Mediaboss Marketing

GENESEE COUNTY, MI -- Republicans have gained strength in their battle to unseat Dan Kildee from Congress thanks to redistricting but must decide next month who will be their standard-bearer against him in the general election in November.

Kildee, who has no opponent in the Aug. 2 Democratic primary, will face the winner of the three-candidate GOP field -- Paul Junge, Candice Miller and Matthew Seely.

Kildee and his three Republican challengers are running in the 8th congressional district, which was drawn as a result of redistricting thats been done on the local, state and federal levels following the results of the 2020 U.S. Census.

The new district includes much of Kildees current district, but adds parts of Midland County, including the city of Midland, which leans Republican.

Junge is a former criminal prosecutor who has worked in a family business, maintaining military family housing. He has served in the Department of Homeland Security and is a former investigative counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Miller is a retired businesswoman who managed a petroleum company, serving as corporate board secretary.

Seely did not respond to a questionnaire from The League of Women Voters.

MLive and The Flint Journal in partnership with the LWV, are presenting the views of the candidates in contested primary elections through the VOTE411.org voter guide project.

All responses in the voter guide were submitted directly by the candidate and have not been edited by the League of Women Voters, except for necessary cuts if a reply exceeded character limitations. Spelling and grammar were not corrected.

Publication of candidate statements and opinions is solely in the interest of public service and should not be considered as an endorsement. The League never supports or opposes any candidates or political parties.

HEALTH CARE: What do you see as the federal governments role in health care? Given the COVID-19 pandemic, what are your concerns and plans regarding public health in the U.S.?

Junge: The goal is affordable and accessible healthcare and avoiding regulations that kick people off their healthcare plans. Government policies should allow small businesses the ability to better provide coverage for their employees, increase flexibility, empower patients and their doctors, and harness the private sectors ability to innovate and develop medications and cures.

Miller: I am for limited government. Government overreach has played a role in the pandemic and businesses and our kids have suffered. I will get our schools open and businesses thriving again!

ECONOMY: What federal policies do you support for a healthy economy and to help Americans without financial security improve their economic positions?

Junge: Families are being hit hard by the rising cost of goods and record high gas prices. We need to lower the tax burden on families and small businesses to help them afford the higher prices and to improve our economy. We need to stop the federal governments reckless spending that is driving up inflation. Additionally, we need to increase American energy production to lower gas prices. Empowering people rather than Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats will improve our economy and help people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Miller: Again, I am for limited government. We need Government out of the way so businesses can compete in a global economy. The current 8th District is suffering from economic decline and we must invest in new jobs and lower taxes.

ELECTIONS: What federal policies do you support regarding elections, campaign funding and voting rights?

Junge: A photo ID should be required to vote, there needs to be strong signature verification for absentee ballots, and partisan balance among election observers is important. Voting is a fundamental right and the election process should be fair, secure, and efficient. The federal government should not be able to ban states from requiring a photo ID to vote or prevent other common sense security efforts.

Miller: I am pro-election integrity. I am for protecting our ballots and votes. One person equals one vote. No more Voter Fraud with Congresswoman Candice Miller!

SOCIAL JUSTICE: How would you address racial, economic, health and education inequities, including our countrys 16% of children and 10% of seniors living in poverty?

Junge: America needs to be the land of opportunity, which is accomplished by building a healthy economy, ensuring public safety, and providing a high-quality education for every child. We need to lean into our shared values of encouraging hard work, caring for our neighbors, investing and innovating, and leading the world in economic production and generosity.

Miller: Flint, Michigan and surrounding areas have witnessed the biggest decline due to Democratic polices. We need to invest locally and restore jobs by getting the Government out of the way to allow businesses to thrive. If we can bring jobs back to the 8th district, it will help our children and all families.

ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY: What policies do you support to meet U.S. energy needs while protecting our water, air and land for current and future generations?

Junge: There is no reason for the United States to be facing an energy crisis. We have the energy to sustain ourselves and we should promote Ultra Clean Coal (which reduces ash to 0.25% and Sulfur Dioxide to trace levels), nuclear energy (which does not release CO2 and is cost effective), oil, and natural gas. Granting energy exploration permits on Federal land and approving the Keystone pipeline brings down the price of distribution, creates jobs in the US & lowers gas prices. As energy investment and innovation grows, our environment becomes cleaner. Top priority is to harness American energy and make gas prices & utility bills more affordable.

