WELCOME WELCOME TO ASSEMBLY,
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.
HEARING. WE ARE GOING TO START
THE HEARING SO THAT MEMBERS JOIN
US HERE IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM,
WE WILL BE LIMITING TESTIMONY TO
TWO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND TO
IN OPPOSITION TODAY ON EACH BILL
, EACH WITNESS WILL BE ALLOWED
TWO MINUTES, TO PRESENT THEIR
TESTIMONY. AND WE WILL HEAR FROM
EVERYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WANTS
TO SPEAK AS WELL, WE WILL BE
JOINED. SHE IS WE ARE JOINED BY
A NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER TODAY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIXON IS THE
NEWEST MEMBER OF THE PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE.
SO THANK YOU AND WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DIXON. WE DO NOT
HAVE A QUORUM YET, BUT WE CAN
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE IF YOU
ARE READY. SO WE WILL TAKE UP
OUR FIRST BILL, AB 19. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. SO WE
WILL TAKE ATTENDANCE. RIGHT.
LOOK AT THAT. ERIC. HIM HERE.
PRESENT. PATTERSON. OKAY. BRIAN
BRIAN. HERE. DIXON HERE. DIXON.
HERE. HOOVER. IRWIN IRWIN. HERE.
LOWENTHAL. HERE. LOWENTHAL HERE.
HOW ABOUT ON ORTEGA WARD. WIX.
HERE. WIX. HERE. WILSON OKAY, WE
HAVE A QUORUM. GREAT. DO WE HAVE
A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR? MOTION. SECOND. OKAY.
TO READ WHAT'S ON THE, LET'S
CALL THE ROLL AND CONSENT
CALENDAR. MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. Dð PASS TO THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. ITEMS AB 1824, AB 2388
AND AB 2426. BAUER KHN, BAUER,
KHN Ã PATTERSON, BRIAN BRIAN
I, DIXON I DIXON I HOOVER, IRWIN
I, IRWIN I LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL
I ORTEGA. WARD. WICK I, WICKS, I
WILSON OKAY, WE HAVE. YES.
GREAT. THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS
SIX. IT'S OUT. BUT WE WILL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS
. AND WE WILL TAKE UP SOME
MEMBER WICKS. BILL AB 1949, WHEN
SHE'S READY. GRACE OKAY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY WITNESSES,
I BELIEVE, ARE STUCK IN SECURITY
ON THEIR WAY HERE. BUT WE CAN
START. OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO
WAIT, WE CAN. I MEAN, IT'S OKAY.
OKAY, OKAY, I NEED I NEED TO BE
ABLE TO SEE. OKAY? OKAY, GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS FIRST, I WANT TO ACCEPT
THE COMMITTEE'S PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE STAFF
FOR THEIR VERY HARD WORK ON THE
BILL. FOLLOWING THE
INVESTIGATION OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROB BONTA IN 2023, IT
WAS REVEALED THAT META KNOWS
THAT ITS SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
ARE USED BY MILLIONS OF CHILDREN
UNDER THE AGE OF 13, INCLUDING A
ONE POINT AT ONE POINT AROUND
30% OF ALL 10 TO 12 YEAR OLDS,
AND UNLAWFULLY COLLECTING THEIR
PERSONAL INFORMATION, AS
AMENDED. AB 1949, AS AMENDED AB
1949. WILL KEEP CHILDREN UNDER
THE AGE OF 18, SORRY, AS
AMENDED, AB 1949 WILL HELP KEEP
CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 AND
THEIR DATA FROM BEING COLLECTED
AND EXPLOITED WITHOUT EXPLICIT
AND AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. FIRST,
THE MEASURE WILL PROHIBIT
BUSINESSES FROM COLLECTING USING
OR DISCLOSING THE PERSONAL
INFORMATION OF CALIFORNIANS
UNDER 18 WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THOSE USERS
THAT ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 13,
AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL MUST COME
FROM A PARENT. SO UNDER THE AGE
OF 18, THE CHILD HAS TO
AFFIRMATIVELY CONSENT TO GIVING
THEIR DATA UNDER THE AGE OF 13.
A PARENT MUST DO THAT FOR THEM.
OPPOSITION WILL CONTEND THAT
THIS WILL UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
RESTRICT TEENS AND ADULTS ACCESS
TO LAWFUL SPEECH. TO BE CLEAR,
AB 1949 DOES NOT REGULATE SPEECH
CONTENT OR ACCESS TO CONTENT OR
SPEECH. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO SAY
THAT AGAIN. AB 1949 DOES NOT
REGULATE CONTENT. SPEECH OR
ACCESS TO CONTENT OR SPEECH. THE
AGE REQUIREMENT DETERMINES WHAT
PRIVACY AND DATA COLLECTION
POLICIES APPLY TO THE SPECIFIC
USER. SECONDLY, THE MEASURE WILL
STRENGTHEN CERTAIN CCPA EXISTING
PROTECTIONS AGAINST BUSINESSES
SELLING OR SHARING THE PERSONAL
INFORMATION OF MINORS BY
ESTABLISHING THAT THOSE
PROTECTIONS APPLY, WHETHER OR
NOT THE BUSINESS HAD ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PERSON IS
UNDER THE AGE OF 18. OPPONENTS
CLAIM THIS WOULD CREATE A STRICT
LIABILITY STANDARD TO BE CLEAR,
THE DATA THE DATA AT ISSUE
CONCERNS A VULNERABLE POPULATION
THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN ELEVATED
PROTECTION AND I'VE SAID THIS
BEFORE. I THINK AS LAWMAKERS,
OUR NUMBER ONE DUTY IS TO KEEP
OUR COMMUNITY SAFE. AND I VIEW
OUR CHILDREN AS THE MOST
IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN OUR
COMMUNITY TO KEEP SAFE AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT. IT
IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT
BUSINESSES CAN APPLY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1949 TO ALL
CONSUMERS, NOT ONLY TO MINORS,
THEREBY ENABLING THEREBY
ELIMINATING ANY REQUIREMENT TO
EMPLOY AGE ASSURANCE TOOLS IF
NOT ALREADY. BUSINESSES SHOULD
ELEVATE THEIR DATA COLLECTION
PRACTICES AND DETERMINE WHAT IS
NECESSARY TO OPERATE, RATHER
THAN WHAT IS SUITABLE FOR
PROFITS. I WANT TO THANK OUR
SPONSOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB
BONTA, AND TESTIFYING WITH ME
TODAY ARE ANTHONY LIU, OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, AND ELEANOR
BLOOM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. THANK
YOU. YOUR WITNESSES. HI. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS ANTHONY LIU. I'M WITH
THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS AND A DEPUTY AG FOR
CALIFORNIA DOJ HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF AG, ROB BONTA, THE AG
IS PLEASED TO SPONSOR AB 1914,
THE CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S DATA
PRIVACY ACT, AND WE THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER WICKS FOR LEADING
ON THIS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION TO
STRENGTHEN DATA PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN AND
IMPROVE CHILD SAFETY ONLINE. AS
PERFECTLY SUMMARIZED IN THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, THE CCPA
SECURES INCREASED PRIVACY RIGHTS
FOR CONSUMERS, INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT PERSONAL
INFORMATION BUSINESSES COLLECT
AND SELL, AND THE RIGHT TO STOP
THOSE SALES TO THIRD PARTIES.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUNG USERS, THE
CCPA PROHIBITS BUSINESSES FROM
SELLING THE PERSONAL INFORMATION
OF A CHILD THAT THEY KNOW TO BE
UNDER THE AGE OF 16, UNLESS THEY
GET AUTHORIZATION OR OPT IN FOR
THE SALE OF THE CHILD'S PERSONAL
INFORMATION. THESE PROTECTIONS
LEAVE A COUPLE OF MAJOR GAPS IN
THE LAW. IT FAILED TO COVER 17
YEAR OLD USERS. THEY ALLOW
BUSINESSES TO CONTINUE
COLLECTING AND EXPLOITING THE
DATA OF CHILDREN AS LONG AS THEY
DON'T SELL IT. AND ADDITIONALLY,
THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD,
UNFORTUNATELY ALLOWS BUSINESSES
TO SKIRT THE CPA'S PROHIBITIONS
AS THEY WILL RARELY HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF A USER'S AGE, THIS
HAS ALLOWED COMPANIES LIKE
GOOGLE AND META AND OTHERS TO
COLLECT, EXPLOIT AND MONETIZE
YOUNG USERS DATA ON ON A REALLY
LARGE SCALE, DESPITE BUSINESSES
AWARENESS THAT CHILDREN USE
THEIR SERVICES, BUSINESSES
CURRENTLY DESIGNED THEIR ONLINE
SERVICES TO INCLUDE FEATURES
THAT MAY BE HARMFUL TO CHILDREN,
INCLUDING MANIPULATIVE
TECHNIQUES TO PROD THEM TO SPEND
HOURS ON END ONLINE, OR PROVIDE
PERSONAL INFORMATION BEYOND WHAT
IS EXPECTED OR NECESSARY. AB
1949 WILL HELP CURTAIL THE
BUSINESS PRACTICE OF EXPLOITING
CHILDREN'S PERSONAL DATA FOR
PROFIT WITHOUT PERMISSION. THE
BILL WOULD AMEND THE CCPA TO
PROTECT TO PROHIBIT THE
COLLECTION, USE AND DISCLOSURE
OF CHILDREN'S PERSONAL
INFORMATION WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT, AND ASSURE THAT THESE
PROTECTIONS APPLY UNIFORMLY TO
ALL YOUTH UP TO AGE 18. AB 1949
IS A CONTINUATION OF AG BONTA'S
COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING CHILD
SAFETY ONLINE VIA EVERY AVENUE,
BOTH LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE, AND
WITH THIS BILL, THE AG AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS ARE
REAFFIRMING THE NEED FOR STRONG
SAFEGUARDS IN CALIFORNIA THAT
PROTECT NOT ONLY THE PRIVACY
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, BUT THAT
ALSO ADDRESS THE REAL,
DEMONSTRATED HARMS TO THE
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH OF
CHILDREN ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA. AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT OF
AB 1949 AND THANK YOU. MOTION
AND A SECOND. THANK YOU. DID YOU
WANT TO ADD ANYTHING OR ARE YOU
HERE FOR QUESTIONS? I CERTAINLY
CAN, BUT IF EVERYBODY'S GOING TO
VOTE RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK
HE'S AN EXPERT WITNESS. OKAY
OKAY. JUST THERE IS JUST BECAUSE
I KNOW WE'VE SEEN SOME MEMBERS
COME IN WHO ARE CONFUSED, THIS
IS PRIVACY, CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND PUBLIC SAFETY IS ACROSS THE
HALL. THEY HAVE MOVED. IF
ANYBODY IS HERE FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY, THERE YOU GO. WANT TO
MAKE SURE YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT
ROOM, OKAY. ANY, ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL? GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR MEMBERS. KIM
STONE. STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY
INSTITUTE IN ENTHUSIASTIC
SUPPORT. BECCA CRAMER MATTER ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA.
ACTION IN SUPPORT OF AMENDED
POSITION ASKING THAT IT REMOVE
AGE VERIFICATION AND GO BACK TO
THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD.
THANK YOU, ANYONE HERE TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL? COME ON UP. DO YOU WANT TO
SCOOCH ON? THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS. ROANOKE, DEYLAMI WITH
CAL CHAMBER RESPECTFULLY IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 1949. MY
TESTIMONY TODAY IS KEY TO THE
BILL AND PRINT. WE ARE STILL
LOOKING OVER THE AMENDMENTS OUR
MEMBER COMPANIES TAKE SERIOUSLY
THE PRIVACY OF THEIR CUSTOMERS,
ESPECIALLY CHILDREN, AND ARE
CONCERNED THAT THIS BILL WILL
HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT THAN IS
INTENDED. WE BELIEVE THE
EXISTING CCPA FRAMEWORK
CORRECTLY APPLIES THE INCREASED
PROTECTIONS OF AN OPT IN RATE TO
THE MOST VULNERABLE CONSUMERS
MINORS UNDER 16 FOR THE RISKIEST
TYPE OF PROCESSING ACTIVITIES,
SELLING AND SHARING THEIR
PERSONAL INFORMATION. THIS ALSO
HAS THE BENEFIT OF ENCOURAGING
PARENTS TO TEACH OLDER TEENS TO
ASSERT THEIR OPT OUT RIGHTS AS
THEY APPROACH THE AGE OF
MAJORITY. NOTABLY, HOWEVER,
BUSINESS MUST HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONSUMERS
UNDER 16 FOR THE OPT IN RATE TO
APPLY TO MANDATE THAT EVERYONE
UNDER 18 HAS TO OPT IN PRIOR TO
SELLING OR SHARING THEIR
INFORMATION IS ONE THING.
REMOVING THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STANDARD AND EXPANDING THE RIGHT
TO OPT IN TO THE COLLECTION OR
USE OF THE MINORS DATA IS
ANOTHER. UNDER THE PROPOSED
FRAMEWORK, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE
FOR A BUSINESS TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE UNLESS IT ENGAGES IN
AGE VERIFICATION OF EVERY
CONSUMER AND OBTAINS OPT IN
CONSENT IN EVERY INTERACTION,
BOTH ONLINE AND IN PHYSICAL
STORES. THIS IS BOTH
INCONSISTENT WITH PROP 24 AND
PRACTICALLY JUST INFEASIBLE.
IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE AN
INSURANCE COMPANY RECEIVES AN
ACCIDENT CLAIM INVOLVING A 17
YEAR OLD DRIVER. SUPPOSE A
PARENT WANTS TO ORDER A FOOD
DELIVERY TO THEIR 14 YEAR OLD
AND PUTS THEIR TEEN'S NAME IN
THE DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS.
IMAGINE A 12 YEAR OLD WALKING
INTO A STORE THAT USES VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE. BECAUSE COLLECTION
UNDER THE CCPA INCLUDES EVEN
PASSIVE RECEIVING OR ACCESSING
THE PII OF ANY CONSUMER BY ANY
MEANS, THE BUSINESS WILL BE IN
VIOLATION BEFORE THEY CAN
ACTUALLY OBTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
CONSENT FROM THE 17 YEAR OLD
DRIVER. FROM THE 14 YEAR OLD
WHO'S GETTING THE FOOD
DELIVERED, AND FROM THE PARENT
OF THE 12 YEAR OLD WHO WALKS
INTO THE STORE. AND THE SCENARIO
THE 12 YEAR OLD A BUSINESS WOULD
EFFECTIVELY HAVE TO POSITION
SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE STORE TO
STOP ANYONE WHO LOOKS LIKE THEY
MIGHT BE UNDER 18 AND EITHER
REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE
AUTHORIZATION OR REFUSE THEM
ENTRANCE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE BILL
REMOVES ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, THE
PROCESS MANDATED IN EACH OF
THESE SCENARIOS IS WILDLY
IMPRACTICAL, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,
AND OPERATES TO THE DETRIMENT OF
BUSINESSES, OUR ECONOMY, AND
CONSUMERS ALIKE. SO FOR THESE
REASONS, WE MUST RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE. EXCUSE MY VOICE TODAY.
THANK YOU, ANY OTHER WITNESSES
YOU CAN STAY IN CASE PEOPLE HAVE
QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? NO ONE WANTS TO
STAY UP HERE ON THIS BILL.
SAMANTHA CORBIN, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.
THANK YOU. DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET, ALIGNED MY
COMMENTS WITH THE CHAMBER.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANKS
LARA COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION OF THE AMERICAN
PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. RYAN.
RYAN. ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, THANK
YOU. MAYUMI PEDRONI, ON BEHALF
OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO. LEAH BARROWS, ON
BEHALF OF CHAMBER OF PROGRESS IN
OPPOSITION. STEVE CARLSON, FOR
THE ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL
ADVERTISERS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU ALL. WE WILL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS?
YEAH. MR. LOWENTHAL, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. FIRST OF ALL, I
WISH TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD IS SUCH
CRITICAL LEGISLATION. I ALSO
WANT TO COMMEND THE OPPOSITION
FOR THE VERY THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS
, I, I MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS ALL
OF THOSE THOSE THINGS THAT YOU
BROUGHT UP ARE, IMPORTANT, AND
SOLVABLE, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US
ALL TO REMEMBER THAT WE ARE NOT
THE END USER WHEN IT COMES TO
SOCIAL MEDIA. IT'S A VERY
OBVIOUS THING TO STATE. BUT IN
TIMES LIKE THIS, WHEN WE'RE
GETTING READY TO VOTE ON AN
IMPORTANT ITEM, WE NEED TO
RESTATE IT. WE ARE THE PRODUCT
OUR WE ARE ALL THE PRODUCT. WE
ARE BEING PRODUCTIZED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCIAL GAIN. IT IS
TOTALLY AND WHOLLY APPROPRIATE
FOR US TO CONSIDER WHEN OUR
CHILDREN ARE BEING PRODUCTIZED
FOR FINANCIAL GAIN. WHAT ARE THE
IMPACTS ON THEM? I PERSONALLY
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A NEXUS
BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF DATA
AND ADDICTION, AND THE
UTILIZATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA,
BECAUSE THE MORE TIME OUR
CHILDREN ARE SPENDING ONLINE,
THE MORE DATA THAT CAN BE
COLLECTED AND WE ALL KNOW OR
SOME OF US MAY KNOW THAT ARE
LOOKING AT THIS CLOSELY, THE
IMPACT THAT WE SEE ON CHILDREN
OVER THE LAST DECADE, IN
PARTICULAR IN GIRLS, THERE IS A
65% HIGHER RATE OF SUICIDE AND
EATING DISORDER ANXIETY,
DEPRESSED THÀNH THAN THERE WAS
TEN YEARS AGO, TEN YEARS AGO. SO
I WANT TO COMMEND THE AUTHOR
FROM DOING THIS. AND I ALSO WANT
TO SAY, ESPECIALLY TO ALL THE
VOICES OF OPPOSITION FOR, FOR,
FOR MYSELF. AND I CAN'T SPEAK
FOR OTHERS IN SUPPORTING THIS
BILL. I WANT THE TECH COMPANIES
TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL, NOT LESS.
IT'S ABOUT COMING UP WITH THE
RIGHT SECRET SAUCE, THE RIGHT
FORMULA WHERE CONSUMERS FEEL
PROTECTED AND STILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO USE THEIR SPEECH,
STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE
THIS PLATFORM, STILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PROMOTE THEIR
BUSINESSES, STILL HAVE THE RIGHT
FORMULA FOR CHILDREN TO BE ABLE
TO OPERATE IN A DIGITAL WORLD
WHERE THEY'RE STILL FIGURING OUT
WHO THEY ARE IN THEIR OWN
DEVELOPMENT. SO AGAIN, I THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YEAH.
MR. VICE CHAIR, GREAT. THANK
YOU. WELL, I'VE, NOBODY'S COME
TO MEET WITH ME ON AGAINST THIS
BILL OR IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
AND SO WE'VE KIND OF BEEN, YOU
KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THINKING ABOUT
THE CONSEQUENCES EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST, I HAVE FOUR KIDS, AND,
TWO OF MY KIDS, WHO ARE OLDER.
NOT THAT OLD, PROBABLY NOT OLD
ENOUGH, BUT, WE GAVE THEM SOME
CELL PHONES SO WE CAN CHECK WHEN
THEY'RE AT THEIR ACTIVITIES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WE LOCK IT
DOWN. BUT BUT I ALREADY SEE, YOU
KNOW, SOME CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR
AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND, YOU
KNOW, IT'S CONCERNING TO ME. SO
I THINK THE PREMISE HERE OF
TRYING TO PREVENT, KIDS FROM,
ESSENTIALLY BEING MONETIZED, IS
A GOOD ONE. AND, AND, BUT, YOU
KNOW, PHILOSOPHICALLY, I, I LIKE
KIND OF WHERE THE BILL IS TRYING
TO GO AND MY CONCERN, THOUGH, IS
IN WHAT I REALLY WANT TO DIVE IN
MORE ON IS THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STANDARD. BECAUSE I CAN I KIND
OF, I WAS LISTENING, YOU KNOW,
WHERE I GET ALL MY GOOD
INFORMATION FROM MY PHONE, I WAS
LISTENING TO A PODCAST, THE
DAILY, WHICH ISN'T EXACTLY, YOU
KNOW, REPUBLICAN NEWS, BUT IT'S
A GREAT ONE. AND THEY HAD I
LISTEN TO NEW YORK TIMES. SORRY,
BUT IT'S VERY INFORMATIVE. AND
SOMETIMES I'M ANGRY WHEN I'M
LISTENING TO IT ON MY RUN, SO IT
HELPS ME RUN FASTER. BUT, THEY
ACTUALLY HAD A PODCAST ON, ON,
ON THIS EXACT ISSUE SEVERAL
MONTHS AGO AND THAT EXISTING
FEDERAL LAWS AND STATE LAWS THAT
HAVE TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW WHAT
CAN BE USED WITH DATA AND APPS
THAT ARE TARGETED TOWARDS MINORS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND HOW
THAT DATA IS USED. BUT ONE OF
THE THINGS WAS, IS, HEY, WELL,
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE. WELL, THEY'RE VERY
CLEARLY MARKETING TO CHILDREN.
AND I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN,
CHANGES AROUND THAT AND SOME
CHANGES IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS
AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT IT ON
ITS FACE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO
APPS MARKETING TO CHILDREN
EITHER. I MEAN, MY KIDS USE
APPS, THEY HAVE TO USE APPS. IN
FACT, I HAVE A BILL THAT WENT
THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE THAT
SAYS, HEY, LOOK, WHEN A KID
TURNS 18 AND THOSE APPS THAT ARE
USED IN IN SCHOOL, THEY ARE
ALLOWED TO DELETE THEIR
INFORMATION FROM THOSE APPS
BECAUSE THAT DATA BELONGS TO THE
TO THE KID OR THE PARENTS. NOT,
NOT WHATEVER PLATFORMS BEING
USED. SO BUT THE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE STANDARD, I REALLY
WANT TO DIVE IN MORE. AND SO I'M
NOT QUITE THERE TODAY. I'D LOVE
TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION. I BELIEVE WE NEED
TO GET TO A POINT WHERE
HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A SOLUTION
BETWEEN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
OR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THESE
THESE APPS, AND THE REALIZATION
THAT JUST SAYING, OH, HEY, WE
DIDN'T KNOW. I DON'T REALLY
THINK THAT THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. I
THINK WE KNOW, I KNOW MY KIDS
ARE USING THESE APPS. I KNOW
THAT IT'S SHOWING, THINGS THAT
ARE TARGETED TO MY CHILDREN
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN WATCHING
THESE VIDEOS OR WHATEVER ALL THE
TIME. SO AND I DON'T THINK WE
CAN REALLY DISMISS THAT. WE JUST
GOT TO ADMIT THAT, HEY, THAT'S
WHAT'S GOING ON. AND I DON'T
THINK THE PLATFORMS NECESSARILY
WANT THAT. BY THE WAY, I'M NOT
EVEN SUGGESTING THAT THAT THAT'S
THE CASE. BUT BUT I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE CAN PROTECT THAT DATA OF
MY CHILDREN BECAUSE I'M SELFISH,
EXTREMELY SELFISH, AND HOWEVER I
CAN HELP FACILITATE THAT. I AM
SUPPORTIVE, BUT I DO WANT TO
WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE AND CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSIONS. AND I WELCOME
ANYBODY TO COME INTO MY OFFICE
AND MEET WITH ME ABOUT THAT,
WHETHER IT'S CONCERNS, WHETHER
IT'S SUPPORT. AND, I TAKE THIS
ISSUE VERY SERIOUSLY. SO I DO
COMMEND YOU FOR BRINGING IT. YOU
DON'T EVER GO FOR A SMALL, SMALL
TICKET ITEMS HERE. SO BIG IDEAS.
SO THANKS FOR BRINGING IT AND
LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATIONS WITH ALL THE
PARTIES. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ERWIN, I ALWAYS
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU
DO IN THIS AREA, WE HAVE HEARD
MANY, MANY HORROR STORIES ABOUT
KIDS AND SOCIAL MEDIA. I JUST
WANTED TO NÓ COPA. THE FEDERAL
LAW HAS AN AGE OF 18, AND
OBVIOUSLY IN YOUR BILL, IT'S,
16. SO ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT INCONSISTENCY? DO YOU THINK
THAT THERE IS ANY PREEMPTION
ISSUES, WELL, I'M NOT AN
ATTORNEY, SO I'D ASK THE
ATTORNEYS ABOUT PREEMPTION, BUT
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS
NOT PREEMPTED. I THINK WE NEED
BETTER STANDARDS. I MEAN, AND I
THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DATA,
IT'S BORN OUT IN SOME OF THE
STUFF THAT MR. LOWENTHAL SAID
AROUND SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES
AROUND ADDICTION AND OTHER
ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING, WE CAN
DO BETTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
BILL IS STRIVING TO DO. BUT I
WOULD DEFER TO THE ATTORNEYS ON
THE PREEMPTION QUESTION. SO WE
ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE 16 AND 18
DIFFERENCE IN THE LANGUAGE.
THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE
TODAY. SO THE AGE THRESHOLD IN
THIS BILL NOW IS 18. AND ANTHONY
PERHAPS CAN DESCRIBE THE
PROCEDURAL THING THERE. BUT IT,
THE PROCEDURAL THING BUT THE AGE
NOW THRESHOLD NOW IN THE BILL IS
18. WE WORK WITH COPPA ALL THE
TIME. COPPA IS ONE OF THE CLAIMS
IN OUR LAWSUIT AGAINST META
RELATED TO LYING ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON KIDS MENTAL HEALTH AND
, AND WE THINK COP IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT, VALUABLE FEDERAL LAW.
WE ALSO THINK THAT CALIFORNIA
CAN DO MORE AND DO BETTER. AND
THIS IS A BILL THAT CAN BUILD ON
TOP OF THE FEDERAL STANDARDS AND
COPPA. AND WE THINK THAT WE HAVE
STRUCK A GOOD BALANCE IN THIS
BILL. PARTICULARLY HAVING
RESOLVED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
16 AND 18 THERE IN THE LANGUAGE
THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY,
THAT THAT IS NOT PREEMPTED BY
CONGRESS. MISS DIXON, THANK YOU.
CHAIR. I, TOO, THINK THIS IS
NECESSARY IN SOME FORM. WE KNOW
THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM. IS THIS
THE SOLUTION? I'M JUST THINKING
ABOUT THE WORKABILITY, THE
FEASIBILITY. SO LET'S JUST TAKE
THAT 18 YEAR OLD HELP MY BRAIN
HERE. DOES THAT MEAN WE DON'T?
WE NEED TO KNOW EVERYBODY'S DATE
OF BIRTH AND WHEN THEIR BIRTHDAY
IS. AND IF THEY'RE 17 AND
THEY'RE 18 AND UNDER, THEY'RE
AFFECTED. WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE OVER
18? WILL THAT BE CAPTURED IN
THIS AS WELL? OR SO EVERYBODY'S
BIRTHDAY WHEN THEY TURN 18
THEY'RE THEY'RE FREE TO EXPLORE
THE INTERNET AS THEY WISH. BUT
ANYONE UNDER 18. SO HOW DO WE
MANAGE THE ACQUISITION OF THAT
INFORMATION, THAT PERSONAL
INFORMATION AND THE MANAGEMENT.
AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANY
PLATFORM FORM THAT HAS USERS
THAT LIVE IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A
LITERALLY A GIANT DIGITAL WALL
BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. HOW
IS THAT? I THINK TECHNOLOGY
PROBABLY HAS A SOLUTION THERE,
BUT THAT BURDEN THAT WE'RE GOING
TO BE PLACING ON BUSINESSES WHO
DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS
CHILDREN, I THINK GOING AFTER
THE THOSE TYPE OF BUSINESSES FOR
MÀ THAT ARE MONETIZING ON SOCIAL
ADDICTION IS NEEDS TO BE DEALT
WITH. I JUST AM CONCERNED ABOUT
THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THESE
PLATFORMS. HOW DO YOU CHECK FOR
THE THEIR Ã IF THEY'RE THE 18
AND UNDER? BECAUSE I JUST THINK
THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND TO PUT
LAWS ON THE STATE BOOKS FOR
CALIFORNIA AND, EVERY I JUST
FIND IT DIFFICULT. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHERE THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY MAY BE. IT'S JUST VERY
DIFFICULT TO GET THEIR ARMS
AROUND AND THEN ALSO YOU HAVE,
ASIDE FROM THAT, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, THAT
RIGHT OR WRONG, I MEAN, I'M GLAD
WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT
CHILDREN. I HAVE THREE GRANDSONS
THAT ARE JUST GETTING TO BE THAT
AGE 12, TEN AND EIGHT. AND I
MEAN, THEY'RE THANKFULLY MY
THEY'RE THEIR MOTHER. MY
DAUGHTER LIMITS THEIR TIME AND
SUPERVISES IT VERY CAREFULLY.
BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT
ALWAYS THE CASE. BUT BUT JUST
THE ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND
DETERMINING THAT YOU MUST BE A
CERTAIN AGE BEFORE YOU CAN
ACCESS INFORMATION. AS BAD AS
THAT INFORMATION MAY BE, OF
COURSE, AN UNSAVORY. I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT COUNTS. I'M NOT A
LAWYER, BUT CONSTITUTES I DON'T
KNOW HOW WE GET AROUND TO
DETERMINING WHO COULD READ OR
ACCESS INFORMATION AND WHO
CANNOT. SO I HAVE THESE TWO
CONCERNS. I THINK THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION TO HAVE
GOING FORWARD AS WE TRY TO
FIGURE OUT THE BEST PRACTICE
HERE. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE
HERE YET, BUT I'M A NEW MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE AND SO WHAT DO
I KNOW? NOW? WE'RE GOING TO LET
THEM ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. DO
WHAT YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS IT.
YEAH. SO SOME SOME REALLY GOOD
QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION.
I THINK A COUPLE SORT OF
THRESHOLD MATTERS. ONE IS THAT
CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS STATE
PRIVACY LAWS AND HAS LED THE
COUNTRY BACK IN 2018, WE PASSED
THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY
ACT, LED THE COUNTRY IN
ESTABLISHING STATE PRIVACY LAWS.
BEFORE THAT, HAD PRIVACY LAWS,
SPECIFIC TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF
INFORMATION, HAS SPECIFIC STATE
DATA SECURITY LAWS THAT THAT IS
THAT IS, WHETHER BUSINESSES LIKE
IT OR NOT, IT IS ALREADY A
FEATURE OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL
REGULATORY SCHEME AROUND
TECHNOLOGY AND DATA PRIVACY AND
DATA SECURITY. SO WITH THIS
BILL, WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING,
WHAT CALIFORNIA WOULD BE DOING,
IS FILLING A GAP IN EXISTING
STATE PRIVACY LAWS SO THAT I
THINK BUSINESSES COULD IMPLEMENT
TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN USERS IN
CALIFORNIA AND USERS OUTSIDE OF
CALIFORNIA, THAT THAT WOULD NOT
ENJOY THE BENEFITS AND
PROTECTIONS OF CALIFORNIA STATE
LAW. JUST AS BUSINESSES TODAY
ALREADY ARE DOING THAT RELATED
TO THE, ESTABLISHED PRIVACY AND
DATA SECURITY PROTECTIONS THAT
THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. OKAY.
ONE FURTHER FOLLOW UP QUESTION
THEN, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT
2018 OR WHEN THE LAST BILL WAS
AND THAT'S WHEN EVERYBODY HAS TO
OPT IN OR OPT OUT, AND YOU COULD
ACTUALLY FILTER THROUGH AND
DECIDE HOW MUCH INFORMATION YOU
WANT TO PROVIDE OR NOT PROVIDE.
SO THAT WAS HAS THAT BEEN ON THE
BOOKS LONG ENOUGH TO FIGURE OUT
IF IT'S WORKING? IN MY VIEW, YES
, THAT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
ESTABLISHED, COMPREHENSIVE STATE
PRIVACY LAWS THAT WE'RE SEEING
BROADLY IMPLEMENTED AND COMPLIED
WITH IN THE MARKETPLACE. WE HAVE
TAKEN SOME ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
UNDER THE CCPA, OUT OF OUR
OFFICE. CALIFORNIA HAS A NEW HAS
A NEW A NEW PRIVACY AGENCY THAT
ALSO HAS ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
UNDER THE CCPA. SO IN MY VIEW,
YES, WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN OVER
THE LAST FIVE, SIX YEARS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
COMPREHENSIVE PRIVACY REGIME AND
OUR ARE ABLE TO BE CONFIDENT
THAT THAT BUSINESSES CAN OPERATE
WITH DIFFERENT RULES IN
CALIFORNIA THAN IN THE REST OF
THE COUNTRY. IT'S JUST YOU DON'T
KNOW FOR SURE. BUT ANYWAY, I
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR GOOD
RESPONSES. IT'S STILL A WORK IN
PROGRESS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. SEEING NO FURTHER. OKAY.
MR. HOOVER. CAN I JUST GET A
LITTLE CLARIFICATION FROM THE
CHAMBER ON A FOLLOW UP ON THAT
TO JUST TO GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE
AS WELL? SURE. I APOLOGIZE IF I
RESTATE SOME OF WHAT WAS ALREADY
SAID. EXCUSE ME, BUT YES, IN
2018 WE PASSED THE LAW THAT
ADDED THE ORIGINAL RIGHT TO OPT
OUT AND OPT IN, SO WE'VE BEEN
COMPLYING WITH THAT SINCE THEN,
THE BILL WENT INTO EFFECT IN
2020. JANUARY 2020. SO THAT'S
BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A WHILE.
BUT WHAT THIS BILL CHANGES, IT
DOESN'T JUST SAY, OKAY, THE
RULES THAT APPLIED FOR 16 AND
UNDER NOW APPLY TO 16 AND 17 AS
WELL. IT IT REMOVES ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE
POINT ABOUT ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
THAT WAS RAISED EARLIER. I WILL
SAY THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
WHY WHEN WE PASSED THE LAW IN
2018, WE SPECIFICALLY SAID, AND
I'M QUOTING FROM THE LAW RIGHT
NOW, A BUSINESS THAT WILLFULLY
DISREGARDS THE CONSUMER'S AGE
SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSUMER'S AGE.
SO IT'S A BALANCING ACT. I DON'T
KNOW HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO KNOW
IF A CHILD LOGS IN THROUGH THEIR
PARENTS ACCOUNT, IF THEY'RE 18
AND UNDER OR 18 AND OVER, IF
THEY ARE WALKING INTO A STORE, I
DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED
TO DO THAT UNLESS YOU LITERALLY
STAND OUTSIDE AND ASK, BUT NOW
YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE STANDARD, OR YOU DON'T
HAVE AN ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STANDARD. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER.
SO YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE RIGHTS ARE SO THAT YOU CAN
IMPLEMENT THEM CORRECTLY. AND
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS
BY FIGURING OUT THEIR AGE. SO I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR
QUESTION, BUT AND I WILL ADD
THAT, THANKS TO THE INCREDIBLE
WORK OF COMMITTEE STAFF, I'M
HOPEFUL THAT THE DEFINITION THAT
WE'VE PROVIDED WITH PARTNERSHIP
FROM THE AG'S OFFICE ON USE THAT
IS NOW IN THE AMENDMENTS
ADDRESSES SOME OF THE EXAMPLES
THAT WERE GIVEN TODAY, I WANT TO
THANK THE AG'S OFFICE FOR THEIR
PARTNERSHIP IN THAT BECAUSE IT
DID MAKE SENSE TO MAKE SURE THAT
SORT OF TANGENTIAL USE WAS NOT
THE SAME AS SELLING DATA. AND
THAT CLARIFICATION IS IN THESE
AMENDMENTS. SO HOPEFULLY WHEN
YOU'VE HAD A TIME TO PROCESS IT,
IT MAY ADDRESS SOME OF WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT
OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO HEARING
OTHERWISE. ANYBODY ELSE. YEAH.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR THIS WORK. I THINK
THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE STANDARD.
AND IT WAS INTERESTING, AS I WAS
THINKING ABOUT THIS AND A FEW
OTHER BILLS THAT ARE BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, I THINK WE ONLY HAVE
ONE COMMITTEE MEMBER THAT WAS
HERE DURING THE PASSAGE OF THE
CCPA. ASSEMBLYMEMBER ERWIN, MANY
OF US WERE NOT IN THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. AND SO THIS IS AN
INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY FOR US
TO DECIDE WHAT WE THINK ABOUT
WHAT IT MEANS TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS PRIVACY AND
PERSONALLY, AS THE MOTHER OF
TEENAGERS, I THINK IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE
CHANGE THE CONVERSATION AROUND
THE ATTENTION ECONOMY AND HOW
THE ATTENTION ECONOMY HAS
MONETIZED OUR CHILDREN AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL HAS
SAID. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD
THE HEARINGS IN WASHINGTON FROM
THE WHISTLEBLOWERS COMING OUT OF
OUR SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
TALKING ABOUT THE WHAT I WOULD
CALL GROSS CONVERSATIONS
HAPPENING IN THESE INSTITUTIONS
WHERE THE WELFARE OF OUR
CHILDREN IS IRRELEVANT. AND WHAT
IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM IS THE
DOLLARS THAT THEY CAN GET OFF OF
OUR CHILDREN. AND THOSE OF US
THAT ARE AROUND OUR TEENS. AND
THESE ARE MORE THAN STATISTICS.
WE SEE IT DAY IN AND DAY OUT,
AND THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STANDARD. FOR THOSE OF US THAT
HAVE TEENS, IT'S A JOKE. I MEAN,
LET'S JUST BE COMPLETELY HONEST
ABOUT IT. MY SON DIDN'T LIKE
SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS. HE
WASN'T ABLE TO GET TO CERTAIN
THINGS, SO HE WENT AND CHANGED
THE AGE. THEY LET HIM CHANGE THE
AGE HE HAD REGISTERED AS AN
UNDER 18 USER, AND HE COULD
CHANGE THE AGE WITH NO QUALMS.
AND NOW THEY DIDN'T HAVE
KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS A MINOR.
THAT'S WHAT THE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
STANDARD HAS LEFT US WITH IN
CALIFORNIA. SO AS LONG AS THE
LAW IS THAT MEANINGLESS, IT IS
INCUMBENT UPON US TO DO WHAT WE
CAN TO PROTECT IT. AND I WANT TO
APPLAUD ASSEMBLY MEMBER WIX AND
HER CONTINUED FIGHT TO PROTECT
CHILDREN, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT,
WE ARE DOING WHAT WE CAN NOW. I
HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH
MY SON, SO HE TOLD ME THAT, SO
WE OUGHT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT,
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF
PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WOULDN'T
HAVE KNOWN THAT. AND THE
IMPLICATIONS THAT CAME WITH THAT
AGE CHANGE THAT ARE REFLECTED IN
THE CCPA. SO I THINK THIS BILL
IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THANK YOU
FOR TAKING THE AMENDMENTS TODAY,
BECAUSE I DO THINK THEY DO GO A
LONG WAY IN NARROWING THE
APPLICATION OF THIS BILL TO
WHERE IT REALLY IS. THE SALE AND
MONETIZATION OF OUR CHILDREN
SUCH THAT THEY ARE FEEDING AN
ADDICTION THAT IS HARMING OUR
KIDS AT SUCH AN ALARMING RATE
THAT WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN. AND I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU
AGAIN FOR, AS I WOULD ARGUE YOU
HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WICKS, BEING COMPLIANT
WITH SECTION 230. NO MATTER WHAT
OUR COURTS WANT TO SAY ABOUT
YOU, AND REALLY FINDING A WAY TO
THREAD THAT NEEDLE TO PROTECT
OUR KIDS AND ENSURE THAT WE'RE
GOING AFTER THE ACTUAL BUSINESS
PRACTICES RATHER THAN THE SPEECH
INHERENT IN THESE PLATFORMS. SO
WITH THAT, I WILL LET YOU CLOSE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THE
WASHINGTON POST, THIS WAS MAYBE
SIX MONTHS AGO. I WAS READING AN
ARTICLE, THE AVERAGE 13 YEAR OLD
HAS 72 MILLION PIECES OF DATA
COLLECTED ABOUT THEM, 72 MILLION
PIECES OF DATA FOR YOUR AVERAGE
13 YEAR OLD THAT DATA IS WHAT
THEN PRODUCES THE ALGORITHMS,
THE ALGORITHMS, RHYTHMS THEN
PRODUCE THE ADVERTISING CONTENT
AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER THINGS.
RIGHT. AND SO IT'S THE
COMMODIFICATION OF OUR CHILDREN
IS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY REALLY
TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT NOW, YOU
KNOW, I, THE COMPANIES KNOW HOW
OLD PEOPLE ON THEIR PLATFORMS
ARE. THEY LITERALLY EMPLOY
THOUSANDS OF ENGINEERS TO KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL IS
PREDICATED ON THAT. THE ANSWER
TO THAT QUESTION OF
UNDERSTANDING WHO IS ON THEIR
PLATFORM, WHAT THEY'RE DOING,
WHAT THEY'RE CONSUMING, WHAT
THEY'RE LIKING, WHAT THEY'RE NOT
LIKING. THAT IS THE BUSINESS OF
WHAT THE COMPANIES ARE DOING. SO
THEY KNOW. RIGHT? AND I TOTALLY
AGREE. WE CAN LET'S WORK THROUGH
HOW TO MAKE THIS AN
IMPLEMENTABLE LAW. I HAVE YET TO
WRITE A PERFECT LAW ON THE BOOKS
. THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH MANY
CHANGES ON ITS WAY TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK, I WILL, WE'VE
ALREADY MET. WE WILL CONTINUE TO
MEET. I WANT SOMETHING THAT THAT
WORKS. AND THIS ISN'T ABOUT
BEING PUNITIVE TO THE TECH
COMPANIES. THIS IS ABOUT
ACTUALLY KEEPING OUR CHILDREN
SAFE. THAT IS THE MISSION. THAT
IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. AND
EVERY PARENT KNOWS THIS. EVERY
PARENT, YOU TALK TO RIGHT NOW
WHO HAS TEENAGERS, WHO HAS YOUNG
PEOPLE LIVING IN THEIR
HOUSEHOLD, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN,
RICH, POOR. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
EVERY PARENT UNDERSTANDS THAT
THEY SEE THE VULNERABILITIES OF
THE SYSTEM. WE HAVE FAILED TO
IMPLEMENT. RIGHT? THEY THEY
UNDERSTAND IT. AND THE PARENTS,
THE KIDS WANT MORE PROTECTIONS.
TALK TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT THIS.
THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY DO NOT
LIKE IT. AND SO IT'S INCUMBENT
UPON US TO CREATE THOSE
PROTECTIONS. AND SO IT'S NOT THE
BILL IS NOT PERFECT RIGHT NOW.
WE WILL KEEP WORKING ON IT. I
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
OPPOSITION, AS I ALWAYS DO. BUT
I ALSO WELCOME, MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES TO BE A PART OF THE
TABLE. I APPRECIATE THE
INQUIRIES, THE QUESTIONS, THE
VALUES THAT YOU'VE ALL
EXPRESSED, EVERY BILL I'VE DONE
ON TECH REGULATION HAS BEEN
BIPARTISAN TO DATE. I WOULD LOVE
FOR THIS TO ALSO BE BIPARTISAN.
I ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS ONE OF
THE LAST PLACES IN AMERICA WHERE
WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE BIPARTISAN
CONVERSATIONS IN A VERY HEALTHY
WAY. SO LET'S CONTINUE TO HONOR
THAT AND REALLY PUT FORTH
LEGISLATION THAT IS BIPARTISAN,
BECAUSE WE KNOW OTHER STATES ARE
LOOKING AT US AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING AT US. SO
I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU
ALL. I KNOW ASSEMBLYMEMBER DIXON
ALREADY LEFT. WE'RE EXCITED.
SHE'S A NEW MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE, SO WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR ALL OF YOU
TO HELP ME WITH THIS AND TRY TO
BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION,
INCLUDING THE OPPOSITION, AND
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. WE CALL THE
ROLL ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 1949.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED TO THE EXCUSE ME
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
BRIAN DIXON. HOOVER HOOVER NOT
VOTING. IRWIN. IRWIN I
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I WARD WICKS I. WICKS I
WILSON. SO THE BILL HAS FIVE
VOTES. WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL
FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR REX. MR.
LOWENTHAL, I THINK YOU ARE UP
WITH AB 3048.
AND I'LL TAKE THIS PAUSE TO
WELCOME THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THE
PRIVACY TEAM, JOSH THèC, OUR NEW
CHIEF CONSULTANT. IT'S HIS FIRST
HEARING. I'M SURE HE'S LOVING
THAT. WE'RE CALLING HIM OUT, BUT
WELCOME, JOSH. WHEN YOU'RE
READY, MR. LOWENTHAL. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I'D LIKE TO START BY
ASKING ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS TO
RESTATE EVERYTHING. SHE JUST DID
THAT, SERIOUSLY, I'D LIKE TO
START BY TAKING THE AMENDMENTS
AND THE ANALYSIS AND THANK THE
STAFF FOR THE VERY THOUGHTFUL
AND CAPABLE WORK. AB 348 IS A
VERY SIMPLE BILL. AB 348 MAKES
IT EASIER FOR CONSUMERS TO STATE
THEIR PRIVACY PREFERENCES FROM
THE START BY REQUIRING WEB
BROWSERS TO ALLOW A USER TO
EXERCISE THEIR OPT OUT RIGHTS AT
ALL BUSINESSES WITH WHICH THEY
INTERACT ONLINE HÌNH IN A SINGLE
STEP. CURRENTLY, THREE BROWSER
COMPANIES ALREADY OFFER TO
CONSUMERS OPT OUT PREFERENCE
SIGNALS. THERE ARE MOZILLA
FIREFOX, DUCKDUCKGO, AND BRAVE.
