Comité Technology and Infrastructure Innovation de la Cámara de Representantes, 11 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

110 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:17:49

   Hey, good afternoon, everybody.

2. 0:17:55

   Our apologies. We understand that some folks were here at 2:00. Uh, the speaker had pushed everything back by 1 hour, so hopefully it didn't mess up everyone's, um, plans. Uh, what we wanna be able to do today is we're gonna hear three bills. The first bill we're gonna hear is from Representative Kendrick, House Bill 478. Representative Kendrick, would you like to, uh, go from there?

3. 0:18:18

   Yeah.

4. 0:18:18

   Okay.

5. 0:18:21

   Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This is a bill that we discussed, uh, last year. Uh, so as- there's a substitute to HB 478, LC590118S, um, and there's some additional information I'll, um, refer you to as well in your packet. But this bill would require a disclosure, um, to be put on AI and AI-generated, um, content to shine a little sunshine so that people, uh, know when images and things that are being put into the commerce space are actually AI-generated.

6. 0:18:58

   Um, it's getting more and more sophisticated, as, uh, members of this committee know. We had a whole committee, study committee on it. Um, and of course, we passed it, the, uh, the deep fake bill, well, that tried to handle and s- some of what AI, um, is, is being used for. But this would just put, make sure that, um, businesses would have to put that disclaimer on there. Um, there were a few concerns last year about the definition of, uh, small businesses and making sure that we don't penalize our very small businesses, and I didn't wanna do that.

7. 0:19:32

   So you'll see on line 20 through 21 and 28 that we narrowed down, um, who this bill would actually apply to, to make sure we don't encapsulate, uh, our very small businesses that may not have the capacity or resources to put that disclaimer on. And then there was a question about jurisdiction. Um, and every s- well, the State of Georgia has a, a long-arm statute, so as long as they are, um, doing, uh, uh, significant business here in the state, there should not be a problem with getting jurisdiction over others outside of the state that might have images that are targeted to citizens within the state.

8. 0:20:10

   And then there is a, a copy, a photo example of some happy dogs that are inside of your package that just gives you an example of what that might look like. And, um, and I also included a report, um, just to underscore the importance of, um, trying to put some parameters on AI. Uh, I think there is some federal legislation as well as the administration is looking to preempt some, um, portions of AI technology. But I do think it's worth to continue having the discussion as AI gets more and more sophisticated.

9. 0:20:44

   And, uh, you will see in the financial world, uh, especially, there are, um, there's a big push to put a lot of disclaimers on it. So, uh, we are just, you know, following what, um, you know, the financial industry is already doing and making sure that it's even broader than, um, you know, what you would see on your investments or things like that, and making sure that it expands to, uh, any AI-generated content. So with that, I will stop talking.

10. 0:21:14

    Thank you, Representative Kendrick. Um, I should've noted, and I apologize to the committee, um, two bills today are hearing-only. That's 478 and 1230. So what I'd like to be able to do on both of those bills is get out as many questions as we can this week and bring them both back next week. So this is not an intent not to bring them back, but to literally vet through everything this week. So, um, if we have questions for the representative, it'd be great to get them out today.

11. 0:21:44

    Um, if not, I know I have a couple.

12. 0:21:47

    Okay.

13. 0:21:50

    You have been literally saved from all of your colleagues other than me. So we'll make it, we'll make it really quick.

14. 0:21:55

    Okay.

15. 0:21:55

    Um, 'cause you, you and I can speak offline, Rep- Representative Kendrick. But, um, lines 46 to 47, it's almost like a dangling participle. "It shall be unlawful to omit disclosures required under subsection A of this code section."

16. 0:22:11

    Mm-hmm.

17. 0:22:11

    It doesn't go on to say what happens if you do such an unla- an unlawful act.

18. 0:22:16

    Mm-hmm.

19. 0:22:18

    Representative Kendrick, have you been considering what could possibly be-

20. 0:22:22

    Yeah

21. 0:22:22

    ... the repercussions for this act?

