加州也禁止詢問之前的薪資了

在「California bosses can no longer ask you about your previous salary」這邊看到的消息。繼「麻州立法禁止詢問前一份工作的薪資」與「紐約市也將禁止雇主詢問薪資」後,加州也加入了這個行列。

The salary privacy bill, was enacted by Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday, Oct. 12, at a celebratory signing ceremony at Women’s Empowerment, a Sacramento nonprofit for homeless women. He was surrounded by members of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus.

法案將於 2018 年生效:

The salary privacy bill takes effect on January 1, 2018.

加州的手機防竊提案讓失竊率下降不少...

2013 的時候提過「加州的手機防竊提案...」,後來在 2015 年生效:

In a press release sent to reporters on Thursday, George Gascón said that since the law went into effect on July 1, 2015[,]

在兩大陣營都有類似的功能:

Such a kill switch has become standard in all iPhones ("Activation Lock") and Android phones ("Device Protection") since 2015.

而執行到現在已經兩年了,手機的失竊率下降不少:「San Francisco DA: Anti-theft law results in huge drop in stolen phones」。

[S]martphone-related robberies have fallen 22 percent from 2015 to 2016. When measured from the peak in 2013, "overall robberies involving smartphones have declined an astonishing 50 percent."

變成要找人殺肉才能處理,增加被竊後的處理難度與成本...

Bose 販賣用戶隱私被告

Unroll 在旁邊燒的時候 (參考 Uber 戰火蔓延到 Unroll),Bose 也不甘寂寞決定跟上科技業的潮流:「Bose headphones spy on listeners: lawsuit」。

Bose 直接將他們 app 收集到的資訊拿出來賣:

Bose Corp spies on its wireless headphone customers by using an app that tracks the music, podcasts and other audio they listen to, and violates their privacy rights by selling the information without permission, a lawsuit charged.

這次打算控告的產品包括這些 (這邊提到的 Zak 是原告):

Zak is seeking millions of dollars of damages for buyers of headphones and speakers, including QuietComfort 35, QuietControl 30, SoundLink Around-Ear Wireless Headphones II, SoundLink Color II, SoundSport Wireless and SoundSport Pulse Wireless.

編號可以記一下,之後可以拿來追蹤:

The case is Zak v Bose Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-02928.

紐約市也將禁止雇主詢問薪資

去年麻州立法禁止雇主詢問前工作的薪資 (參考「麻州立法禁止詢問前一份工作的薪資」),而紐約市也要加入這個行列了:「New York City bans employers from asking potential workers about their past salary」。

New York City joined Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Philadelphia in banning employers from asking job applicants about their pay at current or past jobs after the city council passed the measure in a vote on Wednesday.

英國通過法案要求 ISP 記錄使用者觀看過的網站

英國前幾天通過了最激烈的隱私侵犯法案,要求 ISP 必須記錄使用者觀看過的網站:「Britain has passed the 'most extreme surveillance law ever passed in a democracy'」:

The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories -- including domains visited -- for one year, in case of police investigations.

不愧是 George Orwell 生前的國家,居然先實現了他的理想國... 接下來 Let's EncryptTor 的重要性就更高了。

歐盟法院認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責

歐盟法院 (The Court of Justice of the European Union) 認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責:「EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable For Pirate Users」。

不過這是有一些前提的,法院認為應該要符合這幾個要件,營運方才不要負責。基本上完全沒有 filter 限制的無線網路會符合這些條件:

The Court further notes that in order for such ‘mere conduit’ services to be exempt from third party liability, three cumulative conditions must be met:

– The provider must not have initiated the transmission
– It must not have selected the recipient of the transmission
– It must neither have selected nor modified the information contained in the transmission.

帶這並不代表丟著不管,而是在發生後要求改善:

In an effort to strike a balance between protecting a service provider from third party liability and the rights of IP owners, the Court ruled that providers can be required to end infringement.

“[T]he directive does not preclude the copyright holder from seeking before a national authority or court to have such a service provider ordered to end, or prevent, any infringement of copyright committed by its customers,” the Court found.

One such measure could include the obtaining of an injunction which would force an operator to password-protect his open WiFi network in order to deter infringement.

