Comité Technology and Infrastructure Innovation de la Cámara de Representantes, 17 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:32:24

   Hey guys, we're ready to go.

2. 0:32:27

   Hey, super Kane. Kane, what's, what's the number for yours?

3. 0:32:31

   They're ...

4. 0:32:43

   Senator Albers.

5. 0:32:45

   Yeah. All right.

6. 0:32:48

   Hey, guys, I'm gonna bring this meeting to order.

7. 0:32:50

   Okay. I will make sure this is on the passes okay.

8. 0:32:53

   It feels like everyone is trying to run around like Usain Bolt. I appreciate that. Um, in the spirit of efficiency, Senator Albers, we're gonna have you go first. Uh, then my understanding is, Chairman Thomas, you're gonna present-

9. 0:33:07

   444

10. 0:33:08

    ... um, Senator Kirkpatrick's bill. Okay, and then we'll get to Senator Bearden's bill. So with that stated, sir, if you could just go ahead and give us a pithy, efficient introduction, and then I believe there's an amendment that is going to be offered. Is that correct?

11. 0:33:20

    That is correct.

12. 0:33:21

    Okay. All right, thank m- thank you. Proceed, please.

13. 0:33:24

    Thank you very much. Uh, per the, uh, request of Representative Cox, we met with the GBI and legislative council. Uh, what we, uh, came up with to, to alleviate most of his concerns is there's a difference between, uh, scanning, or sorry, jamming and shielding, where his concerns were shielding. But an abundance of caution, um, a amendment that, uh, uh, Representative Thomas has will do two things on line 44 and 45. It will just change signal jammer, uh, to any active or passive will be removed, and just be a device, instrument, or apparatus, which rather than an operation, will say through emitting a signal.

14. 0:34:02

    That simple. And then similarly, on line 80, we will just strike out directly or indirectly. That will make sure that there's an abundance of caution. We know the difference between jamming, uh, and shielding. Uh, and I believe that will, uh, cure concerns and make sure we can help our friends at the GBI put away the bad guys.

15. 0:34:22

    Chairman Thomas, do you want to make the amendment?

16. 0:34:25

    At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.

17. 0:34:26

    Okay, great. Perfect. Um, I don't see any questions for you at this time. Uh, what's the will of the committee?

18. 0:34:32

    Motion to pass.

19. 0:34:32

    I got a motion to pass. Do I have a second?

20. 0:34:34

    Second.

21. 0:34:35

    It's time for discussion and time for amendments. Chairman Thomas?

22. 0:34:38

    I'd like to offer amendment.

23. 0:34:40

    Go right ahead, sir.

24. 0:34:41

    Okay, well, we're gonna start off on lines 44, 45. W- we're gonna strike out the words after signal jammer. S- signal jammer means any. Strike out active or passive device. Then on lines 45, strike out the words in operation and replace it with through emitting a signal.

25. 0:35:04

    Understood. Did you say device also? Just making sure that device-

26. 0:35:08

    Just active or-

27. 0:35:08

    Just active or passive.

28. 0:35:13

    Okay.

29. 0:35:13

    And Chairman Thomas, do you want to run these as one amendment or do you want to run them w- these as two amendments?

30. 0:35:17

    I think the committee would be okay if I just grouped them into one.

31. 0:35:21

    Okay, fair enough. Go right ahead.

32. 0:35:22

    Uh, line 80, I'd like to strike out the, the word, the comma after is, and then directly or indirectly. And that would be the end of the amendments.

33. 0:35:33

    And then just for clarity, the comma after indirectly, you're striking, is that correct?

34. 0:35:38

    Yes, that is correct. Thank you.

35. 0:35:40

    Okay, so what we have on the table right now, everyone, 44 will say single jammer means any device, comma. Line 44 will be through emitting a signal is capable of preventing. And then line 80 is any property which is used at or intended. Is that correct, Chairman Thomas?

36. 0:35:55

    That is correct, Chairman.

37. 0:35:56

    We have an amendment on the, on the, uh, floor. Uh, do we have any discussion? Any questions?

38. 0:36:04

    Give me a second.

39. 0:36:05

    Do I have a second?

40. 0:36:07

    Second.

41. 0:36:08

    I have a second. Any discussion about the amendment? All in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

42. 0:36:14

    Aye.

43. 0:36:15

    All opposed, like sign. Amendment passes. Now we have a motion on the floor, and it's going to be Senate Bill 470, LC492758S as amended. All in favor say aye.

44. 0:36:29

    Aye.

