ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
EVERYBODY. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE. I'M GOING
TO EXTEND AN INVITATION FOR OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES TO JOIN US
. AND IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE
GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET SOME OF
OUR OPENING REMARKS OUT OF THE
WAY TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE OUR
TIME. TODAY, WE WILL BE LIMITING
TESTIMONY TO TWO WITNESSES FOR
SUPPORT AND TWO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION ON EACH BILL. EACH
WITNESS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE
MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR
TESTIMONY. AFTER THE SUPPORT
WITNESSES CONCLUDE THEIR
TESTIMONY. THE COMMITTEE WILL
CALL UP ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS.
NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE
PERMITTED. ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS
MAY ONLY STATE THEIR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION FOR THE
RECORD. THE SAME PROCESS WILL BE
FOLLOWED AFTER THE OPPOSITION
WITNESSES CONCLUDE THEIR
TESTIMONY. AT THAT TIME,
ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION WILL BE
CALLED. THEY MAY ONLY STATE
THEIR NAME, AFFILIATION AND
POSITION FOR THE RECORD. FOR
THIS HEARING, AND UNTIL FURTHER
NOTICE THE COMMITTEE WILL BE
RETURNING TO IN PERSON TESTIMONY
ONLY AS REFLECTED IN THE FINAL
NOTICE. AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE
THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING WRITTEN
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE POSITION
LETTER PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE, SO ANY MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC MAY WEIGH IN THROUGH THAT
WEBSITE TYPE OF ITEMS. I WANT TO
NOTE AT THE BEGINNING,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PATERSON WILL
RECUSE HIMSELF FROM
CONSIDERATION ON A B 16 59 DUE
TO POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST. SO ANOTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBER, WILL PRESIDE DURING THE
PRESENTATION OF THE BILL, AND
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND
WELCOME OUR DEAR FRIEND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CHOLERA WHO
WILL BE REPLACING
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON TODAY.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CALDWELL FOR JOINING US. WE HAVE
FIVE BILLS ON THE AGENDA TODAY,
AND THE FOLLOWING BILL HAS BEEN
APPROVED FOR CONSENT. A B 4 10.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO ADD AN URGENCY CLAUSE
AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION
FOR THIS CONSENT CALENDAR. AS
SOON AS WE ESTABLISHED QUORUM. I
SEE THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM
PRESENT. SO, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GABRIEL PRESENT
PRESENT, PATTERSON. THE
BARRICADE HIM HERE. BAUER-KAHAN
HERE. BENNETT BENNETT. HERE,
SALLY SALLY HERE. IRWIN EVERYONE
HERE CHOLERA. COLOR HERE.
POPPING HAPPENED HERE, WICKS.
OKAY? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
HAVE A CORN PRESIDENT. AT THIS
POINT, I'M PREPARED TO ENTERTAIN
A MOTION ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR
CONSENT CALENDAR, MOVED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT AND
SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CHOLERA. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. OKAY AND THE
CONSENT CALENDARS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO ADD AN URGENCY CAUSE
WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. GABRIEL
GABRIEL, I PATERSON. BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN AYE BENNETT BENNETT
, I SALLY SALLY, I PHONE RANG. I
IRWIN. AYE. IRWIN I KALRA COVER
I WENT. OH I POPPING POPPING I
WICKS. SO THEY CONSENT CALENDAR
HAS NINE VOTES SO THAT BILL IS
OUT. WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON
WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO
FILE ITEM NUM NUMBER ONE A. B
331 ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS FIRST. I WANT
TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE. UM, THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE AND THE
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON
THIS VERY COMPLEX BILL, AND I
WANT TO SAY THAT I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
ARE TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING. UH
WITH THAT. I'M PROUD TO PRESENT
A B 331, WHICH IS MODELED AFTER
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S AI. BILL OF
RIGHTS. A B 331 PROTECTS
INDIVIDUALS FROM ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION BY REQUIRING
DEVELOPERS AND USERS TO ASSESS
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS FOR
DISCRIMINATORY BIASES AND
MITIGATE ACCORDINGLY, ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND A TTS HAVE
YIELDED ASTONISHING INSIGHTS.
THE INTENT OF THE BILL IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT TO HINDER
INNOVATION. IN FACT, I BELIEVE
THAT WITH THIS BILL, WE MAY HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE LESS
BIAS. SOME OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT
AREAS OF POLICY. IT IS CRUCIAL
FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY TO BE
DEPLOYED IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER
. AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS USE
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS TO ASSESS
ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFIT OR
PENALTY DECISIONS THAT CAN HAVE
DRASTIC IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUALS
LIVES. FOR EXAMPLE, A TTS ARE
NOW USED FOR EMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY,
HEALTHCARE DECISIONS, HOUSING
DECISIONS, LENDING DECISIONS,
THE DECISIONS THAT ARE INTEGRAL
TO OUR SOCIETY, OUR LIVES AND
THAT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
PROTECT TODAY. THERE IS NO
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR UNBIASED DATA
SETS AND A PROGRAMMER'S
UNCONSCIOUS BIASES THAT CAN BE
EMBEDDED INTO THE EIGHTIES AND
THE RESULTS CAN BE DETRIMENTAL
AND DISCRIMINATORY. A STUDY
PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE IN 2019
SHOWED THAT A CLINICAL ALGORITHM
USED ACROSS HOSPITALS FOR
DETERMINING PATIENT CARE WAS
RACIALLY BIASED AGAINST BLACK
PATIENTS. THE ALGORITHM USED
HEALTHCARE SPENDING AS A PROXY
FOR HEALTH NEEDS AND FALSELY
CONCLUDED THAT BLACK PATIENTS
WERE HEALTHIER THAN EQUALLY SICK
WHITE PATIENTS, DEPRIVING BLACK
PATIENTS FROM NEEDED HIGH RISK
CARE. THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE.
WHEN YOU CONSIDER A TTS ARE
BEING USED TO DETERMINE
ELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT,
MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND EVEN FOR
PAROLE OR PROBATION, IT BECOMES
APPARENT HOW LIFE ALTERING AND
CONSEQUENTIAL THESE DECISIONS
TRULY ARE. MARGINALIZATION AND
DISCRIMINATION WILL ONLY BECOME
MORE ENTRENCHED UNLESS WE ENSURE
THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T
PROPAGATE THE BIAS THAT IS HELD
IN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IS TUNISIA HERRING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HAWAII STATE
CONFERENCE OF THE ACP. OH YEAH.
TAKE MY MEXICO. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR, REMEMBERS. I'M TUNISIA
HOW WE REPRESENT THE CALIFORNIA
WHERE I STAY COMFORTS OF THE CPI
, CALIFORNIA, HAWAII AND KEEPS
PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE
THE POLITICAL, EDUCATIONAL,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF
MINORITY CITIZENS IN CALIFORNIA
AND ELIMINATE RACE PREJUDICE. WE
ARE PROUD TO SUPPORT A B 3 31
BECAUSE IT STANDS TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUALS FROM ALGORITHM
DISCRIMINATION BY REQUIRING
DEVELOPERS AND USERS TO MITIGATE
AND ASSESS AUTOMATED DECISION
TOOLS OR A TTS THAT MAKE
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS. 80 TSR
PROMINENT ALMOST EVERY FACET OF
AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE AND IT IS
ESSENTIAL THAT WHEN THEY ARE
DEPLOYED, THEY'RE USING A SAFE
MANNER THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN
DISCRIMINATORY HARM. AMAZON
ATTEMPTED TO USE DEVELOPING
HIRING ALGORITHM USING
HISTORICAL DATA FOR THE
SELECTION OF SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING APPLICANTS AND
CONDUCTING A CONTRASTING IMPACT
ANALYSIS. IT WAS FOUND THAT
THESE ALGORITHMIC RESULTS
DISPROPORTIONATELY REJECTED
WOMEN ONE WIDELY USED CRIMINAL
RISK ASSESSMENT TO IS THE
CORRECTIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
PROFILING FOR ALTERNATIVE
SANCTIONS, ALSO KNOWN AS
COMPASS. IT'S USED WITHIN 47
STATES, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA.
THE PROGRAM IS USED TO IDENTIFY
HIGH RISK FOR VIOLENCE, HIGH
RISK FOR RECIDIVISM AND A HIGH
PRE TRIAL FLIGHT RISK. ANY
CHARGE SEEKING TO USE COMPASS AS
A JUDICIOUS A JUDICIAL AID
CANNOT AT THIS MOMENT,
UNDERSTAND FULLY HOW A COMPASS
RISK ASSESSMENT SCORES DEVELOPED
, NOR HOW FACTORS ABOUT THE
DEFENDANT'S PROFILE WERE
WEIGHTED TO ARRIVE TO THE GIVEN
RISK SCORE. NOT ONLY DOES THIS
PROHIBIT JUDGES FROM PROPERLY
UNDERSTANDING THAT JUDICIAL TOOL
TO ASSIST THE PROCESS, BUT IN MY
ALSO DENIED THE DEFENDANT THE
ABILITY TO IDENTIFY A FAIR TRIAL
OUTCOME SHOULD THE JUDGE FACE
THEIR FINAL RULING IN ANY WAY
UPON THE SCORE THAT THEY BOTH
CANNOT FULLY COMPREHEND IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED SENSE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY. THAT MAKES IT
DIFFICULT FOR THOSE WHO USE A
TTS TO USE THEM AS TOOLS OF
DISCRIMINATION AND OPPRESSION,
WHETHER IN EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING,
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OR
ANY OTHER FACET OF LIFE. IF THE
LIVELIHOOD OF CITIZENS IS GOING
TO BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF
TECHNOLOGY, IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT DEVELOPERS AND EMPLOYERS BE
TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE IMPACT OF
THAT TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS. THERE IS REASON TO
EXPECT THAT MORE DISCRIMINATED
MORE DISCRIMINATING INCIDENTS
WHETHER DELIVERED OR NOT WILL
OCCUR. WE THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN FOR WRITING THIS
CRUCIAL AND CRITICAL LEGISLATION
, AND WE HOPE THAT MAYBE 3 31
WILL BE A STARTING POINT FOR THE
MARATHON AHEAD OF US TO END
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES THROUGH
THE USE OF AUTOMATED DECISION
TOOLS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE WILL NOW RETURN. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING
ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THE BELL?
SEEN THAT SEEN? NONE. WE WILL
NOW GO TO, UH, TESTIMONY IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. ARE
THERE ANYONE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL?
THANK YOU, SIR. CHAIR MRS ON.
THANK YOU. MR CHAIR. MEMBERS
WERE NOT DAYLAMI ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, RESPECTFULLY AND
STRONG OPPOSITION TO MAYBE THREE
THROUGH ONE AS IT'S CURRENTLY IN
PRINT. UM, I'D LIKE TO START BY
SAYING THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY
LARGELY ALIGNED WITH THE AUTHOR
AND PRINCIPAL AND WE THANK HER
AND HER STAFFER ENGAGING WITH US
ON THE BILL. BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION OR SERIOUS
PROBLEMS IN OUR SOCIETY, AND OUR
MEMBERS WANT TO BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION. BUT WE ALSO FEEL THAT
A MORE MEASURED APPROACH IS
NEEDED, GIVEN THE COMPLEXITIES
INVOLVED WITH A TTS AND THEIR
POTENTIAL FOR POSITIVE IMPACTS.
THEY CAN, FOR EXAMPLE, ENABLE
QUICKER APPROVALS AND ACCESS TO
CREDIT AND THEY CAN ALSO PROTECT
AGAINST FRAUD BY ASSISTING AND
QUICK IDENTIFICATION OF
UNCHARACTERISTIC ACCOUNT
ACTIVITY. AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED
WHERE CONCERNED THAT THE BILL
WILL LEND TO OVER REGULATION AND
CREATED CHILLING EFFECT THAT
SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THE
TOOLS, UTILITY AND FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS. STARTING WITH THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. A PR IS
SIMPLY NOT FEASIBLE FOR SUCH AN
IMPORTANT GROWING TECHNOLOGY,
ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE
SWEEPING SCOPE OF THIS BILL
RELATED, LEE. WE BELIEVE THAT
GREATER CLARITY IS NEEDED ON
WHAT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE $10,000
FINE. UH FOR EACH VIOLATION
WITHOUT ANY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE
ACTUAL HARM TO ANY INDIVIDUAL.
WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED OVER THE
FREQUENCY AND TRIGGERS FOR THE
REQUIRED IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.
MANY SMALLER BUSINESSES SIMPLY
DON'T HAVE THE IN HOUSE
EXPERTISE OR THE RESOURCES TO
OUTSOURCE FOR THESE ASSESSMENTS
, LET ALONE DO SO ON A YEARLY
BASIS TO ENSURE THOUGHTFUL
ASSESSMENTS AND PREVENT THEM
FROM TURNING INTO LITIGATION
BAIT. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE
CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS
ADDED AS WELL AS GUARDRAILS
AROUND WHEN THESE ASSESSMENTS
GET SHARED AMONG AGENCIES.
FINALLY WE'RE VERY CONCERNED
THAT PROVIDING NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT CAN IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES NOT BE
POSSIBLE OR LEAD TO PERVERSE
OUTCOMES. IMAGINE A HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY ROOM STOPPING LIFE,
TRUE LIFE SAVING TREATMENT OF A
PATIENT TO PROVIDE NOTICE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF THE
USE OF A TOOL THAT CAN HELP
TRIAGE CASES FOR THESE AND OTHER
REASONS, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED,
BUT LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS AND YOU TALK TO
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT
TECHNET. TECHNET IS A NATIONAL
NETWORK OF TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES
AND WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
TO MAYBE 3 31. I FIRST LIKE TO
ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH THOSE OF
MY COLLEAGUE AT THE CHAMBER. UM
AND IN ADDITION, I'D LIKE TO
NOTE THAT THIS BILL IS ONE OF
SEVERAL THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE
ISSUE AT THE MOMENT AS OUR TWO
REGULATORY BODIES. AND WITH ALL
OF THIS ACTIVITY ON THE TOPICS
OF AI AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEMS
, AND THE ISSUE OF BIAS, WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THESE LAWS
AND REGULATIONS WILL ALIGN OR
CONFLICT AND WHAT THE IMPACT OF
THAT MAYBE ON BUSINESSES AND
CONSUMERS. THE GOAL OF THIS BILL
IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR MOVING FORWARD TO ADDRESS
OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH RENOWNED BY FORD,
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CREAM GREASY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS. WE DO HAVE AN OPPOSING
LESS AMENDED POSITION CERTAINLY
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD, HOWEVER, IS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED AND MUST RESPECTFULLY
REQUESTED NOVA. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, DEBORAH
CARLSON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND
OPPOSITION. AFTERNOON CARL ZEBO
, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL
COUNSEL OF CHOICE AS WELL AS
INTERNET LAW, PROFESSOR IT
GEORGE MASON LAW SCHOOL. WE
ASKED THE YOU OPPOSE. AUSTIN
HERE WITH ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNET WORKS COALITION. WE
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE AND ARE GLAD TO BE WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR. WE WOULD JUST
EMPHASIZE A FURTHER NARROWING OF
A RISK BASED APPROACH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SHERRY MCHUGH,
REPRESENTING THE CONSUMER. SORRY
COMPUTER, AND I KNEW I WAS GONNA
DO THAT COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
CREDIT UNION LEAGUE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. BEN HAVING
COME HALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN THE
NATIONAL PAYROLL REPORTING
CONSORTIUM RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
TERRA PALOMO. CALIFORNIA
RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THE ACTING
WITH THE SILICON VALLEY
LEADERSHIP GROUP, RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. SCOTT GOVERNOR BEHALF
OF CALIFORNIA FINANCIAL SERVICES
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION.
JAMIE HAVE WITH A CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.
RESPECTFULLY A POST THANKS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL NOW
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. MR
CHOLERA. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. THIS IS
CLEARLY A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT
CHALLENGING ISSUE TO TAKE ON BUT
A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ONE. AT
THE SAME TIME. I DO THINK THAT
THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE FIRM
GUARDRAILS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
. PERVASIVE IMPACT THAT
ESPECIALLY THE CONSEQUENCES.
DECISIONS CAN HAVE. ON
INDIVIDUALS LIVES. AND SO I
THINK THAT THIS THAT TECHNOLOGY
AND THE USE OF AUTOMATED
DECISION MAKING TOOLS PROVIDES A
GREAT BENEFIT FOR SOCIETY A
GREAT BENEFIT FOR CALIFORNIANS,
BUT THERE HAS TO BE PROTECTIONS
IN PLACE. AND SO I'M HAPPY TO
MOVE THE BILL AND APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK ON THIS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR BENNETT
VERY MUCH, AND I WILL BE
STEPPING OUT TO GO TO PRESENT A
BILL. BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT
THAT YOU KNOW, DEMOCRACY IS
USUALLY WAIT FOR A PROBLEM TO
HAPPEN BEFORE THERE'S ENOUGH
ENERGY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, AND
SO I REALLY APPLAUD THE AUTHOR,
AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE FACT
THAT THE OPPONENTS INDICATE THAT
THEY'RE CONCEPTUALLY IN SUPPORT
OF TRYING TO ATTACK AN ISSUE
THAT YOU KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT
IF TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO BECOME
CRITICAL TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
. IT ALREADY IS CRITICAL TO OUR
QUALITY OF LIFE, SO TO ATTACK
THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM AT THE
BEGINNING AND I THINK YOU HAVE A
MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF MAKING
THIS A WORKABLE WAY TO BOTH
ADDRESS THE CIVIL RIGHTS
CONCERNS AND THE OTHER PRIVACY
CONCERNS, ETCETERA AND STILL
HAVE THIS BITE BE WORKABLE. AND
SO I APPLAUD THE AUTHOR FOR HER
OPENNESS TO DOING THAT, AND THE
INDUSTRY AND THE OPPOSITION
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH HER TO
DO THAT. SO OUR SECOND EMOTION,
UM, BE ON RECORD FOR AN I VOTED
ME, BUT I DO. THEY'RE CALLING.
GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU, MR
BENNETT. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE? MR SALIH? I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY. I MEAN,
EXISTING LAW MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO
DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEX AGE
RACE CURRENTLY, SO EVEN IF AN
ALGORITHM IT DOESN'T MATTER IF
IT'S A HUMAN OR ALGORITHM DOING
THE DISCRIMINATION. IT'S STILL A
LAWFUL ISN'T IT MAKES IT VERY
CLEAR THAT COMPANIES HAVE TO BE
PROACTIVE IN ENSURING THAT THE
OTTOMAN DECISION SYSTEMS THAT
THEY'RE PUTTING INTO THE WORLD
DO NOT DISCRIMINATE IN ORDER TO
BRING A CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM LIKE
THAT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE, AS YOU
KNOW, SERIOUS, DISPARATE IMPACT
AND HAVE A KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS
HAS HAPPENED TO YOU AND WHAT
THIS DOES IS, IT SAYS, AND
THAT'S WHY I OPENED IN MY
OPENING TALKING ABOUT HOW I
THINK THAT IF WE DO THIS, RIGHT
WE? ACTUALLY THE POTENTIAL HAVE
LESS BIAS IN THESE CRITICAL
DECISIONS BECAUSE OF ON THE
FRONT END. WE'RE LOOKING AT THEM
AND DOING THESE IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS AND CORRECTING FOR
BIAS. THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE
TO HAVE HIRING DECISIONS. WHERE
INSTEAD OF YOU KNOW WHAT WE SAW
HERE, WHERE AMAZON WAS HIRING
LESS WOMEN BASED ON AN ALGORITHM
YOU COULD SEE HOW, BECAUSE
THERE'S SO MUCH BIAS IN HIRING
TODAY, WHEN HUMANS MAKE THAT
DECISION, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE
ABLE TO GET MORE WOMEN INTO
THESE UNDERREPRESENTED FIELDS.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE IS ENSURE THAT THE LAWS
CATCH UP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE
DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE KNOW
OH, THAT SOMEONE IS BEING
SERIOUSLY DISCRIMINATORY AND
HOUSING PRACTICES, ETCETERA, BUT
INSTEAD WE'RE PUTTING ADULTS
INTO THE WORLD THAT ARE NOT
DISCRIMINATORY AND ENSURING THAT
THE PRACTICES ARE FAIR TO EVERY
CALIFORNIAN. AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT I COMMEND YOUR INTENT. I
THINK I THINK YOU'RE APPROACHING
THIS IN GOOD FAITH. MY CONCERN
IS JUST THE MECHANISM AND
CREATING A NEW PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION. I THINK THE EXAMPLE YOU
GAVE THE AMAZON IS ACTION. I
THINK THEY COULD BE SUED RIGHT
NOW UNDER CURRENT LAW, SO I
WOULD JUST, UM I ENCOURAGE YOU
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION
SAFETY AND I'D LOVE TO GET TO A
PLACE WHERE I CAN SUPPORT IT.
BUT JUST AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, I
DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS. BUT I
APPRECIATE YOU ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS. OF COURSE. THANK YOU.
MR VICE CHAIR. GREAT THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, I TWO LOOK
, I MEAN, I SAID IN COMMITTEE
MEETINGS ALL THE TIME WHERE
PEOPLE APPRECIATE THE INTENT AND
THEN VOTE NO ON MY BILL. SO UH,
YOU KNOW, I DO, BUT EVERYBODY
SINCERE WHEN THEY SAY THAT, YOU
KNOW, BUT I AM. YOU KNOW, I
THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY GOOD.
UM YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO A IS IMPORTANT. I MEAN,
YOU SEE A LOT MORE AUTOMATED
DECISIONS BEING MADE AND YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY
EVEN GRAPPLED. I MEAN, I THINK
THAT THE FIRE JUST GOT STARTED
ON THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT
WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE
TECHNOLOGIES. AND NOW WE
BASICALLY HAVE COMPETITIONS
BETWEEN YOU KNOW COMPANIES THAT
ARE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE BETTER
TOOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND
I MEAN, I THINK THERE IS
SIGNIFICANT RISK TO, UM BIASES.
YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S
INTENTIONAL, AND THAT'S WHERE I
KIND OF LIKE STRUGGLE WITH THE,
UM PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. UM
WHERE THIS TECHNOLOGIES IN THESE
THINGS THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY
THEIR NEW BUT THE EVOLUTION OF
THEM IS BECOMING BEYOND MY
CAPABILITIES TO UNDERSTAND. I'M
GOING TO GO TO SOME FUNCTIONS
NOW ACTUALLY WROTE A PRESS
RELEASE USING CHAT GPT, FOR
EXAMPLE, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS
, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW THEY DO SUCH
A DECISIONS IN THE IN THE THINGS
THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO MAKE OUR UM
, YOU KNOW, BEYOND MY CAPABILITY
TO UNDERSTAND, AND WE'RE TRYING
TO CREATE A LAW ON SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE STILL JUST REALLY
GETTING STARTED GOING. AND SO MY
UNFORTUNATE OPPOSITION TO THIS
RIGHT NOW, AND I DO TO WANT TO
GET TO A PLACE WHERE EXPORT IS
JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE US,
UH, MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T
HAPPENING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE
CAN REALLY PERFECT THAT YET.
UNFORTUNATELY HUMANS STILL DO IT
AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS, YOU
KNOW? THE EARTH BEING HERE AND
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OF
BEING HERE. SO UM, YOU KNOW, WE
WANT TO GET WE WANT TO DO IT. WE
HAVE TO GET THERE. I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT AND I THINK FOR
A LOT OF THE REASONS YOU'VE
SAID, BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE
IT'S ALL TOO MUCH TO HAVE THIS
LIABILITY IN THERE RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGIES ARE JUST
SO AND THEY'RE STILL IN THEIR
INFANCY. AND SO I GET CONCERNED
ABOUT THAT. BUT I HOPE ANYBODY
THAT DOES HAVE THESE BIASES IS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ASTLEY SAID. I
YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE
ACTIONABLE ABILITIES OUT THERE
RIGHT NOW THAT EXISTS, AND I
THINK PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THOSE. THANK YOU.
MR LOWENTHAL. YEAH FIRST OF ALL
, I'M EXTREMELY PROUD TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. AND I THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. IT
IS IT IS SORELY NEEDED. I SAY
THIS NOT ONLY AS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE, BUT AS SOMEBODY WHO'S
ADMINISTERED AND RUN HIM IN THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY THAT AT
40 MILLION MONTHLY USERS ONLINE
AND WITH WITH GREAT RESPECT TO
MY COLLEAGUES, UH FROM, UH WHO
WAS JUST BRINGING UP THE POINTS
IN REGARDS TO YOU KNOW, THIS IS
IMPERFECT AS WE IMPLEMENT IT.
IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT,
LIKE LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THAT
WE'RE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. AND FOR
ALL MY FAVORITES FROM THE THIRD
HOUSE THAT ACTUALLY CAME AND
SPOKE AT SOMEBODY REAL FAVORITES
ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, UH, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE A WORK
IN PROGRESS FOREVER. IT WILL
NEVER EVER. EVER BE COMPLETELY
PERFECTED, AND THAT'S BECAUSE
THE TECHNOLOGY ITSELF WILL BE IN
A CONSTANT SORT. SOURCE OF
OPTIMIZATION. THE SOURCE CODE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE UTILIZED BY
SO MANY OF THESE AUNTIES IS
GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME. I
HOPE THAT THE AUTHOR IS OPEN TO,
UH. MECHANISMS WHEREBY THERE IS
THE ABILITY FOR COMPANIES TO
CORRECT THEMSELVES ONCE THEY'RE
NOTIFIED OF IT. BECAUSE I CAN
TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY
WANTS TO DO. AND I THINK THAT'S
THE SPIRIT OF THE THINGS YOU
WERE SAYING. WE ARE NEVER GOING
TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS TO A
PLACE WHERE IT'S TOTALLY
COMPLETELY YOU KNOW, OPTIMIZED
OUT OF THE GATE. AND YOU KNOW,
HOPEFULLY EVEN SOMEDAY MAYBE THE
INDUSTRY WILL COME TO THE TABLE
AND SAY, LET'S LET'S NOT JUST,
YOU KNOW, UH, SELF REGULATE
THIS, BUT LET'S COME OUT WITH A
MECHANISM WHERE WE'RE SCORING IT
OURSELVES FOR THE PUBLIC THE
SAME WAY LIKE WE SCORE MOVIES,
MOST PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND SO
FORTH. AND SO THE INDUSTRY
ITSELF IS DOING THINGS LIKE
THAT. AND I HOPE THAT HAPPENS
OVER TIME. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
PLEASE I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS
A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST OF ALL I
WANT TO THANK, UM THE OPPOSITION
. THEY YOU KNOW THEY HAVE
CONCERNS WITH THE BILL, AND I
DON'T WANT TO MINIMIZE THOSE.
BUT I DO WANT TO THANK THEM FOR
COMING TO THE TABLE FOR HAVING
CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS. WE
ARE ABSOLUTE. THOSE ARE ONGOING.
THERE'S ALREADY ONE THING THAT
CAUGHT THAT. WE DIDN'T WE JUST
DIDN'T CATCH THAT WAS WE HAD PUT
YOU KNOW WHERE TECHNICAL AND ONE
PART BUT NOT THE OTHER AND SO
WERE YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IS
BEING FIXED THAT WE CAN AND I DO
APPRECIATE THEIR INTENT TO
REALLY WANT TO GET THIS OUT. AND
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU
HEARD FROM A LOT OF INDUSTRIES
THAT DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.
THAT'S CLEAR. THERE ARE
COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING IT. WE
ARE WORKING WITH MANY COMPANIES
THAT ARE ALREADY DOING THESE
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE
HELPING US LEARN HOW THEY DO IT
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING
THIS IN A WAY THAT IS FEASIBLE
FOR TECHNOLOGY. AND SO I DO WANT
THEIR VOICE TO BE AT THE TABLE,
TOO, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF
COMPANIES THAT WANT TO PUT OUT A
PRODUCT THAT IMPROVES ON
DISCRIMINATION THAT IS EXISTING.
TODAY. AS EVERYONE HAS POINTED
OUT, AND THEN I WILL SAY WE HAVE
TWO PLACES IN THE BILL. WHERE
YOU ACTUALLY I MEAN, THE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS A
CORRECTIVE MECHANISM, RIGHT? YOU
DO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND WE
DON'T EXPECT ACTUALLY, WE THINK
IN ITS FIRST FOR MOST OF THE
TIME, IT PROBABLY WILL BE
DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE PEOPLE
BUILD THESE THINGS, AND THE
WHOLE GOAL IS THERE TO CATCH IT
AND FIX IT. AND THAT'S WHAT THE
BILL ASKS YOU TO DO. AND SO THAT
IS SORT OF A BUILT IN CORRECTIVE
MECHANISM TO GET THIS SOFTWARE
TO A BETTER PLACE, AND THEN
THERE IS CURRENTLY AS IT PLATES
TO THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AN OFF
RAMP, BUT I KNOW THAT THE
OPPOSITION WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MORE OF THAT, AND WE'RE IN
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH ANY OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE? SO WITH THAT I
WILL ALSO THANK THE AUTHOR. I
WANT TO THANK FIRST. MY
COLLEAGUES WERE VERY THOUGHTFUL
DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL THIS AND
GOOD QUESTIONS AND WANT TO THANK
YOU, UH, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL. IT
IS A VERY CONSEQUENTIAL ONE WITH
WITH SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS, AND I SAW I THINK
THAT'S REFLECTED BY ALL OF THE
PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME FORWARD IN
THIS HEARING ROOM TO TESTIFY AND
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OF IT. AND
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE'RE DOING
A BILL IN THIS AREA. IT'S VERY,
VERY IMPORTANT THAT CALIFORNIA
UM HAVE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN
THIS AREA AND TAKE THE STEPS
THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES AND TO DO SO, IN A
THOUGHTFUL WAY THAT BALANCES
INNOVATION AND ALSO THE NEED TO
PROTECT AGAINST POTENTIAL HARMS
. I GUESS MY CONFIDENCE IN
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY IS
WITH THE AUTHOR HAVING HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY MAYBE SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVEN'T TO SEE YOU
WORK TO WATCH. YOU WORK TO SEE
THE THOUGHTFUL WAY THAT YOU
APPROACH THINGS APPRECIATE WHAT
THE WHAT SO MANY IN THE
OPPOSITION SAID ABOUT SHARED A
SHARED SENSE OF PURPOSE HERE,
MAYBE A LARGER ALIGNMENT ON THE
VISION AND THE NEED TO WORK
THROUGH SOME OF THE DETAILS, AND
I JUST HAVE TREMENDOUS
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
DO THAT OVER THE COMING MONTHS.
THIS IS THE FIRST COMMITTEE
HEARING AND CERTAINLY THINK ALL
OF US BRING FORWARD BILLS WHERE
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN
AND TO GROW AND TO DO ALL THAT.
SO UM, SUPER SUPER IMPORTANT
ISSUE. THIS IS A GREAT THIS IS A
GREAT BILL THAT I THINK IS GOING
TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE AND
REALLY HELP FOLKS. AND I'M
LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCHING YOU
WORK AND WATCHING THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND SO PROUD TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY, AND WITH
THAT, WE'LL INVITE YOU TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR FOR YOUR
REMARKS. I SHOULD JUST TAKE THEM
AS MY CLOTHES. UM I WANT TO SAY
THIS IS A VERY BIG EFFORT WE'RE
UNDERTAKING. BUT I ALSO THINK
THAT I APPRECIATE THE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HOW IMPORTANT
IT IS. YOU KNOW, AS THE ANALYSIS
POINTED OUT, 50% OF COMPANIES
ARE NOW USING THESE AUTOMATED
DECISION TOOLS TO MAKE
CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS. THIS IS
HAPPENING TODAY IN MANY SECTORS
THAT AFFECT PEOPLE'S LIVES, AND
SO WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
WE'RE NOT AHEAD OF THE BALL.
WE'RE ALREADY BEHIND THE BALL
AND SO MAKING SURE THAT WE MOVE
FORWARD AGAIN IN A WAY THAT
ALLOWS CALIFORNIA TO BE THE
INNOVATION CENTER OF THIS
COUNTRY AND ALLOWS US TO DO
RIGHT. BY CALIFORNIANS AND
HOPEFULLY BEYOND BECAUSE AGAIN I
REALLY TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF WE
STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE HERE,
THESE TOOLS CAN ACTUALLY MAKE
THINGS BETTER FOR MARGINALIZED
COMMUNITIES. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S UH, THE MOTION.
ON THE BILL IS PASSED AS AMENDED
TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND
WITH THAT, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. A B 3 31
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN
. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
GABRIEL GABRIEL I. PATERSON
PATERSON. NO BARRICADE HANAI.
OKAY. HANAI BENNETT.
ESSENTIALLY, WE KNOW FUNG.
IRWIN. IRWIN I CHOLERA, CHOLERA
I WENT OH, SO I POP IT. HAPPENED
I WIX WIX. AYE. THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT 72, AND
WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AT THIS POINT, UH, WITH
THE WE ONLY HAVE THREE BILLS
LEFT. SOME REMEMBER, WICKS HAS
ASKED ME TO, UH TO GO FIRST, SO
I WILL DO THAT. I'M GOING TO
TURN THE GAVEL OVER, UNDERSTAND
THAT OUR VICE CHAIR HAS RECUSED
HIMSELF FROM A B 16 59 SO LET'S
DO A B 15 46 1ST. AND THEN IF
YOU'D LIKE YOU CAN TURN THE
GAVEL OVER TO MR IRWIN, WHO'S
VERY SEASONED AND EXPERIENCE
THAT SHE CAN SHARE THE
COMMITTEE.
ALRIGHT A B 15 46. MR CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, MR VICE CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES. I AM PROUD TODAY TO
PRESENT A B 15 OF 46 WHICH WILL
ENSURE THAT OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL
CAN ROBUSTLY ENFORCE OUR PRIVACY
LAWS AND WOULD ENSURE THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS EXACTLY THE
SAME AMOUNT OF TIME TO BRING A
CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT.
THE CCP A THAT THE CALIFORNIA
PRIVACY PROTECTION AGENCY HAS TO
BRING IN ADMINISTRATIVE FORCE
MINT ACTION UNDER THE SAME LOT,
AS WE ALL KNOW, CALIFORNIA IS A
NATIONAL LEADER INSERT IN
ENSURING CONSUMER PRIVACY
PROTECTION FOR ALL OF ITS
RESIDENTS. FIRST WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE ENACTED THE CCP AH
IN 2018, AND NEXT WHEN THE
VOTERS PASSED PROPOSITION 24 THE
C P R A IN 2020. UNDER THE CCP,
A ONLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
AUTHORIZED TO BRING CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT THAT IS SUING COURT
FOR VIOLATIONS, ABSENT
EXCEPTIONS FOR PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR DATA BREACHES.
