BILL ANALYSIS S.B. 56 By: Zaffirini State Affairs Committee Report (Unamended) BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Interested parties point to reports that there is insufficient direct communication between state agency cybersecurity officers and the agency's senior leadership. S.B. 56 seeks to provide for the acknowledgement by state agency management of risks identified in state agency information security plans. CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. ANALYSIS S.B. 56 amends the Government Code to require each state agency to include in the agency's information security plan a written acknowledgment that the executive director or other head of the state agency, the chief financial officer, and each executive manager as designated by the state agency have been made aware of the risks revealed during the preparation of the agency's information security plan. EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2017.
BILL ANALYSIS
# BILL ANALYSIS
S.B. 56
By: Zaffirini
State Affairs
Committee Report (Unamended)
S.B. 56
By: Zaffirini
State Affairs
Committee Report (Unamended)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Interested parties point to reports that there is insufficient direct communication between state agency cybersecurity officers and the agency's senior leadership. S.B. 56 seeks to provide for the acknowledgement by state agency management of risks identified in state agency information security plans.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS S.B. 56 amends the Government Code to require each state agency to include in the agency's information security plan a written acknowledgment that the executive director or other head of the state agency, the chief financial officer, and each executive manager as designated by the state agency have been made aware of the risks revealed during the preparation of the agency's information security plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE September 1, 2017.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Interested parties point to reports that there is insufficient direct communication between state agency cybersecurity officers and the agency's senior leadership. S.B. 56 seeks to provide for the acknowledgement by state agency management of risks identified in state agency information security plans.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
S.B. 56 amends the Government Code to require each state agency to include in the agency's information security plan a written acknowledgment that the executive director or other head of the state agency, the chief financial officer, and each executive manager as designated by the state agency have been made aware of the risks revealed during the preparation of the agency's information security plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2017.