Information Technology and Internet Laws 2001

2001 Information Technology and Internet Laws

Information Policy and Technology Series

Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction
Crime and Justice
Electronic Commerce and Transactions
Electronic Government
Internet and Electronic Mail
Appendix. Bill Citations to 2001 Legislation

Also available in

format
Please contact our Publications department if you would like to order a hard copy.

Acknowledgments

This report was developed for and under the auspices of the National Conference of State Legislatures' (NCSL) Communications and Information Technology Committee. The 2001-2002 officers are:

Chair:
Senator Steve Kelley
Minnesota

Vice Chairs:
Delegate Kumar P. Barve
Maryland

Representative Jeff Hatch-Miller
Arizona

Staff Chair:
Daniel Schmidt
Wisconsin

Staff Vice Chairs:
Joyce Crofts
Kentucky

James G. Gilles
California

This report was submitted for review to all Communications and Information Policy Committee members. Thanks go to all the individuals who took time to examine and comment on the publication. We also thank NCSL staff Leann Stelzer who edited the report.

Although others contributed to the report, any errors or oversights are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Introduction

The volume of information technology and Internet-related legislation has increased substantially each year; thousands of bills were introduced in state legislatures in 2001, and more than 500 were enacted. With increasing use of the Internet, the growth of electronic commerce and e-government services, and the fact that technology issues now are interwoven into traditional areas such as education, human services and criminal justice, state policymakers are faced with a myriad of complex and cross-cutting issues.

To improve access to public information and services and increase government efficiency, states continued the trend to require government entities to develop on-line databases, post information on the Internet, and permit electronic filings and registrations. Many states passed legislation to support e-commerce in 2001. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia now have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), the uniform act that provides a legal foundation for use of digital records and signatures. Internet privacy enactments in 2001 focused on state governments' own policies toward privacy. Six states established privacy policies for state agencies and required posting on state Web sites, and several states clarified whether electronic mail received by public officials was private or public. Delaware is the first state to require employers who monitor employee Internet use and e-mails to provide prior notice to employees. Existing laws relating to stalking, harassment, child pornography and luring of children were expanded to cover electronic methods of committing these crimes. Wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws also were amended in several states to provide authority for increased monitoring; this trend is likely to continue in 2002 sessions.

This report highlights the major information technology and Internet-related legislation passed by state legislatures in 2001, grouped into four major areas: crime and justice, electronic commerce and transactions, electronic government, and Internet and electronic mail.

Crime and Justice

Criminals who use the Internet and new technologies to commit crimes such as child solicitation, theft, fraud, and intrusion now pose new challenges not only for law enforcement agencies, but also for lawmakers. Laws that covered traditional crimes may not adequately address crimes committed using computer technology and the Internet. In addition, concerns about security reached new heights after the terrorist attacks of September 11, causing legislatures to reexamine laws related to electronic surveillance and wiretapping. In 2001, legislatures passed legislation to establish or expand criminal penalties for various computer-related crimes. Legislatures also passed measures to support the integration of justice systems and clarify how electronic justice information may be used.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted computer crime legislation, click here.

Computer Crime

In 2001, legislatures enacted a variety of measures to clarify existing laws, create new laws and strengthen penalties for crimes committed using the Internet and electronic technology. Legislatures addressed electronic harassment and stalking; electronic surveillance; theft of personal identifying information; disabling computer data, software and hardware; solicitation or luring of children through the Internet; and other crimes perpetrated using a computer.

Theft and Fraud

Several states passed laws aimed at thwarting electronic or computer theft and fraud. California (S.B. 412) defined political cyberfraud and criminalized the act. Florida (S.B. 540) created the White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act, which includes fraudulent practices made by or through the use of the Internet. Florida (S.B. 1282) also established criminal penalties for using the Internet in dealing in stolen property. Delaware (H.B. 163 ) and Texas (H.C.R. 174 ) lawmakers restricted software piracy and theft of computer data and devices. While several states addressed general identity theft issues in 2001, two states passed laws targeting specific technologies that could be used to commit identity theft crimes. Alabama (S.B. 144) passed identity theft legislation that includes theft of electronic identification codes or electronic signatures, and Arizona (H.B. 2327) amended its identity theft law to include retinal (eye) images.