22. 0:22:26

    Um, I have, and I'm trying to make sure. Um, so, and, and I can get back with lay counsel, but it was my assumption that, like, on line two, um, because it was under the Fair Businesses Practices Act, um, which I think the AG is responsible for enforcing-

23. 0:22:43

    Right

24. 0:22:44

    ... that it would refer back to that act, but I see your point, and I can, I can make sure of that.

25. 0:22:49

    If, if it's possible, Representative Kendrick, to get with lay counsel and make that confirmation and then be able to report back to the committee next week-

26. 0:22:55

    Okay

27. 0:22:55

    ... I know I sure would appreciate that. So thank you so much. I think at this time, um, I don't know if everyone hasn't had their morning, or excuse me, their afternoon espresso, but you literally have been saved off of any questions. Uh, my request to the committee, in all seriousness, please get with the representative this week. We plan to take a look at this bill in a very serious manner. This is not just to have a conversation. So if you have any concerns, if you want to be able to, you know, have a way to perfect the bill, by all means, would you please get with the representative between now and next Wednesday, please?

28. 0:23:29

    Okay? Thank you. Representative Kendrick, thank you so much.

29. 0:23:31

    Thank you.

30. 0:23:32

    I appreciate it.

31. 0:23:32

    Thank you.

32. 0:23:33

    Um, we're gonna go ahead and go to House Bill 1230, if that's okay.

33. 0:23:43

    Kind of knock out the, I'll say the hearing-onlys first. Um, I wanna take it from here. Um, members of the committee, I bring to you 1230, uh, to try to deal with a- A serious issue that we're having at our areas of incarceration. For those of you not aware, in many of our prisons and any jails that happen to have open areas, which is not all of them, many jails, as you know, are just, I'll say, closed-off buildings, but those that do, in addition to prisons, we are having a serious issue with drones being used to fly in contraband.

34. 0:24:21

    So what we tried to do was get a better understanding from the FAA on who manages the land over the jail, over the prison. We know that was a question from last week, and Chairman, or Chairwoman Kemp's, Kamp's, uh, bill, and we wanted to make sure that we could answer that question. So it turns out the FAA does in fact give us the authority to regulate the air over the prison and the land adjacent to the prison that we own, meaning the state owns.

35. 0:24:54

    So what we tried to do with this bill was to effectively make it where an individual could not, and if you go to line 64, and effectively all the way through 77, you will see that they cannot take off, land, or operate over a jail or a prison, and we effectively have there that there are notices that are necessary. So we understand that there are prisons that are down, for instance, in the southern end of our state, that are adjacent to agricultural land.

36. 0:25:28

    We do not want anyone feeling as if their drone that's fertilizing or their drone that's looking at water content of soil is being somehow confused with a drone doing bad acts and doing some type of drop-off of contraband. So we go ahead, we have the sign, we have basically that this is prohibited, the launching, the landing, and then the operation over the area. And so hopefully that gives you just the information that you need between line 63 and line 77. Um, that's the bill. Like I said, this is hearing only. Uh, we'll come back to it next week.

37. 0:25:58

    I would welcome you to come and see me, call me, text me, smoke signal me, if you have questions or concerns, but I'm happy to take any questions right now if you'd like me to.

38. 0:26:13

    Representative Cox.

39. 0:26:15

    Yes. Um, thanks, Chairman, for the bill. Um, and this, this goes into, I guess, even the previous bill actually, but the challenge I'm seeing as it relates to drones is how are we going to catch or prove... I mean, do we have a situation in Georgia where they've caught these drones that are dropping contraband? I mean, what, what's, what's brought this bill forward?

40. 0:26:47

    What has brought this bill forward is effectively people within the prison system, the DOC, and then also certain sheriffs that do have, I'll call them open courtyard jails, for lack of a better misnomer, basically telling us that these drones or a drone is being used to drop cell phones, drugs, and things like that literally inside of the fences of the prisons and the jails.

