Monthly Archives: June 2020

The US government has suspended H-1B visa till the end of this year, creating a lot of problem for Indian professionals who happen to be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

What is H-1B visa though? Here, we try to understand that better.

1. What is H-1B visa?

You need this visa to work in the US. It used by companies to hire 'highly skilled' professionals by sponsoring them into America.

2. What does 'highly skilled' mean?

It means that the person either has enough experience in the field in discussion or has specialised knowledge and a bachelor's degree in the field.

3. What all benefits does a person get under this visa?

They get to obtain a social security number, a driver's license, and the freedom to own/rent a car and property. Apart from this, they can also open a bank account in the US.

4. How long does the visa last?

3 years. Beyond which, it can be extended for 3 more.

5. What happens in case the person loses their H-1B job?

They have to leave the US within 60 days.

6. What is H1-B visa cap?

The number of visas made available by the US government.

Each fiscal year, the US government decides how many visas it will give. Right now the number is65,000. There are additional 20,000 visas for foreign workers who have received higher education from an American university.

7. Can a person get the H-1B visa while living outside of the US?

Yes, they can. The employer has the freedom of applying for the visa for the employee. They then have to go to the US embassy/consulate in their country and get the stamp.

8. Is changing jobs possible for an H-1B visa holder?

Yes. But the new employer also must apply for the visa. Also, a petition has to be filed if your role within the same company is being significantly changed. This is called 'H-1B portability'.

9. What status does the family of an H-1B holder have?

Holder's immediate family - spouse and kids under 21 years of age - can apply for H-4 visa. Under this, they can stay in the country but are not allowed to work (except for limited situations).

10. Who doesn't need to file for H-1B visa to hire a foreign employee?

Universities and related nonprofit entities, government research organizations and nonprofit research organizations.

Continue reading here:

Everything To Know About The H-1B Visa That Has Been Suspended Till The End Of 2020 - ScoopWhoop

I turned on my phone and felt an overwhelming sense of frustration, sadness and hopelessness. While I had been enjoying two days without electronics in observance of Shavuot and Shabbat, cities across the country were engulfed in a combination of civic protests and police riots. Weapons of war were being used against citizens within their own state. It was horrible to watch. I could not sleep the entire night.

I thought my technological disconnect was the source of my unrest. But I soon realized that it wasnt just two days of not knowing that spurred my unease. It was that despite my close proximity to the chaos as the crow flies, I live in a totally different universe.

I work, study and spend a lot of time in the city of Cleveland, but my residence in the Orthodox community is technically outside of the municipal boundary. Like Jewish communities across the country, most Jews in the Northeast Ohio area live outside of the central city and have for generations.

Though my drive into the city isnt long, my neighborhood could be a world away. There was no police presence on Saturday. With Covid-19 still rampant, my only human interactions have involved socially distanced hellos with a few Orthodox families nearby. And while I saw many cars driving toward Cleveland, I had no idea that they were doing anything outside of their ordinary weekend activities.

Youre lucky, a friend in another city told me on Saturday night. Most of us have been watching this unfold for days.

He was right. It was a privilege to be able to remain unaware. And its one that countless light-skinned Jews experience every day.

American Jews know firsthand the effect of segregation efforts in our country. Early immigrant Jewish communities were restricted to small enclaves in American cities, usually in housing that left much to be desired. The Lower East Side of New York, the Boyle Heights neighborhood in Los Angeles, Clevelands east side Jews moved into these communities because they could not afford to live in and were not welcome in other areas of the city.

But for European Jews, these spaces served as economic and communal incubators. They allowed Jewish communities to establish social support systems and slowly move out of these spaces to wealthier, whiter, more resource-rich ones.

During the same time period, redlining, blockbusting, zoning laws, local fiscal practices and racially restrictive covenants kept Black communities within geographic regions that were disinvested and devalued.

Following the Great Migration in the early 20th century, cities in the Northeast and Midwest were filled with racial tensions. In 1917, the Supreme Court determined that cities could not explicitly limit Black migration to their areas. However, far from eliminating segregation, the new practices that developed over the 20th century only hid it more deeply. Indeed, several simultaneous efforts created two very different realities: disinvested Black cities and wealthy, white suburbs.

First came Euclidean zoning in 1926. In a landmark Supreme Court case, cities were granted the right to design a built environment segmented by uses. Homes could be confined to one corner of a city, manufacturing plants another or not at all. Cities began to use this power to restrict new housing and development. Shortly thereafter, Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act into law, spurring banks to create maps of regions and determine which areas were considered valuable. The subsequent redlining efforts limited the ability of those residing in Black neighborhoods to secure loans for mortgages. And even those who could secure a mortgage faced the likelihood that a home they were interested in might have a racially restrictive covenant that bound the homeowner to sell only to a white person.

