Indian Newslink 1st APRIL 2018 Digital Edition

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APRIL 1, 2018 12 Viewlink The English Fortnightly (Since November 1999) ISSUE 389 | APRIL 1, 2018 The menace of Moneylaundering must be stopped Were you surprised to read our report that Money-laundering is active in New Zealand and more than $135 billion is generated through the domestic criminal proceeds every year? A National Risk Assessment Report has said that New Zealand is not immune to terrorists and fraudsters and that despite being asafe country, crime flourishes through money laundering and terrorism financing and harm communities. Dizzying fines The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reckons that every year crooks launder between US$800 billion and US$2 trillion that they have made from trafficking, prostitution, corruption and other misdeeds. Governments keen to crack down on money-laundering are increasingly slapping financial firms with dizzying fines for failing to spot suspicious transactions or for overlooking anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations. These rules are multiplying. According to the Economist, the European Union’s fourth AML directive introduced a book’s worth of fresh regulations, and the next batch is Staff underpayment must be criminalised Our Report in our Web Edition (March 16) and under Homelink here about the owner of the Shamiana Chain of Restaurants being fined for underpaying his staff and exploitation of his workforce arguably angered our readers, with many of them calling for tougher punishment to such offenders. It is asad and bad reflection on acountry known for its integrity and honesty. It is embarrassing and distressing that an increasing number of employers of Indian origin are being investigated for perpetrating such unhealthy practices. Frustrating trend It is unforgivable that there are employers who misuse and abuse workers, while enriching their coffers. It is even more frustrating that the long arm of the law does not reach them- not to the extent that our readers would have wanted in the first place. New Zealand has awell-structured minimum wage structure, which incidentally goes up to $16.50 (from $15.75) from today (April 1). It can be argued that afair wage can be deduced from already being drafted. AML software “To avoid falling foul of these new directions, financial firms are spending heavily on software that can detect transactions that should be blocked or flagged for human investigation. The software looks for attributes that have historically been linked to laundering, such as unusual transactional patterns. Cash deposits to an account via distant branches are suspect. So are jumps in transaction size or frequency,” the publication said. AML software also hunts for transactions that may involve an entity or person on any of hundreds of watchlists, including lengthy ones of officials worldwide who might have enough power to peddle influence. Last year software developed by SAS, an American firm, began to look for words and imagery on social media to identify, among other things, people with suspiciously lavish lifestyles. SAS says rather more than half of transactions flagged result in the filing of a “suspicious-activity report” to authorities. economic principles. If workers are paid awage that is less than their marginal productivity, they are being exploited. Tougher punishment Some sceptics regard it as obvious that third-world workers are being paid less than this. Their reasoning is that such workers are about as productive as their rich-country counterparts, and yet are paid only asmall fraction of what rich-country workers receive. Employers who exploit vulnerable workers by paying them less than the prescribe wages and those making them pay premiums in exchange for ajob and breach the New Zealand law should not be tolerated. This practice takes advantage of migrants who may not be aware of all their rights and entitlements in New Zealand or may not feel like they have any other option. We understand it can be difficult for employees to come forward and raise concerns about the way they are being treated by an employer but the government has assured that perpetrators would be brought to justice. Indian Newslink is published by Indian Newslink Limited from its offices located at Level 1, Number 166, Harris Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 and printed at Horton Media Limited, Auckland. All material appearing here and on our web editions are the copyright of Indian Newslink and reproduction in full or part in any medium is prohibited. Indian Newslink and its management and staff do not accept any responsibility for the claims made in advertisements. Managing Director & Publisher: Jacob Mannothra; Editor & General Manager: Venkat Raman; Marketing & Sales Manager: Ronny Kumaran; Production Manager: Mahes Perera; Assistant Editor: Ratna Venkat; Financial Controller: Uma Venkatram CA; Phone: (09) 