41. 0:27:10

    Can I follow up?

42. 0:27:10

    Sure.

43. 0:27:11

    Um, have they captured, or they, have they gotten any of the drones that were dropping this off, or only, do you, do you know if they've actually been able to-

44. 0:27:21

    I don't have that knowledge. Um, I know that there is, of course, there's an interest in doing that, but I can't confirm with you if they have or not. Based on all the conversations I have, it sounds to me that no, we have not, quote, "taken down or captured any of these drones."

45. 0:27:35

    Okay.

46. 0:27:35

    And to be clear, this bill is not suggesting we can take down drones.

47. 0:27:39

    Sure, sure.

48. 0:27:39

    What we're trying to do is stop the operation thereof, of the drones, meaning the launching and the landing of those.

49. 0:27:45

    Is-

50. 0:27:45

    And of course, the operation over, with the exception, of course, of an FAA operator.

51. 0:27:50

    Is there a way to put, like, some type of geo-fence around the prisons that any drones within a certain distance, it would literally shut them down? Do we have any ideas that that could be a solution, not just... This is telling us what the problem is, but I don't know that we're solving it.

52. 0:28:08

    Yeah. So-

53. 0:28:09

    And that's all I've got.

54. 0:28:10

    So I don't want to name any certain sheriffs who may or may not be our sheriff, Representative Cox, uh, but a certain sheriff said it would be great if we could take a 12-gauge, and I don't believe he was being tongue in cheek with that. But obviously because if you look at, we have ag land around these prisons down in South Georgia, they may have legitimate reasons to have that drone fly, say, on the south end of the land that's adjacent to the prison, so we don't want to do anything to harm that drone that's doing its job as an ag drone. So I share your frustration that we don't have the ability to differentiate as quickly as we'd like to on, I'll quote, "a good actor drone and a bad actor drone," but right now the steps here are this.

55. 0:28:51

    But I'll tell you this, Rep Cox, I am happy to sit down with you and see if we can strengthen this to figure out the bad actor being caught here launching and landing, if we could do something more than that, 'cause I am very open to that, and I believe the DOC and the sheriffs would be also. Okay, thank you.

56. 0:29:10

    Representative Tran.

57. 0:29:12

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just actually wanted to comment about the geo-fencing, if that's all right.

58. 0:29:16

    Sure.

59. 0:29:16

    So I, I don't remember which state offhand, but they did try to geo-fence drones so that when they hit the fence, they can't go in there. Um, DGI turned around and pushed for legislation, I believe, so that they would not be responsible for that geo-fencing, the operator would be. Because they didn't want their, they themselves, if their drone accidentally breaks through the geo-fence, that they would be liable for whatever damages would be happening.

60. 0:29:47

    So just giving you a little background of what other states have done.

61. 0:29:51

    Thank you. I appreciate that. Chairman Prince.

62. 0:29:56

    Uh, yes. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, just going back to, uh, as you say, this is hearing only, uh, getting an opportunity to look at the, uh, you know, the punishment for this. Is misdemeanor, um- What we want, uh, if they're tr- if this ha- this happening, I mean, we're talking flying contraband, uh, s- and they're caught, should we, uh, maybe look at tightening that up a little bit?

63. 0:30:21

    So Chairman Prince, I would be open to edits on that and changes. I should have mentioned I've asked the Public Safety Committee to meet with us next ye- n- next week, uh, feeling as if a joint committee meeting between us and Public Safety, who someone who could naturally have been assigned this, this bill, uh, I think would be a good group of subject matter experts to kind of, I'll say, challenge each other on whether or not we should be holding it at misdemeanor or possibly raising it up to a felony. But I agree with you. We're trying to stop some very bad actors, especially the drugs are a horrible thing.

64. 0:30:53

    The cell phones and the actions that are being taken by the bad actors inside the prisons with those cell phones, between sex trafficking and things like that, we need to stop this contraband and do everything we can to stop it.