Then, in 1948, these covenants were finally deemed unconstitutional forcing racism to move even deeper into the private systems of housing. Real estate agents, looking to capitalize on anti-Black sentiment, engaged in blockbusting efforts convincing white residents of neighboring communities to sell their homes for cheap before the neighborhood was occupied by Black families, only to then resell those homes at exorbitant prices to incoming Blacks. The Federal Highway Act of 1956 dedicated billions of dollars to infrastructure focused on expanding regions to accommodate new housing in areas that Black homeowners could not reach or were not welcome. As a result, Black families remained stuck in the city or, if they were lucky enough to leave, half a century behind on the wealth-building efforts to which white families had easy access.

These racist attempts to prevent Black migration were still only more deeply hidden following the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Though unable to legally engage in overtly prejudicial practices, banks, political actors and individuals used private, public and interpersonal systems to maintain segregation. Building on the directly racist practices of the past, space became a proxy for race. City planning andzoning efforts,the delivery of public goodsandlending practices all became mechanisms to sustain racial segregation by targeting spaces where Black communities live and using the systems that control migration and housing security to limit Black mobility.

Indeed, research on my own county has shown that there is continuedracial biases in lending, thatzoning effortsserve as a proxy for racial discrimination, and that landlords more frequently choosenot to rentto individuals who are domestic violence survivors, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers holders and members of the LGBTQ community all contemporary proxies for racial discrimination. These practices are not specific to my stateor region and have been observed across the country. They persist, despite the illegality, because thefoundational racist practiceswere never eliminated.

While anti-Semitism remains, the era of No Dogs or Jews is over. When they go to apply for a mortgage, to rent an apartment or to access social services, European Jews do not have to check a demographic box other than white. And for all intents and social purposes, weve secured many of the benefits of our WASPy suburban neighbors.

As a result, we have gained the privilege to access white spaces in a way thatBlack people have not.

The neighborhood in which you live determines your quality of life: the ability to avoid violence, attend high-quality public schools, live near parks and greenery. Throughout the country, because of racial prejudice and discrimination, Black individuals haveless access to these experiences.

But more than that, the ability to be ones whole self to express your views, beliefs, culture and personal freedoms is not equally dispersed. The actions of Black families and individuals are prejudicially policed and perceived with scrutiny, especially in suburban neighborhoods. Driving a nice car, laughing loudly, playing in a park Black individuals often cannot partake in these with as much freedom as their white counterparts.

Even in my very visibly religious community, we face little backlash for our presence or our way of life.Time and again, Ive seen my community not only unquestioned but courted.

The Jewish community in my area does not live in fear of how we conduct ourselves in our streets. We can dance with a new Sefer Torah from one end of the neighborhood to the next with a police escort in tow. Our holy sites are often protected not threatened by police presence. Public services are extended and enhanced for us when our holidays occur. No one calls the cops when our kumzitz goes late or we sing from our sukkahs. Outside of small, snide interpersonal comments, there arent any major structural efforts limiting our ability to be publicly Jewish without significant pushback.

Yet when I discuss this reality with my light-skinned Jewish neighbors, people often do not believe that these experiences can be described as a privilege. Instead, I am told that these experiences are available to everyone and that others can and should access them as our community so often does.

I know this is not true. Our ability to be who we are in our neighborhoods is not a right that is extended to all people. Our capacity to utilize local resources without backlash or fear is not accessible to others. And our sense of trust in protective services is not universally shared. Our sheltered communities are a societally supported privilege.

Ive had countless conversations with my fellow Jews about this topic, and theyve often been difficult and heated. But today as we all once again feel the immense weight of racism in this country I am asking my light-skinned Jewish friends to sit with this and think more deeply about the ways that we experience the cities we live in. We are given the privilege to exist in white spaces to gain from the resources, opportunities and protection that these spaces afford.

Decades ago William Levitt, the man responsible for the creation of the model suburban city,famously noted, As a Jew, I have no room in my mind or heart for racial prejudice. But I have come to know that if we sell one house to a Negro family, then 90 to 95 percent of our white customers will not buy into the community. That is their attitude, not ours.

Whether it is our attitude or not, it is and should be our concern. As Jews we rely heavily on mutual support from others and look to other groups for allyship. Today we must recognize our spatial privilege and advocate for change. Demand systemic shifts, not policy Band-Aids. Dismantle even the hidden institutions of racism. And work tirelessly toward eradicating all bigotry, once and for all.

Read the rest here:

White Jews fled to the suburbs. Here's why that matters today. - The Jewish News of Northern California

WE THEREFORE URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER: Six Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, including ranking member Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, have written to President Trump strongly urging him to reconsider his decision to pull almost 10,000 U.S. troops from permanent bases in Germany in a dispute over the level of defense spending by the NATO ally.

The U.S. forward presence in Germany serves as a cornerstone of NATOs deterrent against Russian aggression, write the GOP House members, who note that two years after the Obama administration withdrew thousands of troops from Germany in 2012, Russia invaded Ukraine and illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula. This is not the time to take any action that might cause the Putin regime to question the credibility of the NATO deterrent or might lead our NATO allies and partners to doubt the U.S. commitment to our collective security.

