Tag "#Microsoft"

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Google, Facebook, Twitter Promise to Crack Down on Terrorist Content Online

Google, Facebook, Twitter Promise to Crack Down on Terrorist Content Online

Reuters/Dado Ruvic
by Jack Hadfield1 Apr 20170 1 Apr, 2017
1 Apr, 2017

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERIn a meeting with Amber Rudd, the British Home Secretary, tech companies including Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft promised to crack down on terrorist content being accessible on the internet after the Westminster attacker, Khalid Massood, reportedly found tips as to how to orchestrate such an attack online.
Rudd called the meeting between the tech giants, along with a group of smaller companies who the government refused to name. In an email statement, Rudd said that “we focused on the issue of access to terrorist propaganda online and the very real and evolving threat it poses.” After theSIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
After the meeting, the companies set out a range of ideas as to how to tackle terrorist threats. They promised to create new “technical tools to identify and remove terrorist propaganda,” along with looking at “all options for structuring a forum to accelerate and strengthen” their work to tackle online extremism.” In regards to the smaller companies that were at the meeting, the bigger corporations assured the government that they would “enhance and broaden the current informal collaboration sessions that companies already conduct,” sharing “expertise and experiences of more established” internet companies with younger internet businesses. “Working against terrorism is not a competitive issue within the industry,” the statement highlighted. “We pledge to engage the wider ecosystem of companies that face these challenges.”
In regards to the smaller companies that were at the meeting, the bigger corporations assured the government that they would “enhance and broaden the current informal collaboration sessions that companies already conduct,” sharing “expertise and experiences of more established” internet companies with younger internet businesses.
“Working against terrorism is not a competitive issue within the industry,” the statement highlighted. “We pledge to engage the wider ecosystem of companies that face these challenges.”
It’s not just tech companies that would be involved in the fight, however. The statement pointed out that the groups together would “support the efforts of civil society organisations to promote alternative and counter-narratives” against extremism online:
Our companies are committed to making our platforms a hostile space for those who seek to do harm, and we have been working on this issue for several years. We share the government’s commitment to ensuring terrorists do not have a voice online.
The Home Secretary seemed rather pleased with the progress that they had made in the meeting but highlighted that there was still work to be done:
I said I wanted to see this tackled head-on and I welcome the commitment from the key players to set up a cross-industry forum that will help to do this… My starting point is pretty straightforward. I don’t think that people who want to do us harm should be able to use the internet or social media to do so. I want to make sure we are doing everything we can to stop this. In taking forward this work I’d like to see the industry to go further and faster in not only removing online terrorist content but stopping it going up in the first place… I’d also like to see more support for smaller and emerging platforms to do this as well, so they can no longer be seen as an alternative shop floor by those who want to do us harm.
It was revealed that the Home Secretary brought up the matter of encryption during the meeting, claiming that there would be no “safe spaces” for terrorists. This came after information came out that showed that Massood reportedly used Whatsapp only minutes before the attack commenced. Currently, the Facebook-owned messaging company has not handed over the information, despite claiming they would “co-operate fully” with the police.
Rudd said in a statement, “I am clear that Government and industry need to work more closely together on this issue so that law enforcement and the intelligence agencies can get access to the data they need to keep us safe.” Her office said that the matter will be discussed more in separate talks.
Jack Hadfield is a student at the University of Warwick and a regular contributor to Breitbart Tech. You can like his page on Facebook and follow him on Twitter @ToryBastard_ or on Gab @JH.

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Cheap-Labor Lobby Funds New H-1B Song-and-Dance Movie

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTERMovie theaters around the country are screening a glamorous new movie about a struggling-yet-handsome Indian H-1B contract-worker in the United States — but viewers aren’t told that the movie was funded by lobbyists to help import more foreign workers for the moviegoers’ own white-collar jobs.
The movie, “For Here Or To Go?” offers a very flattering image of the almost 1 million H-1B middle-skill contract-workers holding white-collar jobs throughout the United States. The Indian-directed movie includes a Bollywood-style song-and-dance number, and it sidelines the wishes and worries of many off-screen young Americans whose salaries and careers are being undercut by the flood of cheap H-1B outsourcing program.SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The movie’s basic message is that foreigners are entitled to live in the United States if they want to do so, regardless of American law or Americans’ wishes. “You can build your life where you choose to. The question is and always will be this: Where do you think you belong? Where is home?” says one supporting character to the lead character.
“I have actively supported this movie realizing its importance as an advocacy tool [and] many renowned venture capitalists, founders, entrepreneurs, academics have also been supporting it,” said an online statement from Tahmina Watson, an immigration lawyer serving Indian and Chinese customers in Seattle, Wash.

