GOOD AFTERNOON. WE WILL CALL
THIS HEARING OF THE PRIVACY AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION COMMITTEE,
IN ORDER. AND, WE WILL BE DOING
OUR BILLS TODAY IN FILE ORDER.
AND SO I'M GOING TO EXPRESS
IMMENSE GRATITUDE TO MISS
QUIRK-SILVA, WHO IS HERE ON TIME
AND READY. SO TO ALL OF OUR
COLLEAGUES, THAT'S HOW YOU GET
KUDOS IN THIS COMMITTEE, SO WITH
THAT MISS COURT, WE ARE GOING TO
START AS A SUBCOMMITTEE.
HOPEFULLY MORE MEMBERS WILL JOIN
US SHORTLY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO
BEGIN THE FLOOR IS YOURS WHEN
YOU'RE READY. AND THIS IS AB
1788. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, I FIRST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR DILIGENTLY WORKING WITH OUR
OFFICE DURING THIS BUSY TIME OF
YEAR, AND I ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENTS. TODAY I PRESENT
ASSEMBLY BILL 1788, WHICH ALLOWS
COUNTIES TO ESTABLISH MENTAL
HEALTH, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
DISCIPLINARIAN TEAMS FOCUSED ON
ADDRESSING THE MENTAL HEALTH
NEEDS OF JUSTICE INVOLVED
INDIVIDUALS WHO HOLD THE VALUES
OF CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIALITY.
OVER THE LAST DECADE,
CALIFORNIA'S CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES HAVE EXPERIENCED A
MASSIVE SURGE IN MENTAL HEALTH
CASES AMONGST THEIR POPULATION.
THE PREVALENCE OF ADDRESSING
MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS AMONG
JUSTICE INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS HAS
SOARED FROM 20% IN 2010 TO AN
OUTSTANDING 53% IN 2023 TO FILL
TO FULFILL CALIFORNIA'S
COMMITMENT TO REHABILITATION AND
REDUCE RECIDIVISM, WE NEED TO
ESTABLISH EFFICIENT PRACTICES TO
ASSIST INDIVIDUALS DEALING WITH
MENTAL HEALTH DIFFICULTIES
WITHIN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
HOWEVER PROCEDURAL BARRIERS HAVE
HAMPERED OUR EFFORTS, INCLUDING
THE LACK OF AUTHORIZATION AND
CURRENT LAW TO FACILITATE TO
FACILITATE THE SHARING OF
CRITICAL INFORMATION BETWEEN
VARIOUS ENTITIES. AB 1788 GRANTS
COUNTIES THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE
MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS TO
EXPEDITE THE ASSESSMENT OF
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BY
ALLOWING THE APPROPRIATE SHARING
OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
THÀNH. IT ALSO INCLUDES
SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT
CONFIDENTIAL REALITY, ENSURING
THAT SHARED INFORMATION IS USED
SOLELY TO PROVIDE SERVICES WITH
NO IMPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT
OR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. BY
PRIORITIZING MENTAL HEALTH,
WELL-BEING, AND IMPROVING
COMMUNICATION CHANNELS, WE CAN
CREATE A FOUNDATION FOR TARGETED
CARE, ENSURING EFFECTIVE
REHABILITATION, ADEQUATE MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT, AND REDUCING
THE LIKELIHOOD OF RECIDIVISM
WITHIN OUR JUSTICE INVOLVED
COMMUNITY. WITH ME TODAY TO
PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE AND
THE SPONSOR OF AB 17 1788 IS MR.
JEFF PUCKETT, ASSISTANT
ASSISTANT SHERIFF OF ORANGE
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JEFF PUCKETT. I'M AN ASSISTANT
SHERIFF WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. I
CURRENTLY OVERSEE OUR CUSTODY
OPERATIONS COMMAND, AND PRIOR TO
THAT, OVERSAW BOTH OUR
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND HOMELESS
TEAMS IN THE COUNTY. I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR HEARING
US TODAY REGARDING AB 1788 AND
STATE THAT WE ARE PROUD TO
PARTNER WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN
QUIRK-SILVA ON THIS BILL. AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, 2020 SAW THE
PASSAGE OF ASSEMBLY BILL 210,
WHICH ALLOWED FOR INCREASED
INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN
MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS TO
ASSIST THOSE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS. SOME OF THE
INFORMATION SHARED INCLUDED
HEALTH INFORMATION, MENTAL
HEALTH INFORMATION, CRIMINAL
HISTORY AND SOCIAL SERVICES
INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT WAS NOT A RECIPIENT
OF MENTAL OR MEDICAL HEALTH
INFORMATION, WHICH IS STILL
CAREFULLY PROTECTED BY HIPAA.
HOWEVER, BEING ABLE TO SHARE
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION
WITH PROVIDERS ALLOWED FOR
BETTER SHELTER PLACEMENT AND A
HIGHER LEVEL OF CARE. ASSEMBLY
BILL 210 ALLOWED FOR THREE
EXPECTED OUTCOMES TO BE ACHIEVED
, WHICH INCLUDE NUMBER ONE, A
BETTER QUALITY OF SERVICE
DELIVERY, TWO INCREASED ABILITY
TO MATCH BETTER SERVICES TO THE
CLIENT, AND THREE REDUCE COSTS
BY DECREASING DUPLICATION OF
SERVICES. IT'S MY OPINION THAT
THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 210, COUPLED WITH
THE MDTS THAT WE HAD IN PLACE,
ARE WHAT ALLOWED ORANGE COUNTY
TO DECREASE HOMELESSNESS.
ACCORDING TO THE 2020 AND 2022
POINT IN TIME COUNTS. POST COVID
, CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES HAVE
SEEN AN INCREASE IN MENTAL
HEALTH, POPULATION, WITH ORANGE
COUNTY IN PARTICULAR HAVING
JUMPED FROM 22% TO 45. FOR THOSE
WITH AN OPEN MENTAL HEALTH CASE,
THESE NUMBERS ARE EVEN MORE
STRIKING CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE
DAILY POPULATION HAS DECREASED
BY 50. WE'VE ALSO SEEN A SHARP
INCREASE IN THOSE EXPERIENCING
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER IN
ORANGE COUNTY ALONE.
APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OR 900
INMATES OF OUR AVERAGE DAILY
POPULATION ARE RECEIVING
MEDICALLY ASSISTED TREATMENT TO
HELP THEM OVERCOME OPIOID
ADDICTION. LIKE MANY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENTS, THE ORANGE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN
NUMEROUS PROACTIVE STEPS TO
ASSIST THE JAIL POPULATION
EXPERIENCING BOTH BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH ISSUES AND SUBSTANCE
ABUSE DISORDER. SOME OF THESE
STEPS THAT WE'VE TAKEN INCLUDE
AN INCREASE IN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
HOUSING UNITS, AN INCREASE IN
LPS BEDS, CRISIS INTERVENTION
TRAINING FOR ALL STAFF,
EXPANSION, EXPANSION OF THE
MEDICALLY ASSISTED TREATMENT
PROGRAM, NEW REENTRY PROGRAMS,
AND A REDUCTION IN LATE NIGHT
RELEASES. AB 1788 IS THE NEXT
PROACTIVE STEP TO STRENGTHEN AND
ALLOW FOR BETTER COMMUNICATION
TO BETTER SERVE OUR JAIL
COMMUNITY, AS THE LEGISLATURE
HAS DONE WITH THE PAST AND WITH
OTHER COMMUNITY CONCERNS,
INCLUDING AB 210, SB 1342, AB
271 AND WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS
CODE 18 951, WHICH ALL ALLOWED
FOR INCREASED INFORMATION
SHARING BETWEEN MDTS. WE KNOW
THAT MDTS WORK. I'VE SEEN THIS
FIRSTHAND FIRSTHAND, BUT WE KNOW
THAT THEY ONLY WORK IF WE CAN
COMMUNICATE. ALL THE PIECES OF
PRIOR LEGISLATION ALLOWED FOR
INFORMATION SHARING AND
COMMUNICATION TO BETTER SERVE
THE COMMUNITY. I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR AN AYE VOTE SO THAT
WE CAN CONTINUE THIS AS IT
PERTAINS TO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
WITHIN THE STATE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1788? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. CLIFTON WILSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT
PSYCHIATRY IN SUPPORT, AND THEN
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF
PSYCHIATRISTS WITH THE POSITION
OF SUPPORT AND SEEK AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE MIC IS
GEARED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE
CHAIR. I THINK, ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? YEAH.
PLEASE COME ON UP. WE WILL GIVE
YOU THREE MINUTES AS WELL WHEN
YOU'RE READY. SURE AND TO
CLARIFY, OUR POSITION IS OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED. THANK YOU, GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
TRACY ROSENBERG FROM OAKLAND
PRIVACY. WE ARE A REGIONAL
COALITION THAT ADVOCATES FOR
GUARDRAILS AND SAFEGUARDS IN THE
INTERESTS OF PRIVACY PROTECTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND COMMUNITY
CONSENT. FIRST, WE WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE AND THE AUTHOR FOR
THE AMENDMENTS, WHICH ADDRESS
THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR
CONCERNS, WHICH ARE ABOUT
SHARING CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL
INFORMATION ABOUT VULNERABLE,
VULNERABLE PEOPLE. WE JUST
BRIEFLY WANTED TO MENTION THE 1
OR 2 CONCERNS THAT REMAIN. WE
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BILL
DEFINE THE AGENCIES THAT ARE
AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE IN
THESE INFORMATION SHARING TERMS.
TEAMS CONCRETELY, WITHOUT Ã NOT
LIMITED TO DISCLAIMER IT'S SORT
OF A FOUNDATIONAL THING. AND
PRIVACY REGULATION THAT THE WHO
IS SHARING INFORMATION WITH WHO
NEEDS TO BE CONCRETE AND
SPECIFIC. WE THINK THAT WITH
THREE AND A HALF MONTHS LEFT, A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TIME, THERE
SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO SURVEY
COUNTIES TO SEE IF ANY AGENCIES
NEED TO BE ADDED THAT ARE NOT
CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE BILL,
AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND TAKING
THAT APPROACH INSTEAD OF THE NOT
LIMITED TO DISCLAIMER. SECONDLY,
WE'RE A LITTLE CAUTIOUS ABOUT
THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN
THESE TASK FORCES WHEN PEOPLE
ARE NO LONGER INCARCERATED.
TRADITIONALLY, DEPARTMENTS OF
PAROLE AND PROBATION HAVE
OPERATED SEPARATELY FROM POLICE
DEPARTMENTS FOR A REASON, AND
IT'S USUALLY PRETTY
DESTABILIZING FOR PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM
INCARCERATION TO SORT OF HAVE
POLICE CONTINUING TO BE INVOLVED
IN THEIR CASES AND THEIR CARE
DESTABILIZING AND WE THINK IT
CAN BE TRIGGERING, WE HAVE
ALWAYS HEARD THAT POLICE DON'T
WANT TO BE SOCIAL WORKERS. WE
AGREE. AND WE SUGGEST THAT MAYBE
PROBATION AND PAROLE, AT LEAST
WHEN PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER
INCARCERATED, WOULD BE THE MORE
APPROPRIATE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
IN THESE TASK FORCES. THAT'S
ALL. AND THANK YOU FOR HEARING
OUR CONCERNS. PERFECT. THANK
YOU. WE'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH A
QUORUM BEFORE ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES WALKS OUT. OKAY. CALL
THE ROLL. B¢O KHN HERE. KHN
HERE. PATTERSON. PATTERSON HERE.
BRIAN. DIXON. DIXON. HERE.
HOOVER IRWIN. IRWIN. HERE.
LOWENTHAL. HERE. LOWENTHAL HERE.
ORTEGA. WARD. WICKS. HERE. WICKS
HERE. WILSON. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
THANK YOU. SORRY AND WITH THAT,
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? SEEING
NONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
SEEING NONE. I WILL JUST ADD, I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS AS WELL. I THINK THEY
DO GO FAR IN PROTECTING PRIVACY,
WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE ROLE OF
THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I DO WANT TO
GIVE A HUGE SHOUT OUT TO ORANGE
COUNTY, YOUR COORDINATION REALLY
HAS PROVEN TO, BE SUCCESSFUL AS
IT RELATES TO YOUR NUMBER OF
UNHOUSED. AND SO I THINK, YOU
KNOW, YOU'RE BRINGING SOME OF
THAT ABILITY FOR US TO
COORDINATE BETTER IN SERVING THE
PEOPLE WHO NEED US MOST. AND AS
WE KNOW, OUR MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS IS VERY, VERY REAL. AND
THE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR COMMUNITY
WHO ARE SUFFERING NEED OUR
SUPPORT. AND SO THE ABILITY TO
DO THAT IN A MORE SEAMLESS AND
BETTER WAY, WHICH I KNOW OUR
COUNTIES ARE WORKING INCREDIBLY
HARD TO DO, IS REALLY IMPORTANT
WORK. SO I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP IN
THIS SPACE. AND WITH THAT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, I WOULD, I
WOULD JUST, END OR CLOSE WITH,
THE DATA SHOWS THAT MORE AND
MORE OF THOSE THAT ARE ENTERING
OUR COUNTY JAILS ARE SUFFERING
WITH SOME TYPE OF MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUE, AND THEY'RE STAYING
LONGER IN THE COUNTY JAILS, THEY
USED TO BE SOMEWHAT SHORT STAYS,
AND NOW THEY CAN BE ONE, TWO,
THREE, FOUR YEARS. AND SO THEY
ARE ALREADY INTERFACING WITH
DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS IN ORDER
TO HELP, GET THE TREATMENT THEY
NEED. BUT WHEN THEY LEAVE, BEING
ABLE TO CONTINUE THAT, THAT
COORDINATED EFFORT TO SUPPORT
THEM, I THINK GIVES THEM THE
BEST CHANCE OF MOVING ON, INTO
HEALTHY NEXT STEP. SO WITH THAT,
I WOULD ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE
A MOTION ON THIS BILL? A MOTION
AND A SECOND, MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER ONE, AB 1788 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA. THE MOTION
IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE BY
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. KHN. AYE.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE BRIAN.
DIXON. DIXON. AYE. HOOVER IRWIN.
IRWIN. AYE. LOWENTHAL. ORTEGA
ORTEGA. AYE. WARD. WICKS WICKS.
AYE. WILSON. THAT BILL HAS SIX
VOTES SOS OUT. BUT WE WILL LEAVE
THE ROLL OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MEMBERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR? VÀ. WE
HAVE A MOTION TO. WE HAVE A
SECOND ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
SECOND. SO THERE ARE TWO TWO
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AB
2006 52 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
MURATSUCHI. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR AND AB
2885 BAUER-KAHAN WITH A MOTION
TO Dð. PASS THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSENT. CALENDAR. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL OKAY CONSENT
CALENDAR. BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN AYE. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. AYE. BRIAN. DIXON.
DIXON. AYE HOOVER. IRWIN. IRWIN.
AYE. LOWENTHAL ORTEGA. ORTEGA.
AYE. WARD WICKS. WICKS. AYE.
WILSON THE CONSENT CALENDAR HAS
SIX VOTES. IT IS OUT, BUT WE
WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS, WITH THAT, WE
WILL. WE HAVE NO AUTHORS HERE
BESIDES COMMITTEE MEMBERS. SO
AUTHORS IN THE ETHER THAT ARE
LISTENING, YOU MIGHT WANT TO
HEAD OVER, BUT WE WILL MOVE ON
TO MISS WICKS BECAUSE SHE IS
HERE, PREPARED AND READY. SO WE
WILL TAKE UP AB 3211.
OKAY. OKAY. I THINK I HAVE MY
WITNESSES HERE. I BELIEVE MY
STAFF IS GETTING THEM OUT OF THE
HALLWAY, BUT I'LL BEGIN AND I
BELIEVE THEY WILL ARRIVE OKAY.
GREETINGS, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
I WANT TO THANK COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
AND PARTNERSHIP IN REWORKING AB
3211. AND I KNOW WE HAVE A CHAIR
WHO'S DEEPLY COMMITTED TO THESE
ISSUES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK, MADAM CHAIR. WE GLADLY
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
LISTED IN TODAY'S ANALYSIS. AS
ALL OF YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY, I
DO TECH LEGISLATION TO PROTECT
OUR CHILDREN, MY GROWING GIRLS.
AND AT ISSUE TODAY IS THE BASIS
OF THEIR REALITY AND SAFETY.
COMMITTEE STAFF FRAMED IT WELL.
IMAGE MANIPULATION AND VIDEO
DOCTORING HAVE EXISTED FOR
NEARLY AS LONG AS PHOTOGRAPHY
AND RECORDING EQUIPMENT, BUT
THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY REQUIRED
GREAT EFFORT AND TALENT.
GENERATIVE AI, OR CHEN AI HAS
CHANGED THAT. OUR ABILITY TO
UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL
FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR SOCIETY AND
ENSURE BASIC SAFETY. UNDRESSING
APPS ARE RAMPANT. THESE
APPLICATIONS ALLOW A USER TO
CREATE NON CONSENSUAL IMAGES.
INTIMATE IMAGES ALSO KNOWN AS
DEEPFAKE. CREATING CONVINCING
DEEPFAKES TAKES LESS THAN 20
MINUTES AND COSTS ONLY A DOLLAR.
WOMEN AND GIRLS IN PARTICULAR
ARE VULNERABLE TO THIS HARM, AND
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN IN
CALIFORNIA'S HIGH SCHOOLS AND
MIDDLE SCHOOLS. TECHNOLOGY IS
EVOLVING RAPIDLY, AND ACCORDING
TO INVESTIGATIVE WORK OF THE NEW
YORK TIMES, THE MODELS ARE
UPDATED SO FREQUENTLY THAT A
CHATBOT THAT STRUGGLES WITH A
TASK ONE DAY MIGHT MYSTERIOUSLY
EXCEL AT IT, THE NEXT. GOOGLE
HAS BEEN PUBLIC THAT THEIR SYNTH
ID WATERMARKING TECHNOLOGY IS IN
BETA TESTING. ACADEMICS ARE
MAKING STRIDES IN META, META AND
META DATA, AND STENOGRAPHY, AND
COMPANIES HAVE MADE MADE
COMMITMENTS TO THIS
ADMINISTRATION AT THE WHITE
HOUSE AND INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS MAKING BODIES. BUT WE
AS POLICYMAKERS, NEED TO INFORM
THE PACE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND
THE EXPECTATIONS FOR PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE. THIS BILL IS A BROAD
FRAMEWORK TO LEGALLY REQUIRE
COMPANIES TO TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTING OUR
INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT, OUR
CHILDREN, AND OUR DEMOCRACY. THE
ISSUE OF GENERATIVE AI PRODUCED
CONTENT CAN BE TACKLED THROUGH A
THREE STEP PLAN THAT WAS
OUTLINED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. FIRST, ALL ARTIFICIAL
CONTENT MUST BE LABELED AS SUCH.
SECOND, ALL REAL CONTENT SUCH AS
VIDEO AND AUDIO, AUDIO
RECORDINGS MUST BE LABELED AS
SUCH. THIRD, THE LARGE ONLINE
PLATFORMS MUST BE REQUIRED TO
PROTECT PROMINENTLY DISPLAY
THESE LABELS, ALLOWING USERS TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ARTIFICIAL
AND REAL CONTENT AS THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS STATED, THE
BILL SEEKS TO ENACT THE PLAN
DESCRIBED ABOVE. IT WOULD ONE
REQUIRE THE PROVIDERS OF CHEN AI
SYSTEMS TO ENABLE WATERMARKING,
DETAILING CONTENT PROVENANCE
INTO ALL CHEN CHEN AI OUTPUTS.
SECONDLY, DIGITAL CAMERAS AND
OTHER RECORDING DEVICES TO OFFER
USERS THE OPTION TO EMBED WATER
MARKINGS INTO OUTPUTS. AND
LASTLY, SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
TO PROMINENTLY DISPLAY THE
LABELS THAT CONTAIN THE
PROVENANCE INFORMATION OF REAL
AND CHEN AI PRODUCED CONTENT. I
BELIEVE I HAVE FOLKS TESTIFYING,
THEY SHOULD BE COMING. I DO HAVE
TWO PEOPLE TESTIFYING, MAYBE WE
CAN MOVE ON TO OPPOSITION, AND
WE WILL GIVE THEM THEIR TIME. I
KNOW WE WENT A LITTLE BIT OUT OF
ORDER, SO YES, THEY MIGHT HAVE
NOT BEEN HERE. SO KEN WANG WITH
LEGAL COUNSEL WAS CITED. WILL BE
HERE, WHO'S THE SPONSOR OF THE
BILL? AND DAVID EVAN HARRIS,
FORMERLY OF META AND CURRENTLY
OF THE CHANCELLOR'S PUBLIC
SCHOOL, SORRY. CHANCELLOR'S
PUBLIC SCHOLARS AT UC BERKELEY
WILL BE HERE AS WELL, BUT WE CAN
MOVE ON TO. YEAH. SO WE CAN GO
TO OPPOSITION. WE WILL COME BACK
AND GIVE THEM THEIR TIME WHEN
THEY'RE HERE. SO OPPOSITION,
PLEASE JOIN US. WE'LL GO A
LITTLE OUT OF ORDER. SO THERE'S
TWO. WE'LL DO TWO MINUTES EACH
FOR BOTH SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
OKAY. WHEN YOU'RE READY. GOOD
AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
KARA BUNDER, TESTIFYING ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB 3211. CCI IS AN
INTERNATIONAL, NOT FOR PROFIT
TRADE ASSOCIATION WITH ABOUT TWO
DOZEN MEMBERS FROM A RANGE OF
COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
FIRMS. WHILE WE UNDERSTAND
LAWMAKERS INTEREST IN MITIGATING
POTENTIAL HARMS ASSOCIATED WITH
AI GENERATED SYNTHETIC CONTENT
AS WRITTEN, THE BILL RAISES
SEVERAL CONCERNS. WE ARE STILL
WORKING THROUGH REVIEWING THE
RECENT PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND LOOK FORWARD TO
PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK AS
NEEDED. THE BILL'S PRESCRIPTIVE
REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY
BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT TECHNICAL
LIMITATIONS FOR WATERMARKING AND
DIGITAL PROVENANCE TECHNOLOGIES,
IS PROBLEMATIC. MANY OF OUR
MEMBERS ARE WORKING TO IMPLEMENT
TOOLS TO BETTER DETECT AND LABEL
AI GENERATED CONTENT, BUT THE
TOOLS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE ARE NOT ALWAYS
RELIABLE OR ACCURATE. AND WHILE
SUCH TECHNOLOGY IS EVOLVING, SO
ARE THE MEANS FOR BAD ACTORS TO
EVADE SUCH DETECTION. FURTHER,
THE BILL RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOW TO EFFECTIVELY WATERMARK AI
GENERATED TEXT OR VOICE
RESPONSES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
ASKED A QUESTION AND PROVIDED A
WRITTEN RESPONSE, A LARGE
LANGUAGE MODEL IS UNABLE TO
WATERMARK AI GENERATED TEXT AND
COMMONLY USED VOICE ASSISTANTS,
SUCH AS ON MOBILE PHONES AND
SMART HOME DEVICES, PRODUCE AI
GENERATED VOICE RESPONSES, BUT
WE CANNOT WATERMARK THOSE VOICE
RESPONSES EITHER. IN THE EVER
CHANGING AI LANDSCAPE, WE
SUGGEST THAT THE BILL BE
TARGETED TO HIGH RISK CASES. FOR
INSTANCE, RESPONSIBLE DIGITAL
SERVICES ARE PROACTIVELY
IMPLEMENTING SAFEGUARDS TO
SWIFTLY REMOVE ILLEGAL OR
DANGEROUS CONTENT, LIKE AI
GENERATED IMAGES DEPICTING CSAM.
BY PERSISTENTLY ADDRESSING THESE
WELL DEFINED AND AGREED UPON
RISKS, PLATFORMS FOSTER AN
ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE TO HARM
MITIGATION WITHOUT IMPEDING THE
INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM. LIMITING
PROVENANCE AND WATERMARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH RISK
APPLICATIONS ALSO HELPS GUARD
AGAINST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. THERE
ARE RISKS OF NOTIFICATION
FATIGUE OR BANNER BLINDNESS.
THIS HAS BEEN PREVALENT WITH
WEBSITE OPERATORS ATTEMPTS TO
COMPLY WITH THE EU'S WEBSITE
COOKIE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS,
WHICH SHOWED THAT OVERLY BROAD
DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS COULD BE
HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE. WHILE
PROVIDING LIMITED CONSUMER
SAFETY BENEFITS. ON BEHALF OF
CTIA, I APPRECIATE YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THESE COMMENTS
AND THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
THANK YOU. WE'LL FINISH
OPPOSITION AND GO TO SPORT.
OKAY, PERFECT. OKAY THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JASON
SCHMELZER WITH CHAU AND TÔI,
SCHMELZER AND LANG. AND TODAY I
WILL BE, DOING MY BEST DYLAN
HOFFMAN IMPRESSION ON BEHALF OF
TECHNET, WE ARE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO AB 3211. WHILE WE
AGREE THAT THE INTENT OF AB 3211
TO CREATE GREATER TRUST IS A
GOOD ONE, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
MANY ASPECTS OF THE BILL. WE'RE
STILL REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS,
BUT BELIEVE THERE ARE STILL A
NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
RESOLVED. BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND
POTENTIALLY PROVIDING AMENDMENTS
THAT HELP US OUT IN THIS
SITUATION, HOWEVER, AS THE BILL
IS IN PRINT, IT PRESENTS
MULTIPLE PROBLEMS THAT REQUIRE
PLATFORMS TO COMPLY WITH THE
TECHNOLOGICALLY INFEASIBLE AND
IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS. FIRST,
WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
DESIRE TO REGULATE AND FIRST OF
ALL, WE UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO
REGULATE AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY,
THIS IS AN AREA THAT WOULD
BENEFIT FROM FEDERAL STANDARDS
AND REGULATION RATHER THAN A
STATE BY STATE APPROACH. MANY OF
OUR COMPANIES AND PLATFORMS ARE
AT THE FOREFRONT OF DEVELOPING
CONTENT PROVENANCE AND
WATERMARKING TECHNOLOGY, WHICH
IS STILL IN ITS EARLY STAGES. AS
A GENERAL NOTE, CONTENT
PROVENANCE AND WATERMARKING IS
INCREDIBLY UNRELIABLE AND IN
MANY CASES EASY TO BREAK.
RESEARCHERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND WERE ABLE TO BREAK ALL
OF THE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
WATERMARKING METHODS. SOME CAN
BE. SOME CAN BE AVOIDED BY
SIMPLE CROPPING, RESIZING, OR
SCREENSHOTTING OF AN IMAGE. MORE
CONCERNING, THE RESEARCHERS WERE
ABLE WERE ABLE TO INSERT FAKE
WATERMARKS AND CREDENTIALS INTO
IMAGES, CREATING FALSE
POSITIVES. ANY BILL ON THIS
TOPIC SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR THIS
UNRELIABILITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN
CONSIDERING THE OVERLY PUNITIVE
FINE STRUCTURE WITHIN THE BILL.
IF LAWS EXCEED THE INDUSTRY'S
TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITIES,
CONSUMERS MIGHT PLACE TOO MUCH
TRUST AND CREDENCE IN
WATERMARKS, MAKING THEM MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BAD ACTORS
ATTEMPTS TO DECEIVE. AS IT
RELATES TO THIS BILL, 8380 AB
3211 ENACTS REQUIREMENTS FOR A
TECHNOLOGY THAT IS STILL UNDER
DEVELOPMENT AND IS RAPIDLY
EVOLVING. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE
ISN'T A SYSTEM THAT CAN BREAK A,
ISN'T A SYSTEM THAT CAN BREAK A
WATERMARK TEXT MAKING THE BILL'S
REQUIREMENTS TO DO SO IMPOSSIBLE
TO COMPLY WITH. FURTHERMORE IN
ITS STANDARDS FOR LARGE ONLINE
PLATFORMS, AB 3211 SHOULD MORE
CLEARLY DELINEATE BETWEEN FIRST
AND THIRD PARTY CONTENT. FIRST
PARTY CONTENT WOULD BE IMAGES,
VIDEOS OR AUDIO THAT IS
GENERATED USING A COVERED
PROVIDER'S GENERATIVE AI, OR
TOOLS, AND THEN IS POSTED FOR
DISTRIBUTION. DISTRIBUTION WOULD
WANT ME TO TELL YOU YOU'RE OVER
YOUR TIME, THANK YOU. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE'RE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED AT THIS TIME, BUT LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR IN THE COMING DAYS. THANK
YOU. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO
SUPPORT, AND THEN I'LL CALL BOTH
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION TO THE
MIC. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO THIS
ALL OUT OF ORDER. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. GO FIRST. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS, AND
APOLOGIES FOR OUR TARDINESS, MY
NAME IS KEN WANG, AND I'M
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND
DEMOCRACY, OR SIGHTED FOR SHORT.
WE'RE PROUD TO SPONSOR AB 3211,
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE WATERMARKING
AND PROVENANCE DATA FOR CONTENT
GENERATED BY GENERATIVE AI
SYSTEMS CITED, WHICH IS THE
NEWEST PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
COMMON CAUSE, CAME TOGETHER TO
SEEK STATE LEVEL SOLUTIONS TO
THE THREATS THAT DISINFORMATION,
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE,
DEEPFAKES AND OTHER EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES POSED TO OUR
DEMOCRACY AND OUR ELECTIONS. WE
APPROACHED THESE ISSUES THROUGH
A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH,
ADVISED BY LEADERS FROM CIVIL
RIGHTS AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, LAW
AND PUBLIC POLICY, INDUSTRY AND
TECH, AND MORE. TO THAT END,
SIGHTED IS PROUD TO SPONSOR AB
3211, WHICH WOULD ADD AN
IMPORTANT TOOL TO OUR ARSENAL TO
HELP STEM THE TIDE OF AI
GENERATED DISINFORMATION. THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS DETAILS
SEVERAL DISTURBING EXAMPLES FOR
HOW GENERATIVE AI IS CURRENTLY
BEING USED TO CREATE
NON-CONSENSUAL, NON-CONSENSUAL
INTIMATE IMAGERY. PERPETUA
FINANCIAL SCAMS AND SWING CLOSE
ELECTIONS GIVEN THE SCALE OF THE
CHALLENGE BEFORE US, VARIOUS
EFFORTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
INITIATED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
U.S NEW AI ACT IS LEADING THE
WAY BY REQUIRING COMPANIES TO
DEVELOP CONTENT, AUTHENTICATION
AND PROVENANCE MECHANISMS TO
TACKLE AI GENERATED
DISINFORMATION. BUT DOMESTIC
WORK EFFORTS HAVE BEEN FAR
WEAKER. FEDERAL ACTION HAS BEEN
LIMITED TO THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION'S EXECUTIVE ORDER
ON AI, WHICH TASKED THE COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP GUIDANCE
FOR CONTENT AUTHENTICATION AND
VARIOUS TECH FIRMS HAVE ALSO
COMMITTED TO VOLUNTARY EFFORTS
TO ESTABLISH INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
CITED BELIEVES THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS THE OPPORTUNITY AS THE HOME
OF SILICON VALLEY AND THE
HEARTLAND OF AI INNOVATION, TO
LEAD THE US'S RESPONSE TO THESE
THREATS. AB 3211 REPRESENTS THE
IMPORTANT FIRST STEP FOR OUR
STATE TO SHAPE THE SOLUTION. SO
LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE AND FOR THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR YOUR HARD
WORK ON THE AMENDMENTS. WITH
THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO ITS
TECHNICAL ADVISOR, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT'S
AN HONOR TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK
WITH YOU TODAY AND TO CONVEY MY
STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 3211, THE
CALIFORNIA PROVENANCE,
AUTHENTICITY AND WATERMARKING
STANDARDS. MY NAME IS DAVID
HARRIS, AND I'M HERE IN MY
CAPACITY AS A SENIOR POLICY
ADVISOR TO CITED. I AM ALSO A
CHANCELLOR'S PUBLIC SCHOLAR AT
UC BERKELEY, A SENIOR ADVISOR
FOR AI AND ELECTIONS TO THE
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT
NYU. I HAVE ADVISED THE WHITE
HOUSE, THE EUROPEAN UNION, AND
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS ABOUT
AI POLICY, AND I ALSO CURRENTLY
SIT ON A TASK FORCE AT NATO ON
AI AND DISINFORMATION. AI IS A
POWERFUL TOOL THAT CAN BRING
BENEFITS TO SO MANY PEOPLE, BUT
IT ALSO, IF NOT COVERED
JUDICIOUSLY, HAS THE POWER TO
CAUSE GREAT HARM. I PREVIOUSLY
WORKED AT FACEBOOK AND META AS A
RESEARCH MANAGER ON THE CIVIC
INTEGRITY AND RESPONSIBLE AI
TEAMS, WHERE I CAREFULLY STUDIED
SO MANY OF THE HARMS THAT AI CAN
BRING. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD
ABOUT THE HARMS OF AI GENERATED
NON-CONSENSUAL INTIMATE IMAGERY
AND CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE MATERIAL
THAT CAN BE PRODUCED BY AI,
MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS CAN
ALSO BE SUPERCHARGED BY AI.
WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE
CAMPAIGNS FROM THE 2016 EFFORTS
BY RUSSIA TO INTERFERE IN OUR
ELECTIONS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY HAS ALREADY WARNED US
THAT CHINA, RUSSIA AND IRAN ARE
LIKELY TO USE GENERATIVE AI TO
TARGET OUR ELECTIONS. WATERMARKS
IS THE BEST AVAILABLE TOOL WE
HAVE TO ALLOW US TO IDENTIFY
WHAT CONTENT IS PRODUCED BY AI
AND WHAT CONTENT IS AUTHENTIC.
AB 3211 REQUIRES THAT AI
COMPANIES MAKE GOOD ON THE
PROMISES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY
MADE TO ADD WATERMARKING TO
THEIR AI SYSTEMS. RAIMES. THESE
PROMISES, PROMISES MADE BY MANY
OF THE MEMBERS OF TECHNET AND
NETCHOICE WERE MADE FIRST AT THE
WHITE HOUSE AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
VOLUNTARY AI COMMITMENTS FROM
LAST JULY, AND WERE MADE AGAIN
IN PUBLIC AT THE MUNICH SECURITY
CONFERENCE. AI ELECTIONS ACCORD,
AGAIN SIGNED BY MANY OF THE
MEMBERS OF TECHNET AND
NETCHOICE, WHERE A COMMITMENT
WAS MADE THIS FEBRUARY TO
IMPLEMENT WATERMARKING FEATURES
IN AI SYSTEMS. GIVEN THAT IT'S
ALREADY BEEN NINE MONTHS SINCE
THE WHITE HOUSE I VOLUNTARY
COMMITMENTS WERE MADE AND WE'VE
SEEN LITTLE PROGRESS, I BELIEVE
THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION
THAN TO LEGALLY REQUIRE
COMPANIES TO TAKE ON THIS
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROTECT OUR
INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT, OUR
CHILDREN, AND OUR DEMOCRACY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. NOW, ANYONE
HERE IN SUPPORT THAT WANTS TO
COME UP TO THE MIC AND WEIGH IN
TO SUPPORT FIRST LANG LANG,
CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN
AND STRONG SUPPORT AND FOR
SUPPORTING OPPOSITION, JUST
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
PLEASE THANK YOU, DANIEL PEARL,
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES IN STRONG
SUPPORT. WHEN TO DO IT IS ALWAYS
A QUESTION. TRACY ROSENBERG
OAKLAND PRIVACY. WE ARE SUPPORT
IF AMENDED, AND WE ARE CHECKING
OUT THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. BUT YOU GENERALLY
LOVE OUR AMENDMENTS. GENERALLY
SHANE GUZMAN, ON BEHALF OF
SAG-AFTRA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. OKAY. NOW ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION PLEASE JOIN US. NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. YEAH.
CAMERON DIMITRI WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF NET
CHOICE, WE LIKE TO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH CTIA AND TECHNET.
THANK YOU. HI RON DELORME WITH
CAL CHAMBER. ALSO ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
HERE IN THE ROOM, I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. BUT
BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AND
JUST COMMEND COMMITTEE STAFF ON
THE EXCELLENT WORK ON ALL OF THE
BILLS UP TODAY. THE ANALYZES,
THE AMENDMENTS, ALL OF IT, I
THINK WAS REALLY PHENOMENAL. SO
WITH THAT, MR. NGUYEN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WICKS, I, I KNOW YOU HAVE DONE
YOU'VE TAKEN ON ALL THE BIG
TASKS IN PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN
ON THE INTERNET, AND IT'S IT IS,
REALLY CRITICAL, ESPECIALLY THE
PREVIOUS, PRESENTATION WAS ON
MENTAL HEALTH. AND WE KNOW HOW
THEY ARE LINKED. AND, YOU KNOW,
I DO THINK THAT THAT, WHEN YOU
TALK ABOUT DEEPFAKES OR AI
GENERATED IMAGES, THERE'S A
THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND A THREAT
TO OUR ELECTIONS. AND JUST THAT
AMERICANS DON'T I MEAN, A THREAT
TO OUR CHILDREN, TOO. BUT WHAT
WHAT WE'RE HEARING, I MEAN, I
ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT EVERYTHING
SHOULD HAVE A WATERMARK, BUT
WHAT WE HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITION
IS THAT, IT'S VERY EASY TO FAKE
WATERMARKS AND IT'S, YOU KNOW,
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT QUITE
THERE YET. AND SO I AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, BUT
HOW DO WE GET IT, AMERICANS TO
TRUST WATERMARKS. IF IT'S SO
EASY TO OVERCOME A WATERMARK, I
WOULD ACTUALLY, IF THE CHAIR IS
OKAY, MY WITNESSES TO ANSWER
BECAUSE OF THEIR TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE. YEAH. PLEASE. DAVID
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S AN
EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND THAT'S
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE
APPROACH OF AB 3211 REQUIRE
THESE WATERMARKS TO BE INSERTED,
NOT ONLY IN SYNTHETIC CONTENT
CREATED BY GENERATIVE AI SYSTEMS
, BUT ALSO IN CONTENT THAT IS
AUTHENTIC, THAT IS CREATED BY
THE CAMERA IN THE IPAD SITTING
RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, OR BY
YOUR PHONE, OR BY ANY RECORDING
DEVICE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE ATTACK THE PROBLEM OF AI
GENERATED CONTENT THAT COULD BE
USED IN ABUSIVE WAYS FROM BOTH
SIDES, BOTH ENSURING THAT WE CAN
IDENTIFY CLEARLY AND EASILY WHAT
IS REAL AND WHAT IS FAKE. THERE
IS NO CURRENTLY PERFECT SOLUTION
FOR AI WATERMARKING THAT MAKES
IT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO
CIRCUMVENT, BUT THIS IS A CASE
WHERE WE SHOULD NOT LET THE
PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE
GOOD, AND WE SHOULD BE VERY
CAREFUL IF, IN LISTENING TO
PEOPLE WHO SAY, OH, IT'S NOT
GOOD ENOUGH. SO WE SHOULD DO
NOTHING AND THE SAME SENSE IF,
IF WE EVER FOUND A SEATBELT THAT
COULD PREVENT EVERY DEATH IN
EVERY AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT.
ACCIDENT? THAT WOULD BE AMAZING.
BUT THAT DOESN'T EXIST. DOES
THAT MEAN WE SHOULD ELIMINATE
LAWS REQUIRING SEAT BELTS IN
CARS? I DON'T THINK SO. JUST
BECAUSE A SOLUTION IS NOT A
SILVER BULLET TO EVERY SINGLE
PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH AI DOES
NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD THROW UP
OUR HANDS AND GIVE UP ENTIRELY.
OH NO, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
GIVE GIVE UP ENTIRELY. THAT'S
CERTAINLY NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
AND I KNOW THAT THIS BILL WILL
CONTINUE TO MOVE ALONG. BUT THE
QUESTION IS, IF INITIALLY YOU
HAVE A, I DON'T KNOW, 50, TRUSTS
THAT AMERICANS CAN HAVE OR
CALIFORNIANS 50% TRUSTS THAT
THAT SOMETHING IS AUTHENTIC,
THAT IS PROBLEMATIC FOR LATER
ON. THEY MIGHT NEVER BELIEVE
ANYTHING THAT THEY SEE, IF
THAT'S KIND OF THEIR FIRST
INTRODUCTION TO WATERMARKS.
YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY A VALID
CONCERN. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPANIES
THAT HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED
VIABLE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE
MARKETING AND TALKING ABOUT THEM
PUBLICLY. ONE OF THOSE SOLUTIONS
IS FROM GOOGLE AND IT'S CALLED
SYNTH ID. GOOGLE IS A MEMBER OF
AN ASSOCIATION, THE COALITION
FOR CONTENT, PROVENANCE AND
AUTHENTICITY, THAT HAS MANY OF
THE MAJOR COMPANIES ALSO THAT
ARE MEMBERS OF THE GROUPS
REPRESENTED HERE TODAY. AND
GOOGLE HAS COMMITTED TO LEADING
THAT INITIATIVE TOWARDS
DEPLOYING WATERMARKS. THE
PROBLEM IS, THEY AND MANY OF
THESE OTHER COMPANIES HAVE BEEN
NOW COMMITTING TO DO THIS FOR
NINE PLUS MONTHS. AND WE HAVE TO
ASK, HOW LONG DO WE WAIT? AND
THERE'S ALSO A PROBLEM WITH
WAITING TO REQUIRE IT THAT THAT
ACTUALLY BENEFITS THE COMPANIES
THAT ARE NOT TAKING INITIATIVE.
AND IT PUNISHES THE COMPANIES
LIKE GOOGLE, LIKE ADOBE, LIKE
MICROSOFT, THAT ARE MOVING
FORWARD THROUGH THIS COALITION
FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND
AUTHENTICITY, TAKING INITIATIVE,
PUTTING OUT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS.
BUT THEY'RE GETTING PUNISHED
BECAUSE WHEN THE OTHERS DON'T GO
ALONG, IT IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T
WORK. AND THAT'S WHY THE CEOS OF
THESE COMPANIES ARE CALLING FOR
REGULATION. THEY ARE BEGGING FOR
REGULATION. SO THE SO IF YOU SAY
GOOGLE IS AT THE FOREFRONT, HOW,
HOW MUCH CAN WE TRUST THEIR
WATERMARKS. YEAH. THE
UNFORTUNATE THING IS THAT WE
DON'T HAVE A LAW IN PLACE YET
THAT REQUIRES A COMPANY THAT
DEPLOYS WATERMARKS TO ALLOW
RESEARCHERS TO STUDY THEM AND
SCRUTINIZE THEM. THAT IS ONE OF
THE ONE OF THE ONE OF THE ITEMS
IN AB 3211 IS THAT IT REQUIRES
COMPANIES THAT DO IMPLEMENT
WATERMARKS TO SUBMIT THEM TO RED
TEAMING, WHICH IS AN ADVERSARIAL
METHOD OF TESTING WHERE PEOPLE
FROM OUTSIDE TRY TO BREAK THEIR
WATERMARKS AND SEE IF THEY CAN
BREAK THEM, AND THEN THEY
IMPROVE THE TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S
WHY WE'VE REALLY DESIGNED THIS
BILL TO BE SOMETHING THAT MAKES
THESE TECHNOLOGIES IMPROVE OVER
TIME AND GIVES THEM SPACE TO
FLOURISH. AND I 100% AGREE THAT
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
AUTHENTICATE, CONTENT. I'M JUST
I'M JUST CONCERNED RIGHT NOW
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT
THERE. AND SO BUT BUT OBVIOUSLY
WE NEED COMPANIES TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY AND DEVELOP AS,
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. SO YEAH,
I GET THAT THE I GUESS THE ONE
THING OH, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST
GOING TO SAY NO, I APPRECIATE
THAT. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE
TRYING TO THINK, IN A CERTAIN
WAY, CREATE A REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK AND GET AHEAD OF SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE,
RIGHT, THAT WE'RE ALREADY
SEEING. I MEAN, YOU'RE READING
ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW IN THE PAPER
OF, AS MENTIONED IN MIDDLE
SCHOOLS AND HIGH SCHOOLS, THE
NON-CONSENSUAL IMAGERY THAT'S
BEING CREATED VERY READILY AND
QUICKLY AND EASILY. SO SOME OF
THIS STUFF IS HAPPENING
OBVIOUSLY IN REAL TIME. WE ALSO
HAVE A LONG LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
RIGHT. AND THERE'S TIME AND I
GENUINELY THINK FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, HAVING THE INPUT OF
THE COMPANIES IS ABSOLUTELY
CRITICAL, WHICH IS WHY I SHARED
LANGUAGE WITH MANY OF THEM
BEFORE THE BILL WAS EVEN
INTRODUCED. I WANT THEM TO BE
THOUGHT PARTNERS. I WANT TO WORK
WITH OPPOSITION TO MAKE SURE WE
CAN DO THIS IN A WAY THAT'S
IMPLEMENTABLE. AND IF THAT MEANS
LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTATION DATES
OR OTHER THINGS THAT GIVE US
SORT OF RUNWAY TO HELP KIND OF
THINK THIS STUFF THROUGH. I'M
VERY OPEN TO PUTTING ALL THOSE
THINGS ON THE TABLE. AND THE
LAST THING I'LL SAY, MISS ERWIN,
IS YOU'RE ONE OF THE, LIKE,
THOUGHT LEADERS IN THE TECH
SPACE. I'D WELCOME YOU IN THAT,
GIVEN YOUR EXPERTISE, IF YOU
WANT TO HELP ME WITH THAT AND
WORK ON THAT TOGETHER. NO, I
APPRECIATE THAT. AND I KNOW YOU
ALWAYS WORK WITH ALL
STAKEHOLDERS, SO THIS IS
DEFINITELY NOT CRITICISM OF
THAT. IT'S JUST KIND OF THIS
WEIGHING OF HOW DO WE GET THERE.
YEAH. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. WARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL. I
KNOW IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS, PRIOR TO THIS
YEAR AS WELL, HOW DEEPLY YOU'VE
BEEN STUDYING, HOW TO GET AHEAD
OF THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF,
WHAT WHAT COULD HAPPEN? I THINK
WE SHARE ALL OF THOSE GOALS AS
WELL, TOO. AND I GUESS ALIGNING
WITH BUT MAYBE ALSO, TRYING TO
SIMPLIFY FROM FROM MY MIND, SOME
OF MY COLLEAGUES COMMENTS AS
WELL. SO THE, THE, THE, THE
WATERMARK TECHNOLOGY AND WHILE
IT'S NOT WHOLLY WORKED OUT YET,
BUT YET WE'RE TRYING TO DEFINE
IT AND REGULATE IT RIGHT NOW,
LIKE, CAN YOU WHAT WHAT IN YOUR
WORDS IS, IS A WATERMARK. SURE.
I MEAN, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
IT'S, A SYSTEM THAT CAN EMBED
INVISIBLE INFORMATION TO ENSURE
YOU CAN IDENTIFY WHAT, WHAT
YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT. AND
THERE'S MULTIPLE METHODS OF
WATER MAKING AND DIGITAL MEDIA,
BOTH THE SYNTHETIC AND THE
AUTHENTIC. AND IT'S NOT A NEW
TECHNOLOGY. RIGHT, YOU KNOW,
MANY WATERMARKING TECHNIQUES,
USED TODAY ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE
ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED FOR THE
DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT. THE
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED, IMPLEMENTED
10 TO 20 YEARS AGO TO STOP
ONLINE PIRACY OF MUSIC AND OTHER
THINGS OF THAT NATURE. OKAY,
IT'S JUST MORE IT'S OBVIOUSLY
NEEDS TO BE MORE ADVANCED NOW,
BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE WAY I
THINK ABOUT IT IN ITS MOST
SIMPLEST TERMS, IS CREATING,
LIKE BREADCRUMB TRAILS
THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. OKAY SO
WE KNOW WHEN WE CAN SEE IF WHEN
IMAGES HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED.
AND SO YOU KNOW, WHO'S WHO, THE
ORIGIN OF IT. AND YOU'RE ABLE TO
SORT OF OKAY, AND IF WE COULD
ASK, THERE'S AUDIO THAT'S
LOOPING BACK HERE. SO WE'RE
GETTING KIND OF AN ECHO. THERE
IS THE TV, THE TV OUTSIDE IS
VERY LOUD. I KNOW, I FEEL LIKE
I'M IN CONCERT. YES. ALTHOUGH
IT'S FUNNY, I THINK YOU'RE
ACTUALLY LOUDER IN THE HALLWAY
THAN IN THE ROOM. I KNOW NO ONE
WANTS ME IN CONCERT. YEAH, AND
SO WE'RE STILL IMPROVING UPON
WHAT THIS IS. AND HOW TO DEFINE
IT, AND THEREFORE HOW WE SHOULD
RESPONSIBLY ADDRESS OR REGULATE,
BUT WHAT TALK TO ME ABOUT THE
EUROPEAN UNION STORY. RIGHT.
BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT THIS
ISN'T ALREADY, HAPPENING YET, I
GUESS BACK TO OPPOSITIONS
POINTS, THAT WE'RE PUTTING THE
CART BEFORE THE HORSE, I GUESS,
BUT WE SEEM TO BE LOOKING
TOWARDS SOME SUCCESS STORIES,
SOME THAT, THAT THAT ARE MODELED
ON, WELL, THAT ARE, THAT ARE
FOUND ON, I THINK A LOT OF DEEP
THOUGHT THAT, THAT A LOT OF
THOSE POLICY MAKERS HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO PUT INTO IT. AND I, WILL
BE THE FIRST TO SAY ON THIS DÍAS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THE REASON WHY
CALIFORNIA IS LEADING ON THIS IS
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET FEDERAL
LEGISLATION THROUGH, AND WE NEED
TO BE ABLE TO SET THAT BAR. THAT
IS WHY I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT
THAT SHE'S THAT WE'RE WORKING ON
THIS. BUT TALK ABOUT THE EU'S
MAYBE EVOLUCIONA. AND MR. HARRIS
ACTUALLY ADVISED THE EU PROCESS.
