AirTalk debates SB162, a bill that would prohibit state-licensed businesses from selling branded cannabis merchandise. We also explore a Federal Trade Commission investigation into a google advertising program; consider the implications of Venmo; and more.
Week in politics: Expectations for new White House chief of staff, plus how the GOP stays on agenda following health care debacle
For a second straight week, a key member of President Donald Trump’s staff is out of a job.
After now former press secretary Sean Spicer resigned two Fridays ago, this past Friday saw the exit of White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. It came just a day after new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci went on a profanity-laced tirade to a New Yorker correspondent about his frustration with leaks in the White House and some of his West Wing co-workers, including Mr. Priebus. The president appointed former Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to be his new chief of staff, raising questions about how his tenure will differ from Priebus’.
The shakeup comes at a difficult time for the Trump administration, which finds itself trying to advance an ambitious policy agenda after the Senate’s failure to pass health care reform while also staying focused amid the tumult in the West Wing.
Elsewhere, the U.S. and Russia continue to flex their diplomatic muscles at one another. After the U.S. approved a new package of sanctions for Russia last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that 755 staff have to leave U.S. diplomatic missions in Russia. North Korea is also back in the headlines after it test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile on Friday, prompting U.S. bombers to fly over the Korean peninsula this weekend.
Guests:
Lisa Garcia Bedolla, professor in the Graduate School of Education and director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley
Charles Kesler, Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books
Privacy advocates file complaint against Google’s new program that tracks your brick-and-mortar purchases
Google knows a lot about us from our online search habits, but the tech giant is extending its reach through a new program that looks at purchases at brick-and-mortar stores.
The program, called Store Sales Measurement, was launched in May. It uses a proprietary algorithm that takes anonymous credit and debit card data and matches those transactions against users’ Gmail and search information to track how many people made in-store purchase after clicking on an online ad.
Privacy advocates are not happy with the program. The Electronic Privacy Information Center is filing a complaint with the FTC on Monday over privacy concerns.
Google’s statement: "This type of sales measurement is common and before we launched our solution, we invested in building a new, custom encryption technology that ensures users' data remains private, secure, and anonymous. We do not have access to any identifiable user’s credit and debit card data from our partners for this product, nor do we share any personal user information with our partners. We only use data for users that have consented to have their Web and App activity associated with their Google account, which users can opt-out of at any time.”
Guests:
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), an independent privacy rights group based in D.C., the group filing a complaint to the FTC regarding Google’s Store Sales Measurement program
Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-profit technology think tank
Discussing the CA bill looking to restrict how state-licensed cannabis businesses advertise
As the legal recreational cannabis industry continues to take shape across California following the passage of Proposition 64 in November, marijuana businesses both small and large are looking to make their way into the market and get their products in front of users, which means giving out lots of branded swag like t-shirts, hats or buttons.
But a proposed bill from a Southern California Democrat aims to restrict the way state-licensed cannabis businesses advertise their products.
The goal of SB 162, sponsored by Santa Monica Democratic Sen. Ben Allen, is to prevent these businesses from using predatory marketing tactics to attract children or other underage users, and ultimately to ensure that kids don’t see much, if any, cannabis advertising. It prohibits a licensee from advertising any cannabis or cannabis products in a way that encourages persons under 21 years of age to consume cannabis or cannabis products. This includes hats, t-shirts, and other clothing items that would have a brand name or logo.
In its original form, the bill banned all advertising of cannabis-branded merchandise by state-licensed cannabis businesses, but the bill’s language has since changed to be geared to target advertising aimed at underage users. Still, it has received push back from some cannabis industry groups who say that it goes too far in cutting off a major way that smaller businesses and brands get their name out there, and have also referenced concerns that it could run afoul of free speech. Sen. Allen says his bill isn’t directed at small businesses, but rather at “Big Cannabis,” the larger corporations who may look to seize on California’s new recreational marijuana law by creating aggressive marketing campaigns or even mascots that might appeal to kids.
Do you support this bill? Do you think it goes too far in restricting how businesses can advertise? Do you see a free speech issue at play here or should free speech not protect advertising for products that are viewed by the federal government as illegal?
We invited Senator Allen to be part of our conversation and while he was eager to join us, a prior commitment prevented him from being able to do so.
Guests:
Seth Ammerman, M.D., clinical professor of pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Stanford University
Rebecca Stamey-White, partner with Hinman & Carmichael LLP in San Francisco, a law firm that represents the alcoholic beverage, hospitality and cannabis industries
Splitting checks or splitting hairs? Paying for stuff in the age of Venmo
If you went to a restaurant with friends fifteen years ago, it’s likely that everyone at the table would toss in an even $20, for the sake of convenience.
But these days, apps like Venmo, have made penny-precision effortless. Cue a request for $19.87. Or $26.54, if you ordered that appetizer.
According to Teddy Wayne’s recent piece “Thanks to Venmo, We Now All Know How Cheap Our Friends Are,” money transfer platforms have made outings transactional and petty. What happened to sharing the bill as graciously as you share a meal?
Wayne’s article was met with a number of varied reactions, including pushback from readers who pointed out that penny pinchers don’t need an app to charge you the exact amount you owe and that Venmo levels the p(l)aying field for friends from different economic brackets and young people who are strapped for cash.
Who gets the check varies in different cultures too: sometimes, the head of a family pays for the bill while other family members politely bleat protest. Or, if you’re the one who issues the invitation, you might be expected to foot the bill.
How do you negotiate the sticky etiquette of who pays for what, be it with friends or family? How have money transfer apps facilitated or hindered that? Do you see generational or cultural differences in how people split the bill?
Guests:
Teddy Wayne, novelist and column writer for the New York Times, where his recent piece is “Thanks to Venmo, We Now All Know How Cheap Our Friends Are;” his latest book is “Loner” (Simon & Schuster, 2016)
Amy Alkon, science-based manners expert and author of the book, “Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say the F-Word”