Digital License Plates Are Available in Some States, But People Have Concerns

By Cleo Scott

 

An increasing number of car owners across the country are now able to toss their old metal license plates and upgrade to a digital one. But this new car enhancement is already raising privacy concerns.[1]

Digital license plates are currently only made by one company, Reviver.[2] They are described as vehicle-mounted identification devices that produce a radio signal for tracking and digital monitoring.[3] Owners can also customize their digital plates by changing the color and border displays.[4] The digital plates connect to an app which allows owners to use vehicle location services, security features, stolen vehicle reports, and registration renewals without needing stickers or visiting a DMV location.[5] Additionally, the plates can display emergency messages, such as when there is an AMBER Alert.[6]

Many think that digital plates will make our lives much easier. “It’s really going to be much more beneficial for them and make our processing much more efficient,” California DMV Policy Division deputy director Bernard Soriano told ABC30 Fresno. “It’s a big change, we’re no longer your father’s DMV, and I think it’s something we can all embrace and be part of.”[7] Cars with digital plates are legal to drive anywhere in the United States.[8] However, the plates are only available for purchase and DMV registration in Michigan, Arizona, California, and Texas for commercial vehicles.[9] California is the latest state to allow digital plates for everyone in the state.[10] Governor Gavin Newson signed a law in late September 2022 extending the digital option to all drivers.[11]

Notably, the built-in location tracker in the plates will allow the police to locate the car if it’s stolen.[12]  However, people are feeling uneasy about the plates’ tracking capabilities.[13] Back in 2018, San Francisco’s nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that promotes civil liberties in the digital world, stated that the devices will turn individual cars into a “honeypot of data” because it will “record the drivers’ trips to the grocery store, to protests, or to an abortion clinic.”[14] “Your locational history has the potential to reveal a lot more than . . . where you happen to be at a particular moment in time,” said Stephanie Lacambra, a criminal defense attorney for the foundation. “It can reveal your associations, who you speak with, where you go to work, where you live.”[15]

However, California Assembly member Lori Wilson says the tracking features on the plates can be disabled on privately owned cars and that the California bill allows for regular review of safety measures.[16] “Anytime that our [California Highway Patrol] or we feel like safety is a concern in terms of license plates being altered in any kind of way, they can pull that back and make sure that is taken care of before it’s continued use,” Wilson said.[17] Reviver claims they have taken measures to deter hacking and your plates from being stolen.[18] “Both our RPlate Battery and RPlate Wired have tamper-proof mounting, robust built-in anti-theft features, and communicate using secure cloud communication,” the company said on their website.[19] Reviver also states that it doesn’t share data with the DMV or law enforcement.[20] People are still worried about the trouble the digital plates may bring, especially employment attorneys.[21]

Steven Gallagher from Fox Rothschild LLP, said the digital plates are a “privacy nightmare” for employers.[22] He states that employers may only monitor employees using digital license plates if it is “strictly necessary” for the performance of the employee’s duties.[23] If an employer chooses to monitor employees’ whereabouts using digital plates, it must first provide the employee with a comprehensive notice, according to Gallagher.[24] A few of the requirements that must be in the notice include a description of the specific activities that will be monitored and a description of the dates, times, and frequency that the monitoring will occur.[25] Gallagher states that using digital plates to track employees also implicates several other privacy laws, including “obligations on employers for handling, storing, and conveying data retrieved from the plates.”[26] Gallagher thinks the digital plates aren’t worth the trouble they may bring employers.[27] “[The] privacy concerns (including data requirements), the potential civil penalties at stake, and risk that the Labor Commissioner will find tracking was not ‘strictly necessary’ probably outweigh the benefits for most employers,” he wrote.[28 Despite concerns, the list of states that allow their residents to purchase digital license plates may be growing.[29] Reviver says that at least another 10 states are in some way considering the adoption of digital license plates.[30]

 

 

 

 

[1] Joe Hernandez, California drivers can now sport digital license plates on their cars, NPR (Oct. 15, 2022, 11:53 AM), https://www.npr.org/2022/10/15/1129305660/digital-license-plates-california

[2] Renee Martin, Digital License Plates Now Legal for Everyone in California, WAY.COM (last visited Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.way.com/blog/digital-license-plates-california/#What_are_digital_license_plates

[3] Id.

