Each criminal justice information system shall prepare a security manual listing the rules and regulations applicable to maintenance of system security. Each person working with or having access to criminal justice information files should know the contents of the manual. To this end, each employee should receive not less than four (4) hours of training each year concerning system security. 3. System Discipline The management of each criminal justice information system should establish sanctions for accidental or intentional violation of system security standards. Supervisory personnel should be delegated adequate authority and responsibility to enforce the system's security standards. Any violation of the provisions of these standards by any employee or officer of any public agency, in addition to any applicable criminal or civil penalties, shall be punished by suspension, discharge, reduction in grade, transfer or such other administrative penalties as are deemed by the criminal justice agency to be appropriate; provided, however, that such penalties shall be imposed only if they are permissible under any applicable statutes governing the terms of employment of the employee or officer in question. Where any public agency is found by the Committee willfully or repeatedly to have violated the requirements of the standard, the Committee may, where other statutory provisions permit, prohibit the dissemination of criminal offender record information to that agency, for such periods and on such conditions as the Committee deems appropriate. This regulation has been reviewed and approved by the LCJIS Privacy and Security Committee and the LCJIS Policy Board. Approved: Hon. WILLIAM J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General. LCJIS REGULATION No, 1-12 TRAINING OF SYSTEM PERSONNEL Purpose: This regulation defines the length of time and the type of training all persons involved in the direct operation of a criminal offender record information system shall receive. Training of System Personnel All persons involved in the direct operation of a criminal offender record information system shall receive a total of not less than four (4) hours, and all immediate supervisors of such persons shall receive a total of not less than six (6) hours of approved instruction concerning the proper use and control of criminal offender record information and related systems. Instruction may be offered by any agency or facility, provided that the course of instruction, materials, and qualifications of instructors have been reviewed and approved by the Department. Each such operator or supervisor shall begin to attend such a course of instruction within a reasonable period of time after assignment to the criminal offender record information system. This regulation has been reviewed and approved by the LCJIS Privacy and Security Committee and the LCJIS Policy Board. Approved: Hon. WILLIAM J. GUSTE, Jr., Attorney General. LCJIS REGULATION NO. 1-13 PUBLIC EDUCATION Purpose: This regulation defines a function of the Attorney General which is to conduct an appropriate program of public education concerning the purposes, proper use and control of criminal offender record information. Public Education The Attorney General shall conduct an appropriate program of public education concerning the purposes, proper use and control of criminal offender record information. He may make available upon request facilities, materials, and personnel for the purpose of educating the public about the purposes, proper use and control of criminal offender record information. This regulation has been reviewed and approved by the LCJIS Privacy and Security Committee and the LCJIS Policy Board. Approved: Hon. WILLIAM J. GUSTE, Jr., STATE OF MAINE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Augusta, Maine, July 2, 1974. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Thank you for sending me copies of your co-sponsored legislation concerning information systems and individual privacy. I certainly endorse such legislation in concept and I appreciate the oppor tunity to review the details of your proposals. Sincerely, KENNETH M. CURTIS, Governor. STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: In your June 25 letter you ask for comment on the desirability and practicability of the provisions contained in S. 3418, which would deal with personal information systems. In Sec. 202 (2) of the proposal an exemption is created for personal information systems "which are part of active criminal investigatory files compiled by Federal, State, or local law enforcement organizations, except where such files have been maintained for a period longer than is necessary to commence criminal prosecution * * *." I would urge that this exemption be re-worded to exclude from the act all criminal justice information which is covered by your other bill dealing with the security and privacy of criminal justice information. There are going to be enough problems in getting the criminal justice bill into operation, without compounding them by mixing the two bills. I am forwarding a copy of your letter, and its enclosures, to the department of Nebraska state government which is actively engaged in studying our computer and data bank needs, with the thought that they are better qualified to comment on other parts of your proposal. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: In your letter of June 25, 1974, you requested this office to review and comment upon the provisions of S. 3418, a bill to establish standards and safeguards on the collection, maintenance and dissemination of information on individuals by public and private information systems. We have now completed our review of the bill and find ourselves generally in accord with its objectives. The rapid expansion of information systems in the last two decades through increased use of computers poses a serious challenge to the rights of all Americans to live in an atmosphere of relative privacy. Of course, modern life would not be possible without some collection, maintenance and dissemination of personal information about individuals, but it is important that institutions which engage in such activities, be they public or private, do so only to the extent absolutely necessary to the accomplishment