ALRIGHT AFTERNOON AFTERNOON,
EVERYBODY WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE HEARING FOR
THIS HEARING, AND UNTIL FURTHER
NOTICE, THE COMMITTEE WILL BE
RETURNING TO IN PERSON TESTIMONY
ONLY AS REFLECTED IN THE FINAL
NOTICE. WE HAVE ONE BILL THAT
HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR CONSENT.
TODAY S B 53 BY SENATOR LEYVA
AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION
FOR THE CONSENT COUNTER AS SOON
AS WE ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
FINALLY 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'LL DIRECT THEM TO STOP AND
WARNED THEM THAT CONTINUED
DISRUPTIONS MAY RESULT IN
REMOVAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. ALSO DOCUMENT ON THE
RECORD THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED
IN THE NATURE OF THE DISRUPTIVE
CONTENT. I MAY TEMPORARILY
RECESS THE HEARING. IF THE
CONTACT DOES NOT STOP, I WILL
REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
SERGEANTS AND ESCORTING THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM THE CAPITOL
BUILDING. NOW THAT WE HAVE THE
DISCLAIMERS OUT OF THE WAY WE
CAN TURN TO THE ITEMS BEFORE US
TODAY, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING
TO WAIT JUST A MINUTE UNTIL WE
HAVE ONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES HERE, WHICH SHOULD BE
MOMENTARILY. BUT THIS IS AN
INVITATION FOR ALL OF THE
AUTHORS AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TO JOIN US.
ALRIGHT WE HAVE GOTTEN THE GO
AHEAD FROM OUR REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES TO GO AHEAD AND GET
STARTED. SO WE'RE GOING TO SKIP
AHEAD IN FILE ORDER AND TO FILE
ITEM NUMBER THREE SB 10 18,
DOCTOR PAN. THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US. THANK YOU. THANKS
VERY MUCH. MR CHAIR MEMBERS
REALLY APPRECIATE BEING HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO BEGIN BY
THANKING THE CHAIR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL MEDIA
ACCOUNTABILITY SPACE, AND I WANT
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF ARE
WORKING HARD ON THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE, WHICH I WILL
BE ACCEPTING TODAY. SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. I UNDERSTAND BE
DISTRIBUTED. LATER I AM PROUD TO
PRESENT SP 10 18, THE PLATFORM
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
ACT. SOCIAL MEDIA HAS
DRAMATICALLY CHANGED THE WAY WE
SHARE AND CONSUME INFORMATION.
YET WE OFTEN KNOW NEXT TO
NOTHING ABOUT HOW THIS
INFORMATION AND UNFORTUNATELY,
SOMETIMES MISINFORMATION IS
PRESENTED TO US. IN
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY,
FACEBOOK WHISTLEBLOWER FRANCIS
HAUGEN EXPLAINED HOW FACEBOOK
KNOWINGLY LEVERAGE THEIR
PLATFORM TO PRIORITIZE PROFITS,
ENGAGEMENT OVER CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITIES. SOCIAL MEDIA.
IS ALSO A KEY DISTRIBUTOR OF
PUBLIC HEALTH IN THIS
INFORMATION AS WELL. ONE STUDY
FOUND A MERE 12 PEOPLE UNDER
ASSOCIATED ORGANIZATIONS
RESPONSIBLE FOR 65% THE VACCINE
MISINFORMATION ON TWITTER,
FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM, WHICH
UNFORTUNATELY DURING THIS
PANDEMIC HAS POSED ENORMOUS
DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH. FACT,
THE STUDY RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN
THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL NATURE,
FOUND THAT ONLINE MISINFORMATION
IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO COVID 19
VACCINE HESITANCY REFUSAL MOST
RECENTLY, THE COUNTRY HAS
WITNESSED THE DESTRUCTIVE POWER
OF MISINFORMATION AND RACIST
CONTENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AS
EXEMPLIFIED BY THE BUFFALO
GROCERY STORE SHOOTING AND TO
QUOTE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL
LETICIA JAMES. THE TERROR ATTACK
IN BUFFALO'S ONCE AGAIN REVEALED
THE DEPTHS IN DANGER OF THE
ONLINE FORUMS THAT SPREAD AND
PROMOTE HATE. IS CLEAR TO THE
PLATFORMS HAVE A PROPENSITY TO
REINFORCE BIAS, HATE AND
MISINFORMATION. AND SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS HAVE A POWERFUL,
ENORMOUS POWER TO AFFECT WHAT WE
SEE WHAT WE FEEL WHAT WE
BELIEVE. AND YET WELL HOW THEY
OPERATE THIS EXTREMELY OPAQUE
AND SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR BILL AND AGAIN
APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP CHAIR
IN IN IN IN IN IN TRYING TO
ADDRESS THINGS LIKE CONTENT,
MODERATION SO FORTH. IT'S REALLY
ABOUT THE AMPLIFICATION. SO
THERE WE NEED TRANSPARENCY AND
HOW INFORMATION IS AMPLY SO YES,
PEOPLE CAN POST THE VARIETY OF
DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT IT'S A
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES DECIDE
HOW FAR IT GOES. WHAT'S THE
REACH? WHOSE FEET HE GETS ONTO
RIGHT? WHAT KIND OF THINGS ARE
REINFORCING AND PEOPLE WHETHER
THEY'RE YOU KNOW, MISS BELIEFS
OR OTHER TO RAGE OR OTHER TYPES
OF THINGS? AND SO TRANSPARENCY
ISN'T ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PLATFORMS. SB 10 18 WILL GIVE
THE PUBLIC THE TOOLS WE NEED TO
HELP UNDERSTAND HOW THESE
COMPANIES ARE IMPACTING OUR
LIVES. SPECIFICALLY THE SPILL
REQUIRES ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS TO MAKE ANNUAL PUBLIC
DISCLOSURES TO THEEXTENT TO
WHICH CONTENT THAT VIOLATES ITS
PLATFORM POLICIES. SO IT'S NOT
SO MUCH THE MODERATION PART
WHICH I APPRECIATE YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY
AMPLIFIED. BY THE ALGORITHMS. SO
EXACTLY WHAT'S THAT REACHED
PREFERENTIALLY, AMPLIFYING
PARTICULAR TYPES OF KIND OF
PARTICULARLY CONTENT ACTUALLY
VIOLATES THEIR OWN POLICIES
RIGHT, SO THEY HAVE DETERMINED
IT'S VIOLATED POLICIES, BUT YET
THEY'RE STILL AMPLIFYING IT. AND
HOW FAR ARE THEY AMPLIFY IT? AND
UM, I WOULD ALSO MAKE NOTE THAT
WHEN WE THINK OF OUR SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES AND THEIR
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC YOU
KNOW WHEN THE SOCIAL MEDIA
LEADING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
FACEBOOK, WHICH ARE METAL, WHICH
ACTUALLY OWNS FACEBOOK AND
INSTAGRAM IS ESSENTIALLY
CONTROLLED BY ONE PERSON. ONE
MAN TOTALLY CONTROLS IT. AND
THERE'S ALSO POSSIBILITY THAT
ONE OF THE OTHER LARGER
PLATFORMS, TWITTER MAY END UP
BEING CONTROLLED BY ONE PERSON.
TAKEN PRIVATE BY ANOTHER
BILLIONAIRE, AND SO THERE IS A
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY HERE, AND
SO THEY'RE NOT ACCOUNTABLE
PUBLIC. THEY'RE NOT EVEN
ACCOUNTABLE TO SHAREHOLDERS. SO
ULTIMATELY SB 10 18 IS A
NECESSARY STEP TO ENSURE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
. THIS POWERFUL AND BURGEONING
INDUSTRY IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO
KNOW ITS POLICYMAKERS. IT'S
IMPACTING. OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR
DEMOCRACY, OUR PUBLIC HEALTH OR
EDUCATION. AND OF COURSE, IT'S
ALSO IMPORTANT FOR INDIVIDUALS
TO KNOW AS WELL. SO AGAIN REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS BILL
REALLY APPRECIATE THE LEADERSHIP
OF THIS COMMITTEE IN THIS SPACE.
I VIEW THIS AS A SORT OF A
COMPANION BILL TO THE WORK
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THIS
COMMITTEE TO HELP CONTINUE
SUPPORT YOUR LEADERSHIP ROLE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR,
AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM YOU
ARE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. WONDERFUL THANK YOU
SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. UM SO DO WE
HAVE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT TODAY? ALRIGHT. SEEING
THEM DO WE HAVE? ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM AND
SUPPORT OKAY. WE WILL THEN TURN
TO OPPOSITION. DO WE HAVE OUR
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS DYLAN HOFFMAN ON
BEHALF OF TECHNO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO SP 10 18. PRIOR TO
THE AMENDMENTS WERE A SINGLE
WORD AWAY FROM I THINK IT INTO
NEUTRAL ON THIS BILL. UM AND SO
WE'LL HAVE TO REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS. I THINK IN CONTEXT
TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE
WE'LL POSITION AFTER THIS, BUT I
WANTED TO SAY A QUICK COUPLE OF
WORDS ABOUT WHY THAT ONE WORD IS
IMPORTANT TO US. UM AND
OBVIOUSLY TRANSPARENCY IS
SOMETHING THAT OUR COMPANIES,
IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO
HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
RULES ON OUR PLATFORMS. THE
RULES THAT WE EXPECT USERS TO
FOLLOW AND WHAT WE'RE DOING TO
PROTECT THEM ONLINE AND SORT OF
THAT EXTENT. WE AGREE WITH THE
GOALS OF THIS BILL. BUT THE
CHANGES TO OUR PLATFORMS
ESPECIALLY REQUIRED BY SOME OF
THIS REPORTING, THEY'RE NOT
WITHOUT COSTS, AND UNFORTUNATELY
, THOSE COSTS AREN'T GOING TO BE
BORN EQUALLY ACROSS THE MARKET,
SOME COMPANIES WILL BE BETTER
ABLE TO INSTITUTE. THESE CHANGES
THAN OTHERS AND IN PARTICULAR
COLLECTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE
AMPLIFICATION OF CONTENT BEFORE
IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS VIOLATIVE
OF OUR POLICIES IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT, SOME BURDENSOME NOT
JUST FOR OUR SMALLER PLATFORMS,
BUT FOR BIGGER ONES AS WELL. AND
SO WE THOUGHT, STRIKING THAT
WORD BETTER BETTER CREATED A
BALANCE BETWEEN THE COST
ASSOCIATED BUT ALSO THE
INFORMATION IT WILL STILL BE
COSTLY TO COLLECT INFORMATION
AFTER IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
VIOLATIVE, BUT I THINK THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW WE'RE
WILLING TO WORK TOWARDS AND SO
JUST WANTED TO JUST QUICKLY SAY
YOU KNOW WHY WE'RE LOOKING FOR
THAT CHANGE OF WHY WE THINK
THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO APPRECIATE
THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
OF THIS AUTHOR, UNFORTUNATELY,
ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSING WAS
SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE
HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS ROANOKE, DAYLAMI WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. RESPECTFULLY HERE IN
OPPOSITION. WE ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH TECHNET. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH SEEING
AND NO OTHER WITNESSES WISHING
TO SPEAK IN THE HEARING ROOM AND
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE? MR KILEY. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M APOLOGIZE FOR
MISSING YOUR PREPARATORY REMARKS
. UM, I JUST WANNA GET, YOU KNOW
A LITTLE BIT AT THE CORE OF THIS
BILL. I GUESS IT'S YOUR BELIEF
THAT THERE'S TYPES OF FALSE
INFORMATION THAT'S BEING SPREAD
ON ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS AND
THATS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC
HEALTH. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS
BILL TO DEAL WITH AMPLIFICATION
AND HOW EXACTLY TO HAVE
TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHAT KIND OF
CONTENT IS ACTUALLY BEING
AMPLIFIED. AND IN FACT, THIS
BILL IS FOCUSED, PARTICULARLY ON
CONTENT THAT ACTUALLY VIOLATES
THE SOCIAL MEDIA. UH STANDARDS
SO AGAIN SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY
ESTABLISHES THEIR STANDARDS. BUT
THEN ONCE IT'S IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING VIOLATED THE COMPANY'S
OWN STANDARDS WERE NOT
ESTABLISHING THE STANDARDS.
WE'RE KNOW HOW THE AMPLIFICATION
OF THAT MATERIAL. WHAT KIND OF
IMPACT THAT HAS SO AGAIN? WE'RE
LOOKING AT AMPLIFICATION, SO
IT'S NOT SEEKING TO ALLOW
DISALLOW CERTAIN TYPES OF
CONTENT. YOU JUST WANT TO KNOW.
AH! WHAT THE BASIS IS ON WHICH
CONTENT IS BEING GIVEN A BROADER
REACH. RIGHT WHEN WE WERE YEAH,
WE MIGHT KNOW WHAT'S DRIVING THE
REACH AND WHAT POLICIES ARE
DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE, UH BY
THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO
CONTINUE TO AMPLIFY CONTENT THAT
THEY THEMSELVES HAVE IDENTIFIED
AS VIOLATING THEIR OWN POLICIES.
