04/04/2024 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation: Personnel Board | |
| SB201 | |
| SB177 | |
| SB262 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 4, 2024
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Chair
Senator Matt Claman, Vice Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Kelly Merrick
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 177
"An Act relating to artificial intelligence; requiring
disclosure of deepfakes in campaign communications; relating to
cybersecurity; and relating to data privacy."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to the state Artificial Intelligence Task
Force; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Personnel Board
Donald Handeland - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 177
SHORT TITLE: AI, DEEPFAKES, CYBERSECURITY, DATA XFERS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HUGHES
01/16/24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/24
01/16/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (S) STA, JUD
02/01/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/01/24 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/04/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 262
SHORT TITLE: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
04/02/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/02/24 (S) STA
04/04/24 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
DONALD HANDELAND, Appointee
Personnel Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the governor's appointee to the
Personnel Board.
ROBIN O'DONOGHUE, Project Lead
Special AK Public Interest Research Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to the confirmation
of Donald Handeland.
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff
Senator James Kaufman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the summary of changes for SB 201.
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, District F
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 201.
STEPHEN KNOUSE, Staff
Senator Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the summary of changes for SB 177.
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, Staff
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sponsor statement for SB 262.
DAVID EDMONSON, Senior Vice President
TechNet
Austin, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Invited testimony for SB 262.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:53 PM
CHAIR SCOTT KAWASAKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Claman, Bjorkman, Merrick, and Chair
Kawasaki. Senator Wielechowski arrived thereafter.
^Confirmation: Personnel Board
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
PERSONNEL BOARD
3:35:14 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the consideration of the governor's
appointee Donald Handeland to the Personnel Board.
3:35:36 PM
DONALD HANDELAND, Appointee, Personnel Board, Anchorage, Alaska,
introduced himself. He stated that he works as a professional
civil engineer at CRW in Anchorage. He has worked on civil and
construction projects throughout Alaska, primarily focusing on
transportation. He mentioned his longstanding involvement in the
state board, beginning in high school as the student
representative to the Alaska State Board of Education. He has
served on the Alaska Task Force, the Alaska Advisory Task Force,
and worked on higher education and career readiness initiatives.
Additionally, since 2021, he has been a public member of the
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education and continues to
serve in that role. He expressed his dedication to his
responsibilities on the board, emphasizing that he thoroughly
reviews meeting materials in advance to represent the public's
perspective and hold public servants accountable to the highest
standards outlined in the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
3:37:26 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked whether, since being appointed to the
personnel board, he had handled any specific business and
requested that he elaborate on the decision-making process he
followed.
3:37:39 PM
MR. HANDELAND replied that since his appointment in September,
the board has not yet had to address any significant issues. He
mentioned that his primary focus has been on working with other
members who have extensive experience. Fortunately, no major
matters have come before the board requiring urgent action so
far.
3:38:25 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on the appointment of
Donald Handeland.
3:39:10 PM
ROBIN O'DONOGHUE, Special Project Lead, Special Alaska Public
Interest Research Group (AKPIRG), Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in opposition to the appointment of Donald Handeland. He said
that the Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) is the
only consumer advocacy and research nonprofit organization in
the state, operating as a non-partisan group focused on consumer
and good governance issues, particularly when these conflict
with powerful financial and special interests. The group's goal
is to promote transparent and accountable government systems. He
relayed that AKPIRG objects to the confirmation of Donald Hanlon
to the Alaska Personnel Board. He outlined the responsibilities
of the board, which include approving or disapproving amendments
to personnel rules, acting on recommendations for the extension
of partially exempt and classified services, determining appeals
by classified employees, and fulfilling duties under the Alaska
Executive Branch Ethics Act. He expressed concern over Mr.
Handeland's lack of relevant experience and close partisan ties
to the Alaska GOP, which, in their view, compromise his ability
to make unbiased and objective decisions. He expressed strong
reservations regarding his limited understanding of personnel
and ethics issues, which was evident during his confirmation
hearing before the House State Affairs Committee last month. He
emphasized the significance of the board's powers and their
impact on thousands of public officials, employees, and board
members, asserting that these responsibilities should be in the
hands of individuals with more lived experience in Alaska.
