SACRAMENTO – California’s leaders often point to the burgeoning high-tech industry as evidence of the state’s strong, future-oriented economy. The industry’s ongoing success helps Democrats rebut arguments from conservatives who say that California isn’t particularly business friendly. But despite its status as a key driver of the economy, the tech industry had only mixed success during the recently concluded legislative session.

For instance, of the seven “priority bills” backed by the California Legislative Technology and Innovation Caucus, only two now are on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, where they currently await the governor’s decision. One of those bills is fairly significant, while the other is not. Four others were held in the appropriations committees, suggesting that the problems mostly had more to do with cost issues than policy matters. One was vetoed.

The tech industry did win a significant battle, however, regarding a far-reaching internet privacy measure. As I reported this month for CalWatchdog, the Legislature was moving ahead Assembly Bill 375, which was designed to “protect California consumers since Congress and the Trump administration effectively halted a set of federal consumer privacy protection rules on internet service providers that were scheduled to take effect,” according to a Senate analysis.

The bill, which mirrored the now-gutted federal rules, would “have given consumers additional control regarding internet service providers’ use of consumer data they collect” and “would have required that the internet service provider receive explicit consent from consumers before ‘sensitive data’ … would be shared or sold.”

But it was shelved at the end of the session after an alliance of tech companies and internet providers helped quash it. It was a somewhat unusual alliance. There’s typically a divide between proposed limits on broadband providers and proposals – including a California initiative proposal that’s now collecting signatures for the November 2018 ballot – that would give consumers the right to control the use of their information on sites such as Facebook or Google.

The thinking is that internet providers charge a significant price for their service, so they should be more limited on what they do with searching data, whereas tech firms that offer free search engines, for instance, are more dependent on revenue from targeted online ads. But AB375 was “widely opposed by large, established internet providers” and by tech companies, which are concerned “that the expanded privacy regulations could indirectly affect the websites’ own ability to gather and monetize user data,” reported the Los Angeles Times.

Regarding the successful bills on the technology and innovation caucus list, Senate Bill 145 is widely viewed as the most important. “This bill repeals a provision that requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to notify the Legislature upon receipt of an application to operate an autonomous vehicle capable of operating without the presence of a driver and it repeals a 180-day delay of an approved application,” according to the Senate bill analysis.

The measure was backed by various technology trade groups as well as by the California Chamber of Commerce. Supporters argued that the current situation delays the deployment of driverless vehicles, and therefore puts California at a competitive disadvantage with other states that are aggressively luring this up-and-coming industry. There was no recorded opposition to the proposal, which overturns one portion of the rules set in place by a 2012 law.

The 180-day delay is particularly significant because regulations pending with the California Department of Motor Vehicles would require a new filing every time an undefined “material change” is made to a vehicle. Any software update could be deemed “material” and would therefore sideline vehicles for months, which is why advocates for driverless vehicles were so supportive of this change.

SB225, the other bill that’s on the governor’s desk, simply requires the California Department of Justice to include a “texting” option on its human-trafficking hotline. The four bills that were held in the Legislature include a mandate for “media literacy” programs in the K-12 curriculum; authorization of a digital driver’s license pilot program; call for a “cybersecurity” industry study to evaluate workforce development needs; and creation of new crowdfunding conditions under state securities law.

In July, Brown vetoed the final measure on the caucus’ list, AB639, which would have allowed the state Department of General Services to use electronic contract signatures. In his veto message, Brown said the bill was unnecessary because the department is developing an electronic-signature system that will be in force before the bill would take effect.

Some other tech-related bills are worth noting. SB182 is designed to help transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft overcome a barrier that has been impeding drivers at the local level. In some areas, drivers are required to get licensed and pay fees in every city where they do business – a burden in metropolitan areas with myriad cities. This measure would forbid localities “from requiring the driver to obtain more than a single business license … regardless of the number of local jurisdictions in which the driver operates.”

SB21, held in appropriations committee, would have required “each law enforcement agency … to submit to its governing body at a regularly scheduled hearing, open to the public, a proposed Surveillance Use Policy for the use of each type of surveillance technology and the information collected … .” The bill was supported by several civil-liberties groups and opposed by many police unions and law-enforcement organizations, which have enormous clout in the Legislature.

SB649, which passed on close bipartisan votes, evolved into a local-control issue. The bill allows telecommunications companies to put new wireless technologies on public street poles “subject only to a specified permitting process adopted by a city or county, if the small cell meets specified requirements.” It eases the approval process at the local level, but limits the locals’ input.

The measure, now on the governor’s desk, was opposed by many local officials, who are concerned about losing their influence. The bill’s “intent is not about 5G wireless deployment, but rather local deregulation of the entire telecommunications industry,” according to the League of California Cities. But author Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, argued that, “For California to remain technologically competitive and to ensure the benefits of innovation are reaching every community, we must do all we can – as fast as we can – to make next-generation 5G wireless networks a reality.”

It wasn’t a terrible showing, overall, for the industry, but it wasn’t impressive, either. It’s a reminder that the economically powerful California tech sector has a long way to go to match the political muscle of the state’s unions or more established corporate players.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

On Wednesday

Bill author Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, crafted this legislation due to a surge in smartphone theft in recent years, where such thefts account for one-third of all robberies in the county. According to data reported by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, “smartphone theft accounted for 60 percent of all robberies in San Francisco and up to 75 percent of all robberies in Oakland.” Los Angeles also “experienced a 26 percent increase in smartphone thefts since 2011.”

Gascón blamed the wireless industry for failing “to safeguard its products,” resulting in victimized consumers.

Both Gascón and Sen. Leno contended that the industry’s previously voluntary measures placed “too great a burden on individual consumers to take action,” whereas mandated adoption of anti-theft solutions could “undercut the black market” since potential thieves would know that most stolen phones could be “bricked” and thus “far less valuable.”

SB962 was opposed by the business community, particularly the high-tech industry. The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce wrote in opposition that “private sector solutions should be sought whenever possible to address public concerns.” SB962, they said, has a well-intentioned goal to decrease theft and increase privacy, but “would not achieve that ultimate outcome.” The chamber also pointed to the fact that most smartphone operating systems developed in Silicon Valley, including Apple’s iOS and Microsoft’s Windows Phone, “already possess the capability to remotely lock, erase or disable … mobile devices.”

The Wireless Association, joined by smartphone manufacturers such as Motorola, Nokia and Huawei, as well as major carriers like AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon, also wrote a letter in opposition warning of “negative consequences to consumer security and public safety.” According to the letter, the risks posed by SB962 included:

• Impractical state laws: “State regulation will never keep pace with innovation in the wireless ecosystem. What state lawmakers mandate as a solution today may not be the solution consumers demand or need tomorrow.”
• Limiting consumer choice: “Any mandated technology standard will quickly become outdated in the fast-moving wireless application world. Requiring a particular technology is also counter to the policies that have made the wireless industry one of the most important and vibrant sectors of our economy.”
• Hacking drawbacks: “If consumers can turn mobile devices into ‘bricks,’ so can hackers. As the L.A. Times has suggested, any technology that is mandated widely across the nation may be at a greater risk of security breaches and attacks.”

The association also addressed specific steps the wireless industry has taken in working with the FCC and law enforcement to actively address the issue.

Sen. Leno said in a prepared statement that smartphone theft is “already on the decline as more new phones come equipped with kill switches.” The release highlighted a Consumer Reports study from June showing that, in 2014, 2.1 million Americans had their phones stolen, down from 3.1 million in 2013. This 30 percent decrease could be attributed to the passage of SB962, but also the natural progression of technology and the industry’s cooperation with the FCC to protect consumers.

Since the passage of the bill, smartphone manufacturers indicated most phones sold in the U.S. would meet the California standard for kill switches, rather than creating a California-specific phone.

The high-profile foray into the heart of the politically deep blue Bay Area signaled both challenges and opportunities for Paul and the national GOP.

On a daylong trip through the city, Bloomberg Politics reported, Paul lunched with startup chieftains and dined with donors:

“Both events included ‘some known people’ from the tech industry, Paul’s spokesman Sergio Gor said, declining to name them.

“Paul spoke at StartupHouse, an office that rents individual desk space primarily to tech entrepreneurs and where Paul’s campaign plans to rent space. The office, on a busy commercial street within walking distance of social-network giant Twitter Inc., is in a building that once served as the headquarters of Good Vibrations, a chain of sex-toy shops.”

Careful calibration

The setting dramatized the challenges facing Republican candidates hoping to make inroads in what’s often culturally alien territory. On the one hand, the pleasure- and party-centric residents of high-end San Francisco have instinctively distrusted politicians with a conservative cast. On the other, Paul — whose college hijinks were briefly the object of outrage among traditionalist Republicans — has had to ensure that his campaign does not skew so libertarian that conservative donors and grassroots voters balk.

During his remarks at StartupHouse, Paul returned to the theme of striking a balance in this regard by keeping different baskets of issues relatively separate. “While Paul’s views on shrinking government align with the tech community,” Bloomberg Politics noted, “he said his conservative views on social issues, including same-sex marriage, won’t come into play.

Democratic pushback

While some Republicans have expressed displeasure with Paul’s reform agenda, which ranges from rolling back the NSA to restoring the vote for felons, elected Democrats have so far refused to come to Paul’s defense — especially in California.

As USA Today reported, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., captured the sense of opposition on a call hosted by the Democratic National Committee. “Rand Paul likes to say he’s a ‘different’ kind of Republican,” Swalwell said, “but his policies don’t sound very different than the rest of the Republicans running for president.”

Calling him “wildly out of touch,” Swalwell implied that Paul could not lure young voters on election day by demonstrating his enthusiasm for social media apps like Snapchat.

During his remarks, Paul did in fact lay down that specific marker. “We use Snapchat more than anybody else out there,” he said. But that fact seemed to resonate strongly with his audience. “The crowd loves it,” BuzzFeed observed. “It’s a Snapchat kind of crowd.”

