The Brief

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.

Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan on the assembly floor at the state Capitol on March 27, 2023.

(

Miguel Gutierrez Jr.

/

CalMatters

)

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 startups building brain tech

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.”

The Cognixion ONE Axon-R headset.

(

Cognixion

)

The Cognixion ONE Axon-R headset.

(

Cognixion

)

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.”

Guarding brain data in California

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.”

(

Illustration by Adriana Heldiz

/

CalMatters; iStock

)

“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.

A jury found Duane “Keffe D” Davis guilty of orchestrating the 1996 killing of rap icon Tupac Shakur, marking the first conviction in a case that has gripped hip-hop fans for decades.

The 63-year-old Davis was convicted Monday of a single count of murder with a deadly weapon and could be sentenced to life in prison. The jury deliberated for less than 3 hours after a weekslong trial in Las Vegas.

After the verdict was read, Shakur's sister, Sekyiwa “Set” Shakur, cried and hugged the prosecutors. Also in the courtroom was Davis’ son, who covered his face with one hand.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Binu Palal told jurors in closing arguments that Davis acquired a gun and “went hunting” for Shakur and Death Row Records co-founder Marion “Suge” Knight after they beat up Davis’ nephew earlier that night.

Palal acknowledged that Davis’ accounts of the killing evolved over the years but argued those differences reflected Davis’ changing motivations and efforts to protect himself. One critical detail, he said, remained consistent: Davis repeatedly placed himself inside a white Cadillac from which the shots were fired.

The panel of 16 jurors, four of whom are alternates, heard testimony from 24 prosecution witnesses and three defense witnesses over nine days.

“The core facts remain. The material facts remain,” Palal said.

The prosecution said Monday evening that the state would dismiss the gang enhancement part of the charge due to witness logistics.

The decades-old case

The trial brought to a head a decades-old case that for years has drawn the attention of hip-hop fans and true crime experts alike. Shakur, who was considered one of the most influential rappers of all time, was in Las Vegas on Sept. 7, 1996, and stopped at a red light when a white Cadillac pulled up beside him, and shots were fired. He died six days later from his wounds. Knight was also wounded but survived.

For years, nobody had been charged in the rapper’s death until Davis began making public statements, saying he was in the Cadillac and gave the gun to others in the backseat. Davis described the shooting as an act of retaliation after Knight and Shakur’s entourage beat up Davis’ nephew hours before the shooting.

Under Nevada law, someone who helps another person commit murder can be convicted of the crime. Davis is the only person still alive among the four men prosecutors say were in the Cadillac. The man who prosecutors say originally gave the gun to Davis is also dead.

Prosecutor says Davis' statements didn't need to be corroborated

Palal told jurors that if they believed Davis' statements, they did not have to be independently corroborated with additional evidence.

Still, he pointed to the rivalry between the South Side Compton Crips and Mob Piru, the fight with Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson and testimony that members of Shakur’s circle identified Anderson and Davis as suspects the night of the shooting. Witnesses had testified to the heated gang rivalry between the South Side Compton Crips and Mob Piru, which were associated with dueling record companies Bad Boy Records and Death Row Records.

“Who fired is not the question,” Palal said. Prosecutors haven't argued that Davis pulled the trigger, but instead that he was criminally responsible because he provided the gun and ordered the attack.

Palal also argued the shooting was premeditated, pointing to testimony and Davis’ accounts that the group searched for Shakur before spotting him on the road and making a U-turn. “It’s a plan, not an impulse,” Palal said.

Davis' own words are front and center

Palal held up Davis’ 2019 memoir, “Compton Street Legend,” and played an interview in which Davis encouraged people to buy it to get the “real truth.” Although the book contains a disclaimer saying some facts were changed, Palal argued that names, hotels and other details changed while the central account did not.

Palal also rejected the defense’s contention that Davis fabricated his accounts to make money. “It is an entirely different proposition to be profiting from a murder,” Palal said. “And that is what Mr. Davis is doing.”

Sanft also turned to his client’s memoir during his closing argument. While reading an excerpt, he said the N-word aloud, prompting people watching in an overflow courtroom to recoil and shake their heads.

In multiple interviews, Davis said he handed the gun to the back seat, but in others as well as in his book, Davis wouldn’t say who pulled the trigger.

In a rebuttal argument, prosecutor Marc DiGiacomo pointed to a scrapbook Davis kept containing articles about Shakur.

“This guy's scrapbooking his murder, for God's sake,” DiGiacomo told jurors.

The prosecution's witnesses included a gang expert who described Davis as the shot caller that younger gang members had to obey. Sanft asked jurors if there was any evidence that Davis had ever called the shots before or after the shooting.

During the trial, investigators said a Las Vegas hotel bill was found at Davis’ residence during a police search, but it wasn’t clear when it was dated — or where that evidence is currently located.

The case is nearly 30 years old, which has affected the kind of evidence presented in court. Prosecutors warned jurors that material collected in the ’90s is different from what law enforcement collects today, including hotel surveillance video from the night of the shooting.

___

Landrum Jr. reported from Los Angeles. Associated Press journalist Rio Yamat contributed to this report from Las Vegas.

The large truck left Perris Monday morning to make a 70-mile delivery to Altadena. Its cargo: a nearly 500-square-foot modular home.

“The stork delivered our big baby today… it’s kind of like hope on wheels,” said Candice Kim, project director of the Altadena Builds Back Foundation.

It’s the first of a new, 14-unit rental complex reserved for low-income renters, like the ones who lost their homes when the original courtyard apartments on East Pine Street in West Altadena burned down.

Kim said the prefabricated aspect of construction is an important step in the process.

“The reason… our grantee chose modular, was that … it allowed us to create the rental housing much faster so we can get people back home faster,” Kim said.

A lottery will be held in October to decide who the units will be offered to. The developer has created a “Pine Notification List” people can sign up for.

Rebuilding is moving forward in Altadena as the public and residents weigh in with concerns about whether the area’s mixed economic and racially diverse character is gone for good.

This project’s backers say the delivery of the first unit in this development for low-income Altadena residents is an important part of the effort to keep the area open to people with modest means, as it was before the fires.

“If we have private developers come in, the concern is that rents will no longer be affordable,” Kim said, “and that could change the character of our community.”

How it came together

The owner of the property had managed it for years. After the Eaton Fire, she decided to sell it, but wanted the future building to remain for low-income residents. Eventually, the owner talked to Beacon Housing at an Eaton Fire Collaborative meeting.

One of the modular homes that will make up 14 housing units for low income residents at an Altadena complex.

(

Pavel Molokanov

/

Courtesy Beacon Housing

)

Eventually, the Altadena Builds Back Foundation helped put together nearly $6 million for the project, some of it from $72 million received in donations by the Pasadena Community Foundation after the Eaton Fire, and the other part from area philanthropist Molly Munger, who graduated from nearby John Muir High School.

Many questions remain about the direction of Altadena’s rebuilding efforts. The state eased density limits at the same time that insurance payments continue to vex people whose homes were destroyed.

Former Altadena renters also continue to struggle. A survey conducted last year by the Eaton Fire Collaborative found that 72% of renters are still in need of housing. That survey also found that the fires destroyed the homes of more than two-thirds of Altadena renters.

Nutrition services workers file into the kitchen at Valley High School in Santa Ana from as early as 6 a.m. to start prepping for the breakfast and lunch hours.

For the last five years, the Santa Ana Unified School District initiated a scratch-cooking program, meaning the kitchens have pivoted from majority individually wrapped lunches to homestyle cooked dishes.

As the program rolls out, the menu has evolved. This school year, Santa Ana Unified high school students are served chilaquiles, birria, carnitas, fettuccine alfredo, and so much more.

“We try to focus initially on the demographic of our community, and we want to give them items that they have heard of or are familiar with, at least to start out,” said Jonathan Park, chef at Santa Ana Unified School District. “That way we can really see whether the scratch cooking is working.”

Park works with nutrition specialists on building out a well-balanced menu each month and gives each school detailed instructions on rolling out those meals.

“A lot of the time our staff isn't used to that type of cooking,” Park said. “Cooking now has really been part of their job. Every day they're prepping something, or they're cooking something from a raw state.”

Why it matters

Valley High School serves more than 1,000 students a day at lunchtime, Visoso said. With youth homelessness and hunger on the rise in Orange County and beyond, Visoso said she wants to make sure students are eating well, but also that they’re eating enough.

Students who don’t want a meal are encouraged to take one anyway and leave it at the share station for someone else to pick up. Food is very rarely left at those share stations, she added.

Josh Goddard, director of nutrition services for the Santa Ana Unified School District, said funding for school nutrition is generally limited.

“We get about $6 per lunch. We get about $4 per breakfast,” Goddard said. “That's got to cover everything from the food that goes into the plate to the people that put that plate together, and then all the other little miscellaneous things that are needed to get the food where it needs to go.”

And the scratch-cooking program is not where he wants it to be, yet, he added.

“We're not going to be satisfied until every single student feels proud of what they pick up; they feel like they're seen on the menus. They feel like their voices matter. Every single student needs to feel that way,” Goddard said. “We have a lot of work to do, and gratefully, the Santa Ana Unified School District has prioritized that, and will continue to do that.”

Jonathan Park, chef at Santa Ana Unified School District, prepares a batch of spaghetti noodles for lunch. Santa Ana Unified high schools have prioritized freshly made breakfast and lunch meals.

(

Destiny Torres

/

LAist

)

How it works 

Designing the menu means trying to give kids what they want to eat with dishes or ingredients they're familiar with, but also incorporating new foods. Each menu includes 20 food options for breakfast and lunch.

“We're able to give them something different, and from there we keep trial and error. We constantly just improve the menu as we go,” Park said. “It's constantly just building off of what the kids like.”

When a new lunch menu drops, Cafeteria Supervisor Janet Visoso told LAist she studies it meticulously.

“I tend to print everything, read it to myself, reread it, rewrite it. That's just the way I learn,” Visoso said. “I don't get bored of my job. I'm excited, and I take it as a challenge.”

Visoso said when she started in nutrition services 12 years ago, the district offered a lot of individually wrapped items.

“Most of the stuff was hot dogs, pizza, hamburgers, and we all love that, but to get scratch cooking and why it counts more is because we feed them a labor of love, and they are actually enjoying what they're eating,” she said.

What do students think? 

The quality and health of the school lunches has improved, Alfonso Guttierez, a senior at Valley High, told LAist.

“Honestly, the previous year was different, and it’s been a big difference,” Guittierez added. “I like it very much.”

Edith Marin, a senior at Valley High School, said she feels extra appreciative of school lunches knowing that staff worked hard to cook them from scratch. For her and her group of friends, birria ramen was a big hit even with Southern California’s heat wave.

“Food cooked hot is just better,” Marin said. “Not all refrigerated food is as healthy, I think.”

Officials said it’s sometimes surprising what the students do and don’t enjoy. For example, when fish tacos and chile verde were added to the menu, staff thought they’d be instant hits — they weren’t.

“We had raw fish filets that we battered and we oven-fried until crispy. We had the slaw. We had the pico de gallo on the tortilla, and we thought that would be a hit,” Park said. “It didn't go so well.”

If you’re heading to Big Bear Lake to beat the heat — keep people and pets out of the water.

Officials have confirmed harmful algal blooms throughout the lake that are showing up as discolored water with a green sheen, scum and floating algae.

The blooms can produce potent toxins that could cause you and your furry friends to get sick.

Marisa Van Dyke, a senior environmental scientist with the State Water Resources Control Board, told LAist these conditions in California’s lakes and streams are primarily caused by tiny bacteria that grow into big, flower patch-like blooms.

“When you inadvertently swallow some of that water, it can contain those toxins,” she said. “It can be quite severe and cause you to need to have some hospitalization or even visit an animal veterinarian to get treatment."

What you need to know

People are being urged to avoid swimming, eating shellfish from the lake and drinking or cooking the water. Officials said boiling or filtering the water won't make it safe.

For anglers on the lake, Van Dyke recommends rinsing the fish off before handling and only eating the filets.

Dogs and children are especially vulnerable to exposure because they’re more likely to swallow water while playing and swimming, according to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Do not let pets in Big Bear Lake or near scum along the shore.

The harmful algal blooms in Big Bear Lake.

(

Courtesy State Water Resources Control Board

)

“If [the water] looks a little bit more green … and there's a little bit more growth of something that looks kind of like a plant but not quite, there might be a harmful algal bloom occurring,” Van Dyke said. “So keep an eye on children and pets so that they don't get in contact with that material.”

If you do have to dip your toes in, rinse yourself, your family and your furry friends with clean water after. Van Dyke also recommends drying off and changing into a pair of clothes as an extra precautionary measure.

You can learn more about healthy water habits here.

What to watch for

If you come into contact with harmful algal blooms and start showing symptoms such as eye irritation, rash, headache and vomiting — contact your doctor right away. It could also cause neurological effects, Van Dyke noted.

For dogs, the symptoms can include loss of energy and appetite, diarrhea, seizures and vomiting. You should reach out to a vet immediately if they start showing any signs.

People are asked to report any potentially related illness to state officials here.

Where is it safe to swim

Warning signs have been posted around Big Bear Lake, but when in doubt, stay out.

It’s prime time for harmful algal blooms in California. They’re most common between late May through October, although they can pop up year round, according to officials.

Van Dyke said research has shown that in the last decade, harmful algal blooms have been showing up more in lakes and reservoirs.

“There's many things that are driving that, including climate change,” she said. “So it's not just the warmer temperatures, but also less precipitation.”

California has a harmful algal bloom map that shows if any outbreaks have been reported in the area.