Pa. Version of Daniel's Law Advances Without Criminal Penalties or GOP Support
A possible Pennsylvania version of Daniel’s Law made it through a key committee on Wednesday, though it continued to lack Republican support. The House Judiciary Committee split by party to clear an amended HB-1822, which aims to protect the personal information of public servants, similar to a law in neighboring New Jersey.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
All Democrats voted yes, and all Republicans voted no in Wednesday’s voice vote on HB-1822. The committee split the same way to approve an amendment that reduces penalties and gives data brokers more leeway to comply. It approved another amendment at a hearing last month by a 14-12 vote, with all Democrats voting yes (see 2509220030).
The GOP still has “a lot of concerns regarding the amendment and the bill,” said the committee’s Republican Chair Rob Kauffman. “At this point, we'll be voting no, but I hope that those conversations regarding the bill and amendment continue and … maybe we can all get to yes.”
Chair Tim Briggs (D) said he plans to continue conversations about the bill in the Senate. The bill, which he sponsored, is “important,” said Briggs. “At this time of political violence, it is concerning" that a bad actor can "simply Google someone, figure out their home address, and go to the house … All folks that are doing their job to make government work shouldn't be victims or targets of political violence."
The bill, as amended Sept. 22, would say that a “covered person or their authorized agent seeking to prohibit the disclosure by a data broker of protected information of the covered person shall provide written notice to the data broker referencing this act and requesting that the data broker cease the disclosure of the covered person's protected information, as described in the notice.”
That September version of the bill said that no later than 10 business days after receiving the notice, “a data broker shall not disclose or redisclose or otherwise make available, including on a publicly accessible Internet website, the protected information of the covered person.” However, Wednesday’s amendment doubled data brokers’ compliance window to 20 business days.
The nondisclosure requirement would last for life for the “principal person,” and “an associated person shall receive coverage while connected to a principal person and for 10 years after the connection.”
A data broker who violates the nondisclosure rule “shall be liable to the covered person, the covered person's authorized agent or the covered person's assignee, who may bring a civil action in the appropriate court of common pleas,” the bill says. A court could award the “greater of actual damages or liquidated damages computed at the rate of $1,000 for each violation,” plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and other “preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.”
Under the Sept. 22 version of the bill, a data broker who violates the law “recklessly or intentionally” could additionally face criminal prosecution. However, responding to concerns heard by the committee, Wednesday’s amendment stripped out the criminal penalties, said Briggs.
Legislators in other states also are looking to replicate Daniel's Law, or even expand its scope, following the Minnesota shooting (see 2507030055). The original Daniel’s Law was written after a litigant targeted a federal judge in July 2020, obtaining the judge's personal information from data-broker sources. Intending to assassinate the justice at her residence, the litigant instead shot and killed the judge's 20-year-old son, Daniel, and wounded her husband.
Meanwhile, Tuesday in Illinois, Sen. Adriane Johnson (D) introduced legislation (SB-2680) that would protect the privacy of government officials. It would expand the scope of an existing law that protects judges to additionally cover state legislators and government executives.