Video & Transcript Research : 'sensitive data'
Page 170 of 500
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
Committee on Finance - Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:00AM
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
Committee on Finance - Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:00AM
Hawaii House Floor Meeting
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
HTH-PDP Joint Senate/House Hearing 12/11/20 10am
Hawaii Senate Floor Meeting
HI
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
Special Session JDC Hearing 1pm 10/1 Rm 016 Oct 2nd, 2020
Hawaii Senate Floor Meeting
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
To receive a closed briefing on Department of Defense cyber operations. Feb 25th, 2025 at 03:00 pm
Cybersecurity Subcommittee
Transcript Highlights:
- Microsoft Cloud to amalgamate that data.
- It's sensitive information about our national security architecture.
- And they ask for that data.
- Will you give DOJ access to sensitive, classified, and personnel data of uniformed military bases and
- Do you know how appetizing it is for our adversaries to have this data?
Keywords:
Steven Feinberg, Deputy Secretary of Defense, national security, budget cuts, military readiness, global threats, Department of Defense
Summary:
The meeting primarily focused on the nomination of Steven Feinberg as Deputy Secretary of Defense. The committee emphasized the urgent need for strong leadership in response to a complex array of global threats posed by adversarial coalitions, including China, Russia, and Iran. The discussions highlighted concerns regarding budget cuts and personnel reductions within the Department of Defense, showcasing the challenges posed by the current economic context and the pressing need to maintain military readiness and capabilities. Various members expressed their apprehensions about how impending layoffs and budget reductions would impact the defense workforce and national security.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Jun 23rd, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- data.
- Safeguarding personal data.
- You know, and if the data brokers are the ones that are deciding what's sensitive information, what's
- The data itself is not sensitive; the only thing that is sensitive is the abuse of it by folks that are
- in these sensitive data categories unless there is an enforceable court order to do so or it's a direct
Summary:
The committee began as a subcommittee due to the lack of a quorum and heard several privacy- and technology-related measures. The first item was H.R. 117, a resolution urging Congress to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The author and supporters argued the law is outdated and shields platforms from accountability for harms such as harassment, exploitation, scams, and other online abuse. Witnesses, including a survivor parent and a gender justice advocate, described harms to children, women, and LGBTQ people and urged a two-year sunset to force federal reform. Some members supported the resolution as a call for federal action, while one member said he could not support it because the resolution was too general and lacked specificity about the reforms being sought. No vote was taken because the committee lacked a quorum.
The committee then heard SB 898, which would require manufacturers of connected consumer products to disclose how long they will support the software and to notify consumers when products approach end of life. The author said consumers deserve transparency about security updates and continued functionality, and supporters from Consumer Reports and PIRG emphasized cybersecurity risks, consumer confusion, and electronic waste from unsupported devices. Opponents, including business and industry groups, raised concerns about enforcement through the unfair competition law, notice burdens, labeling issues, and compliance challenges, especially for products with long support windows or third-party dependencies. One member expressed support, noting the cybersecurity risks of end-of-life devices, but again no vote was taken because there was no quorum.
The committee also heard SB 435, which would narrow the CCPA definition of publicly available information to limit how businesses classify data as public. The author and supporters said the bill would close a loophole that allows data brokers and others to monetize personal information without meaningful consent and could help prevent surveillance and misuse of data, including by government agencies. Opponents argued the bill would upset the balance between privacy and the free flow of information, create compliance uncertainty, and retroactively reclassify information that businesses reasonably believed was public. Some members said they supported the goal of stronger privacy protections, while others said the bill was too broad. The committee again could not vote due to the lack of a quorum.
Later, the committee heard SB 923, which would expand Californians’ right to delete personal information to cover data obtained from third parties and require online businesses to offer a web form or similar method for deletion requests. Supporters, including the California Privacy Protection Agency and consumer advocates, said the bill would make deletion rights meaningful and better address data broker practices. Opponents sought an opt-out-of-processing alternative and raised operational and legal concerns, but supporters said deletion is not the same as retention or processing limits. Members largely spoke in favor of the bill’s privacy goals, but no action was taken. The committee also heard SB 947, the “No Robo Bosses Act,” which would require human review for certain automated employment decisions and limit predictive analysis in workplace discipline and termination. Labor groups supported the bill as a safeguard against biased or erroneous AI-driven decisions, while business, public employer, and local government groups opposed it as overbroad and burdensome. Members voiced support for human oversight in employment decisions, but the item was not voted on because the committee still lacked a quorum. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1114, the SOGI Data Privacy Act, which would restrict disclosure of sexual orientation, gender identity, and intersex data to federal agencies absent a court order or legal requirement; the author and witness framed it as a response to federal efforts to obtain sensitive LGBTQ-related data.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Jun 23rd, 2026
Privacy and Consumer Protection
Transcript Highlights:
- data.
