Committee hears judges urge bill to bar data brokers from selling their personal information
Loading...
Summary
The Committee on State Affairs considered Senate Bill 2459, which would bar data brokers from selling or posting certain personal information about judges and court staff at the request of those employees. Two judges who survived threats and an assassination attempt urged passage; committee accepted a substitute and left the measure pending.
The Committee on State Affairs opened the meeting by taking up Senate Bill 2459, which would restrict data brokers from selling, licensing or otherwise making available the personal information of judges and certain court personnel when those individuals request that information be kept private. The measure drew personal testimony from two judges who said publicly available data had made them and their families the targets of threats and violent attacks.
Judge Julie Kocurek of the 390th District Court described a 2015 assassination attempt and the role of online data in enabling it: “I remember it like it was yesterday. My assailant was in my court for a simple probation violation case ... He Googled my name and address ... He shot me four times from just four feet away. I miraculously survived.” Kocurek and other witnesses told the committee that material aggregated by data brokers — including home addresses, phone numbers and vehicle information — had amplified security risks for judges and court staff.
A committee substitute proposed and sent up by Senator Birdwell clarified several technical points in the bill: it extended prohibitions to non‑data‑broker persons as well as data brokers, focused Office of Court Administration (OCA) removal procedures on judges and tailored the timing of removal obligations so that covered information on a website must be removed regardless of when it was originally posted. The substitute added a 48‑hour removal requirement for non‑data‑broker persons who receive a written request, provided a clarification about the bill’s effective date and included an appropriation condition for an automated OCA removal system.
Judge Jan Soifer, a civil and family district court judge, told the committee that online posts and articles had led to death threats, obscene and violent commentary and vandalism aimed at judges. Soifer told the committee that paid removal services sometimes fail because posts are reposted or reaggregated and that criminal penalties could “add teeth” to removal requests.
The substitute also added an ex‑post‑facto clarification that criminal penalties would apply only to offenses committed on or after the bill’s effective date. The committee opened and closed public testimony on SB 2459 after the invited witnesses spoke and left the bill pending for further consideration.
Ending: The committee accepted a committee substitute and left SB 2459 pending. Committee staff will forward the substitute and technical edits to members and may address implementation questions about OCA’s role and any appropriation requests at a later date.