RIGHT? AND SO WHAT USE ARE WE
GOING TO MAKE OF THIS DATA WHEN
WE HAVE IT? BUT I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TRANSPARENCY IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE
POLICIES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC. RIGHT SO
WHAT STEPS MIGHT BE TAKEN T
PROTECT THE PUBLIC BASED ON THE
INFORMATION WE GET ABOUT THESE?
PLATFORMS CONTENT AMPLIFICATION
PRACTICES PURPOSE OF ALL OF US
HERE, RIGHT, SO WE SEE SOMETHING
THAT'S GOING ON THAT'S INJURIOUS
TO PUBLIC. WE HAVE A DEBATE
ABOUT THE VARIOUS APPROACHES OF
TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE SPEED
LIMITS ON ROADS BECAUSE WE HAVE
A DEBATE BACK AND FORTH AS TO AH
, YOU KNOW THE NEED FOR PEOPLE
TO TRAVEL AND GET TO PLACES THAT
PARTICULAR TIME AND THEN ALSO,
THEN THE RISKS AND HAZARDS THAT
PRESENTS TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO
ALSO USE THAT PUBLIC SPACE THAT
PUBLIC ROAD. AND THEN WE MAKE A
DECISION TO SET STANDARDS ABOUT
, UH WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT SHOULD
BE, AND WE EVEN CHARGE OUR
AGENCIES TO TWO IN TERMS OF
ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES, FEEL. IT'S
BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT WE
HAVE ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW. BUT
YOU KNOW WE HAVE. THERE'S A
PENALTY IF YOU VIOLATE THE SPEED
LIMIT, RIGHT. YOU GET A TICKET.
YOUR BILL AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS
AT. THERE'S NO SORT OF NO
PENALTY IS. IS THIS THE
PREDICATE FOR SOME FOLLOW UP
ACTION THAT YOU THAT YOU HAVE IN
MIND THAT DECISION BY ALL OF
YOU? IN FACT, I WON'T BE IN THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN THAT THOSE
RESULTS COME IN, SO THAT'S FOR
ALL OF YOU WHO ARE STILL HERE.
LOOK AT THIS DATA AND SAY, IS
THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO DO
ABOUT THIS RIGHT? BUT I MEAN,
ARE YOU SAYING YOU THINK THE
GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE TO PLAY
AND WHAT SORT OF, UH YOU KNOW,
ALGORITHMS ARE USED FAVOR SOME
CONTENT OVER. OTHERS KNOW THE
GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE IN
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC. THAT IS
THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF
GOVERNMENT IS PUBLIC SAFETY. I
THINK THAT'S OUTLINED THE US
CONSTITUTION'S OUTLINED IN THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, SO THIS
LEGISLATURE WILL NOW HAVE THE
INFORMATION AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER IN MY REMARKS, AND I
REALIZED THAT YOU WEREN'T HERE
FOR THAT. RIGHT NOW. THE ONLY
WAY WE'RE FINDING OUT IS WE'RE
FINDING OUT FROM WHISTLEBLOWERS.
SO THERE'S CONTENT. THERE'S
INFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES HAVE ABOUT THEIR OWN
AMPLIFICATION SO FORTH, BUT IT'S
NOT TRANSPARENT, AVAILABLE TO
THE PUBLIC RIGHT. AND SO IT'S
HARD FOR POLICYMAKERS. SO
INSTEAD WHAT HAPPENS WE HAVE
WHISTLEBLOWERS COMING OUT
SAYING, BY THE WAY THE SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANY DID A STUDY AND WE
FOUND THIS NOW. THERE ARE OTHER
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES THAT HAVE
PUBLISHED INFORMATION AS WELL,
BUT BUT THERE'S NO OBLIGATION
FOR THEM TO DO THAT. AND SO WE
NEED TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS
GOING ON IN THE BLACK BOX? ALL
RIGHT, SO BY THE WAY, WE DO THAT
FOR LOTS OF OTHER AREAS, SO IF
YOU WANT TO DRIVE A CAR AND CAR
MANUFACTURER THEY HAVE TO
DISCLOSE CERTAIN INFORMATION
ABOUT SAFETY OF THE CAR, YOUNG
AIRPLANE FAA HAS CERTAIN
REGULATIONS ABOUT WHAT'S YOU
KNOW WHAT? HOW AN AIRPLANE HAS
TO OPERATE HOW ITS PARTS
ETCETERA SO FORTH. SO THIS IS
ABOUT HAVING INFORMATION AND
THEN ITS DECISION OF ALL OF YOU
AS ELECTED OFFICIALS WHEN YOU
GET THIS INFORMATION TO SAY OKAY
NOW BECAUSE WE CAN SEE THE
IMPACT SOCIAL MEDIA IS HAVING ON
AND SORT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND
OTHER TYPES OF THINGS AND ALSO
AND SO WE CAN SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE
WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING
ON. AND IF THERE ARE THINGS AND
IN FACT, EVEN THOUGH I
APPRECIATE TECHNET COMING IN
SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER
POWERS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING
TO TRYING TO GET TO PLACES AND
SO EVEN SOME OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE
REALIZED THAT THIS IS PERHAPS AN
AREA FOR YOU KNOW FOR PUBLIC
DEBATE SO THAT IT'S NOT SIMPLY
BEING DECIDED, UH, YOU KNOW,
UNDER RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH
PARTICULAR COMPANY, SO EVEN
THEY'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THAT'S
THE CHALLENGE FOR THEM. SO IF
AGAIN, I THINK, AS ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES AS LEGISLATORS,
AND SO FORTH, OUR JOB IS TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND, AH AND
SO THIS DATA IS VITALLY IS
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
GOING ON SO WE CAN TAKE THE
APPROPRIATE STEPS AND THROUGH
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN
DECIDING WHAT SORT OF PARAMETERS
WE WANT TO SET. WHAT SORT OF
PARAMETERS? OKAY, UM, IT JUST
SEEMS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING TO
ME THE ROAD THAT YOU'RE HEADED
DOWN. IT SEEMS LIKE, UH, YOU
KNOW, THE GOAL HERE IS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO HAVE SOME SAY. IN
THE VIEWS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE
AIRED ON THESE PLATFORMS. IS
THAT NOT WHAT YOU'RE THIS IS
ABOUT AMPLIFICATIONS, ANOTHER
WELL, I THINK THAT'S SORT OF A
DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE
IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE
PLATFORM ESSENTIALLY SUPPRESSES
THE REACH OF A POST AND THAT, UH
, YOU KNOW, LIMITS. THE ABILITY
OF THAT IDEA TO BE EXPRESS. AND
WOULD YOU NOT AGREE? WELL, I
THINK THERE'S A THERE'S A SAYING
THAT YOU CAN HAVE FREE SPEECH.
BUT YOU'RE NOT OWED FREE REACH.
SO THAT'S A DECISION BY THE
COMPANY. OBVIOUSLY, WE AGAIN.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
RIGHT, RIGHT. SO YOU CAN. NOTICE
YOU CAN'T YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S GOING ON BEFORE YOU CAN
MAKE IT. SO YOU CAN MAKE
REASONABLE STEPS, RIGHT?
REASONABLE OF COURSE THAT FALLS
IN THE REALM OF WHAT IS YOU KNOW
WHAT OUR EXISTING RULES AND
VALUES ARE SO YOU KNOW, A BIG
BELIEVER IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
. OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO NOT
ASSUME BECAUSE I WON'T BE HERE.
WHEN SOMEONE MAKES MAKING THE
RULES THAT, OF COURSE ACROSS THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. YEAH I MEAN, I
GUESS THAT PART OF MY CONCERN
HERE IS THAT AH, THE PRACTICES
THAT ARE TRULY PROBLEMATIC THAT
WE SEE HAPPENING, ACTUALLY OR
NOT HAPPENING IN A BLACK BOX.
THEY HAPPENED OUT IN THE OPEN. I
MEAN, AS YOU MIGHT BE AWARE, THE
COMPANIES LIKE FACEBOOK AND
TWITTER HAVE VERY AGGRESSIVELY
SOUGHT, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY TAKE
DOWN CONTENT, AND SOMETIMES THEY
HAVE DONE SO PURPORTEDLY TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH OR BECAUSE
THEY SAY THE CONTENT IS FALSE
AND THAT IT ACTUALLY TURNS OUT
IT WASN'T FALSE. FOR EXAMPLE, AT
THE BEGINNING OF AH COVID 19. WE
HAD ANY POST SUGGESTING THAT
THIS VIRUS MIGHT HAVE COME FROM
A LAB WAS TAKEN DOWN. AND SO I
MEAN, MAYBE THAT IS THAT AN AREA
THAT YOU THINK WE CAN WORK ON AS
WELL AS PART OF THIS IDEA. AGAIN
WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW IS EXACTLY
WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE
AMPLIFICATION. THAT'S WHAT THIS
FEELS ABOUT SO THAT WE HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING. OF WHAT IS GOING
ON. AND THEN IT'S A DECISION OF
ALL OF YOU. HERE IS POLICYMAKERS
AS TO WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT? HOW
TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT IN THE
APPROPRIATE WAY, AND THAT'S
THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
RIGHT AS ELECTED OFFICIALS AND
OTHER POLICYMAKERS THAT THEN
WE'LL HAVE AN INFORMED
DISCUSSION AND DEBATE ABOUT
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE THING. I
SHOULD ALSO MAKE NOTE THAT THESE
ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES, RIGHT?
AND SO RIGHT NOW, OF COURSE,
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IT'S
THERE. RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT
GOVERNMENT SPEECH. ANYTHING YOU
POST ON THEIR IS PRIVATE. SO
IT'S THEIR DECISION. AS TO, UH
YOU KNOW WHATEVER THEY DECIDED
TO DO WITH EITHER EMPTYING? YEAH
BANNING PEOPLE, ETCETERA. THAT'S
THEIR FIRST SPEECH THAT'S FOR
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS
PRIVATE COMPANIES TO MAKE
BUSINESS DECISIONS. SENATOR
CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND IF THE
GOVERNMENT PUTS ITS THUMB ON THE
SCALE WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE
PRACTICES THAN THAT MAKES THE
CONTENT. ALMOST EIGHT ACTION AND
THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, BY
THE WAY AGAIN. THAT'S THAT'S FOR
ALL OF YOU TO DECIDE IN THE
FUTURE, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE
STILL IN OFFICE AND INVOLVED IN
THESE TYPES OF THINGS, AND OF
COURSE WE DO HAVE AH THINGS LIKE
THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT WILL BE%
PROVIDING ESSENTIAL PROTECTIONS
TO SPEECH. OKAY, WELL, THAT'S A
GOOD NOTE. I THINK TO CLOSE ON I
THINK THAT YOU KNOW, I URGE YOU
TO BEAR THAT SENTIMENT IN MIND.
ACTUALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SPEECH
THAT ISN'T LEFT UP TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. WE HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES THAT
EXIST AND THOSE, UH, I WOULD
ARGUE, AND, IN MANY WAYS APPLY
TO THESE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
ALREADY, GIVEN THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THEY'VE BECOME ENTANGLED.
WITH THE GOVERNMENT. BUT
CERTAINLY IF WE AS A LEGISLATURE
OF WHAT TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING
TO, YOU KNOW, UH, TINKER WITH
YOUR CONTENT MODERATION
PRACTICES THAT WOULD RAISE
SERIOUS FREE SPEECH CONCERNS.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND. AH
WITH THIS BILL, SINCE IT CLEAR,
LITERALLY CLEARLY IS INTENDED TO
MOVE US IN THAT DIRECTION. WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR KILEY.
