Tech firms to set up forum to ‘tackle online terrorist propaganda’

Major international technology firms have announced that they will set up a cross-industry forum to tackle online terrorist propaganda following a crunch meeting with the Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

The commitment from Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter, comes after Ms Rudd criticised Facebook’s WhatsApp earlier this week after it emerged Khalid Masood, the terrorist responsible for the London attack, used the messaging service moments before ploughing into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge.

She complained that security agencies have been unable to access the message because of the use of encryption.

Describing the meeting as a “useful discussion”, the Home Secretary added that the conversation focused on the issue of access to terrorist propaganda online and the “very real and evolving threat it poses”.

In a statement, she continued: “We focused on the issue of access to terrorist propaganda online and the very real and evolving threat it poses.
 I said I wanted to see this tackled head-on and I welcome the commitment from the key players to set up a cross-industry forum that will help to do this.  
 

“In taking forward this work I’d like to see the industry to go further and faster in not only removing online terrorist content but stopping it going up in the first place. I’d also like to see more support for smaller and emerging platforms to do this as well, so they can no longer be seen as an alternative shop floor by those who want to do us harm.”

During the meeting, the Home Secretary also raised the issue of encryption and reiterated there should be no safe space for terrorists online. 
“I am clear that Government and industry need to work more closely together on this issue so that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies can get access to the data they need to keep us safe,” she added.

WhatsApp messages are protected by end-to-end encryption, which converts them into indecipherable sequences until they reach the recipient’s device. The system is commonly used by communications services to protect users’ privacy.

On Sunday, Ms Rudd told the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show that it was “completely unacceptable” that Masood’s WhatsApp messages were encrypted, making it difficult for police to read them. “There should be no place for terrorists to hide,” the Home Secretary said.

“We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp – and there are plenty of others like that – don’t provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other.”

“On this situation we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp,” Ms Rudd said. The Home Secretary admitted that she used the encrypted messaging service herself.

On Wednesday, Craig Mackey, the acting deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, said the London terror attack was “a wake-up call” for technology companies, “in terms of trying to understand what it means to put your own house in order”. 

Speaking to the London Assembly’s police and crime committee, Mr Mackey said: “If you are going to have an ethical statement and talk about operating in an ethical way, it actually has to mean something. That is the sort of thing that obviously politicians and others will push now.

“We work hard with the industry to highlight the challenges of these very secure applications.

“It’s a challenge when you are dealing with companies that are global by their very nature because they don’t always operate under the same legal framework as us.”

In a statement after the meeting with Ms Rudd, the internet giants said they believe companies, academics and government “all have an interest and responsibility to respond to the danger of terrorist propaganda online –  and as an industry we are committed to doing more”.


Reuse content

Go to Source

TD Bank Enlists Outside Help After Reports Employees Broke The Law

TORONTO — TD Bank has enlisted the help of an outside company to review its business in light of reports that some employees allegedly broke the law in order to meet sales targets and keep their jobs.

“It’s not an unusual event in the bank that we ask outside firms to come and assist us,” CEO Bharat Masrani told reporters following the bank’s annual shareholder meeting Thursday.

‘Many times they are able to provide us with resources, they are able to provide us with perspectives from the industry.”

Masrani declined to say which firm would be helping the bank or how long the process will take.

td bank canada
A TD Bank branch in Vancouver. (Photo: Ben Nelms/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“I want to make sure that it is done thoroughly and make sure that we do it right, but I also want to see it done in a reasonable period of time,” he said.

Masrani opened his speech to the company’s shareholders by addressing reports from the CBC several weeks ago, which cited unnamed bank employees who alleged they used aggressive, and in some cases illegal, sales practices.

Masrani said he has been speaking with TD employees across the country since the report came out and he doesn’t believe that the problem is pervasive.

TD has roughly 13 million personal banking customers in Canada, who last year had more than 100 million interactions with tens of thousands of bankers, he said.

td bank canada
A TD Bank branch in Toronto. (Photo: Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the bank said it received a few hundred complaints last year regarding its sales practices that were escalated beyond the initial stage. Less than 100 of those complaints had compliance concerns, Masrani said.

All of the concerns were investigated and addressed, Masrani said.

“I don’t believe we have a widespread problem, but any one problem is one too many, so we will look at that,” Masrani told reporters.

The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada has launched its own investigation into business practices among federally regulated financial sector following the reports.

The Canadian Bankers Association, which represents the country’s largest banks, has said its members will co-operate with the review.

