Monthly Archives: June 2022

Item 1.01 Entry Into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On May 26, 2022, AutoWeb, Inc. ("Company") entered into a Fourth Amendment toLoan, Security and Guarantee Agreement ("Credit Facility Fourth Amendment") withCIT Northbridge Credit LLC ("CNC") to amend the Company's existing Loan,Security and Guarantee Agreement with CNC initially entered into on March 26,2020, as amended on May 18, 2020, July 30, 2021, and September 13, 2021 (theexisting Loan Agreement, as amended to date, is referred to herein collectivelyas the "Credit Facility Agreement").

The Credit Facility Fourth Amendment provides for (i) a reduction in the minimumborrowing usage requirement from forty percent (40%) to twenty percent (20%) ofthe aggregate revolver commitments under the Credit Facility Agreement, whichresults in a reduction in the minimum borrowing usage requirement from $8.0million to $4.0 million; (ii) a reduction in the base amount used to calculatethe underusage fee from $10.0 million to $6.0 million; and (iii) application ofthe approximately $4.0 million in the Company's restricted cash account used ascollateral under the Credit Facility Agreement to reduce the current outstandingloan balance under the Credit Facility Agreement by this amount.

The Credit Facility Fourth Amendment also amends the Credit Facility Agreementto allow the financing of insurance premiums for the 2022-2023 renewal periodunder the Credit Facility Agreement and that any liens on the associatedinsurance policies or proceeds thereof that secure the financing of theinsurance premiums shall be permitted liens.

The foregoing description of the Credit Facility Agreement and Credit FacilityFourth Amendment is not complete and is qualified in its entirety by referenceto the Loan, Security and Guarantee Agreement dated as of March 26, 2020, by andbetween the Company and CIT Northbridge Credit LLC, which is incorporated hereinby reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed withthe SEC on March 26, 2020 (SEC File No. 001-34761), as amended by the FirstAmendment to Loan, Security and Guarantee Agreement dated as of May 18, 2020,which is incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the CurrentReport on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 19, 2020 (SEC File No. 001-34761),the Second Amendment to and Consent Under Loan, Security and Guarantee Agreementdated as of July 30, 2021, which is incorporated herein by reference to

Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August2, 2021 (SEC File No. 001-34761), the Third Amendment to Loan, Security andGuarantee Agreement, dated as of September 13, 2021, which is incorporatedherein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filedwith the SEC on September 15, 2021 (SEC File No. 001-34761), and the FourthAmendment to Loan, Security and Guarantee Agreement, a copy of which is filed asExhibit 10.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is hereby incorporated byreference.

Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors;

On May 27, 2022, Michael A. Carpenter notified the Chairman of the Board ofDirectors ("Board") of the Company that, effective immediately, he was resigninghis position as a member of the Board and as a member of the Board's AuditCommittee ("Audit Committee").

Mr. Carpenter was a member of the Board's Audit Committee. Mr. Michael J. Fuchshas been appointed by the Board to serve as a member of the Audit Committee toreplace Mr. Carpenter.

Item 5.03 Amendments to Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws; Change in Fiscal Year

On June 1, 2022, the Board approved an amendment ("Bylaw Amendment No. 2") toSection 3.02 of the Company's Seventh Amended and Restated Bylaws ("Bylaws") todecrease the number of authorized directors on the Board from eight (8) to five(5) members. Bylaw Amendment No. 2 will be effective upon expiration of the termof the Board's Class III Directors upon commencement of the 2022 Annual Meetingof Stockholders ("Effective Time"). Bylaw Amendment No. 2 supersedes AmendmentNo. 1 to the Bylaws that was previously reported and that was to be effective asof the Effective Time to reduce the number of authorized directors of theCompany from eight (8) to seven (7).

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Go here to see the original:
AUTOWEB, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Change in Directors or Principal Officers, Amendments to Articles of Inc. or Bylaws;...