[4] Vivian Chow, New California law legalizes digital license plates, KTLA (Oct. 12, 2022, 11:25 PM), https://ktla.com/news/california-wire/new-california-law-legalizes-digital-license-plates/

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Dustin Dorsey, California approves digital license plates for all vehicles; here’s how it works, ABC 30 (Oct. 11, 2022), https://abc30.com/digital-license-plates-california-what-are-plate-how-do-work/12316715/

[8] Reviver, https://reviver.com/geographic-expansion/#:~:text=United%20States,Arizona%2C%20California%2C%20and%20Michigan (last visited Nov. 11, 2022).

[9] Id; Hernandez, supra note 1.

[10] Hernandez, supra note 1.

[11] Id; see Assem. Bill 984, Ch. 746, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2022).

[12] Id.

[13] James Doubek, Digital License Plates Roll Out In California, NPR (June 1, 2018, 8:14 AM), https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/06/01/616043976/digital-license-plates-roll-out-in-california

[14] Rachel Swan, California’s digital license plates: road to convenience or invasion of privacy?, BOSTON.COM (May 31, 2018), https://www.boston.com/cars/car-news/2018/05/31/california-digital-license-plates/

[15] Id.

[16] Dorsey, supra note 7.

[17] Id.

[18] RPlate Security – can it be stolen or hacked?, Reviver (last visited Nov. 11, 2022), https://support.reviver.com/knowledge/rplate-security.

[19] Id.

[20] Hernandez, supra note 1.

[21] See Steven Gallagher, Digital License Plates – A Privacy Nightmare for Employers, Fox Rothschild LLP (Oct. 14, 2022), https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2022/10/articles/advice-counseling/digital-license-plates-a-privacy-nightmare-for-employers/

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id.

[26] Gallagher, supra note 21.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] See Sebastian Blanco, California Extends Digital License Plate Option to Everyone, Car And Driver (Oct. 8, 2022), https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a41564407/california-digital-license-plate-extended/.

[30] Id.

 

Image Source: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34748524/digital-license-plates-coming-2021/

By Jessica Birdsong

 

 

In the last five years, the total number of babies born via assisted reproductive technology (“ART”) skyrocketed from five million to eight million, with an increase of one million in the last year alone.[1]1 Today one in sixty Americans is born thanks to IVF and other artificial treatments.[2] Sperm and egg donation have become an available alternative resource for many adults seeking to have children. As the use of assisted reproduction technologies increases, more questions implicate the law and ethics in relation to these advanced technologies.

Unofficial policy dictates how sperm banks operate.[3] Although these policies are not officially regulated by law, the regulatory agencies can remove their accreditation and/or license if these standards are not met.[4] However, this doesn’t seem to stop the number of ethical and legal issues still arising from improper management of sperm bank facilities. Regulatory agencies assess the quality of the work and enforce informed consent. Still, there are many aspects of the process where the lack of regulation leads ART users into litigation.

Currently, no federal or state law limits the number of donations per individual donor. The importance of limiting the number of donor offspring from a single sperm donor relates to preventing accidental consanguinity between donor offspring.[5] Sperm banks do not have to keep track of the births or coordinate with one another.[6] It’s not uncommon for donor-conceived children to find half-sibling groups that regularly number in the dozens and occasionally exceed 100.[7] These siblings don’t always only share inherited eye color and height, but they are also finding they share genetic variants or mutations linked to cancer and other diseases that come to light only years later.[8]

