l and l menu near me
Big Moves in Semiconductor Stocks: What You Need to KnowNoneSigning with Dodgers was really easy decision for 2-time Cy Young winner Blake Snell
By Hannah Fry, Los Angeles Times (TNS) Every day millions of people share more intimate information with their accessories than they do with their spouse. Wearable technology — smartwatches, smart rings, fitness trackers and the like — monitors body-centric data such as your heart rate, steps taken and calories burned, and may record where you go along the way. Like Santa Claus, it knows when you are sleeping (and how well), it knows when you’re awake, it knows when you’ve been idle or exercising, and it keeps track of all of it. People are also sharing sensitive health information on health and wellness apps , including online mental health and counseling programs. Some women use period tracker apps to map out their monthly cycle. These devices and services have excited consumers hoping for better insight into their health and lifestyle choices. But the lack of oversight into how body-centric data are used and shared with third parties has prompted concerns from privacy experts, who warn that the data could be sold or lost through data breaches, then used to raise insurance premiums, discriminate surreptitiously against applicants for jobs or housing, and even perform surveillance. The use of wearable technology and medical apps surged in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, but research released by Mozilla on Wednesday indicates that current laws offer little protection for consumers who are often unaware just how much of their health data are being collected and shared by companies. “I’ve been studying the intersections of emerging technologies, data-driven technologies, AI and human rights and social justice for the past 15 years, and since the pandemic I’ve noticed the industry has become hyper-focused on our bodies,” said Mozilla Foundation technology fellow Júlia Keserű, who conducted the research. “That permeates into all kinds of areas of our lives and all kinds of domains within the tech industry.” The report “From Skin to Screen: Bodily Integrity in the Digital Age” recommends that existing data protection laws be clarified to encompass all forms of bodily data. It also calls for expanding national health privacy laws to cover health-related information collected from health apps and fitness trackers and making it easier for users to opt out of body-centric data collections. Researchers have been raising alarms about health data privacy for years. Data collected by companies are often sold to data brokers or groups that buy, sell and trade data from the internet to create detailed consumer profiles. Body-centric data can include information such as the fingerprints used to unlock phones, face scans from facial recognition technology, and data from fitness and fertility trackers, mental health apps and digital medical records. One of the key reasons health information has value to companies — even when the person’s name is not associated with it — is that advertisers can use the data to send targeted ads to groups of people based on certain details they share. The information contained in these consumer profiles is becoming so detailed, however, that when paired with other data sets that include location information, it could be possible to target specific individuals, Keserű said. Location data can “expose sophisticated insights about people’s health status, through their visits to places like hospitals or abortions clinics,” Mozilla’s report said, adding that “companies like Google have been reported to keep such data even after promising to delete it.” A 2023 report by Duke University revealed that data brokers were selling sensitive data on individuals’ mental health conditions on the open market. While many brokers deleted personal identifiers, some provided names and addresses of individuals seeking mental health assistance, according to the report. In two public surveys conducted as part of the research, Keserű said, participants were outraged and felt exploited in scenarios where their health data were sold for a profit without their knowledge. “We need a new approach to our digital interactions that recognizes the fundamental rights of individuals to safeguard their bodily data, an issue that speaks directly to human autonomy and dignity,” Keserű said. “As technology continues to advance, it is critical that our laws and practices evolve to meet the unique challenges of this era.” Consumers often take part in these technologies without fully understanding the implications. Last month, Elon Musk suggested on X that users submit X-rays, PET scans, MRIs and other medical images to Grok, the platform’s artificial intelligence chatbot, to seek diagnoses. The issue alarmed privacy experts, but many X users heeded Musk’s call and submitted health information to the chatbot. While X’s privacy policy says that the company will not sell user data to third parties, it does share some information with certain business partners. Gaps in existing laws have allowed the widespread sharing of biometric and other body-related data. Health information provided to hospitals, doctor’s offices and medical insurance companies is protected from disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , known as HIPAA, which established federal standards protecting such information from release without the patient’s consent. But health data collected by many wearable devices and health and wellness apps don’t fall under HIPAA’s umbrella, said Suzanne Bernstein, counsel at Electronic Privacy Information Center. “In the U.S. because we don’t have a comprehensive federal privacy law ... it falls to the state level,” she said. But not every state has weighed in on the issue. Washington, Nevada and Connecticut all recently passed laws to provide safeguards for consumer health data. Washington, D.C., in July introduced legislation that aimed to require tech companies to adhere to strengthened privacy provisions regarding the collection, sharing, use or sale of consumer health data. In California, the California Privacy Rights Act regulates how businesses can use certain types of sensitive information, including biometric information, and requires them to offer consumers the ability to opt out of disclosure of sensitive personal information. “This information being sold or shared with data brokers and other entities hypercharge the online profiling that we’re so used to at this point, and the more sensitive the data, the more sophisticated the profiling can be,” Bernstein said. “A lot of the sharing or selling with third parties is outside the scope of what a consumer would reasonably expect.” Health information has become a prime target for hackers seeking to extort healthcare agencies and individuals after accessing sensitive patient data. Health-related cybersecurity breaches and ransom attacks increased more than 4,000% between 2009 and 2023, targeting the booming market of body-centric data, which is expected to exceed $500 billion by 2030, according to the report. “Nonconsensual data sharing is a big issue,” Keserű said. “Even if it’s biometric data or health data, a lot of the companies are just sharing that data without you knowing, and that is causing a lot of anxiety and questions.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Flashback: Leslie Stahl Laughed When Trump Talked About Hunter's Crimes (Wonder What She'd Say Now?)