A new kind of attention

Well aware of the uphill climb that his or any Republican campaign must make in California, Paul’s team has begun to emphasize how the candidate’s approach to Golden State differs in refreshing ways from business as usual:

“As Vincent Harris, a Paul staffer who sat near the back tweeting from the senator’s Twitter account, told BuzzFeed News, Paul’s campaign is the only one with a tech advisory board, a CTO, a digital strategist, and offices in both San Francisco and Austin, Texas. Another attendee, Matt Shupe, a thirtysomething political consultant, points out that it’s rare for a politician on either side of the aisle to treat California as anything other than an ATM, hosting free, open events such as this one.”

State politics has become so dominated by Democrats in recent years that national campaigns have little reason to make direct appeals to voters. While Democrats have taken California’s electoral votes for granted, Republicans have tended to write off the state; every dollar spent there is a dollar the GOP cannot invest in battleground states like Virginia, potential swing states like Wisconsin, or perennial reach states that are also delegate-rich, like Pennsylvania.

By Josephine Djuhana

“Owner-authorized” firearm technology. Biometric scanners. Guns with palm print readers that don’t go off unless the hand on the pistol grip had proper clearance. Sounds like something out of a James Bond movie — literally.

But this isn’t some fantasy-gadget hyper-tech weapon designed to circumvent plot holes for the silver screen. No, this currently expensive and obscure technology is what may be — at some point — all you can buy at a gun store near you, thanks to a California legislator.

SB 293, authored by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, would ban all guns without owner-authorized technology from retail sale in California 18 months after the state attorney general deems such technology to be readily available.

“Senseless violence occurs far too often when guns fall into the wrong hands,” DeSaulnier said in a press release last month. “We should make sure that guns are only used by the owners who are authorized to fire them. Many technologies exist to create this kind of safety mechanism, including biometric readers.”

The bill text provides that the attorney general would periodically “report to the governor and the Legislature regarding the progress made on the availability for retail sale of owner-authorized handguns.” Then, 18 months after the attorney general finds that owner-authorized handguns are sufficiently available, it would be officially illegal to sell guns without owner-authorized technology in the state of California.

Good intentions and unintended consequences

Tiffany Whiten, a consultant in DeSaulnier’s Sacramento office, told me that prototypes with the owner-identification technology are currently very expensive. However, she said, manufacturers have offered assurances that these costs will go down with time and be “reasonable” in the future. The 18-month grace period designated in the bill is an additional measure to ensure that costs would not be too high, and therefore not impact the sale of guns in California.

Whiten also said that DeSaulnier’s office has spoken to current firearm owners who think guns with such owner-authorization technology would be “worth the price.” But it’s impossible to assume those owners speak for firearm owners in general.

And why should government play such a role in deciding when a particular technology is affordable enough to be classified as readily available? That’s the beauty of free markets — the market itself determines when technology becomes affordable for the masses as production goes up and costs go down.

Realistically speaking, the installation of a biometric scanner into the handgrip or trigger of a gun would be an additional cost for gun manufacturers and would result in overpriced firearms in California. Either that, or gun producers just wouldn’t sell guns in California anymore.

Unintended consequences could be grim

But if they are broadly sold in California under DeSaulnier’s rules, consider the following hypothetical situations.

I am a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun with owner-authorized technology.

If I was away while my roommate was at home, and someone were to break in, my roommate would not have the capacity to defend herself with my gun because it would not register her and not fire.

Or perhaps I was at home when the assailant invaded, but my palms were sweaty from nervousness due to the break-in. The gun does not recognize my handprint and doesn’t go off.

What if I’m wearing gloves? What if the power runs out on the biometric scanner and the technology malfunctions? Will members of law enforcement have to adhere to the same standards when purchasing guns? What if the technology malfunctions when police officers are in the middle of a dangerous, life-threatening situation?

Such situations are likely under the owner-authorized gun mandate, alongside many more potential problems that could occur if the technology is faulty.

A barely disguised attack on gun rights

The California Legislature has already advanced bills and resolutions on gun control, including SJR 1 and SB 140. There are many ways to make sure that guns stay out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous individuals, but mandated owner-authorized technology is not one of them. If gun producers want to make “smart guns” available to Californians, then Californians should be allowed to freely purchase both owner-authorized and non-owner-authorized firearms.

If SB 293 is passed, the right to bear arms will no longer be held by the people, but by regulators and bureaucrats in Sacramento.

But the overarching problem with SB 293 is not only the negative impact that it will have on gun sales and potential technology problems; it is the very frightening idea that the California Legislature can legislate and mandate and create regulations on things that, practically speaking, do not even exist yet.

Passing a law now on technology for the future sets a terrible precedent. It shuts down debate on how to deal with that technology and leaves it up to Sacramento regulators and bureaucrats to figure out how to implement the law in the long run.

DeSaulnier may have had the best intentions in mind when he authored this bill; trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill is a worthy goal.

Still, SB 293 is not the answer. Government infringing upon our rights and liberties is one thing — but government dictating what types of products we can use when they are not readily available or yet in existence is beyond bizarre.