PROPOSITION 24 CREATED THE
PRIVACY AGENCY AND GAVE IT A
FIVE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
TO BRING ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
UNFORTUNATELY DUE TO A DRAFTING
OVERSIGHT PROPOSITION. 24 DOES
NOT SPECIFY THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ALSO HAS FIVE YEARS TO
BRING A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
ACTION. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IF
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE LAW
, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ONLY
ONE YEAR TO INITIATE A LAWSUIT
FOR CIVIL PENALTIES. ONE YEAR IS
FAR TOO SHORT A TIME TO DEVELOP
A CASE UNDER A LAW AS COMPLEX AS
THE C C P A. AND THE ALTERNATIVE
TO PASSING THIS BILL IS TO LEAVE
THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IN PLACE, WHICH
MEANS ONE OF TWO THINGS WILL
HAPPEN. FIRST THE A G MIGHT
QUICKLY FILE SUIT BEFORE THE ONE
YEAR PERIOD EXPIRES IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUE,
MEANING THAT BUSINESSES WILL
HAVE TO QUICKLY DEFEND
THEMSELVES IN COURT, EVEN THOUGH
FURTHER INVESTIGATION MIGHT HAVE
SHOWN THAT NO LAWSUIT IS
NECESSARY. OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL FILE SUIT
ALLEGING NON CCP PRIVACY
VIOLATIONS AND THE PRIVACY
AGENCY WILL BRING A PARALLEL
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FOR
VIOLATIONS, MEANING THAT
BUSINESSES WILL HAVE TO DEFEND
AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ACTIONS AT
THE SAME TIME. CONTRARY TO WHAT
THE OPPOSITION CLAIMS THIS BILL
WOULD ADD NO ADDITIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND CREATE
NO NEW RISK OF DATA BREACHES FOR
BUSINESSES. COMPANIES COVERED BY
THE CCP ALREADY HAVE TO PRESERVE
RECORDS AND DATA FOR FIVE YEARS
IN CASE THE PRIVACY AGENCY
BRINGS AN INVESTIGATION OR
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AT THAT
TIME. TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORT I
HAVE WITH ME TWO WITNESSES FROM
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE STACY SHATTER IS THE
SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE PRIVACY UNIT IN
ANTHONY LIU IS THE DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH THE OFFICE
OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS. THANK
YOU. AND WITH THAT WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST IN I VOTE.
THANK YOU, UH, TESTIMONY AND
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS ANTHONY LIU. I'M A DEPUTY A G
FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS AND 80 BANDAS, THE PROUD
SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION. WE
WANT TO THANK OF SOMETHING
MEMBER GABRIEL FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORING A B 15
46 DID A GREAT JOB OF SUMMING IT
UP. IT'S A FAIRLY SIMPLE BILL
BEFORE YOU BUT SIMPLY AMEND THE
CCP A TO EXPRESSLY PERMIT DOJ TO
FILE A CIVIL ACTION WITHIN FIVE
YEARS OF A VIOLATION INSTEAD OF
THE CURRENT ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATION. IN DOING SO THE BILL
WOULD ALIGN CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF
CCP BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH
THE FIVE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT PROVIDED TO THE
CALIFORNIA PRIVACY PROTECTION
AGENCY. AND IMPORTANTLY, IT
WOULD ENHANCE THE O'JAYS ABILITY
TO CARRY OUT ITS DUTY TO ENFORCE
CCP, A CALIFORNIA'S LANDMARK
CONSUMER PRIVACY LOAN. SIMPLY
PUT THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT IS UNREASONABLY
SHORT. AND IT LIMITS DOJ IS
ABILITY TO ENFORCE CCP AND
PROTECT THE PUBLIC. AND AS
DESCRIBED IN THE EXCELLENT
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, THIS
CONSPICUOUS DISCREPANCY BETWEEN
THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT BY DOJ AND THE FIVE
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY
THE PRIVACY AGENCY MAKES LITTLE
SENSE IS PUBLIC POLICY. SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR I VOTE
TODAY ON MAYBE 15 46. AND I'D
LIKE TO INTRODUCE DAISY SCHEFTER
ARE SUBJECT MATTER. EXPERTS FROM
DOJ TO DELIVER FURTHER REMARKS
ABOUT THE BILL. AND SHE ALSO
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
STACY CHESSER. AND I'M THE
SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE PRIVACY UNIT AND
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION SECTION
OF DOJ. MY JOB INCLUDES
SUPERVISING THE TEAM OF
ATTORNEYS TASKED WITH CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT OF CCP, WHICH WE
HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE INCEPTION
IN 2020. THE CURRENT ONE YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS
INSUFFICIENT PRIVACY ENFORCEMENT
CASES ARE COMPLEX AND PRESENT
NUANCED, LEGAL AND FACTUAL
ISSUES THAT REQUIRE AN
UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYSIS OF
TECHNICAL ISSUES. TO DETERMINE
IF THE LAW IS BEING VIOLATED. WE
TYPICALLY EXAMINE AND TEST DATA
FLOWS WORK WITH EXPERT
TECHNOLOGISTS INTERVIEW. KEY
WITNESSES REVIEW LEGAL AND
BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS COVERED BY
STATUTE REGULATION CONTRACTS,
PRIVACY POLICIES AND TERMS OF
USE. IF WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A
FORMAL INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS, WHICH MAY BE
LITIGATED IN COURT. IF TARGETS
DO NOT COMPLY, ADDING FURTHER
TIME TO OUR INVESTIGATIONS, IN
ADDITION TO THE PRACTICAL
REALITY OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT,
THE VOTERS APPROVED THE CPR
AMENDMENTS THAT SET FORTH A KEY
DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE PRIVACY
AGENCY AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SECTION. 17 98.199 POINT 90
REINFORCES THE AGES
CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE AS THE CHIEF
LAW ENFORCER BECAUSE IT
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT THE AGE
CAN STAY THE AGENCY'S
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. ONE YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FUNDAMENT
TOTALLY MISREADS THIS DYNAMIC
AND RENDERS THIS LANGUAGE
WITHOUT THE EFFECT THAT THE
VOTERS INTENDED. THE VOTERS
APPROVED A LAW THAT PROVIDED
CONSUMERS WITH THE STRONG
PROTECTION BY BOTH THE PRIVACY
AGENCIES, ADMINISTRATIVE
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY AND THE
AGGIES ROBUST CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITY, LIMITING THE AGGIES
DIRECT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CCP. A
ALSO IMPACT IMPACTS THE AMOUNT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES EARMARKED FOR
THE CONSUMER PRIVACY FUND, WHICH
AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES
GRANTS TO EDUCATE CHILDREN IN
THE AREA OF ONLINE PRIVACY. THE
A G WOULD ALSO BE LIMITED FROM
OBTAINING HEIGHTENED CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR INTENTIONAL
VIOLATIONS AND VIOLATIONS THAT
INVOLVE MINOR CHILDREN.
OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT EXTENDING
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
THE INCREASES RISK GOING SO FAR
TO SAY THAT A FIVE YEAR STATUTE
CONTRAVENES PRO PRIVACY AND DATA
MINIMIZATION PRINCIPLES AND
EXPOSES BOTH BUSINESSES AND
CONSUMERS ALIKE TO RISKS
ASSOCIATED WITH DATA BREACHES
BECAUSE BUSINESSES HAVE TO
RETAIN PERSONAL INFORMATION.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. BUSINESSES
ALREADY FACED RISK OF AGENCY
ACTION UP TO FIVE YEARS AND NEED
TO RETAIN DATA FOR THAT FIVE
YEARS IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ANY
INVESTIGATION BY THE AGENCY.
EXTENDING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IS ACTUALLY PRO
BUSINESS BECAUSE ROBUST
ENFORCEMENT SETS A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE
SPENDING RESOURCES TO COMPLY,
GIVING THE G THE SAME AMOUNT OF
TIME TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION IS
BETTER FOR BUSINESSES BECAUSE IT
AVOIDS THE SCENARIO IN WHICH WE
HAVE TO RUSH TO SUE A TARGET TO
PRESERVE THE TIMELINESS OF OUR
CLAIMS, RUSHING STRAIGHT TO THE
COURTHOUSE COURTHOUSE DRAINS
EVERYONE'S RESOURCES, INCLUDING
THE COURTS, WHEREAS ADDITIONAL
TIME TO THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE
AND EVEN EXPLORE NEGOTIATED
RESOLUTIONS IS EFFICIENT FOR
ALL. AH! FOR THESE REASONS AND
MORE. I URGE YOU TO PASS HB 15
46, WHICH WILL PROVIDE MUCH
NEEDED ALIGNMENT OF CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT BY THE G AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY
THE PRIVACY AGENT AGENCY UNDER
THE SAME STANDARD OF FIVE YEARS
FOR THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC. AND
HE ME TO USE ALL RIGHT. SEEING
NONE. ANY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? THANK YOU. MR CHAIR,
REMEMBERS RONALD DELA ME AGAIN
WITH THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, RESPECTFULLY AND
OPPOSITION TO A B 15 46. I THINK
FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE'S JUST A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION HERE BOTH
AND TURN IN TERMS OF
INTERPRETING THE VOTER'S INTENT
AS WELL AS THE NEED FOR THE BILL
. FIRST WE BELIEVE THE VOTERS
SILENCE ON THE A G STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IS INTENTIONAL,
INTENTIONALLY DIVIDED
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND
SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS MUST BE
COMMENCED WITHIN FIVE YEARS,
FIVE YEARS OF THE DATE ON WHICH
THE VIOLATION ACCRUED TO US.
THIS IS NOT INDICATIVE OF A
DRAFTING ERROR OR AN OVERSIGHT.
SECOND WERE CONCERNED THE BILLS
UNNECESSARY AND UNTIMELY,
FOCUSING ON ENFORCEMENT ON THE
BACK END, WHERE WE'RE STILL
WAITING FOR REGULATIONS ARE
NECESSARY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND
HOW TO COMPLY ON THE FRONT END.
FURTHERMORE WERE UNAWARE OF ANY
ACTUAL CASES WHERE THE A G WAS
TIME BARRED FROM PURSUING
ACTIONS FOR A VIOLATION OF THE
CCP. A TO THE CONTRARY, WE
BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN
ROBUST, UH, ENFORCEMENT OF THE
LAW WITH THE SHORTER STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AND WE WORRY THAT
THE EXTENSION WILL MERELY ALLOW
PENALTIES TO ACCRUE FOR FIVE
YEARS BEFORE AN ACTION HAS
COMMENCED, EVEN IF IT COULD HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT IN YEAR ONE.
ULTIMATELY WE FEEL THAT TIMELY
ACTIONS BETTER SERVE ALL PARTIES
AND PLACES BUSINESSES ON NOTICE
OF A POTENTIAL VIOLATION, WHICH
CAN IN TURN MITIGATE POTENTIAL
HARMS TO CONSUMERS. IF ONE YEAR
IS TOO SHORT, I THINK WE CAN ALL
AGREE THAT FIVE YEARS IS TOO
LONG. AT LEAST WE FEEL THAT WAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. AFTERNOON
AGAIN, JAMIE HALF WITH THE CIVIL
JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. WE BELIEVE THE BILL
IS AN UNNECESSARY AND PREMATURE
EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS UNDERSEA CPA AND
COULD ACTUALLY UNDERMINE THE
STATE'S PRIVACY GOALS.
INCREASING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR FOLD BEFORE THE
UNDERLYING LAW EVEN HAS A CHANCE
TO BE FULLY ENFORCED IS HASTY.
THIS EXTENSION WOULD FORCE
BUSINESSES TO HOLD ONTO DATA FOR
A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, THEREBY
INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD OF
DATA BREACHES AND THE SUBSEQUENT
LIABILITY FOR BUSINESSES THAT
WOULD NATURALLY FLOW. ALSO
FORCING BUSINESSES TO HOLD ON
FOR THE STATE OF LONGER THAN
NECESSARY DOES NOT ALIGN WITH
THE STATE'S DATA MINIMIZATION
PRINCIPLES. THE ENFORCEMENT
STAGE OF THE SLAVE CPA IS STILL
IN ITS INFANCY, AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS BEEN CLEAR
THAT THEY INTEND TO VIGOROUSLY
ENFORCE THE LAW, SO THERE'S NO
REASON TO EXTEND THE ENFORCEMENT
WINDOW UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS
EVIDENCE OF THE NECESSITY TO DO
SO. WE DON'T BELIEVE THE
BENEFITS OF RETAINING CONSUMER
INFORMATION FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL
YEARS. OUTWEIGHS THE PRIVACY
RISK FOLLOWING THE LIABILITY
RESTS IN DOING SO, FOR THESE
REASONS, WE MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITIONS IN OR ANY OTHER
PEOPLE OPPOSED NAME AND
AFFILIATION, PLEASE? MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, BEN HAVE BECOME HALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL FOOD
PRODUCERS AND THE NATIONAL
PAYROLL REPORTING CONSORTIUM.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. RIGHT.
THANK YOU. SARAH POLO MILK.
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. SHERRY
MCHUGH, REPRESENTING THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
TALKING WITH TECHNET
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. GREAT
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES? NEVER BEEN ACCUSED
OF BEING SHORT OF WORDS HERE. UM
I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM
IN THE ENFORCED SAID. I JUST MET
WITH, UM THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, SO
HE'S A FUN DAY. HEAR ABOUT IT,
BUT MY PRIVATE LIFE BEFORE THIS
, I WE OBVIOUSLY GOT VERY
EDUCATED ON CCP A BECAUSE PEOPLE
I WORKED WITH HAD TO COMPLY WITH
IT. BUT UM, THE TYPES OF ACTIONS
THAT YOU CAN BRING ARE DIFFERENT
THAN THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
CORRECT. IT'S JUST IN TERMS OF
THE NATURE OF THE ACTION. THE
POSTURE OF THE AGENCY BRINGS
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS SO IT
BRINGS ITS CASES BEFORE, FOR
EXAMPLE, AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE WHO PROVIDES A REASONED
DECISION AND THEN THE BOARD
ISSUES A FINAL DECISION ON
WHETHER IT'S BASED ON THE FORD
AGREES WITH THE FINDINGS AND THE
RECORD WE PURSUE CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU
WOULD THINK OF, AS YOU KNOW THE
TYPICAL LITIGATION COURSE WHERE
YOU'RE IN A STATE COURT BEFORE A
JUDGE, AND YOU'RE LITIGATING
THAT CASE IN THAT IN THAT
RESPECT. ALRIGHT, THANKS. AH UM
THERE WAS ONE POINT BROUGHT UP
ABOUT. UM UH, I'M SORRY. I'M
SORRY TO INTERRUPT JUST ONE MORE
MINOR NUANCES THAT THE AGENCY IS
TASKED WITHIN FOUR
ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CCP. A E G IS TEST WITH
ENFORCEMENT OF ALL THE LAWS AND
SO OUR CASES MIGHT BE MORE
COMPLEX THEY MIGHT INVOLVE NOT
JUST A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER CCP
FOR DIRECT ENFORCEMENT, BUT IT
COULD ALSO INVOLVE AN ADDITIONAL
CIVIL CLAIM IN TERMS OF IF THE
IF THE ENTITY VIOLATED OTHER
LAWS AS WELL. AND SO WE WOULD
BRING A CASE THAT POTENTIALLY
COULD ALSO INVOLVED ADDITIONAL
THEORIES OF VIOLATIONS. CLARIFY
THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND THERE
WAS INTERESTING POINT THAT I
HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT. IF THERE
WAS SOMEBODY WAS VIOLATING THIS
EITHER INTENTIONALLY OR
UNINTENTIONALLY. UM AND MR CHAIR
. IF I SHOULD DIRECT MY
QUESTIONS TO YOU, I WILL AND YOU
CAN TURN IT OVER THE WAY THIS AS
WELL. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU
KNOW THIS CONTINUES FOR 34 YEARS
, YOU KNOW, UNKNOWINGLY, RIGHT?
AND THEN NOW WE HAVE SEVERAL
VIOLATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED
OVER THAT FIVE YEARS. UM YOU
KNOW, IS THERE A RESPONSE? THAT
IS KIND OF A CONCERN THAT I HAVE
THAT I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT
UNTIL TODAY. AND I WAS JUST
WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY
RESPONSE TO THAT. YEAH I
CERTAINLY HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT
ABOUT WANT TO DEFER TO THE
EXPERTS HERE, BUT ANYTHING YOU
WANT TO ADD ABOUT THAT RIGHT.
HAVING A LONGER STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WOULD ALLOW US TO BE
ABLE TO REACH BACK AND, UM, YOU
KNOW, ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'RE LIABLE GOING BACK FIVE
YEARS AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD
REQUIRE A LONGER YOU KNOW TIME
IN IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO
THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE AND BE
ABLE TO REACH BACK TO HOLD THE
BUSINESS LIABLE WHETHER THEY'RE
INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY
VIOLATING THE LAW. THAT'S WHAT
ARE PLEASE. WE'RE ALWAYS FOCUSED
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LOSS AND
VIOLATED I JUST I THINK. THANK
YOU SO MANY MEMBER. IT'S A GOOD
IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK
THE WAY THAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT
THIS IS WITH A ONE YEAR STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS. YOU ALMOST
PRECLUDE MEANINGFUL ACTION BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. UM IT IS
SUCH A SHORT WINDOW TO
INVESTIGATE A COMPLEX SET OF
FACTS TO INTERVIEW WITNESSES TO
ACQUIRE THE DATA. YOU NEED TO
MAYBE SERVE SUBPOENAS. I THINK
WE'VE ALL BECOME AWARE OF HOW
COMPLICATED SUBPOENAS COULD BE.
