GOOD AFTERNOON
WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE
ASSEMBLY PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE HEARING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US. WE
HAVE A VERY FULL HEARING TODAY
IS EXCEPTIONALLY BUSY DAY IN THE
CAPITAL, SO TO EFFECTIVELY
MANAGE OUR TIME, WE WILL BE
LIMITING TESTIMONY TO TWO
WITNESSES FOR SUPPORT AND TWO
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO 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.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS MAY ONLY
STATE THEIR NAME, AFFILIATION
AND POSITION. FOR THE RECORD. NO
FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE
PERMITTED. 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. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE
THAT WE ARE ACCEPTING WRITTEN
TESTIMONY THROUGH THE POSITION
LETTER PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. SOME MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC CAN MAKE THEIR OPINIONS
KNOWN. THAT WAY. WE HAVE 26
BILLS ON THE AGENDA TODAY, AND
THE FOLLOWING BILLS HAVE BEEN
APPROVED FOR CONSENT. ABC 364
BRIAN DO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. MAYBE
947 GABRIEL DO PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. A B 12
76 MAKIN ER DO PASS TO DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. A B 12 82 LOWENTHAL
DO PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. A B 16 67 IRWIN DO
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. A B 16 97 SHIAVO DO
PASS AS AMENDED A B 17 12 IRWIN
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. I WILL
, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. AS SOON AS WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. WE DO NOT
HAVE A CORN YET, BUT WE CAN,
THANKS TO MR ASTLEY BEGIN AND
OPERATE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. SO WE
CAN GET STARTED. IN OUR FIRST
AUTHOR IS UH, DR WEBBER.
ACTUALLY DO IT COMPLETED SIX FOR
FREE. OH LET'S JUST GET THIS
ONE. RIGHT. WE HAVE SIX GREAT.
DOCTOR BEFORE YOU BEGIN. I THINK
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH QUORUM
SINCE I KNOW WE HAVE FOLKS
COMING IN AND OUT. SO, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GABRIEL.
PRESIDENT GABRIEL PRESIDENT
PATERSON PATERSON. HERE,
BARRICADE KHN. BENNETT. BENNETT
PRESIDENT SALI SALLY HERE, FONG
IRWIN LOWENTHAL. WE WENT OUT
HERE, PAP PAP IN WIX WIX HERE,
WILSON. WILSON HERE. QUORUM HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED. AND SINCE I
KNOW IT MAY BE FLEETING. AT THIS
POINT, I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WICKS THE SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL,
MADAM SECRETARY, CAN YOU CALL
THE ROLL? MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS DO PASS TO THIS
CONSENT CALENDAR. UM GABRIEL,
GABRIEL I PATERSON PATERSON. I
BAUER-KAHAN. BENNETT BENNETT
EYES SALLY SALLY. SALEI FONG
IRWIN LOWENTHAL. I THOUGHT I POP
WICKS NÓ. WICKS I WILSON.
WILSON. I. SO THOSE BILLS ARE
ALL OUT. THE CONSENT COUNT HAS
BEEN APPROVED. WE WILL LEAVE THE
ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. AT
THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO TURN
TO FILE ITEM 17, MAYBE 10 11
ASSEMBLY DOCTOR. DR. WEBBER, YOU
MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMITTEE
WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME TO LAY OUT A B 10
11, WHICH IS THE FIRST STEP IN
ADDRESSING A CRITICAL NEW
FRONTIER PRIVACY POLICY. I WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL OF THE
HARD WORK ON THIS BILL, AND I AM
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND PLAN TO ADDRESS
THOSE TODAY. I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO THANK THE NUMEROUS
STAKEHOLDERS WITH WHOM WE'VE HAD
SIGNIFICANT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT FOR
CONSUMERS WHOSE DATA IS HOUSED
AND THEY CLOSED LOOP REFERRAL
SYSTEM. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TODAY REMOVE THE ELEMENTS WHICH
REQUIRE FURTHER DELIBERATION,
AND I INTEND TO CONTINUE TALKS
WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GET IT RIGHT AND FURTHER
LEGISLATION. IN RECENT YEARS
THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING
INTEREST IN ADDRESSING HEALTH
RELATED SOCIAL NEEDS AS A
STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING OVERALL
HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS. AS A PART OF THIS
MOVEMENT, SOCIAL CARE NETWORKS
HAVE BECOME AN IMPORTANT PART OF
DELIVERING THE SERVICES THAT
ADDRESS THESE NEEDS. THESE ARE
GROUPS OF PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY
FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS THAT SHARE
DATA AND MAKE REFERRALS TO EACH
OTHER TO HELP PROVIDE CARE
ACROSS A RANGE OF SOCIAL NEEDS
SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION. IS
INFORMATION ABOUT THE MOST
VULNERABLE MOMENTS IN A PERSON'S
LIFE. PEOPLE WHO ARE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, FOOD
INSECURITY OR THREATS TO THEIR
PHYSICAL SAFETY OFTEN WANT TO
KEEP THIS INFORMATION PRIVATE.
THIS BILL ADDRESSES SOCIAL CARE
PRIVACY BY DEFINING A CLOSED
LOOP REFERRAL SYSTEM. CLOSED
LOOP REFERRAL SYSTEMS HAVE
BECOME THE PLACE WHERE MANY
SOCIAL CARE PROVIDER TO CREATE
AND TRANSMIT DATA AND THEREFORE
AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO START
REGULATING PRIVACY IN THIS
SPACE. THIS ALSO ALLOWS US TO
REGULATE THIS DATA WITHOUT
PUTTING UNDUE BURDENS DIRECTLY
ON THE SOCIAL CARE PROVIDERS AND
NON PROFITS THAT WERE EXEMPTED
FROM THE CCP, A MOST IMPORTANTLY
, THIS BILL TAKES A GIANT STEP
TOWARDS PROTECTING CONSUMERS BY
PUTTING STRICT DO NOT SELL
STANDARDS IN PLACE FOR THIS
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION
HOUSE WITHIN CLOSED LOOP
REFERRAL SYSTEMS. IN CLOSING. I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THIS BILL DOES
NOT REQUIRE ANY ORGANIZATION TO
UTILIZE A CLOSED LOOP REFERRAL
SYSTEM OR REQUIRE ANY BURDENS ON
EXISTING STRUCTURES IS SIMPLY
DEFINES. A NEW TECHNOLOGY AND
LAW PREVENTS ANY ORGANIZATION OR
COMPANY FROM SELLING PRIVATE.
SENSITIVE CONSUMER DATA WITH ME
TODAY, AND SUPPORT IS JACKET
JAFFER. TRASH CEO OF FIND HELP,
AND I ALSO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM 211. WHO IS A TWEENER BILL
YORK. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR GABRIEL, MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. MY
NAME IS JENNIFER TRISH AND THE
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER WITH
FIND HELP THE SPONSOR OF HB 10
11. FIND HELP IS THE NATION'S
LEADING SOCIAL CARE, REFERRAL
TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM AND NETWORK
. TO DATE, WE HAVE HELPED
CONNECT OVER 24 MILLION PEOPLE
WITH FREE AND REDUCED COST
PROGRAMS THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR.
OUR TECHNOLOGY OPERATES ONE OF
THESE CLOSED LOOP REFERRAL
SYSTEMS OF WHICH WE'RE
DISCUSSING TODAY. FIND HELP. OUR
MISSION IS TO CONNECT ALL PEOPLE
IN NEED TO THE PROGRAMS THAT
SERVE THEM WITH DIGNITY AND
EASE. AND WE BELIEVE PRIVACY IS
A CRITICAL PART OF PRESERVING
THAT DIGNITY. I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WEBER FOR
HER COMMITMENT TO THIS ISSUE IN
HER LEADERSHIP ON MAYBE 10 11.
WE RECOGNIZE THE AMENDMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH IN COMMITTEE
AND WE SUPPORT THE NEED TO
FORMALLY DEFINED A CLOSED LOOP
REFERRAL SYSTEM AND PROTECT THE
INFORMATION WITHIN THESE SYSTEMS
BY PROHIBITING THE SALE OF DATA.
WE BELIEVE PEOPLE DESERVE
TRANSPARENCY INTO WHICH
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ACCESS TO
THEIR PRIVATE INFORMATION. WE
BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
CONNECT TO SERVICES WITHOUT A
VENDOR CONDITIONING THEIR
SERVICE DELIVERY ON HAVING TO
SHARE INFORMATION WITH EVERY
ORGANIZATION IN THE NETWORK.
PRIVACY AND CONSENT WITHIN THESE
REFERRAL SYSTEMS WILL NEED TO BE
COMPREHENSIVELY ADDRESSED IN THE
FUTURE. THESE CONVERSATIONS TAKE
TIME, AND WE BELIEVE THIS IS THE
FIRST INCREMENTAL STEP IN THIS
IMPORTANT PROCESS. TO DATE.
THERE ARE NO SUCH FEDERAL OR
STATE PROTECTIONS FOR THIS TYPE
OF CONSUMER DATA HOUSED WITHIN
SYSTEMS SUCH AS OURS WHEN THE
DATA IS CREATED OUTSIDE OF HIPAA
REGULATION. CONSUMERS CAN BE IN
CONTROL OF THIS PERSONAL
INFORMATION AND WITHOUT
GUARDRAILS AROUND CONSENT. MANY
ARE LEFT VULNERABLE TO THE WHIMS
OF THIS UNREGULATED INDUSTRY. WE
ALSO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS TO
BRING IN FURTHER STAKEHOLDER
DISCUSSIONS TO DISCUSS BEST
PRACTICES IN THIS SECTOR. WE
ENCOURAGE CALIFORNIA TO ADOPT A
CONSUMER DIRECTED PRIVACY MODEL
THAT ALLOWS INDIVIDUALS TO HAVE
TRANSPARENCY INTO ORGANIZATIONS
HAVING ACCESS TO THIS DATA. I
ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS NON PROFITS
AND COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS WHO DIRECTLY
PROVIDE SOCIAL CARE SERVICES TO
THOSE IN NEED. WE KNOW THAT
TRUST IS A CRITICAL PART OF THIS
RELATIONSHIP BUILDING AND
SERVICE DELIVERY AND FIND HELP
IS COMMITTED TO ENSURING CBOS
ARE ABLE TO PROTECT THIS
INFORMATION. DR WEBBER'S
LEADERSHIP HAS ENCOURAGED
ESSENTIAL CONVERSATION WITH OUR
COLLEAGUES AT SAN DIEGO 211
ABOUT SOCIAL CARE DATA PRIVACY.
BILL YORK OF SAN DIEGO, TWO ON
ONE AND HIS TEAM ARE PIONEERING
LEADERS AND OPENED THE DOORS FOR
THOSE OF US COMMITTED TO
MODERNIZING SOCIAL CARE. WE
COMMEND AND APPRECIATE HIS
COMMITMENT TO THIS CONVERSATION
TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND
DIGNITY OF THOSE WE ALL SERVE.
WE OWE IT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS TO
CREATE UNIFORM STANDARDS AND
PROTECT THEIR DIGNITY AND ENSURE
THEIR TRUST. SO WHEN SOMEONE
SEEKS OUT SUBSTANCE ABUSE,
COUNSELING, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PROTECTION OR IS FACING
HOMELESSNESS OR MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS, THEY KNOW THEIR
INFORMATION IS BEING TREATED
WITH CARE AND PROTECTION AND NOT
BEING SOLD TO BAD ACTORS. I
THINK THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR LEADING ON THIS IMPORTANT
TOPIC, I LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE
CONVERSATIONS WITH DR WEBBER AND
THE STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS
HERE TODAY TO WORK TOGETHER TO
CREATE BEST PRACTICES FOR
PRIVACY, CONSENT AND DATA
SHARING IN SOCIAL CARE NETWORKS.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON SHARE
GABRIEL AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS BILL YORK,
AND I AND THE PRESIDENT AND CEO
OF TO ONE SAN DIEGO AND THE
COMMUNITY INFORMATION EXCHANGE.
FIRST I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT
TWO AND ONE SAN DIEGO AND ALL OF
OUR COMMUNITY BASED AGENCY
PARTNERS TAKE INFORMATION
PRIVACY SERIOUSLY. CLIENT AND
DEAR PRIVACY OR THE OUT MUST AT
MOST PRIORITIES IN OUR REGION,
STATE AND NATIONAL COLLABORATIVE
WORKING IN CARE COORDINATION IN
THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF
HEALTH. IN FACT, JUST LAST WEEK
I ATTENDED THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE WHERE CONSUMER AGENCY
CONSUMER PRIVACY DATA CONSENT
WERE USED AS WERE DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH FROM MULTI SECTORS OF
GOVERNMENT, HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL
CARE AND OTHER NONPROFITS,
INCLUDING FIND HELP. THE FIRST
OBJECTIVE IN LEGISLATING IN THIS
AREA MUST BE TO FIRST DO NO
HARM. BOTH TO THE ABILITY OF
COMMUNITY BASED AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE SERVICES AND THE ABILITY
OR WILLINGNESS OF THOSE SEEKING
THOSE SERVICES. THIS IS WHY I
WANT TO EXTEND MY APPRECIATION
TO THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF WERE LISTENING TO THE
CONCERNS OF THE NONPROFIT
COMMUNITY AND TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WEBER FOR
AGREEING TO NARROW THE PROPOSAL.
TWO MONTHS IN DIEGO AND CIA IS
ONLY ABOUT ONE AGENCY IMPACTED.
IN SAN DIEGO ALONE. THERE WERE
130 AGENCIES ACROSS MULTIPLE
SOCIAL AND HEALTH SECTORS THAT
WORK TOGETHER THROUGH A SHARED
NETWORK THAT WILL NEED TO
EVALUATE LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT
WE CAN WORK WITH THEIR STANDARDS
IN CLIENT SERVICES APPROACH.
DEFINING A CLOSED LOOP REFERRAL
SYSTEM IS NOT EASY, BUT AND
THERE ARE MANY MODELS. AND AS
NOTED ABOVE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS
COMMUNITY AGENCIES THAT HAVE A
LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR SHARING
INFORMATION TO FULLY ASSIST
THOSE IN NEED, ESPECIALLY THE
MOST VULNERABLE AND IN CRISIS.
TO ONE SAN DIEGO IS COMMITTED TO
OUT REACHING TO OUR LOCAL
REGIONAL PARTNERS AND
STAKEHOLDERS SO WE CAN PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK AS THE
MEASURE MEASURE MOVES FORWARD.
AGAIN WE APPRECIATE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WEBER'S
COMMITMENT AND FIND HELPS TO
WORK WITH US AS WE ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS OF STAKEHOLDERS AND THE
TIME THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN
THE STAFF HAVE TAKEN THANK YOU,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, OR IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE IN THE HEARING ROOM
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
THIS MEASURE? GOOD AFTERNOON ON
A HASSLE, BUT WITH THE UNITED
WAYS OF CALIFORNIA AND ON BEHALF
OF THE 12 UNITED WAYS THAT ALSO
OPERATE AND RUN TWO ON ONE, WE
ECHO THE POSITION EXPRESSED BY
MR YORK AS A TWEENER, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS FOR THE CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE WILL
NOW TURN TO WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
TIME TODAY. MY NAME IS PAUL
FASSBENDER. I WORK FOR UNITE US
AS SOCIAL CARE COORDINATION
COMPANY LIKE FIND HELP. OUR
COMPANY WAS FOUNDED 10 YEARS AGO
AND BY TWO VETERANS WHO HAD A
MISSION TO HELP VETERANS WITH
NON MEDICAL CARE THAT THEY
NEEDED. IT HAS SINCE EXPANDED TO
ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES. AND HERE
IN CALIFORNIA, WE WORK WITH
25,000 DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS
AND HELPING, UM, GETTING THE NET
MEDICAL NON MEDICAL SUPPORT THEY
NEED WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
ADVANCING PRIVACY AND DIGNITY OF
INDIVIDUALS SEEKING CARE. IN
ADVANCING THOSE, AND WE
APPRECIATE DR WEBBER, THE CHAIR
JEFF AND TRENT STAFFERS WHO
WORKED WE WORKED WITH IT WAS
GREAT. IT WAS VERY OPEN. WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUE DOING WORK.
BUT WE MUST, BUT WE MUST OPPOSE
A B 10 11 CURRENTLY IN ITS
CURRENT FORM. BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
UNINTENTIONALLY HAMPER
COORDINATION ACROSS HEALTHCARE,
GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY
PARTNERS. AND ULTIMATELY MAKE IT
HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS
CARE. WE APPLAUD THE GOALS OF
THE BILL, BUT BELIEVE THAT ITS
PROVISIONS WILL SET BACK
IMPORTANT EXISTING POLICY
EFFORTS IN CALIFORNIA LIKE CAL
AIM, WHICH SEEKS TO OFFER
CALIFORNIANS MORE EQUITABLE,
COORDINATED AND PERSON CENTRIC
APPROACH TO MAXIMIZING THEIR
HEALTH AND THE CALIFORNIA DATA
EXCHANGE FRAMEWORK. THE STATE
LEVEL INITIATIVES ALSO TAKING
PLACE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
WHERE HHS OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
AND OTHER AGENCIES ARE SEEKING
TO ADVANCE SECURE INFORMATION
EXCHANGE ACROSS SECTORS TO
IMPROVE ACCESS TO CARE. WE
SUPPORT QUALITY CARE, EQUALITY,
COORDINATED CARE NETWORKS THAT
USE THE BURDEN ON INDIVIDUALS
AND STREAMLINED DELIVERY OF
SERVICES FOR ORGANIZATIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EACH
INDIVIDUAL'S EXPRESS CONSENT.
AND PROVIDE HELP PEOPLE WITH THE
HELP THAT THEY NEED AS WRITTEN.
WE BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL CAN
GET GET THERE BUT THAT WE HAVE
WORK, AND WE APPRECIATE DR
WEBBER AND THE CHAIRS,
WILLINGNESS AND 211 FIND HELPS
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS IN DOING SO I
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S TIME
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
TO HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING
ROOM. SEE, NONE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BARRICADE KHN
I'M SORRY. I DON'T RECALL THE
NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. UNITE
US. UNITE US DOES UNITE US SELL
THE DATA AND THE CLOSED LOOP
SYSTEM. NO, WE DO NOT. DO THEY
MAKE MONEY OFF OF THE TRANSFER
OF SAID DATA? NO, WE DO NOT. SO
PLATFORM, OKAY? AND YOU MAY SELL
THE PLATFORM IS WOULD BE RIGHT.
YEAH NO, WE DO NOT SELL THAT.
OKAY SO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I
WANT TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE
AUTHOR. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT.
IT'S AN ORIGINAL FORM BECAUSE I
WAS WORRIED THAT AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT COULD SLOW DOWN THE CARE
THAT PEOPLE SO DESPERATELY NEED
THAT TO 11. ANOTHER
ORGANIZATIONS IN OUR COMMUNITIES
ARE PROVIDING AND, UM AND SO I,
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE OFTEN PUT
IN WELL INTENTIONED, UM PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS THAT PLOCK REALLY
CRITICAL CARE. AND SO I THINK
THAT THE WAY SHE HAS AMENDED THE
BILL UM, ENSURES THAT THAT CARE
CAN HAPPEN SEAMLESSLY, WHICH IS
SO CRITICAL RIGHT NOW,
ESPECIALLY WITH OUR HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS, OUR MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS, THE OTHER WAYS IN WHICH
THIS CONTINUUM OF CARE WORKS. UM
BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS
WITHOUT QUESTION. THIS DATA
SHOULD NOT BE SOLD OR
TRANSFERRED FOR MONETARY BENEFIT
BY ANY ENTITY AND I THINK THAT
IT SHOULD REMAIN USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS
RECEIVED. WHICH IS THE CARE THAT
THESE NETWORKS PROVIDES. SO I
THINK THE BILL IS BEEN AMENDED
IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS THE
INTERESTS OF FOLKS AND I
ACTUALLY I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT
TODAY, BUT I WOULD URGE THE
AUTHOR NOT TO AMEND IT ANY
FURTHER. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A
VERY GOOD JOB, AND I THINK THAT
NARROWING THAT EXCEPTION
DOWNWARD WATER THE BILL DOWN AND
TAKE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS AWAY
FROM THE INDIVIDUALS THAT
DESERVE THEM. NO MATTER WHO YOU
ARE. WHAT YOUR CONDITION IS IN
OUR COMMUNITY PRIVACY IS THAT
THE MOST INTEREST AND THIS DATA
SHOULD NOT BE SOLD. AND I THINK
YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF
ENSURING THAT THANK YOU. THANK
YOU ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF
COMMITTEE. SOMEBODY MEMBER
BENNETT UNITED WAY IN 211. I
HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR WHAT
THEY'RE DOING. UM AND SO I
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT THEIR
SUPPORT AND WANT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH YOU AS YOU MOVE
FORWARD, AND I'LL LOOK FORWARD
TO THAT, AS AS IT GOES FORWARD
IN TERMS OF YOUR ABILITY TO WORK
WITH THEM AND THEIR THEIR, UH,
THEIR SUPPORTERS. THIS MOVEMENT.
THANK YOU. REMEMBER SALLY? YES.
THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR
OPPOSITION. SO THE AMENDMENTS
LOOK PRETTY SUBSTANCE,
SUBSTANTIAL, SUBSTANTIVE. YOU'RE
STILL OPPOSED WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, THE ONE THE TWO
AREAS THAT I WOULD SAY IS FIRST
IT DEFINES CLOSED LOOP REFERRAL
SYSTEM. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE
BROADENED, AND THAT SHOULD BE
SOCIAL CARE INFORMATION
PROCESSOR. UM I DO KNOW THAT
THERE WAS A SOME CONCERN ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS IN THIS AND THAT
DOESN'T BRING IN NECESSARILY
INDIVIDUAL THAT BRINGS IN THE
ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM INSTEAD OF JUST
WORRYING ABOUT A CLOSED LOOP
REFERRAL SYSTEM, WHICH THERE'S A
HANDFUL ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD
FALL UNDER THAT. DON'T LEAVE
LOOPHOLE BROUGHT IN IT AND BRING
ALL OF IT IN THE SECOND PART,
TOO, IS SOME OF THESE SOME OF
THESE PARAGRAPHS ARE OVERBROAD,
WHICH I WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE OUR
SYSTEM IS HIPAA COMPLIANT. SO
YOU LOOK AT IT. WE COMPLY WITH
HIM, BUT WE COMPLY WITH A NUMBER
OF DIFFERENT FEDERAL REGULATIONS
AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT
HANDLE SOCIAL CARE ALSO DO SO
THIS WOULD LATER ON. BUT AS
AMENDED, IS IT GOING TO HINDER
YOUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE? LOOK?
MY SISTER IS A SOCIAL WORKER. SO
SHE SHE USES SYSTEM HERSELF AND
, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S
STRIKING A BALANCE. OBVIOUSLY
PROTECT PRIVACY INTEREST, BUT WE
DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO
CUMBERSOME ARE DIFFICULT THAT
SOCIAL WORKERS CAN'T GET THE
NEEDS. SO I I'M I WAS PLEASED
WITH THE AMENDMENTS. AND SO, UM
, IF THERE'S STILL MORE
CONVERSATIONS TO HAVE, PLEASE
CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE BUT I
THINK FOR TODAY I'LL BE
SUPPORTING IT AND JUST ENCOURAGE
. OH YES, AND I WOULD SAY THE
AMENDMENTS FROM OUR SIDE ARE A
LOT BETTER AND THEN MAKE THE
BILL A LOT BETTER. I THINK
THERE'S JUST FINE LEGAL DETAIL.
TO WORK OUT AND JUST TO NO, JUST
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE
OTHER FRAMEWORKS IN PLACE THAT
DO COVER DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS
AND NOT TO LEAVE A HOLE WHERE
ORGANIZATIONS CAN SLIP BY
BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE COVERED
UNDER THIS BILL TO IF THEY'RE
HANDLING THE SCANDAL FOR
INFORMATION TO THE AUTHOR
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS
POINT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON A SECOND
BY SOMEBODY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
UM I WILL JUST SAY, I JUST WANT
TO SAY THANK YOU, DR WEBBER FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA. I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH HERE. I WANT
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND
COMMITTEE STAFF AND OPPOSITION
FOR GETTING TOGETHER. I THINK AS
YOU'VE HEARD, I APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS. I THINK A LOT OF
FOLKS IN THIS COMMITTEE
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS YOU'RE
HEADING IN A VERY POSITIVE
DIRECTION NOW HAVE A LOT OF
CONFIDENCE IN YOU AS AN AUTHOR
TO CONTINUE TO MAYBE HAVE
CONVERSATIONS AND FINE TUNE AS
APPROPRIATE WHERE YOU FEEL
NECESSARY, BUT WITH THE
AMENDMENTS I AM I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND
HAVING MY RECOMMENDATION AND SO
WITH THAT, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER 17 A B 11 10 11 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, HOWEVER, THE
MOTION IS DUE PASSES AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL, I. PATERSON
PATERSON EYEBROW BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN AYE, BENNETT
BENNETT, I SALLY SALLY, I FONG.
IRWIN LOWENTHAL. AND THOUGHT I
POPPING HAPPEN. I WICKS. WILSON
WILSON. AYE. YOUR BILL IS OUT.
80 WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN.
PERHAPS MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
ALRIGHT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO
GO NEXT TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CARILLO A B 11 94. THAT IS FILE
ITEM NUMBER THREE. NO, I LOVE
IT. THANK YOU, UH, MAY I SORRY.
REPRESENT THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. I AM PROUD TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 11 94,
WHICH WILL PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S
RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN IT COMES
TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
DECISIONS AND ENSURE THE
COMPANIES CANNOT CIRCUMVENT
CALIFORNIA'S STRONGEST
PROTECTIONS IN THE NATION
RELATED TO THIS CRITICAL SPACE
SINCE THE FATAL DOBBS DECISION
LAST SUMMER, THERE HAS BEEN A
RENEWED NEED TO ENSURE THAT
ACCESS TO ACCURATE AND
AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION ABOVE
ALL OF ONE'S OPTIONS WHEN IT
COMES TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE
ARE AVAILABLE, HOWEVER, IT'S NOT
JUST ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO FIND
THAT INFORMATION. ONE SHOULD
ALSO BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT
WITHOUT THE THREAT OF BEING
SHARED WITH OUR OR SHARED OR
SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES OR IF IT'S
JUST A SUBJECT TO A DATA BREACH,
THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RACK
RIGHTS ACT GIVES INDIVIDUALS
AGENCY OVER HOW THEIR ONLINE
ACTIVITY IS STORED AND USE.
CALIFORNIA'S HAVE COME TO EXPECT
THAT THEIR PRIVACY WILL BE
CHECKED ID, AND THIS BILL CLOSES
A POTENTIAL LOOPHOLE THAT WOULD
ALLOW FOR FLAWED CONCLUSIONS
THAN MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE
SAFETY OF REPRODUCTIVE CARE TO
ALSO MAKE ACCESS TO GOOD
INFORMATION HARDER. CLOSING THIS
LOOPHOLE WILL ENSURE THAT
PRIVACY IS UPHELD AND ONE OF THE
SITUATIONS WHEN IT IS NEEDED AND
MOST CRITICAL. NO ONE SHOULD BE
WARY OF USING THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE THEM TO ACCESS
REPRODUCTIVE, COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE HERE TO TALK MORE
ABOUT THE NEED FOR THIS BILL IS
GARY JOHNSON, PRIVACY RIGHTS
FELLOW AT OAKLAND PRIVACY GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIRS AND MEMBERS.
PLEASURE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRS
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS GARY
JOHNSON. AND I AM WITH OAKLAND
PRIVACY, A CITIZEN'S COALITION
THAT ADVOCATES FOR THE
REGULATION. OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES WITH RESPECT TO
PRIVACY, CIVIL RIGHTS AND
COMMUNITY CONSENT. LAST YEAR,
THE U. S SUPREME COURT STRUCK
DOWN ROBIE WEIGHED AND UNLEASHED
A WAVE OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THESE
RESTRICTIVE LAWS TURNED ONCE
NORMAL PRACTICES, SUCH AS
TRACKING PERIODS AND PREGNANCIES
INTO A PRECARIOUS ENDEAVOR.
WHILE DIGITAL REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH TOOLS ARE EMPOWERING
USING THESE TOOLS SHOULD NOT
COME AT THE EXPENSE OF GIVING UP
PRIVACY AND BODILY AUTONOMY, NOR
ALLOW ONE TO BE SUBJECT TO
HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION OR
PROSECUTION. BECAUSE DIGITAL
REPRODUCTIVE TOOLS COLLECT A LOT
OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION,
OFTENTIMES USE MISLEADING
PRIVACY CLAIMS AND PREDATORY
ADVERTISING PRACTICES WITHOUT
GIVING CONSUMERS THE ABILITY TO
CONTROL THEIR DATA. CONSUMERS
ARE LEFT WITH A FALSE SENSE OF
SECURITY. THAT THEIR DATA IS
PRIVATE, SAFE AND SECURE.
REPRODUCTIVE APPS ARE SOME OF
THE MOST POPULAR HEALTH
MONITORING APPS USED BY ADULTS
AND FEMALES UNDER 18 YEARS OLD.
A FERTILITY APP STUDY FOUND THAT
ON AVERAGE, 3.8 TRACKERS WERE
ACTIVATED AT THE MOMENT OF
INSTALLATION. AT SUCH A SPROUT
PREGNANCY FLOW GLOW AND PRIM,
UM, HAVE BEEN CAUGHT, ABUSING
AND VIOLATING CONSUMERS PRIVACY
, COLLECTING EXTENSIVE AMOUNTS
OF DATA AND SHARING IT WITH
COUNTLESS THIRD PARTIES. ONE
SENSITIVE DATA REACHES GOOGLE,
FACEBOOK AND OTHERS. IT CAN THEN
BE SALTED DATA AGGREGATORS WHO
CAN IN TURN, SELL IT TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT OR BOUNTY HUNTERS.
MOREOVER SUBPOENAS MAY FORCE
PERSONAL DATA TO BE TURNED OVER
DIRECTLY AND THEN ACTIVE PEAKS
ACTIVISM DESPITE COMMITMENTS TO
PROTECTING CONSUMERS PRIVACY,
GOOGLE IS STILL COLLECTING AND
RETAINING ABORTION RELATED DATA.
NO MORE LIP SERVICE. MAYBE 11 94
WILL COMPEL THE PROTECTION OF
PRIVACY OF SENSITIVE
REPRODUCTIVE INFORMATION UNDER
THE C P R A WE THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CARILLO AND THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS CONTINUE
LEADERSHIP ON REPRODUCTIVE
FREEDOM, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL IN THE HEARING ROOM? BRIAN
STOP ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HAS MIDWIVES ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
AND HALF OF CALIFORNIA NEW URAL
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. LOTS OF
OR ON BEHALF OF PLANNED
PARENTHOOD, AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. CASUALLY
WITH THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL
TURN TO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL? SEE NONE. WE WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS SOME MEMBER
OF BAUER-KAHAN. I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
CONTINUED LEADERSHIP IN THE
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS SPACE. THIS
IS SUCH A CRITICAL WORK. UM,
THIS SEEMS LIKE AN OBVIOUS
CHANGE, SO I'M GLAD THERE'S NO
OPPOSITION HERE. I WANT TO THANK
YOU AND MOVE THE BILL. SECOND WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SOMEBODY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN, A SECOND BY
SOMEBODY MEMBER HAPPEN. TO OUR
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM CAN
YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE
HOW THIS INFORMATION COULD BE
MISUSED UNDER CURRENT LAW IF
THIS BILL DOES NOT BECOME LAW,
AND ARE THERE ANY CURRENT
EXAMPLES OF THIS ACTUALLY
HAPPENING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
NEBRASKA THERE'S A CASE WHERE A
MOM AND A DAUGHTER WHERE, UH, UH
, USING INFORMATION TALKING
ABOUT INFORMATION, REGARDLESS TO
ABORTION RELATED SERVICES ON
FACEBOOK, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT,
WENT AND GOT THAT INFORMATION
FROM FACEBOOK, AND RIGHT NOW
THEY'RE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES.
BUT IN UM CALIFORNIA GIVE AN
EXAMPLE. SO THE. IF I CAN ANSWER
THE QUESTION THAT'S AT HAND HERE
IS THAT THE ANYONE WHO USES
THESE TECH TOOLS. IT'S NOT BOUND
LIKE WITHIN CALIFORNIA. SO IF
THERE ARE PEOPLE FROM OTHER
STATES THAT ARE COMING TO
CALIFORNIA TO SEE REPRODUCTIVE
CARE, AND OR THEY'RE
COMMUNICATING VIA ANY OF THESE
PLATFORMS THAT COLLECT
INFORMATION, WHETHER IT'S
REPRODUCTIVE OR OTHER RELATED
DATA. LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM ANY
STATE IN THE COUNTRY CAN GET
THAT INFORMATION WHETHER IT'S
FROM CALIFORNIA'S OR FOR PEOPLE
AT A STATE THAT ARE COMING TO
CALIFORNIA TO GET REPRODUCTIVE
CARE. OKAY, UM. CALIFORNIA
COMPANIES HERE STILL HAVE TO
COMPLY WITH OUR PRIVACY LAWS IN
CALIFORNIA. AND IF A COMPANY
FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM
NEBRASKA COMES TO CALIFORNIA
COMPANY AND SAYS, HEY, GIVE US
THIS INFORMATION AND THAT
THEREFORE, THE CALIFORNIA
COMPANY WOULD BE BREAKING
EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW BY
PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION. SO
IN THEORY THAT IN THEORY, THERE
ARE PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE'S
PRIVATE INFORMATION. BUT AS I
SAID, IN MY STATEMENT. FOR
EXAMPLE, GOOGLE HAD STATED LAST
YEAR THAT IT'S SPECIFICALLY WHAT
NOT TRACK DATA RELATED TO
ABORTION CLINICS AND, UM UH, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE TRAVELING TO THE
CENTERS AND THEY ARE STILL DOING
THAT SO THE THING IS THAT THE
INFORMATION IS STILL BEING
COLLECTED, AND THERE'S
OPPORTUNITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT DATA
IS JUST SIMPLY BY THE FACT THAT
IT'S BEING TRACKED AND
COLLECTED. AND IT'S I MEAN, YES,
THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
PROTECTIONS UNDER THE CCP RIGHT
NOW, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY BEING A
ENFORCED BY BY TECH COMPANIES.
THANKS. OTHER QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
ALRIGHT SEEING NONE. WE DO HAVE
A MOTION IN A SECOND. I JUST
WANT TO THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS IMPORTANT BILL. IT
IS. IT'S ALMOST, UH YOU KNOW,
IT'S ALMOST UNIMAGINABLE TO ME
THAT WE ARE IN THIS PLACE. RIGHT
AND I THINK A FEW YEARS AGO,
NONE OF US IMAGINED THAT WE'D BE
HERE. BUT AFTER DOBBS I THINK
IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE STATE TO
STEP UP AND DO EVERYTHING THAT
WE CAN TO PRODUCT THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY,
THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. AND I KNOW
THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE
OF THE BUZZ PUZZLE. ACTUALLY ONE
OF THREE BELLS THAT THIS
COMMITTEE WILL BE HEARING TODAY
ON THIS TOPIC. SO I THANK YOU
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. I WANT TO
THANK SOMEBODY BARBARIC A HAND
HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS LEADER. IN
THIS AREA AS WELL. IT HAS BEEN A
PRIORITY FOR THIS COMMITTEE. I
DON'T THINK CALIFORNIA SHOULD
WAIT TO TAKE THESE STEPS. AND
CERTAINLY THERE ARE PRIVATE
COMPANIES HERE WHERE THEY COULD
RELEASE INFORMATION APPS AND
THIS CHANGE IN THE LAW, SO I
THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT AND
OBVIOUS STEP. AND I'M PROUD TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND HAS
AN EYE RECOMMENDATION AND MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
CLUB. OH, I'M SO SORRY YOU MAKE
CLOTHES. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AND THE
OTHER MEMBERS THAT ARE PRESENTED
IN THIS COMMITTEE FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT AHEAD OF THEM SO
THAT WE CAN GET BACK TO BUDGETS
OF 4 11 94 WILL CLARIFY THAT
BUSINESSES MUST COMPLY WITH
CONSUMER REQUEST TO DELETE
CONTRACEPTION, PREGNANCY CARE,
PRENATAL CARE AND INCLUDING
ABORTION SERVICES INFORMATION
AND MAY NOT SHARE THAT
INFORMATION UNDER THE EXCEPTION
OF THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS
ACT. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO THANK
THE FUTURE OF ABORTION COUNCIL
AND THE LEGISLATIVE WOMEN'S
CAUCUS FOR MAKING THIS A
PRIORITY. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
NUMBER THREE A B 11 94 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WENDY KOREA
MOTION IS DUE PAST TWO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I. PATERSON
PATERSON. NOT BOOTING. BARRICADE
HIM. OKAY, HAND I BENNETT. I
SALI. IT'S REALLY NOT VOTING FOR
LONG. IRWIN LOWENTHAL BLUMENTHAL
, EYE POPPING AND I WICKS
WILSON. THE VOTE IS 5 TO 2 WILL
LEAVE THAT BILL ON CALL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. OH SORRY TO 55
EYES TO NOT VOTING, BUT WE'LL
LEAVE THAT BELEN CALL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. WE ARE NOW GOING TO
GO NEXT TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FRIEDMAN, PLEASE. WHICH ONE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? FIRST
START WITH A V EIGHT? ALRIGHT,
WE'LL GO WITH A B EIGHT. THIS IS
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THANK YOU
, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS. FIRST OF
ALL, WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT THE
SUGGESTED COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ON
PAGE 10 SECTION SEVEN OF THE
ANALYSIS, ELIMINATING THE VERY
CONTROVERSIAL SECTION 22 505 OF
THE BILL. I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THE BILL
AND THE ANALYSIS. IN THE PAST.
IF YOU WANTED TO BUY A TICKET TO
AN EVENT, YOU'D GO TO A BOX
OFFICE AT A VENUE OR A BALLPARK.
THE BOX OFFICE WOULD TELL YOU
WHERE YOUR SEATS WERE. THEY GIVE
YOU A SEATING CHART, AND THEN
YOU BUY THE TICKET. YOU KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THE PRICE WAS. AND
YOU'D BE HANDED A TICKET, THEN
USE THAT TO ENTER THE VENUE OR
IN MANY CASES, YOU GIVE THE
TICKET AWAY OR YOU WOULD SELL IT
TO SOMEONE AS YOU SAW FIT. IS
THAT SOMEONE WHO OWNED THAT
TICKET IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE
INTERNET WOULD MAKE TICKETS
SELLING EVEN IS EASIER AND
PROMOTE GREATER TRANSPARENCY.
HOWEVER THE OPPOSITE IS ACTUALLY
HAPPENED THESE DAYS. IT'S VERY
COMMON THAT YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO SEE THE FINAL PRICE OR THE
COST OF THE TICKET UNTIL YOU'VE
BEEN ONLINE SOMETIMES FOR HOURS
AND HAVE FINALLY BEEN ABLE TO
SNAG A TICKET AND PUT IT IN YOUR
SHOPPING CART. YOU MAY THEN
WATCH THAT TICKETS COST INCREASE
, WITH MORE FEES ADDED ON AS YOU
CLICK PAST WEB PAGE AFTER
WEBPAGE UNTIL YOU FIND THE FINAL
PLACE TO PAY THAT TICKET, OFTEN
PURCHASED SEVERAL MONTHS IN
ADVANCE MAY COME WITH A VARIETY
OF RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER.
EVEN IF YOU BOUGHT THE TICKET A
YEAR OR TWO IN ADVANCE. IF YOU
FIND OUT THAT FOR SOME REASON
YOU CAN'T ATTEND. MAYBE YOU'RE
SICK. MAYBE YOUR NEPHEW IS
GETTING MARRIED. YOU MAY FIND
OUT AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HAVE
NO WAY TO GIVE THAT TICKET TO A
FRIEND OR TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE
ELSE WHO MIGHT WANT TO ATTEND,
AND YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO RETURN THAT TICKET
TO A REFER A REFUND. MEANWHILE
AVERAGE TICKET PRICES HAVE MORE
THAN TRIPLED SINCE SINCE THE MID
19 NINETIES, AND THE FEES THAT
ARE CHECKED ONTO EACH TICKET CAN
BE AS HIGH AS 78% OF THE TICKET
PRICE. WELL CONSUMERS ARE
CERTAINLY FEELING THE PINCH
TICKET RE SAILORS SORRY,
RETAILERS ARE DOING JUST FINE.
LAST MONTH, TICKETMASTER LIVE
NATION ANNOUNCED RECORD PROFITS
REPORTING A 2022 OPERATING
INCOME UP 125% FROM PRE PANDEMIC
LEVELS TO $732 MILLION AND
REVENUE UP 44% TO $16.7 BILLION.
THE LAWS GOVERNING TICKET
RETAILERS WERE PASSED BEFORE THE
INTERNET EVEN EXISTED, A FACT
THAT'S BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR
AS MEGA TICKET SELLERS AND
RETAILERS AND RESELLERS HAVE
USED THOSE RULES TO RIP OFF
CONSUMERS EAGER TO SEE THEIR
FAVORITE ARTISTS. WE NEED TO
UPDATE THE LAW FOR HOW TICKETS
ARE SOLD TODAY TO MAKE SURE
ARTISTS, PERFORMERS AND VENUES
CAN STILL REACH FANS AND SELL
TICKETS AND AN EASIER AND MORE
TRANSPARENT WAY BUT THAT
CONSUMERS ARE PROTECTED. A B
EIGHT. ADDS NEW IMPORTANT
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. IT WOULD
APPLY TO ALL PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY TICKET SELLERS WERE
HIS CURRENT LAW ONLY REGULATES
SECONDARY TICKET BROKERS. BUT
EXEMPT PRIMARY TICKET BROKERS
AND DOESN'T INCLUDE SECONDARY
TICKET SELLERS OR RESALE
PLATFORMS. A B EIGHT WILL
REQUIRE THAT THE FULL PRICE OF A
TICKET, INCLUDING ALL FEES
SHOULD BE SHOWN TO THE CONSUMER
WHEN THEY SELECT THE TICKETS
THEY WISH TO PURCHASE AND THAT
THE PRICE WILL NOT INCREASE
DURING THE PURCHASE PROCESS. IT
WILL ALSO REQUIRE PLATFORMS TO
DISCLOSE AN EXACT LOCATION OF
THE TICKETS SO THAT YOU KNOW
WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE SITTING
FINALLY A B EIGHT UNDER A B
EIGHT CONSUMERS WILL BE
PROTECTED FROM DISCRIMINATORY,
ANTICOMPETITIVE AND DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES THAT MAKE IT HARDER TO
BUY, RESELL AND USE TICKETS
MEMBERS. I REPRESENT THE HEART
OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. I
REPRESENT MANY LARGE VENUES. I
REPRESENT THE CONTENT CREATORS
AND THE ARTISTS WHO PERFORMED
THESE VENUES. THE LAST THING I
WOULD WANT TO DO IS DISRUPT THE
ECONOMY IN MY OWN DISTRICT. BUT
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE KNOW THAT
THIS WILL NOT HAVE THAT EFFECT.
IN FACT, THERE ARE SIMILAR LAWS
AROUND THE COUNTRY AND WE HAVE
NOT SEEN A DECREASE IN THE
PROFITS FOR THE INDUSTRY OR THE
DECREASE IN VENUES HOSTING
EVENTS. IN FACT, JUST THE
OPPOSITE IS TRUE. MY JOINT
AUTHOR IS JACKIE IRWIN. SHE IS
IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE. SHE
HOPEFULLY WILL BE ABLE TO COME
AND GIVE HER TESTIMONY. BUT BUT
IN THE MEANWHILE WE WILL ALLOW
OUR WITNESSES WITH YOUR
PERMISSION TO CONTINUE. HELLO MY
NAME IS SANDOR CUSHION. I AM THE
CONSUMER ADVOCATE WITH KELP ERG
. WE ARE THE STATEWIDE CONSUMER
WATCHDOG AND ADVOCACY GROUP
WORKING TO PROTECT CALIFORNIANS
AND ENSURE A FAIR MARKETPLACE
AND WE ARE A PROUD CO SPONSOR OF
A B EIGHT. ONE OF THE MOST BASIC
TENANTS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION
IS TRANSPARENCY. COMPLETE
PRICING INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY
IS REALLY CRITICAL. TO HELP
INFORM CONSUMER PURCHASES
ALLOWED JUST BASIC COMPARISON
SHOPPING AND GENERALLY ENSURE A
FAIR MARKETPLACE. BUT MORE AND
MORE TICKET SELLERS ARE
VIOLATING THIS PRINCIPLE BY
BLINDSIDING CONSUMERS WITH
HIDDEN FEES AND OTHER UNFAIR
TACTICS THAT MAKE IT VERY
DIFFICULT TO FIND THE TRUE PRICE
OF A TICKET. A B A ADDRESSES
THIS BY ENSURING THE TICKETS
ADVERTISED PRICE IS THE ACTUAL
PRICE AND ENSURES THAT A SEAT
LOCATION, INFORMATION AND REFUND
POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE
CONSUMER AT THE TIME OF
PURCHASE. IN ADDITION TO PROPER
TRANSPARENCY, ABBA GIVES
CONSUMERS CONTROL OVER THEIR
TICKET AFTER THEY PURCHASE IT.
CURRENTLY TICKET SELLERS CAN
PREVENT TO GET OWNERS FROM
RESELLING TICKETS THROUGH ANY
SITE BESIDES THEIR OWN, WE
BELIEVE ONCE SOMEONE PURCHASES A
TICKET. IT SHOULD BE THEIRS TO
DO WITH AS THEY PLEASE.
ADDITIONALLY A B A WOULD BETTER
PROTECT THE DATA OF CONSUMERS
WHO BUY TICKETS. BROAD PUBLIC
SUPPORT FOR TICKET REFORM HAS
BEEN BREWING FOR THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS, AND THESE REFORMS
OFFERED BY A B A OR LONG
OVERDUE. AS WE EMERGED FROM THE
WORST DAYS OF THE COVID PANDEMIC
, CALIFORNIANS ARE LOOKING FOR
MORE AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO
ENJOY LIVE EVENTS AND AS PEOPLE
RUSHED TO BUY TICKETS, FORTIES
EVENTS, THE BROKEN NATURE OF THE
TICKET SELLING SYSTEM IS
BECOMING MORE AND MORE CLEAR. A
B A OFFERS COMMON SENSE
SOLUTIONS TO THIS BROKEN SYSTEM
. CONSUMERS SHOULD KNOW THE TRUE
PRICE OF A TICKET AND HAVE
CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO WITH
THAT TICKET AFTER THEY PURCHASED
IT. THANK YOU AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. MY NAME IS
BRIAN HESS. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SPORTS FANS
COALITION AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY.
FOUNDED IN 2009. SFC IS THE
NATIONAL NON PROFIT ADVOCACY
GROUP DEVOTED TO REPRESENTING
FANS WHEREVER PUBLIC POLICY
IMPACTS THE GAMES WE LOVE. WE'VE
WORKED IN THE STATES AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL TO PASS EQUAL PAY
FOR WOMEN OLYMPIANS, YOUTH,
ATHLETE, HEALTH AND SAFETY
REFORMS AND SPORTS BETTING
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. A B EIGHT
WILL POSITIVELY IMPACT THE FAN
EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS WHY SFC
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTS IN THE
WAKE OF A DISTURBING TREND OF
POOR FAN EXPERIENCES DURING THE
TICKET BUYING PROCESS. SFC THE
NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
FAN FREEDOM, CONSUMER ACTION,
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER
ADVOCATES DEVELOPED A SET OF
PRINCIPLES TO PROTECT FANS OF,
UH, AND THE TICKET BUYING
PROCESS. WE CALL THIS THE TICKET
BY OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. A B EIGHT
HAS MANY OF THE PRINCIPLES
IMPORTANT AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS
, BUT I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON TO
THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER ABILITY
AND THE RIGHT TO A FAIR
MARKETPLACE. CUSTOMERS RIGHT TO
TRANSFER ABILITY IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ANY PRO
FAN TICKETING MARKETPLACE, AND
MAYBE EIGHT UPHOLDS THIS RIGHT?
AS IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST
IN CALIFORNIA, DESPITE MANY
OTHER STATES, INCLUDING NEW
YORK, COLORADO AND ILLINOIS.
DOING SO. THOSE WHO OPPOSE THIS
LEGISLATION, INCLUDING
CALIFORNIA SPORTS TEAMS WILL SAY
THAT RESTRICTIVE TICKETS PROTECT
CONSUMERS BY ELIMINATING BAD
ACTORS IN THE SECONDARY MARKET
PLACE AND THAT THIS BILL WILL
LEAD TO HIGHER PRICES. BOTH OF
THESE ARE FALSE. IN ACTUALITY,
THIS BILL IS ABOUT EMPOWERING
FANS AND TRANSFERABILITY
EMPOWERS THESE FANS AND THE
TICKET PURCHASE PROCESS BY
PROVIDING THEM ACCESS TO TICKETS
, MANY OF WHICH BELOW FACE
VALUE. TICKET BUYERS SHOULD
DECIDE HOW TO USE THE TICKETS
THEY PURCHASE, NOT TICKET
SELLERS. FANS DON'T JUST BUY
TICKETS. THEY SELL TICKETS
SEASON TICKET HOLDERS, FOR
EXAMPLE, WANT THE FREEDOM TO
SELL THEIR TICKETS IF THEY CAN'T
MAKE A GAME DUE TO ILLNESS OR
WORK OBLIGATIONS OR ANY OTHER
REASON. THE EASE OF RESALE
ENCOURAGES FANS TO INVEST MORE
IN CALIFORNIA'S HOME TEAMS AND
ALLOWS CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE
SEASON TICKETS THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD. THE
ABILITY TO FREELY TRANSFER
TICKETS GIVES FANS WHO MUST
OFTEN BY EVENTS MONTHS IN
ADVANCE CONFIDENCE THEIR TICKET
PURCHASED WILL BE PROTECTED IF
THEY CANNOT ATTEND. WHAT THE
OPPOSITION WON'T TELL YOU IS
THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO SUPPORT
RESALE, BUT ONLY IF IT'S THROUGH
ONE OF THEIR OWN AFFILIATED OR
OPERATED RESELLERS, WHICH
TICKETMASTER'S MADE $4.5 BILLION
LAST YEAR. SO THEY SUPPORT
RESALE SO LONG AS THEY DON'T
HAVE TO COMPETE. ULTIMATELY
TICKET TRANSFER RIGHTS ARE
CONSUMER RIGHTS. WE ALSO SUPPORT
BANNING BOTS FANS SHOULDN'T HAVE
TO COMPETE WITH COMPUTER
SOFTWARE DESIGNED TO SCOOP UP
TICKETS AHEAD OF FANS.
THANKFULLY FEDERAL LAW ALREADY
PROHIBITS THE USE OF BOTS AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE. HOWEVER
THE LAW HAS ONLY BEEN ENFORCED
ONCE. I BELIEVE THIS IS BECAUSE
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT PROVIDED
THE NECESSARY INFORMATION BY
TICKET RESALE TICKET SELLERS TO
ACTUALLY PURSUE THESE CRIMES.
THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE
ABLE TO TELL WHEN A BOAT ATTACK
RESCUE TO WRAP UP SOON. YOU OVER
THE THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY WITH
BOAT REPORTING THE PRIMARY
OPERATORS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE
VICTIMS OF CRIMES, YET THEY
REFUSED TO REPORT OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND YOU SHOULD ASK
WHY? WHY WHY WOULD YOU NOT
REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN
YOU GOT ATTACKED BY A CRIMINAL
ACT FOR THE FEDERAL AND STATE.
SO I URGE AND I VOTE. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE
NOW GOING TO TURN TO ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. ROBERT
HORRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION,
CALIFORNIA PROUD CO SPONSOR OF
THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU. JAMIE
MINOR ON BEHALF OF STUBHUB,
HEADQUARTERED HERE IN L. A. AND
NEW YORK IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
TIMOTHY BURR ON BEHALF OF VIVID
SEATS IN SUPPORT. KOURTNEY
JENSEN ON BEHALF OF SEATGEEK AND
TICK, TICK AND SUPPORT. AND MR
CHAIR. AARON WITTY OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA
IS AS EXPRESSED HER SUPPORT ON
HER BEHALF. GREAT THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, WILL NOW TURN TO WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITIONS. ANYONE IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN OPPOSITION.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR,
GABRIEL MY NAME IS ANDREW
GOVERNOR. I'M HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING THE SAN FRANCISCO
40 NINERS. THE LOS ANGELES
DODGERS. THE SAN FRANCISCO
GIANTS, THE OAKLAND A'S, THE LOS
ANGELES ANGELS, THE SAN DIEGO
PADRES AND THE MORON GO BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS WHO ARE ALL
OPPOSED TO THIS MEASURE. ON
BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS
RESPECTFULLY MUST OPPOSE THE
MEASURE BECAUSE THERE ARE STILL
A HOST OF ISSUES THAT MUST BE
ADDRESSED IF WE ARE TO CHANGE
OUR POSITION. INCLUDING
MANDATORY PAPER TICKETS,
MARKETING, RESALE AND
TRANSFERABILITY TO OTHER
PLATFORM ISSUES. THESE ARE ALL
FOUND IN SECTION 2 TO 507, WHICH
WE RECOMMEND SHOULD BE REMOVED
FROM THE BILL. HAVING SAID THAT
WE APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
FRIEDMAN AND IRWIN AND THEIR
STAFF ARE TAKING THE TIME TO
MEET WITH US THIS LAST WEEK AND
FOR REMOVING ONE OF OUR MOST
OBJECTIONABLE SECTIONS IN THE
MEASURE, 22 505, WHICH WAS ALSO
REMOVED IN THE ARTS COMMITTEE,
AND WAS NOW REMOVED IN PRIVACY
AS WELL. UM AND WHILE THAT IS
MUCH APPRECIATED, AND THANK YOU,
THE REMAINING ISSUES MUST BE
ADDRESSED BEFORE THE SPORTS
SEEMS IN VENUES CAN REMOVE THEIR
OPPOSITION. OUR TEAMS IN
CALIFORNIA VENUE OPERATORS
CONTRIBUTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES. WE
PROVIDE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
CHARITABLE SUPPORT TO NON PROFIT
AND NON PROFIT AND CHARITABLE
CAUSES. WE EMPLOY THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE BOTH
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, WHO
WORKED AT OUR STADIUM AND ALSO
SUPPLIER STADIUM WITH SUPPLIES.
WE TRY TO ENSURE THAT OUR FANS
GET THE BEST ACCESS AT THE BEST
PRICE TO ENJOY OUR GAMES. WE
REMAIN OPPOSED BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE THE MEASURE. SIMPLY
REARRANGES THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO
THE BENEFIT OF THE SECONDARY
MARKET AND DOES NOTHING TO HELP
THE CONSUMERS GET CHEAPER
TICKETS, BUT RATHER WOULD LEAD
TO INCREASED PRICES OF THE
RESULT OF THE SECONDARY MARKET.
WE BELIEVE RESTRUCTURING
CALIFORNIA'S TICKETING MARKET,
ESPECIALLY FOR SPORTS DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE TO HELP OUR TEAMS OR
OUR FANS. OUR TEAMS AND VENUES
SPAN THE STATE CONTRIBUTING THE
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FABRIC OF
OUR COMMUNITIES, BRINGING FANS
OF SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT
TOGETHER. WE BELIEVE A B EIGHT
IS UNNECESSARY AT THIS TIME AND
SIMPLY BENEFITS THE SECONDARY
MARKET. WE WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU
LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION AND OUR
AND OUR ISSUES, MOST OF THEM ARE
LOCATED IN 22 507. WE BELIEVE
THAT SECTION TO ME REMOVED AND
TO ANSWER TO THE PROPONENTS.
ACTUALLY MY CLIENTS ALLOW FOR
RESALE THEY ALLOW FOR TRANSFER
ABILITY, BUT WHEN YOU ENTER A
VENUE THAT IS A PRIVATE VENUE,
WE REQUIRE TO LOAD IT UP ON A
TRUSTED APP THAT IS KNOWN EITHER
IN CASE OF THE GIANTS. IT WOULD
BE THE GIANTS APRA TICKETMASTER
APP, BUT YOU CAN RESELL THAT
TICKET. HOWEVER YOU WANT SO WHAT
WE BELIEVE THOSE THAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO CONTROL WHO CAN GET INTO
OUR FACILITY. AS A MATTER OF
SECURITY AND PROTECTION FOR OUR
FANS, WE DON'T REQUIRE A PRICE
TO SIGN UP FOR THE APP BECAUSE
OF CCP. AH, AND THIS IS PRIVACY
. WE ALLOWED YOU TO OPT OUT OF
MARKETING, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A
WAY TO GET INTO OUR VENUE THAT
WE CAN KNOW AS A TRUSTED AND
SECURE TICKET. AND IF THERE ARE
1000 APPS OUT THERE THAT YOU CAN
UPLOAD ANY APP IN ANY TICKET,
TOO. HOW WOULD WE KNOW AND
CONFIRM THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY
VALID WHEN YOU LOOK AT A TICKET?
NOWADAYS IT DOES THE
INSTANTANEOUS SCANNING, WHICH IS
WHY WE'VE GONE AWAY FROM PAPER
TICKETS, PAPER TICKETS AND THE
REDUCTION AND USING COMPUTERS
HAS ELIMINATED 70% OF FRAUD. SO
WE WOULD ASK IN THE IN THE
SPIRIT OF MOVING ALONG AND TO
HELP CALIFORNIA SPORTS SEMEN
VENUES IN THIS ISSUE THAT WE
REMOVED 22 507, AND THEN THE
TEAMS WILL WORK ON THE
TRANSPARENCY BECAUSE
TRANSPARENCY WAS SUCH A
SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE
TESTIMONY. BUT YET THAT IS NOT
OUR ISSUE. WE WOULD WORK WITH
YOU ON FINE TUNING TRANSPARENCY
. THANK YOU. WE ASK YOUR
OPPOSITION. EVERYONE THANKS FOR
HAVING ME. MY NAME IS JORDAN
BROMLEY AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE MUSIC ARTISTS COALITION.
WE GO BY MAC AS WELL. MAC IS A
COALITION COMPRISED OF ALL MUSIC
CREATORS MAGAS DEDICATED TO
PROTECTING AND ADVOCATING FOR
ARTISTS RIGHTS WITHOUT CONFLICT
OR COMPROMISE. WE WORK CLOSELY
WITH OTHER ADVOCACY GROUPS,
INCLUDING THE BLACK MUSIC ACTION
COALITION, SONGWRITERS AND MUSIC
OF NORTH AMERICA. FUTURE OF
MUSIC COALITION SAG AFTRA IN THE
RECORDING ACADEMY. ALL OF US ARE
IN OPPOSITION TO A B EIGHT. UH
SO WHEN YOU HEAR ABOUT THE
OPPOSITION AND YOU HEAR ABOUT
TICKETING COMPANIES AND
PROMOTERS UM, YOU CAN COUNT THE
ARTISTS ADVOCACY GROUPS IN
OPPOSITION AS WELL FOR ONE
REASON, AND IT'S 2 TO 507. UM
WELL, WE UNDERSTAND THE OFFICE
OF A B EIGHT TONIGHT INTEND FOR
THIS BILL TO BE BACK FOR
CREATORS AS EXPERTS IN THE
INDUSTRY. THERE'S A DEVASTATING
CONSEQUENCE OF THE BILL BECAUSE
IT WOULD STRIP ARTISTS OF THEIR
RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR FANS.
ARTISTS ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND
INNOVATIVE WAYS TO PROTECT THEIR
FANS FROM PRICE GOUGING. TO DO
THAT ARTISTS NEED TO BE ABLE TO
ATTACH TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO
THEIR TICKETS. THESE CONDITIONS
DO NOT HURT THE FANS WHO GETS
SICK AND CAN'T MAKE A SHOW. THEY
DO PREVENT SCALPERS. FROM
MANIPULATING THE PROCESS TO
DRIVE UP PRICES. NOBODY CARES
ABOUT THEIR FANS MORE THAN AN
ARTIST. ARTISTS WANT THEIR FANS
TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD COMING TO
THEIR SHOWS. THE TRANSFER
ABILITY, PART OF A V EIGHT WOULD
TAKE THAT AWAY. AND THIS IS JUST
ON THE COST OF A BRIGHT FUTURE
WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY WHERE
ARTISTS CAN PROTECT THEIR FANS,
AND THEY CAN ENFORCE THESE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS IN A FAIR WAY
THAT ALLOWS THEM TO COME TO THE
SHOWS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE.
BEEN SUCH AS PEARL JAM THE CURE
QUEEN PARAMORE, MUMFORD AND SONS
HAVE SET UP FAN TO FAN FACE
VALUE EXCHANGES, WHERE TICKETS
CAN ONLY BE RESOLD FOR THE
ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE ENSURING
TICKETS. PRICES REMAIN LOW FOR
FANS. A B EIGHT KILLS DISABILITY
FOR ARTISTS AS WELL. WE FINALLY
SEE A FUTURE AN ARTIST CAN TRULY
PROTECT THEIR FANS FROM AN
INFLATED SECONDARY MARKET. IT IS
JUST AROUND THE CORNER. IN
CONCLUSION. I WANT TO SAY THAT
FANS ARE BEST SERVED WHEN
ARTISTS ARE IN CONTROL. WHEN
ARTISTS THINK OF PRICING THEY
HAVE THE FAN IN MIND. WHEN
RESELLERS AND SCALPERS THINK OF
PRICING THEY ONLY HAVE PROFITS
IN MIND. WITHOUT ARTISTS. THERE
IS NO MUSIC. WITHOUT FANS, THERE
IS NO MUSIC BUSINESS. AND NO ONE
CARES MORE ABOUT THE FAN THE
CONCERT GOING CONCERTGOERS THAN
THE ARTIST. AND THE ARTISTS
TODAY ARE TELLING YOU THAT THE
PROBLEM IS THE UNREGULATED
SCALPERS IN THE SECONDARY
PLATFORMS WHO BENEFIT FROM
EXORBITANT PRICES. AS IT STANDS
TODAY. A B EIGHT IS OBJECTIVELY
ANTI ARTIST. THIS BILL WILL HARM
BOTH FANS AND ARTISTS. IT WILL
STRIP ARTISTS OF YET ANOTHER
RIGHT WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR
APPROVAL. IT WILL EMBOLDEN AND
ENABLE SCALPERS. FOR THESE
REASONS. MAX STRONGLY OPPOSES
THIS BILL IN HOPES THE COMMITTEE
WILL TOO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, WILL NOW ASK FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION IN THE
HEARING ROOM TO COME FORWARD.
FOR THE SANTAS, DAY, SHARKS AND
OPPOSITION. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
HERE TODAY ON A ON A COUPLE OF
DIFFERENT GROUPS, ALEX TORRES
WITH THE BARRIER COUNCIL AND
OPPOSITION, ALSO HERE AS A BOARD
MEMBER OF THE CAPITAL VENUES
COALITION, A COALITION OF
INDEPENDENT VENUES IN THE
SACRAMENTO REGION, AS WELL AS
JULIA HEATH, THE PRESIDENT OF
THE NATIONAL INDEPENDENT VENUE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA. AND
ALL POSITIONS THANK YOU.
VICTORIA VON CELESKI ON BEHALF
OF ACCESS TICKETS AND OUR MANY
VENUES AND PROMOTERS. CLIENTS
INCLUDING AG PRESENTS COACHELLA
FESTIVALS AND MANY OTHERS. TIM
LYNCH ON BEHALF OF THE GOLDEN
STATE WARRIORS REMAINING IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. OKAY
WITH THAT WE WILL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BENNETT. I THINK THE TRADE OFF
BETWEEN TRANSFER ABILITY AND
STOPPING AH, SCALPING. IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE HERE. THAT
STILL REMAINS TO BE ADDRESSED.
BUT I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT'S
THAT'S A CHALLENGE. BUT I WANT
TO GO BACK TO AN ISSUE THAT THE
ARTS COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY DONE
WITH THE AMENDMENT. TAKING OUT
THE REQUIREMENT THAT. FAIR
MARKET REQUIRES PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND HOW MANY TICKETS ARE
OUT THERE. WHAT ARE THE
POSSIBILITIES TO BID? ETCETERA
SO MY QUESTION FOR THE INDUSTRY
REPRESENTATIVES IS ARE ARE YOU
AWARE DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT IS
HAPPENING IS IN FACT OUR TICKETS
BEING RELEASED IN BATCHES SO
THAT THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE
TICKETS WERE RELEASED. THAT
DRIVES THE PRICE UP CREATES A
FRENZY SO THAT WHEN THE NEXT
WAVE OF TICKETS ARE RELEASED,
THE PRICES GO UP EVEN HIGHER.
THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A FAIR
MARKET PLACES THAT CONSUMERS
THAT'S BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
BILL ALREADY. BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT I WOULDN'T BE
ENCOURAGING THE AUTHOR TO TRY TO
GET THAT BACK INTO THE BILL WITH
THE PERMISSION OF THE ARTS
COMMITTEE IN THE ARTICLE
COMMITTEE CHAIR BECAUSE THAT
DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A FAIR
MARKETPLACE. BUT IS THAT IN FACT
WHAT'S HAPPENING? AND IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE
OPPOSED TO? THAT IS SOME KIND OF
LEGISLATION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T
HOLD BACK THE TICKETS AT THE
BEGINNING TO CREATE THIS FRENZY
. CERTAINLY SOME SMALL
PERCENTAGE. BUT YOU CAN'T HOLD.
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW ANYTHING BUT
SMALL PERCENTAGE BACK TO BE
GETTING SO CAN YOU HELP WITH
THAT, PLEASE? YEAH. I CAN GO
AHEAD THE ISSUE OF HOLD BACK
DISCLOSURES OR TICKET ALLOCATION
IS ONE THAT SPORTS FANS COME
MUCH CLOSER TO THANK YOU. AH AND
A LOT OF THE OTHER CONSUMER
GROUPS THAT WE WORK WITHIN THE
TICKET BUYER BILL OF RIGHTS
ADVOCATE FOR, UH I WOULD LOVE TO
SEE THAT AMENDMENT ADDED BACK IN
IS AN IMPORTANT CONSUMER DATA
POINT WHEN THEY ARE DECIDING
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO WAIT
IN THE QUEUE FOR 10 HOURS ON A
COMPUTER OR NOT, IF THEY KNOW
MORE TICKETS WILL COME AVAILABLE
WHAT WE SAW, BUT TAYLOR SWIFT
WAS THAT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
ESTIMATES MORE THAN 90% OF HER
TICKETS WERE HELD BACK AT THAT
PRIMARY ON SALE. 90 MORE THAN
90. UM AND NO FAN KNEW THAT, UH
, I HAVE LOTS OF FRIENDS WHO
SUFFERED THROUGH THAT QUÊ. I
SUFFERED THROUGH THAT QUÊ WITH
MY FIANCE. AND IT WAS IT WAS
TOUGH. HAD WE KNOWN THAT ONLY
10% OR LESS OF THOSE TICKETS
WERE AVAILABLE. WE PROBABLY
WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. AH SO I
DO THINK THAT THE WHOLE BACK
DISCLOSURES ARE VITAL CONSUMER
PROTECTION AND IT DOES HAPPEN
RAMPANTLY THROUGHOUT THE
MARKETPLACE CAN DID THE INDUSTRY
SUPPORT THE REMOVAL ORDER? THE
INDUSTRY OPPOSED THE REMOVAL OF
THAT. UH I'M I'M NOT SURE WHO
SPECIFICALLY SUPPORTED THE
REMOVAL BE A QUESTION FOR THE
MEMBER, BUT, UM, I WOULD NOT
SUPPORT REMOVING THAT AMENDMENT.
WE HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE WITH INDUSTRY AND WITH
THE OPPONENTS TRYING TO REACH A
COMPROMISE ON THIS BILL, AND WE
WERE WILLING TO SACRIFICE SOME
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS BY REMOVING
THE AMENDMENT IN HOPES OF
GETTING OPPOSITION THE OPPOSITE
POSITION TO THE BILL DROPPED.
CLEARLY THE OPPOSITION IS STILL
THERE. SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
YOU KNOW, WILL EITHER COME TO
TERMS AND HOPEFULLY MOVE GROUPS
TO NEUTRAL OR MAYBE WE, YOU KNOW
, THINK ABOUT WHAT THE FINAL
FORM OF THE BILL WILL LOOK LIKE.
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES. I WILL
SAY FOR US ARE OUR MAIN ISSUE
FROM ARTISTS. PERSPECTIVE IS
THEIR ABILITY TO PROTECT FANS
THROUGH CONTROLLING HOW THEIR
TICKETS ARE RESOLD. WHAT WE HAVE
FOUND ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS IS
WITHOUT THE ARTIST'S PERMISSION
OR CONTROL THESE TICKETS GOING
FOR 10 20 X WHAT THEY OFFERED IT
FOR. AND THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING
. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S
NOT THE QUESTION IN FRONT. HOW
ABOUT THE ABILITY OF THE
INDUSTRY INITIAL SELLERS OF THE
TICKETS TO HOLD BACK THE NUMBER
OF TICKETS. HOLD BACK THE VESSEL
HOLD BACK A LARGE PERCENTAGE.
THE TAYLOR SWIFT SITUATION. WELL
I DON'T THINK THAT 90% IS
VERIFIED. IN FACT, I THINK THE
REASON TAYLOR SWIFT, UH, THE ON
SALE BROKE IS BECAUSE THEY
OFFERED TOO MANY TICKETS AND TOO
MANY BOTS. JUST ONE OF THE
BOTTOM LINE IS THE INDUSTRY
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL
POTENTIALLY BEING AMENDED SO
THAT THERE IS NO ABILITY TO HOLD
BACK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
TICKETS. WOULD YOU BE
COMFORTABLE WITH THAT
LEGISLATION WITH THAT AMENDMENT?
I MEAN, FIRST OFF, I WOULD SAY
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ENTERTAINMENT AND I REPRESENT
THE SPORTS. AND THIS FURTHER
PROVES OUR POINT THAT WE'RE
RESTRUCTURING THE ENTIRE SPORTS
TICKETING MARKET FOR AN ISSUE
THAT HAS TO DO WITH TAYLOR SWIFT
AND WE BELIEVE THAT'S UNFAIR,
BUT WE ASKED FOR THAT PROVISION
TO BE REMOVED. THERE WERE MANY
OTHER PROVISIONS IN THEIR
DYNAMIC PRICING BANS AND OTHER
THINGS THAT THE INDUSTRY DOES
NOT SUPPORT. FOR THE MOST PART,
SPORTS DOES NOT DO HOLD BACKS
THAT YOU TALK ABOUT. THERE MIGHT
BE AN INSTANCE WHERE MAYBE
YOU'RE CLOSING OFF A SECTION OF
SEATS UP ABOVE BECAUSE YOU MIGHT
ONLY GET 10,000 FANS BUT TO YOUR
POINT. WE DID ASK FOR IT TO BE
REMOVED AND WE'RE APPRECIATIVE
OF THE AUTHOR REMOVING THAT
AMENDMENT. YOU ASKED FOR IT TO
BE REMOVED. AND THEREFORE THERE
IS NO RESTRICTION ON HOW MANY
TICKETS CAN BE HELD BACK WITH
ITS CURRENT. IT'S JUST REVERTS
TO CURRENT LAW. WHATEVER IT IS,
BUT WE ASK THAT THAT AMENDMENT
BE REMOVED. YES SO CURRENT LAW
OUT WITH WOULD ALLOW THAT. AND
DO YOU SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM?
YEAH IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO
DRIVE PRICING, DRIVE THE FRENZY
UP AND NO, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL WILL CAUSE THE
SECONDARY MARKET TO PROFIT AND
FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE ARE IN
ARTS COMMITTEE, THEY WERE
TALKING ABOUT THE CLICKS AND I
CAN SEE I HAVE NO CHRISTIANS
WERE. WE BELIEVE IT WILL LEAD TO
HIGHER PRICES ON THE SECONDARY
MARKET. MY QUESTION IS, YOU
KNOW, NOT THE WHOLE BILL. THIS
ONE PROVISION. YOU THINK THAT
WITHHOLDING TICKETS WOULD LEAD
TO HIGHER PRICES ON THE
SECONDARY MARKET. IT WANTED TO
PUT A DYNAMIC PRICING BAN OF
SEVEN DAYS, WHICH MEANS YOU HAD
TO PUT A PRICE OUT SEVEN DAYS
ADVANCE. IT WASN'T JUST THAT
ISSUE, AND SO WHAT YOU WOULD
HAVE ARE THE SECONDARY MARKET
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A SET PRICE.
THAT WAS SEVEN DAYS OUT. AND
THEN THEY WOULD JACK UP THE
PRICE AFTER THE FACT BECAUSE
THERE WAS A SEVEN DAY GAP. WHERE
IF YOU THE GIANTS WERE PLAYING
THE DODGERS, THE DODGER TICKETS
WOULD GO UP. IF YOU'RE PLAYING
NOT AS GOOD A TEAM, FOR
INSTANCE, YOU CAN GET A GIANT
TICKET FOR $10 FOR THIS
THURSDAY'S GAME AGAINST THE
CARDINALS, AND THAT'S WHAT
DYNAMIC PRICING IT ALLOWS FOR
THAT FLEXION THAT FLUCTUATION
THAT WAS ALSO IN THAT SECTION,
WHICH IS WHAT WE ASKED TO BE
REMOVED 22 505. IT SOUNDS LIKE
THERE'S STILL A WILLINGNESS TO.
TO POTENTIALLY THERE'S STILL THE
WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT NOT
HAVING THE MAJORITY OF THE
TICKETS WITHHELD FROM THE
INITIAL SALES, BUT I'LL LET THE
AUTHOR MAY ALSO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. RESPOND TO THAT. UH WE DO
SEE HOLD BACKS IN THE SPORTS
CONTEXT, ESPECIALLY AROUND
PLAYOFF GAMES. I CAN'T SPEAK TO
THE TEAMS HE REPRESENTS. BUT THE
EAGLE CASE THANK YOU CHAIR AND
WE'RE ALL TRYING TO MOVE OUT OF
HERE. AND THEN HOW ABOUT THE
CONVERSATION ABOUT REPORTING ON
THE BOX? SO THAT SO THAT WE CAN
GIVING THE INFORMATION TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT SO THAT WE CAN START
TO ENFORCE THE BUTTS OF THE
SWEEPING IN AS THE INDUSTRY
WILLING TO DO THAT CLIENTS WOULD
SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT CRACKS
DOWN ON BOTS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
OUR FANS. WE WOULD SUPPORT
ANYTHING THAT LOWERS THE PRICE
FROM THE SECONDARY MARKET AND
RELEASE THE INFORMATION TO
PUBLIC SAFETY INVESTIGATORS.
THAT WASN'T OUR ISSUE IN OUR
LETTER. NOT WILLING TO COMMIT TO
RELEASING THE INFORMATION OF
PUBLIC SAFETY ARE ISSUES THAT WE
HAD IN OUR LETTER NOTED THAT WE
WOULD LIKE 22 507 REMOVED
BECAUSE OF ALL THE ISSUES WE
HAD. WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THE BOTS
ISSUE IN OUR LETTER. WE'RE
FOCUSED ON 22 507, WHICH WE
BELIEVE WILL IMPEDE OUR ABILITY
TO PROVIDE OUR FANS WITH THE
BEST POSSIBLE EXPERIENCE AND THE
BEST POSSIBLE PRICE OF IF IT WAS
THE PERMISSION TO SHARE. THE
ROLE OF COMMITTEES. ARE TO TAKE
A BILL AND TRY TO INVESTIGATE
ALL THE ISSUES ABOUT THAT BILL
TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A GOOD
BILL. AND IF ONE OF THE ISSUES
WE ALL HAVE A CONCERN WITH IS WE
DON'T WANT BOTS OUT THERE AND
DRIVING, CREATING INDUSTRIAL
SCALE SCALPING. THEN IT'S
LEGITIMATE FOR US WHEN A BILL IS
HERE, DEALING WITH TICKETING TO
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE
INDUSTRY IS SUPPORTIVE OR NOT
SUPPORTIVE OF HELPING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND FORCE A LAW THAT
IS CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS. AND
INDUSTRY CAN CHOOSE NOT TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHICH IS
WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S FINE.
BUT JUST BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE
YOU'RE SAYING THAT OUR LETTER
DIDN'T DEAL WITH THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR US TO TRY TO FIND THAT OUT
FROM YOU TODAY IN THIS HEARING,
BECAUSE IT COULD HELP US MAKE
BETTER LEGISLATION. IF WE KNOW
THAT ANSWER, SO HOPEFULLY THE
INDUSTRY WOULD BE WILLING TO
ANSWER THAT AT SOME POINT IN
TIME. AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY
REQUEST THAT YOU TRY TO GET THAT
ANSWER. IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT THIS
POINT TIME, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU'RE SORRY FOR TAKING THE
TIME. NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH SIMILAR. I THINK SOME
MEMBERS SALIH THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. I APPRECIATE HAVING
SUBJECT MATTER. EXPERTS HERE.
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME
CONCEPTUALLY WITH THIS BILL
BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
REGULATING THE TRANSFER OF
BILLS, WHICH WOULD BE THE
SECONDARY MARKET. WHEN THEY SELL
A TICKET. THEY HAVE A FACE VALUE
ON THE TICKET. SO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THINGS LIKE HOLDING BACK.
HOW DOES HOLDING BACK BENEFIT
THE INDUSTRY? IT CREATES A FALSE
SENSE OF SCARCITY. IT MAKES YOU
THINK THAT THERE YOU'LL SEE
REPORTS OF TICKETS BEING SOLD
OUT WITHIN MINUTES. A LOT OF
THAT IS BECAUSE NOT ALL 30,000
SEATS MAY HAVE BEEN FOR SALE.
BUT THE OTHER WAY IT DOES. IT IS
A LOT OF THESE HEALTH HOLD BACKS
ARE DIVERTED TO SECONDARY
BROKERS AS A WAY TO OFFSET RISK
FOR THE SHOW. SO THEY WILL SAY
HERE'S 10,000 TICKETS. I'M GONNA
SELL IT TO THESE COUPLE OF
SECONDARY BROKERS. WHO WILL THEN
TAKE THAT RISK AND THEN RESELL
THOSE TICKETS AT WHATEVER THEY
CAN RESELL THEM FOR, BUT THEY
DON'T DISCLOSE THAT. AND THEN
THEY LIKE TO HAVE THE BROKERS AS
A RED HERRING AND, UH, TICKETS
ARE SCOLD AT THE FACE VALUE.
THEY'RE NOT SOLD AT SOME MARKED
UP BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
CREATING HUGE VALUE MAKE IT
SOUND LIKE THEY'RE DRIVING THE
PRICE RIGHT IN THE AGE OF
DYNAMIC PRICING FACE VALUE IS
RICH CHANGED WITH DYNAMIC
PRICING. THEY DO CHANGE THE
PRICE OF THE TICKET BASED ON THE
DEMAND. SO IF YOU'RE HOLDING IT
BACK, AND THEN YOU'RE USING
DYNAMIC PRICING THEN BECAUSE
THERE'S LESS TICKETS. THE PRICE
CAN GO OFF AND PEOPLE WILL PAY
THAT NOT RULING. THERE'S ANOTHER
10,000 TICKETS THAT ARE GOING TO
BE RELEASED. I JUST WANT TO SAY
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 60,000
TICKETS. MOST OF THE ARTISTS
THAT ARE PLAYING VENUES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AREN'T SELLING. THAT
NUMBER OF TICKETS AREN'T DOING
HOLD BACKS. THEY JUST WANT TO
FILL A ROOM AND THEY WANT THEIR
FANS TO BE ABLE TO SHOW UP AT AN
ADEQUATE PRICE. OKAY QUESTION
ABOUT, UM, THE BOTS. I THINK WE
ALL WE ALL HATE BOTS. UM DOES
THIS BILL WE CAN STIPULATE TO
THAT? DOES THIS BUILD BAN
SPECULATIVE TICKET SALES? IT'S
ALREADY ILLEGAL RIGHT THROUGH
PARTS. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN. IT
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE. SO RIGHT?
BAN IT, THOUGH. WHY? WHY SHOULD
SOMEONE BE ABLE TO SELL A TICKET
THEY DON'T EVEN POSSESS OR OWN
AT SOME SOME HUGE PRICE. SO
THERE ARE SOME SERVICES SUCH
LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS BEFORE WE
HAD ONLINE TICKET SALES. I COULD
GIVE YOU $20 TO GO STAND IN LINE
FOR ME. AND BUY A TICKET IN THIS
AREA. UH AND SO THERE IS SOME.
THERE IS SOME, UH, SERVICE TO
THAT. BUT IT'S NOT A SERVICE IF
THE CONSUMER IS NOT MADE, WELL
AWARE, WE ALSO FIND STRAIGHT
BANDS LIKE THAT TO BE MORE
DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE THAN
REQUIRING CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS
DISCLOSURES LANGUAGE. IT'S IN
THE BILL, JUST TO BE CLEAR AS
CURRENT LAW. OKAY WE'RE NOT
CHANGING THE LAW THAT EXISTS
RIGHT NOW THERE IS THERE IS LAW
ON SPECULATIVE SALES WERE NOT
CHANGING THAT WHAT MY POINT IS.
I MEAN, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
PROTECTING CONSUMERS, THAT SEEMS
TO BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE WHAT I
SEE IS YOU KNOW IF I'M GONNA PAY
YOU TO BUY ME, UH, I WON'T SAY
TAYLOR SWIFT. I'LL SAY YEAH.
BIÂU CONCERT. YOU COULD CHARGE
WHATEVER YOU WANT, AND I'M
THINKING THAT YOU HAVE THE
TICKET OR YOU'RE GONNA GET ME
THE TICKET. I MEAN, IT JUST IT
ALLOWS IT DRIVES UP THE MARKET
PRICE BECAUSE YOU'RE SELLING
TICKETS THAT DON'T EXIST. YOU
DON'T HAVE SOMETIMES. I MEAN,
THERE'S RISK TO IT, SOMETIMES
YOU YOU'LL LOSE YOUR MONEY. YEAH
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS A
GUARANTEE, LIKE THEY SAID, IF
YOU KNOW, MAYBE FOR TAYLOR
SWIFT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF SHOWS
THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE NOT IN
THAT LEVEL, SO THERE ARE TIMES
WHEN YOU CAN BUY TICKETS ON THE
SECONDARY MARKET FOR LESS MONEY
THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AT
FACE VALUE THAT THAT NUTS THAT'S
JUST A FACT. OKAY WITH THE
INDUSTRY SUPPORT BANNING
SPECULATIVE TICKET SALES, YES.
UH WHAT PERCENTAGE OF IDEA FOR
YOU WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TICKETS
ARE NONTRANSFERABLE THAT YOU
SELL? YOU KNOW, LET'S BE CLEAR.
I THINK MR GOVERNORS
REPRESENTING THE SPORTS INDUSTRY
, WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE
ENTERTAINMENT, IS IT A BIG
NUMBER OR A SMALL NUMBER
GENERALLY, DO YOU IT LARGELY
DEPENDS ON THE ARTIST. OKAY SO
THE ARTIST CONTROLS WHETHER
THEY'RE TRANS ARTISTS WHO WAS
OWNED MOSTLY BY TICKETMASTER,
LIVE NATION OR AGGIE ACCESS.
MOST OF THESE ARTISTS THAT
CREATE THIS ARE OWNED OR MANAGED
BY VARIOUS TALENT COMPANIES THAT
ARE WITHIN THE SAME VERTICAL
MONOPOLY AND ALSO, SOMETIMES YOU
CAN REACH YOU CAN TRANSFER THE
TICKET OR RESELL IT, BUT ONLY
THROUGH TICKETMASTER, SO IT'S
NOT THAT THEY'RE NECESSARILY
AGAINST THE ABILITY TO DO IT.
THEY DON'T WANT OTHER GROUPS
DOING IT. THEY DON'T WANT YOU
DOING IT YOURSELF. I THINK THAT
GOES BACK TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT
TRUSTING THAT THE PLATFORM WHERE
THE TICKET TRANSFER IS MADE IS
LEGITIMATE. UM WHEN ARE ARTISTS
DO FACE VALUE TICKET EXCHANGES?
YES, THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLACE
FOR IT TO BE DONE THAT'S
CONTROLLED. BUT UM, IT'S BEEN
DONE VERY SUCCESSFULLY. OKAY
QUESTION. AND AS A MEMBER, WE
ALLOW YOU TO TRANSFER THE TICKET
AGAIN. YOU CAN RESELL THE TICKET
ON ANY PLATFORM. YOU CAN SELL A
TICKET ON CRAIGSLIST. BUT WHEN
YOU WANT TO ENTER OUR PRIVATE
VENUE AND FACILITY, WE REQUIRE
YOU TO UPLOAD IT ON ONE OF OUR
TRUSTED APPS AT NO COST, NO
MARKETING WHATSOEVER, SO WE HAVE
SOME IDEA IN SEMBLANCE OF WHO'S
USING OUR TICKET WHO'S COMING
INTO OUR STADIUM? AND BASED ON
THIS CONVERSATION, THIS IS
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THIS ISN'T
A SPORTS ISSUE. AND LOOK, WE'RE
WILLING TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. I DO WANT TO POINT
OUT THAT NOT EVERYBODY OWNS A
SMARTPHONE. WELL. SO I JUST WANT
TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, BUT WE'RE
WILLING TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION AS WE'VE BEEN
HAVING CONVERSATIONS. VERY
FRUITFUL CONVERSATIONS. AND YOU
KNOW I THIS IS NOT THE
NECESSARILY THE MEAT OF THIS,
BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF SOMEONE REALLY WANTS TO
USE A PAPER TICKET, I'LL GIVE
YOU AN EXAMPLE. THERE ARE
VENUES. YOU CAN'T BRING A
CELLPHONE IN BECAUSE THEY DON'T
WANT YOU FILMING THE ARTIST. AND
YET YOU HAVE TO BRING THE PHONE.
YOU HAVE TO BRING THE PHONE TO
SHOW THE TICKET. THEY WILL NOT
USE A PAPER TICKET. SO THEN YOU
HAVE TO CHECK YOUR PHONE, WHICH
A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T
COMFORTABLE DOING PRIVATE VENUE.
SO I THINK THIS YOU KNOW THIS
THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
MORE TO THIS STORY. I THINK THAT
YOU GUYS CAN WORK THAT OUT. THAT
DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT BIG OF A
DEAL, BUT UM, AND SO THE LAST
QUESTION HERE IS SINCE WE'RE
PROTECTING CONSUMERS, WOULD YOU
SUPPORT A PROVISION THAT
PREVENTS THE RESELLERS FROM
SELLING THE TICKETS ABOVE FACE
VALUE SINCE YOU SAID THE RESALE
IS DRIVES PRICES DOWN OR IS
BENEFITS CONSUMERS? SO SHOULD WE
CAP WHAT THEY CAN RESELL THE
TICKETS AT SO THEY DON'T GET TO
MAKE UNLIMITED PROFITS AND
PROFIT OFF THE HIGH DEMAND FOR
TAYLOR SWIFT OR WHOEVER CORE
PRINCIPLE OF THE TICKET BUYER
BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE RIGHT TO
SET THE PRICE. IT'S A
PROHIBITION ON ALL PRICE
CONTROLS. WE DON'T SEE PRICE
CONTROLS IN ANY WAY HELPING
CONSUMERS AND IF A CONSUMER CAN
SELL A TICKET TO A RIVALRY GAME
A FAN CAN CONTROL COULD HELP
ENFORCE OUR HELP AFFORD THEIR
SEASON TICKETS. THEY CAN GO TO
ALL THE OTHER GAMES. WE DON'T
SEE THAT AS A SIGNIFICANT YOU
DON'T SEE PUTTING A CAP ON HOW
MUCH YOU CAN RESELL A TICKET FOR
AS HELPING CONSUMERS. IF IT'S
THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS WHERE
YOU HAVE FREE MARKET AND FAIR
MARKET PRINCIPLES THAT LET'S
SUPPLY AND DEMAND MARKET FOR ME,
BUT NOT FOR THE SO OKAY. ALL
RIGHT, WAIT, WAIT. LET ME LET ME
JUST SAY IF I BUY A PRODUCT AT
THE STORE. IF I GO AND I BUY A
CAR YOU KNOW, IT MAY VERY WELL
BE THAT MY CAR IS GOING TO
DECREASE IN VALUE OVER TIME.
THAT'S THE CASE, BUT
OCCASIONALLY CARS GO UP IN VALUE
. THIS WOULD BE AKIN TO THE CAR
MANUFACTURERS SAYING THAT WHEN
YOU BUY THAT CAR, YOU CAN ONLY
SELL IT TO THEM FOR A PRE
PRESCRIBED PRICE THAT IF IT GOES
UP IN VALUE, THEY GET TO CAPTURE
THAT VALUE. WE'RE TALKING SO YOU
KNOW, YOU HAVE TO LOOK, WHY
WOULD THIS BE DIFFERENT THAN ANY
OTHER PRODUCT THAT YOU BUY, SO I
THINK THAT IT'S A LITTLE MORE
COMPLICATED THAN THAT. AND I
THINK THAT THE EXAMPLE OF A
SEASON TICKET HOLDER WHO'S GOING
TO PAY FOR GOING TO ALL THOSE
GAMES, KNOWING THAT THAT WHAT DO
YOU CALL IT? A FINAL? I DON'T
KNOW. WHATEVER THE LAST GAME IS
THE GAME THAT MAYBE YOU'LL SELL
THAT FOR A LITTLE BIT EXTRA
MONEY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GO TO
THE REST. BUT YOU, YOU KNOW
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO THE FINALS.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE
VIGOROUS DEBATE. I LOVE IT. UH
BUT I'LL JUST SAY THIS. I DO
THINK IT'S DOING BECAUSE A CAR
IS A PROPERTY AND YOU OWN IT
HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
LICENSE A LICENSE TO A VENUE
LICENSE. TO LISTEN TO A MUSIC OR
TO WATCH A GAME. YOU DON'T OWN
THAT. AND YOU HAVE A TICKET DOES
NOT GIVE YOU OWNERSHIP. YOU
DON'T OWN THE TEAM. YOU OWN YOUR
OWN A LICENSE TO BE TO GO INTO
THE FACILITY OF WATCHING FOR
THAT TWO HOURS. I OWN THAT SEAT
. OKAY DO YOU WANT TO JUST MOVE
US ALONG? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
CHAIR. THANK YOU. AND I KNOW
THAT SOME MEMBER WHAT HAPPENED
IS SOMEBODY OF BAUER-KAHAN. BUT
SMR WILSON HAVE SOME THOUGHTS
AND QUESTIONS TO SHARE. SO LET'S
GO BACK BAUER-KAHAN POPPIN
WILSON. YOU GO FIRST. OKAY, SO I
HAVE TO BE SO FIRST OF ALL IS A
SPORTS FAN. I NEVER KNEW THERE
WAS SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTED ME.
SO THANK YOU. UM, BUT AYE. I'M
STRUGGLING HERE. BECAUSE AS THE
FOR NOW OAKLAND A'S DO ON
OCCASION. UM I WASN'T I WASN'T
AWARE THAT THEY SOLD TICKETS.
YOU KNOW WHAT. WOW PRIVILEGE OF
THE CHAIR, I GUESS. BUT DIG THEM
ALL YOU WANT RIGHT NOW, UM, YOU
KNOW, THEY DON'T SELL A LOT OF
TICKETS RIGHT? SO PRICES GO DOWN
SIGNIFICANTLY. THEY STILL
TICKETS FOR, YOU KNOW, AS IT
GETS CLOSER, AND ALL THOSE SEATS
ARE SITTING EMPTY. YOU GET
DOLLAR DOG NIGHT AND $10 TICKET
AND YOU CAN GO HAVE A WHOLE
EVENING FOR $15. RIGHT? AND I
THINK THAT THAT BENEFITS
CONSUMERS RIGHT THAT ABILITY, SO
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
ADDRESSING THAT PIECE, BECAUSE I
THINK THAT CAME OUT RIGHT. THE
DYNAMIC PRICING IS NOW AVAILABLE
. BUT WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH
HERE IS THAT THE BILL APPEARS TO
BE REALLY FOCUSED ON WHAT
HAPPENS TO A TICKET BUYER AT THE
INITIAL PURCHASE POINT RIGHT
WHEN I'M BUYING FROM THE TEAM OR
THE ARTIST THAT FIRST INSTANCE
BUT I HAVE TO SAY IS SOMEONE WHO
BUYS TICKETS. YOU HAVE A LOT OF
SUPPORT FROM THE SECONDARY
MARKET. WE'RE CONSUMERS GET
SCREWED ALL THE TIME. THOSE
PRICES ARE VERY, VERY, VERY HIGH
, RIGHT AND THEY'RE NOT ALL
PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO BOUGHT A
TICKET AND TRANSFERRING. LET'S
BE REAL ABOUT THAT. RIGHT I
WOULD GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF WE
KNOW THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT. BUT
MY GUESS WOULD BE WHEN I GO ON
STUBHUB AND THEY'RE TRYING TO
CHARGE ME FOR X THE FACE VALUE.
MOST OF THOSE TICKETS ARE NOT
INDIVIDUALS WHO BOUGHT THE
TICKET IN A RESELLING THEM. IT
IS BOTS. IT IS PEOPLE TRYING TO
MAKE MONEY OFF OF THIS AND IT IS
A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING TO ME.
WHY WE ARE WE HAVE A BILL HERE
THAT FEELS VERY HEAVILY WEIGHTED
TOWARDS BENEFITING THAT MARKET
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INITIAL
MARKET, AND WHAT I THINK I HOPE
THE AUTHOR CAN GET TO AND I'LL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY
BECAUSE I THINK SHE'S REALLY
GETTING IT SOMETHING AS THE MOM
WHO IS STILL IN TROUBLE FOR NOT
HAVING TAYLOR SWIFT TICKETS, UM
THAT YOU KNOW THERE NEEDS TO BE
A TRANSPARENT AND FAIR
MARKETPLACE. BUT I THINK THAT
NEEDS TO BE TRUE AT THE INITIAL
POINT OF PURCHASE AND IN THE
SECONDARY MARKET, AND I DON'T
THINK WE CAN HAVE A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT'S SO HEAVILY
BENEFITS THE SECONDARY MARKET AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE INITIAL POINT
OF PURCHASE. AND UM, I THINK
THAT THE SUPPORT TODAY REALLY
SHOWED US THAT I THINK THAT'S
WHERE WE MAY BE ON THIS BILL
RIGHT NOW. IF YOU ALSO LOOK FOR
THE BILL, IT'S THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA. IT'S
CAL PERKINS, THE CONSUMER
FEDERATION OF AMERICA. THE
CONSUMER GROUPS ARE BEHIND THIS
BILL. SO WHILE YOU'RE RIGHT, A
LOT OF CONSUMERS MAY FEEL RIPPED
OFF BY SOME TICKETS ON THE
SECONDARY MARKET PLACES IN
GENERAL, THE CONSUMER GROUPS
HERE ENDORSE THIS BILL. AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT AND I HAVE, LIKE
I SAID, I APPRECIATED YOU
REPRESENTING ME AS A SPORTS FAN
SO FULLY APPRECIATE THAT, BUT
BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE PROTECTING CONSUMERS AT
EVERY POINT OF PURCHASE AND TO
BE CLEAR THE BOTS ARE ILLEGAL,
AND THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES THAT
CAN HELP DEAL WITH THAT. AND
THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT REPORTING AND WHAT
THE INDUSTRY IS ACTUALLY DOING
ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE UM, YOU KNOW
, THERE COULD BE A LOT MORE
THAT'S DONE TO ENFORCE JUST
CURRENT LAW. UM AND YOU KNOW,
IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, A
CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING, UM, SO THE SPECULATIVE
BUYING PART OF THIS IS DIFFICULT
AND A LOT OF WHAT THE INDUSTRY
SAYS IT'S NOT THAT IT'S WRONG,
BUT I THINK IF YOU ASKED YOUR,
YOU KNOW YOUR AVERAGE CONSUMER
YOU'RE BUYING A TICKET A YEAR
AND A HALF OUT. HERE'S ALL THIS
REASON FOR ONE TYPE OF POLICY,
BUT WOULD YOU RATHER BE ABLE TO
SELL THAT TICKET OR TRANSFER
THAT TICKET IN A WAY THAT YOU
CHOOSE? SHOULD YOU NOT BE ABLE
TO USE IT? I THINK MOST PEOPLE
WOULD SAY YES, AND BY THE WAY, I
BOUGHT A THEATER TICKET, JUST A
REGULAR THEATER TICKET THAT I
COULDN'T USE AND FOUND OUT THAT
IT WASN'T TRANSFERABLE AT ALL.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COMES
UP AND I'LL TELL YOU HOW MUCH IT
COMES UP. WHEN I WAS WALKING TO
THIS HEARING. I HAD TWO
STAFFERS, DIFFERENT STAFFERS
STOP ME AND SAY, I REALLY HOPE
YOU GET THAT THROUGH BECAUSE
I'VE BEEN RIPPED OFF. YOU KNOW
WHEN I'VE BEEN BUYING TICKETS,
SO THIS IS WHAT WE DID ANOTHER
BILL IN THIS SPACE LIKE A YEAR
AGO, WE HAD AN INTERN SCREEN
SHOTTING, A CERTAIN SELLERS
WEBSITE. OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS
THEY WERE GETTING FROM PEOPLE.
CONSUMERS WHO HAD BOUGHT FROM
THEM WHO FELT RIPPED OFF A BIG
LET'S SAY A VERY BIG COMPANY AND
WE WERE SCREENSHOT IN THEM
BECAUSE BY THE END OF THE DAY
THEY WOULD DELETE THEM. THIS IS
AN AREA THAT WE'RE HEARING
TALKED ABOUT AT THE NATIONAL
LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF JUNK FEES
THAT ARE IN THAT ARE IN THIS AND
THEY USE, UM, BEHAVIOR
MODIFICATION. PEOPLE BEHAVIOR
SCIENTISTS TO DESIGN THESE
PLATFORMS. THEY KNOW IF THEY
SHOWED YOU A $600 TICKET. YOU'RE
NOT BUYING IT. BUT THEY KNOW IF
THEY SAY IT'S 2 50. YOU SPENT AN
HOUR TRYING TO PURCHASE IT BY
THE TIME IT'S UP TO 600 YOU'RE
INVESTED AND YOU WILL THEN PAY.
THAT'S WHY THEY DESIGNED THEIR
WEBSITES THIS WAY, AND THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL STOPS AND I THINK
THAT TRANSPARENCY IS REALLY KEY.
AND UM, AND I APPRECIATE THAT,
AND LIKE I SAID, I'LL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY. EXCITING
IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I ALSO WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT AND THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING THE STATE CAN DO. BUT
WE HAVE REAL ANTITRUST ISSUES
HERE, AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT
WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH. AND I
THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE HER TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET
THERE. STUFF TOGETHER TO
ACTUALLY ENSURE WE HAVE A FREE
AND FAIR MARKETPLACE BECAUSE
WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS
WE DON'T HAVE A FREE AND FAIR
MARKETPLACE, RIGHT? WHICH IS WHY
YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT IN CONTROLS
TO MAKE IT FAIR. UM BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT IT
SHOULD TREAT ALL SELLERS NO
MATTER THE POINT OF PURCHASE,
BUT I DO THINK ONE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO TRANSFER THEIR THEIR
TICKET. AND I BET TECHNOLOGY IS
SMART ENOUGH TO ENSURE THAT
THEY'RE NOT DOING IT AT THE
HUNDREDS OF TICKETS LEVEL. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH REMEMBER POPPING,
SO I JUST WANT TO PICK UP ON
WHAT THE AUTHOR IS SAYING,
BECAUSE I'M MARRIED TO SOMEONE
WHO BUYS A WHOLE LOT OF TICKETS
AND DOESN'T END UP GOING TO
SMALLER VENUES. UM AND SMALLER
ARTISTS, AND IT IS VERY
FRUSTRATING TO NOT BE ABLE TO
SELL. SO I AGREE THAT YOU KNOW
THERE'S AN UPSIDE AND GOD BLESS
THE SECONDARY MARKET. I'M SURE
THEY'RE MAKING A TON OF MONEY
WHEN THEY CAN DO IT, BUT I ALSO
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
CONSUMERS IT'S CONSUMERS GET
BURNED A LOT AND TRYING TO SELL
THESE TICKETS TO THE TO THE
ORIGINAL SALE PRICE AND FAIRLY
COMPENSATING FOLKS FOR THOSE
ORIGINAL SALE PRICE. YOU KNOW,
I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE
FACTORS THAT GO INTO SETTING THE
ORIGINAL SALE PRICE SO WE MAY
GET BURNED BECAUSE THE TICKET
GET MORE EXPENSIVE LATER ON DOWN
THE LINE. THERE ARE ALSO LESSER
KNOWN ARTIST THAT THANK GOODNESS
THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO SELL AT X
PRICE. AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
PEOPLE LIKE MY HUSBAND. WHAT I
MEAN. SO IF THERE'S AN UP AND
DOWN AND AS A CONSUMER, I'D LIKE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO
RESELL WITH GREATER EASE. SO I
KNOW THAT COMES WITH A PRICE,
PERHAPS IN A FAVORITISM, MAYBE
TO THE SECONDARY, BUT I'M A
CONSUMER, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S AS
MOST PEOPLE ARE HERE. GO. DID
YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I
DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I
APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GONNA MOVE US
ALONG TO SOME REMEMBER WILSON.
THANK YOU JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON
TWO THINGS TO MAKE SURE I'M I'M
CLEAR THAT, UM, FOR THE CONSUMER
BENEFIT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE
ABILITY TO IN THE RESTRICTIONS
ON TRANSFERS OF ALL TICKETS NO
MATTER WHAT TYPE THAT THAT
SOLELY BENEFITS. THAT'S A SOLELY
BENEFICIAL ITEM TO THE CONSUMER
, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT THE PART
OF THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS?
IS THAT THE RESTRICTIONS FOR
TRANSFERRING TICKETS IS ENTIRELY
REMOVED? I'M SORRY, I DON'T
THINK I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION
. SO UM, AS PART OF CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS, YOU'RE SAYING THAT
A BIT THAT IT'S TO THE SOLE
BENEFIT OF THE CONSUMER THAT YOU
CAN KNOW THAT YOU CAN NOW
TRANSFER TICKETS BECAUSE THERE
WAS TALK EARLIER IN THE
CONVERSATION AND THE BILL, I
BELIEVE LAYS OUT THAT THERE'S
CURRENTLY A RESTRICT VENUE OR
ARTISTS OR WHOMEVER, UM, CAN
RESTRICT THE TRANSFER OF THEIR
TICKETS. AND YOU'RE SAYING IT IS
TO THE COMPLETE BENEFIT THAT
EVERY SINGLE VENUE ARTIST?
THEATER UM, ALLOWS FOR TICKETS
TO BE TRANSFERRED, AND, UM,
EITHER GIVEN OR SOLD ON A
SECONDARY MARKET. WE BELIEVE
THAT WHEN YOU PURCHASE A TICKET,
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SELL IT OR
TRANSFER IT, UM, THAT IT'S THAT
YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT? UM
JUST LIKE WITH THE TICKET BUYERS
BILL OF RIGHTS THAT IT SHOULDN'T
BE UP TO A VENUE TO SAY LIKE,
HEY, EVEN THOUGH YOU PAID FOR
THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT. YOU'RE
JUST JUST TOUGH LUCK AS SOME
VENUES DO OR THAT YOU CAN YOU
KNOW IF I CAN'T GO AND JACKIE
WANTS TO GO THAT SHE SAYS, HEY,
I'LL GIVE YOU THE 100 BUCKS.
I'LL GO. WE THINK THAT YOU
SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT THAT IT
SHOULDN'T BE UP TO THE VENUE TO
SAY NOPE. NOPE IF YOU'RE THE
PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT, IT HAS TO
BE YOU. OKAY THAT'S FAIR,
BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS HAPPEN.
PEOPLE CAN'T USE THOSE TICKETS.
THEY SHOULDN'T JUST BE OUT OF
MONEY. OKAY AND SO WHEN I FLY AN
AIRPLANE, THOUGH, RIGHT? LIKE
I'M THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN USE
THAT, YEAH, THERE IS PROVISION
FOR SOME TYPES OF REFUNDS. BUT
MOST OF THE TIME, YOU KNOW, I
CAN'T TRANSFER THAT TICKET
SOMEONE AGAIN IF I DECIDED NOT
TO GO, YOU KNOW, I'M I'M OUT
THAT MONEY RIGHT NOW. IS THAT
MARKET DIFFERENT THAN WOULD YOU
SAY THE RENTING OR OWNING OF THE
SEAT FOR TWO HOURS? I WOULD SAY,
I WOULD SAY FIRST OF ALL. THAT
LOOKING AT THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY
GIVES US THE REASON WHY WE NEED
BETTER PROTECTIONS. I MEAN,
THERE'S AN INDUSTRY WHERE THEY
HAVE TONS OF NOW FEES THAT
FRUSTRATE CONSUMERS. IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE LIKE YOU SAID,
SOMETIMES TO DEAL TO USE THAT
TICKET AND PEOPLE ARE OUT
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AT THE END
OF THE DAY, AND I WOULD NOT, I
PERSONALLY WOULDN'T WOULD HOLD
THEM UP AS A POSTER CHILD AS TO
WHY WE NEED BETTER PROTECTIONS
FOR CONSUMERS IN CALIFORNIA. FOR
IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND THEN
LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, UM, IN
REGARD TO THE PRINTED TICKETS. I
DON'T THINK THERE WAS A
PROVISION THAT TALKED ABOUT
DISCLOSING PRICES AND STUFF THAT
YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
ON AND NO LONGER RELEVANT BUT IN
CHARGE IN TERMS OF THE PRINTED
TICKETS, HAVING TO BE AT THE
SAME PRICE AND THE SAME BEES I
MISSED MY APOLOGIES. I MISSED
THE IN, UM, YOUR INTRO INTO THE
BILL. AND SO DID YOU ADDRESS
LIKE WHY YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS
IMPORTANT THAT THE PRINT THAT
HAVING PRINTED TICKETS BEING THE
SAME PRICES, UM, DIGITAL TICKETS
AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE IN
COMPARISON, IT'S A DIFFERENT
COST FACTOR TO DO THOSE TWO
THINGS FOR US. IT'S ACTUALLY A
BIT OF AN EQUITY ISSUE THAT IT'S
TRUE THAT NOT EVERYBODY ON
SMARTPHONES AND CAN SHOW A
TICKET SO WE CERTAINLY CAN WORK
WITH THE INDUSTRY THIS, YOU
KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE
USING THEIR APP TO GET INTO THE
INTO THE VENUE. BUT WHAT IF YOU
JUST DON'T HAVE A PHONE OR THERE
ARE CONCERTS, FOR INSTANCE,
WHERE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
BRING YOUR PHONE AND THE IDEA
THAT YOU HAVE TO BRING YOUR
PHONE. SHOW THE TICKET ON ON
YOUR PHONE AND THEN HAND THEM
YOUR PHONE. LET ME CLARIFY NOT
NOT TO HAVE TO HAVE A PRINTED. I
BELIEVE IN CORRECT ME. IF I'M
WRONG IN THE BILL IS THAT IT'S
IF THEY PROVIDE. YOU'RE SAYING
THAT ONE. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE
TICKETS PRINT A PAPER TICKET. IF
SOMEBODY REQUESTS THEM, BUT IT
ALSO HAS TO BE THE SAME PRICE.
WE DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD. IF
YOU DON'T HAVE A PHONE, I DON'T
THINK YOU SHOULD BE PENALIZED
AND HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR A
PRINTED TICKET. BUT THE WOULD
YOU YOU WOULDN'T AGREE THAT THE
COSTS NOW FOR A PRINTED TICKET
GETTING THAT TO YOU MAILING IT.
THE LABOR IS MORE LABOR
INTENSIVE THAN A DIGITAL TICKET
THAT THAT COST IS DIFFERENT NOW.
I MEAN, IF THERE'S I MEAN, WE'RE
CERTAINLY OPEN TO SAYING IF THEY
HAVE TO THAT EXTENT TO YOU OR
SOMETHING THAT YOU COVER THAT
BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S
NECESSARILY CONNECTED TO ANY
REAL WORLD. SAME FEES. SO THAT
SO I WAS JUST TAKING EXCEPTION
WITH THE SAME FEES PART UM, THE
SAME PRICE OF THE TICKET. OF
COURSE, I BELIEVE OF THE TICKET
IS $10 A TICKET IS $10, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKE YOUR FEET MIGHT BE
DIFFERENT. THE TOTAL COST YOU
MIGHT PAY FOR THAT TICKET WOULD
BE DIFFERENT ON A PRINTED TICKET
NOWADAYS, NOT IN COMPARISON TO
BEFORE, BUT I'M TAKING NOW WHEN
YOU HAVE A REDUCTION IN STAFFING
BECAUSE OF THE WHOLE POINT OF
TECHNOLOGY, NOT THE WHOLE POINT.
BUT ONE PART OF TECHNOLOGY IS IT
DOES REDUCE YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN, HOWEVER, USING A PRINTED
PAPER IS OLD TECHNOLOGY, WHICH
YOU KNOW OLD TECHNOLOGY COSTS
MORE IN COMPARISON TO NEW NEW
TECHNOLOGIES ARE THESE ARE LIVE
. THESE ARE REAL VENUES THAT
HAVE TICKET OFFICES. UH YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE
THEATERS OR ANY OF THE VERY MANY
OF THESE VENUES DON'T HAVE SOME
PHYSICAL PRESENCE WHERE YOU KNOW
, MAYBE TO GET IT. YOU HAVE TO
ACTUALLY GO THERE. YOU KNOW, I'D
WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE
ACTUALLY IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY
COSTING THEM TO PRINT A TICKET.
YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE
THAT IF THEY'RE CHARGING 10 $20
THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY PAYING
THAT I WOULD HAVE THE LANGUAGE,
PROBABLY MAKING MONEY OFF OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT SAYS,
SAME BEES. YOU'RE OPEN TO
CHANGING THAT LANGUAGE IN REGARD
TO WHETHER IT'S ACTUAL COSTS OR
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT,
BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING I'D LIKE
TO SEE IF THERE THIS IS REAL?
BECAUSE EVERY VENUE HAS A
PHYSICAL PLACE, AND MAYBE YOU
HAVE TO GO THERE, WHICH COULD BE
AN EQUITY ISSUE IN TERMS OF
TRANSPORTATION THERE RIGHT
BEFORE THE VENUE, MAYBE, BUT IF
IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN,
I MEAN, THERE'S ALL THESE ISSUES
AND I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH
EQUITY ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO
DOING SOMETHING THAT IS, UM,
PURELY OPTIONAL. RIGHT AND NOT A
REQUIREMENT. UM, I DO BELIEVE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO HAVE A HIGH
QUALITY OF LIFE AND PART OF
HAVING A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE IS
BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
RECREATION THINGS, BUT STILL IT
IS AN OPTION. UM AND NOT
EVERYBODY HAS. WE CAN'T SAY THAT
IF YOU'RE LOW INCOME OR, UM, IN
A DISADVANTAGED PART THAT YOU
SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO GO
TO LET'S SAY WE'RE IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. SO 40 NINERS IS
SOMEONE WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY
THAT TICKET, SO I THINK THE
EQUITY ARGUMENT UM, IT'S I DON'T
WANT TO CHEAPEN THE EQUITY
ARGUMENT WHEN TALKING ABOUT
OPTIONAL RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
, UM, IN COMPARISON TO, UM. UM
YOU KNOW THINGS THAT ARE
NECESSITY OF LIFE. SO TO SPEAK.
NO OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY SOMEBODY MEMBER BENNETT
ROUND TWO VERY QUICKLY. I'LL
FOLLOW UP. THESE AREN'T
QUESTIONS. I JUST WANT TO TRY TO
FRAME WHAT? WHAT I SEE IF AS AS
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF UM,
POINTED OUT THERE WAS AN ISSUE
OF. TWO SIDES OF IT. ARE YOU
EMPOWERING, YOU KNOW THE
SECONDARY MARKET VERSUS THE
THERE'S NO QUESTION IF YOU
INCREASED TRANSFER ABILITY, YOU
INCREASED THE POTENTIAL FOR
SCALPING. BY BY INCREASING
TRANSFER, BUT BUT AND ALMOST
EVERYBODY HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
IN THIS COUNTRY TO END
INDUSTRIAL SCALPING. AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE ALL THE LEGISLATION
AGAINST BOTS AND ALL OF THAT OUT
THERE UM, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO ASK
YOURSELF A QUESTION, AND THAT IS
THE SOLUTION TO ENDING
INDUSTRIAL SCALPING. INCREASING
THE MARKET POWER OF THE ORIGINAL
SELLERS. WHO ARE GOING THROUGH,
ESSENTIALLY MOSTLY JUST JUST
PEOPLE THAT HAVE A HUGE CONTROL
OVER THE MARKET. AND I THINK
THAT IF I HAVE TO RANK THINGS I
WOULD SAY MY FIRST GOAL IS TO
SAY PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
TO NOT BE STUCK. AND WITH A
TICKET THAT THEY CAN'T THEN
TRANSFER. IT SHOULDN'T BE UP TO
THIS BIG MARKET POWER ON THIS
SIDE TO SAY IF ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
IRWIN BUYS A TICKET THAT SHE
CAN'T SELL IT TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN JUST A
FRONT PRIVATE PRIVATE, WE ALL
WANT TO GET RID OF THE
INDUSTRIAL BOX SIDE OF IT. SO
THE CRITICISM I'M HEARING WHAT
ONE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SAYING,
HEY, YOU HAVEN'T SOLVED THE
PROBLEM OF SOMEBODY BEING ABLE
TO SELL THE TICKET FOR HIGHER
PRICE. I'M SAYING IF YOU HAVE A
SOLUTION OF THAT COME UP WITH
IT. BUT NOBODY SEEMED TO BE ABLE
TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION
EXCEPT WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH
BOATS. WE HAVE COME UP WITH THAT
FOR BOX. BUT THAT'S NOT BEING
ENFORCED AT THIS POINT TIME FOR
A VARIETY OF REASONS, BUT THIS
BILL SHOULDN'T BE OPPOSED
BECAUSE IT CAN'T SOLVE SOMETHING
THAT NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO
SOLVE YET, AND I WOULD BE REALLY
SURPRISED IF THE MEMBERS OF THE
OTHER ILL. THE OTHER SIDE WOULD
BE SAYING WE WANT PRICE CONTROLS
ON ON ANYTHING, PARTICULARLY THE
PRICE OF SELLING THE TICKETS. UM
IT'S THAT WOULD BE VERY
INTERESTING. BUT IF THAT'S NOT A
GOOD REASON TO OPPOSE THIS BILL
, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE
TO END WITH. THIS IS ADDRESSING
ONE PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND WE
STILL HAVE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT
WE HAVE TO GO WITH. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR BENNETT,
DID YOU BUT JUST WHEN WE'RE
CLOSING, OKAY, WONDERFUL. THANK
YOU. UM ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK
YOU COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE
VERY ROBUST CONVERSATION. THE
INSIGHTFUL QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE
IT. UM ON A THANK THE AUTHORS
ALSO FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
BILL, I THINK THERE'S SOME
REALLY IMPORTANT COMMON SENSE
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN HERE TO
MAKE THIS A MORE FAIR AND
TRANSPARENT MARKET. UM I DO
THINK OF YOU AS YOU'VE HEARD
TODAY, THERE ARE SOME
FUNDAMENTAL LAW AND ECONOMICS
ISSUES AT PLAY HERE THAT MIGHT
MERIT A LITTLE BIT MORE. UH
CONSIDERATION. YOU HEARD THOSE
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BENNETT. SO ADDITIONAL THOUGHT
IN THAT I THINK WE ALSO HEARD
FROM YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
CONTINUE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE OPPOSITION ABOUT SOME
OF THESE ISSUES, WHICH I THINK
WOULD BE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
BUT I KNOW UM SOME OF MY FRIEND
YOU ARE A CHAMPION FOR THE
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. I KNOW
THOSE ARE CONCERNS NEAR AND DEAR
TO YOUR HEART, AND YOU KNOW,
SOME OF THEM ARE AND YOU'VE ALSO
BEEN SUCH AN IMPORTANT LEADER IN
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.
SO I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT WITH
THE TWO OF YOU OF AUTHORS THAT
THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CONTINUED CONVERSATION, AND
THESE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AND WE HAVE
HEARD ABOUT THEM AT THE NATIONAL
LEVEL, INCLUDING IN THE STATE OF
THE UNION ADDRESS. SO THESE ARE
THINGS THAT ARE GETTING NATIONAL
ATTENTION. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT CALIFORNIA UM
REALLY CATCH UP TO OTHER STATES
THAT HAVE ENACTED SOME OF THESE
SOME OF THESE PROTECTIONS, SO
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS, BUT I I'M HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY TO
CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO
MOVE IT FORWARD. APPRECIATE YOU
BOTH DOING IT BRINGING FORWARD
SO I RECOMMENDATION AND ALSO
WOULD ALLOW YOU TO INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE
BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN, SHE
WAS HERE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE
HEARING, AND I JUST LEFT YOU
WITH ALL THE OPPOSITION. BUT I
HAVE TO STAY ON THIS BILL. WE'RE
TRYING TO THREAD THE NEEDLE AND
WE HAVE HAD NOBODY CAN SAY THAT
WE HAVEN'T HAD ROBUST
CONVERSATIONS ON TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT THESE ISSUES. FOR US
. ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE THINGS
IS MAKING SURE THERE IS
TRANSPARENCY FOR CONSUMERS, BUT
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER
ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT HAVE TO
BE ADDRESSED AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION TO GET THERE, AND I
THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT
REALLY STATED IT. WELL, WE CAN'T
BE CRITICIZING THE BILL BECAUSE
WE CAN'T FIX EVERY PROBLEM WHERE
YOU ARE OPEN TO ANY INPUT FROM
FROM THIS COMMITTEE OR FROM THE
COMMITTEE THAT WE PRESENTED TO
THIS MORNING. AND NO. I
APPRECIATE WORKING WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FREEDOM BECAUSE
FREED FRIEDMAN BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET TO A
PRAGMATIC SOLUTION THAT WILL
REALLY BENEFIT ALL CONSUMERS.
AND, UM AND WE WILL MAKE SURE
THAT IT'S FAIR FOR ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS TO AND I HAVE GREAT
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU WOULD DO
THAT. AND YOU HAVE A IMPRESSIVE
BIPARTISAN LIST OF CO AUTHORS,
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, SO THAT GIVES ME A
LOT OF CONFIDENCE AS WELL. SO
WITH THAT, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER
4 88 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FRIEDMAN. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE GABRIEL I PATERSON
BARRICADE KHN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE,
BENNETT BENNETT, I, SALLY SALINO
FONG IRWIN IRWIN, I, LOWENTHAL.
HAPPEN. HAPPENED. I WAX. WEEKS I
WILSON WILSON. AYE. 71 YEAR BILL
IS OUT, WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLE
OPEN FOR ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO
ADD ON SOME OF YOU WANT TO GO
FOR YOUR SECOND BOOK. YEAH YES,
DEFINITELY. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU ALL FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION ON THE LAST BILL. I
WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFFER
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE. I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS. MEMBERS. EVERY YEAR,
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS
DIE ON THE ROADS AND 2021 MORE
THAN 4200. CALIFORNIANS LOST
THEIR LIFE TO A TO TRAFFIC
VIOLENCE OVER 1000 OF WHICH WERE
PEDESTRIANS, ACCORDING TO THE
NTSB IS SPEEDING IS A FACTOR IN
31% OF ALL TRAFFIC FATALITIES.
IF WE WANT TO TACKLE TRAFFIC
FATALITIES, WE MUST SLOW DOWN
THE CARS. SPEED CAMERAS, WHICH
HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE 19
EIGHTIES HAVE BEEN PROVEN
EFFECTIVE AT SLOWING DRIVERS
DOWN, REDUCING COLLISIONS AND
REDUCING FATALITIES. NEW YORK
CITY SAW 76% REDUCTION IN
SPEEDING IN 2022 SINCE 2014 46%
OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED A
VIOLATION NEVER RECEIVED A
SECOND ONE, AND 19% NEVER
RECEIVED A THIRD INJURIES AND
CAMERA ZONES ARE DOWN 35. THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SPEED CAMERAS
AROUND THE WORLD IS BY THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
BOARD, THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE
CONTROL AND NOW THE UNITED
STATES, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THE U. S.
CONGRESS ARE ALL ADVOCATING.
THEY'RE USED TO SAVE LIVES. NOW.
THIS BILL WAS DESIGNED WITH
EQUITY AND PRIVACY IN MIND. IT
WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID THE
UNPOPULAR RED LIGHT CAMERA
PROGRAM AND ALL OF THE MISTAKES
THAT THAT PROGRAM MADE. THIS
BILL REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO WORK WITH RACIAL EQUITY,
PRIVACY PROTECTION AND ECONOMIC
JUSTICE GROUPS AND ESTABLISHING
THEIR PROGRAMS, INCLUDING WHERE
THE CAMERAS WILL BE PLACED.
CAMERAS ARE LIMITED TO PLACE TO
BEING PLACED IN JURISDICTIONS
THAT HAVE HIGH INJURY STREETS
ONLY IN SCHOOL ZONES AND AREAS
THAT HAVE HAD A HIGH NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE
SPEED CONTESTS OR SIDE SHOWS.
UNLIKE A TRADITIONAL SPEEDING
TICKET, WHICH CARRIES A MINIMUM
FINE OF $238, AND A POINT ON
YOUR LICENSE AND THE POTENTIAL
FOR MISDEMEANOR FAILURE TO
APPEAR IN COURT. THE FINES IN
THIS BILL STARTED JUST $50 AND
YOU HAVE TO BE GOING AT LEAST 11
MILES AN HOUR OVER THE SPEED
LIMIT. THOSE LIVING UNDER THE
POVERTY LINE MUST BE MUST BE
OFFERED EITHER AN 80% REDUCTION
IN THAT FINE OR COMMUNITY
SERVICE AS WELL AS A PAYMENT
PLAN CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM OF $25
A MONTH. THIS WILL RESULT IN A
$10 TICKET FOR THE $50
VIOLATION. AND THERE'S NO POINT
ON YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE.
BECAUSE IN THIS BILL, YOU'RE NOT
SEEN BY THE CAMERA, JUST THE
LICENSE PLATE, SO IT'S LIKE A
PARKING TICKET WHERE THE CAR
GETS THE VIOLATION, NOT THE
DRIVER. THE FAMILIES OF FOUR
MAKING LESS THAN $54,000 A YEAR
MUST BE OFFERED A 50% REDUCTION
IN FINES OR $25 TICKET. THE BILL
PROHIBITS THE USE OF ANY FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN THE
SPEED CAMERAS AND UNLIKE WITH
AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READERS,
THE INFORMATION CAPTURED CAN
ONLY BE USED TO ENFORCED SPEED
LIMITS. THE BILL REQUIRES ANY
CONTRACT WITH THE SPEED CAMERA
COMPANY TO EXCLUDE A REVENUE
SHARING AGREEMENT PRO VIOLATION
AND REQUIRES ALL DATA. COLLECTED
FROM THE CAMERAS TO BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL AND EXPLICITLY
BROKE UP PROHIBITS THE COMPANIES
FROM SHARING REPURPOSING OR
MONETIZING COLLECTED DATA. THE
BILL PROTECTS RESIDENTS FROM
CAMERAS BEING PLACED IN AREAS TO
GENERATE REVENUE BECAUSE IT
RESTRICTS THE REVENUE THAT'S
GENERATED FROM THE CAMERAS TO BE
SPENT ONLY ON ADMINISTERING THE
PROGRAM AND BUILDING TRAFFIC
CALMING MEASURES. SO THIS IS NOT
OUR CASH COW FOR CITIES. THEY
CAN'T USE IT TO BACKGROUND, THE
GENERAL FUND. THEY ALSO CAN'T
USE IT TO BACKFILL EXISTING
TRAFFIC PROJECTS AND THEN
PUTTING THE MONEY ELSEWHERE. IT
PROHIBITS ALL OF THAT. AND NOT
ONLY THAT, BUT TO SHOW THAT THIS
IS NOT ABOUT GENERATING REVENUE
. THE BILL SAYS THAT IF YOU
DON'T SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN, IN
OTHER WORDS, IF YOU ARE NOT
ISSUING LESS TICKETS WITHIN THE
1ST 18 MONTHS BY 20% YOU HAVE TO
INSTALL A FEEDBACK. A TRAFFIC
FEEDBACK SIGN A SPEED FEEDBACK
SIGN, AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO START
IMMEDIATELY PLANNING,
CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES TO SLOW DOWN THE
TRAFFIC OR YOU CAN'T USE THE
CAMERAS ANYMORE. SO THIS IS NOT
ABOUT PUNITIVELY JUST GENERATING
REVENUE. WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING
THAT WE THINK THAT WE CAN TO
MAKE THIS AN EQUITABLE BILL. AND
LET'S ALSO NOT FORGET THAT THERE
IS AN INCENTIVE THESE DAYS TO
REDUCE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND DRIVERS. AND
THIS BILL DOES THAT. SO THAT'S
ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING TO
REMEMBER. I AM VERY PROUD TO
HAVE WITH ME TODAY AS A WITNESS
AS WITNESSES, PASTOR PATRICIA
STRONG WITH FAITH, FAITH FOR
SAFE STREETS, AND ZANE BARNES,
THE SAN JOSE CHIEF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
OFFICE. THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, I
WANT TO ALSO ADD THIS BILL
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. OKAY AGAIN.
I'M PASTOR PATRICIA. STRONG
FARGAS FROM WALLS ANGELES, MY
CHURCH'S MOUNT SALEM BAPTIST
CHURCH. I'M ALSO CO CHAIR,
FAITHFUL, SAFER STREETS. I'M
ALSO PART OF STREETS ARE FOR
EVERYONE. I'M ALSO A VP, A
BAPTIST MINISTER'S CONFERENCE
AND I ALSO GOT THE SUPPORT OF
LOS ANGELES SENATE-DISTRICT PTS
A. WHICH IS THE P T. A SUPPORTS
THIS BILL. AH I CAME TODAY
BECAUSE, UM, WE BURIED ENOUGH.
WE'VE COUNCIL QUITE A BIT. AND.
MY MEMBERS AND OTHERS. HAVE SIT
AT HOMES WHERE THERE'S A MISSING
INDIVIDUAL. SITTING IN THEIR
BEDROOMS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE
LOVE OUR FAMILY. WE LOVE OUR ARE
INDIVIDUALS WE LOVE. OUR, UM
STUDENTS ARE ELDERS. AND EVERY
MORNING WE WAKE UP TRAFFIC
COLLISION HIT AND RUN. STREET
TAKEOVER. AND MOST OF IT IS
BECAUSE OF SPEED. SO I CAME TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL MYSELF. I CAME
TO SUPPORT WITH OTHERS WHO SAY
WE SUPPORT THIS BILL. I LOOK AT
THE EQUITY PART. IN OUR BLACK
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, AND I AM
PROUD OF WISHED COMMUNITY WHICH
I PASTOR. I THINK THAT WE NEED
ENFORCEMENT OVER THERE. WE'RE
NOT GETTING ENFORCEMENT AT ALL.
FROM ANY OF OUR. LAPD OR SHARP'S
. WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY
ENFORCEMENT. I THINK THIS BILL
WILL HELP ENFORCE. BUT MOST OF
ALL SAVE LIVES. I ASKED, AND I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO COME AND SIT HERE AND SAY
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. PLEASE HELP US
SAVE LIVES. WITH THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ZANE BARNES.
I AM THE CHIEF INTEGON,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE. WHO IS A PROUD CO SPONSOR
OF A B 6 45 IN 2022 SAN JOSE
EXPERIENCES DEADLIEST YEAR ON
OUR STREETS WITH 65 DEATHS, HALF
OF WHOM WERE PEDESTRIANS OR
BICYCLISTS. WE KNOW THAT
SPEEDING IS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR
TO THIS DEATH TOLL AND CONTINUE
TO WORK TIRELESSLY TO SLOW
DRIVERS DOWN THROUGH TRAFFIC,
CALMING MEASURES AND QUICK BUILD
PROJECTS. HOWEVER INFRASTRUCTURE
CHANGES ARE UNFORTUNATELY, NOT
ENOUGH. MANY OF THESE PROJECTS
CAN TAKE BETWEEN 2 TO 5 YEARS TO
IMPLEMENT FROM DESIGN AND
OUTREACH TO PROJECT DELIVERY,
NOT TO MENTION THE REQUISITE
TIME TO SECURE AMPLE FUNDING.
MEANWHILE ADULTS AND CHILDREN
WHO ARE WALKING, BIKING OR
DRIVING ON OUR STREETS CONTINUE
TO PERISH DUE TO EXCESSIVE
SPEEDING. WE NEED MORE IMMEDIATE
AND PROVEN TOOLS TO ADDRESS THIS
EPIDEMIC. AS THE CAPITAL OF
SILICON VALLEY. WE APPRECIATE
THE STRONG EQUITY AND PRIVACY
PROVISIONS THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FRIEDMAN HAS JUST OUTLINED. FOR
THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAVE
DEPLOYED COMMUNITY BENEFITING
TECHNOLOGIES UNDER A ROBUST
DIGITAL PRIVACY PROGRAM THAT HAS
SAFEGUARDED THAT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC'S DATA. I CANNOT
EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT THE SPEED
SAFETY SYSTEMS ARE NOT INTENDED
TO COLLECT FEES OR REVENUE BUT
TO CHANGE DRIVER BEHAVIOR SO
THAT WE CAN BOTH KEEP BOTH OUR
STREETS AND DIGITAL PRIVACY
CONCERNS SAFE. 2005 REVIEW OF 14
STUDIES OF SPEED SAFETY SYSTEMS
SHOW DEMONSTRABLE DECREASES IN
INJURIES AND FATALITIES. I'M
CONFIDENT THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
WILL IMPLEMENT THIS LIFE SAVING
TECHNOLOGY WITH THE SAME RIGOR.
SAME FIGURE OF PROTECTION.
TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST THAT
EXPECTED FROM OUR RESIDENTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I
RISK I REQUEST YOUR VOTE ON A B
6 45 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
NOW, OPENING TWO ADDITIONAL
FOLKS IN THE HEARING ROOM AND
SUPPORT. JAPANESE SHARE MARKET
EXHIBITION ON BEHALF OF THE
STREETS FOR ALL HAS A SPONSOR OF
THE BILL AS THE STREETS FOREVER.
STREETS ARE FOR EVERYONE IS
SPONSOR OF THE BILL ON BEHALF OF
WALKS IN FRANCISCO, WHICH IS
ALSO SPONSORED THE BILL IN TERMS
OF SUPPORTERS ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE COALITION
, THE BRAIN COUNTY BICYCLE
COALITION, NORWALK UNITED AS
CALIFORNIA BICYCLE COALITION
MOVE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ACTIVE
SAND GRAVEL VALLEY. SANTA MONICA
SPOKE SAN DIEGO BICYCLE
COALITION STREET RACING KILLS
THE CONNOR LYNCH FOUNDATION,
SILICON VALLEY BICYCLE COALITION
, SANTA MONICA SAFE STREETS,
ALLIANCE, FAITH RECEIVER STREETS
, SO CAL CYCLING LIFT. L A. THE
BAHATI FOUNDATION. LOCAL
FAMILIES FOR SAFE STREETS STOP
FOR AIDEN, WEST HOLLYWOOD
BICYCLE COALITION LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE, CENTRAL
CITY NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERS,
NATIONAL JAPANESE AMERICAN
HISTORICAL SOCIETY ASSOCIATION
OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLE
PROFESSIONALS STREETS FOR PEOPLE
CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD
PARTNERS INVESTING IN PLACE. THE
LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS,
THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR SAFER
ROADS AND LOS ANGELES WALKS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS, ALEX
TOURISM, HALF OF THE BARRIER
COUNCIL AND OUR TRANSPORTATION
POLICY TEAM SUPPORT GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
KIRA ROSS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF GLENDALE, PROUD TO SPONSOR OF
THE BILL AND VERY THANKFUL FOR
THE EFFORTS THAT CONTINUED
EFFORTS OF THE AUTHOR ON THIS
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, STEVE WALLICK ON
BEHALF OF THE ALAMEDA CONTRA
COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS SYLVIA SALAS SHAW HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES. WE LOST 312 LIVES JUST
SPEED. ON OUR CITY STREETS. WE
NEED THIS TOOL DESPERATELY BUT
ALSO LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
ON BEHALF OF CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR LONDON BREED
CO SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE AND
ALSO IN SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, AND THE
CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
WILL NOW GO TO OPPOSITION. AS A
REMINDER. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND. HELLO BECCA CRAMER
POWDER ON BEHALF OF A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO A B 6 45. WE
APPLAUD THE AUTHORS GOAL OF
ELIMINATING TRAFFIC FATALITIES
CAUSED BY SPEEDING. HOWEVER WE
HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE WAY A B 6
45 TRIES TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM,
ESPECIALLY WHEN OTHER EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF ELIMINATING SPEED BASED
TRAFFIC FATALITIES EXIST THAT DO
NOT HAVE A B 6 45 PRIVACY AND
EQUITY PROBLEMS. BY ENCOURAGING
THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
SPEED LIMITS. A B 6 45 SUBJECTS
CALIFORNIANS TO INCREASE
SURVEILLANCE AND PERPETUATES THE
FALSE NOTION THAT THIS
SURVEILLANCE BENEFITS THE
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SURVEILLED.
SURVEILLANCE CAN BE BOTH LESS
EFFECTIVE AND FAR MORE COSTLY TO
LOCAL AGENCIES AND TO THE
COMMUNITY AT LARGE THAN
INITIALLY IMAGINED, LEAVING
COMMUNITIES SADDLED WITH LONG
TERM BILLS FOR SURVEILLANCE THAT
DOES NOT MAKE THE COMMUNITY
SAFER. AND WHILE PROPOSED AS A
PILOT PROGRAM, A B 6 45 WOULD
ACTUALLY ENABLE A MASSIVE
ROLLOUT OF THIS SURVEILLANCE,
RESULTING IN MORE SPEED CAMERAS
THAN RED LIGHT CAMERAS OPERATING
IN CALIFORNIA. SURVEILLANCE CAN
ALSO BE EASILY MISUSED, LEADING
TO THE EROSION OF COMMUNITY
TRUST, COSTLY LAWSUITS AND
PEOPLE DISCOURAGED FROM GOING
ABOUT THEIR DAILY LIVES AND
EXERCISING THEIR CIVIL LIBERTIES
. THE NEED FOR REDUCING SPEED
RELATED TRAFFIC COLLISIONS DOES
NOT WANT THE CREATION OF A NEW
MECHANISM FOR GOVERNMENT
COLLECTION OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF
DATA ON CALIFORNIANS. THERE ARE
OTHER EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
REDUCING SPEEDING VIOLATIONS
THAT DO NOT RAISE PRIVACY AND
EQUITY PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THOSE
HIGHLIGHTED IN THE BILL ITSELF,
ROUNDABOUT SPEED HUMPS OR SPEED
TABLES, TRAFFIC CIRCLES AND
OTHER TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES.
YET RATHER THAN CENTER. THESE
THE BILL INSTEAD RELIES ON
SURVEILLANCE, AUTOMATED
ENFORCEMENT AND INCREASED
TICKETING. WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THESE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
COST MONEY. HOWEVER A B 6 45
ALSO HAS COSTS INSTEAD OF CITIES
AND COUNTIES ARE PAYING THE BILL
. THOUGH A B 6 45 TRANSFERS THE
BURDEN TO VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS, WITH CHICAGO,
ISSUING A SPEED CAMERA TICKET
AND AVERAGE OF EVERY 11 SECONDS
, THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN
TICKETING THE A B 6 45 THREATENS
WOULD GO AGAINST THE RECENT
REFORMS TO CALIFORNIA'S
TICKETING LAWS. TO REDUCE THE
WELL DOCUMENTED ECONOMIC HARMS
CAUSED BY MASS TICKETING. OFTEN
AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
DISPROPORTIONATELY TICKET
DRIVERS IN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
AND OF LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS. IN CHICAGO HOUSEHOLDS IN
MAJORITY BLACK AND LATIN X ZIP
CODES WERE TICKETED TWO TIMES
THE RATE OF PREDOMINANTLY WHITE
ZIP CODES BETWEEN 2015 AND 2019
. AND THREE TIMES THE RATE
DURING THE PANDEMIC. WHEN ENDING
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER SPEED
CAMERA PROGRAM, THE MAYOR STATED
. QUOTE IN THIS CASE, THIS WAS A
PROGRAM THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY
AFFECTED THE POOREST OF CITY
RESIDENTS AND QUOTE WITH BLACK,
BROWN AND ASIAN PEOPLE
DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED
WITHIN THE HIGH INJURY NETWORK.
MAYBE 6 45 ENFORCEMENT BASED
SOLUTIONS WILL RECREATE THESE
SAME PROBLEMS CURRENTLY FACING
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ACROSS
THE COUNTRY. ON BEHALF OF THE
FORESEEABLY HARMED COMMUNITIES.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU
PURSUED TRAFFIC, CALMING
SOLUTIONS DIRECTLY AND ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE AGAINST A B 6 45.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION IN THE HEARING ROOM.
THEY TALK ABOUT. LISTEN. ALRIGHT
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE, MS WILSON. THANK YOU
CHAIR. UM SO I HAVE SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES WITH THE BILL. UM, THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT WAS TRY. WE
TRIED IT ALREADY, AND IT WAS
PROBLEMATIC AND IT DEFINITELY
IMPACTED BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES AND COLORS AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR, ESPECIALLY
THOSE IN DISADVANTAGED OR
IMPOVERISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. SO
I'M REALLY CONFUSED ON WHY THIS
WHERE WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS WE
SHOULD BE BRINGING THIS BACK AND
THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS. UM
IN THE BILL IT TALKS ABOUT? WELL
WE WON'T PUT IT IN. WE'LL PUT IT
IN THESE IN THESE IN PLACES
WHERE THERE'S HIGH, UM INCIDENT
RATES WHERE PEOPLE ARE INJURED
OR ARE BEING KILLED BECAUSE OF
SPEEDING. AND BEFORE WE DO THAT
, WE'RE GOING TO USE ANY
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
WELL. MOST OF THE COMMUNITIES
THAT THIS WILL GO IN WHICH WE
SHOT WE SAW PREVIOUSLY WHEN THIS
WAS USED NOT ONLY IN CALIFORNIA
BUT ACROSS THE STATE THAT I MEAN
ACROSS THIS NATION IS, UM THEY
WERE IN IMPOVERISHED
COMMUNITIES, LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES. HOW ARE THEY TO
PARTICIPATE IN A COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WHEN GETTING
OFF WORK? COULD BE THE DECIDING
FACTOR OF WHETHER THEY GET TO
PAY A BILL OR EAT OR DO ANYTHING
ELSE. UM, GETTING A TICKET. FROM
AN AUTOMATED PROCESS. IT IS NOT
REAL TIME INFORMATION ON YOU
SPEEDING, WHICH WE WHICH DATA
SHOWS THAT SPEED FEEDBACKS. UM
WHERE DISPLAYS IMMEDIATELY THAT
YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW THAT
YOU'RE GOING ABOVE THE SPEED
LIMIT WORKS AS IMMEDIATE COMING.
UM TRAFFIC TOOL VERSUS GETTING
INFORMATION VIA MAIL WAY AFTER
YOU DID THE TICKET, YOU MIGHT
NOT EVEN REMEMBER EVEN GOING
THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR
GETTING A SPEEDING TICKET. SO IF
WE'RE TRYING TO DO A TRAFFIC
COMMENT MEASURE, IT SEEMS LIKE A
FEEDBACK SIGN WOULD BE MUCH
BETTER AS WELL AS IT WAS NOTED
IN YOUR BILL 18 MONTHS, IT GETS
TO BE THERE FOR 18 MONTHS AND
THEN IF IT HASN'T COME DOWN,
THEN YOU COULD DO ALL THESE
OTHER ASPECTS. THAT'S WHERE WE
SHOULD START. SO IF YOU HAVE AN
ISSUE, UM IN A COMMUNITY YOU
START WITH AND MOST AND MOST
POLICE DEPARTMENTS DO THIS, THEY
PUT THE TEMPORARY SIGNS OUT, AND
THAT USUALLY ALMOST REGULARLY. I
REMEMBER BEING A PART OF THE
LEGAL CALIFORNIA CITIES AND THEY
TALKED ABOUT THIS THAT PUTTING
OUT THOSE MOBILE SIGNS. SO
IMMEDIATE REDUCTION AND, UM, AND
TRAFFIC AND SPEED OF TRAFFIC IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO START THERE
. UM START WITH IT TAKES. I
THINK IT WAS TALKING ABOUT 18
MONTHS FOR THE TIME PERIOD. YES,
IT WAS, UM, TALKING ABOUT 18
MONTHS. WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE 18
MONTHS, YOU CAN EASILY ERECT, UM
OTHER TYPE OF CALL TRAFFIC
CALMING SITUATIONS THAT YOU'VE
NOTED HERE LIKE THE ROUNDABOUTS
AND NOT ROUNDABOUTS, BUT THE
CURB CUT OUT AND THE FLASHING
LIGHTS AND THINGS OF THOSE
NATURES. ALL THOSE THINGS CAN BE
DONE WITHIN 18 MONTHS. AND YES,
THERE ARE PRICE LEE COSTLY, BUT
THE WHOLE REASON WHY THERE'S NOT
ENFORCEMENT IS TYPICALLY BECAUSE
THE POLICE ARE OVERWHELMED WITH
OTHER THINGS, SO THEY'RE NOT
SENDING PEOPLE OVER. SPEND THOSE
RESOURCES ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE
. I THINK THAT, LIKE I SAID,
THIS HAS BEEN TRIED IN
CALIFORNIA. IT'S PROBLEMATIC. IT
SPECIFICALLY TARGETS BLACK AND
BROWN PEOPLE, BLACK AND BROWN
NEIGHBORHOODS, LOW INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT'S WHERE
THESE WILL GO. AND SO WITH THAT
I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS, AND I'M
JUST CONCERNED THAT SO MANY
PEOPLE ARE SIGNING ON TO SUPPORT
THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE THIS
PARTICULAR BILL WHEN WE KNOW WHO
WILL IMPACT AND WE'LL BE HERE
TWO YEARS FROM NOW TALKING
ABOUT. WE GOTTA BAN THESE
BECAUSE BLACK AND BROWN. PEOPLE
ARE IMPACTED. THANK YOU. PLEASE.
UH THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
BRINGING UP THE CONCERNS. I'M
REALLY, UM UH, APPRECIATIVE OF
BEING ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, TALK
ABOUT THE ISSUES HERE IN
COMMITTEE. FIRST OF ALL
AUTOMATED SPEED CAMERAS HAVE
NEVER BEEN ALLOWED IN CALIFORNIA
. SO WE'VE WE'VE NEVER ALLOWED
THEM HERE. WE'VE WE'VE NEVER
TRIED THEM, UH, THE BILL. I VERY
MUCH APPRECIATE THE CONCERN
ABOUT THE REAL TIME FEEDBACK,
AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE BILL IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE
ENTERING A ZONE THAT'S USING A
SPEED CAMERA, YOU HAVE TO
CLEARLY WARN THE DRIVERS.
BECAUSE AGAIN, THE IDEA IS TO
SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN. AND SO
THE BILL DOES HAVE A WARNING
REQUIREMENT IN THE BILL SO THAT
PEOPLE KNOW AND THEY'RE GIVEN
THE CHANCE TO SLOW DOWN AND
WE'RE HOPING THAT THEY DO AND
THAT THEY DON'T GET A TICKET. UM
THE BILL. IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET
A SPEEDING TICKET. YOU
ABSOLUTELY WANT TO GET ONE
THROUGH THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE
AGAIN NO POINT IN THE LICENSE OF
REALLY NOMINAL FEE AND THE FIRST
SEVERAL MONTHS IT HAS TO BE A
WARNING TICKET UNDER THIS BILL,
SO THAT YOU'RE TELLING THE
COMMUNITY THIS IS HERE. YOU KNOW
, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE SPEEDING,
YOU BETTER SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THE
NEXT TICKET YOU GET, YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. SO
THERE'S ALSO A WARNING. I DIDN'T
GO THROUGH ALL OF THE KIND OF
SAFEGUARDS IN HERE. BUT WE'VE
WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS A LOT OF
THESE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT UP. UM UH AND ABSOLUTELY
I AGREE THAT CITY SHOULD BE
INVESTING IN TRAFFIC COMING AND
I'VE DONE YOU KNOW QUITE A BIT
OF WORK TRYING TO DO THAT, IN
MANY OF OUR CITIES ARE TRYING AS
BEST THEY CAN TO ROLL OUT
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. BUT IN
L A. YOU HAVE HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF MILES OF STREET AND
THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO DO TRAFFIC COMING ON
EVERY STREET, UNFORTUNATELY, IS
IMPOSSIBLE AND A LOT OF THE
SPEEDING THAT WE'RE SEEING IN.
THERE WERE DEATHS. WE'RE SEEING.
ARE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
AS WELL. WHERE THERE WERE. THIS
IS FREQUENTLY OCCURRING. UM AND
SO WHAT? WHAT THE CITIES ARE
ASKING FOR IS THAT WHILE THEY'RE
TRYING TO DO THEIR VISION ZERO
PROGRAMS WHILE THEY'RE MAKING
THEIR INVESTMENTS, AND SOMETIMES
IT TAKES THEM YEARS AND YEARS TO
BE ABLE TO PLAN DO THE SECRET
PROCESS. THEY NEED INSTALL
TRAFFIC COMING THAT THEY USE
THIS OTHER TOOL, PARTICULARLY IN
AREAS WHERE THEY AREN'T THEY
KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SPEEDING.
THEY DON'T WANT THEY WANT TO
REDUCE THE INTERACTIONS WITH
POLICE. UM THEY WANT THAT MORE
GENERAL TOUCH, BUT THEY WANT TO
USE A TOOL THAT IN OTHER CITIES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN
EMPIRICALLY SHOWN TO REDUCE
INJURIES. BUT I WE HAVE SOMEONE
HERE FROM ONE OF THE VERY
COMMUNITIES THAT YOU ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT. I'D LIKE TO
HAVE HER ADDRESS. YOU KNOW THE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMUNITIES
THEMSELVES AND KIND OF WHAT THEY
WANT AND WHAT THEY NEED. I'M IN.
SOUTH CENTRAL L. A. IT TOOK 10
YEARS TO GET A PROTESTER IN
LIGHT. AND THREE DEATHS. I THINK
THIS CAMERA. WILL HELP IN FORCE
AND WE NEED ENFORCEMENT OVER
THERE. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
. WE HAVE SO MANY INCIDENTS THAT
ARE POLICE HAS TO HAVE TO GO OUT
TO AND TRAFFIC INJURIES DEATHS.
ARE LOW ON THEIR TOTEM POLE.
EVEN ARSON. THERE'S A LITTLE ON
THEIR TOTEM POLE AND I AREA AND
I'VE TALKED TO MANY RESIDENTS OF
SUPPOSE ANGELUS. THAT WITH LOVE.
FOR US TO HAVE A CAMERA. TAP
SAVE LIVES. MONEY. HOW OUR.
THERE'S NOT OUT COUNT LIVES AND
WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT
LIVES. MORE THAN MONEY. SO. IF A
PERSON RUNS A RED LIGHT AND ALL
THESE THINGS THAT A B 6 45 IS
PUTTING OUT THERE. AND THEY
DON'T CONSIDER LIVES. THEY'RE
GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. BUT I
KNOW IF WE DO THIS, AND WE PUT
IT OUT IN OUR COMMUNITY IT'S
GOING TO SAVE LIVES, AND IT'S
GOING TO SLOW THE SPEED. YES
BLACK AND BROWN WILL WITH BLACK
AND BROWN AND ASIANS HAVE TO
KNOW WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT ON THE
STREETS ALSO. I'M ABOUT SAVING
LIVES. AND I THINK EVERYBODY
SHOULD CONSIDER PEOPLE'S LIVES
NOW. MORE THAN THEIR
POCKETBOOKS. IT HURTS WHEN YOU
GO TO A HOUSE. JUSTIN BALL
HEIGHTS. GUY READY TO GO PLAY
BASKETBALL, PLEASE CAREER. GOING
TO GET A HAIRCUT, HIT AND RUN BY
SPEEDING BICYCLISTS,
MOTORCYCLISTS. AND NOW HIS LEG
IS RIPPED OFF HIS CAREER. THAT
YOU DREAMED ABOUT IS GONE. AND I
WANT TO SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. ENOUGH
IS ENOUGH. WE CALLED POLICE.
POLICE DON'T COME BUT WE NEED
SOME SAFETY IN OUR COMMUNITY. TO
HELP US AND THAT'S WHY WE
SUPPORT A B 645 BECAUSE WE WANT
TO LOVE ON EACH OTHER IN OUR
COMMUNITY. AND THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TESTIMONY, AND I APPRECIATE
YOU AND YOUR HEARTFELT PASSION
FOR YOUR COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMUNITY THAT YOU SERVE IN THE
WAY THAT YOU SERVE IT. HOWEVER I
STILL AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
INCREASED LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS
TYPICALLY OVER, POLICED AND
SURVEILLING THEM IS POLICING
THEM AS WELL. JUST BECAUSE IT'S
NOT A PHYSICAL PERSON HAVING A
CAMERA THERE, AND SOMETIMES WE
WANT TO INTRODUCE THAT IN OUR
LIVES BECAUSE WE THINK IT IS
SAVE A LIFE AND THEN ONCE IT'S
INVOLVED AND ENGAGED, AND IN
FACT AND INVOLVED IN OUR
COMMUNITIES THAT WE FIND IT
WORKS AGAINST US AS WELL. AND SO
I JUST WANT US TO KEEP THAT IN
MIND. IT'S NOT ABOUT POCKETBOOKS
OVER LIVES. IT'S ABOUT THE FACT
OF BRINGING MORE AND POLICE
ACTIVITY AND A COMMUNITY THAT'S
THAT'S ALREADY OVER POLICE. BUT
I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY
AND TIP IT ON THAT THIS WAS ONE
ASSEMBLY WILSON. THIS WHAT'S IN
A B? 645 DOES NOT. WE REQUIRE.
POLICING IT. IT'S ACTUALLY
TAKING IT OUT. SURVEILLANCE IS
POLICING JUST AS AN S WHY THOSE
ARE THE SAME THINGS. THOSE ARE
THE SAME THING THEY'RE SAYING.
SPEAK UH, SPEED LIMITS RIGHT
ENFORCEMENT, BUT WE LIMIT IS NOT
AN ENFORCEMENT. HAVING A SPEED
LIMIT IS A IS A IS A LAW
BASICALLY SAYING YOU CAN OR
CANNOT DO THAT. IT'S THE
ENFORCEMENT PART AND THE FACT
THAT WE'RE USING ADDITIONAL
SURVEILLANCE IN A COMMUNITY
THAT'S ALREADY OVER, POLICED, UM
, AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON
BLACK AND BROWN LIVES, AND I
THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS. I
JUST DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE A
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT ON THIS
IS THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT
ISSUE, BUT ONE LIFE BEING LOST
BECAUSE OF SOMEONE CARELESS AND
RECKLESSNESS BY NOT FOLLOWING
THE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY ADORABLE.
UM WE DON'T WANT IT SAID THE
WRONG WORD WORD THE WORD WRONG,
BUT WE DON'T WANT IT AND, UM AND
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, AND I
CARE ABOUT YOUR COMMUNITY AND
THE COMMUNITIES THAT YOU KNOW, I
REPRESENT THAT LOOK LIKE ME, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME THERE ARE OTHER
WAYS TO DO THINGS AND I THINK
FOR ME I HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL
DISAGREEMENT IN TERMS OF THIS IS
THE WAY TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE.
OKAY, THANK YOU. OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE WISHING TO
QUESTIONS VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AH YOU KNOW, MARK
APRIL 25TH 2023 IS THE FIRST
TIME AS I'VE BEEN A LEGISLATOR
BEING ON THE SAME PAGE AS THE A
C L U ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION
. SO UH SO WE MADE SOME PROGRESS
THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
QUITE A LARGE PILOT PROJECT. THE
CITIES, UH, REPRESENTED HERE
REPRESENTS 16% OF THE STATE'S
POPULATION AND 6.4 MILLION
PEOPLE. IN THE STATE, AND I
THINK IF AH, UM. YOU KNOW,
CONCERNS ME GREATLY IN GENERAL
TO THINK ABOUT CAMERAS ENFORCING
TRAFFIC LAWS. I MEAN, AS A
MEMBER OF A CITY COUNCIL MYSELF,
WE DEALT A LOT. UNFORTUNATELY
WITH DEATHS ON OUR ROADS, EVEN
IN A SUB SUBURBAN ENVIRONMENT,
AND YOU KNOW, WE TOOK THOSE VERY
SERIOUSLY AND TRY TO PUT IN
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES, AND I
MEAN, I REMEMBER ONE SITUATION
WHERE WE PUT UP LIKE A BASICALLY
A BARRIER IN BETWEEN BOTH LANES
AND IT DIDN'T START PEOPLE. FROM
. FROM SPEEDING. PROBABLY 90% OF
THE PEOPLE HERE, SITTING HERE
SPED ON THEIR WAY TO GET HERE.
UM AND IT'S JUST IT'S
UNFORTUNATE REALITY THAT IT'S
HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND TO THINK THAT
WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP CAMERAS
AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE IT. AND
THEN WE'RE GOING TO STORE THAT
INFORMATION. AND UM, YOU KNOW,
ISSUE TICKETS AUTOMATICALLY TO
PEOPLE REALLY CONCERNED ME. AH
BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT THIS FOOD
FOR THOUGHT OF SOMETHING THAT
POTENTIALLY I COULD GET BEHIND
IN THE FUTURE. IF THIS WAS
GIVING PERMISSION TO A CITY TO
PUT FORWARD A PROCESS, UM THAT
WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS AND
REQUIRED IT TO GO TO A CITY
COUNCIL AND THEN THEN VOTE ON IT
AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA PUT A
LIGHT. WE'RE GONNA PUT A CAMERA
ON INTERSECTION X Y Z, UM AND
DEMONSTRABLY MANDATE THAT THAT
HAPPENED, THOUGH. AH, UM YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT YEAH, YOU KNOW
COULD IT'S NOT JUST A PUBLIC
PROCESS, YOU KNOW THAT. I'M
TALKING ABOUT THAT. WE UH YOU
KNOW, INCORPORATE PEOPLE INTO
IT. I THINK IT'S GOT TO BE AN
AFFIRMATIVE. AFFIRMATIVE THING
COMING FROM THE CITY, BUT BUT IN
REGARDS TO THAT. SORRY I'M JUST
TRYING TO LIKE, SEE WHAT? YOU
GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO. BUT
THE GENERAL THOUGHT OF A CITY
6.4 MILLION PEOPLE IN A PILOT
PROJECT IS JUST IT'S TOO BIG.
WE'VE TRIED THIS WITH RED LIGHT
CAMERAS. UM YOU KNOW, AND IT
JUST IT'S A MONSTER SURVEILLANCE
OPPORTUNITY, AND IT DOES. IT
DOES ACTUALLY CONCERNED ME TO
THAT. BUT I'M OPEN TO YOUR
CLOSING COMMENTS IN THE
DISCUSSION YOU'VE HAD BACK
THERE, AND WE'LL CONSIDER AT
THAT TIME. CAN I JUST CLARIFY
THAT THE BILL ACTUALLY DOES
REQUIRE A POSITIVE VOTE FROM THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOR THE
CAMERAS AFTER A PUBLIC PROCESS?
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT
EVERY LIFE THAT THEY PUT UP OR
IS IT JUST THE CITY HAS TO ADOPT
A PROGRAM? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO
THE COMMUNITY GROUPS HAVE TO
WORK WITH THE CITY TO DECIDE
WHERE THEY GO. SO THERE'S A
PROCESS THAT'S OUTLINE AND THEN
THEY WOULD VOTE FOR THE PROGRAM.
THE PROGRAM RIGHT WHERE THE
LIGHTS WOULD GO. THEY WOULD VOTE
FOR THE PROGRAM THEY WOULD COME
TO THEM WITH. WE'RE GOING TO DO
LIGHTS IN THESE SEVEN LOCATIONS
AND THEN THEY WOULD BE VOTING ON
IT. ALL RIGHT, LET ME HOLD. UH
BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THE DETAILS
WERE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANKS.
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT.
WELL I WANT TO WE HAVE A WE HAVE
A MOTION FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WICKS, A SECOND FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT. UM I
JUST WANT TO CONFIRM SOME OF
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TODAY. OKAY,
WONDERFUL. UM, I WANT TO THANK
YOU. FIRST OF ALL FOR YOUR
PASSION AND TRANSPORTATION. IT'S
BEEN VERY EVIDENT TO ME AND MANY
OF THE CAR RIDES WE'VE SHARED
TOGETHER FROM THE AIRPORT. HOW
MUCH YOU CARE ABOUT THIS? AND
CERTAINLY WE WANT TO DEFER TO
THE EXPERTISE OF YOUR COMMITTEE
AND YOU ON THE TRANSPORTATION
POLICY HERE. UM YOU KNOW, FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS COMMITTEE
FOCUSED VERY MUCH ON THE PRIVACY
ISSUES, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS. I
THINK WE'VE DONE SOME WORK THERE
TO FURTHER THOSE PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS AND ENHANCE THEM.
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
THOUGHTFUL WAY IN WHICH YOU
THOUGHT ABOUT EQUITY ISSUES.
PRIVACY ISSUES, TRYING TO PUT
THIS ALL TOGETHER. IT'S VERY
COMPLICATED AND AS YOU'VE HEARD
THEIR STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT
THIS, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE,
AND THIS IS A COMPLICATED ONE
IS, THE PASTOR SAID, RIGHT?
WE'RE BALANCING BETWEEN REAL
PRIVACY CONCERNS, REAL EQUITY
CONCERNS AND ALSO IS SAVING
LIVES, AND I KNOW THE COMMUNITY
THAT WE REPRESENT THE SAN
FERNANDO VALLEY. THERE HAVE BEEN
A NUMBER OF VERY, VERY TRAGIC
INCIDENTS WHERE YOUNG PEOPLE
HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES.
COMMUNITIES ARE ASKING US TO DO
MORE TO PROTECT YOUNG PEOPLE TO
SAVE LIVES TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS THE
WORK THAT WE'VE DONE. AND
ACTUALLY WITH THE AMENDMENTS
HERE TODAY, I'M FEELING MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BILL, AND
I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT
PATH. SO WITH THAT, HAVING A
RECOMMENDATION AND WOULD INVITE
YOU CLOSE. I KNOW THAT THIS IS
NOT AN EASY BILL, AND I
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE ALL OF
THE ISSUES AROUND ITS
SURVEILLANCE. THE CONCERN ABOUT
INCREASING SURVEILLANCE IN OUR
MIND HAVING A AS A SYSTEM WHERE
WITHIN FIVE DAYS ALL OF THE
RECORDS HAVE TO BE PURGED. AND
THEN 30 DAYS AFTER A VIOLATION,
UM FIVE DAYS. IF THERE IS NO
VIOLATION, WE THINK THAT THAT
WOULD HELP TO GIVE THE
CONFIDENCE THAT THIS IS NOT
SETTING UP SOME KIND OF
SURVEILLANCE THAT CAN BE USED
FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE THE DATA
WON'T EXIST. WE ACTUALLY SEE
THIS AS REDUCING ENFORCEMENT AND
A LOT OF WAYS BECAUSE IT IS
REDUCING INTERACTIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND ALSO VAST,
VASTLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT IS SPEEDING VIOLATION
WOULD COST AN INDIVIDUAL AND SO
LET'S NOT FORGET THAT AT THE
SAME TIME, PEOPLE ARE DYING OUT
THERE JUST TODAY. AYE MOTHER,
WHO WAS IN A CROSSWALK WITH A
SIX YEAR OLD IN FRONT OF AN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE MIDDLE
OF LOS ANGELES WAS RUN OVER THE
MOTHER WAS KILLED. THE CHILD IS
NOW IN CRITICAL CONDITION MAY
NOT MAKE IT. THAT VEHICLE WAS
SPEEDING, AND IT WASN'T A
VEHICLE SPEEDING DESPITE WHAT
THE WAY, THE NEWS REPORTED. IT
WAS A HUMAN BEING, WHO WAS
DRIVING WITH A RECKLESS
DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. MAYBE
IF THAT SAME INDIVIDUAL HAD
GOTTEN A TICKET FROM ONE OF
THESE CAMERAS WEEK AGO, THEY
WOULDN'T BE SPEEDING. MAYBE IF
THEY SAW THE SIGN THAT SAID,
YOU'RE COMING INTO A SPEED
ENFORCEMENT ZONE, BECAUSE
THERE'S A SCHOOL HERE. MAYBE
THEY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IF THEY
DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THE LIFE THEY
WERE ABOUT TO TAKE. MAYBE THEY
CARED ABOUT THEIR POCKETBOOK
ENOUGH TO WANT NOT WANT TO GET
THAT $50 FINE. OUR CITIES ARE
ASKING US FOR MORE TOOLS, AND
THIS GIVES THEM THE TOOLS SO
THAT WE CAN PILOT THIS AND
COLLECT DATA FOR THE FIRST TIME
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK
CITY SAW A 76% REDUCTION IN
SPEEDING IN 2022. BECAUSE OF
THEIR CAMERA PROGRAM. SO WE HAVE
SEEN THE DATA COMING FROM ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND WELL RUN SPEED
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS. AND YET
THERE ARE TRADEOFFS HERE, BUT I
HAVE A NINE YEAR OLD AND I WORRY
ABOUT HER EVERY SINGLE DAY. I
WANT MY CITY, MY CITY OF
GLENDALE TO BE TO OPT IN, WHO
WAS ADOPTED INTO THIS TO BE ABLE
TO PILOT THIS SO THAT MAYBE I'LL
HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
CONFIDENCE THAT PEOPLE IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW THAT THEY
CAN'T JUST SPEED AROUND WITH
ABSOLUTELY NO REPERCUSSIONS WITH
THAT I WOULD REQUEST AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS WAS
MENTIONED. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
SIMILAR WEEKS. I THINK A SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT,
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER FIVE A. B 6 45
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. GABRIEL I. PATERSON
PATERSON, NOT VOTING BARRICADE
KHN. BENNETT. BENNETT I S L E A
SALINE, NOT VOTING FUNG. SONG I
IRWIN. AYE, IRWIN. I LOWENTHAL.
HAPPEN. HAPPENED? I WICKS
WILSON. OKAY, WICKS? AYE.
WILSON. WILSON WILSON, NO. 6 TO
1. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT
WITH THAT. I THINK WE ARE GOING
TO INVITE. UH SOMEBODY MEMBER
JACKSON. WELCOME TO THE PRIVACY
COMMITTEE. THIS IS FILE ITEM 7
89 94. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I
UNDERSTAND. WE JUST THE BILLS
OUT, SO THEY CATCH THE POLITICAL
COMMITTEE. PLEASE. ALRIGHT THANK
YOU SO MUCH APPRECIATE. BEING
HERE. OKAY? MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM PLEASED TO
PRESENT A B 994, WHICH IS A
PRIORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE L G
B T Q CAUCUS. UM A B 994 BUILDS
ON THE WORK OF LAST YEAR'S A B
14 75. AND WE'LL BRING ALL
CALIFORNIA IS EVEN MORE EQUITY,
FAIRNESS AND PRIVACY. I FIRST
NEED TO THANK THE HARD WORK OF
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF THE DEDICATION OF THIS
COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE. UM IS
CLEAR, SO I AM PLEASED TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AND
APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK DONE ON
THIS BILL. A B 994 WILL REQUIRE
THAT SHERIFF AND POLICE
DEPARTMENTS DO NOT POST BOOKING
PHOTOS OR MUG SHOTS. INDIVIDUALS
WHEN ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF
COMMITTING A NON VIOLENT CRIME.
UNLESS. THE INDIVIDUAL IS DEEMED
AN IMMINENT RISK TO OTHERS OR
THE PUBLIC. OR IF A JUDGE ORDERS
THE RELEASE OF THE INDIVIDUALS
IMAGE BASED ON AN ARTICULATED
LAW ENFORCEMENT INTEREST. OR
THERE IS AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE
THAN NECESSITATES THE
DISSEMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS
IMAGE DUE TO AN URGENT AND
LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
INTEREST. IMPORTANTLY, IN THE
EVENT OF BOOKING PHOTO IN THE
EVENT THAT A BOOKING PHOTO IS
USED. A B 994 WILL NOW REQUIRE
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OUR
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO USE THE NAME
AND PRONOUNS PROVIDED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL ARRESTED.
ADDITIONALLY A POLICE DEPARTMENT
OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAY INCLUDE
OTHER LEGAL NAMES OR KNOWN
ALIASES OF AN INDIVIDUAL IF
USING THE NAMES OR ALIASES, WILL
ASSIST IN LOCATING OR
APPREHENDING THE INDIVIDUAL. IN
TERMS AND TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE
AN IMMINENT THREAT TO AN
INDIVIDUAL OR TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND LASTLY, A B 994 WILL NOW
REQUIRE THAT BOOKING PHOTOS BE
TAKEN DOWN FROM SOCIAL MEDIA
AFTER 14 DAYS AFTER BEING
INITIALLY POSTED. PROTECTING
PRIVACY AND AVOIDING THE ARCHAIC
PRACTICE OF BEING DEAD NAMED IS
LONG OVERDUE. BEING USED BY
USING A KNOWN ALIAS TO IDENTIFY
A PERSON IS A SUFFICIENT
SUBSTITUTE FOR PROPERLY
IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS.
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE LEADING THE
WAY ON THIS ISSUE, NOT FALLING
BEHIND AND FACT. THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS RECENTLY PASSED A BILL.
PREVENTING LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES FROM PUBLISHING BOOKING
PHOTOS ON SOCIAL NETWORKING
SITES. AND THIS FEBRUARY, THE
UTAH STATE SENATE VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY TO PROHIBIT POLICE
FROM PUBLICLY RELEASING MUG
SHOTS AT ALL. UNTIL A PERSON HAS
BEEN ACTUALLY CONVICTED OF A
CRIME, NOT JUST BEING SUSPECTED
OF ONE A B 994 PROVIDES FURTHER
CONFIDENCE TO ALL PEOPLE THAT
CALIFORNIA CARES ABOUT EVERYONE
, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE OR
HOW THEY IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE
SAFETY AND JUSTICE FOR THE
PUBLIC. I WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO
BRING THIS BILL BEFORE YOU. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAS AN EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF DEAD
NAMING AND MISS GENDER RING
TRANSGENDER. NONCONFORMING AND
INTERSEX INDIVIDUALS. ON
MULTIPLE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.
WHICH ONE POSTED ARE THERE
FOREVER AND FOR ALL TO SEE NOT
ONLY DO THESE POSTINGS CALLED
STRAIN ON EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS
WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS, BUT
THEY CAN ALSO ENDANGER AN
INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE. ESPECIALLY.
WHAT THE EXPERT EXPONENTIAL
INCREASE IN ANTI LGBT Q PLUS AND
ANTI TRANS RHETORIC. IT IS NOT.
IT IS HARD TO NOT TO STRESS THIS
POINT ENOUGH WITH ME TODAY I
HAVE WITH ME. ROSARIO LEÓN
VELASCO STOLE. WHO IS THE CEO,
FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF THE
FRESNO SPECTRUM CENTER, WHO IS
HERE TO SPEAK AND SUPPORT OF A B
9 94. HELLO MEMBERS OF THE
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
COMMITTEE. I AM RECEIVED.
VELASCO STOLE FOUNDER OF AN LGBT
RESOURCE AND COMMUNITY CENTER IN
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA I ALSO SIT ON
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL, THE
TRANSGENDER ADVISORY PANEL TO
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HERE FOR
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I SIT
BEFORE YOU AS A HUMBLE TRANS
LATINA. BEFORE YOU WAS A B 9 94
THAT EXISTS FOR A VERY GOOD
REASON TO PRESERVE OUR RIGHTS TO
HAVE AND MAINTAIN OUR DIGNITY
AND RESPECT I'LL SHARE WITH YOU
TWO INCIDENTS THAT MAKE A B 994
SO IMPORTANT. THE FRESNO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS IN A
HIGH SPEED CHASE. THE INDIVIDUAL
WAS A TRANS WOMAN NAMED
ANASTASIA. WHEN SHE WAS
APPREHENDED, THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT TOOK IT UPON
THEMSELVES TO POST HER
UNFLATTERING MUG SHOT WITH
MESSED UP MAKEUP AND HAIR AND
POSTED HER BIRTH NAME AND CHEN
BIRTH GENDER. THE POST WAS MET
WITH COMMENTS OF TRANSPHOBIC
HATE, CAUSING A DIVIDE IN OUR
COMMUNITY THAT IS, POLITICAL
CLIMATE HAS ALREADY ESCALATED.
SOME OF US IN THE TRANS
COMMUNITY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS
NOT RIGHT TO DEAD NAME HIM HIS
GENDER AS IT ONLY SERVES TO
DEHUMANIZE AND VILLAINIZE THE
TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY. THEIR
REPLY WAS WELL, TELL THOSE
PEOPLE NOT TO DO CRIMES AND WE
WON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. I HAVE
THE SCREENSHOTS. A NAKED MAN
ARRESTED WAS FRESNO POLICE
DEPARTMENTS REPORT TO FOX NEWS.
THEY MISS GENDERED AND DEAD
NAMED SOMEONE I KNOW PERSONALLY,
LOLITA. SHE SUFFERS FROM FEAR,
ANXIETY AND PANIC. SHE ADMITTED
TO ME THAT DAY THAT SHE HAD
FORGOTTEN TO TAKE HER ANXIETY
MEDS BEFORE GOING TO PICK UP HER
PARTNER FROM HIS WORK. SHE WAS
PHOTOGRAPHED WEARING A THIN
FLORAL BATHROBE WITH FLIP FLOPS
BUT WAS LABELED NAKED. WHEN
FRESNO PD TRIED TO TRAFFIC STOP
HER. SHE PANICKED, AND ALL SHE
CAN THINK OF WAS TO LOCK HERSELF
IN HER CAR FOR SAFETY. FRESNO P
D DISREGARDED THEIR POLICY IN
DEALING WITH TRANS INDIVIDUALS.
I SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE I HELPED
MAYOR DYER, WHO WAS CHIEF DIRE
AT THE TIME DRAFT AND ESTABLISH
THEIR TRANSGENDER INTERSEX
INTERACTION POLICIES. DEAD.
NAMING AND MISS GENDEREN IS A
SIMPLE CASE OF DISRESPECT,
DEHUMANIZING AND VILLAINIZING,
THE TRANSGENDER COMMUNITY. YOU
ADD POSTING IT TO SOCIAL MEDIA
OR SUBMITTING IT TO THE NEWS IS
SHEER TRANSPHOBIC ACTIONS. WE
REQUEST THE PASSING OF A B 994
FOR OUR SAFETY AND PEACE OF
MIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN THE
HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT? YES.
HELLO GOOD AFTERNOON. TRACY
ROSENBERG FROM OAKLAND PRIVACY
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. WE JUST
READ THE COMMANDMENTS JUST NOW,
BUT WE ARE STILL IN SUPPORT OF
THE BELL. THANK YOU. BECCA
CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L
U CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
ALRIGHT. WE NOW TURN TO
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
COREY SOESILO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION. AND ALSO
THE CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSOCIATION OF RECORDS.
SUPERVISORS RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION, UM, READING THE
ANALYSIS. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE
AMENDMENTS. WE APPRECIATE WHAT
WE THINK THE AMENDMENTS DO IN
TERMS OF REMOVING THE LANGUAGE
THAT EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF
ALLEGED CRIMES TO WHICH THE LAW
APPLIES. THAT'S HELPFUL. WE
REMAIN CONCERNED WITH THE
LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES THE
REMOVAL OF BOOKING PHOTO WITHOUT
A REQUEST. FROM THAT PERSON THAT
WAS NEGOTIATED AS PART OF A B 14
75, WHICH WAS, AS THE AUTHOR
SAID, JUST RECENTLY ADOPTED, UM
AND REALLY IS JUST NOW TAKING
EFFECT. UM WE UNDERSTAND THE
CONCERN ABOUT USING A PERSON'S
FORMER NAME, BUT IT REMAINS
UNCLEAR. HOW TO DEAL WITH THE
SITUATION THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH A PERSON'S DEAD NAME OR
DEAD, NAMING A PERSON, BUT WHEN
A PERSON GIVES A TOTALLY FALSE
NAME, UH, THAT WOULD BE THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
USE AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
BILL THAT REALLY PRECLUDES. A
PERSON FROM MAKING UP A FALSE
NAME, AND THE BILL SAYS YOU MUST
USE THAT NAME. IT DOES NOT SAY
IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF A PERSON'S
THE GENDER WITH WHICH THEY
IDENTIFY AT THIS TIME OR
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SO WE'RE
UNCLEAR ON ON HOW THE AMENDMENTS
IF THEY AFFECT US AT ALL. THE
ANALYSIS SUGGESTS OBTAINING
COURT ORDER IN SUCH A SITUATION
THAT SEEMS VERY, UH, EXTREME
BURDEN. TO ADDRESS SOMETHING
LIKE THIS. UM THAT'S WHEN A
PERSON DELIBERATELY INTENDS TO
DECEIVE AGAIN. NOT SPEAKING OF A
DEAD NAMING SITUATION. BUT WHEN
A PERSON GIVES A NAME THAT IS
NOT THEIR NAME. UM. AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO LOOK AT THE AMENDMENTS.
BUT AT THIS TIME GIVEN WHAT WE
UNDERSTAND THE BILL TO DO WE
RESPECTFULLY MAN OPPOSED. THANK
YOU AND NOW INVITE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. SEE.
NONE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE? ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON. I JUST HAD TO FOLLOW UP
AS RELATES TO OPPOSITION. SO UM
, THE ONE OF THE OPPOSITION
TALKS ABOUT THE CONCERN OF THAT
AFTER 14 DAYS, IT HAS TO COME
DOWN WITHOUT THE REQUEST OF THE
USUALLY, I GUESS THEY GET A
REQUEST TO TAKE IT DOWN. I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE. THAT
WAS ASSUMPTION. FROM WHAT AM I
READING? BUT WOULDN'T IT BE?
WOULD IT WOULD YOU BE PRECLUDED
FROM RE POSTING IT IF IT WAS
STILL RELEVANT AND NEEDED DOES
THE BILL TO DO THAT? THROUGH THE
CHAIR. THE BILL ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN
SITUATIONS IN WHICH YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE TO REMOVE IT IF THE PERSON
IS STILL A FUGITIVE, OR IF
THERE'S AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE,
OR I BELIEVE UPON THE ORDER OF A
JUDICIAL OFFICER, SO THAT WOULD
BE THE SITUATION. I DON'T KNOW
THAT THE BILL, UM ADDRESSES, I
DON'T THINK THE STATUTE OR THE
BILL CONTEMPLATES THE TAKING
DOWN AND THEN RE POSTING I
SUSPECT IF THE PERSON WERE S¼
RELEASED ON RECOGNIZANCE OR
BAIL, AND THEY RE OFFENDED THAT
WOULD TRIGGER IT, BUT I DON'T
KNOW THAT THE BILL OR THE LAW
SPEAKS TO EITHER SITUATION.
SORRY DID YOU KNOW DURING YOUR
TESTIMONY AND I'M I'D READ
SOMETHING SIMILAR. BUT DIDN'T
YOU KNOW DURING YOUR TESTIMONY
THAT YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THE
FACT THAT AFTER 14 DAYS IT'S
AUTOMATICALLY TAKEN DOWN. DID
YOU NOT NOTE THAT IN YOUR
TESTIMONY JUST NOW THAT WAS OUR
CONCERN. OKAY, SO, UM. BUT IF
IT'S AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION,
THE BILL DOES ALLOW YOU TO
EXTEND BEYOND THE 14 DAYS. AS AS
EXISTING LOT WELL, YES, YES, IF
THERE'S IF THERE'S AN ONGOING
INVESTIGATION, OR THERE'S AN
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE OR IF
THERE'S A COURT ORDER BUT UNDER
THE CURRENT LAW, THE MAN THAT
THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE
PERSON TO SAY PLEASE TAKE MY
PHOTO DOWN. THIS SWITCHES THAT
DEFAULT BASICALLY TO SAY WE HAVE
TO TAKE IT DOWN AFTER 14 DAYS,
CORRECT AND YOU HAVE OPPOSITION
TO THAT WE DO. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHY, WHEN THE BILL
ALLOWS YOU IF IT'S STILL
RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE'S AN
ONGOING INVESTIGATION OR EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU GET TO
KEEP IT UP. THAT'S A VALUE
JUDGMENT ON WHY IT'S STILL
RELEVANT. RESPECTFULLY. I MEAN,
E. YOU YOU WERE GLOBALLY MAY NOT
THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO KEEP IT
UP, BUT IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO
KEEP IT UP. WHETHER IT'S THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS TRYING TO
FIND IF THERE ARE POTENTIALLY
ADDITIONAL VICTIMS. IT MAY NOT
BE AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE. IT
MAY NOT BE THAT WE'VE GOT A
COURT ORDER. IT MAY NOT BE THAT
THE PERSON IS A FUGITIVE, BUT IT
MAY BE THAT A PERSON WHO HAS
BEEN ARRESTED, UM AGAIN NOT
NECESSARILY CONVICTED. BUT WHO
HAS BEEN ARRESTED. THERE MAY BE
ADDITIONAL VICTIMS THAT HAVING
THAT INFORMATION POSTED ONLINE
MAY HELP BRING ADDITIONAL
VICTIMS FORWARD SO THAT THAT IS
NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE
OR THE BILL. THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE.
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S
NOT ONGOING, AND SO YOU'RE THE
BILL DOES SAY THAT AFTER 14 DAYS
AND AUTOMATICALLY GOES DOWN,
CORRECT, AND IF, FOR WHATEVER
REASON ON THE 17TH DAY, THEY
WANTED TO REPOST IT. DOES YOUR
BILL OUR CURRENT STATUTE PREVENT
THAT FROM HAPPENING. IT IS NOT
PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.
OKAY SO IF YOU FOUND THAT IT WAS
A CASE THAT IT WASN'T
NECESSARILY ONGOING
INVESTIGATION, BUT THERE WAS A
NEED FOR HAVING THAT INFORMATION
STILL OUT THERE. NOTHING
PRECLUDES. ENFORCEMENT FROM RE
POSTING. LET ME JUST SAY THIS
AGAIN, A YEAH. NUMBER ONE. YOU
CAN POST IT. IF THERE IS A LAW
ENFORCEMENT INTEREST, I MEAN, IT
MAKES THAT CLEAR. UH UM. OR IF
THERE IS AN EXIGENT SITUATE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAN NECESSARY
NECESSITIES, THE DISSEMINATION
OF THE IMAGES, INDIVIDUALS IMAGE
SO BEYOND THE 14 DAYS, CORRECT
THE WHOLE AT ANY TIME. IF THERE
IS A THERE IS A STATED LAW
ENFORCEMENT INTEREST, THEN THEY
CAN DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO BE
ABLE TO. UM PERFORM THEIR LAW
ENFORCEMENT DUTIES. AND JUST
JUST MAKING SURE SO REALLY, THE
OPPOSITION IS JUST HAVING TO
TAKE IT DOWN AUTOMATICALLY AND
THE BURDEN NOW BEING PLACED ON
YOU VERSUS THE INDIVIDUAL. ALL
RIGHT, AND THE SECOND AND I
DIDN'T WRITE MY LITTLE NOTE DOWN
. UM THERE WAS A SECOND PART TO
THAT. BUT IF THERE'S ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, I'LL TRY TO REMEMBER
WHAT THE SECOND PART WAS
SOMETHING OPPOSITION SAID THAT I
WANT TO COME BACK TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN. I JUST
WANTED TO CLARIFY. DID YOU SAY
THAT SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIMES
WERE TAKEN OUT? THIS WAS FOR MR
JACKSON. YOU'RE REMOVING THAT
RIGHT? THE AMENDMENT WAS THAT,
UM THE AMENDMENT WAS THAT THIS
IS ONLY IN REGARDS TO NONVIOLENT
CRIMES. SO IF IT IS A VIOLENT
CRIME, UH THEN, YES, THEY WILL
GO ACCORDING TO EXISTING LAWS
JUST DIDN'T HEAR THAT. YOU YOU
DID TAKE THAT AMENDMENT. YES, I
DID. THANK YOU. GO BACK TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WESTON AND THEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
WELL, NOW YOU I THINK WITH THE
NAME SO IN REGARD TO THE
COMMITTEE GOING TO BE HERE ALL
NIGHT. SO IN REGARD IN REGARD,
THE OPPOSITION'S CONCERN IS THAT
IF SOMEBODY I THINK THEY USED IT
AS AN EXAMPLE, AND THE ONE OF
THE OPPOSITION LETTERS OR EVEN
AN ANALYSIS THAT SAID, I GO BY
MICKEY MOUSE, SO NOW YOU HAVE TO
PUT MICKEY MOUSE WHICH IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT TRANSGENDER
AND NON BINARY PEOPLE DO JUST TO
SAY, RIGHT? THEY'RE NOT PICKING
NICKNAMES. THEY'RE FREAKING
THEIR ACTUAL NAMES. SO UM, SOME
, THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS UH IS
AND THIS AND THIS IS, I THINK
FOR THE AUTHOR IS WITHIN THE
BILL. WHEN, UM, SO SOMETIMES YOU
HAVE YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE NAME
RIGHT? WHICH, IF YOU'RE NON
BEARING BINARY OR TRANSGENDER,
YOU TYPICALLY CHANGED. SOMETIMES
YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS
TO CHANGE YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE
AND ALL THAT, AND YOU HAVE A
LEGAL NAME OR A GIVEN NAME, OR
OR OR WHAT? YOU WOULD BE ALSO
KNOWN AS I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT
ALIAS, BECAUSE THAT YOU KNOW,
IT'S ANOTHER THING. UM BUT
TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE JUSTICE
INVOLVED, YOU WOULD BE GIVING
THAT NAME. RIGHT YOUR WHAT YOUR
NAME IS KNOWN AS IT'S TYPICALLY,
YOU'RE NOT GIVING YOUR LIKE A
NICKNAME. YOU'RE GIVING YOUR
ACTUAL NAME. SO WHEN SOMEONE IS
DOING IT RIGHT, AND THIS MIGHT
BE FOR OPPOSITION TO WHEN YOU'RE
DOING SOME TYPE OF ARREST
WARRANT OR THIS. WHERE ARE YOU?
WHERE IS THAT INFORMATION?
PULLED BRAND, SO I'VE NEVER BEEN
JUSTICE INVOLVED. AND UM, WHERE
WOULD THEY GET MY NAME FROM? I
GUESS NUMBER ONE. THE UM THERE'S
NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS LOW
ENFORCEMENT FOR ADDING
ADDITIONAL NAMES FOR THE
PURPOSES OF A DISH OF
IDENTIFYING SOMEONE RIGHT. SO IT
COULD BE. FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE
HAS, UM, CHANGED THEIR NAME, BUT
IT MAY BE NOT BE LEGAL AND IN
THE PROCESS, THEY GIVE THEIR
NAME THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE
CALLED. BUT YET WHATEVER IS ON
THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ANY
OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS. THIS DOES
NOT PROHIBIT LAW ENFORCEMENT
FROM USING THOSE TWO IF IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL, AND I DID TO FIND
THAT PERSON. OKAY? AND THEN THE
CONCERN FROM OPPOSITION OF
HAVING TO USE A NICKNAME COMES
FROM WHERE IS BECAUSE PEOPLE
DON'T GIVE YOU THEIR REAL NAME.
THEY GIVE YOU NICKNAMES. IS THAT
WHAT IS THAT? WHAT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ALL THE TIME THROUGH
THE CHAIR. THE CONCERN AGAIN IS
NOT AS YOU SAID. IT'S NOT UM THE
PERSON'S NEW NAME OR DIFFERENT
NAME IN IN TERMS OF A SITUATION
WHERE YOU DON'T GIVE A DEAD
NAME. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT HERE. WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN A PERSON
KNOWINGLY GIVES A FALSE NAME AND
NOT A NAME THAT I GO BY THAT I
USE EVERY DAY THAT I HAVE
ADOPTED THAT THIS IS A SITUATION
WHERE I WALK IN AND I GET
BOOKED. AND THEY ASKED ME WHAT
MY NAME IS. AND I SAY, LORI
WILSON. I'M NOT LORI WILSON,
RIGHT? IT'S KNOWN THAT I'M NOT
LORI WILSON. IT'S WITH THAT
NOTION OF INTENT TO DECEIVE SO
IN ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT THE
SITUATION IN WHICH A PERSON
GIVES THEIR PREFERRED NAME, BUT
THIS IS THE NAME I GO BY. IT MAY
NOT MATCH MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ISN'T
INTENDED TO SEE BUT WHAT I'M
TALKING ABOUT IS A SITUATION
WHERE YOU A PERSON GIVES A NAME
KNOWING IT'S FALSE AND A PERSON
HAS HAD PREVIOUS JUSTICE.
CONTACT THE OFFICER MAY NO, IT'S
NOT THEIR REAL NAME BECAUSE
THEY'VE DEALT WITH THEM BEFORE
THE CHALLENGES AS WE UNDERSTAND
THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE BILL
IN PRINT AND WITHOUT CLARITY ON
WHAT THE AMENDMENTS Dð. IN
ATTEMPT TO PROTECT A PERSON TO
BE ABLE TO USE THEIR PREFERRED
NAME. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE PERSON
TO GIVE KNOWINGLY FALSE NAME AND
WE HAVE TO USE THAT NAME THE ADD
ON NAMES, WHICH I GUESS THE
AMENDMENT ADDRESSES BECAUSE I
KNOW I HAVE FRIENDS. WHO FOR A
LONG TIME I DIDN'T KNOW THEIR
REAL NAME LIKE THE NAME THEY
WERE GIVING ME AND THEY'RE NOT
TRANSGENDER. BYE BYE OR NON
BINARY OR PART OF ANY KIND OF T
G. I IS. THEY HAVE THESE NAMES
THAT THEY'RE JUST KNOWN BY AND
THEY SOMETIMES THEY'RE
ABBREVIATIONS. SOMETIMES THEY'RE
COMPLETELY NOT RELATED. UM AND
SO THE BEST WAY TO FIND THEM IF
I WAS TO IDENTIFY I WOULD YOU
TOLD ME THAT PERSON WAS WILLIAM.
I'D BE LIKE, I DON'T KNOW,
WILLIAM. BUT I DO KNOW THIS. YOU
KNOW THIS OTHER PERSON BY BY
THIS NAME, AND SO I THINK THAT
THAT IS HELPFUL. I THINK IT HAS
BEEN ADDRESSED, POTENTIALLY. BUT
THOSE WERE JUST TWO PARTS OF THE
OPPOSITION THAT I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE I CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD
BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE
SAFE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, BUT
YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, UM
YOU KNOW SOME OF THE SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED, UM, IN
THE OPPOSITION LETTERS,
PARTICULARLY FROM A GROUP THAT
YOU REPRESENT WHEN YOU'RE USING
LANGUAGE LIKE MICKEY MOUSE OR
SOMETHING TRIVIAL, I TRIVIALIZES
, UM, MEMBERS OF THE LGBT
COMMUNITY AND PARTICULARLY TRANS
AND NON BINARY WHO, UM, IT'S NOT
A NICKNAME. NOT A NICKNAME, SO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON
THAT. BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS. I
DON'T THINK I USED THE NAME
MICKEY MOUSE, AND I DON'T INTEND
TO TRIVIALIZE IT. IT WAS AN
EXAMPLE OF NOT ANYTHING
INVOLVING TRANSGENDER SITUATION
, BUT IT BLATANTLY FALSE
SITUATION WHERE PERSONAL FRIENDS
THE NAME AND AGAIN WITHOUT
SEEING THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
IT'S UNCLEAR TO US HOW HOW YOU
RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES IN
THAT SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE A
PERSON WHO IS USING THEIR
PREFERRED NAME VERSUS THE
SITUATION IN WHICH A PERSON IS
USING A TOTALLY FALSE NAME. BUT
I THINK THE TO SOLVE THAT
PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY WE ALLOW
PEOPLE ALLOW THEM TO ADD
ADDITIONAL NAMES THAT WILL BE
HELPFUL TO IDENTIFYING THE
PERSON TO BE ABLE TO FIND OUT
WHATEVER LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS
TO DO SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT
NAME THEY MAY GIVE IF THEY ARE
STILL IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL IF
THEY FEEL THERE IS THE NEED TO
ADD ADDITIONAL NAMES THAT ARE UM
, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. THEN
THEY'RE FREE TO DO THAT. SO I
MEAN, WE I THINK WE STRUCK THE
RIGHT BALANCE ON IT. I KNEW
SHE'D HIT ON MY CONCERN. SHE DID
IT BETTER THAN I WOULD ANYWAYS.
UM BUT I WOULD JUST ADD. I MEAN
THE LANGUAGE IN THE AMENDMENTS,
WHICH I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T SEEN SO
FULL RESPECT FOR NOT HAVING AN
OPINION ON THAT. UM, DOES S¼ UM
THEY SHOW USE THE NAME GIVEN BY
THE INDIVIDUAL, RIGHT? AND I
THINK THERE IS A CHANCE HERE.
UM, TO THE POINT THAT SOME
REMEMBER WILSON MADE, UM SOMEONE
WHO LIVES AS A TRANS OR NON
BINARY JEWEL THAT LIVES BY A
DIFFERENT NAME. THAT IS THE NAME
THAT THEY USE. DAY IN DAY OUT,
AND SO I THINK THERE IS A WAY TO
STRIKE THAT BALANCE A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER WITH THAT LANGUAGE, NOT
JUST THE NAME YOU GIVE THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THAT
MOMENT, RIGHT? BUT MAYBE THE
NAME YOU LIVE WITH OR YOU
PRESENT OR, YOU KNOW, JUST A
LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY THERE
THAT MAYBE WOULD STRIKE THE
BALANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO THINGS
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS DIFFERENT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND NAME THAT
SOMEBODY LIVES BY THAT IF I WERE
TO INTRODUCE MYSELF TO SOMEONE
THEY WOULD YOU KNOW, IN THE
GROCERY STORE USED RIGHT VERSUS
SOME NAME THAT THEY'RE JUST
GOING TO POP OUT. YOU KNOW, IN
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I
THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS
HAPPENING HERE, AND I ACTUALLY
THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY DO BOTH
BY BEING A LITTLE MORE PRECISE
THAN JUST THE NAME. THE
INDIVIDUAL GIVES LAW
ENFORCEMENT, SO I'LL JUST
SUGGEST THAT BUT HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT, I THINK, UM, YOU
KNOW, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK
IN THIS SPACE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE RECOGNIZING TRANSGENDER
CALIFORNIANS AT EVERY MOMENT
THAT THEY INTERFACE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT REALLY
DOES. IT DOESN'T MATTER OF LIFE
OR DEATH. WHETHER WE ACKNOWLEDGE
TRANS INDIVIDUALS OF ALL THE
DIGNITY THAT THEY DESERVE. SO
THANK YOU FOR THIS BILL. HAPPY
TO SUPPORT YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS JUST FOR
CLARIFICATION? UM. CAN YOU
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN VIOLENT AND
NONVIOLENT CRIMES? UH THAT THIS
WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO HEAR
AGAIN? YOU MENTIONED IT IN ONE
OF YOUR REMARKS, AND I JUST
WANTED TO IS IT JUST REGARDING
THE AMENDMENTS OR ARE THEY
TREATED DIFFERENTLY? NONVIOLENT
CRIMES AND VIOLENT CRIMES UNDER?
YES IT IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
SO MANY THIS LAW NOW THIS BILL
NOW ONLY REFERS TO NON VIOLENT
UH UM, NOT BEING SUSPECTED OF A
NON VIOLENT CRIME AS OPPOSED TO
A VIOLENT CRIME. OK HMM. JUST A
COMMENT ON THAT. AND YOU KNOW,
UH, SOMETHING. I THINK. I'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT A LOT ARE THE
LIMITATIONS OF VARIOUS CRIMES
THAT ARE CONSIDERED NON VIOLENT
CRIMES IN CALIFORNIA? UM LIKE
RAPE OF AN UNCONSCIOUS
INDIVIDUAL IS CONSIDERED A NON
VIOLENT CRIME, AND, UH, YOU
KNOW, SO I'M KIND OF IT, YOU
KNOW, JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT
THROUGH IT. JUST SOMETHING THAT
CAME UP IS, UH YOU KNOW, THERE
ARE VERY SERIOUS CRIMES THAT ARE
NONVIOLENT, BASICALLY. AND SO
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THIS BILL
THIS BILL WOULD NOT APPLY TO
THOSE F F. YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A NON
VIOLENT CRIME DOES NOT FIT
WEIGHT. THE SITUATION YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT. I'M MORE THAN
HAPPY TO FIND A WAY TO BE ABLE
TO ADDRESS THOSE. RIGHT. UM
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS.
THANK YOU ANY ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
WISHING TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
OKAY WITH THAT, UM. SOMEBODY
REJECTS. I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS
BILL FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON
THESE ISSUES, FAIR LEADERSHIP
AND STANDING UP FOR THE LGBTQ,
PLUS COMMUNITY, TRANS FOLKS, NON
BINARY FOLKS. UM YOU KNOW, THESE
ARE UNFORTUNATE COMMUNITY THAT A
LOT OF PEOPLE ARE USING TO PLAY
POLITICS WITH. THIS IS A
COMMUNITY IS UNDER ATTACK. THERE
ARE REAL SAFETY ISSUES HERE, AND
I APPRECIATE THE CARE AND
THOUGHTFULNESS AND SENSITIVITY
WITH WHICH YOU APPROACH THIS
ISSUE. AND THE WORK THAT YOU'RE
DOING TO PROTECT THAT COMMUNITY.
SO WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO
RECOMMENDING I VOTE I WOULD
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE AND THEN
AFTER THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION FROM
SOME MEMBER WILSON, SECOND FROM
A SUMMARY OF BAUER-KAHAN, UH,
SOME OF OUR PLEASE. I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE. UM AND THE
CHAIR FOR, UM THEY'RE HELPING TO
CONTINUE TO STRIKE A BALANCE.
ONCE AGAIN THESE ARE THIS IS NOT
A GOTCHA, BILL. THIS IS NOT A
BILL TO MAKE A POLITICAL
STATEMENT. THIS IS REAL LIFE
STUFF PEOPLE ARE DEALING WITH,
UM AND HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY. UM
AND IT IS OUR GOAL TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS IS THE MOST BALANCED
BILL POSSIBLE AND IF ANYONE
WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS AS WE
CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THIS
PROCESS MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE
THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WITH THAT
I WILL INVITE. AH! OUR
CONSULTANT TO CALL THE ROLL.
MOTION IS. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. I'LL
CALL THE ROLL. GABRIEL.
PATERSON. BAUER-KAHAN BENNETT.
SALLY. PHªN IRWIN. AYE.
LOWENTHAL. PATTERN. WICKS.
WILSON. YOUR BILL IS OUT. WE
WILL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS TO ADD ON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
WE WILL NOW TURN TO, UH,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PETRIE-NORRIS.
THIS IS FILE ITEM 13 A V 10 27
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SOME
MEMBER BACK. YOU CAN HAVE A
SECOND FROM SOME MEMBER WILSON.
WELL THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
AS THIS COMMITTEE WILL KNOWS,
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS MOVING
THROUGH THE ASSEMBLY AIMING TO
KEEP OUR KIDS IN OUR COMMUNITIES
MORE SAFE ONLINE. UM MAYBE 10 27
IS A NARROW MEASURE. AND THE
RESULT OF CONVERSATIONS OF WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT, STAKEHOLDERS
AND TECH COMPANIES. MAYBE 10 27
SIMPLY WILL REQUIRE THAT LARGE
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS THAT
OPERATE IN CALIFORNIA DISCLOSED
ON THEIR WEBSITES. A DESCRIPTION
OF POLICIES REGARDING THE
RETENTION OF ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION INFORMATION. UH
CURRENTLY A SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM OPERATING HERE IN
CALIFORNIA IS ALREADY REQUIRED.
OPPOSED TO PUBLICLY POST A
POLICY STATEMENT THAT INCLUDES,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THEIR POLICY
ON THE USE OF THE PLATFORM TO
LEGALLY DISTRIBUTED CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE AND A LINK TO THEIR
PLATFORMS REPORTING MECHANISM
FOR ILLEGAL OR HARMFUL CONTENT
OR BEHAVIOR BY ADDING SOME
ADDITIONAL DETAILS IN TERMS OF
THE INFORMATION THAT IS
AVAILABLE. FOR ACCESS AND
RELEASE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AS
WELL AS CRITICALLY DETAILS
AROUND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT
INFORMATION IS RETAINED. WE
THINK THAT WE CAN SUPPORT LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN INVESTIGATIONS
THAT ARE BECOMING ALL TOO
COMMENT INTO FENTANYL DEATHS
RELATED TO ONLINE FENTANYL SALES
SO PLEASED TO BE JOINED TODAY BY
CHRIS DIDIER, WHO IS THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. AVOID AND BY
DYLAN HOFFMAN, WHO'S HERE WITH
TECHNET TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CHRIS
SEEDIER. AND THIS IS MY SON,
ZACH. I'M A BOARD MEMBER OF
VICTIMS OF LICIT DRUGS, AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY
. I'M TESTIFYING TO SHARE A
PERSONAL STORY OF AN
UNIMAGINABLE TRAGEDY THAT HIT
OUR FAMILY LIKE A MACK TRUCK
COMING OUT OF NOWHERE GOING 100
MILES AN HOUR. I STAND BEFORE
YOU BROKEN AND DESTROYED. TWO
DAYS AFTER CHRISTMAS, I FOUND MY
YOUNGEST CHILD, ZACH, APPEARING
TO BE ASLEEP IN HIS BEDROOM BUT
NOT BREATHING. AFTER A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION. WE LEARNED THAT
ZACH AND A FRIEND WERE SOLD FAKE
PRESCRIPTION PILLS THROUGH
SNAPCHAT AT OUR LOCAL MALL
ADVERTISED AS HARMLESS PERCOCET.
DESPITE HAVING NO HISTORY OF
DRUG USE. ZACK DIED FROM
FENTANYL POISONING AT AGE 17.
MANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS GIVE
THE APPEARANCE OF A SAFE VENEER
OF A TRUSTWORTHY APP THAT'S
ENTERTAINING, HOWEVER, ENHANCE
PRIVACY FEATURES THAT MAKE
SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY BOTH
EPHEMERAL AND PROTECTED. THESE
FEATURES HAVE HELPED BUILD A
PATRICK DRUG CARTEL MAKING
CELLPHONES A SUPERHIGHWAY FOR
ILLICIT DRUG ACTIVITY. THE SAFE
HARBOR SECTION 2 30 C OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT, THIS
INCENTIVIZES THE ADOPTION OF
SAFETY FEATURES AND CURRENT
POLICIES REQUIRE STATEMENTS THAT
INCLUDE ONLY GENERAL INFORMATION
ABOUT TERMS AND USAGE. THIS
NEEDS TO CHANGE. I STAND BEFORE
YOU ASKING, LOOK CLOSELY AND
THINK ABOUT THIS CAR MAKING
COMPANIES WOULD NOT INVEST IN
SEATBELTS OR AIRBAGS UNLESS THE
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AND
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION IMPOSED
CRASH TEST REQUIREMENTS. CLEARLY
THERE IS A NEEDED INFLECTION
POINT. WITH A WILD WESTERN
SOCIAL MEDIA THAT LEVIES
ACCOUNTABILITY OF HARMFUL
CONTENT AND INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
SAFETY ARE CORRECTION.
ADDITIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS
THAT HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH
INVALUABLE INFORMATION WHEN
INVESTIGATING ILLICIT DRUG
TRANSACTIONS. I STAND BEFORE YOU
WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER GRIEVING
FAMILIES. TO HELP SOCIAL MEDIA
IMPLEMENT SAFEGUARDS AND
STANDING BEFORE ME. OUR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHO ARE IN
POSITION TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. A
PERSON DIED SEVEN MINUTES AGO
FROM ILLICIT FENTANYL IN OUR
NATION, PLEASE SUPPORT MAYBE 10
27. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION AND FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
DYLAN HOFFMAN ON BEHALF OF
TECHNET. IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED IN
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, TECHNET
WILL BE REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION
AND JOINING THE SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL. AND AS I WAS AS THE
AUTHOR, THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
AND AS MY CO PRESENTER HAVE LAID
OUT THE CRISIS AROUND FENTANYL
IS DIRE. OUR SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS KNOW AND RECOGNIZE
THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE
TO PLAY IN STEMMING THE SALE OF
DRUGS ON OUR PLATFORM. UM WE
SHARE THE GOAL OF THE AUTHOR.
WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE
ACTIVITY OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS ON
OUR PLATFORM ARE PLATFORMS TAKE
AGGRESSIVE ACTION NOT ONLY TO
IDENTIFY BUT TO REMOVE AND BLOCK
PEOPLE THAT HAVE DEALT FENTANYL
OR ATTEMPTING TO DEAL FENTANYL
OR OTHER CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
ON OUR PLATFORM. UM HOWEVER, WE
KNOW THERE'S MUCH MORE WORK TO
BE DONE, AND WE GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR FOR
CONVENING STAKEHOLDERS TO
DISCUSS SOLUTIONS THAT STRIKE
THE APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
SAFETY, SECURITY, PRIVACY AND
THE ONLINE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
. THE COMPROMISE LANGUAGE FOR
CONSIDERATION TODAY REPRESENTS A
MEANINGFUL STEP FORWARD AND
TURNING UM, PLATFORMS
INFORMATION REGARDING DRUG
TRAFFICKING, UH INTO ARRESTS AND
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTIONS,
PROVIDING MORE INFORMATION ABOUT
THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
INFORMATION AND HOW LONG
PLATFORMS RETAIN THAT
INFORMATION WILL PROVIDE GREATER
CLARITY TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT
WHAT TYPES OF DATA THEY CAN FILE
A PRESERVATION REQUEST OR A
WARRANT. AH FOR IT AND HOW LONG
THEY HAVE TO DO SO THIS
INFORMATION CAN MEAN THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCCESSFULLY
BUILDING A CASE AGAINST THE
DEALER OR NOT, UM, WE GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
AUTHOR AND THIS COMMITTEE TO
AMEND THE BILL AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO HAVING ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN
PROVIDE A ROLE IN THIS AND IN
SOLVING THIS CRISIS. THANK YOU.
REQUEST YOUR I VOTE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. ADAM
REQUIEM BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ONE OF THE
LINER COMMENTS WITH THE TECHNET
AND THANK THE AUTHOR WILL BE
REMOVING OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
BECCA CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF
THE BLUE CALIFORNIA ACTION IN
LIGHT OF THE AMENDMENTS WERE
ALSO WITHDRAWING OUR OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? ALL
RIGHT. YEAH UM, WELL, THE AUTHOR
BE ACCEPTING THAT COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. YES THANK YOU. AND I
JUST WANT TO THANK A COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR YOUR YOUR WORK ON THIS
BELL. UM, AND YOU KNOW SO MANY
OF THE OTHER IMPORTANT MEASURES
MOVING THROUGH OUR BODY. WE
APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU. AND,
UH, COMMITTEE COMMENTS? YES.
THANK YOU, MR BRIDGER. THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE AND I'M SORRY FOR
YOUR LOSS. IT IS EVERY PARENT'S
WORST NIGHTMARE. AND IT'S A
SERIOUS CRISIS, SO I ALSO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
CONTINUED VIGILANCE ON THE
FENTANYL CRISIS. PEOPLE ARE
DYING LIKE YOU SAID EVERY DAY
AND WE AREN'T DOING ENOUGH. AND
I JUST SIT IN THIS COMMITTEE
WEEK AFTER WEEK BAFFLED THAT WE
CONTINUE. TO SAY THAT THESE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE FREE
OF ALL LIABILITY FOR THE DEATHS
AND HARM THEY CAUSE. AND I JUST
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THIS AND
I DON'T THINK IT GOES FAR
ENOUGH. I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT
BECAUSE SOMETHING'S BETTER THAN
NOTHING, BUT I JUST AM SO
DISAPPOINTED THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO ALLOW
THE WILD WEST AND THE INTERNET
WHEN OUR KIDS ARE PAYING THE
ULTIMATE PRICE EVERY SINGLE DAY.
I JUST WAS TOLD BY A FRIEND
ABOUT A FRIEND OF HERS SON, WHO
WAS 13, WHO WALKED IN FRONT OF A
TRAIN THE OTHER DAY AFTER
FINDING OUT HE WAS BULLIED. ON
SOCIAL MEDIA. IT'S HAPPENING
EVERY DAY IN OUR COMMUNITIES,
WHETHER IT'S FENTANYL OR
BULLYING THIS AND I SIT ON THIS
COMMITTEE AS A PRIVACY ADVOCATE
FIGHTING FOR PRIVACY. AND YET WE
HAVE TO FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM
BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SAFETY AND
SECURITY FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND,
UM, I THINK WE'VE GONE TOO FAR
IN PROTECTING PRIVACY AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE LIVES OF OUR
CHILDREN, AND I THINK WE NEED TO
DO BETTER. AND SO I THANK YOU
FOR TRYING AND I HOPE WE'LL GO
FURTHER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THOSE COMMENTS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AND I CERTAINLY
COULD NOT AGREE MORE. UM AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THE COMMITMENT
AND THE WORK OF SO MANY FOLKS ON
THIS COMMITTEE AS WE TRIED TO
THREAD THAT NEEDLE AND FIND A
LANDING SPOT WHERE WE DO STEP UP
TO KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE ONLINE
BECAUSE AGAIN AS A MOM. IT WAS
DAD'S IN THIS ROOM. THIS SCARES
THE HELL OUT OF ME. IT SCARES
THE HELL OUT OF ALL OF US, AND,
UM, WE NEED AS YOU SAID, WE NEED
TO DO MORE AND DO BETTER ON MANY
FRONTS. AND SO THIS IS I THINK
ONE SMALL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE
AND I WILL SAY I REALLY DO
APPRECIATE APPRECIATE THE
ENGAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY AND THEIR
COMMITMENT TO WORKING WITH US TO
WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. UM
AND TO RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO
BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. AND,
UH, TO CONFRONT WHAT IS A
MASSIVE, MASSIVE PROBLEM. THANK
YOU. SIMILAR MEMBERS, SALIH.
THANK YOU ALSO WANT TO COMMEND
THE AUTHOR? I THINK, UH, YOUR
BILL IS VERY IMPORTANT. UM EVEN
AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED AS A
PROSECUTOR, I CAN TELL YOU THE
EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSTANCE AND
THE CONTENT OF THOSE
COMMUNICATIONS IS CRITICAL. Tð
HOLDING THE DEALERS ACCOUNTABLE.
BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, THE
WITNESS THE MAIN WITNESS IN THE
CASE, IN THIS CASE, THE VICTIM
IS DECEASED AND UNABLE TO
TESTIFY AND IDENTIFY THE PERSON
THAT SOLD THEM. UM THE PILL OR
WHATEVER IT WAS AND SO WITHOUT
THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. THE
PROSECUTION'S TO HOLD THEM
ACCOUNTABLE IS VERY TOUGH. NOW I
UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL
CHALLENGES SOCIAL MEDIA HAS IN
PRESERVING EVERY SINGLE
COMMUNICATION. HOWEVER I DO
THINK THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND. I
KNOW THAT SOCIAL MEDIA THEY THEY
ARE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE.
THERE IS AN EVER EVOLVING LIST
OF WORDS AND EMOJIS THAT ARE
USED AS, UM, CODE FOR SELLING
FENTANYL. AND I KNOW YOU GUYS,
I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS THE
COLLECTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA. I KNOW
YOU GUYS KNOW HOW TO LOOK FOR
THEM. I KNOW YOU KNOW HOW TO
ISOLATE THOSE MESSAGES, AND I DO
THINK IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO
HAVE AT LEAST THOSE MESSAGES
IDENTIFIED BY YOUR PLATFORMS IS
POTENTIALLY CONTAINING CODED
WORDS. YOU GUYS CAN CERTAINLY
PRESERVE THOSE. SO I THINK I
HOPE YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, KEEP
TALKING, AND WE FIND A MIDDLE
GROUND HERE, AND WE DON'T NEED
TO PRESERVE EVERYONE'S MESSAGES.
BUT MAYBE THEY'RE HIGH RISK
MESSAGES FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD
OF TIME, SO LAW ENFORCEMENT
COULD GET A SEARCH WARRANT AND
GET THOSE WITH THAT. I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S YES, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. I
JUST I KNOW YOU'VE HAD TO GO
THROUGH ITERATIONS ON THIS BILL.
I WAS HAPPY TO SUPPORT IN
JUDICIARY AS I REPRESENTED, THEN
IT IS INCREDIBLE THAT YOU CAN
COME HERE WITH ANY AMOUNT OF
COMPOSURE. AND AS A MOTHER, I AM
TERRIFIED. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU HAVE STUCK WITH THIS. UM
SOME OF THE BACARDI
PETRIE-NORRIS AND I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GREAT THANK YOU. UM ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? THEY'RE ALL RIGHT. UM
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT
CHRIS DID EARLIER. ZACK DID
EARLIER LIVED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
AND, UH, THE ONLY REASON WHY I
KNOW WHAT FENNEL IS, IS, UH,
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE LOST
ZACH. UM DUE TO FENTANYL WHEN I
WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL IN
ROCKLAND, AND SINCE THAT DAY
I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, PRETTY
COMMITTED TO MAKING A CHANGE IN
THIS SPACE AND I HAVE FOUR
PIECES OF LEGISLATION ON THE
TOPIC, THREE OF WHICH HAVE
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE AND, YOU
KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE CHRIS
AND THE ADVOCACY THAT HE'S DOING
AND THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING
TO TRY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.
AH, UM YOU KNOW, I I'VE SEEN A
LOT OF ISSUES IN THEIR DIFFERENT
ON THE VARIOUS PLATFORMS AND I
DON'T KNOW. WHAT THE SOLUTION IS
, UM, YOU KNOW, IN ONE CASE,
ACTUALLY THAT I WAS TALKING
WITH, UM CHRIS ABOUT. THERE WAS
AN INSTANCE IN WHICH YOU KNOW
I'M TRYING TO SORT OF CONCEAL
THE PLATFORM. BUT, UM WHERE A
PERSON WAS PRETTY MUCH OPENLY
SELLING DRUGS ONLINE AND, AH,
YOU KNOW, I WAS INFORMED OF THIS
AND I WENT AND VIEWED IT. THIS
PARTICULAR INCIDENT HAD BEEN
REPORTED. AH, YOU KNOW, THE. THE
ALGORITHMS, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T
FIND A VIOLATION AND REPORTED TO
HUMAN REVIEW, AND IT WAS STILL
ALLOWED TO STAY ON THE PAGE. SO
WHAT I DID IS I WENT AND I
SCREENSHOT I TOOK IT WAS A VIDEO
TOOK THE VIDEO. UH POSITIVE
SCREENSHOT THE SHIPPING LABEL
BECAUSE THEY WERE SHIPPING IT
AND WAS ABLE TO FIND THE
LOCATION OF WHERE THEY GOT IT
FROM AND WHERE, WHERE? WHERE?
