Uncategorized

Pasadena’s Lack Of Transparency Regarding The Eaton Fire

by  •  • 0 Comments

The Eaton Fire broke out a mere 72 hours after the Rose Parade floats and hundreds of thousands of guests left Pasadena after the 2025 Rose Parade.

It has been more than 140 days since the devastating Los Angeles Fires, and the City of Pasadena has yet to hold a public hearing at either City Council or the Public Safety Committee to report on the City’s response to the Eaton Fire. 

As a resident who lives directly below Eaton Canyon and was forced to evacuate due to the fire, it is doubly important to me that government be transparent and be accountability for their actions. Instead, calls from the public for dialogue with constituents have gone unanswered. My personal asks to Pasadena Fire and Emergency Services relating to current pending safety issues where I live have been met with defensive indignation.

Read more →

Data Privacy

Our Sponsored Bills in the State Legislature

by  •  • 0 Comments

Oakland Privacy is the sponsor of two privacy bills in the state legislature this year.

AB 1337 (Ward) is a much-needed and overdue revamp of the 1977 Information Practices Act, the seminal government privacy law that followed the addition of the right to privacy to the State Constitution in 1972. Assembly Bill 1337 is the third try at updating the IPA, but the first to go forward under Trump 2.0, which has shattered the civil society consensus on government handling of personal information in 120 days.

Assembly Bill 1337 makes some key changes to the IPA including:

  • Aligning the definition of personal information in the IPA with the more modern definition contained in the CA Privacy Rights Act. This would encompass data points like location data, online browsing records, IP addresses, citizenship status, and genetic information.
  • Expanding the definition of covered entities in the IPA to include local agencies, offices, departments and divisions.
  • Preventing information collected from being used for unintended or secondary purposes without consent, closing the secondary purposes loophole to ensure that accidents don’t put people into unnecessary danger.
  • Making the negligent and improper release of personal information that causes harm to a person potentially punishable as a misdemeanor
  • Requiring that IPA disclosure records be kept for three years and not be destroyed prior to that period

If you belong or are affiliated with an organization that can support AB 1337 as it enters the State Senate in June, please use this sign-on sheet to lend your support.

Read more →

Data Privacy, Social Media

An Award: Worst State Anti-Privacy Bill of the Year – Senate Bill 690

by  •  • 0 Comments


While we like to focus on the positive, sometimes we gotta call out the shenanigans. Every year in the State Legislature, one proposal among the 3,000 that get offered stands out as an especially egregious affront to privacy rights. In 2025, that bill is Senate Bill 690.

SB 690, a proposal from Salinas senator Anna Caballero, purports to modernize the state’s 1974 wiretapping law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, by exempting all commercial businesses from accountability for deceptive online surveillance. CIPA, a law you probably haven’t heard of, provides a right of action to sue companies when they install invasive trackers without consent and track online activity for sale to data brokerages.

While you may not have heard of CIPA, you have heard of the lawsuits filed using CIPA which have included Brown v. Google on tracking in Incognito mode in Google Chrome, Facebook v. ITL, on Facebook continuing to track users across the web after they had logged out of the program, and our own Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle, on third party tracking. These seminal class-actions not only settled for payouts, but they changed how Big Tech companies do business.

Current CIPA cases are underway against Amazon and LiveRamp, unless SB 690 stops them in their tracks in one of the most crass give-aways to Big Tech and surveillance capitalism that we’ve ever seen.

Read more →

Uncategorized

Oakland Privacy’s Year in Bullet Points 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

Some of the things Oakland Privacy had a hand in in 2024:

  • Successfully opposes Berkeley City Manager proposal to move City Council meetings from 6:00 PM to 10:00 AM.
  •  Various California Legislative committees cite/quote multiple letters from Oakland Privacy in their bill analyses.
  • Successfully opposes bill in CA Legislature that would have weakened the Brown Act (open public meetings law).
  • Successfully opposes a very bad bill in CA Legislature promoting facial recognition technology.
  • OP member Mike Katz-Lacabe, a named plaintiff in a class-action privacy suit against Oracle, participates in a $115M settlement agreement.
  • Strong opposition to a proposed settlement of the Clearview class-action privacy suit, which proposed to give stock in Clearview to the class members! In January 25, one OP member travelled to Chicago to give testimony in the settlement hearing.
  • Participated in the “Stop Mask Bans” campaign organized by Fight for the Future.
  • Successfully advocates against installing ALPRs in Eureka, CA.
  • OP becomes an official non-profit.

https://oaklandprivacy.org/oakland-privacys-year-in-bullet-points-2023/

Facial Recognition

OP Travels to Chicago To Oppose Clearview AI Settlement in Federal Court

by  •  • 0 Comments

Oakland Privacy’s 2022 Privacy Rights Fellow and current legislative advocate Yadi Younse traveled halfway across the country to object to a proposed class action settlement against Clearview AI, the notorious facial recognition company that scraped the Internet to produce what they claim is a database of 30 billion faceprints (almost 4x the population of the entire world) and sell it for profit.

Younse got 3 minutes in front of a judge to object to the settlement and called out the lack of meaningful relief for class members.

Clearview AI is not ordered to cease and desist from further scraping the images of class members from the Internet nor do they have to pay any immediate compensation. Instead, class members are forced to become hostile shareholders in the company, owning a non-majority stake, and can only be compensated in the event of an initial public offering or a company sale.

Privacy activists, who were coordinated with assistance from Just Futures Law, were joined by the attorney generals of 23 states who submitted a friend of the court brief objecting to the settlement. Illinois federal judge Sharon Coleman has taken the final approval of the settlement under advisement.

Read Oakland Privacy’s press release here.

Read more →

Data Privacy

The Latest on Age Verification Laws: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

by  •  • 0 Comments

On January 15 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from the parties to and amici of the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. The legal issue at hand is the validity of a preliminary injunction that the district court of the 5th Circuit granted to the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), the nonprofit non-partisan trade association for the adult industry (the Industry), blocking the implementation of Texas’s age verification law, HB 1181.

Like several other laws that have been passed in different states, HB 1181 sought to force would-be visitors to websites that host Industry content. Specifically, per the law, a site must verify the age of a visitor if at least 1/3 of that site’s hosted content qualifies as “harmful to minors,” in an attempt to protect children from the harmful effects of consuming pornographic material. However, it is possible that this broad and generic language will be applied to a significant amount of non-pornographic material as well, including R-rated movies. HB 1181 will harm the Industry and it will not protect children. For a more detailed description of how this will happen, refer to my essay on California’s version of an age verification bill, AB 3080.

Read more →