ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE HEARING FOR
THIS HEARING. I AM HAPPY TO
ANNOUNCE THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL
BE RETURNING TO IN PERSON
TESTIMONY ONLY AS REFLECTED IN
THE FINAL NOTICE. WE HAVE TWO
BILLS TODAY THAT HAVE BEEN
APPROVED FOR CONSENT. SB 10 OH,
ONE BY SENATOR MEN AND SB 12 16
BY SENATOR GONZALEZ AND I WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE SCENT
CONSENT CALENDAR. AS SOON AS WE
HAVE A QUORUM, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE
SOME WORK TO DO TO ESTABLISHED
REQUIRED. SO THIS IS THE
OFFICIAL INVITATION FOR MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, UH, TO COME ON
DOWN AND JOIN US. WHILE WE ONLY
HAVE TWO BILLS SCHEDULED FOR
TODAY'S HEARING, IT IS IMPORTANT
TO NOTE THAT THE ASSEMBLY HAS
EXPERIENCED A NUMBER OF
DISRUPTIONS TO COMMITTEE AND
FLOOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS. CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS
, DISTURBS OR OTHERWISE IMPEDES
THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE
HEARING IS PROHIBITED. SUCH
CONDUCT MAY INCLUDE TALKING OR
MAKING LOUD NOISES FROM THE
AUDIENCE, UTTERING LOUD
THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE
SPEAKING LONGER THAN THE TIME
ALLOTTED. IF AN INDIVIDUAL
DISRUPTS OUR HEARING PROCESS, I
WILL DIRECT THEM TO STOP AND
WARN THEM THAT CONTINUED
DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT IN
REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. I ALSO DOCUMENT ON THE
RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED
IN THE NATURE OF THE DISRUPTIVE
CONDUCT. I MAY TEMPORARILY
RECESS THE HEARING. IF THE
CONDUCT DOES NOT STOP, I WILL
REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
SERGEANTS AND ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION. AND NOW THAT WE
HAVE ARE REQUIRED DISCLAIMERS
OUT OF THE WAY WE CAN TURN TO
THE ITEMS BEFORE US. UH, SENATOR
SKINNER. WELCOME TO THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
CHAIR MEMBERS, UM, PLEASED TO
PRESENT SP 301, WHICH DEALS WITH
THE ISSUE OF ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT USING ONLINE MARKETPLACES,
SO I WANT TO START WITH I AM
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THOSE CHANGE THE
RETENTION PERIOD. FOR THE ONLINE
MARKETPLACE TO HOLD THAT SELLER
INFO FROM FIVE YEARS TO TWO
YEARS. IT CLARIFIES THAT
MARKETPLACE AND BY THAT I MEAN
THE INTERNET SELLER MUST
SAFEGUARD INFORMATION WITH
REASONABLE SECURITY PROCEDURES
AND PRACTICES. AND THEN IT
ALLOWS THE SELLER TO REDACT INFO
FROM SUBMITTED GOVERNMENT
RECORDS AND TAX RECORDS. THAT'S
NOT NECESSARY FOR COMPLIANCE. SO
UM. AS I OPENED. THE PURPOSE OF
THE BILL IS TO DEAL WITH THE
FACT THAT YOU'VE GOT WE BUY MOST
EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET NOW.
SO THE OLD PRACTICE OF TRYING TO
UNLOAD THINGS THROUGH YOU KNOW,
FLEA MARKET OR ON THE CORNER OR
WHATEVER. IS NO LONGER THE
PRACTICE AND WHAT ONLINE
MARKETPLACES HAVE DONE IS
FACILITATED ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL IN
THESE HUGE QUANTITIES AND THEN
PUT IT UP FOR SALE ON A ANY
PARTICULAR MARKETPLACE. YOU THE
YOU THE BUYER. YOU'RE GOING ON
THE INTERNET. YOU'RE LOOKING FOR
SOMETHING YOU PUT IT IN. LET'S
SAY BABY FORMULA, FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA THAT THE BABY
FORMULA YOU'RE BUYING MIGHT BE
STOLEN. AND IT COULD EVEN BE, UH
, FAKE FACSIMILE VERSUS THE
ACTUAL THING, BUT YOU HAVE NO
ABILITY TO UH, PROVE THAT? NO
THAT YOU JUST PURCHASE. UM SO WE
HELP TO COMBAT THE SALE OF
STOLEN GILLES BUILT GOODS ON
THESE MARKETPLACES BY PROVIDING
HIGHER STANDARDS OF
ACCOUNTABILITY AND VERIFICATION.
SO THE MARKETPLACE MUST. GET
INFORMATION FROM THE SELLER TO
VERIFY THE IDENTITY AND GET
THEIR BANK ROUTING NUMBER OF
BUSINESS TAX DOCUMENTS AND SUCH
LIKE THAT, SO WE CAN ALSO DO
FOLLOW. FOLLOW UP, SO LET ME
TURN TO MY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
I HAVE PROFESSOR ADRIAN
CARPENTER FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA AND
MARGARET GLADSTEIN FROM THE
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ADRIAN
CARPENTER. I'M A PROFESSOR OF
LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
PACIFIC GEORGE SCHOOL OF LAW AND
SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA. THE SPONSOR OF SB
301. THE MEMBERS OF THE
PROSECUTOR'S ALLIANCE HAVE
PRIORITIZED THE INVESTIGATION
AND PROSECUTION OF ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT. OUR INVESTIGATIONS
HAVE SHOWN THAT LARGE AND
SOPHISTICATED OPERATIONS ARE
BEHIND SOME OF THE MOST
EGREGIOUS THEFTS WE HAVE
WITNESSED. THE PERSON WE SEE IN
FRONT OF THE CAMERA CUT ON VIDEO
STEALING FROM THE STORE IS OFTEN
A SMALL BIT PLAYER IN A MUCH
MORE COMPLICATED SCHEME. THE
PEOPLE TRULY PROFITING AND
DIRECTING THE OPERATION ARE THE
PEOPLE BEHIND THE COMPUTER
SCREENS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2019,
THE SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PARTICIPATED
IN A MULTI AGENCY INVESTIGATION
THAT UNCOVERED AN ORGANIZED
RETAIL THEFT CRIME RING. IN THE
BAY AREA THAT WAS SELLING $5
MILLION ANNUALLY IN STOLEN GOODS
THROUGH MULTIPLE ONLINE
MARKETPLACES. THIS RING IS
SUSPECTED TO HAVE SOLD UP TO $50
MILLION IN STOLEN PRODUCTS OVER
SEVERAL YEARS. AS PROSECUTORS
ARE MEMBERS BELIEVE IT IS
IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE
DRIVERS OF ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT, INCLUDING THE EASE WITH
WHICH STOLEN GOODS MAYBE
ANONYMOUSLY SOLD THROUGH ONLINE
MARKETPLACES. SP 301 WILL HELP
ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM BY
REQUIRING ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO
COLLECT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
, CONTACT INFORMATION AND
BANKING INFORMATION FOR
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES.
THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. COLLECTING
THIS INFORMATION FROM SELLERS
WILL ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
WORK WITH ONLINE PLATFORMS TO
FREEZE FUNDS BEFORE THE SELLER
CAN LIQUIDATE THEIR ACCOUNT AND
DISAPPEAR INTO THE ONLINE ETHER.
WIND THEFT IS SUSPECTED. SIMILAR
LEGISLATION IS BEING CONSIDERED
AT THE CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL. BUT
CALIFORNIA NEEDS THIS BILL NOW.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT FOR
CONGRESS TO ACT AS THE STATE
DRIVING TECHNICAL INNOVATION AND
HOME COMMITTEE TECH COMPANIES.
WE MUST LEAD HERE AS WELL,
ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT. OF THE
LAW FOR ALL THANK YOU. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE MARGARET GLADSTEIN
HERE ON BEHALF OF HALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
. WE'D LIKE TO THANK SENATOR
SKINNER FOR BRINGING THIS
MEASURE FORWARD TO HER
LEADERSHIP ON THE ISSUE. I ALSO
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THEIR WORK ON ON THE ISSUE. THE
RECENT RISE IN ORGANIZED RETAIL
CRIME IS DRIVEN BY MULTIPLE
FACTORS. ONE OF THE KEY
UNDERLYING CAUSES IS THE
RELATIVE EASE WITH WHICH THIEVES
AND ORGANIZED CRIME RATES CAN
STILL STOLEN GOODS THROUGH
ONLINE MARKETPLACE ACCOUNTS.
THESE ACCOUNTS ARE LOWER, OR C
RINGS BEHIND BEHIND PHONY AND
VERIFIED BUSINESS NAMES AND
OPENED UP A GLOBAL MARKET OF
UNSUSPECTING CUSTOMERS WITHOUT
THE LIMITATIONS AT RISK, HAVE
BEEN SAYING ITEMS IN PERSON. RC
BECOMES EVEN MORE PROFITABLE.
INVESTIGATORS BUSTING OVERSEE
NETWORKS FREQUENTLY FIND
ACCOUNTS ON MULTIPLE ONLINE
MARKETPLACES. FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE, RETAILERS HAVE SOUGHT
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. TO DETER
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON
MARKETPLACES. SOME VOLUNTARILY
INCREASED THEIR EFFORTS TO DETER
SOME MARKETPLACES HAVE
VOLUNTARILY INCREASED THEIR
EFFORTS TO DETER THIS CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOR. HOWEVER, THE
ACTIVITIES STILL PREVALENT AND
WITH THE ACCELERATED GROWTH OF
BOTH ONLINE RETAIL AND ORGANIZED
RETAIL CRIME, A BASIC INDUSTRY
WIDE STANDARDS JUST NEEDED. SB
301 WILL ACCOMPLISH THREE SIMPLE
THINGS PROVIDE CONSUMERS WITH
CLEAR ERIFIED INFORMATION ABOUT
THE IDENTITY OF SELLERS. DETER
INDIVIDUALS USING SEEKING
DISPENSE, STOLEN OR COUNTERFEIT
ITEMS ON ONLINE MARKETPLACES AND
PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE
ABILITY TO CONTACT OWNERS OF
ONLINE ACCOUNTS THAT MAYBE
FENCING STOLEN OR COUNTERFEIT
GOODS. WELL OUR PREFERENCE IS A
FEDERAL SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE IF CONGRESS FAILS TO ACT
CALIFORNIA BUST AND SO WE
ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE LEADERSHIP
ON THIS ISSUE AND SUPPORT SB
301. WONDERFUL THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. IT'S ALL STAR LINEUP OF
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. DO
WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IN THE HEARING ROOM?
GOOD MORNING, DEVON ANDERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE HOME DEPOT AND
TARGET AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING
ITSELF. THE CHEKA WITH THE LOS
ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TURN TO. I DON'T
BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. BUT
ARE THERE ANY HEAR ANY WITNESSES
IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION OR SOMEWHERE IN
BETWEEN? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
DYLAN HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF
TECHNET AND RESPECTFUL, NO
POSITION. UM APPRECIATE THE WORK
OF THE AUTHOR TO ADDRESS THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE WORK OF
YOUR COMMITTEE TO SUGGEST NARROW
AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL. AND WE,
TOO, WOULD PREFER A FEDERAL
STANDARD. UM BUT ABSENT THAT
SOMETHING THAT ALIGNS VERY
CLOSELY WITH THAT AGREEMENT AND
WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE PASSED IS
PREFERABLE TO US, TOO. SO THANK
YOU FOR THE WORK HERE TODAY.
NEXT. ALRIGHT SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES ARE SO YOU KNOW OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE? DR CHOI. YEAH THANK
YOU, SENATOR SKIN OR I THINK
THIS IS IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATURE AND REGULATION.
