Search

Drug regulator investigates deaths tied to weight loss injections

Australia's drug regulator is investigating further into three different deaths possibly linked to the use of Ozempic and other weight loss injections. Tim Ramsay, 58, started using Saxenda because he wanted to lose weight so he could confidently walk his daughter down the aisle. But, he tragically passed away just 19-days after he started taking the injections, and now his family want answers, after a coroner ruled his cause of death as undetermined. "I don't believe that anybody should die without an explanation, you just don't expire, there has got to be a reason for Tim's death," Ramsay's wife, Sue, told 60 Minutes. "19 days between his first injection and the day he left us, alarm bells in our heads, in the TGA's heads, and the coroner's head should be ringing," his daughter Elyse said. Leonie Margetts is also looking for answers, and is angry at the ease in which the injections could be accessed, following her daughter's death after taking Ozempic injections she'd ordered online. Margetts' daughter Naomi wanted to be a mum, but was told she needed to lose weight to to have any chance of falling pregnant. "You just do not expect to find your daughter on her knees in front of the toilet bowl dead," Margetts said. "She was a week away from turning 40 and that's a big thing for any female, she was feeling very vulnerable," she added. The Therapeutic Goods Administration's Chief Medical Advisor, Professor Robyn Langham has responded, and told 60 minutes that the TGA has a responsibility to the families of the deceased. "It's a very serious and a very tragic problem for the families that are concerned and we don't wish to minimise that at all," Langham said. She added that they are carefully monitoring reports of severe gastrointestinal side effects caused by the medication, and will withdraw the drug if necessary. "If we do see that there is a need to change the messaging or the information that goes with the drug or even in some cases to withdraw the drug, then we have the power to do so," Langham said. Some people have been using Ozempic for weightloss, which has caused it to "explode" in popularity. "I liken this to when the [Model] T Ford was first invented and suddenly we had changes in transportation and the horse and cart went," Professor of medicine and endocrinologist Dr Katherine Samaras said. But, the professor has warned that Ozempic is only approved in Australia for diabetes, and should only be used when supervised by a doctor. "We don't leave matches in the hands of children," she said. "We shouldn't leave these drugs in the hands of people, it has to be supervised." Images: 60 minutes

Legal

Calls to regulate AI are growing louder. But how exactly do you regulate a technology like this?

Last week, artificial intelligence pioneers and experts urged major AI labs to immediately pause the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4 for at least six months. An <a href="https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/">open letter</a> penned by the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/commentisfree/2022/dec/04/longtermism-rich-effective-altruism-tech-dangerous">Future of Life Institute</a> cautioned that AI systems with “human-competitive intelligence” could become a major threat to humanity. Among the risks, the possibility of AI outsmarting humans, rendering us obsolete, and <a href="https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-not-enough/">taking control of civilisation</a>. The letter emphasises the need to develop a comprehensive set of protocols to govern the development and deployment of AI. It states, "These protocols should ensure that systems adhering to them are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean a pause on AI development in general, merely a stepping back from the dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities." Typically, the battle for regulation has pitted governments and large technology companies against one another. But the recent open letter – so far signed by more than 5,000 signatories including Twitter and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and OpenAI scientist Yonas Kassa – seems to suggest more parties are finally converging on one side. Could we really implement a streamlined, global framework for AI regulation? And if so, what would this look like? <h2>What regulation already exists?</h2> In Australia, the government has established the <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/technology/national-ai-centre">National AI Centre</a> to help develop the nation’s <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/science-technology-and-innovation/technology/artificial-intelligence">AI and digital ecosystem</a>. Under this umbrella is the <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/industries/technology/National-AI-Centre/Responsible-AI-Network">Responsible AI Network</a>, which aims to drive responsible practise and provide leadership on laws and standards. However, there is currently no specific regulation on AI and algorithmic decision-making in place. The government has taken a light touch approach that widely embraces the concept of responsible AI, but stops short of setting parameters that will ensure it is achieved. Similarly, the US has adopted a <a href="https://dataconomy.com/2022/10/artificial-intelligence-laws-and-regulations/">hands-off strategy</a>. Lawmakers have not shown any <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/03/business/dealbook/lawmakers-ai-regulations.html">urgency</a> in attempts to regulate AI, and have relied on existing laws to regulate its use. The <a href="https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/CTEC_AICommission2023_Exec-Summary.pdf">US Chamber of Commerce</a> recently called for AI regulation, to ensure it doesn’t hurt growth or become a national security risk, but no action has been taken yet. Leading the way in AI regulation is the European Union, which is racing to create an <a href="https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/">Artificial Intelligence Act</a>. This proposed law will assign three risk categories relating to AI: <ul> <li>applications and systems that create “unacceptable risk” will be banned, such as government-run social scoring used in China</li> <li>applications considered “high-risk”, such as CV-scanning tools that rank job applicants, will be subject to specific legal requirements, and</li> <li>all other applications will be largely unregulated.</li> </ul> Although some groups argue the EU’s approach will <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/02/14/lessons-from-world-s-two-experiments-in-ai-governance-pub-89035">stifle innovation</a>, it’s one Australia should closely monitor, because it balances offering predictability with keeping pace with the development of AI. China’s approach to AI has focused on targeting specific algorithm applications and writing regulations that address their deployment in certain contexts, such as algorithms that generate harmful information, for instance. While this approach offers specificity, it risks having rules that will quickly fall behind rapidly <a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/02/14/lessons-from-world-s-two-experiments-in-ai-governance-pub-89035">evolving technology</a>. <h2>The pros and cons</h2> There are several arguments both for and against allowing caution to drive the control of AI. On one hand, AI is celebrated for being able to generate all forms of content, handle mundane tasks and detect cancers, among other things. On the other hand, it can deceive, perpetuate bias, plagiarise and – of course – has some experts worried about humanity’s collective future. Even OpenAI’s CTO, <a href="https://time.com/6252404/mira-murati-chatgpt-openai-interview/">Mira Murati</a>, has suggested there should be movement toward regulating AI. Some scholars have argued excessive regulation may hinder AI’s full potential and interfere with <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364916300814?casa_token=f7xPY8ocOt4AAAAA:V6gTZa4OSBsJ-DOL-5gSSwV-KKATNIxWTg7YZUenSoHY8JrZILH2ei6GdFX017upMIvspIDcAuND">“creative destruction”</a> – a theory which suggests long-standing norms and practices must be pulled apart in order for innovation to thrive. Likewise, over the years <a href="https://www.businessroundtable.org/policy-perspectives/technology/ai">business groups</a> have pushed for regulation that is flexible and limited to targeted applications, so that it doesn’t hamper competition. And <a href="https://www.bitkom.org/sites/main/files/2020-06/03_bitkom_position-on-whitepaper-on-ai_all.pdf">industry associations</a>have called for ethical “guidance” rather than regulation – arguing that AI development is too fast-moving and open-ended to adequately regulate. But citizens seem to advocate for more oversight. According to reports by Bristows and KPMG, about two-thirds of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-29/australians-say-not-enough-done-to-regulate-ai/102158318">Australian</a>and <a href="https://www.bristows.com/app/uploads/2019/06/Artificial-Intelligence-Public-Perception-Attitude-and-Trust.pdf">British</a> people believe the AI industry should be regulated and held accountable. <h2>What’s next?</h2> A six-month pause on the development of advanced AI systems could offer welcome respite from an AI arms race that just doesn’t seem to be letting up. However, to date there has been no effective global effort to meaningfully regulate AI. Efforts the world over have have been fractured, delayed and overall lax. A global moratorium would be difficult to enforce, but not impossible. The open letter raises questions around the role of governments, which have largely been silent regarding the potential harms of extremely capable AI tools. If anything is to change, governments and national and supra-national regulatory bodies will need take the lead in ensuring accountability and safety. As the letter argues, decisions concerning AI at a societal level should not be in the hands of “unelected tech leaders”. Governments should therefore engage with industry to co-develop a global framework that lays out comprehensive rules governing AI development. This is the best way to protect against harmful impacts and avoid a race to the bottom. It also avoids the undesirable situation where governments and tech giants struggle for dominance over the future of AI. Image credits: Shutterstock This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/calls-to-regulate-ai-are-growing-louder-but-how-exactly-do-you-regulate-a-technology-like-this-203050" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Technology