Electronic Surveillance

Several states introduced legislation regarding wiretapping or electronic surveillance in 2001, and at least eight passed legislation to expand the scope of monitoring or to increase government authority. Arkansas (H.B. 2397) added "wireless communication" to interception of communications law, and also inserted a "one-party" consent provision. Illinois (H.B. 888) expanded its law to allow the state attorney's general office to authorize an application for use of an eavesdropping device by law enforcement agencies. Oklahoma (H.B. 1393) updated its laws regarding disclosure of information obtained pursuant to a wiretap and added types of crimes for which evidence obtained by wiretap may be used. New York (S.B. 4299) now permits unauthorized recordings seized in connection with a criminal prosecution to be preserved by court order for use as evidence in civil or other cases. Maryland (H.B. 659, S.B. 310) now allows communications intercepted in out-of-state jurisdictions in specified proceedings. Texas (S.B. 1345) and Wyoming (S.B. 62) passed legislation addressing the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.

After the terrorism attack on September 11 and in light of the passage of U.S. Patriot Act that significantly broadens the scope of federal electronic surveillance law, more states reexamined their existing electronic surveillance laws. A variety of bills were pre-filed or have carried over for 2002. Florida enacted legislation in 2001 (S.B. 12C) to allow a judge to authorize the interception of communications for an investigation involving aircraft piracy. This law also permits a judge to authorize the Department of Law Enforcement to intercept certain communications relevant to an offense that is an act of terrorism or that furthers an act of terrorism, and it expanded the powers for surveillance under specified circumstances.

Law Enforcement

In addition to its electronic surveillance enactment, Florida (S.B. 26C) also created the Florida Domestic Security Counter-Terrorism Database to assist law enforcement agencies in investigating suspected terrorists. Other states aided law enforcement agencies, as well. For example, Minnesota (S.B. 969) now allows search warrants for electronic evidence in foreign corporations doing business in Minnesota. Virginia (S.B. 1036 and H.B. 2421) passed legislation that treats an electronic governor's warrant of arrest as an original document. Virginia (H.B. 2842) also allows magistrates or courts to issue a warrant electronically into the Virginia Criminal Information Network. Oklahoma (H.B. 1374) authorizes the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to examine computer crimes. Oregon (S.B. 921) and Hawaii (H.B. 524) passed laws that will develop task forces or commissions to address computer crimes. California (S.B. 757) permits the investigation of illegal sales of tobacco products to minors via the Internet.

Hackers and Viruses

A handful of states passed legislation dealing with computer hacking and spreading viruses. Hacking is defined as breaking into computer systems, frequently with the intent to alter or modify existing settings. A virus is programming code, typically disguised as something else, that causes unexpected and/or undesirable effects. Usually malicious in nature, both may cause damage or disruption to computer systems or networks. Louisiana (H.B. 669), Nevada (S.B. 48) and Texas (H.B. 249) passed legislation prohibiting computer tampering and unauthorized access.

Cyberstalking and Electronic Harassment

States in 2001 continued a broad trend to clarify and strengthen existing stalking and harassment laws. Eleven states passed cyberstalking or electronic harassment laws in 2001, bringing the total number of states with such laws to 41. Most states that enacted laws in 2001 simply amended existing laws to make illegal stalking or harassment by computer or electronic means.

Integrated Justice Information Systems

More than 30 states have projects under way to integrate justice information systems. The goal of integrated systems is to enable law enforcement agencies, courts, corrections agencies, and parole agencies to collect and exchange information critical to making informed decisions. Having timely access to information- such as outstanding warrants, protective orders, sex offender registration, probation status and drug treatment, all of which may reside in separate agency databases- is critical to improving the efficiency of justice systems and ensuring public safety.

In 2001, several states passed legislation to address overall integration efforts. Oregon (H.B. 3372) requires the Department of State Police to develop a plan for the integration of justice information among agencies. Five additional states adopted the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, bringing to 14 the total number of states that have adopted it. The compact establishes formal procedures and governance structures for the use and sharing of criminal information for non-criminal justice purposes.

