Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds HB 450 after law enforcement raises operational and disclosure concerns
Summary
Lawmakers adopted a substitute to HB 450, a broad update to the state’s government data privacy rules, then voted to hold the bill so the sponsor can work with law enforcement on the bill’s "truth in surveillance" disclosures and operational exemptions.
Representative Shallenberger introduced HB 450 as an update to Utah’s Government Data Privacy Act, saying the state must modernize privacy rules across agencies and create consistent practices for handling personal data.
"Data privacy is a huge deal," Shallenberger said in opening the presentation, and he invited Christopher Bramwell, director of the Office of Data Privacy, to brief the committee on technical details.
Bramwell described the bill as a consolidation and modernization of existing GRAMA duties into the GDPA and said the office has prepared templates, guidance and a privacy program framework to help agencies mature their programs. "Utah is the only state with comprehensive government data privacy law," Bramwell said, noting the legislation is designed for iterative improvement over several years.
The bill includes a provision the sponsor and staff referred to as "truth in surveillance," a transparency mechanism intended to require public notice and community input when government entities implement technologies that collect personal data but cannot feasibly give individual notice. Bramwell and the sponsor said the provision is meant to be categorical — reported through annual budget or public-meeting processes — and not to expose operational tactics.
Law enforcement witnesses told the committee the truth-in-surveillance language, as drafted, risks revealing tactics and could impair public safety. Ashley Spadafore Mirabelli of the Utah Chiefs of Police said the section is "problematic" and warned that provisions still in some drafts (definitions for "high risk" and "persistent aerial surveillance") could be misapplied. The Law Enforcement Legislative Committee told the committee it opposed the bill in its current form, citing operational concerns.
Privacy and civil-liberties supporters framed the same provision as accountability. Jason Chipman of the Libertas Institute said the change "simply requires that before these tools are implemented, the decision is made in an open public meeting by elected officials." Other public commenters urged the committee to keep some program-report detail public so citizens can see what data governments collect and why.
After adopting a substitute, the committee voted on a motion to hold HB 450 so the sponsor can continue negotiating with law enforcement and other stakeholders. The motion to hold passed on a roll-call vote (recorded as 10–2; recorded no votes: Hansen, Tesher).
Next steps: Sponsor Shallenberger committed to continued work with law enforcement and other stakeholders on the substitute language before the bill proceeds.
