Post · bonfire.cafe

Post

BTW @onepict since we're so often talking about consent here on fedi, I should mention that I also discussed it my testimony on HB 2599, regulating AI in therapy. The bill quite rightly prohibits some uses of "AI" by therapists (like emotion detection and making independent therapeuttic decisions). It allows other uses, but requires disclosure and consent. That's good but the wording wasn't strong enough -- I briefly mentioned it in my live testimony , where I only had 2 minutes, and went into more detail in my written testimony. Here's an excerpt.

@emilymbender gave me some great feedback on how to improve the disclosure, and the sponsor appreciated the feedback ... the bill isn't going anywhere this session but we'll hopefully have discussions in the interim and give it another try next year.

Section 2(2)’s requirements for disclosure and consent for other uses of "AI" are extremely important....

As I discussed in my oral testimony, patients need to know if their therapist's use of cloud-based "AI" transcription tools could lead to details of their daily lives get shared with ICE or CBP (or law enforcement in hostile states) because data has been sent to a state where protections of Keep Washington Working and the Shield Law don't apply. If they are not informed of that, their consent is not meaningful....

For consent to be meaningful, it needs to be informed, so the disclosure should clearly describe the uses -- and the risks. — Section 2(2)’s requirements for disclosure and consent for other uses of "AI" are extremely important.... As I discussed in my oral testimony, patients need to know if their therapist's use of cloud-based "AI" transcription tools could lead to details of their daily lives get shared with ICE or CBP (or law enforcement in hostile states) because data has been sent to a state where protections of Keep Washington Working and the Shield Law don't apply. If they are not informed of that, their consent is not meaningful.... For consent to be meaningful, it needs to be informed, so the disclosure should clearly describe the uses -- and the risks.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 5 hours ago

Over the second half of the session, I'll probably be focusing primarily on four bills (although also supporting several other AI bills whose prospects are unclear)

SB 6002 (the Driver Privacy Act), regulating Flock and other ALPRs. The version the Senate passed is too weak to offer much protection; we'll be pushing to strengthen it in the House. Here's a good article on the situation by Danni Askini of Gender Justice League and Jaelynn Scott of Lavender Rights Project. https://www.thestranger.com/guest-editorial/2026/02/05/80458651/we-need-to-regulate-automated-license-plate-readers-now
HB 1834 / SB 5708, two more "child safety" bills with age verification bills, these focused on "addictive feeds". Attorney General Brown is pushing these bills hard, with some great Instagram videos, and Democratic leadership supports them as well. Then again LGBTQ+ communities are fired up after stomping the other age verification bills, ACLU of Washington thinks it's unconstitutional, big tech hates it, and Conservative Ladies of Washington also like it . It's possible they'll amend the bill to remove the age verification requirement, which will still leave other problems. We shall see.
HB 2225 / SB 5984 are "Governor's Request" bills to regulte AI Companion Chatbots. Big tech and their allies hate these bills of course, making ludicrous claims like "the requirement that chatbots tell people they're not human is unconsitutional compelled speech." Do they really live in a state where the government doesn't mandate warning labels on cigarettes or gasoline pumps? That said I also don't support the current versions. In the policy hearings I testified OTHER, highlighting that the bill as written makes it legal for ChatGPT et al to use manipulative engagement techniques to exploit seniors and other adults, and also has a potential major loophole that would easy for unscrupulous chatbot operators to escape regulation, These are "Governor's Request" bills so have a lot of momentum behind them, so once again we shall see.

The Stranger

We Need to Regulate Automated License Plate Readers Now

Glaring down at us from light posts, traffic lights, and even convenience stores, is a privately-built, publicly paid-for surveillance network of license plate readers. Whenever a vehicle passes by, cameras not only capture and store data about our license plates but information about our vehicles, location, images of passengers, and our movements. Right now, your data can be freely shared between local, county, state law enforcement, unregulated third party vendors, and through public requests.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 4 hours ago

Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:

@onepict@chaos.social replied · 4 hours ago

@emilymbender @jdp23 I'm glad you were giving testimony. Especially with the risks of the data going out of state.

I do worry about the potential for getting private data out of these systems, or worse as you point out ICE using that information.

I'd been doing some reading for my digital poppets talk, although I didn't end up referring to data being extracted from AI systems in the end.

https://www.onepict.com/digitalpoppet.html

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 3 hours ago

Excellent talk! And yeah, totally agree -- all this mass data gathering ties together. Loyalty cards relate to the surveillance pricing bill that was being considered here ... Maya Morales of WA People's Privacy pointed out in her testimony that that law enforcement can access all this information too.

And data brokers are relevant to surveillance pricing and age verification -- in fact some age verification companies are actually owned by data brokers. The bills we killed (like the Texas bill that the Supreme Court found constititional) restricted age verification companies from using the age verification data for other purposes, but didn't restrict them from transferring or even selling the data. The surviving age verification bill has somewhat more restrictions but even so in practice it's not clear how effective they'll be. Big tech companies routinely break the law, string out enforcement as long as possible, and they pay the fines as a cost of doing business. The only real solution is not to collect the data in the first place.

@onepict @emilymbender

Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:

@onepict@chaos.social replied · 2 hours ago

@emilymbender @jdp23 Thank you for taking the time to read, interesting that being covered as well. I didn't realise data brokers owned some verification companies, but then why wouldn't you if your business is collecting and collating personal data.

Jon

@jdp23@neuromatch.social replied · 2 hours ago

I didn't know that either until people testified about it on one of the age verification bills. But sure enough, here's links for Equifax and Experian.

@onepict