San Francisco police are currently looking for four male suspects involved in the shooting of four students outside of the June Jordan School for Equity.

Three of the victims–all teenage males–are said to have been treated for non-life threatening injuries, while a 15-year-old female remains in critical condition with an upper-body gunshot wound at San Francisco General Hospital.

#SFPD investigating shots fired @ Brazil & La Grande. 1 Confirmed victim. Shelter in place. SFPD searching for suspect. pic.twitter.com/8gYb9Vi3q7

— San Francisco Police (@SFPD) October 18, 2016

The shots rang out in the parking lot outside of the school shortly after the school let out at approximately 3:15 PM Tuesday, terrifying students. According to KRON 4, the police believe the teen girl who was shot may have been the intended target.

Four male suspects dressed in dark hoodies and dark jeans fled the scene of the shooting, but it is unclear if a getaway car was used. SFUSD Interim Superintendent Myong Leigh said the suspects were not students.

“Our understanding at this time is that a small group of outsiders unaffiliated with the school came to campus around the time of school dismissal, targeting a particular student for reasons that are presently unclear,” the superintendent wrote in a statement released Wednesday. “Sadly, four students were injured during the incident.”

A manhunt is underway to locate the four suspects still at large.

Students at the school were extremely shaken and confused by the violence. Student Nia Gastinell told CNN that she had hidden with fellow classmates underneath desks, and was instructed by a school administrator to stay away from the windows.

You don’t know if somebody’s going to die the next day,” Gastinell said. “Or come back and shoot again into our school.”

Some students responded Wednesday to the violence with messages written in chalk in the parking lot where the shooting took place.

Students at June Jordan school for equity write messages in parking lot. 4 students shot. San Francisco @kron4news pic.twitter.com/75HzYtaMXR

— Will Tran (@KRON4WTran) October 19, 2016

Classes resumed Wednesday at June Jordan with added support available for students and staff.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suspects on the Loose After San Francisco Shooting That Injured Four appeared first on Law Street.

Affordable, safe housing is a huge concern for all populations. Traditionally, neighborhoods have been segregated along socioeconomic lines. However, even in modern cities, policy attempts to integrate communities through equal access housing have failed. Housing lotteries, through neighborhood preference programs, are now being employed by cities across the country to keep families in their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, those same lotteries are meeting a pushback from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which has stated that neighborhood preference and housing lotteries violate federal fair housing laws. In an interesting turn of events, the populations that fair housing laws are designed to protect are now being utilized to keep them out of their home neighborhoods. This comes as a surprise to many supporters of these anti-displacement programs, as the legislation was created to assist victims of segregation, not perpetuate it.

Federal Fair Housing Laws

In 1968, shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress passed the Fair Housing Act (FHA) in response to concerns about racial segregation. The statute sought to address the issues created by residential segregation, while moving cities and towns away from unequal housing and economic conditions. It was initially enacted under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and then ultimately codified under 42 U.S.C. §3601-3619. A 1968 Supreme Court ruling, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., held that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits racial discrimination by private and governmental housing providers. These policies established a framework for eradicating segregated housing.

Under the FHA it is unlawful to “refuse to sell or rent […] or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to a person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin” or “to discriminate against any person in” making certain real-estate transactions “because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”  Since the passage of the FHA in 1968, many cities have become more diverse. The FHA plays an integral part in avoiding the Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that the “nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white–separate and unequal.” The Act was later amended in 1988 to create certain exemptions from liability and expanded protected characteristics, including discrimination on the basis of disability or families with children.

“Fair housing protest, 1964” Courtesy of [Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr]

Equal Housing and Discrimination

Problems regarding fair housing and discrimination are pervasive in communities across the country. HUD estimates that there are roughly two million cases of housing discrimination annually, but the actual number may be much larger. Many cases of housing discrimination are not reported. Moreover, studies conducted by HUD show that many residents are unaware of what activities are illegal under the FHA.

Despite all of the efforts to diminish segregation and discrimination in housing access, very little progress has occurred nationally. While the country has become more diverse than ever, residential housing patterns remain stagnant. Even with the passage of the FHA and the expansion of state laws protecting residents from housing discrimination, improvements in socioeconomic and racial seclusion have made few advances.

What is Gentrification?

No matter where one travels, there are segregated neighborhoods all over the U.S., particularly in metropolitan areas. Gentrification, or the arrival of  wealthier people in an existing urban district, has become common practice. This causes a litany of problems for the current residents of that community, including increased rents and property values, in addition to drastic changes to the community’s culture.

Researchers have been quick to note that the practice of gentrification is not inherently bad. Seeing a neighborhood with decreased crime, new investments, and increased economic activity are desirable, positive traits for any community. Conflicts occur because usually wealthier, white populations are given significant credit for “improving” neighborhoods, while simultaneously displacing poor, minority residents.

Gentrification has some common characteristics, though there is no technical definition for it. First, there is a change in demographics, leading to an increase in median income, decrease in household size, and a decline in racial minorities. Second, the real estate markets transform, increasing property values and the number of evictions. Third, there is a shift in land use, usually a decrease in industrial uses and an increase in offices, high-end retail, and restaurants. Lastly, a variety of character and cultural attributes change, such as landscaping, public behavior, noise, and nuisance.

Neighborhood and Community Preference

Many cities are facing serious roadblocks for making affordable housing available to low-income and middle-class residents. As property and rent increases, the ability of certain families to stay in a particular neighborhood decreases. Thousands of minority populations are being displaced by gentrification across the country. To combat this growing problem, some cities, like San Francisco, have tried to utilize neighborhood preference and housing lotteries.

Essentially, the program allows current residents to participate in a lottery for affordable housing units partially financed by the federal government. This gives those who currently live in a neighborhood a preference, a right of first refusal. Rights of first refusal are contractual rights that give a particular person or business entity the opportunity to enter into a transaction before a third party. Participants must still compete against other residents, but they have a better chance of remaining in their home neighborhood. In San Francisco, this meant setting aside 40 percent of units in subsidized developments for residents already living in the district or a half mile away. This would allows residents first dibs at living in the brand-new, partially federally-financed building.

Why Does Neighborhood Preference Violate Fair Housing Laws?

While neighborhood preference can be viewed as a noble program, it technically violates HUD’s fair housing laws. The fact that laws designed to assist minority populations are now being used to not keep them in their home neighborhoods creates an extreme incongruity. By employing neighborhood preference, HUD states that it actually maintains segregation rather than eradicating it and limits equal access to housing.

The main issue with these programs is that they give a priority to those already living in a particular district. In these specific areas, residents tend to be low-income minorities. Allowing those residents a preference continues to segregate neighborhoods. It also allows race to be an integral factor in the process, as the effect of allowing current residents to have a preference means that black tenants are more likely to receive the new units.

HUD noted via a spokesperson that the agency takes great care when reviewing programs that have noble intentions but end up with negative consequences. However, it was also noted that there was no record of HUD ever approving a neighborhood preference program.

San Francisco is not the only city experiencing these roadblocks in assisting low-income residents. In New York, a fair housing group has filed suit alleging that the city’s policy of using community preferences for affordable housing units perpetuates segregation. The pattern is national, with urban neighborhoods becoming increasingly whiter and more affluent.

Conclusion

While there are many positive aspects to transforming a neighborhood, the social, economic, and physical impacts of some changes may have negative consequences for current residents. Federal fair housing laws exist to eliminate segregated neighborhoods, but often come at a cost to current residents. The laws designed specifically to protect certain classes of citizens are now being utilized to push those same people out of their homes.

On September 22, 2016, HUD came back with a different answer after placing the San Francisco program under review. In a letter to the mayor, HUD decided that while the city cannot give priority to neighborhood residents for spaces in affordable housing projects, it will allow 40 percent of the units to be prioritized for residents who are at a high risk of displacement. Race will not be a factor for consideration in the selection process. This announcement immediately affects the Willie B. Kennedy senior apartment complex, which has roughly 98 units and more than 6,000 applicants. The lottery for this particular property had been delayed pending HUD’s decision.

This change demonstrates HUD’s willingness to acknowledge the serious consequences of displacement. It may not be the most ideal way to combat issues of equal access, but it certainly shows a sensitivity to keeping citizens in their neighborhoods. While neighborhood preference programs are out, it seems that “anti-displacement” preference programs are in.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

The Kerner Commission: Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders

Legal Information Institute: Fair Housing Act

Additional

NPR: How ‘Equal Access’ Is Helping Drive Black Renters Out Of Their Neighborhood

PBS: What is Gentrification?

