BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
As Amended April 10, 2014
Hearing Date: June 24, 2014
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Certified copies of marriage, birth, and death certificates:
electronic application
DESCRIPTION
This bill would authorize the State Registrar, a local
registrar, or county recorder to accept electronic
acknowledgment, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the
requester of a marriage, birth, or death certificate is an
authorized person. This bill would also require the request to
provide a method for the official to establish the identity of
the requester electronically, as specified.
BACKGROUND
The Office of Vital Records is charged with the responsibility
of maintaining a uniform system for registration and a permanent
central registry with a comprehensive and continuous index for
all birth, death, fetal death, marriage, and dissolution
certificates registered for vital events which occur in
California. Certified copies of these records are available
from the State Registrar, the 58 county recorders, and 61 local
health jurisdictions.
In November 2001, it was reported that the state had sold the
birth records of more than 24 million Californians which were
then posted on the Internet. The Senate Insurance Committee held
an informational hearing in response, "Personal Privacy at
Risk," which demonstrated the ease with which identity thieves
could obtain personal information about others. The
informational hearing also revealed that the State Registrar
(more)
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 2 of ?
routinely sold electronic compilations of public record
information to anyone who could pay for the records with no
restrictions on their use. The records sold covered births from
1905 to 1995, and included the county of birth, the person's
full name, date of birth, and the person's mother's maiden name.
A mother's maiden name and date of birth are common personal
identifiers used by financial institutions to determine if a
person may have access to an individual account.
In order to prevent fraud and identity theft, the Legislature
has since enacted a number of protective measures with regard to
vital records, including AB 247 (Speier, Ch. 914, Stats. 2002)
and AB 1614 (Speier, Ch. 712, Stats. 2002) which established
controls for the release of, and access to, birth and death
records. AB 130 (Jeffries, Ch. 412, Stats. 2009) extended the
existing limitations on release and access of birth and death
records to marriage records in order to prevent the unauthorized
use of personal information. Last year, AB 464 (Daly, Ch. 78,
Stats. 2013) updated the law regarding vital records to allow
digitized images to be used, in addition to written or faxed
documents, as part of a request for a certified copy of a vital
record. Existing law requires that these requests be
accompanied by a notarized statement, sworn under penalty of
perjury, that the requester is an authorized person. Instead of
requiring a notarized statement, which may also be scanned and
mailed electronically, this bill would allow a registrar or
county recorder to accept electronic acknowledgment that the
requester of a record is an authorized person.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law allows the State Registrar, local registrar, or
county recorder to furnish a certified copy of birth, death, or
marriage to applicants upon request if:
the request is written, faxed, or a digitized image and
accompanied by a notarized statement that is written, faxed,
or a digitized image, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the
requester is an authorized person, as defined; or
the request is made in person, and the official takes a
statement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the requester
is signing his or her own legal name and is an "authorized
person." (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526.)
Existing law defines "authorized person," for purposes of
obtaining certified copies of birth, death, or marriage records,
as any of the following:
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 3 of ?
the person who is the subject of the record or the parent or
legal guardian of that person;
a party who is entitled to receive the record as a result of a
court order;
law enforcement or governmental agency personnel conducting
official business;
a child, grandchild, sibling, spouse, domestic partner, or
grandparent of the person who is the subject of the record;
an attorney or other person empowered to act on behalf of the
person who is the subject of the record; or
an agent or employee of a funeral establishment who orders
death certificates when acting on behalf of specified
individuals. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526 (c).)
Existing law provides that, in all other cases in which the
requester does not meet the requirements of an authorized
person, a certified copy may be provided to the requester but
the document shall be an informational certified copy and shall
be redacted to remove any signatures that appear on the
document. Existing law requires the certified copy to contain
the statement "INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH
IDENTITY." (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 103526 (b).)
This bill would authorize the State Registrar, or a local
registrar or county recorder to accept electronic
acknowledgement, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the
requester of a marriage, birth, or death certificate is an
authorized person.
This bill would require, if the request is accepted
electronically, the request process to provide a method for the
official to establish the identity of the requester
electronically. The method to process electronic requests and to
establish the requester's identity would be required to comply
with the provisions of the California Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act and all other applicable state and federal laws
and regulations to protect the personal information of the
requester and guard against identity theft.
This bill would include a cross reference to Penal Code Section
530.5 which provides that it is a crime to willfully obtain the
personal identifying information, as defined, of another person
and use that information for any unlawful purpose.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 4 of ?
According to the author:
In California, various government services have expanded
service delivery using the Internet. The Department of Motor
Vehicles provides an array of services online; from requesting
an official vehicle record to renewing your vehicle
registration. In 2012, California implemented online voter
registration. More than one million Californians have
registered to vote online since 2012. The number of requests
for vital records received by Los Angeles County in 2013
suggests strong consumer demand. This bill will streamline
the request process by allowing people the option to complete
their request online without the need to send a separate
notarized affidavit.
2.Potential for identity theft
This bill would eliminate the requirement that a person submit a
notarized statement of identification when he or she
electronically requests vital records. The author argues that
this is necessary because "in 2012, Los Angeles County's
Registrar received more than 64,000 online requests for vital
records. This accounted for 22 percent of all requests for vital
records that year. Unfortunately, none of these requests were
fully complete at the time of submitting them online. For every
one of these requests the individual had to separately complete
an affidavit of identity with a notary."
The requirement that a person requesting a certified copy of a
vital record must include a notarized statement of identity was
created as a security precaution to protect against fraud and
identity theft. In opposition to this bill, the Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse (PRC) argues that such protections continue to be
necessary. PRC writes:
The substitution of an electronic acknowledgement for a
notarized affidavit will facilitate the ability of identity
thieves and other fraudsters to obtain vital records that can
then be used to engage in criminal acts against Californians.
