CSHB 65(FIN)-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT  2:09:48 PM CHAIR ELLIS announced CSHB 65(FIN) to be up for consideration; version SCS CSHB 65(L&C), 25-LS0311\N was before the committee. He noted the committee received some correspondence from Yahoo relating to the notification section of the bill and Representative Coghill thought that concern had been addressed in the CS; he had been informed that was not the case. Ms. Bannister, the legislative drafter, was working on language, but it wouldn't be ready for this committee. So once it was done, that would "be punted on" to the Judiciary Committee. KAREN LIDSTER, staff to Representative John Coghill, co-sponsor of HB 65, said that the sponsor wanted to address the Yahoo notification issues. She went on to the sectional analysis of version N. On page 15, line 17, under the subject of exemptions, "consumer credit reporting agency" was deleted and "a person" was inserted to correct a technical reference. 2:13:18 PM On page 16, line 17, "security freeze" language was clarified so that if a consumer decides to freeze his credit report, all of it is frozen, not just a part. On page 17, lines 21-22, language was inserted at the request of the Recorder's Office that it could accept documents for recording and could give out copies of documents that had previously been recorded. They did not want to be in a position of providing information this bill says they can't. So "request or collect" was deleted and "communicate or otherwise make available to the general public" was inserted. Language on page 17, line 23, just clarifies the employees' job duties relating to a recorded document by inserting "communicating or otherwise making available". 2:14:55 PM CHAIR ELLIS said DNR requested this and the private sector people were concerned that the amended language would apply more broadly than just to the DNR. He asked if that was correct. MS. LIDSTER replied that this language could probably apply to other divisions, but DNR specifically requested it so it could disclose previously recorded information. Everyone thought it would be tighter to insert it in the use of social security number section as well. DNR is happy with this language. MS. LIDSTER referred to section 45.48.410 on page 18 where lines 11-15 were inserted into the social security number section to allay vendor concerns that wording in the bill would prevent them from providing information they believe they were allowed to provide under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This language tries to regulate them to protect Alaska residents, but vendors are still not totally happy with it. The sponsor said he had made significant concessions in this area. A couple of words concerning those who are not regulated by the GLBA or the FCRA still need to be worked out. CHAIR ELLIS asked if this language strikes a balance. MS. LIDSTER answered that according to the sponsor, it strikes a balance. CHAIR ELLIS asked if Mr. Sniffen helped Terry Bannister draft this language. MS. LIDSTER answered yes. She continued on to page 18, lines 29- 31, where a new section was added - subsection (2) talks about people regulated by the GLBA "for a purpose authorized by that act" and on page 19, line 1, a new subsection (3) refers to people regulated by the FCRA. Under the disclosure section of the social security numbers on page 19, it talks about the third party that is regulated by the FCRA; the GLBA was not added here because that was in subparagraph (3). MAEGAN FOSTER, staff to Representative Gara, co-sponsor of HB 65, said her office is comfortable with the changes. ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL), supported the changes in version N. AUDREY ROBINSON, Reed Elsevier, parent company of LexisNexis, appreciated the work the committee and sponsors had done, but said the new language still doesn't address their concerns. Unfortunately it might be just a one to two word issue, but the assumptions don't quite get to their uses. Unfortunately the GLBA refers to financial institutions and that is particularly who is regulated by the act; however use of social security numbers falls within the purview of that act. While LexisNexis is compliant with GLBA, they aren't technically regulated under it (their uses are). LexisNexis' misuse of social security numbers would still fall within the boundaries of the FCC to prosecute. The conjunction language saying both "be regulated by" and "purposes regulated by" are the rub. A fix could be made simply by changing an "and" to an "or" for them to continue serving Alaskans (for asset location, location of missing children, checking to make sure a person opening a bank account isn't a terrorist). 2:25:28 PM MS. ROBINSON also mentioned on page 19, line 28, of version N, subparagraph (3) has the former GLBA language that was changed in 45.48.410 and 45.48.420 and she asked for conformity purposes that be changed to reflect the newer language. CHAIR ELLIS asked if the sponsors thought that updating was wise to do. MS. LIDSTER replied it would be no problem. 2:27:05 PM JON BURTON, ChoicePoint, echoed LexisNexis comments. He was encouraged that the sponsors recognized the federal issues. The other issue that remains outstanding is "expressly" versus "not expressly". He promised to do everything on his end to work within the framework the sponsors have set up to reach a solution. GAIL HILLEBRAND, Consumer's Union, supported the CS. She said the change on page 19 was purely technical and the concept of the broader exemptions retain the integrity of saying this is not a free pass from federal law because federal law really doesn't govern conduct. Instead, it's when federal law, both authorizes conduct and regulates the people who engage in it that the state law would defer to federal law and that is a reasonable place to draw the line. 2:29:59 PM SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt SCS CSHB 65(L&C), version N. There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIR ELLIS announced Amendment 1 to be up for consideration. 25-LS0311\N.1 Bannister AMENDMENT 1  OFFERED IN THE SENATE TO: SCS CSHB 65( ), Draft Version "N" Page 3, line 4, following "if": Insert "the information collector's primary method of communication with the state resident is by electronic means, or if" DANA OWEN, staff to Senator Ellis, explained that Yahoo's concern was that some vendors communicate strictly through email and this language would allow them to notify customers of a breach of confidentiality by email if that is their primary way of communication. MS. LIDSTER said Representative Coghill supported the amendment. CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 1. There were no objections and it was adopted. CHAIR ELLIS announced consideration of conceptual Amendment 2, the technical update on page 19 suggested by Ms. Robinson. CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 2. There were no objections and it was so ordered. 2:34:29 PM SENATOR STEVENS moved to report SCS CSHB 65(L&C) from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered.