2023-06-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
2023-06-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER10 -0 house0 bill 344, that creating maximum allowable check cashing rate, recommendation favorable. House both 388 and not clarifying existing pipe fitting exemptions, the recommendation favorable, house bill 3, 715 in Acton City of Northampton to grant 7 in over quarter licenses for sale of alcohol beverages to be dropped on premise. Recognation in favor as redrafted. House booklet 388 in app roads with the teacher and gender certification licensure, requisition favorable attaching Senate Bill 2385 and Senate 2392, mister chairman, those are recommendation by the chairs to the committee members. So this is what's gonna happen next. We're going to establish a voting method since we move to35 a hybrid era with kind of changing how we do things. So members of
SPEAKER2 - the committee39 are present. You see house Mister Brennan, who's the council to the committee at the far end. He has a spreadsheet, which he will collect your votes. So he will come by and collect them. If you are a virtual Please contact Mister Brennan, whether by text message, virtual, or telephone, and record your votes. Anybody who is unable to do either 1 must be somewhat visible to us in the executive session and send those emails to Mister Brennan at the end of the table. We're gonna open the voting period for executive session from now to 4 PM. Which would 5. 4 PM.
SPEAKER1 - 4:4:4:30.
SPEAKER2 - now to 4:30 because we started late, and then we'll reopen executive session with the close of the hearing to read the results and instruct staff to report those owned. that was an instruction of voting for members. Any questions, please consult us. Any questions that it bills that are being presented to committee members? Hearing none, Mister Chairman, I rec I would like to motion a recess executive session to the until and read we'll come back at the close of the public hearing. 2nd, from shared phone and it those phrase, hi. The eyes have executive session is recessed. Thank you, Mister Chairman.
SPEAKER3 - All right, thank you. I'd like to remind everybody that we will be taking testimony in person today remotely for those who have signed up ahead of time and via Britain testimony. The committee will continue to receive written testimony until we take action on a particular fee. of legislation. So a reminder to everyone that the hearing is being live streamed and recorded for later viewing on the General Fourth website. And I'd ask everybody to be mindful that testimony is limited to 3 minutes per person, and it's the chair's discretion, take elected officials, and other government officials out of turn. So with that, I would like to begin149 today's public testimony, and I would like to invite leader Cynthia Green to testify who's joining us church virtually in support of s 148. Madam Leader? Good to
SPEAKER4 - see you.
SEN CREEM - SB 148 - Thank you. Thank you, Chair Cronin, and Chair Chan for taking me out of order. I know it's been already a long day, so thank you. I'm here today to speak in support of a bill I filed, Senate 148, an act protecting reproductive health access LGBTQ lives, religious liberty, and freedom of movement by banning the sale of cell phone location information. This bill would ban the sale of location data in Massachusetts. This data is constantly being collected by apps on our phone and can be used to track197 an individual's movement199 and identity where people are spending their time. It's hard to believe when you have a lot of apps, but those apps follow you, and then your data can be sold. Our location data reveals some of the most since sensitive details about us. This personal information can provide insight into our health care providers, religious affiliation, even our sexual orientation.
Under current state and federal law, private data brokers are able to legally purchase this highly sensitive information from cell phone apps and sell it to the highest bidder. In these datasets, each device has a unique identifier. So by following where a user is generally during the day and evening, it is easy to figure out a person's home and address, and ultimately, they verify their identity. Although this issue impacts everyone, allowing the sale of location data places certain groups at heightened risks, including those seeking reproductive or gender affirming care in this commonwealth. In the post Dobbs era, data privacy has taken on new significance and immediacy because private companies are selling location data revealing who was traveling to and from abortion clinics. And on the open market, location data can be made known whether a person has visited an abortion provider, how long they stay and even identify where they came from.
Notably this information can follow the travel paths of individuals coming to Massachusetts for reproductive healthcare from states that ban abortions. This information can be collected by anti choice extremists and used to target individuals or clinics that provide reproductive healthcare. Especially in light of laws like senate SB 8 in Texas with bounty hunter provisions that allow private citizens to file lawsuits against people they suspect of being involved in abortions. We must protect those seeking abortion care in Massachusetts and our providers from vigilant efforts to track their movement through the location data. And as legislators, we must respond quickly to this threat and protect vulnerable populations from having their location data used against them through this unwarranted surveillance.
The wide availability of this information has serious privacy implications and demands immediate legislative action to protect our providers and those seeking reproductive healthcare in this combo. Banning the dissemination and sale of location data would deny these bad actor the opportunity to weaponize this information and better protect individuals and providers in our state. However, this is not only a reproductive justice issue. Safe guarding our right to move freely without knowing being tracked impacts us all. This includes domestic violence survivors, Jewish victims of bias motivated attacks, anti Semitism, and every residents of this state regardless of their ideology or viewpoint. Due to the tremendous privacy implications at stake, I respectfully request that this committee give this legislation a favorable report so the Legislature can take action. It's almost hard to believe and I found it difficult when I started looking into this, but this is serious and we need to do something about it. So, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I'm happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, madam, leader. But at this point, I'd like to open it up432 to questions. to the committee.
Alright. Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony here today, Natalie.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you.
SPEAKER3 - At this time, I'd like to invite representative invite representative Libra Garabedian to testify in support of h357.
Good afternoon, Rob.
SPEAKER6 - Sure.
REP LIPPER-GARABEDIAN - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon Chairs Chan, Cronin, and members of the committee. Thank you for taking me out of turn. It's good to be with you. As you mentioned, I'm here to testify in support of a bill I filed, H 357, alongside Senator Creem who just spoke about the Senate counterpart, Senate Bill 148, the Location Shield Act. I would have been proud to file this bill in any year. So frequently, I'm mindful that our federal and state laws have not kept pace with the rapid development of digital technology. For more than a decade for some private and then as Chief492 Legal Counsel at the Executive Office of Education,494 I worked on issues of data privacy in a digital age. As a former teacher, I've been proud to file the student educator data privacy act in multiple sessions, and so this location shield act similarly really spoke to the experience I've had working on these issues. And similarly aims to update our statutory framework to reflect the digital nature of our lives.
Every day, we are making decisions, engaging in commerce and leisure, and communicating across digital platforms. If each one of us is to continue to be the protagonist of our one life, we must ensure that our laws assert and protect our right to individual privacy so that we can continue to write our narratives with autonomy. In the533 21st century, this means our laws and must establish guardrails and protections on537 the digital data we create so539 that corporate interests do not collect and541 monetize it in ways that impede our own agency. The Location Shield Act takes a critical step in addressing this paradigm. If enacted, Massachusetts would leave the nation in ensuring that an individual's location data cannot be collected554 and sold. You can still use your cell phone to route your next car trip,558 like I did this morning, and to check the weather forecast, like my kids ask me to do every day. But vendors and third party interests cannot sell our personal device location information to the highest bidder.
This is important for every person in the Commonwealth, and that's why I'm proud to file this bill in any year. At the same time, we're meeting today within days of our 1 year anniversary of the Supreme Court's cruel decision to overturn Roe versus Wade. This Legislature sprang into action in the wake of that decision to reaffirm the right to abortion in Massachusetts and to shield medical providers and their patients from aggressive lawsuits originating in other states, including those as the Senator mentioned that have enacted vigilante justice regimes that encourage people to track and bring to prosecution women who seek abortion outside the states that ban them.
The Location Shield Act is critical for ensuring that our reproductive justice law actually has meaning in a world where there currently is no prohibition on using a woman's location data to determine the medical care she is receiving. The Location Shield Act holds further importance for members of other groups disproportionately vulnerable to danger in living their authentic lives, those seeking gender affirming care, those who are members of religious minorities, for example, attending mosques and synagogues, domestic violence survivors to name several. I know you're going to hear from any data privacy experts and advocates today, and I'm grateful for their support and collaboration on this bill. I would be pleased to work with this committee as it reviews the Location Shield Act and certainly ask you to provide it with a favorable review. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, representative. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing, none. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. At this time, I'd like to invite Cecilia Doucette
Satisfying support of S155 and S156.
CECELIA DOUCETTE - MA FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY - SB 155 - SB 156 - Thank you. I'm Cecelia Doucette, director of Massachusetts For Safe technology. Chair Chan, thank you for the groundbreaking work that you and Senator L'Italien did several years ago to write the commission bill that is in front of you today as Senate Resolve S 155 to investigate wireless radiation, to which you also attached Senate 156 to protect children from handheld devices. New Hampshire spring-boarded off of your wonderful efforts and in 7 months passed a law to investigate. They produced this first in the nation commission report in which they document conflicts of interest with the wireless industry, the FCC, and the FDA akin to big tobacco.745 New Hampshire makes 15 recommendations to transition away from wireless infrastructure752 and devices for primary connectivity, and instead educate the public and invest in the safer, greener, faster, more reliable, private, and secure solution of fiber optics to and through the premises.
They recommend science based setbacks from cell towers and reserving wireless for secondary connectivity. And we can show you how to778 get there. Reinventing wires teaches our communities how to invest in fiber optics to and through the premises. New Hampshire discovered that the Earth787 pulses healthy electron energy789 at 7.83 times per second, wireless technology on the other hand pulses manmade, microwaves,797 radio frequency radiation millions and billions of times per second in that gigahertz and megahertz range. Quite simply, wireless radiation overpowers our biological cells and our environment. This meter lets us see this invisible energy. Science indicates we should be at 10 indoors. Just in this room, we are at 12,100. I have a packet of information for each829 committee member that includes this graphic of the biological harm documented in the scientific literature.
It explains why so many children and adults today are suffering from insomnia, anxiety, depression, headaches, cognitive impairment, behavior issues, heart problems, and more. The FCC has been sued for ignoring the science on this, 11000 pages and it's been almost860 2 years and they've done nothing. Fortunately, we can address this at866 the state and local level. We now have many resources to educate the public on this. And we have written a public health fact sheet with the878 Department of Public Health that we need your support to get882 released. The Massachusetts Breast Cancer Association already has K through 12 curriculum written that you could be890 teaching in your district today. We have a schools894 and families course online for corporate. We can teach you guys in a half898 an hour how to have safe technology. And SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
the Mister said, can
SPEAKER3 - I can I ask you to just conclude
SPEAKER8 - the testimony?
DOUCETTE - The first medical school textbook has come out. There are so many sick people who have no idea because their doctors haven't been trained. It's time you guys, we need you to get this legislation passed like New Hampshire did. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Do919 we have any questions from the committee?
Okay, Srin. Thank you very much for your time.
At this time, I'd like to invite Helen Walker for mass received technology to testify in sport of S155.
SPEAKER9 - Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - I can.
HELEN WALKER - MA FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY - SB 155 - SB 156 - I'm from Cambridge. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of949 Resolve S 155 and Bill S 156. Senator Cyr's resolve, S 155, will establish a special commission to research the impact of electromagnetic and radio frequency radiation on consumer protection, public health, and technology in the Commonwealth. Last summer, the US Court of Appeals through the DC circuit ruled against the FCC and remanded its current guidelines for radio frequency radiation exposure limits back to the978 commission. The court ruled that the commission had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its determination that 1996 guidelines were still adequate. The court found the Commission's order arbitrary and capricious in its failure to respond to record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the commission's current limits may cause negative health effects and environmental harm.
Yet, Massachusetts legislators, the DPU, and cities and towns have all relied on these same FCC guidelines to assume safety of technology initiatives. They could1014 no longer do so. There are so many far reaching wireless technology initiatives. From the1020 coming wide smart meter rollout by National Grid in 2024 and Eversource in 2025, to the continued build out of 5G infrastructure in our cities and towns to the push, to install smart controls throughout our homes, and solar panels with inverters generating EMS on our roofs. If current FCC guidelines have not been shown to protect the public or the environment, then Massachusetts needs to research evidence based safety standards. For proof that Massachusetts residents care about safety of wireless technology, browse DPU's grid modernization documents, which back as far as docket 1276 since 1383, are crowded with complaints of severe ongoing negative health effects, which began with the installation of wireless electric meters on ratepayers' homes.
Our neighbor, New Hampshire, passed its own law creating a commission to examine environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology. The relevant recommendations include, number 1, propose a resolution to Congress and the executive. to require the FCC to commission an independent review of the current RF standards and a health study to assess and recommend mitigation for the health risks. Also, schools and public1099 libraries should migrate from RF wireless connections for computers, laptops,1103 pads to hardwire or optical connections. Senator Cyr's, Bill S 156, requires that cell phone packaging must refer to manufacturer safety guidelines, which are normally buried in the fine print. Now that the court has ruled that FCC RF exposure guidelines have not been shown adequate, customers need the manufacturer guidelines also. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much, Miss Walker. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing on thank you for your testimony. I'd like to invite Joyce Kaja Kalau from NEPGP. to testify in opposites to h310.
Good afternoon.
JOYCE KAHAKALAU -NEPGP - HB 310 - Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I am Joyce Kahakalau, Secretary of New England Pet Grooming Professionals, owner of Tranquil Paws LLC, and I would like to testify against Bill1169 H 310 on behalf of all1171 of the rumors in the state who don't want this. The bill charges the governor along with accounts to appoint of 5 person board to create rules and regulations for pet groomers. Our governor has much more important things to deal with, such as restoring our infrastructure, addressing the housing crisis by creating affordable housing, and fighting hate crimes, which were up 30% last year. This board will consist of 1 citizen and 4 groomers. That's only 0.04% of groomers in the commonwealth and far too low a percentage to fairly represent us all. The board will not only be making all the rules and regulations, but also investigating any and all complaints against groomers.
This includes, but is not limited to, conducting hearings regarding such complaints and disciplining any groomer found not to be in compliance with said rules. With 5033 grooming salons, employing 10,607 employees, note this figure does not include the block stores where most serious injuries seem to occur or other business such as smaller retail, kennels, and day cares that offer grooming, but are not listed as a primary grooming business. This sounds very much like a full time job. It is unreasonable for the board to not be compensated for their time. Will the taxpayers be paying for this? I truly believe our tax dollars could be put1248 to better use. Severe injury at1250 the groomers due to negligence or abuse is1252 very rare below 001% of dogs.
But should the unthinkable happen, we already have laws to address that through both local law enforcement and the MSPCA. MSPCA law enforcement takes any and all1266 allegations of this kind very seriously. Truth be told, more dogs were injured by their owners trying to home groom during the pandemic. Small grooming businesses saw a 4.5% growth in Massachusetts over the last 5 years. This bill creates a blank check for the board by saying, we'll make the rules later. The unintended consequences of bill H 310 are immeasurable as a result. The potential to harm one of the few thriving small businesses in the state is great. And we have enough empty storefronts already. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing that thank you for your testimony, ma'am. I'd like to invite Anne Marie Morawiak from the Mass Veterinary technician Association to testify in support of h332 and s
SPEAKER1 - 207.
SPEAKER3 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER12 - Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
You're almost close on my last name. That's okay, though.
SPEAKER3 - I'm sorry. I I apologize.
SPEAKER13 - No. No.
SPEAKER12 - No. I was just I'm just listening.