of their legitimate purposes. Every effort should be made to eliminate questions or other information concerning individuals which are irrelevant. The opportunity provided by S. 3418 for an individual to challenge, correct or explain information about him in an information system not only is an essential right of every citizen, but is equally important to the agency which maintains the information since accuracy of information contained in the system is basic to any decision to be made with respect to that particular individual. Quite frankly, we do envision some difficulty in complying with that provision of your bill which requires prior permission of a "data subject" to disseminate information to another organization or system not having regular access authority. Our concern arises partly from the fact that the bill contains no definition of the phrase "organization or system having regular access authority" and partly because keeping any up to date mailing addresses on all persons for whom a file or other information is maintained is a task of herculean proportions. We also have some reservation about that provision of S. 3418 which limits dissemination of information by federal agencies only to authorized employees of other federal agencies. Particularly in the area of licensing professions and other occupations, exchanges of information between government agencies at the federal, state and local levels may be critical to a proper evaluation of professional credentials. Some broadening of this language may be appropriate. One final observation which we would like to make involves a possible conflict between the provisions of S. 3418 and the policy considerations behind a public records law like Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 239. Our state enactment is intended to provide maximum public access to the files of state and local government. Your bill has a quite different purpose. Should S. 3418 become law, it likely will have a serious impact upon state laws relating to public records in Nevada and other states, especially in view of the fact that courts are constantly broadening the definition of the term "public records" to include information and files which only a few years ago we all considered private and confidential. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views on your proposed legislation. If we may be of any further assistance on this matter or other matters of mutual concern, please advise. Sincerely, ROBERT LIST, Attorney General. By JAMES H. THOMPSON, Chief Deputy Attorney General. STATE OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Senator SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Santa Fe, N. Mex., July 8, 1974. Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEAR SIR: This is in reply to your letter of June 25, 1974 requesting information on the right to privacy in New Mexico and our suggestions and opinions about proposed Senate Bill S. 3418. Governor King's office has referred your letter to us for reply. From constantly reading and hearing about government and private spying on individuals it is becoming extremely clear to most Americans that legislation such as you propose is becoming increasingly imperative in America. New Mexico does not have a general statute relating to the individual's right to privacy. We have in certain areas found it necessary to impose restrictions on some forms of information gathering and release and to extend the area of privileged communications. (Copies of the applicable portions of these laws are attached.) Section 67-33-25 N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp. prohibits private investigators from divulging information to one other than his employer, except as required by law, and prohibits the making of false reports. New Mexico also adopted wiretap legislation, very similar to that on the Federal level, which provides penalties for unauthorized wiretapping. Section 40A-12-1 supra. It is also illegal to Black-List employees. Section 40A-13-3. The New Mexico legislature has deemed it desirable to protect the confidentiality of information furnished to and compiled by state agencies. Section 5121-8, supra, (Corp. Commission); Section 72-13-25, supra, (Bureau of Revenue); Section 59-9-11.11 (Unemployment Compensation Commission). New Mexico has also extended the area of privileged communication to, those engaged in or receiving treatment for drug abuse, Section 54-10-12, supra, 54-10-14, supra, to those engaged in drug research, Section 54-11-39, supra, to newspapermen, Section 20-1-12.1, to Psychotherapists, Section 20-4-504, to Clergymen, Section 20-4-506, to a person's vote, Section 20-4-507, and to trade secrets, 20-4-508. Review of the copy of S. 3418 which you supplied reveals a well thought out comprehensive plan, a plan which is long overdue in this nation. Under Title II Section 201(2) (A) (B) it would seem the provision prohibiting forced disclosure should be supplemented by a provision prohibiting a person's refusal to give such information from being held against him if he is applying for a job, or other positions. Also under Title II(d) (5), if an individual challenges information against him we feel it should be clearly expressed that it is up to the data bank to prove the correctness of any information, its pertinency and the validity of any verification or such challenged information should be removed. It should be clear that it is not up to the individual to prove the information's incorrectness. Under Title III Section 303, it would probably be desirable to provide minimum as well as maximum penalties. Under 'Exemptions', Title II Section 202, we feel, in light of developments over the last few years and recently, that exemptions such as specified here should be closely watched and controlled by Congress in order to prevent abuses which could forceably negate much of the act. Bitter experience has shown that information totally unrelated to national defence is often classified and protected under that heading. There should be some review available to determine the validity of classifications made. I hope we have been of assistance to you and that the enclosed information will prove helpful. If you have any further inquiry or specific questions, please contact: David L. Norvell, Attorney General, P.O. Box 2246, Sante Fe, N. Mex. 87501. Sincerely, Enclosures. FRANK MURRAY, Law Clerk. 