THE OTHER BROWSER COMPANIES,
WHICH OCCUPY 90% OF THE GLOBAL
DESKTOP BROWSER MARKET. DO NOT
OFFER SUPPORT FOR THESE SIGNALS,
REQUIRING CONSUMERS TO TAKE
EXTRA STEPS TO FIND AND DOWNLOAD
A BROWSER PLUGIN CREATED BY
THIRD PARTY DEVELOPERS. A
PROCESS THAT MOST PEOPLE LIKELY
DON'T HAVE. THE TECHNICAL
ABILITY OR PATIENCE TO GO
THROUGH. CURRENTLY, NINE STATES,
INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, REQUIRE
BUSINESSES TO HONOR BROWSER
PRIVACY SIGNALS AS AN OPT OUT OF
SALE OF THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION. MOST CONSUMERS ARE
UNAWARE OF THE AMOUNT OF DATA
THAT IS HARVESTED AND DISCLOSED
BY COMPANIES WITHOUT THEIR
KNOWLEDGE THAT IS USED TO
LEVERAGE AND INFLUENCE THEIR
BEHAVIORS DAILY. IF THIS BILL IS
PASSED, CALIFORNIA WOULD BECOME
THE FIRST STATE TO REQUIRE
BROWSER VENDORS TO DIRECTLY
SUPPORT THESE SIGNALS, WHICH
WOULD HAVE SWEEPING BENEFITS. AB
348 IS SPONSORED BY THE
CALIFORNIA PRIVACY PROTECTION
AGENCY AND SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL
PRIVACY RIGHTS GROUPS. IN THE
END, AB 348 WILL ENSURE THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS
UPHELD BY REQUIRING WEB BROWSERS
TO OFFER EASY TO FIND GLOBAL OPT
OUT SETTINGS SO THAT ANYONE CAN
EASILY ANYONE EASILY CAN STOP
THE SALE OF THEIR INFORMATION BY
ALL BUSINESSES IF THEY SO CHOOSE
, WITH ME TODAY, WITNESSES ARE
MAUREEN MAHONEY WITH THE
CALIFORNIA PRIVACY PROTECTION
AGENCY AND YANDU OF BRAVE
SOFTWARE. TWO MINUTES EACH. WHEN
YOU'RE READY, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. MY
NAME IS MAUREEN MAHONEY. I'M THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
LEGISLATION AT THE CALIFORNIA
PRIVACY PROTECTION AGENCY. WE'RE
TASKED WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT,
AND OUR MISSION IS TO PROTECT
CALIFORNIANS PRIVACY. AND
CONSISTENT WITH THAT MISSION,
THE AGENCY IS THE PROUD SPONSOR
OF AB 3048, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
BROWSERS AND, PURSUANT TO
REGULATION DEVICES TO OFFER TO
CONSUMERS THE OPTION TO USE
WHAT'S KNOWN AS OPT OUT
PREFERENCES, SO WHAT DOES THAT
MEAN? SO ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT
IS AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT THAT
BUSINESSES RECEIVING OPT OUT
PREFERENCE SIGNALS HONOR THEM AS
AN OPT OUT OF SALE AND SHARING
OF THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF RIGHT NOW,
IF YOU'RE USING A PRIVACY
FOCUSED BROWSER LIKE BRAVE,
DUCKDUCKGO OR FIREFOX, YOU CAN
USE THESE OPT OUT PREFERENCE
SIGNALS. SO WHEN YOU'RE USING
THE BROWSER, WHEN YOU GO TO A
SITE LIKE NEWYORKTIMES.COM, YOUR
BROWSER WILL AUTOMATICALLY SEND
A SIGNAL. IN NEW YORK, TIMES.COM
RECEIVES IT AND IS REQUIRED
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW TO HONOR IT
AS AN OPT OUT OF SALE AND
SHARING. SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT
WOULD BE A LOT EASIER FOR
CONSUMERS TO EXERCISE THEIR
PREFERENCES AT HUNDREDS, IF NOT
THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT WEBSITES.
THAT WAY, RATHER THAN GOING TO
EVERY SINGLE SITE ONE BY ONE AND
FILLING OUT A FORM AND SO ON AND
SO FORTH. SO THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT PROVISION. IT'S BEEN
IN EFFECT SINCE 2020. IT'S
ALREADY BEING ENFORCED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, EIGHT OTHER
STATES HAVE FOLLOWED IN
CALIFORNIA'S FOOTSTEPS IN
REQUIRING BUSINESSES TO HONOR
THESE SIGNALS FROM CONNECTICUT
AND COLORADO TO TEXAS AND
MONTANA. AND THERE IS A LOT OF
COORDINATION BETWEEN THESE
STATES. SO WE'RE REALLY
ENCOURAGED BY THE PROGRESS
THAT'S BEEN MADE. BUT WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT CONSUMER ACCESS
TO THESE SIGNALS, MAJOR BROWSERS
LIKE GOOGLE CHROME, APPLE
SAFARI, MICROSOFT EDGE DON'T
OFFER NATIVE SUPPORT FOR SUCH
SIGNALS. AND WHILE THERE ARE
OTHER OPTIONS ON THE MARKET FOR
CONSUMERS TO ENABLE THESE OPT
OUT PREFERENCE SIGNALS IN
PRACTICE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
BARRIERS FOR THEM TO DO SO, SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE THINK AT
BEST THAT BROWSERS OFFER THESE
SIGNALS, WILL INCREASE CONSUMER
ACCESS TO THEM. AND OVERALL
IMPROVE THEIR PRIVACY. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. COOL, CHAIR, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. MY
NAME IS YAN XU, AND I AM
CURRENTLY THE CHIEF INFORMATION
SECURITY OFFICER AT BRAVE. I'VE
ALSO PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON THE US
CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AGENCY, AND AS A STAFF
TECHNOLOGIST AT THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION. BRAVE IS AN
OPEN SOURCE WEB BROWSER, AND WE
PUT PRIVACY FIRST. OUR MISSION
IS TO DEFEND USERS FROM
INTRUSIVE ADS, FINGERPRINTING
AND TRACKING WHEN THEY BROWSE
THE WEB. WE SUPPORT AB 348
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE CALIFORNIANS
HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY USE
BRAVE OR NOT. BUT SINCE 2020, WE
HAVE IMPLEMENTED THIS OPT OUT
PREFERENCE SIGNAL IN THE FORM OF
GLOBAL PRIVACY CONTROL, OR GPC.
AS MAUREEN SAID, WHEN SOMEONE
USES BRAVE, THEY CAN
AUTOMATICALLY TELL WEBSITES NOT
TO SELL OR SHARE THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION. I REALLY BELIEVE
THIS HAS SAVED OUR USERS
COUNTLESS HOURS OF CONTACTING
BUSINESSES IN ORDER TO EXERCISE
THIS IMPORTANT PRIVACY RIGHT?
AND AS A BROWSER VENDOR, IT
REALLY ONLY TOOK US A FEW DAYS
OF ENGINEERING WORK TO IMPLEMENT
AND TEST THIS OPT OUT FEATURE.
SO WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE
STRAIGHTFORWARD FOR OTHER
BROWSERS LIKE GOOGLE AND APPLE
TO MAKE THE GPC SETTING
AVAILABLE TO BILLIONS OF USERS.
