Latest news with #HouseBill410
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legislative committee advances privacy bill aimed at protecting consumers
Mar. 5—One app to talk to friends in another country, another to clock in at work or pay for the laundry machine at an apartment complex — the ubiquity of internet services is growing ever more. So, too, is the personal data shared freely across the web. While skimming through a long terms of service agreement might not cause the average user much heartburn, the information being shared or misused just might — especially concerning data about a person's health or children. One bill making its way through the New Mexico Legislature seeks to address that problem. House Bill 410, the Consumer Information and Data Protection Act, would align New Mexico with similar laws in 22 other states. According to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Linda Serrato, D-Santa Fe, it also gives the New Mexico Department of Justice more teeth in punishing bad actors. Serrato said the time to pass this legislation was now because law enforcement can do little to help people when their data is compromised. "It really leaves all New Mexicans vulnerable to the fact that we can't protect our data," Serrato said during the first of two hearings in the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee. After the bill was amended, the committee passed the bill on an 8-0 vote during a March 3 hearing, sending it to the House Judiciary Committee for review. Serrato told the Journal the enforcement component was among the bill's most important changes. The Consumer Information and Data Protection Act gives the attorney general the power to investigate and fine businesses out of compliance, she added. If passed, businesses could not sell or offer to sell consumer health data without first obtaining consent. They also cannot share health data with employees or contractors unless confidentiality agreements bind those individuals. Additionally, businesses cannot use deceptive or manipulative user interface designs that make it harder for consumers to exercise their data rights, such as pre-ticked boxes, unclear language and no reject button. They also cannot ignore or delay consumer requests to access, correct or delete personal data, opt out of data processing for targeted advertising or profiling, or obtain a copy of their data. Restrictions would also apply to geofencing, a targeted marketing practice that sends tailored advertising to people when they enter a geographic area or, more specifically, mental health, reproductive health or sexual health facilities. Lastly, the bill would require businesses to use assessments to ensure that data is processed in compliance with the law. Serrato noted that this was a piece that other states do not have. The bill would not apply to nonprofit groups and colleges. It would only affect businesses that handle the data of at least 35,000 consumers or have processed data from at least 10,000 consumers and made over 20% of their total income from selling personal data. Most of the bill components are standard among the 22 states with similar laws. But for critics of the bill, that's exactly the problem. Caitriona Fitzgerald, a national advocate for data privacy, testified that measures like this around the U.S. don't go far enough. "They do little to change the status quo of companies being able to collect and use personal data however they like as long as they tell us what they are doing in a privacy policy that nobody reads," Fitzgerald said. Fitzgerald's organization, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, sent a letter to the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee denouncing the bill. "The bill seeks to provide to New Mexico consumers the right to know the information companies have collected about them, the right to access, correct and delete that information, as well as the right to stop the disclosure of certain information to third parties," the letter said. "However, in its current form it would do little to protect New Mexico consumers' personal information, or to rein in major tech companies like Google and Facebook." The letter also called for stronger protections, something Serrato described as unrealistic. When asked if she thought there would be enough time for the bill to pass through both houses before the session's end, Serrato said she's optimistic the bill will pass.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bills altering mill levies will jeopardize public safety, critics say
Feb. 8—Two bills designed to lower property taxes by changing the way mill levies work elicited opposition from local government officials, including those in Kalispell, last week. Senate Bill 204 would require all levies to sunset after 10 years while Senate Bill 205 would raise the voter turnout required for a levy to pass. Critics say the proposals would hamstring local governments. Kalispell City Manager Doug Russell spoke in opposition of the bills during a Senate Local Government Committee meeting Wednesday night, alluding to the "starvation path" cities would face if unable to collect mill levies. "This bill doesn't move the goal post. It changes the game," said Russell. Kalispell was far from the only city represented. Helena City Manager Tim Burton sarcastically referred to the legislation as the "Public Safety Reduction Act" during his testimony and Belgrade Mayor Russell Nelson joked that he was "starting to believe the Legislature does not like cities." Chief among opponents' concerns was the potential for more mill levy elections. Senate Bill 204's 10-year maximum sunset period on levies would require municipalities to regularly go back to the public for funding. Opponents say that would lead to voter strain. The bill also applies the new sunset period to levies already passed. In his testimony, Russell referenced a public safety levy passed by Kalispell residents last year. While the ballot measure defined the levy as permanent, voters would have to reapprove the measure in six years if SB 204 passed. And that could prove challenging under Senate Bill 205, which raises the percentage of voters needed to pass a levy-related ballot measure. Currently, a levy passes with a majority of votes if a 40% voter turnout is achieved and a supermajority if a 30% voter turnout is achieved. If fewer than 30% of voters cast a ballot, the measure automatically fails. Senate Bill 205 would raise voter turnout thresholds to 40% and 50%. While Russell and others expressed trust in their citizenry, they questioned whether voters would be willing to return to the ballot box again and again. "We can't control the active nature of our citizenship," said Russell. "We have our budget meetings, our public hearings. Very few people show up for a $150 million budget to be passed." Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson. He said the bills introduce necessary measures to curb local government spending, resulting in lower property taxes. "Unfortunately, what we have done in a lot of taxing jurisdictions, is probably, in my mind, gone beyond what a lot of citizens expect out of their local government," said Hertz. At a Feb. 6 press conference, Gov. Greg Gianforte agreed with the need to cut local spending and referenced "fear-mongering" by local officials. "This is a question of priorities at a local level. We've seen runaway spending," said Gianforte. On Feb. 6, Rep. Lukas Schubert, R-Evergreen introduced House Bill 410, which also addresses levy elections. Rather than raising voter turnout thresholds by 10 percentage points, HB 410 raises the thresholds by five percentage points. The bill is co-sponsored by Hertz, Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, Matt Regier, R-Kalispell, Braxton Mitchell, R-Columbia Falls, and 17 other lawmakers. Reporter Hailey Smalley can be reached at hsmalley@