Miller: We need to restore the infrastructure in Flint. All while stopping the government restrictions which cause a huge shortage of energy demands in our country. The EPA has too much power.

IMMIGRATION: What policies do you support relative to immigration to the U.S.?

Junge: There is a crisis at the border. We need to secure the border by building effective barriers and equipping border patrol. Additionally, we need to stop encouraging illegal immigration with handouts and other benefits. Legal immigration can help our economy and society, but uncontrolled illegal immigration leads to more crime, drugs, and lower wages.

Miller: I am 100% SECURE BORDERS! We need to continue to build a wall on the southern border to prevent illegal immigration. I am America First and support taking care of our own country and not those here illegally.

More here:
Meet the GOP candidates aiming to knock Dan Kildee out of Congress - MLive.com

Advertisement

Over the past few years, the terrorist threats facing the eastern Malaysian regions on the island of Borneo have become subject for alarm. Since 2021, residents in the Eastern Sabah Security Zone (ESSZONE) have been undergoing frequent curfews that have lasted until this year, with a recent announcement that the curfew has been extended to July 9. Authorities have revealed that curfews are in force due to unabating terrorist threats, along with kidnapping attempts and cross-border crimes linked to the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). The latest intelligence published in March 2022, suggests that the ASGs second-in-command, a figure named Mundi, is seeking refuge in Sabah, raising concerns that ASG-linked local groups and sympathizers may become active.

Furthermore, Sabah has emerged as the preferred transit point for Indonesian militants infiltrating the southern Philippines in order to commit terrorist acts there. The combination of these factors foreshadows a monumental risk to Malaysian national security. Putrajaya must therefore be proactive and act immediately to nip the terrorist threats in the bud before any bloodshed takes place. The Lahad Datu incursion by Jamalul Kiram III of the Sulu Sultanate into Sabah in 2013, which caused the deaths of over 60 individuals, including civilians and authorities, should have been a critical signal for Putrajaya to bolster Bornean security in ensuring such threats will not recur.

Against this backdrop, Putrajaya must act vehemently to deter the reemerging threat of the ASG and other militant groups, while preparing for a possible militant incursion in East Malaysia. A threat looms over Sabah in particular, as indicated by the governments continuous imposition of curfews in the region.

Putrajaya is currently strengthening East Malaysian security through various initiatives. The recent acquisition of three AW139 helicopters by the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) is a prime example, indicating that assets will be mobilized to enhance patrols in Bornean waters. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defense initiated a new army base in Lahad Datu earlier this year, at a cost of 646.15 million ringgit ($146 million) that aims to strengthen Sabahs security and ability to deal with the emerging threats. Finally, one unit of Special Action Unit commandos has been dispatched to Sabah to combat the ASG threat.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

Malaysias initiatives to empower Bornean security readiness and capability are timely given the growing non-traditional security threats to East Malaysia. Apart from terrorism, other non-terrorist challenges, such as cross-border kidnapping for ransom (KFR) and illegal immigration, remain rampant in East Malaysia and demonstrate the need for Putrajaya to up the ante on border security in the region.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Cases of cross-border KFR and armed robberies have plagued Sabah since the year 2000. In that year, bandits from the ASG kidnapped 21 people, including foreign tourists, from Sipadan Island. Following these incidents, Malaysia launched a military operation called Ops Pasir in September 2000 which sought to eliminate further cross-border crimes at a cost of 300 million ringgit ($67.8 million) annually. Although generally effective, Ops Pasir was not enough to prevent incidents such as the 2013 Lahad Datu incursion. This outcome should necessitate Putrajaya to diversify away from its heavy reliance on a military approach to the regions security challenges.

The Lahad Datu incident dictates the current development of Sabahs border security. Following the incident, Putrajaya recognized the need for even greater maritime security in Eastern Sabah, leading to the establishment of the Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM) to protect ESSZONE. However, ESSCOM was criticized after its formation for being inefficient in achieving its primary objective of preventing transnational crime, raising questions about Putrajayas military approach to Sabahs borders. As a seasoned Sabahan politician stated in 2016, ESSCOM is not the solution as there were more cross-border kidnappings during ESSCOMs three years than the last 20 years without ESSCOM.