3:41:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the meeting.
3:41:37 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Handeland to address the comments made
regarding his experience. He noted the various organizations
listed on Mr. Handeland's website, including the Nome Youth
Court, his lifetime membership with the National Rifle
Association (NRA), and his involvement with professional boards
such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. He requested
that he elaborate on his experience and explain how he would
approach decision-making in a non-partisan manner.
[Timestamp]
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on the appointment of
Donald Handeland.
3:42:21 PM
MR. HANDELAND acknowledged the importance of having a variety of
experiences and perspectives on the board, especially from
different parts of the state. He recognized that while he is
younger, he has made significant efforts to remain actively
involved. He addressed concerns about his political involvement,
noting that his interest in government began at a young age and
provided an avenue to help shape state governance. However, in
addition to his political activities, he said he has also
contributed to public service through his involvement on various
boards. He expressed his commitment to considering all
perspectives when reaching conclusions in the decision-making
process.
3:44:20 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether he would be comfortable applying a
rule even if he personally disagreed with it. He inquired
whether Mr. Handeland would still be willing to follow and
enforce a rule that clearly applies, despite not agreeing with
its enactment, and whether he would find himself consistently in
line with what the rule dictates.
3:44:54 PM
MR. HANDELAND replied yes, he would be comfortable applying a
rule even if he disagreed with it. He emphasized that it is not
his role on the board to formulate the rules under the Executive
Branch Ethics Act, as that responsibility lies with the
legislature. He stressed the importance of applying the rules as
written, without personal interpretation, noting that executive
branch members are expected to adhere to the rules as they are
documented and studied.
3:45:40 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN referred to a previous situation in which the
governor had asked state employees to sign a loyalty pledge,
which was later ruled inappropriate by the courts. He asked
whether he had any concerns about requiring state employees to
sign such loyalty pledges, particularly when dealing with ethics
and personnel rules specific to the board.
3:46:07 PM
MR. HANDELAND acknowledged that the courts struck down the
loyalty pledge and confirmed that he understands the ruling. He
agreed with the court's decision regarding the appropriateness
of such a request.
3:46:24 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI thanked him for volunteering his time,
acknowledging the personal commitment involved. He asked for Mr.
Handeland's thoughts on the new regulations allowing the
Attorney General to represent some executive board members. He
mentioned that legislative attorneys have expressed concerns
that this representation might violate the Executive Branch
Ethics Act and requested his perspective on the matter.
3:46:58 PM
MR. HANDELAND acknowledged that he has encountered various
opinions regarding the issue, some of which are contrary to each
other. He noted that, as he is not a lawyer, it can be
challenging to fully understand the legal complexities involved.
He expressed uncertainty about where he would ultimately stand
if the matter were to go to court. The outcome would depend on
how the court interprets the situation.
3:47:32 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that Mr. Handeland is listed as
a member of Freedom Oregon, a group that advocated for
nonpartisan open primaries in Oregon a few years ago. He
inquired about his views on the importance of nonpartisan open
primaries.
3:47:54 PM
MR. HANDELAND clarified that his affiliation with Freedom Oregon
might be confusing due to a name change. He explained that when
he was involved, the group was actually advocating for gay
marriage prior to the U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized it,
rather than focusing on nonpartisan open primaries.
3:48:39 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited a motion.
3:48:57 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN moved Donald Handeland, appointee to the
Personnel Board, be forwarded to a joint session of the
legislature for consideration.
3:49:13 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080, the
Senate State Affairs Standing Committee reviewed the following
and recommends the appointments be forwarded to a joint session
for consideration:
Personnel Board
Donald Handeland - Anchorage
Signing the report(s) regarding appointments to boards and
commissions in no way reflects individual members' approval or
disapproval of the appointees; the nominations are merely
forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation or rejection.
