BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: AB 179
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: bocanegra
VERSION: 4/24/13
Analysis by: Eric Thronson FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 18, 2013
SUBJECT:
Electronic transit fare collection privacy protections
DESCRIPTION:
This bill extends privacy protections that state law gives to
toll bridge or toll road users to riders of transit systems
employing electronic fare collection systems.
ANALYSIS:
Agencies operating toll bridge or toll road facilities may
employ an automatic vehicle identification system to facilitate
toll collection, such as the FasTrak transponder that is
commonly used in California. These systems, generally referred
to as electronic toll collection (ETC) systems, allow
subscribers to prepay tolls thereby eliminating the need to stop
and pay at a toll plaza. Subscribers set up an account with the
tolling agency and provide personally identifiable information,
such as name, address, and bank account information. In
addition, many toll facilities use license plate reading
technology to enforce toll collection.
In 2010, the Legislature passed and the governor signed into law
SB 1268 (Simitian), Chapter 489, which established a framework
guiding how a transportation agency may use the personal
information of either an ETC subscriber or user of a tolled
facility that employs an ETC system. The privacy protections
enumerated in SB 1268 include:
Prohibiting a transportation agency from selling or
otherwise providing personally identifiable information of
any person that subscribes to or uses an ETC system.
Requiring a transportation agency to establish a privacy
policy and provide it to subscribers as well as post it on
their website.
AB 179 (BOCANEGRA) Page 2
Allowing a transportation agency to store personally
identifiable information for no more than four years and six
months for purposes of billing, account settlement, or
enforcement.
Allowing a transportation agency to provide personally
identifiable information to a law enforcement agency only
pursuant to a search warrant.
SB 1268 defines a transportation agency as the California
Department of Transportation, the Bay Area Toll Authority, any
entity operating a toll bridge or toll highway within the state,
or any entity under contract with any of the above entities.
Finally, SB 1268 allows a transportation agency to impose an
administrative fee on its subscribers to cover the cost of the
privacy protections contained in the bill.
Transit operators in California have begun implementing
electronic transit fare collection (ETFC) systems, which are
systems utilizing reloadable payment cards instead of cash or
tokens to pay transit fares. Subscribers often purchase the
cards and add value to them by providing personally identifiable
information such as their names, addresses, telephone numbers,
and bank account information.
This bill extends all the privacy protections provided to toll
bridge and toll road users to ETFC subscribers and riders of
transit systems that employ ETFC systems.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, by including subscribers of
ETFC systems, this bill addresses a glaring hole in the
privacy protections outlined in SB 1268. The author contends
that someone reviewing data from an ETFC system can create a
more robust profile of a subscriber's everyday travels than
from ETC systems. ETFC systems record when and where a
traveler boards public transportation, when and where he or
she disembarks, and how often he or she makes the trip. This
information could be very valuable to marketing companies, and
potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. This bill addresses
these concerns for transit riders the way current law resolves
concerns for toll road users.
2.Does this bill address the intended concerns ? Existing law
protects the personally identifiable information of both
AB 179 (BOCANEGRA) Page 3
subscribers to ETC systems as well as all other users of toll
bridges and roads. This dual protection aims to address two
different concerns. The ETC subscribers wanted their billing
information protected, in part, to keep from having their
information shared with third-party vendors looking to market
goods and services to frequent toll facility users.
Alternatively, non-subscribing users of toll facilities didn't
need to worry about the sale of billing information to
marketers but had other concerns, such as the use of license
plate readers to track their travel habits.
This bill seeks to mirror this dual protection aim by
including both subscribers of ETFC systems and riders of
transit operators utilizing ETFC in the definition of
protected individuals. While subscribers of both ETC and ETFC
systems generally have parallel exposure and privacy
protection needs, it may not be true that users of toll
facilities and users of public transit share parallel
concerns. Toll facility users operate vehicles attached with
identifiable labels, license plates, and have limited
interaction with fellow users. Public transit riders are not
as easily tracked or identifiable as vehicles are. These
differences may lead to the need to differentiate between the
concerns this bill is attempting to address.
It seems reasonable to apply privacy protections in existing
law to subscribers of ETFC systems, as the concerns about the
tracking of riders and use of billing information for
marketing purposes are so similar to concerns related to ETC
subscribers. Applying those protections to all public transit
users, however, may have some unintended consequences. For
example, law enforcement may need access to video surveillance
of transit riders but not be allowed to under this bill
without a search warrant, which would be cumbersome or
difficult to obtain in some instances. Also, transit systems
subsidize their service with advertising revenue on stations
or in vehicles. While not intending to, this bill may make
transit system law enforcement and advertising impossible
because under this bill all riders become protected from both
activities. To address the concern of unintended
consequences, the committee may wish to amend the bill to only
apply the privacy protections to ETFC system subscribers and
not all users of transit operators utilizing ETFC systems.
3.Double-referral . The Rules Committee has referred this bill to
both this committee and the Judiciary Committee. Therefore,
AB 179 (BOCANEGRA) Page 4
if this bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
4.Technical amendment .
On page 5, line 21, strike "transportation agency" and
add "entity"
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 70-1
Appr: 16-0
Trans: 16-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday, June 12,
2013.)
SUPPORT: Consumer Federation of California
OPPOSED: None received.