* EPIC submitted testimony to the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works & Operations on Monday.
* Testimony urged the Council to further strengthen B26-0670, the DC Government Data Privacy and Protection Act of 2026.
* The proposed legislation aims to set standards for government collection, use, and disclosure of personal data.
* EPIC recommended strengthening the bill by targeting current government data practices.
* Recommendations included protecting against known harms from sensitive data use.
* Recommendations included maximizing transparency to constituents.
* Recommendations included including language regarding the use of personal data to train AI systems.
* Recommendations included strengthening enforcement provisions.

EPIC submitted testimony to the D.C. Council Committee on Public Works & Operations urging them to strengthen B26-0670, the D.C. Government Data Privacy and Protection Act of 2026. The proposed legislation seeks to establish standards for how the government collects, uses, and discloses personal data to protect D.C. residents. EPIC recommended that the Committee enhance the bill by focusing on specific areas: targeting current government data practices, protecting against harms from sensitive data use, increasing transparency for constituents, including provisions regarding the use of personal data for training AI systems, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms.
EPIC framed this request within a context where lawmakers must establish guardrails to protect public privacy and constitutional rights against expanding government data collection. The organization emphasized its long-standing advocacy for privacy and constitutional rights in the information age, seeking collaboration with the Council to safeguard D.C. residents' privacy.

The request by EPIC frames the legislation not merely as a technical regulation but as a necessary defense of constitutional and democratic values against increasing government data collection. The core pattern involves shifting public discourse from viewing privacy as an individual right to treating it as a mechanism for mitigating systemic government abuse, particularly concerning emerging technologies like AI training.
The strategy employed is one of coalition-building: appealing to the Council's existing commitment to privacy while demanding specific policy insertions that address novel threats (AI) and established harms (data use). This moves the conversation from abstract principles to concrete regulatory action. A key implication is the tension between government operational necessity and individual autonomy in the digital sphere. The pattern of advocating for 'guardrails' over simple compliance suggests a recognition that existing frameworks are insufficient against evolving power dynamics, demanding proactive, specific legislation rather than reactive policy adjustments.
What mechanisms exist within D.C. governance to prioritize these specific recommendations during committee review? How does addressing AI training provisions interact with established public works or operations mandates? What are the long-term consequences if enforcement provisions remain insufficiently strengthened?