LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
| |
Throughout this year, threats from Congress have dominated Kids in the Know’s agenda. So-called "student privacy" measures moved forward, winning approval of a House panel, and attempts may be made this month to push one or more versions through.
While Congress has demanded most of our attention, we have continued to address several privacy-related initiatives at the state level. With legislative sessions winding down in most states (New Jersey being an exception), it appears unlikely that seriously harmful legislation will be enacted this year. But privacy advocates vow to return this fall and next year to push these and new measures.
This Legislative Update provides a summary of activities in five states – California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin. On page 3, we also provide an update on the progress of Internet filtering legislation and new public opinion survey results on Internet privacy.
| | |
CALIFORNIA CREATES PRIVACY PROTECTION OFFICE
| | |
The California Legislature adopted legislation August 31 creating an Office of Privacy Protection under the state Department of Consumer Affairs. The measure (SB 129) was significantly scaled back by an Assembly-Senate conference committee that has met sporadically throughout the year, as the bill’s sponsor, Senator Steve Peace (D), tried to add more stringent regulations.
The new Office’s primary responsibilities will be to help consumers who have complaints about possible violations of privacy laws. (California privacy laws generally cover practices related to state and local government records, consumer credit reporting agencies, bookkeeping services, and video rentals.)
But the Office is also charged with informing "the public of potential options for protecting the privacy of, and avoiding the misuse of, personal information," and helping organizations craft privacy policies and practices that "promote and protect the interests of California consumers."
After objections were raised by Kids in the Know and other organizations, the Assembly-Senate panel last week rebuffed a move by Peace to add language that would have said Californians have a "constitutional right" to "control the unauthorized collection, use, retention and dissemination of personal information" and the "ability to control" data.
Versions of the bill were approved by both bodies last year. The original Peace bill would have required direct mailers to obtain consent to compile information, give individuals the chance to choose whether and how information is used, and disclose how and why the information was collected and to what organizations it may be disclosed. Peace worked throughout the year to add more privacy-related provisions in the conference committee.
| | |
