Absolutely. I would say that the first one off the bat is transparency. A lot of the knowledge we have of what is even in place these days, as I mentioned, comes because of investigative journalists or document leaks, for example, when it ideally should be law enforcement and the government telling us that up front, ideally prior to adoption, and giving the public a chance to comment on the potential impacts of these technologies. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that we need oversight mechanisms that will assess—either of the impact assessments, for example—ahead of time and not after the fact the potential harms of these technologies, particularly with respect to historically marginalized communities.
These are kind of higher-level principle safeguards, but going more into the weeds, our report focused on the criminal law context. Another example of safeguards would be that in the case of specific criminal defendants, there should be disclosure requirements so that it's known if these types of technologies have been used in their case, for example, and they have an opportunity to respond.