2026 guide for where WA politicians & candidates stand on privacy issues.
Race: State Representative Pos. 1
District: Legislative District 17
Party: Democratic
I oppose HB 2112 because I do not believe the government should require Washington adults to surrender sensitive personal information simply to access lawful content. Protecting children online is important, but age-verification requirements that create significant privacy and data-security risks while being easily circumvented by VPNs are unlikely to accomplish their intended purpose. I believe parents should have access to effective tools to control what their children can access online, while adults should retain reasonable expectations of privacy when accessing lawful content.
I oppose SB 6111 because requiring broad age verification across social media and other online platforms creates significant privacy and data-security concerns. Protecting children online is important, but requiring people to connect their real-world identity or biometric information to their online activity creates risks that should not be taken lightly. I would rather focus on practical tools that empower parents to manage their children’s online access and on holding platforms accountable for protecting minors, rather than creating a system that could compromise the privacy of millions of Washingtonians.
I'm skeptical of this bill for the same reason I've opposed similar age-verification measures. Even though it frames itself around age estimation rather than ID or face scans, in practice most platforms are likely to adopt more invasive verification methods anyway to limit their own legal exposure, which risks tying real identities back to user accounts regardless of the bill's stated intent. I also have real concerns about AI-based age estimation itself, it's often inaccurate, and the broader scrutiny of user content that comes with it raises its own privacy issues. I believe protecting kids online starts with parental tools and responsibility, not a system that shifts control away from parents and toward the state, with real privacy trade-offs for everyone.
I support this law. It's a strong, bipartisan example of protecting people's privacy from unregulated government surveillance, real limits on data retention, a ban on selling ALPR data, and protections around sensitive areas like schools and places of worship are common-sense safeguards. I agree this is a good start rather than a finish line, and I'd support further reform to continue strengthening protections around how this kind of surveillance technology is used and who has access to the data it collects.
I support this bill. Washington still doesn't have a comprehensive consumer privacy law, even though roughly 19 other states already do, and that's a real gap. People deserve the basic right to see, correct, delete, and stop the sale of their own personal data. This isn't a new or radical idea; it's catching up to a baseline level of privacy protection that Washingtonians should have had years ago.
I support this bill. Employees deserve basic protections, the right to know when and how they're being monitored, and the right not to be fired by an automated system with no human accountability behind the decision. Employers shouldn't be able to install surveillance software on personal devices, and this bill includes reasonable carve-outs for legitimate productivity monitoring, so it protects workers without interfering with employers' ability to run their business.
I'm opposed to these bills as currently written, for the same reason I've opposed other ID-based verification measures. If age verification is ever built into an operating system, it should be limited to a simple, self-attested 'I am over 18,' not a full birthdate or ID upload. Ultimately, I believe parental controls, which require no personal data collection at all, remain the better solution to protecting kids online.