Mediaboss Marketing

Just over a week ago, the Greyhound bus company announced that it would no longer allow Border Patrol agents to conduct immigration searches on its buses without a warrant. The company long maintained that while they didnt agree with the searches, they were bound by federal law to allow them.

Civil rights groups and immigrant rights advocates have appealed to the bus company over the past couple of years, urging Greyhound to refuse to comply with these checks, citing the Fourth Amendment right in the U.S. Constitution protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures without a proper warrant. After the Associated Press obtained a memo written by the U.S. Border Patrols recently retired chief, confirming that bus companies like Greyhound are not required to consent to these checks, Greyhound announced that it would no longer allow the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been among the groups that have applied pressure to Greyhound, with chapters in 10 states writing to the company in 2018 in an effort to get it to reverse the practice back then. In a recent email interview, David Loy, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and Eva Bitran, staff attorney in the advocacy department of the ACLU of Southern California, offered some background on this issue and their insight into why advocacy groups have opposed these checks. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

Q: What has been some of the history behind these immigration checks on buses?

Eva Bitran: We dont know precisely when the checks started, but reports of systematic, aggressive questioning of Greyhound passengers by CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) agents date back to at least 2010. The basic story, which weve heard repeated throughout the border region, is that CBP officials board Greyhound buses without a warrant or a specific target in mind and subject customers to harassment and racial profiling, singling out riders based on the color of their skin, language they speak, or accent they have. (Reporters note: Border Patrol has been reported as saying that they do not profile passengers based on their appearance, and that they question all passengers during these searches.)

Q: How and when did the ACLU first learn of these immigration bus checks? What were the concerns the ACLU had about these checks? And what was the ACLUs response to those concerns?

Bitran: In early 2018, ACLU affiliates across the country started hearing reports of CBP presence on Greyhound buses, some of which gained national notoriety, as noted in our 2018 letter. These stories shared a familiar pattern. ... (and) These operations violate the constitutional rights of individuals detained without individualized reasonable suspicion. Because they take place on Greyhounds private property, we saw that Greyhound had an opportunity to protect its customers from racial profiling and harassment by CBP.

Our response was to draft a letter to Greyhound in 2018 documenting several incidents in 2017 and 2018 along the southern and northern borders, and the coasts asking it to exercise its own Fourth Amendment rights denying bus access to Border Patrol agents without a warrant. Greyhound initially declined to do so, and so we mounted a public campaign that included distributing KYR (Know Your Rights) material in bus stations and disseminating a petition that got over 200,000 signatures.

Q: Why has this practice been something that civil rights and immigration advocates have disagreed with?

David Loy: We objected to CBPs profiling and harassment because it violates the core constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure and racial discrimination. The Constitution applies equally throughout the entire country. Like any law enforcement agency, CBP must adhere to the Constitution.

Q: Whats the response to the Border Patrols argument that the checks help prevent human trafficking, drugs and illegal immigration?

Loy: The Constitution is consistent with effective law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies have ample means to prevent and address illegal activity without violating the Constitution. Racial profiling and unlawful harassment undermine the community trust essential to effective law enforcement.

Q: Who would you say has been most impacted by this practice, and why does that matter?

Loy: Everyone riding Greyhound buses has been impacted by CBPs unlawful harassment, but those most impacted are persons of color and persons speaking languages other than English, or with accents assumed to be foreign. Such persons may be U.S. citizens or lawful residents, but even if they are not, they retain fundamental constitutional rights against racial profiling and unlawful search and seizure.

Q: Why should people, whether they travel by bus or what their citizenship status may be, be concerned about these kinds of bus searches?

Loy: Everyone is at risk when anyones constitutional rights are violated. Unless law enforcement is held accountable to its duty to adhere to the Constitution, the violation of one communitys rights inevitably leads to violation of everyones rights. History shows that abuses of power begin with marginalized and vulnerable communities, but they rarely stop there.

View original post here:
An end to immigration checks on Greyhound buses reaffirms Fourth Amendment argument from civil rights groups - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Following the November 2019 revisions to life and non-life insurance investment regulations, Thailands Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) has published a fourth amendment to the regulations, which came into effect on 29 January 2020. Key revisions are summarized below.

