The News/Media Alliance, which represents over 2,200 publishers, sent letters to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission and California State Attorney General on Tuesday. It says the removal “appears to be either coercive or retaliatory, driven by Google’s opposition to a pending legislative measure in Sacramento.”

The CJPA would require Google and other tech platforms to pay California media outlets in exchange for links. The proposed bill passed the state Assembly last year.

In a blog post last week announcing the removal, Google VP of Global News Partnerships Jaffer Zaidi warned that the CJPA is “the wrong approach to supporting journalism” (because Google’s current approach totally hasn’t left the industry in smoldering ruins!). Zaidi said the CJPA “would also put small publishers at a disadvantage and limit consumers’ access to a diverse local media ecosystem.” Nothing to see here, folks: just your friendly neighborhood multi-trillion-dollar company looking out for the little guy!

Google described its link removal as a test to see how the bill would impact its platform:

“To prepare for possible CJPA implications, we are beginning a short-term test for a small percentage of California users,” Zaidi wrote. “The testing process involves removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience. Until there’s clarity on California’s regulatory environment, we’re also pausing further investments in the California news ecosystem, including new partnerships through Google News Showcase, our product and licensing program for news organizations, and planned expansions of the Google News Initiative.”

In its letters, The News/Media Alliance lists several laws it believes Google may be breaking with the “short-term” removal. Potential federal violations include the Lanham Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The letter to California’s AG cites the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, regulations against false advertising and misrepresentation, the California Consumer Privacy Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

“Importantly, Google released no further details on how many Californians will be affected, how the Californians who will be denied news access were chosen, what publications will be affected, how long the compelled news blackouts will persist, and whether access will be blocked entirely or just to content Google particularly disfavors,” News/Media Alliance President / CEO Danielle Coffey wrote in the letter to the DOJ and FTC. “Because of these unknowns, there are many ways Google’s unilateral decision to turn off access to news websites for Californians could violate laws.”

Google has a mixed track record in dealing with similar legislation. It pulled Google News from Spain for seven years in response to local copyright laws that would have required licensing fees to publishers. However, it signed deals worth around $150 million to pay Australian publishers and retreated from threats to pull news from search results in Canada, instead spending the $74 million required by the Online News Act.

Google made more than $73 billion in profits in 2023. The company currently has a $1.94 trillion market cap.

The post Media coalition asks the feds to investigate Google’s removal of California news links appeared first on Best News.

In a statement to Engadget, Uber chalked the decision up to the state's insurance rates and litigation environment. “California’s insurance coverage requirements for rideshare are baselessly higher than nearly every other car on the road: up to 10 times that of taxis and thirty times that of personal vehicles,” an Uber spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Engadget. “As a result of these lopsided requirements, personal injury attorneys have created a cottage industry specializing in suing rideshare platforms like ours, pushing Uber’s California state-mandated commercial insurance costs to rise by more than 65% in just two years. By increasing the age requirement for new drivers to 25, we hope to mitigate the growth of those costs.”

“We hope to work with lawmakers, policy leaders, and industry experts to discuss legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the experience for all California drivers,” the Uber spokesperson wrote.

The new minimum age puts Uber on even ground with Lyft, which already required all US drivers to be 25 or older. The updated rules won’t apply to Uber Eats drivers, who can still deliver orders as young as 19.

Uber’s business has bounced back since declining during the pandemic’s peak. It reported its first quarterly operating profit earlier this month, crediting a 22-percent boost in trips.

Update, August 24th, 2023, 5:22 PM ET: This story has been updated to change the previous driver eligibility age to 21 (rather than 19) and the comparison with taxi rates (10 times higher rather than 30 times) based on a corrected statement from Uber.

The post Uber raises its minimum age for California drivers to 25 appeared first on Best News.

The bill is in its early stages but, if passed, would make every California employer lay out exactly what a person’s hours are and ensure they aren’t required to respond to work-related communications while off the clock. Time periods in which a salaried employee might have to work longer hours would need to be laid out in their contract. Exceptions would exist for emergencies.

The Department of Labor would monitor adherence and fine companies a minimum of $100 for wrongdoing — whether that’s forcing employees to be on Zoom, their inbox, answering texts or monitoring Slack when they’re not getting paid to do so. “I do think it’s fitting that California, which has created many of these technologies, is also the state that introduces how we make it sustainable and update our protections for the times we live in and the world we’ve created,” Haney told The Standard.

