AN ACT relating to personally identifiable information.
Impact
If enacted, HB 662 will significantly impact how state laws regarding personal information are enforced, particularly for individuals in the judicial system. The legislation seeks to enhance the privacy protections provided to judicial officers amid concerns over safety and harassment, given the sensitivity of their roles. As such, it may set a precedent for additional protective measures for public officials and their families across other sectors. The implications for compliance and enforcement of these privacy standards will require agencies to reevaluate their data handling processes.
Summary
House Bill 662 is an act aimed at protecting personally identifiable information (PII) for judicial officers and their immediate family members in Kentucky. The bill prohibits government agencies from disclosing the PII of a covered person if a written request is submitted to refrain from such disclosure. The bill specifically defines covered persons and what constitutes PII, which includes sensitive data such as birth dates, home addresses, phone numbers, and information about children. The act requires that once a written request is received, the government agency must remove the PII from publicly available content within 72 hours and outlines conditions under which the information can be disclosed again, primarily if voluntarily published by the covered person after the act becomes effective.
Sentiment
Discussion around HB 662 appears supportive among those concerned with privacy and safety for judicial officers. Advocates emphasize the necessity of safeguarding the personal information of individuals who the public may have an interest in, considering the potential risks they face due to their jobs. However, there is an undercurrent of concern regarding government transparency and the potential for increased secrecy if such information becomes shielded from public access.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding this bill include the balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring transparency of government functions. Critics may argue that restricting access to information about judicial officers could lead to public distrust or create issues concerning accountability. Furthermore, concerns could arise regarding how broadly definitions of 'covered persons' and 'personally identifiable information' are applied, potentially leading to unintended consequences in the realm of public records and access.