In a world where all things “cloud,” are connected; why put up with the overhead costs of onsite labor? According to an Amercian Community Survey in 2020 – 2021, “remote workers work substantially longer hours per week than on-site workers.”
In the corporate environment, situation norms where remote labor works include security, disaster recovery, communications, and live test or development. Approximately 16% of the U.S. population of employers, employs remote labor. For corporate abroad environments, remote labor helps reduce the costs of overpopulation, unethical labor practices, onsite risk, travel costs and much more.
On the world wide web, there is a common struggle for publicity amongst businesses. Some of the most common techniques for business exposure is having a unique name business name. Ever wonder why your uniquely trademarked business isn’t getting the attention it needs? It might be because advertising markets are stealing your business brand.
Business Brand
In most cases, when using an appropriate search engine provider, a user just has to enter the company name to find a company and their website. Here, the business is shown as being related to another company by this search engine advertiser offering free company website submissions. The search engine provider is not returning the correct URL with the correct company name entered by the user at all.
Post-pandemic, many search engine promotion firms are struggling to make businesses anew. Even businesses that have no experience in internet advertising and marketing are getting a shot at breaking into the field. But don’t be fooled by their statements that they are not controlling your business rankings on the internet. Many of these businesses are using your company brand name to get business exposure.
Big business trends in advertising may seem legal, but if someone is using your trademarked business name to start their business, get business exposure or prevent business, this can be considered trademark infringement.
The threat of artificial intelligence rears its head as recent phenomena targeted toward courtroom proceedings. Its story, covered by DailyMail.com on September 22, 2017, boasts scientific design of “a machine-learning algorithm that can accurately predict over 70 percent of Supreme Court decisions. “
So how much of this technology is artificial intelligence and a threat to society? We can assess this based on previous courtroom decisions. In 1977, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated and remanded decision in Gardner v. Florida. “The Petitioner was denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed by the Florida Supreme Court, at least in part, on the basis of information that he had no opportunity to deny or explain,” stated Justice Stevens. The information utilized in the case was an informational report which held information of which Gardner was unaware.
On July 13, 2016, a similar report was utilized for sentencing of Eric M. Loomis and evaluated on appeal by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The report was comprised of a proprietary algorithm utilized by the COMPAS system which scales violence and recidivism risk principles as part of case triage. In its opinion, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated, “The court of appeals certified the specific question of whether the use of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing violates a defendant’s right to due process, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account.” The court determined, “if used properly, observing the limitations and cautions set forth herein, a circuit court’s consideration of a COMPAS risk assessment at sentencing does not violate a defendant’s right to due process,” further explaining its reasoning for decision was supported by other independent factors; thus, the risk assessment use was not a determinate.
When you think about remote technology, you don’t commonly think about the oil and gas platform. The oil and gas platform, commonly referred to as an offshore platform; is a large structure that is utilized for exploration, extraction, storage, and processing. Oil and gas platforms are found in many ocean waters; thus, have made a major impact in remote technology.
In 2016, the United States legitimized a five-year leasing plan which would allow oil and gas vendors to drill in its federal waters; allowing undiscovered, recoverable oil and gas resources to be recovered. Leasing sales would occur twice a year, per region. In 2017, the U.S. President, amended the five-year leasing plan to include federal waters in the Arctic and Atlantic regions; expanding the reach of the remote oil and gas platform.
Some of the most spectacular oil and gas platforms are found in the Gulf of Mexico region. For example, the USRA, a $1.45 billion oil-and-gas platform, lived 65 miles offshore; its total height from the seabed to its top was 4,285 feet. The Magnolia, reaching 4,698 feet, was considered the world’s deepest platform. In March 2018, Big Foot was introduced, replacing the Magnolia’s magnitude by 5,180 feet.
The expansion of offshore oil drilling by the federal government has created quite a stir among conservationists. For example, California recently passed Senate Bill 834 and Assembly Bill 1775 which prohibits the California State Lands Commission from approving any new leases, or any lease renewals, extensions or modifications of any lease in state waters that would result in an increase of oil or natsral gas production from federal waters. The amended pre-existing law had authorized the commission to let leases for the extraction of oil and gas from coastal tidelands or submerged lands in state waters and beds of navigable rivers and lakes within the state in accordance with specified provisions of law. New York state also proposed similar protections with Assembly Bill 9819 and Senate Bill 8017.
However, oil spills are an unavoidable part of offshore drilling. Each year, about 880,000 gallons of oil are sent to the ocean from North American offshore oil drilling platforms. Natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina also have caused destruction; which, in 2005, destroyed over 100 platforms and caused the release of 8 million gallons of oil into the ocean waters.
“In 2009, nearly a quarter, 23.6 percent of total U.S. employment in the oil and gas industry existed in Harris County, Texas;” states Bureau of Labor Statics. Therefore, the removal of the remote oil and gas platform in technology will be a hard battle for conservationists.
