Do not waste time, Download free HP0-T21 Practice test and Cheatsheet

Move through our HP0-T21 Queries answers and feel Certified the HP0-T21 examination. You will move your HP0-T21 test on high marks or even your cashback. We all have aggregated the database of HP0-T21 Exam Braindumps through the actual test in order to be able in order to provide you along with prep in order to get equipped plus pass HP0-T21 test on the first attempt. Merely install our VCE Exam Simulator plus obtain ready. A person will pass the particular HP ATP Server Administrator v8 exam.

Exam Code: HP0-T21 Practice test 2022 by team
HP ATP Server Administrator v8
HP Administrator action
Killexams : HP Administrator action - BingNews Search results Killexams : HP Administrator action - BingNews Killexams : HP admin on high alert in view of heavy rainfall in upcoming days: CM Jairam Thakur Jul 06, 2022, 11:11PM ISTSource: ANI

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Jairam Thakur on July 06 held a meeting with DCs and SPs of all the districts to prepare against incidents of landslides, cloudbursts, flash floods that happen during monsoon in the state.After attending the meeting, Thakur said, “During monsoon, incidents of landslides, floods and cloudbursts are reported in Himachal Pradesh. One such incident has just been reported from Kullu. Five people have been missing. The Revenue Minister would be taking stock of the situation.” “Today, I held a virtual meeting with Deputy Commissioners across state. If an untoward incident is reported, we'd rush help to the spot. With prospect of heavy rainfall in coming days, there is some risk. We'd stay on high alert, so we could take timely action,” he added.

Wed, 06 Jul 2022 06:58:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : CVS accused of 'robbing' health care providers in anti-trust lawsuit

ALBANY — New York Attorney General Letitia James has sued CVS Health Corporation for allegedly violating antitrust laws and financially harming hospitals and clinics that provide care for underserved communities, her office announced Thursday.

For years, CVS required New York safety net providers to exclusively use a CVS-owned company, Wellpartner, to process and obtain federal subsidies on prescriptions filled at CVS pharmacies, according to the lawsuit.

The attorney general's office contends that CVS’ scheme forced providers to incur millions in added costs, while CVS continued to benefit through its subsidiary. CVS’ policies deprived the health care practices of critical federal funding that could have been used to Excellerate and expand patient care, the lawsuit states.

The court action seeks to end what the attorney general considers to be CVS’ unfair and illegal practices and to recoup lost revenue for impacted safety net hospitals and clinics that would Excellerate health care services.

“While safety net health care providers are tackling public health crises and helping underserved communities, CVS is robbing them out of millions of desperately needed funds that could Excellerate patient care,” James said in a statement. “CVS’s actions are a clear example of a large corporation using its clout and power to take advantage of institutions and vulnerable New Yorkers, but my office will not allow it.”

CVS did not allow New York safety net hospitals and clinics to use the company of their choice to obtain subsidies on prescriptions filled at CVS pharmacies through the 340B federal program, according to the filings. This program allows safety net hospitals and clinics to purchase certain drugs at a discount from pharmaceutical companies and use the savings for patient care.

To realize the benefits of the 340B program, safety net hospitals and clinics must contract with the pharmacies that are used by their patients. Under the CVS requirements, thousands of safety net health care providers across the state were only allowed to use Wellpartner to process claims filled at CVS retail and specialty pharmacies, forcing them to incur millions of dollars in additional costs to hire and train staff and change their data systems to align with Wellpartner's system, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that New York patients were the ultimate victims of CVS' practice, which siphoned off federal funding from safety net health care providers that could have used the funds to Excellerate access to health care for the neediest New Yorkers — including the poor and uninsured.

More than 4,440 safety net health care providers were enrolled in the 340B program in New York as of 2021. These include Federally Qualified Health Centers, critical access hospitals, HIV/AIDS clinics, rural referral centers, sole community hospitals, black lung clinics, community health centers, family planning clinics and tuberculosis clinics. These facilities primarily treat low-income patients and rely on 340B savings to fund patient care services to underserved and vulnerable populations.

Safety net health care providers bear full legal responsibility for keeping records and may only collect 340B revenues on certain prescriptions, including patient prescriptions for medications used to treat HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. Most safety net providers contract with a third-party administrator, or TPA, to administer their 340B programs. The TPAs confirm eligibility for each transaction and keep detailed records, as required by the federal 340B program rules.