CivilRights.Org: Fair Housing Laws

SF Gate: Federal Agency OKs Preferences at New SF senior Housing Complex

Investopedia: Right of First Refusal

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Equal Access?: Neighborhood Preference and Housing Lotteries appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Apple released a new security update for iPhone users worldwide after the discovery of an attempted hack that was trying to take advantage of three huge vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system. Using these three factors, now called the “Trident” flaw, hackers could take complete control over someone’s phone remotely, without the owner knowing about it.

The group that is believed to be behind the hack is an American-owned, Israeli-based company called NSO. It was founded in late 2009 by two Israeli mass-entrepreneurs with ties to the Israeli government and defense forces. In 2014 a San Francisco-based equity firm bought a majority stake in the company for $120 million.

NSO says it specializes in tools fighting against crime and terrorism. Its LinkedIn page describes the company as in “the field of Internet security software solutions and security research.” But many security firms call the group a “cyber arms dealer.” An online document from NSO says it is “a leader in the field of cyber warfare” that utilizes its proprietary monitoring tool it calls “Pegasus,” which can monitor and extract all data from a target “via untraceable commands” which allow “remote and stealth.”

Human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor from the United Arab Emirates was the first one to report the suspected hack, after receiving a text message to his iPhone with a link promising to reveal details about torture in his country’s prisons. Instead of clicking the link he contacted the Toronto-based internet watchdog Citizen Lab.

Incredible: #UAE tries to hack democracy activist @Ahmed_Mansoor w/ Israeli-made… https://t.co/u9WQZFM2OQ by @salamah via @c0nvey

— Azza Youssri (@AzzaYoussri) August 26, 2016

Reports issued on Thursday by Citizen Lab and San Francisco mobile security company Lookout revealed how they discovered an advanced spyware that could take over the whole phone at the tap of a finger. If you click the link in a fake message like the one Mansoor received, it would activate spying software called “Pegasus” and hackers could listen in on your calls, collect text messages and personal information, and control your camera.

This advanced technique is so highly desirable in the cyber world that one spyware broker said in November that it had paid $1 million to programmers who said they had found a way to do it, according to the Telegraph.

On Thursday an Apple spokesperson said:

We were made aware of this vulnerability and immediately fixed it with iOS 9.3.5. We advise all of our customers to always download the latest version of iOS to protect themselves against potential security exploits.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Hackers Behind the Apple Spyware Problem? appeared first on Law Street.

The city of San Francisco recently approved a measure guaranteeing fully paid parental leave for the birth or adoption of a child for up to six weeks. With this new policy, San Francisco becomes the first city in the United States to offer 100 percent of a worker’s salary during parental leave. While this is a major step for the “City by the Bay,” the fact that San Francisco is the first to make paid leave mandatory is also a troubling sign for the rest of the country.

Read on to find out what exactly San Francisco’s law means, who is following the city’s lead, and why the United States lags so far behind other countries.

San Francisco’s Parental Leave Policy

San Francisco’s policy guarantees an employee his or her full salary during the six-week parental leave period. However, this policy actually builds on a plan that already exists within the state of California. California’s state policy guarantees 55 percent of an eligible worker’s salary for the same period, funded using employee contributions and administered using an insurance fund. Essentially, San Francisco’s policy promises the other 45 percent, but this time, the employer pays the cost.

Like minimum wage increases, San Francisco’s new policy will not take effect immediately. Instead, it will be phased in beginning in 2017, when companies with 50 or more employees will be required to meet the new standard. Companies with 35 employees will follow in July of the same year and finally those with 20 or more employees in 2018. Eligible workers will have to work at least eight hours a week, spend at least 40 percent of their work week in San Francisco, and wait 180 days after being hired in order to be covered by the policy.

The video below provides some additional detail on San Francisco’s new policy:

Similar Programs

While San Francisco and California’s system is the most comprehensive, other states and cities have similar plans. Three states have long had their own policies in place: New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington. Like California, New Jersey’s policy covers six weeks while Rhode Island’s guarantees only four.

Like California, these states, with the exception of Washington, created their policies as an extension of existing short-term disability programs. The programs are largely based off of short-term disability programs that only five states have in place. The programs are funded by withholding a small portion of employee wages each paycheck, much like Social Security. Washington  passed a law for paid family leave but state legislators have yet to fund the effort, which has prevented its implementation.

In addition to these states, New York recently passed a program of its own. New York’s policy covers employees, both part-time and full-time, for up to 12 weeks. Furthermore, there will be no exemptions for small businesses and employees will only need to be with a company for six months to be covered. The program is funded through an insurance model, which involves taking small payments for the program from each worker’s paycheck. In this sense, the policy is a lot like the ones in states that built on existing short-term disability insurance programs.

New York’s paid leave plan will, like San Francisco’s, be implemented gradually–the full 12 weeks of leave and 67 percent of pay will not be guaranteed until 2021. One of the New York plan’s greatest strengths is its job protection component, which prevents someone from losing his or her job for taking leave. This expands on current federal law, which guarantees full-time employees’ job protection and 12 work weeks of unpaid leave.

The accompanying video looks at New York’s policy:

While these programs are a start, only five states have them and the programs that do exist still leave the United States behind most of the developed world. Even Bangladesh, which is not a country typically associated with progressive social rights, has a mandatory 16-week policy. However, for stronger programs to be enacted in the United States, it will likely have to start on the federal level and right now that doesn’t seem probable.

Problems with the System

There are several problems with the current state of family leave in the United States beyond the lack of paid leave in most places. This starts at the federal level with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was passed back in 1993. While the FMLA does guarantee up to 12 weeks of leave for parents for childbirth or adoption, to care for an ill family member, and for an illness that prevents someone from working, the leave is unpaid. Even this unpaid leave comes with caveats, as it only applies to employees who have worked at their current company for over a year, have worked more than 1,250 hours in the past 12 months, and work at a company with more than 50 employees.

Democrats in Congress have proposed a law that they hope will fill in the holes left by the FMLA. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act last year. This bill calls for the federal government to guarantee up to 66 percent of a worker’s income for 12 weeks in the case of serious illness or a new child. This would cover all workers regardless of how long they have been employed, the size of the business, or any of other existing limitations. To fund this leave the bill proposes a new payroll tax of 0.2 percent, which would be about $1.50 for a typical worker based on an estimate from the National Partnership for Women & Families.

Unfortunately, it is pretty unlikely that this bill will make its way through Congress, especially with a Republican majority in control of both houses that seems unlikely to take up the bill. Even a Republican alternative, proposed by House leader Paul Ryan, seems unlikely to gain traction due to Congressional Democrats’ criticism that it would attack essential worker’s rights.

The following video looks at some of the problems with the existing system:

Resistance

The United States is the only industrialized country and one of just three countries in the world to not guarantee some type of paid parental leave. Attempts to change the status quo in the United States have often been met with backlash. In California, for example, the Chamber of Commerce labeled it as potentially the number one killer of jobs when the bill was passed. The National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Society for Human Resources management are also opposed to forcing companies to offer paid leave. This sentiment has been echoed all over the U.S. by many small businesses as well, where fears of costs are too great to garner support.

All this negativity, though, may not be well-founded. A 2011 survey in California, taken six years after the state implemented a family leave program, found that 90 percent of companies felt that the policy had either a neutral or positive impact on the work environment. Even more telling, this positive effect was seen at higher levels among small businesses relative to large ones, despite fears of overwhelming costs.

Gender Bias

Another major issue in the fight over paid parental leave is that it is seen as a women’s issue, and not an issue for both parents. Unsurprisingly, in a country that does not offer paid leave to mothers, the United States does not give the option to new fathers either. This is another characteristic that sets the United States apart from the rest of the world–47 percent of countries offer leave to fathers as well as mothers.

Giving men time off allows them to help with childcare duties and also enables women to improve their health and sustain their careers, as evidenced in countries with well-established programs like the ones in Norway and Sweden. Without paid leave for men, most of the childcare responsibility is placed on mothers, often forcing them to take more time off from work, which can make returning to the labor force even more difficult. Unpaid leave also has a significant effect on single mothers who must both care for their children and work in order to make ends meet.

Without the option to take paid leave, some women and men are forced to put off having children until a later age when they are more financially established. However, waiting longer to have children risks increasing fertility problems. While these concerns have been somewhat reduced through improved egg-freezing methods, which companies like Facebook have promised to help pay for, in-vitro fertilization is still not always effective and can be particularly expensive.

