Subject: Maryland Telecom Privacy Bill Fails
--------------------------------------------

A Maryland state legislature bill, the Nonbroadcast Telecommunications
Privacy Act, failed to survive committee markup on Feb. 24, 1994.

Sponsored by MD House Delegate Joan Pitkin, bill HB1627 had several
landmark provisions for consumer privacy protection, including a
definition of "interception" that protected 2-way data over cable networks;
a requirement that nonbroadcast telecommunications providers remove from
their records and databases personal information of ex-customers; and
language prohibiting cable, satellite, and related data services from
monitoring users for "viewing patterns or practices", and from building
databases of, or even collecting, personal user information, without the
user's written consent (excepting certain types of information, such as
that required for billing and to ensure "system integrity").  Monitoring
to obtain viewer stats in the aggregate, without recording personal
details, would have still been allowed by the bill.

The legislation, though weak in some areas (notably, by focusing on the
passive aspects of little more than cable and satellite tv viewing),
nonetheless did have many provisions hinting at a wider market in the
future, including upstream use of heretofore one-way bandwidth, and the
use of television technology for person-to-person communication.

Del. Pitkin had been interested in making the text of the bill, already
becoming subjected to weakening amendments in committee, available on the
Internet, and had hoped to generate comment from net users. 
Unfortunately, the lack of internet access at MD government offices
prevented our receipt of the bill until after it had already died in
committee, as it had to be ground-shipped.  Her staff indicates that she
is likely to re-propose a version of the bill next session.  Pitkin says
she first proposed this sort of legislation in MD some twenty years ago.
"Back then, no one knew what I was talking about," she said. "Many still
don't."  She also said that MD legislation tends to build in stages, with
the passage of general frameworks happening intially, to be built upon in
layers by amendment over the years.  

Before the bill failed to pass committee it had been subject to heavy
amendment, removing large sections.  However, it's provisions were also
generalized to include other communications providers, and audio or video
monitoring, without permission, of customers was added to the list of
"don'ts".

Given this, and the fact that the bill came under harsh crossfire from most
major telcos and cable companies (who have a vested interest in retaining
their ability to build, and rent and sell, databases of personal customer
info), Maryland telecommunications users may wish to watch for this
legislation's next incarnation, and lend their support, knowing that even
if it is missing a few pieces to the puzzle there is room for improvement
after the basic legal "infrastructure" is laid down.  Del. Pitkin expressed
interest in hearing from constituents about these issues, and would
probably be heartened to learn of wide support for the next go-around.  Her
office can be reached at:
+1 410 841 3105 (voice)
+1 410 841 3104 (fax)

The full text of the bill is available at:
ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/MD/hb1627.bill
http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/MD/hb1627.bill
gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Legislation/Foreign_and_local/MD, hb1627.bill
The amendments to the bill are available in hb1627.amend (same paths).

EFF is interested in hearing about other local and state legislation of
relevance.  Send info to mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish).  Probably the
only reason this bill failed is because not enough people knew about it,
and not enough people had taken the time to inform their representatives
of the issues, the importance thereof, and their opinions as voters on
the matter.