BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1168
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1168 (Jones)
As Amended September 5, 2007
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |75-0 |(June 6, 2007) |SENATE: |33-6 |(September 10, |
| | | | | |2007) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: JUD.
SUMMARY : Requires specified public entities to truncate social
security numbers (SSNs) when the numbers are displayed in public
records. Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that, in order to protect
against the risk of identity theft, local agencies shall redact
SSNs before disclosing records.
2)Provides that, unless required to do so by state or federal law,
no person, entity, or government agency shall present for
recording or filing with a county recorder a document that is
required law to be open to the public if that record displays
more than the last four digits of a social security number.
3)Requires the county recorder of each county to establish a SSN
truncation program in order to convert existing "official
records" into an electronic "public records" with truncated SSNs
for new and old records, dating to January 1, 1980. Provides
that a county recorder shall be deemed in compliance with this
provision and not liable for failure to truncate SSNs if he or
she uses due diligence to locate SSNs in official records and
truncate SSNs in the public version of those official records.
Provides procedures for reporting on the progress of this
program to the Office of Privacy Protection and the Judiciary
Committees of the Assembly and Senate.
4)Provides that when a person requests that his/her SSN be
truncated in a public record, and identifies the exact location
of the SSN within a public record, the county recorder that
receives that request shall truncate that number within 10 days
of receiving the request.
5)Provides that when an electronic "public record" version of an
"official record" exists the county recorder shall make
AB 1168
Page 2
available only the electronic "public record" version. Provides
further that a county recorder shall provide an "official
record" only in response to a subpoena or court order.
6)Authorizes a county recorder, upon due authorization by the
board of supervisors, to charge an additional fee of $1 for
recording the first page of each document, until December 31,
2017, to be used only for the purpose of implementing the social
security truncation program. Provides further that if the fee is
insufficient to meet the costs of creating the public record
versions, then the recorder shall create public record versions
for some fraction of the official records.
7)Requires, unless prohibited by federal law, the Franchise Tax
Board to redact the first five digits of any SSN on lien
abstracts or any other public records created by the board that
are disclosable under the California Public Records Act before
disclosing the record to the public.
8)Requires that when documents are filed with the Secretary of
State and other filing offices, though not including a county
recorder, a filing office shall create a "public filing" that is
the exact copy of an "official filing," except that the SSN
shall be truncated in the public filing. Provides further that
when a public filing version exists, the filing office shall
make available only the public filing version and not the
official filing, unless required to disclose the official filing
in response to a subpoena or court order. Requires, further,
that the Secretary of State produce and make available financing
statements that do not provide a space for an SSN.
9)Requires the Office of Privacy Protection to establish a task
force to conduct a review of the use of SSNs by all colleges and
universities in order to recommend practices to minimize the
collection, use, storage, and retention of SSNs. Specifies, in
general, the composition of the task force and sets out the
elements and scope of the task force review. Requires the task
force to commence meetings no later than May 1, 2008, and report
its findings to the Office of Privacy Protection and the
Judiciary Committees of the Assembly and Senate on or before
July 1, 2010.
The Senate amendments :
1)Eliminate requirements relating to truncation by a local agency
and instead declare legislative intent that, in order to protect
AB 1168
Page 3
against the risk of identity theft, local agencies shall redact
SSNs from public records before disclosing them to the public.
2)Make legislative findings that any limitation on the public's
right of access to the writings of public officials and agencies
under this bill is necessary to protect against the risk of
identity theft.
3)Make minor and clarifying amendments relative to fees charged by
county recorders and provisions relating compliance with the
provisions of this bill.
4)Require a truncation program for documents filed with the
Secretary State or other filing offices in order to create a
dual system of "public" and "official" filings that parallels
the required truncation program for county recorders.
5)Change the county recorder truncation program so that it only
applies to documents recorded since 1980, instead of applying to
documents recorded since 1935.
6)Require that the Secretary of State produce and make available
financing statements that do not provide a space for an SSN.
7)Implement deadlines for the Office of Privacy Protection task
force.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar to
the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
additional redaction, document storage, and electronic
reproduction duties and costs associated with the county
recorders' dual records system are unknown, but would be
significant. AB 1168 allows recorders, if authorized by their
supervisors, to levy a fee of $1 per document filed in the county
to fund the cost of the system, but the bill's requirements are
not limited to counties with a funding stream and it is unclear if
this $1 additional fee will be sufficient to fund the bill's
requirements in all counties.
In order for SOS to reject filings made pursuant to the UCC
through its website that contain SSNs, the office would need to
either purchase or create specialized software that would both
recognize the SSNs and then refuse the filing as a result. It's
unclear if such software exists, making cost characterizations
AB 1168
Page 4
challenging, but SOS information technology staff project software
with the capacity required by the bill could be as much as
$500,000 in one-time costs, with $100,000-$200,000 in on-going
costs for licensing and staff support.
DCA estimates OPP will incur General Fund costs of approximately
$51,000 associated with the task force to fund a graduate student
assistant for one year, travel for task force members and staff,
and materials. Costs for representatives of the University of
California, the California State University and the California
Community Colleges to participate in the task force should be
minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS : Identity theft occurs whenever someone uses the
personal identifying information of another person for an unlawful
purpose, including obtaining or attempting to obtain credit,
goods, services, or medical information in the name of the other
person without that person's consent. According to the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), identity theft has consistently topped the
list of consumer fraud complaints for at least the last six years.
The 255,000 complaints of identity theft filed with the FTC in
2005 constituted 37% of all complaints, far surpassing any other
single complaint. The most common form of identity theft is
opening a line of credit in the victim's name. For the identity
thief, the SSN is the single-most useful tool. According to the
author, the risk of identity theft is even greater in California,
which accounted for 45,000 of the 255,000 reported cases in 2005.
Because a SSN is such a crucial piece of information in
facilitating identity theft, this bill requires the truncation of
SSNs in various local and state records that may be disclosed to
the public. First, this bill declares the Legislature's intent
that, in order to combat identity theft, a local public agency
shall redact SSNs from any record disclosed the public, unless the
agency is otherwise required to disclose the entire number by
state or federal law. Second, this bill would require county
recorders to establish a program for converting existing
"official," paper records, dating to January 1, 1980, into
electronic "public records" with the SSN truncated. The bill
would also require a similar dual system of "public" and
"official" filings for documents filed with the Secretary of State
or other filing offices. Third, this bill would require the
Franchise Tax Board to redact the first five digits of any SSN on
lien abstracts or any other public records created by the board,
unless disclosure of the entire number is required by law.
Finally, this bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection
AB 1168
Page 5
to establish a task force to review the use of SSNs by colleges
and universities in order to recommend best practices for
minimizing the collection, use, storage, or retention of SSNs.
This bill is supported by the American Association of Retired
Persons, American Civil Liberties Union, Consumer Action, the
Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Union, Crime Victims
United of California, Gray Panthers of California and the Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse, and California Secretary of State, Debra
Bowen.
Analysis Prepared by : Thomas Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003224