text:
Hey, this is a CRITICALLY important change that would do incredible good. The CFAA was the hook for the government's bullying of @aaronsw. This law would remove that hook. In a single line: no longer would it be a felony to breach a contract. Let's get this done for Aaron — now.
This looks good, but could you kindly elaborate in plain English for we non-lawyer plebs just how this changes title 18 USC? How exactly did this law nail Aaron? What are the ramifications if there are future activists' incidents (e.g., the hijinks of Anonymous, et al.)? Is there a potential downside to Lofgren's proposed amendment, and if so, for whom? Right now, as welcome as it seems, there are more questions raised than answered. I am sure I would not be alone in my deep appreciation for you taking the time to educate all of us who are so profoundly unsettled just now, not only by losing Aaron but at the prospects for living a sane life under a ruthless and totalitarian regime.
Perhaps your blog might be the best venue to address it. May I suggest a note here and also something on Twitter to alert us when you've had an opportunity to jot down a few notes?Many, many thanks,
For plain english - read the last three paragraphs
I don't know the exact details of Aaron's prosecution, but I can analyze this bill for you. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 is what this would modify. Specifically, (e) (6). (6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
This is relevant in the context of (a)(2) and a(4) - basically saying that anyone who “exceeds authorized access” as defined in (e)(6) has committed a crime punishable under subsection (c), which allowed the prosecutor to both extensive prison sentences and heavy fines.
This bill would alter the definition of “exceeds authorized access” to become:
(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter, but does not include access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer, if such violation constitutes the sole basis for determining that access to a protected computer is unauthorized;’’.
Which basically means that, before, whenever you violated the use policy on JSTOR, you were “exceeding authorized access” and coming under the scope of (a)(2) and (a)(4); now, if the only offense you are committing is violating that use policy, you are NOT “exceeding authorized access” for the purposes of (a)(2) and (a)(4), and thus NOT liable for criminal fines or punishment under this section of Title 18.
The indictment against Aaron has 13 charges - including 12 charges under 1343 (changed by this bill) and 1030(a)(4) and 1030(a)(2) (both also changed by this bill). This really does appear to hit the nail on the head, in so far as those sorts of charges will no longer be able to be levied against people who commit the same exact violation as Aaron did.
That’s my best effort. I hope Larry does a fuller job of it.
Many thanks.I'm still trying to wrap my non-legalistic mind around all the implications. The others' remarks following below have helped, too. If you've seen Larry's blog today --http://tmblr.co/Z5y-Syc2bK83 -- he seems to be hurting too bad to focus much on my question. Can't blame him. Seldom, if ever, have I been so befuddled as to this country's understanding of fundamental liberties. Seems that what I see as "truths (which we) hold to be self-evident" are a far cry from the ruling regime's view.
In super plain English: if you and I have a contract (say, I agree to pay you $10, and you agree to take a picture of me) and I breach the contract (you take the picture, I don't pay), your only legal remedy under American law is to sue me for breach of contract. If you were to call the police and say "this guy broke a contract," they would tell you to sue me and leave them alone.
Now, websites often require you to sign a contract in order to access a database. These are the "clickwrap" or EULA agreements we absent-mindedly click through on the Internet all the time. If you breach the contract and access the website/database anyway (by, say, violating one of the provisions regarding downloading files through approved pathways, as Aaron did), you are technically accessing the database without permission -- which the CFAA defines as hacking, a felony.
What the proposed Amendment does is carve an exception in cases where administrators of websites/databases choose to protect their site through contract. So, if you breach a contract by violating the terms of the EULA, the remedy for the website operator is to sue you, not to call in the feds.
For the more technical explanation of how this changes the mechanics of the law, see @chamuelx's comment below.
As for potential downsides: it might create interesting incentives for website operators in deciding whether to continue to use contract law to protect their data or instead try to construct interpretations of acceptable behavior through the courts. I don't know real world figures, but if access in violation of the the EULA happens often enough, smaller websites might not have the resources to sue everyone. The operator would also be limited only to compensatory damages, which would probably be minuscule.
Hope this helps!
Please do as Gus asks. These "named in post tragedy" bills are knee jerk reactions, can be rushed, and could include stipulations that go against the spirit of the intended fixes proposed. I hope we all see past the name, and remember that politicians play to our heartstrings, and aren't above using it to further any personal advantage that they can.
Respectfully, I am concerned that the draft proposed by Rep Lofgren appears to grant license to damage and extort by systems administrators exclusively, and would severely weaken the legal rights of all citizens to file for civil remedy under 18.1030 (g) in those instances. Please see my post in this thread for detailed info. Your feedback there is welcome.
Robert W. Mann, AAS Data Processing 1983, Victim of Fraud 18 USC 1030
I would like to see "unauthorized access" require intentional, material deception. What I mean by that is that it should require that someone somehow lied intentionally to gain access and that, without that deception, access would not have been granted. So if you steal someone else's account, it's pretty easy to prove. But if you put down a fake name on a signup form in violation of a ToS, well, they were going to give you access no matter what information you put in there, so it's not a federal crime and their remedies are limited to turning off your account and the like.
That said, I do like the look of this law. Site Terms of Service should not be able to define felonious conduct. Employers and website owners should not have the ability to define the scope of criminal activity. That's just plain wrong.
Otherwise, I'm going to attach a "terms of service" to everything I write that says you can't read it unless you agree with me. So if you don't agree with me, you're a felon for exceeding your authorized access to the information I post. Yeah, that's idiotic, but it's not much different from how they used the law against Aaron. So I'm really glad you're trying to change things. Good luck!
should require that someone somehow lied intentionally to gain access
How would your proposed amendment not have allowed Swartz to still be prosecuted on the basis of having changed his MAC address?
I think at the very minimum it should require actual notice to be given to someone who is banned from accessing something, rather than requiring them to infer it from the existence of a block on their IP or MAC or whatever.
I'm all for it, but what are the chances of anyone making headway on the entire issue of plea bargaining? Is that too baked into the system to address?
That unfortunately its. Prosecutors have over 450 laws and statutes to play with and enforce. They can decide to use quite a but to pressure you into a bad deal. The answer is a better judicial system but those need to be invented. Take away one less barb and you eventually get your democracy back.
Please tell us -
How would this law have prevented Aaron from being still being charged with felonies for evading technical restrictions (by changing addresses) and for unauthorized access to a network (the unlocked network closet) ?
Personally, while I'm not in favor of these things being a felony either, I don't find them to be particularly egregious. Bypassing established security controls isn't very cool.
Filtering by MAC address is not an "established security control". You are not required by any law to keep your MAC address constant. Arguably, it might be sensible to illegalize changing your MAC address to impersonate another machine for the purpose of gaining some access allowed only for that machine; but changing MAC address to evade blocks targeted specifically at your machine should not be illegal, in my opinion.
The "unauthorized network access" by plugging your machine into an unsecured network probably should also fall under the "violation of terms and conditions only"?
Impersonating another computer by using it's MAC address has many legitimate uses. For example, when your friend can't get on the WIFI and you can, you can change your MAC address to his to determine if the MAC address is being blocked. Saves a trip to the help desk and leaves the WIFI operator's helpdesk staff available to help others. IMO, the focus of the law should always be on the ends, not the means.
There's been an awful lot of "Aaron was innocent (in the moral sense)", from myself included. But if we're talking about fixing the law, it's time to switch hats and realize that yes, Aaron ran afoul of the law (or really, the law ran afoul of Aaron) in many ways. And despite the fact that we'd like to handwave this away because we do similar things quite often, the truth is that a large part of every advanced computer user's actions have been criminalized.
but changing MAC address to evade blocks targeted specifically at your machine should not be illegal, in my opinion
Except that sorry, the way the law works is that a MAC address block has been targeted at you and your actions. By realizing that your MAC address has been blocked (hence changing it in response), you are clearly aware that you are no longer desired on and hence authorized to use the network.
The "unauthorized network access" by plugging your machine into an unsecured network
Except in the eyes of the law, the particular network access was secured by virtue of only being available in a non-public area. Trespassing into an unlocked network closet once again implies that you're aware that you're not supposed to be there. Now in this specific case, there's a few mitigating factors in our favor (the room's security had lapsed for quite some time given there was a homeless person living in it, MIT students also were probably in and out of it by their very nature, etc), but these are nuances that inevitably get argued in court, and would not have stopped him from getting charged.
MIT has never enforced this sort of access control. When I was Aaron's age, I was allowed to bring my own computer (an IBM AT, can you believe it?) into Tech Square and set it up in a machine room on the 7th floor so that I could download code and hack on software FSF was working on at the time (gcc).
So the fact that Aaron was able to put his laptop in that closet isn't surprising to me, and I think referring to that closet as an access-controlled area is about as accurate as referring to the men's restroom down the hall as an access-controlled area: not at all.
and I think referring to that closet as an access-controlled area is about as accurate as referring to the men's restroom down the hall as an access-controlled area: not at all.
And this is a fantastic argument for you, me, or anyone else to make in front of a court while fighting a felony charge for entering this closet and plugging in a computer. But please be aware that by the time you get this opportunity, you're already being severly punished for doing something that "MIT has never enforced".
Okay, if you want to be pedantic, what I meant is "never made any serious effort to enforce prior to this occasion."
Sorry to be unclear - I wasn't trying to imply that your words were incorrect or it was incorrect to state that MITs policies are to generally leave people alone. I'm trying to get across that even when the prevailing attitude is one of an open network, depending on who's feathers you ruffle, you can still easily be charged with a felony even without a TOS and then have an expensive uphill legal battle to prove that such activities are indeed generally accepted.
So once you have been blocked by MAC address, it would also become illegal to replace your machine with a different one with unmodified MAC address, since your MAC block has been targeted at you and you're circumventing that block by using different hardware? Such reading would quickly turn into a very sticky situation.
MAC addresses are not personal identifiers. They exist for a purely technical reason — to allow machines on the same network to know which packets are indended for them, as opposed to other machines on the network. Establishing access controls using MAC address would be like restricting certain access based on the user's password (e.g. "feature X is not available to users whose password hash is XXX") instead of the actual user identity, and then arguing that by changing their password, the user has circumvented an "access control".
How is entering an unlocked room equivalent to being "aware that you're not supposed to be there"?
It comes down to intent, and not mechanics. You're having trouble understanding how the law works for exactly the same reason that makes open-ended "unauthorized access" laws so dangerous to techies and in desperate need of an overhaul.
Yes, as a technical control, MAC addresses are quite ineffectual. But this is mostly* irrelevant from a legal standpoint. Especially the legal standpoint where you're just getting charged and not arguing in court.
The legally-relevant question is why was the MAC address blocked in the first place? Are you plugging in a new machine because you suspect your old one got blocked due to being full of virii? Or are you plugging in a new machine because you suspect your old one got blocked due to your actions, which you're planning on continuing doing until being blocked again?
As to the trespass issue, try answering these questions honestly: Do you think the network adminstrator at MIT expects people to have access to that network closet? Do you think the average person would think a "network closet" is something they could casually take a tour of? If you were walking by a similar closet and turned the doorknob, would you expect it to be locked or unlocked?
PS, we can indeed turn your technical simplicity arguments into legal arguments about whether such access controls (simple MAC address filter, unmaintained closet) should be considered effective or diligent or what have you. And they might have some legs - I don't know, I'm not a lawyer so I'm lacking those heuristics. But I do know that these arguments would only ever come up in court, which is a point that Aaron did not even get to due to him being beaten down with severe and numerous charges.
The legally-relevant question is why was the MAC address blocked in the first place?
A question which should be answered in no other way than by proving you were notified of the reason. Anything less defies the principle of being innocent until proven guilty.
a MAC address block has been targeted at you and your actions.
How are you to know that, when there's no notice requirement?
What if your computer changes MAC address on every boot (some people do this, someone posted an article to /r/privacy about this last week or so) and you never saw the block?
Edit: it's debatable, others replying to you have done a better job of discussing than me.
I love this effort, I shared it and will push it in whatever way I can. BUT the law can simply never keep up with the rate of change as it stands. this is tiny fingers in a huge, leaky dike. both statute and common law take MANY years to even slightly modify. terrible tragedies like this can sometimes lead to faster change, but that obviously doesn't scale. so often, by the time facts on the ground make their way to the body of law they have already changed. we need to start thinking about what another system might look like. oh god, do we need aaron for that....... :'(
I just want to thank you for joining us here at Reddit although I wish it were under different circumstances. I've been an admirer for a long time.
As we mourn Aaron Swartz’s tragic death, many of us are deeply troubled as we learn more about the government’s actions against him. His family’s statement about this speaks volumes about the inappropriate efforts undertaken by the U.S. government. There’s no way to reverse the tragedy of Aaron’s death, but we can work to prevent a repeat of the abuses of power he experienced.
We should prevent what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users. The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service’s user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute.
Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties.
When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that. In addition to the posted link, a draft copy of the bill is available here. In coming days, I will seek cosponsors for the bill from both political parties.
As you know from prior posts, I am drafting broader measures to improve copyright law that are separate from this effort. But this bill to amend CFAA and wire fraud statutes, which I would like to call “Aaron’s Law,” should be enacted separately and swiftly. It could be an important tribute to him.
But that is likely to happen only with your help and your support.
Rep Lofgren, thank you so much for your continuing sanity regarding the internet and digital law.
Seconded. I watched your discussion during the committee debate on SOPA with great appreciation. I wish my representative were so well-informed on these issues.
Thank you for your efforts, TOS/AUP decriminalization is a good start.
What about the fact that acquitted charges are still considered at sentencing? If Aaron had been acquitted of 12 of 13 of the charges, they all still would have factored into his penalty.
Glad to see such a quick turnaround on things like this. While we are at it can we do something about other acts of digital infringment? It's only a matter of time before an 18 year old college student is going to choose suicide over spending the rest of their life paying off the hundreds of thousands of dollars they were be fined for downloading a few mp3s.
