The discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election

It looks like the discussion of the need for a new tool for whistleblowers will have to wait until the next municipal election in October 2025.

Town of Cochrane Coun. Marni Fedeyko’s eight-month push to have new whistleblower rules considered in more detail was voted down at the regular council meeting Monday.

Administration presented a summary report on Fedeyko’s proposal dating back to January. Fedeyko brought forward a Notice of Motion at the Jan. 8 council meeting and an update was provided at the May 6 Committee of the Whole meeting. It was discussed again in June.

The recommendation that was ultimately accepted Monday was that council “receive the report for information only and direct Administration to take no further steps on a whistleblower program at this time.”

Council voted in favour of that recommendation, so discussion ends there. For now.

Coun. Morgan Nagel and Fedeyko voted against the motion.

Before the vote, Fedeyko cited a number of examples where a new whistleblower policy might be useful, especially where it might help create an environment where residents and employees may bring complaints forward “in a safe, confidential and anonymous way.”

She said she was “saddened” that every time this proposal has been brought forward, the debate circled around cost. She said the cost of the software she was envisioning was anywhere from six to eight thousand dollars.

“I’m shocked that we think that as a growing community, that this not something we think should be implemented,” she said, before urging any candidates thinking of running in the 2025 election to make new whistleblower program a part of their platforms.

Coun. Susan Flowers was against spending any more time on the idea.

“I’d like to see it resolved so we can get on with work we have to do. We only have one year left to go (until the next election),” she said.

Coun. Alex Reid called the idea redundant, since there are a number of ways people can bring complaints forward already, even though they may not be currently labelled as “whistleblower legislation.”

“I’m against the motion as well. The theme of whistleblowing is covered off,” he said.

He said that council had more pressing issues to spend their time on in this, the last year they will be together.

Mayor Jeff Genung said the software program under consideration only provided triage for complaints – it said nothing about how complaints would be investigated, and as such, it would be redundant. After complaints are received, they need to be investigated.

“If, in addition to that, we’re talking about hiring a third party investigator every single time this platform is engaged, now we’re talking thousands of dollars,” he said. “That’s the doubling down I can’t wrap my head around,” he said.

Source

The post Whistleblower program now a dead issue at Cochrane council appeared first on Policy Print.

The debate was heavily focused on US domestic matters—even when questions were on international affairs, both candidates sought to bring the issues back to domestic politics and policies.  

Of most relevance to Australia was the lack of interest in this region. Other than passing references—in heavily political contexts—neither the media nor the candidates raised China in any meaningful way. Notwithstanding the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, China is the most significant issue globally. 

Without China being prioritised by the two candidates or media today, we can only hope that the next administration will be struck by the realities of Beijing as the pacing military and technological threat to our livelihoods and way of life. Australia and partners like Japan, the Quad and NATO, will need to work together to ensure the next administration is focused on competing with and countering China, and does so by viewing China as a strategic rival first and not as an economic partner. 

Given the next president will immediately face a world in conflict, a further debate that is limited to foreign policy and held before the November election would be best for both US voters and America’s partners. 

On China—Bethany Allen, head of program for China investigations and analysis, and Daria Impiombato, analyst 

While the moderators never asked about China, the topic came up unprompted within the first few minutes of the debate with Harris accusing Trump of inviting ‘trade wars’ but then adding the former President ‘sold us out’ to China. In a sense this focus was not surprising because the Trump administration’s tough turn on China was one of the most significant and controversial foreign policy shifts of his term. The Biden-Harris administration has also made competition with Beijing a key platform. 

More surprising was that, other than brief references, the issue of how to manage China strategically and in the context of potential flashpoints such a Taiwan and the South China Sea did not come up at all. 

Harris and Trump went on to spar over tariffs, microchips and the pandemic response, with Harris accusing the Trump administration of allowing the sale of chips to China that served to modernise the People’s Liberation Army. Trump’s retort that the US ‘barely make any chips anymore’ and that it is Taiwan instead that’s selling them to China again demonstrated the economic lens with which he views these issues.  

