Credit: Creative Commons

On May 15, 2013, the consumer group, Consumer Watchdog, sent a letter to Attorney General Kamala Harris accusing Google of violating California’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“OPPA”). According to the group, the Google privacy policy is in violation of OPPA because Google does not directly link to it on its homepage.

The OPPA, codified at Business and Professions Code § 22575-22579, became effective on July 1, 2004. It applies to commercial websites that collect “personally identifiable information,” which includes users’ names, physical addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, or any other relevant information that can be used to identify users. OPPA requires such websites to “conspicuously post” their privacy policies.

Under Section 22577(b) “conspicuously post,” requires the site to provide a link to the policy “on the homepage or the first significant page after entering the Web site.” The link must contain the word “privacy” and must be displayed in a manner that would be obvious to the “reasonable person.”

In 2004, law firm Cooley Godward Kronish said the bill required the policy to appear either on the homepage itself, or on a page linked to directly from the home page. That same year, the California Office of Privacy Protection (“COPP”) issued a best practices guide, recommending that companies “use a conspicuous link on your home page containing the word ‘privacy,’” in “larger type than the surrounding text, contrasting color, or symbols that call attention to it.”

Until recently, Google had a link on its homepage directing users to a page displaying the company’s privacy policy. Now, users are taken to a page that describes how Google helps them “stay safe and secure online,” ensuring users that Google “work[s] continuously to ensure strong security, protect your privacy, and make Google even more useful and efficient for you.”

According to Consumer Watchdog, this misrepresents the motivation for Google’s data collection, which enables the company to generate higher revenues from advertising sales. The group accuses Google of “burying its privacy policy and offering distractions to users.”

This is not the first time Google has faced scrutiny regarding its privacy policy. On May 30, 2008, New York Times journalist Saul Hansell posted a blog entry titled, “Is Google Violating a California Privacy Law,” suggesting that the company had violated OPPA by doing essentially the same thing. At the time, users accessed the policy by clicking a link called “About Google,” after which they had to click a second link to access the actual policy.

On June 3, 2008, a coalition of privacy groups, including the ACLU, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, sent a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt urging the company to comply with the OPPA. On June 10, 2008, Assembly member Joel Anderson sent a letter to Schmidt expressing the same sentiment. Within days, Google added a hyperlink labeled, “Privacy,” linking users directly to the policy.

In 2012, the Department of Justice took over the work of the California Office for Privacy Protection, creating a new Office of Privacy Protection within the State Attorney General’s office. The new lineup includes Joanne McNabb, former chief of the COPP, as the Director of Privacy Education and Policy. The new division resides within the State’s eCrime unit.

According to Special Assistant Attorney General Travis LeBlanc, head of the new division, it will take proactive step in monitoring and regulating compliance with OPPA. The California Constitution guarantees the Right of Privacy in Article 1, Section 1, which says:

“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

It remains to be seen what actions privacy groups and the state Attorney General will take.

Jon JekelIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Maria Dryfhout / Shutterstock.com

A bill recently filed in California aims to close a loophole in state law that allows health insurers to give a financial kickback to pharmacists every time they decide to give customers cheaper, poorer quality drugs that are not chemically equivalent to those prescribed by the customer’s doctor.

AB 670, filed by California Assemblymember Toni Atkins, would “prohibit a pharmacist or pharmacy employer from receiving any payment or other compensation, in the form of money or otherwise to specifically recommend or replace a patient’s originally prescribed drug product with a drug product that does not have the same active ingredient as the originally prescribed drug product, unless the recommendation or replacement is the result of, and the payment is included in the reimbursement for, the pharmacist performing a comprehensive medication review, as specified.”

Unlike switching patients to chemically identical — and cheaper — generic drugs, the practice known as “therapeutic substitution” subjects patients to drugs with different ingredients, dosages, release mechanisms, side effects and compilations, often without patient or physician knowledge.

Doctor Samuel I. Fink, president of the Los Angeles County Medical Association, explains why therapeutic substitution is a dangerous practice with potentially grave consequences:

“Patient health often suffers when they are switched to therapeutically different medications. Although the medicines may treat the same conditions, the chemical ingredients are not the same. This often results in side effects or ineffective treatment. Patients who are stabilized on medications to treat epilepsy or mental health are particularly vulnerable.”

Current California law prohibits doctors from receiving financial benefits from insurers for prescribing specific drugs, but there are many instances in which a prescribing doctor will take advice from pharmacists on alternative medications.

A pharmacist may recognize potentially dangerous interactions with other prescribed medications or may realize the patient’s health plan doesn’t cover the medications prescribed by the physician.

Because of these legitimate reasons a pharmacist may have to switch medications, physicians are often left wondering if the switch is being done because it’s truly best for the patient, or if it’s due to the pharmacist potentially receiving kickbacks.

“Doctors are not permitted to accept payment to specifically switch their patients’ medications from one drug to another based solely on a financial incentive,” Atkins said. “AB 670 places similar restrictions on pharmacists and will ensure that science and patient well-being are the determining factors when choosing a drug and that consumers are protected.”

Taylor TylerIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Radu Bercan / Shutterstock.com

On Monday, the Senate Appropriations Committee will vote on the “California Tobacco Tax Act of 2014,” a bill introduced by Senator Kevin de Leon that would increase taxes on cigarettes to pay for health care programs.

California has the 17th lowest cigarette tax in the country at 87 cents per pack. SB 768 would raise this tax to $2 per packs. The tobacco tax, which would bring in an estimated $1.2 billion in annual revenues, would be used to provide health services for tobacco-related illnesses, anti-smoking education, and smoking cessation programs.

The last time California raised taxes on cigarettes was in 1999 when proposition 99 was passed, which raised the tax by 25 cents.  Last June, proposition 29, which would have raised the tobacco tax by 1$ pack, was narrowly defeated as 50.3 percent of California voters rejected it.

Senator de Leon believes California taxpayers should not be responsible for the health care costs associated with the tobacco-related illnesses, which are estimated at $3.1 billion a year. The bill has received the support of the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association the American Heart Association and other health related organizations.

However, the bill has also received its share of critics. Cigarette taxes are opposed because they are regressive and adversely affect low-income earners. A 2012 study by RTI International shows that in the state of New York, which has the highest cigarette tax at $4.35 per pack, low-income smokers spend nearly a quarter of their income on cigarettes. Nationally, low-income earners spend approximately 14 percent of their incomes on smoking.

Critics are also concerned that the tax increase would encourage people to turn to black market cigarettes. Considering California’s proximity with Mexico, this could lead to an increase in smuggling activities and the issues that come with them.

Creating a new tax on cigarettes would also go against the pledge made by Governor Brown following the passage of Proposition 30 not to sign new taxes without a vote from the people. Despite the fact that tax would only affect smokers, it would follow the governor’s announcement of the first state surplus in years and would be seen as an attempt by the Democratic supermajority to ask for even more money.

Since its introduction, SB 768 has been on a fast track and has already been approved by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee and the Senate Health Committee. If approved on Monday by the Senate Appropriations Committee, the bill will make a major step toward becoming law.

Lucas EavesIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

(Credit: Kwame Raoul Twitter page)

With a deadline approaching in the Illinois concealed carry debate, legislation was introduced in the State Senate late last week. However, each side in the gun debate continues to show signs of intransigence.

Sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, a vote was expected on Friday, but was delayed. A vote could come on Monday.

Raoul’s legislation would give Chicago police the authority to award permits with the Illinois State Police making the judgments everywhere else. It is an attempt to harmonize the disparate gun factions within the state.

Sen. Dan Kotowski, another Chicago Democrat, also introduced legislation to ban the sale of magazines able to fire more than ten rounds. Governor Pat Quinn has long sought an assault weapons ban, but so far the ban on high-capacity magazines is the only such ban to emerge.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, the Democrat who introduced a previously-defeated “may issue” bill, says Raoul’s bill will never pass the House.

On Monday, the Senate is also expected to hear testimony from parents of victims from the Newtown, Connecticut shooting late last year. Senate President John Cullerton said:

“I want these three parents [to] come down to Springfield, Illinois, and I want them to make some of the senators very uncomfortable and that’s what’s going to make a difference.”

Meanwhile, Springfield Alderman Tim Griffin is encouraging home-rule legislation in communities of 25,000 or more. In Griffin’s proposal, out-of-state permits would be recognized in Springfield. Also, any business can opt out of allowing concealed weapons by registering online and displaying a sign outside the business specifying it.

The biggest objection to home-rule proposals is that they do not provide uniform regulations, thus creating a question about what happens when a concealed carry user crosses into another jurisdiction. Home-rule legislation would be regulations in addition to any that get passed in Springfield. They can also, theoretically, be more restrictive.

Phelps, who said his previously-defeated “may issue” law would have been the country’s most restrictive, opposes this avenue:

“There should be one, uniform law statewide . . . because if you allow municipalities and counties to do their own ordinances, from town to town to town, that law-abiding gun owner is not going to know between one town and another.”

Last December, a U.S. Federal Appeals Court ruled the concealed carry ban in Illinois was unconstitutional and gave the state six months to pass legislation regulating it.

The legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on May 31. If no legislation enacting regulations on Illinois concealed carry is reached by June 9, uninhibited concealed carry becomes reality in the state.

Carl WicklanderIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Rick Perry during State of State address / Austin American-Statesman

On Friday, members of the Texas Legislature agreed to a deal on the Texas State Budget that includes more money for public schools in exchange for $1 billion in tax cuts and fee rebates. The agreement comes after a tumultuous round of negotiations that was nearly derailed Wednesday after Senate leaders held out for $300 million more for higher education, while House leaders sought more spending on public schools.

“This is a very good budget, and I don’t know how many member of the House or Senate could vote against this budget,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Williams to the Austin American-Statesman.

Previously, the Senate passed Senate Bill 1, a bill that would increase school funding, while the House passed House Bill 1025, a bill that would provide $200 million in education money and $2 billion for a new water fund.

On Thursday, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst claimed that a deal had been reached between the House and Senate. However, House Democrats, who are needed by the GOP to surpass the 100 vote threshold to pass the portion of the House bill that provides for the water fund, had not agreed to the Senate’s package and spent much of Friday discussing whether or not they would join in agreement.

Democrats ultimately got a $3.9 billion education package. The package includes $3.4 billion for public school and additional money for teacher pensions and other education programs.

“While it doesn’t restore the $5.4 billion in education cuts, it puts back $3.93 billion that was taken away, and you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” said Representative Trey Martinez Fischer.

However, the Democrats had to concede $631 million in utility fee rebates, which comes from a fund that helps low-income Texans pay their electrical bill, and a few million dollars in business tax cuts to be used for $1 billion in tax relief.

A minor issue that is still being discussed includes the amount necessary to take out of the $12 billion rainy day fund. Senator Tommy Williams claimed he would continue to fight to remove $2.9 billion dollars from the rainy day fund in order to pay off highway construction debt.

“I haven’t given up,” he said. “Texas is the fastest-growing state in the country, and we clearly have a shortfall in our highway funding. It’s undisputed that that’s the case.”

The bill will face a final vote in both chamber in approximately a week from now. If Governor Rick Perry signs the budget — as he is expected to — it will go into effect immediately.

Eric RobinsonIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Credit: Level 3 Communications

Last week, the FCC again denied a request by wired telephone companies to shut down their networks. This request comes as more Americans are moving away from switched (wired) network telephone lines in favor of the integrated broadband from cable, fiber, and mobile providers. Many are also switching to programs such as Skype as well.

In fact, according to a National Health and Statistics report by the Center for Disease Control, in 2011, fewer than half of all American homes still had wired phone service. That number could drop to 25 percent in 2015, according to a statement by Hank Hultquist, vice president for Federal Regulatory Affairs at AT&T.

The FCC released a public notice late last year that explains its position on these wired networks. In the notice, the FCC touts the benefits of switching from wired phone lines. However, the commission is also trying to be cautious in its efforts, so that groups are not left in the dark.

Most notably, the FCC is looking to initiate “trials” by switching off the wired telephone service of entire geographic regions in favor of the other alternatives, such as voice over IP (VoIP). The delay comes from the FCC attempting to receive comments and recommendations from not just service providers, but the customers these trials would be affecting:

“At least one provider has proposed serving consumers with wireless service in place of wireline service in certain geographic areas,” The FCC said in their public notice. “We seek comment on a trial that would analyze the impact of doing so and, in particular, focus on the consumer experience and ensure that consumers have the ability to move back to a wireline product during the trial.”

Some aren’t buying this explanation by the FCC. Fred Campbell, former bureau chief at the FCC, said he thinks the steps the FCC are taking are inadequate and fail to address the proper issues:

“The proposed trials wouldn’t address the full range of issues raised by the IP transition. As proposed, the trials would address three limited issues: VoIP interconnection, next-generation 911, and wireless substitution,” Campbell said in his blog. “Though these issues are important, the FCC proposals omit the most important issue of all – the transition of the wireline network infrastructure itself.”

Not only is the FCC dragging its feet, it is also costing phone companies billions of dollars. According to a report by Bernstein Research, titled “The State of the Net: 2012,” return on investment (ROI) for wireline services has been on the decline for over a decade. In 2000, wireline service providers saw about a 12 percent ROI. In 2010, of the two companies still providing wireline service — AT&T and Verizon — AT&T saw a 7.2 percent ROI, while Verizon saw a mere 1.6 percent ROI.

The FCC has an unfortunate track record of delaying transitions from the old to the new. In 2009, the FCC continually delayed the switching of television from analog to digital.

As a result, viewership began sharply declining and today, according to Neilson surveys, fewer than 10 percent of Americans watch television on over-the-air signals. This crippled just about every industry invested in over-the-air television, particularly advertisers, to the point where over-the-air television is all, but completely obsolete.

Beck AllemanIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Photo Credit: Isaac Arjonilla, Daily Bruin

University of California President Mark Yudof has faced criticism during his tenure as leader of the prestigious 10-campus system. However, he explains there is more to his role than raising tuition and cutting services.

President Yudof released a “State of the University of California” address to reflect on the past 5 years as leader of the system. He also looked into the future to give fair warning of the challenges ahead since he will be stepping down as president of the UC system in August.

He understands that the UC administration has been characterized by some in the public and political sphere as overly bureaucratic and self-serving:

“Embedded within this narrative are a host of myths — that tenured and tenuretrack professors are not teaching undergraduates, that UC is prohibitively expensive, that poor students cannot afford to attend, and that graduates take on unparalleled student loan debt, that University endowments may be easily tapped to cover undergraduate education costs, that UC makes no effort to raise money, only to raise tuition, and so on.”

The address states that average workload for full-time professors has gone up 10 percent. He explains that costs of education are addressed by financial aid innovations like the Blue and Gold program, covering tuition for students with under $80,000 in annual family income, and Pell Grant expansion.

While student loan debt remains a large factor in an uncertain job market, the average debt owed by UC students has not gone up significantly. Average debt for UC graduating seniors was at $18,779 in the 2011-2012 academic year. In the 1999-2000 academic year, that average was at $17,007.

As for higher tuition costs, Yudof says:

“Some political leaders have demanded freezes on further tuition increases—while insisting, at the same time, that quality and access remain robust.”

Annual tuition for all UC campuses has gone from $6,634 six years ago to $12,849, nearly doubling. The UC system’s total operating budget for the 2011-2012 academic year was $22.5 billion. Six years ago, that number was at $15.3 billion.

Governor Jerry Brown is calling for a 4-year tuition freeze for the UC and CSU systems while Mark Yudof argues that freezes put a strain on the UC’s ability to continue many of its current services. This current situation highlights one of Yudof’s concerns for the next UC president:

“It now appears unlikely, given current financial and political realities, that the level of state support needed for public institutions to maintain this paradigm will return to the hey-day of baby-boom levels—at least in the foreseeable future.”

Mark Yudof spoke with the Public Policy Institute of California to discuss these challenges earlier in May.

It’s common and sometimes natural to point to high ranking officials for the tough times faced. Holding leaders accountable is imperative, but understanding the situations and their work is just as important.

Michael HighamIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Credit: “California State Capitol”/ Shutterstock.com

The campaign season is over and the next round is still a year away. However, legislators never really stop being a candidate and the California political fundraising machine is already running.

A recent piece in the Boston Globe highlighted how much time members of the Congress have to spend fundraising, especially the freshman lawmakers, whose seats are considered to be vulnerable in the next elections. Newcomers are expected to spend up to 4 hours a day making phone calls for donations, twice as much as the time dedicated for committee hearings, floor votes, or to meet with constituents.

A similar trend is noticeable at the state level, especially in California. Over the last decade, costs of elections have rose steadily, changing candidate fundraising practices.

Fundraising has always been part of any political activity. Former Assemblymember Jeff Marston said he remembers making fundraising phone calls a couple of times a week during his years in the state Assembly in the early 1990s.

Over the last decade, however, these practices have changed substantially in Sacramento as fundraising has essentially become a profession. Today, most, if not all, members of the Legislature have fundraisers organized by professional fundraising companies.

Due to the rising costs of elections and the fact that fundraising has become a whole industry, there is now an endless number of fundraisers throughout the legislative session. In 2008, there were over 135 fundraising events organized in the last two weeks of the legislative session.

Fundraising is not done by candidates for the sole purpose of funding their campaigns anymore. Candidates in safe districts are encouraged to raise more money than they need to help other members of their caucus. This is how they are able to impress party leaders and climb party ranks.

This era of constant fundraising is more contested from the inside as a majority of legislators do not particularly like spending more of their time on the phone bugging potential donnors. Contributors are also tired of receiving dozens of invitations to fundraising events that happen throughout the year.

It is also contested from the outside. In a time when public trust in political institutions is declining, legislators receiving a check on one day and voting the next is not helping. The public perception of the governmental process would be greatly improved if a better separation of these two political activities was possible.

Earlier this year, a solution was put forward by USC professor and former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, Dan Schnur , when he announced he was working on a proposition to ban all fundraising for statewide officeholders whenever the Legislature is in session. Fifteen states currently have limits on fundraising during legislative sessions.

Schnur believes such reform — combined with the top-two primary and independent redistricting — would create an environment that fosters cooperation among legislators of opposite sides. However, as with any reform, the beneficiaries of the current system are likely to oppose any changes, making fundraising reform in California an uncertain prospect.

Lucas EavesIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

It’s been nearly four years since a radical Muslim Army psychiatrist walked into a processing center on Ft. Hood, shouted “Allah Akbar,” and opened fire. The shooter killed 13 people, including a pregnant woman, and wounded another 32.

In the years that followed, much attention has been paid to the gunman. However, after the initial media storm, little attention has been paid to the victims and their families, and this has caused many of them to file suit with the government, the shooter, and his Muslim leader.

What’s at Stake?

In the aftermath of the shooting, the Army and the Obama administration promised to take care of the families of the fallen and the wounded, but according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court on November 5, 2011, that hasn’t happened. The lawsuit claims the government has done everything it can to protect the shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, and their own interests while marginalizing the victims. The suit is seeking $750 million in damages.

One of the biggest bones of contention is the way the incident is classified. Currently, the Department of Defense classifies the incident as “workplace violence,” which gives victims a lower priority with regards to care and denies certain monetary compensation that would not be denied if the event was classified as “an act of terror”.

According to the lawsuit, many of the victims have had to seek medical treatment outside of the military at their own expense and are struggling to coordinate proper care.

A bill introduced by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), called “The Fort Hood Families Benefits Protection Act,” would award victims the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent from the Department of Defense and provide all the benefits that come with those honors. The purpose of the bill is to “ensure that the victims and victims’ families of the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, receive the same treatment and benefits as those Americans who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.”

This is important from a financial standpoint, as those who are killed or wounded as a result of combat are eligible for care and benefits that those who are not killed in combat are not.

The Pentagon’s Position

The Pentagon has no intention of changing the way this incident is classified which has led some to believe the Pentagon is more concerned about the shooter than his victims.

According to ABC News, a Pentagon position paper issued on March 29 seems to partially confirm this by saying that giving the victims these awards has the potential to “irrevocably alter the fundamental character of this time-honored decoration” and “undermine the prosecution of Major Nidal Hasan [the alleged Fort Hood shooter] by materially and directly compromising Major Hasan’s ability to receive a fair trial.”

Victims had some hope that the classification of the attack would be changed under the new U.S. Secretary of Defense, but those hopes were dashed as well. Secretary Hagel has said the position of the department remains unchanged.

Classifying Terrorism

This is not the first time that an issue such as this one has occurred. In fact, the Pentagon victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were awarded purple hearts — or the civilian equivalent — and the incident was quickly classified as a terrorist attack. So what’s so different about these two incidents?

Both were carried out by radical Islamic terrorists and records go even further to indicate that both had ties to Al Qaeda. Evidence from the Ft. Hood investigation shows that Hasan had extensive contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim Imam and known Al Qaeda leader responsible for new recruitment and operational planning. Hasan even attended his mosque in Maryland while stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

While victims wait for medical and mental health treatments and continue to struggle financially due to the classification, the shooter remains on the Army’s payroll, receiving more than $6,000 per month based on his rank.

Jury selection for Hasan’s trial is set to begin on May 29.

Wendy InnesIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors

Credit: http://www.idownloadblog.com/

Independent voters now account for approximately 40 percent of all voters in the United States. Following the national trend, California voters are increasingly leaving the two major parties, with almost 3.7 million voters now registered under “No Party Preference” in the state.

Overall voter turnout, however, decreased in 2012 election, with one million fewer Californians casting a ballot in the general election than in previous presidential elections. With independent voters now accounting for 21 percent of the electorate in California, how can the state ensure their voices are heard in Sacramento?

Assemblymember Philip Ting proposes exploring online voting with Assembly Bill 19, or the “Internet Voting Pilot Program.”

Passed on April 23 by the California Assembly Elections Committee, AB 19 proposes to change the legal definition of “voting system” to include the use of systems connected to the Internet in future California elections. This would authorize the creation of an Internet Voting Pilot Program, under which counties could offer voters the choice to vote online.

There have already been attempts to modernize the election process in California. The 2012 elections were the first to include online voter registration. Increasing overall registration by almost 800,000 voters, 32 percent of those utilizing the Internet to register to vote were independent voters.

If online voter registration is any indication of online voting behavior, AB 19 could increase turnout among independents in California. In a state governed by a Democratic supermajority, striving towards a more representative government is a good thing.

Citing successful programs in West Virginia and Colorado, Assemblymember Ting believes that providing online voting as a supplemental method on Election Day will successfully increase access to the democratic process in California.

“In a state as diverse as California, it would allow for ballots to be seamlessly translated into any language, improving access for all citizens,” he wrote in the purpose of the bill

If passed, the California online voting bill will be the first of its kind in California, signaling a revolutionary shift in the way California elections are run.

However, not all revolutions are good, Phillip Ung, from California Common Cause, said in a phone interview. He highlighted the threat online hacking would have on the integrity of elections:

“We do not believe that our elections and the integrity of our elections should be under that kind of threat by adopting a system that, for the most part, is untested. Even if it’s a pilot, it still counts real votes; it’s a real election.”

California Common Cause instead advocated for online voter registration and Election Day registration in California — both measures passed last year in California.

“We simply are not ready to make the jump into AB 19 as it’s written,” Ung added, a sentiment echoed by the California Internet Voting Task Force. In a 2000 report, the task force concluded that “the election process would be best served by a strategy of evolutionary rather than revolutionary change.” This suggests that a phase-in process would be necessary to ensure no errors become integrated into the system.

In the world of technology, however, a 2000 report is considerably outdated, with some of the recommendations already realized. California Common Cause calls for a modern task force to re-evaluate the technological threats and legal implications associated with online voting.

We trust the Internet with our credit card information, social security numbers, and medical information. Can we trust the Internet with our democratic process?

Editor’s Note: Assemblymember Ting was reached for comment on the impact AB 19 will have on California elections. His office has not responded.

Jane SusskindIVN - Unfiltered News by Independent Contributors