但法院並不同意直接監控:

On a more positive note, the Court rejected the notion of monitoring networks for infringement or taking more aggressive actions where unnecessary.

“[T]he directive expressly rules out the adoption of a measure to monitor information transmitted via a given network. Similarly, a measure consisting in terminating the internet connection completely without considering the adoption of measures less restrictive of the connection provider’s freedom to conduct a business would not be capable of reconciling the abovementioned conflicting rights,” the Court concludes.

網路對現在的言論自由非常重要,所以只有在確認侵犯他人權益的情況下才採取必要措施,歐盟法院這樣判大概是覺得這樣吧...

麻州立法禁止詢問前一份工作的薪資

雖然利用談判技巧是可以避開 (在你有本錢談判的情況下),麻州直接立法禁止了,這對於求職者來說相當重要:「Illegal in Massachusetts: Asking Your Salary in a Job Interview」。

The new law will require hiring managers to state a compensation figure upfront — based on what an applicant’s worth is to the company, rather than on what he or she made in a previous position.

法案是「Bill S.2119」,可以看到「An Act to establish pay equity」的說明,應該是指目標之類的。

裡面的幾個重點,首先是生效日期:

SECTION 7. This act shall take effect on January 1, 2018.

然後是求職期間的禁止行為:

(3) seek the salary history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer; provided, however, that a prospective employee may provide written authorization to a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, including benefits or other compensation or salary history only after any offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee;

接下來應該會有更多州制定類似的條款...

Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院,確認是否違法

在「Lawsuit challenging Facebook’s facial recognition system moves forward」這邊提到了 Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院確認是否違法。

Facebook 首先提出 Terms of Service 內規定不受依利諾州法律管理,只受加州以及聯邦法律管理,而依利諾州推翻這項規範,認為原告有權在依利諾州提起訴訟:

Today's decision focused on the question of whether the Illinois law is applicable to Facebook, one of the major legal hurdles facing the plaintiffs. Facebook's Terms of Service maintains that the the company is only bound by California and federal laws, and the company had moved to dismiss the case on those grounds. But today, the judge ruled that the terms-of-service clause isn't sufficient to nullify the Illinois law. As a result, the plaintiffs have a valid claim under the Illinois biometrics law and the case can proceed.

來拉板凳了...

VENUE Act 對專利蟑螂的反擊

EFF 的「We Can't Keep Waiting: Pass the VENUE Act This Year」這篇寫的還蠻清楚的,VENUE Act (S. 2733) 是一個看起來頗有效的 workaround,先上這個 workaround 降低專利蟑螂的攻勢。

專利蟑螂 (通常是原告) 可以選擇任意一個聯邦法庭提出控告:

As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem.

而專利蟑螂會挑選對原告最有利的地區來提出控告,也就是美國德克薩斯東區聯邦地區法院 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas),這對被告方很不利:

According to the Mercatus Center and George Mason University, nearly half of all patent cases are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That’s more than 70 times the average number of patent cases heard in other federal judicial districts.

Respected academics have identified evidence that procedures in the Eastern District of Texas unnecessarily favor plaintiffs and impose significant, unnecessary costs on companies and individuals accused of infringement, however questionable the patents and demands may be.

而 VENUE Act 則是拔掉這個武器,必須在與被告相關的主要地區提告。

舊金山要求新的建築物都必須有太陽能設備

舊金山通過在 2017 年之後的建築物必須有 15% 的屋頂面積必須是太陽能相關的設備:「San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings」:

The ordinance, passed unanimously by the city’s Board of Supervisors, extends an existing California law which requires 15 percent of roof space on new buildings to be “solar ready” — available and unshaded. That ordinance applies to residential or commercial buildings 10 stories or shorter.

也就是說,可以是太陽能的發電,也可以是太陽能集熱的設備:

Under the new ordinance, which will go into effect in 2017, new buildings need to have solar energy of some kind installed, either electricity-generating panels or solar heating units.

希望在 2020 年達到 100% 再生能源的目標:

San Francisco took a major step toward its own goal of meeting the city’s electricity demands with 100 percent renewable energy by 2020.

這成為美國第一個主要城市通過這樣的規範:

This week, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to require all new buildings to have solar panels on their roofs, according to Scott Wiener, the city supervisor who introduced the bill.