Gorman
champions individuals’ rights
by
Kathleen Stinson
NORTH
VALLEY – State Senator Pamela Gorman raises red flags this
legislative session, introducing bills to protect the rights
of individuals.
Gorman,
R‑Anthem, is the prime sponsor of a group of bills that
take aim at restricting cell phone company excesses, relieving
traffic congestion, and protecting the privacy of personal
information: Senate Bill 1241, entitled Telecommunications
Contracts/Buyout Prohibition; SB 1635, FAST (Freeway Acceleration
for Sensible Transportation) Lanes; and SB 1636, Stolen
Vehicle/
License Plate Images.
High
on the senator’s list of priorities is SB 1636, which would
restrict the state’s ability to employ a new technology called
License Plate Readers.
LPRs
are capable of instantly reading and scanning a data base
of license plates after a camera mounted on a law enforcement
vehicle photographs a plate. The Arizona Department of Public
Safety retrieves personal information based on the plate number.
The state is currently employing this technology but has not
developed a policy regarding the storage of this information.
The
technology is used to locate stolen cars and in the advent
of an Amber Alert, Gorman said.
The
bill would require the state to destroy all license plate
and other personal information obtained by this method after
a period of 24 hours from taking the picture, unless a crime
has been committed.
The
senator believes this would prevent the information in this
data base from inadvertently falling into the wrong hands.
After a period of 24 hours, the driver probably would have
left the state, she said, making the information no longer
of value to the law enforcement community.
State
Rep. Sam Crump, R‑Anthem, believes the technology could
be used to stop the trafficking of stolen vehicles into Mexico,
if the state appropriated the necessary resources. Statistics
show 35 percent of vehicles stolen in the Phoenix area are
disposed of over the Mexican border.
He
said he has no objections to the use of LPRs to help recover
stolen vehicles, or at the airport for security reasons. However,
he shares the senator’s concerns when it comes to the intrusion
of
so‑called Big Brother technologies into the everyday
life of law‑abiding citizens.
The
legislature has not voted on the legality of the technology,
Gorman points out. The state maintains its authority to gather
information through LPRs falls under the purview of a permissive
right–legal because it is not otherwise prohibited by law.
The
senator’s continuing interest in transportation issues is
reflected in SB 1635, which would make High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes available to driver‑only occupied vehicles for
a fee.
Popular
in a number of states, including California, Colorado and
Minnesota, FAST lanes involve the use of electronic toll‑charging
technology that does not require the use of toll booths. Vehicles
are equipped with electronic transmitters or transponders
that are read by stationary receivers.
Gorman
says her bill provides a way for drivers who cannot car pool
to get relief on crowded highways.
“It’s
a way to relieve congestion on freeways without costing tax
money,” the senator said.
Carpoolers
could continue to drive on HOV lanes without cost. The single
driver would pay a fee high enough not to remove the incentive
to car pool. The bill passed the senate transportation committee
last week.
Crump
notes a number of fee‑for‑use lane bills are working
their way through the legislature at this time. “I am very
interested in these market‑based proposals,” he said.
Gorman
believes the bill benefits everyone by allowing redistribution
of traffic across all lanes. The bill could also reduce pollution,
she says, noting studies show fewer idling engines reduces
pollutants in the air.
Lane
fees collected over and above the cost of operating the program
would revert to the state highway fund.
Another
of the senator’s bills, SB 1241, unanimously passed the senate
Financial Institutions, Insurance and Retirement committee
recently.
This
bill would give cell phone users a way to break their contracts
if the provider does not meet the terms of the stated agreement.
Consumers could cancel by sending a notice to the provider
via certified mail at the address on the contract.
For
example, a number of cell phone contracts require consumers
to continue to pay monthly phone bills even if the phone malfunctions,
she explained.
Verizon
Wireless Public Policy Director Michael Bagley said he is
familiar with the bill and believes it is unnecessary, stating
it would allow consumers to get out of their contracts based
on their own subjective interpretation.
If
a customer is dissatisfied and wants to cancel his contract,
Verizon has the ability to let that customer out of the contract,
Bagley said, pointing out Verizon makes these decisions on
a case‑by‑case
basis.
Contracts
typically contain term lengths of either one or two years,
and require the customer to pay “early termination fees” of
up to $200 if the contract is broken, according to the bill’s
fact sheet. Contracts also often allow the service provider
the ability to change the terms or conditions of a contract
by giving notice to the consumer. Some states have passed
consumer protection laws related to these issues.
