#and even if I did I’m legally free to revoke that consent

[fated-normal-767]

all day I’ve been complaining to people because I looked up the third party the place where I study uses to monitor the WiFi for ‘malicious or dangerous activity’ and it’s just plain creepy. Not as in like “I don’t like my searches being looked at but I have to tolerate it” as in “if you disconnect from the WiFi then reconnect to it it scans anything you did while disconnected at home the next time you connect, builds ‘user profiles’ with everything you look up, checks things you type offline, and can access your personal cloud storage”. And all fucking day I’ve been telling people this and they’ve gone ‘haha well I’ve got nothing to hide it can’t be that bad’ and I felt like I was going crazy. Then I got home and told my father and he just said “that sounds like a huge violation of the data protection act” and I felt so relived I wasn’t going crazy for thinking this was bad.

[captaincoffeegirl515]

What the hell was that last act???

So first of all I want to say that I did enjoy most of the movie. It was okay. The sex scenes didn’t do anything for me though since I’m just not interested in sex at all. But while I more-or-less liked the movie, I felt that the big plot twists in the last act and the ending were badly done because… how the fuck did ANY of them manage to get away with ANY OF THAT??? Like from a legal standpoint it’s just ???

This got so much longer than I anticipated, so the rest is under the read more. And yes, there are so many spoilers. So if you haven't seen The Voyeurs yet and don't want spoilers, please avoid this.

Seb and Julia literally confess to selling their old apartment in order to spy on the people who live there and use them for their art show. Like, yes, they put that clause in the Terms of Agreement for the apartment (which literally no one ever reads) but there is still the matter of Informed Consent. Informed Consent is usually in the form of a contract Pippa and Thomas both need to read and sign, or via verbal questions and answers which is filmed so Seb and Julia would have physical proof of an agreement. This is basically telling them what footage was taken, how it will be used, and if Seb and Julia have permission to share the footage publicly. In Thomas’ case, since he’s dead, his next-of-kin will be asked. Only then are Seb and Julia legally allowed to publicly share and showcase the Pippa and Thomas’ pictures. And Seb is a professional photographer! He should know that!

Have you ever seen prank shows? Like even the ones on YouTube. Have you noticed at the end of some videos, there would be a part where the filmers would approach the person who was pranked and ask if they could use their footage in the video. That’s Informed Consent. They need to ask permission to use a person’s footage in a video or if they need to blur out the person’s face for privacy. Seb and Julia even showed a picture of a dead man for chrissakes! Remember the outcry when that YouTuber posted a video of a suicide victim in Japan???

The Japanese interviewer was right to disapprove of their methods because even though there was a clause in the Terms of Agreement, the prank (because isn’t that what that whole show they did was?) or experiment still resulted with someone killing themself (yes I know it was murder, but the world doesn't know it). They can possibly still be held liable for causing Thomas to kill himself the same way a prankster can be held liable if their victim dies from a prank because of this thing in Law called the Eggshell Rule or Eggshell Plaintiff.

What this means is that a defendant is liable for any injuries caused by the defendant’s actions, regardless of how unforeseeable or uncommon the plaintiff’s reactions to the defendant’s actions are. So for example, there is a scary prank where the prankster jumps out of the bushes and terrifies people. One of them turns out to have a heart condition, suffers a heart attack, and dies. Regardless of the victim’s frailty, the prankster can be held liable for exacerbating the condition and causing the victim’s death. Likewise in the movie, they can say that Seb and Julia, by orchestrating the whole thing and making Thomas see his girlfriend cheating on him, could have caused him to become broken-hearted and kill himself. Therefore, Seb and Julia can be liable for Thomas’ death.

And then here’s the kicker! The famous photographer and his wife, a famous model, both suddenly end up blind AFTER their big art show where they displayed Pippa’s scandal. And not by accident. No. This was obviously surgically done. And NOBODY suspected foul play?? Nobody thought about revenge?? Nobody thought it strange how their blindness was clearly done with a surgical/medical precision nor suspected the couple’s subject, Pippa, who they thoroughly humiliated, who also worked as an optometrist technician at a lab that has the machines that could cause that kind of blindness??? And they're both still alive! They can easily tell the police who did it!

It should have been way too easy for the police to know that it was foul play. Blood tests can tell that Seb and Julia had been drugged. How they were blinded can be traced to the optometry lab. Pippa would be the easiest main suspect due to her connection to them with revenge as the main motivation after they humiliated her in that art show.

And yes, I agree that what Seb and Julia did was wrong. They used Pippa and Thomas, and then murdered Thomas so they can have some juicy story to tell!

Even so, what happened to Ethical Codes in the medical field? What happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Non-maleficience rule? “Do No Harm”? Pippa should have been slammed with, idk, medical malpractice or something, after using her knowledge of the LASIK machine and using it to permanently blind people (which is an actual fear real people have about LASIK surgery), have her license revoked, be fired from her job, and possibly serve jail time. Why is she walking free all willy-nilly and still being allowed to continue stalking Seb and Julia?

I’ll admit though that maybe I’m being more harsh towards Pippa because I myself used to be a Board Certified medical professional (my license expired last year because I hadn't been working in that field for a while) and because of that, her actions angered and horrified me more.

Normally, we as an audience are made to root for the main character or hero, but I found it difficult to do so because Pippa herself is a terrible person. She's a pervert and a creep. She was obsessed with the lives of other people, stalked them, and even went as far as committing crimes in order to fuel her obsession - trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of private property.

And my goodness this actually makes me think of a few Ben Hardy stans who are like this. Well, idk if going to Ben's school so that she can get a copy of a school film he was in can be considered a crime, but it's still fucking creepy.

Pippa’s got that Savior Complex where she tries to rescue this poor neglected wife from her horrible cheating husband (the same one she herself wants to fuck because she’s obsessed with him). And then when it all goes south, she immediately turns around and blames THOMAS of all people because “he started it”. Like, so what if he did?? He still had enough maturity to realize when they were taking it too far, and decided to stop with the stalking. He told her to stop multiple times but she was too blinded by her obsession and lust for a man that she doesn’t even know.

AND THEN!! She stalked a grieving husband (I know we know that was a lie but Pippa didn't know that) and proceeded to cheat on her boyfriend with said grieving husband. And frankly, I don’t understand why she’s so vengeful about Thomas’ death considering how easily she forgot him so that she could cheat on him. Like. Who knows, maybe he still would’ve killed himself regardless of the poisoned drink because the last thing he saw was his girlfriend cheating on him with the man she’d been obsessed with for the past idk how long. Even in the scene after Thomas died, there was a momentary grief where Pippa was all “it’s my fault Thomas died” but it was all too brief and immediately after she went back to obsessing and asking about Seb. And they want me to believe that she’d want to avenge Thomas’ death? No. I think she blinded Seb and Julia because she was angry at being called out for her obsession. For being told that she was wrong to go that far. It wasn’t about her “love” for Thomas. It was about how humiliated she was about being wrong.

Can you believe that Pippa gave this whole speech with the fable about being content with what you have and not to try to be greedy by wanting more and then she just immediately DOES THE OPPOSITE OF THE MORAL by cheating on her boyfriend because she wanted more aka Seb???

The more that I think about it, I feel like the true villain of the movie is Pippa herself. Her obsession with Seb is what started the whole thing. If she had been able to keep a healthy distance, none of that would’ve happened to begin with. There would be no fights over how far things were going. Seb would have no scandal to tell. She worsened Thomas’ insecurities of not being enough for her, making him go to great lengths just to try to please her. Poor Thomas. He truly deserved better.

Pippa also has awful friends. Instead of stamping down the creepy behavior, they’re giving tips on how to listen in on other people’s private conversations! And then later try to excuse her cheating on Thomas. And then help with her obsession AGAIN.

Acting-wise, I felt that Natasha, Ben, and Justice were incredible and I loved them. I love how conflicted Ben played Seb and how you can see it in his eyes. My favorite scene was the one where Seb and Julia had that confrontation over the wine where Seb asks if she ever felt guilty and Julia just stares right back and stares him down. Natasha was brilliant as Julie pretending to be all friendly and vulnerable with Pippa. Justice was very emotional and I love the scenes where he was horrified at how far Pippa was taking everything. For me, Sydney was the weakest one at acting. While there were some okay parts, her face can be really stiff at some points, like during the sex scenes.

Overall, I thought the movie to be quite thought-provoking especially in this day and age where people can find the most intimate details of another person’s life so easily, be that through Carrd, Instagram stories, Facebook feeds, and other social media sites. It makes you think about parasocial relationships, how people can be so obsessed about people that they’ve never even met, and how that obsession can easily grow into something dangerous that can ruin lives. Good movie, terrible last act. Too much sex for my taste, but then it wouldn’t be called an erotic movie.

Outside of the movie, I really love the chemistry between the four of them. I love watching their interviews and seeing how they interact with each other.

Last but not the least, I know this may be random but my brain likes to zoom in on the weirdest things. How on earth did Pippa manage to get Seb on top of that operating table?? No offense but Pippa is fucking tiny. Seb’s like twice her size and mostly muscle AND unconscious. Like ??? Sorry but that threw me off so much it’s ridiculous.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 6: The Structure of Early Gaelic Society”

This is part 6 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the end of the post, any reference to the Brehon laws is linked within the text and will not have a footnote!

Hey hey hey welcome back! It’s been a few months, and I’m refreshed and am once again ready to tear into druidic bullshit. Today we’re continuing our look at Robin Herne’s “lessons,” this particular lesson can be found here. 

From the very beginning of this “lesson” I’m sensing a problem with Herne’s writing that I’ve seen and spoken on before, which is the concept of a pan-Celtic religion. Herne’s lesson may focus on Ireland, but that’s only because he feels as though it’s “harder” to talk about Wales.... a nation with a very different history and a different religion than Ireland..... but they’re both Celtic so whatever right? For any newbies here, there was no Pan-Celtic religion. I mention this in Part 1 of this series.

From there it only gets worse really. For starters, the Romans never conquered Ireland, the nation whose history is supposed to be the focus of this lesson. Beyond that- the Romans used existing British oppida as the urban centers of the tribal system that was established under their rule, to claim that pre-Roman Britain was made up only of villages when archaeologists can’t accurately determine the populations of the oppida is ridiculous. What the Romans did was establish the first cities that were not located in the South East of England. Herne also has this weird focus on Ireland and Britain being “rural” as though most cultures weren’t largely rural- and honestly the focus on distancing these cultures from anything urban is a HUGE red flag if you know the history of paganism and Celtic Twilight, bad show all around. And of course Herne doesn’t cite any sources so for all I know he’s pulling this out of his ass. All in all it seems like Herne is falling to the classic pitfall of circle jerking to Rome, maybe if he could get off Rome’s dick for a few minutes we might actually learn something. 

I question whether Herne has ever actually read the Brehon laws, or if he understands that there were similarities between the laws of many medieval societies, even those that didn’t share a “Celtic” label. I genuinely have no idea what “change” he’s referring to that would be a gradual process considering the continental Celts and the Gaels were different cultures, and the laws in question existed at different times, and also the laws he references for the continental Celts were only “mentioned” by classical authors, who if you haven’t read my other rebuttals are notoriously unreliable narrators. 

I question the choice to say “Think of the cenn as rather like the head of a Mafia clan! “ and particularly to end it with an exclamation point. The cenn, is the head of the family, and thus the family’s legal representative in court. This was not a cultural practice unique to Ireland, similar practices are shown to exist throughout Europe during this time. And in no way is a patriarch (or occasionally a matriarch) who protects the family’s interests and revokes legal agreements made without their consent the same thing as a mafia boss. This isn’t a crime syndicate, it’s a judicial system that protects the different families within the tribe and in theory was meant to ensure that contractual decisions were made with the consent of the family. 

Beyond this to describe the social structure of early Ireland as a “caste system” is... stretching it- movement from one class to another was not uncommon, and more things factored into one’s status in Irish society than simply the situation of one’s birth. Beyond that, this system is more easily broken down into six groups than into two, and Herne would know that if he’d actually read the Brehon laws. Rather than just splitting society into “the blessed ones” and “ordinary people” the Brehon laws organize it into kings of various grades, professional classes, flaiths (a sort of official nobility), freemen possessing property, freemen who possess no or very little property, and the non-free classes. And joint ownership of property could qualify a selected joint-owner to become a noble, this is very much not the rigid system Herne would want you to believe it is. 

Herne’s discussion of the Lia Fail while simplified does hold up. In the lore we see the process described by Herne for choosing the high king of Ireland, it’s described clearly in The Destruction of Dá Derga’s Hostel. And I will admit, I’m with Herne up to a point in his discussion of the concept of lanamnas, there’s clearly a fair amount of research he needs to do into medieval history to truly understand the relationships he’s describing, but he’s not necessary wrong, so I’ll let it slide, these are meant to be introductory lessons after all. 

However. Herne makes some... interesting claims in regards to divinity. Herne makes the correct statement that “Each partner in lanamain must recognise that they have a duty to give certain things to the other person, but also a duty to allow that person to give back to them ~ there is no honour in emasculating someone, nor in allowing yourself to be rendered servile.” This is correct, we see this very same principle in the two sided nature of the virtue of hospitality, we’re called to be both good hosts and good guests. But then Herne goes onto say “This applies as much to the Gods as to other humans. Hosting a ritual for a god may be seen as fulfilling the coinmed, but there should also be expectation back of the deity. If your life is barren, then maybe you need a better head to guide you (either that, or you‘re not fulfilling your duties to them).” Ignoring the fact that Herne has all but called the gods parasites if they don't attend rituals we host for them voluntarily (something we should be doing anyway, and without the expectation that they’ll show up)- this argument rests on the assumption that we can understand the divine and how they interact with us enough to judge whether or not we need a "better head" to guide us, which I think anyone who’s actually had an encounter with the divine or felt their presence can tell you is bullshit. They’re divine for a reason, they’ve existed for thousands of years, we’re just a blip on their radar, it is not up to us to judge whether or not we need a “better head to guide us” or if we’re giving enough, the gods decide that. 

For everyone who had “baseless claims about the roles of historical druids” on their BINGO cards you may now cross that off. Herne falls into the typical pattern of repeating the “druids were the precursor the Catholic church” story fabricated by 16th century Germans for political clout. Don’t be like Herne, read a goddamn book, I have recommendations, feel free to dm me or shoot me an ask if you’d like them. 

And last but not least, I would like to remind everyone that the “every family/tribe has their own tartan that differentiates them” is a largely 19th century creation with scant pre-Victorian basis. 

That’s all for today! If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

[trashwitchcoven]

These folks go back & forth between trying to justify him cheating with "There was abuse!" "It was pretty much over anyway!" "Marriage is ridiculous & antiquated!" and then insist that there was NO cheating. Jared told his wife that he wasn't seeing anyone when he actually WAS. Jared cheated. Period.

Yep - cheating didn’t necessarily have to include sexual contact.  Do I think they waited until the divorce was filed? Absolutely not, but even if I take their word for it, that is STILL an emotional affair.  It is STILL cheating, especially after Heidi revoked consent for a poly relationship (and ended her own relationship with other partners).

Also, let’s just focus on the abuse allegations for a second.  Yes, I recognize that no two cases of abuse are the same and that the reactions to abuse will vary greatly as well.  My Mom stayed with my Dad after roughly 35 years of verbal, emotional, and physical abuse whereas I would have cut the dude’s dick off and told him to hit bricks after the first incident.   

The one common denomenator in abuse relationships is the tendency of doing whatever is necessary to keep the alleged abuser happy.  Holly admitted to this herself, saying she frequently tried to people please because of her own traumatic history.  If Heidi was truly as abusive as Holly says, one would think there wouldn’t have even been discussion on “Hey, I have sexual feelings for your husband” - She would have been more focused on getting her ‘friend’ out of a manipulative, abusive relationship.  She would NOT have made a tweet within minutes of the initial divorce announcement, telling Jared “I’m so sorry you’re going through this”.  If anything, she would have been glad that he was finally free from his alleged abuser. 

IMO, they thought that Heidi would just remain silent and they could live their Diath/Strix roleplay come to life in peace - which honestly probably would have happened if Jared had just NOT blocked Heidi and then posted a very public message about their divorce.  Hell, even THAT and Heidi’s subsequent outing of his poor behavior would have eventually faded into nothingness, if Holly hadn’t immediately fired back and outed the inner workings of the relationship that were really no one’s business but the three people intimately involved (including where she posted the private lewd conversation between Heidi and Jared, which I would still think opened her up to legal issues since she wasn’t involved in the conversation.  Jared could have posted them, Heidi could have posted them - Holly wasn’t involved in that conversation, so her freaking out about people wrongly releasing Jared’s nudes is hilarious considering she essentially did the same). 

[sgtbluebacon]

Is the United States a Corporation?

Is the United States a Corporation? Not in the way that Sovereign Citizens would want you to think. They claim that it is an organization that exists as a legal entity independent from the individuals who constitute it, which it doesn’t.

Like most of the more extreme theories of Sovereign Citizens, this one has a lot of different claims by a lot of different people. Most aren’t worth discussing in this essay based on their absurdity or lack of support within the Sovereign Citizen community, but I’m willing to debate them if you reblog this and send me a message. The ones I will be discussing in this essay appear to be the most commonly brought up. 

Our first of many examples of why the US is a commercial corporation is that under the definitions section of 28 U.S. Code § 3002 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) , "United States" is defined as a "federal corporation". That's pretty thought provoking until you discover that a federal corporation is just a specific type of organization established by Congress.

It also becomes less compelling once you realize that this definition only applies to the use of "United States" within that specific U.S. code and only that U.S. Code, which is specifically for federal debt collection procedures. See, the United States uses federal agencies to collect debt, so to avoid saying something like “the federal corporations, agencies, departments, commissions, boards, or other entities of the United States” every time some part of that code referenced that sort of thing, “United States” was used instead, just to shorten and simplify the code. This is why it states “As used in this code” at the beginning of this list of definitions. 

Another very popular argument is that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 established that the United States became a commercial corporation, operating under a second secret constitution. To the surprise of, I hope, very few of you, it doesn’t do that at all. In 1790, when Maryland and Virginia granted land to the federal government to be used to establish Washington DC, the land was split between two counties and contained three towns, which all maintained their own separate municipal governments. Some Sovereign Citizens claim the land was unconstitutionally seized, or that the establishment of this area was unconstitutional. Of course, this isn’t true, since the states gave up the land willingly, and because the Constitution granted Congress the authority to create a seat of government within 10 square miles of land that was ceded to the federal government. Incidentally, the land ceded by Maryland and Virginia for the seat of the government did not exceed 10 square miles, meeting the Constitutional requirements found in Article 2, Section 8, Clause 17.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

By the time the Organic Act was passed, the original territory granted in 1790 had been reduced, and only included the City of Washington, the City of Georgetown, and Washington County. There had also been a population boom in the area, and the three municipalities were struggling to manage it as separate entities. So Congress decided it made sense to revoke the cities' charters and combine them with the county to unify the area under a single governor. That’s the purpose of the District of Columbia Organic Act .

If you read the act, which is about 11 pages, you’ll come across things like this: “That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes”

Yes, this says that Washington DC is a body corporate, but what you may not know is that this is a legal term for a local governing body formed by a municipal charter, like you would find in a town or city. In this context, corporation does not refer to a business, or indicate a second secret federal constitution was established.  

But Sovereign Citizens claim there is more to this act; something that can only mean that the United States has a second secret Constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America is written in all capital letters. Because capital letters change the meaning of words, this must establish a second secret constitution. But here’s the thing… that text doesn’t exist. Oh, sure, the Constitution is mentioned multiple times, but I can’t find any part of that act that contains a fully capitalized Constitution. Unsurprisingly, Sovereign Citizens have once again failed to fact check their sources. Even if I was wrong about this, that particular act was replaced in 1874. Also, if the second constitution is supposed to be secret, why would this act have been publicly published? Use a bit of common sense, folks. 

Let’s humor them for a moment, and imagine that the fully capitalized text did exist. The argument that capital letters can change the meanings of words is true. For example, turkey is a type of meat that I covered in OC spray and ate once, and Turkey is a country with a questionable human rights record. These are called capitonyms. If one capitalized letter changes the meaning that much, what does it mean when all the letters are capitalized? Many Sovereign Citizens believe that a fully capitalized name establishes a corporate identity. For example, they might claim to be John Doe, but their corporate name, which the Government puts on their birth certificate (which is supposedly a contract with the government) is JOHN DOE. Some argue that this is because your name is liquidated capital (capital like money, capitalization of a name. An enormous stretch but still fun), and therefore you are born with a bounty on your head.

For those of you who don’t know, I used to be law enforcement. When I wrote paperwork for my cases, I did write the last names in all caps. This isn't because they're a corporate entity, its because its easier to find them when reading the paperwork. When I'm reading off your information to dispatch to find out if you're the zodiac killer (still at large, by the way), I don't want to spend extra time trying to find it on whatever weird state drivers license you've handed me. Many court documents will make words or statements conspicuous for similar reasons, not because they're establishing a New World Order, like some people suspect. For more information, check out my essay on the strawman theory.

My final example is also easily explained. In volume 19 § 883 of Corpus Juris Secundum, a law encyclopedia, one can find the following: "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.” That must finally establish proof that Sovereign Citizens are right, right? No.  When we look up what a corporation is in Black's Law Dictionary (2nd ed.) you find it is a "legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation." In the same dictionary, it defines "foreign" as "belonging or attached to another jurisdiction". Simplified, the quote from the CJS means the United States and individual states are legal entities belonging to separate jurisdictions.

Plenty of words have multiple meanings. They're called homographs. For example, bark can be a verb or a noun, the former being a thing a dog does, and the latter being the stuff on the exterior of a tree. Pool could be billiards or an area for swimming in. Corporation happens to be a word that is applicable to multiple things.

This one’s a bit complicated, but I hope it helps some of you understand the ridiculous theory that Sovereign Citizens believe, If you have any questions, please feel free to send them my way.

[vondehnvisuals]

Hello every One, and welcome to the Good News Journal’s Fabulous Free ‘Lance’ (because the Pen is mightier than the Sword, and this is My (Sean’s) ‘S’-Word) Friday Edition, and My Favourite day to Write.  Thank King You for being here.

It’s actually Thursday in My pre-Sent Now, I managed to get a day ahead so I can schedule Posts for early in morning of the respective day (00:37 to be exact).  Important to make note of though, as this renewal package for My subsidy is a time sensitive Issue, so I have been checking mail daily.  I finally received the renewal package from Home for Good late this morning (mail usually arrives in this neighbourhood around eleven).

Now, the Way this Letter is addressed to Me may not look fancy or special.  For those that don’t know, I don’t take kindly to being addressed in all capital letters, with the abbreviation ‘Mr.’, or any other incorrect expression of My name.  This may appear simple and plain, but it is Proper English and the Way the True Magic of My name is Spelled.  This is a very diplomatic Way to address Me.  It does not offend in any Way as every part is correct, even the small ‘v’ in ‘von Dehn’ – it tells Me they made an effort, were paying attention; there is no ALL CAPS degradation of status or assignment to the commercial person created by the state, yet there is no acknowledgment of My Sovereignty or right of self determination, either.  It is perfectly neutral.  This is how every One should receive mail by default because the incorporated person is not the individual, it is the business name of the individual.

I also think the People over at the city’s Home for Good program are a little more ‘on the ball’ with everything than the John Howard Society and perhaps even Ontario Works.  The lady I met over at the city where I Signed the first ‘entitlement’ agreement, Sana, is a super nice lady.  As I’ve mentioned before, so is Orsolya.  I don’t believe either one of these individuals has any Willful intent to trespass upon My rights in any Way, they do so in ignorance.  This renewal form wasn’t created with intent to offend Me, it’s just a generic form that would be Given to any One receiving the subsidy.  I have Issues with it because I understand these forms and requirements in a Way most People don’t, and can’t help but feel it takes advantage of People who may not know these things.  So the language of the document bothers Me and the threat of having a subsidy revoked would likely intimidate any One dependent on that resource.  I waived many similar requirements in the initial application for subsidy and it had no affect on My application being approved.

Later tonight I Will add the email thread of My conversation with Sana.  For now I’m only going to say that I really don’t believe there is anything to be concerned about, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a serious Issue.  When I say that I believe Canada has a [near] perfect legal and political system, the problem is that the People are too complacent, it is something I mean very sincerely.  I have no real reason to believe there is any Willful intent on the part of Canada to interfere with My right of Self determination, (Sovereignty).  If there was, the courts would have challenged Me in some Way when I Showed My Cestui Que Vie as ‘identification’.  In theory, they would not have allowed Me to do any of the things I have since accomplished without some Form of government Issued identification.  My Cestui Que Vie is My Covenant with God.  For that reason, it is superior to any contract I may have had with Canada, and Canada acknowledges the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law (part IV of which Will be coming soon, too).  I’m quite sure the city knows how I feel about these Issues and just doesn’t know how to get around the usual procedure of renewal without sending this package; it’s just a generic process.  Sana hints in the email, ‘If you have not been able to do your income taxes due to Covid 19, please  complete  and sign the renewal application and  return to our office with proof of your current income and we will assess your continuous eligibility at that time.’

I’m going to Show You what the package looks like and how I fill it out without waiving any of My rights or being compelled to perform an Act under threat of harm by revocation of a subsidy required for My overall health and well being.

And I mentioned recently that I was worried about sounding too condescending in some of My emails?  Honestly, take a look at the first Page and tell Me that isn’t the kind of language One would expect in a Grade 1 or 2 classroom.  “It’s Renewal Time!”.  So I’m not going to worry too much about how condescending My Letters might sound; in My case it’s both necessary and unintentional, this is deliberately demoralizing language for an adult to be receiving.

Thankfully, the consent to use, disclose and verify information form happened to be the last picture in the mosaic because it is the One I Wished to bring the most attention to.  Every agency they are listing that the city (Home for Good) may be required to share the information with is connected, they all represent branches of the same tree.  All the agencies underlined in red are agencies that have received My Public Notices in One Way or another.  They all know I Wish to have the account for the incorporated person closed, My belief is that they do not know how to accomplish this (least the individuals that have thus far been made aware).

So, although I am going to be waiving most of the conditions on the form ‘necessary’ to renew My subsidy, I am simply going to state that I may not be compelled to do so but as I have consented to communication between the above listed agencies and others as necessary for the verification purposes of assessment, I Will have Orsolya of Ontario Works send a statement of My income for the last year to Home for Good, and I Will advise Home for Good that as service agents for the People of Canada, if they require the incorporated person to file taxes, that person is owned by the State, the state may not compel Me to claim it, and the state has the onus of filing taxes for their own businesses (incorporated persons).  Therefore, as the legal and lawful private attorney of the incorporated person created for My benefit, I consent to the corporation of Canada filing taxes for the incorporated person and appointing a capable individual to the task.

Wow, this Post is getting long but before I go, I do Wish to touch on how much it absolutely shocks Me how few People understand how the economy works; and the economy of a country, specifically.  For a world that seems so motivated by the stuff, One would think that People would have a reasonably comprehensive Idea about how it works…  But they don’t.  Most People do not have a clue!!!  And often, the more an individual believes they know and understand the economy, the more lost they actually are.  A Friend of mine said to Me once, ‘how did You learn You to pay for things with Your thumbprint?’.

The Truth is, I didn’t really learn it, it was something I intuitively knew.  I figured the One place it absolutely should work, would be the courthouse.  Tickets are provincial offences, so when I was Given a ‘trespass’ ticket by Constable Jenkyn, I was going to pay it with My thumbprint and Give it to the Justice at trial.  But all charges against Me were withdrawn before it went to trial, so I was left with the ticket and the date to dispute had now passed.  So I took My ticket to the courthouse where One goes to pay provincial offences, took it to the cashier and first asked if it was still in the system, or if it was removed with the other charges that were withdrawn.  He looks it up, it’s still there.  So I tell him I Will just pay it, pull out My stamp pad, put a red thumbprint on the ticket, Writ ‘discharge for value’, and slid it back to the cashier.  He looks at Me and asks, “what’s this?”

“Payment”

“Okay, hang on I’m going to have to ask My supervisor.”

So he walks about ten feet away where he shows the ticket to another man, presumably his supervisor.  The supervisor nods and motions back to the cashiers terminal, glancing at Me for only a second before following the cashier back to Me.  The supervisor doesn’t even really acknowledge Me but is pointing directions for the clerk on the computer screen.  The clerk finally turns to Me and says, “Thank You.”

“It’s done?”

“It’s done.”

“Thank You.”

And that was that.  Someone asked Me where I learned to do that and I’m telling You I didn’t.  I don’t think You Will find that information in any book of Law.  But when I Write the Sensei-Sean All Saturday Edition, I Will tell You how it works and why it isn’t fraud.

Love and Blessings,

  Volume CXI: The Fabulous Free Lance Friday Edition; The Renewal Package Finally Arrives Hello every One, and welcome to the Good News Journal's Fabulous Free 'Lance' (because the Pen is mightier than the Sword, and this is My (Sean's) 'S'-Word) Friday Edition, and My Favourite day to Write. 

[endenogatai]

Europe is drawing fresh battle lines around the ethics of big data

It’s been just over four months since Europe’s tough new privacy framework came into force. You might believe that little of substance has changed for big tech’s data-hungry smooth operators since then — beyond firing out a wave of privacy policy update spam, and putting up a fresh cluster of consent pop-ups that are just as aggressively keen for your data.

But don’t be fooled. This is the calm before the storm, according to the European Union’s data protection supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, who says the law is being systematically flouted on a number of fronts right now — and that enforcement is coming.

“I’m expecting, before the end of the year, concrete results,” he tells TechCrunch, sounding angry on every consumer’s behalf.

Though he chalks up some early wins for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) too, suggesting its 72 hour breach notification requirement is already bearing fruit.

He also points to geopolitical pull, with privacy regulation rising up the political agenda outside Europe — describing, for example, California’s recently passed privacy law, which is not at all popular with tech giants, as having “a lot of similarities to GDPR”; as well as noting “a new appetite for a federal law” in the U.S.

Yet he’s also already looking beyond GDPR — to the wider question of how European regulation needs to keep evolving to respond to platform power and its impacts on people.

Next May, on the anniversary of GDPR coming into force, Buttarelli says he will publish a manifesto for a next-generation framework that envisages active collaboration between Europe’s privacy overseers and antitrust regulators. Which will probably send a shiver down the tech giant spine.

Notably, the Commission’s antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager — who has shown an appetite to take on big tech, and has so far fined Google twice ($2.7BN for Google Shopping and staggering $5BN for Android), and who is continuing to probe its business on a number of fronts while simultaneously eyeing other platforms’ use of data — is scheduled to give a keynote at an annual privacy commissioners’ conference that Buttarelli is co-hosting in Brussels later this month.

Her presence hints at the potential of joint-working across historically separate regulatory silos that have nonetheless been showing increasingly overlapping concerns of late.

See, for example, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office accusing Facebook of using its size to strong-arm users into handing over data. And the French Competition Authority probing the online ad market — aka Facebook and Google — and identifying a raft of problematic behaviors. Last year the Italian Competition Authority also opened a sector inquiry into big data.

Traditional competition law theories of harm would need to be reworked to accommodate data-based anticompetitive conduct — essentially the idea that data holdings can bestow an unfair competitive advantage if they cannot be matched. Which clearly isn’t the easiest stinging jellyfish to nail to the wall. But Europe’s antitrust regulators are paying increasing mind to big data; looking actively at whether and even how data advantages are exclusionary or exploitative.

In recent years, Vestager has been very public with her concerns about dominant tech platforms and the big data they accrue as a consequence, saying, for example in 2016, that: “If a company’s use of data is so bad for competition that it outweighs the benefits, we may have to step in to restore a level playing field.”

Buttarelli’s belief is that EU privacy regulators will be co-opted into that wider antitrust fight by “supporting and feeding” competition investigations in the future. A future that can be glimpsed right now, with the EC’s antitrust lens swinging around to zoom in on what Amazon is doing with merchant data.

“Europe would like to speak with one voice, not only within data protection but by approaching this issue of digital dividend, monopolies in a better way — not per sectors,” Buttarelli tells TechCrunch. 

“Monopolies are quite recent. And therefore once again, as it was the case with social networks, we have been surprised,” he adds, when asked whether the law can hope to keep pace. “And therefore the legal framework has been implemented in a way to do our best but it’s not in my view robust enough to consider all the relevant implications… So there is space for different solutions. But first joint enforcement and better co-operation is key.”

From a regulatory point of view, competition law is hampered by the length of time investigations take. A characteristic of the careful work required to probe and prove out competitive harms that’s nonetheless especially problematic set against the blistering pace of technological innovation and disruption. The law here is very much the polar opposite of ‘move fast and break things’.

But on the privacy front at least, there will be no 12 year wait for the first GDPR enforcements, as Buttarelli notes was the case when Europe’s competition rules were originally set down in 1957’s Treaty of Rome.

He says the newly formed European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which is in charge of applying GDPR consistently across the bloc, is fixed on delivering results “much more quickly”. And so the first enforcements are penciled in for around half a year after GDPR ‘Day 1’.

“I think that people are right to feel more impassioned about enforcement,” he says. “We see awareness and major problems with how the data is treated — which are systemic. There is also a question with regard to the business model, not only compliance culture.

“I’m expecting concrete first results, in terms of implementation, before the end of this year.”

“No blackmailing”

Tens of thousands of consumers have already filed complaints under Europe’s new privacy regime. The GDPR updates the EU’s longstanding data protection rules, bringing proper enforcement for the first time in the form of much larger fines for violations — to prevent privacy being the bit of the law companies felt they could safely ignore.

The EDPB tells us that more than 42,230 complaints have been lodged across the bloc since the regulation began applying, on May 25. The board is made up of the heads of EU Member State’s national data protection agencies, with Buttarelli serving as its current secretariat.

“I did not appreciate the tsunami of legalistic notices landing on the account of millions of users, written in an obscure language, and many of them were entirely useless, and in a borderline even with spamming, to ask for unnecessary agreements with a new privacy policy,” he tells us. “Which, in a few cases, appear to be in full breach of the GDPR — not only in terms of spirit.”

He also professes himself “not surprised” about Facebook’s latest security debacle — describing the massive new data breach the company revealed on Friday as “business as usual” for the tech giant. And indeed for “all the tech giants” — none of whom he believes are making adequate investments in security.

“In terms of security there are much less investments than expected,” he also says of Facebook specifically. “Lot of investments about profiling people, about creating clusters, but much less in preserving the [security] of communications. GDPR is a driver for a change — even with regard to security.”

Asked what systematic violations of the framework he’s seen so far, from his pan-EU oversight position, Buttarelli highlights instances where service operators are relying on consent as their legal basis to collect user data — saying this must allow for a free choice.

Or “no blackmailing”, as he puts it.

Facebook, for example, does not offer any of its users, even its users in Europe, the option to opt out of targeted advertising. Yet it leans on user consent, gathered via dark pattern consent flows of its own design, to sanction its harvesting of personal data — claiming people can just stop using its service if they don’t agree to its ads.

It also claims to be GDPR compliant.

It’s pretty easy to see the disconnect between those two positions.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 11: Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 11, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the second day of testimony before Congress by Zuckerberg, 33, after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“In cases in which it is indispensable to build on consent it should be much more than in the past based on exhaustive information; much more details, written in a comprehensive and simple language, accessible to an average user, and it should be really freely given — so no blackmailing,” says Buttarelli, not mentioning any specific tech firms by name as he reels off this list. “It should be really freely revoked, and without expecting that the contract is terminated because of this.

“This is not respectful of at least the spirit of the GDPR and, in a few cases, even of the legal framework.”

His remarks — which chime with what we’ve heard before from privacy experts — suggest the first wave of complaints filed by veteran European data protection campaigner and lawyer, Max Schrems, via his consumer focused data protection non-profit noyb, will bear fruit. And could force tech giants to offer a genuine opt-out of profiling.

The first noyb complaints target so-called ‘forced consent‘, arguing that Facebook; Facebook-owned Instagram; Facebook-owned WhatsApp; and Google’s Android are operating non-compliant consent flows in order to keep processing Europeans’ personal data because they do not offer the aforementioned ‘free choice’ opt-out of data collection.

Schrems also contends that this behavior is additionally problematic because dominant tech giants are gaining an unfair advantage over small businesses — which simply cannot throw their weight around in the same way to get what they want. So that’s another spark being thrown in on the competition front.

Discussing GDPR enforcement generally, Buttarelli confirms he expects to see financial penalties not just investigatory outcomes before the year is out — so once DPAs have worked through the first phase of implementation (and got on top of their rising case loads).

Of course it will be up to local data protection agencies to issue any fines. But the EDPB and Buttarelli are the glue between Europe’s (currently) 28 national data protection agencies — playing a highly influential co-ordinating and steering role to ensure the regulation gets consistently applied.

He doesn’t say exactly where be thinks the first penalties will fall but notes a smorgasbord of issues that are being commonly complained about, saying: “Now we have an obvious trend and even a peak, in terms of complaints; different violations focusing particularly, but not only, on social media; big data breaches; rights like right of access to information held; right to erasure.”

He illustrates his conviction of incoming fines by pointing to the recent example of the ICO’s interim report into Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data, in July — when the UK agency said it intended to fine Facebook the maximum possible (just £500k, because the breach took place before GDPR).

A similarly concluded data misuse investigation under GDPR would almost certainly result in much larger fines because the regulation allows for penalties of up to 4% of a company’s annual global turnover. (So in Facebook’s case the maximum suddenly balloons into the billions.)

The GDPR’s article 83 sets out general conditions for calculating fines — saying penalties should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and they must take into account factors such as whether an infringement was intentional or negligent; the categories of personal data affected; and how co-operative the data controller is as the data supervisor investigates.

For the security breach Facebook disclosed last week the EU’s regulatory oversight process will involve an assessment of how negligent the company was; what response steps it took when it discovered the breach, including how it communicated with data protection authorities and users; and how comprehensively it co-operatives with the DPC’s investigation. (In a not-so-great sign for Facebook the Irish DPC has already criticized its breach notification for lacking detail).

As well as evaluating a data controller’s security measures against GDPR standards, EU regulators can “prescribe additional safeguards”, as Buttarelli puts it. Which means enforcement is much more than just a financial penalty; organizations can be required to change their processes and priorities too.

And that’s why Schrems’ forced consent complaints are so interesting.

Because a fine, even a large one, can be viewed by a company as revenue-heavy as Facebook as just another business cost to suck up as it keeps on truckin’. But GDPR’s follow on enforcement prescriptions could force privacy law breakers to actively reshape their business practices to continue doing business in Europe.

And if the privacy problem with Facebook is that it’s forcing people-tracking ads on everyone, the solution is surely a version of Facebook that does not require users to accept privacy intrusive advertising to use it. Other business models are available, such as subscription.

But ads don’t have to be hostile to privacy. For example it’s possible to display advertising without persistently profiling users — as, for example, pro-privacy search engine DuckDuckGo does. Other startups are exploring privacy-by-design on-device ad-targeting architectures for delivering targeted ads without needing to track users. Alternatives to Facebook’s targeted ads certainly exist — and innovating in lock-step with privacy is clearly possible. Just ask Apple.

So — at least in theory — GDPR could force the social network behemoth to revise its entire business model.

Which would make even a $1.63BN fine the company could face as a result of Friday’s security breach pale into insignificance.

Accelerating ethics

There’s a wrinkle here though. Buttarelli does not sound convinced that GDPR alone will be remedy enough to fix all privacy hostile business models that EU regulators are seeing. Hence his comment about a “question with regard to the business model”.

And also why he’s looking ahead and talking about the need to evolve the regulatory landscape — to enable joint working between traditionally discrete areas of law. 

“We need structural remedies to make the digital market fairer for people,” he says. “And therefore this is we’ve been successful in persuading our colleagues of the Board to adopt a position on the intersection of consumer protection, competition rules and data protection. None of the independent regulators’ three areas, not speaking about audio-visual deltas, can succeed in their sort of old fashioned approach.

“We need more interaction, we need more synergies, we need to look to the future of these sectoral legislations.”

People are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor

The challenge posed by the web’s currently dominant privacy-hostile business models is also why, in a parallel track, Europe’s data protection supervisor is actively pushing to accelerate innovation and debate around data ethics — to support efforts to steer markets and business models in, well, a more humanitarian direction.

When we talk he highlights that Sir Tim Berners-Lee will be keynoting at the same European privacy conference where Vestager will appear at — which has an overarching discussion frame of “Debating Ethics: Dignity and Respect in Data Driven Life” as its theme.

Accelerating innovation to support the development of more ethical business models is also clearly the Commission’s underlying hope and aim.

Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, has been increasingly strident in his criticism of how commercial interests have come to dominate the Internet by exploiting people’s personal data, including warning earlier this year that platform power is crushing the web as a force for good.

He has also just left his academic day job to focus on commercializing the pro-privacy, decentralized web platform he’s been building at MIT for years — via a new startup, called Inrupt.

Doubtless he’ll be telling the conference all about that.

“We are focusing on the solutions for the future,” says Buttarelli on ethics. “There is a lot of discussion about people becoming owners of their data, and ‘personal data’, and we call that personal because there’s something to be respected, not traded. And on the contrary we see a lot of inequality in the tech world, and we believe that the legal framework can be of an help. But will not give all the relevant answers to identify what is legally and technically feasible but morally untenable.”

Also just announced as another keynote speaker at the same conference later this month: Apple’s CEO Tim Cook.

In a statement on Cook’s addition to the line-up, Buttarelli writes: “We are delighted that Tim has agreed to speak at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. Tim has been a strong voice in the debate around privacy, as the leader of a company which has taken a clear privacy position, we look forward to hearing his perspective. He joins an already superb line up of keynote speakers and panellists who want to be part of a discussion about technology serving humankind.”