The federal government only requires donated sperm and eggs to be tested for communicable diseases, not genetic diseases.[9] There are also no federal requirements that sperm banks obtain and verify information about a donor’s medical history, educational background, or criminal record. A big driver in lobbying for change comes from the number of lawsuits in which donors misrepresented themselves, and sperm banks failed to properly vet them, or banks failed to follow up or adequately disclose critical information to recipients.[10] A recent case ruled on by the Georgia Supreme Court addresses a donor-conceived child that has been diagnosed with an inheritable blood disorder, for which the mother is not a carrier.[11] He also has suicidal and homicidal ideations, requiring multiple periods of hospitalizations, therapists, and prescribed anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications.[12] After almost 20 years after the child was born through ART, the family learned that their sperm donor had actually been diagnosed with psychotic schizophrenia, narcissistic personality disorder, and significant grandiose delusions.[13] They also discovered that the sperm donor was not a Ph. D candidate with an IQ of 160, he actually had no degrees at all at the time of donation.[14] The family was also told he had no criminal history; however, he had an extensive arrest record.[15] The sperm bank told the parents at the time of purchase that the sperm they were buying was one of the best donors they had, but the facility hadn’t properly vetted this donor at all.[16]

The policies surrounding the anonymity of the donors arguably have caused the most tension in ART regulation. A movement for change comes partly from the donor-conceived children who have grown up and now understand the value of knowing their biological parent.[17] Advocates have pointed out that the anonymity has endangered both the physical and psychological well-being of offspring.[18] Some legislation has started to turn toward this idea on the state level. States such as California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Washington State allow such disclosure for donor-conceived offspring.[19] It is important to note that this is only a small step towards solving the issue because these state laws permit the sperm donor to opt out of the disclosure. Similarly, Colorado has signed a bill making them the first state to prohibit anonymous sperm and egg donations.[20] The bill, beginning in 2025, will require that donors agree to have their identity released to children conceived from their donations when they turn 18.[21] The bill also requires egg and sperm banks to keep updated contact information and medical history of all donors, as well as requiring a clear limit for each donor to contribute to no more than 25 families.[22]

The solution may not be so easy. Research shows that 29% of men would refuse to donate sperm if they couldn’t remain anonymous, leaving less supply and the potential to drive up costs.[23] Overall, these issues will likely become more critical as technology and its use continues to outpace its regulation.

 

 

 

 

[1] Barbara P. Billauer, The Sperminator as a Public Nuisance: Redressing Wrongful Birth and Life Claims in New Ways (A.K.A. New Tricks for Old Torts), 42 Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 1, 9–10 (2019).

[2] Id. at 10.

[3] Stanford, https://web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/spermpol.htm (last visited Nov. 11, 2022).

[4] Id.

[5] Dan Gong at al., An overview on Ethical Issues About Sperm Donation, 11(6) Asian J. of Andrology 645, 646 (2009).

[6] Sarah Zhang, The Children of Sperm Donors Want to Change the Rule of Conception, The Atlantic (Oct. 15, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/do-we-have-right-know-our-biological-parents/620405/.

[7] Bryn Nelson & Austin Wiles, A Shifting Ethical and Legal Landscape for Sperm Donation, 130 Cancer Cryptopathology 572, 572 (2022).

[8] See Id.

[9] 21 C.F.R § 1271.75 (2006)

[10] Nelson & Wiles, supra note 7, at 573

[11] Norman v. Xytech, 310 G. 127, 128 (2020).

[12] Id. at 129.

[13] Id.

[14] Id. at 128.

[15] Id.

[16] See Norman, 310 Ga. at 128.

[17] Zhang, supra note 6.

[18] Nelson & Wiles, supra note 7, at 573.

[19] Id.

[20] 2022 Colo. Legis. Serv. 1 (S.B. 22-224) (West).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Nelson & Wiles, supra note 7, at 573.

Image Source: https://www.women-info.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/infertility-17-1.jpg

 

The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence in Employment Decisions

By Gwyn Powers

Artificial intelligence (“A.I.”) is becoming more and more pervasive in our society, especially in the last decade and during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] Companies are using A.I. and analytic data to understand their customers and optimize their supply chains.[2] For example, Frito-Lay created an e-commerce website, Snacks.com, during the pandemic and used their data “to predict store openings [and] shifts in demand due to return to work[.]”[3] Companies are not limiting their use of A.I. to determine productivity and predict the next chip flavor; human resources departments have used A.I. to help with resume screenings since the mid-2010s.[4] One of the major concerns with using A.I. in the hiring process is the potential for discrimination because of implicit bias.[5]

Read More

By Manasi Singh

 

 

The transition to web-based legal tools has been on the rise over the last several decades, but the one tool that law firms seem to be most hesitant about is the use of cloud technology.[1] Some lawyers are rightly concerned about the security implications of storing confidential information in the cloud, considering the risk of exposing their clients’ information to the world wide web. Instead, they cling to their on-site servers and server-based applications to store confidential information, but this fear assumes that on-site servers are more secure than the cloud, which is misguided.[2]

The reality is that no computer is 100% secure, except maybe one that’s disconnected, turned off, unplugged, and buried underground. So then, why should law firms prefer cloud-based servers instead of on-site servers? The answer is simple—cloud technology is held to a higher operational and infrastructure security standard than any on-site server.[3] On-site servers require a team to be on-site, manually updating the systems and security protocols.[4] This can be a problem if your on-site team has a high turn-over or can’t physically access your servers frequently enough, both of which can cause the systems to fall behind in required updates, which actually makes them even more vulnerable to security risks.[5] Cloud-based servers allow you to automate these processes, which improves your ability to meet core security and compliance requirements while also giving users the freedom to manage and control their data, as well as decide who gets to have access to the data.[6]

I think the move to cloud technology is inevitable for law firms, but the process of getting there has been slow. Cloud servers have been around for at least a decade now, but few law firms have taken any steps to make the transition. The lawyers that have taken steps to transition tend to stick to popular cloud services such as Dropbox, Microsoft Teams, iCloud, and Box rather than legal-specific cloud services such as Clio and NetDocuments.[7] Whether this is due to familiarity or popular usage, the answer isn’t as clear.

In order to promote the usage of cloud-based servers in law firms, it’s important to understand why lawyers are skeptical. The American Bar Association conducted a survey in which they discovered that the primary concern is confidentiality/security, which is closely followed by a lack of control over data.[8] The facts are that neither of these concerns hold up under any amount of scrutiny, and mitigating these concerns will be key to promoting the cloud in law firms.

 

 

 

 

[1] CDW, Cloud Computing and Law Firms (2013) [hereinafter CDW White Paper], https://webobjects.cdw.com/webobjects/media/pdf/Solutions/Legal/122223-White-Paper-Cloud-Computing-and-Law-Firms.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Tommy Montgomery, Why your data is safer in the cloud than on premises, TechBeacon (last visited Nov. 5, 2022), https://techbeacon.com/security/why-your-data-safer-cloud-premises.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Dennis Kennedy, 2021 Cloud Computing, American Bar Association (Nov. 10, 2021), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/publications/techreport/2021/cloudcomputing/.

[8] Id.

 

Image Source: https://www.webhosting.uk.com/blog/6-reasons-legal-firms-need-cloud-storage

By Brianna Hughes

 

 

 

The internet and social media platforms have become a modern staple in many people’s everyday lives.[1] Most people with internet access can share information, ideas, and other content easier than ever before and interact with those who are like-minded.[2] While this dissemination of information can be positive, social media platforms may face the problem of users sharing content that can be considered objectionable or illegal.[3] Platforms attempt to combat this phenomenon by imposing guidelines prohibiting sharing certain types of content.[4] This can include limitations on users posting hate speech, harassment, and revenge pornography.[5] Congress has highlighted the importance of shielding online providers from the potential liability of what their users could post by enacting the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”).[6] The CDA, 47 U.S.C § 230(c)(1), states that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”[7] While this provides media platforms with significant immunity from being held liable for most of their users’ posts, if the moderators violate a criminal statute, they may be subject to liability.[8]

