hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobetcasibompadişahbetBakırköy Escortcasibom9018betgit casinojojobet

Tag: Federal

  • Federal officials’ authority to track and disable drones set to expire, snared in budget battle

    Federal officials’ authority to track and disable drones set to expire, snared in budget battle

    As suspected drone sightings over the eastern U.S. including New Jersey continue to captivate many, the federal government’s authority to track and disable unmanned aircraft deemed threatening is set to expire after Friday and a temporary spending bill before Congress that would extend that power is now in question.

    Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday temporarily banned drone flights in 22 areas of New Jersey where critical infrastructure is located. FAA officials said the flight restrictions were requested by federal security agencies and are effective through Jan. 17.

    Federal and local authorities have been investigating sightings of suspected drones, but officials say there has been nothing so far to suggest that any drones have posed a national security or public safety threat. In fact, authorities say, many of the drone sightings have actually been legal drones, manned aircraft, helicopters and even stars.

    Tucked into the bipartisan plan to prevent a government shutdown is a provision that would extend the authority of the departments of Homeland Security and Justice to track and disable unmanned aircraft deemed a credible threat from Dec. 20 until March 14.

    That authority is vital, homeland security officials and experts say, to detect and disable any threatening drones flying near military bases, the president’s location, U.S. borders, prisons and mass gatherings such as New Year’s Eve celebrations and the Super Bowl — and they were hopeful a reauthorization of those powers will be approved before Friday’s expiration.

    But the temporary spending bill including the reauthorization fell into question Wednesday when President-elect Donald Trump abruptly rejected it and told Republicans to essentially renegotiate only days before the deadline when federal funding runs out. Congress continued working Thursday to pass a bill to avert a shutdown.

    It wasn’t immediately clear what a lapse in that authority would mean, including to drone detection systems the federal government has deployed to states, including New Jersey where numerous sightings have been reported, at the request of local officials. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s office referred questions about the detection systems to Homeland Security officials.

    The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday declined to comment on the expiration of the drone authorities. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, along with other Biden administration officials and both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, has repeatedly called for the reauthorization and expansion of the authority for “counter-unmanned aerial systems” operations, or C-UAS.

    “Ensuring that existing authorities do not lapse is vital to our mission, including protecting the president and vice president, patrolling certain designated areas along the Southwest Border, securing certain federal facilities and assets, and safeguarding the public,” Mayorkas told the House Homeland Security Committee in November 2023. “Any lapse in DHS’s current C-UAS authority would entail serious risks for our homeland security, as DHS would have to cease or curtail existing C-UAS operations.”

    Bills in the House and Senate that would extend and expand the federal government’s drone powers remain pending. The bills also would allow state and local officials for the first time to track and disable threatening drones under a pilot program overseen by federal authorities.

    On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, was blocked from quickly advancing the Senate bill when Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, objected to its passage. Paul said it wasn’t clear there is a threat from drones that warrants urgent action.

    Source link

  • New Jersey governor wants more federal resources for probe into drone sightings

    New Jersey governor wants more federal resources for probe into drone sightings

    TOMS RIVER, N.J. — Gov. Phil Murphy has asked the Biden administration to put more resources into an investigation of mysterious drone sightings that have been reported in New Jersey and nearby states.

    Murphy, a Democrat, made the request in a letter Thursday, noting that state and local law enforcement remain “hamstrung” by existing laws and policies in their efforts to successfully counteract any nefarious activity of unmanned aircraft. He posted a copy of the letter on the social media platform X.

    “This leaves action surrounding the (drones) squarely on the shoulders of the federal government,” Murphy said. “More federal resources are needed to understand what is behind this activity.”

    Murphy and other officials have repeatedly stressed that there is no evidence that the aircraft pose a national security or a public safety threat, or have a foreign nexus. The Pentagon also has said they are not U.S. military drones.

    The drones have drawn intense public concern and curiosity since residents first reported seeing them last month. Assemblywoman Dawn Fantasia said from four to 180 aircraft have been reported to authorities since Nov. 18, appearing from dusk till 11 p.m.

    The flying objects have been spotted near the Picatinny Arsenal, a U.S. military research and manufacturing facility, and over President-elect Donald Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, but the number of reported sightings has grown greatly since then. Drones were also spotted in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and other parts of the Mid-Atlantic region.

    The FBI, Federal Aviation Administration and other state and federal agencies involved in the investigation have not corroborated any of the reported sightings with electronic detection, and reviews of available images appear to show many of the reported drones are actually manned aircraft. They also say there have been no confirmed sightings in restricted air space. It’s also possible that a single drone has been seen and reported more than once, officials said.

    Some federal lawmakers have called on the military to “shoot down” the drones. The drones also appear to avoid detection by traditional methods such as helicopter and radio, according to a state lawmaker who was briefed by the Department of Homeland Security.

    In one case, a medevac helicopter was unable to pick up a seriously injured car accident victim in Branchburg Township in Somerset County late last month due to drones hovering near the planned landing zone, according to NJ.com. The FAA said Thursday that it does not have a report on this incident.

    Drones are legal in New Jersey for recreational and commercial use but are subject to local and FAA regulations and flight restrictions. Operators must be FAA certified.

    Witnesses say the drones they think they have seen in New Jersey appear to be larger than those typically used by hobbyists.

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court upholds law requiring sale or ban of TikTok in the U.S.

    Federal appeals court upholds law requiring sale or ban of TikTok in the U.S.

    A federal appeals court panel on Friday upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law, which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January, is constitutional, rebuffing TikTok’s challenge that the statute ran afoul of the First Amendment and unfairly targeted the platform.

    “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.”

    TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok during his first term and whose Justice Department would have to enforce the law, said during the presidential campaign that he is now against a TikTok ban and would work to “save” the social media platform.

    The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, culminated a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China.

    The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

    However, a significant portion of the government’s information in the case has been redacted and hidden from the public as well as the two companies.

    TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government.

    Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel heard oral arguments in September.

    Some legal experts said at the time that it was challenging to read the tea leaves on how the judges would rule.

    In a court hearing that lasted more than two hours, the panel – composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges – appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform.

    The judges pressed Daniel Tenny, a Department of Justice attorney, on the implications the case could have on the First Amendment. But they also expressed some skepticism at TikTok’s arguments, challenging the company’s attorney – Andrew Pincus – on whether any First Amendment rights preclude the government from curtailing a powerful company subject to the laws and influence of a foreign adversary.

    In parts of their questions about TikTok’s ownership, the judges cited wartime precedent that allows the U.S. to restrict foreign ownership of broadcast licenses and asked if the arguments presented by TikTok would apply if the U.S. was engaged in war.

    To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data.

    The company also argues the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient.

    Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm – the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan – would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content.

    Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business.

    This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital.

    TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators — for which the company is covering legal costs — as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.

    If TikTok appeals and the courts continue to uphold the law, it would fall on Trump’s Justice Department to enforce it and punish any potential violations with fines. The penalties would apply to app stores that would be prohibited from offering TikTok, and internet hosting services that would be barred from supporting it.

    Source link

  • Ivy League athletic scholarship lawsuit dismissed in federal court

    Ivy League athletic scholarship lawsuit dismissed in federal court

    The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

    Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.


    03-15-24-womens-basketball-v-columbia-ivy-madness-sonali-chandy

    The Daily Pennsylvanian dives into the best graduating women’s athletes for the Class of 2024.

    Credit: Sonali Chandy

    A lawsuit against the Ivy League over its ban on athletic scholarships was dismissed in federal court last week.

    The case, originally brought by Brown basketball players Tamenang Choh and Grace Kirk, alleged that the ban on scholarships restrain market trade and therefore violates federal antitrust law. U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson dismissed the suit, stating that the conference did not constitute a specific, relevant market.

    “At best, the plaintiffs’ allegations of anticompetitive effects relate to just some market participants, not effects in the market as a whole,” Thompson wrote in the ruling.

    The lawsuit sought monetary damages for the plaintiffs, as well as an injunction that would force the league’s constituent schools to begin administering scholarships. Pending an appeal, which the plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Cramer said that they are considering, the ban will live on.

    The Ancient Eight’s scholarship refusal is rooted in the conference’s policy against administering merit-based financial aid. Instead, the Ivy League only participates in need-based financial aid, which it offers to all students who require it, including athletes.

    Critics of the league’s policy have argued that it places an undue financial burden on athletes.

    “I would love to see the Ivy League offer athletic scholarships,” former Penn men’s basketball guard Clark Slajchert, who now plays at USC, said. “Either scholarships, or expand financial aid packages … I was fortunate enough that [the policy] wasn’t detrimental to me, but I had teammates whose families were stretched thin.”

    Slajchert also said that the policy is indicative of where the league’s priorities lie, claiming that the schools don’t “value their athletes enough to give them scholarships.” 

