At a time when US federal government is pushing for a ban on TikTok, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a law restricting children's access to social media. The law will come into effect on January 1, 2025. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday signed into law a bill restricting social media access for minors, as concerns grow over the negative effects such platforms are having on teens in the United States. The signing came barely two weeks after federal lawmakers in the House and Senate passed a bill that could see the Chinese-owned video platform TikTok banned in the US.  DeSantis on Monday said his administration is "trying to help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids." What we know so far The law, which will go into effect on January 1, 2025, will bar Florida children 13 and under from having social media accounts, and 14- and 15-year-olds will need parental consent to use them. "Governor Ron DeSantis signs HB3 to protect children from the harms of social media," the Florida Representative wrote on his official X account, formerly Twitter. Monday's bill was a watered down version of one previously put forth by Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Paul Renner that would have banned all children under 16 from social media. The new version of the bill also dropped wording that detailed exactly how platforms would have to verify a user's age. Though most social media platforms require users to be 13 or older, they do little in terms of enforcement. The new law does not target any one company but is aimed at restricting access to platforms that use "addictive" features such as "likes," push notifications, auto-play videos and those that encourage "infinite scrolling." According to Speaker Renner, social media is fraught with risks from traffickers and pedophiles. He also claimed "social media platforms have caused a devastating effect in the mental well being of our children." "Our bill is focused on addiction," said Renner. "Unlike an adult who can make an adult decision… a child, in their brain development, doesn’t have the ability to know they are being sucked into these addictive technologies, and to see the harm and step away from it." Child protection vs. free speech: battle lines drawn The law has sparked concern among those who fear it sets a precedent for restricting free speech online.  At the same time, there has also been growing concern across the country about the effects of social media on child and teen development. While proponents claim the social media ban gives parents oversight in the matter, others say the government should stay out of such issues altogether. Renner said he expects social media companies will, "sue the second after this is signed. But you know what? We're going to beat them. We're going to beat them and we're never, ever going to stop." DeSantis, former Republican presidential candidate and a combative "culture warrior," has seen similarly ambitious legislation overturned before. Just recently, for instance, a majority Republican appeals court struck down his signature 2022 "Stop Woke Act" for violating free speech rights. Those opposing the new law, among them giant tech companies like Meta, say it not only violates free speech rights, it also strips away parental authority — something DeSantis and fellow Republicans claim to champion. "This bill goes too far in taking away parents' rights," Democratic Representative Anna Eskamani said in a statement Monday. "Instead of banning social media access, it would be better to ensure improved parental oversight tools and improved access to data to stop bad actors — alongside major investments in Florida's mental health systems and programs."

European Union regulators have opened investigations into the tech giants in the first application of the new Digital Markets Act. The tech lobby has criticized the move, saying it was "rushed." US tech giants Apple, Google and Meta were targeted by European Union regulators on Monday, as the bloc opened its first investigations into "non-compliance" with its new Digital Markets Act (DMA). The sweeping DMA legislation was passed into law earlier this month. The law aims to prevent big tech companies from cornering digital markets while creating a fairer digital space by curbing how the biggest companies act online, including ensuring they give users more choices. "We are not convinced that the solutions by [Google parent company] Alphabet, Apple and Meta respect their obligations for a fairer and more open digital space for European citizens and businesses," said the EU's internal market commissioner, Thierry Breton. If found guilty of failing to comply with the new law, the EU Commission, the bloc's executive arm, can impose fines of up to 10% of a company's total global turnover, rising to 20% for repeat offenders. The DMA is an accompaniment to the EU's Digital Services Act groundbreaking legislation to put in force measures to moderate illegal content and prevent, for example, the promotion of hate speech on their online platforms. What have been the reactions?  The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a leading international tech lobby group, criticized the move, which it said sent a "worrying signal." "As we all know, data takes time to collect. What we see now, however, sends a worrying signal that the EU might rush into investigations without knowing what they're investigating," said the head of CCIA Europe, Daniel Friedlaender, as reported by AFP news agency.  Google said that it has already made "significant changes" to the way its services operate in Europe to comply with the DMA – including recent changes to its Google Maps service. "We will continue to defend our approach in the coming months," Google's director of competition, Oliver Bethell, said. Apple said it is confident that its move to allow iPhone users to switch web browsers more easily complies with the DMA, and that it will "continue to constructively engage with the European Commission as they conduct their investigations."  