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 08:04:00 -0500 en-US text/html
Killexams : SPB 2022 Q2 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Quarterly Review Newsletter

Wednesday, August 3, 2022

Q2 did not disappoint in the AI and biometric privacy space, with a number of noteworthy litigation, legislative, and regulatory developments having taken place in these two rapidly developing areas of law. Read on to see what has transpired over the last quarter and what you should keep your eyes on as we head into the second half of 2022.

Biometric Privacy Cases to Keep on Your Radar

Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., No. 128004 (Ill. Sup. Ct.): As many familiar with BIPA know, currently pending before the Illinois Supreme Court is Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (covered extensively by SPB team member Kristin Bryan in CPW articles hereherehere, and here), which is set to provide much-needed certainty regarding the issue of claim accrual in BIPA class action litigation. “Claim accrual” involves when a claim “accrues” or occurs—either only at the time of the first violation or, alternatively, each and every time a defendant violates Illinois’s biometric privacy statute. If the Cothron Court rules that BIPA violations constitute separate, independent claims, then the associated statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation would compound with each successive failure to comply with Illinois’s biometric privacy law. Under this scenario, liability exposure would likely expand exponentially for BIPA claims. As such, companies should pay close attention to how the Illinois Supreme Court decides the Cothron appeal, as the ruling could result in yet another drastic shift in the biometric privacy landscape. In the interim, companies should consult with counsel and re-assess their compliance with BIPA to ensure they are satisfying the full range of requirements to mitigate potential class action litigation risks.

Mahmood v. Berbix Inc., No. 1:22-cv-2456 (N.D. Ill.): “Selfie” identity verification has become extremely popular due to the benefits offered by this verification method in significantly reducing fraud and facilitating a fast, accurate verification process. At the same time, companies that develop and supply this technology have also become an increasingly common target for BIPA class action suits. In Mahmood v. Berbix Inc., the plaintiff filed a putative class action against Berbix Inc. for alleged BIPA violations after being required to upload a photo of her driver’s license and a “selfie” to rent a car, the manufacturer of which used Berbix’s identity verification service. This case is worth keeping an eye on, as the litigation will likely provide valuable insights on the contours of the extraterritoriality defense applicable in certain BIPA disputes where the alleged violations of Illinois’s biometric privacy statute do not occur “primarily and substantially” within the borders of the Prairie State. 

Coss v. Snap Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02480 (N.D. Ill.): In early May, Snap Inc., the owner of popular social media platform Snapchat, was sued for alleged BIPA violations in connection with its “Face Lenses” feature, an augmented reality (“AR”) experience that uses innovative technology to modify and enhance users’ facial features to transform their appearance in photos and videos posted online. According to the complaint, Snap’s Lenses feature scans users’ faces and creates a detailed map or digital depiction of their facial features, during which time Snap collects their biometric data. This is another case worth watching, as the overlapping space between increasingly-popular image/video enhancement tools and efforts to ensure the privacy and security of biometric data is likely to lead to additional litigation moving forward. 

Hess v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02131 (N.D. Ill.): On April 25, four 7-Eleven customers filed a class action lawsuit against 7-Eleven, alleging that—unbeknownst to consumers—the company collects facial geometry data through cameras and video surveillance systems in violation of BIPA. According to the complaint, numerous 7-Eleven locations use systems provided by Clickit, an intelligent video solution provider, to collect biometric data. Hess is an example of the high volume of BIPA class actions targeting retailers of all types and the wide variety of allegations that are being asserted against them in connection with purported violations of Illinois’s biometric privacy statute. As such, all retail brands—even those that have put practices in place to comply with BIPA—should consult with experienced biometric counsel to re-assess the effectiveness of their biometric privacy compliance programs and mitigate growing BIPA risks to the greatest extent possible, as the retail industry will continue to remain one of the primary targets for BIPA suits for the foreseeable future.