45. 0:36:30

    All opposed. Oh.

46. 0:36:31

    Sorry. Is that 27 or 26?

47. 0:36:34

    2658S. I apologize. Okay. So let, let's go backwards. Uh, all, all in favor say aye.

48. 0:36:41

    Aye.

49. 0:36:42

    All opposed, like sign. Sir, you move the rules.

50. 0:36:45

    I'm gonna get you to put it... John Hancock, if you don't mind.

51. 0:36:48

    Yes, sir. I believe Senator Kirkpatrick had to leave to either a DOT meeting or a, presenting a bill. Uh, do we have the sub yet?

52. 0:36:59

    Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.

53. 0:37:19

    Okay, we can hold. We still have eight. So what I would suggest that we do, uh, is with Senator Kirkpatrick not here, Chairman Thomas, who had probably the best understanding of that bill, has to leave to a DOT vote, um, why don't we do this? Why don't we skip Senator Kirkpatrick's bill for the moment, just for the moment. Uh, let's bring up Senator Bearden. Senator Bearden, if you could, I believe you have a sub. Uh, if you could first give the bill number, the LC number, and then walk the committee through your changes, uh, and then we can go from there, sir.

54. 0:37:57

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's Senate Bill 594. It was a late arriving sub last night. I got it this morning. Should be LC492822S. Uh, since our last meeting, we had a lot of work with legislative council, outside counsel, and TikTok. Um, Representative Cox, uh, I think me and Chairman Thomas may have talked about this bill. I know we talked about a couple bills. I think this may have been one of them. But, um- There was just some, a few, or give 'em any technical changes working with TikTok on this bill where we're creating a new crime of digital fraud.

55. 0:38:41

    And I think pretty much everything stays the same in the bill, just how you report and especially how law enforcement reports. And at first, the bill had 48 hours for law enforcement to, or once law enforcement sent the police report to the operator, they had 48 hours. Now we've moved that to 72 hours, and also we've removed the right of action on, uh, out of the bill too, on the bill.

56. 0:39:13

    And pretty much everything stays the same on timelines from the victim for 72 hours, move the operator's time to 72 hours when they received a police report. But yeah, so we worked closely with TikTok on this bill here and along with council. So those are the main changes, but mainly technical changes on how the reporting requirements go.

57. 0:39:43

    You have a couple questions,

58. 0:39:46

    Chairman Prince.

59. 0:39:48

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, excuse me, Senator, could you... I know you talked a little bit about the changes. Can you just give us an- from the beginning, just sort of what this bill does and what it's intended to do?

60. 0:40:00

    So basically, uh, last time I was here, we discussed a constituent who was pregnant, complications, had birth, baby lived four months, baby died. Um, within a couple days, someone took all her photos, images, and immediately went to a GoFundMe page saying the baby was still alive.

61. 0:40:22

    So she tried to contact the provider herself. Took weeks in trying to get this to say, "Hey, this is a fraudulent account. It need taken down."

62. 0:40:34

    And part of the process, it even requested the death certificate of the child, which she provided. Still could not get the, uh, fraudulent account taken down. Went to her local law enforcement agency. Even law enforcement couldn't take it down. And it finally got taken down because the media, 11Alive, got involved, and they called. And when it was taken down, more copycats popped up, and again, the media was able to pull it down. So basically what we're saying is if a victim of a crime contacts the provider, they got 72 hours to see if it violates their terms and conditions.

63. 0:41:10

    If it don't, they're gonna respond back to that victim. If law enforcement is investigating an active crime, which on this would be digital identity fraud, they send that to, to the provider. Provider has 72 hours, and they will, will need to restrict the content. So it creates a felony for this new crime of digital identity fraud. But it also puts in there if, uh, the provider does not take it down within that 72 hours, they could be charged a civil fine of $50,000 by the prosecutor or the attorney general.

64. 0:41:44

    So it just really kind of streamlines the timeframe so when they know that something is illegally happening on their platform to review it and to restrict access. So that's what the bill does.

65. 0:41:58

    Thank you.

66. 0:42:01

    Thank you, Chairman Prince. Chairman Parsons.

67. 0:42:05

    Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, first of all, I wanna let you know I'm gonna support your bill-

68. 0:42:11

    Thank you, sir

69. 0:42:12

    ... 'cause I think something needs to be, you know, something can be done about this very serious issue, which I, you know, agree with you that there are some serious issues out there of people doing this. Uh, I think, I think there are problems with, with the bill. Actually, I think there's some different issues with it. Um, but however, but my, but, but my question though specifically about the bill before us is on line 55, uh, about these police reports and other communications from a law enforcement a- officer or agency in the state provided for in a subsection shall be s- shall be submitted through a designated mechanism for processing law enforcement requests, blah, blah, blah.