IN THE CONTEXT OF, YOU KNOW,
LITIGATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
AND HOW LONG THOSE CAN TAKE TO
ENFORCE. AND SO WITH A ONE YEAR
STATUTE NOTATIONS, YOU
ESSENTIALLY ARE TAKING A G
ACTION OFF THE TABLE UNLESS THEY
WERE TO DO SOMETHING
EXCEPTIONALLY HASTY, SO I
UNDERSTAND THE POINT FROM THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT WELL, WE'D LIKE
TO KNOW RIGHT AWAY, BUT ACTUALLY
WHAT THEY'RE DOING, I THINK IS
BOXING. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
INTO A POSTURE WHERE THERE IS NO
MEANINGFUL REMEDY, AND I THINK
WHAT A LOT OF US YOU KNOW, CAME
TO APPRECIATE IN LAW SCHOOL AND
IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND OTHER
THINGS IS THAT PROTECTIONS ARE
RIGHT TO MEAN VERY LITTLE
WITHOUT WITHOUT A REMEDY AND
UNDER THE END, AND AS AS
CURRENTLY BEING INTERPRETED WITH
A ONE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, IT'S SEVERELY
DIMINISHES THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S ABILITY TO SAFEGUARD
THE RIGHTS, THE PRIVACY RIGHTS
OF ALL CALIFORNIANS. AND SO
THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO
BALANCE. WE THINK THE CURRENT
BALANCE. UM YOU KNOW, IT'S SO
FAR OFF IN TERMS OF TAKING THE A
G OUT OF THE GAME THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO
CORRECT. WELL I DON'T. UM, I
DON'T. I DIDN'T. HAVE THAT IN
LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO
TO LAW SCHOOL, BUT POINTS WELL
TAKEN THERE, BUT NO, I THINK THE
THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO POINT
OUT IS THAT LET'S SAY THERE'S AN
ERROR. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT
GOES ON IN YEAR ONE, YOU KNOW,
AND THEN IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO
ACTION AND YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW
THAT IT CONTINUES THROUGH THE
YEAR TWO YEAR THREE AND THIS
WHOLE TIME THERE'S BEEN AN
INVESTIGATION GOING ON. YOU KNOW
, AND THE VIOLATOR DOESN'T EVEN
YOU KNOW, MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT IT
OR, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THE
REGULATIONS ARE PRETTY NEW, AND
PEOPLE ARE SETTING UP ENTIRE
COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENTS TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO DO THIS, YOU KNOW, SO
YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS POTENTIALLY
OF VIOLATIONS, POTENTIALLY
UNKNOWINGLY, AND THEN THEN
THERE'S A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT
ON YEAR FIVE. WHEN IT COULD HAVE
BEEN REMEDIED IN YEAR ONE. YOU
SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO FOR
ADDITIONAL YEARS OF VIOLATIONS.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
I THINK THE FLAW IN THAT
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRIVACY
AGENCY STILL HAS FIVE YEARS. SO
THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH THE PRIVACY ASIAN FOR
ALL OF THOSE YEARS, AND AS I
THINK WE'VE TRIED TO POINT OUT
YOU MAY STILL HAVE A G ACTION
UNDER DIFFERENT PRIVACY STATUTES
OR OTHER LAWS, AND SO YOU COULD
HAVE COMPANIES WOULD BE FORCED
INTO THIS VERY WEIRD AND
UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION WHERE
THEY'RE SIMULTANEOUSLY
LITIGATING SOME OF THOSE CLAIMS
WITH THE PRIVACY AGENCIES, SOME
OF THEM IN STATE OR FEDERAL
COURT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
AND IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
WHEN A LOT OF THIS IS ARISING
FROM THE SAME FACTS, THE SAME
CONTEXT EVERYTHING ELSE SO I
UNDERSTAND THE POINT AS A
THEORETICAL ONE. I THINK AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER IN TERMS OF HOW
LITIGATION WORKS, UM, IT JUST
DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. NO.
WELL THANKS. I'LL JUST MAKE THIS
ONE THING. I REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. DO YOU THINK ONE YEAR IS
PRETTY CONDENSED TIME PERIOD TO
BRING A COMPLEX LAWSUIT? I THINK
THESE LAWS ARE VERY COMPLEX.
ALREADY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO COMPLY. AND I
WILL SAY MY FINAL CONCERN IS
THAT IT'S JUST PREMATURE BECAUSE
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING
TO I MEAN, IN GOOD FAITH, TRYING
TO COMPLY WITH THESE LAWS. I'VE
I WANT TO LIKE 100 SESSIONS ON
THIS LAST YEAR, YOU KNOW, AND I
STILL DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT
, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH
THAT, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU.
YOU KNOW, BRINGING THIS AND I
UNDER? I DO. I DO AGREE ONE
YEARS TOO, TOO SHORT. BUT FIVE
YEARS DOES IF THIS STAGE SEEMS
KIND OF PREMATURE FOR ME, SO UM,
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ALL RIGHT.
WELL WITH THAT, UM, IS THERE A
MOTION. A SECOND AND CLOSING
STATEMENT, OR JUST RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AND I VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. TAKE ROLL. ALRIGHT
EXCUSE ME. MAYBE 15 46 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GABRIEL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
ASSEMBLY. SORRY TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. GABRIEL GABRIEL, I
PATERSON PATERSON, NO AMERICA
KHN. BENNETT. SALLY SALINO FONG
FROM NO IRWIN IRWIN. I COBRA
LU N TOÀN LIVE HAPPEN HAPPEN. I
WICKS AYE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. YOU'RE IN CHARGE NOW. I
THINK WE'RE GONNA. THE VOTE IS 5
TO 3, AND WE'LL KEEP IT OPEN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR VICE
CHAIR WITH THAT WE ARE GOING TO
TURN TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR A
B 13 94 AND WANT TO WELCOME MR
FLORIDA. THE COMMITTEE THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. THE
FLOOR IS YOURS. THANK YOU.
SORRY. GIVE ME ONE SECOND, OKAY?
I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR
MEMBERS IN THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
ESPECIALLY THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
FOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL,
AND WE WILL BE TAKING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS SEE, SAM IS
TRAGICALLY PERVASIVE ON THE
INTERNET, AND NOT ONLY IS IT AN
ILLICIT CORNERS ON THE SO CALLED
DARK WEB, BUT ALSO ON POPULAR
SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES AND
APPLICATIONS THAT BILLIONS OF
PEOPLE USE EVERY DAY. THIS
STRATEGY TRAGEDY IS COMPOUNDED
BY THE FACT THAT CERTAIN
WEBSITES AND APPLICATIONS ARE
NOT ONLY A COMEDIAN MEANS FOR
SHARING SEE SAM BUT ARGUABLY
INDUCE ITS PRODUCTION SINCE 2000
TRAFFICKERS HAVE RECRUITED 55%
OF SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS
ONLINE USE OF FACEBOOK
FACILITATES 65% OF THIS
TRAFFICKING. FORBES REVIEW OF
HUNDREDS OF RECENT TIKTOK LIVE
STREAMS REVEAL HOW VIEWERS
REGULARLY USED THE COMMENTS TO
URGE YOUNG GIRLS TO PERFORM
SEXUALLY REGARDING THOSE WHO
OBLIGED WITH TIKTOK GIFTS, WHICH
CAN BE REDEEMED FOR MONEY OR OFF
PLATFORM PAYMENTS TO VENMO,
PAYPAL OR CASH APP ACCOUNTS. A B
13 94 HOLDS SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS LIABLE FOR KNOWINGLY
RECKLESSLY OR NEGLIGENTLY
FACILITATING, AIDING OR ABETTING
CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING AND
REQUIRES THAT PLATFORMS PREVENT
RE VICTIMIZATION OF CHILD
SURVIVORS. THIS MEASURE PROPOSES
TO ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES IN
TWO WAYS. FIRST THE BILL WOULD
REQUIRE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR USERS
TO REPORT SEE SAM IN WHICH THEY
ARE DEPICTED PLATFORMS WITHIN
GENERALLY HAVE 30 DAYS TO VERIFY
THAT THE MATERIAL IS SEE SAM AND
BLOCK IT FROM REAPPEARING.
SECOND THE BILL WOULD PROVIDE
VICTIMS OF COMMERCIAL SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION THE RIGHT TO SUE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS FOR
DEPLOYING FEATURES THAT WERE A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN CAUSING
THEIR EXPLOITATION. REGARDING
DAMAGES. THE BILL ALREADY SAYS
THAT THE CEILING OF 250,000 IS
TO BE RESERVED FOR THE WORST
OFFENDERS. AND I KNOW I'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS ON THE
DIOCESE ABOUT SOME OF THIS, AND
SOME OF MY OTHER COLLEAGUES
AROUND THE STATUTORY DAMAGES AND
WHAT THOSE, UH, WILL ENTAIL. UM
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT, UH, A
SEVEN MEMBER HEATH FLORA, WHO'S
NEXT TO ME, HAS AGREED TO COME
ON AS A JOINT AUTHOR, AND I'M
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH HIM, PARTICULARLY ON THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
COMPONENT OF THE BILL. WHICH I
VIEW AS IMPORTANT, BUT ALSO I AM
COMMITTED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY
THAT WE CAN BOTH COME TO
AGREEMENT ON WHAT WE THINK COULD
BE FAIR AS WELL AS I KNOW THE
VICE CHAIR. YOU AND I HAVE ALSO
HAD CONVERSATIONS TO THIS END
AROUND CERTAIN SPECIFIC
COMPONENTS OF THE BILL. UM AND I
JUST WANT TO SAY IN THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE, UM I VIEW IT
REALLY IMPORTANT TO WORK IN A
BIPARTISAN FASHION BECAUSE I
THINK MANY OF US COME TO THIS
ISSUE SIMPLY AS PARENTS. WE WANT
TO CREATE A SAFER EXPERIENCE FOR
MY KIDS, SO I'M I'M VERY
COMMITTED TO THAT. AND I'M
EXCITED TO HAVE, UM MR FLORES
SUPPORT HERE WITH ME TO TESTIFY
AND SUPPORT IS CAMI PEER WITH
COMMON SENSE MEDIA AND KATHY VAN
AUSTIN FROM AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN TO PROVIDE A
STORY OF A SURVIVOR, AND WE ALSO
HAVE TO HOWARD'S SENIOR COUNSEL
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO
SCHOOL. OF LOST CHILDREN
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE TO ANSWER
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS BUT BEFORE
WE GET TO THEM, I'D LIKE TO
ALLOW MR FLORIDA SAY A COUPLE
WORDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S
A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU, AND
THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM THAT WANTS
US TO CONTINUE WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THE EXPLOITATION OF OUR
CHILDREN. IT HAS TO END AND WE
NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
DO TO FIX THAT. THERE MIGHT BE
SOME DISAGREEMENTS ON HOW TO GET
THERE. AND I ENCOURAGED BY A
CONVERSATIONS WITH AUTHOR AND
HER COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH US, AND I THINK WE'RE
GONNA GET A PLACE THAT IS QUITE
FRANKLY BENEFICIAL FOR
EVERYBODY. AND I'M EXCITED ABOUT
THAT. SO I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING
ME TO COME ON. YOU KNOW, WE DO.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF QUITE
FRANKLY, SUBJECT MATTER. EXPERTS
ON HIS DIOCESE, UM FEDERAL
PROSECUTORS, AND I THINK WE'RE
GONNA BE LEANING ON ALL OF YOU
TO FIX THIS IN A WAY THAT FIXES
THE PROBLEM. BUT DOESN'T HAVE
OVERLY PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR SOME
OF THE PLATFORMS THAT ARE
BUSINESSES. SO I JUST WAIT
THERE'S A THERE'S A HAPPY MEDIUM
FOR ALL OF THIS, SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. AND
WITH THAT WE WILL GO TO OUR
FIRST WITNESS AND SUPPORT CAN BE
APPEAR WITH COMMON SENSE MEDIA.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MY NAME IS CAMI
PEER STATE POLICY ASSOCIATE WITH
COMMON SENSE MEDIA. THANK YOU
FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS
YOU IN SUPPORT OF A B 13 94 ON
BEHALF OF THE COALITION TO
PROTECT CALIFORNIA KIDS ONLINE.
WE ARE PROUD CO SPONSORS OF A B
13 94 AND COMMEND
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS FOR
AUTHORING SUCH CRITICAL
LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE
SOARING RATES OF CHILD SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION AND TRAFFICKING
ONLINE BY HOLDING SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS ACCOUNTABLE TO
SURVIVORS. ACCORDING TO OUR MOST
RECENT RESEARCH. ADOLESCENT
GIRLS SPEND OVER TWO HOURS PER
DAY ON TIKTOK, YOUTUBE AND
SNAPCHAT. AND MORE THAN 90
MINUTES ON INSTAGRAM AND
MESSAGING APPS. THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES ARE AWARE THAT SEXUAL
SEXUAL ABUSE EXPLOITATION AND
TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN ARE
ORIGINATING ON THEIR PLATFORMS.
EVEN FACEBOOK'S INTERNAL
RESEARCH FOUND OUR PLATFORM
ENABLES ALL THREE STAGES OF THE
HUMAN EXPLOITATION, LIFECYCLE
RECRUITMENT FACILITATION AND
EXPLOITATION. THE AVERAGE AGE OF
CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS IS
13 TO 14. THE AVERAGE LIFE
EXPECTANCY OF AN EXPLOITED CHILD
IS SEVEN YEARS. CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE AND TRAFFICKING TAKES A
TERRIBLE TOLL ON CHILD OVERALL.
ON A CHILD OVERALL HEALTH,
INCREASING THE RISK FOR
DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SUBSTANCE
ABUSE, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS
DISORDER AND SUICIDAL IDEATION.
CALIFORNIA HAS AN OBLIGATION TO
ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, GIVEN THAT
THREE OF THE NATION'S 13 HIGH
INTENSITY CHILD PROSTITUTION
AREAS, AS IDENTIFIED BY THE FBI,
ARE LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA.
THAT'S LOS ANGELES, SAN
FRANCISCO AND SAN DIEGO. THE
NATIONAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING
RESOURCE CENTER HOTLINE RECEIVED
THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF REPORTS ON
VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
FROM CALIFORNIA. OUR STATE
LEGISLATURE MUST HOLD SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS ACCOUNTABLE AND
BUILD A SAFER DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM
FOR KIDS AND TEENS. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS CAN'T EVEN
AUSTIN, REPRESENTING THE
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITY WOMEN, CALIFORNIA UM
, WE HAVE AN AWFUL LOT TO SAY
ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK TURNING
TO, UM SOMEBODY WHO'S LIVED THE
EXPERIENCE AND SHARING THEIR
STORY IS REALLY THE MUCH MORE
IMPACTFUL. AH THIS IS FROM A
YOUNG, UH, YOUNG GIRL NAMED
MAYA. SHE'S OUT OF OAKLAND. UM
SHE SAYS WHEN I WAS 14, I WAS 14
WHEN I GOT MY FIRST PHONE FROM A
FOSTER MOM. I HAD BEEN IN AND
OUT OF GROUP AND FOSTER HOMES,
NEVER NEVER HAVING THE ABILITY
TO BUY MY OWN PHONE OR PAY THE
MONTHLY FEES. I WAS EXCITED TO
FEEL LIKE ALL THE OTHER KIDS AND
WAS NOW ABLE TO TEXT WITH MY BIO
BROTHER. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
I DID WAS GET ONTO SOCIAL MEDIA.
I WAS ON IT ALL I FELT CONNECTED
AND NO LONGER LONELY, POSTING
PHOTOS GETTING LOVE FROM
EVERYONE. I WAS GETTING COMMENTS
FROM PEOPLE I DIDN'T KNOW BUT
JUST FIGURED IT WAS HARMLESS.
ONE OF THESE COMMENTATORS
THROUGH ME MORE COMPLIMENTS THAN
OTHERS, AND AFTER A FEW WEEKS,
HE SLID INTO MY DIRECT MESSAGES.
AH WE STARTED TALKING. HE ASKED
ME TO SEND PHOTOS. AH OF MYSELF
. WHAT WAS THE HARM AND HE MADE
ME FEEL GOOD GOOD ABOUT MYSELF.
I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THE TIME HE
WAS GROOMING ME. HE BEGAN TO
MONITOR MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS
AND BEGAN TO SELL MY PHOTOS TO
HIS FRIENDS THAT LED TO HIM
SELLING ME FIRST TO HIS FRIEND.
