 Great okay so welcome to remind how she destroyed committee and we are now hearing from representative Brian China to discuss a possible amendment to h 195. I think it's going to be a good morning and and welcome representative Tina. Thank you. Thanks for inviting me. You know in short notice to come talk with you about my concerns about h 195. Yesterday, during the floor report. The reporting member said that was talking about how the state intends to use this technology and was saying that it would be used for facial detection and not for facial recognition and I felt that if we were if the intention of this bill was to limit use of artificial intelligence technology in law enforcement. To facial detection versus facial recognition, then the bill should say facial detection and the bill said facial recognition four times in it and it says facial detection zero times. So, I was struggling with how could I vote for something that says facial recognition if the intention was not facial recognition. And, and so I reached out to ledge council and the reporter of the bill and the chair of the committee this morning to kind of be mindful of you know the impact on others of my concerns and the bill quickly drafted an amendment. So it was already drafted very swiftly so I have an amendment that I just emailed you and you can see in the amendment that it. It talks about it says replacing what the amendment would do is strike out recognition replace it with detection throughout the bill, and then clarify add a section that says facial recognition technology is not permitted. It defines facial detection technology and facial recognition. So there's some clarity about what we mean because right now there is no definition of facial recognition in the, even in this bill. And so you can see the that it defines facial detection technology as an automated decision system used to detect faces as being different than other objects, which is how I heard the testimony I watched it a few times but how I heard it was it was sort of stated that the software could be used to detect any objects and was being geared towards faces so that people don't have to sort through thousands of photos. They can just sort through the faces but and facial recognition would mean that it would be the automated or semi automated process that identifies or attempts to identify a person based on the characteristic of the person's face identification of known or or unknown persons or groups or it could also be the automated or semi automated process by which the characteristics of a person's face are analyzed to determine the person's sentiment state of mind or other propensities including their level of dangerousness and facial tech recognition technology would be defined as any computer software application that performs facial recognition. What I was thinking is if the intention is facial detection then let's change it to facial detection, continue the ban on facial recognition and explain what we mean and what the difference is. I did speak with one of the witnesses who's here just now on the phone. And I, and so it's become it's been made more clear to me that and so I won't speak for you. I don't know how we refer to it like Mr share or whatever I won't speak for you but but it's my understanding that the Attorney General's office is actually hyper aware of the difference and that their intention is actually facial recognition with boundaries. And so I can let you speak to that more I don't want to speak for you but after speaking with them I am considering not offering the amendment because my intention wasn't to like, change it it was to make it reflect what I thought was being presented. So I will stop there for a minute and I probably have more to say but I'll stop and like here for Mr shares. Okay, well, thank you actually before we do I just want to see if any committee members have questions for you. Brian. That's seeing any. Okay, great. David. Good morning and thank you representative seen a, and for the chance to speak a few minutes ago as well. I think the everything said it was accurate I think there was a bit of it, there may have been a bit of a disconnect between the terminology the technical terminology and, and the practical safeguards built into the bill. And so it is true that the technology being used is what we would commonly refer to as facial recognition technology it attempts to recognize specific known faces. However, there's a lot of safeguards built in around that, including the fact that this cannot be used under this statute and this was something that the committee clarified. Again, with an amendment you know we try to write it this way and the committee correctly made it even more clear that it cannot be used to look for unknown people to try to troll databases to find somebody who may match a description or something like that. It can only be used when there is an already known suspect or an already known victim, and trying to find that specific face and see if they show up in the images. And again that's a safety matter they have that really, if you have these types of images they really should be checking to make sure that there isn't that, or you should be checking to see if that person is present in those images and so it's a very limited as I discussed with the representative can only be used by ICAC because the, by the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force because it can only be used in