If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. A California court has issued a tentative ruling siding with privacy advocates in a case alleging that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) unlawfully handed over thousands of customer records to law enforcement, potentially violating a key state privacy law. The lawsuit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the law firm Vallejo, Antolin, Agarwal, Kanter LLP, represents the Asian American Liberation Network and two local residents. Among the plaintiffs is a man who was wrongly accused of cannabis cultivation based on the utility data shared without consent. More: When Smart Meters Turn Into Spy Tools The respite comes from California Public Utilities Code Section 8381, which bars publicly owned utilities from disclosing electrical usage data to third parties without the customer’s consent, except under specific legal circumstances. The plaintiffs contend that SMUD, which serves all of Sacramento County and parts of Placer County and ranks among the ten largest public utilities in the country, routinely bypassed this protection. For over a decade, SMUD responded to requests from the City of Sacramento’s cannabis enforcement unit by monitoring and supplying lists of homes that surpassed monthly energy use thresholds. These lists, covering more than 33,000 households, were filtered by usage patterns presumed to match indoor cannabis growing operations, such as 12- or 18-hour lighting cycles. However, SMUD employees acknowledged during proceedings that such usage levels could be linked to legitimate, non-criminal reasons, including the use of air conditioning or a larger home size. The court’s tentative ruling, released in advance of the October 10 oral arguments, affirms that SMUD violated Section 8381. It found the utility improperly shared consumer data without obtaining customer approval or confirming that the law enforcement requests were connected to a legitimate ongoing investigation, as required by state law. Though the City argued its cannabis unit was engaged in “proactive investigations,” the court rejected this rationale, stating that continuous, citywide data mining does not meet the legal standard for an “ongoing investigation.” According to the court, “the City is not investigating a suspected violation of criminal law” when it makes these data grabs. It further noted that SMUD was well aware of the systematic nature of the requests and still chose to cooperate. The ruling grants a writ of mandate against SMUD and its CEO, Paul Lau, directing the utility to stop disclosing customer energy data under these circumstances. The petition against the City of Sacramento and its police chief, however, was denied on the basis that requesting information alone, without executing the disclosure, does not constitute a breach of a legal duty. While this ruling remains tentative until finalized following the hearing, it marks a significant moment in the fight for consumer privacy and protections against data profiling. The court did not rule on constitutional grounds, having already found sufficient grounds in statutory violations. However, the implications for digital rights and government surveillance through utility infrastructure are clear. EFF and its co-counsel sought the court’s intervention precisely because consumers had no practical way to avoid being swept into these dragnet surveillance efforts, short of paying extra fees to opt out of smart meter usage. For many, even that option was out of reach. The plaintiffs’ legal team has argued this creates a coercive situation that allows mass surveillance without meaningful consent or accountability. The case reflects growing concerns about the misuse of so-called “smart” infrastructure, especially when used to generate suspicion rather than evidence. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post California Court Rules SMUD Illegally Shared Customer Utility Data With Police appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Dealmakers, Not Diplomats, Get It Done

The Silence of the AMPAS: Hollywood's Hush on Cease Fire Speaks Loudly

Ssssisters are doing it for themselves.

This current shifts up to 182 million cubic meters of water every second – and it's on the move.

Maps don’t do justice to just how big the Pacific Ocean is.

Like an embodiment of Zeno’s paradox, absolute zero is something we can get ever closer to but never reach.

