Mediaboss Marketing

Click hereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today spoke on the Senate floor about the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act, his new bipartisan bill that would establish a risk-based process to identify and mitigate foreign-adversary threats to American information and communications technology. Thune noted that its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology, such as TikTok.

Thune today penned an op-ed with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) in FoxNews.com about the RESTRICT Act.

Thunes remarks below (as prepared for delivery):

Mr. President, theres been a lot of talk about TikTok in the halls of Congress lately, and with good reason.

Because its become increasingly clear that TikTok poses serious national security concerns.

TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, are Chinese-owned entities with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

And after a Chinese spy balloon floated over our country a few weeks ago, I think its obvious to everyone that the Chinese Communist Party is hostile to the interests of the United States and spies on American citizens.

And I can think of few better or easier ways to spy on American citizens or manipulate American public opinion than to make use of a popular app that is used by over 100 million Americans.

In the United States, of course, we have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to protect the data Americans provide to apps from being seized by the government.

But the Chinese Communist Party has no such restraints.

In fact, Chinese law requires social media and technology companies to provide information including individually identifiable personal information to the Chinese government when asked.

So there is no legal framework in China to effectively protect TikTok users or users of any China-based app from having their personal information turned over to the Chinese Communist Party.

And there are already concerning signs that TikTok users personal information is not secure.

It was reported last year that China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed private data from TikTok users in the U.S., despite TikToks claim to the contrary.

And in December 2022, it was found that ByteDance employees inside China used the app to obtain the locations of journalists who worked on stories highlighting TikToks national security risks.

This obviously has implications for Americans personal security and privacy.

And it raises troubling questions about how the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok for its own ends, whether thats using personal data to develop sources for espionage or manipulating content to advance the Communist Partys agenda.

Mr. President, TikTok is not the first time technology from a hostile nation has posed a serious security concern.

Before there was TikTok, we had to engage in a protracted effort to remove technology from Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from our telecommunications networks after U.S. security officials raised concerns that much of Huaweis and ZTEs equipment was built with backdoors giving the Chinese Communist Party access to global communications networks.

The digital age has come with enormous benefits, but it also comes with substantial new threats not least the threat of a hostile foreign government exploiting communications technology for nefarious purposes.

And that threat increases substantially when were talking about technology from hardware to social media apps produced by companies in hostile nations and affiliated with hostile governments.

In recent years, a number of foreign companies in the information and communications technology space many of them subject to the control of hostile governments have gained significant market share.

Current law provides some remedies for confronting the dangers these companies present.

For example, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, can block attempted investments from foreign companies if these investments are determined to present a national security risk.

But the authorities the federal government currently has were fashioned in a pre-digital age, and therefore not designed for the specific threats posed by digital technology controlled by foreign-adversary nations.

And as a result the federal government is limited in what it can do in situations like the one we currently face with TikTok.

What is needed is a comprehensive framework for responding to national security risks posed by foreign-adversary-owned digital technology whether thats TikTok, or some other app, or mobile phone technology, or internet hardware.

While CFIUS has the ability to address some risks, the reality is that the mere presence of a technology from a foreign adversary in the United States does not trigger CFIUS review.

For a tech platform that does not acquire, merge with, or invest in a U.S. company, CFIUS review does not apply.

So, for example, WeChat, the other Chinese-controlled app that President Trump sought to ban back in 2020, is apparently not subject to CFIUS review.

Legislation is necessary to fill this important gap in authority.

Thats why earlier this month Democrat Senator Mark Warner chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or the RESTRICT Act which now has the support of 18 senators from both parties.

Our legislation would create a comprehensive process based at the U.S. Department of Commerce for identifying and mitigating foreign threats to information and communications technology products and services.

I want to emphasize that the authorities of the RESTRICT Act only apply to six foreign-adversary countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Under our bill, the Department of Commerce would review any information and communications technology product from these countries that is deemed to present a possible security threat, with an emphasis on products used in critical telecommunications infrastructure or with serious national security implications.

And the secretary of commerce would be required to develop a range of measures to mitigate the danger posed by these products, up to and including a complete ban on the product in question.

The bill would also ensure transparency by requiring the commerce secretary to coordinate with the director of national intelligence to provide declassified information on why any measures taken against foreign-adversary-owned technology products were necessary.

Importantly, the RESTRICT Act also requires the secretary of commerce to act within 180 days after initiating a review.

A common complaint about the ongoing CFIUS review of TikTok is that it has been open-ended and taken years to complete.

By comparison, the RESTRICT Act requires quick action to take the necessary steps to mitigate an undue risk from technology of a foreign-adversary nation.

Mr. President, there is bipartisan acknowledgment that TikTok poses a national security risk.