investigating those offenses. So anyway there's a bunch of guardrails I know the committee knows this fairly well. I don't want to go over too much but I think that's where there may have been a disconnect it's like a very limited use so that it is using the recognition but it's only for already known people so it's not what we normally think of. When we talk about facial recognition technology and the ways that are really disturbing and that frankly our office opposes as well. The committee heard from investigator Raymond he was approached by clear view AI to have that sort of technology at his fingertips to that could trawl databases looking for people and he did not take them up on that offer. Thank you, thank you. Barbara. So I just want to put out there that I think in my attempt to share that this wasn't scraping faces off the Internet, etc. It's really confusing to me to be confused people because it isn't a straight. It's, it's more of a hybrid it's like we're only looking for this specific base we're not going to get other images and I own up that I cause much angst to representative I just want to apologize for that and will correct. I think I will stand and correct the fact today just so that others aren't confused one way or the other whatever happens with the amendment. Thank you Barbara so let's see I see Brian coach and Tom. I just wanted to say the representative Rachel sin that that I don't think it's your fault that I had anxiety about it. It's because I am very entrenched in AI policy and I spent the last year in a transatlantic fellowship looking at the benefits and risks of the AI on task force. And so when I see things with AI I, I, it, it, I think about it and try to think about it and give it due diligence and so I just appreciate that you know we're having the conversation now and clarifying what we're doing so thank you. Well thank you Brian and we're, we are glad you are here to have that that focused I because we we to share your concerns. Okay, coaching Tom please or Barbara I'm sorry did you. Okay, yeah. Okay, coaching Tom. Brian thanks for being that watchful AI person. You know, from the equity perspective, and the, the bias implications. You know, of the software. I am proud of the work that our ICAC group does. And the fact that you know these, these companies try to get their technology active. And Vermont's the tall, you know, our director said, No, we don't do that here in Vermont, because it's, you know, it's, it's on hold, you know, by law, you know, here in the state. So he did the right thing. But also coming to us as a committee with a very discreet aspect and application is why we agreed with intentional guardrails, you know, throughout, you know, this particular bill to protect our kids. You know, and, and that is that unique discreet application, you know, of this particular software. And that's why, and, you know, within within all of the confines that we would want, you know, for a very specific discreet carve out. And, you know, I think we're, we're in a good space. And the fact that we have so many watchful eyes, you know, like on this, you know, the whole committee, you are agents, you know, being those people. And when you look when you listen to those numbers that representative, Rachelson bought up, you know, with us being locked in, and these perpetrators out there trolling, you know, our kids. But I do appreciate your work. And thank you for stepping up my friend. Thank you coach, Tom. Thank you. Hey Brian, how you doing. Thank you for, for having such a good eye I guess you could say it and keeping an eye on facial recognition type technology or the AI, or, and even us. But no, between myself, Barbara and coach. We are, we are diligent when it comes to the privacy issues. And if, and I don't expect you to but if you are all the way back when we first started looking at this bill, you would, you would get an idea of how, how concerned we are with these types of issues. You would that Maxine kinds, kinds of calls us her privacy team. And you would fit right in with us. There is no doubt that you would be a good, a good member on the privacy team in judiciary but, and I wanted to thank David also for him explaining to, to Brian exactly what we did and what we were doing and what we attended. Sometimes it seems simple but sometimes it's really not that easy to explain I guess to, to a late for a lay person, and I just wanted to thank David for doing that. Yeah, thank you Tom and I certainly echo that as well. Okay, so Brian and coach I see both of your, your hands up. It looks like coaches hands that the sunset provision hadn't kicked in yet but it just did. But my hand is actually a new hand. Just that there, there are some questions I have and I could save it for the floor but I do also don't want you represent a racist and to feel like, like attacked by me or anything if I ask you these questions on the floor so I can ask them now and if you ask me the answers. By the time we get to the floor, if it's okay for you to just say we don't know, because it kind of proves the point about some of my concerns and I think at this point instead of offering an amendment. I'm going to support the bill but I'm going to make a point about the issue you briefly. So can I may ask the questions quickly just to get them out there just to give us notice. One question is what is the software that the that the that the agos office plans to use the second one. Do we know the type