Fordham Should Not Abuse Its Status as a Private Institution to Censor Free Speech – Fordham Observer

On Dec. 22, 2016, the last day of the fall semester, then-Dean of Students Keith Eldredge sent an email that incited four long years of legal action and fees. In the email, the dean denied by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) request to form a club after the United Student Government had already approved it.

The dean wrote that he cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country, when these goals conflict with (the) values of the University, all the while without specifying what values SJP contradicted.

In response, the members of SJP went to court, using a New York state law (article 78) that allows students to challenge a decision at a private school if the decision was contrary to the institutions own rules, which SJP felt was the case.

The courts decision demonstrates how profoundly Fordhams label as a private institution has enabled it to restrict the rights of the student body.

On Dec. 22, 2020 exactly four years after Eldredges letter the New York State Appellate Court overturned the 2019 ruling and held that Fordham was actually within its rights to deny the club. The court added that SJPs political activism could potentially be disruptive to student life and as a result, they are still fighting for recognition to this day.

The courts decision demonstrates how profoundly Fordhams label as a private institution has enabled it to restrict the rights of the student body. By silencing the political opinions of SJP, especially at a university where other partisan clubs exist, the Fordham administration has shown a concerning lack of support for the diversity of student opinions on campus.

Discussions and support for SJPs case and cause have extended past campus and onto social media. The Instagram page @fordhamsjp provides its audience of 954 followers with updates on the court case, general information on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and resources for other human rights movements. Its new posts receive hundreds of likes from the Fordham community and beyond, as the ongoing legal battle has brought the club national recognition.

@lc_sinners, a popular Instagram meme page that caters to Fordham students, has also backed SJP by posting multiple memes about Fordhams censorship of the club, particularly attacking Fordhams flimsy private institution excuse for silencing students.

As student journalists, we at The Observer feel that free speech is crucial to the well-being of the university community. The student body cannot be expected to grow and learn in an environment where the only ideas that are permitted are those that the administration deems acceptable.

While Fordham is a private university, it still received $19.6 million in 2018 of a total of $933.5 million and $2.5 million in 2019 in government grants. When any private university receives federal funding, however miniscule, it should abide by federal law. Therefore, its students and their free speech should be protected from actions like those that Eldredge has started against SJP.

As long as this continues, it will suppress those student voices that are unsuitable for the image it wants to project.

When discussing freedom of speech at a private institution like Fordham, we would be remiss in not mentioning the case of Austin Tong. In a similar action to SJP, Tong attempted to challenge a disciplinary action in court, but his case was dismissed since it was decided that the university administration had reasonable grounds to believe that Tongs behavior was hate speech. His case shows that SJPs case is not the only target of Fordham censorship; however, his comments online sparked reactions of fear and condemnation within Fordham that SJP has not received.

Tongs behavior was criticized heavily by many in the university community, and many people expressed fears for their own safety. Contrary to Tong, SJP has garnered a wide array of support from the Fordham community.

It is clear that Fordham has hidden behind its status as a private university meaning that the vast majority (nearly 88%) of the revenue for the university comes from tuition and fees alone and it abuses that power to play fast and loose with its First Amendment allowances. As long as this continues, it will suppress those student voices that are unsuitable for the image it wants to project.

As the first of its kind, SJPs case has set the precedent for all of New York states private universities. College students in this state or anywhere should not be silenced for expressing their political views in a peaceful and nondiscriminatory manner, yet their freedom of speech is now in danger because of Fordhams actions.

Moreover, all students are paying for the duct tape that Fordham is putting over SJPs mouth. The legal fees for the SJP trial were included in our tuition bills, a shockingly improvident and uncompassionate use of money during a time when it could have been used to alleviate financial hardships wrought by COVID-19.

Is this use of funds, power and time truly in line with Fordhams values?

View original post here:

Fordham Should Not Abuse Its Status as a Private Institution to Censor Free Speech - Fordham Observer

Biden Administration Urged to Drop Julian Assange Case – The New York Times

WASHINGTON A coalition of civil liberties and human rights groups urged the Biden administration on Monday to drop efforts to extradite the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from Britain and prosecute him, calling the Trump-era case against him a grave threat to press freedom.

The coalition sent a letter urging a change in course before a Friday deadline for the Justice Department to file a brief in a London court. American prosecutors are due to explain in detail their decision formally lodged on Jan. 19, the last full day of the Trump administration to appeal a ruling blocking their request to extradite Mr. Assange.

The litigation deadline may force the new administration to confront a decision: whether to press on with the Trump-era approach to Mr. Assange, or to instead drop the matter.

Democrats like the new Biden team are no fan of Mr. Assange, whose publication in 2016 of Democratic emails stolen by Russia aided Donald J. Trumps narrow victory over Hillary Clinton. But the charges center instead on his 2010 publication of American military and diplomatic documents leaked by Chelsea Manning, and they raise profound First Amendment issues.