It’s not clear how much support exists for AB 2751, but as a tech hub and a major economic center, the bill has the potential to create tremendous impact for workers in California, and pressure other states to follow suit. The bill follows similar legislation in other countries. In 2017, France became the first nation to implement a “right to disconnect” policy, a model which has been copied in Argentina, Ireland, Mexico and Spain.

The post California introduces 'right to disconnect' bill that would allow employees to possibly relax appeared first on Best News.

Waymo said it's going to "gradually welcom[e] more riders into the service" and "begin charging fares for rider-only trips in the city" in the coming weeks." Apparently, it already has 100,000 signups in its waitlist and expects demand to be "incredibly high," so it wants to take an unhurried approach "to ensure riders receive a reliable service." The company promises to make its fully autonomous trips "available to everyone over time." Meanwhile, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt said his company will continue collaborating with regulators to achieve their shared commitment to deliver "safer, cleaner and more accessible transportation options."

At the moment, Waymo is operating 200 cars in San Francisco, while Cruise has 300 vehicles in its autonomous fleet. Before securing CPUC's approval, Cruise could only offer fared passenger rides in limited areas of San Francisco from 10 PM to 6AM without a safety driver onboard and paid rides any time with a safety driver. Waymo, on the the other hand, could only charge passengers any time of the day with a safety driver present.

According to The San Francisco Standard, commission President Alice Reynolds and commissioners Darcie Houck and John Reynolds voted in favor of the expansion. However, commissioner Genevieve Shiroma voted against it, arguing that the CPUC didn't have sufficient information needed to be able to accurately evaluate the impact of autonomous vehicles on first responders. Their decision was the final hurdle the companies had to face to offer 24/7 fared rides across the city. It came after listening to public concerns about the safety of autonomous vehicles and to testimonies about how the technology could help the elderly and people with disabilities be more independent.

The post Waymo and Cruise get approval to offer 24/7 paid robotaxi rides in San Francisco appeared first on Best News.

The program, launched in July, has already quelled at least one potential wildfire, according to Reuters. A camera reportedly recorded a fledgling fire burning at 3 am in the remote Cleveland National Forest east of San Diego. The AI spotted the inferno and alerted a fire captain “who called in about 60 firefighters including seven engines, two bulldozers, two water tankers and two hand crews.” Cal Fire says the flames were extinguished within 45 minutes.

The Alert California technology website says it uses LiDAR scans taken from airplanes and drones to create “equally precise, three-dimensional information about scanned surfaces.” It combines this with the physical traits of tree species to learn more about California’s forest biomass and carbon content. Cal Fire says the ML model leverages petabytes of data from the cameras to differentiate between smoke and other airborne particles.

The system was developed by UCSD engineers using AI from the California-based company DigitalPath. Cal Fire has invested over $20 million in the program over the past four years and promises an additional $3,516,000 in the near future.

“We’re in extreme climate right now. So we give them the data, because this problem is bigger than all of us,” Neal Driscoll, geology and geophysics professor at UCSD who serves as the program’s principal investigator, told Reuters. “We need to use technology to help move the needle, even if it’s a little bit.” However, Driscoll adds that the current sample size is too small to determine the program’s overall effectiveness.

You can check out Alert California’s “camera quilt” on your computer or mobile device. The website displays a grid of the remotely operated live camera views from across the region.

The post California deploys AI to detect wildfires before they start spreading appeared first on Best News.

If SB 244 becomes a law, the parts, tools and documentations needed to repair products that cost between $50 and $100 will have to be available in the state for three years after the last date they were manufactured. Meanwhile, repair materials for products over $100 will have to be available for seven years. With those rules in place, manufacturers can't refuse to make information or components available after people's warranty periods are over. Companies violating the law will be fined $1000 per day for their first violation, $2000 for their second and $5000 per day for more violations after that.

As iFixit notes, Apple has had a long history of opposing Right to Repair rules and previously said that Nebraska would become a "mecca for hackers" when a bill was introduced in the state. Over the past few years, though, the tech giant has been showing signs of a change of heart. In 2021, Apple announced that it would start selling parts and tools directly to consumers and even offer repair guides to help them fix their iPhones and Macs on their own. "We support 'SB 244' because it includes requirements that protect individual users' safety and security as well as product manufacturers' intellectual property," Apple reportedly wrote in its letter.

Whether Apple's endorsement can finally give the bill the support it needs to be approved remains to be seen. Eggman introduced the Right to Repair Act in California way back in 2018, but the bill was only able to amass significant backing this year. The Senate unanimously passed the bill, which will have its final hearing next week. After that, it will have to go to the floor and be approved for the final time by legislators before the governor can sign it into law.

