73 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2023
    1. Der Critical Raw Materials Actt wird von Industrie-Lobbies benutzt, um Einschränkungen beim Zugang zu Rohmaterialien abzubauen, und zwar auch dann, wenn es nicht um die Energieversorgung geht. IT-, Rüstungs- und Raumfahrtindustrie versuchen von der Krisensituation bei den neuen Energien zu profitieren. Die Libéation berichtet über einen neuen Report von Lobbying-Warchdogs. Die Liste der kritischen Rohmaterialien wurde bereits von 15 auf 34 Stoffe erweitert. https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/ue-le-critical-raw-materials-act-un-open-bar-pour-lindustrie-miniere-20231112_HZUR6376QJCZVBM5IGIUR6V2QE/

    1. In dem sogenannten Trilog-Verfahren haben sich Vertreter:innen des europäischen Parlaments und der europäischen Kommission auf eine endgültige Version des Nature Restoration Laws geeinigt, durch die bis 2030 20% der Land- und Wasserflächen der-unter Schutz gestellt bzw. wiederhergestellt werden sollen. Vor allem aufgrund des Einflusses der europäischen Volkspartei wurde die von der Kommission vorgelegte Version des Gesetzes stark verwässert. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/10/eu-strikes-landmark-deal-nature-restoration-law

  2. Sep 2023
  3. Jul 2023
    1. Das deutsche Bundeskabinett hat den Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Klimaanpassung beschlossen. Das Gesetz verpflichtet Länder und Kommunen, Anpassungsstrategien zu entwickeln. Der Bund selbst muss bis 2024 eine Vorsorgestrategie mit konkreten nachprüfbaren Kennzahlen vorlegen. Die Kosten für die Anpassung bei Bund und Ländern werden bis 2030 auf 55 Milliarden Euro geschätzt. Die Verteilung der Kosten ist noch unklar. Entsiegelungsvorschriften fehlen.

      https://taz.de/Gesetz-fuer-Anpassung-an-den-Klimawandel/!5943821/

    1. Die taz fasst Grundinformationen zum deutschen Gebäudeenergiegesetz zusammen, das auch einer Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts erst nach der Sommerpause im Bundestag verabschiedet werden kann. Die FDP hat so viele ausnahmeregeln durchgesetzt, dass ich die Pariser Klimaziele mit diesem heizungsgesetz voraussichtlich nicht werden halten lassen. Der FDP Politiker Frank schaeffler arbeitet weiterhin gegen das Gesetz.

      https://taz.de/Heizungsstreit-geht-weiter/!5943079/

    1. Der endgültige Entwurf des Gebäude-Energiegesetzes zeigt, dass die Grünen für sie zentrale Positionen aufgegeben haben, etwa die Verpflichtung zu einer Beratung durch unabhängige Fachleute. Das Gesetz wird nach Ansicht von NGOs nicht ausreichen, um die für Deutschland verbindlichen Klimaziele zu erreichen. Umweltverbände wurden zur Sachverständigen-Anhörung am 3.7. nicht eingeladen..

      https://table.media/berlin/analyse/heizungsgesetz-mehr-gas-und-oel-weniger-mieterschutz/

    1. Die fossile Lobby versucht in Deutschland, Wasserstoff-fähige Gasheizungen als klimaschonend anerkennen zu lassen. Sie wurden in das Gebäudeenergiegesetz (Heizungsgesetz) aufgenommen. Umweltorganisationen und Gewerkschaftler:innen mobilisieren gegen diese Greenwashing-Maßnahme. https://taz.de/Geplanter-Heizungsaustausch/!5935087/

      Offener Brief gegen die Aufnahme von sogenannente Wassertoff-fähigen Gasheizungen in das deutsche Heizungsgesetz: https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/energie/230515-nabu-verbaendeappell-h2-ready.pdf

    1. Eine vom bundesumweltamt in Auftrag gegebene Studie ergibt, dass nur eine wesentlich schnellere dekarbonisierung des gebäudesektors, als sie das zusätzlich noch verwässerte heizungsgesetz vorsieht, das Erreichen der deutschen Klimaziele bis 2030 sicherstellt. Außer der Umrüstung der Heizung ist auch ein Verzicht auf konventionellen n Beton notwendig. https://view.angebote.spiegel.de/?qs=08c03daf30ebc9f7b7695c3189365e936083c80faf5f6d352fed9b4fbd1b3332f4ad7cbfa495b3d420eb8b39b899ac4ce134ca891070033d4d19a628d5b51d28d866c70cec12bab5629e51c2c3ce4f48