Australia’s temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here’s how the new government could fix it

The election of the Albanese Labor government brings an opportunity to end one of the most detrimental elements of Australian refugee law and policy in the past decade: the use of temporary visas. Temporary protection has been the only option available for asylum seekers who arrived by boat a decade ago and were recognised as refugees. Known as the “legacy caseload”, these people are caught in a system of law and policy that keeps them in a state of perpetual limbo. As the new government committed to end temporary protection, we have <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/new-kaldor-centre-policy-brief-proposes-reforms-australia%E2%80%99s-temporary-protection-system">just published a policy brief</a> with the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law outlining how this could be achieved. Our report sets out practical reforms that can be implemented relatively simply, within existing legislative provisions and with only minimal changes to policy and regulations. The 17 recommendations were produced in consultation with refugees and asylum seekers living on temporary protection visas and bridging visas. We also consulted civil society, including former and current temporary protection visa holders and legal groups working with refugees. The impact of temporary protection and the fast-track system on refugees and asylum seekers has left many <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/inm.12325">depressed and suicidal</a>. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/29/the-new-government-gives-me-hope-that-the-cruel-limbo-of-temporary-protection-visas-might-end">Expectations</a> from those living on temporary visas and the wider refugee advocates are high and there is significant apprehension about the transition. The new government understands it will need to approach reforms carefully. Our recommendations are accompanied by a trauma-informed strategy to help reduce mental distress, deterioration and retraumatisation of asylum seekers, while also increasing community engagement. <h2>The current system is damaging</h2> Australia’s temporary protection system is <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/new-kaldor-centre-policy-brief-proposes-reforms-australia%E2%80%99s-temporary-protection-system">unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent</a> with our international human rights obligations. In 2014, the Coalition government reintroduced a Howard-era three-year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) and a five-year Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) for the more than 30,000 people who arrived by boat between August 13 2012 and January 1 2014. However, unlike the earlier Howard policy, the temporary visas this time provided no realistic prospect of applying for permanent protection. The number of people in this “legacy caseload” as <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/uma-legacy-caseload-may-2022.pdf">of May 2022</a> is 31,256. They come from many countries. The largest number are from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The majority – around 19,500 people – have been found to be refugees and have been granted TPV and SHEV. The 10,000 who have been refused a visa were assessed through a “fast-track” process that has <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-biloela-tamil-family-deportation-case-highlights-the-failures-of-our-refugee-system-123685">been neither fair nor fast</a>. People who have been refused have been living in the Australian community for ten years or more while awaiting the outcome of appeals. Some (<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biloela-family-are-going-home-but-what-will-labor-do-with-thousands-of-other-asylum-seekers-in-limbo-in-australia-183621">such as the Nadeselingham family</a>) are working or have had children in Australia. There are also many asylum seekers from Afghanistan who have been refused visas but who cannot return due to the reemergence of the Taliban in August 2021. In other words, some of those refused visas may well be refugees or have other ties to the Australian community. However, the current legal system does not allow them to apply for other visas without going through cumbersome, expensive appeals and ministerial intervention processes. People who hold TPVs and SHEVs are allowed to work but not to reunite with family or travel freely overseas. Others live on precarious short-term bridging visas, some without the right to work. Many are without access to income support. In either situation, the uncertainty is damaging people’s mental health and well-being. <h2>Key recommendations</h2> The focus of the policy brief was to set out reforms either within the current legislative and policy framework, or with minimal changes. This means changes can occur within a relatively short time frame. Key recommendations include: <ul> <li> refugees on TPVs and SHEVs should be moved onto permanent visas known as Resolution of Status visas. People who have not yet been assessed or who have previously been refused protection should also be able to apply for a permanent visa that does not require another assessment of their protection claims </li> <li> restrictions on travel for TPV and SHEV holders should be removed, pending the grant of a permanent visa and includes specific recommendations in relation to travel documents. Travel is essential for re-establishing links to separated family </li> <li> family reunion, particularly partners and children, should be prioritised. Granting people permanent visas allows them to begin the process of family reunion through the family or humanitarian programs </li> <li> the government should establish a specialised team in the Department of Home Affairs to work closely with migration agents, lawyers and refugee communities. This group could identify other options for allowing reunification of close relatives and children who, under current law, may not fall within the definition of “member of a family unit”. Families have been separated for at least 10 years; many left children at home who have now reached ages where they will no longer be considered dependent. </li> </ul> In 2014, the new minister for immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs Andrew Giles <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/a275472e-b699-46e7-ac29-bcf2fb8ee942/0018/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">said, "</a>Labor has a longstanding policy of opposing TPVs, for good reason. They do not provide a sustainable solution for refugees. The uncertainty exacerbates real mental health issues and denies people the capacity to live full lives. As well as significant international law concerns with these provisions, they put people in limbo. There is no deterrence value here, even if you accept that to be a valid policy objective – they only place vulnerable people in a place of uncertainty." He now has significant power to put those words into action. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-temporary-visa-system-is-unfair-expensive-impractical-and-inconsistent-heres-how-the-new-government-could-fix-it-185870" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

International Travel

Alcohol marketing has crossed borders and entered the metaverse – how do we regulate the new digital risk?

