Latest news with #Klobuchar
CBS News
3 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Trump's trade war could have major impact on Minnesota's summer tourism
Hospitality and tourism are a vital part of Minnesota's economy, but there's fear tariffs will take a toll as the state heads into its busy season. Between now and Labor Day, hospitality and tourism typically bring in more than $24 billion to the state each year. A large portion of that impact comes from international travelers, but with an ongoing trade war, there's fear that could change. According to Explore Minnesota, more than 567,000 international tourists visited the state in 2023, spending a little over half a billion dollars. The agency was forecasting 700,000 international visitors this year, but that's looking less likely because Canadian tourism into the U.S. is down. More than half of Minnesota's international tourists are from Canada. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is concerned with this shift and met with Canada's prime minister recently in a bipartisan effort to change trends. "Our message to the Canadians is we love you, we want you to come to our country, we understand why you're pissed off, we're pissed off, too, and however we want to work this out," Klobuchar said. "We're going to continue to work on this and hope to come to an agreement in the next few weeks. Otherwise we're going to have a tough tourism season." Klobuchar added the state is seeing a 70% dropoff in canceled vacations, particularly in northern Minnesota. Border crossings from Canada are down 18%. The 25% tariff on Canadian goods remains in place, as does Canada's reciprocal tariff on the U.S.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
23andMe bankruptcy prompts Cornyn-Grassley-Klobuchar bipartisan bill to protect sensitive genetic data
FIRST ON FOX: Republican senators John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar are rolling out a bipartisan measure to protect sensitive genetic data in response to privacy concerns sparked by 23andMe's bankruptcy, Fox News Digital has learned. Cornyn, R-Texas; Grassley, R-Iowa; and Klobuchar, D-Minn., are introducing the Don't Sell My DNA Act, which would safeguard customers' sensitive genetic information when an entity that maintains data files for bankruptcy. The bill would add genetic information to the definition of "personally identifiable information" in the bankruptcy code. Protect Your Genetic Data: Urgent Steps After 23Andme Bankruptcy Under current law, the bankruptcy code provides protections for personally identifiable information in bankruptcy court proceedings to prevent the possibility of identity theft, harm or other unlawful injury. Senate aides told Fox News Digital the current definition of personally identifiable information includes an individual's name, address, email, phone number, Social Security number, credit card numbers and other information that could be used for identification purposes. Those aides said the definition is "outdated" and does not include a reference to genetic information, leaving the information vulnerable. Read On The Fox News App "This legislation would solve this problem by updating the definition of 'personally identifiable information' in the bankruptcy code to include genetic information," a Senate aide said. The bill also addresses consumer privacy concerns by having consumers affirmatively consent to the sale or lease of their genetic information after a bankruptcy case commences and requiring companies to provide prior written notice of the use, sale or lease of their genetic information during bankruptcy. The bill also requires the trustee or debtor in possession to delete any genetic information not subject to a sale or lease. "Advances in DNA testing have allowed Americans to have unprecedented access to important insights about their genetics, but these companies must have a plan to protect this data in the event of bankruptcy," Cornyn told Fox News Digital. "By updating the bankruptcy code, this legislation would safeguard Americans' sensitive genetic information to ensure it cannot be weaponized against them or made public without their knowledge and consent." And Klobuchar said companies "have profited off of Americans' data while consumers have been left in the dark, which is especially concerning in light of reports that 23andMe plans to sell customer genetic data assets to a large pharmaceutical company." "This bill will put new protections in place to safeguard Americans' privacy while giving consumers greater control over how their sensitive health data is shared," Klobuchar said. Grassley told Fox News Digital consumers should "feel confident that any personal information shared with a public company isn't up for grabs when that company files for bankruptcy." Grassley told Fox News Digital the bill "would fill gaps in current law to help safeguard consumers' genetic information and ensure Americans' DNA isn't treated like any other financial asset." On Monday, 23andMe announced Regeneron Pharmaceuticals would purchase 23andMe through a bankruptcy auction. Senate aides said Regeneron promises to "protect consumer information, but the data privacy concerns for future bankruptcies remain." Regeneron Pharmaceuticals To Buy Bankrupt 23Andme In $256M Deal The genetic testing company 23andMe, once a pioneer in consumer DNA testing, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March amid financial struggles, a leadership shakeup and growing concerns about the security of its customers' genetic data. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals announced it will acquire "substantially all" of genetic testing company 23andMe's assets. The pharmaceutical company said it won the court-supervised auction of the genetic testing company, with Regeneron agreeing to pay $256 million for the assets. The auction for 23andMe was part of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection it filed in March to arrange a sale of its business. In its bankruptcy petition, the company estimated a range of $100 million to $500 million for its assets. Estimated liabilities were the same. The pharmaceutical company is buying 23andMe's personal genome service and its health and research services segments, according to article source: 23andMe bankruptcy prompts Cornyn-Grassley-Klobuchar bipartisan bill to protect sensitive genetic data
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How the GOP's one-sided deal-making will hurt farmers — and the people they feed
The recent farm provisions proposed by the GOP-led House of Representatives should give all Americans pause. I should know. For the last 50 years, including the 18 that I served as Montana's U.S. senator, my wife, Sharla, and I have been farming the same land that my grandparents homesteaded in northcentral Montana more than 100 years ago. We know firsthand the challenges of the weather, markets and input costs. We live it every day. So I was especially troubled to see that House GOP leadership and Republicans in the House Agriculture Committee ignored decades of tradition and did not bother to gain bipartisan support for their farm bill proposals. Why is this important? Because bipartisan legislation is typically more thoughtful, resilient and more likely to stand the test of time. Remember, Republicans aren't right all the time and Democrats aren't wrong all the time. In a press release, Rep. G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania claims his committee's section of the House's new reconciliation bill is 'strengthening the farm safety net and delivering critical support to the farmers, workers, and communities that keep America fed.' I argue it's a prime example of one-sided, partisan deal-making. And Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., agrees. 'Instead of working with Democrats to lower costs from President Trump's across-the-board tariffs, House Republicans have decided to pull the rug out from under families by cutting the SNAP benefits that 42 million Americans rely on to put food on the table — all to fund a tax cut for billionaires. That's shameful,' said Klobuchar, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Klobuchar continues: This means more seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and children will go to bed hungry. It means farmers, who are already operating on razor-thin margins, will see billions in lost revenue. It will mean job losses and lost wages for everyone who is a part of the food system — from truck drivers to local grocers. And ultimately, these cuts threaten the Farm Bill coalition that has delivered bipartisan support for farmers, families and rural communities for decades, and will make it harder for Congress to pass a bipartisan Farm Bill. Typically, to get a broad-based bipartisan legislation passed that receives support from both rural and urban America, the Agriculture Committee would work to address both food insecurity — often but not always a bigger issue in urban areas — and family farm agricultural production — which tends to be more tied to rural America. This current House effort does neither. First, and in typical Washington politician fashion, House Republicans have pushed more SNAP food assistance costs onto the states, which will result in more hungry people and, in turn, result in Washington blaming the states for the SNAP reductions. Secondly, Republicans seem intent on making farmers more reliant on subsidies from the federal government. Every farmer I know vastly prefers getting their paycheck from the marketplace, not the government or the American taxpayer. But this bill will increase farm subsidies while reducing the SNAP program. It also will do little to increase competition in a highly consolidated marketplace, which would decrease costs for consumers and benefit farmers. We need competition in agriculture for capitalism to work. Let's enforce anti-trust violations and add enforcement language with real teeth. Perhaps most alarmingly, those same House Republicans who decry socialism on one hand are pushing American farmers to take more money from the government and less from the marketplace. That sounds a lot like socialism to me. To say nothing of the fact that reducing SNAP, in addition to hurting hungry people, will reduce demand for farm commodities — yet another negative impact on the market. And while Republicans in Congress are pushing what amounts to an anti-farmer agenda, the Trump administration's tariffs haven't gone away. And a resulting trade war will have devastating effects on agriculture production. Agricultural organizations and exporters have said as much. And so have individual farmers. House Republicans want to push through their reconciliation bill as quickly as possible. And they don't seem to care whether it's actually good for the American people. My advice would be to go back to the drawing board. Maybe then, they could actually come up with a modern proposal for the 21st century that would both help feed our nation and boost our agricultural production. Farms, and farmers, are integral to the health and prosperity of our citizens and our economy. Republicans love to pay lip service to rural voters, and farmers especially. But actions speak louder than words. I should know. This article was originally published on
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
President Trump signs Take It Down Act, addressing nonconsensual deepfakes. What is it?
President Donald Trump on Monday signed the Take It Down Act, bipartisan legislation that enacts stricter penalties for the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, sometimes called "revenge porn," as fell as deepfakes created by artificial intelligence. The measure, which goes into effect immediately, was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and later gained the support of First Lady Melania Trump. Critics of the measure, which addresses both real and artificial intelligence-generated imagery, say the language is too broad and could lead to censorship and First Amendment issues. What is the Take It Down Act? The law makes it illegal to "knowingly publish" or threaten to publish intimate images without a person's consent, including AI-created "deepfakes." It also requires websites and social media companies to remove such material within 48 hours of notice from a victim. The platforms must also take steps to delete duplicate content. Many states have already banned the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfakes or revenge porn, but the Take It Down Act is a rare example of federal regulators imposing on internet companies. Who supports it? The Take It Down Act has garnered strong bipartisan support and has been championed by Melania Trump, who lobbied on Capitol Hill in March saying it was "heartbreaking" to see what teenagers, especially girls, go through after they are victimized by people who spread such content. Cruz said the measure was inspired by Elliston Berry and her mother, who visited his office after Snapchat refused for nearly a year to remove an AI-generated "deepfake" of the then 14-year-old. Meta, which owns and operates Facebook and Instagram, supports the legislation. "Having an intimate image - real or AI-generated - shared without consent can be devastating and Meta developed and backs many efforts to help prevent it," Meta spokesman Andy Stone said in March. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a tech industry-supported think tank, said in a statement following the bill's passage last month that it "is an important step forward that will help people pursue justice when they are victims of non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfake images generated using AI." "We must provide victims of online abuse with the legal protections they need when intimate images are shared without their consent, especially now that deepfakes are creating horrifying new opportunities for abuse," Klobuchar said in a statement. "These images can ruin lives and reputations, but now that our bipartisan legislation is becoming law, victims will be able to have this material removed from social media platforms and law enforcement can hold perpetrators accountable." Klobuchar called the law's passage a "a major victory for victims of online abuse" and said it gives people "legal protections and tools for when their intimate images, including deepfakes, are shared without their consent, and enabling law enforcement to hold perpetrators accountable." "This is also a landmark move towards establishing common-sense rules of the road around social media and AI," she added. Cruz said "predators who weaponize new technology to post this exploitative filth will now rightfully face criminal consequences, and Big Tech will no longer be allowed to turn a blind eye to the spread of this vile material." What are the censorship concerns?Free speech advocates and digital rights groups say the bill is too broad and could lead to the censorship of legitimate images including legal pornography and LGBTQ content, as well as government critics. "While the bill is meant to address a serious problem, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy," said the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group. "Lawmakers should be strengthening and enforcing existing legal protections for victims, rather than inventing new takedown regimes that are ripe for abuse." The takedown provision in the bill "applies to a much broader category of content - potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content" than the narrower definitions of non-consensual intimate imagery found elsewhere in the text, EFF said. "The takedown provision also lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Services will rely on automated filters, which are infamously blunt tools," EFF said. "They frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting. The law's tight time frame requires that apps and websites remove speech within 48 hours, rarely enough time to verify whether the speech is actually illegal." As a result, the group said online companies, especially smaller ones that lack the resources to wade through a lot of content, "will likely choose to avoid the onerous legal risk by simply depublishing the speech rather than even attempting to verify it." The measure, EFF said, also pressures platforms to "actively monitor speech, including speech that is presently encrypted" to address liability threats. The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit that helps victims of online crimes and abuse, said it has "serious reservations" about the bill. It called its takedown provision unconstitutionally vague, unconstitutionally overbroad, and lacking adequate safeguards against misuse." For instance, the group said, platforms could be obligated to remove a journalist's photographs of a topless protest on a public street, photos of a subway flasher distributed by law enforcement to locate the perpetrator, commercially produced sexually explicit content or sexually explicit material that is consensual but falsely reported as being nonconsensual.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
President Trump signs Take It Down Act, addressing nonconsensual deepfakes. What is it?