70. 0:42:54

    Now is this A and B, is that, is that what we're talking about here? What, what, what is the designated mechanism?

71. 0:43:01

    Well, one of the things I learned working with TikTok that I did not know, that law enforcement actually has basically a portal they can go into to download these reports. And TikTok says occasionally they'll have mail coming in to another part of the country where they are, or maybe even the report going to Beijing, and that could take weeks for them to get. So law enforcement actually has the ability to go onto these platforms with a law enforcement portal that they could submit this.

72. 0:43:33

    So this is language that we'd worked with TikTok on to make sure it was in there to make sure it was done that way.

73. 0:43:38

    Chairman, if I may ask one more question. Uh-

74. 0:43:41

    Yes, sir

75. 0:43:41

    ... I'm just curious, did you... Uh, here again, I'm gonna support your bill.

76. 0:43:45

    Yeah.

77. 0:43:45

    Um, but did you talk to anybody a more re- a, a more respected and legitimate platform than TikTok?

78. 0:43:52

    No.

79. 0:43:52

    Google perhaps.

80. 0:43:54

    Uh, actually, they're the only ones that reached out to me to talk about this bill.

81. 0:43:58

    Okay. Thank you.

82. 0:43:59

    You're welcome.

83. 0:44:01

    Thank you, Chairman Parsons. Um, I have a few concerns, Senator, a couple things.

84. 0:44:13

    This committee's done a significant amount of work in deep fakes-

85. 0:44:17

    Mm-hmm

86. 0:44:17

    ... both in the political arena and otherwise. Um, I believe, as Chairman Parsons, that there is a monumental issue that you're trying to address What I'm trying to capture in my head is I would suggest to you that 98% of the bad actors doing this, quote, and I put in quotes inside the state because it's the worldwide web.

87. 0:44:41

    Yep.

88. 0:44:42

    So I'm just gonna say, quote, inside the state are not in the state.

89. 0:44:47

    Correct.

90. 0:44:49

    That I'll say concern number one. Concern number two is as you address this issue, I have no idea if my Lanier County Sheriff has access to that portal. Don't even know if that Lanier County Sheriff even knows about the portal. And I'm not, by the way, Lanier County Sheriff's awesome.

91. 0:45:08

    Mm-hmm.

92. 0:45:08

    But what I'm saying is, is there's not a lot of this necessarily going on in South Georgia. And by the way, I just picked Lanier. You can use Echols-

93. 0:45:15

    Yes

94. 0:45:15

    ... Clinch, whichever ones you wanna use. And once it goes down, let's assume for a moment the social media platform decides to take it down, 14 milliseconds later it'll be back up, and that's just because algorithms will be used to put, put them right back up. The third issue I have is call it the retweeting, the reposting, the, the, the sharing, whatever verb you wanna use that we use in social media, is there culpability around the fact that something becomes viral and suddenly there's a million shares?

95. 0:45:47

    And how is that going to work, not necessarily just in our state, but also outside the state? The fifth one is what Chairman Thomas worked on significantly, um, and this committee did with, with judiciary in the room and more lawyers than I could possibly count with SCOTUS, um, to really look at political speech.

96. 0:46:06

    Mm-hmm.

97. 0:46:06

    And in terms of the different, as you know, protections that political speech has, no matter how vile many of us believe it is, the fact is, is there is, you know, protections that SCOTUS has made clear around political speech. Um, and we don't see that here. So there's a, a myriad of different concerns that I have. I love the intent of the bill. I don't even think a federal bill solves this, respectfully, sir, because again, it's the worldwide web, and the bad actors, most of the time, are happening outside of our country.

98. 0:46:39

    So even the DOJ doesn't have, I'll say, the tentacles to reach out into, I'll just say, certain countries. I won't start naming them. Um, so do you... Again, I just hit you with five or six rather-

99. 0:46:51

    Yeah

100. 0:46:51

     ... large macro issues that you're probably sitting there going like, "I'm not trying to boil the ocean. I'm just trying to boil, like, a backyard pool or an HOA pool." And I, and I respect that.

101. 0:47:00

     Yeah.