Theriot v. Louis Vuitton N.A., Inc., No. 1:22-cv-02944 (S.D.N.Y.): In April, shoppers filed a class action against Louis Vuitton in a New York federal court for alleged BIPA violations in connection with company’s virtual try-on (“VTO”) tool made available to visitors of its website. The complaint alleges that the company’s technology scans users’ face geometry, producing complete facial scans and images of customers’ faces—all without giving notice or obtaining consent when visitors try on its designer eyewear using the tool. As VTO facial recognition class actions continue to be a hot trend in BIPA litigation (as discussed in more detail below), retailers and other companies that utilize this “try before you buy” technology should ensure they are strictly complying with the mandates of BIPA to mitigate the significant class action risks associated with these tools.

New and Emerging Biometric Privacy Trends

BIPA VTO Litigation Wave Not Over Yet: BIPA litigation in 2021 was marked by a wave of class action suits filed against retailers—including fashion, eyewear, and makeup brands—in connection with virtual try-on (“VTO”) tools offered to online shoppers. As the name suggests, VTO tools, also known as “virtual mirrors,” allow shoppers to “try on” products using their camera-equipped devices, such as home computers, tablets, or mobile phones. Importantly, VTO technology is powered by a combination of AI and AR, as opposed to traditional facial recognition technology used to identify or verify an individual’s identity. Despite this, many brands found themselves the targets of BIPA class litigation, with plaintiffs arguing that their VTO technology performed scans of face geometry, thus bringing the tools under the scope of BIPA. While the pace of filings has slowed somewhat in 2022, VTO technology continues to be a main target for class actions, including a number of suits filed against retailers that utilize these tools during Q2.

Increase in BIPA Suits Targeting Third-Party Vendors: Another notable trend seen during Q2 was a marked increase in the number of BIPA class actions targeting third-party vendors that offer biometric technology software and solutions, such as identity verification tools and employee timeclocks. Of note, these vendors do not maintain any direct relationship with the individuals who claim their biometric data was collected or used in violation of BIPA, but rather whose technology is merely utilized by their clients to facilitate the use of biometric data in commercial operations. Just two examples of this trend are the Berbix class action discussed above, as well as the Ronquillo case discussed below.

Contactless Fingerprinting Makes Strides Towards Adoption: While research around contactless fingerprinting technology is not new, accurate advancements are drawing the attention and interest of law enforcement. The development of new, more advanced technologies used for identity verification purposes is on the rise, especially in the wake of COVID-19 and its associated health and safety concerns. Soon, phone cameras will be capable of scanning and capturing a person’s fingerprint—easily identifying all the lines and swirls on their fingertips—all without even having to touch a screen. While this technology may raise concerns amongst civil liberty and privacy groups, law enforcement is already looking into ways to harness its potential—and you can be sure the private sector will be soon to follow.

Significant Biometric Privacy Class Action Decisions & Related Developments

Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-1880, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60239 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022): A California federal court issued a notable BIPA opinion in Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc. (covered by SPB team members Kristin Bryan and David Oberly in this CPW article), which could have significant implications moving forward for companies seeking to limit their scope of liability exposure in BIPA class action litigation. In Zellmer, the court granted summary judgment to Facebook on the Section 15(b) notice and consent claim asserted in the case, finding that non-users were precluded as a matter of law from maintaining an actionable claim under Section 15(b). The court reasoned that a Section 15(b) claim could not exist for non-users because it would be patently unreasonable to construe BIPA to require companies to provide notice to, and obtain consent from, non-users who were for all practical purposes total strangers to the company, and with whom the company maintained no relationship whatsoever. Rather, a Section 15(b) claim can be in play only where there is at least a minimum level of known contact between a person and the entity that might be collecting biometric information. While the opinion itself was short—comprising only eight pages—the Zellmer court’s reasoning may have a noteworthy impact on the scope of Section 15(b) claims moving forward. 

Sosa v. Onfido, Inc. No. 1:20-cv-04247, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74672 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2022): In Sosa v. Onfido, Inc. , an Illinois federal court rejected the argument that BIPA exempts biometric data extracted from photographs, finding instead that faceprints derived through photographic means can constitute “biometric identifiers” regulated by Illinois’s biometric privacy statute. The Onfido opinion is significant, as it likely shuts the door on a defense that has, until now, been broadly utilized by a wide range of targets of BIPA class action suits. 