HOWEVER I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE
BARELY SOME MORAL DEPTH OF
FEDERAL PROPOSED OR ALREADY
ENACTED, UH, BILL WITH THE
SIMILAR CONTENT AND ALSO ALL
THOSE DAYS I SEE THAT YOUR
RETENTION PERIOD IS ONLY. TWO
YEARS OR RATHER THAN FIVE YEARS
. IF YOU WANT TO ALIGN WITH YOU
AT THE FEATHER, WHAT OTHER
STATES? IS THERE? ANY REASON WHY
YOU CANNOT MAKE IT? SAME? THAT'S
FIVE YEARS. MY BILL IS
INTRODUCED WAS FIVE YEARS. THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENT WAS TOO
NARROW IT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
BILL. YOU'RE REFERENCING. IT'S
NOT PASSED YET. IN POSSIBLE. IT
IS THE FIVE YEARS THAT IS
PREVENTING IT FROM PASSAGE. I'M
NOT SURE UM, HOWEVER, IT IS THE
MARKETPLACES. SO YOU HEARD A
NEUTRALITY BY TECHNET. THAT WAS
PARTLY THERE. FEELING THAT THE
FIVE YEARS WAS TOO CUMBERSOME.
MHM. MAYBE YOU CAN FOLLOW
THROUGH A AND, UH, MAYBE WE CAN
MAKE IT UNIFORM. IF CONGRESS
PASSES A BILL, THAT IS FIVE
YEARS WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD MAKE
UNIFORM. BUT I WOULD
ADDITIONALLY SAY THAT IF WE FIND
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE BUDGET
THAT WE VOTED ON YESTERDAY, AND
IN THE BUDGET THAT THE GOVERNOR
PRESENTED TO US, THERE WAS
FUNDING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE FOR OUR CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR A
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT TASK
FORCE. AND THIS KIND OF
INFORMATION THIS BILL WILL
GREATLY ASSIST THAT TAX TASK
FORCE DO ITS JOB BECAUSE RIGHT
NOW, AS POINTED OUT BY THE
RETAILERS, AND BY OUR OTHER
WITNESS FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S
ALLIANCE. THEY YOU CAN BE
INVESTIGATION CAN BE UNDERWAY.
YOU CAN REALIZE THAT THIS, UM
MARKETPLACES SELLING SOMETHING
STOLEN AND THEN YOU GO TO LOOK
IT UP AND THEY'RE GONE. THEY
HAVE DISAPPEARED AND YOU HAVE NO
ABILITY TO TRACE OR FIND THEM BY
HAVING THIS INFORMATION. YOU CAN
THEN, UH, DO YOUR BEST TO FIND
THEM NOW, OF COURSE, TWO YEARS
IS A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME,
DEPENDING ON THAT. HOW LONG THE
LENGTH OF THE INVESTIGATION BUT
IT'S CERTAINLY BETTER THAN
NOTHING. AND IF WE FIND OVER,
YOU KNOW ONCE IF THE SPILL
SUCCESSFUL AND IT'S SIGNED INTO
LAW IF WE FIND THAT WE'RE UNABLE
TO ACTUALLY DO. THE JOB BY ONLY
A TWO YEAR RETENTION WILL COME
BACK. OKAY THANK YOU. WHEN THE
CORN IS THERE, I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE A MOTION FOR ALRIGHT, WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM YET SO WE
WILL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. WE
WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS
BILL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE THAT
WISH TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?
ALRIGHT SEEING NONE. SENATOR I
WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
PIECE OF LEGISLATION ON AN ISSUE
OF SIGNIFICANT BIPARTISAN
CONCERN. I THINK ALL OF US IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARE
WORRIED ABOUT ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT. I THINK THAT'S PART OF
THE REASON YOU GOT SUCH A STRONG
BIPARTISAN VOTE OUT OF THE
SENATE IS BECAUSE THIS IS AN
ISSUE THAT IS A IMPACTING
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATEOF
CALIFORNIA REALLY APPRECIATE THE
APPROACH YOU'VE TAKEN HERE. I
THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, AND WE'VE
HEARD FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
OTHERS THAT THAT THAT IS THE
CASE AND FROM RETAILERS. UM AND
JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH MY STAFF ON SOME OF
THE AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS. OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO
PROTECT SENSITIVE PERSONAL
INFORMATION HERE. STRIKE THE
RIGHT BALANCE. ALSO
UNDERSTANDING IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO
TIME PERIOD IN THE IN THE
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. UM SO YOU
KNOW, THEY CAN'T EVEN AGREE. ON
WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK IT IS IN
WASHINGTON, D C SO IF AND WHEN
THEY ARE ABLE TO PASS FEDERAL
LEGISLATION, YOU KNOW WE COULD
WE CAN REVISIT THAT ISSUE, BUT I
THINK WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THIS
LEGISLATION IS EXACTLY THE RIGHT
APPROACH WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST TO BE ADDED AS A CO
AUTHOR, BUT HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL TODAY AND APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU. HAPPY TO ADD. YOUR SCO,
AUTHOR OF THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO
PROCESS THAT WITH THE OTHER
AMENDMENTS WOULD BE GREAT. AND
WITH THAT, I'LL ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHEN WE
HAVE. WHEN WE ESTABLISH A
QUORUM, WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO
VOTING ON THE BILL. ALRIGHT I
SEE WE HAVE SENATOR PAN HERE.
SO, SENATOR PAN. PLEASE JOIN US.
THIS IS SB 11 72. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS.
PLEASED TO PRESENT SP 11 72, THE
STUDENT TEST TAKER PRIVACY ACT
AND THE FIRST OF ALL, I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT I AM ACCEPTING
THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS IS NOTED AND PAGES 10
TO 12 OF THE ANALYSIS, AND I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND YOUR
STAFF. FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE TO CRAFT THIS LANGUAGE.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE COVID
19 PANDEMIC, MORE STUDENTS AND
INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED
TO TAKE EXAMS REMOTELY REMOTE.
THROUGH REMOTE PRACTICING IN
SCHOOL FOR WHETHER IT'S FOR
THEIR SCHOOL TESTS OR
PROFESSIONAL LICENSING. AH STATE
BAR. IN FACT, REMOTE PRACTICING
HAS INCREASED ALMOST 500. UM THE
REASON I'M OFFERING SB 11 72 IS
BECAUSE THE CURRENT STATE LAW
DOES NOT OFFER ENOUGH
PROTECTIONS TO STUDENTS TO TEST
TAKERS. IN THESE EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS WHO LITERALLY HAVE
NO CHOICE BUT TO USE WHATEVER
PRACTICING COMPANY ARE PROBABLY
AND THEIR SOFTWARE THAT IS
CHOSEN BY THE PERSON MINISTRY
INSTITUTION ADMINISTERING THE
EXAM, SO YOU. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE
. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE
WHETHER YOU WANT, PARTICIPATE OR
NOT. UNFORTUNATELY BY NATURE,
THE REMOTE PRACTICING TOOLS CAN
OFTEN COLLECT VERY SENSITIVE
INFORMATION ABOUT STUDENTS HOME
ENVIRONMENT, SO THEY NEED AN
IMAGE. THEY PROVIDE SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBERS, EVEN
POTENTIALLY FOLD MINISTRY OF
ACCESS TO THE STUDENTS COMPUTER
. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN SAY NO
TO THE YOU KNOW, LIKE WITH THE
COOKIES, YOU SAY NO, RIGHT. I
MEAN THE M
CESS. YOU HAVE TO JUST AGREE
TO THAT. IN ADDITION TO RULE OUT
PRACTICING COMPANY MAY ALSO
COLLECT BIOMETRIC DATA SUCH AS
FACIAL RECOGNITION TEMPLATES.
FINGERPRINTS ISN'T SHIP DATA,
MEDICAL INFORMATION, POTENTIALLY
BROWSING HISTORY, VIDEO AND
AUDIO OF THE USERS SURROUNDINGS.
I THINK WE ALL KNOW YOU KNOW,
LOSING USING ZOOM OR OTHER TYPES
OF THINGS OFTENTIMES WANT BLUR
OUR BACKGROUNDS OR USE VIRTUAL
BACKGROUNDS BECAUSE WE DON'T
WANT PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT'S GOING
ON IN THERE IF WE'RE AT HOME OR
OFFICE OF THINGS GOING ON. SO
BUT THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO A
STUDENT, POTENTIALLY AND ALSO
THERE'S A LITTLE TRANSPARENCY AS
TO WHAT INFORMATION WILL BE
STORED. WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT?
WHAT STEPS ARE ENSURED THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE KEPT SECURE AND THE
LEVEL THAT SECURITY AND EVEN IF
IT'S GOING TO BE SOLD OR NOT TO
DATA BROKERS SB 11 70 TO PROTECT
THE PRIVACY OR STUDENTS BY
LIMITING TO PERSONAL BIOMETRIC
INFORMATION THAT REMOTE
PROCESSING COMPANIES CAN COLLECT
. THE ONLY INFORMATION DOES
NECESSARY TO OFFER THE TEST
TAKING SERVICES. SO IT'S JUST
FOR THE DOCTORING. AND REMOTE
PRACTICE COMPANIES,
UNFORTUNATELY, HAVE EXPLOITED A
LOOPHOLE IN CALIFORNIA CONSUMER
PRIVACY ACT DEFINITIONS BY
CLAIMING THEY'RE NOT THAT THEIR
SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WORK
THROUGH THE SCHOOL AND NOT
WORKING DIRECTLY THE STUDENTS,
SO THE CHALLENGE HEREIS THAT
PRACTICE, COMPANY SAYS. YOU KNOW
, WITH STUDENT HAS AN ISSUE.
WELL SORRY. YOU DON'T HAVE A
PLACE IN HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE A CONTRACT WITH YOU. OUR
CONTRACTS WITH THE SCHOOL,
HOWEVER IT INSTITUTION
ADMINISTERS THE TEST. SO SB 11
70 TO GIVE OUR STUDENTS THE
TOOLS, PROTECT THEIR OWN
PERSONAL INFORMATION AND TO
ENCOURAGE, UH PRACTICE COMPANIES
TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT ABOUT
BOTH THEIR DATA COLLECTION
PRACTICES AND WHAT THEY DO WITH
THEIR DATA. I DO UNDERSTAND
THEIR MEMBERS. THE COMMITTEE WHO
HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT
THE P R A THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION, SO I AM COMMITTED TO
REMOVE THAT AND IDENTIFY
ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE OF IT SO PASSES THIS
COMMITTEE AFTER IF IT PASSES,
THIS COMMITTEE WOULD MOVE ONTO
JUDICIARY SO THAT AGAIN WOULD
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT
SO WE CAN PROTECT OUR LEARNERS
AND TEST TAKERS TODAY.
TESTIFYING SUPPORT IS HALEY AH,
OKAY. MAYA SENIOR LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE WITH ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR PAN
BEFORE WE TAKE YOUR WITNESS.
TOUCH ME. I JUST WANNA TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS MOMENT TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO MADAM
SECRETARY GABRIEL PRESIDENT
GABRIEL HERE, BAUER-KAHAN
BENNETT BERMAN JOY JOY HERE,
CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM HERE,
FONG FONG HERE, ERWIN VALID.
ARIE'S VALLADARES HERE. WICKS
WILSON WILSON HERE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING. I'M HAILEY SCHEMA IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA. I URGE YOU TO
PASS THIS BILL, WHICH PUTS
SIMPLE DATA MINIMIZATION
GUARDRAILS TO LIMIT WHAT CAN BE
COLLECTED BYPRACTICING
COMPANIES SUCH AS PRACTICE OREO
PROCTOR, YOU AN EXAM SOFT. AND
EMPOWER STUDENTS TO, UM TO ACT
ON THEIR OWN BEHALF DURING THE
PANDEMIC, DIGITAL FRACTURING
SOFTWARE HAS INCREASED AS DR PAN
, SAID 500% FOR MANY OF THESE,
UM FOR MANY STUDENTS, THESE
SERVICES ARE NOT OPTIONAL ONCE
THEY FOUND 97% OF STUDENTS USINGTHESE TOOLS WERE REQUIRED TO
ESSENTIALLY FORCED TO USE THIS
SOFTWARE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR
TAKING A TEST. OFTEN EXAMS THAT
CAN SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE
COURSE OF THEIR LIVES. AS A
DOCTOR PAIN MENTIONED, THESE
COMPANIES COLLECT A VAST AMOUNT
OF DATA. THEY ALSO OFTEN RETAIN
THIS INFORMATION FOR YEARS, IT
HAS BEEN EXPOSED IN NUMEROUS
BREACHES OF STUDENT INFORMATION.
THIS CAN HEIGHTEN DOCUMENTED
ISSUES OF BIAS AND ACCURACY.