THANK YOU, DOCTOR PAN. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? I HAVE
I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS TO SHARE
WITH YOU, MR KILEY. BUT ANYBODY
ELSE WANT TO JUMP INTO OUR
CONVERSATION HERE? ALRIGHT I
GUESS WHAT I WOULD OFFER. I
THINK YOU RAISED IMPORTANT
POINTS. UM AND I THINK THAT THE
POINT THAT YOU ENDED ON IS MAYBE
THE MOST SALIENT HERE, WHICH IS
THAT WE HAVE ROBUST
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS TO
UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE AFRAID
OF. YOU KNOW, WHERE MIGHT THIS
LEAD AND YOU KNOW? ARE WE
TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT
CENSORSHIP? BUT I THINK THE
ULTIMATE THING THAT SHOULD MAKE
US ALL FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT IS
AND MAKE US ALL FEEL
COMFORTABLE. THAT IS THAT WE
HAVE A ROBUST PROTECTION FOR
FREE SPEECH BOTH UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. AND THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. WHAT I
APPRECIATE ABOUT THE
TRANSPARENCY APPROACH FROM DR
PAN AND YOU KNOW THAT I'M A BIG
BELIEVER IN TRANSPARENCY AS WELL
IS THAT IT IS VERY SQUARELY
WITHIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
RIGHT? WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT
TELLING A COMPANY YOU HAVE TO
CENSOR, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ANY
CERTAIN CONTENT. MODERATION
PRACTICES. THIS IS WHAT YOU KNOW
IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ON YOUR
PLATFORM. THIS IS WHAT YOU MUST
HAVE ON YOUR PLATFORM. THOSE
THOSE DECISIONS ARE ULTIMATELY
LEFT TO THE PLATFORMS. I THINK
IT'S SIMPLY A CONVERSATION ABOUT
BEING TRANSPARENT WITH CONSUMERS
WITH POLICYMAKERS AND WITH THE
PUBLIC ABOUT THE AMPLIFICATION
PRACTICES THAT THEY HAVE, OR THE
CONTENT, MODERATION PRACTICES
THEY HAVE, I WOULD ADD. IN
ADDITION TO WHAT DR PAN
MENTIONED A NUMBER OF OTHER
BENEFITS HERE, ONE IS THAT FOR
CONSUMER DECISION MAKING, AND I
COULD IMAGINE THAT CONSTITUENTS
IN YOUR DISTRICT AND IN MIND
UNDERSTANDING THAT CERTAIN
AMPLIFICATION PRACTICES WERE
EMPLOYED BY CERTAIN SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANY. MAY NOT WANT THEIR KIDS
ON THAT PLATFORM, RIGHT IF YOU
UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS A
PLATFORM THAT WAS ROUTINELY
AMPLIFYING CONDUCT THAT WAS
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY OR AGAINST PEOPLE WITH
CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS OR
WHATEVER IT MAY BE. YOU MAY MAY
DECIDE AS A PARENT THAT YOU'RE
NOT COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING YOUR
CHILD ON THAT PLATFORM, OR YOU
YOURSELF DIDN'T WANT TO USE THAT
PRODUCT OR SERVICES. SO I THINK
THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
BENEFITS OUR CONSTITUENTS
ABOUT THESE THINGS. YOU ALSO
ASKED ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF
INFORMATION. I THINK PART OF
WHAT WE NEGLECTED HERE. IT CAN
FORM US AS AS POLICYMAKERS IN
THE STATE. IT WILL ALSO
POTENTIALLY INFORMED FEDERAL
POLICYMAKERS. AND SO YOU MAY
FIND YOURSELF IN A POSITION IN A
FEW SHORT MONTHS OF HAVING TO
DECIDE ABOUT REFORMS TO SECTION
2 30. RIGHT THAT IS SQUARELY
WITHIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
SQUARELY WITHIN THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES CONGRESS AND YOU MAY HAVE
A CONVERSATION IN WASHINGTON, D.
C AND THIS IS DATA AND
INFORMATION AND RESEARCH. ALL OF
THIS TRANSPARENCY, I THINK, WILL
AID FEDERAL POLICYMAKERS AS THEY
CONSIDER ALL OF THESE THINGS, SO
THAT'S ANOTHER BENEFIT TO ME
BEYOND OUR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS
, BUT ALSO THAT POLICYMAKERS AND
OTHER JURISDICTIONS CAN THINK
ABOUT WHAT? WHAT REGULATIONS IF
ANY, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN
THIS SPACE, AND I KNOW THAT
THERE ARE MANY ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
SPECTRUM THAT FEEL VERY STRONGLY
THAT THERE ARE ISSUES WITH WITH
SOCIAL MEDIA. THAT CERTAIN
VOICES ARE BEING AMPLIFIED THAT
CERTAIN VOICES ARE BEING
SILENCED AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO
BE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT. UM
AND THE THIRD THING I'D ADD TO
YOU IS I'M A BIG BELIEVER THAT,
UM PEOPLE PEOPLE CAN CAN CAN YOU
KNOW ARE OFTEN UM, THAT THE
TRANSPARENCY GIVES PEOPLE GOOD
INCENTIVES RIGHT? IT GIVES
PEOPLE GOOD INCENTIVES TO ENGAGE
IN GOOD CONTACT. AND I THINK
EVERYBODY KNOWS. YOU KNOW WHEN
YOU'RE BEING WATCHED YOU TRY
HARDER. YOU YOU'RE MORE
SENSITIVE TO WHAT YOU DO, AND I
THINK THAT YOU KNOW IF, IF IT'S
THE CASE THAT ANY OF THESE
COMPANIES HAVE CERTAIN POLICIES
THAT THEY'RE ADVERTISING TO
CONSUMERS, WE TAKE DOWN CERTAIN
TYPES OF SPEECH, OR WE DON'T AH
, BUT THEN THEY'RE REQUIRED TO
FILE REPORTS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW
, THAT WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE
PUBLIC THAT THEY'RE NOT
COMPLYING WITH THEIR OWN
POLICIES THAT THEY'RE NOT
ENFORCING THEIR OWN POLICIES
THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT'S
THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT
COULD BE HELPFUL. SO I
APPRECIATE DR PANS APPROACH HERE
BECAUSE UM, I THINK THERE ARE A
LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT
TO DO ABOUT, YOU KNOW DIFFERENT
THINGS THAT WE SEE ON SOCIAL
MEDIA. A LOT OF THEM VEER INTO
AREAS THAT ARE, UM I THINK
INAPPROPRIATE IN TERMS OF
ENCROACHING ON FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS AND ENCROACHING ON FREE
SPEECH RIGHTS. AND THIS APPROACH
OF PURE TRANSPARENCY WERE NOT
MANDATING ANYTHING. WE'RE NOT
REQUIRING ANYTHING. WE'RE NOT
TELLING ANY ANY ANY PLATFORM
THAT THEY EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A
CONTENT MODERATION POLICY. WE'RE
SIMPLY SAYING, IF YOU DO AND IF
YOU AMPLIFY CERTAIN TYPES OF
CONTENT, WE BELIEVE THAT YOU
SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT WITH THE
PUBLIC WITH CONSUMERS WITH THE
RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING, AND SO FOR ME, I
APPRECIATE DR PAN, THE APPROACH
THAT YOU'VE TAKEN HERE. I
APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK YOU'VE
DONE ON THIS BILL. YOU'VE BEEN A
LEADER IN THIS AREA AND SO FOR
THAT, I'M I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
YOUR DAY. YOU SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY WHEN OFFER YOU THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE THANK YOU.
SO I MISSED HER. MR. BENNETT MAY
WANT TO TRY MEN. I THINK THIS IS
MY FRIEND I'M SUPPOSED TO USE
THAT'S FINE. LET ME JUST LET ME
JUST MENTION THIS. THAT'S THAT'S
FINE. LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE. I
JUST WANTED TO ADD AFTER
LISTENING TO THE TO THE CHAIR,
YOU KNOW, AS AS SOCIAL MEDIA
BLURS THE LINES FOR ALL OF US IN
TERMS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
AND INTRUSION INTO OR
MANIPULATION. TRANSPARENCY IS
ONE OF THE REAL KEY SOLUTIONS TO
THAT. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE
THIS BILL JUST SPECIFICALLY FOR
THAT REASON, BECAUSE IT WILL GET
HARDER, NOT EASIER FOR US TO BE
ABLE TO KEEP THAT LINE CLEAR IN
TERMS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
AND PRIVACY INTRUSIONS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT AND I
THINK THE GOOD NEWS TO WHAT YOU
SAID IS IF WE DON'T IF WE DO GO
ON TOO FAR THAT LINE WE CAN
COUNT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
OR THE STATE JUDICIARY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE AREN'T SO WE HAVE.
WE HAVE A REAL CHECK AND BALANCE
BUILT IN HERE AS WELL. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT,
SENATOR PAINE, YOU MAKE CLOTHES
CHAIR, GABRIEL. I THINK YOU MADE
AN ELOQUENT CLOTHES FOR ME AND
ALSO APPRECIATE THE FOLLOW UP
FROM SAN REMIT. SO STRICTLY YES.
WHEN I VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
WITH THAT. ARE WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM, SO WE WILL VOTE ON YOUR
BILL. ONCE WE ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALRIGHT
WITH THAT WE ARE GOING TO JUMP
BACK AND FILE ORDER. WE'RE VERY
PRIVILEGED TO HAVE THE CHAIR OF
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HERE WITH US TODAY AND I KNOW
YOU'RE CHAIRING HEARING
CURRENTLY, SENATOR WHICH WHICH
OF THE BILLS WOULD YOU LIKE TO
DO? FIRST START WITH SB? 346
UNFORTUNATELY, CENTER WIECKOWSKI
COULD NOT BE HERE. HE'S ASKED ME
TO PRESENT THE BILL FOR HIM.
OKAY WONDERFUL. SO WE'RE GONNA
GO TO FIDDLE I AM TO SP 346 BY
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI. AND WE HAVE
SENATOR AMBERG PINCH HITTING FOR
THAT SENATOR, YOU MAY BEGIN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR CHAIR IN
MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI, THANK YOU. WE'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS.
UH, THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
INTRUSIVE INVASIONS OF PRIVACY.
SOMEONE I THINK COULD IMAGINE
THAT'S HAVING A VIDEO RECORDING
MADE OF YOU WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING
. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ROAD
I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU AND YOUR
PASSENGERS. AND THIS BILL SIMPLY
WOULD PROHIBIT VIDEO RECORDINGS
MADE OF THE INTERIOR OF A CAR IN
VEHICLE CAMERA FOR BEING USED
FOR ADVERTISING SOLD TO THIRD
PARTIES ARE SHARED FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN IMPROVING THE
VEHICLES. SAFETY SYSTEM IN
REPAIRING THE CAMERA. UM. WITH
ME. UM, I BELIEVE HERE, UM YES.
HERE YOU ARE. HIS ROBERT HARRELL
AND NADEJDA SAMPATH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE
THANKS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. I'M ROBERT
HORRELL, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA, WHERE THE SPONSOR OF
SB 3, 46 AND CFC HAS BEEN VERY
ACTIVE IN CREATING AND ENHANCING
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND PRIVACY
SPACE. FOR MORE THAN TWO
DECADES. FIRST I'D LIKE TO THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN AND YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF ARE VERY
THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS ON THIS BILL
. I KNOW THAT ALONG WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. WE'VE ALL PUT A
LOT OF TIME INTO THIS, AND WE
APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR TEAMS
ASSISTANCE. LET'S BE 3 46
PERTAINS TO A FEATURE IN
VEHICLES THAT IS RAPIDLY GROWING
IN CABIN CAMERA. CONSUMERS ARE
BY NOW SOMEWHAT USED TO CAMERAS
THAT MAY HELP THEM PARALLEL PARK
OR WARN THEM OF AN ONCOMING
OBSTACLE. ALL THESE CAMERAS
POINT OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE.
HOW ARE THE FASTEST GROWING AREA
IS THE IN CABIN CAMERA. WHICH
POINTS INSIDE THE VEHICLE, EVEN
WITH COVID AND THE SUPPLY CHAIN
SLOWDOWN IN THE VEHICLE INDUSTRY
, THESE IN CABIN CAMERAS ARE
BECOMING MORE COMMON, AND IN THE
NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE WILL BE
COMMONPLACE IN NEW VEHICLES.
HOWEVER AS OF NOW, THERE ARE NO
PRIVACY GUARDRAILS FOR WHAT
HAPPENS WITH THIS DATA. WHICH IS
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS,
THOUGHTFULLY POINTS OUT AS FAST
BECOMING A LUCRATIVE SOURCE OF
INCOME WITH MCKINSEY AND COMPANY
SO ESTIMATING THE MARKET AT
THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION
DOLLARS BY THE END OF THIS
DECADE. AND THAT APPEARS TO BE
JUST THE DIRECT ADVERTISING
PIECE OF THE INDUSTRY AND NOT
THE BROADER MONETIZATION OF
INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR AGGREGATED
DATA THAT FEEDS ADDITIONAL
INCOME STREAMS FOR MANY
COMPANIES. SP 3 46 WOULD, AT ITS
SIMPLEST PROVIDE CONSUMERS THE
ABILITY TO HAVE MORE CONTROL
OVER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE
INFORMATION ACQUIRED VIA THAT IN
CABIN CAMERA OR CAMERAS,
POINTING INSIDE THE VEHICLE. THE
ANALYSIS BECAUSE A GOOD JOB AND
COMMENT THREE INDICATING THAT
PEOPLE HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN
THEY'RE IN THEIR VEHICLES. UM
THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN
SHARING IF AFFIRMATIVE PRIOR
CONSENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, WHICH
PUTS CONSUMER IN THE DRIVER'S
SEAT OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THEIR
INFORMATION. WE HAVE OVER THE
PAST YEAR, TAKING A SERIES OF
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING SOME
ALREADY ACCEPTED BY SENATOR
HAMBURG ON BEHALF OF SENATOR
WIECKOWSKI. TODAY THEY HAVE LEAD
TO A NARROWING OF THE OPPOSITION
AND HOPEFULLY I'M NOT BREAKING
ANY NEWS. HOPEFULLY ADDITIONAL
SECTORS OF OPPOSITION ARE BEING
REMOVED. WE HOPE ALSO, THE NEW
CAR DEALERS ARE GOING TO BE
REMOVING THEIR OPPOSITION
SHORTLY. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE
THAT THE BILL'S LANGUAGE
RELATING TO SHARING TO IMPROVE
PORTIONS OF A VEHICLE SAFETY
SYSTEM CONNECTED TO THE CAMERA
CAMERA. THERE'S ALSO THE ABILITY
TO SHARE TO SERVICE DIAGNOSED OR
REPAIR THE CAMERA SYSTEM. AND
PER RELEVANT COURT AUTHORIZATION
, AN INVESTIGATION OR HELPING TO
FACILITATE EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
IF THERE'S A CRASH, ETCETERA
FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A
COUPLE POINTS AS I CLOSE. MR
CHAIRMAN. THIS BILL IS
COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT
AS A B S 3 75 OF 2018 AS YOU'RE
ALL VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH AND
THE MORE RECENT CALIFORNIA
PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT, OR CPR, A,
WHICH IS KNOWN AS PROP 24. UM I
SHOULD NOTE THAT PROP 24 MINUTE
EXPLICITLY CLEAR IT IS A FLOOR,
NOT A CEILING AND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE CAN AND SHOULD GO
ABOVE AND BEYOND THOSE
PROTECTIONS WHEN APPROPRIATE.