The World Health Organization’s newly <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046504" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released report</a> on regulating cross-border alcohol marketing raises the alarm for countries like Australia and New Zealand, given their light touch towards alcohol advertising. Alcohol is widely consumed in Australasia but there is ongoing tension over how much restraint, if any, should be placed on the marketing of these products. Australia and New Zealand are at the unrestrained end of the marketing continuum. Both countries rely on industry-led policy in the form of voluntary codes – an approach identified as insufficient by the WHO report. What is cross-border alcohol marketing? Alcohol marketing, created and disseminated in one country and spread across borders into others, is commonly used by multinational corporations striving to increase sales and normalise alcohol as an everyday product. Much of this advertising is taking place in the digital media sphere. The increased use of these media platforms by alcohol corporations allows them access to cheap advertising opportunities. For as <a href="https://au.reset.tech/uploads/resettechaustralia_profiling-children-for-advertising-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">little as US$2</a>, an advertising campaign based in Australia could reach a thousand young people profiled as interested in alcohol, for example. Marketing across digital media has also increased the impact of those messages. Brands interact with users on social media platforms, encouraging the posting, sharing and liking of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33573719/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">branded images and messages</a>. Higher user engagement is associated with <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079562/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more drinking</a>. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="AB InBev logo behind a smartphone also showing the logo" /><figcaption>Multinational corporations like AB InBev have been quick to embrace digital platforms as a new way to advertise alcohol products. <a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-an-ab-inbev-logo-is-seen-on-a-news-photo/1234971135?adppopup=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pavlo Gonchar/Getty Images</a></figcaption></figure> Targeting the individual The increased power of these advertisements reflects the effectiveness of “personalised marketing”. Companies can now target individuals and “look alike” audiences. This approach is made possible thanks to the enormous amount of data collected as we interact together, purchase products and indicate our interests and passions through our clicks and likes. This data is extremely valuable to marketers and alcohol corporations. It gives them insight into the best time of day, the best brand of alcohol and the best type of marketing message to send our way. All groups across society are vulnerable to being bombarded by messages encouraging the purchase and consumption of alcohol. Digital advertising can target everyone: teenagers looking for brands which exemplify their identity; young adults, the heaviest “occasion drinkers” in Australia and New Zealand, some of whom are developing drinking habits that may be hard to change in later life; and adults of all ages who wish to reduce their consumption, often for health reasons. Digital media has become an all-encompassing marketing environment in which the “buy” button – with home delivery and often no checks on age or intoxication – provides a seamless marketing and distribution system. In New Zealand, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dar.13222" target="_blank" rel="noopener">online sales</a> increased significantly during the COVID-19 lockdowns, particularly among heavier drinkers. Entering the metaverse The alcohol industry is now showing its initiative by entering the emerging <a href="https://www.ypulse.com/article/2022/02/03/metaverse-mansions-more-tiktok-how-brands-are-marketing-for-this-years-super-bowl/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">metaverse</a>. To understand the metaverse, <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/technology/brave-new-world-how-the-metaverse-may-shape-our-psychology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to one commentator</a>, you should <blockquote> take today’s social media, add a splash of sophisticated 3D, fold in a plethora of options for entertainment and gaming, garnish it all with data-driven personalisation, and you are all set to take away your order of a supersized social media network, the metaverse. </blockquote> In terms of marketing, this provides a new opportunity. The biometric data essential to a virtual reality experience is also available to develop “<a href="https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol23/iss1/1/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">biometric psychographics</a>”, allowing for the even greater personalisation of advertising. Virtual alcohol brands created and used by avatars in the metaverse support the development of brand allegiance in real life, and virtual reality will transform e-commerce experiences and increase the power of sponsorship. AB InBev, the largest global alcohol corporation, was an early adopter of the metaverse. One of its brands, <a href="https://sifted.eu/articles/metaverse-brands-nft/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stella Artois</a>, is sponsoring the Australian Zed Run platform on which virtual horses can be raced, bred and traded. The Zed Run platform experienced 1,000% growth in early 2021. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Two people stand in front of a screen with a digital image of a horse." /><figcaption>Digital horse racing game Zed Run has exploded in popularity, with alcohol companies using the digital platform to reach a new audience. <a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/performers-tyra-cartledge-and-kendall-drury-takes-part-in-a-news-photo/1329475903?adppopup=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images</a></figcaption></figure> Regulating to reduce alcohol harm The digital world is extremely dynamic. It is also opaque to most policy makers and public health practitioners. It is telling that there is no reference to the metaverse as a cross-border alcohol marketing opportunity in the WHO report. There is an urgent need for debate regarding how policy makers should better understand the risks involved with the targeted marketing of hazardous products such as alcohol. The WHO report outlines various partial and unsuccessful approaches to regulating marketing in the digital media. Attempts, such as <a href="https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/303690/Alcohol_marketing_on_social_media_sites_in_Finland_and_Sweden_2019.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Finland’s</a> regulation of user-shared branded material, have failed because they did not interfere with the basic architecture of the social media platforms, which is predicated on engagement via sharing and liking. The most successful examples offered by the WHO report have been countries like Norway, which have imposed a complete ban on alcohol marketing including in the digital media. The report emphasises the need for surveillance and enforcement, suggesting ways in which alcohol companies could be penalised for marketing breaches. The support provided by international agreements such as the <a href="https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/overview" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</a> is identified as a possible template for future discussions. The response to tobacco marketing provides a good and largely effective model for officials and policy makers. That said, the public health goal for alcohol is not equivalent to the smokefree goal. Advocates are not trying to eliminate alcohol altogether. However, there are parallel arguments in favour of creating a healthier media environment through regulation to prevent the promotion of alcohol products via increasingly sophisticated technological and psychological tools. These products are significant causes of reduced well-being, and this marketing increases consumption and therefore harm. The messages of the WHO report are timely and should be heeded.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183334/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sally-casswell-862029" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sally Casswell</a>, Professor of public health policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Massey University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/alcohol-marketing-has-crossed-borders-and-entered-the-metaverse-how-do-we-regulate-the-new-digital-risk-183334" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

Convenient but susceptible to fraud: Why it makes sense to regulate charitable crowdfunding

