Thursday, February 02, 2006

Privacy Legislation in NH

This legislation looks like it's off the board for now. The bill is over the top, though I must admit that the people listed as complaining should be considered for special dispensation in the bill. Dispensation ensuring that they can't get or use peoples private information.
The latest proposal of the Legislature's fiercest defender of personal privacy ran headlong into a wall of opposition Tuesday from the media, private detectives, trial lawyers, state prosecutors, bankers and credit card company executives.
The state prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel shouldn't be restricted by the bill. They have legitimate reasons for access to some of the proposed protected information. As for the rest, they have no reason to have free access any more than any other private citizen.
Weare Republican Rep. Neal Kurk said his idea was a simple one: to enshrine in state law that someone's personal information belongs to that person. "It is intended to prevent additional intrusion into our lives," Kurk said. Kurk proposed that people would have to give consent before the release of their names, addresses, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers or "any other information" that directly or indirectly could be used to identify or locate them. "There are some who believe privacy is dead. I hope that's not true and particularly not true in New Hampshire," Kurk said. At the opening of the hearing, Kurk agreed to allow only names and addresses to be released and for this privacy protection to not extend beyond the grave, as he originally proposed. But Kurk's concessions failed to prevent a nearly two-hour onslaught from opponents of the bill, until its only defender, the lobbyist for the Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, could only offer that it should be shipped off for study.
Shame that the CLUofNH aren't even supportive. But then you get these comments.
Associated Press News Editor Joe Magruder said Kurk's bill unwittingly protects lawbreakers or those with something to hide.

"It would be a great deal for con artists, criminals, terrorists, anybody who was doing something shady, unethical or dangerous," Magruder said.

New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association President Matthew Cox said these restrictions would close off searches that lawyers routinely do for their clients.

"This bill might have dramatic unintended consequences," Cox said.
Outside of law enforcement, I don't see any reasonable exception for the press or lawyers. The legislation is over the top though. It essentially has no allowances for any reuse of personal information.

I hope they don't soften the bill too much. At this point private information has no protections, and far to many entities believe they have a right to information that should be controlled only by the owner.


No comments: