Committee moves bills on privacy issues with contact tracing

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed a pair of bills on Thursday designed to protect people's privacy when government authorities engage in COVID-19 contact tracing.

AB 660 would mandate that information gathered for contact tracing be used for only that purpose -- and not shared with law enforcement. It would also prohibit members of law enforcement from participating in contact tracing efforts and mandate the destruction of contact tracing data after 60 days unless it is in the possession of a state or local health department.

The virus has spread rapidly among the estimated 2 million people living in California illegally, according to the bill's author, Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-Marin County. "These individuals have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, yet are less likely to seek medical aid or participate in contact tracing programs conducted by law enforcement because of their immigration status," Levine said.

The idea didn't sit well with Republicans, who noted that police and prison guards have also been hit hard by the virus due to their work conditions. Sen. Andreas Borgeas, R-Fresno, portrayed the bill as a one-size-fits-all policy that will harm some rural areas now being hit by the virus.

"We have areas of the state that do not have the medical personnel ... to do the type of work we deem so important," Borgeas said. "We need to invoke other resources of the state. Sometimes that could be individuals in law enforcement."

Linda Nguy with the Western Center on Law and Poverty testified at the hearing Thursday that people who have no legal permission to work in the U.S. are disproportionately holding essential jobs in California and are difficult to trace.

"In the current anti-immigrant climate we hear regularly from our legal aid partners that immigrants are already afraid to seek health care," Nguy said. "Many people of color have experienced negative interactions with police, even when law enforcement is called to help."

Levine said he is looking at amendments so the bill doesn't interfere with contact tracing in prisons and jails. He also sought to clarify that the bill does not prevent members of law enforcement from speaking to contact tracers if they have been exposed themselves.

The bill ultimately passed over Republican opposition.

AB 660, approved without debate, builds in part on the state's landmark privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. It provides one-year delays on exemptions in that law relating to employers and business communications. These will now expire on Jan. 1, 2022.

The committee also passed AB 1782, also building on the Privacy Act, which would put limits on contact tracing applications on smart phones and computers.

The bill lays out a series of rules for what has come to be called technology-assisted contact tracing, or TACT. These would require revocable consent from consumers, disclosure of what data is being collected, and allow people to delete the data collected about them. It also restricts businesses and government for using this data for purposes besides public health.

Assembly Judiciary Chair Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, presented the bill on behalf of its author, Assemblyman Ed Chau, D-Arcadia, who was, ironically, out sick. Stone said the bill was much like AB 660 in that it was an effort to use privacy protections to get people to participate in contact tracing.

"All it really does is provide some limitations on the use of the technology," Stone said. "It assures that if an app is being used for contact tracing, it is being used for nothing but contact tracing."

Several business groups have lined up against the measure. Shoeb Mohammed, a lobbyist with the California Chamber of Commerce, argued the law would make these applications less effective at a key time.

"Contact tracing during a global pandemic is a public health issue with an important privacy component," Mohammed testified. "It's not a privacy issue with a public health component. We have no cure for COVID. Contact tracing ... is one of the only tools we've got."

Meanwhile, women who claim they were sexually abused by UCLA gynecologist Dr. James Heaps got a step closer to being able to file claims after the committee approved AB 3092. The bill, backed by the Consumer Attorneys of California, would create a one-year window to file civil claims for women whose statute of limitations has expired.

Heaps worked for UCLA for more than 30 years. Last year lawmakers approved a similar bill for women who claimed they were assaulted by Dr. George Tyndall, a gynecologist with the University of Southern California. That bill was written so that it did not apply to public universities like UCLA.