The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do, the letter said, adding: News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation organized the letter. Other signers about two dozen groups included the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Demand Progress, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Project on Government Oversight and Reporters Without Borders.

Most of the charges against Assange concern activities that are no different from those used by investigative journalists around the world every day, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said in a separate statement. President Biden should avoid setting a terrible precedent by criminalizing key tools of independent journalism that are essential for a healthy democracy.

For now, the Justice Department remains committed to appealing the denial of its request to extradite Mr. Assange, said Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for its National Security Division.

The deadline to either continue working to extradite Mr. Assange by filing the brief or drop the matter reflects a common legal policy dilemma when a new administration takes over and confronts matters inherited from its predecessor. Newly installed officials face too many issues to make careful decisions on all at once, so some get punted.

But litigation calendars can force early decisions about whether to proceed or shift direction in some cases. It is often easier to stay the course, based on an argument that the issue can be revisited later when there is more time. But once the new administration has started down that path, it owns the policy as a matter of political and bureaucratic reality and so can effectively get locked in.

Complicating matters for making any decision to keep or jettison the Trump-era policy to go after Mr. Assange with criminal charges, the Biden administrations intended leadership team is not yet in place at the Justice Department. The Senate has yet to confirm Mr. Bidens nominee to be attorney general, Judge Merrick B. Garland.

In the meantime, the department is being temporarily led by a caretaker career official, Monty Wilkinson, the acting attorney general to whom the letter was addressed.

After Mr. Assange published the documents provided by Ms. Manning in 2010, the Obama administration engaged in extensive deliberations under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. over whether to prosecute Mr. Assange but never charged him with a crime.

By contrast, Ms. Manning, a low-level Army intelligence analyst who downloaded the archives of documents and sent them to WikiLeaks, was convicted at a court-martial trial in 2013 of leaking the documents and sentenced to 35 years in prison. President Barack Obama commuted most of the remainder of her sentence in 2017.

But law enforcement officials under Mr. Obama shied away from bringing charges against Mr. Assange. They feared that there was no legally meaningful way to distinguish his actions from those of conventional investigative national-security journalism as practiced by mainstream news organizations like The New York Times. The Obama team did not want to create a precedent that could chill or cripple traditional journalism, according to people familiar with its deliberations.

In March 2018, however, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump Justice Department obtained a grand jury indictment against Mr. Assange. It initially sidestepped press freedom issues by narrowly accusing him of participating in a hacking-related criminal conspiracy with Ms. Manning, rather than focusing on his publication of government secrets.

That indictment was unsealed in April 2019, when Mr. Assange was dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and arrested. (He had taken refuge there in 2012, initially to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questions about sexual assault accusations, which he has denied. Sweden had rescinded its arrest warrant for Mr. Assange in 2017.)

The Justice Department by then under Attorney General William P. Barr then obtained a superseding indictment expanding the charges against Mr. Assange to include allegations that his journalistic-style activities violated the Espionage Act. A second superseding indictment later added more allegations related to the notion of a hacking conspiracy.

Notably, there is some overlap in personnel from earlier internal debates about the dilemma raised by Mr. Assange. The top national security official in the Trump Justice Department, John C. Demers, remains in place atop its National Security Division for now; the Biden transition asked him to temporarily stay on for continuity purposes even as most other Trump political appointees resigned.

Mr. Demerss predecessor from 2013 to 2016, John Carlin, has returned to the Justice Department and is currently serving as the acting deputy attorney general. Mr. Carlins predecessor, Lisa O. Monaco, who ran the National Security Division from 2011 to 2013, is Mr. Bidens nominee to be deputy attorney general but has not yet been confirmed.

The letter from the rights groups portrayed the Trump-era Justice Departments decision to proceed against Mr. Assange as jeopardizing journalism that is crucial to democracy more broadly, and noted that the Trump administration had positioned itself as an antagonist to the institution of a free and unfettered press in numerous ways.

They added: We are deeply concerned about the way that a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveraged perhaps by a future administration against publishers and journalists of all stripes.

Since the original indictment was unsealed, lawyers for Mr. Assange have fought the extradition request, arguing that the United States was prosecuting him for political reasons.

A British judge in January largely rejected those arguments, holding that he had been charged in good faith. But she denied his extradition anyway citing harsh conditions for security-related prisoners in American jails and the risk that Mr. Assange might be driven to commit suicide. It is that rationale that the brief due on Friday would appeal.

Elian Peltier contributed reporting from London.

Continued here:

Biden Administration Urged to Drop Julian Assange Case - The New York Times

Julian Assange supporters urge Joe Biden to drop prosecution saying Trump was opposed to free press – The Independent

Media freedom groups and supporters of Julian Assange have asked the Biden administration to drop the USs pursuit of the WikiLeaks' founder, saying Donald Trump was opposed to the idea of a free press.

In their first appeal to the US government since Joe Biden became president less than three weeks ago, more than 20 groups working to promote human right and a free media, wrote to the department of justice, asking it to drop the case against Mr Assange, saying they were fearful "the way that a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveraged.

The indictment of Mr Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinely and that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do, said the letter, signed by groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalise these common journalistic practices.

There was no immediate response from the White House. But in a short statement released on Monday evening, a spokesperson for the department of justice, said: "We are continuing our efforts to seek the extradition of Julian Assange."

In early January, a British judge in London turned down a request extradition from the US to send Mr Assange to America to face a total of 18 charges, that accused him of breaches of the Espionage Act and hacking into a Pentagon computer.

The 1917 Espionage Act, passed at a time when the US was at war, does not allow a defendant to argue they were acting in the public interest.

In her ruling on January 4, the the judge, Vanessa Baraitser of Westminster Magistrates Court, said she believed the case had been brought in good faith and said the accusations levelled at Mr Assange would constitute a crime in Britain.

Yet, she said she feared the risk the 49-year might take his own life, were he sent to the US, was very high. As a result, she ordered Mr Assange to be remain in jail while the US authorities appealed her decision, and sought to provide additional information about the steps that would be taken to ensure the WikiLeaks' founder did not harm himself, if he was extradited.

Supporters of Mr Assange welcomed the judges ruling in the short term, but said they feared the US would continue to seek to punish the Australian citizen.

He and his supporters say the US wants to stop him and his organisation from publishing details of the Wests deadly actions around the world, often carried out as part of the so-called war on terror.

Julian has the reputation as a speaker of the truth. And WikiLeaks revealed war crimes, and crimes against humanity, Mr Assanges father, John Shipton toldThe Independent earlier this year.

The persecution of Julian is to destroy the capacity of Julian to speak the truth about what's happened over the last 20 years or so, and the destruction of the Middle East.

Some of the most powerful information was provided to WiliLeaks by former army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning. She was arrested in 2010, and sentenced her to 35 years in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth.

She spent almost seven years in detention, much of it in solitary confinement, before the sentence was commuted by Barack Obama shortly before he left office.

In their letter, the activists point out the Obama administration, of which Mr Biden was a key part, decided not to pursue the prosecution of Mr Assange. The Trump administration positioned itself as an antagonist to the institution of a free and unfettered press in numerous ways. Its abuse of its prosecutorial powers was among the most disturbing, the letter says.

We are deeply concerned about the way that a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveragedperhaps by a future administrationagainst publishers and journalists of all stripes.

The New York Times said the department had a deadline of Friday to file a brief in the British court if it wanted to continue to pursue the matter. The department is currently headed by a caretaker official, Monty Wilkinson, the acting attorney general. The letter was addressed to him.

In recent days, Stella Morris, Mr Assanges partner and the mother of two of his children, has said despite Britain being hit by cold weather, his winter clothes remained in prison storage.

She wrote: Julian should be warm, at home with me and his two sons.

Continue reading here:

Julian Assange supporters urge Joe Biden to drop prosecution saying Trump was opposed to free press - The Independent

Julian Assanges sexual assault accuser speaks of incident for the first time in tell-all book – NEWS.com.au

A woman who accused Julian Assange of sexual assault a decade ago has broken her silence, detailing the alleged attack for the first time in a tell-all book.

Anna Ardin, a church deacon who was previously referred to as Miss A, alleged the WikiLeaks founder tricked her into having sex without a condom in 2010 while staying at her apartment in Sweden.

In the book, called In the Shadow Of Assange: My Testimony, she admits having a crush on Assange and offered him her spare bedroom.

Back in 2010, the WikiLeaks boss was being thrust into the international spotlight as his website revealed secret government cables about the war in Iraq and a video showing the US military killing civilians.

In the book from which details and excerpts have been published by Swedish media Ardin writes that she had considered sleeping with him at the time, in part out of revenge on an ex-partner who she knew would notice if she was successful.

She recalled thinking: It might be a pretty fun thing, and no big deal to score with Julian Assange.

She claims she helped Assange arrange seminars as she worked to make the plan a reality, However, she claims events turned sinister at her apartment one night alleging Assange pushed her down roughly after they agreed to have sex, then sabotaged his condom and coaxed her into have unprotected sex.

She also said the 49-year-old refused to shower during his stay and left turds floating in the toilet.

She wrote that by the time he left, her apartment smelled strongly of unwashed body, of dried-in sweat.

In promoting the book, she told Swedish media: Julian is definitely not a monster. But he crossed my boundaries.

Ardin wrote that she and Assange went to a party the following night and that she continued to let him stay in her apartment.

The Julian who took part in the (party) is totally different from the one who humiliated and abused me the previous evening, Ardin wrote in her book, adding that Assange is in many ways a fantastic person.

Ardin told Swedish media she feels as though she was sexual abused, but admitted others might see the incident as a grey zone.

It feels like society is ready to talk about these grey areas now, she said.

Ardin wrote she had no plans to report Assange to the police but did so after another Swedish woman, known only as Miss W, contacted her a few days after the alleged incident with a similar story.

