BILL ANALYSIS
SB 40
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
SB 40 (Correa) - As Amended: March 31, 2009
PROPOSED CONSENT
SENATE VOTE : 33-0
SUBJECT : PERSONAL INFORMATION: SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS
KEY ISSUE : IN ORDER TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS FROM IDENTITY THEFT,
SHOULD EXISTING LAW BE CLARIFIED SO THAT COUNTY RECORDERS CAN
REJECT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED FOR RECORDING IF THOSE DOCUMENTS
CONTAIN FULL SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, AND SO THAT ABSTRACTS OF
FAMILY SUPPORT JUDGMENTS DO NOT CONTAIN FULL SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill provides additional protection to
individuals' privacy by ensuring that their full social security
numbers, one of the pieces of information most sought after by
identity thieves, do not appear in records that can be accessed
by the public. First, the bill clarifies that county recorders
can reject any document presented for recording if the document
contains more than the last 4 digits of an individual's social
security number. The bill requires recorders to use due
diligence to locate any social security numbers in a document to
determine whether the document should be rejected. Second, the
bill extends these protections to family court orders by
requiring that an abstract of judgment ordering a party to pay
spousal, child, or family support contain only the last 4 digits
of the obligor's social security number. The bill was approved
on April 20, 2009 in the Senate by a vote of 33-0. The bill has
no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Provides increased privacy protection for individuals'
social security numbers. Specifically, this bill :
SB 40
Page 2
1)Provides that a document containing more than the last 4
digits of an individual's social security number is not
entitled to be recorded by a county recorder.
2)Provides that a recorder shall be deemed to be in compliance
if he or she uses due diligence to locate social security
numbers in documents presented for recording.
3)Provides that an abstract of judgment ordering a party to pay
spousal, child, or family support must contain only the last 4
digits of the obligor's social security number.
4)Provides that the provisions in this bill will not apply to
documents created prior to January 1, 2010.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the recorder of each county to establish a social
security truncation program in order to create a "public
record" version of each "official record." The "public
record" is an exact copy of the "official record" except that
any social security number contained in the "official record"
is truncated by redacting the first 5 digits of the number,
leaving only the last 4 digits. (Government Code section
27300 et seq.)
2)Provides that, if a "public record" version of an "official
record" exists, when the recorder receives a request for
inspection, copying, or any other public disclosure of an
official record, the recorder must make available only the
"public record" version. The "official record" can only be
disclosed in response to a subpoena or court order.
(Government Code section 27303.)
3)Provides that no person, entity, or government agency shall
present for recording or filing with a county recorder any
document that is required by any law to be available to the
public, if that document lists more than the last 4 digits of
a social security number. (Civil Code section 1789.89.)
4)Requires, under federal law, that the social security number
of any individual who is subject to a divorce decree, support
SB 40
Page 3
order, or paternity determination or acknowledgement be placed
in the records relating to the matter. (42 U.S.C. section
666(a)(13)(B).)
5)Requires an abstract of judgment ordering a party to pay
spousal, child, or spousal support to contain the social
security number of the party who is ordered to pay. (Family
Code section 4506.)
6)Provides that a social security number (a 9-digit
identification number) is issued to citizens, permanent
residents, and temporary (working) residents. (42 U.S.C.
405(c)(2).)
COMMENTS : A social security number (SSN) is issued to citizens,
permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents by the
Social Security Administration (SSA), an agency of the federal
government. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee's
analysis, although the primary purpose of the SSN is to track
individuals for taxation and distribution of retirement
benefits, in recent years the SSN has effectively gained use as
a national identification number. The overall growth of the use
of SSNs is important to individual SSN holders because this
number is one of the personal identifiers most sought after by
identity thieves.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's analysis states that, in the
wrong hands, SSNs can be used for fraudulent purposes, for
example, to open credit card or utility accounts, access
individuals' financial accounts, or obtain loans. The Committee
states that a SSN is one of the three pieces of information most
sought after by identity thieves, and it therefore merits
special concern given that it is so easily available in public
records and so vulnerable to misuse.
This bill seeks to continue to provide protection to individuals
from the threat of identity theft, by continuing the
Legislature's efforts to reduce use of SSNs and by reducing the
use of SSNs in public records.
Need for this bill . The sponsor of this bill, Orange County
Board of Supervisors (OCBS), states: "This bill supports the
state's ongoing efforts to combat identity theft and provides a
SB 40
Page 4
cost-savings to counties. As of January 1, 2009, California
counties are required to create 'public copies' of any document
that contains a SSN. The 'public copy' must redact the first
five digits of the SSN, and only that copy can be provided for
public view or copying. This bill will reduce the number of
'public copies' needed in the future and reduce costs to the
County." The sponsor seems to be suggesting that this bill
would eliminate the need to use county resources to create a
separate version of the record, because the official record
would only contain the last 4 SSN digits and there would
therefore be no need to use government time and resources to
make a separate, public record.