The parents of victims of child pornography attempted to impose civil liability on one of the most widely used social discussion online platforms, Reddit, but were unable to do so.[9] Reddit is a social media platform that allows its users to post content publicly as well as participate in forums devoted to specific topics called subreddits.[10] Reddit holds the power to remove moderators and content if it does not conform to Reddit’s policies.[11] The parents of the victims found sexually explicit photos of their children on the website. The parents reported the images and images took the photos down. However, the parents then found themselves in a cycle where the images would get reposted.[12] The plaintiffs argued that Reddit earned substantial revenue from these explicit subreddits and did little to place protections for those who were being exploited.[13]

The parents sued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595, which states that “an individual who is a victim… may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act…) in an appropriate district court.”[14] Reddit claimed they were shielded from liability based on section 230 of the CDA.[15] This section has been amended to include the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act to allow victims of trafficking to bring civil lawsuits against platforms that helped traffickers.[16] The district court dismissed the parents’ claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.[17]

While the CDA shields Reddit from potential liability based on their user’s posts, it does not provide immunity if the information violates 18 U.S.C. § 1595.[18] However, the defendant must have actual knowledge of the trafficking and must “assist, support, or facilitate” the trafficking venture.[19] This knowledge standard creates a higher bar for imposing liability on social media platforms.[20] In this “actual knowledge” analysis, the court will look at the defendant’s website’s “participation in the venture” and that they knowingly benefited from participating in child sex trafficking.[21] “Mere association with sex traffickers is insufficient absent some knowing ‘participation’ in the form of assistance.”[22] The Plaintiffs, in this case, failed to show that Reddit knowingly participated or benefited from a sex trafficking venture but rather “turned a blind eye,” which is not enough for the court to impose liability on the media platform.[23] Therefore, the court held that Reddit had not knowingly benefited from knowingly facilitating sex trafficking.[24]

The high bar set by the “knowing” standard proves difficult for victims of child pornography and revenge pornography to receive the remedy they demand.[25] Future litigators in cases like these may have to frame their cases around elements common to civil torts, such as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, or breach of privacy. [26] For claims that do not involve intentional torts to be successful, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the platform “materially contributed to the illicit nature of the content by showing that they did more than passively transmit information from third parties.”[27] The CDA presents obstacles for parties seeking redress, but it is not impossible to overcome.[28]

 

 

 

[1] Matthew P. Hooker, Censorship, Free Speech & Facebook: Applying the First Amendment to Social Media Platforms Via the Public Function Exception, 15 Wash. J.L. Tech & Arts 36, 39 (2019).

[2] See id. at 39-40.

[3] Id. at 42.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 55.

[7] 47 U.S.C § 230(c)(1).

[8] Reddit Child Porn Suit Escape Under Section 230 Affirmed (1), Bloomberg law (Oct. 24, 2022, 3:35 PM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/reddits-section-230-escape-from-sex-trafficking-claims-affirmed.

[9] See Does v. Reddit, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 29510, 3 (9^th Cir. 2022).

[10] Id. at 4.

[11] Id.

[12] Id. at 4-5.

[13] Id. at 5-6.

[14] 18 U.S.C. §1595.

[15] Reddit, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. Lexis at 6.

[16] Bloomberg Law, supra note 8.

[17] Id.

[18] Reddit, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. Lexis at 7.

[19] Id. at 9.

[20] Bloomberg Law, supra note 8.

[21] Reddit, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. Lexis at 12.

[22] Id. at 20

[23] Id.

[24] Id. at 21

[25] Jessy R. Nations, Revenge Porn and Narrowing the CDA: Litigating a Web-Based Tort in Washington, 12 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts. 189, 200 (2017).

[26]See Id. at 192-195.

[27] Id. at 200.

[28] Id. at 209.

