Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves nondisclosure option for certain public servants' personal information after heated debate
Summary
H.342 would let judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim advocates and other covered public servants request that data brokers cease disclosing protected personal information such as home addresses; the House adopted committee amendments and ordered third reading after a 99–45 roll-call on the floor.
The Vermont House on Wednesday amended and advanced H.342, a nondisclosure bill giving a defined set of public servants and their immediate family members the right to send a notice to private data brokers requesting cessation of disclosure of specified "protected information," including home addresses, personal email and phone numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and vehicle identifiers.
Representative Priestley, member from Bradford and sponsor of the bill on the floor, framed H.342 as a narrow, targeted response to documented threats and violent incidents in which publicly available personal information has been used to locate and attack public servants or their families. "This bill is a direct response to the dangers we've just confronted," he said on the floor, urging the chamber to act to prevent future harm.
The bill defines covered persons expansively within the public-safety and justice community: active or former judges, state and federal law enforcement officers residing in Vermont, prosecutors and deputy prosecutors, public defenders, parole and probation officers, victim advocates, court personnel, members of the Vermont Parole Board, embedded crisis specialists, staff of certain state departments and their immediate family members. The law would apply to private data brokers as defined in Vermont's existing data-broker law; it would not apply to government entities or to disclosures authorized by the covered person.
Under the bill, a covered person or authorized agent may submit a nondisclosure notice using a standard form that the Secretary of State will publish; until that form is available, a written notice referencing the statute suffices. Data brokers who continue to disclose protected information after 15 days would face injunctive remedies; continued disclosure after 30 days would expose brokers to damages (actual or $1,000 per violation), punitive damages for willful or reckless violations, and attorneys' fees. The bill sets ordinary negligence as the standard of fault in judicial proceedings.
Supporters argued the private right of action and ability to assign claims were needed to give individuals enforcement tools against large companies. Opponents warned the bill targets a single business model (data brokers) and leaves gaps because much personal information is available from other sources; some members expressed concerns about potential effects on legitimate business-to-business transactions and urged a broader or different statutory model. Representative Castleton said he planned to propose an alternate "Oklahoma model" amendment that would apply to any entity possessing protected information.
After extended floor debate and a roll-call vote, the House amended the committee report and ordered third reading. The roll call recorded 99 yeas and 45 nays on the committee-recommended amendment; third reading was ordered thereafter.