AND SO I THINK HAS A PRETTY
INTIMATE EXPERIENCE OF HOW THOSE
REGULATIONS WERE PUT TOGETHER.
AND I WOULD, WITH THE CHAIR'S
PERMISSION, DEFER TO HIM. YES,
PLEASE. THANK YOU, THIS IS A
WONDERFUL QUESTIONS AND I WANT
TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT. I'VE
VISITED BRUSSELS TWICE IN THE
LAST EIGHT MONTHS TO SPEAK WITH
THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE IN
THE DRAFTING AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE EU'S AI ACT. THAT ACT IS
IN THE VERY, VERY FINAL STAGES
OF BEING APPROVED. THE ACT DOES
REQUIRE WATERMARKING OF AI
GENERATED CONTENT THE WAY THE
EUROPEAN UNION WORKS IS THAT
THERE IS AN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
THAT WILL TAKE PLACE DURING THE
ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
APPROVAL BY THE EUROPEAN UNION'S
COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, WHICH IS
EXPECTED TO HAPPEN IN THE COMING
WEEKS. DURING THAT ONE YEAR
PERIOD, THERE WILL BE A PROCESS
THAT IS REFERRED TO AS
CO-REGULATION, WHERE GROUPS OF
COMPANIES WILL ACTUALLY BE
CONVENED ALONGSIDE A EUROPEAN
STANDARDS BODY CALLED CEN
CENELEC THAT WILL EVENTUALLY
OAN A STANDARD THAT IS USED TO,
CREATE THE PRESUMPTION OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EU. AI ACT.
AND WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN, AS THE
SPONSOR OF THIS BILL, CITED AS
BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH, WITH
THAT TEAM AND, AND HAD
CONVERSATIONS TO REALLY
UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION THEY'RE
GOING. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS
BILL PASSES IS THAT WE WOULD
HAVE TWO PARALLEL PROCESSES OF
IMPLEMENTATION THAT WOULD BE
ROUGHLY ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER,
BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND THE
EUROPEAN UNION, WHERE UP UNTIL
THE MOMENT WHEN THEY ARE
REQUIRED FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION
AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE GREAT
OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE AND
LEARN FROM WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY
LEARNED BY PASSING THE
REQUIREMENT AHEAD OF US. BUT IN
SOME WAYS, CALIFORNIA WOULD HAVE
THE ABILITY TO JUMP AHEAD BY
PASSING THIS BILL DEPENDING ON
THE FINAL TIMELINE PASSING,
JUMPING AHEAD, BUT ALSO SORT OF
MEETING EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS AS
WELL, WHICH I WOULD ALSO ARGUE
FOR CONTENT THAT'S CREATED FOR
INFORMATION THAT IS SHARED ON A
WORLD WIDE WEB THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE COULD PROBABLY BE IN PARITY
TO PROTECT OUR OUR USERS HERE IN
THIS STATE. YEAH. AND WITH THE
CHAIR'S PERMISSION, YOU GOT THE
GAVEL, JOE. GREAT. MR.
PATTERSON'S GOT THE GAVEL, I
THINK THE OTHER THING THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT WE DO
HAVE CONFORMITY. I THINK, YOU
KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE VARIOUS
STATES CONSIDERING DIFFERENT
THINGS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
EUROPEAN UNION, THERE'S A LOT
OUT THERE AND AS MUCH CONFORMITY
AS WE CAN GIVE AROUND
DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS, I
THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE
CONSUMER. I THINK IT'S BETTER
FOR THE COMPANIES. I THINK IT'S
BETTER FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AND
SO THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ME AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS
PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT
WE'RE WORKING AND MINDFUL OF ALL
THE OTHER REGULATORY ENTITIES
THAT ARE OUT THERE TO TRY. ON
ONE HAND, LIKE I'M, I'M I'M
SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONCERNS THAT
WE DON'T HAVE THAT DEFINITION
YET OR WE'RE STILL WORKING ON
THINGS. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT
TO GET AHEAD OF THAT AND PREDICT
THAT. BUT IT'S ALSO HAPPENING
OVER HERE IN THIS SPACE. AND IF
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CONFORM TO
THAT, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT
HOPEFULLY AS THE YEAR MOVES
FORWARD, THAT, THAT, THAT
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATION CAN
CAN BE WORKED OUT? WHAT DO YOU
HAVE CONCERNS WITH WITH WHERE
THIS IS GOING GLOBALLY? I'M
HAPPY TO CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT
ON THIS, AND I HAVE TO SAY AS,
THE FACT THAT I WORK IN THE
STATE CAPACITY, I DO HAVE
COUNTERPARTS AT CTIA WHO ARE
BASED IN BRUSSELS AND HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION THERE. SO I'D BE
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH MORE OF
THE SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT THEY
HAVE WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S GOING
ON ACROSS THE POND, SO TO SAY,
BUT I DO KNOW THAT IN SPEAKING
WITH SOME OF MY OTHER
COUNTERPARTS THAT, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS SOME SENTIMENT THAT
BECAUSE AS TO THE OTHER
WITNESSES POINT, THAT THIS IS
NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY
BEING IMPLEMENTED, IT'S KIND OF
TOO SOON TO SAY WHAT THE OTHER
BROADER IMPACTS OF THIS ARE
GOING TO BE YET. SO VÌ
POTENTIALLY GOING DOWN THAT SAME
ROUTE. THERE'S STILL A LOT OF
UNKNOWNS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
LIMITATIONS, FAIR. THANK YOU.
THE LAST OBSERVATION THAT, YOU
KNOW, I WANT TO THREAD INTO ALL
OF THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE
WE ARE WE TRYING TO YOU KNOW,
CREATE A LAW THAT IS, GOING
AFTER, YOU KNOW, THE IMAGE
ITSELF, THE ACTUAL CONTENT, OR
ARE WE GOING OVER THE TRYING TO
DO SOMETHING TO BE PREVENT A
NEGATIVE ACTION? RIGHT. IS IT
THE THING OR IS IT THE ACTION?
AND FOR ME IT'S ABOUT MORE SO WE
WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S NO, THERE'S THERE
IS NO ACTIONS THAT ARE OUT THERE
THAT ARE HARMING, OR GOING
AGAINST, ANY OF OUR SOCIETAL
VALUES, OR AS TO THE MONIKER
THAT THE DEEPFAKING RIGHT, AND
SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'M GOING TO
BE LOOKING FORWARD. IS THIS BILL
DOES KIND OF MOVE FORWARD
BECAUSE MAYBE, YOU KNOW, 99% OF
THE CONTENT THAT'S OUT THERE,
FOR ENTERTAINMENT OR FOR OTHER
PURPOSES IS COMPLETELY FINE AND
IS OBVIOUS. RIGHT? BUT IT'S AN
AND THAT ACTION ALSO COULD TAKE
THE FORM OF SOMEBODY THAT'S
GETTING AROUND THE TECHNOLOGY OF
WATERMARKING OR HAVING A FAKE
WATERMARK ATTACHED TO IT. AND SO
WHAT DO WE WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT
THAT WHEN THEY MEET THE MEET THE
TEST OF YOUR BILL, BY APPLYING A
WATERMARK BUT ARE STILL CREATING
THE HARM. RIGHT. SO THERE'S A
LOT TO THINK THROUGH ON THIS,
WHICH IS SUPER INTERESTING. AND
I WANT TO SEE IT CONTINUE, BUT
THANK YOU FOR HELPING TO TEASE
OUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES. YEAH,
IT, I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S, YOU
KNOW, IT'S A NEWER TECHNOLOGY.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
MANIPULATION THAT EXISTS WITHIN
THESE TYPES OF IMAGING REALLY
CORRODE OUR TRUST IN THE SYSTEM.
I THINK TRUST IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. I ACTUALLY SEE A LOT
OF EXCITING VALUE IN AI, AND I'M
GENUINELY EXCITED THAT IT'S HERE
. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO MEAN
A LOT OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND,
SOLVING PROBLEMS WE HAVEN'T EVEN
FIGURED OUT YET, BUT WE HAVE TO
HAVE TRUST WITH THAT PROCESS,
TOO. AND I THINK THAT'S WHY
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A
SORT OF SURGICAL REGULATION HERE
ON A VERY SPECIFIC PIECE OF AI
THAT'S NARROWLY TAILORED,
BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO HAVE THAT
MANIPULATED CONTENT, I MEAN, ASK
THE YOUNG GIRLS WHO'VE HAD
THESE, YOU KNOW, NON-CONSENSUAL
IMAGERY SHARED AMONGST ALL THEIR
CLASSMATES, RIGHT? OR, YOU KNOW,
ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO HAVE DEEP
FAKES SAYING THINGS THAT THEY
DON'T BELIEVE IN. I THINK YOU'RE
RIGHT. 99% OF THE CONTENT OUT
THERE IS PROBABLY FINE. RIGHT?
BUT THERE'S THAT 1% THAT THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY
GUARD AGAINST HERE, AND AGAIN, I
GENUINELY WELCOME OPPOSITION ON
THIS BECAUSE I'M NOT YOU KNOW,
I'M NOT A TECH. I'M A
POLITICIAN. RIGHT? I NEED THE
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE FROM THE
COMPANIES, FROM THE IN-HOUSE
FOLKS AT THE COMPANIES TO HELP
US THINK THROUGH. HOW DO YOU
ACTUALLY CREATE A BILL THAT CAN
BE IMPLEMENTED IN AN EFFECTIVE
WAY? THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR.
AND THEN WE'LL GO TO MISS DIXON.
GREAT. THANK YOU, JUST A
COMMENT, IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF
DEEPFAKES OUT THERE, OR, YOU
KNOW, CONTENT THAT COULD BE
CREATED, I'M, YOU KNOW, MUCH
MORE CONCERNED RIGHT NOW ABOUT
IT BEING USED FOR, SEXUAL
CONTENT OF MINORS OR JUST, YOU
KNOW, SEXTORTION OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT. OBVIOUSLY DEMOCRACY
IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT
OFTENTIMES PEOPLE CAN KIND OF
FIGURE THAT OUT, AT SOME POINT.
BUT I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT
AND THEN ASK A QUESTION OF THE
AUTHOR. BUT THE COMMENTS MORE TO
THE WITNESS, YOU MENTIONED THAT,
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW,
JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PERFECT
SOLUTION, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T MEAN
WE SHOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD. BUT I
THINK THE CONCERN HERE IS THAT,
IS THAT THE FALSE SENSE OF
SECURITY, YOU KNOW, IF I BUY A
CAR AND, AND I, YOU KNOW, COMES
WITH SEATBELTS AND THEY TELL ME
THE SEAT BELTS ARE GOING TO, YOU
KNOW, CLOSE WHEN THERE'S AN
ACCIDENT, WHETHER OR NOT THAT
ACTUALLY SAVES MY LIFE OR NOT.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LEVEL OF
ASSURANCES AND A LOT OF
REGULATION AROUND KNOWING THAT
THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND I'M
NOT I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE
ENTIRE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT
IF THERE'S AN IMAGE OUT THERE
THAT THAT THAT OTHER TECHNOLOGY,
YOU KNOW, FOREIGN ACTORS OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT AREN'T GOING
TO BE ABLE TO CREATE SOME KIND
OF WATERMARK THAT MAKES IT ALSO
SEEM LIKE IT'S A, YOU KNOW, SAFE
PRODUCT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT,
BUT, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY.
YEAH. MAY I HAVE PERMISSION,
PLEASE? YEAH, YEAH. THANK YOU. I
THINK THAT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE
QUESTION TO BE ASKING. AND I
THINK THAT AS THIS BILL WERE TO
PASS AND BECOME LAW IS
IMPLEMENTED, YOU'LL SEE
DIFFERENT PHASES. AND ONE ONE OF
THE PHASES IS THE PHASE IN
BEFORE MORE PEOPLE HAVE UPDATED
THEIR THEIR PHONES. NOW SOFTWARE
UPDATES ON PHONES ARE ACTUALLY A
VERY INTERESTING PART OF THIS,
RIGHT? I ASSUME YOU SOMETIMES
DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL UPDATES ON
YOUR PHONE. IT'S AUTOMATIC. IT'S
AUTOMATIC. PERFECT RIGHT? THAT'S
BECAUSE COMPUTER SECURITY IS NOT
A SOLVABLE PROBLEM. THIS IS THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT'S DISCUSSED A
LOT IN THE SECURITY COMMUNITY.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU JUST
FINISH. YOU NEVER DO. AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE TO KEEP INSTALLING
THESE UPDATES AND KEEP IMPROVING
THE SOFTWARE. AND THAT'S WHY THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL IS
INTENDED IN MANY WAYS TO BE,
WHAT WE WOULD REFER TO AS
SELF-UPDATING. WE USE TERMS LIKE
STATE OF THE ART TO REQUIRE THAT
THE COMPANIES USE THE BEST
AVAILABLE STANDARDS. AND WE ALSO
HAVE BUILT THIS, EXCUSE ME, THIS
BILL TO FACILITATE AND REQUIRE
THE TYPE OF ADVERSARIAL TESTING
THAT MIMICS THE STATE ACTORS
THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING, THAT
LOOKS FOR GET THE SMARTEST
PEOPLE IN THE ROOM TOGETHER, TRY
TO BREAK THE WATERMARKS AND TRY
TO MAKE THEM AS ROBUST AND
INDELIBLE AND DIFFICULT TO
REMOVE AS POSSIBLE. AND THE
PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE NOT
GETTING OVER THE HUMP TO DOING
ANYTHING TO IMPLEMENTING THIS
WITHOUT THE SHOVE. WE NEED THE
SHOVE TO GET THE COMPANIES TO DO
THIS NOW. THEY PROMISED LAST
SUMMER TO DO IT. THEY PROMISED
THIS SPRING AND IT IT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN. AND WITHOUT GETTING THEM
OVER THE HUMP, WE DON'T HAVE
THAT OPPORTUNITY. I SPOKE TODAY
WITH A COMPANY THAT'S IN THE
WATERMARKING BUSINESS THAT SAID,
YOU KNOW, IF THE COMPANIES WERE
READY, THEY COULD DEPLOY THIS IN
A MATTER OF MONTHS. IT COULD BE
DEPLOYED AS A SOFTWARE UPDATE TO
YOUR PHONE. SO IT'S NOT
IMPOSSIBLE. IT SHOULD BE OUT
THERE. IT SHOULD BE ROBUSTLY
TESTED. PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ATTEMPTING TO BREAK IT. AND ONCE
WE GET INTO THAT PHASE WHERE BY
DEFAULT, ALL REAL PICTURES, YOU
TAKE ALL REAL VIDEOS, YOU TAKE
ALL AUDIO RECORDINGS YOU TAKE
ALSO HAVE THAT SIGNATURE OF
AUTHENTICITY. THEN WE GET TO A
MUCH BETTER PLACE WHERE WE HAVE
MARKING OF AUTHENTIC AND
SYNTHETIC CONTENT, AND THE LACK
OF A WATERMARK THAT PROVES THE
PROVENANCE OF A PIECE OF CONTENT
ITSELF BECOMES A SYMBOL THAT
THAT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY. SO A
BAD ACTOR TAKING AWAY A
WATERMARK IS NOT AS MUCH OF A
THREAT. NOW. OKAY DID YOU GUYS
HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT OR JUST
JUST BRIEFLY, I YOU KNOW, THIS
IS IT'S BEEN MENTIONED A FEW
TIMES WHEN WE NEED TO SHOVE OR
IT'S SORT OF BEEN ASSERTED THAT
THE PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE
GOOD, OR THAT WE'D RATHER DO
NOTHING. AND I JUST WANT TO
CORRECT THAT NOTION. THE WITNESS
HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED SEVERAL
THINGS. ONE, THAT THAT SEVERAL
TECH CEOS HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS
AROUND THIS AREA, THAT THESE
SAME TECH CEOS HAVE CREATED AN
ASSOCIATION TO DEVELOP THIS
TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOY IT. I DO
WANT TO POINT OUT NONE OF THAT
TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN DEPLOYED
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE'RE
ALSO COMING INTO COMMITTEE TODAY
SAYING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON
AMENDMENTS. SO I DO WANT TO JUST
CORRECT THE NOTION THAT A SHOVE
IS NEEDED TO GET US THERE, OR
SOME OTHER THING. BUT WHAT THE
PENALTY HERE IS 5% OF GLOBAL
REVENUES. SO THE DISCOMFORT IS
RATIONAL THAT WE'VE SORT OF
ESTABLISHED THAT IT'S A NASCENT
TECHNOLOGY, THAT IT'S IMPERFECT.
AND WHILE THERE IS A VERY
COMPLEX SCHEME HERE THAT'S BEEN
DEVELOPED, AGAIN, NONCOMPLIANCE
FOR OUR MEMBERS IS 5, OF, OF
GLOBAL REVENUES. SO THAT LEAVES
US OBVIOUSLY VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.
THE LAST THING IS NCI AND KI¾M
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. I WOULD
JUST POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE
OTHER BILLS THAT ARE VERY
SPECIFIC TO THOSE ISSUES THAT
ARE IN THE LEGISLATURE RIGHT
NOW, THAT TECHNET, FOR ONE, IS
SUPPORTING. SO, WELL, THANKS.
YOU ACTUALLY KIND OF WENT INTO
WHAT I WAS NEXT GOING TO GET TO
SOMETIMES IS, BEING IN THE,
MINORITY PARTY, YOU KNOW, YOU
KIND OF READ THE TEA LEAVES THAT
BILLS ARE GOING TO GET OUT OF
COMMITTEE, AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU
WANT TO SEE IF THERE ARE WAYS
THAT YOU CAN MAYBE WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR TO, TO GET IT OUT,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT GETS
OUT, I ALWAYS WELCOME WORKING.
YES. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT
ABOUT YOU, IS THAT YOU DO ALWAYS
CHECK IN WITH ME TO SEE WHERE
I'M AT ON BILLS AND, YOU KNOW,
IT MEANS A LOT BECAUSE YOU DON'T
NECESSARILY NEED MY VOTE, YOU
KNOW? AND. BUT. SO I WANTED TO
ASK. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THE PENALTY. AND IF THAT'S
SOMETHING YOU MIGHT BE WILLING
TO WORK ON, I COULD I COULD GET
TO SUPPORT POSITION TODAY. I'M
WILLING TO WORK ON THAT WITH
YOU. OKAY. AND I ALSO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE COMMENTS HERE. I
MEAN, I DO THINK I'VE BEEN
IMPRESSED WITH THE, THE NOT
RESPONSE BECAUSE THAT'S THE
WRONG WORD, THE PROACTIVE NATURE
OF THE TECH CEOS IN THIS SPACE,
AND I AND A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IS MODELED OFF OF
THEIR COMMITMENTS. SO, I AND I
GENUINELY WELCOME THEM AGAIN IN
THIS, IN THIS CONVERSATION. AND
WELCOME THE COMPANIES IN THE
CONVERSATION FOR SURE, BECAUSE
WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THEM.
RIGHT, SO I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENTS AND WOULD LOVE TO WORK
WITH YOU, MR. PATTERSON. OKAY. I
REMEMBER I USED TO BE A STAFFER
A WHILE AGO, AND THE PENALTIES
AND BILLS USED TO BE LIKE
$10,000 PER VIOLATION. NOW I'M
SEEING $1 MILLION. SO YOU KNOW
IT'S INFLATION'S WE DO HAVE
INFLATION, BUT IT'S THE COST OF
LIVING. MR. PATTERSON. YEAH
EXACTLY. SO, I LOVE TO BRING
DOWN THE HOUSING, PRICES AS
WELL. WITH THAT COMMITMENT,
I'LL. I'LL SUPPORT THIS BILL
TODAY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU, MISS DIXON. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, CHAIR, THIS HAS BEEN
AN EXCELLENT CONVERSATION
BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH
SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW
IT'S GOING TO BE FULLY FORMED. I
A COUPLE QUESTIONS, HAVE YOU YOU
YOU TALKED TO THE TECH PEOPLE
ALL THE TIME. THE TECH
EXECUTIVES AND THE KEY PEOPLE.
HAVE YOU HAD A SENSE YOU COULD
COME TO A STATEMENT OF
PRINCIPLES AS WE GO FORWARD WITH
PROVENANCE AND WATERMARKING, ARE
IS EVERYONE ALIGNED ON THIS AND
APPROACHING IT SIMILARLY OR IN
DIFFERENT WAYS? I MEAN,
CERTAINLY THEY'RE MINDFUL OF
WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE EU. SO
ARE WE COMING TO A STANDARD, A
UNIFORM INDUSTRY STANDARD, SO TO
SPEAK? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO
THAT? YEAH. THANK YOU, MISS
DIXON, FOR THE QUESTION. SO MOST
OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES IN THE
SPACE HAVE JOINED SOMETHING
CALLED THE COALITION FOR CONTENT
PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY,
ADOBE IS THE ONE OF THE LEADERS
OF THAT. BUT IT'S SO, SO MANY
COMPANIES. MICROSOFT, INTEL,
GOOGLE JOINED MORE RECENTLY.
META IS NOT A MEMBER, BUT DOES
SUPPORT THE STANDARD THAT THEY
ARE PUTTING OUT, AND ALSO THE
CAMERA MANUFACTURERS, NOTABLY
SONY, NIKON LIKE CANON, HAVE
ALSO JOINED THIS ASSOCIATION.
THE ASSOCIATION CURRENTLY HAS
ONLY DEPLOYED SOMETHING THAT
DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD
DEFINED IN THIS BILL BECAUSE
IT'S A MARKING, A DIGITAL
MARKING THAT IS SO EASY TO
REMOVE THAT YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF
WITHIN SECONDS SIMPLY BY TAKING
A SCREENSHOT OF THAT MARKING.
BUT WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM
SPEAKING TO PEOPLE WHO WORK AT
THE COMPANIES THAT ARE MEMBERS
OF THIS COALITION IS THAT THE
COALITION HAS ACTIVE WORKING
GROUPS THAT ARE ALSO DEVELOPING
STANDARDS THAT MEET WOULD MEET
THE DEFINITIONS OF THIS BILL.
AND JUST TO MOVE BACK TO CORRECT
SOMETHING FROM ONE OF OUR OTHER
WITNESSES, GOOGLE HAS DEPLOYED A
PRODUCT CALLED SYNTH ID THAT
COMES FROM GOOGLE DEEPMIND,
THEIR AI BRANCH IN THE UK, AND
SYNTH ID THEY CLEARLY STATE ON
THEIR WEBSITE, IS A TOOL FOR
WATERMARKING OF AI GENERATED
IMAGES AND AUDIO THAT EVEN IF
YOU MANIPULATE THE IMAGE OR THE
AUDIO, YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF THE
PICTURE. YOU RERECORD THE AUDIO
THAT WATERMARK PERSISTS, IS
ROBUST, AND IS TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT POSSIBLE, INDELIBLE. AND
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ACTUALLY,
AT THE MUNICH SECURITY
CONFERENCE IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE
AI ELECTIONS ACCORD WAS SIGNED
BY 20 OF THESE MAJOR COMPANIES,
MOST OF WHOM I'VE MENTIONED
ALREADY, THEY SPECIFICALLY
CALLED OUT KETUPA AND SYNTH ID
AS EXAMPLES OF THE TYPES OF
WATERMARKS AND THE DIRECTION
THAT THEY'RE GOING WITH THE
TECHNOLOGY. SO THE ASSOCIATIONS
ARE THERE. THE PROBLEM IS
THERE'S A THERE'S A FIRST MOVER
DISADVANTAGE HERE. GOOGLE'S
INVESTED CLEARLY A LOT IN THIS
ADOBE HAS AS WELL. BUT THEN
THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT ARE
STRAGGLERS, NOTABLY BYTEDANCE
HAS AT LEAST LAST I CHECKED, WAS
NOT A MEMBER. THE OWNER OF
TIKTOK. WE DON'T SEE SAMSUNG
PARTICIPATING IN A MEANINGFUL
WAY. AND ALSO WE DON'T SEE
APPLE, WHICH IS SURPRISING. SO
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF A BILL
LIKE THIS WERE ENACTED, THERE
WOULD BE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, A
COALESCING AROUND THE CPA GROUP
AND THE STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE
PUT FORTH AND ARE DEVELOPING,
AND THEY WOULD ADVANCE MUCH MORE
QUICKLY. OKAY. WELL, I HOPE
YOU'RE CORRECT. I MEAN, AS I'M
LISTENING TO YOU EXPLAIN THAT
ALL THESE DIFFERENT COMPANIES
JUST I'M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER
WHEN IT WAS DOS VERSUS APPLE
VERSUS IBM AND IT WAS CONFUSING
FOR, I MEAN, JUST FROM A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT STANDPOINT. AND HOW
DO YOU WHOM DO YOU TRUST AND
WHICH IS THE BETTER TECHNOLOGY?
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THIS IS SO
FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT. I HAVE
A QUESTION ALSO SIMILARLY WITH
MY COLLEAGUE ABOUT THE VIOLATION
. FINE. I THINK THAT'S TO BE
DETERMINED. BUT, IT WOULD BE
MAGNIFICENT. I MEAN, I KNOW,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, YOU LIKE TO
CALIFORNIA TO LEAD THE WAY.
OKAY. CALIFORNIA WILL LEAD THE
WAY IN WHATEVER SOLUTION WE
CRAFT HERE IN THIS LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, IT WOULD BE REALLY, NOT
JUST FANTASTIC, BUT IT WILL BE
REALLY IMPORTANT TO 90% OF THE
WORLD'S POPULATION WHO USES USES
TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ALL CAN HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT ALL THE PLAYERS
ARE ALIGNED WITH, WITH A COMMON
PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY DEALING WITH
PROVENANCE OR WATERMARK, APPLE
MAY COME OUT AND CALL IT
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND IT JUST
WOULD BE NOT MORE. IT WOULD BE
MORE THAN HELPFUL. IT'S ALMOST
ESSENTIAL THAT THE WORLD ALIGN
THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES, THE
LEADERS IN THE TECHNOLOGY, NOT
ADOBE HERE AND NOT SOMEBODY OVER
HERE, BECAUSE THIS IS SO
FUNDAMENTAL, AND I APPLAUD YOU
FOR DOING THIS AND CREATING THIS
STANDARD. AND I JUST WONDER
ALSO, COULD WE GET THOSE
COMPANIES, EVERY SINGLE TECHNET
MEMBER, WHOMEVER, TO AGREE TO A
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ALIGN FORWARD.
SO WHEN THIS COMES TO THE FLOOR
OF THE LEGISLATURE, BOTH HOUSES,
YOU CAN SAY YOU HAVE BROUGHT THE
INDUSTRY TOGETHER ON SOMETHING
SO FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT THAT
WILL PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND
ALL USERS, SO WE CAN HAVE
CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM. I
THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I'M
DEFINITELY HAPPY TO TRY. MISS
DIXON, AS I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW,
I SHARED THE LANGUAGE WITH A
COUPLE OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES
BEFORE IT WAS PUBLIC. I REALLY
WANTED THEIR INPUT AND THEIR
TAKE AND HAVE DONE HAVE HAD
NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS, BOTH THE
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND WITH THE
COMPANIES THEMSELVES, AND, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO REVEAL ANY
OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE
SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT NOT
PUBLIC, BUT, HAVE GOTTEN SOME
GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THE COMPANIES
TO YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THEY
ARE GENUINELY TRYING. I DO
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT, BUT IT'S
ALSO ENSURING THAT WE HAVE
CONFORMITY ACROSS THE SYSTEM FOR
THEM, I THINK IS ALSO REALLY
IMPORTANT. WELL, I AGREE, AND I
COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THIS. AND
IT'S A LOT OF IT'S HURTING
RABBITS HERE, BUT IT'S REALLY
ESSENTIAL. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER
MEMBERS WANTING TO ASK QUESTIONS
OR PROVIDE FEEDBACK, I WANT TO,
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HER WORK ON
THIS. I THINK, THIS WAS A VERY
POPULAR TOPIC IN THE
LEGISLATURE. IT CONTINUES TO BE
AND I THINK IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT ONE. AT THE SAME TIME,
WHAT'S BEEN SAID HERE IS TRUE,
RIGHT? THIS IS A VERY YOUNG
TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS HERE TODAY, SORT OF
CHANGED AWAY FROM WHAT MISS
DIXON WAS SAYING TO ALLOW FOR
CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY IN THE
FUTURE, TO WHICH I THINK IS ONE
OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS IS WE
MAKE POLICY AS NONE OF THIS IS
GOING TO BE STATIC. AND SO HOW
DO WE CREATE POLICY THAT ALLOWS
FOR INNOVATION AND CHANGE, THAT
WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE IT MORE
TRUSTWORTHY AND STRONGER
PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS. BUT I
THINK, YOU KNOW, THE AUTHOR HAS
MENTIONED MANY TIMES TODAY, THE,
NON-CONSENSUAL PHOTOGRAPHS WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON OUR
DEMOCRACY IN THE RECENT
ELECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
. WE SAW THIS KIND OF MATERIAL
PROPAGATING, AND IT IS SO
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE
SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THIS
COUNTRY AND FRANKLY, THIS WORLD,
THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IS FACT
AND WHAT IS FICTION. AND I THINK
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE HERE TODAY. AND SO I
WANT TO THANK THE OPPOSITION FOR
BEING A PARTNER IN MOVING US TO
THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS. AND I
THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS I
REALLY LIKE ABOUT THIS BILL,
BECAUSE I THINK IT HITS ON A LOT
OF WHAT WAS SAID HERE TODAY, IS
THAT IT BOTH REQUIRES THE
WATERMARKING TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT
PUTS SOME OF THE ONUS ON THE
DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS, WHICH IS
SO, SO CRITICAL BECAUSE THAT IS
WHERE EACH OF US WILL ACCESS
THIS INFORMATION. AND SO MAKING
SURE THAT THEY ARE A PARTNER IN
ENSURING THAT WHAT WE ACCESS IS,
WE'RE AWARE OF WHAT'S REAL AND
WHAT'S NOT. AND SO I WANT TO
COMMEND YOU. I WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
EXTENSIVE WORK ON THIS BILL. I
KNOW THEY DID A LOT TO GET IT TO
WHERE IT IS TODAY, AND I KNOW IT
WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE, AND SO
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY. DO WE
HAVE A DID WE HAVE A MOTION? NO,
WE NEED A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THE BILL? OH. SO MOVED
OKAY. NGUYEN MOTION. AND A
SECOND, LET'S CALL THE ROLL ITEM
NUMBER NINE AB 3211 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WIX. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS, AS AMENDED TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BAUER-KAHAN
I BAUER-KAHAN I PATTERSON I
PATTERSON I BRIAN RYAN I DIXON
DIXON I HOOVER. HOOVER. NOT
VOTING ERWIN LOWENTHAL ORTEGA.
WARD WICKS I WICKS I WILSON.
NEEDS ONE MORE. THE BILL IS FIVE
ZERO. SO IT WILL GO ON HOLD
WHILE WE WAIT FOR SOME MEMBERS.
GO AND CALL AND HOLD ON. CALL. I
SEE MISS PELLERIN IS NEXT.
ALTHOUGH MR. ALLMAN SAID SEAT
HER HERE. SO WE WILL TAKE UP AB
2050. BY MISS PELLERIN, WHEN YOU
ARE READY. WELCOME ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, AND
MEMBERS IN A STATE WHERE
EVERYONE IS MAILED A BALLOT, THE
ACCURACY OF OUR VOTER RECORDS IS
OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. THE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
INFORMATION CENTER, KNOWN AS
ERIC, IS A POWERFUL TOOL
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS CAN USE TO
ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE MOST
RECENT DATA POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN
THE ACCURACY OF THEIR ROLLS.
ERIC IS A NONPARTISAN NONPROFIT
GOVERNED BY ITS MEMBER STATES,
WHICH MUTUALLY AGREE TO SHARE
DATA SUCH AS VOTER REGISTRATION
AND VEHICLE LICENSING DATA IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ACCURACY
OF THEIR VOTER ROLLS AND
IDENTIFY ELIGIBLE BUT UNREADY
MUSTARD CITIZENS. WHEN A VOTER
MOVES, THEY OFTEN REREGISTER TO
VOTE IN THEIR NEW JURISDICTION,
BUT DO NOT NOTIFY THE PRIOR
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIAL 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
WHICH ARE NOW OUT OF DATE DUE TO
A RECENT MOVE. AB 2050
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF
STATE TO JOIN ERIC ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA. ERIC WOULD PROVIDE
THE STATE WITH DATA ON VOTERS
WHO HAVE MOVED IN STATE, MOVED
OUT OF STATE, OR DIED. ERIC
WOULD ALSO HELP IDENTIFY
CALIFORNIANS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO
VOTE BUT ARE UNREGISTERED. THIS
WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE TARGETED
OUTREACH TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND OUR LOCAL
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS. ERIC.
SECURITY PRACTICES REQUIRE THAT
ALL SENSITIVE DATA ELEMENTS BE
SUBJECTED TO A ONE WAY HASH
BEFORE THEY ARE TRANSMITTED TO
ERIC. WHILE MY TECHNICAL WITNESS
CAN ANSWER ANY MORE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS, IN ESSENCE, A ONE WAY
HASH TAKES AN INPUT OF ANY
LENGTH AND CONVERTS IT TO A
FIXED LENGTH OUTPUT. THIS
PROCESS IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED
TO BE ONE WAY ERIC MEMBERS DO
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OTHER MEMBERS
DATA OR REPORTS STORED ON ERIC'S
SERVERS. STATE VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ARE NEVER
CONNECTED TO ERIC. ERIC IS
DESIGNED TO WORK WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THE NATIONAL VOTER
REGISTRATION ACT, UNDER WHICH
STATES CANNOT REMOVE VOTERS FROM
THE ROLLS JUST BECAUSE ERIC
REPORTS THEY HAVE MOVED UNDER
THE NVRA. NO REGISTRANT CAN BE
REMOVED BASED ON A CHANGE OF
RESIDENCE UNLESS THAT REGISTRANT
EITHER CONFIRMS THEIR MOVE IN
WRITING OR FAILS TO RESPOND TO A
NOTICE AND FAILS TO VOTE. IN THE
PERIOD BETWEEN THE NOTICE AND
THE SECOND FEDERAL GENERAL
ELECTION. AS A RESULT, IF A
CALIFORNIA VOTER WAS FLAGGED AS
HAVING MOVED IN ADVANCE OF THE
2018 ELECTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE,
THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION COULD
NOT BE CANCELED UNLESS THEY DID
NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE, DID
NOT VOTE IN THE 2018 ELECTIONS,
OR DID NOT VOTE IN THE 2019
ELECTIONS, AND DID NOT VOTE IN
THE 2020 ELECTIONS. HOWEVER,
THEY WOULD BE MOVED TO THE
INACTIVE FILE IF THEY FAIL TO
RESPOND TO THE NOTICE AFTER THEY
WERE ON THE INACTIVE FILE. FOR
TWO FEDERAL GENERAL ELECTION
CYCLES, THE VOTER COULD BE
REMOVED FROM THE ROLLS SHOULD
THE VOTER WISH TO VOTE AT ANY
TIME, THEY COULD AVAIL
THEMSELVES OF CALIFORNIA'S SAME
DAY OR PROVISIONAL VOTING
OPTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, AB 2050
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE
SENDING OF AB 60 LICENSE DATA IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE WHO
IS INELIGIBLE TO VOTE IS
INCLUDED IN THE DATA SET. AS
SOME OF YOU KNOW, COLORADO
MISTAKENLY MAILED REGISTRATION
NOTICES TO NON-CITIZENS. THIS
WAS DUE TO A HUMAN ERROR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF COLORADO'S
DATA SET BY COLORADO'S ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS, NOT A FLAW IN THE
ERIC'S SYSTEM. AND AS YOU MAY
ALL KNOW, NINE STATES HAVE LEFT
ERIC IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS. I WON'T SUGARCOAT IT. THE
STATES WHO HAVE PULLED OUT OF
ERIC HAVE GIVEN IN TO CONSPIRACY
THEORISTS COUCHED IN DATA
SECURITY CONCERNS. CALIFORNIA'S
EFFORTS TO INCREASE THE
ACCESSIBILITY OF OUR VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEM HAS BEEN A
GREAT SUCCESS. BY THE SECRETARY
OF STATE'S ESTIMATES, WE HAVE
ALMOST 5 MILLION ELIGIBLE BUT
UNREGISTERED VOTERS. BECOMING AN
ERIC MEMBER IS A NATURAL NEXT
STEP IN CALIFORNIA'S MISSION TO
IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY AND
EASE OF VOTING. FURTHERMORE,
BETTER DATA ON WHICH CITIZENS
ARE UNREGISTERED ALLOWS FOR MORE
TARGETED OUTREACH, MAXIMIZING
WHAT LITTLE FUNDING WE DO HAVE.
THERE ARE SOME, INCLUDING A
FORMER PRESIDENT WHO OPPOSE ERIC
. WITH REGARDS TO SOME OF THE
PRIVACY CONCERNS RAISED, WE
BELIEVE THAT CALIFORNIA
CONSUMERS CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT
ALREADY INDICATES A LEGISLATIVE
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN
ENCRYPTED AND UNENCRYPTED, DATED
UNDER THE CCPA, DISCLOSURES
RELATED TO A SECURITY BREACH ARE
NOT REQUIRED. IF THE PERSONAL
INFORMATION IS ENCRYPTED, THE
CCPA DEFINES PERSONAL
INFORMATION AS AN INDIVIDUAL'S
FIRST NAME OR FIRST INITIAL AND
LAST NAME. WHEN EITHER THE NAME
OR THE DATE OF ELEMENTS ARE NOT
ENCRYPTED IN COMBINATION WITH A
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR
DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, AS
CALIFORNIA WOULD ONLY BE SENDING
ENCRYPTED PERSONAL INFORMATION
TO ERIC. SO AN ENCRYPTED SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER, DATE OF BIRTH,
DRIVER'S LICENSE. WE BELIEVE
THAT UNDER CCPA, THIS DATA CAN
BE SHARED IN ITS HASHED FORM. AB
2050 IS SPONSORED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS
AND ELECTIONS OFFICIALS, AND
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
SHANE HAMLIN, OUR EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF ERIC AND DAVE
MULLIGAN, A CYBERSECURITY EXPERT
. OKAY, TWO MINUTES EACH. WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR BAUER KHN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS SHANE HAMLIN. I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ERIC OR
THE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
INFORMATION CENTER. I APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY
IN FAVOR OF AB 2050. ERIC IS A
500 AND 1C3 NONPROFIT. WE ARE A
MEMBER LED, MEMBER FUNDED
ORGANIZATION. AS YOU HEARD OUR
MEMBERS SUBMIT VOTER
REGISTRATION AND MOTOR VEHICLE
DEPARTMENT DATA, DATA ON A
ROUTINE BASIS. WE ARE ALSO
CERTIFIED TO RECEIVE AND USE
DEATH DATA FROM THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND WE
ARE A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL
CHANGE OF ADDRESS FROM THE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE.
USE USING ONLY THESE FOUR DATA
SETS, WE IDENTIFY WE PROVIDE OUR
MEMBERS WITH REPORTS THAT
IDENTIFY OUT OF DATE VOTER
RECORDS, DECEASED VOTERS,
INDIVIDUALS WHO APPEAR TO BE
ELIGIBLE BUT ARE NOT REGISTERED
AS WELL AS POTENTIAL ILLEGAL
VOTES. MEMBERS MUST USE THESE
REPORTS IN STRICT COMPLIANCE
WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, AS
ERIC HAS ALWAYS TAKEN DATA
PRIVACY AND SECURITY SERIOUSLY.
THESE PRINCIPLES ARE BAKED INTO
OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. WE ARE
GENERALLY AWARE OF DATA PRIVACY
STANDARDS GLOBALLY AND HERE IN
THE US, AND WE ARE WATCHING AS
STATES ADOPT STRONG PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS MODELED AFTER
CALIFORNIA'S EXCELLENT EXAMPLE,
THE ERIC BYLAWS AND MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENT INCLUDE EXTENSIVE DATA
PRIVACY AND PROTECTION
PROVISIONS, AND OUR TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDES MULTIPLE
LAYERS OF SECURITY TO PROTECT
THESE DATA. THESE DATA. LET ME
SHARE A FEW SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.
THE MOST SENSITIVE DATA AS YOU
HEARD, IS HASHED DRIVER'S
LICENSE, DATES OF BIRTH AND
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. AND
THESE DATA ELEMENTS ARE
ESSENTIAL FOR HIGH QUALITY,
ACCURATE LIST MAINTENANCE. THEY
ARE HASHED BY OUR MEMBERS BEFORE
THEY SUBMIT THEM TO ERIC, AND
THEN INSIDE THE SECURE
ENVIRONMENT, OUR STAFF HASH THEM
A SECOND TIME. ADDITIONALLY
MEMBERS ENCRYPT THE ENTIRE DATA
FILE BEFORE TRANSMITTING IT TO
ERIC, AND DATA AT REST IN THE
DATA CENTER ARE ENCRYPTED. WE
FOLLOW INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED
CYBERSECURITY STANDARDS. WE
RECENTLY COMPLETED A TYPE ONE
SOC2 AUDIT, AND WE WILL DO A SOC
TWO TYPE TWO AUDIT LATER THIS
YEAR, AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH
STATE TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENTS TO
PROVIDE ASSURANCES THAT OUR DATA
HANDLING PRACTICES ARE
ACCEPTABLE. FINALLY I'LL
SUMMARIZE FOUR KEY PROVISIONS
FROM THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT.
ERIC. AND OUR MEMBERS ARE BOUND
BY FEDERAL DATA PROTECTION LAWS
THAT APPLY TO THE DATA SETS WE
USE. MEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM
USING THE DATA OR REPORTS FOR
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS,
WITH SOME LAWFUL EXCEPTIONS.
ERIC IS PROHIBITED FROM USING
DATA OR REPORTS FOR ANYTHING
OTHER THAN PROVIDING SERVICES TO
OUR MEMBERS AND ANY UNAUTHORIZED
USE OF THE DATA OR BREACH OF THE
DATA MUST BE DISCLOSED TO THE
MEMBERS OR TO ERIC, AS
APPLICABLE. I BELIEVE THE
CURRENT BILL DRAFT ADDRESSES
PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT WERE
RECENTLY RAISED, AND I ALSO
BELIEVE THE LETTER YOU HAVE FROM
PROFESSOR MAURICE AT THE CAREY
SCHOOL OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA ADDRESSES VERY
WELL RECENTLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS
ABOUT THE USE OF ERIC DATA FOR
LIST MAINTENANCE. WITH THAT, I'D
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS DAVE MULLIGAN. I
CURRENTLY WORK IN THE CYBER
SECURITY DIVISION OF FISERV,
INC, A MAJOR, EXCUSE ME, A MAJOR
FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY COMPANY.
I'VE WORKED IN THIS FIELD FOR
OVER 20 YEARS, AND IN THAT TIME
I HAVE HELPED DOZENS OF
COMPANIES TO SECURE THEIR MOST
SENSITIVE DATA AND HAVE ANALYZED
MANY APPLICATIONS FOR SECURITY
PURPOSES. I SHOULD SAY, THOUGH,
THAT TODAY I'M HERE IN MY
PERSONAL CAPACITY, NOT SPEAKING
FOR FISERV OFFICIALLY. WHEN I
READ THE ANALYSIS PREPARED FOR
THIS COMMITTEE, I WAS STRUCK
THAT IN MULTIPLE PLACES, NO
DISTINCTION WAS DRAWN BETWEEN
SENDING THE PLAIN TEXT VALUE OF
A DATA ELEMENT TO ERIC AND
SENDING A HASH OF THAT VALUE TO
ERIC. A HASH FUNCTION IS A
PARTICULAR TYPE OF OPERATION ON
DATA THAT, BY DESIGN, IS
IRREVERSIBLE. THE RECIPIENT OF
HASHED DATA CANNOT REVERSE THE
PROCESS TO OBTAIN THE ORIGINAL
DATA, AND THERE ARE NO CURRENT
KNOWN ATTACKS ON THE SHA TWO
FAMILY OF HASHING ALGORITHMS
USED BY ERIC USING A HASH IN
PLACE OF THE VALUE ITSELF IS A
COMPLETELY INDUSTRY STANDARD
MECHANISM FOR COMPARING DATA
VALUES WITHOUT ACTUALLY NEEDING
THE ACTUAL VALUE. IF, SAY, TWO,
THE SAME DATE OF BIRTH IS HASHED
INDEPENDENTLY BY TWO DIFFERENT
STATES AND SENT TO ERIC. ERIC
CAN THEN COMPARE THOSE TWO
HASHED VALUES, WHICH WILL BE
IDENTICAL, AND KNOW THAT THE
ORIGINAL VALUES WERE THE SAME
WITHOUT HAVING ANY ABILITY TO
KNOW WHAT THAT ORIGINAL VALUE
ACTUALLY WAS. THE PCI DSS
STANDARDS, WHICH GOVERN HOW
COMPANIES HAVE TO HANDLE CREDIT
CARD DATA, LIST ONE WAY HASHING
USING STRONG CRYPTOGRAPHY AS ONE
OF ONLY THREE ACCEPTABLE METHODS
FOR PROTECTING CREDIT CARD
NUMBERS BEFORE STORING THEM, AND
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE GOLD
STANDARD. SO IN SUMMARY, IT'S MY
PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE
DATA HANDLING PROCEDURES USED BY
ERIC FOLLOW THE INDUSTRY BEST
PRACTICES AND DON'T CAUSE ANY
PRIVACY ISSUES. SINCE SENDING A
HASH OF A SENSITIVE DATA ELEMENT
IS NOT THE SAME AS SENDING THAT
SENSITIVE DATA ELEMENT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE
ROOM IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL?
MAYBE 2050? HELLO, ANDY
DUBINBAUM, ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND STRONG
SUPPORT. AND I'VE ALSO BEEN
ASKED TO PRESENT THE SUPPORT OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
CLERKS AND ELECTION OFFICIALS
WHO COULDN'T BE HERE. BUT THEY
ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MEMBERS TANISHA BOATNER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, IN
SUPPORT OF AB 2050. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL? OKAY.
ETHAN HAGLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. OKAY.
MY NAME IS COLLEEN BRITTON. I'M
WITH THE ELECTION INTEGRITY
PROJECT. CALIFORNIA. DID YOU SAY
I'M SORRY? JUST CLARIFICATION.
DID YOU SUBMIT A LETTER? YES. WE
DID. OKAY. I JUST DON'T HAVE IT.
THAT'S WHY I STOPPED YOU. OH,
YOU HAVE IT. OH, NO, I DO HAVE
IT, I DO, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. MY
BAD. PLEASE GO AHEAD. TWO
MINUTES. OKAY. ACCURACY
ACCURATELY MAINTAINED VOTER
ROLLS ARE ESSENTIAL TO RESTORE
THE FAITH IN OUR ELECTORAL
SYSTEM AND PRESERVE OUR
REPUBLIC. ERIC IS NOT THE
ANSWER. IT FACILITATES
EXPLOITATION OF VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS, ESPECIALLY
NON-CITIZENS. IT PROHIBITS THE
TRANSMISSION OF ANY DATA
REGARDING VOTER ELIGIBILITY
BASED ON CITIZEN STATUS. YET
ERIC MAINTAINS THAT STATES
CONTACT 95% OF THOSE ON THE
ELIGIBLE, BUT UNREGISTERED LIST
IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET THEM
REGISTERED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE
STATE HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING OR
DETERMINING WHICH OF THOSE ON
THE ERIC PROVIDED ELIGIBLE LIST
IS ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE BY LAW. AS
A RESULT, ERIC COULD EASILY
FACILITATE ADDING MORE
INELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS TO THE
ROLLS. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ITS
STATED PURPOSE. ERIC PUTS THE
STATE AT RISK OF VIOLATING THREE
MAJOR FEDERAL FEDERAL LAWS.
FIRST, THE HELP AMERICA VOTE
ACT, WHICH SAYS THAT STATE
ELECTION OFFICIALS SHALL
IMPLEMENT A STATEWIDE VOTER
REGISTRATION LIST MAINTAINED AND
ADMINISTERED AT THE STATE LEVEL,
AND THOSE SAME STATE OFFICIALS
SHALL PERFORM LIST MAINTENANCE
ON THE REGULAR BASIS. THERE'S NO
PROVISION IN THAT STATUTE THAT
AUTHORIZES ANY STATE TO
OUTSOURCE THESE OBLIGATIONS TO A
THIRD PARTY. SECOND, THE
NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT,
STATES THAT STATES SHALL
MAINTAIN AND MAKE AVAILABLE FOR
PUBLIC INSPECTION ALL RECORDS
CONCERNING ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCURATELY
MAINTAINING VOTER LISTS IN
CONTRAST, ERIC STATES THAT IN IF
A MEMBER RECEIVES A REQUEST TO
DISCLOSE ERIC DATA AND
DETERMINES THAT IT'S LEGALLY
OBLIGATED TO COMPLY, IT SHALL
NOT MAKE THAT DISCLOSURE WITHOUT
FIRST OBTAINING A COURT ORDER
COMPELLING IT TO DO SO. THIRD,
ERIC CLEARLY VIOLATES THE
DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT,
WHICH STATES THE FACT THAT AN
APPLICANT HAS DECLINED TO
REGISTER WILL REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL. LAST YEAR'S ERIC
BILL DIED DUE TO ITS COST. COST
IS A REASON ENOUGH TO KILL THIS
UNNECESSARY AND UNWISE BILL.
AGAIN LASTLY, THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT IN ERIC'S BYLAWS
THAT MEMBER STATES MUST ACTUALLY
REMOVE INELIGIBLE VOTERS FROM
THEIR REGISTRATION ROLLS. IPCA
STRONGLY URGES A NO VOTE ON AB
2050. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MIX UP.
OKAY. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE
AND TESTIFYING. YES IT IS. I WAS
LOOKING AT THE WRONG PIECE OF
PAPER. A LOT MORE DETAIL THAN I
COULD. YES. THAT'S WHY WE ALWAYS
MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE SUBMIT THE
LETTERS. BECAUSE IT'S HELPFUL
INFORMATION. SO. YES. NO, I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I WAS
LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING, BUT
I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND
YOUR TESTIMONY. ANYBODY ELSE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? HI COME
ON UP. YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR
NAME. OH HOLD ON SO YOU DON'T
GET HIT BY THE DOOR. SO NAME,
ORGANIZATION OR LOCATION AND
POSITION. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS YUNUS MALLI. I'M WITH
THE ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT.
CALIFORNIA AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
AB 2050. THANK YOU. COME ON UP.
I CAN'T DO THIS. YOU GOT JUDY
FIRMANDO. I'M IN SOLANO COUNTY,
AND I'M ALSO WITH THE ELECTION
INTEGRITY, CALIFORNIA AND I VERY
STRONGLY OPPOSE AND ASK YOU TO
REALLY CONSIDER THIS, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
BEING HERE. COME ON. HELLO. MY
NAME IS NANCY STILTS, AND I'M
WITH THE SOLANO COUNTY, I WORK
WITH THE ELECTION INTEGRITY
PROJECT. CALIFORNIA AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE AB 2050. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
LEÓN CANTERBURY, COORDINATOR FOR
ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT
CALIFORNIA, OUT OF PLACER
COUNTY. I STRONGLY OPPOSE AB
2050. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS JOEL BARRIO. I'M JUST A
RETIRED PERSON, BUT I STRONGLY
OPPOSE AB 2050, NOT JUST A
RETIRED PERSON. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS RITA PARZIALE. I'M A
RESIDENT OF PLACER COUNTY AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. CAREFUL OF THAT DOOR,
Y'ALL. YEAH MICHELLE CONNOR, I
AM A REGISTERED VOTER IN SOLANO
COUNTY IN OPPOSITION TO 2050.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOT SEEING
ANYBODY ELSE. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? YEAH. MR. BRIAN
THIS BILL ENJOYS, THE
CO-AUTHORSHIP OF THREE ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS CHAIRS, I KNOW YOU'VE
BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE THE
DAY THAT YOU CAME INTO THIS BODY
, HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. I'LL
SECOND THE MOTION. I THINK MISS
DIXON. OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD? NO.
YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. AWESOME. I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. SO.
THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO
REITERATE MY GRATITUDE FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE. I KNOW
YOU ARE ONE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
BODY WHO HAS THE BIGGEST DEPTH
OF EXPERIENCE IN ELECTIONS AND
ENSURING THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE,
SAFE, OPEN AND FAIR TO ALL. AND
THE INTEGRITY OF THAT IS SO
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO YOU. SO
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LEADING
AND HELPING US FIGURE OUT THE
BEST PATH FORWARD IN THAT. AND
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? WELL, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE MAINTAINING
ACCURATE VOTER FILES IS THE
UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO MAINTAINING
OUR DEMOCRACY. AND, THIS IS
DEFINITELY AN EXCELLENT TOOL FOR
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS. SO THANK
YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS
PELLERIN. LET'S CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER TWO AB 2050 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PELLERIN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE. B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN HI BAUER-KAHAN I
PATTERSON. BRIAN. BRIAN I DIXON.
DIXON. NOT VOTING. HOOVER IRWIN.
IRWIN. I LOWENTHAL. ORTEGA WARD.
WICKS. WILSON THAT HAS THREE
VOTES. SO WE WILL LEAVE IT ON
CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. MORE
PEOPLE WILL COME BACK. SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
MAIENSCHEIN AB 2871, YOU ARE
READY.
HOW ARE YOU? THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS AS
PROPOSED IN THE ANALYSIS.
CALIFORNIA IS FACING A
STAGGERING NUMBER OF OVERDOSE
DEATHS. THE IMPACT OF FENTANYL
ALONE HAS BEEN FELT IN EVERY ONE
OF OUR DISTRICTS. AB 2871
CREATES A NEW TOOL TO HELP
COMBAT THIS CRISIS AND PREVENT
FUTURE DEATHS. THE BILL ALLOWS
COUNTIES TO CREATE OVERDOSE
FATALITY REVIEW TEAMS COMPOSED
OF PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS,
LAW ENFORCEMENT, DRUG TREATMENT
PROVIDERS AND LOCAL NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS. THE REVIEW TEAMS
WILL EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING INDIVIDUAL OVERDOSE
DEATHS TO IDENTIFY COMMONALITIES
OR OTHER ACTIONABLE ITEMS THAT
CAN LEAD TO INFORMED EFFORTS TO
PREVENT FUTURE OVERDOSES. THE
BILL ALLOWS MEMBERS OF THE
REVIEW TEAM TO SHARE RELEVANT
INFORMATION REGARDING A DECEDENT
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
TEAM, IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PRIVACY. THE BILL MAKES ALL
COMMUNICATIONS BY OR WITHIN THE
REVIEW TEAM CONFIDENTIAL. THE
BILL IS MODELED OFF OF EXISTING
REVIEW TEAMS SUCH AS THE CHILD
DEATH REVIEW TEAMS, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE DEATH REVIEW TEAMS, AND
ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT DEATH
REVIEW TEAMS. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT IS DOCTOR STEVEN
KAMPMANN, THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
MILLER KHN AND VICE CHAIR
PATTERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, AGAIN, I'M DOCTOR
STEVE KAMPMANN, THE CHIEF
MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR SAN DIEGO
COUNTY. AND IT'S AN HONOR TO
TESTIFY BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND
SAN DIEGO COUNTY IS PROUD TO BE
THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION
THAT WILL GIVE COUNTIES AN
ADDITIONAL TOOL TO ADDRESS THE
DRUG AND OPIOID CRISIS LOCALLY,
ACCORDING TO THE DATA FROM THE
STATE'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
OPIOID RELATED DEATHS INCREASED
BY 121% BETWEEN 2019 AND 2021.
THE ALARMING TREND IS TRUE
ACROSS OTHER COUNTIES IN THE
STATE AND INCLUDING OUR COUNTY,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY. IN 2021, 1309
PEOPLE DIED IN OUR COUNTY
BECAUSE OF DRUG OVERDOSES. 896
OF THOSE DUE TO OPIOIDS AND
AMONG THOSE OVER 800 DUE TO
FENTANYL ALONE. AB 2871 WOULD
ALLOW COUNTIES TO CREATE
OVERDOSE FATALITY REVIEW TEAMS
TO ENGAGE IN SYSTEM WIDE TEAM
REVIEW AND INFORMATION SHARING
ACROSS COUNTY AGENCIES, LOCAL
STAKEHOLDERS AND EXPERTS. WHEN
THERE IS A DRUG FATALITY WITH
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING
FUTURE OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS.
CURRENTLY INFORMATION ABOUT
THOSE THAT HAVE DIED IS LARGELY
SILOED BETWEEN DIFFERENT
AGENCIES. DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT
THE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT WERE
MENTIONED THE FOR CHILDREN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ELDER
ABUSE, HAVE HAD SUCCESS.
OVERDOSE FATALITY REVIEW TEAMS
WOULD IMPROVE SYSTEMIC ISSUES BY
STREAMLINING THE ABILITY TO
SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT CASES TO
HELP IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR
IMPROVEMENT AT BOTH THE SYSTEM
WIDE AND THE INDIVIDUAL LEVELS.
BY ALLOWING STAKEHOLDERS THAT
MAY HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH THE
DECEASED TO WORK TOGETHER TO
IDENTIFY GAPS, ESPECIALLY IN
DELIVERY OF SERVICE. AB 2871
WOULD ALLOW FOR INFORMATION
SHARING WHILE STILL PROTECTING
THE INFORMATION SHARED FOR THESE
PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARDS TO
KIND OF BETTER EXPLAIN THE
INFORMATION. INFORMATION SHARING
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS KIND OF
COMMITTEE, THE MEMBERS SIGN A
CONFIDENTIALITY, FORMS AND THEN
THE MEMBERS, CHOOSE A TOPIC,
PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL AGED
KIDS OR, FENTANYL, PEOPLE THAT
HAVE DIED WITH FENTANYL, TO
FOCUS ON FOR A MEETING. AND THEN
THOSE PRESENT BRING THE
INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE ABOUT
THAT PERSON TO THE MEETING AND
VERBALLY SHARE. SO WE'RE NOT IT
WOULDN'T BE, DUPLICATING
PEOPLE'S MEDICAL RECORDS AND
SHARING THEM ABOUT THE
COMMITTEE, THE BILL WOULD HELP
US CREATE A DATABASE, A DATABASE
OF DE-IDENTIFIED CASES TO
ASSESS, ASSESS HEALTH OUTCOMES
MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AND
STRATEGICALLY, INVEST RESOURCES
TOWARDS PREVENTION. AB 2871
WOULD ENSURE CONTINUED
COMPLIANCE WITH CONFIDENTIALITY.
CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARDS ALLOW
STILL ALLOWING THE OVERDOSE
FATALITY TEAMS TO IDENTIFY
TRENDS AND SYSTEMIC BARRIERS TO
PREVENT OVERDOSES IN THE FUTURE.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT OF THE BILL AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS.
I'M ELIZABETH ESPINOSA TODAY
EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE
URBAN COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA, AS
WELL AS THE COUNTY HEALTH
EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. CLIFTON
WILSON, ON BEHALF OF THE FRESNO
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
WITH THE POSITION OF SUPPORTIVE
AMENDED. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU FOR RAISING CLIFTON. IT WAS
STILL TOO LOW FOR YOU, BUT WE'RE
TRYING, ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS MEASURE
SEEING NONE, I WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR. I KNOW THE MOST
IMPORTANT JOB IN YOUR LIFE IS
FATHER. AND THAT YOU ARE SOMEONE
WHO REALLY TAKES SERIOUSLY
PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES. AND
THIS IS A HUGE STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION BECAUSE THE OVERDOSE
EPIDEMIC, ESPECIALLY AMONGST OUR
YOUNG PEOPLE, IS SOMETHING WE
NEED TO THROW EVERYTHING WE'VE
GOT AT. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR THIS. AND WITH THAT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? WELL, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. I
WOULD USE THAT AS MY CLOSE. THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE
AN ABILITY FOR US AS AS
LAWMAKERS, BOTH AT THE STATE
LEVEL AND THE LOCAL LEVEL TO
CRAFT BETTER POLICIES THAT
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. SO
WITH THAT, I'D RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. GREAT. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS
MEASURE? GREAT. MADAM SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. THANKS.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB 2871 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN I KHN I PATTERSON,
BRIAN. BRIAN I DIXON. DIXON. I
HOOVER. IRWIN. IRWIN. I
LOWENTHAL. ORTEGA. WARD. WICKS.
WILSON WILSON. I WILL SEE YOU
NEXT TIME. THANKS. THAT BILL HAS
FIVE. SO IT'S ON CALL. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. MISTER
ALANIS. YOU ARE UP WITH AB 3080.
THANK YOU. HI, GUYS. WELL, THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS,
LET ME START OFF BY SAYING THAT
I INDEED AM ACCEPTING COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TODAY IF NEED BE.
THANK YOU, JOSH, AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THE TIME AND THOUGHTFULNESS
THEY PUT IN FOR MAKING THIS BILL
BETTER AND NARROWER. AS WE BEGIN
THE DISCUSSION ON THIS VERY
COMPLEX AND SENSITIVE TOPIC, IT
IS NOT LOST ON ME. THE VERY REAL
CONCERNS THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS
. I HAVE READ THEIR LETTERS, AND
I FULLY INTEND TO CONTINUE TO
DISCUSS AND WORK THROUGH THESE
VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. BUT ALSO
WEIGHS IN ON ME IS MY TIME AS
THE CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN'S
DETECTIVE WITH THE STANISLAUS
COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND
WHERE I SAW WHAT I BELIEVED TO
BE AN UNSPOKEN AND OFTEN HIDDEN
BUT SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTED
IMPACT ON. WHILE I DON'T CLAIM
TO HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, AND I'M
CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT ON AGE
VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY, THAT'S
WHAT THESE GUYS ARE HERE FOR,
THIS BILL, ALONG WITH THE
AMENDMENTS I'M ACCEPTING TODAY,
IS MEASURED. WELL, LET'S JUST
SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE
SURE. AND I HOPE EVERYBODY IS
HAPPY WITH THIS BILL. AND WITH
THAT, I'M GOING TO BRING UP
THOSE THAT WERE TESTIFYING.
HEIDI OLSEN, PEDIATRIC NURSE AND
EXAMINER SPECIALIZING IN SEXUAL
ASSAULT CASES. AND CORBY, THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR.
YEAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR AGE
VERIFICATION PROVIDERS
ASSOCIATION. AND JOSEPH C¢M, THE
POLICY DIRECTOR FOR THE FAMILY.
I'M SORRY. YEAH WATER POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR A FAMILY POLICY
ALLIANCE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
SO WE'VE GIVEN PRIOR PERMISSION
TO DO TWO MINUTES EACH. BUT JUST
FOR CLARITY, THE OPPOSITION WILL
HAVE THE SAME. SO WHEN YOU'RE
READY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M
HEIDI OLSEN. I'M A PEDIATRIC
SEXUAL ASSAULT NURSE EXAMINER.
AND OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I
HAVE PERFORMED OR REVIEWED OVER
1500 FORENSIC EXAMS OF KIDS WHO
HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. A
REALLY DISTURBING TREND THAT
WE'RE SEEING AT OUR HOSPITAL AND
THAT'S BEING SEEN AROUND THE
UNITED STATES, IS THAT THE AGE
RANGE MOST LIKELY TO COMMIT
SEXUAL ASSAULT RIGHT NOW ARE 11
TO 15 YEAR OLD MALES. NOW WHILE
PROBLEMATIC SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS A
MULTIFACETED ISSUE, NO DOUBT
THERE'S A CLEAR CONNECTION
BETWEEN REPEATED EXPOSURE TO AND
CHILD ON CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT.
THERE ARE OVER 100 RESEARCH
STUDIES SHOWING THERE'S A
CORRELATION AND CAUSATIONAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AND
VIOLENCE. KIDS DON'T HAVE FULLY
DEVELOPED BRAINS. THEY'RE REALLY
SUSCEPTIBLE TO WHAT THEY SEE IN.
VÆ THIS IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE
MAINSTREAM TODAY IS VERY VIOLENT
AND DEGRADING, AND IT'S THE
NUMBER ONE SEX EDUCATOR OF OUR
KIDS TODAY. A RECENT STUDY
ESTIMATED THAT TWO THIRDS OF
ADOLESCENTS ARE CURRENTLY
ADDICTED TO ONLINE. KIDS ARE
ACCESSING VIOLENT AT MIND
BLOWING RATES. I JUST TALKED TO
A RURAL HIGH SCHOOL WHO
MONITORED THEIR 140 STUDENTS
SCHOOL ISSUED DEVICES, AND IN
ONE MONTH THERE WERE 13,000 HITS
TO PORNHUB. WE ARE SEEING
NUMEROUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON
TWEENS AND TEENS FROM ERECTILE
DYSFUNCTION TO GLORIFYING SEXUAL
VIOLENCE TO INCREASE CHILD
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND A
FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF
CONSENT. AS DOES NOT VALUE
INTIMACY OR MUTUALITY, THE
INDUSTRY HAS A GOAL OF MAKING
MONEY. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? YOU
CREATE LIFELONG USERS. RESEARCH
SHOWS THAT THE EARLIER A CHILD
IS EXPOSED TO, THE MORE LIKELY
THEY WILL BE LIFELONG USERS. SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. I'M IAN CORBY, I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AGE
VERIFICATION PROVIDERS
ASSOCIATION. WE REPRESENT 30
COMPANIES AROUND THE WORLD WHO
PROVIDE ONLINE AGE VERIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY AND OUR MISSION IS TO
MAKE THE INTERNET AGE AWARE, NOT
IDENTITY AWARE. SO ONLINE AGE
VERIFICATION CAN BE DONE AND IS
ALREADY BEING DONE AT GREAT
SCALE. IT CAN BE DONE
ANONYMOUSLY, EFFECTIVELY,
INCLUSIVELY, CONVENIENT AND
CHEAPLY. SO IF AMERICAN
TECHNOLOGY CAN PUT A MAN ON THE
MOON, WE CAN CERTAINLY ALLOW YOU
TO PROVE YOUR AGE ONLINE WITHOUT
DISCLOSING YOUR IDENTITY. AND
THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF AGE
VERIFICATION. IF WE WANTED TO DO
IDENTITY, WE'D LEAVE THAT TO THE
MUCH BIGGER IDENTITY INDUSTRY.
SO THE BASIC WAY THIS IS
ACCOMPLISHED IS BY PROVING YOUR
AGE TO AN INDEPENDENT THIRD
PARTY, AND THEN THAT INDEPENDENT
THIRD PARTY SIMPLY SAYS YES OR
NO TO AN ADULT SITE. AS TO
WHETHER YOU'RE OVER 18, WE
BELIEVE AGE VERIFICATION
PROVIDERS SHOULD BE
INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED AGAINST
APPROVED INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS, WHICH NOT ONLY CHECK
THAT THE THEY'RE GETTING THE
RESULTS RIGHT, BUT ALSO THAT
PERSONAL DATA IS BEING PROCESSED
SECURELY AND IS NOT RETAINED
AFTER THE CHECK IS COMPLETED. AS
THIS BILL, AS REWRITTEN BY THE
COMMITTEE, EXPLICITLY REQUIRES,
THERE'S AN EVER GROWING NUMBER
OF WAYS TO PROVE YOUR AGE. YOU
MIGHT USE A PIECE OF GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTATION OR A REUSABLE
DIGITAL IDENTITY, WHICH WE
COMPARE TO A LIVE IMAGE TO MAKE
SURE THAT IT'S YOU. YOU MIGHT
GET DATA FROM YOUR CELL PHONE
NETWORK OR UTILITY PROVIDER OR
YOUR BANK. AND RECENTLY WE HAVE
DEVELOPED A WAY OF ESTIMATING
YOUR AGE BASED ON JUST WHAT YOU
LOOK LIKE WITHIN A YEAR AND A
HALF OF YOUR ACTUAL AGE. AND THE
FEDERAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY HAS
JUST COMPLETED SOME VERY
RIGOROUS TESTING OF THAT, WHICH
WAS AND THEY'VE PUBLISHED SOME
PROMISING RESULTS. IT TAKES JUST
A FEW SECONDS, AND WE'RE
COOPERATING AS AN INDUSTRY TO
CREATE INTEROPERABLE, REUSABLE
AGE CHECKS THROUGH A PROJECT
FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION. ORIGINALLY CALLED EU
CONSENT, THIS INNOVATION IS
DRIVING DOWN THE COST. UK
GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES ABOUT $0.12
PER CHECK, AND WE AGREE WITH
THEM THAT THAT PRICE WILL ONLY
GO DOWN. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO
YOU TODAY. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION A LOT AND THAT
WAS HELPFUL TO THE LAST WITNESS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS JOSEPH C¢M. I'M AN
ATTORNEY AND THE POLICY DIRECTOR
FOR FAMILY POLICY ALLIANCE,
WHICH IS A NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAT FOCUSES ON
ADVANCING FAMILY VALUES THROUGH
LEGISLATION AROUND THE COUNTRY.
AND WE'RE PROUD TO STRONGLY
SUPPORT AB 3080. SO WITH THE
RISE OF TECHNOLOGY, CHILDREN
HAVE NEARLY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO
ADULT WEBSITES CONTAINING AGE
INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL. RESEARCH
SHOWS THAT BY THE AGE OF 17,
ABOUT 75% THREE QUARTERS OF
ADOLESCENTS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO
. RESEARCH ALSO PROVES THAT
HARMS CHILDREN. STUDIES SHOW
THAT OVER 88% OF VIDEOS DEPICT
SOME KIND OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE,
WHILE OVER 48% OF THE SAME
VIDEOS INCLUDE SOME KIND OF
VERBAL ABUSE. STUDIES ALSO SHOW
THAT 53% OF MALE ADOLESCENTS AND
39% OF FEMALE ADOLESCENTS
ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE LIE THAT IS
AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF
SEX. SO THIS MEANS THAT
ADOLESCENTS ARE LEARNING ABOUT
SEX FROM A PERSPECTIVE WHICH
PORTRAYS SEX AS PHYSICAL ABUSE.
NOW, ADDITIONALLY, RESEARCH ALSO
REVEALS THAT OUT OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN
EXPOSED TO, 58% ACCESS THE
MATERIAL UNINTENTIONALLY. SO
WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT
ADOLESCENTS ARE BECOMING
ADDICTED TO THROUGH ACCIDENTAL
INTERACTION WITH CERTAIN
WEBSITES THAT AGE VERIFICATION
AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT COULD
HAVE PREVENTED. NOW, I WANT YOU
TO KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA IS NOT
THE FIRST STATE TO PROPOSE A
BILL LIKE THIS. LAST YEAR, SEVEN
STATES OF VARYING PERSUASIONS
PASSED SIMILAR LEGISLATION, AND
ANOTHER EIGHT HAVE PASSED THEM
THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATURES. THIS
YEAR, MOST OF THESE BILLS HAVE
BEEN BIPARTISAN EFFORTS,
INCLUDING SOME WHERE THE
LEGISLATIVE HOUSES VOTED
UNANIMOUSLY TO PASS THE BILL AND
MOST OF THESE BILLS HAVE
WITHSTOOD JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.
MOST RECENTLY, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD ONE OF
THESE BILLS IN A LANDMARK
DECISION, THE COURT MADE CLEAR
THAT STATES HAVE A COMPELLING
INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN
FROM INTERNET AND THAT BILLS
LIKE AB 30, WHICH IS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE
BILL AT ISSUE IN THAT CASE, DO
NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
SO RIGHT NOW, CHAIR MEMBERS, THE
AVERAGE AGE OF EARLY OF EXPOSURE
, FIRST EXPOSURE TO IS BETWEEN 7
AND 13. SO AB 3080 IS CRITICAL
LEGISLATION NECESSARY TO
PROTECTING CHILDREN AND
EMPOWERING PARENTS. WE STRONGLY
URGE YOU TO SUPPORT AND I'M HERE
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS AN
IMPRESSIVE EXACT SIX MINUTES
TEAM. SO WE'VE BEEN TIMING IT.
KUDOS TO THE SUPPORT ON THIS
BILL. ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. WELCOME TO
COME UP. REGISTER YOUR SUPPORT
NAME AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ROCHELLE CONNOR, ON BEHALF OF
CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA IN
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HI.
MY NAME IS MARY LENTZ. I'M A I'M
AN ASSOCIATE PRODUCER FOR DISNEY
AND HULU. I'M STRONGLY
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
HI. MY NAME IS JEWELL BARAKA.
I'M A SURVIVOR WHO WAS
TRAFFICKED IMPORTANT 14 AND
AUTHOR OF THE RECENT BOOK COMING
OF AGE ON A SET, AND I AM
STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
HELEN TAYLOR, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
THE ANTI-TRAFFICKING
ORGANIZATION EXODUS CRY. IN FULL
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. JENNA MCKAY, HUMAN
TRAFFICKING SURVIVOR. AND WITH
EXODUS CRY. AND I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. WATCH THAT
DOOR. IT KEEPS OPENING BEHIND
YOU GUYS. BUT PLEASE JOIN US.
ASHLEY FAISON I'M THE FOUNDER OF
A ANTI-TRAFFICKING ORGANIZATION,
DIAMOND COLLECTIVE, AND ALSO A
SURVIVOR IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M
MOSIAH MADDOX, AND I'M A PARENT,
AND I SUPPORT THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. HELLO. MY NAME IS PEGGY
DELGADO FAVA. I'M THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR BRIDGE NETWORK, AND
WE WORK WITH MARGINALIZED, AT
RISK YOUTH SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. PASTOR BRANDON
CAMPBELL, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
DIRECTOR FOR CALIFORNIA BAPTIST
FOR BIBLICAL VALUES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. CHRISTINE CAMPBELL
I'M JUST A CONCERNED PARENT AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NOT JUST A
CONCERNED PARENT SAYING JUST
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
FAMILY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT.
THANKS. THANK YOU. BROCK
CAMPBELL ON BEHALF OF LIGHTHOUSE
BAPTIST CHURCH IN SANTA MARIA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CAMPBELL
FROM SANTA MARIA LIGHTHOUSE
BAPTIST CHURCH AND I'M IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HELLO,
DOCTOR. DOUG BENNETT, FOUNDING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ON BEHALF OF
MAGDALENE HOPE RESTORATION
RANCH, WOMEN'S SHELTER, RESCUE
GROUNDS, COFFEE COMPANY AND
PEOPLE FOR THE ABOLISHMENT OF
TRAFFICKING HUMANS. I'M A FORMER
ADDICT AND SEX BUYER, AND
PASSING THIS BILL MIGHT HELP A
YOUNG MAN GO DOWN THE SAME ROAD
THAT I WENT DOWN. SO URGE YOU
FOR A VOTE. THANK YOU SIR, DO WE
HAVE PRINCIPLE OPPOSITION IN THE
ROOM? WHO WANTS TO COME UP AND
TESTIFY? OH, OKAY. OH, THERE WE
GO. NO, WE HAVE SOMEONE. SHE'S
COMING. JOIN US. OKAY JUST A
QUICKIE. SAMANTHA CORPORATE, ON
BEHALF OF THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO.
PLEASE. THERE'S SIX MINUTES FOR
THE OPPOSITION. WE THAT'S EQUAL
TIME AROUND HERE. THAT'S PART OF
OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. THANK
YOU, CHAIR BAUER. KHN. MY NAME
IS ALLISON BOWDEN, AND I'M
PERSONALLY FROM SONOMA COUNTY.
STOP YOU ONE SECOND BECAUSE I
THINK OAKLAND PRIVACY MIGHT WANT
PART OF THE TIME. DO YOU WANT TO
SHARE TIME? OKAY. SO IF YOU GUYS
WANT TO SHARE TIME I JUST WANT
TO MAKE SURE WE COORDINATE. IS
THAT OKAY WITH YOU. YEAH. SO
THREE MINUTES EACH. DOES THAT
WORK? SURE. PERFECT. SO, MY NAME
IS ALLISON BOWDEN. I AM THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FREE
SPEECH COALITION, WHICH
REPRESENTS PEOPLE AND
ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
SEXUAL EXPRESSION. WE HAVE
HUNDREDS OF MEMBERS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA TO PLACES LIKE
LAFAYETTE, OAKLAND, SAN DIEGO,
LONG BEACH, AND OF COURSE, LOS
ANGELES. I AM HERE TO OPPOSE A B
3080 BECAUSE IT'S SEVERELY
FLAWED BOTH LEGALLY AND
TECHNOLOGICALLY. B LEGALLY, THE
SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY RULED
THAT REQUIRING AGE VERIFICATION
TO ACCESS PROTECTED EXPRESSION
ONLINE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THIS
IS WHY MY ORGANIZATION IS
CHALLENGING SIMILAR LAWS IN
OTHER STATES, AND WHY IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT DECISION IS BEING
APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT AS
WE SPEAK. TECHNOLOGICALLY, THESE
ARE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
ACTUALLY SUPPORTS EFFORTS TO
KEEP MINORS AWAY FROM OUR
CONTENT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS
BILL IS INEFFECTIVE AND HAS AN
ULTERIOR MOTIVE. AS I'M SURE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE ARE
WELL AWARE, RESTRICTIONS LIKE
THIS ARE EASILY EVADED BY A VPN,
WHICH IS A SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S ALREADY USED BY NEARLY
HALF OF MINORS TO CHANGE THEIR
LOCATION. WHEN THEY'RE BROWSING
THE INTERNET. LIKE NETFLIX. BUT
THE FACT IS, AB 3080 HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH PROTECTING CHILDREN.
IT'S ABOUT RESTRICTING THE KIND
OF CONTENT THAT CALIFORNIANS OF
ALL AGES CAN ACCESS. THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL VASTLY
EXPANDS THE DEFINITION OF
OBSCENITY, FLYING IN THE FACE OF
SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT IN
MILLER VERSUS CALIFORNIA.
INSTEAD OF PROTECTING CHILDREN,
THIS BILL WILL SUBJECT ALL
MANNER OF PEOPLE, BUSINESSES,
ORGANIZATIONS, LIBRARIES TO
RUINOUS CIVIL LIABILITY FOR
ALLOWING ACCESS TO INDECENT
MATERIAL IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO
IMPLEMENT COSTLY AGE
VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY, AND
GIVING THEM NO ABILITY TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES, SHOULD THEY BE SUED
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RETAIN PROOF
THAT THEY IDENTIFIED ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON? THIS BILL HAS
GONE INTO EFFECT, OR ONE LIKE IT
IN OTHER STATES. AND WHAT WE'VE
LEARNED IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T
COMPLY WITH UPWARDS OF 80% OF
PEOPLE WHEN PRESENTED WITH THE
OPTION TO AGE, VERIFY, LEAVE A
WEBSITE AND GO OUT AND FIND ONE
THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH LAWS.
THIS ISN'T THE SAME AS FLASHING
YOUR ID TO BUY BEER. IT'S
TRANSMITTING HIGHLY SENSITIVE
AND VALUABLE INFORMATION OVER
THE INTERNET, EXPOSING IT TO ALL
TYPES OF DANGER, THE SUPREME
COURT RULED. IN RENO VERSUS ACLU
, RENO VERSUS ASHCROFT. THAT NÓ
IT'S RENO VERSUS ACLU THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN'T REQUIRE AGE
VERIFICATION WHERE LESS
RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF PREVENTING
MINORS FROM ACCESSING
INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT EXIST.
THEY DID THEN, AND THEY DO NOW.
THIS PRECEDENT IS BEING AFFIRMED
AGAIN AND AGAIN IN COURTS ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY. AND JUST LAST
WEEK, ARIZONA'S DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNOR VETOED A SIMILAR BILL
BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. WE WANT MINORS OFF
OUR SITES JUST AS MUCH AS YOU
DO, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK WITH
THIS COMMITTEE TO COME UP WITH
AN EFFECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
SOLUTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
CHAIRWOMAN. AND MEMBERS, THANK
YOU. STAFF. YEAH OH, HI AGAIN,
TRACY ROSENBERG FROM OAKLAND.
PRIVACY I'LL BE BRIEF. WE JUST
SORT OF WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
FACT THAT WE DON'T NEED TO GUESS
WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE
WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND
ADOPT IT, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY
HAPPENED IN SEVEN STATES. AND
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THOSE SEVEN
STATES? MOST OF WHICH ARE
STATES, A LOT OF WHOSE LAWS WE
DON'T ACTUALLY COME LIKE SO
MUCH, IS THAT HOW TO SAY THIS?
THE MOST LEGITIMATE AND SAFE
OPTIONS FOR BOTH ADULTS AND
YOUTH HAVE VACATED THE STATE
THEY'VE LEFT. PORNHUB IS GONE.
THAT MEANS THAT ANYONE SEARCHING
FOR IN THOSE STATES IS
ESSENTIALLY GETTING PUSHED TO
SITES THAT ARE SHADIER, LESS
SAFE, WORSE. CYBER SECURITY,
MUCH MORE SNUFF, MUCH MORE
NON-CONSENT, MUCH MORE DANGEROUS
STUFF. I MEAN, I AM NOT AN
ADVOCATE FOR PORNHUB. GOD FORBID
, BUT THEY HAVE MADE PROGRESS
OVER THE YEARS IN GETTING SOME
OF THE WORST OF THE WORST OFF
THEIR SITE. SO WHAT IS THE
INCENTIVE IN PUSHING PEOPLE THAT
ARE LOOKING FOR AWAY FROM SITES
THAT ARE SAFER TO SITES THAT ARE
FAR, FAR, FAR LESS SAFE? ARE WE
REALLY ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WE
WANT TO ACCOMPLISH HERE? AND
MOREOVER, IS NOT LIKE A SMALL,
TEENY TINY SEGMENT OF THE
INTERNET. WE TEND TO KIND OF
THINK THAT. BUT ACTUALLY 25% OF
ALL INTERNET SEARCHES ARE FOR.
AND THAT MAKES ME SAD BECAUSE
IT'S A REALLY HIGH NUMBER. YEAH,
LIKE ALL THE PEOPLE IN THIS
ROOM, LIKE ONE OUT OF FOUR, YOU
KNOW, BUT THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS.
SO IT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF
INTERNET TRAFFIC AND IT'S GOING
TO GO SOMEWHERE. AND SO I THINK
THAT WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC
ABOUT I MEAN, YES, WE ABSOLUTELY
DON'T WANT KIDS TO SEE. WE DON'T
WANT KIDS TO SEE DANGEROUS.
ABSOLUTELY. BUT WE HAVE TO BE A
LITTLE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE CHOOSING TO DO. AS YOU
KNOW, WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING
TO BE ON THE GROUND. AND I WILL
SAY, AS A PRIVACY ADVOCATE, THE
WHOLE IDEA OF AGE VERIFICATION
OAN AT, SHADY, ETHICALLY
QUESTIONABLE AND OFTEN FOREIGN
SITES JUST MAKES ME HURT INSIDE
BECAUSE SO MANY THINGS ARE GOING
TO GO WRONG. THAT IS NOT WHO YOU
SEND YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE TO OR
YOUR GOVERNMENT ISSUED
IDENTIFICATION, OR YOUR PICTURE
OR ANYTHING ELSE, LIKE NEVER
THINK YOU. IF WE'RE ENCOURAGING
PEOPLE TO DO THAT, IT'S NOT
GOOD. THANK YOU, ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL?
GOOD AFTERNOON. CAMERON. DIMITRI
WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF NET CHOICE, WE HAVE JUST TWO
CONCERNS. REAL BRIEFLY, FIRST
AMENDMENT CONCERNS WITH OBSCENE
AND INDECENT. THE DEFINITION AND
TO THE CASE THAT WAS REFERENCED
IN ACLU, ARENA VERSUS ACLU AND
ALSO DATA MINIMIZATION CONCERNS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEEING NO
OTHER WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
BRING YOU BACK TO THE COMMITTEE,
MR. BRIAN. LEARNING SO MUCH
TODAY, QUESTION, JUST FOR THE
AUTHOR, WHAT DID YOU THINK OF
THE OPPOSITION'S POINTS? WELL, I
THINK JUST, ONE TALKING ABOUT
25% OF THE USAGE. I MEAN, IT
MAKES ME EVEN WANT TO DO THIS
EVEN MORE IF WE'RE IF IT'S THAT
HIGH. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THAT
HIGH, IF YOU MIND, IF YOU WANT
ANY OF MY EXPERTS TO SPEAK ON IT
AS WELL. WE COULD DO THAT. JUST
WONDERING IF THERE'S MORE TO
DISCUSS WITH THE OPPOSITION
AFTER IF THIS BILL WERE TO MOVE
THROUGH COMMITTEE HEARING, IF
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU'D BE
OPEN TO. IF I MAY NOTE ONE
THING, IT SOUNDS LIKE, THERE
WASN'T A CHANCE AND I UNDERSTAND
THIS, TO REVIEW SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS ON THE DEFINITIONS
AROUND INDECENT MATERIALS THAT
HOPEFULLY MAY ADDRESS SOME OF
THE CONCERNS. SO HOPEFULLY THE
OPPOSITION CAN REVIEW THE
AMENDMENTS AND SEE IF IT
ADDRESSES SOME, MAYBE NOT ALL OF
THEIR CONCERNS. AND THERE'S
STILL MORE TO COME. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SIR. SO THE BILL NOW
DOESN'T TALK ABOUT INDECENCY AT
ALL. IT USES THE TERMS SEXUALLY
EXPLICIT CONTENT WHICH IS MUCH
NARROWER. SO HOPEFULLY THAT
ADDRESSES SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD
TODAY. AND I WANT TO THANK
COMMITTEE STAFF BECAUSE THEY
WENT A LONG WAY IN WORKING ON
THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS.
AND HOPEFULLY IT IS. AND IF IT
MOVES OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY, IT
WILL GO TO JUDICIARY, WHICH
OBVIOUSLY FIRST AMENDMENT IS A
HUGE PART OF WHAT THEY WILL BE
LOOKING AT. MISS DIXON, THANK
YOU. CHAIR TECHNICAL QUESTION,
THAT IDENTIFIES THÀNH THE
VERIFICATION PROCESS. HOW WOULD
THAT WORK? THANK YOU. JUMPING
AROUND A LITTLE, THAT'S A GREAT
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
WAYS OF DOING IT. THE
TRADITIONAL WAY WOULD BE TO USE
A GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID AND THE
TECHNOLOGY AS SUCH. NOW THAT WE
CAN DO THAT ON YOUR DEVICE SO WE
DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO TRANSMIT
THAT INFORMATION AWAY FROM THE
PHONE. LIKEWISE WITH THE FACIAL
AGE ESTIMATION THAT ALSO CAN BE
PROCESSED ENTIRELY ON DEVICE.
AND THEN WE USE WHAT'S KNOWN AS
PRIVACY ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES.
PETS SO THAT WHEN YOU ARE GIVING
THE CONFIRMATION TO THE ADULT
WEBSITE THAT THE USER IS OVER
18, THEY SEE ABSOLUTELY NO
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT USER. AND
AS THIS BILL REQUIRES, AFTER
BEING EDITED BY THE COMMITTEE
STAFF, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
RETAIN ANY OF THAT DATA AND
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO HEAVY FINES
IF WE DID SO. THANK YOU. SO WHO
RECEIVES THAT TRANSMITTAL OF THE
LICENSE OR THE IDENTIFICATION?
WHO DOES? WHO GETS IT. WHAT A
MACHINE. SO I'M SAYING IT IS IT
IS POSSIBLE AT THE MOMENT TO DO
THAT LOCALLY ON YOUR OWN DEVICE.
SO IT NEVER LEAVES. UNTIL
RECENTLY THAT HAS TRADITIONALLY
GONE TO AN AGE VERIFICATION
PROVIDER. SO WE HAVE AN IEEE
STANDARD, A BRITISH STANDARD,
AND THERE'S AN ISO, AN
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD AGAINST
WHICH ALL OUR PROVIDERS ARE
AUDITED. AND PART OF THAT IS
CONFIRMING THAT THEY LOOK AFTER
YOUR DATA IN WHILE THEY'RE DOING
THAT PROCESS, JUST AS WELL AS
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER OR
YOUR BANK. THAT'S TRUE. WELL, I
THINK THAT'S A VITAL PART OF
THIS TO MAKE IT. IT'S THE FIRST
TIME I'VE EVER HEARD ANY
POSSIBLE PRACTICAL TECHNICAL
SOLUTION IN ORDER TO CHECK
IDENTIFICATION, OTHER THAN
ALGORITHMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE
THAT CHANGE EVERY YEAR, WHERE
ARE THE AGE WOULD CHANGE EVERY
YEAR, WHEREAS THIS COULD BE A
DEFINITIVE PRIVACY PROTECTED
IDENTIFICATION TRANSMITTAL
PROCESS. IF I MIGHT JUST ADD,
THE EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION
AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN INTENSELY
INTERESTED IN OUR INDUSTRY AND
THE FRENCH CNIL AND THE SPANISH
AEPD HAVE BOTH PRODUCED VERY
EXTENSIVE NEW REQUIREMENTS,
WHICH WE ARE CONFORMING TO NOW
IN ORDER TO MEET THE VERY HIGH
STANDARDS THAT THEY EXPECT ON
PRIVACY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THESE ARE THIS IS IN PLACE. YES.
SO WE HAVE A THROUGH THE
INTEROPERABLE SOLUTION, WHICH IS
A TOKENIZED SOLUTION, WHICH
ESSENTIALLY MEANS ONCE YOU'VE
PROVEN YOUR AGE, ONCE YOU CAN
REUSE THAT SAME AGE CHECK IN A
ENTIRELY ZERO KNOWLEDGE PROOF SO
THAT OTHER WEBSITES WILL KNOW
THAT YOU'RE OVER 18 WITHOUT YOU
HAVING TO REPEAT THE AGE
VERIFICATION PROCESS, I SEE.
OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH.
MR. VICE CHAIR, THANKS, I GOT TO
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU GOOGLE, WHEN
TRYING TO FIGURE STUFF OUT ON
THIS, THIS IS A GOVERNMENT
ISSUED, COMPUTER HERE, WHAT IF
AN INDIVIDUAL GOES IN? I MISS
MOST OF THE TESTIMONY, AND I
APOLOGIZE FOR THAT BECAUSE I'M
ON FOUR COMMITTEES AT THE SAME
EXACT TIME. SO BUT WHEN YOU GO
INTO A GROCERY STORE AND, NOT
YOU OR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE
SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, PURCHASES,
MAGAZINE, IF THAT STILL HAPPENS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAPPENS
ANYMORE. BUT BACK IN THE DAY,
DID YOU HAVE TO SHOW ID LIKE TO
BUY A SOMETIMES, IF I MAY,
SENATOR, THE ANSWER IS YES. AND
IN FACT, ONE OF THE CASES THAT
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RELIED ON,
LIKE THE PRIMARY CASE WAS A CASE
CALLED GINSBURG. THAT'S THE
SHORT NAME FOR IT. IT WAS BASED
ON A VERY SIMILAR LAW, ACTUALLY,
FROM ALL THE WAY BACK IN THE
50S. THAT REQUIRED THE SAME
THING. BASICALLY, IF YOU GO INTO
A BOOKSTORE THAT SELLS BACK THEN
WHAT THEY CALLED GIRLIE
MAGAZINES OR GIRLY BOOKS, THEY
JUST HAD TO FLASH THEIR
IDENTIFICATION TO LET THEM KNOW
THEY WERE OF AGE. SO WHAT THE
COURT RULED IS THAT WHAT THIS
BILL AND WHAT THE BILL AT ISSUE
IN THAT CASE REQUIRED IS
BASICALLY THE ONLINE ELECTRONIC
VERSION OF THE SAME THING, WHICH
IS WHY IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL
BURDEN ON ADULT SPEECH. ADULTS
CAN WATCH AS MUCH AS THEY WANT
TO. ONCE ONE OF THESE BILLS GOES
INTO EFFECT. ALL THIS DOES IS
PROTECT CHILDREN FROM COMING
INTO CONTACT WITH IT. YEAH, I
YEAH, I MEAN, IF IT'S OKAY WITH
THE CHAIR, I'D LOVE TO HEAR.
THANKS, SO, GINSBURG ACTUALLY
DEALT WITH A MAGAZINE SALESMAN
WHO WANTED TO SELL TO MINORS.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS BILL DEALS
WITH. AND IT IS ACTUALLY A VERY
DIFFERENT THING TO FLASH YOUR ID
TO SOMEONE WHO ISN'T MEMORIZING
IT, AS IT WOULD BE TO MAYBE PASS
IT AROUND TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON
THAT NOW THEY SEE YOUR YOUR ID,
YOU KNOW, THAT IS MUCH MORE AKIN
TO WHAT AN ONLINE AGE
VERIFICATION SYSTEM DOES. THESE
BYTES ARE TRANSMITTED OVER THE
INTERNET THAT'S INHERENTLY
UNSAFE AND DESPITE WHAT MY
COLLEAGUES MAY HAVE OR MY
COLLEAGUE AT AVPA MAY HAVE SAID,
THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
APPROVED ANY AGE VERIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE NONE OF THEM
MEET THEIR PRIVACY STANDARDS,
WHEN YOU I MEAN, I'VE BEEN KNOWN
TO GO TO A PLACE THAT SELLS
ALCOHOL IN MY LIFE AND, THEY
SOME PLACES, YOU KNOW,
ESPECIALLY LATE AT NIGHT, THEY
SCAN YOUR ID AND A DEVICE THAT'S
CONNECTED TO SOMETHING ON THE
WORLD WIDE WEB. SO I WOULD
IMAGINE, AND I ASSUME YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO THOSE DEVICES AS
WELL. OR THERE'S A SLIGHT
DIFFERENCE IN THAT ALCOHOL
CONSUMPTION ISN'T PROTECTED
FIRST AMENDMENT ACTIVITY. AND SO
SOMEONE WHO GOT ACCESS TO
SOMEHOW THAT YOU HAD SCANNED
YOUR ID TO BUY AN ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE, CONSUMING A LEGAL
PRODUCT IS NOT A FIRST AMENDMENT
ACTIVITY. IT'S NOT NØ OR GOING
TO A TECHNICAL, LEGALLY. NO IT
ISN'T. IT'S A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT. WE HAD AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSENT AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT ALSO DEPENDING
ON WHAT YOU DRINK, I DON'T KNOW,
BUT IT ALSO MAY NOT REVEAL
PREFERENCES. YOU WOULDN'T WANT
SOMEONE ELSE KNOWING ABOUT MAYBE
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USED
AGAINST YOU IN A DIVORCE
PETITION, MAYBE SOMETHING THAT
COULD BE USED AGAINST YOU AT
YOUR JOB, WHEREAS YOUR ACTIVITY
ONLINE MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE
SENSITIVE. YEAH I UNDERSTAND THE
, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DATA,
CONCERNS ABOUT IDS AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. I LITERALLY WAS JUST
IN ANOTHER COMMITTEE TESTIFYING
ON A BILL ABOUT SENIOR FRAUD.
AND I PROPOSE THIS BILL AND,
UNFORTUNATELY, AND, THERE ARE
PEOPLE OUT THERE I DON'T KNOW
WHERE I DON'T GO TO THESE DARK
WEB WEBSITES. I DON'T EVEN KNOW
WHAT THAT IS. BUT I'M TOLD IT'S
OUT THERE. AND PEOPLE HAVE THEY
WERE ABLE THEY'RE ABLE TO
ACCUMULATE ALL THIS INFORMATION
ON PEOPLE, SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO
MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE, BUT
PRESUMABLY THERE IS ACCESS TO
THAT INFORMATION FOR A LOT OF
THE FRAUDSTERS ALREADY. AND SO,
SO I, I DON'T REALLY LIKE THE
PERSONALLY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE
FOR MY NOT BEING A LAWYER. I'M A
POLICY MAKER AND DEFINITELY NOT
A LAWYER. BUT YOU KNOW, MY
CHILDREN AND NOT SAYING THAT YOU
ARE THEY DON'T HAVE A FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT, YOU KNOW, TO DO
ANYTHING IN MY HOUSE, MUCH LESS
LOOK AT, BUT, SO, SO THERE'S
PROTECTION THERE. I WANT TO
PROTECT THE DATA AND I THINK I
WOULD IMAGINE THE AUTHOR AND
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. YOU
WOULD BE OPEN TO TAKING SOME
KIND OF OR CONTINUING THE
CONVERSATION, AT LEAST THAT IF
THERE'S METHODS TO PROTECT THE
DATA, YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT.
AS STATED EARLIER, YES I WILL.
OKAY, GREAT. WELL, I WASN'T
HERE. OH THAT'S RIGHT, YOU
WEREN'T HERE. SO, ALL RIGHT.
BECAUSE I HAVE I'VE, I'VE
WITNESSED THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES
ARE COMING UP ALL OVER THE
PLACE. I JUST HAPPEN TO TRAVEL
TO, EUROPE WHERE THEY, YOU KNOW,
VARIOUS THINGS. THEY WANTED YOU
TO SCAN YOUR ID, AND NOT
NECESSARILY JUST FOR TRAVEL, BUT
THEY'RE PROCESSING THE DATA
LOCALLY, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW
THAT WORKS. I'M. THAT'S WAY
ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. AND SO I
THINK THERE COULD BE SOME LEVEL
OF TRUST, SOME KIND OF
CERTIFICATION OF THE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT YOUR
INFORMATION ISN'T GOING TO END
UP, YOU KNOW, OUT THERE. AND I
DON'T KNOW IF EXACTLY IF THAT
TECHNOLOGY EXISTS, BUT I THINK
THE PREMISE OF THE BILL, TO ME,
IS A SUPPORTABLE ONE, WHICH IS
YOU SHOULD HAVE TO VERIFY THAT
YOU'RE OVER 18 TO LOOK AT, AND
YOU CAN LOOK AS MUCH WHEN I SAY
YOU SORRY, I DON'T, BUT ANYBODY
CAN LOOK AS MUCH AS THEY CHOOSE
TO. AND I'M VERY INTERESTED IN
THE DATA PROTECTION AND I WOULD
BE WILLING TO JOIN IN ON
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR ON
ON HOW WE MAYBE FIRM THAT UP A
LITTLE BIT, BUT BECAUSE I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. BUT THE
POLICY ITSELF, I SUPPORT. AND SO
HOW DO WE MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT?
LET'S DO IT. YOU KNOW. THANK
YOU. MR. VICE-CHAIR. MISS ORTEGA
. I JUST WANT TO I MEAN, I WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. BUT ALSO BEING
OPEN TO THE CONVERSATION. I TOO,
HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS, AND I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU
WERE WILLING TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS TODAY. YOU KNOW, AS
WAS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW,
THROUGHOUT TODAY, THIS IS A VERY
TECHNICAL, DIFFICULT,
CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING
ON ALL OF THESE BILLS. THE
TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING A LOT
FASTER THAN WE CAN, ALL CATCH UP
WITH. BUT AS A MOTHER OF A
DAUGHTER, YOU KNOW, I WISH WE
HAD DONE A LOT MORE WHEN IT
COMES TO CELL PHONE USE AND WHAT
WE'RE SEEING TODAY AND THE HARM
THAT IT'S CAUSING OUR CHILDREN
HAD WE THOUGHT ABOUT SOME OF
THESE THINGS AHEAD OF TIME, WE
WOULDN'T BE SEEING THAT, YOU
KNOW, TODAY. AND SO YOU KNOW,
WHILE I RESPECT AND UNDERSTAND
THE CONCERNS THE OPPOSITION HAS,
I ALSO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
YOU'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH US. AS YOU KNOW, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING TODAY, BUT
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THIS
DIALOG. IT IS A DIFFICULT ONE TO
HAVE, BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR
CHILDREN. AND I THINK ULTIMATELY
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE TODAY. I AGREE, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MISS ORTEGA. MR.
