Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell addresses a news conference prior to the destruction of approximately 3,400 guns and other weapons at the Los Angeles County Sheriffs' 22nd annual gun melt at Gerdau Steel Mill on July 6, 2015 in Rancho Cucamonga, California.; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

On Monday, LA-based advocacy group Dignity and Power Now launched a website with data on 22 deputies that have been cited in public reports of misconduct, such as officer-involved shootings.

Dignity and Power now is one of the groups that’s advocating that a confidential list of nearly 300 Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies who’ve committed misconduct be made public.

This against the backdrop of Sheriff Jim McDonnell attempting to send prosecutors names of the deputies whose misconduct could undermine their perspectives as witnesses. The State Supreme Court barred Sheriff McDonnell from doing so after the deputies’ union sued. Dignity and Power Now is one of the organizations urging McDonnell to appeal the decision, though whether he will do so remains unclear.

Should the names of “problematic” deputies be public information or is it a privacy violation? In addition or alternately, should those names be provided to prosecutors?

Guests:

Mark-Anthony Johnson, director of health and wellness at Dignity and Power Now, grassroots civil rights organization that aims to advocate on behalf of incarcerated people and their communities

Randy Sutton, retired police lieutenant with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and author of multiple books on policing, including “A Cop’s Life” (St Martin’s Press, 2006); the national spokesman for Blue Lives Matter

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A man sits in a deckchair as people enjoy the weather conditions as they sit on Brighton beach on the south coast of England.; Credit: GLYN KIRK/AFP/Getty Images

It’s often been said that money can’t (or won’t) buy happiness.

The road to adulthood is littered with cautionary tales with this idea as the moral. King Midas’ touch turned things to gold, but he soon realized the fatal flaw in his plan after touching his daughter and turning her to a gold statue. One of author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s iconic characters, eccentric millionaire Jay Gatsby, throws lavish parties every weekend and has all the world’s modern comforts but can’t buy the one thing that truly makes him happy: love.

But the findings of a new study suggests that you might actually be able to buy yourself happiness – if you spend your money right.

The study, co-authored by American and Dutch researchers, suggests that people who buy time for themselves are happier than those who don’t. Think paying someone to go grocery shopping, walk your dog or do your laundry.

The study surveyed 6,000 respondents from four countries and also conducted an experiment in which participants were given $40 one week to buy something material, and then $40 the following week. People said they were happier when they had more time versus when they purchased a material thing.

With the prevalence of the gig economy and apps that allow you to pay other people to do your grocery shopping or walk your dog, it would seem it’s easier than ever to buy yourself extra time, and therefore happiness. That is, assuming you can afford to do it.

What do you think about the findings of this study? Does it correlate to your own life experiences? What kinds of tasks did you once do yourself that you now pay someone else to do? Do you find yourself happier as a result?

Guests:

Elizabeth Dunn, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and co-author of the study

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Senate staff members look on during a press conference about the Senate Republican health care bill, on Capitol Hill, June 26, 2017 in Washington, DC.; Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

GOP leaders are looking to dissolve a division of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency most recently in the spotlight for its review of the Republican health care plan.

An amendment was filed Monday by members of the the House Freedom Caucus to eliminate the C.B.O.’s Budget Analysis Division. As reported by the Washington Post, the plan would cut 89 jobs and $15 million from the C.B.O. budget.

Instead, another amendment from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would order the agency to instead evaluate laws by taking data collected by the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The agency’s score of the Senate health care plan earlier this month was believed in part to have thwarted the bill, but C.B.O. scores have worked against left-leaning agendas as well. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan in the 1990s failed in part due to the office.

So what would a gutting of the Budget Analysis Division mean for future bills? Libby Denkmann speaks to a former acting director of the C.B.O. to find out more.

Guests:

Donald Marron, fellow and director, Economy Policy Initiatives at The Urban Institute; he was acting director of the Congressional Budget Office in 2006

Norbert Michel, director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Tom Brady of the New England Patriots is sacked by Grady Jarrett of the Atlanta Falcons.; Credit: TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/Getty Images

According to an investigation published Tuesday, 110 out of 111 former N.F.L. players’ brains had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.), a deteriorating disease allegedly caused by hits to the head and entailing symptoms such as memory problems, depression and dementia.

The study encompassed the brains of players who died at various ages, and played various positions, from quarterbacks and linebackers to punters.

C.T.E. can only be determined after death, and the study acknowledges that the brain bank selection pool was probably skewed, since family members chose to donate brains because they suspected C.T.E. However, 110 out of 111 brains is a significant number which throws a shadow on the already concussion-troubled sport of football.

Do these findings deter you from playing football? Would you want your kids playing football? Do you think this will lead to changes in the sport, or even a national shift away from the N.F.L.? 

Guest:

Dan Daneshvar, a co-first author on the paper “Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football;” he is a researcher at the Boston University CTE center

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A police officer investigates a crime scene near Pearson Park in Anaheim, California, February 27, 2016.; Credit: RINGO CHIU/AFP/Getty Images

On Wednesday, the Justice Department gave state and local law enforcement the power to bypass potentially restrictive state laws and invoke federal law to seize the personal property of people suspected, but not charged, of crimes.

Proponents of this practice, called civil asset forfeiture, say it’s about confiscating profits or tools of illicit activity, often “dirty money.” If citizens can prove that it’s legally obtained, their assets will be returned. Otherwise, they can be used by law enforcement for equipment or training.

But opponents say the practice is rife for abuse by the police and that innocent people will lose their right to due process.

The D.O.J. did add certain protections, such as making authorities give their reasoning to explain the probable cause for taking assets and requiring federal prosecutors to approve select seizures, such as cash that amounts to less than $10,000.

Last year, California clamped down on civil forfeiture, but this new DOJ policy would allow law enforcement to circumvent the state’s restrictions.

Will this policy aid law enforcement? Or will it open the doors to civil rights abuses?

Guests:

Jerretta Sandoz, vice president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League

Theshia Naidoo, legal director of criminal justice at the Drug Policy Alliance; the organization co-sponsored a 2016 bill which requires conviction in most cases before permanent loss of property; the bill passed and was put into effect in January 2017

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Capt. Jennifer Peace discusses some of her experiences as a transgender JBLM soldier. Video by Drew Perine.; Credit: Tacoma News Tribune (via YouTube)

In a series of tweets Wednesday morning, President Donald Trump said this morning that the U.S. government “will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” adding that the armed forces can’t be burdened with the costs and disruption it would entail.

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

It remains unclear what the immediate impact will be or how the Commander in Chief plans to put the ban in place. Researchers at RAND Corporation said in a study last year that there are anywhere from 1,320 to 6,630 transgender service members, a relatively small portion of the approximately 1.3 million active duty members. The same study said that trans people serving openly would only minimally impact the military budget, estimating health care costs would increase by 0.04-0.13 percent as a result.

The Pentagon is referring all questions back to the White House, but did say Wednesday that it would defer enlistments of transgender recruits. The Pentagon is currently working on a study of the impact of transgender people in the military, but not through the scope of preventing them from serving.

The ban comes almost a year after the Pentagon officially lifted its ban on transgender people serving in the military, though Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in June of this year that the Department of Defense would delay its decision on whether to let transgender recruits join up.

What do we know about what this means for trans people already openly serving? How will the president implement this ban?

For more on this story from NPR, click here.

Guests:

Tara Copp, Pentagon reporter for Military Times and author of 'The Warbird' (Squadron Books, 2017)

Radha Iyengar, senior economist at the RAND Corporation think tank; she is one of the lead researchers on the 2016 study “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly”

Alex Wagner, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a national security think tank, and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law; former Chief of Staff to Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning; in a previous posting in the Pentagon’s policy shop, he worked on issues at the intersection between law, policy, tech, and human rights

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sen. John McCain was recently diagnosed with brain cancer but returned on the day the Senate is holding a key procedural vote on efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. ; Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images

It’s been a whirlwind 24 hours on the Senate floor, with GOP leaders passing their first milestone to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

As reported by POLITICO, Republicans will now start to cut down Obamacare through a grueling process involving debates, amendments and a vote-a-rama.