THIS BILL DOES JUST THAT
CONSUMERS SHOULD BE IN THE
DRIVER'S SEAT OF THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION COLLECTED BY AN
INCUMBENT CAMERA INSIDE OF THEIR
VEHICLE. UH THIS BILL DOES THIS.
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE AN AYE.
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH WE HAVE ARE THEIR PRIMARY
WITNESS AND SUPPORT. YES CHAIR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU. MY NAME IS NANDITA SAMPAT,
POLICY ANALYST AT CONSUMER
REPORTS. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT SB
346 BECAUSE IT PROVIDES NEEDED
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS OVER THE
DATA GENERATED BY INCREASINGLY
PREVALENT IN CAR CAMERA SYSTEMS.
TO BE CLEAR. CONSUMER REPORTS
SUPPORTS THE USE OF IN CAR
MONITORING SYSTEMS TO ENSURE
THAT DRIVERS ARE PAYING
ATTENTION TO THE ROAD. THE
PREVALENCE OF PHONES AND OTHER
DISTRACTIONS, ALONG WITH BIGGER
AND HEAVIER VEHICLES, HAS MADE
OUR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS MORE
DANGEROUS, BUT AUSTRIANS, BIKERS
AND DRIVERS THEMSELVES. A REPORT
FROM NETTLE LAST MONTH ESTIMATED
THAT OVER 42,000 PEOPLE DIED IN
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS LAST
YEAR, AN INCREASE OVER 10% IN%
THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE
HIGHEST NUMBER SINCE 2000 AND
FIVE WE BELIEVE THAT CAMERAS
BOTH IN CAR AND EXTERNAL FACING
CAN HELP LOWER THAT NUMBER BY
IDENTIFYING HAZARDS AND ALERTING
A DRIVER WHEN THEY'RE NOT PAYING
ATTENTION. EARLIER THIS YEAR,
CONSUMER REPORTS ANNOUNCED HAT
IT WOULD BE INCORPORATING THE
USE OF DRIVER MONITORING SYSTEMS
WITHIN OUR CARS WITHIN CARS INTO
OUR RATINGS. AWARDING POINTS TO
COMPANIES THAT DEPLOY THESE
TECHNOLOGIES EFFECTIVELY AND IN
A PRIVACY, PRESERVING MANNER
THAT TERM PRIVACY PRESERVING IS
IMPORTANT. IN CAR CAMERA CAMERA
SHOULD JUST BE USED FOR THE VERY
LIMITED PURPOSES OF ENSURING
DRIVER'S SAFETY COMPANIES.
COMPANY EMPLOYERS SHOULD NOT
HAVE HAVE FREE REIGN TO ACCESS
IN CAR CAMERAS FOR ADVERTISING
ANALYTICS OR AMERICAN CURIOSITY.
THIS SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A
STRAIGHTFORWARD PROPOSITION. BUT
TODAY THERE AREN'T CLEAR RULES
ON WHAT COMPANIES CAN AND CANNOT
DO. VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY
GUIDELINES REQUIRE SOME
DISCLOSURES ABOUT COMPANY USE OF
CAMERAS, BUT DON'T OTHERWISE
PROHIBIT UNWARRANTED USES OR
EVEN GIVE USERS CONTROL OVER
CAMERA FOOTAGE BEING SENT TO
MANUFACTURERS, DATA BROKERS OR
ANYONE ELSE. MOREOVER THESE
NOVEL AND IMPORTANT PRIVACY
ISSUES ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
ADDRESSED BY THE GENERAL PURPOSE
. C C P A AND C P R A. THESE
LIES DO NOT GENERALLY PLACE
RESTRICTIONS ON FIRST PARTY
COLLECTION AND USE OF DATA. SO
MANUFACTURER COULD COLLECT A
LIVE STREAM OF IN CAR FOOTAGE
AND A CONSUMERWOULD HAVE NO
RECOURSE. THE CPR A ADDS NEW
PROTECTIONS FOR SENSITIVE
INFORMATION, BUT NOTABLY VIDEO
PHOTOS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT
DEFINITION. CCP AND CPR DO ALLOW
CONSUMERS TO OPT OUT OF CERTAIN
DATA SHARING WITH THIRD PARTIES
. BUT GIVEN THE SENSITIVITY OF
THIS DATA, INSTEAD OF FORCING
CONSUMERS TO FIND A NAVIGATE
CONFUSING PRIVACY INTERFACES THE
STATUS SHOULD BE PROTECTED BY
DEFAULT. THE SPELL STRIKES A
GOOD BALANCE, RECOGNIZING THE
IMPORTANT SAFETY FUNCTION THEY
CAN PLAY WHILE RESTRICTING THE
USE OF CAMERA DATA TO WHAT'S
REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THEM TO
FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY FOR THESE
REASONS. WE SUPPORT THIS
LEGISLATION AND URGE ARRIVE. OH,
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL NOW SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE
ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF THE BELL SP 346.
CHAIR MEMBERS CATALINA SANCHEZ
WITH CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF
OF PRIVACY RIGHTS, CLEARINGHOUSE
AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL AND
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
IN A SUPPORTIVE AMENDED POSITION
. UM WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE
THE AUTHOR TO AMEND A PRIVATE
RIGHT OF ACTION TO THE BILL AS
THE STRONGEST FORM OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. I THINK
WE CAN NOW TURN TO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO HAVE PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
MR CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE,
JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION. WE ARE OPPOSED TO
THE BILL. UM UH, YOU KNOW, I
THINK IT'S FIRST. IT'S IMPORTANT
TO SORT OF LEVEL SET ABOUT WHAT
THIS TECHNOLOGY IS WHAT IT WHAT
IT IS TODAY HOW IT'S USED AND IN
IN SPEAKING TO OUR
MANUFACTURERS, YOU KNOW. IN
VEHICLE. CAMERA TECHNOLOGY IS A
SAFETY FEATURE. IT IS IT IS
THESE CAMERAS OR CAMERA IN MOST
INSTANCES, LOOKING AT THE DRIVER
LOOKING AT THE FACE WHERE THE
EYES LOOKING IS, THEY'RE
DROOPING. ARE THEY LOOKING AWAY?
ARE THEY GETTING TIRED? WHEN THE
SOFTWARE PICKS UP ON THAT SYSTEM
AGAIN. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY
TALKING ABOUT IMAGES ANALYZED BY
THE VEHICLE ITSELF AND SHOT OFF
TO THE MANUFACTURER SOMEWHERE TO
SEND A SIGNAL BACK TO THE CAR
AND TRY AND SELL THE DRIVER, A T
SHIRT. YOU KNOW WHAT THIS
SOFTWARE IS DOING IS THAT IT IS
LOOKING TO SEE IF THE DRIVER IS
DISTRACTED. AND IF THEY ARE A
VIBRATION IS SENT THROUGH THE
STEERING WHEEL. TOÀN IS SENT
TELLING THE DRIVER PAY ATTENTION
TO THE ROAD THAT IS THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS BEING USED
TODAY. ARE CONCERNED WITH THE
BILL IS THAT THE DEVIATION FROM
THE STANDARDS AND THE RULES THAT
THE CCP A SETS ON THIS TYPE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND OTHERS? WHY IS IT
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO GO AFTER
IN VEHICLE CAMERAS NOW AS WE
LOOK TO TRY AND BALANCE THE
SAFETY FEATURES THAT THIS
TECHNOLOGY CAN PROVIDE WITH WITH
PRIVACY, YOU KNOW, CCP AH ALLOWS
A CONSUMER NOTICE OF WHAT'S OUT
THERE AND HOW IT'S COLLECTED
WHAT'S COLLECTED WHO IT GOES TO
AND ALLOWS THEM TO OPT OUT. THIS
BILL FLIPS THAT ON ITS HEAD AND
SAYS, NO, THE CONSUMER HAS TO
OPT IN. THE AMENDMENTS TAKEN BY
THE AUTHOR TODAY REMOVED THE
NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL,
WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I
THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ONE AREA
WHERE WE COULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE
WITH THE AUTHOR IS TO IS TO
PROVIDE THE CONSUMER NOTICE
ABOUT WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY IS
AND HOW THAT SOFTWARE IN THE
VEHICLE WORKS. UM BUT THE BILL
FLIPS IT INTO AN OPT IN AND
ALLOWS TWO WAYS FOR THE CONSUMER
TO OPT IN EITHER VIA WEBSITE OR
IN THE MAIL. I BOUGHT NEW
VEHICLES BEFORE. I GENERALLY
IGNORE THE FOLLOW UP EMAILS AND
MAIL THAT I GET FROM THE
MANUFACTURER. AND SO WHAT THAT'S
GOING TO MEAN IS AT AT
APPROPRIATE TIMES. IF AND WHEN
DATA IS COLLECTED IN A MANNER
THAT ALLOWS US TO ANALYZE THE
SOFTWARE AND THE HARDWARE AND
THE VEHICLE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS
TO THAT CITY. THOSE SAFETY
FEATURES. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT
DATA. BECAUSE GENERALLY
SPEAKING, PROBABLY MOST FOLKS
WON'T GO THROUGH THE EFFORT THAT
THE BILL WOULD REQUIRE FOR THEM
TO OPT IN. LAST WE'RE NOT SURE
WHY VEHICLES NEED SPECIAL
TREATMENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
WHY CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO HAVE THE
MOST STRICT LAWS IN THE IN THE
NATION AND THEN THE WORLD WITH
RESPECT TO THE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY
AND THE USE OF THE CAMERAS ON
THIS TECHNOLOGY. UM, WHEN EVERY
SINGLE PERSON IN THAT CAR MOST
LIKELY IS GOING TO HAVE ONE OF
THESE AND THERE'S TWO CAMERAS ON
THIS WITH NO SPECIAL RULES THAT
APPLY. SO FOR THESE REASONS WE
ARE OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS DON
HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF TECH THAT
RESPECTFULLY ALSO OPPOSED TO SP
3 46 ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH MY
COLLEAGUE AND JUST WANT TO
EXPAND ON A COUPLE OF POINTS. UM
YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY
REASONABLE FOR OUR COMPANIES TO
BE ABLE TO, UM, APPROPRIATELY
USED THIS INFORMATION SO LONG AS
IT IS D IDENTIFIED IN ORDER TO
IMPROVE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF
WHAT DOES A SAFETY FEATURE? UM
YOU KNOW, I STILL THINK IT'S A
LITTLE BIT OF AN ODD STANDARD
TWO TO REQUIRE AN OPT IN TO
USING A SAFETY FEATURE IN THESE
VEHICLES. BUT UM I THINK MORE
THAN THAT THE ANTI
DISCRIMINATION SECTION WHILE I
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND
APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THAT. I
THINK IT'S PRETTY UNWORKABLE FOR
US THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE
PROVIDE THE SAME GOOD OR SERVICE
OR SAME LEVEL OF GOOD OR SERVICE
. WHETHER CONSUMER DECIDES TO
OPT IN OR NOT. UM IF WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IN VEHICLE CAMERA
, UM WE CAN'T OFFER THE ANTI
DROWSINESS FEATURE IF THEY DON'T
OPT IN, AND LIKEWISE THEY'RE
GOING TO HAVE AN INHERENTLY LESS
SAFE VEHICLE, SO IT'S A VERY
DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICE IF
THEY DON'T OPT IN. TO THE USE OF
THAT. SO FOR THESE REASONS,
LINER COMMENTS WITH THE ALLIANCE
AND OPPOSE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
SP 3 46. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH OTHER WITNESSES IN THE
HEARING ROOM. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS RODAK DAYLAMI WITH
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. WE ALIGN OUR COMMENTS
WITH THOSE OF OUR COLLEAGUES
FROM THE ALLIANCE AND TECHNET.
