Post · bonfire.cafe

Post

I'm one of many people testifying CON on HB 2112 (age verification for "adult content") at tomorrow's hearing here in Washington.

If you're against 2112 -- or age verification for "adult content" in general ... why? After I've testified, I'll follow up with email to the committee with people's perspectives.

And if you're a Washington state resident, it's easy to "sign in CON" to the hearing on HB 2112 to let legislators know you oppose age verification. Just select your position (CON), fill out the rest of the form, and click "Submit Registration"

https://app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Testifier/Add?chamber=house&mId=33607&aId=167961&caId=27188&tId=3

#waleg

Eight large question marks, in various colors

CSI

Jsho

@Jshor@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@jdp23 thank you for testifying against this. Also put my name in the con box. Age verification laws are too easily weaponized against those that aren’t part of the majority.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 days ago

@Jshor very true!

Gary McGraw

@cigitalgem@sigmoid.social replied · 3 days ago

@jdp23 knock em dead. Wear your best tie....ha ha ha ha.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 3 days ago

@cigitalgem hahaha indeed. I do look respectable when I testify, and when I go in person will even wear a sports jacket (hard to believe I know). Fortunately this one is remote, so I'll just wear a shirt that works well with my zoom background ...

Hey at least that way they remember me!

Gary McGraw

@cigitalgem@sigmoid.social replied · 2 days ago

@jdp23 love it. It's the pants jon

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 days ago

@cigitalgem there are a bunch of AI bills also, BTW. I testified on 3 on Wednesday, including one that was really good -- banning AI surveillance and discipline tools from schools. There was also on on high-risk AI that calls for documentation of risks (including algorithmic bias), risk mitigation policies and programs, impact assessments, disclosure, etc. I think there was a similar bill in VA that the governor veto;ed, not sure of its number.

Anyhow now that i think of it there wasn't any mention in the bill of adversarial analyses. I encouraged them to look for ways to improve the bill, and was planning on sending followon mail. Are there any best practices / standards / etc -- or legislation you think is good -- I should point to?

Here's the bill text if it's useful. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2157.pdf

noplasticshower

@noplasticshower@infosec.exchange replied · 2 days ago

@jdp23 @cigitalgem this

https://berryvilleiml.com/results/BIML-LLM24.pdf

Also this (a subset aimed at regulation)

https://apothecaryshed.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/23_Security_Risks_in_Black-Box_Large_Language_Model_Foundation_Models.pdf

View (PDF)

Registration Form &lsaquo; Berryville Institute of Machine Learning — WordPress (PDF)

noplasticshower

@noplasticshower@infosec.exchange replied · 2 days ago

@jdp23 @cigitalgem LMK if you want a PDF without the reg page...it's just us and we ignore all the data so far...

1+ more replies (not shown)

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 days ago

@cigitalgem and here's my testimony...

Chair Ryu, Ranking Member Barnard, and members of the Committee,

I'm Jon Pincus of Bellevue. I'm a technologist and strategist, run the Nexus of Privacy newsletter, served on the state Automated Decision Systems Workgroup in 2022, and I am PRO on HB 2157.

High-risk AI systems today are often deployed without serious consideration of algorithmic discrimination or other risks, so regulation is clearly needed. The approach of risk mitigation and impact assessments aligns with industry best practices. Transparency requirements for disclosure and explanation are also welcome, and a civil remedy is important as well - especially given the constrained fiscal circumstances.

As the bill moves forward, I hope you will look for opportunities to strengthen it. For example, these requirements should apply to any high-risk automated decision system, as is the case in Senator Nobles' SB 5956. And the Civil Remedy language in Section 5 could be strengthened by including a penalty for repeated violations and further limiting -- or even removing -- the right to cure.

And please take the claims from tech lobbyists that this bill will cause the sky to fall with a grain of salt. They always say that. I just checked, and the sky has not yet fallen.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and please feel free to follow up with me if there are any questions.

Jacen

@thejacenallen@mastodon.social replied · 3 days ago

@jdp23 it removes our autonomy as human beings to decide for ourselves

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 3 days ago

Thanks, great point!

@thejacenallen

Amanda

@pronounshe@lgbtqia.space replied · 3 days ago

@jdp23 Thank you for posting about this. Did realize hearings were coming up about it.

Amanda of Greater Washington

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 3 days ago

@pronounshe life comes at you fast ... and the leg session comes even faster! It started Monday, and it's a short session (only 60 days), so things are flying.

🅰🅻🅸🅲🅴 (🌈🦄)

@alice@lgbtqia.space replied · 3 days ago

@jdp23 done!

Age verification requires people to give up privacy and anonymity, which in turn stifles open speech and dissent, which then perpetuates the patriarchal, white, cishet status quo.

It also opens the discussion as to what's "appropriate for kids". We already know that the religious right thinks that just *existing while queer* is inappropriate. They seem to hold similar opinions about folx being brown, or women.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 3 days ago

@alice 💯. This particular law is based on Texas' and so has the very vague "sexual material harmful to minors standard". Washington's current AG quite possibly wouldn't interpret it in an anti-queer way ... but what about the next AG, or a conservative judge?

Jsho

@Jshor@mastodon.social replied · 2 days ago

@jdp23 @alice just saw that you mentioned the law is based off of that Texas monstrosity. That law caused several months of extreme confusion and consternation in my work life, and in the end a judge stepped in and put an injunction in place. While nothing’s a guarantee, the lawyers I have heard talking about it seem to believe there is a high likelihood it will be struck down on first amendment violations.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 days ago

Thanks for the perspective on that. I should have been more precise: this bill on Texas' earlier HB 1181 "sexual material harmful to minors" monstrosity, not on Texas' recently-enjoined SB 2420 (App Store Accountability Act) monstrosity. HB 1181 went to the Supreme Court in Netchoice v. Paxton case and unfortunately it was found constitutional ... very disappointing, and shoddy legal reasoning, but it is what it is (at least until the Court's makeup changes). I talked with people from ACLU of Washington and from Free Speech Coaltion (the plaintiff in Paxton) and they both thought that given the history it wouldn't be useful to make any legal arguments about this particular bill.

That said, there may well be another "child safety" bill this session with age verification requirements for social media and/or app stores, and if that happens we will very definitely make the constitutional arguments! And so will tech lobbyists -- this is one of the few issues where I'm on the same side as them.

@Jshor @alice

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 days ago

If some other bill does drop with broader age verification requirements I may well follow up on you about how the Texas bill caused such confusion and consternation, that could be very useful for our legislators to hear!

@Jshor @alice