Podcasts about Privacy Act

Join us on Texas Values Report with host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as he shares the history of the Texas Women's Privacy Act in addition to discussing the doctor who performed sex-change operations and procedures on children, surrendered her Texas medical license and left Texas, and a same-sex court ruling by Texas Supremes. Read our press release: - https://txvalues.org/victory-child-sex-change-doctor-gives-up-license-thanks-to-texas-law-protecting-kids/ - https://txvalues.org/release-same-sex-court-ruling-by-texas-supremes/ Join us at Texas Values Faith, Family & Freedom Gala this Saturday, November 8th and hear from Coach Joe Kennedy & Kelly Shackelford, who both won the football prayer case at the U. S. Supreme Court. Special guests include: Master of Ceremonies Senator Angela Paxton, Save Women's Sports and Women's Privacy Leader Brooke Slusser, and more! https://txvalues.org/events/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us your feedback In this episode, privacy experts Richard Wells and Suzy McMillan take a close look at the use of facial recognition technology (FRT) in New Zealand. They evaluate a recent report from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) on Foodstuffs North Island's (Foodstuffs) FRT trial, highlighting key insights for organisations considering the future use of this technology.[02:30] Suzy explains what FRT is and how it works by mapping and comparing facial features to create a biometric template for either verification (one-to-one matching) or identification (one-to-many matching), and how it's applied in different contexts.[04:00] Richard and Suzy discuss the privacy concerns associated with FRT, including mass surveillance, profiling, bias and accuracy, and cultural considerations under tikanga Māori. Suzy also highlights the OPC's guidance that biometric information should be considered as sensitive personal information requiring a high standard of care.[06:21] They consider the privacy safeguards implemented by Foodstuffs during their FRT trial to mitigate these risks including immediate deletion of unmatched facial data, strict watchlist criteria, exclusion of vulnerable individuals, decentralised systems, and human oversight to verify matches.[09:33] Richard notes that Foodstuffs' justification under IPP1 of the Privacy Act for using FRT was to reduce serious retail crime. Suzy then explains that the technology's demonstrated effectiveness in relation to this, was a key factor in the OPC's finding that the trial complied with the Privacy Act 2020, further supported by Foodstuffs' strong emphasis on transparency and public engagement throughout its rollout.[12:21] Suzy emphasises the OPC's clear message and key finding, that the Foodstuffs trial report does not constitute a blanket approval for the use of FRT. They then discuss the OPC's recommended considerations for organisations contemplating FRT deployment, noting the overall importance of robust privacy governance processes.[17:54] Suzy then discusses the impact of the new Biometric Processing Privacy Code (the Code), which comes into force on 3 November. The Code will supplement the Privacy Act by introducing specific obligations for the use of biometric technologies such as FRT, signalling a more regulated future. She also refers listeners to our earlier podcast on the proposed Code.  Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 10 October 2025. Please contact Richard Wells, Suzy McMillan or our Data protection team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode.Please get in touch to receive an episode transcript and don't forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at techsuite@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.  Additional resources:For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Oct. 10, 2025Class Action Suit Filed by Voters Whose Personal Data was Shared in the Trump Administration's SAVE Database in Violation of 1974 Privacy ActThe Trump administration confirmed in September it is sharing drivers license and Social Security information among federal agencies from a massive database of personal and voter data.  A class action lawsuit by voters and pro-voter groups has been filed to stop it.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Stateline - (Aug 18)  Trump wants states to feed voter info into powerful citizenship data program Stateline - DOJ is sharing state voter roll lists with Homeland Security American Democracy Minute - Six More States Sued by Trump DOJ for Not Turning Over Voter's Personal Information.  It Could Be a Good Thing.NPR - 33 million voters have been run through a Trump administration citizenship checkLeague of Women Voters - Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Trump-Vance Administration's Unlawful “National Data Banks” That Consolidate Sensitive Personal Information Across Federal AgenciesU.S. District Court for DC - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEFCyberScoop - Voting groups ask court for immediate halt to Trump admin's SAVE database overhaulGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters, C.R.E.W., Electronic Privacy Information Center, Democracy Forward, Fair Elections Center Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #DOGE #PersonalData #SAVESystem #LWV #ClassAction

10/7/25: Sen Paul Mark: MA Data Privacy Act & Trump's military v Americans. Keith Fairey, CEO of Wayfinders & Alexis Breiteneicher, Ex Dir, Valley CDC: the housing crisis here & the federal role. GCC prof Brian Adams w/ Gazette columnist, environmentalist Johanna Neumann: Trump v solar. Astronomer Salman Hameed: outer space treaties & Trump v NASA.

