BILL ANALYSIS
SB 28
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 28 (Simitian)
As Introduced December 4, 2006
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :31-6
JUDICIARY 6-3 TRANSPORTATION 9-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Jones, Evans, Berg, |Ayes:|Nava, Carter, DeSaulnier, |
| |Laird, Levine, Lieber | |Horton, Karnette, |
| | | |Portantino, Ruskin, |
| | | |Solorio, Soto |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Berryhill, Duvall, Keene |Nays:|Duvall, Galgiani, |
| | | |Garrick, Houston, Huff |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits, until January 1, 2011, the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) from issuing, renewing, duplicating, or
replacing a driver's license or identification (ID) card, if the
license or card uses radio waves to either transmit personal
information remotely or to enable personal information to be
read from the license or card remotely.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes the DMV to issue an original driver's license or
identification card, or a renewal, duplicate, or replacement
driver's license or ID card, when appropriate requirements
have been satisfied. Specifies the required contents that
must appear on each driver's license and identification card.
2)Limits the purposes for which a business may swipe the
magnetic strip of a California driver's license or ID card and
makes it a misdemeanor to use the information for any
unauthorized purpose.
3)Provides that no agency may disclose personal information in a
manner that would link the information disclosed to the
individual to whom it pertains, subject to certain exceptions.
SB 28
Page 2
Further provides that each agency shall keep an accurate
accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure
made pursuant to one of the authorized exceptions.
4)Grants to all persons within this state a constitutional right
to privacy, and provides that government may not intrude upon
this privacy unless: a) it is necessary to further a
compelling state interest; and, b) there is no feasible and
effective alternative that would have a lesser impact on
privacy interests. (Cal. Const., Art. I, Sec. 1; Academy of
Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 307.)
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill is one of a number of bills introduced by
the author that seek to prohibit, limit, or otherwise regulate
the use of remotely readable radio frequency identification
(RFID) devices. According to the author, the use of RFID
technology in government-issued documents, and driver's licenses
and ID cards in particular, poses a serious threat to the
personal privacy of Californians with only marginal offsetting
benefits. The author generally concedes that RFID has many
potentially useful applications, such as inventory management.
But he points to a number of studies and reports which
purportedly show that the technology also poses "clear privacy
and security risks." Despite these risks, the author points
out, existing law does not currently regulate the use RFID
devices.
According to the author, the use of RFID in driver's licenses
and ID cards is especially egregious given their widespread
distribution and the fact that adult citizens have little
practical choice but to obtain a license or ID card. We would
in effect, the author contends, be forcing millions of
law-abiding citizens to carry documents which would broadcast
their personal information and could be used to track their
location.
This bill is opposed by a number of retail, banking, and
business associations and various companies that manufacture
RFID and related technologies. Opponents claim that the author
and supporters of this and the related RFID bills overstate the
dangers of this new technology. They claim that RFID is, in
fact, a safe, efficient, and cost effective technology that
SB 28
Page 3
actually enhances safety and security. Legislation that would
ban this technology, opponents claim, would deprive the public
of significant benefits and hamper an industry that is creating
jobs and generating economic growth in California.
Opponents argue that this bill, in particular, seeks to address
a problem that does not yet exist. According to the Hi-Tech
Trust Coalition, "the Department of Motor Vehicles has publicly
stated that they do not intend to use RFID devices within
driver's licenses within the foreseeable future." Because there
is no problem at this time, this bill will have no effect except
to send a message that RFID is a dangerous technology that
threatens our privacy and facilitates identify theft, even
though there is as yet no real life example of it doing so. The
only purpose of this bill then, according to the Coalition, is
to stigmatize a promising new technology and discourage
investment in its development. HID Global makes a similar
argument, but adds that DMV recently concluded contract
negotiations to extend the current non-RFID drivers' licenses
for five more years. In short, this bill creates a three-year
ban on DMV even though DMV cannot possibly use the technology,
even if it wanted to, for another five years.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0001752