I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S EASY FOR
WEBSITE OPERATORS TO HONOR GPC
SIGNALS, BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE
TO ACCESS A SINGLE HTTP HEADER,
OR READ A JAVASCRIPT SIGNAL TO
SEE IF SOMEONE'S OPTING OUT. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF AB 348. THANKS. THANK
YOU. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? MADAM
CHAIR MEMBERS, SAMANTHA CORBIN,
ON BEHALF OF EFF IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? COME ON UP. YOUR
CHAIR IS STILL AVAILABLE AND I
GOT YOU WATER IF YOU NEED IT,
CAN I? I'M A FULL SERVICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. APOLOGIES. THANK YOU
AGAIN. ROANOKE DAYLAMI WITH CAL
CHAMBER. AGAIN. WE ARE REVIEWING
THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS BILL, WE
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE AB 3048 AS
THE BILL PREMATURELY MAKES
UNIVERSAL OPT OUT PREFERENCE
SIGNALS MANDATORY AND CREATES
SIGNIFICANT COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS
FOR BUSINESSES OPERATING IN
MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS. OUR
MEMBER COMPANIES SUPPORT USER
CHOICE, WHICH IS WHY BROWSERS
AND DEVICES ALREADY COMPETE ON
OFFERING CLEAR, EFFECTIVE USER
CONTROLS OVER DATA USES THEY CAN
ALSO. USERS CAN ALSO CHOOSE APPS
OR EXTENSIONS TO MANAGE THEIR
PRIVACY PREFERENCES IN A
CENTRALIZED MANNER. WHEN PASSING
PROP 24, VOTERS LAID THE
GROUNDWORK FOR ENCOURAGING, BUT
NOT REQUIRING BUSINESSES TO
INCREASINGLY INCORPORATE AND
RECOGNIZE GLOBAL OPT OUT
PREFERENCE SIGNALS. UNDER THE
CCPA. RECOGNIZING THE COMPLEXITY
OF IMPLEMENTING AN OPT OUT
PREFERENCE SIGNAL, VOTERS ALSO
REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO ADOPT
REGULATIONS THAT MEET CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY
WERE TO BE FREE OF DEFAULTS THAT
PRESUPPOSE CONSUMER INTENT AND
NOT CONFLICT WITH OTHER COMMONLY
USED PRIVACY SETTINGS OR TOOLS
THAT CONSUMERS MAY USE. AS IT
STANDS, HOWEVER, A UNIVERSAL OPT
OUT PREFERENCE SIGNAL IS NOT YET
RIPE TO CONSIDER AS A DEVICE OR
BROWSER MANDATED OPTION. WHILE
ONLINE DEVICES AND ADVERTISERS
ARE CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING
DATA USES BY JURISDICTION,
INCLUDING FOR CALIFORNIA USERS,
DEVICES AND SOFTWARE ARE NOT ARE
OFFERED GLOBALLY TO BILLIONS OF
USERS AND CANNOT BE EASILY
ALTERED FOR CALIFORNIA USERS
ALONE. IT'S UNCLEAR TO US WHAT
AN OPT OUT PREFERENCE SIGNAL
UNDER THIS BILL LOOKS LIKE WHEN
DIFFERENT STATES ARE PROPOSING
DIFFERENT OPT OUT REQUIREMENTS.
ARE WE SUPPOSED TO HAVE
DIFFERENT CONTROLS FOR EVERY
JURISDICTION OR EVERY MECHANISM?
ARE CONSUMERS TO BE ALLOWED TO
REVERSE THEIR DECISION AND OPT
BACK IN BOTH AS A GENERAL MATTER
AND ALSO FOR SPECIFIC USE CASES
WITH A SPECIFIC BUSINESS? ALSO,
WE'RE UNCLEAR HOW THIS MECHANISM
INTERSECTS WITH OTHER PRIVACY
RELATED USER SETTINGS, WHICH
CONTROL SIMILAR FUNCTIONALITY IN
WHICH A USER HAS INTERACTED WITH
. THESE CAN BE, FOR EXAMPLE,
YOUR IOS, IOS PRIVACY SETTINGS
OR AD CHOICES, THERE'S A VERY
REAL POSSIBILITY THAT CONSUMERS
WILL SEND CONFLICTING SIGNALS
WHICH WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT
COMPLIANCE BURDENS FOR
BUSINESSES. SO AGAIN, BECAUSE
THERE ARE CHALLENGES AND
COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED WITH
MANDATING THE OPT OUT PREFERENCE
SIGNAL THAT THIS BILL DOESN'T
UNFORTUNATELY ADDRESS, WE MUST
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
DYLAN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET, I'M EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA, AND WE
ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO AB
3048. I ALIGNED MY COMMENTS WITH
THE CHAMBER. I DON'T NEED TO
RETREAD MUCH OF THAT GROUND, BUT
DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, A LOT
OF THESE UNIVERSAL OPT OUT
MECHANISMS, THOUGH THEY'VE COME
A VERY LONG WAY IN A VERY SHORT
AMOUNT OF TIME. THEY DO PRESENT
SEVERAL LIMITATIONS, ESPECIALLY
AS FAR AS WHEN AND HOW TO HONOR
SOME OF THOSE CONSUMER CHOICES.
FOR EXAMPLE, OBVIOUSLY, IF A
CONSUMER OPTS OUT THAT SIGNAL IS
BEING SENT GLOBALLY TO EVERY
WEBSITE. BUT IT'S UNCLEAR HOW
EXACTLY, A BUSINESS OR A BROWSER
SHOULD TREAT THAT. IF THEY GO IN
AND CHANGE A SPECIFIC, WEBSITE,
FOR EXAMPLE, OR ARE THEY GOING
TO BE GREETED WITH A POP UP
EVERY TIME THAT THEY THEY COME
TO THESE WEBSITES ASKING THEM TO
OPT BACK IN? THAT CAN BE VERY
FRUSTRATING IF THEY FEEL LIKE
THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THEIR
SETTINGS ALREADY AND TRIED TO
CONFIGURE THAT ON A SITE BY SITE
BASIS, AND SO THAT SORT OF
INTEROPERABILITY STILL REMAINS A
CHALLENGE. AND I THINK IS, IS
KIND OF OUR MAIN CONCERN WITH,
SORT OF MANDATING THAT ACROSS
THE BOARD, AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
AB 3048. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION. COME ON UP. NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION,
PLEASE. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON.
NAOMI PEDRONI, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. HELLO,
RYAN. ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, STEVE CARLSON,
ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL
ADVERTISERS IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. SEEING NO
ADDITIONAL FOLKS IN THE ROOM,
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
MEMBERS WE DO NOT YET HAVE A
MOTION. MOTION SECOND. OKAY. MR.
REISER, THANKS, YOU KNOW, I WAS
ON A WEBSITE THE OTHER DAY, AND
IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE YOU'RE
LIKE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT
WHATEVER PRIVACY CHOICES YOU
MAKE, AND THEN IT KEEPS IT
FOREVER. BUT EVERY TIME I GO TO
THE WEBSITE, IT KEEPS ASKING ME.
I'M. I'M CONVINCED, BY THE WAY,
THAT ALL THESE THINGS THAT POP
UP EVERY DARN WEBSITE I GO TO
PROBABLY HAS LIKE A TON OF
GLOBAL CARBON EMISSIONS BECAUSE
OF THE AMOUNT OF DATA CENTERS
THAT HAVE TO KEEP ALL THIS DATA
OF JUST ME CLICKING YES A
MILLION TIMES FOR THE SAME
WEBSITE, BUT TO ME, THIS BILL
DOES SOUND LIKE, YOU KNOW, I
GUESS THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE
I THINK I'VE SELECTED MY CHOICES
AND IT'S STILL NOT COMPREHENDING
IT. AND IT COULD BE ON AN END
USER OR THE WEBSITE DEVELOPERS.
BUT THIS WAS NOT SOME LIKE SMALL
COMPANY. THIS WAS A VERY LARGE
COMPANY, YOU KNOW THAT. I JUST
HAVE TO. YES I ACCEPT YOUR
FREAKING COOKIES. BUT IT SEEMS
TO ME ALSO THAT THERE ARE
PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT PEOPLE
HAVE THAT CAN DOWNLOAD TO DO
THIS. AND SO I THINK LIKE
MANDATING IT FOR ALL THE
BROWSERS. I'D BE INTERESTED TO
KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS. YOU KNOW, IN
YOUR CLOSING IF YOU WANT. WHY WE
WOULD MANDATE IT FOR ALL IF
THERE ARE, IF WE ALREADY AS A
CONSUMER HAVE AN OPTION TO
DOWNLOAD A BROWSER THAT HAS THAT
HAS THAT FEATURE, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MR.
NGUYEN JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY FOR
THE BRAVE CISO, IS THE OPT OUT
SIGNAL THE ONLY THING THAT
SEPARATES YOUR BROWSER FROM
SAFARI AND CHROME, NO. WE ALSO
HAVE SOME TECHNICAL MEASURES,
LIKE AUTOMATICALLY BLOCKING WHAT
WE THINK OUR TRACKERS. OKAY. AND
SO YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED THAT IT
MAKES YOU LESS COMPETITIVE TO
HAVE EVERY BROWSER REQUIRED? NOT
NOT AT ALL, BECAUSE WE REALLY
THINK IT'S BETTER FOR PRIVACY IF
EVERYONE CAN EASILY ACCESS THIS
OPTION WITHOUT HAVING TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO DOWNLOAD A PLUGIN. SO
IT'S. NET BENEFICIAL FOR USERS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. HOOVER. I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY
TO ADDRESS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PATTERSON'S QUESTION, MR.