So Europe’s big fight to rule the damaging impacts of big data just got another big gun behind it.

Apple CEO Tim Cook looks on during a visit of the shopfitting company Dula that delivers tables for Apple stores worldwide in Vreden, western Germany, on February 7, 2017. (Photo: BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

  “Question is [how do] we go beyond the simple requirements of confidentiality, security, of data,” Buttarelli continues. “Europe after such a successful step [with GDPR] is now going beyond the lawful and fair accumulation of personal data — we are identifying a new way of assessing market power when the services delivered to individuals are not mediated by a binary. And although competition law is still a powerful instrument for regulation — it was invented to stop companies getting so big — but I think together with our efforts on ethics we would like now Europe to talk about the future of the current dominant business models.

“I’m… concerned about how these companies, in compliance with GDPR in a few cases, may collect as much data as they can. In a few cases openly, in other secretly. They can constantly monitor what people are doing online. They categorize excessively people. They profile them in a way which cannot be contested. So we have in our democracies a lot of national laws in an anti-discrimination mode but now people are to be discriminated depending on how they behave online. So people are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. This is not our idea.”

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/2zNf9xG via IFTTT

[thegloober]

Europe is drawing fresh battle lines around the ethics of big data

It’s been just over four months since Europe’s tough new privacy framework came into force. You might believe that little of substance has changed for big tech’s data-hungry smooth operators since then — beyond firing out a wave of privacy policy update spam, and putting up a fresh cluster of consent pop-ups that are just as aggressively keen for your data.

But don’t be fooled. This is the calm before the storm, according to the European Union’s data protection supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, who says the law is being systematically flouted on a number of fronts right now — and that enforcement is coming.

“I’m expecting, before the end of the year, concrete results,” he tells TechCrunch, sounding angry on every consumer’s behalf.

Though he chalks up some early wins for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) too, suggesting its 72 hour breach notification requirement is already bearing fruit.

He also points to geopolitical pull, with privacy regulation rising up the political agenda outside Europe — describing, for example, California’s recently passed privacy law, which is not at all popular with tech giants, as having “a lot of similarities to GDPR”; as well as noting “a new appetite for a federal law” in the U.S.

Yet he’s also already looking beyond GDPR — to the wider question of how European regulation needs to keep evolving to respond to platform power and its impacts on people.

Next May, on the anniversary of GDPR coming into force, Buttarelli says he will publish a manifesto for a next-generation framework that envisages active collaboration between Europe’s privacy overseers and antitrust regulators. Which will probably send a shiver down the tech giant spine.

Notably, the Commission’s antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager — who has shown an appetite to take on big tech, and has so far fined Google twice ($2.7BN for Google Shopping and staggering $5BN for Android), and who is continuing to probe its business on a number of fronts while simultaneously eyeing other platforms’ use of data — is scheduled to give a keynote at an annual privacy commissioners’ conference that Buttarelli is co-hosting in Brussels later this month.

Her presence hints at the potential of joint-working across historically separate regulatory silos that have nonetheless been showing increasingly overlapping concerns of late.

See, for example, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office accusing Facebook of using its size to strong-arm users into handing over data. And the French Competition Authority probing the online ad market — aka Facebook and Google — and identifying a raft of problematic behaviors. Last year the Italian Competition Authority also opened a sector inquiry into big data.

Traditional competition law theories of harm would need to be reworked to accommodate data-based anticompetitive conduct — essentially the idea that data holdings can bestow an unfair competitive advantage if they cannot be matched. Which clearly isn’t the easiest stinging jellyfish to nail to the wall. But Europe’s antitrust regulators are paying increasing mind to big data; looking actively at whether and even how data advantages are exclusionary or exploitative.

In recent years, Vestager has been very public with her concerns about dominant tech platforms and the big data they accrue as a consequence, saying, for example in 2016, that: “If a company’s use of data is so bad for competition that it outweighs the benefits, we may have to step in to restore a level playing field.”

Buttarelli’s belief is that EU privacy regulators will be co-opted into that wider antitrust fight by “supporting and feeding” competition investigations in the future. A future that can be glimpsed right now, with the EC’s antitrust lens swinging around to zoom in on what Amazon is doing with merchant data.

“Europe would like to speak with one voice, not only within data protection but by approaching this issue of digital dividend, monopolies in a better way — not per sectors,” Buttarelli tells TechCrunch. 

“Monopolies are quite recent. And therefore once again, as it was the case with social networks, we have been surprised,” he adds, when asked whether the law can hope to keep pace. “And therefore the legal framework has been implemented in a way to do our best but it’s not in my view robust enough to consider all the relevant implications… So there is space for different solutions. But first joint enforcement and better co-operation is key.”

From a regulatory point of view, competition law is hampered by the length of time investigations take. A characteristic of the careful work required to probe and prove out competitive harms that’s nonetheless especially problematic set against the blistering pace of technological innovation and disruption. The law here is very much the polar opposite of ‘move fast and break things’.

But on the privacy front at least, there will be no 12 year wait for the first GDPR enforcements, as Buttarelli notes was the case when Europe’s competition rules were originally set down in 1957’s Treaty of Rome.

He says the newly formed European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which is in charge of applying GDPR consistently across the bloc, is fixed on delivering results “much more quickly”. And so the first enforcements are penciled in for around half a year after GDPR ‘Day 1’.

“I think that people are right to feel more impassioned about enforcement,” he says. “We see awareness and major problems with how the data is treated — which are systemic. There is also a question with regard to the business model, not only compliance culture.

“I’m expecting concrete first results, in terms of implementation, before the end of this year.”

“No blackmailing”

Tens of thousands of consumers have already filed complaints under Europe’s new privacy regime. The GDPR updates the EU’s longstanding data protection rules, bringing proper enforcement for the first time in the form of much larger fines for violations — to prevent privacy being the bit of the law companies felt they could safely ignore.

The EDPB tells us that more than 42,230 complaints have been lodged across the bloc since the regulation began applying, on May 25. The board is made up of the heads of EU Member State’s national data protection agencies, with Buttarelli serving as its current secretariat.

“I did not appreciate the tsunami of legalistic notices landing on the account of millions of users, written in an obscure language, and many of them were entirely useless, and in a borderline even with spamming, to ask for unnecessary agreements with a new privacy policy,” he tells us. “Which, in a few cases, appear to be in full breach of the GDPR — not only in terms of spirit.”

He also professes himself “not surprised” about Facebook’s latest security debacle — describing the massive new data breach the company revealed on Friday as “business as usual” for the tech giant. And indeed for “all the tech giants” — none of whom he believes are making adequate investments in security.

“In terms of security there are much less investments than expected,” he also says of Facebook specifically. “Lot of investments about profiling people, about creating clusters, but much less in preserving the [security] of communications. GDPR is a driver for a change — even with regard to security.”

Asked what systematic violations of the framework he’s seen so far, from his pan-EU oversight position, Buttarelli highlights instances where service operators are relying on consent as their legal basis to collect user data — saying this must allow for a free choice.

Or “no blackmailing”, as he puts it.

Facebook, for example, does not offer any of its users, even its users in Europe, the option to opt out of targeted advertising. Yet it leans on user consent, gathered via dark pattern consent flows of its own design, to sanction its harvesting of personal data — claiming people can just stop using its service if they don’t agree to its ads.

It also claims to be GDPR compliant.

It’s pretty easy to see the disconnect between those two positions.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 11: Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 11, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the second day of testimony before Congress by Zuckerberg, 33, after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“In cases in which it is indispensable to build on consent it should be much more than in the past based on exhaustive information; much more details, written in a comprehensive and simple language, accessible to an average user, and it should be really freely given — so no blackmailing,” says Buttarelli, not mentioning any specific tech firms by name as he reels off this list. “It should be really freely revoked, and without expecting that the contract is terminated because of this.

“This is not respectful of at least the spirit of the GDPR and, in a few cases, even of the legal framework.”

His remarks — which chime with what we’ve heard before from privacy experts — suggest the first wave of complaints filed by veteran European data protection campaigner and lawyer, Max Schrems, via his consumer focused data protection non-profit noyb, will bear fruit. And could force tech giants to offer a genuine opt-out of profiling.

The first noyb complaints target so-called ‘forced consent‘, arguing that Facebook; Facebook-owned Instagram; Facebook-owned WhatsApp; and Google’s Android are operating non-compliant consent flows in order to keep processing Europeans’ personal data because they do not offer the aforementioned ‘free choice’ opt-out of data collection.

Schrems also contends that this behavior is additionally problematic because dominant tech giants are gaining an unfair advantage over small businesses — which simply cannot throw their weight around in the same way to get what they want. So that’s another spark being thrown in on the competition front.

Discussing GDPR enforcement generally, Buttarelli confirms he expects to see financial penalties not just investigatory outcomes before the year is out — so once DPAs have worked through the first phase of implementation (and got on top of their rising case loads).

Of course it will be up to local data protection agencies to issue any fines. But the EDPB and Buttarelli are the glue between Europe’s (currently) 28 national data protection agencies — playing a highly influential co-ordinating and steering role to ensure the regulation gets consistently applied.

He doesn’t say exactly where be thinks the first penalties will fall but notes a smorgasbord of issues that are being commonly complained about, saying: “Now we have an obvious trend and even a peak, in terms of complaints; different violations focusing particularly, but not only, on social media; big data breaches; rights like right of access to information held; right to erasure.”

He illustrates his conviction of incoming fines by pointing to the recent example of the ICO’s interim report into Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data, in July — when the UK agency said it intended to fine Facebook the maximum possible (just £500k, because the breach took place before GDPR).

A similarly concluded data misuse investigation under GDPR would almost certainly result in much larger fines because the regulation allows for penalties of up to 4% of a company’s annual global turnover. (So in Facebook’s case the maximum suddenly balloons into the billions.)

The GDPR’s article 83 sets out general conditions for calculating fines — saying penalties should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and they must take into account factors such as whether an infringement was intentional or negligent; the categories of personal data affected; and how co-operative the data controller is as the data supervisor investigates.

For the security breach Facebook disclosed last week the EU’s regulatory oversight process will involve an assessment of how negligent the company was; what response steps it took when it discovered the breach, including how it communicated with data protection authorities and users; and how comprehensively it co-operatives with the DPC’s investigation. (In a not-so-great sign for Facebook the Irish DPC has already criticized its breach notification for lacking detail).

As well as evaluating a data controller’s security measures against GDPR standards, EU regulators can “prescribe additional safeguards”, as Buttarelli puts it. Which means enforcement is much more than just a financial penalty; organizations can be required to change their processes and priorities too.

And that’s why Schrems’ forced consent complaints are so interesting.

Because a fine, even a large one, can be viewed by a company as revenue-heavy as Facebook as just another business cost to suck up as it keeps on truckin’. But GDPR’s follow on enforcement prescriptions could force privacy law breakers to actively reshape their business practices to continue doing business in Europe.

And if the privacy problem with Facebook is that it’s forcing people-tracking ads on everyone, the solution is surely a version of Facebook that does not require users to accept privacy intrusive advertising to use it. Other business models are available, such as subscription.

But ads don’t have to be hostile to privacy. For example it’s possible to display advertising without persistently profiling users — as, for example, pro-privacy search engine DuckDuckGo does. Other startups are exploring privacy-by-design on-device ad-targeting architectures for delivering targeted ads without needing to track users. Alternatives to Facebook’s targeted ads certainly exist — and innovating in lock-step with privacy is clearly possible. Just ask Apple.

So — at least in theory — GDPR could force the social network behemoth to revise its entire business model.

Which would make even a $1.63BN fine the company could face as a result of Friday’s security breach pale into insignificance.

Accelerating ethics

There’s a wrinkle here though. Buttarelli does not sound convinced that GDPR alone will be remedy enough to fix all privacy hostile business models that EU regulators are seeing. Hence his comment about a “question with regard to the business model”.

And also why he’s looking ahead and talking about the need to evolve the regulatory landscape — to enable joint working between traditionally discrete areas of law. 

“We need structural remedies to make the digital market fairer for people,” he says. “And therefore this is we’ve been successful in persuading our colleagues of the Board to adopt a position on the intersection of consumer protection, competition rules and data protection. None of the independent regulators’ three areas, not speaking about audio-visual deltas, can succeed in their sort of old fashioned approach.

“We need more interaction, we need more synergies, we need to look to the future of these sectoral legislations.”

People are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor

The challenge posed by the web’s currently dominant privacy-hostile business models is also why, in a parallel track, Europe’s data protection supervisor is actively pushing to accelerate innovation and debate around data ethics — to support efforts to steer markets and business models in, well, a more humanitarian direction.

When we talk he highlights that Sir Tim Berners-Lee will be keynoting at the same European privacy conference where Vestager will appear at — which has an overarching discussion frame of “Debating Ethics: Dignity and Respect in Data Driven Life” as its theme.

Accelerating innovation to support the development of more ethical business models is also clearly the Commission’s underlying hope and aim.

Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, has been increasingly strident in his criticism of how commercial interests have come to dominate the Internet by exploiting people’s personal data, including warning earlier this year that platform power is crushing the web as a force for good.

He has also just left his academic day job to focus on commercializing the pro-privacy, decentralized web platform he’s been building at MIT for years — via a new startup, called Inrupt.

Doubtless he’ll be telling the conference all about that.

“We are focusing on the solutions for the future,” says Buttarelli on ethics. “There is a lot of discussion about people becoming owners of their data, and ‘personal data’, and we call that personal because there’s something to be respected, not traded. And on the contrary we see a lot of inequality in the tech world, and we believe that the legal framework can be of an help. But will not give all the relevant answers to identify what is legally and technically feasible but morally untenable.”

Also just announced as another keynote speaker at the same conference later this month: Apple’s CEO Tim Cook.

In a statement on Cook’s addition to the line-up, Buttarelli writes: “We are delighted that Tim has agreed to speak at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. Tim has been a strong voice in the debate around privacy, as the leader of a company which has taken a clear privacy position, we look forward to hearing his perspective. He joins an already superb line up of keynote speakers and panellists who want to be part of a discussion about technology serving humankind.”