Certified copies of birth certificates can be used to
fraudulently obtain many other important documents such as
passports, driver's licenses, and identification cards.
Certified copies of death certificates can be used to
fraudulently obtain decedents' death benefits, including life
insurance proceeds and investment accounts.
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 5 of ?
Vital records contain a wealth of personal information, which
if inappropriately released to the wrong person can result in
a significant violation of privacy. Privacy is protected by
California's Constitution, and should not be set aside merely
to facilitate the issuance of vital records.
Arguably, an electronic sworn statement offers little assurance
that identity thieves will not receive documents that can, by
their nature, be used to establish identity. It should be noted
that individuals can always request vital records without the
use of a notary, but those documents are for informational
purposes only and not to establish identity. If a person wishes
to use the document for identification purposes, the request
must be notarized or the individual must submit the request in
person. This bill seeks to instead allow individuals to request
vital records that can be used for identification purposes
without the use of a notary. Given the inherent difficulties in
verifying the identity of an individual over the Internet, and
the countless opportunities for identity theft that vital
records in the wrong hands create, strong protections must be in
place to ensure that vital records are safely maintained.
3.Lack of security measures
This bill would require the electronic request for a vital
record to provide a method for the official to establish the
identity of the requester electronically. The method established
to process electronic requests and establish the requester's
identity would be required to comply with the provisions of the
California Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Act). (Civ.
Code Secs. 1633.1-1633.17.) The purpose of the Act is to
standardize state laws regarding retention of paper records
(namely checks) and electronic signatures, in an effort to
facilitate the validity of electronic contracts and
transactions.
The Act, however, does little in the way of providing security
against fraud. It allows for electronic notarization of
signatures and provides that the requirement of an electronic
signature under penalty of perjury is satisfied if the
"electronic record includes, in addition to the electronic
signature, all of the information as to which the declaration
pertains together with a declaration under penalty of perjury by
the person who submits the electronic signature that the
information is true and correct." (Civ. Code Sec. 1633.11(a) -
(b).) Further, the Act does not require any standard of
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 6 of ?
security, but merely defines a security procedure as "a
procedure employed for the purpose of verifying that an
electronic signature, record, or performance is that of a
specific person or for detecting changes or errors in the
information in an electronic record. The term includes a
procedure that requires the use of algorithms or other codes,
identifying words or numbers, encryption, or callback or other
acknowledgment procedures." (Civ. Code Sec. 1633.2(n).)
Thus, this bill would require compliance with the Act which
arguably does not provide any assurance of security against
identity theft. Considering the serious risk of identity theft
that could result if the security measures are inadequate, the
Committee should consider whether this bill should be held in
Committee to allow additional time to work on this issue.
4.Increased risks outweigh benefits of bill
This bill would remove the requirement that persons
electronically requesting a vital record must additionally
submit a notarized statement of identity. The author argues
that this is necessary, not only to "streamline the process for
the general population, but also to benefit persons who may not
have ready access to notary services. Members of the military
who are deployed overseas or out at sea, civilians residing
overseas, indigent or homeless constituents for whom the cost of
additional notary fees or lack of physical identification may be
prohibitive. While current statistics on the number of people
in the Military or Overseas that request vital records are not
available, we do know that in California during the November
2012 elections alone 74,521 citizens serving in the Military or
living overseas voted. These figures provide a sense of the
significant population that could benefit from this bill."
Arguably, the number of Americans living overseas or serving in
the military does not bear any relation to the number of people
living overseas or in the military who have not been able to
access a notary. Military bases employ notaries, and most
military legal assistance offices offer notary services, free of
charge, to military members, family members, civilian employees,
retirees, and others eligible for legal assistance. Furthermore,
voting, electronically, absentee or otherwise, does not pose the
same threat of identity theft as a birth or death certificate
falling into the wrong hands. Thus, greater protections are
warranted before a vital record should be released.
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 7 of ?
Support : American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, (AFSCME) AFL-CIO; Aspiranet; California Association
of Clerks and Election Officials; Reed Elsevier/LexisNexis;
TransUnion; Urban Counties Caucus
Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union; Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse
HISTORY
Source : County of Los Angeles
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 464 (Daly, Chapter 78, Statutes of 2013) allowed digitized
images, as defined, to be included as part of a request for a
certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage record.
AB 130 (Jeffries, Chapter 412, Statutes of 2009) extended the
existing limitations on the release and access of birth and
death records to marriage records in order to prevent the
unauthorized use of personal information.
SB 1398 (Margett and Hollingsworth, 2008) was substantially
similar to SB 471. This bill died in the Senate Health
Committee.
SB 471 (Margett, 2007) would have required any individual,
authorized by law to obtain a certified copy of a birth or death
certificate, to show proof of identification when the request is
made in person, except when the individual has been a victim of
identity theft. This bill died in the Senate Health Committee.
SB 904 (Battin, 2007) would have required the county recorder,
when furnishing an informational copy of a military service
record, to alter that record by masking the service member's
personal information, as specified, without incurring any
liability. This bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
AB 2275 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 8 of ?
AB 1179 (Parra, Chapter 6, Statutes of 2004) prohibited county
recorders from providing certified copies of military discharge
papers except to specified persons and allowed county recorders
to accept faxed, notarized documents when specified information
is present and photographically reproducible.
AB 247 (Speier, Chapter 914, Statutes of 2002) authorized the
State Registrar, local registrar or county recorder to provide a
certified copy of a birth or death record to an authorized
person who submits a statement sworn under penalty of perjury
that the requester is signing his or her own legal name and is
an authorized person.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Health Committee (Ayes 19, Noes 0)
**************