This is, quite possibly, the only law named after a person who died tragically that is actually a much-needed change. Thank you, Rep. Lofgren. Please let those of us in Seattle know if our legislators aren't giving this enough support. We'll put the screws to 'em.
Do you have any support from your colleagues ? Have you talked it out with them ? Or is this just one more statistic, that you introduce and that dies the usual death in the house because you did not do the necessary behind the scenes lobbying with the other house members.
TL;DR: Is this a bill that was introduced to die, or have you done your homework and worked with your colleagues to make it pass
I'd go with the former. With people like Lamar Smith in office, we'll never have sensible laws related to technology. It pisses me off so much that someone that likely can't even turn on a computer can affect scientific and technological policy that affects an entire nation because his constituents are brain-dead Southerners who only vote based on guns and religion.
Can't even turn on a computer? I bet he doesn't know how to shut that whole thing down, either.
There are times when I would like to demand those who are "anti-science" to be required to hand back anything that was created because of science. It at least makes me smile (not plausible of course but still funny). Personally, I would love to give them the world they want by removing all tech from them if they believe that science didn't have a hand in them. I wonder how many of them would be so anti-science when they couldn't have their cell phones, tablets, GPS's etc.
Can you please attempt to make the penalty for stealing a CD or a game more in line with the penalty for stealing a physical copy? The penalties truly amount to cruel or unusual punishment given the nature of the infraction.
Thanks for acting so quickly.
A politician taking advantage of an opportunity to serve the interests of constituents is a bad thing? Pretty sure serving other people's interests isn't wholly self-serving, obviously.
considering the usual actions of politicians in this country, this seems a marked improvement.
zoe is a she.
The Congress also needs to address the DOJ culture of arrogance and intimidation that promotes threats of grossly disproportional charges to beat the resistance out of defendants. There are reports that the AUSA would have been satisfied with a 6 mo term (still unjust), but publicly continued to hold 35 years over the head of Aaron Swartz!
This is criminal intimidation and extortion by threat of prosecution. If the AUSA were not already embedded in the justice system, this kind of thing that would get her thrown in jail.
Prosecutors have a duty to act with fairness and equanimity that the DOJ seems to have abandoned. And Congress needs to send a message that this is no where near acceptable prosecutorial behavior.
THIS IS EXACTLY HOW I WANT A 21ST CENTURY GOVERNMENT TO WORK!!!!!!! thank you for proving that there are those in power that understand how important arrons views were
Yes, waiting for someone to die prior to acting, even though you are most likely aware of his situation, is exactly what we want.
I applaud the effort, but it's too late. Aaron is dead.
We can still save other activists. And setting this course of events really awakened in me my sense of justice. I couldn't save one person but I'll do everything in my pet to save others. That's how I feel on that.
Thank you for doing this. Do you also support open access and are there any plans to continue that fight?
Representative Lofgren, just adding my appreciation and support of your work towards remedying the current illogical statute that contributed to the loss of Aaron Swartz to our future. Your constituents in California as well as supporters throughout the planet join you in your advocacy of our digital rights.
To everyone else, please be sure to Take Action Now to inform your Representative and Senators via the EFF's advocacy effort
This looks awfully familiar for some reason.
Oh, right, it was introduced over a year ago.
This also changes 18 U.S.C. § 1343 to eliminate the sort of wire fraud charges that Aaron was also indicted on.
Thanks for acting in a timely fashion; is there anything specific we can do to help?
Just wanted to say thanks! I'd like to see it go further and stop abuse by attorneys who want to want boost their egos as well.
Thank you Rep. Lofgren, you have renewed my faith that our government does hear our voice.
She is, as you know, the first Democrat Wise Latina™
WTF that was totally unnecessary. You sound like you have some race issues. Also, the fact that you keep purposely using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" shows you've got problems. For those who don't know it's right wing lingo for reasons unknown to me.
you keep purposely using "Democrat"
Why do Democrats not want to be called Democrats?
Scratch that. I've seen damaged brands before. That explains it.
"Damaged brand"? Did you sleep through the last election. Stay stupid. edit: By the way, your side step of your ad hominem race remarks didn't go unnoticed.
Democrat Wise Latina™ is a damaged brand.
Turns out ... they're not wise.
lol Is that honestly the best you could come up with?
The US government didn't undertake these actions, Ms. Lofgren. They were undertaken by Democrats. Specific Democrats.
Aaaaand I've zoned out. Can you honestly say, given all you've seen this past decade that a republican in that position would make any difference at all?
They're (nearly) all assholes on both sides. Let's not alienate the only individual trying to fix this shit just so you can throw cheap shots at the blue corner and people with foreign heritage.
Yesssss ... focus on the minutia.
Exactly what Zoe wants.
I'm all for making sure that people know that horrible government actions are not restricted to one party, but if you think that only Democrats are responsible for draconian laws and overreaching prosecutors, you're a crazy sort of naive.
Excellent response, Rep Lofgren. Nicely targetted amendment against criminalization of ToS.
Redditors, see also the petition here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-reflect-realities-computing-and-networks-2013/qMvdwVNw
I am a Reddit noob, so I apologize ahead of time if this is bad form (and I'm guessing it is, but I want to share this anyway). I've cloned this White House petition as a "task" at my site, Brian's Taskforce. The principal behind my site is that it combines activism with giving to charity. By giving to charity on behalf of a task (which is analogous to a petition), I feel additional weight is given to your point of view.
It's like saying, "I will donate $25 (or whatever) to the American Red Cross if the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is reformed."
I invite you to take a look and join me:
That...Is actually a brilliant idea. I have never seen anything like that before.
I get paid tomorrow. I'll up the bounty to $50 when I deposit my check. Hope this site of yours takes off.
I'm a total Reddit noob and did not see your note your sent 5 months ago until just now. Thanks for the feedback! If you ever think about donating money to charity again, consider visiting my site and making the donation in support of some activism. :)
This doesn't really help the situation.
It still leaves "authorization" hopelessly vague. I accessing a publicly accessible (which doesn't require usernames) unauthorized? That's what 'weev' was convicted of.
It also doesn't address the "anonymity" issue. The first counts in Aaron's indictment for for changing/concealing his "true identity". But, MIT didn't ask for his true identity. They asked for things like contact info and a username, whether these things reflected his true identity or not was beside the point. Things like IP address, MAC address, usernames, and machine names are not people's identities. They are just some random string of letters/numbers that supposed to be unique within the system. My laptop randomizes its MAC address on boot, getting a different IP address. My "full name" and "username" do not reflect my "true identity" either. Few of my online accounts (like amazon.com) reflect my true identity. I do this for privacy and to avoid spam, not because I'm trying to conceal my true identity. Any reform should include addressing whether such anonymity/pseudonymity is illegal.
This then begs the question: What parts of the CFAA disallow anonymity and what change can we make to ensure that our constitutional right to anonymous speech is protected.
Keep the meaning of Lofgren's action clear here: This is a draft, submitted to Reddit. A draft because it is the first of her thinking, submitted to Reddit so this Aaron-enabled community can progress her thinking. So I'm definitely for what's been proposed so far. And I'm definitely for it being improved by this community. This, plus what else, recognizing we need to fix on a reform that this Congress will pass.
Community input on legislation is vital. Thanks!
I have made a github repo for title 18 and the proposed edit:
Anyone that would like to suggest alternate language (and knows what git is), please make a pull request.
Is there anything that can be done about the politically ambitious prosecution that can ruin (or end) a persons life purely for the benefit of an individuals career?
I have also witnessed this-- a good friend of mine was fired from his excellent IT security job because his highly successful immigrant father was suspected of billing fraud at a completely different company. The federal prosecutors spent years trying to turn some minor clerical errors into an international incident, and even when shown how preposterous they were over-reaching, they refused to back down. All my friend's assets and income were locked down for six months (during which time his child was born) because the feds thought there might be some kind of laundering going on. Of course you can't prove out-and-out malice, but the nationality of this successful immigrant family was likely a juicy bone to some people in the previous administration.
Federal prosecutors are essentially above the law: they are not held accountable for overreach or corrupt motives; they are encouraged to dig deep and find something to pin on a suspect, even if it has nothing to do with the initial suspicion.
Zoe Lofgren's proposal doesn't sound like it's directed at prosecutorial overreach so much as the actual ToS/access laws that Aaron Swartz's case hinged on. However I too think that we must rein in our prosecutors and hold them accountable, or our justice system will continue to ruin and destroy good people.
You're not the only one who's seen these things: normal people having their lives ruined, a stones throw away from dozens of people who actually pose a threat to society. And done mostly from malice, self-righteousness, and political ill-will. And if people aren't set upon by a jury of their peers, they're later prosecuted for another matter. Law enforcement CAN and WILL lie to you, but if you don't answer their questions to their satisfaction, that's a different crime for which you'll be tried.
It's a good start, but what about fixing this in 18 U.S.C. § 1030, too?
(Stemming from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/technology/13secure.html .)
Orin Kerr, who was not sympathetic to the criticism of Aaron's prosecution (see the great Jamie Boyle's [response] (http://www.thepublicdomain.org/2013/01/18/the-prosecution-of-aaron-a-response-to-orin-kerr/)), has written a fantastic set of proposed changes to the CFAA, inspired by the leadership Rep. Lofgren is taking. You can see the proposal [here] (http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/20/proposed-amendments-to-18-u-s-c-1030/).
Respectfully, the draft proposed by Mr. Kerr appears to grant license to damage and extort by systems administrators exclusively, and would severely weaken the legal rights of citizens to file for civil remedy under 18.1030 (g) in those instances. Please see my post in this thread for detailed info. Your feedback is welcome.
I currently live in Cupertino, which as I'm sure you know is Mike Honda's district. However, in the past few years I have lived within your district and within Anna Eshoo's district (I like to keep my commute under 20 minutes by car). I've voted in every local, statewide, and national election since I turned 18, and I've written/called into my (at the time) current representative's and senators' offices to weigh in on issues I feel strongly about.
Today, you, Darryl Issa, and Jared Polis, all members of the house judiciary committee which ostensibly has oversight of the DOJ, slammed the DOJ for their actions related to Schwartz's case. To my knowledge, no Congressperson ever said these things while Swartz was still alive, and his prosecution was just as ridiculous then as it is now. Why the hell did you and your fellow committee members wait until after Schwartz killed himself to investigate this atrocity?
It's not like you should have been unaware of this issue, because not only did/do you serve on the committee with oversight of the DOJ, but you also worked with Schwartz's Demand Progress group to shut down SOPA and PIPA less than 3 years ago.
Furthermore, with respect to Rep Polis's comments that “The charges were ridiculous and trumped-up. . . . It's absurd that he was made a scapegoat. I would hope that this doesn't happen to anyone else,” and your comments that "[b]ased on what [you] know, [you] think the Department of Justice was way out of line on the case," I think it is time to seriously reform how our justice system works, especially with respect to plea deals and minimum sentencing guidelines. It's safe to say that this bill does not do anything to stop such occurrences from happening in other cases, because it does not fix the broken tool with which Carmen Ortiz bludgeoned Aaron Schwartz.
If "Aaron's Law" had been law, Aaron would not have been charged with a felony, and so there would not have been jail time to refuse. ADDED: To be clear, this is a prediction about (risk avoiding) prosecutorial behavior. Even with this change, there is still the issue of whether the MAC/IP stuff triggers the statutes, and the evasion, but Stamos's argument convinces me they wouldn't have taken the risk.
Would this have stopped the prosecution in this case from claiming that simple trespass into an unlocked network closet should be considered felony federal unauthorized access to communication network? Would it have stopped the applicability of the CFAA to the access after Aaron changed his IP or MAC addresses?
Great points, which is why I think it would be better to address the predatory/political prosecutorial discretion issue, rather than which technicalities were bent toward trying to "send a message" or whatever.
These changes may be good, but they shouldn't be done in Swartz's memory or name unless they address the root issues, and at the moment they seem too vague.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear here: "would not have been charged" is a prediction about prosecutor's (risk avoiding) behavior. It is conceivable they would have, but Stamos's arguments lead me to believe they wouldn't have.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the text of the bill would make terms of service violations explicitly not a violation of the law. There wouldn't be a plea deal to begin with because the government wouldn't be prosecuting him- the whole case would have been taken care of in the civil court system. Which, in Aaron's case, ended up with a plea bargain where he deleted the files, paid JSTOR a few thousand dollars, and promised not to do it again.
Amending the horribly drafted CFAA is an important cause but realize that excluding TOS violations from the definition of unauthorized access would have done next to nothing to stop Swartz's indictment. Unauthorized access is nowhere defined in the statute and the case law is hopelessly confused on this point. This leaves prosecutors myriad ways to argue unauthorized access: because they say so, or JSTOR or MIT says so despite their TOS, or because a fiduciary duty was violated, or because someone's grandmother said so. The CFAA is rudderless on this point. The criminal scope of the CFAA needs to be radically circumscribed. Why is what Swartz did only a misdemeanor punishable by 30 days max jail time under Massachusett's unauthorized access statute but a felony on the federal level? Why is it even criminal in the first place, why not just make these types of cases only subject to civil causes of action? Why not reserve criminal sanctions for the cases where its truly merited, where a significant and real harm occurred? The DOJ's theory in their recent CFAA cases is that access is unauthorized when they or the alleged victim says so, even if the defendant had no notice. And isn't it harsh that the CFAA can impose felony sanctions for unauthorized access to publicly available info (like academic articles available in a library) and that under the caselaw all you have to do under the CFAA to obtain info is to look at it? The law is a prosecutor's wet dream and a defendant's nightmare. Amending the definition of unauthorized access to exclude TOS violations is just putting a band aid on a gaping, gushing wound.
Shouldn't a law carrying his name be more about making publicly funded research be made freely available? I don't see how weakening Computer Fraud laws would have done anything except lower the charges against Aaron.
Why not make JSTOR obsolete by making these documents and future research required to be Creative Commons. Lowering the penalties for any future Aarons doesn't address the issue he was fighting for!
UPDATE (from Rep. Lofgren): I appreciate the many comments and suggestions offered to the draft bill I posted earlier. I am working through these suggestions--as well as others suggestions I have received. It will take a while to fully consider all the ideas in our effort to improve the draft. I'll post the draft bill with possible improvements as soon as we've finished. Many many thanks to all of you.
Great to hear! Hopefully this gets some attention.
Someone want to provide an English translation of what exactly this bill would do? I don't speak legalese....
EDIT: Thanks guys, it's all pretty clear now. :)
IANAL, but I believe this would eliminate the "criminal" part of violating TOSes... which would still allow you to be sued civilly, but at least you'd not be looking at decades in the pokey.
Again, that's just what I take away from reading her bill.