So Europe’s big fight to rule the damaging impacts of big data just got another big gun behind it.

Apple CEO Tim Cook looks on during a visit of the shopfitting company Dula that delivers tables for Apple stores worldwide in Vreden, western Germany, on February 7, 2017. (Photo: BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

“Question is [how do] we go beyond the simple requirements of confidentiality, security, of data,” Buttarelli continues. “Europe after such a successful step [with GDPR] is now going beyond the lawful and fair accumulation of personal data — we are identifying a new way of assessing market power when the services delivered to individuals are not mediated by a binary. And although competition law is still a powerful instrument for regulation — it was invented to stop companies getting so big — but I think together with our efforts on ethics we would like now Europe to talk about the future of the current dominant business models.

“I’m… concerned about how these companies, in compliance with GDPR in a few cases, may collect as much data as they can. In a few cases openly, in other secretly. They can constantly monitor what people are doing online. They categorize excessively people. They profile them in a way which cannot be contested. So we have in our democracies a lot of national laws in an anti-discrimination mode but now people are to be discriminated depending on how they behave online. So people are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. This is not our idea.”

Source: https://bloghyped.com/europe-is-drawing-fresh-battle-lines-around-the-ethics-of-big-data/

[theinvinciblenoob]

It’s been just over four months since Europe’s tough new privacy framework came into force. You might believe that little of substance has changed for big tech’s data-hungry smooth operators since then — beyond firing out a wave of privacy policy update spam, and putting up a fresh cluster of consent pop-ups that are just as aggressively keen for your data.

But don’t be fooled. This is the calm before the storm, according to the European Union’s data protection supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, who says the law is being systematically flouted on a number of fronts right now — and that enforcement is coming.

“I’m expecting, before the end of the year, concrete results,” he tells TechCrunch, sounding angry on every consumer’s behalf.

Though he chalks up some early wins for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) too, suggesting its 72 hour breach notification requirement is already bearing fruit.

He also points to geopolitical pull, with privacy regulation rising up the political agenda outside Europe — describing, for example, California’s recently passed privacy law, which is not at all popular with tech giants, as having “a lot of similarities to GDPR”; as well as noting “a new appetite for a federal law” in the U.S.

Yet he’s also already looking beyond GDPR — to the wider question of how European regulation needs to keep evolving to respond to platform power and its impacts on people.

Next May, on the anniversary of GDPR coming into force, Buttarelli says he will publish a manifesto for a next-generation framework that envisages active collaboration between Europe’s privacy overseers and antitrust regulators. Which will probably send a shiver down the tech giant spine.

Notably, the Commission’s antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager — who has shown an appetite to take on big tech, and has so far fined Google twice ($2.7BN for Google Shopping and staggering $5BN for Android), and who is continuing to probe its business on a number of fronts while simultaneously eyeing other platforms’ use of data — is scheduled to give a keynote at an annual privacy commissioners’ conference that Buttarelli is co-hosting in Brussels later this month.

Her presence hints at the potential of joint-working across historically separate regulatory silos that have nonetheless been showing increasingly overlapping concerns of late.

See, for example, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office accusing Facebook of using its size to strong-arm users into handing over data. And the French Competition Authority probing the online ad market — aka Facebook and Google — and identifying a raft of problematic behaviors. Last year the Italian Competition Authority also opened a sector inquiry into big data.

Traditional competition law theories of harm would need to be reworked to accommodate data-based anticompetitive conduct — essentially the idea that data holdings can bestow an unfair competitive advantage if they cannot be matched. Which clearly isn’t the easiest stinging jellyfish to nail to the wall. But Europe’s antitrust regulators are paying increasing mind to big data; looking actively at whether and even how data advantages are exclusionary or exploitative.

In recent years, Vestager has been very public with her concerns about dominant tech platforms and the big data they accrue as a consequence, saying, for example in 2016, that: “If a company’s use of data is so bad for competition that it outweighs the benefits, we may have to step in to restore a level playing field.”

Buttarelli’s belief is that EU privacy regulators will be co-opted into that wider antitrust fight by “supporting and feeding” competition investigations in the future. A future that can be glimpsed right now, with the EC’s antitrust lens swinging around to zoom in on what Amazon is doing with merchant data.

“Europe would like to speak with one voice, not only within data protection but by approaching this issue of digital dividend, monopolies in a better way — not per sectors,” Buttarelli tells TechCrunch. 

“Monopolies are quite recent. And therefore once again, as it was the case with social networks, we have been surprised,” he adds, when asked whether the law can hope to keep pace. “And therefore the legal framework has been implemented in a way to do our best but it’s not in my view robust enough to consider all the relevant implications… So there is space for different solutions. But first joint enforcement and better co-operation is key.”

From a regulatory point of view, competition law is hampered by the length of time investigations take. A characteristic of the careful work required to probe and prove out competitive harms that’s nonetheless especially problematic set against the blistering pace of technological innovation and disruption. The law here is very much the polar opposite of ‘move fast and break things’.

But on the privacy front at least, there will be no 12 year wait for the first GDPR enforcements, as Buttarelli notes was the case when Europe’s competition rules were originally set down in 1957’s Treaty of Rome.

He says the newly formed European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which is in charge of applying GDPR consistently across the bloc, is fixed on delivering results “much more quickly”. And so the first enforcements are penciled in for around half a year after GDPR ‘Day 1’.

“I think that people are right to feel more impassioned about enforcement,” he says. “We see awareness and major problems with how the data is treated — which are systemic. There is also a question with regard to the business model, not only compliance culture.

“I’m expecting concrete first results, in terms of implementation, before the end of this year.”

“No blackmailing”

Tens of thousands of consumers have already filed complaints under Europe’s new privacy regime. The GDPR updates the EU’s longstanding data protection rules, bringing proper enforcement for the first time in the form of much larger fines for violations — to prevent privacy being the bit of the law companies felt they could safely ignore.

The EDPB tells us that more than 42,230 complaints have been lodged across the bloc since the regulation began applying, on May 25. The board is made up of the heads of EU Member State’s national data protection agencies, with Buttarelli serving as its current secretariat.

“I did not appreciate the tsunami of legalistic notices landing on the account of millions of users, written in an obscure language, and many of them were entirely useless, and in a borderline even with spamming, to ask for unnecessary agreements with a new privacy policy,” he tells us. “Which, in a few cases, appear to be in full breach of the GDPR — not only in terms of spirit.”

He also professes himself “not surprised” about Facebook’s latest security debacle — describing the massive new data breach the company revealed on Friday as “business as usual” for the tech giant. And indeed for “all the tech giants” — none of whom he believes are making adequate investments in security.

“In terms of security there are much less investments than expected,” he also says of Facebook specifically. “Lot of investments about profiling people, about creating clusters, but much less in preserving the [security] of communications. GDPR is a driver for a change — even with regard to security.”

Asked what systematic violations of the framework he’s seen so far, from his pan-EU oversight position, Buttarelli highlights instances where service operators are relying on consent as their legal basis to collect user data — saying this must allow for a free choice.

Or “no blackmailing”, as he puts it.

Facebook, for example, does not offer any of its users, even its users in Europe, the option to opt out of targeted advertising. Yet it leans on user consent, gathered via dark pattern consent flows of its own design, to sanction its harvesting of personal data — claiming people can just stop using its service if they don’t agree to its ads.

It also claims to be GDPR compliant.

It’s pretty easy to see the disconnect between those two positions.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 11: Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 11, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the second day of testimony before Congress by Zuckerberg, 33, after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“In cases in which it is indispensable to build on consent it should be much more than in the past based on exhaustive information; much more details, written in a comprehensive and simple language, accessible to an average user, and it should be really freely given — so no blackmailing,” says Buttarelli, not mentioning any specific tech firms by name as he reels off this list. “It should be really freely revoked, and without expecting that the contract is terminated because of this.

“This is not respectful of at least the spirit of the GDPR and, in a few cases, even of the legal framework.”

His remarks — which chime with what we’ve heard before from privacy experts — suggest the first wave of complaints filed by veteran European data protection campaigner and lawyer, Max Schrems, via his consumer focused data protection non-profit noyb, will bear fruit. And could force tech giants to offer a genuine opt-out of profiling.

The first noyb complaints target so-called ‘forced consent‘, arguing that Facebook; Facebook-owned Instagram; Facebook-owned WhatsApp; and Google’s Android are operating non-compliant consent flows in order to keep processing Europeans’ personal data because they do not offer the aforementioned ‘free choice’ opt-out of data collection.

Schrems also contends that this behavior is additionally problematic because dominant tech giants are gaining an unfair advantage over small businesses — which simply cannot throw their weight around in the same way to get what they want. So that’s another spark being thrown in on the competition front.

Discussing GDPR enforcement generally, Buttarelli confirms he expects to see financial penalties not just investigatory outcomes before the year is out — so once DPAs have worked through the first phase of implementation (and got on top of their rising case loads).

Of course it will be up to local data protection agencies to issue any fines. But the EDPB and Buttarelli are the glue between Europe’s (currently) 28 national data protection agencies — playing a highly influential co-ordinating and steering role to ensure the regulation gets consistently applied.

He doesn’t say exactly where be thinks the first penalties will fall but notes a smorgasbord of issues that are being commonly complained about, saying: “Now we have an obvious trend and even a peak, in terms of complaints; different violations focusing particularly, but not only, on social media; big data breaches; rights like right of access to information held; right to erasure.”

He illustrates his conviction of incoming fines by pointing to the recent example of the ICO’s interim report into Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data, in July — when the UK agency said it intended to fine Facebook the maximum possible (just £500k, because the breach took place before GDPR).

A similarly concluded data misuse investigation under GDPR would almost certainly result in much larger fines because the regulation allows for penalties of up to 4% of a company’s annual global turnover. (So in Facebook’s case the maximum suddenly balloons into the billions.)

The GDPR’s article 83 sets out general conditions for calculating fines — saying penalties should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and they must take into account factors such as whether an infringement was intentional or negligent; the categories of personal data affected; and how co-operative the data controller is as the data supervisor investigates.

For the security breach Facebook disclosed last week the EU’s regulatory oversight process will involve an assessment of how negligent the company was; what response steps it took when it discovered the breach, including how it communicated with data protection authorities and users; and how comprehensively it co-operatives with the DPC’s investigation. (In a not-so-great sign for Facebook the Irish DPC has already criticized its breach notification for lacking detail).

As well as evaluating a data controller’s security measures against GDPR standards, EU regulators can “prescribe additional safeguards”, as Buttarelli puts it. Which means enforcement is much more than just a financial penalty; organizations can be required to change their processes and priorities too.

And that’s why Schrems’ forced consent complaints are so interesting.

Because a fine, even a large one, can be viewed by a company as revenue-heavy as Facebook as just another business cost to suck up as it keeps on truckin’. But GDPR’s follow on enforcement prescriptions could force privacy law breakers to actively reshape their business practices to continue doing business in Europe.

And if the privacy problem with Facebook is that it’s forcing people-tracking ads on everyone, the solution is surely a version of Facebook that does not require users to accept privacy intrusive advertising to use it. Other business models are available, such as subscription.

But ads don’t have to be hostile to privacy. For example it’s possible to display advertising without persistently profiling users — as, for example, pro-privacy search engine DuckDuckGo does. Other startups are exploring privacy-by-design on-device ad-targeting architectures for delivering targeted ads without needing to track users. Alternatives to Facebook’s targeted ads certainly exist — and innovating in lock-step with privacy is clearly possible. Just ask Apple.

So — at least in theory — GDPR could force the social network behemoth to revise its entire business model.

Which would make even a $1.63BN fine the company could face as a result of Friday’s security breach pale into insignificance.

Accelerating ethics

There’s a wrinkle here though. Buttarelli does not sound convinced that GDPR alone will be remedy enough to fix all privacy hostile business models that EU regulators are seeing. Hence his comment about a “question with regard to the business model”.

And also why he’s looking ahead and talking about the need to evolve the regulatory landscape — to enable joint working between traditionally discrete areas of law. 

“We need structural remedies to make the digital market fairer for people,” he says. “And therefore this is we’ve been successful in persuading our colleagues of the Board to adopt a position on the intersection of consumer protection, competition rules and data protection. None of the independent regulators’ three areas, not speaking about audio-visual deltas, can succeed in their sort of old fashioned approach.

“We need more interaction, we need more synergies, we need to look to the future of these sectoral legislations.”

People are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. Giovanni Buttarelli, European Data Protection Supervisor

The challenge posed by the web’s currently dominant privacy-hostile business models is also why, in a parallel track, Europe’s data protection supervisor is actively pushing to accelerate innovation and debate around data ethics — to support efforts to steer markets and business models in, well, a more humanitarian direction.

When we talk he highlights that Sir Tim Berners-Lee will be keynoting at the same European privacy conference where Vestager will appear at — which has an overarching discussion frame of “Debating Ethics: Dignity and Respect in Data Driven Life” as its theme.

Accelerating innovation to support the development of more ethical business models is also clearly the Commission’s underlying hope and aim.

Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, has been increasingly strident in his criticism of how commercial interests have come to dominate the Internet by exploiting people’s personal data, including warning earlier this year that platform power is crushing the web as a force for good.

He has also just left his academic day job to focus on commercializing the pro-privacy, decentralized web platform he’s been building at MIT for years — via a new startup, called Inrupt.

Doubtless he’ll be telling the conference all about that.

“We are focusing on the solutions for the future,” says Buttarelli on ethics. “There is a lot of discussion about people becoming owners of their data, and ‘personal data’, and we call that personal because there’s something to be respected, not traded. And on the contrary we see a lot of inequality in the tech world, and we believe that the legal framework can be of an help. But will not give all the relevant answers to identify what is legally and technically feasible but morally untenable.”

Also just announced as another keynote speaker at the same conference later this month: Apple’s CEO Tim Cook.

In a statement on Cook’s addition to the line-up, Buttarelli writes: “We are delighted that Tim has agreed to speak at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. Tim has been a strong voice in the debate around privacy, as the leader of a company which has taken a clear privacy position, we look forward to hearing his perspective. He joins an already superb line up of keynote speakers and panellists who want to be part of a discussion about technology serving humankind.”

So Europe’s big fight to rule the damaging impacts of big data just got another big gun behind it.

Apple CEO Tim Cook looks on during a visit of the shopfitting company Dula that delivers tables for Apple stores worldwide in Vreden, western Germany, on February 7, 2017. (Photo: BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

  “Question is [how do] we go beyond the simple requirements of confidentiality, security, of data,” Buttarelli continues. “Europe after such a successful step [with GDPR] is now going beyond the lawful and fair accumulation of personal data — we are identifying a new way of assessing market power when the services delivered to individuals are not mediated by a binary. And although competition law is still a powerful instrument for regulation — it was invented to stop companies getting so big — but I think together with our efforts on ethics we would like now Europe to talk about the future of the current dominant business models.

“I’m… concerned about how these companies, in compliance with GDPR in a few cases, may collect as much data as they can. In a few cases openly, in other secretly. They can constantly monitor what people are doing online. They categorize excessively people. They profile them in a way which cannot be contested. So we have in our democracies a lot of national laws in an anti-discrimination mode but now people are to be discriminated depending on how they behave online. So people are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. This is not our idea.”

via TechCrunch

[fmservers]

Europe is drawing fresh battle lines around the ethics of big data

It’s been just over four months since Europe’s tough new privacy framework came into force. You might believe that little of substance has changed for big tech’s data-hungry smooth operators since then — beyond firing out a wave of privacy policy update spam, and putting up a fresh cluster of consent pop-ups that are just as aggressively keen for your data.

But don’t be fooled. This is the calm before the storm, according to Europe’s data protection supervisor, Giovanni Buttarelli, who says the law is being systematically flouted on a number of fronts right now — and that enforcement is coming.

“I’m expecting, before the end of the year, concrete results,” he tells TechCrunch, sounding angry on every consumer’s behalf.

Though he chalks up some early wins for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) too, suggesting its 72 hour breach notification requirement is already bearing fruit.

He also points to geopolitical pull, with privacy regulation rising up the political agenda outside Europe — describing, for example, California’s recently passed privacy law, which is not at all popular with tech giants, as having “a lot of similarities to GDPR”; as well as noting “a new appetite for a federal law” in the U.S.

Yet he’s also already looking beyond GDPR — to the wider question of how European regulation needs to keep evolving to respond to platform power and its impacts on people.

Next May, on the anniversary of GDPR coming into force, Buttarelli says he will publish a manifesto for a next-generation framework that envisages active collaboration between Europe’s privacy overseers and antitrust regulators. Which will probably send a shiver down the tech giant spine.

Notably, the Commission’s antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager — who has shown an appetite to take on big tech, and has so far fined Google twice ($2.7BN for Google Shopping and staggering $5BN for Android), and who is continuing to probe its business on a number of fronts while simultaneously eyeing other platforms’ use of data — is scheduled to give a keynote at an annual privacy commissioners’ conference that Buttarelli is co-hosting in Brussels later this month.

Her presence hints at the potential of joint-working across historically separate regulatory silos that have nonetheless been showing increasingly overlapping concerns of late.

See, for example, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office accusing Facebook of using its size to strong-arm users into handing over data. And the French Competition Authority probing the online ad market — aka Facebook and Google — and identifying a raft of problematic behaviors. Last year the Italian Competition Authority also opened a sector inquiry into big data.

Traditional competition law theories of harm would need to be reworked to accommodate data-based anticompetitive conduct — essentially the idea that data holdings can bestow an unfair competitive advantage if they cannot be matched. Which clearly isn’t the easiest stinging jellyfish to nail to the wall. But Europe’s antitrust regulators are paying increasing mind to big data; looking actively at whether and even how data advantages are exclusionary or exploitative.

In recent years, Vestager has been very public with her concerns about dominant tech platforms and the big data they accrue as a consequence, saying, for example in 2016, that: “If a company’s use of data is so bad for competition that it outweighs the benefits, we may have to step in to restore a level playing field.”

Buttarelli’s belief is that EU privacy regulators will be co-opted into that wider antitrust fight by “supporting and feeding” competition investigations in the future. A future that can be glimpsed right now, with the EC’s antitrust lens swinging around to zoom in on what Amazon is doing with merchant data.

“Europe would like to speak with one voice, not only within data protection but by approaching this issue of digital dividend, monopolies in a better way — not per sectors,” Buttarelli tells TechCrunch. 

“Monopolies are quite recent. And therefore once again, as it was the case with social networks, we have been surprised,” he adds, when asked whether the law can hope to keep pace. “And therefore the legal framework has been implemented in a way to do our best but it’s not in my view robust enough to consider all the relevant implications… So there is space for different solutions. But first joint enforcement and better co-operation is key.”

From a regulatory point of view, competition law is hampered by the length of time investigations take. A characteristic of the careful work required to probe and prove out competitive harms that’s nonetheless especially problematic set against the blistering pace of technological innovation and disruption. The law here is very much the polar opposite of ‘move fast and break things’.

But on the privacy front at least, there will be no 12 year wait for the first GDPR enforcements, as Buttarelli notes was the case when Europe’s competition rules were originally set down in 1957’s Treaty of Rome.

He says the newly formed European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which is in charge of applying GDPR across the bloc, is fixed on delivering results “much more quickly”. And so the first enforcements are penciled in for around half a year after GDPR ‘Day 1’.

“I think that people are right to feel more impassioned about enforcement,” he says. “We see awareness and major problems with how the data is treated — which are systemic. There is also a question with regard to the business model, not only compliance culture.

“I’m expecting concrete first results, in terms of implementation, before the end of this year.”

“No blackmailing”

Tens of thousands of consumers have already filed complaints under Europe’s new privacy regime. The GDPR updates the bloc’s longstanding data protection rules, bringing proper enforcement for the first time in the form of much larger fines for violations — to prevent privacy being the bit of the law companies felt they could safely ignore.

The EDPB tells us that more than 42,230 complaints have been lodged across the bloc since the regulation began applying, on May 25. The board is made up of the heads of EU Member State’s national data protection agencies, with Buttarelli serving as its current secretariat.

“I did not appreciate the tsunami of legalistic notices landing on the account of millions of users, written in an obscure language, and many of them were entirely useless, and in a borderline even with spamming, to ask for unnecessary agreements with a new privacy policy,” he tells us. “Which, in a few cases, appear to be in full breach of the GDPR — not only in terms of spirit.”

He also professes himself “not surprised” about Facebook’s latest security debacle — describing the massive new data breach the company revealed on Friday as “business as usual” for the tech giant. And indeed for “all the tech giants” — none of whom he believes are making adequate investments in security.

“In terms of security there are much less investments than expected,” he also says of Facebook specifically. “Lot of investments about profiling people, about creating clusters, but much less in preserving the [security] of communications. GDPR is a driver for a change — even with regard to security.”

Asked what systematic violations of the framework he’s seen so far, from his pan-EU oversight position, Buttarelli highlights instances where service operators are relying on consent as their legal basis to collect user data — saying this must allow for a free choice.

Or “no blackmailing”, as he puts it.

Facebook, for example, does not offer any of its users, even its users in Europe, the option to opt out of targeted advertising. Yet it leans on user consent, gathered via dark pattern consent flows of its own design, to sanction its harvesting of personal data — claiming people can just stop using its service if they don’t agree to its ads.

It also claims to be GDPR compliant.

It’s pretty easy to see the disconnect between those two positions.

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 11: Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill April 11, 2018 in Washington, DC. This is the second day of testimony before Congress by Zuckerberg, 33, after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“In cases in which it is indispensable to build on consent it should be much more than in the past based on exhaustive information; much more details, written in a comprehensive and simple language, accessible to an average user, and it should be really freely given — so no blackmailing,” says Buttarelli, not mentioning any specific tech firms by name as he reels off this list. “It should be really freely revoked, and without expecting that the contract is terminated because of this.

“This is not respectful of at least the spirit of the GDPR and, in a few cases, even of the legal framework.”

His remarks — which chime with what we’ve heard before from privacy experts — suggest the first wave of complaints filed by veteran European data protection campaigner and lawyer, Max Schrems, via his consumer focused data protection non-profit noyb, will bear fruit. And could force tech giants to offer a genuine opt-out of profiling.

The first noyb complaints target so-called ‘forced consent‘, arguing that Facebook; Facebook-owned Instagram; Facebook-owned WhatsApp; and Google’s Android are operating non-compliant consent flows in order to keep processing Europeans’ personal data because they do not offer the aforementioned free choice opt out of data collection.

Schrems also contends that this behavior is additionally problematic because dominant tech giants are gaining an unfair advantage over small businesses — which simply cannot throw their weight around in the same way to get what they want. So that’s another spark being thrown in on the competition front.

Discussing GDPR enforcement generally, Buttarelli confirms he expects to see fines specifically before the year is out — so once DPAs have worked through the first phase of implementation (and got on top of their rising case loads).

Of course it will be up to local data protection agencies to issue any fines. But the EDPB and Buttarelli are the glue between Europe’s (currently) 28 national data protection agencies — playing a highly influential co-ordinating and steering role to ensure the regulation gets consistently applied.

He doesn’t say exactly where be thinks the first penalties will fall but notes a smorgasbord of issues that are being commonly complained about, saying: “Now we have an obvious trend and even a peak, in terms of complaints; different violations focusing particularly, but not only, on social media; big data breaches; rights like right of access to information held; right to erasure.”

He illustrates his conviction of incoming fines by pointing to the recent example of the ICO’s interim report into Cambridge Analytica’s misuse of Facebook data, in July — when the UK agency said it intended to fine Facebook the maximum possible (just £500k, because the breach took place before GDPR).

A similarly concluded data misuse investigation under GDPR would almost certainly result in much larger fines because the regulation allows for penalties of up to 4% of a company’s annual global turnover. (So in Facebook’s case the maximum suddenly balloons into the billions.)

The GDPR’s article 83 sets out general conditions for calculating fines — saying penalties should be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”; and they must take into account factors such as whether an infringement was intentional or negligent; the categories of personal data affected; and how co-operative the data controller is as the data supervisor investigates.

For the security breach Facebook disclosed last week the EU’s regulatory oversight process will involve an assessment of how negligent the company was; what response steps it took when it discovered the breach, including how it communicated with data protection authorities and users; and how comprehensively it co-operatives with the DPC’s investigation. (In a not-so-great sign for Facebook the Irish DPC has already criticized its breach notification for lacking detail).

As well as evaluating a data controller’s security measures against GDPR standards, EU regulators can “prescribe additional safeguards”, as Buttarelli puts it. Which means enforcement is much more than just a financial penalty; organizations can be required to change their processes and priorities too.

And that’s why Schrems’ forced consent complaints are so interesting.

Because a fine, even a large one, can be viewed by a company as revenue-heavy as Facebook as just another business cost to suck up as it keeps on truckin’. But GDPR’s follow on enforcement prescriptions could force privacy law breakers to actively reshape their business practices to continue doing business in Europe.

And if the privacy problem with Facebook is that it’s forcing people-tracking ads on everyone, the solution is surely be a version of Facebook that does not require users to accept privacy intrusive ads to use it.

So GDPR could force the social network behemoth to revise its entire business model.

Which would make even a $1.63BN fine the company could face as a result of Friday’s security breach pale into insignificance.

Accelerating ethics

There’s a wrinkle here though. Buttarelli does not sound convinced that GDPR alone will be remedy enough to fix all privacy hostile business models that EU regulators are seeing. Hence his comment about a “question with regard to the business model”.

And also why he’s looking ahead and talking about the need to evolve the regulatory landscape — to enable joint working between traditionally discrete areas of law. 

“We need structural remedies to make the digital market fairer for people,” he says. “And therefore this is we’ve been successful in persuading our colleagues of the Board to adopt a position on the intersection of consumer protection, competition rules and data protection. None of the independent regulators’ three areas, not speaking about audio-visual deltas, can succeed in their sort of old fashioned approach.

“We need more interaction, we need more synergies, we need to look to the future of these sectoral legislations.”

The challenge posed by the web’s currently dominant privacy-hostile business models is also why, in a parallel track, Europe’s data protection supervisor is actively pushing to accelerate innovation and debate around data ethics — to support efforts to steer markets and business models in, well, a more humanitarian direction.

When we talk he highlights that Sir Tim Berners-Lee will be keynoting at the same European privacy conference where Vestager will appear at — which has an overarching discussion frame of “Debating Ethics: Dignity and Respect in Data Driven Life” as its theme.

Accelerating innovation to support the development of more ethical business models is also clearly the Commission’s underlying hope and aim.

Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, has been increasingly strident in his criticism of how commercial interests have come to dominate the Internet by exploiting people’s personal data, including warning earlier this year that platform power is crushing the web as a force for good.

He has also just left his academic day job to focus on commercializing the pro-privacy, decentralized web platform he’s been building at MIT for years — via a new startup, called Inrupt.

Doubtless he’ll be telling the conference all about that.

“We are focusing on the solutions for the future,” says Buttarelli on ethics. “There is a lot of discussion about people becoming owners of their data, and ‘personal data’, and we call that personal because there’s something to be respected, not traded. And on the contrary we see a lot of inequality in the tech world, and we believe that the legal framework can be of an help. But will not give all the relevant answers to identify what is legally and technically feasible but morally untenable.”

Also just announced as another keynote speaker at the same conference later this month: Apple’s CEO Tim Cook.

In a statement on Cook’s addition to the line-up, Buttarelli writes: “We are delighted that Tim has agreed to speak at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. Tim has been a strong voice in the debate around privacy, as the leader of a company which has taken a clear privacy position, we look forward to hearing his perspective. He joins an already superb line up of keynote speakers and panellists who want to be part of a discussion about technology serving humankind.”

So Europe’s big fight to rule the damaging impacts of big data just got another big gun behind it.

Apple CEO Tim Cook looks on during a visit of the shopfitting company Dula that delivers tables for Apple stores worldwide in Vreden, western Germany, on February 7, 2017. (Photo: BERND THISSEN/AFP/Getty Images)

  “Question is [how do] we go beyond the simple requirements of confidentiality, security, of data,” Buttarelli continues. “Europe after such a successful step [with GDPR] is now going beyond the lawful and fair accumulation of personal data — we are identifying a new way of assessing market power when the services delivered to individuals are not mediated by a binary. And although competition law is still a powerful instrument for regulation — it was invented to stop companies getting so big — but I think together with our efforts on ethics we would like now Europe to talk about the future of the current dominant business models.

“I’m… concerned about how these companies, in compliance with GDPR in a few cases, may collect as much data as they can. In a few cases openly, in other secretly. They can constantly monitor what people are doing online. They categorize excessively people. They profile them in a way which cannot be contested. So we have in our democracies a lot of national laws in an anti-discrimination mode but now people are to be discriminated depending on how they behave online. So people are targeted with content to make them behave in a certain way. To predict but also to react. This is not the kind of democracy we deserve. This is not our idea.”

Via Natasha Lomas https://techcrunch.com

[politicalfilth-blog]

Are National Borders To Keep Immigrants Out Or Tax Slaves In?

Fasco-Communist America is now officially a giant debtors prison; a free-range tax farm the human cattle cannot escape.

They say national borders are designed, in theory, to keep “illegal aliens” from entering a country and otherwise mucking things up for the locals by “taking their jobs” (or better put, outcompeting them in the marketplace). But even the most patriotic, red-blooded nationalists can’t deny their precious blood-soaked borders now serve a dual purpose.

Thanks to the spooks at the mafia known as the Internal Revenue Service, at least 362,000 Americans are expected to be denied the ability to travel due to tax debts. Only taxpayers who give in to their extortion demands will be granted new or renewed slave travel cards (also known as passports).

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, IRS hitmen just released new details on their enforcement of a draconian law passed by CONgress under the O’bomber regime in 2015. The law, which came into effect in February, requires that both the IRS and State Department deny passports and revoke them for anyone who accrues more than $51,000 in tax debt.

When late fees and penalties add up, this can happen rather quickly.

It should come as no surprise that the USSA brazenly intends to keep citizens slaves to the matrix by preventing them from flying the coop, should they refuse to pay up.

Even before Trump, more Mexicans were leaving the US than arriving, and critics thought Ron Paul was crazy for suggesting that a border wall could actually be used to keep Americans from fleeing to Mexico.

Taxation is simply legalized plunder, imposed without consent, by governments who usually fail to uphold their end of the mandatory “social contract” (that no one has ever signed).

More than 362,000 tax victims are affected by their law, and are currently being entered into a federal database before the end of the year. Those already processed on the list have since been denied passports, prohibiting them from traveling out of the country until sufficiently shaken down by Big Brother.

The system has come under heavy scrutiny by National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson. She admitted that the IRS only notifies debtors at the same time it tells the State Department if someone should have their passport application denied, leaving most little or no time to pay off the agency.

According to the IRS, individuals at risk for passport denial are usually hit with a lien or levy first. Those who find themselves the victims of identity theft are not “typically” subject to travel restrictions, if they’re contesting the issue with the administration or in court. But given how poorly big government functions, taxpayers remain at the mercy of a scheme designed to work against them.

When America’s “Founding Fathers” established arbitrary borders around the Thirteen Colonies, HIStory tells us they did so to escape British tyranny. They refused to pay levies and taxes and embraced their right to self-determination. Those very same borders are now being used to ransom peaceful people and enslave society to a monstrous, parasitic empire that sucks the life and liberty out of mankind.

I predicted that many Americans would be denied access to travel outside the country. I also predicted the border wall so many are begging for will soon serve to keep folks in. And, I fully expect that the next step will be to deny passports to the millions of young Americans who are now drowning in trillions of student loan debt, which mostly just got them a fancy piece of paper to stare at on their wall while they sit at home, unemployed, as McDonald’s installs touchscreens to replace the few jobs they could get.

I’m not trying to be a downer. It’s just reality. But it doesn’t have to be.

If a future free of violent extortion rackets and moving permits sounds appealing to you, the good news is, it’s happening. While the world has always evolved, history has a way of working in cycles.

Earlier this year, humanity’s brightest and bravest convened for one week on the beaches of Acapulco, Mexico, in the interest of building a stateless, prosperous civilization, once and for all.

Armed with modern weapons like decentralized communication, encryption, blockchain technology, and 3D printing, those of us willing to resist the Powers That Shouldn’t Be are more capable than ever to do so.

The criminals at the Federal Reserve and IRS hate that We The People can now opt out of their fiat money system and avoid extortion by just using cryptocurrency.

But don’t just opt out… I suggest getting out… while you still can.

Take ownership of your freedom.

Tickets for Anarchapulco, the largest gathering of freethinkers, are on sale for a discounted price until July 31. Speakers include Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, David Icke, Cynthia McKinney, Doug Casey and many more.

This year’s event completely sold out, so be sure to reserve your space for Anarchapulco 2019 at Anarchapulco.com.

  YouTube

553 Videos | 124,495 Subscribers

Upcoming Events

Precious Metals Investment Symposium

Start date: October 3, 2018

End date: October 4, 2018

More info

Australia's largest precious metals event Symposium is presenting the 8th Annual Precious Metals Investment Symposium. This 2-day investment and educational event is being held at the Pan Pacific Perth Hotel, on the 3rd-4th of October 2018.

The conference and exhibition brings together every aspect of the precious metals investment industry from mining explorers and producers, to bullion companies and other investment vehicles.

Keynote speakers from across the globe will present their views on the future for the sector and ASX listed mining companies will provide updates on investment opportunities.

About the Author

Anarcho-Capitalist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks.  Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast.  Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and cryptocurrency conferences including his own, Anarchapulco, as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, Bloomberg and Fox Business.  Jeff also posts exclusive content daily to the new blockchain based social media network, Steemit.

from The Dollar Vigilante https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2018/07/18/are-national-borders-to-keep-immigrants-out-or-tax-slaves-in.html via The Dollar Vigilante

[victoriazoey26]

Exercise, Eat Healthy and File Bankruptcy

If you find yourself deep in debt and are desperately trying to avoid bankruptcy, it might be time for a paradigm shift.

Not only does bankruptcy provide relief from debt, it provides relief from chronic stress that can lead to poor health. Constantly worrying about bills and your financial future is far more toxic than a negative line on your credit report.

It is rarely, if ever, discussed, but filing for bankruptcy could actually improve your health and prolong your life

How did I reach this conclusion?

For starters, I’ve represented clients in numerous bankruptcy cases and have seen firsthand the relief that starting over financially can provide. People generally don’t regret filing bankruptcy, they welcome the opportunity to begin anew, and many are able to successfully turn their lives around. Unfortunately, the reason for personal bankruptcy success stories is often lost in more technical discussions of the amount of debt that was discharged, what chapter the debtor filed under or whether tax debts were eliminated.

The real value of bankruptcy is stress relief.

Arnold Palmer famously said that golf is 90% mental. Well, the same is true of debt.

It’s never the actual red in the ledger that causes debtors to suffer, it’s the worry about supporting a family, collection phone calls, lawsuits, foreclosure and the myriad of other mental beatings the seriously indebted are forced to endure. Whether it’s fear of having a credit card rejected at the grocery store or concern over a pending wage garnishment, consumers who find themselves in debt are constantly reminded of their predicament. They can’t escape mentally. The debt follows them wherever they go, becoming their constant companion, causing incredible stress that breaks up marriages and ruins friendships.

Make no mistake, this debt stress can make you sick.

According to the Clinic, the following conditions are caused in whole or in part by stress:

Heart disease

Sleep problems

Digestive problems, such as irritable bowel syndrome

Depression

Obesity

Memory impairment

Worsening of skin conditions, such as eczema

Heart disease is still the number one cause of death in America today. Over time, digestive disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome, can lead to cancer and other more serious conditions. Depression robs its victims of their desire to use their God given talents, taking the very meaning out of one’s life. You get the idea, the implications of stress caused by debt reach well beyond your checking account.

It’s not just about debt, it’s about your health.

Consider your daily thought patterns. If you’re deep in debt, they will be consumed by plans to pay back creditors, stave off lawsuits, keep your children from finding out how bad things have gotten, keeping up appearances with neighbors, and on and on the nightmare goes. Although the mental aspect of health doesn’t get as much play as more “scientific and provable” diagnoses, the toxicity created by debt stress is very real.

How can you properly focus on a child’s sporting event, or a project at work when you are consumed by stressful thoughts about debt?

How can you and your spouse enjoy and support each other when your interactions are constantly blighted by fear and uncertainty?

Bankruptcy is not anyone’s first choice, and it is certainly not a process to be entered into lightly, however, it does provide an opportunity to start over spiritually as well as financially.

For some, the benefits of that opportunity do far more than merely eliminating debt.

Free Consultation with a Utah Bankruptcy Attorney

If you have a bankruptcy question, or need to file a bankruptcy case, call Ascent Law now at (801) 676-5506. Attorneys in our office have filed over a thousand cases. We can help you now. Come in or call in for your free initial consultation.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Additional Bankruptcy Resources

The Cook Islands Trust

Contempt of Court in Utah Custody Parenting and Visitation Cases

Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah

Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer

Things You Need to Know About Prenups

The Attorney’s Role in Commercial Transactions

Source: http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/exercise-eat-healthy-and-file-bankruptcy/

from Securities Lawyer In Utah https://securitieslawyerinutah.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/exercise-eat-healthy-and-file-bankruptcy/

[jenniferramona1]

Why Draining Your Retirement To Save a Doomed House from Foreclosure Before Filing Bankruptcy is a Mistake

Should I use retirement to pay a mortgage?

Twice in the last two days I have had the same discussion with two prospective clients. Each client owned a house that at the height of the market was worth over two million dollars. In each case, the client had encumbered the house with a loan for about a million dollars a few years back. Each client had suffered significant financial set backs related to the current economic recession. Both clients had been paying mortgage payments close to $10,000.00 per month from their retirement accounts for the past year, and both clients were now at the end of their rope, with their retirement accounts dwindled to a mere pittance.

Monday morning quarter backing on the eve of filing bankruptcy does not bring back a depleted 401K or IRA. But there is a lesson for others in these two cases. Before tapping out your 401K or IRA to continue paying a mortgage on a house that is doomed to end up in foreclosure, know your bankruptcy options.

Retirement accounts are often exempt in bankruptcy

Nearly all retirement accounts that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, as it is called), including pensions and 401Ks, are not assets of a bankruptcy estate because they almost all universally contain an anti-alienation clause that protects them from the reach of creditors. Due to recent amendments to Section 522(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), and other similar retirement savings vehicles, while assets of the estate, enjoy special protection capped at $1 million.

What does all this mean? It means in most cases, all the money drained from retirement accounts to keep a doomed mortgage out of foreclosure for an extra year, could have survived a bankruptcy. Retirement accounts exist to help you survive in your twilight years. It does you no good to waste these assets to delay an otherwise inevitable foreclosure. If you find yourself in this situation, before draining your 401K or IRA, talk with a bankruptcy lawyer with experience in foreclosure defense about your bankruptcy options and foreclosure defense options.

How Can I Repair My Credit?

Whether you filed Bankruptcy or have faced foreclosure, repossession or a delinquency on a loan, it is a fact of life that your credit score can fluctuate. Access to credit is important when applying for a car or home loan or when starting a new business, the lower your credit score, the higher your interest rate will likely be.

Improving credit after bankruptcy or foreclosure

FICO scores range from 300 to 850; the median score is 723. To get the best rates, you’ll usually have to have a score of at least low- to mid-700s, so how can you repair your credit score after it has been damaged?

Credit Repair Steps to take

Unfortunately, it is far easier to bring your credit score down than it is to make improve it. Nevertheless there are steps you can take.

Step #1: visit annualcreditreport.com

Start by visiting www.AnnualCreditReport.com, a website set up under federal law to give consumers access to their credit reports. Be on the lookout for impostors, AnnualCreditReport.com is free, there will be no need to supply your credit card or make any payment. There are three different consumer credit agencies (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion) that compile information that factors into your credit score. Not surprisingly, the three agencies don’t always agree. It is important that you go through each report and identify any errors. Did you recently pay off a debt that is listed as delinquent?

Step #2: Write to the credit agencies

It is important to write to the credit reporting agencies both to correct errors as well as to explain any delinquencies. It is perfectly reasonable to write a letter to the credit reporting agencies explaining why you have been late on a mortgage or were forced to file for bankruptcy. Lenders view your credit score in its proper context. Perhaps you have been a victim of mortgage fraud and were forced to file bankruptcy to protect your assets from an aggressive lender. Maybe the economic downturn has caused a salary decrease that made it hard to stay current on car payments. Whatever the Cause of your credit taking a hit, it is crucial that you weigh in on the problem and voice your perspective. It can help.

Step #3: pay your bills on time

I advise my clients who have filed for bankruptcy to be meticulous in paying every bill on time after filing. The same principle applies to anyone trying to repair their credit as payment history is one of the biggest factors in determining your credit score. It may be a good idea to open a single credit card, use it only for groceries and then pay the balance in full each month.

Step #4: debt to income ratio

Filing bankruptcy can actually improve your credit score. Why? Because another factor lenders use in their underwriting process is how much of a debt load is the potential borrower carrying? Are they swamped in debt? If the answer is yes, they will be less likely to be able to service more. When large chunks of credit card debt are discharged in bankruptcy it can often have a positive impact on credit just a few months after filing.

Step #5: be patient

Your credit history factors into your score as well. The longer you’ve been borrowing and paying on time the better. In some ways this is the lender’s way of developing a friendship with you. When you meet someone for the first time, you might like them but can only develop a friendship or romance over time. If you have been paying your bills for a long time, lenders are more likely to court you.

Be of good cheer, with a little patience and responsible use of credit, your score will improve.

Free Consultation with Bankruptcy Lawyer

If you have a bankruptcy question, or need to file a bankruptcy case, call Ascent Law now at (801) 676-5506. Attorneys in our office have filed over a thousand cases. We can help you now. Come in or call in for your free initial consultation.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

How to Protect Assets

What a Car Accident Lawyer Says

Child Support for the Unwed

Salt Lake City Contract Attorney

What are Rape and Sexual Assault?

Stop Repossessions with Bankruptcy

from Michael Anderson http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/why-draining-your-retirement-to-save-a-doomed-house-from-foreclosure-before-filing-bankruptcy-is-a-mistake/

from Utah Bankruptcy Law https://utahbankruptcylaw.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/why-draining-your-retirement-to-save-a-doomed-house-from-foreclosure-before-filing-bankruptcy-is-a-mistake/

[bridewithme]

The Intersectional Feminist’s Guide To Getting Married: Women’s March Down The Aisle

So you’re finally getting your happy ending — unlike the 75% of women who don’t reach orgasm from vaginal penetration alone and 10 to 15% who don’t finish at all while 95% of men climax regardless — you’re marrying the man of your dreams!

Yes, you, passionate intersectional feminist who runs a “men are trash” Instagram — you’re marrying the very cis-straight-white-man you’ve dedicated your internet presence and academia research to hating. (I mean, not literally him as an individual, but, all men are the same: PIECES OF HOT FLAMING GARBAGE). But you know what they say: Women can’t have it all. And you can’t smash the patriarchy and that glass once your cis-straight-white-father walks you his property down the aisle — or can you?

Sure — marriage may be rooted in deeply sexist traditions that oppose literally everything you stand for, but saying yes to the dress is just so much fun! And yes, okay, it is inherently problematic in the sense that, traditionally speaking, it’s really just a business transaction between men that ultimately eliminates the woman’s individual legal rights but hold on — wait — okay that pasta maker on Crate & Barrel is really cute! Add that to your registry. Think of how much gluten-free pasta you can make for your future kids!!!

Oh AND there’s that thing “Coverture,” the common law that declared married women’s legal existence as individuals revoked, as she was a mere extension of her husband — oooh, that’s a really pretty dress. Do you think you’d need Spanx with it? Probably. Or at least a bra. Do you really want to wear a bra on your wedding day though? I mean I wouldn’t. Ugh, bras are so uncomfortable, but we’re so socially brainwashed into believing we need them! And guess who invented them? Surprise (not): A MAN! Same with high heels! …Which reminds me: have you looked at shoes for the ceremony? If it’s outdoors it might be best to go with wedges as opposed to stilettos so you don’t sink into the grass and stain your dress. And make sure to add that to the invitation. And order new Spanx.

Then there’s somehow still the expectation for women to change their last name. Marriage literally strips you of your identity — hm, do you think your fiancé will have strippers at his bachelor party? You should check in and make sure they respect them. I mean not to be heternormative or anything, there can totally be male strippers too, but I know you’re backdoor planning your bachelorette party and would already have that covered (hehe). No shame in sex work, y’all!

Sorry, are you getting stressed? My bad. Wedding planning is hard, I know. Almost as hard as climbing the corporate ladder as a woman — did you know that only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies are run by women? Of course you did you Gender Studies grad student, you.

Look. I know it’s complicated. And I know that right now, as you post a meme that reads “Can’t spell disappointment without men,” drinking coffee made with the Nespresso that was was an engagement gift from your now pregnant and happily married friend from home out of a mug that reads “tears of the patriarchy” as you update your wedding in the Firefox window next to Linda Nochlin’s “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” — you may feel a twinge of guilt. But you shouldn’t. There are a lot of ways to balance this out. Trust me, I’m a Libra.

For example: you can turn your feminist book club into your bridal party! Spend the months leading up to the wedding reading Pride & Prejudice, Jane Eyre, and To The Lighthouse. Make sure to analyze Mrs. Ramsay’s role as passive cook and housewife and compare it to Lily, the lady painter, then consider their relationship to the fragile men in the story. Also think about Virginia Woolf and her shitty husband Leonard. He sucked. Then read Audre Lorde and add in Roxane Gay. Maybe read “Hunger,” since we all know you’re on a crash wedding diet but publicly preach ~body positivity~ even though you’re literally starving yourself.

Additionally, make sure the wedding speeches pass the Bechdel Test. The best man may not speak one second longer than the maid of honor, nor may one man interrupt one woman at any point through out the ceremony or reception or else they will be forcibly removed. In fact, perhaps you should rename the “Best Man” to cis-male-representative, or acceptable ally.

Feed all women 30% more food than their male counterparts. First dance to Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman Hear Me Roar.” Provide gender neutral bathrooms and language.

And, most importantly, make sure to say “I do…” with consent.

Anyway, I hope you don’t think I’m mansplaining too much, I’m just a really passionate feminist. Congrats again and thanks for reading my Linkedin message!

- Your Uncle Kevin

[vodsel-prime]

Setting Up a Trust

As kids, many of us may have imagined one day having our own money bin full of money like Scrooge from A Christmas Carol. We want it protected from the outside world and free to dive into. As adults, we’ve realized this would be an unsafe to have a big pile of cash laying around. It’s not a good way to protect and store the wealth we’ve earned. But with so many financial options out there, where do we even start? One of your options is setting up a trust or series of trusts. While it’s no giant money bin, a trust can be an effective method of preserving your wealth for your future and for generations to come.

Definition of a Trust

What is a trust fund and how does it work? A trust is “a legal entity that holds property for the benefit of another person, group, or organization,” according to The Balance. The word “fund” in the term “trust fund” refers to a sum of money held by or made available to the trust. Regardless of type or provisions, all trusts have three things: a grantor, a beneficiary, and a trustee. Because I’m an estate planning lawyer, I tell my clients that The grantor is the person who sets up the trust, giving the trust its property and deciding the terms. The beneficiary is the intended manager of the assets in the trust. They can only access the trust as set out by the grantor. The trustee is responsible for overseeing the management of the trust. It can be an individual, institution, or group of advisors.

To be upfront with you, this organization does establish all of the different types of trusts mentioned here. If this is what you need, there is a number and a form on this page to get some extra help or to move forward on getting the right kind of trust established.

Types

There are several types of trusts designed to fit the individual needs of the grantor and beneficiary. CNN says that there are two basic kinds of trusts: living and testamentary. A living trust is set up during a person’s lifetime, and takes effect during it. A testamentary trust only goes into effect after the person’s death. Beyond these qualifications, trust types break down into revocable and irrevocable. A revocable trust allows the grantor to retain control of all assets in the trust, allowing the ability to revoke or change the terms of the trust at any time. Irrevocable trusts, however, are no longer held directly by the grantor. Changes to an irrevocable trust usually can’t be made without the beneficiary’s consent. A big benefit is that appreciated assets within the trust aren’t typically subject to estate taxes. This depends on how it was established.

Once a grantor has chosen his or her trust type, transferred the assets into it, and established the terms, the trust is active.

Managing Your Estate

Everyone has an estate – from millionaires in mansions to a family of four struggling to make ends meet. Your estate encompasses everything you own. Having an estate plan in place means that your assets and property go directly where you want them to after you die. Generally, you have two main options for your estate plan: a living trust and a will. But what’s the difference?

Wills

A will is a written document that indicates how your property will be distributed after your death. It is revocable and can be amended anytime during your lifetime. However, a drawback to a will is that when it’s enacted, everything must go through probate court. A judge must make a ruling before the assets in your estate can get to your friends and loved ones. This is the case whether or not you have a will; your estate still goes through probate. In that case, assets are distributed according to state statutes. Regardless, probate can be a very expensive and time-consuming process. The deceased is not around to fight back, so, in many cases estates are depleted by lawyer fees.

Living Trust

A living trust, on the other hand, provides property and estate management. It not only goes into effect after your death, but can start managing your assets right away. The grantor (the one who set up the trust) is often the initial trustee (who manages the trust) and beneficiary (who receives its benefits). Living trusts are usually revocable and become irrevocable after death. At that time, a successor trustee steps in and new people or entities typically become beneficiaries. Most often the beneficiaries receive trust assets under the terms of the trust. They also avoid extra expenses and the publicity of probate court. The successor trustee that you appoint can be in charge of the trust whenever you want them to. Examples of when this would kick in are upon death or in the case of a mental or physical disability.

Setting up a living trust may be one of the best ways to prepare for your future, and the future of your loved ones. There are several other reasons to set up a trust, including the following:

Caring for minor children – Trusts can specify when the child will have access to the assets

Caring for dependents with special needs – Trusts allow more flexibility than a will in how those heirs can access the inherited property. This is because you can designate dates, amounts, exceptions, etc.

Lowering estate tax – If your estate will be subject to tax, setting up a trust with tax provisions helps avoid some of it

Privacy – Wills become public record after your death, but a trust does not.

Free Initial Consultation with an Estate Planning Lawyer

When you need a probate or estate planning lawyer, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Qualified Personal Residence Trust

Parental Alienation and Custody

Joint vs Sole Custody

Estate Planning and Wills

Tax Lawyer

Contract Lawyer

Source: http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/setting-up-a-trust/

[victoriazoey26]

Why Draining Your Retirement To Save a Doomed House from Foreclosure Before Filing Bankruptcy is a Mistake

Should I use retirement to pay a mortgage?

Twice in the last two days I have had the same discussion with two prospective clients. Each client owned a house that at the height of the market was worth over two million dollars. In each case, the client had encumbered the house with a loan for about a million dollars a few years back. Each client had suffered significant financial set backs related to the current economic recession. Both clients had been paying mortgage payments close to $10,000.00 per month from their retirement accounts for the past year, and both clients were now at the end of their rope, with their retirement accounts dwindled to a mere pittance.

Monday morning quarter backing on the eve of filing bankruptcy does not bring back a depleted 401K or IRA. But there is a lesson for others in these two cases. Before tapping out your 401K or IRA to continue paying a mortgage on a house that is doomed to end up in foreclosure, know your bankruptcy options.

Retirement accounts are often exempt in bankruptcy

Nearly all retirement accounts that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, as it is called), including pensions and 401Ks, are not assets of a bankruptcy estate because they almost all universally contain an anti-alienation clause that protects them from the reach of creditors. Due to recent amendments to Section 522(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), and other similar retirement savings vehicles, while assets of the estate, enjoy special protection capped at $1 million.

What does all this mean? It means in most cases, all the money drained from retirement accounts to keep a doomed mortgage out of foreclosure for an extra year, could have survived a bankruptcy. Retirement accounts exist to help you survive in your twilight years. It does you no good to waste these assets to delay an otherwise inevitable foreclosure. If you find yourself in this situation, before draining your 401K or IRA, talk with a bankruptcy lawyer with experience in foreclosure defense about your bankruptcy options and foreclosure defense options.

How Can I Repair My Credit?

Whether you filed Bankruptcy or have faced foreclosure, repossession or a delinquency on a loan, it is a fact of life that your credit score can fluctuate. Access to credit is important when applying for a car or home loan or when starting a new business, the lower your credit score, the higher your interest rate will likely be.

Improving credit after bankruptcy or foreclosure

FICO scores range from 300 to 850; the median score is 723. To get the best rates, you’ll usually have to have a score of at least low- to mid-700s, so how can you repair your credit score after it has been damaged?

Credit Repair Steps to take

Unfortunately, it is far easier to bring your credit score down than it is to make improve it. Nevertheless there are steps you can take.

Step #1: visit annualcreditreport.com

Start by visiting www.AnnualCreditReport.com, a website set up under federal law to give consumers access to their credit reports. Be on the lookout for impostors, AnnualCreditReport.com is free, there will be no need to supply your credit card or make any payment. There are three different consumer credit agencies (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion) that compile information that factors into your credit score. Not surprisingly, the three agencies don’t always agree. It is important that you go through each report and identify any errors. Did you recently pay off a debt that is listed as delinquent?

Step #2: Write to the credit agencies

It is important to write to the credit reporting agencies both to correct errors as well as to explain any delinquencies. It is perfectly reasonable to write a letter to the credit reporting agencies explaining why you have been late on a mortgage or were forced to file for bankruptcy. Lenders view your credit score in its proper context. Perhaps you have been a victim of mortgage fraud and were forced to file bankruptcy to protect your assets from an aggressive lender. Maybe the economic downturn has caused a salary decrease that made it hard to stay current on car payments. Whatever the Cause of your credit taking a hit, it is crucial that you weigh in on the problem and voice your perspective. It can help.

Step #3: pay your bills on time

I advise my clients who have filed for bankruptcy to be meticulous in paying every bill on time after filing. The same principle applies to anyone trying to repair their credit as payment history is one of the biggest factors in determining your credit score. It may be a good idea to open a single credit card, use it only for groceries and then pay the balance in full each month.

Step #4: debt to income ratio

Filing bankruptcy can actually improve your credit score. Why? Because another factor lenders use in their underwriting process is how much of a debt load is the potential borrower carrying? Are they swamped in debt? If the answer is yes, they will be less likely to be able to service more. When large chunks of credit card debt are discharged in bankruptcy it can often have a positive impact on credit just a few months after filing.

Step #5: be patient

Your credit history factors into your score as well. The longer you’ve been borrowing and paying on time the better. In some ways this is the lender’s way of developing a friendship with you. When you meet someone for the first time, you might like them but can only develop a friendship or romance over time. If you have been paying your bills for a long time, lenders are more likely to court you.

Be of good cheer, with a little patience and responsible use of credit, your score will improve.

Free Consultation with Bankruptcy Lawyer

If you have a bankruptcy question, or need to file a bankruptcy case, call Ascent Law now at (801) 676-5506. Attorneys in our office have filed over a thousand cases. We can help you now. Come in or call in for your free initial consultation.

Ascent Law LLC8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite CWest Jordan, Utah 84088 United StatesTelephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

How to Protect Assets

What a Car Accident Lawyer Says

Child Support for the Unwed

Salt Lake City Contract Attorney

What are Rape and Sexual Assault?

Stop Repossessions with Bankruptcy

Source: http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/why-draining-your-retirement-to-save-a-doomed-house-from-foreclosure-before-filing-bankruptcy-is-a-mistake/

from Securities Lawyer In Utah https://securitieslawyerinutah.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/why-draining-your-retirement-to-save-a-doomed-house-from-foreclosure-before-filing-bankruptcy-is-a-mistake/