THEY WERE MAILING IT FROM AND
WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BECAUSE IT
WAS FROM THE IT WAS IN THE
POSTAL SERVICE, AND I SENT THAT
TO MY FRIEND AT THE FBI, BECAUSE
YOU KNOW AT SOMEBODY'S GOT TO BE
DEALING WITH THIS, AND I THINK
THIS ENTIRE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO
SEE. SWIFT ACTION AND AGGRESSIVE
ACTION TO GET THIS STUFF OFF
EVERY SINGLE PLATFORM IN A VERY
SERIOUS MANNER AND I'VE ONLY
BEEN HERE FIVE MONTHS AND I'M
PERSONALLY TRYING TO AND I'VE
MET WITH, YOU KNOW PRETTY MUCH
ALL THE COMPANIES AND YOU KNOW,
I KNOW IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED I
KNOW THAT DRUG DEALERS, UH, ACT
QUICKER. OFTENTIMES THEN AH, YOU
KNOW, PLATFORMS AND THE
PROGRAMMING AND THINGS AND I
KNOW IT'S COMPLICATED AND SO I
DON'T WANT TO UNDERMINE THAT.
BUT UH, MY 10 YEAR OLD SON KNOWS
WHAT FENNEL IS BECAUSE IT'S THE
ONLY WAY I CAN PROTECT HIM. AH
FROM THIS, AND SO I THINK THIS
IS A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. UM YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE WORKING WITH THE
INDUSTRY, BUT ALSO I THINK YOU
KNOW, AFTER ONLY FIVE MONTHS, MY
PATIENTS IS ALSO GOING TO GET TO
A POINT. WHERE WHERE? YOU KNOW,
WE WANT TO SEE MORE MOVEMENT IN
THIS DIRECTION. I DON'T WANT
ANYMORE KIDS. NOBODY DOES.
NOBODY'S INTERESTS FOR KIDS. TO
BE DYING FENNEL AND EVERY SINGLE
CHILD THAT I KNOW IN MY
COMMUNITY THAT HAS DIED FROM
FENTANYL, UNFORTUNATELY, HAS
RECEIVED IT ONLINE. AND SO
ANYWAYS, MY TIRADE, BUT I'D LIKE
TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN
THIS AREA FOR MANY YEARS TO COME
. HOPEFULLY SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CLOSING STATEMENT.
OBVIOUSLY THANK YOU FOR THOSE
COMMENTS, AND I THINK IN CLOSE I
JUST ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU,
CHRIS FOR BEING HERE AND AH! YOU
AND THE OTHER PARENTS WHO WERE
WORKING WITH TO TACKLE THIS
CRISIS, YOU HAVE TAKEN THE
ULTIMATE TRAGEDY. AND UM, YOU
WERE TRANSFORMING THAT INTO
ADVOCACY TO FIGHT FOR OUR KIDS.
TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR KIDS ARE
SAFE ONLINE. AND YOU KNOW, AS I
SAID TO YOU THE OTHER DAY. OUR
COMMITMENT TO YOU IS THAT WE
WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN AND WE'RE
GRATEFUL TO HAVE YOU. FIGHTING
WITH US AND ADVOCATING FOR THIS
BILL, AND FOR MANY OTHERS IN THE
LEGISLATURE, AND WE'RE COMMITTED
TO SEEING THIS THROUGH. SO WITH
THAT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS, AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANKS WE HAVE A
MOTION IN A SECOND. THINK WE'RE
READY TO ROLL ITEM NUMBER 13,
MAYBE 10 27 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
PETRIE-NORRIS. THE MOTION IS DO
YOU PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE?
GABRIEL. PATERSON I BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN BENNET. S¼. SALLY
SALLY. AYE. FRANK I IRWIN.
PEPIN. HAPPENED. I WICKS WICKS I
WILSON. WILSON. I YES, YES.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT. YEAH.
THANK YOU, BENNETT. AYE.
ALRIGHT, IT'S 8 TO 0 AND I DON'T
PROBLEM WILL BE LEFT OPEN AND
KEEP IT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
OKAY? WRITE A B 10 SECONDS. I
JUST DO WHAT I'M TOLD HERE AND,
UH YEAH, YEAH. ALRIGHT MR JONES
, SAWYER A B 10 16. ALRIGHT,
GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. UH I PRESENT A B
10 16 WITH AUTHORIZED THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION. DPR. UH TO CREATE A
SAFE AND ROBUST TRAINING PROGRAM
FROM UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRONES TO BE
USED FOR AERIAL PESTICIDE
APPLICATION ON CALIFORNIA FARMS
, VINEYARDS AND NURSERIES. TODAY
FARMS PRIMARILY USED DRONES TO
CAPTURE CROP SOIL HEALTH. UH,
WHAT DO YOU JUST AND OTHER FARM
DATA? A DRONE CAN BE USED TO
APPLY PESTICIDES, BUT ONLY IF
THE DRONE AERIAL APPLICATOR HAS
TRAINED IN A JOURNEYMAN
APPRENTICE STRUCTURE TO EARN THE
REQUISITE TRAINING BEFORE
LICENSING THIS TRAINING
REQUIREMENT WITH FIXED WING
PILOTS CRAZED REGULATORY
MISALIGNMENT, WHICH LIMITS THE
ABILITY TO TRAIN FOR AND BECOME
A LICENSED PEST. PESTICIDE
AERIAL APPLICATOR IN THE STATE.
AH TO ONLY FEDERALLY LICENSED
DRONE OPERATORS. AS EVIDENCE OF
THIS MISALIGNMENT. THEY'RE ONLY
NINE. NINE LICENSED DRONE,
AERIAL APPLICATORS JOURNEYMEN IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHILE
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF FIXED AIR
AERIAL APPLICATORS.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS ALSO
PRECLUDES EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS INTERESTED IN
TRAINING AERIAL APPLICATORS LIKE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCES FROM BEING ABLE TO DO
SO SIMPLY THIS PRECISION
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT ENTERING OUR
AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY BECAUSE THE
TRAINING REQUIRED BY THE STATE
DOES NOT ALIGN WITH HOW
TECHNOLOGY MAKES IT MAKES IT
INTO THE MARKET, WHICH IS NOT
THROUGH FIXED WING PILOTS. FOR
THAT REASON, A B 10 16
AUTHORIZED THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION TO CREATE A
CREDENTIAL PROGRAM TO TRAIN FAA
APPROVED DRONE PILOTS TO SIT FOR
THE AERIAL APPLICATOR LICENSE
AND HELP INTEGRATE TECHNOLOGY
INTO AERIAL APPLICATOR
BUSINESSES AND THE SAFEST MANNER
POSSIBLE. IF JONES WERE PART OF
THE PESTICIDE APPLICATORS TO
KIDS TODAY, THE STATE COULD
ENHANCE FOOD AND WORKER SAFETY
WHILE PROMOTING AGRICULTURE
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BY
ENCOURAGING THE ADOPTION OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY, MAYBE 10 16 PROTECTS
FARMWORKERS ENCOURAGES STUDENTS
TO WORK IN THE AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY AND EQUIPS FARMERS WITH
A TOOL THAT ALLOWS EFFICIENT AND
PRECISE PESTICIDE APPLICATION
SAVING PESTICIDE. WATER AND
AIRCRAFT FUEL COSTS. OVER THE
LAST FEW WEEKS, MY OFFICE HAS
MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO
ADDRESS THE CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT
ASSOCIATION. CONCERNED REGARDING
SAFE PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS. MY
STARTER AND SPONSORS AND I HAVE
CONSULTED WITH THE IMPLEMENTING
AGENCY DPR ON THE LANGUAGE YOU
SEE IN PRINT TODAY. WE BELIEVE
THIS BILL WILL ONLY ALLOW AERIAL
APPLICATIONS WITH SAFE PESTICIDE
APPLICATIONS TRAINING TO BE
CONDUCTED BEFORE THE AERIAL
APPLICATOR EXAM WITH ME TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. IT'S L
. STELLY A SMALL FARMER FROM SAN
DIEGO COUNTY. GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M HONORED TO SPEAK TO YOU
TODAY. YES I'M OUT. STALEY A
THIRD GENERATION FARMER FROM SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, WHERE I GROW
AVOCADOS, CITRUS AND WINE
GRAPES, MOSTLY ORGANIC. I HAVE
BEEN A LICENSED AGRICULTURAL
PESTICIDE APPLICATOR FOR OVER 35
YEARS. AND IN THAT TIME HAVE
SEEN MANY ADVANCES IN
APPLICATION TECHNOLOGY THAT HAVE
RESULTED IMPROVED EFFICACY AND
WORKER SAFETY. THE U. A V OR
DRONE SPACE SPRAY APPLICATION IS
A RELATIVELY NEW TECHNOLOGY IN
THIS COUNTRY, AND MANY
CALIFORNIA FARMERS WANT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THE SAFE
AND ACCURATE TECHNOLOGY. THE
OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO SAFETY IS
THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THE
APPLICATOR FROM INTIMATE CONTACT
WITH THE PESTICIDE. YEAH
PESTICIDES AND SPRAY EQUIPMENT.
THE DRONE ALLOWS THE OPERATOR TO
APPLY MATERIALS VERY PRECISELY
WHILE REMAINING ON THE EDGE OF
THE TREATMENT AREA. THE LESS
OBVIOUS IMPROVEMENT TO WORKERS'
SAFETY IS THAT FOR MY CREW, A U
A V WOULD ELIMINATE THE USE OF
MS BLOWERS, A £60 PIECE OF
EQUIPMENT THAT IS CARRIED ON THE
BACK OF THE APPLICATOR. THE
APPLICATOR TRUDGES THROUGH THE
VINEYARD, TRYING TO MAINTAIN A
UNIFORM WALKING SPEED AND
APPLICATION RATE WHILE CLIMBING
UP AND DOWN. THE HILLS, AVOIDING
ROCKS AND GOPHER HOLES WITH
DRONE SPRAY TECHNOLOGY. WE CAN
NOT ONLY REMOVE THE WORKER FROM
THE APPLICATION AREA WHERE
REMOVING A HEAVY GAS DRIVEN
SPRAYER AND CHEMICAL FILLED TANK
FROM THEIR BACK. FINALLY DRONE
TECHNOLOGY ENSURES UNIFORMITY OF
COVERAGE. IT FLIES AND APPLIES
MATERIALS AT THE SAME SPEED, NO
MATTER WHAT THE TERRAIN. FOR
THESE REASONS I ORDERED AND
PURCHASED A DRONE, A $20,000
INVESTMENT THAT AND WE HAVE
SECURED TWO OF THE THREE FAA
LICENSES NEEDED TO OPERATE IT. I
SAY WE BECAUSE THREE OF MY
EMPLOYEES ARE JOINING ME ON THIS
JOURNEY. INTO THIS NEW
TECHNOLOGY BY FAR THE MOST
DIFFICULT HURDLE TO CLEAR IS THE
APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN
PROCESS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO
OBTAIN A LICENSE TO UNIT USE A
DRONE FOR PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS
IN CALIFORNIA. I BELIEVE THIS
BILL GIVES THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION DIRECTION
AND FLEXIBILITY. TO CRAFT A
CLEARER PATH FOR LICENSED
APPLICATORS LIKE ME TO GET
LICENSED. TO USE A DRONE WITHOUT
COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF FIELD
WORKERS OR THE PUBLIC. THIS BILL
IS IN NO WAY, SAYING THAT
COMMERCIAL DRONE APPLICATORS.
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH
SAFETY AND TRAINING. THIS BILL
PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CRAFTING AND ADMINISTERING THIS
TRAINING WHERE IT BELONGS WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION. BY OPENING TRAINING
PATHWAYS THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY
OR COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM. IT
WILL BE EASIER FOR PEOPLE LIKE
ME AND MY EMPLOYEES TO OBTAIN
THIS LICENSE. SAFETY IS NOT
ENHANCED, AS SOME HAVE
SUGGESTED, BY LIMITING THE SIZE
OR SCOPE OF THE MOVIE. SAFE
APPLICATIONS ARE PRODUCT OF
TRAINING, TESTING AND CONTINUING
EDUCATION. CALIFORNIA IS SECOND
TO NONE IN PROMOTING AND
REGULATING SAFE PESTICIDE USE,
AND THIS BILL WILL ENSURE THAT
THAT CONTINUES. A DRONE USED TO
APPLY CHEMICALS OR SPREAD
BENEFICIAL INSECTS IS NOT A
SUBSTITUTE OR REPLACEMENT FOR
CONVENTIONAL AERIAL APPLICATORS
APPLICATIONS. DRONE TECHNOLOGY
WILL ONLY BE USED WHERE A
HELICOPTER FIXED WING
APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE
EFFICIENT OR COST EFFECTIVE. IF
YOU WOULDN'T MIND. SORRY
WRAPPING IT UP WHEN YOU GET A
CHANCE. THANK YOU. CONCLUSION I
RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO VOTE TO
APPROVE THE MOVING THIS BILL
FORWARD, SO LICENSED QUALIFIED
APPLICATORS CAN SERVICE FARMS
AND RANCHES WITH THIS SAFE, SAFE
AND EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
PERFECT. WELL THANK YOU ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT.
TRUMPCARE NUMBERS OVER THE TOP.
DON'T SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ANY
OTHERS? ALRIGHT. SEEING NONE
ANY, UH, OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THREE MINUTES
EACH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN
. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR OF THE
BILL AND YOUR STAFF. YOU'VE BEEN
REALLY OPEN TO HAVING AN ONGOING
DISCUSSION, AND WE DEFINITELY
APPRECIATE THAT. MY NAME IS
TERRY GAUGE. I'M WITH THE
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT
ASSOCIATION. MY MEMBERS, UM I
AM. UH HUH. MY MEMBER IS, UM
MAKE APPLICATIONS FROM THE
OREGON BORDER ALL THE WAY DOWN
TO THE MEXICAN BORDER AND THE
AVERAGE AT LEAST 25 YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE ACROSS THE BOARD. AND
WE MAKE APPLICATIONS ON MILLIONS
OF ACRES OF FARMLAND EVERY YEAR,
SO WE REALLY UNDERSTAND AERIAL
APPLICATIONS SPRAY DYNAMICS. NOW
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR. THEY
ARE THEY ARE RIGHT. THIS IS THIS
IS A POWERFUL TOOL, AND THIS IS
GOING TO BE A VALUABLE TOOL TO
THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. BUT
WHEN WE IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGY
. WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT
IT, AND WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT IT
CORRECTLY. UM AGAIN, GREAT,
GREAT TOOL FOR SPOT APPLICATIONS
. BUT PART OF WHAT THIS BILL IS
DOING IS TAKING AWAY THE CURRENT
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE
IN THE APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN
PROGRAM. AND IT IT. THERE'S A
LOT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT'S
TRANSFERRED AND SHARED AND I'VE
SPOKEN TO AT LEAST THREE DRONE
PILOTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH
THE APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN
PROGRAM AND THEY APPRECIATED
HAVING THAT MENTORSHIP. THEY
FOUND IT COMPLETELY VALUABLE.
THE OTHER PROBLEM WHEN YOU THEN
YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM FROM THE
JOURNEYMEN PROCESS. YOU'RE DOING
IT IN A WAY. THAT'S AN UNLIMITED
, UM, SIZE DRONE, AND WE KNOW
THESE DRONES ARE GOING TO GET
LARGER. SO I THINK AT THAT
POINT, IT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT
SAFETY ISSUE. AND WE HAVE TO BE
COGNIZANT OF THAT, AND THAT IS
WHY WE HAVE SUGGESTED, UM,
MAKING SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE
LANGUAGE LIMITING THE SIZE,
ALLOWING FOR GROWERS TO MAKE
SPOT APPLICATIONS WITH THOSE
MUCH MORE THAN THE UNITS
THROUGHOUT THEIR NOW BUT WE KNOW
THE FUTURE IS GOING TO DEVELOP
AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS, AND THERE'S A REALLY A
LOT NOT KNOWN ABOUT THIS
APPLICATION PLATFORM AND THIS
SPRAY PARAMETERS. THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THAT. SO WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE ROB
SCHERZINGER. HE IS FROM OXNARD,
CALIFORNIA AND, UM HE IS A PAST
CHAIRMAN OF STEVE. TRIPLE A RUB.
THANKS JERRY. UM, AS TERRY SAID,
UH, MY NAME'S ROB SCHERZINGER.
AH I KNOW I'M AN AG PILOT AND
FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE
CALIFORNIA CULTURAL AIRCRAFT
ASSOCIATION. I'VE BEEN A PILOT
FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND NEVER OVER
25,000 HOURS OF EGG SPRINGTIME.
AH, MY COMPANY IS BASED IN
OXNARD. WE SUPREME, MAINLY IN
VENTURA, LOS ANGELES AND SANTA
BARBARA COUNTIES. WE ALSO DO
ISLAND RESTORATION WORK AND
NUMEROUS ISLANDS THROUGHOUT
MEXICO, HAWAII MIDWAY IN THE
UNITED STATES. I'VE LIVED THE
EVOLUTION OF THE AERIAL
APPLICATION INDUSTRY, WHICH IS
NOW BEGINNING TO UTILIZE DRONES
FOR PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS.
AND WE ENDORSE THEM. I SEE THIS
AS POSITIVE SO LONG AS DRONE
PILOTS ARE PROFESSIONALLY
TRAINED IN OPERATING THE
AIRCRAFT. AND IN THE APPLICATION
PRACTICE. THERE REALLY IS NO
SHORTCUT TO THIS PART. IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO LEARN WHAT
YOU'RE DOING FROM PEOPLE THAT
HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. PUBLIC
SAFETY DEMANDS IT AS DO FEDERAL
AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
I'VE TRAINED FUTURE DRONE PILOTS
HAVE TRAINED CURRENT DRONE
PILOTS. I'M ACTUALLY TRAINING A
COMPANY RIGHT NOW THEY'RE IN
LINE. THEY'VE ALREADY APPLIED TO
TAKE THEIR JOURNEY WHEN WRITTEN
EXAMS, BUT THEY WENT THROUGH THE
WHOLE PROCESS THAT MR STALEY IS
UNDERSTANDABLY FINDING REALLY
DIFFICULT. IT IS NOT EASY, BUT
IT'S NOT EASY TO BE AN AG PILOT.
THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNMANNED
AERIAL SYSTEMS IS EXPANDING
RAPIDLY. THEY'RE GETTING BIGGER
. THEY'RE GETTING MORE CAPACITY,
MORE COMPLEXITY. ALLOWING PILOTS
TO FLY THESE LARGER AIRCRAFT.
WITHOUT AN APPRENTICE JOURNEYMAN
PROGRAM COMPROMISES SAFETY. WE
THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE A SIZE
LIMIT, SO THE TECHNOLOGY RIGHT
NOW IS OUT THERE WHERE YOU CAN
FLY, HUGH H. 60 I MEAN, YOU CAN
FLY A SIX OR 700 GALLON
HELICOPTER. AUTONOMOUSLY SO WE
JUST HAVE TO PUT A LEMON ON IT.
DURING SUCH TRAINING. ALL THE
ASPECTS OF PESTICIDE APPLICATION
ARE COVERED, BUT IN AND OF
ITSELF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH DRONE
PILOTS LIKE THE REST OF US IN
THE BEGINNING NEEDS SUPERVISED
TIME IN THE SEAT. TO GAIN THIS
EXPERIENCE AND TO GAIN GOOD
JUDGMENT. SOME TRY TO REDUCE THE
NEED FOR TRAINING BECAUSE, AFTER
ALL, IT'S JUST A DRONE, BUT
THERE'S ONE SIMILARITY. WITH AG
HELICOPTERS AND AIRPLANES AND AG
DRUGS. ALL THREE OF THESE TYPES
OF AIRCRAFT OR SPRING PESTICIDES
OUT OF NOZZLES FROM THE PLATFORM
THAT HAS NO CONTACT WITH THE
GROUND. AERIAL APPLICATION, NO
MATTER WHAT THE VEHICLES AND
UNFORGIVING EVENT TO TREAT IT
OTHERWISE IGNORES ALL THAT IS
PRECEDED THIS POSITIVE EVOLUTION
OF THE INDUSTRY AND INVITES
REDUCTIONS AND SAFEGUARD WHICH
WE MUST AVOID. SAFETY HAS TO BE
OUR PRIORITY. SO THANK YOU
MEMBERS IN A UH, OPEN PRETTY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
THAT WAS JUST A HAIR UNDER THREE
MINUTES TO SO NICE TIMING. AH UM
, ANY COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE. I
FEEL LIKE I SHOULD JUST ASK HIM
ONE, YOU KNOW, ASK HIM, OKAY.
I'M JOKING. I THINK THEY'RE
HUNGRY. YEAH. AH ALL RIGHT. WELL
WITH THAT YOU HAVE A CLOSING
STATEMENT. UM AND I'LL MAKE THIS
QUICK. I'M WITH MY YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE FROM SOUTH L A AND
FARMING, I WOULD SAY, UM. THAT
IF YOU IN ALL SERIOUSLY, WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE BILL, IT TALKS
ABOUT HAVING THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATION FORMULATE.
WHAT THE REGULATIONS WILL BE TO
TRAINING. AND I, AND IT DOESN'T
REALLY NECESSARILY SAY THE
FARMERS. NO DISRESPECT TO THE
FARMERS ARE THE AERIAL THAT THEY
WILL HAVE FULL CONTROL. THEY'LL
HOPEFULLY BE AN INDEPENDENT BODY
THAT WILL MAKE THE BEST DECISION
FOR CALIFORNIA. AND SO THAT'S
WHY I EVEN TOOK THIS ON THAT
THERE WOULD BE A GROUP THAT WILL
LOOK AT THIS FAIRLY. BECAUSE I
DO BELIEVE WE NEED TO LOOK AT
THE DON'T WANT TO AID YOU, BUT
THE DECADES AND DECADES OF
EXPERIENCE AND MAKE SURE IT'S
INCORPORATED AND WHAT WE
ULTIMATELY DO. WITH THAT? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. ALL
RIGHT, SO WE CAN TAKE ROLL.
ALRIGHT. ITEM NUMBER. EIGHT
MAYBE 10 16 BY SOME REMEMBER
JOHN JONES SAWYER. THE MOTION IS
PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE GABRIEL PATERSON,
PATERSON. I BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE BENNETT BENNETT
. I SALLY SALLY I PHONE NOT
VOTING, NOT VOTING, IRWIN LOW
AND TALL THOUGHT I POPPING. YEP.
AND I WAX WEEKS. I WILSON
WILSON. AYE. 88 GRAND. ALRIGHT
IT'S 8 TO 0 WILL KEEP THAT OPEN
, BUT IT'S OUT. THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THE NEXT BILL IS OKAY. YEAH
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, PELLERIN. YEAH,
IT'S 27 K¾T. YOU GUYS ARE
HUNGRY. ACTUALLY, WE'RE ALL
TAKING A HOT YOGA CLASS IN HERE
RIGHT NOW IN HERE AND I WENT
WHOA! IT IS VERY WARM. YES, IT
IS. YES, IT IS. I MEAN, I MEAN,
MAYBE YOU HAVE TO HE SO THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'LL
START BY ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND THANK COMMITTEE
STAFF VERY MUCH FOR HELPING US
WITH THOSE AND THE AMENDMENTS
PROHIBIT THE SENDING OF ANY DATA
RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP AND
ENSURE THAT ALL CYBERSECURITY
PROTECTIONS ARE IN PLACE ON BOTH
RECEIVING ENDS OF THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AND THE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER.
IN A STATE WITH STATEWIDE MAILED
BALLOTS. THE ACCURACY OF OUR
VOTER RECORDS IS OF PARAMOUNT
IMPORTANCE. THE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER
ABBREVIATED AS ERIC IS A
POWERFUL TOOL THAT ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS CAN USE TO ENSURE THAT
THEY HAVE THE MOST UP TO DATE
VOTER ROLLS. ERIC IS A
NONPARTISAN NONPROFIT GOVERNED
BY ITS MEMBER STATES THAT
MUTUALLY AGREED TO SHARE DATA
SUCH AS VOTER REGISTRATION AND
VEHICLE LICENSED DATA IN ORDER
TO KEEP THEIR VOTER ROLLS
UPDATED AND TO REACH OUT TO
ELIGIBLE BUT UNREGISTERED
CITIZENS. WHEN A VOTER MOVES
THEY OFTEN RE REGISTER TO VOTE
IN THEIR NEW JURISDICTION, BUT
DO NOT NOTIFY THE PRIOR COUNTY
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS THAT THEY
HAVE MOVED DUE TO THE HIGHLY
MOBILE NATURE OF CALIFORNIA'S
POPULATION. IT IS LIKELY THAT
THERE ARE MILLIONS OF VOTER
REGISTRATION RECORDS THAT ARE
OUT OF DATE DUE TO A RECENT
MOVE. BY THE SECRETARY OF
STATE'S ESTIMATES THERE ARE
ALMOST FIVE MILLION UNREGISTERED
ELIGIBLE VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA
THAT IS GREATER THAN THE
POPULATION OF 26 STATES. ERIC
SUBJECTS ITSELF TO AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ITS
INFORMATION, SECURITY PRACTICES,
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND
SYSTEMS. THESE INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENTS ARE CONDUCTED. IN
ADDITION TO ERIC'S ANNUAL
INTERNAL REVIEW OF ITS RISK
THREAT ASSESSMENT, INFORMATION
SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
ASSOCIATED POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES. ERIC HAS USED
INFORMATION SECURITY ASSESSMENT
SERVICES FROM THE U. S
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
AND THE CYBERSECURITY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY.
ERIC HAS ALSO CONTRACTED WITH AN
INDEPENDENT, US BASED
CYBERSECURITY FIRM TO CONDUCT A
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF ITS
INFORMATION SECURITY, WHICH
FOUND THAT ERIC HAS STRONG DATA
SECURITY PRACTICES. I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT ERIC MEMBERS DO NOT
HAVE ACCESS TO ANOTHER MEMBER'S
DATA OR REPORTS STORED ON ERIC
SERVERS AND STATE VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ARE NEVER
CONNECTED TO ERIC. TO ENSURE
THAT VOTER INFORMATION IS
CONFIDENTIAL. ERIC EMPLOYS WHAT
IS A WHAT'S CALLED A ONE WAY
HASH, TOO SENSITIVE DATA
ELEMENTS. CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH IS
NOT MEANT TO BE DECRYPTED, AND
IT CONVERTS DATA INTO WHAT
APPEARS TO BE A STRING OF RANDOM
CHARACTERS. ERIC ONLY ACCEPTS
VOTER AND DRIVER'S LICENSE DATA
FILES THAT HAVE BEEN HASHED IN
THE MEMBER STATES ENVIRONMENT.
ONCE ERIC RECEIVES THIS HASH
DATA AND EMPLOYEES ANOTHER
HASHING PROCESS BEFORE APPLYING
ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF ENCRYPTION.
IT IS THESE ENCRYPTED DATA
POINTS, WHICH ARE THEN COMPARED
WITH THE OTHER MEMBER, STATE
DATA AND GOVERNMENT RECORDS. A B
12 OH, SIX, DIRECTS THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO JOIN ERIC
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO PROVIDE THE STATE
WITH DATA ON VOTERS WHO HAVE
MOVED IN STATE OUT OF STATE OR
DIED, AS WELL AS DATA ON
CALIFORNIANS WHO MAY BE ELIGIBLE
TO VOTE BUT WHO ARE NOT YET
REGISTERED. MEMBER STATES MISUSE
ALL ERIC REPORTS IN A MANNER
THAT COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN OUR STATE COUNTY
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE ADDRESS
CONFIRMATION NOTICE PROCESS IS
PROVIDED FOR IN CURRENT LAW.
THESE PROCESSES ENSURE VOTERS
ARE NOT UNFAIRLY REMOVED FROM
THE VOTER ROLLS. CALIFORNIA
JOINING ERIC WOULD LIKELY RESULT
IN AT LEAST 500,000 NEW
REGISTERED VOTERS AND PERHAPS UP
TO ONE MILLION NEW VOTERS.
CALIFORNIANS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
THE ACCURACY AND INTEGRITY OF
OUR VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM
HAVE BEEN EVOLVING OVER THE
YEARS. BECOMING AN ERIC MEMBER
IS A NATURAL NEXT STEP IN
CALIFORNIA'S MISSION TO PROVIDE
TO IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY,
ACCURACY AND SECURITY OF OUR
SYSTEM. MAYBE. 12 OH, SIX, IS
SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION CLERKS AND ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS AND WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF ERIC IS
SHANE HAMLIN, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF ERIC AND
CYBERSECURITY EXPERT TERENCE
SPACE. GREAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
THREE MINUTES EACH. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR GABRIEL MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
SHANE HAMLIN. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF ERIC. THE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION INFORMATION CENTER
. APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK IN FAVOR OF A B 12 06 AND
THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TODAY AND I THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN FOR
BRINGING IT FORWARD AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFFS WORK ON THE
ANALYSIS. ERICSSON FIVE OH, ONE
C THREE NONPROFIT. AS YOU HEARD
. WE'RE CURRENTLY COMPRISED OF
31 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. OUR MISSION IS TO HELP
ELECTION OFFICIALS MAINTAIN MORE
ACCURATE VOTER ROLLS AND
REGISTER MORE ELIGIBLE CITIZENS
. WE ARE A MEMBER, LEAD MEMBER
GOVERNED, MEMBER FUNDED
ORGANIZATION. ALL MEMBERS SERVE
AS DIRECTORS OF CALIFORNIA ORDER
JOINED THAT IMMEDIATELY SERVE ON
OUR GOVERNING BOARD OF
DIRECTORS. WITH THIS IN MIND.
ERIC MEMBERSHIP WORKS BEST WHEN
THE STATE'S CHIEF ELECTION
OFFICIAL IS FULLY ON BOARD AND
SUPPORTIVE OF JOINING BRIEFLY
WHAT WE DO. OUR MEMBERS SECURELY
SUBMIT VOTER REGISTRATION AND
MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT DATA.
AND THEN WE ARE ALSO CERTIFIED
TO RECEIVE AND USE DEATH DATA
FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, AND WE SUBSCRIBE
TO OFFICIAL CHANGE OF ADDRESS
DATA FROM THE FROM THE UNITED
STATES POSTAL SERVICE. UTILIZING
JUST THESE FOUR DATASETS. WE
PROVIDE OUR MEMBERS WITH REPORTS
THAT IDENTIFY INACCURATE OUT OF
DATE VOTER REGISTRATIONS.
DECEASED VOTERS. INDIVIDUALS WHO
APPEAR TO BE ELIGIBLE BUT ARE
NOT YET REGISTERED AND POSSIBLE
CASES OF ILLEGAL VOTING IN
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL AND
STATE LAWS. ARE MEMBERS USE
THESE REPORTS TO CONTACT THE
VOTERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
UPDATING THEIR RECORD, REMOVING
AN ADULT EXCUSE ME, INELIGIBLE
VOTERS AND DECEASED VOTERS
CONTACTING AND PROVIDING VOTER
REGISTRATION INFORMATION TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO APPEAR TO BE
ELIGIBLE AND ARE NOT YET
REGISTERED. AND INVESTIGATE
POSSIBLE CASES OF ILLEGAL VOTING
. ERIC HAS ALWAYS TAKEN DATA
SECURITY AND PRIVACY, PRIVACY
SERIOUSLY. IT'S BAKED INTO OUR
GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS FROM DAY
ONE. WE ARE GENERALLY AWARE OF
CHANGING DATA PRIVACY STANDARDS
GLOBALLY AND HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND WE'RE WATCHING
ESTATES ADOPT STRONG PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS FOLLOWING
CALIFORNIA'S OUTSTANDING
EXAMPLE. IN THAT REGARD, OUR
BYLAWS AND MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT
INCLUDE EXTENSIVE DATA, PRIVACY
AND PROTECTION PROVISIONS, IN
FACT, MAKE UP A LARGE SHARE OF
THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AND OUR
TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
INCLUDES MULTIPLE LAYERS OF
SECURITY DESIGNED TO PROTECT ALL
THE DATA. WE HAVEN'T USED.
EXAMPLES OF THAT INCLUDE THE
HASHING APPLICATION, WHICH THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN SPOKE
TO ADDITIONALLY, OUR MEMBERS ARE
BOUND BY THE FEDERAL DATA
PROTECTION LAWS THAT APPLY TO
THE DATA WE USE, AND THOSE ARE
AGAIN DETAILED IN OUR MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENT. AND WE FOLLOW
INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED
CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS. WE DO
CONDUCT THOSE ANNUAL INTERNAL
AND EXTERNAL REVIEWS SHE
DISCUSSED. WE SUBJECT OURSELVES
TO THOSE EXTERNAL REVIEWS. WE
HAVE WORKED WITH STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES AS
WE'VE ON BOARDED NEW MEMBERS TO
PROVIDE ASSURANCES THAT OUR DATA
HANDLING PRACTICES ARE
REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE WITH
THAT. I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YOU MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU WILL
NOW INVITE ANYONE ELSE IN THE
HEARING ROOM TO COME FORWARD AND
SUPPORT OUR SECOND WITNESS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M TERRENCE VISA
TECHNICAL STRATEGIST AT OPEN
TEXT CORPORATION. I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED IN DESIGNING AN
ARCHITECT AND DATA PRIVACY
PROTOCOLS AND SYSTEMS FOR OVER
25 YEARS. I SPENT NINE YEARS AT
MICROSOFT. LIVING DEVELOPMENT
TEAMS THAT DESIGNED ENCRYPTION
SYSTEMS FOR WINDOWS AND INTERNET
EXPLORER AND HELPED START VOTING
SECURITIES SPINOFF OF STANFORD
UNIVERSITY IN 2002. OUR SYSTEMS
CURRENTLY PROTECT PAYMENT,
TELECOM, HEALTHCARE, AUTOMOTIVE
AND RETAIL DATA AT SOME OF THE
LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DATA
PROTECTION MECHANISMS EMPLOYED
TO PROTECT DATA IN THE ERIC
SYSTEM. GIVEN THE NUMBER AND
SCALE OF DATA BREACHES IN THE
NEWS OVER THE PAST YEARS, WON'T
SURPRISE ANYONE HERE THAT
APPROPRIATE DATA PROTECTION
PRECAUTIONS ARE OFTEN USED
ENOUGH. IN LARGE DATABASES OF
PERSONAL DATA PROTECTING PROPER
PROPERLY PROTECTING DATA ISN'T
EASY TO DO IN MANY ENTERPRISES
SADLY RESORTED TO ATTEMPTING TO
PROTECT THE EDGES OF THEIR
NETWORK RATHER THAN BUILD STRONG
PROTECTIONS DIRECTLY INTO
APPLICATIONS AND DATABASES.
THERE ARE GOOD STANDARD TOOLS
THAT CAN BE USED TO DATA AND IF
I DATA STANDARDS EXIST IN THIS
SPACE, AND THERE ARE PROMISING
NEW EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ERIC
HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO PROTECT
SENSITIVE DATA USING A VARIETY
OF OPERATIONAL ACCESS CONTROL IN
CRYPTOGRAPHIC MECHANISMS. I'VE
REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION AND
THEY'RE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT,
BUT I'M NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO COMPLETE AND FULL PROTOCOL
REVIEW, BUT I'D LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT THE POSITIVE STEPS
ERIC HAS TAKEN TO INCORPORATE
DATA PROTECTION DEEP INTO THE
PRODUCT. THEY'VE EMPLOYED A
DEFENSE IN DEPTH STRATEGY SO
THAT NO SINGLE MECHANISM IS A
POINT OF FAILURE AT RISK. HAS
EMPLOYED OPERATIONAL SECURITY
STRATEGY TO INCLUDE ENSURE THAT
SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS ARE VETTED
AND THERE ARE CLEARLY DEMARCATED
ROLES OF WHO CAN DO WHAT WITH
WHICH PIECES OF DATA HAS HAD
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OVER THE
SYSTEM AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
AND IS EMPLOYED CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EXPERTS, INCLUDING RESEARCHERS
THAT ARE PIONEERED VOTING
SECURITY OVER THE PAST DECADES,
LOOKING AT THOSE PROTOCOLS AH,
PRESS. MOST COMFORTING TO ME IS
THEY'RE USING STANDARDIZED
MECHANISMS TO ENSURE DATA
PRIVACY, INCLUDING KEYED HASH
FUNCTIONS TO DEANNA IDENTIFIED
DATA. COORDINATE ITEMS ARE
PROTECTED USING HASH FUNCTIONS,
WHICH ARE VERY STRONG WAY OF
EXTRACTING AND IDENTIFIER FROM
DATA THAT CAN BE USED TO MATCH
BUT NOT RECOVER DATA. THESE
CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASHING PERIMETERS
HAVE BEEN USED. AH ACROSS, UH,
BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT YOU
WOULD USE WITH YOUR BROWSER YOUR
PHONE TO PROTECT YOU IN THOSE
WAYS AND HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY
THE FASHION MOTIONS. EMPLOYMENT
SYSTEM ADMINISTER SUBJECT OF
FEDERAL NIST STANDARDS FOR OVER
20 YEARS, THESE FUNCTIONS HAVE
STOOD THE TEST OF TIME. IT'S
WORTH NOTING THAT THE HASH
FUNCTION THAT'S BEING USED HERE
IF IT WAS BROKEN. UM IF IT WAS
BECAUSE HE USED TO GET VOTER
DATA COULD ALSO GIVE YOU CONTROL
OF THE BITCOIN NETWORK. UM MAYBE
SOMETHING PEOPLE SOON TO
UNDERSTAND. AH HOWEVER, HASH
FUNCTION IN THE HOUSE AND HOW
THEY COULD USE CAN BE QUITE
TRICKY. THERE ARE ATTACKS THAT
CAN CREATE TABLES OR OTHER
THINGS, BUT, UM, THEY HAVE
EMPLOYED TECHNIQUES TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE PUBLICLY COMPUTABLE
ATTACKS ARE NOT HAPPENING. UM SO
I'M COMFORTABLE STATING THAT
THEY HAVE EMPLOYED DUE DILIGENCE
IN, UH AND, UH, EMPLOYING THE
TECHNIQUE, MICRO ZONES WITHIN
WITHIN THIS PROTOCOL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH WITH THAT WE WILL ARE
THERE ANYONE OTHERS IN THE
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. LARISSA MERCADO ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
CORRECTIONAL, ELECTION OFFICIALS
IN SUPPORT AND A PROUD SPONSOR.
THANK YOU. ALRIGHT THAT HELP.
GOOD AFTERNOON, JAMES MICHAEL
POWELL WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY
MISSILE EMPLOYEES. WE RECENTLY
MOVED TO A SUPPORT POSITION.
THANK YOU. WONDERFUL WITH THAT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE HEARING
ROOM IN OPPOSITION?
HMM. MY NAME IS COLLEEN BRITAIN
. I'M WITH THE ELECTION
INTEGRITY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.
MAYBE 12 OH, SIX PASSED IN THE
ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE BY
A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. THAT VOTE WAS
NOT A UNANIMOUS ENDORSEMENT OF
ERIC. BUT IT WAS AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT ALL THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT ARE
STATES VOTER ROLLS ARE IN
SHAMBLES. BEFORE WE LOOK AT
THIRD PARTIES SOLUTION TO VOTE
CAL, WE NEED TO LOOK WITHIN E I
P. C A HAS REPEATEDLY SENT
DOCUMENTATION TO THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE SHOWING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF VOTER VOTER ROLL
DISCREPANCIES IN VOCAL. THAT
DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN IGNORED.
ONE MUST ASK. DO YOU REALLY WANT
ACCURATE VOTER ROLLS? OR ARE YOU
CONTENT WITH THE STATUS CROW
MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT IN ERIC HAS
OFTEN BEEN USED BY STATES. DO AS
AN EXCUSE TO ACTUALLY HIDE THE
EXAMINE OF EXAMINATION OF VOTER
ROLL DATA BY LEGITIMATE RESEARCH
ORGANIZATIONS. IS ERIC OCCURS OR
A CURE. ERIC REQUIRES STATES TO
TRANSMIT SENSITIVE PRIVATE
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF
CALIFORNIANS MORE THAN JUST
VOTER ROLL INFORMATION. PAGE 14
OF THE CONTRACT. IT SAYS MEMBER
STATES SHALL TRANSMIT ON A
REGULAR BASIS. EVERY 60 DAYS
DATA RELATING TO INDIVIDUALS
THAT EXIST IN THE RECORDS OF ALL
OTHER AGENCIES THAT PERFORM ANY
VOTER ROLL REGISTRATION
FUNCTION. THIS INCLUDES ALL
GOVERNMENT SERVICES. COLLEGES,
ETCETERA. THIS DATA INCLUDES.
ACTIVE INACTIVE VOTERS. LUDES,
EVERYONE WHO COULD POSSIBLY
GENERATE A BALLOT THOSE
APPROACHING VOTING VOTERS AGE.
EVEN THOSE HERE ILLEGALLY YET
ISSUED AN I D. THE DATA INCLUDES
NAME ADDRESS DATE OF BIRTH
LICENSE NUMBER. LAST FOUR SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER, VOTER ACTIVITY
, PHONE NUMBERS, EMAILS AND MORE
. THESE DISCLOSURES APPEAR TO BE
IN VIOLATION OF THE DRIVER'S
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. MORE
DETAILS OF THAT ARE IN OUR OUR
OUR LETTER THAT WE SENT UM, BUT
ESSENTIALLY, UM, THE ACCESS
PERSONAL INFORMATION IS NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED, REDISTRIBUTED READ
, DISCLOSED OR USED TO CONTACT
INDIVIDUALS. ERIC DOES ALL. READ
DISCLOSES SENSITIVE PRIVATE
INFORMATION TO CARE. THE CENTER
FOR ELECTION INFORMATION AND
RESEARCH. ACCORDING TO JUDICIAL
WATCH CARE ACTUALLY COMPILES THE
LIST OF ELIGIBLE BUT NOT YET
REGISTERED PERSONS. ERIC
MANDATES THAT STATES CONTRACT
1995% OF THEIR ELIGIBLE LIST.
YEAH, I'M ALMOST DONE. SINCE
THERE'S ONLY ONE OF ME LET ME
FINISH IN SEPTEMBER. 2022 THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OF COLORADO,
ADMITTED THAT SHE MAILED 3
30,000 POSTCARDS. NONCITIZENS
ENCOURAGE THEM TO REGISTER TO
VOTE. SHE DISCOVERED THIS AFTER
HER EMPLOYEES COMPARED THE LIST
OF 102,000 PEOPLE PROVIDED BY
ERIC TOO. TO A COLORADO DATABASE
OF RESIDENT ISSUED DRIVER'S
LICENSES. SECRETARY OF STATE OF
FLORIDA STATED THAT HE HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE
PERSONAL INFORMATION OF FLORIDA
CITIZENS, WHICH ERIC REQUIRES
THE STATE TO SHARE SO SORRY. WE
JUST WANT TO BE FAIR TO
EVERYBODY. SO I'M GONNA NEED YOU
TO WRAP UP. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. OKAY WE HAVE
OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
DEFINITELY OPPOSED MEANT TO BURY
WITH ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT
CALIFORNIA PLEASE DO NOT PASS
THIS. THANK YOU. WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AND ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
BAUER-KAHAN, UM WELL, THANK YOU
. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S I KNOW THAT
ELECTION IN GOVERNANCE AND.
MAKING SURE THAT PUBLIC TRUSTS
AND KNOWS THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE
FAIR AND FREE HAS BEEN A LIFE.
WORK FOR YOU. AND SO I KNOW THIS
IS A CONTINUATION OF YOUR
CONTINUED WORK. AND, UM YOU FAIR
FEEL DEEPLY AND MAKING SURE THAT
EVERY SINGLE CALIFORNIA AND
FEELS LIKE OUR ELECTIONS, UM ARE
FAIR AND FREE. AND SO I JUST
WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDRESS THE ALLEGATIONS FROM
THE OPPOSITION THAT THIS WOULD
ALLOW FOR VOTER FRAUD. I MEAN,
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT ALLOWS
US TO HAVE A VOTER RECORDS THAT
ARE ACCURATE THAT WILL THEN
ALLOW US TO MAIL BALLOTS ONLY TO
THOSE VOTERS WHO ARE INDEED
REGISTERED, AND, UM, IT JUST
PROVIDES FOR THE INTEGRITY OF
THE WHOLE SYSTEM. SO UM, MAKING
SURE OUR VOTER ROLLS ARE
ACCURATE IS JUST PARAMOUNT. WHEN
IT COMES TO A VOTING SYSTEM
WHERE, LIKE CALIFORNIA, WHERE WE
ARE MAILING BALLOTS TO EVERY
REGISTERED VOTER. SO IT'S A
GREAT TOOL FOR US, AND WE'VE
COME A LONG WAY IN CALIFORNIA
WITH OUR VOTE CAL SYSTEM WHICH
IS OUR STATEWIDE VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AND WE HAVE
A PARTNERSHIP WITH DMV TO DO
AUTOMATED VOTER REGISTRATION,
AND OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERY ELIGIBLE PERSON IN
CALIFORNIA WHO IS A CITIZEN IS
REGISTERED AND CAN VOTE. THANK
YOU. AND I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD
TO CONTINUE YOUR CONTINUED
LEADERSHIP OF THE SPACE. UH
SILLY MEMBER BENNETT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY. I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE
IS BETTER OFF WITH YOUR
EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS GOING TO
BE BETTER OFF WITH YOU BEING
HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE WITH THE
EXPERTISE YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. UM HAVE A
COUPLE QUESTIONS. UM I DO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS EFFORTS
IN THIS REGARD. WE'VE HAD A LOT
OF CONVERSATIONS, AND I
APPRECIATED THOSE HONEST FRANK
AND GENUINE TALKS. QUESTION FOR
ERIC. I KNOW I'VE READ THE
BYLAWS AND IN THE BY LAWS, IT
DOES REQUIRE THE MEMBERS TO, UH
, I ACTUALLY DID READ THE
VIOLAS. I BROUGHT THEM. YES,
THANK YOU. IT DOES REQUIRE THEM
TO ACT. UM ON INFORMATION
RECEIVED, IT SAYS WHEN THEY'RE
CREDIBLE DATA RECEIVED
INDICATING INFORMATIONS, UM OUT
OF DATE. THE MEMBERS HAVE TO
REACH OUT, BUT IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE ANY ACTION
OR TO REMOVE THEM FROM THEIR
VOTER ROLLS. WHY IS THAT? SO I
THINK, IF NOT TO GET INTO THEM,
BUT ACTUALLY, THAT SENTENCE IN
THAT SECTION DOES REQUIRE THAT
THEY WHEN THEY RECEIVED CREDIBLE
INFORMATION INDICATING THAT
INFORMATION EXISTING VOTERS
RECORD IS DEEMED INACCURATE.
ACTIVATE THE MEMBER SHALL AT A
MINIMUM, INITIATE CONTACT WITH
THE VOTER IN ORDER TO CORRECT
THE INACCURACY OR OBTAIN
INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO
INACTIVE INACTIVATE OR UPDATE
THE VOTERS RECORD IN THAT
LANGUAGE MIRRORS THE NBR, A, THE
NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT
UNDER WHICH YOU CANNOT
IMMEDIATELY REMOVE A VOTER
BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BAD ADDRESS
FOR THEM, SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO
FIT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE NVR. A IF THEY KNOW THE
VOTER IS NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE
THEY WERE STATE. INITIATE
CONTACT THROUGH MAILING AS
REQUIRED UNDER THE NBR. A. THE
MAILING COMES BACK ON
DELIVERABLE. THEN THEY CAN PLACE
THAT VOTER ON INACTIVE STATUS AS
REQUIRED. UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
THEY REMAIN ON INACTIVE STATUS
THROUGH TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
THEN THEY CAN REMOVE THEM. THEY
CAN, OF COURSE, REMOVE DECEASED
VOTERS. NOTHING IN HERE PREVENTS
THEM FROM REMOVING DECEASED
VOTERS. OKAY, THAT'S IMPORTANT.
I KNOW WE'RE WE HAVE SOME
UPCOMING CALLS TO CLARIFY THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT SOME
MORE INFORMATION OR NOT. SO IF I
AM ELECTION OFFICIAL AND I GET
ERIK DAD, IT SAYS THAT JOHN
SMITH HAS MOVED. I AM THEN
REQUIRED TO CONTACT JOHN SMITH.
OTHER THROUGH POSTCARDS OR SOME
OTHER MEANS. JOHN SMITH DOES NOT
RESPOND OR IF I GET IT BACK AS
UNDER DELIVERABLE. WHAT HAPPENS
, MR PELLERIN IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WE CAN MOVE THEM TO
THE INACTIVE FILE, AND THAT'S
WHERE THEY THEY WILL NOT BE
MAILED A BALLOT. THEY JUST ARE
ON THE INACTIVE FILE. UM, AND IF
THEY DO SHOW UP DURING THAT
TIME, THEN WE COULD REACTIVATE
THEM. BUT I'LL STAY ON THAT
INACTIVE FILE FOR TWO FEDERAL
GENERAL ELECTIONS BEFORE WE CAN
ACTUALLY CANCEL THEM AND YOU
SAID YOU MAY MOVE THEM TO AN
ACTIVE MAY OR WE WILL. WE WOULD
. YES IS THAT NOT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S THAT
SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED AFTER A
JUDICIAL WATCH SUIT WITH
SECRETARY OF STATE I JUST I'M
STRUGGLING ON MY SIDE OF THE
AISLE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING. I
REALLY STUDIED THIS HARD. I LOOK
AT THE OPPOSITION AND I KNOW
SOME STATES OBJECTED TO WHAT'S
CALLED VOTER, YOU KNOW, ROLL
BLOATING IF YOU WILL, BUT IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, I THINK WE
DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF
REGISTERING VOTERS. WE HAVE THE
DMV PROGRAM AND OTHER PROGRAMS
TO ME. THE DEFICIENCY IS
CLEANING UP OUR VOTER ROLLS. AND
SO I'M COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR ON CLEANING UP OUR
VOTER RULES IN A FAIR WAY. BUT
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO UNIVERSAL
VOTE BY MAIL, WE HAVE TO MAKE
SURE OUR VOTER ROLLS ARE
ACCURATE. AND SO IF THIS IS A
TOOL THAT CAN BE USED TO HELP
THAT I DO SEE THAT AS A BENEFIT
OVER THE STATUS QUO. UM SO I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND WANT TO CONTINUE OUR
DISCUSSIONS AND FIGURE OUT HOW
TO STREAMLINE TO MAKE THE
PROCESS BETTER FOR EVERYONE AND
OUR PHOTO VOTER ROLLS TO BE
CLEANER. UM MR CHAIRMAN, MAY I
ADD ONE LITTLE THING? GO AHEAD
VERY BRIEFLY. I'M SORRY. VERY
BRIEFLY. THIS IS THIS IS FROM
JUST IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANT
TO ADD? VERY BRIEFLY, OKAY, JUST
TO BE FINE. OKAY. COLORADO HAS
BEEN A MENDER MEMBER OF ERIC
FOR, UH, SINCE ITS FOUNDING IN
2012. IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR,
JUDICIAL WATCH ANNOUNCED THAT
COLORADO'S SECRETARY OF STATE
HAD TO AGREE. UH TO A SETTLEMENT
LAWSUIT ALLEGING THAT COLORADO
HAD FAILED TO REMOVE INELIGIBLE
VOTERS FROM ITS ROLES IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR. THAT'S
COLORADO'S THAT THAT'S
COLORADO'S PROBLEM. I'M JUST I'M
JUST SAYING THAT SINCE THIS
LAWSUIT, THEY HAVE UPTICK.
THEY'RE THEY'RE CLEANING UP OF
THEIR ROLES FROM ABOUT 78% SO
FROM 100 JUST AND LOOK, I WANT
THIS TO HOPEFULLY BE BIPARTISAN
, AND I WANT TO. I UNDERSTAND
THE OPPOSITION, BUT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CLEAN UP OUR VOTER
ROLLS. BUT ULTIMATELY THAT'S THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH STATE.
THAT'S TRUE. ERIC IS NOT THE
KEEPER OF VOTER ROLLS. THEY'RE
THERE JUST TO PROVIDE AN
EXCHANGE INFORMATION. WHICH I
THINK THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL. SO
WITH THAT, I CONCLUDE MY
COMMENTS, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? YEAH,
I'M GONNA BE QUICK. I GOTTA
DIRTY LOOK WHEN I WHEN I PRESS
MY RED BUTTON, UM, I THINK I
JUST HAVE FIRST OF ALL, YOU ARE
THE EXPERT ON THIS. UH YOU KNOW
, ELECTIONS IN THIS BUILDING,
OBVIOUSLY, AND APPROVED REALLY
APPRECIATE. YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO, AND HAVE A GREAT
DEAL OF RESPECT FOR YOU. UM I
THINK IT'S JUST TO ME IT SEEMS
LIKE JUST A TON OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GIVING TO
AN ORGANIZATION. UM UH, YOU
KNOW, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION AND
I UNDERSTAND THE SECURITY AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I'M NOT
REALLY SURE PEOPLE ARE AWARE
THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND
SO UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE
PRIVACY COMMITTEE. THIS IS WHY
IT'S GONE GOING THROUGH THIS
COMMITTEE. BUT IF YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO THAT, OBVIOUSLY, YOU
KNOW, HAPPY TO HEAR IT. BUT THAT
DOES CONCERN ME IN A GREAT DEAL
, BUT I'M GLAD ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
SALIH AND YOU'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS ON JUST GENERALLY
THIS TOPIC AND THOSE KEY PRIVATE
DATA POINTS ARE HASHED WHERE
THEY ARE NOT TRANSFERRED IN
READABLE DATA. THAT WOULD GIVE
PEOPLE THAT INFORMATION SO I
DON'T KNOW IF SHE WANTS TO TALK
MORE ABOUT THAT, BUT SURE. SO
FIRST I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHY WE
NEED THOSE SENSITIVE DATA.
THEY'RE CRITICAL TO PROVIDING
QUALITY ACTIONABLE DATA BACK TO
OUR MEMBERS. IF YOU'RE NOT IF
YOU'RE COMPARING VOTER RECORDS
WITHOUT DATES OF BIRTH OR LAST
FOUR SOCIAL DMV. SO WHEN WE
RECEIVE THEM, WE CAN'T READ THEM
IN PLAIN TEXT, BUT WE CAN STILL
COMPARE THEM TO OTHER SIMILAR
DATA THAT HAS BEEN HASHED USING
THE SAME ALGORITHM SO WE CAN USE
THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF
MATCHING AND PROVIDING REPORTS.
THEY ACTUALLY GET HASHED AGAIN,
AS WAS EXPLAINED INSIDE OUR
ENVIRONMENT, SO AS THEY REST
WITHIN OUR SECURE SERVERS,
THEY'RE NOT READABLE TO HUMANS
AND THEN THE OTHER DATA. WE HAVE
OUR NAMES AND ADDRESSES WHICH IN
OTHER STATES ARE PUBLIC. NOT ALL
PUBLIC. ALSO NOT EXCUSE ME. NOT
ALL STATES TREAT THOSE AS PUBLIC
BUT THEY'RE GENERALLY PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND THEY'RE ALSO
OBVIOUSLY USEFUL IN THE MATCHING
PROCESS, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR
CONCERNS. OKAY? WE UNDERSTAND
THAT I WAS AT THE TABLE AMONG
THE SEVEN STATES THAT BUILT AND
FOUNDED ERIC PRIVACY OF THE DATA
WAS ESSENTIAL. WE WERE NOT GOING
TO AGREE TO CREATE ERIC AND PUT
IN MONEY A TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND
PUT OUR REPUTATIONS ON THE LINE.
UNLESS WE FELT LIKE THIS SYSTEM
WAS ARCHITECTED TO PROTECT THAT
DATA. GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
OKAY, UM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUICKS SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL.
THANK YOU, UH, I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FOR
BRINGING FORWARD THIS BILL. I'M
GOING TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH
THE COMMENTS OF ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FIT. WE ARE SO LUCKY TO HAVE
YOUR EXPERTISE IN THIS BUILDING
AND IN THIS LEGISLATURE, UM YOU
KNOW, THE ISSUES OF PROTECTING
OUR DEMOCRACY ARE SO FUNDAMENTAL
TO THE WORK THAT WE DO HERE AND
WE REALLY ARE GRATEFUL TO HAVE
YOUR EXPERTISE. I KNOW THIS BILL
HAS GONE THROUGH THE ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE
CURRENT CHAIR IN THE FORMER
CHAIR AND MANY OTHERS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD. WANNA
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH OUR
OFFICE TO, UM, TAKE AMENDMENTS
TO STRENGTHEN THIS BILL IN TERMS
OF CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS IN
TERMS OF PROTECTING OUR
UNDOCUMENTED COMMUNITY IN TERMS
OF PROTECTING PRIVACY, FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS REALLY, REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF YOU AND
YOUR STAFF WITH OUR STAFF TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD GET TO A
GOOD PLACE. WE'RE ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH THE BENEFITS OF THIS
BILL AND PROTECT PRIVACY. SO I'M
VERY, VERY GRATEFUL. UH I AM YOU
KNOW, SOMEWHAT CHAGRINED BY THE
FOLKS OUT THERE WHO ARE
PROMOTING CONSPIRACY THEORIES
THAT ARE UNDERMINING THE FAITH
AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR DEMOCRACY
. PEOPLE POLITICIANS WHO ARE
DOING THAT FOR THEIR OWN
PURPOSES. IT'S REALLY A SAD AND
SHAMEFUL THING. BUT THANK YOU
FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING
TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE. HAPPY TO
RECOMMEND AN AYE VOTE, AND WITH
THAT WOULD INVITE YOU TO CLOSE
AND THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK
YOUR STAFF FOR HELPING US WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS. I THINK IT
REALLY MAKES THE BILL STRONGER
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS, A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL NUMBER 12 12 06 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PELLERIN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL HIGH, GABRIEL I.
PATERSON. PATERSON. NO BARRICADE
KHN OKAY, HAND BENNETT.
BENNETT, I, SALLY SALLY I PHONE
. IRWIN IRWIN, I LOWENTHAL EYE
POPPING UP AND I WIX WIX. AYE
WILSON WILSON? AYE.
OKAY UM, AT THIS MOMENT, WITH
WITH EVERYONE'S PERMISSION, WE
ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE CROSSED ARTISTS AND DOTTED
OUR I'S. WE'RE GOING TO, UM,
RETAKE THE VOTE ON EIGHT. THAT'S
FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR FRIEDMAN
RELATED TO TICKET SELLERS. SO AT
THIS POINT IS THERE A MOTION ON
A B? A. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SOMEBODY MEMBER WICKS. A SECOND
BY SIMPLY MEMBER BENNETT. AH
MADAM SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER FOUR A B EIGHT
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FRIEDMAN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSES AMENDED
TO THIS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. UM NICE. UM GABRIEL,
I. PATERSON PATERSON. NO
BAUER-KAHAN. BAUER-KAHAN. AYE,
BENNETT. BENNETT, I, SALLY
SALINO PHONE. IRWIN. OR WHEN I
WILL WANT ALL HAPPENED. IT
HAPPENED. I WICKS. WICKS I
WILSON. WILSON I.
EIGHT TO THAT BILL IS OUT. WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. AT THIS POINT,
WE WILL INVITE FORWARD
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LACKEY. OH, I'M
SORRY. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD.
YOU CAMOUFLAGE BACK THERE, AND
AT THIS POINT, I JUST WANT TO
TAKE A MOMENT OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE TO THANK OUR STAFF AND
COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS TO THE
CONSULTANTS FOR BOTH THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY WHO I KNOW
HAVE WORKED REALLY, REALLY HARD
IN PREPARATION FOR THIS HEARING
A LOT OF COMPLICATED AND NOVEL
ISSUES, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO
EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION
APPRECIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF
OUR STAFF FOR WORKING SO HARD.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OPPOSITION WE HAVE EMOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS, A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL.
REMEMBER WARD. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'LL BE BRIEF
GIVEN THAT, UM THAT THAT MOVE. I
WANT TO START BY ACCEPTING THE
CHAIRS, SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AND
THANK THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT
FOR ALL THE HARD WORK ON THIS
BILL. WE KNOW THAT CITIES ARE
MAKING REALLY STRONG INVESTMENTS
IN OUR BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, THEY'VE BEEN FAILING
WHEN WE HAVE VEHICLES THAT ARE
PARKED IN THOSE AND IT'S BEEN
DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE, GIVEN THE
CURRENT NATURE OF HOW WE ENFORCE
TICKETING. HOWEVER, WE HAVE
SOMETHING ALREADY ON THE BOOKS
THAT WE'VE BEEN EXPLORING IN A
PILOT FORM TO BE ABLE TO USE
REMOTE TICKETING FORWARD FACING
CAMERAS WHEN VEHICLES ARE IN
VIOLATION OF BUS, BUS LANES, BUS
ONLY LANES SO 83 61 WOULD CREATE
A SIMILAR OPTIONAL PROGRAM FOR
CITIES TO EFFICIENTLY. TICKET
USING FRONT FACING CAMERAS HERE
WITH IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
, WHICH IS ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR
A CITY PARKING ENFORCEMENT
VEHICLES. THIS ALL ALLOWS CITIES
TO BE MORE EFFICIENT IN THEIR
TICKETING OPTIONS TO DISSUADE
INAPPROPRIATE ACTIVITY AND
SELECT CORRIDORS AND ENSURE THAT
OUR BIKE LANES ARE SAFE IN
FUNCTIONING PIECE OF
TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE
AND TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL, WE HAVE STEPHANIE
ESTRADA FROM THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE, AND WHY I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
STEPHANIE ESTRADA WITH CRUZ
STRATEGIES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
OF SAN JOSE HERE TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF A B 3 61. SINCE 2015
, THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, HAS
CONSTRUCTED OVER 100 MILES OF
CLASS TWO AND FOUR BIKE WEIGHS
ALIGNING WITH OUR STATES, ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION AND CLIMATE GOALS
, HOWEVER, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
OUR BIKE WEIGHS RELIES HEAVILY
ON KEEPING THEM FREE FROM ALL
OBSTRUCTIONS. UNFORTUNATELY THE
MOST COMMON AND DANGEROUS TREND
THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN BEIT WIGS
ARE PARKING VIOLATIONS, CAUSING
BIKE LIST TO VEER INTO TO UNSAFE
VEHICLE TRAFFIC. POSING A RISK
TO ALL ON THE ROAD. MAYBE 3 61
WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITIES LIKE SAN JOSE TO EXPLORE
A PILOT USING SAFE PHOTOGRAPHIC
TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPLEMENT PARKING
COMPLIANCE OPERATIONS AND
REDUCING BIKE WAY OBSTRUCTIONS.
JOSE IS PROUD TO HAVE A ROBUST
AND SOUND DIGITAL PRIVACY POLICY
THAT'S STRICTLY REGULATES ANY
USE AND DATA COLLECTION OF
IMAGING TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC TRUST. WE
WOULD ALSO ENSURE THAT WE SUCH A
PROGRAM WOULD ALIGN WITH OUR
CITIES EQUITY PRINCIPLES AND
INCLUDE MECHANISMS THAT WILL NOT
ADD FINANCIAL BURDEN ON
COMMUNITIES OF CONCERNS IN
CLOSING. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND ASK YOU FOR A YES VOTE
ON A B 3 61. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT HERE
IN THE HEARING ROOM? REPLICATION
IS NPR. THIS YEAR AND
REPRESENTATIVE STREETS FOR ALL
AND HELPING ADVICE. THANK YOU
WITH THAT. ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEE
NONE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. MIKE'S NOT ON. ANY,
UH, ANY ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE? SEEING NONE
. OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND AS SOMEONE REWARD. I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL
ATTENTION TO THIS ISSUE AND
THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE STAFF. I THINK THE
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'VE AGREED TO
ACCEPT WILL STRENGTHEN THE
PRIVACY PROTECTION STILL ALLOWED
YOU TO GET OUT WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO SO APPRECIATE THE
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH HERE.
HAPPY TO RECOMMEND, AND I VOTE
AND WHAT THAT WOULD INVITE YOU
TO CLOSE MR. CHAIR, AGREE FULLY
AND REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS, A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 16 3 61 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I PATERSON
PATERSON. NOT VOTING.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE
BENNETT BENNETT. I SALI. PHªN
IRWIN. LOW AND TALL. I THOUGHT I
POPPING POPPING I WICKS WICKS
WILSON. WE'LL SEND NOT VOTING.
TODAY THAT SAY HE'S SORRY. IRWIN
IRWIN. I A. YOUR BILL IS OUT. 70
WILL KEEP THE ROAD OPEN, PERHAPS
IN MEMBERS. THANK YOU. NOW WE'LL
GO TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LACKEY.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS FOR
ALLOWING ME TO PRESENT THIS
CHILD SAFETY BILL. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SOMEBODY MEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN A SECOND BY OUR VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU. I'LL TRY TO BE
AS DIRECT AS I CAN. UM THIS BILL
RESTORES LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ABILITY TO ENTER DATA INTO THE
CHILD ABUSE CENTRAL INDEX,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS KHAKI. IT
ALSO MOVES OVER THE GRIEVANCE
PROCESS. AND TAKES IT FROM LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND
TRANSFERS IT TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE. IN THE 19 SIXTIES.
THIS DATABASE WAS ORIGINALLY
DEVELOPED AS A REFERENCE POINT
FOR INVESTIGATIONS INTO CHILD
SAFETY. IN THE 19 EIGHTIES, IT
BEGAN BEING USED FOR SCREENING
PURPOSES WHEN AUTHORIZING
INDIVIDUALS, UH, HAD CLOSE
CONTACT WITH CHILDREN. THIS DUAL
PURPOSE ENCOMPASSED HOW SOCIAL
SERVICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROVIDED CHILDREN PROTECTION
SERVICES IN 2007 DUE TO
LITIGATION. THE GRIEVANCE
PROCESS WAS DEVELOPED FOR
INDIVIDUALS TO APPEAL THEIR
LISTINGS. THIS MEANT THAT THOSE
WHO ARE FACTUALLY INNOCENT COULD
HAVE THEIR LISTING REMOVED AND
BE ABSOLVED OF STATE IMPOSED
STIGMA. IN 2011 IN AN EFFORT TO
LIMIT LIABILITY, THE LEGISLATURE
REMOVED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ABILITY TO ENTER DATA DIRECTLY
INTO KHAKI, OR THIS INDEX
PROVIDED STANDARDS FOR INCLUSION
AND ORDERED SPECIFIC REMOVALS.
THIS MEANS LAW ENFORCEMENT. HAS
TO SEND THEIR REPORTS TO SOCIAL
SERVICES FOR THEM TO ENTER INTO
KHAKI. THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
AUDIT COMMITTEE APPROVED MY
REQUEST TO REVIEW KHAKI OR THIS
INDEX, WHICH UNCOVERED MORE THAN
HALF THE REPORTS AT THE COUNTY
LEVEL HAD FAILED TO BE ENTERED
INTO THE STATEWIDE DATABASE. AND
ALSO PROVIDED THERE WERE 28 DAYS
DELAYS FOR ENTRIES WHICH COULD
ALLOW SOMEONE WHO HAD HAD ABUSED
CHILDREN TO BE APPROVED FOR
SCREENING IN THE INTERVENING
PERIOD. ACTING AUDITOR DESCRIBED
THE REPORTING PROCESS IS
CUMBERSOME AND ERROR PRONE. THEY
ALSO SAID THE UNRELIABILITY OF
THE DATABASE PUTS CHILDREN AT
RISK. THE FLAWS IN THE DATABASE
MEANT THAT THOSE AGENCIES COULD
NOT DEPEND ON THE DATA TO THE
DATABASE TO HELP PROTECT
CHILDREN. THE DOJ IS PREVIOUSLY
CONCLUDED THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
REPORTS ARE HELD TO A HIGHER
STANDARD BECAUSE THEY'RE
PREPARED FOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION INSTEAD OF
DEPENDENCY CASES. IT'S ESSENTIAL
TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION ENTERED
INTO THIS INDEX. AN IMPROVEMENT
IN THE QUALITY OF DATABASE
PROVIDES DECISION MAKERS WITH
THE ACCURATE UP TO DATE AND
RELIABLE INFORMATION SO THAT
THEY CAN MAKE THE RIGHT
DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD
SAFETY. AFTER WE LOST GABRIEL
FERNANDEZ AND MY DISTRICT L. A
COUNTY LOOKED INWARD TO SEE HOW
WE COULD AVOID SIMILAR TRAGEDIES
IN THE FUTURE. THE BLUE RIBBON
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT WE
IMPROVE THE COORDINATION BETWEEN
SOCIAL SERVICES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT. SINCE THAT TIME.
VALLEY WHICH I REPRESENT THE
MAJORITY, OR AT LEAST A LARGE
PORTION HAS LOST ANIMAL ANTHONY
AVALOS AND NOAH QUATTRO, WHO ARE
ALSO ABOUT THE SAME AGE 10 OR
YOUNGER. WE NEED TO DO BETTER
FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN. THIS
INDEX AND OUR SYSTEM SERVING
CHILDREN HAVE DEVELOPED OVER
TIME. WE NEED TO CONTINUOUSLY
WORK TO FILL THE CRACKS THAT
THESE CASES FALL THROUGH WAS
STRENGTHENED. BASED RESPECT FOR
ALL COMMUNITIES. I'VE ALSO
INCLUDED THE PROVISION MOVING
THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS OVER TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND ACKNOWLEDGE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE
OPPOSITION THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY
NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH
CHALLENGING THEIR LISTING WITH
THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR THE
AGENCY, WHERE THE REPORT
ORIGINATED. I'M ALSO COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
GROUPS. TO IMPROVE THE NOTICE
AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS INDEX. I
BELIEVE IT'S BEST FOR THIS BILL
TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE
STATUS QUO IS CLEARLY NOT
ACCEPTABLE. THIS VEHICLE WILL
ALLOW US TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY
OF THE DATA AND PROVIDE
IMPROVEMENTS TO DUE PROCESS. MY
OFFICE HAS BEEN MEETING WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WILL CONTINUE TO
DO SO AS WE DEVELOP AMENDMENTS
TO EASE THEIR CONCERNS. I HAVE
TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE DUE TO
COMPLICATIONS AND COMMUNICATION
ERRORS, MY WITNESS ISN'T HERE.
BUT I DO HAVE STAFF TO ANSWER
ANY AVAILABLE QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ARE THERE OTHERS IN THE HEARING
ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS BRANDON UP. THANK YOU ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON
CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT WERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, UH, WILL NOW TURN TO
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION, OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RUTH
DAWSON. I'M A LEGISLATIVE
ATTORNEY WITH HULU CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED MAYBE 15 44, WHICH WOULD
RESTORE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO REPORT
INCIDENTS OF SUSPECTED CHILD
ABUSE TO THE CHILD ABUSE CENTRAL
INDEX, KNOWN AS THE KHAKI. WE
DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND
HIS STAFF'S WILLINGNESS TO
DISCUSS CONCERNS OF BOTH THE
BLUE AND OUR COALITION PARTNERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. WE
UNFORTUNATELY REMAIN OPPOSED.
BEING LISTED ON THE KHAKI HARMS
PARENTS BY LIMITING THEIR
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CERTAIN JOBS,
PROFESSIONAL LICENSES OR EVEN
VOLUNTEERING AT THEIR CHILDREN'S
SCHOOL. AND WE HAVE TWO MAIN
CONCERNS WITH THIS BILL. FIRST
THE CURRENT SYSTEM FOR PUTTING
NAMES ON THE REGISTRY IS ALREADY
DEEPLY FLAWED AND LEADS TO MANY
MISTAKES. ADDING ANOTHER VENUE
TO ADD PEOPLE TO KHAKI V. A LAW
ENFORCEMENT REPORTS WILL CREATE
EVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR
IMPROPER NOTICE OR PROBLEMATIC
HEARINGS. AND SECOND. AS WITH
EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE FAMILY
REGULATION SYSTEM, ALSO KNOWN AS
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM.
INCREASING REFERRALS TO KHAKI
WILL HAVE A DISPARATE IMPACT ON
PEOPLE OF COLOR AND PARTICULARLY
BLACK AND INDIGENOUS FAMILIES.
AND ADDRESSING THIS SYSTEM, AND
ITS HARMS ARE IN FACT PART OF
OUR WORK TOWARDS REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE. AS TO THE CURRENT
SYSTEM. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THAT KHAKI IS A
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
SYSTEM. AN AGENCY CAN REFER
SOMEONE TO THE KHAKI BEFORE
THERE HAS BEEN A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION AND THEIR CASE OR
WHEN THERE IS NO CASE FILED. THE
AGENCY REFERS SOMEONE TO THE
KHAKI FIRST, AND IT IS ONLY IF
THAT PERSON REQUESTS A HEARING.
AND THEY ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
IMPROPERLY ADDED THAT THEY ARE
REMOVED. AND THE VAST MAJORITY
OF PERSONS PLACED ON THE KHAKI
DO NOT REQUEST A GRIEVANCE
HEARING. IN 2019 ONLY 13% OF
THOSE REFERRED TO THE KHAKI
REQUESTED A HEARING. DATA THAT
YOU RECEIVED FROM APPEAR A
REQUEST REVEALS THAT BETWEEN 29
36% OF HEARINGS TO CHALLENGE A
CALCULUS STING RESULTED INTO THE
INDIVIDUAL BEING REMOVED FROM
THE KHAKI. THAT'S ABOUT ONE IN
THREE FOR MUCH OF THE HISTORY OF
THE PROGRAM, KHAKI HAS HAD NO
SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT THE
INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THE
DATABASE WAS RELIABLE AND GAVE
THE SUBJECTS OF THE REPORTS NO
MEANS OF CHALLENGING THE
INFORMATION. HE BECAME THE
SUBJECT OF NUMEROUS LEGAL
CHALLENGES AND THE EXISTING
RESTRICTION AGAINST LAW
ENFORCEMENT. REPORTING TO THE
KHAKI WAS PART OF A SET OF
STATUTORY REFORMS INTENDED TO
ADDRESS THE TERRIBLE DUE PROCESS
VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES THAT HAD
OCCURRED. YES AND MY OTHER POINT
FINALLY IS WITH EVERY OTHER
ASPECT OF THE FAMILY REGULATION
SYSTEM. THE KHAKI HAS A
DISPARATE IMPACT ON PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND PARTICULARLY BLACK AND
INDIGENOUS FAMILIES. THOSE
FAMILIES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE
SURVEILLED, AND THOSE CHILDREN
ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ENSNARED
INTO THE FAMILY REGULATION
SYSTEM THAN OTHER FAMILIES AND
CHILDREN, INCREASING AVENUES
INTO THE CALCULATION EVIDENTLY
DISPROPORTIONATELY HARMED BLACK
AND INDIGENOUS FAMILIES, SO WE
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE
ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS THAT WE'VE
BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE NOT
ADEQUATE TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS. FOR THIS REASON WE
EXPECT RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
KELLY WALTERS. I AM A STAFF
ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, AND I'M
BASICALLY HERE TO TRY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT
KHAKI. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THE OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM
AND OPPOSITION. CNN WILL BRING
IT BACK TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.
SECOND OKAY. I THINK WE HAD A WE
HAD A MOTION FROM SOME MEMBER OF
BAUER-KAHAN AND A SECOND FROM
OUR VICE CHAIRS. SOME OF THE
PATERSON. SO UM, I JUST WANNA
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS BILL. UM IT'S
OBVIOUSLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
ISSUE AND AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT
KNOW, PROTECTING CHILDREN HAS
BEEN ONE OF THE PRIMARY FOCUSES
OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE'VE DONE A
LOT OF WORK ON A BIPARTISAN
BASIS TO DO THAT, UM, MUCH OF
THE SUBJECT OF YOUR BILLS
OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COMMITTEE. UM AND I KNOW THAT IT
PASSED OUT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ON A
BIPARTISAN VOTE, AND, UH, GIVEN
GIVEN OUR PURVIEW I'M
COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING AND I
VOTE HERE TODAY. UM AND JUST
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'VE
DONE HERE TO PROTECT SOME OF THE
MOST VULNERABLE FOLKS IN OUR
SOCIETY, SO WITH THAT I WOULD
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE YEAH, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. AND REMIND THE
COMMITTEE THAT EVERY ONE OF
THESE TRAGIC VICTIMS IN MY
DISTRICT WHERE KIDS OF COLOR AND
SO THIS IS, UH, VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT BILL TO OUR ENTIRE
CULTURE. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT
YOU WOULD RECOGNIZE THE FACT
THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
BILL FOR YEARS. AND WE'RE TRYING
TO BE EXTREMELY FAIR TO ALL
PARTIES. BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE
TO ALLOW KIDS TO BE TORTURED,
AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE
A GOOD PREVENTIVE MEASURE SO WE
WOULD ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SOMEBODY MEMBER OF
BAUER-KAHAN, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PATERSON. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER NINE A B 15 44 BY
SIMPLY MEMBER LACKEY MOTIONS DO
PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE GABRIEL GABRIEL, I,
PATERSON PATERSON. I BARRACK
AYHAN. OKAY, HAND I BENNETT.
SALLY SALLY IPHONE. I IRWIN
IRWIN. I LOWENTHAL I HAPPEN
HAPPENED. I WICKS. WILSON.
WILSON. I. THANK YOU. YOU ALL
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 10 0. YOUR
BILLS OUT WILL LEAVE THE ROLE OF
AN EARTH 90. YOUR BILLS OUT WILL
LEAVE THE ROYAL OPEN, PERHAPS,
AND MEMBERS. YEAH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S Tð. WHICH ONE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH? I
WAS HOPING TO DO A B 13 47 1ST.
ALL RIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO DO
FILE ITEM 15 13 47. FIRST LET ME
JUST THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AS WELL
AS YOUR COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK
ON THE BILL. WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE IT. WE ARE HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
. MAYBE 13 47 SIMPLE BILL WHERE
IT ASKS ALL CALIFORNIA
BUSINESSES OR ASK CALIFORNIA
BUSINESSES WITH 25 MILLION OR
MORE IN REVENUE. WHICH IS, UH,
PUTS IT IN LINE WITH THE CCP A
THE GIVE EVERY CONSUMER THE
OPTION TO CHOOSE NO RECEIPT,
PAPER RECEIPT OR AN E RECEIPT,
AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT FOR ALL THE PAPER RECEIPTS
THAT ARE BEING PRINTED OUT THAT
THEY ARE FREE OF B P A. OR B P
S. THIS IS ALREADY COMMON IN A
NUMBER OF STORES SUCH AS TRADER
JOE'S CVS, AS WELL AS T. J. MAXX
CURRENTLY WE CAN'T WE USE THREE
MILLION TREES, 10 BILLION
GALLONS OF WATERS AND CREATE
OVER £302 MILLION OF WASTE IN
THE US THROUGH PAPER RECEIPTS.
THIS BILL CURRENTLY DOES NOT BAN
PEOPLE RECEIPTS. IT JUST GIVES
CONSUMERS THE CHOICE TO CHOOSE.
THE KIND OF RECEIPT THEY WANT.
UH RIGHT NOW WE KNOW THAT THERE
ARE MANY ALTERNATIVES TO PAPER
RECEIPTS, AND THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE, ESPECIALLY FOR
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE THE
REVENUES ABOVE 25 MILLION OR
MORE THE ABILITY FOR CONSUMERS
TO CHOOSE THE KIND OF RECEIPT
THAT THEY WANT OR IF THEY DON'T
WANT ANY RECEIPT. I HAVE MY
WITNESS NICOLE KEUREN FROM
CALIFORNIA AGAINST WASTE. HI
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. SHARON
MEMBERS. CHLOE BROWN OF
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
SUBBING IN FOR NICOLE AT THE
LAST MINUTE. WE ARE PROUD TO
SPONSOR 80 13 47, WHICH WILL
ALLOW CONSUMERS TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN OPTIONS TO RECEIVE A
PAPER RECEIPT AND THE RECEIPT OR
NO RECEIPT AND PROHIBIT BPA AND
BPS ON PAPER RECEIPTS. RECEIPT.
PAPER PRODUCTION UTILIZES MORE
THAN THREE MILLION TREES AND 10
BILLION GALLONS OF WATER EACH
YEAR IN THE US AND PRODUCTION,
PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL OF
RECEIPT PAPER AMIDST THE CARBON
EQUIVALENT OF ALMOST HALF A
MILLION CARS ON THE ROAD. THE
VAST MAJORITY OF THIS PRODUCTION
CREATES UNNECESSARY WASTE. ONE
SURVEY FOUND THAT AMERICANS
THREW AWAY OR LOST ABOUT HALF OF
THE PAPER RECEIPTS. THEY RECEIVE
EVEN THOSE THEY INTENDED TO
KEEP. PREVENTION IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE WASTE
HIERARCHY MORE PREFERABLE TO
RECOVERY, REUSE, RECYCLING AND
FINALLY DISPOSAL ENVIRONMENTALLY
AND ECONOMICALLY CONSCIOUS
BUSINESSES WHO IMPLEMENTED POINT
OF PURCHASE PROMPTS PRESENTING
CONSUMERS WITH THESE OPTIONS AS
CVS DID IN EARLY 2020 TO
UNDERSTAND THIS, AND I'VE
ALREADY SEEN BENEFITS. CVS IS
THE LARGEST PHARMACY CHAIN IN
THE U. S. AND THIS MOVE ALONE
SAVED ABOUT 87 MILLION YARDS OF
RECEIPT PAPER ENOUGH TO CIRCLE
THE GLOBE TWO TIMES. FINALLY
RECEIPT PAPERS OFTEN COATED WITH
TOXIC ENDOCRINE, DISRUPTING
CHEMICALS LIKE BP, A AND B P S.
IN ADDITION TO EXPOSING RETAIL
WORKERS AND CONSUMERS TO THESE
CHEMICALS, IF RECYCLED, THE
TOXIC COATING ON CHEMICAL I'M
SORRY ON RECEIPTS CAN
CONTAMINATE RECYCLED PAPER
PRODUCTS SUCH AS TOILET PAPER
AND FOOD PACKAGING. 80 13 47
WOULD SIMPLY ALLOW CONSUMERS TO
CHOOSE IF AND HOW TO RECEIVE A
PROOF OF PURCHASE, REDUCING
WASTE AND SAVING NATURAL
RESOURCES FOR THESE REGIONS. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM AND
SUPPORT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. OKAY THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS MARGARET,
GLANCING HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
. WE HAVE AN OPPOSING WEST
MENDED POSITION. FIRST I WOULD
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR THOROUGH
ANALYSIS C R A WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION IF THE BILL WERE
LIMITED TO SIMPLY BE RECEIPT
BANNING RECEIPTS COATED WITH
BISPHENOL A BISPHENOL S. AS OF
2025, WHICH IS WHEN WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE BEST FRIEND
OF THE FREE RECEIPT PAPER WILL
BE AVAILABLE. I WOULD ALSO NOTE
THAT THEN THOSE RECEIPTS WOULD
BE RECYCLED WOULD NOT CAUSE
CONCERN BY CALDERON CYCLE FOR
GOING INTO THE WASTE STREAM. WE
OPPOSE. THE OTHER PARTS OF THE
BILL IS ANTI PRIVACY AND
UNWORKABLE. I WOULD NOTE THAT
IT'S UNUSUAL. THIS COMEDIANS
HEARING A INFORMATION COLLECTION
MANDATE, UH, IN FRONT OF IT, AND
, UM, THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS.
IT REQUIRES US TO COLLECT
INFORMATION AND OPPOSES SEVERAL
PRIVACY RELATED RISKS, WHICH ARE
DISCUSSED. IN THE ANALYSIS,
INCLUDING THE RISK THAT AN EMAIL
RECEIPT COULD BE SENT TO A
PARENT OR SPOUSE. IF SOMEBODY
PURCHASES A PREGNANCY TEST, OR,
UM, UH, BIRTH CONTROL, AND WE
WOULD NOT NECESSARILY WANT THAT
THEY MAY NOT WANT THAT
INFORMATION BEING SHARED WITH A
WITH A WITH A PARENT, FOR
EXAMPLE, UM, WHILE THE
REQUIREMENT OFFER RECEIPT VIA
EMAIL OR TEXT SOUNDS SIMPLE, UM
, IN REALITY, UM NOT ALL
BUSINESSES CAN COMPLY WITH THIS.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT BUSINESSES
THAT HAVE AN OLDER PIN TYPE, YOU
KNOW, NINE DIGIT KEYPAD. POINT
OF SALES SYSTEMS. MANY OF THOSE
CANNOT COLLECT EMAILS. UM AND IT
IS EXPENSIVE AND COSTLY AND TIME
CONSUMING FOR BUSINESSES TO
UPGRADE THEIR TECHNOLOGY. UM AND
THERE ARE ALSO PLACES WHERE IN
PUTTING AN EMAIL SIMPLY DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE. WHO WANTS TO BE
BEHIND SOMEBODY IN LINE IN A
DRIVE THROUGH OR AT A GAS
STATION THAT IS TRYING TO USE
THAT PIN PAD TO IMPLEMENT AND
PUT AN EMAIL THAT MIGHT BE I'M
GLAD YOU NEED THE CAPITAL FC
.COM, WHICH IS A RATHER LONG AND
I WOULD SAY UM SO THEY'RE
RETAILERS NOW AT SOME POINT,
ALSO SOME PLACES NOW PRINT
RECEIPTS. UM AND THAT IS
UNFORTUNATELY HAPPENING IN, UH,
MR TING'S DISTRICT. THIS IS
HAPPENING QUITE A BIT. THEY ARE
PRINTING PAPER RECEIPTS AND
CHECKING THOSE AT THE DOOR. UM
THIS LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR
APPROPRIATED $300 MILLION TO
STOP ORGANIZED RETAIL CRIME. AND
IF CRIMINALS FIGURE OUT THAT
THEY CAN SIMPLY SAY I DON'T WANT
HER SEAT AS A LEGAL OPTION, UM
THEY'LL THEY'LL FIGURE THAT OUT
FASTER THAN THE REST OF
CONSUMERS AND THEN AT THE DOOR,
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO WALK OUT WITH
MERCHANDISE THAT THEY HAVE NOT
PAID FOR. AH SO, UM, THIS IS
ANOTHER REASON TO OPPOSE IT. I
WOULD ALSO ADD ONE FINAL THING.
WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROVISION
THAT PROHIBITS RECEIPTS FROM
INCLUDING ANY MORE INFORMATION
THAT IS NON ESSENTIAL TO THE
TRANSACTION. WE SEE THAT AS ANTI
CONSUMER BECAUSE YOU CANNOT
PRINT COUPONS, WHICH WE KNOW
CONSUMERS LIKE, UM WE ALSO IT
GOES BEYOND BANDING COUPONS. WE
DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SAY THANK
YOU FOR SHOPPING FOR US SUPPORT
A LOCAL CHARITY, OR CAN WE EVEN
SAY GO KINGS? SO FOR THESE
REASONS WE OPPOSE THE BILL, AND
WE WOULD, BUT WE WOULD REMOVE
HER UP POSITION IF WE'RE SIMPLY
A BUSINESSMAN. ALL FREE PAPER
REQUIREMENT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. COOL. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS, LATISHA GARCIA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERIES ASSOCIATION
. WE ALSO SHARE THE SAME
CONCERNS AS MY COLLEAGUE HERE ON
BEHALF OF OUR WEAKENED SNAP
RETAILERS, WHICH INCLUDES MANY
OF CALIFORNIA GROCERIES, WE'RE
HEARING OPPOSITION. FEDERAL
WEAKENED SNAP REGULATIONS
REQUIRE A PRINTED RECEIPT BE
PROVIDED TO A CUSTOMER WITH A
CARD BALANCE AND PURCHASE
AMOUNT. EVEN HAS SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS ON HOW ITEMS SHOULD
BE PRINTED ON THESE RECEIPTS.
THE PURPOSE OF THESE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS ARE TO ENSURE
CUSTOMERS UTILIZING FOOD
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ARE NOT
SINGLED OUT OR TREATED
DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER
CUSTOMER. THIS IS ALARM
PRACTICE. CALIFORNIA GROCERIES
TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY AND SUPPORT
THE BILL PUTS THIS BILL PUTS
GROCERIES ACCEPTING WEAKENED,
SNAPPED IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND MAY
CREATE, UM NONCOMPLIANCE. BY
LEAVING THE BURDEN ON STORE
STAFF AND RETAILERS TO FIGURE
OUT WHO NEEDS A PRINTED RECEIPT.
FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON THESE
PROGRAMS ARE STRICT, AND IF AN
AUTHORIZED RETAILER DOES NOT
FOLLOW THESE REGULATIONS, IT
PUTS THEIR WEAKENED SNAP
AUTHORIZATION IN JEOPARDY. IT
FORCED INTO THIS CONFLICT.
GROCERIES WOULD BE LEFT IN A
SITUATION WHICH COULD LEAVE
WIGAN SNAP CUSTOMERS WITH LESS
OPTIONS OF WHERE TO SHOP,
CREATING ADDITIONAL BARRIERS FOR
THEM TO ACCESS NUTRITIOUS FOODS.
ONE OF OUR MAIN CONCERNS IS THIS
BILL WOULD CREATE IS THIS BILL
WOULD LEAD TO SINGLING OUT WEAK
AND SNAP CUSTOMERS, WHICH COULD
BE EMBARRASSING FOR THEM AT THE
LEAST AND PLACE BOTH CASHIERS
AND GROCERIES IN A COMPROMISING
POSITION. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE
STATE MOVED AWAY FROM PAPER
VOUCHERS WAS TO MAKE THE
SHOPPING PROCESS MORE EQUITABLE
AND LESS CONSPICUOUS FOR WICKED
SNAP CUSTOMERS. UNDER THIS BILL
, IF A WEEK AND SNAP CUSTOMER
WANTS A TEXT OR EMAIL RECEIPT. A
CASHIER MUST ALSO GIVE THAT
CUSTOMER A PRINTED RECEIPT IF
THEY ARE PURCHASING THEIR
GROCERIES WITH WICK AND SNAP
THIS FORCES DIFFERENT TREATMENT
OF WICCAN STUFF CUSTOMERS, WHICH
IS FEDERALLY PROHIBITED.
CONVERSELY CASHIER DOES NOT
PRINT A RECEIPT FOR THESE
CUSTOMERS. STORES WERE SPEAKING
, NON COMPLIANT WITH FEDERAL
REGULATIONS. WE CANNOT EXPECT
CASHIERS AND RECIPIENTS TO NO
FEDERAL REGULATIONS WHEN IT
COMES TO THESE PROGRAMS JUST FOR
A RECEIPT. THE CURRENT POS
SYSTEM THAT STORES HAVE IN PLACE
ARE WORKING AND DO NOT PUT OUR
WIGGINS SNAP GROCERIES, GROCERY
RETAILERS AT RISK OF LOSING
THEIR WICKED STEPMOTHER IZATION
OR SINGLING OUT THESE CUSTOMERS.
OUR COALITION HAS OFFERED THE
AUTHOR COMPROMISE THAT WOULD NOT
JEOPARDIZE OUR WEEKEND SNAP
RETAILERS AND WE HOPE THIS
COMPROMISE WILL BE RECONSIDERED.
BUT AS THIS BILL IS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, WE MUST ASK FOR A NO
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THEIR OTHERS IN THE HEARING ROOM
IN OPPOSITION. CHAIR AND MEMBERS
NORTHERN ASPIRIN WITH AXIOM
ADVISORS REPRESENTING PAPER
SEATS, CONVERTING ASSOCIATION
WITH AN OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS ADAM
REGULAR ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH THE
RETAILERS AND GROCERS OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
JACKIE ANNA'S ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FUELS. THE
CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE ALSO POSE
LESS LIMITED. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE
EMOTION IN A SECOND. ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS EVERYBODY
KICK IN. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
FIRST. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HIS AMENDMENT RELATED
TO SMALL BUSINESSES. UM I THINK
THAT OUR SMALL BUSINESSES HAVING
TO COMPLY WITH CPR WHEN RIGHT
NOW THEY CHOOSE NOT TO COLLECT
ANY INFORMATION WAS A REAL
BURDEN THAT WE WOULD HAVE PUT ON
THEM. THAT DIDN'T FEEL, UM, LIKE
A CHOICE THAT THE STATE SHOULD
BE MAKING AT THIS MOMENT WHEN
THEY'RE SUFFERING. AND I GUESS
MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS AND I'VE
SEEN THIS BILL. I DON'T KNOW HOW
MANY TIMES MR TAKE ONLY ONCE. UM
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW. AND I THINK I
TOLD YOU THE LAST TIME I SAW
THIS BILL THAT I WAS THE CRAZY
MOM WHO NEVER LET MY KIDS HOLD
RECEIPTS BECAUSE I KNEW OF THE
BPA THAT WAS LEACHING OUT OF
THEM. SO I'M REALLY GRATEFUL
THAT WE'RE AT A PLACE WHERE THE
STORES ARE ACTUALLY READY TO
REMOVE PEOPLE FROM ALL RECEIPTS,
WHICH THEN MAKES IT RECYCLABLE.
SO I GUESS I'M A LITTLE GIVEN
THAT THAT DOES SEEM LIKE IT
ADDRESSES A SIGNIFICANT PORTION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. AND
YOU JUST TELL US WHY THAT
WOULDN'T BE SUFFICIENT. WELL
AGAIN. YOU STILL HAVE. UM IF
PEOPLE DON'T WANT RECEIPTS, YOU
STILL DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION. AH
QUITE OFTEN. I'LL GO INTO YOU
KNOW, A COFFEE SHOP DON'T WANT
TO RECEIVE BECAUSE I BOUGHT A
CUP OF COFFEE. I MEAN, I MEAN A
PHARMACY AND BUYING CHOCOLATE,
OR IF I'M AT A RESTAURANT WITH
FOOD, I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A
RECEIPT FOR THAT, SO I THINK IT
DOESN'T REALLY GIVE CONSUMERS
THAT OPTION IF THEY DON'T WANT A
RECEIPT, ALSO, AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER JUST MAKE THE RECEIPTS.
IT'S THREE MILLION TREES AND 10
BILLION GALLONS OF WATER. UM AND
ALSO WITH THE RECYCLE ABILITY.
IF YOU TALK TO THE WAIST, FOLKS
, BECAUSE THE RECEIPTS ARE SO
SMALL, IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE YES,
TECHNICALLY, THE PAPER IS
RECYCLABLE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT
WILL GET RECYCLED DIFFERENT THAN
LIKE WHEN WE SHRED PAPER. WE
HAVE TO PUT IT. SOMEWHERE YOU'VE
GOT TO PUT IN A SEPARATE BAG
BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S NOT THE
EASIEST, UH, PAPER TO RECYCLE
THAT, UM, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M
STRUGGLING BECAUSE I DO THINK
THAT THERE IS A REAL PROBLEM
RIGHT NOW, WITH RETAIL THEFT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE
STATE DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD HANDLE
ON AND BACK IN THE DAY WHEN I
REPRESENTED RETAILERS AS A
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE LAWYER
LOST WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE
FOCUSED MOST ON. UM AND I DO. I
AM REALLY CONCERNED, AND I KNOW,
UM AND I DO THINK THAT'S
ACTUALLY CONSUMER PROTECTION
ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK WHEN
STORES ARE DEALING WITH LOSS AT
THE RATES, THEY ARE RIGHT NOW.
PRICES GO UP STORES CLOSE. UM
AND SO I GUESS I'M JUST
CONCERNED WITH THIS NOTION OF
ALLOWING PEOPLE OPT OUT OF
RECEIPTS AND TAKING THAT TOOL
AWAY FROM RETAILERS. DO YOU HAVE
ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT RIGHT NOW?
I MEAN, I KNOW MISS CLASS DEAN
MENTIONED, UM, MY CITY. I SHOP
IN MY CITY WHEN I'M HOME. AND
THE ONLY RETAILER THAT I'M AWARE
OF THAT CHECKS. MY RECEIPT ON
THE WAY OUT IS COSTCO. UH
THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW FOR ALL
THE PHARMACIES, DESPITE ALL THE
PUBLICITY, ALL THE MEDIA
COVERAGE. I DON'T GET ASKED FOR
A RECEIPT UPON EXIT. BESIDES
THAT, THAT ONE STORE SO, UM. I
DON'T KNOW THAT HAVING THAT
PAPER RECEIVED WOULD ACTUALLY,
UH, PRESENT THEFT OR MIX IT.
MORE SECURE. I THINK THERE'S A
NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES THAT WE
COULD REALLY BE LOOKING AT IT.
THAT'S WHY WE PUT $300 MILLION
IN THE BUDGET TO REALLY DO A LOT
MORE TO TACKLE ORGANIZED RETAIL
THEFT BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS NOT
JUST WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT
SOME MINOR SHOPLIFTING. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FOLKS THAT ARE
VERY, VERY ORGANIZED AND
STEALING CERTAIN THINGS AND THEN
SELLING CERTAIN THINGS, SO I
THINK IT'S A MUCH MUCH BIGGER
ISSUE AND THESE ARE YOU KNOW,
LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE ORGANIZED
CRIMINAL CRIMINALS WHO VERY,
VERY STRATEGIC ABOUT WHAT THEY
DO, AND I DON'T THINK, UH,
FORCING THEM TO TAKE A PAPER
RECEIPT OR NOT TO TAKE, THE
PAPER SAID. IT'S REALLY GOING TO
SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
REMEMBER BENNETT AND THEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN. UH THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE QUESTIONS
FOR BOTH THE OPPONENTS IN AND
THE AND THE AUTHOR FIRST, JUST
ON THE I MET WITH
REPRESENTATIVES THIS MORNING.
AND. THEY MADE A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN B P A AND B. P S AND IN
TERMS OF THE PAPER COULD YOU
REPEAT THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY
THEM IF YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE,
YOU ARE NOT AT THE MEETING SO,
BUT COULD YOU THE ARGUMENT FOR
AM I THINK FOR FAMILIAR ENOUGH,
ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY IF THERE'S
SOMEBODY FROM THE PAPER INDUSTRY
IF I MISSTATED HOPE THEY'LL STEP
UP AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING
ABLE TO MAKE THAT MEETING. UM,
WHAT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS, IS
THAT AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE
COULD GET BP THAT THERE WILL BE
ENOUGH SUPPLY FOR BP. A FREE
PAPER, THE BPS BOTH BP A AND B P
S FREE PAPER. IS THAT WHERE THE
SUPPLY ISSUE EXISTS, AND THAT
WOULD BE THAT THAT PAPER WON'T
BE AVAILABLE UNTIL 2025 AGAIN.
WE'RE THE TAKERS OF THE PAPER.
IF YOU WILL WERE THE PURCHASERS
OF IT. THIS IS WHAT THE
REPRESENTS FROM THE INDUSTRY
HAVE TOLD US AND I BELIEVE
THAT'S WHAT THEY SHARED WITH
YOU. AND IN THE MEETING TODAY,
SO BP A COULD BE DONE. AND NOW,
BUT PAPER THAT'S FREE OF BPS.
THE INDUSTRY SAYS. WE NEED TO
WAIT UNTIL 2025 UNDERSTANDING.
YES, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT OUTSIDE
OF THE TIMING OF THAT THE
INDUSTRY IS OKAY WITH THIS
REMOVAL OF BP AND DP S THAT'S
CORRECT FROM FROM THE RECEIPT.
THE, UM. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
FOR THE AUTHOR HERE REALLY
APPRECIATE. I THINK EVERYBODY
WAS FRUSTRATED WITH CBS, YOU
KNOW, SHOP SHOPPING LIST. YOU
KNOW THEY CAME OUT AND SO I
GENERALLY COME AT THIS FROM A
THIS MAKES SENSE TO ME KIND OF
THING, BUT SOME ISSUES WERE
RAISED AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE
RAISE THEM, UM AND BASED ON THE
HEARING AND EVERYTHING THEY'VE
HAD SO FAR. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL MOVING FORWARD, BUT I
HOPE THAT THESE THINGS CAN BE
YOU CAN CONTINUE BECAUSE THEN
YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP WORKING ON
THIS. AND FIRST, THE WICK AND
THE SNAP CUSTOMER ISSUE SEEMS
LIKE AN ISSUE AND IN TERMS OF
EQUITY THAT WE WOULD WANT TO AT
LEAST PAY SOME ATTENTION TO YOU
KNOW, IT'S A IT'S A FIRST TIME
OPPOSITIONS. RAISE THAT TO US.
SO WE'RE HAPPY TO GREAT. THANK
YOU. AND THE SECOND ONE IS IT'S
A FEDERAL CONFLICT. YOU KNOW
WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A
RECEIPT. SO I ASSUME THAT'S THE
SAME THING. FIRST TIME THAT'S
COME UP AND THEN, UM, THE COSTCO
EQUATION WHEN, UH. WHEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ASKED THAT
QUESTION YOU REFERRED TO IT
PROBABLY RETAIL RECEIPTS.
PROBABLY DON'T DO YOU KNOW
THAT'S NOT GOING TO DECREASE,
YOU KNOW, SORT OF THIS MAJOR
THEFT CRIME THAT WE SEE OUT
THERE WHICH I AGREE WITH, BUT IF
THAT'S COSTCO'S BUSINESS MODEL,
AND THEY WANT THAT TO BE THE
BUSINESS MODEL, UM IS. AND
PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED A CONTRACT BY
JOINING MEMBERSHIP WITH COSTCO.
SO I JOINED MEMBERSHIP OF COSTCO
. I SIGNED A CONTRACT AND THE
CONTRACT SAYS LOOK, IF YOUR SHOP
WITH US, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A
RECEIPT WHEN YOU GO OUT THE
DOOR. DOES SHE? DO YOU FEEL LIKE
YOU CAN WORK THAT OUT WITH
COSTCO SO THAT THEY COULD STILL
COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO VERIFY
WHAT COSTCO PEOPLE HAVE
PURCHASED AND RECEIPT SEEMS LIKE
VERY LOGICAL. THE WAY WE READ
THE BILL IS THE BILL DOES NOT,
UM FORCED COSTCO TO CHANGE THEIR
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT AS YOU AND
YOU AND I TALKED EARLIER TODAY,
I MENTIONED THAT THEIR BIGGEST
COMPETITOR SAM'S CLUB DOES OFFER
THE RECEIPTS, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S UM THEY'VE BEEN
THEY STARTED DOING SO AGAIN THE
WAY WE'VE READ THE BILL, AND THE
WAY WE BELIEVE THE BILL, AS
WRITTEN DOES NOT IMPACT COSTCO'S
ABILITY. OR IMPACT THEIR CURRENT
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT, WHICH I DO
BELIEVE SAYS YOU HAVE TO SHOW
THAT RECEIPT ON THE WAY OUT. SO
FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING THE BILL
WOULD STILL FROM YOUR
INTERPRETATION. THE BILL WOULD
STILL ALLOW COSTCO TO CONTINUE.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FROM
COSTCO THAT SAYS THEY AGREE THAT
THAT'S HOW THEIR INTERPRETATIONS
AGAIN ATTORNEYS ARE, YOU KNOW,
IT'S NOT SAID YOU. WERE YOU GUYS
WERE TRYING TO. WE'RE HAPPY TO
KEEP TALKING TO COSTCO MOVIE HAD
A LOT OF MUCH LONGER
CONVERSATIONS THE FIRST TIME THE
BILL WAS AROUND, OBVIOUSLY, UH
YOU KNOW, ALL ALL THE ALL THE
ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM BUT
KNOWLEDGE, YOU GET THREE
ATTORNEYS. YOU GET FIVE
OPINIONS? SURE. SO, UM SO GREAT
WAS BEING, UH FIVE IS LOW SO
ANYWAYS, BUT SO IT'S IT WOULDN'T
BE THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD
ATTORNEYS DISAGREE, BUT THE WAY
THAT WE, UH, HAVE WRITTEN THE
BILL TO TRY TO NOT IMPACT THEIR
PRIVATE AGREEMENTS. GUESS YOUR
INTENTION IS, IF THERE'S
LANGUAGE THAT COMES UP THAT
MAKES THAT CLEAR. YOUR INTENTION
IS, UM, FOR THAT TO BE IS THAT
TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
AFTER YOUR BILL PASSES? RIGHT
YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN FINALLY
YOU TALK ABOUT THE CUSTOMER. YOU
KNOW, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE
OPTION TO HAVE NO RECEIPT. COULD
YOU JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS
DEBATE THAT'S GOING TO GO
FORWARD. WHAT WHAT? COMPARED TO
YOU KNOW. STARBUCKS WANTS TO
GIVE YOU A RECEIPT OR THEY DON'T
HAVE THE MACHINES IN YET, AND I
THINK MOST OF THESE THINGS IS
BECOMES AN INCREASINGLY MUTE
QUESTION AS TECHNOLOGY GETS
BETTER AND BETTER, BUT IN THE
INTERIM, UM WHAT? WHAT ARE THE
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES FOR
MAKING SURE THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE
THE RIGHT TO SAY THEY DON'T WANT
TO RECEIVE? I THINK IT'S
CONSUMER CHOICE. I THINK IT'S
CONSUMER CHOICE. I DON'T I DON'T
THINK THAT, UM IF CONSUMERS
DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN
POLLUTION, THEY DON'T THEY DON'T
HAVE TO. GOOD THAT'S WHAT I
WANTED TO GET ON THE RECORD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. REMEMBER IRWIN? MR
BENNETT WAS VERY, VERY THOROUGH
. AND SO I DON'T HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS. EXCEPT FOR THE AUTHOR
. I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION
BECAUSE I THINK THEY DID BRING
UP SOME VERY GOOD POINTS. THANK
YOU. HAPPY TO. WE'RE ALWAYS
HAPPY TO KEEP WORKING THE
OPPOSITION. ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. OKAY
SEEING NONE. UM THANK YOU, MR
TANG. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR
PRESENTATION ON THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S A REALLY BIG AND
IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD TO GET A
AND B P S OUT OF THAT RECEIPT
PAPER. UM I GUESS I WOULD JUST
ALSO SHARE SOME OF THE I THINK
AFTER WE'VE DONE THAT THERE'S
SOME POLICY TRADE OFFS THAT
DESERVE THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION
AND AGAIN WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION
ON THIS BILL, YOU KNOW, ARE FOR
PURPOSES OF OUR JURISDICTION. I
THINK WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE
PRIVACY ISSUES. AND APPRECIATE
YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH
OUR COMMITTEE STAFF TO CRAFT AN
AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE LIMITING THIS TO LARGE
BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY
SUBJECT TO THE PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS IN THE CCP A. SO I
THINK THAT ADDRESSES THOSE
PARTICULAR ISSUES TO MY
SATISFACTION. BUT AGAIN, THANK
YOU FOR FROM A LOT OF MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE BE GOOD FOR
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS ON WIC AND
A LOT OF THE OTHER ISSUES. SO
WITH THAT, HAPPY TO RECOMMEND AN
AYE VOTE AND INVITE YOU TO CLOSE
RESPECT FOR US TO FIND OUT THANK
YOU. APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 15 A B 13 47
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TEAM. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
GABRIEL I PATERSON BARRICADE
HINTON. BENNETT. BENNETT, I,
SALLY SADLY, NOT VOTING PHONE.
PHªN NO. IRWIN IRWIN, I,
LOWENTHAL I HAPPENED. HAPPENED I
WICKS I WILSON. WELL, I'M SORRY.
THAT WAS I SORRY. THE DOOR.
THANK YOU, WILSON. AYE. 71 THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU. UM WE
ARE NOW ACTUALLY GOING TO TURN.
THANK YOU, MR TANG. UM FOR I
KNOW YOU HAVE ANOTHER BILL THAT
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP IN A
MINUTE. BUT FIRST, WE'RE GONNA
GO TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN TO PRESENT HER
BILLS.
HI GUYS. WE'RE GONNA WAIT. WE'RE
GONNA TEACH YOU FIRST. YOU DON'T
MIND? SORRY. THANK YOU. WE DON'T
HAVE WHO'S CHEERING.
OH MR IRWIN, CHAIR. HERE WE GO.
AH! ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BARATHEON.
PLEASE BEGIN. THANK YOU. I'M
GONNA PRESENT MAYBE 3 50 TO 1
CAN FOLLOW ALONG. I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT 83 52. THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE THAT WILL
PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS BY
PREVENTING INFORMATION ON
ABORTION FROM CROSSING STATE
LINES. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, WE
ARE IN AN ERA WHERE WOMEN CANNOT
ACCESS ABORTION IN THEIR OWN
STATES, AND THEY'RE ENTERING OUR
STATES TO RECEIVE HEALTHCARE
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE AND
AFFORDABLE ABORTION CARE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, WHERE IT IS LEGAL
AND ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS
ARE TRANSMITTING THE INFORMATION
BACK TO THEIR HOME STATES THAT
THEY RECEIVED THAT CARE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, SO THIS BILL SIMPLY
ENSURES THERE'S ELECTRONIC
MEDICAL RECORDS DO NOT GET
SHARED OUT OF STATE AS IT
RELATES TO THIS VERY SENSITIVE
CARE. AND, UM WITH THAT I WILL
TURN IT OVER TO LISA MATSUBARA,
VICE PRESIDENT POLICY WITH
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND DR
MICHELLE GOMEZ, FAMILY MEDICINE,
PHYSICIAN AND ABORTION PROVIDER.
THANK YOU. THAT'S RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING CHAIR
GABRIEL AND MEMBERS. I'M
GRATEFUL TO BE HERE IN SUPPORT
OF A B 352. MY NAME IS DR
MICHELLE GOMEZ, AND I'M A FAMILY
MEDICINE DOCTOR AND VOLUNTEER
CLINICAL FACULTY WITH THE UCSF
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE I'VE BEEN
PROVIDING AND TEACHING BOTH
PRIMARY CARE AND ABORTION CARE
FOR 20 YEARS AND I'M HERE TODAY
BECAUSE I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED
FOR MY PATIENTS AND MY
COLLEAGUES. FIRST AND FOREMOST
ABORTION IS A SAFE, EFFECTIVE
AND COMMON PROCEDURE WITH LOW
COMPLICATION RATES. DECADES OF
STUDIES SUPPORT THE SAFETY AND
EFFICACY OF ABORTION PROCEDURES
, INCLUDING MEDICATION ABORTION
. WHEN PATIENTS SEEK THIS CARE
IN CALIFORNIA, WE MUST DO ALL WE
CAN TO PROTECT THEIR
CONFIDENTIALITY, PARTICULARLY IF
THAT PATIENT IS TRAVELING TO
CALIFORNIA FOR CARE AND MUST
RETURN BACK TO THEIR HOME STATE
WHERE ABORTION MAYBE VANDER
CRIMINALIZED. WHILE THE EXCHANGE
OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL
INFORMATION IS VALUABLE IN
MAKING SURE PROVIDERS HAVE
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE
APPROPRIATE CARE IN STATES WHERE
ABORTION IS CRIMINALIZED, THE
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION MAY
EXPOSE PATIENTS TO PROSECUTIONS
AND OTHER STATE ACTIONS THAT ARE
HARMFUL TO THEM. LET ME GIVE YOU
TWO EXAMPLES FROM MY OWN
EXPERIENCE. I HAVE PATIENTS WHO
LIVE IN TEXAS WHO COME TO ME FOR
ABORTION CARE IN CALIFORNIA. IN
ONE CASE, A TEXAS PATIENT
RETURNED HOME TO TEXAS CONTINUE
TO EXPERIENCE SOME BLEEDING AND
THOUGHT FOLLOW UP HERE IN THE
EMERGENCY ROOM THAT DAY. I GOT A
NOTIFICATION THROUGH MY
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD THAT
THE PATIENT WAS SEEN IN A TEXAS
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT. I COULD
SEE THE WHOLE VISIT. AND IT
OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE PROVIDER
WHO SAW THE PATIENT IN THE TEXAS
C D COULD ALSO SEE HER ENTIRE
VISIT WITH ME. BUT THE DOCTOR IN
TEXAS COULD SEE THAT THE PATIENT
HAD HAD AN ABORTION IN
CALIFORNIA. THE CHART ALSO
SHOWED THAT THE PATIENT WAS
REFERRED TO AN OPEN THE WAY AND
IN TEXAS, WHO COULD ALSO SEE
THAT SHE HAD AN ABORTION IN
CALIFORNIA. AT A TIME WHEN TEXAS
LAW IS TRYING TO PUNISH
PROVIDERS, PATIENTS AND THOSE
WHO HELP PATIENTS UNDER THE
STATE'S ABORTION BAN. I WONDERED
HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE NURSES,
SOCIAL WORKERS BUILDING PEOPLE,
ETCETERA HAD ACCESS TO THAT
INFORMATION THROUGH THE
PATIENT'S MEDICAL RECORD. UNDER
TEXAS LAW COULD BE PUNISHED WITH
LIFE IN PRISON AND OR $100,000
FINE JUST FOR HELPING A PATIENT
DO WHAT SHE FELT WAS BEST FOR
HER OWN BODY AND HER FAMILY
FAMILY'S FUTURE. ALSO UNDER
TEXAS LAW. ANYONE CLOSE TO MY
PATIENT WHO MAY HAVE KNOWN WHAT
SHE WAS DOING COULD BE SUED FOR
$10,000 AND SERVE UP TO FIVE
YEARS IN PRISON FOR AIDING AND
ABETTING HER. I ALSO HAVE A
COLLEAGUE WHO REPORTED THAT A
PATIENT WHO TRAVELED TO HER FOR
CARE FROM A STATE WITH AN
ABORTION BAN WENT BACK TO THEIR
HOME STATE, WHERE INFORMATION IN
THEIR MEDICAL RECORD RESULTED IN
A REPORT TO CPS. THIS PATIENT IS
NOW DEALING WITH THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF BEING ACCUSED
OF BEING AN UNFIT MOTHER AS A
MOTHER MYSELF. I CANNOT EVEN
IMAGINE THAT HEARTBREAK AND FEAR
OTHER PROVIDERS HAVE ALSO SHARED
THAT THEY RESORTED TO USING
PAPER RECORDS RATHER THAN THE
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS FOR
OUT OF STATE PATIENTS TO BETTER
PROTECT THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY. A
MOVE THAT MAKES IT HARDER TO
RECONCILE THE PATIENT'S MEDICAL
CHARTS AND MAY EXPOSE PROVIDERS
TO OTHER FORMS OF LEGAL
LIABILITY. THIS IS URGENT. WE DO
NOT WANT TO WAIT UNTIL SOMEONE
IS HARMED BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING
IN CALIFORNIA TO PROTECT
ABORTION PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS
. THESE ARE REAL LIVES WITH REAL
CONSEQUENCES IN CALIFORNIA HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO
BE A LEADER IN THE FIGHT FOR
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM AND PROTECT
PATIENT PRIVACY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS LISA
MATSUBARA. I'M THE GENERAL
COUNSEL AND VP OF POLICY AT
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA, REPRESENTING SEVEN
PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE WHO OPERATE
OVER 100 HEALTH CENTERS IN
CALIFORNIA AND PROVIDE OVER 1.3
MILLION PATIENT VISITS ANNUALLY.
I'M HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF A B
3 52. FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD,
HEALTH CENTERS, CONFIDENTIALITY
AND PATIENT PRIVACY IS AT THE
CORE OF ITS ROLE AS A TRUSTED
HEALTHCARE PROVIDER. AND
PATIENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ACCESS SENSITIVE SERVICES,
INCLUDING ABORTION, CARE WITH
DIGNITY, COMPASSION AND WITHOUT
FEAR OF HAVING THEIR PRIVATE
INFORMATION BEING WIDELY SHARED.
THE IMPORTANCE OF
CONFIDENTIALITY IS EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT IN TODAY'S LEGAL
LANDSCAPE, FOLLOWING THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION AND JOBS THAT
OVERTURNED THE PROTECTIONS AND
ROW AND ALLOWS STATES TO
CRIMINALIZE ABORTION. AS OF
TODAY. 13 STATES BAN ABORTION AT
ALL STAGES OF PREGNANCY, FIVE
STATES HAVE IMPLEMENTED PRE
VIABILITY LANDS. INCLUDING NORTH
DAKOTA, WHICH SIGNED A SIX WEEK
BAN JUST YESTERDAY. SEVERAL
STATES ARE ALSO CONSIDERING
LEGISLATION THAT FURTHER
RESTRICTS ACCESS. WHILE I
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
EXCHANGE OF HEALTH INFORMATION
IN CARING FOR PATIENTS, WE ARE
NOW FACING AN UNPRECEDENTED
SCENARIO. WHERE INFORMATION
THAT'S PART OF THE PATIENT'S
CARE AND ONE STATE WHEN SHARED
THROUGH AN ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD SYSTEM IN ANOTHER STATE
MAY PUT PATIENTS AND THE
PROVIDER THAT PROVIDED THAT CARE
AT RISK. A RECENT REPORT BY IF
ONE HOW SHOWED THAT AMONG PEOPLE
WHO ARE INVESTIGATED OR ARRESTED
FOR ALLEGEDLY ENDING THEIR OWN
PREGNANCY OR HELPING SOMEONE
ELSE TO DO SO. ALMOST 40% OF
THEM CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN THEY WERE
REPORTED BY THEIR HEALTHCARE
PROVIDERS. NO PATIENT SHOULD
FEAR THAT THEIR MEDICAL RECORDS
WILL BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST
THEM. WE MUST ENSURE THAT PEOPLE
WHO GET CARE AND CALIFORNIA ARE
NOT RISKING THEIR LIVES AND
FREEDOM WHEN THEY RETURN HOME.
EVERY 3 52 WILL PROVIDE FURTHER
PROTECTIONS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS
AND MAKE SURE THAT CALIFORNIA IS
A HAVEN FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
CARE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? HIÂU
HARDIYANTI WITH OAKLAND PRIVACY
AND SUPPORT. CHARGING YOU WITH
THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
SHANNON OLIVIERI, HOVIS WITH
NARAL PRO CHOICE CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT 70 STRAIGHT ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA, LATINAS FOR
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND SUPPORT
I'M KELLY PAY FOR AYMAN ABORTION
PROVIDER AND KANSAS AND ARIZONA
AND CALIFORNIA AND I'M, THE
DIRECTOR OF A MEDICATION
ABORTION CLINIC IN KANSAS CALLED
OREO MEDICAL. AND I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CRAMER
MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN LATE BUT
STILL STRONG SUPPORT. RIGHT DO
WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION? QUESTIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT. CAN I HAVE
A MOTION? SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT, A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER. IN
THE SECOND. SORRY. OH ALRIGHT.
THIS MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOW AND FALL AND A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CHEAP. OH, I'M SORRY, PLEASE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
ITEM NUMBER TWO A B 3 52 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
GABRIEL PATERSON, PATERSON, NEW
BY BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE,
BENNETT. BENNETT, I, SALLY.
SAILING, NOT VOTING PHONE. NO
FUN. NO IRWIN IRWIN, I LOWENTHAL
POPPING HAPPENED. I WICKS.
WILSON. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NEED
ONE MORE VOTE ON THAT ITEM.
OKAY, SO WE WILL HOLD OPEN THE
VOTE AND YOU HAVE SECOND. THANK
YOU. OKAY MAYBE THREE SPY SHIP.
254 TO 54 TO 54. YEAH. OKAY?
YEAH, THAT COURT IS HAZARD.
THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYBE 254.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THIS IS
A COMMON SENSE MEASURE MEANT TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS SEXUAL AND
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INFORMATION
. BY EXTENDING THE SAFEGUARDS OF
CMA, THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL
INFORMATION ACT AND HIPAA TO
DATA COLLECTED THROUGH DIGITAL
SERVICES. NEARLY ONE THIRD OF
WOMEN ENTER THE PRIVATE HEALTH
INFORMATION INTO REPRODUCTIVE
AND FERTILITY TRACKING APPS TO
GUIDE THEM THROUGH THEIR LIVES
AND THEIR PREGNANCIES. FOR
MENSTRUAL CYCLE, TRACKING THE
FIRST QUESTIONS USERS MISS
ANSWER BEFORE EVEN ENTERING THE
APP IS OFTEN ARE YOU PREGNANT?
RECORD ONE PREGNANCIES BEGIN.
AND WHEN THEY END THESE APPS
OFFER LITTLE IN THE WAY OF
PROTECTION FOR THAT DATA WITH
OBSCURE PRIVACY POLICIES AND
LITTLE MEANINGFUL REGULATION,
WITH 11 STATES CRIMINALIZING
ABORTION AND MANY MORE
CONSIDERING DOING THE SAME, THE
LAX DATA SECURITY OF APPS USED
TO TRACK OUR MENSTRUAL CYCLES OR
PREGNANCY SHOULD NOT BE LEFT
OPEN. CONSUMER REPORTS STUDY
FOUND THAT NONE OF THE LEADING
MENSTRUAL TRACKING APPS OFFER
TRANSPARENCY ABOUT WHAT DATA
THEY SHARE. THE STUDY ALSO FOUND
A MAJORITY OF THESE APPS USE
THIRD PARTY TRACKERS. THIS IS
UNACCEPTABLE. SELLING HEALTH
DATA SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION AND
IT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO ARREST
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH INFORMATION
IS HEALTH INFORMATION SHOULD NOT
BE SOLD AND SHOULD BE PROTECTED
, LIKE ALL OF OUR HEALTH
INFORMATION WITH ME TODAY AND
SUPPORT OUR HALEY'S OKAYAMA WITH
THE ELECTRONIC FOUND HERE
FOUNDATION AND REEM SULAIMAN
WITH THE MOZILLA FOUNDATION.
HELLO AH PROMISE TO BE VERY
QUICK. MY NAME IS REEM AND I'M
JOINING TODAY ON BEHALF OF
MOZILLA WHILE HQ IN SAN
FRANCISCO. WE ARE A GLOBAL
COMMUNITY THAT ALSO SUPPORTS
COMPREHENSIVE PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
. UM SO THAT ALL AMERICANS CAN
BE UNDER THE FOLD OF THESE
PROTECTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE FINDINGS AS
IT RELATES TO THIS BILL. MY
COLLEAGUES AT MOZILLA RELEASED A
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EDITION OF
MOZILLA'S PRIVACY NOT INCLUDED.
CONSUMER TECH GUIDE REVIEWING
THE TOP 25 PERIOD, PREGNANCY AND
FITNESS, APPS AND WEARABLE
DEVICES AND AN ASTONISHING 18 OF
THEM RECEIVED MOZILLA'S PRIVACY
NOT INCLUDED WARNING LABEL AND I
JUST WANT TO SHARE A COUPLE OF
THE FINDINGS REAL QUICK. UM MOST
OF THE APPS ACTUALLY HAD
MISLEADING DATA SHARING POLICIES
WITH THIRD PARTIES AND DO NOT
HAVE CLEAR GUIDELINES ON HOW
DATA REQUESTS FROM LAW AND
ENFORCEMENT COULD BE HANDLED.
WHICH IS A PARTICULAR CONCERN.
UH IN IN THE U. S AFTER THE
OVERTURN OF ROE B ROW V WADE
VOLUMES OF SENSITIVE AND
PERSONAL DATA IS FIGURE
VIGOROUSLY TRADED HANDS BETWEEN
ADVERTISERS AND DATA BROKERS AND
SOME APPS HAVE EVEN COME UNDER
FIRE FROM US REGULATORS FOR
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THEIR
VERY OWN PRIVACY POLICIES. AND
ONE EXAMPLE THAT I THINK WAS
STRONG, BROUGHT UP EARLIER WAS
WITH FLOW, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE
SHARING DATA WITH FACEBOOK,
INCLUDING HEALTH DATA, LIKE WHEN
A PERSON STARTED THEIR PERIOD,
WHICH EVENTUALLY PROMPTED A
REVIEW BY THE FTC, RESULTING IN
A SETTLEMENT IN 2021. GIVEN
THESE FINDINGS, WE FEEL THE
PROTECTIONS FOR REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH DATA IN THIS BILL ARE AN
IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD TOWARDS
PROTECTING DEEPLY SENSITIVE
INFORMATION COLLECTED VIA THESE
HEALTH TRAFFIC TRACKING ABSENCE
. SO WE ASK YOU TO SUPPORT A B 2
54 AND HELP US CLOSE THE GAPS.
THANK YOU. HELLO. GOOD EVENING.
I'M HAILEY SCAMMERS, SENIOR
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVIST AT THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
IN SUPPORT, PEOPLE SHOULDN'T
HAVE TO SCRAMBLE TO FIND A TOOL
THAT BOTH HELPS THEM MANAGE
THEIR HEALTH AND PROTECTS THEIR
PRIVACY. YET IN THE WAKE OF THE
DOCTOR'S DECISION, MANY PEOPLE
HAVE HAD TO CONSIDER THE WAY THE
COMMERCIAL APPS THEY USE MAY
REVEAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE
REPRODUCTIVE AND SEXUAL HEALTH
IN UNEXPECTED WAYS. THOSE FEARS
ARE WELL FOUNDED, THE AVERAGE
PERSON MAY ASSUME REPRODUCTIVE
AND SEXUAL HEALTH DATA IS
PROTECTED AS HEALTH INFORMATION
. BUT THAT SIMPLY ISN'T THE CASE
FOR DAVID THAT ISN'T GENERATED
BY A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER OR
OTHER ENTITY COVERED BY
CALIFORNIA CMA OR THE FEDERAL
LAW, SUCH AS HIPPA, AND MOST
COMPANIES, AS WE KNOW, ARE
COMMITTING TO PROTECTING PRIVACY
. WE KNOW THE LEADING MINSTREL
APPS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT ABOUT
THE WAYS THEY SHARE INFORMATION
FROM THEIR APPS. PEOPLE NEED
ASSURANCE THAT THE INFORMATION
THAT THEY SHARED IS NOT SOLD THE
DATA BROKERS AND ADVERTISED OR
FREELY SHARED OR SOLD TO THOSE
INVESTIGATING PEOPLE WHO MAY
HAVE THOUGHT REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE. AS WITH ASSEMBLY
MAUER, ASSEMBLY MEMBER OF OUR
CANES 80 2089 LAST YEAR, MAYBE
25 FORWARD REACT TO CHANGES IN
THE WAY AMERICANS MANAGE THEIR
HEALTH CARE AND PHYLLIS SPECIFIC
GAP IN THE CURRENT LAWS
PROTECTION. UM IT'S VERY
TARGETED BILL BY AMENDING THE
DEFINITION WOULD STOP DIGITAL
APPLICATIONS FROM INTENTIONALLY
SHARING OR SELLING THIS
INFORMATION FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
CUSTOMERS SIMPLY DON'T EXPECT
EXCEPT IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES
. THIS GIVES PEOPLE THE
CONFIDENCE THEY NEED TO KNOW
THAT THE DEEPLY PERSONAL
INFORMATION THEY SHARE WILL NOT
BE USED IN WAYS THEY DON'T
EXPECT. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
LEGISLATURE TO TAKE CONCRETE
STEPS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL
FOR HARMS. THAT THESE APPS POSE
IF LEFT UNCHECKED, AND WE THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BARRY KANE FOR
HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS
AND SUPPORT. HIÂU HAPPY WITH
OAKLAND PRIVACY AND SUPPORT.
CRAMER MATTER ON BEHALF OF A C L
U CALIFORNIA ACTION AND SUPPORT
. LISA MATSUBARA ON BEHALF OF
PLANNED PARENTHOOD, AFFILIATES
OF CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT
SHANNON OLIVIERI, HOVIS WITH
NARAL PRO CHOICE CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT STEPHANIE STRAIGHT ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA, LATINAS
FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT KELLY PIPER, DIRECTOR,
ARIA, MEDICAL AND SUPPORT. DR
MICHELLE GOMEZ ON BEHALF OF MY
NETWORK IN SUPPORT. VERY GOOD.
ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? ANY
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WHICH YES, I KNOW. I MISSED THE
PREVIOUS BILL AS WELL. I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER
WORK IN THE SPACE AND FOR
CONTINUED COMMITMENT ON THIS
ISSUE WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT AS A
CO AUTHOR TO BOTH BILLS. HAPPY
TO MOVE THE BILL. ALSO, IF IT
HASN'T BEEN RIGHT, THANK YOU
REMEMBER PATTEN? THANK YOU. I
WOULD CONCUR. AS TECHNOLOGY
CHANGES, IT HAS SOMETIMES VERY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND IN
THIS ENVIRONMENT TO BE
HYPERVIGILANT CANNOT BE
UNDERSTATED. SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR DRILLING DOWN ON THIS
AND MAKING IT HAPPEN. THANK YOU.
AND I'M HAPPY TO CO AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. AH! YEAH, THIS WAS
PRETTY DISTURBING TESTIMONY.
ACTUALLY AND ESPECIALLY AFTER
YOU KNOW, WE WE'VE PASSED TCP A
. WE THINK THAT OUR DATA IS
PRIVATE. AND THEN YOU HEAR HOW
MANY COMPANIES ARE SHARING THAT
INFORMATION FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES? UM, VERY GOOD, BILL.
THANK YOU. DO SO WE HAVE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT JUST
WANTED TO ADD MY VOICE. WE NEED
CHAMPIONS AND IN LOTS OF AREAS
AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY A CHAMPION
IN THIS AREA FOR THESE PEOPLE.
IT'S REALLY GOOD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HAVE ALL RIGHT. NO IT
WAS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. LOWENTHAL
WAS A SECOND. SO UM, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR I VOTE. ALRIGHT WE HAVE
MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS
AND A SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWENTHAL AND SECRETARY PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. YES ITEM NUMBER
ONE A B 2 54 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, GABRIEL PATERSON.
PATERSON I BAUER-KAHAN OKAY.
HANAI BENNETT. BENNETT I SALI
SALI IPHONE. IRWIN IRWIN, I
LOWENTHAL. I THOUGHT I POPPING
UP AND I WAX WEEKS I WILSON.
WILSON. I UH HUH. THANK YOU THAT
THAT BILL IS OUT 9 TO 0. MS
PAPIN, WE WILL CALL YOU UP NEXT.
I WAS CALLING YOU BEFORE YOU
LEFT THE ROOM. THANK YOU
APPRECIATE THAT. WE ALSO JUST
GONNA.
HIS POP IN WHENEVER THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, UM, SUPREME.
BILLS GO. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE
OF THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD ONCE
COUNTIES VIA THE COUNTY. SEALERS
ARE TASKED WITH TESTING AND
VERIFYING COMMERCIAL MEASUREMENT
DEVICES SUCH AS GAS PUMPS. THANK
YOU AND SCALES AT GROCERY STORES
. THIS PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED
TO ENSURE THAT THESE MEASUREMENT
DEVICES ARE ACCURATE, AND
CONSUMERS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY
PAY FOR COUNTIES RECOUPED
TESTING COSTS THROUGH VARIOUS
FEES CHARGED TO THE OWNERS OF
THE DEVICE IS THE CURRENT FEE
STRUCTURE HAS BEEN IN PLACE
SINCE 2008 AND CONTINUE AND
COUNTIES ARE NOW OPERATING AT A
LOSS DUE TO INFLATION. MAYBE 13
OH, FOUR, SIMPLY ADJUST THE
ASSOCIATED FEES TO BRING THEM IN
LINE WITH INFLATION AND
INCREASED OPERATIONAL COSTS WITH
ME TODAY TO TESTIFY AND PROVIDE
TECHNICAL SUPPORT IS THAT SILVER
LANE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MATTHEW CYBERLINK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS AND
SEALERS ASSOCIATION AGAIN, AND
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, THIS IS
BASICALLY THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
ASPECT OF THE CONSUMER
MARKETPLACE IS THAT YOU GET WHAT
YOU PAY FOR, AND THAT'S WHAT OUR
PROGRAM DOES THAT WE TEST EVERY
SCALE PUMP AND METER THAT IS
USED TO DERIVE A DEVICE THAT
SOMEONE'S GOING TO PAY. IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT THOSE ARE
ACCURATE AND THE CUSTOMER IS
PAYING EXACTLY WHAT I THINK
THEY'RE PAYING FOR WHAT THEY'RE
GETTING. SO WE ASKED FOR AN I
VOTE. THANK YOU, ALL RIGHT, VERY
GOOD. OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JEANNE
HURST HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THIS, YOU KNOW, CLARK COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SUPPORT
SARAH DICKHEAD ON BEHALF OF THE
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT ALRIGHT,
THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY OPPOSITION
WITH THEIR ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION ON THIS VERY
CONTROVERSIAL Dð. NO. DO WE HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? DO WE HAVE MOTION?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS MOTION
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER, UH
PATTERSON. SECONDS ALRIGHT. CAN
WE PLEASE HAVE A SECRETARY DO
THE ROLL CALL? REQUESTS. IN
FACT, MY VOTE SORRY ABOUT THAT.
RIGHT ITEM NUMBER 11, MAYBE 13
OH, FOUR. BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HAPPENED, THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, GABRIEL. PATERSON
PATERSON. I BAUER KI¾M. BENNETT
I, SALLY. SILLY I PHONE IRWIN BY
IRWIN I LOWENTHAL EYE POPPING.
HI I WAX I. WILSON WILSON. AYE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM.
CONGRATULATIONS YOUR BILL IS OUT
, AND WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH
ALL THE BILLS ONE TIME TO ADD ON
FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, UH,
MISSED. YES. RIGHT? FUNDER
UNCONSENTED CONSENT. THE MOTION
IS DUE PAST THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. BARRICADE KHN. FANG.
IRWIN. I HAPPEN. TYPE ZERO A B.
2 54 MOTION. I'M SORRY. MAYBE 2
54 PHªN, UH, YOU CAN JUST VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS A B 3
52 BAUER-KAHAN. MAYBE 3 52.
GABRIEL. WORKS BY WILSON. BY
WILSON. AYE. RIGHT ARE THIS NOW
A B THREE? 64 OR IS THAT ON TO
CONSENT? WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR
TRYING TO. YEAH, WE'RE GOING
THROUGH ALL OF THEM. I LOVE A V
11 94. MAYBE 11 94. FARM. IRWIN
IRWIN. I LIKES I. WILSON. ALLOW
ITEM NUMBER FOUR. MAYBE 11 94.
IS THAT A. RIGHT SORRY. ITEM
NUMBER FIVE A. B EIGHT. OH THAT
THAT IS OUT THERE, KEEPING IT
OPEN. YES. OVER THE 94.
YES.
OKAY? QUITING FOR THE FIRST
TIME. RIGHT BUT WHAT NUMBER OF
ABYAN 11 94. WE DID ON 11 94 WAS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOWENTHAL DID
HE VOTE? BLUMENTHAL AND THOUGHT
I. ALL RIGHT. NEXT. WE HAVE 38.
AND WHAT'S BEST 86 45. MAYBE 6
45 TO COME. UM MAYBE 6 45.
LOWENTHAL THOUGHT I. THAT'S 71
FOR LEAVING. ROLL OPEN. HERE. 89
9499499. PHªN. POPPING WILSON.
MR. MM HMM. OKAY WITH YOU.
APPARENTLY YOU ALREADY OKAY? I
CAN OKAY. DID YOU? WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CHANGE YOUR VOTE? OKAY
MAYBE 994 WIX WIX. AYE. WILSON,
HAVE YOU AS AN EYE? YEAH JUST
FOR THE RECORD. I WAS PRESENT
FOR ALL THOSE SUCCESS. UM BY 352
. SO RESOLVING ALL THIS RIGHT
NOW, SO I'M GLAD. YEAH I'M AM AN
I LIKE I WAS EARLIER AFTER I
ASKED THE HOST OF QUESTIONS,
OKAY. THANK YOU, OKAY. WE DO
THAT WE'LL JUST KEEP IT UP
THERE. WHAT NUMBER IS THIS? NOW
CAN I ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION OR
A REPEAT OF A VOTE JUST TO MAKE
SURE IT WAS RECORDED PROPERLY?
THE ONLY TIME I VOTED NO TODAY,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WAS
RECORDED AS SUCH. AND THAT WAS A
B 645 THAT YOU HAVE ME AS A NO
VOTE. 86 45. I DIDN'T WILSON.
NO, THANK YOU. LOOK AT YOU.
MAYBE 10 16. GABRIEL. IRWIN. AYE
IRWIN. AYE.
MAYBE 15 40 FOR BENNETT. I WIX
WIX. AYE. THAT ONE IS 11 0.
MAYBE 10 27 GABRIEL IRWIN IRWIN,
I LOWENTHAL. MAYBE. MAYBE 10 27.
LOWENTHAL. AYE. MAYBE 13 47
PATERSON. NO. PATERSON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN. 772 ON THAT. BUT
THAT BILL IS CAN'T OPEN. MAYBE 3
61 A SALIH. MAYBE 3 61 23.
VOTING. REALLY NOT VOTING. YEAH.
ITEM NUMBER 17. MAYBE 10 11.
IRWIN. OH, THAT WAS AN EYE ON
THAT. OKAY? WIX WIX? AYE.
ALRIGHT SO WE WILL GO AHEAD THEN
AND START WITH AH MOVED TO MR
LOGAN PAUL. AND THAT IS A B 14
63.
YEAH. YEAH. WHERE THE PROBLEM
IS. YES. PLAY ROBBERY PER
SCISSORS. YES. MR LOHAN WALL
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I'D FIRST LIKE TO START BY, UH,
TAKING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
AND THANKING THE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK. I AM VERY PLEASED TO
PRESENT A B 14 63 A PRIVACY
BILL. SEEKING TO REGULATE HOW WE
HANDLE THE PRIVACY. OF
CALIFORNIANS AND THOSE SEEKING
MEDICAL REFUGE IN OUR STATE FOR
ABORTIONS. AND GENERAL AFFIRMING
CARE AND HOW IT RELATES TO
AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS
SYSTEMS OR LPR S. IN 2019, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
DECLARED THAT LEGISLATIVE ACTION
IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS PRIVACY RIGHTS.
THAT OF COURSE, WAS BEFORE ROE
WAS OVERTURNED. AND IN THREE
YEARS NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. AND
NOW WITH OTHER STATES, PROPOSING
LAWS THAT ARE NOW FOCUSING ON
OUT OF STATE VISITORS SEEKING
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING MEDICAL CARE. IT IS
VITAL THAT WE IMPLEMENT PRIVACY
MEASURES REGARDING LPR S A B 14
63 DOES THREE THINGS TO ENSURE
PRIVACY FOR EVERYONE. NUMBER
ONE. IT REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC
AGENCIES OPERATING AL PRS TO
PERFORM AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE
AUDIT. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
STATE AUDITOR. NUMBER. TWO IT
PURGES GEOLOCATION DATA NOT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INVESTIGATION OF ANY CRIME AFTER
30 DAYS. AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
STATE'S LEADING AL PR SUPPLIER,
FLOCK SAFETY AND IN LINE WITH
CALIFORNIA STATE ORDER
RECOMMENDATION. TO LIMIT
RETENTION TO THE SHORTEST
POSSIBLE TIME. AND I KNOW THAT
THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS TO AH, 30
DAYS. WHY IS 30 DAYS? JERMAINE
UM AND 30 DAYS IS THE NUMBER
THAT IS PROVIDED BY FLOCKS.
SAFETY FLOCK. SAFETY IS THE ONE
THAT IS THE OUTFIT THAT IS
SELLING THIS TO ALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OUTFITS. THAT IS IN
42 STATES AND 1500 CITIES.
FORBIDS THE SHARING OF
GEOLOCATION DATA WITHOUT OF
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, SUBPOENA
OR WARRANT. L P. R S ARE JUST
ONE OF THE MANY SURVEILLANCE
TOOLS THAT ARE OUT. THAT OUT OF
STATE POLICE AND ANTI ABORTION
GROUPS HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM,
AND THESE READERS HAVE BECOME
ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS
AVAILABLE AS OTHER STATES HAVE
BEGUN PROPOSING LAWS THAT PLACE
BOUNTIES ON A WOMAN'S HEAD FOR
SEEKING AN ABORTION AND ABORTION
, SAFE STATES AND FOR TRANS
PEOPLE THAT ARE SEEKING
LIFESAVING, GENDER AFFIRMING
CARE. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE
ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE
LIMITATIONS ON THE GEOLOCATION
DATA OF CARS ON CALIFORNIA ROADS
THAT WE SHARE WITH OUT OF STATE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES JUST
RECENTLY. THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA INTRODUCED LEGISLATION
THAT COULD SUBJECT WOMEN WHO'VE
HAD ABORTIONS TO THE DEATH
PENALTY. I WANT TO SAY THAT
AGAIN. THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA INTRODUCED LEGISLATION
THAT COULD SUBJECT WOMEN WHO
HAVE HAD ABORTIONS IN ANY STATE.
TO THE DEATH PENALTY. WE MUST
PROTECT CALIFORNIANS IN AND OUT
OF STATE RESIDENTS SEEKING
REPRODUCTIVE AND GENDER
AFFIRMING MEDICAL CARE IN
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE ALSO WILLING
TO TAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT THE CHP IS EXEMPT
FROM THIS BILL IS THEY ARE
ALREADY REGULATED BY CURRENT LAW
WITH ME TODAY IS TRACY ROSENBERG
WITH OAKLAND PRIVACY THE
SPONSORS OF A B 14 63. UM HI,
EVERYONE, MY NOTES SAY GOOD
AFTERNOON, BUT WE SEEM TO HAVE
MADE IT TO GOOD EVENING. MY NAME
IS TRACY ROSENBERG. I'M WITH
OAKLAND. PRIVACY WE ARE A
CITIZEN, A CITIZEN'S COALITION
BASED IN OAKLAND THAT ADVOCATES
FOR SURVEILLANCE REGULATION WITH
RESPECT FOR PRIVACY, CIVIL
RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY CONSENT. UM
I'M GONNA START OFF BY SAYING
THAT IN 2019 PRE DOBBS, THEN
PRIVACY CHAIR. ED CHOW
INTRODUCED A B 17 82, WHICH
WOULD HAVE PURGED ON NON
EVIDENTIARY LPR SCANS AFTER 60
DAYS WHEN I SAY NON EVIDENTIARY
. WHAT I MEAN IS NOT CONNECTED
WITH A CRIMINAL. INVESTIGATION
IN ANYWAY. UM A B 17 82 PAST
THIS COMMITTEE, UM 8 TO 1
ASSEMBLY, JUDICIARY, 9 TO 1 AND
THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. 49 TO 18
THEN WENT OVER TO THE SENATE,
WHERE IT STALLED, AND THE REASON
THAT INSTALLED WAS THAT THE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE PUSHED FORWARD WITH AN
AUDIT OF LPR PROGRAMS. IN
CALIFORNIA, WAS INITIATED BY
SENATOR SCOTT WIENER. THAT AUDIT
CAME OUT IN 2020. I BELIEVE IT
WAS FEBRUARY AND IT SAID THREE
THINGS PRIMARILY, IT SAID
FIRSTLY, THAT THE PROGRAM IS
CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED IS A
THREAT TO THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF
CALIFORNIANS. THEN IT SAID, ALL
OF THE AGENCIES THAT THEY LOOKED
INTO DEEPLY WERE VIOLATING
CURRENT LAWS RIGHT NOW. AND
CURRENT LAWS THAT ARE SHALL WE
SAY, TRANSPARENCY BASED AND NOT
TOO EXTREME OR SEVERE? AND
THIRDLY, THAT NON EVIDENTIARY
SCANS SHOULD BE PURGED AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE. OKAY, SO WE DIDN'T
PICK 30 DAYS AS SORT OF THE
OPENING LANGUAGE FOR THIS BILL
OUT OF A HAT. WE DIDN'T MAKE IT
UP AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER, LOWENTHAL
SAID. THE LEADING MANUFACTURER
OF THESE PRODUCTS, WE WENT TO
BUSINESS AND WE ASKED THEM HAS
IN THERE. UM ETHICAL PUBLIC
SAFETY STATEMENT THE FOLLOWING
WORDS AND I QUOTE UM, WE
RECOMMEND THAT ALL DATA NOT
ASSOCIATED WITH A CRIME BE
AUTOMATICALLY DELETED AFTER 30
DAYS, SO IT IS ON RECOVERABLE.
SO THAT'S FROM THEIR ETHICAL
PUBLIC SAFETY STATEMENT. ONE
OTHER QUICK POINT JUST SO YOU
ARE AWARE OF THIS IN 2007, NEW
HAMPSHIRE HAPPENED TO BE THE
SECOND SAFEST STATE IN THE U. S
ACCORDING TO STATISTICS THAT
YEAR, THEY PASSED A LAW
MANDATING THE DESTRUCTION OF AL
PAIRS CANS, NOT ON A HOT LIST
AFTER THREE MINUTES. BASICALLY
IT WAS INSTANTLY BUT THE STATUTE
SAYS THREE MINUTES 16 YEARS
LATER, NEW HAMPSHIRE IS STILL
THE SECOND SAFEST STATE. IN THE
COUNTRY. THIS HAD NO ADVERSE
IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY THERE,
AND IT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE
IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY HERE.
WHAT IT WILL DO IS PROTECT THE
PRIVACY OF CALIFORNIA DRIVERS
AND THOSE WHO DRIVE INTO AND OUT
OF OUR STATE. I'M GOING TO NEED
YOU TO WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU. WE
ASKED FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND AGAIN
, THE PRIVACY OF THOSE WHO DRIVE
INTO AND OUT OF OUR STATE IS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AT THIS
MOMENT IN TIME. FOR REASONS THAT
WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE
HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT? HIÂU BODY REPRESENTING
PASADENA, PRIVACY AND TRUTH AND
TECH AND SUPPORT. ORIGINALLY
REPRESENTING THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION.
CAN GET AWAY WITH SAYING GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
COREY CHAU ZILLA ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, UM LET'S BE CLEAR IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME. THIS BILL IS
NOT LIMITED TO ISSUES OF
ABORTION OR GENDER AFFIRMING
CARE. UM THIS BILL. SEVERELY
LIMITS THE ABILITY OF THE
UTILITY OF LICENSE PLATE READER
DATA. ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
ACROSS THE STATE NATION HAVE
USED LPR DATA TO SOLVE CRIMES
AND APPREHEND CRIMINAL SUSPECTS
, AND THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO
TODAY WHILE SOME CASES ARE
SOLVED QUICKLY. IT CAN ALSO BE
EXCEPTIONALLY HELPFUL IN SOLVING
CRIMES THAT HAVE OCCURRED DEEPER
IN THE PAST. SETTING A DATA
DESTRUCTION TIMELINES SUCH AS 30
DAYS IN STATUTE SIGNIFICANTLY
HINDERS THE USE OF THIS TOOL. WE
DON'T KNOW WHEN THE DATA WILL BE
USEFUL. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE OF
PUTTING A SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT ON
RETENTION OF THESE DATA, WHICH
TO BE CLEAR AS A PHOTOGRAPH OF A
LICENSE PLATE AND THE TIMESTAMP
INFORMATION. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE NOT
DEFENDING. THE LAWS OF OTHER
STATES THAT ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT
ACCESS TO ABORTION OR GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE. WE ARE NOT
SEEKING THAT. UM, BUT THIS BILL
CUTS TOO BROAD A SWATH INTO LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO USE
THIS IMPORTANT TOOL TO SOLVE
CRIMES THAT IF THE DATA AREN'T
USED WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND THEY'RE
NOT MATCHED TO A HOT LIST, WHICH
IS TYPICALLY STOLEN CARS AND
THEN YOU KNOW, UH, VEHICLES
INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT
THE NOTION OF DRIVING A CAR IN A
PUBLIC PLACE WITH THE GOVERNMENT
ISSUED PIECE OF METAL ATTACHED
TO IT AND HAVING AN EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY. SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE. MR
STALEY. THANK YOU. UM. WHAT DO
YOU THINK IS A REASONABLE TIME
THE DATA SHOULD BE STORED. UM,
ON THESE DATABASES. YOU'RE
ASKING ME THROUGH THE CHAIR? UM
I'M NOT SURE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT
I THINK A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF
TIME IS BECAUSE ONE MY CLIENT
HASN'T DECIDED IF THEY HAVE A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT
TO YOU RUN INTO THIS ISSUE THAT
WHAT IF YOU NEED TO LOOK BACK
FOUR YEARS? YOU HAVE A COLD CASE
, MAYBE 10 YEARS. YOU HAVE A
COLD CASE AND YOU SAY, HEY, WE
KNOW THIS PERSON DROVE ACROSS
THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE THAT
NIGHT OR WAS IN A PARTICULAR
AREA ARE THEIR LICENSE PLATE
READER DATA AVAILABLE FOR THAT
YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK FOR
THAT. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE, SO I
UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T TELL YOU,
YOU KNOW. HEY, WE'LL BE OKAY IF
IT WAS FIVE YEARS, BUT IT'S JUST
NOT THAT I MEAN TO BE FRANK THAT
THAT ANSWER MAKES ME A LITTLE
UNCOMFORTABLE, AND I UNDERSTAND
IF THERE'S A HOT LIST, RIGHT, SO
THERE'S AN ACTIVE STOLEN CAR.
THE CAR IS INVOLVED IN A DRIVE
BY IF IT'S UNKNOWN SUSPECT
THAT'S GOING TO PICK UP. WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST
CITIZENS WHO AREN'T ACCUSED OF
ANY WRONGDOING. THERE'S NO
PROBABLE CAUSE, AND WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT STORING THEIR
LOCATION DATA. FOR AN UNLIMITED
PERIOD OF TIME DOES CONCERN ME.
I'M A FORMER PROSECUTOR, BOTH
LOCAL AND FEDERAL, SO I
UNDERSTAND THE INVESTIGATIVE
VALUE, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE I
BELIEVE IN CIVIL LIBERTIES AND
THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIMITS
AND I'M UNCOMFORTABLE. WITH THE
SURVEILLANCE STATE. SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK TO YOUR
MEMBERS AND SEE IF THERE IS A
REASONABLE PERIOD. YOU KNOW MORE
THAN 30 DAYS, BUT LESS THAN FOUR
YEARS. THAT THAT YOU MIGHT
CONSIDER. SO, UM THOSE ARE MY
COMMENTS, SO I APPRECIATE IT. DO
WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE WAS SUPPOSED TO
ANSWER THAT QUESTION AS WELL. MR
ROSSELLI. WELL I SIMPLY WANT TO
POINT OUT PERMISSION. I SIMPLY
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, WITH
WITH, YOU KNOW, VERY PROUD TO BE
UM, PRO POLICE IN EVERY WAY. AND
UM, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
THAT YOU MADE USED A FEW VERY
IMPORTANT ADJECTIVES AND
DESCRIBING YOU SAID IT WILL
SEVERELY AND SIGNIFICANTLY.
IMPACT LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
ABILITY. TO INVESTIGATE CRIME,
BUT THERE'S NO DATA TO
SUBSTANTIATE THAT WHATSOEVER.
WHAT IS SEVERELY MEAN. WHAT IS
SIGNIFICANTLY MEAN? AT WHAT
POINT. DO THAT DATA NO LONGER
SEVERELY OR SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT
THE ABILITY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
DO CRIME. BUT I CAN TELL YOU
RIGHT NOW. THAT WE HAVE, UH, WAS
BEING CREATED THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES. THAT WILL
SEVERELY WERE SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPACT THE WOMEN OR THE TRANS
INDIVIDUALS? THAT COULD BE AH.
AH YOU KNOW, THAT COULD FALL
VICTIM TO THOSE TO THOSE, YOU
KNOW LAWS. IF WE DON'T PROVIDE A
HAVEN FOR THAT IN HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE
TO ADD TWO THINGS EXTREMELY
QUICKLY? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT
EVERYONE WANTS TO GET OUT OF
HERE. UM IT WOULD HAVE TO BE
EXTREMELY QUICKLY BECAUSE YOU
DID ALREADY HAVE YOUR
OPPORTUNITY. OKAY UH, THE
AVERAGE RETENTION PERIOD IN
CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES IS RIGHT NOW
CONSIDERABLY BELOW FOUR YEARS,
SO IN MOST CASES THAT DATA WOULD
HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. UM RIGHT
NOW. AND SECONDLY, THE DATA THAT
WE DO HAVE IT'S LIMITED, BUT IT
SHOWS THAT THE VAST VAST
MAJORITY OF AILES PR SEARCHES
ARE IN THE FIRST. 30 DAYS AFTER
A CRIME IS COMMITTED. ALL RIGHT
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE
HAVE ANY OTHER? UM COMMENTS
GOING TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. I
WAS NOT THE I'M NOT THE I'M JUST
THE ACTING CHAIR. SO UM, I DO
REALLY APPRECIATE AND IT IS
CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE THE OUT OF
STATE PORTION OF THE BILL. I
MEAN, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO
QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON
IN THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT
PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING INTO THIS
STATE. IT HAPPENED TODAY THAT I
AND YOU KNOW, WE DID HAPPEN TO
LOOK AT THE STATISTICS DAY THAT
TODAY. THE RANGE IN CALIFORNIA
IS FROM, I THINK A LITTLE LESS
THAN 30 DAYS ALL THE WAY UP TO
FOUR YEARS. I THINK WHAT
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS SAYING
IS THAT HE CAN'T MAKE A
STATEMENT WITHOUT GOING BACK TO
THE PEOPLE THAT HE REPRESENTS. I
DON'T THINK THAT HE WAS SAYING
THAT THE DATA SHOULD BE LEFT
INDEFINITELY. SO I DO THINK THAT
THERE IS A MORE REASONABLE
ANSWER THAN 30 DAYS. I IT
HAPPENED. I REPRESENT SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT IN VENTURA COUNTY AND
THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND L,
A COUNTY AND A NUMBER OF THE
CITIES AND THEY ARE THEIR CITIES
ARE UNIMPORTANT. THE
INCORPORATED CITIES ARE VERY
ACTIVELY USING THIS IN A
PROTECTED WAY, AND THEY DO HAVE
MUCH LONGER, UM, RETENTION THAN
30 DAYS. BUT I ALSO GOT A CALL
FROM THE CHIEF OF 1000 OAKS THAT
SAID JUST LAST WEEK THEY WERE
ABLE TO ARREST A SERIAL MOLESTER
BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO LOOK
AT THIS DATA. NOW, OBVIOUSLY.
THIS IS ANECDOTAL, BUT IT
HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE TWO
AREAS THAT I REPRESENT. SO
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
YES NEW HAMPSHIRE IS THREE DAYS,
BUT THE AMOUNT OF RETENTION
VARIES WIDELY AND DEPENDS ON
WHAT THE TYPE OF DATA IS. SO, UM
, I AM CURRENTLY NOT GOING TO BE
, UM, SUPPORTING THIS BILL
BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT
THERE IS A THERE IS A RETENTION
PERIOD. THAT IS A REASONABLE
COMPROMISE. AND I THINK IT WOULD
BE MUCH, NOT MUCH, BUT IT WOULD
AT LEAST BE MORE THAN 30 DAYS.
SO, UM, NOW AGAIN. I AM. I WAS
NOT THE I'M JUST THE ACTING
CHAIR SO WE CAN LET THE ACTUAL
CHAIR FINISH UP. BUT THOSE THOSE
ARE THOSE ARE REALLY MY CONCERNS
THAT THIS IS IN THE CITIES THAT
I REPRESENT IN THE 10 CITIES. I
REPRESENT A VERY IMPORTANT TOOL.
WE NEED TO CLOSE MR CHAIR. I
STILL AM. MISTER BENNETT,
PLEASE. HMM. APPRECIATE MR
CHAIR. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF
MY COLLEAGUE FROM VENTURA COUNTY
ALSO BUT MY POSITION WILL BE
DIFFERENT. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL. HAVING THIS MOVE
FORWARD AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO
LOOK AT THE RETENTION ISSUE.
THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ONE THAT
HAS BEEN AN ISSUE AND HOPE YOU
CAN COME UP WITH A COUPLE GUYS
THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY THAT
YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
DEPUTY SHERIFF THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. I JUST
WANNA THANK ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
IRWIN FOR TAKING THE GAP WHILE
WE'RE GONE. UM AND DID WE IS
THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND?
WHAT? PROMOTION FROM WHO? FROM
SOMEBODY. MEMBER WICKS. SECOND
FOR ME SOMEWHERE, BENNETT. UM
YEAH. THANK YOU. MY APOLOGIES
THAT I COULDN'T BE HERE. UM I
APPRECIATE YOUR APPROACH TO THIS
ISSUE. AS YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S THOUGHT
ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. SOME SOME
IMPORTANT BALANCING GOING ON.
APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR
STAFF AND CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION. I THINK WITH WITH
THAT HAPPY TO RECOMMEND AN AYE,
VOTE TODAY, AND YOU MAY CLOSE IF
YOU WISH. YEAH FIRST OF ALL, I
WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR
THEIR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS AND
CONSIDERATION OF THIS. I REALLY
DO APPRECIATE. I NEED TO
REITERATE, THOUGH, THAT WHERE 30
DAYS IS COMING FROM IT IS COMING
FROM THE ENTITY THAT IS SELLING
THIS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES.
AGAIN IN, UH. 1500 CITIES 42
STATES AND THAT IS THEIR
RECOMMENDATION. EVERYTHING THAT
I'VE HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES
FROM VENTURA COUNTY AND
PARTICULARLY, UM, MY COLLEAGUE,
1000 OAKS, AND SO FORTH IS
ANECDOTAL. THERE IS NO DATA.
WHATSOEVER. THAT SUGGESTS THAT
ANYTHING WILL BE ANY MORE SAFE.
EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD IS
ANECDOTAL IN HERE. AND IF WE'RE
GOING TO CONSIDER THAT ANECDOTAL
DATA, THEN WE NEED TO CONSIDER
THE ANECDOTAL DATA OR LACK OF
DATA AT THE ANECDOTAL SITUATION.
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE AT
GREATER LEVEL OF RISK. BY HAVING
MORE DATA OUT THERE. AND SO IF
WE'RE COMPARING THOSE TWO THINGS
ONCE AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE GO
WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
INDUSTRY EXPERTS. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS A SECOND
FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 10, MAYBE 14
63 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BLUMENTHAL. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I PATERSON
BARRICADE KI¾M BENNETT. I SALI.
I FOAM IRWIN. IRWIN NOT VOTING,
LOWENTHAL EYE POPPING. AYE. WIX
WIX? AYE, WILSON. WILSON I 7770
. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE WILL
LEAVE THE ROLE OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. MR TING. THANK YOU
AGAIN VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
PATIENTS. WE REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. WE ARE MOVING TO FILE ITEM.
14 86 42. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
UH LET LET ME JUST THANK YOU AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK
WITH THE BILL. HAPPY TO ACCEPT.
THE AMENDMENTS. UH MAYBE 642. UH
CREATES GUIDELINES AND FRAMEWORK
TO REGULATE FACIAL RECOGNITION
AND HOW IT'S USED AROUND LAW
ENFORCEMENT. AS SOME OF YOU KNOW
, I AUTHORED A BILL THREE YEARS
AGO IN 2019 80 12 15, WHICH
RESTRICTED THE USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN BODY
CAMERAS. THE BILL WAS A THREE
YEAR MORATORIUM AND
UNFORTUNATELY THAT MORATORIUM
HAS EXPIRED. SO AS OF JANUARY,
UH, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON
FACIAL RECOGNITION. UH USE IN
TERMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ANY
MANNER. THIS BILL WOULD ENSURE
THAT WE ARE PROTECTING
STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS AROUND
IMMIGRATION AROUND ABORTION CARE
, GENDER FIRMING CARE LIMITING
WHAT KIND OF DATABASES THEY'RE
THEY'RE USING MAKING SURE THAT
THIS IS ONLY USED FOR FELONIES,
UH, MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN
CONTINUE TO PRACTICE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUCH AS
FREE SPEECH AND FREE PROTEST,
AND NOT BECAUSE TURNED ABOUT
SURVEILLANCE, PROVIDING PEOPLE
WITH INFORMATION ONLY WHEN THEY
ARE USING FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE ALSO HAS MUCH MORE
OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
THAN THERE IS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE
THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY OR
OVERSIGHT. UH I KNOW MY
COLLEAGUE. OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
SASSOON HAS PICKED UP WHERE I
LEFT OUT IN HIS CARRYING A VERY
SIMILAR BILL TO WHAT I PASSED IN
2019 AND AGAIN, UH, THAT BILL IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
THIS BILL SHOULD BOTH BILLS
PASSED THE LEGISLATURE GO TO THE
GOVERNOR GET SIGNED INTO LAW.
THEY ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
EACH OTHER AND CAN CONTINUE TO
BE USED TOGETHER. UM WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS SIMPLY PROVIDE
GUIDELINES GUARDRAILS TO ENSURE
THAT FACIAL RECOGNITION IS
SOFTWARE, IF IT'S TO BE USED,
WILL BE USED IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES AND WILL NOT BE
USED IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES. UH
RIGHT NOW I AM CONCERNED THAT IF
WE DON'T PASS THIS BILL. THIS
BILL IS NOT SIGNED INTO LAW.
THEN WE ALLOW A COMPLETE FREE
FOR ALL BECOMES SOMETHING THAT,
UH EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
ACROSS THE STATE WILL BE USING
WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINES. ANY
INFORMATION ANY ADVICE AND THEY
WILL BE COMPLETELY UNFETTERED.
UH THIS BILL DOES NOT THE ONE
GOOD THING THAT THIS BILL DOES
NOT DO. IT DOES NOT PROMOTE THE
USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE. I DON'T THINK THAT IT
NEEDS TO BE PROMOTED. LAW
ENFORCEMENT SEES ARE GOING TO BE
MAKING THAT DECISION ON THEIR
OWN. THIS BILL ACTUALLY, TO ME,
RESTRICTS FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE IN ITS USE AND FRANK.
FRANKLY IT'S LITTLE BIT BROADER
THAN MY PREVIOUS BILL, WHICH IS
ONLY RAN BODY CAMERAS. THIS IS
AROUND FOOTAGE FOR SECURITY
CAMERAS, IPHONES ANY KIND OF
CAMERA, SO IT'S MUCH, MUCH
BROADER IN TERMS OF SCOPE AND
REALLY WHAT IT'S REGULATING.
ALSO. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS
THIS DOES NOT PREEMPT ANY LOCAL
CITY FROM TAKING GREATER ACTION
. MY CITY, SAN FRANCISCO,
OAKLAND HAS BANNED FACIAL
RECOGNITION SOFTWARE DOES NOT
PREEMPT THAT CITY FROM FROM
CONTINUING. THAT USE ALSO
DOESN'T PREEMPT OTHER CITIES. SO
BERKELEY OR SANTA MONICA, OR
BLOND BEACH OR ANY OTHER CITY IN
THE STATE. LOS ANGELES WANTS TO
GO AND GO FURTHER. THIS BILL
DOES NOT DOES NOT STOP THAT. SO
AGAIN, I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE
DEBATE AND DISCUSSION. THIS
COMMITTEE HAS RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR IVAN AND MAYBE 642. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
SUPPORT? SEE NONE. WE WILL TURN
TO WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
I JUST STARTED HOME. HELLO.
THANK YOU FOR, UM ALLOW ME TO
TESTIFY ON THIS WORK AND
OPPOSITION OF THIS MY NAME IS
ROBERT WILLIAMS. I AM HERE FROM
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. AND I
CAME FROM SO. UH UM. FIRST LIKE
TO SAY GOOD EVENING AND THANK
YOU TO THE CHAIR IN THE CITY
COMMUNITY MEMBERS. FOR LETTING
ME SPEAK ON THIS. UM. AGAIN I AM
ROBERT WILLIAMS FROM FARMING
HILLS, MICHIGAN. ALL I SHARE MY
SON MY STORY WITH YOU TO SHOW
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS TECH
FAILS. JANUARY. 9TH 2020 HOURS
ARRESTED AT MY HOME AFTER
LEAVING WORK IN FRONT OF MY WIFE
, KIDS AND NEIGHBORS DUE TO A
WRONG FR T MATCH. POWERLESS TO
OPPOSE THIS. I WAS SERVED THE
WARRANT JAILED AND FALSELY
CHARGED WITH A FELONY. ARE SOME
LASTING EFFECTS OF THIS ORDEAL
THAT HAS HAIR HAD A EVER
SUSPECTS ON ME AND MY FAMILY,
ESPECIALLY MY DAUGHTERS. JULIA
WHO WAS FIVE AT THE TIME OF THE
INCIDENT, STILL GETS VISIBLY
UPSET. AND EMOTIONAL WHEN WE
DISCUSSED THE ARREST, OR WE WERE
WHEN WE RE WATCHED THE VIDEOS OR
THE NEWS COVERAGE OF THE AMENDED
TO X PLACE. A YEAR AND A HALF.
LATER AT STAGE SEVEN, SHE CALLED
A FAMILY MEETING TO ANNOUNCE
THIS YEAR'S FINALLY SOLVED THE
CASE AND FOUND THE ACTUAL
CRIMINAL TURNS OUT IT WAS A
CARTOON CHARACTER. MY OWN PTSD
HAS LED ME TO BE SLIGHTLY
FEARFUL AND AFRAID WHEN I SEE
POLICE CARS OR WHEN I'M BEYOND
PROSE BY A POLICEMAN, WHICH
COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO MY WELL
BEING FOR REACTING NERVOUSLY TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT. ESPECIALLY WELL
RATHER THAN. SAN ESPECIALLY A
SAD THING IS LIKE MOST I WAS
TAUGHT SINCE THE CHILD THAT THE
POLICE ARE YOUR FRIENDS AND THAT
THERE TO HELP YOU IF YOU EVER
NEED IT. I'VE HAD THE EXPERIENCE
OF EXPLAINED THIS MISTAKE THAT
THE POLICE MADE TO MY CRYING
CHILD. IN THESE CASES, THE
INVESTIGATOR LEAD PROVIDED DOES
NOT PREVENT THE OFFICERS FROM
ASSUMING THAT THE BELIEFS AND
CAPABILITIES OF HIS TECHNOLOGY
AND TRUSTING IT TO BE
INFALLIBLE. THIS WILL ULTIMATELY
DETER THEM FROM THE PROCESSES OF
INVESTIGATIVE POLICE WORK THAT
WILL BE NECESSARY TO CATCH THE
ACTUAL CRIMINAL. PEOPLE OFTEN
THINK IT IS A USED AS A TOOL AND
NOT AS THE RULE AND I DON'T
AGREE. I MEAN, I DON'T DISAGREE
, BUT I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S
DANGEROUS WHEN IT WORKS, AND
IT'S EVEN MORE DANGEROUS IF IT
DOESN'T WORK. MORE SPECIFIC. IN
MY CASE, I HAVE A TEAM WHAT WERE
HALF A DOZEN OR SOME OF THE
SMARTEST ATTORNEYS AROUND AND
YET I'VE STILL BEEN IN
LITIGATION FOR THE PAST THREE
YEARS. SO FAR, THE LAWYERS ON
BEHALF OF THE OF DETROIT HAVE
RESISTED OR HAVE BEEN HESITANT
AND PROVIDING DISCOVERY
DOCUMENTS TO ME IN SUPPORT OF MY
CASE. ALSO THEY HAVE TRIED TO
FORCE ME TO GO SEE MULTIPLE
MEDICAL EXAMS. JUST PROVE MY
CLAIMS WITH PTSD. IT IS ILLEGAL
CAUSE OF ACTION. I SUPPOSE WHEN
IT'S APPLICABLE. AND I, FOR ONE,
CAN'T TELL IF THERE'S WOULD EVEN
APPLY TO ME. WHAT I DO KNOW FOR
A FACT IS THAT YOU COULD NEVER
ERASE THE LASTING SCARS LEFT ON
ME AND MY FAMILY. I WOULD LIKE
TO END MY TIME BY SAYING I THINK
THE ONLY ANSWER IS TO NOT USE
THIS TECH. THIS WAY, YOU WILL
NOT LEAVE PEOPLE FIGHTING CASES
IN COURT AND TRYING TO RIGHT THE
WRONGS LIKE I'M ATTEMPTING TO
DO. HOW CAN ONLY HOPE THAT MY
SITUATION I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT
MY SITUATION CAN BE USED TO MAKE
A REAL DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME AND HOPEFULLY YOUR
CONSIDERATION. OKAY? THANK YOU,
MR WILLIAMS, CANADIAN CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KARMA NICOLE COX ON
BEHALF OF A CEO, YOU CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND VERY STRONG
OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 6 42
. WE APPRECIATE AND ARE THANKFUL
FOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TEAMS
PASSED LEADERSHIP ON FR T AND WE
HAVE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE
AMENDMENTS REQUESTED OF THE
HARDWORKING STAFF HERE OF THE
COMMITTEE. HOWEVER A B 64 TO
PERSIST AND ITS ENCROACHMENT ON
CIVIL RIGHTS. UM IT PROMISES TO
EXPAND AND ENTRENCH A TECHNOLOGY
THAT IS SIMPLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH
OUR CIVIL RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM
ABUSIVE AND INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT
SURVEILLANCE AND INTERACTION.
FACE SURVEILLANCE IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF DIGITAL STOP AND
FRISK OR SHOW YOUR PAPER. UM IT
ATTEMPTS A TECHNOLOGICAL END RUN
AROUND THE CONSTITUTION,
PROVIDING THE GOVERNMENT WITH
THE POWER TO DO THINGS THAT WE
WOULD NEVER ACCEPT IN THE ANALOG
WORLD. 86 42 WILL INCREASE
INVASIVE GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE
POWERED BY VAST BIOMETRIC
DATABASES CREATED WITHOUT OUR
CONSENT THAT INEVITABLY WILL BE
USED AGAINST THE MOST
MARGINALIZED THE DAMAGE CAUSED
BY MISIDENTIFICATION AND
DISCRIMINATORY POLICING GOES
BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE
CROSSHAIRS. AS MR WILLIAMS HAS
JUST EXPLAINED, THIS TECHNOLOGY
CAN HARM FAMILIES AND ENTIRE
COMMUNITIES. THIS IS WHY THE A C
L U HAS LABELED THIS BILL A
JUSTICE DENIER WITH OVER 50 REAL
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE. L G B T Q.
I RACIAL JUSTICE AND CIVIL
RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS STATEWIDE,
JOINING US IN OUR STRONG
OPPOSITION. TRYING TO REGULATE
FACE SURVEILLANCE IS LIKE TRYING
TO BLOCK A CANNONBALL WITH
CARDBOARD. THE HARMS OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER
WHAT IT MEANS TO EXIST IN
PUBLIC. AND ALREADY THE STATUS
QUO IS THAT BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES ARE OVER, POLICED
OVER ARRESTED OVER ABUSED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT. FACE SURVEILLANCE
POURS GASOLINE ON THIS PROBLEM.
UNDER A B 64 TO THESE
COMMUNITIES, MY COMMUNITY, OUR
COMMUNITIES WILL
DISPROPORTIONATELY HAVE THEIR
FACES SCANNED, TRACKED AND
MATCHED WITH DATABASES FILLED
WITH QUITE PLAINLY VICTIMS OF
THE WAR ON DRUGS, AMONG OTHERS.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE RACIAL
PROFILING DATA SHOWS THAT WE
MEMBERS OF MY COMMUNITY, OUR
COMMUNITIES WILL ENCOUNTER LAW
ENFORCEMENT MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY
. POLICE ALREADY TREAT
COMMUNITIES DIFFERENTLY. BASED
ON RACE AND 86 42 AND ITS
ENDORSEMENT OF SURVEILLANCE
TECHNOLOGY ARE RIGHT FOR ABUSE.
I AM NOT SPECULATING A 2022
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY REPORT
ON RACIAL DISPARITIES AND POLICE
USE OF F RT SYSTEMS FOUND THAT
BLACK PEOPLE ARE POLICED MORE
PUNITIVE PUNITIVELY WITH FR T
THAN WHITE PEOPLE. BY PROVIDING
A LEGISLATIVE ENDORSEMENT OF
MASS SURVEILLANCE A B 64 TO
INCENTIVIZE THE POLICE AND
SURVEILLANCE VENDORS TO
ESTABLISH 24 HOUR REAL TIME.
ANYTIME FACE SURVEILLANCE IN OUR
PARKS, STREETS, MALLS AND
COMMUNITY COMMUNITIES. THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN
CALIFORNIA TODAY, AND IT WILL
MAKE OVER POLICING AND EVEN
WORSE PROBLEM THE SYSTEM
EMBRACED BY A B 642 WOULD QUITE
PLAINLY MIRROR THE KIND THAT
AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS AROUND
THE WORLD USED TO TARGET AND
CONTROL MARGINALIZED PEOPLE. 86
WERE TO ALSO SAYS THAT IF YOU
HAVE A STATE ID, SUCH AS A
DRIVER'S LICENSE, POLICE CAN RUN
YOUR IDENTITY AGAINST FACIAL
RECOGNITION WITHOUT YOUR
KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. THIS IS
UNPRECEDENTED IN CALIFORNIA,
WHERE THE CURRENT LAW PROHIBITS
THIS KIND OF VIRTUAL CONSTANT
VIRTUAL LINEUP AS THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS STATES. EVEN OUR
FACEBOOK PHOTOS COULD BECOME RAW
MATERIALS OF THIS NEW FACE
SURVEILLANCE NETWORK, AND I'M
WRAPPING UP HERE. A B 642 OFFERS
NO TRUE PROTECTIONS AGAINST
UNDISCLOSED USE OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AGAIN.
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
HIGHLIGHTS HOW POLICE COULD USE
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
TO SURVEIL PROTESTERS DESPITE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. IN FACT,
AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
HIGHLIGHTS, POLICE MAY SIMPLY
IGNORE THE BILL ALTOGETHER. MR
WILLIAMS STORY SHOWS THAT THIS
BUILD HARMS ARE ARE FORESEEABLE
AND IT'S SUPPOSED BENEFITS IS
UNFOUNDED, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE
CONSIDER THE WEAK ENFORCEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE. I
RESPECTFULLY URGE OR NO VOTE ON
THIS JUSTICE DENIER BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. BECCA CRAMER MATTER
ON BEHALF OF ACCESS,
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, ANTI
POLICE TERROR PROJECT ASIAN LAW
ALLIANCE, CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER CENTRAL AMERICAN
RESOURCE CENTER OF SAN FRANCISCO
FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE MUSLIM
DEMOCRATS AND FRIENDS. SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER RACIAL
JUSTICE COMMITTEE SECURE JUSTICE
, TRANSGENDER GENDER VARIANT,
INTERSEX JUSTICE PROJECT AND
SUPPORT LIFE FOUNDATION AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. UM TRACY
ROSENBERG FROM OAKLAND PRIVACY
STILL IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. CHARGING ME WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
IN OPPOSITION. QUÊ. WITH THAT WE
WILL BRING IT BACK TO MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS. REMEMBER, WILSON.
THANK YOU. UM MR CHAIR AND GIVEN
, UM, THAT THERE WERE NOT, YOU
KNOW, WITNESSES AND SUPPORT OR,
UM UM, THOSE STANDING AND
SUPPORT AND NOTING ALL THE
OPPOSITION LIKE A C L U AND MANY
OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WERE
LISTED NOT ONLY ON THE, UM,
LISTED AS IT WAS STATED, BUT
ALSO LISTED, UM WITHIN THE BILL.
UM MANY OF THEM COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION,
CAN YOU ELABORATE THEN AND YOUR
PROCESS WITH STAKEHOLDERS
ORGANIZATIONS YOU WORKED WITH TO
COME TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
BILL AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU
MAKE. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, I'M
NOT FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS, WHICH IS
THE OLDEST ASIAN AMERICAN CIVIL
RIGHTS GROUP. IN THE COUNTRY. UM
I HAVE, LIKE MANY OF US. I HAVE
THE 100% RANKING FROM THE FROM
LAST YEAR. I GUESS I WON'T BE
GETTING IT THIS YEAR. AH WE'VE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS BILL FOR
THE LAST FOUR YEARS. AND HAVE
KNOWN WHAT THE CIA USED CONCERNS
ARE AROUND WHAT THE ISSUES OF
FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE IS.
I'M VERY CONCERNED, ACTUALLY
DON'T WANT WHAT HAPPENED TO MR
WILLIAMS CASE TODAY, HAPPENING
ANYWHERE. BUT THAT'S WHY I'M
DOING THIS BILL. IN TERMS OF
STAKEHOLDERS. WE'VE REACHED OUT
TO A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS. WE
HAVE NOT GOT ANY SPECIFIC
AMENDMENTS BACK FROM THEM. THAT
OFFER HAS BEEN OPEN. WE HAVE
GOTTEN LETTERS IN TERMS OF
CONCERNED OPPOSITION PRIOR TO
PUBLIC SAFETY. WE WENT THROUGH
OPPOSITION LETTERS. AND WE
BELIEVE WE TOOK AMENDMENTS WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S INPUT. THAT
ADDRESSED ALL THE VARIOUS
CONCERNS THAT OPPOSITION WOULD
HAVE UM, THEY WE HAVEN'T GOT
ANYTHING IN SPECIFIC WRITING IF
OPPOSITION WERE INTERESTED IN
GIVING US ANY SPECIFICS IN
WRITING, I WOULD BE VERY OPEN TO
IT. IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE L
. YOU IT WAS VERY CLEAR AND I
RESPECT THE POSITION THAT THEY
WOULD NOT BE OFFERING ANY
AMENDMENTS THAT THEY COULD ONLY
SUPPORT A BAN OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION. TECHNOLOGY. UH AND
I RESPECT THAT POSITION. I KNOW
THAT'S A ORGANIZATIONAL
POSITION, BUT THAT IS NOT MY
PERSONAL POSITION. AH THE
OPPOSITION WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS A MORATORIUM IN
PLACE. THERE IS NOT THERE WAS NO
LAW IN THE STATE RIGHT NOW
REGULATING FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY. IT CAN BE USED ANY
TIME. WHAT HAPPENED TO MR
WILLIAMS COULD BE HAPPENING THIS
VERY SECOND. RIGHT NOW. TODAY.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW IN
PLACE. I KNOW MY PHILOSOPHY WITH
THE OPPOSITION IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT. I BELIEVE THAT WE
HAVE A JOB TO DO. WE HAVE
REGULATIONS TO IMPOSE. WE HAVE
GUIDELINES AND WE HAVE PEOPLE TO
PROTECT. I DON'T THINK THAT
WE'RE BETTER OFF HAVING NO LAWS,
NO GUIDELINES, NO STANDARDS. I
ALSO WANT TO SAY I TAKE
DISAGREEMENT. HOW THIS BILL
EXTENDS OR ENTRENCHES OR SOMEHOW
ENCOURAGES. FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE USE ABSOLUTELY.
ACTUALLY DOES THE OPPOSITE. IF
YOU LOOK AT EVERY STATE THAT'S
PASSED FACIAL RECOGNITION
GUIDELINES OR REGULATIONS, IT'S
ALL BEEN ABOUT REGULATION, NOT
ABOUT BANNING. RIGHT NOW. FACIAL
RECOGNITION SOFTWARE COULD BE
USED IS BEING USED. UNDER NO
REGULATORY GUIDANCE, NO
PROTECTIONS, NO CIVIL RIGHTS. TO
BE USED FOR ANYTHING RIGHT NOW,
THIS SECOND AND SO WHEN WE
WORKED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE, WE WORKED VERY HARD
TO ADDRESS. I BELIEVE ALL OF
OPPOSITIONS CONCERNS SEPARATE
FROM BANNING FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE, WHICH WE DIDN'T DO,
BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANY
STAKEHOLDERS WHO WANT TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT. NO
STAKEHOLDER HAS COME FORWARD TO
OFFER ANY AH WRITTEN AMENDMENTS
OR WRITTEN AMENDMENTS TO MODIFY
OUR BILL. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT YOU MADE POST PUBLIC SAFETY
WAS THE COMPLETE DEFENSE
ARGUMENT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A
SEVERELY LOW STANDARD. UM AND IN
COMPARISON TO OTHER DEFENSES
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS IT ITS
DISPOSAL. UM NOW, WHEN IT COMES
TO REFERENCE DATABASES AND
SOMETHING YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT
ALREADY IS THE INCLUSION OF
DRIVER'S LICENSE AS AN EXPANSION
OF WHAT DRIVER'S LICENSE PHOTOS
SHOULD BE USED FOR. UM I'M
CONCERNED. YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I KNOW
YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT A
FEW HOURS AGO. UM OPPOSITION
BROUGHT IT UP FOR THE FIRST TIME
WE REACHED BACK OUT TO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE BECAUSE
THAT'S THOSE CHANGES WERE
OFFERED BY THAT COMMITTEE. UH
THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT BELIEVE
THAT. BUT WHAT YOU SAID, IS
ACTUALLY WHAT'S OCCURRING. WE
WILL CONTINUE TO TALK TO THEM
AND OBVIOUSLY WORK WITH YOU TO
MAKE SURE WE ADDRESS AH, THOSE
CONCERNS AGAIN. THE BILL DOES
NOT ALLOW THE INTENTION OF THE
BILL WAS NOT TO FURTHER ALLOW
THIS TECHNOLOGY. IT WAS TO OFFER
STANDARDS GUIDELINES AND TO
RESTRICT WHEN THIS TECHNOLOGY
COULD BE USED, AND AT THIS
POINT, THERE ARE NO
RESTRICTIONS. AND THERE ARE
RESTRICTIONS ACTUALLY ON
DRIVER'S LICENSE RIGHT NOW,
HOWEVER, THIS BILL DOES GIVE
PERMISSIVE LANGUAGE TO THE
DEFINITION, SAYING THAT A RE
SEARCHABLE DATABASE CAN INCLUDE
DRIVER'S LICENSE PHOTOS, WHICH
IS PART OF WHAT INCIDENT
HAPPENED HERE. AND THAT MEANS
THAT EVERY SINGLE CALIFORNIA AND
CALIFORNIA AND WHO HAS A
DRIVER'S LICENSE OR CALIFORNIA I
D. ARE NOW CAN NOW BE INCLUDED
IN THE DATABASE FOR FACIAL
RECOGNITION. YOU DON'T BELIEVE
THAT'S AN ISSUE OF PRIVACY AND
ONLY PUBLIC SAFETY. IS THAT WHAT
YOU WERE SAYING BECAUSE, UH, THE
AMENDMENTS CAME FROM THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMITTEE. WE TALKED TO
THEM IN BETWEEN MY CONVERSATION
WITH YOU. AND RIGHT NOW, UH,
THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT. THAT'S
WHAT IS OCCURRING. BUT WE'RE
HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AGAIN AT
THE LANGUAGE. AN ABSOLUTELY
HAPPY TO THAT. THAT'S WHAT'S
OCCURRING IN THE BILL, BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW IN THE BILL, THEY
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THEY ENCOURAGED
ME TO TAKE DOES THAT AND SO WE
WILL GO BACK TO THEM. HAPPY TO
WORK WITH YOU. WE WILL
DEFINITELY MORE THAN HAPPY TO
ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. I
UNDERSTAND FOR CLARIFICATION,
PURPOSES, THE VERSION OF THE
BILL THAT I'M LOOKING AT FOR
THIS COMMITTEE IS NOT THE
AMENDED VERSION FROM THE AMENDED
VERSION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT
THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT THEY
ASKED US TO TAKE THEY DON'T
BELIEVE IS IN CONFLICT. BUT
AGAIN, I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH
YOU AND HAPPY TO LOOK AT ANY
LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS IT. BECAUSE
IF THAT IS THE CASE, I'M MORE
THAN HAPPY TO ENSURE THAT IT'S
NOT DEFINITELY BECAUSE YOU DO
INCLUDE IT AS A PART OF YOUR
DEFINITION DRIVER'S LICENSE.
PHOTOS UM, CAN BE USED. UM AND
IT'S PART. IT'S PART OF THE
REFERENCE DATABASE. AND THEN IT
INCLUDES VARIOUS ASPECTS OF
GETTING HOW THOSE ACT DRIVER'S
LICENSE. PHOTOS ARE OBTAINED,
WHICH IS PART OF THE DATABASE.
THAT MEANS PEOPLE COULD BE
LOOKING THIRD PARTY VENDORS WHO
YOU WOULD ALLOW WITHIN THE BILL
LANGUAGE SAYS THAT THIRD PARTY
UM THIRD PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO
SELL THEIR DATA BASIS, AND THEY
HAVE INTERESTING WAYS OF GAINING
ACCESS TO OUR PRIVATE
INFORMATION RIGHT IN OUR
PICTURES. AND SO THIS WOULD
ALMOST INCENTIVIZE THEM TO BE
ABLE TO EVEN OBTAIN THAT
INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF THE FACT
THAT YOU KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT
DOES HAVE ACCESS TO DRIVER'S
LICENSE PHOTOS. UM. IN REGARD TO
THE 98% TRUE POSITIVES AND THE
ANTI STI CAN YOU TALK ABOUT FOR
ME, PLEASE? WHAT? UM HOW THAT'S
HOW THAT RATING IS GATHERED.
THAT 98% I'M GONNA ASK MY STAFF
TO FURTHER CLARIFY THAT WHATEVER
YOU COULD REPEAT THE QUESTION
THE 98. YES, UM. THE 98% TRUE
POSITIVES AND I S T UH, IS THE
ORGANIZATION THAT IS THE
STANDARD THAT GIVES THAT 98%
POSITIVE, BUT, UM, WHEN IT COMES
TO THERE'S STUDIES BEEN DONE
WHEN IT COMES TO PEOPLE OF COLOR
WOMEN, ANYONE BUT A WHITE MALE,
UM, THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND
SO YOU USE THAT AS A STANDARD
TO, UM WITHIN THE BILL. THAT'S
THE METRIC 98 CENTS 98% TRUE
POSITIVE, SO I'M I'M JUST
WONDERING WHERE THAT HOW HOW ARE
YOU USING THAT? YES SO THE 90%
ACCURACY WAS PROVIDED. WE WORKED
AT THE TECHNOLOGY FOLKS AND
SPECIFICALLY THE SECURITY
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY AND WE
SELECTED THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE
SCIENCE OR STANDARDS OF
TECHNOLOGY AND FORGIVE ME FOR
GETTING THE ACRONYM WRONG IF
I'VE GOT IT WRONG, BUT THOSE
FOLKS ARE UNDER THE U. S
DEPARTMENT OF, UM UH UH,
COMMERCE FROM NOT MISTAKEN, BUT
IT'S A FEDERAL ORGANIZATION AND
SO THE 98% ACCURACY ON TWO OR
MORE FACTORS WAS PROVIDED BY THE
TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS AND WE
BASE THIS OFF OF THE STANDARDS
THAT ARE SET THROUGHOUT OTHER
STATES IN THE COUNTRY AND OTHER
STATES HAVE ALL ONE OR A MINIMUM
OF ONE MATCH WITH A 98%
ACCURACY, WHEREAS WE HAVE THE
TWO AND WE SPECIFICALLY WORKED
WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
TO ENSURE THAT THAT 98% CAMPING
MANIPULATED SO IF THE TECHNOLOGY
CAN GO, FOR EXAMPLE, 80% OR
LOWER IT WOULD NOT BE ABLE. HE
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT
UNDER THIS BILL, AND SO IT HAS
TO HAVE A THRESHOLD OF THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACCURACY THAT
WE CAN FIND IN THE STATE, WHICH
IS 98. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF
ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE
HIGHEST ACCURACY LEVEL. UH USED
ABOVE EVERYONE ELSE. OF THE 98%
AND, UM. IN REGARD TO THE NINTH
, BUT BUT WITHIN THE 98% OF THE
NOTICED, EVEN IN THE ANALYSIS
FROM THE PRIVACY COMMITTEE AND
NOTES, UM, AS A PART OF THE
ANALYSIS, THERE ARE SEVERAL
STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT EVEN
HAVING THAT AS A THRESHOLD DOES
NOT OPERATE. IT DOESN'T OPERATE
THAT IN PRACTICE, SO THAT'S WHAT
YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE
INTENTIONAL. AND I THINK THAT
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A
MISCONCEPTION OF HOW THIS
TECHNOLOGY ACTUALLY WORKS. AND I
SURE. SO SORRY. FIRST TIMER. UM
IT'S MOVABLE. YEAH I DO BELIEVE
THAT THERE'S A BIT OF A
MISCONCEPTION WITH HOW THE
TECHNOLOGY WORKS. I THINK THAT'S
BEEN THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS HOW
DOES THIS WORK? BECAUSE WE HAVE
BEEN HEARING REPEATEDLY FROM THE
SECURITY FOLKS WHO I DO WISH
WE'RE HERE AT THIS HEARING, BUT
WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT THAT
ONCE THE TECHNOLOGY IS SET AT A
CERTAIN STANDARD, IT CANNOT BE
MANIPULATED. BUT WE DID CODIFY
THAT INTENTIONALLY TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF IT IS, IN FACT, 98% YOU
CANNOT USE THE TECHNOLOGY UNDER
THAT ACCURACY. SO WE WERE WE
HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH, YOU
KNOW, I BELIEVE WHEN THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S DID THE
ORIGINAL BILL, ONE OF OUR
MEMBERS WERE RUN AGAINST FR T IT
WAS A LOWER THRESHOLD IN 1998%
SO THERE WERE A LOT OF FOLKS
THAT WERE MISIDENTIFIED. SO OUR
INTENTION WITH THE 98% IS TO
ENSURE THE CLOSEST LEVEL OF
ACCURACY THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE.
BUT ISN'T THE STATISTIC BASED ON
TESTING AND LIKE A CLEAN
ENVIRONMENT? IT'S NOT IN
PRACTICAL LIKE HOW WOULD YOU
TEST IT AND PRACTICAL IT'S THE
HIGHEST FACTORY SETTING. SO IT
HAS TO BE 90% THIS IS MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS THE
HIGHEST ACCURACY SETTING
ACCURACY SETTING. THERE HAS BEEN
NO MISIDENTIFICATION. I DON'T
KNOW THAT. I JUST KNOW THAT IT'S
I THINK IT'S THIS IS MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS THE
HIGHEST ACCURATE SETTING THAT WE
CAN SET IT UP. OKAY, WHICH IS
STILL BASED ON BIAS, A
TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS A BIAS TO
THAT PRIMARILY ONLY IDENTIFIES
WHITE MALES PER THE STUDIES THAT
ARE LISTENING IN THE ANALYSIS. I
THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THE
TECHNOLOGIES CONCERNING THAT'S
WHY I HAVE A BILL REGULATING
THIS TECHNOLOGY VERSUS RIGHT NOW
. STATE LAW HAS NO REGULATION
THIS TECHNOLOGY AND WE COULD
WAIT AND BAN THE TECHNOLOGY AND
SAY THAT IT'S NOT USABLE INTEL
IT GETS TO A PLACE WHERE IT
DOESN'T REGULARLY MISIDENTIFIED
BLACK MEN OR, YOU KNOW WHITE
WOMEN OR CHILDREN OR ANYONE ELSE
. UM IN REGARD TO I'M GOING TO
USE THE SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF THE
BILL TEXTED SPECIFIES THIS
PARTICULAR AREA. UM. PART OF THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR BEING ABLE TO
USE THIS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
FLIP SIDE USING THE TECHNOLOGY
AND THEN IF IT GOES ARRAY AWRY,
AND IT'S NOT USED REGULARLY AND
NOTES THAT, UM YOU CAN'T RELY
JUST ON THE TECHNOLOGY. IT HAS
TO BE PAIRED WITH SOME OTHER
INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUE. BUT
YOUR BILL ALLOWS YOU TO SAY THAT
UM ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS EXPLAIN
WHY YOU KNOW THAT OTHER SIDE
FAILED OR UNLIKELY TO EXCEED
PRIOR TO DOING THAT FOR THE
ANALYSIS, IT'S ON PAGE 3 60.
NOTES THAT OF THE ANALYSIS OF
THE OF THE ANALYSIS. UM THERE'S
A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGIES
AND THE BILL TEXT AND SO I'M
JUST USING THAT SUMMARIZED. I
DON'T WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE
ANALYSIS RIGHT IN FRONT ME. BUT
WITH, UM THE LANGUAGE. UH WE
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT
HAPPENED TO MR WILLIAMS CASE,
WHICH WAS JUST BASED ON WHAT HE
SAID, WHICH WAS THERE WAS A
MATCH AND HE WAS ARRESTED. IS
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, UH, THAT
ABSOLUTELY THAT THERE HAD TO BE
SOME OTHER REASON. FOUR. ON TOP
OF THE MATCH TO ARREST SOMEONE.
AND SO IT'S NOT THAT THE THAT
THE MATCH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE
USED BY ITSELF. SO A COUPLE OF
THINGS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
PRESENTING AND MR WILLIAMS CASE
THERE WAS A SECONDARY AND THAT'S
NOTED OUT IN THE IN A DIFFERENT
BASED ON WHAT HIS WHAT HE READ.
IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SIMILAR
TO LIKE WHAT WE'VE SEEN RIGHT
NOW ON THE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA WITH THE ANTIOCH
POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHERE
EVIDENCE WAS MADE UP, BUT IN
THIS PARTICULAR YOU DO ALLOW FOR
AN OUT AND THAT IS THAT THE
EXPLANATION OF WHY THOSE
MEASURES FELT OR REASONABLY
LIKELY. JUST SUCCEED IS
ALLOWABLE AND THAT'S IN IN YOUR
THAT SUMMARIZED HERE, BUT IT IS
IN THE LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, THE
LARGER ONE, AND THAT'S A LARGER
PARAGRAPH. NÓI I APPRECIATE THAT
. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. UM
THE INTENTION OF THAT LANGUAGE
AND I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS
WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE WAS
TO ENSURE THAT THE OFFICERS ARE
EXHAUSTING ALL EFFORTS PRIOR TO
USING A FARTY. SO ERIC FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY, SO IF
THE TECHNOLOGY IS USED, THEY HAD
TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAD
EXHAUSTED EVERY OTHER EFFORT.
AND IDENTIFYING THE INDIVIDUAL.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THE YOU
PROBABLY SHOULD GO BACK AND
UPDATE THAT LANGUAGE TO BE A BIT
MORE PRECISELY. I APPRECIATE
THAT SAYING, HEY, YOU CAN INVADE
OUR PRIVACY IN THIS REGARD.
THAT'S WHAT THIS COMMITTEE IS
DOING. GIVING PERMISSION FOR
THIS IF IT SHOULD PASS THROUGH
AND AT THE SAME TIME, THEN
SAYING THAT COUNTERMEASURES THAT
YOU PUT IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO
SAFEGUARD AGAINST THAT, UM,
ALLOW FOR OUTS, AND CURRENTLY
THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE HAS. IT
ALLOWS FOR THAT OUT BECAUSE ALL
THEY HAVE TO DO IS DOCUMENT WHY
THAT SECONDARY PIECE DIDN'T
SUCCEED, OR, UM, WAS
UNREASONABLE, AND THAT IS THE
THRESHOLD THAT YOU USE SO I
WOULD ASK THAT YOU WOULD GO BACK
AND LOOK AT THAT. I HAVE NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME, SIR. AND THANK YOU
FOR OUR WITNESSES. GIVE SHARING
YOUR STORY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WASN'T I THINK
THAT IS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWENTHAL AND THEN
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. I WILL TRY
TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. UH
VERY FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS
COMMEND EVERYBODY HERE. I WOULD
LIKE TO COMMEND MR WILLIAMS. THE
OPPOSITION THE VALUE FOR
EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO. AND
CERTAINLY IN THIS MEASURE, I'D
LIKE TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR. AH
REALLY LIKE TO COMMEND MY
COLLEAGUE FROM FAIRFIELD ON
EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT
FORWARD. UM I THINK THAT'S THE
MEMBER THAT I LEARNED THE MOST
FIRM IN THIS BODY. UM THERE'S A
PROBLEM. EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT.
HUGE, HUGE, HUGE PROBLEM. AH
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT SOUNDED GOOD
AT THE TIME. IN REALITY, IT HAS
NOT MADE US BETTER. I DON'T
THINK SO. CHEN RELIABLE. IT'S
GOT A LOW SUCCESS RATE,
ESPECIALLY IDENTIFYING ANYONE OF
COLOR, PARTICULARLY WOMEN. UM I
AVOID IT IN MY LIFE. EVERY
OPPORTUNITY. I CAN. I WON'T DO
CLEAR. I WANT TO FACIAL
RECOGNITION ON MY PHONE. I AVOID
IT WITH MY KIDS. IT'S ORWELLIAN.
I THINK IT'S TRULY TRULY TRULY
HORRIFIC. AND LIKE MANY OF US IN
THIS ROOM I GRAPPLE WITH WHAT'S
THE BEST WAY TO GET CONTROL OF
IT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MOST
OF US ARE DOING UP HERE. JUST
TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. I YOU
KNOW, THE ONLY SCENARIO I CAN
THINK OF WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION
IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD
SUPPORT IS BIOMETRICS IN GUN
SAFETY MEASURES. I THINK THAT'S
THE ONLY SCENARIO BUT I THINK IT
ACTUALLY WORKS. COULD WORK. I
JUST WANT TO SAY YOU KNOW IN
THIS IN THIS CASE, I ONLY SPEAK
FOR MYSELF, BUT I'M PLANNING TO
SUPPORT THE MEASURES TODAY FOR
THE VERY REASONS MY COLLEAGUE
FROM SAN FRANCISCO BROUGHT
FORWARD. THERE'S NOTHING OUT
THERE TODAY. AT ALL. WHICH IS
RUNNING WILD. AND TECHNOLOGY. I
COME FROM TECH TECHNOLOGY MOVES
AT AN EXPONENTIAL. SPACE FIELD.
I WOULD ALSO SEE MYSELF BEING
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF A BAN. SO
THAT'S WHERE I STAND. SO AGAIN.
I APPRECIATE YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD AND, UM AND THANKS
SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
AND, UM. YEAH I THINK YOU KNOW,
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF
SUPPORTING THE LAST BILL THEY
WENT THROUGH AND FACIAL
RECOGNITION. WHICH SIDE IS NOW?
SUNSET? IT UM AND IT'S REALLY I
THINK THAT. AND THE MEMBER FROM
LONG BEACH SAID IT WELL, WHICH
IS WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. AND
SO WHAT? THE RIGHT ANSWER IS ONE
THAT 120 MEMBERS WILL GET TO
DECIDE OVER THE COURSE OF THE
NEXT SIX MONTHS AND I DON'T KNOW
WHERE WE'LL LAND, BUT I THINK
OUR ROLE HERE TODAY IS TO ENSURE
THAT WE ARE PROTECTING
CALIFORNIANS. PRIVACY IS ABOUT
PRIVACY ABOVE ALL ELSE. AND BOTH
OF THESE MEASURES TAKE A STEP
TOWARDS THAT ONE. FURTHER THAN
THE OTHER, BUT NONETHELESS BOTH
ADVANCED CALIFORNIA'S PRIVACY,
SO I AGREE. I'LL BE SUPPORTING
BOTH. THERE'S ONE THING THAT
REALLY UM, FROM A PRIVACY
PERSPECTIVE BOTHERED ME IN THIS
BILL THAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU
ABOUT, WHICH IS THAT, ACCORDING
TO THE ANALYSIS, THE BILL ALLOWS
THE BROAD USE OF VIRTUALLY ALL
AVAILABLE DATABASES. UM SO I
GUESS HOW I READ THAT IS I'M LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WALKING
AROUND WITH MY BODY CAM. I THEN
WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHO THIS
PERSON IS FEED THAT INFORMATION
INTO THE DATABASE. AND THE WAY
DATABASES WORK TODAY, IN MOST
CASES, IS THAT THEN BECOMES PART
OF THE DATA THAT THEY RETAIN AND
HOLD IN PERPETUITY. RIGHT AND SO
FOR US IS CALIFORNIA TO BE
HAVING OUR EMPLOYEES COLLECTING
FACIAL RECOGNITION DATA 40
MILLION CALIFORNIANS AND FEEDING
INTO DATABASES THAT WE DON'T
CONTROL, KNOW OR TRUST FEEL
SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC TO ME.
ADDRESS THAT THAT'D BE GREAT. SO
IN TERMS OF THE DATA, YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE DATA THAT'S
BEING RECORDED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND HOW LONG IT CAN
BE KEPT. IS THAT SORT OF WHAT
YOU'RE NOT. SO LET'S SAY, UM
SORRY. I FORGOT. I'M SO BAD WITH
NEWS, MR WILLIAMS. MR WILLIAMS
CASE, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE THIS
PICTURE RIGHT? AND THEY GO AND
THEY WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHO IT
IS, SO THEY PUT IT INTO A
PRIVATE DATABASE THAT IMAGE AS I
UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE BILL THAT WOULD
STOP. IT WILL BE KEPT IN THAT
PRIVATE DATABASE IN PERPETUITY.
THERE'S NOTHING TO ENSURE THAT
THIS IMAGE THAT CALIFORNIA LAW
ENFORCEMENT TOOK AND PUT IN SO
ANYTHING WE FEED INTO THAT
DATABASE. WE LOSE CONTROL OVER
AS I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING TO
STOP THAT FROM BEING THE CASE.
SO YOU I MEAN, I DON'T YOU'RE
RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THE BILL
REGULATES, UH, PRIVATE DATA
BASIS THAT THE BILL DOESN'T UM,
THE BILL REGULATES WHAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN DO AROUND THE
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
THAT WE DON'T REGULATE THE
DATABASE. RIGHT SO THAT'S I
MEAN. OH SORRY. JUST PLEASE. WE
DID, UM WE DID SAY HOW LONG IF
THERE IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT PHOTO
, OR THAT, UM, THAT TECHNOLOGY
IS TAKEN IN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT,
NOT PART OF A PRIVATE DATABASE.
WE DO HAVE, UH, GUIDELINES AS TO
HOW LONG THEY CAN KEEP IT, UH,
WHEN THAT SHOULD BE DISPOSED,
RIGHT? WHAT IS A GOVERNMENT
DATABASE? BE DEFINITELY, UM DID
PUT IN THE BILL. DIFFERENT
DEADLINES ON HOW LONG THAT
SHOULD LAST. YES. SO I MEAN, I
THINK IT'S A MINIMUM. WE SHOULD
BE ENSURING THAT ANY DATABASES
THAT WE ALLOW CALIFORNIANS TO
USE ARE OPERATING UNDER THE
STANDARDS. WE EXPECT OUR OWN
AGENCIES TO OPERATE UNDER RIGHT
. SO IF OUR GOVERNMENT AGENCY
FEEDS THIS PICTURE INTO A
PRIVATE DATABASE THAT WE ARE
ENSURING THAT THAT PRIVATE
DATABASE DELETES IT IN THE SAME
MANNER AS EXPECTED OF THE
GOVERNMENT AGENCY UM, AND EXPECT
NOTHING LESS OUT OF THE FOLKS
WERE CONTRACTING WITH TO DO THAT
WORK. I HOPE YOULL I'M HAPPY
THAT LOOK, LOOK INTO IT. UM YOU
KNOW, AS ALL THE SPEAKERS HAVE
TALKED ABOUT AS YOU GO DEEPER
AND DEEPER INTO THIS, UM YOU
KNOW, YOU LEARN YOU LEARN MORE
ABOUT HOW IT'S USED WHEN IT'S
USED, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TRIED
TO CONTINUE TO ADAPT AND KEEP
WORKING ON IT TO ENSURE THAT WE
ARE ADDRESSING, YOU KNOW,
VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT ARE OUT
THERE. YEAH, THANK YOU. I MEAN,
I REALLY BECAUSE I DO HAVE
SERIOUS CONCERN ABOUT THESE
PRIVATE DATABASES THAT ARE BEING
CREATED THEIR THEIR FOR PROFIT
RIGHT. SO THE AND THE MORE DATA
THEY HAVE THE MORE THEY CAN
PROFIT OFF OF IT, AND I DON'T
WANT US TO BE FEEDING IMAGES
INTO THAT DATABASE FOR PROFIT
AND MAKING IT MORE HARMFUL AND
PROBLEMATIC. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. REMEMBER,
REMEMBER BENNETT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MR CHAIR. THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE. ONE OF THOSE OTHER
CHALLENGING PRIVACY ISSUES. SO,
MR WILLIAMS A NIGHTMARE. THAT
YOU WENT THROUGH, UM WE'VE HAD
TOO MANY NIGHTMARES AND BECAUSE
OF UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR, BAD
ACTORS. IN THIS COUNTRY, AND IT
STARTED LONG BEFORE TECHNOLOGY
WAS OUT THERE. BUT THIS IS NOW
IT'S GONE TO ANOTHER LEVEL. YOU
WANNA POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO
MAKE HIS FACIAL RATE FAITH
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IS
AN EXTREMELY POWERFUL TO US. I
THINK NONE OF US KNOW FOR SURE
HOW FAR THIS IS GOING TO GO. BUT
WE ALL KNOW THIS IS A REALLY
POWERFUL TOOL. AND SO CONCERNS
ARE REAL ABOUT THE ABUSE OF
FACIAL REC RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY FR T. UM AND I THINK
WE HAVE TO REALLY RECOGNIZE THAT
AND WE HAVE TO BE EXTREMELY
SENSITIVE TO THAT AS IT GOES
FORWARD, BUT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A
POWERFUL TOOL. I THINK WE HAVE
TO ASK OURSELVES. WHAT'S THE
ROLE OF PRIVACY COMMITTEE AND
THE ROLE OF PRIVACY COMMITTEE?
YES. MORE THAN JUST ALWAYS
PROTECT PRIVACY. IT IS TO
PROTECT PRIVACY IN CONJUNCTION
WITH ALSO MAKING SURE WE USE
TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS
APPROPRIATELY, BUT GET THE
BENEFITS OUT OF THOSE THINGS.
AND SINCE THIS IS SUCH A
POWERFUL TOOL, I THINK WE HAVE
TO ASK OURSELVES. HOW DO WE
REGULATE IT SO THAT WE GET THE
BENEFITS? AND WE MINIMIZE WILL
NEVER COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THAT
WE MINIMIZE. THAT'S THE ROLE OF
PRIVACY, WHICH I THINK IS A
LITTLE MORE NUANCED AND JUST
WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT PRIVACY IS
OFTEN TIMES WE HAVE REJECTED
SOMEBODY'S MOTION TO ASK FOR
MORE PRIVACY BECAUSE WE SAID
THAT'S NOT WORKABLE. THAT'S NOT
THAT DOESN'T MAKE COMMON SENSE,
AND THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. I
THINK THAT THE CHAIR FACES
REGULARLY GETTING READY FOR THIS
. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT THE
AUTHOR AND STAFF FACE THAT
CHALLENGE ALL OF US FACE BECAUSE
WHEN FACIAL RECOGNITION COULD BE
USED FOR SOMETHING THAT'S
IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE TO MOST
OF US, WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT THAT IS USED
SO I HAVE A FEW QUICK QUESTIONS
AND TRY TO JUMP OFF HERE. ARE
YOU AWARE OF ANY STATE SO FAR
THAT HAS BAND FR TÌM NOT MY
KNOWLEDGE. I THINK VERMONT IS
CONSIDERING IT. NO ABANDONED,
THEN IMMEDIATELY UNDID THEIR
BAND, VERMONT BAND FACIAL
RECOGNITION FIGURE F R T AND
THEN IMMEDIATELY ON ABANDONED,
ADDED SOME, UH, SOME PERMIT
PERMISSION SO ESSENTIALLY
REGULATES. SO ONE STATE BANDIT
AND THEN THEN REVERSE
IMMEDIATELY. YES AND THEN, UM.
ARE THERE ANY STATES THAT HAVE
NO REGULATIONS ON FR T. ROUGHLY
HOW MANY I WISH I KNEW
CALIFORNIA. BESIDES CALIFORNIA
IS ONE OF THEM THERE. IT'S LIKE
I WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S A
HANDFUL THAT REGULARLY AND THE
REST DO NOT HANDFUL REGULATION
MOST DO NOT MOST DO NOT HAVE ANY
REGULATION. THAT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING YOU ARE TRYING TO
ESTABLISH THE HIGHEST STANDARD
POSSIBLE. THAT'S WHERE OUR GOAL
IS FOR WITH WITH WITH THE F R T
SO I THINK THE HIGHEST SCORE FOR
REGULATION. IT WILL NOT BE FOR
PROOF, AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
WHEN YOU TRY TO DO THAT, BUT IF
FACED WITH THE OPTION. OF A
COMPLETE BAN. THE OR COMPLETE.
WILD WEST WITH FACIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY. I THINK
THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND
AS POWERFUL AS IT IS, IT SPEAKS
TO. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DO
SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ONE THAT WE
HAVE TO DO WITH GREAT
SENSITIVITY TO THE CONCERNS OF
PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN ABUSED BY
FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
THE FACT THAT THE SCIENCE SAYS
PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE NOT
RECOGNIZED AS ACCURATELY THAT
YOU KNOW, WOMEN OF COLOR ARE IN
PARTICULARLY NOT RECOGNIZE THAT
THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WE CANNOT
MINIMIZE. WE HAVE TO BE
EXTREMELY SENSITIVE, BUT I THINK
IT HAS TO BE IN THE IN THE LIGHT
OF BETWEEN THE THREE CHOICES. NO
REGULATION BAN REGULATION.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO BE
SENSITIVE, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE
NEED TO END UP. SO I CERTAINLY
SUPPORT THIS MOVING FORWARD. BUT
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO EVERYTHING
YOU CAN TO BE A SENSITIVE AS
POSSIBLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SO MANY MEMBERS,
REMEMBER IRWIN. WELL UM, I
DIDN'T VOTE FOR YOUR LAST BAN
BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS
TECHNOLOGY IS HERE AND WE NEED
TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PUT VERY
, VERY STRICT GUARDRAILS ON IT.
UM I YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HEAR
STORIES LIKE MR WILLIAMS STORY,
YOU HEAR YOU HEAR PROFILING YOU
YOU TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY
FACIAL RECOGNITION BEING USED ON
DAMON'S DEMONSTRATORS. WE NEED
TO MAKE SURE TO CONTROL THAT AND
LET'S BE REALLY CLEAR FACIAL
RECOGNITION IS BEING USED
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
AND IT IS BEING USED ALMOST
WITHOUT LIMIT BY PRIVATE
COMPANIES, SO WE CAN SAY WE ARE
GOING TO COMPLETELY BAN THIS,
BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE
CALIFORNIANS SAFER THERE. I'M
SURE WE ALL REMEMBER A FEW YEARS
AGO THAT PRIVATE COMPANY AND I
DON'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT
THAT THAT WAS TAKING TAKING, UH
, RECOGNIZING PEOPLE THAT WERE
WALKING THROUGH THE HALLWAY
TRACKING PEOPLE. IT IS OUT THERE
WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND, YOU
KNOW, I HAVE TO JUST TAKE A STEP
BACK. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT UM SUBJECT FOR YOU TO
TAKE ON, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH A
CONSTITUENCY THAT THAT WOULD
LIKE TO, UM LIKE TO BE ON THIS
TECHNOLOGY. THEY'RE AS MR
BENNETT SAID. THERE THERE ARE,
UM, POTENTIAL BENEFITS. UH THAT
WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE. AT LEAST
I THINK WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
UH WE WOULD NOT HAVE FIGURED OUT
WHO WAS THERE ON JANUARY, 6TH.
THAT WAS A LOT OF FACIAL
RECOGNITION AND TECHNOLOGY THAT
WAS ABLE TO TRACK DOWN PEOPLE
THAT WERE TRYING TO OVERTHROW
DEMOCRACY WHEN YOU WALK THROUGH
THE AIRPORT RIGHT NOW, I DIDN'T
EVEN HAVE TO SHOW MY PASSPORT.
THEY YOU KNOW, THIS IS BEING
USED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ALREADY, AND THAT'S PRETTY
SPOOKY. BUT IT'S ALSO TO STOP
TERRORISTS FROM ENTERING OUR
COMPANY, OUR COUNTRY, THE
OLYMPICS, YOU KNOW THAT'S
PROBABLY GOING TO BE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
THAT'S UM WE DON'T HAVE HAVE, UM
, YOU KNOW, BIG EVENT WHERE THE
ENTIRE WORLD IS LOOKING AT ALL
THESE FOUR FOREIGN FOLKS COMING
INTO THE COUNTRY AND THERE ARE
SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS. CHILDREN
THAT ARE ON YOU KNOW, WE WE'VE
WE HAD SOME BILLS LAST WEEK THAT
WE WERE LOOKING AT ON CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY. TO BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY THOSE CHILDREN IS
CRITICAL. SO I THINK YOU HAVE TO
KEEP WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
PUT REALLY TIGHT GUIDELINES. WE
NEED TO SET AN EXAMPLE FOR THE
REST OF THE COUNTRY THAT WE CAN
KIND OF RAIN IN THIS ORWELLIAN
TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE. AND SO
I WILL BE. I WILL BE SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL. I THINK IT IS. UM
WE'VE HAD THE BAN AND YOU'VE
BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS TO FIND
OUT WHAT THE RIGHT GUARDRAILS
ARE AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A
LONELY BUSINESS, BUT I
APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS, MR SALIH
AND THEN SOMETHING MORE WEEKS.
JUST VERY BRIEFLY, UM SORRY. I
THINK WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU IS A
TOTAL TRAVESTY AND INJUSTICE.
AND I HOPE YOU SUED THAT
DEPARTMENT. BUT I WANT TO. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY
BECAUSE I DO THINK THERE SHOULD
BE SOME REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
ON FACIAL RECOGNITION. UM BUT
WITH THAT SAID, IT COULD ALSO BE
A TOOL. SO IT'S A DIFFICULT
BALANCING ACT. AND SO YOU KNOW
WHAT'S MORE UNRELIABLE AND
FACIAL RECOGNITION. WITNESS
IDENTIFICATIONS ARE ALSO
INHERENTLY VERY UNRELIABLE AND A
LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED, WRONGFULLY AND GONE
TO PRISON BASED NOTHING ON
WITNESS I D. S SO THIS COULD BE
A TOOL ALSO TO COOPERATE WITNESS
IDEAS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE
WITNESS HAS IT CORRECT TO, SO
ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THERE
COULD BE A ROLE FOR IT. BUT I DO
NOT BELIEVE IN OUR OWN ORWELLIAN
STATE. I DO NOT LIKE THE
GOVERNMENT MONITORING OUR FACES
FEDERAL, LOCAL WHOEVER. AND I DO
BELIEVE IN BEN FRANKLIN'S QUOTE
THAT ANYONE WHO GIVES UP LIBERTY
FOR SAFETY DESERVES NEITHER. SO
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
UM FIRST OF ALL, MR WILLIAMS, I
WANNA THANK YOU FOR COMING AND
TESTIFYING, FLYING FROM MICHIGAN
TO COME TO CALIFORNIA TO TELL
YOUR STORY. I THINK IT'S
IMPERATIVE AND THE MORE THAT WE
HEAR PEOPLE'S STORIES. I THINK
IT IMPACTS OUR POLICY MAKING. SO
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO ALSO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED
ADVOCACY IN THIS SPACE. UM, I,
UH I VOTED FOR MR TING'S
ORIGINAL BILL. I THINK IN PUBLIC
SAFETY, PRIVACY AND ON THE
FLOOR, UM AND WAS A BIG
SUPPORTER OF THAT, BILL, UM AND
APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'VE
DONE HERE. UM THIS BILL IS A
TOUGH BILL. THIS IS A TOUGH
ISSUE. UM IT'S A TOUGH BILL FOR
ME HEARING. UM MR IS HEARING MS
WILSON'S CONCERNS, I THINK
REALLY RESONATED WITH ME.
HEARING S A U S CONCERNS AND
CERTAINLY YOUR STORY. UM REALLY
RESONATED WITH ME, SO I SHARE
THOSE CONCERNS. I ALSO SHARE THE
CONCERNS THAT THE FACT THAT
THERE ARE NO GUARDRAILS AROUND
THIS TECHNOLOGY IN MOST PARTS OF
THIS COUNTRY. UM AND
SPECIFICALLY HERE IN CALIFORNIA
. UM SO THAT'S IT'S VERY
TROUBLING TO ME THAT WE DON'T
HAVE. ANY GUARDRAILS HERE ON A
TECHNOLOGY THAT, UM, CAN BE
WEAPONIZED CAN BE DEPLOYED IN
WAYS THAT ARE TROUBLING
SPECIFICALLY TO OUR COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR. UM I AM GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL FOR I'LL VOTE
FOR THE BILL AT GETTING OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY SIMPLY BECAUSE I
WANT TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME. I
WANT TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME TO
TRY TO BRING TOGETHER ALL
STAKEHOLDERS. I IMPLORE YOU AND
ASK OF YOU AND I KNOW THAT YOU
WILL DO THIS, BUT I WANT TO BE
REALLY DIRECT. I WANT YOU TO
BRING ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO THE
TABLE TO TRY TO COME UP WITH
SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS,
PARTICULARLY OUR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HEAR
THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. AND SO
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT
THEIR VOICES ARE CENTERED
THROUGHOUT THIS CONVERSATION. UM
AND I KNOW THAT YOU WILL DO
THAT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL
DO THAT AND WORK WITH WITH
OPPOSITION. UM I WANT TO RESERVE
THE RIGHT NOT TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. DOWN THE ROAD ON THE
FLOOR. UM BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO
LAND A REALLY TOUGH PLANE HERE,
MR TING. UM AND I KNOW WHAT
THAT'S LIKE, FROM A POLICY POINT
OF VIEW, AND YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY
BEEN SUCH A LEADER IN THE SPACE
AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO
THAT. I EXPECT THAT YOU WILL DO
THAT. AND WITH THAT I WILL TAKE
A VERY TOUGH VOTE TODAY TO VOTE
I TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME THAT YOU
NEED BECAUSE I DO THINK THE
GUARDRAILS ARE IMPORTANT. THEY
THANK YOU. AND JUST JUST VERY
QUICK RESPONSE. ABSOLUTELY WE
YOU KNOW, WE, UM WE TALKED TO
STAKEHOLDERS BEFORE WE
INTRODUCED THE BILL BEFORE WE
HAD LANGUAGE. WE TALKED TO HIM
AFTERWARDS. WE WILL KEEP WORKING
TO TRY TO BRING FOLKS FORWARD AS
I MENTIONED BEFORE. UH TWO OTHER
COLLEAGUES. THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN
ME ANY AMENDMENTS OR ANY
LANGUAGE, AND SO WE WILL
ACTUALLY CONTINUE. WE WILL
CONTINUE TO URGE THEM TO GIVE US
THE FEEDBACK THAT WE THINK WILL
MAKE THE BILL BETTER. ABSOLUTELY
100. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SOMEBODY MEMBER. I THINK I STILL
REMEMBER IT HAPPENED. SO UM, I
TO MR WILLIAMS WANT TO EXPRESS
TO YOU? HOW DISMAYED I AM TO
HEAR YOUR STORY. WE CAN LOSE OUR
RIGHTS IN A HEARTBEAT. I GET IT
AND I AM TERRIBLY CONCERNED
ABOUT IT. I THINK WITHOUT
GUARDRAILS, WE LOSE THEM EVEN
FASTER. SO IT DOES CAUSE ME
CONCERN. I WOULD RAISE ONE OTHER
ITEM, AND THAT IS IF THEY'RE I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD ADD THIS
TO THE BILL, BUT SOME LEVEL OF
TRAINING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF
PARTICULARS IN HERE, SUCH AS IN
ORDER TO USE FACIAL RECOGNITION
. YOU MUST SAY THAT YOU HAVE
EXHAUSTED OTHER WAYS OF
IDENTIFYING SOMEBODY. I WANT TO
MAKE SURE ENFORCEMENT KNOWS THAT
IS THERE. YOUR CONFERRING IS
THEIR TRAINING INVOLVED. I
BELIEVE WE DID PUT POST TRAINING
IN THE BILL. AND THAT'S WHO WE
DO IT. IT'S THE PEACE OFFICER
STANDARDS AND TRAINING IN THERE
. THAT'S PART OF THE LEGISLATION
. THEY ARE ASKED TO TRAIN LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THE OTHER PIECE IS
, UH, SHOULD THE BILL PASS THAN
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS. SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO I THINK
VERY IMPORTANT. I SEE. OKAY
YEAH. I MEAN, THAT WOULD GIVE ME
SOME COMFORT AT LEAST SOME
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW. IT'S
NOT LIKE YEAH, WELL, THE SPECIAL
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY TO
CONTINUE AND G I DIDN'T KNOW
LIKE THAT AIN'T GONNA FLY
ANYMORE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU HAVE THAT IN THE BILL AGAIN
WHAT THEY GET. AND WHAT HAPPENED
TO MR WILLIAMS IS ABSOLUTELY
HORRIBLE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I'M
PURSUING THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION BECAUSE RIGHT NOW
THE SECOND THIS EVENING TOMORROW
MORNING THAT UNFORTUNATELY COULD
HAPPEN IN OUR STATE, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY
NEED TO PREVENT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH TO ADD VICE CHAIR. GREAT
THANK YOU. UM I APPRECIATE ALL
THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT GAVE
ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BACK.
FOCUS ON THIS COMMITTEE FROM THE
LAST COMMITTEE THAT I WAS ON.
BUT YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER WHEN I
USED TO BE A STAFF PERSON IN THE
LEGISLATURE EVERY YEAR, WE'D
HAVE THIS FIGHT IN IN THE HAVE
TO APPROVE APPROPRIATION ON AH,
GIVING FUNDS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
WRONGLY CONVICTED OF CRIMES AND
I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME, WHICH
WAS INTERESTING SOMETIMES, UM,
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE FROM MY PARTY
WOULD WOULD OPPOSE THAT. UM AND
I JUST BELIEVE THAT IF A PERSON
SPENDS, YOU KNOW, ONE SECOND IN
PRISON AND HAS THEIR RIGHTS
TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM THAT THAT
THEY DESERVE COMPENSATION FOR
THAT. AND YOU KNOW, THIS BILL
REALLY CONCERNS ME. AH YOU KNOW?
WELL I DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS
BILL. SORRY FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY CONCERNS ME. UM
BECAUSE OF INSTANCES, AS
OUTLINED BY THE WITNESS HERE,
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SOME
KIND OF GUARD RAILS, THE RISK IS
ACTUALLY GREATER. AND SO I THINK
THIS BILL PROVIDES SOME OF THOSE
GUARDRAILS. I'M NOT SURE I
TOTALLY SUPPORT A BAN, BUT I
MEAN, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. UM
OKAY. BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T
HAVE SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS,
THEN I DON'T THINK THE SITUATION
IS, UH, YOU KNOW MORE CONCERNING
YEAH, THEY'RE WORKING BE USED,
SO I THINK I HAVE A FEEL THE
SAME EXACT WAY AS EVERYBODY ELSE
IS, YOU KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE
AN EVOLVING PROCESS. I THINK HOW
IT IS NOW. THERE ARE SOME THINGS
I DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT. BUT YOU
KNOW, I THINK WE'RE GOING IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. WE'LL SEE WHAT
HAPPENS BY THE TIME IT GETS TO
THE FLOOR. IT COULD BE A BETTER
BILL. IT COULD BE WORSE. BILL
WHO KNOWS? AND, UH YOU KNOW THE
YOU KNOW HOW IT IS THEN. BUT I
THINK I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. A AND, UH AND YOU KNOW,
I'M ALWAYS INTERESTED IN MORE
INFORMATION AS WELL FROM
OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL, BUT I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS.
THANK YOU APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
MEMBERS. HMM. OKAY, UM. SO MR
TANG, I'LL START OFF FIRST. I
JUST WANT TO, UH ECHO, MR
LAMONTAGNE. THANK EVERYONE
SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE. UH
YOU KNOW, MR WILLIAMS, YOU AND I
HAD THE CHANCE TO VISIT
YESTERDAY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD
OF TIME. AND WHAT HAPPENED TO
YOU IS ABHORRENT AND HEARING THE
STORIES OF HOW THAT IMPACTED YOU
AND YOUR FAMILY. YOUR DAUGHTER
IN PARTICULAR WERE, UM I THINK
SORT OF THE ULTIMATE CAUTIONARY
TALE FOR US AS WE THINK ABOUT
THIS AND YOU KNOW, SO APPRECIATE
THE WORK OF THE OPPOSITION. I
THINK YOU ARE DOING GOD'S WORK
HERE TO LIFT UP ALL THESE
CONCERNS. I THINK THERE ARE
THINGS THAT, UM WE ALL NEED TO
THINK THROUGH VERY, VERY
CAREFULLY. AS WE CONSIDER THE
USE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. I WILL
CONFESS. UM AND ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU, MR TING. I KNOW
YOU'VE BEEN A LEADER IN THIS
SPACE. THIS IS NOT AN EASY AND
SIMPLE ISSUE TO DIVE INTO. UM
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
WILLINGNESS, AND I ALWAYS
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF
FOLKS TO TAKE ON BIG,
CHALLENGING, COMPLICATED,
POLITICALLY COMPLICATED POLICY,
COMPLICATED ISSUES. UM. I'M
HAVING LOTS OF HEARTBURN FOR A
LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS ABOUT
THIS BILL. UM AND I THINK YOU'VE
HEARD THAT FROM A LOT OF MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE, UM YOU KNOW,
I HAVE, UM TREMENDOUS HEARTBURN
WITH THE BILL AS IT CURRENTLY IS
, UM, BUT I ALSO HAVE TREMENDOUS
HEARTBURN WITH THE IDEA THAT
WITH THE WITH THE STATUS QUO
THAT IS JANUARY ONE OF THIS YEAR
THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE A BAND
THAT THERE IS AS AS I THINK, UH,
MR BENNETT SAID THE WILD WEST
RIGHT THAT PEOPLE CAN DO
WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THIS
TECHNOLOGY, AND THAT THAT THAT'S
SOMETHING FRANKLY THAT TERRIFIES
ME, AND I THINK WE DO NEED AT A
MINIMUM GUARDRAILS AROUND THIS
TECHNOLOGY. UM I ALSO WAS VERY
MINDFUL SORT OF WHAT? I BELIEVE
THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS IN
THE TIME FRAME OF THIS COMMITTEE
UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE ARE IN
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. YOU
KNOW, WE HAD A VERY HEAVY NUMBER
OF BILLS REFERRED TO THIS
COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF OFTEN
SECOND REFERRALS. UM I THINK
PROBABLY IN A WAY THAT THAT YOU
WOULDN'T APPRECIATE NOT SITTING
ON THE COMMITTEE. YOUR BILL
TOUCHES ON SO MANY ISSUES THAT
WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS
COMMITTEE, RIGHT THE NEED TO
PRODUCTIVE ACCESS TO
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE AND
ABORTION SERVICES THEY NEED TO
PROTECT. FOLKS ARE SEEKING
GENDER AFFIRMING CARE,
PROTECTING OUR UNDOCUMENTED
COMMUNITIES THINKING ABOUT
GENERAL PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS,
THE RACIAL DISPARITIES WITH
TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS SOMETHING
THAT IS GIVING ME A LOT OF
HARPER WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY, THE
IDEA OF WHAT INFORMATION WE
SHARE WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CYBERSECURITY
CONCERNS WHAT WE DO WITH
DIFFERENT DATABASES. THIRD PARTY
VENDORS SO THIS THIS BILL
TOUCHES SO MUCH WORK THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS DONE. UM AND
UNFORTUNATELY IN THE TIME FRAME
THAT WE HAD TO LOOK AT IT, WE
WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO
PROVIDE YOU WITH THE FEEDBACK
THAT WE NEEDED TO ON ALL OF
THOSE ISSUES. IT JUST SIMPLY WAS
NOT POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUES, UM AND
SO THINKING ABOUT MY HEARTBURN
ABOUT THE STATUS QUO. THINKING
ABOUT MY HEARTBURN ABOUT THE
THIS BILL HEARING FROM MEMBERS
ON THIS COMMITTEE FROM CONCERNS
ON THE FROM THE LEFT AND THE
RIGHT, AND THAT'S JUST AMONG THE
DEMOCRATS. UM YOU KNOW WHAT?
WHAT? WHAT? FELT IMPORTANT TO ME
WAS TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION TO
GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE
TO EXPLORE WHETHER THERE IS A
WAY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, MEET THE
OPPOSITION TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF
THOSE CONCERNS. AS YOU AND I
TALKED ABOUT. I'M GOING TO
EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT OF
THIS COMMITTEE TO CALL THIS BILL
BACK INTO COMMITTEE. SO WE'RE
GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME RUNWAY TO
CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE. BUT I
THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM FROM
REALLY EVERYBODY UP HERE THAT
THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE. I
WOULD ASK THAT THAT YOU KNOW,
COMMITTEE STAFF BE INVOLVED IN
THOSE CONVERSATIONS. WE HAVE
SOME SUPREMELY TALENTED
COMMITTEE STAFF WHO SPENT TIME
THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES.
BOTH IN THEIR SILOS AND MORE
GENERALLY, I THINK THEY COULD
OFFER YOU IF YOU'RE OPEN TO IT.
A LOT OF HELPFUL FEEDBACK, A LOT
OF ASSISTANCE. BUT AGAIN, I KNOW
THAT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE IS
GOING TO WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN
THAT IF YOUR BILL GETS OVER TO
THE SENATE, SENATE JUDICIAL
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY AND THIS IS
A CONVERSATION THAT I THINK IS
BIGGER. UM BIGGER THAN THIS
COMMITTEE. SO UM AND I FINALLY
JUST SEND ME ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT CRYSTALLIZED THIS FROM, YOU
KNOW, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN
MENTIONED IT. UM, I TRAVELED
INTERNATIONALLY OVER OUR SPRING
RECESS AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME
ANY OF MY CHILDREN HAVE LEFT THE
COUNTRY. AND WE LANDED AT L A X
A LITTLE BIT BEFORE SIX AM
BEFORE THE CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION OPENS. AND WE GET IN
LINE. YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH
LINE TO GO THROUGH PASSPORT
CONTROL, AND I'M SORT OF
FUMBLING WITH THE PASSPORTS
BECAUSE I'M TIRED AND THE CPP
OFFICER TAKES THE CAMERA GOES
YOUR ETHAN. YOU'RE JOSH. YOU'RE
NO, YOU'RE RACHEL. YOU'RE JESSE.
WELCOME BACK TO UNITED STATES.
REALLY THAT QUICKLY. SO THE THIS
TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED. IT'S
BEING DEPLOYED. WE'VE HEARD
ABOUT HOW MANY STATES ARE DOING
THAT WITHOUT REGULATIONS. SO UM
, GIVEN GIVEN ALL OF THAT
HEARTBURN, BUT ALL OF MY
HEARTBURN WITH THE STATUS QUO, I
THINK YOU DESERVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM YOU KNOW,
THAT IS THAT IS A COURTESY BEING
EXTENDED BY THIS COMMITTEE AND
THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE
INVOLVED, AND WE WANT TO HELP
YOU. UM TO THINK THROUGH THOSE
ISSUES AS YOU HAVE THAT SO
AGAIN, UM THANK YOU TO THE
OPPOSITION. UH, I THINK THAT THE
AND PARTICULARLY TO MR WILLIAMS
, YOU ARE OFFERING US A LOT TO
THINK ABOUT A LOT TO WORRY ABOUT
. WANT TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE FOR THOUGHTFUL
COMMENTS FOR LIFTING UP SOME OF
THE CONCERNS HERE AROUND ALL
THESE ISSUES AND THEN? THANK
YOU, MR CHENG. UM I KNOW THIS IS
NOT AN EASIEST REVIEW. IT'S
INTERESTING TO ME TO SEE THE
AUTHOR AND CO AUTHORS OF THIS
BILL AND THE YOU KNOW THE
OPPOSITION OF THIS BUILDERS ARE
FOLKS THAT ARE USUALLY ON THE
SAME PAGE. SO IT JUST GIVES ME A
SENSE OF HOW COMPLICATED AND
NUANCED AND DIFFICULTIES. ISSUES
ARE SO WITH THAT I'M
RECOMMENDING AND I VOTE TODAY.
HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. WE'RE HERE TO
HELP. UM AND, UH, WITH THAT,
MADAM SECRETARY, MR. KING GIVES
AN OPPORTUNITY CLOSE WHILE WE'RE
JUST GOING TO JUST VERY BRIEFLY
. JUST SAY YES. ABSOLUTELY UH,
WHATEVER ADVICE WHATEVER
FEEDBACK YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
HAVE, WE ABSOLUTELY ARE 100.
OPEN TO HEARING THAT. I THINK,
AS EVERYBODY HAS SAID, I THINK
WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME PLACE. AND
I'D LIKE TO THINK I'VE PASSED A
PERFECT BILL AND I NEVER HAVE MY
11TH YEAR IN THE LEGISLATURE.
THERE'S NO PERFECT BILL I'VE
DONE. I DON'T THINK I'LL DO A
PERFECT BILL IN THE NEXT TWO
YEARS THAT I'M HERE. UH, I THINK
ALL WE CAN DO IS TRY TO DO WHAT
DO THE BEST AND HOPE WE PASS IT
ON TO THE NEXT LEGISLATURE TO
TRY TO DO BETTER. AND I THINK
THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE. I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO,
UM AND AGAIN MY LAST BILL WAS
ONLY FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY AND BODY CAMERAS, NOT
TOUCHING ANYTHING ELSE. EVEN
WITH THEM MORE TERM EXPIRING.
EVERYTHING ELSE WAS WIDE OPEN.
SO UM, ABSOLUTELY I THINK AS
MUCH JUST GOING BACK TO YOU
KNOW, OUR COLLEAGUE FROM
OAKLAND. YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE MORE STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT, THE MORE ADVICE FROM
THE CONSULTANTS. WE ARE
ABSOLUTELY 100% OPEN TO ALL THAT
FEEDBACK. WE KNOW THAT THE BILL
CAN GET BETTER NEEDS TO GET
BETTER, AND IT'S MY LAST LAST
BILL IS A LOT EASIER. IT'S LIKE
IT'S AN ON OFF SWITCH. IT WAS
JUST OFF. SO, SO JUST THERE WAS
JUST A ARGUMENT. THERE WASN'T A
POLICY DEBATE. WHEN IT'S ON, BUT
WITH GUIDELINES YOU GO DOWN A
PRETTY DEEP RABBIT HOLE AND
YOU'RE LOOKING AT A VARIETY OF
THINGS TO GO DO SO AGAIN. I
APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. UM
ABSOLUTELY VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE
MR WILLIAMS FOR COMING ALL THE
WAY OUT HERE TO TELL HIS VERY
IMPORTANT STORY FOR ALL OF US.
THAT IS A CAUTIONARY TALE TO
THIS TECHNOLOGY. AND WITH THAT
RESPECT FOR US FOR I VOTE ON UM,
MAYBE 642 THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR TENGAN. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
YOUR FOR YOUR PATIENTS. WE
APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH I'M SORRY. WE NEED A MOTION
AND A SECOND. EMOTIONAL SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BENNETT.
MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. ITEM NUMBER 14 A B 6 42 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TING. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I PATERSON.
PATERSON EYEBROW BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN BENNETT. BENNETT, I
SALI SALI. I PHONE NOBODY. FOUND
THAT VOTING IRWIN IRWIN, I
LOWENTHAL. BLUMENTHAL I HAPPEN
HAPPENED. I WIX WIX. AYE,
WILSON. WILSON, NOT VOTING. 90
YOUR BILLS OUT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. WE ARE NOW
GOING TO GO TO MS WILSON. FILE
ITEM 19. MAYBE 10 34.
THERE WE GO. HE SAID. EVERYONE.
MAKE SURE YOU PULL IT CLOSE.
WHATEVER. WELL GOOD EVENING, MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS APPRECIATE
YOUR PATIENCE AS IT HAS BEEN A
LONG DAY, SO I'LL TRY TO KEEP
THIS AS BRIEF AS YOU WOULD LIKE
ME TO BASED ON YOUR QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT? UM I AM PLEASED TO BE
HERE TO PRESENT A B 10 34. THIS
IS THE FREEDOM FROM FACE
SURVEILLANCE ACT. THIS WILL
BLOCK LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
OR OFFICERS FROM INSTALLING.
ACTIVATING OR USING FACIAL
RECOGNITION OR OTHER BIOMETRIC
SERVANT SURVEILLANCE IN
CONNECTION WITH OFFICER CAMERAS.
I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. WHAT'S WELL, IT'S
SUNSET THIS BILL AFTER THREE
YEARS INSTEAD OF 10 TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TECHNOLOGY
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE MIGHT BE SOME VALUE AND
ALLOW ITS IN USE, KEEP IT IN
MIND. THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE
BILL. YOU JUST HEARD. THIS IS
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO OFFICER
WARREN CAMERAS. AND OUR FRIENDLY
POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARE WALKING
AROUND WITH BODY CAMERAS NOW.
THESE POLICE BODY CAMERAS WERE
INTENDED. TO GUARD AGAINST
POLICE MISCONDUCT NOT TO GRANT
POLICE OFFICERS THE POWER TO
IDENTIFY AND TRACK US WHENEVER
WE'RE IN PUBLIC. ADDING FACE
RECOGNIZE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY
TO BODY CAMERAS WITH
TRANSFORMATIVE ICE MINT FOR
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TO A POWERFUL
MASS SURVEILLANCE NETWORK THAT I
WAS EXACERBATE RACIAL PROFILING
AND A ROAD OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.
REMINDER OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT. IT SAYS AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE GIVING
POLICE OFFICERS. THE ABILITY AS
THEY ROAM OUR COMMUNITIES. WITH
THE CAMERA THAT TYPICALLY IS A
MUCH LOWER GREAT CAMERA, THEN
YOUR PHONE. TO BE ABLE TO RECORD
AND SURVEILLANCE. FROM 2020 TO
2023, A CALIFORNIA LAW
PROHIBITED ENFORCEMENT FROM
USING BIOMETRIC SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEMS IN CONNECTION WITH AN
OFFICER CAMERA, THEREBY
PROTECTING PEOPLE GOING ABOUT
THEIR DAILY LIVES, UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND MOVEMENT
AND PREVENTING MISS OUT OF
IDENTIFICATION. UNFORTUNATELY
THESE IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS
EXPIRED ON JANUARY 1ST 2023.
THERE WAS NO BILL INTRODUCED IN
THOSE THREE YEARS. THAT WOULD
LIMIT THE USE OR TAKE A LOOK AT
WHETHER THERE WOULD BE SOME
VALUE AND ALLOWING ITS USE. WE
WOULD LIKE TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO
THAT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY
PREVIOUS ANY OTHER BILL THAT'S
BEEN SUBMITTED ALLOWS FOR THAT.
MAYBE 10 34 WOULD REVIVE THIS
IMPORTANT CIVIL RIGHTS
PROTECTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL
THREE YEARS, ENSURING POLICE
CAMERAS ARE NOT EXPLOITED FOR
DANGEROUS SURVEILLANCE OF
CALIFORNIANS WITH ME TODAY IS
KARMA NICOLE COX FROM A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND CHALDEAN
LIN FROM THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, AGAIN. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS KARMA. NICOLE COX,
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
FOR A CEO, YOU CALIFORNIA ACTION
, AND OF COURSE, I WANT TO ECHO
THE SENTIMENTS OF THE AUTHOR AND
ALSO THANK HER FOR BEING A
CHAMPION ON THIS ISSUE. AT THE
END OF THE DAY. FACIAL
RECOGNITION REALLY HAS NO PLACE
ON OFFICER. BODY CAMERAS. BODY
CAMERAS, UM, AS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
, WILSON HAS SAID WERE INTENDED
TO GUARD AGAINST POLICE
MISCONDUCT, NOT AS A
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FOR THE
POLICE TO IDENTIFY AND TRACK
CALIFORNIANS. FEDERAL RESEARCH
HAS SHOWN FACIAL RECOGNITION
SOFTWARE IS INACCURATE AND
BIASED. RESEARCH ALSO SHOWS THAT
THE SKEWED AND CONSTANT MOVEMENT
INHERENT AND BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE
RAISES THE RISK OF THESE FALSE
POSITIVES. AFTER ALL, THERE ARE
THOUSANDS OF BODY CAMERAS IN THE
FIELD. THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL ALSO
NECESSARILY ELONGATE
INTERACTIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. IT IS SCARY TO KNOW
THAT THE USE OF FR T IN THESE
DAY TO DAY INTERACTIONS ONLY
RATCHETS UP THE RISK AND THE
RATE OF MISMATCHES AS LONG
ENFORCEMENT EQUIPPED WITH BODY
CAMS ARE IN OUR MALLS, GROCERY
STORES, SCHOOL CAMPUSES,
ROADWAYS AND MANY OTHER PLACES
FOR THESE REASONS. ALL
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD BE WORRIED
ABOUT FACIAL RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY ON BODY CAMERAS. BUT
AS MENTIONED, FEDERAL RESEARCH
HAS SHOWN FR T SOFTWARE IS
INACCURATE AND BIASED,
GENERATING UP TO 100 TIMES MORE
FALSE POSITIVES FOR WOMEN AND
PEOPLE OF COLOR. ALREADY POLICE
MISCONDUCT DISPROPORTIONATELY
IMPACTS THE SAFETY OF BLACK
PEOPLE. LATINA L G B T Q. PLUS
PEOPLE AND IMMIGRANTS, ADDING
FACE SCANNING TO BODY CAMERAS
WOULD ALSO FACILITATE THEIR
CREATION OF DATABASES OF
IMMIGRANT FACES. DATABASES THAT
ICE HAS ALREADY DEMANDED ACCESS
TO IN OTHER STATES. I WORRY
ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE MY BROTHER,
WHO ALREADY HAS TRAUMA FROM
POLICE INTERACTIONS. I WORRY
ABOUT HIM BEING STOPPED BY THE
POLICE AND WRONGFULLY IDENTIFIED
AS SOMEONE WITH A VIOLENT RECORD
AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR MYSELF. I
KNOW THAT COPS TREAT THESE STOPS
WITH INCREASED HOSTILITY, OFTEN
WITH WEAPONS DRAWN. WE SHOULD
ALL BE AFRAID OF THESE SCENARIOS
. PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE MY
BROTHER ARE 2 TO 3 TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY POLICE
THAN WHITE PEOPLE. AND THESE
KILLINGS OCCUR IN DAY TO DAY
INTERACTIONS. MAYBE 10 34 BRINGS
BACK AN ESSENTIAL CIVIL RIGHTS
LAW THAT PROTECT THE
CALIFORNIANS UNTIL THIS JANUARY
FOR THREE YEARS. THE LAW
SUCCESSFULLY PREVENTED THE HARMS
OF PARTY ON BODY CAMS. THIS
PROTECTED PRIVACY, HELP PREVENT
THE MISIDENTIFICATION AND
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT OF
CALIFORNIANS HALTING THE
CREATION OF VULNERABLE BIOMETRIC
DATABASES. MAYBE 10 34 WOULD
MERELY BRING BACK THOSE
PROTECTIONS FOR ANOTHER THREE
YEARS. FOR THOSE REASONS. I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. GO. GOOD
EVENING. MY NAME IS CHARLES LIU
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE TRUNK
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. WE SUPPORT
A B 10 34, WHICH WOULD BAN FACE
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY ON BODY
CAMS BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT
CANNOT USE FACE RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT ERODING
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND WORSENING
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN POLICING.
FIRST WE ALL DESERVE A LEVEL AT
AN IMAGE E IN OUR DAILY LIVES
AND SEVERE EXPRESSION.
RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AND BODY
COUNTS MAKES IT SO ANYTIME SO ON
WALKS BY POLICE OFFICER THEY
COULD BE RECORDED AND THEN AND
IDENTIFIED WITHOUT REASON. AND
WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IT, AND
IT'S YOU. IT'S YOUR FRIENDS AND
YOUR LOVED ONES THAT IT'S YOUR
CHILDREN AND ARE YOU OKAY WITH
THAT? IN DAILY LIFE. THIS IS
UNSETTLING, LET ALONE NEAR
SENSITIVE PLACES LIKE HOUSES OF
WORSHIP OR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
FOR ABORTION ACCESS. FACE
RECOGNITION CHILLS OUR ABILITY
TO MOVE AND SPEAK FREELY AND
ANONYMOUSLY. SECOND FACE
RECOGNITION IS NOTORIOUSLY
INACCURATE, AS CARMEN NOTED,
EVEN WHEN GIVEN A PERFECTLY
CLEAR IMAGE, THERE ARE 100 TIMES
MORE FALSE POSITIVES FOR WOMEN
AND PEOPLE OF COLOR. BASES LIKE
LIKE OURS. AND AS WE HEARD FROM
THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY OF MR
ROBERT WILLIAMS, THIS IS ALREADY
LEAD TO WRONGFUL ARREST. SHOULD
THE TECHNOLOGY BE DEPLOYED? IT
WILL ONLY LEAD TO MORE WRONGFUL
ARREST. AND TRAGEDIES. AND THIRD
EVEN IF IT WERE 100% ACCURATE
100% OF THE TIME FIRST
RECOGNITION CANNOT SOLVE THE
PROBLEM OF RACIALIZED POLICING
IN AMERICA. THE TECHNOLOGY WILL
ONLY PERPETUATE OVER POLICING
RACIAL PROFILING, PUTTING BLACK
AND BROWN FACES INTO DATABASES
AND ULTIMATELY, THE
INCARCERATION OF PEOPLE OF
COLOR. A BAN ON THE USE OF FACE
RECOGNITION. TECHNOLOGY IS THE
ONLY PRINCIPLE PATH THIS
COMMITTEE CAN TAKE TO PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIANS AND
THE SAFETY OF ALREADY
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPED I ON 10 30 FOR TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT IN
THE HEARING ROOM? UM AND
FELICIANO ON THE ASIAN LAW
CAUCUS IN SUPPORT. THE YANGTZE
WITH UNCLE IN PRIVACY AND
SUPPORT. BECCA CRAMER MATTER ON
BEHALF OF ACCESS, REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS,
CALIFORNIA MUSLIM DEMOCRATS AND
FRIENDS POLICING PROJECT AT N. Y
U LAW SCHOOL, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER RACIAL JUSTICE
COMMITTEE, SECURE JUSTICE
SUPPORT LIFE FOUNDATION AND
TRANSGENDER GENDER VARIANT
INTERSEX JUSTICE PROJECT IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION IN THE
HEARING ROOM?
GOOD EVENING, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. COREY SELLS VILLA ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL FROM A
GENERAL POLICY PERSPECTIVE,
WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
LEGISLATURE CONTINUING TO
DEPRIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
THAT PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CANADIAN INVESTIGATIONS IF
THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT
PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGIES AND
THEIR USAGE AND THEN THERE
SHOULD BE DISCUSSIONS AMONG
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, LOCAL
AGENCIES STATE STAKEHOLDERS. BUT
TO REENACT FOR THREE YEARS,
WHATEVER LENGTH OF TIME. WHAT IS
EFFECTIVELY A BLANKET BAN ON A
PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY LIMITS LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S EFFICACY AND
RESTRICTS ITS ABILITY TO MEET
ITS INVESTIGATORY AND CRIME
PREVENTION AND SOLVING MANDATES.
OFFICER CAMERAS DO MORE THAN
FOSTER LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY PROVIDE
MEANINGFUL INVESTIGATIVE
ASSISTANCE AND IDENTIFYING
SUSPECTS AND EXONERATING
UNINVOLVED PERSONS. AND WITH THE
RISE AND ACTIVE SHOOTER EVENTS,
BRAZEN THEFT AND PUBLIC SPACES,
REENACTING A BAN ON THIS TOOL
THAT COULD ASSIST OFFICERS AND
PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY IS
CONCERNING FOR US. SO FOR THESE
REASONS RESPECTFULLY WERE
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
BRANDED UP ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF ROBERT
LUNNEN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR MEMBERS
CAMERON DIMITRI ON BEHALF OF THE
SECURITY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION,
AND AN OPPOSING LESS CEMENTED
POSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR COMING BACK TO
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. MS WICKS.
UM I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR TAKING THIS ON. UM
YOU KNOW, I SAID, THIS SORT OF
THING. SIMILARLY TO THE LAST
BILL. IT'S A TOUGH ISSUE. I
VOTED FOR THIS EXACT BILL LAST
TIME. MULTIPLE TIMES. UM AND I
JUST APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THIS
ON. I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL
TODAY AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
AND APPRECIATE YOUR ADVOCACY.
ALL RIGHT. UM WELL, I TOO WANT
TO THANK YOU, MISS WILSON FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD YOU THAT
GIVES YOU HEARD TODAY. YOU'RE
SUCH AN IMPORTANT VOICE ON THIS
COMMITTEE. I THINK YOU'VE HELPED
A LOT OF US. CONSIDER IMPORTANT
PERSPECTIVES AND JUST AN
IMPORTANT VOICE IN THE
LEGISLATURE AS WELL. SO WE'RE
REALLY, REALLY PLEASED TO HAVE
YOU HERE AND ON THIS COMMITTEE,
UM SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE
COMPLICATED AND I KNOW THAT, UH
YOU KNOW, THERE'S UM IT'S
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THAT WE NOT
PASS OUT INCONSISTENT BILLS
UNDER THE COMMITTEE, AND SO I
THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR YOU TO TALK WITH MR TANG. I
KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAD SOME SOME
SOME DIALOGUE ALREADY. BUT, UM,
YOU KNOW THIS IS YEAH. WHAT WAS
PERSUADED HERE THAT THERE ARE
SUCH TREMENDOUS CONCERNS. AND I
DO THINK THAT YOUR BILL IS AN
IMPORTANT STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. SO PLEASED TO
RECOMMEND AND I VOTE TODAY WANT
TO APPRECIATE ALL THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAME HERE TO
SUPPORT THE BILL? UH THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ADVOCACY AS WELL. AND
UM, WITH THAT, UH, WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM SOME MEMBER WICKS, A
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWENTHAL. UH AND, UH, JUST
INVITE YOU TO CLOSE IF YOU WISH.
THANK YOU. UM I APPRECIATE THAT
. I RECOMMENDATION. I'M SO
THANKFUL TO, UM THE WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME FOR BEING HERE ESPECIALLY
BEING HERE ALL DAY AND EVEN TO
OPPOSITION FOR HAVING TO BE HERE
ALL DAY ON MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT
ALSO BEING HERE TO BE ABLE TO
SPEAK ON THIS BILL. IT'S REALLY
AS A PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS. AND THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS TO GO THROUGH AND WEIGH
ALL OF OUR OPTIONS BEFORE US.
WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, FACIAL
RECOGNITION FROM OUR POLICE
OFFICERS USING A BODY BODY WORN
CAMERAS THAT IS NOT THEIR ROLE
IN PURPOSE AND NEVER INTENDED TO
BE AND SHOULDN'T BE ADDED, AND
SO I'M VERY THANKFUL AND
RESPECTFULLY ASKED FOR AND I
VOTE HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. I DO
ALSO JUST WANT TO COMPLIMENT ALL
THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I
THINK THESE ARE INCREDIBLY
COMPLEX ISSUES AND PROBABLY SOME
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GRAPPLING
WITH FOR THE IN THE YEARS TO
COME AS THE POWER OF TECHNOLOGY
INCREASES AND JUST SO MUCH TO
THINK ABOUT HERE, AND I JUST
HAVE ENJOYED THE THOUGHTFUL
CONVERSATION AND THOUGHTFUL
FEEDBACK FROM MEMBERS ON BOTH
SIDES. SO THANK YOU, UM WITH
THAT WE HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION. A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S LOAN
THOUGHT, MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL NUMBER 1980 13 OH,
FOUR BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WILSON.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED. GABRIEL GABRIEL, I
PATERSON PATERSON. NO
BAUER-KAHAN. BAUER-KAHAN AYE,
BENNETT BENNETT. I, SALLY SALINE
, NOT VOTING PHONE FOUND NO
IRWIN IRWIN, NOT VOTING. LU█N
TOÀN, AYE. POP IN POP AND I WIX
WIX, AYE WILSON WILSON. I SHOULD
HAVE GIVEN LIKE A STRONGER I
FORGOT THAT I GOT TO VOTE ON IT.
I GUESS IT DOES. 7 TO 2. THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ALL RIGHT, UH,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. THIS IS.
FILE ITEM 18 A B 866 WEEKS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH GOOD
EVENING. EVERYONE JUST HAVE A
SIMPLE LITTLE BILL HERE AT THE
END FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER.
GREAT OF EMOTION BY SOMEBODY
MEMBER OF BAUER-KAHAN IN A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
LOWENTHAL. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
BEGIN BY THANKING MR CHAIR, YOU
AND YOUR STAFF FOR THEIR
THOUGHTFUL WORK AND
CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD AROUND
THIS POLICY PROPOSAL. I WANT TO
CLARIFY FOR MEMBERS OF AND OF
THE COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE
PUBLIC THAT WHILE WE ARE
DISCUSSING THE BILL TODAY AS
PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED IF THIS
BILL PASSES TODAY, THOSE
AMENDMENTS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE
TAKEN. BEFORE THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AT THE HEARING NEXT
WEEK. MAYBE 886, THE CALIFORNIA
JOURNALISM PRESERVATION ACT
PROVIDES A LIFELINE FOR NEWS
OUTLETS AND JOURNALISTS IN
PRINT, DIGITAL AND BROADCAST
MEDIA THAT BEAR THE COST OF
GATHERING AND REPORTING NEWS
WHILE OUR INTERNET TAX FORM IN
LARGE INTERNET PLATFORMS BEAR
NONE. CALIFORNIA HAS LOST MORE
THAN 100 NEWSPAPERS IN THE LAST
DECADE. AS NEWS CONSUMPTION HAS
MOVED. ONLINE COMMUNITY NEWS
OUTLETS HAVE BEEN DOWNSIZING AND
CLOSING AT ALARMING RATES. IT'S
NOT THAT NO ONE READS OR WATCHES
NEWS ANYMORE. IT'S THE DOMINANT
TECH PLATFORMS. BOTH SEARCH
ENGINES AND SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE
SUCH UNRIVALED MARKET POWER THAT
NEWSROOMS ARE COERCED TO SHARE
THE CONTENT THEY PRODUCE, WHICH
THE TECH COMPANIES SELL
ADVERTISING AGAINST PROVIDING
ALMOST NO COMPENSATION IN
RETURN. BORROWING FROM SIMILAR,
ALTHOUGH NOT IDENTICAL
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS IN EUROPE,
CANADA AND AUSTRALIA AS WELL AS
FEDERALLY HERE IN THE U. S. A. B
886 REQUIRES LARGE TECH
COMPANIES TO PAY A FEE FOR
ACCESSING AND FEATURING
JOURNALISM CONTENT ON THEIR
PLATFORM. VITALY THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATION ALSO REQUIRES THAT
70% OF THE FUNDS DERIVED FROM
THE BILL BE SPENT ON JOURNALISTS
, ENSURING THAT THE FUNDS ARE
REINVESTED IN NEWSROOMS. FOR
THIS REASON IT HAS ATTRACTED THE
SUPPORT OF BOTH PUBLISHERS AND
JOURNALISTS ALIKE, BOTH OF WHICH
YOU WILL HEAR FROM TODAY.
CRITICS OF A B 886 HAVE PUT
FORTH NUMEROUS ARGUMENTS, WHICH
I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS NOW. FIRST
ARGUMENT. TECH PLATFORMS DON'T
MAKE ANY MONEY AFTER THAT OFF
THE BACKS OF JOURNALISM. IF
ANYTHING, IT'S THE OTHER WAY
AROUND MY RESPONSE. IF TEXT
PLATFORMS WE'RE NOT MAKING MONEY
OFF OF NEWS IF IT DID NOT HAVE A
VALUE THAT TECH HAD ESSENTIALLY
MONETIZED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE
PRESENT AS A FEATURE OF ITS
PRODUCT TECH PLATFORMS. AT THEIR
ESSENCE, COMPETE FOR OUR
ATTENTION AND ACCESS TO
JOURNALISM GIVES THEM THE VITAL
CONTENT THAT KEEPS USERS ENGAGED
. THIS IS WHY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
WHERE LAWS SIMILAR TO A V 886
HAVE PASSED, TECH HAS NOT
ABANDONED ITS USE OF NEWS ON
THEIR PLATFORMS. ARGUMENT TO THE
BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. MY RESPONSE. THIS
BILL WAS WRITTEN TO WITHSTAND
FIRST CHALLENGES AND UNDER ITS
PROVISIONS, PLATFORMS ARE NOT
FORCED TO DISPLAY ANY CONTENT.
THEY REMAIN FREE TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE AND OTHER
MODERATING PRACTICES. IF IT
COVERED PLATFORM FINDS A NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS CONTENT
DISTASTEFUL. THEY CAN CONTINUE
TO CHOOSE NOT TO INCLUDE IT ON
THEIR SITE. ARGUMENT THREE. THIS
BILL WILL INCENTIVIZE CLICKBAIT
. MY RESPONSE WOULD QUOTE I
WOULD LIKE TO QUOTE DIRECTLY
FROM PAGES, 10 AND 11 OF THIS
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS, WHICH
NOTES THAT THIS BILL DOES QUOTE
HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE PAYMENT IS
BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
IMPRESSIONS ONLINE, HOWEVER, THE
INCENTIVE TO GET EYEBALLS AND
CLICKS ALREADY EXIST TODAY SO
THAT USERS WILL CLICK THROUGH TO
A NEW SITE AND THE PUBLISHER
WILL GET ADVERTISING REVENUE IN
AN EFFORT TO GENERATE MUCH
NEEDED REVENUE. PUBLISHERS ARE
ALREADY TRYING EVERYTHING THEY
CAN TO OPTIMIZE SEARCH RESULTS.
THIS BILL IS UNLIKELY TO MAKE
THEM TRY THINGS THEY HAVE NOT.
ALREADY TRIED. IN FACT, ONE
COULD MAKE THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT
. IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT WITH
FINANCIALLY SOUND BOOKS AND
HEALTHIER NEWSROOMS, MORE
ENGAGING IN INVESTIGATING
REPORTING WILL LEAD TO QUALITY
STORIES BASED ON REAL EVENTS IN
CITY HALLS, SCHOOL BOARDS AND
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE.
THAT WILL LEAD TO MORE CLICKS
BECAUSE THERE WILL BE HIGHER
CONTENT, HIGHER QUALITY CONTENT,
NOT LESS AS PROPOSED IN THIS
BILL. 70% PERCENT OF THE PAYMENT
MUST BE SPENT ON JOURNALISTS,
MORE JOURNALISTS MAY EQUAL BOTH
MORE CONTENT AND HIGHER QUALITY
ARGUMENT FOR THE ENTIRE PREMISE
OF THE BILL IS FLAWED. IT IS
SIMPLY THE INTERNET ITSELF,
WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DECLINE IN JOURNALISM AND
TRADITIONAL JOURNALISM.
JOURNALISM HAS TO DIE IN ORDER
FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO BE REBORN.
MY RESPONSE. THE ECONOMIES WHICH
SUPPORT QUALITY JOURNALISM AND
THE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES THAT
IMPACT ITS VITALITY HAVE NEVER
BEEN IGNORED BY GOVERNMENT BY
AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WHETHER
ADAPTING TO TELEGRAPH RADIO
BROADCAST TELEVISION AND NOW THE
INTERNET ARE FOURTH ESTATE HAS
ALWAYS HAD THE HELP OF LAWMAKERS
TO BOLSTER ITS STANDING BECAUSE
OF OUR SHARED BELIEF THAT A FREE
PRESS IS VITAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
ALLOWING RANK AND FILE
JOURNALISM TO CONTINUE TO
ATROPHY OR DIE OFF HAS NEVER
BEEN OUR COUNTRY'S APPROACH WHEN
JOURNALISM IS FACED WITH A
CHALLENGE, WE HAVE ALWAYS MADE
SPACE SPACE FOR THE FOR THE
STATE FOURTH ESTATE IN OUR
DISCOURSE, BECAUSE WITHOUT IT,
OUR CIVIC HEALTH IS AT GREATER
RISK. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS
HAPPENED AT ONCE. VENERABLE
NEWSPAPERS LIKE THE SALINAS
CALIFORNIAN, WHERE THERE ARE
CURRENTLY NO MORE REPORTERS LEFT
IN THIS PAPER, AS REPORTED IN
THE L A TIMES RECENTLY. QUOTE
THE ONLY ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM
SILLINESS NOW COMES IN THE FORM
OF PAID OBITUARIES, MAKING DEATH
VIRTUALLY THE ONLY SIGN OF LIFE
AT AN INSTITUTION ONCE
CONSIDERED A MUST READ BY MANY
CIVILIANS. A THRIVING DIVERSE
PRESS IS THE BACKBONE OF A
HEALTHY AND VIBRANT DEMOCRACY.
WHEN NEWSROOMS ARE FULL, THE
PUBLIC GROUPS REWARDS AND
COMMUNITIES WITHOUT LOCAL
JOURNALISM SUFFER CONSEQUENCES
FROM DECLINING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
AND LOWER VOTER VOTER TURNOUT TO
HIGHER TAXES AND INCREASED
CORRUPTION. THIS BILL. IS IT
COMPLICATED ONE, AND IT'S ONE
THAT I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME
WORKING ON. I'VE TALKED TO EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF YOU IN THIS
COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK IT REALLY
STRIKES AT THE HEART OF
SOMETHING THAT WE ALL CARE ABOUT
ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A FREE
PRESS TO SUPPORT OUR DEMOCRACY.
AND RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT
QUESTION IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE
TACKLE IT IN THIS BODY. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
THAT WE'VE HAD. I'M GOING TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS BILL
AND WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
ON THAT IF I GET IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT IT IS A COMPLICATED ONE.
BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE AND WITH ME HERE TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE MATT PEARCE, PRESIDENT OF
THE MEDIA GUILD OF THE WEST AND
DANIEL COFFEE EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
FOR THE NEWS MEDIA ALLIANCE. UH
GOOD EVENING CHAIR. MY NAME IS
MATT PEARCE. I AM PRESIDENT OF
MEDIA GUILD OF THE WEST TO LOCAL
UNION OF THE NEWS GUILD CW WAY
THAT REPRESENTS NEWS WORKERS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ACROSS
THE GREATER SOUTHWEST. FOR THE
PAST 10 YEARS, I HAVE BEEN A
REPORTER FOR THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES WHERE I'VE HAD A FRONT ROW
SEAT TO THE DEVASTATING DECLINE
OF LOCAL NEWS IN OUR STATE. I'VE
WATCHED COUNTLESS REPORTERS
DISAPPEAR, BEATS GO UNFILLED AND
COMMUNITIES GO UNCOVER I TESTIFY
HERE ON BEHALF OF AROUND 1000,
REPORTERS, PHOTOGRAPHERS,
EDITORS AND OTHER MEDIA WORKERS
WHO WORKED DAY AND NIGHT TO
BRING THE NEWS TO MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS. RANK AND FILE
MEMBERS OF MY UNION VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
AND WE ARE JOINED BY OUR SIBLING
NEWS GUILD. LOCAL THE PACIFIC
MEDIA WORKERS KILLED IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. MANY POLICYMAKERS
HAVE LATELY STARTED ASKING IF
OUR COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE
SATISFIED WITH THE WORLD THAT
GOOGLE MET ANOTHER MASSIVE TECH
COMPANIES HAVE BUILT FOR US. WE
ARE TWO DECADES DEEP INTO THE
PLATFORM REVOLUTION, AND IT'S
CLEAR THAT THE ECONOMIC
FOUNDATION FOR LOCAL JOURNALISM
IS CONTINUING TO FALL APART.
COMMUNITY NEWS SHOULD BE
FLOURISHING. INSTEAD WE'RE
DROWNING AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES
AS NEWSPAPERS DIE IN PUBLIC
OFFICIALS GO UNCOVERED. IT'S NOT
BECAUSE JOURNALISTS DON'T WANT
TO COVER YOU OR BECAUSE VOTERS
DON'T WANT TO READ ABOUT YOU.
AND JUST INSIDE. I JUST WATCHED
SIX HOURS OF HEARING OF THE MOST
BOGGLING ARRAY OF POLICY ISSUES
TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF THIS BODY
. AND I'M THUNDERSTRUCK THAT
THIS ROOM IS NOT ABSOLUTELY
CRAWLING WITH JOURNALISTS. THIS
RIGHT HERE IS THE ISSUE. UM BUT
I HAVE MEMBERS OF MY LOCAL WHO
MAKE $35,000 A YEAR AND ARE
STRUGGLING TO MAKE RENT IF THEY
CAN EVEN HOLD ON TO THE
JOURNALISM JOBS THAT THEY STILL
HAVE. THE CALIFORNIA JOURNALISM
PRESERVATION ACT WOULD HELP
LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD BETWEEN
PLATFORMS AND PUBLISHERS AND
HELP BRING JOURNALISM JOBS BACK
TO NEWSROOMS ACROSS THE STATE.
THE PLATFORMS WOULD HAVE TO
FAIRLY COMPENSATE PUBLISHERS FOR
CRAWLING THE JOURNALISM WE
PRODUCE, INCLUDING FOR TRAINING
, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS
THAT USE OUR WORK. 70% OF THESE
REVENUES WOULD HAVE TO BE
DIRECTLY REINVESTED INTO
NEWSROOMS. THIS IS A GOOD START.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS
COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
TO GIVE LOCAL NEWS A FAIR SHOT
TO SURVIVE IN CALIFORNIA. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU
COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AND SHARE MY NAME IS DANIELLE
COFFEE? I'M WITH THE NEWS MEDIA
ALLIANCE ON THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING 2500,
NEWS PUBLISHERS AND MAGAZINES
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. NEWS
PUBLISHERS AUDIENCE AND THE
DEMAND FOR OUR CONTENT HAVE
GROWN EXPONENTIALLY OVER THE
PAST 10 YEARS BECAUSE OF THE
INTERNET, SO THE TRAJECTORY OF
THE DEMAND IS UPWARD. HOWEVER
THE DECLINE IN OUR REVENUE IS
THE OPPOSITE TRAJECTORY, WHICH
IT DOES NOT MATCH AND THERE'S A
REASON FOR THAT. THERE'S TWO
DOMINANT PLATFORMS THAT SIT IN
BETWEEN US AND OUR READERS. THEY
DISTRIBUTE OUR CONTENT. THEY
MONETIZE OUR CONTENT, AND THEY
DON'T RETURN THAT REVENUE BACK
TO THE CONTENT CREATORS. GOOGLE
AND FACEBOOK, SYSTEMATICALLY AND
DELIBERATELY FEED USERS ARE
CONTENT TO DRIVE ENGAGEMENT.
THEY DO SO WITHIN THEIR WALLED
GARDENS IN PERSONALIZED FEEDS SO
THAT THEY CAN COLLECT YOUR USER
DATA YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION
AND THEN TARGET YOU WITH
ADVERTISING. IN FACT, 65% OF
PEOPLE USERS DO NOT LEAVE GOOGLE
AND 95% OF USERS DO NOT LEAVE
FACEBOOK AND CLICK THROUGH TO
OUR WEBSITE SO THAT WE CAN
MONETIZE OUR CONTENT. THIS BILL.
WOULD ADDRESS THAT MARKETPLACE
IN BALANCE. BETWEEN MONOPOLIES
WHO NO. ONE PUBLISHER HAS THE
ABILITY TO WITHHOLD THEIR
CONTENT FROM BECAUSE A WILLING
PARTICIPANT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
YOU'RE GETTING YOUR FAIR MARKET
VALUE. WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO
WHAT IT WOULD ALLOW. ARBITRATION
TO ASCERTAIN THAT FAIR MARKET
VALUE AND RETURN THAT BACK TO
THE CONTENT CREATORS. IN DOING
SO YOU WILL LEVEL THE PLAYING
FIELD BETWEEN THE DOMINANT
PLATFORMS AND THOSE CREATE WHO
CREATE THE VALUABLE JOURNALISM
THAT COMMUNITIES ACROSS THIS
STATE AND JOY. THIS HAS BEEN
DONE LIKE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S QUICK
SAID IN AUSTRALIA, IT WAS
SUCCESSFUL. IT WAS THE
EQUIVALENT. IT WAS 140 MILLION
THERE, AND THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT
BECAUSE OF THEIR MARKET SHARE TO
BILLIONS HERE. AND IN THE MARKET
SHARE OF CALIFORNIA'S
SIGNIFICANT WHEN IT COMES TO
PROPORTION OF THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.
FOR CALIFORNIA TO LEAD AND
ADDRESS THIS CRITICAL ISSUE FOR
THE FREE PRESS AND FOR
DEMOCRACY, AND I THINK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS FOR HER
LEADERSHIP IN CHAMPIONING THIS
FOR INDUSTRY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT?
GOOD EVENING, BRITTANY BARCELONA
WITH THE CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO
SPONSORS OF THE BILL REPRESENT
800 PUBLICATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALSO AND
SUPPORT WE HAVE THE AMERICAN
ECONOMIC LIBERTIES PROJECT, THE
NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION,
THE NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS
ASSOCIATION, THE RADIO
TELEVISION DIGITAL NEWS
ASSOCIATION, THE AUTHORS GUILD,
THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SON.
PICKET FENCE MEDIA, WHICH
INCLUDES THE SAN CLEMENTE TIMES
, CASPER NOW DISPATCH DANA POINT
TIMES, THE LOS ANGELES BLADE AND
ALSO THE SAN FRANCISCO CRIME
CALL. THANK YOU. JOE BARRY, WITH
THE CALIFORNIA BROADCASTERS
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING ALL
THE RADIO AND TV STATIONS IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. GOOD EVENING, MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS STEVE CRUZ ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA BLACK MEDIA. WE ARE
IN A TWITTER CATEGORY. WE'VE HAD
GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS AND OUR
MEMBERS. UM, YOU KNOW, JUST WANT
TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS THE BINDING
ARBITRATION WILL WORK IN THE
USAGE FEE AND MAKE SURE THAT
ETHNIC MEDIA ARE ADEQUATELY
INCLUDED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS
. AND SO WE LOOK FORWARD THOSE
CONVERSATIONS, BUT THAT IS OUR
POSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR CRUZ. NOW WE ALSO IS THERE
ANYONE IN THE HEARING ROOM IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BOAT?
GOOD EVENING, MA'AM. GOOD
EVENING MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR
US TODAY. MY NAME IS KATHERINE
TREND. ACOSTA I'M THE ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF THE, UH, POLICY AND
ACTIVISM FOR THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. MORE
IMPORTANTLY, I'M A FORMER FULL
TIME JOURNALIST, CURRENT
FREELANCE JOURNALIST WHO HAD TO
LEAVE THE WORLD OF DIGITAL
MEDIA. FOR THE WELL PAYING AND
SECURE WORLD OF NON PROFITS
BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF DIGITAL
MEDIA. SO WHEN I SAY THAT THIS
BILL IS NOT GOING TO HELP
DIGITAL MEDIA, I AM VERY SERIOUS
ABOUT IT. I WAS ONE OF THE
PEOPLE WHO ORGANIZED THE FIRST
DIGITAL UNION SHOP IN NEW YORK
CITY. I FIND IT I AM INCREDIBLY
PASSIONATE ABOUT THE
OPPORTUNITIES THE INTERNET GAVE
TO PEOPLE LIKE ME. TO BECOME
JOURNALISTS IN COMPARISON TO THE
GENERAL TREND OF MEDIA, WHICH IS
TOWARDS STRAIGHT WHITE MALES.
THIS BILL IS A WEALTH TRANSFER
TO THE SAME BILLIONAIRES.
VULTURE CAPITALIST FUNDS. AND
GIANT CONGLOMERATES THAT BOUGHT
UP NEWSPAPERS FOR PENNIES ON THE
DOLLAR. BECAUSE OF THE
DEVALUATION. MADE BY BIG TECH
AND SO THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD
REAP THE REWARDS IS INCREDIBLY
OFFENSIVE TO ME. AND I KNOW THE
ARGUMENTS ARE THAT 70% GO TO
NEWSROOMS. I WOULD SAY THAT
THESE COMPANIES MOTIVATED BY
PROFIT WE'LL PUT THAT 70% IN
NEWSROOMS AND TAKE 70% BACK OUT
AND USE IT TO LINE THEIR
POCKETS. THEY WILL NOT BE USING
IT FOR JOURNALISM. IT WILL ALSO
INCENTIVIZE CLICKBAIT, BECAUSE
IF YOU'RE BEING PAID BY THE VIEW
THEN YOU ARE GOING TO BE
INCENTIVIZED TO DO THAT. AND THE
COMPANIES ARE GOING TO BE
INCENTIVIZED NOT TO HIRE HIGH
QUALITY JOURNALISTS BUT TO HIRE
PEOPLE TO PRODUCE THE CLICKBAIT
THAT GETS ATTENTION. FURTHERMORE
THE IDEA THAT IT RISING TIDE
WILL LIFT ALL SHIPS IS NOT THE
CASE. BUZZFEED JUST LAID OFF ITS
ENTIRE NEWSROOM AND BUZZFEED WAS
LONG. UH THE PROPONENT OF THE
IDEA THAT YOU DO THINGS THAT GET
CLICKS SO YOU CAN MAKE MONEY TO
HAVE A REAL NEWSROOM. AND
THEY'VE COMPLETELY ABANDONED
THAT MODEL. SO I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE TODAY.
GREAT THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING
CHAIR GABRIEL. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS DOCTOR TO
PRING CUETO AND I AM
REPRESENTING CHAMBER OF PROGRESS
TODAY. IT'S A TECH TRADE
INDUSTRY COALITION COMMITTED TO
ENSURING ALL AMERICANS BENEFIT
FROM TECHNOLOGICAL LEAPS. I
WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE AUTHOR FOR, UM, YOUR
ENGAGEMENT YOUR STAFF'S
ENGAGEMENT ON THIS IMPORTANT,
THOUGHTFUL ISSUE AND HOW TO
BOLSTER LOCAL JOURNALISM. SO MY
TESTIMONY TODAY. REPRESENTS THAT
GERMINAL ISM IN THIS COUNTRY IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT AND LOCAL
JOURNALISM IS REALLY ESSENTIAL
FOR A THRIVING DEMOCRACY.
HOWEVER I'M GOING TO PRESENT TO
YOU FOR FATAL FLAWS SPECIFIC TO
THIS COMMITTEE, NOT EXHAUSTED.
FIRST THIS BILL REQUIRES
PLATFORMS TO LINE THE POCKETS OF
LARGE NATIONAL NEWS OUTLET. WE
KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE LOCAL
BROADCASTER AND LOCAL PUBLISHER
DEFINITION IN THE BILL ACTUALLY
DEFINED AS LOCAL QUOTE LOCAL,
REGIONAL, NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL MATTERS, NOT JUST
LOCAL JOURNALISM, WHICH IS
SUPPOSED TO BE THE PRIMARY GOAL
OF THE BILL. SECOND THIS BILL
REQUIRES PLATFORMS TO PAY MEDIA
OUTLETS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
TIMES ARTICLES ARE CLICKED ON OR
PRESENTED. THIS AND DOES
INCENTIVIZE THE CLICK BAIT. IT
DOES, UM, INCENTIVIZED,
SENSATIONAL MEDIA. IT DOES
INCENTIVIZE A B TESTING OF
HEADLINES. WHICH IS NOT LOCAL
JOURNALISM. WHICH THIS IS
SUPPOSED TO BE THE PRIMARY GOAL
OF THIS BILL THIRD. THIS BILL
REQUIRES AN ELIGIBLE DIGITAL
JOURNALISM PROVIDER TO SPEND AT
LEAST 40% OF THE FUNDS, WHICH
WE'VE ALREADY HEARD. WHAT WE
DIDN'T HEAR IS THE SECOND PART
OF THAT SENTENCE. AND
MAINTAINING OR ENHANCING THE
PRODUCTION OF DISTRIBUTION OF
NEWS OR INFORMATION. SO LET ME
REPEAT THAT AND MAINTAINING OR
ENHANCING THE PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS
INFORMATION. THIS DOES NOT
REQUIRE OUTLETS TO INCREASE. THE
AMOUNT OF SALARIES TO THOSE
LOCAL JOURNALISTS. IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES
OF THOSE WITH THOSE FUNDS,
HOWEVER. THERE THERE MIGHT BE A
OUTLETS THAT MAY VERY WELL
ALLOCATED 70% OF THE FUNDS AND
TAKE OUT THOSE SALARIES,
EXPENSES THAT THEY WERE PAYING.
IN LIEU OF WHATEVER THEY WANT,
PAY PAYING EXECUTIVES OR
MARKETING OR WEB DEVELOPMENT,
BUT NOT JOURNALISTS. SALARIES
RIGHT NOW, THE BUILD IS NOT
SPECIFIED, GOES TO INCREASING
JOURNALIST SALARIES UNLIKE AND
ROYALTIES SITUATION, WHICH IS
SUPPOSED TO BE THE PRIMARY GOAL
OF THE SPELL. FOURTH AND FINAL.
THIS BILL DOES REQUIRE COMPANIES
TO KEEP EVEN HARMFUL CONTENT. OR
ELSE BE THE SUBJECT TO
LITIGATION FOR CHANGING THE
PLACEMENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA
CONTENT FROM ONE MONTH TO
ANOTHER, THIS NON RETALIATION
PROVISIONS ESSENTIALLY
GUARANTEES THAT PLATFORMS MUST
CARRY THE CONTENT PROVIDED BY
ALL ELIGIBLE PUBLISHERS,
INCLUDING THE CONTENT OF THOSE
PUBLISHERS WHO HAVE HISTORICALLY
SPREAD MISINFORMATION. OR
DISINFORMATION. THIS BILL DOES
NOT INCREASE THE PRODUCTION OF
HIGH QUALITY LOCAL NEWS CONTENT
, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
PRIMARY GOAL OF THE SPILL. TO BE
CLEAR. OR NOT OPPOSED TO
SUPPORTING LOCAL JOURNALISM.
THIS BILL DOES NOT DO THAT THERE
ARE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS SUCH
AS TAX CREDITS OR SUBSIDIES,
SUBSCRIPTION SUBSIDIES TO LOCAL
MEDIA OR OUTLETS THAT HIGHER AND
SUPPORT THEM WITH FAIR WAGES. UM
AH, THAT DON'T REWARD PEDDLERS
OF CLICKBAIT AND MISSING
INFORMATION OR WELL FUNDED MEDIA
NEWS OUTLET TO WRAP UP. THANK
YOU ACTUALLY, DON'T REPORT ON
CALIFORNIA NEWS. IN CLOSING, I
THINK THE AUTHOR FOR HER SINCERE
EFFORT TO INCREASE REPORTING OF
LOCAL NEWS, HOWEVER, I IMPLORE
YOU TO JOIN CONSUMER ADVOCACY
GROUPS, CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS AND
COMMUNITY GROUPS SUCH AS A C L U
CALIFORNIA ACTION. CAL MATTERS
HOW CHAMBER FF TECHNET TO NOT
MOVE THIS LEGISLATION FORWARD
TONIGHT. THANK YOU ARE THERE ARE
OTHERS IN THE ROOM AND
OPPOSITION? BECCA CRAMER MATTER
ON BEHALF OF A SALE, YOU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GOOD EVENING CHAIR
AND MEMBERS NAMING PETRONE ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS AND JUST
OPPOSITION. AND YOU TALK WITH
TECHNET RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH THAT.
WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. UH, LET'S GO, MR.
BENNETT, MR SALIH AND MR IRWIN
MISS HAPPENED. OKAY, LET'S JUST
START WITH MR BENNETT. MOMENT A
FEW POINTS. ONE DEMOCRACY IS AT
RISK. UM THERE'S A VITAL ROLE OF
FACT BASED JOURNALISM THAT WE
NEED TO HAVE AND WE NEED TO
MAINTAIN AND THAT VITAL ROLE IS
BEING UNDERMINED FOR ALL BUT BY
A VARIETY OF FORCES IN THE
UNITED STATES TODAY, AND
THEREFORE DEMOCRACY IS BEING
UNDERMINED. I APPRECIATE THAT A
PROBLEM SOLVER LEGISLATOR HAS
DECIDED TO TACKLE THIS. AND IT
IS DAUNTING. BECAUSE THE
MARKETPLACE IS A VERY HARD
PLACE. TO TRY TO REGULATE FOR AN
OUTCOME. I THINK WE SEE OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. HOW DIFFICULT THAT
IS TO DO. IT'S HARD TO DO THIS
BILL RIGHT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT
TO TRY TO DO THIS BILL. BECAUSE
OF THE RISK THAT THAT WE HAVE
OUT THERE, SO I GO INTO THIS
WITH MY EYES OPEN. THIS MAY NOT
WORK. AND I THINK SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED,
YOU KNOW, I CAN SEE A NUMBER OF
PLACES WHERE PEOPLE COULD THERE
COULD BE A RACE FOR CLICKS OVER
A RACE. FOR FACT BASED
JOURNALISM THERE COULD BE, BUT
THERE COULD BE AN INVESTMENT IN
LOCAL JOURNALISM AND
PARTICULARLY IF IS USUALLY WHAT
HAPPENS IN THIS WE. THAT WILL
HAPPEN IF WE JUST STAY WITH OUR
CURRENT STATUS QUO, WHICH IS
COMPLETE. HOLLOWING OUT OF LOCAL
JOURNALISM. UM AND WE SEE IT IN
NEWSPAPER AFTER NEWSPAPER AND
WE'RE FORTUNATE THAT A FEW FACT
BASED NEWSPAPERS ARE STILL
HANGING ON. SO WITH THAT I
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR FOR AGAIN
TAKING A HARD PROBLEM AND TRYING
TO SOLVE IT, AND I WILL SUPPORT
THIS AND AT THE SAME TIME.
RECOGNIZE THAT I HAVE MY EYES
OPEN ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GET TO
THE GOAL THAT I THINK YOU HAVE
IN THAT MOST OF US HAVE HERE.
THANK YOU. LET'S JUST GO AROUND
THE HORN. IT'S PROBABLY EASIER
THAT WAY. I THOUGHT I WAS LAST,
BUT I'LL GO NEXT. SO I THINK I
ASKED YOU THIS EARLIER. THIS
WHOLE PROBLEM PERPLEXES ME. AND
MAYBE SOMEBODY HERE KNOWS THE
ANSWER, BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND
COPYRIGHT LAW, AND IT HAS NEVER
, EVER MADE ANY SENSE TO ME THAT
THESE PLATFORMS CAN REPRINT
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL WITHOUT
COMPENSATION. UM SO THAT'S
BECAUSE UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW,
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT
CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED. ONE OF
THOSE THINGS IS LINKS BECAUSE
THAT IS AN ADDRESS TO A WEBSITE.
AND BECAUSE THAT IS A FACT AND
NOT IN A CREATIVE EXPRESSION
THAT IS NOT COMMON. NOT ASKING
AT THE LINK WHEN I GO TO GOOGLE
NEWS, BUT THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE
THE WHOLE ARTICLE. THEY
REPRODUCE A PORTION OF IT, AND
THAT ITSELF IS ALSO PROTECTED BY
FAIR USE. BECAUSE COPYRIGHT IS
FUNDAMENTALLY INTENTION WITH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN YOU GIVE
SOMEONE A RIGHT OVER AN
EXPRESSION, THERE HAS TO BE A
WAY THAT YOU CAN CRITIQUE THAT
EXPRESSION IN ORDER FOR THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO NOT BE
VIOLATED BY COPYRIGHT.