HOOVER, THANK YOU, YOU KNOW, THE
OPPOSITION BROUGHT UP SOMETHING
ABOUT A AN ALTERNATIVE POLICY. I
JUST WANTED TO ASK, LIKE, WHAT
IS WHAT WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE
TO THIS POLICY? SO IF WE'RE
GOING JUST BY WHAT THE SUPREME
COURT SAID, IT SHOULD BE FOCUSED
ON PARENTAL FILTERS, WHICH HAVE
ACTUALLY BECOME INCREDIBLY,
HIGHLY, EFFECTIVE. THERE ARE
SOME ISSUES WITH BEING
OVERINCLUSIVE, AND SO I OUR
ORGANIZATION HAS WORKED ON MODEL
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HELP
SITES THAT ESSENTIALLY
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DON'T WANT
CHILDREN ON THEM TO GET RID OF
THEM BY USING THE FILTERS, IT'S
CALLED A MODERATE, A MATURE
CONTENT TAG THAT IS VERY EASY TO
ADD TO ANY WEBSITE. AND IT WOULD
SAY IF THIS USER IS UNDER 18,
THEY'RE BLOCKED, I BELIEVE, META
ACTUALLY CAME OUT WITH A
FRAMEWORK WHERE THAT COULD WORK
FOR APPS AND WEBSITES WHEREIN,
YOU KNOW, YOUR CELL PHONE, KNOWS
HOW OLD YOU ARE, AND IT KNOWS
HOW OLD A CHILD IS. IF IT IF
IT'S OWNED BY A CHILD AND BEING
ABLE TO NOT NECESSARILY SHARE A
DATE OF BIRTH BECAUSE THAT'S
SENSITIVE, BUT AT LEAST HAVE A
FLAG THAT SAYS THIS IS A MINOR.
OUR WEBSITES WOULD HAVE NO
PROBLEM REJECTING THAT. THAT
TRAFFIC. SO YOU'RE SAYING
ESSENTIALLY USING THE HARDWARE,
CORRECT, AS THE METHOD OF, OF OR
SOFTWARE ON THE HARDWARE, BUT
ESSENTIALLY KIND OF ESSENTIALLY
LIKE YOUR DEVICE KNOWS YOUR
PRIVATE INFORMATION VERSUS I
WOULD IMAGINE IT'S MORE LIKE
TURNING AWAY A YOUNG A PERSON AT
A BAR AT THE DOOR. YEAH I
APPRECIATE THAT. LOOK, I, I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION. I THINK, YOU KNOW,
I ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR BILL
LAST YEAR. I DO THINK THAT, TO
MY COLLEAGUES COMMENTS, I THINK
THAT AS A PARENT, THIS IS JUST
TOO IMPORTANT OF AN ISSUE. AND
BUT I DO LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS ON
PRIVACY, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I
DO THINK PROTECTING PEOPLE'S
PRIVACY IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE'LL
BE SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS
DIXON. ONE MORE QUESTION, MISS
WILSON. OH, GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR. I DEFINITELY
UNDERSTAND, THE INTENT IN TERMS
OF PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN UNDER
AGE AGAINST, THINGS THEY
SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED, TO VIEW
THINGS THAT WOULD, HARM THEM. I
MEAN, THINK THINGS, THE ACTUAL
LANGUAGE IN THE BILL, THINGS
THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS. AND
I THINK WE NOT ONLY AS PARENTS,
SHOULDER THAT RESPONSIBILITY,
BUT WE AS A COMMUNITY. I THINK
THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT HAS INTEREST AND, IN
PROTECTING CHILDREN BECAUSE, YOU
KNOW, NOT TO BE CLICHE, THEY ARE
OUR FUTURE. AND SO IF WE DON'T
PROTECT THEM WHEN THEY'RE YOUNG,
WE CAN'T BE SURPRISED THE KIND
OF FUTURE WE HAVE. AND THE IN
THE FUTURE, SOME OF MY CONCERNS,
DO RELATE TO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, LIKE BALANCING THAT
PART, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT
INTEREST ALSO HAS, INTEREST IN
PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS AND VERY
MUCH STRONGLY THERE'S A FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHT HERE, AND SO
SOME OF MY QUESTIONS ARE TO YOUR
WITNESSES, IN, IN FOLLOWING UP,
THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE GIVEN IN
TERMS OF, IT'S SIMILAR TO GOING
TO A STORE AND PRIOR TO
PURCHASING GOODS THAT ARE ABOVE
THE AGE OF 18 OR 21 OR WHATEVER,
SHOWING, YOU KNOW, AN ID, WHICH
IS DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME AS
WAS NOTED FROM THE OPPOSITION AS
RETAINING AN ID, AND THERE WAS
CONVERSATION ABOUT TOKENS, THAT
YOU CAN HAVE THAT I GUESS ARE ON
THE COMPUTER OR DEVICE THAT
WOULD BE ALLOWABLE FOR OTHER
SITES, BUT THAT FEELS LIKE A
RETENTION OF SORTS. SO CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? YES. SO THE
TOKENIZED SOLUTION WOULD, WHICH
IS SOMETHING THAT THE SPANISH
DATA PROTECTION AUTHORITY IS
VERY KEEN ON, IS HAVING AN
APPLICATION ON YOUR PHONE AND
YOU PROVE TO THE APPLICATION
PERHAPS USING A DIGITAL IDENTITY
OR USING A PIECE OF ID THAT
WHAT, WHAT YOUR THAT YOU ARE
OVER 18 AND THEN ALL THAT
APPLICATION DOES IS SEND
EFFECTIVELY A SIGNED CERTIFICATE
THAT YOU ARE OVER 18 TO ANY
WEBSITE THAT IS AGE RESTRICTED.
AND SO YOUR DATA ISN'T SENT TO
THAT PERSON, JUST A GREEN LIGHT,
SO TO SPEAK. IT'S A GREEN LIGHT
WHICH HAS BEEN SIGNED BY BY A
TRUSTWORTHY AUTHORITY SO THAT
THE ADULT WEBSITE CAN TRUST THAT
WHEN IT SEES THAT GREEN LIGHT,
IT KNOWS THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO
COULD HAVE DONE THAT WERE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE PROPERLY PROVEN THEIR
AGE AND ARE ACTUALLY THE PERSON
USING THAT DEVICE. SO IT'S NOT A
MONTH LATER WHERE IT MAY HAVE
BEEN HANDED DOWN TO SOMEBODY'S
KID WHEN THEY UPGRADED THEIR
PHONE. AND THE ISSUES WE HAVE
WITH THAT SORT OF SECOND HAND
PHONE PROBLEM. AND ONE OF THE
THINGS YOU NOTED, AND I BELIEVE
IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN PART OF THE
OTHER CONVERSATION I HAD IT FOR
HERE WAS TALKING ABOUT FRANCE.
RIGHT. AND THEY, IT SAYS IN THE
ANALYSIS, THAT IT FOUND THAT NO
METHOD HAS THE FOLLOWING THREE
IMPORTANT ELEPHANT ELEMENTS
SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE
VERIFICATION, COMPLETE COVERAGE
OF THE POPULATION AND RESPECT
FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUALS, DATA PRIVACY AND
THEIR SECURITY. YES. SO, WHAT
THE CNIL DID, WHICH IS THE DATA
PROTECTION AUTHORITY AND THE
ELLEN CNIL IS FOR LIBERTY. SO
THEY ARE VERY KEEN ON FREEDOMS
AND THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IS
WHILE THEY CRITICIZED EXISTING
METHODS, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO,
THEY DIDN'T JUST CRITICIZE, THEY
CAME UP WITH A BETTER WAY OF
DOING IT, AND WHAT THEY COME UP
WITH IS SOMETHING CALLED A
DOUBLE BLIND SOLUTION. AND THAT
ALLOWS, AGAIN, THROUGH THIS
CONCEPT OF SIGNED CERTIFICATES,
THE CNIL THEMSELVES HAVE
INVENTED A SOLUTION THAT THEY
ARE SATISFIED, MEETS ALL OF
THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO WHAT I
WOULD SAY TO THIS COMMITTEE, AND
AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
DISCUSSING THE DETAIL OF THIS,
THIS BILL, YOU CAN SET THE BAR
AS HIGH AS YOU LIKE FOR PRIVACY
PROTECTION, AS THE CNIL HAVE
DONE. AND THE INDUSTRY WILL STEP
UP. SO THERE ARE NOW AT LEAST
FIVE PROVIDERS IN FRANCE WHO
HAVE DEVELOPED SOLUTIONS THAT
MEET THESE VERY NEW, VERY HIGH
REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CNIL. AND
SO, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE
ANALYSIS NOTED THAT COMMENT FROM
2022, BUT IT'S 2024. SO SINCE
2022. AND THAT COMMENT WAS MADE
THAT THERE ARE THERE'S A GOLD
STANDARD NOW THAT SATISFY THOSE
THREE. AND THAT THAT IS AN
OUTDATED COMMENT. WELL, THE CNIL
THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES WHO'VE
INVENTED THE SOLUTION TO THEIR
PROBLEM. SO THEY HAVE THEY WHEN
THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T JUST SAY,
WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY YOU'RE
DOING IT, THEY SAID, WE DON'T
LIKE THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT.
WE'VE GOT A BETTER WAY. WE WOULD
LIKE YOUR INDUSTRY TO TRY AND DO
IT THIS WAY. AND WE ANNOUNCED
LAST WEEK AT A BIG CONFERENCE IN
MANCHESTER IN ENGLAND, THAT WE
WERE, AS AN INDUSTRY, MOVING TO
THIS DOUBLE BLIND APPROACH WHERE
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE WEBSITE
TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE USER
AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AGE
VERIFICATION TO PROVIDER, TO
KNOW WHICH WEBSITES THE USER IS
GOING TO. YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LOT
OF SYMPATHY. I HALF UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU SAID, I JUST WANT TO
CONFIRM IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE READING,
THERE'S A STATEMENT, FROM 2022,
THAT'S HAD THREE COMPONENTS THAT
THERE WAS NOTHING EXISTING AT
THAT TIME THAT HAD THOSE THREE
COMPONENTS SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE
VERIFICATION, COMPLETE COVERAGE
OF THE POPULATION AND RESPECT
FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUALS, DATA AND PRIVACY
AND THEIR SECURITY. AND ALTHOUGH
THAT CAME OUT OF FRANCE, I WOULD
SAY THAT THAT IS A STANDARD THAT
WE HAVE IN THE UNITED STATES.
OKAY. SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT
THEY'VE MADE THAT STATEMENT.
IT'S PUT IN OUR COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, AND SO WHAT I'M ASKING
IS AND YOU WERE TALKING A LOT
ABOUT CNIL THAT'S THE NIL THE
FRANCE FOR PEOPLE IN THE ROOM.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
INFORMATION LIBERTY, YOU ARE
SAYING THAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT
THEY MADE THAT STATEMENT IN
2022. HOWEVER, TODAY ON, LOOK,
WHAT IS IT? THE YEAR OF OUR
LORD, APRIL 16TH, 2024. THEY
THEY HAVE NOW MET A STANDARD OF
THOSE THREE. INDEED, THEY WENT
AND WORKED WITH A PROFESSOR,
PROFESSOR BLASEY, A FRENCH
PROFESSOR IN CRYPTO
CRYPTOGRAPHY, AND HE WORKED WITH
THEM TO COME UP WITH THIS NEW
SOLUTION. WHAT WE'VE BEEN
SUBSEQUENTLY TRYING TO DO IS
FIGURE OUT HOW WE COMMERCIALIZE
THAT BECAUSE, OKAY, SO A NEW
SOLUTION EXISTS. IT IS YET NOT
DEPLOYED. WELL I MENTIONED THAT
FIVE FRENCH PROVIDERS HAVE
STEPPED UP TO PROVIDE THAT. AND
THE OFFICIAL REGULATOR, C¢M,
WHICH IS IN CHARGE OF INTERNET
SAFETY, WORKS WITH CNIL AND THEY
JUST LAUNCHED THEIR CONSULTATION
ON THE DETAILED RULES THAT
REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE METHOD FOR
ANY ADULT SITE TO MEET THESE
REQUIREMENTS OF DOUBLE BLIND,
THAT THE CNIL HAVE SAID. SO WHAT
WE'RE SEEING AROUND THE WORLD IS
REGULATORS RAISING THE BAR TO,
YOU KNOW, TO MEET THE THREE.
WE'RE GOING TO INDEED MEET THE
THREE STANDARDS. BUT IT IS NOT A
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S
ACTIVE. AND I DO GET IN
TECHNOLOGY. THINGS ARE
EXPONENTIAL. SOMETHING CANNOT BE
ACTIVE TODAY. AND LITERALLY A
MONTH LATER IT'S ALL OVER THE
GLOBE AND IT'S COMPLETELY
ACTIVE. IT'S, YOU KNOW. YEAH. SO
ONE OF THOSE FIVE SUPPLIERS IS A
MEMBER OF MY TRADE ASSOCIATION,
AND THEY CURRENTLY OFFER THAT AS
A PRODUCT IN THE MARKET TODAY,
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY USING THAT
DOUBLE BLIND APPROACH IN THE
MARKET TODAY, IN THE MARKET
TODAY IN EUROPE. BUT NOT BUT NOT
NOT IN THE US YET. NO, I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY I THERE'S NO LAW HERE
REQUIRING IT, BUT. RIGHT, RIGHT.
THAT BUT IT IS BEING ACTIVELY
IT'S DEPLOYED AND SOMEONE IS
USING IT. YES. RIGHT. AND PART
OF THE ASSOCIATION AND I DO
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE,
TESTIFYING WITH THE HAT OF THE
ASSOCIATION. AND SO OF COURSE,
THIS AND NOT TO SAY THERE'S NO
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS THIS MOTIVE.
IN SOME WAYS IT BENEFITS BECAUSE
YOU ARE YOU ARE PART OF THE
ASSOCIATION THAT PROVIDES THIS
BASIC SERVICE THAT WE WOULD THEN
BE PUTTING IN INTO LAW. AND SO
RECOGNIZING THAT AT THE SAME
TIME RECOGNIZING THAT. AND SO I
DON'T MEAN THAT IN A DISRESPECT
TO THE AUTHOR IN THE SAME LEVEL,
WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR KIDS. SO
HOW DO WE DO THAT, I'M VERY MUCH
CONCERNED ABOUT THE, PRIVACY
ASPECT OF INDIVIDUALS,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THIS
PARTICULAR TOPIC, BECAUSE IT CAN
BE WEAPONIZED AGAINST THE PERSON
IF THERE IS SOME TYPE OF AND I'M
NOT TALKING ABOUT MINORS, I
DON'T WANT ANY CHILD LOOKING AT
THESE SITES IN PARTICULAR, AS
IT'S LAID OUT IN THE BILL AND
THE DEFINITIONS THAT, MADAM
CHAIR HAS GIVEN, BUT I ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT, WE LIVE IN
A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE WEAPONIZE
US ALL THE TIME FOR EVERY LITTLE
THING WE SIT IN PRIVACY. YOU
KNOW, I'M SURE AFTER THIS
COMMITTEE TODAY, THERE'S GOING
TO BE TWEETS ABOUT VARIOUS
DECISIONS. AND YOU MUST LIKE
THIS OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE
ARE. AND THEN JUST IMAGINE IF
THAT'S SOMEONE WAS ABLE TO GET
THAT DATA THAT BECAUSE OF THAT
TYPE OF VERIFICATION SYSTEM,
BECAUSE OUR THIS THE LANGUAGE IN
THIS BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE THE
TYPE THAT'S USED. IT JUST
REQUIRES AN AGE VERIFICATION
SYSTEM OR SOME TYPE OF SYSTEM
THAT THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST
SOMEONE IN A NEFARIOUS WAY IF
IT'S HACKED OR WHATEVER. AND SO
WE LIVE IN THAT WORLD. SO I
THINK, AS, AS, YOU KNOW, IF
THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THIS TO MOVE
FORWARD, I THINK YOU HAVE TO
TAKE BECAUSE WE'RE IN PRIVACY,
RIGHT. AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS,
YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO
CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE THERE IS
A ROLE, I THINK, FOR THE PARENT,
THERE'S A ROLE FOR DEVICES. AS,
MY COLLEAGUE HAS NOTED, YOU
KNOW, PUTTING THINGS ON OR I
THINK OPPOSITION NOTED IN THAT
CONVERSATION THAT YOU CAN DO
THINGS LOCALLY, TO BE ABLE TO
PREVENT THAT, NOT NECESSARILY ON
THE BURDEN OF THE SITE WHERE
YOU'RE GIVING THIRD PARTY
INFORMATION, I THINK THAT'S, YOU
KNOW, LIKE I SAID, JUST
BALANCING THE NEEDS OF EVERYBODY
ELSE WHO HAS AS AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE
THEIR FREE PRECEDES TO PRODUCE
CONTENT AND EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT
TO BE ABLE TO TAKE PART IN IT BY
VIEWING IT, AND SO WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE BALANCING THOSE
NEEDS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, MISS WILSON. MISS
DIXON, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION? THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. JUST A FEW FOLLOW UP
QUESTIONS. SO I JUST KIND OF
WANTED TO STILL EVERYTHING DOWN.
I THINK AT LEAST I. THIS IS
WHERE I'M COMING FROM. IT'S NOT
A GOOD THING TO HAVE CHILDREN.
YOUTH UNDER 18, ACCESSING. WE'RE
TRYING TO FIND A WAY IN THIS
HYPER TECHNOLOGY WORLD, TO FIND
A WAY TO MAKE SURE WE PROTECT
EVERYBODY'S RIGHTS, OR AT LEAST,
I GUESS, THE CHILDREN'S RIGHTS.
I DON'T KNOW, I KNOW LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE HERE SAYING, I DIDN'T
KNOW THAT CHILDREN UNDER 18 HAD
RIGHTS TO ACCESS IN A FREE
SPEECH CONTEXT. ANYWAY OKAY,
THIS SEEMS TO BE AN OBSTACLE TO
ME. I THINK THE LARGER ISSUE IS
HOW WE, THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES
SO QUICKLY, AND JUST THESE
PROTECTIONS THAT WE'VE JUST
HEARD ARE SATISFYING.
SATISFACTORY TO ME. AND
TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING SO FAST
THAT IF WE DON'T TRY TO PUT A
STOP TO THIS KIND OF MATERIAL
BEING ACCESSED BY CHILDREN ON
THE INTERNET, AND WE'VE HEARD
EARLIER IN THE TESTIMONY OF, OF
THE 25% OF THE WORLD IS ACCESSED
, THIS INFORMATION, WE CAN'T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT ADULTS AND THE US
SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT WITH
THAT DECADES AGO. BUT AS FAR AS
CHILDREN, I THINK WE ON THE SIDE
OF DOING WHATEVER IT IS TO
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND MOVE
FORWARD WITH THAT CONCEPT OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES CAN PROTECT
THE IDENTITIES OF PEOPLE,
CHILDREN, WHOEVER SUBMITS THEIR
THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I MEAN,
WE'VE ALL USED THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS. I MEAN, EVEN WITH YOUR
HEALTH PLAN AND MEDICAL PLANS,
YOU SUBMIT COPIES OF YOUR
DRIVER'S LICENSE. THAT HAPPENS,
AND THEN IT DISAPPEARS. ANYWAY,
I'M A STRONG SUPPORT BECAUSE
IT'S TIME WE DO SOMETHING. WE
CAN DEBATE THIS FOR, FOR TO
INFINITY AND BEYOND. BUT WE HAVE
TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND
THAT'S VERY SIMPLE TO ME, IN MY
OPINION. AND I WILL BE
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTING
THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS
DIXON. ANYONE ELSE SEEING NO
OTHER MEMBERS WITH QUESTIONS, I
WANT TO THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP ON
THIS. I KNOW THAT THE ORIGINAL
BILL WAS INTRODUCED, PROBABLY AS
EVIDENCED FROM THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS WE HAD CONCERNS
ABOUT. BUT I SHARED YOUR GOAL
HERE. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN
THE NEW YORK TIMES JUST THIS
WEEKEND TALKING ABOUT THE
ALARMING NUMBER OF COLLEGE AGED
GIRLS THAT ARE REPORTING BEING
CHOKED WHILE ENGAGING IN SEXUAL
ACTIVITIES WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT, AND THE DIRE PHYSICAL
RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT ON THEIR
BRAIN AND THE OXYGEN THAT IS
DEPRIVED TO THEIR BRAIN. IF I
RECALL CORRECTLY, IT WAS 40% OF
COLLEGE AGED GIRLS, AND THE
STUDIES CITED, DISCUSSED EXACTLY
WHAT YOUR WITNESS TALKED ABOUT,
WHICH WAS THAT THIS WAS MOST
LIKELY A RESULT OF VERY YOUNG
KIDS BEING EXPOSED TO VERY
VIOLENT, WHICH I KNOW IS NOT
SOMETHING THAT THE OPPOSITION
WANTS EITHER, BUT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS HAPPENING AND
IT'S HAPPENING, IN A LOT OF
CASES, AS WAS NOTED BY THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL,
ACCIDENTALLY AT FIRST, THAT AND
I KNOW THAT AS A MOM, YOU KNOW,
IT'S THEN SORT OUT. I'M NOT
SAYING IT'S NOT ALSO SOUGHT OUT,
BY YOUTH, BUT I KNOW AS A MOM
WHOSE KID HAS WRITTEN REPORTS
AND WHILE RESEARCHING FOR THOSE
REPORTS, HAS DEFINITELY
ACCIDENTALLY ENCOUNTERED
WEBSITES I DON'T WANT MY CHILD
ON. IT HAPPENS TO ALL OF US
PARENTS. THERE'S NO QUESTION
ABOUT THAT. AND WE USE ALL THE
PARENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO US, AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS
NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT
MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR OUR
YOUTH TO ACCESS THESE SITES IS
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
EVERYBODY, WHETHER IT BE THE
PERSON DOING IT OR THE PERSON
WHO THEY WILL ENGAGE WITH IN
SEXUAL ACTIVITY LATER IN LIFE.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT POLICY, AND I THINK
THAT WE HAVE DONE A LOT IN THIS
COMMITTEE, AND HUGE KUDOS TO THE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS. TO
REALLY NARROW IT TO WHAT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY, REASONABLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT IT PASSES
CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER, WHICH IS
ALWAYS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO WE
DON'T HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF
MONEY ON LITIGATION, AND ALSO TO
PROTECT PRIVACY, AS WAS NOTED
BY, YOU KNOW, THE PROPONENTS, WE
DID SAY YOU CAN'T KEEP THIS
PRIVATE INFORMATION. THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT WE ADDED, I ALSO
THINK THAT THERE IS IF WE CAN
MATCH THE EUROPEANS IN ANY WAY
AS IT RELATES TO PRIVACY, WE ARE
WINNING THE EUROPEAN PRIVACY
LAWS WILL ECLIPSE ANYTHING HERE
IN THE UNITED STATES ANY DAY OF
THE WEEK. AND SO TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE EUROPEANS HAVE CREATED
BETTER STANDARDS FOR AGE
VERIFICATION, THAT ARE MORE
PRIVACY PROTECTING, I THINK THAT
IS SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT.
WE DO A LOT OF LEGISLATION IN
THIS BODY THAT MIMICS WHAT HAS
HAPPENED IN EUROPE, AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD
CONSIDER IF THEY DO HAVE A WAY
OF DOING IT. THAT IS MORE
PRIVACY PROTECTING THAN THAN
WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE
LANGUAGE, BUT I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU BECAUSE I DO THINK WE
HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM HERE.
AND, AND I THINK YOU ARE YOU
HAVE BEEN OPEN TO REALLY
ADDRESSING IT IN A SURGICAL WAY,
BUT ALSO DOING WHAT IS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF OUR KIDS. AND I
SAID THIS IN A COMMITTEE HEARING
EARLIER TODAY, BUT I'LL SAY IT
AGAIN, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT AS
THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, OUR NUMBER ONE
OBLIGATION IS SITTING IN THESE
SEATS IS TO PROTECT OUR KIDS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION. I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS AND
WORKING WITH US. AND I KNOW YOU
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT BECAUSE
YOU'VE ALREADY PROVEN THAT YOU
WILL. SO WITH THAT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? WELL, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, FOR THOSE WORDS.
AND YES, REST ASSURE OBVIOUSLY
THE SPONSORS AND MYSELF, WE'RE
HERE TO BRING POLICIES THAT WILL
PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. AND I
THINK WITH THE COMMITTEE'S HELP
AND NARROWING AND MAKING SURE
THAT THIS IS, WITHIN THE LAWS
THAT HAVE BEEN SET FORTH, WE'LL
MAKE SURE THAT THIS HAPPENS AS
FAR AS OPPOSITION. PLEASE COME
TO MY OFFICE, I'M SURE WE'LL GET
SOME CARDS FOR YOU GUYS AS WELL.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AS
WELL AS WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM
OTHERS. WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. GREAT. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? I DON'T THINK
WE'VE MOVED. WE HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ITEM NUMBER FIVE,
AB 3080 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ALANIZ. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. BAUER-KAHAN I
BAUER-KAHAN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. I BRIAN I BRIAN I
DIXON. DIXON I HOOVER. HOOVER I
IRWIN IRWIN I LOWENTHAL.
LOWENTHAL I ORTEGA ORTEGA I WARD
WICKS. WILSON. WILSON I. BILL
HAS NINE. IT IS OUT, BUT WE WILL
LEAVE IT OPEN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SO I BELIEVE MISS IRWIN IS NOW
PRESENTING FOR DOCTOR WEBER. IS
THAT RIGHT? ARE YOU SO THEN,
MISS WILSON, IF YOU WANT TO GO
NEXT, YOU'RE UP NEXT. OKAY IS
THAT OKAY? I'M SITTING HERE
ANYWAY.
THIS IS A B 3138. MISS WILSON,
WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I AM THANKFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AB 3138
IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE HERE
TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY
ACCEPTING ALL OF THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS LISTED ON PAGE EIGHT
AND NINE OF THE ANALYSIS AND
THANKING COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS MEASURE.
MEMBERS. BUILDING UPON A
SUCCESSFUL PILOT PROGRAM,
LAUNCHED ALL THE WAY BACK IN
2013. AB 3138 WILL PROVIDE
CONSUMERS WITH THE OPTION OF
CHOOSING TO PURCHASE A GPS
ENABLED DIGITAL LICENSE PLATE.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, WHEN
PURCHASING A VEHICLE, CONSUMERS
ARE TYPICALLY GIVEN A METAL
PLATE. HOWEVER IF A CONSUMER
WANTS TO CHOOSE TO PURCHASE A
DIGITAL LICENSE PLATE THAT IS
APPROVED BY THE DMV, THEY
CURRENTLY HAVE THAT OPTION. AB
3138 WOULD PROVIDE CONSUMERS
WITH THE OPTION OF CHOOSING TO
PURCHASE A DIGITAL LICENSE PLATE
THAT IS EQUIPPED WITH GPS. THESE
DIGITAL LICENSE PLATES TYPICALLY
COST AROUND $500 AND REQUIRE A
SUBSCRIPTION. THIS BILL ALSO
PUTS IN PLACE PRIVACY STANDARDS
FOR THE GPS PLATE THAT FAR
EXCEED PROTECTIONS IN CURRENT
LAW. FOR OTHER COMPARABLE GPS
EQUIPPED DEVICES, AB 3138
REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING
PROTECTIONS FOR ALL GPS ENABLED
PLATES SOLD IN CALIFORNIA.
FIRST, THE GPS SHALL BE CAPABLE
OF BEING PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY
MEANS OF A NONREVERSIBLE METHOD
THAT CEASES ALL FUNCTIONALITY
AND TRAFFIC. SORRY TRACKING
INFORMATION CAPABILITIES. THE
GPS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF BEING
MANUALLY DISABLED AND ENABLED BY
A DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE, WHILE
THAT DRIVER IS INSIDE THE
VEHICLE. THE METHOD OF MANUALLY
DISABLING AND ENABLING THE GPS
SHALL BE PROMINENTLY LOCATED AND
EASY TO DISABLE AND ENABLE,
WITHOUT REQUIRING ACCESS TO A
REMOTE ONLINE APPLICATION. THE
METHOD OF MANUALLY DISABLING AND
ENABLING THE GPS SHALL NOT
REQUIRE A PASSWORD OR ANY LOGIN
INFORMATION. AND FINALLY, ONCE
THE VEHICLE LOCATION TECHNOLOGY
IS MANUALLY DISABLED FROM INSIDE
THE CAR, THE ONLY METHOD OF
RE-ENABLING THE TECHNOLOGY SHALL
BE MANUAL FROM INSIDE THE CAR.
THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE
LICENSE PLATE, THE MANUFACTURER
OR THE DMV OR ANY OTHER ENTITY
SHALL NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO
REENGAGE THE GPS THROUGH ANY
REMOTE MEANS. THESE PROTECTIONS
FAR EXCEED PROTECTIONS IN
STATUTE FOR OTHER GPS ENABLED
DEVICES, SUCH AS THE CARS
THEMSELVES. APPS USED INSIDE THE
CARS. OUR CELL PHONES, AND
COUNTLESS OTHER LEGAL PRODUCTS
AVAILABLE TO CONSUMERS AT MUCH
CHEAPER PRICES. WHILE GPS, LIKE
OTHER TECHNOLOGIES, HAS THE
ABILITY TO BE ABUSED BY BAD
ACTORS, THE APPROPRIATE POLICY
RESPONSE IS TO PUT GUARDRAILS
AND PROTECTIONS IN PLACE, LIKE
WE'VE STATED EARLIER, NOT TO
SIMPLY BAN THE TECHNOLOGY IN ONE
SMALL PRODUCT WHILE ALLOWING IT
TO EXIST WITHOUT RECOURSE IN
VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER COMPARABLE
PRODUCT. WITH ME TO EXCUSE ME,
WITH ME TODAY, TO PRESENT IN
SUPPORT, I HAVE NEVILLE BOSTON,
THE CO-FOUNDER OF REVIVER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS NEVILLE BOSTON. I'M THE
FOUNDER AND CHIEF STRATEGY
OFFICER FOR REVIVER, AB 3138
BUILDS UPON LEGISLATION THAT HAS
BEEN VOTED ON BY THE
LEGISLATURE, PREVIOUSLY AB 984
AND AB AND SB 806, WHICH WAS THE
ORIGINAL PILOT THAT WAS PASSED
BACK IN 2013, WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE DMV AND CHP, OVER THE
LAST EIGHT YEARS, AND THE
COMPANY HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE
2009. SO WE'VE BEEN TESTING THIS
TECHNOLOGY FOR THE LAST 15
YEARS. THIS BILL CLARIFIES THE
DIGITAL PLATE THAT DIGITAL
PLATES MUST COMPLY WITH ALL
PROVISIONS THAT TO ENSURE
PRIVACY OF THE CONSUMER, IS NOT
COMPROMISED WHILE CONTINUING TO
STRENGTHEN THE BENEFITS
PROVIDED, TO BUSINESSES TO BE
CLEAR, WE OFFER TWO PLATES, THE
PLATE THAT I HAVE HERE IS A
BATTERY OPERATED PLATE, WHICH IS
ABOUT 95% OF ALL THE PLATES THAT
ARE ON THE ROAD. IT HAS NO GPS
AT ALL WITHIN THIS PLATE. AGAIN,
THIS IS THE MAJORITY OF THE
PLATES AND THEY'RE OPT IN. WE
HAVE A WIRED VERSION, THAT HAS
GPS THAT IS NORMALLY USED FOR
FLEETS, BUT WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD
BE AVAILABLE AS AN OPT IN, YOU
KNOW, NOT AN OPT. YOU HAVE TO
OPT IN TO IT. IT'S NOT PROVIDED
TO YOU FOR CONSUMERS AS WELL,
REVIVER LOOKS AT, YOU KNOW, THE
SERVICES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE BUILT
INTO THE PLATE, TO HELP PROTECT
AND TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM
TO DO, DIFFERENT DMV SERVICES.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL CLEARLY
STATES, IF AN ALTERNATIVE DEVICE
FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS,
VEHICLE LOCATION TECHNOLOGY
SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THAT
DEVICE. AS AB 984 MOVED THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE A LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS IN 2022, THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE TAKEN WERE A RESULT OF
CONVERSATIONS, IN REGARDS TO THE
HAVING A KILL SWITCH THAT WAS
BUILT INTO THE PLATE. WE HAVE
DONE THAT DIGITAL PLATES AND
GEOLOCATION TECHNOLOGY IS
BENEFICIAL FOR FLEETS, WE HAVE
SEVERAL FLEET CUSTOMERS, BOTH
LOCAL AND IN AND AROUND THE
STATE BECAUSE WE'RE LEGAL AND
NOT ONLY CALIFORNIA, BUT
ARIZONA, MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS,
GEORGIA, COLORADO AND, AND IN
TEXAS FOR COMMERCIAL FLEETS. SO
WE'VE BEEN WORKING HAND IN GLOVE
WITH THEM KIND OF ACROSS THE
BOARD. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE A
LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON THAT'S
BEEN ABLE TO TRAIN ABOUT 35,000
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL? MARGIE LEE SAMSON,
ADVISORS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. DOMINIC. TAMARA, HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. ALSO
IN SUPPORT AND FIND THE KILL
SWITCH ADDITION, A GOOD FEATURE
FOR PERSONAL SAFETY. THANK YOU.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? COME ON UP, PLEASE.
OOPS. C . OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE
DIDN'T COORDINATE. YOU'RE TOO,
TOO NICE TO EACH OTHER. WORKING
IT OUT. NO CONSPIRACY. YOU CAN
SEE. I KNOW WE SHOULD HAVE
COMPARED TALKING POINTS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. HI MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS SAMANTHA CORBIN WITH THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION.
RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION TO AB
3138, WHICH WOULD TURN A VEHICLE
REGISTRATION PRODUCT INTO A
SURVEILLANCE TRACKER THAT
RECORDS EVERYWHERE THE VEHICLE
GOES. THIS IS BAD NEWS FOR
CALIFORNIANS EVERYWHERE, BUT
IT'S ESPECIALLY CONCERNING FOR
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS, THE
LGBTQ COMMUNITY, IMMIGRANTS,
PEOPLE SEEKING REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTH CARE, RURAL COMMUNITIES
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR MORE
BROADLY, NUMEROUS DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, LGBTQ REPRODUCTIVE
JUSTICE, YOUTH AND PRIVACY
ORGANIZATIONS RAISED SERIOUS
CONCERNS WITH AB NINE EIGHT 4 IN
2020 22. THAT BILL ALSO PROPOSED
ALLOWING GPS TRACKING DEVICES IN
PASSENGER VEHICLE DIGITAL
LICENSE PLATES. AB 3138 WOULD
REMOVE THE LANGUAGE IN THAT
MEASURE THAT WAS NEGOTIATED TO
ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS, THOUGH
ALL OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY
THOSE GROUPS ABOUT THE HARMFUL
IMPACTS OF GPS TRACKERS AND
PASSENGER VEHICLE DIGITAL
LICENSE PLATES REMAINS TRUE
TODAY. CREATING THESE TRACKING
DEVICES WOULD JEOPARDIZE
CONFIDENTIALITY AND INCREASE THE
RISK OF STALKING. THAT'S WHY
NUMEROUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ORGANIZATIONS JOINED PRIVACY
ADVOCATES TO OPPOSE AB 984 UNTIL
IT WAS AMENDED TO PROHIBIT THEIR
INCLUSION. PEOPLE WHO ABUSE HAVE
NO INCENTIVE TO LET THEIR
PARTNER KNOW THAT THEIR CAR HAS
BECOME A TRACKING DEVICE, AND
EVEN IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS
SUFFERING ABUSE AND IS AWARE OF
A GPS TRACKING DEVICE IN THEIR
VEHICLE, THEY MAY HAVE NO CHOICE
BUT TO ALLOW FOR IT, OR THEY MAY
NOT KNOW HOW TO DISABLE THE
TRACKER. REGARDLESS IT CAN PUT
THEM AT RISK OF FURTHER
VIOLENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, A WOMAN
WAS RECENTLY KILLED IN ANTIOCH
AFTER BEING LOCATED THROUGH A
GPS TRACKER INSTALLED ON HER
VEHICLE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS ARE NOT THE ONLY
PEOPLE PUT AT RISK BY THIS
MEASURE. IT COULD JEOPARDIZE THE
SAFETY OF SOMEONE TRAVELING
THROUGH THE STATE FROM ANOTHER
STATE THAT CRIMINALIZES
ABORTIONS, WHO IS NOT AWARE THAT
THEIR VEHICLE OR RIDESHARE IS
RECORDING THEIR THEIR TRANS,
THEIR, EXCUSE ME, THEIR GPS.
THIS DATA COULD BE USED AGAINST
THEM. ICE COULD ALSO USE GPS
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY TO TRACK
AND LOCATE IMMIGRANTS AS IT HAS
DONE WITH OTHER LOCATION
TRACKING DEVICES. UNSUPPORTIVE
PARENTS OF QUEER YOUTH COULD USE
GPS LOADED PLATES TO MONITOR
WHETHER TEENS ARE GOING TO LOCAL
LGBTQ CENTERS. FINALLY, THERE
ARE SECURITY CONCERNS SHORTLY
AFTER AB 984 WAS SIGNED INTO
LAW, RESEARCHERS UNCOVERED THAT
REVIVER THE PROPONENTS OF THE
MEASURE, HAD AN ALARMING
SECURITY VULNERABILITY IN THEIR
SYSTEMS THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE
FOR INFILTRATORS TO TRACK GPS IN
REAL TIME AND EVEN CHANGE WHAT
WAS DISPLAYED ON THE PLATES. IF
A COMPANY PRODUCING THESE
DIGITAL PLATES FOR PASSENGER
VEHICLES CANNOT, SIR, THE SECURE
THE LOCATION OR THE DATA
PROMISES THAT IT CAN PROTECT
SENSITIVE LOCATION INFORMATION
FOR VULNERABLE PEOPLE. RING
HOLLOW. WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
CONTINUING TO PROHIBIT TRACKERS
AND LICENSE PLATES DOES NOT FIX
EVERY PROBLEM WITH VEHICLE
TRACKING, WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THEIR INCLUSION WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THEIR INCLUSION
HELPS THE SITUATION. RATHER THAN
REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWED
ALL GROUPS IN OPPOSITION TO NINE
AB 984 TO GO NEUTRAL, AB 3138
COULD INSTEAD ADDRESS ADDITIONAL
PROBLEMS WITH THE CODE SECTIONS
THAT OUR GROUPS HAVE OUTLINED IN
POSITION LETTERS PREVIOUSLY.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. THANK YOU.
YES. OAKLAND PRIVACY IN RESEARCH
OPPOSITION. AS MY COLLEAGUE
MENTIONED, MERE MONTHS AFTER
DIGITAL DRIVER'S LICENSE SAYS
WERE MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN
CALIFORNIA, HACKERS DID
PENETRATE REVIVERS SERVER. WE
WANT TO BE CLEAR THEY WERE ABLE
TO LABEL THEMSELVES AS SUPER
TRAITORS WITHIN THE SERVER AND
THEY COULD REMOTELY UPDATE,
TRACK AND DELETE ANY DIGITAL
LICENSE PLATE. LET'S BE CLEAR IF
DMV HAD BEEN HACKED IN THIS WAY,
ALL HACK WOULD HAVE BROKEN LOOSE
IN THE STATE. HEADS WOULD HAVE
ROLLED, SENDING PEOPLE TO UNSAFE
PRODUCTS IS BAD, BUT ADDING ON
SENSITIVE LOCATION DATA TO A
PRODUCT THAT HAS ALREADY
DEMONSTRATED SOME LEVEL OF LACK
OF SAFETY IS, IN OUR OPINION,
KIND OF CRAZY, THE BILL'S
PREMISE IS THAT THIS IS A
QUESTION OF CONSUMER CHOICE. WE
JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THERE IS
NO OTHER GPS, ENABLED LIKE
SCIENCE PLATE AVAILABLE FOR SALE
IN CALIFORNIA. THE COMPANY THAT
IS HERE IS THE SOLE PROVIDER.
IT'S A MONOPOLY. AND IT'S A
QUESTION HERE OF SORT OF, YOU
KNOW, TO GIVE SOME PEOPLE A
CHOICE. ARE WE TAKING CHOICES
AWAY FROM OTHER PEOPLE, GAY
TEENAGERS TOLD NOT TO GO TO AN
LGBT CENTER? 16 YEAR OLD GIRL
TRYING TO GET TRYING TO GET
CONTRACEPTION, A BATTERED WIFE
TRYING TO VISIT A SUPPORTIVE
SIBLING. IF YOU ARE IN A
SITUATION WHERE THERE'S ONLY ONE
CAR IN THE HOUSEHOLD, WHERE
THERE'S NOT SO MUCH PUBLIC
TRANSIT, AND WHEN THERE IS A
LEVEL OF COERCIVE CONTROL IN THE
HOUSEHOLD, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY
A CHOICE. SO I JUST WANT US TO
THINK ABOUT WHOSE CHOICES WERE
SORT OF PRIORITIZING HERE AND IN
THOSE KINDS OF SITUATIONS. YOU
TURN OFF THE GPS, YOU'RE GOING
TO GET A BEATING WHEN YOU GET
HOME. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW IT
WORKS. SO IT'S NOT JUST A
QUESTION OF CHOICE. IT'S NOT AS
SIMPLE AS THAT. SO WE DON'T
THINK THERE'S ANY NEED FOR
CALIFORNIA TO SPONSOR THIS
DANGEROUS PRODUCT. THERE'S NO
MARKET COMPETITION TO KEEP THE
PRICES, AFFORDABLE, WHICH, BY
THE WAY, THEY AREN'T. IT'S I
THINK $699 PLUS 250 A YEAR CAN
DEFINITELY. THERE'S ONLY ONE
SUPPLIER AND THERE'S NO CLEAR,
DEMAND FOR THE PROJECT. AND IT
JUST IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. SO
WE ASK YOU NOT TO SUPPORT AB
3138. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL?
GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, ROBERT HERRERA WITH THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION CALIFORNIA.
WE DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL
POSITION ON THIS BILL AT THIS
TIME. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR,
BUT WE WERE PART OF THE
COALITION THAT WORKED WITH THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IN 2022, AND
WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A REASONABLE
, NEGOTIATION. SO WE'RE
CONCERNED AT PART OF THAT
DIRECTION THAT THIS BILL IS
GOING. IT'S STILL EARLY IN THE
PROCESS, AND IT SEEMS TO ME
THERE WOULD BE SOME TIME TO
FIGURE THIS OUT OVER THE NEXT
FEW MONTHS. BUT WE DO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS HERE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS IN THE ROOM, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
MISTER VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU,
SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE
OPPOSITION, MISS CORBIN ACTUALLY
, FIRST, YOU KNOW, I, I WAS
RECENTLY I KEEP TALKING ABOUT
PODCASTS, BUT I WAS LISTENING TO
A PODCAST ABOUT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, VICTIMS BEING TRACKED
BY BY SOME CARS, FRANKLY. AND
THAT BEING PUT IN. YES. IT WAS
ALSO THE NEW YORK TIMES. SORRY.
EVERYBODY KNOWS MY RUNNING
PLAYLIST NOW, BUT, BUT, IT THAT
WAS SHOCKING TO ME. NOW, WE'VE
SEEN SOME LEGISLATION I THINK,
ON IN THIS BUILDING ON THAT
PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, ISSUE. Ó
THE NEXT BILL WE'RE GOING TO
HEAR GOOD. YOU KNOW, SO, BUT I
HAVE OBVIOUSLY A TON OF CONCERN
ABOUT IN THAT PARTICULAR
SITUATION, THE, THE SPOUSE
COULDN'T TURN OFF WITH THE CAR
MANUFACTURE. NHÀ COULDN'T TURN
OFF THE REPORTING OF THE DATA
TO, DATA BROKERS ESSENTIALLY.
BUT IN SOME OF THE INSTANCES
THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING, LIKE
THE TRACKER ON THE CAR AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE ALL
NOT DONE IN THOSE CASES WITHOUT
WITH THE CONSENT, YOU KNOW,
SOMEBODY PUT A GPS DEVICE ON A
CAR, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE
WITH THE LICENSE PLATE, AN
INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO KNOW THEY
HAVE A LICENSE PLATE ON THEIR
CAR. THAT'S A DIGITAL LICENSE
PLATE. THEY I UNDER, I CONCEDE
THAT THERE'S A CHANCE THEY MIGHT
NOT KNOW THAT THERE'S GPS IN
THERE. I CONCEDE THAT, BUT BUT
THERE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
SITUATIONS THERE WHERE WHERE ONE
YOU KNEW ABOUT IT, ONE YOU
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU KNEW
YOU HAVE A PRODUCT, YOU DIDN'T
KNOW YOU HAD A PRODUCT. SO IS
THERE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE
I, I HAVE SYMPATHY TOWARDS THOSE
POINTS IN PARTICULAR. I
DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THEM. I
DON'T WANT PEOPLE BEING TRACKED,
BUT IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN GET
TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN HAVE
THIS PRODUCT OUT THERE AND, AND
YOUR CLIENTS WOULD FEEL
COMFORTABLE? I, I APPRECIATE
THAT QUESTION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER I
THINK THAT'S A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS. ONE WE FIND
WITH TECH PRODUCTS AS THEY SORT
OF PROLIFERATE THE MARKET,
OFTENTIMES THEY BECOME NOT OPT
IN BECAUSE THEY'RE EVERYWHERE,
RIGHT? THE TRADITIONAL
ALTERNATIVE EVAPORATES AND YOU
NO LONGER CAN GET SOMETHING THAT
DOESN'T TRACK YOU. SO THOSE TYPE
OF THINGS ARE VERY CONCERNING.
IF THIS BECOMES THE STATUS QUO
ON EVERY CAR FOR EXAMPLE. BUT
ALSO, I THINK MISS ROSENBERGER
BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT, SORT
OF BUILDING OFF ON THAT DOMESTIC
ARGUMENT. IF YOU ARE IN A SINGLE
CAR HOUSEHOLD, PERHAPS YOU ARE
NOT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE CAR
PURCHASE OR CONSENTED. YOU MIGHT
BE A SPOUSE THAT'S DISEMPOWERED.
YOU MIGHT BE A CHILD IN AN
ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP. AND SO
YOUR OPTION IS TO RIDE IN THE
VEHICLE OR TO DRIVE THE VEHICLE
AND HAVE SOMEONE HAVE ACCESS TO
WHERE YOU ARE. AND SO THERE ARE
A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS WHERE
THERE MAY BE A CHOICE, BUT IT IN
FACT IS REALLY NOT A CHOICE.
IT'S NOT AS CLEAR CUT AS BEING
ABLE TO TOGGLE OFF YOUR LOCATION
FROM AN ABUSIVE PARTNER. AND
THOSE TYPE OF SCENARIOS WE
BELIEVE, AT LEAST AT THIS TIME,
SO SIGNIFICANTLY OUTWEIGH THE
BENEFITS OF THIS PRODUCT THAT I
DON'T SEE A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS
THAT ALLOW FOR THIS USE IN
PERSONAL RESIDENTIAL CARS, THAT
WOULD THAT WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. YEAH. AND I WANT TO
BE VERY CLEAR, NOT DISMISSING
THESE CONCERNS AT ALL. I JUST
THINK OF THE NUMBER OF PRODUCTS
OUT THERE THAT TRACK INDIVIDUALS
, WHETHER IT'S YOUR PHONE OR
YOUR CAR ALREADY THAT ARE
TRACKING YOU OR DEVICES, YOU
KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE AIRTAGS
OR WHATEVER, YOU COULD PUT
ANYWHERE, SO, SO, SO IT'S JUST
KIND OF INTERESTING TO ME
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING
A LITTLE BIT IS, HEY, WE CAN'T
HAVE THIS PRODUCT WITH GPS AND
LICENSE PLATES WHEN THERE ARE
ALL THESE OTHER PRODUCTS OUT
THERE THAT ARE DOING THAT, THAT
ARE ACTUALLY MORE DIFFICULT, I
THINK, TO HAVE THE KILL SWITCH.
AND SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D
LIKE TO TRANSITION TO THE TO THE
SPONSOR, WHICH I WILL SAY IS IN
MY DISTRICT, BUT NEVER MET OR WE
DIDN'T EVER DISCUSS THIS ISSUE
UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE HEARING. AND SO I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TALK TO YOU. BUT I HAD EXPRESSED
TO YOU MY CONCERNS WITH, WITH,
WITH THAT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
AND I THINK THERE'S LANGUAGE IN
THE BILL FOR THIS, BUT AND MAYBE
EVEN YOUR TERMS OF SERVICE TO
PREVENT THAT. BUT REALLY WHEN WE
THINK ABOUT POLICY, WE HAVE TO
THINK ABOUT THERE WILL SOMEDAY,
DESPITE YOU BEING MAYBE THE ONLY
ENTRANT INTO THE THIS FIELD,
THIS LAW POTENTIALLY WILL OPEN
UP OTHER, COMPETITORS OF YOURS.
AND JUST TO NOTE THAT IT ALREADY
HAS SO HE'S NOT A SINGLE THERE'S
THERE ALREADY IS THERE STARTING.
YES. BUT THERE'S A PROCESS. YOU
HAVE TO GO THROUGH, THROUGH THE
STATE. SO THROUGH THE STATE, HE
IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT HAS
COMPLETED THE PROCESS. LET ME
SAY IT THAT WAY. OKAY. GREAT SO,
SO IN, IN SO IN LAW WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS KILL SWITCH
IS, IS APPLIES TO EVERYBODY, NOT
JUST MAYBE THE GOOD WORK THAT
YOU'RE DOING. BUT CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THE PROCESS IF MAYBE IN
A ABUSE ABUSE HIS WIFE OR
SPOUSE, CALLS YOU AND SAYS, HEY,
LOOK, I'M REALLY CONCERNED THAT
I'M BEING TRACKED WITH THIS
LICENSE PLATE AND MAYBE THE CAR
IS IN THE HUSBAND'S NAME. OKAY.
