Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rules. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Texas judge rules man could be tried as adult for crime he committed 13 years ago

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



Texas judge rules man could be tried as adult for crime he committed 13 years ago

Monday, March 3, 2014

Midday open thread: EPA rules on sulfur in gasoline, okaying guns in Indiana school parking lots



Daily Kos



Midday open thread: EPA rules on sulfur in gasoline, okaying guns in Indiana school parking lots

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult

Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult
http://img.youtube.com/vi/84phU8of02U/0.jpg



The court ruled a white teen who stabbed a classmate to death will face the jury as a 300-pound black man. Onion News Network, Fridays at 10/9c on IFC.
Video Rating: 4 / 5




Read more about Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult and other interesting subjects concerning Humor at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

New Air Force Uniform Rules Allow Casual Fridays

The Air Force has changed the rules governing uniforms, introducing casual Fridays, when air crew will be able to don morale patches and T-shirts representing individual squadrons.

Commanders can choose a single color for undershirts to be worn under the Airman Battle Uniform (ABU) and flight suits on Friday, but wing commanders can also approve more than one color “if it builds esprit de corps and facilitates team building,” according to the Air Force Times.


Also under the new regulations, which took effect Friday, reflective belts are no longer required during physical training, and air crew can wear any color athletic shoe along with black or white socks.


Some of those changes were “common sense approach inputs” from those in the field “that senior leaders thought were great ideas,” said Col. Patrick Doherty, director of Air Force services.


In addition, Air Force qualification badges, such as Scuba Badge and Test Pilot School Badge are allowed on ABU under the updated policy, signed by Brig. Gen. Eden Murrie, the Pentagon’s director of Air Force Services.


“The increased wear of the ABU in-garrison, coupled with airmen’s long-term desires to wear the qualification badges and the command insignia they have earned, makes authorized wear on the ABU a logical step,” said Lt. Gen. Sam Cox, Air Force deputy chief of staff for manpower, personnel and services.


Another change is the authorization to use handheld electronic devices of any color as long as they are not worn on the airman’s belt or waistband or clipped to a purse.


Airmen at Ramstein Air Base in Germany gave the changes a thumbs up, reports Stars and Stripes.


Staff Sgt. Parrish Moore, a fitness assessment cell personnel member with the 786th Force Support Squadron, told the newspaper he likes the new black-sock rule “because I don’t ever wear white socks and it’s weird to go buy one pair of white socks just to do the PT test.”


Staff Sgt. Lindsay Rhodes, a flight medic with the 86th Air Evacuation Squadron, said she likes being able to choose bright-colored athletic shoes “because it’s a morale thing.”


“It adds color to the blue and grey uniforms,” she added.


Related stories:


Air Force Cheating Scandal Implicates 34 Nuke Missile Officers


Air Force Base in Utah OK’s Same Sex Weddings


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



New Air Force Uniform Rules Allow Casual Fridays

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

AT&T CEO says awaiting clarity on U.S. surveillance rules


AT&T’s Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson speaks during a news conference at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, February 25, 2013.


Credit: Reuters/Albert Gea




Reuters: Politics



AT&T CEO says awaiting clarity on U.S. surveillance rules

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Judge Rules Computer Searches, Seizures Legal at US Borders

The Department of Homeland Security can keep searching laptop computers at the nation’s borders, a federal judge has ruled in his dismissal of a lawsuit filed by civil-liberties groups that had contended the practice was unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed their lawsuit challenging the DHS policy in 2010, The Hill reported. The policy allowed searches even if there was no suspicion of illegality.


Officials at the border search and copy contents of people’s laptop computers and other devices thousands of times a year, government documents say. Travelers may be detained for short periods of time even if there is no reasonable suspicion they have broken a law.


But while the ACLU and other groups say such searches violate Americans’ protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, Judge Edward Korman said there are exceptions when an international border is involved.


Further, he said, people such as journalists, lawyers, and others should not expect their sensitive information to be protected while they are traveling abroad, The Huffington Post reported.


The ACLU filed the lawsuit on the behalf of French-American Pascal Abidor, whose laptop was confiscated at the Canadian border, for the National Press Photographers Association.


Korman said the groups suing to stop the DHS searches did not face a “substantial risk that their electronic devices will be subject to a search or seizure without reasonable suspicion.”


Further, Korman said, policies for border agents are sensitive to privacy and confidentiality issues, and “contain significant precautionary measures to be taken with respect to the handling of privileged and other sensitive materials.”


Abidor said his personal files were searched while Border Patrol officials had his laptop for 11 days.


Korman, though, ruled that the agents had “reasonable suspicion” to search the files, because the man had recently returned from Lebanon and had photos of rallies by terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. Abidor at the time was a McGill University doctoral student.


Computer users should also expect searches on trips overseas, such as to the United Kingdom, where former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda was stopped recently so agents could search his storage devices, The Huffington Post reported.


“This is enough to suggest that it would be foolish, if not irresponsible, for plaintiffs to store truly private or confidential information on electronic devices that are carried and used overseas,” Korman wrote.


The ACLU is considering an appeal. Attorney Catherine Crump said the judge’s decision was disappointing, but “these searches are part of a broader pattern of aggressive government surveillance that collects information on too many innocent people, under lax standards, and without adequate oversight.”


Related Stories:


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.




Newsmax – America



Judge Rules Computer Searches, Seizures Legal at US Borders

Bill Maher New Rules - Libertarians are ruining Libertarianism

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Bill Maher New Rules - Libertarians are ruining Libertarianism

Friday, December 27, 2013

US judge rules NSA phone surveillance program is legal

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


US judge rules NSA phone surveillance program is legal

US judge rules NSA phone surveillance program is legal

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



US judge rules NSA phone surveillance program is legal

Monday, December 23, 2013

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops



Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.








This week Sen. Elizabeth Warren and six colleagues introduced the Equal Employment for All Act, which would make it illegal for employers to disqualify job applicants based on their credit scores. It"s an admirable and important bill which deserves our support. It also gives us an opportunity to have a broader discussion about the kind of society we hope to become.


Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:


1. It aids the long-term unemployed.


Long-term unemployment is at historically high levels in this country, and policymakers have done far too little for this hard-hit group of Americans. They have experienced the ongoing loss of their way of life – often accompanied by the loss of their homes, their belongings, and their sense of self-worth.


Long-term unemployment is almost always accompanied by unpaid bills, which drastically lower a person"s credit score. Today that lower credit score can render a person unemployable, leading to the kinds of heartbreaking stories described in a New York Times article on the subject earlier this year.


Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.


2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.


One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.


We"ve seen that injustice played out in continued foreclosures, as banks evict families because their homes are worth less than the outstanding mortgage loan – thanks to the banks who created a housing bubble – and because many homeowners are unable to find adequate work as a result of the bank-created jobs recession.


We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.


And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.


This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.


3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.


Financial institutions enjoy extraordinary, even unprecedented power over individual Americans. A consumer"s relationship with a bank is no longer even the semblance of a contract between autonomous equals. It"s an asymmetrical relationship in which one party – the bank – can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, in many cases leaving the consumer with no recourse.


Sen. Warren"s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, goes a long way towards leveling this relationship. But financial institutions and other corporations still hold excessive power over individuals. One of their most powerful tools is the credit score.


The greatest tool consumers have against corporations and banks is, or should be, the ability to withhold payment when a contract isn"t honored. But a bad credit score hurts consumers in a number of ways. It makes it harder for them to find housing, it makes borrowing more expensive, and many consumers understand that it will make it harder for them to find a job – whether they are searching for one now, or (like most Americans) consider it likely that they"ll be looking for one at some point in the future.


Because of this leverage, many people are forced to passively accept injustices from misbehaving corporations. If they withhold payment, even in cases where a product was defective or services not rendered, they may find themselves unemployable.


This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.


4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.


The computer crowd likes to say that “Information wants to be free.” We"ve learned now that it actually wants to be very, very expensive – and it"s not interested in whether you remain free. Big Data is a self-sustaining and self-expanding institution which seeks to maximize profits by finding new markets for the information it gathers.


The credit score industry is an excellent case in point. FICO and its competitors began gathering credit information for lending institutions. Once they created systems for collecting the data, their only remaining challenge was a sales challenge: who else will buy it?


That"s how Big Data becomes big.


The employer market is enormous. Even in recessionary times like these, hundreds of thousands of hiring decisions are being made. Each involves multiple candidates. Cracking this market was a major “score” for the credit score industry. And if the social and human costs of entering this new market were enormous – well, that"s not their problem, is it?


It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.


5. This credit information isn"t even useful.


Our infatuation with Big Data can also lead us to ascribe more wisdom to it than it actually possesses. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon in action. The only academic research we could find on the topic, published in the Psychologist-Manager Journal in 2012, concluded that “Predictors extracted from applicant credit reports … had no relationship with either performance appraisal ratings or termination decisions.”


Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.


This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.


6. It reaffirms our values as a society.


If credit information doesn"t predict employee performance, why use it at all? Whether consciously or not, its only purpose becomes cultural, not economic. It becomes a way for people who have jobs to avoid those who don"t. It"s a way of stigmatizing the unemployed, as if they are carriers of a terrible contagion.


We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.


But that"s just superstition, and it"s not who we are. At our best, we"re a society whose citizens help one another in times of need. We"re a society that believes in equal opportunity. We"re a society that believes in the right to privacy. And we"re a society that believes people who want to work should be able to work.


Sen. Warren deserves credit for introducing this bill. So do her Senate co-sponsors: Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). And so does Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9), who introduced a similar bill in the House in 2011.


The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops



Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.








This week Sen. Elizabeth Warren and six colleagues introduced the Equal Employment for All Act, which would make it illegal for employers to disqualify job applicants based on their credit scores. It"s an admirable and important bill which deserves our support. It also gives us an opportunity to have a broader discussion about the kind of society we hope to become.


Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:


1. It aids the long-term unemployed.


Long-term unemployment is at historically high levels in this country, and policymakers have done far too little for this hard-hit group of Americans. They have experienced the ongoing loss of their way of life – often accompanied by the loss of their homes, their belongings, and their sense of self-worth.


Long-term unemployment is almost always accompanied by unpaid bills, which drastically lower a person"s credit score. Today that lower credit score can render a person unemployable, leading to the kinds of heartbreaking stories described in a New York Times article on the subject earlier this year.


Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.


2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.


One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.


We"ve seen that injustice played out in continued foreclosures, as banks evict families because their homes are worth less than the outstanding mortgage loan – thanks to the banks who created a housing bubble – and because many homeowners are unable to find adequate work as a result of the bank-created jobs recession.


We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.


And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.


This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.


3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.


Financial institutions enjoy extraordinary, even unprecedented power over individual Americans. A consumer"s relationship with a bank is no longer even the semblance of a contract between autonomous equals. It"s an asymmetrical relationship in which one party – the bank – can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, in many cases leaving the consumer with no recourse.


Sen. Warren"s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, goes a long way towards leveling this relationship. But financial institutions and other corporations still hold excessive power over individuals. One of their most powerful tools is the credit score.


The greatest tool consumers have against corporations and banks is, or should be, the ability to withhold payment when a contract isn"t honored. But a bad credit score hurts consumers in a number of ways. It makes it harder for them to find housing, it makes borrowing more expensive, and many consumers understand that it will make it harder for them to find a job – whether they are searching for one now, or (like most Americans) consider it likely that they"ll be looking for one at some point in the future.


Because of this leverage, many people are forced to passively accept injustices from misbehaving corporations. If they withhold payment, even in cases where a product was defective or services not rendered, they may find themselves unemployable.


This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.


4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.


The computer crowd likes to say that “Information wants to be free.” We"ve learned now that it actually wants to be very, very expensive – and it"s not interested in whether you remain free. Big Data is a self-sustaining and self-expanding institution which seeks to maximize profits by finding new markets for the information it gathers.


The credit score industry is an excellent case in point. FICO and its competitors began gathering credit information for lending institutions. Once they created systems for collecting the data, their only remaining challenge was a sales challenge: who else will buy it?


That"s how Big Data becomes big.


The employer market is enormous. Even in recessionary times like these, hundreds of thousands of hiring decisions are being made. Each involves multiple candidates. Cracking this market was a major “score” for the credit score industry. And if the social and human costs of entering this new market were enormous – well, that"s not their problem, is it?


It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.


5. This credit information isn"t even useful.


Our infatuation with Big Data can also lead us to ascribe more wisdom to it than it actually possesses. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon in action. The only academic research we could find on the topic, published in the Psychologist-Manager Journal in 2012, concluded that “Predictors extracted from applicant credit reports … had no relationship with either performance appraisal ratings or termination decisions.”


Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.


This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.


6. It reaffirms our values as a society.


If credit information doesn"t predict employee performance, why use it at all? Whether consciously or not, its only purpose becomes cultural, not economic. It becomes a way for people who have jobs to avoid those who don"t. It"s a way of stigmatizing the unemployed, as if they are carriers of a terrible contagion.


We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.


But that"s just superstition, and it"s not who we are. At our best, we"re a society whose citizens help one another in times of need. We"re a society that believes in equal opportunity. We"re a society that believes in the right to privacy. And we"re a society that believes people who want to work should be able to work.


Sen. Warren deserves credit for introducing this bill. So do her Senate co-sponsors: Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). And so does Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9), who introduced a similar bill in the House in 2011.


The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops



Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.








This week Sen. Elizabeth Warren and six colleagues introduced the Equal Employment for All Act, which would make it illegal for employers to disqualify job applicants based on their credit scores. It"s an admirable and important bill which deserves our support. It also gives us an opportunity to have a broader discussion about the kind of society we hope to become.


Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:


1. It aids the long-term unemployed.


Long-term unemployment is at historically high levels in this country, and policymakers have done far too little for this hard-hit group of Americans. They have experienced the ongoing loss of their way of life – often accompanied by the loss of their homes, their belongings, and their sense of self-worth.


Long-term unemployment is almost always accompanied by unpaid bills, which drastically lower a person"s credit score. Today that lower credit score can render a person unemployable, leading to the kinds of heartbreaking stories described in a New York Times article on the subject earlier this year.


Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.


2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.


One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.


We"ve seen that injustice played out in continued foreclosures, as banks evict families because their homes are worth less than the outstanding mortgage loan – thanks to the banks who created a housing bubble – and because many homeowners are unable to find adequate work as a result of the bank-created jobs recession.


We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.


And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.


This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.


3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.


Financial institutions enjoy extraordinary, even unprecedented power over individual Americans. A consumer"s relationship with a bank is no longer even the semblance of a contract between autonomous equals. It"s an asymmetrical relationship in which one party – the bank – can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, in many cases leaving the consumer with no recourse.


Sen. Warren"s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, goes a long way towards leveling this relationship. But financial institutions and other corporations still hold excessive power over individuals. One of their most powerful tools is the credit score.


The greatest tool consumers have against corporations and banks is, or should be, the ability to withhold payment when a contract isn"t honored. But a bad credit score hurts consumers in a number of ways. It makes it harder for them to find housing, it makes borrowing more expensive, and many consumers understand that it will make it harder for them to find a job – whether they are searching for one now, or (like most Americans) consider it likely that they"ll be looking for one at some point in the future.


Because of this leverage, many people are forced to passively accept injustices from misbehaving corporations. If they withhold payment, even in cases where a product was defective or services not rendered, they may find themselves unemployable.


This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.


4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.


The computer crowd likes to say that “Information wants to be free.” We"ve learned now that it actually wants to be very, very expensive – and it"s not interested in whether you remain free. Big Data is a self-sustaining and self-expanding institution which seeks to maximize profits by finding new markets for the information it gathers.


The credit score industry is an excellent case in point. FICO and its competitors began gathering credit information for lending institutions. Once they created systems for collecting the data, their only remaining challenge was a sales challenge: who else will buy it?


That"s how Big Data becomes big.


The employer market is enormous. Even in recessionary times like these, hundreds of thousands of hiring decisions are being made. Each involves multiple candidates. Cracking this market was a major “score” for the credit score industry. And if the social and human costs of entering this new market were enormous – well, that"s not their problem, is it?


It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.


5. This credit information isn"t even useful.


Our infatuation with Big Data can also lead us to ascribe more wisdom to it than it actually possesses. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon in action. The only academic research we could find on the topic, published in the Psychologist-Manager Journal in 2012, concluded that “Predictors extracted from applicant credit reports … had no relationship with either performance appraisal ratings or termination decisions.”


Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.


This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.


6. It reaffirms our values as a society.


If credit information doesn"t predict employee performance, why use it at all? Whether consciously or not, its only purpose becomes cultural, not economic. It becomes a way for people who have jobs to avoid those who don"t. It"s a way of stigmatizing the unemployed, as if they are carriers of a terrible contagion.


We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.


But that"s just superstition, and it"s not who we are. At our best, we"re a society whose citizens help one another in times of need. We"re a society that believes in equal opportunity. We"re a society that believes in the right to privacy. And we"re a society that believes people who want to work should be able to work.


Sen. Warren deserves credit for introducing this bill. So do her Senate co-sponsors: Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). And so does Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9), who introduced a similar bill in the House in 2011.


The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.


 

Related Stories


AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed



How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Obama Administration Relaxes Rules Of Health Care Law Ahead Of Deadline: Washington Post

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Obama Administration Relaxes Rules Of Health Care Law Ahead Of Deadline: Washington Post

Monday, December 16, 2013

Judge Rules That ‘Orwellian’ NSA Data-Mining Is Unconstitutional




123WhoWhatWhy has posted a link to the pdf of today’s court ruling on the NSA, here


U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled today that the government’s bulk collection of phone data probably is unconstitutional, setting up an appeals court showdown about Fourth Amendment rights over the secrets revealed by leaker Edward Snowden.


Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, said that the National Security Agency’s metadata collection violates privacy rights, made a preliminary ruling in favor of five plaintiffs who challenged the practice.


His 68-page ruling included withering words for the federal government, describing the wholesale scooping of data as Orwellian.


“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” he wrote. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”


He said the government has not revealed a single instance where the data collection “has actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”


The former NSA contractor Edward Snowden praised the ruling in a statement released through journalist Glenn Greenwald:


“I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts,” Snowden said. “Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”


Clearly, the NSA will stay on the front pages well into 2014. The link leads to Leon’s ruling. You can read it — and decide for yourself.


You can also get up to speed on other aspects of the attack on our privacy and constitutional rights, by rereading (or reading for the first time) some of the work WhoWhatWhy has been doing on these topics, such as this, this, this and this.


WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.



Graphics:  hughillustration.com



Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Keep it intelligent. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. And please read the article in its entirety before commenting. Note: We reserve the right to remove any post at any time.




WhoWhatWhy



Judge Rules That ‘Orwellian’ NSA Data-Mining Is Unconstitutional

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Conservative Groups Would Take Hit From New IRS Rules

Conservative Groups Would Take Hit From New IRS Rules
http://isbigbrotherwatchingyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/a0af6__irs-building_custom-79af8b4793589810bdfc6292470c9b55199ab766-s6-c30.jpg





Conservatives have criticized the new Internal Revenue Service rules for political dark money as an Obama administration attempt to gain political advantage.



Susan Walsh/AP

Conservatives have criticized the new Internal Revenue Service rules for political dark money as an Obama administration attempt to gain political advantage.



Conservatives have criticized the new Internal Revenue Service rules for political dark money as an Obama administration attempt to gain political advantage.


Susan Walsh/AP



The new U.S. Treasury/Internal Revenue Service rules aimed at clarifying what constitutes political activity for tax-exempt “social welfare” organizations are likely to give more heartburn to conservative groups than their liberal counterparts.


In 2012, conservatives pumped nearly eight times the money through their 501 (c) groups than liberals did, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ OpenSecrets.org website. (CRP has a handy description of what the different advocacy groups are legally allowed to do.)


CRP reported that conservatives spent $ 265.2 million through 501 (c) groups compared to $ 34.7 spent by liberal groups during the 2012 cycle.


NPR News’ Peter Overby, who covers campaign finance issues, provided us with an even more refined breakdown since the CRP data is for all groups in the 501 c category.


Peter reports that of the 28 social-welfare organizations that are known as 501 (c) (4) groups and spent at least $ 1 million in the 2012 election cycle, 20 were conservative. They spent a total $ 204 million.


Liberals made up seven of the $ 1 million-plus groups. Combined they spent $ 33 million. One independent group rounded out the field.


The Treasury Department explained in a statement that the new rules are a “step toward creating clear-cut definitions of political activity by tax-exempt social welfare organizations” amid confusion caused by the foggy existing regulations.


Some conservatives aren’t buying it. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, summed up the right’s suspicions in a statement:



“The fact that the Administration’s new effort only affects social welfare organizations — and not powerful unions or business groups — underscores that this is a crass political effort by the Administration to get what political advantage they can, when they can.”





News




Read more about Conservative Groups Would Take Hit From New IRS Rules and other interesting subjects concerning NSA at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Friday, November 15, 2013

House OKs coverage plans short of Obamacare rules





House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., center, leaves the office of House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2013, before a vote on a measure to let insurers keep offering health coverage that falls short of the law’s standards. A day earlier, the president changed course in the face of a public uproar over the flawed debut of the Affordable Care Act and said he would take administrative action — which doesn’t need congressional approval — to let companies continue selling such plans for at least another year. Unlike the House GOP bill, he would permit such sales to insurers’ existing customers only, not to new ones.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., center, leaves the office of House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Nov. 15, 2013, before a vote on a measure to let insurers keep offering health coverage that falls short of the law’s standards. A day earlier, the president changed course in the face of a public uproar over the flawed debut of the Affordable Care Act and said he would take administrative action — which doesn’t need congressional approval — to let companies continue selling such plans for at least another year. Unlike the House GOP bill, he would permit such sales to insurers’ existing customers only, not to new ones.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks at the Community Health and Social Services Center in Detroit Friday, Nov. 15, 2013. Sebelius says she’s confident a troubled federal website will work much better by month’s end so people can sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)





Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks about the Health Insurance Marketplace at the Community Health and Social Services Center in Detroit Friday, Nov. 15, 2013. Sebelius says she’s confident a troubled federal website will work much better by month’s end so people can sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)





Top Headlines



House OKs coverage plans short of Obamacare rules

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Federal judge rules that data sent through peer-to-peer file sharing is not private

Federal judge rules that data sent through peer-to-peer file sharing is not private
http://isbigbrotherwatchingyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/19b2a__gun_ban__2013-11-13-image-7.jpg



Some potential new legal precedence is being set by a federal judge in Vermont, after ruling that data shared via peer-to-peer file-sharing services should not be expected to be private.


The ruling came out of a case regarding child pornography, where the defendants attempted to have evidence dismissed based on the grounds in which it was obtained. The three defendants said that police scooped the pertinent data from a peer-to-peer network illegally, without a warrant.


In this case, law enforcement had made use of the Child Protection System, which is an assortment of software tools designed to track down child pornography online. The tools send out automated searches for files known to contain data of this kind, and then maps out matching files with an IP address, data and time, as well as various other details about the particular computer.


District Court Judge Christina Reiss denied the motion to have the scraped data be dismissed, saying that the defendants gave up any privacy they had by making the files available through the P2P service. Even though the police software was entirely automated, Reiss says that the data could have been obtained manually or by a member of the public just the same.


“The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the only information accessed was made publicly available by the IP address or the software it was using,” Judge Reiss explains. “Accordingly, either intentionally or inadvertently, through the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing software, Defendants exposed to the public the information they now claim was private.”




WHAT REALLY HAPPENED




Read more about Federal judge rules that data sent through peer-to-peer file sharing is not private and other interesting subjects concerning Police State at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Homeland Security must disclose ‘Internet Kill Switch,’ court rules


CJ Ciaramella
Washington Times
November 14, 2013


A literal kill switch, which is what DHS practically wants for the Internet. Credit: wlodi via Flickr

A literal kill switch, which is what DHS practically wants for the Internet. Credit: wlodi via Flickr




The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must disclose its plans for a so-called Internet “kill switch,” a federal court ruled on Tuesday.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the agency’s arguments that its protocols surrounding an Internet kill switch were exempt from public disclosure and ordered the agency to release the records in 30 days. However, the court left the door open for the agency to appeal the ruling.


The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is seeking “Standard Operating Procedure 303,” also known as the “Internet kill switch” from Homeland Security. The protocols govern shutting down wireless networks to prevent the remote detonation of bombs.


Read more


This article was posted: Thursday, November 14, 2013 at 11:39 am


Tags: big brother, domestic news, government corruption, internet, technology










Infowars



Homeland Security must disclose ‘Internet Kill Switch,’ court rules

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Washington & Colorado Reveal Rules Governing Pot Legalization

Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism October 17, 2013       Washington State will be regulating the total cap of marijuana (MJ) production to 80 metric tons and taxing the sale of pot exorbitantly. There are no current regulations on medical marijuana (MMJ). Other restrictions include: A ban on home growth Recreational “pot” stores cannot double [...]


The post Washington & Colorado Reveal Rules Governing Pot Legalization appeared first on Susanne Posel.




News & Headlines: Susanne Posel



Washington & Colorado Reveal Rules Governing Pot Legalization

Monday, October 14, 2013

New USDA rules further degrade integrity of organic certification











DeliciousPin It

(NaturalNews) Since its original inception back in the ’90s, the National Organic Program (NOP) has paved the way for food that is free of artificial ingredients, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and synthetic additives to flourish in the American marketplace under a common organic labeling standard. But this standard is now under attack, as new guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) strip key protections from the program that are meant to ensure that prohibited substances do not slip through the cracks.

While organic certification requirements have long allowed for certain prohibited substances to be used in organic food products when viable alternatives are unavailable, these exemptions have traditionally been bound by a “sunset process” that requires all prohibited substances to be removed after five years. The intent of this sunset process, of course, has always been to encourage manufacturers to seek out acceptable natural alternatives as quickly as possible so as to maintain the integrity of the organic program.


But the USDA recently issued a new ruling that does away with the mandatory expiration timeline for substances bound by the sunset process and instead allows them to be voted on for extended approval. As explained by Waking Times, this change puts an enormous burden on the public to keep a close eye on which substances are given sunset exemptions and when they are set to expire. In other words, it will be up to health-conscious individuals and consumer advocacy groups to convince members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to remove sunset exemptions from the list of approved substances.


“Under the new policy, an exempt material could be permitted indefinitely unless a two-thirds majority of the NOSB votes to remove an exempted (synthetic) substance from the list,” writes Natasha Longo for Waking Times. “The new policy allows USDA to relist exemptions for synthetic materials without the recommendation of the independent board and outside of public view, as required by current law.”


This is a far cry from the previous NOP requirements which mandated that all sunset exemptions be automatically removed from the permitted substance list after five years, except in the case that a two-thirds “decisive” majority from the NOSB, backed by public review, decides to keep a substance on the list for a longer period of time. Now, the NOSB will actually have to achieve a two-thirds vote just to remove a substance from the list.


To put this all into perspective, there has been much debate lately about whether or not carrageenan, a synthetic thickening substance made from seaweed, should be allowed in products labeled as organic. The USDA decided earlier this year to renew approval for the stabilizing agent in organic food products after conducing its own review of the scientific literature and voting on the issue in accordance with the Organic Food Products Act of 1990. But under the new rule, approval for carrageenan would have automatically been renewed apart from the board specifically voting against it.

“The USDA’s decision minimizes all incentives for creating organic, natural alternative ingredients and lowers the standard for what consumers can expect behind the organic label,” wrote Beyond Pesticides, the Consumers Union, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Food and Water Watch (FWW) in a recent joint statement about the ruling.


“Allowing the USDA to automatically relist materials without the recommendation of the NOSB erodes the Board’s legal authority over materials decisions, a key to consumer trust in the organic label … Potentially allowing an indefinite listing of non-natural ingredients and requiring a super-majority vote to retire a substance after five years undermines the spirit of the law for how materials head into ‘sunset’ or retirement.”


You can read the full statement from these groups here:
http://www.beyondpesticides.org.


You can also view the full USDA ruling for the Notification of Sunset Process, as published in the Federal Register, here:
www.federalregister.gov.


Sources for this article include:


http://www.wakingtimes.com


www.federalregister.gov


http://www.beyondpesticides.org


http://www.businesswire.com





Articles Related to This Article:


Interview: Organic Consumers Association’s Ronnie Cummins tells the truth about organic milk that isn’t

Organic Consumers Association’s Ronnie Cummings discusses corporate greed and organic milk


Whole Paycheck and Organic Food Deserts: The Challenge


Natural News exclusive: Whole Foods Market whistleblower says employees were deliberately trained to lie about GMOs – new Organic Spies video


Superfood meal powder review: Garden of Life Raw Meal and Boku Superfood


Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps Sues Estee Lauder and Others Over “Organic Cheater” Labeling



Related video from NaturalNews.TV



Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)


Have comments on this article? Post them here:



comments powered by




Related Articles:


Interview: Organic Consumers Association’s Ronnie Cummins tells the truth about organic milk that isn’t

Organic Consumers Association’s Ronnie Cummings discusses corporate greed and organic milk


Whole Paycheck and Organic Food Deserts: The Challenge


Natural News exclusive: Whole Foods Market whistleblower says employees were deliberately trained to lie about GMOs – new Organic Spies video


Superfood meal powder review: Garden of Life Raw Meal and Boku Superfood


Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps Sues Estee Lauder and Others Over “Organic Cheater” Labeling



Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com


Email this article to a friend

Permalink to this article:

Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.


Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):




NaturalNews.com



New USDA rules further degrade integrity of organic certification