{"id":3765,"date":"2021-04-02T06:24:24","date_gmt":"2021-04-02T06:24:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2021\/04\/02\/testimony-0401\/"},"modified":"2021-04-02T06:24:24","modified_gmt":"2021-04-02T06:24:24","slug":"testimony-0401","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/2021\/04\/02\/testimony-0401\/","title":{"rendered":"House Appropriations Testimony on Fiscal Impacts of SB 5062"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>This was the expanded written version of the testimony I planned to give at the House Appropriations hearing on SB 5062. \u00a0Plans changed and <a href=\"__GHOST_URL__\/more-testimony-0401\/\">I wound up discussing something different<\/a>, but I still filed it as written testimony.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Appropriations committee,<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m Jon Pincus from Bellevue, a technologist and entrepreneur, and former General Manager of Strategy Development at Microsoft. \u00a0I&#8217;m also one of the leaders of Indivisible Plus Washington, a grassroots activism group with more than 20,000 members across the state. \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>I OPPOSE SB 5062 in its current form for a long list of reasons. \u00a0This testimony focuses on the fiscal aspects of SB 5062 and covers four points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>The paltry $1.2 million budget allocated to the AG\u2019s Office for 2021-2023, <\/strong><em><strong>decreasing<\/strong><\/em><strong> in future years, is insufficient for enforcement or deterrence<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Strengthening the very limited private right of action, and allowing cities and county attorneys to enforce the law as well, can improve enforcement and deterrence without incurring additional taxpayer cost<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>The \u201cright to cure\u201d should be removed<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>If those fixes are not made, the bill as budgeted will not protect Washingtonians\u2019 privacy &#8212; so please vote \u201cno\u201d<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"the-budget-is-insufficient-for-enforcement-or-deterrence\">The budget is insufficient for enforcement or deterrence<\/h2>\n<p>Other than the very limited private right of action in Section 111, allowing individuals to sue for injunctive relief and costs, Section 112 of the bill limits enforcement \u201csolely\u201d to the AGO. \u00a0As a result, the AGOs paltry budget of $1.2 million for 2021-2023 (3.6 FTEs), decreasing in future years, is not sufficient to protect Washingtonians privacy.<strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Look at the evidence from elsewhere. \u00a0European budget allocations are much larger. \u00a0Ireland\u2019s data protection commission, for example, has a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gdprregister.eu\/news\/irish-data-protection-commission-budget-2021\/\">$23 million annual budget <\/a> despite having a population smaller than Washington state. \u00a0Even so, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euractiv.com\/section\/data-protection\/news\/gdpr-enforcement-held-back-by-lack-of-resources-report-says\/\">European data protection enforcement has been held back by lack of resources<\/a>. \u00a0 Just last week, <a href=\"https:\/\/protectionofdata.substack.com\/p\/issue4\">the EU Parliament issued a resolution criticizing enforcement<\/a>, noting that cases referred to the Irish DPA in 2018 still have not been heard and that the Irish DPA closes most cases with a settlement rather than a sanction.<\/p>\n<p>California\u2019s experience is also instructive here. \u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/woodruffsawyer.com\/cyber-liability\/first-ccpa-lawsuit-settled\/\">In the only case settled so far under their 2018 CCPA<\/a>, the settlement gave $2 to each person who had been harmed, but did not impose any additional civil penalties. \u00a0California\u2019s newer CPRA allocates an annual budget starting at $10 million \/ year, which must be increased by the legislature \u201cas may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>With the current budget, the AGO estimates it can bring three investigations per year. \u00a0And what if a large company violates the law? \u00a0Joseph Jerome of Common Sense Media testified in the Ways &amp; Means hearing that the average large company has 15 privacy lawyers. \u00a0Facebook has over 150.<\/p>\n<p>The AG\u2019s has not been able to prevent Facebook\u2019s and Google\u2019s ongoing violations of Washington political advertising transparency laws, which continued despite a lawsuit and settlement in 2018 and a second lawsuit in 2020. \u00a0With such minimal resources, it is hard to see them fairing better here. \u00a0Unless significant changes are made, SB 5062 will require substantial additional investment if we are to have any hope of holding companies who break the law accountable &#8212; or deterring others.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"strengthen-the-private-right-of-action-and-allow-local-enforcement\">Strengthen the private right of action and allow local enforcement<\/h2>\n<p>Appropriation can resolve this fiscal problem by some straightforward changes.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Replace Section 111, the limited private right of action, with <a href=\"http:\/\/lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov\/biennium\/2021-22\/Pdf\/Bills\/House%20Bills\/1433.pdf?q=20210208204007\">HB 1433<\/a>\u2019s Section 10 (1)<\/li>\n<li>Remove the word &#8220;solely&#8221; from Section 112 (1) to allow local enforcement<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The much stronger private right of action in HB 1433 allows courts to award damages and civil penalties as well. \u00a0This allows private actions to act as enforcement action &#8212; and the threat of a private action becomes much more of a deterrent.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, SB 5062\u2019s Section 113 already provides that moneys from civil penalties can be used to fund the recovery of the AGs attorney fees and costs. \u00a0 If private actions can also lead to civil penalties, AG resources for enforcement can also increase over time &#8212; without additional cost to the taxpayer.<\/p>\n<p>Consumer groups such as WashPIRG and Consumer Federation of America generally support a stronger private right of action. \u00a0Even Consumer Reports, who backs the current version of the bill, said in their March 26 letter to Rep. Hansen that &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/advocacy.consumerreports.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/CR-Letter-SB-5062-House-Committee-Amendment-3.26.21.pdf\">We would prefer a private right that would also afford consumers monetary relief<\/a>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"remove-the-right-to-cure\">Remove the right to cure<\/h2>\n<p>The AG\u2019s office has testified that \u201cright to cure\u201d will be a drain on their resources. \u00a0As Consumer Reports said in their March 26 letter, the right to cure is a \u201c\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/advocacy.consumerreports.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/CR-Letter-SB-5062-House-Committee-Amendment-3.26.21.pdf\">get-out-of-jail-free\u201d card\u201d that \u201cties the AG\u2019s hands and signals that a company won\u2019t be punished for breaking the law<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Again, the evidence from California is instructive here. \u00a0Their 2018 CCPA law had a right to cure, and the AG\u2019s initial right-to-cure letters focused on sites missing either key privacy disclosures from their privacy notices or a clear opt-out link.<\/p>\n<p>Why should taxpayers fund free testing that companies running the sites should do on their own? \u00a0Californians decided they shouldn\u2019t, and removed the right-to-cure in 2020 CRPA, adopted by referendum.<\/p>\n<p>The amendment adopted by CR&amp;J last week introduces a one-year sunset for the right to cure. \u00a0But there\u2019s no reason to do this for even a year. \u00a0Section 112 (4) should be removed.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"if-these-fixes-are-not-made-please-vote-no-\">If these fixes are not made, please vote \u201cno\u201d<\/h2>\n<p>A privacy bill without enforcement or deterrence will not protect Washingtonians. \u00a0Instead, it gives the cover of law &#8212; and the legislature\u2019s endorsement &#8212; to the current situation where there are virtually no consequences for predatory and exploitative behavior.<\/p>\n<p>So if these improvements are not made, I ask you to vote \u201cno\u201d on SB 5062, the Bad Washington Privacy Act.<\/p>\n<p>Jon Pincus, Bellevue, 98005<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This was the expanded written version of the testimony I planned to give at the House Appropriations hearing on SB 5062. \u00a0Plans changed and I wound up discussing something different, but I still filed it as written testimony. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Appropriations committee, I\u2019m Jon Pincus from Bellevue, a technologist [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2024.thenexus.today\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}