IN THE IN THE, EVENT THAT THAT
PLATE THAT'S ON THE VEHICLE HAS
GPS IN IT, ONE ONCE, ONCE WE
HAVE THE CONVERSATION, WE WOULD
SEND OUT KIND OF A KILL MESSAGE
THAT WOULD, WOULD BASICALLY
SEVER THE GPS WITHIN THE PLATE,
MAKE IT NON-OPERABLE SO THEY
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TRACK.
THERE'S NO MORE INFORMATION
THAT'S GIVEN. IT'S KILLED. WE
ACTUALLY LITERALLY WORKED WITH
THE CHIP MANUFACTURER LARA. AND,
YOU KNOW, OUR TEAM TO VERIFY
THAT THAT WAS DONE. AND THAT WAS
PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE WERE HAVING WITH FOLKS FROM
THE DV COMMUNITY AROUND WAYS IN
WHICH WE COULD HELP PROTECT THEM
, AND I WOULD JUST ADD ON IS
TECHNICALLY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO
CALL YOU. YOU CORRECT. YOU NOTED
IN YOUR. YES. NOW IN TESTIMONY
CALL YOU BUT PER THE BILL
LANGUAGE. YEAH. WELL WHAT WOULD
THEY DO. THEY WOULD THEY WOULD
BE ABLE TO, SWITCH IT OFF WITHIN
THE VEHICLE AND BASICALLY KILL
THE ABILITY FOR THE, THE PLATE
TO CONNECT TO GPS. IS THERE A
WHEN YOU GET ONE OF THESE
LICENSE PLATES, DO YOU LET THE
DMV KNOW? I HAVE THIS DIGITAL
LICENSE PLATE? YES SO WE HAVE
WE'RE CONNECTED TO THE DMV,
ANYBODY THAT GETS A PLATE HAS TO
HAVE THE PLATE PROVISIONED, SO
THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME
PROCESS, YOU KNOW, REGISTRATION
INFORMATION, VALIDATING THAT,
AND THEN COMING UP WITH THE
NUMBER LETTER CONFIGURATION AND
THEN DOWNLOADING THAT
INFORMATION TO THE PLATE. OKAY,
I THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASK IS
BECAUSE IN DOMESTIC ABUSE
SITUATIONS, THEY'RE OFTEN
DESPERATE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
HELP. AND SO BEING ABLE TO EVEN
RIP OFF THE LICENSE PLATE AND IF
YOU GET PULLED OVER SOMETHING,
SAY, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS WHY THIS
I DID THIS RIGHT, AND IT SOUNDS
LIKE THAT COULD BE VERIFIED THAT
IT WAS ONE OF THOSE DIGITAL
LICENSE PLATES, BUT, WELL, I
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR APPROACH
TO THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I KNOW THE
AUTHOR OBVIOUSLY WAS SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. THOSE
ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT TO YOU,
AND I KNOW YOU'LL CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL EVER
GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE,
MAKING THE OPPOSITION FEEL
COMFORTABLE. BUT I KNOW THAT
THAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU. AND,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
AGAIN, THE SENSITIVITY OF THE
ISSUE THE ENTIRE TIME FROM THE
MANUFACTURE NHÀ, I THINK IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT TESTAMENT
STATEMENT TO YOU BECAUSE IT IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ME.
AND I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS
COMMITTEE. SO THANK YOU. YEAH.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
EVERYBODY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE THE BEST AND SAFEST PRODUCT
ON THE ROAD. WE'VE NEVER BEEN OR
SHIED AWAY FROM HAVING TOUGH
CONVERSATIONS, I WOULD SAY, AND
I'M NOT SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE
HERE MAY REMEMBER, BUT JOE
SIMITIAN, WHO WAS A HUGE PRIVACY
HAWK, WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST
PERSON WE TALKED TO WHEN WE
FIRST WERE THINKING ABOUT
RUNNING LEGISLATION BACK IN
2009. SO FROM THE BEGINNING,
WE'VE BEEN HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS, AND MY FORMER
BUSINESS PARTNER WAS GOOD
FRIENDS WITH THE FOLKS THAT
STARTED THE EFF. AND WE ACTUALLY
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM BACK
IN 2009. SO IT'S BEEN, 15 YEARS.
SO IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE
WE'VE EVER SHIRKED AWAY FROM
HAVING TOUGH CONVERSATIONS. WE
WANT TO HAVE THE BEST
INFORMATION POSSIBLE AT THE
TABLE, AND WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN
OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, MAKING THE
PRODUCT BETTER, ACROSS THE BOARD
. AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT
EVEN IN 2022, PEOPLE TALK ABOUT
THE NEGOTIATED DEAL THAT WE
NEGOTIATED THIS OUT AND WHAT IT
WAS IS THAT WE OFFERED UP. WHAT
IF WE DID X, Y, Z, BUT WE
COULDN'T DO THE TECHNOLOGY, SO
TO SPEAK, WASN'T THERE YET. SO
WE TOOK THAT LANGUAGE OUT TO BE
ABLE TO MEET THOSE OBJECTIVES,
KNOWING THAT WE WOULD COME BACK
SEPARATE SO WE CAN COMPLETE THE
PILOT. AND THEN TALK THROUGH
WHAT CAN WE PUT INTO LAW TO
ALLOW THIS, LICENSE PLATES TO BE
AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE AND
RECOGNIZING THERE ARE
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY OPT IN TO BE
HAVING GPS, BUT AT SOME POINT
MAY NO NO LONGER WANT TO HAVE
GPS, WHETHER THAT'S TEMPORARILY
OR PERMANENT, AND GIVING THEM
THE FULL CAPABILITY OF BEING
ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION,
WHOEVER THEY ARE, AS LONG AS
THEY'RE IN THE VEHICLE, SO TO
SPEAK. AND I, I DO WANT TO
COMMEND YOU AS THE AUTHOR FOR
BEING I MEAN, YOU PUT SURVIVOR
FIRST IN THIS LEGISLATION AND
THE KILL SWITCH, WHICH NOW YOU
WILL SEE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE
OTHER BILL THAT WILL FOLLOW
REALLY WAS CAME OUT OF THE
DISCUSSIONS WE HAD BECAUSE YOU
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
WERE WHOLLY PROTECTED. AND SO I
THINK THAT I WANT TO COMMEND YOU
FOR THAT, I ALSO WANT TO ADD ONE
THING, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ARE
ARE, A LEADER IN PROTECTING
LGBTQ PLUS INDIVIDUALS IN
ACCESSING CARE. YOU ARE A LEADER
IN PROTECTING WOMEN ACCESSING
ABORTION CARE IN OUR STATE. SO
YOU WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION
YEARS WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO
RISK THOSE FOLKS COMING INTO
CALIFORNIA. SO I GUESS I WILL
ALSO JUST PUT ON THE TABLE THAT
WE DO THAT I HAVE PASSED
LEGISLATION THAT ENSURES
COMPANIES DON'T TURN OVER THAT
DATA, AND THERE'S NO REASON WE
COULDN'T ADD THAT TO THIS PIECE
OF LEGISLATION AND REQUIRE THE
FOLKS THAT SELL THE LICENSE
PLATES HERE IN CALIFORNIA NEVER
TURN OVER DATA RELATED TO,
HEALTH CARE ACCESS, WHICH I
ABSOLUTELY. I THOUGHT WE DEALT
WITH THAT ONE, BUT IF IT IS NOT
IN THERE VERY CLEARLY. YEAH.
HAPPY TO ADD IT BEFORE WE GET TO
THE FLOOR BECAUSE THERE ARE NO
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM DO I WANT
ANYONE TO BE ABLE TO TRACK THIS
DATA, WHETHER THEY, EXCEPT THE
PERSON THEMSELVES WHO'S OPTING
INTO THE SINGLE PERSON, WHETHER
THEY ARE ANOTHER COMPANY OR EVEN
THE GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT
IT'S PRIVACY, IT'S PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS INFORMATION. THEY
ARE THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT DATA
AND SHOULD NOT BE SHARED WITH
ANYONE, ESPECIALLY IF IT
THREATENS THEIR SAFETY OR THEIR
ABILITY TO LIVE A FREE LIFE.
YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MR.
BRIAN. YEAH. THANK YOU, WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR. I KNOW THAT
THIS IS A PILOT THAT'S BEEN
EXTENDED MULTIPLE TIMES, LIKE
THREE TIMES. OBVIOUSLY JUST
NATURALLY HAVE GREAT PRIVACY
CONCERNS AND ONLY MORE GREATLY
AFFIRMED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMING UP IN STRONG SUPPORT.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IN THE
PREVIOUS PILOTS, THERE WAS A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEVICE
DISPLAY A VISUAL INDICATION IN
THE, LOCATION TECHNOLOGY. IF IT
WAS AN ACTIVE USE, IF SOMEBODY
WAS ACTIVELY TRACKING YOU, THERE
HAD TO BE SOME SORT OF VISUAL,
REPRESENTATION OF THAT. AND
THAT'S BEEN REMOVED IN THIS
BILL. IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR
REASON WHY THAT'S THE CASE? I
BELIEVE IN THE ORIGINAL. I WAS
ON THE APP ITSELF, AND SO THE
ONLY THING WE HAD AND IT DIDN'T
EXIST IN THE CAR BEFORE, IT'S
THE NEW AD. SO WHEN DURING THE
PILOT PERIOD, THE, EVERYTHING
WAS AVAILABLE, GPS OR NOT, AND
IT REALLY WAS THE BATTERY
DOESN'T INCLUDE G.P.S, G.P.S. AT
ALL. AND SO MAJORITY PEOPLE
CHOSE THE NON GPS OPTION. SO
THERE'S NOTHING TO INDICATE. AND
THEN IN THE FLEET VERSION THAT
THE WIRED IN IT WOULD BE IN YOUR
APP WOULD TELL YOU WHETHER IT
WAS IT WAS ON OR NOT. AND SO
THERE WASN'T EVER LIKE A VISUAL.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE
CAR. NOW WE'VE CREATED SOMETHING
VISUAL IN THE CAR THROUGH HAVING
IT WIRED IN ALL THE WAY TO THE
CONSOLE WHERE YOU CAN KILL OR
TURN OFF. AND I THINK THAT, I'M
SURE IF, I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER
FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL PEOPLE,
BUT IF IT MEANS THAT THAT NEEDED
TO BE LIT OR SOMETHING TO
INDICATE THAT. SO YOU CAN SEE
IT. YOU KNOW, I KNOW DASHBOARDS
A LOT OF VERY BUSY RIGHT NOW,
BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S AN
ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SEE. AND I
THINK WE HAVE AN IDENTIFICATION
IDENTIF FIRE ON THE VEHICLE THAT
YOU'RE ENTERING A CAR THAT HAS
GPS, BUT THAT'S JUST A BROAD
THAT THIS IS GPS ENABLED. BUT
THAT'S A BROAD DISCLAIMER, NOT,
THAT IT'S ACTIVE OR NOT ON, BUT
JUST KNOWING THAT, HEY, YOU'RE
ENTERING A CARD THAT HAS THIS
CAPABILITY, BUT, HAPPY TO MAKE
THAT MORE SAFE OR MORE THAT MORE
APPARENT TO THE DRIVER
THEMSELVES. I THINK TO NOTE
FROM, MY COLLEAGUES COMMENTS IS
THAT BY VIRTUE OF HAVING THE
PLATE GIVES YOU SOME INDICATION,
THAT YOU MAY BE ENTERING THAT
THERE, THAT THIS MIGHT BE A
TRACKED VEHICLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT
A, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS VERY THIS
PLATE LOOKS VERY DIFFERENT THAN
A METAL PLATE. SO YOU RECOGNIZE
THAT YOU'RE IN SOMETHING THAT'S
DIFFERENT. GOTCHA OH, YES. MISS
DIXON, A COUPLE SIMPLE
QUESTIONS. I NOTICED THAT THE
LANGUAGE CHANGED WITH THE CHP OR
THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL.
ARE THEY PART OF THE APPROVAL
PROCESS OR THEY'RE NOT
DEFINITIVE? OR WHAT IS THEIR
ROLE? THEY'RE A PART OF THE
APPROVAL PROCESS THROUGH DMV. SO
THE ULTIMATE SIGN UP SIGN OFF IS
DMV ONE SIGN OFF, AND THEN CHP
IS A PART OF THE DECISION MAKING
PROCESS. BUT IT REQUIRES ONLY
ONE SIGN OFF BECAUSE THE
ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY WERE DOING
THE PILOT PROGRAM, THEN YOU HAD
TO GET A SIGN OFF FROM CHP AND
DMV. BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE ALL
THE RULES IN PLACE, ALL THE LAWS
IN PLACE, THEY'VE WORKED OUT, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD
TECHNOLOGY, WHAT THE RIGHT WORD
IS, BUT I GUESS THE ACCEPTABLE
SPECS, THEY WERE TRIED OUT WITH
THE AT THE TIME, THE ONLY
COMPANY WHO HAD FILED AN
APPLICATION. AND SO THEY NO
LONGER NEED, THEIR OWN SEPARATE
SIGN OFF, BUT THEY ARE A PART OF
THE SIGN OFF FOR DMV. SO THERE'S
ONLY ONE AGENCY THAT CHECKS THE
BOX TO SAY AND NOT THEM, BECAUSE
THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH
THAT PROCESS. OR, IS FOR ANY
OTHER COMPANY THAT'S THROUGH THE
PROCESS OR THEM, IF THEY WANT TO
CHANGE THE PLATE. ALL RIGHT. SO
HAS THE AND THAT WAS CHP WAS
FINE WITH THAT. THEY WOULD THEY
ARE THEY ARE THE ASSOCIATION
SUPPORTING THIS. YEAH. WELL I
WOULDN'T SAY SUPPORTING THE
BILL. THEY'VE GIVEN ALL THEIR
TECHNICAL. WE WORK WITH THEM IN
22. THE PREVIOUS AUTHOR WHO DID
THE PILOT WORK WITH THEM, THEY
HAVE SIGNED OFF ON EVERY STEP OF
THE WAY. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY
THAT THEY'RE THEY HAVEN'T PUT A
LETTER OF SUPPORT. THEY'RE
NEUTRAL ON THE BILL AND THEY'VE
GIVEN EVERY AMEND THAT THEY
HAVE, ASKED FOR OVER THE PROCESS
THAT I'VE BEEN WITH IT FOR TWO
YEARS. AND I KNOW WITH THE
PREVIOUS AUTHOR, PREVIOUS TO ME,
THEY HAVE ALL THEIR AMENDS HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN TAKEN AT FACE VALUE.
ALL RIGHT. ANOTHER QUESTION ON
THE, MAKING OF THE DIGITAL
LICENSE, BUT IS IT REFLECTORIZED
OR IS IT WHAT REFLECTORIZED
MATERIAL CURRENTLY ON ALL OF OUR
LICENSE PLATES? IT'S CORRECT
MATERIAL AT NIGHT WITH THE LIGHT
SHINING ON IT. OKAY, SO THE
CURRENT, LICENSE PLATE IS
RETROREFLECTIVE. OURS IS
REFLECTIVE. SO LIGHT SHINES AND
IT SHINES BACK. IT'S NOT
RETROREFLECTIVE. OKAY. YOU CAN
SEE IT AT NIGHT. YOU CAN SEE IT
AT NIGHT. AND JUST AS A
REMINDER, THIS CAME UP IN OUR
OTHER COMMITTEE. IF FOR WHATEVER
REASON, THE POWER BECAUSE IT IS
BATTERY OPERATED OR WIRED IN, IF
THERE IS A LOSS OF POWER, THE
DEFAULT IS VISUAL, WHERE YOU CAN
SEE THE PLATE CLEARLY SO IT
DOESN'T TURN OFF AT NIGHT. YEAH.
AT NIGHT. NIGHT IN THE DAY. SO
THE ALTHOUGH I'LL REMIND THE
COMMITTEE THAT OUR JURISDICTION
IS PRIVACY, THAT THAT QUESTION
ACTUALLY IS IN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE,
WHICH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT, IT'S ONE OTHER
THING I WAS GOING TO ASK Þ
ABOUT. WELL, IT'S JUST IN TERMS
OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
WELL, THERE WILL THERE BE OTHER
AND COMPETITORS OR PARTICIPANTS
IN THIS MARKETPLACE? THERE
ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, THERE ARE
OTHER THERE ARE OTHER
APPLICANTS. WHO ARE, IN THE
PROCESS, WHETHER THEY COMPLETE
THE PROCESS OR NOT. WE'RE AWARE
OF OTHERS. SO IT'S NOT JUST, SO
ALTHOUGH IT IS ONE PERSON IN THE
MARKET, I WOULDN'T CALL IT A
MONOPOLY IN THAT SENSE. THERE.
JUST THE PERSON WHO THERE'S ONLY
ONE PERSON WHO'S COMPLETED THE
ENTIRE PROCESS AND HASN'T
APPROVED PLATE WITH THE STATE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS. THIS IS
NOT THIS IS A DIGITAL LICENSE
PLATE BILL. IT IS NOT REVIVERS
BILL. SO ANY SO THIS IS NOT
EXCLUSIVE TO REVIVER GIVES THEM
NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. THE ALL OF
THE, LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL
BILL, INCLUDING THIS BILL, DOES
NOT GIVE THEM ANY, FAVOR IN
COMPARISON TO THEIR COMPETITORS.
IT'S JUST THEY ARE THE ONLY
PERSON WHO HASN'T COMPLETED THE
ENTIRE PROCESS AND HAS HAD
APPROVED PLATE UNDER THEIR
SPECIFICATIONS. UNDER THEIR
SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAW. AND ANYBODY ELSE
WHO COMPLETES THAT PROCESS WOULD
HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
LAW. ARE THEY PATENTED THEIR
PATENTED? I'M SURE THEIR
TECHNOLOGY IS PATENTED.
PARTICIPATE. WITH THAT. THEY'D
HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF PRODUCT. I GUESS
TECHNICALLY THEY COULDN'T USE
ANY OF THEIR PATENTS, BUT THEY
COULD GET THEIR OWN ELECTRONIC
VERSION OF THE LICENSE PLATE,
DIGITAL. THEY COULD GET THEIR
OWN DIGITAL LICENSE PLATE USING
THEIR OWN TECHNOLOGY AND MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORIGINAL
LAW. PLUS THIS NEW LAW. THAT
WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT. THEY
WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE
STANDARDS. OKAY. LET ME, JUST
REALLY QUICK, AMVA, WHICH IS THE
AUTOMOBILE ADMINISTRATORS FOR
THE US AND CANADA, ALL NORTH
AMERICA, THEY SET BEST STANDARDS
. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM
FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS, WE HAVE A
STANDING MEETING WITH THEM EVERY
MONTH TO TALK ABOUT BEST
PRACTICES AND, AND TECHNOLOGY.
SO THE ENTIRE TIME WE'VE BEEN
KIND OF WORKING HAND IN GLOVE
WITH THEM, WITH ALSO WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHATEVER PRODUCT WE PUT ON THE
ROAD MEETS THEIR STANDARDS,
THEIR STANDARDS ARE 75FT DURING
THE DAY, DUSK AND AT NIGHT.
WE'VE MET ALL OF THEIR STANDARDS
FOR VISIBILITY ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND NO, THIS IS NOT
TRANSPORTATION, BUT ANOTHER
COMMITTEE. YEAH, THAT'S A WHOLE
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YEAH. JUST WANT TO. YES. AND
WHATEVER. AND WHOEVER APPLIES
WILL BECAUSE OF THE LAWS WE PUT
IN PLACE AND POTENTIALLY MORE,
WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SAFE.
YES WE TRUST THE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE. MADAM CHAIR IS TAKING
CARE OF THAT, MR. HUBER, VERY
BRIEFLY. I JUST, ABSTAINED ON
THIS BILL IN TRANSPORTATION DUE
TO SOME OF THE PRIVACY CONCERNS,
AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR FOR CONTINUING TO
WORK ON IT. THANK YOU FOR THE
AMENDMENTS. I DO THINK THOSE
HAVE GOTTEN THE BILL MUCH CLOSER
TO A PLACE WHERE, JUST TO A MUCH
BETTER PLACE. AND SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. LOOK AT THAT.
MISS ORTEGA. THANK YOU, I HAD A
QUICK QUESTION. JUST I THINK I
ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I
WANT CONFIRMATION THAT NOTHING
THAT WE ARE REMOVING IN TERMS OF
, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN RAISED, AND WE'RE MOVING
WE'RE REMOVING A BIG PIECE OF
THAT. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF
HESITATION. SO I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE'S A PROVISION ON
EMPLOYER USE. YOU KNOW THE
EMPLOYERS DO NOT USE THIS THIS
INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW
OR USE THAT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
HAS STAYED IN PLACE. IS THAT
CORRECT? NO, THAT THAT'S IN A
NOT IN THIS BILL. SO THEY, IN A
SEPARATE BILL AS IT RELATES TO,
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, LAW IS THAT
EMPLOYER CANNOT USE YOUR DATA
BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS ALLOWING
THIS IS TAKING WHAT IS ALLOWED
FOR GPS TO GO TO, PERSONAL
CONSUMER. BUT WE ALREADY TODAY
ALLOW, GPS FOR A, FLEET AND I.
OKAY YEAH. PLEASE DON'T
INTERRUPT HER. PLEASE LET THE
AUTHOR FINISH, AND THEN WE'LL
COME TO YOU. OKAY SORRY. GO
AHEAD. I WAS JUST NOTING THAT
THIS BILL EXPANDS IT TO,
PERSONAL, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, THERE ARE SEPARATE LAWS
AROUND THE USE OF, GPS DATA,
WHETHER IT'S IN A LICENSE PLATE
OR THEIR PHONE OR PUTTING TILE
OR APPLE IN THERE ABOUT WHAT AN
EMPLOYER CAN USE AGAINST AN
EMPLOYEE RELATED TO GPS DATA
WHILE THAT EMPLOYEE IS WORKING.
AND SO IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THIS
BILL. BUT IT REMAINS IN PLACE.
SO IT'S ALREADY YEAH, IT DOESN'T
EXCLUDE IT. AND AS A REMINDER,
THIS BILL EXPANDS TO PERSONAL SO
IT DOESN'T REALLY MESS WITH THE
EXISTING ALLOWABLE BY LAW FOR
FLEET GPS. OKAY, I GET WHAT I'M
SAYING. YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO
MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT A LOOPHOLE
WHICH IS OFTEN WHAT HAPPENS. NO.
AND SO THAT'S THAT'S AN AREA
THAT I'M VERY CONCERNED IN AND
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE CAN I CAN FOLLOW
ABSOLUTELY. BEFORE WE GO TO
OPPOSITION YOU I THAT'S MY GOAL
TO PROTECT WORKERS AND
UNDERSTAND. AND I REMEMBER WHEN
I FIRST GOT HERE, THERE WAS A
WHOLE THING ABOUT USING GPS AND
WHAT WORKERS WERE DOING,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATED TO
REMOTE AND SUPPORTED THOSE BILLS
. AND SO IF THERE IS ANY
LANGUAGE THAT CURRENTLY I DON'T
THINK THERE IS, BUT MY LAPTOP'S
OVER THERE. IF THERE IF THERE IS
ANY LANGUAGE RELATES TO WORKERS
AND GPS AND FOR ESPECIALLY FOR
THE FLEET SIDE, BECAUSE THAT'S
WHERE THAT'S CURRENT TECHNOLOGY
THAT THEY CURRENTLY ARE ALLOWED
BY LAW, WHETHER THIS GOES
THROUGH OR NOT, YOU HAVE MY WORD
TO ADDRESS THAT. YEAH. I THINK
WE BASICALLY CLARIFIED, BUT JUST
TO BE CLEAR, THIS THIS LAW IS TO
EXPAND GPS CANNIBAL PLATES TO
RESIDENTIAL USE THAT HAVE BEEN
TAKEN OUT IN 2022, BUT THEY WERE
LEFT IN PLACE FOR FLEET USE FOR
COMMERCIAL USE. THERE ARE SOME
LIMITED PROTECTIONS IN AB 980
FOR 2022, BUT NOT AN AWFUL LOT.
AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
BILL OR IN THE RESIDENTIAL
EXPANSION THAT WOULD THAT WOULD
IMPROVE THOSE IN ANY SIGNIFICANT
WAY. SO IF THE LANGUAGE IN AB
984 ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT
EMPLOYEES, NOTHING THAT WE'RE
DOING HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE
THAT IN ANY WAY. AND IF IT'S
OKAY, JUST TO CLARIFY, IN 984
SAU, IS NOT IS NOT WHERE I WAS
TALKING ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE
EXISTS. I'M TALKING ABOUT A
SEPARATE BILL THAT WAS CHAPTERED
SIGNED INTO LAW AS IT RELATES TO
WORKERS RIGHTS WHEN THEY'RE AT
WORK AND SOMEONE TRACKING THEM
AND ALL OF THAT. 984 CODIFIED
THE PILOT, AND MADE ADJUSTMENTS
TO THAT PILOT THROUGH THE PILOT
WORK. YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS FIND
OUT WHETHER SOMETHING WORKS OR
DOESN'T WORK. THAT 984 MADE
ADJUSTMENTS. AND ONE OF THE BIG
ADJUSTMENTS THAT THERE WAS,
CONCERN BY OUR DV, ACLU, ALL
THOSE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WAS
STILL ABOUT LETTING PRIVATE USE
BECAUSE OF THEY FELT LIKE THE
TECHNOLOGY DIDN'T MATCH THE
PROTECTION. AND THAT IS THE
THING THAT WE'VE WORKED ON FOR
THE LAST, ALMOST TWO YEARS.
OKAY. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND
I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE THIS IS
FOR PRIVATE VEHICLES, BUT A LOT
MORE PEOPLE ARE USING THEIR
PRIVATE VEHICLES FOR WORK. YEP,
SO THAT'S WHY I WANT TO I ASKED
THE QUESTION AND WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT I RAISED THAT CONCERN.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE.
AND I'LL SAY THAT THE AMAZING
JULIE SALLY'S POINTED OUT THAT
ON PAGE FIVE, SECTION, SECTION F
OF THE BILL DOES CONTAIN A
PROVISION THAT I'M ASSUMING IS
FROM THE ORIGINAL LAW. SO NOT IN
THIS AMENDMENT THAT DOES PROTECT
EMPLOYERS FROM THESE BEING USED
TO MONITOR THEM. WHETHER IT'S
STRONG ENOUGH IS AN OPEN
QUESTION, BUT IT DOES REMAIN IN
THE LAW. RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE? I THINK WE GOT
EVERYBODY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE
ONE THING I WILL ADD BEFORE I
TURN TO YOU IS THAT, I LOVE MY
OLD LICENSE PLATE, AND I SUPPORT
THIS BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU WANT
TO PAY FOR THIS. AND THE COST IS
SHOCKING TO ME. I'M FINE WITH
PEOPLE DOING IT, BUT I DO THINK
THAT IT IS WORTH HAVING A
CONVERSATION WITH THE MADAM
TRANSPORTATION CHAIR, THAT WE
SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE OLD
LICENSE PLATES ARE AVAILABLE FOR
THOSE OF US THAT WANT TO
CONTINUE TO USE THEM, AND THAT
THIS DOESN'T TAKE US DOWN, THAT
PATH OF THEM BEING TAKEN AWAY.
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY, I LIKE MY
OLD LICENSE PLATE, SO BUT I KNOW
THAT YOU, YOU WERE ALWAYS
LOOKING OUT FOR, CALIFORNIANS
WHO ARE LOW INCOME AND COULDN'T
PAY WHAT THIS COSTS A YEAR. SO I
TRUST THAT YOU'LL PROTECT THAT.
AND WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE ABSOLUTE ME, THANK YOU FOR
THE ROBUST DISCUSSION AND ALL
THE COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, AND
WE WILL CONTINUE TO ADDRESS, AS
NEEDED ANY OF THOSE, I
APPRECIATE THAT, MR. BOSTON
BEING HERE AND PROVIDING
TESTIMONY AND, AND, YOU KNOW,
APPRECIATE HIS PRODUCT. I ALSO
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT
WERE BROUGHT UP BY OPPOSITION,
THEY ARE NOT LOST ON ME. AND I
SHARE THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT
TECHNOLOGY OVERALL. AND WE'LL
CONTINUE TO FIGHT, TO BE SURE
THAT WE ARE BALANCING CONSUMER
INTERESTS WITH CONSUMERS PRIVACY
, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE CAN BE SO
INTERESTED IN THINGS AND DON'T
REALIZE THE RIGHTS WE GIVE UP,
FOR THOSE THINGS. AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO TALKING WITH MY
COLLEAGUE BECAUSE I FOUND THE
SECTION THAT HAS LOTS OF
PROTECTIONS IN IT, BUT I, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR. AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THE BELL? SO MOVED.
SECOND. SECOND. THANK YOU, MADAM
SECRETARY. CALL THE ROLL. ITEM
NUMBER SIX, AB 3138 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WILSON. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE BY
BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON I BRIAN.
BRIAN I DIXON. DIXON I HOOVER.
HOOVER I IRWIN. IRWIN I
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I WARD. WICKS WILSON.
HAPPILY I IT'S AN I GREAT SO WE
CAN LET MISS IRWIN TAKE UP
DOCTOR WEBBER'S BILL WHICH IS AB
3139. TO CONTINUE OUR
CONVERSATION ABOUT TRACKING
PEOPLE'S VEHICLES. WELL GOOD
AFTERNOON, MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 3139, A BILL TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS, MISS WEBER
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR AND THE STAFF
FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL
CONVERSATIONS AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WEBER WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS TODAY AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ANALYSIS,
CONSUMERS SPEND A LOT OF TIME
INSIDE THEIR CARS, RUNNING
ERRANDS, COMMUTING TO WORK OR
TRAVELING WITH MODERN VEHICLES,
EVOLVING INTO WHAT SOME CALL
SMARTPHONES ON WHEELS. THEIR
INCREASED CONNECTIVITY RAISES
CONCERNS ABOUT CONSUMER PRIVACY
BEING COMPROMISED. SUCH SERVICES
GRANT ACCESS TO DRIVER'S DATA,
WITH LIMITED CONTROL ON HOW
CONSUMERS TO CONSUMERS ON HOW
THEIR DATA MAY BE USED. THIS
POSES A THREAT TO SAFETY AND THE
CASE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS. IT CAN BE A LIFE OR
DEATH SITUATION. RESEARCHERS
HAVE ANALYZED 25 CAR BRANDS AND
IDENTIFIED SEVERAL PROBLEMATIC
PRACTICES WITH RELATION TO
PRIVACY THAT ARE COMMON AMONG
MOST OR ALL OF THESE BRANDS.
FIRST OF ALL, EXCESSIVE
COLLECTION OF PERSONAL DATA.
SECONDLY, SHARING OR SELLING
CONSUMERS DATA. AND THIRD,
LIMITED CONTROL PROVIDED TO, TO
DRIVERS OVER THEIR PERSONAL DATA
. THESE PRACTICES POSE
SIGNIFICANT THREATS, ESPECIALLY
FOR SURVIVORS OF DV, AS
PERPETRATORS EXPLOIT APPS TO
REMOTELY TRACK AND CONTROL CARS.
THIS ENABLES THEM TO LOCATE
SURVIVORS AND MANIPULATE CAR
FUNCTIONS SUCH AS HONKING THE
HORN OR LOCKING THE DOORS. A
RECENT ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK
TIMES SHEDS LIGHT ON THE
STRUGGLES OF CHRISTINE DOWDELL.
DOWDALL A SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. IT HIGHLIGHTS THE
CHALLENGES SHE ENCOUNTERED WHILE
ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT HER ABUSER
FROM ACCESSING THE CONNECTED
SERVICES IN HER CAR TO TRACK HER
LOCATION. MISS DOWDLE'S CASE
DEMONSTRATES THAT EVEN WHEN
SURVIVORS PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF
PAYMENT HISTORY. COURT ORDERED
RESTRAINING ORDERS AND LEGAL
DOCUMENTATION GRANTING EXCLUSIVE
USE OF THE CAR, PREVENTING THEIR
ABUSER FROM ACCESSING CONTROLLED
CAR SERVICES TO STALK OR
INTIMIDATE THEM REMAINS
CHALLENGING. FOR THESE REASONS,
AB 3139 DOES THE FOLLOWING. IF
TECHNOLOGICALLY, IF
TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE, AN
AUTO MANUFACTURER WOULD NEED TO
UPDATE THE TECHNOLOGY IN THE
VEHICLE TO INSTALL AN OPTION,
ALLOWING A CONSUMER TO
IMMEDIATELY DISABLE ALL REMOTE
TRACKING TECHNOLOGY, THE METHOD
FOR DISABLING WILL BE REQUIRED
TO BE EASY TO ACCESS AND DISABLE
WITHOUT REQUIRING A PASSWORD OR
LOGIN INFORMATION. ONCE ENABLED.
ONCE DISABLED, THE SURVIVOR
SURVIVOR WILL HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO
SUBMIT THE INFORMATION CURRENTLY
REQUIRED IN THE BILL IN ORDER
FOR THE CONNECTION TO REMAIN
SEVERED. SIMILARLY, THE
REGISTERED OWNER OF THE CAR WILL
HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO CONTACT THE
AUTO MANUFACTURER TO HAVE THE
CONNECTION RESTORED. ASSUMING
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY WAS DISABLED
FOR A REASON OTHER THAN TO
PROTECT A SURVIVOR, THE
CONNECTION WILL BE TURNED BACK
ON BY THE MANUFACTURER. IF THIS
IS NOT TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE
FOR A MANUFACTURER TO UPDATE THE
VEHICLE'S SYSTEM TO ALLOW IT TO
BE DISABLED BY THE CONSUMER
ALONE, THEN THE VICTIM WOULD
HAVE TO SUBMIT A SEPARATION
REQUEST TO THE VEHICLE
MANUFACTURER, INCLUDING THE
PROPER DOCUMENTATION, SUCH AS A
COPY OF A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT,
AFFIDAVIT FROM A LICENSED
MEDICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER, OR A RESTRAINING
ORDER. A VEHICLE MANUFACTURER
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SEPARATE
THE PERPETRATOR'S ACCESS FROM
THE REMOTE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY IN
ONE BUSINESS DAY. WITH ME, HERE
TODAY TO TESTIFY IS ROBERT
HARRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
ROBERT HARRELL, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER FEDERATION
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE THE SPONSOR OF
THIS MEASURE. I KNOW YOU'VE HAD
A LONG AFTERNOON, AND YOU
HAVEN'T EVEN GONE TO ALL OF THE
AI BILLS. SO I WILL TRY TO BE
BRIEF, THE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
AUTHOR DID A GREAT JOB OF
SUMMARIZING. I WOULD JUST NOTE
THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY
THAT, AS IT EVEN CAME UP, I
BELIEVE, MADAM CHAIR, IN THE
PREVIOUS BILL, WITH, MISS
DOWDELL, HER HUSBAND, HER
HUSBAND WAS A DEA AGENT. SO THIS
IS A SENSITIVE TOPIC, ESPECIALLY
WHEN YOU TALK TO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE GROUPS, THAT
INTERACTIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAN BE A LITTLE
TRICKY AND COMPLICATED, AND SO,
GOOD AFTERNOON. AND SO THE
CONTEXT HERE IS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PASSED ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS, AND IT WAS
SIGNED BY PRESIDENT BIDEN IN
DECEMBER 2022. THE SAFE
CONNECTIONS ACT. THAT WAS WHERE
WE STARTED THIS WAS TO TAKE THAT
SAFE CONNECTIONS ACT, WHICH WAS
TO ALLOW DV SURVIVORS TO BE ABLE
TO SEVER IN THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTEXT, A
CONTRACT, AND THE FCC IS IN THE
PROCESS AS IS VERY NICELY
SUMMARIZED IN THE ANALYSIS OF
BEGINNING TO IMPLEMENT THAT WITH
AN 18 MONTH WINDOW THAT WAS
PROVIDED FOR THEM IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL ACT THAT
AUTHORIZED IT, IN THE COURSE OF
DOING THAT, THEY'RE ASKING I
THINK SOME VERY APPROPRIATE AND
CHALLENGING FOR THE AUTO
INDUSTRY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
APPLICABILITY HERE, I'D ALSO
LIKE TO JUST TAKE A MOMENT
BEFORE I HAND IT OVER TO THE
ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTHOR OF THE
BILL TO NOTE TO THANK THE CHAIR,
AND TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR WORKING REALLY
COMPREHENSIVELY WITH THE AUTHOR,
WITH US AS THE SPONSOR, WITH DV
GROUPS AND OTHERS TO TRY TO FIND
SOMETHING THAT IS AS MAXIMALLY
PROTECTIVE OF SURVIVORS AS IS
POSSIBLE, WE THINK THIS IS A
REALLY A COMMON SENSE STEP IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND WE URGE
YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. HAPPY
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THEY COME
UP. THANK YOU, DOCTOR WEBER. DID
YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? I
MEAN, MISS ERWIN DID A GREAT
JOB, BUT. OH, I'M SURE SHE DID.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ERWIN, FOR
STEPPING IN. BUT WE CAN
CONTINUE. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL?
GOOD AFTERNOON. DANNY CAÑADA
KAISER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME CONSUMER
COALITION IN SUPPORT. OAKLAND
PRIVACY IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
SAMANTHA CORBIN WITH THE EFF.
WE'VE BEEN A SUPPORTIVE AMENDED.
I'LL BE HONEST, I HAVE NO IDEA
IF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
RESOLVE THAT ISSUE, BUT WE WILL
LET YOU KNOW AND THANK YOU FOR
ALL OF YOUR WORK. WE HOPE THEY
DO. ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL? SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
OH, YES, SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.
IT'S GETTING LATE. I WOULD NEVER
WANT TO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
JOHN MOFFATT, ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION, WE ARE THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE AUTO MAKERS
AND, ASSOCIATED TECHNOLOGY
PROVIDERS FOR THOSE AUTOMAKERS.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. I AM
NOT HERE IN OPPOSITION. IT'S
GOING TO CHIDE YOU FOR NO
LETTER. SO WHAT'S NOT HERE IN
OPPOSITION? WE APPRECIATE THE
TIME WE SPENT WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE, WITH THE SPONSORS. WE
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION WITH
THE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, WE
ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE, WHAT WAS
COMMUNICATED TO US BY THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT THAT THIS
THIS COMMITTEE, WILL BE LOOKING
AT THIS ISSUE AND SORT OF
LOOKING AT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT,
BILLS THAT ARE IN THIS SPACE.
THIS IS ONE OF THREE BILLS IN
THIS SPACE THIS YEAR ALONE.
THERE'S TWO IN THE SENATE AND
ONE ON THIS SIDE, WE ARE NOT
OPPOSED TO WHAT IS HAPPENING
HERE. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE
CONCEPT HERE. WE ARE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE OF
CONNECTED CAR TECHNOLOGY BY AN
ABUSER TO TRACK A VICTIM. I
THINK WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM IS
WE CANNOT COMPLY WITH ALL THREE
BILLS. SO THE FACT THAT THIS
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO PRESUMING
THOSE TWO BILLS COME OVER HERE,
TRY TO ALIGN THE CONVERSATION
AND ALIGN ALL THREE CONCEPTS WE
REALLY DO APPRECIATE IN ADDITION
TO THAT, WE APPRECIATE THE
ONGOING CONVERSATION. WE
APPRECIATE THE LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT APPROACH THAT THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS OUTLINES WITH
RESPECT TO OKAY. THE DEFAULT IS
DISCONNECT THE CAR. AND THEN
LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
PROCESS IS FOR VERIFICATION
DOCUMENTATION. ALL OF THAT GOOD
STUFF, FOR WHETHER THAT
DISCONNECT REMAINS OR WHETHER
THE CAR GETS RECONNECTED. WHAT'S
THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF
DOCUMENTATION? HOW IS THAT
COMMUNICATED TO US, YOU KNOW,
AS, AS EXPLAINED TO US BY THE
COMMITTEE AND IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, IT CONTEMPLATES,
CAPABILITIES WITHIN THE CAR, TO
OUR KNOWLEDGE, THOSE DON'T EXIST
YET. BUT WE ARE ASKING THE
QUESTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE OF
WE BELIEVE COMMUNICATION WITH
THE MANUFACTURER IS APPROPRIATE.
IT AND AGAIN, THE DEFAULT IS
TURN IT OFF, THEN GET THE
INFORMATION, WORK THROUGH THAT,
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH THOSE
ISSUES. THE LAST ISSUE THAT I
JUST LIKE TO RAISE IS, OUR
PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE, THE COMMITTEE, THE
AUTHOR, THE SPONSORS WOULD WANT
US TO DEFAULT ON THE SIDE OF
BEING OVERLY PROTECTIVE. AND SO
WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT, YOU
KNOW, LIKE CALIFORNIA'S LAW FOR
LANDLORDS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE
SOME LIABILITY PROTECTION BUILT
INTO THE BILL. SO AGAIN, I
APOLOGIZE. I'M A BIT OF AN
IN-BETWEEN HERE, AND WITH THAT,
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
OR SEEING NO OPPOSITION BECAUSE
YOU WEREN'T EVEN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS,
CONCERNS, THOUGHTS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. SECOND, I WILL SAY THANK
YOU TO DOCTOR WEBER. I THINK YOU
KNOW, WE HAD A GREAT
CONVERSATION WHERE I EXPRESSED
MY CONCERNS, YOU EXPRESSED YOUR
GOALS, AND WE REALLY CAME UP
WITH A SOLUTION THAT ONCE WE
STARTED TO WORKSHOP IT, I THINK
EVERYONE FEELS REALLY GOOD ABOUT
AND IS MAXIMALLY PROTECTED FOR
THE SURVIVORS, BUT ALLOWS FOR
SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS TO BE
ADDRESSED. SO I WANT TO THANK
YOU FOR THAT WORK AND THAT
COLLABORATION, AND WITH THAT,
AND I THINK THIS IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT BILL WE HEARD JUST
EARLIER ABOUT ALL OF THE CASES
IN WHICH THIS IS RELEVANT AND
IMPORTANT. AND WE NOW HAVE
DEVICES ALL OVER US THAT TELL
PEOPLE WHO MAY WANT TO HARM US
WHERE WE ARE, AND WE NEED THE
ABILITY TO STOP THAT. SO THANK
YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. WELL,
FIRST I MUST THANK YOU, CHAIR,
AND ALSO YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF.
WE HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND
FORTH HAVING A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN
GET THIS RIGHT AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THE WORK AND THE
COLLABORATION. I WANT TO THANK
THE SPONSORS, AND WANT TO, YOU
KNOW, THANK THOSE WHO, REPRESENT
THE CAR MANUFACTURERS BECAUSE I
KNOW THAT THEY WANT TO BE ON THE
RIGHT SIDE, AND WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER
TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT
IS FEASIBLE, THAT'S ABLE TO
PREVENT TO PROTECT THESE VICTIMS
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, BECAUSE
THE LAST THING THAT THESE
INDIVIDUALS SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY
ABOUT IS THAT THEIR ABUSER CAN
TRACK THEM AND THEIR WHEREABOUTS
BASED ON THEM HAVING ACCESS TO
THEIR CAR. AND SO WITH THAT, I
JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU
PROTECT THESE VICTIMS AND VOTE
AYE ON AB 3139. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, DOCTOR WEBER. MADAM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, AB
3139 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER. A
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN HØI KHN I PATTERSON
. BRIAN. DIXON. DIXON. I HOOVER,
IRWIN. IRWIN. I LOWENTHAL, I.
LOWENTHAL, I ORTEGA. WARD WARD.
I. WICKS. WILSON. EIGHT BILL HAS
FIVE, SO IT NEEDS ONE MORE, BUT
WE'LL LEAVE IT ON CALL FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. LOWENTHAL. YOU ARE UP
WITH AB 3172. THANK.
WELCOME. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR,
AND MEMBERS. I HEARD ONCE,
SOMEONE SAY MY MOST IMPORTANT
JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT
OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. WAIT A MINUTE.
I THINK THAT WAS OUR CHAIR. JUST
A FEW MOMENTS AGO. AND WITH
THAT, I'D LIKE TO, START BY
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS IN THE
ANALYSIS OF AB 3172. I WANT TO
ESPECIALLY THANK YOUR STAFF.
EXCELLENT ANALYSIS, WHICH
CONTAINS THOUGHTFUL LEGAL
EXAMINATION OF THE LAW, GERMANE
AND CENTRAL TO THE BILL'S GOALS.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ALONG
WITH CALIFORNIA, MULTIPLE OTHER
STATES, MANY COUNTRIES,
INCLUDING OUR ALLIES OVERSEAS,
HAVE LONG SOUGHT WAYS TO HOLD
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE NEGATIVE
IMPACTS THEIR PLATFORMS HAVE ON
THE WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND
TEENS, RECENT CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS AND AN ALARMING NUMBER
OF STUDIES POINT TO THE NEGATIVE
IMPACT SOCIAL MEDIA CAN HAVE ON
A CHILD'S OR TEEN'S DEVELOPMENT.
MENTAL, WELL, MENTAL WELL-BEING
AND HEALTH. MORE MUST BE DONE
AND FAST. AB 3172 WILL HOLD
SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE HARM THEY
CAUSE TO CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS.
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD IMPOSE
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON
LARGE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES IF
THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE HAS BEEN
PROVEN IN COURT. AB 3172 DOES
NOT CHANGE CALIFORNIA'S
UNDERLYING LAW OR THE BURDEN OF
PROOF REQUIRED IN COURT. WHAT IT
DOES DO IN RESPONSE TO THE
DAMAGE KNOWINGLY AND ADMITTEDLY
BEING DONE TO AN ENTIRE
GENERATION OF CHILDREN BY JUST A
HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT ARE
EARNING ENORMOUS PROFITS OFF OF
CHILDREN AND TEEN USERS, IS
ACTUALLY APPLY APPROPRIATE
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROMPT THESE
FEW COMPANIES TO BE MORE CAREFUL
AND RESPONSIBLE PARTNERS,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO
CHILDREN. OUR TOP PRIORITY MUST
BE ENSURING OUR CHILDREN ARE
SAFE AND SECURE, OFFLINE AND
ONLINE. I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU
THAT MILLIONS OF TEENAGERS AND
CHILDREN TURN TO SOCIAL MEDIA
APPS AS THEIR PRIMARY FORM OF
SOCIAL INTERACTION AND
COMMUNICATION, AND IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT WE ARE CERTAIN
THEY ARE SAFE IN DOING SO. WHILE
THERE ARE SOME VARYING DEGREES
OF GUARDRAILS BUILT INTO SOME OF
THESE PLATFORMS, STUDIES SHOW
THERE IS MUCH MORE THAT CAN AND
SHOULD BE DONE. AND TOO OFTEN
OUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS TO
THE CORPORATIONS OWNING THE
PLATFORMS HAVE GONE UNANSWERED
AND THE HARMS TO OUR KIDS
CONTINUE TO MOUNT. I, LIKE MANY
PARENTS, HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME
HERE. AS A FATHER OF THREE
DAUGHTERS IN THE AGE OF SOCIAL
MEDIA, I SEE FIRSTHAND THE
DRAMATIC IMPACTS AND INFLUENCE
THESE COMPANIES HAVE OVER MY
CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING. AS A
FORMER SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY,
SHAREHOLDER AND SOMEONE WHO HAS
SPENT THEIR CAREER IN THE TECH
AND TELECOM INDUSTRY, I BELIEVE
IN THE POTENTIAL FOR THESE
COMPANIES TO PROMOTE THE HEALTHY
DEVELOPMENT OF OUR YOUTH TO BE A
BENEFIT TO ALL USERS, BUT AS A
PARENT AND AS A LEGISLATOR, HERE
IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO STAND UP
AND DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND
REAL ACTION WHEN THEY CLAIM TO
WANT TO PROTECT OUR YOUTH. I
SHOULD MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. I AM
NOT AGAINST SOCIAL MEDIA. IN
FACT, AS A PARENT OF YOUNG
CHILDREN, I SEE THE POSITIVE
EFFECT SOME SOCIAL MEDIA TOOLS
CAN HAVE CONNECTING YOUNG
PEOPLE. I JUST WANT SOCIAL MEDIA
TO MUCH MORE VIGOROUSLY STEP UP
TO THE PLATE AND BE RESPONSIBLE
PARTNERS THAT TAKE SAFETY AND
THE WELL-BEING OF OUR CHILDREN
AS SERIOUS AS THEY DO TO
SHAREHOLDER VALUE. AB 3172 WILL
HOPEFULLY MAKE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEIR OWN ALGORITHMS AND ACTIONS
THAT AFFECT OUR KIDS, AND MORE
ACCOUNTABLE WHERE THERE IS
PROVEN NEGLECT, I WOULD LOVE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES HERE.
NIYA MORONG, A 17 YEAR OLD
JUNIOR FROM WEST CAMPUS HIGH IN
SACRAMENTO. FRED WHITTAKER,
ATTORNEY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY.
AND SCOTT KRONLUND, AN ATTORNEY,
NOW ARE ALL THREE PLANNING ON
TESTIFYING SO THAT WE CAN DIVIDE
TIME. OKAY, SO WE'LL DO TWO
MINUTES EACH AND THEN
OPPOSITION. I'M ONLY HERE TO
ANSWER. YOU'RE HERE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS OKAY. SO WE'LL DO TWO
MINUTES EACH. THANKS OKAY. MY
NAME IS NIYA MORONG. I'M 17
YEARS OLD AND I'M A JUNIOR AT
WEST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL. I'VE
HAD SOCIAL MEDIA SINCE I WAS IN
MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND I WANTED TO
SPEAK AT THIS HEARING TO EXPLAIN
HOW SOCIAL MEDIA HAS NEGATIVELY
IMPACTED MY MENTAL HEALTH, AS
WELL AS MANY OTHER TEENS I KNOW.
