Podcasts about Privacy Act

The Greens are calling for a beefed-up Privacy Commissioner to tackle major breaches. The party's campaigning on plans for the Commissioner to apply for penalties of up to $500 thousand for breaches by individuals, and $10 million for corporations. Any penalty would have to go before the courts. Greens Co-Leader Marama Davidson says the Manage My Health hack showed the need to close the gap allowing companies to treat New Zealanders' data as an afterthought. She told Heather du Plessis-Allan the proposal would see penalties match those given for breaches of the Commerce Act – bringing privacy protection up to where it should already be. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: We go to court today as numerous court decisions are rendered which involve Texas and Texans: Fifth Circuit Lifts Block on Texas Age Requirements for Apps, Paxton Secures Major Victory Protecting Children Online By Requiring Age Verification and Parental Approval for Minors' App Downloads Texas Supreme Court Denies Review Of Heartbeat Act Procedure Court Clears Way for Texas to Enforce Migrant Arrest Law Attorney General Paxton Secures Emergency Court Order Forcing Discord to Protect Texas Children and Stop Lying to Parents School Trustees Can Bypass Education Bureaucracy To Force Records From ISDs 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.City of Denton sued for violation of the Texas Women's Privacy Act related to homosexual “Big Gay Swim Day” at a city owned pool where the event expressly advertises it will be for all ages and that changing rooms will be “gender-neutral.” Denton failed to stop the violation despite having been put on notice.Oil and gas drilling rig count calmed down last week, Texas added only one rig.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

County Executive Mark Poloncarz signs bill banning businesses from selling customer data full 1329 Tue, 26 May 2026 16:30:32 +0000 8pDiqDfRhRsRiwHB3mI1BCoxzoXlp6vQ news & politics,news WBEN Extras news & politics,news Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz signs the Biometric Transparency and Privacy Act banning businesses from selling customer data Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News & Politics

In the latest episode of On Just Terms, HSF Kramer partners Jason Betts and Rebecca Maslen-Stannage are joined by The Honourable Michelle Rowland MP, Attorney-General of Australia, for a wide-ranging discussion on the government's legal priorities. The Attorney-General shares insights on Privacy Act reform, the government's position on copyright and AI and why there is no text and data mining exception, scams and consumer protection, class actions and access to justice, and the critical importance of effective enforcement capability. This is a substantive discussion on the role of law in serving the public interest, and what lies ahead on Australia's legal agenda.

Send us your feedback In this episode, Partner Gillian Service and Senior Associate Joshua Kimpton explore New Zealand's employment law change and how it borrows from concepts in Australia. They are joined by MinterEllison Sydney Partner Gordon Williams to draw on insights from the Australian market.[00:04] Gillian is joined by Joshua in Auckland and Gordon from Sydney to provide an Australian perspective. Joshua outlines the core features of the new legislation, including the NZD200,000 specified remuneration threshold and the statutory mechanism for future annual increases.[02:28] Gillian highlights the limited change to good faith obligations, explaining where employers are released from consultation requirements and where broader good faith duties still apply.[03:45] Gordon shares Australia's long standing experience with a high income threshold, noting how it operates in practice and why unfair dismissal remains a key risk consideration for employers.[06:18] The discussion turns to alternative claims such as adverse action and general protections, with Gordon explaining how employees often pursue these claims when unfair dismissal is unavailable.[11:27] Gillian and Gordon explore how employers manage termination risk for high income employees, including performance management, restructures, and negotiated exits.[15:37] Gordon explains how Australia sets and updates its high income threshold, what counts toward earnings, and where grey areas can arise, particularly around benefits and part time work.[19:33] The conversation compares New Zealand's ability to contract back into the personal grievance regime with Australia's system and considers how market dynamics and recruitment pressures may influence employer choices[24:59] The episode concludes with reflections on policies, Privacy Act requests, documentation risks, and the ongoing importance of good faith under the new high-income threshold regime.  Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 19 March 2026. Please contact Gillian Service, Joshua Kimpton or our Employment team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. And don't forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at website.enquiries@minterellison.co.nz and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here. For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