As it stands under current law, if you violate the Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy of a website or Internet service, your use of that website is then unauthorized and you're basically hacking, just like if you actually exploited your way into their server or something. This bill removes that.
It says that if the only thing you have against someone is that they ignored the small print, then that's not enough to hound them to death. Does that help? Rep. Lofgren, did I misstate the case?
Sounds like a good change to me.
Don't really like naming laws after people though or for that matter crafty acronyms like USA PATRIOT. What we need isn't more catchphrases but more reasonableness.
There is no mention of plea bargain reform or the extreme resource imbalance between prosecution and defendant that makes the mere threat of trial so powerful. Also, making TOS's inapplicable (which, didn't anyone see this coming with Lori Drew? But I digress..) wouldn't have stopped the prosecution from turning a simple trespass in an unlocked network closet into federal felony unauthorized access to communication network. Nor would it have stopped the applicability of the CFAA to the access after Aaron changed his IP or MAC addresses. Aaron most likely knew he was doing some things that were legally questionable, but was counting on his day in court to argue his moral necessity. If you're really trying to address the travesties of justice that occured in this and many other cases:
Maximum sentence cannot be more than twice any offered plea bargain.
Make the sum of individual counts non-severable. Or the defense only needs to win half of them to be cleared of all charges. Something needs to discourage stacking on limitless ridiculous charges and hoping some might stick.
The government needs to cover the expenses for the defense, limited to the amount spent on the prosecution. (this doesn't seem politically palatable, but the $1.5MM "lawyer fine" without due process needs to be addressed somehow)
Yeah, these things are large meta-issues that aren't a political shoe-in. But pretending that merely amending the CFAA would have prevented this from happening is wishful and politically convenient thinking.
Your #1 seems problematic, as it could equally result in less appealing plea bargains as it does lower max charges.
Well sure, but are plea bargains supposed to be overly appealing? I mean the whole problem is that six months versus 35 years is extremely appealing, and negates the constitutional right to trial. And if a prosecutor thinks they could have actually gotten five years at trial, do they really have business offering a six month plea bargain to make their job easier?
Also, keep in mind that I just threw out some concrete proposals as starting points to fix the other glaring problems with Aaron's case. Perhaps 'twice' should be changed to 'thrice', or perhaps the use of plea bargains to destroy the right to due process could be fixed another way.
This is the exact desired effect. Plea bargains are, in fact, not something which are meant to make the life of the accused better in any way. If plea bargains are limited to half of the maximum sentence (or if the maximum terms of sentencing are limited to double the smallest plea bargain offered) then the right to exercise fair trial is far more likely to be exercised.
Some fantastic reading, with historical context for good measure, is obtainable from Yale's Digital Commons archive
This addresses the how of Aaron's oppression, not the why. Fixing the how can be easily worked around to oppress another in another way. It's like taking away the knife when the bad guy has guns and thermonuclear weapons too. We need to address the why.
If Larry Lessig is for it, I am too. Just let's not get lost in the weeds here.
Let me put this another way. Aaron was fighting against the obvious inherent injustice of PACER owning our case law, and JSTOR owning our science - each being a gatekeeper to hold the rabble out. These are both very wrong things, and harmful to us all.
CFAA is horrid and was used to oppress Aaron and us all. It needs to be fixed. So lets fix it. But let's not fix it and call it good. We owe ourselves more than that - as Aaron was trying to tell us.
As humans we are entitled access to our science and law. This is a human right and a matter of national integrity. A society that deprives us of this right can not long stand. For lack of informed lawfulness the country will fall from within. For lack of progress guided by history, it will fall from outside forces not so constrained.
I didn't know who Aaron Swartz was until he killed himself.
It is a terrible thing when a young person dies no matter the circumstances, but to end his own life? Words fail. I can imagine what he was feeling only because I have been there often enough. Truly there are no words. Every reason you have for killing yourself appears trivial in hindsight, assuming you're unsuccessful... I wish Aaron had managed to make it out of through to the other side.
I keep hearing about how he was driven to take his own life by the intransigence of a federal prosecutor bent on adding another successful cybercrime conviction to his resume. Or was it MIT and its indifferent and oddly out of character cooperation with said prosecutor? I haven't a clue (made obvious by my over simplification of these issues).
His battle with depression is usually offered as an aside, casually pasted into the various diatribes or eulogies. It's clear that depression killed this man. I don't think anyone is denying this to be true. It just seems as if we can't talk about it.
I applaud Representative Lungren's efforts to reform this law (seriously - 13 felonies, potentially 30 years in prison - one day in jail feels excessive, but hey I'm no lawyer). Too bad it required a martyr for inspiration.
Aaron Swartz wasn't a murder/rapist/sociopath, he was a brilliant 26 year old who had the misfortune to suffer from a mental illness. A disease of the mind that left him particularly vulnerable to the threats and manipulations of, well... a bully.
Forgive my ramblings redditers, I hope this made sense and is appropriate.
This is a start and I applaud it as such. There is still so much to do concerning the internet. Sadly, they drove Aaron to suicide before he could show all the brilliance he had on the subject matter. I personally felt Aaron's true fight was his recognition that Education was indeed a human right. Aaron's legacy was so much farther reaching than simply the internet. The internet is where Aaron waged his war but his idea's spoke to much greater issues within society at large. I will truly miss Aaron.....a piece of greatness has been cut from this world.
The old fogies who pass laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act very often have no idea how computers and the Internet work. How old is the average senator, 70? I think only people who actually know how to use a computer should get a say in how the Net works.
This is the very smallest response that an elected government official could make, to this issue. It doesn't fix the problem. It is a small patch to a problem left in place.
I hope Rep. Lofgren will take a more helpful, intelligent look at the system of laws and statutes that consistently generate problems for all of us who write, draw, perform, design, create content, design hardware and software -- or just want to use our computers in peace.
I hope Rep. Lofgren will work sincerely with her collegues to garner support for a real fix to this wide-ranging problem we all face.
What will you be doing about this tomorrow and the next day, Ms. Lofgren?
It's not too early to let your representative know that you're aware of Rep. Lofgren's proposed amendment, that you hope Congress moves forward with this, and here's why. They need to know that people are paying attention, that we're not looking for battle or revenge, but for intelligent reform of bad laws.
Thank you for introducing this! The fact that internet service providers can create contractual terms of service which carry the force of criminal prosecution is utter nonsense.
All attention is welcome. It's late, but welcome nonetheless. In large & complex systems, change takes catharsis - a disruptive moment. This is such a moment. Let the changes begin. As others have noted, there are plenty of candidates currently being hounded & abused to be liberated from DOJ oppression.
Anyone from Florida driving to Washington for Aaron's peaceful protest? Let me know, I would love to go and can help driving, finance trip, etc. Thanks
It´s such a shame that people like Aaron are prosecuted like this. All his life he had not anything less in focus than the public good. I hope this change will come sooner, rather than later.
The big advantage of the proposed amendment is that it's clean and simple, and builds on a bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee already approved (albeit, it would enact only the part that DoJ opposed, while excluding all the parts that DoJ was rooting for, so hardly an easy lift). It will tighten up a piece of the CFAA that has caused courts of appeals to split, and has made it too easy for employers to go after former employees, and to go after anyone who violates terms of service. As such, it is useful. It would have knocked out charges against Aaron that were based on violating terms of service, if any, of JSTOR, or violating MIT wireless network access TOS, if any. It is not likely that it would have knocked out all CFAA counts based on the allegations in the indictment. I would still support it, and I think this community should. If passed as is, it would do good, and is simple enough to reduce the risk of doing unforseen harm.
More directly applicable to Aaron's case, and more broadly to hacktivism, it would be productive to add two additional tweaks.
First I would separate out the current offense, and limit it to those with specific intent to make money off the access or cause real damage, and then create a second, misdemeanor, for activities that are not profit or damage motivated, but recklessly do cause actual damage. Second, this would then require tightening up the definition of "loss" and "damage".
The first part could be achieved by changing the current language of 1030(a): (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains, to: (2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and**, with intent to obtain commercial advantage or cause damage,** thereby obtains,
and a new (2a) (i) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information of the types listed in section (a)(2), and (ii) recklessly causes damage or loss to the computer so accessed without authorization or while exceeding authorized access,
would be guilty of a misdemeanor level offense. This then would provide some criminal penalty, of the criminal trespass level, for the family of protest actions that, like sit-ins, are disruptive and potentially criminal, but within the plausible range of public order offenses, which is what they are.
Don't get me wrong; I am not a fan of pepper spray and mass occupy arrests. Clearly the trespass / public order type offenses are overused in response to protest, and this proposal could be abused just as much, although it would be much harder and more expensive for the government to do than an arrest on the street at a protests. But just as clearly, there's plenty of behavior around that is disruptive and idiotic and could justify having a misdemeanor level offense attached to it. Having it there could serve as a marker for what Congress thinks is the right offense level for these public-order type acts.
And then we need to also tighten up the definitions of "loss" and "damage" in the statute to limit the range of things that could go in it, along the lines that Jennifer Granick outlined.
This seems like a good common sense amendment to the CFAA.
Relevant section of law http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
This rings true.
We should see if there are any unintended negative repercussions, but I think it generally sounds good. Breaking access barriers is not the same as breaking a TOS.
I will be sorely disappointed if this drops dead in the WhiteHouse without any explanation. Maybe we should create a separate petition that specifically mentions this.
How would this change affect those already convicted of these crimes?
Thank you, Zoe.
We need to do this.
I like what chamuelx had to say in regards to the changes to the definition of "exceeds authorized access". Many circuit courts have come to different conclusions on that definition. If you could get that change in there Rep Lofgren, I know a few people who would greatly appreciate it.
Regarding your proposed amendments to 18 USC 1030, I have been researching 18 USC 1030 seriously for over one year. I hold an AAS degree in Data Processing, 1983. I believe I am also a victim of computer fraud under 18 USC 1030.
I intend to file for civil damages under 18 USC 1030 (g) in federal court, in due course. I also encourage countless thousands of similar citizen victims to also consider their own legal rights, ahead of any proposed changes that would weaken those rights, if amended.
I am deeply concerned about your proposed bill to allow any party to exceed authorized access without penalty under 18 USC 1030, as you have described it. While I believe the issues you raised are important, I also believe there is a much broader picture that may be overlooked here. That is, to consider whether SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS (Those having authority and knowledge, such as myself) are allowed or encouraged to manipulate and abuse protected computers in order to further fraud on the largest scale imaginable, by those most professionally qualified and placed to do so if ever they have knowing or reckless intent as defined under 18 USC 1030.
Case in point for a serious forum study: I now professionally allege that the mortgage housing crisis and slow recovery was primarily caused by clear violations under 18 USC 1030 by computer systems administrators, who have conspired under 18 1030(b), to abuse authority under 1030(a)(4), or to damage data integrity under all subparagraphs of 1030(a)(5), or to maintain the systematic threat to damage data integrity ongoing under 1030 (a)(7)(A), or with systematic intent to ultimately extort in relation to such damage ongoing under 1030 (a)(7)(C).
I could restate the above intent in numerous ways, but the gist is, masses of under-qualified purchasers were granted entry into our national mortgage system by systems administrators prior to 2008, at all levels, primarily to accelerate loan originations for rapid profit generated from quick front-end sales of flawed mortgages. That effort also authorized "impairment/damage" to data integrity of our property values to accumulate under 18 USC 1030(e)(8), and the damage has now settled over the long-term.
Now, the administrative abuse continues where the known systemic loss/damage to property values and data as described under 1030 (e)(8) and 1030 (e)(11) is illegally maintained against the unwitting majority of property owners in apparent violation of 18 USC 1030(a)(7)(C) and others, and where the countless victims are now being systematically trapped by contractual terms of impossibility, via intentional computerized manipulation by experts ongoing. So, I cannot accept your proposed bill in it's present form, neither as a Data Processing professional, nor as one of many countless victims of professionally administered computer fraud.
I ask for your assistance here, to help ensure that any revisions to 18 1030 do NOT have an unintended effect of exempting our highest level systems administrators and data processing professionals from criminal and civil penalty, as we now finally begin to assess and emerge from the painful damage and apparent purposeful slow recovery to our mortgage system that was/is "authorized" by those administrators having "access" in apparent chronic violation of 18 USC 1030, with systematic intent to "alter" data in furtherance of fraud, and/or to "extort" in relation to such damage caused ongoing.
So I ask you to please voluntarily withdraw your proposal from legislative discussion immediately, until you investigate the matter thoroughly, because the greater value of 18 1030 for all of us is to prevent, NOT to encourage, gross abuse by SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS and other Data Processing professionals above all others. Respectfully, I am professionally horrified by the presumed unintended consequences of your proposed amendments.
We must ensure that the integrity of our major financial systems used in interstate commerce are protected for the citizens they serve. So, can we work together to fully protect citizens in all areas of computer fraud, including administrative fraud by "whoever" as contained in the law?
Please don't allow systems administrators to sabotage systems for profit against their customers at large, as is proposed under your bill. Please abandon that flawed proposal now. The legal issues and rights under 18 USC 1030 are far deeper and broader than what may be immediately seen on the surface. I am very passionate about this and absolutely concerned for our citizens and for our children's children, as we all must now rely upon professionally administered data processing systems more and more in the future. We should always be concerned wherever these "protected" computer systems may be purposefully exploited by granting destructive license to key systems administrators. Look no further than the professionally authorized mortgage crisis that still haunts us as one example. I encourage your serious consideration and prompt reply. Thank you.
As much as I'd like to say, "Hurrah, Bravo, Well done.", the fact of the matter is that this should have been done WHILE he was being prosecuted. So he dies, and all of a sudden everyone cares? I never heard of the guy till someone told me who he was (after he died). I would have supported this guy had his case gotten proper exposure. Stop making a martyr of him. While I do agree in making an amendment to rectify this, I think you should have waited longer than 4 bloody days after the guy died.
Now, on the topic of the amendment. I agree with what is said here although it seems like more of a patch job then a solution. I think you should look into something similar to Canada's Copyright Modernization Act. Hopefully you guys work out a great solution to a stagnating problem in today's society.
(And the congressional staffers get on Reddit and start downvoting in order to save their jobs).
For all things technology.