Also on HuffPost:

Close

Advertisement

Go to Source

Ailing Bulawayo firms to process 100 000t cotton

Cotton bales

Thandeka Moyo, Chronicle Reporter
AILING Bulawayo companies will process more than 100 000 tonnes of cotton that the country is likely to harvest this season.

Industry and Commerce Deputy Minister Chiratidzo Mabuwa told Parliamentarians the move to process the cotton in Bulawayo was meant to rejuvenate the textile industries.

She said the resuscitation of Bulawayo industries was important as spelt out by the Special Economic Zones law.

Deputy Minister Mabuwa said the national Cotton to Clothing Policy was launched in Bulawayo to emphasise the drive to improve the textile industry, particularly in Bulawayo.

“Looking at that, we assume that we will harvest a lot of cotton this season. Hon Made will probably give you the tonnage but we are expecting about 100 000 metric tonnes of cotton,” she said.

The deputy minister said Bulawayo should have a place where this cotton should be processed from lint right through the value chain up to clothing.

“The textile industry in Bulawayo has since been resuscitated and they are supplying Edgars with clothes manufactured in Bulawayo. I would like this House to know that there is no reason to import suits and shirts for men because we have them in Bulawayo,” said Deputy Minister Mabuwa.

She said the city would also benefit from a policy to revamp the leather industry.  “In the leather industry, we are looking forward to resuscitate the industry through the Cold Storage Company because that will resuscitate the leather industry in Bulawayo. We are also looking at the heavy industries in Bulawayo that supply mines throughout the country,” the deputy Minister said.

She said the government would have a Bulawayo showcase programme just before this year’s International Trade Fair to market what is happening in the city.

A majority of Bulawayo industries have shut down over the years, reducing the city from its one time lofty status of being the country’s manufacturing hub.

— @thamamoe

Go to Source

UK wants tech firms to build tools to block terrorist content


U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd is holding talks with several major internet companies today to urge them to be more proactive about tackling the spread of extremist content online. Companies in attendance include Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook, along with some smaller internet companies.

We’ve contacted the four named companies for comment and will update this story with any response.

Writing in The Telegraph newspaper on Saturday, in the wake of last week’s terror attack in London, Rudd said the U.K. government will shortly be setting out an updated counterterrorism strategy that will prioritize doing more to tackle radicalization online.

“Of paramount importance in this strategy will be how we tackle radicalisation online, and provide a counter-narrative to the vile material being spewed out by the likes of Daesh, and extreme Right-wing groups such as National Action, which I made illegal last year,” she wrote. “Each attack confirms again the role that the internet is playing in serving as a conduit, inciting and inspiring violence, and spreading extremist ideology of all kinds.”

Leaning on tech firms to build tools appears to be a key plank of that forthcoming strategy.

A government source told us that Rudd will urge web companies today to use technical solutions to automatically identify terrorist content before it can be widely disseminated.

We also understand the home secretary wants the companies to form an industry-wide body to take greater responsibility for tackling extremist content online — which is a slightly odd ask, given Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube already announced such a collaboration, in December last year (including creating a shared industry database for speeding up identification and removal of terrorist content).

Perhaps Rudd wants more internet companies to be part of the collaboration. Or else more effective techniques for identifying and removing content at speed to be developed.

At today’s round-table we’re told Rudd will also raise concerns about encryption — another technology she criticized in the wake of last week’s attack, arguing that law enforcement agencies must be able to “get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp.”

Such calls are of course hugely controversial, given how encryption is used to safeguard data from exploitation by bad actors — the U.K. government itself utilizes encryption technology, as you’d expect.

So it remains to be seen whether Rudd’s public call for encrypted data to be accessible to law enforcement agencies constitutes the beginning of a serious clampdown on end-to-end encryption in the U.K. (NB: The government has already given itself powers to limit companies’ use of the tech, via last year’s Investigatory Powers Act) — or merely a strategy to apply high-profile pressure to social media companies in trying to strong-arm them into doing more about removing extremist content from their public networks.

We understand the main thrust of today’s discussions will certainly be on the latter issue, with the government seeking greater co-operation from social platforms in combating the spread of terrorist propaganda. Encryption is set to be discussed in further separate discussions, we are told.

In her Telegraph article, Rudd argued that the government cannot fight terrorism without the help of internet companies, big and small.

“We need the help of social media companies, the Googles, the Twitters, the Facebooks of this world. And the smaller ones, too: platforms such as Telegram, WordPress and Justpaste.it. We need them to take a more proactive and leading role in tackling the terrorist abuse of their platforms. We need them to develop further technology solutions. We need them to set up an industry-wide forum to address the global threat,” she wrote.

One stark irony of the Brexit process — which got under way in the U.K. this Wednesday, when the government formally informed the European Union of its intention to leave the bloc — is that security cooperation between the U.K. and the EU is apparently being used as a bargaining chip, with the U.K. government warning it may no longer share data with the EU’s central law enforcement agency in the future if there is no Brexit deal.

Which does rather throw a sickly cast o’er Rudd’s call for internet companies to be more proactive in fighting terrorism.

Not all of the companies Rudd called out in her article will be in attendance at today’s meeting. Pavel Durov, co-founder of the messaging app Telegram, confirmed to TechCrunch that it will not be there, for instance. The messaging app has frequently been criticized as a “tool of choice” for terrorists, although Durov has stood firm in his defense of encryption — arguing that users’ right to privacy is more important than “our fear of bad things happening.”

Telegram has today announced the rollout of end-to-end encrypted voice calls to its platform, doubling down on one of Rudd’s technologies of concern (albeit, Telegram’s “homebrew” encryption is not the same as the respected Signal Protocol, used by WhatsApp, and has taken heavy criticism from security researchers).

But on the public propaganda front, Telegram does already act to remove terrorist content being spread via its public channels. Earlier this week it published a blog post defending the role of end-to-end encryption in safeguarding people’s privacy and freedom of speech, and accusing the mass media of being the priory conduit through which terrorist propaganda spreads.

“Terrorist channels still pop up [on Telegram] — just as they do on other networks — but they are reported almost immediately and are shut down within hours, well before they can get any traction,” it added.

Meanwhile, in a biannual Transparency Report published last week, Twitter revealed it had suspended a total of 636,248 accounts, between August 1, 2015 through to December 31, 2016, for violations related to the promotion of terrorism — saying the majority of the accounts (74 percent) were identified by its own “internal, proprietary spam-fighting tools,” i.e. rather than via user reports.

Twitter’s report underlines the scale of the challenge posed by extremist content spread via social platforms, given the volume of content uploads involved — which are orders of magnitude greater on more popular social platforms like Facebook and YouTube, meaning there’s more material to sift through to locate and eject any extremist material.

In February, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also discussed the issue of terrorist content online, and specifically his hope that AI will play a larger role in the future to tackle this challenge, although he also cautioned that “it will take many years to fully develop these systems.”

“Right now, we’re starting to explore ways to use AI to tell the difference between news stories about terrorism and actual terrorist propaganda so we can quickly remove anyone trying to use our services to recruit for a terrorist organization. This is technically difficult as it requires building AI that can read and understand news, but we need to work on this to help fight terrorism worldwide,” he wrote then.

In an earlier draft of the open letter, Zuckerberg suggested AI could even be used to identify terrorists plotting attacks via private channels — likely via analysis of account behavior patterns, according to a source, not by backdooring encryption (the company already uses machine learning for fighting spam and malware on the end-to-end encrypted WhatsApp, for example).

His edited comment on private channels suggests there are metadata-focused alternative techniques that governments could pursue to glean intel from within encrypted apps without needing to demand access to the content itself — albeit, political pressure may well be on the social platforms themselves to be doing the leg work there.

Rudd is clearly pushing internet companies to do more and do it quicker when it comes to removing extremist content. So Zuckerberg’s time frame of a potential AI fix “many years” ahead likely won’t wash. Political time frames tend to be much tighter.

She’s not the only politician stepping up the rhetoric. Social media giants are facing growing pressure in Germany, which earlier this month proposed a new law for social media platforms to deal with hate-speech complaints. The country previously secured agreements from the companies to remove illegal content within 24 hours of a complaint being made, but the government has accused Facebook and Twitter especially of not taking user complaints seriously enough — hence, it says, it’s going down a legislative route now.

A report in The Telegraph last week suggested the U.K. government is also considering a new law to prosecute internet companies if terrorist content is not immediately taken down when reported. Although ministers were apparently questioning how such a law could be enforced when companies are based overseas, as indeed most of the internet companies in question are.

Another possibility: the Home Office was selectively leaking a threat of legislation ahead of today’s meeting, to try to encourage internet companies to come up with alternative fixes.

Yesterday, digital and humans rights groups, including Privacy International, the Open Rights Group, Liberty and Human Rights Watch, called on the U.K. government to be “transparent” and “open” about the discussions it’s having with internet companies. “Private, informal agreements are not consistent with open, democratic governance,” they wrote.

“Government requests directed to tech companies to take down content is de facto state censorship. Some requests may be entirely legitimate but the sheer volumes make us highly concerned about their validity and the accountability of the processes.”

“We need assurances that only illegal material will be sought out by government officials and taken down by tech companies,” they added. “Transparency and judicial oversight are needed over government takedown requests.”

The group also called out Rudd for not publicly referencing existing powers at the government’s disposal, and expressed concern that any “technological limitations to encryption” they seek could have damaging implications for citizens’ “personal security.”

They wrote:

We also note that Ms Rudd may seek to use Technical Capability Notices (TCNs) to enforce changes [to encryption]; and these would require secrecy. We are therefore surprised that public comments by Ms Rudd have not referenced her existing powers.

We do not believe that the TCN process is robust enough in any case, nor that it should be applied to non-UK providers, and are concerned about the precedent that may be set by companies complying with a government over requests like these.

The Home Office did not respond to a request for comment on the group’s open letter, nor respond to specific questions about its discussions today with internet companies, but a government source told us that the meeting is private.

Earlier this week Rudd faced ridicule on social media, and suggestions from tech industry figures that she does not fully understand the workings of the technologies she’s calling out, following comments made during a BBC interview on Sunday — in which she said people in the technology industry understand “the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff even being put up.”

The more likely explanation is that the undoubtedly well-briefed home secretary is playing politics in an attempt to gain an edge with a group of very powerful, overseas-based internet giants.

Update: Following today’s meeting the Home Secretary has put out the following statement:

My starting point is pretty straightforward. I don’t think that people who want to do us harm should be able to use the internet or social media to do so. I want to make sure we are doing everything we can to stop this.

It was a useful discussion and I’m glad to see that progress has been made.

We focused on the issue of access to terrorist propaganda online and the very real and evolving threat it poses.

I said I wanted to see this tackled head-on and I welcome the commitment from the key players to set up a cross-industry forum that will help to do this.

In taking forward this work I’d like to see the industry to go further and faster in not only removing online terrorist content but stopping it going up in the first place. I’d also like to see more support for smaller and emerging platforms to do this as well, so they can no longer be seen as an alternative shop floor by those who want to do us harm.

A Facebook spokesman provided TechCrunch with the following joint letter from the four major Internet companies attending the meeting (emphasis mine):

Dear Home Secretary,

Thank you for the constructive discussion today on the challenges that terrorism poses to us all.

We welcome the opportunity to share with you details of the progress already made in this area and to hear how the UK Government is developing its approach in both the online and offline space. Our companies are committed to making our platforms a hostile space for those who seek to do harm and we have been working on this issue for several years. We share the Government’s commitment to ensuring terrorists do not have a voice online.

We believe that companies, academics, civil society, and government all have an interest and responsibility to respond to the danger of terrorist propaganda online—and as an industry we are committed to doing more. Companies increasingly share best practices with one another, and we have seen that sharing lessons learned across sectors can improve our collective response to this challenge. Each of our companies also commits to urgently improve that collaboration, with appropriate transparency and civil society involvement.

We will look at all options for structuring a forum to accelerate and strengthen this work, ranging from existing international, multilateral organizations, developing dedicated non-governmental organizations, to enhancing and broadening the current informal collaboration sessions that companies already conduct.

We recognize three initial goals for this collaboration:

First, to encourage the further development of technical tools to identify and remove terrorist propaganda. Companies apply unique content policies and have developed – and continue to develop – techniques appropriate for or unique to their own platforms. Nonetheless, there is a significant opportunity to share the knowledge gained in these varied efforts to develop innovative solutions.

Second, to support younger companies that can benefit from the expertise and experiences of more established ones. Working against terrorism is not a competitive issue within the industry and we pledge to engage the wider ecosystem of companies that face these challenges. The British Government can support this work by ensuring the 300 organisations that have a relationship with the Counter-Terrorism Internet Referral Unit are aware of the support available from industry peers and potentially convening those organisations where necessary.

Third, to support the efforts of civil society organisations to promote alternative and counter-narratives. Our companies all have already invested in existing programs to support civil society, but programs like the Civil Society Empowerment Programme highlight the potential benefits of greater collaboration. Again, the industry does not see this work as one where we compete, but rather as an opportunity to provide support whose value is greater than the individual contributions.

As you recognised, this work must be global in nature and must also avoid duplicating existing efforts. The innovative video hash sharing database that is currently operational in a small number of companies is one recent example of successful collaboration. That work has been strengthened by engagement with the European Union, and illustrates the effectiveness of voluntary, collaborative efforts. We anticipate that the next meeting of the EU Internet Forum will be an opportunity to update member states on the progress of both the hash sharing effort and the forum discussed today.

We are grateful for your support in ensuring that the Government and technology industry work together to tackle this vital issue.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Milward, Senior Director, Corporate, External and Legal Affairs, Microsoft UK

Nick Pickles, UK Head of Public Policy and Government, Twitter

Richard Allan, VP Public Policy EMEA, Facebook

Nicklas Lundblad, VP Public Policy Europe, Middle East, Russia and Africa, Google

Go to Source

Britain plan to convert EU law after Brexit

Ministers set out to study how they intend to unpick the complex legislative web by initially converting the entire body of EU law into British law

A video grab from footage broadcast by the UK Parliament’s Parliamentary Recording Unit (PRU) shows British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Brexit Minister) David Davis as he stands at the dispatch box and speaks about the Great Repeal Bill white paper in the House of Commons in London

LONDON: The British government set out on Thursday how it will handle the mammoth task of converting European Union laws into domestic legislation in preparation for its exit from the bloc, seeking to ease business uncertainty about life after Brexit.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Theresa May formally notified Brussels of Britain’s intention to leave the EU after more than 40 years of membership, during which tens of thousands of EU-related laws have made their way onto the British statute book, governing almost everything from farming to finance.

On Thursday, her ministers set out how they intend to unpick that complex legislative web by initially converting the entire body of EU law into British law — a step seen as necessary to ensure continuity for businesses trading across EU borders.

The plan centres around a “Great Repeal Bill” due to be laid before parliament in May. The bill will transpose EU law, repeal the 1972 European Communities Act which formalises Britain’s EU membership, and give ministers the power to change existing laws to make sure they work after Brexit.

“The bill will convert EU law into United Kingdom law, allowing businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed overnight, and providing fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change,” Brexit minister David Davis told parliament.

Analysis by Thomson Reuters says 52,741 laws have been introduced in the UK as a result of EU legislation since 1990, and research published by parliament estimates 13.2 per cent of UK primary and secondary legislation enacted between 1993 and 2004 was EU-related.

The bill is expected to be subject to close scrutiny, with companies saying they cannot plan without knowing what comes after Brexit, forcing them to put investment programmes on hold and sometimes delaying major infrastructure projects.

Power grab

Drugmakers are concerned that Brexit will mean the UK leaves the EU-wide European Medicines Agency, forcing the creation of a separate British system for drug approvals. That will mean more red tape and could delay new medicines reaching Britain.

The government’s proposals did not specifically address those concerns, which are replicated in other industries such as finance and aviation where firms worry leaving the EU will mean leaving regulatory bodies that authorise them to trade.

Aides said membership of EU agencies would be a matter for May’s negotiation.

The plan also raised hackles among some politicians who fear the government will use the Brexit process to reshape EU laws without proper parliamentary scrutiny as they move them into British law.

The Liberal Democrats called it a “shameless power grab” and the main opposition Labour Party demanded tighter controls on the powers that the government wants to grant itself to amend legislation without consulting lawmakers.

Go to Source

Britain to demand tech firms do more to tackle extremism

LONDON, March 30 (Reuters) – Britain will tell Google
, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft
on Thursday to do more to stop extremists posting
content on their platforms and using encrypted messaging
services to plan attacks.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said on Sunday tech companies
should stop offering a “secret place for terrorists to
communicate”, after British parliament attacker Khalid Masood
was widely reported to have sent encrypted messages moments
before he killed four people last week.

Rudd has summoned the internet companies to a meeting to
urge them to do more to block extremist content from platforms
like Facebook and Google’s YouTube, but a government spokesman
said encryption was also on the agenda.

“The message is the government thinks there is more they
can do in relation to taking down extremist and hate material
and that is what they are going to be talking about this
afternoon,” the prime minister’s spokesman said on Thursday.

“I’d expect encryption to come up but when these talks were
agreed it was in relation to extremist material.”

Some smaller tech firms will be at the meeting, another
spokesman said, but the list does not include Apple.

Facebook and Google declined to comment ahead of the
meeting. Microsoft and Twitter did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The U.S. internet giants have all raced over the past year
to show they are doing more to remove extremist material from
their sites, but argue that there is no technical silver bullet
that can fix the issue.

