Posts Tagged ‘privacy’

Groove on Trippy Presidio Terrace, As Seen by Google Maps

Friday, July 19th, 2013

Google is now careful about revealing too much about tony Presidio Terrace, as it’s a private street.

Google didn’t know that back in 2007.

Check here and here.

Good times:

It might look like a public street but it’s not, so the people that live on this small loop just north of Clement are free to hire a guard to keep out whomever they want. And not too long ago, the houses here all had restrictive covenants that prevented people of the “non Caucasian race” from buying or leasing on this street. An ad from the latter part of 1906:There is only one spot in San Francisco where only Caucasians are permitted to buy or lease real estate or where they may reside. That place is Presidio Terrace.”

But now Google does know, so no Street Maps for you – it’s terra incogniter. See?

It looks like Instagram or something.

Anyway, the data from the Google Maps Car visit of 2006 is gone.

Long gone.

And the residents like things that way, I suppose.

Does CA Really Need a “Social Media Privacy Act?” No Matter, SB 1349, the Job Interview Facebook Password Law, is Here

Friday, May 25th, 2012

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, I’m not going to articulate myself on this one.

But you, you go right ahead, feel free to tell your buds what you think. (But first, please email me your FB account names / passwords, and your intimate photos and whatnot.)

All right, off you go:

“California Senate Approves Social Media Privacy Act - Yee’s SB 1349 will prohibit employers, colleges from seeking Facebook, Twitter passwords

SACRAMENTO – On a bipartisan 28-5 vote, the California Senate today approved legislation authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) to stop employers from formally requesting or demanding employees or job applicants provide their social media usernames and passwords.

Yee’s bill also prohibits public and private colleges and universities from requiring such information of students.

The bill comes after a growing number of businesses, public agencies, and colleges around the country are asking job seekers, workers, and students for their Facebook and Twitter account information.

“I am pleased by today’s overwhelming vote to end this unacceptable invasion of personal privacy,” said Yee. “The practice of employers or colleges demanding social media passwords is entirely unnecessary and completely unrelated to someone’s performance or abilities.”

In addition to the privacy of students and workers, accessing social media accounts may also invade the privacy of family members and friends who thought they only were sharing information with their own social media network.

“These social media outlets are often for the purpose of individuals to share private information – including age, marital status, religion, sexual orientation and personal photos – with their closest friends and family,” said Yee. “This information is illegal for employers and colleges to use in making employment and admission decisions and has absolutely no bearing on a person’s ability to do their job or be successful in the classroom.”

“SB 1349 is a significant step towards securing Californians’ constitutional right to privacy, both online and offline, in the workplace and in school,” said Jon Fox, Consumer Advocate for CALPIRG.

“If employers are permitted to access the private information of job applicants, unscrupulous hiring managers will be given greater leeway to circumvent anti-discrimination laws,” said Joe Ridout of Consumer Action.

Rather than formally requesting passwords and usernames, some employers have demanded applicants and employees to sit down with managers to review their social media content or fully print out their social media pages. SB 1349 will also prohibit this practice.

Shannon Minter, Legal Director for National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that the practice of requesting social media passwords is the equivalent to reading a personal diary, and also LGBT employees, job applicants, and students already face significant obstacles when applying for schools and jobs.

Minter said that SB 1349 helps ensures individuals are “judged by their qualifications and performance, rather than elements of their private life.”

IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Lori Andrews, who specializes in Internet privacy, told the Associated Press that these practices even when given voluntarily should not be allowed.

“Volunteering is coercion if you need a job,” Andrews told the AP.

Johnny Veloz, an unemployed photographer, told KCRA Sacramento that he was asked for his Facebook password during a recent job interview. Veloz was denied the job after refusing to provide the information.

“For me, that’s rude and it’s not respectful,” Veloz told KCRA. “Someone has privacy and you expect them to respect that.”

Yee’s bill would also prohibit employers and colleges from demanding personal email addresses and login information of employees, applicants, and students.

SB 1349 will now be considered by the State Assembly before heading to the Governor.”

And oh, if I ever crafted a “social media privacy act,” I can just about guarantee you that Facebook WOULD NOT LIKE IT. Not one bit.

Just saying.

Michael Krasny’s FORUM show is Covering the BART Shooting Protests Right Now on the KQED-FM

Monday, August 29th, 2011

All right, listen live to KQED’s Michael Krasny right now, 9:30 AM, Monday morning, August 29th, 2011:

Protest or Prank?

Last week, the hacker collective known as Anonymous posted online what they claim are semi-nude photos of BART spokesman Linton Johnson. In light of this very personal attack, we discuss the ethics of hacking. Will public officials now have to live in fear of angering individuals with sophisticated knowledge of computers and technology?”

FTR, Linton Johnson didn’t “decide” to turn off cell phone service. The story is this: Linton was solicited by somebody at BART for ideas, “constitutional or unconstitutional,” on how to deal with that Thursday night shooting protest. Linton had the idea (gee, has BART done anything like this cell phone shutdown before?) but it was approved by higher up(s). Linton wasn’t The Decider, AFAIK.

The news from NMA Taiwan:

Or, you can listen to it later, I’m sure…

Another BART Police Shooting Protest: BARTWRAITH 2011 (OpBART 2) Coming Monday, August 22, 2011

Friday, August 19th, 2011

Is BART perfect?

Leave us review:

Here’s the death of Oscar Grant in 30 seconds at the Fruitvale Station in 2009(Killing somebody with a SIG Sauer P226 semi-automatic instead of not killing somebody by using a TASER X26 instead, you know, that yellow plastic thing attached to your belt – Chapter 1)

Here’s the death of Charles Hill in 80 seconds at the Civic Center Station in 2011(Killing somebody with a SIG Sauer P226 semi-automatic instead of not killing somebody by using a TASER X26 instead, you know, that yellow plastic thing attached to your belt – Chapter 2)

So, BART, do you think there’s a chance in Hell that you did a proper job of TASER implementation the past several years? Have you apologized for that?

Here’s more. Remember this, from back in the day?

The BART Police Department stripped its officers of Tasers on Thursday, days after a sergeant fired the electric darts of his stun gun at a 13-year-old boy fleeing from police in Richmond on his bicycle, sources told The Chronicle.”

Anyway, here’s the latest – the next protest at the downtown stations of the Bay Area Rapid Transit will be during the evening drive on Monday, August 22, 2011. (Personally, I think this one will be smaller than the one we had on Monday, August 15th, but who’s to say?)

That’s right, it’s OpBART 2, BARTWRAITH 2011, betwixt ANONYMOUS and BART PR hack Linton Johnson, who costs the taxpayers $170k(!) per year

Via Artificial Eyes/exiledsurfer – click to expand

(Are the BART police competent? I don’t know. How would they rank, say, compared with the SFPD, LAPD, FBI – is that a fair question?)

No matter, you’re making history, BART

You’re making history:

“The mission of BART, according to BART’s statement, “is to provide, safe, secure, efficient, reliable, and clean transportation services.” So there was the municipal transit agency, exercising its powers to shut down a protest. It’s possible that BART had the legal right to cut off communications inside its stations. It can be argued that the inside of a transit station is an unsuitable place for a mass demonstration.

But the point of the would-be demonstrations was to challenge BART’s judgment in how it used its powers. The protesters were protesting a shooting by transit police. BART’s response showed that it couldn’t even grasp that premise.

What about ordinary commuters, entering the zone of conflict with no access to their own mobile communications? “BART Police officers and other BART personnel with radios were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity.” The authorities were in charge. The authorities and no one else.

For a day, the measures worked—or in the unknowable world of security counterfactuals, they didn’t not work. There were no disruptive protests during that commute. But BART’s vision of tech dystopia was self-fulfilling. In response to the news of the phone shutdown, the vigilante hackers of Anonymous retaliated by breaking into its database of commuters’ private information and launching a new round of demonstrations, teaming up with the original aggrieved parties. Technology was a dangerous thing after all.”

“Constitutional Rights to Safety?” BART Spokesmodel Linton Johnson Doesn’t Know What the Fuck He’s Talking About

Monday, August 15th, 2011

[UPDATE: IMO, posting naked photos sort of misses the point, but anyway.]

Hello, BART, helloooooo? Don’t you realize that you’re a national laughingstock currently? So why do you still have Linton Johnson out there spinning beyond measure, today and the past few days?

Here’s his howler from last week, from “BARTtv News,” I’m srsly, BARTtv News:

“There are a multitude of groups … flying in from all over the country. They want to do surprise attacks, basically, on BART riders.”

Really, a “multitude,” which is of course a “very great number,” so what, like 100 “groups,” 100′s of people paid their way to fly to SFO (and paid 911 fees and baggage fees and x-fer fees and fuel surcharges, really?) to “attack” BART riders on Thursday evening last week?

Really? How many people actually showed up that night? Zero? Two? Nothing happened, right?

What the fuck are you talking about, Linton Johnson? Is this poetic license? You’re not selling soap here, P.R. man, correct? Do you think it’s your right to make things up?

So that was last week.

Now, here’s this week, from the KRON-TV. OMG.

So, BART passengers have constitutional “Rights to Safety*” and a “Right to Privacy” that BART should invoke to “preserve” and “balance against” the First Amendment, Bill of Rights, etc? 

What the fuck are you talking about, Linton Johnson?

And oh, Linton? Law school called. They want their diploma back. 

And here’s the latest boner from just now:

“Inside the fare gates is a non-public forum and by law, by the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no right to free speech there.”

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, is all I can say.

Here’s the Cliffs Notes version, custom-tailored for P.R. set, of why Linton Johnson is wrong, wrong, wrong:

1987 – freedom of speech
In the case of Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987), The Supreme Court held that a law which banned “First Amendment activities” within the Central Terminal Area at L.A. International Airport to be invalid as substantially “over broad,” and therefore, invalid on its face. As Justice O’Connor stated in her opinion, such a law could even be construed to prohibit a traveler from approaching a ticketing booth and asking when the flight from Des Moines was scheduled to arrive. The municipal agency in charge of Los Angeles International Airport had barred the group from distributing leaflets at the airport “as part of a larger ban on what they described as First Amendment activities. Jews for Jesus challenged the airport’s right to institute such a sweeping ban.”

And here’s the whole magilla.

And here’s part of my bit on Saturday

“[T]his bit here from Friday’s hastily-released release from BART is overbroad:

“No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.”

Rest assured, passengers can legally engage in at least some expressive activities (like wearing a red shirt to represent the blood of a dead passenger or saying, “Gee waiting for BART can be a pain, goshdarnit” for example) in the paid areas of the stations regardless of what BART’s PR hacks say. (Don’t you have lawyers on staff, BART? So why don’t you let them formulate your legal policies instead of having a formerly ink-stained wretch writing copy? Just asking, Bro.)”

You don’t have to go to law school to understand these issues – they aren’t that hard.

*Are you arguing about some esoteric boilerplate from the 1800′s? Is that what you’re doing today? Really? Like, those who live in the Tenderloin have a Constitutional Right to Safety? If so, I’m sure there’d be a lot of people who would like to invoke that right…

(more…)

Taxi and MUNI Driver Organizing Meeting Coming August 1st, One Day Before the Great Transit Strike of 2011

Friday, July 8th, 2011

I’ve told you before, taxi drivers, and I’ll say it again.

If you want to get healthcare and if you want local govt. to take you seriously, become a MUNI driver.

Anyway, the latest deets are below.

One of the group of San Francisco taxi drivers who isn’t afraid of a little protest, obviously. She has three kids and she’s from Brazil – maybe she’ll be at the big meeting:

Click to expand

Do I think it’s remotely possible that the bulk of a shift of taxi drivers will go on strike? No.

Do I think it’s probable that MUNI drivers will go on strike on August 2? Also no.

Anyway, the latest:

SF Transit Operator/Taxi Drivers Organizing Meeting August 1st

An open meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 1st, 2011 from 6pm to 9pm, between San Francisco taxi drivers and MUNI bus workers. (Everyone is welcome)

These meetings are to strengthen relations between the taxi workers and bus workers, and to envision a more united and organized public transit worker front. Taxi drivers of late have been protesting 5% credit card fees, rear seat payment terminals, and electronic waybill tracking.

Some MUNI and TAXI workers have voiced OSHA health and safety complaints. They are also protesting Proposition G, which is said to prevent workers from negotiating on their work conditions.

The MTA has recently approved a $233 million contract towards its controversial $1.6 billion project to begin tunneling under Chinatown. Meanwhile, taxi workers and MUNI workers are seeking to combine their efforts to not be forgotten and fight for their rights and demand to have what’s theirs.

WHEN: Monday, August 1st, 2011 from 6pm to 9pm.
WHERE: 201 Turk St. between Jones and Leavenworth.”

Big Taxi Driver Protest Scheduled for City Hall at Noon Today – Some Drivers Don’t Like Proposed Fees

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Well looky here, looks like we’re in for a good old-fashioned taxi driver protest at City Hall today at noon. It seems some of our hacks are upset about having to pay some credit card fee, more or less. There are other issues as well, see below.

(Hey cabbies, why don’t you just try to become MUNI drivers? They’re always hiring, right? You’ll end up with health care and a bunch more money in the end, right? Just saying. Oh, since you’re not going to listen to me and I’m already telling you what to do, why not get a free Wordpress and post your issues up there? It’ll take like two minutes to get started. Just saying…)

Last time I was at a City Hall taxi protest, it was taken over by this driver, a mother of three from Brazil:

Click to expand

All the deets:

“Tariq, a cab driver for many years is organizing a protest at City Hall on Tuesday May 3rd. Expected are over 100 drivers at this protest – meet us on the Polk street side of city hall at 12:00 noon.”

“PROTEST Tuesday May 3rd, 12 PM, City Hall, room 400

SHOW UP EVEN IF YOU COULD MAKE $100,000 IN THAT 2-3 HOURS

SAY: NO %5.

SAY WE CAN PAY LESS THAN HALF TO ROCESS CREDIT/DEBIT CARD.

SAY: IF DRIVERS ARE SELF-EMPLOYED, RUNNING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, THEN THEY SHOULD CHOOSE THEIR OWN SERVICE PROVIDER.

SAY: NO GPS ELECTORNIC WAYBILL.

SAY: IF SFMTA WANTS TO TREAT US LIKE AN EMPLOYEE, THEN THEY SHOULD PAY US LIKE MUNI DRIVERS.

SAY: SFMTA CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

SAY: NO STORAGE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (DRIVER OR PASSENGER).

SAY: IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT PERSONAL INFORMATION HAS, AND CAN BE, BROKEN INTO.

SAY: HOW MUCH, PER HOUR, IT COSTS SFMTA TO PAY AN ENTRY-LEVEL MUNI DRIVER?

SAY: THE FIRST $15 OF EVERY HOUR IS NOT OURS. SAY: WITH THE LEFT OVER WE PAY FOR TICKET, ASSAULT, ACCIDENT, RETIREMENT, MEDICAL, SICK-LEAVE AND MORE.

SAY: COMPARE THIS LEFT OVER WITH YOUR COST FOR AN ENTRY-LEVEL MUNI DRIVER.

SAY: SOME OF US ARE DRIVING MORE THAN 20 YEARS. SAY: WE DO NOT DESERVE THIS.

CABBIES HELPING CABBIES (C.H.C.)”

Bon Courage, hacks!

Is It Shameful to be Gay in San Francisco? Check Out This Redacted Document from CitiReport.com and then Decide

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

First off, check this out at the CitiReport.

I mean, who’s doing this with the black Sharpie? What’s it say under there? LGBT? GLBT? LGBTQ? GLBTQ? BLTA?

That’s what I think might be there but I don’t know for sure. Srsly.

Click to expand

Kuwait Bans DSLR-Camera Photo-Taking in Public – Shoot a Stranger, Go To Jail? – But Accredited Journalists Excepted

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Just try to use your biggish digital single-lens-reflex camera on the streets of Kuwait these days. It ain’t easy, brother.

Now, I don’t think that you could ban DSLR use in San Francisco. There’d be a rebellion or something.

Cause if something happens, it didn’t happen unless it was recorded somehow – that’s how we look at it.

Our Folsom Street Fair 2009 was a great day for walkies with the slave, past the guy with the Nikon, past the guy with the Canon, past the Leather Etc…(!) store…:

4015761274_507c70fc9e_b copy

via mikey baratta PHOTOGRAPHIC

Just be on the look-out for this guy. I think he’s up to something:

FarmVille FaceBook Game “Creator” Zynga Sued Again – Class Action Suit Alleges User Data Illegally Sold

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

Uh oh, looks like San Francisco-based Zynga is in trouble again. The lawyers at Nassiri & Jung LLP down there on Kearny near Market filed a class-action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court yesterday.

Get all the deets, below.

Facebook User Sues FarmVille Maker Zynga for Violating the Privacy Rights of Millions of Americans

Class action suit filed after Zynga shared the personal Facebook information of millions of Americans with Internet tracking companies.

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 19 — A class action lawsuit filed yesterday challenges Zynga’s alleged practice ofillegally sharing the Facebook user data of its customers with advertisers and data brokers.

The lawsuit alleges that Zynga, which currently makes six of the top ten Facebook games, collected the Facebook data of its 218 million users and shared it with advertisers and data brokers in violation of federal law and Zynga’s contract with Facebook.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in San Francisco, Calif., is brought by Nancy Graf of St. Paul, Minnesota. The class action seeks monetary relief for those whose data was wrongly shared, and injunctive relief to prevent continued privacy abuses. 

“This appears to be another example of an online company failing the American public with empty promises to respect individual privacy rights,” explained Michael Aschenbrener of Edelson McGuire LLC, co-lead attorney for the class action. “Companies large and small need to learn to follow through on their privacy promises or risk having consumers decide that it is simply not worth it to use their services,” added Kassra Nassiri ofNassiri & Jung LLP, co-lead attorney for the lawsuit.

Aschenbrener and Nassiri are also co-lead class counsel in another case against Facebook that alleges massive privacy violations.

Edelson McGuire LLC is a leading class action firm that focuses on Internet, technology, privacy, banking, and consumer issues with attorneys in Illinois, New York, California, and Florida. www.edelson.com.

Nassiri & Jung LLP is a boutique litigation firm based in San Francisco that focuses on complex business disputes. www.nassiri-jung.com