Mediaboss Marketing

You do not usually expect to see former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, President of the progressive American Constitution Society, on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal.When you do, it is likely on an issue where Right and Left should be able to agree, and so it is today with his op-ed explaining why the Capitol insurrection, and the broader upsurge in domestic violence by fringe groups, white supremacists, conspiracists, anarchists and others, does not justify enacting a new, expanded PATRIOT Act.

As Feingold notes, "The overwhelming tendency in domestic antiterrorism has been to use invasive and unconstitutional surveillance techniques to criminalize legitimate dissent." This history should cause us to pause before expanding the authority of federal law enforcement to engage in surveillance and related activities.

Feingold continues:

We must not . . . confuse the need for a forceful response with the need for new law-enforcement powers. The law already gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. prosecutors extensive powers to counter those who use violence for political purposes. . . . [F]ederal law enforcement already has sweeping power to get at criminal organizations and those who support them.

In using these powers domestically, however, federal law enforcement is bound by the Fourth Amendment and other civil-liberties protections. This seems to be the real concern for supporters of new domestic terrorism laws. What they want is new, less-constrained surveillance powers that might allow, say, law enforcement to use wiretaps without first demonstrating probable cause that a crime is being committed and obtaining approval from a judge. . . .

As James Baldwin observed more than 50 years ago, when we bring home battlefield notions of counterinsurgency, we end up burning down our own communities, ostensibly in order to save them. Let us not repeat that mistake.

I may not agree with Feingold on much, but when he's right, he's right.

See the rest here:
There Is No Need for Another PATRIOT Act - Reason

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of February, 2021

Commission File Number: 001-12102

YPF Sociedad Annima

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Macacha Gemes 515

C1106BKK Buenos Aires, Argentina

(Address of principal executive office)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

Form 20-F Form 40-F

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):

Yes No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):

YPF Sociedad Annima

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM

1 Translation of letter to the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange dated February 8, 2021.2

Buenos Aires, February 7, 2021

To the

COMISIN NACIONAL DE VALORES

MERCADO ABIERTO ELECTRNICO S.A.

BOLSAS Y MERCADOS ARGENTINOS S.A.

Re.: Relevant Information- Amendment to the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation.

.

Dear Sirs:

We hereby address you in relation to the exchange offers and consent solicitation related to (i) class XLVII notes due 2021 (the "Old Notes"); (ii) class XXVIII notes due 2024; (iii) class XIII notes due march 2025; (iv) class XXXIX notes due July 2025; (v) class LIII notes due 2027; (vi) class I under the frequent issuer regime due 2029; and (vii) the class LIV notes due 2047 described in (i) the pricing supplement on January 7, 2021, as amended and restated on January 25, 2021, as amended on February 1, 2021, and as amended on February 7, 2021 (the "Pricing Supplement"), and (ii) in the subscription notice dated on January 7, 2021, as amended on January 14, 2021, as amended and restated on January 25, 2021, as amended on February 1, 2021, and as amended on February 7, 2021, ( the "Subscription Notice") published by YPF S.A. in the Autopista de la Informacin Financiera of the Comisin Nacional de Valores and on the Mercado Abierto Electrnico S.A's. website.

In this sense, YPF has published on February 7, 2021, the fourth amendment to the Pricing Supplement of the offer and the Subscription Notice. For the benefit of investors, we have attached the press release relating to the proposed amendments to the exchange offer and consent solicitation which consist, among others, extend both the Exchange Offer and the Consent Solicitation, and amend the Exchange Consideration for the 2021 Old Notes.

All the terms not defined herein will have the meaning assigned to them in the Pricing Supplement.

Yours faithfully,

Santiago Wesenack

Market Relations Officer

YPF S.A.

3

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

YPF Sociedad Annima

Date: February 8, 2021

By:

/s/ Santiago Wesenack

Name:

Santiago Wesenack

Title:

Market Relations Officer

4

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

YPF SA published this content on 08 February 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 09 February 2021 12:16:02 UTC.

More:
YPF Sociedad Annima : 08-02-2021 SEC - Amendment to the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation - marketscreener.com

Metro Health issues fourth amended health directive related to school systems

CONTACT: For members of the media, please contact:covid19media@sanantonio.gov

Laura Mayes, City of San Antonio (210) 207-1337Michelle Vigil, City of San Antonio (210) 207-8172

For questions from the general public, please contact:COVID-19@sanantonio.govCOVID-19 Hotline (210) 207-5779

SAN ANTONIO (February 2, 2021) Today, San Antonio's Local Health Authority, Dr. Junda Woo, issued a fourth amendment to the current health directive related to our local school systems. The revised health directive, either virtual or hybrid learning are options in Red Zone, but the directive stresses the importance of restricting other gatherings instead when community COVID levels are high. The directive adds links to new tools and FAQ's provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), highlights the fact that contact sports are still not recommended in the Red Zone, and removes specific pod sizes while sharing CDC templates for classroom layouts.

At risk levels in the Red Zone. Preventing transmission in K-12 settings requires reducing transmission in the community through policies such as restrictions on indoor dining. COVID testing should be offered to at least 25% of on-campus staff once a week, and class sizes should be smaller than in the Yellow Zone, with rigorous cohorting. In-person instruction prioritizes pre-kindergarten through elementary school students, special needs students, the most severely at-risk students, and students who lack access to resources. Building and room occupancy should be contingent on adequate ventilation and ability to create 6-foot distancing. Close contacts must be quarantined for 14 days.

Metro Health's weekly school risk level, which includes varying levels of virus prevention tactics and guidance within its Red, Yellow and Green Zones, can be found here.

For more information please visit http://www.covid19.sanantonio.gov

Go here to read the rest:
San Antonio: Metro Health Issues Fourth Amended Health Directive Related To School Systems - Patch.com

Rep. LaKeshia Myers (D-Milwaukee) has introduced a new bill to prevent the use of no-knock search warrants by Wisconsin law enforcement. The bill was named Breonnas Law after Louisville, Kentucky EMT Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old who was killed during such a raid in March 2020.

It is most appropriate for us to begin Black History Month 2021 by introducing Breonnas Law, Myers said in a press statement. Breonna Taylors life was taken while she was in the comfort of her own home, through the use of a no-knock warrant. While Taylor was not the subject of the warrant, her life was mercilessly ended through no fault of her own. It is because of this that we call on Wisconsin legislators to end the use of no-knock warrants.

Wisconsin became the first state to authorize no-knock search warrants in 1997. Since their introduction, no-knock raids have created controversy around police transparency and use of force.

No-knock warrants are harmful to civilians and law enforcement officers alike, said Myers. Milwaukee police officer Matthew Rittner was killed in the line of duty while his tactical unit executed a no-knock warrant in February 2019. Because of a no-knock search warrant, a wife lost her husband, Milwaukee lost a police officer and a child lost its father.

These searches are being reconsidered at the federal and state levels. In Congress last session, Senate Republicans wanted to track their use, while a Democratic House bill, endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus would have banned them on a federal level in drug cases and withhold federal policing grants to states that permit them in drug cases.

In 2020, a package of Juneteenth bills on police reform was forwarded by Gov. Tony Evers, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and the the Legislative Black Caucus. It included a similar bill that prohibits no-knock search warrants issued under state law by requiring a law enforcement officer who is executing a search warrant to identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry, before entering the premises.

The Legislature did not take any action on these bills, instead forming a study committee that continues to meet but has not come out with its recommendations.

Myers new bill, as described in her co-sponsorship memo accompanying it, requires that a law enforcement officer executing a search warrant must, before entering the premises, identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer may execute a search warrant only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. unless a judge authorizes the execution of the search warrant at another time for good cause.

Given the increased focus on police reform and no-knock search warrants in particular the Wisconsin Legislative Council put out an Information Memorandum on the practice in Sept. 2020, reviewing its complicated relationship with the Fourth Amendment and case law. As a result, the no-knock search warrant, a product of the War on Drugs, is being reconsidered. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving citizens the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure is replicated in the Wisconsin Constitution.

THE MORNING NEWSLETTER

Subscribe now.

Knock-and-announce requirements before police forcibly enter a persons home called the announcement rule in Wisconsin date back centuries to British common law, but exceptions to the rule have been carved out, including the no-knock search warrant, the memo states. Further, it notes, a 1995 case determined knock-and-announce was not a rigid, blanket rule, so no-knock searches are allowed as an exception that takes into account countervailing law enforcement interests.