Conclusion

Efforts to implement a more comprehensive family leave system have regularly run into a number of arguments for why it should not be done–it will hurt small businesses, it is too expensive, and so on. The issue has also become increasingly gendered, as opponents claim that only women need time off. However, none of these arguments hold water. Paid time off is important for both men and women and most plans also seek to cover medical and family emergencies as well.

Yet the resistance remains, and the United States remains an outlier among developed countries. Part of this is due to an antiquated piece of federal legislation that offers time off but little else, including no pay. While many state and local governments have taken it upon themselves to address the issue, these policies are far from widespread in the United States. In order to implement a comprehensive paid family leave program, Congress will need to take action at the federal level. This will inevitably require more taxes, but a program of this nature may be necessary to ensure the United States remains competitive in the world economy.

Resources

Proskauer: San Francisco Approves City Ordinance Providing For Fully Paid Parental Leave

United States Department of Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act

New York Magazine: New York Just Created a Revolutionary New Family-Leave Policy

NPR: Is It Time To make Medical and Family Leave Paid?

Govtrack: Summaries for the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act

Time: Company-Paid Egg Freezing Will Be the Great Equalizer

Bustle: Paid Paternity Leave Is Essential For Gender Equality. Why Is The United States Taking So Long To Catch On?

The Atlantic: Work in the Only Industrialized Country Without Paid Maternity Leave

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It Takes a Policy: The Fight Over Paid Family Leave in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

In an attempt to get American cities thinking about the future of transportation, the federal government initiated a contest last December. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Smart City Challenge, which asked cities to come up with new and innovative transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on self-driving vehicles. The competition drew 78 different cities (or teams of cities) as applicants, and US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just announced seven finalists who will move on to the next stage of the competition.

The cities who made the finals are: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and San Francisco, California. Although there were originally only supposed to be five finalists, these seven were chosen because of the strengths of their proposals.

Each city that made it to this level in the competition will receive $100,000 to further develop their plans, as well as DOT help. The overall winner could get up $50 million to implement their innovative transportation solution. The other 71 cities that entered the contest will also most likely get some federal funding help with their transportation systems as well.

There were a wide range of different proposals offered; according to the Washington Post’s Michael Laris:

The plans are ambitious and varied, from Columbus’s push to build a network of on-demand driverless shuttles to Portland’s plan to connect electric vehicle charging stations to its streetlight system.

The contest was inspired by the fact that a 2015 DOT study found that many American cities are unprepared for imminent transportation trends, including increased urbanization, denser neighborhoods, and an older population. According to a statement Foxx gave to Gizmodo:

For a long time these cities have felt very powerless seeing congestion and travel times going up and haven’t had the resources to aggressively tackle those things. We’re saying, if you’ve got a creative idea to answer those challenges, let’s see how we can help.

It will be interesting to see what kind of plans the seven finalist cities are able to implement. They could be the first steps in widespread transportation innovation in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Smart City Challenge Finalists Announced appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been over a month since Justin Bieber’s latest album “Purpose” hit music shelves across the country, reminding women in their tweens, teens, and mom jeans just how much we all love the “Biebs.” But if anyone isn’t happy with the megastar after introducing chart topping ear worms like “Sorry” and “What Do You Mean,” it’s the San Francisco residents who are pissed about their Bieber-painted streets.

As part of a guerrilla  marketing campaign promoting the album, advertisers spray painted Bay Area sidewalks with graffiti promoting the November 13 release. But after multiple rainstorms the paint still hasn’t washed away, prompting city officials to go after the pop star and his record label.

SF City officials documenting the @justinbieber related “tagging” on San Francisco sidewalks pic.twitter.com/4KBJAKyEXr

— Damian Trujillo (@newsdamian) December 28, 2015

San Francisco’s city attorney Dennis Herrera sent a letter to executives from Def Jam Records and Universal Music Group Monday, vowing to “aggressively pursue all available penalties and costs from those responsible for lawless marketing tactics that intend to financially benefit Mr. Bieber and your respective companies.”

Matt Dorsey, a spokesperson for Herrera, isn’t sure exactly how much the clean up will cost, but noted to NBC Bay Area that the letter states the label could be liable for civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation. San Francisco currently spends approximately $20 million annually of tax payers’ money to remove graffiti from its streets.

For an interactive map of locations and photos of Bieber graffiti click here

But city officials are concerned with more than just the cost of removing the ads, they’re worried about public safety as well. Herrera noted in the letter that the graffiti poses a possible threat to pedestrians, by “intentionally creating visual distractions on busy rights of ways.” He also fears that the marketing campaign “irresponsibly tells our youth that likeminded lawlessness and contempt for public property are condoned and encouraged.”

Some people believe the companies may have planned for the negative exposure in advance, even setting aside money in case of possible legal fees associated with the illegal promotion tactic. In some cases the fines from the guerrilla marketing seem worth it for companies in exchange for the huge publicity that came with it.

So far Bieber, his record label, and distributor haven’t responded to the letter, but Dorsey is hoping they “make things right.” But is it too late now to say sorry?

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post San Francisco Prosecutor Goes After Justin Bieber’s Illegal Graffiti appeared first on Law Street.

The top stories published at Law Street last week included a look at Kesha’s contract woes, an innovative seed storage program, and a rundown of the 2015 election results. ICYMI, here are the top stories from Law Street last week:

#1 Sony Reportedly Refuses to Let Kesha Record New Music Without Her Alleged Rapist

If you were wondering why pop star Kesha hasn’t put out any new music since being featured on Pitbull’s 2013 smash hit “Timber” there’s an unsettling reason. The singer has put her career on the line in an attempt to free herself from being forced to work with producer Dr. Luke, who she says sexually and emotionally abused her for ten years. Read the full story here.

#2 Seeds of Hope: Inside the Doomsday Seed Vault

October 19 marked the first time in history that the Svalbard Global Seed Vault wasopened up for a withdrawal. Often referred to as the “doomsday vault,” the seed vault was built to serve as a backstop for plant extinction, storing seeds for individual countries to ensure that plant diversity is not lost in a catastrophe. While weather disasters and global warming pose significant threats to the future of agriculture, the recent withdrawal was the result of the war in Syria. Researchers sought additional seeds as the multi-year war significantly reduced their supply of drought-resistant wheat. The idea of a last-resort vault full of the world’s seeds may surprise many, but the planning and implementation of the world’s seed bank have been a long and thought-out process. Read the full story here.

#3 The Results are in: Election Day 2015

A breakdown of the results of some of the most important races to watch, including the Virginia Senate, San Francisco’s Airbnb regulations, the Kentucky Governor’s race, Ohio’s marijuana initiative, and Houston’s equal rights ordinance. Read the full story here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, I wrote a breakdown of some of the top races to watch on election day 2015. Here are the results of these contentious votes:

Virginia’s General Assembly

Why we should have watched it: With just a few key races promising to decide the lean of the state Senate overall, and Governor Terry McAuliffe pushing hard for a Democratic Senate, it was certainly a race to watch. Given that Virginia promises to be a hotly contested swing state in 2016, seeing just how purple the state has become is always interesting.

What happened: The GOP retained control of the state senate, and therefore the General Assembly as a whole. This leaves McAuliffe still without allies, and may indicate an uphill battle for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee for 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

Why we should have watched it: San Francisco voters were offered a sort of referendum on Airbnb’s model of short-term rentals. Proposition F promised to levy some serious restrictions on the company. Add to that Airbnb’s $8 million dollar investment in fighting against the proposition, and a series of weird ads that certainly turned San Francisco voters off, and it became a tense race from start to finish.

What happened: Airbnb’s massive investment paid off, as voters rejected Proposition F. So, Airbnb will continue business as usual in the city where it is headquartered, but it was still a very expensive fight. As other cities may try to create similar restrictions, Airbnb might not want to make spending that kind of cash a precedent.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Why we should have watched it: The Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway faced off against tea party candidate and businessman Matt Bevin. This was an incredibly hotly contested race; recent polls actually showed Conway in the lead. Bevin last year tried to primary Mitch McConnell, and was almost successful, and then beat a more establishment Republican for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

What happened: Bevin won, marking the first time in a while that a Republican has taken the governorship in Kentucky. Moreover, he showed that tea party wins aren’t a thing of the past. His successful rallying against the establishment may indicate who Kentucky will vote for in 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Why we should have watched it: There were a lot of weird aspects to Ohio’s attempt to legalize marijuana. For one, it would have been the first state to legalize recreational marijuana having not first legalized medical marijuana. Moreover, there were concerns of a “marijuana oligopoly,” given that only 10 facilities backed by a group of investors would receive licenses to grow it. So, some that rallied against it were more fighting against the threat of a restricted market than the legalization of weed itself.