Texas Values Report with special guest Brooke Slusser, Save Women's Sports and Women's Privacy Leader from Texas, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as they discuss the Texas Women's Privacy Act which was signed into law early last week. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

DEAR PAO: Harassment received from an online lending app company, violation of Sections 28 and 31 of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 | Sept. 28, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Where do your constitutional protections begin and end? The dividing line between private actions and state authority forms the heart of a fascinating BC Court of Appeal decision that clarifies when ordinary citizens become "agents of the police."The case centers on Loomis Courier employees who, at police direction, set aside suspicious packages for warrantless seizure during a drug investigation. Unlike previous cases involving independent security guards or school administrators, these employees were acting on specific police instructions. The Court established that the key test is whether individuals would have conducted themselves the same way "but for" police involvement—a crucial distinction that determines whether evidence can be excluded from criminal trials.Privacy rights received further examination in a separate ruling that overturned a class action against the doctor rating website RateMDs.com. The Court determined that publicly available professional information—like a doctor's office address or phone number—doesn't carry a reasonable expectation of privacy protected under BC's Privacy Act. This distinction between truly private information and professional details available through other sources highlights the contextual nature of privacy protections in the digital age.The Court also addressed the tension between professional standards and constitutional freedoms in a case involving a lawyer disciplined for sharing inappropriate "locker room talk" about a judge with a client. While not condoning the behavior, the ruling emphasized that regulatory bodies must balance conduct requirements against fundamental rights like freedom of expression—even when regulating professionals whose speech carries special responsibilities.These rulings collectively illustrate how courts navigate the complex intersection of individual rights, professional obligations, and state authority. They remind us that understanding these boundaries is essential in a world where the line between private and public actions continues to blur. What private actions in your life might unexpectedly cross into constitutional territory?Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

The Privacy Commissioner has issued a warning for retailers who aim to publicly shame shoplifters. The Commissioner says businesses posting CCTV footage and images of crimes on social media causes 'real harm' - and doing so breaks privacy laws. Michael Webster says many of these images are posted to shame the perpetrators as opposed to sharing information - which breaches the Privacy Act. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After years of trying to conceive, Isabel Lewis thought the hard part was over — until cybercriminals targeted her fertility clinic. The data breach at Genea Fertility included patient's medical histories, diagnoses and treatments, medications and prescriptions, as well as pathology and diagnostic test results. Now, hundreds of Australians have shown interest in a class action lawsuit over the breach, which could be the first test of new reforms to Australia's Privacy Act. - อิซาเบล ลูอิส พยายามมีลูกอยู่หลายปี เธอนึกว่าการตั้งครรภ์นั้นเป็นช่วงที่ยากเย็นที่สุดแล้ว จนกระทั่งพบว่าอาชญากรออนไลน์ได้เล่นงานคลินิกรักษาผู้มีบุตรยากที่เธอเคยใช้บริการ คลินิกรักษาผู้มีบุตรยากที่ชื่อว่าเจเนียได้เก็บข้อมูลทางการแพทย์ของคนไข้ไว้หลากหลายประเภท ได้แก่ ประวัติทางการแพทย์ ประวัติวินิจฉัยโรค ประวัติการรักษา ประวัติการใช้ยา ผลตรวจเลือด ไปจนถึงผลการทดสอบการวินิจฉัยโรค ขณะนี้มีผู้เสียหายชาวออสเตรเลียหลายร้อยคนจ่อฟ้องคลินิกฐานละเมิดข้อมูลส่วนบุคคล ซึ่งอาจนำไปสู่การปฏิรูปกฎหมายคุ้มครองข้อมูลส่วนตัวของออสเตรเลีย

After years of trying to conceive, Isabel Lewis thought the hard part was over — until cybercriminals targeted her fertility clinic. The data breach at Genea Fertility included patient's medical histories, diagnoses and treatments, medications and prescriptions, as well as pathology and diagnostic test results. Now, hundreds of Australians have shown interest in a class action lawsuit over the breach, which could be the first test of new reforms to Australia's Privacy Act.

The data breach at Genea Fertility included patient's medical histories, diagnoses and treatments, medications and prescriptions, as well as pathology and diagnostic test results. Now, hundreds of Australians have shown interest in a class action lawsuit over the breach, which could be the first test of new reforms to Australia's Privacy Act. - Pelanggaran data di Genea Fertility mencakup riwayat medis pasien, diagnosis dan pengobatan, obat-obatan dan resep, serta hasil tes patologi dan diagnostik. Ratusan warga Australia berminat untuk mengajukan gugatan class action terkait kebocoran tersebut, yang berpotensi menjadi ujian pertama bagi Undang-Undang Privasi Australia.

Watch #TexasValuesReport with special guest Christie Slape, Moms for Liberty Texas Ambassador & Legislative Committee Co-Chair, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as they discuss the impact of the Texas Women's Privacy Act, the exciting upcoming Texas Faith Fest event in the Hill Country, and the ongoing debate at the State Board of Education over social studies standards! Learn more about Texas' new law providing safety for girls and women in women's showers, locker rooms, restrooms, and more. http://protectwomensprivacytexas.com Learn more about Texas Ten Commandments Law http://tencommandmentstexas.com Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Watch #TexasValuesReport live now with special guest Senator Angela Paxton (SD 8), and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as they discuss SB 13 which effectively resolves the issue of porn remaining in our school libraries. Join us at Texas Faith Fest in the heart of the hill country September 26-27! We have an incredible lineup of speakers including Senator Angela Paxton, Governor Greg Abbott, all three Texas Comptroller candidates Christi Craddick, Kelly Hancock, Don Huffines with Konni Burton moderating the panel, and so many more speakers who will educate, motivate, activate you into becoming a more engaged citizen. Every year, this event continues to impact lives, people have decided to run for office and even given their lives to Christ after coming to this event. We're excited to see the amazing things that come from this year's event and we hope it involves YOU! Register today at http://texasfaithfest.com. Read about new laws that went into effect September 1, 2025: https://txvalues.org/release-new-texas-laws-update-texas-take-effect-next-week/ Texas Women's Privacy Act is headed to Governor Greg Abbott's desk! https://txvalues.org/breaking-texas-womens-privacy-act-headed-to-governors-desk/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Some states in our nation are "coming apart at the seams" as they've capitulated to an agenda that's contrary to biblical authority and morality. Texas, however, is fighting this trend. Providing details was Jonathan Saenz. He's president and attorney for Texas Values, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving and advancing a culture of family values in the state of Texas. Prior to leading Texas Values, Jonathan headed the First Liberty Institute offices in Austin where he served as Director of Legislative Affairs as well as Attorney for First Liberty Institute. He's been involved in numerous court cases including those before the Texas Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. Jim had Jonathan comment on numerous issues including: The Texas heartbeat law, Men invading women's sports (The Save Women's Sports Act and the Texas Women's Privacy Act), chemical abortion drugs, prayer in public schools, and more. Find out how Texas is handling these issues, learn about the Texas Faith Fest, and how you can make a difference in your state, on this edition of Crosstalk.

