BILL ANALYSIS
SB 40
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 40 (Correa)
As Amended August 17, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :33-0
JUDICIARY 10-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Feuer, Tran, Brownley, | | |
| |Evans, Jones, Knight, | | |
| |Krekorian, Lieu, Monning, | | |
| |Silva | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides increased privacy protection for individuals'
social security numbers (SSNs). Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that a document containing more than the last four
digits of an individual's social security number (SSN) 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, as specified, to truncate
SSNs 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
four digits of the obligor's SSN.
4)Provides that the provisions in this bill will not apply to
documents created prior to January 1, 2010.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : An SSN is issued to citizens, permanent residents,
and temporary (working) residents by the Social Security
Administration (SSA), an agency of the federal government.
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
SB 40
Page 2
important to individual SSN holders because this number is one
of the personal identifiers most sought after by identity
thieves.
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 Senate
Judiciary Committee states that an 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.
The sponsor of this bill, the Orange County Board of Supervisors
(OCBS), states: "This bill supports the state's ongoing efforts
to combat identity theft and provides a 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 four SSN digits and there would therefore be no need to use
government time and resources to make a separate, public record.
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 four digits of an SSN. 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.
SB 40
Page 3
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, the due
diligence requirement is consistent with the standard imposed in
other provisions of the SSN Truncation Program.
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 Judiciary Committee,
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), Chapter 189, Statutes of 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 four 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
SB 40
Page 4
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.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert and Rachel Anderson / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334
FN: 0002289