Ronquillo v. Doctor’s Assocs., LLC, 1:21-cv-04903, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62730 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2022): As courts continue to expand the scope of BIPA class action liability exposure, they have been especially unforgiving to third-party technology vendors—despite the challenges that these non-consumer facing entities have with satisfying the requirements of Illinois’s biometrics law. Such was the case for HP Inc., which in early April saw its motion to dismiss a BIPA class action denied by an Illinois federal court—even though the company lacked any kind of direct relationship with the individual who filed suit. In Ronquillo, an employee at Subway restaurants brought suit against HP and Doctor’s Associates, LLC (“DAL”), alleging that the defendants captured and stored her fingerprints without her informed consent through a Subway point-of-sale system to clock in and out of work, and to unlock cash registers. DAL and HP took the position that they did not actively collect employees’ biometric data; rather, at most, they merely possessed such data. As such, according to DAL and HP, they fell outside the scope of the biometrics law. The court disagreed, finding that in making this argument, the defendants were “attempt[ing] to rewrite the complaint to avoid its genuine allegations, which allow for the reasonable inference that DAL and HP played more than a passive role in the process.” Id. at *8. While also noting that it was leaving the question of whether the plaintiff would actually be able to provide DAL’s and HP’s role in collecting her biometric data for another day and with a more developed record, the court concluded that, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, the complaint sufficiently alleged that Section 15(b) applied to DAL and HP. In addition, the court also expressly rejected the argument that Section 15(b) did not apply to third-party vendors of technology used by employers to obtain workers’ biometric data, finding that there was nothing in BIPA’s text that the law was intended to apply only to employers, but not to parties without any direct relationship to the plaintiff. Importantly, the Ronquillo decision deals a significant blow to one of the third-party vendors’ primary arguments against BIPA liability while at the same time demonstrating how courts continue to interpret the statutory text of BIPA in an extremely broad, plaintiff-friendly manner.

Johnson v. Mitek Sys., Inc., No. 0:22-cv-01830, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80851 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2022): While arbitration continues to remain a powerful defense in BIPA class actions, not all attempts at dismissing BIPA claims through the pursuit of motions to compel arbitration are successful. Such was the case in Johnson v. Mitek Sys., Inc., where ID verification firm Mitek Systems, Inc. recently lost its bid to force BIPA plaintiffs to resolve their claims out of court and through individual, binding arbitration. Mitek arose in connection with the company’s age and identity verification service, which was used by rental car service HyreCar and required the plaintiff to upload his driver’s license and photograph. According to the plaintiff, this verification process was completed with the assistance of facial recognition technology, which unlawfully collected her biometric data without providing notice or obtaining his consent. The court denied Mitek’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the company was not a party to the arbitration agreement between the rental company and its customer and further that the third-party beneficiary exception to the general rule that non-signatories to an arbitration agreement cannot be bound by such contracts was inapplicable to force arbitration against the plaintiff. The Mitek decision should serve as a reminder for all companies that use biometric data in their operations to ensure they have a robust arbitration agreement of their own in place and to avoid relying solely on the agreements of their clients or vendors.

Rogers v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 1:19-cv-03083, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10934 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2022): At the same time (and just the opposite of Ronquillo), courts continue to cast a wide liability net for allegedly improper biometric data collection and possession practices, ensnaring even those companies whose involvement with biometrics systems is tenuous at best. Such was the case for BNSF Railway Company, which hired external security contractors to operate its biometric-powered access control system at its Illinois rail facilities and later found itself the defendant in a BIPA class action. In June, an Illinois federal judge refused to certify an interlocutory appeal filed by BNSF following the court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment, which had rejected the railroad’s preemption argument and found that a jury must decide whether the railroad’s connection with its fingerprint access control technology operated by its third-party vendor was sufficient to trigger liability for improper biometric data collection and possession practices under BIPA Sections 15(a) and 15(b). The company had sought a Seventh Circuit review of the district court’s decision involving the issues concerning federal preemption and vicarious liability, but the district court refused to allow the appeal to proceed, basing its decision primarily on what it characterized as a “misreading of [the district court’s] ruling” and a failure to raise the arguments it looked to assert on appeal in its prior summary judgment briefing.