Some states in our nation are "coming apart at the seams" as they've capitulated to an agenda that's contrary to biblical authority and morality. Texas, however, is fighting this trend. Providing details was Jonathan Saenz. He's president and attorney for Texas Values, a nonprofit group dedicated to preserving and advancing a culture of family values in the state of Texas. Prior to leading Texas Values, Jonathan headed the First Liberty Institute offices in Austin where he served as Director of Legislative Affairs as well as Attorney for First Liberty Institute. He's been involved in numerous court cases including those before the Texas Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. Jim had Jonathan comment on numerous issues including: The Texas heartbeat law, Men invading women's sports (The Save Women's Sports Act and the Texas Women's Privacy Act), chemical abortion drugs, prayer in public schools, and more. Find out how Texas is handling these issues, learn about the Texas Faith Fest, and how you can make a difference in your state, on this edition of Crosstalk.

Senator Mayes Middleton, businessman and Texas State Senator representing the 11th district, joins the conversation to discuss several major issues shaping Texas politics. He weighs in on the upcoming Attorney General race, talks about the importance of the “big, beautiful map” in redistricting, and explains his push for the Women's Privacy Act, a bill that sparked Democrat protests in the state rotunda. Middleton also highlights his legislation aimed at removing runaway Democrats from office when they abandon their duties. Follow him on X at @MayesMiddleton for updates on his work in Texas.

John talks with Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach about four northeast Kansas school districts that are under investigation for alleged Title IX and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act violations

There are fears limited information sharing is hindering authorities efforts to tackle transnational crime. A report from a Ministerial Advisory Group focused on organised crime says there's sparse coordination between agencies, technological limitations, and people are fearful of sharing what could be useful information. It's recommending a new sharing framework and tweaks to the Privacy Act to make it easier. Chair Steve Symon told Mike Hosking change is needed. He says he's been a prosecutor for 20 years and it's been the bane of their existence, which has worsened over time as agencies become more siloed and risk adverse. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this month's episode of Affording Your Life, I am joined by Deputy Attorney General Jessica Whitney and Assistant Attorney General Caitlin Micko, to talk about the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act and what it means for you. Learn more about the MCDPA by visiting privacymn.com. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit affordingyourlife.substack.com

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Kylee Alons, @icons_women Ambassador, & host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as they discuss the importance of the Texas Women's Privacy Act. #txlege #protectwomensprivacy To learn more about Texas Women's privacy Act, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com/ Read our latest press release here: https://txvalues.org/breaking-texas-senate-passes-texas-womens-privacy-act/ Join us at Texas Faith Fest September 26-27 with lead keynote Governor Abbott and approx. 30 additional leaders across the nation http://texasfaithfest.com/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

The Senate held hearings on the Women's Privacy Act while the nation was watching the Democrats run from their obligations.

Judas Kiss is a 2011 film about a failed filmmaker returning to his alma mater to judge the same film contest that launched his own film career, only to find himself reliving parts of his own past. Join Z, Hal, and returning guest host Jennie as they discuss the mechanics of time travel, Brechtian filmmaking, and the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act.We'd like to thank EnoffMusic for our theme song.TW: this film and our discussion of it contains depictions of childhood sexual assault and incest, selfcest, abusive relationship dynamics, addiction and recovery, and sexual themes.

Guest: Mary Elizabeth CastleOrganization: Texas ValuesPosition: Director of Government RelationsTopic: A special session of the TX Legislature, which includes a bill called the Texas Women's Privacy Act, which protects females' private spaces, such as restroomsWebsite: txvalues.org, protectwomensprivacytexas.com

Guest: Mary Elizabeth CastleOrganization: Texas ValuesPosition: Director of Government RelationsTopic: A special session of the TX Legislature, which includes a bill called the Texas Women's Privacy Act, which protects females' private spaces, such as restroomsWebsite: txvalues.org, protectwomensprivacytexas.com

Aaron J. Burstein, Andrea deLorimier On July 8, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a settlement with TicketNetwork, Inc. for alleged violations of the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA). The settlement is the first publicly announced enforcement action under the state's comprehensive privacy statute, which went into effect on July 1, 2023.