Other crime information enactments more clearly define how electronic justice information can and should be used. Including and sharing protective order information within the criminal justice system was mandated by California (S.B. 66) and Texas (S.B. 479). Other states restrict how criminal justice information may be used. Idaho (H.B. 18) prohibits certain disclosure of records that identify victims, along with prisoner access to prison records (H.B. 62). Texas (H.B. 1323) allows the expungement of arrest records under certain circumstances, and Washington (H.B. 1174) permits people convicted of certain crimes to have their records cleared. Other legislation expands who can use electronic justice information. South Dakota (H.B. 1024) allows the release of inmate and parolee information for community and victim notification, and Nebraska (L.B. 15) allows prisoners access to their medical records.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted integrated justice systems legislation, click here.

Electronic Commerce and Transactions

Electronic commerce continues to thrive. Experts report that, despite the economic downturn, it grew 12 percent from $42.4 billion in 2000 to $47.6 billion in 2001. To provide the legal infrastructure needed to support continued e-commerce growth, legislators authorized the use of electronic and digital signatures, transactions and electronic records. In addition, legislators amended existing laws and passed new measures to permit traditional businesses to be conducted electronically.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted electronic commerce legislation, click here.

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) was developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) to provide a legal framework for the use of electronic signatures and records in government or business transactions. California and Pennsylvania were the first two states to pass UETA in 1999. In 2000, 21 states adopted the model act, and in 2001, 15 states and the District of Columbia adopted UETA. In addition, four states modified legislation regarding electronic signatures and electronic records. By the end of 2001, 38 states and the District of Columbia had adopted UETA.

In 2001, Mississippi (S.B. 2678), Nevada (S.B. 49), New Jersey (S.B. 1183), North Dakota (H.B. 1066), Tennessee (S.B. 376) and the District of Columbia (13-606) enacted UETA with few amendments. Arkansas enacted a modified UETA (S.B. 159), with additional provisions under the "Attribution and Effect of Electronic Record and Electronic Signature" section and "Time and Place of Sending and Receipt" section. The Indiana legislature made its UETA (S.B. 46) applicable to the Uniform Commercial Code sections on sales and leases. Montana also modified UETA (H.B. 234) through additional provisions to determine when an electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person. In adopting UETA, New Mexico (H.B. 232) altered the "Legal Recognition of Electronic Records," "Attribution and Effect of Electronic Record and Electronic Signature," and "Time and Place of Sending and Receipt" sections. Among the amendments North Carolina made to its version of UETA (S.B. 1023) is a provision that written copies now must be made available or disclosed to a consumer where a North Carolina statute, regulation or rule requires it. Oklahoma (H.B. 1322) added registered certification authority requirements to its version of UETA, Oregon (H.B. 2112) enacted additional applicability and procedures for electronic transactions, and Virginia (H.B. 4211) made technical amendments to its version of UETA.

Maryland (H.B. 519) amended its version of UETA to specifically prohibit the provisions from modifying, limiting or superseding the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN), which went into effect Oct. 1, 2000. Congress enacted E-SIGN to establish the validity of electronic records and signatures. E-SIGN applies to transactions under specific sections of the Uniform Commercial Code: 1-107, 1-206, Article 2 and Article 2A. The provisions of E-SIGN apply to electronic signatures until a state adopts UETA or some other consistent law. If a state already has enacted an electronic signatures law, E-SIGN partially preempts any state law that might require contracts or records be written or signed in nonelectronic form. By adopting the official version of UETA, states have the authority to modify, limit or supersede some E-SIGN provisions, including its stronger consumer protection provisions.

Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act

Another model act promulgated by the NCCUSL that governs licensing of software and electronic information is the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), which establishes rules for licensing computer software and computerized databases, music and information, both on and off the Internet. Virginia and Maryland adopted UCITA in 2000. However, Virginia delayed the effective date of UCITA until July 2001 and directed Virginia's Joint Commission on Technology and Science to study and complete a report on it. Based on recommendations from the UCITA study, Virginia amended UCITA in 2001 (H.B. 2387, H.B. 2412), clarifying definitions and modifying some of the terms. In 2001, UCITA was introduced, but not enacted, in several other states and the District of Columbia.