Barton v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:21-cv-04329 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2022): In May, an Illinois federal court refused to dismiss a class action involving allegations that Walmart violated BIPA by requiring Illinois warehouse workers to use voice recognition software. In Barton, Walmart workers alleged that they were required to submit their voiceprints by studying into biometric-powered inventory computer systems known as “Pick Task-Voice Template Words.” Walmart, however, contended that its voice system did not identify specific employees by their voices but instead only recognized words spoken into the headsets. According to Walmart, the identification of specific worker identities came from workers’ employee numbers that were manually entered into the system—not based on their voice patterns. The Barton decision further underscores the lack of clarity regarding the precise definition of “biometric identifiers” under BIPA, which will remain one of the most hotly-contested issues in BIPA class litigation for the foreseeable future—and until courts provide more guidance on this key matter.

Rivera v. Google Inc., No. 2019-CH-00990 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.): In late April, Google settled its longstanding Rivera BIPA dispute, agreeing to pay $100 million to resolve allegations that it improperly collected individuals’ facial biometric data through its cloud-based Google Photos feature in violation of Illinois’s biometric privacy statute. While notably less than 2020’s record-breaking $650 million BIPA settlement involving one of the world’s largest social media companies, the $100 million figure agreed to by Google to put an end to the Rivera litigation will only deliver plaintiff’s attorneys even more motivation to pursue BIPA class action litigation for the foreseeable future. And, although the size of the Rivera settlement is not by any means indicative of normal settlement figures in BIPA cases, the plaintiff’s lawyers will almost certainly use this settlement as a measuring stick to value other BIPA disputes—likely causing inflated settlement figures moving forward, at least in the immediate term. Importantly, this settlement should serve as a cautionary tale and reminder of the critical need for companies to maintain comprehensive, flexible biometric privacy programs to minimize potential liability exposure.

Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Legislative/Regulatory Developments

Majority of Biometric Privacy Bills Fail (With One Notable Exception): While the number of biometric privacy bills introduced by state and municipal legislatures in 2022 increased significantly as compared to the year prior, the vast majority of those proposals failed during the legislative process and did not make their way into law. With that said, one piece of proposed legislation remains currently pending that could bring wholesale changes to the biometric privacy legal landscape if enacted this year. That legislation, California’s HB 1189, provides for a private right of action almost identical to that of BIPA, which would likely bring with it a tsunami of class litigation to California on part with what has taken place in Illinois for several years now. Not only that, HB 1189 is one of several “hybrid” biometric privacy bills introduced in 2022 that blend traditional biometric privacy legal principles and other compliance requirements and limitations which, until now, were ordinarily confined exclusively to broader, comprehensive state consumer privacy statutes. Importantly, these hybrid requirements would significantly increase compliance burdens for all companies that collect and use biometric data while also ushering in a correspondingly-high increase in liability exposure risks. 

EEOC Issues Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence by Employers: On May 12, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued important guidance regarding the use of algorithms and AI in the context of hiring and employment decisions. The guidance follows on the heels of the EEOC’s Initiative on Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Fairness, which was launched by the Commission in late 2021. The guidance itself provides a detailed discussion regarding how employers’ reliance on AI and algorithmic decision-making in the employment context may run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In addition, the guidance also provides several recommended “promising practices” for employers to consider to mitigate the risk of discriminating against individuals with disabilities when using algorithmic decision-making tools and similar AI technologies. All employers that are currently using AI for any purpose—or intend to do so in the future—should familiarize themselves with the guidance if they have not already done so.

CFPB Issues Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence by Creditors: Also in May, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued guidance of its own, Circular 2022-03, “Adverse action notification requirements in connection with credit decisions based on complex algorithms,” focusing on the need for creditors to comply with the Equal Opportunity Credit Act’s (“ECOA”) requirement to provide a statement of specific reasons to applicants against whom adverse action is taken when making credit decisions based on complex algorithms. Importantly, the CFPB clarifies that compliance is required even when using algorithms—sometimes referred to as “black-box” models, that prevent creditors from accurately identifying the specific reasons for denying credit or taking other adverse actions. The guidance illustrates that the EEOC and its adverse action requirements will be enforced by the CFPB irrespective of the technology that is utilized by creditors and that creditors cannot excuse their noncompliance based on the mere fact that its technology used to evaluate applications is too complicated or opaque in its decision-making to understanding. The recently-issued guidance, along with a statement issued by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in conjunction with the Circular, provides a key window into the aggressive tact that the CFPB will likely take in enforcing improper AI practices that may run afoul of the ECOA. All creditors (and other entities subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction) that currently use AI—or intend to do so in the future—should familiarize themselves with the guidance if they have not already done so.