(1) New definitions introduced. To support wider investment opportunities presented in this amendment, and to provide more clarity, certain new definitions are introduced, including overseas financial institution, infrastructure, and private equity, and also definitions regarding derivatives and the healthcare businesses.

Some of the existing definitions have also been revised. These include sukuk, investment unit, and investable asset.

(2) Wider investment opportunities. The fourth amendment allows insurers to invest in private equity, real estate, mutual funds and infrastructure trusts. More importantly, insurers are now allowed to hold shares of an entity offering:

(3) Other key changes. Other changes are also addressed in this fourth amendment, including requirements on:

This amendment expands the investment options for insurers, providing more flexibility and potentially facilitating insurers risk allocation. Insurers are urged to familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure compliance, and to maximize investment opportunities.

Business Law Digest is compiled with the assistance of Baker McKenzie. Readers should not act on this information without seeking professional legal advice. You can contact Baker McKenzie by emailing Danian Zhang at [emailprotected].

Read this article:
Fourth amendment to Thailand investment regulations - Vantage Asia

A powerful coalition of senators on Thursday introduced a highly anticipated bill that would holdtech companies accountable for the millions of images and videos ofchildren being sexually abusedspreading across their platforms,a proposalthathas already riled up the tech industry and its most adamant supporters.

The EARN IT Act, introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamUS intel indicates Taliban does not plan to honor deal: report Surveillance deal elusive as deadline looms Hillicon Valley: Barr offers principles to prevent online child exploitation | Facebook removes misleading Trump census ads | House passes bill banning TSA use of TikTok MORE (R-S.C.) andSen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) alongside several top members of the committee, is one of the most significant congressional threats yet tothe tech industry'svaluable liability shield, which allows companies such as Facebook and Google to avoid lawsuits over what people say and post on their platforms.

The bill, which was met with a sea of opposition Thursday from tech trade groups as well as the privacy-focused American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), would establish a government-backed commission to recommend "best practices" around identifying and reporting online child sexual exploitation.

The EARN IT Act received endorsements from more than 70 groups,including top victim's rights advocacy organizations.

I appreciate my colleagues working with me on this bill to ensure tech companies are using best business practices to prevent child exploitation online,Graham said in a statement.This bill is a major first step. For the first time, you will have to earn blanket liability protection when it comes to protecting minors."

Reports of child sexual exploitation online have skyrocketed in recent years, as criminals use popular platforms including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to spread imagesand videos of minors in violation of federal law. But so far, the companies have been largely protected from facing lawsuits over the child sexual abuse material due to Section 230 protections.

"Our goal is to do this in a balanced way that doesnt overly inhibit innovation," Graham said, addressingthe burgeoning concerns that amending Section 230 could undermine the internet ecosystem that it helped create,"but forcibly deals with child exploitation.

Thebill was introduced just as the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced aseparate but related initiative, with the backing of tech companies including Facebook and Google, laying out11 voluntary steps the companies can take toward confronting theserious challenge of online sexual abuse.

The EARN IT Actwould go further thanDOJ's efforts,requiringthe companies to take certain steps to combatchild sexual exploitationon their platforms in order to "earn" that liability shield, which is laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The Internet Association, the tech trade group tasked with speaking for Silicon Valley in Washington, D.C., said ithas "very strong concerns" that the bill could "impede existing industry efforts" to eradicate child exploitation online.

"We look forward to working with Chairman Graham and Senator Blumenthal on a path forward," said Michael Bloom, the trade group's senior vice president of global government affairs.

Behind the scenes, even some Republicans on the committee have declined to back Graham's bill, raising concerns about government overreach and the Fourth Amendment,three sources told The Hill on Wednesday. The final bill has 10 co-sponsors, with six Democratic backers and four Republicans.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Mike CrapoMichael (Mike) Dean CrapoSenators introduce controversial bill to combat child sexual exploitation online On The Money: Stocks soar as Biden victories, central banks calm anxious investors | House passes .3B measure to fight coronavirus | Trump touts economic success at Hispanic summit Mnuchin details IRS challenges with cash-only marijuana businesses MORE (R-Idaho), a member of the committee, said in an email to The Hill, "SenatorCrapowill review the final text as introduced and looks forward to listening to testimony next week about the merits of the bill."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing specifically dedicated to the EARN IT Act on Wednesday.

