based on somebodies credit score question here is whether com ed meds further to prove that a exception to that act specifically that she had access to personal and confidential information as a matter of was unfortunately the statute itself does not define the word access and so we have to look at context to figure this out we don't think she has access for this job had access as contemplated b act we know from the teaching of the way that simply transferring information being a conduit for information if you will to transfer that that's true as an as it only she did get it over the phone from a customer kno of the employee in that case may or may not have used although in fairness they certainly had every opportunity to that is absolutely correct and to take that one step further if i may it's also a policy that they have a straw a that piece of paper before leaving the room they're not allowed to take that with them and so forth argue that everybody has  surreptitiously they could do that where long but i don't think you can dispute the fact that this position has continually access to that database and well here's what we do dispute that there is access to the last four digits of the social security number that is the only a whole host of other information which is the database not we don't agree on that but what we do agree on it is the database is encrypted and that there is only limited certain time frame but you would have to agree that up until a certain timeframe even that whole security number is a under certain circumstances and that is only when a customer under very we'll call them unique unusual situations calls up and we've identified three areas we believe so if somebody calls up and it turns out that they've presented a duplicate social security number in that instance the employee does have access to the full cellphones and i remember instances in which often if at all these events what is that never really happened well what it means is that we can see them a lot of situations where it of that might be you know it could conceivably happen but it is not really a job duty it's not really a normal job requirement it's not part of the of the job in other words we can't say that somebody an employee in some up one off circumstance some weird circumstance may have access to something without any corresponding idea as to well how often does it happen at least on fleet yearly ever because there's really no record evidence in this case on that part and that's right that we get caught up there's also this problem where even that access is limited based on the toc so we have this reference where it's up to twenty two days or something now up to twenty two days can mean and or it can  can get into this database at will no matter when they want to for whatever purpose they want to and access everybody's sofa number or everybody's credit card number or everybody else's personal information it's it's just not not part of their job that they can do it under limited circumstances that appear to be extremely rare unique and we say that because we're not getting good information at all on does this really happen how often does it happen so we think there's potential for abuse or if we say that well we can we can think up ways situations where an employer to tell the employee hey if this if this really weird event happens ok well then you have access to it or if this really weird event does not happen well then you can have access to it but for the most part for for the lion's share of the data for the lion's share of the time flying share of the of the duties it's pretty much uncontested that this this customer service representative in the call center doesn't really have access to that information and that yes every new it is we don't have the exact number of people that they would have gotten on all the oil that's probably all that it does about a daily basis or all right we understand that the reason we went to the discussion on the three limited circumstances is because we were really struggling with how to distinguish olay from this when it comes to getting information in the st place because to be as fair as possible everything you're saying with respect to their ability and their access to the information at the company has an obligation to protect this data off regardless so we understand that and they have safeguards in place for that purpose in fact they've created this encrypted data base for this information where it's secure its placed it i struggling with it is it enough i guess is this what we just said is that enough to say that this brings us out of what was it i think the explicit word was conduits in a way as opposed to what is happening here we we're having a hard time seeing what what these folks too as something above and beyond being a cause of it you know it would be one thing if the other to show something like ok they put the information then and there will never they like they  you don't like the word orange so you think you need all three when he only needs one but the point is it was put there to protect the average person in having gone through this once for two years they would you know shoes and this method to do it where they think are you losing the cardinals who have a horrible time with this because they hire these people in their supposedly experts in the financial also minimizing the access that these customer service reps have to this information i mean you're kind of focusing on the last four of the social the next months and they're they have continuing access see why the balance transfer i made didn't go through where did it bill well well that's the case but in terms of what the evidence reveals in this case for these c d s ours their particular job this is it's pretty clear that ok they can access the last four digits of a social worker but there's no black market for that so we understand that and then there are these three areas these three circumstances if the customer other than leaves three circumstances i could be corrected the record evidence is not that they can at will continue to access that type of information after it is placed in the encrypted  other two well i appreciate that your honor and i appreciate the the questioning as well although the report also talked about how it didn't believe these were quote unquote low level employees focusing again on the amount of not a full time employee and that regardless i don't know the salary by itself tells us much about low level or high level i think we have to absolutely absolutely but you know i  i don't know that it's much higher than the other one i mean it requires a high school equivalent so in which is meaningless in this situation amount of control they may have over their day to day duties i mean yes i suppose they're at a higher level than the the employee in a way but i don't know that they're at a non low this person within the select few i think it's pretty well uncontested that there are at any given time approximately five hundred customer service representatives in the same position of ten or fifteen thousand yes and that's not counting the other departments for which we don't have information on the exact numbers that also in dispute of lee have access in billing and security you know the new business departments there's there's other is there look at well i guess what's left is the idea that the you know the exception here may swallow the rule not not just for these folks but i mean we could all in vision you know a vendor at wrigley field has a driver's license to check you know somebody you have a driver's license you have a birth date you have an address you have a backup you have their physical characteristics their height their weight so forth no question they're required to read it they are getting it they have access to it and i would say that somebody can be a vendor for example at wrigley field and they have no protections under this act because of that fact that also bars you know restaurants similar situations so absolutely you know how that is right t situation i think i think i think situational i think it has to be driven by the context of the particular facts because again we still have a lot of guidance here on exactly what's the definition of access and we are struggling with  you thank