Sunday, November 1, 2009

The European Union has warned the UK government that it does not do enough to protect its citizens’ online privacy and personal data. Now the EU has moved to the next stage of legal action, which could see Britain taken to court.

The warning follows complaints over the Phorm company’s targeted advertising system. The controversial technology is designed to track the activities of internet users, and was tested on some BT customers without their consent. Campaigners complained to various bodies including the UK’s data protection agency, and the communications regulator Ofcom. No action was taken. The City of London police began an investigation, but this was soon dropped.

The EU Commission formally warned Britain that it was not meeting EU rules in April. Other countries that have been warned include Germany, Poland and Romania. However, last week the Commission moved onto the second stage of the infringement procedure against the UK, with a letter to the government.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) has been particularly criticised by the Commission for its weak definition of “consent” and its limited sanctions. The Commission also found that there was no independent body to oversee and hear complaints about communications interception. Overall, the letter says that the UK fails to comply with the EU’s Data Protection Directive and e-Privacy Directive.

“People’s privacy and the integrity of their personal data in the digital world is not only an important matter: it is a fundamental right, protected by European law,” the EU’s Information Commissioner Viviane Reding said in a statement on Thursday. “I therefore call on the UK authorities to change their national laws to ensure that British citizens fully benefit from the safeguards set out in EU law concerning confidentiality of electronic communications.”

The Home Office confirmed that it had received the letter, but has so far not responded. Ministers said that they would reply to the letter after they have taken some time to consider it. The Home Office has two months to reply, and if the Commission is not satisfied with the response, then Britain could face charges in the European Court of Justice.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

In a New York press conference at 16:15 UTC, June 1st, Fritz Henderson, the Chief Executive Officer of General Motors, which filed for bankruptcy and Chapter 11 protection from its creditors earlier today, outlined a plan for what he called a “New GM”.

Speaking to the press under safe harbor provisions of U.S. law, Henderson described the events of today as a “defining moment” in the history of General Motors. Speaking to the public he said that “The GM that let you down is history,” and described a “New GM” that he expected to result from the bankruptcy process.

Henderson stated that he envisioned the bankruptcy process would take between 60 and 90 days. He stressed several times his view that the process would be one that is executed quickly, saying that not just a sense of urgency but “pure unadulterated speed” was his expectation of the process. He emphasized that “GM remains open for business” during the bankruptcy period, continuing to sell and to support its products, and that day one motions had been filed in the bankruptcy court in order to allow this.

Regarding the bankruptcy process he said, “We will do it right. And we will do it once.”

He stated that the plan for General Motors had the support of the United Auto Workers union, the Canadian Auto Workers union, the GM VEBA, and a majority of the unsecured bondholders of GM. He also mentioned that GM had already received €1.5 million in bridge financing from the German government.

In response to questions about the possibility of the United States federal government, a majority shareholder in the restructured company, dictating future product development and strategy, such as the sale of more fuel-efficient and green vehicles; he first observed that the federal government had already stated to him that it had “no real interest in running our business” and that he expected that still to be his job. Of the specific hypothetical scenario where the management of GM wants to make one type of car, because it thinks that it is the right thing for the business, and the U.S. government wants to make another type of car, he stated that “I don’t think it’s going to happen.” Expanding on that point he stated that he expected the “New GM” to focus upon “highly fuel-efficient and green technology”, and that operating both in accordance with U.S. environmental laws and in response to customer demand would naturally result in the New GM producing the types of vehicles that the U.S. government would encourage.

The “New GM” he also expected to focus on “four core brands”, and will size its dealership to match that. He stated that GM would offer a “deferred termination” package to dealers, to allow them to cease dealing in GM vehicles in a managed and gradual way.

He stated that the bankruptcy filings did not cover General Motors’ businesses in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East, and Asia and the Pacific. Of GM’s profitable ventures in China, specifically, he stated that they were “a critical part of the New GM”. In response to questions of whether the New GM would import cars from China to the U.S., he stated the formative company’s core principle that “We build where we sell” applied in both directions, with GM building in China to sell in China and building in the U.S. to sell in the U.S., stating that this shortened supply chains.

He declined to predict when the New GM would return to profitability, stating that the goal was rather to lower the break-even EBIT point for the company. He also declined to speculate upon when the U.S. government would sell its stake in the company, saying that that was a question “better addressed to the U.S. Treasury”, and merely saying that he expected it to be “years, not months” when the U.S. Treasury felt it would give “the right return for taxpayers.”

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Kent Hovind‘s motion for acquittal was denied on Wednesday, April 18, 2007. Hovind, a Pensacola young Earth creationist and operator of Dinosaur Adventure Land, along with his wife, Jo Hovind, were found guilty in November 2006 on 58 federal counts of “willful failure” to payroll taxes, structuring bank withdrawals, and obstructing federal agents.

On January 19, 2007 Kent was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay US$640,000 in owed funds to the Internal Revenue Service, pay prosecution’s court costs of $7,078, and serve three years parole once released.

In his motion, Hovind had contended that under the rule in a case called United States v. Davenport the crime is not the individual withdrawals, but is instead the total transaction, also known as the “unit of the crime.” Thus, Hovind argued that in his case there was no “unit of the crime” “separate and distinct from the alleged act of withdrawing, and without such a separate amount to be structured [. . .] there could be no crime alleged, and no conviction on any charge in Counts 13 through 57.” The trial court rejected Hovind’s “unit of the crime” argument.

Had the judge ruled in Hovind’s favor his sentence would have reduced Hovind’s prison sentence from ten years to five years.

Jo Hovind sentencing was delayed pending the ruling on the motion. She will be sentenced soon though no date has been set.