January 30, 2025 • 48 mins
The conversation centers on the evolving regulatory landscape amid a new administration, discussing the implications for data privacy and AI legislation. The episode emphasizes state-level movements and the potential for Congress to enact a cohesive national law while addressing emerging concerns around social media and technology.
• Overview of the new administration's regulatory potential
• Recent state-level data privacy laws and their implications
• Importance of legislative committees in shaping policy
• Future prospects for national data privacy legislation
• National security concerns related to technology, especially TikTok
• Discussion on transparency in AI data usage
• Evolving roles of states versus federal government in tech policy
• Anticipation of 2025's regulatory challenges and opportunities
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All righty then.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcomeback to another episode of
Privacy, please.
Cameron Ivey here with GabeGumbs, as always, and we got a
little special guest with us.
But before we get to ourspecial guest, gabe, how you
doing, man?
You doing good, good.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I am well, I'm well, welcome to day two of the new
administration, is it?
I think so.
I think, technically, yesterdaywas day one, right, today is
day two.
I'm here, you're here, we'reall here.
I think.
So far, so good, still standing.
So, far no complaints, yeah,yeah, I'm okay here so far.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well, dave Barmore from Runway Strategies.
He's a regulatory expertco-founder over there.
Dave, thank you so much forjoining us today, man.
We really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Hey, thanks for having me on guys.
I'm looking forward to itAbsolutely.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, I mean, look, let's start where we always do.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Dave, tell us about yourself.
Thanks, gabe, excited to be onand talk through a little bit
about what I do.
It's a question.
For the last five years I'vebeen running my own consultancy,
so it's a question I get a lot.
What is it that you do withrunway strategies?
So my background is workingwith companies, helping them
navigate, whether it'sregulatory issues, public policy
(01:14):
.
So I look back at my career andI've really been at the nexus
of how businesses in the privatesector interact with the
government, and I'll go way backto.
So I'm coming to you from DCvery jam-packed and momentous
day yesterday with all theinaugural activities and the
regime change with the newRepublican administration coming
(01:37):
in.
I've been in DC for 15 yearsThink back to the Obama years
and so I've really I've beenable to see multiple transitions
with the presidents here in DC,and I go back to when I first
came to DC in 2010,.
I started off on Capitol Hill,so that's where I really got my
exposure to how this biginstitution that is Congress
(02:00):
functions.
I worked for a member on theHouse side and that's really
where I cut my teeth onunderstanding how do bills get
passed?
We all think of thatSchoolhouse Rock cartoon.
I don't know if the kids at theGen Z know about Schoolhouse
Rock, but I always look back tothat how a bill becomes a law,
right, yeah?
So anyway, that's where I cutmy teeth on my policy work and
(02:25):
from there I went to a lobbyingfirm so I got to see how the
other side operates in terms ofhow does the private sector
influence what goes on in thehalls of Congress.
Fast forward to current day.
I help and advise companies onhow should they get involved,
should they just track what'sgoing on?
Should they actively lobby?
(02:45):
So yeah, that's what I do, andregulatory expert it's a very
concise and neat way to frame it, but in practice it's a lot of
things.
It's lobbyist, it's policy.
I didn't go to law school but Ido a lot of kind of legal
analysis, so I know enough to bedirty there.
But yeah, that's kind of at ahigh level what I do and what
(03:08):
I've been doing with my favoriterunway.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Love it.
So before we this is kind oflike going sideways, but did
either of you see DaveChappelle's SNL monologue?
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I missed it.
I didn't.
No, I meant to catch thehighlights.
Highlights I usually, uh, Idon't stay up late enough, uh,
in front of the tv on saturdaynight, so I had to watch the
recaps on sunday that's okay,you got youtube.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
I advise anyone listening.
If you haven't seen it inyoutube, go watch it.
It's gonna make you laugh, it'sgonna make you think and it's
gonna make you emotional,because he's just that good it's
worth a watch.
It's like 17 minutes long.
And you just forget that it'seven snl.
I don't even watch snl, I onlywent to youtube to watch him
because it's like his own littlespecial in itself.
It's unbelievable what he said.
You say 17 minute monologue?
(03:54):
Yeah, it was like 17.
Wow, it's a lot of monologue,that's yeah it's not normal he's
also the only one that cansmoke cigarettes on stage
wherever he wants, and he doesit.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
On that, he writes that into his contracts.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
There's something about him that's just so easy to
listen to.
I don't know what it is.
He's just so good atstorytelling.
But I digress.
I just wanted to mention thatIf you guys get a chance, go
watch it.
It's so worth it Because hejust has a great perspective on
the whole situation andeverything that's been happening
with.
He hits on things like theDiddy situation, the fires in
(04:32):
California and, obviously, thenew administration.
So it's yeah, he touches on itall.
Yeah, it's relevant and it'sfunny.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And it's also what all three have in common.
They're all on fire, they'reall dumpster fires, ladies and
gentlemen, but anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
So like, why don't we dive into that, dave?
Why don't we talk a little bitabout the new administration and
kind of get a I don't know anaerial view of what you expect
to happen, just in terms of whatyou've been dealing with, I'm
sure, preparing for this newadministration, and what you've
been looking for or payingattention to, or what some of
the listeners should payattention to, going into the new
administration.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Yeah.
So, as you said, gabe, day twoand day one, you know, if it's
any indication, I think we'rejust going to continue to see a
ton of activity, whether it's,you know, in the form of
executive orders coming from thepresident himself or, you know,
a new Republican controlledCongress.
They've even said, you know,said, the legislative calendar
(05:28):
that both the House and theSenate will be operating under
is going to be much moreaggressive.
The congressmen and women willhave fewer recess days.
They're expected, I think, tobe in DC and really carrying out
on a lot of what PresidentTrump has been campaigning on
throughout the past year or so.
So I think, unfortunately,where we're at is we're in this
(05:49):
political world in which now,with every new regime and
administration that comes in, wesee this pendulum that swings
in one way.
So I think, as we saw evenyesterday, with a lot of the
executive orders, it's theundoing of a lot of work that
had been done under the previousBiden administration, whether
that's on tech-related issues,top of mind is the Biden
(06:13):
executive order on AI that he,former President Biden, issued
during his term.
That was one of the issues thatPresident Trump signed
basically doing away with.
So, whether it's AI, whetherit's immigration, there's just a
lot of undoing of what theprevious administration had been
(06:34):
working on for the past fouryears, and in terms of how
businesses should be approachingthat, it's definitely not ideal
in terms of providing industrycertainty as to what is the law,
just with this again pendulumthat swings right and left with
every administration.
So, in terms of what to expect,I'd say, you know, continuation
(06:55):
of what we saw yesterday just alot of Trump proofing the
policies to undo a lot of whatthe Democrats had passed with
the last four years.
And so I think what we shouldwatch for is as Congress
continues to move on differentcommittee initiatives I know Cam
(07:16):
you and I talked a lot abouthow Congress works is there are
committees of jurisdiction.
So if it's tech-related issues,there are a certain number of
committees, both in the Houseand the Senate side, that have
jurisdiction and basicallyauthority over related issues.
Right?
So I'd be watching certaincommittees.
For instance, on the Senate,it's the Commerce Committee.
(07:39):
Ted Cruz, senator from Texas,is now going to be overseeing
all tech-related initiatives inthe Senate Commerce Committee.
So I continue to watch whatSenator Cruz says and does on
all things related to AI anddata privacy.
On the House side, it's theEnergy and Commerce Committee
which the new chair there is aRepublican legislator named
(08:01):
Brent Guthrie, from Kentucky.
He'll be the chair of thatcommittee.
So just be watching for a lotof signaling and positioning on
these different issues.
I think that will indicatewhat's to come in terms of
committee hearings.
That's generally the path thatthese bills will take is they'll
have a committee hearing, thecommittee will discuss it, it
(08:23):
then goes before the full floor,it's passed within the chamber.
It then has to go to thepresident's desk for a signature
.
So yeah, they've got two years.
Now is the new what they callcongressional period.
So I think of it generally asyou're pushing a boulder up the
hill.
You've got two years to getyour bill passed to the
(08:45):
mountaintop and then, after thattwo years, if you haven't made
it tumbles down the hill and yougot to start from scratch.
So we're at the just start ofthe new congressional.
So everyone's pushing theirboulder right at the base of the
mountain and they've got a twoyear sprint, basically until
they can get their laws passed.
And that's just the legislativeactivity.
(09:06):
You know regulatory.
You think of the differentagencies the Federal Trade
Commission, the FederalCommunications Commission, the
FCC.
You've got a real activist headof the FCC with Brendan Carr
who's going to be taking on, Ithink, a lot of the reigning in
big tech initiatives that havebeen prioritized by the
(09:27):
president.
So I think you're going to seea really active group of agency
heads pushing their own agendas.
So we'll see kind of how theybalance that with some of the
congressional leads as well.
Anyway, I'll pause there, buthopefully that's a little bit of
a preview of the interestingtimes that we're entering into
here in DC.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Is there any one initiative in particular across
that spectrum that you're reallykind of rooting to see some
change in?
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Great question, gabe.
I think Cam and I have talked alot about data privacy.
It's an issue that Congress hasbeen debating now for years and
years and years, but theyfailed to come to an agreement
on what does that nationalframework look like for how
companies and organizations cancollect and utilize consumer
(10:21):
data, can collect and utilizeconsumer data.
It's unfortunately gottenreally politicized in terms of
how a federal law shouldinteract with state law.