What happened: The initiative failed, so weed won’t be legalized in Ohio. However, it’s unclear whether it was rejected because of the oligopoly fears, or because Ohioans actually didn’t want to legalize weed. If it’s the former, we should expect to see another measure up for vote soon that allows a wider market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

Why we should have watched it: The city of Houston, Texas voted on an equal rights ordinance that would have included protections for the LGBTQ community, including on the basis of gender identity. However, the entire thing became a nasty firefight when groups that opposed the ordinance began suggesting that it would allow predators to enter women’s bathrooms.

What happened: The fear-mongering paid off, and the ordinance didn’t pass. The opponents focused on one incorrect assumption, and were successful. Although the U.S. is doing a little better on LGBTQ rights in the wake of Obergefell, the resounding defeat of the ordinance in a relatively liberal city run by Annise Parker, one of the most high profile openly gay mayors in the United States, isn’t a great sign.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Results are in: Election Day 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is election day in the U.S., and despite the fact that we’re all already preoccupied with the 2016 elections, there are some interesting races to watch this year as well. From mayoral elections to ballot initiatives, the 2015 elections certainly shouldn’t be ignored. Check out the top five most noteworthy races that are drawing eyes to this year’s polling places.

Virginia’s General Assembly

Today, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia will vote for their 140 members of the General Assembly. While the House of Delegates is almost certain to remain under Republican control, the state Senate is up for grabs, with just a few hotly-contested races likely to decide which party dominates. Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, is a Democrat, so having a Democratically-controlled Senate would give him more leverage to accomplish his goals in the state. Given Virginia’s cemented status as a swing state, state-level politics may offer an interesting look at which way it could lean in 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

The city of San Francisco, ironically the home of Airbnb, is voting today on Proposition F, which would put some serious restrictions on Airbnb and other short-term rental companies. Airbnb has fought against the proposed restrictions tooth and nail, spending upwards of $8 million. But, Airbnb also pissed off San Franciscans last week with a series of condescending ads that the company later took down and apologized for.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

With this very expensive and contentious question being posed to voters, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Kentucky’s governorship is up for grabs, with a hotly-contested race between Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway and the Republican nominee, Matt Bevin, a wealthy businessman and tea party darling. Bevin almost successfully primary-ed Senator Mitch McConnell last year. To a lot of observers, the race between Conway and Bevin is symptomatic of some overall trends–on one hand Tea Party extremists pushing out more establishment Republicans, and on the other, Democrats struggling in state wide races. Like the Virginia State Assembly, this Kentucky governor’s race may shed some further light on national trends as we move toward 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Ohio voters will have to vote on Issue 3, which if it passes, will legalize recreational and medical marijuana in the state. If it passes, Ohio will be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana without first legalizing medical marijuana. But there are some serious concerns about the implications of legalizing marijuana in Ohio, summed up yesterday by fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans. One big concern is the fact that legalizing marijuana it in the state will make the group of 10 investors pushing the effort very wealthy, as they will have control over the state’s marijuana market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

The city of Houston, Texas, will be voting today on an equal rights ordinance which would specify non-discrimination in arenas such as employment and public housing. The law, which is on the ballot as Proposition 1, would include protections for the LGBTQ community, as it specifies sexual orientation, genetic information, and gender identity. Opponents to the ordinance have fixated on one particular aspect–that it will allow people who are trans to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, and made some truly disgusting and fear-mongering commercials urging people to vote against it.

Given that this is one of the first big public tests of LGBTQ rights post-Obergefell, the Houston vote is certainly one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015 Elections: Top Five Votes to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

Denizens of San Francisco may have noticed something weird this week–a bunch of uncomfortably confrontational Airbnb ads. The ads gave the city condescending suggestions about what it could do with the $12 million it paid in taxes. Unfortunately, the billboards were incredibly poorly received.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

I feel like the Airbnb advertising team has read about San Francisco but never actually lived here. pic.twitter.com/nICrqpRJsQ — rude moon (@skrzkrk) October 21, 2015

Airbnb put up these ads all over San Francisco bus shelters and billboards: https://t.co/Ldc47nzoVG pic.twitter.com/QqH7V9xbR3

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 23, 2015

How #Airbnb’s passive-aggressive ads backfired in San Francisco: https://t.co/MbzQZul4Y2pic.twitter.com/H8wfkXPKmh — New York Magazine (@NYMag) October 22, 2015

Currently, Airbnb is waging a battle against a proposed initiative in San Francisco, where it is headquartered. The initiative, Proposition F, will place new restrictions on landlords who offer short term rentals–exactly Airbnb’s business model. Voters will have the opportunity to vote on the initiative on November 3. Airbnb has fought rabidly against the proposal, spending more than $8 million to rally against it.

In that light, the ad campaign came across as bratty and disingenuous, at best. While the point was clearly intended to be that Airbnb is good for San Francisco, and brings in a lot of tax revenue, it came across as rudely criticizing the city for not spending enough money on public works and whining about the taxes levied against the company. Many also pointed out that Airbnb shouldn’t be giving itself a round of applause just for following the law and paying its taxes.  After the social media backlash, Airbnb apologized and took down the ads. The company also issued the following statement via Twitter: 

We apologize for Wednesday’s SF ads. They displayed poor judgment and do not live up to the values and humanity of our global community. — Airbnb (@Airbnb) October 22, 2015

Given that Airbnb is currently trying to garner goodwill in San Francisco prior to the Proposition F vote, this doesn’t look good for the short-term rental giant. While Airbnb is growing like crazy, its hometown may be passing some restrictive new provisions come election day this year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airbnb Takes Down Passive-Aggressive Ads in San Francisco appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you hire a contractor to install new hardwood floors. After the job is done, you discover that the floors weren’t built to code, multiple doors no longer fully open, and boot prints were visible in the varnish. So, you go on Yelp and submit a scathing review, “Absolutely horrible experience… The quality of the work is deplorable. Be warned!” Six months later, the company sues you for civil theft, intentional interference, and defamation, claiming that your online reviews had caused it to lose $625,000 worth of business, or $250,000 in profits; The company demands $125,000 in compensation. $60,000 in legal fees later, you settle for $15,000.

Unfortunately, this story is not a mere hypothetical. This is the story of Matthew White, a Denver-area resident who has become one of countless victims of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In today’s online environment, a few bad reviews on Yelp can derail a fledgling company. SLAPP is the term used to describe legal claims made with the intention of silencing critics, despite having little chance of prevailing in court.

In response, consumer, media, and activist groups have lobbied for anti-SLAPP laws, and 28 states and Washington D.C. have passed laws intended to discourage SLAPP suits. There is no federal law yet, however.

Yelp, the $3 billion San Francisco company that publishes crowd-sourced reviews about local businesses, opened a political office in Washington last year to push for anti-SLAPP laws. In May, the Free Speech Act was introduced to a Congressional committee. According to Laurent Crenshaw, who handles national policy for Yelp, “This issue is really one that hits close to the heart for Yelp… The concern is that these types of lawsuits, even if not incredibly common, will have a chilling effect on people’s engagement online.”

The Free Speech Act aims to curb SLAPP suits by requiring a plaintiff in a speech-related case pertaining to matters of public concern to prove that he is likely to prevail. If he is unable to, the case would be automatically dismissed “with prejudice,” allowing the defendant to recover legal fees.

Yelp has built an impressive anti-SLAPP coalition, with endorsements from two major tech industry groups, the Internet Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, and has consulted with the likes of Facebook and Google. “Yelp’s involvement has been huge… It has really been tremendous for the cause” said Evan Mascagni, policy director for the Public Participation Project, a coalition pushing for anti-SLAPP laws.

Still, the road to a federal anti-SLAPP law will be long and arduous. Government transparency website GovTrack.us gives the Free Speech Act a 13 percent chance of being enacted, and accusations against Yelp claiming that the website solicited money for removing negative comments certainly does not help. Yelp is going to need to step up its game if it wants users to leave unfettered reviews without the fear of losing thousands in SLAPP lawsuits.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yelp Pushes for Anti-SLAPP Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

The death toll from the recent 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal has surpassed 7,000, with at least 14,000. Recovery efforts have been underway for the last week. As people attempt to repair the damage and their lives, we should reflect on the implications of this disaster.

