DMV’s Are Selling Driver’s Personal Data, But Not in CA

By: Casey Yang

A recent investigative report found that while certain State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) across the country are selling drivers' personal data, California does not. Still, privacy experts say more can be done to protect personal data in the state.

Vice News reported that certain DMVs profit by selling personal data collected from drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. Under its privacy policy, the California DMV does not sell driver’s license information to private investigators, even though it is permitted by the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

California’s DMV Privacy Policy states that “the [DMV] is committed to promoting and protecting the privacy rights of individuals.”

Depending on the policy of other states, DMVs may contract with credit reporting companies, bail bonds firms, bounty hunters, and various other third-party entities in addition to private investigators.

Vice News reported revenue amounting to millions of dollars every year for DMVs in states such as Wisconsin and Florida. “Documents explicitly note that the purpose of selling this data is to bring in revenue,” the report states.

The DPPA is a federal statute that permits DMVs to sell certain driver’s license information to licensed private investigators. DMVs are also governed by state statutes that could limit what personal information it may collect and how that information may be used. Generally, the data collected includes a citizen’s name and address, but can also include their ZIP code, date of birth, phone number and email address.

California’s DMVs are governed by the DPPA and the Information Practices Act of 1977, among other state and federal statutes. The purposes of the policy are to limit the collection of personal information and provide safeguards to protect that information. The policy lists the specific types of information the DMV collects such as medical information and fingerprints, as well as the information listed in the Vice News report.

Disclosure of this information is generally limited and only authorized to government institutions, legal officers and law enforcement officials.

The Department strives to inform people what its purpose is for collecting their personal information including the authority of the request, the principal uses of the information, and the DMV’s disclosure obligations.

“[The] DMV uses personal information only for the specified purposes ... unless [the] DMV gets the consent of the subject of the information, or unless authorized by law or regulation,” the Privacy Policy states. California DMV officials declined to comment. 

Dorothy Glancy, a Santa Clara University School of Law Professor, who has expertise in privacy and transportation law, says that while the CA DMV is “one of the best and tightest DMVs around the country, that doesn’t mean that information doesn’t leak out.”

The tightened restrictions dissuaded at least one local private investigator, Edward Albanoski, Jr., President of Veteran Officer Security and Investigative Solutions, Inc., from contracting with the DMV.  “I don’t like to deal with the California DMV because it’s not worth the money and the time and trouble it takes to get the information,” Albanoski said.

The State of California also implemented stricter licensing regulations for private investigators. Investigators must be insured with the State, and the insurance and bonding companies must agree to notify the State if investigator payments lapse, which can result in license suspension.

Frequent background checks and audits of licensed private investigators are conducted to safeguard people’s information. Audit requirements include firewalls on computers, locked files, safes, and alarm systems. Albanoski said he has no issue with the state’s thorough procedures.

“Privacy of information is of the utmost importance,” Albanoski said.

Mike Shapiro, Chief Privacy Officer for the County of Santa Clara, also believes in privacy and protecting people’s personal information.

“I’m certainly someone who believes that the privacy of the individual should be protected and that there’s certainly a concern for abuse [of statutory interpretation] whether it’s from authorized exemptions or otherwise,” Shapiro said.

Glancy and Albanoski echo Shapiro’s concerns as it pertains to private investigators.

“Private investigators can and sometimes do get the information whether legally or illegally,” Glancy said.

Albanoski has heard of other investigators that are more lenient and will do what they have to do to make money.

“Integrity is questionable in this industry. I think there’s over 10,000 private investigators in California that are licensed, but a lot of them aren’t. There are a lot of people running around calling themselves private investigators that aren’t licensed. And they’ll pay to get the information from a licensed private investigator,” Albanoski said. “The privacy of individuals is only as good as the integrity of the person looking for it.”

(Editor's Note: This article was originally published in the October 2019 [Volume 50, Issue 1] version of The Advocate.)