Gabe, as you may know, cam, Iknow you're intimately familiar
with this, but we're now up to19 states that have passed their
own comprehensive data privacylaws 18 states that have passed
(10:46):
their own comprehensive dataprivacy laws.
I think you know Gabe, to thatquestion, it'll be interesting
to see.
Is 2025 going to be the yearwhere Congress can finally get
its act together and pass acomprehensive you know national
framework Similar to the EU withtheir you know GDPR?
I think the US is reallymissing on asserting its global
(11:09):
leadership by not having thatkind of unified national
framework in place.
I don't know if politics areit's pretty divisive here in DC,
so I don't know if they'regoing to be able to come to an
agreement, but we'll see.
I think something that we'relikely to see an agreement on,
which almost got over the finishline in 2024, is an issue of
(11:32):
how we should think aboutchildren's online safety, social
media and its impact onteenagers.
There was a bill called theKids Online Safety Act that was
passed out of the Senate.
Republicans in the Houserefused to bring it up, so it'll
(11:52):
be interesting to see whetherthe new Republican leadership in
both the House and the Senatecan agree on some constitutional
issues and different safeguardsthat were included in that
previous bill.
But you'll continue to seewhether it's at the federal or
the state level, social mediaand children's online safety
will be paramount and top of thelist in terms of priorities.
(12:16):
So that's something.
Ai, lastly.
I'll just touch on AI quickly.
Something AI Lastly, I'll justtouch on AI quickly.
I think you'll and it was veryinteresting, I think, with the
inauguration yesterday.
You see how President Trump hadall of the major tech CEOs
(12:37):
seated during the inaugurationceremony.
You'll notice that they wereseated in front of his incoming
cabinet members, so I thoughtthat was a very, very
interesting signal to show youknow who's really going to have
influence and how thesecompanies are regulated.
I say that also because to date, congress has not been able to
(12:57):
pass any kind of comprehensiveAI legislation.
President Biden had hisexecutive order on AI, which put
in some safeguards on how thetechnology should be used.
That's now been rescinded.
With President Trump, you'll seea lot of Republicans talk about
not wanting to stifleinnovation with the heavy hand
of government, and I imagineyou'll see that kind of
(13:18):
messaging and thinking play outnow that Republicans are in full
control.
So those are the three topissues, gabe, I'd say you know,
data privacy, AI and socialmedia will continue, I think, to
really kind of flood the zonein terms of tech related policy,
and that's a solid.
At the federal level, man, Imean we could talk a lot.
My bread and butter is more atthe state level, and so I don't
(13:39):
know if you want to dive intothe state stuff, but that's
where it's going to be the wild,wild west out in the state
state side well, look, I'm not agambling man, but if I were,
I'm not betting on a federalframework.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
I'm rooting like hell for one, but I'm not betting
for one.
Why am I not betting for one?
I mean, look, we haven't seenone in other areas of our
digital protectives lives, ifyou would right, like there's,
we've got a smattering of stuffacross NIST and you name it a
ton of different frameworks.
I don't need to sit here andlist them all.
So I don't know that we'regoing to see one at the federal
level, and maybe that's a goodthing.
(14:13):
Maybe it is necessary thatdifferent states have different
laws, but some overarchinggoverning one would be useful.
That being said, at the statelevel, how do you see this
playing out?
There are some states wherethere's a lot of incorporation
of different entities.
I'm looking at Delaware rightLike right in your backyard,
right, a lot of tech companiesintentionally incorporate out of
(14:37):
that state.
And then you have states wherethings are really strict, like
California.
Then you have some states wheredata privacy is literally the
wild wild west.
How do you see the interstateplay coming together?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
It's a great question .
This year will be no exception.
We're already seeing over 100bills related to data privacy
and AI having been introducedjust in the past couple weeks,
so it might be helpful just toframe.
I talked a little bit about thefederal level and how they
operate under their two yearcalendar.
States are somewhat differentstates.
(15:12):
Each state.
To make things even moreconfusing, each state has its
own unique calendar when theyconvene in their state capital
and all the legislators come anddebate the different issues in
their state capitol and all thelegislators come and debate the
different issues.
Almost every state has basicallyreconvened and begun their 2025
session either this week orprevious weeks in January and,
(15:34):
depending on the state, theyhave a sprint legislative
session.
So Virginia, for instance,they're only in session through
the end of February, so you canimagine how busy and around the
clock they are trying to get asmany bills passed.
They adjourn at the end ofFebruary and that's it.
They can't pass any more billsuntil 2026.
So they're debating privacybills.
(15:56):
They've got a reallyinteresting cookies related bill
that's been flagged that we'refollowing for some of my clients
.
So that really interesting kindof window of opportunity that
each state has to discuss anddebate the issues.
That's how this works, and so Ithink we're now in this crazy
(16:16):
period in which states are allcoming and debating on these
issues how it's playing out.
Gabe, like I said, we've got 19states to date, 20 if you count
Florida.
Florida is interesting.
They passed the data privacybill, but it only pertains to
the largest tech companies, sothat threshold matter some
(16:38):
professionals don't count thatbill toward the other 19 that
regulate data privacy with theirown bills.
So we'll continue to see thatnumber tick up to where we'll
almost be, you know, half thestates having their own
comprehensive law governing dataprivacy.
Gabe, I think you raise aninteresting point.
(17:01):
Should states what are thedownsides to having states move
on their own bills?
Clearly they're moving at aquicker pace than those here in
DC.
I think you'll hear from thosein industry that there needs to
be consistency, there needs tobe harmonization so that
businesses aren't dealing with apatchwork of different laws.
(17:21):
From the consumer's perspective, you're not crossing a state
line and seeing you know of sucha vast difference in how your
data is being treated.
Right, why should oneconsumer's data be treated any
differently or less so than acitizen that's in another state.
So there's been some interestingdiscussion around.
(17:42):
You know, should Congress passa national law that serves as
the floor so that it'sconsistent, you have a baseline
layer of protection for allconsumers across all 50 states
and then allow states to buildupon that floor with their own
protections?
That's interesting.
(18:03):
You know that all goes intothat topic of preemption.
You know how should thisfederal law interplay with state
laws?
And so that's going to be anissue that we're going to see
play out in DC.
But you know it's going to be.
It's going to be wild on thefront.
Social media, you've got statesmoving at light speed on all
(18:23):
their different proposals andindustry is responding.
They've got, you know, whetherit's through direct lobbying
efforts or different industrygroups.
Industry is at the table and,like it or not, they're having a
very you know, they're behave arole and they're looking to
influence these laws to theirliking.
(18:44):
So I think you know see howthat kind of plays out.
This session in terms of youknow, are we going to continue
to see.
We've seen two different typesof approaches One, the
California, you know veryrestrictive approach in terms of
how companies should be able tocollect and utilize consumer
(19:05):
data, and then you see someother states, like Virginia and
Colorado, that have a much more,I'd say, business-friendly
approach, and so I think, withthe introduction of Maryland
this past year, there's a newparadigm shift, I would say, in
terms of are more states goingto now embrace this Maryland
approach of strict kind of dataminimization standards, or are
(19:27):
they going to continue alongthis more kind of
business-friendly, laissez-faireapproach that's been adopted in
states like Virginia andColorado?
So it'll be interesting to seehow that plays out.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I'd watch that space and then, yeah, we can talk a
little bit about ai as well, butI'll pause there and see if
there's anything, anything elseum, I want to go back because we
mentioned, like social mediaand stuff and I don't know, is
it strange to you guys I don'tknow if this is like making me
feel like I'm old, but is itstrange that tiktok is being
(19:59):
fought for at a legislativelevel, like I understand that
it's that it could be massiveamounts of money, but it just
seems crazy to me that TikTok ismore important than dealing
with our privacy issues.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
You know I think it's an interesting question, cam.
You know TikTok is unique inthat it's given the ByteDance
component with China.
I think it raises a lot ofnational security concerns, and
so I think you're seeing a lotof folks from you know, within
Congress, within the newadministration, saying you know,
put data privacy issues aside.
(20:39):
This is more of a nationalsecurity cybersecurity risk that
we have now with just thissimple fact of the China
connections.
So that's unique and not alawyer by trade, but I know
enough in this space to haveseen how this plays out.
You're seeing a lot of issuespop up around how can government
(21:26):
regulate content within socialmedia that don't enter into that
first amendment?
Uh, can they regulatealgorithms?
Is that an area of which youknow they're not regulating the
content itself, but they'relooking to regulate the way that
companies are showing thiscontent, and is that a more
legally defensible approach?
So that's just a little bit ofa preview into some of the
issues legal otherwise thatfolks are dealing with.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
It is fascinating though, dave.
I mean, do you think that youcould let's just say, we go back
and we're talking to ourfathers or our grandfathers and
we're like, hey, did you thinkthat this would ever be a thing?
Our president is talking aboutsigning an order where there's
going to do a trillion dollardeal and try to split the
funding, so America gets halfand China gets half, or whatever
(22:13):
the case is.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
I don't think you could ever guess that in a
million years he would have toldmy grandfather back in the 80s
or 90s that you know DonaldTrump would be president, know
campaign finances, you know howpeople are contributing to, how
(22:47):
these people get elected, um,and you want to hope that
there's also a, you know, directreflection of the priorities of
the american people as well.
So I think you're seeingobviously, the tiktok issue
again is interesting.
Let's not forget that.
