.810] requires the owner of a commercial
internet website or commercial online service, if
requested by the customer, to provide the customer any
information shared about them in the previous 12
months and outlines which information the owner must
provide to the customer.
[AS 45.48.820] identifies the categories of personal
information that the owner needs to disclose.
[AS 45.48.830] outlines different exceptions to the
disclosure requirement.
[AS 45.48.840] allows the customer to recover damages
if an owner violates the right to know.
[AS 45.48.850] outlines how the right to know
interacts with existing privacy regulations on the
state and federal level.
The last section in section 3 provides definitions.
Section 4:
Establishes that this is only applicable to data
collected after the effective date.
3:55:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked if SB 118 was modeled after some "model
legislation" or from states that were considering internet
privacy. He explained that he was thinking about the difference
between Alaska and other states on constitutional privacy.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that he did not know if there was
model legislation regarding internet privacy but noted that SB
118 is like what is being done in Illinois.
3:55:35 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL joined the committee meeting.
SENATOR COGHILL addressed the bill's application and asked if he
has heard of any struggles on applying; for example, the need
for a regulatory agency, how it would be housed in Alaska and
how an individual would contact the agency.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered as follows:
We are not contemplating at this point a regulatory
agency that would oversee this. We are contemplating
that individuals would have a cause of action, a legal
right to sue, it's in page 5, lines 26-30. So, if
there was a violation there would be a monetary
penalty of $5,000 or whatever the actual damage where,
whatever is greater plus attorney's fees. It's not
something that we would anticipate would have a fiscal
note. It's not something that we would anticipate the
government would be overseeing and enforcing, but it
would have that private right to action which we think
would lead to enforcement.
SENATOR COGHILL surmised that the civil issue would have to be
taken to court.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered yes.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that the scenario Senator Wielechowski
described would be a "David versus Goliath" situation.
3:57:41 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI concurred and noted that his office printed
out terms of service for companies like Google. He pointed out
that Google does not tell customers exactly what they do and
speculated what they would say as follows:
Well, we may sell your data, we may take it, we are
not going to tell you exactly what we are going to
take, we are not going to tell you who we are going to
provide this to, but we may go ahead and do it. So, it
would require more specificity.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that he would ponder Senator
Wielechowski's reply.
SENATOR WILSON noted Senator Coghill's enforcement comments and
asked if the bill is strictly for Alaska-based internet
transactions versus a federal issue with all internet
transactions.
MS. SORUM-BIRK replied as follows:
This is specific to commercial internet websites or
commercial online services, that would be any
commercial internet website or commercial online
service. So, a commercial online service would be
something that you would subscribe to like Netflix or
Amazon Prime.
She summarized that the legislation was going where things were
heading anyway because the internet was an international medium.
She explained that websites operating in Europe will have to
provide a lot of the information required under the new European
Union regulations. She said the bill's sponsor wants to make
sure that Alaskans have privacy protection and the ability to
know what data is being stored and collected.
4:00:02 PM
SENATOR WILSON remarked that he questioned enforcement for
companies in other countries.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI responded as follows:
There may be companies that you can't get ahold of,
there may be websites where that is true, that would
be up to the person who wants to enforce that, the
lawyers. I think if you come in to the State of Alaska
with your website you are subjecting yourself to the
jurisdiction of the State of Alaska, but I do think it
is important to remember that this is something that
is going to be done in the European Union, something
that is going to be done in Canada, very similar,
something is already being done in the United Kingdom.
I think the vast majority of the websites that are out
there are probably the ones that people go to on a
regular basis are large, are things like CNN, MSNBC,
Fox News, Yahoo, they are Unites States based. If
there is a website that is collecting your information
in some country that we don't have any sort of
treaties with, yes, you probably aren't going to be
able to sue them, that is probably accurate.
CHAIR MEYER asked if the legislation should be done on the
federal level rather than on the state level.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered yes. He conceded that the
legislation is evolving at the state level because it is not
happening at the federal level. He opined that Alaska has a very
strong and explicit right to privacy with an obligation for
enforcement by statute.
SENATOR COGHILL agreed with Senator Wielechowski's intent and
opined that if enough states were to pass similar legislation a
combined effort for a class action was possible if big industry
was not to respond. He said he saw the value of putting the
proposed legislation into statute to show the industry that they
must respect the consumers. He conceded that he had not looked
at the language in the bill and would have to review and ponder.
He asked Senator Wielechowski if he concurred with his remarks.
4:03:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered absolutely. He asserted that the
bill would be groundbreaking legislation that has not passed in
any other state; however, he noted that Illinois would probably
pass similar legislation within the next few days. He continued
as follows:
It's one of those things where if you pass it in one
state, I think from my understanding how this works it
will not be hard for these companies to comply with.
The ones that collect this data, the data-brokers, I
think are pretty easily going to provide this
information; but absolutely, if one state passes this
I think you will see a ripple effect, a domino effect
all across the other states because if you've got to
do it for one state, you are setting up that
infrastructure, you are really going to be able to
provide it for every other state in the country.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that Senator Wielechowski quoted a privacy
advocate and asked if the individual has been used in other
places and if he can be approached as a resource. He inquired if
the issue was an international discussion.
4:05:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI replied that the privacy advocate was
quoted from a National Public Radio (NPR) article. He reiterated
that the individual was an advocate for the Center for Digital
Democracy. He noted that a number of people and organizations
were concerned about privacy and added that a lot of libertarian
organizations were concerned as well. He continued as follows:
This is something that people all across the country
when you start talking about getting into their
private information and selling it and accessing all
sorts of things, that concerns people and there are
definitely organizations; but, we can reach out to
this person if you'd like and try to put him in touch
with you or the committee.
SENATOR COGHILL asked that contact with the individual would be
appreciated at least for himself or maybe the committee as well.
He noted that he has not reviewed the research that Senator
Wielechowski submitted with his legislation but added that the
topic may be new but the subject is not.
CHAIR MEYER asked that Senator Wielechowski provide the
information to his office for distribution to committee members.
He asked if the state runs the risk of companies bypassing
Alaska if the state is the only one that has the privacy law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered that he did not think so and
questioned whether a company could block a specific state. He
opined that the information required in the legislation would
not be difficult for companies to provide. He said like Senator
Coghill said, the intent is to start a domino effect with a good
law that other states can look at. He conceded that a law at the
federal level would be ideal, but legislation just has not
happened yet.
CHAIR MEYER noted that Senator Wielechowski had someone
scheduled to testify on SB 118.
MS. SORUM-BIRK replied that the testifier was not available, but
a written testimony was submitted.
CHAIR MEYER announced that public testimony would be left open.
4:08:25 PM
CHAIR MEYER held HB 118 in committee.