Within 24 hours of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-southern-us-is-prone-to-december-tornadoes-173643" target="_blank">devastating tornadoes striking six states</a> in December 2021, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear launched the <a rel="noopener" href="https://secure.kentucky.gov/formservices/Finance/WKYRelief" target="_blank">Team Western Kentucky Tornado Relief Fund</a>. That the leader of the state this disaster hit hardest would immediately tap into <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/crowdfunding-nonprofits" target="_blank">crowdfunded charity</a> – raising money from the public directly – to complement relief dollars from official sources should come as no surprise. Crowdfunded donations have become a key source of disaster assistance – and often raise significant sums. In 2017, for example, football star J.J. Watt quickly raised more than $40 million help people affected by <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.houstontexans.com/news/j-j-watt-foundation-announces-hurricane-harvey-recap-and-2018-19-plans" target="_blank">Hurricane Harvey</a>. Following a series of Australian wildfires, entertainer Celeste Barber made a public appeal that eventually raised more than AU$50 million for the <a rel="noopener" href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/200554" target="_blank">New South Wales Rural Fire Service & Brigades Donation Fund</a>. And to date, the CDC Foundation has raised more than $51 million to support its “<a rel="noopener" href="https://give4cdcf.org/?utm_source=CDCF&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=combat-coronavirus" target="_blank">Crush COVID</a>” campaign. What’s not to like about this new way to raise funds for a good cause? Well, as long as there has been charitable fundraising there has been the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/how-donors-can-help-make-nonprofits-more-accountable-85927" target="_blank">potential for scams</a>. As a <a rel="noopener" href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uplx-M8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">law professor who studies the regulation of charities</a>, as well as a lawyer who has represented numerous charities and donors in legal disputes, I’ve seen that two aspects of charitable crowdfunding make it particularly vulnerable to fraud. Sometimes it turns out to be crowd-frauding In late 2017, a New Jersey couple posted an inspiring story on GoFundMe. A homeless veteran, they said, had come to the wife’s rescue after she ran out of gas on a highway exit ramp. Their “<a rel="noopener" href="https://abc7ny.com/homeless-hero-gofundme-money-stolen-from-man-john-bobbitt-gofund-me-go-fund/4690185/" target="_blank">Paying it Forward</a>” campaign raised more than $400,000 to help the veteran. Heartwarming, right? Trouble is, it was a lie. All three of the people involved in this trickery eventually <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/mark-damico-johnny-bobbitt-kate-mcclure-gofundme-guilty-20211122.html" target="_blank">pleaded guilty to federal charges</a> of “<a rel="noopener" href="https://www.dicindiolaw.com/what-constitutes-theft-by-deception/" target="_blank">theft by deception</a>.” Fraudulent crowdfunding can also prey on political sentiments rather than just exploiting sympathy. In 2020, <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/leaders-we-build-wall-online-fundraising-campaign-charged-defrauding-hundreds-thousands" target="_blank">federal prosecutors charged</a> former senior Trump adviser Steve Bannon and three others with defrauding thousands of donors to a crowdfunding campaign for <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/why-steve-bannon-faces-fraud-charges-4-questions-answered-144834" target="_blank">building portions of a wall</a> along the U.S. border with Mexico. Bannon and his partners allegedly instead used some of the funds raised to compensate themselves and pay for personal expenses. Although then-President <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/19/trump-pardons-expected-day-before-biden-inauguration.html" target="_blank">Donald J. Trump pardoned Bannon</a> in advance of any trial, the former White House aide still <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/25/steve-bannon-officially-cleared-of-federal-charges-after-trump-pardon---but-this-state-probe-still-looms/?sh=1a58e95657c4" target="_blank">faces possible state charges</a>. Reasons for vulnerability Making a special website isn’t necessary to raise charitable funds this way. Some 45 million people donated to or created a fundraiser using Facebook from 2015 to 2020, raising over <a rel="noopener" href="https://about.fb.com/news/2019/09/2-billion-for-causes/" target="_blank">$3 billion for charities</a>, according the company. And crowdfunding efforts can help people without <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc506" target="_blank">technically counting as tax-deductible charity</a>. <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.gofundme.com/" target="_blank">GoFundMe</a>, a popular charitable crowdfunding platform, lets people raise funds for both personal needs, such as covering medical expenses, and for specific charities of all kinds. Being fast and cheap to operate makes charitable crowdfunding ideal in some ways, not others. More traditional fundraising campaigns that rely on mailings and phone calls are time-consuming to establish. In contrast, it’s possible to set up a new campaign on GoFundMe that is then visible both nationally and internationally within a few minutes. In the wake of a highly publicized disaster, when many people are <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-select-a-disaster-relief-charity-83928" target="_blank">looking for a quick way to help</a>, everyone – even governors – will want to move fast. Opportunities for fraud are perhaps at their peak. Compounding this problem: Laws governing charitable fundraising do not clearly apply to campaign organizers and crowdfunding platforms. As I detail in an article <a rel="noopener" href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3686612" target="_blank">soon to be published in the Indiana Law Journal</a>, state legislatures wrote those laws decades ago, when charities raised money either directly or using paid solicitors. As a result, those laws do not usually apply to individuals who voluntarily raise money for individuals or charities to which they have no formal ties. Nor do they apply to the recently emerged platforms where people crowdfund for causes. California takes aim So far, there’s no regulation taking shape to address these issues at the federal level. California became the first state to pass legislation specifically targeting charitable crowdfunding when Gov. Gavin Newson signed Assembly Bill No. 488 into law in October 2021. The measure, which will not <a rel="noopener" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB488" target="_blank">take effect until Jan. 1, 2023</a>, requires both charities raising funds online and platforms hosting campaigns for specific charities to register and file regular reports with the state’s <a rel="noopener" href="https://oag.ca.gov/charities" target="_blank">Registry of Charitable Trusts</a>. The new law will also require these charities and platforms to make certain public disclosures and receipts, as needed. It will also require platforms to promptly distribute donations to the designated charities and obtain a charity’s written consent before soliciting funds for its benefit – with some exceptions. In my view, California’s new law is a good first effort. It places the burden of compliance on the charities themselves and the handful of online platforms engaged in this work, not on the numerous individuals who start campaigns. But it remains to be seen whether the registration, reporting, disclosure and other requirements will create enough transparency and accountability to sufficiently deter fraud without over burdening legitimate charities and platforms. I appreciate the difficult task legislators face in striking a balance that avoids both over- and underregulation. Lawmakers do not want to overregulate charitable crowdfunding to the point that generous individuals and legitimate charities shy away from launching campaigns because of the legal burdens of doing so. That is, all new laws and regulations, in addition to discouraging crowdfunding fraud, ought to encourage generosity. At the same time, lawmakers want to regulate charitable crowdfunding enough to ensure that all or almost all funds raised go the individuals and charities that the donors intend to support. Time will tell whether California and the states that follow its example have struck the right balance.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172029/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lloyd-hitoshi-mayer-1148002" target="_blank">Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer</a>, Professor of Law, <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-notre-dame-990" target="_blank">University of Notre Dame</a> This article is republished from <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/convenient-but-susceptible-to-fraud-why-it-makes-sense-to-regulate-charitable-crowdfunding-172029" target="_blank">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Is it even possible to regulate Facebook effectively? Time and again, attempts have led to the same outcome

The Australian government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-why-australia-may-be-powerless-to-force-tech-giants-to-regulate-harmful-content-169826">recent warning</a> to Facebook over misinformation is just the latest salvo in the seemingly constant battle to hold the social media giant to account for the content posted on its platform. It came in the same week as the US Senate heard <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58805965">whistleblowing testimony</a> in which former Facebook executive Frances Haugen alleged the company knew of harmful consequences for its users but chose not to act. Governments all over the world have been pushing for years to make social media giants more accountable, both in terms of the quality of information they host, and their use of users’ data as part of their business models. The Australian government’s <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6680">Online Safety Act</a> will <a href="https://perma.cc/95A5-T79H">come into effect in January 2022</a>, giving the eSafety Commissioner unprecedented powers to crack down on abusive or violent content, or sexual images posted without consent. But even if successful, this legislation will only deal with a small proportion of the issues that require regulation. On many such issues, social media platforms have attempted to regulate themselves rather than submit to legislation. But whether we are talking about legislation or self-regulation, past experiences do not engender much confidence that tech platforms can be successfully regulated and regulation put in action easily. Our <a href="https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rip/35">research</a> has examined previous attempts to regulate tech giants in Australia. We analysed 269 media articles and 282 policy documents and industry reports published from 2015 to 2021. Let’s discuss a couple of relevant case studies. <h2>1. Ads and news</h2> In 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/digital-platforms-inquiry-final-report">inquiry into digital platforms</a> described Facebook’s algorithms, particularly those that determine the positioning of advertising on Facebook pages, as “opaque”. It concluded media companies needed more assurance about the use of their content. Facebook initially welcomed the inquiry, but then <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Facebook_0.pdf">publicly opposed it</a> when the government argued the problems related to Facebook’s substantial market power in display advertising, and Facebook and Google’s dominance of news content generated by media companies, were too important to be left to the companies themselves. Facebook argued there was <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Facebook.pdf">no evidence of an imbalance of bargaining power</a>between it and news media companies, adding it would have no choice but to withdraw news services in Australia if forced to pay publishers for hosting their content. The standoff resulted in Facebook’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-has-pulled-the-trigger-on-news-content-and-possibly-shot-itself-in-the-foot-155547">infamous week-long embargo on Australian news</a>. The revised and amended News Media Bargaining Code was <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Final%20legislation%20as%20passed%20by%20both%20houses.pdf">passed by the parliament in February</a>. Both the government and Facebook declared victory, the former having managed to pass its legislation, and the latter ending up striking its own bargains with news publishers without having to be held legally to the code. <h2>2. Hate speech and terrorism</h2> In 2015, to deal with violent extremism on social media the Australian government initially worked with the tech giant to develop joint AI solutions to improve the technical processes of content identification to deal with countering violent extremism. This voluntary solution worked brilliantly, until it did not. In March 2019, mass shootings at mosques in Christchurch were live-streamed on Facebook by an Australian-born white supremacist terrorist, and the recordings subsequently circulated on the internet. This brought to light <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111473473/facebook-ai-failed-to-detect-christchurch-shooting-video">the inability Facebook’s artificial intelligence algorithms</a> to detect and remove the live footage of the shooting and how fast it was shared on the platform. The Australian government responded in 2019 by <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/abhorrent-violent-material">amending the Criminal Code</a>to require social media platforms to remove abhorrent or violent material “in reasonable time” and, where relevant, refer it to the Australian Federal Police. <h2>What have we learned?</h2> These two examples, while strikingly different, both unfolded in a similar way: an initial dialogue in which Facebook proposes an in-house solution involving its own algorithms, before a subsequent shift towards mandatory government regulation, which is met with resistance or bargaining (or both) from Facebook, and the final upshot which is piecemeal legislation that is either watered down or only covers a subset of specific types of harm. There are several obvious problems with this. The first is that only the tech giants themselves know how their algorithms work, so it is difficult for regulators to oversee them properly. Then there’s the fact that legislation typically applies at a national level, yet Facebook is a global company with billions of users across the world and a platform that is incorporated into our daily lives in all sorts of ways. How do we resolve the impasse? One option is for regulations to be drawn up by independent bodies appointed by governments and tech giants to drive the co-regulation agenda globally. But relying on regulation alone to guide tech giants’ behaviour against potential abuses might not be sufficient. There is also the need for self-discipline and appropriate corporate governance - potentially enforced by these independent bodies. Image credits: Shutterstock This article first appeared on <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-even-possible-to-regulate-facebook-effectively-time-and-again-attempts-have-led-to-the-same-outcome-169947" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Technology