3:49:37 PM
At ease
SB 201-OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
3:51:16 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 201 "An Act establishing the
office of information technology; relating to information
technology projects undertaken by state agencies; and providing
for an effective date."
3:51:48 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited a motion.
3:51:53 PM
SENATOR MERRICK move to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 201, work draft 33-LS1014\S, as the working document.
3:52:29 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI objected for purposes of discussion.
3:52:37 PM
MATTHEW HARVEY, Staff, Senator James Kaufman, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the summary of changes
for SB 201:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Summary of Changes for SB 201 Bill Version B to S
Page 1, Lines 10-14 and Page 2, Lines 1-16: Adding
duties of the office and director that were included
in the initial Administrative Order 284 relating to
operational duties. These duties include language
related to policy and procedure adherence, enterprise
architecture, IT security, employment of a Chief
Information Security Officer (CISO), and inventory of
all computer equipment.
Page 3, Line 11: Adds reference to the new
"exemptions" section.
Page 3, Lines 30-31: Adds reference to the new
"exemptions" section.
Page 6, Lines 12-31 and Page 7, Lines 1-19: Adds a new
section allowing OIT and state agencies to enter into
exemption agreements.
Section (a) allows for broad exemption agreements. The
agreements must:
• Require the state agency to abide by either OIT's
project management and IT processes, those
processes with a defined list of variations, or
state agency processes defined in the agreement.
• Include a plan for the state agency to fulfill
obligations with contractors.
• Allow the state agency to designate a project
manager.
• Require the state agency to submit periodic
reports to the director including updates to the
state agency's biennial information technology
plan.
Section (b) allows for project-specific exemption
agreements detailing the "what, why, and how" of
specific requirements agreed to be waived.
Section (c) provides a process in the case of an
unwillingness to sign exemption agreements including
justification and an appeal process.
Section (d) requires copies of these agreements to be
included in biennial information technology plans and
delivered to the legislature.
Page 7, Line 20: Adds reference to the new
"exemptions" section.
Page 8, Line 9: Redefines "State Agency" to exclude
the Alaska Railroad Corporation, the University of
Alaska, and agencies of the judicial or legislative
branches of government.
3:55:04 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired about the $5 million exemption, asking
for clarification on why that specific amount was chosen. He
questioned whether it reflects typical costs or if there is
another rationale behind selecting that figure.
3:55:17 PM
MR. HARVEY referred to SB 201, version B, page 5, line 19 and
explained that the $5 million exemption distinguishes between
major and minor information technology projects. He noted that
major IT projects fall under the purview of the Office of
Information Technology, which has slightly different
requirements, while minor IT projects can be managed more
closely and independently by the state agency undertaking them.
3:56:04 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI removed his objection.
3:56:35 PM
SENATOR JAMES KAUFMAN, District F, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, expressed gratitude to everyone who contributed
to the various changes for SB 201 that provide flexibility while
still promoting standardization, which will benefit the state.
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited the will of the committee.
3:57:21 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to report CSSB 201, work order 33-
LS1014\S, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
3:57:43 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no objection and CSSB 201 was reported from
the Senate State Affairs Standing Committee.
3:57:53 PM
At ease
SB 177-AI, DEEPFAKES, CYBERSECURITY, DATA XFERS
3:59:10 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 177 "An Act relating to
artificial intelligence; requiring disclosure of deepfakes in
campaign communications; relating to cybersecurity; and relating
to data privacy."
3:59:52 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI solicited a motion.
3:59:57 PM
SENATOR MERRICK moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for
SB 177, work draft 33-LS1061\S, as the working document.
4:00:09 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI objected for purposes of discussion.
4:00:23 PM
STEPHEN KNOUSE, Staff, Senator Hughes, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, presented the summary of changes for SB 177.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Summary of Changes in State Affairs
Committee Substitute to SB 177
Version B to Version S
Page 1, lines 1-3: Change of title from "An Act
relating to artificial intelligence; requiring
disclosure of deepfakes in campaign communications;
relating to cybersecurity; and relating to data
privacy." to "An Act relating to disclosure of
election-related deepfakes; relating to use of
artificial intelligence by state agencies; and
relating to transfer of data about individuals between
state agencies." Cybersecurity fits under the category
of use of AI by state agencies.