Miscellaneous

Arizona (S.B. 1044), Connecticut (H.B. 6890), Delaware (S.B. 169 and S.B. 173), Florida (S.B. 1880), Idaho (H.B. 133), Utah (H.B. 295) and Vermont (H.B. 202) enacted statutes to authorize electronic filing of corporate and limited liability company reports, electronic filing of documents relating to the sale or offer for sale of securities and electronic proxy voting. Missouri (H.B. 453) and Texas (S.B. 1667) expanded acceptable methods for electronically storing business records.

States also acted to regulate the sale of prescriptions over the Internet and other electronic transactions. Arkansas (S.B. 828), Nevada (S.B. 397), New Hampshire (H.B. 126), New York (A.B. 83), Oregon (H.B. 2627) and Texas (H.B. 99) addressed dispensing prescriptions over the Internet by changing definitions to include electronic prescriptions, granting regulatory authority to pharmacy boards, and granting enforcement powers to attorneys general. Arkansas (H.B. 2194) ensured that specified electronic commerce transactions are covered by the Arkansas Hot Check Law. Maryland (H.B. 14) established an Electronic Transaction Education, Advocacy, and Mediation Unit in the office of the attorney general to protect the privacy of individuals' personal information and to protect the public from unlawful conduct or practices in electronic transactions.

Illinois (S.B. 1048) authorized the sale of a decedent's real estate through the Internet or any other electronic medium approved by the probate court. Nevada (S.B. 33) authorized the use of electronic wills as long as the will meets certain conditions.

Electronic Government

Every state offers government services or information on-line. Filing taxes may be the most obvious example. At least 48 states permit on-line tax filing, and at least 36 states authorize electronic payment of taxes. Renewing licenses, registering for benefits, and filing papers with government agencies also are commonplace on-line services offered by state and local agencies. In addition, the Internet has become an accepted tool for providing access to a variety of government information, from tax or benefit forms, to bill status, to court records. In 2001, state legislatures continued the trend to authorize government entities to broaden electronic access to information, use technology to conduct meetings and legal proceedings, offer more on-line services to facilitate public transactions with government, and improve government efficiency by using technology to store and manage information.

Electronic Access to Records and Information

In 2001, nearly half the states passed legislation to require government records, information or notices to be made available electronically, in most cases through the Internet.

New Jersey (A.B. 1309) amended its open records law to permit access to public records in electronic form. Other states passed laws identifying specific information to be made available in electronic form, in some cases via the Internet. This information includes campaign contributions (Arkansas H.B. 1349); school district collective bargaining agreements (California S.B. 680); school district budgets (California S.B. 898); voter registration forms, information about elections and proposed constitutional amendments and profiles of state licensed attorneys (Texas H.B. 1712); profiles of health care providers (Indiana H.B. 1770); and a variety of government reports, newsletters, schedules and meeting summaries. A new Virginia law (H.B. 2043) requires the state Supreme Court to issue rules regarding remote access to electronic court records.

Massachusetts (S.B. 1820) now requires live webcasting of all formal sessions of the Senate during which the general appropriations bill is considered, unless the session is broadcast on live television, and Indiana (H.B. 1100) authorized audio or video Internet coverage of its proceedings.

An increasing number of states are using the Internet to post notices, sometimes in lieu of print publication. A new Florida law (S.B. 1738) creates a pilot project to test the cost-effectiveness of publishing Department of Environmental Protection notices on the Internet instead of in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Arkansas (H.B. 2317) now requires a mortgagee or trustee to publish foreclosure sale notices via the Internet, and New Jersey (A.B. 1484) requires the Office of Administrative Law to publish notices on the Internet prior to amending or adopting new rules. A new Idaho law (S.B. 1025) permits certain bid notices and solicitations to be posted electronically, and in Nevada (A.B. 60), a public body that maintains a Web site must post meeting notices on it.