For years, the national and cyber security communities have warned technology companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle that escalating tensions between the United States and China would ultimately make them choose between one of their largest customers, the U.S. government, and access to the state-controlled Chinese market. U.S. companies have long had to balance their values with China’s authoritarian demands, such as extreme censorship of search engines. That was just the tip of the iceberg.   Now, a revision to China’s state secrets law that takes effect in May could very well force the issue.   The law will require business entities in China to identify and disclose to the government “work secrets,” or non-classified information that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) deems relevant to its national security. The revision is purposely ambiguous as to what qualifies, allowing China to force U.S. tech firms (and, of course, other U.S. companies operating in China) to turn over proprietary information that could be used to target the U.S. government or impact the data security of Americans writ large. This becomes a difficult but binary choice for U.S. tech companies that have invested billions of dollars to build up their presence in China. If U.S. tech companies refuse to comply, they risk losing access to the vast Chinese market. If they do comply, they risk threatening U.S. national security.   To eliminate that risk, the Biden administration and Congress should — at a minimum — consider barring technology companies that comply with the new rule from pursuing new government contracts.   Technology companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Oracle are deeply embedded in the U.S. government and enjoy significant advantages thanks to their incumbency in government contracts. Microsoft and Oracle, for example, face no competition for nearly a quarter of their federal contracts. In many cases, secondary IT providers “compete” for the government’s business but use the same underlying systems, ensuring that no matter which bidder is selected, firms like Microsoft and Oracle always win. These companies also have significant operations in China and large networks of affiliates that work with researchers and universities with direct ties to the Chinese government and military.   These operations risk compromise to America’s national security interests today: Chinese familiarity with and access to information about operating systems that are at the core of our defense enterprise is, manifestly, a source of vulnerability. As President Xi Jinping has consolidated power, the CCP has imposed increasingly strict rules on foreign businesses operating in China and mandated their compliance to maintain market access.   For U.S. technology companies, that has meant requirements that force them to provide the state advance notice of their cybersecurity vulnerabilities, allowing state-affiliated hackers to exploit zero-day flaws before a patch is released. It has also meant compliance with a National Cybersecurity Law that opens many of the products they offer in the United States — including cybersecurity tools sold to the U.S. government — to intrusion by state-affiliated hackers. Microsoft itself has admitted that compliance with these rules has directly led to attacks against governments worldwide.     That threat risk looms larger with the new requirements. U.S. technology companies that conduct research and development in China will now also be required to abide by the new “work secrets” rule if they want to continue to reap the rewards of the Chinese market or use China-based talent to develop products and features banned in China but used globally, including in the United States.   If the past is prologue, these companies will choose to comply. China’s hacking and espionage program is already robust, and top U.S. intelligence officials have voiced their concern about China’s ability to launch a significant cyberattack against U.S. critical infrastructure. Increasing the flow of data from the U.S. government’s largest and most important technology partners directly to the CCP exponentially increases that risk.   To mitigate this, the Biden administration and Congress must step in — the same way they have in recent weeks to improve U.S. port cybersecurity — to stop Americans’ personal data from being sold to foreign adversaries like China and address the threat that Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers pose to national security.  