Showing posts with label Me. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Me. Show all posts
Thursday, May 9, 2024
Monday, February 19, 2024
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Monday, January 8, 2024
The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606 - SpinRite Update, Nebula Mesh, Apple's Ba...
Jan 2, 2024 Security Now
• SpinRite 6.1 update
• Pruning Root Certificates
• A solution to Schrodinger's Bowl
• DNS Benchmark and anti-virus tools
• Nebula Mesh
• SpinRite 7 is coming
• The Mystery of CVE-2023-38606
Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-955-Notes.pdf
Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte
Security Now episode 955
More Info: https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/ep...
Sponsors:
• bitwarden.com/twit
• kolide.com/securitynow
• Melissa.com/twit
• drata.com/twit
Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now
Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit
You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page.
For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: https://grc.com/ also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6.
Products we recommend: https://www.amazon.com/shop/twitnetca...
TWiT may earn commissions on certain products.
Follow us:
https://twit.tv/
/ twit
/ twitnetwork
/ twit.tv
About us:
TWiT.tv is a technology podcasting network located in the San Francisco Bay Area with the #1 ranked technology podcast This Week in Tech hosted by Leo Laporte. Every week we produce dozens of hours of content on a variety of programs including Tech News Weekly, MacBreak Weekly, This Week in Google, Windows Weekly, Security Now, and more.
Explore the podcast
564 episodes
Thursday, December 21, 2023
Friday, December 8, 2023
Friday, November 10, 2023
Netherlands: Constitution Amended to Explicitly Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Disability library of Congress legal monitor
Netherlands: Constitution Amended to Explicitly Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Disability
On January 17, 2023, the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer), the upper house of the Dutch parliament, approved in a second reading an amendment to the constitutional principle of nondiscrimination to include sexual orientation and disability. The amendment was approved in a roll-call vote with 56 members of parliament (MPs) voting in favor and 15 MPs voting against. The House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) had adopted the proposal on March 15, 2022. The amendment will enter into force immediately after publication in the Dutch gazette (Staatsblad). (Grondwet (Dutch Constitution) art. 139.)
Previously, the principle of nondiscrimination, which is codified in article 1 of the Constitution, explicitly prohibited only discrimination based on “religion, belief, political opinion, race, or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever.”
Furthermore, the Dutch Senate approved an additional motion requiring the government to submit to the State Commission on Discrimination and Racism (Staatscommissie discriminatie en racism) a proposal to rearrange the wording of article 1 of the Constitution so that the general prohibition (“discrimination on any grounds whatsoever”) is placed before the specific nondiscrimination grounds.
Background on the Constitutional Amendment Procedure
An amendment of the Constitution requires two readings of the proposed amendment in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The first reading follows the standard legislative procedure, meaning a simple majority is required to adopt the proposal. A second reading in the House of Representative may take place only after parliamentary elections, so that voters may have an input. (Grondwet art. 137, para. 3.) At the second reading, a two-thirds majority of both houses is required to pass the bill. (Art. 137, para. 4.)
Jenny Gesley, Law Library of Congress
February 10, 2023
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.
Thursday, November 2, 2023
Friday, October 20, 2023
Saturday, October 14, 2023
Wednesday, October 11, 2023
Thursday, September 14, 2023
Thursday, May 18, 2023
LAC+USC Emergency Medicine Residency - Keck School of Medicine of USC.
The Hospital and medical school made famous by the Code Black documentary as well as the TV drama series
Sunday, April 2, 2023
Monday, March 27, 2023
Patient warns of private clinic upselling that cost her thousands
Health Canada reports show private, for-profit clinics are upselling patients on extra services they don’t need. One Ontario patient says a private clinic had her sign off on additional services that cost her thousands and even tried to get her to have another surgery that she didn’t need. Watch The National live on YouTube Sunday-Friday at 9 p.m. ET
Saturday, December 31, 2022
On April 6, 2022, German Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser issued a special decree allowing the public flying of pride flags in front of federal government buildings. This was the first time that such permission had been granted.
On April 6, 2022, German Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser issued a special decree allowing the public flying of pride flags in front of federal government buildings. This was the first time that such permission had been granted.
Accordingly, on the Day Against Homophobia, which is celebrated on May 17, the pride flag was raised for the first time in front of federal government buildings in Berlin.
Content of the Decree
According to the decree, the pride flag may be flown on flagpoles of official buildings of federal authorities and agencies, as well as of buildings of public corporations, institutions, and foundations that are subject to federal supervision, to commemorate specific occasions, such as Christopher Street Day or “Pride Week.” Flying the pride flag is not possible on “regular general flagging days” or on days for which special flagging has been ordered.
The general flagging decree of the federal government defines the regular general flagging days and special flagging days, and specifies on which days what type of flagging must take place. On regular general flagging days— for example, the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of National Socialism on January 27, Labor Day on May 1, German Unity Day on October 3, and days that federal or European elections take place — flags are flown without special order. (Flagging decree sec. II.) On special flagging days, such as in times of mourning, the federal Ministry of the Interior issues a specific flagging order. (Sec. III.) Flags used are the German national flag, the flag of the European Union, the flags of the federal states and municipalities for regional and local occasions, and, with special permission, flags of international organizations or foreign states. (Sec. IV.)
Background to the Decision to Allow the Flying of Pride Flags
According to the German Federal Constitutional Court and article 22, paragraph 2 of the German Basic Law, the country’s constitution, the federal flag represents a state symbol. The federal flag and the federal colors black-red-gold represent unity, freedom, and democracy. The federal government stated in the special decree that “ensuring state neutrality is necessary to maintain the acceptance of state symbols among the population” and that, for this reason, permission to fly flags on federal buildings without a national or federal reference has not been granted previously. However, with regard to pride flags, the government’s point of view has always been controversial, especially in the LGBT community. According to LGBT activists, the flying of pride flags is an important symbol to promote LGBT acceptance.
Promoting awareness of and protecting sexual diversity is one of the priorities of the new German federal government, as stated in the coalition agreement of the governing parties (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, and Freie Demokraten (FDP)). The agreement sets out the priorities of the government for the legislative period from 2021 to 2025, and is titled “Seeking Progress – An Alliance for Freedom, Justice and Sustainability.” With regard to queer life, the coalition parties pledged to end existing discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual identity. (Coalition Agreement at 95.)
Regarding the decision to allow flying pride flags, the minister of the interior stated that “[Germany is] a modern and diverse country. It’s about time that we also show this more clearly as state institutions. We want to end discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual identity in all areas of society. We want to show solidarity with all those who are still forced to experience exclusion. The rainbow flag is such a worldwide-known symbol.”
Prepared by Karen Ungerer, Law Library intern, under the supervision of Jenny Gesley, Foreign Law Specialist
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Thursday, July 15, 2021
Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Thursday, April 15, 2021
France: Court Finds Government Failed to Live Up to Carbon Emissions Reduction Objectives February 3, 2021,
France: Court Finds Government Failed to Live Up to Carbon Emissions Reduction Objectives
February 3, 2021, the Administrative Tribunal of Paris issued a judgment finding the French government liable for failing to live up to its own carbon emissions reduction objectives. This decision came in response to a lawsuit brought by four nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in March 2019, in which they sought to have the court recognize the French government’s shortcomings in the fight against climate change.
As the preliminary step in bringing their lawsuit, the four NGOs sent a letter to the government alleging that the government had failed to live up to several environmental objectives contained in French regulations and European directives that should have been reached by 2020. These include the goals of a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% reduction in overall energy consumption, and a 23% increase in the share of renewable energy in French production. This letter was supported by an online petition that had been signed by close to 1.8 million people by the time the letter was sent to the government on December 18, 2018. The government did not respond to the letter, hence giving the plaintiffs standing to bring the lawsuit.
The four NGOs, acting collectively under the name “L’Affaire du Siècle” (“The Case of the Century”), alleged that the government’s inaction was causing environmental harm, which is a cause for liability under articles 1247 to 1252 of the French Civil Code. The administrative tribunal found that this environmental harm was demonstrated by, among other things, the constant increase in average global temperatures. The tribunal further identified a causal relationship between this environmental harm and the government’s failure to meet its emissions reduction commitments.
