H.B. 408 Data Sharing Amendments: transcript

Yes. Okay. Uh, I'll be speaking to the first sub. Great. Thank you. Well, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair and committee. I first have to apologize for my dress. Um, I was in a tuxedo earlier, but didn't want to make you guys feel uncomfortable. So change for you all. Um, this, this, this bill. Last year we passed the Digital Choice Act, which established that Utahans own their social media data and should be able to take it with them to another platform. Uh, this bill is a cleanup bill to make that law work better. It reflects many, many hours, um, of work with industry and stakeholders to make sure that the law is practical and realistic. And, and just would like to thank the Office of AI Policy and, uh, the Department of Commerce for their work in that. Um, this bill does not change that main idea from last year. Um, users still control their data. This just makes the law clearer and easier to implement. Uh, just a few updates and notes in there because there's, um, some red lines that you'll see as you, as you compare what's being updated. Um, users can export only the data they want instead of everything. Platforms aren't forced to accept, uh, data they don't want and can still enforce their own rules. Users can only export their own data, not other people's content. Uh, the bill sets clear timelines and technical standards, so companies know how to comply. Um, and it recognizes that technical issues happen and companies won't be penalized if they fix problems quickly. Uh, overall, this bill keeps Utah leading in digital rights while making sure the lies workable in balance. And with that, Mr. Chair, um, I am happy to take any questions and Dr. Boyd should be there also to help with questions if needed.

Uh, thank you. Matthew Lipka, project Liberty, Washington, dc Um, uh, we are in support of this bill. Uh, we appreciate a representative Fifi's work with a wide variety of technologists to, uh, ensure the bill is, is efficiently implemented and effective across a broad range of, of technologies. And, uh, and, uh, applaud this, the work of this committee and the legislature last year, and enacting the Digital Choice Act and continuing to improve it. Thank you.

I'd like to thank for, would like to thank Representative Fifi's, uh, hard efforts in, uh, in this, and also the AI office has, um, continued work on this subject and it continues to change very fast. So thanks for trying to stay up, uh, on the leading edge of everything.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, government may protect against fraud or violence, but it has no authority to dictate how private businesses must structure their services or provide users with data portability. So I will be a no.

actually I do have a question if I, if I could represent FFI probably should have asked this during clarifying questions, so I apologize. Um, can you walk me through how this works? How do I gather my data and put it on like from, let's say, Google or Facebook or Instagram or whatever? How do I gather that and put it on another platform

That, that's a good question. Uh, we did not mandate how that works for every specific platform, but every platform will have a different area within settings. Uh, is is probably where I see it, where you'll, you're able to download the DA data and information that you want, um, and then taking it to another platform. These platforms are incentive incentivized to have users, and so they definitely want your data and information on their platform. Uh, we also did not mandate this because there are many, many different ways that you can take in, in data and information. Um, and so I, I think the way that we see it be, uh, working out is today if you post something on Instagram, you have another way you can also post to Facebook. We see it something simple as, as that as PO posting in different places at, at, in one post or taking it from one place to another. So it should be fairly seamless and fairly easy, but we didn't mandate it because we wanted the flexibility that platforms can do it in the way they saw best fit for their user experience.

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you committee members just appreciate, um, all the work that went into this last year. When we put this out, we said that we would work with industry and there have been countless hours, as I mentioned earlier, with the Office of AI policy working on this. And so just would appreciate your support.

Schoenberg, I'll waive. Thanks. Okay.

I will take that. Thank you, Mr. Or Madam Chair. Um, appreciate your guys' time and committee for allowing us to be here.

Thank you chair, and I apologize for that. Um, last year we established, uh, the principle that your social media data belongs to you. Um, this was a bill that we passed last year. And having worked in the industry, what happens with our data is they use our data to inform an algorithm. They then sell that algorithm to advertisers for billions of dollars, where we have no control of what happens to that. Um, today, if you post something on your timeline on social media, you don't own it. You don't control it. If you delete it, it's deleted from your timeline, not actual from servers. And what we did last year was ensure that as a user, as a Utah, Utah, you actually own, manage and control your own data. And so what we promised industry last year is that we would take the year to hear concerns, hear their feedback. And what we did is we tightened up the bill to make sure that it was workable and to ensure that it was something that both Utah and industry could, could do together. And so, some, some changes that we, we made to it, um, we gave users more control. Instead of requiring an all or nothing transfer of your data, users can now choose which portions of their data they want to move. Second, it adds real time, uh, timelines. Um, so we just made sure that platforms, it was clear on what those timelines needed to be if you wanted to download your data or if you wanted to move it. And third, it closes a privacy gap. If your information is going to be included when someone else transfers their social media data, your consent is now required. Uh, that was something that we worked hard with industry to make sure that that was done. And finally adds a narrow safe harbor for temporary technical disruptions. So if companies are acting in good faith and they're short term, uh, issues, and someone wants to download or take their data from a social media platform we just made, added in a safe harbor that, um, just kind of, it doesn't penalize them if there are issues with their platform at that time, uh, these changes strengthen privacy, clarify expectations, and make the law more workable and enforceable, uh, for the industry and the state of Utah. And with that, we're open to questions.

Can you explain to me what open protocol you're using?

Yeah, so we actually don't mandate the open protocol. I think there's about six or seven open protocols available today that, uh, platforms are using that any of these platforms, whether it's meta Google, they can choose which open protocol they want to use, or they can build their own. Um, we didn't mandate that because we wanted, uh, tech platforms to allow them to do it however they wanted and what's feasible for them. And also the most user friendly for their users. And so we don't mandate what open protocol, uh, they have to use. We, we allow them the option to either build it or use one that's available today.

So, so I don't see this as a neutral regulation. It dictates core software architectures on these platforms. These platforms are given, given you the use of their platform by sharing your data. And I, I don't have any problem. I, I mean, you, you're gonna have to convince me that I, I don't have any problem with the idea of being able to remove your data if you put it on there, right? And go back to, to being private again. Uh, you know, being able to delete what you have, being able to download it is one thing. But to say that there's a realtime, continuous, realtime data sharing open protocols, I mean, what I, I wonder how people on this committee would feel if, if we told Chevrolet that their key needed to work in a, in a Ford. And when I put that key in my Ford, I, I go to start up my Ford and all my, all my data transfers. So I know what radio station I was on. I know where my seat was in the position. I, I, I mean, that would be really nice for me to be able to switch to a Ford if I owned a Chevy. But I, I, I, I don't know why a company would want to do that, because now, now you're taking away what distinguishes them from somebody else. And I, I kind of feel like the same thing with social media. Uh, you know, it's, it's one thing to say, well, there's an open protocol and I'm gonna share this information. I don't know what standard they would use. You know, and maybe I, I, I know it's possible because I've done it, you know, with software systems before, but I just don't, I just don't know why we as a state that wants to claim that we're conservative, uh, wants to mandate what an individual company must do. I, I mean, I can see people wanting to do that, but, but heck, they, they give me their platform to use and, and now we want to tell them how it must work. They give it to me for free, right? I, I supply my data and that data, the reason why they're willing to provide that platform for free is because I'm sharing my data. If I don't wanna share my data, I can delete my account and download that data. I, I just don't, I, you know, you know, exposing their APIs to competitors, uh, this, this data's valuable to them. That's why they do it, right? That's why they provide these services. They charge if you want access to their APIs, uh, you know, I, I used to build social media software to, to, to do this. And I just don't understand why we want to have a utility style regulation of a private software platform. And maybe you can explain that to

Me. Sure. A couple of, is that okay, chair? Oh, yeah. Uh, a couple of things. Number one is when you transfer your data, you still have to abide by the terms of use for the platform you're going to. And if we're all being honest with ourselves, these platforms want the data moving into their systems. Uh, they may complain and say, well, you're forcing me to take this data. We're not forcing anyone to take the data. They have to follow the, your terms of use. And two, you're incentivized because they want your data. That's what brings these platforms value. Now, the, the example was given out of a key from one brand of car to another. I think the, the biggest example that we have in history of interoperability is telecom. There was a time that probably everyone here, if we're old enough, there was a time where phone numbers, you could only call people within that certain provider. And if you had to call someone with another provider, you had to get another phone. And if you left that provider because the rest of your family was on another provider, you had to switch your number and you couldn't take your phone number with you. Well, then Congress passed interoperability within telecom. And now, today, I can take my phone number, whether I'm with T-Mobile, Verizon, at and t, I can take my phone number with me wherever, because it's mine. And similarly, what we're asking for in this bill, and, and the bill we passed last year, is we're allowing people to take their data with them because it's theirs. Um, yes, it's still valuable. They can still target ads with our data. But what we're saying is if the values don't align with us, if privacy standards doesn't align with us, or maybe our kids who are using these platforms, if security we're not comfortable with, we can move and take that from, we can take that to another place if we want to, because it's ours, because we created it. We are the person who posted it, created that video, and it should be with us. Now, I've, I've spent many years working for these companies and they spend millions and millions of dollars on engagement. They want us clicking and scrolling as long as possible. That's what why they want our data is because they get to know us more than we know ourselves because we are clicking and scrolling. And they want us to do that as long as possible. That's why this data's important. But we're putting power back into the user's hands. We're always should have remained. It should have remained with the individuals. And that's why this bill is important. Now, this bill as actually isn't discussing what was passed last year, this is just tightening things. And we worked with industry to make sure it was workable for them. If we don't pass this bill, it will actually be harsher and more confusing for them to follow. And so I think it's important that we do this because we have worked with them over the past year to ensure it's workable for them. And so, um, with that, I'm happy to take more questions if there are more. Senator

Johnson. Yeah. If I may, uh, you know, one, I I, I could see an interoperability thing being done at the federal government, but I, I think this is a very different thing. These are independent companies and, and, you know, I, I'll, I'll, I'll grant you the, the cell phone idea is one, right? But, uh, but I, I just, I, I just can't comprehend how we want to enforce this micro level thing at a state level, state by state. And, and, uh, boy, I tell you, if I was a social media company, I really wouldn't like this. And that's, that may be your intent, right? But, uh, i, I just, I dunno, mandates open protocols, it forces real time interoperability, expands security risk, because now you're opening up an API that other companies, you know, that I can transfer now to another company. Who do I blame now when my data's gone? Right? Because now you've facilitated the, the expansion of this across the whole web. I, uh, I think it intrudes into federal commerce space. And while I don't like the dormant commerce clause, I, I do think these things belong at the state level. I think it, uh, resembles an EU type, uh, structural tech regulation. Uh, and you know, quite frankly, I, I think I have a very pro innovation legislative philosophy. And I, I, I, I can't support this that,

I, I appreciate your thoughts on this. And, and I, I know, and I know and appreciate all of your experience in the tech industry also, and so appreciate your comments. I would love the federal government to act, but we know they're in a gridlock and nothing is happening on a federal level. That's why you saw data, data privacy become a state's issue. That's why you see states stepping in and, and running bills around ai. It's because the federal government is not acting. And sadly, these companies will not act if they're not forced. And states are acting. We have five other states running similar bills. And what we'll see is this being done on a federal level, not because the Federal government Act, it's because states acted. And so, um, I, I think this is an important piece of legislation. It will open up competition for smaller and, and medium tech, which we have previously had smaller tech in Utah tech companies come out and, and stand in favor of this bill. And, and I think this is a good way of making sure that people have control over their data. Any Other Thoughts or anything? No, couldn't, couldn't have said it better. I mean, I think we are taking a appropriate state level stance by mandating that companies comply with data sharing requests without specifying the protocols like you might at a national FCC kind of level of regulation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I broke protocol there. I'm Zach Boyd. I'm with the Office of AI policy within the, the Department of Commerce.