College Park/Atlanta (US), Jun 5 (The Conversation) Every so often stories of genetic theft, or extreme precautions taken to avoid it, make headline news. So it was with a picture of French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin sitting at opposite ends of a very long table after Macron declined to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test.

Many speculated that Macron refused due to security concerns that the Russians would take and use his DNA for nefarious purposes. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz similarly refused to take a Russian PCR COVID-19 test.

While these concerns may seem relatively new, pop star celebrity Madonna has been raising alarm bells about the potential for nonconsensual, surreptitious collection and testing of DNA for over a decade. She has hired cleaning crews to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts and requires her own new toilet seats at each stop of her tours.

At first, Madonna was ridiculed for having DNA paranoia. But as more advanced, faster and cheaper genetic technologies have reached the consumer realm, these concerns seem not only reasonable, but justified.

We are law professors who study how emerging technologies like genetic sequencing are regulated. We believe that growing public interest in genetics has increased the likelihood that genetic paparazzi with DNA collection kits may soon become as ubiquitous as ones with cameras.

While courts have for the most part managed to evade dealing with the complexities of surreptitious DNA collection and testing of public figures, they wont be able to avoid dealing with it for much longer. And when they do, they are going to run squarely into the limitations of existing legal frameworks when it comes to genetics.

Genetic information troves You leave your DNA behind you everywhere you go. The strands of hair, fingernails, dead skin and saliva you shed as you move through your day are all collectible trails of DNA.

Genetic analysis can reveal not only personal information, such as existing health conditions or risk for developing certain diseases, but also core aspects of a persons identity, such as their ancestry and the potential traits of their future children. In addition, as genetic technologies continue to evolve, fears about using surreptitiously collected genetic material for reproductive purposes via in vitro gametogenesis become more than just paranoia.

Ultimately, taking an individauls genetic material and information without their consent is an intrusion into a legal domain that is still considered deeply personal. Despite this, there are few laws protecting the interests of individuals regarding their genetic material and information.

Existing legal frameworks When disputes involving genetic theft from public figures inevitably reach the courtroom, judges will need to confront fundamental questions about how genetics relates to personhood and identity, property, health and disease, intellectual property and reproductive rights. Such questions have already been raised in cases involving the use of genetics in law enforcement, the patentability of DNA and ownership of discarded genetic materials.

In each of these cases, courts focused on only one dimension of genetics, such as privacy rights or the value of genetic information for biomedical research. But this limited approach disregards other aspects, such as the privacy of family members with shared genetics, or property and identity interests someone may have in genetic material discarded as part of a medical procedure.

In the case of genetic paparazzi, courts will presumably try to fit complex questions about genetics into the legal framework of privacy rights because this is how they have approached other intrusions into the lives of public figures in the past.

Modern US privacy law is a complex web of state and federal regulations governing how information can be acquired, accessed, stored and used. The right to privacy is limited by First Amendment protections on the freedom of speech and press, as well as Fourth Amendment prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizure. Public figures face further restrictions on their privacy rights because they are objects of legitimate public interest. On the other hand, they also have publicity rights that control the commercial value of their unique personally identifying traits.

People whose genetic material has been taken without their consent may also raise a claim of conversion that their property has been interfered with and lost. Courts in Florida are currently considering a conversion claim in a private dispute where the former CEO of Marvel Entertainment and his wife accused a millionaire businessman of stealing their DNA to prove that they were slandering him through a hate-mail campaign. This approach replaces the narrow legal framework of privacy with an even narrower framework of property, reducing genetics to an object that someone possesses.

What the future may hold Under existing laws and the current state of genetic technology, most people dont need to worry about surreptitious collection and use of genetic material in the way that public figures might. But genetic paparazzi cases will likely play an important role in determining what rights everyone else will or will not have.

The US Supreme Court is very unlikely to recognise new rights, or even affirm previously recognized rights, that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, at least at the federal level, individual protections for genetic material and information are not likely to adapt to changing times.

