Video & Transcript Research : 'location data'

Page 203 of 500
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House and Governmental Affairs May 12th, 2026

House and Governmental Affairs

Summary: The House and Governmental Affairs Committee met on May 12 with a quorum present and took up several measures. It first heard HCR 74, which would establish a Louisiana-United Kingdom Trade Commission modeled after the existing Louisiana-Ireland commission. The author said the commission would serve as an umbrella group to promote exchanges in trade, academics, financial services, economic development, and the arts, with no compensation for members. After brief questions and supportive testimony from a member familiar with the Ireland commission, the committee reported HCR 74 favorably. The committee then considered SCR 38, which repeals Joint Rule No. 7 related to the Atchafalaya Basin Program Oversight Committee. The author explained that the repeal was tied to a separate study commission on Atchafalaya Basin water quality, aimed at addressing sediment buildup, stagnant hypoxia, and harm to the fishing industry. Members discussed sediment management and water quality concerns, and the committee adopted a technical amendment to the title before reporting the resolution favorably, as amended. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 495 on campaign finance disclosures. The author described a series of changes, including raising the threshold for unitemized individual contributions to $200, adjusting when a PAC is considered to be participating in an election, extending the annual report deadline from February 28 to March 15, and allowing leadership PAC funds to cover replacement or repair of items damaged in connection with public office. The transcript cuts off during the bill presentation, so no final action on SB 495 is shown.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 3/3/26

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • There are no limitations or protections on data sharing and data management.
  • multi-data requests.
  • of much of the data if it's criminal investigative data, you know, private or public data.
  • Um, and that constant data sharing, the fact that, like, at the state level anyway, we don't have data
  • Um, and that constant data sharing, the fact that, like, at the state level anyway, we don't have data
Summary: The committee approved the minutes from February 24 and February 26. It then took up House File 3661, a bill originally authored by Representative Gomez and presented by Representative Feist, which would ban government use of facial recognition technology and be re-referred to the Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. The committee adopted the A1 amendment, described as a technical amendment based on House Research recommendations, before hearing testimony on the bill. Representative Feist said the bill is aimed at preventing serious privacy and civil-liberties harms, including secretive surveillance, racial and gender bias, and the lack of statewide rules governing government use of facial recognition. Supportive testimony came from Chad Marlo of the ACLU, who argued the issue is bipartisan, the technology has accuracy problems, and government use is expanding against vulnerable groups. Chris Wayland of Restore the Fourth Minnesota also supported a ban, emphasizing the inability to opt out of facial recognition and the lack of standards, disclosure, and community input. Rich Newmeister urged stronger transparency measures, including agency policies and public notice in buildings using the technology. Major Spencer Baky of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office opposed an outright ban, saying facial recognition is used only as an investigative lead, not for positive identification or real-time surveillance, and that results are corroborated before use. He said the office has used the tool in hundreds of investigations and supports a statutory framework with safeguards instead of a ban. In member discussion, Representative Hudson argued a blanket ban was too broad and suggested a more targeted evidentiary approach, while Representative Moller and Representative Kurr expressed concern about misuse and the federal government's use of the technology. Representative Durant asked whether there was a current Minnesota problem and whether stakeholders and law enforcement had been involved in drafting the bill. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion provided, beyond adoption of the amendment and the committee’s continued consideration of HF 3661.