- Safeguarding personal data.
- You know, and if the data brokers are the ones that are deciding what's sensitive information, what's
- The data itself is not sensitive; the only thing that is sensitive is the abuse of it by folks that are
- in these sensitive data categories unless there is an enforceable court order to do so or it's a direct
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- So the main thing we're trying to do with this bill is making sure that our genetic sequencing, or data
- Data centers have obviously been a huge new sector that's grown very fast in Arizona.
- centers, but also what the effect is on... ...small modular reactors and data centers, but also what
- Nevertheless, without any kind of data metrics, there's just anecdotal evidence back and forth.
- Are there any results or data tracking college entrances?
Keywords:
funding, auditor general, county treasurer, procedural reviews, state appropriations, HB2388, Arizona Commerce Authority, ACA, small modular reactor, SMR, nuclear energy, advanced nuclear, data center, data centers, economic development, study, appropriation, general fund, jobs, wages
Summary:
The committee first heard HB 2584, which would prohibit public funds from being used for genetic sequencing equipment made by companies owned or controlled by entities domiciled in a foreign adversary. The sponsor said the bill is intended to prevent sensitive genetic data from being sold or used against the United States. There was little public testimony, and the committee approved the bill on a 13-5 vote for a do pass recommendation.
Members then considered HB 2804, a rural development and housing tax credit bill that would let the Department of Housing allocate up to $2 million per year in credits for qualifying rural affordable housing projects, with the program set to expire in 2037. Supporters, including the sponsor, the mayor of Flagstaff, and housing investors and developers, said the credit would leverage federal LIHTC dollars, attract private capital, and help finance affordable housing for seniors, veterans, and low-income residents in rural Arizona. Opponents from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argued state LIHTC programs are inefficient, costly, and hard to oversee. The committee passed the bill 13-4.
The committee also heard HB 2388, as amended, which appropriates $100,000 to the Arizona Commerce Authority to study the economic benefits of small modular reactors and data centers, with a report due by June 30, 2027. Supporters said the study could help Arizona plan for future energy and data-center growth, while opponents argued the agency already has other funding sources and should not receive additional money for the study. The amended bill passed 10-7.
After a presentation from Auditor General Lindsay Perry on county treasurer procedural reviews and the Santa Cruz County embezzlement case, the committee approved HB 2352, which provides $2,385,900 in FY 2029 for the Auditor General to continue county treasurer reviews, on an 11-7 vote. The committee then unanimously approved HB 2418, as amended, which directs $600,000 to be evenly distributed among five major incident task force counties and codifies the longstanding distribution practice. Finally, the committee took up HB 2499, the first of two ESA administration bills, which would appropriate $2.6 million and 12 FTEs to the Department of Education for ESA administration and oversight beginning in FY 2027; the bill drew extended debate about ESA growth, accountability, testing, and spending oversight, but the transcript cuts off before the final vote.
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
Hearings to examine the nominations of Aaron Lukas, of Arkansas, to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Kent, of Washington, to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intellig Apr 9th, 2025 at 01:30 pm
Intelligence (Select) Committee
Transcript Highlights:
- The DNI is the president's principal intelligence advisor, and the ODNI produces the president's data
- and being able to look into local law enforcement data to make sure that we connect all the dots and
- But I don't use it to discuss highly sensitive information.
- And with that in mind, should American entities be investing in sensitive technologies in China only
- Do you know how significant internal polling data is?
Keywords:
national security, intelligence community, Aaron Lucas, Joe Kent, John Eisenberg, China threat, terrorism, collaboration, oversight, intelligence capabilities
Summary:
The committee meeting centered around significant discussions regarding national security and intelligence community leadership. Notably, nominees Aaron Lucas for Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Joe Kent for Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and John Eisenberg for Assistant Attorney General for National Security were introduced. Concerns were raised about the current state of U.S. intelligence capabilities, particularly in relation to threats posed by foreign adversaries such as China and ongoing risks from terrorism. The dialogue emphasized the necessity for robust oversight and the importance of collaboration within the intelligence community, as well as with international allies, to ensure effective security measures are in place.