The new strategy represents “a complete reorganization of the company’s operational development system, placing AI at the center of problem solving.”.
Does the UN need to be run like a business? IKEA CEO Jesper Brodin may get the chance
In early September, EFF submitted an amicus brief to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court supporting a constitutional challenge filed by Ecuadorian NGOs, including INREDH and LaLibre. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Ley Orgánica de Inteligencia (LOI) and its implementing regulation, the General Regulation of the LOI. EFF’s amicus brief argues that the LOI enables disproportionate surveillance and secrecy that undermine constitutional and Inter-American human rights standards. EFF urges the Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulation unconstitutional in their entirety. More specifically, our submission notes that: “The LOI presents a structural flaw that undermines compliance with the principles of legality, legitimate purpose, suitability, necessity, and proportionality; it inverts the rule and the exception, with serious harm to rights enshrined constitutionally and under the Convention; and it prioritizes indeterminate state interests, in contravention of the ultimate aim of intelligence activities and state action, namely the protection of individuals, their rights, and freedoms.” Core Legal Problems Identified Vague and Overbroad Definitions The LOI contains key terms like “national security,” “integral security of the State,” “threats,” and “risks” that are left either undefined or so broadly framed that they could mean almost anything. This vagueness grants intelligence agencies wide, unchecked discretion, and fails short of the standard of legal certainty required under the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH). Secrecy and Lack of Transparency The LOI makes secrecy the rule rather than the exception, reversing the Inter-American principle of maximum disclosure, which holds that access to information should be the norm and secrecy a narrowly justified exception. The law establishes a classification system-“restricted,” “secret,” and “top secret”-for intelligence and counterintelligence information, but without clear, verifiable parameters to guide its application on a case-by-case basis. As a result, all information produced by the governing body (ente rector) of the National Intelligence System is classified as secret by default. Moreover, intelligence budgets and spending are insulated from meaningful public oversight, concentrated under a single authority, and ultimately destroyed, leaving no mechanism for accountability. Weak or Nonexistent Oversight Mechanisms The LOI leaves intelligence agencies to regulate themselves, with almost no external scrutiny. Civilian oversight is minimal, limited to occasional, closed-door briefings before a parliamentary commission that lacks real access to information or decision making power. This structure offers no guarantee of independent or judicial supervision and instead fosters an environment where intelligence operations can proceed without transparency or accountability. Intrusive Powers Without Judicial Authorization The LOI allows access to communications, databases, and personal data without prior judicial order, which enables the mass surveillance of electronic communications, metadata, and databases across public and private entities-including telecommunication operators. This directly contradicts rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which establish that any restriction of the right to privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent oversight. It also runs counter to CAJAR vs. Colombia, which affirms that intrusive surveillance requires prior judicial authorization. International Human Rights Standards Applied Our amicus curiae draws on the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which set strict standards for intelligence activities. Crucially, Ecuador’s LOI fall short of all these tests: it doesn’t constitute an adequate legal basis for limiting rights; contravenes necessary and proportionate principles; fails to ensure robust controls and safeguards, like prior judicial authorization and solid civilian oversight; and completely disregards related data protection guarantees and data subject’s rights. At its core, the LOI structurally prioritizes vague notions of “state interest” over the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It legalizes secrecy, unchecked surveillance, and the impunity of intelligence agencies. For these reasons, we urge Ecuador’s Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulations unconstitutional, as they violate both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH). Read our full amicus brief here to learn more about how Ecuador’s intelligence framework undermines privacy, transparency, and the human rights protected under Inter-American human rights law.
“We texted a little bit, dinner was great, and then he moved in the next day. It sounds so slutty, but it wasn’t,” said Kaley Cuoco in 2013. View Entire Post ›.
Celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, known for his role on “Top Chef,” joins “CBS Mornings” to discuss the 25th anniversary edition of his landmark cookbook “Think Like a Chef.” The updated release features new recipes and fresh reflections on how his approach to cooking has evolved over the years.
One of the bigger topics in the NFL this year that’s not going anywhere any time soon is the mess that is the Miami Dolphins. Quarterback Tua Tagovailoa and head coach Mike McDaniel are currently a headlining duet Tua Wrongs Don’t Make a Right on the 2025 Test Stephen’s Patience Tour. You should [.] The post NFL Insider Says Changes are Coming to Miami Dolphins appeared first on Heavy Sports.
A Christian advocacy group has joined calls for a transparent investigation into the killing of a Catholic priest in southern Mexico. The priest was found dead earlier this month in a region plagued by cartel violence and targeted attacks on clergy.
Five years after Sushant Singh Rajput’s tragic death, the late actor’s family has decided to contest the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report, which concluded that the 34-year-old star had died by suicide. The report cleared actor Rhea Chakraborty of all allegations, but Sushant’s family has strongly disputed the findings, terming the investigation “incomplete” and “misleading.”The CBI, in its March 2025 report, ruled out foul play, stating that there was no evidence to prove that Rhea Chakraborty abetted Rajput’s suicide or misappropriated his finances. It emphasized that the actor was alone at his Bandra apartment between June 8 and June 14, 2020-the day he was found dead-and that neither Rhea nor her brother Showik had visited him during that period. However, Sushant’s family remains unconvinced. As per a report by Mid-Day, their lawyer, Advocate Varun Singh, slammed the report, alleging laxity in the investigation. “This is nothing but an eyewash. If the CBI wanted to uncover the truth, it should have submitted all supporting documents-chats, technical data, witness statements, and medical records. We will file a protest petition against this closure report, which is based on a shoddy investigation,” Singh said. The CBI’s submission included two closure reports filed earlier this year. The first addressed a complaint lodged by Sushant’s father, K. K. Singh, in Patna, accusing Rhea and her family of driving the actor to suicide and mishandling his finances. The second involved a case Rhea had registered against Sushant’s sisters in Mumbai. The agency’s findings further stated that Rajput’s financial matters were transparently handled by his chartered accountant and lawyer. It also deemed the actor’s expenses on Rhea-including a 2019 Europe trip-legitimate and voluntary. Responding to these claims, Varun Singh asserted that the CBI’s conclusions lacked transparency, saying, “Merely claiming that funds weren’t withdrawn from Sushant’s account isn’t enough. The CBI must present detailed bank statements to substantiate its conclusion. This flimsy report won’t hold in court.”The case will next be heard before a Patna court on December 20, where the family intends to formally challenge the CBI’s closure report. Also Read: Rhea Chakraborty shares emotional moment of dancing in jail after bail in Sushant Singh Rajput case; says, “I did naagin dance on the day of my bail”.