This is in line with his latest stances on Taiwan, as he has repeatedly stated that the island should pay the US to defend it, and that they have ‘stolen’ the chip manufacturing business from American companies. Harris, instead, opted to focus on the CHIPS Act and her intention to win the competition with China especially on technology and artificial intelligence. 

On Alliances—Eric Lies, analyst 

What stood out, in particular for US allies the world over, was Trump’s refusal to answer the question as to whether he believes Ukraine should win in the war against Russia. Instead, he repeatedly stated that he would end the war as president-elect. A key element of deterrence is convincing potential adversaries that if they choose violence, they will be met with resolve. Responses like Trump’s, which put Ukraine and Russia on a false equivalence, corrode that confidence in US security promises and will likely make allies in the Indo-Pacific nervous, while emboldening China’s revanchist activities. 

In contrast, Harris unequivocally stated her support for allied efforts within Europe, and how she intends to continue those efforts should she be elected. It meant that a clear foreign policy difference came through between the two candidates—a more isolationist, transactional foreign policy on the one hand and an alliance-driven policy on the other.  

On Ukraine and China—Malcolm Davis, senior analyst 

On Ukraine, Harris clearly demonstrated that she understood the potential implications of a Russian victory in Ukraine. Noting that if such an outcome were realised, ‘Putin would have his eye on the rest of Europe’. This is an accurate interpretation of the stakes at play. In contrast, Trump failed to deliver a convincing response, simply saying ‘he’d get on the phone to Putin and Zelensky’. 

The risk is therefore that a second Trump Administration could reduce support for Ukraine and increase the likelihood of delivering Putin a decisive strategic victory. 

On China, both candidates avoided any real discussion of the defence and national security implications of a rising China. Instead, they focused on trade relations. Whichever candidate wins in November, however, there is a chance that they will be confronted with a major crisis with Beijing over Taiwan. This is an issue that is far more important to the United States than tariffs. 

Generally, the debate avoided any real discussion on critical and emerging technologies and the importance of maintaining US leadership. In fact, as the ASPI Critical Technology tracker shows, China now holds a dominance in high-impact research that was once held by the US. Both candidates should have dealt more with this important issue and will need to do so as president. 

On Disinformation and Migration—Mike Copage, head of the Climate and Security Policy Centre 

As the world grapples with the prospect of AI driving mis and dis-information in democracies, the debate highlighted how vulnerable American political discourse has become to the spread of disinformation without it. Pressed by moderators that there’s no evidence to back claims by vice-presidential candidate JD Vance that Haitian illegal immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Trump responded that he knew it was true because he heard it from ‘people on television’. While ridiculous at face value, the real and serious consequences of a former President and current candidate repeating clearly false, racist and anti-immigrant claims cannot be ignored. The violence perpetuated following the spread of anti-immigrant misinformation in the United Kingdom demonstrates how far that can lead without responsible leadership. 

On the Media and China—Greg Brown, senior analyst, Washington DC 

Harris had a solid showing defined by poise without policy articulation. Her supporters will feel emboldened by the strategy to distance herself from the present Administration—noting during the debate that she was neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump. 

President Trump had a weaker night—notwithstanding his zingers like ‘wake the President (Biden) up at four o’clock in the afternoon’—and appeared rambling at times. He missed opportunities to attack Harris effectively. 

As usual, the debate moderators (in this case ABC News) and voters were the losers.   

The lone foreign policy issue mentioned with any repetition was migration though with a heavy domestic lens. And neither candidate provided any sense of the drivers of, let alone policy responses to, the weaponization of mass migration. The passing references by both candidates regarding Iran, Ukraine and Russia were pedestrian. 

China, the ​supposed pacing challenge and threat, received little attention. Nor did we have a discussion of the Pentagon’s budget priorities, tariffs as tools of economic warfare, how to revive the US defence industrial base, let alone to US interests across the Pacific. 