ANNEMARIE MORAWIAK - MVTA - SB 207 - HB 332 - Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. My name is Annemarie Morawiak and I am the president of the Massachusetts Veterinary Technician Association. I'm also a certified veterinary technologist. The MVTA is a statewide organization providing private and voluntary certification of Massachusetts veterinary technicians. We currently have over 1700 certified veterinary technician members. The MVTA respectfully asks for your support of H 332 and S 207, an act regulating the practice and licensure of veterinary technicians. The MVTA is proud to stand alongside the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association, the National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America, and the American Veterinary Medical Association in support of this bill to license veterinary technicians in Massachusetts.
Currently in Massachusetts, any person with any level of experience may1390 work in a veterinary practice and be called a veterinary technician. If you know someone who owns a pet or if you have pets of your own, I can imagine you would want an educated and trained individual nursing them through an illness, performing diagnostic testing, or monitoring their vitals during anesthesia. To do that, this bill would establish within the Board of Registration and Veterinary Medicine, a subsidiary board for veterinary technology that would be subject to the control of the Board of Registration and Veterinary Medicine. I am an educator and a veterinary technology program. And by the time my students graduate, they have completed over 200 hands on didactic skills on several different species. including dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, goats, and pigs.
After completing their associate or bachelor's degree, they go on to take a national exam with over 150 questions spanning 9 areas of competency. Once passed, they voluntarily join the MVTA for their certification and complete 12 hours of continuing education yearly for renewal. It is difficult to watch these young adults build their foundation of knowledge over 2 to 4 years knowing that they will apply to veterinary1471 clinics and hospitals that will hire high school graduates and call them veterinary technicians. The profession of veterinary medicine is growing in an astronomical rate. In order to continue to provide top notch medical care for pets in Massachusetts, we need this legislation in place. 40 other states have a state regulated credential system for veterinary technicians.1497 It's time for Massachusetts to join them. Thank you for your consideration and I'm happy to take any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Questions from the community.
Jean, thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite Amanda Cloudier from the Mass Veterinary technician Association to testify and support also of H332 and s 20 site. Welcome. Good afternoon.
AMANDA CLOUTIER - MVTA - SB 207 - HB 332 - Welcome, and good afternoon. As stated, my name is Amanda Cloutier,1528 and I am a credentialed veterinary technologist.1530 This bill is near and dear to me as someone who's been in the profession for over 20 years. Throughout my career, I've seen the good, the bad, the ugly, but mostly the good. I'd like to begin by recognizing, commending, and thanking the many veterinarians and technicians in Massachusetts who dedicate their lives to caring for animals and advocating for others to do the same. But today, I'm gonna draw back the curtain and focus on one particular area we call the bad. In Massachusetts, your waiter, your Uber driver, high school graduate, or mechanic, could decide one day they love animals, and the next be your veterinary technician.
They could be placing IV catheters, monitoring pets under anesthesia, administering blood transfusion, giving epidurals, and other highly advanced skills to your pet who is most vulnerable, and when performed incorrectly can lead to harm or even death. I was once an on the job veterinary technician before I went to a vet tech program. And looking back and knowing what I know now, I know I had no business doing the things that I did. I was allowed to monitor patients under anesthesia, not knowing and understanding the hows, the whys, and the consequences of knowing why it was important, why to have a good blood pressure, have good kidney function. I also didn't understand how critical the recovery phase was for a patient to survive. These are the type of mistakes I made because I did not have the education or the proper training at that time.
I've witnessed countless other non credential techs make the same mistakes throughout my career because they too do not have the education knowledge or training to know otherwise. Things such as giving a diabetic patient the wrong insulin, placing an endotracheal tube down the esophagus, improperly performing CPR on a patient who arrested and placing the IV catheter incorrectly which resulted in severe tissue damage. Attending Vet Tech School gives you the knowledge, training, and tools to help prevent these kinds of medical mistakes. Allowing this to continue puts pets at risk, misleads the public, and devalues the professional role of veterinary technicians. No other medical profession allows us. I know when I walk into a hospital I trust that the doctors, nurses, and CNAs are all receiving required standardization, education, training, and credentialing.
When you walk into a veterinary hospital, can you say the same? The answer would be no. The public expects high standards of care for their pets, and by not passing these bills, we're letting them down. I'd like to leave you with this a society is measured by how it cares for, treats, and protects its most vulnerable. What does it say about us when we knowingly put animals who have no voice at risk? We must do what is right for the animals in the public and not what may be easy or how we've always done it before. This is our responsibility to ensure that we carry out what is just and ethically right as advocates for the animals. Thank you. I welcome any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee. Seeing on. Thank you very much for your time. so much. Like, Jen,1710 by Kate Crockford from the ACLU of Massachusetts to testify in support of h357 an S-one hundred and 48. And I'd also like to welcome to the hearing representative Dan Cena and representative
KADE CROCKFORD - ACLU OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon. Thank you chairs, members of the committee. My name is Kade Crockford. I am the director of the technology for a liberty program at the ACLU of Massachusetts, and I'm very excited to be here today to speak in favor of House bill 357 and Senate Bill 148, the Location Shield Act. You're gonna be hearing from a number of organizations that are a part of our coalition, your location it's none of their business. These will be reproductive rights groups, children's rights organizations, domestic violence groups. Unfortunately, our key coalition partner here at the state level on the DV side, Jane Doe Inc, was not able to make it to testify in person that but they will be submitting written testimony. You'll also hear from Jewish organizations that will testify to the importance of this bill in terms of protecting their1780 congregations from discrimination and targeting by extremists. You're also gonna hear from technology experts who can speak to the importance of tackling this particular kind of data.
So I wanna kind of zoom out for a second and talk a little bit about the federal land escape on location data privacy. You heard from Senator Creem, who's our Senate sponsor of the legislation, and Representative Lipper-Garabedian about essentially what this issue is about. This bill is about protecting1813 from sale information that our cell phones produce every minute of every day, showing everywhere we go. And so I'm gonna talk a little bit about the federal landscape first. So in the year 2020, the Federal Communications Commission made news when it told telecom providers, so those are the companies that actually provide us with cell service, that's AT&T, Verizon, T Mobile, Sprint, etcetera. The FCC told telecoms in 2020, you cannot sell cell phone location information.
And, unfortunately, they had to say that because reporters had discovered and disclosed publicly that some telecoms were taking the considerable sums of money that we give them every month to pay for our service and then turning around and selling our cell phone location information on the open market. So the FCC said, existing federal law, the 1934 Communications Act, prohibits you from doing this because this information, location data, is highly sensitive personal information that telecoms, specifically, are prohibited from monetizing under federal law. So I'll come back to that. The Supreme Court in 2018 said something very similar about location information when it ruled in the Carpenter decision, this is Carpenter versus United States, it was actually an ACLU case, that cell phone location information does not just tell 1 story about 1 person, it tells every story about every person effectively. I'm just gonna wrap up in 1 moment if that's okay. The FTC last year, the Federal1916 Trade Commission, filed a lawsuit against one of these location data brokers, a company named Kochava, finding also that this information is highly sensitive.
1926 The1926 FTC1926 was actually able to buy some cell phone1928 location data and track people1930 going to reproductive justice clinics, homeless shelters, substance use facilities, and other sensitive sites, and trace those people back to their homes. So these are 3 federal government institutions that1942 have identified that this particular kind of information is highly1946 sensitive, and we agree. Despite the fact that the federal government in those 3 areas has identified this information as highly sensitive, there is currently no law at either the federal level or the state level that protects particular companies like app developers, for example, from selling our location information. So the bill before you, the Location Shield Act, which is supported by 92% of likely voters, according to a Beacon Research poll, simply plugs this hole. It says that the same rule that the FCC applies to telecoms, ought to also apply to every other company that can take cell phone location data from these devices that we carry with us everywhere we go. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. I wanna make sure1990 I'd get the committee a chance to ask questions. Any questions?
And I also want to welcome the vice chair1997 of the committee, senator Moran, to speak there.
SPEAKER16 - Oh, very
SPEAKER11 - much.
SEN MORAN - So with the legislation, would it prevent, not the company from buying the information from me?
CROCKFORD - So for reasons that have to do with ensuring that the statute does not violate the constitution, namely the 1st Amendment, the bill prohibits2021 the sale of cell phone location information. So for sort of complicated reasons that have to do with a lot of Supreme Court precedent on First Amendment rights, we're not prohibiting people from buying it, we're prohibiting people from selling it.
MORAN - Okay. So when you say people, you mean the companies. But say, for example, for what I'm told again is a better sales experience or more efficient, could I, as a consumer, opt in and say, you know, for whatever price is being offered, could it be a service?
CROCKFORD - That's a great question, and the answer is no. For a variety of reasons, the legislation does not allow the sale of any cell phone location information. There are no exceptions to that whatsoever. And I can give you a couple reasons why we think that's important if that would be helpful. So one of them is that we don't want to develop a situation or end up in a situation where only wealthy people or people with means have location privacy rights. And we would be, we're very concerned that that would happen if we created legislation and enacted legislation in Massachusetts, that offered, you know, the ability to sell your location data right. I mean, there's a reason we also can't sell organs, right? you know, I don't wanna compare it to an organ necessarily, but it is similarly sensitive, right? And we don't want to wake up in a in a scenario in 10 years where really only poor people or people who don't have the means to pay for technologies or, you know, to pay for an app are selling their data, whereas folks who do have the means are able to protect their information by not selling it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. You're welcome. Other questions from the committee?
See you, man. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER15 - Thank you all very much.
SPEAKER3 - At this time, I'd like to invite representative Steve Owens, Test Fine support of H-three 86 and S-one hundred and 84?
Absolutely, please. And Representative Sabados.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
REP SABADOSA - HB 386 - Good afternoon. Lovely to see you as well. Thank you so much for taking us out of turn today, Mr. Chairman, and esteemed committee members, lovely to see you all. Representative Owens and I are here today to testify on H 386, an act relative to consumer health data. So, apps monitor our2178 sleep, they check our heart rate, they keep track of our periods, and they follow along our pregnancies. And we have filed this legislation, H 386, in response to a renewed national focus on privacy. And the fact that this hearing today is scheduled 2 days maybe after the anniversary of the Dobbs ruling really underscores why. So, the legislation, I just want to talk a little bit about the mechanics of what this bill does. We try to define what health data is, and we attempt to put the control of our health data, which should belong to us, in the hands of the individual.
The legislation defines health data as anything related to individual health conditions, treatments, status,2222 diseases diagnosis, But we go further and talk about social, psychological behavior, medical interventions, surgeries, procedures, use or purchase of medications and then things like bodily functions, vital signs, measurements, or symptoms. As well as efforts and to conduct research into these areas and location data that could reasonably indicate a consumer's attempt to acquire or receive health services and supplies. It requires businesses who trade in this data to get the informed consent of users. And consumers need to understand why their data is being collected if it's being shared and with whom. The legislation does include a ban on the sale of data, and it gives the attorney general the ability to enforce the proposed legislation.
So, for those who are interested, there is no right of private action in this legislation. You've all just got an email from an organization saying that there is, but there is not a right to private action in this legislation. Finally, again, consumers need to make sure that they have informed consent and opt in to allowing their data to be shared. Now, this legislation is something that we have been working on for quite a while now, and we've been working on it in conjunction other states that have been moving in this direction. So we worked hand in hand with the state of Washington, which has filed and passed similar legislation. And we've worked with attorney generals in New York And California as well to try to see if there's a sort of nationwide approach as opposed to just each state kind of going in on their own.
We've also tried to get feedback from numerous organizations. So, of course, we reached out to GLAD, The Lawyering Project, the Electronic Foundation, the Digital Defense Fund, and other organizations that may or may not even be in the room here today. Interestingly, this legislation is going to be part of a study that Northeastern University is conducting on states' response to privacy, and we're looking forward to sharing the results of that study with you in the fall. Again, when we file legislation things change, and we, in our conversations, have come to the conclusion that a few of the things we filed initially may not have been drafted as well as they2351 could have been. And so we are going to submit to2353 the committee some suggestions that we have, and we're hoping, of course, for2357 a favorable recommendation. But, truly, for2359 the ability to work with all of you to come up with something because we think that this is really an important topic and a place where Massachusetts can really step up the need.
REP OWENS - HB 386 - Thank you to Chair Cronin, Chair Chan, members of the committee. Thank you for taking us at a turn. Just wanna, so Reps Sabadosa mentioned some of the things that the bill is gonna do. Let me talk a little bit about why, you know, because regulations on medical data, the status quo, so it looks like the Wild West. Currently, the data brokerage ecosystem, it consists of companies that they collect, they analyze, buy, sell, and share2399 data on individuals, and the customers of this data include2403 advertising firms, but also insurance providers, banks, financial institutions, law enforcement, abusive individuals, criminal scanners, and potentially foreign actors. People may be generally aware that HIPAA protects their medical data, but what they may not realize and through our conversations, we know a lot of civilians quote, unquote, don't realize, is that none of those brokers are covered under HIPAA, and they can monetize that data, your data with very few legal safeguards.
And it can be surprisingly easy to get a hold of this data. Duke University just released a report, I2439 think, in February, detailing how2441 accessible the mental health2443 data was available from some of2445 these data brokers. They found that data brokers were marketing highly sensitive data on individuals' mental health conditions on the open market with minimal vetting of customers and few controls over the use of purchased data. One broker they found was selling highly sensitive mental health data, including names and postal addresses of individuals with depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety issues, panic disorder, cancer, PTSD, OCD, and personality disorder, as well as individuals who have had strokes and data on these people's races and ethnicities. And some of this data, maybe the anonymous data was available for as little as $250.
These companies were also unwilling to discuss the providence that data, which is very worrisome, particularly after big health data breaches like the recent 1 suffered2495 by Harvard Pilgrim, and this2497 is data that we really wanna keep from bad actors. People are starting to notice how much information these companies have access to. I know my Facebook feed is full of ads for medications, clinical trials, and online diagnostic tools for conditions that members of my family or my2512 social circle are impacted by. And you may have seen Apple just launched their big ad campaign highlighting their commitment to keeping health data private. So and but, by the way, many tech companies that operate internationally, they're already set to follow the EU's general2528 data protection regulation GDPR.
I looked at Fitbit's privacy policy just this morning, it has a whole separate section of protections that are available when collecting health and other special categories of personal data from European users. There's no reason why Massachusetts residents shouldn't have access to these similar protections. The bill's modeled after legislation passed by the state of Washington, as a Rep Sabadosa mentioned, There are 5 states that have comprehensive data privacy laws in place, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, both have legislation pending for health data specifically. Texas has a biometric data privacy law on the books currently. And so if we wanna be a leader, if we wanna beat Texas, we have to act now. As we've said, we've been reaching out to privacy advocates, academics, tech companies. We have some language. We're happy to work with the committee to make the best2582 bill possible that we can, and thank you2584 for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions2586 now or through the process. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Questions for2589 the committee.
SPEAKER2 - Dean? Here's when the amount
OWENS - That was a study from Duke University. They had somebody go and make phone calls. So they called about little over, I think, around 20 data brokers, somewhere in that range, got responses from about a dozen. Some of them were very willing and very aggressive when they found out there was a sale opportunity, and some of them were offering anonymized data that would be less expensive. Some of them were offering subscriptions to a database that you could access at any time over the course of a year, those would be more expensive. So that's very, very variable based on what data that you are interested in2635 buying. You can2637 imagine some bad actors really wanting as detailed data as they can. You know, we see texts, and emails, and things from people, you know, trying to get our our other personal information. And I think it's really important that we have these safeguards. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Additional questions.
SPEAKER3 - Hope seeing none. Thank you both for your testimony. Thank
SPEAKER18 - you very much.
SPEAKER3 - I just wanna wanna remind committee members when asking questions. Just please grab a microphone, so the people who are joining us virtually can hear your question. At this time
No. So if you can just pass a doubt up a doubt. Thank you. At this time, I wanna invite a panel to testify Cindy Rowe, Rabbi Jonah Steinberg, and Thomas Kedrick in support of h357 and s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
Good
SPEAKER3 - afternoon.
CINDY ROWE - JALSA - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon. Thank2712 you Chairs Cronin and Chan and through2714 you to members of the committee. The Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action is a membership based nonprofit2720 organization based in Boston with thousands of members statewide. Guided by Jewish values and teachings, we are devoted to the defense of civil rights, preservation of constitutional liberties, and the passionate pursuit of social, economic, environmental, and racial justice. JALSA wishes to offer testimony today and strong support of Senate 148 and House 357, an act protecting reproductive health access, LGBTQ lives, religious liberties, and freedom of movement by banning the sale of cell phone, location information. We know that unscrupulous and unregulated data brokers currently routinely buy and sell personal location data from apps on our cell phones revealing much about us without our knowledge. I'd like to highlight instances of particular alarm that would be addressed by the Location Shield Act.
It has been thoroughly reported that in the wake of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, which destructively overturned Roe v Wade,2784 these data brokers have continued to traffic in data pertaining to sensitive locations including abortion clinics and other medical facilities. Frankly, this is a deeply profound violation of privacy that has shocked the conscience that it has ever been legal. This harvesting of such private information puts those who seek and provide healthcare at risk of harassment, prosecution, and violence. Additionally, we are now living in a time of heightened hatred and bigotry. Indeed, just one month ago, as you'll hear from my fellow panelist here from the Anti Defamation League. The ADL released its hate in the Baystate report. Reporting on extremism and anti Semitism at Massachusetts in 2021 and 2022.
Among a host of alarming information, the report noted that the number2835 of anti Semitic incidents increased by 41%. The number of instances of white supremacist propaganda being distributed increased by 71%, and the number of hate crimes increased by 33%. These data brokers are not the only entities who procure, use, and abuse personal location data. Anybody from domestic abusers, to unscrupulous employers, to hostile foreign governments can procure this2864 data as can bigots2866 seeking2866 to perpetuate hate crimes driven2868 by anti Semitism or any other form of hatred. Imagine a white supremacist group buying location data for those who enter a synagogue or a mosque, a predominantly black church, or any other place of worship that serves a community that could be targeted by those who are looking to target violent acts. Failure to address this via the Location Shield Act when we have the means to protect people is irresponsible and could lead to tragedy. We urge you to adopt this piece of legislation and report it out favorably. Thank you.
JONAH STEINBERG - ADL - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon. My name is Rabbi Jonah Steinberg, and I'm the regional director of the Anti Defamation League's New England office. I'm pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of ADL in support of H 357 S 148, which will prohibit private companies from selling, leasing, or trading, private personal cell phone location data, providing a critical layer of protection for communities across the commonwealth including, but not limited to, those disproportionately impacted by hate crimes, cyber crimes, including swatting and doxing, and extremist fueled harassment, and violence. Since 1913 ADL's mission has been to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all. Consistent with our mission, ADL has unique expertise when it comes to tracking and monitoring extremist groups and movements and countering the proliferation of antisemitism and all forms of hate and harassment online.
In recent years, our researchers have identified Massachusetts as a hotbed for anti-Semitic, racist, and anti LGBTQ plus incidents and actions. Specifically, Massachusetts recorded 152 anti Semitic incidents in 2022, the 6th highest number of incidents per state in the country, and the 2nd2979 highest number of white supremacist propaganda incidents, that same year, 2nd only to Texas. Our recently released report just mentioned, on anti LGBTQ plus hate, also recorded over 350 incidents nationwide with many taking place here in the commonwealth. We are deeply concerned that extremist actors and organized groups may weaponize cell phone location data purchase from data brokers to increasingly stalk, harass, or cause physical harm to marginalized groups.
By banning the sale of private cell phone data we can help protect already vulnerable groups from these threats to their safety and well-being. Our concerns are unfortunately not abstract. In 2022, an anonymous group released an interactive map pinpointing the physical locations of Boston based individuals and organizations deemed to be responsible for, in their words, the colonization of Palestine and harms such as policing, US imperialism, and displacement. Called the Mapping Project, this map included about 500 organizations, including nonprofits and schools. Of the 38 nonprofit organizations list, 30 were Jewish, including ADL's Boston office. The project also listed physical addresses and3049 names of officers and leaders of certain organizations with a call to dismantle and disrupt the individuals and entities on the map.
I'm alarmed to think about the risk posed in cases such as these where individuals animated by a call to3063 action like the one on the Mapping Project3065 websites,3065 which says these entities exist in the physical world and can be disrupted in the physical world could easily obtain access to detailed location information of those who are targeted. ADL has also received3077 reports of a number of disturbing swatting incidents in our region. That's the deliberate and false reporting of serious crimes to law enforcement with the intention of provoking aggressive law enforcement response. I thank you for your consideration of these critically important protections. Massachusetts has a unique opportunity to lead the rest of the country on this crucial issue and we urge the committee to give H 357 S 148 a favorable report. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, Rabbi. Is Tom Kadri or Kedri joining us virtually?
SPEAKER21 - Yes. I'm I'm here now. Can you hear me okay?
SPEAKER3 - We can hear you okay. The floor is yours.
SPEAKER21 - Wonderful. Thank you.
THOMAS KADRI - CETA - HB 57 - SB 148 - Good afternoon, and thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Thomas Kadri, and I'm a law professor at the University of Georgia. and the legislative and policy director at Cornell's Clinic to End Tech Abuse, and my work focuses on technology related abuse. So I work with survivors who are experiencing it, and my recent article, brokered abuse, explores how data brokers are complicit in it. And I'd like to sort3142 of make the point today that location privacy is a huge concern for survivors. Knowing someone's whereabouts can leave them vulnerable when they're trying to escape an abusive relationship. And it can also3154 jeopardize their long term security and recovery. And these companies are selling vast amounts of data that create very revealing inferences, and for survivors,3164 especially, these infra can have dangerous and even deadly consequences. And so I use the term brokered abuse to capture how data brokerage enabled and exacerbates various kinds of abuse. So not just physical violence, but also stalking, harassment, doxing, defamation, fraud, even nonconsensual sharing of intimate images.
And so these harms go beyond just simply how brokers make surveillance easy. Importantly, survivors must also beg each and every data broker out there to conceal their information from thousands of different databases over and over again, and this whack a mole burden can trigger trauma. So we can think of brokered abuse as encompassing sort of various harms, both intrinsic and extrinsic. So first, you know, abusers can use brokered data to inflict physical, emotional, economic, and reputational injuries. But then relatively, brokers increase the risk of abuse and this risk can cause anxiety even if no abusive act ever occurs. And importantly, as well, brokers can intensify a survivor's isolation. Because if your movements leave traces, then survivors have yet more reasons to sort of retreat from public spaces.
But some people will respond to these risks by trying to cull as much information as possible from broker databases. But this is easier said than done because survivors have to approach each broker individually again and again. And at a time of heightened vulnerability, this process can create a pair of extrinsic harm. So, the first we might think of as just merely being annoyance, the sort of annoyance of navigating these complex bureaucracies that brokers have and of demanding their privacy from companies who people have never interacted with before. And not only is this unpleasant, but it can also dissuade people from even trying to protect themselves from brokers. But for survivors, this process can also inflict psychological harms3291 because contacting thousands of brokers can trigger trauma by forcing survivors to repeatedly revisit their abuse and to recognize their vulnerability. And so for this reason, even though survivors will still face risks, the Location Shield Act would lower the chance that their location dates could be bought by their abusers. and it might alleviate some of the traumatic burden they currently face. And so I would urge you to pass this law to protect some of your most vulnerable residents and visitors. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Nope, seeing none, thank you all for your testimony. I'd like to invite our second panel Sheila Ramirez Karakalahan,
Emily Nejablak, we're playing parenthood in support of h357 and s
SPEAKER1 - 1 48.
SPEAKER18 - Good afternoon.
SHEILA RAMIREZ - PPAF - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Cronin, Representative Chan, and members of the committee for the opportunity to be heard today. And we thank the Legislature for your commitment to reproductive rights here in Massachusetts. We are here to express our strong support for H 357 and Senate bill 148, also known as the Location Shield Act. My name is Sheila Ramirez. I'm the director of health policy and government relations here at Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts. We're here to discuss the importance of protecting information data privacy for our patients and providers like Cara and Emily. As you know, abortion rights are under attack every day across the country and especially here in Massachusetts. I would pass it over to Emily for her to share her story.
EMILY NIEJADLIK - PPLM - HB 357 - SB 148 - Hi. Good afternoon everyone, and thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleagues and patients in Massachusetts. My name is Emily Niejadlik, I use she/her pronouns, and I am a registered nurse at Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, providing essential healthcare to patients from Massachusetts and beyond. I'm here today to voice my strong support for H 357 and S 148, the Locations Shield Act. A typical day at work for me includes about half the time clinical nursing and half emotional support and reassurance. My patients often come in visibly shaken and need extra compassion and time before we can even start to provide them with the care that they need and that they came for. Myself and the nurses3447 on my team recognize that, unfortunately, this is the reality in our country right now, and, you know, we try to reassure our patients that this is a personal healthcare decision between them and their doctor.
I dream of the time when my patients can come in, and we can focus solely on their healthcare needs and how we can best take care of them without having to cut through so much stigma beforehand. At PPLM, we know that3471 the constant barrage of attacks on the work that we do is just noise, but to our patients, it is personal. It's impossible to imagine another patient population having to face the same kind of adversity when simply going to see their provider. If we could be able to reassure our patients that no matter what is happening outside our doors, you will always be safe here and that nobody has to know that you are here if you do not want them to. This bill is so important to our patients, but it's also important for me and the staff at PPLM.
When I punch in Planned Parenthood into my GPS every morning to check the beautiful Boston traffic, I should not have to worry about these becoming records. That folks could see how often and when I commute there and where I'm coming from. I am very proud of the work that I do, and I'm not scared of those who oppose it. But I am wary of the nefarious intentions of those who may be able to purchase this data and use the information to do harm. And for a patient who's just flown in to Boston3533 from Texas and is trying to map out their journey from her appointment should definitely not have to worry about who could see that information when she gets home. The unknown of what location data is being sold and whose hands it could fall into is scary, and it could deter people from seeking necessary healthcare.
I see patients every day that have come in from out of state to access care in Massachusetts for a variety of reasons. These patients have traveled long distances and are often scared and alone. An additional threat of unwanted parties obtaining their location information is cruel and unusual. By limiting the collection and accessibility of location data, we can safeguard the privacy and security of healthcare workers, and we can give patients greater confidence that when they come through our doors, they are safe and their medical decisions remain between them and their doctor. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share why protection of location data is so important for abortion providers to be able to do our jobs effectively. I will pass it over to Cara.
CARA CALLAHAN - TIDES FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM - HB 357 - SB 148 - Thank you, Committee. My name is Cara Callahan. I use she/her pronouns, and I live in Easthampton, Massachusetts. I am an abortion rights activist and abortion founder and have been an abortion patient. I'm also the cofounder and the director of Intake or Tides for Reproductive Freedom, a Massachusetts based abortion fund. Abortion funds provide financial and other support to patients that are unable to afford the costs associated with the procedure. I am here to voice my strong support for the House Bill 357 and Senate 148, the Location Shield Act because patients deserve access to abortion and other healthcare without fear of their location data being sold to anti abortion extremists.
Post Roe, patients are coming from all over the country to receive care here, sometimes traveling thousands of miles. On top of having to leave their own communities and hope that the logistical sides of things pan out, they are uncertain about who may be tracking them. It is unfair and cruel. I've spoken to patients about what it takes to get an abortion if you live in a state with ban, and the obstacles are incredible. Abortion care has really become a travel industry. When I had an abortion 20 years ago in Massachusetts, I was concerned with a lot of things. I was an 18 year old student, I had just started community college, but something that I was not worried about was my location being tracked, or shared, or sold, and I want folks coming from other places to have that same assurance. Things in America have shifted drastically over the last 20 years and today's abortion patients need more protection against anti abortion extremists who can use their location against them. Passing this bill would alleviate a major anxiety that abortion patients have about accessing care even when and where it is legal.
Massachusetts has been bold in its protections, but we can and we must do more. Because of the attacks around the country, some patients are even3724 unsure that they want to share their abortion stories. It's risky, and3728 I'm here to speak for them. We can't expect patients to further compromise their own safety by coming forward with their concerns, but believe me when I say it is a real concern. Our state has made it clear through policy changes in the last few years that we want anyone to feel safe, getting reproductive, and other healthcare in Massachusetts, this bill would make sure that happens. Again, I ask that you take this overdue step to protect patients who come to Massachusetts for care. Thank you again for letting us speak on this behalf and share the importance of the Location Shield Act. Please report this bill favorably out of committee. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. I'd like to open up to the committee for questions.
What is on this?
REP KEEFE - I just I wanted to say thank you for the testimony. For me, it's very hard to imagine what means and what your testimony has painted for us in terms of a picture of risk and harm is really valuable to me as a member of the committee. So just thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Anything else from the committee?
Seeing on thank you 3 very much for your testimony. Okay.3807
I'd like to invite our next panel, Taylor Bellfield, Doctor Alex Corollian, Arlene Isaacson from Trans Health And Fenway Health So that's fine. Sport of H357, and that's
SPEAKER1 - 148.
SPEAKER26 - Good afternoon.
ARLENE ISAACSON - MASS GLBTQ POLITICAL CAUCUS - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Arlene Isaacson. I'm testifying today in my capacity as the3844 co chair of the Massachusetts GLBTQ Political Caucus and I'm testifying in support of these 2 location shield bills, specifically from the vantage point of the queer community. For many in the LGBT community, the world can be a pretty unsafe place. Many LGBTQs are, of course, not out of the closet yet. and they fear losing professional positions or family if3870 they were to come out. Now, we3872 all accept the fact that the weather app needs to know our location so it can tell us if it's gonna rain this afternoon. But a few people realize that some apps sell our location information, not to the highest bidder, that would be bad enough, but to anyone, including your inappropriate neighbor, your employer, or worse in the case of the LGBTQ community to extremists who believe that our very existence is a scourge on the universe.
So to LGBTQs, it can be terrifying. It exposes us to harassment, and candidly, it's downright creepy. We already know that right wing rooms have used location information to out LGBTQ folks and cause them to lose their jobs to the3918 trans community in particular. We've all read stories about what happened about a year ago at Boston Children's Hospital where they offered gender affirming care and the harassment that took place there. Now, imagine if the anti trans extremist were to purchase that information, location information of the doctors, and the social workers at that hospital. and figure out where they live? It's only a matter of time before that happens. On a personal level, as some of you know, I've been doing LGBTQ advocacy for 30 some odd years. And many times, over the course of those 30 years, I would receive threats from anti LGBTQ extremists that they'd kill me or do this to me or that to me or to my family.
Threats were commonplace. I wouldn't quite make jokes about it. But the reality is that I could somewhat protect myself by not listing my address or phone number when there were phone books, you know, had living in a secure location with good locks on my doors and windows. I can't imagine what would happen if anti LGBTQ. haters from Texas even, were able to track my movements and know not only where I lived, but where I shopped for my groceries, worshiped, or picked up my kids from school every day. That would not be just creepy that would be downright dangerous. So, I'll end with one last thought, which is that for elected to as I imagine, you're gonna have the same challenges in a very different way from people who don't like you because they oppose you or they're disgruntled wanting to track you or members of your own family. So I hope that you'll help protect us all by limiting access to this personal location information by banning its sale. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Thank you. Taylor Bellfield is joining us virtually. Taylor? Shia.
Taylor, if you could begin again
SPEAKER26 - That's Trianj. Oh. I thought Oh, I'm sorry. No. You have mine. We hear you. Sorry.
SPEAKER3 - Taylor, I think you're still muted. We're having trouble hearing you.
No.
SPEAKER27 - side.
SPEAKER28 - Yeah. Alright. How about now?
SPEAKER3 - Perfect. Alright. Before is yours. Okay. Great. Good afternoon.
SPEAKER29 - Alright. Give me just a second here.
SPEAKER28 - Alright.
TAYLOR BELLFIELD - TRANSHEALTH - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 357 and Senate bill 148 the Location Shield Act. My name is Taylor Bellfield. I'm a psychiatric nurse practitioner and advocacy consultant with Transhealth. We're an independent and comprehensive healthcare Center on Western Massachusetts that serves the trans and4103 gender diverse community. I think it's safe to4105 assume that all of us here are aware of the recent4107 concerns regarding data privacy and4109 security. You know, we all have smartphones with apps and various social media accounts, so it really stands to reason that we all have our concerns about how the things we post online. And all of our personal information available online can be traced back to us and possibly cost us our jobs, our relationships, and sometimes even our lives.
Unfortunately, these risks are even greater among the trans and gender diverse community, and it is for this reason that I'm here to speak with you today. As it stands, many app developers use software that harvests and sells all forms of personal data to companies for profit. And this data is personally identifiable and traceable because each of our devices has a unique identifier. Across the country, we have already seen the possibilities of targeting, harassment, and persecution of individuals because of the accessibility of location data. Bad actors have already purchased location data from data brokerage companies to target gay Catholics, immigrants, and folks seeking reproductive care. It's only a matter of time until trans and gender diverse people are further targeted using these strategies just for seeking gender affirming healthcare, again, which is in all respects basic health care.
No one should fear harassment, violence, or persecution simply for accessing health care. However, without protections in place, trans and gender diverse people, their families, friends, and healthcare providers across the country are at risk for harm. As healthcare providers, we're expected to maintain absolute confidentiality of both the protected health information and personally identifiable information of our patients, which now more than ever should include location data. Although data brokerage companies and app developers are not held to the same standards, it is our duty healthcare providers to ensure that our patients can safely access the services they need without fear of harm. It is our belief that this bill would be an important step towards greater protection and safety for not just our patients, but for everyone across the Commonwealth. Thank you so much for4214 your time and for your support of this bill. I welcome any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from4220 the committee?
Nope, seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony today. I'd now like to invite Justin Sherman testifying virtually from Duke University in support4235 of h357 s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
SPEAKER3 - Mister Sherman, are you with us?
SPEAKER30 - Yes. turning on here.
SPEAKER3 - Right.
SPEAKER30 - There we go. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - We can hear you. The floor is yours.
JUSTIN SHERMAN - DUKE UNIVERSITY - HB 357 - SB 148 - Excellent. Thank you. Chair Chan and distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. My name is Justin Sherman, and I'm a senior fellow at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy, where I lead our research program on data brokers, the virtually unregulated multibillion dollar industry of companies gathering, aggregating, and selling data on Americans. The sale of smartphone location data threatens Americans'4284 freedoms, privacy, and personal safety. Congress4288 has stalled in regulating this4290 ecosystem, but Massachusetts can become a nationwide leader in preventing these privacy abuses. Data brokers make billions of dollars off selling individual's location data both metadata, such as foot traffic patterns, and people's real time locations.
Mobile apps are a major source of this data. While some responsible apps only use location data internally, many apps share it with third parties, including by selling data to data brokers and by sharing data with advertisers, which then sell the data to data brokers. The sale of Americans' location data enables civil rights abuses and4327 threatens Americans freedoms. It is a core American principle that the government should not arbitrarily surveil US persons without legal processes, but gaps in outdated US law permit law enforcement to buy data from data brokers without warrants, without public disclosure, and without robust oversight. Federal state and local law enforcement collectively spend at least hundreds of million of dollars a year on broker data.
The sale of location data is an extraordinary invasion of Americans' privacy. Buyers can secretly watch as people visit medical facilities, pay their loan offices, divorce attorneys, child counselors, and much, much more.4367 Location data has been used to track military officials driving4371 home at night, track law enforcement dropping their kids at school, and even track identifying out the closeted priest. In 2015, a Massachusetts data broker secretly tracked women in other states visiting abortion clinics and sold real time ad access to those devices to anti abortion groups. They then ran manipulative targeted ads to women literally while they were sitting in clinic waiting rooms.
The sale of location data also threatens Americans' safety. As other panelists have mentioned, abusive individuals have bought data from data brokers for decades to hunt down and stalk, assault, and even murder other people. In 2020, a misogynistic lawyer bought data online about a New Jersey federal judge, went to her home, shot her husband, and murdered her 20 year old son. The sale of smartphone location data invites similar violence. Massachusetts should pass a robust version of the bill to prevent this abuse and become a nationwide leader in protecting location data4431 privacy. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Questions from the committee?
Seeing on thank you for your testimony, Miss Sherman.
At this time, I'd like to invite Caitlyn Chin, who's joining us virtually to testify in support of h357 s
SPEAKER1 - 1 48.
SPEAKER6 - Members of the Oh, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak into sorry. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - We can hear you.
SPEAKER6 - Go ahead. Sorry. Sorry about that.
CAITLIN CHIN - CSIS - HB 357 - SB 148 - Thank you for the opportunity to4468 speak in support of H 357 and S 148. I am Caitlin Chin, a privacy policy researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is a nonpartisan national security think tank. And CSIS does not take institutional policy positions. My views4485 do not represent those of my employer. Throughout my career, I have researched how many companies have built their business models around aggregating, processing, and sharing, detailed dossiers that can reveal intimate aspects of our lives. Location data is a particularly lucrative market, but also one of the most detrimental to individual privacy. Based on our movement records, as Senator Cynthia Creem and Representative Kate Lipper-Garabedian previously noted, it is possible to deduce where we live or work, who we spend time with, which health facilities we visit, and what activities we engage in.
While some data brokers share location information in aggregate or deidentified formats, it often remains possible to reidentify individuals when either monitoring location over prolonged periods of time or when combining multiple datasets. Yet, too many companies, notably data brokers, face few hard legal limitations to prevent the abusive use of personal information. Unchecked location tracking poses clear national security4553 concerns. For example, US data brokers could transfer4557 location information to foreign entities, which in turn could compromise military or intelligence operations. A few years ago, one4566 analytics firm accidentally stumbled across US military operations in4570 Syria when tracking soldiers' smartphone location data.
It's not hard to imagine the potential national security dangers if bad actors get their hands on the location data of4581 high profile individuals, like military officials, government employees, or journalists. This is especially true since sales of geolocation data to foreign or domestic entities4592 could also facilitate in targeted stocking, harassment, doxing, discrimination, intimidation, or even physical harm, especially towards those seeking abortions or those who identify as LGBTQ plus as many witnesses have testified. This could lead to severe consequences to basic civil4612 rights. And that4613 is the problem with allowing corporations to openly sell geolocation data on the commercial market.
It is far too easy for sensitive information to fall into the wrong hands with potentially catastrophic consequences. That brings me to the Location Shield Act, which is a critical piece of legislation, that requires companies to minimize their acquisition and retention of location data. And it also prohibits companies from selling location data outright. It allows them to share location data with law enforcement only if presented with a warrant, user permission, or a legal basis under federal or state law. This would go a long way towards promoting the privacy of Massachusetts residents and visitors. Thank you again for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee. Mr. Chairman.
REP CHAN - Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Chin. A couple quick questions if you could because I did look you up online and you guys do national security issues. Regarding the collections of GPS data, once it leads to this 3rd party that can resell it, I presume it can be resold multiple times from there. So it's similar to, like, a data breach situation where somebody steals your credit card numbers and just keeps rotating to new buyers.
CHIN - That's exactly right. Once personal information is transferred to a third party, it's very hard to track any further secondary uses or secondary transfers of that personal information. And that's the4702 problem with allowing companies to transfer information to data brokers with very few limitations. It's just very hard to control how that information is4712 used after that initial transaction, and there's very little transparency as well into this very intricate web of data transfers.
CHAN - Now part of a group that could purchase this information is foreign governments, would that make sense?
CHIN - That's right. So, typically companies in the United States face very few limitations on transferring information abroad, so it's possible for data brokers to either share personal information directly with foreign governments or share personal information with foreign individuals or foreign companies who then in turn can share information with foreign governments.
CHAN - You know, what I'm getting at is this, there are a number of folks here that are a a pro democracy folks from a number of different countries. And as we've seen in news lately that the FBI and the Department of Justice have been chasing quite a few of these folks that are seeking to harm, or intimidate, or kidnap for lack of an internal folks in this country. So would this GPS data provide greater ability for autocratic countries to try to track down the dissidents in the US?
CHIN - Absolutely. The sale of location4788 data definitely increases the risk for foreign governments to be able to target and locate specific individuals. It's still possible for foreign governments to be able to identify or track people without the sale of location data. But the easy and widespread availability of this information definitely makes it a lot easier for governments to do so.
CHAN - And Part of this is that if they could track more than 1 person's data in a geographical location, for example, like a shopping mall and they know your pattern movement, is it possible for them to figure out where you're gonna be alone and then be taken from there?
CHIN - It is true. If a foreign government is able to access data points from many individuals, it can track people. It can track people's4839 movements and also track whether location data points are potentially alone or potentially away from other location data points as well.
CHIN - And the concern I think of getting it also is the fact that there's been increased awareness of foreign governments' secret police in the United States. And the the fact that this information can be acquired with the so called secret police in the US and other nations could put US citizens and permanent residents at risk.
CHIN - Yes, absolutely, that is correct. The sales of location data to foreign governments or even domestic government agencies can put individuals at risk. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Thank you, Mister Sherman.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Any other questions from the committee?
Seeing none, thank you, Miss Chen, for your testimony. I'd now like to invite another panel, Claire To Looney, Kate Glen, Doctor Lawley Deli Bovi, from reproductive equity now on support of h357 s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
SPEAKER3 - k.
SPEAKER31 - Thank you so much.
SPEAKER4 - Scott,
4904 SPEAKER34904 -4904 and4904 thank you for your patience. I appreciate it.
4906 SPEAKER314906 -4906 Of4906 course.
CLAIRE TEYLOUNI - REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY NOW - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon, Chair Chan, Chair Cronin, and members of the committee. My name is Claire Teylouni, here on behalf of Reproductive Equity Now in support of H 357 and S 148, the Location Shield Act. I'm joined virtually by my panelists, Kate Glynn, of the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts and Doctor Lolly Delli-Bovi of Women's Health Services in Brookline. Just over one year ago, the Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional protection for abortion. Over the last 12 months, anti abortion extremists have banned or severely restricted abortion in 19 states and taken steps to criminalize the provision of care throughout our country. In response, Massachusetts and its Legislature has acted extremely boldly to protect access to abortion and shield our heroic abortion providers from hostile out of state litigation. But as these anti abortion extremists continue to ramp up their attacks on our rights, our work really isn't done. In a world where so much of our lives are lived online, we're not fully protected until our digital privacy is also4973 protected.
So right now, as you've heard from many of our testimonials this afternoon, any person with a credit card, including anti abortion extremists in states with abortion bans, can purchase the location data from our phones, tracking our every move, and putting people who seek or provide abortion care in Massachusetts at serious risk. We know that data brokers have already bought, repackaged, and sold the location data of people visiting abortion clinics. Now and one year post Dobbs, Massachusetts has a significant opportunity to stop this practice before it's used to criminalize people who are seeking reproductive healthcare in our commonwealth. In a post Roe world, Massachusetts must take every step possible to protect abortion access and ensure our patients and our providers feel confident and safe accessing and offering life essential healthcare. I'm gonna turn it over to Kate Glynn of the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER32 - Good afternoon.
SPEAKER6 - Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - Yes.
KATE GLYNN - ARFWM - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon Chair Chan, Chair Cronin, and members of the committee. My name is Kate Glynn, and I'm the Co Chair of the Board of Directors of the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts. Since1988, our volunteers have provided critical financial assistance for people seeking abortion care built on the simple belief that a right to abortion means little if you can't afford to pay for it. I am here today to add my voice to support bill H 357, S 148, the Location Shield Act. Every day, our fund receives calls from people across Massachusetts and around the country who can't afford their care. They're navigating taking time off work, coordinating childcare, securing travel and lodging, and so much more. The last thing they should have to worry about is the threat of anti abortion extremists watching their every5096 move.
It is unconscionable to think that their privacy and therefore their safety is at risk because anyone with a credit card is able to precisely identify and track where they live, where they work, and what clinic they visit. I'm proud to live in a state that has doubled down on reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy the way Massachusetts has. The bold protections passed in the wake of Dobbs last year offered critical safeguards to providers, patients, and all who help people access abortion care like our fund does. And the Legislature went farther than that, directly supporting the work of abortion funds who ensure true and meaningful access. This says clearly that our state understands that access and care are not simply about the legal protection. Now, we have another opportunity to lead the nation and become the first state to create a location privacy shield protecting us from extremists, attempting to reach across our borders. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
Is Doctor Kelly Bovey with us?
SPEAKER33 - Yes. I am.
SPEAKER3 - Doctor the floor is yours.
LAURENT DELLI-BOVI - WHS - HB 57 - SB 148 - Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Doctor Lolly Delli-Bovi, and I'm Medical Director and founder of Women's Health Services in Brookline. I've been5182 practicing OBGYN for over 47 years, and have been medical director of5188 5 family planning facilities in the Commonwealth, including a hospital division of family planning. Over this time, I have seen patients from all walks of life and an infinite range of life circumstances seek abortion care. In my office, I keep a map of the United states documenting where non Massachusetts patients have traveled from to seek care at Women's5212 Health Services. Before Dobbs, most of the pins on the map were from the5216 surrounding New England states.