102. 0:47:00

     Uh, but they are concerns from just an enforceability standpoint and from the intent that by which you're trying to achieve, can we really achieve it? Now, doing nothing just because we can't achieve it isn't necessarily the answer, and I understand that. But I think there's five or six issues here that are still kind of simmering with the sub. And if you wanna re- respond to that, by all means, please do.

103. 0:47:23

     Well, I wish the, the federal government was a little bit more proactive in some of the things that they did, and unfortunately, we can't control them, as we've seen over the years. Um, you know, yes, I, I understand how a post can go viral, but we're trying to just target the individual that started the-

104. 0:47:41

     Whisper just introduction

105. 0:47:41

     ... in this case, the GoFundMe page. Uh, when it comes to speech, we're talking probably about Section 230.

106. 0:47:51

     That does give a lot of protection, but is also limited, and states can enforce laws that are not in conflict with Section 230. And, um, you know, so on this one here, we're not treating providers as publishers or speakers in this bill, but we're just requiring the provider to review content and restrict it when it's, uh, alleged to be illegal or digital identity fraud. I think we also tighten that up, too, in lines 22 and 24 and 25, because when you look at this, this requires knowledge and also has the intent to deceive, and there's certainly not a parody defense in the political context when we're talking about, um, deception.

107. 0:48:36

     So, um, I think there's areas that I listen closely to this committee. We try to tighten it up as much as we can. And you're right, if this is taking place in Russia, we can't touch it. If it takes place in Georgia or if it gives our law enforcement agencies in Georgia the opportunity to reach out to someone in a different state and bring them in to, for a punishment for this crime, then we've done something positive and we took a good first step. No legislation's perfect, and if we try to go for perfect, sometimes that gets in the way of good, and I think this is a good first step.

108. 0:49:12

     All right. Thank you, Senator. Um, any other questions? No. Um, I believe we have people signed up to speak. Is that correct, Patrick?

109. 0:49:29

     Yeah. Okay, so wait.

110. 0:49:32

     Yeah, we're good. Thanks, Don. We're good. Yeah. We have, we have quota.

111. 0:49:43

     Oh, we have one speaker. Mr. Smith, if you could come up, just introduce yourself and the floor is yours, sir.

112. 0:49:50

     Good afternoon, sir.

113. 0:49:51

     Right there. Yes, sir.

114. 0:49:52

     Uh, good morning. My name's Robert Smith. I'm General Counsel at the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, and I wanna... I had some reservations that the committee had, um, earlier when I first read this bill and wanted to kind of explain how a prosecutor would view this bill. I also wanted to respond to a couple of your questions you just asked, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

115. 0:50:09

     Please.

116. 0:50:09

     One of the nice things about where the senator put this bill is that it's in, um, Article 6 of, um, Title, uh, Title 16, Chapter 9, which has a venue provision already in place. It's at 16-9-94, which allows us to prosecute this crime in the county of the principal place of the, of business in the state of the owner of a computer, computer network, or any part thereof. In any county in which the person alleged to have violated any provision of this article had control or possession of any proceeds of the violation of any, and it continues on.

117. 0:50:44

     In any county in which any act was performed in furtherance of the, the transaction which violated this article, and in any county from which to which or through which any use of a computer or computer network was made. So to answer your question, where can we take, where can we prosecute someone? Pretty much anywhere. Anywhere this crime takes place in the state of Georgia, we can bring someone in and prosecute them. Yes, they may be foreign, they may be, may be difficult to find some of these, uh, bad actors, but once we find someone, I have confidence we'll be able to do that.

118. 0:51:15

     Um, to your question about whether or not a sheriff, um, may or may not know about these, um, uh, access points of the different social media provisions or companies have, that's one of the things that my agency works on. We train prosecutors, we train our law enforcement partners, and that's one thing that I will say while we can all have varying ideas about the, you know, how good or how bad social media is and all the different platforms, almost every platform has worked and become very diligent in working with law enforcement to create those, um, access points.

119. 0:51:48

     So in the ... Years ago, it was impossible to get ahold of someone at Facebook, impossible to get some- ahold of someone at MySpace, all those things. And once they started realizing that they were a community that bad actors were acting within, they wanted to be responsible. They made changes, and they worked with law enforcement. Same thing with the phone companies. Um, once they realized that they can be partners with law enforcement and with prosecution agencies, they've done that. So we have the means to be able to get these, get the information we need in a rapid way.