The bulk of the damage, casualties, and relief efforts are centered around the capital city of Kathmandu. Thousands of people have been left homeless and are forced to sleep and wait outdoors, as open spaces seem to be the only places that are safe from aftershocks. Because relief organizations are short on tents by the hundreds of thousands, they are exposed to the rain, cold air, and other elements. Furthermore, hospitals are not designed to accommodate for the scale of injuries. A 120-year-old hospital building was forced to relocate its patients elsewhere for operations.

Another long-term concern is Nepal’s economy. Many temples and historic sites have collapsed from the quake, which not only is spiritually disheartening for the nation’s religious population, but those sites have served as attractions for tourists in the city. In addition, the 2015 climbing season at Mount Everest is over, as climbers died in earthquake-induced deadly avalanches. At least 17 people died there, with dozens more injured and missing. While some climbers have been rescued by helicopter, others were trapped too high on the mountain, beyond the reach of air rescue. Yet they were hard pressed to descend on their own because the avalanches and quakes restricted access to their normal climb and descent routes.

Ongoing aftershocks continue to jar rocks and snow from the mountain, making rescue efforts difficult and dangerous. This disaster has already surpassed last year’s avalanche that killed 16 people as the single deadliest event on Everest, and it is expected to continue to worsen. Furthermore, it is unclear at what point climbing will resume and what form it will take; the damage from the quake and avalanches may have altered the topography of the mountain, which would force a readdressing of climbing routes, number of climbers that can be accommodated, and other details of this nature. Climbing Everest is one of the primary sources of tourism and income for the nation.

Most of the modern structures in the city of Kathmandu, while damaged, remained intact; on the other hand, most of the damage inflicted was on the old, poorly constructed brick buildings in the urban area. The city, region, and nation are generally hampered by poverty and have undergone substantial increases in population, experience poor coordination in building, and often do not adhere to building codes. These things make the region much more vulnerable when disasters of this caliber occur. It is quite similar to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. That one was also quite large in strength, registering at a 7.0 on the Richter Scale, but the death toll is estimated as high as 220,000. This catastrophic figure is due to the extreme poverty, poor building, and insufficient infrastructure that is rampant in Port-au-Prince. Conversely, the strongest earthquake on record, the 1960 9.5 tremor in Chile, resulted in approximately 2,000-3,000 deaths. The difference, journalist Jerry Thompson argues, resulted largely from more sophisticated building techniques, more preparedness on the part of the populace, and better organized rescue services in this more economically developed nation.

Poor quality building in Kathmandu. Courtesy of Oliphant via Flickr.

Thompson has also written about a massive subduction zone fault line near the North American Pacific Northwest coast. He suggests it is overdue for a massive quake, which would induce an enormous tsunami that could cause untold devastation in the area. We might say that Nepal is fortunate to be landlocked; in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, most of the deaths occurred as a result of the latter disaster rather than the former. The Fukushima nuclear meltdown was also spurred by the tsunami and not the quake itself. Understanding the functions of the natural world and that these two events may go hand in hand may lead to more foresighted planning.

There may be additional non-human damages that result from such problems. For example, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake did not cause as much damage as the fire that followed, which nearly gutted the entire city. The fire sprung up in many areas at once, largely due to a combination of broken and leaking gas pipes interacting with sparking downed power lines, and proceeded to devour the largely wooden buildings. It became clear even to the people at the time that the damage and deaths were due to poor planning on their part; nature was not to blame. Yet nature suffered nonetheless. The poorly built water supply system failed, and a beautiful valley in Yosemite National Park drowned as dams were built to meet the city’s water needs.

We must come to understand that we are a part of the Earth, not occupiers of it. Natural disasters will occur, and there will be fatalities. But they do not need to be as horrific as they are. The massive inequalities in wealth, technology, and living standards throughout the world have reared their ugly heads during disasters like this. It is encouraging to see so many other nations and organizations rallying to assist and support, but addressing the underlying problems that are ever present would be productive for societies’ lived experiences year round as well as in times of crisis. The tragedy in Nepal reminds us of the lesson that we have failed to grasp: since these forces are too powerful for us to control, and to an extent–since tectonic activity is vital to all life and the planet itself–should not be controlled, we must learn to live with them safely and intelligently.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Some Cities Survive Natural Disasters Better Than Others For This Reason appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I wrote an article about gaming convention Gen Con threatening to take their expo elsewhere if Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 101 into law. Gov Pence appeared unphased by the threat of losing big business, quietly signing the controversial bill into law last Thursday. Now three states have joined a list of notable celebrities, politicians, and corporate execs speaking out against the governor’s decision by banning state-funded travel to the state. These actions have resulted in Pence’s announcement that he will work this week to clarify the law so that it does not legalize discrimination.

The bill, which becomes effective July 1, 2015, would prevent individuals in the state from being forced by government entities to violate their religious beliefs. Contention has spawned from critics saying the bill will extend protection to businesses to legally discriminate against LGBT patrons by refusing them service. In a press conference this morning the governor addressed critics, announcing that he will work to fix the law by asking the state assembly to clarify that businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone; he has no plans to make the state legislation disappear.

When news surfaced that Pence had privately signed the bill, it didn’t take long for a slew of celebrities and public officials to begin voicing their outrage via social media.

Apple is open for everyone. We are deeply disappointed in Indiana’s new law and calling on Arkansas Gov. to veto the similar #HB1228.

— Tim Cook (@tim_cook) March 27, 2015

Indiana’s anti-gay ‘Religious Freedom’ bill signed by Gov. Pence is absurd & insulting. This is 2015. Ridiculous. #RFRA — Larry King (@kingsthings) March 27, 2015

When will conservatives like Mike Pence figure out discriminating against #lgbt under the guise of faith is REALLY bad politics?

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) March 26, 2015

Yesterday, states began taking action against the “anti-gay” bill by banning state-funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut became the first state to boycott Indiana over its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when Governor Dan Malloy signed an executive order barring state-funded travel to the state. Malloy announced his decision with the following tweets:

When new laws turn back the clock on progress, we can’t sit idly by. We are sending a message that discrimination won’t be tolerated. -DM

— Governor Dan Malloy (@GovMalloyOffice) March 30, 2015

Two other cities, San Francisco and Seattle, joined Connecticut by imposing similar travel bans in response to the bill. A list of businesses, following in the steps of Gen Con, have also begun to reconsider doing business with the state. Some notable opposition includes Angie’s List, which decided to halt a campus-expansion project in Indianapolis, and $4 billion software corporation Salesforce, whose CEO announced plans to “dramatically reduce our investment” in the state. PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, who also opposes the law, sent a message to his corporate peers telling CNN:

I’m asking my fellow CEOs to look at how they’re thinking about their relationship with the state and evaluate it in terms of the legislation that’s getting signed into law.

Indiana is hardly the first state to introduce RFRA laws; there are currently 20 states that have done so. However, Indiana’s law is “substantially different” according to the Huffington Post, which writes:

While other state RFRAs apply to disputes between a person and a government, Indiana’s law goes further and applies to disputes between private citizens. That means, for example, a business owner could use the law to justify discrimination against customers who might otherwise be protected under law.

The publicity from the bill has cast a negative light on the state, but a coalition of independent merchants in Indiana have joined a new campaign showing support for the LGBT community called Open For Service. Participating companies want customers to know that the bill won’t change the way they do business. The campaign celebrates businesses that oppose discrimination of any type, allowing companies to register with them and order stickers to be displayed in shop windows that read “this business serves everyone.”

The combination of this campaign with the current efforts of celebrities, politicians, and big CEOs are what most likely caused Pence to announce that his office will finally take action. No word yet on what will happen to the religious freedom law if the assembly fails to produce Pence’s requested joint anti-discrimination law this week, but at least the governor is finally attempting, albeit very poorly, to assure citizens that Indiana will be welcome to all.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Backlash Over Discriminatory Indiana Law Forces Governor to Clarify appeared first on Law Street.

Public defenders don’t always have the best reputation. TV shows sometimes portray them as being fresh out of law school, inexperienced, and not dedicated to their clients–essentially the type of person you don’t want defending you in any legal capacity. In reality, many are dedicated veterans of the courtroom, and Jami Tillotson is a prime example. In fact, the long-time public defender was arrested January 27, 2015 for sticking to her job–defending her client. The entire scene was caught on two cellphone videos recorded by other attorneys present.