On June 14, 2019, the Texas Governor signed House Bill 3703 into enactment. The house bill indicates “Low-THC cannabis, known as the plant Cannabis sativa L., and any part of that plant or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, preparation, resin, or oil of that plant which contains not more than 0.5 percent by weight of tetrahydrocannabinol may be prescribed by the medical society for the treatment of chronic diseases.” The house bill also indicates that the prescription source must comply with the “American Board of Medical Specialties or the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists.”
cannabis technology
Though this breakthrough in Texas law is a long-awaited release for the medical society that promotes it; it purposes a different view in the technology sector which promotes the 10 to 15 panel drug screen for employment within high risk areas which require machine handling, development, technical writing, etc.
House Bill 3703 does discuss the criminal implications of unauthorized use of medical cannabis, indicating that both the physician and patient must be a part of a secure online “compassionate-use registry;” which technically should not be readily accessible to employers for random employment drug screening. The secure online “compassionate-use registry” seems to be an excellent opportunity for developers interested in developing for the medical cannabis market; however, the factors of drug screening in the area of employment still seems to be of preferential concern.
Urine drug testing for an inactive THC metabolite is common in both federally regulated and non-regulated drug testing. United States Congress passed the Drugfree Workplace Act in 1988. In 2010, regulated testing began to include the heroin metabolite 6-MAM, and the substituted amphetamines MDMA, MDA, and MDEA; the drug screen also includes tetrahydrocannabinol carboxyclic acid (THCA).
House Bill 3703 indicates that “a municipality, county, or other political subdivision may not enact, adopt, or enforce a rule, ordinance, order, resolution, or other regulation that prohibits the cultivation, production, dispensing, or possession of low-THC cannabis” other than authorized by enactment. Therefore, the house bill does not support the release of medicinal cannabis outside its liquid form by unauthorized physicians. However, it does not indicate designated areas of usage for the patient under low-THC cannabis treatment.
When you read news of cryptocurrency all you see is images of a gaudy gold coin that looks like it belongs in a gambling slot machine; but, not in your pocket. Industry providers are pushing this technology as the next level in the financial market, complete with advanced user exchange platforms that include two-factor authentication and encrypted Transport Layer Security i.e., secure hypertext transfer protocol that leverages HTTP Strict Transport Security and content-security policies that are found in most browsers; it promises the best in gambling on money.
The industry itself is stated to be highly volatile since its birthing in the 2017 Asian market even though recent financial news reports indicate that the blockchain market has “risen” in value in the year 2019. Originally introduced in Kiev, Ukraine; the bitcoin was invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 as a cross national payment system to be used in cryptographic technique.
But, this doesn’t exactly explain cryptocurrency, does it? Cryptocurrency is a digital currency that is transaction secure; the decentralized nature of blockchain makes cryptocurrency virtually immune to interference. It is encrypted using an encryption key via a T-data transaction, that subsequently routes a pointer, which is a SHA-256 hash of data, to an off-blockchain, key-value store. The pointer is then verified by its digital signature based on user and the servicing store, which is a distributed hashtable, with added LevelDB2 persistence and an interface to the blockchain. The blockchain being tamper-free, is built on an assumption that requires a sufficiently large network of untrusted network peers.
Cryptocurrency differs in the financial market due to its decentralized, cryptographic nature in technology; though a centralized cloud may be utilized to store data through third-party trust to the blockchain platform.
Technology has a way of failing itself when it is abused. For example, the starter interrupt device (SID), also known as the remote immobilization system, which was created as a theft prevention device for vehicles. This piece of technology engineering has caused much controversy in the automotive industry.
The starter interrupt device (SID) is a controller that enables a disable function of the starter in a vehicle. The device is found as a black box under vehicle dashboards and responds to commands issued through a central website, over a wireless network.
The starter interrupt device can be found in many used old model high-end vehicles. As such, these vehicles, can easily become a death trap when the starter interrupt device disables the starter in traffic or near airports; as all wireless technology disables when planes cross over them.
In 2010, Wired released news of an alleged hacker disabling vehicles remotely. The alleged hacker was determined to be a disgruntled worker that formerly worked in a well-known auto center in Austin, Texas. Austin Police stated the alleged hacker disabled over one hundred cars by obtaining passwords and customer information through another employee’s access account. However, this is not the only computer intrusion situation that the starter interrupt device (SID) has created in the automotive industry.
Nearly 75 percent of all squad cars in the U.S. were equipped with starter interrupt device (SID) control in 2010, which placed computer functions in squad cars that automatically disable computer keyboards and touchscreens when the car is moving more than 15 miles per hour. A 2011 analysis of police crashes in Minnesota found that 14 percent of all crashes were caused by distracted police officers, and half were due to being distracted by in-car computers.
In 2014, RT World News released information indicating that law enforcement proposed to utilize starter interrupt device control on citizens’ vehicles stating, “remote control of car electronics is far from a novel theory; cars can communicate with wireless technology.” The goal was to mandate equipment in all cars sold in the Union with devices which would allow police to remotely disable engines. University of California in San Diego and Washington University later released test results indicating “computer intrusion by law enforcement can easily interfere with safety-critical systems like brakes” for citizens.
