Video & Transcript Research : 'data sharing'

Page 210 of 500
NM

New Mexico 2026 Regular Session

House - Judiciary Feb 13th, 2026 at 05:37 pm

House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • ...data that someone can access, but it is an important piece of privacy data.
  • Madam Chair, Representative, the potential for data sharing is.
  • Madam Chair, Representative, the potential for data sharing is interesting.
  • So if this data reporting is repealed, you will not have less of that data.
  • of the data since 2019.
FL

Florida 2026 Regular Session

Commerce and Tourism Jan 21st, 2026

Commerce and Tourism

Transcript Highlights:
  • There are parts about the data uses and things like that that would not be personally identifying data
  • De-identified data means data that can reasonably be linked to an identified or identifiable individual
  • , how they're... ...how they're protecting biometric data, how they're de-identifying data in compliance
  • Section 501.996’s de-identified data safeguard is very weak; such data is frequently re-identifiable,
  • Of course, we have data privacy protections and a better understanding of data collection.
Summary: The Committee on Commerce and Tourism heard and advanced several bills focused on economic development, consumer protection, workforce issues, and technology. SB 1076 would raise Florida’s research and development tax credit cap from $9 million to $50 million beginning with the 2027 allocation, and it was reported favorably. SB 1266, as amended, creates a cybersecurity experiential internship and clearance-readiness program with Cyber Florida and was also reported favorably. SB 554, a Florida Bar-backed update to the not-for-profit corporations statute, was approved without opposition. SB 1004, aimed at protecting buyers of dogs and cats from deceptive sales practices and predatory financing at retail pet stores, received supportive testimony from animal welfare advocates and was reported favorably. SB 1074, which sets rounding rules for cash transactions if pennies are unavailable, also passed favorably. The committee also considered SB 998, the Department of Commerce package, which combines updates to the Small Cities CDBG program, clarification of rural community eligibility, an exemption from a reverter clause for military-related land conveyances, and revisions to E-Verify enforcement. The E-Verify portion drew the most debate, with questions about employer cure periods, treatment of current investigations, and whether the bill creates a loophole for independent contractors. Senator Smith opposed the bill, arguing it creates unequal enforcement between employers and immigrant workers, while Senator Wright supported the military-related provisions. SB 998 was reported favorably on a divided vote. SB 214, which expands the rural community definition to include special districts in rural counties, was reported favorably. The committee then took up SB 482, an artificial intelligence consumer-protection bill that creates an “AI bill of rights” covering companion chatbots, parental controls for minors, data privacy, de-identified data, unauthorized use of likeness, and enforcement by the Attorney General, with a limited private cause of action for minors. The bill drew extensive testimony both in support and in opposition, including concerns about privacy, age verification, and enforcement, but it was reported favorably. Finally, the committee approved SPB 7030, a public-records exemption tied to Department of Legal Affairs investigations under the AI bill, and adjourned after members requested to be recorded on certain votes.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • In our age of free-flowing data on the internet, the non-consensual sharing of personal information poses
  • The requirements apply to data brokers, as well as non-data broker persons.
  • Would you agree with that, that there's competing data? Well, I mean, there is a lot of data.
  • But we do have some data.
  • No, I can give you the data.
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.
  • 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
  • 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.