THANK YOU. AFTERNOON MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, ANTHONY SAMPSON ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA NEW CAR
DEALERS ASSOCIATION, WERE LISTED
AS AN OPPOSING LESS AMENDED IN
LIGHT OF THE AUTHOR'S COMMITMENT
TO REMOVE THAT DISCLOSURE PIECE
OF THE BILL WILL BE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
IN THE HEARING ROOM WHO WISHES
TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE SB 346
SEEING NONE. WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND
SENATOR HAMBURG HAS ASSURED ME
HE INVITES TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE BILL. SO TECHNICAL AS
YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET. OKAY,
WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO
ANYBODY. UH, MR KALIN? SO IT IS
A LITTLE DISAPPOINTING NOT TO
HAVE SENATOR WIECKOWSKI HERE. WE
ALWAYS HAVE GOOD EXCHANGES AND
OUR COMMITTEES ON THIS SIDE OF
THE LEGISLATURE, BUT HOPEFULLY
YOU CAN DO YOUR BEST TO STAND IN
FOR HIM. SENATOR UMBERG. I MEAN,
I KIND OF I KIND OF SEE WHERE
THIS BILL IS COMING FROM. I
THINK IT UH, IS A LITTLE JUST
INTUITIVELY JARRING. THEY THINK
THERE'S LIKE A CAMERA INSIDE
YOUR CAR RECORDING YOU BUT ON
THE OTHER HAND, IT'S LIKE DO YOU
REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHEN
YOU'RE SITTING BEHIND THE WHEEL
OF YOUR CAR WITH TRANSPARENT
GLASS? ALL AROUND YOU WITH
ANYONE CAN SEE YOU. ANYONE CAN
TAKE PICTURES OF YOU. AH AND IN
FACT, THERE'S A LAW ENFORCEMENT
IMPERATIVE TO LOOK AT YOU WHEN
YOU GO BY TO SEE IF YOU'RE DOING
SOMETHING THAT'S AGAINST THE
LAW, SO IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE
THERE ISN'T THAT SORT OF
EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY THAT
WOULD YOU KNOW, MOTIVATE A BILL
LIKE THIS, SO I CAN KIND OF SEE
WHY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE IMAGES ARE BEING SAVED AND
SOLD AND, YOU KNOW, PUBLICIZED
OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, BUT
SIMPLY HAVING THE DEVICE IN THE
CAR FOR THE VERY IMPORTANT AND
LEGITIMATE SAFETY PURPOSES THAT
HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. I GUESS I
DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO SORT OF
IF THERE'S A BALANCE TO BE
STRUCK HERE IN TERMS OF PRIVACY,
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS BILL TAKES IT
TOO FAR IN ONE DIRECTION, SO
JUST WHATEVER YOUR THOUGHTS
MIGHT BE ON THAT. UM, SOME OF
THE MEMBER KYLIE. THERE'S NO ONE
MORE DISAPPOINTED THAN I. THAT
CENTER. WIECKOWSKI IS NOT HERE.
AH, YOU KNOW, IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT JUST SIMPLY
PROHIBITS USING THAT INFORMATION
FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES AND
OTHER PURPOSES. YOU CAN CONTINUE
TO USE IT, FOR EXAMPLE TO, UM
ADJUST WHATEVER MECHANISM YOU
MIGHT WISH TO IN TERMS OF, FOR
EXAMPLE. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES,
BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T DO IF THIS
BILL PASSES WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE CONSUMER. WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE CONSUMER. YOU
CAN'T SELL THAT FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES, BUT SO IF YOU ARE
INTERESTED, AND I HAVE NO DOUBT
THAT THAT THAT IS EXTREMELY
VALUABLE, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT
THAT DOES EXTREMELY VALUABLE TO
OTHERS WHO WISH TO ADVERTISE.
THAT YOU CAN INDUCE PEOPLE TO
OPT IN. THERE'S NOTHING
PROHIBITS YOU FROM SAYING IF YOU
KNOW, PROVIDING SOME BENEFIT TO
OPT IN, YOU CAN OPT IN. SO IN
THE CONSENT OF STANDING IN
PERCENT OF WIECKOWSKI, AND I
INVITE THOSE WHO ARE THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL TO CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG. JUST ASK THIS
CLARIFICATION BEFORE YOU WEIGH
IN SO THE CONSENT HAS TO BE
GIVEN FOR THE USE OF THE DEVICE
AT ALL RIGHT. IT'S NOT
CONSENTING TO THE YOU KNOW THE
USE OF THE DATA FOR ONE PURPOSE
OR ANOTHER SOMETHING OVER. THERE
ARE CERTAIN CATEGORIES AS
DISCUSSED IN THE ANALYSIS, WHERE
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE
CONSENT OF THE CONSUMER. AND
THERE THEY INCLUDE THINGS LIKE
SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS AND
RELEVANT JUDICIAL BUT GENERALLY
SPEAKING CENTER HAMBURG IS
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, AND THAT THE
STANDARD IS IF YOU WANT TO USE
IT FOR THESE OTHER PURPOSES. YOU
MUST GET THE CONSUMERS
AFFIRMATIVE PRIOR CONSENT.
THAT'S LITERALLY THE PHRASE USED
IN THE BILL AND WHAT WE FIND IN
THE HISTORY OF WORKING ON THESE
PRIVACY ISSUES, ALONG WITH MANY
OTHER GROUPS, IS THAT WHEN YOU
HAVE FOR THIS KIND OF SITUATION
AND OPT IN STANDARD WHAT IT DOES
IS, IT CREATES A STRONG
INCENTIVE FOR THE COMPANY IN
QUESTION TO EXPLAIN MUCH BETTER
THAN THEY CURRENTLY DO WHAT THE
VALUE MIGHT BE TO THE CONSUMER.
AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO OPT IN,
THAT'S FINE WITH THEM. THAT'S
WHAT WE'VE SEEN. HISTORICALLY,
I'VE BEEN TOILING IN THE FIELDS
FOR A WHILE, AND I CAN TELL YOU
LIKE WITH CONSUMER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION, FOR EXAMPLE, ALMOST
20 YEARS AGO THAT WHERE THERE
WAS A LIMITED UPTON STANDARD
WHAT IT DIRECTLY LED TO WAS
COMPANIES MUCH MORE CLEARLY.
CAÑADA USING AND EXPLAINING TO
CONSUMERS WHAT IT WAS THEY WERE
GOING TO DO AND WHAT THEY WERE
GOING TO DO WITH IT. AND THEN IN
THAT LIMITED OPTION, GETTING SO
HOW DOES THIS WORK IN PRACTICE?
I AM BUYING THE CAR AT THE POINT
OF PURCHASE. THEY SAY, OH, BY
THE WAY, THERE'S A CAMERA IN THE
CAR. IF YOU AGREE, THEN WE CAN
SELL YOUR IMAGES. IF YOU DON'T
AGREE. WE CAN JUST TURN ON THE
CAMERA AND THEN NOT DO ANYTHING
WITH IMAGES IS THAT THE WAY IT
WORKS? THE DISCLOSURE PROVISION
WAS STRICKEN FROM THE BILL
TODAY. IN TERMS OF I THINK SOME
PEOPLE AS YOU POINT OUT YOURSELF
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ARE ACTIVELY
INTERESTED IN THESE KINDS OF
FEATURES IN THIS BILL, WHICH HAD
A VERY STRONG BIPARTISAN VOTE IN
THE OTHER HOUSE. I SHOULD NOTE.
IN TALKING TO STAFFERS ABOUT THE
BILL AND CERTAIN MEMBERS, A FEW
PEOPLE SAID I'M ACTUALLY
INTERESTED IN THIS KIND OF A
VEHICLE, WHICH TEND TO BE RIGHT
NOW IN THE MARKET PLACE A LITTLE
BIT MORE EXPENSIVE, A LITTLE BIT
HIGHER END. WE THINK THAT IS
GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME.
BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERESTED.
MAYBE. IN ONE CASE, A STAFFER
HAD BEEN IN A SERIOUS CAR
ACCIDENT AND WANTED THAT WHERE
YOU KNOW THE EYEBALL DRIFTS AND
YOU GET THE BEEP OR WHAT THE
AUTO MANUFACTURERS TALKED ABOUT
IN THEIR OPPOSITION TESTIMONY.
SO IT'S A FEATURE THAT'S A FEW
PEOPLE ARE SEEKING OUT. IT'S
BECOMING MORE COMMON. THE TRADE
DATA ON THIS IS THAT IT'S JUST
GOING TO EXPLODE. I THINK COVID
AND THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND THE
CHIP ISSUES SLOWED THAT DOWN A
LITTLE BIT. BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY
GOING TO GROW, I THINK, AND I
SAID THIS TO THE CHAIRMAN THIS
MORNING WHEN WE TALK CHAT ABOUT
THE BILL, I THINK 20 YEARS FROM
NOW, THIS IS FAR AND AWAY IN
MOST NEW VEHICLES, IF NOT CLOSER
TO ALL. NEW VEHICLES. IT'S WHERE
IT'S GOING, AND THAT'S WHY WE
FEEL LIKE NOW IS THE TIME TO
HAVE SOME REASONABLE KIND OF
RULES OF THE ROAD PUN INTENDED
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS. THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPT IN
VERSUS A DISCLOSURE. WHAT'S
WHAT'S THE DISTANCE? SO WHERE
DOES THE POINT WHERE THE
DISCLOSURE JUST TELLS YOU THAT
THERE IS A IN KEVIN CAMERA IN
THE VEHICLE. THIS IS RELEVANT.
I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. AS TO
WHY IT'S RELEVANT. ONE LARGE
COMPANY, UM, WHICH SHALL REMAIN
NAMELESS BUT FOCUSES ON ELECTRIC
VEHICLES HAS BEEN VERY COY ABOUT
EVEN THE EXISTENCE OF AN IN
CABIN CAMERA, LET ALONE WHAT, IF
ANYTHING, THEY DO OR WILL DO
WITH THE DATA THAT THEY GET FROM
THAT I GET THAT I'M JUST TRYING
TO GET CREDIT QUALITY ON WHAT
EXACTLY THIS LOOKS LIKE. AND IF
I INVITE THE OPPOSITION TO WEIGH
IN AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU'RE
SAYING THERE'S NOW NO DISCLOSURE
PART OF THE AMENDMENTS, BUT
THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OPT IN. SO IF THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OPT IN, DOESN'T
THAT SORT OF REQUIRE DISCLOSING?
I THINK THEY'RE MANUFACTURERS TO
THEM TO COMMUNICATE TO THE
CONSUMER. WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO
AND THEN GET THEIR PRIOR
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. RIGHT,
OKAY. AMENDMENTS RIGHT, SO
RIGHT, WE'RE RIGHT INTO THE
PROHIBITIONS. ANY IMAGE OR VIDEO
RECORDING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES,
NO ADVERTISING NO SOLD TO A
THIRD PARTY, SO THE CONSUMER
DOESN'T EVEN GET TO CHOOSE. IF
THEY WANT TO USE THAT AGAIN. TO
MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE IS DOING
THAT RIGHT NOW. NOW IT COULD BE
SHARED WITH THE THIRD PARTY WITH
AFFIRMATIVE PRIOR CONSENT. FOR
SAFETY, OPERATIONAL, THAT SORT
OF THING, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
I WAS SPEAKING TO IN MY
OPPOSITION, WHICH IS C C P A IS
HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE
IT. AND THE CONSUMER CAN OPT OUT
. THIS REQUIRES THE CONSUMER TO
OPT IN TO THE SHARING OF THAT
DATA, EVEN FOR SAFETY SOFTWARE
UPDATE THOSE PURPOSES. THE FEAR
IS THAT YOU KNOW AGAIN, PEOPLE
ARE PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
OPT INTO THAT, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, WHICH HAMPERS THE HAS
A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE
ADVANCEMENT OF THE SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY. BUT FOR YOUR OWN
INTERNAL PURPOSES, THEN IF
YOU'RE USING THE IMAGES TO, YOU
KNOW, ADVANCE YOUR FINE TUNE THE
TECHNOLOGY. YOU'D STILL BE ABLE
TO DO THAT UNDER THIS AGAIN. A
LOT OF THIS TECHNOLOGY BOTH THE
CAMERA ITSELF THE SOFTWARE TO
RUN IT, YOU KNOW, WE PUT ALL THE
PIECES TOGETHER, BUT THE PIECES
ARE BUILT BY OTHER ENTITIES
REPRESENTED BY TECHNET AND
OTHERS. SO YEAH. WHAT ABOUT THAT
POINT? SORRY. I KNOW MR CHAIR.
WE'RE GOING ON FOR SOME TIME,
AND I THINK THAT THIS BILL IS
RECENTLY BEEN CHANGED. I WANT TO
GET A SENSE OF EXACTLY WHAT IT
WILL DO. I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY
TO SORT OF ALLOW THOSE THAT SORT
OF REASONABLE SHARING WITH THIRD
PARTIES WHILE STILL EXCLUDING,
YOU KNOW, SHARING WITH THIRD
PARTIES FOR ILLEGITIMATE
PURPOSES. LOOK WE THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THAT THE BILL
STRIKES THAT BALANCE. WE SPENT
QUITE A BIT OF TIME THINKING
ABOUT THAT. CONTEMPLATING THAT
NEGOTIATING ON THAT. UM WE'RE
ALWAYS OUR DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN
TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATION. OBVIOUSLY WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE
BILL IS DOWN HERE IN THE ROOM AT
THIS MOMENT TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
A SAFETY RELATED CONVERSATION.