AND THEN ADVERTISING ON
FACEBOOK. AT FIRST I WENT ALONG
WITH IT. I MEAN, THIS GUY LOVES
ME, SO HE REALLY WOULDN'T HURT
ME, RIGHT? THEN I WAS CONFUSED
AND THEN NUMB. MAYBE AFTER FIVE
MONTHS AFTER FIVE MONTHS AFTER
MAYBE FIVE MONTHS. I'M SORRY. I
WAS ASSAULTED BY ONE OF THE MEN
I WAS WITH. THAT WAS WHEN I
FINALLY WOKE UP AND DECIDED TO
RUN AWAY. UM HE HAD GOTTEN LAZY
AND DIDN'T THINK I WOULD EVER
LEAVE. I SLEPT ON THE STREETS
FOR A FEW WEEKS MADE MONEY
SELLING MYSELF, BUT AT LEAST I
WAS IN CONTROL. I GOT CONNECTED
BACK UP WITH SOME OLDER FOSTER
FORMER FOSTER SUBS AND THEY
HELPED ME TO FIND A PLACE TO
LIVE. I STILL MADE SOME MONEY ON
THE STREETS. THAT'S WHERE I
FINALLY GOT. HELP I PICKED GOT
PICKED UP. THEY CONNECTED ME
WITH SOME SORRY. UM WITH SOME
SERVICES, AND I WAS LUCKY THAT I
HADN'T TURNED TO DRINKING OR
DRUGS. YET BUT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN EASIER TO FORGET THIS ALL
HAPPENED FOUR YEARS AGO. I AM
SLOWLY STARTING TO TRUST PEOPLE
AGAIN, AND THEY'RE UNSURE HOW I
WILL MAKE A LIFE FOR MYSELF. I'M
DAMAGED. I DIDN'T GET TO FINISH
HIGH SCHOOL. I KNOW THERE ARE
STILL HORRIBLE PICTURES OF ME ON
THE INTERNET. ANYTHING I CAN DO
TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING TO
SOMEONE ELSE. I'LL DO. UM THAT
DIDN'T QUITE FINISH THAT
SENTENCE. UM AND I DO WANT TO
NOTE THAT, IN PARTICULAR FOSTER
YOUTH ARE TARGETED. AH BY
GROOMERS BECAUSE THEY ARE SO
VULNERABLE, SO I JUST WANTED TO
UNDERLINE THAT POINT. THAT'S AN
AREA THAT WE CARE AND AWFUL LOT
ABOUT SO IT'S A SAD STORY, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY VERY COMMON. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR
GIVING VOICE TO SOME OF THE
FOLKS WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS
FIRSTHAND. WITH THAT I WILL
INVITE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL TO COME UP AND TESTIFY.
SEEING NONE. WE WILL NOW TAKE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. SO
YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM. MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, ED HOWARD,
SENIOR COUNSEL OF THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL
OF LAW, HONORED TO CO SPONSOR
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE FOR OUR
OUR KIDS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AFTERNOON MY NAME IS CARL ZERO
AND VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL
COUNSEL OF NET CHOICE MOST
PROFESSOR OF INTERNET LAW AT THE
GEORGE MASON LAW SCHOOL AND THAT
STORY IS HORRIBLE. AND ONE OF
THE MOST HORRIBLE THINGS TO COME
OUT OF THE STORY. YOU JUST TOLD
I DIDN'T HEAR A SINGLE ONE OF
THOSE CRIMINALS GO TO JAIL. I
DIDN'T HEAR A SINGLE ONE OF
THOSE BAD ACTORS. IN HANDCUFFS
OR IN PRISON. THAT'S WHAT WE
SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
I'VE GOT TWO KIDS. MY WIFE'S A
CHILD THERAPIST. SHE IS ON THE
FRONT LINES OF THESE ISSUES
EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE NEED TO
ADDRESS THIS, AND I APPRECIATE
THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
I JUST WORRY THAT IS GOING TO
CAUSE HARMFUL UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. NOW I'VE SEEN THE
LATEST AMENDMENTS AND I DO
APPRECIATE THE SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES WE'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY.
AND WHAT? WHAT I SAW AS OF
YESTERDAY WAS A REQUIREMENT TO
PROVIDE NOTICES TO VICTIMS WHO
WANT TO SEE IT EVERY SEVEN DAYS
OF ACTION BEING TAKEN. THE
CHALLENGE. I KNOW IS THAT
VICTIMS EVERY TIME THEY SEE THAT
THEY ARE REMINDED OF THEIR
TRAUMA, AND THEY ARE RE
TRAUMATIZED EVERY SINGLE TIME.
SO WHILE THEY MAY WANT IT,
INITIALLY BEING REMINDED EVERY
SEVEN DAYS OF YOUR SOME OF THE
WORST MOMENTS IN YOUR LIFE MAY
NOT BE A GOOD OUTCOME.
SIMULTANEOUSLY WE WORK WITH
GROUPS LIKE STOP CHILD
PREDATORS. I'VE WORKED ON SIESTA
FOSTER. TO STOP THESE HORRIBLE
ACTIONS. THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE
FOR AND ALSO WE SUPPORT THE
DEPARTMENT. JUSTICE IS TAKING
DOWN THE BACK PAGE. BUT RIGHT
NOW, WITH STATUTORY DAMAGES IN
THIS LEGISLATION, WE ARE GOING
TO SEE A HAM FISTED APPROACH BY
BUSINESSES. IT IS NOT GOING TO
BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
VICTIMS. AND IT'S NOT ADDRESSING
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM. OF
PUTTING BAD ACTORS BEHIND BARS.
I WILL CLOSE THIS WITH JUST TWO
QUICK STATISTICS IN JUST SIX
MONTHS. SOME OF THE LARGEST
BUSINESSES ON THE PLANET. TOOK
DOWN IN THE US ALONE 52 MILLION.
EXAMPLES OF SEE SAM AND REPORTED
TO THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
MISSING EXPLOITED CHILDREN THAT
MAPS OUT TO OVER 300,000 DAY. WE
DO NOT HAVE A REPORTING PROBLEM.
WE HAVE AN ACTION PROBLEM. WE
NEED MORE CRIMINALS IN JAIL.
MORE BAD ACTORS OFF THE STREETS
, AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THE EFFORTS. THE INTENT
GO MAKE IT EASIER FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO PUT THESE BAD
ACTORS AWAY AND PROVIDE THE
RESOURCES TO THESE SUPPORT
GROUPS TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU NOT
MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS
LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE
HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE SPONSORS
AS IT GOES FOR. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS LEONIE TACO
WITH TECHNET. UM AND WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO A B 13
94. BUT FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXPERIENCE THAT
WAS SHARED BY THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER. UM IT IS TERRIBLE AND
TRAGIC. AND I THANK YOU FOR
SHARING IT HERE TODAY. TECHNICS
STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE AUTHORS.
EFFORTS TO ERADICATE ONLINE SEX
TRAFFICKING IN THE DISTRIBUTION
OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL
OR SEE SAM AND WE THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HER CONVERSATIONS
WITH US ON THE BILL THUS FAR.
OUR INDUSTRY TAKES THIS ISSUE
VERY SERIOUSLY, AND WE'VE WORKED
FOR DECADES TO BE A PART OF THE
SOLUTION. WE INNOVATE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES TO AID IN ITS
REPORTING AND REMOVAL AND
PARTNER WITH NONPROFITS LIKE THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND
EXPLOITED CHILDREN AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY AND ACROSS THE WORLD. WE
GREATLY APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE
COMMITTEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE
AUTHOR. OUR MEMBERS ARE STILL
REVIEWING, AND WE HOPE TO
PROVIDE MORE SUBSTANTIVE
FEEDBACK SHORTLY, BUT I'LL
QUICKLY HIGHLIGHT A FEW ISSUES
THAT STILL REMAIN DESPITE
AMENDMENTS EXCLUDING STANDALONE
ENCRYPTED DIRECT MESSAGING
SERVICES, MANY PLATFORMS HAVE
ENCRYPTED DIRECT MESSAGING AS
PART OF THEIR SERVICE. THE
BILL'S PROVISIONS AND LIABILITY
FOR THE USE OF ANY FEATURE
THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN
THE EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR
CREATES A STRONG INCENTIVE FOR
PLATFORMS TO MONITOR AND
MODERATE DIRECT MESSAGING ON
THERE. PLATFORM AND EVEN TO ROLL
BACK ENCRYPTION. FURTHER THE
MASSIVE STATUTORY DAMAGES AND
THE UNCERTAINTY OF WHICH
FEATURES ARE CONSIDERED A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR CREATES
SIGNIFICANT LEGAL RISK FOR
PLATFORMS PLATFORMS ARE ARGUABLY
LIABLE FOR ANY HARM THAT RESULTS
FROM CREATING A FEATURE THAT'S
USED BY A PREDATOR TO VICTIMIZE
A MINOR. SO FOR EXAMPLE, ANY
PLATFORM THAT ALLOWS USERS TO
CONNECT WITH ONE ANOTHER. COULD
INADVERTENTLY CONNECT A TEEN
USER WITH A PREDATOR. ANY FORUM
WHERE USERS CAN INTERACT WITH
EACH OTHER COULD BE USED BY A
PREDATOR TO CONNECT WITH
POTENTIAL VICTIMS. THESE
FEATURES ARE CENTRAL TO THE
PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS. SO EVEN IF A
PLATFORM COMPLETELY DISABLES ANY
DESIGNS, FEATURES OR FOR DEVICES
THAT COULD BE MISUSED BY A
TRAFFICKER. THAT STILL MAY NOT
BE ENOUGH TO AVOID LIABILITY,
AND THAT LEAVES THE OPTIONS OF
SEIZING OPERATIONS OR BANNING
ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF 18 FROM
ACCESSING THE PLATFORM
ALTOGETHER. THIS REGULATION OF
CONTENT SERVING FEATURES LIKELY
RUNS AFOUL OF FIRST AMENDMENT
PRINCIPLES AND IS PREEMPTED BY
FEDERAL LAW. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR MOVING FORWARD, BUT
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED 80 13 94.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY FURTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
UNDERAGE PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
RONALD DAYLAMI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
ALL ALIGN MY COMMENTS WITH THOSE
OF MY COLLEAGUES FROM TECHNET.
THANK YOU. JAMIE, HAVE YOU SEE
JACK RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED?
THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH
THAT. WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. MR ASTLEY. THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR. I REALLY, UH FIRST OF
ALL, LET ME JUST COMMEND YOU FOR
TAKING ACTION ON THIS ISSUE. IT
IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. CHILDREN ARE
BEING EXPLOITED ONLINE. THEY ARE
BEING TARGETED AND VICTIMIZED.
IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, UM IN
NEIGHBORHOODS ANYMORE. IT'S
HAPPENING ONLINE. THAT'S WHAT
KIDS ARE SPENDING THEIR TIME AND
THAT'S WHERE THE PREDATORS ARE.
AND I KNOW THAT HAVING WORKED ON
THESE CASES UM, I WANT TO
CLARIFY A FEW THINGS AND THEN.
THE GOAL IS HOPEFULLY TO GET
THIS BILL IN AND IN SHAPE WHERE
WE CAN SUPPORT IT UNANIMOUSLY.
UM WE'RE NOT REALLY SO HERE.
SEE, SAM HAS A DEFINITION. IT
HAS TWO CATEGORIES FOR SMALL
CHILD PORN, WHICH IS NOT REALLY
DEBATABLE. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
BUT THE SECOND ONE IS MORE. UM,
I THINK POTENTIALLY SUBJECTIVE
AND THAT'S UH, MINORS ENGAGING
OR SIMULATING SEXUAL CONTACT OR
CONDUCT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT. SOME
OF THESE ACTORS, THEY GET THESE
MINERS TO DO THINGS, UM,
ENCOURAGE THEM, SO IT'S A LITTLE
BIT MORE SUBJECTIVE. UM AND AH!
MY CONCERN IS THAT THE CURRENT
MECHANISM, THE NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT AND THE AND THE
PENALTIES MIGHT CREATE AN
INCENTIVE FOR LITIGATION AND NOT
REALLY ACCOMPLISHED WITH REALLY
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH
IS, IN MY VIEW. PREVENT THIS
FROM EVER HAPPENING IN THE FIRST
PLACE. I DON'T WANT PAYOUTS FOR
VICTIMS. I DON'T WANT VICTIMS TO
BEGIN WITH. SO UM, I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THIS
REMAINED BIPARTISAN THAT WE WORK
ON THIS. INTO BIG TECH. THE DAY
IS COMING. THERE'S A RECKONING
COMING. I DO NOT BELIEVE KIDS
SHOULD BE ON SOCIAL MEDIA. IT IS
WAY TOO DESTRUCTIVE FOR MINORS.
UM IT IS ADDICTIVE. IT'S HARMFUL
AND POTENTIALLY FATAL FOR A LOT
OF MINERS WHO HAVE NOT FULLY
MENTALLY DEVELOPED AND ARE NOT
ABLE TO HANDLE THE PRESSURES AND
THE, UM AND, UH THE CONSEQUENCES
OF BEING IN THAT TYPE OF MARKET.
THIS IS NEW STUFF. HUMANS ARE
NOT DESIGNED. TO BE ON SOCIAL
MEDIA ALL THE TIME, ESPECIALLY
MINORS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO
TREAT THIS MORE SERIOUSLY THAN
WE TREAT TOBACCO. YOU CANNOT
ORDER TOBACCO WITHOUT EXTENSIVE
AGE VERIFICATION. SO UM, WHILE I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, I'LL
PROBABLY LAY OFF TODAY. BUT I
WANT TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS. I
MEAN, I HAVE WORKED ON CHILD
EXPLOITATION. IT'S AWFUL, AND I
DON'T THINK BIG TECH IS THE BAD
GUY THERE THE MEDIUM THAT'S
BEING USED BY THE BAD ACTORS AND
I AGREE. WE NEED IT. WE NEED TO
LOCK THOSE GUYS UP. YOU'RE NOT
GONNA HEAR ANY QUALITIES FROM ME
ON THAT. BUT I JUST WANT TO
POINT OUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS,
AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE
SOMETHING BUILT IN HERE TO
BETTER COMMUNICATE WITH NICK.
NICK. NICK NICK IS REALLY
DECLARING HOUSE FOR THESE TYPES
OF REPORTS AND MAKING SURE
THERE'S ONE CLEARINGHOUSE THAT'S
WORKING ON THESE SIMPLY
NOTIFYING THE REPORTER ABOUT THE
ACTION, I THINK IS NOT ENOUGH.
WE WANT CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS AS
WELL. SO UM I DON'T REALLY HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS FOR. YOU JUST WANT
TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS. YOU WANT
TO RESPOND TO? SURE SURE. WELL I
APPRECIATE THAT. UM I WOULD LOVE
YOUR SUPPORT. STAY IF YOU WANT
TO GIVE THAT. UM UH BUT ALSO
UNDERSTAND. AND I'M I AM AS I'VE
MENTIONED HERE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES FROM THE OTHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE ABSOLUTELY
COMMITTED TO FIGURING OUT I
THINK THE BILL NEEDS MORE WORK.
I THINK WE NEED TO REFINE SOME
OF THE DEFINITIONS. I THINK THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS MADE IT. I
THINK MORE SPECIFIED, BUT I
THINK THERE'S MORE WORK AND I'VE
SPOKEN WITH MANY OF YOU ON THE
ON THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THAT. UM,
I ALREADY HAVE A TON OF
DIFFERENT IDEAS ON HOW IT CAN DO
THAT. I'M ALSO SEEKING OUTSIDE
HELP IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGISTS
WHO CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE
TECHNOLOGY A LITTLE BIT BETTER
AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY AVAILABLE
IN TERMS OF, UM YOU KNOW,
ENSURING THAT THIS CONTENT IS
REMOVED QUICKLY, UM, AS WELL AS
LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THE GOAL HERE
IS NOT JUST A BUNCH OF LAWSUITS
ALL OVER THE PLACE. THE GOAL IS
TO STOP THE ACTUAL PREDATORY
BEHAVIOR, AND EVERYONE,
INCLUDING THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES NEED TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT PROCESS.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
REALLY IS ABOUT. IT IS TO ENSURE
THAT THEY DO. AND I'VE MET WITH
A LOT OF THE COMPANIES I MET
WITH SNAP TODAY I'VE MET WITH
TIKTOK. OBVIOUSLY THE TRADE
ASSOCIATIONS AS WELL. UM AND
FRANKLY, WHEN, WHEN I SIT DOWN
WITH THE OPPOSITION, I LEARN A
LOT ABOUT HOW CAN WE ACTUALLY
MAKE THIS A BILL THAT CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED? YOU KNOW AGAIN. THE
GOAL IS THAT WE KEEP WE CREATE
AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE
INTERNET IS SAFER FOR OUR
CHILDREN. THAT'S THE ULTIMATE
GOAL, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO BE
SOMETHING THAT'S FUNCTIONAL IN
THE REAL WORLD THAT CAN BE
ACHIEVED. AND SO I'M COMMITTED.
I WELCOME YOU IN THIS. IF YOU
WANT TO WORK WITH ME ON IT, WE
NEED ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET.
AND I DO ALSO THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT THAT THIS IS
BIPARTISAN. AND I THINK IT'S ONE
OF THE LAST REMAINING SORT OF
SADLY, LIKE PLACES OF BIPARTISAN
WORK THAT WE CAN DO. MAYBE
HOUSING TOO, RIGHT, MR
PATTERSON. UM PUPPIES? YES. YEAH
UM, YOU KNOW, AND I REPRESENT
PROBABLY THE ONE OF THE MOST
PROGRESSIVE DISTRICTS IN THE
COUNTRY, YOU KNOW, AND I WORK
WITH REPUBLICANS OFTEN IN THIS
SPACE, SO I'M COMMITTED TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS. I
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. NO, PLEASE REMEMBER
HAPPENED. SO I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR THE BILL AS THE
MOTHER OF A 17 YEAR OLD WHO IS
CERTAINLY LIVED THROUGH MY SHARE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA TRAUMA, NOT THE
LIKES OF WHICH IS CRIMINAL BY
ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION,
BUT I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR
YOU SO BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTAND. IN MY OWN
MIND, THERE ARE PENALTIES FOR
THE FAILURE TO REMOVE THAT'S ONE
CATEGORY, RIGHT AND THEN THE
OTHER CATEGORY IS FACILITATING,
AIDING OR ABETTING A CERTAIN
TECHNOLOGY. THAT WOULD ALLOW
PREDATORS TO DO WHAT THEY MIGHT
DO NEFARIOUSLY ONLINE, RIGHT?
