SACRAMENTO - The first bill in the country to require privacy and security protections for the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags in state government-issued ID's passed last night in the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote of 30-7 and is now heading for the Governor's desk. The bill passed out of the Assembly with a bi-partisan vote of 49-26 on August 21.

The Identity Information Protection Act (SB 768) is authored by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto). The bill ensures that state-issued identification, such as a driver's license, will have adequate privacy and security protections. The bill also guarantees that Californians will be able to decide who and when others can access their personal information.

"RFID technology is not in and of itself the issue. The issue is whether and under what circumstances the government should be allowed to compel its residents to carry technology that broadcasts their most personal information," said Senator Simitian. "This bill provides a thoughtful and rational policy framework for making those decisions. I hope the Governor agrees."

Since the introduction of SB 768, the legislation has become even more salient as the vulnerabilities of RFID technology have become more public and the potential use of RFID technology in identification documents has become more widespread. In the past year, the security on the RFID-embedded Dutch e-passport and the VeriChip- the RFID chip approved for implantation in humans- were both breached and the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report detailing privacy and security concerns with the use of RFID technology.

The California bill has drawn national attention following the federal government's decision to embed RFID tags in new U.S. passports. The bill is a model for other states considering the use of RFID tags because it provides safeguards and guidelines on how to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

RFID tags are tiny computer chips that can be embedded in public documents. The danger is that anyone with an RFID scanner can read the personal data stored on the chips. The chips do not alert the person that his or her personal information is being transmitted. The unknown disclosure of that information can put a person at risk of tracking, stalking and identity theft. Last year, more than 39,000 Californians were victims of identity theft and these devices would make that crime even easier to commit.

"There are some obvious privacy risks with the application of RFID technology, especially identity theft - one of the fastest growing crimes in the nation," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. "That is exactly why the Governor must sign SB 768 into law - to protect Californians from harm to their privacy, financial security and personal safety."

ORANGE, Calif. - Members of a Vietnamese Buddhist temple may hold religious services at the medical building it owns despite Garden Grove's repeated attempts to prohibit worship at the site, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney asked both the city and the temple to create a compromise about how the temple and its congregants can use their building for religious services. The Judge gave both parties until Friday. If no agreement is reached, Carney will hold a hearing on the temple's request for an injunction to stop the city from enforcing its zoning laws.

'This is a great victory,' said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'Yesterday's decision frees the monastics and the congregation to pray and worship together and breathes new life into the temple. We are pleased that the judge recognized the strength of the legal claims and the need for relief even before a final decision is made and encouraged that the temple congregants' will worship together again soon.'

Quan Am Temple, or the Vietnamese Buddhism Study Temple, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Santa Ana earlier this month against the Garden Grove city council and planning commission for violating the Temple and its congregation's First Amendment rights to free religious exercise, their rights under the California Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

Quan Am Temple opened in Garden Grove in 1999, but by 2003 the congregation had outgrown its building. The Temple began looking for a larger permanent site to house a monastery and a place of worship for the congregation of 150 to 300 area residents.

Current Garden Grove statutes require religious institutions to be housed in residential zones or seek a zone change from the city and obtain a conditional use permit prior to practicing their religion in the city. In 2004 a congregant loaned Quan Am Temple $1.95 million to purchase a medical building on 1.8 acres in an area zoned Office-Professional that had been on the market for 3 years. Before purchasing the property, the Abbot and two followers received assurances from members of the city council that the city would support the project, but despite a recommendation from city staff the planning commission and the city council denied permits for the project.

The city has routinely allowed non-religious non-profits, including the Boy's and Girls Club, which neighbors the temple site, to be housed in commercial areas, and has granted zone changes to some religious groups in the city, Escobosa Helzer said.

ORANGE, Calif. - An Orange County judge today resisted attempts to hobble integration efforts in California public schools and expand the meaning of Proposition 209, which prohibits discrimination or the use of race for preferential treatment.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andler granted Capistrano parents summary adjudication Wednesday, saying Capistrano Unified School District 's policy permitting the use of race when drawing school attendance boundaries is constitutional.

In June, parents of students enrolled in the district asked the Orange County judge to reject the anti-integration lawsuit in its entirety the district's ability to consider race to avoid segregation at its schools, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

"We are delighted that the Court reaffirmed the importance of integration in public schools and held that some uses of race are indeed constitutional under the California Constitution," said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director at the ACLU/SC. "This decision sends a strong message to school districts throughout the state that they should continue efforts to integrate their schools in ways that satisfy the law."

In her opinion, Judge Andler said: "The mere 'consideration' or 'taking into account' of racial/ethnic composition does not necessarily seem to 'discriminate' or grant 'preferences' based on race." Judge Andler denied summary adjudication on the second part of the lawsuit held that the school district's actual application of its policy is not acceptable under Prop. 209 and school districts cannot use policies that appear to be racial quotas.

Capistrano parent Tareef Nashashibi said: "This decision is very momentous; it is what I was hoping for. As a parent, I went into this thinking the district was doing a good job. The court decision confirms that the school district was going about things right. Decisions like this one are what make our country great--they show that racism and discrimination stops at the constitution."

"Capistrano students and parents of all racial and ethnic backgrounds have experienced the benefits of racially integrated schools first-hand. In recognition of those benefits, this welcome decision affirms school districts' ability to ensure that students are not forced to attend racially isolated schools, said LDF Assistant Counsel Anurima Bhargava.

In June 2005, a newly formed organization named Neighborhood Schools For Our Kids, filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, alleging that the school district violated California law by considering the avoidance of "racially, ethnically, and socio-economically identifiable schools" as one of nine factors in its decision making process for the school district's new attendance boundaries.

This ruling affirms the importance of integration in public schools and the ability of school districts to take steps to avoid racial isolation in schools. In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, and Meredith v. Jefferson County School District, that address similar issues under federal law.

Over the past 14 years the school district has built 29 new schools including a new high school in San Juan Capistrano, San Juan Hills High School, which is scheduled to open in August 2007. In order to balance enrollment at the new school, CUSD redrew attendance boundaries using race as one of many factors to avoid segregation based on race, socio-economic background or ethnicity at the school.

MALDEF attorney Dovie Yoana King added: "Today's decision reaffirms the important principle that school districts can and should take reasonable steps to promote integration and avoid racially segregated schools. The court recognized that CUSD's policy does not violate Proposition 209 by using race as a guiding principle in drawing its attendance boundaries."

Julie A. Su, litigation director for APALC said: "School districts that take seriously their responsibility to avoid racial segregation should take heart from the Court's opinion. This is a rejection of the notion that avoiding segregation is equivalent to illegal discrimination. That's a victory for all of California's public school children, and for all Californians who recognize that learning with students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds creates a positive learning environment for all."