text:
Thanksgiving was wonderful – just like I imagined.
slept in got up early thanks to Indie but then snoozed in the chair with her until Forest rolled out of bed around 8. He made breakfast (cereal for both of us) and then we flipped on the tv and waited for the Thanksgiving Day parade. Forest ran to the grocery store to get the things for his dessert (apple crisp) and was home within minutes.
A little after the parade started we chatted with my parents. We were in the kitchen prepping some food for later (garden fresh salad, deviled eggs) and they were in the kitchen doing the same. It’s like we were all getting ready for the same dinner – if only there wasn’t 700 miles between us.
Forest had the turkey prepped in no time and we popped him into the oven (the turkey, not Forest) and headed back to the living room for the rest of the parade on tv.
When the turkey had about an hour left of cooking, we started the rest of our dishes that needed to bake – baked mac and cheese, apple crisp – and threw those in the oven too. We also started the potatoes for mashed potatoes so those would be ready in time.
Then everything started to come together – the turkey was done so Forest pulled it out of the oven and started carving it, the mac and cheese looked gooey and there was just enough golden-brown-goodness on top so it came out, the potatoes were mashed, the garden fresh salad and deviled eggs were pulled out of the fridge, the apple crisp came out of the oven soon after that, and the rolls were popped in so they could warm up. We set everything on the island and loaded our plates with all that yumminess. I remembered the cranberry sauce at the very last second and I popped the pumpkin pie into the oven just as we were sitting down.
And while we ate, Indie enjoyed watching the dog show.
Dinner (which was actually at 2) was followed by a nap on the couch, leftovers for dinner (my pumpkin pie didn’t bake all the way… I’ll have to make one for Christmas), a chat with Forest’s mom and sister, and snuggling on the couch the rest of the evening.
I am so, extremely thankful for a husband that can cook a mean turkey. And that, although we weren’t WITH our families on Thanksgiving, we were able to chat with them.
^the only picture we took together
Until next time — Cindy