SOME SOFTWARE FAILS TO RECOGNIZE
BLACK AND BROWN FACES PROPERLY
AND INACCURATELY FLAG STUDENTS
AS CHEATING, CREATING A FALSE
LASTING RECORD OF DATA THAT
MAKES IT HARDER FOR SOME ALREADY
DISADVANTAGED USERS TO SUCCEED.
DESPITE BAD ACTORS FLAGRANT
DISREGARD FOR RESPONSIBLE
COLLECTION AND SECURITY
PRACTICES, CONCERNS RAISED BY
FEDERAL LAWMAKERS AND CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT. NO MEANINGFUL
DATA PRODUCTIONS EXIST TO
PROTECT TEST TAKERS. FEDERAL AND
STATE STUDENT PRIVACY LAWS DO
NOT ADEQUATELY LIMIT DATA
COLLECTED BY PRACTICING SOFTWARE
NOR STUDENTS TAKEN SERIOUSLY
WHEN THEIR INFORMATION IS USED
IN VIOLATION OF THESE LAWS,
STUDENTS TRYING TO EXERCISE
THEIR CCP RIGHTS HAVE FOUND
COMPANIES OFTEN BURIED SHADY
PRACTICES AND THEIR PRIVACY
POLICIES OR TOLD THEY ARE SIMPLY
NOT THE CONSUMERS. THIS BILL IS
NECESSARY TO SHOW WE WILL NOT
CONTINUE TO LET COMPANIES DODGE
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO STUDENTS.
WE WROTE THE SIMPLE BELL BECAUSE
STUDENTS CAME TO US TO SAY THEY
WANTED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. UM
THIS MEASURE COMMUNICATES THAT
WE ARE LISTENING TO THEM WHEN
THEY SAY NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO
CHOOSE BETWEEN THEIR PRIVACY AND
THEIR EDUCATION. AND COMPANIES
CANNOT EXTRACT NEEDLESS DATA AS
SOME SORT OF SECRET. DYSTOPIAN
TUITION. BE THIS BELL AMPLIFIES
AND VALIDATE STUDENT VOICES. I
URGE YOU NOT TO SILENCE THEM. I
THINK SOME INTRODUCTORY PAYING
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE
ENERGY I VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AT THIS POINT, WE WILL
INVITE UP ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT IN THE HEARING ROOM.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KELLY MISS
SANCHEZ HERE ON BEHALF OF MEDIA
LIONS, OAKLAND PRIVACY AND
PRIVACY RIGHTS CLEARINGHOUSE IN
SUPPORT OF SB 11, 72. THANK YOU.
PLENTY MURILLO'S ON BEHALF OF
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE AND
HULU ACTION IN SUPPORT. GREAT
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AT THIS
TIME. I WANT TO INVITE UP THE
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS ROANOKE DAYLAMI ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, RESPECTFULLY AND
OPPOSITION TODAY, LET ME BEGIN
BY EXPRESSING OUR DEEP
APPRECIATION FOR THE AMENDMENTS
IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS THAT
MOVE US OUT OF THE CPR A GREATLY
APPRECIATE THAT. WITH THE
COMMITMENT TO REMOVE THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION. I'M CONFIDENT
WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
TO A POSITION OF NEUTRAL. REMOVE
OUR OPPOSITION. WE, OF COURSE,
WOULD LIKE TO SEE ANY ADDITIONAL
ENFORCEMENT. BUT I FEEL LIKE
THAT. THIS IS ENOUGH FOR US. SO
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
COURTNEY JOHNSON WITH FERNANDEZ
FERNANDEZ GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF C JACK. WE ECHO THE
COMMENTS OF THE CHAMBER AND
THANK THE AUTHOR AND THE%
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL AND MOVING OUT OF THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND OUT
OF CPR. I WOULD APPRECIATE THOSE
AMENDMENTS, UM AND WE'LL MOVE
INTO A NEUTRAL POSITION PENDING
SEEING THE AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU. GREAT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
NOW AND INVITE UP ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. MR
CHAIR, PUBLIC FLT REPRESENTING
MEASURE? UM TRASK A POINT OF
CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THERE'S
THIS IS ALL HAPPENING VERY
QUICKLY. HERE IS THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION GOING TO BE
TAKEN OUT. UM BECAUSE IT'S BEEN
CHANGED OUT OF THE C P R A AND
IS NOW IN A NEW BUSINESS OF
PROFESSIONAL CODE, SO THAT'S
GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT WITH A
DIFFERENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION TO
YET TO BE DETERMINED. YEAH AND I
CAN WELL, SENATOR, AND YOU WANT
TO SPEAK TO THAT, SO BASICALLY,
WE WILL BE IF IT PASSES OUT THIS
COMMITTEE, UH, THERE WOULD THEN
GO TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORK
WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON
ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM. OKAY SO THAT'S WHAT I
WANTED TO CLARIFICATION. I
WASN'T WASN'T CLEAR ON THAT
POINT, SO THANK YOU, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH DR PAN.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ANDREA DEVO,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ASIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALIGN
OURSELVES WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THANK THE
AUTHOR. THANK THE COMMITTEE.
HOPEFULLY MOVING TO NEUTRAL AS
WELL. THANK YOU. TOÀN HOFFMAN ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET ALIGNMENT
MYSELF WITH THE PREVIOUS GROUPS.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES GOING TO BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? MR CUNNINGHAM. YEAH
JUST A COMMENT AND MAYBE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND I
APPRECIATE YOU REACHING OUT TO
ME LAST NIGHT AND ENJOYED OUR
CALL. AND THANKS FOR THE
CLARIFICATION ON A FEW POINTS. I
THINK THE REMOVAL OF THE ERA IN
THIS INSTANCE, MAKES A LOT OF
SENSE. I HAVE NO PHILOSOPHICAL
PROBLEM WITH PRIVATE RIGHTS OF
ACTION, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD
GENERALLY BE RESERVED FOR CASES
OF HARM OR MATERIAL OR ECONOMIC
DAMAGE. UM, I DID HAVE A COUPLE
I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS A COUPLE
OTHER QUESTIONS. ONE IS I'LL
JUST ASK THEM BOTH. AND THEN BE
QUITE ONE IS, UH, HAVE THERE
BEEN DEMONSTRATED INSTANCES OF
BIOMETRIC OR SENSITIVE
INFORMATION? UH LEAKING OR BEING
BREACHED WITH RESPECT TO THESE
PRODUCTS COMPANIES WOULD BE
QUESTIONED ONE AND QUESTION TWO.