WE THINK WE'VE GOT THAT PRETTY
CLEAR IN THE BILL. I WOULD ALSO
JUST POINT OUT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
IF YOU BEGIN ON PAGE FIVE LINES
29 THROUGH 40 AND THEN PAGE SIX
LINES ONE THROUGH SEVEN. THESE
ARE ALL AREAS IN WHICH YOU DON'T
HAVE TO GET THE USER'S
PERMISSION. WE THINK THAT WHEN
COMBINED WITH EARLIER PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL MAKE FOR A
REASONABLE BALANCE POINT, WE
UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THAT THE
AUTO MANUFACTURERS AT THIS
MOMENT IN TIME, DISAGREE. WE'RE
HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT SAFETY.
IF THAT WOULD PROVE FRUITFUL,
BUT WE THINK WE TRIED TO STRIKE
THE CORRECT BALANCE HERE.
THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE? MR BENNETT. I HAD SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXACT SAME
TOPIC IN THE DISCLOSURE, SO I
WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY NOW BASED
ON WHAT I'VE HEARD, SO THE
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BILL. AND
SO. THE SAFETY BENEFITS CAN ONLY
HAPPEN IF THE CONSUMER OPS IN
SECOND CORRECT EXCEPT FOR THE
EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN
HERE, AND WE THINK THE
EXCEPTIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY
BROAD TO DEAL WITH. REASONABLE
SITUATIONS. WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK
FURTHER ABOUT THAT. BUT YES, THE
PAGE TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE BILL AND PAGE THREE HAS BEEN
REMOVED, WHICH IS THE
NOTIFICATION AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
OPPOSITION. ALLUDED THAT TO THE
FACT THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE
ABLE TO DEAL WITH DISCLOSURE
BASED ON INTERNET OR SENDING A
LETTER Z THAT YOUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE BILL, YOU
KNOW, THE DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS
JUST CAME OUT. SO I THINK THAT
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER AREAS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IN THE PAST. IS
THE WAYS IN WHICH A MANUFACTURER
CONNECTS TO A PERSON WHO BUYS
THEIR PRODUCT VERY, BUT THEY
USUALLY HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION
TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THEM,
FOR EXAMPLE. IF YOU HAVE A
SAFETY RECALL, THEY NEED TO BE
ABLE, SOMETIMES THAT RUNS
THROUGH THE DEALER, BUT THEY
NEED TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE
WITH PEOPLE THAT THERE'S AN
ISSUE SO IT IS THERE A
RESTRICTION IN THE BILL THAT
SAYS AT THE TIME OF SALE, THEY
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCLOSE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE CAMERA AND
AT LEAST PREP THE CONSUMER TO BE
READY TO THE BILL IS NOT SUCH AS
NOW SILENT ON A MANDATORY
DISCLOSURE NOW WE THE BILL.
RESTRICTIVE ON, YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT DISCLOSURE
DURING THE SALE OF THE VEHICLE.
IF WE, IN NO WAY ARE LIMITING.
THE ABILITY OF EITHER A
MANUFACTURER TO COMMUNICATE TO
THEIR DEALER OR THE DEALER IF
THEY WISH THEY HAVE SPEC SHEETS
TO COMMUNICATE WITH A CONSUMER
OR POTENTIAL CONSUMER THAT THIS
VEHICLE HAS AN IN CABIN CAMERA.
BUT WHAT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY
MORE IN THE BILL IS THE MANDATE
THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY IN THIS
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO TODAY, I
COULD ASK THE OPPOSITION PLEASE
TO RESPOND TO IT. CAN I? I'M SO
SORRY. CAN WE JUST TAKE ONE
MOMENT TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM? IS
THAT OKAY WITH YOU, MR BENNETT?
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
COURTESY, MADAM SECRETARY.
GABRIEL. KYLIE. BAUER-KAHAN
BENNETT BERMAN. CUNNINGHAM. PHÊN
IRWIN. BALLAD AIRES, WICKS
WILSON. IT'S LIKE WE HAVE A
QUORUM. THANK YOU. YES, PLEASE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COULD ASK THE
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ACTION
THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED, ARE YOU?
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT AT THE
POINT OF SALE YOU WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO DO IT DOESN'T MANDATE
THAT YOU DO IT. WHAT ARE YOU
SAYING THAT YOU'RE RESTRICTED
AND THAT YOU WILL ONLY BE ABLE
TO COMMUNICATE AND GET THERE.
APPROVAL. SOMETIME AFTER THE
POINT OF SALE. SO THE BILL DOES
NOT RESTRICT DISCLOSURE NOTICE
DURING SALE, THAT SORT OF THING,
UM, THAT AGREE WITH THE WITH THE
SUPPORT ON THAT THE BILL DOES
NOT RESTRICT THAT. ORIGINALLY
THE BILL MANDATED A CERTAIN
DISCLOSURE AND AGAIN I THINK
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD
AGREE TO, YOU KNOW, FULL
DISCLOSURE THAT DISCLOSURE THAT
WE PUT TOGETHER ABOUT WHAT THE
TECHNOLOGY IS HOW IT WORKS. THE
DEALER WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE
THAT TO THE CONSUMER WHEN THE
VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED. THAT'S
NOW GONE FOR INEXPLICABLE
REASONS TO US BECAUSE THAT SEEMS
TO NORMALLY BE THE FIRST STEP OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME IN THE INTEREST
OF TIME. OUR CONCERN IS THAT IN
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THE
DATA FOR SAFETY SOFTWARE, THOSE
SORTS OF THINGS WE WOULD HAVE TO
GET SEPARATE AND ONLY ALLOWS TWO
WAYS TO GET THAT AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT. THAT'S EITHER VIA
WEBSITE. OR MAIL. I DON'T KNOW
HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN THE SALES
PROCESS. THE WORDS MAIL IN THE
BILL I SEE WRITTEN DOCUMENT IN
THE BILL. AFFIRMATIVE PRIOR
CONSENT, UH, CAN ONLY BE DONE IN
ONE OF THE TWO FORMS DEDICATED
PAGE A USER'S RESPONSE TO A MALE
FORM SENT BY THE VEHICLE
MANUFACTURER AND RETURNED BY THE
USER. SO THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO HAPPEN IN THE SALES
PROCESS DURING THE SALES PROCESS
THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
GIVE THEIR AFFIRMATIVE CONCERN.
NOT THE WAY I ONLY ISSUE IN THIS
BILL AS IT MOVES FORWARD THAT I
THINK MERITS FURTHER
CONSIDERATION. DO YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO THAT, SIR? I MEAN,
LOOK, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
WILLING TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE LOGISTICS SONG. I'M NOT
GOING TO, UH, THE LAST THING I'M
GONNA DO IN THIS ROOM WITHOUT MY
AUTHOR PRESENT. IS NEGOTIATED IN
PUBLIC. SURE HAVING SAID THAT
WE'RE HAVING TO TALK TO THEM
ABOUT THAT. I WOULD JUST POINT
OUT THAT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE
OPT IN WORLD IS EXPLANATIONS GET
A WHOLE LOT CLEARER AND
UNDERSTANDABLE TO REAL PEOPLE
MAKING REAL CHOICES WHEN YOU'RE
IN AN OPT IN REGIME. THANK YOU.
AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT. AND
I THINK THAT THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT HAPPENS. I JUST DON'T
PROCEDURALLY WANT TO CREATE A
SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN
WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE WHAT I
WOULD ANTICIPATE. AS IF THIS
PROCEDURE STAYED LIKE THIS,
THERE WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS
AMOUNT OF EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS
GOING TO BE COMING IN THE MAIL
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, AND THAT
WOULD STILL BE BENEFICIAL, BUT
YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE CURRENT
BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE JUST CAME
OUT. UM I THINK WE WERE READY
WILLING TO ENABLE OVER THE JULY
RECESS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO EXPLORE
THE LACK OF A DISCLOSURE AND
WHETHER THAT SHOULD LEAD TO ANY
TWEAKS AND WHAT REMAINS IN THE
BILL? I THINK THAT'S A FAIR
POINT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
YEAH I JUST WANNA I'M SUPPORTIVE
OF THIS AND TO BE CLEAR. I HAVE
A VEHICLE ONE OF THESE CAMERAS
AND WHEN THE UPDATE HAPPENED,
THAT WOULD HAVE SHARED THE
INFORMATION WITH THE
MANUFACTURER. I GOTTA PUSH
NOTIFICATION. THAT ASKED ME TO
OPT IN TO SHARING IT AND IT FELT
VERY CONSPICUOUS. AND I GOT TO
MAKE THAT CHOICE AND IT WAS IN
MY VEHICLE BEFORE I STARTED IT,
AND I THINK THAT WAS WORKABLE.
AND IT WAS AN OPT IN. AND SO IT
TO MR BENNET'S POINT. I THINK
THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT THAT ARE
VERY USER FRIENDLY, BUT ALSO
FORCED THAT COMMITMENT ON THE
PART OF THE USER THAT WHAT IS
REALLY VERY PRIVATE DATA, RIGHT?
WHAT HAPPENS IN YOUR VEHICLE? UM
YOU KNOW, CAN BE PARKED IN YOUR
GARAGE. IT'S PART OF YOUR HOME
AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THIS
COMMITTEE PRIOR. I HAVE A LOT OF
ISSUES WITH RECORDING DEVICES IN
OUR HOMES. THERE ARE MANY OF
THESE DAYS. UM BUT THIS IS ONE
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
USERS UNDERSTAND AND ARE
CHOOSING TO SHARE THAT DATA WITH
THE MANUFACTURER AND THERE ARE
REASONS WHY ONE MIGHT WANT TO DO
THAT. AND THEY HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUT I DO THINK
FOCUSING ON HOW IT'S DONE. SO IT
IS USER FRIENDLY AND THERE ARE
WAYS NOW WITH TECHNOLOGY THAT I
THINK ARE LEFT OUT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. OKAY
MR CUNNINGHAM'S UNUSUALLY
SILENT UM, I WILL. I WILL JUST
DIVE IN HERE AND I WANNA
ASSUMING SENATOR WIECKOWSKI IS
OUT THERE IN THE ATMOSPHERE
LISTENING TO THIS. I WANT TO
THANK HIM FOR HIS WORK ON THE
BELL. I KNOW THAT HE HAS TAKEN
SOME AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS BY OPPOSITION. I THINK
THERE ARE THERE IS A WAY TO GET
TO COMPROMISE ON DISCLOSURE
PIECE. I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS. AND I
THINK THAT, UM I'M HOPEFUL THAT
THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO
THAT NEXT YEAR AND, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THERE'S SOME SOME GENERAL
CONSENSUS ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT
BE DONE. I GUESS WHAT I WOULD
ADD JUST LISTENING TO THE
COMMENTS FROM THE OPPOSITION AND
YOU'RE VERY THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT AND I
THINK YOU'VE GIVEN PEOPLE
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS THEY
COULD TAKE THIS BILL TO THE
FINAL STAGE SHOULD HAVE PASSED
OUT TODAY. THE WAY I VIEW THIS
IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS
BILL THAT'S GOING TO INTERFERE
WITH SAFETY TECHNOLOGY IN THE
CAR AS IT NOW IS, YOU KNOW, AND
BY THE WAY, I HAVE ONE OF THESE.
I HAVE ONE OF THESE VEHICLES.
PART OF THE REASON THAT I BOUGHT
IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE
SAFETY FEATURES WERE ATTRACTIVE.
THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS MY WIFE
WAS SHOCKED TO KNOW BECAUSE IT
WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A
CAMERA POINTED OUT RIGHT, SO
THERE'S A CAMERA RIGHT THERE,
AND IT KIND OF EXPLODED HER HEAD
TO KNOW THAT SHE WAS BEING
FILMED AT ALL TIMES IN OUR
VEHICLE. AND YOU THINK ABOUT ALL
THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO IN
VEHICLES, ALL THE REALLY
SENSITIVE CONVERSATIONS THAT
THEY HAD. UM SO YOU CAN STILL
HAVE THAT SAFETY TECHNOLOGY. UM
THE WHAT WE'VE ASKED IS, UM, IN
THAT BALANCE BETWEEN SAFETY AND
PRIVACY THAT THE CONSUMER HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
CHOICE, AND THAT CHOICE IS ABOUT
SHARING THAT INFORMATION WITH
THIRD PARTIES. RIGHT, AND THAT
THAT FEELS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CONSUMER TO
BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, AND
DIFFERENT CALIFORNIANS MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT HOW
THEY WANT TO DO THAT. WHAT I
WOULD SAY IS I HAVE GREAT
CONFIDENCE. AH IN THE PR FOLKS
WHO WORK FOR A LOT OF THE
MANUFACTURERS THAT IF THEY WANT
ME TO GET TO OPT INTO THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO GET ME TO DO
THAT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT Y'ALL,
BUT I OPT INTO STUFF COUPLE OF
TIMES A DAY EVERY DAY, AND
PARTICULARLY IF YOU WERE TO SEND
ME INFORMATION, SAYING IMPORTANT
SAFETY FEATURES OPT IN. I
PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO THINK
VERY HARD. BUT THERE MAY BE SOME
CALIFORNIANS WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW
WHAT? I'M NOT COMFORTABLE
BECAUSE OF I VALUE MY PRIVACY
MORE AND I WANT TO KEEP WHAT
HAPPENS IN MY CAR. IT'S OKAY IF
IT STAYS HERE, BUT I DON'T WANT
IT TO BE SHARED WITH THIRD
PARTIES THAT I MAY OR MAY NOT
KNOW ABOUT. SO TO ME THAT FEELS
LIKE AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY.