You know, president trump wasthe one that started this
(23:08):
discussion around a ban andsupported this notion, but I
think he's seen with the recentelection how much this tech
platform helped influence theparts of the electorate that
voted for him.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
So now you see him coming back, and so there's, you
know there's like um things,wasn't it like 36 percent of his
votes were from like the agedemographic that uses tiktok, I
think.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yeah, so you know that's changed his tune in terms
of now he's seeing howimportant of a tool this is for
him to reach his portion of theelectorate.
So that's why you see himtrying to work out a deal here.
That's a good point.
But, going back to some of thestate rules again, like I said,
(23:53):
state stuff is my bread andbutter.
I think it's good and somethingI would tell for your listeners
.
You should 100% one going intothis new second Trump
administration.
I think for a lot of us myselfincluded, I'm having to turn off
notifications on my phone.
You know, I think I'm having torethink how I absorb my news,
as there's going to be a lot ofit that you should 100%, from a
(24:20):
professional standpoint, bewatching what happens in DC and
have a general awareness ofwhat's going on and how that
impacts your industry.
I think we're going to continueto see a stalemate in terms of
large initiatives come out of DC, where I think there's going to
(24:44):
continue to be a lot ofmomentum and progress is at the
state level and, for instance,you take a look at AI.
Last year, colorado was thefirst state in the country to
pass a comprehensive AI billthat puts in safeguards for how
companies can use AI ininteracting with its customers.
(25:04):
So that was monumental in thatit was the first state to
implement such a law, and thereare parallels to be drawn with
what was passed in Colorado, tothe landmark EU AI Act as well.
But I think what you'll see in2025 is a continuation of that.
Whether it's connecticutthere's a representative in
connecticut that's been very outthere on pushing for his own ai
(25:28):
legislation, jay maroney.
He will be back in 2025, uh,pushing for another ai bill.
New york is uh looking to moveas we speak.
Before I jumped on this call, Ijust saw an article.
New York State is moving on abill this week actually, it'll
likely pass the assembly in theSenate that will restrict how
(25:51):
companies utilize health caredata.
I think, in light of PresidentTrump coming to office, you'll
see many progressive blue statestry to put in safeguards
protecting reproductive rightrelated data, and so I think New
York's going to be moving on ona similar bill.
(26:11):
So I think you know, whetherit's data privacy, ai, social
media, it's going to be a wild.
You know Q1 and Q2 on justkeeping up with the pace of
which all these states aremoving.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Do you think I was just thinking about this?
I don't know if I've ever askedyou this, but I know.
So we talked about howCalifornia is pretty like
they're pretty strict comparedto other states.
Is there one state out therethat seems to have done it in
your mind or your perspective,has done it the best so far,
that other states are probablygoing to follow?
Is that going to be somethinglike Colorado?
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Colorado.
It's interesting their attorneygeneral just recently updated
their law.
I wouldn't say there's oneparticular state that stands out
.
Like I said, maryland isinteresting in that I think it
is now being seen as the newGDPR light approach, with that
strict kind of data minimizationrequirement.
(27:06):
Companies should only be ableto collect information that's
necessary for it to be able tooperate.
So that's an interesting one.
I think you'll see other bluestates, I think, look to emulate
that Maryland bill.
You know, gabe, kind of goingback to your question of why
states, you know I definitelythink there's a role for states
(27:28):
to legislate in this space.
Quite simply, they move at aquicker pace than what Congress
does in DC.
I go back to kind of thatconcept of I think you know
(27:48):
there absolutely should be a lawacross all 50 states that
governs how companies canutilize consumer data.
Right now, the reality is, likeI said, only 19 states have
laws in place, so there arepeople that live in the US that
don't have any laws in the bookson how companies can use their
data.
That said, you know, I thinkthere should be a baseline
approach.
I think states should beallowed to enact maybe more
stringent requirements, buildingon kind of that floor that
(28:12):
could be enacted from Congress.
So whether we see that play outanytime soon, who knows?
But that's kind of in my mind,I think the appropriate role
between the state and thefederal authorities here.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
It's a great point.
The velocity at which a billcan move through at the state
level certainly offers a ton ofadvantages.
Let me build on Cam's question,though, and not necessarily to
name and shame so much as toeducate.
But where are there states thatare lagging in their effort?
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Yeah, great question.
I wouldn't say not to shame anyof our state legislators out
there.
You know there is a case thispast year where Vermont nearly
got a bill.
It actually passed out of bothchambers, it got before the
governor's desk and the governoractually vetoed the bill and
the reason why was that itincluded a somewhat
(29:07):
controversial enforcementmechanism called a private right
of action, which allowsconsumers to bring litigation
directly with the company.
Currently, the only state thatallows for such an enforcement
mechanism is California.
Industry, for many obviousreasons, does not care for
(29:30):
private right of action.
They wish that the attorneygeneral would be the sole kind
of enforcement authority.
Gabe, I mentioned Vermontbecause I think you had a very
progressive legislature lookingto move, I think, on a bill that
would have been very similar towhat Maryland was able to pass
with their strict kind of dataand minimization requirements.
But because it included thatprivate right of action
(29:50):
enforcement piece, the governorrefused to sign the bill.
So I think we'll see Vermonttake another swing at it in 2025
.
I think it's also interestingbig states such as New York,
illinois, massachusetts, heavilypopulated states.
They don't have anycomprehensive.
(30:11):
They have not passed any kindof comprehensive data privacy
bills to date.
They've certainly debated themover the years but have not been
able to pass anything.
So it'll be interesting withthis reproductive rights data
privacy bill that's expected topass in New York, does that mean
that there will be a broaderkind of comprehensive bill
that's enacted this year in NewYork state?
(30:32):
We'll see, but maybe that'swhat I would say.
Gabe is, some of those big bluestates Illinois, new York,
massachusetts are not on thelist.
We'll see if maybe they're ableto pass something in 2025 to
get them up there.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
That provision sounds familiar and I'm trying to
remember.
Is it because the EU has such asimilar provision or the CCPA?
But are there other states thathave that private right to
action provision?
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Yeah, so just California.
It's certainly debated, but todate only California has that
with their current privacyregulatory work.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
It was a thing, and I think maybe the EU does have
something similar.
I can understand why industrydoes not want such a thing.
That certainly makes sense.
Yeah, there's an argument to bemade both ways for that, I see,
and just given to the stateattorney general for them to
have sole authority.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
So you'll continue to see that be highly prioritized
from industry in terms of nothaving that be a part of these
different state bills that arepassed.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
So I'm going to shift gears a little bit.
I'm curious if you've heardthis or seen this.
Dave, are you an Apple user?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
I am.
I'm talking to you from myMacBook.
I got my iPhone sitting acrossfrom me as well.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So what are your thoughts on the new iOS update?
If you've even noticed thisSiri I think it's Siri, gabe.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I might be getting this wrongbut basically all of your
applications were automated inthe new ios update and turned on
for siri and ai to do likeresearch on how you use the app,
(32:30):
and you have to individually goin and turn that off if you
don't want that.
That seems like a pretty.
I don't know.
It seems like a pretty big dealin terms of like a pretty.
I don't know.
It seems like a pretty big dealin terms of just opting you
into something that seems veryprivacy oriented.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah, I was not aware of that.
Yeah, but I think you know, cam, you hit the nail on the head.
I think opt-in, opt-out, knowconsent will be a whole new
ballgame in terms of you know,we've talked about it very much
in the sense of data privacy,but now I think, with AI, it
opens up a whole nother can ofworms and a whole nother set of
(33:12):
policy questions as to you know,how should companies be able to
utilize your activity and yourdata to inform its LLMs?
Utilize your activity and yourdata to inform its LLMs.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Do you see that that's like, could something
like that from a big companylike Apple?
Do you think that that couldturn into something to where it
becomes a, you know, a legalmatter in terms of a privacy law
?
Speaker 3 (33:35):
I think to answer that I would say watch what
California does.
I think you know I would saywatch what California does.
I think California continues tobe the frontrunner on all
things related to tech policy,and it's to no surprise given
that it's headquartered to manyof the world's largest tech
(33:55):
companies, apple included.
So you know, you have manylawmakers that are in Sacramento
(34:19):
that are year after legislativestaff in Sacramento sharing
that article talking about thisdoesn't feel right.
We should maybe look tointroduce a bill to address how
companies are doing this kind ofpractice.
So I would say watch that space.
My guess is that you'llprobably see some bills that pop
up around that issue inSacramento that are as a result
(34:42):
of seeing that maybe update onthe iOS.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Yeah, to that point, because you were mentioning
before that most states willmeet early on in the year.
So I'm guessing that if they'vealready met, that's been talked
about and they're alreadyprobably on the ball about it,
most likely.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yeah, california.
They are one of the few statesthey have a prolonged session,
so they gaveled back in earlyJanuary.
They're in session throughSeptember, so they've got.
You know, like I said, thecontrast to that I would say
would be Virginia, right, wherethey're back early January.
They only have two months, sothey've got a very short session
(35:17):
.
California is the opposite.
They've got a period of timenow where lawmakers are simply
there's a bill introductiondeadline in about late February,
I believe.
So you'll start to see some ofthe more tech-focused
policymakers introduce theirbills that they want to push for
this year.
That's the kind of period thatwe're in.
So I'll be curious, cam, to seeif any bills that are
(35:40):
introduced over the coming weeksin Sacramento if they touch on
this latest iOS update and theconcerns they might have from a
policy perspective.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
If you're not intimately familiar, since you
are heavy in the iOS ecosystem,you probably heard it advertised
as, quote Apple Intelligencethat's the name of the slick
marketing name that they gave it, and they are very much local
models, right?
So they're touting that,they're pushing these locally on
your phone, which all thatreally means to me is that the
(36:11):
model itself runs locally.
It tells me nothing about whathappens to the data that goes in
the model or out of the model,especially the out part of the
model I'm very interested in,and maybe that data never leaves
the local device.
From my perspective A I don'tknow that, but B anytime back to
the minimization problemanytime you create more data,
(36:32):
it's just there right Now.
It can be used in any number ofways, maliciously or otherwise,
and so what Apple did was theydid turn on every single
application.
If you go into settings andthen you go down to an
application and then you chooseSiri and AI, you will see where
it opted you in for everyapplication to be monitored its
behavior so that it can makerecommendations that you should
(36:54):
be able to do outside of thatapplication.
That's my second problem If ithas enough information on what
I'm doing in the app to makerecommendations about unrelated
apps outside of it.
You know all the efforts thatApple went through to
demonstrate to us thateverything was containerized and
isolated such that applicationscan't otherwise affect each
other.
Something is not right.
Something is not right.
I do not know what is not right, but at a bare minimum, I don't
(37:17):
like being opted into things.
I don't like surprise parties.
I don't want them.
Tell me ahead of time whetheror not you plan on throwing me
one.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
I mean, it's interesting to hear you say that
.
I think to that end, there wasa bill that was introduced in
sacramento last session thatjust simply touched on.
I believe it was even calledthe ai transparency act and it
put in some requirements ofsimply how companies should be
required to notify consumers asto how they're scraping or using
(37:48):
their data to inform their AImodels.
Right and so it's as simple asthat, and you know that did not
pass, I believe, this pastsession, but it's going to, I'm
sure, be brought up, going to,I'm sure, be brought up, and
transparency is going to be abig piece.
And just how is the publicbeing notified of how companies
are using its data to inform itsAI models?
Speaker 1 (38:10):
To that point wasn't there?
Maybe this was just talks, butmaybe it wasn't passed and I'm
not informed enough.
But wasn't there somethingwhere they were talking about
God?
It just passed my brain, oh mygosh.
No, don't do this to me.
We were just talking about God.
It just passed my brain, oh mygosh.
No, don't do this to me.
We were just talking about thiswith the app transparency.
Oh my God, come back to me,because I'm going to have to cut
this out.
I forgot, I just had it.
(38:31):
It'll come back.
The federal bill I got too manythoughts in my mind right now.
I confused myself.
It'll come back to me, though.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Let me think All good .
Speaker 1 (38:41):
What were we just talking about?
Maybe it'll come back Talkingabout.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
AI transparency, ios update, apple intelligence my
gosh Ew.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
What is my brain doing to me?
It'll probably pop in,hopefully before we end the show
.
Okay, while I'm thinking aboutthat, it'll come back.
Dave, is there anything thatyou want to touch on that we
haven't talked about for thelisteners?
Maybe anything that might beworth speaking about?
No, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
This has been a really great discussion.
Again, I think I'll say beaware of what's going on in DC
and how it impacts your businessand your profession, whether
that's data privacy, whetherthat's ai, online platforms,
right, social media but I thinkyou wouldn't be doing your job
(39:29):
if you weren't even more closelyfollowing what's going on at
the state level, because that'swhere I think the rubber is
really going to hit the road andyou're going to see a lot of
states move on their own, theirown proposals, um.
So, yeah, that's kind of what Iwould suggest.
We're in the interesting justthe start of the 2025 sprint, um
(39:52):
, so check in, see how I'm doing.
Uh, june and july.
I haven't pulled out all myhair.
Uh, you know, mid-year is whena lot of the states adjourn for
for the year and then they startplanning for 2026.
So, yeah, it's kind of a crazy,crazy but fun time of the year
where everyone's just startingoff their sprint.
(40:12):
So I'm glad I was able to comeon and talk to her a little bit
about how all this stuff works.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
Yeah we really appreciate your time.
Yeah, absolute pleasure havingyou, Dave.
We're going to have to have youback.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, maybe a mid-year check-in to see as the
dust settles.
How many more states do we addto that 19 for data privacy?
How many more states inaddition to Colorado are going
to move on AI?
Is TikTok still around?
There are a lot of questionsthat will hopefully be answered
(40:45):
by mid-year or so.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
When you return.
There was one topic I didn't geta chance to touch on, but by
then I think we'll be able tohave a better, in-depth
conversation about it thedecentralization of these
platforms, because I thinkthat's really part of the
underlining problem as itpertains to things like TikTok.
Right Like TikTok wouldn't be aproblem if it weren't for the
fact that all of the data andits ownership were centralized
(41:09):
by a government that weotherwise rightfully so, by the
way do not want to control.
What is a media platform?
Right Like we can talk about itjust being a brain rot platform
, but the truth is it's verymuch a media platform, like no
two ways about it, and wealready have laws in the books
that state that, you know,foreign entities can't control
over certain percentages of ourmedia platforms in any capacity,
(41:30):
whether that's your local NBCor a newspaper.
Right Like the Chinesegovernment is not allowed to own
the New York Times, for example, and so really, what's
happening is it's being seen assuch.
But I think the technology partof this conversation is about
the centralization of that dataand, as these tech giants, who
are also all controls ofcentralized platforms, how
quotes?
It doesn't have enough masssweller users, that we actually
(42:07):
see people you know exodus-ingTwitter in mass and heading
there, but that is on thehorizon, I think, from a pure
technology standpoint.
But I'm excited to talk aboutthat and any updates that we see
across the state, the statelegislatives.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Yeah, I mean Gabe as it relates to antitrust and
competition issues.
I mean we're in a wholedifferent ballgame now with
Trump and a new Republicanadministration around ownership
and control and influence onsome of the world's largest tech
platforms.
You're dealing with a muchdifferent audience today on
(42:47):
those issues than you were justlast week with President Biden.
Folks like Lena Kahn, who wereat the Federal Trade Commission,
were in a whole differentballgame now with the new
Republican regime in town.
So I think it'll be reallyinteresting to see how that
plays out.
You know, just given the simplefact, like I said, all of these
(43:07):
CEOs were seated literallyright behind the president
during his inaugurationyesterday.
So what that means in terms ofhow these companies can continue
to operate without governmentinterference, I think will be
really interesting to watch.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
Yeah on the air floor .
All right, before we let you go, two fun questions.
Here we go.
Is there?
They're real good stuff.
If you could eat one dish orone food for the rest of your
life, what would it be?
Speaker 2 (43:39):
And why would it be churros?
No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
Oh man, one dish would it be.
And why would it be churros?
No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Oh man, one dish.
I would say anything, anythingitalian man I went to italy all
right, what a couple years back,and I felt like I just ate like
a king for a week.
I just whether it's pizza,pasta, any of that stuff, man, I
, I, uh, I can't get enough ofit and I'm trying to do more
cooking of it myself.
(44:05):
So if you've got any goodrecipes, send them over.
Speaker 2 (44:09):
I have a good recipe hat.
Anytime an Italian recipe orany recipe calls for garlic,
just triple it.
That's the end.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
Oh.
Just triple it All right, therewe go.
That's the end.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
You can't go wrong with too much garlic.
You cannot go wrong with toomuch garlic and butter.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
Butter makes it better Okay.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I think mine would be probably tacos.
It's hard like Mexicansomething tacos.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Pizza.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Pizza and pasta, man, especially if it's like
Homemade, it's such a bigdifference.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
See, as Dave Ann said it, I thought In my head.
Here comes the monkey pod.
He's like only Italian and it'slike leftover Olive Gardens for
life.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Don't get me wrong man Tour of Italy Tour of Italy.
I did a number on a number ofthat.
I don't have any of them closeto me in the city now.
I got to travel out to theBurbs to get me some Olive
Garden.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
But I still love me some tour, is that really
italian, though.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
That's my boy, that's the monkey parvata this is like
, and it's only leftover olivedarts.
It's not even like fresh.
It's like, let me see, uh, Ihad one more, I won't.
I won't do the superpower oneto you.
I feel like we've done thatbefore in the past and previous
things cute you don't have ashort list of these just up at
the ready I do, but I'm having atrouble picking one.
Right now I'm trying to find onethat's kind of interesting.
Oh, you know what?
Let's just go with this.
What's one show or somethingthat you've been watching lately
(45:29):
that you just can't get enoughof?
Speaker 3 (45:32):
I gotta say, guys, it feels like it's been I think it
has been two or three years.
Squid games, season one, uhfeels like an eternity ago.
So I was a little it's not asexcited when I heard season two
was coming out.
But man, I'm like four episodesin now and I I don't know what
it is about that crazy show, butuh, it's just, it's just really
(45:54):
entertaining, which I don'tknow like horribly violent and
uh, you know it's it's, but itmakes for some good television.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
So I like it.
That's a good point.
To that point, I think like,like Stranger Things is taking
forever to get these last twoseasons and I'm like losing
interest, it's not coming outthey're getting too old.
The kids are just way too oldnow.
Is it still the same cast fromthe first season?
Mostly, yeah they gotta be allgrown up now anyways thank you
(46:24):
both, thank you dave, thank youguys, thank you let's, let's
touch base.
Speaker 3 (46:29):
Later this year we can kind of do a look back and
see how much of all what we justtalked about actually uh,
actually came true so soundsgood.