    1. Vom nächsten Jahr an müssen in der EU börsennotierte Unternehmen und Unternehmen ab einer bestimmten Größe ausgehend von Key Performance Indicators über ihren Dekarbonisierungspfad und die Nachhaltigkeit der eigenen Tätigkeit berichten. Die Kennzahlen haben Folgen für die Finanzierung der Unternehmen durch Kreditgeber. Interview mit der Beraterin Katharina Schönauer von der KPMG. https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000177713/kpmg-beraterin-schoenauer-wir-hoffen-dass-durch-transparenz-ein-sog-entsteht

    1. (b) Criminal penalties.—Section 4(d)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(d)(1)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A)— (A) by inserting “(e),” after “(d),”; and (B) by striking “or” after the comma at the end; (2) in subparagraph (B)— (A) by inserting “(e),” after “(d),”; and (B) by adding “or” after the comma at the end; and (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following: “(C) knowingly violates section 3(e),”; and (4) in the matter following subparagraph (B)— (A) by striking “knowing that” and all that follows through “treaty or regulation,”; (B) by striking “said”; and (C) by inserting before the period “or prohibited wildlife species concerned”.

      (d) Criminal penalties (1) Any person who-

      (A) knowingly imports or exports any fish or wildlife or plants in violation of any provision of this chapter (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3372 of this title), or

      (B) violates any provision of this chapter (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3372 of this title) by knowingly engaging in conduct that involves the sale or purchase of, the offer of sale or purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase, fish or wildlife or plants with a market value in excess of $350,

      knowing that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty or regulation, shall be fined not more than $20,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. Each violation shall be a separate offense and the offense shall be deemed to have been committed not only in the district where the violation first occurred, but also in any district in which the defendant may have taken or been in possession of the said fish or wildlife or plants.

      (2) Any person who knowingly engages in conduct prohibited by any provision of this chapter (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3372 of this title) and in the exercise of due care should know that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty or regulation shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Each violation shall be a separate offense and the offense shall be deemed to have been committed not only in the district where the violation first occurred, but also in any district in which the defendant may have taken or been in possession of the said fish or wildlife or plants.

      (3) Any person who knowingly violates subsection (d) or (f) of section 3372 of this title-

      (A) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense involves-

      (i) the importation or exportation of fish or wildlife or plants; or

      (ii) the sale or purchase, offer of sale or purchase, or commission of an act with intent to sell or purchase fish or wildlife or plants with a market value greater than $350; and

      (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not involve conduct described in subparagraph (A).

      (4) Any person who knowingly violates section 3372(e) of this title shall be fined not more than $20,000, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Each violation shall be a separate offense and the offense is deemed to have been committed in the district where the violation first occurred, and in any district in which the defendant may have taken or been in possession of the prohibited wildlife species.

    2. (a) Civil penalties.—Section 4(a)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3373(a)(1)) is amended— (1) by inserting “(e),” after “(d),”; and (2) by inserting “, (e),” after “subsection (d)”.

      §3373. Penalties and sanctions (a) Civil penalties (1) Any person who engages in conduct prohibited by any provision of this chapter (other than subsections (b), (d), (e), and (f) of section 3372 of this title) and in the exercise of due care should know that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, any underlying law, treaty, or regulation, and any person who knowingly violates subsection (d), (e), or (f) of section 3372 of this title, may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $10,000 for each such violation: Provided, That when the violation involves fish or wildlife or plants with a market value of less than $350, and involves only the transportation, acquisition, or receipt of fish or wildlife or plants taken or possessed in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States, any Indian tribal law, any foreign law, or any law or regulation of any State, the penalty assessed shall not exceed the maximum provided for violation of said law, treaty, or regulation, or $10,000, whichever is less.

    3. Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and—

      From Title 7-AGRICULTURE CHAPTER 54-TRANSPORTATION, SALE, AND HANDLING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS

      §2131. Congressional statement of policy The Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce and to effectively regulate such commerce, in order-

      (1) to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment;

      (2) to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in commerce; and

      (3) to protect the owners of animals from the theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.

      The Congress further finds that it is essential to regulate, as provided in this chapter, the transportation, purchase, sale, housing, care, handling, and treatment of animals by carriers or by persons or organizations engaged in using them for research or experimental purposes or for exhibition purposes or holding them for sale as pets or for any such purpose or use.

