NHS drafts stricter oversight of trans youth care

Source: Reuters

 

England’s National Health Service has drafted new guidelines for treating transgender youth that would call for local authorities to be alerted in some cases where young people have obtained puberty blockers and hormone therapies on the private market, according to a copy of the guidelines reviewed by Reuters.

The guidelines are part of a wide-ranging review of treatment for young transgender people seeking NHS care. The current approach, which can include medical interventions, has been criticized by some practitioners who said it rushed people onto medication, and by families who complained the service could not manage fast-growing demand.

 

Content of the NHS Draft

 

The draft guideline says that if NHS professionals decide a patient should not be taking puberty blockers or hormone treatments obtained privately, they can advise the patient’s primary care doctor to initiate “safeguarding protocols.”

The draft does not spell out why safeguarding measures would be taken or what that would entail. But under NHS protocols, “safeguarding teams” are made up of representatives of the police, medical and social services professionals who are responsible for ensuring a child’s safety and well-being.

The NHS has previously said it “strongly discouraged” people from sourcing gender-affirming medications online from providers that are not regulated within the UK.

“No-one should be purchasing illegal, unknown and potentially life-threatening drugs online,” said NHS England medical director Dr Stephen Powis in a statement earlier this week.

Cleo Madeleine, a spokesperson for Gendered Intelligence, a national transgender-led charity which provides training, support and policy advice, said the charity did not want to comment directly on the draft document. Any new guidelines must avoid a “rehash” of the current system, which has “so many administrative barriers and capacity issues that it became unsustainable,” she said.

“It is crucial that the new services focus on … actually facilitating access to treatment and support rather than leaving young people and their families in limbo,” she said.

Other changes in the draft guidelines include: allowing only NHS professionals to refer youth for gender care, proposing teams with wider professional expertise within the clinics, and requiring meetings between referring staff and a clinic to establish if gender clinics are the best route for treatment.

 

For more updates on legal industry, click here.

Elon Musk’s texts with Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal detail tumultuous Twitter negotiations

A tranche of Elon Musk’s private messages have been made public as part of his ongoing lawsuit with Twitter. The messages, revealed in a court filing Thursday, shed new light on Musk’s behind-the-scenes negotiations with Twitter’s leadership, as well discussions with former CEO Jack Dorsey, and how Musk’s talks with CEO Parag Agrawal quickly soured.

 

The messages include the moment Musk tells Agrawal he wants to acquire Twitter and take it private, rather than join the board. Agrawal confronts Musk about an April 9th tweet questioning if “Twitter is dying.”

 

Texts exchanged between Elon Musk, Agarwal and Dorsey

 

Musk responded less than a minute later. The messages also provide a glimpse into the relationship between Dorsey and Musk. Dorsey has publicly said that “Elon is the singular solution I trust,” but hasn’t publicly commented since Musk sued in an attempt to renege on the acquisition. But in the newly released messages, it’s clear Dorsey has wanted Musk to take on an active role at Twitter for some time. Dorsey tells Musk that he wanted him to join Twitter’s board of directors long before Musk acquired a large stake in the company.

 

Dorsey seemed to be referring to Elliott Management, the activist investor that attempted to oust Dorsey in early 2020. Notably, this conversation occurred in late March, after Musk had acquired a multibillion-dollar stake in Twitter, but before his stake had been made public. He and Dorsey also discussed the Twitter cofounder’s belief that Twitter “can’t be a company.”

 

Musk responds that the idea is “super interesting” and that “it’s worth both trying to move Twitter in a better direction and doing something new that’s decentralized.” The following month, Dorsey also attempted to play mediator between Musk and Agrawal, at one point arranging a call between the three of them. “You and I are in complete agreement,” Musk tells Dorsey. “Parag is just moving far too slowly and trying to please people who will not be happy no matter what he does.”

 

For more updates on retail industry, Click here.

Elon Musk and Twitter are now fighting about Signal messages

Elon Musk’s private messages could once again land him in hot water in his legal fight with Twitter. Lawyers for the two sides once again faced off in Delaware’s Court of Chancery ahead of an October trial that will determine the fate of the deal.

 

Among the issues raised in the more than three-hour long hearing was Musk’s use of encrypted messaging app Signal. Twitter’s lawyers claim that Musk has been withholding messages sent via the app, citing a screenshot of an exchange between Musk and Jared Birchall, the head of Musk’s family office.

 

In Twitter’s View

 

According to Twitter’s lawyers, the message referenced Morgan Stanley and Marc Andreesen as well as “a conversation about EU regulatory approval” of Musk’s deal with Twitter. Twitter’s lawyers said they uncovered a screenshot of the exchange after Musk and Birchall had denied using Signal to talk about the deal. The screenshot showed the message was set to automatically delete.

 

Lawyers for Twitter also cited “a missing text message” between Musk and Oracle Chairman Larry Ellison, who was set to be a co-investor in the Twitter deal. Musk and Ellison were texting the morning before Musk tweeted that the Twitter deal was “temporarily on hold.” It’s not clear what the significance of the texts are, but Twitter’s lawyers noted that Musk wrote to Ellison saying “interesting times” before arranging a phone call with him.

 

Twitter’s lawyers are asking the judge in the case, Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, to sanction Musk over his side’s handling of his messages. “We do think that the time has come for the court to issue a severe sanction,” Twitter’s lawyers said during the hearing.

 

In Elon Musk’s View

 

Musk’s side attempted to downplay the significance of the Tesla CEO’s use of Signal. “There actually is no evidence that we destroyed evidence,” one of Musk’s lawyers responded. “Signal, you know, it sounds like it’s a nefarious device,” she said. “In fact, Twitter executives have testified that a number of them actually use Signal messaging.”

 

Musk’s lawyers cited the existence of Signal messages between Jack Dorsey and board chair Bret Taylor, and noted that current CEO Parag Agrawal has also turned over Signal messages. “Signal is not some exotic mechanism, it’s very common in Silicon Valley to use this platform,” she said.

 

For more updates on legal industry, Click here.

EU is bringing anti-speeding tech by 2024 for all cars

European Union uni will come with a new rule for new cars and that is Every new car sold in EU will soon include anti-speeding technology known as intelligent speed assistance, or ISA. The Mobility and Transport Department of Europe said, “From July 2022, Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) will be mandatory for new models/types of vehicles introduced on the market. The ISA will become mandatory for all new cars that will be sold from July 2024 (therefore it will not concern the vehicle fleet already registered and in circulation before that date).”

 

The ISA system

 

The ISA system is required to work with the driver and not to restrict his/her possibility to act in any moment during driving. The driver is always in control and can easily override the ISA system.

The ISA regulation provides four options for systems feedback to the driver, from which car manufacturers will be free to choose from:

 

  1. Cascaded acoustic warning
  2. Cascaded vibrating warning
  3. Haptic feedback through the acceleration pedal
  4. Speed control function

 

The first two feedback options do not directly intervene but only provide warnings (first optic and if no response from the driver, a delayed acoustic/vibrating warning), which have to be as short as possible in duration to avoid potential annoyance of the driver.

The other possible feedback relies on the pedal restoring force – it will push the driver’s foot gently back to make the driver aware and help to slow down. The driver can ignore this feedback and override the system by pushing slightly harder on the acceleration pedal. Even in the case of speed control function, where the car speed will be automatically gently reduced, the system can be smoothly overridden by the driver by pressing the accelerator pedal a little bit deeper.”

The European Commission in a press release said, “The roll out of ISA is a huge step forward for road safety and has the potential to dramatically reduce road traffic injuries and fatalities. Car manufacturers now have the opportunity to maximise the potential ISA presents for creating safer roads for all,”

The Supreme court has denied to hear the Apple-Qualcomm patent case

The Apple-Qualcomm patent case was expected to end in 2019 over a patent. According to a report by Engadget in 2019, “The two companies have settled their patent royalty dispute, ending all ongoing legal action (including with Apple’s manufacturing partners). Apple has agreed to pay Qualcomm an unspecified amount, while both sides have struck a six-year patent license deal as well as a “multiyear” wireless chipset supply deal.”

 

The current scenario of Apple-Qualcomm patent case

 

But recently it has come to notice that the battle is not over yet. Apple has requested for a hearing to potentially invalidate two Qualcomm patents that played key roles in 2017 attempts to ban Apple Watch, iPad and iPhone sales over allegedly infringing modem technology. But the supreme court has rejected the request. According to a report by The Verge, “The Supreme Court declined Apple’s bid (pdf) for a hearing over two Qualcomm patents (US Patent No. 7,844,037 and US Patent No. 8,683,362) that were part of lawsuits filed in 2017, claiming infringement by Apple’s iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches.” Though these two tech giants’ dispute was settled, one of them is still in a thought of taking the matter to the court again. According to a report by Reuters, “The U.S. The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Apple Inc’s (AAPL.O) bid to revive an effort to cancel two Qualcomm Inc (QCOM.O) smartphone patents despite the global settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.”

 

The settlement

 

The Apple-Qualcomm patent case will settle the companies’ main dispute have agreed a six-year licensing deal. So when Apple approached the Supreme court, the justice department had supporting files to opposing the request. But it is also true that the licensing deal is ending in 2025 or (if extended) 2027. So it is not clear what Apple will do after that.

Meta has banned employees from discussing abortion rights internally

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, has put a restriction on its employees regarding the discussion about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on internal communication channels of the company. The company has asked its employees not to discuss abortion rights internally.