This bill would clarify the role of county recorders in
accepting or rejecting documents that contain full social
security numbers . The author states that this bill is a
follow-up to SB 644 (Correa) of 2007, which provides that no
person, entity, or government agency shall present for recording
or filing with a county recorder any document that is required
by any law to be available to the public, if that document lists
more than the last 4 digits of a SSN. (Civil Code section
1789.89.) The author states that the provision does not clearly
indicate whether county recorders have the authority to reject
documents containing full SSNs. As a result, some recorders
have been accepting documents with full SSNs. This bill seeks
to clarify that if a document contains a full SSN, the document
is not entitled to be recorded, unless there is federal or state
law authorizing the recording.
Moreover, this bill requires that a recorder use due diligence
in locating SSNs within any documents presented for recording,
and would have the authority to reject documents that contain
full SSNs. According to the Senate Judiciary Committee's
analysis, the due diligence requirement is consistent with the
standard imposed in other provisions of the SSN Truncation
Program. (Government Code section 27302.)
This bill extends SSN protections to family court documents, a
change that has been approved by the Department of Health and
Human Services . The author states that this bill will ensure
that family court documents are covered by existing privacy
protections requiring truncation of SSNs in documents that will
become part of the public record. According to the Senate
SB 40
Page 5
Judiciary Committee's analysis, under existing law, abstracts of
judgments issued by family law court clerks contain the full
SSNs of the individuals against whom the judgments are entered.
These abstracts of judgments are subsequently filed with county
recorders, where they become part of the public record. This
bill would instead require that abstracts of judgment ordering a
party to pay spousal, child, or family support contain only the
last 4 SSN digits of the obligor.
SB 644 (Correa, Chap. 189, 2007) deleted the requirement that
abstracts of judgment requiring the payment of money must
contain the judgment debtor's full SSN and provided that only
the last 4 digits could appear. As introduced, SB 644 would
have also revised the requirements for support orders, as this
current bill does. However, that provision was deleted because
of concerns that it would put the state out of compliance with
federal law, which mandates that the SSN of any individual
subject to a support order be placed in the record. (42 U.S.C.
666(a)(13)(B).)
Since then, the California Department of Child Support Services
(DCSS) has received clarification from the federal Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), which indicates that this bill
would not conflict with federal law. DHHS states, "We recommend
caution as the State legislation is crafted because 42 U.S.C.
666(a)(13)(B) clearly states that the recording of the SSN
(full 9-digits) of any individual who is subject to a divorce
decree, support order, or paternity determination or
acknowledgement be placed in the records relating to the matter.
There is no violation of Federal law, however, if the full
9-digit SSN is redacted so that only the last four digits appear
on any child support-related documents that could be accessed by
the general public, provided that the full 9-digit SSN remains
in the records relating to the matter that are not accessible to
the public." Therefore, the abstract of judgment itself need
not contain the full SSN of the obligor, so long as the full SSN
remains in the record.
According to representatives of the Judicial Council, the
Judiciary will not be able to comply with the bill's requirement
to update the family law abstracts of judgment form by January
1, 2010. Instead there will be a six month period, from January
to July, where the courts will disclose to form users that they
SB 40
Page 6
need only fill in the last four digits of their SSNs.
According to the Senate Judiciary Committee analysis,
California's automated child support system is programmed to
recognize the abstract of support judgment (form FL-480) as it
is currently written. This bill would revise the abstract of
support judgment issued by courts in family law actions.
According to DCSS, it is possible to retain the obligor's full
SSN in a separate electronic record, and to have the redacted
SSN on the abstracts of support judgment that are stored within
the automated system. DCSS could therefore comply with both
federal law and the requirements of this bill.
Other states and the federal Department of Defense agree that
truncating SSNs in public records is important to protect
individual privacy . According to the author, state governments
(including Florida and Nevada) have moved to require truncation
of any SSN that appears in recorded documents. Moreover, the
Department of Defense recently agreed to truncate SSNs that
appear on military discharge forms, finding that such truncation
was both feasible and desirable due to identity theft concerns.
PREVIOUS ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Family Law Section of the
State Bar (FLEXCOM) expressed concern with an earlier version of
this bill because it would "make older judgments unrecordable"
but provide "no mechanism for obtaining a document that would be
recordable." The author addressed this concern by adding
language that provides that the provisions of the bill do not
apply to documents created prior to January 1, 2010.