We recognize that Germany has yet to meet the 2014 Wales Pledge to spend at least 2% of its gross domestic product on defense. However, we fear this partial U.S. withdrawal from Germany will fail to convince Berlin to spend more, while putting U.S. strategic interests at risk, the letter argues. We therefore urge you to reconsider this decision.

Along with McCaul, the letter is signed by Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Ann Wagner of Missouri; Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and John Curtis of Utah.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? At his Tulsa rally Saturday night, Trump railed against Germany and criticized Chancellor Angela Merkel for saying it may be 10 years before Germany reaches the 2% goal.

We're supposed to protect Germany from Russia, but Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for energy coming from a pipeline, brand-new pipeline. So they pay the country we're supposed to protect them from they pay billions of dollars to that country. We're supposed to protect them. Excuse me. How does that work? Trump said, adding, They're not treating us properly.

WE'RE NEGOTIATING. LET'S SEE: Trump did indicate that the decision, which would take months to plan and initiate, isnt final. But in his typical negotiating style, hes accusing Germany of owing a whopping $1 trillion in back dues.

For many years, they're delinquent. They haven't been paying what they're supposed to be paying, Trump said. They say, Yes, we think by 2030, maybe 2032, we can get current. I said, No, Angela. Angela, please. Don't say that, Angela.

I said, Well, what about the last 25 years, all the money you owe us? I said, What about the $1 trillion that you really owe? So we're negotiating. Let's see.

NOT HOW IT WORKS: Trumps rationale that Germany is delinquent in payments to NATO is not true, writes former Supreme NATO Commander retired Adm. James Stavridis in an op-ed published Monday. NATOs budget is apportioned among the 30 member nations, and Germanys obligations are up to date. While it is correct that Germany has yet to achieve the alliances goal of members spending 2% of GDP on their own defense, Berlin has been moving in that direction.

Stavridis argues that Germany punches above its weight in many ways, including paying a substantial portion of the cost of maintaining some 40,000 U.S. forces and providing modern, high-tech infrastructure, including the U.S. Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where many gravely wounded U.S. troops have been saved. These are not the obsolete bases of the Cold War, but the forward-operating stations of the 21st century.

TRUMPS RETREAT A VICTORY FOR PUTIN: A good question to ask in looking at a major basing decision is quite simple: Who benefits? asked Stavridis. In this case, certainly not the U.S., because it will lose strategic bases close to its adversaries. It wont save any money in fact, the Pentagon will lose German subsidies. When the troops are moved back to the U.S., it will require bases to house them, and, if they need to be re-deployed, transportation costs will be significant.

Which brings us to the only beneficiary: Vladimir Putin, concludes Stavridis. The Russian leader will use this sudden withdrawal to posture at home (the U.S. is afraid of getting into a war with Russia), within Europe (the U.S. really isnt committed to your defense), and internationally in the Middle East and elsewhere (see how fickle the Americans are toward their supposed allies?).

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

HAPPENING TODAY: Trump travels to Yuma, Arizona, to mark the construction of more than 200 miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, he addresses a Students for Trump event at the Dream City megachurch in Phoenix, where several thousand people are expected to gather.

Arizona is one of the states currently seeing an uptick in COVID-19 cases, which Trump has attributed to an increase in testing rather than an increase in the rate of transmission and infection. Arizonas seven-day average of positive tests is 20.4%, well above the national average of 8.4%, according to the Associated Press.

This week, Phoenix made wearing mouth and nose coverings mandatory in public when 6 feet of social distancing cannot be maintained, but the citys Democratic mayor said that wearing masks at the Trump event will be voluntary. Elected officials should send the strongest message possible, in both their words and actions, that our fight against this virus is not over, said Mayor Kate Gallego, who is urging everyone, including Trump, to wear a mask.

AN ABERRATION: Anthony Tata, President Trumps nominee to be the Pentagons senior policy official, is apologizing for offensive tweets unearthed by CNN in an effort to save his embattled nomination, writes Jack Detsch in Foreign Policy.

The publication obtained a letter Tata sent to the Senate Armed Services Chairman Jim Inhofe, a Republican, and ranking Democrat Jack Reed in which Tata said he had come to deeply regret the tweets and called them an aberration in a four-decade thread of faithful public service.

Earlier this month, CNN reported that in 2018, Tata tweeted that Islam was the "most oppressive violent religion I know of" and claimed former President Barack Obama was a "terrorist leader" who did more to harm to the United States "and help Islamic countries than any president in history."

Tata, a retired Army brigadier general, has been a frequent defender of Trump on Fox News.

TODAYS BOLTON EXCERPT: True to its title, John Boltons bestselling memoir recounts many behind-the-scenes interactions in the room where it happened, told from Boltons perspective.