On Asia-Pacific—Raji Pillai Rajagopalan, resident senior fellow 

While understandably focused on domestic issues, it was still surprisingly how little interest there was on foreign policy in the presidential debate. Considering the growing chaos the next president will have to deal with, that was unfortunate. 

America’s China and Indo-Pacific policy was not mentioned, nor were any other aspects of foreign and security policy in any detail. We heard only some broad outlines to which we were already familiar, such as a Trump Administration that will be suspicious of its partners because of the worry that America is being exploited, that will be more open to deal-making with adversaries such as Russia, China and North Korea, irrespective of the character of their behaviour and that will potentially raise tariff barriers with wide-ranging economic effects globally. 

On the Democrat side, Vice President Harris reiterated she would strengthen partnerships and stand up to authoritarian leaders, which is a more positive starting point, but all said without much detail. 

From a foreign policy perspective, it was clearly not a substantive debate. Leaving out everything from narrow issues of nuances to nuclear policy to broad issues such as relative commitment to different theatres like Europe, Middle East and Indo-Pacific. 

Source

The post The US presidential debate: ASPI responds appeared first on Policy Print.

Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and former Republican President Donald Trump traded blows in the first presidential debate of the 2024 race — clashing over issues including abortion, economy and foreign wars.

Fox News proposes second presidential debate

US news channel Fox Newssaid it proposed to hold a second presidential debate in October. 

The channel, which largely caters to a conservative viewership, said it had sent letters to the campaigns for both Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican rival Donald Trump, before Tuesday night’s debate. 

This invitation aside, Harris’ campaign has already offered a rematch while Trump did not commit to it. 

“The reason you do a second debate is if you lose, and they lost,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity in the spin room after the first debate. “But I’ll think about it.”

Source

The post US presidential debate: Harris, Trump clash over key issues appeared first on Policy Print.

The European Commission will examine whether the big tech companies are preventing developers from steering customers away from controlled app stores, which could be anti-competitive.

The investigation comes under powers introduced in the Digital Markets Act (DMA) which was a landmark piece of legislation aimed at curbing the power of big tech and the commission is accusing companies of non-compliance with the act and a failure to provide a fairer and more open digital space for European citizens and businesses.

Should the investigation conclude that there is lack of full compliance with the DMA, gatekeeper companies could face heavy fines.

Designated as ‘gatekeepers’ by the DMA, Google owner Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, TikTok owner ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft have special responsibilities because of their dominance of key mobile technologies.

These companies are accused of steering developers away from competitor platforms and imposing various restrictions and limitations on their use.

The big tech companies are facing a growing legal backlash and last month Apple was fined over its iOS ecosystem and business practices by the EU.

Whether this case succeeds of not, it’s interesting to note the growing willingness of the authorities to take these tech giants to court.

About time, according to some critics.

Source: New Electronic

The post EU opens new investigations into tech ‘gatekeepers’ appeared first on Policy Print.

China’s government has reportedly started enforcing a new law that it passed in December this week. The law bans the government from purchasing PCs with Intel and AMD chips inside, along with software products from Microsoft, including its Windows operating system.

According to The Financial Times (via PC World), the new rules on purchasing products for China’s government PCs were set in place in December by the country’s Information Technology Security Evaluation Center. They include all governments and agencies above what is considered to be the country’s township level.

China previously ordered its government offices and agencies to no longer use Microsoft’s Windows OS in 2022, in favor of a homegrown Linux-based OS. As a result, these new guidelines are not expected to affect Microsoft. However, the ban on Intel and AMD chips could result in a noticeable hit in the revenue numbers for both companies.

On the other hand, the ban on these products on China’s government PCs does not include their use in private businesses or by regular consumers in that country.

China previously banned the use of Apple’s iPhone products in its government buildings. It has also banned the use of products from Micron Technology for its infrastructure projects, citing security concerns.

These new moves come sometime after the United States government banned China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) from exporting fabrication equipment to make certain chips in that country.

Late in 2023, the US government banned the export of some of Nvidia’s AI GPUs to China. Nvidia has instead developed AI chips, the H20, that were specifically made to conform to the restrictions of the US government’s export rules. The company started taking preorders for the H20 chips in early 2024, and are expected to begin large scale shipments of those China-specific AI GPUs sometime in the second quarter of 2024.

Source: Neowin

The post China’s government will no longer buy Intel or AMD chips, or Microsoft products, for its PCs appeared first on Policy Print.

The U.S. and British governments on Monday announced sanctions against a company and two people linked to the Chinese government over a string of malicious cyberactivity targeting the U.K.’s election watchdog and lawmakers in both countries.

Officials said those sanctioned are responsible for a hack that may have gained access to information on tens of millions of U.K. voters held by the Electoral Commission, as well as for cyberespionage targeting lawmakers who have been outspoken about the China threat.

The Foreign Office said the hack of the election registers “has not had an impact on electoral processes, has not affected the rights or access to the democratic process of any individual, nor has it affected electoral registration.”

The Electoral Commission said in August that it identified a breach of its system in October 2022, though it added that “hostile actors” had first been able to access its servers since 2021.

At the time, the watchdog said the data included the names and addresses of registered voters. But it said that much of the information was already in the public domain.

In Washington, the Treasury Department said it sanctioned Wuhan Xiaoruizhi Science and Technology Company Ltd., which it calls a Chinese Ministry of State Security front company that has “served as cover for multiple malicious cyberoperations.”

It named two Chinese nationals, Zhao Guangzong and Ni Gaobin, affiliated with the Wuhan company, for cyberoperations that targeted U.S. critical infrastructure sectors, “directly endangering U.S. national security.”

Zhao, Ni and five other Chinese nationals were hit with federal charges Monday. An indictment brought by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn alleges that the seven men were Chinese intelligence officers who engaged in a yearslong campaign targeting top White House officials, U.S. senators and the spouses of high-ranking members of the Justice Department, among others. 

The suspects are accused of sending tracking emails purported to be from prominent U.S. journalists, which contained legitimate news articles from publications like CNN and VOX. The emails also contained embedded hyperlinks that, when opened, would transmit information about the recipients to a server controlled by the suspects, the indictment says.

One of the group’s alleged campaigns took place from June to September 2018 when they sent more than 10,000 messages to a wide range of targets including Democratic and Republican senators from more than 10 states and the spouses of various government administrators including a high-ranking Department of Justice official, high-ranking White House officials and multiple United States senators.

“These allegations pull back the curtain on China’s vast illegal hacking operation that targeted sensitive data from U.S. elected and government officials, journalists and academics; valuable information from American companies; and political dissidents in America and abroad,” U.S. Attorney Breon Peace said in a statement.

Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said her government “firmly opposes and cracks down on all forms of cyberattacks in accordance with law.”

“Without valid evidence, the U.S. jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and made groundless accusations against China,” Liu added. “It is extremely irresponsible and is a complete distortion of facts.”

Separately, British cybersecurity officials said that Chinese government-affiliated hackers “conducted reconnaissance activity” against British parliamentarians who are critical of Beijing in 2021. They said no parliamentary accounts were successfully compromised.

Three lawmakers, including former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, told reporters Monday they have been “subjected to harassment, impersonation and attempted hacking from China for some time.” Duncan Smith said in one example, hackers impersonating him used fake email addresses to write to his contacts.

The politicians are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, an international pressure group focused on countering Beijing’s growing influence and calling out alleged rights abuses by the Chinese government.

Ahead of that announcement, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reiterated that China is “behaving in an increasingly assertive way abroad” and is “the greatest state-based threat to our economic security.”

“It’s right that we take measures to protect ourselves, which is what we are doing,” he said, without providing details.