The result will likely be a “skinny” bill, and it’s anyone’s guess whether that will have enough votes to pass through the Senate. Republicans may move forward with a “skinny” plan, if only to keep momentum with the repeal, and allow a negotiation with the House.

After years of trying to squash the ACA, the GOP is now hoping to break what some call a standstill in policy changes under a Trump Administration. Even Sen. John McCain (R-A.Z.), who made a dramatic comeback during the health care vote Tuesday after a brain cancer diagnosis, urged more bipartisanship to get things going on the Hill again.

So what does this mean for the future of health care?

Guests:

Kevin Whitelaw, Congress editor at Bloomberg; he tweets @kevinwhitelaw1

Paul Demko, health care reporter for POLITICO; he’s been following the story; he tweets at @pauldemko

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A city office employee works into the night as darkness closes in.; Credit: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

There was a time when the work day ended at 5 p.m.

But with technology making us more accessible, there isn’t much to stop the boss from sending a late night text or email. And while there’s technically nothing holding us back from ignoring work, the anxiety of not answering can be trump our need to Netflix and chill before a few hours sleep to start the grind again the next morning. Some may even say that answering the call of work after hours could set you apart from the crowd, giving you a better chance of moving up in your career. As unfair as it may seem, the obligation to work outside of the office is getting stronger. And depending on the company, you may not have compensation for the minutes or hours that are racked up answering those last few emails at the dinner table.

So what kind of protections are you entitled to with this changing labor landscape? Is it fair for your boss to ask you to answer a question past quitting time, or should we just accept this as our current work culture?

Guest:

Jennifer J. Deal, senior research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership, a San Diego-based leadership development organization where her focus includes “always on” work culture

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A bank teller counts the stack of Chinese yuan and US dollars at a bank in Shanghai on July 22, 2005.; Credit: STR/AFP/Getty Images

At a Tuesday meeting, LA City Council President Herb Wesson laid out the agenda for his final term, and included a proposal for the creation of a Los Angeles municipal bank.

The LA Times called the bank the most “unexpected proposal” of the night, one that, according to Wesson’s speech, would involve financing affordable housing, providing loans to small businesses and serving as a place for those involved in the marijuana industry to keep cash.

The bank’s relationship to the marijuana industry could take on particularly interesting implications. Right now, the industry operates primarily in cash, as most banks won’t keep cash affiliated with industry. The Southern California Coalition, a marijuana policy advocacy group, maintains that this makes it hard for those in the industry to rent, as many landlords are reluctant to accept cash. A municipal bank could change all this.

As of Tuesday, over 400 people had signed a change.org petition in support of the bank, arguing that a local bank would stay “accountable to the people,” especially in light of local activists’ push for LA to divest from Wells Fargo. However, some remain skeptical that a bank is what LA should be spending its money on.

So would a municipal bank be worth the cost? Is this the best way to bring the marijuana industry into the fold? Oakland and San Francisco are looking into similar ideas— is a city the size of LA up for the job?

Guests:

Phoenix Goodman, co-founder of Public Bank L.A., a group advocating for a municipal bank for the city of Los Angeles; he tweets @phoenix_goodman

Jack Humphreville, member of the Neighborhood Council Budget Advocates, a group that gives feedback to city leaders on the budget, and a contributor to CityWatch, an online publication covering issues involving the City of Los Angeles; he tweets @Jack90020

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The gender-neutral door to the bathroom at the endocrinology wing at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles.; Credit: Leo Duran/KPCC

People who are intersex, meaning their reproductive anatomy doesn’t fit the typical definition of male or female, often undergo surgery to “correct” their anatomy as infants, before they’re able to consent to the decision.

This practice is facing increased pushback: in June, three former U.S. surgeon generals wrote a letter saying it was not necessary and on Tuesday, InterACT and Human Rights Watch released a report disparaging the practice and calling on Congress to “ban all surgical procedures that seek to alter the gonads or genitals of children with atypical sex characteristics too young to participate in the decision, when those procedures both carry a meaningful risk of harm and can be safely deferred.”

