.jpg)
AB 1337 would amend the California Information Practices Act of 1977
This act amends Sections 1798.3, 1798.16, 1798.17, 1798.19, 1798.20, 1798.24, 1798.24b, 1798.25, 1798.26, 1798.27, 1798.29, 1798.44, 1798.55, 1798.57, and 1798.68 of the Civil Code, relating to information privacy.
Existing law, the Information Practices Act of 1977, prescribes a set of requirements, prohibitions, and remedies applicable to agencies, as defined, with regard to their collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information, as defined. It also exempts from the provisions of the act counties, cities, any city and county, school districts, municipal corporations, districts, political subdivisions, and other local public agencies, as specified. It requires an agency to establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development, operation, disclosure, or maintenance of records containing personal information and instruct those persons with respect to specified rules relevant to the act.
This bill would recast those provisions to, among other things, remove that exemption for local agencies and would revise and expand the definition of “personal information.” The bill would make other technical, non-substantive, and conforming changes. Because the bill would expand the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
If adopted, this bill would require that those rules established by the agency be consistent with applicable provisions of the State Administrative Manual and the State Information Management Manual. It would prohibit an agency from using records containing personal information for any purpose or purposes other than the purpose or purposes for which that personal information was collected, except as required by state or federal law and adds consequences for negligent violation of the act. To read the bill in full visit leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
Support
Many of the privacy bills on the agenda rightfully focus on keeping private companies in line. Assembly Bill 1337 turns the privacy focus inward towards the activities of California state and local government to ensure that we have our own house in order as we seek to continue regulating the private sector.- Electronic Frontier Foundation (co-sponsor) Oakland Privacy (co-sponsor)
- ACLU California Action
- California Immigrant Policy Center California Initiative for Technology & Democracy, a Project of California Common CAUSE
People opposed state that AB 1337 would amend the law, and agencies under the IPA would be required to adopt policies consistent with the State Administrative Manual and the State Information Management Manual, highly detailed documents that are prepared for state agencies and departments by a state agency. State agencies with questions about those materials are assigned account leads and oversight managers by the California Department of Technology (CDT). Would CDT likewise assign oversight managers to local agencies to answer questions?
Section 17 of the bill asserts that no reimbursement is required by the act, suggesting that the only state-mandated activity directed by the bill is due to the adjustments to a crime or infraction. We believe the language is inappropriate and should be amended to clearly declare that the bill would establish a new mandate reimbursable under state law, as the bill clearly mandates a new activity by local agencies: compliance with the IPA, which requires significant changes to software, internal practices, and duties of local agency workforces
- Association of California Healthcare Districts (ACHD)
- California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
- El Dorado Irrigation District
- League of California Cities Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
- Urban Counties of California (UCC)