Federal Trade Commission Back at Full Strength: On May 11, 2022, privacy law expert and then-head of Georgetown University Law School’s Center on Privacy and Technology, Alvaro Bedoya, was confirmed as the existing FTC Commissioner. Bedoya replaces former FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, who now heads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Bedoya is an expert in facial recognition and is widely recognized for his role in co-authoring a 2016 study that is credited as the impetus for a number of accurate state and local laws limiting the use of facial recognition by the public sector. During his late 2021 confirmation hearing testimony, Bedoya advocated for increased FTC scrutiny over facial biometrics and its privacy-related impacts, especially as it relates to minorities, noting its reputation for misuse and abuse. At the same time, he also noted his support for potential FTC privacy rulemaking. With the FTC now back at full strength and with a Democratic majority, companies should anticipate an aggressive privacy enforcement agenda by the Commission, including increased scrutiny of both facial recognition practices and potential bias and discrimination concerns relating to AI and algorithmic decision-making.

FTC Issues Report to Congress on Use of AI to Combat Online Harms: On June 16, 2022, the FTC issued a report to Congress, Combatting Online Harms Through Innovation, warning about the use of AI to combat online problems and urging lawmakers to exercise “great caution” about relying on AI as a policy solution. While the Report does not break any new ground in terms of how the FTC may pursue investigations or enforcement actions against private sector organizations that utilize AI in their day-to-day operations, the Report nonetheless provides several key takeaways for all entities that currently rely on this advanced form of technology or intend to do so in the future. To learn more about the Report and its major takeaways, read our accurate CPW blog post here.

Automated Decision-Making and Profiling Conspicuously Absent From Initial Draft CPRA Regulations: The California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) places significant power in the hands of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) to shape the future of privacy regulation in the United States, including with respect to how automated decision-making and profiling is regulated throughout the country. For this reason, the CPPA focused a significant amount of its preliminary rulemaking activities on these two interrelated issues. These efforts began last fall when automated decision-making and profiling were included as part of nine syllabus on which the CPPA sought public comment. In May, the CPPA held stakeholder sessions over the course of three days, during which time three hours were devoted exclusively to allowing stakeholders to comment on issues relating to automated decision-making and profiling. Notably, however, the CPPA’s draft CPRA Regulations—issued at the end of May—do not address automated decision-making or profiling in any fashion whatsoever. With that said, companies should anticipate that these issues will be addressed in subsequent iterations of the Regulations.

Connecticut Enacts New Privacy Statute Encompassing Biometric Data: On May 10, 2222, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont officially signed into law Public Act No. 22-15, “An Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring.” More commonly referred to as the “Connecticut Privacy Act,” the statute becomes the fifth law of its kind to be enacted in the U.S. and will go into effect on July 1, 2023. In addition to affording Connecticut consumers a range of new privacy rights, the law also governs the collection and use of “biometric data,” which is defined as any data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that are used to identify a specific individual.

FTC Investigates In May, Oregon Senator Wyden urged the FTC to investigate the identity verification company for potential deceptive practices which may have misled consumers and government agencies. A company experiencing growth in the midst of the pandemic, uses a mixture of selfies, document scans, and other methods to verify identities online. is currently the subject of other government investigation. Senators are particularly concerned about the potential confusion between two different types of technology – one which involves a one-time comparison of two images to confirm an applicant’s identity and involves one-to-many recognition, where millions of innocent people have their photos included as a comparison in a digital “line up.” Wyden and others fear that the company made “multiple misleading statements” about “superior” facial recognition use, which may be potentially damaging to consumer understanding.

EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act Receives Support From Privacy Advocates: In April 2021, the European Commission released the initial draft version of its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (“AIA”), which seeks to implement a first-of-its-kind comprehensive regulatory scheme for AI technologies. Like the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), the territorial scope of the AIA would be expansive, governing not just EU organizations that utilize AI but also companies located outside the EU that operate AI within the EU, as well as organizations whose operation of AI impacts EU residents. Recently, European Digital Rights (“EDRi”) and dozens of other privacy advocacy organizations penned an open letter not just supporting efforts to enact the AIA but to expand the legislation to include a ban on remote biometric identification (“RBI”) systems, such as facial recognition, in all public spaces. Companies that currently deploy AI in their operations—or may do so in the future—should keep tabs on future developments regarding the AI Act moving forward, which will have wide-reaching implications extending far beyond the EU if the legal framework becomes law.  

The Final Word

While Q2 provided us with a number of significant developments in the areas of AI and biometric privacy, companies are sure to see many additional litigation, legislative, and regulatory developments during the second half of 2022 as well.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 215

Wed, 03 Aug 2022 05:01:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : How to fix internet access after updating Windows 11 No result found, try new keyword!On Windows 11, Microsoft proactively releases updates to patch bugs, Excellerate security and performance, and occasionally add new features. However, sometimes, system updates can also cause unwanted ... Wed, 03 Aug 2022 23:00:07 -0500 en-us text/html Killexams : Groups call for public’s help to fight gun violence No result found, try new keyword!Three Lowcountry groups announced a crime summit Wednesday morning designed to target gun violence.The Racial Justice Network, International Longshoreman, and Charleston International Longshoremen’s ... Wed, 03 Aug 2022 08:17:00 -0500 en-us text/html Killexams : Tablet buttons are not installed on this computer – Windows 11/10

If you try to set Tablet buttons to perform specific tasks on your Windows 11/10 computer, you receive a message that Tablet buttons are not installed on this computer; here’s what you need to do.

Tablet buttons are not installed on this computer - Windows 11/10

What are Tablet Buttons?

Windows on a tablet form factor allow consumers to change the action of three buttons on the tablet (Power button, Volume Up, and Volume down). You will need to navigate to Control Panel > Tablet PC Settings > Set tablet buttons to perform specific tasks for this to work.

Follow these methods to resolve the problem.

  • Toggle Tablet Buttons option
  • Update Drivers
  • Install Tablet PC Components

You will need an admin account for some of these suggestions.

1] Toggle Tablet Buttons option

  • Open Windows Settings using keyboard shortcut Win + I
  • Go to Bluetooth & devices > Pen and Windows ink
  • Look for the Tablet Buttons option, and toggle it. Ensure it is turned on at the end

2] Update Drivers

It’s not very hard to do, and possibly a Windows Upgrade may have broken it. You will need to find an updated driver from the OEM website and install it. If this is an HP tablet or All in One PC with a touch, you need to go to the HP support website and get it.

TIP: Read about the Tablet mode in Windows 11.

3] Install Tablet PC Components

Applicable for Windows 10, you can install the Tablet PC Components to resolve the problem.

  • Use Win + S to open the search box and type Turn Windows features on or off.
  • Once it appears in the result, click to open it.
  • Locate Tablet PC Components; check the box and click ok to install it.
  • Restart the PC, and it should resolve the problem.

I hope these suggestions were helpful, and if your device supports it, you can fix the problem.

Does my PC support tablet buttons feature?

PCs and Laptops usually don’t have tablet buttons. It is specifically available for devices up to 10 inches Windows tablet where you can customize the buttons.

Does Windows 11 have a Tablet Mode?

Windows 11 don’t have tablet mode. The UI will automatically change and adapt as per the device. However, Windows 10 does come with tablet mode settings one can use to change.

Where can I find the settings in the Control Panel?

Tablet Buttons are not installed

Go to Control Panel > Hardware and Sound > Tablet PC Settings, and click on the Set tablet buttons link. You can then further configure the behavior of the buttons.

Tablet buttons are not installed on this computer - Windows 11/10
Thu, 28 Oct 2021 13:03:00 -0500 en-us text/html
Killexams : Car finance explained

Also referred to as personal leasing, Personal Contract Hire (PCH) was rated as the fourth most popular car-financing method in the poll.

The word ‘hire’ tells you what PCH is all about, because you’re basically renting a car. PCH contracts typically last for two or three years, with an agreed mileage limit of around 10,000 miles a year. There’s no option to buy the car at the end of the contract; you just hand the keys back to the finance provider. Your payments are effectively just covering the car’s depreciation.