In 2001, more states authorized posting of state "offender" information on the Internet. A new Colorado law (H.B. 1155) requires a link to the sex offender registry directly from the Colorado home page, and a new Texas law (S.B.1380) authorizes including driver's license photos on the public registry Web site. New Jersey (A.B. 4) created an Internet Registry Advisory Council that reports to the legislature, governor and attorney general regarding the registry, and also created a Senate Task Force on Internet Access to Sex Offender Registration information (S.R. 93) that will study and make recommendations. Illinois (S.B. 50) authorized Internet disclosure of a "Deadbeats Most Wanted List" of individuals who are in arrears on child support obligations.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted electronic access legislation, click here.

Electronic Government Systems and Services

Many of the new laws in this section authorize the establishment of new or expanded electronic government information systems and services, permit electronic filings and registrations, authorize video or electronic meetings and legal proceedings, establish fees for electronic services, and appropriate funding for specific information technology initiatives.

Electronic Filing and Registration

States continued the trend to authorize electronic filing of information and to facilitate electronic exchange of data between the public or businesses and state agencies, and among government entities. A new Oregon law (H.B. 3374) authorizes public bodies to receive and accept transactions electronically but prohibits public agencies from requiring only electronic delivery. New laws in Arizona (S.B. 1140, H.B. 2047), Colorado (H.B. 1070), Connecticut (S.B. 1316), Florida (S.B. 958), and Washington (H.B. 1501) authorize filing of documents with secretaries of state or corporation commissions. In addition, states passed legislation authorizing electronic registration of vehicles (Arizona H.B. 2052, Kansas S.B. 83 and Nevada S.B. 524), watercraft renewals (Arizona S.B. 1247), license renewals (Mississippi S.B. 2959, (Nebraska L.B. 574), vital records, (Louisiana S.B. 335) and vendors (Idaho S.B. 1025). Georgia (S.B. 83) legislation authorized the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping licenses by phone and over the Internet.

Alabama (H.B. 48) and Louisiana (H.B. 33) authorized state agencies and departments to provide copies of reports and documents to the legislature in electronic form; Alabama specifies delivery via the Internet. Idaho (H.B. 112) amended its existing law to provide a nonrefundable credit against taxes for electronically filed tax returns starting Jan. 1, 2002, and Indiana (S.B. 489) provided reduced fees for filing taxes electronically. Both Utah (H.B. 52, S.B. 30) and Virginia (H.B. 1774, S.B. 852) passed legislation requiring employers to file specific tax and wage information in electronic form in certain circumstances.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted electronic filing and registration legislation, click here.

Electronic Government Systems

Oklahoma (H.B. 1662) passed legislation to create a state portal system and authorize convenience fees for on-line transactions. Some specific e-government systems authorized in 2001 include geographic information systems, vehicle registration information systems (California S.B. 46), death registries, voter registration information and election management (Colorado H.B. 1307), court records (Texas S.B. 625), and fire fighting resources (Colorado H.B. 1136).

Several states addressed electronic procurement. Arizona (H.B. 2582) authorized on-line bidding for goods, services, construction and information services, and an on-line bidding process for municipal bonds (H.B. 2042). Idaho (S.B. 1025) authorized on-line registration for bidders and electronic submission of bids. Virginia (S.J.R. 403) and New Jersey (S.B. 1449) requested studies regarding electronic procurement.

Several states authorized the use of video technology or other electronic means to conduct criminal proceedings, hearings or government meetings. Nevada (S.B. 32) now permits witnesses to testify at preliminary examinations or before grand juries through audiovisual technology, Montana (H.B. 393) allows probable cause hearings for youth by videoconference, New York (A.B. 4256, S.B. 3337) authorizes Ontario County to allow electronic appearances in certain criminal proceedings, and South Dakota (S.B. 30) authorizes the Board of Pardons and Paroles to conduct hearings by telephone or video conference. A new Colorado law (H.B. 1210) allows electronic hearings for driver's license revocations, and Texas (H.B. 35) permits meetings of government bodies by videoconference if a majority of the quorum is physically present at one meeting location. Indiana (S.B. 474) specifies when electronic copies of motor vehicle records are admissible in court.