or types of data inputs that the technology uses. Do we know how that data is generated collected and processed. Do we know the type or types of data that this automated decision system is reasonably likely to generate. Do we know if you want. Does the algorithm store the data somewhere to inform these decisions who has access to that data how is it shared has this facial these I have facial detection but I'm going to call it facial recognition has this facial recognition system been tested by an independent third party has any bias been found or is it completely untested for bias. So those are some questions I have about this and it would be questions that I would have about any automated decision system that the state uses which is why there is a separate bill age 263 that that looks at this issue. So if you don't have all the answers it's okay because we may not be the reality is no one may have those answers and that's the point you know is that we may. It sounds like and I guess just a sneak preview what I would say on the floor is that the committee has done an excellent job and so has the Attorney General's office of managing what happens outside of the box. In terms of human accountability. But the question is have we done enough to understand what's happening inside that box and behind the scenes. And we may not and that's okay I'll still support it, but I think moving forward this is the kind of the this is the issue we have. This is a piece of the issue we need to think about that's my final comment on it and just so that no one's surprised by what I say on the floor. It would be questioning that about any use of an automated decision system. And ultimately I think the benefits of this bill outweigh the risks considering what it will do. And so I'm now leaning towards supporting it but anyway I'll stop there thanks. Thank you very much so I would turn to David. Thank you for being able to get those answers I'm not sure if you have any of those answers or maybe Matt Raymond would but what you share your thoughts please. Sure, I think I don't have those answers. Matt Raymond is the person who would have them to the extent we can't you know it's sent we have answers I'm not sure if you would be have answers for every one of those questions. But regardless of whether we can provide answers for all the questions I think the representative is making a an important point about making sure that it is transparency about the type of programs that are being used by state government certainly not one that we would dispute. We'll do the best we can to get some answers over if we can't I think the point that's being made as a valid one and sort of substance of the point is one that should be made and we certainly wouldn't dispute so we'll do we can to get you some basic answers we won't I don't think be able to get everyone. And we encourage you to and appreciate you making the point you're making about transparency around this technology. Thank you. Thank you so much, David. Coach. Brian. Thanks again. And you too, David. One of the things that you mentioned earlier in the selection, not only of the software that was being used previously, because ICAC had been using this software prior, you know, to our placing the hold on using, you know, any software in the state. You also mentioned that there was another vendor that had approached ICAC about their software, and they immediately said no to that particular vendor. I think our, our research Brian. Representative Rachel sin, and representative bird at, you know, both in their research looked at, you know, some of those questions that you did mention like the bias question was the, the one that, you know, I mean jumped out to all three of us, you know, and in our research. And, you know, so a number of the other questions, I think they make sense to add to our, let's say, tool that we use as we, you know, continued to evaluate those questions as they come before us on our committee. So I really appreciate that. And, you know, please, you know, share that list, because that'll be very helpful to us as we continue to work on this. Thank you. I sent it to representative Rachel sin and David share but yeah, yeah, and, and if you want to look at even more questions you could take a look at h263 because it really talks about this issue in depth about the state inventory of all of these systems so there's more there for you if you're interested in this topic so thank you for giving me the time I don't want to hold you up and I also are committees like rushing to get things done too so Yeah, I'm just one more thing I'm Brian, if it's okay with you, we can post the email regarding those questions on our website under h195 if you'd like so it'd be part of the public record. Yeah, I would I would have capitalized things and stuff but it's okay. We do it and I'm just giving you that option. You can you can post it it's just for the for the record I didn't give proper attention to my by my capitalization punctuation and grammar so I just want it the record to show that this doesn't reflect my highest level of writing, but it, but it but it's fine for the content. Okay, great. All right, thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you I'm leaving by. Bye. And thank you David thank you everybody. Okay, so in the little bit of time left because I would like to end on time because will will has bill on the floor and actually Barbara still, I'm sure has. So anyway, I