Up to 1.7 percent of people are born with intersex traits, making them about as common as people with red hair.

Proponents of the ban say operating on intersex babies can create involuntary sterilization and further medical conditions, and that instead, the child and family should be provided access to therapy and support. Surgeries can be cosmetic in nature and are done to satisfy heteronormative standards, rather than medical need – a vaginoplasty to allow for penetrative sex, or a procedure that would allow a boy to pee standing up, for example. There’s also the risk of parents or doctors assigning the child the wrong sex.

Opponents argue that parents make big medical decisions on behalf of their children all the time. And having an intersex child often presents a complex medical decision that requires the input of parents and doctors, and that a blanket ban is intrusive and prohibitive. And there are many intersex children that undergo surgery and grow into happy adults, who are glad to leave those procedures in their childhoods.

We gather a roundtable to discuss the ethics and medical repercussions of the proposal. Should surgery on intersex children be banned? If you’re intersex or know someone who is, what do you think? And if you’re a parent, what do you think of curtailing this procedure?

Guests:

Hida Viloria, founding director of the Intersex Campaign for Equality and author of “Born Both: An Intersex Life” (Hachette Books, 2017); s/he tweets @HidaViloria

Ilene Wong, M.D., adult urologist at Academic Urology, a private practice, she is on the board of InterACT, and advocacy group for intersex youth, and author of novel “None of the Above;” under the pen name I.W. Gregorio

Laurence Baskin, M.D., Professor of Urology and pediatrics at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

NBC4 obtained a video taken by the three men who escaped a maximum-security wing at an Orange County jail last year, using a contraband cellphone.; Credit: Screenshot from video as seen on NBC 4

It’s been more than a year since three inmates escaped from a maximum security wing at the Santa Ana Central Men’s Jail in Orange County.

A week passed before the manhunt ended in San Francisco, where two of the inmates were captured. The third escapee turned himself in to local authorities. But a new video from a lawyer connected to the case was released this week to KPCC media partner NBC4. The cell phone video is shot in first-person by one of the three inmates who broke out of the O.C. prison, showing both the escape and the days following during their run.

The footage has one of the escaped prisoners, Adam Hossein Nayeri, debunking claims that the jail made about their escape. This has led to questions about jail security, and the transparency over what happened during the incident. Libby Denkmann speaks to reporters who’ve been following the story to find out more.

Guests:

Anh Do, reporter for the LA Times who covers Orange County and Asian American issues; she tweets @newsterrier

Jill Replogle, Orange County reporter for KPCC; she tweets @jillrep

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks after a weekly meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill July 18, 2017 in Washington, DC.; Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

After it was unable to pass a proposal to repeal major pieces of the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, Republican leaders in the Senate are pressing forward Thursday as they try to wrangle enough votes to pass a ‘skinny’ overhaul of the health care law.

The rejection of the repeal without replacement is the latest in a line of attempts to reform the ACA and continues to show just how divided the GOP is on exactly how to do it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times and others have reported that both aides to President Trump and members of the Republican Party have pressed him to lay off of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose decision-making and job performance Mr. Trump has been repeatedly criticizing in the media. They worry it could stir up the voter base and possibly create a revolt within the GOP. It’s also an additional nuisance for a White House and Congress already plagued with drama as they attempt to accomplish Mr. Trump’s policy goals.

Following the president’s tweets on Wednesday morning that transgender people would no longer be accepted or allowed in the military, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today in a letter that the policy on transgender service members will stay as is until the Department of Defense and the White House issue new guidelines. Behind the scenes, however, it’s been reported that the real issue behind the ban was that House Republicans wanted to get a spending bill chock-full of campaign promises through, but an internal fight over whether the Pentagon should pay for sex reassignment surgery threatened to sink the bill, so Republicans turned to the president for help.

Guests:

Bryan Bender, defense editor and national security correspondent for POLITICO Pro

Larry Liebert, national security editor at Bloomberg

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The LinkedIn logo is displayed on an iPhone on August 3, 2016.; Credit: Carl Court/Getty Images

Today, a hearing for a suit against LinkedIn will begin.

The company suing is hiQ, a San Francisco based organization that has been collecting data from public LinkedIn profiles since 2012. They use the data to determine whether a person is planning to leave their job, and then share it with employers. LinkedIn recently ordered hiQ to stop, claiming a breach of anti-hacking laws.  But hiQ has sued LinkedIn for stifling competition.

LinkedIn argues that hiQ's actions are a violation of privacy, and that they will discourage LinkedIn members from making full use of the site. HiQ lawyers have stated that without LinkedIn data, the company may have to shut down.

Is hiQ violating privacy? Does the knowledge that someone may be watching your resume closely deter you from using LinkedIn publicly? Or is this simply an issue of competition?

Guests: 

Thomas Lee,  business columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle who’ll be at the hearing this afternoon; he tweets @ByTomLee

Ken White, attorney at Brown White & Osborn LLP in Los Angeles, a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A public transit bus passes a gas station in the Los Angeles area city of Glendale, California. ; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

The nation’s second largest transit agency today committed to switching all of its buses to zero emissions technology by 2030.

The agency plans to begin by electrifying the Orange Line, a bus line that runs from North Hollywood through the San Fernando Valley, before 2020. The Silver Line, which runs from downtown LA to San Pedro, comes next, in 2021.

Read full story

Guests:

Emily Guerin, KPCC’s environmental reporter who’s been following the story

Doran Barnes, executive director of the Foothill Transit, which started its electric bus program in 2010

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A partial solar eclipse; Credit: Photo by Matthew Hecht via Flickr Creative Commons

The big solar eclipse is less than a month away – August 21 is the exact day.

It’s the first total sun eclipse to take place in the US in almost 100 years. And curiosity seekers are traveling from all over the country – and the world – to witness this unique event. Joining guest host Nick Roman to talk about the eclipse – and his own impending trip – is science writer and eclipse expert John Dvorak.

Guest:

John Dvorak, science writer and and author of recently released book “Mask of the Sun: The Science, History and Forgotten Lore of Eclipses” (Pegasus Books, 2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hold a news conference to say they would not support a 'Skinny Repeal' of health care at the U.S.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It was a whirlwind Friday morning at the Capitol.

The Senate failed to pass what is being called the “skinny” repeal health care bill. The bill would strip the individual mandate part of the Affordable Care Act, as well as the employer mandate that requires companies with a certain number of employees to provide health insurance for their workers.

Lawmakers in the Senate had just a few hours to digest the language of the skinny repeal bill before a vote. As expected, Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine voted no. She was joined by Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. The surprise “no” vote, though, came from Arizona Senator John McCain, who came back to the Senate this week after a diagnosis of brain cancer. The bill’s defeat dealt a blow to President Trump, as well as to Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spent the last 2 months trying to get the votes necessary to repeal and replace Obamacare. And Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for Congress to come together to address Obamacare’s existing issues.

So what’s the future of health care in America? Is it the Senate’s final attempt to do away with Obamacare?

Guests:

Eliza Collins, Congressional reporter for USA Today; she tweets @elizacollins1

Noam Levey, national health care reporter at the Washington Bureau of the Los Angeles Times; he tweets @NoamLevey

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

California Gov. Jerry Brown shows charts to reporters during a news conference where he revealed his revised California State budget on May 11, 2017 in Sacramento, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

With Jerry Brown terming out in 2018, it’s time we look back to the fiscal conservatism of his first two terms (1975-1983), as well as what he’s been pushing through as he wraps up his time in public service.

In the last year alone, Brown has signed a gas tax hike to pay for infrastructure repairs, extended the state’s cap-and-trade program, pushed for the bullet train and positioned California as a challenger to various of the Trump administration’s policies.

Brown is not without his fair share of critics, who point to the cracking of the Oroville Dam, or that  California has the some of the highest housing prices in the country.  

As his fourth and final term comes to a close, fill-in host Nick Roman and long-time California politics watcher Dan Walters and John Myers discuss the legacy of Jerry Brown.

What do you see as Brown’s California legacy?