Page 1, line 5: Section 15.13 is now recoded to
Section 15.80.
Page 1, line 6: Recodes section 15.13.093 to be
Section 15.80.009
Page 1, lines 6-7: Includes contracted content creator
of election-related deepfakes as being required to
include a disclosure.
Page 1, line 8-9: Election-related deepfakes which
require disclosure statements expand to include
propositions, and removes political parties.
Page 1, lines 10-11: Adds "or by another means" to
deepfake disclosure to cover content created by any
means, not just artificial intelligence.
Page 2, lines 1-6: Sentence referring to communication
"that includes audio component" changes to "that
consists only of audio", and modifies deepfake
disclosure requirements to include placement intervals
of disclosure.
Inserts clarifying term "election-related" to
references of "communication" pertaining to deepfakes
in the following places:
Page 1, lines 7, 10, 11, and 13 broadcast, cable,
satellite, Internet, or other digital communication
Page 2, line 1 requires the disclosure to remain
onscreen throughout the entirety of the communication
Page 2, line 2 requires the disclosure be read in
audio communications at the beginning, end, and at
least once every two minutes if the audio
communication is longer than two minutes
Page 2, line 8- prohibits a person from removing the
disclosure statement from known deepfake materials
Page 2, lines 14, 15, and 17- allows a candidate or
proposition group suffering damages to seek injunctive
relief
Page 2, line 25- injunctive relief does not apply to
paid election-related communication broadcast by a
radio, television, cable, or satellite provider if the
provider has made a good faith effort that the
communication does not contain a deepfake
Page 3, line 15- defines "election-related
communication" as communication that directly or
indirectly identifies a candidate or proposition and
is disseminated to an audience that includes voters
who have the opportunity to vote on the candidate or
proposition.
Page 2, lines 7-9: Prohibits entities from omitting or
removing required deepfake disclosures.
Page 2, lines 10-12: Makes entities violating required
disclosures liable to candidate or proposition group
for damages suffered by omission of deepfake
disclosure, full attorney fees, and costs.
Page 2, lines 13-17: Includes injunctive relief to
prohibit dissemination of deepfakes with omitted or
removed disclosures.
Page 2, line 19: Makes liability and disclosure
exceptions for satire, parody.
Page 2, line 20 - 3, line 2: Makes liability
exceptions for traditional and electronic
broadcasting, and publications that adhere to the
statement requirements applicable to the media form.
In the case of paid election-related communications
without disclosures, due diligence to confirm
communication did not include deepfakes.
Page 2: Re-lettering subsections to accommodate newly
inserted changes to Section 1.
Page 3, lines 15-24: Insert definition for "election-
related communications," "proposition," and
"proposition group."
Inserts term "generative" to specify type of AI
(generative vs. rules-based) or data being addressed
in the following places:
Page 3, line 28 to exclude rules-based AI from
inventory.
Page 4, line 9 to exclude rules-based AI from impact
assessments.
Page 5, lines 3, 11, and 12 to exclude rules-based AI
in state agency use requirements for consequential
decisions and prospective employees hiring videos.
Page 6, line 2 to exclude rules-based AI from
regulations where development, procurement,
implementation, use and system assessments are
concerned regarding consequential decisions.
Page 5, lines 6-7: Expands data collection consent to
"from or about" an individual.
Page 5, lines 19-21: Removes specific list of
adversarial countries to the United States and permits
the department of administration to designate foreign
adversaries (as determined by US Department of State
see Page 6, lines 12-13).
Page 5, lines 22-27: Removes use of "multi-factor
authentication" and inserts current security and
privacy controls as specified by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Page 5, lines 28-30: Removes seeking "the individual's
consent" for inter-agency data transfers and replaces
with "giving notice to the individual".
