Washington House Privacy Lead Jots Down 20 Things to Resolve on State Bill
Washington state House members shared a plethora of questions Wednesday about the Senate’s proposed privacy bill, especially on enforcement and facial recognition. “This bill is not yet scheduled for executive session, so we have some time to work on it,”…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
said Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D), concluding the hearing livestreamed from Olympia. “I have a list of about 20 items that I heard come up over and over again that we need to look at.” Members may not “love every word,” but the bill’s basic concepts are important, said Rep. Shelley Kloba (D), sponsor of the bill’s House version (HB-2742). Rep. Norma Smith, the committee’s ranking Republican, asked Microsoft Senior Director-Public Policy Ryan Harkins to explain why the company doesn’t support a private right of action here even though Microsoft Corporate Vice President Julie Brill seemed to support a limited such right at a recent U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing (see 1912040045). Hudgins said he had the same question, but citing time constraints, told Harkins and other witnesses to answer members’ questions later in writing. Witnesses raised concerns about the bill instead opting for enforcement by the state attorney general. Hudgins sees a “spectrum” of enforcement options, not a “binary” choice. Smith asked the Washington State Association for Justice if it has suggestions to trim the exemptions list, which she said exceed the pages devoted to consumer rights. Kloba asked Consumer Reports Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney for more detail on her comment that there’s widespread noncompliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Members asked academic witnesses to get back to them about facial recognition queries. Smith asked how the bill would apply online, since it deals mainly with use on physical premises. Rep. Gael Tarleton (D) asked for more on how individuals use that technology. Rep. Vandana Slatter (D) asked about a facial recognition moratorium sought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others, including how long it would last and if studies would continue. The hearing was "to begin the discussion on the policy and to recognize the positive work done over the interim, ahead of the bill being voted out of the Senate," Hudgins emailed stakeholders Tuesday. "The legislature has less than half the time this short session to keep up with the rapid and evolving discussion on privacy. I hope to be a 'fast follower' of the Senate discussion so as to accelerate progress in the House." He and Smith told us the chambers remain at loggerheads (see 2001170021).