      ( Pub. L. 89–544, §1(b), formerly §1, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 350 ; Pub. L. 91–579, §2, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1560 ; renumbered and amended Pub. L. 94–279, §2, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 417 .)

    4. “(2) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.—Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person that— “(A) is an institution accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; “(B) is a facility that— “(i) has an active written contract with an Association of Zoos and Aquariums Species Survival Plan or Taxon Advisory Group for breeding of prohibited wildlife species; and “(ii) does not breed, acquire, or sell prohibited wildlife species other than the species covered by such contract; “(C) is a State college, university, or agency, or State-licensed veterinarian; “(D) is a wildlife sanctuary that cares for prohibited wildlife species, and— “(i) is a corporation that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of such Code; “(ii) does not commercially trade in prohibited wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and byproducts of such animals; “(iii) does not breed the prohibited wildlife species; “(iv) does not allow direct contact between the public and prohibited wildlife species; and “(v) does not allow the transportation and display of prohibited wildlife species off-site; “(E) has custody of the prohibited wildlife species solely for the purpose of expeditiously transporting the prohibited wildlife species to a person described in this paragraph with respect to the species; “(F) is in possession of a prohibited wildlife species that was born before the date of the enactment of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, and— “(i) not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, is registered with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; “(ii) does not breed, acquire, or sell any prohibited wildlife species after the date of the enactment of such Act; and “(iii) does not allow direct contact between the public and prohibited wildlife species; or “(G) holds a valid Class C license under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and— “(i) regularly travels across State lines to conduct circus performances featuring live prohibited wildlife species, clowns, and aerial acts; “(ii) engages in such travel and conduct before January 1, 2015; and “(iii) does not allow direct contact between the public and prohibited wildlife species.”.

      Now reads:

      (2) Limitation on application Paragraph (1) does not apply to-

      (A) an entity exhibiting animals to the public under a Class C license from the Department of Agriculture, or a Federal facility registered with the Department of Agriculture that exhibits animals, if such entity or facility holds such license or registration in good standing and if the entity or facility-

      (i) does not allow any individual to come into direct physical contact with a prohibited wildlife species, unless that individual is-

      (I) a trained professional employee or contractor of the entity or facility (or an accompanying employee receiving professional training);

      (II) a licensed veterinarian (or a veterinary student accompanying such a veterinarian); or

      (III) directly supporting conservation programs of the entity or facility, the contact is not in the course of commercial activity (which may be evidenced by advertisement or promotion of such activity or other relevant evidence), and the contact is incidental to humane husbandry conducted pursuant to a species-specific, publicly available, peer-edited population management and care plan that has been provided to the Secretary with justifications that the plan-

      (aa) reflects established conservation science principles;

      (bb) incorporates genetic and demographic analysis of a multi-institution population of animals covered by the plan; and

      (cc) promotes animal welfare by ensuring that the frequency of breeding is appropriate for the species; and

      (ii) ensures that during public exhibition of a lion (Panthera leo), tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus), snow leopard (Uncia uncia), jaguar (Panthera onca), cougar (Puma concolor), or any hybrid thereof, the animal is at least 15 feet from members of the public unless there is a permanent barrier sufficient to prevent public contact;

      (B) a State college, university, or agency, or a State-licensed veterinarian;

      (C) a wildlife sanctuary that cares for prohibited wildlife species, and-

      (i) is a corporation that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of title 26 and described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of such title;

      (ii) does not commercially trade in any prohibited wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and byproducts of such animals;

      (iii) does not breed any prohibited wildlife species;

      (iv) does not allow direct contact between the public and any prohibited wildlife species; and

      (v) does not allow the transportation and display of any prohibited wildlife species off-site;

      (D) has custody of any prohibited wildlife species solely for the purpose of expeditiously transporting the prohibited wildlife species to a person described in this paragraph with respect to the species; or

      (E) an entity or individual that is in possession of any prohibited wildlife species that was born before December 20, 2022, and-

      (i) not later than 180 days after December 20, 2022, the entity or individual registers each individual animal of each prohibited wildlife species possessed by the entity or individual with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;

      (ii) does not breed, acquire, or sell any prohibited wildlife species after December 20, 2022; and

      (iii) does not allow direct contact between the public and prohibited wildlife species.

    5. (2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows: “(e) Captive wildlife offense.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce, or in a manner substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or to breed or possess, any live animal of any prohibited wildlife species.

