iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/09/2026

Amendment H. Kettle: "I know you all love reports! Here's a chance to let one amendment of mine pass. I know deep inside you can support this." seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=...

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/09/2026

Amendment G. AMR asks what guarantees there are that the state legislation would be as strong as Seattle's? None. SHe asks for a no vote. Amendment G fails 7-2.

Effect: This amendment would clarify that this Chapter would be superseded and
unenforceable upon the effective date of any law passed by the State of Washington regulating
the use of algorithmic-based price discrimination by covered retailers.

200

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/09/2026

Now amendment F. seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=... Tomaso notes that this responds to an issue that term "electronic surveillance technologies" wasn't defined in the bill

Effect: This amendment adds a new section to clarify that nothing in the bill prevents
businesses from using technology for the sole purpose of security, loss prevention, safety, fraud
prevention or detection, or compliance with law

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/09/2026

Amendent E: seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=... Kettle descriges it as "reducing costs", but it's actually weakening enforcement. Potayto, potahto.

Effect: This amendment would change a covered retailer’s obligations under Section
7.35.050 from having to retain records for three years to one year.
This amendment would also require that a civil action filed in accordance with Section
7.35.060 be filed within one year of the violation, rather than three years.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/09/2026

Amendment C allows "flexibility" for retailers by letting them work with third-parties and manufacturers to do surveillance pricing, removing equity requirements. I described this and amendment A as gutting protections, and so did several others.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 22/09/2026

Here's the effect of A. Tomaso from central staff notes that this completely changes the bill by allowing surveillance pricing as long as it's described as , so a lot of the exceptions would be removed.

Effect: This amendment would prohibit the use of algorithmic-based price discrimination to
increase the price of certain goods above the bona fide market price, rather than prohibit any
modification of price based on algorithmic-based price discrimination. The specific restrictions
on increasing the price of goods varies by type of covered retailer and is listed under the
proposed Section 7.35.020.
Because discounts based on personal information would be allowed under this amendment, the
amendment would also strike proposed regulations related to discounted prices in the bill. It
would also require covered retailers to disclose whether personal information was used in
setting any discounted price available to the consumer, rather than the specific eligibility criteria
and qualifying tiers for discounts.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 18/08/2026

Of course it's KOMO so they didn't actually list specific "outside agencies" we should be concerned about. Funny how that works. Anyhow, here's the poll (you may need to scroll down a bit to see it) ... no login required, choose your option!

How concerned are you that camera footage
could be accessed by outside agencies?
Highly concerned.
Somewhat concerned.
Not concerned.

Open. 30 days remaining. 541 votes.

031

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 07/08/2026

Protected discounts ... "if this sounds like a long list, it is! We really worked with industry to make sure current practices are protected."

120

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 07/08/2026

Specifically allowed practices -- carveouts based on feedback from industry.

Policy: Allowed Practices
« Store by store pricing
* Pricing based on delivery location
* Customer retention offers (e.g. offers when cancelling
memberships)
* Regional, neighborhood, or other pricing based on aggregate
information

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 07/08/2026

Details on policy provisions ... who's covered? Note that PCC's, Red Apples, Uwajimaya aren't covered. EDIT: now updated with alt text,

Policy: Coverage.

Grocery Business:
Entity Definition: 10,000 square feet, 20 or more locations worldwide, primarily retails groceries.
Item Coverage: all items.
Examples: Safeway, QFC, not small grocers or convenience stores

Mixed Use Grocery:
Entity Definition: At least 10,000 square feet dedicated to grocery.
Item Coverage: groceries, diapers, grooming and hygiene products, or over-the-counter drugs.
Examples: Target, Fred Meyer, Costco.

Delivery Service Provider:
Entity Definition: At least 100 employees, delivery/pickup from a grocery store, mixed use store, or a warehouse.
Item Coverage: Any Item from a grocery store.
Groceries, diapers, grooming and hygiene products, or over-the counter drugs from warehouse or mixed-use store.
Examples: Instacart, Amazon, Doordash

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 07/08/2026

Lee talks about all the different information they gather and how they use it ... here's his slide. Cites FTC report from early 2025. One example prices for baby thermometers for new parents are higher in the middle of the night. www.ftc.gov/news-events/...