THAT'S CORRECT, OK, AND THERE
ARE DIFFERENT DAMAGES FOR EITHER
ONE. THAT'S CORRECT. 2 50 IS A
MAX FOR THE THIRD TO REMOVE,
ONCE REPORTED, AND THEN YOU CAN
GO ONE MILLION TO FIVE MILLION
FOR ACTUALLY HAVING THESE
SYSTEMS THAT MIGHT SOMEHOW SAY
PROMOTE, BUT THAT'S YET TO BE
DEFINED, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU
SORT OF NEED THE TECHNOLOGY
EXPERTISE AND ALSO JUST, YOU
KNOW, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT
THRESHOLD? I THINK MORE LANGUAGE
AND UNDERSTANDING 125 IS BIG.
ARE THOSE THE RIGHT NUMBERS? I
THINK THERE'S STILL MORE
CONVERSATIONS AROUND WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE. I KNOW MR FLORA HAS
OPINIONS ABOUT THAT AS WELL. SO
WE WILL BE WORKING
COLLABORATIVELY ON KIND OF
GIVING MORE SPECIFICITY TO THAT
THOSE SPECIFIC DAMAGES IN
PARTICULAR. YEAH I MEAN, MY MIND
REALLY IS THAT THOSE ARE PRETTY
BROAD DEFINITIONS OF, UM UH, A
DESIGN FEATURE. I JUST DON'T
KNOW WHAT THAT ONE EXAMPLE.
COULD BE, YOU KNOW? DO WE NEED
LIKE 55 YEAR OLD MEN DIRECT
MESSAGING 13 YEAR OLD GIRLS THAT
ARE NOT PART OF THEIR NETWORK
LIKE YOU COULD TURN OFF DIRECT
MESSAGING IN THAT SITUATION AS
AN EXAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW IF
THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT
LIKE THAT COULD BE A PLACE WHERE
YOU COULD LAND AND AGAIN. THAT'S
WHERE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
HAVING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
THE TECHNOLOGY, I THINK IS
REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK
THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO
GUARDRAILS THAT YOU CAN PUT IN
PLACE TO HELP KEEP YOU KNOW
THESE PRODUCTS SAFER. GOT IT.
OKAY THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION
CAME INTO BEING NO EXPERT, BUT
OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU'RE
GOING TO GO FORWARD AND DEFINE
THAT A LITTLE FURTHER. BUT I DO
APPRECIATE THE WORK. I GOT TO
TELL YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE. MR PATTERSON.
GREAT THANK YOU. AH, I REALLY
APPRECIATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WICKS. WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO AGREE ON TOO MANY ITEMS AND,
YOU KNOW, LOOKING FORWARD TO
MORE OF THAT HAPPENING IN
HOUSING AND IN THIS COMMITTEE,
ACTUALLY, SO IT'S BEEN REALLY
GREAT TO WORK WITH YOU ON THESE
. AND UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS
GOOD TO WORK WITH SIMILAR MEMBER
FLORA. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, SO
AH, UM HE KEEPS ME IN LINE A LOT
OF THINGS, UM, YOU KNOW, AND
ANOTHER REASON WHY I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT IS BECAUSE WE CAN
ALL COUNT TO 41 HERE, AND, UM
YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED UH, YOU
KNOW MY VOTE, BUT YOUR DESIRE TO
MAKE IT BIPARTISAN MEANS A LOT
TO ME PERSONALLY, UM, I KNOW OF
SEVERAL ISSUES THAT OCCUR ON
VARIOUS PLATFORMS WE ALL KNOW
AND I PERSONALLY HAD SOME FRANK
CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE
COMPANIES. UM AND YOU KNOW THE
REALITY IS, UH, YOU KNOW,
UNINTENTIONAL. UH AS IT MAY BE,
THE PLATFORMS ARE BEING USED FOR
REALLY BAD. BAD THINGS. UM IN IN
SEVERAL INSTANCES. UH UM I SAW
LETHAL DRUGS BEING OPENLY SOLD.
AH UM FAMILIES MADE REPORTS OF
THIS OCCURRING AND NOTHING. AND
YOU KNOW THAT WAS DISAPPOINTING
. AND SO I KNOW MORE NEEDS TO BE
DONE ON THIS. UM ON THE OTHER
HAND, I DO BELIEVE THAT NONE OF
THE PLATFORMS, YOU KNOW, WANT
THIS TO HAPPEN. UM AND, UH, WE
ARE, BUT WE ALL KNOW IT'S I JUST
WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT THIS BILL.
BUT YOU KNOW, THE SALE OF
FENTANYL IS OFTEN OCCURRING ON
ON SOME OF THESE PLATFORMS, AND
WE KNOW IT'S HAPPENING, AND I
KNOW IT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE I'VE
MET WITH THE FAMILIES OF THE
VICTIMS, AND SOME OF THEM LIVE
IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. UM AND I'M
HAVE LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS SOME
OF THOSE THINGS. UM AND SO WHEN
I HEAR FROM A PLATFORM THAT
THEY'RE WORKING ON IT, I'M HAPPY
AND I ACTUALLY GENUINELY BELIEVE
THAT. BUT THEN AGAIN, I'M
DISMAYED BY THE FACT THAT IT'S
CONTINUING TO HAPPEN. UM AND I
DON'T THINK IT'S JUST BECAUSE
YOU KNOW KIDS ARE, YOU KNOW,
EVADING THESE SAFETY MEASURES OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT? I THINK
THERE'S A SYSTEMIC ISSUE THERE.
UM, SO WHAT DO WE DO? AND I
PERSONALLY LIKE THE PROCESS
OUTLINED. I REALLY DON'T THINK
THE PROCESS IS TOO CUMBERSOME.
UM YOU KNOW, IN SOME OF THE
PLATFORMS RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN
MAKE A REPORT AND GET A
RESPONSE. YOU KNOW, LIKE IN A
DAY, YOU KNOW, UM I DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS WITH THE LIABILITY AND
, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU KNOW
YOU'VE COMMITTED TO WORKING ON
THAT. I MIGHT LAY OFF THIS, UH
RIGHT NOW, BUT TRUST ME, I AM
INCLINED AT THE END OF THE DAY
TO SUPPORT THIS, AND I'M GLAD
YOU'RE WORKING WITH MY
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES OVER HERE.
I THINK. WELL YOU KNOW, GET THIS
ALL IRONED OUT. BUT ONE LAST
THING I DO I WE DO WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE HOLDING
ACCOUNTABLE THE PEOPLE OR OR OR
PLATFORMS IF THERE'S INTENTIONAL
THINGS OCCURRING, I THINK WE ALL
AGREE ON THAT. I DON'T REALLY
THINK THAT'S A THING BUT ALSO
NEGLIGENCE. YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S
OCCURRING, AND WE KNOW ABOUT IT.
UM AND, YOU KNOW ALSO, HEY, PLUG
FOR LET'S LOCK UP THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMMITTING THIS AND BY THE
WAY, I HAD A BILL TO DO THAT AS
WELL. SO FOR SEXUALIZED HUMAN
TRAFFICKING IF I CAN GIVE A PLUG
THERE, BUT I'M REALLY ENCOURAGED
BY THIS BILL. I'M LOOKING
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON
IT. I MIGHT LAY OFF TODAY JUST
BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON
THE AMENDMENTS. BUT I AM FEEL
PRETTY GOOD, BUT WE'LL WE'LL GET
THERE BY THE TIME WE'RE AT THE
FLOOR, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR PHªN. I THINK IT WAS CHAIR.
REAL QUICK QUESTION. I CERTAINLY
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR OF FOR HER
BIPARTISAN APPROACH. CERTAINLY
SHE YOU HAVE A GREAT REPUTATION
IN THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
FINAL PRODUCT. UM AS AS THIS
MOVES FORWARD, I'M JUST TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND THE GAP. SO UNDER
FEDERAL LAW THERE. THE SERVICE
FOR AN ELECTRONIC SERVICE
PROVIDER HAS TO PROVIDE HAS TO
REPORT UM CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
MATERIAL TO A TIP LINE. AND THIS
, UH, BILL REQUIRES SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM
FOR USERS TO REPORT CHILD SEXUAL
ABUSE MATERIAL, UM, IN WHICH THE
USER IS DEPICTED SO WHERE IS SO
AS AS INFORMATION FLOWS TO THE
PLATFORM, AND MAYBE EITHER TO
THE TO THE AUTHOR TO SUPPORTERS
OR TO THE OPPONENT? WHAT'S THE
NEXT STEP? HOW DOES HOW DOES
THAT INFORMATION GET TO THE
POINT WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OR SOMETHING IS AN ACTUAL ITEM
GOING FORWARD IN TERMS OF JUST
THE ACTUAL PROCESS, THE PROCESS
OF JUST PROCESS AND MOVE FORWARD
IN ANYONE CAN ANSWER. SO TODAY
UNDER. THANK YOU. SO TODAY UNDER
FEDERAL LAW IF A PLATFORM
BECOMES AWARE THAT THERE IS
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL.
THEY BECOME STRICTLY LIABLE FOR
THAT CONTENT. THEY IMMEDIATELY
ASSUME ALL LIABILITY AS SOON AS
THEY ARE NOTIFIED. NOW FEDERAL
LAW IN AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE
THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
ALLOWS THEM TO REPORT THIS TO
NICK NICK, AT WHICH TIME THEY NO
LONGER HAVE THAT STRICT
LIABILITY. SO IT'S A CARROT
APPROACH TO GETTING THAT
INFORMATION OVER TO THE NATIONAL
CENTER FOR MISSING EXPLOITED
CHILDREN WHEN I TALK WITH THE
NATIONAL CENTER, ONE OF THEIR
MAIN CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS IS
AS I MENTIONED JUST BASED ON OUR
QUICK ANALYSIS, PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE DATA FROM BUSINESSES
THEY GET ABOUT. 300,000 IN
STANCH E ATIONS REPORTED DAILY.
THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT AND I'VE
GOT A REPORT WHERE I CAN SEND
GIVE YOU ALL THAT DATA. ABOUT
300,000 DAY. THEIR STAFF IS
PROBABLY ABOUT 20 SOME ODD FTS.
WE JUST HEARD ABOUT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVING
CHALLENGES ANALYZING STUFF OVER
FIVE YEARS, THEY ARE WAY
OVERLOADED ON COMPLAINTS
SIMULTANEOUSLY. THEY ALSO
OPERATE UNDER STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, PERIOD WHERE THEY
DON'T TAKE ACTION WITHIN. I
DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER ON
IT ON HAND WITHIN A COUPLE OF
MONTHS, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO
PURGE THOSE COMPLAINTS. THEY
HAVE TO PURGE THAT DATA. THAT
MEANS THOSE COMPLAINTS THEY
CAN'T BY LAW EVEN TAKE ACTION
ON, SO THAT'S WHERE THE
DISCONNECT IS. FALLING PLATFORMS
ARE REPORTING A LOT BECAUSE THEY
ARE FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZED TO
DO SO. THE FUNNEL. THE LIMITING
REAGENT IS ACTUALLY NICK NICK
BECAUSE THEY ARE BASICALLY WAY
UNDERSTAFFED AND WAY UNDERFUNDED
, AND MANY OF MY MEMBERS DO
PROVIDE FUNDING TO THEM, BUT
THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH. THEY CAN
ALWAYS USE MORE TO ACTUALLY TAKE
THOSE REPORTS AND THEN GET THEM
OVER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND GET THEM OVER TO YOUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE ACTIONS AND
ENFORCE AGAINST SO THAT'S WHERE
THE DISCONNECT IS HAPPENING. YES
AND ALSO DIRECTED TO PAGE SIX OF
THE ANALYSIS, THE KEY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS BILL AND THE
FEDERAL LAW IS THAT UNDER THIS
BILL, SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
WILL BE REQUIRED TO BLOCK
REPORTED MATERIAL FROM
REAPPEARING ONCE IT IS VERIFIED
TO BE SEE, SAM. THERE IS
CURRENTLY NO SUCH REQUIREMENT
UNDER FEDERAL LAW. OKAY? SO SO
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT ON THE
FEDERAL SIDE TO REPORT TO THE
NATIONAL CENTER OF EXPLOITED
CHILDREN, UM AND THERE SEEMS TO
BE KIND OF A UH, GAP THERE,
WHERE IN TERMS OF ACTUAL ITEMS.
THIS BILL CREATES A REPORTING
MECHANISM BUT ALSO HAS A
REQUIREMENT FOR THAT, AND THAT
INFORMATION TO BE TAKEN DOWN OR
TO BE BLOCKED. CORRECT AND, UM
AND YOU'LL YOU'LL HEAR OF
VICTIMS WHO, UM, ARE VERY
FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THE MATERIAL
KEEPS CIRCULATING THROUGHOUT THE
INTERNET. UM AND THERE'S
HORRIFIC STORIES OF PARENTS
GETTING NOTIFIED TWO OR THREE
TIMES A WEEK FOR YEARS ON END
THAT THIS MATERIAL IS STILL OUT
THERE, UM, OF THEIR CHILDREN WHO
WERE ABUSED 10 YEARS AGO OR
WHATEVER. UM AND SO THE OTHER
PIECE OF THIS, TOO, IS A LOT OF
THE VICTIMS FEEL LIKE THE
COMPANIES ARE BEING RESPONSIVE
TO THEM. THUS THAT'S WHY WE'VE
PUT IN FOURTH IN IN IN THE BILL
. THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE
COMPANIES RESPOND TO THE VICTIMS
AND GIVE THEM REGULAR UPDATES ON
WHAT'S ON THE STATUS OF WHAT I'M
TRYING TO KIND OF GET TO THE
BOTTOM OF IS THE ACTUAL ITEM IS
THE VICTIM, I THINK CERTAINLY
WANTS TO INFORMATION TAKEN
CORRECT DOWN, BUT THEY ALSO
PROBABLY WANT TO MAKE ENSURE
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SOME
ACTIONS BEING TAKEN. AND SO THAT
SECOND COMPONENT MAYBE NOT
ADDRESSED IN THIS BILL. MAYBE
THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO KIND
OF GET OUT AND TRYING TO GAUGE
LIKE THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF THIS
ISSUE IS. IS THERE A PROBLEM?
BECAUSE IT IS REPORTING A SO
WE'RE JUST CREATING THIS BILL
CREATES AN ADDITIONAL REPORTING
MECHANISM IN THE STATE SIDE,
WHICH I JUST DOESN'T NECESSARILY
HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH ITS JUST
WHAT WHAT IS WHAT ARE PEOPLE
DOING WITH INFORMATION? AND
MAYBE ONE OF YOUR SUPPORTERS
CAME IN SET DOWN BY ONE OF THE
ANSWER OR PROVIDES INFORMATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HEAD, HOWARD CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF SAN
DIEGO SCHOOL OF LAW, I THINK YOU
THINK YOU'VE GOT IT EXACTLY
RIGHT. I THINK THAT THERE IS NO
THAT THE BILL HAS TWO
COMPONENTS. THE FIRST PART IS
TRYING TO AH HOLD SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN
THEY'RE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING
IF THEY EVER DO IN THE
UNDERLYING SEXUAL TRAFFICKING
AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN, BUT THE OTHER PART
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES
HAVE TWO COMPONENTS AS THE
ANALYSIS TERRIFIC ANALYSIS, BY
THE WAY, AND I CAN'T THANK YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF ENOUGH FOR THE
WORK THEY DID ON THIS BILL. UM
THE, UH, THE AS AMENDED. THE
BILL REQUIRES UPON THE REQUEST
OF THE SURVIVOR WHO IS
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFYING
SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFYING IMAGES
AND VIDEOS TO BLOCK THAT FROM
BEING CIRCULATED. AS YOUR
ANALYSIS CORRECTLY POINTS OUT,
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF
FEDERAL LAW ON THAT AT ALL.
THAT'S I THINK THE GAP THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THERE IS ALSO
THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENT OF
REPORTING TO NICK KNACK FOR A
LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE. BUT
WHILE WE IF WE EVER ARE ABLE TO
ENTICE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO TAKE
THESE CASES IN THE MEANWHILE IF
WE DON'T PREVENT THESE IMAGES
FROM REMAINING ONLINE OR DON'T
PROVE DON'T PREVENT THEM FROM
BEING POPPING UP AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN THAT IN AND OF ITSELF
THAT UNCERTAINTY FEAR IS A FORM
OF VICTIMIZATION FOR THESE
PEOPLE, AND THAT'S THE REASON
FOR THAT PART OF THE BILL. SIR
DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
YES, THANK YOU. THANKS SENATOR
REPRESENTATIVE. SO TO BE CRYSTAL
CLEAR, UM TODAY UNDER EXISTING
LAW. IF ANY WEBSITE. HAS OR
PARTICIPATES IN THE CREATION OR
DEVELOPMENT OF SEA SAND MATERIAL
. YOU CAN SUE THEM. YOU CAN SEND
THEM TO COURT. YOU CAN TAKE THEM
DOWN TODAY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED TO BACK PAGE. PAGE WAS
TAKEN DOWN UNDER EXISTING LAW.
