BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 20
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 19, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                    SB 20 (Simitian) - As Amended:  July 23, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              JudiciaryVote:7-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill establishes additional notification requirements  
          following a security breach of a computerized data system.  
          Specifically, this bill:

          1)Requires the notification required by state agencies and  
            private entities following a security breach to contain  
            specified information, including the types of personal  
            information believed to have been breached, a general  
            description of the breach and the number of persons affected,  
            and toll-free phone numbers and addresses of major credit  
            reporting agencies if the breach exposed a bank account or  
            credit card number, a social security number, or a driver's  
            license or California identification card number.

          2)Requires the notification to also include, if possible to  
            determine at the time the notice is provided, any of the  
            following:  (a) the date of the breach; (b) the estimated date  
            of the breach; or (c) the date range within which the breach  
            occurred.

          3)Provides state agencies and private entities discretion to  
            include in the breach notification:

             a)   Information on steps taken to protect individuals whose  
               personal information has been breached.

             b)   Advice on what such individuals can do to protect  
               themselves.

          4)Requires a state agency or private entity that is required to  
            notify more than 500 California residents of a breach to  








                                                                  SB 20
                                                                  Page  2

            electronically submit a copy of the notification, excluding  
            any personally identifiable information, to the Attorney  
            General.

          5)Requires the breach notification to be submitted, in the case  
            of a state agency, to the Office of Information Security  
            within the office of the State Chief Information Officer, and  
            in the case of a private entity, to the Office of Privacy  
            Protection within the State and Consumer Services Agency.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Minor absorbable costs for state agencies to comply with the  
          specified notification requirements.

           

          COMMENTS  

           1)Purpose  . Under existing law, a person, business, or state  
            agency that keeps, maintains, or leases computerized data that  
            contains personal information must notify anyone whose  
            personal information is compromised as a result of a data  
            breach.  The law permits the person, business, or state agency  
            to use "substitute notice" if the number of persons affected  
            would make personal notice prohibitively expensive or  
            impractical, or if the affected person's contact information  
            is not available. Beyond these provisions, existing law does  
            not create any requirements as to the form and content of the  
            required notices. This bill seeks to correct that deficiency.

           2)Prior Legislation  .  SB 364 (Simitian) of 2008, which contained  
            similar, but somewhat more expansive notification  
            requirements, was vetoed.  The governor argued that the bill  
            "could lead consumers to believe that all data breaches result  
            in identity theft" and expressed concern that the bill would  
            "place an additional unnecessary cost on businesses without a  
            corresponding consumer benefit."

            AB 1656 (Jones) of 2008, which also required specified  
            information in the breach notification and, in addition,  
            required that specified items be disclosed to affected  
            California residents if the owner or licensee of the  
            information was the issuer of the credit or debit card, was  
            also vetoed.  In 2007, a similar bill, AB 779 (Jones) was also  








                                                                  SB 20
                                                                  Page  3

            vetoed.

           3)Opposition  .  Several companies and associations representing  
            insurers, bankers, and other business interests are opposed to  
            the notifications containing information involving the date of  
            the breach and the number of persons affected.  These entities  
            believe such provisions "are unnecessary, not helpful to  
            customers, and may actually be harmful to customers and  
            companies attempting to protect their information systems from  
            hackers."  The author's most recent amendments, described  
            above in #2 of the analysis summary, attempt to address  
            opposition concerns regarding providing the breach date in the  
            notification.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081