Good afternoon. My name is Alita Thurber, and I'm actually here on a different issue, but I used to be a front and backend developer for one of our tech companies here in Salt Lake. And I think as far as data is concerned, on the back end, it goes into A-J-S-O-N object that stands for, uh, um, JavaScript object notation. So regardless of whether it's on YouTube or TikTok or Instagram, you're gonna have the same JavaScript object, which would be your video and your comments and your likes and whatnot. When that data transfers over to a different platform, you need to change the mapping for some of the fields and the JavaScript object. But that JavaScript code object does transfer over quite easily. And I just wanted to add that in. And I, I think, uh, um, this bill would be a good thing to have. And, and thank you for your service representatives.

Uh, my motion would be to move the agenda.

Yeah, I think, I think this is an unfriendly motion. Um, I, I just want to be very clear that not passing this bill and these structural changes will actually hurt tech, uh, more than passing it. We've worked with them over the last year to make sure that there was definitions and clarity in this bill. A lot of it are structural and technical changes that were provided by tech companies. And so not doing it doesn't change. The underlying principle of the bill that we passed last year, not passing it will actually hurt tech companies. And so I, I'd urge the committee not to hold this bill and, and to pass it through because we've already passed the, the bill and the policy. Now, this is just the cleanup bill, and I just wanna make sure that that's clear before it's held.

Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend HB 4 0 8, uh, first sub, uh, to the full body of the Senate.

Thank you Mr. Speaker colleagues. Last year we passed the Utah Digital Choice Act. This gave Utahans the ability who use social media platforms to own managing and control their data. We know what big tech doess with our data and Utah took a step in making sure that those who post information and data online, that it isn't being sold for billions of dollars to the highest bidder, but that we control it. And so this bill is a cleanup bill. We met with, uh, the tech industry over the past year. We've got a lot of feedback and this really just, uh, clarifies a lot of definitions to ensure that one, it's clear and they have the ability to follow the law. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to answer any questions.

portability Bill, excuse me. And this is, this is, uh, a lot of work that goes, goes in addition to the work we did last year, um, Representative Fiefia worked on this last year. This, this bill this year provides some strong, safe harbor provi provisions from the past. But lemme just walk through what the bill does. It strengthens user control over social media. The bill allows users to select and transfer portions of their social media data. Pictures, posts, comments, connections to another platform if they choose. It's not a requirement requires interoperability between social media platforms. Social media companies must create systems that allow users to move their data between platforms. This protects user consent and privacy during data transfers. Platforms must obtain permission before sharing user data, especially when another person's social media graph included in their comments or interactions. This promotes open standards for social media data exchange. The bill encourages the use of protocols, so social media platforms can communicate and exchange data more easily. Um, one thing this does from from last year, it includes safeguards for companies facing technical limitations. Social media companies are protected from penalties if temporary technical failures interrupt data sharing. And you'll see some of those safe Har Harbor provisions in the short title. Line 14. And, and that's what, that's what the bill does. It goes, it it, this is a companion bill to what we did last year without. I'm open for questions.

So can you tell me the data standard that you're gonna use to transfer this data? Very vague. In the bill, It's the, It basically says they can use any data standard. They want to be able to transfer this data. This, this bill. Basically, I, I mean, it's like telling Ford Okay. That they need to create a key that I can use in my Chevy that transfers all my data and settings into my Chevy so that I can switch easily between my Ford and my Chevy Set. Yeah. So I, I'm just curious as to how, how they're gonna accomplish this. Senator Mikel, will you yield?

I will yield Mr. Go ahead, Senator Mikel. Um, I, I think if I understand the question, it's, it's more of a technical question. Um, as far as as how this data is gonna be portable, um, I, I'm certainly as a, as a lawmaker, we, we simply set policy. I, I, I don't understand the technical details of how that that is going to happen, but I know as Representative Fiefia has worked on it, I know there's a lot of a lot of engineers that understand this. Um, that's not, that's not something that I, I understand the full portability, but I will tell you, you have companies that work together. Um, for example, Facebook and Instagram. Those are, those are two, two companies that share, share a platform. And that's what we're talking about is portability between those social media companies.