Any action needs to reflect the reality that it is increasingly becoming unfeasible for the companies trusted with U.S. national security contracts to maintain significant operations in China. Lawmakers should adopt new measures to transition to a procurement system that would disqualify any company that complies with China’s state-mandated disclosures from consideration for future government contracts. Requiring companies to choose between the United States and China will ensure the technology partners the U.S. government chooses share its national security priorities, helping make the tools it relies on safer and more secure.   Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of Red Branch Consulting, a homeland security and cybersecurity consulting firm, and a senior adviser to The Chertoff Group. He previously served as deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and is currently a professorial lecturer in law at George Washington University and a senior fellow in the Tech, Law & Security Program at the American University, Washington College of Law.     Source: The Hill

Taiwan’s representative to Switzerland, David WF Huang, reiterated Taiwan’s sovereignty in a keynote speech in Switzerland, Focus Taiwan reported. Invited by the Swiss think tank Foraus, Huang addressed nearly 200 attendees at the University of Zurich, highlighting recent developments in the Taiwan Strait, including China’s adjustment of the M503 flight path. According to Focus Taiwan, Huang emphasized that China’s claims over Taiwan lack a legal basis under international law, citing Chinese interventions in Taiwan’s elections, unilateral changes to the M503 flight route, and incidents near Kinmen as instances of China’s gray-zone warfare tactics. Regarding China’s agressive actions in the South China Sea, Huang pointed to recent collision between Chinese and Philippine coast guard ships and China’s patrols near Kinmen as examples of its anti-access and area denial strategy. He underscored Taiwan’s ownership of Taiping Island and its commitment to safeguarding interests in the South China Sea. However, he expressed Taiwan’s willingness to engage in multilateral talks to foster regional peace and prosperity, despite disputes, as per Focus Taiwan. The speech concluded with a question and answer session, where Huang addressed inquiries about Taiwan-Philippine relations and UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which pertains to the ‘restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations.    Source: ANI

The proposed legislation seeks to increase the government's authority in addressing potential threats to its governance. The law proposes up to life imprisonment for treason and insurrection. Hong Kong's government unveiled a draft national security law on Friday that proposes up to life imprisonment for offenses like treason and insurrection The draft "Safeguarding National Security Bill," covers reason, espionage, external interference, state secrets, and sedition.  Hong Kong's Chief Executive John Lee on Thursday called for the bill to be passed at "full speed." It is expected to pass easily, possibly in weeks, in a legislature packed with Beijing loyalists following an electoral overhaul. Concerns over freedoms Critics have warned the legislation will make Hong Kong's legal framework increasingly similar to that of mainland China. The Hong Kong government has stated that several Western countries have comparable laws, and that these regulations are necessary to close gaps in the national security system, which was reinforced in 2020 with another national security law directly imposed by China. According to Hong Kong's Basic Law, the government needs to enact a national security law. A previous attempt to pass the aw resulted in mass protests in 2019, after which a security law was put in place in 2020 to crack down on dissent. Many pro-democracy activists have been arrested and punished, while others have escaped abroad. Several society groups and outspoken media outlets have been disbanded. The government of the former British colony has said that it would affect only "an extremely small minority" of residents. Several stakeholders are closely monitoring these developments. Some critics say this will cause a further decline in the civil liberties enjoyed by Hong Kong citizens.