Page 6, line 24 Page 7, line 2: Establishes new
section AS 44.99.760 for exemptions to the Department
of Public Safety in cases of criminal offenses,
missing persons, and exigent circumstances as they
pertain to inventories, impact assessments, AI use
requirements for state agencies, and data transfers
between state agencies.
Page 7, line 3: Recodes definition section 44.99.760
to section 44.99.770.
Page 7, lines 4-5: Removes current definition of
"artificial intelligence" and inserts new definitions
for "artificial intelligence", "generative artificial
intelligence", and "rules-based artificial
intelligence".
Page 8, lines 1-4: Adds additional types of
information that qualify as "sensitive personal data"
to include an individual's bank account, social
security number, or other personal identifier issued
to an individual by a government or institution.
Page 8, lines 12-15: Insert new section to restrict
applicability of the AS 44.99.750 enacted by sec. 2 of
the bill to acts or omissions occurring on or after
the effective date.
There are no other changes to the bill.
4:06:55 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI referred to CSSB 177, Section 2, page 5, line 3,
lines 11-12, which discuss utilizing rules-based AI in state
agencies. He asked for clarification on whether that provision
is exempting rules-based AI from certain requirements.
4:07:31 PM
SENATOR HUGHES explained that rules-based AI, which can be as
simple as a spreadsheet, has been in use for some time without
raising public concern or issues. The focus of SB 177 and
similar efforts nationwide is to enhance efficiency, cost-
effectiveness and reduce the burden of mundane tasks for state
workers while assuring the public of responsible AI use. She
noted that while rules-based AI has been in use for some time,
they are focused here on generative AI, which is the new
emergent technology. Historically, there have been no
significant concerns regarding harm to individuals from rules-
based AI, which is why it was not a focus of the legislation.
However, she noted that the committee could choose to reconsider
this aspect if desired.
4:09:10 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI found no further objection and CSSB 177 was
adopted as the working document.
4:10:00 PM
SENATOR HUGHES highlighted her involvement with the National
Conference of State Legislatures Working Group on AI,
emphasizing the importance of responsible implementation in
state agencies. The compilation of ideas was gathered from
various organizations, including the Reason Foundation, Stanford
Law School, and Alaska's Department of Information Technology.
She expressed the need to address political deep fakes,
especially in the context of the 2024 elections, advocating for
transparency without infringing on freedom of speech. The
initial draft for SB 177 was a starting point, with room for
adjustments based on feedback and listed a number of
organizations and groups whose input has been heard and
incorporated as well as activity in the House. The distinction
between rules-based and generative AI was underscored, along
with the necessity to address ballot propositions within the
legislation. She acknowledged ongoing work to ensure
technological neutrality, noting the difference between and AI
deep fake and work that has been done simply by someone skilled
in Photoshop, protection of individuals' information, and the
right to sue the state for consequential harm. he noted further
work is needed on the issues of potential litigation, which
would suit the Judiciary Committee.
4:17:03 PM
SENATOR MERRICK mentioned the importance of SB 177. She asked
how the determination of satire or parity would be made and
inquired about the enforcement mechanisms for the proposed
legislation.
4:17:18 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted that issues regarding satire or parody
would likely be brought to the attention of the Alaska Public
Offices Commission, as the proposal falls under a section of law
related to them. She mentioned that a definition for satire and
parody is not included in the bill because courts typically rely
on a general understanding. She expressed openness to including
a definition if necessary, emphasizing that it usually hinges on
what a reasonable person would perceive as satire or comedy.
4:18:05 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired about the new draft regarding deep
fakes, specifically addressing their use in advertisements
across various media platforms, including the internet. He
raised concerns about the ability to create entirely artificial
personas for promotional purposes, suggesting that these could
be designed to convey positive messages about individuals or
products. He questioned whether the legislation would require
disclosures indicating that such representations are not based
on real people, similar to disclaimers often seen in
advertisements, such as "five out of six doctors prefer this
medicine." He sought clarification on whether this kind of
disclosure was part of the envisioned framework in the bill.