This means that cases involving genetics are likely to fall within the purview of state legislatures and courts. But none of the states have adequately grappled with the complexities of genetic legal claims. Even in states with laws specifically designed to protect genetic privacy, regulations cover only a narrow range of genetic interests. Some laws, for example, may prohibit disclosure of genetic information, but not collection.

For better or for worse, how the courts rule in genetic paparazzi cases will shape how society thinks about genetic privacy and about individual rights regarding genetics more broadly. (The Conversation) NSA

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Continued here:
Genetic paparazzi are right around the corner, and courts arent ready to confront the legal quagmire of DNA theft - ThePrint

In the fall of 1991, Agent William Elliott of the US Department of the Interior began to suspect that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana at home in Florence, Oregon. But mere suspicion was not going to get him very far. For Kyllo to be brought to justice, his house had to be physically searched, and no judge was going to issue a warrant on the basis of a hunch. Which is why, on 16 January 1992, Elliott pointed a thermal imager at Danny Kyllos home, and, having detected heat signatures consistent with the sort of high-intensity hallide lamps used for indoor marijuana cultivation, the agent was able to convince a judge to issue a warrant. Kyllo was arrested and indicted on a federal drug charge. Once in court, Kyllo moved to suppress the evidence that had been seized from his home. The thermal scan, he argued, was a violation of his Fourth Amendment Right against unreasonable search and all evidence flowing from that was the fruit of a poisoned tree. He had an expectation of privacy within his home and it didnt matter that the government had not set a foot inside to obtain the initial evidencetheir use of thermal imaging technology from afar was as much of an intrusion as an actual break-in.

That case went all the way up to the US Supreme Court, which, in a split (5-4) decision, ruled in favour of Kyllo. If the government uses a device that is not in general public use (such as thermal-imagers at the time) to explore details of a private home that were previously unknowable without physical intrusion, Americas apex court held, such surveillance would be a Fourth Amendment search" that could not be conducted without a warrant.

To the layman, this decision might seem surprising. If our objective is to bring criminals to book, does it really matter how we go about it? Isnt growing marijuana a crime? If so, how does it really matter if evidence of the commission of this crime was obtained using remote scanning technology?

It is important to remind ourselves that the state has a monopoly over the use of violence. It is, therefore, important to ensure that the exercise of state power is always subject to appropriate checks and balances. Failure to do so would make victims out of innocent citizens, and this, in our modern conceptualization of the states role, is unacceptable.

There is probably no situation where the stakes are greater than in a criminal investigation. It is here that the state machinery is under the greatest pressure to deliver criminals to justice, and where, as a result, either accidentally or with calculated disregard, the rights of the innocent are most likely to be trampled upon. Therefore, it is here that checks and balances are most important.

When these restrictions are applied, law enforcers are constrained in what they can do to bring criminals to justice. As a result, some law-breakers will inevitably get away. We need to recognize that this will happen, and accept it for what it is, because the alternative would be to have innocent bystanders subject to egregious intrusions at the hands of the stateand that is far, far worse.

India does not apply the concept of due process in exactly the same way as the US does, but the underlying principlethat the power of the state must always be subject to reasonable restrictionsis well established in Indian jurisprudence. When the Indian Supreme Court held that mandatory linkage of Aadhaar numbers to our bank accounts was disproportional exercise of state power, it pointed out that [U]nder the garb of prevention of money laundering or black money, there cannot be such a sweeping provision which targets every resident of the country as a suspicious person." And yet, despite decisions like this, we need look no further than the morning papers to see restraints on state power flagrantly violatedoften on a daily basis, unfortunately.

Technology exacerbates the problem. Almost always, new technologies are more pervasive than the ones that preceded it. They make what was previously impossible relatively trivial to carry out, often at a much larger scale than before. If we allow the state to use technology in the exercise of its power and fail to impose checks and balances properly tailored to the harms these new technologies could cause, the innocent will inevitably suffer.

We are seeing this play out in the context of online messaging services, where the states desire to intercept messages exchanged between criminal elements is pushing the government to remove the protection that end-to-end encryption offers. The state maintains that it has no option but to intervene in this manner; criminals have no constraint on what technology they can or cannot use and if law enforcement agencies are forced to fight them with hands tied behind their backs, the bad guys will win.

Not only is this approach constitutionally unsustainable, it is downright lazy. Advances in technology have always made it easier for criminals to stay ahead of the law. But the response of law enforcement must never be to weaken the checks and balances under which law enforcers are legally constrained to operate. Basic principles require as much. Instead, they must work to get up to speed with the new technology in question, develop novel investigative techniques that work within the new paradigm we all find ourselves in, and find ways to catch criminals in spite of any technological advantage they might have.

As impossible as this might seem, I know it is possible. Because we have done this before and can do it again.

Rahul Matthan is a partner at Trilegal and also has a podcast by the name Ex Machina. His Twitter handle is @matthan

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Read more from the original source:
Abide by the checks and balances of law enforcement | Mint - Mint

We Own This City takes nonlinear storytelling to an extreme, but once you get on its wavelength it rewards your patience.

Language: English

The truth about Baltimores systemic dysfunction has always been stranger, uglier and knottier than fiction. Reading about its drug, homicide, policing and administrative problems can take you into a rabbit hole you cant get out of. The bleak reality of the city shaped five seasons ofThe Wire, which remains one of the most incisive feats in longform storytelling on TV. David Simon, theBaltimore Sunreporter who was the creator of the HBO series, returns to the corners, the streets and the police precincts to sound another warning about a system in paralysis.

Baltimore stays on as the lead character in Simons new miniseries,We Own This City. Epitomising the incurable malady afflicting the city this time around is the Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF), an elite Baltimore Police Department (BPD) unit tasked with getting guns and drugs off the street. The reality was far different: these officers pocketed the money during seizures, sold stolen drugs, planted evidence, robbed law-abiding citizens, and made overtime claims for unworked hours. The reign of terror ended with federal indictments, with eight members sentenced to prison. The GTTFs blatant abuse of power was the subject of Baltimore Sun journalist Justin Fentons book,We Own This City: A True Story of Crime, Cops, and Corruption, and now its adaptation by Simon and frequent collaborator George Pelecanos.

The show presents a demoralising account of how the publics trust in the police, the elected officials and the government is destroyed when those meant to protect and serve are the very ones habitually violating peoples constitutional rights. Whats worse is the establishment continued to protect and serve these rogue policemen, despite repeated complaints filed by the apprehended criminals and the general public. To trace the rise and the fall of the GTTF, the episodes cover a time period from 2003 to 2017 to draw the whole picture.

Jon Bernthal as Wayne Jenkins

Director Reinaldo Marcus Green, who is coming off the recent success of King Richard, shines a light on how corruption, racism and violence intersect in a majority black city. As he takes nonlinear storytelling to an extreme, the show often undercuts itself by toggling back and forth between one too many characters, perspectives and timelines.

There are moments when you are not sure whos when and where. Once you get on its wavelength, the show rewards your patience.

The chief investigation is led by the police corruption task force made up of federal prosecutor Leo Wise (Lucas Van Engen), FBI agent Erika Jensen (Dagmara Domiczyk) and BPD officer John Sieracki (Don Harvey). We follow the trio right from the beginning of their investigation to their interrogation of the arrested GTTF members Momodu Gondo (McKinley Belcher III), Jemell Rayam (Darrell Britt-Gibson), and Maurice Ward (Rob Brown). A secondary investigation takes us to what was the beginning of the end for GTTF.