the court for time log in to the cmos for sims embrace all day today he will be working in that database as he's fielding calls from comments customers whether new or existing customers added this c s r is retrieving information from that database viewing information in the database putting new information into it using that information various ways he is the main keeper and user of the information in that database and he will not walk out of it until time to go home today so what information is in this database for starters the following pieces some combination of following piece of information or so so scary number also driver's license number bank account information they birth address one billion history that information is in this database for every one of the over four million current and former customers of combat in other words the c s or who sitting at his computer or call center right now can access all of that information for four million people at any time he chooses for so long as he is  beyond just that there's a smaller subset of combat customers for whom their full social security number is visible in the system now this is old more limited so customers and it's more temporary than the other and the other information i just described to you last anywhere from a couple days up to a few weeks for any particular customer but for those customers whose full social security numbers are visible in the database right now our c s r is working there right now where any of the c s ours and access information he spends all day working in a database that is full of our customers confident one from a so mr various task in this appeal then use to convince this court that somehow the situation i just described does not add up to access to retail store they would sometimes receive a credit card application from a customer that application would have confidential information on it also scary number bank account information and so forth but critically what that employee and even marcus would do with that information is then either in put it into a computer or in some cases just hand it off physically to another department or that department to heat and use that information the employee would then never see that information again they did not even have access that that was not accessed basically because it was such a temporary and fleeting touch with the information the distinction the only worker they said this person who's telling dresses and occasionally takes a credit card application  to someone else that's not the person it's the exemption the people who need exemption are the people that she gives the information to so she is a conduit who holds who hands off this information to someone else who keeps the information and uses it for various purposes such as the only decision specifically mention on the customer service department those people those that want to meet exemption not for this case your honour's presents exactly that question the c s r s in this case are those people they're the ones who are the primary keepers and users of this information unlike and only that's the distinction if you distinction between the two cases so that's why i say that  rule that every customer service representative in the state of illinois with the exams or beer vendor at wrigley was the example the council does use that is not our position and it's also not accurate we're not claiming that everyone in illinois who has the title  customer service rep certainly we're not blaming anyone or selling your wrigley field meets this exemption only the subset of customer service representatives who actually handle that kind of confidential information that those are the three examples that counsel was referring to it's when there is so security mismatch in other words a new customer gives a social security number that is already associated with another account and that has to be resolved also if a customer calls and says  time counsel earlier described this as unique unusual could possibly happen type of situations that is not the case there is an rebutted testimony in the record that these things happen frequently we have declarations on the declarations that these situations happen frequently that is why i comment trains so yes ours to know how to handle the situations i can't give you statistics as to exactly how often this happens or how many how many times a year full so security numbers become visible for some period of time but there's unrebutted testimony that it is frequent not unusual it's key to understand too that this is not just limited to the c s r who happens to put that full social security case the c s r who is handling the call will put some information including that full social security number into what's called a workflow management for in the system to w f them to see if there's actually call them they agreed that there's confidential information at stake here and those two concepts are just part of the potential definitions of confidential information so unless the court has any particular questions on those aspects of our i'll skip over those here the legislature clearly was the main thrust of this test is to provide some protections for employers and happens legislature has made the judgment that for most jobs in illinois credit should not be a factor and even people with bad credit should be able to  those jobs without disqualifying however the legislature struck a key balance here in that it's not just the interests of applicants like monica rivera to positions like this that need to be protected the people who really need th protection today or the four million innocent consumers who have entrusted ahmed with this sensitive personal information even mind also that these four million folks in the database didn't really have a choice as to whether to share this information anyone who lives in northern illinois and who wants electricity which is a pretty much everyone i would assume has to have an account with combat they have to give this information and they trust to do everything that it can to protect that information and so the balance that the legislature struck here is that while protecting most employees most applicants for most jobs from their bad credit or their credit being a factor the legislature recognize that in circumstances where an employer is going to trust someone with the most sensitive financial information of their customers the employer should be entitled to consider how that person has handled their own findings that's the that's why the exemption exists and so again the folks here that need the course of protection today are those four million people who work counting on ahmed to do everything in its power to use every tool at its disposal to protect this information without which their identity could be stolen for that reason for those reasons we believe that the circuit court made the correct decision here in finding that the c s r s were exams and that was correct and granted summary judgment t line and all we're asking is for the court to recognize that this position falls on the other side of that line thank your hono well we certainly can all agree that it's so important for companies to use proper tools at their disposal to protect sensitive data they have to do it without running afoul of the law we acknowledge as we have gone over that when these folks are on the phone with a new customer and by the way we don't know how often a new customer customers on the phone but you know presumably substance of it's a certain percentage of their activities that they do hear the full version of this information afterwards i think it's pretty clear and there's really nothing skewed in what we're saying here nothing in the record nothing from council that after that point there's no full access to anything other than situations where we talk about it like and and counsel us indicated that they have some evidence that that that those of us those three of us happen in their words frequently but it's not frequently enough to say once a day once a week once a year there's just there's nothing in there it's just one person's basically opinion on what frequently maybe and of course everybody's definition of that word it could be subject to difference of opinion too if there's nothing else i will