Todays short excerpt takes us back November 2018, the month before Defense Secretary Jim Mattis would resign, telling Trump he deserved a secretary more aligned with his views. The scene is the Oval Office, where Trump has gathered Vice President Mike Pence, Mattis, Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, Chief of Staff John Kelly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, DNI Dan Coats, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Bolton for a discussion of Afghanistan.

Pompeo led off, but Trump quickly interjected, Were being beaten, and they know theyre beating us. Then he was off, raging against the statutorily mandated Afghanistan Inspector General, whose reports repeatedly documented wasted tax dollars but also provided amazingly accurate information about the war that any other government would have kept private. I think hes right, said Trump, but I think its a disgrace he can make such things public.

Later in the meeting:

I said you could do whatever you wanted, he said, and glared, looking straight at Mattis. I gave you complete discretion, except for nuclear weapons, and look what happened. Trump was bitter whenever his 2017 speech came up, but one wonders how he would have felt if the strategy had prevailed. Whats a win in Afghanistan? Trump asked.

Mattis correctly responded, The United States doesnt get attacked. Finally switching his tack, Mattis offered, Lets say were ending the war, not that were withdrawing.

Okay, you ready? Trump asked no one in particular, but using this favorite phrase indicating something big was coming. Say we have been there for eighteen years. We did a great job. If anybody comes here, they will be met like never before. Thats what we say, he said, although Trump then expanded the withdrawal to include Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

Then Trump came back at Mattis: I gave you what you asked for. Unlimited authority, no holds barred. Youre losing. Youre getting your ass kicked. You failed. This painful repetition demonstrates that Trump, who endlessly stresses he is the only one who makes decisions, had trouble taking responsibility for them.

Can we delay it [the withdrawal] so we dont lose more men and diplomats? Mattis asked.

Trump roared back, We cant afford it. Weve failed. If it were turning out differently, I wouldnt do it.

TRUMPS BURNING ISSUE: President Trump first made the request in his conference call with state governors April 1, and he repeated it at his rally in Tulsa Saturday night. The president wants a law to ban the burning of the American flag. And he keeps urging lawmakers at every level to take action.

Outraged by a report from Portland, Oregon, that protesters toppled a statue of George Washington, wrapped its head in a flag, and burned it, Trump said, We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag, you go to jail for one year. One year.

And he called on Oklahomas two senators to introduce the legislation. Jim and James. We ought to do it. You know, they talk about freedom of speech, and I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, but that's desecration, Trump said. That's a terrible thing they do. We used to have things. We don't have them anymore because we want to be so open, so everything, and look what happens.

THE HIGH COURT HAS SPOKEN: In 1968, during another time of civil strife, Congress passed the Federal Flag Desecration Law, which stated that whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

But that law was invalidated by a landmark 1989 Supreme Court ruling in the case Texas v. Johnson in which the court voted 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, a protester who had burned the flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas in violation of Texas law.

Congress tried again with a new law, the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which the Supreme Court also struck down 5-4.

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable, wrote Justice William Brennan, citing the Johnson case, according to the National Constitution Center.

Among the five majority justices in the 1989 case was Antonin Scalia, who said in 2015, If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, but I am not king.

To change the law now would require a constitutional amendment or a new ruling from the Supreme Court.

Washington Examiner: US brands four Chinese state media outlets 'foreign missions'

Washington Examiner: Hurricanes, coronavirus, and civil disturbance responses will test National Guard resolve

Washington Examiner: US destroys three ISIS camps in Iraq, underscoring continued need for air support

Washington Examiner: CIA releases its first-ever streaming recruitment video

Wall Street Journal: U.S. and Russia Hold Arms Talks, With China Absent

Bloomberg: Air Crews Balk at Lockheed F-35 Parts That Arent Ready to Use

Air Force Magazine: New Pilot Training Plan Could Provide More F-22 Combat Power, Red Air

Military.com: Navy Sees Enormous Decrease In Hypoxia-Like Events In Its Fighters And Trainers

Defense News: A Naval Arms Race Is Gaining Speed In The Mediterranean Sea

The Drive: Congress Pushes Navy To Add Hypersonic Missiles To Its Stealthy Destroyers

Politico: Pentagon To Return Largest Number Of Allied Troops Remains From Korean War

Kitsap Sun: What Happened When The USS Louisiana Ballistic Missile Sub Collided With An Escort Ship

Arlnow.com: Marine Corps Marathon Still On, For Now, With Some Changes

Washington Examiner: Opinion: Why John Bolton's book is deemed to contain classified material

Bloomberg: Opinion: James Stavridis: Trumps Retreat From Germany Is a Victory for Putin

TUESDAY | JUNE 23

8:30 a.m. German Marshall Funds virtual Brussels Forum, with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in conversation with Markus Preiss, Brussels bureau chief, ARD. https://sites-gmf.vuturevx.com