In this episode of The Right Idea, co-hosts Brian Phillips and Derek Cohen sit down with Jill Tate, Vice President of Legislation for the Texas Federation of Republican Women and a powerhouse conservative activist. Jill shares her journey from a young Reagan supporter to a key player in Texas politics, diving into critical issues like school choice, property taxes, energy policy, and the fight against taxpayer-funded lobbying. They also discuss the resilience of Texas culture, the upcoming special session, and what's next for the 90th Legislature.05:13 - Jill Tate's background as a Texas super activist and precinct chair06:02 - How Jill got involved in conservative activism and politics10:02 - Evolution of Texas politics and the shift to a conservative stronghold14:39 - Texas cultural resilience and the significance of the Alamo21:03 - Recap of the 89th Legislature: Successes in school choice, energy, and AI23:31 - Jill's personal story on school choice and its impact on her son30:03 - Energy policy: Nuclear power and securing Texas' grid33:59 - SB 1283: Protecting seniors in retirement communities37:24 - Special session priorities: Women's Privacy Act and ending STAAR testing42:30 - Looking ahead to the 90th Legislature: Energy and emerging issues45:11 - Water issues in Texas: Balancing rural and urban needs46:40 - Gambling in Texas: Concerns about social and economic impacts49:33 - Reforming Texas' committee process for better legislative hearings1:05:11 - The fight to end taxpayer-funded lobbying in Texas

An Idaho grassroots organization is working to collect signatures for the initiative called the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.”

The Department of Defense's Office of the Chief Information Officer is considering reducing the number of Pentagon employees who have Microsoft 365 E5 licenses, as it works with the Trump administration to rein in federal spending. The DOD currently maintains more than 2 million Microsoft 365 E5 licenses across two separate programs — the Defense Enterprise Office Solution (DEOS) and the Enterprise Software Initiative (DOD ESI). Through the established contracts, Pentagon components can purchase software licenses for commercial Microsoft products, including Office 365 applications and other collaboration tools. But ongoing efforts spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have prompted the Defense Department to review how many of those licenses it actually needs, Katie Arrington, who is performing the duties of Pentagon CIO, told DefenseScoop. Arrington said June 6 in an exclusive interview: “Our Microsoft 365 contract [is a] very big contract here in the Department of Defense. Does every individual in the Department of Defense need an [E5] license? Absolutely not.” With the department's Deputy CIO for the Information Enterprise Bill Dunlap, Arrington has been working alongside her DOGE representative to review individual position descriptions and multi-level securities to determine what level of Microsoft 365 E5 license that person needs, she said. Other criteria being considered include user and mission requirements for office productivity software, as well as collaboration capabilities, a DOD CIO spokesperson told DefenseScoop. Ten congressional Democrats are demanding answers from Palantir about reports that it is aiding the IRS in building a searchable, governmentwide “mega-database” to house Americans' sensitive information. In a letter sent Tuesday to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, the lawmakers argued that the creation of a database of that kind likely violates several federal laws, including the Privacy Act. The Democrats wrote: “The unprecedented possibility of a searchable, ‘mega-database' of tax returns and other data that will potentially be shared with or accessed by other federal agencies is a surveillance nightmare that raises a host of legal concerns, not least that it will make it significantly easier for Donald Trump's Administration to spy on and target his growing list of enemies and other Americans.” The letter, led by Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., follows New York Times reporting last month that detailed the expansion of Palantir's federal government work under the Trump administration, noting that the data-mining giant has received $113 million since the president's January inauguration plus another $795 million award from the Defense Department. According to the Times, Palantir has spoken to IRS and Social Security Administration representatives about buying its tech. The Democrats' letter said Foundry — a Palantir data analysis and organization product — has been deployed at the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