120. 0:52:19

     Now, what I will talk to you about what this crime is and the way I, when I read this crime, what I see, you need to have a specific intent to commit, to basically commit fraud. And what we're doing is, and one of the questions I heard the committee ask last week was about fake accounts. You know, someone sets up a fake account, and, you know, is this going to be prosecuted? The way I read this, because it talks about that you're using the information of an individual, you need to actually use a known individual. You can't create a, a fake account using, uh, like a cre- a creation like a, we, uh, we all are aware of parody accounts and things like that.

121. 0:52:56

     That would not meet the test. What would meet the test is us- is actually using a known person, like using a famous athlete or a politician or something like that to create an account and then to commit a fraud with it on a social media plat- platform. That is what this crime is aimed at doing, and that's, those are the elements the way it's currently drafted. I hope this information's helpful, and I'll stand for any questions.

122. 0:53:25

     Whit Park.

123. 0:53:26

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for the presentation. So just, um, uh, apologies for being late, and so I may repeat a question that may have been asked. Um, but, uh, to s- the s- to Senator Bearden's point, would you say that existing law already provides the mechanisms, uh, to prosecute someone who, for example, creates, uh, an account, um, a fake GoFundMe page?

124. 0:53:46

     I would say this would, this, Senator Bearden's bill, would provide us with a tool that would be more targeted than what we have right now. We might could use it, but it would not be, not be as elegant as this is.

125. 0:53:59

     Mm-hmm. Um, o- one additional question I have for both the senator, and, and maybe you can provide some context, is I've kind of reviewed or reread Section, uh, B1 or from lines 21 to, uh, 35. Um, you know, since we're ... Would, would a elected official or a candidate be potentially committing a felony if, for example, they used an image of another member without their permission, um, with the intent to deceive or imply that another member supports their election bid, just given how this bill has been drafted?

126. 0:54:38

     Using the elements that I see is that you basically, well, you're using a social media platform, using, um, a, the identity of someone, including their name, image, identifying information, with the intent to deceive others, cause harm, or commit fraud. I would need to ... Basically, you'd have ... You could possibly argue that. It would make it kind of difficult, but you'd also need the person whose image was improperly used-

127. 0:55:04

     Mm-hmm

128. 0:55:04

     ... like, to come forward and say, "Hey, my image was used to endorse a candidate that it never was intended to."

129. 0:55:09

     Right.

130. 0:55:11

     So-

131. 0:55:11

     So, so arguably, that could be one of the mechan- ways in which this statute could be used?

132. 0:55:17

     I think that it's a possibility. It could be used that way to enforce and to reach the, the problem that, that is the chairman's been working on.

133. 0:55:25

     Thank you.

134. 0:55:26

     Yeah, so Whit Park, you're bringing up what we've been grappling with for, I think, this committee, I want to say three years, but don't, don't quote me on that. Um, we still haven't found a way for our brethren on the other side of the third floor to accept our deep fake bill. Uh, and we're gonna keep working with them to make sure that we do because, to your point, Whit Park, um, we do have the challenge within the elections, and I'm concerned, uh, that the current bill in front of us could be used and when, in fact, we have specific carve outs in the deep fake bill around, I'll say, timing, as you know.

135. 0:56:01

     We have specific carve outs in terms of reasonableness, in terms of what a reasonable person ... I don't need to tell this committee. You all know it. We've gone through it 20 times. But it's one of the, my concerns. And Senator Bearden, this isn't to create a stone wall for you. But rather, if we're going to move something to rules, we just want to make sure that we've covered all angles. So, but thank you, Whit Park. Do you have anything else, sir?

136. 0:56:21

     Uh, no, sir.

137. 0:56:21

     Okay. Thank you.

138. 0:56:23

     Can I make a suggestion?

139. 0:56:25

     Oh, yeah, I was about to give you another question, but-

140. 0:56:27

     Um-

141. 0:56:28

     Go right ahead, sir.

142. 0:56:29

     And with Pack up here, if, like on line 26, it says, "Harm or commit fraud." Would it tighten it up if we say harm and commit fraud? Because we're trying to go after the fraudulent accounts that's deceiving people to try, especially in this particular case, where a GoFundMe account was, and they were committing that fraud to theirs. I didn't know if that or changing it to an and would be...

143. 0:56:59

     Amazing how an or or and could tighten something up.

144. 0:57:01

     Well-

145. 0:57:01

     I'm just trying to help out here.

146. 0:57:05

     The worst kept secret in the capital is I'm a member of the bar. Uh, but I'll go ahead and I'll let Mr. Smith answer this instead of me.

147. 0:57:12

     Okay.