9 a.m. International Institute for Strategic Studies webcast: Will the Iran Nuclear Deal Survive?" with Dana Allin, senior fellow at IISS; Mahsa Rouhi, research fellow in the IISS Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Program; and Mark Fitzpatrick, associate fellow at IISS. https://www.iiss.org/events

9 a.m. East-West Center in Washington webinar, The 70th Anniversary of the Korean War: Inter-Korean Relations at a Crossroads, with Seong-ho Sheen, director of the Seoul National University's International Security Center; and Latu Limaye, director of the East-West Center. https://eastwestcenter.zoom.us

10 a.m. Center for Strategic and International Studies and the United States Naval Institute Maritime Security Dialogue webcast on the role of unmanned and small combatants in maritime operations, with Rear. Adm. Casey Moton, program executive officer, unmanned and small combatants; Kathleen Hicks, director, International Security Program, CSIS; and retired Vice Adm. Peter Daly, CEO, U.S. Naval Institute. https://www.csis.org/events/online-event

10 a.m. Middle East Institute webinar with Brig. Gen. Duke Pirak, deputy director of strategy, plans, and policy at U.S. Central Command; and Bilal Saab, director of the MEI Defense and Security Program. https://www.mei.edu/events/mei-defense-leadership

11 a.m. Rayburn 2118 and Cisco Webex House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces markup of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

12 p.m. Washington Post Live webcast: Veterans: Frontline Concerns, with Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn.; Tom Kastner, vice president of financial wellness at the Wounded Warrior Project; Joe Plenzler, communications director at the Wounded Warrior Project; and David Ignatius, columnist at the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live

1 p.m. Rayburn 2118 and Cisco Webex Subcommittee on Military Personnel markup of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

3 p.m. Rayburn 2118 and Cisco Webex Subcommittee on Readiness markup of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

3 p.m. Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance Virtual Congressional Roundtable on "Global Missile Defense Responsibilities, with Lt. Gen. Michael Minihan, deputy commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command: Vice Adm. Michael Dumont, deputy commander, U.S. Northern Command; Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler, commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, U.S. Strategic Command; Vice Adm. Jon Hill, director, Missile Defense Agency; and Riki Ellison, chairman, Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. https://www.youtube.com/watch

3 p.m. Woodrow Wilson Center webcast: Bridges and Blockades: Life at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), with Army Lt. Col. Sean Morrow, commander of the United Nations Command Security Battalion-Joint Security Area at the DMZ; and Jean Lee, director of the WWC Hyundai-Motor-Korea Foundation Center for Korean History and Public Policy. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event

4:30 p.m. Rayburn 2118 and Cisco Webex Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces markup of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

WEDNESDAY | JUNE 24

8 a.m. Center for Strategic and International Studies webcast: ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2020: 70 Years Later: Bringing Peace to the Korean Peninsula and Beyond," with Acting Assistant Defense Secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs David Helvey; former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Mark Lippert, senior adviser at CSIS; and former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Kathleen Stephens, president and CEO of the Korea Economic Institute of America, participate in a discussion on "Peace on the Korean Peninsula." https://www.csis.org/events/online-event

9 30 a.m. Atlantic Council conversation with German Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer on Resilience and the Transatlantic Alliance. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event

10 a.m. United States Institute of Peace webinar: Peace Talks in Afghanistan, with former Afghanistan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation. https://www.usip.org/events/he-abdullah-abdullah

4:30 p.m. Intelligence National Security Alliance webinar, with Suzanne White, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. https://www.insaonline.org/event/wednesday-wisdom

THURSDAY | JUNE 25

8 a.m. Center for Strategic and International Studies webcast: ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum 2020: 70 Years Later: Bringing Peace to the Korean Peninsula and Beyond," with U.S. Ambassador to Korea Harry Harris; former Republic of Korea Minister of Foreign Affairs Yoon Young-kwan; and former Assistant Defense Secretary for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Randall Schriver, chairman of the board of the Project 2049 Institute. https://www.csis.org/events/online-event-rok-us-strategic-forum-2020

11 a.m. German Marshall Funds virtual Brussels Forum, with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in conversation with Bojan Pancevski, Germany correspondent, the Wall Street Journal. https://sites-gmf.vuturevx.com

11 a.m. International Institute for Strategic Studies webinar: One Decade, Two Continents," focusing on the maritime-security challenges of Europe and Africa, with Navy Adm. James Foggo, commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa. https://www.iiss.org/events/2020

11 a.m. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments webinar to release its new report: Forging the Tools of 21st Century Great Power Competition, with author Thomas Mahnken and Eric Edelman, counselor at CSBA. Register: https://zoom.us/webinar/register.