Calls for urgent changes in building regulations as family home demolished

The mother of a disabled woman is calling for urgent changes to be made to building regulations in Australia following the demolition of their brand-new, purpose-built home. 24-year-old Paige was left with severe brain damage as a child after a hospital mistake, and was awarded $5.5 million in compensation from Queensland Health four years ago. <img style="width: 500px; height: 280px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7844345/screen-shot-2021-09-23-at-35143-pm.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/b2850aa7004940eea0c1eefa38f90da4" /> Part of that money was used to build a home that would meet all of her needs, but after less than a year of living in their new Redcliffe home, the house had such a severe mould problem that it was decided it had to be demolished. Paige’s mum, Linda Hartman, told <a href="https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/new-development-severely-disabled-queensland-womans-toxic-house-demolished/765a998a-a0d2-40ef-a74d-feb6d86e58e1">A Current Affair</a> that the situation has caused her and Paige severe stress, but the minister responsible, Mick de Brenni, won’t agree to meet with them to discuss the issue. A Current Affair initially met the family when they were attempting to dry the moisture in order to keep the mould at bay, but those attempts failed, and the only remaining solution was demolition. Ms Hartman told reporters she was relieved that the entire building, including the concrete slab, had to go, as it meant she wouldn’t have to deal with the builder anymore. "I'm quite relieved because now I don't have to deal with the builder because dealing with the builder it was just horrific.” <img style="width: 500px; height: 277.86624203821657px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7844346/screen-shot-2021-09-23-at-35148-pm.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/c63309e684504d57b3425856725c68ab" /> The builder in question was PJ Burns – the director Rick Burns admitted to ACA that there were problems at the property and that he was “going to fix them”. In early March, the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC) identified the cause of the mould as "rising damp through the slab due to faulty installation of the damp proof membrane" and found that Burns had failed to rectify structural defects, ultimately deciding that the "demolition and rebuilding of the dwelling" was "reasonable and necessary". QBCC approved a claim of $200,000 under the Queensland Home Warranty Scheme, which was less than a third of the actual cost. The trustee of Paige’s settlement money has now commenced legal proceedings against PJ Burns, as well as finding a new builder, with the hope of having a new home ready for the family by Christmas 2022. <img style="width: 500px; height: 284.5786963434022px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7844347/screen-shot-2021-09-23-at-35210-pm.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/194a66899a64440b95b790b9dada2ea6" /> "The builder has to be held accountable for what he has done to us and I don't want this to happen to anybody else," Ms Hartman told ACA. Ms Hartman believes that QBCC’s lack of action “ruins people’s lives”. She believes PJ Burns’ work is so bad that it should be listed as Tier 1 defective work, which would result in an automatic three-year ban. Ms Hartman feels like the QBCC is “protecting the builder”, while the QBCC claims it is “empathetic to [her] situation” and that its officers have “worked continuously to keep her updated and informed during her case.” A spokesperson for the regulator said, "This builder has been subject to regulatory action and may be subject to further regulatory action in the future.” Mr de Brenni said in a statement that the QBCC had been in regular contact with Ms Hartman, and his recommendation is that homeowners check the QBCC website before hiring a builder. Images: A Current Affair

Real Estate

"WOW!" Beach handball team responds to Pink's amazing offer

Popstar Pink has offered to pay the fines issued to the Norwegian beach handball team for wearing shorts instead of bikini bottoms during a match. After the match between Norway and Spain last weekend, the European Handball Federal (EHF) handed the Norwegians’ a $240 fine per player for “improper clothing”. The organisation said the shorts violated the athlete uniform regulations. The fines, totalling $2410, caused widespread backlash with athletes and celebrities taking to social media to criticise the decision, including Pink. The popstar even said she was “happy to pay” the fines for the team, and praised them for protesting the “very sexist” uniform rules. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> I’m VERY proud of the Norwegian female beach handball team FOR PROTESTING THE VERY SEXIST RULES ABOUT THEIR “uniform”. The European handball federation SHOULD BE FINED FOR SEXISM. Good on ya, ladies. I’ll be happy to pay your fines for you. Keep it up. — P!nk (@Pink) <a href="https://twitter.com/Pink/status/1419127641068630016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2021</a></blockquote> In response, the team shared the tweet on their Instagram Stories and thanked Pink for her support. “WOW! Thank you so much for the support,” the team wrote. The ruling also drew criticism from Norway officials, who argue that the womens’ uniform requirements were not practical. “In 2021, it shouldn’t even be an issue,” Norwegian Volleyball Federation president Eirik Sordahl told national news agency NTB. While beach volleyball players have not been required to wear bikinis since 2012, rules from the International Handball Federation (IHF) state that “female athletes must wear bikini bottoms” which have a “close fit”, be “cut on an upward angle towards the top of the leg”, and a side depth of 10 centimetres or less. Male players, on the other hand, are allowed to wear shorts. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Here are the rules for the men’s vs. women’s uniforms. Ridiculously <a href="https://t.co/8wDXG22sTd">pic.twitter.com/8wDXG22sTd</a> — KT SLP (@MrsThornSLP) <a href="https://twitter.com/MrsThornSLP/status/1419246549763244040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2021</a></blockquote> Norway asked the EHF for permission to play in shorts ahead of the tournament, but were told that rule violations would be punishable by fines. The team complied until their last match. “The EHF is committed to bring this topic forward in the interest of its member federations, however it must also be said that a change of the rules can only happen at IHF level,” EHF spokesperson Andrew Barringer said in an email. Clothing has been an issue in beach sports for a long time, with some women players finding bikinis degrading or difficult to play in. The Norwegian Handball Association (NHF) had been pushing for changes to the uniform regulations and planned to protest with the thigh-length tights the team wore. Norway’s team captain told Norwegian broadcaster NRK that the team felt forced to wear bikini bottoms. “So then we are forced to play with panties. It is so embarrassing,” she said. “First we were told about a fine of 50 euros ($AUD 80) per person per match, something that would have landed us a fine of about 4,850 euros ($AUD 7760). We accepted that. However, just before the match we were told that we will be disqualified if we play like that. So we had to go with bikini bottoms.” Image: Instagram

