2003 Senate Bill 5412 - Washington Votes

Legislation watch

2003 Senate Bill 5412

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Dale Brandland, (R-Bellingham) (R) on January 23, 2003, to require a biometric identifier from every person applying for an original, renewal, or duplicate driver’s license or identicard. This bill would also raise the minimum civil liability for identity theft to $1000.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 24, 2003.
  - Testimony in support offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2003, by Senator Brandland; Mitch Barker, WASPC; Tim Schellberg, WASPC; Jan Gee, WA Retail Assn.; Denny Eliason, WA Bankers Assn. They testified that it is time for a paradigm shift so that WA starts using technology to protect its citizens. Identity theft has spiraled upwards in the last few years. These cases seldom involve one suspect or one victim. This bill is preventative and will help keep WA from being an unwitting accomplice. Washington retailers lose $60 million due to fraud.
  - Testimony in opposition offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2003, by Denise Movius, DOL; Myrtle Cooper; Merton Cooper. They testified that why not just educate people as to how to protect themselves against identity theft? Hitler tattooed people to identify them. The Department of Licensing is more comfortable with the substitute bill. AAMV is considering facial recognition as well as finger imaging. This new system is going to be expensive; we need to make sure we don't jump to any system and then have to undo it.
- Substitute offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, 2003, to add a prohibition against the disclosure of biometric information to the public or any governmental entity unless a court order authorizes the disclosure. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 3, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on March 3, 2003, but the bill did not pass the Senate by the cutoff date so it is considered a "dead bill" (although technically the bill could become active at any time during the 2003-2004 session).
Received in the Senate on January 12, 2004, and active in the 2004 legislative session.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 19, 2004.
- Substitute offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 21, 2004, to implement a voluntary biometric matching system for drivers licenses and identicards. The department is prohibited from disclosing biometric information to the public or any governmental entity unless a court order authorizes the disclosure. If either Senate Bill 5428 or House Bill 1681, allowing alternative means of renewing driver's licenses, is enacted into law, the Department of Licensing is not required to offer people who are seeking to renew their drivers licenses or identicards by mail or electronic commerce the option of submitting a biometric identifier. The Department of Licensing is authorized to charge a fee of no more than $1.50 for every original, renewal, or duplicate drivers license or identicard. The substitute passed in committee on January 21, 2004.
- Referred to the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on January 21, 2004.
  - Testimony in support offered to the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on February 9, 2004, by Tim Schellberg, WA Assoc. of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs; Denny Eliason, WA Bankers Assoc.; Jan Gee, WA Retail Assn., who testified that it is crucial that we secure our identity. This bill provides those persons who wish to protect the integrity of their driver's license with the means to do so. Approximately $100 million are lost to retailers, and $150 million to financial institutions every year due to identity fraud. Retailers and financial institutions rely heavily on the integrity of the driver's license and this bill provides a means of protecting this crucial document. Biometrics empower citizens to protect their identity.
  - Testimony in opposition offered to the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on February 9, 2004, by Jerry Sheehan, ACLU-WA, who testified that biometrics at its best will improve security marginally, and at its worse provides people with a false sense of security. This is not a wise financial investment for the state of Washington.
- Substitute offered to the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee on February 10, 2004, to require that a fee of $2 be charged for those persons who choose to place a biometric identifier on his or her driver's license. A null and void clause was added. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 10, 2004.
- Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 10, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (46 to 2) on February 17, 2004, requiring a biometric identifier from every person applying for an original, renewal, or duplicate driver’s license or identicard. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on February 19, 2004.
- Referred to the House Transportation Committee on February 19, 2004.
- Referred to the House Rules Committee on March 1, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Morris, (D-Mt. Vernon) (D) on March 5, 2004, to clarify that the biometric matching system selected by the Department of Licensing (DOL) be used only to verify the identity of an applicant for renewal of a license or issuance of a duplicate license against the biometric information submitted when the license was last issued (one to one match). The amendment requires that the selection of a biometric matching system be fully reviewed by the Information Services Board (ISB). It also requires that applicants for driver's licenses and identicards who choose to provide biometric information be informed of certain uses of the information. The amendment directs the DOL to adopt rules to allow applicants to verify the accuracy of the system at the time the biometric information. It requires that the system incorporate the use of personal identification numbers or codes to be used with driver's licenses and identicards before verification can be made by a third party. It also requires that biometric information be stored with appropriate safeguards, the DOL to develop procedures to handle circumstances when the matching system fails and must allow applicants to prove identity without using a biometric identifier, allows a person to discontinue participation at any time and requires that biometric information be destroyed when a person discontinues their participation.. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on March 5, 2004.
Passed in the House (66 to 28) on March 5, 2004, requiring a biometric identifier from every person applying for an original, renewal, or duplicate driver’s license or identicard. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on March 10, 2004, and the Senate concurred with the House amendments.
Passed in the Senate (47 to 2) on March 10, 2004, requiring a biometric identifier from every person applying for an original, renewal, or duplicate driver’s license or identicard. [Vote Details and Comments]