FRIDAY | JUNE 26

10 a.m. Middle East Institute webinar: The Broader Implications of U.S. Disengagement from Afghanistan, with Javid Ahmad, nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council; Ronald Neumann, resident at the American Academy of Diplomacy: J. Alexander Thier, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Elizabeth Threlkeld, deputy director of the Stimson Center's South Asia Program; and Marvin Weinbaum, director of Afghanistan and Pakistan studies at MEI. https://www.mei.edu/events/broader-implications

TUESDAY | JUNE 30

5 a.m. EDT/11 a.m. CET NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg takes part in an online discussion on the geopolitical implications of COVID-19, organized by the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, with Amrita Narlikar, president of GIGA. https://www.giga-hamburg.de

12 p.m. Association of the United States Army Noon Report, with Gen. Paul Funk II, commanding general, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. https://www.ausa.org/events/noon-report-funk

WEDNESDAY | JULY 1

10 a.m. Longworth 1100 and Cisco Webex Full House Armed Services markup of National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021. https://armedservices.house.gov/hearings

There are plenty of good reasons to keep our troops in Germany. I cant think of a single one that makes sense to pull them out.

Former Supreme NATO Commander retired Adm. James Stavridis, in an op-ed opposing President Trumps threat to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from bases in Germany.

Here is the original post:

GOP members of House Foreign Affairs Committee urge Trump to reconsider US troop withdrawal from Germany - Washington Examiner

By Marc Levy Sunday, June 21, 2020A crowd of 2,000 makes its way down Massachusetts Avenue to City Hall on Saturday. (Photo: Marc Levy)

A peaceful protest drew some 2,000 people Saturday, gathering under the Black Lives Matter flag but marching from Cambridge Common behind the banner of defunding the police, with speeches saying a $4.1 million reallocation debated in City Council meetings was far too little.

The amount is a drop in the bucket [and] an insult to all the precious black lives lost to police violence, event co-organizer and leadoff speaker Jay Wilson said, telling the mix of black and white faces assembled on the Common that we need to defund the police. We need to [instead] invest in critical community resources like education and affordable housing.

The theme was sounded repeatedly over a three-hour event beginning at 4 p.m. bumped from 1 p.m. to avoid the worst of the days heat, but followed by temperatures in the 90s nonetheless. It was pulled together in just the past six days, launched by the Wilson siblings of Ayana, Jay and Ashia but accomplished by a large crew that formed rapidly around the idea, including several members of the Black Student Union at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School. Unlike a previous gathering on the Common on June 7, this event was planned initially without police involvement, and protesters were braced for conflict; when putting it together, co-organizer Jacklyn La Polita Janeksela put out a call for volunteers to provide jail support and monitor police scanners.

But police reached out after organizers submitted an outlined plan to the citys events committee, said Jeremy Warnick, director of communications and media relations for Cambridge police. The streets were closed Saturday to traffic by police in vehicles and on bikes to enable the marchers to make their way safely through the city, and police officials and event organizers coordinated throughout the walk to City Hall and then to police headquarters near Kendall Square, which was cordoned off to keep protesters away from the building.

Jay Wilsons speech referred to the unsatisfactory $4.1 million order being under consideration, but in fact the council resolved it Monday. Councillorsagreed to a $2.5 million compromise from the city manager to freeze police hiring and instead prioritize hiring for human services needs in the next fiscal year.

Protesters may have been unaware that the makers of the motion, councillors Quinton Zondervan and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, were on the Common with them; and they may not have known that Zondervan, when found again toward the end of the march, agreed with them. He said he was surprised to show up and realize that the council order was a focus of the protest, along with Juneteenth goals of of honoring Black freedom and resistance, investing in Black communities and getting President Donald Trump to resign.

I completely agree with them. It seemed like a reasonable [idea] that maybe we could accomplish, but it turns out we couldnt even get that, Zondervan said, noting the original $4.1 million proposal was cut to $2.5 million. We had a two-week window. Hopefully, we will successfully transfer this [protests] energy into a conversation about next years budget.

The event had several speakers, including poet Toni Bee, who invoked motherhood by recalling the final words of George Floyd as he was killed on Memorial Day in Minneapolis, helping spark the current wave of protests: a gasped plea for mama.

I just want my babies to come home, Bee said.

Karlene Griffiths Sekou spoke next, expanding on the message to speak more explicitly about the police presence in Cambridge. Because were leaning on freedoms side, we dont need police in our schools, we dont need those in uniforms to catch, monitor, demonize and cage our communities, cage our babies, Griffiths Sekou said in an electrifying rasp. Get them out of our schools. The police arent for us theyve never been good for us and never been good to us. We dont need them. We can keep us safe. We will keep us safe.

Even later speakers acknowledged that residents lived in a bubble where there was no Cambridge Police Department shooting of a person of color to ignite their rage just an ongoing environment of racism in which police played a role. During a pause at City Hall at 5:30 p.m., a recent CRLS graduate who had been active in the Black Student Union said of the group: Weve been screaming for help for three years. Why has nothing changed?