5336377 Email: info@indiannewslink.co.nz Websites: www.indiannewslink.co.nz; www.inliba.com; www.inlisa.com Regulating Facebook won’t prevent data breach Professor William H Dutton After revelations that political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica allegedly appropriated Facebook user data to advise Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, many are calling for greater regulation of social media networks, saying a “massive data breach” has occurred. The idea that governments can regulate their way into protecting citizen privacy is appealing, but I believe it misses the mark. What happened with Cambridge Analytica was not abreach or aleak. Wild Violation It was awild violation of academic research ethics. The story is still developing, but acollege researcher has now acknowledged that he harvested Facebook users’ data and gave it to another company. A scholar and his company failed to protect sensitive research data. A university did not do enough to stop him. Regulating Facebook won’t solve these problems. What Kogan did wrong I am aprofessor of media and information policy at the Quello Center at Michigan State University, and Iwas one of the first academics to study the internet. The quality and integrity of digital research is of great concern to me. I think the Cambridge Analytica-Facebook incident is atotal disaster. I just don’t think it’s agovernment regulatory failure. Here’s the story, at least what the media has confirmed so far. The Story Aleksandr Kogan is aCambridge University Data Scientist and Psychology Department Lecturer. Outside of the university, Kogan also collected and analysed Facebook user data, presumably with the knowledge of Facebook, for his company Global Science Research. Through online surveys, he was reportedly able to gather sensitive personal information on tens of millions of American Facebook users, including demographic data, private messages, information about their friends and possibly even information about the friends of their friends. Kogan then provided this data to a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica. According to New York Times, the company analysed that information, aiming to help shape the 2016 Trump campaign’s messages and identify potential Trump voters. That was never his intent, Kogan said in aMarch 21 BBC radio interview. He reports being “stunned” that his “perfectly legal” research on the happiness and well-being of Facebook users was deployed as a political tool. What Facebook did wrong So, did Facebook do something wrong, then? In my opinion, not really. Facebook already has strict guidelines outlining what can and can’t be done with user data, which the researcher appears to have violated by passing the personal data he collected to Cambridge Analytica. When Facebook launched in 2004, it quickly became agoldmine for social researchers. Suddenly, studies that previously relied only on survey data to gather information about individuals could directly observe how people connected to one another, what they liked, and what bound groups together. In the early years, the company took an open and experimental attitude toward this kind of data mining, even teaming up with researchers to study how tweaking certain features of individual’s Facebook pages affected voter turnout, say, or impacted their moods. Those studies, conducted without the informed consent of its participants –Facebook users –were widely criticised by social science researchers. In 2014, Facebook strengthened its existing guidelines on how user data can be gathered, analysed and used. Extensive Internal Review Today, the company requires an extensive internal review of every request to extract personal data from users for research purposes. In other words, Facebook self-regulated. It may have been lax in enforcing its guidelines, though. The company says that once it learned that Cambridge Analytica had used Kogan’s data set for unauthorized purposes, it insisted that the data be deleted. According to current press reports, Cambridge Analytica did not comply. For awhile, it seems, Facebook did nothing to punish the company. I believe the fallout from this scandal –including aFederal Trade Commission investigation –will push Facebook to take enforcement much more seriously. After all, as CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in aMarch 21 Facebook post, the company “made mistakes” and it “has aresponsibility to protect” its users. Account suspended Cambridge Analytica’s Facebook account has now been suspended. And under both US and UK law, individuals or firms accused of unauthorised disclosure of personal information can face prosecution. What academia does wrong For me, what the Cambridge Analytica fiasco exposes is that university ethical review processes are not yet equipped for the digital age. University researchers are bound by strict ethical guidelines. Across the world, particularly in the UK, with its strong social research