Money & Banking

Are your grandkids safe? It’s far too easy for abusers to exploit smart toys and trackers

The wearable technology market is booming, with <a href="https://news.strategyanalytics.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2021/Strategy-Analytics-Half-Billion-Wearables-Sold-Worldwide-in-2020/default.aspx">half a billion wearables</a> sold globally in 2020. Apps on these devices, or the devices themselves, often claim to monitor our health to spot illnesses, track our workouts to help us reach our fitness goals, or keep an eye on our children’s whereabouts to enhance their safety. But they’re also divisive. Supporters of wearable technology claim that health trackers should be <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-nhs-should-prescribe-wearable-fitness-trackers-60817">prescribed by the NHS</a> and could even deliver an <a href="https://theconversation.com/wearable-fitness-devices-deliver-early-warning-of-possible-covid-19-infection-143388">early warning</a> of a possible COVID-19 infection. GPS tracking devices designed to be worn by children, meanwhile, are seen as a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-04/digitally-tracking-kids-more-parents-use-devices/10957906">safety asset</a> for parents. Yet studies have found fitness trackers to be too <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-fitness-trackers-may-not-give-you-all-the-credit-you-hoped-for-128585">inaccurate</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-fitness-trackers-make-you-fitter-52404">misleading</a> to be used by <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/08/14/how-doctors-really-feel-data-your-apple-watch-fitbit/1900968001/">medical professionals</a>, and that, because they’ve been rushed to market, wearables of all kinds are an insecure “<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-health-apps-are-like-the-wild-west-with-apple-just-riding-into-town-103512">Wild West</a>” region of technology that requires urgent regulation. In <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978692/The_UK_code_of_practice_for_consumer_IoT_security_-_PETRAS_UCL_research_report.pdf">a recent report</a>, we looked at the security risks associated with wearable devices, as well as “smart toys” that can record children in their homes. We found a concerning lack of security – especially for devices aimed at children – which lack even the most basic cybersecurity precautions, leaving them open to abuse. Fitness trackers and personal data One key issue with wearables is the data they generate and share. For instance, many fitness trackers rely on data on a person’s location to map their workouts. That’s great if you’re keen to track the distance of your jogs, but it’s not especially sensible if you’re embarking on those jogs <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42853072">from a military base</a> in hostile territory. Beyond that specific example, which caused some embarrassment for the US military in 2018, it’s clear that sharing your location publicly, even in a safe civilian setting, comes with significant risks. And it’s not just the real-time tracking of your running route that could expose your whereabouts. Because these trackers upload your workouts to an app and share them publicly, it’s possible for predators to use historic running, biking or hiking routes to predict where you might be at a given time. This safety issue isn’t only restricted to workouts. Even something as innocuous as <a href="https://www.wareable.com/wearable-tech/terms-and-conditions-privacy-policy-765">sharing a photo through your Apple watch</a> can give away your geolocation. Are trackers safe for children? Even more concerning are devices designed to be worn by children, sales of which are expected to reach <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/global-kids-smartwatch-market-valued-at-364-3-million-us-in-2018-and-will-reach-873-5-million-us-by-the-end-of-2025-at-a-cagr-of-13-19-between-2019-2025-valuates-reports-814713277.html">$875 million (£620 million)</a> by 2025. These watches are marketed as wearable tech to keep kids safe, tracking their location and alerting parents when the watch’s onboard “SOS” button is pressed – or if the child travels beyond a geofenced area. Smart watches as safety devices on children’s wrists may sound like a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wearable-gps-tracking-for-children-to-ease-parents-minds/">boon for anxious parents</a>, but a <a href="https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/watchout-rapport-october-2017.pdf">2017 survey</a> of children’s smart watches found that the all-important “SOS” button either got stuck or didn’t work at all in most cases. Additionally, flaws in some smart watches’ accompanying apps have raised <a href="https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/11/which-tests-for-security-flaws-in-kids-smartwatches/">serious safety concerns</a>. <a href="https://consumerfed.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/smart-watch-security-assessment.pdf">Security researchers</a> have found they could not only easily access children’s historical route data – like their path to and from school – and monitor their geolocation in real time, but they could also speak directly to the child, through the watch, without the call being reported in the parent’s app. Connected toys Fears that internet of things devices can give people unauthorised access to children also extend to <a href="https://theconversation.com/4-ways-internet-of-things-toys-endanger-children-94092">the “smart toy” market</a>. Some of these toys contain hidden cameras and microphones which, if hacked, could be used to record the interior of your home, including children’s rooms. In 2017, German regulators recognised this danger by <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39002142">banning the sale</a> of the Cayla “smart doll”, labelling it as the kind of “de facto espionage device” that Germany’s <a href="https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2017/17022017_cayla.html">Telecommunications Act</a> legislates against. In an unusual and unsettling move, the regulator went further by asking parents who’d bought one to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-regulator-tells-parents-to-destroy-spy-doll-cayla/a-37601577">destroy the doll</a> to prevent illicit surveillance. Even if the manufacturers of smart toys and children’s smart watches can guarantee far better security than that which led to the Cayla ban, there remain other surveillance concerns. In 2019, a <a href="https://www.unicef.org/innovation/reports/memoAIchildrights">UNICEF-led report</a> highlighted how children’s rights – to creativity, freedom of choice and self-determination – are challenged by smart devices. Present in schools, at home, and on the wrist, this kind of round-the-clock surveillance, the report argues, restricts carefree childhood and hurts kids’ development. Making trackers safer Trackers and toys can be made safer. Before we allow these devices to flood the market, it’s essential <a href="https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10117734/">we standardise</a> the minimum security requirements that manufacturers must comply with – no matter where in the world these devices are made. Key among these standards should be the removal of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971440/Code_of_Practice_for_Consumer_IoT_Security_October_2018_V2.pdf">factory-default passwords</a> on devices – which, like “admin” or “1234”, are easily guessed or discovered by even the most novice hacker. Manufacturers should also publish a <a href="https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/expanding-the-view-of-consumer-vulnerability-disclosure-practice/">vulnerability disclosure</a> to help users understand risks, and make regular software updates in response to vulnerabilities unearthed by security researchers. Clearly, monitoring people’s health via wearable trackers has the potential to radically improve access to medical care. Likewise, every parent wants their child to be safe, and smart devices, like mobile phones before them, could be a reliable tool for checking in with them. But without safety standards, these devices have the potential to cause more harm than they offset. Regulators must act fast to stop this growing market from leading to significant harms. Written by <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saheli-datta-burton-1061974">Saheli Datta Burton</a>, UCL and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/madeline-carr-1148007">Madeline Carr</a>, UCL. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-far-too-easy-for-abusers-to-exploit-smart-toys-and-trackers-161946">The Conservation.</a>

Caring

This airline denied a passenger from boarding because of an everyday piece of clothing

Imagine thinking you’re all set for your flight, only to make it on board to discover you’re being denied entry. Some airlines, due to cultural sensitivities, have harsher dress codes than others as one traveller found out, reports <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/saudi-arabian-airlines-flight-passenger-yore-oyster-jakarta-istanbul-riyadh-denied-boarding-shorts-a8574351.html" target="_blank">The Independent</a>. Last year, Saudi Arabian Airlines made the news for enforcing a strict dress code, refusing to carry “women exposing legs or arms, or wearing too thin or too tight clothes, and men wearing shorts exposing legs". It’s the national airline of Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism is followed, a conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam. But on its <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.saudia.com/TRAVEL-WITH-SAUDIA/On-Board/SAUDIA-Dress-Code" target="_blank">website</a>, the carrier has a very general, and brief, description of its dress code. “Saudia is requesting from their guests to abide by a dress code whereby they are clothed in a manner that is in line with public taste or not offensive to other passengers,” it says. So, for western passengers travelling on the airline, what’s considered decent attire could be hard to discern. Wearing a comfy pair of shorts for a comfortable journey could, understandably, fly under the radar as Jordan Bishop found out. When he went to board his Saudi Arabian Airlines flight, he faced a polite refusal, reports The Independent. “Sir, I’m afraid we can’t allow you to board. You cannot fly with Saudia wearing shorts,” a manager informed Bishop, who was boarding a 4 pm flight at Jakarta to fly via Riyadh to Istanbul on October 3. But when the Forbes writer – ironically also the founder of Yore Oyster, a corporate flights concierge – was caught short … with nothing else to change into, the manager again denied him entry. “If you don’t have pants, I can’t allow you to board,” he said. So quick-thinking Bishop made a dash for a clothes store at the airport. “When it became clear that I had no other option but to find a pair of pants on my own, I ran down the length of the terminal until I found a travel kiosk selling sarongs,” he said. “I bought the first one I saw, raced back to the gate and tied it around my waist like a full-length skirt.” Where he was given an “awkward” once-over by a flight attendant at the gate before boarding, the addition of the sarong provoked some bemused glances according to the writer, but he was finally given permission to board. Have you ever been refused entry to a flight? Tell us why and what happened in the comments section below.

Travel Trouble

Council vows to ban cats from roaming outside

A Sydney council has created the purrfect storm, dividing public opinion with its proposal to force cats inside and penalise cat owners who let their beloved pets roam outside. Newly minted mayor Kathy Neilson, of the south-eastern Sydney suburb of Randwick, introduced a motion that could force cat owners to keep their pets inside, particularly at night. Otherwise they could face fines if cats "run free and defecate in public places,” as dog owners are already subject to, reports <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-03/randwick-councils-cat-ban-idea-stirs-debate/10331946" target="_blank">ABC NEWS</a>. It has been put forward “in the interest of protecting native habitat and fauna," with the council planning to form a committee to investigate the proposal further, including raising registration fees for cat owners. "We're losing a lot of natural wildlife around parks, because of what the cats are doing,” Independent Councillor for Randwick <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlos-da-rocha-b9450041/?originalSubdomain=au" target="_blank">Carlos Da Rocha</a>, who has over 30 years of experience as a senior ranger, told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/10/02/18/24/randwick-council-sydney-trying-to-ban-cats" target="_blank">9News</a>. “There's no responsible ownership and care factor.” The council’s <a rel="noopener" href="http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/services/animals-and-pets/dogs-and-cats" target="_blank">guidelines</a> currently state that “curfews, desexing and bells alone are not effective in protecting our native animals.” But how on earth do you police pooping cats? Liberal Councillor for Randwick Harry Stavrinos told 9News the idea is “laughable and absolutely ridiculous to think we're going to have our rangers jumping over back fences chasing people’s defecating cats.” Stavrinos, a longtime cat lover, said it was unfair to target cat owners, and that the proposed increased registration fee would put considerable strain on seniors and the disabled who may live on fixed incomes. “Increasing the fee just makes life more difficult for these people who rely on [cats] for therapy, love and relaxation,” he told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/pets/sydneys-randwick-council-wants-to-stop-cats-going-outside/news-story/ecbbf0c619b179d850d297ff4aa1f5ef" target="_blank">news.com.au</a>. ABC News reports that some of their viewers also think the planned restrictions are unreasonable. “Responsible cat owners know how to give their cat outdoor time, which is important for overall health and wellbeing, whilst keeping limits on them, i.e. not letting them out at night or when you're not home,” said Cathryn. “My cat would be miserable without any outside time.” But others were all for banning wandering felines. “We have strict rules put in place for dogs so why should cats be any different?” said Kelly. “I'm sick and tired of cats in my local neighbourhood coming inside and pooing and weeing all over our front and backyard.” Viewer Loraine took a pragmatic approach, saying that while cats are natural hunters, they need to be contained to protect wildlife. “I love cats and also our wonderful native animals,” she said. “As such, I understand cats' natural instinct to hunt and our role in keeping our wildlife safe. So I firmly believe there are no such things as "bad cats" but bad owners who do not have their animals desexed and allow them to stray around the neighbourhood.” Various restrictions are in place around Australia, including cat curfews at night, and “cat containment” suburbs in the ACT. As news.com.au reports, the federal government looked at implementing a similar ban to that of the Randwick council proposal in 2015. Dr Sally Box, who became Australia’s Threatened Species Commissioner last year, told the Weekend Australian that such measures aren’t designed to be punitive to cat owners, who may not realise how far their furry friends roam, but to protect large numbers of threatened species in urban areas. “Roaming domestic cats kill about 60 million birds a year,” she said. “We’re encouraging people to have their pets microchipped, desexed and contained at night. “It’s not about preventing people from having cats – they are important companions for a lot of people. We’re just trying to encourage responsible pet ownership.” Do you think banning cats from roaming outside is fair? Let us know in the comments below.

Legal

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

Timothy King, Senior Lecturer, Department of Applied Finance and Actuarial Studies, Macquarie University, explains why retirement village contracts need to be regulated like insurance. While you may think signing a retirement village contract is similar to buying a house or apartment, it isn’t. Retirement village contracts resemble insurance contracts more than purchase agreements, only they aren’t regulated like insurance products. The lack of regulation increases the risk for retirees. They face considerable delays in receiving their payments when they leave, costs due to the delay, and the potential loss of all payment from companies that don’t need to meet the financial standards of an insurance company. Most retirement village contracts provide the consumer with a combination of the right to reside in the retirement village (until death, incapacity for independent living, or voluntarily relocation) and an “exit payment” upon leaving. As both the amount and timing of this payment depends on the resident’s death or ill health, the payment is a de facto insurance payout. This makes the retirement village contract a combination of the right to reside and a de facto insurance policy. But the insurance policy comes from companies that wouldn’t normally be allowed to sell insurance. Retirement villages are mostly small private companies or not-for-profit organisations. This means they aren’t required to publish their annual financial statements, hold reserves, or have reinsurance arrangements like an insurance company. The consumer can’t be confident that the retirement village is financially healthy and able to pay out the exit fee, due to the absence of information about their accounts and financial condition. Fees and more fees There is a great variation in the structure of the fees that retirement villages charge – entry fees, ongoing fees and a so-called “deferred management fee”, which is an amount taken out of the money refunded to departing residents. These fees can be substantial – the entry fee alone is often comparable with the cost of buying an apartment. Although the amount varies by location, one operator told a Victorian parliamentary inquiry the entry fee was equivalent to 80% of the cost of a house nearby. A retirement village contract might have an entry fee of A$1 million, a deferred management fee of 6% of the entry fee per year of residence, and a maintenance fee of A$500 per month. For a contract with a A$1 million entry fee, after five or more years of residence, the deferred management fee is A$300,000, so the exit payment is A$700,000. But the deferred management fee can vary greatly. It may be 10% per year for three years, or 3% for 10 years etc. The exit payment can also include some share of the resale value of the apartment. But the retirement village needs to be able to pay out this exit payment. The need for proper regulation The assets held by retirement villages are almost all invested in real estate. This is risky, as they aren’t diversified and their assets can’t be easily turned into cash. When a retirement village has to pay a departing resident their exit payment it may take a long time to sell their apartment, which could involve a loss on resale. This can also lead to delays in receiving exit payments. After signing their retirement village contract, residents are also in a weaker bargaining position than a traditional tenant in a normal pay-as-you-go rental arrangement. This is because residents have already paid their rent in advance for the rest of their life, and it usually costs a lot of money to get out of these contracts. In some retirement village contracts the resident may be forced to spend a lot of money on renovations – such as for a new bathroom and kitchen – so that the apartment can be sold and they can get the exit payment. This issue is compounded by the complexity of the contracts, which can be hard for both consumers and financial advisers to understand. This creates substantial risk for consumers, and the lack of a requirement to publish financial statements and related information makes it very difficult to assess the financial soundness of a retirement village operator. If retirement village contracts are in fact insurance agreements, then they should be regulated differently – by the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and not by state governments, as is now the case. If retirement villages were properly regulated then consumers would be better protected from failure of operators and better protected from delays and capital losses when they get their exit payment. What are your thoughts? Written by Timothy King. First appeared on <a href="http://www.theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Legal

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

Legal

The surprisingly strict rules and regulations about bringing souvenirs home

Australia has some of the most highly-regulated borders in the world and while souvenirs are a great way to remember your trip, bringing the wrong one back can lead to a grilling from a customs official, hefty on the spot fine or even worse, prosecution. So before you buy that katana sword, mosquito zapper or 10kg of beef that caught your eye in an overseas market, read this guide to what you can and can’t bring home. Restrictions The following items are completely restricted (and let’s be honest wouldn’t really make that good a souvenir anyway) and must be declared on arrival. They include: <ul> <li>Firearms, weapons and ammunition</li> <li>Performance and image enhancing drugs</li> <li>Medicines. This includes prescription, alternative and herbal medicines as well as vitamins and mineral preparation formulas</li> <li>Currency, when you’re carrying AUD $10,000 or a foreign equivalent</li> <li>Protected wildlife (things like coral, orchids, caviar) and hunting trophies</li> <li>Agricultural and veterinary chemical products</li> <li>Goods that may be heritage listed, like works of art, stamps and coins</li> </ul> Limits The following item categories may be taken back in Australia, but there are strict limits on the amount of the material you’re allowed to take that will be enforced by customs: <ul> <li>Duty free products – the duty free limits for adults are items to the value of $900 and for children items to the value of $450. You’re not allowed to take more than 2.25 litres of alcohol and you’re not allowed to take more than 50 cigarettes or 50g of tobacco</li> <li>Market goods & shopping – the rules are varied, depending on the items. You’re allowed to bring back katana swords, swords and bayonets and multi-tool knifes, but you’re definitely not allowed to bring back blowguns, electric shock devices, fireworks, fake designer goods and pirated DVDS. There are also various restrictions and limits that apply to laser pointers, leather and bone goods, mosquito zappers and items that are wooden or woven.</li> </ul> Top 20 most-confiscated goods: The Department of Immigration has also provided a list of the top 20 most-confiscated goods for people coming back into Australia. So it goes without saying if you’re coming back into the country with one of these items in your luggage you might be setting yourself up for an interesting discussion with the folks at customs. 1. Laser pointers 2. Food & drink 3. Electric shock devices 4. Blow guns or blow pipes 5. Flick knives 6. Knuckle dusters 7. Extendable batons 8. Throwing blades 9. Daggers 10. Nunchakus 11. Pepper sprays 12. Arm brace slingshots 13. Concealed blades 14. Steroids 15. Wooden and woven items 16. Soft air BB guns 17. Sedatives 18. Hormones 19. Illegal porn 20. Leather, fur, horns, bones (fully tanned leather is ok) No matter where you’re travelling to, making sure you know how to access your cash while away – and in the most affordable way – is very important. Easy to use and with countless benefits, the Over60 Cash Passport allows you to securely access your cash in the same way you use an ATM or credit card. <a href="https://oversixty.cashpassport.com.au" target="_blank">To apply for a card today, click here.</a> Have you arranged your travel insurance yet? Tailor your cover to your needs and save money by not paying for things you don’t need. <a href="https://elevate.agatravelinsurance.com.au/oversixty?utm_source=over60&utm_medium=content&utm_content=link1&utm_campaign=travel-insurance" target="_blank">Click here to read more about Over60 Travel Insurance</a>. For more information about Over60 Travel Insurance, call 1800 622 966. Related links: <a href="/travel/international-travel/2015/12/largest-flower-garden-in-the-world/">14 images from the world’s largest flower garden</a> <a href="/travel/international-travel/2016/01/how-i-drove-a-motorhome-around-the-world/">When I retired I drove a motorhome around the world</a> <a href="/travel/international-travel/2016/01/odd-and-amazing-toilets-from-around-the-world/">12 odd (but amazing) toilets from around the world</a>

Travel Tips

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Drug regulator investigates deaths tied to weight loss injections

Calls to regulate AI are growing louder. But how exactly do you regulate a technology like this?

Australia’s temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here’s how the new government could fix it

Alcohol marketing has crossed borders and entered the metaverse – how do we regulate the new digital risk?

Convenient but susceptible to fraud: Why it makes sense to regulate charitable crowdfunding

Is it even possible to regulate Facebook effectively? Time and again, attempts have led to the same outcome

Calls for urgent changes in building regulations as family home demolished

"WOW!" Beach handball team responds to Pink's amazing offer

Are your grandkids safe? It’s far too easy for abusers to exploit smart toys and trackers

This airline denied a passenger from boarding because of an everyday piece of clothing

Council vows to ban cats from roaming outside

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

The surprisingly strict rules and regulations about bringing souvenirs home

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Drug regulator investigates deaths tied to weight loss injections

Calls to regulate AI are growing louder. But how exactly do you regulate a technology like this?

Australia’s temporary visa system is unfair, expensive, impractical and inconsistent. Here’s how the new government could fix it

Alcohol marketing has crossed borders and entered the metaverse – how do we regulate the new digital risk?

Convenient but susceptible to fraud: Why it makes sense to regulate charitable crowdfunding

Is it even possible to regulate Facebook effectively? Time and again, attempts have led to the same outcome

Calls for urgent changes in building regulations as family home demolished

"WOW!" Beach handball team responds to Pink's amazing offer

Are your grandkids safe? It’s far too easy for abusers to exploit smart toys and trackers

This airline denied a passenger from boarding because of an everyday piece of clothing

Council vows to ban cats from roaming outside

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

Retirement village contracts should be regulated like insurance

The surprisingly strict rules and regulations about bringing souvenirs home

Our Partners

Join Over60