5218 The5218 minute the leaked opinion came out, we began seeing patients from all over the south. People are traveling further and further to seek care and these are only the people with means and the support to do so. I'm here to testify in support of H 357 S 148, the Location Shield Act because Massachusetts must continue to do everything in its power to protect access to abortion care in the Commonwealth. As5246 more and more states ban and criminalize care, and abortion sentiments are becoming increasingly radicalized and volatile, hostile actors are becoming more and more empowered to target and harass people obtaining abortion. The ability for anyone with a credit card to purchase cell phone location information puts me, my staff, and my patients at risk.
Fear, whether implied or perceived can have a powerful effect on5274 healthcare provision. And in today's hostile environment, we're seeing women afraid to seek needed services. This may include afraid to go into a pharmacy and buy a pregnancy test, have an ultrasound, get a follow-up pregnancy hormone level, or call the clinic with a complication. This compromises their medical care and their well-being. I'm deeply grateful for the Legislature's commitment to reproductive freedom, which allows me to continue to deliver high quality compassionate life saving of abortion care. I urge you5310 to take further action to protect our digital privacy and hope5314 you will give this bill a favorable report. And happy to answer any questions if there are any. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you, Doctor. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing none, thank you very much to the5330 panel for your testimony here today. At this time, I'd like to invite Nasser Eladros from color of change to test fine sport of h357 s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
SPEAKER34 - Good afternoon. Thank you.
NASSER ELEDROOS - COLOR OF CHANGE - HB 357 - SB 148 - Good afternoon Senator Cronin, Representative Chan, members of the committee. I'm speaking to you on behalf of Color of Change, a national organization committed to promoting policies that protect and enhance the freedoms of black and brown individuals in the United States. We're voicing our strong support for the Location Shield Act represented by H 357 and S 148. I have written testimony that I submitted to the committee, but I'd like to start with a bit of a personal anecdote. I'm a Muslim man born and raised in Worcester, Massachusetts. Now, about 5 or 6 years ago, around Eid during the end of Ramadan I remember my uncle approached me. He shared with me an app called Muslim Pro. I remember I scoffed at the idea that you would need an app to be a pro Muslim. But what I realized over conversations with him and others, elders, family, friends was that people relied on this one app to facilitate their daily exchanges with their faith, whether they need to know what time they prayed, where they need to go pray, what direction they faced, what time they have to break their fast, or other sort of spiritual guidance.
Now I'm a tech policy advocate, I study privacy. I surprise then in 2020 when I learned that the US military was found purchasing data from this app in particular, uncovered by Vice motherboard. To say that this act potentially discouraged Muslims from exercising their religious rights due to fear of surveillance is quite honestly an understatement when you consider the history of the past 2 decades. The New York Times opinion team in 2019 demonstrated the extent of this issue, showing how they could track anyone visiting any significant site like the New York Stock Exchange or the White House. Now, while the need have protective legislation is clear for the privileged, it's especially crucial for the marginalized. There's a valid concern about the misuse of this data, especially for those marginalized by police, or reliant on government support, or they act explicitly seeking healthcare that they have every right to seek. This data could be used without consent. to influence decisions about their lives or even prompt unwanted interventions, including but not limited to threats on their life.
And it's part of a racial justice understanding that we've had a long practice in the United States of the surveillance of civil rights leaders in the 50s and 60s to more recent over policing and surveillance of black lives matter activists, Chinese-American academics, Muslim communities, Latino immigrants. Such practices identify and intensify the vulnerability of these communities to5509 the unregulated collection and use of location data leading to discriminatory outcomes. In conclusion, we really urge you to take strong action in favor of this act. We believe that doing so, you'll work towards fighting against racial injustice and help restore privacy rights to all individuals in the Commonwealth. Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. questions from the committee?
See, ma'am, thank you very much for your testimony. Bye. I'd like to invite Bridget Quinn from the AFL CIOs. to testify in sport of h357 and s
SPEAKER1 - 148?
BRIDGET QUINN - AFL-CIO - HB 357 - SB 148 - Thank you. Chair Cronin, Chair Chan, and members of the committee and staff, my name is5553 Bridget Quinn, and I'm the legislative director for the Mass AFL-CIO. We represent 500,000 union members and their affiliates from teachers, to firefighters, laborers, social workers, public sector, private sector,5565 service sector. We serve as the unified voice of working people in the Commonwealth, those who are in unions and those who are yet to be organized. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families by working for racial, social, and economic just us in our workplace, in our communities, in our state, and our nation. And our vision is a fair and just an equitable society that benefits working families in the Commonwealth. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and testify in favor of House bill 357 and Senate 148, the Location Shield Act. As we've heard today, our cell phones keep track of where we go every minute of every day.
And that personal location data information is great when you wanna, like, avoid traffic on the MassPike, you wanna see how many mileage you're running, tracks your sleep at night, and, you know, hail a taxi. These are services and technology that make our lives easier. Unfortunately, as we've heard today, this information can be used for profit by those whose only agenda is to cause harm to people just trying to live their lives. This places every cell phone user at risk. And so we know every day, unregulated data brokers buy and sell personal information, personal location data from apps on our cell phones, revealing where we live, where we work, where we play, where we worship, and where we seek healthcare.
5651 To5651 protect our privacy, the privacy and safety and access, to essential healthcare, and all these things for our families, Massachusetts needs to ban5659 this practice now bypassing this5661 important legislation. So why now? We all deserve these legal protections. We all deserve privacy. And since the overturning of Roe v Wade, this puts patients and providers in Massachusetts at risk of prosecution and harassment. Last year, in fact, we know that several companies were selling5681 detailed location data and demographic info about people who visited abortion clinics. We know that domestic violence5688 abusers can easily access this information to further track and harass people that they're abusing. And we've heard just earlier that foreign adversaries can buy also this location data to track elected officials, military employees, police officers, etcetera.
And employers can also buy this information to track and discriminate against their own employees. So right now, you know, employers can track their employees at work all day from various, you know, various modems. But, you know, we really don't wanna be in a space where employers can see where you seek medical care, behavioral health services, mental health services, whether you worship5734 at a church, a synagogue or mosque. And so, you know, we really are very concerned about this and the employers using this in the workplace to further discriminate against their employees, which is there's a long history of. So we urge you to pass this legislation out of committee with a favorable report. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thanks. Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing that, thank you very
SPEAKER36 - much
SPEAKER3 - for your testimony.
I want to invite our final panel to testify. Janet Domino's, Gaye Hordon Byrne, Paul Roberts from Masspur, the TestFI And Sport of H.
SPEAKER1 - 3
SPEAKER3 - Thank you for your patience. Appreciate them.
It's hard to place.
SPEAKER29 - Sure. I'm
PAUL ROBERTS - SECUREPAIRS - HB 360 - SB 142 - Thanks to the committee for having us. My name is Paul Roberts, and I am the founder of the group called SecuRepairs. We are a group of more than 300 information technology and information security professionals who support the right to repair. And I am here today to speak to you in favor and port of House bill 360 and Senate bill 142, an act relative to digital right to repair. So my organization are basically cybersecurity professionals who really exist to help inform you about cybersecurity and make sure that you are not being disinformed about the idea that repair and right to repair poses a cybersecurity risk because it doesn't.
You know, as you know, House Bill 360 and Senate Bill 142 which you've looked at various versions of in recent years and passed along, simply require that device makers, portable electronic device makers who sell products to Massachusetts consumers and who make parts, information, schematic diagrams, software support tools available to authorize repair providers or business partners, that they basically make those same tools and information available to the people who own the devices, who may want to fix them, or give them to somebody else it fix, a neighbor, an independent repair professional, and so on. As such, that doesn't create any new cybersecurity risk, right? These tools and information are already being widely distributed, whether at Best Buy's Geek Squad, at the Apple Genius bar, and therefore, giving them to the owners doesn't increase that cyber risk. The information is already widely out there.
The other thing I'd just like to talk to you about is the nature of cyber risk itself. Repair information, schematic diagrams, tools software to figure out what's wrong5913 with something. That's not how cybercriminals attack connected devices, whether those are iPhones and iPads or your home5921 router or connected webcam. Those attacks come by way of vulnerabilities in the software, and that vulnerability often is as a result of the manufacturers. In fact, just on June 1st, the Russian firm Kaspersky Lab warned about malware targeting iOS devices, Apple5939 iPhones, iPads. The source that that malware was exploiting was previously undiscovered vulnerability in the iOS software itself. So that's how it works. This bill will not create any new cyber risk. What it will do is create a functioning and robust market for service and repair of iPhones, iPads, and other portable electronic devices. I know you've looked at this before and you've passed it along, and I really thank you for your past support. And I hope that we can count on this committee once again to pass this through. Thank you, and obviously available to answer any questions you have.
JANET DOMENITZ - MASSPIRG - HB 360 - SB 142 - Good afternoon. My name is Janet Domenitz. I am the director of MASSPIRG, and we're here to support an act relative to the digital right to repair for three main reasons. The first one is consumer rights. When we purchase something, we own that item. So why should we be prevented by a manufacturer from repairing that item when something needs fixing? Imagine if you purchased a shirt and a button came off, and you wanted to sew it back on but the shirt manufacturer told you, sorry, you have to buy the only correct size sewing needle from us and it costs 10 times the average market price for a regular needle. You can imagine your own analogies, but the point is when you buy a cell phone or another digital device, you own it, you shouldn't be prevented from repairing it.
Secondly, electronic waste. A recent United Nations report stated that less than 20% of electron and waste otherwise known as e-waste is recycled. The rest ends up disposed of or in landfills, which contaminates our soil, our groundwater, puts food supply systems and water resources at risk and more. The third reason is public support. Time and again, the general public and small business owners have overwhelmingly said they want the right to repair their digital devices. We thank you very much for your consideration. and I will hand the floor over to Gay Gordon-Byrne from repair.org.
GAY GORDON-BYRNE - THE REPAIR ASSOCIATION - HB 360 - SB 142 - Hi, I'm hoping that you can hear me. My name is Gay Gordon-Byrne. I'm the executive director of repair.org, and I asked to testify today because I wanted to provide some perspective on what's going on outside of Massachusetts because there's been quite a bit of developments in other states. For example, cumulatively, since we started this fight back in 2014, 43 out of all 50 states have introduced right to repair legislation of various flavors. And by flavors, I mean different kinds of equipment specialties, but the bill itself is the same. You bought something, it's yours, you should be able to fix it as Janet has explained. So it's become not just a national question of can we repair our stuff. The Federal Trade Commission has weighed and said, absolutely, there's no good reason not to. There are bills underway in Canada, in the EU, in the UK, in India, and I'm sure in other countries as well.
So this has become a worldwide rebellion against the idea of planned obsolescence and against the idea that we should always throw stuff away, buy new, and the heck with the people that can't afford it. So you guys already tried to pass this last year, it almost passed. I don't want to reiterate all of the reasons why it was so successful, but we've now got 2 laws that have already passed and been signed into law, that directly impact these same equipment categories. Both New York and Minnesota now have statute that starts in January, this coming January, where you'll be able to6177 fix in those states, the exact same mobile devices that you want to be able to fix in Massachusetts. So you might wonder why bother? Well, the reason is, is that just because you might be able to go to New York and buy the parts and tools that you need, which is obviously a border state, that doesn't mean that the economic value of that repair stays in Massachusetts. It kind of sends a lot of the value of repair to another state.
And your local consumers aren't gonna get better service. Your local repair business is now gonna have to add the additional cost of bringing those parts and tools in in order to make any money on the transaction. So it's not a very good thing for the state of Massachusetts. The other thing is we have to question whether or not the manufacturers that say they're gonna be nice are actually gonna be nice. They may be required to be nice in those states, but there's no reason to assume that they will take that benevolent dictatorship and bring it to Massachusetts. So you really are gonna need your own6237 statute, at least until such time as there's perhaps a federal6241 statute. But I have a feeling I'll be long retired before that happens and I would like to see these bills get done and put6250 enough pressure on the manufacturers. And really truly detect oligarchs that are commanding these requirements and get back our rights to own our stuff. So I urge a favorable report. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee?
SPEAKER1 - Hey, chairman.
CHAN - Thank you, Mister chairman. I do see some of the folks here that can testify more closely about these repair service, but 2 quick questions. Question 1, and I'm sure the repair guys can ask you this better, but I wouldn't ask you anyway. Do you need to unlock your phone as part of repair?
ROBERTS - Unlock your phone as in entering your phone?
CHAN - I mean, you have to unlock your phone as part of repair service. I'm sure the repair guys, but I'm curious what you think
ROBERTS - I should probably defer that to the repair people, but my understanding is that for many repairs, that that is not a requirement. I would defer that to the repair experts.
CHAN - Second question, with the opening of your phone in schematics, right? Can you copy someone's flash drive off of their phone? For example, you know, I have a Samsung LET'S say, I do have a external drive built in tear, what is security to protect my SD micro cards in the phone?
ROBERTS - So, again, I'm gonna leave that to the repair experts to answer that. But what I would say is data6331 security and the security of data on all kinds of electronic devices6335 getting out6337 of control of the owner, either because the6339 owner has sold a device or handed it to an independent repair shop is absolutely a concern. And all of us have probably seen our neighbor haul out a Inkjet printer to their front sidewalk to have the, you know, town come and take it away. Does that inkjet printer have scanned images of W2 forms and Social Security numbers on it? You better believe it does, right? More often than not. That's a huge problem, and there have6366 been many reports that have shown that that's6368 a problem. And it may require some kind of legislative act to address that risk.
But repair is not gonna increase that risk. The same threat that, you know, you trust a independent repair person to fix your phone or tablet, and they end up walking off with your data or an authorized repair person, the risk is the same. It's the same risk that I asked somebody to come in the house and fix my dishwasher, and they, you know, knock me over the head and take my wallet. You know, you're extending trust to a service provider, to do this repair, and, you know, you are trusting that they are going to be responsible about how they manage and handle the data. If they have that, you know, in other words, if they need to unlock that device in order to perform the repair, there's gonna be some trust extended there.
One other thing I would say is manufacturers actually have a role to play in this, which is they can introduce features, software based features that enable secure repair modes, right, which protect your data. It doesn't give somebody who unlocks a device for the purpose of conducting a repair open access to everything on that device. By and large, they have not introduced those types of features, but we're starting to see. Like I know Apple has, I think, either introduced or said it is going to introduce a feature like that. So this would6455 be a software based feature. You know, Rep Chan, you walk into an independent or authorized repair provider and6461 say, well, I wanna get my phone fixed. Oh, you know, we need to access the device to do that repair. Okay. Well, I'm gonna put it into repair mode. That's gonna restrict your access to the information you need to do the repair but nothing else. My photos, my contacts, and so on. So manufacturers actually have a role to play in this. By and large, we haven't seen them take up that mantle but I think as right to repair law's past and this type of conversation, picks up momentum, you might see more of them doing it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you.
Any other
Thank you very much for the panel for your testimony. Going back, I would like to now Welcome, Nicole Gil from Accountable Tech to testify in support of s 148. Nicole, are6509 you with us?
SPEAKER16 - I am.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you.6514
SPEAKER3 - Thank thank you for your patience.
SPEAKER27 - Yeah.
SPEAKER30 - Of course yours.
SPEAKER3 - No problem.