China critics including Duncan Smith have long called for Sunak to take a tougher stance on China and label the country a threat — rather than a “challenge” — to the U.K., but the government has refrained from using such critical language.

Responding to the reports, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said countries should base their claims on evidence rather than “smear” others without factual basis.

“Cybersecurity issues should not be politicized,” ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said. “We hope all parties will stop spreading false information, take a responsible attitude, and work together to maintain peace and security in cyberspace.”

Source: NBC News

The post U.S. and U.K. announce sanctions over China-linked hacks on election watchdog and lawmakers appeared first on Policy Print.

In an interview with news channel CNN, Woz was asked about Apple’s so-called “walled garden” approach to protecting users, and in response he said he was glad for the protection that he gets, and that Apple does a better job in this respect than other companies.

“And tracking you – tracking you is questionable. But my gosh, look at what we’re accusing TikTok of, and then go look at Facebook and Google and that’s how they make their businesses,” he added. “I mean, Facebook was a great idea. But then they make all their money just by tracking you and advertising, and Apple doesn’t really do that so much.”

Earlier this month, the US Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which aims to force TikTok’s Chinese owner ByteDance to either sell off its US-based biz or face being banned from operating in the country.

“I don’t understand it, I don’t see why,” commented Woz. “What are we saying? We’re saying ‘Oh, you might be tracked by the Chinese.’ Well, they learned it from us.”

Similar points are made in an article in Nikkei Asia, which states that US social media apps have formed a key part of Washington’s global influence operations for many years, and have provided “unparalleled intelligence collection opportunities” and “helped to project certain American political and cultural values into foreign societies.”

Woz continued by saying that “If you have a principle [that] a person should not be tracked without them knowing it, you apply it the same to every company, or every country. You don’t say, ‘Here’s one case where we’re going to outlaw an app, but we’re not gonna do it in these other cases.’ So I don’t like the hypocrisy, and that’s obviously coming from a political realm.”

The engineering brains behind Apple’s early products such as the Apple I and II personal computers, Woz also became an early member of digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

He revealed in the interview that he largely avoids “the social web,” but gets a lot of fun out of watching TikTok “even if it’s just for rescuing dog videos and stuff.”

The Apple co-founder was also reported to have been hospitalized in Mexico City last November with a suspected stroke following a speech at the World Business Forum, but has apparently made a full recovery.

Source: The Register

The post Woz calls out US lawmakers for TikTok ban: ‘I don’t like the hypocrisy’ appeared first on Policy Print.

The case was jointly filed by the Justice Department, 16 States, and the District of Columbia, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

This isn’t something out of the blue, as we have previously reported, the U.S. Department of Justice has been preparing an antitrust case against the Electronics giant over the past few months. It had held discussions with the company before finalizing the lawsuit.

Apple ran into legal trouble at the end of 2023, when the U.S. International Trade Commission banned the company from importing and selling the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the U.S. The Commission found Apple guilty of violating patents related to the SpO2 sensor (pulse oximeter), which belonged to Masimo. The ban however was short-lived, as Apple was allowed to sell the wearables once again, with a catch, it had to disable the SpO2 sensor’s functionality, so you couldn’t use it to measure blood oxygen levels, even though the hardware for the feature existed.

The tech mogul’s troubles were just beginning, as it had to open up the iOS ecosystem to third-party app marketplaces in the European Union region. However, the company’s compliance with the Digital Markets Act has come under scrutiny due to several limitations that it has imposed for app developers, and third-party app stores.

US Justice Department sues Apple in antitrust case

Now, the US Govt has claimed that Apple has selectively imposed restrictions that prevent users from switching from its devices. It also says that there are limitations for the functionality of third-party apps, which gives Apple’s own apps an unfair advantage over the competition. The complaint alleges that Apple has undermined messaging across operating systems by excluding its own apps from rival platforms, and that this makes it less secure and less innovative for users.