Miss W claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by Assange who had forcibly penetrated her without a condom, The Timesreported.

Assange has denied all allegations of sexual assault and has accused Ardin of working with the CIA to set him up after he spilled US secrets, a claim she has adamantly denied.

Anne Ramberg, the former head of the Swedish Bar Association, tweeted against Ardin, writing that comments by the aggrieved lady who provided her home and bed to Assange were extremely worrying.

Ms Ramberg, who supports Assanges innocence, said the new book does not tell the full story.

Anyone who has not read the preliminary investigation should do so, she tweeted. To now write a book and make a career of what is described as abuse seems extremely questionable.

Two years after the alleged assault took place, in 2012, Assange hid in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden over the charges. He claimed that Sweden could then extradite him to the US where he said he would not face a fair trial over charges linked to WikiLeaks.

He remained at the embassy for seven years until Swedish prosecutors dropped the case in 2019, saying evidence had weakened due to the considerable amount of time that had passed since the alleged assaults.

A British court ruled last month that Assange will not be extradited to the US after a judge found his mental health was so fragile he was likely to kill himself if he is sent overseas to face espionage charges.

But the United States immediately confirmed they will appeal this decision, in a last-ditch attempt to force Assange to face the US justice system.

He is now in Belmarsh Prison in London awaiting the decision.

See the rest here:

Julian Assanges sexual assault accuser speaks of incident for the first time in tell-all book - NEWS.com.au

EFF, Freedom of the Press Foundation and 22 Other Press Freedom Organizations Call on Attorney General to Drop Assange Prosecution – EFF

The prosecution of Julian Assange for charges related to his publications of government documents on the whistleblower website Wikileaks poses a grave threat to press freedom, EFF, Freedom of the Press Foundation and other human rights organizations argue. In an open letter published today, we call on President Bidens acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson to halt the prosecution and the threat of extradition.

The majority of the charges against Assange relate to the Espionage Act, a federal law passed in 1917 designed to punish espionage. The laws broad language criminalized those who obtain and/or transmit materials related to the national defense (read the text of the law). While the authors of the law may have intended to keep the scope broad in order to encapsulate a wide range of espionage activities, today that law is being turned against publishers of information that seeks to hold government officials to account for unethical behavior.

As we argue in our letter, prosecuting Assange under the Espionage Act raises the specter of prosecuting other journalistic institutions for routine investigative and publishing practices. As we state in our letter, a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveragedperhaps by a future administrationagainst publishers and journalists of all stripes. Both the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act raise serious constitutional concerns, and the selective enforcement of these laws is used to threaten journalists, whistleblowers, and publishers who seek to cast light on government malfeasance.

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

February 8, 2021

Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson:

We, the undersigned press freedom, civil liberties, and international human rights advocacy organizations, write today to share our profound concern about the ongoing criminal and extradition proceedings relating to Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

While our organizations have different perspectives on Mr. Assange and his organization, we share the view that the governments indictment of him poses a grave threat to press freedom both in the United States and abroad. We urge you to drop the appeal of the decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates Court to reject the Trump administrations extradition request.

We also urge you to dismiss the underlying indictment. The indictment of Mr. Assange threatens press freedom because much of the conduct described in the indictment is conduct that journalists engage in routinelyand that they must engage in in order to do the work the public needs them to do. Journalists at major news publications regularly speak with sources, ask for clarification or more documentation, and receive and publish documents the government considers secret. In our view, such a precedent in this case could effectively criminalize these common journalistic practices. In addition, some of the charges included in the indictment turn entirely on Mr. Assanges decision to publish classified information. News organizations frequently and necessarily publish classified information in order to inform the public of matters of profound public significance. We appreciate that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting bona fide national security interests, but the proceedings against Mr. Assange jeopardize journalism that is crucial to democracy.

The Trump administration positioned itself as an antagonist to the institution of a free and unfettered press in numerous ways. Its abuse of its prosecutorial powers was among the most disturbing. We are deeply concerned about the way that a precedent created by prosecuting Assange could be leveragedperhaps by a future administrationagainst publishers and journalists of all stripes. Major news organizations share this concern, which is why the announcement of charges against Assange in May 2019 was met with vociferous and nearly universal condemnation from virtually every major American news outlet, even though many of those news outlets have criticized Mr. Assange in the past. It is our understanding that senior officials in the Obama administration shared this concern as well. Former Department of Justice spokesperson Matthew Miller told the Washington Post in 2013, The problem the department has always had in investigating Julian Assange is there is no way to prosecute him for publishing information without the same theory being applied to journalists.

It was reportedly the press freedom implications of any prosecution of Mr. Assange that led Attorney General Eric Holders Justice Department to decide against indicting him after considering doing so. It is unfortunately the case that press freedom is under threat globally. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we protect a robust and adversarial presswhat Judge Murray Gurfein in the Pentagon Papers case memorably called a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous pressin the United States and abroad. With this end in mind, we respectfully urge you to forgo the appeal of Judge Baraitsers ruling, and to dismiss the indictment of Mr. Assange.

Respectfully,

(in alphabetical order)

Access Now

American Civil Liberties Union

Amnesty International - USA

Center for Constitutional Rights

Committee to Protect Journalists

Defending Rights and Dissent

Demand Progress

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fight for the Future

First Amendment Coalition

Free Press

Freedom of the Press Foundation

Human Rights Watch

Index on Censorship

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University

National Coalition Against Censorship

Open The Government

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

PEN America

Project on Government Oversight

Reporters Without Borders

Roots Action

The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look Institute

Whistleblower & Source Protection Program (WHISPeR) at ExposeFacts

Read the original post:

EFF, Freedom of the Press Foundation and 22 Other Press Freedom Organizations Call on Attorney General to Drop Assange Prosecution - EFF

Data Encryption Software Market 2020-2028: COVID-19 Analysis, Key Vendors, Drivers, Restraints, Opportunities, and Threats Explore By Dell, Eset,…

United State, Washington: North America features a significant international presence within the Data Encryption Software market in 2021 amid the center East/Africa, Europe, and therefore the Asia Pacific, respectively

According to SMIs latest research, the Data Encryption Software market is expected to achieve the greatest growth between 2021 and 2028. The focus of this Data Encryption Software market intelligence report is based on skilled research insights and complete chain drives market dynamics to focus on current trends, industry financial overview, and historical data evaluation. Data Encryption Software market research report provides detailed information on the following aspects: industry size, share, growth, segmentation, manufacturers and progress, main trends, market drivers, challenges, standardization, deployment models, opportunities, strategies, future roadmaps, and Annual forecast till 2028, etc.

This market research report surely provides productive ideas with which products can be made more effective and striking in the competitive market. The market data analyzed in this Data Encryption Software market report makes you achieve the business goal and objective in the predetermined time frame. Data Encryption Software market consists of a series of graphical statistics, tables, figures, and data analysis presentations, the target is described in detail with transparent targets along with potential company stakeholders. Upstream raw materials and equipment and downstream demand analysis are also conducted.

>>The Download PDF brochure consists of Table of Content, Research Framework, and Research Methodology: https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/sample/17626

It offers insights into possible growth strategies adopted by the marketing channel, offering in-depth analysis for potential entrants or existing rivals in the Programmatic Advertising Platform. The current Data Encryption Software market is mainly affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Most projects in China, the United States, Germany, South Korea, and many more countries have been postponed. We give you comprehensive data of the relevant industry worldwide market reports here that will aid and support your firm in all possible ways.

Worldwide Key-Players/Companies the major key players that are operating in the Data Encryption Software market are:Dell, Eset, Gemalto, IBM, Mcafee, Microsoft, Pkware, Sophos, Symantec, Thales E-Security

Important Features that are under Offering and Key Highlights of the Reports:

Full in-depth analysis of the parent market.Important changes in market dynamics.Detailed overview of Data Encryption Software MarketChanging market dynamics of the industryCurrent market sizeMarket forecastMarket opportunitiesFormer, on-going, and projected market analysis in terms of volume and value.Assessment of niche industry developments.Competitive landscape of Data Encryption Software Market Products

>>Dont miss out on business opportunities inData Encryption Software Market. Speak to our analyst and gain crucial industry insights that will help your business grow: https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/quiry/17626

This report forecasts revenue growth at the global, regional, and local levels and provides an analysis of the most recent industry trends from 2021 to 2028 in each of the segments and sub-segments. Some of the major geographies included in the market are given below:

Are you not able to find what exactly you are looking for?

=> The scope may not be covered. If it is based on your specific area of interest, we can customize your requirements and incorporate them into the research framework at any time, and provide you with customized reports according to your exact situation.

Reasons to buy this report:

>>You Can Buy This Report: https://www.stratagemmarketinsights.com/cart/17626

THANKS FOR SPENDING YOUR VALUABLE TIME ON THIS VALUABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION!

About Us:

Stratagem Market Insights is a management consulting organization providing market intelligence and consulting services worldwide. We bring the expertise of consultants with a cumulative industry experience of more than 70 years. The firm has been providing quantified B2B research and currently offers services to over 350+ customers worldwide.

Even in the tough times of COVID-19 where the Virus slowed down everything around the world, the dedicated Team of Stratagem Market Insights worked round the clock to provide quality and support to our client base, which also tells about the excellence in our sleeve.We provide a variety of services such as market verified industry reports, technology trend analysis, Formative market research, strategic consulting, vendor analysis, production and demand analysis, consumer impact studies among many others.

MN

Go here to read the rest:
Data Encryption Software Market 2020-2028: COVID-19 Analysis, Key Vendors, Drivers, Restraints, Opportunities, and Threats Explore By Dell, Eset,...

MD Anderson Wins Appeal Over $4.3 Million HIPAA Penalty – Lexology

On January 14, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a $4.3 million civil monetary penalty that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) imposed against the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (M.D. Anderson). OCR ordered the penalty in 2017 following an investigation into three data breaches suffered by M.D. Anderson in 2012 and 2013, finding that M.D. Anderson had violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Health Information and Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act). The Court, however, held that the penalty was arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise unlawful, in part based on its interpretation of the HIPAA Rules.

The Court held that the HIPAA Security Rule does not mandate bulletproof protection of electronic protected health information (ePHI). Instead, the Court found that M.D. Anderson had adopted sufficient mechanisms to encrypt ePHI. It also held that the passive loss of information did not contravene certain of HIPAAs restrictions on the disclosure of ePHI. Finally, the Court concluded that HHSs penalty exceeded the statutory maximum and was inconsistent with other penalties imposed in similar situations. The Fifth Circuits decision may provide support for covered entities that seek to challenge penalties associated with HIPAA violations in the future and may invite HHS to consider revisions to its HIPAA enforcement regulations.

Background

The civil monetary penalties imposed against M.D. Anderson stem from three data breaches experienced in 2012 and 2013. The court record contained the following facts: An M.D. Anderson faculty members laptop was stolen in 2012. The laptop contained ePHI relating to almost 30,000 individuals and was not encrypted or password-protected. Then, in 2012 and 2013, two M.D. Anderson employees lost unencrypted USB thumb drives, both of which held ePHI for more than 5,000 individuals. In total, these breaches resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of ePHI for about 35,000 people.

After its investigation, OCR concluded that M.D. Anderson violated two provisions of the HIPAA Rules: (1) The failure to [i]mplement a mechanism to encrypt ePHI or adopt some other reasonable and appropriate method to limit access to patient data (which the court referred to as the Encryption Rule); and (2) the unpermitted disclosure of protected health information (which the court referred to as the Disclosure Rule). HHS also determined that M.D. Anderson had reasonable cause to know it violated these rules. As a result of this investigation, OCR imposed a $4.3 million dollar fine against M.D. Anderson. M.D. Anderson appealed the penalty to an administrative law judge (ALJ), who upheld the penalty in June 2018. HHSs Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) subsequently affirmed the ALJs decision, and M.D. Anderson sought judicial review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reviewed the case de novo. The Fifth Circuit vacated the ALJs ruling and held that OCRs enforcement actions were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful for the following four reasons.

The Encryption Rule

The Encryption Rule, as part of the HIPAA Security Rule, requires a HIPAA-covered entity to [i]mplement a mechanism to encrypt and decrypt electronic protected health information or adopt some other reasonable and appropriate method to limit access to patient data. See 45 C.F.R. 164.312(a)(2)(iv). Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found that M.D. Anderson had in fact implemented a mechanism. Specifically, M.D. Anderson required employees to sign an Acceptable Use Agreement acknowledging their obligation to encrypt protected health information and provided them with an IronKey to encrypt and decrypt mobile devices. M.D. Anderson also had a mechanism to encrypt emails and implemented mechanisms for file-level encryption. Although HHS argued that M.D. Anderson should have done more, pointing to internal documents that indicated M.D. Anderson wanted to strengthen its ePHI security, the Court rejected this irrational argument, noting that M.D. Andersons desire to do more in the future did not mean that it had failed to meet the Security Rules requirement to encrypt patient data in the past. Furthermore, the Court determined that the fact that the lost and stolen items were unencrypted was not evidence that M.D. Anderson lacked a mechanism for encryption. Instead, it simply meant that either these employees failed to abide by the mechanism or that M.D. Anderson failed to properly enforce the mechanism.

In vacating the penalties, the Court noted that the regulation requires only a mechanism for encryption. The Encryption Rule does not require that the mechanism provide bulletproof protection for all systems that contain ePHI; nor does it specify what form the mechanism should take. Entities may satisfy the Encryption Rules requirements by placing obligations on their employees through an Acceptable Use Agreement or providing tools to encrypt ePHI. The Court found that M.D. Anderson satisfied the requirement to have a mechanism and emphasized that if HHS wants to police just how herculean a covered entity must be in encrypting ePHI, the Government can propose a rule to that effect and attempt to square it with the statutes Congress enacted.

The Disclosure Rule

The Disclosure Rule, as part of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, prohibits covered entities from disclosing protected health information (PHI), including ePHI, unless it is disclosed in accordance with HIPAA. See 45 C.F.R. 164.502(a). HIPAA defines disclosure as the release, transfer, provision of access to, or divulging in any manner of information outside the entity holding the information. Id. 160.103. The ALJ had determined that M.D. Anderson released PHI, or in this instance ePHI, by losing control of it, thereby violating the Disclosure Rule. Under the ALJs interpretation, a covered entity violates the Disclosure Rule whenever it loses control of ePHI, regardless of whether anyone outside of the covered entity accesses it. However, the Fifth Circuit held that this interpretation of disclosure departed from the regulation in at least three ways.

In the present case, the Court found that the facts did not support a violation of the Disclosure Rule. The M.D. Anderson employees did not affirmatively disclose ePHI. Rather, employees merely lost the ePHI or had it stolen from them. In addition, HHS could not prove that any third party outside of the company had received the ePHI. Thus, there was no evidence to support that M.D. Anderson violated the Disclosure Rule. The Court rejected HHSs argument that its interpretation of disclosure would make it harder for the agency to enforce the regulation, noting that it was the sort of policy argument that HHS could vet in a rule making proceeding.

Failure to Impose Similar Penalties on Other Covered Entities

Highlighting the bedrock principle of administrative law that an agency treat like cases alike, the Fifth Circuit held that the ALJ had acted arbitrarily and capriciously by imposing high penalties against M.D. Anderson but not against other covered entities in similar circumstances. M.D. Anderson provided examples of other covered entities that similarly violated HHSs interpretation of the Encryption Rule and faced no financial penalty, such as one case where the covered entitys employee lost an unencrypted laptop containing ePHI of over 33,000 patients during a burglary, yet HHS chose to impose no penalty without any explanation. The Court emphasized that an administrative agency cannot hide behind the fact-intensive nature of penalty adjudications to ignore irrational distinctions between like cases.

Amount of Penalties Contradicted the Enforcement Rule

The Court acknowledged that penalties associated with violations of the Encryption Rule and the Disclosure Rule may vary depending on the level of culpability. The ALJ determined that M.D. Andersons violations were due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, for which the HIPAA statute establishes the statutory cap on civil monetary penalties at no more than $100,000 per calendar year. See 42 U.S.C. 1320d-5(a)(1)(B), (a)(3)(B). Nevertheless, the ALJ determined the per-year statutory cap was $1,500,000, and assessed M.D. Andersons penalties for violating the Encryption Rule at $1,348,000 for 20112013 and for violating the Disclosure Rule at $3,000,000 for 20122013. The Court found the ALJs decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, noting that even HHS had conceded it had misinterpreted the statutory caps by issuing a Notice of Enforcement Discretion Regarding HIPAA Civil Money Penalties only two months after the Departmental Appeals Board upheld the ALJs decision. In addition, the Court found that the ALJ had erroneously ignored HHSs own regulations outlining factors for the agency to consider in assessing penalties.

More here:
MD Anderson Wins Appeal Over $4.3 Million HIPAA Penalty - Lexology

Government crackdowns on encryption one of Kasperskys privacy predictions for 2021 – Backend News

Cybersecurity solutions firm Kaspersky sees that the privacy landscape will see more challenges now that organizations have a data mine spurred by the acceleration of digital transformation last year.

Vendors of all sizes will start to collect more and more diverse data while governments respond with new regulations and users start seeing privacy as a value proposition for which they are willing to pay.

Last year, many users realized for the very first time how much information they share and what they get in return, said Vladislav Tushkanov, privacy expert at Kaspersky. With heightened awareness comes a better understanding of the right to privacy and how to exercise it. As a result, privacy has become a hot-button issue at the intersection of governmental, corporate, and personal interests, which gave rise to many different and even conflicting trends in how data is gathered and privacy preserved or, on the contrary, violated.

Kaspersky launches tailored threat intelligence reporting for the automotive industry

Kaspersky reveals Lazarus APT group targets vaccine research

This forecast was developed based on the shifts and trends witnessed by Kasperskys privacy experts in 2020. According to the researchers, the big stand-off between various stakeholders in the conversation around privacy and data collection is a result of the following tendencies:

Consumer privacy is going to be a value proposition and will, in most cases, cost money. Increased data gathering during the pandemic, and growing political turmoil that crossed into digital platforms, have combined to yield rapid growth in public awareness of unfettered data collection. As more users look to preserve their privacy, organizations are responding by offering privacy-focused products the number and diversity of which is set to grow.

Smart health device vendors are going to collect increasingly diverse data and use them in far more diverse ways. The data gathered by fitness trackers, blood pressure monitors, and other devices provide insights so valuable that they have already been used in court cases, not to mention by marketers and insurers who also find it extremely useful. And with health being a public concern, the demand for such data will only grow.

Government crackdown

Kaspersky said governments are going to grow increasingly jealous of big-tech data hoarding and more active in their regulations. Having access to user data opens up a huge range of opportunities think, fighting child abuse or making city traffic more efficient. Also, think about silencing dissent. Yet, with most private organizations refusing to share these data, governments will undoubtedly respond with more regulations that hinder online privacy, with the most heated debates around privacy-preserving technologies such as end-to-end encryption, DNS-over-HTTPS (Domain Name System-over-Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure), and cryptocurrencies.

Data companies are going to find ever more creative, and sometimes more intrusive, sources of data to fuel the behavioral analytics machine. Data-driven behavioral analytics is a dangerous game to play. Errors can be damaging to people, while the actual quality of these systems is often a trade secret. Yet, that will not stop organizations working in this field from finding more creative ways to profile users based on what they like and do and thereby influence their lives.

Edge computing

Multi-party computations, differential privacy, and federated learning are going to become more widely adopted as well as edge computing. As companies become more conscious about what data they actually need, and consumers push back against unchecked data collection, more advanced privacy tools are emerging and becoming more widely adopted, while big-tech organizations move to guarantee users new and strict privacy standards. More advanced hardware will emerge, enabling developers to create tools that are capable of advanced data processing, thereby decreasing the amount of data shared by users with organizations.

On a final note, Id like to assert that while as consumers we dont have full control over our data, there is a lot we can do to reclaim some of our privacy and control of our personal data, said Tushkanov.

Have you read?

Visit link:
Government crackdowns on encryption one of Kasperskys privacy predictions for 2021 - Backend News

How to Enable End-to-End Encryption on Telegram – Dignited

Compared to WhatsApp, Telegram has better privacy-focused features set up to protect its users. Unlike WhatsApp which supports end-to-end encryption for private text messaging, Telegram only offers server-side encryption by default for text messaging. This means that your data is safe from ISPs, Wi-Fi router interceptions, and other third-parties. However, Telegram will can access your data when it wants to.

However, to make full use of end-to-end encryption on Telegram, where not even Telegram itself can gain access to your data, you will need to make use of the Secret Chat feature.

Advertisement - Continue reading below

In this article, we will take you through how to use the Secret Chat feature and enable end-to-end encryption on Telegram.

Related Article: A Complete Guide to Using Telegram

Step 1: Launch the Telegram app and open the profile of the person you want to start a Secret Chat with.

Step 2: Click on the three-dot icon at the top-right corner of the persons profile photo.

Step 4: Click on Start Secret Chat.

There are a couple of other ways to start a secret chat on Telegram:

When you open the Telegram app, tap on the compose button at the bottom-right corner of the chat interface, click on New Secret Chat, and select the contact you would like to start a secret chat.

In conclusion, here are a couple of things you should take note of before you get started:

Related

Read more here:
How to Enable End-to-End Encryption on Telegram - Dignited

Nucleus Biologics Launches Artificial Intelligence Research (NB-AIR): The World’s First AI Platform for Media Configuration That Gives Control Back To…

SAN DIEGO, Feb. 9, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --Nucleus Biologics, The Cell Performance Company, today announced the availability of NB-AIR, the world's first Artificial Intelligence Research platform for optimizing cell culture formulations for cell and gene therapies. Leveraging cutting-edge AI algorithms, the system empowers scientists to create optimized formulas based on meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles. AI guided formulations will allow scientists to improve the performance of their cell therapy and shorten the time to get these lifesaving therapies into patients faster.

Cell and gene therapy in 2019 was a $1 Billion market and is estimated to be growing at 36% CAGR.Most cell therapy companies struggle to achieve reproducible potency in their cell therapies.The media used for in vitro cell growth have a documented impact on cell quality and hence therapeutic efficacy.Until now, scientists have had to rely on major suppliers who sell proprietary media formulations.These black box formulations limit the scientist's ability to chemically modify their media. This slows down discovery and introduces supply chain risk.Until now, no tool existed that allowed scientists to research and select components and formulations based on current published knowledge on conditions that impact cell performance.

"This is an industry transforming tool. Imagine being able to take months of research and reduce it to minutes through the power of machine learning. We are democratizing formulations enabling scientists to tap into the collective knowledge of their peers, become experts quickly and own their media formulation." said David Sheehan, Founder, President and CEO of Nucleus Biologics. "Our vision is that we can create a constantly evolving technology ecosystem that allows therapy providers to create intellectual property that improves cell performance and reduces development time."

Initially targeted for developers of cell therapies, NB-AIR speeds formulation development by providing peer-tested compounds and formula recommendations based on cell type and critical quality attributes. It is directly connected to NB-Lux, a cloud-based ordering and tracking portal, to allow online ordering of lot sizes from 2L to 2000L, allowing media scaled from bench to bioreactor. Further, changing even one component in your media can improve therapeutic yields, phenotype, and efficacy. Giving scientists the tools to optimize at a component level and control their media will help speed the time from discovery to cure.

Media Contact:Michael Morgan[emailprotected], (858) 251-2010

About Nucleus BiologicsNucleus Biologics, The Cell Performance Company, is the leading provider of custom cell-growth media, tools, and technologies for cell and gene therapy. Their mission is to speed the time from scientific discovery to cure by delivering innovative, transparent and cGMP products and services with the goal of disrupting the market and eliminating antiquated practices and products. Ultimately, Nucleus Biologics strives to create a new paradigm that serves both scientists and clinicians, while reducing the environmental footprint of cell culture. http://www.nucleusbiologics.com

SOURCE Nucleus Biologics

Home

Read the rest here:
Nucleus Biologics Launches Artificial Intelligence Research (NB-AIR): The World's First AI Platform for Media Configuration That Gives Control Back To...