Daily Scoop listeners and readers of FedScoop will recall the shocking news earlier this year when 18F, a decade-old digital services consultancy in the General Services Administration, was shuttered by the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. Members of the team have banded together since their termination to keep an active presence online through 18F.org in the wake of their dismantling. But the group isn't going out without a fight. Several senior members of 18F in late May filed a class action appeal to the Merit System Protection Board claiming that GSA lacked a “valid reason” for firing them and targeted them as an act of “retaliation” for their political beliefs. In the appeal, they call for a hearing and to have their removal reversed. Lindsay Young is the former executive director of 18F and one of the name appellants representing the class in the appeal. She joins the podcast for a conversation about how the “deletion” of 18F went down, what she and her team have been doing since, and what they hope to accomplish with the appeal. U.S. officials violated federal privacy law and flouted cybersecurity protocol in sharing Office of Personnel Management records with DOGE affiliates, a federal district court judge in New York ruled Monday, granting a request for a preliminary injunction against the administration. In a 99-page order, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that federal worker and union plaintiffs had shown that the government defendants in the challenge shared OPM records with “individuals who had no legal right of access to those records” in violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 and cybersecurity standards. “This was a breach of law and of trust,” Cote said in the order. “Tens of millions of Americans depend on the Government to safeguard records that reveal their most private and sensitive affairs.” The ruling is the latest in a challenge to DOGE's data access at OPM brought by a coalition of federal unions and current and former government employees or contractors. A new executive order from President Donald Trump aims to boost drone manufacturing in the United States, an effort the administration hopes will spur productivity and technological development and secure the country's industrial base. Meanwhile, a second executive order aims to combat the risk that, as drone usage proliferates, the technology could also be used to threaten public safety and endanger critical infrastructure. The “Unleashing American Drone Dominance” and “Restoring American Airspace Sovereignty” executive orders, both signed last Friday, come amid growing concerns about the operation of the National Airspace System, the airspace the Federal Aviation Administration monitors for commercial flights, space launches, and other aerial activity. Drones, sometimes called unmanned aerial systems, are also used to smuggle drugs and assist in criminal activity. Unauthorized UASs have increasingly shown up near some nuclear facilities, military bases, and commercial airports, raising concerns, too. The new executive order on airspace sovereignty aims to combat the problem, broadly charging federal agencies to detect drone activity, which will require the use of tracking and identification technology. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 19th Amendment Passed in SenateOn June 4, 1919, the U.S. Congress passed the 19th Amendment, marking a turning point in American constitutional and civil rights history. The amendment stated simply that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex," legally enfranchising millions of women. The road to this moment was long and contentious, spanning more than seven decades of organized activism. Early suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony laid the groundwork in the 19th century, while a new generation, including Alice Paul and the National Woman's Party, employed more confrontational tactics in the 1910s.Although the House of Representatives had passed the amendment earlier in the year, the Senate had repeatedly failed to approve it. The June 4 vote in the Senate—passing by just over the required two-thirds majority—was the final congressional hurdle. The legislative victory came amid shifting national sentiment, in part due to women's contributions during World War I and growing pressure from suffrage organizations.The amendment was then sent to the states, needing ratification by three-fourths to become law. That process concluded over a year later with Tennessee's pivotal ratification on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was certified on August 26, finally making women's suffrage the law of the land. This day marks not just a legal transformation but the culmination of one of the most significant civil rights struggles in U.S. history.Disbarred attorney Tom Girardi was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison for stealing $15 million in settlement funds from his clients. U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton also imposed a $35,000 fine and ordered Girardi to pay over $2.3 million in restitution. The sentence followed his August 2024 conviction on four counts of wire fraud. Girardi, who turned 86 on the day of his sentencing, had sought leniency due to age, liver issues, and dementia claims, but the court found him competent and sided with prosecutors who sought a significant term.Girardi's legacy was once tied to his successful pollution suit against Pacific Gas and Electric—dramatized in the film Erin Brockovich. However, his downfall involved stealing settlement funds in various personal injury cases, including millions owed to families of victims of the 2018 Boeing 737 MAX crash. A federal judge in Chicago recently dismissed related charges, citing the active California case, though the prosecution of Girardi's son-in-law, David Lira, is still set to proceed there. Lira denies wrongdoing.At trial, Girardi blamed the fraud on Christopher Kamon, his firm's former CFO, who has already been sentenced to over ten years after pleading guilty. Girardi's attorneys continue to claim cognitive decline, but the court maintained that he was mentally fit to face justice.Lawyer Tom Girardi sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud | ReutersA federal appeals court is set to hear its first case reviewing the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Seattle as the Trump administration appeals a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The directive, signed by Trump on January 20, his first day back in office, seeks to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children whose parents are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.Critics—including 22 Democratic attorneys general and immigrant advocacy groups—argue the order violates the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to grant citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland have also issued rulings blocking the order. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, which heard related arguments on May 15, is considering whether to limit lower courts' power to issue nationwide injunctions rather than deciding on the constitutionality of the policy itself.If implemented, the order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 newborns annually, according to the plaintiffs. The lawsuit before the 9th Circuit was filed by several states and individual pregnant women. The three-judge panel includes two Clinton-era appointees and one Trump appointee, potentially shaping the outcome. The administration maintains that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of undocumented or temporary-status immigrants, a stance at odds with long-standing interpretations of the 14th Amendment.To be clear, this case revolves around the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of the United States,” forming the basis of birthright citizenship. The case centers on how this clause should be interpreted, making it the key constitutional question in this challenge. On the side of birthright citizenship is, frankly, the plain language of the amendment. On the side of the executive order are racists and racist people without basic reading comprehension – full stop. There is no “other side” here, and there is no real debate. Ultimately the courts may decide to pretend there is some nuance, but that changes nothing about the clear language of the amendment. Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court reviewA group of former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employees has filed a class action lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Elon Musk, alleging that their departments used flawed data to justify the firing of 10,000 federal workers. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that HHS and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk leads, violated the 1974 Privacy Act by using inaccurate personnel records during a mass reduction in force (RIF).The plaintiffs argue that the agencies relied on data riddled with errors, including incorrect performance reviews, job descriptions, and office locations. One named plaintiff, Catherine Jackson, reportedly received an RIF notice based on false performance ratings. Another, Melissa Adams, was allegedly terminated by officials who didn't even know her work location.The lawsuit seeks at least $1,000 in damages per affected employee and a court declaration that the government's actions were unlawful. The complaint also suggests that the terminations were ideologically driven, referencing a troubling incident where an FDA employee was warned by a man invoking DOGE shortly before receiving her RIF notice.The mass firings, which began April 1, impacted key HHS agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Kennedy defended the cuts as part of a broader reorganization to address chronic disease. The plaintiffs, however, see the action as a politically motivated purge that disregarded legal safeguards.By way of brief background, the Privacy Act of 1974 mandates that federal agencies maintain accurate records when making decisions that adversely affect individuals. It is central to the lawsuit because the plaintiffs claim their terminations were based on data that was factually wrong, violating this statutory requirement.RFK Jr., Musk Accused of Using Faulty Data in Firing HHS WorkersA new conflict over federal spending power is emerging between the Trump White House and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), centered on a $5 billion electric vehicle infrastructure program. The GAO recently concluded that the Trump administration's pause of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) grants—originally authorized under President Biden's 2021 infrastructure law—violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which prohibits presidents from withholding funds for policy reasons. In response, the White House issued a sharply worded memo instructing the Department of Transportation to disregard the GAO's opinion entirely.The memo, written by OMB general counsel Mark Paoletta, accuses the GAO of partisan bias and undermining President Trump's “historic and lawful spending reforms.” It signals a broader strategy to challenge the authority of congressional watchdogs and reframe presidential control over budget implementation. This dispute could serve as the first legal test of Trump's intent to challenge the constitutionality of the Impoundment Act itself.The delay in EV funding is part of a broader rollback of Biden-era policy priorities, including guidance on equity and charger placement. Meanwhile, the administration has proposed over $9 billion in spending rescissions, aimed at areas like public broadcasting and foreign aid, under Trump's Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Advisors have floated a tactic called “pocket rescission,” a timing strategy that critics argue violates legal requirements for obligating federal funds.This isn't the first time a president has clashed with GAO over spending powers—Trump and Biden both previously faced scrutiny for pauses in Ukraine aid and border wall funds, respectively. However, the White House's open defiance of GAO marks a significant escalation in an ongoing constitutional debate over who ultimately controls the federal purse.More specifically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch from withholding or delaying funds Congress has appropriated unless explicitly authorized. It plays a central role in this dispute, as the GAO argues Trump's delay of NEVI grants constitutes an illegal impoundment, while the administration disputes the law's constitutionality and GAO's oversight role.White House Memo on EV Grants Sets Up Fight Over Spending Power - Bloomberg This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Senator Angela Paxton, District 8, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as they discuss SB 13 by Sen. Paxton, which would protect children from harmful sexual materials from public school classrooms. TODAY: Important Religious Freedom, Pro-life Bills on House Floor! https://txvalues.org/today-important-religious-freedom-pro-life-bills-on-house-floor/ CALL NOW: Ban Explicit Books in School Libraries and Drag Queen Story Hour https://txvalues.org/call-now-ban-explicit-books-in-school-libraries-and-drag-queen-story-hour/ Breaking! Graduate to an Advanced Level of Citizenship with Launch of Texas Values University https://txvalues.org/breaking-graduate-to-an-advanced-level-of-citizenship-with-launch-of-texas-values-university/ Join us for San Antonio Legislative Update and Lunch on Friday, June 6, 12-1:30pm. Registration link coming soon! Txvalues.org/events NEW Website! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://txvalues.org/texas-womens-privacy-act/ Visit https://www.eaglepeakshootingrange.com/ to support our good friend Jim Day; owner of two shooting ranges, who shares your values. Sign up for text alerts by texting the word TXVALUES to 797979 Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Report says a deal has been struck on the now $8.5 billion increase in funds for Texas public schools between the House and Senate.On the get-high THC front, where Rep. Ken King and other House members are working hard to keep THC-infused drinks and edibles for sale in Texas (shameful!,) the bill was postponed again yesterday and the House adjourned without hearing it. You really should read: Fight heats up over hemp-based THC on eve of House vote as Lt. Gov. Patrick weighs in Veterans, Parents, Liquor, and Beer: The Complicated Lobby Fight Over Texas' Proposed THC Ban Other items covered from the Legislature include: Rep. Ken King is still blocking the Texas Women's Privacy Act - call his office at 512-463-0736 and ask for a hearing of SB 240. Effort To Remove the Marvin Nichols Reservoir Project From State Water Plan Dies in House Texas passes bill to protect utility workers from assault Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Number of 'Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn' Grows to 58; Big Sandy passes full ordinance.As promised, this link: Northside ISD sued over teacher's alleged 'Go back to Africa' comment.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

