6 ms·

Spouse of Ring exec among lawmakers trying to weaken California privacy law

208 points by close04 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago
I'm not sure which is worse: this being a conflict of interest, or her personally believing that we should weaken data privacy laws.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- close04 7y ago
  The conflict of interest itself would have a far less impact on the regular person than the weakening of privacy laws. In this case I think the issues amplify each other.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Doxxing her might change that rapidly.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
close04 7y ago
Not distancing herself from the action/decision that favors her husband and the company he's involved with is the very definition of a conflict of interest. Her inner intention is less important because it is hard to provide clear evidence for or against it (absent some sort of recorded evidence). It creates a situation of uncertainty and to avoid this you are usually required to disclose any detail that could cause even the appearance of a conflict of interest (you are married to the person who benefits from your action), and remove yourself from the decision making position. So for example using public money to buy the very best available product on the market from your spouse's company is still a conflict of interest. You are expected to withdraw and let an impartial person take over. If the product is good then the evaluation will have the same result but there will be no suspicion that you tried to influence the result in your interest.
uptown 7y ago
One of the more interesting features announced by Apple at WWDC was HomeKit Secure Video. The basic idea is that home security footage could be stored in iCloud in encrypted form, preventing 3rd party access. Has any camera manufacturer announced support for this feature yet?
- casefields 7y ago
  Logitech, Netatmo, Eufy, and Robin. https://www.imore.com/these-companies-will-support-homekit-secure-video https://www.imore.com/these-companies-will-support-homekit-s...
- m463 7y ago
  It would be nice if apple let you have a personal iCloud on hardware you owned or a server you administered without uploading to apple in the first place. This would be a way to have usable services without your videos on machines with privacy policies you might not agree with. Even encrypted videos and "differential privacy" are compromises.
buran77 7y ago
Anyone know what kind of ethics framework these guys adhere or commit to as part of having that public function?
Porthos9K 7y ago
Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption.
- buran77 7y ago
  Usually when having any kind of public function you are covered by an ethics framework that expects you to come forward whenever you are involved in taking any decision that can look like a conflict of interest. Even if it is not a crime it should still be reason for dismissal. If nothing is done it incentivizes any person in a position with power of decision to try to benefit from it by simply hiding behind the feeble and unprovable claim that "it's totally unrelated".
- toast0 7y ago
  > No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. [1] A government official has a financial interest in the employment of their spouse (who in this case, also more than likely has stock/stock options/RSUs from his employer) Edit to add: my spouse was a small time elected official in California, and there are lots of rules and required disclosures. Complying with the gift policy can be tricky -- if you meet your friends at their cabin for a ski trip it's allowed, but if you plan to meet them, but they were unable to make it, you can't stay there without them, it's not allowed to stay in their cabin without them. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87100 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
  - tzs 7y ago
    As written, that seems awfully broad. For example, if a person who owns a farm in Merced county were elected to the legislature and then were to support any legislation that benefits farmers in general they would have run afoul of that law. I assume that it is interpreted more narrowly than that. So, say, a farmer in the legislator trying to get, for example, a new aqueduct project approved to lower water costs for farmers in a large region would be OK even if they themselves would benefit from lower water costs, but that same legislator trying to get the state to pick their spouse's excavating company when awarding the construction contracts for the project would not be OK.
jedberg 7y ago
In today's "team based" politics, politicians have figured out that perceived conflicts of interest no longer matter to their chances for reelection. Her opponent can run ads that say "She proposed laws that made her husband's company richer" and it would probably barely affect her outcomes, as long as she has the D next to her name. Amusing side note, she is my parent's representative, and I'm sure they would not care one bit about this as long as she's a Democrat.
- tmb 7y ago
  She only won 95k out of 162k while spending an outrageous (if trends from 14 & 16 hold) amount against a poorly funded republican opponent, that’s quite embarrassing and open to another D from what I can see.
- pstuart 7y ago
  > they would not care one bit about this as long as X is in their party.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  That's what primaries are for?
  - PorterDuff 7y ago
    I would think that primaries would vastly favor incumbents, to a greater degree than a general.
    - jjoonathan 7y ago
      Yes, but that's a different issue from partisanship.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Primaries can be just as "team based", just using different parameters than the (R) or (D) next to someone's name
- 7y ago
gumby 7y ago
Term limits make activity like this less of a problem for the perpetrator.
otterley 7y ago
Primary source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/california-tech-privacy-ring-1496125 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/california-tech-pr...
squarefoot 7y ago
Since the technology name rang a bell (pun unintended) it should be noted that the old GNU Ring softphone (now called Jami) is a privacy sensitive decentralized Skype-Like software which has absolutely nothing to do with this thing. https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/