    In the conference’s own legal defense against the lawsuit in 2023, it wrote that the ban stemmed from a desire to “foster campus cultures that do not prioritize athletics over other aspects of their educational mission.”



    Source link

  • Federal judge orders Google to open its Android app store to competition

    Federal judge orders Google to open its Android app store to competition

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Monday ordered Google to tear down the digital walls shielding its Android app store from competition as punishment for maintaining an illegal monopoly that helped expand the company’s internet empire.

    The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge James Donato will require Google to make several changes that the Mountain View, California, company had been resisting. Those include a provision that will require its Play Store for Android apps to distribute rival third-party app stores so consumers can download them to their phones, if they so desire.

    The judge’s order will also make the millions of Android apps in the Play Store library accessible to rivals, allowing them to offer up a competitive selection.

    Donato is giving Google until November to make the revisions dictated in his order. The company had insisted it would take 12 to 16 months to design the safeguards needed to reduce the chances of potentially malicious software making its way into rival Android app stores and infecting millions of Samsung phones and other mobile devices running on its free Android software.

    The court-mandated overhaul is meant to prevent Google from walling off competition in the Android app market as part of an effort to protect a commission system that has been a boon for one of the world’s most prosperous companies and helped elevate the market value of its corporate parent Alphabet Inc. to $2 trillion.

    Google said in a blog post that it will ask the court to pause the pending changes, and will appeal the court’s decision.

    Donato also ruled that, for a period of three years ending Nov. 1, 2027, Google won’t be able to share revenue from its Play Store with anyone who distributes Android apps or is considering launching an Android app distribution platform or store. It also won’t be allowed to pay developers, or share revenue, so that they will launch an app in the Google Play Store first or exclusively, and can’t make deals with manufacturers to preinstall the Google Play store on any specific location on an Android device. It also won’t be able to require apps to use its billing system or tell customers that they can download apps elsewhere and potentially for cheaper.

    The Play Store has been earning billions of dollars annually for years, primarily through 15% to 30% commissions that Google has been imposing on digital transactions completed within Android apps. It’s a similar fee structure to the one that Apple deploys in its iPhone app store — a structure that prompted video game maker Epic Games to file antitrust lawsuits four years ago in an effort to foster competition that could help drive down prices for both app makers and consumers.

    A federal judge mostly sided with Apple in a September 2021 decision that was upheld by an appeals court. Still, a jury favored Epic Games after the completion of a four-week trial completed last year and delivered a verdict that tarred the Play Store as an illegal monopoly.

    That prompted another round of hearings this year to help Donato determine what steps should be taken to restore fair competition. Google argued that Epic Games was seeking some extreme changes, saddling the company with costs that could run as high as $600 billion. Epic contended Google could level the playing field for as little as $1 million. It’s unclear how much the changes ordered by Donato will cost Google.

    Although Epic lost its antitrust case against Apple, Donato’s ruling could still have ripple effects on the iPhone app store as another federal judge weighs whether Apple is making it easy enough to promote different ways that consumers can pay for digital transactions. Apple was ordered to allow in-app links to alternative payment systems as part of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ decision in that case, but Epic contends the provision is being undermined with the creation of another commission system that stifles consumer choice.

    The forthcoming Play Store shakeup could be just the first unwelcome shock that antitrust law delivers to Google. In the biggest antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department in a quarter century, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in August declared Google’s dominant search engine to be an illegal monopoly, too, and is now getting ready to start hearings on how to punish Google for that bad behavior. Google is appealing Mehta’s ruling in the search engine case in hopes of warding off a penalty that could hurt its business even more than the changes being ordered in the Play Store.

    “Provided the ruling survives the appeals process, Google will almost certainly take a revenue hit,” said Emarketer analyst Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf. “No doubt some of the largest app developers like Epic Games will start encroaching on Google Play Store’s market share, meaning Google will lose out on its usual cut of subscription and in-app purchases.”

    The analyst added that, while the Google Play Store will likely continue to benefit from brand recognition since it was the default Android app store for so long, “some consumers may defect if they can get better deals on their favorite apps elsewhere.” And app developers will likely take advantage of the opportunity to let consumers know about direct downloads.

    “So Google may see fewer Play Store revenues even among the Android users that stick to the default,” Mitchell-Wolf said.

    Alphabet’s shares fell $4.08, or 2.4%, to close Monday at $162.98.

    Source link

  • Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media laws aimed to protect children

    Federal judge temporarily blocks Utah social media laws aimed to protect children

    A federal judge in Utah has temporarily blocked social media access laws that leaders said were meant to protect the mental health and personal privacy of children, saying they are unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby on Tuesday issued the preliminary injunction against laws that would have required social media companies to verify the ages of their users, disable certain features and limit the use of accounts owned by Utah children.