Critics worrythat the billis ultimately an effort toundermine the tech industry's efforts to implement end-to-end encryption, afeature that makes it impossible for the companies or government to access private communications.

The DOJ andmembers of the Judiciary Committee, including Graham,in recent months have ramped up anaggressive public fight against end-to-end encryption, pressing the tech companies to build "backdoors"that allow law enforcement officials to access private messagesduring criminal investigations.

Barr has specificallywarned that encryption allows "criminals to operate with impunity" including thosewho disseminate images of children being sexually exploited.

Encryption can make it more difficult for law enforcement officials to identify and take action against online predators. But tech experts and privacy activists have continually argued that building any "backdoor" to encrypted communications would allow bad actors, such as hackers and authoritarian governments, to access private messages. They say there's no way to create a loophole that only allows law enforcement into encrypted communications.

Despite those arguments, last year, top law enforcement officials including FBI Director Christopher Wray specifically called out Facebook for its plans to implement end-to-end encryption across its services with billions of total users. And senators on the Judiciary Committee warned they would push through legislative solutions to the problem of encryption if the companies did not act to address law enforcement's concerns.

Graham's bill does not explicitly mention encryption, but the ACLU in a press release saidthe EARN IT Act"would lead to a 'backdoor' inencryptedservices, thereby jeopardizing the security of every individual."

"The EARN It Act threatens the safety of activists, domestic violence victims, and millions of others who rely on strongencryptionevery day," said ACLU senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane. "This legislation would empower an unelected commission to effectively mandate what Congress has time and again decided against, while also jeopardizing free expression on the Internet in the process."

"This bill is not the solution to the real and serious harms it claims to address," Ruane said.

Graham's bill immediately riled up at least onecritic within the upper chamber Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenOvernight Energy: Watchdog blasts planning behind BLM relocation | Progress on Senate energy bill | Dems eye two measures for inclusion ahead of vote Democrats focus on two amendments for Senate energy bill Vulnerable Republicans dodge questions on support for ObamaCare lawsuit MORE (D-Ore.). He slammed it as a "Trojan horse to give Attorney General [William] Barrand Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump to award Medal of Freedom to golfers Annika Sorenstam and Gary Player Democratic senator requests classified briefing ahead of Burisma-related subpoena vote Poll finds both Republicans and Democrats describe Trump as 'self-centered' MORE the power tocontrolonline speech and require government access to every aspect of Americans' lives."

Wydensaid he will introduce legislation "in the coming days" to combat child sexual exploitation by increasing the number of prosecutors and agents hunting down predators.

Blumenthal told The Hill on Thursday that he has a message for those who are concerned that the bill could threaten private, encrypted communications: "This is not an encryption bill."

He argued that the bill is explicitly written to ensure that the tech industry and privacy experts have a say in the "best practices" created by the commission. The Connecticut senator, a former state attorney general, said the technology company representatives on the panel could band together to vote down any anti-encryption proposals.

The bill is also facing headwinds from another direction: the Senate Commerce Committee, which claims near-total jurisdiction over Section 230 and has continually battled with the Judiciary committee when it tries to encroach on the law.

"The Commerce Committee is reviewing the EARN IT Act as it relates to Section 230, which is under the purview of the committee, to determine whether statutory updates are needed in the battle to protect children online," a senior aide on the panel told The Hill in an email.

Updated at 5:31 p.m.

See the original post:
Senators introduce controversial bill to combat child sexual exploitation online | TheHill - The Hill

The entrance to the Department of Public Safety.

Last July, the New Jersey State Assembly unanimously passed Bill A-4553, which would have granted qualified immunity to public-safety officers who patrol private institutions. The Universitys Department of Public Safety (DPS), which, as of June 2019, employed 33 of the approximately 70 officers who work at private universities in New Jersey, offered testimony in support of the measure. Though the bill did not reach the floor of the State Senate, this Board finds the Universitys advocacy for qualified immunity disturbing.

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects officers from liability if they violate a plaintiffs rights, with the exception of cases in which they breach a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. By blocking avenues for legal recourse, qualified immunity renders citizens constitutional rights meaningless.

Qualified immunity was first invoked in a 1967 Supreme Court case, Pierson v. Ray, to shield white police officers from a lawsuit they faced for enforcing segregation. Today, it continues to be used to protect officers who engage in horrific acts of abuse, often towards people of color.

In 2004, Malaika Brooks, a black woman who was seven months pregnant, was driving her 11-year-old son to school in Seattle when she was pulled over for speeding. When she refused to sign the speeding ticket, fearing that doing so would be an admission of guilt, the officers demanded she get out of her car. After she refused, they tased her three times, dragged her across the street, and placed her in handcuffs.

Brooks sued the officers for use of excessive force, but her case was dismissed. The judges admitted that the officers had used excessive force, but, citing qualified immunity, concluded the officers could not have known their actions amounted to a constitutional violation. This is just one of countless examples.

In his testimony before the State Assembly, DPS Executive Director Paul Ominsky defended qualified immunity, which already applies to DPS officers in their interactions with students and other beneficiaries of the University. He argued the doctrine should also apply to officers interactions with non-affiliates on campus, because DPS officers require the same legal privilege as local police officers with whom they work side-by-side.

Indeed, we do take DPS officers as seriously as their counterparts. We stand against qualified immunity for campus police, as well as for all other officers. As Ominsky said himself, at a town hall hosted yesterday by Whig-Clio and Students for Prison Education and Reform (SPEAR), officers should be held accountable.

Other supporters contend that qualified immunity allows law enforcement to perform the discretionary functions of their job without fear of liability. There are scenarios, they argue, in which an officer might need to exercise force to uphold public safety, and the fear of facing a lawsuit might prevent them from doing so.

Yet, studies show that police officers rarely think about the possibility of getting sued while performing their jobs. As Micah Herskind 19 told The Appeal last August, you only need immunity for police violence if you plan on allowing for police violence.

Strengthening the relationship between the community and the Public Safety Officers who exist to protect us is essential to keeping campus safe for all, a point the officers repeatedly emphasized at last nights town hall. Qualified immunity only tilts the balance of power away from the community, fraying this crucial bond.

This Board opposes qualified immunity on principle and finds no reason for the University to support the expansion of this practice. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor 76, qualified immunity renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow and sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public. It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.

144TH EDITORIAL BOARD

Chair

Zachariah W. Sippy 22

Members

Benjamin Ball 21

Shannon E. Chaffers 22

Rachel Kennedy 21

Kate Lee 23

Madeleine Marr 21

Jonathan A. Ort 21

Elizabeth Parker 21

Emma Treadway 22

Ivy Truong 21

Cy Watsky 21

Originally posted here:
A disservice to the community: Against qualified immunity - The Daily Princetonian

Photo: Protesters surround an ICE van holding Samuel Oliver-Bruno at the US Citizenship & Immigration Services office in Morrisville in November 2018. (photo by Anna Carson-DeWitt)

Ten people involved in November 2018 protest attempting to block the deportation of a man who had been in sanctuary in a Durham church saw their charges dropped in a Wake County courtroom today.

Samuel Oliver-Bruno had been staying at CityWell United Methodist Church in Durham, and the day after Thanksgiving 2018 he went to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Morrisville for what he expected to be a routine fingerprinting as a good-faith step in his quest for reprieve from a deportation order. Video published by the News & Observer shows Oliver-Bruno being tackled inside the immigration office, followed by a chaotic scene as ICE officers rushed him to a van, and supporters surrounded the vehicle while singing Amazing Grace.

Charges against 17 other defendants charged in the protest were previously dismissed after they completed community service under deferred prosecution agreements.

The remaining 10 defendants were each charged with failure to disperse and resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer.

Scott Holmes, the lawyer representing the 10 defendants, told Judge Eric Chasse that the failure to disperse charge requires a reasonable belief that a riot or disorderly conduct is occurring, and nothing like that took place during the incident.