148. 0:57:12

     I would say the problem with doing that is then you have to do both. You have to do both.

149. 0:57:15

     Yeah.

150. 0:57:16

     What is harm? And since you're saying cause frau- uh, commit fraud, the harm would have to be something other than economic harm. You, you need to have some sort of physical harm at that point.

151. 0:57:27

     I'm not a lawyer. I'm just going from the old policing bl- bl- days on trying to make this better so we can get the, the criminals that's-

152. 0:57:33

     Yeah

153. 0:57:33

     ... taking advantage of our citizens.

154. 0:57:35

     This is a conundrum that we're constantly grappling with in this committee, is intent and then of course harm. Uh, so you're, you're kind of hitting on some of the things there. Um, let me first ask just quick verbally, Representative Cox and Chairman Crowe, do you have a question for Mr. Smith or for the sponsor?

155. 0:57:54

     No, but I have one for anybody now.

156. 0:57:56

     Oh.

157. 0:57:59

     I was going to kind of back out loud.

158. 0:58:00

     Representative Cox, are you for Mr. Smith or the bill sponsor?

159. 0:58:03

     Yes.

160. 0:58:05

     Then...

161. 0:58:06

     Yes, debate.

162. 0:58:07

     Then Mr. Smith, I need you to stay up here please.

163. 0:58:09

     I'm, I'm at the committee's disposal.

164. 0:58:11

     Uh, Representative Cox, you're recognized.

165. 0:58:13

     And I will do that after Chairman Crowe. I kind of feel... Um, is there a way we could dial this in specifically to, um... 'Cause, 'cause my concern that we've heard thus far, um, to crimes and/or towards minors, and the fraud that's committed. Like, can we, can we truly dial this in so that we're getting away from all the concerns we have at a much larger scale,

166. 0:58:48

     and simplify this maybe?

167. 0:58:50

     Having been part of some of the committee's discussions, I know, uh, you, when all... You are a very broad committee when it comes to your concerns. So that, answering your question becomes a little difficult, because if you want to carve out elections, you can carve out elections and say notwithstanding election law or notwithstanding elect- you, ele- you, uh, political ads, which would kind of solve one of the problems. But I think there are other problems as well, um, that the committee has been delving into over the past few years. So I'm giving you the lawyer answer of it depends.

168. 0:59:24

     Um, and it's, anything's possible. You're the legislature.

169. 0:59:27

     Can I follow-

170. 0:59:27

     You can, you can do anything

171. 0:59:28

     ... follow up? Um, because GoFundMe's part of what we're discussing here, right? So could we carve out, um, false claims as it reflate, relates to specifically fundraising? Could we do something like, would that help solve some of the broader issues?

172. 0:59:47

     You could make this very specific to that you sh- you shall not use social media account. You shall not, you shall not set up a, a GoFundMe or something, a broader name like some sort of financial institution or some sort of account, financial account, um, uh, using a social media page for another person through fraudulent activity. I think you could do that very easily. Um, but that would require some work, moving words and I'm not sure if that, that's what the senator's true intent is or his wishes.

173. 1:00:19

     And I don't want to speak out of turn. It's his bill.

174. 1:00:22

     Senator, your, your thoughts. I'm just trying to find solutions.

175. 1:00:35

     To be honest with you, I'm not sure. I think, you know, I felt like we kind of tailored this down to where it needed to be-

176. 1:00:42

     Mm-hmm

177. 1:00:42

     ... with this last sub. Um, try to get protections in there that, from the concerns from Section 230 to make sure, um, we even, on the newest one, we even put a, "Is the intent of the General Assembly," on the line 66 through 70 regarding, um, Section 230 of Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the USC. So, you know, to try to make sure that we're not getting into the parity political area, but we're trying to actually target individuals that are committing fraud upon our citizens here in the, in the state.

178. 1:01:24

     What I'd like to do just real quick is let me go ahead and repre- uh, recognize Secretary Ehrhart, Ehrhart real quick, and then let's have a conversation.

179. 1:01:31

     The intent of the bill, and, um, I'm trying to understand if you, and maybe you can help me understand a little bit about the distinction here between, uh, uh, 'cause clearly the bill is, is related to digital identity fraud. Um, on page two, when we're describing, let's say in lines, uh, let's see here, 23, y- yeah, number one and number two there, using the identity of an individual. So I'm trying to understand, uh, the distinction there because loo- I, and I'm thinking of two examples. Uh, and I know th- these are relevant issues now we're all dealing with them, but the distinction between, let's say for example I took a photo of Chairman Crowe and posted it on my Facebook site and said, "Chairman Crowe supports my bill." Maybe he doesn't support my bill, but I, I present him an image on my page saying he supports my bill.

