SACRAMENTO - A new bill that puts California at the forefront of efforts to guard the privacy rights of its residents cleared a major hurdle Tuesday when it was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support.

The Identity Information Protection Act of 2005 (SB 682) zeros in on the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. It would prohibit identity documents issued by the state from containing an integrated circuit or other device that can broadcast an individual's personal information. The bill was introduced by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), and is supported by a diverse coalition of privacy, women's and conservative groups from throughout the state.

The bill now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and then moves to the Senate floor for a vote.

"I think we're one step closer to a thoughtful, rational policy approach on this issue in California," said Simitian. "We're hoping to protect individual privacy, personal safety, and financial security. My goal is to ensure that state and local government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

"We believe goods should be tagged, not people," said Pam Noles, a policy associate with the ACLU of Southern California. "California's laws must keep up with the pace of technical advances so residents can be protected from the privacy threats represented by inappropriate use of this powerful and useful technology."

Long in use in the manufacturing, distribution and retail industries to track goods, RFID tags are also widely used in toll booths, inside pet id tags, and even seismic sensors used to collect data in land prone to earthquakes. But the escalating use of RFID in everyday lives poses a threat to the privacy and civil liberties individuals. All matter of personal information can be embedded in these chips - an individual's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, social security number, fingerprint and photograph, which can then be easily captured using scanners widely available off the shelf. Secret and remote reading of this critically personal data broadcasting from the chips puts an individual at risk of identity theft, tracking and surveillance by the government, stalking or even kidnaping.

The legislation was introduced in February, about a month after controversy erupted in a small Northern California town over mandatory use of RFIDs to track student movements at an elementary school. Parents had no idea their children had been tagged with chipped badges that carried the student's name, photo, grade, class year and school identification number.

The bill is supported by a variety of women's groups, civil rights groups, domestic violence prevention groups, business organizations, and conservative organizations including the Capitol Resource Institute, the AARP, The California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, the Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women, California NOW, and the California Commission on the Status of Women.

A Governor who ran for office as the people's politician should unite the residents of California rather than divide.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent off the cuff statement that he supports the work of a handful of vigilantes in Arizona staked out on the U.S.-Mexico border without the support of the U.S. Government, the Border Patrol or even President Bush is bad governance. The Governor then took it one step farther in saying he is not opposed to vigilantism within our state. Encouraging this kind of dangerous activity that invites harassment and intimidation is irresponsible.

In a state so rich and diverse, our elected officials are charged with supporting the people, and solving problems, not advocating behavior designed to scapegoat a national issue on immigrants.

A Governor who steers clear of tempered discussion and reasoned debate is not doing his job. Californians voted him into office because he promised no divisive rhetoric and to govern for all the people of California, unfortunately he has sunk far below this claim.

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge dismissed claims by former arrestees challenging mandatory DNA testing provisions under Proposition 69 on April 22, 2005. In doing so, Judge Fern Smith of the U.S. District Court agreed with Attorney General Bill Lockyer's position that Proposition 69 will not be applied retroactively to persons arrested before the November 2, 2004 election.

"This decision clarifies and significantly limits the scope of Proposition 69," explained Covington & Burling partner Sonya Winner. "With limited exceptions for only the most serious crimes, DNA testing is not to take place based on a mere arrest until 2009."

"Thousands of people are now shielded from the far reach of this law," said Ricardo D. Garcia, Criminal Justice Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "This is a great victory."

The California affiliates of the ACLU, together with the law firm of Covington & Burling, brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of a number of individuals against the Attorney General in December 2004, challenging Proposition 69's mandatory testing of people merely arrested for felonies and people formerly convicted of felonies who are no longer under the supervision of the criminal justice system.

In January 2005, the Attorney General issued an information bulletin to local law enforcement agencies, asserting that Proposition 69 is not to be enforced retroactively against people arrested before the election, or against people convicted of felonies before the election who are not currently incarcerated or on probation or parole and are not later convicted of a new offense. The Attorney General has assured the court, and the public, that both state and local law enforcement officials are being instructed that the initiative is to be applied only prospectively.

"We will still challenge the constitutionality of mandatory DNA testing of people who are merely arrested once such testing begins," Garcia said. "The Attorney General's current policy may only postpone the issue."