“Some [supporters’] names include Brad Feld, renowned [venture capitalist], [H-1B booster] Vivek Wadhwa- academic and think tank, the Instagram founder [Mike Krieger] and many many more,” she wrote March 31. Investor “Brad Feld donated $25,000 to the movie! … my dear friend and [immigration lawyer] member Joel Paget who donated a huge sum to the movie,” she wrote.

In 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to revamp the program so that it doesn’t hurt Americans workers. “These are temporary foreign workers, imported from abroad, for the explicit purpose of substituting for American workers at lower pay,” said a March 2016 statement from the campaign. “I remain totally committed to eliminating rampant, widespread H-1B abuse.” That promise was a winning argument for many university educated voters who were being pressured by peers and employers to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. 

However, many brand-name companies favor the salary-cutting program, so it remains largely unchanged since Trump took office. Immigration lawyers expect the administration to start issuing another 85,000 H-1B visas starting April.
Multiple Democratic and GOP politicians hope to further expand the salary-cutting, profit-boosting program. 
For example, SGOP Sen. Orrin Hatch said in a March 30 op-ed that “we’ve had a process for bringing high-skilled workers from other countries to the United States to fill jobs for which there is a shortage of American labor … But the system is out-of-date. Our immigration laws cap the number of high-skilled worker visas—also called H-1B visas—that employers may obtain each year at a number that is far below demand.”

Also, both Hatch and North Carolina’s GOP Thomas Tillis want to provide a path to citizenship to any foreigner who pays for a graduate degree at an American university.
“Our laws also lack a straightforward path for companies to hire foreign students at American universities on a permanent basis after graduation … This makes no sense,” said Hatch. “We should have a policy that basically staples a green card on the back of their diploma, with the agreement that they will work and contribute to the American economy,” Tillis said mid-March.
But that “staple” policy would create an unlimited supply of Indian, Chinese, South Americans, European and African professionals eager to underbid salaries sought by young and middle-aged American professionals.

In Washington, the new movie is being touted by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and by the CATO Institute, which favors an easy flow of labor across national borders. It is also being supported by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s cheap-labor lobby, FWD.us, via its head, Todd Schulte.
The movie is also being touted by Jose Andrews, an immigration proponent who hires cheap labor for his D.C. restaurants. It is “the movie that you want to watch —it is an amazing story of immigrants in America.” “We’re trying to tell a new story here… and I’m fully supportive of it,” said Ash Kalra, an Indian-American city councilor in San Jose, California, “This is really where the best and brightest of the Indian community have come to contribute.”

Last September, the movie was shown to staffers in Congress, said Watson.

September 2nd 2016 was a very special day.  It was the day that the movie For Here or To Go? had a special private screening at the Rayburn House Building- one of the Buildings where Congressmen have their offices.
Fresh off the heels of the announcement of International Entrepreneur Rules, this movie screening was so timely. The private screening was attended by staffers, lawyers, lobbyists and other influencers. We were especially grateful that the White House Assistant Director of Entrepreneurship Doug Rand attended in person. We were also delighted that Senator Tim Kaine’s office was represented.  While Sen. Kaine is now candidate for Vice President, he was one of the original co-sponsors of the Startup Visa.
A huge thank you goes to my very own Congressman Adam Smith (WA-09) who co-operated in holding the event.  The Congressman’s office went above and beyond in helping with the event, for which we are so grateful. We were also able to partner with Unshackled Ventures, an organization that recognizes the invaluable contributions of international entrepreneurs and has been at the forefront of the issue. And lastly, we wouldn’t have had refreshments without the generous support of FWD.us and it’s president Todd Schulte. In addition, two of my colleagues Joel Paget, immigration lawyer in Seattle and Sonal Verma in Washington DC both gave incredible support and encouragement in holding the event.
… Rishi and I had the privilege of attending a reception at the CATO institute where we had the distinct pleasure of meeting immigration policy extraordinaire Alex Nowrasteh!