Guests:

John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times; he tweets at @johnmyers

Dan Walters, long-time CA politics observer with CALmatters, a nonprofit public interest publication; he tweets at @DanCALmatters

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A picture taken on June 20, 2012 at a restaurant in Quimper, western France, shows fork and knife on an invoice indicating the two Value-added tax (VAT) 7.0 and 19.6 percent rate. ; Credit: FRED TANNEAU/AFP/Getty Images

If you went to a restaurant with friends fifteen years ago, it’s likely that everyone at the table would toss in an even $20, for the sake of convenience.

But these days, apps like Venmo, have made penny-precision effortless. Cue a request for $19.87. Or $26.54, if you ordered that appetizer.

According to Teddy Wayne’s recent piece “Thanks to Venmo, We Now All Know How Cheap Our Friends Are,” money transfer platforms have made outings transactional and petty. What happened to sharing the bill as graciously as you share a meal?

Wayne’s article was met with a number of varied reactions, including pushback from readers who pointed out that penny pinchers don’t need an app to charge you the exact amount you owe and that Venmo levels the p(l)aying field for friends from different economic brackets and young people who are strapped for cash.

Who gets the check varies in different cultures too: sometimes, the head of a family pays for the bill while other family members politely bleat protest. Or, if you’re the one who issues the invitation, you might be expected to foot the bill.

How do you negotiate the sticky etiquette of who pays for what, be it with friends or family? How have money transfer apps facilitated or hindered that? Do you see generational or cultural differences in how people split the bill?

Guests:

Teddy Wayne, novelist and column writer for the New York Times, where his recent piece is “Thanks to Venmo, We Now All Know How Cheap Our Friends Are;” his latest book is “Loner” (Simon & Schuster, 2016)

Amy Alkon, science-based manners expert and author of the book, “Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say the F-Word”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The new Google logo is displayed at the Google headquarters on September 2, 2015 in Mountain View, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Google knows a lot about us from our online search habits, but the tech giant is extending its reach through a new program that looks at purchases at brick-and-mortar stores.

The program, called Store Sales Measurement, was launched in May. It uses a proprietary algorithm that takes anonymous credit and debit card data and matches those transactions against users’ Gmail and search information to track how many people made in-store purchase after clicking on an online ad.

Privacy advocates are not happy with the program. The Electronic Privacy Information Center is filing a complaint with the FTC on Monday over privacy concerns.

Google’s statement: "This type of sales measurement is common and before we launched our solution, we invested in building a new, custom encryption technology that ensures users' data remains private, secure, and anonymous. We do not have access to any identifiable user’s credit and debit card data from our partners for this product, nor do we share any personal user information with our partners. We only use data for users that have consented to have their Web and App activity associated with their Google account, which users can opt-out of at any time.”

Guests:

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), an independent privacy rights group based in D.C., the group filing a complaint to the FTC regarding Google’s Store Sales Measurement program

Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a non-profit technology think tank

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, delivers a speech as Republican President-elect Donald Trump looks on during his election night event in New York City.; Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

For a second straight week, a key member of President Donald Trump’s staff is out of a job.

After now former press secretary Sean Spicer resigned two Fridays ago, this past Friday saw the exit of White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. It came just a day after new White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci went on a profanity-laced tirade to a New Yorker correspondent about his frustration with leaks in the White House and some of his West Wing co-workers, including Mr. Priebus. The president appointed former Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to be his new chief of staff, raising questions about how his tenure will differ from Priebus’.

The shakeup comes at a difficult time for the Trump administration, which finds itself trying to advance an ambitious policy agenda after the Senate’s failure to pass health care reform while also staying focused amid the tumult in the West Wing.

Elsewhere, the U.S. and Russia continue to flex their diplomatic muscles at one another. After the U.S. approved a new package of sanctions for Russia last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that 755 staff have to leave U.S. diplomatic missions in Russia. North Korea is also back in the headlines after it test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile on Friday, prompting U.S. bombers to fly over the Korean peninsula this weekend.

Guests:

Lisa Garcia Bedolla, professor in the Graduate School of Education and director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley

Charles Kesler, Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.