None
Donald Trump will ring the New York Stock Exchange bell as he's named Time's Person of the Year
Live Nation stock hits all-time high of $139.61 amid robust growth
No-confidence vote draws France into new political crisisB.C. Premier Eby says Canada must negotiate from position of strength on U.S. tariffLast week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk in what was clearly a thoroughly planned-out attack. Over the next few days, as authorities hunted for the killer, online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed. Social media was flooded with posts and videos—with different ranges of subtlety—suggesting that Thompson, at the very least, did not deserve to be mourned because of all the health care his company has denied to poor and working people. Progressives framed the shooting as an act of self-defense on behalf of the working class. Before the alleged killer was caught Monday, they promised not to snitch if they saw the shooter themselves and fantasized about a working-class jury nullifying all charges, leading to other CEOs getting gunned down with impunity if they oversaw price increases. The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where—because of a total lack of government involvement—wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences. The characterization of healthcare and health insurance companies charging absurdly high prices while treating their customers terribly without the risk of losing them is spot on. But the idea that what caused this was a lack of government involvement in the healthcare system is completely delusional. And this delusion conveniently removes all the responsibility progressives bear for the nightmare that is the US healthcare system. Today, healthcare is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the economy—right up there with the finance and energy sectors. Government agencies are involved in all parts of the process, from the research and production of drugs, the training and licensing of medical professionals, and the building of hospitals to the availability of health insurance, the makeup of insurance plans, and the complicated payment processes. And that is nothing new. The US government has been intervening heavily in the healthcare industry for over a century. And no group has done more to bring this about than the progressives. It really began, after all, during the Progressive Era, when the American Medical Association maneuvered its way into setting the official accreditation standards for the nation’s “unregulated” medical schools. The AMA wrote standards that excluded the medical approaches of their competitors, which forced half of the nation’s medical schools to close. The new shortage of trained doctors drove up the price of medical services—to the delight of the AMA and other government-recognized doctor’s groups—setting the familiar healthcare affordability crisis in motion. Around the same time, progressives successfully pushed for strict restrictions on the production of drugs and, shortly afterward, to grant drug producers monopoly privileges. After WWII, as healthcare grew more expensive, the government used the tax code to warp how Americans paid for healthcare. Under President Truman, the IRS made employer-provided health insurance tax deductible while continuing to tax other means of payment. It didn’t take long for employer plans to become the dominant arrangement and for health insurance to morph away from actual insurance into a general third-party payment system. These government interventions restricting the supply of medical care and privileging insurance over other payment methods created a real affordability problem for many Americans. But the crisis didn’t really start until the 1960s when Congress passed two of the progressive’s favorite government programs—Medicare and Medicaid. Initially, industry groups like the AMA opposed Medicare and Medicaid because they believed the government subsidies would deteriorate the quality of care. They were right about that, but what they clearly didn’t anticipate was how rich the programs would make them. Anyone who’s taken even a single introductory economics class could tell you that prices will rise if supply decreases or demand increases. The government was already keeping the supply of medical services artificially low—leading to artificially high prices. Medicare and Medicaid left those shortages in place and poured a ton of tax dollars into the healthcare sector—significantly increasing demand. The result was an easily predictable explosion in the cost of healthcare. Fewer and fewer people could afford healthcare at these rising prices, meaning more people required government assistance, which meant more demand, causing prices to grow faster and faster. Meanwhile, private health “insurance” providers were also benefiting from the mounting crisis. In a free market, insurance serves as a means to trade risk. Insurance works well for accidents and calamities that are hard to predict individually but relatively easy to predict in bulk, like car accidents, house fires, and unexpected family deaths. Health insurance providers were already being subsidized by all the taxes on competing means of payment, which allowed their plans to grow beyond the typical bounds of insurance and begin to cover easily-predictable occurrences like annual physicals. And, as the price of all of these services continued to shoot up, the costs of these routine procedures were becoming high enough to resemble the costs of emergencies—making consumers even more reliant on insurance. With progressives cheering on, the political class used government intervention to create a healthcare system that behaves as if its sole purpose is to move as much money as possible into the pockets of healthcare providers, drug companies, hospitals, health-related federal agencies, and insurance providers. But the party could not last forever. As the price of healthcare rose, the price of health insurance rose, too. Eventually, when insurance premiums grew too high, fewer employers or individual buyers were willing to buy insurance, and the flow of money into the healthcare system started to falter. The data suggests that that tipping point was reached in the early 2000s. For the first time since the cycle began back in the 1960s, the number of people with health insurance began to fall each year. Healthcare providers—who had seemingly assumed that the flow of money would never stop increasing—began to panic. Then came Barack Obama. Obama’s seminal legislative accomplishment—the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare—can best be understood as a ploy by healthcare providers and the government to keep the party going. Obamacare required all fifty million uninsured Americans to obtain insurance, and it greatly expanded what these “insurance” companies covered. Demand