65. 0:31:03

    All right. Well, listen, I'll be willing to work with you on that if that's the case.

66. 0:31:06

    I would welcome that, that, that work, Chairman Prince. At that point, I think we're done. Thank you. I do, again, I apologize to the committee. I should have mentioned I've asked, uh, Chairman Crowe to have his committee meet with us next week, specifically for 12:30. So we'll either take it up first or we'll take it up last, depending on the schedule of the, uh, Public Safety Committee, with the intent of having folks here k- kind of with this, a myriad of different skill sets, the same way that we've been able to have been lucky enough on TII to have a bunch of judiciary members, and we've always appreciated their input.

67. 0:31:39

    So right now that's 12:30, so thank you so much. Um, let's now move to House Bill 949, Chairwoman Kemp.

68. 0:31:56

    Chairwoman Kemp, if you could please just go ahead and give us the LC number that you're working from, and then as part of your opening remarks, if you don't mind, uh, please go ahead and point out to the committee the changes that you made in your substitute. So Chairwoman Kemp, the floor is yours.

69. 0:32:12

    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I'm working off of LC 394937S, as in Sam, and there were a few changes. I do appreciate Representative Oliver and Representative Evans for pointing out some, some issues in the previous bill, and hopefully this substitute addresses those by being more specific in the activities that are prohibited. Rather than landing and taking off, which would be almost impossible to actually gauge, um, it was suggested that we actually define which, what we want to stop.

70. 0:32:48

    So on line 65, it shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system over agricultural land for the purposes of, and it lists specifically the first interfering with agricultural practices. Um, and this could be interfering with gates, locks. It could be interfering with equipment, a, a number of things. Secondly, applying any substance to soil, plant life, or water upon the agricultural land without the expressed consent of the owner or lessee of that land. Um, harassing livestock, which I mentioned a, a drone could create a stampede amongst animals because first off, I mean, it looks like a giant bug, for lack of a better term, and, um, they react to horseflies and other things.

71. 0:33:26

    I can't even imagine a drone. Um, secondly, taking photographs or video images without the consent of the owner or lessee, and, um, it is, um, a misdemeanor, um, on line 73 through 75. Uh, Representative Kendrick was kind enough. Earlier she was a little bit concerned because she said, "You're criminalizing this and making it a misdemeanor," and I appreciate you bringing that to me because if you go back and look on lines 46 and 47, it matches code that is already law. And, um, it's on the supplement in our, our wonderful book for code section 6-1-4.

72. 0:34:01

    It's already, it's already a misdemeanor for any of the activities listed below, um, which are already in code. So all this does is move saying it's a misdemeanor to the bottom of this code section. Um, but it does not change the penalty. All those things were a misdemeanor, and if this bill passes, will be a misdemeanor. And Mr. Chairman, I'm open for any questions the committee may have.

73. 0:34:23

    First of all, Chairwoman Kemp, thank you so much for taking the input of the committee and going back to lead counsel and working with members of the committee and also lead counsel to address the questions that were put up last week, as I think we had a good 20, 30-minute conversation on that. Members of the committee, do we have any questions for the bill's author?

74. 0:34:46

    One time.

75. 0:34:49

    I'm so sorry.

76. 0:34:51

    At the proper time, I'd like to make a motion.

77. 0:34:53

    Okay. Hold on just one second. Let me catch one question, and then I think we should be in good shape. Representative Beckles.

78. 0:35:00

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, um, Representative Kemp. My question is about emergency landings. Does intentional landing sufficiently protect an operator of an unmanned, um, aircraft?

79. 0:35:17

    Well, uh, of course it, it is already code section, I believe. Which, which line are you referring to specifically?

80. 0:35:27

    LC 394937S. It's just a general question about the-

81. 0:35:32

    Oh, just a general question.

82. 0:35:33

    Yeah.