Nebraska (L.B. 334) authorized the development of a telehealth system, and Kentucky (H.B. 112) granted authority to expand the state's telehealth network. Florida (S.B. 2220), West Virginia (S.B. 476) and Montana (H.B. 239) passed legislation requiring information technology access for the blind or visually impaired.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted electronic systems and services legislation, click here.

Technology Management

States continued to address management of information technology by establishing and revising executive branch structures for directing and implementing technology projects. Within the legislature, study committees, task forces and special projects were created to gather information and make recommendations for legislative action on various issues related to information technology.

In 2001, Arkansas (H.B. 1624) and Montana (S.B. 131) created chief information officer (CIO) positions. Colorado (H.B. 1138) granted additional powers to its chief technology officer. Arkansas (H.B. 1624) established a CIO Council, Florida (H.B. 1811) created a State Technology Office and Texas (S.B. 187) created the Texas Online Commission and project to provide government services through an on-line system.

Hawaii passed a resolution (S.R. 30) to create an education technology task force, and Georgia (H.R. 410, S.R. 217) established study committees in both chambers on technology education. Hawaii passed resolutions to form a joint legislative task force to study and formulate goals for improving Hawaii's technology industry (S.C.R. 28) and to establish a temporary commission on computer crimes (H.B. 524). Idaho (H.C.R. 31) authorized a committee to study electronic commerce and technology. By resolution, Virginia established a joint subcommittee to study privacy of court records and documents (H.J.R. 789) and requested the Virginia Supreme Court to develop a scheme for discovery of electronic data in civil cases (S.J.R. 334). New Hampshire (H.B. 124) created a legislative committee to study on-line and electronic voting.

A new Kansas law (H.B. 2004) requires the three Kansas chief information officers who represent the legislative, judicial and executive branches, to submit budget estimates and three-year plans to the legislature's Joint Committee on Information Technology by October 1 each year. Arkansas (H.B. 1143) changed the membership of the Joint Committee on Advanced Communications and Information Technology and created a new House committee of the same name.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted technology management legislation, click here.

Internet and Electronic Mail

States continued to take a limited approach to many Internet issues in 2001. Technological advances can occur at a pace that is difficult to follow in the public policy arena, and uncertainties and concerns about constitutional and jurisdictional issues add to the complexity of the issue. Accordingly, many states have focused on areas shown to be within states' ability to regulate. For example, existing laws related to child pornography and luring of children simply have been expanded to cover electronic methods of committing these crimes. Internet privacy issues, which had a high profile in the media and in the minds of citizens, nevertheless create complex and difficult questions for lawmakers who must weigh many issues-confidentiality, security, freedom of information and speech, consumer protection, interstate commerce, and industry and economic concerns, among others. Internet privacy enactments in 2001 therefore focused primarily inward on state governments' own policies toward privacy. Electronic mail also raises new issues for states to address- unsolicited e-mail advertisements, government e-mail and open records issues, and privacy concerns. Finally, states examined ways to reduce the gap between populations with access to the Internet and its benefits and those without.

For the entire cite list of 2001 enacted Internet and email legislation, click here.

Internet Privacy

Delaware (H.B. 35) directly addressed on-line privacy rights of employees by requiring employers who monitor employees' Internet access, phone calls or electronic mail to provide notice to the employees at hiring or before beginning monitoring. Maryland (H.B. 14) established an Electronic Transaction Education, Advocacy and Mediation Unit in the office of the attorney general to protect the privacy of individuals' personal information and to protect the public from unlawful conduct or practices in electronic transactions. The majority of states, however, have preferred to lead by example by establishing privacy policies within state government. In 2001, six states-Arizona (H.B. 2043), Arkansas (H.B. 2403), Maine (L.D. 1681), Montana (H.B. 281), New York (A.B. 2358) and Texas (H.B. 2589)-established privacy policies for state agencies and require the policies to be posted on state Web sites. New Hampshire (H.B. 142 and S.B. 123) established committees to study encryption and other methods to ensure that state agencies protect the privacy of personal information they collect from individuals. New Jersey (A.B. 1309) passed legislation providing for public access to government records, including electronic records, while protecting certain records from disclosure and establishing a privacy study commission. Montana (H.B.112) established and Virginia (S.B. 1394) increased penalties for invasion of privacy through unauthorized use of electronic mail or a computer to gain access to personal information.