4:19:32 PM
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that, as currently written, the
definition would only apply if a deep fake made a real person
appear to say or do something they did not actually say or do,
or if it gives a misleading impression of an individual. She
stated that the example Chair Kawasaki provided regarding
entirely artificial personas would not be covered under this
definition, indicating the need for an addition to the bill. SB
177 was originally designed to be neutral. However, she
recognized that candidates could create deep fakes that could
either harm their opponents or enhance their own images, such as
falsely claiming awards. While the previous version of the bill
focused solely on injurious deep fakes directed at opponents,
the new version allows for both positive and negative
portrayals. However, she noted that if a completely fabricated
persona were given a name, it might then fall under the existing
definition. Conversely, a generic deep fake featuring a group of
manufactured individuals expressing support would likely not be
included under the bill.
4:21:06 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN inquired about the concerns raised by the
Alaska Broadcasters Association regarding potential liability
for broadcasters airing commercials or stories containing deep
fakes. He requested clarification on the aspects of the bill
that provide protection to broadcasters, news agencies, and
others disseminating information to the public, ensuring they
are safeguarded against lawsuits or misleading information from
bad actors.
4:21:56 PM
SENATOR HUGHES highlighted Sec. 15.80.009(e) of CSSB 177, which
addresses concerns raised by the Alaska Broadcasters Association
regarding potential liability when airing commercials or stories
containing deep fakes. The intent is to hold the creator of the
deep fakes responsible, not the broadcasters or other platforms.
Newscasts may report on a deep fake and show it, but they must
include a disclosure regarding the authenticity of the content.
The responsibility ultimately lies with the creator of the deep
fake. For example, if a candidate hires a marketing company to
produce campaign materials, the candidate is responsible for
ensuring the proper disclosures are made, such as the "paid for
by" information. However, if a candidate specifically requests a
marketing company to create a deep fake, knowing it will mislead
voters, both the candidate and the marketing company would be
held accountable. The marketing company would also need to
include a disclosure, which would have legal implications. In
summary, the bill aims to ensure that the responsibility for
creating misleading deep fakes falls on the individuals or
entities that produce them, protecting broadcasters and
platforms from liability.
4:24:18 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 177 in committee.
4:24:52 PM
At ease
SB 262-ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TASK FORCE
4:25:54 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 262 "An Act relating to the
state Artificial Intelligence Task Force; and providing for an
effective date."
4:26:50 PM
GRIFFEN SUKKAEW, Staff, Senator Scott Kawasaki, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sponsor statement for
SB 262:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement
SB 262
"An Act relating to the state Artificial Intelligence
Task Force; and providing for an effective date."
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a booming industry.
With advancements becoming more rapid and accessible,
it is important that the State of Alaska keeps up.
In December of 2023, 17 states had enacted 29 bills
focusing on the development and use of AI since 2019.
As of February 2024, that number had grown to 32
states, some with numerous bills on regulating and
monitoring AI.
Texas passed HB 2060 during their 88th Legislative
Session. This bill, like many others, ensures the
design, development and use of AI is informed by
collaborative dialogue with stakeholders from a
variety of disciplines. To accomplish this goal, Texas
created an AI Advisory Council consisting of public
and elected officials, academics and technological
experts. The council was tasked with studying and
monitoring AI systems developed or deployed by states
agencies as well as issuing policy recommendations
regarding data privacy and preventing algorithmic
discrimination.
SB 262 aims to create a Task Force that investigates
the field of Artificial Intelligence. This Task Force
is a way to ensure that the State of Alaska is on top
of this developing technology and can recommend
changes to law. An annual report will be presented to
both bodies of the legislature with a summary of
developments within the state, risks and benefits of
AI and recommendations on how the state should
regulate this ever-evolving technology.
By passing SB 262, the State of Alaska will be more in
tune and able to deal with this new and evolving
technology. I look forward to discussing this issue
with the committee.
4:29:27 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public and invited testimony on SB 262.