Yeah. So you're, you're saying, oh, oh, sorry. Go ahead, Senator Johnson. You're, you're basically saying then that if I decide one day I want to be on True social instead of Facebook, I, I need to just push a button and all of a sudden all of my posts that I've ever made, okay. My friends and everything are gonna transfer over to, uh, this other over to truth social so I can leave Facebook. So you're, you're basically telling them, so in my mind, that's kinda like telling Ford their key needs to work in the Chevy and it needs to transfer all of my personal preferences over there.

Mr. President. I think the point of the bill is to make sure people have a choice of where their data goes and that people are in control of their data. What we worry about is these, these are companies that are mining our data. And what we want, we want to have happen is we want our consumers to be in charge of their data and make sure that they're in control of their data. Not, not the, not the companies, but the actual, the actual individuals using these platforms.

Yeah. Yeah. I would like to follow up because you, you know, basically you agreed to a user agreement when you signed onto Facebook that allowed them to use that data. And, and they basically said that if you wanna leave, we'll give you your data back, we'll let you erase it off our platform. But now you're telling them how to run their business. You're telling them that they need to provide you an opportunity to be able to transfer that directly to their competitor. I, I just don't see, we, we have all of these policies that just don't even make sense. I don't even know how they can accomplish that. You know, I, I wrote, uh, the data standards for the appraisal industry and that that is not something that takes, that, that doesn't, that's not something that just happens. Uh, that took us many years to be able to develop that because you, you have to tell it exactly what is in every field, and you have to get the industry agree that to share those fields. And I, I just think we're setting up impossible standards because we don't like social media companies. And that really bothers me.

That's my Substitute.

Senator Johnson? Well, I'd Like to move that sub at some point, but I'll Come back. Well, if you want to,

Yes. I would like to delete title and body Of, uh, SB 4 0 8, substitute two and replace it, I think. Yeah. Substitute one.

Yes. I'm gonna replace it with substitute two. Sorry.

Yeah, the substitute basically, uh, repeals this whole data sharing idea.

Yeah. So I, I would oppose the substitute. We passed the bill dealing with the data portability last year. A lot of this is cleanup from last year. And this bill also this year has some, some good safe harbors if companies are working in good faith. So the substitute is right. It would be a repi of what we did last year. Um, I, I, I don't think that's the effort right now. The effort is to, is to take the legislation we did last year, make it much more workable, provide some safe harbor provisions for these social, social media companies that we, we, we pass data portability. Um, the key is, is we, we want consumers to be in control of our own data. And these, these companies have mined our data. We wanna be in control of our own data. And this sub, this sub would simply repeal what happened last year. And, and, and, and I, it is not a, it's not a friendly substitute and I would urge the body to not support it.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, um, it's uh, kind of an odd day when I get up and I agree with Senator Johnson. I, I look at how all this data is being manipulated and moved around. And it's similar to some of these bills are passing in education. We really don't understand what's happening in these big companies, in these data sharing process. All these internal processes that actually work to make our, um, make our programs more robust. And so this substitute would actually bring us back to where we were back to the drawing board, back to where we needed to start. Instead of trying to piecemeal it back to where it should have been and create safe harbors and do these workarounds, I think we should roll it back and start from square one. And this way we can move forward in a more efficient, productive manner and have a better understanding of what we're actually doing instead of piecemealing it together. So I support the substitute

Uh, so, uh, I don't know if this question is best for the underlying bill sponsor or the substitute sponsor, so I'll throw it up for either to go. Um, but I was looking at last year on the data portability. The effective date for most of that is July 1st, 2026. And I'm wondering if we've had any industry feedback with regards to their ability to fulfill the requirements of last year's data port data sharing amendments, which was HB four 18. Um, and, and whether there's any issues there. And I'm not sure if, if either of the, the sponsors of the sub or the original have any information on that.

I'd be glad to address that question.

Thank you. So, So I have talked to a number of the vendors, uh, number of the companies, they basically set up a, a standard that the companies don't even know how to meet. And so I, I don't know how I, I don't know how they can actually accomplish what was asked in the, in the bill last year. I was told in committee, I, I asked many questions about this in our committee and I, and you know, then I got some incoherent, i, I mean, responses back in terms of, oh yeah, well this is just gonna fix what we did wrong last year and I can't see a thing in single thing in this bill that makes it easier for them.