Although the federal government has taken military measures to address cross-border crimes in Sabah, these challenges have been immensely difficult to solve. Geographical factors play a central role here. For example, Sabahs 1,450-kilometer-long porous maritime border lies close to the Philippine province of Tawi-Tawi, and contains 107 islands that intruders can use as staging points before entering Sabahs waters. More military resources are arguably required to protect the coastline, but we must question the viability of a solely military approach to protecting Sabahs borders. Ops Pasirs inability to prevent the 2013 incursion demonstrates the need to explore non-military measures in order to support current initiatives.

Apart from the KFR threat, illegal immigration continues to be one of the central issues in Sabah. From 1990 to 2007, 298,601 immigrants, mostly Filipinos and Indonesians, were deported from Sabah, not including those who remain undetected by authorities. As of 2020, the number of illegal immigrants in Sabah totaled 1.2 million, with the highest concentration in Tawau, the region closest to the southern Philippines. The underlying cause of such high degrees of illegal immigration can be traced to two main reasons: kinship and economic opportunities.

Before the advent of modern borders, some of the earliest immigrants to have set foot in Sabah were the Bajau and Sulu from the Mindanao region of todays Philippines, a fact that forms the basis of the Philippines historic claim over Sabah. Following the Moro conflict in the late twentieth century, many crossed illegally into Sabah, capitalizing on kinship and family ties in order to integrate. Relatives or friends provide illegal immigrants with shelter and nourishment, perpetuating chain migration.

Furthermore, the potential kinship between Sabahan security personnel and illegal immigrants may result in lax enforcement of immigration laws. Poor economic opportunities back home provide additional justification for migrants to cross the border. Due to these reasons, 300 million ringgit per year in military expenditures are insufficient to deter illegal border crossings. It is clear that Sabah also requires soft policies to eliminate illegal immigration effectively.

Sarawak is equally at risk from illegal immigration, stemming from its equally porous border with Kalimantan, the Indonesian portion of the island of Borneo. Indonesias new capital Nusantara in Kalimantan will begin development in the second half of this year, which should prompt Putrajaya to double down on Sarawakian security concerns. It is expected that the Nusantara project will involve the eventual relocation of some 30 million Indonesians, leading many Sarawakians to believe that it could increase illegal border crossings into Malaysia. If unaddressed, transnational crime syndicates may flourish, threatening Sarawaks security.

East Malaysias geographical complexities and diverse demographics require a multi-pronged approach to improving border security and addressing the regions growing non-traditional security threats. Sheer military might will deter some, but will not succeed in preventing all instances of border violations, as seen with Ops Pasir. In any event, the Malaysian federal budget does not have the margins to support the increases in defense spending for Sabah and Sarawak that some are recommending.

For example, Budget 2022 has allocated 26.4 million ringgit ($5.9 million) to ESSCOM, a reduction from Budget 2021s allocation of 26.8 million ringgit ($6.1 million). While ESSCOMs commander has called for increased resources, it is understandably difficult for Putrajaya to fulfill his wishes. Only 75 billion ringgit ($16.9 billion), or 22.6 percent of Budget 2022, is committed to development costs, with the remaining 233.5 billion ($52.7 billion) spent on operational costs. Thus, margins for defense development are slim, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. As the government pushes an expansionary fiscal policy post-COVID-19, increased defense spending is unlikely to be a top priority.

Instead, a multistep compromise is needed. For Sabah, Putrajaya should consider relocating pre-existing Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) and RMN assets from Peninsular Malaysia to Sabah, as there is substantially less risk of a maritime threat to the former. This gives East Malaysian security operations the assets they require without increasing financial commitments. Additionally, Putrajaya ought to increase the MMEAs scope within ESSCOM whilst reducing the purview of the Malaysian Armed Forces, given that the former focuses specifically on maritime issues.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Furthermore, minilateral efforts on the Trilateral Cooperative Agreement (TCA) between Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines to patrol the Sulu Sea have been successful in reducing transnational crimes. In March 2022, all three TCA signatories pledged to increase patrols in the area. However, this must be translated into swift action given the persistent threats of cross-border crimes along East Malaysias border.

Finally, the last piece of the puzzle for East Malaysian border security is the pursuit of softer approaches. The Malaysian government must explore how better to tackle the root causes of the emerging non-traditional security threats. Grassroots initiatives in border communities are necessary to instill the nationalism needed to overcome crossborder kinship ties. Putrajaya should also utilize its network of Village Security and Development Committees in rural areas to educate villagers on the importance of their role in protecting national security and to rebuild trust in the Federation.