President Donald Trump on Monday signed the Take It Down Act, bipartisan legislation that enacts stricter penalties for the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, sometimes called 'revenge porn,' as fell as deepfakes created by artificial intelligence. The measure, which goes into effect immediately, was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, and later gained the support of First Lady Melania Trump. Critics of the measure, which addresses both real and artificial intelligence-generated imagery, say the language is too broad and could lead to censorship and First Amendment issues. The law makes it illegal to 'knowingly publish' or threaten to publish intimate images without a person's consent, including AI-created 'deepfakes.' It also requires websites and social media companies to remove such material within 48 hours of notice from a victim. The platforms must also take steps to delete duplicate content. Many states have already banned the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfakes or revenge porn, but the Take It Down Act is a rare example of federal regulators imposing on internet companies. The Take It Down Act has garnered strong bipartisan support and has been championed by Melania Trump, who lobbied on Capitol Hill in March saying it was 'heartbreaking' to see what teenagers, especially girls, go through after they are victimized by people who spread such content. Cruz said the measure was inspired by Elliston Berry and her mother, who visited his office after Snapchat refused for nearly a year to remove an AI-generated 'deepfake' of the then 14-year-old. Meta, which owns and operates Facebook and Instagram, supports the legislation. 'Having an intimate image – real or AI-generated – shared without consent can be devastating and Meta developed and backs many efforts to help prevent it,' Meta spokesman Andy Stone said in March. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a tech industry-supported think tank, said in a statement following the bill's passage last month that it 'is an important step forward that will help people pursue justice when they are victims of non-consensual intimate imagery, including deepfake images generated using AI.' 'We must provide victims of online abuse with the legal protections they need when intimate images are shared without their consent, especially now that deepfakes are creating horrifying new opportunities for abuse,' Klobuchar said in a statement. 'These images can ruin lives and reputations, but now that our bipartisan legislation is becoming law, victims will be able to have this material removed from social media platforms and law enforcement can hold perpetrators accountable.' Klobuchar called the law's passage a 'a major victory for victims of online abuse' and said it gives people 'legal protections and tools for when their intimate images, including deepfakes, are shared without their consent, and enabling law enforcement to hold perpetrators accountable.' 'This is also a landmark move towards establishing common-sense rules of the road around social media and AI,' she added. Cruz said 'predators who weaponize new technology to post this exploitative filth will now rightfully face criminal consequences, and Big Tech will no longer be allowed to turn a blind eye to the spread of this vile material.' Free speech advocates and digital rights groups say the bill is too broad and could lead to the censorship of legitimate images including legal pornography and LGBTQ content, as well as government critics. 'While the bill is meant to address a serious problem, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy,' said the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group. 'Lawmakers should be strengthening and enforcing existing legal protections for victims, rather than inventing new takedown regimes that are ripe for abuse.' The takedown provision in the bill 'applies to a much broader category of content — potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content' than the narrower definitions of non-consensual intimate imagery found elsewhere in the text, EFF said. 'The takedown provision also lacks critical safeguards against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Services will rely on automated filters, which are infamously blunt tools,' EFF said. 'They frequently flag legal content, from fair-use commentary to news reporting. The law's tight time frame requires that apps and websites remove speech within 48 hours, rarely enough time to verify whether the speech is actually illegal.' As a result, the group said online companies, especially smaller ones that lack the resources to wade through a lot of content, 'will likely choose to avoid the onerous legal risk by simply depublishing the speech rather than even attempting to verify it.' The measure, EFF said, also pressures platforms to 'actively monitor speech, including speech that is presently encrypted' to address liability threats. The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit that helps victims of online crimes and abuse, said it has 'serious reservations' about the bill. It called its takedown provision unconstitutionally vague, unconstitutionally overbroad, and lacking adequate safeguards against misuse.' For instance, the group said, platforms could be obligated to remove a journalist's photographs of a topless protest on a public street, photos of a subway flasher distributed by law enforcement to locate the perpetrator, commercially produced sexually explicit content or sexually explicit material that is consensual but falsely reported as being nonconsensual.