All righty then.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcomeback to another episode of
Privacy, please.
Cameron Ivey here with GabeGumbs, as always, and we got a
little special guest with us.
But before we get to ourspecial guest, gabe, how you
doing, man?
You doing good, good.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
I am well, I'm well, welcome to day two of the new
administration, is it?
I think so.
I think, technically, yesterdaywas day one, right, today is
day two.
I'm here, you're here, we'reall here.
I think.
So far, so good, still standing.
So, far no complaints, yeah,yeah, I'm okay here so far.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Well, dave Barmore from Runway Strategies.
He's a regulatory expertco-founder over there.
Dave, thank you so much forjoining us today, man.
We really appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
Hey, thanks for having me on guys.
I'm looking forward to itAbsolutely.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, I mean, look, let's start where we always do.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Dave, tell us about yourself.
Thanks, gabe, excited to be onand talk through a little bit
about what I do.
It's a question.
For the last five years I'vebeen running my own consultancy,
so it's a question I get a lot.
What is it that you do withrunway strategies?
So my background is workingwith companies, helping them
navigate, whether it'sregulatory issues, public policy
(01:14):
.
So I look back at my career andI've really been at the nexus
of how businesses in the privatesector interact with the
government, and I'll go way backto.
So I'm coming to you from DCvery jam-packed and momentous
day yesterday with all theinaugural activities and the
regime change with the newRepublican administration coming
(01:37):
in.
I've been in DC for 15 yearsThink back to the Obama years
and so I've really I've beenable to see multiple transitions
with the presidents here in DC,and I go back to when I first
came to DC in 2010,.
I started off on Capitol Hill,so that's where I really got my
exposure to how this biginstitution that is Congress
(02:00):
functions.
I worked for a member on theHouse side and that's really
where I cut my teeth onunderstanding how do bills get
passed?
We all think of thatSchoolhouse Rock cartoon.
I don't know if the kids at theGen Z know about Schoolhouse
Rock, but I always look back tothat how a bill becomes a law,
right, yeah?
So anyway, that's where I cutmy teeth on my policy work and
(02:25):
from there I went to a lobbyingfirm so I got to see how the
other side operates in terms ofhow does the private sector
influence what goes on in thehalls of Congress.
Fast forward to current day.
I help and advise companies onhow should they get involved,
should they just track what'sgoing on?
Should they actively lobby?
(02:45):
So yeah, that's what I do, andregulatory expert it's a very
concise and neat way to frame it, but in practice it's a lot of
things.
It's lobbyist, it's policy.
I didn't go to law school but Ido a lot of kind of legal
analysis, so I know enough to bedirty there.
But yeah, that's kind of at ahigh level what I do and what
(03:08):
I've been doing with my favoriterunway.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Love it.
So before we this is kind oflike going sideways, but did
either of you see DaveChappelle's SNL monologue?
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I missed it.
I didn't.
No, I meant to catch thehighlights.
Highlights I usually, uh, Idon't stay up late enough, uh,
in front of the tv on saturdaynight, so I had to watch the
recaps on sunday that's okay,you got youtube.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
I advise anyone listening.
If you haven't seen it inyoutube, go watch it.
It's gonna make you laugh, it'sgonna make you think and it's
gonna make you emotional,because he's just that good it's
worth a watch.
It's like 17 minutes long.
And you just forget that it'seven snl.
I don't even watch snl, I onlywent to youtube to watch him
because it's like his own littlespecial in itself.
It's unbelievable what he said.
You say 17 minute monologue?
(03:54):
Yeah, it was like 17.
Wow, it's a lot of monologue,that's yeah it's not normal he's
also the only one that cansmoke cigarettes on stage
wherever he wants, and he doesit.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
On that, he writes that into his contracts.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
There's something about him that's just so easy to
listen to.
I don't know what it is.
He's just so good atstorytelling.
But I digress.
I just wanted to mention thatIf you guys get a chance, go
watch it.
It's so worth it Because hejust has a great perspective on
the whole situation andeverything that's been happening
with.
He hits on things like theDiddy situation, the fires in
(04:32):
California and, obviously, thenew administration.
So it's yeah, he touches on itall.
Yeah, it's relevant and it'sfunny.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
And it's also what all three have in common.
They're all on fire, they'reall dumpster fires, ladies and
gentlemen, but anyway.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
So like, why don't we dive into that, dave?
Why don't we talk a little bitabout the new administration and
kind of get a I don't know anaerial view of what you expect
to happen, just in terms of whatyou've been dealing with, I'm
sure, preparing for this newadministration, and what you've
been looking for or payingattention to, or what some of
the listeners should payattention to, going into the new
administration.
Speaker 3 (05:07):
Yeah.
So, as you said, gabe, day twoand day one, you know, if it's
any indication, I think we'rejust going to continue to see a
ton of activity, whether it's,you know, in the form of
executive orders coming from thepresident himself or, you know,
a new Republican controlledCongress.
They've even said, you know,said, the legislative calendar
(05:28):
that both the House and theSenate will be operating under
is going to be much moreaggressive.
The congressmen and women willhave fewer recess days.
They're expected, I think, tobe in DC and really carrying out
on a lot of what PresidentTrump has been campaigning on
throughout the past year or so.
So I think, unfortunately,where we're at is we're in this
(05:49):
political world in which now,with every new regime and
administration that comes in, wesee this pendulum that swings
in one way.
So I think, as we saw evenyesterday, with a lot of the
executive orders, it's theundoing of a lot of work that
had been done under the previousBiden administration, whether
that's on tech-related issues,top of mind is the Biden
(06:13):
executive order on AI that he,former President Biden, issued
during his term.
That was one of the issues thatPresident Trump signed
basically doing away with.
So, whether it's AI, whetherit's immigration, there's just a
lot of undoing of what theprevious administration had been
(06:34):
working on for the past fouryears, and in terms of how
businesses should be approachingthat, it's definitely not ideal
in terms of providing industrycertainty as to what is the law,
just with this again pendulumthat swings right and left with
every administration.
So, in terms of what to expect,I'd say, you know, continuation
(06:55):
of what we saw yesterday just alot of Trump proofing the
policies to undo a lot of whatthe Democrats had passed with
the last four years.
And so I think what we shouldwatch for is as Congress
continues to move on differentcommittee initiatives I know Cam
(07:16):
you and I talked a lot abouthow Congress works is there are
committees of jurisdiction.
So if it's tech-related issues,there are a certain number of
committees, both in the Houseand the Senate side, that have
jurisdiction and basicallyauthority over related issues.
Right?
So I'd be watching certaincommittees.
For instance, on the Senate,it's the Commerce Committee.
(07:39):
Ted Cruz, senator from Texas,is now going to be overseeing
all tech-related initiatives inthe Senate Commerce Committee.
So I continue to watch whatSenator Cruz says and does on
all things related to AI anddata privacy.
On the House side, it's theEnergy and Commerce Committee
which the new chair there is aRepublican legislator named
(08:01):
Brent Guthrie, from Kentucky.
He'll be the chair of thatcommittee.
So just be watching for a lotof signaling and positioning on
these different issues.
I think that will indicatewhat's to come in terms of
committee hearings.
That's generally the path thatthese bills will take is they'll
have a committee hearing, thecommittee will discuss it, it
(08:23):
then goes before the full floor,it's passed within the chamber.
It then has to go to thepresident's desk for a signature
.
So yeah, they've got two years.
Now is the new what they callcongressional period.
So I think of it generally asyou're pushing a boulder up the
hill.
You've got two years to getyour bill passed to the
(08:45):
mountaintop and then, after thattwo years, if you haven't made
it tumbles down the hill and yougot to start from scratch.
So we're at the just start ofthe new congressional.
So everyone's pushing theirboulder right at the base of the
mountain and they've got a twoyear sprint, basically until
they can get their laws passed.
And that's just the legislativeactivity.
(09:06):
You know regulatory.
You think of the differentagencies the Federal Trade
Commission, the FederalCommunications Commission, the
FCC.
You've got a real activist headof the FCC with Brendan Carr
who's going to be taking on, Ithink, a lot of the reigning in
big tech initiatives that havebeen prioritized by the
(09:27):
president.
So I think you're going to seea really active group of agency
heads pushing their own agendas.
So we'll see kind of how theybalance that with some of the
congressional leads as well.
Anyway, I'll pause there, buthopefully that's a little bit of
a preview of the interestingtimes that we're entering into
here in DC.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Is there any one initiative in particular across
that spectrum that you're reallykind of rooting to see some
change in?
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Great question, gabe.
I think Cam and I have talked alot about data privacy.
It's an issue that Congress hasbeen debating now for years and
years and years, but theyfailed to come to an agreement
on what does that nationalframework look like for how
companies and organizations cancollect and utilize consumer
(10:21):
data, can collect and utilizeconsumer data.
It's unfortunately gottenreally politicized in terms of
how a federal law shouldinteract with state law.
Gabe, as you may know, cam, Iknow you're intimately familiar
with this, but we're now up to19 states that have passed their
own comprehensive data privacylaws 18 states that have passed
(10:46):
their own comprehensive dataprivacy laws.
I think you know Gabe, to thatquestion, it'll be interesting
to see.
Is 2025 going to be the yearwhere Congress can finally get
its act together and pass acomprehensive you know national
framework Similar to the EU withtheir you know GDPR?
I think the US is reallymissing on asserting its global
(11:09):
leadership by not having thatkind of unified national
framework in place.