This Day in Legal History: Nix v. HeddenOn April 24, 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court received submissions in Nix v. Hedden, the famous case asking whether a tomato should be treated as a fruit or a vegetable. The question sounds like the setup to a joke, but the legal issue was practical and financial: under the Tariff Act of 1883, imported vegetables were taxed, while fruits were not.That meant the classification of tomatoes had real consequences for importers bringing tomatoes into the United States. The plaintiffs argued that tomatoes are fruits in the botanical sense because they grow from the flower of the plant and contain seeds. The government argued that, whatever botanists might say, tomatoes were commonly bought, sold, cooked, and eaten as vegetables.The Supreme Court sided with the government. In its decision, the Court held that the tariff law should be read according to the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” not their technical scientific meanings. Justice Horace Gray explained that tomatoes are usually served with dinner, not dessert, and are understood in common speech as vegetables.The case became a lasting example of how courts interpret statutes by looking at the way language is used in everyday life. It also shows that legal disputes often turn less on abstract definitions than on context, usage, and consequences. Nix v. Hedden remains memorable because it turns a simple grocery-store question into a lesson about statutory interpretation: the tomato may be a fruit to a botanist, but for tariff law in 1893, it was a vegetable.Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged U.S. Army Sgt. Gannon Ken Van Dyke with allegedly using classified information to profit from prediction-market bets tied to a military raid involving former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Van Dyke, who was stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, allegedly helped plan and carry out the operation that resulted in Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, being brought to New York in January.Prosecutors say he began trading on Polymarket markets related to Maduro and Venezuela on Dec. 26, 2025, shortly before the Jan. 3, 2026 raid. According to the indictment, Van Dyke made more than $400,000 from those trades. The government alleges that, after making the money, he tried to hide the proceeds. He is charged with violating the Commodity Exchange Act, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also brought a related enforcement action against him. Van Dyke was expected to appear first in federal court in North Carolina before later appearing in the Southern District of New York. Counsel information for him was not immediately available.Soldier Aware Of Maduro Raid Bet On Polymarket, Feds Say - Law360U.S. District Judge Esther Salas warned that proposed federal data privacy legislation could undermine state laws meant to protect judges and other public officials from having their personal information exposed online. Salas has pushed for stronger privacy protections since 2020, when a lawyer went to her New Jersey home and killed her 20-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. Congress later passed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which shields federal judges' personal information online. Since then, more than a dozen states, including New Jersey, New York, and Maryland, have adopted similar protections for state judges, and some laws also cover law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and family members.Salas raised her concerns at an American Bar Association conference in Boston as House lawmakers consider federal privacy bills that would create national standards and preempt state laws. The bills, called the GUARD Financial Data Act and the SECURE Data Act, would require covered companies to limit collection of consumer data and give people rights to access or delete their information. But unlike New Jersey's Daniel's Law, the federal proposals would not let individuals sue companies for privacy violations. Salas said replacing stronger state protections with weaker federal rules could put judges across the country at greater risk. House committee representatives either declined to comment or did not respond.NJ judge whose son was killed warns against weakening state data privacy laws | ReutersSpirit Aviation told a New York bankruptcy judge that it is in advanced talks with the federal government over a major financing package that could help keep its second Chapter 11 case on track. The airline's lawyer, Marshall Huebner of Davis Polk, confirmed that negotiations are underway but did not verify reports about the possible size of the package or whether the government would receive an ownership stake. He said the proposed funding could do more than simply support the bankruptcy case and could position Spirit to compete strongly after restructuring. Spirit plans to seek court approval of the financing on April 30.The financing discussions come after the war involving the U.S., Israel, and Iran caused jet fuel prices to rise sharply, disrupting Spirit's existing reorganization plan. The airline had previously proposed canceling general unsecured claims and restructuring around support from secured noteholders, but it postponed seeking approval to send that plan to creditors. Judge Sean Lane approved a $533 million sale of about 20 aircraft to CSDS Aircraft and also granted Spirit a 90-day extension of its exclusive right to file a Chapter 11 plan. Spirit also disclosed that it missed an interest payment, triggering a default under its debtor-in-possession loan. The noteholder group funding much of that loan said it intends to enforce its rights and would oppose any relief that harms the lenders.Spirit In ‘Advanced' Talks With Gov't For Ch. 11 Financing - Law360 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 live now on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Tiffany Nelson, Former VP Conroe ISD School Board, & guest host Jonathan Covey, Policy Director for Texas Values, as they discuss the monumental victory with the Texas Ten Commandments Law in Federal Court this week! Follow Tiffany Nelson on X https://x.com/Nelsontiffanyb Breaking! Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Ten Commandments Law https://txvalues.org/breaking-fifth-circuit-upholds-texas-ten-commandments-law/ Video Update: Breaking! Texas Ten Commandments Law Wins in Federal Court https://youtu.be/hzPezaaZnUs Press Conference: Monumental Victory in Federal Court for Texas Ten Commandments Law! https://youtu.be/fRnNmQspdAI Learn more about the Texas Ten Commandments Law and purchase posters for your school district at https://tencommandmentstexas.com/ Texas State Board of Education Makes Important Decisions on K-12 Social Studies Standards, Preserving American Civics and Our Christian Founding https://txvalues.org/victory-texas-state-board-of-education-makes-important-decisions-on-k-12-social-studies-standards-preserving-american-civics-and-our-christian-founding/ Victory! Parents Now Have Control with New Parental Rights Handbook and Training, Passed at Texas Education Meeting https://txvalues.org/victory-parents-now-have-control-with-new-parental-rights-handbook-and-training-passed-at-texas-education-meeting/ Learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act http://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