NICOLE GILL - ACCOUNTABLE TECH - SB 148 - HB 357 - Well, good afternoon. My name is Nicole Gill, and I am the cofounder6522 and executive director of Accountable Tech, I'm also a resident of Waltham, Massachusetts, and I'm here today in support of the Location Shield Act. I respectfully ask this committee to favorably report the legislation, which6537 provides critical privacy protections for location data that currently do not exist in state or federal law. I'm honored that Massachusetts has the opportunity to lead the nation by advancing critical legislation to protect the privacy of people's cell phone location data. My organization, Accountable Tech, is a non partisan, non it organization that advocates for structural reforms to repair our information ecosystem and other societal harms that are the consequences a big tax surveillance advertising business model, which is fueled by the invasive collection of vast troves of personal data including location data.
Tech Companies turn massive profits by endlessly tracking and profiling us, determining how to keep us hooked, and then hyper targeting us with ads. These platforms manipulate each user's information flow and boost false and divisive contact to maximizing engagement so that they can show us more ads and learn more about our behavior. This is the surveillance advertising business model, and one of its many harms is the erosion of data privacy. Privacy is a fundamental human right, but currently, there are few, currently, there are a few protections for Massachusetts residents or US citizens more broadly. I've personally tried to remove the publication of my own personal data and that of my family, when such information has6623 been made available without my consent or knowledge.
And I can say from firsthand experience that without a law like the Location Shield Act, Baystaters will continue to fall victim to data brokers without any real avenue for remedy. The necessity of location data privacy is even more dire in the last year since Roe v6645 Wade was overturned. Accountable Tech has spent months conducting research that shows location data is continuing to be collected and retained by Google despite the company's promises to the contrary. This means that when a user opens their Google Maps app to look for reproductive care services, including abortion providers, that search query is held on to by Google for up to 18 months, leaving users vulnerable to possible harassment and even prosecution. Currently, there's no restriction on the sale of this data, and it puts an incredible burden on people to protect their privacy, costing them time, resources, and money that many of us do not have. Massachusetts has the opportunity to be a leader in balancing legitimate business needs with people's fundamental right to privacy and giving every person the ability to protect their location data from being exposed. I respectfully request the committee advance the Location Shield Act today. Thank you very much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee.
Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite Megan Iorio testifying virtually from the electronic privacy information center in support of ace 357 s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
SPEAKER39 - Hello? Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - We can hear you. Wonderful. Welcome.
MEGAN IORIO - EPIC - HB 357 - SB 48 - Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Megan Iorio. I'm senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center or EPIC. EPIC is an independent nonprofit that was founded nearly 30 years ago to defend the fundamental right to privacy. EPIC would ideally like to see Massachusetts pass a comprehensive privacy law, but the next best thing that the Legislature can do is pass the Location Shield Act. Others have covered or will be covering the harms caused by unrestricted collection and sale of location data, so I'm gonna talk briefly about why allowing people to opt out of the sale of their data won't protect consumers. Notice and consent has been the reigning model for tech regulation for the last several decades, and this is why we're at a crisis point for privacy. People don't have the time or the technical sophistication to review how every company collects and uses their data. People are also tired of being asked whether they consent data collection and will opt in just to get rid of the prompt window.
Companies then deliberately make it difficult to opt out once you've opted in. And for those who do successfully opt out, companies will repeatedly ask for consent until people are worn down into consenting. Now, there's a new model for privacy regulation, and it's called data minimization. This is the model that the American Data Privacy Protection Act follows and it's the one that the Location Shield Act uses. It involves one, limiting the data that companies can collect to only what's necessary for6833 permissible purpose, like providing6835 the service you actually requested. And 2, limiting use and transfer of data that is legally collected. So first, limiting collection is important because data that's never collected can't be misused. It also can't be subpoenaed by, say, out of state law enforcement, investigating people who sought reproductive care Massachusetts.
Companies are collecting way more6860 location data than they need to provide6862 us the services we request. Online advertising systems alone collect Massachusetts resident location data, 840 times a day according to a recent study by an Irish organization. They don't need that much data to provide the service that you requested and they shouldn't be collecting it. And now second, that companies that have a legitimate purpose for collecting location data shouldn't be able to turn around and sell that data. When users allow apps to use their locations, they don't expect that information to be sold to any interested buyer and used in ways that can harm them. These are incredibly harmful practices as the other witnesses have already testified to and should be prohibited. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I can answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. I'd now like to invite Julie Burn Bernstein who's joining us virtually from the digital 4th mass, Restore the 4th and support of h357 s
SPEAKER1 - 148.
JULIE BERNSTEIN - DIGITAL 4TH - HB 357 - SB 148 - Thank you. Co-chairs Cronin, and Chan, and members of the committee. I'm testifying in support of H 357 S 148, Location Shield Act on behalf of Digital 4th, the Massachusetts Chapter of Restore the 4th a national civil rights organization advocating for our 4th Amendment rights. Although many internet service providers' apps or social media companies disclose6958 somewhere in their lengthy privacy agreements that our location data is6962 being collected and monetized, the average user does not have time to read this information, and without appreciating the potential implications, often agrees to the terms. In jurisdictions like the EU ,which have better privacy regulations, it is possible to reject the terms of the privacy agreement while still receiving the product or service.
While we are aware of receiving annoying advertisements and phone calls, we are less aware of the fact that very personal information such as where we worship, what rallies or protests we attend, and what clinics or mental health or addiction treatment centers we visit are being documented and sold. The Supreme Court's Carpenter Decision in 2018 limited to government collecting our historic cell site location information to 7 days unless a7004 warrant were obtained. Chief Justice Roberts opined that location data provided the government, quote, near perfect surveillance and allows it to travel back in time to retrace a person's whereabouts, unquote. It is thus very disturbing that local law enforcement can purchase anyone's location data without a warrant from Fog Data Science LLC.
Massachusetts is a state that allows adult women and teens7027 to have an abortion, we also host 18,000 out of state students just at UMass alone. Many Massachusetts students come from states where abortion is illegal after 6 weeks of pregnancy. A pregnant student from one of these states and their Massachusetts physician need protection from legal consequences of any abortion obtained here. Same applies to any woman coming here from out of state for abortion services or to any parent bringing their child here for gender affirming care that is illegal in their state. H 357 and S 148 would go a long way to providing this protection. It would require any online service provider to obtain the consent of a user to its location privacy policy in order for the user's location data to be collected, retained, and shared with anyone unless compelled by a warrant from a federal Massachusetts, or local government agency or official, or by a federal or Massachusetts state law, or7081 to prevent an imminent threat to human life.7083
The collection of location data would be permitted if required for a business purpose, financial or commercial transaction, or a delivery requested all of them by the user. Each specific purpose would have to be disclosed and agreed to by the user, and the service provider would have to disclose how long the data would be retained. Any policy changes we'd have to be agreed to. An important feature of this bill is the private right of action which would enable a Massachusetts user to be compensated for damage resulting from the involuntary collection, processing, or disclosure of their location data. This gives companies a strong incentive to comply because while the attorney general can also7122 bring an action against a covered entity or service provider to remedy violation,7126 the limited staff and resources of the attorney general's office is a limiting factor. Please support this urgent bill. Thank you so much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee.
7141 See,7141 none. Thank you very much very much for your testimony this afternoon. I'd now like to invite Haley Sukayama from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to testify in support of h357 and S 14. Hey. Hailey, thank you for your patience this afternoon.
HAYLEY TSUKAYAMA - EFF - HB 357 - SB 148 - Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak to you today. I'll try and keep it brief. My name is Hayley Tsukayama. I'm senior legislative activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco based non profit organization founded in 1990 to protect civil liberties in the digital age. I'd just like to speak to you today a little bit about the market for location data and why it's so important that I ask this committee to favorably report this legislation. Location information is particularly harmful if someone wants to learn and infer a lot about you. Where we go says a lot about who we are. This extremely sensitive information can reveal where we live and work, who we associate with, and where we worship, protest, and seek medical care.
A widely cited 2013 study from Nature found that just 4 spatio-temporal points from an anonymized dataset can re-identify 95% of people, and just 2 could recognize 50% of people. Dozens of data brokers collect information about the precise movements7216 of hundreds of millions of people without their knowledge or meaningful consent and then they sell this data to a variety of private and state actors. Weather apps, navigation apps, coupon apps, and family safety apps often request location access and it's buried in hard to read legalese. Once an app has location access, it typically has free reign to share that access with just about anyone. Some apps partner directly with data brokers via software development kits, while other share location data in the process of serving behavior related target ads via real time bidding. Either way, this data ends up in the hands of companies who have no direct relationship with the people they are tracking. And from there, it could be sold on to hedge funds, insurance companies, advertisers, and government agencies like the military, the FBI, and ICE.
Location data has already been weaponized against marginalized and underserved communities. Such data could easily be used to identify those who seek reproductive or gender affirming care or who aid others in doing7273 so. A real threat after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision and other states' actions to criminalize care for pregnant and transgender people. An EFF investigation of public records acquired from dozens of state and local law enforcement agencies uncovered a widely used mass surveillance technology. This location data broker, Fog Data Science, sells police access to the precise movements of millions of people. The Location Shield Act gives people the ability to control7299 whether their information is collected and shared. Companies have shown that despite the clear risks that the sale of this data present to individual people, they are unwilling to change their practices to address these obvious harms. That's why I urge you today to stand up for common sense and pass privacy laws such as the Location Shield Act that require informed consent and data minimization. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much, questions.
I'm seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite Jonathan Norris from disconnect Inc. to test find sport of h357 s 148. Mister Norris, you with us?
SPEAKER27 - Hello, everyone. Can you
SPEAKER42 - hear me?
SPEAKER27 - Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - Great. Yep. Welcome, and good afternoon.
SPEAKER27 - Okay. Wonderful. I'll turn my video up just so it seems like the Internet is not so And so
JONATHAN NORRIS - DISCONNECT INC - HB 357 - SB 148 - thank you to the7349 committee for your time and consideration on this extremely important issue. My name is Jonathan Norris. I'm a licensed attorney in California. I work for Disconnect Incorporated, an Internet privacy company which was founded on one basic principle, that people should have the freedom to move about the Internet and their lives without anyone else looking over their shoulder. Our mission and focus has always been to make the Internet a better, safer place for everyone. Data brokers secretly track users' location nearly all the time. Exact locations down to within a few feet are being tracked and sold behind users' back virtually at all times. Location data can be combined with other sensitive online activity to create a detailed profile of where people go, what they do online, and in real life.
As a spate of recent investigations make clear, the US needs laws prohibiting the sale of location information. In fact, according to Grand View Research, the market for your phone's location data was estimated to be over $16 billion in 2022 and only growing. The amount of people having their location tracked is staggering. A small company, most people have never heard of called Anomaly 6, boasted about their ability to track real time locations of over 3 billion devices. Another known location tracker, Near, said they had collected data on 1.6 billion people in 44 countries. A third, Mobilewalla, claims to have the location data of nearly 2 billion devices. These and many other data brokers claim they are able to do so and track people's precise location7436 data within feet throughout the day, every day, for years. So it's probably safe to assume if you have a smartphone you're vulnerable to having your location tracked.
The way that they do this is not known to many people, and it's done through building these software development kits which get into apps that other users already trust. They don't know the makers of these software development kits, yet they're in nearly every app that people are using. So those third party companies are getting all of your information from apps that you know, trust, and have put on your phone voluntarily. This detailed location information can be correlated with other location and online activities such as hard identifiers, email address, real names, places of employment, etcetera, presenting serious privacy and security issues. Tracking technology has just been getting more sophisticated with the ability to track people from home, work, vacation everywhere. Even CIA and NSA employees are vulnerable.
Location data continues to develop techniques7495 that enable more comprehensive and invasive surveillance. Despite current attempts to regulate tracking, data brokers continue to collect and share information in more ways that people understand and many that they would not allow. It's become trivial to track location data and tie it to individuals' homes where their phone pings most often from 11 PM to 8 AM, work, as well as other sensitive activities like health appointments, religious activities, etcetera. With so many examples of how tracking can affect a person's freedom, autonomy, it seems that the only thing that we can do is ask lawmakers to act and hopefully help individuals in Massachusetts and beyond to be left open to serious vulnerabilities that these data trackers are presenting. Thank you very much, and I welcome any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much, Mister Norris. Any questions from the committee?
Nope. Seeing none. I wanna thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. I also wanna recognize gentlemen from Milton, Senator Timothy, includes who's showing our committee. Good to see you, Senator.
At this time, I'd like to invite Andrew or, excuse me, Jalani Drew Davi joining us virtually from Kyros Action. It's this test fine support of h357, that's
SPEAKER1 - 14
SPEAKER3 - Jolani, we can't hear you right now. I don't know if you can hear us.
I don't know if7598 that's an issue with your microphone.
Could you try maybe unplugging your microphone?
SPEAKER43 - Can you hear me now?
SPEAKER3 - Yes. Yep. Go ahead.
SPEAKER30 - Oh. Afternoon.
JELANI DREW-DAVI - KAIROS ACTION - HB 357 - SB 148 - Afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H357 and S 148. I'm Jelani Drew-Davi. I'm the director of campaigns at Kairos Action, a nonprofit focusing on nonpartisan education and advocacy at the intersection of technology, democracy, and many of our our community's biggest issues today. We believe that technology is not neutral because the world that we live in is not just or equal. And like you've probably heard most of today, I'm here to testify in support of Location Shield Act and underscore a lot of what has already been said. So we know that in this post Roe world people are using the Internet to connect to services to find care, but we also know that the data collected from digital activity can further harm those who are seeking reproductive care right now. And there are real consequences for what happens online and what happens in our digital spaces. I wanna bring out, you know, one parts here. It's like, 1 is that the corporations that govern our digital spaces are a part of the problem.
They are just as part of the problem as, you know, the folks who are using this information, this data to surveil individuals. The amount of data that's collected by corporations, by data brokers is incredible and needs to be regulated. Protecting our communities and equitable access to reproductive care in this moment is going to require action that regulates companies that govern our online spaces. Right now, it's up to individuals to secure their data, but this act would require companies to finally be responsible to their users. From prohibiting the sale, leasing, and trading of location data, it would help not only people in Massachusetts, but those traveling to Massachusetts and help them not live in fear simply because they dare to make a choice about their own healthcare. And requiring companies to obtain user consent would make it so that companies are finally responsible to their users, the people who make up all of the company's actual worth. So I urge the committee to favorably reports the Location Shield Act. It would be something that would not only like I said before, help folks in Massachusetts but also says standard for the entire country. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing, I want to thank you for your testimony this afternoon and invite Andrew Kingman from the safe privacy and security coalition to test sign opposition to h357H386,
s 148, NS218. Thanks very much. Thank you for your patience, Seth.
ANDREW KINGMAN - SPSC - HB 357 -HB 86 - SB 148 - SB 218 - Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it. My name is Andrew Kingman. I represent the State Privacy and Security Coalition. We're a multisector coalition of 32 companies and 6 trade associations. We're here in opposition to these bills, but I wanna be clear, we do support heightened protections for particular types of personal information. So things like precise geolocation, data like consumer health or reproductive health data, data like sexual orientation data. But I think we also have the opportunity here in Massachusetts, and I'm a resident as well, to learn from what other states are doing. So, as of this week we now have 40% of the country that will be protected by a comprehensive data privacy bill similar to the type of legislation that passed last year in Connecticut. And that's the type of framework that we think would best serve Massachusetts moving forward. Connecticut actually recently further amended their bill to explicitly recognize reproductive healthcare of the type that the consumer health data bill here seeks to protect. These types of bills cover all data. They establish one privacy policy for consumers, and they make sure that consumers can have consistent expectations of the type of data that is protected regardless of who is using it or for what purpose that it's being used for.