This was the 18th such local protest event with police involvement since Georges killing. With2,000 marchers growing in numbers from the Common to Kendall Square it was the largest march, Warnick said, but dwarfed by the 3,500 people who gathered for a protest on the Common on June 7.

The June 7 protest directed people to take part in the City Council meeting the next day that saw the introduction of the motion to defund the police of $4.1 million, but the slew of public commentary that followed was rejected bypolice commissioner Branville G. Bard Jr. asnot true deliberation in which he didnt hear authentic voices, but just a bunch of people looking for their Im a black ally receipts, hoping they could somehow use it to pay off white guilt.

Saturdays rally, though, was another Black-organized rally for Black Lives Matter with a theme of defunding at which demands escalated beyond even what had been proposed by the council.

Nightly fireworks

The rally and march arrived as the regularity of fireworks protests have diminished. For most nights in the past weeks, fireworks have begun at 8:46 p.m. and continued for hours, a reminder of the length of time a Minneapolis police officer stayed kneeling on Georges neck until he was dead. (Prosecutors now say the killing was shorter by one minute.) Theyll start at 8:46 and go into the wee hours of the morning. And, you know, thats where it becomes pretty problematic. If it was for 10 minutes or so right before nine oclock, I think we all could sustain it, Bard said of the fireworks Monday when addressing city councillors.

Though fireworks complaints are up 1,000 percent, he said, police response is limited: Folks think that we can go there and arrest individuals for using firecrackers, Bard said, and we cant. Its a $100 citation.

The discomfort, though, is exactly the point, protesters say of the fireworks displays. The relentless sound, which might be mistaken for gunfire, is a reminder of what some neighborhoods experience with actual ammunition. The Port neighborhood suffered an epidemic of gunfire incidents in 2018.

Here is the original post:

Two thousand march with call to defund police; Council's $4.1M order was a 'drop in the bucket' - Cambridge Day

On June 12, the Quebec government introduced the highlyanticipated Bill 64, An Act to modernize legislative provisionsas regards the protection of personal information. Inpresenting the bill, the province's Minister of Justice, SoniaLeBel, noted that Quebec's current data protection laws havebecome outdated and no longer adequately regulate new and evolvingdigital technologies. Ms. LeBel noted that the current pandemic hashighlighted the central role that information technology nowoccupies in our society, and that our laws must stay apace of thisreality.

If adopted, Bill 64 will make significant changes to therequirements applicable to the use and protection of personalinformation under numerous provincial statutes, including notablythe Act respecting the protection of personal information inthe private sector (the "Private SectorAct") and the Act respecting Access to documentsheld by public bodies and the Protection of personalinformation (the "Public SectorAct"). In this article, we summarize some of the mostnotable changes to these two statutes.

Bill 64 will significantly increase the fines that may be leviedagainst both private and public sector entities who fail to complywith the province's privacy legislation.

Private sector entities will be subject to fines ranging from$15,000 to $25,000,000, or an amount corresponding to 4% ofworldwide turnover for the preceding fiscal year, whichever isgreater. This represents a dramatic increase from the currentmaximum penalty of $50,000, and would make the Private Sector Actthe most punitive privacy law in the Canada with apotential fine exceeding those available under the Competition Act,or the Anti-Spam law, CASL.

Moreover, Bill 64 would grant the Commissiond'accs l'information (CAI) theability to impose monetary administrative penalties (AMPs) forcertain violations following a notification of non-compliance with maximum AMPs of $10,000,000 or, if greater, an amountcorresponding to 2% of worldwide turnover for the preceding fiscalyear.

For certain offences under the Public Sector Act, includingreleasing personal information in contravention of the law orattempting to identify an individual using anonymized information,fines will range from $15,000 to $150,000.

If passed into law, Bill 64 will create a private right ofaction whereby individuals could bring a claim for damages forinjury resulting from the unlawful infringement of a rightconferred by the Private Sector Act or sections 35 to 40 of theCivil Code of Qubec.

The Bill also introduces a minimum award of $1,000 in punitivedamages where the infringement is intentional or results from agross fault the latter defined as "a fault which showsgross recklessness, gross carelessness or gross negligence"per section 1474 of the Civil Code of Qubec.

Bill 64 will introduce "privacy by design"typedefault settings whereby enterprises who offer technological goodsor services and who collect personal information must ensure thatthe parameters of the good or service provide the "highestlevel of confidentiality by default", without any interventionby the person concerned.

Until now, Quebec has been one of the few Canadian jurisdictionswhere reporting of data security incidents has not been mandatory.While data breach notification has long been the subject ofvoluntary guidelines, Bill 64 will require that both public andprivate entities report incidents to both the Commissiond'accs l'information and to thepersons whose data is affected where the incident "presents arisk of serious injury".

Entities may also notify "any person or body that couldreduce the risk". The Bill provides that regulations may beadopted to establish the content and terms of thesenotifications.

