0:00 KERI Conference Institute. We're a nonprofit think tank based here in Utah.
0:04 We are probably the primary voice when it comes to privacy among private groups in
0:10 Utah. One of the things that we did was we actually helped get Chris a job. We were
0:16 very heavily involved in getting the privacy commission created. So you owe us
0:19 one. Don't forget that.
0:24 So a couple other things that we've done in the privacy space. A couple of years
0:28 ago, we became the first state in the nation to require a geofence warrant. If
0:33 law enforcement want to use geofence, they got to have a warrant to do it. We did
0:36 that. Two years ago, we became the first state in the nation to put guardrails
0:41 around the use of real-time surveillance. To my knowledge, we're still the only
0:44 state that actually has that in statute. So this is something near and dear. This
0:50 is one of our core privacy core principles as an organization among many different
0:55 things. One of the things that I learned a long time ago was to hire people that are
1:00 smarter than you. And this person that works for me is smarter than me. And so
1:04 she wrote this for me. And I'm going to read what she said before I give my
1:07 remarks. So, as you know, countries like the UK and the EU at large are pushing
1:12 hard to create a mandatory surveillance regime through digital IDs. These are
1:16 intended to trace every activity, every service, all of these things that we've
1:21 been learning more and more about. We supported Senate Bill 260 as a vehicle for
1:26 rigorously examining the risks and potential pitfalls of the digital identity
1:30 systems, including a study to probe whether a truly voluntary and untraceable
1:34 option is actually feasible in practice. As the state prioritizes teen mental
1:39 health online through privacy-invasive age verification, we recognize the intent
1:44 behind exploring alternatives like SEDI. But we have to be straightforward about
1:48 it. ID systems, even innovative approaches like SEDI, amplify government involvement
1:52 in identity from static issuance to dynamic, always-on oversight that could
1:57 over time challenge user autonomy as seen in many international examples. We
2:02 appreciate the legislature's commitment guided by the state's Privacy Advisory
2:06 Board to examine these realities through the study process. We lend our support to
2:10 continued research and discussion with a focus on the high bar of preserving
2:13 constitutional protections and individual freedoms amid these systems inherent
2:18 challenges. The most fundamental reason for our engagement in Senate Bill 260 is
2:23 an appreciation for the study's focus in probing the tensions between digital ID
2:27 frameworks and the privacy and autonomy they seek to preserve in service of Utah's
2:33 broader goals of safeguarding individual liberty. However, there are some things
2:37 that we would like to see changed, kind of like the ACO you said. We want to require
2:42 opt-in for all data beyond absolute minimum proofs, just like they said. I can
2:48 see a scenario where you go into an establishment where you need to show your
2:53 ID and all they need is a picture to prove that you are who you say you are and your
2:57 date of birth. And they ask for everything else because they want to package that off
3:01 and sell it to data brokers because it's a way for them to make money. So, we have to
3:05 be able to say, no, you can't do that with this. You know, we have to say that you
3:10 don't need that and you don't you cannot require that for somebody to use your
3:14 service. We want to bar government access to SEDI data via third-party brokers. This
3:20 happens all the time. There was a presentation in a committee hearing on
3:23 Wednesday here in Utah where a transportation company talked about how
3:28 they gathered Bluetooth signals to track traffic patterns in Salt Lake City over a
3:34 period of time to determine where construction was affecting travelers. And
3:39 then right after that, there was another presentation about population data and how
3:43 they were gathering all that. And Representative Chevrier had some very good
3:46 questions that went unanswered in that committee hearing. And I will say that
3:52 those people who were speaking at that, they weren't really happy with her tone
3:57 throughout that. After the hearing, I heard them talking outside. So that's
4:00 something you want to follow up on next time you talk to them. We also want to
4:05 establish a right of action against government agencies for violations. The
4:10 easiest way to hold somebody accountable is make them accountable. Make sure that
4:14 they don't do the bad things. Tell them they're going to go to jail. Tell them
4:18 they're going to lose money. This is something that I propose whenever cities
4:23 try to violate. This is so I used to be a legislator in Missouri once upon a time.
4:27 I'm still recovering from that. one of the things that we did as a legislature was we
4:32 put a cap on the amount of fines and fees that cities could impose on anyone, on
4:37 their citizens. And if they exceeded that, the state could take action. One of those
4:41 cities no longer exists. We disincorporated them and they got annexed
4:46 into surrounding cities. Cities have no constitutional right to do anything.
4:50 There's no government agency that has a constitutional right to exist. There's a
4:55 fallacy about co-equal branches of government that That doesn't exist. That
4:59 was made up by President Nixon a long time ago because, well, he was weird. The fact
5:04 is the legislature is the supreme branch of government because it's the only one
5:08 that can fire members of the other two. And we have to remember that. And this is
5:12 the reason why going through the legislature for this is so important and
5:16 not allowing the agencies to just kind of do whatever they want. You know, we're
5:19 working on a bill this year for privacy that doesn't allow law enforcement to do
5:23 anything with surveillance unless the legislature has already given the go
5:26 -ahead. So there are no free trials, no demos, no free stuff from the feds. And
5:32 then they come back and say, well, sorry, it's helping us. We're doing stuff. It's
5:36 like, no, you can't do that. And it provides a private right of action,
5:39 removes qualified immunity. It makes them accountable for doing things they're not
5:43 supposed to do. We also want to impose ironclad bans on unwanted federal overlays
5:51 and revocation overreach. State-to-state portability is a goal, but the federal
5:57 systems like real ID expansions to co-op SEDI without consent eroding state
6:02 control. The study must recommend explicit prohibitions on such national integrations
6:07 preserving voluntary state cooperation alongside strict due process requirements
6:11 for any endorsement revocation to guard against escalations of centralized power.
6:17 So in a nutshell, we are very much in favor of the study. It's going to show us
6:22 what we can do. It's also going to show us what's going on that we should be worried
6:26 about. But, you know, this is very much one of those things where we're trying to
6:30 shove a camel through an eye of a needle. And if they can't figure out a way to do
6:34 it, we need to slaughter the camel and burn it to the ground. That's essentially
6:39 going to be our stance. This is good until it's not. And once it's not, we're coming
6:43 full guns blazing at you. You know, so we've shown that we have been effective in
6:48 some of our other endeavors in the state. And I'm hopeful that I hope this works
6:54 out. You know, I'm not going to lie. I hope it works out. out. I got five kids.
6:58 My oldest is 16. I worry about what could happen to them. As a legislator, I've
7:03 heard all of the horror stories from my constituents about my kids doing this. Can
7:07 you do something? Can you do something? You know, if something happened, can you
7:09 do something? You know, sometimes government does need to do something.
7:13 Sometimes they don't. But legislators, having been one of them, often feel like
7:18 they have to do something. And sometimes the best thing they can do is nothing. But
7:22 I really do hope this can work out the way we want to. But if it's not. Somebody has
7:28 to be held accountable and we have to be able to just say it's not going to work.
7:34 Remember that other people, other organizations have different incentives.
7:39 And so until they realize that our constitutional rights are the primary
7:42 incentive and nothing else really matters in the situation, we're not going to be
7:49 able to be successful at this. So I'm hoping that Chris and his team and this
7:53 process will lay out all of the pros and cons. All the things we can do, all the
7:58 things we shouldn't do, you know, so it lets everybody know ahead of time kind of
8:02 what we're getting into. Thank you very much.