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel joined Bloomberg managing editor for media and entertainment Lucas Shaw on Wednesday for a discussion at Bloomberg Screentime. Twice during their conversation, Kimmel accused his critics of “distortion” and “intentionally and I think maliciously” mischaracterizing the comments that got him suspended. However, sandwiched in-between those remarks, Kimmel also unwittingly appeared to discredit his and his supporters’ belief that it was President Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr that got him suspended. Shaw began by asking, “How long after the initial episode where you made the comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Monday episode, did you realize there was a problem?” Kimmel began by declaring that, “I didn't think there was a big problem. I, you know, I just saw it as distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks.”     Eventually, Shaw noticed that Kimmel never did answer the question, so he tried again, “And so at what point did you realize this was a problem?” Kimmel replied, “I think when they pulled the show off the air. I was like, ‘Well, that's unusual,’ yeah.” After Shaw asked about his conversations with Disney CEO Bob Iger and co-chairman Dana Walden, Kimmel claimed the suspension was actually good for him because it allowed him to cool down: I mean, like, really good conversations. They are—these are people that I've known for a long time and I— who I like very much and who were, you know, who wanted, we all wanted this to work out best. And I will tell you, like, I mean, first of all, I ruined Dana's weekend. It was just non-stop phone calls all weekend, but I don't think what— I don't think the result, which I think turned out to be very positive, would have been as positive if I hadn't talked to Dana as much as I did because it helped me think everything through, and it helped me just, kind of, understand where everyone was coming from. I can sometimes be reactionary. I can sometimes be aggressive and I can sometimes be unpleasant, and I think that it helped me—really having those days to think about it was helpful. That’s nice, but it does destroy the narrative that Kimmel was suspended because a vindictive presidential administration was running afoul of the First Amendment by trying to kick its critics off the air. A few moments later, Kimmel discussed his first episode back, “I knew that it wasn't going to be perfect and there were always going to be people that didn't like it and didn't accept it, but the important thing to me was that I was able to explain what I was saying, what I was trying to say—” Shaw interrupted to add, “Right, because you felt like your initial comments had been mischaracterized.” Kimmel then claimed there is no doubt about that, “I didn't feel like it, it was. It was intentionally and, I think, maliciously mischaracterized. Yes.” To recap, on September 15, Kimmel claimed, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” All available evidence at the time pointed to the shooter being on the left and Kimmel’s omission of those details means that he was either grossly uninformed or was engaging in outrageous conspiracy theories. Either way, it made a mockery of Kimmel’s previous claims that everything he says goes through a rigorous fact-checking process. Here is a transcript for the October 8 event: Bloomberg Screentime 10/8/2025 LUCAS SHAW: How long after the initial episode where you made the comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Monday episode— JIMMY KIMMEL: Yeah. SHAW: — did you realize there was a problem? KIMMEL: I didn't think there was a big problem. I, you know, I just saw it as distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks, and I was, I aimed to correct it. I have problems, like, all the time— SHAW: Yeah. KIMMEL: — and it's kind of funny because sometimes you think, “Oh, this is not a problem,” and then it turns into be a big problem and then sometimes it goes the other way where you think like, “uh-oh, this is gonna be a problem" and nobody really notices. SHAW: Right. And so at what point did you realize this was a problem? KIMMEL: I think when they pulled the show off the air. I was like, “Well, that's unusual,” yeah. SHAW: And what were the conversations that Dana and Bob that led to that? KIMMEL: I hate to disappoint you, but they were really good conversations. SHAW: I'm not asking for you to slam anyone. KIMMEL: I mean, like, really good conversations. They are—these are people that I've known for a long time and I— who I like very much and who were, you know, who wanted, we all wanted this to work out best. And I will tell you, like, I mean, first of all, I ruined Dana's weekend. It was just non-stop phone calls all weekend, but I don't think what— I don't think the result, which I think turned out to be very positive, would have been as positive if I hadn't talked to Dana as much as I did because it helped me think everything through, and it helped me just, kind of, understand where everyone was coming from. I can sometimes be reactionary. I can sometimes be aggressive and I can sometimes be unpleasant, and I think that it helped me—really having those days to think about it was helpful. … KIMMEL: I knew that it wasn't going to be perfect and there were always going to be people that didn't like it and didn't accept it, but the important thing to me was that I was able to explain what I was saying, what I was trying to say— SHAW: Right, because you felt like your initial comments had been mischaracterized. KIMMEL: I didn't feel like it, it was.  SHAW: They were. KIMMEL: It was intentionally and, I think, maliciously mischaracterized. Yes.

President Trump was shocked at reactions from members of the press on Thursday while making an official proclamation about Columbus Day.Appearing with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and War Secretary Pete Hegseth, the president spoke to the media about his landmark peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Before his remarks though, he made time to sign a document about the historic explorer Christopher Columbus.'We love the Italians.'After a short history lesson from staff secretary Will Scharf about Columbus' travels to the New World in 1492, Trump promptly summarized the document by stating, "In other words, we're calling it Columbus Day."Shockingly, the press erupted in applause."Yes!" one person was heard saying as Trump looked off to his staff, puzzled."That was the press that broke out in applause," the bewildered president pointed out. "That was — can you believe that? I've never seen that happen before. The press actually broke out in applause."Laughing, Trump then presented the newly signed document before delivering one of his famous one-liners.RELATED: DEBUNKED: The left's claims about Christopher Columbus are FALSE "Columbus Day, we're back!" Trump said, showing the document off. "Columbus Day! We're back, Italians! OK? We love the Italians."The proclamation honors Columbus' life, faith, courage, and perseverance while further cementing October 13, 2025, as Columbus Day. It also discusses attempts by progressives to cancel Columbus with claims he is a controversial figure."Outrageously, in recent years, Christopher Columbus has been a prime target of a vicious and merciless campaign to erase our history, slander our heroes, and attack our heritage," the document reads.Describing "left-wing radicals" who have toppled statues and monuments of the explorer while tarnishing his character, Trump declared in the writings that "those days are finally over.""Our Nation will now abide by a simple truth: Christopher Columbus was a true American hero, and every citizen is eternally indebted to his relentless determination," Trump wrote. The shift in federal guidance comes after President Joe Biden issued the first presidential proclamation of Indigenous Peoples' Day — to be observed on Columbus Day — in 2021."For generations, Federal policies systematically sought to assimilate and displace Native people and eradicate Native cultures," Biden wrote at the time. "Today, we recognize Indigenous peoples’ resilience and strength as well as the immeasurable positive impact that they have made on every aspect of American society."RELATED: Saving History A depiction of Genoese navigator Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) claiming possession of the New World, 1492. Photo by Universal History Archive/Getty Images On Thursday, Trump further praised Italian Americans for their contribution to American culture. "United States and Italy share a special bond rooted in the timeless values of faith, family, and freedom," Trump explained.Finally, the White House said it will direct the American flag to be displayed on all public buildings on Columbus Day to honor his legacy as well as "all who have contributed to building our Nation."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It appears that DOJ standards have changed.