This is seen as one of the reasons that the company has made it hard for users to leave iPhone, as many iOS apps are not available on Android. The lawsuit alleges that Apple is in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and users its monopoly power to extract high prices from consumers, developers, etc.

The antitrust case also points out that Apple blocks cloud-streaming apps that allow users to stream apps and games. To be fair to Apple, it did open up the market recently to allow cloud-gaming platforms, so services like Xbox’s Game Pass Ultimate and Nvidia’s GeForce Now can be used on iPhone and iPad.

Apple’s failure to provide tap-to-pay (Apple Pay) functionality for third-party digital wallets is also being scrutinized. The lawsuit points out that Apple’s restrictions also affect web browsers, video communication, location services, advertising and other services.

Another argument made by the Justice department targets Apple’s restrictions for third-party smartwatches. Apple does not allow other OEMs to access the APIs required for a watch to read/write fitness data like the Apple Watch can, third-parties have limited access to the data. This is an unfair restriction that stifles the competition.

The company has reportedly claimed that it tried to make the Apple Watch compatible with Android phones, but failed to find a way to do so. I don’t buy this argument. Apple has an Android app for Apple Music, which as you know is a subscription-based service. It shows that the company can, and will provide an app for Android devices, if there is an incentive for it. So, why didn’t Apple create Android apps for Apple Watch and Health? Well, you could argue that if it had done so, Android users would buy the wearable, but they won’t buy an iPhone. By keeping the Watch exclusively compatible with iPhones, it has created an artificial market for the wearable and the iPhone, which is a monopoly.

Source: ghacks

The post US sues Apple in iPhone monopoly lawsuit appeared first on Policy Print.

“Today, the Commission has opened non-compliance investigations under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) into Alphabet’s rules on steering in Google Play and self-preferencing on Google Search, Apple’s rules on steering in the App Store and the choice screen for Safari and Meta’s ‘pay or consent model,’” the European Commission said in a statement.

The first two probes focus on Alphabet and Apple and relate to so-called anti-steering rules. Under the DMA, tech firms are not allowed to block businesses from telling their users about cheaper options for their products or about subscriptions outside of an app store.

“The way that Apple and Alphabet’s implemented the DMA rules on anti-steering seems to be at odds with the letter of the law. Apple and Alphabet will still charge various recurring fees, and still limit steering,” the E.U.’s competition chief, Margrethe Vestager, said Monday at a news conference.

Apple has already fallen foul of the E.U.’s rules. This month, the company was fined 1.8 billion euros ($1.95 billion) after the European Commission said it found that Apple had applied restrictions on app developers that prevented them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app.

In a third inquiry, the commission said it is investigating whether Apple has complied with its DMA obligations to ensure that users can easily uninstall apps on iOS and change default settings. The probe also focuses on whether Apple is actively prompting users with choices to allow them to change default services on iOS, such as for the web browser or search engine.

The commission said that it is “concerned that Apple’s measures, including the design of the web browser choice screen, may be preventing users from truly exercising their choice of services within the Apple ecosystem.”

Apple said it believes it is in compliance with the DMA.

“We’re confident our plan complies with the DMA, and we’ll continue to constructively engage with the European Commission as they conduct their investigations. Teams across Apple have created a wide range of new developer capabilities, features, and tools to comply with the regulation,” an Apple spokesperson told CNBC on Monday.

The fourth probe targets Alphabet, as the European Commission looks into whether the firm’s display of Google search results “may lead to self-preferencing in relation to Google’s,” other services such as Google Shopping, over similar rival offerings.

“To comply with the Digital Markets Act, we have made significant changes to the way our services operate in Europe,” Oliver Bethell, director of competition at Alphabet, said in a statement.

“We have engaged with the European Commission, stakeholders and third parties in dozens of events over the past year to receive and respond to feedback, and to balance conflicting needs within the ecosystem. We will continue to defend our approach in the coming months.”