Detectives David McDougall (David Corenswet) and Scott Kilpatrick (Larry Mitchell), two Narcotics officers, track down a local dealer whose bad batch of heroin is linked to multiple overdoses. On arresting him, they find two tracking devices on his car: one is their own, the other was lent to Gondo. Our proxy in the story is Nicole Steele (Wunmi Mosaku), a Civil Rights attorney conducting an inquiry into the culture of police brutality and corruption in Baltimore. Steeles bafflement, anger and eventual resignation mirrors our own emotional journey across the six episodes.

Darrell Britt-Gibson as Jemell Rayam

With the fallout over the death of Freddie Gray and the rising crime rate, the BPD brought on Sergeant Wayne Jenkins (Jon Bernthal) to lead the GTTF to seize the drugs and guns flooding the streets. As the show reveals, he did to a degree, only not by the book. While he upped the arrest quotas, he also upped the corruption by many levels. Bernthal is an absolute force of nature as Jenkins, a charismatic, hubristic, revolting and delusional man who can justify any moral transgression as a necessary evil. We watch Jenkins steal money and drugs, engage in fatal car chases, and call a colleague to help plant a toy gun after killing an unarmed suspect all without oversight. We hear how squad member Daniel Hersl (Josh Charles) had as many as 50 complaints of brutality on his record, but was allowed to patrol the streets simply because he more than delivered the quota.

Through GTTF member turned homicide detective Sean Suiter (Jamie Hector), we get a glimpse of how Jenkins peer-pressured members of his squad. Suiter died under mysterious circumstances a day before he was scheduled to testify against Jenkins and his gang of criminals. The show leans towards the ruling of the independent review which ruled it to be a death by suicide suggesting Suiter may have taken his own life over the guilt of his brief GTTF involvement. That Jenkins passed the blame onto the dead officer to evade a false evidence charge tells you everything you need to know about him.

Dagmara Domiczyk as Erika Jensen

Indeed, the Jenkins, the Hersls and the Gondos are a symptom of a rot that goes much deeper. The show puts the entire system on trial, not just a bunch of dirty cops. A system that endorses a shoot first, ask questions later policy, offers state-sponsored impunity for police abuse, pushes for results over method, and treats everything, lives included, as a numbers game. In the show, we see mayors and commissioners elected to office outline bold visions, only to resign within months over fraud and tax evasion charges. As there remains a huge gap between policing and public policy in theory and in practice, there also remains a mutual distrust between the community and its government. The failures of policing communities of colour stem from a long history of institutional racism in the US. And the failures of public policy have left the community in an endless cycle of poverty, addiction and violence.

Wunmi Mosaku as Nicole Steele

In one of the shows more telling conversations, Steele meets with Brian Grabler, an ex-cop who became a teacher after becoming disillusioned with the system. Grabler retraces the source of the rot to the so-called war on drugs, a five-decade-old public policy that has only been counterproductive, adding to the violence rather than reducing it. Everything changed when they came up with that expression, The War on Drugs. What an idiotic fucking thing to say. Waging a war against citizens by definition is separating us into two opposing camps. And with the war comes police militarisation. SWAT teams, tactical squads, stop-and-frisk, strip searches, a complete gutting of the Fourth Amendment. And its like were, were fighting terrorists on foreign soil. And you cant just blame the cops. We serve the politicians, who thrive on being tough on crime, he says, before perfectly summing it up in a follow-up conversation, And in a war, you need warriors. In a war, you have enemies. In a war, civilians get hurt and nobody does anything. In a war, you count the bodies and then you call them victories.

All six episodes of We Own This City are now streaming on Disney+ Hotstar.

Prahlad Srihari is a film and music writer based in Bengaluru.

Read all theLatest News,Trending News,Cricket News,Bollywood News,India NewsandEntertainment Newshere. Follow us onFacebook,TwitterandInstagram.

View original post here:
We Own This City review: Spiritual follow-up to The Wire exposes a failure of policing and public policy - Entertainment News , Firstpost - Firstpost