2026 guide for where WA politicians & candidates stand on privacy issues.
Race: State Representative Pos. 1
District: Legislative District 16
Party: Democratic
I understand the goal of HB 2112. Kids have access to things online that previous generations didn’t, and that’s a real problem. I’m just not convinced this bill solves it.
A teenager who wants around age verification will find a VPN or another site. Meanwhile, we’re creating another system that asks adults to hand over personal information and trust that it will remain secure. We’ve seen enough data breaches to know how that story can go.
There are benefits to greater accountability online—it could reduce bots, fake accounts and anonymous trolling. But accountability can also become surveillance. I don’t want to solve one problem by creating an internet where more of what we read, watch and say can be tied back to our identity.
I do think we need stronger guardrails for kids on social media, especially during their early developmental years. My concern isn’t just inappropriate content. We’re allowing companies to build incredibly detailed digital profiles of our children before they’re even old enough to understand what they’re giving away—what they watch, what they like, who they interact with, and what keeps their attention. That information has value and can be used, exchanged, and ultimately used to market directly back to them.
Kids shouldn’t have to navigate that alone. But I’m also cautious about solving the problem by requiring everyone to provide even more identifying information online. This is a complex issue, but we need to put more responsibility on the platforms profiting from our kids while protecting the privacy of everyone who uses them.
I support stronger guardrails for kids online. Social media companies are building detailed profiles of children before they are old enough to understand what they’re giving away, then using that information to shape what they see and market directly to them. We should be doing more to protect kids during those developmental years.
My concern is making broad age verification the solution. Age estimation can be inaccurate, while stronger verification creates another opportunity to connect our identities to our online activity. I don’t want protecting children’s privacy to come at the expense of creating an even larger digital footprint for everyone.
There are real public-safety benefits to license plate readers, and I don’t want to take a useful tool away from law enforcement. But a network of cameras capable of creating a searchable history of where people travel is a very different thing from simply spotting a stolen car. The potential for abuse grows enormously as these systems expand. I support the technology, but I also support strong limits on how long the data is kept, who can access it, and what it can be used for.
Our personal information has value, and we should have some control over what companies do with it. Being able to see, correct, delete, or opt out of the sale of our data seems like a basic expectation of privacy.
Employers have a legitimate need to monitor productivity and performance, but employees don’t give up their privacy when they go to work. AI and automated systems can be useful tools, but major employment decisions should still have meaningful human accountability.
I understand the appeal of handling age restrictions at the device level rather than having people verify themselves with individual websites. But requiring operating systems to verify the identity or age of every user creates another enormous collection point for personal information. I support better parental controls and privacy preserving ways to protect kids online, but we shouldn’t have to identify ourselves just to use the basic functions of the internet.