As Elon Musk steps away from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the chaotic legacy of his aggressive assault on federal agencies continues to reverberate throughout the government. Musk's goal — slashing $1 trillion from the federal budget — has fallen far short. At most, it has cut $31.8 billion of federal funding, a number that the Financial Times reports is “opaque and overstated.” Notably, the richest man on Earth's businesses have received a comparable amount of government funding, most of it going to SpaceX, which remains untouched by DOGE's budget ax.Stepping in to carry the torch is Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and a key architect of Project 2025, the sweeping conservative playbook to consolidate executive power. Under his stewardship, DOGE will continue its mission to dismantle the federal government from within.”Access to all of this information gives extraordinary power to the worst people,” says Mark Lemley, the director of Stanford Law School's program in law, science, and technology. Lemley is suing DOGE on behalf of federal employees for violating the Privacy Act. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Lemley and Intercept newsroom counsel and reporter Shawn Musgrave join host Jordan Uhl to take stock of the legal challenges mounting against the Trump administration's agenda. As the executive branch grows more hostile to checks on its powers, the courts remain the last, fragile line of defense. “ There have now been hundreds of court decisions on issues, some involving the Privacy Act, but a wide variety of the Trump administration's illegal activities,” says Lemley. In partnership with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and State Democracy Defenders, Lemley's suit accuses the U.S. Office of Personnel Management of violating the federal Privacy Act by handing over sensitive data to DOGE without consent or legal authority.Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us to hear from the Texas Values Policy Team as they give an update on what happened this week, during the 89th Legislative Session, at the Texas State Capitol. #txlege Quick End of Week Update! Part 1: Women's Privacy Act, Ed bills, & more NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Join us to hear from the Texas Values Policy Team as they give an update on what happened this week, during the 89th Legislative Session, at the Texas State Capitol. #txlege Quick End of Week Update! Part 1: Women's Privacy Act, Ed bills, & more NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Join us to hear from the Texas Values Policy Team as they give an update on what happened this week, during the 89th Legislative Session, at the Texas State Capitol. #txlege Quick End of Week Update! Part 1: Women's Privacy Act, Ed bills, & more NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Join us to hear from the Texas Values Policy Team as they give an update on what happened this week, during the 89th Legislative Session, at the Texas State Capitol. #txlege Quick End of Week Legislative Update! Part 2: Legislative Deadlines & Priority Senate Bills NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Watch #texasvaluesreport with special guest Amie Ichikawa, Independent Women Ambassador, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as Amie shares her story of being incarcerated in a women's prison with a male inmate. Watch our press conference during Women's Privacy Day of Action at the Texas Capitol. ALERT: We are at the end of the week and Chairman Ken King still has not set a hearing for SB 240, the Texas Women's Privacy Act. Time is running out! Call Chairman Ken King's office TODAY to ask for a hearing for SB 240! (512) 463-0736 Read full Action Alert here: https://buff.ly/G5i0eza Victory Channel interview with host Mike Garofalo and guest Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values on the Texas Women's Privacy Act. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1GhqV8oxBo/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Once again the Texas House and its Speaker appointed committee chairman are killing important legislation – with the clock. Why do they not have the integrity, or guts, to just admit they oppose certain bills? Well, because they have neither integrity or guts.But even with the sad reality of the same old bill killing going on, and much of it from Rep. Ken King, many good bills are making it through.Items from the 89th Legislature mentioned: Prohibition on Local Taxpayer-Funded Gun ‘Buybacks' Passes House TSRA calls for action today to support to important gun bills: SB 1362 and SB 1065. House Committee Kills Anti-ESG Effort in Late Vote Texas Values, National Groups Call for Texas House to Pass Texas Women's Privacy Act on ‘Women's Privacy Day of Action' Bill to protect parents against child abuse charges for refusing to go along with perversions of homosexuality and “trans” behavior passes House. House Passes Bipartisan Reform to Affordable Housing Tax Exemption Program House Transportation committee votes bill out that takes $25 million per year from Harris Co., gives it to City of Houston House panel debates proposal to penalize local governments any time a complaint is made that state law is being circumvented Details Emerge on Senate Remix of School Funding Bill Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.San Antonio mother accused of aiding in son's threats against local school.Five Texas cities make national cheapests cities in which to retire list. Amarillo, Brownsville, El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Lubbock.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as they discuss the Lt. Governor being appointed to the Religious Liberty Commission in addition to the Texas legislature. #txlege Women's Privacy Day of Action at the Texas Capitol Wed. May 14, 9am - 4pm. RSVP today by emailing info@txvalues.org! https://txvalues.org/join-us-wednesday-may-14-to-fight-for-texas-womens-privacy-act/ NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://txvalues.org/texas-womens-privacy-act/ Join us for Texas Values Tarrant County Legislative Update and Benefit Dinner in Fort Worth on May 10 with keynote Dr. Eithan Haim, Child "Sex-Change" Whistleblower at Texas Children's Hospital, Brooke Slusser, Save Women's Sports Leader from Texas, and more! https://txvalues.org/events/ Visit https://www.eaglepeakshootingrange.com/ to support our good friend Jim Day; owner of two shooting ranges, who shares your values. President Trump appoints Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Chair of Religious Liberty Commission https://x.com/DanPatrick/status/1918069716049895427 https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1917983560545271924 Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Statement on the Texas Senate's Passage of ALL Top 40 Priority Bills https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2025/04/29/lt-gov-dan-patrick-statement-on-the-texas-senates-passage-of-all-top-40-priority-bills/ Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Announces Second Round of Top 40 Priority Bills for the 2025 Legislative Session https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2025/03/13/lt-gov-dan-patrick-announces-second-round-of-top-40-priority-bills-for-the-2025-legislative-session/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Send us a textOur good friend Dr. Sean Brooks is back with us tonight to discuss the dark side of the broken American Educational business. We're talking educational technology misuse, what constitutes Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) violations, who the mandatory reporters are, how that gets done, and how it's a group effort if you want to take down a school district or specified individuals. There's a lot to learn so let's get at it!Dr. Sean Brooks links: https://americaneducationfm.com/The American Classroom Substack: https://theamericanclassroom.substack.com/Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act; FERPA:  https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/file-a-complaint  Office of Civil Rights:  https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/retaliation/retaliation-discrimination  https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/file-complaint  Ohio Educator complaint forms: https://sboe.ohio.gov/professional-conduct/report-educator-misconduct SUPPORT THE SHOWSubscribeStar http://bit.ly/42Y0qM8Super Chat Tip https://bit.ly/42W7iZHBuzzsprout https://bit.ly/3m50hFTPaypal http://bit.ly/3Gv3ZjpPatreon http://bit.ly/3G37AVx SMART is the acronym that was created by technocrats that have setup the "internet of things" that will eventually enslave humanity to their needs. Support the showCONNECT WITH USWebsite https://www.dangerousinfopodcast.com/Guilded Chatroom http://bit.ly/42OayqyEmail the show dangerousinfopodcast@protonmail.comJoin mailing list http://bit.ly/3Kku5YtSOCIALSInstagram https://www.instagram.com/dangerousinfo/Twitter https://twitter.com/jaymz_jesseGab https://gab.com/JessejaymzTruth Social https://truthsocial.com/@jessejaymzWATCH LIVERumble https://rumble.com/c/DangerousInfoPodcastTwitch https://www.twitch.tv/dangerousinfopodcastPilled https://pilled.net/profile/144176Facebook https://www.facebook.com/DangerousInfoPodcast/BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/egnticQyZgxDCloutHub https://clouthub.com/DangerousINFOpodcastDLive https://dlive.tv/DangerousINFOpodcast Send stuff: Jesse Jaymz, PO Box 541, Clarkston, MI 48347