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for April 22, 2026Federal Court Dismisses DOJ Suit Demanding Rhode Island's Personal Voter Data. The Administration is 0-5 Against States Refusing to Comply.A federal judge dismissed a U.S. Department of Justice demand that Rhode Island turn over its voter data, including sensitive personal information.  April 17th's decision is the fifth such defeat for the Trump DOJ.   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:U.S. Department of Justice - Justice Department Sues Six Additional States for Failure to Provide Voter Registration RollsU.S District Court for Rhode Island - (December 2025) DOJ Complaint Demanding Voter DataU.S District Court for Rhode Island (Via ACLU RI) - April 17 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ACLU Statement - Judge blocks Trump Administration's attempt to access Rhode Islanders' data The Hill - Judge rejects DOJ push for Rhode Island voter informationBrennan Center for Justice - Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter Information Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Federal Circuit Courts Block Trump DOJ from Obtaining California and Oregon Voter DataAmerican Democracy Minute - Class Action Suit by Voters Claims Personal Data Shared to the Trump Administration's SAVE Database Violates the Privacy Act of 1974Groups Taking Action:ACLU RI, Common Cause RIRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#NewsAlerts #AmericanDemocracy #RhodeIsland #ACLU #VoterData #TrumpDOJ

From cross‑agency data sharing to AI‑driven analysis, federal programs now rely on personal information in ways the Privacy Act never fully anticipated. As new APDU resources roll out this week, they aim to clarify how data actually moves, where risks emerge, and what reasonable expectations should look like today. Bethanne Barnes from the Association of Public Data Users joins me to walk through those challenges.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In breaking news, a new Emergency suit has been filed to block Trump's efforts on Tuesday to have the Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration and Postal Service (!!), stand between voters and the ballot box and deny mail in ballots to eligible voters, in violation of the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, the Privacy Act, and seeking an immediate injunction. Popok is on the case to explain why this latest attempt by Trump to steal power from the States should immediately fail like the one he did last year about voter ID. Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://joindeleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us your feedback In this episode, privacy law specialists Richard Wells and Suzy McMillan consider the legal framework governing data retention and destruction and how organisations can strike the right balance between regulatory compliance and commercial practicality in the age of big data.[00:37] Richard and Suzy talk about the growing challenges organisations face in a data driven era, where the temptation to store information indefinitely can lead to significant privacy, security, and compliance risks.[02:07] Richard and Suzy outline the regulatory framework that governs data retention, focusing on Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 9 of the Privacy Act 2020, which acts to restrict organisations from holding personal information longer than is required for its lawful use, and how this interacts with statutory minimum retention periods found in employment, tax, health and companies' legislation.[05:10] They consider how to determine when data should be deleted once those statutory minimums expire, focusing on IPPs 1, 5, 9 and 10 and what constitutes a “lawful use” for continued retention, emphasising the positive obligation on agencies to justify continued retention. [08:10] Suzy sets out some practical steps organisations can take to meet their compliance obligations, including establishing effective data retention policies and schedules that categorise data types, identify the legal basis for data retention, specify destruction methods and responsibility and prioritise high risk data such as personal, financial, and sensitive information.[10:31] Richard highlights the importance of privacy by design in this context: embedding retention rules into new systems from the outset.[14:25] They discuss recent incidents where organisations holding excessive legacy data found their exposure significantly amplified when a breach occurred, before closing with a practical reminder that the goal is balance - retaining information long enough to meet legal and business obligations, but not so long as to create unnecessary or disproportionate risk. Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 5 March 2026. Please contact Richard Wells, Suzy McMillan or our Privacy team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 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 Privacy Act 2020For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