I, I do wanna address the, this 'cause I, the ship is kind of, I don't wanna say the ship is, is, is sailed, but the ship to a certain extent, we, we have set the policy and, and, and obviously if this substitute were to pass, um, I would circle the bill or the representative wouldn't, wouldn't Concur. And the bill that we have before us right now, it, it is a cleanup bill. I know he has had a chance to work with industry representatives to make sure that this can be implemented. I, I, I don't think it's to, to representative Bremmer's question it, can it be perfectly implemented? I, I, I don't think so. And, and I, that's why you're seeing some of the cleanup and some of the safe harbor provisions. But, but to simply pass a substitute that would repeal the bill, this bill, I mean, just, just logistics of the bill would either be circled here or it wouldn't be concurred to in the house. The, the existing policy would, would be in place and the cleanup from last year's bill, most of that wouldn't move, move forward including some of those safe harbor provisions. So we'd have the same statute that we had coming out of last legislative session, if that makes sense. Okay.

Yes. Senator Vickers. Mr. President pro tem. Uh, question for the sponsor of the motion to substitute. I assume he would yield.

Um, as I look at the, the substitute, and I'm listening to this discussion, so you're repealing this act and I wanna make clear, is it repealing everything that we've done up to this point? Or is because we have done significant work in the past on this, is it, would that, would this substitute repeal that work as well? Yes.

Sorry. Substitute Senator Johnson. It would repeal the, the whole act that started last year.

Um, I would imagine since the executive branch was heavily involved in that, uh, and I'm not sure what that to their engagement on this, but I'm curious, have you engaged with them and the, the thoughts from, from the executive branch on your

No.

Yeah, yeah. Just again, I, I would oppose the motion to substitute. I, I think I understand some of the concerns and the concerns or implementation. The bill today is an attempt to make sure that that implementation moves forward, uh, a little more smoothly. I, I recognize, and I, I think the Senator Vickers right, that there are some challenges, but this, this bill is an attempt to do that. And it also provides some strong, safe harbor provisions. But if this substitute were to pass, um, I'm, I'm certain this bill, this, this sub, this new substitute would not make it through the legislature. I'm certain that the, the house sponsor would not support that. Meaning the existing law would be in place without some of the cleanup, without some of the safe harbor provisions. And I think would be in a, in a, in probably a worse, uh, a worse spot than, than passing this bill that we have before us today. So I would oppose it.

Yes, I, I, uh, I would just move that, uh, we support the substitute.

Thank you to, uh, back, back to the bill. I'm, I'm happy to answer any, any more questions. I, this has been a good discussion. And, and the point that I, I wanna make is this, this builds upon the work that we did last year. This provides more safeguards than before. This tries to answer some of those logistical problems that, that have, have arisen. That's why the bill is here again. Um, the, the point that we're making with, with a bill like this is the data is our data. It's not the company's data, it's our data. Uh, we need to, we need to continue to work on the logistics of controlling our own data from companies that are harvesting our data. Um, I I, is it a perfect build? No. We're, we are the laboratories of democracy. We have 50 states trying to figure this out, trying to figure out how do we control our, our data from big, big tech. And I, and I think this is the, is is a step in the right direction. But, but again, this, this is a collaborative bill that, that has tried to address some of those issues. With that, I would urge passage

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President pro Tem,

you. So I, I, I understand that we're trying to move in the right direction, but to the same extent, some of this stuff cannot be done. So when I look at line 44 that says users, user selected portion of data. So if you are asking for a section of data that's user selected, I don't know how you can get into all the bits and bytes of our data to pull out a bit and then skip a couple of bytes and then pick out a bit. So if a company doesn't do this, are they under vi are they in violation of not doing it properly? Because it, it doesn't really seem that you can pick and choose out of all your data, specifically if you're just somebody who is on the platform. So how would, how would that reaction be if, uh, the company was out of compliance?