BECAUSE THEY PARTICIPATE IN THE
CREATION DEVELOPMENT OF THAT
HORRIBLE CONTENT. WHEN PLATFORMS
ARE NOTIFIED. THEY ALSO REMOVE
THAT IMAGE. AND REPORTED TO NICK
NICK. THAT'S PART OF THE FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS SO THAT IMAGE COMES
DOWN. PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS
THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN TRY TO PUT
IT BACK UP IN DIFFERENT PLACES.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CONCERN
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS RAISING
AND RIGHTFULLY SO. THE CHALLENGE
IS HOW DO WE OPERATIONALIZE THAT
BECAUSE ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS
WE'VE HEARD IS THAT IT WILL POP
UP ON DIFFERENT SITES ACROSS THE
INTERNET BUSINESS CAN ONLY
CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS ON ITS OWN
WEBSITE. IT CANNOT CONTROL WHAT
HAPPENS ON OTHER SITES. NOW ONCE
AGAIN, I THINK WE DO NEED BETTER
WAY TO ADDRESS THIS. ONE OF THE
WAYS TO DO IT IS TO FIND BETTER
WAYS FOR NICK NICK TO GET THOSE
HASH VALUES OUT TO PLATFORMS. SO
THAT THEY CAN BEGIN REMOVING THE
CONTENT AS POSSIBLE ON THEIR
PLATFORMS AS WELL. BUT THAT'S A
DIFFERENT CONVERSATION ON A
DIFFERENT PIECE. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND THEN MY
FINAL QUESTION TO THE AUTHORS.
SO THERE'S THE FEDERAL REPORTING
AND THE STATE REPORTING. HOW
DOES THIS REPORTING DIFFERENT
FROM THE FEDERAL OR IS IT?
THAT'S A SIMILAR INFORMATION, IS
IT WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS THEIR
DIFFERENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
OR ARE THEY SIMILAR? WELL,
THEY'RE SIMILAR INSOFAR AS THEY
BOTH DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL CONTENT
, PICTURES AND VIDEOS OF CHILD
RAPE AND TRAFFICKING. BUT BEYOND
THAT THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR AND
AGAIN GOING BACK TO YOUR
ANALYSIS. THERE IS THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLOCKING AND
REMOVING CONTENT. THE REASON WHY
THE BILL USES BLOCKING AS
OPPOSED TO REMOVING IS THAT IF
YOU REMOVE SOMETHING ENTIRELY,
YOU CAN'T CATCH IT, BUT IT COMES
BACK AGAIN. SO THE REASON WHY
THE BILL REQUIRES THE BLOCKING
OF THE CONTENT AGAIN AS AS
REINFORCED BY YOUR ANALYSIS IS,
THERE IS NO FEDERAL REQUIREMENT
FOR THAT. THERE IS ALSO NO
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT OF A
DIALOGUE OR CONVERSATION BETWEEN
THE PLATFORMS WHO MAY BE HOSTING
THAT CONTENT. HOPEFULLY
INADVERTENTLY, OF COURSE. AND
THE SURVIVOR TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
THAT DOWN. THAT'S PART OF THE
STORIES THAT YOU'VE HEARD OVER
AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT
THE FACT THAT SURVIVORS DON'T
KNOW WHERE TO EVEN START WITH
FACEBOOK, FOR EXAMPLE, OR ANY OF
THE OTHER MAJOR PLATFORMS TO TRY
AND FIND A REAL PERSON OR A REAL
ENTITY TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THIS
STUFF GETS TAKEN DOWN. SO THAT'S
THE GAP. THAT'S THAT'S PLUGGED
BY THIS BY THIS BILL OR
SOMETHING. I APPRECIATE IT, AND
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TRYING. I'M TRYING TO DRILL DOWN
IS ONE AND CERTAINLY IF THERE'S
ALREADY REQUIREMENTS ON THE
FEDERAL LEVEL WILL MAKE SURE
THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE AND THAT
WE'RE NOT IF THEY'RE NOT
EFFECTIVE. WE DON'T WANT TO
CREATE A STATE REPORTING
REQUIREMENT THAT IS JUST AS
INEFFECTIVE AS THE FEDERAL OR
MAYBE IT IS EFFECTIVE. BUT
THERE'S A THERE'S A GAP THAT
NEEDS TO BE A DRESSERS, ACTUAL
ITEMS SO THAT I THINK THAT'S
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT, IS
CERTAINLY, UH, WANT TO SEE THIS
. THIS BILL MORE FLESHED OUT AND
WANT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS THERE.
BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO BE MORE ACTIONABLE,
BASED ON THE DATA THAT'S BEEN
COLLECTED THROUGH THIS MECHANISM
, THEN I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
ADDRESS. MAYBE WITHIN THIS BILL.
LARA ANOTHER BILL, SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK
YOU, MR THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. AND UM I
APOLOGIZE. I WASN'T HERE FOR THE
WHOLE PRESENTATION. I WAS
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. UM AND I'M
KIND OF GLAD I WASN'T IT IS
BAFFLING TO ME. WHAT THIS
COUNTRY IS ALLOWING RIGHT NOW.
AS AN ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BUT MORE
IS A MOM. WE HAVE DECIDED AS A
NATION. THESE PLATFORMS GET TO
PROFIT. OFF OF POSTINGS AND
SHARING AND LIKES AND THE
ATTENTION, ECONOMY AND OUR
CHILDREN AND THEIR ATTENTION.
AND YET. THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY OF IT, AND EVERY TIME WE
TRY TO HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE MOST OF HORAN BEHAVIOR ONE
COULD EVER POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
THEY COME IN HERE AND SAY, HOW
CAN WE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?
WELL, YOU'RE PROFITING OFF OF
IT. SO YOU GOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR IT. AND IT IS NOT TOO MUCH
TO ASK TO PROTECT OUR MOST
VULNERABLE HUMANS. OUR CHILDREN
TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE WORST
POSSIBLE KIND OF EXPLOITATION
THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ANYBODY.
AND JUST A FEW YEARS AGO
ENFORCEMENT SAT. A FEW OF US
MOMS DOWN, REMEMBER WAS AND
SAID, WE'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE
IT'S ENCRYPTION GETS MORE AND
MORE SOPHISTICATED. PLATFORMS
MAY NOT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THIS
. AS THE IMAGES ARE ENCRYPTED.
THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
AND REPORTED IN THE WAYS THEY DO
TODAY. AND THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE
THAT THE ENCRYPTION WAS
HAPPENING BECAUSE THE PLATFORMS
DIDN'T WANT TO REPORT IT. BUT AS
WE MOVED IN THIS DIRECTION OF
PRIVACY, IT WAS GOING TO HARM
THE CHILDREN AND THEY WANTED US
TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND YET. WE
CONTINUE TO ALLOW THINGS TO GO
IN THE DIRECTION OF NOT GIVING A
ABOUT OUR CHILDREN BEING HARMED.
AND I'M SICK OF IT. AND I KNOW
IT'S HARD AND I KNOW WE'RE
ASKING YOU TO DO MORE. BUT YES,
YOU NEED TO DO MORE. AND I HAVE
NO MORE TO SAY THAN THAT.
BECAUSE OUR KIDS DESERVE BETTER
THAN ANY SINGLE POLITICAL BODY
IN THIS NATION HAS DONE FOR THEM
, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE WE AS PARENTS, OUR KIDS
ARE THE TEST CASE RIGHT NOW. AND
THERE ARE LITERALLY DYING.
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING MORE AND
THEY'RE BEING SEXUALLY
EXPLOITED. AND WE CAN DO MORE
AND WE CAN EXPECT MORE, AND WE
CAN HOLD THESE PLATFORMS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY'RE
DOING TO ALLOW THAT HARM THAT
EXPLOITATION TO OUR CHILDREN. SO
KEEP IT UP. I WOULD LOVE TO
BECOME A CO AUTHOR. AND IF THE
BILL HASN'T BEEN MOVED, I MOVED
THE BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
THE 2ND 2ND 2ND BY SEPTEMBER
11TH ALL ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. YOU WANT TO OKAY
. UM THANK YOU. I WILL. FIRST OF
ALL, LET ME JUST SAY, UM WHAT I
WANT TO ALIGN MYSELF WITH THE
COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM
ORINDA, WHO I THINK SAID IT SO
BEAUTIFULLY, AND I WOULD ALSO BE
HONORED TO BE ADDED AS A CO
AUTHOR, AND I WANT TO THANK UM
FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. I KNOW
THAT YOU APPROACH SO MANY OF
THESE ISSUES FIRST AND FOREMOST
AS A PARENT AS A MOM, YOU HAVE
BEEN A REAL LEADER AND
PROTECTING KIDS AND PARTICULARLY
IN PROTECTING KIDS ONLINE, AND
THAT IS SOME OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT WORK THAT WE HAVE TO
DO HERE. AND I ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR YOUR EFFORTS
TO DO THAT WORK IN A BIPARTISAN
FASHION, AND I THINK ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I AM MOST PROUD OF
IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT WE
HAVE DONE AS A PRIVACY COMMITTEE
IS THAT SO MUCH OF THE WORK THAT
WE HAVE DONE IN PROTECTING YOUNG
PEOPLE HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN WORK
WHERE WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER
ACROSS THE AISLE TO SAY, LET'S
PUT ASIDE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
ON OTHER ISSUES TO STAND UP AND
PROTECT OUR KIDS. AND SO I WANT
TO THANK YOU ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FLORA FOR ADDING YOUR VOICE
HERE. I THINK IT'S A REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT ONE. AND I AM I
HAVE TREMENDOUS CONFIDENCE THAT
THE TWO OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER
KNOWING THE RESPECT THAT BOTH OF
YOU HAVE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE
CAUCUSES AND ALSO IN OUR BODY AS
A WHOLE WILL BE ABLE TO DEVELOP
A BILL THAT HOPEFULLY SHOULD
PASS WITH UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT. I DON'T THINK THAT
THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE MEMBER
OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT SHOULD
FEEL COMFORTABLE NOT SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND I WILL
ADD, UM, I KNOW THAT THERE'S
SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE REMEDIES
ISSUES HERE. THIS BILL IS DOUBLE
REFERRED. IT'S GOING TO
JUDICIARY NEXT. AND SO I LIKE TO
BE NARROW IN THE WAY THAT WE
UNDERSTAND OUR JURISDICTION TO
NOT STEP ON THE TOES OF OTHER
COMMITTEES. AND SO I KNOW THAT
THERE WILL BE A FULSOME
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE
REMEDY. YOU KNOW, AFTER THIS
BILL GETS OUT HOPEFULLY TODAY
AND GOES TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. UM I WANT TO SAY I DO
WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING. I
ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT BAFFLED BY
SOME OF THE COMMENTS, WITH ALL
DUE RESPECT FROM THE PROFESSOR
WHO SPOKE IN OPPOSITION, UM,
SAYING THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON
THIS PURELY AS A CRIMINAL
MATTER. I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE
STRONGLY, AND I THINK ALMOST ANY
PARENT THAT YOU ASK IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA WOULD SAY WE
SHOULD DO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE, USE ALL TOOLS AT OUR
DISPOSAL TO PROTECT YOUNG
PEOPLE. AND I THINK EVEN IN HIS
TESTIMONY, WE NOTED SOME OF THE
WEAKNESSES AND DEFICIENCIES OF
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
HOLDING THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE
AND PROTECTING YOUNG PEOPLE. SO
I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT WE
NEED TO DO MORE. THERE IS
CLEARLY A SHORTCOMING WITH THE
LAWS THAT IS ON THE BOOKS. I
THINK THAT THESE PLATFORMS
ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY
TO COME TO THE TABLE AND BE PART
OF THE SOLUTION. THESE ARE SOME
OF THE RICHEST, MOST POWERFUL,
MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES ON THE
PLANET, AND I THINK THAT THEY
HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO BE
PART OF THE SOLUTION HERE. THEY
HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO BE
PART OF PROTECTING OUR YOUNG
PEOPLE. SO I JUST THINK THIS IS
A WONDERFUL BILL. I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. I KNOW THAT IN
THE SPONSORS FOR WORKING CLOSELY
WITH MY STAFF TO CRAFT
AMENDMENTS TO MEET THE DEMANDS
OF SECTION 2 30, THE
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE IN A STRONG AND FIRM
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
POSITION. I THINK THAT'S BEEN
DONE WHILE I DO WANT TO ALSO
THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF FOLKS HAVE
HAVE HAVE, UM, HAVE COMMENTED ON
. UM AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU AGAIN. THIS IS A
CHALLENGING ISSUE. IT IS HARD TO
LISTEN TO SOME OF THIS TESTIMONY
TO ME TOO SHAMEFUL. THE
CALIFORNIA LEADS THE NATION IN
SOME OF THIS EXPLOITATION AND WE
ALL COLLECTIVELY HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO OUR CHILDREN
TO DO A LOT BETTER. SO THANK YOU
FOR TAKING ON THIS VITALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. I AM HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL TODAY, AND
WITH THAT THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO, UM TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AS AMENDED AND WE HAVE
A MOTION AND A SECOND AMOUNT OF
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ASSEMBLY BELL 13 94 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WICKS. THE MOTION IS
PASSED TO THE DIGIT JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. GABRIEL GABRIEL I.
PATERSON PATERSON, NOT VOTING
BARRICADE KHN BAUER-KAHAN
BENNETT. SALLY. SAILING, NOT
VOTING. FUN. IRWIN. CHOLERA.
LOWENTHAL EYE POPPING. WHAT
HAPPENED? I WICKS I.
ALRIGHT THAT BILL HAS FIVE
VOTES. WE WILL LEAVE THE RAW
OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. UH HUH. YEAH, CERTAINLY.
OKAY? INTERESTING. WE ARE GOING
TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE HERE.
ATTENTION PLEASE. MORNING
MORTGAGE CHANNEL. NO WE ARE ON
OUR LAST BILL THAT THE CHAIR
WILL BE PRESENTING AND OKAY,
GREAT. EVERYBODY'S ANXIOUS. SO,
UH, LET'S BE SWIFT. A B 16 59
YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY
. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
. I WANT TO START BY ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS FROM MY OWN
COMMITTEE AND THANK THEM FOR
THEIR THOUGHTFUL FEEDBACK AND
ASSISTANCE. UM, A B 16 59 WOULD
ESTABLISH A UNIVERSAL CHARGING
INTERFACE FOR SMALL ELECTRONIC
DEVICES THAT WOULD REDUCE
ELECTRONIC WASTE LOWER PRICES
FOR CONSUMERS AND PROVIDE
GREATER CONSUMER CHOICE AND
FREEDOM. WITH CONSUMERS NO
LONGER LOCKED INTO PROPRIETARY
CHARGING TECHNOLOGY. I THINK
MOST CALIFORNIANS ARE NO
STRANGERS TO THE JUNK DRAWER OR
BEEN FULL OF RANDOM CHARGERS AND
CABLES, MANY OF WHICH EVENTUALLY
FIND THEIR WAY INTO A LANDFILL.
MANY OF US HAVE ALSO BEEN IN
SITUATIONS WHERE THE CHARGING
CABLES WE HAVE ACCESS TO DO NOT
MATCH THAT OF OUR DEVICE. THE
WASTE THAT IS PRODUCED BY THE
CHARGING CABLES AND SECONDARY
ADAPTERS HAS LEAD TO HARMFUL AND
TOXIC MATERIALS POLLUTING OUR
ENVIRONMENT. THIS BILL SEEKS TO
FOLLOW THE LEADER OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION AND INDIA AND
ADOPTING U. S B C AS THE
UNIVERSAL STANDARD FOR CHARGING
INTERFACES ON SMALL ELECTRONIC
DEVICES. BY MAKING THESE CHANGES
, WE CAN PROTECT OUR
ENVIRONMENT, LOWER PRICES FOR
CONSUMERS AND FINALLY ELIMINATE
THE DRUNK DRAWER. WITH ME TODAY
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS DOUG COBALT, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL.
WITH THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
UM, THANK YOU. CHAIR AND ALSO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN HERE AND
EXPRESS THE SUPPORT OF CPSC.
THAT'S OUR AFFECTIONATE NAME IS
CPSC COMPANY PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL? UM JUST A QUICK NOTE ON
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL. WE ARE AT WHISKEY OR
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION FOR MOSTLY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ABOUT
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
AND CONSUMER RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP. AND PART OF THAT
ONE OF THOSE TENANTS IS THAT
WASTE HIERARCHY AND AT THE TOP
OF THE WASTE HIERARCHY IS SOURCE
REDUCTION, WHICH ALSO MEANS
WASTE REDUCTION. AND SO AS THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S HAS POINTED OUT
THERE IS, UH, WE'RE ALL WE ALL
HAVE A JUNK DRAWERS FULL OF
CABLES FROM ALL THESE DEVICES
WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS AND SO
I JUST WANTED TO COVER A FEW
POINTS ON WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE
SEEING. AND SO, UM MOST OF THE
ELECTRONIC DEVICES THAT WE BUY.
NOWADAYS COME WITH A PLUG. THEY
COME WITH A CORD. UM THERE ARE A
VARIETY TYPES OF PLUG ADAPTERS
AS THE HANDOUT I SENT HANDED OUT
TO YOU WOULD INDICATE THERE ARE
VARIETIES THAT ARE USED. UM
THERE'S MILLIONS OF THESE SOLD
EVERY YEAR. TYPICALLY THE CORDS
ACTUALLY OUTLAST THE DEVICE, AND
SO IF IT'S AN ODD TYPE OF PLUG
WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? AND MAYBE
YEARS LATER, YOU PULL UP THIS
CHORD AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT
IT WAS FOR. YOU PROBABLY GOT RID
OF DEVICE YEARS AGO, AND SO NOW
IT'S GOING TO END UP AS UM AND
IN A BAD PLACE. UM MANY OF OUR
NEW DEVICES THAT WE BUY LIKE OUR
OUR LAPTOPS, OUR DESKTOP PCS.