UM FOR THE CONSUMER TO HAVE HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN AT
THAT MOMENT. AGAIN TO YOUR POINT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE ABILITY
TO THE MANUFACTURERS TO YOU
KNOW, THEY'RE NO LONGER MANDATED
TO DISCLOSE THAT, BUT THEY HAVE
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. I
THINK YOUR SUGGESTION THAT FOLKS
THINK ABOUT EXACTLY HOW THAT
MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE
STREAMLINED SINCE THE DISCLOSURE
PROVISIONS AUTHORS DECIDED TO
TAKE THOSE OUT IS A VERY WISE
SUGGESTION, BUT WITH THAT, I
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE
AUTHOR HAS DONE TO TAKE
AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS OPPOSITION
CONCERNS, AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. WITH
THAT, SENATOR AMBER, DO YOU WANT
TO CLOSE? I WILL RELAY THOSE
CONCERNS TO SARAH WIECKOWSKI, AN
URGENT IVAN. STATE. MADAM
SECRETARY. YOU WANT TO CALL THE
ROLE WE NEED A MOTION AND A
SECOND GOOD POINT. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM SOMETHING MORE
BENNETT. I THINK I THINK MR FONG
GOT THE SECOND AND THEIR FIRST.
SO MR SECOND BY MR FONG, MADAM
SECRETARY CALLED THE ROLE
GABRIEL GABRIEL I KYLIE KYLIE,
NOT VOTING BAUER-KAHAN BARRACK
AND I BENNETT BENNETT. I, BERMAN
CUNNINGHAM. CUNNINGHAM. I FONG
FONG I IRWIN VALID AIRES WICKS.
WILSON. WILSON. I. WE WILL LEAVE
THAT BILL AND CALL AND WAIT FOR
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE,
SENATOR AMBERG. WE CAN GO AHEAD
AND TURN TO, UH, FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR. SB 10 56. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR ND MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. PARTICULARLY TO, UH, MR
KLEIN. FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS
BILL. IT'S VERY SIMPLE BILLETS
KNOWS THE ONLINE VIOLENCE
PREVENTION ACT BECOMES MORE AND
MORE TIMELY EACH DAY. WHAT THIS
DOES REQUIRE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS WITH USERS IN
CALIFORNIA OF OVER ONE MILLION
DISCREET USERS TO HAVE AN EASILY
ACCESSIBLE PORTAL. UM WHERE
SOMEONE COULD LODGE A CONCERN A
COMPLAINT. THAT THEY'RE BEING
TARGETED FOR VIOLENCE. UM AFTER
THEY RECEIVE IT IF THE RECIPIENT
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM IF THEY
DON'T ACT IN 48 HOURS AT THAT
POINT IN TIME, YOU CAN GO TO
COURT AND ASPIRIN INJUNCTION.
COURT ISSUES AN INJUNCTION IT
SHOULD THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM
NOT AH, COMPLY WITH THE ORDER
THAN ALL THE REMEDIES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO A COURT FOR
CONTEMPT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO
THAT COURT. UM IT'S WITHIN THE.
UM CONFINES OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. URGENT. I VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. SENATOR. JUST
WANT TO CONFIRM YOUR ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
WONDERFUL THANK YOU SO MUCH, UM
UP WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? OKAY IT'S A BUSY BUSY
DAY TODAY. WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY SEEING NONE.
ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM THAT
WANTS TO OFFER ANY THOUGHTS ON
THIS. IF NOT, WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND HE
COMMENTS MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. OKAY? ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT. AND A
SECOND FROM SOME MEMBER WILSON
AND MR CUNNINGHAM. SO I JUST
WANTED TO SEE CLARIFICATION.
I'LL BE SUPPORTING THE BILL. I
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP,
PROBABLY NOT THE LAST STEP. AND
ADDRESSING SOCIAL MEDIA'S ROLE
IN VOLENCE. UM WHAT? WHEN. THE
SUMMARY SAYS, SEEK AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE PLATFORM TO REMOVE
THE VIOLENT POST IS THAT UNDER
LIKE THE EXISTING AH, CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE PROCESS OR IS
THERE A NEW MECHANISM AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT THERE'S NOT A
NEW MECHANISM BASICALLY AT THAT
POINT IN POWERS YOU TO SEEK AN
INJUNCTION. UM YOU FILED THE
NORMAL, UH, COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTION. AND THE COURT AT
THAT POINT IN TIME, I SUPPOSE
YOU'D GO IN NEXT PARTY ONE WOULD
EXPECT YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU'RE
BEING TARGETED FOR VIOLENCE, AND
THEN THE COURT COULD ISSUE AN
ORDER X PARTY. AND AT THAT POINT
IN TIME IF THE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM DOESN'T CONFORM, THEN
ALL THE REMEDIES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
ARE AVAILABLE LIKE COURT INTO
THE, UM THE PLAINTIFF SLASH
VICTIM. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN. I
WANT TO THANK THE SENATOR FOR
THIS BILL. I THINK THAT THIS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT AND
PARTICULARLY REALLY IMPORTANT TO
WOMEN. WOMEN ARE THE TARGETS OF
A LOT OF ONLINE VIOLENCE. AND I
THINK THIS WILL BE A TOOL THAT
IS REALLY CRITICAL TO PROTECTING
THEM IN THE ONLINE SPACE. I DID
HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE
ATTORNEY'S FEES, TOO. UM BEFORE
THE COSTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IF
THE CASE IF THE COURT FINDS THE
PROSECUTION WASN'T BROUGHT IN
GOOD FAITH, AND WHETHER THAT
WILL CHILL. THE WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO THERE. WE DON'T
WANT BAD FAITH ACTIONS, BUT I
FEAR THAT GOOD ACTORS MIGHT BE
CHILLED BY THOSE ATTORNEYS THAT
ATTORNEY FEE PROVISIONS. YOU
HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION. I
THOUGHT ON WHY YOU'RE INCLUDING
THAT THIS IS AN EXPEDITED
PROCESS. I DON'T THINK SO. BUT
REASONABLE MINDS MIGHT DIFFER.
OKAY WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING I
MEAN, I THINK ALSO, I WANT TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. BUT HOPEFULLY
GOING FORWARD. WE CAN KEEP AN
EYE ON THAT AND CONSIDER WHETHER
IT'S CHILLING THESE ACTIONS AND
MAKING SURE THE VICTIMS DO HAVE
REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE COURTS.
THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALRIGHT
SEE NON CENTER. I WILL ALSO OUT
OF MY THANKS. THINK IT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT BILL? I THINK
YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF
CRAFTING IT HERE, CONSISTENT
WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF YOU AND
YOUR COMMITTEE WORKING TO US ON
THE LINE. THE DEFINITION OF
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THINK
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE
DON'T SEND A BUNCH OF BILLS TO
THE GOVERNOR'S DESK THAT HAVE
DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS THERE. SO
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AND
YOUR CONSULTANTS FOR THEIR VERY,
VERY THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO
THAT, AND IT'S A YOU KNOW AN
EXCELLENT BILL A VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE ON ECHO THE COMMENTS OF MY
COLLEAGUE, I THINK, PARTICULARLY
TO SOME OF OUR VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. THAT ARE MORE APT
TO BE THREATENED BY VIOLENCE
ONLINE WITH THAT I'M PLEASED TO
SUPPORT THE BILL, AND YOU MAY
CLOSE YOUR URGENT. I VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. SO, MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 10 56 BY SENATOR
AMBERG MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
GABRIEL KYLIE. BAUER-KAHAN
BARRICADE. CAN I BENNETT?
BENNETT I. BERMAN CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM. I FONG LONG I IRWIN.
IRWIN VALID AIRES, WICKS WILSON.
WILSON. I. YOUR VOTE HAS ENOUGH
VOTES TO GET OUT. BUT WE WILL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. THANK YOU FOR THIS AFTERNOON,
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING
YOU SHORTLY AS WELL. OKAY WHILE
WE ARE WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL
AUTHORS, I'M HAPPY AT THIS
MOMENT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON AND A SECOND BY SOMEBODY
. MEMBER CUNNINGHAM. MADAM
SECRETARY, COULD YOU CALL THE
ROLL ON THE CONSENT? CALENDAR
THIS IS SB 53 BY SENATOR LABEL.
GABRIEL GABRIEL, I KYLIE KYLIE.
I BAUER-KAHAN THE HEART. CAN I
BENNETT? BENNETT. I BERMAN.
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM, I THONG.
SONG I IRWIN. IRWIN. I VALID
ARIE'S. WICKS WILSON WILSON.
AYE. THEY CAN SEND COUNTER HAS
ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT. AND I
THINK WE ARE WAITING NOW ON
SENATORS CORTEGE IN LIMÓN.
ALRIGHT WE ARE MOVING THANKS TO
THE CAREFUL ATTENTION OF
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. WE ARE
GOING TO GET MOVED BACK TO
SENATOR PANS BILL THAT'S SB 10
18. FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE. I'M
WILLING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION
AND A SECOND. WITH A MOTION BY
SOMETHING MEMBER WILSON. DO WE
HAVE A SECOND, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN. MADAM
SECRETARY, CAN YOU CALL THE
ROLL? UH MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I KYLIE KYLIE.
NO BARRICADE HAN HURRICANE I,
BENNETT BENNETT. I BERMAN
CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM, I THONG
THONG I IRWIN. IRWIN VALID AIRES
WICKS WILSON WILSON. AYE. THAT
HAS ENOUGH VOTES TO GET OUT. WE
WILL KEEP THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS.
WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THE ROLL ON
FILE ITEM NUMBER TWO SP 346,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. NATIONS COMMITTEE, BERMAN. IRWIN IRWIN. I VALID AIRES
WICKS. THAT BILL HAS ENOUGH
VOTES TO GET OUT. WE WILL KEEP
THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS.
ALL RIGHT. WELCOME SENATOR
CORTEZ. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN
TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THIS
IS SB. 11 84. SENATOR CORTEZ.
YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE
READY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR
CHAIRMAN, AND HOPEFULLY I DIDN'T
HOLD FOLKS UP TOO LONG. I WAS
JUST UPON THE FOURTH FLOOR.
PRESENTING ANOTHER BILL, SO I
GOT HERE AS SOON AS I CAN. AND
UM I WANT TO SAY I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT SP 11 84 TO THIS
COMMITTEE TO ENSURE CALIFORNIA
STUDENTS GET THE BEHAVIORAL
SUPPORT. THAT THEY NEED IN MY
HOME DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA
COUNTY. I WAS PROUD TO PIONEER
SOMETHING CALLED THE SCHOOLING
SERVICES PROGRAM THAT CONNECTS
STUDENTS AND FAMILIES TO COUNTY
MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, CASE
MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICES ON DISTRICT AND SOAK
SCHOOL CAMPUSES. THROUGH. SCHOOL
LINK SERVICES COORDINATORS
SERVING OVER 200 SCHOOLS ACROSS
15 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SANTA CAR
COUNTY. THAT'S ALL FUNDED. BY
THE WAY, WITH MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES ACTING MONEY. AH! MANY
OF YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IN
OTHER AREAS OF THE STATE AS A
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROGRAM
PERHAPS VERY SIMILAR. THIS
SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLING SERVICES
PROGRAMS CAN GUIDE THE FRAMEWORK
OF SCHOOL BASED MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES STATEWIDE. SB 11 80
FORWARD DEFINED IN CALIFORNIA
LAW. WHAT A SCHOOLING SERVICES
COORDINATOR IS AS THOSE
INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES WITH THE
PUPIL PERSON WITH PUPIL
PERSONNEL SERVICES CREDENTIALS,
LOCATED ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES OR
UNDER CONTRACT BY A COUNTY
BEHAVIORAL HROVIDER. TO
ENSURE THAT THESE SCHOOLING
SERVICES COORDINATORS CAN BETTER
REFER BOTH STUDENTS AND FAMILIES
TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AND
CARE. BETWEEN 2000 AND SEVEN AND
2014. THE SUICIDE RATE FOR
CHILDREN AGES 10 TO 14 MORE THAN
DOUBLED. SUICIDE IS NOW THE
SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
FOR INDIVIDUALS BETWEEN THE AGES
OF 10 AND 24. COVID 19 IS ONLY
EXACERBATED THESE ISSUES AS MOST
OF US KNOW. WE MUST MEET THESE
STUDENTS WHERE THEY ARE ON THEIR
SCHOOL CAMPUSES. AND I THINK THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR
HAVE INVESTED HEAVILY IN THAT
PREMISE. WITH ME TODAY, OR DR
LORETTA WHITSON, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL COUNSELORS
TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT. AS WELL AS
CC ZANG K. 12, POLICY DIRECTOR
FOR JENNA. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
GENERATION UP. THANK YOU. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR. WE NOW TURN TO YOUR
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS DISEASE, SAYING AND MY
PRONOUNS. ARE SHE HER HERS? I'M
A RISING SENIOR BRITAIN HIGH
SCHOOL AND I SERVE AS A POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR JENNA, A PROUD
SPONSOR AND SUPPORTER OF SB 11
84. AS A STUDENT BARD MEMBER. I
UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF
MENTAL HEALTH. I'VE SEEN THE
DATA. COOL WORK JOBS.