208 points by close04 7y ago

I'm not sure which is worse: this being a conflict of interest, or her personally believing that we should weaken data privacy laws.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
close04 7y ago
The conflict of interest itself would have a far less impact on the regular person than the weakening of privacy laws. In this case I think the issues amplify each other.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Doxxing her might change that rapidly.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

close04 7y ago

Not distancing herself from the action/decision that favors her husband and the company he's involved with is the very definition of a conflict of interest. Her inner intention is less important because it is hard to provide clear evidence for or against it (absent some sort of recorded evidence). It creates a situation of uncertainty and to avoid this you are usually required to disclose any detail that could cause even the appearance of a conflict of interest (you are married to the person who benefits from your action), and remove yourself from the decision making position. So for example using public money to buy the very best available product on the market from your spouse's company is still a conflict of interest. You are expected to withdraw and let an impartial person take over. If the product is good then the evaluation will have the same result but there will be no suspicion that you tried to influence the result in your interest.

uptown 7y ago

One of the more interesting features announced by Apple at WWDC was HomeKit Secure Video. The basic idea is that home security footage could be stored in iCloud in encrypted form, preventing 3rd party access. Has any camera manufacturer announced support for this feature yet?

casefields 7y ago
Logitech, Netatmo, Eufy, and Robin. https://www.imore.com/these-companies-will-support-homekit-secure-video https://www.imore.com/these-companies-will-support-homekit-s...
m463 7y ago
It would be nice if apple let you have a personal iCloud on hardware you owned or a server you administered without uploading to apple in the first place. This would be a way to have usable services without your videos on machines with privacy policies you might not agree with. Even encrypted videos and "differential privacy" are compromises.

buran77 7y ago

Anyone know what kind of ethics framework these guys adhere or commit to as part of having that public function?

Porthos9K 7y ago

Is using your political office to benefit your spouse's business a criminal offense in California? If not, it damned well should be. This is pretty blatant corruption.

buran77 7y ago
Usually when having any kind of public function you are covered by an ethics framework that expects you to come forward whenever you are involved in taking any decision that can look like a conflict of interest. Even if it is not a crime it should still be reason for dismissal. If nothing is done it incentivizes any person in a position with power of decision to try to benefit from it by simply hiding behind the feeble and unprovable claim that "it's totally unrelated".
toast0 7y ago
> No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest. [1] A government official has a financial interest in the employment of their spouse (who in this case, also more than likely has stock/stock options/RSUs from his employer) Edit to add: my spouse was a small time elected official in California, and there are lots of rules and required disclosures. Complying with the gift policy can be tricky -- if you meet your friends at their cabin for a ski trip it's allowed, but if you plan to meet them, but they were unable to make it, you can't stay there without them, it's not allowed to stay in their cabin without them. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=87100 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- tzs 7y ago
  As written, that seems awfully broad. For example, if a person who owns a farm in Merced county were elected to the legislature and then were to support any legislation that benefits farmers in general they would have run afoul of that law. I assume that it is interpreted more narrowly than that. So, say, a farmer in the legislator trying to get, for example, a new aqueduct project approved to lower water costs for farmers in a large region would be OK even if they themselves would benefit from lower water costs, but that same legislator trying to get the state to pick their spouse's excavating company when awarding the construction contracts for the project would not be OK.

jedberg 7y ago

In today's "team based" politics, politicians have figured out that perceived conflicts of interest no longer matter to their chances for reelection. Her opponent can run ads that say "She proposed laws that made her husband's company richer" and it would probably barely affect her outcomes, as long as she has the D next to her name. Amusing side note, she is my parent's representative, and I'm sure they would not care one bit about this as long as she's a Democrat.

tmb 7y ago
She only won 95k out of 162k while spending an outrageous (if trends from 14 & 16 hold) amount against a poorly funded republican opponent, that’s quite embarrassing and open to another D from what I can see.
pstuart 7y ago
> they would not care one bit about this as long as X is in their party.
jjoonathan 7y ago
That's what primaries are for?
- PorterDuff 7y ago
  I would think that primaries would vastly favor incumbents, to a greater degree than a general.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    Yes, but that's a different issue from partisanship.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Primaries can be just as "team based", just using different parameters than the (R) or (D) next to someone's name
7y ago

gumby 7y ago

Term limits make activity like this less of a problem for the perpetrator.

otterley 7y ago

Primary source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/california-tech-privacy-ring-1496125 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/15/california-tech-pr...

squarefoot 7y ago

Since the technology name rang a bell (pun unintended) it should be noted that the old GNU Ring softphone (now called Jami) is a privacy sensitive decentralized Skype-Like software which has absolutely nothing to do with this thing. https://jami.net/ https://jami.net/