Latest news with #Hager
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
BP Appoints Former Devon Energy Chief David Hager as Nonexecutive Director
BP has appointed the former chief executive of U.S energy company Devon Energy, David Hager, as a nonexecutive director at a time when it is seeking to more than double its production of oil and gas in the U.S. by the end of the decade. The British energy company said Friday that Hager brings a deep knowledge of the U.S. upstream oil-and-gas industry. His appointment will be effective from Monday. The Billionaire Odd Couple Whose Hedge Fund Is Killing It Meta Fired Palmer Luckey. Now, They're Teaming Up on a Defense Contract. Out of DOGE, Elon Musk Returns to His Bruised Business Empire How a Small Wine Importer Took On Trump's Tariffs Ben & Jerry's Calls Gaza Conflict a Genocide, Putting Unilever in a Tough Spot BP is cutting spending on low-carbon investments and pivoting back toward hydrocarbon production. In late April, Chief Executive Murray Auchincloss said the company plans to grow U.S. production to more than one million barrels a day by 2030 from 650,000. BP's strategic reset comes as Elliott Investment Management has taken a roughly 5% interest in the business, and pressure is on management to cut debt and grow shareholder value. In April, the company said a senior executive in charge of cleaner energy investments would leave the company and won't be replaced. Hager has served as the chief executive of Devon Energy, and has lead its exploration and production division, BP said. Write to Adam Whittaker at Trump Tells Powell He Is Making a Mistake by Not Cutting Interest Rates Big Tax Breaks for Health Savings Accounts Get Even Better in the GOP Bill Ex-Goldman Banker Sentenced to Two Years in 1MDB Bribery Scandal Exodus of Staff Adds to FAA's Challenges Newark Airfares Will Be a Steal This Summer, United CEO Says Sign in to access your portfolio
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing. But, the history of the last 100 years has been changed very much for the better by the leaking of unauthorised information. For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control – they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional implications…then it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. Moreover…the government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. Basically….by limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which case…as mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Gordon Campbell On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control - they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
SEALSQ Chosen by Hager for Matter-Compliant Device Attestation in Next-Gen Smart Home Products
Geneva, Switzerland, May 29, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SEALSQ Corp (NASDAQ: LAES) ("SEALSQ" or "Company"), a company that focuses on developing and selling Semiconductors, PKI, and Post-Quantum technology hardware and software products,, today announced that Hager, a global leader in electrical solutions and smart home systems, has selected its PKI-as-a-Service platform, INeS, to provide Device Attestation Certificates for Hager's Matter-compliant smart home range, launched recently: Hager Integrates Matter for Smarter, Safer Homes. SEALSQ's INeS platform enables Hager to seamlessly integrate devices into the Matter ecosystem, enhancing connectivity and simplifying certificate management from design to manufacturing. 'Our solution accelerates Hager's Matter compliance while future-proofing IoT security,' said Frank Buonnano, VP of Global Sales at SEALSQ. 'With our Post-Quantum Root of Trust, INeS generates quantum-resistant certificates, ensuring long-term protection against emerging threats.' The Matter standard, led by the Connectivity Standards Alliance (CSA), enhances smart home device interoperability and security. By partnering with SEALSQ, Hager benefits from faster time-to-market, cost-efficient compliance, flexible deployment options (on-premises, hosted, or batch issuance), and streamlined certificate management via the INeS CMS Platform for IoT. Benefits for Hager Customers and ProductsThis collaboration enables Hager to deliver smarter, more secure homes. SEALSQ's advanced attestation ensures Hager's Matter-compliant devices—such as lighting controls, energy management systems, and building automation solutions—seamlessly connect to ecosystems like Amazon Alexa and Google Home. Customers benefit from enhanced cybersecurity, while Hager strengthens product reliability and gains a competitive edge with quantum-ready technology, making its solutions future-proof for residential and commercial users. About Hager Hager is a global leader in electrical solutions, delivering innovative products and services for residential, commercial, and industrial applications. With a focus on smart home technology, energy management, and building automation, Hager empowers customers with safe, efficient, and sustainable solutions. Headquartered in Blieskastel, Germany, and with a strong presence in over 100 countries, Hager continues to shape the future of connected living. For more, visit About SEALSQ:SEALSQ is a leading innovator in Post-Quantum Technology hardware and software solutions. Our technology seamlessly integrates Semiconductors, PKI (Public Key Infrastructure), and Provisioning Services, with a strategic emphasis on developing state-of-the-art Quantum Resistant Cryptography and Semiconductors designed to address the urgent security challenges posed by quantum computing. As quantum computers advance, traditional cryptographic methods like RSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) are increasingly vulnerable. SEALSQ is pioneering the development of Post-Quantum Semiconductors that provide robust, future-proof protection for sensitive data across a wide range of applications, including Multi-Factor Authentication tokens, Smart Energy, Medical and Healthcare Systems, Defense, IT Network Infrastructure, Automotive, and Industrial Automation and Control Systems. By embedding Post-Quantum Cryptography into our semiconductor solutions, SEALSQ ensures that organizations stay protected against quantum threats. Our products are engineered to safeguard critical systems, enhancing resilience and security across diverse industries. For more information on our Post-Quantum Semiconductors and security solutions, please visit Forward-Looking StatementsThis communication expressly or implicitly contains certain forward-looking statements concerning SEALSQ Corp and its businesses. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding our business strategy, financial performance, results of operations, market data, events or developments that we expect or anticipate will occur in the future, as well as any other statements which are not historical facts. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. These statements involve known and unknown risks and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates which are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include SEALSQ's ability to continue beneficial transactions with material parties, including a limited number of significant customers; market demand and semiconductor industry conditions; and the risks discussed in SEALSQ's filings with the SEC. Risks and uncertainties are further described in reports filed by SEALSQ with the SEC. SEALSQ Corp is providing this communication as of this date and does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. SEALSQ MoreiraChairman & CEOTel: +41 22 594 3000info@ SEALSQ Investor Relations (US)The Equity Group CatiTel: +1 212 836-9611 lcati@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
News.com.au
27-04-2025
- Entertainment
- News.com.au
Sarah Michelle Gellar reveals secret behind marriage to Freddie Prinze Jr
Having a successful decades-long marriage isn't all that complicated, according to Sarah Michelle Gellar. When Jenna Bush Hager and Tiffany Haddish asked Buffy the Vampire Slayer star the secret to her 22-year marriage to Freddie Prinze, Jr. during a recent interview, she gave a pithy response. 'Separate bathrooms!' 'That's it? It's that simple?' an incredulous Hager asked during Thursday's episode of Today With Jenna and Friends. 'It's that simple,' Gellar confirmed, reports Page Six. Haddish, however, had a different theory. 'See, I was thinking it was like the ['I Love Lucy'] thing where [Lucy and Ricky had] twin beds, and then when y'all want to get together you push them together, and when you want to be apart, you push them apart,' Haddish, who was Hager's temporary co-host, said. 'I had not thought of that,' Gellar conceded. 'That is actually a really good idea.' Gellar, 48, met Prinze, 49, on the set of iconic '90s slasher flick I Know What You Did Last Summer in 1997. However, they wouldn't go on their first date until three years later, in 2000. 'We were friends for a very long time,' the Cruel Intentions actress recalled during an interview with People in 2020. 'We'd had many dinners before. And we were supposed to go with someone else, and the third person didn't make it out and we decided to still go.' After that first date, Prinze knew she was the one. 'I didn't go on dates with other girls, nor did I even want to pursue dates with other girls,' he told the outlet. They married in a star-studded ceremony in Mexico in 2002 and subsequently welcomed two children — daughter Charlotte in 2009 and son Rocky in 2012. Gellar shared a more serious take on what goes into a successful long-term relationship during a 2024 interview with Fox News Digital. 'I think everything takes work in you, whether it's a friendship or a work relationship or a marriage,' she said at the time. 'You have to put the work in,' she added, noting that 'we live in an extremely disposable society now.' 'Your phone breaks, you don't fix it,' Gellar continued. 'You get a new one. And I think that's a lot of the attitude toward relationships.'