Some foreign companies say they may have to pay extra operational costs to comply with the new National Security Law. Several foreign chambers of commerce raised concerns about the legislation of a new national security law in Hong Kong by the time a one-month public consultation period ended Wednesday. The Hong Kong government on Thursday said it had received a total of 13,147 submissions on its plans to enact national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law. It said 98.6% of submissions showed support and made positive comments. A Security Bureau spokesperson said 93 submissions, or 0.71%, came out against the proposals, including more than 10 from overseas anti-People’s Republic of China organizations or abscondees. Secretary for Justice Paul Lam said the government will consolidate the results of the consultation exercise at full steam, report to lawmakers and seek to finalize the legislation bill as soon as possible. Chambers of commerce representing German, European and Japanese companies in Hong Kong have separately commented on the matter, saying that the new law may hurt investors’ sentiment in the city. The new definition of state secrets may increase the perception that the “one country” aspect of Hong Kong’s special status is more in focus than the “two systems,” Johannes Hack, the president of the German Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, told the Associated Press in an email interview. “For Hong Kong to present a distinctive business advantage vis-a-vis the mainland, the two systems part is however quite important,” he said. “Hong Kong in our view should be different ‘in fact and feeling.’” He said additional costs to comply with the “quite broad definition” of state secrets may cause foreign investors to move elsewhere. A spokesperson of the European Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong told Nikkei Asia in a statement that it will pay “particular attention to issues potentially concerning the core values that make Hong Kong an attractive place in which to do business.” The spokesperson said Hong Kong’s core values refer to “strong protection for fundamental rights, the rule of law, an independent judiciary and a free flow of information.” In early February, the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) published a survey, which was conducted in January before the Hong Kong government started a public consultation on the security law legislation.   About one-third of the respondents said that Hong Kong’s overall business climate has either “worsened” or “worsened significantly” from a year ago, the survey showed. The ratio increased by more than 20 percentage points compared with the previous survey published last July. Shinya Amano, director general of JETRO Hong Kong, said on February 2 that recent political developments were creating “a vague sense of wariness” that was having a chill effect on businesses.  He said some companies were worried by the low voter turnout rate in the District Council elections last December as Beijing screened all candidates. He said they were concerned by trials related to the National Security Law imposed by Beijing in Hong Kong in June 2020 as offenders could be jailed for life. Last December, Hong Kong activist Agnes Chow announced that she had fled to Canada for study and would not return to Hong Kong.  She was officially wanted by Hong Kong police on February 6 as she was under investigation for “collusion with foreign forces.” Her case was widely reported by Japanese media. She speaks Japanese fluently. Press freedom On June 30, 2020, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee passed the National Security Law for Hong Kong, which targets four types of offenses including secession, subversion, terrorist activities and collusion with foreign powers.  Now the Hong Kong government wants to pass a new National Security Law in accordance with Article 23 of the Basic Law. The new law will cover five offenses, including treason, sedition, theft of state secrets, sabotage activities and external interference. Citing a survey conducted in early February, the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) said in a proposal on February 26 that all 160 members who responded think that the new National Security Law will have a negative impact on the city’s press freedom.   It said the definition of “state secrets” is too broad, making it difficult for reporters to determine whether their government sources are disclosing information with lawful authority. It said that the government, when enacting the law, should avoid situations where journalists find themselves caught up in legal trouble due to their regular news reporting and commentary work.  “Hong Kong is required to ensure that national security legislation aligns with international standards and upholds rights and freedoms, as set out in the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” said David Cameron, foreign secretary of the United Kingdom. “Legislative proposals announced on 30 January by the Hong Kong government do not uphold these obligations,” he said. He said the UK was concerned by the proposed new law as the work of international organizations in Hong Kong might be labeled “foreign interference.” He said the toughening of penalties for speech crimes and the use of the broadly defined term “state secrets” will inhibit freedoms of speech, expression and the press. “The UK’s ‘concerns’ have no ground,” Mao Ning, a spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Thursday. “The Sino-British Joint Declaration by no means put the UK in a position or gave it any right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs. We urge the UK to find the right mindset, face the fact that Hong Kong has already returned to China, stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs, reflect on its action, and end double standards.”  She added that the normal activities of foreign institutions and personnel in Hong Kong will continue to be protected in accordance with law. She said the UK’s National Security Act, which came into force last year, contains many provisions with vague definitions and grants law enforcement agencies sweeping power, which can be abused easily.  Jasper Tsang’s article On February 6, Jasper Tsang, the former president of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council and a heavyweight in the pro-Beijing camp, made some suggestions to the government about the Article 23 legislation. In an article published by local newspaper Ming Pao, Tsang said officials should explain whether the press can defend itself with “public interest” when it is accused of having reported information that may threaten national security.  He says the new law should clearly define “seditious intention.” For example, he says the definition may be too broad if a person who delivered hate speech against mainland tourists is accused of threatening national security. Tsang was then criticized by some younger comrades in the pro-Beijing camp.  Joephy Chan, a lawmaker of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, said in her YouTube channel that Tsang had become a rebel at a critical time. She said Tsang’s comments were confusing and made her feel uncomfortable. She said key opinion leaders should always help the government explain and promote its policies. Source: Asia Times