67-33-25. Prohibited acts.-A. Any licensee or officer, director, partner or manager of the licensee may divulge to any law enforcement officer or district attorney, attorney general or his representatives any information he may acquire as to any criminal offense, but he shall not divulge to any other person except as he may be required by law so to do any information acquired by him except at the direction of the employer or client from whom the information was obtained. B. No licensee or officer, director, partner, manager or employee of a licensee shall knowlingly make any false report to his partner or client for whom information was being obtained. C. No written report shall be submitted to a client except by the licensee, qualifying manager or a person authorized by one or either of them, and such person submitting the report shall exercise diligence in ascertaining whether or not the facts and information of such report are true and correct. D. No licensee or officer, director, partner, manager or employee of private investigator shall use a badge in connection with the official activities with the licensee's business. E. No licensee or officer, partner, director, manager or employee of a licensee shall use a title or wear a uniform, or use an insignia or use an identification card or make any statement with the intent to give an impression that he is connected in any way with the federal government, a state government or any political subdivision of a state government. F. No licensee or officer, director, partner, manager or employee of a licensee shall enter any private building or portion thereof without the consent of the owner or of the person in possession thereof. G. No private patrol licensee or officer, director, partner, manager or employee of a private patrol licensee shall use a badge except when engaged in guard or patrol work and while wearing a uniform. H. No licensee shall appear as an assignee party in any proceeding involving claim and delivery, replevin or other possessory action, action for foreclosing a chattel mortgage, mechanic's lien, materialman's lien or any other lien. 40A-12-1. Interference with communications.—Interference with communications consists of knowlingly : A. displacing, removing, injuring or destroying any radio station, T.V. tower, antenna or cable, telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable, pole or conduit belonging to another, or the material or property appurtenant thereto; B. cutting, breaking, tapping or making any connection with any telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable or instrument belonging to another; C. reading, hearing, interrupting, taking or copying any message, communication or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone without his consent; D. preventing, obstructing or delaying the sending, transmitting, conveying or delivering in this state of any message, communication or report by or through telegraph or telephone; or E. using any apparatus to do or cause to be done any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned or to aid, agree with, comply or conspire with any person to do, or permit or cause to be done any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned. 40A-12-1. Interference with communications-Exception.-Interference with communications consists of knowlingly : A. to E. *** [Same as parent volume.] Whoever commits interference with communications is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless such interference with communications is done under a court order as provided in sections 40A-12-1.1 through 40A-12-1.10 NMSA 1953, or unless such interference with communications is done by an operator of a switchboard or an officer, employee or agent of any communication common carrier in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his services or to the protection of rights or property of the carrier of such communication. 40A-13-3. Black-listing.-Black-listing consists of an employer or his agent preventing or attempting to prevent a former employee from obtaining other employment. Whoever commits black-listing is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon request, an employer may give an accurate report or honest opinion of the qualifications and the performance of a former employee. An employer is defined as any person employing labor or the agent of such person. 51-21-8. Commission to furnish forms-Release of information-Penalty.-A. The commission shall, upon application, furnish the necessary blanks in proper form and shall keep safely in its office all corporate reports alphabetically indexed. B. Information obtained from reports filed pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Reports Act [51-21-1 to 51-21-9] shall be made available to interested persons during proper hours, except that data contained in subsection B of section 51-21-2 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953 Compilation shall not be released unless in statistical form classified to prevent identification of particular corporations. C. All reports required under the Corporate Reports Act may be used as evidence at any trial or hearing of the commission. D. All reports required under the Corporate Reports Act shall be made available to the bureau of revenue upon written request and the bureau shall be subject to the same restrictions upon revealing the information as are imposed by this section upon the corporation commission. E. Any other state agency or department upon written request to the state corporation commission may examine reports filed with the corporation commission upon a showing that the corporate reports sought to be examined are germane to an investigation being conducted by the petitioning agency or department, and any information revealed is subject to subsection F of this section concerning the release of such information contrary to law by any person in the requesting agency or department. F. Any person who releases information contrary to the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor less than one hundred dollars ($100) or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than ninety [90] days nor |