WHY DO YOU FEEL LIKE OR BELIEVE
THAT THIS BILLIS NECESSARY,
GIVEN THAT DATA BREACHES CAN
ALREADY BE ADDRESSED THROUGH
EXISTING CLASS ACTIONS, AND
THERE ARE PANOPLY IF YOU WILL.
OF EXISTING LAWS COVERING
SENSITIVE INFORMATION FOR MINORS
AND IN THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT.
SO WHAT? WHAT WHAT DO YOU FEEL
LIKE THIS BILL ADDS TO THE
EXISTING LEGAL STRUCTURE.
APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL JUST THE
SECOND QUESTION FIRST, AND THEN
PASS IT ON TO MY WITNESS WHO I
THINK CAN TALK MORE ABOUT
EXAMPLES OF DATA BREACHES IF YOU
HAVE THAT. SO SO THE CHALLENGE
FOR THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
WITH THIS BILL IS THAT WE HAVE
THIS. SO USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS
THAT WHEN YOU'RE HAVING A
TRANSACTION WITH SOMEBODY, AND
THEN YOU SAID, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU
GO TO A WEBSITE. YOU'RE WORKING
WITH THE INSTITUTION, THEY SAY
AND THEN YOU AND THEN YOU GET TO
YOU'RE DIRECTLY WORKING WITH
THEM. AND SO THE WAY THE PRIVACY
LAWS ARE IS THAT IS YOUR
INTERFACING WITH THE TECH
COMPANY OR WHOEVER ELSE YOU'RE
THE PERSON YOU'RE WORKING WITH.
THE CHALLENGE HERE THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THAT AS THE
TEST TAKER THE FRACTURING
COMPANIES AS WELL. YOU'RE NOT
THE PERSON WE HAVE THE CONTRACT
WITH. WE HAVE THE CONTRACT WITH
THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.
YOU'RE JUST A PERSON WHO HAS TO
SUPPLY THE DATA, RIGHT? YOU'RE
JUST WHAT WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE
TO NO, THEY THEY'VE EVEN SAID
YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU,
RIGHT? THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM,
RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT OUR CUSTOMER.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE BECAUSE YOU DON'T
HAVE A CHOICE AS A STUDENT RIGHT
AS A TEST TAKER, IN FACT, THAT
YOU REALLY SURPRISED A STUDENT
UNI STUDENTS, BUT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THINGS LIKE EVEN OTHER
TYPES OF EXAMS. AS A PHYSICIAN.
I TAKE LENTY OF EXAMS. UH AND
THEY WANT TO BE SURE TO SECURE
SO THEY HIRED PRACTICING COMPANY
AND THE PRACTICE COMPANY, BUT
THERE'S A PROBLEM. AND I'M LIKE,
HEY, WHAT'S YOUR PRIVACY,
ETCETERA. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING. THEY HAVE TO RESPOND
TO ME. THEY SAID. WELL MY
CONTRACTS WITH YOU KNOW THE
SCHOOL OR THE YOU KNOW, BOARD.
WHOEVER HIRED YOU KNOW WHOEVER
THEY HAVE THE CONTRACT WITH AND
SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S MY
DATA THAT'S AT RISK. BUT THE I
DON'T HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO
THEIR. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL
WITH ME SO AND I DON'T AND BY
THE WAY, AND I DON'T HAVE A
CHOICE BECAUSE I CAN'T REFUSE TO
TAKE THE EXAMPLE OF THE COST OF
REFUSING TO TAKE THE EXAM COULD
BE BASICALLY LIKE YOU CAN'T HAVE
A JOB OR YOU CAN'T GET YOUR
CREDIT FOR YOUR CLASS OR YOU
CAN'T GRADUATE, SO THOSE ARE
ENTIRELY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. AND
THEN SO, UH, SO THERE'S LITTLE
INCENTIVE FOR THE PRODUCT AND
COMPANY AS LONG AS THE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ISN'T
LIKE PUTTING PRESSURE ON THEM.
TO MAINTAIN THE SECURITY AND THE
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. THEY'RE
NOT THE ONES THAT RISK FOR THE
DANGER. SO LET ME GO PASS IT ON
TO MY WITNESS TO TALK ABOUT
EXAMPLES OF BREACHES. THAT
REALLY HAPPENED. SO I THINK
SPECIFICALLY, ONE THAT COMES TO
MIND IS PROCTOR TRACK, WHICH HAS
BEEN SUED UNDER THE ILLINOIS
BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY
ACT FOR THE BREACH OF I'M SO
SORRY. SER UM, SO PROCTER TRACK
IS IT IS IT IS A COMPANY THAT
HAS BEEN SUED UNDER THE ILLINOIS
BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY
ACT FOR BREACHING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF RECORDS, INCLUDING
BIOMETRIC INFORMATION FROM
STUDENTS. I THINK THE IDEA IS
WITH THIS BILL IS WITH
MINIMIZATION. YOU KNOW, YOU
WOULDN'T BE HANGING ONTO THAT
INFORMATION AND SO WITH LOWER
YOUR, UM YOUR YOU KNOW THE LOWER
THE RISK OF A BREACH OR
CERTAINLY LOWERED THE DAMAGE OF
A BREACH IF THOSE RECORDS ARE
EXPOSED. CHAIRS INDULGENCE. ONE
MORE FOLLOW UP. IT SEEMS TO ME
LIKE ANOTHER. I'M NOT TRYING TO
REWRITE YOUR BILL. BUT ANOTHER
WAY TO GET AT THIS ISSUE WOULD
BE TO PUT IN SOME SORT OF RETAIN
MINT PERIOD. BY WHICH ANY
BIOMETRIC OR SENSITIVE DATA THAT
THE PROCTOR RING ENTITY GATHERED
WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED BECAUSE
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE'S
ALREADY LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO
SHARING THE DATA. THEY'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO SELL IT CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING. THEY'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO DISSEMINATE IT OR
SHARE IT. SO IF THE ISSUE IS THE
CONCERN THAT THEY'VE GOT VIDEO
THAT HAS BEEN FACIALLY RECOGNIZE
, WHICH WOULD I THINK LEGALLY
CONVERTED TO BIOMETRIC
INFORMATION, AND THEY'RE KEEPING
THAT VIDEO AROUND TOO LONG.