180. 1:02:17

     That is misleading, right? I'm just un- trying to figure out does that rise to the level of identity fraud versus number two on line 27, that I understand. If I were to go out and create a digital platform, an account in Chairman Crowe's name and represent myself as speaking for him, like pr- you know, as if I am him, and again, maybe this is a little too elementary. I'm just trying to understand that distinction, whereas I'm not so sure- And, and again, depending on the definition of identity fraud, u- u- using another person's i- a- another person's image and speaking for them, perhaps it is fraud.

181. 1:02:54

     But I have always thought of identity fraud as meaning you are assuming someone's identity. Um, I, I don't know. I, I don't know if, even if the chairman can shed some light on that, the, the, the distinction there.

182. 1:03:06

     Now, I'm gonna point out there is a separate crime in Georgia called identity fraud.

183. 1:03:10

     Yeah.

184. 1:03:10

     And that's 16-9-121.

185. 1:03:13

     Right.

186. 1:03:13

     And that is when, um, you, uh, w- willfully and fraudulently, without authorization and consent, um, you're using i- i- identifying information to gain access to the finances of another person.

187. 1:03:26

     Right.

188. 1:03:27

     So if you... That's like when you get somebody's Social Security number and you try to open up an account, or you use their name and date of birth to ac- to obtain credit. That's, that's what that crime has been defined as doing. What this is doing, uh, this new, this bill intends to...

189. 1:03:45

     And I'll, you know, I'll try to, uh, I, I think you would... And, uh, by the way, your questions aren't elementary at all, because the bill, the law needs to be to the point where everyone understands, not just lawyers. This needs to be everyone, b- so that way the citizens are on notice as to what-

190. 1:03:59

     Right

191. 1:03:59

     ... you're doing may not be, you know, legal. I think your second example you're good with. The first one, I-

192. 1:04:08

     I g- I guess, if I could clarify.

193. 1:04:09

     Yeah.

194. 1:04:09

     What, what does it mean to use the identity? W- w- in, in, a- as the bill has written it here in lines 23, how am I... I'm not creating an account in the name of another. I'm not pretending to be them. But I'm using, you describe it as using their identity or, uh, I could be using their image.

195. 1:04:26

     Using their identity with, um, with the intent to deceive others. How I read that, and this is just me, one, one person's opinion, but how I read that would be if you were to take Chairman Crowe's picture and put it on your account, and then to say, "Chairman Crowe said..." You're, then you're using his identity, or using-

196. 1:04:48

     Okay, so, so then I am guilty of identity fraud, is what you're saying.

197. 1:04:52

     Digital identity fraud.

198. 1:04:52

     As, uh, digital identity fraud as described in this bill.

199. 1:04:54

     That's what I would-

200. 1:04:55

     Okay.

201. 1:04:55

     That's, that's, that's my two cents. You know, the, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court might say otherwise.

202. 1:05:00

     Okay.

203. 1:05:00

     Or a jury of 12.

204. 1:05:01

     Great. Thank you.

205. 1:05:02

     Thank you.

206. 1:05:03

     Uh-

207. 1:05:03

     Thank you. Chairman Crowe.

208. 1:05:07

     Thank you. Um, first of all, I would just like to say that if I was gonna use somebody's picture, I would probably use somebody's besides mine. Um, but you referenced 16-9-121, which is technically, it's, it's really more specifically financial identity fraud, right? And so I remember when that law first came into being, uh, and I was a, a much, much younger police officer back then. We had some of these same challenges. There was a lot of questions about how to prosecute that.

209. 1:05:38

     I know we would make cases when I was a detective that, uh, a lot of these cases we would make, and prosecutors had a very hard time prosecuting them, where, knowing where to prosecute them, how to prosecute them, that sort of thing, because it was a new crime. It was a new, um, way people were being defrauded. And I think this is very similar to that. This is now, with the digital age that we're in, people are using these, um, people's identity digitally to defraud others, and I think that's what we're trying to wrap our arms around. Um, and, and much like with that law in 16-9-121, at some point we have to just kind of jump in there and, and get something on the books just to be able to start prosecuting some of these bad actors.

