Our expertise is more on the public sector side, so I'll speak more to that.
There needs to be clear establishment of no-go zones, again, for example, in terms of mass surveillance of public places. There need to be clear rules around the issuance of privacy impact assessments.
We believe it would be powerful to have mandatory third party and independent review of algorithmic and biometric surveillance tools used by law enforcement so that they would be assessed for their human rights impact as well as for their accuracy and concerns around bias.
We believe one thing that could also help is that there would be a government agency specifically for following, studying and creating a repository and directory of the use by federal agencies of algorithmic and biometric tools in general, but especially in regard to surveillance.