 

Meta’s excuse to not discuss abortion rights

 

According to New York Times, Meta issued a memo on May 12—after the draft opinion was leaked to Politico—saying that “discussing abortion openly at work has a heightened risk of creating a hostile work environment” so it “would not allow open discussion” among employees. One of the company’s policies has put “strong guardrails around social, political, and sensitive conversations.”

 

Criticism

 

Ambroos Vaes, a A software engineer of Meta, talked about the restrictions of the company, on LinkedIn. Times spotted the post which reads, “On our internal Workplace platform, moderators swiftly remove posts or comments mentioning abortion,” Vaes said in the LinkedIn post. “The ‘respectful’ communications policy that was put in place explicitly disallows it. Limited discussion can only happen in groups of up to 20 employees who follow a set playbook, but not out in the open.”

 

It is not the first time Meta has restricted its employees from discussing an issue. Earlier the company updated its Respectful Communication. In 2020 after the murder of George Floyd the company instructed the employees to stop discussing political and social issues in company-wide Workplace channels.

 

In this hour, Meta is being accused of banning employees from discussing abortion rights internally. But Meta is doing something which can dilute bad names in the media. According to Engadget, “On Friday, Meta also told employees it would reimburse the travel expenses of employees in need of access to out-of-state healthcare and reproductive services “to the extent permitted by law.” That’s a policy many tech companies, including Google, had in place before Friday’s decision and that they reiterated after the Supreme Court announced its ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.”

 

Why are Senators and Lawmakers Urging Federal Trade Commission?

A group of Democratic senators is urging the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Apple and Google over their collection of mobile users’ information. In a letter addressed to Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, the lawmakers — Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory A. Booker and Sara Jacobs — accuse the tech giants of “engaging in unfair and deceptive practices by enabling the collection and sale of hundreds of millions of mobile phone users’ personal data.” They added that the companies “facilitated these harmful practices by building advertising-specific tracking IDs into their mobile operating systems.”

 

Plea to Federal Trade Commission

 

The senators specifically mentioned in their letter how individuals seeking abortions will become particularly vulnerable if their data, especially their location information, is collected and shared. They wrote the letter shortly before the Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade, making abortion immediately illegal in states with trigger laws. They explained that data brokers are already selling location information of people visiting abortion providers. The senators also stressed how that information can now be used by private citizens incentivized by “bounty hunter” laws targeting individuals seeking an abortion.

Android and Google were built with tracking identifiers that are used for advertising purposes. While the identifiers are supposed to be anonymous, the senators said data brokers are selling databases linking them to consumer names, email addresses and telephone numbers. Apple rolled out an update for iOS last year to implement stricter app tracking privacy measures, requiring apps to ask for permission before collecting users’ unique Identification for Advertisers device code.

 

Google and Apple’s Response

 

Google, they said, still enables that tracking identifier by default. The company previously introduced features to make it harder to track users across apps, though, and it recently vowed to refine Privacy Sandbox on Android, “with the goal of introducing new, more private advertising solutions.” The tech giant told Ars Technica: “Google never sells user data, and Google Play strictly prohibits the sale of user data by developers… Any claims that advertising ID was created to facilitate data sale are simply false.”

Despite the solutions the companies had introduced, the lawmakers said they’d already caused harm. They’re now asking the Federal Trade Commission to look into the role Apple and Google played in “transforming online advertising into an intense system of surveillance that incentivizes and facilitates the unrestrained collection and constant sale of Americans’ personal data.”

 

Lawmakers Direct Google to Crackdown Manipulative Search Results

A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Elissa Slotkin is urging Google to “crackdown on manipulative search results” that lead people seeking abortions to anti-abortion clinics. In a letter addressed to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, the lawmakers reference a study conducted by US nonprofit group Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The organization found that 1 in 10 Google search results for queries such as “abortion clinics near me” and “abortion pill” — specifically in states with trigger laws that would ban the procedure the moment Roe v. Wade is overturned — points to crisis pregnancy centers that oppose abortion instead.

 

Google’s Manipulative Search Results

 

“Directing women towards fake clinics that traffic in misinformation and don’t provide comprehensive health services is dangerous to women’s health and undermines the integrity of Google’s search results,” the lawmakers wrote. CCDH also found that 37 percent of results on Google Maps for the same search terms lead people to anti-abortion clinics. The lawmakers argue in the letter that Google should not be displaying manipulative search results for users searching for abortion and that if the company’s search results must continue showing them, they should at least be properly labeled.

In addition, CCDH found that 28 percent of ads displayed at the top of Google’s manipulative search results are for crisis pregnancy centers. Google added a disclaimer for those ads, “albeit one that appears in small font and is easily missed,” the lawmakers note, after getting flak for them a few years ago. “The prevalence of these misleading ads marks what appears to be a concerning reversal from Google’s pledge in 2014 to take down ads from crisis pregnancy centers that engage in overt deception of women seeking out abortion information online,” the letter reads.

