I heard SB1 passed on friday....Can anyone confirm its status? Is that even possible

-Kevin

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : S.B. No. 1
AUTHOR(S) : Speier and Burton. (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member
Jackson) (Coauthors: Senators Bowen, Escutia, Kuehl, and
Ortiz) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Chan, Cohn,
Goldberg, Hancock, Kehoe, Koretz, Laird, Leno,
Lowenthal, Mullin, Pavley, and Simitian)
TOPIC : Financial institutions: nonpublic personal information.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/11/2003


TYPE OF BILL :
Inactive
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/09/2003
LAST HIST. ACTION : Returned to Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 62(a).

TITLE : An act to add Division 1.2 (commencing with Section
4050) to the Financial Code, relating to financial
privacy.

I'm sure something was in every paper, but here is the San Francisco Chronicle version from this morning:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/08/19/MN95925.DTL

I beleive governor "Gray Day" signed this bill earlier this week. The bill has an effective date of 7/1/04. It impacts information sharing with both affiliates and non-affiliates.

Gov. Davis did sign the bill on Wednesday. Here's the press release (hope the link works):
http://www.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?sFilePath=/govsite/press_release/2003_08/20030827_L03083_Privacy_Bill_SB1.html&sCatTitle=Press%20Release&iOID=52059&sTitle=Press%20Release%20%20%20%20-%202003/08/27&BV_SessionID=@@@@1901522792.1062104896@@@@&BV_EngineID=fadcieclgdmfbemgcfkmchcog.0

Has anyone seen the details on this yet? (Sorry, don't really want to try to read legislative wording - worse than wading through regulations.)

I seem to remember a local news interview with Ms. Jackie talking about how banks, etc. would now have to send out notices, yadda yadda, and include a self-addressed stamped return envelope with the opt-in / -out form.

Don't they know how expensive that can be? Or is that the goal? Make it so inconvenient for us that we just throw up our hands and say "fine, we won't share with anyone"?

ABA has a comparison of GLB and SB 1 at:

http://www.aba.com/NR/rdonlyres/00007f90tmwobkpkfmyjzwsq/GLB%2b%26amp%3b%2b2003%2bSB%2bweb.pdf

I think I was able to get to it without being logged-in at ABA.

Thanks! That helps sort out the confusion...

Al, knowing your infinite knowledge with State issues, when is this going to be implemented? Will they be giving the institutions guidance on implementation?

It is effective July 1, 2004.

Guidance from the State? Are you new here?

I would expect some guidance out of the California Bankers Association (possibly at the October Compliance Conference) and from services such as Bankers Compliance Group.

Hanna Beth-Jackson, our rep from Santa Barbara, had a letter to the editor about how this would stop the big bad banks from "selling" all their customers' private information to everyone. Quite the campaign letter and I would respond but it would just be sour grapes.
RANT WARNING.....
What really gets me is our legislature wonders why businesses are leaving California and think it is the governor - wrong, it's the idiots who pass these laws (plus a governor who signs them!)

Quote:

---

Guidance from the State? Are you new here?

---

Oh silly me, what was I thinking.

I have to bring this topic back to life. I haven't heard of any clarification on this and there are a few issues that I don't know how to resolve.
For one thing with the passage of the FACT Act all of the affiliate sharing stuff is preempted, but the opt-in for joint marketing is not. I am confused on how to do an opt-in notice as the model notice contains affiliate stuff which is not needed. Has anyone heard if they will be revising the model forms in light of this, or do you just plan to take the affiliate stuff off and use the rest of the model notice?
Also, how will all of this affect the annual privacy notice requred by GLB? This is all a little new to me and I think I'm in over my head, anyone care to throw me a line?

We have been wondering the same thing -- the notices provided by the state don't work very well for opt in. Also - are the annual notices only applicable to affiliate sharing? It appears that way, but that interpretation makes little sense. (On 2nd thought, little of this law makes..... )

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that a legal opinion issued by the FRB and FTC muddied the waters, so to speak concerning federal preemption. From what I gathered in reading the January 15, by Bankers Compliance Group, California financial institutions must immediately ask whether the opinion means that the affiliate-sharing and opt-out provisions of SB1 are going to go into effect on July 1, 2004. This is very confusing especially with advent of the FCRA and FACT Act and likewise makes no sense to me.

This my own opinion and not those of my employer.

It appears to me that the affiliate sharing aspects of California SB 1 (which incclude a new opt-out requirement that was to become effectvive on July 1, 2004) was preempted. I am not sure whether the entire SB1 has been preempted or whther its certain facets of the bill has been. Im am sure this is not over with.

Ah, yes -- time to resurrect this topic....

We're gearing up to send out our California Privacy notices, and we were just wondering who's sending them with their Federal GLB notices?

Marketing is complaining about the extra postage, since we also have to include a return envelope.... Seems to me we'll have to include the envelope anyway, so it would still come out cheaper to send them together....? Or even stuff them both with the Q1 statements that go out the first week of April.

Is anyone printing them double-sided with the GLB notices? The Calif notice has to be a single page, 1 inch margins, and 10-pt font -- we're considering trying to cram the GLB notice on the reverse side.... save one sheet of paper, anyway.