OUR BATTERY BACKUPS ACTUALLY
COME WITH A USB C TYPE OF
CONNECTION SO THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO RELY ON THESE OTHER ODD
CONNECTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO
CHARGE YOUR PHONE, SO YOU HAVE A
PHONE THAT HAS A USB C TWO USB C
TYPE OF CORD YOU CAN THEN PLUG
RIGHT IN CHARGE. UP YOUR PHONE
OR PLUG IT INTO YOUR COMPUTER.
UM THERE, AS THE HANDOUT
INDICATES, THERE ARE 10
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONNECTIONS
THAT ARE TYPICALLY OUT THERE.
THREE OF THEM ARE REALLY JUST U.
S. B A TYPE CONNECTIONS. UM
EITHER THE ORIGINAL USB SPEED
TYPE ONE OR TYPE TWO, SO THERE
ARE CATEGORIES THERE FOR SPEEDS
. THEN THERE IS THE FEMALE TYPE
OF THAT FOR CONNECTING OTHER USB
CABLES JUST TO MAKE THEM LONGER.
AND THEN FINALLY, THERE'S A USB
THREE TYPES SPEED, WHICH IS IN
3.1 AND 3.2 AS WELL AND THAT'S
THE LATEST AND GREATEST USB. UH
C R U S P D A TYPE CONNECTION SO
PRETTY COMPLICATED HOW THIS AND
THEN YOU CAN SEE IT'S
COMPLICATED. AND WHY ARE WE WHY
ARE WE SO COMPLICATED? OUR
CONNECTIONS? UM ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT IS CLEAR IS IF YOU
GO BACK TO 1987 THE ETHERNET
CONNECTIONS WE USED TO CONNECT
COMPUTERS TO THE INTERNET, THE
NETWORK CABLES THEY USE AN RJ 45
CONNECTION TYPE. THAT HAS NEVER
CHANGED IN ALL THIS TIME.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A CHANGE THAT
THAT IS A STANDARD. IT IS SHOWS
THAT THIS CAN BE STANDARDIZED
THAT ALL DEVICES COULD HAVE THE
SAME TYPE OF CONNECTION AND
STILL WORK PROPERLY AND WITH THE
EVOLUTION OF THE USB CABLES
THEMSELVES AND WHAT SPEEDS ARE
ABLE TO CARRY, THERE SHOULD NO
LONGER BE A REASON TO HAVE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONNECTIONS.
AT THE END OF THESE CABLES,
THEY'RE CARRYING THAT SAME
CAPACITY. THERE'S BEEN A OVER
100 FOLD CHANGE IN THE SPEED
OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE GONE FROM
THE, UH 100 MEGABITS PER SECOND
NOW TO 20 GIGABITS PER SECOND.
THAT'S 20,000 MEGABITS, SO IT'S
A LOT OF HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE
SPEED. THE OTHER THING IS LIKE
AS THERE'S SOMEBODY REMEMBER,
POINTED OUT, THESE THINGS ARE
BECOMING OBSOLETE. THERE'S
CONNECTIONS THAT WE DON'T USE
THE END UP IN THE JUNK DRAWERS.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM THE
LIMITING OF THE TYPES OF
CONNECTIONS WILL ACTUALLY STOP A
LOT OF THIS WASTE THAT WE HAVE,
BECAUSE HERE'S ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT HAPPENS IF YOU GO
THROUGH THAT JUNK DRAWER, YOU
FIND THOSE CABLES. WHAT DO YOU
DO WITH THEM? THEY'RE SUPPOSED
TO GO TO AN E WASTE PROCESSOR.
HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE AVAILABLE?
HOW EASIER TO GET TO WHAT
HAPPENS WITH THE MAJORITY OF
THESE CABLES AS THEY GO INTO THE
TRASH, AND NOW THEY'RE WASTED
RESOURCE OR WORSE. THEY GET INTO
THE RECYCLE BIN BECAUSE FOLKS
THINK THAT THEY'RE RECYCLABLE.
AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THOSE GET
TO THE MATERIAL RECOVERY
FACILITIES THEY WIND UP IN THE
MACHINERY. AND THEY CAN CAUSE
BINDING IN THE FACILITIES AND
ACTUALLY CAN IGNITE FIRES. AND
SO NOT ONLY WITH OUR LITHIUM ION
BATTERY BUILT FROM LAST YEAR
WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO TACKLE
THIS AND DID IT IS THE SAME
THING WITH THE CABLES. THEY CAN
ALSO PRODUCE THE SAME ISSUES AND
NOTHING WOULD APPRECIATE SOME OF
THEM ARE WAS JOINT JOINT
AUTHORSHIP OF ARBIL LAST OUR TWO
BILLFOLDS LAST YEAR FOR
BATTERIES, AND WITH THAT, I'LL
CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS. VERY GOOD.
DO WE HAVE ANY? UM, SPEAKERS AND
OPPOSITION. PRINCIPAL SPEAKERS
AND OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
THANK YOU BUT BUTLER
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE AND
SUPPORT SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE
IN OPPOSITION. YEAH, NO, NOT.
LAWRENCE GAINING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION WITH A
TWEENER POSITION OF CONCERN,
JUST SIGNING THE SMALL
ELECTRONIC DEVICE DEFINITION,
INCLUDING WATCHES, UM, LOOKING
FORWARD TO TALKING WITH THE
AUTHOR AND OFFICER MORE JUST
CONCERNING THAT, UH, THAT PIECE
OF THE LANGUAGE AS WELL, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PATTON MY
QUESTION AND YOU MAY HAVE COLORS
THAT CAME IN LATE, SO I
APOLOGIZE. I'M ALL FOR IT. BUT
IN THE INTERIM, WHAT DO I DO
WITH THE CORDS? I HAVE. SO MY
QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS THERE
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO ABOUT?
YOU KNOW THE CONNECTOR CABLES TO
USE THE ONES WE HAVE UNTIL THEY
GO OUT OF FASHION OR STYLE OR
MANDATE AS IT WERE ABSOLUTELY.
IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT TYPE OF
CONNECTION YOU HAVE THE INTERNET
, GOOGLE AMAZON FULL OF
CONNECTORS, ADAPTERS THAT WILL
ACTUALLY TRANSLATE THAT FOR YOU
AND AT THE SPEED YOU MAY WANT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WAS THAT. THAT
WAS THAT WAS IT, OKAY?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. UM I'VE
NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, BUT IT
MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. THANK YOU.
MR GABRIEL. WHY DO WE HAVE 85
DIFFERENT OPTIONS HERE? OH
BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURERS
OBVIOUSLY WANT TO DESIGN FOR
THEIR OWN CAPABILITIES, AS WAS
JUST POINTED OUT IN THE
OPPOSITION ABOUT THE SMALLNESS
OF THE DEVICE IS ABSOLUTELY OF A
C CONNECTION MAY NOT BE THE BEST
FOR A REALLY SMALL WATCH IT
MADE, BUT IT MAY BE. I THINK
THAT THE UNFORTUNATELY WE FOUND
AT CPSC AS WE FOUND THAT THEY
DESIGN ENGINEERS DON'T ALWAYS
LOOK AT THE END OF LIFE. AND HOW
THESE THINGS CAN BE REUSED AND
USED OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AGAIN. THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT
JUST BEING ALL SELL IT, UM, ALSO
APPLE. UM MY UNDERSTANDING WAS
ONE OF THE ONLY ONES WHO OPPOSED
THE EUROPEAN UNION'S THAT
APPROACH TO STANDARDIZING THESE
CONNECTIONS BECAUSE THEY SELL
THEIR LIGHTNING CABLES AND THEY
CAN SELL MORE CABLES. THEY'RE
VERY EXPENSIVE. YOU WANT TO BUY
A LIGHTNING CABLE IS VERY
EXPENSIVE. AND SO WHY WOULD YOU
NOT NEED TO BUY YOU WANT MORE OF
THEM? AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE TO
BE ABLE TO TAKE MY ONE DEVICE
THAT MAY HAVE DIED. TAKE THE
CABLES AND USE IT ON MY NEXT
DEVICE AND NOT HAVE TO BUY
ADDITIONAL CABLES WHEN I'VE
CHANGED FROM APPLE TO ANDROID. I
HAD TO BUY ALL NEW CABLES FOR MY
CAR FOR CONNECTED TO MY
COMPUTER, SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO
HAVE ONE CABLE AND WHERE IT WAS
ALL THE TIME. AND FURTHERMORE,
IF YOU'RE OUT AND ABOUT AND YOU
DON'T HAVE YOUR CABLE, YOU
FORGOT IT AND YOU WERE
TRAVELING. WOULD IT BE NICE TO
BE ABLE TO JUST HAVE A SPARROW
IN CITY IN YOUR SUITCASE AND
DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BUYING
11 OF THOSE CHAOS? THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY
HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO,
UM WHY SO WHY DO THEY USE THE
LIGHTNING RIGHT NOW? IS IT HAVE
AN ADVANTAGE OVER THE U. S. B.
C. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE. IT'S JUST THEIR
PROPRIETARY CHARGING. IT HAS TO
DO WITH THEM BEING ABLE TO SELL,
UH MORE THINGS AND MAKE MORE
MONEY. THEY DON'T EVEN INCLUDE
ANYMORE. YOU HAVE TO BUY IT
SEPARATELY, WHICH I KNOW SO AS A
CONSUMER, RIGHT? I THINK I
AGREE. I JUST TO ME. THE
EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT A SELLING
POINT. BUT THAT'S PERSONAL
GRIEVANCE, BUT BUT I AGREE THAT
THIS MAKES SENSE FOR CONSUMERS
IF THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE REASON
FOR HAVING A DIFFERENT KIND OF
CHARGING STATIONS. SO WHAT
HAPPENS TO INNOVATION? WHAT IF
THERE'S A BETTER TECHNOLOGY THAT
COMES OUT THEN? USB C. HOW DOES
THAT HOW DOES THE MARKET DEAL
WITH THAT INCORPORATE THAT AS A
AS A UNIFORM. IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION, AND I THINK IT'S
SOMETHING WE THAT THAT. UM
THERE'S A LOT OF THAT IN THE
ANALYSIS. UH THE IDEA HERE IS
THAT WE WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO, UM,
TO UPDATE LAW. WE DON'T WANT TO
STIFLE INNOVATION. AND SO RIGHT
NOW, IF SOMEONE DID COME UP WITH
A PRIDE, PROPRIETARY TECHNOLOGY
THAT WAS BETTER THEY COULD BUILD
THAT INTO THEIR DEVICE. THEY
WOULD JUST HAVE TO MAKE IT SO
THAT IT COULD STILL BE CHARGED
WITH A USB C AND I THINK YOU SEE
THAT IN THE EUROPEAN UNION WHERE
THERE'S FOREIGNERS 50 MILLION
PEOPLE WHERE THEY'VE DONE THIS
IN INDIA, WHERE THERE'S 1.4
BILLION PEOPLE. ARE THEY DONE
THIS BY REGULATION, BUT NOT BY
STATUTE IN BOTH OF THOSE LOCALES
AS WELL AS TECHNOLOGY. UM
MATURES AND CHANGES AND WE GET
MORE INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS IF WE
MOVE TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE THAN
THE MARKET IN ALL OF THESE
PLACES WILL CALL LESS AROUND
SOMETHING ELSE. SO THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US FOR FOLKS TO
INNOVATE. THIS IS JUST GIVING A
SLIGHT NUDGE TO EVERYBODY AND
SAYING, YOU KNOW MUCH OF THE
GLOBE HAS ALREADY MOVED TO USB
C. LET'S GET THERE, TOO. IT'S
GOOD FOR CONSUMERS, AND IT'S
GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SO THEY
COULD SELL A NEW TECHNOLOGY AND
JUST HAVE LIKE AN ADAPTER THAT
ALLOWS CORRECT. CORRECT THAT,
OKAY, THIS IS PROBABLY SOLVE
ITSELF BECAUSE WE'RE GROWING ALL
THIS WIRELESS CHARGING TWO
ANYWAY, SO OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE A
GOOD BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I
WOULD JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT, AND
THAT IS IF BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN
THEY STARTED PUTTING PLUGS INTO
ELECTRIC APPLIANCES RIGHT IF
THEY WEREN'T STANDARDIZED,
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AND
IMAGINE IF SOMEBODY SAID BACK
THEN. WELL YOU'D BE STIFLING
INNOVATION. IF YOU CAME UP WITH
A STANDARD PLUG. I MEAN, THINK
HOW MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED?
AND YET AS OLD AS I AM, I'M
STILL PLUGGING IN THINGS WITH
THE SAME EXCEPT EXCEPT THE
GROUNDED PLUG, BUT OUTSIDE OF
THAT, EVERYTHING IS THE SAME
GOING FORWARD. THE SAME THING
CAN HAPPEN WITH THIS COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THAT IS REALLY FRUSTRATING
. YOU UPDATE YOUR PHONE AND ALL
THE OLDER CORDS BECOME OBSOLETE
, BUT THEY DO END UP STAYING IN
YOUR DRAWER BECAUSE YOU DON'T
KNOW HOW TO RECYCLE THEM. WHICH,
UM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE SHOULD BE
DOING MORE EDUCATION ON THAT.
BUT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY SAID
IT TOO. I THINK YOU'RE PROBABLY
MOVING PRETTY QUICKLY TO
WIRELESS AND I ASSUME THAT
THAT'S WHY COMPANIES LIKE APPLE
AREN'T HERE. UM IN OPPOSITION
BECAUSE THEY'RE MOVING TO THE
NEXT THING, JUST WHAT I WOULD
ASSUME BECAUSE NOBODY IS THAT
WOUND UP ABOUT THIS BILL. SO UM
, WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION?
ALRIGHT MOST BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FONG AND A SECOND BY ASSEMBLE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL. AND
IF WE COULD PLEASE DO THE ROLE
MAYBE 16 59 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GABRIEL. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE GABRIEL GABRIEL I
PATERSON JUST BECAUSE OF THE
CONFLICT. I AM ABSTAINING FROM
THIS. ALRIGHT THANK YOU.
PATERSON ABSTAIN BARRICADE HIM.
BENNETT. BENNETT I SALLY SALLY.
AYE SONG I IRWIN I COBRA CHOLERA
EYES. LAMENTO EYE POPPING UP AND
I WHIPS WEEKS I. CORRECT 90. ONE
UPSTAIRS. OKAY WE HAVE NINE
VOTES. FOUR WITH ONE ABSTENTION
. WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN
FOR APPS. THE MEMBERS. I THINK
AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD BE
PRUDENT TO OPEN THE ROLE SO
FOLKS CAN DO SOME ADD ONS. SO UM
, LET'S GO FIRST TO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN
YOU CALL THE ROLL? CONSENT
CALENDAR. PATTERSON WIX WIX?
AYE. OKAY, THAT IS OUT 10 0.
NEXT TO FILE ITEM ONE. MAYBE 331
BAUER-KAHAN. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. BENNETT BENNETT. AYE,
FUNG. FROM NEW. 2009 WHAT.
AMERICAN OKAY? AND THAT IS OUT
92. WELL NEXT GO TO, UH, FILE
ITEM NUMBER TWO A B 15 46. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BAUER-KAHAN
BENNETT BENNETT? AYE. SALLY.
FUN. COBRA. UM OKAY. I'M SORRY.
I THOUGHT I WAS NOT VOTING FROM
BEFORE. OKAY? YOU'RE.
SEVEN THAT BILL IS OUT 73 AND WE
WILL LEAVE THE RAW OPEN FOR
SOMEBODY MEMBER OF BAUER-KAHAN.
AND LET'S GO TO A B 13 94 WEEKS
IF I LET HIM BEFORE. MOTION IS
DUE PASS TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. UM. 13 94. AND, UM,
JOB. UM SORRY, PATTERSON.
BENNETT BENNETT? AYE. S¼ LEÓN.
NOT BOOTING. IRWIN. IRWIN I
CHOLERA. CHOLERA? AYE. THAT BILL
IS OUT 8 TO 0. IT'S DONE.
OKAY, JUNE. BAUER-KAHAN A STATUE
INDICATIONS OR TWO. TOO MANY
PAPERS. THANK YOU. UM OKAY. I'M
GONNA HAVE IT. THEREFORE, 15 46.
AND 16 59. PORTANTINO FOREVER.
YEAH. I WANT TO BE ACTIVE. MM
HMM. YES, AFTER THE FACTORY
DURING THE RECESS. I AM. I
TEXTED PADDED SEATS. I THINK HE
THOUGHT HE WAS ON EVERYTHING. SO
I JUST I DON'T KNOW HE WANTS US
TO GET HELP WITH. OKAY, I'M
GONNA GET OUT OF HERE BECAUSE I
GOTTA GO. A COUPLE OF MILES. WE
NEED WE NEED TO REMEMBER IN
HERE, RIGHT? SHE'S GONNA AWAY.
CONVERSATION.
HMM.
MM HMM.
GOTTA KANSEN. OKAY. SORRY.
UP WITH THE OTHER. YOU GOT IT.
RIGHT? YES.
YOU KNOW, I GOTTA THINK. PUT IT
IN THE FRONTIER.
YEAH.
NO. WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR OUR
FAITH.
ALRIGHT LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN
THE ROLL ON A B 15 46. 15 46 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GABRIEL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COMMISSION
COMMITTEE, BARRICADE AND
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. 23 THAT BUILDS
OUT 8 TO 3. EDU 16 59 NOW WE
WERE OPEN THE ROLL ON A B 16 59
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GABRIEL. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSES AMENDED TO
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BARRICADE
HIM, OKAY, I. TENDED. THAT BILL
IS OUT 10 TO 0. AND WITH THAT
THE HEARING THIS JOURNEY. COULD
NOT BE AS A RECORD ABILITY FOR
YOU REALLY.