In the videos, Tillotson is seen standing next to her client and another man outside of a San Francisco Hall of Justice restroom, refusing to let their pictures be unlawfully taken. While trying to protect her client’s right to counsel she was arrested for “resisting arrest” (if that’s even a thing) by a plainclothes police officer, Sergeant Inspector Brian Stansbury. There was no mention of any other charge for her to even resist being arrested for, but when cops threatened her with arrest, she calmly replied, “Please do.”

The day of the incident Tillotson was in a courtroom representing her client on an unrelated misdemeanor theft charge, when she heard he and another man were being questioned by a group of police in the hallway, even though her client obviously had representation. Police were instructing her client how to pose for a photo when she intervened. She was well within her rights to do so on behalf of her client’s Fifth Amendment rights. Police didn’t see it that way though. Of course, after she was taken away in handcuffs their photos were taken anyways.

If you haven’t seen the cellphone footage of her arrest yet, you can watch the injustice below.

Apparently this isn’t the first time Sergeant Stansbury has used force to get his way. He was part of a 2013 federal civil rights lawsuit by a black San Francisco PD officer alleging racial profiling. In that case, Officer Lorenzo Adamson was stopped for not having a license plate when Stansbury immediately asked him if he was on probation or parole (because if you’re black you must be on one or the other), leading Adamson to believe that he was being racially profiled. Adamson was then choked and thrown to the ground by another police officer all the while repeating, “I’m a cop!”

Since Tillotson’s arrest video was uploaded to YouTube, her case has gone viral. Many are hailing her as a hero against this type of police intimidation and bullying, as well as questioning the legitimacy of her arrest. Stansbury might have just misspoken, intending to say “obstruction of justice” instead of “resisting arrest.” Either way, obstruction of justice and resisting arrest are charges abused far too often by police as a means to get their way or exert an alpha mentality.

David L. Carter, a criminology professor and former police officer, told NPR that police sometimes feel they have to arrest someone in order to “save face.” He also said some unjustified arrests also stem from officer fatigue when dealing with challenging members of the public, especially in protest situations. While Carter offers up some plausible reasons, it’s not the intent behind the injustice that matters; it’s the fact that there was even any to begin with.

Tillotson spoke about the arrest in a press conference last week, saying:

I was arrested for what we do as public defenders every day. I asked questions. I talked to my client and explained to him his rights. At that point, I was told I was interfering and taken into custody.

Her willingness to be taken away in cuffs is striking–it wouldn’t be surprising if she filed a civil suit against Stansbury and the other officers involved. While the current status of Tillotson’s case is unclear, one thing is certain; she will continue to defend her clients by any means necessary.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post San Francisco Public Defender Arrested While Defending Client appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all! Hope you’re having a great holiday season!

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill in September to remove plastic bags from checkout counters at grocery stores and supermarkets like Wal-Mart and Target starting summer 2015, and 2016 at convenience stores and pharmacies.

Many businesses don’t agree with this ban and have started to collect signatures in order to put a referendum on the ballot in November 2016. American Progressive Bag Alliance, a trade group for plastic bag manufacturing, claims to be turning in about 800,000 signatures. The group really only needs 500,000 valid signatures to qualify for the referendum but it could take several weeks for the counties to determine if all of the signatures are valid.

There are already about 100 counties in California that ban plastic bags, but it is not required for the whole state. It’s no surprise that San Francisco and Los Angeles are two of the cities that already have this ban.

I like the idea of banning plastic bags; it helps the environment. But I don’t like the idea that if you forget to bring your own cloth bags with you then you either have to purchase new ones or you pay ten cents per paper bag. That can start to add up after a while. When I go to the grocery store I go to get things to last me for a week or two, not just a couple of days. I tend to walk out with a ton of bags at once, not just two or three. I don’t imagine everyone shops for just a day or two in advance; grocery shopping takes time out of an already busy day for most.

The majority of Californians support the ban on plastic bags, but why not allow those people who do not support it to still use plastic without a fee? For everyone who likes the ban, continue using your cloth bags and doing what you do!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Californians Fighting Against Plastic Bag Ban appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy year, with a lot of technology developments, scandals, and big stories. Read on to check out the top 15 tech stories of 2014.

1. New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act?

Revenge porn was one of the hottest legal topics of 2014. “Revenge porn” most frequently occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass or degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly, but after the relationship goes sour, a jilted ex may post the pictures in a public forum. The practice disproportionately targets women, and can truly damage someone’s life. In March, a New York court dismissed a revenge porn case, signaling that it may have been time for the legislature to step in.

2. The Dark Side of Snapchat Lands the Company in Hot Water

Snapchat, the messaging service that claims data instantly disappears upon receipt, found itself in hot water with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) based on violations of the company’s own privacy and security policies in May. The FTC complaint mainly focused on accusations that Snapchat misled their customers by promising certain security and privacy features. Snapchat eventually settled the FTC case, but remains on probation and will require monitoring.

3. Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before. This comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. One app that took the college and high school technology scene by storm this year was Yik Yak, which allows users to post anonymously to a regional “virtual bulletin board.” While the app was invented in presumably good fun, there are concerns that the anonymity enables cyberbullies.

4. New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras

The Department of Justice investigation into the New Orleans Police Department following Hurricane Katrina resulted in sweeping reforms of the department, including the requirement that patrol officers wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust of the citizens. They hope to guarantee police accountability, as well as provide a resource for officers when they write their reports and testify. While how exactly to deal with implementing police cameras remains a question, it will be interesting to see what happens in New Orleans as a result.

5. Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web

Another hot tech topic this year was the concept of “net neutrality.” There’s been a lot of back and forth, and each major player–the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and our politicians, such as President Barack Obama, have their own takes. The legality of fast lanes is a tricky question–one that the FCC had to contend with this year.

6. Massive Celebrity Nude Photo Leak is Major Privacy Breach

Late this summer, a major leak of female celebrities’ nude photos hit the web. It was dubbed the “Fappening”–a form of crude wordplay. It included superstars such as Jennifer Lawrence, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, and Kate Upton. While some celebrities denied the validity of the photos and others embarked on conversations with the public, the whole scandal said a lot about the potentially false security of the internet, as well as the degrading way in which women are often treated on the web.

7. The Alibaba IPO: What Does Going Public Mean?

Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba decided to go public this fall, and had the largest Initial Public Offering (IPO) in history. Alibaba’s success raised a lot of questions about what IPOs are, how they work, and what the various advantages and disadvantages are for companies. Alibaba’s extreme success is a sign that the stock market remained strong in 2014.

8. #GamerGate Takes Misogyny to a Whole New Level

Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, feminist cultural critic and video game developer, respectively, are two among a community of feminist gaming figures. They spoke out against misogyny and sexism in the gaming industry, and received threats, hatred, and truly vile responses. Sarkeesian had to cancel speaking appearances, and Wu was actually forced out of her home when her personal address was revealed. Sarkeesian and Wu were just a few of the players attacked in the #GamerGate trend that raged on late this fall.

9. AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. There was a big debate this year in San Francisco, Airbnb’s home, over whether or not to pass a bill that would legalize the room-sharing network, with some caveats. It eventually passed, meaning that Airbnb will continue to operate in San Fran.

10. Privacy Board Calls NSA Eavesdropping Illegal 

One name has been making headlines around the country since June 2013. There have been many terms used to describe him, whether you see him as a traitor or a patriot, Edward Snowden has become a well known character within the United States. However, whether or not Snowden’s actions were legal is a completely different question.

11. Rideshare Infighting: Lyft Sues Uber Executive

Ridesharing rivals Lyft and Uber are going at in the courtroom as Lyft sues a former employee, now a current Uber exec, for stealing proprietary information. As the two leading companies in ridesharing–although Uber is quite a bit ahead of Lyft–there’s plenty of reason for the two to be competitive. The case in question regarded proprietary information that former Lyft executive Tyler VanderZaden may have taken with him when he moved from Lyft to Uber.

12. Bitcoin: What’s Next?

Bitcoin has grown into a major player in techno-currency, but what’s up next for the digital coin? Bitcoin is still trying to drag itself away from the perception that it’s used exclusively for criminal activities, and firmly establish a role in the mainstream. Regulations are also slowly starting to be put in place–it will be interesting to see Bitcoin’s future.

13. KKK vs. Anonymous: Cyberwar Declared over Ferguson Protests

The group of unnamed “hacktivists” Anonymous and the Ku Klux Klan have engaged in an apparent all-out cyber war over the events in Ferguson, Missouri. Anonymous was trying to prevent the KKK’s involvement in Ferguson-inspired protests, and took over many of the KKK’s social media accounts. The KKK responded with threats, and tensions continued to run high in Ferguson.

14. Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy

Aereo, once hailed as a game-changer in the cable industry,  filed for bankruptcy. Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright. Despite high hopes for the innovative idea, Aereo is now essentially dead in the water.

15. Please Stop Posting the Facebook Copyright Status

You know that Facebook copyright declaration you just posted? It’s useless. Seriously, it’s time to stop posting it. Every so often Facebook changes their terms and policies, and a bunch of people post a weird, incorrect disclaimer stating that they have copyright over their own content. The problem is that the notice does nothing, except confuse your Facebook friends who see it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 15 Technology Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

When most people think of Texas one of the first things they associate with this great state is guns–and they would be correct. Texans love their guns! And now lawmakers in the Lonestar state are considering expanding our gun rights.

According to Fox News, Governor-elect Greg Abbott was very open about this the day after his election in November: “If open carry is good enough for Massachusetts, it’s good enough for the state of Texas,.”

Texas has had an open carry ban since the 1870s and I think it might be time to reevaluate those laws. The whole purpose of the original ban of carrying handguns was “when the carpet-bagger government was very anxious about former Confederates and recently freed slaves carrying firearms.”

There are now about 810,000 registered concealed handgun license holders in the state. That is the entire population of San Francisco.

Despite the early momentum of this idea, there are no guarantees open carry will even pass. Bills to allow concealed handguns on college campuses appeared to have huge support in 2009, 2011, and 2013, but they didn’t go anywhere due to objections from universities and law enforcement.

There are plenty of Texans who have their concealed handgun license, so we already know that at least those people are carrying guns. Why not let them show that they are carrying the gun instead of hiding it from all to see? Some people get a certain level of comfort from knowing that they could protect themselves if need be.

I do understand the objections of universities allowing handguns on campus. There haven’t been many shootings on campuses in Texas; but one notorious shooting could keep most universities on edge. Back in 1966, Charles Whitman climbed to the top of the University of Texas Tower with three rifles, two pistols, and a sawed-off shotgun. This guy was an ex-Marine and an architectural engineering major at UT who had already murdered his mother and wife before going to the UT Tower and continuing his killing spree. He had perfect aim at the five-block radius below to kill whomever he wanted. It took 96 minutes to take Whitman down, but 43 people were shot and 13 of them died. That is one chilling tale and enough to have anyone want to oppose an open carry law. However, Charles Whitman was a very sick man and there have been steps taken to prevent something like that from happening again.

Texas has the most federal firearms license holders in the country. The state allows public displays of long guns, such as rifles and shotguns. Concealed handguns are allowed inside the Capitol, where license holders can bypass metal detectors. And yet Texas still insists that handguns be concealed.

According to Fox News, most of the country already allows some form of open carry of handguns but Texas, California, Florida, New York, Illinois, and South Carolina–which make up more than a third of the U.S. population–do not.

A majority of the open carry bills already filed for the upcoming session would still require a license. One, by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, would eliminate the licensing requirement for concealed or open carry. This is something I don’t agree with. If you are going to openly carry a gun around then you need to have a license. You need to have something that says you understand how to use the gun, what the gun laws are, and what kind of power a gun has.

Texans love their guns. I was raised on how to use them but also how to respect them. It is a culture down here in the South. By all means allow us to show that we have a gun but still make sure that those who carry have the same knowledge and respect for those guns.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Considering Open Carry of Handguns appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Currently on view at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, “Energy That is All Around: Mission School,” features a group of subversive San Francisco street artists from the late-1990s. Emanating from San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI), the Mission School was a direct reaction to gentrification in the Bay Area spurred by the dot-com boom that brought an influx of young professionals, upscale boutiques, restaurants, inflated rents, and threats of eviction to the primarily working-class Latino families of San Francisco’s Mission District.

“A lot of people were displaced,” said artist Chris Johnson, “everybody got fucked over.” The art of the Mission School focused on the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of everyday life in the Bay Area during this period, embodying a radical activism railing against gentrification and rampant consumerism. “They were part of a community that responded acidly to the social and aesthetic values associated with ’80s consumer culture and corporate hegemony in the dawning of the age of the internet,” said Natasha Boas, a San Francisco-based independent curator. “With their raw, immediate, and gritty street and studio practices, these post-punk, key artists of the Mission School would soon [become] international icons for new generations of art students and makers.”

The artists — Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, Ruby Neri — share a similar aesthetic, described by McCarthy as “urban decay,” “graffiti-based,” and “Do-it-yourself.” The art is informed by lowbrow visual culture including cartoons, billboard advertisements, graffiti, and folk art. According to Lynn Gumpert, director of NYU’s Grey Art Gallery, the artworks critique society “literally standing our culture’s notion of ‘high art’ on its head.” Often employing found objects and dumpster diving for materials, their art is bound by an “anti-establishment” and “anti-capitalist” ethos, according to art critic and curator Dian Pugh whose essay ”Off The Tracks: Ethics and Aesthetics of Recent San Francisco Art” is featured in the exhibit catalogue. “Juxtaposed against the dot-com boom culture, these artists represented the moral and political voice of our cultural community — a community that was being threatened by gentrification.”

Like a modern-day John Sloan or George Bellows, Chris Johanson refers to his art as “documentary painting;” streetscapes chronicling everyday life at the dawn of the digital age. The Survivalists (1999) is a jarring installation among the pieces in the show. Flimsy wooden beams painted yellow protrude from panels on the wall, forming catwalks on which lonely consumers push shopping carts toward the viewer, perhaps conveying the alienation of labor in capitalist society. Speech bubbles from multiple figures in the panels read: “Get out of the Mission,” “Yuppies Out Now,” “Turn the building into condos,” “For Sale: Cozy One Bedroom Basement Condo, $300,000,” “Theres [sic.] no place to stay…keep on moving.”  As a whole, the scene is too much to take in at once; only after reading each panel does the larger picture come into focus. “When people see this piece, they see the social anxiety,” said Chris Johanson. “I wanted to share the complexities of the socio-economic situation that everyone just had to deal with.” Voices are illustrated in a cacophonous and vexing exchange. It’s a “celebration of multiplicity,” said Dina Pugh, “that earnestly comments on existential issues of human identity comprised by consumer culture.”

Graffiti is a galvanizing force in each piece of this show. Barry McGee, also known by his tag “Twist,” presents a more cartoon-inspired aesthetic than Johansen, which is nonetheless political. “Growing up I used to see a group of activists, the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who would spray-paint aggressive statements on Bank of America, government buildings, and freeway underpasses,” McGee recalled in a 2004 interview. “They shed light on atrocities being committed by the Reagan Administration’s policies in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba and so on. I like that — the rawness of it.” McGee’s squat, droopy-eyed cartoon and seemingly depressed cartoon figures reflect the underside of inequitable urban change; not only the exasperated slaving masses, but also perhaps homeless, downtrodden vagabonds.

At Grey Art Gallery, the first East Coast venue to showcase the Mission School, this show is not only historically significant; it’s also relevant, according to Hi-Fructose citing “siliconvalleyization” of the Bay Area. Yet what is so striking is that the same process is currently taking place in New York City; rapid gentrification, from the city center to the periphery. Looking at the Mission District of the late-1990s, one cannot help but think of Bushwick, Brooklyn today. Both neighborhoods were inhabited by primarily working-class Latino families who, over time, have been priced out of their homes; factory buildings have been converted into artists’ lofts, and bodegas have become high-end boutiques. Public art can exacerbate the rate of gentrification, transforming working-class communities into trendy neighborhoods to which hipsters flock. But it has the potential to counter this affect as well, as Art Practical mentioned in its review of the NYU show, “there are still lessons to be learned here.”

According to Barry McGee, the landscape of contemporary public art is politically benign. “The stuff people do now doesn’t antagonize anyone at all. It has become like the mural art, which is fine in its own right but doesn’t anger people when they see it…[T]here was a time in graffiti when it was fun to do images. In hindsight, it opened the floodgates to tons of terrible art school graffiti and non-abrasive images.” McGee now advocates illicit “fundamental graffiti acts” such as tags and throw-ups, which, precisely because of their illegality, have the potential to affect social change. In such a way, the Mission School teaches us to produce graffiti as a “social practice” based on “radical pessimism” about the social environment.

The takeaway message from “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” is that art not only documents, but also has the potential it change society. And that power is open to the people.