Children and the Internet

States that attempted to protect children from harm did so primarily by enacting three types of laws in 2001: prohibitions against child pornography on the Internet, criminal sanctions against solicitation or luring of minors via the Internet, and requirements for policies or filtering technologies in schools and libraries. Child pornography is illegal in every state, but nine states enacted laws to ensure that transmission of child pornography by computer or the Internet is specifically provided for in statute. South Carolina's law (H.B. 3891) goes a step further, however, by requiring computer technicians to report to law enforcement officials any child pornography they encounter in their work. Four states-Nevada (S.B. 551), New Jersey (A.B. 2397), North Dakota (S.B. 2035) and Oklahoma (H.B. 1266)-targeted those who would use a computer or Web site to lure or solicit minors with the intent of sexual exploitation. Arkansas (H.B. 1003 and S.B. 717), Utah (H.B. 131) and Virginia (H.B. 1691) enacted legislation requiring schools or libraries to have policies or to use filtering technologies that will prevent minors from gaining access to harmful materials. Two states-Arizona (H.B. 2289) and Vermont (S.B. 9)-revised existing laws aimed at protecting minors from harmful materials in order to avoid constitutional challenges.

Electronic Mail

Delaware (H.B. 35) stands alone with its new law that requires employers who monitor employee e-mails to give prior notice to their employees. Only two states passed laws to regulate unsolicited email. Arkansas (S.B. 975) established felony criminal penalties for falsifying information in the header, subject line, routing or information concerning the sender or point of origin of electronic messages. Wisconsin (S.B. 55) targeted messages that contain obscene or sexually explicit materials by requiring labeling-"ADULT ADVERTISEMENT"-in the subject line. Montana (H.B. 112) focused on the electronic mail of public officers of all three branches of government, establishing e-mail as a public record when used for official business. New Jersey (A.B. 1309) provided for greater public access to electronic government records, but specifically exempted from public disclosure electronic mail legislators receive from constituents.

Digital Divide

Six states passed laws to help bridge the digital divide for citizens who live in low-income or rural areas by promoting infrastructure development through tax credits or state funding or by establishing studies or government entities or councils to implement initiatives. Three states passed laws to assist in the development of broadband technology or information technology infrastructures for schools, libraries and hospitals (Kansas H.B. 2035) or for rural or low-income areas (Idaho A.B. 377 and Nebraska L.D. 827). Arkansas (H.J.R. 217), Florida (S.B. 1672) and Maine (L.D. 1632) mandated studies or set up government entities to address digital divide issues.

Appendix. Bill Citations to Referenced 2001 Legislation

Computer Crime

Theft and Fraud
Alabama S.B. 144; Arizona H.B. 2327; California S.B. 412; Delaware H.B. 163; Florida S.B. 540, S.B. 1282; Texas H.C.R. 174

Electronic Surveillance
Arkansas H.B. 2397; Florida S.B. 12C; Illinois H.B. 888; Maryland H.B. 659, S.B. 310; New York S.B. 4299; Oklahoma H.B. 1393; Texas S.B. 1345; Wyoming S.B. 62

Law Enforcement
California S.B. 757; Florida S.B. 26C; Minnesota S.B. 969; Hawaii H.B. 524; Oklahoma H.B. 1374; Oregon S.B. 921; Virginia S.B. 1036 , H.B. 2421, H.B. 2842

Hackers and Viruses
Louisiana H.B. 669; Nevada S.B. 48; Texas H.B. 249

Integrated Justice Information Systems

California S.B. 66; Idaho H.B. 18, H.B. 62; Nebraska L.B. 15; Oregon H.B. 3372; South Dakota H.B. 1024; Texas S.B. 479, H.B. 1323; Washington H.B. 1174

Electronic Commerce and Transactions

UETA
Arkansas S.B. 159; Indiana S.B. 46; Maryland H.B. 519; Mississippi S.B. 2678; Montana H.B. 234; Nevada S.B. 49; New Jersey S.B. 1183; New Mexico H.B. 232; North Carolina S.B. 1023; North Dakota H.B. 1106; Oklahoma H.B. 1322; Oregon H.B. 2112; Tennessee S.B. 376; Virginia H.B. 2411; District of Columbia 13-606