    The laws were set to take effect on Oct. 1, but will be blocked pending the outcome of the case filed by NetChoice, a nonprofit trade association for internet companies such as Google, Meta — the parent company of Facebook and Instagram — Snap and X.

    The Utah legislature passed the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act to replace laws that were passed in 2023 and were challenged as unconstitutional. State officials believed the 2024 act would hold up in court.

    But Shelby disagreed.

    “The court recognizes the State’s earnest desire to protect young people from the novel challenges associated with social media use,” Shelby wrote in his order. However, the state has not articulated a compelling state interest in violating the First Amendment rights of the social media companies, he wrote.

    Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said he was disappointed in the court’s decision and was aware it could be a long battle, but said it “is a battle worth waging,” due to the harm that social media is causing children.

    “Let’s be clear: social media companies could voluntarily, at this very moment, do everything that the law put in place to protect our children. But they refuse to do so. Instead, they continue to prioritize their profits over our children’s wellbeing. This must stop, and Utah will continue to lead the fight.”

    NetChoice argues Utah residents would have to supply additional information to verify their age than social media companies usually collect, putting more information at risk of a data breach.

    Several months after Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023, it sued TikTok and Meta for allegedly luring in children with addictive features.

    Under the 2024 Utah laws, default privacy settings for minor accounts would have been required to restrict access to direct messages and sharing features and disable elements such as autoplay and push notifications that lawmakers argue could lead to excessive use.

    Parents could obtain access to their children’s accounts and would have grounds to sue a social media company if their child’s mental health worsens from excessive use of an algorithmically curated app. Social media companies must comply with a long list of demands — including a three-hour daily limit and a blackout from 10:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. — to help avoid liability.

    The laws sought to shift the burden of proof from the families onto the social media companies, requiring them to demonstrate that their curated content did not fully or partially cause a child’s depression, anxiety or self-harm behaviors. Companies would have to pay at least $10,000 in damages for each case of an adverse mental health outcome.

    NetChoice has obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar social media limitation laws in California, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Texas, the organization said.

    “With this now sixth injunction against these overreaching laws, we hope policymakers will focus on meaningful and constitutional solutions for the digital age,” said Chris Marchese, director of litigation for NetChoice.

    Source link

  • Amazon says in a federal lawsuit that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional

    Amazon says in a federal lawsuit that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional

    Amazon is challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board in a lawsuit that also accuses the agency of improperly influencing the outcome of a union election at a company warehouse more than two years ago.

    The complaint, filed Thursday at a federal court in San Antonio, mirrors legal arguments the tech giant made in front of the agency earlier this year after NLRB prosecutors accused the company of maintaining policies that made it challenging for workers to organize and retaliating against some who did so.

    In the new legal filing, attorneys for Amazon pointed back to a lawsuit the agency filed against the company in March 2022, roughly a week before voting for a union election was set to begin at a company warehouse in the New York borough of Staten Island.

    Amazon views the agency’s lawsuit, which sought to force the company to give a union organizer his job back, as improperly influencing the outcome of the election. The company has also cited the action as one of its objections to the historic election, where workers voted in favor of union representation for the first time in the U.S.

    Last month, the NLRB’s board denied Amazon’s appeal to review its objections, closing off any options for the company to get the election results overturned within the agency.

    In its new complaint, Amazon said the four NLRB board members who authorized the injunction were later judges reviewing the objections that came before them. It argued that structure was unconstitutional because board members are shielded from removal by the president, violates Amazon’s due process rights as well as right to a jury trial.

    Other companies, such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Trader Joe’s, have also challenged the structure of the agency in pending lawsuits or administrative cases. Kayla Blado, spokesperson for the NLRB General Counsel noted that while big companies have sought to challenge the NLRB, the Supreme Court in 1937 upheld the agency’s constitutionality.

    “While the current challenges require the NLRB to expend scarce resources defending against them, we’ve seen that the results of these kinds of challenges is ultimately a delay in justice, but that ultimately justice does prevail,” Blado said.

    Earlier this year, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, said at an event that the challenges were intended to prevent the agency from enforcing labor laws as companies “divert attention away from the fact that they’re actually law-breakers.”

    Amazon is asking the court to issue an order that stops the agency from pursuing “unconstitutional” administrative proceedings against the company as the case plays out.

    Source link