for healthcare shot back up, and the vicious cycle started back up again—which is why the bill enjoyed so much support from big corporations all across the healthcare industry. Before it was passed, economists were practically screaming that the Affordable Care Act would make care less affordable by raising premiums and healthcare prices while making shortages worse. Progressives dismissed such concerns as Reagan-era “free market fundamentalist” propaganda. But that is exactly what happened . Now, the affordability crisis is worse than ever as prices reach historic levels. And, because Obamacare brought American healthcare much closer to a single-payer system, the demand for healthcare far exceeds the supply of healthcare—leading to deadly shortages. There are literally not enough resources or available medical professionals to treat everyone who can pay for care. Also, the tax code and warped “insurance” market protect these providers from competition—making it almost impossible for people to switch to a different provider after their claims are unfairly denied. If it were simply greed, denying customers who already paid would be a feature in all industries. But it’s not. It requires the kind of policy protections progressives helped implement. And on top of all that, despite paying all this money, Americans are quickly becoming one of the sickest populations on Earth. This is one of the most pressing problems facing the country. A problem that requires immediate, radical change to solve. But it also requires an accurate and precise diagnosis—something that, this week, progressives demonstrated they are incapable of making. Related Articles Commentary | John Stossel: Your tax dollars not at work Commentary | After so many years of failure, time’s up for California Democrats Commentary | Vince Fong: We don’t need Newsom to lecture us. We need him to listen to us. Commentary | Deregulation rather than fossil fuel controls needed to fix California insurance market Commentary | The FBI has been political from the start The American progressive movement is responsible for providing the political class the intellectual cover they needed to break the healthcare market and transform the entire system into a means to transfer wealth to people like Brian Thompson. Now, they want to sit back, pretend like they’ve never gotten their way, that the government has never done anything with the healthcare market, and that these healthcare executives just popped up and started doing this all on their own—all so they can celebrate him being gunned down in the street. It’s disgusting. Brian Thompson acted exactly like every economically literate person over the last fifty years has said health insurance CEOs would act if progressives got their way. If we’re ever going to see the end of this century-long nightmare, we need to start listening to the people who have gotten it right, not those who pretend they are blameless as they fantasize online about others starting a violent revolution. Connor O’Keeffe ( @ConnorMOKeeffe ) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. This commentary is republished with permission from the Mises Institute.
Clemson 75, Penn St. 67Donald Trump will ring the New York Stock Exchange bell as he's named Time's Person of the Year
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has chosen Keith Kellogg, a highly decorated retired three-star general, to serve as his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg, who is one of the architects of a staunchly conservative policy book that lays out an “America First” national security agenda for the incoming administration, will come into the role as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its third year in February. Trump, making the announcement on his Truth Social account, said, “He was with me right from the beginning! Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!” Kellogg, an 80-year-old retired Army lieutenant general who has long been Trump’s top adviser on defense issues, served as national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence , was chief of staff of the National Security Council and then stepped in as an acting security adviser for Trump after Michael Flynn resigned. As special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Kellogg will have to navigate an increasingly untenable war between the two nations. The Biden administration has begun urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of those as young as 18. The White House has pushed more than $56 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Russia’s February 2022 invasion and expects to send billions more before Biden leaves office in less than two months. The U.S. has recently stepped up weapons shipments and has forgiven billions in loans provided to Kyiv. Trump has criticized the billions the Biden administration has spent in supporting Ukraine and has said he could end the war in 24 hours, comments that appear to suggest he would press Ukraine to surrender territory that Russia now occupies. As a co-chairman of the American First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security, Kellogg wrote several of the chapters in the group’s policy book. The book, like the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” is designed to lay out a Trump national security agenda and avoid the mistakes of 2016 when he entered the White House largely unprepared. Kellogg in April wrote that “bringing the Russia-Ukraine war to a close will require strong, America First leadership to deliver a peace deal and immediately end the hostilities between the two warring parties.” Trump's proposed national security adviser , U.S. Rep. Michael Waltz of Florida, tweeted Wednesday that “Keith has dedicated his life to defending our great country and is committed to bringing the war in Ukraine to a peaceful resolution.” Kellogg featured in multiple Trump investigations dating to his first term. He was among the administration officials who listened in on the July 2019 call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump prodded his Ukrainian counterpart to pursue investigations into the Bidens. The call, which Kellogg would later say did not raise any concerns on his end, was at the center of the first of two House impeachment cases against Trump, who was acquitted by the Senate both times. On Jan. 6, 2021, hours before pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Kellogg, who was then Pence’s national security adviser, listened in on a heated call in which Trump told his vice president to object or delay the certification in Congress of President Joe Biden ’s victory. He later told House investigators that he recalled Trump saying to Pence words to the effect of: “You’re not tough enough to make the call.” Baldor reported from Washington. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.