The onus is on Putrajaya to re-examine its strategy toward East Malaysias security. The incursion of Lahad Datu in 2013 is a bitter lesson that Malaysia will have to endure. To prevent a recurrence, it must undertake multilayered efforts to address East Malaysias border security challenges.

View post:
Reexamining East Malaysian Security in an Age of Growing Threats - The Diplomat

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which governs how personal data of individuals in the EU may be processed and transferred, went into effect on May 25, 2018. GDPR is a comprehensive privacy legislation that applies across sectors and to companies of all sizes. It replaces the Data Protection Directive 1995/46. The overall objectives of the measures are the same laying down the rules for the protection of personal data and for the movement of data.

GDPR is broad in scope and uses broad definitions. Personal data is any information that relates to an identified or identifiable living individual (data subject) such as a name, email address, tax ID number, online identifier, etc. Processing data includes actions such as collecting, recording, storing and transferring data.

A company that is not established in the Union may have to comply with the Regulation when processing personal data of EU and EEA residents (EEA countries are Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland):a) If the company offers goods or services to data subjects in the EU; or,b) If the company is monitoring data subjects behavior taking place within the EU.

The mere accessibility of a companys website in the EU is insufficient to subject a company to GDPR, but other evidence of the intent to offer goods or services in the EU would be relevant.

As a general rule, companies that are not established in the EU but that are subject to GDPR must designate in writing an EU representative for purposes of GDPR compliance. There is an exception to this requirement for small scale, occasional processing of non-sensitive data.

Fines in case of non-compliance can reach up to 4% of the annual worldwide revenue or 20 million euros whichever is higher. Companies of all sizes and sectors should consider GDPR as part of their overall compliance effort with assistance of legal counsel.

The European Commission and Data Protection Authorities are releasing official guidelines to help companies with their compliance process. These documents relate, for instance, to the role of the data protection officer, personal data breach notification, data protection impact assessment.

Note: the EU is currently updating its e-privacy legislation governing confidentiality of communications. This legislative instrument once enacted will add several requirements in addition to the GDPR. We encourage U.S. exporters to monitor this situation as it evolves through the EU legislative process.

For more information: Full GDPR textOfficial Press Release

European Commission guidance:https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_enhttps://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/justice-and-fundamental-rights/data-protection/2018-reform-eu-data-protection-rules_en https://edpb.europa.eu/edpb_enhttps://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/general-guidance/gdpr-guidelines-recommendations-best-practices_en

Transferring Customer Data to Countries outside the EUThe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for the free flow of personal data within the EU but also for its protection when it leaves the regions borders.GDPR sets out obligations on data controllers (those in charge of deciding what personal data is collected and how/why it is processed), on data processors (those who act on behalf of the controller) and gives rights to data subjects (the individuals to whom the data relates). These rules were designed to provide a high level of privacy protection for personal data and were complemented by measures to ensure the protection is maintained when data leaves the region, whether it is transferred to controllers, processors or to third parties (e.g. subcontractors). EU legislators put restrictions on transfers of personal data outside of the EU, specifying that such data could only be exported if adequate protection is provided.

The European Commission (EC) is responsible for assessing whether a country outside the EU has a legal framework that provides enough protection for it to issue an adequacy finding to that country. The U.S. has never sought to be found adequate by the EC. This means that U.S. companies can only receive personal data from the EU if they:

For more information, consult the European Commissions webpage on data transfers outside the EU https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection_en

Important note:The legal environment for data transfers to the United States continues to evolve. Companies that transfer EU citizen data to the United States as part of a commercial transaction should consult with an attorney, who specializes in EU data privacy law, to determine what options may be available for a transaction.

About the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was designed by the U.S. Department of Commerce and theEuropean Commission to provide companies on both sides of the Atlantic with a mechanism to comply with EU data protection requirements when transferring personal data from the European Union to the United States in support of transatlantic commerce.For more information on the EU-U.S. Privacy ShieldFor more information about other mechanisms of transfer, please refer to:https://www.export.gov/article?id=European-Union-Transferring-Personal-Data-From-the-EU-to-the-UShttps://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/international-dimension-data-protection_en

European Union 28 Information Management Market Access

View post:
European Union - Data Privacy and Protection | Privacy Shield

Construction Photography/AvalonGetty Images

The European Union's intelligent speed assistance program took effect on Wednesday, starting a new era of enhanced safety regulations brought forward by the cluster of European nations. The program is focused on limiting speeding through four different warning systems installed in all new chassis introduced in the EU. Manufacturers are only required to pick one system and will be able to choose which of the four warning systems to install, though some have already elected to install multiple.