Morrisville police Chief Patrice Andrews testified that an individual who was not among the defendants said f*** the police to her.

It gives me pause for concern that I potentially am going to lose control of a situation that until this point have worked very hard to control and to de-escalate, she said.

But the individual who said f*** the police was not arrested, and Andrews said she thought it would have been counterproductive to do so.

Assistant District Attorney Daniel Watts argued that the utterance of f*** the police was disorderly conduct.

Judge Chasse agreed with Holmes.

In so far as there was a belief that a riot or disorderly conduct was occurring, I cannot find under these facts that thats a reasonable belief, he said. And that is a predicate to issuing an order to disperse.

Chief Andrews testified that she responded to a call about ICE agents apprehending someone and not being allowed to leave. She said she was not familiar with the US Customs & Immigration Services building in her town.

So, I will tell you on that day it was actually a shock to all of us that this particular location was a location in which ICE was present at, to be quite honest with you, she said. Its a very unassuming building.

When she arrived on the scene, Andrews said she approached the ICE agents to figure out what was going on.

They were sitting in the car, Andrews said. I will be quite honest with you: They did not want to give me a lot of information. And I had to really press to talk to someone about what was going on.

Andrews said she viewed the federal arrest warrant for Oliver-Bruno, adding that she considered it her duty to do so and justify why we were being called there.

Andrews could not recall exactly what offense was described on the warrant. If I remember correctly, she said, it was something to the effect of, it was failure to comply or something along those lines.

Holmes pressed Andrews on whether she knew Oliver-Brunos arrest was a criminal as opposed to a civil matter, challenging the local law enforcement agencies authority to assist ICE.

I have training on proper Fourth Amendment search and seizure, Andrews said. I have over 20 some years of experience of being a law enforcement officer who is just and true. If I didnt feel ICE was there for a lawful reason, certainly we would not number one, there wouldnt be charges for the delay and obstruct of an officer. And there certainly would not have been the failure to disperse. There wouldnt have been one without the other.

Judge Chasse indicated he was having trouble ascertaining whether the resist, delay and obstruct charges were legally supportable considering he didnt know the name of the ICE agent, jestingly referring to him as Agent Voldemort.

I just dont have the evidence in front of me, he said, and I think Im stuck in that regard.

Chasse dismissed both charges against Susanna Barcus, Elizabeth Johnson, Hannah Hawkins and Frank Chambers. Afterwards, Assistant District Attorney Watts dismissed charges against Harold May, Lauren Park, Manju Rajendran, Jose Romero, Corey Summers and Scott West.

Rajendran said the dismissal was a bittersweet experience.

Ifeel so relieved that we were able to get our charges dismissed, she said. Imalso holding a lot of grief with the awareness that Samuel was unjustlydeported, and the suffering that their family and the whole community thatloves them has gone through. No family should ever have to go through that.

Rajendran was one of many Triangleactivists who responded to support Oliver-Bruno and suddenly found themselves makingthe decision to put themselves at risk of arrest after federal immigration authoritiesunexpectedly took Oliver-Bruno into custody.

What pulled me there that day with my daughter and family was a feeling that weve just got to create a system of solidarity so that when ICE agents are showing up to kidnap a member of our community, we all stand up for each other and protect each other, Rajendran said. I felt proud of our family for making a really swift decision that required very little deliberation to race there and show our support.

My mother was undocumented, shecontinued. And I felt like we had the chance that day to show up for ourneighbors in a way we would have hope our neighbors would have showed up forour family if something like that had happened to us.

Rajendrans daughter, who was2-years-old at the time, witnessed her arrest, and she said her daughter stillasks why Oliver-Bruno was taken away.

Rajendran said it was not difficultfor her as a mother to make the decision to put herself in a situation whereshe could be arrested.

But there was a police officer whowas trying to pressure me to break away, saying that it was not where Ibelonged as a mother, she recalled. And I said I was there because I wantedto be a part of building a world that my daughter and all children could thriveand be safe in.

Visit link:
Charges dropped against 10 who attempted to block an ICE van in Wake County - Triad City Beat