domain: food


Introducing the Liposuction Vacuum Aspirator with an Automatic Syringe, a cutting-edge surgical instrument by Ameri Surgical Instruments®. The Vacuum Liposuction Aspirator offers precision and accuracy with its unique design. This device is made from high-quality materials to allow for safe and efficient fat collection. Its 5 adjustable settings ensure quick and smooth operation. In order to provide negative syringe pressure during liposuction procedures, it is a unique surgical tool. Therefore, this essential equipment is perfect for performing small-area liposuction by hand with a syringe without the aid of a machine.
✔The best materials to guarantee a long life.
✔Product That Every Aesthetic Clinic Must Have.
✔A flawless locking connection prevents any leakage.
Liposuction Vacuum Aspirator - Automatic Syringe by Ameri Surgical Instruments®
It is a revolutionary new medical instrument, designed to make transferring objects and organs during surgery easier, faster, and safer. Developed by surgeons and designers, this patented device features components that are custom-molded to hold any object comfortably — no matter its size or shape — while its balanced aerodynamic design allows for fast, easy maneuvering of tissue transfer objects during surgeries. It has an integrated LED light source that will illuminate the operative field better than ever before. This specialized device is meticulously designed to enhance the efficiency and precision of liposuction procedures.
The Vacuum Liposuction Aspirator features an advanced technology that automates the suction process. With a built-in automatic syringe, it provides consistent and controlled suction, allowing for precise fat removal with minimal effort.
Crafted with precision and durability in mind, this vacuum aspirator is made from high-quality materials, ensuring reliable performance throughout the procedure. Its ergonomic design and user-friendly interface make it easy to operate and control the suction levels, providing optimal customization for each patient.
Designed for surgeon comfort and ease of use, the Vacuum Liposuction Aspirator offers excellent handling and maneuverability. Its compact size and portable design make it convenient for use in various clinical settings.
Ameri Surgical Instruments® prioritizes patient safety and quality assurance. The Liposuction Vacuum Aspirator is meticulously sterilizable, adhering to rigorous medical standards. Its seamless construction facilitates easy cleaning and disinfection, promoting optimal infection control practices.
Choose the Liposuction Vacuum Aspirator with an Automatic Syringe from Ameri Surgical Instruments® to elevate your liposuction procedures. Experience the precision, efficiency, and reliability that our instruments are renowned for. Invest in excellence and achieve superior liposuction results.
Take the first step towards delivering the best care to your patients. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our customer service team for assistance.
Get additional discounts on bulk purchases. Fill out the form for the special pricing and discounts.
Features Liposuction Vacuum Aspirator - Automatic Syringe:


text:
Rated 4.3 out of 5 by 7
Rated 3 out of 5 by Kitty9019 Okay Toy
I bought theses for my cat 3 years ago for when we first adopted her. She loved them at first, licking and chewing and loving them, but once she had eaten all of the feathers she never looked at them again.
April 10, 2013
Rated 4 out of 5 by catmath okay
not as pictured. mine came are pastel colored and the poofs at the ends of the tails are different. cats seem to like them, not love them. they don't make any noise which seems to be a miss in my house.
August 16, 2012
Rated 5 out of 5 by Gusgus35 My kitty's favorites!
I bought these mice for my cat about 2 years ago. They are still her favorites! She loves to toss them around and carry them in her mouth.
Other reviewers have mentioned the feathers and/or tails coming off. This hasn't happened on mine. Seem to be very durable!
March 3, 2011
Rated 4 out of 5 by sumire Hit/miss...
Our (1.5 yr) female loves to play with these. She'll hunt them and then roll over on her back and kick and chew at them. Our picky (1.5 yr) male isn't interested in them, though. They have proved to be more durable so far than other similar toys.
January 4, 2011

domain: pet


Auto Portability - Recent Developments
Find the most-recent auto portability media coverage and developments.
Forbes contributor Christian Weller, a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Boston and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, links the trend of increased job-changing in a strong labor market to the challenges of moving retirement savings forward. Acknowledging the inherent difficulties in managing multiple accounts and the hazards of cashing out, Weller points to the RCH auto portability program as a highly-positive development, stating that "the approach appears successful in reducing leakage and increasing workers’ retirement account balances."
Arris Reddick Murphy, Contributing Editor to HR Daily Advisor, and senior counsel with FedEx Corp.’s Tax & Employee Benefits Law group, examines the potential impact of the Department of Labor's recent actions towards RCH's auto portability program. Murphy outlines the strategic benefits for plan sponsors who participate in the auto portability program, including a reduction in small accounts, missing participants and uncashed checks. Murphy also points out the importance of participation of both plan sponsors and service providers, stepping through various aspects of the program, while offering planning tips for participating plan sponsors.
ASPPA Net's John Iekel examines the recent column by J. Mark Iwry, former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, which addresses the recent actions by the DOL in support of the RCH auto portability program. Iwry, says Iekel, offers a unique perspective, having been a long-time proponent of retirement savings portability, and also having witnessed firsthand the difficulties in moving portability policy initiatives forward.
The 401kWire's Neil Anderson takes the pulse of some key retirement industry figures in his 11/26/18 piece "What to Make of Auto-Portability." Quoting Lew Minsky (DCIIA), Steve Saxon (Groom Law), Lynn Dudley (American Benefits Council) and Tim Rouse (Spark Institute), the consensus is that auto-portability, as well as the DOL's recent actions, represent positive developments for the retirement industry. Finally, Anderson speaks with RCH President & CEO Spencer Williams, who discusses his going-forward initiative to ramp up outreach to recordkeepers.
On 11/25/18, Forbes contributor Robert C. Lawton provides readers with a list of the "11 most significant 401(k) plan misconceptions." In misconception #3, titled "Rolling a 401(k) account into an IRA is a good idea" - Lawton suggests that, for many, rolling over a 401(k) to an IRA may not be in their favor. When it comes to small-balance job-changers, Lawton cites the DOL's recent actions on auto portability, stating that "the Department of Labor agrees, as shown in its recent auto portability proposal."
In the wake of the U.S. Department of Labor's actions on auto portability, PLANSPONSOR's John Managaro follows up with key stakeholders affected by the program, including J.P. Morgan's Anne Lester, the Wagner Law Group and Callan's Jana Steele, who concludes that "auto-portability is the next natural extension of highly successful plan design innovations from the past decade."
Inc.: Switching Jobs? Your 401(k) Balance Could Be Automatically Transferred Under a New Federal Rule
Inc. features a syndicated piece by Myles Ma, originally published in Policygenius Magazine, examining the Department of Labor's recent, favorable actions on the RCH auto portability program. Taking a balanced approach, Ma explains the importance of the auto portability program in helping solve the "cash-out crisis", discusses how the program works, consults experts for their opinion and notes the public comment period, which ends Dec. 24th.
In his 11/19/18 opinion piece in The Hill, former U.S Treasury official and senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution Mark Iwry writes about his personal, 22-years long advocacy for 401(k) portability, dating back to the Clinton administration. Not much had changed in that time, says Iwry, until last week's guidance by the Department of Labor (DOL) on auto portability, led by the efforts of RCH executives Spencer Williams and Tom Johnson. With the way cleared by the DOL, Iwry notes that auto portability's success will now depend on the "willingness of recordkeepers...to cooperate so participants can enjoy expanded portability."


You are viewing
Crooners in Quincy, MA
Have you ever thought “they just don’t make music like they used to?” You turn on the radio now and hear the screams of rock stars, the booming bass lines of hip hop music, or that wretched thing called “auto-tune.” What happened to old fashioned wholesome music? Just a sharp dressed guy in front of a microphone singing...or a better term - crooning. Lucky for you, the genre isn’t completely lost. These crooners are keeping that old sound and style alive, paying tribute to the original crooners, singing all the pop standards of the 20s through 50s. Search for Crooners in Quincy, Massachusetts above.
Please note that these Crooners may also travel to North Weymouth, Milton Village, East Weymouth, Dorchester, Mattapan, South Weymouth, Hyde Park, Hull, Holbrook, Roslindale, Jamaica Plain, Accord, Brookline Village, West Roxbury, Avon, East Boston, Abington, Cohasset, Charlestown, Allston, New Town, Chestnut Hill, Brighton, Norwell, North Scituate, Westwood, Hanover, Newton Highlands, Readville, and Whitman.


text:
The most famous pyramids are the Egyptian.
The Great Sphinx of Giza is a limestone statue of the lion's body and human head.
Click the button to start downloading.
If you are using a mobile device, press and hold the displayed image to save it.
Tabisozai distributes travel illustrations for free.
No registration required, all materials can be downloaded for free.
This server is in Japan. It may take time to download the file.
Ring tailed lemur
Hassan II Mosque
Abu Simbel temples

domain: geography


text: Region of southern Italy (roughly from ankle to heel on the Adriatic coast and the Gulf of Taranto), comprising the provinces of Foggia, Lecce, Bari, Brindisi, and Taranto. Sometimes also known in English under the name "Apulia". Largely agricultural - citrus fruits and bulk table wine - with the last three towns named above being major ports for connections to Albania and Greece in particular. Tourism is important in the Gargano peninsula to the north. Population around four million.


Category: Campus Sports News
Published: Mar 9 2017 12:00AM
After the nationally ranked women's basketball team dominated the NJCAA Region XX Tournament the Raptors traveled to Covington, Georgia to compete in the NJCAA District G Championship.
On Saturday, March 4, Raptors lost to the Region XVII Champions, West Georgia Tech College 81-70. The MC Raptors came out the gate strong scoring 20 points in the first quarter, but then the team hit a wall only scoring seven points in the second quarter.
The Raptors went into halftime down 41-27. The Raptors looked like they were back in control during the third quarter outscoring WGTC 21-15 and cutting the deficit to singles digits. However, MC could not keep up with their opponent's intensity and complete the comeback in the fourth.
MC freshman Caleema Johnson finished with a team-high 19 points while teammate Anu Bamijoko added 16 points and pulled down 19 rebounds. Sheri Addison scored 16 points, and Armoni Lomax added 15 points in the District G Championship game.
The Raptors women's basketball team finished their season with a record of 22-7 overall and the title of 2016-17 NJCAA Region XX Champions. Congratulations to the Montgomery College Raptors women's basketball team on an outstanding season!