The German business-focused FDP said an EU supply chain law would burden companies with cumbersome bureaucracy. The legislation will force firms to crack down on damaging actions in their supply chains. A blockade by Germany's business-focused Free Democrats, part of the country's governing coalition, has halted the adoption of a proposed EU law that would require large companies to assess whether their supply chains use forced labor or cause environmental damage. The Belgian EU presidency postponed the vote, which had been scheduled for Friday, at the last minute. A "qualified majority" of 15 EU countries representing 65% of the EU population is needed for the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD) to proceed to a final vote in the European Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to support it. On Friday, it was not clear whether a sufficient number of envoys from the 27 EU countries would support the legislation, with Germany set to abstain. The Belgian EU presidency said the item would be postponed to a date to be announced.   What is CSDDD? Under the CSDDD, which would come into force in 2027, large companies in the EU will have to identify and take remedial action if they find that their supply chains use forced or child labor or cause environmental damage, such as deforestation. The rules will apply to EU companies with more than 500 employees and a global net turnover of more than €150 million ($161.5 million), and to non-EU companies with an EU turnover above that amount, but with a three-year delay. Fines for violating the rules could be as much as 5% of a company's global turnover. The law has stirred controversy in other countries, such as the United States, because it covers some 4,000 companies that do business in the EU but are headquartered elsewhere. Why does Germany block the law? The proposed supply chain law is not popular in German business circles. The Association of the German Textile and Fashion Industry called on EU countries to withdraw it altogether. The directive is a "completely unrealistic bureaucratic monster," said the association's managing director, Uwe Mazura. The law would cost companies "unnecessary resources," Mazura added. Germany's pro-business Free Democrats opposed the supply chain law, arguing it would burden business with excessive bureaucracy. They also raised late objections to an EU law to end sales of CO2-emitting cars by 2035 and to EU plans to reduce truck emissions. However, their coalition partners, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the environmentalist Greens, supported the legislation and warned that Germany would lose credibility in the EU with its last-minute opposition.

Thailand's royal defamation law is among the strictest in the world, but the biggest party in parliament was hoping to change that. A court has ruled the party's plan for reform was illegal and has ordered them to stop. Thailand's Move Forward party's plan to change the royal defamation law, among the world's strictest, was dealt a severe blow on Wednesday. The country's Constitutional Court ruled the plan to reform the lese majeste laws protecting King Maha Vajiralongkorn was illegal. The court found it was "tantamount to overthrowing the democratic regime of government with the king as head of state." In recent years, at least 260 people have been prosecuted under the law in Thailand, a country that considers respect for the monarch to be a core part of its national identity.  This law is highly regarded by many royalists and seen as sacred. The strict enforcement of insult laws has been widely criticized for stifling freedom of expression.   Key policy reform shattered Although the progressive Move Forward won the most votes in last year's general election, it had been excluded from a coalition to form a government. The party won on a promise to reform Thailand's strict royal insult laws, reduce the power of the military, and break up business monopolies.   The court on Wednesday said the party's plan to reform the royal defamation law showed "an intent to separate the monarchy from the Thai nation, which is significantly dangerous to the security of the state." "There are prohibitions on the exercise of rights and freedoms that affect the country's security and peace, order of the state, and good morals," it said. Move Forward insisted its was not attempting to overthrow the monarchy. "The verdict will not impact Move Forward, but also democracy and freedom for all Thais," its leader Chaithawat Tulathon said.   Lese majeste law stifling Whereas the monarchy was mostly considered sacrosanct under the popular former king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, who passed away in 2016, a seemingly growing number of Thais have demanded legal reform since the coronation of his successor. King Maha Vajiralongkorn's personal life, including his residence in Germany, has been controversial, as has what some Thais consider his overstepping of constitutional boundaries by engaging in politics. A wave of youth-led protests began in 2020, and a central theme was the reform of the lese majeste law. The demonstrations were notable for the expressed public criticism of the royal family. Earlier this month, a 30-year-old man in Bangkok was sentenced to 50 years for a series of Facebook posts deemed insulting to the monarchy. In March last year, a man was jailed for two years for selling satirical calendars featuring rubber ducks that a court said defamed the king. The yellow bath toys were an unexpected symbol of the mass youth-led street protests that shook Bangkok in 2020.