LOWENTHAL, IS THAT YOUR
PREFERENCE, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
OKAY. I'LL ADDRESS IT AS WELL IN
CLOSING. OKAY. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SORRY, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO
OFFER A FEW THOUGHTS, THAT IS A
REALLY GREAT POINT, AND WE
APPRECIATE THAT. THERE ARE
BROWSERS SUCH AS BRAVE,
DUCKDUCKGO AND FIREFOX THAT
ALLOW CONSUMERS TO SEND THESE
OPT OUT PREFERENCE SIGNALS, AND
THEN CONSUMERS CAN ALSO DOWNLOAD
THIRD PARTY BROWSER EXTENSIONS
INTO THEIR EXISTING BROWSER, TO
SEND THOSE SIGNALS, I THINK THE
PROBLEM IS THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE BIGGEST BROWSERS THAT AREN'T
OFFERING THESE SIGNALS REALLY
OCCUPY A SIGNIFICANT, AMOUNT OF
THE MARKET. MANY OF THESE
BROWSERS ARE COMING
PRE-INSTALLED IN DEVICES, AND
THEY'RE BROWSERS THAT CONSUMERS
ARE USED TO FOR, USING. SO, IN
MY EXPERIENCE, THERE'S OFTEN A
RELUCTANCE FOR CONSUMERS TO TRY
TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER BROWSER,
EVEN IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
THEIR PRIVACY RIGHTS, AND THEN
ALSO WITH THE THIRD PARTY
BROWSER EXTENSIONS, THERE CAN BE
SOME ISSUES THERE, NOT ONLY IN
BARRIERS TO DOWNLOADING THEM,
BUT THEY CAN ALSO INTRODUCE
SECURITY VULNERABILITIES. HIS,
SO THAT'S WHY WE THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT, BROWSERS OFFER
THESE OPT OUT PREFERENCE SIGNALS
. THANK YOU, WE WERE ABOUT TO GO
TO MR. HOOVER. YEAH, THAT WAS
KIND OF. IS THIS WHAT IT'S LIKE
TO. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER
SERVED ON A COMMITTEE WITH THE
HONORABLE JOE PATTERSON. SO BUT,
THAT WAS KIND OF IN THE SAME
VEIN AS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS
GOING TO BE. BUT I THINK AND
I'LL JUST SINCE YOU'VE KIND OF
ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION,
I'LL JUST, I GUESS, MAKE A
COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE I
APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL
OF THE BILL, WHICH IS TO EXPAND
CONSUMER PRIVACY, I THINK, IT'S
REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO
UNDERSTAND WHY WE AS A, AS A
STATE WOULD TAKE AWAY THE OPTION
FOR A CONSUMER TO OPT IN, YOU
KNOW, TO A BROWSER THAT, MAY,
MAY BE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S ALREADY OPTIONS LIKE
BRAVE ON THE MARKET. AND I THINK
THAT'S FANTASTIC. BUT FOR
CONSUMERS THAT MAYBE WANT SOME
OF THOSE FEATURES OUTSIDE OF
THOSE, THAT TYPE OF A BROWSER,
WHY WE WOULD KIND OF PUT ONE
TYPE OF BROWSER AND MANDATE IT
ACROSS THE BOARD. SO YOU KNOW,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL, IF
YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, THAT
THAT'D BE GREAT. BUT I THINK
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT
TODAY, WHERE I JUST DON'T SEE,
HOW THIS ACTUALLY INCREASES
CHOICES FOR CONSUMERS. TO ME, IT
ACTUALLY DOES THE OPPOSITE,
WHERE IT'S TAKING AWAY THOSE
CHOICES. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE
? OKAY, WELL, I WANT TO BEFORE I
ALLOW YOU TO CLOSE, I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THIS, BILL. I
THINK THAT WE OFTEN GRANT RIGHTS
TO CALIFORNIANS AND DON'T CARE
WHETHER THEY'RE MEANINGFUL. AND
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE
IS ACTUALLY MAKING A RIGHT THAT
IS ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF EVERY
SINGLE CALIFORNIAN, TRULY
MEANINGFUL AND, YOU KNOW, THE
VICE CHAIR TOLD HIS STORY THAT I
THINK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US CAN
RELATE TO OF THOSE POP UPS ON
EVERY WEBSITE THAT GET, YOU
KNOW, I THINK ARE REALLY I'M A
PRIVACY ADVOCATE. SO I THINK
THEY'RE VALUABLE BECAUSE THEY
GIVE ME THE OPTION. BUT THE IDEA
THAT WE CAN HAVE A MORE GLOBAL
WAY OF ENSURING THAT WE CAN
PROTECT OUR PRIVACY, I THINK IS
A CRITICAL STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. AND SO I THINK THIS
IS A GREAT BILL. I THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.
I DO THINK THEY HELP CLARIFY A
LOT OF THINGS THAT MAKE IT MORE,
TIGHTER AND HOPEFULLY ADDRESS
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION THAT
WE'VE HEARD. AND WITH THAT, I'D
LIKE YOU TO CLOSE. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. I DO
JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO A FEW
THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HEARD
VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT THE
OPPOSITION'S COMMENTS, AND THEY
WERE VERY THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.
AND I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT
TO, PURSUANT TO WHAT I SAID IN,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS'S BILL I
IT'S MY GOAL FOR TECH TO BE MORE
SUCCESSFUL, NOT LESS. AND TO
FIND THAT RIGHT SECRET SAUCE.
AND I DIDN'T HEAR ANY OPPOSITION
WHATSOEVER TO THE CONCEPT. I
HEARD OPPOSITION TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION, HOW CLUNKY IT
WOULD BE, HOW WE'D BE OUTLIERS,
HOW IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
IMPLEMENT DIFFERENT PLATFORMS,
BUT NO OPPOSITION TO THE ACTUAL
CONCEPT. SO WHAT WE CAN ALL
AGREE UPON IS THAT PRIVACY AND
OPT IN PREFERENCES ARE IMPORTANT
TO YOUR COMMENTS. YOU KNOW, MR.
PATTERSON, STANDARDIZATION IS
NOT A BAD THING. STANDARDIZATION
PROVIDES CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR
US IN WAYS THAT ARE NOT
NECESSARILY IMAGINABLE AT THE
MOMENT. CAN YOU IMAGINE IF WE
DIDN'T STANDARDIZE SEAT BELTS
AND EVERY CAR HAD A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF STANDARD, AND YOU HAD TO
FIGURE THAT OUT WHEN YOU'RE
GETTING IN A CAR, DOES THAT MAKE
YOU SAFER OR LESS SAFE? CAN YOU
IMAGINE IF WE DIDN'T STANDARDIZE
NUTRITIONAL VALUE IN THE FOOD
THAT WE'RE CONSUMING, AND YOU
HAD TO FIGURE OUT IF EVERY
DIFFERENT PIECE OF FOOD THAT YOU
HAD THAT YOU WERE BUYING, THE
DIFFERENT NUTRITIONAL CONTENT,
AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SAFE
TO HAVE IF YOU HAD AN ALLERGY OR
OTHERWISE. STANDARDIZATION IN
THIS CASE PROTECTS CONSUMERS FOR
THINGS THAT WE'RE ALREADY ALL
AGREEING UPON. AND I DON'T FEAR
CALIFORNIA BEING BOLD AND TAKING
THE PROPER STEPS, TO PROVIDE
CONSUMERS WITH COMPLETE
PROTECTION IF THEY WANT IT, IF
THEY WANT IT. AND MY CONCERN
HERE IS THAT THE CONCERNS ABOUT
BEING CLUNKY IS ACTUALLY A CLOAK
. THAT REALLY THE GOAL IS HERE
IS TO KEEP US FROM NOT OPTING
OUT, FROM NOT OPTING OUT. WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
EVERYBODY'S VOTE. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND. LET'S CALL THE ROLL.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE AB 3048 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. B¢O
KHN I KHN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON NØ BRIAN. BRIAN I.
DIXON NO. DIXON. NO. HOOVER. NO.
HOOVER NO. ERWIN. I. ERWIN I.
LOWENTHAL. I LOWENTHAL, I.
ORTEGA. ORTEGA. I. WARD I WARD
I. WILSON. WICKS I'M SORRY.
SORRY. AB 3048 WICKS. WICKS I NO
WORRIES, THAT HAS SEVEN VOTES.
IT'S OUT. WE'LL LEAVE THE ROLL
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS, LET'S
START BY CALLING THE CONSENT
CALENDAR AGAIN, PLEASE. OKAY THE
BILLS ON CONSENT. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. I HOOVER, I HOOVER I
ORTEGA. ORTEGA I WARD. WARD I
WILSON. SO THE CONSENT CALENDAR
IS OPEN TEN ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE IT
OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBER, ON
TO THE NEXT BILL. NO, I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I
VOTED. ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 1949
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS. THE
CURRENT VOTE IS NO. YOUR BILL.
ADD ON TO YOUR BILL. SORRY, I
THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ME IF I
GO. IF SHE CALLS IT MYSELF.
THAT'S GREAT. I OKAY, OKAY. SO
ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 1949 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS, THE VOTE
IS FIVE ZERO. THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTE NOT VOTING.
BRIAN I BRIAN, I DIXON. DIXON
NOT VOTING. WE HAVE WARD. WARD I
WILSON I WILSON I THANK YOU
OKAY. LET'S, START BACK AT THE
TOP, SIR, ARE YOU TRYING TO GO
TO PUBLIC SAFETY? YEAH, THEY'RE
ACROSS THE HALL. WE'LL START
WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR AGAIN.
OKAY. FOR THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
WILSON. WILSON. I OKAY. SO
CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT 11 ZERO.
AND ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 3048 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL. THE
VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO. THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
NO. WILSON. WILSON, I THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THAT WAS PERFECT. YEAH
WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. HELP ME GET
UP. NO WORRIES. THE AB 3048
LOWENTHAL'S OUT 808383. EIGHT
THREE. OKAY MY FAVORITE, LIKE,
LEAK AND MAKE A BUDGET. YEAH. WE
ARE ADJOURNED