      (e) Captive wildlife offense (1) In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), it is unlawful for any person to-

      (A) import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce, or in a manner substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

      (B) breed or possess;

      any prohibited wildlife species.

    6. (1) in subsection (a)— (A) in paragraph (2)— (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting “; or”; (ii) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking “; or” and inserting a semicolon; and (iii) by striking subparagraph (C); and (B) in paragraph (4), by striking “(1) through (3)” and inserting “(1) through (3) or subsection (e)”; and

      §3372. Prohibited acts, Subsection a: (a) Offenses other than marking offenses It is unlawful for any person-

      (1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;

      (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce-

      (A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law; or

      (B) any plant-

      (i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates-

      (I) the theft of plants;

      (II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;

      (III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or

      (IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;

      (ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or

      (iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants;

      (3) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 7 of title 18)-

      (A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal law, or

      (B) to possess any plant-

      (i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates-

      (I) the theft of plants;

      (II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;

      (III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or

      (IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;

      (ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or

      (iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants; or

      (4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3) or subsection (e).

    7. Section 3 of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3372) is amended—

      Changes to this section: §3372. Prohibited acts

    8. SEC. 7. Administration.Section 7(a) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3376(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “(3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other relevant Federal and State agencies, promulgate any regulations necessary to implement section 3(e).”.

      Added here:

      §3376. Administration (a) Regulations (1) The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, is authorized to issue such regulations, except as provided in paragraph (2), as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 3372(f), 3373, and 3374 of this title.

      (2) The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce shall jointly promulgate specific regulations to implement the provisions of section 3372(b) of this title for the marking and labeling of containers or packages containing fish or wildlife. These regulations shall be in accordance with existing commercial practices.

      (3) The Secretary shall, in consultation with other relevant Federal and State agencies, promulgate any regulations necessary to implement section 3372(e) of this title.

    9. SEC. 6. Forfeiture of prohibited wildlife species.Share ThisSection 5(a)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)) is amended by inserting “bred, possessed,” before “imported, exported,”.

      "bred, possessed" added here:

      §3374. Forfeiture (a) In general (1) All fish or wildlife or plants bred, possessed, imported, exported, transported, sold, received, acquired, or purchased contrary to the provisions of section 3372 of this title (other than section 3372(b) of this title), or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States notwithstanding any culpability requirements for civil penalty assessment or criminal prosecution included in section 3373 of this title.

    10. “(a) Breed.—The term ‘breed’ means to facilitate propagation or reproduction (whether intentionally or negligently), or to fail to prevent propagation or reproduction”.

      Definition

    11. Federal control of the intrastate private possession and breeding of prohibited wildlife species is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of traffic in prohibited wildlife species.

      Argument: Federal control of intrastate possession of prohibited wildlife species (i.e., big cats) cannot be effective without control of interstate incidents of traffic of these species

    12. The global illicit trade in wildlife may be worth up to $20,000,000,000 annually and the value of legal wildlife trade in the United States was recently estimated at $2,800,000,000 annually.

      What is the source of this figure?

    13. To amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to clarify provisions enacted by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, and for other purposes.

      Stated purpose

  4. Jun 2023
    1. Die deutsche Bundesregierung hat das abgeschwächte Klimaschutzgesetz beschlossen, über das nun der Bundestag befinden muss. In dem Gesetz geht man vor allem auf Druck der FDP von den verpflichtenden Zielen für einzelne Sektoren, etwa den Verkehr, ab. Die Sektorziele waren bei Verkehr und Wohnen bisher nie erreicht worden. Außer bei der Verantwortung der einzelnen Ministerien für Emissionsreduktionen gibt es auch laxere Regeln beim Monitoring und den vorgeschriebenen Reaktionen auf Unterschreitung von festgesetzten Zielen. https://taz.de/Beschluss-des-Kabinetts/!5939063/

    1. Die Einigung, den Entwurf des Gebäudeenergiegesetzes im Deutschen Bundestag vor der Sommerpause zu behandeln, kam vor allem dadurch zustande weil die entscheidenden Konfliktpunkte nicht beseitigt wurden. Die FDP besteht weiter darauf, eine schnelle Umstellung auf die vorhandenen Techniken zur erneuerbaren Energiegewinnung zu verhindern.

      https://mastodon.social/@mkreutzfeldt/110546933920195435

  5. Apr 2023
    1. Aristotle, who had said, many centuries before in Politics (BookVIII): ‘No one would dispute the fact that it is a lawgiver’s prime duty to arrangefor the education of the young. In states where this is not done the quality of theconstitution suffers.’