text:
Member Since: 18th Feb 2013
2nd Aug 2020
I agree we can read it as if the exception only applies if the payment from the partnership is a payment in respect of rent payable by the partnership to the partner. That fits if we assume the only purpose of / reason for the exclusion, is to to prevent avoidance in a control situation. But, look at bullet 5 referring to rent a room. Why is that exception included? It appears to be due to the claim for expenses. If you consider how the relief works, it applies (for property) if you choose not to claim actual expenses and that must apply to all your rental income. As I said before, rental from a partnership asset is calculated and returned at partnership level and only the net amount is allocated among partners, that is to say, after relevant expenses. So, if you wish to look at it another way, why should a partner be treated more favourably than others?
I don't say that I am right here, simply that I can see an alternative way of looking at it and I can rationalise that alternative. The OP will have to form a view and proceed as appropriate. The only way we will know what HMRC thinks is to ask them. It does not give one great confidence when advising a client, to say, "I'm not sure, but...."
Equally, as has been shown many times, you cannot rely on what someone in HMRC says. You have to get a definitive reply from the technical specialist responsible for that bit of legislation and that is not easy to achieve.
1st Aug 2020
Just to confirm, I was with you on this. But, the document on Gov.uk is what caused "my" problem.
Before I read that, I thought the only reason for the various "payment from" restrictions, was to prevent the sort of abuse you have referred to.
I could (should?) have settled for "the guidance is cr4p, ignore it" but I tried to find any possible reason why it might be correct.
That is what led to consideration of the type of issue referred to in my last post.
In that connection I noted the peculiarities around partnerships, with particular regard to property income.
I really don't want to but I will say a little more!
Generally speaking a person can have property income from several different types of source, rents from a property owned 100%, a property jointly owned with others (possibly various groupings) and different "types" (furnished, unfurnished etc). To generalise (overly) all these are lumped together and taxed. The notable exception is "partnership" property income. Not only is it kept separate, losses cannot be set-off sideways. Why is that (apart from the legislation says so)?
I couldn't think of any, obvious reason. So, digging further I read some of the stuff about partnerships and how this differed from a jointly let property. The answer (in again, very general terms) seems to be that partnership rental comes from a property owned by the partnership, that is to say it is a partnership asset. The essential difference seems to be the that the partners are not entitled to the income in a personal capacity (as such), rather they are entitled to a share in the partnership profits. Similarly, they don't own the property but have a share in the entirety of the partnership assets (think tenants in common vs joint tenants).
This may explain the wording of the S783BO exception. The person does not receive rent from the partnership but receives a "payment" from the partnership being his/her share in the partnership profits, part of which falls to be included in his/her computation of rental profits etc.
The stuff in the HMRC BIM82058 and PIM1030 is relevant / interesting.
Ignoring most of what is said above, the only thing that would seem to be particularly relevant is that, where there is a letting by a partnership, net profits are calculated at partnership level. What each partner gets is a share of the net profit. So, they have benefitted from deduction of relevant expenses already. It would therefore be inappropriate to allow them the Property allowance which is an alternative to deducting actual costs. Maybe that is why the Gov.uk doc says what it does and who knows, maybe it is correct!
1st Aug 2020
I agree pretty much all you say and my initial reaction was to share the interpretation. My problem came when I read into it and came to the document in the link I mentioned which did seem fairly clear. Of course, either or both of the HMRC docs could be wrong and examples are not often great, focussing on some, obscure , possible issue and missing altogether the obvious areas of potential doubt.
When I looked into the issue of partnerships (apart from my head hurting) I noted that rental from such is treated somewhat differently in that losses cannot be set against other rental income (and vice versa) and I wondered what possible explanations there might be. I came to the conclusion that it was possibly to do with the legal basis of ownership (interest in undivided share and all that) and as said in my last post, partnership rental profit is calculated at partnership level so deductions have already been given before any payment of shares is made to the partners.
It is one of those where one would like to ask HMRC for a definitive statement of their position (and an explanation) but that is not something one can easily achieve. Failing that, one is left to form a view which is defendable and perhaps make a white-space entry.
31st Jul 2020
I haven't really spent much time dealing with this sort of thing but I suspect there may be some significance to the fact that some income is "partnership". There are significant differences between property held jointly by 2 or more persons and property that belongs to and is let as a partnership.
In the latter case, the income is calculated at partnership level and each partner allocated an appropriate share thereof (the payment from a partnership?). The implication is that relevant costs have already been deducted in calculating the net income. So, the property allowance would be inappropriate.
31st Jul 2020
Firstly, did they say 18 March 2020? You really do need to pin them down.
We all know someone at HMRC is talking BS.
The ironic thing is that the COTAX system treats a loss carry-back - as a payment!
There really is no point trying to educate whoever you spoke to but I would be a little concerned that it has not been dealt with yet (even allowing for covid). If waiting for a repayment, I would be tempted to ring again and if you get the same rubbish ask to speak to someone who knows better! Given the comments about payment however, I assume that is not an issue (and perhaps just as well).
31st Jul 2020
I agree that the example could give that impression. If however you look at the legislation (S783BO) it simply refers to the individual having property income that includes "a payment made by a firm". S783BP is in similar terms referring instead to a close company. It also mirrors (as appropriate) the legislation on the "Trading allowance". I assume the purpose of these sections is to prevent any abuse that could arise but have seen nothing to explain.
As you say, the example is not great but would certainly support your view. However, if you start with PIM4410 there is therein a link to a document "tax free allowance on property and trading income". Go to that document and to the section on "when you cannot use the allowances". That clearly says the allowance cannot be used if you have property income from a partnership (with which you are connected).
It is certainly the case that the legislation is drawn widely enough to have that result and it may be that (as often happens) the example in the PIM is of something perhaps more unusual and misses the obvious.
30th Jul 2020
Have you read PIM4454?
29th Jul 2020
I think you need to look at the legislation and then the HMRC guidance on the subject.
What you will find from the former is no reference to assets or cash 20% or otherwise. Rather, relief is based on "activities". What you will find from the latter is that the amounts of cash and non-trading assets are simply factors that may be relevant in establishing precisely what activities are carried on and the extent of any non-trading such. It is a balancing act based on the specific facts of any particular case.
29th Jul 2020
In much the same way that you are ignoring the facts with constant references to "accrual" which is not what the OP was about. Nor, I would add, has anyone else argued about the correct treatment of such an accrual. As usual, you are creating an argument where none exists, quite possibly because you are too lazy (I hope it is only laziness) to read. Pity your clients.
29th Jul 2020
Are you perhaps confusing "number plate" with "registration number". The one is a physical bit of plastic etc attached to the car, the other is the right to use a certain series of letters and numbers. Have a look at CG76923.

domain: economics


text:
Ace boxer Mary Kom’s husband Onler Karong has sparked an argument after he expressed dissatisfaction over the seems to be of a statue of her spouse, which was lately erected at a park in Manipur. Nineteen statues of the state’s Olympians, together with that of Mary Kom, had been lately put in at Manipur Olympic Park. Onler Karong, in an interview with an area newspaper, claimed that the statue which was erected there doesn’t seem like her spouse, six occasions World Girls’s Boxing Champion and 2012 London Olympic Bronze Medallist.
Onler Karong or Mary Kom couldn’t be contacted regardless of repeated efforts.
Nevertheless, whereas speaking to PTI, her brother Jimmy Kom claimed that the Chief Minister’s Workplace (CMO) assured him that the statue can be changed earlier than the inauguration of the park, the date of which is but to be fastened.
When contacted, officers of the CMO advised PTI that they won’t converse in regards to the subject.
“It’s his (Onler) private opinion,” Jimmy stated.
Jimmy stated his sister returned dwelling from a tour and obtained to know in regards to the improvement solely on Wednesday, he stated.
“There’s a concern that Onler’s assertion may be misinterpreted because the statues had been put in to honour our state’s athletes,” Jimmy stated.
Two days again, earlier than the matter got here to the fore, Chief Minister N Biren Singh had on his official Fb web page stated that the Park “is all set for inauguration. Everybody can now witness the statues of our legendary Olympians, the pleasure of our Nation.” “The Manipur Olympian Park was constructed in honour of our Olympians from Manipur who’ve introduced laurels for the Nation. Not solely will this place turn out to be a significant vacationer attraction but additionally encourage the youths to realize better heights in life,” he stated in a separate submit.
(This story has not been edited by NDTV workers and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Featured Video Of The Day
FIFA World Cup 2022: Harry Kane Misses Penalty As France Beat England
Subjects talked about on this article
Disclaimer: We at www.esportzkeeda.com request you to take a look at motion pictures on our readers solely with cinemas and IPL, Sports, Hotstar and any official digital streaming companies. Don’t use the pyreated web site to amass or view online.
Publish date: 2022-12-15 16:44:45
Get All Fantasy Cricket Suggestions and Information – Click Here
#Mary #Koms #Husband #Questions #Boxers #Statue #Imphal #Sparks #Controversy

domain: news


text:
After 45 years of dedication, the Israeli scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has completed a translation of the entire Talmud, one of Judaism's most important texts, from Aramaic into Hebrew, in order to make it accessible. Steinsaltz began his translation and commentary on the Talmud in 1965. This week he has published the last book of his 46-volume series. The rabbi has written some 60 books on subjects like zoology and theology, but his translation of the Talmud from Aramaic to Hebrew, adding his own comments, marks his crowning achievement. The work gives modern Jews a glimpse into the often obscure texts of the detailed rabbinical commentaries on biblical laws that obligate observant Jews. In a radio interview , Steinsaltz said his motto was: "Let my people know."
"I did it because it is necessary," he told 'Army Radio' in Israel, adding: "The Talmud is the spine of our culture ... I wanted to restore to the Jewish people their heritage." The Talmud is made up of two main parts: the Mishna, originally in the form of oral law, written down in the third century CE, after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple; and the Gemara, a much lengthier work amplifying the Mishna and compiled in the centuries that followed. The Gemara is a collection of rabbinical debates over the points raised in the Mishna.
Jewish scholars say the thought processes and associations found in the debates are at least as important as the conclusions drawn. Because of their complexity, the text and meaning remained beyond the scope of most Jews, even though the original voluminous and detailed rabbinical debates have been supplemented by commentaries from scholars of later eras on the pages of the Talmud. Steinsaltz addressed that by translating the Talmud from Aramaic, the tongue of the rabbis of the Gemara, into Hebrew, the language of modern Jews. He added his own explanations of phrases, terms and concepts, as well as listing the rulings of Jewish law derived from the text, which now allows anyone with a command of Hebrew to study the holy text.
In addition to the full Hebrew translation, Steinsaltz has rendered parts of the Talmud into English, Spanish, French, and Russian. His achievement was celebrated this week with the Global Day of Jewish Learning, the first trans-denominational and non-denominational event devoted to Jewish study.
Steinsaltz, 72, was born to secular parents and began his scholarly life studying physics and chemistry at Jerusalem's Hebrew University. At the age of 24, according to his website, he became the youngest school principal in Israel's history. Three years later, he began his seminal work on the Talmud. He has worked extensively on the mystical world of Kabbalah, with his book on the subject translated into eight languages. The rabbi, who lives in Jerusalem, also established a network of schools and educational institutions in Israel and the former Soviet Union.