I don't know if politics areit's pretty divisive here in DC,
so I don't know if they'regoing to be able to come to an
agreement, but we'll see.
I think something that we'relikely to see an agreement on,
which almost got over the finishline in 2024, is an issue of
(11:32):
how we should think aboutchildren's online safety, social
media and its impact onteenagers.
There was a bill called theKids Online Safety Act that was
passed out of the Senate.
Republicans in the Houserefused to bring it up, so it'll
(11:52):
be interesting to see whetherthe new Republican leadership in
both the House and the Senatecan agree on some constitutional
issues and different safeguardsthat were included in that
previous bill.
But you'll continue to seewhether it's at the federal or
the state level, social mediaand children's online safety
will be paramount and top of thelist in terms of priorities.
(12:16):
So that's something.
Ai, lastly.
I'll just touch on AI quickly.
Something AI Lastly, I'll justtouch on AI quickly.
I think you'll and it was veryinteresting, I think, with the
inauguration yesterday.
You see how President Trump hadall of the major tech CEOs
(12:37):
seated during the inaugurationceremony.
You'll notice that they wereseated in front of his incoming
cabinet members, so I thoughtthat was a very, very
interesting signal to show youknow who's really going to have
influence and how thesecompanies are regulated.
I say that also because to date, congress has not been able to
(12:57):
pass any kind of comprehensiveAI legislation.
President Biden had hisexecutive order on AI, which put
in some safeguards on how thetechnology should be used.
That's now been rescinded.
With President Trump, you'll seea lot of Republicans talk about
not wanting to stifleinnovation with the heavy hand
of government, and I imagineyou'll see that kind of
(13:18):
messaging and thinking play outnow that Republicans are in full
control.
So those are the three topissues, gabe, I'd say you know,
data privacy, AI and socialmedia will continue, I think, to
really kind of flood the zonein terms of tech related policy,
and that's a solid.
At the federal level, man, Imean we could talk a lot.
My bread and butter is more atthe state level, and so I don't
(13:39):
know if you want to dive intothe state stuff, but that's
where it's going to be the wild,wild west out in the state
state side well, look, I'm not agambling man, but if I were,
I'm not betting on a federalframework.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
I'm rooting like hell for one, but I'm not betting
for one.
Why am I not betting for one?
I mean, look, we haven't seenone in other areas of our
digital protectives lives, ifyou would right, like there's,
we've got a smattering of stuffacross NIST and you name it a
ton of different frameworks.
I don't need to sit here andlist them all.
So I don't know that we'regoing to see one at the federal
level, and maybe that's a goodthing.
(14:13):
Maybe it is necessary thatdifferent states have different
laws, but some overarchinggoverning one would be useful.
That being said, at the statelevel, how do you see this
playing out?
There are some states wherethere's a lot of incorporation
of different entities.
I'm looking at Delaware rightLike right in your backyard,
right, a lot of tech companiesintentionally incorporate out of
(14:37):
that state.
And then you have states wherethings are really strict, like
California.
Then you have some states wheredata privacy is literally the
wild wild west.
How do you see the interstateplay coming together?
Speaker 3 (14:50):
It's a great question .
This year will be no exception.
We're already seeing over 100bills related to data privacy
and AI having been introducedjust in the past couple weeks,
so it might be helpful just toframe.
I talked a little bit about thefederal level and how they
operate under their two yearcalendar.
States are somewhat differentstates.
(15:12):
Each state.
To make things even moreconfusing, each state has its
own unique calendar when theyconvene in their state capital
and all the legislators come anddebate the different issues in
their state capitol and all thelegislators come and debate the
different issues.
Almost every state has basicallyreconvened and begun their 2025
session either this week orprevious weeks in January and,
(15:34):
depending on the state, theyhave a sprint legislative
session.
So Virginia, for instance,they're only in session through
the end of February, so you canimagine how busy and around the
clock they are trying to get asmany bills passed.
They adjourn at the end ofFebruary and that's it.
They can't pass any more billsuntil 2026.
So they're debating privacybills.
(15:56):
They've got a reallyinteresting cookies related bill
that's been flagged that we'refollowing for some of my clients
.
So that really interesting kindof window of opportunity that
each state has to discuss anddebate the issues.
That's how this works, and so Ithink we're now in this crazy
(16:16):
period in which states are allcoming and debating on these
issues how it's playing out.
Gabe, like I said, we've got 19states to date, 20 if you count
Florida.
Florida is interesting.
They passed the data privacybill, but it only pertains to
the largest tech companies, sothat threshold matter some
(16:38):
professionals don't count thatbill toward the other 19 that
regulate data privacy with theirown bills.
So we'll continue to see thatnumber tick up to where we'll
almost be, you know, half thestates having their own
comprehensive law governing dataprivacy.
Gabe, I think you raise aninteresting point.
(17:01):
Should states what are thedownsides to having states move
on their own bills?
Clearly they're moving at aquicker pace than those here in
DC.
I think you'll hear from thosein industry that there needs to
be consistency, there needs tobe harmonization so that
businesses aren't dealing with apatchwork of different laws.
(17:21):
From the consumer's perspective, you're not crossing a state
line and seeing you know of sucha vast difference in how your
data is being treated.
Right, why should oneconsumer's data be treated any
differently or less so than acitizen that's in another state.
So there's been some interestingdiscussion around.
(17:42):
You know, should Congress passa national law that serves as
the floor so that it'sconsistent, you have a baseline
layer of protection for allconsumers across all 50 states
and then allow states to buildupon that floor with their own
protections?
That's interesting.
(18:03):
You know that all goes intothat topic of preemption.
You know how should thisfederal law interplay with state
laws?
And so that's going to be anissue that we're going to see
play out in DC.
But you know it's going to be.
It's going to be wild on thefront.
Social media, you've got statesmoving at light speed on all
(18:23):
their different proposals andindustry is responding.
They've got, you know, whetherit's through direct lobbying
efforts or different industrygroups.
Industry is at the table and,like it or not, they're having a
very you know, they're behave arole and they're looking to
influence these laws to theirliking.
(18:44):
So I think you know see howthat kind of plays out.
This session in terms of youknow, are we going to continue
to see.
We've seen two different typesof approaches One, the
California, you know veryrestrictive approach in terms of
how companies should be able tocollect and utilize consumer
(19:05):
data, and then you see someother states, like Virginia and
Colorado, that have a much more,I'd say, business-friendly
approach, and so I think, withthe introduction of Maryland
this past year, there's a newparadigm shift, I would say, in
terms of are more states goingto now embrace this Maryland
approach of strict kind of dataminimization standards, or are
(19:27):
they going to continue alongthis more kind of
business-friendly, laissez-faireapproach that's been adopted in
states like Virginia andColorado?
So it'll be interesting to seehow that plays out.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
I'd watch that space and then, yeah, we can talk a
little bit about ai as well, butI'll pause there and see if
there's anything, anything elseum, I want to go back because we
mentioned, like social mediaand stuff and I don't know, is
it strange to you guys I don'tknow if this is like making me
feel like I'm old, but is itstrange that tiktok is being
(19:59):
fought for at a legislativelevel, like I understand that
it's that it could be massiveamounts of money, but it just
seems crazy to me that TikTok ismore important than dealing
with our privacy issues.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
You know I think it's an interesting question, cam.
You know TikTok is unique inthat it's given the ByteDance
component with China.
I think it raises a lot ofnational security concerns, and
so I think you're seeing a lotof folks from you know, within
Congress, within the newadministration, saying you know,
put data privacy issues aside.
(20:39):
This is more of a nationalsecurity cybersecurity risk that
we have now with just thissimple fact of the China
connections.
So that's unique and not alawyer by trade, but I know
enough in this space to haveseen how this plays out.
You're seeing a lot of issuespop up around how can government
(21:26):
regulate content within socialmedia that don't enter into that
first amendment?
Uh, can they regulatealgorithms?
Is that an area of which youknow they're not regulating the
content itself, but they'relooking to regulate the way that
companies are showing thiscontent, and is that a more
legally defensible approach?
So that's just a little bit ofa preview into some of the
issues legal otherwise thatfolks are dealing with.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
It is fascinating though, dave.
I mean, do you think that youcould let's just say, we go back
and we're talking to ourfathers or our grandfathers and
we're like, hey, did you thinkthat this would ever be a thing?
Our president is talking aboutsigning an order where there's
going to do a trillion dollardeal and try to split the
funding, so America gets halfand China gets half, or whatever
(22:13):
the case is.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
I don't think you could ever guess that in a
million years he would have toldmy grandfather back in the 80s
or 90s that you know DonaldTrump would be president, know
campaign finances, you know howpeople are contributing to, how
(22:47):
these people get elected, um,and you want to hope that
there's also a, you know, directreflection of the priorities of
the american people as well.
So I think you're seeingobviously, the tiktok issue
again is interesting.
Let's not forget that.
You know, president trump wasthe one that started this
(23:08):
discussion around a ban andsupported this notion, but I
think he's seen with the recentelection how much this tech
platform helped influence theparts of the electorate that
voted for him.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
So now you see him coming back, and so there's, you
know there's like um things,wasn't it like 36 percent of his
votes were from like the agedemographic that uses tiktok, I
think.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yeah, so you know that's changed his tune in terms
of now he's seeing howimportant of a tool this is for
him to reach his portion of theelectorate.
So that's why you see himtrying to work out a deal here.
That's a good point.