We all know about the history of the Hippocratic oath, you know the one physicians take that state they are sworn to “save lives and administer healing to the best of their ability and judgment;” but, how does that play ethically in the law sciences?
In 2017, two members of a political party, a police officer and district attorney participated in a courtroom attack on an innocent man and his family in defense of an illegal immigrant that entered the country under Visa Sponsorship of Marriage, left her new husband and then claimed “domestic violence.” The woman they defended had only been in the country for three months, had absolutely nothing but a character evidence sheet in her case file when the case went to trial and had missed trial court hearing three times when called via subpoena.
The police officer was shown on video,” leading the woman termed as the “complainant” to press charges using the “no habla inglés” method. In other words, the court case was issued purely on hearsay; built on the conversation of others who spoke English i.e., a woman termed to be a “victim’s advocate” and the police officer.
In the video, the alleged “victim’s advocate” defends the complainant’s rights to visa amnesty by stating, “VAWA was made for women like the complainant” and then proceeded to make unverifiable statements about the defendant’s ex-wife, children and grandchildren; stating the ex-wife, a woman who raised three children to adulthood with a respect for education and employment, and was gainfully employed throughout most of her marriage to the defendant; had lived a bad home life.
The complainant that the alleged “victim’s advocate” defended was thirty-eight years old, had been arranged in marriage at least three times previously, never held a job or education, and never bore children.
Translation of the complainant’s statements, which were deliberately made in another language, show the complainant randomly stated, “the defendant asked the complainant to help him take care of his three and five year old granddaughters on one weekend occasion and found this to be abusive behavior on the part of the defendant.”
“The woman was never thrown out of any home or battered, and had ample time to leave the home while the defendant was at work if she was in danger; the nearest neighbor was three feet away from the front door of the home,” stated the witness that took the side of the defendant.
The witness herself held a 1995 protective order which was violated for many years; thus, she was not an advocate of the new domestic violence laws as her 1995 case had evidence of physical violence committed against her which had been shown in photographs in the case file. Further stating that her own protective order was issued using her legal name; “the complainant’s side of the case, both in divorce and criminal proceedings, showed absolutely no legal maiden name usage and no protective order hearing.”
The witness felt she had been specifically targeted by local area prosecutors at the time of the district court proceedings, as she was called in to attend Federal Jury duty on another more high profile case; the state court called her around the same time for attendance, placing the witness for the defendant at high risk through her appearance in courtrooms.
In 2018, the police officer and district attorney involved in the case lost their seats during the national mid-term elections. It was found that the initial district attorney that participated in the 2017 attack on the defendant was diagnosed with a mental illness in 2016. Nevertheless, the attack by the local area police never stopped on the defendant’s family; five women and a man that were a part of the defendant’s family which were either deceased, children, retired or gainfully employed who refused to believe the defendant was portrayed fairly were slandered via the courtroom proceeding by the police officer and the alleged “victim’s advocate.”
The defendant’s case was slightly reduced shortly after appeal petitions were completed via another district court proceeding. However, during appeals, the nursing board would attempt to remove the defendant’s licensing, altering judgment through its interference based on a police report that had been modified more than five times by prosecutors since the report had been filed in 2013. The nursing board threw away the US citizen termed “defendant,” his education and employment based on a mentally unstable district attorney, non-licensed victim’s advocate and police officer who built their case through the enjoyment of cruelty.
In 2004, the human microchip was advanced and approved by Food and Drug Administration and utilized by medical science to assist in the safe location and treatment of Alzheimer patients. The human microchip was inserted under the skin using a procedure that takes less than 20 minutes and leaves no stitches. By mid-2004, the human microchip technology was formally introduced for use on children as a prevention method against child abduction.
In January 2005, “students at a school district in Northern California, were forced to wear RFID-enabled ID badges as part of an “RFID test” done with the support of a company developing and manufacturing attendance reporting and security systems. The badges were issued without the parents’ consent, and allowed the school to track and maintain records of students’ movements on campus.”
Human microchip technology has had many roadblocks since the incident in Northern California, because the RFID monitors movement of a child and vital record. Civil liberties argue that the ability to track people would create “a world where law enforcement officials could read the contents of a person’s handbag, without a person’s knowledge, by simply installing RFID;” indicating the abusive nature of the technology.
However, there are also limitations in frequency ranges provided by the technology which may prohibit proper localization of a child in a situation of abduction. For example, at 128 frequency levels a child could not realistically be located if abducted within 10 miles from a system reader.
The RFID system reader relies on a scanner similar to the ones found in a grocery store when implanted under the skin. Additionally, various reports returned on the testing of animals indicate the human microchip can be expelled or cause infection, scarring and even cancer.
In 2019, the human microchip technology still exists in medical science, as does its privacy breach concerns for use. There were in 424,066 NCIC entries for missing children reported in 2018; as a double-edged sword, human microchip technology fails us based on the same reasons for which it was built. The question of whether human microchip technology can effectively assist in child abduction investigations has not yet been answered.