traditions, academics who want to study the attitudes or behaviour of private individuals must first pass astringent review process. They must also obtain explicit, informed consent from those who participate in their research. It is impossible for me to imagine that an ethics board at the University of Cambridge would have ever approved of Kogan sharing his data with Cambridge Analytica. Universities around the globe actually encourage faculty to develop entrepreneurial companies, as Kogan did. That helps their research reach beyond campus to foster innovation in business, industry and government. But the norms and rules that protect participants in academic research, such as not sharing identifiable personal data, do not stop at the door of the university. Conflict of interest Kogan’s exploits show that professors’ outside jobs may raise conflicts of interest and may have escaped the reach of institutional review. This is an area of academic workfor-hire that universities need to review with an eye toward updating how they enforce research ethics. I have briefed institutional review boards at anumber of universities, and Ican attest that members often do not understand how the internet has been transforming the way data is created, gathered, analysed and shared on the internet and social media networks. Frequently, authorities who grant professors and students permission to conduct their studies are anchored in the standards of medical research, not modern social science. Many schools fail to understand how cutting-edge some academic fields have become. Data and computational analytics is one of the most innovative scientific fields today. Legitimate, company-approved access to social media user data allows researchers to study some of the most urgent issues of the 21st century, including fake news, political echo chambers and technological trends. So, it is not surprising that political campaigns would want to appropriate these research practices. Until they come up with new rules, Ifear universities’ lack of digital savvy will remain athreat to online privacy. William H Dutton is Professor of Media and Information Policy, Michigan State University (MSU), USA. A Disclosure Statement said that he has received funding from Merit, Rocket Fiber, Google, UK’s Economic and Research Council and the Insitute for Public Policy at MSU. He has never been funded by Facebook. The above article, which appeared under ‘The Conversation’ (Australia) on March 23, 2018, has been reproduced here under ‘Creative Commons Licence.’
APRIL 1, 2018 Do you want to join the Conservation Boards? Nominations are now open until April 30 Eugenie Sage Nominations for Conservation Boards have been reopened to ensure they reflect the diverse communities they serve. The Department of Conservation reopened the nomination process for recruiting abroader cross-section of members from the different communities each board represents on the Minister’s recommendation. The Nomination Process The nomination process for the 2018 appointments was undertaken late last year and may have been affected by the Christmas holidays. The Department received 143 nominations for atotal of 45 positions on 15 Conservation Boards. Conservation Boards are an important way for people to have their say and influence how public conservation lands and waters are managed. Their voice and role really matter. Membership of the boards should reflect the strong and diverse public interest in conservation and protecting New Zealand’s natural and historic resources. I want to cast the net wider, using online and media channels, to ensure a wide range of people know about the roles and how to apply. The new process opens today with nominations closing on Saturday, April 14, 2018. I will consider nominations and decide appointments by 30 June. People who already put their names forward will still be considered. Knowledgeable people Anyone in the community who is passionate and knowledgeable about conservation should put their hands up. Think about who you know with knowledge of nature conservation, natural earth and marine sciences, cultural heritage, recreation, tourism, the local community and a Maori perspective. On any one board there may be students, teachers, farmers, fishers, scientists, builders, tourism operators, home makers and retired people.’ About the Conservation Boards The functions of Boards are set out in Section 6M of the Conservation Act 1987 and in the National Parks and Reserves Acts. The Boards focus on planning and strategic direction, not the day-to-day operational details of the Department’s work. The Board work includes (a) overseeing the Conservation Management Strategy for its region (b) developing and reviewing national park and other management plans for lands administered by the Department (c) advising on proposals for marine reserves (d) considering the impact of concessions for tourism and other activities on conservation land (e) looking at the range of recreational opportunities in the region (f) advising on proposals to change the protective status or classification of areas of national or international importance. About the Board Members An interest in conservation and enough capacity to do the work. Most Boards meet four-five times a year and meetings take afull day, sometimes longer particularly if inspection visits are needed. There will also be committee meetings, time required for researching issues and working on reports or submissions, preparation time spent reading briefing material before meetings, and time for liaison and public consultation. Payment to Members Conservation Boards members are paid $180 per day for meetings and fieldtrips. They can also claim for preparation time, and for fair and reasonable expenses (such as petrol and mileage if they use their personal vehicle for fieldtrips, car parking and so on). For further information please see the Departments Conservation Board pages. For more information, please visit www.doc.govt.nz Eugenie Sage is Conservation Minister of New Zealand. Businesslink Money-laundering active in New Zealand The country faces real terrorists risks too Venkat Raman venkat@indiannewslink.co.nz Money-laundering is active in New Zealand and more than $135 billion is generated through the domestic criminal proceeds every year, the National Risk Assessment Report has said. The New Zealand Police Financial Intelligent Unit (FIU), which released the Report said that the updated assessment indicated existence of real money-laundering and terrorism risks. Crime flourishes FIU Manager Andrew Hill said that New Zealand is not immune to these criminals and that despite being asafe country, crime flourishes through money laundering and terrorism financing and harm communities. “Overseas criminals seeking to mask their illicit funds are also attracted by New Zealand’s reputation as asafe and non-corrupt country,” he said. This Report describes the vulnerabilities of the New Zealand financial system to money laundering and terrorism financing and provides an awareness to more successfully prevent and detect illicit financial activity. Anonymity of offenders The channels that currently offer opportunities to money launderers in New Zealand are financial, legal, accounting, real estate, and retail or dealer services that keep offenders anonymous. These channels, used for moving large values and volumes of legitimate funds and which provide ascreen for illicit transactions are widely available internationally and also have poor AML/CFT controls internationally, and / or are cash intensive. These are used to disguise drugs 13 proceeds. Mr Hill said that the FIU Report highlights the high potential economic and reputational cost associated with money laundering and financing of terrorism. Transparency imperative Transparency International New Zealand Chair Suzanne Snively said that this Report further supports the need for complete transparency of ownership of New Zealand companies and trusts. We know of trusts set up In New Zealand used as instruments of crime for corrupt people and regimes overseas. This may well include terrorists,” she said. New Zealand not immune Ms Snively said that New Zealand should not consider itself immune from being used by organisations like ISAL. “Opacity of ownership under current law encourages these activities and obscures our ability to prevent them,” she said. While the new requirement under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Act to be implemented in July will further assist the prevention of money laundering for terrorist and other criminal purposes, financial transactions are not the only identifier of criminal intent. “The Government should pass with urgency the bill that will identify beneficial ownership of trusts followed quickly with an amendment to cover all legal entities used by overseas sources and with the register fully transparent,” Ms Snively said. Read our Leader, ‘The menace of Money Laundering must be stopped’ under Viewlink. Services We Provide 22 Clark St, 35E New Mclaughlins Lynn Auckland Rd Wiri Auckland 0600, New 2104 Zealand.
Page 1 and 2: 2018 The English Fortnightly (Since
Page 3 and 4: APRIL 1, 2018 Politics, Social Medi
Page 5 and 6: APRIL 1, 2018 Education agents scor
Page 7 and 8: APRIL 1, 2018 The Government has ma
Page 9 and 10: APRIL 1, 2018 Fijilink 09 MEGA NOW
Page 11: APRIL 1, 2018 Businesslink New Zeal
Page 15 and 16: APRIL 1, 2018 Businesslink 15 Mortg
Page 17 and 18: APRIL 1, 2018 Businesslink 17 Conti
Page 19 and 20: APRIL 1, 2018 Shamiana owner fined
Page 21 and 22: APRIL 1, 2018 Get to the World Pray
Page 23 and 24: APRIL 1, 2018 Communitylink 23 Zone
Page 25 and 26: APRIL 1, 2018 Communitylink Every A
Page 27 and 28: APRIL 1, 2018 Entertainmentlink Mod
Page 29 and 30: APRIL 1, 2018 Entertainmentlink Tri
Page 31 and 32: APRIL 1, 2018 Sportslink 31 Study r

Indian Newslink 1st APRIL 2018 Digital Edition

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?