LET ME START OFF BY EMPHASIZING
HOW ADDICTING SOCIAL MEDIA TRULY
IS. I'LL FIND MYSELF SCROLLING
ON TIKTOK OR MINDLESSLY BROWSING
THROUGH MY INSTAGRAM FEED FOR
HOURS ON END. AND THE THING
THAT'S SCARY ABOUT THIS IS HOW
THOSE HOURS ONLY FEEL LIKE
MINUTES GETTING SUCKED INTO THE
REALM OF SOCIAL MEDIA. NOT ONLY
CONSUMES OUR VALUABLE TIME, BUT
IT ALSO HEIGHTENS TEENS MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES. FROM MY PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, I WILL FIND MYSELF
FEELING MORE ANXIOUS AND NERVOUS
AFTER BEING ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR
LONG AMOUNTS OF TIME. THERE HAVE
BEEN EXTENDED AMOUNTS OF TIME
WHERE I'VE TAKEN A SOCIAL MEDIA
DETOX AND I'VE FOUND MYSELF
FEELING LESS ANXIOUS AND MORE AT
PEACE. I SUPPORT ASSEMBLY BILL
3172 BECAUSE SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORMS WILL NOT STOP PUSHING
ADDICTIVE, HARMFUL FEATURES TO
KIDS AND TEENS UNTIL THEY ARE
HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
AND I STRONGLY URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO PASS ASSEMBLY BILL
3001 72 TO PROTECT OUR MENTAL
HEALTH. THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, MADAM
CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS, I'M FRED
WHITAKER, I'M THE MANAGING
PARTNER OF CUMMINS AND WHITE LAW
FIRM IN NEWPORT BEACH. I'M THE
FORMER MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY
COUNCILMAN IN THE CITY OF
ORANGE. AND IT'S BEEN MY HONOR
TO, FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS,
SERVE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY IN ORANGE
COUNTY. BUT TODAY, I'M COMING TO
YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, SOMEBODY
WHO'S SUPPORTING AB 3172, A
LAWYER WHO WORKS IN THE
CORPORATE WORLD, AND IS ALWAYS
FOR TORT REFORM. AND SOME OF YOU
MAY SEE ME TOMORROW COMING TO
YOUR OFFICES ASKING FOR PAGA
REFORM. BUT TODAY I'M HERE FOR
AB 3172, AND I GREATLY
APPRECIATE THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. AND
THERE'S TWO REASONS TO SUPPORT
AB 3172. FIRST IS WHETHER IT'S
SEX TRAFFICKING ADDICTION TIPS
ON SUICIDE AND ANOREXIA, OR THE
SALE OF FENTANYL, SOCIAL MEDIA
IS FACILITATING AND CAUSING
CHILD HARM THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN
FOREVER. THAT HARM NEEDS TO BE
STOPPED AND IN MY OPINION, IT
CAN BE ONLY STOPPED ONE OF TWO
WAYS REGULATORY OR FINANCIALLY.
AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE
REGULATORY MANNER NEVER WORKS
FOR LARGE COMPANIES BECAUSE
LARGE COMPANIES LOVE REGULATION.
THEY HAVE A PHALANX OF LAWYERS,
COMPLIANCE OFFICERS WHO THEN
LOBBY THEIR REGULATORS AND
BECOME THEIR OWN EXPERTS FOR
THEIR OWN REGULATORS. IT'S WHAT
I CALL MALICIOUS COMPLIANCE. THE
ONLY WAY THAT IT ACTUALLY STOPS
IS WHEN THERE'S A FINANCIAL
PENALTY FOR ACTING POORLY. THIS
IS NOT TALKING ABOUT SECTION
230. THEY ARE COMPLETELY
PROTECTED ON THEIR CONTENT
THAT'S BEING PUBLISHED. THIS IS
TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEIR OWN
CONDUCT IS WITH RESPECT TO 1714
IN THE CIVIL CODE, JUST DIRECT
NEGLIGENCE, ADDING SOME
STATUTORY DAMAGES. AND THOSE
STATUTORY DAMAGES ARE NOT
UNCOMMON. THERE'S MANY PLACES IN
THE CIVIL CODE RIGHT NOW WHERE
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS ADDED
STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE
, CONDUCT THAT HURTS VULNERABLE
PEOPLE AND OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR
MOST VULNERABLE. SO I GUARANTEE
YOU, WITH A VERY ROBUST
PLAINTIFF'S BAR IN CALIFORNIA,
VÀ, THAT WITH THIS LEGISLATION
PASSING, THE ENGINEERS AT THESE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES WILL
FIGURE OUT HOW TO CHANGE THEIR
ALGORITHMS TO MAKE THINGS LESS
ADDICTIVE, TO MAKE, BAD THINGS
LESS ATTRACTIVE AND STILL HAVE
VERY PROFITABLE COMPANIES. I ASK
YOU TO SUPPORT. AB 3172. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? COME ON UP
. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS. EDITOR
HOWARD, SENIOR COUNSEL AT THE
CHILDREN'S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO
SCHOOL OF LAW IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. HELLO, MIKE Â HØI
WITH COMMON SENSE MEDIA, WHERE
THE BILL SPONSOR AND IN STRONG
SUPPORT AS WELL. THANK YOU. GOOD
EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MCKENNA JENKINS, ON
BEHALF OF NEXTGEN CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY PRIMARY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. MR. HOFFMAN IS NOW
HERE. YOU DON'T GET TO PLAY HIM
ON TV ANYMORE. IMPERSONATION
CONTINUES. OH, INTERESTING. WHEN
YOU'RE READY. TWO MINUTES EACH.
THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
BAUER-KAHAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I'M JESS MYERS. I'M A
DIGITAL NATIVE AND SENIOR
COUNSEL FOR CHAMBER OF PROGRESS,
A TECH COALITION ADVOCATING FOR
EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS FOR
ALL AMERICANS. TODAY, I'M HERE
TO VOICE OUR OPPOSITION TO AB
3172, WHICH, DESPITE ITS STATED
GOAL OF SAFEGUARDING TEENS, WILL
HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
THAT UNDERMINE THIS OBJECTIVE.
AB 3172 POSES SIGNIFICANT RISKS
NOT JUST TO THE LIBERTIES OF
CALIFORNIA YOUTH, BUT ALSO TO
THEIR ACCESS TO VITAL
INFORMATION AND THE OVERALL
HEALTH OF OUR DIGITAL ECOSYSTEM.
THE BILL WOULD COMPEL PLATFORMS
TO ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHAT
CONTENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUNG
USERS, DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE
MADE BY PARENTS AND GUARDIANS.
THIS INFRINGES ON THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF PLATFORMS
AND USERS, AND OPENS THE DOOR TO
ENDLESS LITIGATION, POSING A
SIGNIFICANT RISK TO SMALL AND
NEW PLATFORMS. AS A RESULT,
PLATFORMS MIGHT RESTRICT ACCESS
FOR CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH
DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTING
MARGINALIZED GROUPS, INCLUDING
LGBTQ PLUS YOUTH SEEKING SUPPORT
AND TEENS IN NEED OF
REPRODUCTIVE SEXUAL HEALTH
INFORMATION ON AB 3172
UNJUSTIFIABLY INFRINGES ON
PLATFORMS AND USERS FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY REQUIRING
PLATFORMS TO ASSESS USERS UNDER
18. THE BILL MANDATES AGE
VERIFICATION NECESSARY,
NECESSITATING THE COLLECTION OF
SENSITIVE INFORMATION LIKE
GOVERNMENT IDS OR BIOMETRIC
DATA, JEOPARDIZING THE USER'S
PRIVACY. SECURITY, PARTICULARLY
IN THE IN THE LITIGIOUS US
ENVIRONMENT. UNLIKE THE U.S. AND
OF COURSE, THE FOLKS SELLING AGE
VERIFICATION SOLUTIONS ARE THE
ONES IN FAVOR OF THESE
REGULATIONS. WE ALSO REMIND THIS
COMMITTEE OF THE LAST TIME
CALIFORNIA ATTEMPTED TO
FORECLOSE MINORS FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS. THE SUPREME COURT MADE
IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT MINORS
INDEED HAVE A RIGHT TO ACCESS
INFORMATION THAT REMAINS TRUE
TODAY. ADULTS NOT ONLY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO ACCESS LEGALLY
PROTECTED INFORMATION, TOO, BUT
THEY ALSO HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO
WITHOUT SURRENDERING THEIR
SENSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
INFORMATION. BUT DON'T HEAR IT
FROM US. THE SUPREME COURT HAS
HELD THE SAME TWICE. MOREOVER,
THE LEGISLATURE, THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS ROUTINELY
DEMONSTRATED A LACK OF
COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT THESE
TYPES OF REGULATIONS ARE
NECESSARY AND NARROWLY TAILORED.
NUMEROUS RECENT PEER REVIEWED
STUDIES NOT ONLY CAST
SIGNIFICANT DOUBT, BUT REJECT
THE EXISTENCE OF ANY CAUSAL LINK
BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA USE AND THE
ALLEGED HARMS TO TEENS. THAT'S
WHY THE NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT
OF CALIFORNIA RECENTLY ENJOINED
THIS STATE'S DEEPLY FLAWED, AGE
APPROPRIATE DESIGN CODE,
RECOGNIZING THE SAME CONCERNS.
NOT ONLY THAT, THE CALIFORNIA
COURTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
ADDRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT ONLINE
HARMS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
LEGISLATION, AS SEEN IN RECENT
CASES IN LEMON VÆ SNAP NEVILLE
VÆ SNAP LET'S FACE YOU WANT TO
LEAVE TIME FOR YOUR COLLEAGUE.
SOCIAL MEDIA ADDICTION AND THE
CURRENT SOCIAL, SOCIAL MEDIA
ADDICTION CLASS ACTIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, JASON SCHMELZER HERE
ON BEHALF OF TECHNET AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO AB
3172, TECHNET AND OUR MEMBERS
AGREE WITH THE AUTHOR'S GOAL, WE
ALL BELIEVE THAT CHILDREN ONLINE
SHOULD BE PROTECTED, AND OUR
MEMBERS HAVE, FRANKLY, BEEN AT
THE FOREFRONT OF THESE EFFORTS.
WE ARE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED TO THE
BILL FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS,
AND I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON ONE
THING, THAT WASN'T RAISED BY MY
COLLEAGUE, IN THE ANALYSIS, IT
BASICALLY STATES THAT THE
PROPONENT SAYS THE GOAL IS TO
INCENTIVIZE PLATFORMS TO CHANGE
HOW THEY OPERATE. RIGHT, AND WE
ASSUME THAT THEY'RE REFERENCING,
OPERATIONS RELATED TO USER
CONTENT AND THE FEATURES THAT
PLATFORMS USE TO DELIVER THAT
CONTENT. BUT THE BILL DOESN'T
TARGET ANYTHING PRECISELY AS HAS
BEEN NOTED BY THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS. IT SIMPLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT PLATFORMS GENERAL DUTY OF
CARE AND THEN SETS HIGH
STATUTORY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE
TO MEET THAT DUTY. BUT WE READ
THE HIGH STATUTORY PENALTIES TO
APPLY TO ALL CLAIMS AGAINST
PLATFORMS BY A MINOR FOR ANY
PURPOSE, SO IF A CHILD IS
VISITING OUR CORPORATE
HEADQUARTERS AND THEY HAVE A
TRIP AND FALL INJURY, THEY AND
THEY VIOLATED THEIR DUTY OF CARE
AND THERE'S NEGLIGENCE AND IT'S
PROVEN IN A COURT THE STATUTORY
PENALTIES IN THIS IN THIS BILL
WOULD APPLY, OTHER SUCH INJURIES
WOULD APPLY, WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T
THINK THAT'S THE AUTHOR'S INTENT
. WE THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
BASED ON THE STATEMENTS THAT
WERE MADE, COMING IN, BUT
WITHOUT THAT TYPE OF FOCUS, I
THINK IT'S HARD TO ASSUME THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES ARE GOING
TO LEARN ANYTHING AND CHANGE
THEIR OPERATIONS BECAUSE ANY OF
THE CLAIMS THAT ARE BROUGHT
RELATED TO CONTENT AND CONTENT
DELIVERY MECHANISMS ARE GOING TO
BE VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 230 AND
POTENTIALLY THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS. AND
THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUT. WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO BE LEFT WITH ARE
A BUNCH OF CLAIMS FOR SLIP AND
FALL INJURIES AT THE COMPANY
HEADQUARTERS, AND WE THINK
THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE BILL. AND URGE
YOUR NO VOTE TODAY FOR THAT
REASON. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
FOLKS HERE IN OPPOSITION IN
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
IN OPPOSITION FOR THE REASONS
STATED BY MY COLLEAGUES. THANK
YOU. KARA, UNDER COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OR RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION? APOLOGIES. I WAS
JUST RELAXING. ROANOKE DELORME
WITH CAL CHAMBER, ALIGN OUR
COMMENTS WITH OUR COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SEEING NO
FURTHER FOLKS IN THE ROOM
WANTING TO WEIGH IN, I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MISTER VICE-CHAIR. AND
I CAN JUST COMMENT ON ALL OF
THESE THINGS. SO I THINK, THE
ONE DIFFICULT THING WITH THIS, I
HAVE I DO HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS
AS A PRIOR BILL, WHICH IS THE
SIZE OF THE POTENTIAL PENALTY,
BUT, THE ONE THING THAT I'M
ALWAYS GRAPPLING WITH ON, ON THE
SOCIAL MEDIA BILLS IS IT'S SORT
OF LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW
IT'S THERE. WE ALL KNOW THERE'S
AN ISSUE OUT THERE, AND I DON'T
I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING,
TRUTHFULLY, I DON'T I, I JUST
DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BEING
ADDRESSED. I SEE WHAT MY KIDS
ARE GOING THROUGH IS THEY'RE
LEARNING ABOUT, AS THEY'RE, THIS
IS WHY I LOCK DOWN THEIR PHONES.
BUT ON THE MOMENTS I DON'T LOCK
DOWN THEIR PHONES, I CAN SEE THE
TYPES OF CONTENT THAT JUST LIKE
I MEAN, SOMETIMES I GOT TO,
LIKE, SHAKE THEM, YOU KNOW,
DIDN'T MEAN I DIDN'T WANT TO GET
ON THE MEME CAUCUS OR WHATEVER
FOR THAT, BUT. YEAH, FOR BABY
SHAKING. WE MIGHT NEED THAT PSA.
SORRY ABOUT THAT, SERGEANT.
STARTING AROUND, ARE THEY, SO
IT'S LIKE WE KNOW THERE'S WE
KNOW THERE'S AN ISSUE. AND THIS
BECAME A VERY BIG CONCERN WITH
ME WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME WITH
FENTANYL. JUST IN TERMS OF
CHILD, THE YOUNG ADULT AND
CHILDREN'S INTERACTION WITH
SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OR JUST ONLINE
PLATFORMS IN GENERAL. AND I
REMEMBER MEETING WITH SOME OF
THE COMPANIES, NOT ALL OF THEM.
I MEAN, I WILL SAY THAT ALL OF
THEM WERE INTERESTED IN LIKE,
NOT HAVING NOT HELPING TO
FACILITATE FENTANYL, SALES. SO
I'LL JUST SAY THAT RIGHT THEN
AND THERE. BUT AT SOME POINT
IT'S LIKE, WELL, I NÓ DEATHS ARE
OCCURRING AND THEY'RE USING THIS
PARTICULAR PRODUCT, AT LEAST
DRUG DEALERS ARE TO GET IT TO
CHILDREN IN MY COMMUNITY. AND AT
WHAT POINT DO WE SAY, LIKE, WE
GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS,
WE NEED TO START TAKING THIS
SERIOUSLY AS AS AN INSTITUTION
HERE. SO I'M GETTING SORT OF THE
POINT WHERE MY PATIENCE IS,
STARTING TO I DON'T KNOW, I'M
JUST IT'S LIKE MY SECOND YEAR,
SO MAYBE I'M JUST GETTING GRUMPY
IN MY SECOND YEAR, BUT TI¾N NÓ,
BUT WE ARE GETTING TO THE POINT
WHERE IT'S LIKE, I NEED SOME
REAL SOLUTIONS, AND I AM OPEN TO
THE PLATFORMS TO BRING THEM TO
ME, BECAUSE I DON'T I'M NOT
REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH JUST
RELYING ON THE GOODWILL THAT
THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN
BECAUSE IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN
AGAIN ON MY PRIVACY OR ON MY
AGING BILL THAT I BROUGHT UP
UPSTAIRS. ONE ANOTHER
LEGISLATOR, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES
BROUGHT UP ABOUT HOW WE KNOW
THAT A CERTAIN PLATFORM IS BEING
USED FOR FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, TO
SCAM PEOPLE ON MARKETPLACES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S LIKE
IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN. AND SO
AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY, LIKE,
LET'S NOT LET IT CONTINUE TO
HAPPEN AND I THINK THIS BILL
KIND OF GETS TO THAT ISSUE WHERE
WHERE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE
GOING TO STOP LETTING THAT
HAPPEN. AND SO I AM I THAT SAID,
I IT SOUNDED LIKE A REALLY BIG
BUILD UP TO SAY I'M NOT QUITE
THERE YET ON, ON THIS
LEGISLATION BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
SOME OF THE CONCERNS AROUND
THAT. BUT I AM DEFINITELY
INTERESTED. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN
A HUGE PRIORITY FOR YOU. YEAH,
SURE. PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT,
FIRST OF ALL, ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
I, I FEEL LIKE MINDED WITH YOU
ON A MYRIAD OF ISSUES,
ESPECIALLY IN THIS COMMITTEE.
AND I, I TRULY APPRECIATE THE
THOUGHT PROCESS THAT YOU GO
THROUGH AND HOW YOU GRAPPLE WITH
THESE THINGS. AND WE TALKED
TOGETHER ABOUT HOW CHALLENGING
IT IS TO PARENT IN THIS DAY AND
AGE, AND HOW WE NEED A VILLAGE
TO SUPPORT US. I WANT TO LET YOU
KNOW ABOUT MY EXPERIENCES TRYING
TO WORK WITH THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES IN A WAY THAT YOU
WOULD TRULY APPRECIATE, TO TALK
TO THEM, TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT.
ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN FIND
COMMONALITY, AND WHAT ARE YOUR
GOALS? BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN ARE
BEING PRODUCTIZED LET'S NOT
FORGET THAT DESPITE ALL THE
ISSUES THAT THE OPPOSITION ARE
BRINGING UP IN TERMS OF FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, NONE OF US AND
ESPECIALLY OUR CHILDREN ARE THE
END USERS AND SOCIAL MEDIA.
THEY'RE THE PRODUCT. THEY'RE THE
PRODUCT, AND THEY'RE BEING
PRODUCTIZED. AND THE MORE DATA
THAT'S GOTTEN OUT OF THEM, THE
MORE VALUABLE THAT PRODUCT IS.
AND SO THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO
MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE IN
ORDER TO GET AS MUCH MONEY AS
THEY CAN FROM THAT PRODUCT. SO
WHAT I WHAT DID I DO? I WENT TO
GO TO SNAPCHAT. I WENT TO TIKTOK
TO PHYSICALLY VISIT THEM. I'VE
MET WITH THEIR THIRD HOUSE
REPRESENTATIVES OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, AND TO ASK FOR ONE SIMPLE
THING TO MEET WITH THE THOUGHT
LEADERS IN THOSE COMPANIES. JUST
A MEETING. IN ONE MEETING WITH
THE THOUGHT LEADERS IN THOSE
COMPANIES. AND GUESS WHAT? I
HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT WAY BEFORE
THIS BILL, WAY BEFORE ANYTHING
ELSE. I CAN'T GET A MEETING. TO
THE POINT OF MISTER WHITAKER,
IT'S TIME THAT WE BRING THEM TO
THE TABLE. THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO
US. AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE TO
PLACATE AND PUSH THINGS OFF AND
KEEP HARM DOWN TO A DE MINIMIS
LEVEL, WHERE THEY'RE MAKING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF OUR
CHILDREN. WE HAVE TO MOVE THIS
LEGISLATION FORWARD TO CONTINUE
THAT CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW,
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I KNOW
THAT YOU'RE VERY SINCERE IN THIS
AND WHAT OUR CHAIR SAID A COUPLE
OF WEEKS AGO ON ANOTHER BILL WAS
JUST WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT
WHERE AND SORRY, TO PARAPHRASE,
I'M PROBABLY MESSING IT UP. BUT
WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE
YOU CAN JUST GO IN AND CHANGE
YOUR BIRTHDAY, RIGHT? I MEAN,
THAT'S CRAZY. HOW SO? YOU CAN'T
THEREFORE SIT BACK AND SAY, I
DIDN'T KNOW THIS PERSON. OAN
WAS NOT AN ADULT. THEY WANT IT
FOR THEIR ENTIRE EXISTENCE ON X,
Y, Z PLATFORM, OKAY. WELL, I'M
NOT GOING TO, XYZ PLATFORM. THEY
WERE A CHILD AND NOW ALL OF A
SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, I JUST CHANGED
A COUPLE DIGITS HERE, AND NOW
I'M AN ADULT UNACCEPTED. LIKE,
WE CAN'T ALLOW ACTIVITIES LIKE
THAT TO CONTINUE. AND LIKE YOU
SAY, YOU KNOW, PLACATE FOREVER.
I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO GET TO
THE POINT WHERE IT'S LIKE, GUYS,
WE GOT TO STOP. WE GOT TO GET
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. SO I DO HAVE
A LOT OF YOUR CONCERNS. I DON'T
KNOW IF THIS IS IT. I AND IT'S
NOT BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW, I
MIGHT CHANGE MY DECISION UP
HERE. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE
SITTING HERE HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
THESE HEARINGS. BUT I'M EQUALLY
AS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS AS YOU
ARE. I HAVE TWO KIDS THAT ARE
NOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR THAT
THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT ON SOCIAL
MEDIA, BUT THEY USE PRODUCTS
THAT THEY WILL SOON BE ON SOCIAL
MEDIA AND THEY COULD BE ON
SOCIAL MEDIA. AND I DON'T KNOW,
IT, BUT I HAVE FOUR KIDS AND I
SEE I GO TO THESE HIGH SCHOOL
FOOTBALL GAMES AND I WATCH THE
KIDS STAND IN LINE AND THEY ARE
LIKE GLUED TO THESE THINGS WHILE
IT'S LIKE, DUDE, THERE'S A
FOOTBALL GAME GOING ON RIGHT
HERE, YOU KNOW? SO IT'S AT SOME
POINT IT'S LIKE WE GOT TO I LOVE
THE PRODUCTS. I LOVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH YOUR
FRIENDS. SOME KIDS USE THESE TO
TALK WITH THEIR FRIENDS OR FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH ISSUES
THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR LIVES
THAT THEY, FOR SOME REASON,
DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. BUT WE
HAVE TO GET SERIOUS AND I
APPRECIATE YOU AND THAT'S ALL.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO TED
TALK. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANK YOU
FOR SHARING WITH US, YOU KNOW,
YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS AND ALL
THOSE THINGS. AND I JUST WANT TO
REMIND YOU THAT THE WAY THE BILL
AS WRITTEN ISN'T CREATING LEVELS
OF LIABILITY. IT'S SIMPLY SAYING
ONCE LIABILITY HAS ALREADY BEEN
DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A
PENALTY IMPOSED UPON THAT,
THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING. IT'S
NOT CREATING NEW LAW. SO WHAT
I'LL SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO ON THIS, IN A COUPLE
OF MINUTES HERE, BUT I HOPE
BEFORE THIS GETS TO THE FLOOR
THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT THEY BROUGHT UP. AND I, YOU
KNOW, MAYBE IT'S THE FIRST TIME
YOU'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS
OF TRIPS AND FALLS OR WHATEVER.
I KNOW YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IN TERMS OF
YOUR LEGISLATION ISN'T INTENDED
TO CAPTURE TRIPS AND FALLS AT
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS, BUT, I
HOPE I WELCOME THEM TO COME TO
THE TO HAVE THOSE MEETINGS WITH
YOU TO ADDRESS THIS BEFORE THAT
GOES TO THE FLOOR. SO MY GOAL
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS FOR TECH
COMPANIES TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL,
NOT LESS MORE SUCCESSFUL. MISS
DIXON, THANK YOU. THIS IS SUCH
AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. AND
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS TODAY AND
THEN AND OTHER COMMITTEES AS
WELL. AND CONGRESS. WE HEAR THE
HEARINGS THAT ARE BEING HELD ON
SECTION 230 AND NOTHING HAPPENS.
AND WE KEEP THIS THING JUST IS
JUST A CIRCLE THAT GOES ROUND
AND ROUND AND ROUND WITH NO
SOLUTION. IN THE MEANTIME, AS
YOU SAID, ASSEMBLYMAN, CHILDREN
ARE BEING, YES, NOT JUST
CASUALLY AFFECTED SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECTED THAT WE ALL KNOW THE
DATA ON MENTAL ILLNESS RATES
HAVE INCREASED IN SOCIETY. WE
AND JUST THE SOCIALIZATION OF
CHILDREN. THEY DON'T INTERACT
WITH PEOPLE ANYMORE. THEY'RE
ONLY ON THEIR THEIR PHONES. AND
SO WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN IN THE
WORLD, IN THIS COUNTRY, IN THIS
STATE THAT WE IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTEMPT TO
DEAL WITH IT. IS THERE A PERFECT
SOLUTION? I DON'T KNOW, BUT YOUR
BILL WILL SEND A MESSAGE NOW I
AM AND I APPRECIATE MR. WHITAKER
BEING HERE. I MEAN, I CERTAINLY
AM A CONCERN AND ADVOCATE FOR
EMPLOYERS AND BUSINESSES, LARGE
AND SMALL. I WANT CALIFORNIA TO
BE A STATE WHERE COMPANIES CAN
SUCCEED IN BUSINESS. I, I FEEL
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE
THAT SAYS WE MEAN BUSINESS. WE
HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
SUBSTANTIVE, MEANINGFUL AND
CONCRETE THAT SENDS A MESSAGE
THAT THIS HAS THIS MADNESS, HAS
TO STOP AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR
YOUR BILL, AND YOU'RE COURAGEOUS
IN DOING THIS, AND I KNOW YOU'RE
GETTING WELL. MAYBE YOU'RE NOT
GETTING ALL THE PHONE CALLS FROM
PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T MEET
WITH YOU. THEY SHOULD BE MEETING
WITH YOU BECAUSE THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT FORUM THAT WE'RE
SURFACING ISSUES RELATED TO
THEIR OPERATIONS OF THEIR
COMPANY AND THEIR THEIR OUTREACH
TO THEIR MARKETPLACE. AND WE
HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES WITH THAT,
AND IT DESERVES A CONVERSATION.
SO IN MY OPINION, WE'RE SENDING
A MESSAGE. SO THEY WILL SIT DOWN
WITH YOU AND HAVE A SERIOUS
CONVERSATION AS THIS GOES
FORWARD. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. HOOVER. THANK YOU. I SHARE
THE KIND OF, THOUGHTS OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM PLACER COUNTY
BECAUSE, I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT
I'M GOING TO DO IN A FEW MINUTES
HERE, BUT, BECAUSE THIS IS A
REALLY DIFFICULT ISSUE, AND I DO
UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS. I GUESS
MY BIG QUESTION FOR THE
OPPOSITION, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
AND AGAIN, I AGAIN, TO MR.
PATTERSON'S POINT, I DON'T KNOW
IF THIS BILL IS FULLY COOKED
YET. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THERE
YET. I THINK IT APPEARS TO ME
THAT THERE IS SOME TAILORING
THAT CAN STILL BE DONE ON THE
SPECIFICS, BUT, WHAT IS THE
ANSWER TO THIS? RIGHT, I IF IT'S
NOT THIS BILL, WHAT ARE WE GOING
TO DO, TO REDUCE, YOU KNOW,
SOCIAL MEDIA USE FOR OUR KIDS.
SO DID YOU SAY REDUCE SOCIAL
MEDIA OR, YOU KNOW, FIX AGAIN, I
YEAH, REDUCE SOCIAL MEDIA USE OR
REDUCE THE HARMS OR REDUCE, YOU
KNOW, INJECTION. YEAH. THE
ADDICTION. THE ADDICTION.
THAT'S. YEAH EITHER EITHER ONE
OF YOU. YEAH I MEAN I'LL, I'LL
POINT OUT A COUPLE THINGS HERE.
AND FIRST OF ALL I JUST WANT TO
SAY THIS BILL DOES CHANGE THE
LAW. THE LAW CURRENTLY SAYS
UNDER SECTION 230 THAT WEBSITES
AND USERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR
THIRD PARTY SPEECH. THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SAYS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH
THE PUBLICATION DECISIONS OF AN
ONLINE COMPANY. THIS BILL DOES
BOTH. IT INTERFERES WITH THEIR
EDITORIAL DISCRETION AND IT
VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES UNDER
SECTION 230. SO STARTING WITH
THAT, I WILL SAY THAT I THINK
IT'S QUITE INTERESTING THAT OF,
YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE ELSE, WE
DON'T REALLY EXPECT A PERFECT
SOCIAL HARMONY EXCEPT ON THE
INTERNET. FOR SOME REASON, IT'S
WE EXPECT ABSOLUTE PERFECTION.
WE EXPECT ABSOLUTE PERFECT
SOCIETY. AND FOR SOME REASON, WE
ALSO EXPECT THE SOCIAL MEDIA
COMPANIES TO GRANT US THAT
PERFECT SOCIETY. WHAT THESE
BILLS DON'T DO IS THAT THEY
DON'T CONSIDER THE FACT THAT
THERE ARE A LOT OF UNDERLYING
HARMS AND ILLS IN OUR SOCIETY,
AND THAT THE INTERNET IS A
MIRROR FOR THOSE UNDERLYING
HARMS AND ILLS. WHAT I'LL ALSO
AND LASTLY CONCLUDE HERE WITH IS
THAT SECTION 230 ACTUALLY IS THE
SOLUTION. LONG TIME AGO, IN
1996, THE CONGRESS CAME UP WITH
SECTION 230 BECAUSE THEY WANTED
TO ENCOURAGE THESE WEBSITES AND
SERVICES TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN
CONTENT MODERATION AND THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY. IN
FACT, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SEEING
IS THAT THESE SOCIAL MEDIA
SERVICES ARE DOING MORE AND MORE
TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HARMFUL
CONTENT ON THESE SERVICES. WHAT
THIS BILL WILL DO IS JUST PUSH
THE COMPANIES TO SAY, LOOK, KIDS
AND ADULTS, YOU NO LONGER CAN
USE THIS UNLESS YOU GIVE US OVER
YOUR ID, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY
FUNNY FOR A BILL THAT IS TRYING
TO REDUCE SOCIAL MEDIA ILLS AND
HARM, MANDATING THAT NOW THE
SAME SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
SHOULD COLLECT EVEN MORE
SENSITIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION
FROM KIDS. I'LL REMIND EVERYONE
IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE MAINTAIN A
RESPECTFUL TONE. YES. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO? DID YOU WANT TO? I
WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, IF I
MAY. YEAH, PLEASE. FOR A MOMENT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY
THOUGHTS AS WELL OR I DIDN'T.
THANK YOU, I WANT TO MAKE ONE
FINAL POINT. I THINK SHE COVERED
MOST OF WHAT I WOULD SAY. I
GUESS I WOULD JUST SORT OF ADD,
MAYBE TO THE EXAMPLE OF FENTANYL
AND SORT OF SPRINGBOARDING OFF
OF THE PERFECTION ONLINE. THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS
SPENT THE BETTER PART OF THE
LAST HALF CENTURY TRYING TO STOP
THE SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IN
THIS COUNTRY. THEY'VE GOT POLICE
POWER, THEY'VE LOCKED UP HALF
THE WORLD, YET FOR SOME REASON,
WE THINK THAT INTERNET COMPANIES
SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP EVERY
SALE ON THEIR PLATFORMS. THEY
CAN'T. THAT WILL NOT BE AN
OUTCOME THAT IS ACHIEVED. WHAT
THEY CAN DO AND WHAT WE ARE
DOING IS LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR
RULES. THE MORE IMPORTANT ONES,
OBVIOUSLY DEALING WITH CSAM WE
PUT MORE TIME INTO AND WE HAVE A
VARIETY OF WAYS THAT WE GO AFTER
THESE TYPES OF THINGS. THERE'S
ALGORITHMIC DETECTION. WE CAN,
IDENTIFY BAD CONTENT IN THE
UPLOAD THAT VIOLATES OUR RULES.
WE DEAL WITH USER COMPLAINTS
FROM PARENTS, FROM INDIVIDUALS.
WE WORK DIRECTLY WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. BUT PERFECT
PERFECTION IS NOT GOING TO BE
ACHIEVED. AND NO MATTER WHAT,
THIS BILL STILL DOESN'T GRAPPLE
WITH A FOCUS. THE WHAT WHAT
EVERYBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IN
THIS HEARING ROOM RIGHT NOW WILL
BE ESSENTIALLY CARVED OUT
BECAUSE OF SECTION 230 AND THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. AND THEN AGAIN,
WE'RE GOING TO BE LEFT WITH A
SLIP AND FALL INJURIES. AND I'M
NOT QUITE SURE HOW THE AUTHOR
WANTS TO CONTEND WITH THAT, BUT
IT IS A REAL, REAL, REAL POINT
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE THAT. THERE'S
ACTUALLY I'M HEARING TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS FROM THE
OPPOSITION, AND I THANK YOU, MR.
ACTUALLY, YOU'RE BEING MORE
HONEST ABOUT WHAT THE BILL DOES.
I WOULD ADVISE EVERYONE TO
ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE,
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T DO MUCH OF
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE, AND I
GUESS I WANT TO START ACTUALLY
IN ONE PLACE BECAUSE, YOU SAID
ONE THING IN YOUR OPENING
REMARKS ABOUT AGE GATING AND THE
FOLKS WHO ARE SUPPORTING IT,
BEING IN IT FOR THE MONEY, I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN
LIGHT OF THAT COMMENT, YOU ARE
FORTHCOMING ABOUT WHO FUNDS
CHAMBER OF PROGRESS. ABSOLUTELY.
I'D LIKE TO SAY FIRST, THAT
CHAMBER OF PROGRESS DOES NOT
ACCEPT A VOTE OR VETO FROM ANY
OF THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES OR
OUR PARTNERS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR
BOARD. SO WE ARE VERY MISSION
DRIVEN AND PRINCIPLE DRIVEN, AND
WE RUN BY THE WAY THAT WE SEE
THOSE PRINCIPLES GOING FORWARD.
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I CAN LIST ALL OF THEM IF YOU'D
WISH. I CAN, YOU KNOW, GOOGLE,
AMAZON, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE
SEVERAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY
COMPANIES, BUT AGAIN, THEY DON'T
GIVE US A VOTE. THEY ARE NOT
PERMITTED TO HAVE A VOTE OR VETO
OVER OUR PRINCIPLES. THANK YOU.
I THINK WE'VE FOUND PERHAPS THE
ONLY ORGANIZATION ON EITHER SIDE
OF THE AISLE THAT THINKS 230 IS
THE ANSWER TO ANYTHING THESE
DAYS, AS EVIDENCED BY THE
CONVERSATIONS IN WASHINGTON, AND
HERE TODAY, THE BIPARTISANSHIP
SITTING BEFORE US FROM SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, DID YOU WANT TO ADD
IN MISS WICKS? YEAH. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, ONE I, I WANT TO
INSERT MYSELF INTO THE
CONVERSATION, IF I COULD. AND I
ALSO WANT TO REACT TO MY
COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW,
THIS COMMITTEE, THE MAKEUP OF
THIS COMMITTEE IS DIFFERENT,
THAN WHAT IT HAS BEEN. WE HAVE
SOME NEW FOLKS ON THE COMMITTEE.
I AM NOW LEGISLATIVELY MIDDLE
AGED. SO I'M IN MY SIXTH YEAR,
AND, WE HAVE SOME NEWER MEMBERS
HERE. AND SO I'LL ALSO SHARE A
LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, IF I
COULD, ABOUT SOME OF THE TECH
REGULATION WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO DO
IN THIS BODY, I HAVE STARTED
DOING TECH TECH REGULATION FOR
CHILDREN SINCE THE MOMENT I'VE
GOT THIS JOB, BACK IN 2018, HAD
SOME SWINGS AND SOME MISSES. DID
A KIDS ACT, DIDN'T MAKE IT
THROUGH, HAVE ALWAYS HAD REALLY
GOOD BIPARTISAN CONVERSATIONS,
WHICH I THINK ARE SIMILARLY HERE
NOW, WHICH I'VE ALWAYS
APPRECIATED. I DID DO A BILL
CALLED AGE APPROPRIATE DESIGN IN
2021. I THINK. 2022. GOD, I
DON'T KNOW. I AM LEGISLATIVELY
MIDDLE AGED. GEEZ A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO, AND WORKED DILIGENTLY
WITH THE TECH COMPANIES ON THAT
BILL AND THE WHOLE PREMISE OF
THAT BILL IS TO ENSURE THAT WE
HAVE, BY DEFAULT AND BY DESIGN,
SAFE STANDARDS FOR CHILDREN. IT
WAS SIGNED INTO LAW AND THEN THE
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS TURNED AROUND
AND SUED AND STOPPED THE BILL.
RIGHT NOW. SO, WE'VE TRIED OTHER
THINGS AND WE'LL KEEP TRYING
THOSE THINGS. AND THE REASON
WE'RE TRYING THOSE THINGS IS
BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT
SAFE RIGHT NOW, AND IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT
THEY ARE. AND THE COMPANIES NEED
TO COME TO THE TABLE AND MEET
WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL
AND ANYONE ELSE TO ENSURE THAT
OUR KIDS ARE SAFE. THEY HAVE TO
DO IT, AND IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT
OUR CHILDREN ARE SAFE. SO WE'VE
TRIED OTHER MECHANISMS. WE TRIED
OTHER REGULATION. WE'RE ALL
GRAPPLING WITH THIS, BUT I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE THIS BILL
THROUGH SO THAT WE HAVE THE
LEVERAGE TO HAVE THE
CONVERSATION. THÀNH AND I DO
THINK A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN THE
TECH INDUSTRY WANT THEIR
CHILDREN SAFE. I THINK THEY WANT
THAT TO. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A
VEHICLE TO FORCE THE
CONVERSATION. AND I'VE MET WITH
A LOT OF THEM. I'LL KEEP DOING
IT. I KNOW THE AUTHOR WILL AS
WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE
TO KEEP THIS BILL MOVING
FORWARD. I DON'T THINK BANNING
THESE BANNING SOCIAL MEDIA IS
GOING TO BE THE SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM, KIDS WILL GET AROUND
IT, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THE
PARENTAL CONSENT STUFF IS THE
BEST OPTION EITHER. KIDS CAN
FIGURE OUT A WAY AROUND THAT. IT
ALSO PUTS THE ONUS ON THE
PARENTS. THEN WHEN REALLY THE
ONUS SHOULD BE ON THE COMPANIES
TO CREATE SAFER PRODUCTS. WE
DON'T, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO ASK IF
OUR CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS ARE
SAFE. YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THEY ARE
BECAUSE THEY'RE REGULATED TO
MEET A REGULATION THAT WE VIEW
AS, AS IS AS IMPORTANT AND AS A
STANDARD THAT WE CAN UPHOLD TO.
AND THE COMPANIES NEED TO DO THE
SAME THING. SO I, I WILL BE
OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY, AND I WOULD IMPLORE OUR
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE BILL
AS WELL. SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THE
CONVERSATION GOING, BECAUSE I
HAVE TRIED SIX WAYS TILL SUNDAY
MYSELF TO TRY TO MAKE THESE,
COMPANIES COME TO THE TABLE, AND
THEY HAVE MANY TIMES, BUT THEN
THE TRADE ASSOCIATIONS TURN
AROUND AND SUE AND STOP THE BILL
FROM BEING PUT FORTH. SO I'M
GLAD YOU'RE DOING THE BILL. I'M
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. I HOPE IT
CAN GET BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND
THAT WE CAN REALLY WORK
COLLABORATIVELY TO TRY TO SOLVE
THE PROBLEM TOGETHER. COUNT ME
IN. AS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO BE
ON THE TEAM TO HELP AS WELL AND
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE BILL
FORWARD. NÓ MR. HOOVER WANTED TO
ADD CLOSING REMARKS TO HIS JUST.
I JUST WANTED TO CLOSE MY
THOUGHT AND I APPRECIATE THE
WORK YOU'RE DOING. AGAIN YOU
KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BILL
IS EXACTLY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE,
YOU KNOW, FINAL PRODUCT. BUT,
YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE
FRUSTRATING THINGS FOR ME TODAY
FROM THE OPPOSITION THÀNH, IS
THAT THERE ISN'T A LOT OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT. IN FACT, THERE'S
ALMOST THE OPPOSITE THAT SOCIAL
MEDIA IS CAUSING HARM OF ANY
KIND. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE
CAN ARGUE OVER STUDIES, WE CAN
ARGUE OVER, NUMBERS ON WHETHER
OR NOT THAT'S THE CASE. BUT THE
REALITY IS, AND, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S AMAZING NEW BOOK THAT
JUST CAME OUT CALLED THE ANXIOUS
GENERATION. ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE
HARMS OF OBVIOUSLY PHONES AND
SOCIAL MEDIA AND MENTAL ILLNESS.
BUT THE REALITY IS, IS SOMETHING
REALLY MAJOR CHANGED. THE
STATISTICS HAVE CHANGED
DRAMATICALLY SINCE 2010. WE'VE
SEEN RATES OF DEPRESSION AND
ANXIETY IN THE US, WHILE THEY
WERE STABLE IN THE 2000, ROSE BY
MORE THAN 50% IN MANY STUDIES
FROM 2010 TO 2019. SUICIDE RATES
DURING THOSE TIMES 48% INCREASE
FOR ADOLESCENTS AGES 10 TO 19.
FOR GIRLS AGES 10 TO 14, IT ROSE
131. I AM THE FATHER OF A
DAUGHTER, THESE STATISTICS, AND
AGAIN, I'M NOT SITTING HERE
SAYING THAT ALL OF THIS IS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT WHAT IS THE
REALITY? THE REALITY IS, IS IN
THE LATEST GALLUP NUMBERS, THE
LATEST GALLUP POLLING OF
AMERICAN TEENS, AMERICAN TEENS
SPEND AN AVERAGE OF FIVE HOURS
PER DAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE
NEVER EXPERIENCED. OUR KIDS HAVE
NEVER EXPERIENCED IN THE HISTORY
OF THE WORLD, AND YOU HAVE TO
QUESTION ON WHAT IS HAPPENING
WHEN OUR TEENS ARE NOW SPENDING
FIVE HOURS PER DAY ON SOCIAL
MEDIA AND THE RATES OF
DEPRESSION AND SUICIDE ARE GOING
THROUGH THE ROOF, I THINK WE
HAVE TO QUESTION THAT. AND AS
LAWMAKERS, WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING. NOW, WHETHER THIS IS
THE SOMETHING I DO WANT TO KEEP
THE CONVERSATION GOING AND I
WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE A PART OF
THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW,
ASK THAT THE OPPOSITION, AS THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD, I MEAN, I
JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO
ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THESE HARMS,
AND WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
SOCIAL MEDIA COULD BE
CONTRIBUTING TO THESE HARMS. AND
IF WE DON'T DO THAT, IT IS GOING
TO BE REALLY HARD TO HAVE, I
THINK A FULL CONVERSATION,
THAT'S IT. THANKS. THANK YOU,
MR. VICE CHAIR. YOU WANT TO ADD
SOMETHING AS WELL? YEAH. THANK
YOU. YOU KNOW, I DO, NOT TO
DISMISS THIS. CONCERNS THAT ARE
EXPRESSED FROM THE OPPOSITION.
I, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE
NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
THE CONTENT THAT'S ON THEIR
PLATFORMS. I MEAN, I DO THINK
THERE'S IF THEY WERE BECAUSE I
PUT A LOT OF CRAZY STUFF ON
SOCIAL MEDIA AND, SOMETIMES HAS
CONSEQUENCES HERE, BUT, BUT IT
IS A EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. BUT ON,
ON THE OTHER END, I, I FEEL LIKE
WHEN I LOOK AT THE BILL AND IT
SAYS ORDINARY CARE AND I THINK
ABOUT I JUST THAT WAS SUCH A
GOOD STATEMENT, LAST WEEK OR
WHENEVER IT WAS, I'M NOT QUITE
IN THE MIDDLE AGE SPHERE YET,
BUT, BUT I THINK IT WAS LAST
WEEK WHEN MENTIONED THAT WHEN
YOU CAN GO IN AND CHANGE YOUR
DATE IN ORDER TO ACCESS OTHER
CONTENT THAT IS NOT USING CARE
TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. AND SO
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TODAY IS
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
TODAY. BUT I, I ASK THAT YOU
THINK ABOUT THAT FINE AMOUNT.
AND ALSO I, I DON'T THINK WE
SHOULD END THE CONVERSATION. I
MIGHT STILL VOTE NO ON THE
FLOOR. IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT PEOPLE NORMALLY
DO. BUT I REALLY WANT TO PUSH
FOR A CONVERSATION TO HAPPEN.
AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT
HERE TODAY IN COMMITTEE BECAUSE
THIS I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT
THIS ISSUE AS WELL. AND AT SOME
POINT I FEEL LIKE I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO RESOLVE SOME OF THIS. SO
I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTING IT.
AND, THANKS FOR GETTING THIS
CONVERSATION GOING. THANK YOU,
AND MISS WIXSON, I ONLY HAVE SIX
MORE YEARS TO GET THIS FIXED, SO
WE GOT TO GET SOMETHING GOING,
SO I ACTUALLY WANT TO READ THE
BILL BECAUSE I AM VERY CONFUSED
BY THE CONVERSATION THAT
HAPPENED HERE TODAY, BECAUSE
IT'S NOT WHAT'S IN THE BILL. SO
THE BILL IS ACTUALLY VERY, VERY
SIMPLE. IT'S AS A SOCIAL MEDIA
PLATFORM THAT VIOLATES
SUBDIVISION A AND BREACH ITS
RESPONSIBILITY OF ORDINARY CARE
AND SKILL TO A CHILD. SHALL BE
LIABLE FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES AS
LISTED IN THE BILL. THAT'S THE
BILL. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AGE
GATING AND WE TALK ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, ALL OF THESE THINGS, WE'RE
ASKING SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO
DO WHAT WE ASK OF EVERY SINGLE
COMPANY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. YES, YOU CANNOT HARM
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA AND WALK
AWAY WITHOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE
FOR IT. UNLESS YOU'RE A SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANY. BECAUSE OF
SECTION 230 AND I CAN'T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. SO I GUESS,
AND NANCY'S POINT THAT WILL BE
EXEMPT FROM THIS BECAUSE SECTION
230 STANDS. SO THIS WILL ONLY
APPLY TO NOT THE CONTENT PIECE,
BUT HOPEFULLY TO THE LACK OF
ORDINARY CARE TAKEN IN THE
ADDICTION AND IN THE FAILURE TO
ALLOW A KID TO CHANGE THEIR AGE
WITHOUT ANY CHECKS. I MEAN,
THERE'S NO WAY THAT THAT THAT
YOUTUBE DIDN'T KNOW MY KID WAS
THE AGE HE WAS BECAUSE HE'D BEEN
THAT AGE HIS ENTIRE LIFE. AND SO
WHEN WE SAY YOU CAN DO ANYTHING
YOU WANT, OUR KIDS AND YOU DON'T
HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
WE ARE FAILING OUR CHILDREN. AND
I THINK THAT EVERY PARENT UP
HERE KNOWS. AND THAT'S WHY I
THINK MY COLLEAGUE PROBABLY CAME
AROUND IS BECAUSE WE SEE IT
EVERY SINGLE DAY IN THE
CLASSROOMS, IN OUR COMMUNITIES,
AND NOBODY THINKS THE SOCIAL
MEDIA AND I WORK ON YOUTH MENTAL
HEALTH EVERY DAY. IT IS ONE OF
THE THINGS I'M MOST PASSIONATE
ABOUT IN THIS BUILDING. AND DO I
THINK THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
ARE ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THAT? NO BUT DO I THINK THEY'RE
A PART OF THE PROBLEM? YES AND
DO I THINK THAT, LIKE EVERY
OTHER COMPANY IN THIS STATE,
THEY NEED TO TAKE ORDINARY CARE
FOR THEIR CONSUMERS? YES DO I
THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH TO ASK? NO
AND I THINK YOU CAN DO IT, I
REALLY DO, BUT NOBODY HAS
EXPECTED OF THAT OF YOU YET. AND
WE SHOULD, BECAUSE OUR KIDS ARE
WORTH IT WITH THAT. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK THE
OPPOSITION FOR THEIR VERY
THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS, AND I WANT
TO THANK ALL OF THOSE THAT CAME
IN AND TESTIFIED AND ARE HERE ON
BEHALF OF NTIS AND THE TECH
INDUSTRY. I WANT TO REITERATE,
MY GOAL IS TO MAKE THE TECH
SECTOR STRONGER. WE'RE VERY
PROUD TO BE THE HOST OF TECH
COMPANIES HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IT IS A VITAL PART
OF OUR ECONOMY AND VERY PROUD TO
BE AUTHORING A BILL THAT IS
GOING TO GET EVERYBODY ON THE
SAME PAGE AND EXCITED FOR THE
GROWTH OF THESE COMPANIES.