EXTRACURRICULARS COLLEGE
APPLICATIONS, EXTERNAL
EXPECTATIONS AND MORE ALL ALL
NAVIGATING THEIR SOCIAL LIVES
ALONGSIDE THE DEBILITATING
ISOLATION THAT CAME WITH THE
PANDEMIC. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT
SUICIDE IS NOW THE LEADING CAUSE
OF DEATH FOR ADOLESCENTS, BUT
HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT STUDENTS WHO
RECEIVE SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ACHIEVED
BETTER ACADEMICALLY. ARE MORE
ENGAGED IN LEARNING AND HAVING
IMPROVED SENSE OF CONNECTEDNESS
AND WELL BEING. IN CALIFORNIA.
WE UNDERSTAND THIS. WE VALUE
MENTAL HEALTH, PUSHING
INITIATIVES AND IMPLEMENTING
PROGRAMS SUCH AS EXCUSE MENTAL
HEALTH DAYS AND MENTAL HEALTH
CURRICULUM IN SCHOOLS. SB 11 84
WILL BUILD ON THAT. SB 11 84
ALLOW STUDENTS TO ACCESS TO
SCHOOLING SERVICE COORDINATOR
CAN REFER BOTH STUDENTS AND
FAMILIES AND MENTAL TREATMENT
AND CARE. WITH THE SERVICE.
IMPROVED CARE COORDINATION
CALIFORNIA PROVIDES AND RE
PRIORITIZES ACCESSIBLE MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES BOTH WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE STUDENTS EDUCATION. IT
IS A MINUTE BUT FUNDAMENTAL STEP
WE MUST TAKE. WE KNOW THAT
SCHOOLING SERVICES NOT ONLY
CLOSES THE LOOP WHEN PROVIDING
STUDENTS WITH MENTAL HEALTH
SUPPORT, BUT ALSO SETS UP
STUDENTS THAT TAKE BETTER CARE
OF THEIR HEALTH IN THE LONG RUN.
WE MUST REMEMBER THAT WE ARE NOT
JUST TEACHING THE STUDENTS OF
TODAY BUT RAISING THE CITIZENS
OF A HEALTHIER TOMORROW AND THUS
WE MUST MAKE THEIR MENTAL HEALTH
A PRIORITY AND ASPECT OF TRUE
QUALITY EDUCATION. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I URGE YOU TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THIS LEGISLATION. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SO THANK YOU
FOR HAVING ME TODAY AND I
REPRESENT THE SCHOOL COUNSELORS
. MY NAME IS AGAIN LORETTA
WHITSON AND, UM THIS BILL, I
CAN'T OVERSTATE HOW IMPORTANT
THIS BILL IS. AND ALSO I COME
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT I WAS
A SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY FOR 20
YEARS, SO I SAW FIRSTHAND WHAT
IT WAS LIKE WHEN WE HAD
DIFFICULTY COMMUNICATING WITH
ONE SEGMENT OF PEOPLE WORKING
WITH STUDENTS AND THE OTHER. SO
THIS BILL? WHAT THIS SOLVES IS
THE ISSUE BETWEEN HIPAA
COMPLIANCE AND FERPA COMPLIANCE
SO JUST THE OTHER DAY I HEARD
FROM A SCHOOL COUNSELOR WHO
WORKS IN THE BAY AREA. AND WHEN
SHE REFERS A STUDENT TO THE ON
CAMPUS COMMUNITY SCHOOL TO SEE
CLINIC CLINICIANS, SHE SAYS, I
DON'T EVEN IF THEY DON'T SHOW
UP. THEY CAN'T TELL ME. THEY
CANNOT SHARE THAT INFORMATION.
SO, SHE SAYS, IN ORDER FOR US TO
COORDINATE THE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE TWO ENTITIES. IT'S EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE
CONFIDENTIALITY KEEPS THEM FROM
BEING ABLE TO SHARE THAT
INFORMATION FULLY WITH US AND SO
AND THAT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME
I'VE HEARD THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN
ONGOING ISSUE FOR DECADES WHERE
WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHARE
EVEN IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING
WHERE WE CAN'T SHARE
APPROPRIATELY UNLESS WE HAVE A
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FROM THE
PARENTS, WHICH IS OFTEN
DIFFICULT TO DO SO JUST IN ORDER
TO DO BUSINESS SUFFICIENTLY IN
ORDER FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT
KIDS ARE GETTING THE SERVICES
THAT THEY DESERVE, AND THEY NEED
AND THEN DOUBLING DOWN ON THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE A MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS AMONGST OUR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH. THIS BILL IS
SO VERY IMPORTANT. SO I
ENCOURAGE YOUR I VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? SEEING NONE. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION IN
THE ROOM? SEEING NONE WOULD
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. MOVED
BY DENNIS WILSON SECONDED BY MR
FONG. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS
SORRY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. SB 11 84 SENATOR
COURTESY MOTION IS DUE PASSED
THE HEALTH COMMITTEE GABRIEL
KYLIE BAUER-KAHAN BENNETT
BENNETT I BERMAN CUNNINGHAM
CUNNINGHAM, I FONG FONG I IRWIN. BALLAD AIRES. WICKS WILSON
WILSON. AYE. THAT BILL IS ON
CALL. WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN. SERGEANTS COULD GET ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU, SENATOR.
THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATOR. PLEASE
BEGIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. SP 12 50
REQUIRES. STATING HOW MUCH A
CONSUMER WILL BE CHARGED IN
CONVENIENCE FEES FOR USING A
TOLL ROAD OR A BRIDGE IN A
RENTAL CAR. OVER THE LAST FEW
YEARS, MORE AND MORE TOLL ROADS
AND BRIDGES HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM
OFFERING A CASH OPTION. WHEN
DRIVING YOUR OWN CAR. THERE ARE
SEVERAL WAYS TO PAY THE TOLL
BEFORE OR AFTER CROSSING WITH
RENTAL CARS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT
MORE DIFFICULT. THESE
CONVENIENCE CHARGES CAN RANGE
FROM $4 A DAY TO $15 PER TOLL
CROSSING. THE CONSUMER MAY NOT
FULLY BE AWARE OF THE CHARGES
UNTIL AFTER THEY GET THEIR BILL.
THIS BILL WILL ALLOW FOR MORE
TRANSPARENCY FOR THE CONSUMERS
AND WILL ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
AWARE OF THE CHARGES AND THE
ALTERNATIVES TO PAY WITHOUT
INCURRING CONVENIENCE CHARGES.
THANK YOU AND I RESPECT THE ASK
FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. DO YOU
HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT?
UM SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL? SEEING NONE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. MM BILLS
MOVED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON
SECONDED BY MR FONG OR BENNETT.
I'M NOT SURE WHICH AH! MY ONLY
COMMENT IS I WAS TALKING TO A
COLLEAGUE OF OURS WHO GOT HIT
WITH ONE OF THESE. SURPRISE
FEES. MERRYMAN, I'VE BEEN YOU. I
GUESS IT WAS COULD HAVE BEEN ME
. BUT I DID. AND THAT'S WHY THIS
IS JUST A BILL. AFTER YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE WITH THIS WHERE I'M
LIKE, THIS DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.
SOMEONE SHOULD TELL SOMEONE HOW
TO PAY A BILL LIKE 50% OF THE
TOLL WAS SOME SORT OF PROCESSING
FEE, WHICH SEEMS EXORBITANT.
ANYWAY. HAPPY TO SUPPORT. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. I TAKE THAT AS
YOUR CLOTHES. THANK YOU. SB 12
50 BY SENATOR LIMÓN MOTION IS
DUE PASS, GABRIEL KYLIE.
BAUER-KAHAN BENNETT. BENNETT I
BERMAN CUNNINGHAM CUNNINGHAM. I
THONG THONG I IRWIN. VALID AIRES
. WICKS WILSON WILSON. AYE. THAT
BILLS ARE ON CALL WILL HOLD THE
ROLE FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. NICE TO SEE YOU.
THIS COMMITTEE STANDS IN RECESS
FOR 10 MINUTES.
SHALL WE GO THROUGH THE BILLS
AND FILE ORDER HAD ABSENT
MEMBERS. OH, YEAH, EXACTLY. I'M
A NO. I OPPOSE REBECCA BARRY
BILLS. ALL THE BILLS VOTING ON
CONSENT CALENDAR. SB 53. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. MOTION IS DUE
PAST AS MINTED BERMAN VALID
AIRES VALLADARES AYE. QUICKS,
OKAY? NOT GOOD. NEXT IS SP 3 46.
BY WORKHOUSE KIÞM. MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. BERMAN
BERMAN AYE VALID. ARIE'S.
VALLADARES NOT VOTING WICKS.
NEXT IS SP 10 18 PAN. MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. BERMAN BERMAN I VALID
ARIE'S PALADARES. NO WICKS. BILL
IS OUT. NEXT IS SP 10 56 AM
BERG. MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BERMAN BERMAN I VALID ARIE'S
VALLADARES? AYE, WICKS. THAT
BUILDS OUT. NEXT. WE HAVE SP 11
84 CORTEZ. MOTION IS DUE PASSED
THE HEALTH COMMITTEE GABRIEL
KYLIE, BARRICADE HAN.
BAUER-KAHAN AYE, BERMAN BERMAN.
I IRWIN BALLAD. ARIE'S
VALLADARES, NOT VOTING WICKS. IT
BUILDS ON CALL. NEXT IS SP 12 50
LIMÓN. MOTION IS DUE PASS,
GABRIEL KYLIE BAUER-KAHAN
BARRICADE HAND I, BERMAN BERMAN,
I IRWIN VALID. AIRES VALLADARES
AYE, WICKS. BUILDS UP. INTERIM
CHAIR. UH CUNNINGHAM. I HAVE A
REQUEST TO MAKE. PLEASE ASK
CHAIR GABRIEL TO TAKE OUT THE
TRASH AND DO THE DISHES MORE
OFTEN. THANK YOU. IS THERE A
SECOND?
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SB 53
LEYVA DO PASS AS AMENDED. WIX
WIX? AYE. SB 3 46 WIECKOWSKI
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS WIX WIX AYE. SB
10 18 SENATOR PAN MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WIX WIX AYE. A SPEED
10 56 SENATOR AMBERG MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WIX WIX AYE. SB 11 84
SENATOR CORTESI MOTION IS DUE
PASSED THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
GABRIEL KYLIE. IRWIN WIX WIX
AYE. SB 12 50 SENATOR LIMÓN
MOTION IS DUE PAST GABRIEL
KYLIE. IRWIN WIX WIX AYE. THIS
GUY'S YOUR QUESTION.
OKAY WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THE
ROLL ON FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
SB 11 84 BY SENATOR CORTEZ,
MADAM SECRETARY. MOTION IS DUE
PASSED THE HEALTH COMMITTEE
GABRIEL I. KYLIE KYLIE. NO.
IRWIN IRWIN. AYE. THAT BILL IS
OUT 9 TO 1. YOU'RE NOW GOING TO
GO TO FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX. SB
12 50 BY SENATOR LIMÓN. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
MOTION IS DUE PAST GABRIEL.
GABRIEL I KYLIE KAYLIE. I IRWIN
IRWIN. AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT 11
TO 0. AND JUST FOR PURPOSES OF
HOUSEKEEPING FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE SB 53 IS OUT 11 TO 0. THAT
WAS THE CONSENT CALENDAR FILE.
ITEM NUMBER NUMBER TWO SB 346 BY
SENATOR WIECKOWSKI IS OUT 9 TO
0. FILE ITEM NUMBER THREE BY
SENATOR PAN IS OUT 92 FILE ITEM
NUMBER FOUR SB 10 56 BY SENATOR
UMBERG IS OUT 10 TO 0. WITH
THAT. I WANT TO THANK UH THE
STAFF ON BOTH SIDES FOR ALL OF
THEIR WORK AND EXCELLENT
ANALYSIS. IT'S A BUSY TIME OF
YEAR, SO WE PARTICULARLY
APPRECIATE THE STAFF DOING OF
THEIR WORK. THANK YOU TO OUR
SECRETARY. ALL OF THE SERGEANT'S
EVERYONE WHO MAKES THIS PLACE
RUN. WE KNOW THERE'S A LOT GOING
ON RIGHT NOW. SO WE APPRECIATE
ALL THE HARD WORK AND WITH THAT
THEY'RE HEARING IS RETURNED.