And the RESTRICT Act provides a framework for confronting both current and future risks.

Im grateful to both Republican and Democrat colleagues for joining Senator Warner and me to introduce this bill.

Its time to update our laws to ensure that we are able to confront the national security threats posed by foreign-adversary technology.

And I look forward to working with colleagues from both parties, in both chambers, to advance the RESTRICT Act and get it to the presidents desk.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

See more here:
Thune Discusses Bill to Combat National Security Risks From ... - Senator John Thune

What if a constitutional right meant to guarantee your security was actually a license to harm or even kill you?

Thats the premise for the James McCormick Mitchell Lecture, the School of Laws signature lecture series, to be held April 7. The address is titled Race, the Supreme Court, and Police Power.

The speaker, UCLA School of Law Professor Devon W. Carbado, is a renowned scholar of constitutional law, criminal procedure and critical race theory. His widely acclaimed book, Unreasonable: Black Lives, Police Power, and the Fourth Amendment, published last year, argues that the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to treat unreasonable police tactics as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment has shortened the distance between life and death for Black people.

Many forms of policing that people find troubling are perfectly legal under a particular body of constitutional law Fourth Amendment doctrine, Carbado writes. Over the past five decades, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment to allocate enormous power to the police: to surveil, to racially profile, to stop-and-frisk, and to kill.

Carbado will develop those themes in his April 7 appearance in the Charles B. Sears Law Library in OBrian Hall, North Campus. The event, from noon to 2 p.m., includes a discussion with UB Law faculty members Alexandra Harrington, associate professor, and Athena Mutua, professor and Floyd H. & Hilda L. Hurst Faculty Scholar. A reception will follow.

Police victimization of people of color is an obvious moral scandal., says Michael Boucai, professor of law and chair of the schools Mitchell Lecture Steering Committee. Far less evident are the legal mechanisms enabling it. Thats what makes Professor Carbados recent work so necessary. His description of the problems constitutional architecture is unmatched in acumen and accessibility.

A 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School, Carbado holds the Hon. Harry Pregerson Professor of Law chair at UCLA School of Law; he joined the faculty in 1997.

The event is free and open to the public. Registration is available online.

The Mitchell Lecture series was endowed in 1950 by a gift from Lavinia A. Mitchell in memory of her husband, James McCormick Mitchell. An 1897 graduate of the Buffalo Law School, Mitchell later served as chairman of the Council of the University of Buffalo, which was then a private university.

Justice Robert H. Jackson delivered the first Mitchell Lecture in 1951, titled Wartime Security and Liberty Under Law. The lecture was published that year in the first issue of the Buffalo Law Review.

See the original post:
Mitchell lecture to address race, the Supreme Court and police power - University at Buffalo

STAMFORD A U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that police violated the free-speech rights of Stamford resident Michael Friend, who was arrested in 2018 for holding up a sign saying Cops Ahead near where city police were conducting a distracted-driving operation.

"This decision is a solid affirmation of the fact that people have the right to protest the police," said Elana Bildner, senior staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Connecticut and an attorney on the case. "When Michael Friend held up a sign on a Stamford sidewalk to alert people to police activity, he was well within his First Amendment rights, and Stamford police never should have arrested him. This decision is good news for protesters rights and should serve as a reminder to all police in Connecticut that they cannot and should not silence speech like Mr. Friends."

But attorney Elliot Spector, who represents Lt. Richard Gasparino, the officer who arrested Friend, maintains that his client was just doing his job and said he plans to file a motion for summary judgement, claiming Gasparino had "qualified immunity."

"An officer in (Gasparino's) position at the time would believe that he is acting in good faith," Spector said. "There is no clearly established lawthat would inform him that his actions are unconstitutional."

Spector also cited cases from the United States Supreme Court and lower courts that "would inform officers under similar circumstances that (Gasparino's) actions were constitutional."

The legal dust-up stems fromApril 2018 when Gasparino then a sergeant arrested Friend and charged him with interfering with police.

According to a lawsuit filed by Friend shortly after his arrest, Friendcreated a sign reading Cops Ahead, after he saw Gasparino standing near where police were conducting the distracted driving detail and alerting other officers to motorists allegedly violating the states distracted driving law.

Gasparino reportedly approached Friend, told him to stop and took the sign away. Gasparino threatened to arrest Friend when he started recording the officer with his phone, according to the suit.

Friend then made a bigger sign reading "Cops Ahead" and moved to another location. Friend was arrested after he recorded Gasparino when he approached again, the suit states.

After his arrest, Friend was held on $25,000 bond until a bail commissioner released him on a promise to appear in court. A Stamford judge dismissed the charge on May 7, 2018.

In his lawsuit, Friend alleged that Gasparino violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right againstmalicious prosecution. Friend also claimed the City of Stamford violated his 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

In 2020, a federal judge threw out Friend's suit, claiming that it was "questionable" whether Friend's actions rose to "the level ofexpression of an opinion related to a matter of public significance." Even if Friend's actions constituted an exercise of free speech, that court claimed that Gasparino's actions were acceptable because he and his fellow officers were "saving lives by stopping distracted driversand issuing citations for their behavior."

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

In a decision issued Feb. 27, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the earlier findings that Gasparino violated Friend's rights to free speech and freedom from malicious prosecution.

"The district court erred when it held that Friends arrest was supported by probable cause and that Gasparinos actions did notviolate Friends First Amendment right to freedom of speech," the findings read.

The 29-page decision said, among other things, that "The district courts suggestion that only 'expression(s)of an opinion related to a matter of public significance' merit First Amendment protection is unsupported in our case law."

However, the Court of Appeals did uphold the district court's ruling showing that the City of Stamford didn't violate Friend's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

"The City is pleased the Second Circuit upheld the District Courts grant of summary judgment in its favor," said Barbara L. Coughlan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Stamford.

Excerpt from:
Court supports suit of Stamford man with 'cops ahead' sign - Torrington Register Citizen

New City, NY, The Rockland County Office of Buildings and Codes (OBC) and the Department of Health Center for Rockland Codes Investigations (RCI) have spent the past two weeks inspecting all properties owned by Jacob Jeremias, his wife Etsy Jeremias, and properties under his corporation, 7 Ohio LLC. Jacob Jeremias owns 118 S. Lake Street, which was the site of a recent fatal fire that resulted in 5 deaths.

Any and all information gathered by the County of Rockland will be provided to the Spring Valley Police Department, Rockland District Attorneys Office, and the Internal Revenue Service pending the completion of these investigations.

The OBC found a significant number of New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code violations at each of the following properties owned and related to Jacob Jeremias. An excess of 250 potential violations were found and are being finalized before being issued to Jacob Jeremias. A property-by-property breakdown of violations will be provided once they have been issued.

116 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 118 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 120 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 122 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 86 N. Lake St., Spring Valley - 3 Jay St., Spring Valley - 6 Sherwood Ave., Spring Valley - 4 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley - 5 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley - 7 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley

The County Office of Buildings and Codes (OBC) assumed control of the Village of Spring Valley Building Department as ordered by New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) effective February 14, 2022.

Under New York State law, 3-family homes and above, commercial buildings, and places of assembly are subject to mandatory inspections. Each of the above properties are single or two-family private residences which are not subject to state mandated inspections.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to be secure in their houses and prohibits the government from entering without a search warrant supported by probable cause.

Inspectors were granted access to the above properties with the permission and authority of the tenants. The County of Rockland urges people to submit complaints of unsafe housing conditions in the Village of Spring Valley to the Office of Buildings and Codes to attempt similar complaint-driven inspections.

The Center for Rockland Codes Investigations (RCI) found more than 150 potential violations on the following properties owned and related to Jeremias:

120 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 122 S. Lake St., Spring Valley - 6 Sherwood Ave., Spring Valley - 4 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley - 5 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley - 7 Ohio Ave., Spring Valley - 3 De Baun Place, Hillcrest - 46 West Hickory St., Hillcrest

Fines are still being assessed and finalized but many properties had common violations including:

Inspectors learned smoke detectors were installed by the landlord in at least 3 properties following the fatal fire.

The Office of Buildings and Codes requests all interested parties submit complaints within the Village of Spring Valley by calling 845-364-3700 or emailing BuildingsAndCodes@co.rockland.ny.us.

Rockland Codes Investigations requests all Sanitary Code Violations be reported to 845-364-2585 or by filing a report online.

The Rockland County Department of Healths Healthy Neighborhoods Program (HNP) provides free safety outreach, including providing smoke detectors, and education to eligible residents including low-income residents, seniors, and at-risk families.

To schedule a free Healthy Neighborhoods Program home visit, a presentation for your organization, or for more information, please call 845-364-3292 or 845-364-3290.

Read more from the original source:
County of Rockland, New York :: OBC & RCI Inspect All Properties ... - Rockland County

Sixty years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. The court held that states must abide by the Sixth Amendment and that those whose liberty is threatened by criminal prosecution have the assistance of an attorney: The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.

In the decades since, the Supreme Court has expanded the right to counsel in important ways, declaring that the right extends to children in juvenile delinquency proceedings, to probationers in probation revocation proceedings, and to people charged with misdemeanors. The court has established that the right includes an obligation for lawyers to correctly advise their clients about certain immigration consequences of criminal convictions, and that the right includes effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining.

Today we celebrate these Supreme Court decisions and the public defenders who dedicate themselves to fulfilling Gideons promise. Public defenders are guardians of our constitutional rights, and therefore guardians of the freedoms that our rights protect. When public defenders zealously defend their clients, they are holding us all to our stated beliefs that these rights are for everyone not just the innocent, not just the wealthy or the socially favored.

Safeguarding the Constitution

As we ring in 60 years of Gideon, its important to remember what paved the way. Twenty-five years before the landmark decision, the court held that the Sixth Amendment requires counsel to be provided to someone unable to hire their own lawyer in federal criminal cases. And 50 years before Gideon, our countrys first public defender agency conceived of by Californias first female lawyer opened its doors in Los Angeles, California.

Clarence Earl Gideon

Credit: AP Photo

By the time Gideon was decided, many states already had laws or procedures in place to ensure that indigent people at risk of losing their liberty were represented by counsel. But some states lagged behind. Florida, the state in which Gideon arose, argued in the Supreme Court that it should not be required to equalize social and economic conditions among its citizens, by providing counsel for all indigent people. Alabama and North Carolina filed an amicus brief agreeing with Florida and asking the court to leave them alone. They argued that forcing states to abide by the Sixth Amendment would be socialism, and that those gratuitous services should only be provided if the people of individual states believe they are warranted morally or are feasible financially. Fortunately, they lost, and Clarence Earl Gideon won.

The right to counsel is fundamental: It means a criminal defense lawyer is there to uphold everyones constitutional rights even those accused of violent crimes. And public defenders know that our constitutional rights are only as strong as our willingness to uphold them in the face of the worst accusations. Our rights include the presumption of innocence, which means it is the governments job to try to prove our guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Public defenders dedicate themselves to the wisdom handed down by Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who all taught a version of the same lesson: A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens, but by how it treats its criminals.

Public defenders will stand beside you, insist on your humanity, and demand that you are entitled to the protections of our constitution no matter what. They fight at every turn seeking pretrial release, challenging the introduction of the governments evidence, holding the government to its burden of proof at trial, negotiating favorable plea deals, and advocating for humane sentences.

Ensuring That Constitutional Rights Endure

The Eighth Amendment imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such, but the Supreme Court has decided that those limits are to be applied sparingly. As a result, our collective choices about what is criminalized changes considerably over time, reflecting shifts in social mores and politics. At different times in this countrys history, we have criminalized people who escaped enslavement, sexual contact between people of the same gender, filming the police, interracial marriage, adultery, and contraception. Marijuana possession and distribution remains criminalized in the federal code and in many state codes, while in other states marijuana distribution is a legal and booming business. And we are now returning to an era of increasing criminalization for having or helping someone have an abortion, as well as bills that criminalize gender affirming care. Public defenders ensure that our constitutional rights endure, in contrast to the ever-changing and often unjust landscape of what we call criminal.

Exposing Abuses of Power

In addition to upholding our rights and protecting the most disfavored among us from arbitrary and lawless treatment, public defenders play a crucial role in exposing government abuses of power. As they challenge the governments evidence, public defenders discovered government programs that invade our privacy, including overbroad use of surveillance cameras attached to utility poles, flawed facial recognition technology, and the mining of discarded or shed DNA. It was appointed counsel representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay who exposed one of the darkest chapters of recent time government-sponsored torture, physical abuse, and arbitrary detention.

Public defenders also expose racist practices in law enforcement. They raised the alarm on rampant Fourth Amendment violations in the New York City Police Departments stop and frisk program, which targeted people of color, especially Black New Yorkers, and the LA County Sheriffs racial profiling on the I-5 freeway. In Seattle, Washington, public defenders challenged a system of racially biased prosecutions for drug crimes, which ultimately led to the creation of a groundbreaking diversion program.

Making the Noble Ideal a Reality

We are living in an era of mass incarceration and overcriminalization that has robbed generations of their liberty, torn families and communities apart, and entrenched economic and racial inequality. Public defenders witness and attempt to combat this systemic oppression every day. Despite the essential roles public defenders play, they are consistently undervalued. In too many places, lawmakers dont adequately fund public defenders, and as a result, peoples access to quality public defense lags behind our noble ideal. If we are ever to realize this ideal, we must better understand the crucial role public defenders play in protecting all of our rights.

Sixty years ago, Gideon ushered in a new era, establishing a fundamental legal protection for people accused of crimes. The decision resulted in meaningful change, but there is more work to do because the principle announced in Gideon is not yet a reality across much of the country. At a moment when our fundamental rights are being increasingly eroded, we must fulfill the promise of Gideon. Thriving public defense systems strengthen our constitutional order, an interest that we all share.

Read this article:
Celebrating 60 Years of Gideon v. Wainwright - ACLU