Washington state legislators introduced two draft bills on Monday intended to regulate personal consumer data privacy and the use of facial recognition technology. GeekWire previously reported on the bills this past November.
The data privacy bill follows similar legislation enacted such as the European Union's GDPR, and CCPA in California. It aims to give consumers new rights to ownership over their data and establish new transparency requirements for companies that process consumer data. Consumers would have the right to access, delete, correct, and move their data, or opt-out of data collection.
Sen. Reuven Carlyle, the bill's sponsor, said at a press conference Monday that data is transforming society and industries. He said there isn't time to wait for federal lawmakers.
"It has never been more important for state governments to take bold and meaningful action in the arena of consumer data privacy," Carlyle said. "That's what this legislation does."
The regulations outlined in Carlyle's bill would apply to any business that controls or processes personal data of 100,000 consumers or more, which would include Seattle-area tech giants Amazon and Microsoft. The rules apply to companies located in Washington and companies that target services to Washington customers.
Businesses that derive more than 50 percent of their revenue from the sale or processing of personal data are also subject to the regulations, even if they have fewer than 100,000 customers.
Carlyle said the bill takes best practices from CCPA and GDPR.
"We've really tried to be thoughtful and respectful of the needs for business and industry to operationalize this program, so that it's not implementing a new layer of burden on top of them but it is also recognizing that those consumer rights are foundational," he added.
The new legislation builds on a bill that passed the Senate before dying in the House last session. The bill's sponsors say they are taking lessons from that experience, though several of the sticking points that contributed to the last bill's demise remain
Carlyle said there is "95 percent agreement in principle on the core elements of the bill."
The bill includes regulations for facial recognition, such as a rule that requires companies to allow third-party testing for accuracy and bias.
A separate bill, sponsored by Sen. Joe Nguyen, is focused on public use of facial recognition. Nguyen said the legislation is positioned to "protect communities who often times have been disproportional impacted by a whole host of things, whether it's technology or otherwise."
You can read through the bill heres, and the facial recognition bill here.
In their second attempt, Washington Democrats hope to give consumers new rights to ownership over their data, establish new transparency requirements for companies that process consumer data, and implement new safeguards for facial recognition technology.
Sen. Reuven Carlyle, the bill's sponsor
–
open convo in 2020 legislative sessino about isu.e fact is we have in section 7 of our state ocnsitutino among strongest prviacy anague in nation adn we are ofc orus eohme of tech innovation. not ust msft and amzn but sbux boeing . we know that we are iving in a provdounly transformatoin time socialy ecnoicmay pitcally in every way. foundation of that change is data. the vaue of dat to us as individuals and to us as a society. it has transfomre media indsutry ad indsutry virually every othe rindustry in this conutry and world. we live in time when the fedearl govt has struglge to take a stand on waether. it has never been mor eimprtoant fo state govt to take bold and meiangiful action in the arena of consuer data privayc. thats what his leg does.
last year 46 to 1 vote, state senate sent legistlation to house. we did not make it thru finish line. this year after months of extraodnary amount of stakehoder work, reaiontships, extensive ocnvo iterations of vaioru version of bil we have overhweming consusens we need to move froward 95% agreement in pirnciple on core … we go thru elgistlaitve proces, stakehodrs, consumer privacy groups at nationa dns ate level, idnustries in tech sector.
very proud of this work, proud bi paritisain adn foks have really engage don a deep level.
key elements –– we has indivudals have a fudnamental right to know how our dat ais beign used. we have right ot acess dathat data and right o correct it. and we shoudl have a righ tot dlete that data and for portalbity, to transfer data mong providers. we hsoudl have rigth to opt out from argete ads and from sale of our dat and proifling basic core rights. best practices of european standards best pracitces of ccpa, groundrbeaking but aso recongizing uniquess of wa stae. initiative in calif this legisltiaon also icnporates lessons learend and best practices from that. we've realy tried otbe thougthfu and resecptufl of the rneeds for biz and industry to to oerpationalize this progam so that' ti's not imrplementing ust a new a layer o fburdern on top of them but it is also recognizng that those consumer rights are foundational. we think this is a resposnbile balance and utlimately realy bold and compeling legistlation. it goes further than calif legistiaion and intitiavei in many ways.
another — maintain a lot of central elements of las year bill. maintains attornye genral encofrmecne vs. right of private aciton. calrifies right sand repsnsibities of indivudual … but rsepsnoilbities of biz ad industy to amange dat ain resposnbile way.
finlly on faicla recognition. this year we made a step to divide issue of facial recog between public and private. commercial private sector managmente and use of ur data, if u dfindyoruself ind ata is regulated under my legsisltiaon. public sector of govt use, is being mnaged by legislive from sen. nguyen.
i really apprecaite colab nature real work hard from sakeholer procs to be geniue nd authentic that tough issue sthis raise. fed egovt if the decide tmrw to pass maro consumer privacy bill tak ethem 4 yars to figure out how tod it at best. state action si eimepraitve. thast what this legialtaiont is about.
nugyen
the tenanets that we at to focus on as we fracted is how do we protecrt communiteis who often times have been disproriationaly imapcted. by a whole host of hins, whetehr it's tehc or otherwise. spent pas fw month on thi we develop great eraitnpsih among many stakehodlers to find that path wehre ew eunderstnad how do we hold ppl accountable if it used incorrectly. how do we fix … and alleviate concerns.
ann rivers — data prviacy for conusemrs is not a partisian issue sthats why we are all up here toay. movign froward with prposal that prtecte public and provide regulatory framekwork for biz large and small so they are able to meet regs we set for has been front of mind fo rme. wil cointue tobe my goal and mission. thats what im workign toward thwat i feelt like colleagues work toward. produ to stand up happy to answer questions.
gael tareton — rep from. im here bacuse data ad nwho coelcts it who uses it who explotis it who anaye it who distributes who gets thold it ndd edie to estory it. has been part of my reer since 1980. ir ecenieve top level secrutiy clearnce from fed govt even 40 years ago, the fed govt had to get my permission to get my ersonal data on my family, my medical history my educational background, any work i did as student and academic. 40 years later, i feel that the whole world has migrated to place where we dont actualy evne know how much data out there on us to be able to give permsision to any entity. a buseinss a govt agency a nonprofit or indiviudla employer, ptoentially, we dtone ven know what is there so it s very difficult ot know what to say yes u can have it or no u cant. so here we are in 2020. iw ant a piece of elgialistaion that helps educate our peope not ust as consumers but as reidents and citizens of a state where their right ot privacy is protected consitutoainyl in our constituion. we need legislation to help educate and inform each other that shy legialtive process are so imperitiveit gives us a chacne ot w/ with each other share info, to have debates we need to have, there are pieces of this egistlaiton that do need ot be heard in the public sphere to alow peopel to udnersatn what risk is what opp is and what it means to have contrlol of your own personal data. i look forward to debates in the senate committe adn house committe u will also see some legislaiton introducd tihs session from a # of colleagues, intende dto actualy stimulate a higher level of debate and awreness beause we needleigsltion on this yetserda we neede it 2 4 5years gao, and so 2020 is going ot be year breakthorugh
carlye —
nyy article haf of american adults are in adatabse around biometric data. it's ust etraody recognition we hvae this radical trnasofrmation how dat ais used. fundametnal aniltiy to know that to coorect it delte it undrstnadand consent to ue of tha tdata is incredigl impraonty. private sector has enromous eincevneitve ut ouse this tech repsnibliy but aso opp for misuswe so repsonibliy reguatory framework maeks sesne.
why not have a priavete eright action ?
first and foremost if it was one of these thins a religious or idoeogical thig. ud think tria laywer lobbying. they are neutral. fact of mater is fro us as home of tech inovaitno opp for AG to b enrofmecnemetn tnetity allow for us to okfor paterns of abuse on a gobal scae.. u ook at global patforms..goo amzn msft whole infrascuture of large scale glob comapneis we look for pattens of abuse. rather than unleash law firsm and lawyer on every single potential idnvidual use…we ookk for patterns as we move froward toward reguating. after year or 2 if we hvae 1000s of compaints then it makes sense to ook at it as a second tier srategy. idea of starting out with that is inconsisent with wa state as home of tech esctor and doesn't accomplishg oal of consuemr protection. we ahve strong consumer advcovate in AG offiec adn we have recognition in sthis state consumer rights stature is very tsrong. we don thave a problem at idnviidua elvel. feel strongly this is right policy for ou state
does this go beynod calif
right to delte your data is imprtoant. that's in indiitaitve in calif but not current.
one other exampe facial recog tech not in calif aw, there is ar ereumenet underlying tech platform of vairous enetities be exposed in terms of open itnerface so we have inddepndent neutral third parties, to test the effacy and quaity of the facia recog quality. we dont look at proprierty algs but the resutls wtaht woud alow very differen thtan calif .
last 5% eg istave process, improtant, still soem adcoates of right of private action that exist in house. 46-1 senate. in favor of AG envromcene.t weh ave foks in house who have variety of issues who want a moritarium on facial recognition…
overhwmeing ocnsetn statement. 95% consensus.
a lot fo comapneis have ben very gegnaged in issiue. dozens fo comments .. consumer privacy groups.
Draft text of both bills can be accessed on the website of the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee at https://ift.tt/2tTpKXw . The first bill is Sen. Carlyle's, the second Sen. Nguyen's. The site's publicly available, so no embargo.
via https://ift.tt/2TnSsu7
No comments:
Post a Comment