Image source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/the-truth-about-the-effort-to-end-sex-trafficking-118600/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Sophie Deignan

 

 

The quick growth of social media in our society has opened the door to various different platforms for people to broadcast their personal lives on for the general public. The benefits or drawbacks of communicating on social media for many takes on an individualistic approach. There is no one size fits all. In contrast, within the legal community, lawyers’ use of social media in their work has become a point of contention, raising various ethical concerns.[1]

Recently in the Matter of Robertelli,[2] the New Jersey Supreme Court held that disciplinary charges brought against John Robertelli failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that Robertelli had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct (“RPC”) when his paralegal “friended” the opposing counsel’s client on Facebook.[3] The cause of action against Robertelli began in 2007 when he was working on a personal injury lawsuit, defending the Borough of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department.[4] As part of his investigation into the alleged injury brought by the plaintiff, Dennis Hernandez, Robertelli asked his paralegal, Valentina Cordoba, to research Hernandez online for routine, background information.[5] While researching Hernandez, Cordoba became friends with him on his private Facebook page and messaged him that he looked like one of her favorite hockey players.[6] There was no further communication between the two, but Cordoba did download a video of Hernandez wrestling with friends after his alleged injury.[7] She presented the video to Robertelli who in turn, deposed Hernandez and shared the video with Hernandez’s attorney.[8] Opposing counsel then accused Robertelli of violating RPC 4.2 by communicating with his client via Facebook without his consent.[9]

In response, Robertelli argued that the video downloaded from Hernandez’s Facebook page was public but that admittedly, he did not know what it meant to be “friends” on Facebook or the distinction between private and public pages.[10] Over the next decade, the ethical charges brought against Robertelli were reviewed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (“OAE”), and a Special Master was appointed by the Court to investigate the charges.[11] In 2021, the court was unconvinced that the OAE had established clear and convincing evidence that Robertelli had violated RPC 4.2.[12] The crux of the issue was that in 2008, Facebook, and most forms of social media, were still in their infancy, and overall familiarity with such platforms was not as mainstream as it is now perceived.[13] The court’s holding in Robertelli’s case carves a very narrow loophole in that while it acknowledges that ignorance is not a defense, it was quite conceivable that the nuances of Facebook, at that time, would not have been understood by most individuals.[14]

It is highly unlikely that with the advent of Instagram, Twitter, TickTock, Snapchat, or any one of the other various social media platforms, a court would now find that ignorance concerning social media is still a plausible defense. In its closing words, the Robertelli court stated, “Lawyers must educate themselves about commonly used forms of social media to avoid the scenario that arose in this case. The defense of ignorance will not be a safe haven.”[15] Social media may exist for many to use in their individual capacity, but for lawyers, general rules on ethics are adapting and will continue to adapt to try and keep up with the times. Clear rules surrounding the use of social media will be something to look for in the future, in addition to an emphasis on lawyers proactively educating themselves on social media use.

 

 

 

 

[1] Marina Wilson, Social Media, Media Interactions, and Legal Ethics, Justia (July 6, 2022), https://onward.justia.com/social-media-media-interactions-and-legal-ethics/.

[2] Matter of Robertelli, No. 084373, 258 A.3d 1059 (N.J. Sept. 21, 2021).

[3] N.J. Ct. R. Pro. Conduct r. 4.2 (2022) (“…a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, to be represented by another lawyer…”); see Robertelli, 258 A.3d 1059, at 1075.

[4] Robertelli, 258 A.3d 1059, at 1063.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 1066.

[7] Id. at 1062

[8] Id.

[9] Robertelli, 258 A.3d 1059, at 1063

[10] Id. at 1066 (arguing that he, Robertelli, never authorized or knew that his paralegal messaged Hernandez on Facebook).

[11] Id. at 1074.

[12] Id. at 1075.

[13] Id.

[14] Robertelli, 258 A.3d 1059, at 1075.

[15] Id. at 1074.

 

Image Source: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQWsdrxjiwbpcYXoWaVeFKoSFOkX8Hgrh0gA&usqp=CAU