BEYOND THAT, I'M PROUD OF
EVERYONE IN HERE. AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THE EXTREMELY THOUGHTFUL
COMMENTS BY MY COLLEAGUES AND
PARTICULARLY THOSE ACROSS THE
AISLE, THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME
AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF HERE, I
GRAVITATE TOWARDS BIPARTISAN
LEGISLATION AND VERY PROUD TO
SIT NEXT TO MR. WHITTAKER, WHO
HAD HIS HAND IN BEATING ME IN A
RACE IN 2018, AND STILL, WE ARE
HERE ARM IN ARM ON THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE IT AFFECTS FAMILIES AND
FAMILIES, DOESN'T HAVE A PARTY
REGISTRATION TO IT. SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. PLEASE CONSIDER TO
MOVE THIS BILL FORWARD SO WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. AND MY
COMMITMENT TO YOU IS TO WORK
WITH ANYONE AND EVERYONE TO MAKE
THIS LEGISLATION STRONGER. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, BILL, WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
GREAT. MADAM SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ITEM NUMBER EIGHT,
AB 3172 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AS AMENDED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. BAUER-KAHAN I B¢O
KHN I PATTERSON. PATTERSON I
BRIAN I BRIAN I DIXON. DIXON.
DIXON I HOOVER I HOOVER I ERWIN
IRWIN I LOWENTHAL, I LOWENTHAL I
ORTEGA WARD WARD I WICKS I WICKS
I WILSON WILSON I THANK YOU.
NICE JOB. THANK YOU. SO SORRY.
YEAH. LET'S KEEP WORKING, THAT
BILL HAS TEN VOTES. IT IS OUT,
BUT WE WILL LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. GREAT JOB,
GREAT JOB
.
WE'RE GOING. ALL RIGHT. FROM MY
PEN. I GOT A PEN. ALL RIGHT,
MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE, AB 1836,
CORRECT? YES THANK YOU, MR. VICE
CHAIR, THANK YOU. MEMBERS AND I
KNOW IT'S LATE, SO, AND I WANT
TO THANK, COMMITTEE STAFF AGAIN.
I KNOW I TOOK MY PRIVILEGE
EARLIER TO DO SO, BUT FOR THEIR
INCREDIBLE WORK ON ALL BILLS,
BUT PARTICULARLY THIS BILL AND,
I'LL BE ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS IN THE ANALYSIS TODAY
, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS MAKE
CLEAR THAT THE BILL WILL NOT
APPLY TO FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTED SPEECH, WHICH IS ONE
OF THE THINGS WE HEARD FROM THE
OPPOSITION AND RESTRICTS THE
DEFINITION OF DIGITAL REPLICA
AND PROVIDES CLEAR PROVISIONS
FOR FAMILY CONSENT FOR THE USE
OF THEIR LOVED ONE'S DIGITAL
REPLICA, SO HOPEFULLY THAT GOES
A LONG WAY IN ADDRESSING THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS, ALTHOUGH
I'M SURE WE WILL HEAR OF
ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT ARE STILL
PRESENT, WITH THAT, I'M PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 1836. CALIFORNIA IS A
HUB FOR ARTISTS AND ARTISTIC
EXPRESSION. IT IS SOMETHING
CALIFORNIA WAS BUILT ON AND THAT
WE'RE INCREDIBLY PROUD OF.
PERFORMERS AND CELEBRITIES BUILD
CAREERS BASED ON THEMSELVES,
THEIR VOICES, THEIR IMAGES,
THEIR SIGNATURE PERFORMANCES.
OUR STATE HAS HAD AN EXCEPTIONAL
HAS AN EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG
RIGHT FOR LIVING ARTISTS TO
PROTECT AGAINST THE EXPLOITATION
OF THEIR LIKENESS. AND I WANT TO
PAUSE THERE AND EXPLAIN THAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT AFFECT THE
RIGHTS OF LIVING ARTISTS. THIS
BILL IS FOCUSED ON DECEASED
PERFORMERS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO
THEIR LIKENESS, ETC. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, IMAGES AND VIDEOS
OF DECEASED PERFORMERS ARE
ALLOWED TO BE USED IN A BROAD
RANGE OF CREATIVE WORKS,
INCLUDING AN EXPLICIT EXEMPTION
FOR AUDIO VISUAL WORKS, UP UNTIL
NOW, WITH THE ADVENT OF AI, THIS
MEANT THE USE OF PAST
PERFORMANCES THAT ARTISTS HAD
ALREADY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PROFIT FROM REPLAYING OLD
PERFORMANCES. BUT WITH I BEING
DECEASED NO LONGER MEANS YOU CAN
NO LONGER PERFORM. AND SO I
REPLICAS OF PERFORMERS COULD
ALLOW WILL ALLOW A FULL
REANIMATION CREATING WORK IN
THEIR IMAGE AND LIKENESS. A FULL
MOVIE. TODAY I WAS HAVING A
CONVERSATION WITH A COLLEAGUE
AND I WAS SAYING, YOU COULD MAKE
A NEW ROBIN WILLIAMS MOVIE AND
PUT ROBIN WILLIAMS OUT THERE.
ONE OF MY FAVORITE ACTORS AND
TODAY HIS ESTATE WOULD HAVE NO
SAY OR COMPENSATION FOR THAT
PERFORMANCE. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN
REPLICAS OF AMY WINEHOUSE AND
GEORGE CARLIN POP UP COMPLETELY
IDENTIFIABLE AS THEM, BUT WITH
NEW MATERIAL. THE BROAD
EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED IN CURRENT
LAW FOR THIS CLEAR
MISAPPROPRIATION. WITHOUT A
COURT WEIGHING IN ON WHETHER
SOMETHING IS PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, THE BILL ALLOWS
DECEASED PERFORMERS THE RIGHT TO
NOT BE REANIMATED WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT OR THE WILL THROUGH
THEIR ESTATE, AND COMPENSATION
FOR THEM. AND LET ME BE CLEAR,
NOTHING IN THIS BILL WILL STOP
THOSE WORKS FROM BEING CREATED,
BUT WE WILL COMPENSATE
INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR LIKENESS
FOR THEIR WORK. AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN ORDER
FOR THESE NEW WORKS TO BE
CREATED FOR THAT ROBIN WILLIAMS
MOVIE TO BE MADE, THEY WOULD
HAVE TO USE HIS PERFORMANCE AND
FEED IT INTO THE AI TOOL TO
CREATE THAT NEW PERFORMANCE. SO
HIS ART, HIS LIKENESS, HIS WORK,
HIS VOICE WOULD BE USED TO
CREATE A NEW PERFORMANCE WITH NO
COMPENSATION TO HIS ESTATE. AND
SO THIS BILL WOULD PROTECT
AGAINST THOSE FUTURE ABUSES,
AGAIN WITHOUT ALTERING THE
CURRENT STATE FOR LIVING ACTORS
WITH ME IN SUPPORT IS SHANE
GUZMAN AND DOUG MORRELL WITH
SAG-AFTRA. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE, SHANE GUZMAN,
ON BEHALF OF SAG-AFTRA, THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, RATHER THAN
HEAR ANOTHER LOBBYIST TALK WITH
THE COMMITTEE'S PERMISSION, THE
FAMILY OF DONNA SUMMER MUSICAL
LEGEND DONNA SUMMER WROTE A
REALLY MOVING SUPPORT LETTER ON
BEHALF OF THE BILL, AND I WAS
ASKED TO READ THEIR LETTER. SO
WITH THE COMMITTEE'S PERMISSION,
I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. THE
CHAIR WOULD BE MAD AT ME IF I
DIDN'T ALLOW THAT. SO I FIGURED,
BUT JUST CHECK. WE WRITE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY BILL
1836, WHICH WILL PROHIBIT THE
DIGITAL REPLICATION OF DECEASED
PERFORMERS IN AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
AND SOUND RECORDINGS WITHOUT
CONSENT. IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO
A 70S OR DISCO THEMED PARTY,
THEN YOU HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY HEARD
THE BILLBOARD HIT LAST DANCE,
SUNG BY DONNA SUMMER. DONNA WAS
NOT ONLY A BELOVED MOTHER AND
WIFE, SHE WAS ALSO A BELOVED
ARTIST WHO PAVED THE WAY FOR
FUTURE GENERATIONS OF ARTISTS TO
ASSERT THEMSELVES CREATIVELY AND
COMMERCIALLY. WITH HER POWERFUL
VOICE AND EMOTIVE DELIVERY, SHE
REVOLUTIONIZED THE SOUND AND
STYLE OF POPULAR MUSIC. HER
INFLUENCE EXTENDS FAR BEYOND THE
DISCO ERA, SHAPING THE LANDSCAPE
FOR CONTEMPORARY POP, DANCE, AND
R&B. DONNA'S SONG CELEBRATE
FEMALE EMPOWERMENT, BREAKING
DOWN BARRIERS AND CHALLENGING
STEREOTYPES IN MUSIC AND THE
MUSIC INDUSTRY. IN THE MUSIC
INDUSTRY TO THIS DAY, AS HER
FAMILY AND REPRESENTATIVES TO
HER ESTATE, IT IS OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY OF DONNA'S LEGACY.
TODAY, DONNA'S LEGACY IS
THREATENED BY THE EXPONENTIAL
ADVANCEMENTS IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. THIS TECHNOLOGY
CAN BE USED TO CREATE OR MODIFY
AUDIO VISUAL CONTENT IN WAYS
THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE
OR DIFFICULT, LEADING TO THE
POTENTIAL MISUSE OR ABUSE. THE
EASE AND SPEED IN WHICH THE
WITCH KNEW FAKE PERFORMANCES CAN
BE GENERATED GENERATED IS
ASTONISHING. WILL TODAY BE THE
DAY THAT WE TURN ON THE RADIO OR
TELEVISION AND HEAR OUR VOICE
AND LIKENESS DIGITALLY
REPLICATED WITHOUT OUR CONSENT?
THIS UNCERTAINTY IN THE AGE OF
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS VERY
UNSETTLING FOR US. THE THREAT OF
EXPLOITATION NOT ONLY JUST
DISRESPECTS THE LEGACY OF DONNA,
BUT ALSO UNDERMINES OUR RIGHTS
AS HER LOVED ONES AND
BENEFICIARIES TO HER ESTATE TO
CONTROL HOW HER VOICE AND
LIKENESS ARE USED AS DIGITAL
TECHNOLOGIES HAVE ADVANCED, IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE EXPRESS
SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS AGAINST
LIABILITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE
OF VOICE AND LIKENESS IN MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL
WORKS PROVIDED UNDER CURRENT LAW
ARE NO LONGER VIABLE. RATHER
THAN LEAVE THE FAMILIES AND
BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED
CALIFORNIA PERFORMERS AT THE
MERCY OF THOSE WHO WILL EXPLOIT
THEIR LEGACIES, WE ASK THAT THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE STEP IN
AND ENSURE THAT DIGITAL REPLICA
RIGHTS BE PROTECTED. DONNA MAY
NOT BE WITH US TODAY, BUT HER
VOICE LIVES ON THROUGH US AND
ONLY US. PLEASE LET US HONOR
DONNA'S MEMORY AND THE MEMORY OF
THOSE WHO HAVE LEFT US. FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE ON AB 1836. WE HAVE A
SECOND WITNESS. YES. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. MIKE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. THANK
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN
, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS DOUG MORRELL, AND I'M
A PARTNER IN THE LOS ANGELES LAW
FIRM OF GREENBERG GLUSKER
FIELDS, KLAYMAN AND MOTTINGER. I
APPEAR IN STRONG SUPPORT OF AB
1836, AND I JOIN THE AUTHOR OF
THIS BILL IN APPLAUDING THE
COMMITTEE'S EXCELLENT AND
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THIS
LEGISLATION. MY PRIMARY INTEREST
LIES IN ENSURING THAT CONSENT
REMAINS THE FUNDAMENTAL
TOUCHSTONE WHEN IT COMES TO
DECIDING WHETHER TO ALLOW
GENERATIVE, ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY TO BE
USED TO DIGITALLY READ ANIMATE
DECEASED PERFORMERS. AS SOMEONE
WHO HAS SPENT OVER 25 YEARS
WORKING WITH THIS LEGISLATURE TO
ADDRESS ISSUES ARISING FROM THE
POSTMORTEM RIGHT OF PUBLICITY,
CALIFORNIA MUST NOW PROTECT
AGAINST TECHNOLOGICAL
ENCROACHMENTS UPON THAT
WELL-ESTABLISHED RIGHT. NOW,
SOME OF THIS BILL'S OPPONENTS
FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT NOTHING
IN AB 1836 WOULD REQUIRE MOTION
PICTURE PRODUCERS OR STUDIOS TO
DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY
HAVE BEEN DOING. AS THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS POINTS OUT,
THERE ARE AT LEAST FIVE
INSTANCES IN THE LAST QUARTER
CENTURY WHERE PERMISSION TO USE
THE VOICE AND OR LIKENESS OF
DECEASED PERFORMERS HAS BEEN
SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM THE
FAMILIES OR OTHER
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE ESTATES. THESE
INCLUDE OLIVER REED IN
GLADIATOR, PAUL WALKER IN
FURIOUS SEVEN, PETER CUSHING IN
ROGUE ONE, CARRIE FISHER IN THE
RISE OF SKYWALKER, AND MOST
RECENTLY, JAMES DEAN IN FINDING
JACK. AND I KNOW OF NO REASON
WHY SUCH CONSENT CANNOT OR
SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO BE
REQUIRED WHEN AI VERSIONS OF
RECOGNIZABLE DECEASED PERFORMERS
ARE BEING USED AND, PUT MOST
SIMPLY, PASSAGE OF AB 1836 WILL
ASSURE THIS RESULT FROM NOW INTO
THE FUTURE. NOW, OF COURSE, AB
1836 HAS TO BE READ CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT
CURRENT CIVIL CODE SECTION 3340
4.1 CONTAINS AN OVERBROAD
ENUMERATION OF CATEGORIES,
EXEMPT EXPRESSIVE WORKS THAT
GOES BEYOND WHAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT REQUIRES. THE AUTHOR'S
AMENDMENTS FOUND IN THE
COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS, RESPOND TO
THE OPPONENTS CONCERNS BY
INCLUDING A MORE LIMITED LIST OF
STATUTORY EXCLUSIONS FOR AI
CREATED DIGITAL REPLICAS. AND
MOREOVER, TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER
ASSERTED THAT THE ABSENCE OF ANY
EXPRESSIVE WORKS EXEMPTIONS IN
CALIFORNIA'S COUNTERPART STATUTE
FOR THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY OF
LIVING PERSONS, SOMEHOW RENDERS
THAT LAW INFIRM, SO IN
CONCLUSION, TOO OFTEN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW LAGS
BEHIND THE ADVANCEMENT OF
TECHNOLOGY, BUT FORTUNATELY AB
1836 WISELY ANTICIPATES AND
ENSURES THE RIGHTS OF FAMILIES
AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF
DECEASED PERFORMERS TO CONSENT
OR REFUSE TO CONSENT TO AI
MANIPULATION OF THEIR LOVED
ONES. I URGE AN AYE VOTE, AND
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? ELMER
LAZARD, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, IN
SUPPORT. MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS
CARL LONDON, ON BEHALF OF THE
RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, WE'RE HERE, KIND OF
A TWEENER. CAN I MAKE A BRIEF
STATEMENT ABOUT WHY,
CONCEPTUALLY, THE INDUSTRY IS
VERY SUPPORTIVE. WE WORK VERY
CLOSELY WITH SAG-AFTRA THROUGH
OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESSES, PARTICULARLY ON THE
AI ISSUES. WE WORK TOGETHER IN
TENNESSEE TO ESTABLISH A LAW.
THERE THIS BILL RIGHT NOW, WE'D
LIKE TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR ON
TIGHTENING UP THE, THE FAIR USE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL ALSO
WOULD NOTE THAT THE DIGITAL
REPLICA DEFINITION, IS, NARROWER
THAN THE ONE WE REACHED WITH OUR
PARTNER IN OUR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT. SO WE NEED
TO RECONCILE THAT SOMEHOW NOW IN
THE PROCESS. THE THIRD THING IS
THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON
POTENTIALLY ADDING A PROVISION
OF THE BILL THAT ALLOWS US TO
STEP IN AND SUE ON BEHALF OF THE
ARTISTS WHEN THERE ARE
SITUATIONS WHERE DAMAGES ARE TO
BE SOUGHT. THAT'S A ROUTINE
MATTER, BECAUSE WE ARE BOTH
RIGHTS HOLDERS AND THE ARTISTS
TYPICALLY AREN'T WANTING TO BE
IN THE POSITION OF SUING, BUT
RATHER WE'LL HAVE THE RECORD
COMPANY DO IT FOR THEM. SO
WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE
AUTHOR AND, SAG-AFTRA, WE'D LIKE
TO WORK ON THAT AND GET TO A
POSITION WHERE WE'RE FULLY IN
SUPPORT. BUT CONCEPTUALLY ARE
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, WITNESS
REYES, DO WE HAVE SOME WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? A WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION IN. TWO WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. SO THAT'LL BE THREE
MINUTES EACH. WHENEVER YOU ARE
READY. CHAIR. BAUER-KAHAN. VICE
CHAIR. PATTERSON MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY TODAY ON
AB 1836, WHICH WOULD CREATE A
BROAD NEW DIGITAL REPLICA RIGHT
FOR DECEASED PERSONALITIES. MY
NAME IS BEN SCHAFFNER, AND I'M
HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION AND
OUR MEMBER STUDIOS. THAT'S
DISNEY, NBC UNIVERSAL, NETFLIX,
PARAMOUNT, SONY PICTURES AND
WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY. IT'S
NOTABLE THAT I'M SITTING HERE
NEXT TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
MPAA, AND EFF OFTEN DISAGREE ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES,
BUT ON THIS, WE'RE ON THE SAME
PAGE BECAUSE THE BILL, THE
BILL'S BROAD LANGUAGE, WOULD
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICT WIDE
SWATHS OF FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTED SPEECH. LET ME START
BY SAYING THAT MPAA SHARES THE
CONCERNS OF ACTORS AND RECORDING
ARTISTS ABOUT THE UNAUTHORIZED
REPLICATION OF THEIR LIKENESSES,
AND VOICES TO REPLACE
PERFORMANCES BY THEM
RESPECTFULLY. HOWEVER, MPAA MUST
OPPOSE AB 1836 AND, AS RECENTLY
AMENDED, FIRST, THE BILL'S
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS ARE
INADEQUATE. EIGHT SUCH
EXEMPTIONS ARE CRUCIAL TO GIVING
OUR MEMBERS AND OTHER FILMMAKERS
THE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN
MAKE BIOPICS, DOCUDRAMAS AND
SIMILAR WORKS WITHOUT THE FEAR
OF MERITLESS LAWSUITS, INCLUDING
LEGAL ACTIONS BROUGHT TO MUZZLE
FILMMAKERS SEEKING TO TELL FACT
BASED STORIES ABOUT THE WORLD
AROUND US AND THE PEOPLE IN IT,
WARTS AND ALL. AND SECOND, THE
BILL'S FOCUS ON DECEASED
PERSONALITIES HAS NO VALID
JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. IT'S ONE THING TO
PROTECT THE ABILITY OF LIVING
PERFORMERS TO PRACTICE THEIR
CRAFT, WHICH MPAA SUPPORTS. BUT
IF THE BILL IS TO COVER DECEASED
PERSONALITIES, IT MUST BE
LIMITED TO DECEPTIVE USES OF
DIGITAL REPLICAS. OTHERWISE WE
WILL FACE YEARS OF UNCERTAINTY
AND POTENTIALLY ABANDONED
PROJECTS. WHILE THE LAWS SUBJECT
TO FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE,
MPAA HAS ALREADY HAD PRODUCTIVE
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BILL'S
AUTHOR, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND
HOPEFULLY ARRIVING AT A SOLUTION
THAT PROTECTS PERFORMERS WHILE
RESPECTING FILMMAKERS FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CREATIVE
FREEDOMS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OH, I'M NOT THE
CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANYWAYS I'M
THE CHAIR RIGHT NOW. I GET TO
SAY, MADAM CHAIR, CAN I SAY
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR? MADAM
CHAIR, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.
SAMANTHA CORBIN, REPRESENTING
EFF TODAY ON AB 1836. WE DO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL'S
ATTEMPT TO DRAMATICALLY EXPAND
THE REACH OF PUBLICITY RIGHTS IN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH ARE ALREADY
AMONG THE MOST EXPANSIVE IN THE
NATION. IN PARTICULAR, TO
ENCOMPASS USES THAT ARE NOT TIED
TO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS OR
ADVERTISING. UNDER THE MEASURE
AS WRITTEN, A DECEASED
PERSONALITIES ESTATE COULD USE
IT TO EXTRACT STATUTORY DAMAGES
OF $10,000 FOR THE USE OF A DEAD
PERSON'S IMAGE OR VOICE QUOTE IN
ANY MANNER RELATED TO THE WORK
PERFORMED BY THE DECEASED
PERSONALITY WHILE LIVING, WHICH
WE BELIEVE IS AN INCREDIBLY
BROAD AND UNCLEAR STANDARD THAT
COULD INVITE YEARS OF LITIGATION
. WHAT'S WORSE IS THE LANGUAGE
CURRENTLY ELIMINATES EXISTING
EXEMPTIONS FOR IMPORTANT USES
SUCH AS PLAYS, FILMS AND NEWS
COMMENTARY. EFF HAS A LONG
STANDING OPPOSITION TO EXPANDING
THE RIGHTS OF PUBLICITY, AND
WOULD PREFER TO SEE THE VERY
UNDERSTANDABLE CONCERNS OF THE
AUTHOR AND HOW I WORK. CAN
AFFECT ACTORS AND OTHER CREATORS
ADDRESSED IN WAYS THAT DO NOT
INVOLVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, SUCH
PERHAPS AS THROUGH PRIVACY,
LANGUAGE, OR EVEN THROUGH
CODIFYING AGREEMENTS MADE BY
AFFECTED WORKERS AND THROUGHOUT
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESS. A RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
APPROACH, WE BELIEVE,
DISPROPORTIONATELY HURTS SMALLER
CREATORS, WHO ARE OFTEN UNABLE
TO AFFORD LITIGATION OR PAY
FINES, EVEN THOUGH THEIR WORKS
FALL UNDER FIRST AMENDMENT
COVERED SPEECH SUCH AS PARODY OR
SATIRE AS WRITTEN, AB 1836 DOES
NOT PROTECT ANY LIVING PERSON,
BUT ONLY SERVES THOSE WHO HOPE
TO GROW RICH, EXPLOITING THE
IDENTITIES OF THE DEAD LONG
AFTER THEY ARE GONE, WHICH WE DO
NOT BELIEVE TO BE THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
EFFORT ON THIS BILL. LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATION. I JUST I DO WANT
TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT FOR
MISS CORBIN, ONE OF THE PIECES
OF TEXT THAT YOU, QUOTED WAS
PREAMENDMENTS PERFECT. SO MAYBE
MAYBE SHE LOVES IT. NOW, WE
DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. SOME
THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. HAVE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
CHAIR MEMBERS ALEX TORRES HERE
ON BEHALF OF WARNER BROTHERS.
DISCOVERY WOULD ALIGN OUR
POSITION AND OUR THOUGHTS WITH
OUR FRIENDS AT THE MPAA. THANK
YOU. TRENT SMITH, ON BEHALF OF
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, AGAIN
LINE OUR REMARKS WITH THE MPAA.
ROANOKE, DEYLAMI WITH CALCHAMBER
ALSO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
MPAA. THANK YOU. KARABUDA. ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPUTER AND
COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION ALIGNED WITH MPAA.
TIM LYNCH, ON BEHALF OF THE
ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE
ASSOCIATION, THANKING THE AUTHOR
FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO MEET
WITH US AND SHARING OUR THOUGHTS
WITH BEHIND MPAA AS WELL. FELIPE
FUENTES HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
NBC UNIVERSAL, OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED. GOOD AFTERNOON, TIFFANY
FAN, ON BEHALF OF SONY PICTURES.
ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH NPR.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU FOR THIS BILL. IT'S BEEN,
ONE THAT'S BEEN VERY INTERESTING
TO DIGEST, BECAUSE I FULLY AGREE
WITH WHERE YOU ARE TRYING TO BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE, THE WORK
THAT'S BEEN DONE AND THE
EARNINGS THAT, THAT THOSE
WORKERS ARE ENTITLED TO, AND
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEIR, THEIR
REPUTATION AND THE CONTROL, I
THINK, OF THEIR, THEIR CRAFT,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AGREE
ON VERY STRONGLY. AND AS I'M
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, GET MY MIND
IN GEAR FOR THIS, THIS NEW DAY
THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, THAT,
YOU KNOW, MAYBE PREVIOUSLY YOU
WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY WHO ACTED
LIKE AN ACTOR, RIGHT, MAYBE EVEN
WITH THE USE OF PROSTHETICS AND
MAKEUP AND EVERYTHING, YOU COULD
GET REALLY CLOSE TO TRYING TO
REALLY LOOK LIKE THAT PERSON,
WORK ON THEIR INTONATION. SOUND
LIKE THAT PERSON, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS
PERMITTED, RIGHT? IN A SENSE,
YOU'RE ACTING LIKE AN ACTOR. AND
HERE WE HAVE A DIGITAL REPLICA
THAT IN THIS CASE IS A COMPUTER
THAT IS TRYING TO BE ABLE TO DO
VERY MUCH THE SAME, ALBEIT WITH
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES IS
HAPPENING AT AN ALARMING RATE, I
THINK, BEFORE ALL OF US. AND I
GUESS I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE
YOU KNOW, HOW WE'RE TREATING
THIS, THIS DIFFERENTLY. SO IF
SOMEBODY WAS OUT THERE CLAIMING
TO BE TOM CRUISE LOOKING LIKE
TOM CRUISE, TALKING LIKE TOM
CRUISE, RIGHT? THEY WOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO PENALTY UNDER THE
LAW. BUT HERE IN THIS BILL,
SOMEBODY DOING A. WELL, TOM
CRUISE IS NOT DEAD, I GUESS IN
THIS SITUATION, BUT NGUYEN
WILLIAMS, WHERE HE DECEASED.
RIGHT. EXPLAIN TO ME, I GUESS,
THE DISTINCTION THERE, WHY THIS
IS IMPORTANT, TO KIND OF NARROW
IT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. YEAH.
AND TO YOUR POINT, THE EXAMPLE
YOU GAVE OF AN ACTOR PLAYING,
YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A MOVIE, I
GUESS I'LL GO BACK TO THE ROBIN
WILLIAMS EXAMPLE, MRS.
DOUBTFIRE. RIGHT. FOLLOW UP AND
SOMEBODY WANTS TO PLAY THE SAME
ROLE THAT HE PLAYED AND TRY TO
LOOK LIKE HIM AND ACT LIKE HIM.
NOTHING IN THIS BILL STOPS THAT
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY USED TO DO.
AND THEY CAN CONTINUE TO DO
THAT, WHAT THIS BILL WOULD
ATTEMPT TO DO IS SAY YOU CAN'T
TAKE HIS PERFORMANCE IN THAT
FIRST FILM, FEED IT INTO AN AI
TOOL, AND CREATE A NEW
PERFORMANCE OF THAT MOVIE AND
PROFIT OFF OF IT WITHOUT THAT
CONSENT FROM HIS ESTATE. AND I
THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. AND
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR DEFINITION OF
DIGITAL REPLICA, THAT IS IN THE
AMENDMENTS. SO THIS IS ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT IS NEW AS OF A
COUPLE DAYS AGO, I THINK, WHICH
SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT MEANS A
DIGITAL SIMULATION OF THE VOICE
OR LIKENESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL
THAT'S SO CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE
INDIVIDUAL'S VOICE OR LIKENESS
THAT A LAYPERSON WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO READILY DISTINGUISH FROM
THE INDIVIDUAL'S AUTHENTIC VOICE
OR LIKENESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
MAKING THAT PERSON AGAIN, RIGHT?
YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE. I CAN'T IMAGINE A
SCENARIO WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE AN
ACTOR WHERE YOU, AS A LAYPERSON,
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL IT'S A
DIFFERENT PERSON JUST BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY TO MIMIC
SOMEBODY IN THE WAY THE AI TOOLS
DO. IT'S DIFFICULT. RIGHT? I
THINK SOMEBODY SOMETIMES A
REALLY WELL TRAINED ACTOR CAN
GET REALLY, REALLY CLOSE TO
THAT. AND CERTAINLY I THINK BACK
TO THE ISSUE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IS
THIS DECEPTION, RIGHT. YOU KNOW,
IF YOU'RE REALLY ABLE TO
CONVINCE SOMEBODY THAT YOU ARE
ROBIN WILLIAMS. RIGHT, THAT'S,
BOTH TALENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, ALSO
KIND OF RUNS INTO THE SAME,
ISSUE THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT
WE'RE FACING HERE, AND I GUESS I
WAS JUST THINKING A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE
DISTINCTION SORT OF BETWEEN
THESE TWO SITUATIONS IN A WAY,
EVEN THOUGH, YES, A COMPUTER AI,
CHEN AI IS ABLE TO USE THE
ORIGINAL LIKENESS OF A ACTOR,
RIGHT? TO RECREATE THAT AND
CREATE A NEW MOVIE. BUT NOT A
LIVE INDIVIDUAL ALSO HAS TO USE
THE SAME LIKENESS OF THAT PERSON
TO RECREATE THE WORK, RIGHT? THE
CHARACTER, THE ART, AND SO IT'S
THAT'S A LOT HARDER TO DO, AND
SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO
KIND OF SEE ARE WE ARE, WE ARE
WE BEING EQUITABLE HERE? I GUESS
IN, IN HOW WE'RE MAYBE THINKING
ABOUT THE LAW AS IT APPLIES TO
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. THE OTHER
ONE IS THE SITUATION OF THE
LIVING, YOU KNOW, IF, YES, THIS
IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GOING OUT TO
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY
WHO'S DECEASED AND, AND PROTECT
THEIR, THEIR CRAFT, THEIR AND
THEIR ESTATE, BUT BUT WHY NOT
APPLY SEPARATE FROM MY EARLIER
LINE OF QUESTIONING? WHY NOT
APPLY THIS TO SOMEBODY WHO IS
LIVING OR THAT LAW THERE THAT
ALREADY EXISTS? YEAH, THEY ARE
PROTECTED. YEAH. GOT IT. OKAY,
SO IF SOMEBODY WAS USING AI TO
RECREATE LIVES IN MANILA, THERE
IS A SEPARATE CODE THAT WOULD
PROTECT THEM. YES. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT AS YOU KNOW WE ARE
GETTING. BUT YES I AGREE THEY
SHOULD BE PROTECTED TOO. SO
CONSISTENCY IS KEY RIGHT? YES,
ABSOLUTELY. TRYING TO MAKE SURE
THAT LIKE YOU KNOW, IN THIS AS
THINGS HAVE EVOLVED AROUND US,
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE LAW,
BOTH REFLECTS THAT EVOLUTION BUT
ALSO IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER
SORT OF SIMILAR SITUATIONS, I'M
AWARE I THANK YOU FOR AS WELL.
I'VE HEARD YOU'VE HAD, YOU KNOW,
CONSTRUCTIVE MANIFESTATION, WITH
, WITH WITH OPPOSITION AS WELL,
AND AS YOU'RE WORKING ON THINGS
AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION
OF A DIGITAL REPLICA OR
DEFINITIONS AROUND DECEPTIVE
USE, I THINK I TRUST THAT THOSE
WILL CONTINUE. I DIDN'T WANT TO
GIVE OPPOSITION, MAYBE A CHANCE
TO IF THERE WERE SORT OF KEY
BULLET POINTS THAT, YOU KNOW,
YOU WANTED TO SEE IF THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD, WHAT WHAT REALLY
NEEDS TO BE HASHED OUT HERE TO
MAKE IT WORKABLE IN YOUR EYES.
SURE. THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD,
SO I WANT TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL,
THAT, IN THE AMENDMENTS TO WHICH
WE JUST SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME
YESTERDAY, WE THINK THAT THE
DEFINITION OF DIGITAL REPLICA IS
MUCH IMPROVED. SO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. WE APPRECIATE THAT, THE
KEY STICKING POINT, I WOULD SAY
IS THE EXCEPTIONS. AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE, OR
TO, TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S
VARIOUS WAYS THAT ONE COULD USE
A DIGITAL REPLICA, A DIGITAL
USING A DIGITAL REPLICA OF, SAY,
TOM CRUISE TO HAVE HIM ACT IN
THE HAVE THAT DIGITAL REPLICA
ACT IN THE NEXT MISSION
IMPOSSIBLE MOVIE IS NOT
SOMETHING WE SUPPORT, IT'S IN
FACT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
AGREED IN THE LABOR IN THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
ENTERED INTO LAST FALL, NOT TO
DO. AND IF THE BILL SIMPLY DID
THAT, WE WOULD BE FINE. BUT
THERE ARE THERE ARE PLENTY OF
EXAMPLES OF USES OF DIGITAL
REPLICAS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE
FULLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE
CONSENT IN THINGS LIKE, PARODY
OR SATIRE. OR IF YOU'RE MAKING A
BIOPIC INSTEAD OF MAKING A NEW
PERFORMANCE FEATURING TOM CRUISE
. IF YOU'RE MAKING A BIOPIC OR A
DOCUDRAMA ABOUT TOM CRUISE. SO
THAT'S WHAT OUR PREFERRED
EXCEPTIONS IS, ATTEMPT TO DO IS
SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T REPLACE
SOMEBODY'S PERFORMANCE, BUT
THERE'S ALL THESE OTHER
LEGITIMATE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTED USES THAT YOU SHOULD
BE ABLE TO ENGAGE IN, SO I WANT
TO THANK THE SPONSOR AND STAFF
FOR THE AMENDMENTS, BUT THE, THE
EXCEPTIONS IN THE AMENDMENTS
DON'T QUITE, SATISFY OUR
CONCERNS. LET ME EXPLAIN WHY, IF
I HAVE A MINUTE. MR. CHAIR IS IN
CHARGE. CERTAINLY. SO I WOULD
SAY IT'S A CASE OF, YOU KNOW,
GIVING WITH ONE HAND AND TAKE A
TAKE TAKING AWAY WITH THE OTHER.
SO SO THE AMENDMENTS. I'M SORRY.
THE EXCEPTIONS IN THE
AMENDMENTS, DO INCORPORATE A LOT
OF OUR LANGUAGE, WHICH WE
APPRECIATE. HOWEVER, THERE IS
THIS INTRODUCTORY PHRASE WHICH
SAYS TO THE EXTENT PROTECTED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND, AND
THAT ALTHOUGH MAY IT MAY SEEM
INNOCUOUS ON ITS, ON ITS, FACE,
OF COURSE, EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT
TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IT
REALLY SORT OF TAKES AWAY THE
BENEFIT OF THE FIRST OF THE
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS, WHICH ARE
THAT THEY PROVIDE CLARITY AND
CERTAINTY BEFORE A STUDIO GOES
AND SPENDS $200 MILLION TO MAKE
A MOVIE. THEY WANT TO KNOW
WHAT'S ALLOWED AND WHAT'S NOT
ALLOWED, HAVING THAT TO THE
EXTENT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT LANGUAGE. AGAIN, KIND
OF OBVIATES THE BENEFIT OF THAT
CLARITY FROM THE EXCEPTIONS AND
BASICALLY SAYS, WELL, YOU'RE
STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GO
THROUGH ALL THE MURKY FIRST
AMENDMENT ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW,
THROW IT INTO THE HANDS OF A
COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS APPLY.
AGAIN, THE STATUTORY WE'RE NOT
CALLING FOR THE COMPLETELY
CATEGORICAL STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS
THAT ARE IN EXISTING 3340 4.1 WE
KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO BE
NARROWER. AND THAT'S WHAT OUR
PREFERRED LANGUAGE DOES. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE
CLARIFICATION. IT'S SUPER
INTERESTING I THINK AND CAN BE
INCREDIBLY HELPFUL. AND I THINK
THERE MIGHT BE AN AREA OF
AGREEMENT HERE. SO I'M SURE
IT'LL CONTINUE TO BE WORKED ON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I
WOULD JUST MISS DID YOU DID YOU
WANT TO COMMENT. YOU LOOKED LIKE
YOU WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT
STATEMENT, KEN. OH YEAH, I MEAN
I IF COUNCIL WANTS TO I THINK
WOULD THAT BE OKAY, MADAM CHAIR,
JUST VERY BRIEFLY JUST TO BE
CLEAR, MR. SCHEFFNER, WHO I
RESPECT AND I'VE KNOWN FOR MANY
YEARS, HE MENTIONED PARODY AND
SATIRE. THOSE ARE EXPLICIT
EXEMPTIONS IN THE AMENDED
LANGUAGE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU,
ALONG WITH SCHOLARSHIP, COMMENT,
CRITICISM, Þ NEWS, PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, SPORTS, BROADCAST ARTS
OR ACCOUNTS, AS WELL AS FLEETING
OR INCIDENTAL USAGES. AND BEYOND
THAT, THERE'S A SAFE HARBOR
PROVISION THAT'S BEEN CRAFTED
THAT DEALS WITH THE
DECEPTIVENESS ISSUE. AND IT SAYS
THAT IF WE IF WHAT IS IF THE USE
IS INTENDED TO CREATE AND DOES
CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION THAT
THE WORK IS USING SOMEBODY IN A
WAY THAT THEY AUTHORIZE, THAT'S
IMPERMISSIBLE, THAT'S NOT
COVERED. SO I THINK WE HAVE
REALLY COVERED THE WATERFRONT
WITH RESPECT TO THE KINDS OF
EXEMPTIONS THAT MPA WAS SEEKING.
ALL RIGHT, MR. BRIAN THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. A LOT OF MY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. I HAD A
LINE OF MY COLLEAGUE FROM SAN
DIEGO WHO GAVE PLENTY OF TIME
FOR THEM TO BE RAISED. BUT I
THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
ISSUE, AND YOU'VE GIVEN ME AN
INCREDIBLE AMOUNT TO THINK ABOUT
. SO, MADAM CHAIR, AND I THINK
IT'S REALLY, REALLY, REALLY
IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW.
SO, STRANGELY, THE TERME
DECEASED PERSONALITY CAME UP
SEVERAL TIMES. RIGHT? AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A LEGAL
TERME. IT REFERENCES THE
COMMERCIAL VALUE OF SOMEBODY,
WHETHER THEY HAD IT ALIVE OR
NOT. THEIR LIKENESS, THEIR
SIGNATURE, THEIR VOICE, ETC. BUT
YET IT STILL IS VERY TRIGGERING
FOR ME IN THIS CONVERSATION IN
SOME REASON, BECAUSE WE ARE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH THAT
THIS IS NOT THE PERSON. RIGHT.
SO THIS ISN'T A DECEASED PERSON.
THIS IS LIKE YOU, FOR ALL
INTENTS AND PURPOSES, OF THE WAY
THAT THAT THAT YOU ARE BEING
PORTRAYED AND THE WAY YOU ARE
BEING RECEIVED BY AN AUDIENCE.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT THING FOR US TO KIND
OF GROUND THESE DISCUSSIONS IN
AS WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM. I
WATCHED THE, THE ONE LOVE MOVIE
THE OTHER DAY. I KNEW IT WASN'T
BOB MARLEY. HE LOOKED LIKE BOB
MARLEY. HE DEFINITELY SOUNDED
LIKE BOB MARLEY. THERE WERE
MOMENTS WHERE, I KNEW THEY WERE
REFERENCING SOMETHING. AN ACTUAL
INTERVIEW. I KNOW OF BOB MARLEY.
I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THAT
INTERVIEW WITH BOB MARLEY TO
COMPARE AND CONTRAST. THEY WERE
VERBATIM, BUT YET I COULD STILL
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FACT
THAT THAT WAS NOT BOB MARLEY.
AND I THINK IT IT CHANGED THE
WAY I DIGESTED THE BIOPIC, EVEN
THOUGH IT I LEARNED A LOT STILL,
AND IT WAS STILL PROFOUND. AND I
THINK IT WAS A HIGHLY GROSSING
FILM, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS KIND OF A STEP
FURTHER. IF I COULDN'T DO ANY OF
THOSE THINGS AND, FOR THOSE
REASONS, I JUST WANTED TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR RAISING THE LEVEL
OF THIS CONVERSATION AND
CONVENING THIS TABLE. I'M HOPING
THOSE CONVERSATIONS, CONTINUE,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS IS
IMPORTANT AND GRATEFUL FOR THE
COMMENTS BY THE OPPOSITION. AND,
MY COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO FOR
CREATING SPACE FOR YOU TO EVEN
FURTHER CLARIFY THOSE. AND WITH
THAT, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE
THE BILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I APPRECIATE.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR
GIVING ME THE FLOOR. AND THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SEATED. THANK
ALL THE WOMEN IN CHARGE FOR
TALKING, FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD AND TAKING TIME TO WORK
THROUGH AMENDS AND APPRECIATE
THE NARROWING OF, OF THE
DEFINITION AS IT RELATES TO
DIGITAL REPLICA. I THINK THAT
WAS VERY HELPFUL, AND WE'VE HAD
A CHANCE TO TALK TODAY, YOU
KNOW, ABOUT THIS. AND I HAD
SHARED SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT
MY COLLEAGUE FROM SAN DIEGO DID,
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. I HAVE,
ONE CLARIFYING, WANTING TO
UNDERSTAND, AND THEN, A AN
ACTUAL QUESTION. SO SOME OF WHAT
THIS IS SURROUNDING IS THE, THE,
YOUR BILL IS SURROUNDING IS THE
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY, WHICH. YEAH,
REGULATES COMMERCIAL SPEECH, AND
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION, IS
SURROUNDING US BY VIRTUE OF
PEOPLE WHO CAME UP TO SPEAK, DO
A LOT OF WHAT THEY CALL
EXPRESSIVE WORKS, WHICH IS
DIFFERENT THAN COMMERCIAL SPEECH
, EVEN THOUGH IT IS VERY
COMMERCIAL AS, MY COLLEAGUE FROM
LA NOTED, THEY, YOU KNOW, THE
FACT THAT YOU COULD GET, IT WAS
VERY PROFITABLE. THE MOVIE ONE
LOVE. AND SO I WONDERED, YOUR
THOUGHTS ON THAT IN TERMS OF THE
FACT THAT THIS COVERS EVEN
THOUGH THEY'RE DECEASED, IT
COVERS IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT
INCLUDES EXPRESSIVE WORKS VERSUS
JUST, COMMERCIAL SPEECH. AND
THEN THE QUESTION. SO I WANTED
TO CLARIFY WHAT, WHAT WHAT YOUR
INTENTION WAS THERE. AND THEN
ALSO THE QUESTION RELATED TO
THAT IS, IS THAT EXPRESSIVE
WORKS IS OF COURSE COVERED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND YOUR
LANGUAGE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE
REFERENCE TO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, MEANING IT SEEMS TO
APPEAR IN MEETINGS. YOU CAN
LITIGATE FOR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, NOT NECESSARILY. THEN
GIVING THEM THE RIGHT THAT THEY
HAVE ANOTHER LANGUAGE WHERE IT'S
EXPRESSLY CALLED OUT. AND SO
YEAH, SO I WILL ACTUALLY DEFER
ON THE EXPRESSIVE WORKS TO THE
EXPERT ON THAT. BUT I WILL SAY
ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT POINT
OUT, THE REASON WE REFER TO THAT
IS BECAUSE, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE
AWARE, THE FIRST THE CONTOURS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND WHERE
THE LINE IS FOR EXAMPLE, ON
PARODY AND WHAT IS A PARODY IS
VERY, HAS BEEN LITIGATED A LOT.
THAT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED BODY
OF LAW THAT IS COMPLEX BUT IS
ESTABLISHED. AND SO THAT IS WHAT
I BELIEVE THE CONTOURS SHOULD BE
, WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT LAW
IS SETTLED AS. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE REFERENCING HERE. BUT
THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE WOULD HAVE
TO GO BACK TO COURT TO REDEFINE
PARODY. I MEAN, IT IS DEFINED IN
MANY SORT OF WELL-ESTABLISHED
CASES. AND SO I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE DEFER BACK TO
THE WELL-ESTABLISHED FIRST
AMENDMENT LAW. BUT I DON'T THINK
THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO
RELITIGATE IT BY ANY STRETCH OF
THE IMAGINATION. BUT I WILL
DEFER TO THE EXPERT ON
EXPRESSIVE WORKS. AND AS YOU
ANSWERED THAT. BUT DON'T YOU
FIND OUT, I MEAN, THROUGH ITS
THROUGH SUING, ITS THROUGH GOING
THROUGH LITIGATION WHERE THEN
YOU PROVE OUT THAT THE THAT THAT
IT IS PARODY, THAT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IS PARODY VERSUS. I'M JUST
SAYING IN OTHER LANGUAGES AND
OTHER AS I UNDERSTAND IT, OTHER
OTHER CODES THAT CALLS OUT
SPECIFICALLY. BUT YOU DON'T USE
THAT LANGUAGE, YOU USE FIRST
AMENDMENT. WELL, EVEN IN THE
OTHER CODE, ONE COULD STILL
BELIEVE THAT THEIR WORK DIDN'T
FALL UNDER THAT SECTION, WHICH
WOULD TAKE YOU TO COURT, I
THINK. WHAT AND YOU CAN CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT PUTTING MY
OLD LITIGATOR HAT ON, I THINK
WHAT IS MORE COMFORTING ABOUT
THAT OTHER LANGUAGE IS YOU ARE
MORE LIKELY TO BE THROWN OUT IN
MOTIONS PRACTICE AT THE
BEGINNING BECAUSE YOU HAVE
THESE, I THINK, WELL DEFINED.
OKAY, SO HE'S AGREEING WITH ME.
I'M NOT MISSTATING THEIR THEIR
POSITION. I DON'T LIKE TO DO
THAT, AND SO, SO BUT I STILL
THINK HERE IF YOU FELL UNDER
WHAT WAS THE WELL-ESTABLISHED,
YOU KNOW, CONTOURS OF FIRST
AMENDMENT LAW, YOU COULD STILL
BE THROWN OUT IN MOTIONS
PRACTICE. BUT IF YOU'RE SORT OF
IN THE MURKY WATERS. YEAH IT
WOULD GO FURTHER. BUT I THINK IF
YOU'RE IN THE MURKY WATERS, THEN
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT
FALLS. SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE
MY POSITION, BUT I WILL IF I CAN
JUST BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE FIRST
AMENDMENT ISSUE FIRST. ONE OF
THE ISSUES, ONE OF THE
INTERESTING ASPECTS OF THE WAY
THE LAW IS DEVELOPED IN
CALIFORNIA IS THAT WHEN THE
POSTMORTEM RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
STATUTE WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN
1985, THAT WAS, I THINK, SEVEN,
EIGHT YEARS BEFORE CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED AN ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE,
WHICH IS REALLY WHAT SERVES
THESE DAYS AS A DETERRENT TO
PEOPLE BRINGING FRIVOLOUS CASES,
WAYS IN WHICH THEY, IN WHICH
THEY WOULD ORDINARILY BE BARRED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SO
THAT'S JUST ONE ONE SORT OF SIDE
POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. AND
REALLY, WHAT THE EXCEPTIONS DO
HERE IS THEY GIVE YOU, IN FACT,
A RATHER BROAD, SAFE HARBOR, TO
THAT SAYS WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO
COURT IF THIS IS THE KIND OF
USAGE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
THERE MAY BE OTHER FIRST
AMENDMENT PROTECTED USAGES, BUT
THIS STATUTE DOESN'T PRECLUDE
YOU, OBVIOUSLY, FROM BRINGING
THOSE, BECAUSE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, OBVIOUSLY, IS THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW, AND
IT'S AND IT HAS GREATER WEIGHT
THAN DOES A, A STATE STATUTE OR
A FEDERAL STATUTE. AND SO THE
OTHER POINT, THOUGH, THAT I
WANTED TO MAKE WITH RESPECT TO
COMMERCIAL USAGES IS THAT IT HAS
LONG BEEN THE CASE THAT THE
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY HAS NOT BEEN
LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL USAGES, I
MUST CONFESS THAT I HAD
REPRESENTED THE MPAA, THE
PREDECESSOR ORGANIZATION, IN
TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THAT OUGHT
TO BE THE LAW. BUT SINCE COMEDY
THREE, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION IN 2002, THAT
CASE INVOLVED AMONG OTHER
THINGS, LITHOGRAPHS. THOSE
AREN'T COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS IN
ANY SENSE THAT I THINK WE WOULD
THINK ABOUT THEM. AND THEN THE
FOLLOW ON CASE WITH THE WINTER
BROTHERS CASE INVOLVED COMIC
BOOKS AND IN THOSE AND THERE IS
NO SUGGESTION IN ANY OF THOSE
CASES THAT THE RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY USING THE ADOPTED
TRANSFORMATIVE USE TEST, THAT
THE COURT CREATED IN COMEDY
THREE IS, IS INAPPLICABLE TO
EXPRESSIVE WORKS IN THAT WAY.
AND WE'RE NOT LIMITED TO JUST,
YOU KNOW, PUBLIC. WE'RE NOT
LIMITED TO LITHOGRAPHS OR, OR
COMIC BOOKS. THE HART CASE, THE
KELLER CASE, AND THE, AND THE,
DAVIS CASE ALL INVOLVE VIDEO
GAMES WHERE YOU HAD AVATARS WHO
WERE REALISTICALLY DEPICTED IN
THOSE VIDEO GAMES AS PLAYING, IN
TWO CASES, COLLEGE FOOTBALL. IN
THE DAVIS CASE, PROFESSIONAL
FOOTBALL. YOU HAVE THE NO DOUBT
CASE WHERE THE, BAND MEMBERS OR
THAT GROUP WERE DEPICTED USING,
THAT MIMICKED THEIR LIKENESSES,
USING THEIR FACIAL FEATURES, AND
THEIR STYLES. AND SO THOSE ARE
ALL EXPRESSIVE WORKS WHICH THE
COURTS HAVE ANALYZED UNDER THE
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AND HAVE SAID
THESE THESE IN THOSE CASES, YOU
DON'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT BAR
TO BRINGING THE ACTION. SO
YOU'RE SAYING THAT BECAUSE IN
THOSE CASES, THE RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY, WAS APPLIED THROUGH
COURT CASES TO EXPRESSIVE WORKS
THAT GIVE SPACES TO LEGISLATE A
LAW THAT APPLIES RIGHT OF
PUBLICITY TO EXPRESSIVE WORKS.