Most Recent Comments

1) Goveror Locke, Time to Get Out Your Veto Pen! [by Anonymous on March 12, 2004]
3SSB 5412 (The Biometric Driver's License Bill) has been sent to Governor Locke after final passage in the Senate. Governor Locke has three options: 1) Sign the bill, 2) Veto the bill, or 3) Partially veto the bill.

Please send an e-mail to Governor Locke at http://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/govemail.htm and urge him to partially veto 3SSB 5412. The parts of the bill the Governor should veto are sections One, Three, Four, and Six. These sections contain the language that authorizes voluntary collection of biometric data from driver's license applicants.

Sections Two and Five should be retained. Section Two is a common sense enhancement of civil penalties for identity theft, and Section Five simply states that the bill becomes effective on July 1, 2004.

Politely and concisely urge the Governor to veto the sections of the bill that authorize biometric collection. While the bill's language makes biometric collection voluntary, it would be very easy for this system to morph into a mandatory program once the infrastructure is set up at the Department of Licensing.

Stress to the Governor that if he signs 3SSB 5412 in full, he will have opened the door to future privacy and Fourth Amendment violations if the system eventually becomes mandatory. As a public official who is retiring from government, Governor Locke should think twice before he allows his legacy to become tainted by signing a bill into law that sets up an infrastructure for civil liberties violations more widespread than any this state has ever known.

By retaining Sections Two and Five, the Governor will have struck a very real blow against identity theft. Identity theft is a terrible crime. The best response to this offense is to target its perpetrators instead of targeting law abiding citizens with driver's license fingerprinting.

Please act quickly. The Governor will have to make his decision on 3SSB 5412 soon. This bill has far reaching potential consequences. Let us hope the Governor will have the wisdom and courage to strike a blow for privacy and civil liberties.
Reply

Line

2) Nothing to Hide [by Anonymous on March 11, 2004]
Those of us who oppose legislation such as 3SSB 5412 do not fear fingerprinting because we have something to hide. We oppose this legislation because once a voluntary biometric collection system is in place, it can easily be converted into a mandatory system, as was proposed in the original version of this bill.

If fingerprinting for a driver's license becomes mandatory at some future date, you can kiss the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution goodbye. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens' property and persons from illegal search and seizure by the authorities. Is there anything more personal than a fingerprint? If the state is coercing its population to give fingerprints without probable cause in order to receive a driver's license, a definite Fourth Amendment violation has occured.

Fingerprinting is completely justified and legitimate as a means of criminal identification. What is not justified is coercive mass fingerprinting of law abiding citizens of whom the authorities have no reason to believe have committed a crime.

While 3SSB 5412 claims that the biometric data collected by the state will only be accessible to law enforcement agencies through a court order, this would only apply to state law enforcement. Under the PATRIOT Act, federal agencies such as the FBI are conducting warrantless searches, and federal law always trumps state law.

Beware of giving government extra-Constitutional powers in the name of fighting fraud, terrorism, illegal immigration, crime, or whatever else is the flavor of the week. The Bill of Rights was created in order to set a very high bar for the collection of police evidence in order to protect citizens from state-sponsored abuse. Don't throw these protections away for an illusion of security.

Once there are no limits on what the government can have on file about you, you will have less security than ever before. Ask anyone who has ever lived in a real police state and they will tell you the same thing. Indeed, the closer governments get to having total knowledge of their citizens, the closer they are to total abuse of that power.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," is an old cliche that is used by authoritarians the world over to cast doubt on the motives of civil libertarians who actually care about such things as privacy. This statement is also used as a means to shut off debate on the issue, since no one wants other people think they may have something to hide.

Well, I have nothing to hide. And Artacoma, your insinuation that I do have something to hide will not stop me from defending privacy rights that belong to you, too, as an American citizen, even if you don't appreciate your liberties.
Reply

Line

3) Privacy vs. Fraud [by Anonymous on March 11, 2004]
For those of you who are so frightened to get your Fingerprints on file... what is so scary about helping protect against Fraud, terrorism, illegal aliens, criminal activity, etc.....?? Unless you have something to hide yourselves.?
I actually believe we should go a step further, and demand a Birth Certificate, Naturalization papers, or GreenCard/Visa be shown for a Driver's Licence... This would do SO much more Good for thi State/Nation than frighten those of you have something to hide.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation