In a landmark decision for online personal privacy, an E.U. court ruled that Google must remove some links to personal information. Should the U.S. follow the E.U.'s footsteps? Also, a bill that would allow dogs in outdoor restaurant spaces will go to the Senate. Then, we discuss "adventure park" fees, Santa Monica's controversial Hines project, female startup investments and Governor Brown's revised state budget proposal.
European court ruling protects privacy in Google search results - should U.S. follow suit?
In a landmark decision for online personal privacy, an E.U. court ruled that Google must remove some links to personal information. The decision followed legal complaints, including one from a Spanish doctor who wanted a link related to a malpractice issue removed from Google’s search results.
The E.U. court is defending the right to be forgotten -- for outdated or irrelevent information to be pulled from search results. Legal analysts have said that the ruling may benefit everyday people, who can more directly influence what results come up when others, including potential employers, Google their name.
This may be especially relevant for younger people, who have grown up with photos and personal information posting online. Public figures may be less impacted by the ruling. Critics of the court’s decision have said that influencing Google’s search results is a form of censorship.
Who should be responsible for regulating personal information online? What can and should be “forgotten”?
Guest:
Jack Lerner, Clinical Associate Professor of Law and Director of the USC Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic, USC Gould School of Law
James Rule, researcher at the Center for the Study of Law and Society at UC Berkeley, is the author of "Privacy in Peril: How we are Sacrificing a Fundamental Right in Exchange for Security and Convenience."
'Dining with Dogs' Bill: Should California allow dogs on restaurant patios?
Under current California law, the only live animals allowed in eateries include police dogs, animals used in decoration — such as aquariums — animals used as consumption and service animals for disabled patrons.
But that soon could change.
Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada’s (D-Davis) bill, which would allow pet dogs in restaurants’ outdoor areas, is heading to the California Senate. The bill was approved by the State Assembly on May 8. Los Angeles and Santa Barbara have already passed ordinances allowing the presence of dogs on restaurants patios.
"Despite the best efforts of city and county public health departments to balance the desire of restaurant and dog owners with the need to preserve public health, state law currently preempts any effort they make to accommodate dogs on dining patios,” Yamada said in a statement. “AB 1965 remedies this by allowing willing businesses to accommodate customers and their dogs while still providing local governments the option to determine if additional standards are necessary for their communities.”
Supporters of the bill say that allowing dogs in outdoor spaces will allow restaurant owners to expand their clientele and give customers a more broad selection of restaurants.
Critics cite concerns for allergy and asthma sufferers, whose conditions may be exacerbated by the presence of a dog in a dining establishment. In addition, they worry that some dog owners will not clean up after their pets, if they were to relieve themselves in or near the restaurant patio.
The bill would not mandate that restaurant allow dogs on patios, but would leave the option open for establishments to decide on their own. The practice is already occurring in numerous cities throughout the state. The bill would make it legal unless prohibited by local ordinance.
Will the permission to bring dogs to eateries be beneficial to restaurants in Los Angeles? Will other customers be disturbed by the presence of dogs in restaurants?
Guest:
Mariko Yamada, (D) California Assemblymember for the 4th District, including parts of the counties of Napa, Lake, Sonoma, Yolo and more; Author of AB 1965
Court rules against 'Adventure Pass' park fee
Until a recent ruling in late April, in order to enter the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino national forests, nature lovers had to purchase an Adventure Pass, no matter if they parked in a paved parking lot, or near a trailhead.
This pass costs $5 a day, and $30 annually and is purchased online or in a sporting goods store. Now, that pass is no longer required for visitors who park near a trailhead.
US District Court Judge Terry Hatter Jr. said that, “the Forest Service is prohibited from charging a fee solely for parking.”
In other words, the ruling ensures that people who do not use the park facilities have free access to federal land. This is great for nature lovers, annoyed by having to buy the pass.
But, the pass generated millions of dollars to help maintain the public land and facilities for the public to enjoy. Without this flow of income, how will the US Forest Service be able to maintain facilities like bathrooms, picnic tables, and paved parking lots?
How can it be assured that people who enter the park for free, don’t use the facilities? On the other hand, might more people now visit the forests, inspiring more appreciation of the open space?
Guest:
John Karevoll, Co-Plaintiff against “Adventure Pass” fee
Char Miller, Director of the Environmental Analysis Program at Pomona College; Author "Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of Controversy"
Santa Monica City Council votes tonight on controversial Hines project
In early February, Santa Monica City Council, voted 4-3, approving the building of a 765,000 square-foot mixed-use development – the Bergamot Transit Village.
It would replace the Papermate factory at Olympic and 26th. The development, headed by Hines, an international real estate firm, would consist of restaurants, housing, retail shops, and office space. Opponents fear an onslaught of traffic, and a deterioration of Santa Monica character.
Two Santa Monica groups oppose the action. Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City is suing the project, saying the City staff did not “properly study reasonable project alternatives” as part of a state-mandated environmental impact report (EIR).
Residocracy.org, a group consisting of Santa Monica residents, collected over 13,000 signatures (over twice the amount needed) for a referendum. Tonight, the City Council will vote. Councilmembers have the choice to either stop the development, or put it to vote for citizens to weigh-in on the ballot.
Guests:
Juan Matute, Associate Director at the Institute for Transportation Studies at UCLA
Sue Himmelrich, Planning Commissioner for the City of Santa Monica
Female-run startups fight for investment
Women are fighting for money and opportunities in the world of startup entrepreneurship, but the playing field is still far from level. According to an ongoing survey at Emory University, startups with female team members, even just one, are 18 percent less likely to attract equity investors.
A study out of Harvard pitted investment pitches by men and women against one another and found that both male and female investors are more likely to choose a man’s pitch.
The gap is well known, and not entirely surprising -- 96 percent of senior venture capitalists are men, and in 2013, only 16 percent of companies pitching to angel investors were owned by women -- there’s a gender gap in startup businesses.
Critics of the male-dominated startup industry say that learned intuition is what compels investors to fund men more frequently than women.
What might help narrow the gap? How can women and men in investing and startup entrepreneurship adapt their behavior to make things more accessible? How will the idea of who is worth of investment change?
Guest:
Fiona Murray, Associate Dean of Innovation, Alvin J. Siteman Professor of Entrepreneurship, Faculty Director at the Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship at MIT
Governor Brown releases revised state budget proposal
The revised budget proposal, released this morning in Sacramento, comes in at $156.2 billion -- $1.3 billion more than the one unveiled in January. Most of the extra money, $1.2 billion, would go towards the state's Medi-Cal program. The new budget proposal states that 1.4 million more enrollees than the state expected in January have signed up for Medi-Cal under Obamacare.
The revised budget plan also sets aside $142 million for the drought-related expenses. The state legislature is required to pass a budget by June 15. Lawmakers will lose pay if they fail to do so.
It other state capitol news, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) has become the new California Assembly Speaker--the first San Diegan to hold the post.
Guest:
Chris Megerian, Sacramento reporter for the Los Angeles Times. He covers state politics and the budget.