 

Plans to Limit Appearance of Anti-abortion Clinics

 

Warner, Slotkin and the letter’s other signees are asking Google what it plans to do to limit the appearance of anti-abortion clinics when users are explicitly searching for abortion services. And, if Google chooses not to take action to prevent them from appearing in results, the group is asking whether Google would add user-friendly disclaimers clarifying whether the clinic is or isn’t providing abortion services. You can read the whole letter below:

A Supreme Court draft obtained by Politico in May showed that SCOTUS justices have voted to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that protected the federal rights to abortion across the country. Senator Ron Wyden and 41 other Democratic lawmakers also previously asked Google to stop collecting and keeping users’ location data. They said the information could be used against people who’ve had or are seeking abortions in states with trigger laws.

Adidas files complaint against Nike for its mobile apps and smart sneaker tech

The two leading sports brands Adidas and Nike have got involved in court trials standing against each other. Adidas filed a complaint against Nike in the court with the allegation that Nike has broken some rules regarding nine of patents relating to smartphone apps and adjustable shoe tech.

Reporting Complaint Against Nike

 

Speaking about the complaint against Nike, The Verge said, “Adidas is seeking damages from Nike as well as a court order preventing Nike from “directly or indirectly infringing one or more” of the patents involved.””

 

Reuters reported “The lawsuit filed in East Texas federal court said Nike’s Run Club, Training Club and SNKRS mobile apps and Adapt system for adjusting sneaker fits violate nine Adidas patents for exercise monitoring, an “intelligent footwear” system, and other technology.”

 

What is Adidas claiming?

 

Owing to the complaint against Nike, Adidas’s patents include its “intelligent footwear” system and other tech used for the Adidas_1 smart sneaker and sneaker. Adidas claims that they brought “world’s first intelligent running shoe” from 2005 — which featured the “first fully integrated training system combining sensors in shoes and wearable devices” — as well as mobile fitness and sneaker reservation technology.

 

Nike first revealed the self-lacing Back to the Future Nike Mag sneaker in 2016. 2019 Adapt was rolled out to the wider public. Adidas claims this development is copied from Adidas_1 sneaker, especially the technology helping the shoe to mold according to a wearer’s foot.

 

In the complaint, adidas claims itself to be the historic “leader in mobile technology, including technology related to mobile fitness and mobile purchases”. Talking about the running apps they launched in 2015 they stated that the Adidas “was the first in the industry to comprehensively bring data analytics to athletes,”

 

What is Adidas demanding?

 

For now Adidas is demanding an “unspecified amount of money” as well as an order preventing Nike from infringing upon Adidas’s patents in the future. The undetermined amount should be “sufficient,” according to the documents, but “not less than a reasonable royalty, together with interests and costs.”

EU Introduces Digital Markets Act to Balance Power of Large Tech

The EU has unveiled its biggest ever legislative effort to balance competition in the tech world. The new Digital Markets Act, or DMA, is intended to rein in the power of the largest tech corporations and allow smaller entities to compete with the most US-based firms. So far, the EU has tackled antitrust issues on a case-by-case basis, but the DMA is intended to introduce sweeping reforms that will address systemic issues in the whole market.

 

New Digital Markets Act (DMA)

 

The announcement of the new Digital Markets Act targets interoperability of messaging apps like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and iMessage, with the EU saying that vendors will have to open up and interoperate with smaller messaging platforms if they so request. The EU says that this should give users more choice in how they send messages, without having to worry about what platform the recipient is on. There’s also a requirement that users should be able to “freely choose their browser, virtual assistants or search engines.”

The legislation has not passed yet. This is because the EU says the language has to be finalized and checked, at which point it’ll have to be approved by Parliament and Council. The DMA could force new obligations on companies deemed to be “gatekeepers” — a category defined by the legislation as firms with a market capitalization of at least €75 billion ($82 billion); at least 45,000 active users; and a “platform” like an app or social network.

 

Mandating Gatekeepers to follow Rules

 

Companies covered by this classification of the new Digital Markets Act include well-known tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Apple, but also smaller entities like Booking.com. If the “gatekeepers” don’t follow the rules, then the financial penalties could be steep: “the Commission can impose fines of up to 10 percent of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year, and 20 percent in case of repeated infringements. In case of systematic infringements, the Commission may ban them from acquiring other companies for a certain time.”

As the EU’s Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, told The Verge last week, the aim is for the DMA to make the tech sector “open and contestable.” “So it depends on your ideas, your work ethics, your ability to attract capital, whether you’ll be successful with your customers or not,” said Vestager. “And unfortunately, because of the systemic nature of behavior, that’s not necessarily the case today.”

 

Also Read: Impact Of Big Data In The Legal Industry