March 19, 2026Evidence that DOJ is covering up relationship between Trump administration and Jeffrey Epstein, Pam Bondi declines to confirm that she will comply with subpoena to appear under oath before House Oversight Committee, Administration officials refuse to say whether they told Trump that Iran might block Strait of Hormuz, Gabbard pressed to say whether Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran, Gabbard evades question about intelligence community's assessment of the risks of war with Iran, Patel refuses to deny that FBI is buying private data about Americans, Whistleblower complaints against DOGE suggest violation of the Privacy Act, Hegseth has asked for more than $200 billion to fund Iran war.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of Privacy Perspectives, Alex Schneider is joined by Whitney Smith, a partner in Kelley Drye's Litigation practice group. Together, they discuss a wave of new privacy litigation related to wiretapping claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA. The speakers cover key takeaways from the cases that have been brought under CIPA, trends in the health privacy litigation space, and the potential effects of pending legislation.

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (1/8/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v71vtac","div":"rumble_v71vtac"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): TLAV Online Store | Big Frog Beaverton (21) Decensored News on X: "

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Ryan Bangert, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President of ⁨@AllianceDefends⁩ and guest host Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, as they discuss the Save Women's Sports hearing at the U. S. Supreme Court happening next week. #savewomenssports #scotus On January 13th, Texas Values will be present in the court room and at the rally with Alliance Defending Freedom & other allies during the Save Women's Sports hearing at the U. S. Supreme Court. Join us! U. S. Supreme Court to hear women's sports cases: https://adflegal.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-to-hear-womens-sports-cases/ Learn more about State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. https://adflegal.org/case/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education/ Learn more about Little v. Hecox https://adflegal.org/case/little-v-hecox/#case-videos Learn more about the Save Women's Sports law in Texas at http://savewomenssportstexas.com THIS WEEKEND! Texas Values is proud to be a Title Sponsor of the 2026 Winter Symposium at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas! Even better—Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, and Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, will both be speaking at this impactful event. Register today! https://www.givecampus.com/schools/UniversityofStThomasHouston/events/the-beauty-of-truth-navigating-society-today-as-a-catholic-woman Learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act at http://protectwomensprivacytexas.com Learn more about the Woman's Bill of Rights/What Is a Woman Bill at http://texasknowswhatawomanis.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 for a BONUS episode of #texasvaluesreport with special guest Brooke Slusser, #savewomenssports & Women's Privacy Leader, & guest host Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, as they discuss the Save Women's Sports case at the U. S. Supreme Court next Tuesday! #scotus On January 13th, Texas Values will be present in the court room and at the rally with Alliance Defending Freedom & other allies during the Save Women's Sports hearing at the U. S. Supreme Court. Join us! U. S. Supreme Court to hear women's sports cases: https://adflegal.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-to-hear-womens-sports-cases/ Learn more about State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. https://adflegal.org/case/bpj-v-west-virginia-state-board-education/ Learn more about Little v. Hecox https://adflegal.org/case/little-v-hecox/#case-videos Learn more about the Save Women's Sports law in Texas at http://savewomenssportstexas.com THIS WEEKEND! Texas Values is proud to be a Title Sponsor of the 2026 Winter Symposium at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas! Even better—Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, and Mary Elizabeth Castle, Director of Government Relations for Texas Values, will both be speaking at this impactful event. Register today! https://www.givecampus.com/schools/UniversityofStThomasHouston/events/the-beauty-of-truth-navigating-society-today-as-a-catholic-woman Learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act at http://protectwomensprivacytexas.com Learn more about the Woman's Bill of Rights/What Is a Woman Bill at http://texasknowswhatawomanis.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 on #TexasValuesReport with host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values and a special appearance by Andrew Yeager, Senior Development Manager DFW/North Texas for Texas Values, as they share Texas Values' major accomplishments of 2025 and provide an opportunity to give while we have a $200,000 matching grant thru December 31st. Read our press release with the Top Stories of 2025 https://txvalues.org/breaking-top-stories-of-2025-tx/ Learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act at ProtectWomensPrivacyTexas.com Learn more about Texas Ten Commandments Law at TenCommandmentsTexas.com Learn more about the Woman's Bill of Rights at TexasKnowsWhatAWomanIs.com View our endorsements txvaluesaction.org/endorsements Get your voters guide made in partnership with iVoterGuide freevotersguide.com Check out our job opportunities https://txvalues.org/opportunities Smart ways to give: https://txvalues.org/enhancedgiving/ 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 Department of Homeland Security is looking to cut down on the number of paper Freedom of Information Act requests it receives. Under a final rule set to go into effect next month, DHS will require most people to submit FOIA and Privacy Act requests electronically. DHS will allow for alternative submission methods in limited circumstances where an electronic request isn't feasible, such as for incarcerated people. The department says the new rule will allow FOIA officers to spend less time on data entry and more time searching for and reviewing records.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values, as he shares the best Christmas memories & moments and end of year highlights preview. Learn more about Texas Ten Commandments Law at TenCommandmentsTexas.com Learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act at ProtectWomensPrivacyTexas.com Learn more about the Woman's Bill of Rights at TexasKnowsWhatAWomanIs.com Learn more about the Merry Christmas Law at MerryChristmasTexas.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

A coalition of privacy defenders led by Lex Lumina and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit on February 11 asking a federal court to stop the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from disclosing millions of Americans' private, sensitive information to Elon Musk and his “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). As the federal government is the nation's largest employer, the records held by OPM represent one of the largest collections of sensitive personal data in the country.Is this a big deal? Should we care? Joining Pam today is Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley, an expert in intellectual property, patent law, trademark law, antitrust, the law of robotics and AI, video game law, and remedies. Lemley is of counsel with the law firm Lex Lumina and closely involved in the DOGE case. In this episode, Lemley overviews urgent privacy concerns that led to this lawsuit, laws such as the Privacy Act, and legal next steps for this case. The conversation shifts to the current political landscape, highlighting the unprecedented influence of Silicon Valley, particularly under the Musk administration. Lemley contrasts the agile, authoritative management style of Silicon Valley billionaires with the traditionally slow-moving federal bureaucracy, raising concerns about legality and procedural adherence. The conversation also touches on the demise of the Chevron doctrine and the possible rise of an imperial presidency, drawing parallels between the Supreme Court's and the executive branch's power grabs—and how Lemley's 2022 paper, "The Imperial Supreme Court," predicted the Court's trend towards consolidating power. This episode offers a compelling examination of how technological and corporate ideologies are influencing American law.Links:Mark Lemley >>> Stanford Law page“The Imperial Supreme Court” >>> Stanford Law publication pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) The Rise of Executive Power(00:07:22) Concerns About Data Handling and Privacy(00:08:41) The Impact of Silicon Valley's Ethos on Government(00:14:01) The Musk Administration's Approach(00:18:01) The Role of the Supreme Court(00:24:43) Silicon Valley's Influence on Washington Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join us on #texasvaluesreport with special guest Senator Mayes Middleton, State Senator, District 11, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney for Texas Values as they discuss the Texas Women's Privacy Act. Follow Senator Mayes Middleton on X http://x.com/mayes_middleton To learn more about Texas Women's Privacy Act, visit http://protectwomensprivacytexas.com. Breaking! Arlington Voted Against Reinstating LGBT Ordinance 5-4 https://txvalues.org/breaking-arlington-voted-against-reinstating-lgbt-ordinance-5-4/ Yes, It's Really Happening!! City governments are beginning to comply with the rule of law! https://txvalues.org/yes-its-really-happening/ Remember, It's OK to Say MERRY CHRISTMAS!! https://txvalues.org/remember-its-ok-to-say-merry-christmas/ Learn more about the Merry Christmas Law https://merrychristmastexas.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