210. 1:06:21

     Um, it'll get tweaked w- much like that has been tweaked over the years. The case law has changed the way it's prosecuted. But I think at some point we have to start going after these folks that are doing this, because it's obvious that there are folks that are using the identity of other individuals, basically taking their, their name, image, and likeness, and, and using that to impersonate them a lot of times, uh, and defraud others. And, uh, that's something we need to try to stop.

211. 1:06:50

     Thank you, Chairman Crowe. Uh, we don't have any comments. Um, let me go ahead and give kind of my two cents. Um, I appreciate the senator's efforts here. I think the sub is absolutely an improvement on the original bill. So sir, thank you for doing that and working with members of the committee. My intent now would be if we could continue to work in the next 24 hours and work with you on two things. One would be some type of election carve-out, and number two would be, uh, to Chairman Crowe's point and also to Representative Cox's point, and I guess also to the secretary's point, um, I'd like to put a finer point on this and not make it as broad.

212. 1:07:39

     I know that might not be necessarily what the senator's intent was, but I do think it puts us into a position where this committee has been in terms of making sure that we have, and when I say strict scrutiny, I don't want all the lawyers' ears to go up, but a stricter scrutiny of the, not with necessarily strict scrutiny. So please don't have a coronary when I say that. So at the end of the day, Senator, if we could do that over the next 24 hours, we meet tomorrow at 2:00, and, uh, I'd love to work with you directly with it, and I'm sure some oth- other members would like to do that, too.

213. 1:08:09

     Would that be okay?

214. 1:08:10

     That'd be fine.

215. 1:08:11

     Okay. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your time.

216. 1:08:13

     Thank you very much.

217. 1:08:14

     Uh, Chairman Thomas.

218. 1:08:15

     Yes.

219. 1:08:16

     Uh, I'm gonna call you if it's okay. I was going to present SB 444 sub, but I guess I will call upon you to do that, sir. Uh, so if you could just do the bill number and then the LC, and the committee should have it, and then the changes, please. Thank you, Senator.

220. 1:08:33

     Thank you.

221. 1:08:35

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm presenting Senate Bill 444, LC number 461522S. Just make sure that you're working off the same, the correct LC number Uh, this, uh, has been presented in committee now I believe two times. This is the third presentation. Um, Senator, uh, Kirkpatrick did work with, uh, me and, um, Representative Evans. Um, I think the, the major change has to do with, um, i- in the back li- I would say lines 31 through 33, uh, where we really made sure that it was very clear what the i- intent of what the author was, uh, and that she did consider this to be a friendly amendment.

222. 1:09:19

     Um, but specifically the, to make sure that no, uh, it... I think this is the key lines. "In no in- event shall artificial intelligence systems, artificial intelligence or other software tools sub- supersede the judgment of such clinical peer." And I think that really cements the, the, the intent is to make sure that AI is not making decisions in this process, and instead that a human is always on the loop, and, uh, I think that's the major change. Oh, actually, one other change is we did go to the house's definition of artificial intelligence system, which is something that we worked on quite a bit over the last sep- several years.

223. 1:09:53

     And sorry if I'm a little out of breath, I just ran over from the Senate chamber.

224. 1:09:56

     Thank you. And then could I add one more thing, Mr. Chairman?

225. 1:09:59

     Yes.

226. 1:09:59

     Is it accurate to say the end of 31, which a clinical peer participates, is an add to this sub?

227. 1:10:05

     Yes.

228. 1:10:06

     Okay.

229. 1:10:06

     I would, I would say that is correct, Mr. Chairman.

230. 1:10:07

     All right. Thank you. Are there any questions for the presenter of the bill? There are not. What is the will of the committee?

231. 1:10:14

     Motion to move.

232. 1:10:15

     I got a motion. Do I have a second?

233. 1:10:17

     Second.

234. 1:10:17

     All right. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

235. 1:10:21

     Aye.

236. 1:10:22

     All opposed like sign. I guess I should say, Chairman Thomas, you move on to rules. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you.

237. 1:10:28

     Thank you.

238. 1:10:29

     Um, if you need it from me, um, can you please, uh, he gets your information,

239. 1:10:50

     please?

240. 1:10:50

     Okay.

241. 1:10:50

     72 miles from takeoff.

242. 1:10:50

     Yeah, sure. Appreciate it.

243. 1:10:51

     Yes. Copy of the substitute

244. 1:11:08

     bill. Just a reminder. Again. One option. I think that's what I'm saying. Right now, I'm asleep on the line. Fun. Yeah. It's good.

245. 1:11:23

     If you could go back and find that. I know. Yes. I think that's done. I don't know. Is that it?