The post Apple backs Right to Repair bill in California appeared first on Best News.

In a statement to Engadget, Uber chalked the decision up to the state's insurance rates and litigation environment. “California’s insurance coverage requirements for rideshare are baselessly higher than nearly every other car on the road: up to 10 times that of taxis and thirty times that of personal vehicles,” an Uber spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Engadget. “As a result of these lopsided requirements, personal injury attorneys have created a cottage industry specializing in suing rideshare platforms like ours, pushing Uber’s California state-mandated commercial insurance costs to rise by more than 65% in just two years. By increasing the age requirement for new drivers to 25, we hope to mitigate the growth of those costs.”

“We hope to work with lawmakers, policy leaders, and industry experts to discuss legislative and regulatory changes that will improve the experience for all California drivers,” the Uber spokesperson wrote.

The new minimum age puts Uber on even ground with Lyft, which already required all US drivers to be 25 or older. The updated rules won’t apply to Uber Eats drivers, who can still deliver orders as young as 19.

Uber’s business has bounced back since declining during the pandemic’s peak. It reported its first quarterly operating profit earlier this month, crediting a 22-percent boost in trips.

Update, August 24th, 2023, 5:22 PM ET: This story has been updated to change the previous driver eligibility age to 21 (rather than 19) and the comparison with taxi rates (10 times higher rather than 30 times) based on a corrected statement from Uber.

The post Uber raises its minimum age for California drivers to 25 appeared first on Best News.

Under the order, state agencies are tasked with identifying “the most significant and beneficial uses of GenAI in the state” and creating frameworks to train state employees on how to use “state-approved” generative AI tools in their work. Likewise, it directs the same agencies to analyze potential negative impacts of the technology, including its effect on vulnerable communities and threats to “critical energy infrastructure” in the state.

The order also lays the groundwork for new partnerships with University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University, which will help study how generative AI is affecting the state’s workers. “This is a potentially transformative technology – comparable to the advent of the internet – and we’re only scratching the surface of understanding what GenAI is capable of,” Newsom said in a statement. “We recognize both the potential benefits and risks these tools enable.”

As Bloomberg points out, the California order comes ahead of a White House executive order on generative AI expected in the coming months. Leaders of several top AI companies have been meeting with White House officials over the last several months as the administration weighs potential regulations for AI. More than half a dozen companies have already agreed to some safeguards, including new investments in cybersecurity, following those meetings.

The post California Governor Gavin Newsom signs executive order to study generative AI appeared first on Best News.

The complaint alleges that Google continued to collect consumer data related to a user’s location even when a user turned the “location history” feature off. The company settled similar lawsuits in Arizona and Washington last year for illegally tracking consumers.

In addition to paying $93 million, Google agreed to “deter future misconduct.” This settlement, which won’t really hurt Google’s deep pockets, is important because the tech giant generates the majority of its revenue from advertising and location-based advertising is a critical feature of its advertising platform.

"Consistent with improvements we've made in recent years, we have settled this matter, which was based on outdated product policies that we changed years ago," Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Engadget.

Moving forward, the California AG is asking Google to provide additional transparency about location tracking by providing users with detailed information about location data it collects. The company must also provide disclaimers to users that their location information may be used for ad personalization.

Update, September 16, 2023, 2:26 AM ET: This story has been updated to add Google's statement.

The post Google settles California lawsuit over its location-privacy practices appeared first on Best News.

The governor noted that, under a 2012 law, the state's Department of Motor Vehicles collaborates with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, California Highway Patrol and other relevant bodies "to determine the regulations necessary for the safe operation of autonomous vehicles on public roads.” Newsom added that the DMV is committed to making sure rules keep up with the pace of evolving autonomous vehicle tech. "DMV continuously monitors the testing and operations of autonomous vehicles on California roads and has the authority to suspend or revoke permits as necessary to protect the public's safety," his veto message reads.

Newsom, who has a reputation for being friendly to the tech industry, reportedly faced pressure within his administration not to sign the bill. The state's Office of Business and Economic Development warned that the proposed law would lead to companies that are working on self-driving tech to move out of California.

On the other hand, as The Associated Press notes, California Labor Federation head Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher estimates that not requiring human drivers in trucks would cost around 250,000 jobs. “We will not sit by as bureaucrats side with tech companies, trading our safety and jobs for increased corporate profits," Fletcher, who called autonomous trucks dangerous, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight to make sure that robots do not replace human drivers and that technology is not used to destroy good jobs.”

The post California governor vetoes bill for obligatory human operators in autonomous trucks appeared first on Best News.