But, going back to some of thestate rules again, like I said,
(23:53):
state stuff is my bread andbutter.
I think it's good and somethingI would tell for your listeners
.
You should 100% one going intothis new second Trump
administration.
I think for a lot of us myselfincluded, I'm having to turn off
notifications on my phone.
You know, I think I'm having torethink how I absorb my news,
as there's going to be a lot ofit that you should 100%, from a
(24:20):
professional standpoint, bewatching what happens in DC and
have a general awareness ofwhat's going on and how that
impacts your industry.
I think we're going to continueto see a stalemate in terms of
large initiatives come out of DC, where I think there's going to
(24:44):
continue to be a lot ofmomentum and progress is at the
state level and, for instance,you take a look at AI.
Last year, colorado was thefirst state in the country to
pass a comprehensive AI billthat puts in safeguards for how
companies can use AI ininteracting with its customers.
(25:04):
So that was monumental in thatit was the first state to
implement such a law, and thereare parallels to be drawn with
what was passed in Colorado, tothe landmark EU AI Act as well.
But I think what you'll see in2025 is a continuation of that.
Whether it's connecticutthere's a representative in
connecticut that's been very outthere on pushing for his own ai
(25:28):
legislation, jay maroney.
He will be back in 2025, uh,pushing for another ai bill.
New york is uh looking to moveas we speak.
Before I jumped on this call, Ijust saw an article.
New York State is moving on abill this week actually, it'll
likely pass the assembly in theSenate that will restrict how
(25:51):
companies utilize health caredata.
I think, in light of PresidentTrump coming to office, you'll
see many progressive blue statestry to put in safeguards
protecting reproductive rightrelated data, and so I think New
York's going to be moving on ona similar bill.
(26:11):
So I think you know, whetherit's data privacy, ai, social
media, it's going to be a wild.
You know Q1 and Q2 on justkeeping up with the pace of
which all these states aremoving.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
Do you think I was just thinking about this?
I don't know if I've ever askedyou this, but I know.
So we talked about howCalifornia is pretty like
they're pretty strict comparedto other states.
Is there one state out therethat seems to have done it in
your mind or your perspective,has done it the best so far,
that other states are probablygoing to follow?
Is that going to be somethinglike Colorado?
Speaker 3 (26:45):
Colorado.
It's interesting their attorneygeneral just recently updated
their law.
I wouldn't say there's oneparticular state that stands out
.
Like I said, maryland isinteresting in that I think it
is now being seen as the newGDPR light approach, with that
strict kind of data minimizationrequirement.
(27:06):
Companies should only be ableto collect information that's
necessary for it to be able tooperate.
So that's an interesting one.
I think you'll see other bluestates, I think, look to emulate
that Maryland bill.
You know, gabe, kind of goingback to your question of why
states, you know I definitelythink there's a role for states
(27:28):
to legislate in this space.
Quite simply, they move at aquicker pace than what Congress
does in DC.
I go back to kind of thatconcept of I think you know
(27:48):
there absolutely should be a lawacross all 50 states that
governs how companies canutilize consumer data.
Right now, the reality is, likeI said, only 19 states have
laws in place, so there arepeople that live in the US that
don't have any laws in the bookson how companies can use their
data.
That said, you know, I thinkthere should be a baseline
approach.
I think states should beallowed to enact maybe more
stringent requirements, buildingon kind of that floor that
(28:12):
could be enacted from Congress.
So whether we see that play outanytime soon, who knows?
But that's kind of in my mind,I think the appropriate role
between the state and thefederal authorities here.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
It's a great point.
The velocity at which a billcan move through at the state
level certainly offers a ton ofadvantages.
Let me build on Cam's question,though, and not necessarily to
name and shame so much as toeducate.
But where are there states thatare lagging in their effort?
Speaker 3 (28:43):
Yeah, great question.
I wouldn't say not to shame anyof our state legislators out
there.
You know there is a case thispast year where Vermont nearly
got a bill.
It actually passed out of bothchambers, it got before the
governor's desk and the governoractually vetoed the bill and
the reason why was that itincluded a somewhat
(29:07):
controversial enforcementmechanism called a private right
of action, which allowsconsumers to bring litigation
directly with the company.
Currently, the only state thatallows for such an enforcement
mechanism is California.
Industry, for many obviousreasons, does not care for
(29:30):
private right of action.
They wish that the attorneygeneral would be the sole kind
of enforcement authority.
Gabe, I mentioned Vermontbecause I think you had a very
progressive legislature lookingto move, I think, on a bill that
would have been very similar towhat Maryland was able to pass
with their strict kind of dataand minimization requirements.
But because it included thatprivate right of action
(29:50):
enforcement piece, the governorrefused to sign the bill.
So I think we'll see Vermonttake another swing at it in 2025
.
I think it's also interestingbig states such as New York,
illinois, massachusetts, heavilypopulated states.
They don't have anycomprehensive.
(30:11):
They have not passed any kindof comprehensive data privacy
bills to date.
They've certainly debated themover the years but have not been
able to pass anything.
So it'll be interesting withthis reproductive rights data
privacy bill that's expected topass in New York, does that mean
that there will be a broaderkind of comprehensive bill
that's enacted this year in NewYork state?
(30:32):
We'll see, but maybe that'swhat I would say.
Gabe is, some of those big bluestates Illinois, new York,
massachusetts are not on thelist.
We'll see if maybe they're ableto pass something in 2025 to
get them up there.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
That provision sounds familiar and I'm trying to
remember.
Is it because the EU has such asimilar provision or the CCPA?
But are there other states thathave that private right to
action provision?
Speaker 3 (30:58):
Yeah, so just California.
It's certainly debated, but todate only California has that
with their current privacyregulatory work.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
It was a thing, and I think maybe the EU does have
something similar.
I can understand why industrydoes not want such a thing.
That certainly makes sense.
Yeah, there's an argument to bemade both ways for that, I see,
and just given to the stateattorney general for them to
have sole authority.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
So you'll continue to see that be highly prioritized
from industry in terms of nothaving that be a part of these
different state bills that arepassed.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
So I'm going to shift gears a little bit.
I'm curious if you've heardthis or seen this.
Dave, are you an Apple user?
Speaker 3 (32:00):
I am.
I'm talking to you from myMacBook.
I got my iPhone sitting acrossfrom me as well.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
So what are your thoughts on the new iOS update?
If you've even noticed thisSiri I think it's Siri, gabe.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I might be getting this wrongbut basically all of your
applications were automated inthe new ios update and turned on
for siri and ai to do likeresearch on how you use the app,
(32:30):
and you have to individually goin and turn that off if you
don't want that.
That seems like a pretty.
I don't know.
It seems like a pretty big dealin terms of like a pretty.
I don't know.
It seems like a pretty big dealin terms of just opting you
into something that seems veryprivacy oriented.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah, I was not aware of that.
Yeah, but I think you know, cam, you hit the nail on the head.
I think opt-in, opt-out, knowconsent will be a whole new
ballgame in terms of you know,we've talked about it very much
in the sense of data privacy,but now I think, with AI, it
opens up a whole nother can ofworms and a whole nother set of
(33:12):
policy questions as to you know,how should companies be able to
utilize your activity and yourdata to inform its LLMs?
Utilize your activity and yourdata to inform its LLMs.
Speaker 1 (33:21):
Do you see that that's like, could something
like that from a big companylike Apple?
Do you think that that couldturn into something to where it
becomes a, you know, a legalmatter in terms of a privacy law
?
Speaker 3 (33:35):
I think to answer that I would say watch what
California does.
I think you know I would saywatch what California does.
I think California continues tobe the frontrunner on all
things related to tech policy,and it's to no surprise given
that it's headquartered to manyof the world's largest tech
(33:55):
companies, apple included.
So you know, you have manylawmakers that are in Sacramento
(34:19):
that are year after legislativestaff in Sacramento sharing
that article talking about thisdoesn't feel right.
We should maybe look tointroduce a bill to address how
companies are doing this kind ofpractice.
So I would say watch that space.
My guess is that you'llprobably see some bills that pop
up around that issue inSacramento that are as a result
(34:42):
of seeing that maybe update onthe iOS.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
Yeah, to that point, because you were mentioning
before that most states willmeet early on in the year.
So I'm guessing that if they'vealready met, that's been talked
about and they're alreadyprobably on the ball about it,
most likely.
Speaker 3 (34:56):
Yeah, california.
They are one of the few statesthey have a prolonged session,
so they gaveled back in earlyJanuary.
They're in session throughSeptember, so they've got.
You know, like I said, thecontrast to that I would say
would be Virginia, right, wherethey're back early January.
They only have two months, sothey've got a very short session
(35:17):
.
California is the opposite.
They've got a period of timenow where lawmakers are simply
there's a bill introductiondeadline in about late February,
I believe.
So you'll start to see some ofthe more tech-focused
policymakers introduce theirbills that they want to push for
this year.
That's the kind of period thatwe're in.
So I'll be curious, cam, to seeif any bills that are
(35:40):
introduced over the coming weeksin Sacramento if they touch on
this latest iOS update and theconcerns they might have from a
policy perspective.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
If you're not intimately familiar, since you
are heavy in the iOS ecosystem,you probably heard it advertised
as, quote Apple Intelligencethat's the name of the slick
marketing name that they gave it, and they are very much local
models, right?
So they're touting that,they're pushing these locally on
your phone, which all thatreally means to me is that the
(36:11):
model itself runs locally.