THERE'S A HEIGHTENED RISK THAT
THERE'S SOME SORT OF DATA BREACH
AND THEN PEOPLE'S PERSONAL
STUFFS OUT THERE IN THE ETHER,
RIGHT? SO UM, WHAT ARE YOUR GUYS
? THOUGHTS ON? MAYBE THAT
APPROACHES YOU, AS YOU
PRESUMABLY MOVE ONTO JUDICIARY
JUST PUTS A YOU CAN KEEP THIS AS
LONG AS YOU HAVE TO AND NO MORE
THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT, AND IT
MUST BE DELETED BECAUSE IT SEEMS
LIKE THAT WOULD CURE THE ISSUE.
ARGUABLY SO, WHAT WAS THE
CHALLENGE? I THINK WE FACED WITH
THIS BILL, AND I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS UP AND I THINK
THIS IS THE BALANCE. WE'RE
TRYING TO STRIKE IS THAT OF
COURSE TECHNOLOGY IS EVOLVING
AND THEN ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS,
FOR EXAMPLE, SO WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN SOMEONE TAKES AN EXAM AND
THE ROLE OF THE PRODUCT AND
COMPANY IS TO ASSURE THAT THAT
LEARNED THAT TEST TAKERS WHO SAY
THEY ARE AND THAT THEY AREN'T
ENGAGED IN SOME SORT OF
CHEATING, RIGHT? THAT'S THAT'S
APPROPRIATE TO THE TRUCK AND, UM
AND SO IF WE TRY TO SPECIFY
SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME
DEPENDING ON YOU KNOW, EVOLUTION
OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE DEMANDS OF
THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR
SAYING THAT, OKAY, WE NEED TO,
YOU KNOW, RETAIN THE DATA FOR
THAT MAY VERY DEPENDING ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF TESTING THE
NATURE OF THE EXAM, RIGHT? SO TO
VERIFY THAT, OKAY, WE'RE GOING.
WE HAVE DETECTION SYSTEMS TO
LOOK AT PATTERNS OF TEST
RESULTS, AND THEN WE GO. BUT AND
OH, LOOK, WE SEE SOMETHING
SUSPICIOUS. AND THESE ARE THE
TEST TAKERS WHO WANT TO CHECK
AND SO LET'S YOU KNOW, SHOW US
THE EVIDENCE THAT THESE ARE
ACTUALLY THE PEOPLE. THEY SAY
THAT WHERE IT WASN'T THE SAME
PERSON WHO JUST LOGGED IN
SEPARATE TIMES, RIGHT AND THAT'S
HOW IT SO I THINK WE WOULDN'T
WRITE SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. UH
AND I THINK THAT'S SORT OF THE
BALANCE. WE WERE TRYING TO
STRIKE AND I CERTAINLY
UNDERSTAND THAT UH, HOPEFULLY
THOSE OF STANDARDS WILL EVOLVE
IN THE UP WITH ALTERNATIVE
MECHANISMS ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
THAT DOES THAT AND THEN MAYBE IN
THE FUTURE IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE
HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY, MAYBE
SOME FUTURE LEGISLATION CAN
ESTABLISH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE MORE
FIRMLY IN CODE, BUT I THINK THAT
RIGHT NOW. IT'S A LITTLE
CHALLENGING TO JUST PICK A TIME
FRAME AND SAY THAT'S THE ONE
THAT'S GONNA FIT FOR EVERYBODY
AND EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S WHY WE
PUT THE STANDARD OF
MINIMIZATION. SO YOU HAVE TO
JUSTIFY. WHY ARE YOU KEEPING IT
FOR ANY LONGER ON THIS? WELL,
OUR TEST. YOU KNOW THAT THE
BOARD, YOU KNOW? THE BAR SAID.
WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE
ACCESS TO THE DATA FOR THIS LONG
TO VERIFY FOR US TO CHECK THE
PATTERNS VERSUS ANOTHER SCHOOL
HIGH SCHOOL MAY SAY WELL,
ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT
WE SEE THE STUDENTS EVERY DAY OR
SOMETHING, OR WHATEVER. THAT WE
HAVE THAT WE DON'T NEED IT AS A
LONG RIGHT ARE AND SO WE DID
WANT TO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT
FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT PUTTING
EMBEDDING IT IN THE CODE. THAT
MAKES SENSE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS SOMEBODY MEMBER WILSON.
I'LL BE QUICK AND IT WAS JUST
ABOUT THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION AND GLAD THAT'S TAKEN
OUT. BUT YOU TALKED ABOUT WE'RE
GOING TO LOOK FOR DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF ENFORCEMENT. SO DO YOU
HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHAT THAT
IS, IS RELATED TO ENFORCING THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE? HAVE YOU? DO
YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE
DIRECTION YOU'RE HEADED. THINK I
THINK THE IDEA WOULD BE IS THAT
WE HAVE EMPOWERED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND MAYBE D A IS TO BE
ABLE TO AND AGAIN. IT HAS
JUDICIARY. I'M NOT. I'M AN
ATTORNEY AND EXPERT ON THIS, BUT
THAT'S CERTAINLY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO SAY LOOK, YOU KNOW,
UH, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY DO YOU
HAVE TO SHARE THAT THE COMPANIES
ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IF THEY
DECIDE TO KEEP DATA FOR LONG
THAT THEY HAVE TO BUILD TO
JUSTIFY THAT. RIGHT UM HOW? HOW
LONG ARE YOU KEEPING THE DATA
LIKE? WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO KEEP
IT FOR? LET'S SAY THREE YEARS.