We think that's better for consumers because they don't have to, they're not under the misimpression that you know, all of their location data is protected when, in fact, under this bill it would be only particular types of devices. We wanna make sure that all industries are regulated similarly. And, again, the framework that we would advance would establish heightened protections for that sensitive data that would require opt in consent from the consumer before it's even collected and would require data protection assessments by the companies to consider the types of risks and benefits that would flow from that information to document those, to retain those, and then to mitigate those risks when necessary. So, again, we also believe that we have the ability to look at what other states are doing. I think regional alignment is also extremely important. You know, the New England economy as we all know is very tied together. Right now, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine are all looking at moving this type of legislation forward. So I think that benefits both consumers to have consistent expectations in businesses who operate across state lines. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - the committee.
SPEAKER18 - I
CRONIN - I do have one question. Could you explain7987 or expound on what some of the benefits to consumers are when they have their data sold and don't know about it?
KINGMAN - Yeah. I think, you know, under the definitions in some of these bills, the definition of sale is extremely broad, and so some of those transfers would include things like passing along information to vendors who would be contractually limited in the way that they could use that. So, I think being really precise about what we're calling a sale is important. I think, again, under the framework that we would advance, consumers would have the ability to opt out of sale. In Connecticut, there's a mechanism that's coming online next year where there's a browser extension, and it effectively lets every website that you visit know that you would like to opt out of the sale of your information, something that's important to consumers, SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
so.
thank you.
SPEAKER3 - Any other questions from the committee?
Hope seen, hon. Thank you very much for your patience and testimony today.
At this time, I'd like to invite Dustin Brighton, who's joining us virtually from8064 the repair done right coalition to testify in opposition to s
SPEAKER1 - 142.
DUSTIN BRIGHTON - REPAIR DONE RIGHT COALITION - SB 142 - HB 360 - Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Dustin Brighton, and I represent the Repair Done Right Coalition. Thank you for allowing me to offer testimony opposition of S 142 and House in H 360. The Repair Done Right Coalition is made up of companies, organizations, and people who care about ensuring that innovative products are repaired and maintained in an authorized manner. Many of the referenced companies that make up the coalition began in the great state of Massachusetts. These companies assisted in connecting8103 consumers, business, and governments through products designed to assist improving the lives of those who use8109 them. And this was during the pandemic as well, these products and services manufactured by these companies and organizations have been essential in ensuring that commerce and personal relationships remain intact.
We are opposed to S 142 and H 360, which would mandate original equipment manufacturers of digital electronic equipment or part of equipment sold to Massachusetts to provide independent repair providers with diagnostic and repair information, software, tools, and parts, meanwhile, increasing safety and cybersecurity risk for consumers and businesses while threatening Massachusetts' innovation economy. Currently, OEMs offer consumers a wide range of safe and secure repair options through their authorized repair networks. This enables manufacturers of consumer electronics, home appliances, HVACR, security equipment, toys, lithium ion batteries, and other connect electronic products to stand8167 behind the quality of their products and their8169 brand.
Most consumer technology products are compromised complex electronics which require specialized training and sophisticated test increments to prepare safely. Some types of repairs can be extremely detailed, complicated, and dangerous to anyone without proper training. It is particularly important that products containing high energy lithium ion batteries are repaired only by trained professionals who understand and mitigate the hazard associated with installing, removing or replacing these batteries. Manufacturers want to ensure that their products are serviced by professionals who understand the intricacies of their products and have spent time procuring the knowledge necessary to safely repair them and return them to consumers without compromising standards of brand undermining the safety and security of their product.
There is currently litigation in process regarding8222 the recently codified auto right to repair statute, I'm sure you're aware of that, and this legislation could also possibly result in further litigations. Our members are committed to working with you to promote digital privacy and security while resisting unwarranted intervention in the marketplace with mandates that could compromise consumer safety and protection. This legislation, even though it claims to8247 help the citizens of Massachusetts, in fact, it could put more burden on them. Again, thank you for8253 allowing me to submit this testimony today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Nope. Seeing none. Thank you, Mister Brighton. I'd like to at this time invite Hunter Hambrolin from the taxpayers protection alliance. To test the line, officer h360, desk
SPEAKER1 - 142.
SPEAKER46 - Hi. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - We we can hear you. The floor is yours. Thanks for your patience. Welcome.
HUNTER HAMBERLIN - TPA - HB 360 - SB 142 - Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Hunter Hamberlin, I'm the state policy manager for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. We are a nonprofit non partisan taxpayer advocacy and consumer watchdog organization. I wanna thank the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure for the opportunity to testify. Respectfully, TPA opposes H 360 and S8300 1428300 on behalf of taxpayers throughout Massachusetts. Enabling unauthorized repair shops to service any customer bought technology sounds great in practice but in reality, it adds heightened risk of privacy violations and cyber security risks for consumers. This will increase the likelihood that valuable personal information could up in the hands of malicious actors. Consumer privacy protection should be a priority8322 for technology manufacturers, and8324 right to repair bills undermine this priority.
H 360 and S 142 would also result in government mandates on how they can operate and who they can deal with. Mandating private company collaboration8336 could lead to unwelcome consequences from government imposed intervention. During a turbulent economy, it is best to ensure that private businesses can do what they think is best for them rather than obligate them to work with private companies that they may have not worked with otherwise. Repair shops with full access to a consumer's device also have the potential to perform subpar repairs that could end up negatively affecting a company's brand. Consumers obviously care about lower prices, but price is only one consumer preference Some consumer advocates think right to repair bills would lower cost in the short run, but manufacturers could just as easily raise prices on their core products to compensate for increased costs and lost revenue as a result of these right to repair mandates. These right to repair bills are undoubtedly well intended, however, intent does not always equate to outcomes. The Massachusetts state Legislature should focus on other legislative needs for the state. TPA encourages you to reject this bill. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee?
Nope. Seeing, ma'am. Thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon. At this time, I'd like to invite Michael McKenna from United Ag and turf, New England. To testify8407 in opposition to h360, s
SPEAKER1 - 142.
SPEAKER47 - Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - I can hear you. Thanks for your patience this afternoon, Mister McKenna.
MICHAEL MCKENNA - UNITED AG & TURF - HB 360 - SB 142 - Absolutely. Thank you. My name is Michael McKenna. I'm vice president with United Ag & Turf United Construction Forestry here in New England. We are a John Deere dealer. We operate 11 locations in Massachusetts, an employee around a 1000 individuals in New England. We're opposed to House bill 360, Senate Bill 142, due to the vague language of the definition for portable wireless devices, which we believe could have unintended consequences involving the cellular and GPS systems used in farm and construction off road vehicles. While these bills are likely intended for handheld personal use devices such as cell phones and tablets, the8454 language used does not limit the definition to those devices.
John Deere is8458 one of many off road vehicle manufacturers that is already providing diagnostic tools and software to end users and independent repair shops that allow for repair without being able to intentionally or accidentally bypass federally mandated emission and safety systems on these machines. I apologize. I'm very congested today, so it's hard for me to breathe at the moment. As was already mentioned by repair.org, New York and Minnesota have recently adopted similar bills. In both cases, languages introduced and used that exempted the8489 off road industry. We ask you would consider adopting the same off road language in these bills. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? Seem not. Thank you very much your testimony, I'd like to invite Caleb Williamson from the app association testifying an opposition to h360 and s
SPEAKER1 - 142.
CALEB WILLIAMSON - ACT THE APP ASSOCIATION - HB 360 - SB 142 - Good evening and thank you for your time. My name is Caleb Williamson and I am State Public Policy Council for ACT The App Association. We are a global trade association representing small and midsized tech companies. Our members are entrepreneurs, innovators, and independent software developers who use technology to enhance our everyday lived experiences often through our mobile devices, but beyond that as well. We respectfully oppose H 360 and S 142 because we believe it poses unintended harms to businesses like our8546 members who develop software compatible with mobile devices and poses additional risks to consumers who use their mobile devices for everyday life, like storing personal and sensitive data on them.
The majority of small and medium sized companies in the app economy create software and build apps that turn any ordinary device into a smart device. And the success of their businesses depends largely on the full functionality of the hosting devices, which in most cases will be a mobile phone or tablet. If a key feature of a hosting device malfunctions due to the third party repairs, the software can become unable to interoperate8585 effectively with the device and operating system, putting their business at risk. As it relates to consumers, smartphone users across the world and across your state consider their phones and other electronic devices a lifeline not because of what the device is, but because of what the software and apps on that device can make it do.
Consumers rely on these devices to store personal and sensitive information, and we fear this bill opens the door for bad actors to pose as third party repair shops to access sensitive information on these devices which can erode consumer trust. And speaking on consumer trust, consumer trust is one of,8628 if not, the most important factor that many small businesses and8632 small developers can rely on. And consumer trust in their phones creates success for small businesses who develop the software that rests and live on their phones and bring their phones to life. For these reasons and those submitted in written testimony, we respectfully oppose HB 360. Thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Questions from the committee.
Seeing none, thanks for your testimony at this point. I'd like to invite Margaret Durkin from technet. The test sign on position h360h386
s 142, s 184, and s
SPEAKER1 - 218.
MARGARET DURKIN - TECHNET - HB 360 - HB 386 - SB 142 - SB 184 - SB 218 - Good afternoon Chairman Cronin, Chairman Chan, and members of the committee. My name is Margaret Durkin, and I serve as the Mid Atlantic executive director for TechNet. I am covering the northeast region for8682 Chris Gilrein while he is on paternity leave. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the issues of repair and consumer data privacy. I'll begin my comments with the repair issue regarding House Bill 360 and Senate Bill 142. Original equipment manufacturers and authorized repair firms are uniquely qualified to ensure the safe and secure repair of devices. TechNet supports consumer rights, however, this bill presents several issues. First, it provides for consumer security harms. This bill would weaken the privacy and security features of products regarding access to technical information, and consumers, businesses, and schools need reasonable assurance that those who are fixing their devices are qualified and will do so safely securely.
There's also the element of consumer safety harms, most notably with high lithium ion batteries that a lot of devices contain. A report put out by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission articulated in 2021 that there is a severe risk of injury or even death to loose lithium batteries. And finally, the issue of trade secrets here. While the bill provides for exception language, it also states that a manufacturer must provide documentation parts and tools at fair and reasonable terms. And so we are concerned about that exception language. Regarding House Bill 386 and Senate Bill 184 on consumer health data privacy. Again, TechNet agrees that consumer privacy, especially as pertaining to health records are of top priority, and our members acknowledge that. We do have a lot of concerns about the bill as drafted.
First and foremost, the definitions are extremely8801 broad, especially the provision that states any information that8805 is derived or extrapolated from non health information. We believe that that will sweep up a lot of information that isn't directly related to healthcare. Also, the prohibition on sale, the outright restriction of sale is burdensome, and we don't argue that the protection of sensitive physical and mental health info is of outmost importance. However, as drafted this bill would prohibit it targeted advertising on most common household goods. And finally, the consent requirements, this bill suggests that8841 an authorized representative can give consent for data. However, that could lead to fraudulent attempts by bad actors and put consumer info in the hands of those that aren't using it for the best interests. And for the reasons previously stated on the repair issue and consumer health data, TechNet is opposed, and I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions?
Seeing none Thank you for your testimony. I'd like to invite Adam Fullerton who's testifying in support of s 142. Adam, are you with us?
No. Okay.
Get Maguire. from the North American Equipment Dealers Association, testifying in opposition to h360 and S142. Yep. Are you with us?
SPEAKER50 - Yes, sir.
SPEAKER3 - Good to see you, but thank you8894 for your patience this afternoon. The floor is yours.8896
KIPP MCGUIRE - NAEDA - HB 360 - SB 142 - No, thank you. Thank you chairs, thank you for members of the committee, and thank you all for your endurance and giving everybody their time to be heard on these important issues here today. I am the director of government affairs for the North American Equipment Dealers Association. We're an International Trade Association that represents farm, industrial, and outdoor power equipment with about 4500 members across North America and several in Massachusetts. We are in opposition in the current form for House bill 360 and Senate 142. This echoes a lot of what previous statements, or what other people have already made on on why. Primarily, the8938 definition in House 360 and S 142 for a portable wireless8942 device, you can find on page 2, line 17 through 19, is overly broad.
And we just have concerns that that is going to inadvertently include agricultural equipment and those kinds of products. Whenever I believe the intent of these bills is to be targeted at consumer electronics. So in our written testimony, we have provided the off road exemption language that both New York and Minnesota included in their bills. So we would ask that that8971 same exemption language be included in these bills as they move forward. And if that exemption language is included, I think that our opposition would be withdrawn from8982 these. And I'm available for any questions if the committee has any. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Any questions? Hope seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite Walter all Korn from the Consumer Technology Association to testify in opposition h360 s
SPEAKER1 - 142.
WALTER ALCORN - CTA - HB 360 - SB 142 - Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Walter Alcorn, vice president of Environmental Affairs And Industry Sustainability at the Consumer Technology Association. And I'm here today representing manufacturers of consumer technology devices, including the portable wireless devices that are the target of this legislation. And we're9021 very concerned about the expanding patchwork of varying state9025 requirements posed by this9027 legislation. It's important to note and it's not been9030 stated yet that CTA has twice offered to engage with leading repair advocates on a national memorandum of understanding including Massachusetts, but they continue to decline our offers.
Our concern is that more variation from New York and now the Minnesota law means that this becomes more of a project or more of a bailout for attorneys rather than the repair industry and no offense to any lawyers on the committee today. The repair industry really should be, this should be driven by9061 business considerations, and it should not be a compliance obligation addressing very specific state law requirements, thus, our MOU offer. So we recommend that the committee decline to move forward with this legislation and tell the repair advocates to implement a negotiated national MOU with the manufacturing industry based on laws that already have been enacted in other states. Otherwise, CTA opposes unless the bill is harmonized with the New York repair law. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Questions?
See you now, thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite Mike Blank from CTIA to testify in opposition h 2
SPEAKER1 - 60
SPEAKER3 - and s 142. Mister Blaine, can you with us?
SPEAKER42 - Yes. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - We can hear you. Thanks for your patience. Welcome. The floor is yours.
MIKE BLANK - CTIA - HB 360 - SB 142 - Thank you chairs and members of the committee. My name is Mike Blank, and I'm speaking with behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless communications industry in opposition to S 142 and H 360. The marketplace provides a wide range of consumer choice for electronic product repair without mandates proposed in this legislation. For example, manufacturers have relationships with authorized repair providers. These providers, which include local small businesses, have received the appropriate training from manufacturers to help ensure the repairs are done properly and safe with In addition, manufacturers may offer walk in repair at retail as well as mail in services. Insurance providers also offer repair options for consumers as well, including authorized third party remote technicians that will travel to a consumer's home and perform the repairs. Consumers can also use independent repair providers although manufacturers cannot guarantee that quality assurance of independent repair providers.
