Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR VETO ALLOWS WARRANTLESS CELLPHONE SEARCHES
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest. The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person’s mobile phone — which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons’ e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled.
California's Assembly passed the bill 70 - 0 and the state Senate 32 - 4. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone interview.
Labels:
california,
cell phone,
governor,
Jerry Brown,
search,
warrantless
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
US SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN CALIFORNIA VIOLENT VIDEO GAME LAW
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court rejected a law that would make it illegal for video game stores and publishers to sell or rent violent video games to minors. The law, which was adopted in 2005 and rejected in a 7-2 vote, was deemed unconstitutional and against freedom of speech rights. According to Reuters, a number of big players in the gaming industry opposed the law, including the Entertainment Software Association, whose ranks include Sony, Microsoft, EA, and Disney. “Our cases hold that minors are entitled to a significant degree of First Amendment protection,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “Government has no free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which they may be exposed.”
Labels:
ban,
california,
law,
legal,
supreme court,
United States,
video games
Monday, May 30, 2011
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATING AT&T/T-MOBILE MERGER
The Public Utilities Commission in California will investigate AT&T’s planned acquisition of T-Mobile, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The Golden state is one of three states that Sprint has asked to investigate the deal, the other two are West Virginia and Louisiana. “We believe a thorough investigation will reveal the negative implications for pricing, choice, and innovation critical to California’s economy,” Sprint’s public affairs manager, John Taylor, said. “Sprint is pleased that the commission will open up a proceeding to investigate the proposed takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T.” AT&T originally filed its informal notice with California’s Public Utilities Commission on May 3rd, and Sprint protested the filing on May 19th when it asked for a review of the merger. The regulators will consider three options, one of which is a choice to notify AT&T that its purchase is not “pre-approved” after the standard 30-day time period after an application is submitted. Sprint has opposed the acquisition from day one, and its CEO Dan Hesse said the deal would “stifle innovation” in the U.S. wireless market.
Labels:
att,
california,
dan hesse,
louisiana,
merger,
sprint,
T-Mobile,
wall street journal,
west virginia
Thursday, September 30, 2010
JUDGE RULES 'PRIVATE' FACEBOOK DATA CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE
In a ruling on a personal injury case New York Justice Jeffery Spinner has ruled that data marked as private on social networks like Facebook and MySpace can be used as evidence in court.
The case was brought by the plaintiff against a chair company. The chair company wanted access to her private pictures and wall postings. Justice Spinner agreed that her public postings suggested a "reasonable likelihood" that her private stuff would contain evidence material to the trial.
Conversely, a judge in California ruled the exact opposite and kept the private information out of the court. [Engadget]
The case was brought by the plaintiff against a chair company. The chair company wanted access to her private pictures and wall postings. Justice Spinner agreed that her public postings suggested a "reasonable likelihood" that her private stuff would contain evidence material to the trial.
Conversely, a judge in California ruled the exact opposite and kept the private information out of the court. [Engadget]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



