September 29, 2019
||Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019
||Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019
||Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
||Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019
||Secure And Fair Enforcement Banking Act of 2019
||Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019
||Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
||S.Amdt.939 to H.R.1044
||A joint resolution relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019.
||National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
Source: Most-Viewed Bills – Congress.gov Resources – Congress.gov Resources
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a long-time whistleblower protection advocate, broke ranks with some of his Republican colleagues on Tuesday and sided with the whistleblower of the now-infamous July call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president.
“This person appears to have followed the whistleblower protection laws and ought to be heard out and protected,” Grassley said in a press release. “We should always work to respect whistleblowers’ requests for confidentiality. No one should be making judgments or pronouncements without hearing from the whistleblower first and carefully following up on the facts.”
Several Republicans, such as Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Bill Cassidy, R-La.; and Tim Scott, R-S.C., have questioned the whistleblower’s credibility, saying the allegations were based on hearsay.
Source: Grassley Deviates From Other Senate Republicans and Supports Ukraine Whistleblower – Government Executive
Even accounting for the differences in protections between intelligence community personnel and other government employees, this is an “unprecedented” situation because “an American president is threatening to retaliate against his own intelligence community,” said Allison Stranger, professor at Middlebury College and author of the new book Whistleblowers: Honesty in America from Washington to Trump.
She also said the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act excludes national security whistleblowers from protection, which makes them more vulnerable to retaliation and “all the more so when an American president is actively inciting it.”
Source: Whistleblower is Vulnerable to Retaliation Due to Limited Intelligence Community Protections – Government Executive
Few people, even those closest to him in the White House, grasped exactly what the President of the United States seemed to believe: that Ukraine, a nation consumed over the past five years by a crippling armed conflict with Russia, had found a way to conspire against him during the 2016 election, and to collude with his rival, Hillary Clinton, by hiding the Democratic National Committee’s email server and feeding her allies dirt about Trump.
It was an idea Tom Bossert, his first homeland-security adviser, described as a “completely debunked” conspiracy theory. Few saw in his Ukraine outbursts anything more than the effusions of a cable-news showman.
It took a complaint from an intelligence-community whistle-blower, released late last month, to reveal the weight of Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy theory and just how far the President has gone to support the notion that a vast network of enemies inside and outside his own government has been working against him.
Source: How Trump’s Conspiracy Theory Led to the Impeachment Crisis | Time
“A sick girl who is as stupid as she is naïve” and “the prophet of a new totalitarian wave”: This is how Russian state-controlled TV reacted to Greta Thunberg and her speech at the UN the past week.
Admittedly, Russian TV was not alone in being upset by the climate activist.
But what distinguished the pro-Kremlin media from the rest of indignant (and misogynist) choir was its dedication to find a grand conspiracy behind Greta Thunberg and her activism.
She is, according to various pro-Kremlin outlets, a tool of global, unelected, pop-ecofascist bureaucracy, a mouthpiece for lobbyists of green energy giants, a political tool against Russia and China, and a victim of child abuse
Source: Why is the Pro-Kremlin Media Afraid of Greta? – EU vs DISINFORMATION
When NATO’s Centre for Strategic Communication in Riga discovered how easy it was to dupe its soldiers online, it has started looking for ways of countering false information, which comes, in large part, from Russia. EURACTIV’s media partner der Tagesspiegel reports.
The Latvian forest, not far from the Russian border. Thousands of soldiers from different NATO member states are training there to ensure NATO’s continued military presence in Eastern Europe.
But during maneuvers that spanned several days, some soldiers who were winding down with their mobile phones stumbled across a well-done website claiming to be designed by and for soldiers. On there, the men chatted about the army, the weather and life in general. A few of them also ordered T-shirts on the site, for which they agreed to give their home address for delivery.
The website and the Tinder profile turned out to be a trap – a test carried out by a team of NATO experts on behalf of the Latvian army in the summer of 2018 to identify weaknesses in NATO’s own ranks. Soldiers were prompted to send their addresses, spread photos of a maneuver and even leave their posts, all with little effort.
Source: Fighting ‘fake news’ online: How NATO soldiers in Latvia got fooled by bots – EURACTIV.com
Recently the role of social media and search platforms in political campaigning and elections has come under scrutiny. Concerns range from the spread of disinformation, to profiling of users without their knowledge, to micro-targeting of users with tailored messages, to interference by foreign entities, and more. Significant attention has been paid to the transparency of political ads, and more broadly to the transparency of online ads.
Notably, in the lead up to the 2019 EU Parliamentary elections Facebook, Google, and Twitter, as well as the Interactive Advertising Bureau and others, agreed to take a series of steps to prevent online disinformation on their respective platforms. These measures are reflected in a self-regulatory Code of Practice on Disinformation and the companies provided the European Commission with monthly updates on their progress.
The Commission’s final report, due in November 2019, will indicate to what extent the companies met their commitments within the Code of Practice.
Source: Social media companies have failed to provide adequate advertising transparency to users globally | Privacy International
How will bursting out of the EU affect tech jobs, legislation and the prices of tech goods?
Hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Brexit over-easy. Since the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum everyone from radio show hosts to social media commenters has chimed in with their thoughts on our collective decision to bid adieu to the EU, but three years on and we’re no closer to anything sembling certainty.
While we won’t stay on as members of the single market, under Theresa May we were seeking the “freest possible trade” with our chums from across the Channel.
Source: How bad will Brexit be for tech? | IT PRO
Preparing for no deal Brexit if you provide digital, technology and computer services
Use our 10 point checklist to understand what you need to do to prepare for no deal Brexit if you provide digital, technology and computer services.
Source: Preparing for no deal Brexit if you provide digital, technology and computer services – GOV.UK
EU law may be used to force Facebook to proactively remove content on its platform previously declared to be illegal, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) ruled on Thursday (3 October).
The claimant sought an order that Facebook remove a comment published by a user on that social network harmful to her reputation and similar allegations. A user of the platform had posted an article from the Austrian online news magazine oe24.at entitled ‘Greens: Minimum income for refugees should stay,’ accompanied by a comment that the Austrian courts found to be harmful to the reputation of Glawischnig-Piesczek.
Source: Facebook can be ordered to track down illegal content, ECJ rules – EURACTIV.com