What is “algorithmic price discrimination”?
« "Individualized" or "first-degree" price discrimination
« The processing of personal data to discriminate
between individual consumers or granular consumer
segments
« "Willingness to pay" —> "pain-point pricing" and
"desperation finance"

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 21/07/2026

Several speakers have held up signes from Deflock Renton ...

Keep ALPR camers off! Listen to your constituents. DeflockRenton.com

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 27/05/2026

Edmonds cancels contract with Flock license plate reader system myedmondsnews.com/2026/05/edmo... Here's an interesting quote from Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen

Edmonds had paused the City’s use of the cameras due to the same concerns about immigration, along with other safety issues related to the cameras’ surveillance capabilities, Rosen said. “And then last week I came to find that the FBI has put out a $36 million RFP [request for proposals] to get access to automated license plate readers nationwide that are without warrants,” Rosen added. “So, we are canceling the contract and will not be bringing Flock cameras back to Edmonds anytime soon.”

000

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 22/05/2026

It's encouraging that there were even 20 votes for a complete ban on Flock and other ALPRs -- thanks @maxwellfrost.bsky.social for voting for it! We're likely to see more discussion of this, so it's worth contacting your reps. wa-privacy.net/bipartisan-a... has a info about the votes.

Since we’re likely to see more activity, it’s useful to contact your representative. A short message is fine! Here are a few variants.

If they aren’t on the committee (or you don’t know whether they are or how they voted)

I’m [NAME] from [CITY or COUNTY], a constituent, calling to ask you to ban the use of Flock and other automated license plate readers. I was disappointed that the Transportation and Infrastructure committee voted down a bipartisan amendment to ban ALPR usage for federal highway fund recipients, but legislators of both parties expressed interest in the issue. So please look for other opportunities for Congress to shield Americans from this invasive warrantless surveillance technology that threatens privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.

If they were on the committee and voted yes

I’m [NAME] from [CITY or COUNTY], a constituent, calling to thank Representative [NAME] for the vote in favor of the bipartisan Highway Bill amendment to ban the use of Flock and other automated license plate readers. Please continue to look for other opportunities for Congress to shield Americans from this invasive warrantless surveillance technology that threatens privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.

If they were on the committee and voted no

I’m [NAME] from [CITY or COUNTY], a constituent, calling because I’m disappointed that Representative [NAME] voted against the bipartisan Highway Bill amendment to ban the use of Flock and other automated license plate readers. Going forward, please look for other opportunities for Congress to shield Americans from this invasive warrantless surveillance technology that threatens privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 21/05/2026

One easy way: call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representative's office. A short message is fine! Here's a script you can use as a starting point. (2/2)

I’m [NAME] from [CITY or COUNTY], a constituent, calling to ask Representative [NAME] to support the Perry/Garcia amendment to limit use of Flock and other automated license plate readers. Congress must shield Americans from this invasive warrantless surveillance technology that threatens privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional rights.

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/04/2026

DeFlock has just announced a National Week of Action against ALPRs! Details coming soon ... for now, there's a web site you can sign up at if you're interested. noalprs.com

021

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 10/03/2026

TAKE ACTION against Flock and dragnet surveillance: Sign and share WA People's Privacy "People's Petition to WA House & Senate Democrats: ESSB 6002 needs *SIGNIFICANT* strengthening" form.jotform.com/wapeoplespri... The vote is tomorrow, so please help get the word out tonight! #waleg

Sign our People's Petition! Strenthen ESSB 6002: Delete non-hotlist ALPR data within 3-min or less + other protective demands. Washington People's Privacy

065

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 07/03/2026

And if you're in the Seattle area, there's canvassing training this Tuesday night (3/10) from 6-8 pm! Register at cryptpad.fr/form/#/2/for...

Make Washington State an ICE free zone.
WA is Sharing DOL data with CBP to ICE.
Join a neighborhood ICE free Zones DOL canvassing training, 3/10 Tuesday, 6-8 pm.

Do you want to canvas your local DoL to let folks know that their drivers license information is being shared with ICE/CBP?

Want to learn more? Join our free class!

011

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/03/2026

Whew, that was a long thread. And I'm sure there's more to come ... so stay tuned! Right now, though ... please call your state representatives!

I’m [NAME] of [CITY], one of your constituents, and I'm very concerned that SB 6002, the Driver Privacy Act is much too weak to protect immigrants, rapid response groups, and other vulnerable Washington residents. There are thousands of Flock surveillance cameras are all over the state -- and cities like Redmond, Everett, and Olympia which have turned their Flock cameras off are likely to turn them back on once SB 6002 passes. So the guardrails in this bill need to be strengthened significantly.

Reduce retention time to three minutes or less unless license plates are already on a hotlist. This significantly reduces risk of data getting to ICE and CBP -- or being used by police officers to stalk people.

Ensure that human rights organizations, local organizers, and journalists can provide oversight by eliminating the public records act exemption.

This is very important legislation and its guardrails need to be strong enough to protect us.

030

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/03/2026

The script I shared at the beginning of this thread doesn't mention any of the SB 6002 amendments -- it's already kinda long for a phone script, and I didn't want to make it any more complicated. But if one or them is important to you, by all means add it!

121

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/03/2026

Friday (March 6) is the cutoff for the House to pass legislation that started in the Senate, including SB 6002 and dozens of other bills they haven't voted on yet. There's only a finite, relatively-small amount of floor time between now and then. 60+ amendments will chew up a LOT of it!

Leqislative calendar
January 12 (Monday): First day of session
February 4 (Wednesday): Policy committee cutoff
February 9 (Monday): Fiscal and transportation committee cutoff
February 17 (Tuesday): Cutoff for passing house of origin
February 25 (Wednesday): Opposite house policy committee cutoff
March 2 (Monday): Opposite house fiscal and transportation committee cutoff
March 6 (Friday): Cutoff to go through opposite house - unless it's NTIB!
March 12 (Thursday): Last day of session — Sine Die

140

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/03/2026

And then Republicans filed 60+ more amendments, and any hope of voting on Tuesday went out the window. Here's what the bill page at app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/... looks like right now.

A long list of amendments, in a small font, each with an 20-character code starting with 6002-S.E.AMH, a number, a legislator name, and a page reference

130

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/03/2026

#waleg update: tomorrow is the last day for the House to vote on SB 6002 , the Driver Privacy Act, regulating Flock and other ALPRs. So *now* is the time to contact your state reps. They're getting so much email that phone calls are a lot more effective at this point. Here's a script. 1/N

1138

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 26/02/2026

It's unfortunate, because there's a very strong fiscal case for cutting retention time to three minutes or less. Of course that's far from the only reason to cut retention time to three minutes our less. Here's a few more, from www.takeaction.network/xactions/480...

This action will focus on one specific improvement: reducing the length of time that ALPR data can be stored to three minutes or less. A retention time of three minutes or less still allows agencies to use ALPRs to track vehicles whose license plates are on "hotlists" or “watchlists” – amber alerts, missing persons, stolen vehicles, cars actively fleeing a crime scene, vehicles registered to a person with an outstanding felony warrant. etc., which account for the vast majority of legal, successful use cases for ALPRs. A three minute retention with auto-deletion of non hot-list plates means that in WA, bad actors can’t access this sensitive data. That's a big deal, because once data is collected and stored on, it is extremely difficult-to-impossible to secure. Vendors have access. Third parties, sales reps, consultants, and service providers the company shares the data with have access. Because the data exists in the cloud, it is also regularly backed up on servers (yep, that means data centers!). If systems are misconfigured or left unsecured – as happened in Mountain View California – agencies all over the country can search it. If ICE and CBP get a court order or subpoena, they can get it. Even if we attempt to protect access to this data with “the guardrail” of an active warrant or investigation, law enforcement has major leeway to obfuscate actual intention, and access the data. The list goes on.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 21/02/2026

And if you'd like to ask a question about Flock and 6002 yourself ... please do! Here's a potential script you can use or modify if you want to but this is just one idea, there are lots of other possibilities!