VERSUS SIX MONTHS OR WHATEVER,
SO HOPEFULLY WE DO WANT TO WORK
WITH. WE DO WANT THE A G,
ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE
MECHANISM WILL WORK WITH
JUDICIARY, THE MECHANISM TO WORK
WITH THE PRACTICING COMPANIES TO
FIGURE OUT YOU KNOW FOR WHAT'S
THAT BACK AND FORTH, THOUGH, V
NECESSARY TO TAKE PLACE WHILE
STILL TO MINIMIZE THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DATA BREACH
THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY
HARMFUL TO STUDENTS AND TEST
TAKERS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
VALLADARES. WELL, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION. I
WAS GOING TO OPPOSE THE SPILL
BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. AND JUST, YOU KNOW,
WANTING TO SEE THE BILL BE A
BETTER BILL. SO I'M GOING TO
RESERVE MY VOTE FOR THE FLOOR
AND HOPES THAT THIS BILL DOES
GET BETTER. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ALRIGHT ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE WISHING TO, UH
JUMP IN HERE? OKAY IF NOT, I
WANT TO THANK YOU, SENATOR. PAN
APPRECIATE YOUR APPROACH. I
GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY. ONE OF
THE AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW,
SOMEWHAT RESPECT TO MR
CUNNINGHAM'S COMMENTS, SO MR
CUNNINGHAM AND MR BERMAN AE
SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER AND WISER
THAN ME AND BETTER ATTORNEYS.
BUT UM, WHEN I TOOK THE
CALIFORNIA BAR, WE TOOK IT ON TO
UPLOAD SOFTWARE ONTO MY
COMPUTER. UM AND YOU KNOW, I
KNOW THAT SOME OF THE EXISTING
LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS AREA
LIKE SO PIPPA ONLY COVER K
THROUGH 12, RIGHT. SO THERE ARE
THERE ARE SOME GAPS. I THINK IN
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO
PROTECT STUDENT PRIVACY RIGHTS
HERE, SO I APPRECIATE THE INTENT
AND SPIRIT OF THE BILL. FOR
PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION FOR
THE COMMITTEE AND ALSO FOR FOLKS
IN THE ROOM TODAY. UM YOU KNOW,
WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION WAS A
CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND WANT A
CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AMONG
STAKEHOLDERS. WE VIEWED THAT
SQUARELY AS THE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION. THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WHERE THIS BILL WILL
GO SHOULDN'T PASS OUT TODAY, SO
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR A LOT OF
FOLKS ON THE COMMITTEE AND THAT
YOU'VE MADE COMMITMENTS TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT ISSUE
TO WORK WITH THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE OVER THERE. THERE
OBVIOUSLY. HAVE A LOT OF
EXPERTISE IN CRAFTING DIFFERENT
TYPES OF REMEDIES, UM, SO
CONFIDENT THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO
WORK WITH THEM TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE AND THAT
COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK THAT YOU
KNOW YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE
HEARD A LOT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK
TODAY AND THAT YOUR YOUR YOU
KNOW HOW YOU KNOW, GOING IN THE
DIRECTION OF A SOLUTION THAT'S
GOING TO WORK FOR EVERYBODY. SO
I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT.
I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
ALSO TAKE AMENDMENTS TO MOVE
THIS OUT OF THE CPR A INTO THE
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE.
WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A
BETTER HOME FOR THIS, SO I
APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE AND YOU
MAKE CLOTHES. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR A NIGHT, BUT THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR PAN WITH THAT. I THINK,
UM, WE NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN AND A
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. GABRIEL GABRIEL
BARRICADE HAN BENNETT BERMAN.
BERMAN I. CHOI. NOT VOTING
CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM I, FONG
FONG IRWIN IRWIN. AYE. VALID
AIRES. VALLADARES NOT VOTING
WICKS. WILSON. WILSON. I. OKAY
YOUR BILL IS OUT. WE WILL LEAVE
THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DOCTOR.
THANK YOU. UH, AT THIS POINT,
I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY EVERYBODY,
BUT I THINK BERMAN, UH, WAS IN
THERE HALF A SECOND BEFORE
EVERYBODY IN A SECOND BY
SOMEBODY MEMBER CUNNINGHAM.
GABRIEL GABRIEL. I BARRICADE
HAN. BENNETT BERMAN BERMAN I.
CHOI CHOI CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM
I FONG FONG, I IRWIN IRWIN, I
VALID AIRES. VALLADARES. AYE,
WICKS. WILSON WILSON. AYE. MUCH
SURPRISED. ALRIGHT THAT BUILDS
OUT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE
WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON
SB 301 BY SENATOR SKINNER. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON, A
SECOND BY DR TROY. MADAM
SECRETARY GABRIEL GABRIEL. I
BARRICADE HAN BENNETT. BERMAN
BERMAN I CHOI. JOY I CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM, I FONG FUNK. I IRWIN. IRWIN I VALID AIRES.
VALLADARES. AYE, WICKS. WILSON.
WILSON. I. OKAY GREAT. THAT IS
OUT. I JUST WANT TO NOTE FOR THE
RECORD THAT THE CONSENT CALENDAR
WAS SB 10. OH, ONE BY SENATOR
MEN AND SB 12 16 BY SENATOR
GONZALEZ WITH THAT EVERYONE IS
DISMISSED AD WE WILL KEEP THE
ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS FOR
A FEW MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, EVERYBODY.
ALRIGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, CAN
YOU CALL THE ROLL ON? THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. BAUER-KAHAN
ALRIGHT BENNETT WICKS. THANK YOU
AND LET'S DO, UH S B 301 SKINNER
. SP 301 DO PASS AS AMENDED, TWO
DIGIT SHERRY COMMITTEE BARRICADE
HAN BARRICADE. I BENNETT.
WICKS. GREAT AND LET'S DO SB 11
72 PAN MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN, AYE
BENNETT WICKS. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU.
OKAY FOR PURPOSES OF
HOUSEKEEPING. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT 9 TO 0 SP 301.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED WITH
AMENDMENTS TO JUDICIARY THAT
BILL IS OUT 90 AND SB 11 72. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSED WITH
AMENDMENTS TO JUDICIARY THAT
BILL IS OUT 70 AND THIS
CONCLUDES THE HEARING OF THE
ASSEMBLY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE.