Topline:
Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.
What we know: The famous eagle, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia.
Read on … for more on Jackie’s life.
Jackie, the bald eagle whose livestreamed life with her partner Shadow won the hearts of fans worldwide, has died, rescuers announced Monday.
The famous raptor, believed to be 14 years old, was receiving intensive care at the Ojai Raptor Center for severe anemia. She ultimately succumbed to her condition after a team of veterinarians struggled for weeks to figure out what was causing it.
Jackie remained critically ill despite receiving oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock monitoring.
"We know this news will be deeply felt by the many thousands of people around the world who have followed her journey, hoped alongside us, prayed for her, and supported the people caring for her,” the Ojai Raptor Center said in an Instagram post. “Our team is heartbroken. It has been an extraordinary privilege to care for her."
Friends of Big Bear Valley, the nonprofit that launched the popular nest livestream in 2015, confirmed the news on social media.
“It is with great sadness and heavy hearts, to bring you the latest update from Ojai Raptor Center,” the nonprofit said to its roughly 1.3 million Facebook followers. “Please be kind to yourself, to others, to the FOBBV team and to those at the Ojai Raptor Center. Soar free Jackie…”
The rescue center said on social media Sunday that she was “critically ill,” “unstable” and still in an "extremely serious” condition.
She was getting oxygen therapy, supportive treatment and around-the-clock care from vets and specialists across the country. But her red blood cell levels continued to drop well below normal after rebounding a bit after she was rescued.
Jackie was rescued in July by Big Bear’s Dana Point Park after a brief fight with two other eagles. Jackie was weak, vulnerable, underweight and unable to fly, according to the Ojai Raptor Center.
The center said the fight is likely what left her grounded, but her condition suggests she had been sick for some time.
Jackie was the matriarch of the famous Big Bear bald eagle nest since around 2017. She’s believed to be the first bald eagle chick hatched in Big Bear Valley in recent history, according to the nonprofit.
The pair believed to be her parents, Ricky and Lucy, left the area around 2016. The young Jackie then started hanging out in their old nest, where the livestream camera had been installed.
Jackie took on her first mate, a bald eagle known as Mr. B, and laid her first clutch of eggs in the nest the following season. Shadow came into the picture in the summer of 2018, refusing to leave until Mr. B eventually flew away from the area, according to Friends of Big Bear Valley.
Jackie and Shadow were mates ever since. They successfully raised six chicks together — Sandy and Luna this season, Sunny and Gizmo last year, Spirit in 2022 and Simba in 2019.
Topline:
Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.
More details: A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.
Why now: Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.
Read on... for more on the poll.
Amid growing frustration with both major political parties, voters are open to some big changes.
A new poll, commissioned by supporters of election reforms and shared with NPR, shows there is significant support for upending winner-take-all U.S. House elections and single-member congressional districts and instead moving toward proportional representation, a system that elects multiple representatives in a single district in rough proportion to a party's vote share.
Earlier this summer, about 500 democracy and legal experts sent a letter to Congress urging members to consider proportional representation as a solution to the redistricting brinksmanship set off by President Donald Trump last year.
"There should be little doubt that the single-member district system is failing to deliver fair and representative outcomes," they wrote. "We urge Congress to adopt a proportional system of representation, solving the gerrymandering problem at its source."
According to the poll conducted by the advocacy group Fix Our House and liberal think tank New America, half of 1,000 respondents said they support proportional representation, with nearly a quarter opposed. A third of those who participated said they were not sure whether they supported it or not.
Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, said he was surprised to see how much backing there is for proportional representation, despite the idea being fairly obscure in the United States.
"It really did shock me how supportive people were of the various principles of proportional representation across the board," he told NPR.
While support was highest among younger, more educated, more left-leaning voters, Drutman found that 6 in 10 Trump voters who have an opinion on proportional representation said they back it, too.
Pollsters also walked respondents through some of the tradeoffs of proportional representation — including that it can lead to multiple parties having to find a way to work together.
"For every one of those questions, people prefer the proportional system with multiple parties," Drutman said, "even if it leads to a coalition government that is maybe not quite as efficient."
He said voters also weren't very concerned when asked about the possibility of proportional representation leading to some more extreme political parties.
"One thing people said is they already think the parties are pretty extreme right now," Drutman explained. "So that's not quite the fear that some in the political class think it would be."
Jocelyn Kiley, director of political research at the Pew Research Center, said voters writ large have been in a "prolonged period of disaffection with politics and the political system."
She said Pew has found there is a lot of openness to reform, with nearly 70% of respondents to its polls saying they wish, at least somewhat, there were more political parties to choose from.
Kiley said detailed knowledge of what any election reform would look like is rare among voters. And she said that when many reforms "move from theory to practice," they often hit some resistance.
"People want to understand exactly how that reform will impact them," she said.
Drutman told NPR the new poll numbers mark a starting point for what could be a national conversation about how to break out of the country's two-party system.
"People are dissatisfied," he said. "People are frustrated. People don't have a language for how to talk about alternatives because they haven't really heard all that much about the alternatives, because we haven't had a national conversation about the alternatives yet. So, there's a lot of room to have that conversation."
Drutman said only about a quarter of the respondents were aware that there are alternatives to a two-party system, and even fewer people could name an alternative when pressed.
In fact, only about 2% of the participants in the poll could name proportional representation off the top of their heads, said Dustin Wahl, executive director of Fix Our House,
"But when asked about the kind of underlying values beneath it and the component parts, there was widespread support from all across the political spectrum," Wahl said. "And that's not something we would have expected to see necessarily four years ago, for instance. But as the problems grow, the desire for solutions grows, as well."
Proportional representation is currently the most widely used electoral system among the world's democracies. Wahl points out that the U.S., along with the likes of Canada and Australia, has a system that was abandoned long ago by other countries.
"Arguably the only reason we don't use proportional representation is because it wasn't used anywhere in the world at the time of [America's] founding," he said. "And we just kept doing elections the same way."
The poll also found a majority support (54%) for expanding the House, with 150 new members.
There are bills in Congress, with all Democratic co-sponsors, that would study or move the U.S. to a system of proportional representation, but Wahl said any bill that doesn't include expanding the House is "politically dead in the water" because without expansion, lawmakers have to choose to potentially vote themselves out of office.
"That [150-seat expansion] gives you enough of a cushion so that members, incumbents know that they're very likely to hold on to their seats," he said. "It wouldn't run into the problem, at all, of candidates or of sitting members of Congress thinking that they're going to lose their seats because their elections would be totally untouched."
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
California craft liquor deliveries could end Jan. 1. Distillers say powerful alcohol companies, the wine industry and Teamsters killed a possible extension of deliveries.
Why now: For six years, Californians have been able to shake up a craft cocktail at home using alcohol delivered to their doorstep. Now, it’s last call for the distillery deliveries, unless lawmakers intervene by the end of this month.
The backstory: During the pandemic lockdowns, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits to their customers’ homes. In the years since, lawmakers passed temporary laws allowing craft distillers — defined as those that produce up to 150,000 gallons a year — to keep shipping their spirits. The latest extension expires Dec. 31.
Read on... for more on what this means for craft liquor deliveries in California.
For six years, Californians have been able to shake up a craft cocktail at home using alcohol delivered to their doorstep. Now, it’s last call for the distillery deliveries, unless lawmakers intervene by the end of this month.
That’s unlikely, thanks to opposition from California’s wine industry, Teamsters union truck drivers and corporate alcohol wholesalers and distributors.
The influential, well-funded groups lobbied the Legislature behind closed doors this year to block legislation that would have made permanent pandemic-era rules that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits directly to their customers.
During the pandemic lockdowns, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that allowed craft distillers to ship spirits to their customers’ homes. In the years since, lawmakers passed temporary laws allowing craft distillers — defined as those that produce up to 150,000 gallons a year — to keep shipping their spirits.
The latest extension expires Dec. 31.
“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” said Folsom Republican Assemblymember Josh Hoover. He tried unsuccessfully this year to amend one of his bills to let small distillers continue shipping directly to their customers.
The groups blocking Hoover’s proposal have spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state government this year. They have donated at least 11 times that much to California politicians and their campaigns over the years.
The craft distillers, who have spent a fraction as much on state politics, say all that spending from the opposition, particularly from corporate liquor distributors, appears to have paid off.
“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and the owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills, a family-run business that makes whiskey, brandy, vodka and gin.
The fight is about more than whether Californians can have a bottle of whiskey or gin delivered. It illustrates how decisions are made in Sacramento, where wealthy and powerful interests can shape or kill policy in secret negotiations with lawmakers. Politicians, in turn, benefit when proposals die quietly because they don’t have to explain their decisions to voters.
Opponents insist they aren’t using the political system to crush competitors as national alcohol sales slump.
Instead, representatives of the major alcohol wholesalers and distributors that stock shelves at liquor retailers say they oppose the proposal because it primarily benefits out-of-state companies and weakens safeguards that include preventing alcohol deliveries to minors.
Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said the labor group’s truck drivers aren’t opposed to allowing craft distillers to ship their product. They just want them to use established shipping companies that have actual employees, including those that employ Teamsters, such as UPS.
Those companies have standards to ensure legal delivery, Broad said. When they employ drivers rather than use contractors, the companies — not the drivers — bear legal liability.
Federal law preempts California from mandating hiring unionized truck drivers, Broad said.
“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers, and in fact, we have a track record of supporting the proposal but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public,” he told CalMatters.
The California wine industry, which has been allowed to ship bottles directly to customers in California for decades, isn’t necessarily opposed either. But its representative says wine sellers are leery of giving little alcohol sellers delivery rights when big liquor companies deserve the same. Wineries of any size can ship to their customers in California.
The U.S. Postal Service prohibits most alcohol shipments to homes, but California allows certain types of alcohol sellers to use private shipping companies. Breweries are prohibited from shipping directly to California customers.
Hoover hoped his Assembly Bill 2211, a proposal to give craft distillers the ability to offer tastings and sell spirits at locations other than their distilleries, could be amended to give craft distillers a permanent direct-to-consumer provision.
It has advanced through the Legislature without formal opposition or any lawmaker voting against it, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database. The measure is pending before the full Senate.
There may be no formal opposition, but reports filed with the California secretary of state show an extensive behind-the-scenes lobbying effort aimed at preventing any changes.
At least six groups, including some of the biggest national alcohol distributors, have reported lobbying on Hoover’s bill.
The reports show those groups spent more than $1 million on lobbying this year. State ethics laws only require entities to report the total amount they spent lobbying the government in a year. They’re not required to report how much they spent on specific legislation, so it’s unclear how much they spent trying to influence lawmakers as they considered AB 2211 and its never-published direct-shipping amendment.
Those groups, along with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Wine Institute, have given at least $11 million to both Democrats and Republicans in California since 2000, according to Digital Democracy, including at least $738,000 since 2025, the start of the current two-year legislative session.
By comparison, California’s craft distillers reported spending $54,000 on lobbying this year.
They reported just three donations to lawmakers in the past decade, according to Digital Democracy. One was a $42 bottle of whiskey in 2022 to former Napa Democratic Sen. Bill Dodd, who now lobbies on behalf of the craft distillery industry. In 2023, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas received $215 in tequila. Democratic Assemblymember-turned U.S. Rep. Adam Gray received a $1,300 campaign donation in 2016.
Hoover said he has been trying since last year to add language to his bill that would allow craft distillers to permanently keep shipping. He succeeded last year in getting the extension that expires Dec. 31, but this year he’s been unable to overcome the opposition to expanding the tasting room measure.
“I’m always open to figuring this out, if there’s a way that we can make this work. … but I don’t have a lot of hope that this bill is going to preserve those provisions this year,” he said.
With less than a month left before the Legislature finishes for the year on Aug. 31, Democratic leaders would likely need to sign off on changes to Hoover’s tasting room measure. They’ve offered little indication they intend to intervene for craft distillers.
Rivas, who’s received at least $108,000 in donations over the years from opponents of Hoover’s unpublished proposal, declined CalMatters’ request for an interview. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who’s received at least $33,000, responded to an interview request with an emailed statement saying she is aware of the pending deadline.
“This bill will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended,” it said.
Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, oversee the committees that regulate California’s alcohol industry. When Hoover’s measure passed through their committees, the chairs could have allowed Hoover to add the direct-to-consumer amendment. They did not.
Susan Rubio has received at least $65,000 in donations from the groups blocking the direct-shipping proposal, according to Digital Democracy. Blanca Rubio has received at least $129,000.
Sen. Rubio’s spokesperson, Giovanni Ruiz Reyes, responded to interview requests with emailed statements. The first said “conversations between stakeholders are ongoing” and that she “looks forward” to reviewing potential legislation.
Ruiz Reyes said in a second statement Thursday that she’s supported four previous extensions of the craft distiller shipping policy.
“There is currently no bill or amendment before the committee seeking another extension,” Ruiz Reyes said. “Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to suggest that Senator Rubio or the committee has blocked or refused to hear an extension when no such proposal is currently before the committee.”
Assemblymember Rubio didn’t return interview requests.
The liquor industry is facing a nationwide decline as more Americans cut back on drinking.
In that difficult business climate, corporate liquor wholesalers and distribution companies lobbied “to obliterate competition,” said Dodd, the former state senator from wine country lobbying on behalf of craft distillers.
“We oppose any effort to make DTC (direct to consumer) permanent,” the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors wrote in a joint statement to CalMatters.
Craft distilleries’ direct shipping “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief, and it’s expiring exactly as designed, six years later” said the groups, which represent local and national companies that move many of America’s best-known beer, wine and liquor brands. They argue that after the law expires, spirits can still be delivered to customers through services such as DoorDash. DoorDash is listed as a member of the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America on its website.
The groups’ representative, Kevin Luckey, declined an interview request.
Steve Gross, president and CEO of the Wine Institute, said the wine industry has worked hard over the decades to have large and small wine sellers treated equally under California and national alcohol distribution laws. He said it would undermine his industry’s efforts if small distillers get delivery rights in California when large ones don’t have them.
“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to because those larger distillers are not their members.”
The Wine Institute is a lobbying group that represents more than 700 large and small wine sellers, including one of the world’s largest, Modesto-based Gallo Winery.
Craft distillers say they’ve tried to work with the groups blocking their bill to address their concerns, but they have gotten nowhere.
In the meantime, Steller, the El Dorado Hills distiller, has already started pulling back on shipping bottles to his customers because the Legislature won’t budge.
“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
The dog days of summer are coming to an end with a dog day at your local county pool this Saturday, Aug. 15.
The details: Five pools — from Cerritos to Sylmar — are participating in this year’s “Pooches in the Pool” day. The event turns select county pools into dog splash zones, with swim times separated by small and large dog sizes.
The rules: If you’re wondering how the county prevents canine aquatic anarchy, there is a list of rules to follow, including one adult handler per two dogs, off-leash on the pool deck only, no humans in the pool and a current animal license for entry. You'll need to bring a completed form with you to the swim.
For a full list of rules and requirements — and to see if your local pool is on the list — visit the county’s website. Small dog swim is 5 to 6 p.m.; large dog swim is 6 to 7 p.m.
Don’t forget the paperwork: Kelly Court, an area pool supervisor with L.A. County Aquatics, told LAist that it’s important for humans to remember to bring the required paperwork and have it fully filled out. Court said the event, now in its second year, is a favorite of county staff, too. “They love seeing the dogs come in and play. The dogs really do love it: I believe it got a five bark review from them,” Court said.
Uh, cleanup? And if you’re worried about what floating horrors might await you on your next day at the public pool: this Saturday is the last day of the pool season before county pools are drained and cleaned for the year.
Topline:
Brain sensors are advancing, and California companies, lawmakers and unions are jockeying to shape how the resulting data can be used.
Why it matters: Brain sensors and implants are giving people the ability to control computers, robots and wheelchairs without moving a muscle. Paired with algorithms, the devices can also predict when people are most likely to be productive and when to take a break. It’s a technology few Californians have used and many likely don’t know exists. But neurotechnology and brain data privacy is increasingly a target for regulation in the California Legislature.
The backstory: Two years ago, lawmakers extended state digital privacy law protections to brain data. This year, a bill to restrict how employers use the data has cleared the Assembly and made most of its way through the Senate, as has another measure blocking the sale of brain data and other sensitive personal information. In January, new privacy agency rules go into effect that will protect more people from businesses that use AI to make significant decisions about their lives including systems that utilize brain data and the kind made to operate in the workplace.
Read on... for more on how California lawmakers are looking to regulate this tech sector.
Brain sensors and implants are giving people the ability to control computers, robots and wheelchairs without moving a muscle. Paired with algorithms, the devices can also predict when people are most likely to be productive and when to take a break.
It’s a technology few Californians have used and many likely don’t know exists. But neurotechnology and brain data privacy is increasingly a target for regulation in the California Legislature.
Two years ago, lawmakers extended state digital privacy law protections to brain data. This year, a bill to restrict how employers use the data has cleared the Assembly and made most of its way through the Senate, as has another measure blocking the sale of brain data and other sensitive personal information. In January, new privacy agency rules go into effect that will protect more people from businesses that use AI to make significant decisions about their lives including systems that utilize brain data and the kind made to operate in the workplace.
Neurotech systems gather information using computer chips implanted in the brain or sensors packed into devices like earbuds, headbands, wristbands, or via augmented reality headsets.
Some uses are clearly beneficial: Helping blind people see, people with paralysis speak, and people with neurological disorders work and communicate.
But policymakers and critics of the technology are concerned about its potential to monitor people and make predictions about them, especially in the workplace. For example, brain data can be analyzed to detect mental health disorders like depression and PTSD, potentially allowing for discriminatory hiring or firing decisions. The technology can also be used to predict words or images that form in a person’s mind, raising the possibility that in the future managers could utilize brain data to get the upper hand in salary negotiations or short-circuit union organizing. Some people concerned about the technology describe themselves as part of a mental privacy movement.
Currently, neurotechnology in the workplace is often used to detect focus or fatigue. Hitachi’s SmartCap brain-monitoring headbands are designed to keep tabs on the alertness of people working in sensitive industries like trucking and mining. Employees at an electric power company in China have reportedly been sent home or removed from critical posts if a warning is issued based on neural sensors in their hat.
Many neurotech companies call California home, including brain-implant makers Neuralink and Science Corporation and augmented reality startup Cognixion. California-based tech giant Meta is exploring ways to integrate brain data into its smart glasses.
California lawmakers are looking to regulate the nascent sector before societal harms become commonplace as they did with AI and threats to digital privacy. Other states are also regulating neurotech: Colorado, Connecticut, Montana and Vermont already protect brain data to some extent. And this year Alabama, Illinois, New York, Vermont and Virginia are considering bills to regulate, or further regulate, the use of brain data. A United Nations body introduced the first global standards for how to treat neural data last year, and in February, Canada moved to protect the brain data of its citizens.
In California, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, a Democrat from Inglewood, is pushing Assembly Bill 1883, which seeks to regulate the use of what’s known as bossware in the workplace and prohibits the collection of brain data by employers unless that data is used for safety. Another bill would expand state privacy law to prohibit the sale of sensitive personal information, which includes neural data.
Bryan said his bill is about ensuring that surveillance technology does not make the workplace hostile to people who are just trying to make a living.
“Much of what's in our bill is cutting-edge technology or technologies that are emerging in real time, and we are trying to address easily predictable concerns before they hit the workplace,” he said. “You'd rather not have horror stories.”
Bryan’s bill drew opposition from major employers, including local governments and groups that represent assisted living facilities, grocers, hospitals, and wine growers. Opponents argue the measure is too broad and would prevent them from using tools that ensure safe driving, detect theft and stop inappropriate behavior toward customers.
The regulatory interest comes as Meta’s Neural Band begins to connect with smart glasses and neurotech startups seek to integrate their tech with Apple’s Vision Pro augmented reality headset. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has extended breakthrough device designation to many neurotech companies, which allows businesses to market hardware that’s in clinical trials and gives them an expedited path to commercial availability.
Nita Farahany is a Duke University professor who advises lawmakers on mental privacy protections. She fears that without adequate protections, workers may self-censor by avoiding thinking about things that could upset their employers like organizing a union. She said workers at neurotech companies have told her their employers are deciding their business model now, in particular whether to sell subscriptions, sell expensive devices or sell cheap devices and monetize the brain data of their customers.
“We're at a critical decision point for most of the neurotech companies,” she said. “Privately all of them are grappling with this right now.”
Legislation like the bill that would prohibit the sale of neural data and other sensitive information may make that decision for small companies, Farahany said, but that won’t make a difference for tech giants like Meta if they choose to keep brain data for their own purposes such as personalized advertising.
Virtually all companies developing non-invasive forms of brain-computer interface technology have poor privacy practices written into their terms of service, according to a study by Stephen Damianos of the Neurorights Foundation, which supports more regulation of neural data. The 2024 study found that two-thirds of companies surveyed allowed data sharing with third parties.
Damianos said data collection is poised to ramp up as devices and the algorithms they use to interpret brain data improve. Without regulation, “enormous new risks emerge that can lead to people getting excluded from jobs or penalized by insurance companies or monitored at work,” he added. “So there’s an urgent need to act now before it becomes the norm that brain data is accessed without consent or used to influence decisions.”
California-based makers of neurotechnology emphasized the benefits of their products and said they are involved with international efforts to adopt standards for the use of brain data in an ethical way.
Cognixion, which is based in Santa Barbara, makes headsets that can overlay useful information on top of a view of a user’s surroundings, technology known as augmented reality. Cognixion’s headset is also packed with brain data sensors, allowing people with neurological disorders like ALS to use their head movement, mind and eyes to interact with apps like Slack to communicate with coworkers or Outlook to send emails. Founder and CEO Andreas Forsland told CalMatters that neurotechnology developed for people with ALS could make life better for everyone, in much the same way that providing automatic doors and curb cut outs for people in wheelchairs aids everyone’s mobility.
He believes it’s inevitable that brain data will be broadly used “either for understanding and optimizing human performance or providing an alternative to hands-on control.”
Emotiv, based in San Francisco, makes earbuds with sensors that measure electrical activity in the brain. The company then uses algorithms to predict what these signals mean. Emotiv designs its earbuds to give people insights into how to go about their entire day. It wants to help users find and choose appropriate interventions for when they are stressed or tired, said Emotiv Chief Commercial Officer Kim Old.
The company also is working to make its products useful in workplaces and to the corporations that run them. The company says SAP used Emotiv tech to personalize employee training based on brain activity, Dell used brain data to personalize employee break schedules, and real estate company JLL used brain data to explore whether office layouts influence employee performance. Each of those projects were experiments, Old said, and Emotiv maintains that brain data deserves sensitive treatment, should be collected with consent, and people deserve control over how their brain data is used or shared.
“We do not believe neural data should be used for covert or coercive workplace surveillance,” Old told CalMatters in an email in June.
Alexander Kies is a postdoctoral researcher at RWTH Aachen University in Germany who studies how consumers react when interacting with employees that use neurotech to do their jobs. He thinks neurotech that doesn’t require surgery will spread first in the workplace and that employers will start with monitoring brain data to help prevent worker fatigue then move on to using brain data to inform management decisionmaking. Once that happens it will become increasingly difficult to tell whether managers collect data to protect your well-being or control every part of your life.
“My take on this is these management tasks would creep in,” he said. “We’re taking away agency from employees.”
Though California lawmakers have been pioneers in regulating the use of neural data, last year there was a retreat. A bill regulating the use of automated decision systems in the workplace was amended to remove references to neural data in order to garner enough votes to pass. The watered-down measure was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said it would have placed overly broad restrictions on businesses.
The challenge that lawmakers and regulators face, said the bill’s coauthor, Stockton Democratic Sen. Jerry McNerney, is how to put guardrails in place that protect workers from harm but still allow employers to explore potential opportunities of the technology they can take advantage of. The measure Newsom vetoed, Senate Bill 7, included brain data, he said, because “that’s the most personal thing you have, your brain.”
“We want to make sure that neural data isn't used to predict behavior that would cause you to punish an employee so no predictive algorithms are allowed,” he said during a panel conversation hosted by CalMatters at James Irvine Foundation offices in San Francisco last year.
Sara Flocks of the California Labor Federation, which supports bills to regulate the use of worker brain data, said brain data has the potential to be used to repeat mistakes made during the Industrial Revolution, when initiatives to squeeze performance efficiency out of employees led to poor working conditions.
That mistake can be repeated in the future with brain data and today with AI, she said, pointing to a recent survey that found that one in five managers use automation for hiring, firing, or promotion decisions, and a 2023 survey found that three out of four employers use some form of employee surveillance or bossware.
Farahany said neural data isn’t today revealing as much about workers as other information, such as their keystrokes, social media activity or heart rate. But that may change as improvements are made to the hardware that taps into brain data and the AI that translates that data.
Any gains from neurotechnology could be undermined by a loss of trust and autonomy among employees if they feel their privacy and mental self determination are negatively impacted, Farahany argued in her book, The Battle for Your Brain.
What’s at stake, she said, is not just the invasion of your privacy or the possibility that AI deployed by your employer may predict how often you have negative thoughts about your boss. Without privacy protections, this technology can undermine cognitive freedom and your ability to function as an autonomous, independent person.
“There’s an urgent need to protect mental privacy and self determination,” she told CalMatters. “It’s part of a bigger picture that needs to be addressed.”
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