PRIOR LEGISLATION : SB 768 (Corbett), Chapter 305, 2007: Misuse
of voter registration information. This bill prohibits an
individual or organization that distributes voter registration
cards, or any person entrusted with a completed affidavit of
registration from an elector, from disclosing the driver's
license number, identification card number, or social security
number contained on an affidavit of registration or voter
registration card. This bill provides that a person who
knowingly violates this prohibition is guilty of an infraction,
punishable by a fine of up to $500.
SB 741 (Ackerman) 2007: Pupils: identifying information. This
bill would have encouraged school districts to omit the social
SB 40
Page 7
security number and birth date of a pupil from materials mailed
to the pupil's residence or to any authorized individuals,
commencing January 1, 2008 and to June 30, 2008. This bill also
would have required school districts to omit this information
from such materials, commencing July 1, 2008. Died in Assembly
Education Committee.
SB 644 (Correa), Chapter 189, 2007: Court records: social
security numbers. This measure removed existing statutory
requirements that abstracts of money judgments and tax lien
filings contain a full social security number (SSN) and instead
required that only the last four digits of the SSN be included
in these documents.
AB 2383 (Ruskin) 2008: Social security numbers. This bill
would have prohibited a retail business from soliciting,
requiring, or using an individual's social security number (SSN)
for any purpose unless that number is necessary for that
business's normal course of business and specified security
requirements are met. Died in Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
AB 1168 (Jones), Chapter 627, 2007: Social security numbers.
This bill (1) required specified public entities to truncate
social security numbers (SSNs) when the numbers are displayed in
public records; (2) required the county recorder of each county
to establish a SSN program in order to convert existing
"official records" into an electronic "public records" with
truncated SSNs; and (3) required the Office of Privacy
Protection in the Department of Consumer Affairs to establish a
task force to conduct a review of the use, storage, and
retention of SSNs by all public and private colleges and
universities in this state and to submit a report of its finding
to the Office of Privacy Protection, the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee by July 1, 2010.
AB 703 (Ruskin) 2008: Social security numbers. This bill would
have prohibited a person or entity from using a social security
number as an identifier, except as required by federal or state
law. The bill would also require that records containing social
security numbers be discarded or destroyed in a specified
manner, and would require the encryption or locked storage of
records containing social security numbers. Died in Assembly
Committee on Judiciary.
SB 40
Page 8
SB 158 (Machado), Chapter 251, 2005: Powers of attorney: social
security number. This bill deleted the social security number
from the statutory power of attorney form. This bill notified a
person on the statutory power of attorney form that a third
party may require additional identification.
SB 660 (Speier), Chapter 154, 2003: Court files:
confidentiality. This bill required that an individual's social
security number that is part of a court file in a dissolution
matter be placed in the confidential portion of the court file,
but the remainder of that file shall be open to public
inspection.
SB 25 (Bowen), Chapter 907, 2003: Personal information:
identity theft. This bill required any person who uses a credit
report to extend credit to take reasonable steps to verify the
consumer's identity if the credit report contains a security
alert. The bill also prohibited entities from making public an
individual's social security number or using social security
numbers as passwords or on an identification card as specified.
AB 3016 (Pavley), Chapter 282, 2004: Privacy: social security
numbers. This bill deleted existing law's exception allowing a
person or business to use a consumer's social security number in
specified ways if the social security number has been in
continuous use. The bill became effective July 1, 2006.
AB 1811 (Bogh) 2004: Public posting of social security numbers.
This bill would have prohibited a person or entity from publicly
posting or displaying any portion of an individual's social
security number with the knowledge that it is a portion, thus
statutorily authorizing a practice troubling to privacy
advocates known as "truncation." Died in Assembly Committee on
Judiciary.
AB 1387 (Yee) 2003: Legislature. This bill required the
Legislature to take actions to protect the privacy of its
employees including, among other things, using an identifying
number other than an employee's social security number,
informing employees of the official responsible for system of
records, and notifying personnel, by specified means, of any
SB 40
Page 9
security breach to computers housing personal information. Died
in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 763 (Liu), Chapter 532, 2003: Privacy: social security
numbers. This bill provided that a social security number that
is allowed to be mailed to an individual under existing law, may
not be printed, in whole or in part, on a postcard or other
mailer not requiring an envelope, or visible on the envelope or
without the envelope having been opened.
AB 702 (Villaraigosa), Chapter 697, 1997: Child support. This
bill expanded the partnership of agencies involved in collecting
child support to include financial institutions. The bill
required financial institutions to match their account holders
against a list of past due obligors provided by FTB, and to
report to FTB on a quarterly basis the name, address, social
security number, and other identifying information for each
noncustodial parent who maintains an account at the institution
and who owes past due support.
REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION :
Support :
Orange County Board of Supervisors (sponsor)
ACLU
California Funeral Directors Association
Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Patricia Bates, Orange County Supervisor
Opposition :
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Rachel Anderson / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334