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association Executive Director Jim Palmer has been quoted by multiple media outlets, as being open to reconsideration of no-knock warrants by police and by lawmakers. He told NBC-15 he doubts his group would fight for the warrants, as they are not used frequently in Wisconsin and can be dangerous for both police officers and residents.

Body camera use by law enforcement has made the public increasingly aware of no-knock search warrants, as more people are able to see footage of the technique in action.

The bills namesake, Taylor, was killed as law enforcement carried out a series of raids across the Louisville area. Police claimed they announced themselves when the raid began. Taylors boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, however, said officers did not do so, and he thought someone was breaking into their home as they slept. After a shot was fired by the boyfriend, wounding one officer, other officers fired numerous shots into the apartment, killing Taylor.

One of the detectives involved, Brett Hankison, was fired in June for wantonly and blindly firing his weapon, according to his termination letter. Taylors death brought to light the use of such raids, and place-based policing strategies that targeted areas being gentrified by the city.

As the state that created no-knock warrants, Wisconsin has the responsibility to be the state to end their use, Myers said. When you know better, you must do better, and this is a step in the right direction.

Continue reading here:
No-knock search warrants began in Wisconsin, Rep. Myers wants to end them here - Wisconsin Examiner

When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were sworn into office, it marked the first time in American history that Californians held two of the three highest offices in the federal government. No, President Biden is not from the Golden State, but Vice President Harris and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi both hail from the Bay Area. And with Attorney General Xavier Becerra holding a key cabinet position, officials from California now have a sizable role in influencing the Biden agenda.

The incoming administration is rightly prioritizing economic relief and Covid-19 vaccine deployment. On other issues, they'll have to navigate narrow Democratic majorities in Congress, in which some progressive policies could be nonstarters. To avoid gridlock, these high-ranking Californians can identify policies with broad, bipartisan support, perhaps taking a page out of their home state's playbook.

In recent years, California has become a national leader on privacy rights. Oakland, San Francisco, and Santa Clara County, among other municipalities, have spearheaded strong local laws to oversee governmental use of people's private information and data.

Gaps in privacy protections remain, however, and top Californians in Washington, D.C. can help plug them at the federal level. This is especially true of the "smart city" programs sprouting up across the country. These programs enable local governments to collect troves of personal data with few safeguards in place to prevent it from being mishandled or abused. For example, my organization, Oakland Privacy, closely monitors a data-sharing protocol deployed by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) called Mobility Data Specification (MDS).

MDS is a massive data-collection system that LADOT spent millions developing. It requires mobility companies to provide the city with real-time location data for their vehicles, including each rider's origin, route and destination. Such granular data makes it easy to identify and track riders, and can reveal sensitive personal information with just a handful of data points. LADOT hasn't provided a concrete reason for requiring this individualized information over safer alternatives, like aggregated data, nor did it seek public input before adopting the system. Department leaders were even discovered using an encrypted messaging service to communicate with each other while developing MDS.

Real-time, re-identifiable data like the kind collected through MDS is particularly ripe for abuse. This could range from law enforcement accessing the data to perpetuate harmful surveillance practices against communities of color, to a city employee using it to stalk a former partner. These are grave consequences, which is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are suing Los Angeles to halt MDS for violating the Fourth Amendment.

But Los Angeles isn't alone in overlooking privacy rights. In Pasadena and in Long Beach, police used automatic license plate readers and shared the data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite pledging not to. In San Diego, the city deployed "smart streetlights" to supposedly monitor traffic, but they were used by police more than two dozen times to surveil Black Lives Matter protestors. Examples like these undercut California's standing as the pacesetter in securing privacy rights and reinforce the need for a smart cities solution that incorporates strong local oversight and federal protections.

Efforts to build so-called smart cities are not limited to Californiathey're popping up nearly everywhere, from Seattle and Chicago to Columbus and New York. With their impending influence over multiple levers of power in Washington, D.C., our Bay Area leaders should spearhead legislation that reins in misguided smart city programs. High-profile members of both parties have already signaled their interest. Such opportunities do not come around often, and California officials now have the chance to make their presence known on this important issue.

Tracy Rosenberg is the Advocacy Director for Oakland Privacy, a nonprofit watchdog group that works to defend the right to privacy and enhance oversight regarding the use of surveillance.

The rest is here:
Close the Gaps - East Bay Express