EXACTLY. RIGHT. OKAY. IF I IF I
COULD JUST BRIEFLY RESPOND,
SORRY, AND I SHOULD START OFF
AGAIN. APPRECIATE THE KIND WORDS
FROM MY FRIEND DOUG MORRELL, AND
I RESPECT HIS VIEWS ON THIS VERY
MUCH AS WELL. I DO WANT TO SAY
THAT I BELIEVE EITHER ALL OR
VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE CASES THAT
HE JUST CITED CAME BEFORE A 2015
OR 16 CASE FROM THE US SUPREME
COURT CALLED REID VERSUS CITY OF
GILBERT, ARIZONA. AND WHAT THE
SUPREME WHAT THE US SUPREME
COURT SAID IN THAT CASE IS THAT
IF YOU HAVE A CONTENT BASED
REGULATION OF SPEECH WHICH MAKE
MAKE NO QUESTION, THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE DOING, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT DOING HERE TO BE A
CONTENT BASED RESTRICTION ON
SPEECH. IT HAS TO SATISFY THE
STRICT SCRUTINY STANDARD. THAT
MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO
COME FORWARD WITH A COMPELLING
GOVERNMENT INTEREST, AND THE LAW
OR THE REGULATION NEEDS TO BE
NARROWLY TAILORED TO SERVE THAT
INTEREST. THE CASES THAT MR.
MORALE WAS CITING AGAIN, EITHER
ALL OR NEARLY ALL CAME BEFORE
THAT. IN FACT, THE BUT THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, INTERPRETING THE
CALIFORNIA RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
STATUTE SAID, INDEED IT IS A
CONTENT BASED RESTRICTION ON
SPEECH SUBJECT TO STRICT
SCRUTINY. AND I THINK THAT'S THE
LENS, THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE
LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSED LAW
THROUGH. AND, AND IF IT IS
ENACTED, THE LENS THROUGH WHICH
COURTS WILL BE LOOKING AT IT AS
WELL. CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP TO
THAT? SURE. AND TO THE TO THE
ATTORNEY OR MAYBE TO THE AUTHOR
HERE I WOULD JUST POINT TO THE
ANALYSIS WHICH AS NOTED TODAY,
IS REALLY CLEAR AND ACTUALLY
DISTINGUISHES THAT CASE BASED ON
WHO BROUGHT IT. SO I THINK THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF TELL ME WHAT
PAGE IT'S ON ON 9 TO 10, 9 TO
10. OKAY. THANK YOU, SO YEAH, I
MEAN, I THINK THEY DID A GOOD
JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY THAT ISN'T
NECESSARILY WHAT WE SHOULD BE
RELYING ON. RELYING ON IN STRICT
SCRUTINY SHOULDN'T APPLY. AND
ONE OF, I BELIEVE, THE MAIN
POINTS DRAWN OUT HERE WAS BASED
ON THE PLAINTIFF THEMSELVES, WHO
WAS NOT SOMEONE WHO WOULD HAVE A
COMMERCIAL BENEFIT FROM THEIR
LIKENESS. UNLIKE THE PEOPLE
CITED TODAY, THE SARVER CASE
THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE
NINTH CIRCUIT IS NOT AN AVATAR
CASE. THAT'S A CASE. THAT'S A
CASE ABOUT THE HURT LOCKER
MOTION PICTURE, WHICH PORTRAYED
AN INDIVIDUAL USING ANOTHER
ACTOR LIKE WE DISCUSSED WITH
ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT CASE IS
FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE, BUT
ALSO TO THE NOTION THAT THE
TRANSFORMATIVE USE TEST NO
LONGER APPLIES, I'M, I'M AFRAID,
IS NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS, THE NINTH
CIRCUIT HAS HAS MADE ITS
DETERMINATION, BUT THAT RULING
HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, UNIFORMLY
IN CALIFORNIA. I WILL ALSO JUST
ADD ONE THING, MISS WILSON,
WHICH IS THIS BILL, IF IT WERE
TO PASS OUT TODAY, DOES GO TO
JUDICIARY, WHO I THINK WILL
WEIGH IN HEAVILY ON EXACTLY
THESE ISSUES. IF THAT IS OF ANY
COMFORT TO YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OH,
MR. LOWENTHAL, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ORTEGA, MISS
BAUER-KAHAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE
FOR THE ROBUST DISCUSSION. AND
LIKE YOU HEARD, I HAVE, ALTHOUGH
I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE YOU OUTSIDE
OF YOUR ZOOM SQUARE, I HAVE MET
WITH THE OPPOSITION EXTENSIVELY
AND WILL CONTINUE TO AND
APPRECIATE AND LOOK FORWARD TO
THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE AMENDMENTS
THAT THEY JUST RECENTLY SAW. SO
APPRECIATE THAT THAT WAS RECENT.
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR A NO VOTE. AND I WOULD
SAY WE ALL KNOW THE AUTHOR AND
THERE'S A VERY LONG TRIP BEFORE
THE GOVERNOR'S DESK, AND SHE
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH ALL
THE STAKEHOLDERS. AND WITH THAT,
CAN WE PLEASE, CALL THE ROLL
ITEM NUMBER TEN, AB 1836 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
BAUER-KAHAN I BAUER-KAHAN I
PATTERSON. PATTERSON NOT VOTING.
BRIAN. BRIAN I DIXON. DIXON NOT
VOTING. HOOVER HOOVER NOT
VOTING. IRWIN. IRWIN I
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA I. WARD. WARD I. WICKS I.
WICKS I. WILSON WILSON I ALL
RIGHT, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
OUT 823 5 TO 8 8080. AND NOW WE
ARE GOING TO GO ON TO THE VERY
LIGHT TOPIC OF, AUTOMATED
DECISIONS. ARE THEY ALL STILL
HERE AS THE OPPOSITION ALL STILL
HERE. DID WE? AND, THAT'S, ITEM
NUMBER 13 AB 2930. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. MR. PATTERSON, DID
YOU WANT TO A GREAT JOB? OH,
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I, THIS IS
THE LAST BILL. YES. WE MADE IT.
GUYS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PATIENCE AND YOUR DILIGENCE,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MR. VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, FIRST, I WANT
TO ACCEPT COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
AND WITH THAT, I AM PROUD TO
PRESENT AB 2930, MODELED AFTER
PRESIDENT BIDEN'S AI BILL OF
RIGHTS. AB 2930 PROTECTS
INDIVIDUALS FROM ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION BY REQUIRING THE
DEVELOPERS AND USERS TO ASSESS
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOLS FOR
DISCRIMINATORY BIAS AND MITIGATE
ACCORDINGLY ADTS, WHICH WE LIKE
TO TALK A LOT ABOUT CHEN CHEN
AI, BUT ADTS ARE THE AI THAT IS
PROBABLY MOST PREVALENT IN YOUR
LIFE, AND IT IS DIFFERENT. IT
AND IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THIS
TECHNOLOGY BE DEPLOYED IN A
RESPONSIBLE MANNER BECAUSE IT IS
BEING USED IN THE DECISIONS THAT
ARE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL TO EVERY
DAY. CALIFORNIANS USE AUTOMATED
DECISION TOOLS, USE STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS TO ASSESS ELIGIBILITY
FOR A BENEFIT OR A PENALTY,
DECISIONS THAT CAN HAVE DRASTIC
IMPACTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE.
FOR EXAMPLE, ADTS ARE NOW USED
FOR EMPLOYMENT SCREENING,
INSURANCE ELIGIBILITY, AND
HEALTH CARE DECISIONS. USE CASES
EXPAND EVERY SINGLE DAY.
CURRENTLY THERE IS NO
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR UNBIASED DATA
SETS OR PROGRAMMERS UNCONSCIOUS
BIAS THAT CAN BE EMBEDDED INTO
ADTS, WHICH CAN RESULT IN
DETRIMENTAL DISCRIMINATION UNTIL
ENOUGH DISCRIMINATION HAS
OCCURRED THAT A CIVIL RIGHTS
LAWSUIT OCCURS, AS, FOR
INSTANCE, A STUDY PUBLISHED IN
SCIENCE IN 2019 SHOWED THAT A
CLINICAL ALGORITHM USED ACROSS
HOSPITALS FOR DETERMINING
PATIENT CARE WAS RACIALLY BIASED
AGAINST BLACK PATIENTS. IN THIS
CASE, THE ALGORITHM USED HEALTH
CARE SPENDING AS A PROXY FOR
HEALTH NEEDS, SO IT FALSELY
CONCLUDED THAT BLACK PATIENTS
WERE HEALTHIER THAN EQUALLY SICK
WHITE PATIENTS BECAUSE THEY HAD
SPENT LESS MONEY ON HEALTH CARE.
THIS DEPRIVED PATIENTS OF COLOR
FROM THE NOT THE MUCH NEEDED
HEALTH CARE THAT THEY WERE
SEEKING. THIS IS JUST ONE
EXAMPLE. WE'VE SEEN EXAMPLES IN
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT, IN THE
HOUSING CONTEXT. AND, AGAIN AND
AGAIN, WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THESE TOOLS ARE
SAFE BEFORE THEY ARE DEPLOYED, I
WANT TO SAY BEFORE I TURN IT
OVER TO MY WITNESS, THAT I THINK
ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS
BILL AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON
THIS BILL FOR OVER A YEAR NOW,
THAT IS MOST EXCITING TO ME, IS
THAT I THINK THIS IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AI TO IMPROVE
THE STATUS QUO. AS A WOMAN WHO
WORKED IN A MALE DOMINATED
FIELD, I KNEW WHEN I WALKED INTO
AN INTERVIEW THAT I HAD A WORSE
CHANCE OF GETTING THAT JOB
BECAUSE OF THE BIAS OF THE
PERSON SITTING ACROSS FROM ME
AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEST
THESE TOOLS TO ENSURE THAT THEY
ARE NOT DEPLOYING WITH BIAS AND
REMOVE POTENTIALLY SOME OF THAT
BIAS FROM DECISION MAKING, SUCH
AS HIRING, SUCH AS HOUSING, IS
AN EXCITING FUTURE. AND SO I AM
BY NO MEANS AN ENEMY OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY. I ACTUALLY THINK
THAT THIS BILL WILL ALLOW THIS
TECHNOLOGY TO FOSTER, WHICH
YOU'LL HEAR FROM INDUSTRY
PARTNERS ON THIS, BECAUSE TRUST
IN AI, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE
NEED TO TALK ABOUT IN THIS
COMMITTEE A LOT, IS CRITICAL TO
THE SUCCESS OF AI. AND I, AS
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MENTIONED
EARLIER, CAN BE AN INCREDIBLE
PART OF OUR ECONOMIC ECOSYSTEM
IN CALIFORNIA, BUT THAT WILL
ONLY BE TRUE IF USERS TRUST IT.
AND THIS BILL GOES A LONG WAY IN
ENSURING THAT SOME OF THE BEST
USE CASES OF AI IN OUR SOCIETY
WILL BE BENEFICIAL AND NOT
HARMFUL, AND USERS CAN TRUST IT.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER
TO DARRYL COOK FROM WORKDAY,
THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS DARRYL
COOK HERE ON BEHALF OF WORKDAY.
WORKDAY IS HEADQUARTERED IN
PLEASANTON, WE'RE A CALIFORNIA
COMPANY. WE HELP ORGANIZATIONS
MANAGE, SO WORKDAY HELPS
ORGANIZATIONS MANAGE THEIR MOST
IMPORTANT ASSETS, THEIR PEOPLE
AND THEIR MONEY, WE EMPLOY MORE
THAN 6300 CALIFORNIANS AND SERVE
MORE THAN 10,000 ORGANIZATIONS
AROUND THE WORLD. AT WORKDAY, WE
BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF AI TO
UNLOCK HUMAN POTENTIAL. AND
WHILE WE SEE INCREDIBLE
OPPORTUNITIES IN AI TECHNOLOGY,
WE ALSO RECOGNIZE THE RISK OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AS A
CLOUD NATIVE ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE
COMPANY, WE LEARNED EARLY ON
THAT INVESTMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY
GOVERNANCE ARE CRITICAL TO
EARNING THE TRUST THAT IS KEY TO
UNLOCKING TECHNOLOGY'S BENEFITS,
CONSISTENT WITH THAT, WORKDAY
HAS A ROBUST, RESPONSIBLE AI
PROGRAM THAT IS DRIVEN BY
LEADERSHIP. COMMITMENT INCLUDES
DEDICATED, COMPANY WIDE
RESOURCES. OPERATIONALIZES OUR
AI DEVELOPMENT GUARDRAILS, AND
PROVIDES A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING
OF HOW OUR TOOLS ARE DEVELOPED
AND ASSESSED. IN ADDITION, WE
BELIEVE THAT SMART PUBLIC POLICY
IS CRUCIAL, SO WORKDAY HAS BEEN
WORKING OR HAS BEEN SEEKING TO
PLAY A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE IN THE
AI POLICY LANDSCAPE SINCE 2019,
AND WE FOCUS ON FOUR POLICY
BENCHMARKS. WE WANT TO ENSURE
THAT POLICY ON AI ENSURES A RISK
BASED APPROACH, THAT IT
LEVERAGES WORKABLE
ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS. IT CLEARLY
DELINEATES ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES AND HARMONIZES
WITH EMERGING GOVERNANCE
FRAMEWORKS. AS INTRODUCED, AB
2930 WOULD ESTABLISH FIRST IN
THE NATION GUARDRAILS, MAKING IT
CLEAR THAT DISCRIMINATION,
WHETHER BY A HUMAN OR AN
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOL, IS
ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. SHARING A
NUMBER OF THE POLICY GOALS THAT
I'VE MENTIONED. AB 2930 AS
INTRODUCED, REPRESENTS A
THOUGHTFUL AI REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK AND AN IMPORTANT
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ONGOING
POLICY DISCUSSION. WE APPRECIATE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER KHAN'S
CONTINUED EFFORTS TO MAKE
PROGRESS ON AI POLICY,
SUCCESSFUL AI GOVERNANCE
LEGISLATION WILL HAVE AS ITS
HALLMARK WORKABILITY STEPS TO
BUILD MEANINGFUL TRUST AND
SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION. WE ARE
STILL REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE BEING ADOPTED TODAY, WE
SHOULD POINT OUT THAT SOME OF
THE CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS MAY
PUT THOSE GOALS AT RISK. WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE,
OR THE REST OF THE LEGISLATURE.
AS YOU CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. GOES MY
STAFF. OH, OKAY. WE DRILL DOWN.
HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
IN SUPPORT? MARIKO YOSHIHARA, ON
BEHALF OF TECH EQUITY AND THE
CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE A SUPPORT,
IF AMENDED POSITION WITH A FEW
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. I JUST WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF FOR WORKING WITH US AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, HOW ABOUT WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? I'M STILL A I'M
STILL KIND OF A SUPPORT, TRACY
ROSENBERG, ON BEHALF OF OAKLAND
PRIVACY SUPPORT IF AMENDED,
POSITION. WE ARE STILL CHECKING
OUT THE, AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THEY
WERE PUBLISHED KIND OF LATE, BUT
SO FAR SO GOOD. AND WE LIKE
QUITE A FEW OF THEM. SO THANK
YOU. COMMITTEE HAD A LOT OF
BILLS, SO THEY DID THEIR BEST.
HI. IT'S JUST ME. SO CAN I TAKE
MORE TIME? I'M NOT IN CHARGE.
YEAH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
BOTH OF YOU, I APPRECIATE IT.
ROANOKE, DAYLAMI WITH CAL
CHAMBER. RESPECTFULLY IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO AB 2930, AS IT'S
CURRENTLY IN PRINT, WE THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR ENGAGING WITH US ON
THIS TOPIC OVER THE LAST YEAR,
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE ARE
LARGELY ALIGNED WITH HER GOAL IN
PRINCIPLE, BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION ARE SERIOUS
PROBLEMS, AND OUR MEMBER
COMPANIES WANT TO BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION WHEN IT COMES TO HOW TO
SOLVE FOR THE PROBLEM. IN THE
CONTEXT OF AUTOMATED DECISION
TOOLS, WE DO URGE A MEASURED
APPROACH TO AVOID OVERREGULATION
OF THESE TOOLS, WHICH CAN
CONTRIBUTE IN MANY POSITIVE AND
VALUABLE WAYS TO SOCIETY.
CRITICALLY AS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED
EARLIER, THEY CAN ACTUALLY HELP
REDUCE SOME OF THE BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION WE HAVE
HISTORICALLY SEEN RESULT FROM
HUMAN HUMAN DECISION MAKERS.
EXCUSE ME, THUS, OVERREGULATION
CAN ULTIMATELY LEAD TO THE
OPPOSITE OUTCOME INTENDED,
CREATING A CHILLING EFFECT THAT
SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERMINES THEIR
UTILITY AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENT.
WHILE OUR CONCERNS ARE RATHER
EXTENSIVE, OUR MEMBERS HAVE
WORKED HARD TO IDENTIFY THE FIVE
ISSUES THAT WE FEEL ARE OF
GENERAL APPLICABILITY THAT HAVE
TO BE ADDRESSED. UNDERSTANDING,
OF COURSE, THAT PRIORITIES MAY
SHIFT AS THE BILL APPLIES IN
DIFFERENT WAYS TO DIFFERENT
INDUSTRIES, BUT FIRST, THE SCOPE
OF THE BILL IS, FOR LACK OF A
BETTER WORD, ENORMOUS. THE
BREADTH AND VAGUENESS OF TERMS
SUCH AS ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION AND CONSEQUENTIAL
DECISION AND CONTROLLING FACTORS
SWEEP IN ALL KINDS OF ADT, BOTH
LOW RISK AND HIGH RISK USES AND
OUTCOMES, AS WELL AS BUSINESSES
OF ALL SIZES AND ACROSS EVERY
INDUSTRY. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
REMEMBER THAT ALGORITHMIC
DISCRIMINATION IS
DISCRIMINATION. EVEN UNDER THE
STATUS QUO. SO THE CREATION OF A
NEW CONSTRUCT FOR A SINGLE TYPE
OF TECHNOLOGY THAT IS TOTALLY
DIVORCED FROM OUR EXISTING
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS THAT
HAVE PROVIDED CLEAR GUIDANCE TO
BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS AS TO
WHAT IS UNLAWFUL. IT LENDS TO
CONFUSION AND POTENTIAL
OVERBREADTH WHEN IT COMES TO THE
BILL'S NOTICE AND PROVISION,
NOTICE PROVISIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW CONSUMERS
TO EFFECTIVELY OPT OUT OF AN ADT
WHEN TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE. WE
BELIEVE THE BILL IS IMPRACTICAL
IF NOT TOTALLY UNWORKABLE IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE
TECHNICALLY ANYTHING IS
TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE WITH ENOUGH
TIME AND MONEY. BUT WE CAN'T
ALWAYS PROVIDE THAT IN EVERY
SCENARIO. AS WE OUTLINED IN OUR
LETTER, OTHER MAJOR ISSUES IN
OUR LETTER, OF COURSE, INCLUDE
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS TO
REDUCE FEARS THAT ASSESSMENTS
WILL BE USED AS LITIGATION
FODDER, AND TO ENCOURAGE CANDOR
FOR WHICH WE BELIEVE IS
NECESSARY TO MAKE THESE
ASSESSMENTS AS EFFECTIVE AS
POSSIBLE. ALSO, A SINGLE
ENFORCER IS NEEDED TO ENSURE
CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION
APPLICATION ACROSS THE STATE, AS
WELL AS PREEMPTION TO AVOID
CONFLICT WITH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PASSED BY LOCAL
ENTITIES AND AGENCIES, BOTH TO
ENSURE CONSISTENCY AND
WORKABILITY, BUT ALSO TO
PRESERVE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS
LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR ON
THESE ISSUES OF MASSIVE
IMPORTANCE, ACROSS THE STATE.
AND FINALLY, WE ARE STILL
REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS, THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. BUT WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT IN OUR INITIAL
LOOK THAT THEY APPEAR TO
POTENTIALLY TAKE US FURTHER
APART FROM RESOLUTION IN SOME
ASPECTS, ESPECIALLY IN REPLACING
THE CONTROLLING FACTOR STANDARD
WITH AN EVEN MORE AMBIGUOUS AND
OVERLY BROAD, SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR
STANDARD. SO FOR THESE AND OTHER
REASONS, WE DO RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE TODAY, BUT WE ACTUALLY
REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR AND ARE WORKING
ON PROVIDING YOU SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. CAN'T WAIT FOR A
YEAR. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
DIÆN RAFEAL WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA LIFE SCIENCES, WE'RE
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED, TO
EXEMPT THE LIFE SCIENCES. THANK
YOU. SORRY DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON
BEHALF OF TECHNET, ALIGNED MY
COMMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER, RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED.
IT MAKES AN APPEARANCE. CAMERON
DIMITRI WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PROPERTY
CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
IN OPPOSITION, MIKE ROBSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN STAFFING
ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA
STAFFING PROFESSIONALS AND
ALIGNED WITH THE CHAMBER. BUT
WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED OUR OWN
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR AND LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH PEOPLE.
CARA BUNDER, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION. RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION ALIGNED WITH CAL
CHAMBERS COMMENTS. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS
NAOMI PEDRONI ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE
AND ALSO THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA LIFE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES. THANK YOU,
COURTNEY JENSEN, ON BEHALF OF
THE CIVIL JUSTICE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA, IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU, INDIRA MCDONALD, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE
BANKERS ASSOCIATION, ALSO
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. MIKE, GO ON. THANK
YOU, I HAD A CHANCE. WE TALKED
ABOUT THIS BILL, AND SO, I'LL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY, BUT I DO
THINK, BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A
BIT OF ISSUES WITH ADT,
ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO
EXISTING BIASES. A LOT OF OUR
TECHNOLOGY, FEEDS IN WHAT'S FED
INTO IT IS HUMAN BEINGS. AND WE
HAVE OUR BIASES. AND INSTEAD OF,
OUR TECHNOLOGY FIXING AND
FILTERING OUT OUR BIASES AND
KICKING OUT A GOOD PRODUCT, IT
JUST EXACERBATES THEM. RIGHT IT
SEEMS LIKE IT LEARNS IT EVEN
HARDER, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS
IS BROAD, AND A LOT OF ASPECTS.
AND SO WHEN GOING THROUGH SOME
OF THE OPPOSITION LETTERS, I
FOUND MYSELF AGREEING WITH SOME
OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY MAKE.
AND SO I DO THINK THAT THERE IS
WORK TO BE DONE. BUT I ALSO AND
I'VE ALREADY SHARED THIS STUFF
WITH YOU, SO BUT I TRUST YOU AS
AN AUTHOR, SO I KNOW THAT YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT WORK, BUT I
JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THAT I
THINK THERE IS GREAT BENEFIT TO
LEGISLATING IN THIS SPACE, LIKE
I SAID, BECAUSE OUR BIASES ARE
AMPLIFIED WHEN THEY'RE INTO
TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF FILTERED
OUT AND WE NEED TO FIX THAT. AND
SO IF WORKING THROUGH AND
PROVIDING LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE
AND PUTTING SOMETHING IN A LAW
THAT DOES THAT IS A IS A IS A
GOOD THING. BUT I THINK THE WAY
IT IS, IN TERMS OF SOME ASPECTS
OF IT BEING NOT JUST BROAD, BUT
WHO THIS APPLIES TO VERSUS NOT
THE LEVEL OF, HUMAN BEINGS WHEN
THEY ENTER INTO IT TO MAKE A
DECISION. WHAT WHAT IS SOUL
MEAN? ALL OF THAT, AND I WON'T
BELABOR THE REST OF THE
COMMITTEE BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE
ALL READY TO GO. BUT JUST
EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT
EARLIER, I TRUST THAT YOU'LL
FACTOR THAT ALL IN. THANK YOU.
AND AS YOU HEARD FROM OPPOSITION
, WE MET WITH THEM BEFORE WE
INTRODUCED IT OVER A YEAR AGO,
WE ARE STILL AWAITING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT THEY ARE GOING
TO. I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO
PROVIDE ME. I JUST KNOW THEY'RE
COMING. BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO
THAT BECAUSE I THINK PART OF IT
IS YOU WERE RAISING THINGS TODAY
THAT NOBODY HAD YET RAISED, IN
PART BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN
THAT. BUT I THINK AS WE SEE THAT
AND AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK,
WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT
MORE. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER
DIXON, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT
THIS LATE HOUR, JUST A QUICK
QUESTION. COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY
THE ENFORCEMENT, TWO AGENCIES,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL. CIVIL. YEAH SO IT'S
THE CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT HAS
AUTHORITY OVER THE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT SO THEY CAN ASK FOR
THEM. AND THEN THERE'S SOME
ENFORCEMENT. BUT IT'S ALL AND
ACTUALLY WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS
TODAY BECAUSE LAST YEAR WHEN I
PRESENTED THIS AND IT HAD A
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH
HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BILL,
MANY OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES
SAID THAT WAS THEIR STICKING
POINT. SO HOPEFULLY THAT CAN
BRING YOU ON BECAUSE NOW IT JUST
HAS GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH AG AND LOCAL, SO
PROSECUTORS INVOLVED, I'M
GETTING TIRED. SORRY. BOTH
AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED. YES. SO
THE SUITS CAN BE BROUGHT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS
WELL. YEAH. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON. YEAH. IN SOME
WAYS, I FEEL LIKE WE TOOK, LAST
YEAR'S BILL, WHICH I HAD SOME
CONCERNS WITH AND, LIKE, GAVE IT
A LITTLE BIT OF STEROIDS AND,
MUCH BIGGER, AMBITIOUS, GOAL
HERE. Ó WAS JUST AS AMBITIOUS
LAST YEAR, SIR. YEAH, I YEAH, IT
WAS. WELL HEY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW
YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE I DO
HAVE, JUST LIKE LAST YEAR
CONCERNS JUST TO KIND OF BUILD
ON SOME OF THE, CONCERNS BECAUSE
I'VE SEEN THIS DEPLOYED. I LIKE
DEFINING, YOU KNOW, WHAT AN
AUTOMATED DECISION TOOL IS IN
THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S A GOOD
THING, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE,
I DON'T BELIEVE, HAS YET BEEN
DEFINED. ALTHOUGH I THINK
THERE'S ANOTHER BILL SOMEWHERE.
WE PASSED IT OUT ON CONSENT
TODAY. TODAY. OKAY. OH, THAT IS
RIGHT. YES, I DID, I SAID THAT
WAS FINE, SO WE WILL HAVE A
DEFINITION FOR THAT. SO THAT'S A
GOOD THING. SO I THINK THOSE
THOSE ARE SOME GOOD, GOOD ITEMS
HERE. AND THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NO, I'LL
TELL YOU, SOME CONCERNS I HAVE
IS THE, THE IT IS VERY BROAD.
THE CRD ALSO HAVING A POTENTIAL
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. WHAT I'VE
KIND OF NOTICED, IS THEY SEEM TO
THEY TEND TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS THAT MAKE NEWS A LOT.
AND THAT HAS CONCERNED ME A BIT,
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET TO IS A AN AREA
WHERE SOME OF THE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ARE WHEN OBVIOUSLY
THINGS ARE DISCRIMINATED, MARIE,
OR THEIR DECISIONS BEING MADE
THAT DO HAVE BIASES. AND I DON'T
THINK THAT'S A BAD REASON, BUT
I'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH SOME
OF THE ENFORCEMENT ON THAT SIDE,
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT
NECESSARILY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO, YOU KNOW, GET INVOLVED WITH.
BUT, SO WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES.
I HOPE THE OPPOSITION I SOUNDS
LIKE IT'S, THAT'S, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO BE ABLE TO WORK IT OUT,
BUT I HOPE YOU DO. SO SO. WELL.
I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU
WERE SAYING THERE. WELL, I GOT A
QUESTION, THOUGH. YOU SAID THAT,
YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO WORK IT
OUT FOR A YEAR, RIGHT? IS THAT
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SO I
WAS A LITTLE. I WAS GIVING MISS
DELANEY A LITTLE BIT OF A HARD
TIME, SO. NO, THEY IT WAS HELD
IN APPROPRIATIONS LAST YEAR.
YES, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A
CHANCE. ACTUALLY. WE WENT
THROUGH TWO COMMITTEES, GOT OUT
WITH, UNANIMOUS DEMOCRATIC
SUPPORT, I WILL SAY. AND THEN
WAS HELD IN APPROPRIATIONS
BECAUSE THERE IS COST HERE. I'M
NOT GOING TO LIE, MADAM
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR, AND, AND
SO WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE
TO I MEAN, IT'S SORT OF AS WHEN
THINGS STALL, THEY STALL. AND SO
WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE. SO THAT
WASN'T WHOLLY FAIR OF ME. I WILL
STAND CORRECTED, BUT, NO. SO
THEY ARE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
AND TO THE CREDIT OF THE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, THIS IT IS ACTUALLY
EQUALLY AS AMBITIOUS. WE DIDN'T
ADD ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS
THAT WERE NOT IN IT LAST YEAR.
SO THAT REMAINS THE SAME, SO BUT
IT IS A LOT OF INDUSTRIES AND A
LOT OF THEIR MEMBERS ARE
AFFECTED BY THIS. AND SO IT HAS
TAKEN THE CHAMBER, THEY HAVE
ACTUALLY TAKEN ON, AND I WANT TO
CREDIT THEM WITH SORT OF TRYING
TO GET CONSENSUS AROUND SOME OF
IT TO HELP WORK WITH US, WHICH
IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT ROLE FOR
THE CHAMBER TO PLAY. BUT THAT IS
HARD. SO THEY ARE DOING THEIR
BEST, BUT WE JUST HAVEN'T
ENABLED TO, SEE THAT YET. YEAH.
AND SO I AM ACTUALLY OPTIMISTIC
AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR
THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BUT I
HOPE THEY ARE OPTIMISTIC AS WELL
THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A
MEETING OF THE MINDS. BUT I
WON'T SPEAK FOR HER A LOT OF
OPTIMISM, AND THE APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIRS NHIÀU I HEAR THIS YEAR.
SO, IN TERMS OF THIS IMPACT
ASSESSMENT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION
ON THAT IN IT, SOME PEOPLE, I
IMAGINE, CREATE AUTOMATED
DECISION TOOLS WITHIN THEIR OWN
COMPANY TO HELP DO WHATEVER THEY
DO. RIGHT. SO IF IT'S FILTER
THROUGH, YOU KNOW, MAYBE
POTENTIALLY DISCRIMINATORY OR
DISCRIMINATION CAN OCCUR, HIRING
PRACTICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
FILTERING OUT RESUMES OR
WHATEVER. YES. ARE THEY GOING TO
BE REQUIRED TO DO IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS? SO IF YOU DEVELOP
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, YES. AND
I WILL SAY ONE OF THE EXAMPLES
AND TO THEIR CREDIT, I THINK
AMAZON ACTUALLY PUT IT OUT
THEMSELVES WHEN THEY HAD CREATED
THEIR OWN TOOL FOR HIRING. IT
WAS THEY TESTED IT, IT WAS
BIASED. AND THEN I DON'T BELIEVE
THEY EVER DEPLOYED IT. THEY DID
NOT DEPLOY IT AND THEY ACTUALLY
PUT THAT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC.
BUT THEY DID DO AN IMPACT
ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE THE
DEVELOPER OF THAT TOOL. AND SO I
WILL SAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THIS BILL DOES THAT I THINK DOES
MAKE PART OF WHY I'M OPTIMISTIC
IS THAT MOST RESPONSIBLE
DEVELOPERS, INCLUDING WHO YOU
HEARD FROM, DO THIS LIKE I'M
ACTUALLY NOT ASKING FOR WHAT IS
NOT ALREADY STANDARD PRACTICE
AMONGST THE GOOD AI DEVELOPERS.
AND SO IF YOU ARE AMAZON AND
YOU'RE DOING THIS, ODDS ARE
YOU'RE ALREADY DOING AN IMPACT
ASSESSMENT BECAUSE IF AMAZON
WOULD HAVE DEPLOYED THAT TOOL,
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SUED FOR
DISCRIMINATION. RIGHT. SO THERE
ISN'T THEY HAVE THEIR OWN
INCENTIVE TO NOT TEST THESE
TOOLS. RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY WANT
TO PUT OUT TOOLS THAT ARE NOT
DISCRIMINATORY. SO BIG COMPANIES
ARE PROBABLY DOING IT. THERE ARE
ALSO MANY EXAMPLES, THOUGH, OF,
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE APARTMENT
OWNERS THAT MIGHT BUY A TOOL
THAT HELPS THEM LOOK AT RESUMES,
THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPING THAT
TOOL. RIGHT THEY'RE JUST
DEPLOYING THAT TOOL, AND SO ONE
OF THE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO
CLARIFY IN THE BILL, BECAUSE WE
REALIZED JUST RECENTLY THAT IT'S
NOT INCREDIBLY CLEAR, IS THAT,
IF A DEPLOYER BUYS AN OFF THE
SHELF PRODUCT AND USES IT AS
INTENDED AND DOES NOT MODIFY IT,
THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE, RIGHT?
SO YOUR AVERAGE APARTMENT OWNER
DOESN'T HAVE TO GO DO AN IMPACT
ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE WORKDAY,
RIGHT. THE COMPANY THAT MADE IT
TESTED IT FOR A CERTAIN USE. AND
YOU'RE USING IT FOR THAT USE. SO
WE CAN TRUST THAT THAT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ENSURES IT'S NOT
DISCRIMINATORY. Kò DOES THAT
MAKE SENSE? YEAH, IT DOES I
GUESS I WOULD SAY IS THERE'S AN
ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT IN HERE.
RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING FROM
HAVING NOTHING ESSENTIALLY
NOTHING ON THE BOOKS ON THIS,
ALTHOUGH A LOT OF COMPANIES ARE
ALREADY DOING IT. AND THEN
THERE'S AN IT GOES STRAIGHT, YOU
KNOW, THERE'S AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM, WHERE THIS IS STILL
NEW AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING
WHERE CRD CAN BRING, LITIGATION
OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR
THESE OTHER ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN
BRING LITIGATION, AND IT IT'S
LIKE, LET'S JUST CREATE THE
IMPACT REPORTS FIRST AND THEN
SEE HOW THAT IF THERE'S A
PROBLEM, THEN MAYBE WE ADD
ENFORCEMENT TO IT AT SOME POINT.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? BUT
MAYBE YOU DISAGREE. BUT I DON'T
KNOW WHAT ARE WE ENFORCING YET.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EVEN
GOING TO BE AN ISSUE WITH THIS,
WITH THIS PRODUCT. I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY PUTTING OUT THE PRODUCT
IS LIKE, HEY, I GOT A
DISCRIMINATORY AUTOMATED
DECISION TOOL HERE, RIGHT? SO
BUT IF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
SHOWS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW GOING
TO THE CRD, THAT IT IS THEY DO
IT AND THEN IT SHOWS IT'S
DISCRIMINATORY AND THEY CONTINUE
TO DO THE ACTION ANYWAYS. I
THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE
PUBLIC. RIGHT. AND TO BE CLEAR,
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CHANGES IN
THE BILL FROM LAST YEAR IS
ACTUALLY THAT IT USED TO IN THE
OLD VERSION OF IT WAS ANNUAL,
ALTHOUGH THE TIME. OKAY. THANK
YOU. ANNUALLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO
SEND THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS TO
CRD. THE BILL NOW DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT. IT REQUIRES THAT
IF CRD REQUESTS THAT YOU MUST
SEND THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TO
THEM. AND SO REALLY, I DON'T
THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE
HERE. AND IT DOES REQUIRE THE
IMPACT ASSESSMENT SHOW THAT IT
WAS TESTED THAT IT YOU KNOW, IF
SOMETHING WAS FOUND TO BE
DISCRIMINATORY, WHAT THEIR PLAN
WAS TO CORRECT THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION, ETC. AND SO I
JUST I GUESS I AGAIN, MY ETERNAL
OPTIMISM, MR. VICE CHAIR, BUT I
GUESS I DON'T SEE A LOT I THINK
THAT WHAT THIS DOES IS IT SAYS
YOU HAVE TO DO IT, YOU HAVE TO
DO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. AND IF
YOU FIND DISCRIMINATION, YOU GOT
TO FIX IT. RIGHT. AND AS LONG AS
YOU DO THOSE THINGS, THIS BILL,
AS FAR AS I SEE IT, ALTHOUGH I
LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR,
AMENDMENTS, ISN'T THAT HARD TO
COMPLY WITH. AND AGAIN, AS I
SAID, NOT EVERYBODY'S DOING
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, RIGHT. THE
BEST CLASS ARE. AND SO WE KNOW
YOU CAN DO IT. AND WE SHOULD
BRING EVERYONE UP TO THAT
STANDARD. AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE
WORKDAY HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE
DOING THIS RIGHT. SO FOR THEM,
THE IDEA THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT ASK
TO SEE THEIR IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AND SHOW THAT THEY WEREN'T
DISCRIMINATING, AND WE DID ADD
ADDITIONAL TRADE SECRET
PROTECTIONS. THAT'S ANOTHER
AMENDMENT THAT WE TOOK, YOU
KNOW, IS NOT A SCARY THING
BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS NOT
HARD, AND IT IS WHAT A LOT OF
COMPANIES ARE ALREADY DOING.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS. YEAH,
I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. JUST WANTED
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THE BILL FORWARD. I KNOW YOU
WERE INSPIRED, I THINK, BY
BIDEN'S, EO OR Â, ON THE ON THE
TOPIC AND WANT TO MAKE A MOTION
TO MOVE IT. I KNOW YOU'LL WORK
WITH OPPOSITION, WHICH YOU
ALWAYS DO, AND ALSO JUST WANT TO
THANK WORKDAY FOR STICKING THEIR
NECK OUT A LITTLE BIT HERE AND
BEING ACTIVELY PART OF THE
SOLUTION ON THIS. I THINK IT'S A
SUPER HELPFUL WHEN THE COMPANIES
COME FORWARD AND TRY TO WORK
WITH US ON BILLS THAT ACTUALLY,
YOU KNOW, IT GIVES US MORE
INSIGHT IN HOW TO ACTUALLY
IMPLEMENT THIS STUFF. SO THOSE
ARE MY REMARKS. THAT'S IT. THANK
YOU MISS. AND I DO, I DO HAVE A
COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. AND BUT BUT
FIRST I WANT TO SAY AND YOU
KNOW, FOR THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE,
MISS BAUER KHN IS WORKING AT A
NATIONAL LEVEL WITH A
MULTI-STATE GROUP TO TRY TO
REALLY COME UP WITH, WITH A BILL
THAT'S THAT IS CONSISTENT ACROSS
THE US. SO YOUR NAME IS OUT
THERE. WHENEVER WE'RE AT NCCUSL,
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL
AND TRYING TO GET IT RIGHT. AND
WE DO KNOW THAT INDUSTRY HAS
TALKED ABOUT WE NEED TO REGULATE
THIS. SO I'M HOPEFULLY, THIS
TIME THROUGH, YOU CAN COME TO,
SOME CONSENSUS WITH THE CHAMBER
AND ALL THE GROUPS THAT THEY
REPRESENT. BUT I HAVE TWO ISSUES
THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE
CHAMBER. BUT WE WERE CURIOUS
ABOUT THEM. ALSO, IS YOU
SWITCHED THE DEFINITION FROM
CONTROLLING TO SUBSTANTIAL IN
THE, AUTOMATED DECISION TOOL,
AND, AND CONTROLLING IS
BASICALLY IT'S COMPLETELY
AUTOMATED AND SUBSTANTIAL IS
THAT THERE IS HUMAN INTERACTION.
SO WHY WOULD THOSE THINGS BE
BROUGHT TOGETHER? DOESN'T THAT
KIND OF MUDDLE THE ISSUE YOU
SWITCHED, YOU MEAN? RIGHT. WE
SWITCHED IT FROM CONTROLLING. WE
SWITCHED IT. YEAH. SORRY, I JUST
SAID YOU SAID BROUGHT TOGETHER.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
WERE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I DID, SO,
I MEAN, SO WHY WOULD I SWITCH IT
WHEN YOU SAY WHEN I'M WITH
CONTROLLING, IT IS COMPLETELY
AUTOMATED. YES. OKAY. SWITCHED
TO. YES. SUBSTANTIAL. SO IT IS
REALLY SUBSTANTIAL AND
CONTROLLING. YOU'RE PUTTING
EVERYTHING OKAY. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFICATION. I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION,
BUT YEAH. SO THE REASON WE MADE
THAT CHANGE WAS WE HEARD FROM
SOME OF THE, PRIVACY GROUPS,
CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS. I DON'T
KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DESCRIBE
THEM, THAT'S AN ACCURATE
DESCRIPTION, THAT THEY WERE
CONCERNED OF A SITUATION WHERE
YOU BASICALLY HAD THE TOOL
MAKING THE DECISION. SO YOU HAVE
A TOOL, BUT THEN YOU GET A HUMAN
THAT'S SITTING THERE AND
PRESSING A BUTTON. RIGHT. AND
THAT THAT WAS THE LOOPHOLE THAT
WE HAD CREATED. AND I DON'T
THINK AND AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T HAD
THIS CONVERSATION YET, BUT I
THINK WE WILL, I DON'T THINK
THAT THEY WOULD BE UPSET BY THAT
BEING LIKE SAYING YOU CAN'T JUST
HAVE A PERSON WHO'S PRESSING
OKAY TO WHATEVER THE ADT IS
DECIDING THAT IS STILL THE ADT
MAKING THE DECISION. RIGHT. AND
SO WE USE SUBSTANTIAL IN PART
BECAUSE IT IS DEFINED IN LAW.
AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD
SHIFT. IT'S SOMETHING THIS
COMMITTEE HAS USED IN OTHER
LEGISLATION. BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY
SOMETHING WE'RE OPEN TO TALKING
ABOUT. AND THEN MAYBE YOU CAN
JUST RESPOND TO SURE. I THINK
THE WAY THAT THE BILL IS IN
PRINT, IT SAYS A CONTROLLING
FACTOR, NOT THE CONTROLLING
FACTOR, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR,
ISSUES. I DO SEE THE ISSUE THAT
YOU'RE RAISING. I THINK WE DON'T
READ THE LANGUAGE TO OPERATE
THAT WAY AS IT'S IN PRINT. WE DO
HAVE CONCERNS, THOUGH, THAT
MOVING TO SUBSTANTIAL MAKES ANY
ISSUES THAT WE HAD. IN TERMS OF
OVERBREADTH MUCH WORSE, FOR A
LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WE DO
THINK THAT THAT EXACERBATES THE
ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH THE
LANGUAGE. SO OKAY. AND THEN ONE
OTHER THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND
I'M AGAIN, THERE'S A LONG TRIP.
YES, YES. AND AGAIN, I THINK
THAT WHAT THE OTHER SIDE WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT IS PROBABLY
SOMETHING THAT THE CHAMBER CAN
WE CAN WORK ON. I CAN CONFIRM
THAT. YES YES. WE'RE NOT TALKING
ABOUT THE BUTTON PRESSES. SO
THEN THE ONE OTHER THING THAT WE
REALLY HAVE TALKED ABOUT AT A,
AT A, AT NCCUSL IS NOT TO
REINVENT THE WHEEL. SO, SO WITH,
WITH AI AND TECHNOLOGY,
SOMETIMES THERE ARE ALREADY
DEFINITIONS, AND YOU DON'T
NECESSARILY NEED TO COME UP WITH
A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION. SO SO,
THE SPECIFIC, THE SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE IS WHY NOT A CROSS
REFERENCE, IS IT FEHA AND UNRUH
FOR ALGORITHMIC DISCRIMINATION.
SO THOSE ARE ALREADY TERMS THAT
ARE USED FOR DISCRIMINATION. I
HAVEN'T I MEAN, TO BE TOTALLY
HONEST, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT
THAT. SO BUT I'M HAPPY TO I
DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. OKAY. AND
THAT'S WHY THIS PROCESS IS SO
HEALTHY. YEAH. NO. EXACTLY.
YEAH. IT IS, IT IS, WE DON'T
WANT A WHOLE NEW LANGUAGE. YEAH.
I IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS, YOU
KNOW, IN HOUSING, IF THERE'S
100, IF THERE ARE ALREADY,
REGULATIONS FOR DISCRIMINATION,
YOU WOULD, IT WOULD BE, PRUDENT
OR CONSISTENT TO ADOPT THAT AS
OPPOSED TO ANOTHER SET OF
REGULATIONS. SO I HEAR YOU,
THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS WITH,
WITH THAT, WE HAD A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WICKS AND A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LOWENTHAL. AND I THINK THIS GOES
TO JUDICI TWO. YES. OKAY. AND
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION. IT IS I MEAN, I DO I
LOVE WHEN PEOPLE ASK QUESTIONS
ABOUT MY BILLS AND THINGS. I
HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF. THAT'S WHAT
THESE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ARE
ABOUT. SO MORE WORK TO BE DONE,
AND I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL
FOR THE DISCUSSION AND KNOW THAT
I'M COMMITTED TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON IT. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT,
CAN I PLEASE HAVE SECRETARY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM
NUMBER 12 AB 2930 BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN. THE MOTION
IS TO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. BAUER-KAHAN
I BAUER-KAHAN I PATTERSON.
PATTERSON NÓ. BRIAN. BRIAN I
DIXON. DIXON. NÓ. HOOVER.
HOOVER. NÓ. IRWIN IRWIN I.
LOWENTHAL. LOWENTHAL. I ORTEGA.
ORTEGA. I WARD. WARD I. WICKS.
WICKS, I WILSON, I WILSON, I
IT'S EIGHT THREE. THAT BILL IS
OUT 8 TO 3. AND SHALL WE, START
WITH THE. OH THE WORK ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AND THEN GO
THROUGH THE THIS BUILDING,
PLEASE? YEP. YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE
WE'RE STARTING WITH THE MISSED
VOTES. SO THE, THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, PLEASE. OKAY. CONSENT
CALENDAR. BRIAN BRIAN A HOOVER.
HOOVER. I LOWENTHAL. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. LOWENTHAL
LOWENTHAL. I OH. THANK YOU, WARD
. WARD. I. WILSON. WILSON I
CONSENT CALENDAR 11 ZERO, ON
ITEM NUMBER ONE, AB 1788 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER QUIRK-SILVA, THE
MOTION IS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
THE VOTE IS SIX ZERO. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN AYE. HOOVER.
HOOVER. AYE. LOWENTHAL WARD.
WARD AYE. WILSON WILSON. AYE.
DID YOU CALL LOWENTHAL? YEAH
OKAY. OKAY. ON AB 1788.
LOWENTHAL AYE, ITEM NUMBER TWO,
AB 2050 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PELLERIN. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
THE VOTE IS THREE ZERO. CHAIR
VOTING AYE. PATTERSON PATTERSON.
NØ HOOVER. I'M SORRY, WHAT IS
THIS, AB 2050, ITEM NUMBER TWO.
NOT VOTING. HOOVER. NOT VOTING.
LOWENTHAL AYE. LOWENTHAL. AYE.
ORTEGA ORTEGA. AYE. WARD. WARD
AYE. WICKS. WICKS. AYE. WILSON.
WILSON AYE. EIGHT. EIGHT ONE. DO
YOU WANT ME TO. OKAY GIVE ME 20.
50 IS 8 TO 8 TO ONE. WHERE AM I?
OKAY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 2871.
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MAIENSCHEIN.
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. THE VOTE IS FIVE ZERO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
PATTERSON. PATTERSON AYE.
HOOVER. HOOVER. AYE. LOWENTHAL
LOWENTHAL. AYE. ORTEGA. ORTEGA
AYE. WARD. WARD. AYE. WICKS
WICKS. AYE. AND THAT IS 11 ZERO.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AB 3080 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ELLEN ALANIZ.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. THE VOTE IS NINE
ZERO, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE
AND THE VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
WARD WARD NOT VOTING, WICKS.
WICKS. AYE. THAT'S TEN ZERO.
ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 3138 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WILSON. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
THE VOTE IS NINE ZERO, THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE AND VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. WARD. WARD AYE. WILSON I'M
SORRY. WICKS. WICKS. AYE IT IS
11 ZERO. THAT'S OUT. 11 ZERO.
SORRY LEANINGS ARE RIGHT NEXT TO
EACH OTHER, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AB
3139 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER.
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED. THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, THE VOTE IS FIVE
ZERO. THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. AYE. BRIAN
HOOVER, DID HE LEAVE A YES.
HOOVER. AYE ORTEGA. ORTEGA. AYE
AND BRIAN, THIS IS AB 3139. AYE.
BRIAN. AYE WICKS. WICKS. AYE.
WILSON WILSON. AYE GOOD ON
EVERYTHING. OKAY. THAT IS ZERO.
THIS YEAR THAT WAS OKAY. TWO OF
THEM WERE ON CONSENT. THIS ONE
WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THE NEXT
ONE. OKAY. YOU NEED A FIVE.
SUPPOSED TO. I'LL JUST DO
SOMEONE SAYING SOMETHING 30. I'M
SORRY, SHE WAS LOOKING, I
THOUGHT, I DON'T KNOW, I'M LIKE,
WHO'S TALKING, I CAN DO 32 1131
LOWENTHAL OKAY. ITEM NUMBER NINE
AB 3211 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WICKS. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS IS
AMENDED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. THE VOTE IS FIVE ZERO
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. IRWIN. IRWIN.
AYE. LOWENTHAL HI. LOWENTHAL.
AYE. ORTEGA. ORTEGA. AYE WARD.
WARD. AYE. WILSON BECAUSE SHE
COMMITTED TO WORK ON THE PENALTY
ISSUE, I OKAY, THAT IS TEN ZERO.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, AB 3172 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWENTHAL. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOUR
DONE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THE
VOTE IS 10 TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. ORTEGA. ORTEGA. AYE. THANK
YOU. 11 ZERO THE BILLS ARE.
WE'RE GOOD. COMMITTEE HEARING IS
ADJOURNED. ARE YOU DRIVING OR
ARE YOU? OKAY.