Join us to hear from the Texas Values Policy Team as they give an update on what happened this week, during the 89th Legislative Session, at the Texas State Capitol. #txlege NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Watch #texasvaluesreport with special guest Representative Ellen Troxclair, District 19, and host Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values as they discuss the #WomensBillOfRights. #txlege #DontEraseWomen #whatisawoman NEW Website Launch! To show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act and hear the stories of female's who have been affected by men entering into women's private spaces, visit https://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Sign our petition to show your support for Texas Women's Privacy Act https://txvalues.org/texas-womens-privacy-act/ Join us for Texas Values Tarrant County Legislative Update and Benefit Dinner in Fort Worth on May 10 with keynote Dr. Eithan Haim, Child "Sex-Change" Whistleblower at Texas Children's Hospital, Brooke Slusser, Save Women's Sports Leader from Texas, and more! https://txvalues.org/events/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org To support our work, go to donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

QFF: Quick Fire Friday – Your 20-Minute Growth Powerhouse!   Welcome to Quick Fire Friday, the Grow A Small Business podcast series that is designed to deliver simple, focused and actionable insights and key takeaways in less than 20 minutes a week.   Every Friday, we bring you business owners and experts who share their top strategies for growing yourself, your team and your small business. Get ready for a dose of inspiration, one action you can implement and quotable quotes that will stick with you long after the episode ends!   In this episode of Quick Fire Friday, host Amanda Jones interviews Theo Kapodistrias, from Theo Kapodistrias Speaking & Coaching, an experienced in-house lawyer, speaker, and author. Theo discusses several sneaky legal landmines that small to medium-sized businesses often overlook, such as automatic software renewals, potential breaches of Competition and Consumer Law through misleading product claims, and HR issues related to employment law. He emphasises the importance of establishing good operational processes for managing legal matters and maintaining a central repository for all business contracts and documentation. Furthermore, Theo highlights the value of having clear and easy-to-understand contracts to streamline negotiations and improve productivity. P.s The information shared in this episode is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified legal professional. Other Resources: QFF: Mastering Leadership Communication with Theo Kapodistrias: Insights from a Successful Speaker and Communication Coach with Over a Decade of Experience, Helping Businesses Achieve Success and Generate Millions Revenue. (Episode 532- Theo Kapodistrias) A Way With Words: Advice from the TEDx frontline on how to cut the crap and deliver a killer message whatever the communication method by Theo Kapodistrias Key Takeaways for Small Business Owners: Watch for Sneaky Legal Landmines in Contracts: Many small businesses sign software agreements with hidden clauses like automatic renewals and early termination penalties. Always review the fine print or get legal help before signing anything. Clear and Simple Contracts Save Time and Money: Theo emphasizes using easy-to-understand legal documents. Avoid overly complex language—clear contracts reduce negotiation time and accelerate sales, directly boosting revenue. Protect Customer Privacy – It's Not Optional: Transparency in how you collect, use, and store personal information is crucial. Be explicit in your privacy policy, get proper consent (especially for images), and prepare for upcoming changes in Australia's Privacy Act that will likely affect smaller businesses too. Our hero crafts outstanding reviews following the experience of listening to our special guests. Are you the one we've been waiting for? Legal Doesn't Have to Be a Handbrake on Innovation: Legal advice is best brought in before launching new products or campaigns. It helps avoid IP issues (like trademark infringements), ensures compliance, and supports sustainable growth—especially important for tech or creative businesses. Create a Legal Safety Net Without Feeling Restricted: Even without an in-house lawyer, businesses can benefit from periodic legal audits. Focus areas should include intellectual property, consumer law, insurance, contracts, and property leases. Prevention saves time, money, and stress later. Centralize and Organize All Your Contracts: Theo's top actionable tip: gather all contracts into one secure, central location. This makes renewals, compliance checks, and future reviews easier, and helps avoid costly surprises. One action small business owners can take: The One key action that Theo Kapodistrias advises small business owners to take immediately is to find all the contracts that their business has signed up to and put them in one place. He emphasises the importance of keeping these records tight, secure, and knowing where they are so they can be checked to prevent things from going wrong or being missed. Having a central repository of contracts can also be a great document to refer to and can support the business if needed. Amanda Jones, the host, also acknowledges the wisdom of this advice, noting her own scattered digital files . Do you have 2 minutes every Friday? Sign up to the Weekly Leadership Email. It's free and we can help you to maximize your time. Enjoyed the podcast? Please leave a review on iTunes or your preferred platform. Your feedback helps more small business owners discover our podcast and embark on their business growth journey.

TX Senate hearing on Women's Privacy Act; Tariff debateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What’s Trending: Jussie Smollett indicted on 16 felony charges, Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook, Jason reviews, ‘Captain Marvel’ and Washington’s Privacy Act passes overwhelmingly in the state Senate. Logan Bowers drops by to talk about his ethics complaint against Kshama Sawant. Jason asks for your help in defeating a horrible homeless encampment bill.