The movie is opening at 29 theater screens, including four screens in the D.C. area, three in Texas and six screens in California.
The annual inflow of roughly 110,000 H-1B contract-workers takes jobs for below-market rates at U.S.-based companies, universities, and non-profits. That makes sense for the foreign workers because many hope to get the hugely valuable deferred-compensation prize of citizenship from the U.S. government after perhaps ten years of work. The citizenship bonus can also be duplicated for their parents, siblings, children ad grandchildren.
The deal is also rational for U.S. employers because they pay below-market rates and also don’t have to pay the citizenship bonus to the H-1B workers. That good for many U.S. companies because it means they can get subcontracting work done for cheaper and because it also lowers the marketplace salaries for all U.S. professionals.
H-1Bs are hired by many name-brand companies, displacing Americans who want jobs with Microsoft or Facebook, Caterpillar or Harley-Davidson, Goldman Sachs or McDonald’s. At least 100,000 H-1Bs are also employed in universities, hospitals, non-profits, and government research centers as professors, scientists, doctors, and therapists. 
But critics — and much evidence — say the H-1B program is rife with corruption, including fake resumes, fraudulent visa applications, under-the-table payments, workplace and hiring discrimination against Americans, as well as false claims by lobbyists and corporates that too few Americans want to work at companies such as Goldman Sachs or Facebook. 
The inflow of H-1B workers cuts salaries for young Americans who are in direct competition with H-1Bs — mostly software experts, medical researchers, accountants, doctors, statisticians.
But it also reduces the salaries of other American professionals – designers, journalists, business school graduates and even movie-critics — by increasing the nation’s supply of skilled, flexible white-collar experts who can perform a variety of skilled jobs.
A 2016 report by the National Academies of Science showed that cheap-labor immigration annually transfers roughly $500 billion from American employees over to investors and employers. 
Follow Neil Munro on Twitter @NeilMunroDC or email the author at NMunro@Breitbart.com