Value-based enterprises depend on timely, accurate data, yet the rules that govern how that data moves between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), accountable care organizations, payors, and providers remain complex and often inconsistent. On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Kevin Malone and Karen Mandelbaum unpack the regulatory frameworks shaping data exchange in value-based care. They outline how federal privacy laws, CMS rules, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and state requirements intersect; why CMS-sourced data operates under a different regime than Medicare Advantage; and where organizations face the biggest operational hurdles when using, sharing, and governing data across large networks. Key Takeaways: Distinct Legal Frameworks: CMS data is controlled by the Privacy Act, while Medicare Advantage data falls under HIPAA. Disclosure Tracking Requirements: CMS data use agreements demand strict tracking and downstream compliance. Operational Data Challenges: Silos and uneven data quality remain major barriers to effective value-based care. Tune in to learn how today's rules shape data access, data quality, and the real-world mechanics of value-based care. Visit our site for related resources and email contact information: https://www.ebglaw.com/dhc92 Subscribe for email notifications: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe. Visit: http://diagnosinghealthcare.com. - This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Yes, the CIA tortured inmates suspected of terrorism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Two of the primary men involved with creating this program are Mormon, one was called to be a Bishop after taking $81mn from the government to torture people. We discuss the report, how it came to light, some of the key figures along the way, and the fight over the FOIA release of the report in the courts. After that we talk about The Report, wherein Adam Driver plays Dan Jones who led the investigation at the direction of Senator Dianne Feinstein. Then we have some happy news about libraries getting funding that was promised to them.   CW: torture, suicide   Show Notes:  Torture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Punishment  Torture in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_in_the_United_States#History_of_U.S._Accession  US Senate report on CIA torture "The Torture Report": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_report_on_CIA_torture  The Torture Memos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos  7 Key Points form the C.I.A. Torture Report by Jeremy Ashkenas, Hannah Fairfield, Josh Keller, and Paul Volpe: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/09/world/cia-torture-report-key-points.html  Jay Bybee: The man behind waterboarding, by Randy James: https://time.com/archive/6914445/jay-bybee-the-man-behind-waterboarding/  Bruce Jessen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Jessen  Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques  Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival,_Evasion,_Resistance_and_Escape  Torture, Ethics, Accountability? By David R Katner: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2791&context=luclj  CIA Paid Torture Teachers More Than $80 Million by Robert Windrem: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cia-torture-report/cia-paid-torture-teachers-more-80-million-n264756  Torture victims will bear psychological scars long after CIA report scandal fades: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/13/learned-helplessness-enduring-effects-torture-haunt-victims  The Torture Debate by David Anderson: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2005/12/23/the-torture-debate/21435/  The CIA and the Church: https://mormonr.org/qnas/H2jKm/cia_and_the_church  The senate torture report is a condemnation of Mormon moral reasoning: https://bycommonconsent.com/2014/12/10/the-senate-torture-report-is-a-condemnation-of-mormon-moral-reasoning/  The Role of the LDS church in developing torture by Cherry O Top: https://churchofthefridge.com/role-lds-church-developing-torture/  Mormonism and Torture — Paradoxes and First Principles by Boyd Petersen: chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/69-71_Petersen_torture-3.pdf  Christopher Hitchens tries waterboarding via Vanity Fair https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58 Nixon Tapes "Cancer on the Presidency" - Dean and Nixon discussing blackmail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnUJa6uuL_Y Nixon "I'm not a crook" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCEQP2-qOJk Electronic Frontier Foundation on OPEN Governt Act https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/key-open-government-reform-legislation-becomes-law ACLU Torture Report landing page https://www.aclu.org/cases/senate-torture-report-foia Executive Summary of the Torture Report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-documents-crpt-113srpt288.pdf NPR on Abu Zubaydah https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084161762/supreme-court-rules-against-disclosure-in-torture-case NSI info sheet on FOIA https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/foia/guide.html Electronic Frontier Foundation on history of FOIA https://www.eff.org/issues/transparency/history-of-foia Privacy Act of 1974 https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974 https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition 1966 hearing on CIA and FBI invasions of privacy https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-89shrg61406p6/pdf/CHRG-89shrg61406p6.pdf MOGP: The Report: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8236336/ The portrayal of CIA in 'The Report': Separating Truth from Fiction by Brian Greer https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/portrayal-cia-report-separating-truth-fiction   Happy News:  https://ilovelibraries.org/article/all-federal-library-grants-previously-canceled-by-federal-agency-restored/   Other appearances: Chris Shelton interviewed us in the beginning of a series on Mormonism on his Speaking of Cults series. Our most recent discussion was on the Mountain Meadows Massacre: https://youtu.be/iJWirjCyWdk  He has had MANY different fascinating people on so go take a look!  Here is the whole playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpGuS7GcsgA&list=PLGrPM1Pg2h72ADIuv8eYmzrJ-ppLOlw_g   Email: glassboxpodcast@gmail.com  Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GlassBoxPod  Patreon page for documentary: https://www.patreon.com/SeerStonedProductions BlueSky: @glassboxpodcast.bsky.social  Other BlueSky: @bryceblankenagel.bsky.social and @shannongrover.bsky.social  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glassboxpodcast/  Merch store: https://www.redbubble.com/people/exmoapparel/shop Or find the merch store by clicking on "Store" here: https://glassboxpodcast.com/index.html One time Paypal donation: bryceblankenagel@gmail.com  Venmo: @Shannon-Grover-10  

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.