Bill 64 imposes more robust consent requirements prior to thecollection, use, or disclosure of personal information. Currently,the Private Sector Act requires that consent be "manifest,free, enlightened" and given for specific purposes, while thePublic Sector Act is silent on what constitutes adequate consentwhere consent is required under this law. Under Bill 64, both thePublic and Private sector Acts will be amended to require thatconsent be "clear, free and informed" and given forspecific purposes.

Where consent is required, both public and private sectorentities must request consent for each separate purpose in"clear and simple language and separately from any otherinformation provided to the person concerned". Entities willalso be required, on request of the person concerned, to assist theperson in understanding the scope of the consent requested.

Moreover, under Bill 64, consent will remain valid only for thetime necessary to achieve the purposes for which it was requested,following which the information will have to be anonymized ordestroyed.

Bill 64 also establishes new situations in which personalinformation may be communicated without the consent of theindividual concerned. These include, notably:

Bill 64 also withdraws the right, provided under the currentPrivate Sector Act, of an enterprise to communicate a nominativelist without the consent of the individuals concerned.

Following the trend of including "right to beforgotten" provisions in privacy legislation, Bill 64 willafford Quebec individuals the right to demand the deletion ofcertain personal data.

More specifically, it provides that an individual may requirethat a private sector entity cease disseminating his/her personalinformation or de-index any hyperlink attached to his/her name thatprovides access to the information by a technological means if thedissemination of said personal information contravenes the law or acourt order.

An individual will also be permitted to make such an order, orto order that the hyperlink be re-indexed, where:

In assessing whether the injury is clearly greater than publicinterest or the right to freedom of expression, the followingelements are to be considered: the sensitivity of the information,the time elapsed between the dissemination of the information andthe request, and whether or not the individual concerned is a minoror a public figure.

Bill 64 will also increase the obligations incumbent on bothprivate and public sector entities regarding the protection ofpersonal information.

With regards to private sector entities, the individual with the"highest authority" in that enterprise will beresponsible for ensuring compliance with the Private Sector Act.This responsibility may, in writing, be delegated to a member ofthe enterprise's personnel. This person's title and contactinformation must be published on the enterprise's website.

Private sector entities will also be required to establish andimplement governance policies and practices to protect personalinformation, which, in addition to being published on theenterprise's website, must:

As for public bodies, they will be required to appoint anindividual in charge of access to documents and protection ofpersonal information. Unlike in the private sector, where theappointed individual may be a member of the enterprises'personnel, the individual appointed by a public sector entity mustbe a member of the public body or of its board of directors, as thecase may be, or a member of the management personnel. The title andcontact information of this individual will have to be reported tothe CAI.

Public bodies will also be required to establish a committee onaccess to information and protection of personal information, to beoverseen by the aforementioned individual. Private bodies will notbe required to establish such a committee.

Bill 64 also imposes more stringent requirements on enterprisesor public bodies wishing to communicate personal informationoutside of Quebec. Before releasing personal information outside ofthe province, an entity will be required to conduct an assessmentof privacy-related factors, namely:

The information may only leave the province if the assessmentestablishes that the information in the foreign jurisdiction willreceive protection equivalent to that afforded in Quebec and therelease of said information is subject to a written agreement thattakes into account factors such as the results of the assessmentand, if applicable, the terms agreed upon to mitigate the risksidentified in the assessment.

The above applies even if the information is merely being storedor processed by a party outside the province.

Under Bill 64, both public and private sector entities whocollect personal information using technology that allows a personto be "identified, located or profiled" must first informthe person of the use of such technology and of the meansavailable, if any, to deactivate the function that allows theperson to be "identified, located or profiled".

For the purposes of the above, "profiling" refers tothe collection and use of personal information to assess certaincharacteristics of a natural person, in particular for the purposeof analyzing that person's work performance, economicsituation, health, personal preferences, interests or behavior.This could be the case, for example, of information collected viaonline cookies used in order to direct targeted advertising to anindividual, or collected through a fitness tracker app.

Public and private sector entities will also be required, underBill 64, to assess "the privacy-related factors of anyinformation system project or electronic service delivery projectinvolving the collection, use, release, keeping or destruction ofpersonal information".

Finally, where a public or private sector entity uses personalinformation to render a decision based exclusively on an automatedprocessing of such information, it will be required to inform theindividual concerned of same prior to or at the time the decisionis made. The entity must also, upon request, inform the individualof:

Following the introduction of Bill 64, Quebec's NationalAssembly adjourned for its summer break. It will return inSeptember 2020, with committee proceedings to resume in mid-August.If passed into law, Bill 64's final and transitional provisionsindicate that most amendments to the Private Sector Act will comeinto force one year after the date of assent.

The Gowling WLG Cyber Security & Data Protection group willbe monitoring developments closely and may be contacted for furtherinformation.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Continue reading here:

Quebec To Introduce The Most Punitive Privacy Laws In Canada - With Fines Of Up To $25 Million - Privacy - Canada - Mondaq News Alerts