You can see the exhibit “Energy That is All Around: Mission School” featuring artwork by Chris Johanson, Margaret Kilgallen, Alicia McCarthy, Barry McGee, and Ruby Neri at the Grey Art Gallery, New York University, 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003. The exhibit is open until July 13, 2014.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [victorgrigas via wikipedia] 

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Subversive San Francisco Street Art on Display at NYU’s Grey Art Gallery appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney recently reported on Airbnb’s developing legal problems and how, frankly, they just cannot catch a break despite their ever-expanding market and wild success. Airbnb has been in a constant legal battle with New York dating back as far as 2010 and continuing well into 2014 (check out: here and here). The trend continued with Portland banning the company’s operations from all residential areas, though the city is now easing those restrictions. There were also issues in Los Angeles and the state of Michigan — truly, the list goes on and on. Now that we’re well into 2014, has Airbnb’s luck changed? The answer is unequivocally no.

As of April 29, 2014, San Francisco joined the legal battle grounds with a potential city ballot initiative against the home-sharing service. Backed by housing activist, Calvin Welch, former Planning Commissioner, Doug Engmann, and PR professional, Dale Carlson, the proposal calls for the following:

1. Creation of a public mandatory registry of all residents who rent out short-term space.
2. Evidence of landlord or homeowner permission to rent.
3. The right of any citizen to file a complaint against an Airbnb rental, go to court, and receive 30 percent in fines or back taxes as a result, along with compensation for their attorney fees.

The most controversial (and little bit scary) part of the proposal is the ability to financially reward residents for actively spying on reporting neighboring hosts who are not in compliance with these rules. While this section of the proposal may not make it to the ballot, let’s call a spade a spade and recognize that they are calling for Airbnb bounty hunters. In the midst of all these legal scuffles, it appears that the ‘share-economy’ company has yet to lose its stride and will continue to introduce new policies to disrupt the hospitality market.

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Click here to read the original post published November 6, 2013.

One of the big travel trends right now is a site called AirBnB.com. The company was founded in 2008, and the idea is pretty unique. Essentially, it allows people from cities all over the world to rent out rooms, apartments, houses, or even their couches to visitors. The relative costs are beneficial for both the travelers and the hosts, and AirBnB ensures that both sides involved in the transaction have been properly vetted and approved. Customers are also allowed to leave reviews at places they have stayed, creating a community of recommendations and verified great places to rent. This isn’t really even a new idea; in theory, it’s like hosting a friend of a friend in town for a few days in your home. The only difference is that instead of meeting your houseguest through a friend, you connected through the Internet.

Since 2008, AirBnB has hosted over 8.5 million guests, and this innovative online economy does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon. The business is fairly rewarding. According to an interview in the New York Times, a woman in Brooklyn made about $90,000 renting out two bedrooms in her house. AirBnB overall is very lucrative in the state of New York. Over the last three years, the top 100 hosts in New York have grossed a collective $54 million.

The state of New York is less enamored with the idea, and is instead pursuing legal action against the company. There are a few reasons why certain aspects of AirBnB may be illegal. One issue is that by using AirBnB, tourists are not booking hotel rooms. Included in the price of a hotel room is tax, part of which goes to the state. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is arguing that the AirBnB industry has cost New York millions in tax dollars. Last Friday, his office delivered a subpoena to AirBnB requiring that they disclose the names, locations, and revenue of all of the hosts in the state of New York. The AG’s office claim that they’re not going after the occasional renter, they’re going after those 100 or so hosts that grossed $54 million. A spokesperson for the office, stated, “we began this process in the hopes of collaborating with Airbnb to recover millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and to stop the abuse of Airbnb’s site by operators of illegal hotels. Airbnb isn’t standing up for average New Yorkers who rent out their apartments from time to time — Airbnb is standing up for highly profitable, illegal businesses that make up a huge chunk of its corporate revenue.”

AirBnB disagrees–they have filed a motion in the New York Supreme Court to challenge the subpoena. They claim that Schneiderman doesn’t have any actual evidence of wrongdoing on the site.

There’s also the question of the legality of AirBnB in regards to lease and zoning laws in New York. For example, it is usually legal to rent out your space for less than 30 days, but only if you are home. Some AirBnB hosts are home while their guests occupy an extra bedroom, but many others rent out extra apartments that they lease, or their own apartments while they are out of town for whatever reason. Rules about having guests are not generic—many are contingent on individual leases, bylaws, or building regulations. For example, some buildings may allow guests, but if they stay more than a few weeks, they need to be registered. Some buildings don’t allow the transfer or loaning of the key fobs that allow entrance into the lobby. There are a wide range of rules that govern housing in New York City and other major metro areas, but most do have some constraints on private short-term rentals of property. The chances are that most of the hosts on AirBnB aren’t breaking the law. But the AirBnB moguls in New York City might want to watch out, because this battle could get ugly.

[New York Times]

Anneliese Mahoney (@amahoney8672)

Featured image courtesy of [OuiShare via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Latest AirBnB Backlash: San Fran May Offer Cash to Snitch on Neighbors appeared first on Law Street.

“There’s an app for that.” We all hear this dozens of time a day. Half the time I look up a website on my smartphone, it asks me if I want to download the app. There are apps for things you wouldn’t believe — for example, there’s one called Taxi Hold ’em that helps you hail taxis by writing “Taxi” in large letters on your screen. It’s free and really stupid — do you really think that a cab stops to read what you’re holding up on your iPhone? They probably just think you’re trying to get better service. Or what about the game Hold the Button? To play you just…Hold the Button. You literally press down a button on your screen. That is all. It is a game testing, I have no idea…how little you have to do that day?

A San Francisco based startup has a new app called Fixed that’s making both tech and legal headlines. It’s based on the principle that about 50 percent of parking tickets are dismissed  when taken to court, especially in cities like San Francisco where many tickets are issued erroneously. If you receive a parking ticket, you take a picture of it with the Fixed app, which then tells you the probability that it will be dismissed and gives you the option to contest it or not. The app will tell you what to do next, such as take a picture to show that you weren’t in violation of a law. The app will do all the research portions for you and then creates a letter for you to sign contesting the ticket. If you win, it will charge you 25 percent of your ticket. If you don’t win, you pay the ticket but Fixed doesn’t charge you anything. It’s really a win-win situation, either you pay way less, or you know that you couldn’t have possibly gotten it overturned.

There are both pros and cons to an app like this. One pro is that it does technically make life easier, and that’s the purpose of an app like this. That being said, people have pointed out that it will make it a lot easier for people to fight parking tickets, which can have negative results, such as traffic courts inundated with unnecessary letters for tickets that only have a small chance of being overturned.

Right now the app is only available in San Francisco, but that city is an excellent target, given that last year they issued more than $100 million in parking tickets, and that the US in total raises $3 billion annually through parking tickets alone.

I do think there’s something to be said for the fact that this is a bit problematic. I’m one of those people who does love technology — between work, school, and entertainment, I spend hours upon hours on my computer each day. That being said, I don’t trust technology. I’ve had so many computer crashes, emails fail to send, and lost data that I compulsively screen shot everything I do, I backup all my files regularly, and I double check emails after I’ve sent them. I honestly don’t know that I would trust an iPhone app to deal with a fee I owe to the government.

Fixed will probably work however, because the idea is massively seductive. It’s like having advice in your pocket, a quite convenient fix for a mildly annoying inconvenience. But to me, this is somewhat like the Taxi Hold ’em app: it’s more flash than substance, and in the end, I think you’re better off dealing with it yourself.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Charleston’s TheDigitel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Smartphone Can Now Fix Parking Tickets appeared first on Law Street.

Asiana Airlines Inc. is being sued by two passengers, Younga Jun Machorro and her son Benjamin Hyo-in Machorro, who were on board the plane that crashed while landing at the San Francisco International Airport on July 6.  The crash killed three people and injured 81 other passengers.

The Machorros filed suit in San Fransisco Federal Court on July 15 arguing that the plane’s pilots failed to observe fundamental procedures for visual landing approach, monitoring flight conditions and reacting to conditions.  In addition, the complaint also stated Machorro and her son suffered extreme bodily and mental injuries. The family is seeking $5 million in damages.

The complaint was filed by Michael Verna, the Machorros’ attorney, and states that the lawsuit is governed by the Montreal Convention. The treaty states the location of the case is based on factors that include the passengers’ final destination.

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10) is editor of Crime in America. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University senior was a founding member of Law Street. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Aero Icarus via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asiana Sued by Two Passengers in San Francisco Crash appeared first on Law Street.