The Dhaka Third Labour Court on Sunday fixed January 1 to deliver its verdict in the case filed against Nobel laureate Professor Muhammad Yunus and three others on charges of labour law violation at Grameen Telecom. The court chairman Sheikh Merina Sultana set the date on completion of defence argument in the case. Defence lawyer Abdullah Al Mamun concluded the arguments on the day demanding acquittal of his clients from the charges. Professor Yumus and other accused in the case were present before the court. On November 16, Khurshid Alam Khan, the prosecution lawyer for the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, ended his arguments demanding maximum punishment for the accused ones.   Earlier, a total of four prosecution witnesses testified before the court. On June 6, the court framed charges against Professor Yunus, and three other top officials of the company — Ashraful Hasan, Nur Jahan Begum and Mohammad Shahjahan in the case. On September 9, 2021, labour inspector SM Arifuzzaman of the DIFE filed the case with the Dhaka Third Labour Court on allegation of labour law violation at Grameen Telecom. According to the case documents, during a visit to the Grameen Telecom office, inspectors of the DIFE found that 101 workers who were supposed to be permanent were working as temporary staff. DIFE also found that no participation fund and welfare fund was formed for them while five per cent of the company’s profit was not provided to the workers as per law.

The German government failed at meeting emissions reduction targets in transportation and construction, the court ruled. A German court sided with environmental groups on Thursday, ruling that the federal government had failed to meet its own climate goals in the transport and building sectors. The ruling comes a day before Chancellor Olaf Scholz was due to travel to the COP28 climate summit. Deutsche Umwelthilfe and the BUND environmentalist groups had taken the German government to court, accusing it of violating Germany's Climate Protection Act, which currently stipulates annual targets for each sector to reduce harmful greenhouse gases. Specifically, the law requires individual ministries to implement an immediate action plan to reduce emissions if a sector misses the targets of the law, which are the reduction of 65% emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. In Thursday's ruling, the court said Berlin must adopt an "immediate program" to reduce emissions in the transportation and construction sectors. Stefanie Langkamp, a spokeswoman for the Climate Alliance Germany network, said the verdict was a "severe reprimand" for the government. "It is internationally embarrassing and damaging that a court judgment is needed because the German government is not complying" with its own climate laws, she said. High emissions in transport and building The government was brought to court for not doing enough to get back on track with its climate goals, after missing emissions targets for transport and building in 2021.  That year, the transport sector exceeded its CO2 emissions target by 3.1 million tons, according to BUND, and in the construction sector, it exceeded emissions by 2.5 million tons. "The court has allowed the appeal. The Federal Government will examine the ruling and its justification in detail as soon as it is available in writing and then examine the next steps," Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Protection Robert Habeck said in response. The ruling comes as the coalition government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been under over its promises to tackle climate change after another court ruling reduced its ability to respond to the crisis. This month, Germany's Constitutional Court ruled that the government had acted illegally when it transferred €60 billion ($65 billion) of unused borrowing money from COVID-19 funds to a "climate and transformation fund." The ruling wiped out €60 billion from the climate fund, which had been worth €212 billion.