Alphabet pointed to a blog post from earlier this month, wherein the company outlined some of those changes — including giving Android phone users the option to easily change their default search engine and browser, as well as making it easier for people to see comparison sites in areas like shopping or flights in Google searches.

Meta investigation

The fifth and final investigation focuses on Meta and its so-called pay and consent model. Last year, Meta introduced an ad-free subscription model for Facebook and Instagram in Europe. The commission is looking into whether offering the subscription model without ads or making users consent to terms and conditions for the free service is in violation of the DMA.

“The Commission is concerned that the binary choice imposed by Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model may not provide a real alternative in case users do not consent, thereby not achieving the objective of preventing the accumulation of personal data by gatekeepers.”

Thierry Breton, the E.U.’s internal market commissioner, said during the news conference that there should be “free alternative options” offered by Meta for its services that are “less personalized.”

“Gatekeepers” is a label for large tech firms that are required to comply with the DMA in the E.U.

“We will continue to use all available tools, should any gatekeeper try to circumvent or undermine the obligations of the DMA,” Vestager said.

Meta said subscriptions are a common business model across various industries.

“Subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries, and we designed Subscription for No Ads to address several overlapping regulatory obligations, including the DMA. We will continue to engage constructively with the Commission,” a Meta spokesperson told CNBC on Monday.

Tech giants at risk of fines

The commission said it intends to conclude its probes within 12 months, but Vestager and Breton during the Monday briefing stressed that the DMA does not dictate a hard deadline for the timeline of the inquiry. The regulators will inform the companies of their preliminary findings and explain measures they are taking or the gatekeepers should take in order to address the commission’s concerns.

If any company is found to have infringed the DMA, the commission can impose fines of up to 10% of the tech firms’ total worldwide turnover. These penalties can increase to 20% in case of repeated infringement.

The commission said it is also looking for facts and information to clarify whether Amazon may be preferencing its own brand products on its e-commerce platform over rivals. The commission is further studying Apple’s new fee structure and other terms and conditions for alternative app stores.

This month, the tech giant announced that users in the E.U. would be able to download apps from websites rather than through its proprietary App Store — a change that Apple has resisted for years.

The E.U.’s research into Apple and Amazon does not comprise official investigations.

Source: NBC News

The post E.U. launches probes into Meta, Apple and Alphabet under sweeping new tech law appeared first on Policy Print.

“Israel has a right and obligation to defend themselves against the threat of Hamas, while abiding by international humanitarian law and protecting civilian lives, and we remain committed to support Israel in its fight against Hamas,” a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said. “We have done so since Oct. 7, and will continue to. There has not been a change in our policy.”

NBC News reported earlier on Sunday that at the direction of the White House, the Pentagon has been reviewing what weaponry Israel has requested that could be used as leverage. The report cited sources and said no final decisions were made.

The report added that the U.S. is considering slowing or pausing the deliveries in hopes that doing so will make the Israelis take actions such as opening humanitarian corridors to provide more aid to Palestinian civilians.

“There has been no request from the White House for DoD (Department of Defense) to slow down weapons deliveries to Israel,” a White House official said when asked about the NBC News report. “And not aware of any request to review weapons to potentially slow walk deliveries either.”

Among the weaponry the U.S. discussed using as leverage, the NBC News report added, were 155 mm artillery rounds and joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs), which are guidance kits that convert dumb bombs into precision-guided munitions.

The heavy death toll from Israel’s war in Gaza has led to much international alarm. President Joe Biden has previously referred to Israeli bombing as “indiscriminate, opens new tab” but Washington has not called for a ceasefire, saying such a measure would benefit Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which governs Gaza.

Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli tallies. Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza has killed more than 26,000 Palestinians, over 1% of the 2.3 million population there, according to Gaza’s health ministry. Many are feared buried in rubble.

Source: Reuters

The post US says its Israel policy unchanged after report on leveraging weapon sales appeared first on Policy Print.