Latest news with #PrivacyAct
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
FBI Told to Flag Mentions of Trump in Epstein Files, Dem Senator Says
Dick Durbin is leading the Senate Judiciary Committee in an effort to receive more transparency regarding the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files, particularly an order from Attorney General Pam Bondi for FBI agents to 'flag' any mention they made of President Trump. In a letter addressed to Bondi on Friday, Durbin wrote: 'According to information my office received, you then pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline.' 'My office was told that these personnel were instructed to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned,' he added. There was likely something for those agents to flag, given Trump's well-documented relationship with the defamed sex trafficker. There's the 2002 New York magazine quote where Trump referred to Epstein, his friend of '15 years,' as a 'terrific guy' who liked women 'on the younger side.' And there was the recent Wall Street Journal report that showed Trump writing a strange birthday message to Epstein in 2006, with the closing line 'may every day be another wonderful secret.' But what else was flagged under Bondi's watch, and what happened to it? Durbin's report asks just that: Why were personnel told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned? 1. Please list all political appointees and senior DOJ officials involved in the decision to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned. 2. What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged? Trump's rollout of the Epstein files has been so disorderly that it has Democrats and the most hardcore MAGA loyalists asking the exact same question: What is the truth about Epstein? The due date for Durbin and the committee's request is August 1. Trump and Bondi have yet to comment.
SBS Australia
5 days ago
- SBS Australia
NITV Radio NEWS 18/07/2025
Law firm Maurice Blackburn alleges Quantas breached the Privacy Act, because it failed to protect customers. Two teenagers were charged with the murder of 57 year old Zdravko during a failed break-in on the Sunshine Coast. A former Quarry worker has been committed to stand trial for the alleged murder of an Indigenous woman in Cape York mor than a decade ago. That and more on NITV Radio.
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Cut privacy red tape to boost innovation: tech giants
Meta has told Australia its privacy reform is "out of step" with international norms and risks discouraging industry investment in AI. The social media giant's warning to the Productivity Commission comes as chief Mark Zuckerberg and other executives are being sued by shareholders in a $8 billion Facebook privacy case. The commission is looking at rule changes that seek to boost public confidence in data and technology to make it easier for Australians to benefit from AI, which has been labelled by experts as a danger to society. In its submission to the inquiry, Meta said it supported attempts to streamline privacy rules and regulations, both in line with domestic and international regulatory frameworks, to reduce compliance costs and increase global competitiveness. "We are concerned that recent developments are moving Australia's privacy regime to be out of step with international norms, impose obligations on industry that conflict with broader digital policy objectives to promote age appropriate and safe experiences online, and disincentivise industry investment in AI in Australia or in pro-consumer outcomes," it reads. Australia's proposed social media ban for children under the age of 16 has emerged as a key issue with US tech giants as the Albanese government tries to manage President Donald Trump's deepening trade war. The "world-leading" laws will come into effect from December, and will capture online platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. For Australia to harness the productivity potential of technology and avoid "unintended consequences" any reform to the Privacy Act should give proper attention to policy alignment in areas such as online safety and AI, Meta said. The giant urged the nation to incorporate "innovation and economic interests" as objectives of privacy rules. Google said Australia might be left behind other nations in the Indo-Pacific, given governments such as Japan and Singapore have implemented "innovation-friendly" policy to lift their economic competitiveness. "Businesses, especially those operating at the cutting edge of AI development, may hesitate to commit significant resources if the precise interpretation and application of the rules in Australia remain unclear (and) are overly restrictive," the submissions reads. Meta has told Australia its privacy reform is "out of step" with international norms and risks discouraging industry investment in AI. The social media giant's warning to the Productivity Commission comes as chief Mark Zuckerberg and other executives are being sued by shareholders in a $8 billion Facebook privacy case. The commission is looking at rule changes that seek to boost public confidence in data and technology to make it easier for Australians to benefit from AI, which has been labelled by experts as a danger to society. In its submission to the inquiry, Meta said it supported attempts to streamline privacy rules and regulations, both in line with domestic and international regulatory frameworks, to reduce compliance costs and increase global competitiveness. "We are concerned that recent developments are moving Australia's privacy regime to be out of step with international norms, impose obligations on industry that conflict with broader digital policy objectives to promote age appropriate and safe experiences online, and disincentivise industry investment in AI in Australia or in pro-consumer outcomes," it reads. Australia's proposed social media ban for children under the age of 16 has emerged as a key issue with US tech giants as the Albanese government tries to manage President Donald Trump's deepening trade war. The "world-leading" laws will come into effect from December, and will capture online platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. For Australia to harness the productivity potential of technology and avoid "unintended consequences" any reform to the Privacy Act should give proper attention to policy alignment in areas such as online safety and AI, Meta said. The giant urged the nation to incorporate "innovation and economic interests" as objectives of privacy rules. Google said Australia might be left behind other nations in the Indo-Pacific, given governments such as Japan and Singapore have implemented "innovation-friendly" policy to lift their economic competitiveness. "Businesses, especially those operating at the cutting edge of AI development, may hesitate to commit significant resources if the precise interpretation and application of the rules in Australia remain unclear (and) are overly restrictive," the submissions reads. Meta has told Australia its privacy reform is "out of step" with international norms and risks discouraging industry investment in AI. The social media giant's warning to the Productivity Commission comes as chief Mark Zuckerberg and other executives are being sued by shareholders in a $8 billion Facebook privacy case. The commission is looking at rule changes that seek to boost public confidence in data and technology to make it easier for Australians to benefit from AI, which has been labelled by experts as a danger to society. In its submission to the inquiry, Meta said it supported attempts to streamline privacy rules and regulations, both in line with domestic and international regulatory frameworks, to reduce compliance costs and increase global competitiveness. "We are concerned that recent developments are moving Australia's privacy regime to be out of step with international norms, impose obligations on industry that conflict with broader digital policy objectives to promote age appropriate and safe experiences online, and disincentivise industry investment in AI in Australia or in pro-consumer outcomes," it reads. Australia's proposed social media ban for children under the age of 16 has emerged as a key issue with US tech giants as the Albanese government tries to manage President Donald Trump's deepening trade war. The "world-leading" laws will come into effect from December, and will capture online platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. For Australia to harness the productivity potential of technology and avoid "unintended consequences" any reform to the Privacy Act should give proper attention to policy alignment in areas such as online safety and AI, Meta said. The giant urged the nation to incorporate "innovation and economic interests" as objectives of privacy rules. Google said Australia might be left behind other nations in the Indo-Pacific, given governments such as Japan and Singapore have implemented "innovation-friendly" policy to lift their economic competitiveness. "Businesses, especially those operating at the cutting edge of AI development, may hesitate to commit significant resources if the precise interpretation and application of the rules in Australia remain unclear (and) are overly restrictive," the submissions reads. Meta has told Australia its privacy reform is "out of step" with international norms and risks discouraging industry investment in AI. The social media giant's warning to the Productivity Commission comes as chief Mark Zuckerberg and other executives are being sued by shareholders in a $8 billion Facebook privacy case. The commission is looking at rule changes that seek to boost public confidence in data and technology to make it easier for Australians to benefit from AI, which has been labelled by experts as a danger to society. In its submission to the inquiry, Meta said it supported attempts to streamline privacy rules and regulations, both in line with domestic and international regulatory frameworks, to reduce compliance costs and increase global competitiveness. "We are concerned that recent developments are moving Australia's privacy regime to be out of step with international norms, impose obligations on industry that conflict with broader digital policy objectives to promote age appropriate and safe experiences online, and disincentivise industry investment in AI in Australia or in pro-consumer outcomes," it reads. Australia's proposed social media ban for children under the age of 16 has emerged as a key issue with US tech giants as the Albanese government tries to manage President Donald Trump's deepening trade war. The "world-leading" laws will come into effect from December, and will capture online platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. For Australia to harness the productivity potential of technology and avoid "unintended consequences" any reform to the Privacy Act should give proper attention to policy alignment in areas such as online safety and AI, Meta said. The giant urged the nation to incorporate "innovation and economic interests" as objectives of privacy rules. Google said Australia might be left behind other nations in the Indo-Pacific, given governments such as Japan and Singapore have implemented "innovation-friendly" policy to lift their economic competitiveness. "Businesses, especially those operating at the cutting edge of AI development, may hesitate to commit significant resources if the precise interpretation and application of the rules in Australia remain unclear (and) are overly restrictive," the submissions reads.
Perth Now
6 days ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Cut privacy red tape to boost innovation: tech giants
Meta has told Australia its privacy reform is "out of step" with international norms and risks discouraging industry investment in AI. The social media giant's warning to the Productivity Commission comes as chief Mark Zuckerberg and other executives are being sued by shareholders in a $8 billion Facebook privacy case. The commission is looking at rule changes that seek to boost public confidence in data and technology to make it easier for Australians to benefit from AI, which has been labelled by experts as a danger to society. In its submission to the inquiry, Meta said it supported attempts to streamline privacy rules and regulations, both in line with domestic and international regulatory frameworks, to reduce compliance costs and increase global competitiveness. "We are concerned that recent developments are moving Australia's privacy regime to be out of step with international norms, impose obligations on industry that conflict with broader digital policy objectives to promote age appropriate and safe experiences online, and disincentivise industry investment in AI in Australia or in pro-consumer outcomes," it reads. Australia's proposed social media ban for children under the age of 16 has emerged as a key issue with US tech giants as the Albanese government tries to manage President Donald Trump's deepening trade war. The "world-leading" laws will come into effect from December, and will capture online platforms including Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. For Australia to harness the productivity potential of technology and avoid "unintended consequences" any reform to the Privacy Act should give proper attention to policy alignment in areas such as online safety and AI, Meta said. The giant urged the nation to incorporate "innovation and economic interests" as objectives of privacy rules. Google said Australia might be left behind other nations in the Indo-Pacific, given governments such as Japan and Singapore have implemented "innovation-friendly" policy to lift their economic competitiveness. "Businesses, especially those operating at the cutting edge of AI development, may hesitate to commit significant resources if the precise interpretation and application of the rules in Australia remain unclear (and) are overly restrictive," the submissions reads.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
In Canada, federal political parties are not governed by basic standards of federal privacy law. If passed, Bill C-4, also known as the Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act, would also make provincial and territorial privacy laws inapplicable to federal political parties, with no adequate federal law in place. Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information. At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal. Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations. Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons: In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty. Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed. The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns. Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction? Read more: Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions. Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours. For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting. Read more: In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians — they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users. University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society. Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots. But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective. Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more. If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties. Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law. Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of 'if,' but 'when.' Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants? What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens? What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers? OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies. If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems. Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement. The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government. Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sara Bannerman, McMaster University Read more: Why Elon Musk's US billion loss wasn't really that – and what it tells us about the philanthropy of the ultra-wealthy Mitigating AI security threats: Why the G7 should embrace 'federated learning' Meta's AI-powered smart glasses raise concerns about privacy and user data Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.