      Current American climate indicates that Republicans take this quote of Aristotle's to heart, but they're not closely thinking about how they define "education". They're definitely not defining it with respect to John Locke's views in Some Thoughts Concerning Education which encourages political systems that move away from an electorate that is subservient to authority.

      see: https://hypothes.is/a/upfxCtSiEe2wrdd3cOo-Lg for John Locke

  6. Feb 2023
  7. Aug 2022
  8. Mar 2022
    1. Democratic processes take time. The goal of a legislation-writing genex is not necessarily to speed the process or increase the number of bills, but to engage a wider circle of stakeholders, support thoughtful deliberation, and improve the quality of the resulting legislation.

      What are the problems here in such a democratic process online or even in a modern context?

      People who aren't actually stakeholders feel that they're stakeholders and want to control other's actions even when they don't have a stake. (eg: abortion)

      People don't have time to become properly informed about the ever-increasing group of topics and there is too much disinformation and creation of fear, uncertainty and doubt.

      Thoughtful deliberation does not happen.

      The quality of legislation has dropped instead of increased.

      Bikeshedding is too easy.

      What if instead of electing people who run, we elected people from the electorate at random? This would potentially at least nudge us to have some representation by "one of the least of these". This would provide us to pay more attention to a broader swath of society instead of the richest and most powerful. What might the long term effects of this be?

  9. Jan 2022
  10. Dec 2021
  11. Sep 2021
  12. Jun 2021
    1. Anne: So I don't know if you follow what's going on in the US. There's a law, that probably won’t get passed in the Senate but just got passed in the house, that basically says that if someone like you, graduates from high school, or is on the way to graduating from high school and hasn't gotten in trouble, you can get a conditional residence—Mike: Right.Anne: And get a social security card for ten years. Ten years conditional residence. And then if you get employed in three years during that time you can get permanent legal access.Mike: Oh, okay. So that was the Trump administration when they came to an agreement, right?Anne: No, they haven't reached an agreement, but it's this new dream. If you had known that all you had to do was keep going to school and you could get a social security card and you could have a path to citizenship, would that have made a difference, do you think?Mike: Yes. I feel like yes, if I would have known earlier. But at the same time, once you start living in Arizona, or anywhere in the US, you kind of start thinking like you're from there. I was telling the nice lady from earlier, Anita, that once you get used to it, once you think that you're from there—that was my mistake, because I started not caring—you just start doing stuff that if you don't have papers you should know you're not supposed to do. I got kind of carried away and was trying to get the whole world. Because I didn't have my papers, I was trying to go after everybody. I'm like, "Okay. So if I can't work, cool, I'll just do my own thing, or I'll just do this, do that."Mike: I feel like if I was a little more informed, it would have gone a different way, or a little more help, programs or anything. I feel like I could have still had a fighting chance.Anne: Yeah. I mean the hope is that there will be policy that will give hope to people like you that as soon as you finish going to school, you can then get a social security card, you can get a job, you can make a life for yourself, but currently—

      Reflections, The United States, Policy to help migrants

  13. Apr 2021
  14. Mar 2021
    1. In Georgia, which went for a Democrat for the first time since Bill Clinton in 1992 and just elected two Democratic senators — one Black and one Jewish — there have been a raft of proposed voter restrictions.

      This may of stuck out to me purely because I live in Georgia, but Blow's decision to include this in his article is interesting. The democratic victory was determined to be the direct result of increased voter turnout, particularly in communities of color. It is interesting that the legislation he mentions here manages turn this victory into a loss of some sort.

  15. Jan 2021
    1. Dave. D. M., Friedson. A. I., Matsuzawa. K., McNichols. D.. Sabia. J. J. (2020). .Did the Wisconsin Supreme Court Restart a COVID-19 Epidemic? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Institute of Labor Economics. Retrieved from: https://covid-19.iza.org/publications/dp13314/

    1. Jo Maugham QC [@jolyonMaugham] (2020, August) Calling on retired lawyers! Law students! Bored lawyers! We at @GoodLawProject need your help with some research... we are working on what will be (well, if we win it) seminal litigation to establish the precautionary principle as a freestanding part of E&W common law! Twitter. Retrieved from: https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1296092565075369984

