Data Privacy

Prominent Human Rights Groups Call on CA Governor to Protect Data from Trump

by  •  • 0 Comments

Human rights organizations called for Governor Newsom and other California leaders to take immediate action to protect Californians’ data privacy from anticipated attempts by federal and out-of-state law enforcement agencies to violate residents’ fundamental rights under the incoming Trump-Vance administration.

In addition to Oakland Privacy, groups from California that are calling for action include Consumer Attorneys of California, Courage California, Economic Security CA, California LGBTQ Health & Human Services Network, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, and NextGen California. National groups endorsing bold action by state leaders to proactively confront the data privacy threats posed by a second Trump administration include Accountable Tech, EPIC – the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, GreenLatinos, Media Alliance, Public Citizen, and UltraViolet Action.

Read more →

Uncategorized

Elon Musk, Disinformation and Us

by  •  • 0 Comments

On November 14, X, formerly known as Twitter until its acquisition by billionaire Elon Musk, filed suit in federal court to overturn a recently passed California law, AB 2655 (Berman). AB 2655, which is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, originated from the election disinformation advocacy group CITED, and seeks to compel social media sites like X to proactively take down false materials, including deep fakes, about candidates and elections during the periods before, during and after elections.

Musk’s opposition to the bill, as a foremost purveyor of disinformation, is probably not hard to understand. However, pretty much every civil liberties group was also appalled by the bill’s aggressive prior restraint of political speech, and take-down first approach, including us. In fact, Oakland Privacy advocacy director Tracy Rosenberg testified not once, but twice, against the bill in legislative hearings this past session. Among other things: she called it “a broad censorship regime of blocking content”.

Since everything you say can and will be held against you, these comments found themselves in District Court in Mr. Musk’s complaint pp 30-31.

Read more →

Data Privacy

23AndMe Meltdown

by  •  • 0 Comments

One of the world’s largest DNA collections in private hands, ancestry testing company 23AndMe with over 14 million genotypes, seems headed for a chaotic ownership change after CEO Anne Wojcicki warned of incoming bankruptcy and the entire board quit.

While 23andMe’s genetic tests can sometimes provide useful history for some genetically-linked medical conditions, the vast majority of people who willingly sent their saliva to the company were merely seeking to get an analysis of their ancestors heritage for curiosity or entertainment.

The company’s bankruptcy is perhaps not a huge surprise as there is no repeat model for DNA testing – once it’s done it’s done – and the company may have exhausted the supply of willing testers. But the DNA bank’s exclusion from HIPAA, the lack of state laws in most states outside of California (which has a genetic privacy law) and the company’s definition of the DNA in its possession as a salable asset, make the internal crisis a privacy disaster for millions of people with large and measurable risks.

How can you protect yourself if you went for the DNA testing game?

Read more →

Shotspotter Gunshot Detection

Oakland Shotspotter Contract Renewal

by  •  • 0 Comments

Controversial gunshot detection technology Shotspotter is up for contract renewal for the next three years in Oakland. The system depends on outdoor microphones that ping when exposed to a loud noise that might be a gunshot and a dispatch system that sends an immediate alert to the Oakland Police Department. The system sent at least 8,300 alerts in 2023, so upwards of 22 a day on average.

The tech has come under significant criticism in recent years: for repetitively sending police into low-income neighborhoods where the sensors are place and pumped up for violence that may or may not exist, for high rates of false alarms, for distracting police from real 911 calls to chase electronic beeps, and for altering forensic reports to support police narratives after the fact.

Read more →

Data Privacy, Drones, Facial Recognition, Internet of Things, Police Militarization, Public Records, Social Media

2024 State Legislature Wrap-up

by  •  • 0 Comments

It is now past the end of the road for the 2024 state legislative year, so we wanted to report back to you on what happened, what OP did, and what new laws are coming your way. It was the year of artificial intelligence bills, so we will start there and then look at our three traditional areas of focus: consumer privacy, policing and surveillance and governmental transparency. According to our records, OP intervened on 79 potential laws this past year. 20 bills we supported were enacted into law. 25 bills we opposed were defeated.

Read more →

Drones

SFPD Violates State Military Equipment Law

by  •  • 0 Comments

The San Francisco Police Department has confirmed in writing that they acquired 6 DJI drones in May of 2024, without requesting Board of Supervisors authorization or getting an approved use policy as required by State Law (AB 481-2021-Chiu).

We are not surprised as language in Proposition E, as we pointed out earlier this year, purported to authorize drone usage outside the state’s required military equipment procurement process. As we stated, (and informed the City) – “A local ballot intitiative cannot alter state law when the state law governs charter counties by statute and AB 481 does so”.

We’re not sure why SFPD and City Attorney Chiu, who authored AB 481 when in the Assembly, want to waste taxpayer money getting a judge to order them to follow state law.