83. 0:35:33

    I think, uh, the FAA actually regulates the flight, landing, and takeoff of drones, and it is my understanding that if there is an emergency landing, that would be something the FAA would have privy over, and, um, they do crash. I had a drone once, and, um, two and a half minutes later I crashed it right into the earth. So they, they do fall. Even with experience, there's malfunctions. And my understanding is, and Mr. Chairman, you can correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that's under the privy of the FAA.

84. 0:36:02

    Okay.

85. 0:36:03

    Yeah, Representative Beckles, um, I'd also like to point out not... Well, the FAA definitely, but please note that line 73, the person has to knowingly violate. I'm going to assume that most law enforcement, I can't speak for all, if they, if they do have an emergency landing, I believe they would assume that they w- they, they were not knowingly violating this section of the law. So again, Representative Beckles, hopefully that gives you a little bit of solace. Representative Cox.

86. 0:36:30

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

87. 0:36:30

    Oh, no. You're welcome.

88. 0:36:32

    Um, thank you, Chairman Count, for the bill. Um, so if line 65, if it's found that harassment of livestock or plant life or soil and all that's been somehow damaged,

89. 0:36:53

    is a misdemeanor enough-

90. 0:36:55

    Well, the-

91. 0:36:56

    ... of a punishment, or how are we differentiating misdemeanor? At some point it could be significant damage to a farm.

92. 0:37:03

    It could be, and at that point in time, it could be criminal mischief. It could be, um, it could be vandalism. It could be a whole litany of things. Um, if you, you're talking about crops especially, if someone were to go in and, and spray something on crops at certain points in time of development and wipe out an entire field, um, that's, that is felony at that point because of the cost involved. So there are other laws that would factor in to damages and so forth.

93. 0:37:29

    Okay. Thank you.

94. 0:37:31

    Representative Oliver.

95. 0:37:35

    Thank you very much. I've confused myself here. On line 65 it says, "It shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system over agricultural land for purposes." That in- that includes your own land.

96. 0:37:51

    Well, it says for, for purposes of, um... It says, for example, interfering with agriculture practices. I mean, if you're doing that, who are you gonna tell on? But the biggest thing under that, in my opinion, would be the, um, applying of substances to soil, plant, life, and water upon the agricultural land without the express consent of the owner or lessee. Um, and that would be someone doing something nefarious, trying to damage, destroy crops, um, destroy land. You can, you can kill fish in a pond-

97. 0:38:19

    Mm-hmm

98. 0:38:19

    ... um, by app- applying certain chemicals to, um, a, a pond or a lake that would kill the fish and possibly the aquatic life. Um, so it's, "It shall be unlawful to operate an unmanned aircraft system over agricultural land for the purposes of," and doing any of these things, harassing livestock, taking pictures, um, or videos without consent. Um, and those are the, the four main things that were brought up. Um, I would like to say they're not here right now because this bill's not in agriculture.

99. 0:38:49

    It came to, um, S- science and technology, which is wonderful, but, um, Farm Bureau i- is supportive of this measure, um, for the fact that there could be significant damage. Again, we have no control over, as a state legislature, what flies over the property if it's a drone or an airplane. We don't have a lot of control, unless you're looking at trespass laws, as pointed out by Representative Evans last week, with taking off and landings. But the specific activities that these drones could be doing, we do have the ability to prohibit.

100. 0:39:24

     Rep- Rep- Representative Oliver. At this point, I don't see any other questions. I'll recognize Chairman Prince.

101. 0:39:33

     Move to pass.

102. 0:39:35

     Do I have a second?

103. 0:39:36

     I'll second.

104. 0:39:36

     I have a second from Chairman Thomas. Um, any discussion on the bill?

105. 0:39:45

     No discussion. All in favor say aye.

106. 0:39:48

     Aye.

107. 0:39:48

     All opposed. Congratulations, you're onto rules, and we are adjourned. Thank you so much.

108. 0:39:52

     Thank you.

109. 0:39:59

     Thank you. Thank you, thank you.

110. 0:40:00

     No, we did Kendra Gaines.