The four NGOs sought monetary damages from the government to, in the words of one of their attorneys, “reverse the financial incentive, [and] show the government that these procedures could cost it more than really pursuing these objectives.” However, the administrative tribunal denied this request, noting that the civil code provides for monetary damages in these types of cases only if the measures to repair the environmental harm are impossible or insufficient. The administrative tribunal ordered the government to pay each NGO one euro (about US$1.20) as a symbolic reparation for “moral prejudice.” More importantly, the tribunal acceded to the plaintiffs’ other main demand, which was to compel the government to take measures to repair or mitigate the environmental harm. To that effect, it gave itself two months to investigate what measures it might order the government to pursue, instructing the government to submit statements on the subject within that time frame. The administrative tribunal will render its final decision after this supplemental investigation.
This decision marks the first time that a French court has found the government liable for failing to fulfill its emissions reduction commitments, and it has been hailed as “historic” by the plaintiffs. However, this decision is comparable to one rendered by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest jurisdiction for matters of administrative law, on November 19, 2020. In that case, brought by the mayor of a coastal town that risks being submerged by rising seas, the Conseil d’Etat was also asked to judge whether the French government was doing enough to reach its goal of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The Conseil d’Etat ruled against a motion to dismiss by the government, finding that the government could be found liable for failure to do enough to reach its emissions reduction goals. Contrary to the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in the “Case of the Century” decision, the Conseil d’Etat did not render a final judgment in the matter of whether the government was liable. Instead, it gave the government three months to show that it is taking sufficient actions to fight against climate change, after which the Conseil d’Etat will give its final judgment in the matter.
As the preliminary step in bringing their lawsuit, the four NGOs sent a letter to the government alleging that the government had failed to live up to several environmental objectives contained in French regulations and European directives that should have been reached by 2020. These include the goals of a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% reduction in overall energy consumption, and a 23% increase in the share of renewable energy in French production. This letter was supported by an online petition that had been signed by close to 1.8 million people by the time the letter was sent to the government on December 18, 2018. The government did not respond to the letter, hence giving the plaintiffs standing to bring the lawsuit.
The four NGOs, acting collectively under the name “L’Affaire du Siècle” (“The Case of the Century”), alleged that the government’s inaction was causing environmental harm, which is a cause for liability under articles 1247 to 1252 of the French Civil Code. The administrative tribunal found that this environmental harm was demonstrated by, among other things, the constant increase in average global temperatures. The tribunal further identified a causal relationship between this environmental harm and the government’s failure to meet its emissions reduction commitments.
The four NGOs sought monetary damages from the government to, in the words of one of their attorneys, “reverse the financial incentive, [and] show the government that these procedures could cost it more than really pursuing these objectives.” However, the administrative tribunal denied this request, noting that the civil code provides for monetary damages in these types of cases only if the measures to repair the environmental harm are impossible or insufficient. The administrative tribunal ordered the government to pay each NGO one euro (about US$1.20) as a symbolic reparation for “moral prejudice.” More importantly, the tribunal acceded to the plaintiffs’ other main demand, which was to compel the government to take measures to repair or mitigate the environmental harm. To that effect, it gave itself two months to investigate what measures it might order the government to pursue, instructing the government to submit statements on the subject within that time frame. The administrative tribunal will render its final decision after this supplemental investigation.
This decision marks the first time that a French court has found the government liable for failing to fulfill its emissions reduction commitments, and it has been hailed as “historic” by the plaintiffs. However, this decision is comparable to one rendered by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest jurisdiction for matters of administrative law, on November 19, 2020. In that case, brought by the mayor of a coastal town that risks being submerged by rising seas, the Conseil d’Etat was also asked to judge whether the French government was doing enough to reach its goal of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The Conseil d’Etat ruled against a motion to dismiss by the government, finding that the government could be found liable for failure to do enough to reach its emissions reduction goals. Contrary to the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in the “Case of the Century” decision, the Conseil d’Etat did not render a final judgment in the matter of whether the government was liable. Instead, it gave the government three months to show that it is taking sufficient actions to fight against climate change, after which the Conseil d’Etat will give its final judgment in the matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)