really want to give folks some folks a break. So two outstanding things. We are scheduled to discuss the motivated hate crimes and the reporting on that so I, I'm going to go to that second. Hopefully we can get to that but coach I want to come coach in a second. The Appropriations Committee has asked us to weigh in on the Human Rights Commission's need for, I think it's two positions I'm not sure I'm getting this, but, but attorney positions and the Human Rights Commission cases are, they're, they're very specialized they're very specific. And so I'll, I'll leave it at that and, and let coaches the chair of the Human Rights Commission elaborate and see if there's any, anything that we can weigh in to appropriations in terms of, I think they're looking to see if we would support that. Thank you. I guess what I'd like to do is refer to the. There were five reports on that were offered by different working groups. Since we last convened. So over that, you know, it seems like we weren't on vacation for long. But during that time, a number of task force met and looked at the jurisdiction of the commission and how it could be even more supportive of the protected classes that come under its jurisdiction. So the recommendations that came out of those five committees or task force circulated around giving more technical support to the commission. At one point at the highest range. There were three positions mentioned. And at the low end, one and a half FTS. So it depended on, you know, like which of the groups you were talking about, as far as, you know, what the feeling of support was needed. And to give you a kind of a comment that's going on in appropriations. One of the thoughts was the defender general's office who comes before us a lot uses contract attorneys. And so the recommendation in appropriation or one of the thoughts was, why doesn't the commission, you know, just contract. Well, there's a big difference in the two types of applications in the defender general's office. Everybody has the right to an attorney as a defendant. So they contract with over 200 contract attorneys and the defender general's office does 20,000 cases. This is all on their website. They do 20,000 cases a year. So it isn't an apples and oranges types of discussion. The Human Rights Commission on the other hand is very discreet. You know, if you had a sibling or friend or family member or any number of the protected classes that we would represent you on the investigations that we do can take up to two years. You know, I mean, that doesn't happen all the time. But most of them, if we had to take an average, you're looking at, you know, upwards of three to six months anyways, on your average case. And so it's, it's a, it's a different framework. And then when you get to the, to the attorney side of things, when a case needs to be prosecuted. We only have one attorney available to do that. Who happens to be the executive director. So every time that you know we have to pull bore into her formal role as our attorney. And all of those other things that come under her job description have to be, you know, she has to juggle, be it testimonies here in our committee or any other committee. And, you know, that's the pressure. And then that's been observed and recognized by all of those different commissions. And so that there, that's the background of why. And as we know, the human rights are what, you know, we're all about. And that's why we construct the laws the way we do to ensure that people are protected. And the commission, you know, is that set of eyes that make sure that all of that happens. So that's, that's the cliff notes version. Thank you. So the question is whether or not we support the proposal. So, Bob, and coach I'll let you take the leads because you may have more answers to me answers than I do. Bob. Yeah, thank you. I was looking over what coaches talking about here. And excuse me obviously I don't oppose any movement in the Human Rights Commission whatever but I was looking at the price tag that came along with it. Did I read that right at $1.25 million for that and is that a reoccurring fear. No, no, no, that that's, I'm not sure where that number, unless that's the whole budget for the commission. The request for these positions, you know, with benefits to FTEs at litigation level is under $300,000. And that is the request. There's two requests on the table, one for 300,000 and one for 250,000 and approves will make that determination, but that's those are the accurate numbers for the FTEs Bob. Okay, thank you. Any other questions. I, you know, I recommend that we do support it. It's certainly within certainly within the mission of our work and and I think it's important. Again, the numbers will let appropriations play with those numbers but in terms of terms of our committee as a policy committee. Certainly I think that is important work that that we support and continue to support, but I'm opening that up to others. We don't need to take a vote on this it's just a general actually Kimberley just up is the liaison for this, and has been in touch with me. Yes. And just just a quick comment. You know, Kimberly had Ken's job. Before she went to appropriations. So she's, she's very familiar with our committee. Right. Thank you. Selena. I just want to offer strong strong support for this appropriation and and note, you know that sadly we've seen a number of years where hate crimes and bias incidents are on the rise and a lot