REPRODUCING SNIPPETS REPRODUCING
HEADLINES IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS
PEOPLE TO FIND IT IS A FAIR USE
, BECAUSE IT IS HOW YOU DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT TO CLICK
SOMETHING. OKAY I WOULD. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO ADD? BECAUSE THANK
YOU. THAT BEING FAIR USE? YEAH
UM AND ACTUALLY, THAT WAS
HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT'S ACTUALLY
NOT WHAT THE BILL IS ABOUT. WE
WERE VERY CLEAR. I'M NOT ASKING
IF THAT'S WHAT THE BILL. IS THAT
OKAY? JUST ASK COPYRIGHT FAIR
USE AS I UNDERSTAND THE FAIR USE
DOCTRINE. YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE
CRITIQUING SOMEBODY THAT'S VERY
USE IF YOUR SATA RISING SOMEONE
THAT'S FAIR USE THOSE. BUT IF
YOU'RE REPRINTING FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY, WHICH
IS WHAT THESE PLATFORMS ARE
DOING. THAT IS NOT FAIR USE
MONEY DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING
NOT FAIR USE. THERE'S A RIGHT
THERE'S A TEST. IT'S AN ELEMENT
OF EXACTLY AND SO THAT'S
ACTUALLY NOVEL QUESTION FOR THE
COURTS. WHETHER OR NOT A SNIPPET
IS VERY YES, BUT HAVE THEY
DECIDED? NO THEY HAVE NOT
INTERESTING. OKAY THAT'S ON ON
APPEAL PIECE GOLDMAN BE BRIGHT
PAY, BREITBART CHALLENGED IT GOT
IT. IT'S ACTUALLY AN UNKNOWN
WHETHER OR NOT IT'S COVERED, BUT
BECAUSE THIS ISN'T GOOGLE AND
FACEBOOK. USE IT IN SO MANY WAYS
THEY USE IT IN A I USE IT.
THERE'S NO LINK COPYRIGHT CASE
ON THE AI QUESTION. THERE IS
ALSO THERE IS, UM, ALSO FAIR
USED TO USE IT IN THAT CAN. I'M
JUST GONNA. I'M JUST GONNA JUMP
IN HERE FOR ONE SECOND DESPITE
THE GREEN CARD, BUT WE'RE NOT IN
THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, SO WE'RE
GONNA LET ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BAUER-KAHAN ASKED QUESTIONS TO
WHOM SHE DIRECTS THEM. AND THEN
WHEN YOU'RE ASKED A QUESTION,
YOU CAN RESPOND. THANK YOU. YES
SO OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL THAT
THERE HASN'T BEEN A CASE BECAUSE
I OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A LEGAL
OPINION THAT IT'S NOT FAIR USE.
I HAVING READ THE FAIR USE TEST
THINK THERE IS A VERY GOOD CASE
TO BE MADE THAT IT IS NOT FAIR
USE. UM OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS FOR
THE COURTS TO DECIDE NOT FOR US
AS WELL. IT COULD BE FOR US AS
LEGISLATURE TO TODAY. WE'RE NOT
US, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THEY HAVE COPYRIGHT. UM CONTROL
. UM BUT THAT BUT SO EUROPE
ACTUALLY TOOK THAT ANGLE, RIGHT
? THEY'VE THEY'VE ENSURED THAT
THERE'S COMPENSATION FOR THE
COPYRIGHT USAGE FOR THESE
SNIPPETS, RIGHT? YES YES,
EXACTLY. AND SO THEY DID A
COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE IN 2019 PAST
WHAT THEY REALIZED WAS BECAUSE
THEY WANT TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
FRENCH AND GOOGLE SAID I'M NOT
GOING TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU. YOU
HAVE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHT. SO
YOU'RE RIGHT IS ONLY AS UH,
STRONG AS YOUR ABILITY TO ASSERT
IT. SO IF YOU'RE WITH A DOG,
THAT'S WHY COMPETITION LAWS MORE
OPERATIVE IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE
IF YOU HAVE THE COPYRIGHT CLAIM
THAT YOU CAN GO IN HAND TO THE
MONOPOLY, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY,
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT. AND THEN
IT'S A HOBSON'S CHOICE BECAUSE
YOU WANT TO BE FOUND ON THE
PLATFORM. RIGHT? SO YOU'RE GONNA
WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS, SO THAT'S WHY
IT'S A COMPETITION PROBLEM AND
COMPETITION LAW APPLIES HERE,
AND THAT'S WHY IT'S ABOUT
CRAWLING AND NOT NECESSARILY ANY
SPECIFIC USE. BECAUSE YOU REALLY
CAN'T MEASURE ANY SPECIFIC USE
THAT WOULD QUANTIFY THE CORPUS
OF THE VALUE OF OUR CONTENT.
IT'S SO IT'S A MEASURABLE, WE'LL
TRY TO MEASURE IT, BUT IT'S
PRETTY RIGHT. UM SO YOU SO IS
THE EXPERIENCE YOU AS YOU
UNDERSTAND IN EUROPE BECAUSE IT
WENT INTO EFFECT NOW, AT LEAST A
YEAR AGO, RIGHT DID AND WHAT
HAPPENED WAS WHEN GOOGLE SAID
THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING
TO PAY YOU TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
UH THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY
MACRON GOT INVOLVED AND SAID,
THAT'S THAT'S AN ECONOMIC ABUSE
OF POWER. THEIR VERSION OF R N
ANTITRUST LAW. AND SO WHAT THEY
DID WAS THEY STARTED, THEY SAID,
YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO THE TABLE
AND YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE.
GOOGLE DIDN'T AND THEN FINALLY,
THE COMPETITION AUTHORITY FIND
THEM $500 MILLION AND A MILLION
DOLLARS A DAY UNTIL THEY STARTED
NEGOTIATING. AND THEN WHAT
HAPPENED WAS THE ARBITRATION AND
A BACKSTOP. A DISPUTE RESOLUTION
MECHANISM TO MAKE HAD TO HAVE
SOME SORT OF A CONCLUSION TO
NEGOTIATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE
NO INCENTIVE TO NEGOTIATE.
FINALLY WORKED. THEY CAME TO A
DEAL AND IT'S A THREE YEAR DEAL.
GOT IT. OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL.
THANK YOU, BECAUSE I REALLY DO.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT
FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT COPYRIGHT
LAWS ABOUT IS THIS NOTION THAT
WHEN I CREATE A PIECE THAT
BELONGS TO ME THAT I GET
COMPENSATION FOR IT AGAIN, THERE
ARE EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW FOR
OTHER USES. BUT THERE'S NO
QUESTION THAT IF SOMEONE IS
PROFITING OFF OF MY ART OR MY
WORK THAT I SHOULD BE, I SHOULD
BE COMPENSATED FOR THAT. AND, UM
SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT. THE
AUTHOR HERE IS TRYING TO ENSURE
, AND IT'S CLEAR THAT SOMEONE'S
MAKING MONEY OFF THE WORK. AND
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THAT MONEY
ISN'T BEING SHARED EQUITABLY. I
DON'T THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME
TODAY WE'VE HEARD OF BILL THAT'S
TRYING TO GET AT THE FACT THAT
OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN'T
DOING THEIR WORK IN THE
ANTITRUST SPACE, WHICH IS
INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING, AND I'LL
JUST KEEP SAYING IT BECAUSE THAT
REALLY WOULD HAVE ALL OF OUR
PROBLEMS. UM BUT I DO THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE ENSURE
THAT THERE IS UM, YOU KNOW,
PROPER SHARING. AND AS I
MENTIONED IN THE AI COPYRIGHT
SUIT, I THINK THIS IS ONLY GOING
TO BECOME A BIGGER ISSUE AS
CHATTY PT, I THINK AND OTHER
FORMS WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS ARE
GOING TO DO MORE OF THIS COPYING
AND RELEASING OF INFORMATION
THAT ALLOWS ONE TO NOT GO HOME
TO THE NEWS SOURCES PLATFORM,
AND SO I HOPE THAT THIS IS BROAD
ENOUGH TO CAPTURE THOSE FUTURE
TECHNOLOGIES AS WELL. BUT I
THINK THE CONVERSATIONS
ABSOLUTELY NEED TO CONTINUE
BECAUSE THE PRESS IS SO CRITICAL
TO OUR DEMOCRACY TO OUR NATION
TO THE FREEDOMS THAT WE ENJOY
EVERY DAY, AND IT IS. IT'S A
RISK AND, UM, YOU KNOW IT'S
INTERESTING I WAS I WAS THINKING
ABOUT THIS BILL OVER THE LAST
DAY. I WAS THINKING ABOUT LAST
WEEK WHEN WE, UM HONORED
HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY, AND I
THINK THAT THIS TOUCHES ON
SOMETHING THAT HITS SO HOME FOR
ME AS A GRANDDAUGHTER OF
HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS, BECAUSE
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
PROLIFERATION OF HATE, IT WAS
THE CONTROL OF THE MEDIA AND THE
CONTROL OF INFORMATION THAT
ALLOWS THAT TO HAPPEN. AND SO AS
WE TALK ABOUT THE END OF HATE,
WE NEED TO ALSO TALK ABOUT WHAT
OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO BE DOING
AROUND THAT. AND I THINK THIS IS
SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THAT.
AND SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
REMEMBER WILSON? THANK YOU. FOR
ALL THE CONVERSATION THAT'S
HAPPENED SO FAR TODAY FROM THE
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT AND
AGAINST AS WELL AS THE AUTHOR
AND EVEN MY COLLEAGUES SO FAR,
AND I KNOW THAT, UM AS I'VE
LISTENED TO EACH ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES, UM, SO FAR THIS
SESSION, I'M SURE UM, THAT THERE
WILL BE MORE CONVERSATION
HAPPENED SO I'M GONNA NARROW
MIND TO ONE TO JUST ONE ASPECT.
UM AS I SAID, I SAID AS CHAIR OF
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS, AND SO, MY, UM ONE OF MY
CHIEF CONCERNS OUTSIDE OF
REPRESENTING MY DISTRICT AND
ENSURING, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL
CALIFORNIANS ARE REPRESENTATIVE,
PARTICULARLY BLACK CALIFORNIANS,
HOW THEY ACCESS MEDIA. HOW THEY
GET THEIR INFORMATION AND AS
WELL AS THE ORGANIZATIONS ARE
THAT ARE INVOLVED. UM AND SO YOU
KNOW, I REALIZE, ESPECIALLY ON
THESE ISSUES. UM, HEAVILY ON I'M
HEARING FROM, YOU KNOW, BLACK
ORGANIZATIONS ON THIS TOPIC, AND
SO I KNOW CALIFORNIA BLACK MEDIA
. UM HASN'T WEIGHED IN AND A
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE POSITION AND A
NEW TRIAL. A NEUTRAL POSITION.
UM, I BELIEVE THE NATIONAL UM,
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION HAS
AND SO MY ONLY CONCERN, NOT ONLY
, BUT THE MAIN CONCERN I HAVE
WITH THE BILL IS AND THAT VEIN
AND ENSURING THAT THEY ARE NOT
LEFT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION AT
ALL, UM, FROM ALL ASPECTS OF IT,
WHETHER IT'S UM, MAKING SURE
THERE'S PROTECTIONS WITHIN YOUR
BILL AND AS WELL AS, UM,
ENSURING THAT ANY RESOURCES THAT
ARE GIVEN AS IT TIDES TO
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
REPRESENTING AND DEFINITIONS
THAT THEY'RE INCLUDED AND
EXCLUDED, AND THAT'S VERY
INTENTIONAL AND NOT ONLY WITHOUT
THE IMPACTFUL TO BLACK MEDIA,
BUT ALL ETHNIC MEDIA IN GENERAL
, BECAUSE USUALLY WHERE THE ONES
LEFT OUT, RIGHT? UM AND SO I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
WERE INCLUDED AND BE THE VOICE
FOR THAT TODAY BECAUSE I AS I
SAID, I KNOW ALL MY DIFFERENT
MEMBERS ARE GOING TO HAVE
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF IT, BUT I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S AT
THE FOREFRONT AS YOU WORK
THROUGH THIS PROCESS. UM THAT
YOU'RE KEEPING THEM IN MIND AND
THAT WILL BE HOLDING TWO AND SO,
UM THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT
IF IT GETS OUT OF THIS
COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW I WANT TO
LOOK TO BEFORE. YOU KNOW, I VOTE
ON IT AGAIN. OKAY WELL, I IF I
IF I MIGHT CHAIR I APPRECIATE
THAT IT'S A EXTRAORDINARILY
VALID CONCERN. BECAUSE I THINK
WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER
ITERATIONS OF THIS THEY HAVE
BEEN LEFT OUT. UM AND SO WE WERE
REALLY INTENTIONAL LOOKING AT
THE OTHER MODELS THAT THAT OUR
DEFINITIONS ARE VERY INCLUSIVE.
THAT WE'RE CAPTURING THE SMALLER
PAPERS, THE ETHNIC PAPERS, THE
NONPROFIT PAPERS AND OTHERS WHO
PROVIDED INCREDIBLE SERVICE FOR
THOSE CONSTITUENCIES, SO AND
WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS. I THINK
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST
COMMITTEE HEARING. I'VE SPOKEN
DIRECTLY WITH REGINA AND OTHERS
WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AND WOULD
LOVE TO HAVE YOU AS PART OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL,
JUST TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THAT
THAT ASPECT IS THAT WE MEET THAT
THRESHOLD TO YOUR STANDARD AND
TWO OTHERS BECAUSE I THINK
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I JUST
WANT TO SORRY NEXT TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALLY. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, MA'AM. I MISSED
IT. WHAT ORGANIZATION? ARE YOU
WITH THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION. DO YOU RECEIVE MONEY
FROM GOOGLE? I HONESTLY DON'T
KNOW, BECAUSE AS A MEMBER OF
PROGRAM STAFF, I DON'T SEE HOW
WE GET OUR MONEY. I DO KNOW THAT
THE MAJORITY OF OUR MONEY COMES
FROM INDIVIDUAL DONORS. OKAY UM
I JUST I AM STRUGGLING TO
UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE
OPPOSITION HERE. UM ARE ARE
JOURNALISM IS DYING. LOCAL
JOURNALISM IS DYING. I SEE IT IN
MY OWN COMMUNITY. THERE'S LIKE
ONE REPORTER THAT COVERS TWO
COUNTIES OF POLITICS AND OFTEN
HE JUST ENDS UP RE PRINTING
PRESS RELEASES ITS NOT REALLY
DOING ANYONE TO SERVICE. UM AND
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ME
THAT GOOGLE IS NOT BENEFITTING
AND PROFITING OFF THE BACKS OF
THE WORK OF JOURNALISTS BECAUSE
THEY'RE OUT RIDING THE CONTENT
AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE SEARCHING
FOR ARTICLE OR OR TOPICS ON
GOOGLE. GOOGLE IS SCRAPING THE
CONTENT FROM THOSE ARTICLES AND
SUMMARIZING IT AND PROVIDING IT
IN THEIR SEARCH WINDOW AND
THEY'RE BENEFITING BECAUSE THEY
HAVE GOOGLE ADS ON THERE. THEY
WANT TO KEEP OUR EYES ON THEIR
WEB PAGE AND GOOGLE MADE $280
BILLION LAST YEAR BILLION.
THAT'S THE BUDGET OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. AH SO THEY'RE
MAKING A LOT OF MONEY OFF US OFF
OUR DATA. UM AND SO I THINK THEY
NEED TO PAY. THEY NEED TO PAY
FOR THE CONTENT. THEY'RE THEY'RE
PROFITING OFFERS WITH THAT SAID
, I THINK, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, YOU
HAVE WORKED EXTREMELY HARD ON
THIS. UH I'VE NEVER SEEN ANY
WORK AS HARD ON THE BILL. UM AND
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME
CONVERSATIONS AND I TOTALLY
AGREE WITH THE WHAT'S HAPPENING
WITH GOOGLE. I HAVE RESERVATIONS
ABOUT THE BILL APPLYING TO
SOCIAL MEDIA WHERE THE NEWS
AGENCIES ARE VOLUNTARILY PUTTING
THEIR CONTENT ON THERE. AND SO I
DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT'S A
THAT'S A FAIR COMPARISON. SO I
DO LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
AMENDMENTS IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. UM AND I INTEND TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND I
ALSO ECHOED THE IMPORTANCE OF
HAVING A FREE PRESS. IT'S VITAL
TO OUR REPUBLIC, OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC THAT
PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION, AND I THINK
JOURNALISTS NEED TO DO BETTER,
TOO. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
JOURNALISTS OR ACTIVISTS AND
THAT REALLY TURNS PEOPLE OFF. WE
WANT SOME OBJECTIVE FACT FINDERS
. WE WANT YOU TO HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE. WE WANT
YOU TO HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE. TO
MY KNOWLEDGE. ASHLEY ZAVALA IS
ONE OF THE ONLY REPORTERS IN
THIS CAPITAL THAT DOES HARD
HITTING JOURNALISM. THERE SHOULD
BE 20 OF HER. UM, THERE ISN'T IS
A REPORTER IN THE ROOM. THERE'S
NO REPORTERS IN THAT. I MEAN
THAT'S TOPICS WE'VE COVERED.
ACTIVIST JOURNALIST TESTIFYING
WELL, THERE'S NO REPORTING AND
THAT'S A DISSERVICE TO THE
PEOPLE OF THIS STATE. AND SO, UM
, I WANTED TO ASK YOU GUYS TO DO
BETTER AND I HOPEFULLY, THESE
FUNDS WILL GO TO HIRING MORE
JOURNALISTS OR PAYING THEM
BETTER SO THEY'LL HAVE THE
RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY DO THE
IMPORTANT INVESTIGATING WORK TO
HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE AND
NOT BE A MOUTHPIECE FOR
GOVERNMENT OR BE ACTIVISTS. SO
UM, YES, YOU CAN, WOULD YOU?
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND TO
THAT? UM SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. UM YOU KNOW
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE NEWS
GUILD, A UNION, WHICH YOU KNOW
IT WAS CREATED THROUGH ACTIVISM
SO I CAN ONLY CRITICIZE ACTIVISM
SO MUCH I'M APPEARING HERE AS A
LEADER OF MY COWORKERS AND AS A
LEADER FOR JOURNALISTS IN
CALIFORNIA. UM YOU KNOW, WE GOT
OUR FOUNDATION IN THE 19
THIRTIES AT A TIME WHEN THE
PRESS WAS DOMINATED BY OLIGARCHS
, EXTREMELY WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS
WHO CONTROLLED WHAT PEOPLE READ
IN THE NEWS, AND THIS WAS ALSO
AT A TIME OF THE RISE OF
ADVERTISING AND JOURNALISTS IN
THESE NEWSROOMS. WANTED TO SEE
STRONGER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
AND THEIR WORK. AND SO ONE OF
THE CONTRADICTIONS OF HAVING A
FREE PRESS IN THIS COUNTRY IS
THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TIED TO
A COMMERCIAL FOUNDATION. AND
THAT HAS ALWAYS BROUGHT
CRITICISMS THAT THE PRESS HAS
BEEN SENSATIONALIST. IT'S BEEN,
YOU KNOW, BIAS TOWARD
ADVERTISERS OR TO THE OWNERSHIP.
UM, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THESE
ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN WITH
US FROM THE FOUNDING. YOU GO
BACK TO THE FOUNDERS, AND
THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT
NEWSPAPERS AT THE SAME TIME THAT
THEY'RE IMPOSING POSTAL
SUBSIDIES TO MAKE THEIR
DISTRIBUTION EASIER BECAUSE THEY
UNDERSTOOD THAT TO HAVE A FREE
PRESS YOU HAD TO HAVE THE
MATERIAL PRECONDITIONS OF HAVING
APPROVED PRESS AND SO IN ORDER
TO HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS, YOU
NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET IT
DISTRIBUTED TO PEOPLE WHO WOULD
SEE IT. AND SO, UM, PART OF WHY
I'M HERE AND PART OF WHY UNIONS
LIKE MINE EXISTS IS TO TRY TO
BOOST THOSE PROFESSIONAL
STANDARDS AND TRY TO BE A
COUNTERWEIGHT TO THE COMMERCIAL
REALITIES OF THE WAY THAT WE'VE
STRUCTURED FREE SPEECH IN THIS
COUNTRY. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SOCIETY FOR
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE ETHICS CODE. THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE ETHICS GUIDELINES
THAT A LOT OF PUBLICATIONS
PUBLISHED ONLINE SO YOU KNOW,
I'M WITH YOU ON THE NEED FOR
MORE AND STRONGER PROFESSIONAL
JOURNALISM. I APPRECIATE THAT,
IN YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT
OLIGARCHIES ARE IMPORTANT. I
THINK WE'RE LIVING UNDER TACKLE
GORKY RIGHT NOW. AND SO I DO
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. AND,
UH, AND I WANT JOURNALISM, BUT I
DON'T WANT YELLOW JOURNALISM, SO
THERE'S WORK TO DO ON BOTH SIDES
AND THERE'S NO QUESTION PENDING.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THAT
CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS QUESTION.
THANK YOU, MR LENTO. UM YEAH,
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF, MR. CHAIR I
WANT TO COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE
FROM ORANGE COUNTY ENCAPSULATED
ALL MY THOUGHTS. THANK YOU.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY
, RIVERSIDE COUNTY. EXCUSE ME.
OH, FOR TWO TONIGHT ARE AND I
SORRY, GUYS. AND ALSO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM ORINDA. I'M RIGHT
ABOUT THAT ONE. I KNOW WHERE YOU
LIVE. UM THERE. THERE'S BEEN A
REALLY INTERESTING EVOLUTION OF
THE INTERNET AS A WHOLE AS WE
KNOW IT, UM, WHERE YOU KNOW
THERE WAS A COMPLETE EROSION OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OUT OF THE
GATE. AND WE SAW IT EVERYWHERE.
WE SAW THE MUSIC. WE SOUND FILM
WITH SUN IN JOURNALISM. WE SAID
EVERYTHING. YEAH, AND OVER TIME
. A LOT OF THOSE, YOU KNOW
SECTORS HAVE WORKED VERY HARD
AND VERY DILIGENTLY TO GET THAT
BACK. AND A LOT OF THAT WAS
DRIVEN BY, YOU KNOW INDUSTRY
ITSELF, THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, THE
FILM INDUSTRY AND ALL THE
ASSOCIATIONS AROUND IT. UM AND
BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE IS LICENSING REALLY
MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. THEY I
WILL SAY, UH, THE LACK OF
JOURNALISM OR THE LACK OF.
ROBUST JOURNALISM ON THE LOCAL
LEVEL AFFECTS THE WAY THAT WE DO
OUR JOBS. IT REALLY DOES. WE ALL
FEEL IT. THERE'S NO
ACCOUNTABILITY IN OUR DISTRICTS.
THERE IS ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL
TO SOME DEGREE, BUT YOU KNOW
WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNANCE IN
CALIFORNIA, WERE AFFECTED SO
SEVERELY BY IT, UM AND THE OTHER
THING IS THAT YOU KNOW, WITH
THIS SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE NOW IN
GENEROUS DISINFORMATION TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM RIVERSIDE
COUNTY'S POINT UM, WITHOUT ANY
CONSEQUENCE, AND THAT DEGRADES
ALL OF OUR SOCIETY, AND IT
DEGRADES THE DISCOURSE
COMPLETELY. I THINK THIS BILL IS
WONDERFUL. I APPRECIATE THE
SPIRIT THAT THE AUTHOR IS TAKEN
TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. I
THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE
DYNAMIC AND IT'S GOING TO NEED
WORK OVER THE COURSE OF TIME IS
NOT GOING TO BE SOLVED IN THIS
CYCLE. EVEN IF THE GOVERNOR DOES
SIGN IT, WHICH I HOPE HE DOES. I
HOPE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO
ADD ME AS A CO AUTHOR OF THIS
BILL. AND VERY PROUD OF YOU. I'M
PROUD OF OUR BODY FOR TAKING
THIS ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR MEISTER. THANKS. UM YOU KNOW,
I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS
BILL AND, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR FOR REACHING OUT TO
ME AND HAVING DISCUSSIONS AND
I'VE TALKED WITH DANIELLE IS
THAT COFFEE? ALRIGHT SPOKE WITH
HER AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW A LOT
OF PEOPLE AROUND THIS SITUATION.
AND YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN THINKING
A LOT ABOUT THIS. I WENT TO, UH,
PEOPLE MIGHT NOT FIRST OF ALL,
DON'T WORRY ABOUT CALLING HIM
FROM ORANGE COUNTY. I GET CALLED
JOSH HOOVER AND JIM PATTERSON ON
A DAILY BASIS SO YOU CAN CALL
THEM FROM FROM ORANGE COUNTY.
IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. UM BUT IF
YOU GO TO SACRAMENTO BEE RIGHT
NOW FROM A DESKTOP, I DON'T KNOW
IF IT'S THE SAME ON A MOBILE
DEVICE OR NOT, BUT ABOUT 50% OF
THE ARTICLES UP, THERE ARE
AFFILIATE IT'S SOME KIND OF, UH
, YOU KNOW, UH, STRANGE CONTENT
ALMOST IN THERE, BUYING IT AND
YOU CLICK ON IT, AND THEN YOU
WHEN YOU GO BACK AND ROTATES IT
OUT, AND I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON THERE, BUT, YOU
KNOW, THESE PUBLICATIONS ARE
USING UM, THIS AFFILIATE
INFORMATION. UM NOT BECAUSE IT'S
CLICKBAIT. I MEAN, IT'S ACTUALLY
NOT REALLY USEFUL INFORMATION,
BUT BECAUSE THEY NEED TO DRIVE
THE REVENUE FOR THEIR
PUBLICATIONS RIGHT NOW, AND, UM
A LOT OF WAYS. I ALSO APPRECIATE
WHAT ALL THE ONLINE PLATFORMS
DO. THERE ARE A LOT OF ARTICLES
OUT THERE THAT I WOULDN'T EVEN
READ, UM IF IT WASN'T FOR
VARIOUS SHARES, OR YOU KNOW THEM
GETTING TO KNOW ME A LITTLE BIT
AND FIGURING OUT WHAT I ACTUALLY
LIKE TO READ. UM SOME SOME
PEOPLE UP HERE MIGHT THINK I
READ DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I
ACTUALLY READ, UM I DO READ
OCCASIONALLY AS LONG AS IT'S
FIFTH GRADE READING LEVEL. UM
BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR
MISS COFFEE AND KIND OF GOES ON
WHAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SALIH WAS
GOING, BUT YOU HAD RAT FRIENDS
SAT. YOU KNOW, THERE REALLY
AREN'T ANY CLICK THROUGHS ON
FACEBOOK. WE DID TALK ABOUT THIS
A LITTLE BIT. UM AND THAT
PARTICULAR PLATFORM DOESN'T SHOW
SNIPPETS AND LESS PEOPLE ARE OR
THE PUBLICATION THEMSELVES ARE
GRABBING THE INFORMATION PUTTING
IT IN THE POST. I MEAN, IT'S
BASICALLY JUST THE SUBJECT. AH
UM OR THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE.
SO HOW WOULD YOU DETERMINE? UH
WHAT KIND OF REVENUE FROM
SOMETHING LIKE THAT FROM THOSE
SHARES WOULD BE OWED TO AH,
PUBLICATIONS FROM SHARES. SO HOW
THE HOW THE BILL IS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN, YOU WOULD GO TO
COLLECTIVELY TO AN ARBITRATOR.
UM WHAT YOU CAN DO COLLECTIVELY,
YOU CAN'T NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVELY
WITH A PARTY, BUT YOU CAN GO
COLLECTIVELY TO STATE SANCTIONED
ARBITRATOR. AND YOU WOULD, UM,
YOU WOULD DETERMINE WELL, IT'S
BASEBALL STYLE ARBITRATION, SO
IT'S JUST IT'S WHAT IT IS, IS
IT'S FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION.
BOTH PARTIES SAY WHAT THEY THINK
THEIR VALUE IS. THAT'S
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEWS CONTENT
. THAT'S ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
ADVERTISING REVENUE OF THE
PLATFORM IN THIS CASE TO
FACEBOOK. AND THEN THE
ARBITRATORS WOULD PICK WHICH
FINAL OFFER MOST CLOSELY
RESEMBLES FAIR MARKET VALUE. AND
THAT IT'S THE GOLD STANDARD OF
OUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
MECHANISMS MECHANISMS BECAUSE
EACH PARTY IS INCENTIVIZED TO BE
REASONABLE FOR FEAR THAT THE
OTHER PARTY WILL WIN. SO IT'S
WORKED IN AUSTRALIA AND
ELSEWHERE. BUT WHAT YOU'RE
ASKING IS WITH FACEBOOK. HOW
WOULD YOU THINK YOU'RE SAYING?
HOW HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN WHAT YOU POST ON
FACEBOOK THAT YOU WOULD SAY IS
YOUR VALUE? THAT YOU ARE OWED
THAT THE NEWS PUBLISHER IS OWED
VERSUS NON POSTED SELF POSTED
CONTENT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
ASKING? UH WELL, YOU KNOW, THE
FACEBOOK IS A YOU KNOW, SOCIAL
MEDIA, I THINK IN GENERAL IS A
MUCH DIFFERENT, UH, PLATFORM
THAN OTHER PLATFORMS WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF I, YOU
KNOW, IT'S NOT SHOWING YOU THE
INFORMATION. FIRST OF ALL RIGHT
, UNLIKE OTHER PLATFORMS, AND
THEN IT ALSO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN,
IT'S BUILDING I MEAN, AMOUNTING
TO SECRET. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT
ACTUALLY WORKS, YOU KNOW, UNDER
THE HOOD, BUT IT'S BUILDING SOME
KIND OF PROFILE ON JOE
PATTERSON. AND WHAT KIND OF
THINGS I LIKE TO READ AND YOU
KNOW HOW LONG I SPEND AND
WHATEVER IT'S DOING WAY BEYOND
MY PAY GRADE. BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY THAT DIRECT IT'S HARDER
TO QUANTIFY. I THINK YOU KNOW
WHAT THE DIRECT IMPACT IS TO
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN,
ACTUALLY USING THE CONTENT WILL
GIVE YOU MY RUDIMENTARY ANSWER,
BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ECONOMIST,
BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU DO IS
YOU WOULD LOOK AT HOW MUCH
REVENUE IS GENERATED THAT
FACEBOOK IS GENERATING OFF OF
THE CONTENT. THAT'S ATTRIBUTABLE
TO NEWS THAT PORTION OF IT THAT
THEY ARE PROFILING YOU FOR AND
TARGETING YOU WITH ADS AND THE
POST COME UP. I DON'T KNOW
EITHER. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US
ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THEIR
ALGORITHM WORKS. THAT'S NOT
TRANSPARENT, BUT THEY GIVE YOU A
FEED. EVERYBODY'S IS DIFFERENT,
AND IT'S BASED ON YOUR USER
EXPERIENCE. AND THEN THAT DATA
GOES BACK AND WE NOBODY KNOWS
THE VALUE OF A SINGLE PIECE OF
DATA. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S
DIFFERENT. LOCAL TO FIGURE OUT
HOW MUCH OF IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO NEWS AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE
AND WHAT WE WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO
AN ARBITRATOR AS A
QUANTIFICATION. BY TRYING
ANGULAR EATING. LIKE I SAID, I'M
NOT AN ECONOMIST BY BY USING
SEVERAL METHODOLOGIES TO BE ABLE
TO DETERMINE WHAT THE VALUE IS
OF DATA WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE
VALUE IS OF DATA, AND IT WAS A
VERY, VERY DIFFICULT
UNDERTAKING. UM AND WE'RE READY
TO GO TO ARBITRATION AND SHOW
THEM THAT, BUT BUT IT IS A VERY
COMPLICATED NOT KNOWING WHAT
DATA IS WORTH AND I WOULD JUST
ADD TO THAT SENATOR YOU AND I'VE
TALKED ABOUT IS WITH OTHERS THE
SORT OF FACEBOOK VERSUS GOOGLE
ASPECT OF THIS, THERE'S STILL
VALUE. TO FACEBOOK WHEN THEY RE
POPE REPURPOSE NEWS CONTENT
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KEEP
EYEBALLS ON THAT NEWS FEED
SCREEN FOR AS LONG AS HUMANLY
POSSIBLE, RIGHT, SO THEY WANT TO
PROMOTE CONTENT THAT, UM, IS
EXCITING TO PEOPLE IS DRAWS THEM
IN ETCETERA, SO THERE'S VALUE
FOR THEM TO HAVE THAT AND THEN
THEY RUN ADVERTISING AGAINST
THAT. I THINK THERE'S A QUESTION
AROUND. WHAT IS THAT VALUE AND
I'M HAPPY TO EXPLORE WITH YOU
AND OTHERS. IF THIS BUILDINGS AT
A COMMITTEE HOW DO WE
DIFFERENTIATE SORT OF GOOGLE
VERSUS FACEBOOK OR SEARCH
ENGINES VERSUS SOCIAL MEDIA
BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT. YEAH UM, I HAVE THE
ATTENTION SPAN OF LIKE MY KIDS,
YOU KNOW, AND, UH, THAT WAS A
COMPLICATED ANSWER. UH BUT
HOPEFULLY AN ARBITRATOR WOULD BE
ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, GETTING THE
WEEDS ON THAT A LITTLE BIT. BUT
YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD HAVE WE
TALKED ABOUT THESE CONCERNS, I
THINK YOU KNOW WHEN YOU TAKE A
PRODUCT THAT HAS VERY CLEARLY
THERE USING THE ACTUAL CONTENT
FROM THESE WRITERS IS DISTINCT
FROM. WHATEVER IT IS, SOCIAL
MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE DOING WITH
THE INFORMATION. AND SO I THINK
THAT'S KIND OF THE ONE SORT OF
HANG UP. I HAVE ON IT. BUT I
WILL SAY THAT, UM I THINK WHAT
YOU'RE GETTING INTO A IS, UM UM
IS VALUABLE. IT'S IMPORTANT. I
DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD THE DISCUSSION SHOULD NOT
END TODAY. UM YOU KNOW, AND
YOU'VE SHOWN A WILLINGNESS MORE
THAN YOU KNOW. I'VE SHOWN
WILLINGNESS. OTHER PEOPLE. I
THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE SHOWN
WILLINGNESS TO OTHER PEOPLE OF
ALL PARTIES OF ALL WALKS OF LIFE
HERE IN THIS BUILDING TO WORK ON
THIS ITEM, AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. AND I HOPE YOU
KNOW IF IT GETS OUT OF
COMMITTEE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
STUCK WITH THE GUY FROM ORANGE
COUNTY AGAIN, BUT IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, BUT UM, BUT I HOPE
YOU CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS
WITH HIM. AND YOU KNOW, REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S POP
IN SOME NON FROM ORANGE COUNTY
DIDN'T GET THAT OUT THERE. UM
BUT WHERE I AM FROM IS SOMEWHAT
IMPORTANT TO MY ATTITUDE TOWARDS
THE BILL, AS YOU WELL KNOW,
COMING FROM TECHLAND AND MY
DISTRICT IS COMPRISED WITH A LOT
OF TECH. UM SO I APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ONE
THING THAT WE TOTALLY AGREE ON.
IS THAT THERE IS A VERY
IMPORTANT ROLE TO BE PLAYED BY
LOCAL NEWSPAPERS. UM I
SUBSCRIBED TO MINE. THEY PLAY A
VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND COVERING STATE
GOVERNMENT. THEY COME ONLINE AT
FIVE AM EVERY DAY AND I READ
THEM. UM AND I KNOW NEWSPAPERS
LONG AGO ADOPTED PAY WALLS TO
SORT OF REAP SOME OF WHEN FOLKS
WERE TRYING TO GET OUT THEIR
CONTENT, AND I APPLAUD. THAT IS
CERTAINLY A WAY OF DOING IT. UM
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT MONEY GOING
TO BIG CONGLOMERATES. I GOT TO
TELL YOU THAT I THINK YOU CAN
WORK WITH THAT. I DON'T YOU KNOW
IF YOU GET IT IN THE HANDS OF
JOURNALISTS, THAT'S WHERE THE
MONEY REALLY SHOULD BE GOING.
THEY ARE UNDERPAID. UM I HAVE
SOME ISSUES ABOUT LEVEL OF
PROFESSIONALISM AS WELL. BUT
THAT DOES NOT DETER FROM THE
IMPORTANCE THAT THEY PLAY IN OUR
DEMOCRACY. AS YOU KNOW, I'M THE
ONLY GREEK IN THE LEGISLATURE
AND I TAKE PRIDE IN MY PEOPLE
INVENTED DEMOCRACY. SO I IS, UH
, GREAT IMPORTANT TO MY SOUL AS
IT WERE, UM, SO THAT THE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, UM
TO FOLLOW ON WITH SOMEBODY NAMED
PATERSON. JP UM, IS THAT YES,
NOT ALL. TECH IS CREATED EQUAL.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, GOOGLE
THERE'S A LOT OF SCRAPING THAT
ISN'T ACTIVE. THING THAT THAT
THAT GOOGLE DOES TO GET CONTENT
AND THEN ENTICE PEOPLE WITH
CONTENT. UM SOCIAL MEDIA IS
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. YOU HAVE
USERS THAT SEEK TO LIKE AN
ARTICLE AND THEN UH, YOU KNOW,
REPOSTED SO BECAUSE THERE'S
DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO GETTING
IT OUT THERE. I LOOK FORWARD TO
SEEING THIS IN JUDICIARY AND
MAYBE A BILL THAT SORT OF
ADDRESSES THOSE NUANCES AND
THOSE DIFFERENCES BECAUSE I DO
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I MEAN,
SCRAPING IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
BALL GAME, SO I APPRECIATE YOU.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY OPEN ABOUT
TAKING A LOOK AT THIS, AND I'M
WILLING TO SUPPORT THE BILL
TODAY WITH THE CONCEPT THAT WE
LOOK AT THE NUANCES. NOT ALL
TECH IS CREATED EQUAL, AND WE
FIGURE OUT UM WHAT MIGHT BE
REASONABLE, BUT I THINK YOU CAN
WORK WITH WHERE THE DOLLARS
ULTIMATELY END UP BECAUSE, UM,
THERE ARE AND I TRUST ISSUES
WITHOUT HOW MUCH, UM,
CONSOLIDATION THERE'S BEEN IN
THE MEDIA AND I LOVE MY LOCAL
NEWSPAPER. AND I WOULD GO TO THE
ENDS OF THE EARTH TO MAKE SURE
THAT THEY CONTINUE TO PLAY THE
ROLE THAT THEY PLAY. I THINK
PEOPLE GET REALLY TWISTED,
WATCHING A LOT OF NEWS ON TV
ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN D. C BUT
WHAT HAPPENS LOCALLY AFFECTS
YOUR EVERYDAY LIFE MORE THAN YOU
COULD EVER IMAGINE. AND
NEWSPAPERS PLACE SUCH AN
INTEGRAL ROLE TO THAT THAT I'M
HERE TO BE THEIR BIG
CHEERLEADER. SO THANK YOU,
THOUGH, FOR CONTINUING
DISCUSSION, NO. AND IF I COULD
JUST REACT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I
GIVE YOU MY COMMITMENT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT NUANCE.
AS WE'VE DISCUSSED AS A COUPLE
OF MEMBERS, I THINK HAVE RAISED
THE SAME ISSUES AND SO I KNOW WE
HAVE THE NEXT HURDLE JUDICIARY
SO WE'LL HAVE, I THINK, CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS AS WELL. THANK
YOU. HMM. I'LL JUST BE VERY
BRIEF AND JUST ASK, CLARIFYING
QUESTION. APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
. IN TERMS OF WE'VE HAD A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS AS WELL. I SEE. I
FEEL LIKE THERE'S A CONFLATION
AND EVEN IN THE QUESTIONS ABOUT
HAVING PLATFORMS NEGOTIATE WITH
PUBLISHERS FOR THE USE OF, UM OF
NEWS JUST AS THE COPYRIGHT ISSUE
AND THEN THERE SEEMS TO BE
ANOTHER BUCKET. OF THE
CONVERSATION OF TAXING OR
CHARGING SOME OR TAKING DIGITAL
ADVERTISING AND USING THAT
REVENUE TO PROVIDE TWO NEWS
OUTLETS. SO ARE THERE ARE THESE
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES OR WE JUST
ARE YOU OR ARE YOU JUST ROLLING
EVERYTHING TOGETHER? BECAUSE I
THINK IF IT'S IF THE
CONVERSATION IS SOMEHOW
COMPENSATING JOURNALISTS AND
GETTING PERMISSION TO USE THEIR
COPYRIGHT. THAT'S ONE THING IF
THE GOAL IS SUGGESTS. THE
PLATFORMS ARE MAKING SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNTS OF REVENUE ON DIGITAL
ADVERTISING, AND NOW WE WANT TO
KIND OF REDIRECT THAT TO
NEWSROOMS, THEN THAT SEEMS TO BE
TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. AM I AM I
UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? UH
SO WHEN THERE'S WHEN THERE'S UH
A PAYMENT OWED TO ANOTHER PARTY
. THERE'S DIFFERENT MECHANISMS
BY WHICH YOU CAN ENFORCE THAT
PAYMENT AND THAT HAPPENS ACROSS
THE BOARD AND ANYTHING THERE'S
UM YOU KNOW, THERE'S
RETRANSMISSION CONSENT FOR
BROADCASTERS, AND THAT'S A
NEGOTIATION. UM OVERCOMPENSATION
, BUT THEN YOU COULD ALSO
LICENSED CONTENT TO BE ABLE TO
USE IT A CLIPPING SERVICE, SO IT
DEPENDS ON IT'S JUST A MECHANISM
THAT WOULD ENFORCE THAT PAYMENT.
IN THIS CASE, THE PAYMENT IS
ENFORCED BY AND YOU CAN ALMOST
THINK ABOUT IT AS A QUASI
PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU'RE
ENFORCING THE PAYMENT TO BE ABLE
TO GET THE VALUE OF WHAT IT IS
THAT'S OWED TO YOU BY THE PARTY
WHO'S RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF
THAT OF THAT CONTENT, AND IT'S
CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT
CONTENT. SO WHEN YOU THINK
CONTENT, YOU THINK MUSIC YOU
THINK OTHER THINGS THAT ARE
USUALLY LICENSED. NOT ALL. BUT
MOSTLY, THERE'S USUALLY A
LICENSE FOR THAT, BUT ACTUALLY
IN THIS CASE THERE IS THERE IS
OFTEN TIMES THE TRANSFER AND
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. THAT IS
NOT A LICENSE, AND IT'S UM
ANOTHER COMPENSATION MECHANISM
LIKE THIS WOULD BE ARBITRATION
AND THAT EXISTS IN MANY OTHER
CASES, BUT I THINK THE CONFUSION
COMES BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT CONTENT
. SO YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GO TO
LICENSING SO THIS BILL HAS
CERTAINLY HAS EVOLVED. IT
STARTED OUT AS KIND OF A FEE,
AND THEN NOW THERE'S AN
ARBITRATION FEATURE. AND SINCE
YOU BROUGHT UP KIND OF THE MUSIC
OTHER THE OTHER AREAS ARE THERE
PARALLELS HERE. ARE WE
RECREATING THE WHEEL HERE? IT
SEEMS LIKE AS WE DEBATED THE YOU
KNOW, I'M DATING MYSELF WHEN WE
TALKED ABOUT, LIKE, SCOUR AND
DOWNLOADING IN ALL THAT STUFF,
AND NOW WE'RE KIND OF IN THE
APPLE MUSIC WORLD. YOU KNOW IT
WAS IS THIS IS THIS SCENE IN A
SIMILAR VEIN, OR AM I AM I
COMPARING APPLES, ORANGES? WELL
I THINK THAT THE POINT UH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN, AND
I'M SORRY IF I'M BUTCHERING YOUR
LAST NAME. OKAY UM, THE POINT
THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING EARLIER
, WHEREAS IF YOU IF YOU LICENSE
FOR A SPECIFIC USE OF CONTENT,
IT DOESN'T INJUSTICE TO THE USES
OF THE CONTENT OF NEWS HERE
BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY WAYS IN
WHICH OUR CONTENT IS USED IN THE
MOST RECENT OF WHICH IS A I
WHERE THERE IS NO LINK. THERE'S
NO ATTRIBUTION, THERE'S NOTHING
THAT ACTUALLY THERE'S NO
BUSINESS MODEL FOR US IN A I AND
WERE USED IN A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT
OF OUR I MEAN, NOBODY ELSE
RECORDS REAL LIFE CONTENT LIKE
NEWS NEWS PUBLICATIONS. SO IT'S
USED. IT'S VALUABLE, BUT WE AND
WE NEED TO GET PAID FOR IT. AND
ALL THOSE LOGICAL THINGS LINE UP
AND THEN IT BECOMES WHAT'S THE
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IN ORDER
TO GET PAID FOR IT? AND HERE IT
WOULD BE ARBITRATION. IF IT WAS
JUST A IF IT WAS, UM A MUSIC. I
WON'T. I WON'T GO INTO MUSIC,
BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING
DIFFERENT SO THAT SO JUST TO BE
CLEAR THEIR APPLES AND ORANGES.
UH PRETTY MUCH APPLES AND
ORANGES. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I
THINK EVERYTHING'S BEEN SAID AND
I HAVE A BILL. OKAY? ALL RIGHT,
UM WELL, I JUST WANT TO THANK UM
. I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
VERY THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION
HERE. UM AND I WANT TO THANK ALL
OF THE WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES
FOR THE THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION.
UM WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR? UM
FOR, UM, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE
WORKING THIS ISSUE YOUR
AGREEMENT TO TAKE THESE
AMENDMENTS IN JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, UM, APPRECIATE YOUR
YOUR APPROACH TO ALL OF THIS. UM
I GUESS A LOT HAS BEEN SAID, AND
MAYBE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN IS
RIGHT THAT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN
SAID, UM, BUT I WILL JUST AGREE
WITH YOU. I THINK THAT, UH THAT
A FREE PRESS IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL
TO OUR DEMOCRACY. I THINK IT'S A
CORNERSTONE OF OUR DEMOCRACY,
AND THERE'S A REASON THAT THE
PRESS IS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED
IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
THERE'S A REASON THAT THE PRESS
IS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN
ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TWO THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND
THAT'S BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT
WROTE THE U. S CONSTITUTION THAT
PEOPLE WROTE THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
PRESS WAS VITAL TO OUR
DEMOCRACY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS
STRUGGLED WITH AND GRAPPLED WITH
IS HOW TECH IS CHANGING THE WAY
THAT INFORMATION FLOWS TO PEOPLE
THE WAY THAT PEOPLE RECEIVE
INFORMATION. CERTAINLY,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN
TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE
HISTORICAL WARNINGS THAT WE SEE
ABOUT THE CONTROL OF INFORMATION
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF COMBATING
MISINFORMATION AND
DISINFORMATION. THAT'S SOMETHING
THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS DONE.
WITH PREVIOUS THINGS THAT WE
WORKED ON IT, SO I JUST
APPRECIATE YOU ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE. UM,
AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE STILL
SOME MORE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE HERE. SOME DETAILS THAT
NEED TO BE FILLED IN SOME OF
THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COMMITTEE. BUT YOU HAVE
SHOWN REMARKABLE SKILL AS AN
AUTHOR AND A LEGISLATOR AND
BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER. I HAVE
TREMENDOUS CONFIDENCE THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH FOLKS ON ALL SIDES OF THIS
ISSUE TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT
WORKS, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY UM,
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WE
NEED TO DO. AND, UH, I GUESS I
WOULD FINALLY JUST CONCLUDE TO
OUR JOURNALISTS IN THE ROOM. UM
YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT THIS THIS
SITTING IN THIS HEARING HAS BEEN
ENLIGHTENING TO YOU, UM, ABOUT
THE WORK THAT WE DO HERE IN THE
FRUSTRATION THAT SOME OF US FEEL
WITH THE WAY THAT THAT STATE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GETS COVERED,
UM, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
REASONS FOR THAT. UM, BUT YOU
KNOW, WE DON'T CALL EACH OTHER
NAMES QUITE AS FREQUENTLY AS
THEY DO IN WASHINGTON, D C BUT I
DO THINK WE TRY TO WORK THROUGH
A LOT OF ISSUES THAT PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA WOULD CARE A LOT
ABOUT AND HAVE A LOT OF OPINIONS
ABOUT AND HAVE A LOT OF UM AND
EDWARD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT AND SO
THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO
BETTER PROMOTE LOCAL JOURNALISM
TO HELP SUSTAIN A ROBUST AND
FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS THAT
IS GOING TO, UM, CRITIQUE AND
HOLD THOSE IN POWER ACCOUNTABLE,
WHETHER INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF
GOVERNMENT. I THINK IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO, UM TO
OUR DEMOCRACY IN THE WAY THEY'RE
GOING TO NAVIGATE. UH THESE
THESE VERY CHALLENGING TIMES
WITH THE RISE OF TECHNOLOGY SO
AGAIN, ASSEMBLY MEMBER SUPER
APPRECIATE YOU. I BELIEVE. SOME
TIME AGO WE HAD A MOTION IN THE
HEARING OUR MOTION AND A SECOND,
SO WE HAD A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN, A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ALONE
. THAL. UH I'M HAPPY TO
RECOMMEND AN AYE. VOTE ON THIS
BILL. APPRECIATE YOU VERY MUCH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WOULD INVITE
YOU TO CLOSE AS MENTIONED. I
THINK EVERYTHING'S BEEN SAID,
AND IT'S GOING ON OUR NINTH OUT
OF THIS HEARING. SO IT JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
ALRIGHT WITH THAT, MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
NUMBER 18 A B 886
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WICKS. THAT
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. GABRIEL I
PATERSON PATERSON, NOT VOTING
BARRICADE. HIÆN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE
BENNETT BENNETT I SALLY SALLY
IPHONE. ANOTHER, NOT BOOTING.
IRWIN IRWIN, I LOWENTHAL EYE
POPPING HAPPENED. I WICKS. I LEX
I WILSON WILSON. AYE. NINE. OH
YOUR BILL IS OUT AND WE WILL GO
ON. CONGRATULATIONS WE ONLY GO
ON TO, UH, I THINK OUR LAST BILL
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN, A
SECOND FROM ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BENNETT. I'M AFRAID I HAVE TO DO
A LITTLE EXPLANATION BECAUSE WE
DO HAVE SOME OPPOSITION. MAYBE
16 37 WILL REQUIRE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO MIGRATE THEIR
PUBLIC FACING INTERNET WEBSITES
AND EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE DOT
GOV OR CA.GOV DOMAIN. THE
PUBLIC'S TRUST IN GOVERNMENT IS
FUNDAMENTAL FOR A HEALTHY
DEMOCRACY, WITH RISING LEVELS OF
MISINFORMATION AND FRAUD,
PERPETRATED ONLINE AND MORE
SOPHISTICATED THREAT ACTORS
INTENDING TO CONFUSE AND
MISLEAD. WE CAN NO LONGER BE
HAPHAZARD ABOUT HOW LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE PRESENTED.
ONLINE REVIEW OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT WEBSITES FINDS THAT
ABOUT A THIRD OF THE CITIES AND
COUNTIES ALREADY USED DOT GOV
BUT MANY OTHERS USE .COM .ORG
DOT NET OR DOT US. THESE OTHER
DOMAINS CAN EASILY BE PURCHASED
BY ANYONE AND SPOOF LEGITIMATE
GOVERNMENT BY REGISTERING A
DOMAIN WITH A SLIGHT TYPO OR
ADDING TERMS LIKE CITY OF
WITHOUT UNIFORMITY AND
GOVERNMENT WEBSITES, USING ON
ONLY USING A DOT GOV DOMAIN. OUR
CONSTITUENTS ARE BEING
CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE THAT ANY
DOT COM OR DOT ORG COULD BE REAL
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION.
CALIFORNIA'S LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD TAKE EVERY EFFORT TO
SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC'S TRUST IN
OUR INSTITUTIONS, ESPECIALLY
WHEN THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
BEING REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL
GRANTS AND OFFERED FREE OF
CHARGE BY FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS THE CASE
FOR DOT GOV. EARLIER THIS YEAR,
THE FEDERAL OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET PUBLISHED A MANDATE
FOR ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES TO USE
DOT GOV OR DOT MIL STATE
GOVERNMENTS HAVE MADE THE MOVE
VOLUNTARILY AND NEARLY UNANIMOUS
WAY WITH FEDERAL GRANTS, MAKING
SURE THERE IS FULL ADOPTION.
LIKE TO TALK, ACKNOWLEDGE THE
PRACTICAL TECH ASPECTS OF THIS
BILL COULD POSE CHALLENGES TO
SOME SMALLER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
WITH LESS IT CAPACITY I'VE
WORKED TO COMMIT. I'VE COMMITTED
TO WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION
COALITION TO FIND A WAY TO ADD
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. THIS WAS
ALREADY DONE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
THROUGH THE CITY AND STATE AND
LOCAL CYBERSECURITY GRANT
PROGRAM, AND MY STAFF IS IN
CONTACT. WITH NEW HAMPSHIRE. SEE
I O AND CSO TO LEARN FROM THEIR
MODEL. WE ARE GETTING TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FROM CDT AND KLOS TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THE STATE COULD
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. WE ALSO
MEETING WITH THE CSS STAFF IN
CHARGE OF THE DOT GOV REGISTRY
DID BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
INCREASED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS.
UM THAT, UH, TO ADDRESS THE
LOCAL REQUESTS COMING IN FROM,
UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. I WOULD
LIKE TO NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT MANY
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, LARGE AND
SMALL, URBAN AND RURAL, ARE
ALREADY ON DOT GOV AND MORE ARE
TRANSITIONING EVERY WEEK. I'VE
SPOKEN TO VENTURA COUNTY, A
POPULATION OF JUST EIGHT OVER
800,001 OF MY SMALLER CITIES
WITH A POPULATION JUST UNDER
12,000, AND BOTH ARE ALREADY
PLANNING THERE. MIGRATION TO DOT
GOV. I REMAIN OPEN TO
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OPPOSITION
ABOUT THE MIGRATION TIME
LANGUAGE. THE BILL CURRENTLY HAS
, UM AS TWO YEARS, BUT I HAVE
NOT RECEIVED ANY PROPOSED AMENDS
FROM THE OPPOSITION OTHER THAN
MAKING THE BILL VOLUNTARY.
CA.GOV HAS BEEN VOLUNTARY FOR
TWO DECADES. SO THAT IS AN
UNSERIOUS SUGGESTION BY THE
OPPOSITION. I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DISCUSSIONS MY
OFFICE IS HAVING WITH THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
THEY ARE THE ONLY HIGHER ED
INSTITUTIONS COVERED BY THE
BILL, AND I AM WORKING WITH THEM
TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN REMAIN
ON THE EU DOMAIN. HIGHER
EDUCATION IS ACTUALLY A PRIME
EXAMPLE OF THE BENEFITS OF
UNIFORM ADOPTION OF PROTECTIVE
OF A PROTECTED DOMAIN. WITH THE
UK SAID MINISTERING THAT, UM FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN THAT IS
VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION ACCREDITATIONS
STUDENTS CAN TRUST THEY ARE ON
THEIR COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY'S
WEBSITE. WHEN THEY ARE ON DOT E
D U. I BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS, REGARDLESS
OF WHERE THEY LIVE TO HAVE THAT
SAME CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN
THEIR ONLINE INTERACTIONS WITH
THEIR GOVERNMENT. MIGRATING TO
DOT GOV OR DOT C, OR CA.GOV WILL
SECURE THAT TRUST. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S.
WE'RE NOT TALKING TO ANYONE IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT.
SEEING NONE. WE ALL GOTTA
OPPOSITION ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CAITLIN DEAN I'M A
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
REPRESENTING ALL 58 COUNTIES IN
REGRETTABLE OPPOSITION TO A B 16
37 UNLESS IT'S AMENDED. WE
APPRECIATE CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AS WELL AS
THE COMMITTEE, BUT WE DO HAVE
CONCERNS IN ADDITION TO COST
THERE'S WORKFORCE CHALLENGES.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A COUPLE
OF DISPUTES ABOUT YOU KNOW, I
THINK WHAT THE WHAT THE PREVIOUS
COMMITTEES ANALYSIS TALKED ABOUT
WITH THE SILVER BULLET. UM BUT
AS PER OUR RESEARCH 40 OUT OF
THE 58 COUNTIES WILL BE IMPACTED
BY BOTH THE REQUIRED EMAIL AND
THE WEB SITE MIGRATION TO DOT
GOV OR DOT CA.GOV. ABOUT NINE
ADDITIONAL COUNTIES WILL ALSO
NEED TO MIGRATE EITHER THEIR
EMAIL ADDRESSES OR THEIR
WEBSITES, SO IT STILL IS A
SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE
STATE. WELL, APPLYING FOR AND
OBTAINING A DOT GOV DOMAIN HAS
NO FEES. THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
COSTS THAT AN AGENCY MUST BUILD
FORWARD TO RECODE ESTABLISH
CORRESPONDING EMAIL AND NETWORK
LOGIN CHANGES. SINGLE SIGN ON
MULTI FACTOR AUTHENTICATION,
ENCRYPTION KEYS, REVISING AND
REDESIGNED WEBSITE. YOU ARE A
LINKS AND UPDATING SOCIAL MEDIA.
THERE ARE SEVERAL 88 COMPLIANT
REQUIREMENTS FOR WEBSITES THAT
WOULD STILL NEED TO BE RECHECKED
, AND ALL OF THESE COSTS ARE
INCREASED WHEN YOU NEED TO LOOK
AT THE COEXISTING OF THE
PREVIOUS AS WELL AS THE NEWLY
ACQUIRED DOMAINS. I WILL SPARE
YOU ON COUNTY DATA. WE DO HAVE
SPECIFIC COUNTY DATA. UM, BUT
FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.
ADDITIONALLY SMALLER AND RURAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD ALSO
EXPERIENCE CONSIDERABLE
WORKFORCE CHALLENGES, GIVEN THAT
LIMITED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
STAFF WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO BE
PULLED OFF OF CRITICAL
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND LIFE
AND SAFETY PROJECTS SUCH AS
MAPPING WILDFIRES VIA G. I S TO
COMPLETE THE DARK OF MIGRATION.
A B 16 37 DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY
FUNDING FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
TO COMPLY. AND LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS WILL BE FORCED TO
MAKE BUDGETARY DECISIONS,
POTENTIALLY REDIRECTING EXISTING
RESOURCES AWAY FROM CRITICAL
PROGRAMS, POTENTIALLY INCLUDING
CYBERSECURITY PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES THAT BENEFIT OUR
COMMUNITIES. WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE A NO VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST WANT
TO GENTLY REMIND EVERYBODY IN
THE HEARING ROOM. THIS IS NOT A
FISCAL COMMITTEE AND IS ALSO NOT
ONE THAT'S FOCUSED ON THE
IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS OUR
MANDATE HERE. SO LOOK AT THIS
FROM A PRIVACY PERSPECTIVE. SO
THANK YOU FOR THAT ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION? SERIOUS HEAD ON
BEHALF OF THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
JEANNE HURST HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA. WE'D LIKE TO ALIGN
OUR COMMENTS MY COLLEAGUES AT
SEA SICK GOOD EVENING, KIRA ROSS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN
MARCOS IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION.
GOOD EVENING, ERIN AVERY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT
ASSOCIATION, ALSO HERE FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY
MUCH. WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. FAMILY MEMBER
WASN'T UM, THE AUTHOR AND I HAD
A CHANCE TO TALK PREVIOUSLY IN
ANOTHER COMMITTEE, UM, THE
ISSUES THAT I HAVE STILL STAND
AND AS THEY RELATE SPECIFICALLY
TO PRIVACY, NOT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
. UM, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE
COST FOR CITIES TO CONVERT OUT
OF CYCLE WHEN THEY NORMALLY ARE
UPDATING THEIR SITE, GIVEN THAT
IT WAS A 20 YEAR PROGRAM, IT IS,
I THINK A PRIVACY ISSUE IN THE
SENSE THAT THEM TRYING TO
CONVERT THAT WILL TAKE SHORTCUTS
JUST TO GET TO THE DOT GOV. UM
WHEN IT'S NOT INAPPROPRIATE TIME
WHEN THEY WOULDN'T NORMALLY BE
DOING IT AND BE ABLE TO FIND IT,
AND SO IT WILL MAKE IT LESS SAFE
AFTER YOU KNOW, LESS SAFE AS WE
KNOW WITH DOT GOV SITES IT
DOESN'T PROTECT CA.GOV SITE
DOESN'T PROTECT YOU. YOU CAN BE
HACKED. EVEN THE YOU CAN BE, UM
, SUBJECT TO RANSOMWARE. ALL OF
THOSE ISSUES STILL EXIST.
THEY'VE HAPPENED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THEY'VE HAPPENED IN
, UM ACROSS THE NATION AND
INCLUDING IN OUR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, HAVING A DOT GOV, UM
SO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES STILL
EXIST, AND SO IF WE DON'T GIVE
CITIES AND LOCAL AGENCIES THE
TIME TO BE ABLE TO MIGRATE. UM
THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE
SAME ISSUES OF DATA BECAUSE WHAT
THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL THEY'LL DO
THE SHORTCUT TO COMPLY SO THEY
DON'T WANT TO BE OUT OF
COMPLIANCE, AND THE SHORTCUTS
ARE NOT BENEFICIAL TO ANYONE. UM
SO I STRONGLY STILL CONCERNED
ENCOURAGED AUTHOR TO, UM LOOK AT
, UM SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 3 TO 5
YEARS TO ALLOW IT IN THE NORMAL
CYCLE OF WHEN AH COUNT CITIES
AND COUNTIES ACTUALLY UPDATE, UM
THEIR SITE AND IT BE 3 TO 5
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF GOING
INTO EFFECT. UM THE CURRENT BILL
DOESN'T ALLOW FOR 2 TO 4 YEARS.
IT'S 24 YEARS FROM TODAY, BUT
NOT TWO YEARS FROM THE DAY. IF
THIS BILL WOULD GO ALL THE WAY
THROUGH AND SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR, IT'S NOT TWO FULL
YEARS. AND SO I THINK WE HAVE TO
ALLOW US THAT TIME TO ENSURE UM,
THE SECURITY, THE PRIVACY AND
SECURITY OF DATA BECAUSE MOST
GOVERNMENTS HAVE SENSITIVE DATA
. UM AND SO WE WANT TO BE SURE
OF THAT. AND I KNOW THAT
OPPOSITION HASN'T GIVEN, UM,
DATES AND TIMES, BUT I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT WITH BOTH CAL
CITIES AND SEE SACK, THEY HAVE A
PROCESS FOR THAT, AND THAT
PROCESS. UM EVEN THOUGH IT'S
FRUSTRATING FOR CITIES AND
COUNTIES THAT PROCESSED ALLOWS
THEM TO HAVE A VOICE, BUT ALSO
DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO BE AS
QUICK AS WE ARE IN THE
LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF MOVING
THINGS THROUGH, SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
OTHERS QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
REMEMBER, WILSON JUST HAD YEAH.
SO GOOD. IT'S LATE. I AGREE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WILSON FROM ORANGE COUNTY. UM
JUST KIDDING. UM YEAH, I THINK
YOU KNOW SOME MORE TIME IS IT
WOULD BE WOULD BE GOOD. I'M
GONNA MY CITY WAS ROCKLAND DOT
CH DOT US. AND IT ALWAYS DROVE
ME NUTS. WHEN I WAS ON THE CITY
COUNCIL, BUT WASN'T A BATTLE I
WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON, YOU
KNOW, AS AN INDIVIDUAL CITY
COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT BUT I DO
SUPPORT WHERE WE'RE GOING. I
MEAN, I FEEL LIKE IF PEOPLE ARE
A LITTLE LATE, I DON'T KNOW. YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE POLICE
ARE GOING TO COME AFTER CITIES
OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IF
THEY GET SOME MORE TIME WOULD BE
GREAT. UM, BUT I'M I'M GONNA
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY UM, SO THANK YOU, EVERYBODY
FOR THAT, UM, I JUST WANT TO
CONFIRM SINCE WE FOLKS HAVE
TALKED ABOUT PUSHING BACK THE
IMPLEMENTATION DATE THAT YOU'LL
BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. AH! I DON'T THINK
THE COMMITTEE MEANT WE ACCEPTED
PUSHING BACK IMPLEMENTATION DATE
IN THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE. WE
ARE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO PUSH THE
IMPLEMENTATION BACK IF WE
ACTUALLY HAD A DATE THAT WOULD
BE ACCEPTABLE. UM SORRY. WE'RE
TAKING THE AMENDMENT IN THIS
COMMITTEE. OH, YOU'RE OH, YOU'RE
TAKE. YES WE ARE TAKING THAT
WONDERFUL. OKAY THANK YOU. UM I
WILL JUST SAY, UM, YOU KNOW,
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FOR
FORWARD. IT'S THIS IS GOING TO
BE A COMPLICATED WHENEVER IT
HAPPENS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT
NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND WE MIGHT AS
WELL DO IT SOONER RATHER THAN
LATER BECAUSE THE PROMISE IS
GOING TO GET MORE CHALLENGING,
AND I WISH YOU HAD BEEN IN THE
LEGISLATURE TWO DECADES AGO
BECAUSE WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
AVOIDED THIS PROBLEM. SO WITH
THAT HAPPY TO RECOMMEND, AND I
VOTE AH AND INVITE YOU TO CLOSE.
WE'D ALL LIKE TO GET HOME NOW.
ALRIGHT MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL NUMBER SIX ABBEY
16 13 EMOTION AND A SECOND AND
WE DID IT MOTION, BUT. MOTION BY
SOMETHING ABOUT BAUER-KAHAN
SECOND BY SOMEBODY. MEMBER
BENNETT, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE. COLORADO. ITEM NUMBER
SIX A. B 16 37 BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S IRWIN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
GABRIEL GABRIEL I. PATERSON
PATERSON. EYEBROW BAUER-KAHAN.
OKAY HANAI BENNETT BENNETT EYES
SALLY SALLY NOT VOTING. FUNG
FUNG NOT VOTING. IRWIN IRWIN.
AYE. EYE POPPING HAPPENED. I WIX
WIX. AYE, WILSON. WILSON. I.
THANK YOU. YOUR BILL IS AT 90.
CONGRATULATIONS. ALRIGHT. 11
PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE. MR
CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING
TO, UM WITH THAT WE'RE GONNA
JUST IN ONE MOMENT TO ADD ONS
AGAIN. JUST WANT TO THANK OUR
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR ALL OF THEIR
HARD WORK. UM BOTH THE MAJORITY
AND THE MINORITY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. WE ARE NOW GOING TO GO.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU TO ALL OF
THE MEMBERS FOR THE FOR THE
VERY, VERY THOUGHTFUL
CONVERSATION TODAY. I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE WE WANT TO GO BACK
THROUGH THE ROLE FOR THOSE WHO
WERE. MAYBE WE'RE ANOTHER
COMMITTEES FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ADD ON. UM SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND
JUST GO IN, UM, FILE ORDER, UM,
STARTING WITH A FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE, MAYBE 254 THAT BARRICADE.
WELL LET'S DO THE CONSENT
COUNTER FIRST. MADAM SECRETARY
CAN CALL HER ON THE CONSENT
COUNTER. CALENDAR DO PASS TO THE
UM CONSENT CALENDAR BARRICADE
HIM. SECOND, OKAY. BAUER-KAHAN,
I FOUND I POPPING HAPPENED. I
OKAY? THAT THAT CONSENT COUNTERS
APPROVED 11 0, WE'RE NOW GOING
TO GO TO FIDDLE. I AM NUMBER ONE
BARRICADE IN. MAYBE 254. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
82 54 BY SOME REMEMBER BARRICADE
HAND GABRIEL! GABRIEL I PHONE
RANG, NOT VOTING THAT IS OUT 10
TO 0. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO TO FINAL
ITEM NUMBER TWO, MAYBE 354.
OKAY. BUDGET 352. EXCUSE ME. UM
GABRIEL GABRIEL? AYE 18 THAT IS
OUT 8 TO 2. WE'RE NOW GOING TO
GO TO FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR. UH,
THAT IS A B EIGHT. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
WE NEED 11 94. 33 OH, I'M SO
SORRY. MY APOLOGIES. IT'S
GETTING LATE. FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE A B 11 94 CARILLO. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
YES, FARM. FUNG NO. THAT BILL IS
OUTWAIT ONE. NOW WE'VE GOTTA
FILE ITEM FOR A B EIGHT.
FRIEDMAN MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ANOTHER. FOUND
NOT VOTING. THAT IS OUT. EIGHT
TO DO YOU HAVE ANY ON FOLLOWED
HIM? SEX? WE DIDN'T. OH YEAH.
FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. MAYBE 645
FRIEDMAN. MAYBE 645 BAUER-KAHAN
THERE. OKAY. HAND EYE. THAT BILL
IS OUT 81. WE'RE GOOD ON FILE
ITEM SIX FILE ITEM SEVEN. A. B
994 JACKSON. MADAM SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FROM NÓ. 83
THAT BILL IS OUT 8 TO 3. UH FILE
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. MAYBE. 10 16
. JOAN SAWYER. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. GABRIEL
GABRIEL? AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT
10 0. WE'RE NOT GONNA GO TO FILE
ITEM NUMBER. YEAH 999 IS GOOD.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA GO TO FILE
ITEM NUMBER 10. UH MAYBE 14 63
LOWENTHAL. PATERSON. 14 63 ITEM
NUMBER 10. YES. YEAH. OKAY?
OKAY. PATTERSON, NOT VOTING.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I FORM.
AH! 14 63 LOAN NÓ. SWITCHED,
OKAY. PHªN NO PATERSON CHANGE.
TO NOT. ALL RIGHT NOW, OKAY.
PATTERSON, NO. OKAY, SO LET ME
AND TO THAT. RIGHT? ME, TOO IS
OUT 8 TO 2. WHAT ABOUT THE ITEM
NUMBER 11? ITEMS FILE ITEM
NUMBER 11 A B 13 OH, FOUR. PAPIN
GABRIEL GABRIEL, I BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I HUNG I'M NOT
VOTING 10. THAT BILL IS OUT 10
0. YEAH I FOLLOWED. REMEMBER 12
A B 12? OH, SIX. PELLERIN MADAM
SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
FOUND NOT VOTING. THAT BILL IS
OUT 9 TO 1. UH FILE ADAM 13,
MAYBE 10 27 PETRIE-NORRIS.
GABRIEL GABRIEL. AYE. THAT BILL
IS AT 11 0. 15 OKAY, WE'RE GONNA
SKIP TO AROUND 40 FOR SCOTT.
FINAL ITEM. 15 A B 13 40 17
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BARRACK AM BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. Tð
THAT BILL IS OUT 8 TO 2. NUMBER
16 FILE ITEM 16 A B 361 AWARD.
HONG FANG NEW THAT BILL IS OUT
71. UM 17. WHAT? 17 11. OKAY UM
, FILE ITEM 17. MAYBE 11 10, 11
WEBER. FROM I. 11 TO 11 0 THAT
ONE RIGHT THERE. 71. ALL RIGHT,
UM. AND THEN I THINK, 18 AND 19
. WE ARE GOOD. OKAY. THANK YOU.
EVERYBODY APPRECIATE ALL THE
HARD WORK. THIS MEETING IS
ADJOURNED. LIKE.