UCITA
Virginia H.B. 2387, H.B. 2412

Miscellaneous
Arizona S.B. 1044; Arkansas H.B. 2194, S.B. 828; Connecticut H.B. 6890; Delaware S.B. 169, S.B. 173; Florida S.B. 1880; Idaho H.B. 133; Illinois S.B. 1048; Maryland H.B. 14; Missouri H.B. 453; Nevada S.B. 33, S.B. 397; New Hampshire H.B. 126; New York A.B. 83; Oregon H.B. 2627; Texas H.B. 99, S.B. 1667; Utah H.B. 295; Vermont H.B. 202

Electronic Government

Electronic Access to Records and Information
Arkansas H.B. 1349, H.B. 2317; California S.B. 680, S.B. 898; Colorado H.B. 1155; Florida S.B. 1738; Idaho S.B. 1025; Illinois S.B. 50; Indiana H.B. 1100, H.B. 1770; Massachusetts S.B. 1820; New Jersey A.B. 4, A.B. 1309, A.B. 1484, S.R. 93; Nevada A.B. 60; Texas H.B. 1712, S.B. 1380; Virginia H.B. 2043

Electronic Filing and Registration
Alabama H.B. 48; Arizona H.B. 2047, H.B. 2052, S.B. 1140, S.B. 1247; Colorado H.B. 1070; Connecticut S.B. 1316; Florida S.B. 958; Georgia S.B. 83; Idaho H.B.112, S.B. 1025; Indiana S.B. 489; Kansas S.B. 83; Louisiana H.B. 33, S.B. 335; Mississippi S.B. 2959; Nebraska L.B. 574; Nevada S.B. 524; Oregon H.B. 3374; Utah H.B. 52, S.B. 30; Virginia H.B. 1774, S.B. 852; Washington H.B. 1501

Electronic Government Systems and Services
Arizona H.B. 2042, H.B. 2582; California S.B. 46; Colorado H.B. 1136, H.B. 1210, H.B. 1307; Florida S.B. 2220; Idaho S.B. 1025; Indiana S.B. 474; Kentucky H.B. 112; Montana H.B. 239, H.B. 393; Nebraska L.B. 334; Nevada S.B. 32; New Jersey S.B. 1449; New York A.B. 4256, S.B. 3337; Oklahoma H.B. 1662; South Dakota S.B. 30; Texas H.B. 35, S.B. 625; Virginia S.J.R. 403; West Virginia S.B. 476

Technology Management
Arkansas H.B. 1143, H.B. 1624; Colorado H.B. 1138; Florida H.B. 1811; Georgia H.R. 410, S.R. 217; Hawaii H.B. 524, S.C.R. 28, S.R. 30; Idaho H.C.R. 31; Kansas H.B. 2004; Montana S.B. 131; New Hampshire H.B. 124; Texas S.B. 187; Virginia H.J.R. 789, S.J.R. 334

Internet and Electronic Mail

Internet Privacy
Arkansas H.B. 2403; Arizona H.B. 2043; Delaware H.B. 35; Maine L.D. 1681; Maryland H.B. 14; Montana H.B. 112, H.B. 281; New Hampshire H.B. 142, S.B. 123; New Jersey A.B. 1309; New York A.B. 2358; Texas H.B. 2589; Virginia S.B. 1394

Children and the Internet
Arkansas H.B. 1003, S.B. 717; Arizona H.B. 2289; New Jersey A.B. 2397; Nevada S.B. 551; North Dakota S.B. 2035; Oklahoma H.B. 1266; South Carolina H.B. 3891; Utah H.B. 131; Vermont S.B. 9; Virginia H.B. 1691

Electronic Mail
Arkansas S.B. 975; Delaware H.B. 35; Montana H.B. 112; New Jersey A.B. 1309; Wisconsin S.B. 55

Digital Divide
Arkansas H.J.R. 217; Florida S.B. 1672; Idaho A.B. 377; Kansas H.B. 2035; Maine L.D. 1632; Nebraska L.D. 827