of categories and we would imagine and thus the, you know, caseload and and impact of the Human Rights Commission and also I'll note that it seems to me that just as we're asking a lot at times as we try to work on issues of equity we're asking a lot of Susan Davis and her office they think we're often asking a lot more these days of the executive director of the Human Rights Commission as well. And so it seems clear to me that the need, the need for increased capacity is there from up from, you know, a few different directions and just wanted to offer strong support for the appropriation. Thank you Selena. Anybody else. I'm sorry Kate. Yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to echo Selena's comments and that you know, in my experience, there are a lot of municipalities that are really struggling with these issues and they are also more and more calling upon the Human Rights Commission and and I think it seems to me that there are a lot of communities on the Davis's office to support local efforts as well. In my community and district there have been a few trainings on implicit bias by Human Rights Commission and so, you know, which I feel like that's such a significant area of support that's needed on the local level so again just echoing Selena's comments and just adding that to the huge service that's provided and I would definitely support the recommendation. Great. Thank you so much. Selena I see your hand is up again I'm not sure if that was before just failed to get it down. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. So the impression I'm, oh, Tom. Yeah, I'm going to be real sure and just say that I'm definitely in support of this. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Okay, so is there anybody who wants to speak in opposition among the sort of the pulse the vibe the temperature that I'm getting is support. And I'm not here seeing nodding. I'm not not hearing any, any opposition. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I will be in touch with Madam chair. If I could, and this is, you know, just a something that you might not hear or understand in a nuance of the work of the commission. It isn't always, you know, I'll give you an example of a case that that came before us. And it was clearly, you know, one of lack of understanding in this this woman had been putting signs in her window. And they were really hateful. And they were discriminatory against one of her neighbors. And during the course of the investigation, the lady filed a complaint, and the complaint was investigated. But what we ended up doing was mediating the situation. The woman who had been posting the signs agreed to working with the commission to learn more. She actually wrote a letter back to the commission, thanking, you know, her, because she didn't know. You know what you know and you don't know what you don't know. You know, and it was an LGBTQIA related protection. So, you know, and just another, you know, quick one there was a landlord situation. And in our housing complaints. And the mitigation there became the landlord. Changing her policy around how she analyzed, you know, her applications, because what she what she was doing was using terminology and language that she didn't realize. This was not only just totally inappropriate, but illegal in some cases. And so it isn't always about, you know, big lawsuits and that kind of thing sometimes as part of the process. Understanding changes. And that's the role. You know, you change the hearts and minds. You know, and, and that's what the are all of our work is about. So anyways, I just wanted to share that. You know, because that's a piece that doesn't always come come through the process. Great. Thank you know that that is important and having having those difficult conversations. It's important. Okay, thank you. Okay, great. So, I will let representative just know, and then so just have a few minutes, but we were scheduled to talk about the committee bill regarding hate motivated crimes where we're going to take out the word maliciously and then also what has the reporting environment on it. I know Selena did send Bryn some language. I'd like folks to think about whether or not we need more testimony on the eight motivate motivated crimes piece. If we don't take it out, you know, we're, we're folks with that. And my understanding is that Bryn is working on incorporating Selena's recommendations she may have already. And then we'll get a new draft lease for that section. So up and here she is so let's just take five, 10 minutes or something. And so we won't, we won't be able to have the full conversation that we need and we will. Luckily we do have tomorrow where we can wrap these things up. So see Tom's hand is is up I don't know if it's up there. Okay, and I see Bryn is here. Good morning Bryn, but any Hi, you are. Hi. So Hi Bryn so we're just talking about we're just going to take a very few minutes I know that you're working on in terms of hate motivated crimes in the study I know you're working on a new draft for the reporting section right with Selena's recommendation. Yeah. Good afternoon committee or morning committee for the record Bryn here from legislative council, I did send you a new draft to Evan and the chair and representative Colburn just a few minutes ago so it looks like Evan posted it already. Okay, great. So this is job 3.1. Does everybody does everyone have that. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I'm sure it's going to be great. So let's just scroll up make sure we're looking at the right thing okay so draft 3.1. This is the committee bill relating to hate motivated crimes and misconduct. And I apologize I didn't highlight the new new language here so I'll just point it out. It's just in the annual reporting requirement. And this is a reminder this requires starting next year for an annual report from the executive director of the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs on a variety of things and the change is made just in subdivision a. The report has to detail for the prior prior year, all incidents reported to the national incident based reporting system with details on both categories of bias motivation and types of offenses that were coded with an offender bias motivation. So a little bit more detail there. And then the other changes dropping down here into subdivision subdivision to which that provides that to the extent that it's feasible the report should include demographic information about the defendants. And then we've added another requirement that to the extent feasible the report should protect victim confidentiality when statistical information may be identifying. So I put it down there and subdivision to to indicate that that should apply throughout the report not just to those incidents that are reported to the national incident based reporting system. So those are just those are the only two changes there. And I understand there may be some more conversation that needs to happen about this reporting requirement. Thank you. And so bring do you have any thoughts on the concern about demographic information about the defendants about that being possibly lopsided or present presidential by just listing the defendants. So, I think that it was mentioned in committee yesterday that that that this information is, you know, criminal information is ultimately public. However, consolidating it into an annual report may draw attention to it in a separate level. So I really I think that that's really a policy decision for the committee whether or not you want to do that. I don't because it's public I don't think that you would. I don't think that it's, it's not violating any privacy laws. But I think that's a policy decision whether or not you want to limit it to the defendants or, or include other other parties there. Selena. Yeah, and I just wanted to say to add to that time multitasking and eating my lunches. I just wanted to say, I did try to figure out if there was a way to readily broaden that so that it would include demographic information about, you know, other parties but it just it just seems like that information isn't readily there. In the same way it is for the defendants, which is not to say that, which is not say that I don't think we should go after it, but that it's it seems to me like that broadening that might need to be part of the bigger conversation that I really hope is coming about how we build the capacity and infrastructure to get at some of these data gaps that we currently have. So I didn't see a easy way to broaden that and I do, I hear the concerns about potential concerns about like kind of shining further spotlight on defendants. And I also think that part of the reason for this reporting ask is to be able to address, you know, any disparities in the way the law is being applied and it was interesting when I was talking to Robin Joy, and she was looking at some of the bias based incidents that had been reported to neighbors over a period of a few years. One of the biggest categories of racially motivated crimes that was or or incidents I should say that was being reported was was, you know, some kind of observation that the that there that because a person was white that they were experiencing bias and that seems like an example of something that we might want to look at in our criminal justice system right that every part like this could potentially help to flesh out like what is actually going on there. Okay, thank you and we will have that broader discussion on data we there are a few bills that will be, we will be certainly starting that conversation on for sure. Okay. Any other questions just about this section for Britain. Madam chair. Question. I was just rereading again and that there's a section. 1445. It's on page one line 14. And it says service in the US armed forces. And would that also encompass the guard work that Vermont is doing with regards to, you know, individual hate crimes that are perpetrated. So, I presume that is a question for me represented. So the US armed forces, and I may want to check in with my colleague about this but my understanding of US armed forces is that it's, it does incorporate the guard. It's intended to be as broad as possible to encompass everybody who's involved, which would encompass the guard, I will check with Damien who's the expert there and just confirm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I, that's my understanding too but thank you for bringing that up cushion thanks for for checking that because if it doesn't be an important amendment. Okay, and Celine I think your hand is up from before, but if not, please jump in and let me know. Great. Well, thank you everybody. I'm going to close now because again I want to get us off the screen. And we will take this up when we can I'm not sure when we'll get back into committee I hope we will get back into committee today. Thank you.