In December, they agreed with the European Union to create a
shared database to help each other speed this process once any
one of the companies identifies clearly illegal or inflammatory
content. (http://reut.rs/2nz1dzB)

Rudd said she was “calling time on terrorists using social
media as their platform” on Sunday, and she appealed for help
from the owners of encrypted messaging apps such as Facebook’s
WhatsApp.

Britain is already implementing sweeping new powers for
police and security services under the Investigative Powers Act
enacted last year.

“This may be just a way to impress on industry that the
government means business here,” said James Blessing, chairman
of the UK Internet Services Providers’ Association, which
represents more than 200 internet access and hosting firms.

The new law has provisions to force tech firms to help law
enforcement agencies bypass encryption, where possible, and keep
records of sites their customers visit, updating decades-old
surveillance laws.

The government has said it supports the use of encryption in
many business and consumer services, but it has also effectively
demanded that law enforcement be given privileged access to
decode encrypted extremist chatter.

Technical experts are in nearly universal agreement that
such back doors into encrypted systems will weaken security for
all web users as the openings used by police will eventually be
exploited by cybercriminals or foreign spies.

The European Union is also increasing pressure on the U.S.
major tech companies.

On Tuesday, EU Justice Minister Vera Jourova said the
commission will propose new policies in June to force Facebook,
Google, Microsoft and Twitter to make it easier for police to
access data.
(Reporting by Paul Sandle, Eric Auchard and Kylie MacLellan;
editing by Stephen Addison)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017. Click For Restrictions – http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

Go to Source

Pacific Workplaces Announces Sponsorship of Solo and Small Law…

Workspace Provider Pacific Workplaces sponsors Sacramento Bar Association programs for small legal firms to provide affordable resources for lawyers looking to launch or expand their law practice.

Sacramento, CA (PRWEB) March 29, 2017

On-demand office space provider Pacific Workplaces is proud to sponsor the Solo and Small Practice group of the Sacramento County Bar. The group holds bi-monthly MCLE programs, the next on April 11, 2017 is a crash course on Ethics and Online Case Management Systems. Along with Capitol Digital/Califorensics, Lexis Nexis, and Paychex, Pacific has provided funds to help make these programs possible.

Pacific Workplaces, also known as ‘Pac’ offers a concept called Workplace-as-a-Service ™ which aims to provide a low overhead workplace solution, on a hosted, subscription-based model. Users benefit from flexible lease agreements, full or part-time furnished office spaces, virtual office plans, and access to business support services such as meeting rooms, personalized phone answering, and administrative support all on a pay-per-use basis. The shared infrastructure also fosters a curated business community that provides users a formal and informal support system.

Tracy Wilson, Managing Partner for Pacific Workplaces said “The flexible workspaces and on-demand services we provide has always been specifically appealing to small law firms looking for cost-effective office space options to run their practice. We host a large number of attorneys in our three Sacramento locations, so this sponsorship is a natural fit for us.”

Pac staff attends the bi-monthly programs to provide information about their shared workspace options, and are always available to answer questions about their services and special discount opportunities for solo and small firm attorneys.

These programs are well attended, with experts on a variety of topics. Hor d’oeurves and drinks are provided as well. Requests for information can be directed to the SCBA at 916-554-3780 or by email to: willow.jacobs(at)sacbar(dot)org.

Requests for information about special serviced office solutions for attorneys at our 16 locations in California and Nevada as well as our US Network of locations can be directed to 916-492-6000 or by email to: info(at)pacificworkplaces(dot)com.

####

About Pacific Workplaces

Pacific Workplaces (Pac) offers a wide range of part-time and full-time furnished office space including virtual offices, private offices, and team rooms in a shared infrastructure environment. Members have access to meeting rooms, VoIP telephony, unified messaging, answering services, IT support, admin support, online legal library, and preferential access to our CloudTouchdown ™ network of day offices and meeting spaces with 600 locations worldwide, under a pay-per-use hosted model Pac refers to as Workplace-as-a-Service ™. Pac partners with landlords to develop and operate shared workspaces and coworking places. The Pac model responds to trends toward a more distributed workforce, increased flexibility, outsourcing of non-core activities, teleworking, sustainability, and a growing demand from professional firms and start-ups. All Pac centers are operated by PBC Management LLC. For more information, visit, http://www.pacificworkplaces.com

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/03/prweb14189610.htm

Go to Source

Amber Rudd pressing tech firms over terrorist material after Westminster attack

Amber Rudd will throw down the gauntlet to technology bosses on Thursday after the Westminster attack sparked a furore over companies’ responsibilities to support counter-terrorism investigations and remove extremist content.

The Home Secretary will raise the issue of encryption and security services’ access to terrorists’ communications at a summit with senior executives from a number of firms including Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Facebook.

Although she will voice her concerns about encryption, the main focus of the meeting will be on efforts to tackle terrorist material and propaganda online.

Technology giants have repeatedly faced calls to do more to detect and take down terror-related content from their platforms.

It comes on the day a coroner is due to open the inquest of 52-year-old Khalid Masood, who was shot dead by police after killing four people and injuring dozens of others during a rampage through the heart of London lasting less than two minutes.

On Wednesday the acting head of Scotland Yard, Craig Mackey, said the Westminster attack should be a “wake-up call” for firms.

Ms Rudd will use the private meeting to urge companies to do more to ensure terrorists and extremists are not able to use their platforms to disseminate propaganda.

It is understood ministers want communication service providers to use technical solutions so extremist content can be automatically identified before it is widely circulated.

The Government is also pushing for firms to form an industry-wide body.

A fresh debate over authorities’ access to communications was sparked after it was reported that Masood’s phone connected with encrypted messaging service WhatsApp shortly before the atrocity.

Controversy has centred on so-called end-to-end encryption, which means messages are encoded so only the sending and receiving devices can read them.

At the weekend Ms Rudd said there should be “no place for terrorists to hide”.

She stressed that end-to-end encryption “has a place” but there should be a mechanism for police and security services to access communications relating to terrorism after obtaining a warrant.

Privacy campaigners and opposition politicians cautioned against any move to build “back doors” into encryption, saying this could weaken cyber security for law-abiding citizens.

WhatsApp has said it is “co-operating with law enforcement as they continue their investigations”.

The topic of encryption will be discussed further in future meetings.

An inquest for the four victims was opened and adjourned at Westminster Coroner’s Court on Wednesday.

Kurt Cochran, 54, Leslie Rhodes, 75, and Aysha Frade died after Muslim convert Masood drove at pedestrians on Westminster Bridge.

Pc Keith Palmer, 48, died from a single stab wound to the chest before Masood was killed.

Go to Source

Law Society welcomes temporary solution to lawyer shortage

30 March 2017

Law Society welcomes temporary solution to
family legal aid lawyer shortage

The New Zealand Law
Society welcomes any solution, even temporary, that will
offer relief to a shortage in family legal aid lawyers in
Wairarapa.

But it stresses asking lawyers in other areas
to assist is a short term fix which doesn’t address the
fundamental problems causing the shortage of lawyers.

The
Ministry of Justice says it has been in contact with family
legal aid lawyers based in Palmerston North and Upper Hutt
and several have indicated they will take on cases in
Wairarapa if required.

It says there are currently just
seven family legal aid lawyers working in Wairarapa, down
from nine after two recently left the region. In the past it
has been as high as 11.

The ministry’s manager of legal
aid services, Tracey Baguley, says it’s important that
people receive legal representation when they need
it.

“The number of lawyers taking on legal aid work goes
up and down, and from time-to-time in smaller communities,
such as Wairarapa, we may see a need to bring in outside
lawyers,” she says.

New Zealand Law Society Family Law
Section chair Michelle Duggan says it’s great if it means
that unmet legal needs are being taken care of and people
are getting representation; however it is not a long term
solution.

“Not by a long shot; yet that is what’s
needed. There is a shortage of legal aid lawyers but the
ministry just won’t properly examine as to why this is.
What will happen in six months’ time and will these
lawyers from outside the region still be available?” she
says.

Ms Duggan says there are a range of reasons why it
is difficult to keep family legal aid lawyers in any
provincial area.

“It’s very hard work. It’s often
urgent work and you’re essentially being asked to drop
whatever other legal work you’re doing and attend to it.
It doesn’t pay well for lawyers working for firms which is
why most people that do legal aid work are sole
practitioners, because we’re the only ones with the
overheads that make it manageable,” she says.

However,
Michelle Duggan says sole practitioners then have the
problem of not being in a position to employ a junior lawyer
to train.

“These are some of the substantive issues the
ministry needs to address and the Law Society has not been
silent on this issue. We have brought up these problems on
numerous occasions,” she says.

Ms Duggan says the
shortfall of family legal aid lawyers is not just a
Wairarapa problem as it has been evident in both Blenheim
and Westport too. She says the Law Society has brought the
shortage of legal aid family lawyers to the attention of the
ministry a number of times in the
past.

ends

© Scoop Media

Go to Source

De Blasio Looking at Getting a Special Law Passed So He Can Raise Money From Donors for His Legal Bills

gettyimages 612952742 De Blasio Looking at Getting a Special Law Passed So He Can Raise Money From Donors for His Legal Bills

Mayor Bill de Blasio at ceremony unveiling plans and breaking ground for a new Statue of Liberty Museum. Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images

Mayor Bill de Blasio said he would consider pushing legislation through the City Council that would enable him to set up a legal defense fund to pay the towering legal bills from a now-folded corruption investigation—after the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board ruled today that accepting donations of more than $50 into such a fund would constitute receipt of an illegal gift.

In the opinion issued this afternoon, COIB asserted that contributions to legal defense funds to cover invoices from lawyers are essentially gifts to public servants, and thus subject to a cap of $50 during any 12 month period, unless the money comes from a family member or close personal friend. Exempting legal defense fund contributions from this limit would require either an amendment to the city charter, or legislation by the Council.

“The Board recognizes that legal expenses can burden public servants,” the board wrote in the advisory opinion. “In the absence of specific legislation that distinguishes gifts made to public servants through legal defense funds from other gifts to public servants, there is no legal basis for the Board to treat gifts made through legal defense funds differently.”

Earlier this month, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance announced that they would not bring any charges against de Blasio or any of his aides in connection with his political fundraising efforts. The mayor had retained Barry Berke of the high-power firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel to deal with the dual probes.

At the end of January, the New York Post reported that the mayor’s legal fees were costing the city $11.6 million, as shown by contracts released by City Comptroller Scott Stringer. In February, de Blasio said he would set up a legal defense fund to spare taxpayers the expense of his defense—but would not commit to refuse donations from individuals and entities with business before the city.

De Blasio said today that he has “a lot of respect” for COIB, but denied its decision resolved matter, insisting it “now initiates a dialogue.” He noted that people can go back to them and bring up specific examples or cases and reiterated that this applies not only to him but to other individuals “who may need to use this approach.”

But he ultimately acknowledged he might need a law passed for the defense fund idea to work.

“As they’ve indicated, a potential solution is through legislation,” he said. “That’s a perfectly fair possibility. I’m not committing to anything yet. They literally just put it out. We have to think about it, we have to talk to them. That’s another avenue so I haven’t drawn any conclusions.”

The mayor said he did not know how long a passing such a bill would take, but said he would consult further with COIB. He stressed that he has a “long, positive working relationship” with the board and that he has gone to them “many times,” even before he became mayor.

“I don’t know if they’ve looked at the different models that have been used around the country, I just don’t know,” he said. “I can’t surmise what legislation would take. Sometimes legislation moves fast, sometimes it doesn’t but we’re not even close to that yet.”

COIB said that under current law, public servants cannot accept contributions from their city subordinates and cannot accept a contribution of $50 or more or a series of contributions over any 12-month period worth $50 or more from any individual or firm that has or is seeking to have business dealings with the city.

If two or more donors are relatives or domestic partners of one another, the $50 per 12-month period restriction applies “to the aggregate of their donations”—and the same applies if two or more donors are directors, trustees, or employees of the same firm or affiliated firms. And a public servant has to conduct an adequate investigation inquiry to determine if a donor has business dealings with the city.

The board also said that public servants can accept contributions in any amount from a family member or close personal friend who does not have any business dealings with the city, doesn’t appear before the city and otherwise has no “non-ministerial dealings with the city.”

For contributions from non-subordinate city employees, constituents and others who know public servants through their city positions, COIB assumes that public servants are getting giftss only to curry favor.

The mayor reiterated that he would avoid financing his legal defense fund with public dollars.

“I’ve never heard a critique of the concept of legal defense funds until now but if we have to figure out the right ground rules, that’s perfectly fair and I believe we’ll eventually find a way to do that,” he said.

De Blasio also said he did not believe he had a family member or associate who could underwrite the defense fund.

“I’d like to meet that close friend,” de Blasio said, as reporters and other attendees laughed in response. “I don’t know of that person but again, I don’t want to speak in terms of theoreticals.”

Real estate executive Paul Massey, de Blasio’s deepest-pocketed GOP opponent, claimed that the mayor is “saddled with a potentially $1 million or more legal bill himself, with no real ability to pay for it.”

“Bill de Blasio (D-Corruption) has been receiving free legal services for a year, in a deal no ordinary person can get, from a law firm that lobbies the city,” Massey said.

The mayor’s team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Go to Source