Each warning system functions differently with some being progressively more invasive than others. On the light end of the spectrum, some cars will note speed limits through sign-recognition cameras or GPS data and audibly alert the driver if they are exceeding them. Using the same technology, other cars will produce a vibration throughout the driver's cockpit alerting them of their speed. Alternatively, the other two warning systems rely on the tension of the accelerator pedal, known as haptic feedback and speed control function.

Haptic feedback requires the car to recognize speed signs and, if the driver is in fact speeding, automatically push back against the driver's accelerator pedal pressure. The speed control function goes one step further by cutting power input from the pedal once the speed limit is reached. It's important to note that drivers can override all four of these systems, either by acknowledging the audible or vibrating warnings or by pushing harder on the accelerator in the case of the haptic feedback or speed control function.

For many enthusiasts reading this, these technologies sound like a nightmare to the analog purists inside of us. The EU doesn't want these technologies to take human decision-making out of driving, however; these ISA systems are meant to be reminders, not restrictors.

"It should be possible to switch off intelligent speed assistance, for instance, when a driver experiences false warnings or inappropriate feedback as a result of inclement weather conditions, temporarily conflicting road markings in construction zones, or misleading, defective or missing road signs," the text of the General Vehicle Safety Regulation reads. Additionally, the regulatory requirements of the ISA system explicitly states that, "it shall not affect the possibility, for the drivers, of exceeding the systems prompted vehicle speed."

As with all new technologies, the likelihood of real-world errors and future troubleshooting is high. Beyond technological faults, driver annoyance with auditory warnings was also considered, seeing as it may lead operators to turn the system off completely. As the program is tested, the focus on maintaining some degree of driver autonomy will be imperative to its success. The legislation was adopted by the European Commission, though it is currently under two-month scrutiny from the European Parliament and Council.

All things considered, the technology is a good-faith effort to reduce fatal crashes at a time of soaring traffic deaths. Analysis of trial runs by the European Transport Safety Council suggests that this technology will reduce speeding by 30% and traffic deaths by 20%. Manufacturers like Ford and Renault are already experimenting with the technology across the European Union and even in the United Kingdom. And while the current rule only applies to all-new models, ISA systems will become mandatory for all new cars sold starting July 2024.

Do you think anti-speed technology would work on this side of the pond? Share your thoughts on in the comments below.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Read the original here:
Anti-Speeding Technology Is Now Mandatory in European Union - autoweek.com

Russia tried in every possible way to disrupt the addresses of the President of Ukraine to the peoples and parliaments of European countries, but it has lost its influence in the European Union.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky said this in his address to the Slovenian parliament, Ukrinform reports.

I am grateful to all the countries of the European Union in which such appeals of mine took place. We know that Russia tried to disrupt them, tried to use its various connections - political, diplomatic, even business. In Moscow they understand that they have nothing to oppose such trust between the people of Ukraine and Europe and such communication activity with. Therefore, they threatened Europeans, manipulated those who depend on them. But this is already the twenty-fourth parliament of the twenty-seven countries of the European Union, and I want to congratulate you on this obvious evidence that Russia has lost its influence in the European Union. The fact remains the following: most of the countries of the European Union cannot be ruled by Russia. And this is a new political reality in Europe, which we achieved together - every country that stood up for the defense of our common freedom, Zelensky said.

He added that the words about freedom are not just words, but a key goal of the anti-war coalition. Now, according to the President of Ukraine, new and strong security, political and economic steps are being taken on the basis of a new unity.

And legal steps are next, namely: bringing Russian war criminals to justice. Most importantly, by going through this terrible challenge of the Russian war together, we prove that European values do not remain just a reference to old treaties and conventions, do not serve as formal criteria only at the level of rhetoric, but are the real basis of life on the continent here and now. And every country of the united Europe made its contribution to this, he said.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian troops are shelling and destroying the key infrastructure facilities in Ukraine, firing at Ukrainian cities and villages with artillery, multiple launch rocket systems and ballistic missiles.

Read more:
Russia lost its influence in European Union - Zelensky - Ukrinform