And further, manufacturers have expanded repair options for consumers from growing the number of authorized repair providers, to increasing access to tools, parts, and manuals directly to consumers. Further, to address the repair marketplace, CTIA has launched a wireless industry service excellence program or the WISE program, that educate and test wireless repair technicians in on industry recognized standards. Today, there are9203 more than 3000 WISE certified locations9205 and over 16,000 WISE9207 certified technicians. We are concerned this bill will have the unintended consequence of eliminating the need for repairs to demonstrate to consumers that they have the technical competence to perform safe, secure, and reliable repairs. Consumers expect to rely on the safety and security of their electronic products. This bill is an unnecessary intervention to the marketplace and for these reasons, CTIA opposes this legislation. Thank you for your time and happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Questions?
Seeing on, thank you very much, Mister Blank, for your testimony. I'd like to invite Paul Roberts from secure repairs to testify in support of h 3
SPEAKER1 - 60 142.
SPEAKER3 - Mr. Robert, you're with us. You already won. All right, you're done twice. -You go again. -No, you were -- You were Brittany wants to go and stop space. -That's what he said. Uh-huh. I apologize. David Webb from Hamilton Computer Repairs in support of H360, S142, H357.
Mister Webb, thanks for your patience this afternoon. We're we're grateful for it, and the floor is yours. k.
DAVID WEBB - HAMILTON COMPUTER REPAIRS - HB 360 - SB 142 - My name is David Webb. I'm the founder of Hamilton Computer Repairs on Park Avenue in Worcester, Massachusetts. When I opened my business in 2012, repairing devices was affordable and accessible. Today, electronics are designed to be discarded, preventing consumers from maintaining their own devices. The right to repair legislation aims to address this issue by requiring manufacturers to provide disassembly manuals and access to replacement parts. It empowers consumers to maintain their electronics and small businesses like mine to continue keeping our customers' devices running. Manufacturers currently lack the incentive to produce durable long lasting products and instead they encourage customers to just purchase new devices.
They employee tactics like proprietary screws, hidden clips, and glue to deter repairs and then market the exclusivity of that knowledge and lack of readily available parts back9332 to consumers via maintenance plans,9334 AKA protection plans. It's not a protection plan it's9338 a9338 protection racket. Some companies have gone as far as branding their technicians, the few who are provided with the essential information to perform the necessary maintenance, as geniuses. It shouldn't take a genius to replace a smartphone battery. Phones used to take memory cards and have removable batteries. Computers used to be made with access panels so parts could be upgraded, or if something went bad, it could be replaced. If something broke, you were not forced to replace the whole device, you could fix it. Now electronics are designed to be discarded.
We are sold cloud backup and extended warranties instead of reliable equipment. That's what right to repair really comes down to, the right to maintain, the right to keep using a device after one part of it breaks. That is what has been taken away from consumers. They9387 manufactured a scarcity of qualified technicians and contractually minimize the parts available to us. We need legislative change to protect consumer rights and promote a sustainable future because manufacturers have shown that they will continue to capitalize on our inability to repair what we own. They sell peace of mind and reliability back to the consumers via monthly plans. So instead of perpetuating the cycle planned obsolescence that only benefits the corporations and landfills, we need to move towards a culture of reparability based on sustainability and consumer rights. So I implore you to support our right to repair when voting on these measures.
My name is David Webb, I'm from Hamilton Computer Affairs, and I'm available answer any questions you have. And specifically to yours earlier, no, if someone opens up a phone, if their data is encrypted, the same as if computer or your flash drive or your external hard drive is encrypted, we can't access anything. If it's not encrypted, technically, we could pin it out and see where it is in plain text. But all device manufacturers include an option to encrypt your data so that just like if it's lost or stolen, it is safe. Does anyone else have any questions for me? SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Any questions from the committee?
SPEAKER1 - Representative.
KEEFE - Thank you. Because you're from Worcester I just wanted to say, second person testifying here today not on just this issue. But thank you for coming, you were here last session as well, and I just appreciate your passion and your consistency of you know, growing your business and sticking to the cause. So I appreciate that a lot.
WEBB - This bill could benefit everyone. The people who are trying to fix their devices aren't, you know, and there's a long list of people who can just afford to replace it when it goes bad. The people who are trying to fix their devices are the people who really need, who can't afford to spend 800 bucks on a new phone.
KEEFE - And I'd like to just recognize that your shop is in the same place that a small engine repair shop was before. So that tradition of repair is
WEBB - I'm going to keep repair shops alive. There's no VHS, there's no, you know, we're getting calls about typewriter repair because there's so few repair shops options. Cell phones are something everyone uses, everyone should be able to rely on. And like I said earlier, it shouldn't take a genius to fix it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
It's
SPEAKER3 - Thank you. Any other questions?
Thank you very much for your testimony. I'd like to invite William Crow, to test find sport of h360ands142.
Mister Crow, are you with us?
Danielle Baiz from the humane Society of the United States in support of s 190. Danielle, are you with us?9557
SPEAKER41 - I am.
SPEAKER3 - Miss Base, thank9563 you so much for your patience. Really9565 grateful for You staying with us this afternoon. The floor is yours.
DANIELLE BAYS - HUMANE SOCIETY - SB 190 - Hi. Chair Chan, Chair Cronin, esteemed members of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure. My name is Danielle Bays, and I am the senior analyst for cap protection and policy at the Humane Society of the United States. I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify and support of S 190, sponsored by Senator Montigny. The proposed legislation seeks to prohibit feline declawing by allowing for the removal of a toe for a medical necessity. There may be valid medical reasons to remove one or more of a cat's toes, but the systematic amputation of all the toes is and has always been primarily to protect furniture. Declawing was first described in a 3 paragraph letter from a Chicago veterinarian to the AVMA Journal in 1952, which led by stating and I quote that cats sometimes present a serious problem to the owner when the habit of sharpening their claws becomes destructive, and some fine article of upholstered furniture is used as a scratching post.
Now to give you some context, kitty litter was invented a few years prior to that in 1947, and keeping cats indoors was just becoming common. We've come a long way since then in our understanding of cat care and cat welfare. In 1952, declawing was said to be painless and practical but today we know that is not true. Amputation is not painless, it is not a practical solution. Amputation is an extreme response to what can be addressed with a regular nail trimming, a variety of scratching posts, and a better understanding of feline behavior. Today's scratching posts come in a wide array of styles to suits your cast preferences, your home decor, and your budget. And in the meantime, simple solutions to keep a cat from scratching your upholstery can be used like double sided tape or furniture cup hours.
Cats can be trained, yes, cats can be trained with positive reinforcement to use the designated scratching posts and behavior modification and training can be deployed to prevent cats from scratching people. In addition, synthetic pheromone sprays and diffusers, which help reduce stress and anxiety can be used on or near where you want a cat to stop scratching. Some stress and anxiety can lead a cat to scratch even more. Yet another option is plastic nail caps that can be glued on their claws. It's something that people could do at home. These nail caps could be a good solution for people with skin, thin skin, or otherwise concerned about cat scratches. Both of these alternatives have proven successful across the globe, as declawing is not common outside of the United States. It's widely prohibited or considered unethical veterinary practice. Yeah, cats remain popular house pets in these places. Declawing is simply unnecessary. And I wanna thank the committee for your time today. I know it's been a long hearing, and I urge you to favorably move this bill out of committee as you have done in the past years. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions?
I'm seeing none. At this time, I'd like to invite Alison Blank from the animal rescue league of Boston to test find support of s
SPEAKER1 - 190.
SPEAKER3 - Miss Blayne, thank you so much for your patience the same with us. I know it's been a long
SPEAKER6 - So -- Of course.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you, Tara. -- for your person.
ALLISON BLANCK - ARL - SB 190 - Thank you Chair Chan. This is a bill that has been in front of the committee a number of times, so I'll be brief. I am from the Animal Rescue League of Boston. I am also submitting testimony today on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the MSPCA, and the Paw Project who have all worked on bill. So this bill, what it does as Danielle was mentioning, it prohibits the declaw of cats. And I think it's really helpful to understand what a declaw is. So I will use my own hand here and show you a declaw is equivalent to amputating at the first knuckle. So this would be equivalent to cutting off here all the way across. So you can imagine that that is very physically painful for an animal. There are many physical problems that will come out of this. Declaw can be done in a number of ways. It can be done surgically, now there are lasers that can be used. Back to the end of the day, though, is that removing this part of the animal's foot it's detrimental to the animal.
The only individual that is assisted when there is a declaw is the owner and the owner's couch oftentimes. So there is an exemption in the bill for therapeutic purposes. For example, if an animal has an injury and needs to have a toe amputated, or if there's some other medical reason specific to the animal that would be allowed for them to have this procedure done. And there is a very simple disclosure that is similar to other procedures in the Commonwealth for veterinary focuses. And I think it's really important to sort of understand what happens with declawed cats. A lot of times people will wanna declaw a cat because of behavior problems, but the unfortunate reality is that declawing a cat often creates more problems. They may have issues using the litter box. Imagine how you would feel if you're, you know, you were injured and have to walk on those. Litter obviously is oftentimes really, really hard, can be painful, so it creates more behavioral problems.
Cats that are skittish may be more prone to bite, which is much more harmful to any humans around them than scratching is. And, again, it's9885 very easy to cut a cat's nails as someone who owns a cat. Some people, you know, you can do it yourself bring it to your vet that takes them about 10 minutes to do it if it's not something that you're comfortable with. And that causes9897 no pain to them at all. So Massachusetts, this bill has been introduced a number of sessions now. Thank you to this committee9905 for reporting it out favorably in the past. Both New York and Maryland have versions of this bill and have for a number of years. I think an important thing to note is there's often a concern about surrender if people can't get their cats declawed, and we have not seen that across the state. There9921 are a number of municipalities that have also passed bans. And in Europe, they9925 really don't declaw cats. So this is a problem that we, you know, really are not seeing when these bans are passed. Again, this is something that is done for individuals, it is not done for the animal itself. I would like to thank the committee for your attention to this and respectfully ask a favorable report on this call. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much. Any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thanks for your testimony. Again, thank you for your patience. I'd like to invite Doctor. Nicholas Dodman from New Humane Society of Veterinary Medical Association to testify in support of S 190. Doctor Dodman, are you with us?
SPEAKER36 - I am. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER3 - I can. Yep. The floor is yours. Thanks for your patience.
NICHOLAS DODMAN - HSVMA - SB 190 - Well, thank you for having me Chairman Chan, Chairman Cronin, and members of the joint committee. I'm here in support of S 190 sponsored by Senator Montigny. And I have been following this issue for a number of years and pretty much know the ins and outs of it. I've been asked today to confine my comments to what cats use their claws for, what is the function of them, why they need them, why they might miss them, and more importantly, the pain issue following surgery. So first, the claws. Claws are unique10006 to cats, both big cats, tigers, and such like, and small cats. In fact, the very name cat, I believe, is derived from the word claw. The two are almost synonymous. Cats and claws go together like coffee and cream. Claws are very versatile structures. They normally remain retracted. So to keep them sharp so they can be used when they're needed. And the cat can extend the the claws at will to10035 allow them to manipulate things like our hands, climb trees, and defend themselves.
Scratching onto scratching posts, or furniture, or trees, or whatever is not to keep nail sharp, which most people think, it's rather to remove dead nail husks because the the nail is formed by progressive layers of keratin together forming little layers. It's also a form of exercise for cats. As they stretch they do kind of cat calisthenics oftentimes after they've slept. It also expresses motions through clawing both excitement and stress. So it's an integral part of their existence and there's no reason to take that away from them because they can be trained to do, as Danielle was saying, the opposite, they can scratch on posts. As for a cat in excruciating pain and bouncing off the recovery room wall, because I'm an anesthesiologist as well as our veterinary behaviorist. I saw this cat in excruciating pain shortly after I arrived in the states in 1981. I said, what on earth happened to this cat? They said, oh, it's a declaw. They're always like this. And I10108 go, what?
Since then,10110 at Tufts University where I was working it's been banned. And I should say that although I'm a professor at Tufts, I'm emeritus now, and I'm not speaking on behalf of Tufts. I can say that declawing is extremely painful. It's been used as a pain model for the study of analgesics. In one study from Cornell, a half to two thirds owner's reported severe pain in their cat and reduced activity following declaw surgery. However, only 25 to 50 percent of cats were given post op pains. And even then, only drugs would last 2 or 3 hours. Pain lasts 3 days to several weeks even months. A third of cats have behavior problems after it, 50/50 neutering after spaying, 50/50 is litter box problems, the other 50% is10155 biting,10155 which means that they bite more than they scratch, which is more dangerous according to CDC and10161 NIH. 3 quarters of cats have at least one medical complication. I urge you to support this bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Thank you very much, doctor. Any questions from the committee?
Seeing none Doctor, I wanna thank you for your testimony. I'd like to confirm that nobody who has signed up to testify is still waiting to test by. My record shows that
Come forward. Yeah,
SPEAKER4 - Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon.
ALEXANDER CASTILLO - DIGITECH ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS - HB 360 - SB 142 - Thank you for10202 having me here. My name is Alexander Castillo. I'm the owner of10206 DigiTech Electronic Solutions in Boston. I've been running the business for about 10 years. Before my business, I was an IT tech for a big company. I worked for about 12 years on it. So I'm here to support the right to repair. Just to give you an idea, the amount of repairs that we do in our shop exceed 3000 repairs in a single year. The average repair is running between $80 to 150 depending on the device. That's roughly over $250,000 in a single year that we can save for customs. Most of the customers that we serve are people either middle class or underserved territories. We do have a lot of people coming all over different towns. When it comes to repairing devices, like Paul mentioned before, it doesn't require as genius to fix a device. I heard a lot of people comment about batteries safety and requirements to replace the battery. Yeah, you do need to have some sort of precautions, but it's not necessarily something that we have to make, like, a big deal.
When it comes to security, data breach, or anybody hacking into your device because of a repair, 10 years running a business myself I never had any complaints or anybody complaining about either a device being hacked or their data being compromised. So the bill actually will help out our small businesses to give a flow and thriving. But we need certain things from manufacturers. For example, new devices now come locked with software and hardware, and there's a lot of software and documentation that is needed in order for us to repair these devices. Without those devices, I mean, without those software or documentation it's really tough for us to continue10331 providing a service that we've been doing for such a long time. The bill will be a great benefit for Massachusetts the same10339 way it was in New York and Minnesota. I think we, in Massachusetts, we can benefit a lot from a bill like this. If you have any questions, please let me know. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - Any questions from the committee?
See none, thank you10355 so much for your patience this afternoon, and thank you so much for coming and testify. Thank you for great for it. With that, I would like to read into the record the bills that received no oral testimony today. h
SPEAKER1 - 257
SPEAKER3 - h258, h267, h277, h377, h326, h375, s 14zeros209s216.
Yep. And just a reminder to everybody that we are still accepting our written testimony by email after the hearing. And with that, I'd like to, motion to adjourn.
SPEAKER1 - Both of the adjourned hearing.
SPEAKER26 - 2nd. 2nd. 2nd.
SPEAKER3 - Pipsey, I just have it.
© InstaTrac 2025