That's a great question. And, and a company that's, that makes a good, good faith effort. We put some, we, we do put some safe harbor provisions in the bill. And that was on, and that was on purpose. Just, just to make sure that there's safeguards for companies facing technical limitations. And, and those, those, some of those concerns were contemplated 'cause we are, we are on a new space.

Thank you. Um, may I have a follow another question? Please?

Yes, please. Thank You. So on line 91, it says within five business days. So the worldwide web is worldwide. And if you're gonna ask to have your personal specific, uh, user selected data moved from the whole worldwide web, and that's five days to get that done. That seems like a really short time. Um, once again, is there a safe harbor for this not happening?

Yeah. Senator Mikel, I, I don't, I actually don't think five, five days is difficult at all for them. These are companies that do targeted advertising. They have your data, they've mined your data, they understand exactly who you are. Um, when, when you're in your social media account and you look at the advertisements that are directed at you, they know exactly who you are. They, and they, and they've mined who you are. And, and it, if it, if they can upload an ad to target you immediately, I I, I see no reason why they couldn't, couldn't provide, provide that data to you within five days. They, they can do it for advertisers.

Yeah. Thank you. May I have one more question? Senator

So it also says on line 30 that it's including when a user's personal data intended to be shared in response to another user's request. So if I take a picture of your data and I repost it just a picture, how would they be responsible for taking that picture down that hasn't been tagged or hasn't been associated with another person? Because that actually becomes quite troublesome. I don't really know how you would take a picture that maybe had been modified or crossed out and then say in five days you need to go find all those pictures that somebody already put online and take it down. How, how would that be required to happen in five days?

Can you gimme a reference of that line again? I I missed line one

30. Which Line? One wine? 1 31 30.

And, and again, maybe some of these technical aspects I don't understand, but this is, these, these technical, the framework of this was worked on with, with stakeholders and, and my understanding is working with stakeholders, this language was carefully crafted to do that.

Thank you. And, uh, I guess your answer sums it up pretty well for me. But we, we don't understand how some of this stuff works. We are, we are concerned about social media, how we use social media, how it's been prolific in our lives. And I think we all should be pulling it back from social media. But when we all agreeing and willingly put all this stuff online and thought it was cute and funny, and now we're gonna hold all these companies responsible for figuring out a way to pull it all off. I, I don't, I don't think that it's feasibly, I don't think it's feasible. I don't think that we should be holding people responsible for after the fact when they put stuff up there willingly. And so I, I think there's a lot to not understand about this bill and a lot to not understand how it all works. And so I was a little cautious about the parameters of how we're asking these companies to undo what we have done as users. So, uh, thank you for those responses.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, motion to amend. Motion to amend

What it does is there is a variety of effective dates in the bill. I consolidated those, so the bill takes effect July 1st, 2027. So we have time to look at it and have another session.

Yeah. Thank you Mr. President, while you, while you were gone, we had some vigorous debate. This is a cleanup bill to our data portability that's happened in the past. I think it's important to, to do some of this cleanup, clarify some of the provisions, some of the terms, and also provide some of those safe har harbor provisions. Um, I appreciate the wisdom from Senator Harper. I think it pushing that effective date back a little bit. I think there's some wisdom in that. And with that, I'd open up for questions. Thank you.

I'm gonna move to circle because my fiscal note, while I know it's zero, I maybe I didn't approve it, so I'm gonna try to get that done as quickly as possible.

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, motion. Motion to encircle house bill 73. Motion to encircle house bill 73, public employee retaliatory action amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll the motion passes.

Thank you. This is actually a bill that came out of the,

Yep. I'm gonna move that this bill pass.

Senator Ipson Baldy blew in Bra Bramer. Bus Comore Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Aye. Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers Weiler Wilson Winterton.

Senator Sandall circle. Motion to circle.

Thank you. I need to move a substitute

Third substitute house bill 4 0 8 Data sharing amendments by Representative Fiefia.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we concur with the Senate amendments.

Sure. We just move the effective date giving industry an additional year, um, to comply with the law.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to encircle P 4 29.