4:29:53 PM
DAVID EDMONSON, Senior Vice President, TechNet, Austin, Texas,
said that TechNet is the national bipartisan network of
technology CEOs and senior executives promoting economic growth
through a targeted policy agenda at both state and federal
levels. TechNet has 91 members, representing dynamic American
businesses from startups to major global companies, encompassing
over 4.4 million employees across sectors such as artificial
intelligence, e-commerce, sharing economies, transportation,
venture capital, and finance. AI has the potential to address
significant challenges in healthcare, agriculture, education,
transportation, energy, and national security. With decades of
safe and responsible AI usage, including traffic navigation and
enhancing research, transparency, and fairness guided by ethics
could ensure that responsible AI would lead to a prosperous and
sustainable future. Given the genuine risks associated with AI,
collaboration with experts is important in developing
regulations that address specific consumer harms without
hindering innovation. Getting AI legislation right is critical
for economic success. He said he supports the AI task force
model proposed in the bill, which balances input from industry,
government, and civil society. He proposed amending the
definition of AI to align with the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development's (OECD) updated definition from
November 2023. Nationwide, over 35 public hearings and 70 bills
introduced on AI policy at the federal level. He noted Senate
Majority Schumer's nine AI forums for expert education and the
House's new bipartisan AI Task Force for private and public
forums. He referenced President Biden's executive order on the
safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI,
outlining 150 responsibilities for the administration. At the
state level, there has been a surge in AI-related legislation
focusing on misinformation in election advertising and deep fake
imagery. Several states have created or are considering AI task
forces, with bipartisan support for legislation. Texas passed a
bill for an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council focused on
state agency use of AI, while Connecticut established an AI and
government working group that released a comprehensive report.
Florida created a Government Technology Modernization Council to
study and monitor new technologies, and governors in Washington
and Oregon recently signed bills to establish AI task forces.
This approach transcends partisan lines, allowing legislators to
collaborate with experts to navigate the emerging policy
landscape of AI.
4:34:49 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired about the pace of deep fake legislation
and whether a bill passed today would become outdated by
tomorrow. He wondered how various states are addressing this
issue.
4:35:19 PM
MR. EDMONSON stated that a technology-agnostic approach is
crucial in addressing the use of deep fakes, particularly in
elections. Instead of defining the means by which deceptive acts
occur, he suggested that the focus should be on the end result
being perceived as problematic. He referenced Georgia's bill, HB
986, which defines problematic content as materially deceptive
media, encompassing video, audio, or images that appear to
depict a real individual doing something that did not happen but
seems authentic to a reasonable observer. He emphasized the need
for disclosures in such instances and acknowledged concerns
raised by local groups regarding potential liability for
broadcasters. From the industry's perspective, he indicated that
liability should rest solely on the bad actor creating and
distributing the false content with the intent to mislead,
rather than on intermediaries like internet service providers or
cloud providers who may unknowingly host the material. This
approach emphasizes targeting the act itself rather than the
specific technology used to perpetrate it.
4:37:54 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI inquired about the composition of Alaska's AI
task force and whether there are other individuals or groups
involved in similar task forces across the country. Alaska's AI
task force was constructed with representation from the
Department of Commerce, a nonpartisan statewide nonprofit
protecting individual liberties, and organized labor. He pointed
out that this task force is smaller and more focused than many
others and asked if there are additional types of
representatives that could enhance the task force's
effectiveness, considering the current membership appears to
include around ten members.
4:38:45 PM
MR. EDMONSON stated that SB 262 has struck a nice balance in its
composition. He noted that it is challenging to assess the
effectiveness of task forces, as many have been established
recently, either through executive action or legislation, and
are just beginning their work. In comparison to other states, SB
262 effectively combines expertise, state government use, and
civil society representation. He suggested that a size of around
ten members is appropriate, as larger groups can become overly
cumbersome and hinder productive discussions, citing that 30-
member task forces may struggle to be effective.
4:40:12 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public [and invited] testimony on SB 262.
4:41:23 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI held SB 262 in committee.
4:41:48 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kawasaki adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 4:41 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS SB 201.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| CS SB 177.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB0262A.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 262 |
| SB 262 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 262 |
| SB 262 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
SSTA 4/4/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 262 |