  16. Oct 2020
  17. Aug 2020
  18. Jun 2020
    1. It is as though the Big Bad Wolf, after years of unsuccessfully trying to blow the brick house down, has instead introduced a legal framework that allows him to hold the three little pigs criminally responsible for being delicious and destroy the house anyway. When he is asked about this behavior, the Big Bad Wolf can credibly claim that nothing in the bill mentions “huffing” or “puffing” or “the application of forceful breath to a brick-based domicile” at all, but the end goal is still pretty clear to any outside observer.
    2. For a political body that devotes a lot of attention to national security, the implicit threat of revoking Section 230 protection from organizations that implement end-to-end encryption is both troubling and confusing. Signal is recommended by the United States military. It is routinely used by senators and their staff. American allies in the EU Commission are Signal users too. End-to-end encryption is fundamental to the safety, security, and privacy of conversations worldwide.
    3. At a time when more people than ever are benefiting from these protections, the EARN IT bill proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee threatens to put them at risk.
    1. Despite its opposition, EARN-IT is the clearest threat yet to end-to-end encryption, given this clever twist in pushing the onus onto the platforms to avoid transmitting illegal content, rather than mandating a lawful interception approach.
    2. Putting that risk more simply, the EARN-IT bill is cleverly leaving it to the tech platforms to keep themselves safe—there would be little option other than some form of access to encrypted content, even though it would not be specified in law. Sophos describes this as “the backdoor virus that law enforcement agencies have been trying to inflict on encryption for years.”
    3. On the encryption front, HRW echoes others that have argued vehemently against the proposals—that weakened encryption will “endanger all people who rely on encryption for safety and security—once one government enjoys special access, so too will rights-abusing governments and criminal hackers.” Universal access to encryption “enables everyone, from children attending school online to journalists and whistleblowers, to exercise their rights without fear of retribution.”
    4. the encryption debate continues to rage in the U.S., with proposed new legislation representing the clearest threat yet to the security underpinning WhatsApp and iMessage, as well as Signal, Telegram and Wickr
  19. May 2020
  20. Jan 2019
    1. Who would have thought crypto investors would be U.S. securities law experts by the end of 2018

      <big>评:</big><br/><br/>《金瓶梅》第四十八回有曰:「常言:『兵来将挡,水来土掩』。事到其间,道在人为,少不的你我打点礼物,早差人上东京,央及老爷那里去」。人生如戏,每个人顾及的都是如何演好自己的戏份。好在如今已不是投机倒把等同犯罪的年代,嗅觉灵敏的市场玩家们逢场作戏也无可厚非,但是谁来「打点礼物」制造惊喜呢?2018年,玩家们反倒收获了不少惊恐。<br/><br/>专业的投资者和政客总是能在自己的地盘上长袖善舞,但是在这个野蛮生长的年代,恐怕他们也得多向口译员们学习快速熟悉陌生领域的技能——共情、抗压、不服输,或许称之为「人格特质」更加合适。

  21. Apr 2018
    1. To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service and from posing certain regulations on providers of such service.

    Tags

    Annotators

  22. Mar 2018
    1. Mention has been made of the new environmental body. Strictly speaking, under this clause as it currently stands, the Government would be able to establish, under secondary legislation, the kind of body that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is no longer in his place, was arguing for earlier—a body so powerful it could sanction other public bodies, including the Government, if it was able to reproduce the powers that presently rest with the European Commission. That is an enormous power, which this House would not allow the Executive arm of government on its own without primary legislation conducted through the two Houses.

      interesting point

  23. May 2017
    1. loopholes proliferated, and the tax code grew more complex

      correlated? causative?

      complexity in law, leads to more logic to parse and process - therefore more potential ambiguity in human-processing.

      does software engineering practices about code complexity (or lack thereof) have fruitful applications here?

  24. Jan 2016
    1. State legislators in New York and California have introduced bills that would require smartphone vendors to be able to decrypt users' phones.

    1. from Hawaii to Alabama to New Hampshire, a diverse, bipartisan coalition of state legislators will simultaneously announce state legislative proposals that, although varied, are all aimed at empowering their constituents to #TakeCTRL of their personal privacy. These bills would go far in ensuring students, employees, and everyone else has more of a say over who can know their whereabouts, track their activities online, and view information they share with friends.
  25. Jan 2014
    1. The academic publisher Elsevier has contributed to many U.S. Congressional representatives, pushing the Elsevier-supported Research Works Act, which among other things would have forbidden any effort by any federal agency to ensure taxpayer access to work financed by the federal government without permission of the publisher.

      What other legislation has Elsevier pushed?