domain: library


text:
On the occasion of World Autism Awareness Day, celebrated on April 2, RTV Slovenija spoke with Harald Neerland , President of Autism-Europe . Neerland is a Norwegian with more than twenty years of experience advocating for people with autism in Norway and Europe. He has been involved in Autism-Europe since 2008 as a member of the Executive Board for the last 8 years. As former President of the Norwegian Autism Association, Neerland was a member of several committees in the Ministry of Health and Care at the Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Services.
RTV: Autism-Europe will celebrate its fortieth anniversary next year. How did the perception of people with autism changed in those 40 years and what stayed the same and has yet to be addressed or changed in the forthcoming years?
HN: We have come a long way since 1983; the broader community is becoming more aware of autism and people with disabilities have gained better recognition of their rights, notably since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities drafted with participation from Autism-Europe in 2007.
When it comes to autism, there is more awareness in society that autism is a spectrum with people having different kind of support needs. There is also growing awareness that autism also affects girls and women who tend to be under-diagnosed, because they tend to be better at »masking« their condition.
However, in every day life, autistic people are still experiencing a lack of understanding of how their access and support needs can be accommodated so that they can be fully included.
RTV: Which would be the most notable achievements since Autism-Europe began its activities?
HN: Autism-Europe has made some milestone achievements for people on the autism spectrum and their families during the past 40 years:
– Charter of rights for persons with autism adopted as a written declaration by the European Parliament (1996);
– Landmark decision of the Council of Europe (Autism-Europe v. France, complaint No. 13/2002) whereby France was condemned to have failed its educational obligations to persons with autism under the revised European Social Charter (decision announced in 2004);
– Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)9 to member states on the education and social inclusion of children and young people with autism spectrum disorders, drafted with expertise from Autism-Europe;
– United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities drafted with participation from Autism-Europe (2007);
– Adoption of the European Parliament Written Declaration for a European strategy for autism (2015) and adoption of various autism strategies accross Europe
– Increased awareness of autism throughout Europe (since 1983).
RTV: One of the most important things for people with disabilities is getting and having a job: what are the plans to enhance employability of autistic people and how can this be changed on a systemic level of EU-member states, for example?
HN: Indeed, the employment rate of autistic people is still very low. There is no official data available disaggregated by impairment types regarding employment rates, but a survey conducted in the United Kingdom by the National Autistic Society indicates that 16% of autistic people are in full-time work (no change since 2007) and 16% in part-time work. It is estimated that across the European Union less than 10% people on the autism spectrum are employed, mostly in low-paid jobs or in sheltered settings. Most autistic people with high support needs are neither in education nor in employment nor in training (NEETs) nor counted in statistics as they live in institutions or in unsupported families. Unemployment also affects disproportionally autistic people with above-average level of general education as evidenced by research. However, lack of access to all levels of education and vocational training constitutes a major barrier to accessing employment. It is compounded by prejudices among employers and a lack of accessibility and support to access the world of work and stay employed.
The European Parliament has recently debated about the issue of employment of autistic people as they are one of the most discriminated group. Autism-Europe calls on decision-makers to promote access to employment for autistic people in cooperation with their representative organisations. We need more data accross Europe about the employment rates of autistic poeple, and we need member states to monitor the number of autistic people in employment and to set targets to improve their employment.
Autism-Europe recommends to develop autism employment pathways in a variety of fields, with end-to-end specialist support whenever needed, and to monitor outcomes for autistic people. Therefore we need funding for more research and social investment in initiatives supporting the employment of autistic people. It is also necessary to raise awareness of the potential of autistic people, notably by launching campaigns addressed to employers. There should be also more awareness that autistic people can perform in a wide range of domains, not only ICT. Public administration should lead by example and increase work experience schemes for autistic adults.
In order to increase their employability it is critical for employers to have better understanding about what they may need in terms of reasonable accommodation and how companies can adapt their management practices to be more inclusive. Member states should also adress the the issue of the so-called ‘benefits trap’, as some people on the autism spectrum cannot access proper employment without losing all their vital benefits.
RTV: Easy-to-read plays an important part of engagement of autistic people with the world, although it is less known that also autistic people benefit from easy-to-read. How do autistic people get excluded when having only “standard” language texts as opposed to the easy-to-read variant?
HN: Not all autistic people have difficulties with reading comprehension, but indeed some autistic people can benefit from accessible format, such as easy-to-read documents that are accompanied by pictograms to visualise the topic that is addressed. It is part of the tool to foster accessibility of communication. We therefore recommend following the guidelines developed by Inclusion Europe in that regard.
RTV: We cannot go past the Russian agression in Ukraine and the impact war has on autistic people. What are the difficulties autistic people are struggling with during war and while escaping war-torn Ukrainian cities? Do you have any reports what are they experiencing during these last weeks?
HN: Yes, unfortunately, At least 1% of the population is on the autism spectrum, therefore we can estimate that over 440.000 Ukrainians are autistic. Yet we know that they face a chronic lack of support that is exacerbated in the current context.
Autistic people and their families are particularly vulnerable during armed conflicts. Most autistic people generally need routine, familiarity, and a high level of predictability. Many of them are exceptionally sensitive to noise and other sensory stimuli. Stressful conditions and severe sensory overload can therefore trigger intense distress. They can also display unusual behaviours that might be misinterpreted and put them at risk. Many autistic people have co-occurring medical conditions, such as epilepsy, sleep disorders or gastro-intestinal problems.
Our partners in Ukraine have alerted us about the alarming situation currently faced by autistic people and their families. Families with autistic members have experienced more difficulties to leave the country and many have remained in Ukraine without any support. Autistic people and their families appear to be overlooked in some cases by humanitarian aid agencies, as the nature or extent of the disability is not fully understood. This can leave vulnerable individuals and families without access to official channels of support. Ukrainian autistic adults without intellectual disabilities are generally undiagnosed in Ukraine and many neighboring countries and do not have access to any official support services or social protection. The war renders their situation even more challenging. Autistic people with intellectual disabilities living in institutions or orphanages are cut off from their families, and are particularly vulnerable. For autistic refugees and their families it is also particularly challenging to access support, when many services in Europe are already saturated. We have seen a lot of solidarity from autism organisations and individuals across Europe. However, we need a coordinated approach supported by public authorities to support autistic people in this crisis situation.
RTV: On the other hand, the research shows that one in three children & adolescents with disabilities globally have experienced violence in their lifetimes, and they are twice as likely to experience any form of violence than children without disabilities. What are the efforts put into ending violence for autistic people, especially women?
Indeed, Autism-Europe seeks to raise awareness of issues related to abuse, as well as to provide guidelines on how to offer support and protection against violence. We also advocate for the ratification of the Istanbul Convention against violence against women.
Autistic have difficulties with communication and social interaction, meaning that their ability to recognise or report potential signs of abuse can be affected to varying degrees. It contributes to make autistic people easier targets for abuse and mistreatment. Sometimes autistic people can also become the target of hate crimes.
A general tendency of over-compliance is another factor that can increase the chances an autistic person suffering abuse at some point in their life. We teach children from an early age to comply with parents and other adults, but there are a number of ‘grey areas’ within these rules that can be confusing for some autistic people to navigate.
In some cases a lack of knowledge about autism can also mean that autistic people suffer abuses, even when the intention to abuse is not present. For example, autistic people can find themselves victims of unethical and non-evidence based “cures”, therapies and interventions from untrained professionals, and even family members, albeit with often good intentions. These therapies are ineffective, and sometimes even very dangerous for the person with autism. They also deprive autistic people from receiving adequate support that would allow them to develop their potential. So Autism-Europe is very much active to support access to evidence-based information and right-based interventions.
RTV: Positive developments are taking place in Europe to transition from institutions to community-based care, but what are the goals for autistic people that would need to be reached?
HN: In Europe, there is a lack of adapted services to support them in the community as segregation (in institutions or psychiatric hospital) remains an issue. Regardless of their support needs, all autistic people have the right to live as independently as possible and to be included in the community under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Receiving appropriate support is essential to enable people with autism to live independent and fulfilling lives, and be included in the community.
By contrast, a lack of support often leads autistic people to live in isolation and/or heavily dependent upon their families. In some parts of Europe, many people on the autism spectrum are often forced to live in large residential institutions in which they are prevented from going outdoors or even leaving their beds, denied their fundamental rights and neglected and/or abused.
Autism-Europe advocates for deinstitutionalisation and the right to housing and living support appropriate to their individual needs, as well as the right of people with autism to choose their own living circumstances.
We are members of the European Expert Group on the transition from institutional to community-based support (EEG) and defend the right to housing and living support that is adapted and appropriate to their needs – according to the UNCRPD.
RTV: This year’s motto of World Autism Awareness Day is “A happy journey through life”. What are the events and plans surrounding this and what needs to change to promote happy and fulfilling lives for autistic people and their families?
HN: Many of our members have planned awareness-raising activities at the national and regional/local level, the campaign will also be supported actively online. Throughout the campaign, we will highlight the needs of autistic people in relation to various policy priorities, at the EU, national, regional and local levels. AE and its members will raise awareness of various issues such as access to legal capacity and self-determination, support for independent liiving, education, health, employment, and community support services. At the EU-level, ensuring that the implementation of the new Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030 and the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan take into account the needs of autistic people will be central to our advocacy. You can find more information on our key policy demand in our manifesto.
Reproduction of original article publish in RTV Slovenija on April, 5. Link here.

domain: psychology