Which records and offices are covered?
| Record or recipient | Published mechanism | Important limit |
|---|---|---|
| Internet publisher | The statute prohibits knowing disclosure under its serious, imminent safety-threat conditions. | The reviewed section does not establish an unconditional notice-based takedown. [1] [3] |
| County assessor or auditor | Good-faith ordinary public functions have an express exception. | A property website cannot be assessed solely by the protected person's job title. [2] |
| ACP enrollment | Meet with a designated Application Assistant for the program process. | The official categories include distinct safety and protected-healthcare conditions. [4] [5] |
| Agency using an ACP address | The official guidance requires acceptance of a valid program address with few exceptions. | The authorization card and applicable agency exception matter. [6] |
| Voter-list access | RCW 29A.08.720 makes covered lists public subject to statutory restrictions. | Commercial use restrictions and ACP-related protections remain relevant. [7] |
What must be shown under the Internet statute?
RCW 4.24.680 names peace officers, corrections persons, justices, judges, commissioners, public defenders and prosecutors. Its definitions specify the judicial and prosecutorial roles and the immediate family relationships. The protected information includes particular home and private contact details. The section's occupational categories identify who can be protected, but they do not remove the separate publication and threat requirements. [8]
The disclosure must be knowing, and the dissemination must pose an imminent and serious safety threat. That threat must also be reasonably apparent to the person making the information available. Those conditions are load-bearing parts of the provision. The reviewed text cannot support an unconditional promise that a publisher must remove every address merely upon receiving an occupational notice. [1] [3]
Why can a county property website still publish?
The section expressly excepts an employee of a county auditor or assessor who publishes information in good faith while carrying out ordinary public functions. A reader therefore needs to identify both the publisher and the function involved. The same parcel information appearing on an assessor website and a private website does not automatically receive the same analysis under this particular section. [2] [8]
Washington's Address Confidentiality Program supplies a different mechanism. Interested people meet with an advocate designated as an Application Assistant, who reviews the program and safety process. The current statutory categories include distinct threatened-election, criminal-justice and protected-healthcare circumstances. The program's published agency guidance requires acceptance of the substitute address upon a valid authorization card, with the stated exceptions. [4] [5] [6]
Which election and consumer rules are separate?
RCW 29A.08.720 makes covered poll books and voter lists available subject to the cross-referenced confidentiality restrictions. It also restricts commercial solicitation uses while preserving the statutory political-purpose distinction. Public-list availability therefore does not establish unrestricted use of every field. An election-record question should be checked under the election chapter and ACP provisions rather than the threat-qualified Internet disclosure statute alone. [7] [1]
Washington's My Health My Data Act addresses consumer health data beyond HIPAA. That health-data scope differs from both election administration and county property indexing. The reviewed Attorney General source supports a health-specific protection, not a general finding about every type of personal data. Before using a commercial privacy request, identify whether the information and business fall within the particular law's covered subject matter. [9]
Open the Washington privacy-rights tool. Compare the home-address laws, address confidentiality programs, consumer privacy rights and voter-record rules behind this page.
Related state references. Colorado and Hawaii. Return to the state directory.
Which sources were reviewed?
Checked October 24, 2026. Scheduled source review January 24, 2027. Each linked provision governs its own record channel and statutory conditions.