Uncategorized 0 Comments

Google Wants Its Own Puppet as FTC Chair to Block Anti-Trust Action

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Google is running a silent campaign to make sure President Trump appoints as permanent chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a candidate the tech giant is certain will never press an antitrust investigation of the company, after previously lobbying for a Republican favorable to Google to be nominated by President Bush as the third GOP FCC commissioner.This is especially important given the steps the Trump administration took to advance a bill through Congress to cancel the FCC order on “Internet Privacy” that President Obama engineered in October 2016 at the urging of Google.That the White House was not abandoning Internet privacy, but transferring the rule-making on Internet privacy from the FCC to the FTC was made abundantly clear by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer at the White House briefing on Thursday. “The White House supports Congress using its authority under the Congressional Review Act to roll back last year’s FCC rules on broadband regulation,” Spicer said.“The previous administration, in an attempt to treat Internet service providers differently than edge providers, such as Google and Facebook, reclassified them as common carriers — much like a hotel or another retail outlet — and opened the door to an unfair regulatory framework.  This will allow all service providers to be treated fairly and consumer protection and privacy concerns to be reviewed on an equal playing field,” Spicer continued.It is important to understand Google wanted President Obama to place all broadband under Title II of the Communications – a move that allowed the FCC to regulate the Internet, resulting in the Democratic-controlled FCC imposing “Net Neutrality” rules and “Internet Privacy” rules.Typically, “Net Neutrality” was designed to tip the scales toward Google and the largest telecommunication giants on the Internet, while “Internet Privacy” rules allowed Google to continue mining and selling customer data from web-browsing activity analysis, while smaller ISPs were blocked from doing so.Infowars.com has reported the uproar attacking the GOP in Congress revoking the FCC “Internet Privacy” rules is led by leftist groups funded by Google and Soros.The Trump administration appears determined to reverse “Net Neutrality” rules as well as “Internet Privacy” rules promulgated by the Obama administration FCC, returning Internet privacy regulation to the FTC, the agency properly tasked with promulgating consumer protection rules.Industry insiders say one of Google greatest fears is that the Trump administration might open an antitrust investigation, like the antitrust investigation of Microsoft in 1998 when it attempted to incorporate its own Internet browser, making it difficult for users to load successfully competing browsers such as Netscape.In a Department of Justice settlement reached on Nov. 2, 2001, Microsoft agreed to place restrictions on its Windows operating system, having narrowly escaped a decision by the U.S. District court that Microsoft was a monopoly that needed to be broken into two companies to prevent Microsoft from using ever again its market power to crush competitors, including Apple, Netscape, Java, Lotus Software, Linux, and others.Interestingly the case U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) began as an antitrust complaint initially filed with the FTC in 1992.Although the FTC is authorized to have five commissioners with no more than three of the same political party, at present the FTC has only two commissioners: Maureen K. Ohlhausen, a Republican appointed by President Obama in 2010, who President Trump elevated to be Acting Chair on Jan. 25, 2017; and Terrell McSweeney, a Democrat, appointed by President Obama and sworn in on April 28, 2014.Behind the scenes, Google is quietly pushing for Ohlhausen, a life-time career bureaucrat, to be appointed permanent FTC chair.Google calculates that Ohlhausen’s Republican views favoring robust open-market competition in a deregulated environment will be enough to get President Trump to appoint her as permanent FTC chair.But Google’s true calculation is that Ohlhausen as FTC chair would protect Google from being forced to undergo renewed antitrust inspection.Google knows that Ohlhausen dissented to an FTC settlement reached in 2013 to an antitrust complaint that involved various Google business practices, with the settlement requiring Google to share patents on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular electronic devices, such as smart phones, laptops and tablet computers.A “puff piece” supporting Ohlhausen to be nominated permanent FTC chair was published by James Cooper, a professor at George Mason University, who published in Forbes on March 29, an article featuring Ohlhausen’s “Economic Liberty” agenda, as derived from remarks Ohlhausen delivered at the George Mason Law Review’s 20th Annual Antitrust Symposium on Feb. 23, 2017.George Mason University (GMU) financial ties to Google were evidenced by a 2016 Campaign for Accountability’s Google Transparency Project report that noted four of five speakers appearing on a GMU panel on the global antitrust investigations of Google had received funding from Google.That report noted that Cooper’s program at GMU has received at least $762,000 in donations from Google and internal emails published by the media showed Google lobbyists trying to place an op-ed he wrote in newspapers and suggesting panelists for a conference he organized, with the cash payment apparently made in return for Cooper writing “a raft of papers supporting Google’s position that it had not broken antitrust laws.”On Feb. 23, 2017, Bloomberg BNA (formerly known as the Bureau of National Affairs) published an article entitled, “Ohlhausen Seen Auditioning to Keep Top FTC Role,” noting that Ohlhausen “has been speaking and tweeting a lot about her vision of the agency under President Donald Trump – a sign to some observers that she may be auditioning for a long-term leadership role.”As hard as Google has lobbied behind the scenes to promote Ohlhausen, Google has worked overtime to smear Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes – a Republican nominee for FTC chair who campaigned strongly for Trump in western states during the 2016 presidential campaign.“His appointment [i.e., Reyes] might be encouraging to people who want to see stronger antitrust enforcement than you’d normally expect in a Republican administration,” Seth Bloom, an antitrust attorney at Bloom Strategic Counsel LLC in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA.On Jan. 29, 2016, Reyes joined D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine in writing to then-FTC chair Edith Ramirez, suggesting the antitrust investigation the FTC closed against Google in 2013 should be reopened, in light of antitrust authorities in the EU and India pursuing complaints against Google similar to the complaints the FTC investigated and settled in 2013.On Aug. 17, 2015, Google lost a strong ally on the FTC when Commissioner Joshua D. Wright, a Republican, abruptly announced his resignation as FTC commissioner, a position he had held since January 2013.Although he led the transition team of then President-elect Trump that focused on the FTC, Wright has faced criticism for his outright support of Google, as evidenced by a paper he wrote in 2010 that was highly critical of the prospect Google might face the type of aggressive antitrust action the European Union had taken against high-tech companies, including Qualcomm, Intel, and Microsoft.