Bill
S 1066
Massachusetts S.1066 creates civil remedies and criminal penalties for knowingly filing false police reports motivated by bias, empowering victims and deterring bias-based calls.
Note on sources and scope
- The materials you provided contain multiple different measures titled or numbered “S 1066” from different jurisdictions and appear to include inconsistent metadata (a separate immigration‑related title, sponsors from other levels of government, and mixed legislative actions). Below are concise, objective summaries of the two distinct bills contained in the documents: Idaho’s Senate Bill 1066 (identity‑theft/data breach amendments) and a Massachusetts Senate bill numbered 1066 (addressing discriminatory police reporting). Please tell me which one you want to focus on or provide corrected metadata if you intended a different S 1066.
1) Idaho — Senate Bill No. 1066 (identity theft / data‑breach amendments)
Purpose and intent
- Update and clarify Idaho’s law on breaches of computerized personally identifiable information (PII), strengthen protections, clarify definitions (including “encryption” and “personal information/PII”), set notice and regulator procedures, and authorize enforcement remedies.
Key provisions
- Broadens/clarifies definitions in Idaho Code §28‑51‑104:
- “Breach of the security of the system” defined as illegal acquisition of unencrypted computerized data that materially compromises PII.
- “Encryption” defined to include standard encryption and other techniques that render data unusable without a token/key.
- Expands list of PII elements to include username/email plus password, medical history/DNA, health insurer identifiers, biometric authentication data, taxpayer ID, etc.
- Clarifies what is excluded (publicly available government records).
- Notice and investigation (amend. to §28‑51‑105):
- Data holders (agencies, individuals, commercial entities) must promptly investigate breaches and, if misuse has occurred or is reasonably likely, notify affected Idaho residents “as soon as possible” consistent with law enforcement needs.
- State agencies must notify the Idaho Attorney General within 24 hours of discovery.
- Cooperation duties when a party maintains but does not own/licence PII.
- Substitute notice allowed when cost > $25,000 or >50,000 Idaho residents affected.
- Enforcement and penalties (§28‑51‑107 amendment):
- Primary regulators may bring civil actions; intentional failure to notify is subject to fines up to $25,000 per breach.
- Government employees who intentionally disclose non‑public PII face misdemeanor penalties (up to $2,000 fine and/or up to 1 year in county jail).
- Amendment reduced a previously referenced 36‑month credit‑monitoring period to 12 months (and the fiscal note indicates agencies may be expected to offer 12 months of credit monitoring).
Who is affected
- State, county and city agencies; commercial entities doing business in Idaho that own or license computerized PII; Idaho residents whose PII is maintained by those entities; regulators (AG, Dept. of Finance, Dept. of Insurance).
Fiscal impact and timing
- Fiscal note: no calculable statewide fiscal impact as drafted, but if agencies must provide 12 months of credit monitoring, estimated market cost roughly $150 per victim.
- The engrossed bill declares an emergency and provides an effective date (text indicates emergency clause).
2) Massachusetts — Senate Bill No. 1066 (discriminatory police reporting)
Purpose and intent
- Create civil and criminal remedies targeting knowingly false calls to law enforcement motivated in whole or in part by bias against protected characteristics (race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity).
Key provisions
- New private civil right: individuals/ groups targeted by a knowingly false or baseless law‑enforcement summons motivated by a protected characteristic may sue for injunctive relief, damages, or other appropriate relief; courts may issue injunctions without proof of actual injury.
- Penal provision (amendment to G.L. c.265, §39):
- Makes knowingly making a false police report for discriminatory reasons a crime punishable by up to $5,000 fine and/or up to 2½ years in a house of correction.
- Court may order restitution to victims for property damage up to three times the value of damage.
- “Lack of reason to suspect” is judged by whether a reasonable person, on the totality of circumstances, would suspect criminal conduct or threat.
Who is affected
- Individuals who knowingly make discriminatory false reports; victims of such reports (who would gain a private right of action); law enforcement and judicial system through enforcement and adjudication.
Procedural status (mixed record in provided materials)
- The Idaho bill materials include committee amendments, engrossment language, and committee actions (sponsor Senator Ben Toews appears in Idaho documents).
- The Massachusetts bill materials show filing by Senator Sal DiDomenico and committee references (Judiciary).
- The consolidated “legislative actions” you provided appear to mix entries from multiple chambers and jurisdictions; please confirm which jurisdiction and bill you want tracked for accurate status.
Questions or next steps
- Which specific jurisdiction/version should I produce a single, focused brief for (Idaho or Massachusetts)? Would you like a one‑page factsheet, tracking of current legislative status, or analysis of stakeholder/fiscal impacts?
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