"A lot of us very concerned about Flock surveillance cameras. OneAmerica, WA People's Privacy, reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights groups, ACLU of Washington, and a lot of other organizations representing people who are impacted by Flock are all saying that the current version of SB 6002 -- the Driver Privacy Act -- is too weak to protect us. Will you support amendments that strengthen it? And how can we work with you to encourage your colleagues to strengthen it?"

121

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 18/02/2026

Not sure he'll get to testify on SB 6002 (Flock/ALPR regulation) but @deflocklynnwood.bsky.social's shirt is making a strong statement in any case. #waleg

A red t-shirt with white letters saying "Presumed Innocent. Tracked Daily. DeFlockLynnwood.com"

141

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

Want some more talking points? No problem! There really are a *lot* of ways that SB 6002 needs to be strengthened to provide meaningful harm reduction.

Restore the funding to the State Auditor that was cut out of the bill in the Senate. Especially with the history of abuses of ALPR data, strong oversight is critical.
Require more frequent transparency reports from agencies using ALPRs, and move the timeframe up. Waiting until December 2027 for the first annual report is unacceptable.
Remove the "knowing" loophole that was added in the Senate. The current language only prevents ALPR data obtained by law enforcement from being admitted as evidence if the violations were "knowing". This is an especially acute problem tgiven the long track record of misconfigurations and other issues where the agency unintentionally provided broader access to ALPR data than they realized – Mountain View (CA) for example shut off their Flock systems after discovering literally hundreds of agencies around the country had searched their data without authorization.
Remove the authorization for institutes of higher education to use ALPRs that was added in the Senate. Students at community colleges, technical colleges, state colleges, regional universities, and the University of Washington are frequently targeted by ICE and CBP – and by law enforcement as protestors.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

You can submit written testimony up to 24 hours after the hearing, so the deadline for this is Thursday at 8:00 am. Here are some talking points, if you want to focus on specific issues.

The current version of SB 6002 Act needs to be strengthened in several ways, including:

Reduce retention as much as possible – to three minutes or less. The current version allows law enforcement agencies to retain data for 21 days, and other agencies to keep it even longer – up to 30 days in some cases. New Hampshire's law limits retention to 3 minutes. The longer data is retained, the greater the chance that ICE will find a way to access it. Police solved crimes before ALPRs, they will find a way to adapt.
Prevent vendor access to the systems and data. Some vendors are believed to share information with ICE and CBP. Even for vendors who don't go out of their way to share information, they're located in other states so the protections of the Shield Law and Keep Washington Working do not apply – meaning it's easy for ICE, CBP, and law enforcement in hostile states to get a court order or subpoena to get the data.
Prevent direct access to an agency's systems to other agencies as well. The current version allows the creation of what is in practice a regional surveillance database.
Require a felony warrant for law-enforcement access to third-party ALPR data. The current version requires a warrant, which is good, but a felony warrant requires much stronger protections.
Ensure that there is enough public records access for journalists, local organizers, and organizations like UW Human Rights Center — whose report is what galvanized widespread opposition — to continue to do oversight.

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

It's almost as easy to submit written testimony. What to say? We've got some suggestions -- make sure to mention "strengthen", anecdotes are powerful, etc -- but do whatever what works for you. Here's the link to the written testimony. app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Testifie...

Provide written testimony – deadline Thursday 8:00 am

If you've got a couple of minutes to provide written testimony, you can go into more detail about why your position on the bill is OTHER, The deadline for acting is Thursday February 19 at 8:00am

1. Click Here
2. From the drop down menu choose "Other".
3, Fill out the form.
4. For the written testimony start with ether "ALPRs should be banned. If that is not possible yet, SB 6002 needs to be strengthened". If there's a reason why prohibiting Flock and other ALPRs is especially important to you – or an anecdote about how they effect you, your family or neighbors, or your community – please make sure to mention that! You can also use one or more of the talking points below in your message, or start from scratch if you prefer.
5. Click the "Submit Registration" button

100

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

If you're a Washington resident, it's very easy to "sign in" for a hearing and note your position: PRO, CON, or OTHER. Deadline for signins: Wednesday, 7:00 am (an hour before the hearing) Here's the link to the sign-in page. app.leg.wa.gov/csi/Testifie...

Sign in OTHER (Strengthen) – deadline Wednesday 7:00 am.

At the previous hearings on the bill, law enforcement, Flock, and their allies all signed in Other. So did cities and counties across Washington. To make sure that our pressure to strengthen the bill doesn't get confused with their pressure to weaken it, we're recommending signing in Other (Strengthen). That's not actually an option on the signin form, so we'll need to be creative!

1. Click Here to Sign In to the Hearing. You are not signing up to speak!
2. From the drop down menu choose "Other"
3. Fill out the form. Remember that any information you include is public! You don't have to provide your street address. Email is required, and many people who care about privacy use a separate account for communications with the state government.
4. In the Organization field, put (Strengthen).
5. Click on Submit Registration

131

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

The bill started out as a "compromise" (i.e. not strong enough) and then amendments in the Senate weakened it further. We still have opportunities to strengthen it in the House, and there's broad agreement on the demands. Now's a good time to get involved!

At the hearing, OneAmerica, Legal Voice, Pro-Choice Washington, Planned Parenthood, ACLU of Washington, and other groupstalked about the need to reduce retention time to 3 minutes. remove vendor access to systems (to keep data from going out of state, where it loses the protections of the Shield Law and Keep Washington Working); prohibit agencies from directly accessing other agencies' ALPR data without a warrant; require a felony warrant for law-enforcement to access third-party ALPR data from Home Depot and other companies; and make other improvements. Law enforcement representatives and Flock talked about the need to increase retention time. Unfortunately the committee didn't listen to the coalition, ignoring virtually all the requests to strengthen the bill. Instead, they listened to law enforcement and Flock, and passed an amendment that increased the retention time to 21 days and weakened the bill in several other ways. The full Senate passed a version with a few more changes, mostly technical fixes. Now it moves to the House.

We need to pressure legislators to strengthen the bill, and an important first step to that is to let them know that the bill is not yet strong enough for us to support it.

110

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 17/02/2026

Here's an excerpt from the action with an overview of the situation. A big risk is that if a weak version of SB 6002 passes, it will legitimize and further normalize the use of ALPRs, and undercut the progress local organizers are making in Mountlake Terrace, Redmond, Olympia, Lynnwood, etc.

Automated license plate readers (ALPRs) like Flock are cameras that scan and store license plate data and "contextual images" that can include people in and around the car from countless Washington drivers every day. ALPRs allow police and other governmental agencies to know where people drive and when – and today, there's no barrier to federal agencies like ICE and out-of-state law enforcement getting data about Washingtonians. The UW Center for Human Right's' Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock Surveillance Systems Expose Washington Data to Immigration Enforcement goes into detail on some of the consequences,

It would be great to ban the use of ALPRs, but the votes aren't there for that to happen at the statewide level yet. Instead, the goal of SB 6002, the Driver Privacy Act, is harm reduction by introducing "guardrails" that protect our privacy and civil rights. The bill prohibits ALPR use in the immediate surroundings of sensitive areas like immigration centers, schools, and providers of reproductive and gender-affirming health care, limits how long the data can be retained, and.requires a warrant for any law enforcement access to ALPR dat, and limited a warrant for any access to ALPR data to three days. These protections significantly improve on the situation today, but are not strong enough to for meaningful harm reduction.

131

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 05/02/2026

And we're off! As always, starting with a staff briefing, summarizing the info in the HB 2481 bill analysis at lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/202...

Specifies pricing practices for a business that sells retail products in a
grocery store, including clearly posting the price and prohibiting the use
of surveillance pricing or surge pricing.

Prohibits the use of electronic shelf label systems in retail stores larger
than 15,000 square feet until January 1, 2030.

Requires the Department of Commerce to study the use of electronic
shelf label systems and report on price transparency and employee job
security by June 30, 2029.

Specifies that violation of the pricing practices is an unfair or deceptive
act for purposes of enforcement under the Consumer Protection Act.

141

Washington Privacy Organizers @wa-privacy.net · 23/02/2025

If you're a Washington state resident, wa-privacy.net/email-approp... brings up draft email to the committee currently considering the People's Privacy Act. Add your name, city, and anything else you want to say, and click send. Big Tech is trying to kill the bill, so we need to push back! (4/7)

Take Action! (in big red capital letters)

103