Washington State Passes Government Facial Recognition Bill
The Washington legislature passed a facial recognition bill Thursday after failing to reach agreement on a comprehensive privacy bill (see 2003120035). The House-Senate conference committee’s second attempt at a compromise S-6280 covered only government and law enforcement usage, leaving rules…
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.
on private usage for next session. “The agreement we reached is a sensible compromise,” said Rep. Debra Entenman (D), who earlier sought a moratorium on facial recognition technology. “This bill now provides adequate guardrails for this emerging technology. It will mandate community input in how facial recognition technology is used and ensure that any use by the government is thoroughly vetted.” The bill “isn’t perfect” but “creates accountability and guidelines for how this powerful technology is used,” said House Innovation, Technology and Economic Development Committee Chairman Zack Hudgins (D). Sponsor Sen. Joe Nguyen (D) tweeted, “Senate Bill 6280 is headed to” Gov. Jay Inslee (D) “for a signature!” The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed the bill because it wants a moratorium on facial recognition technology, said EFF Legislative Activist Hayley Tsukayama. The proposed Washington Privacy Act (SB-6281) failed after lawmakers couldn’t agree on enforcement. The House wanted a private right of action; the Senate supported attorney general enforcement only. Hudgins was “disappointed that we were not able to find common ground on the issue of consumer-focused enforcement with the Senate after both sides moved on the underlying policy so much,” the House member said. “It is unfortunate that multiple reasonable alternatives that kept a consumer voice in the enforcement process were rejected.” The bill “would have provided consumers with the strong privacy rights they deserve while also putting obligations on companies to protect and safeguard their data,” said Microsoft Chief Privacy Officer Julie Brill. Her company, which supported the Senate’s view, hopes to “build upon our learnings here, to create comprehensive legislation that will provide needed protections for all of us.” EFF and American Civil Liberties Union officials opposed the privacy bill. “For privacy rights to be meaningful, they must not be undermined,” emailed ACLU-Washington Technology and Liberty Project Manager Jennifer Lee. EFF wanted a private right of action and “there were a lot of loopholes ... that we had serious concerns about,” said Tsukayama. She doesn’t expect the fight is over.