It tells me nothing about whathappens to the data that goes in
the model or out of the model,especially the out part of the
model I'm very interested in,and maybe that data never leaves
the local device.
From my perspective A I don'tknow that, but B anytime back to
the minimization problemanytime you create more data,
(36:32):
it's just there right Now.
It can be used in any number ofways, maliciously or otherwise,
and so what Apple did was theydid turn on every single
application.
If you go into settings andthen you go down to an
application and then you chooseSiri and AI, you will see where
it opted you in for everyapplication to be monitored its
behavior so that it can makerecommendations that you should
(36:54):
be able to do outside of thatapplication.
That's my second problem If ithas enough information on what
I'm doing in the app to makerecommendations about unrelated
apps outside of it.
You know all the efforts thatApple went through to
demonstrate to us thateverything was containerized and
isolated such that applicationscan't otherwise affect each
other.
Something is not right.
Something is not right.
I do not know what is not right, but at a bare minimum, I don't
(37:17):
like being opted into things.
I don't like surprise parties.
I don't want them.
Tell me ahead of time whetheror not you plan on throwing me
one.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
I mean, it's interesting to hear you say that
.
I think to that end, there wasa bill that was introduced in
sacramento last session thatjust simply touched on.
I believe it was even calledthe ai transparency act and it
put in some requirements ofsimply how companies should be
required to notify consumers asto how they're scraping or using
(37:48):
their data to inform their AImodels.
Right and so it's as simple asthat, and you know that did not
pass, I believe, this pastsession, but it's going to, I'm
sure, be brought up, going to,I'm sure, be brought up, and
transparency is going to be abig piece.
And just how is the publicbeing notified of how companies
are using its data to inform itsAI models?
Speaker 1 (38:10):
To that point wasn't there?
Maybe this was just talks, butmaybe it wasn't passed and I'm
not informed enough.
But wasn't there somethingwhere they were talking about
God?
It just passed my brain, oh mygosh.
No, don't do this to me.
We were just talking about God.
It just passed my brain, oh mygosh.
No, don't do this to me.
We were just talking about thiswith the app transparency.
Oh my God, come back to me,because I'm going to have to cut
this out.
I forgot, I just had it.
(38:31):
It'll come back.
The federal bill I got too manythoughts in my mind right now.
I confused myself.
It'll come back to me, though.
Speaker 3 (38:38):
Let me think All good .
Speaker 1 (38:41):
What were we just talking about?
Maybe it'll come back Talkingabout.
Speaker 3 (38:43):
AI transparency, ios update, apple intelligence my
gosh Ew.
Speaker 1 (38:50):
What is my brain doing to me?
It'll probably pop in,hopefully before we end the show
.
Okay, while I'm thinking aboutthat, it'll come back.
Dave, is there anything thatyou want to touch on that we
haven't talked about for thelisteners?
Maybe anything that might beworth speaking about?
No, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (39:06):
This has been a really great discussion.
Again, I think I'll say beaware of what's going on in DC
and how it impacts your businessand your profession, whether
that's data privacy, whetherthat's ai, online platforms,
right, social media but I thinkyou wouldn't be doing your job
(39:29):
if you weren't even more closelyfollowing what's going on at
the state level, because that'swhere I think the rubber is
really going to hit the road andyou're going to see a lot of
states move on their own, theirown proposals, um.
So, yeah, that's kind of what Iwould suggest.
We're in the interesting justthe start of the 2025 sprint, um
(39:52):
, so check in, see how I'm doing.
Uh, june and july.
I haven't pulled out all myhair.
Uh, you know, mid-year is whena lot of the states adjourn for
for the year and then they startplanning for 2026.
So, yeah, it's kind of a crazy,crazy but fun time of the year
where everyone's just startingoff their sprint.
(40:12):
So I'm glad I was able to comeon and talk to her a little bit
about how all this stuff works.
Speaker 2 (40:19):
Yeah we really appreciate your time.
Yeah, absolute pleasure havingyou, Dave.
We're going to have to have youback.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, maybe a mid-year check-in to see as the
dust settles.
How many more states do we addto that 19 for data privacy?
How many more states inaddition to Colorado are going
to move on AI?
Is TikTok still around?
There are a lot of questionsthat will hopefully be answered
(40:45):
by mid-year or so.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
When you return.
There was one topic I didn't geta chance to touch on, but by
then I think we'll be able tohave a better, in-depth
conversation about it thedecentralization of these
platforms, because I thinkthat's really part of the
underlining problem as itpertains to things like TikTok.
Right Like TikTok wouldn't be aproblem if it weren't for the
fact that all of the data andits ownership were centralized
(41:09):
by a government that weotherwise rightfully so, by the
way do not want to control.
What is a media platform?
Right Like we can talk about itjust being a brain rot platform
, but the truth is it's verymuch a media platform, like no
two ways about it, and wealready have laws in the books
that state that, you know,foreign entities can't control
over certain percentages of ourmedia platforms in any capacity,
(41:30):
whether that's your local NBCor a newspaper.
Right Like the Chinesegovernment is not allowed to own
the New York Times, for example, and so really, what's
happening is it's being seen assuch.
But I think the technology partof this conversation is about
the centralization of that dataand, as these tech giants, who
are also all controls ofcentralized platforms, how
quotes?
It doesn't have enough masssweller users, that we actually
(42:07):
see people you know exodus-ingTwitter in mass and heading
there, but that is on thehorizon, I think, from a pure
technology standpoint.
But I'm excited to talk aboutthat and any updates that we see
across the state, the statelegislatives.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Yeah, I mean Gabe as it relates to antitrust and
competition issues.
I mean we're in a wholedifferent ballgame now with
Trump and a new Republicanadministration around ownership
and control and influence onsome of the world's largest tech
platforms.
You're dealing with a muchdifferent audience today on
(42:47):
those issues than you were justlast week with President Biden.
Folks like Lena Kahn, who wereat the Federal Trade Commission,
were in a whole differentballgame now with the new
Republican regime in town.
So I think it'll be reallyinteresting to see how that
plays out.
You know, just given the simplefact, like I said, all of these
(43:07):
CEOs were seated literallyright behind the president
during his inaugurationyesterday.
So what that means in terms ofhow these companies can continue
to operate without governmentinterference, I think will be
really interesting to watch.
Speaker 1 (43:23):
Yeah on the air floor .
All right, before we let you go, two fun questions.
Here we go.
Is there?
They're real good stuff.
If you could eat one dish orone food for the rest of your
life, what would it be?
Speaker 2 (43:39):
And why would it be churros?
No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
Oh man, one dish would it be.
And why would it be churros?
No, I'm kidding, I'm kidding.
Oh man, one dish.
I would say anything, anythingitalian man I went to italy all
right, what a couple years back,and I felt like I just ate like
a king for a week.
I just whether it's pizza,pasta, any of that stuff, man, I
, I, uh, I can't get enough ofit and I'm trying to do more
cooking of it myself.
(44:05):
So if you've got any goodrecipes, send them over.
Speaker 2 (44:09):
I have a good recipe hat.
Anytime an Italian recipe orany recipe calls for garlic,
just triple it.
That's the end.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
Oh.
Just triple it All right, therewe go.
That's the end.
Speaker 2 (44:19):
You can't go wrong with too much garlic.
You cannot go wrong with toomuch garlic and butter.
Speaker 3 (44:25):
Butter makes it better Okay.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
I think mine would be probably tacos.
It's hard like Mexicansomething tacos.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Pizza.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Pizza and pasta, man, especially if it's like
Homemade, it's such a bigdifference.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
See, as Dave Ann said it, I thought In my head.
Here comes the monkey pod.
He's like only Italian and it'slike leftover Olive Gardens for
life.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Don't get me wrong man Tour of Italy Tour of Italy.
I did a number on a number ofthat.
I don't have any of them closeto me in the city now.
I got to travel out to theBurbs to get me some Olive
Garden.
Speaker 2 (45:06):
But I still love me some tour, is that really
italian, though.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
That's my boy, that's the monkey parvata this is like
, and it's only leftover olivedarts.
It's not even like fresh.
It's like, let me see, uh, Ihad one more, I won't.
I won't do the superpower oneto you.
I feel like we've done thatbefore in the past and previous
things cute you don't have ashort list of these just up at
the ready I do, but I'm having atrouble picking one.
Right now I'm trying to find onethat's kind of interesting.
Oh, you know what?
Let's just go with this.
What's one show or somethingthat you've been watching lately
(45:29):
that you just can't get enoughof?
Speaker 3 (45:32):
I gotta say, guys, it feels like it's been I think it
has been two or three years.
Squid games, season one, uhfeels like an eternity ago.
So I was a little it's not asexcited when I heard season two
was coming out.
But man, I'm like four episodesin now and I I don't know what
it is about that crazy show, butuh, it's just, it's just really
(45:54):
entertaining, which I don'tknow like horribly violent and
uh, you know it's it's, but itmakes for some good television.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
So I like it.
That's a good point.
To that point, I think like,like Stranger Things is taking
forever to get these last twoseasons and I'm like losing
interest, it's not coming outthey're getting too old.
The kids are just way too oldnow.
Is it still the same cast fromthe first season?
Mostly, yeah they gotta be allgrown up now anyways thank you
(46:24):
both, thank you dave, thank youguys, thank you let's, let's
touch base.
Speaker 3 (46:29):
Later this year we can kind of do a look back and
see how much of all what we justtalked about actually uh,
actually came true so soundsgood.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com