The deposit is low (three or six months’ rental is common), as are the fixed monthly repayments, and you can reduce the impact of repair bills by incorporating an optional maintenance element into the agreement. Check to see if a separate manufacturer servicing package is cheaper before you tick that box, though.

Cars that hold their value well are good choices for PCH, because the difference between their new and used values will be smaller, so you’ll pay a lower amount. Cars that plummet in value from new are bad choices, because you’ll pay a much larger amount.

As with a PCP deal, you’ll need to make sure the car is in good condition when you hand it back, or you could face additional fees. 

Go for PCH if you say yes to one or more of these statements: you don’t want to own a car; you like being able to change cars frequently; you like the idea of driving better cars than you could normally afford; you don’t mind not having the option to buy the car.

If personal contract hire appeals to you then we recommend visiting our own What Car? Leasing platform for the best leasing deals on the market.

Tue, 02 Aug 2022 22:07:00 -0500 text/html
Killexams : Russian space chief: no date yet for space station pullout

MOSCOW (AP) — The head of Russia's space agency said Friday that the country has not set a date for pulling out of the International Space Station program, noting that it would only do that after it puts its own space station in orbit.

Yuri Borisov, who was appointed this month to lead the Roscosmos state space corporation, told President Vladimir Putin this week that a decision was made for Russia to leave the station after 2024 and to focus on building its own orbiting station.

NASA and its partners hope to continue operating the 24-year-old International Space Station until 2030, and the Russian announcement threw that plan into doubt.

Speaking Friday in televised remarks, Borisov said Russia will start the process of leaving the station after 2024 but the exact timing would “depend on the International Space Station's condition.”

He said Russia won’t pull out of the International Space Station until it puts its own space outpost into operation.

“The termination of work on the International Space Station and the start of work on the Russian station undoubtedly should be synchronized,” Borisov said, adding that the Russian pullout could take up to two years.

Russia has started design work on the new station, and space officials haven't said when it could be launched.

The International Space Station, which has served as a symbol of post-Cold War international cooperation, is now one of the last remaining areas of cooperation between Russia and the West amid the tensions over Moscow's military action in Ukraine.

The Russian announcement fueled speculation it was part of Moscow’s maneuvering to win relief from Western sanctions over the conflict in Ukraine.

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:07:00 -0500 en-US text/html
Killexams : 7 from Banur drowned in Himachal Pradesh lake

Our Correspondent

Una, August 1

Seven youths, all from Banur in SAS Nagar district of Punjab, drowned in Gobind Sagar Lake at Androuli village of Bangana subdivision today. A group of 11 youths had reached Una to pay obeisance at the Pir Nigaha shrine. They then decided to go to the Baba Balak Nath temple in Hamirpur district. On the way, they stopped on the banks of Gobind Sagar Lake and decided to swim. All 11 descended into the water. Around 3.50 pm, one of the swimmers appeared to be gasping for breath. Two others rushed to assist him, but failed in their attempt. The other swimmers too joined to help. While four of them swam to safety, seven

drowned. The services of divers from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) were requisitioned to locate and take out the bodies. By 7 pm, all seven bodies were recovered. According to Additional Superintendent of Police Parveen Dhiman, the deceased have been identified as Pawan Kumar (35), Raman Kumar (19), Love Kumar (17), Lakhvir Kumar (16), Arun Kumar (14), Vishal Kumar (18) and Shiva Kumar (16). The four who swam to safety are Krishan Lal (32), Gurpreet Singh (23), Raman Kumar (17) and Sonu Kumar (28).

Mohali Deputy Commissioner said all victims were part of an extended family.

Mon, 01 Aug 2022 19:05:00 -0500 en text/html
Killexams : Michigan GOP Rep. Meijer loses reelection after Trump vote

NEW YORK (AP) — Michigan Rep. Peter Meijer, who witnessed the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection days after taking office and then cast one of the 10 Republican votes to impeach Donald Trump over it, has lost his reelection bid.

Meijer was defeated in a primary Tuesday by Trump-endorsed John Gibbs, a businessman and missionary who served in the Trump administration under Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

Two Republicans in Washington state who incurred Trump's wrath by voting for impeachment also went before voters. Races involving Reps. Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse were too early to call by Wednesday morning.

Trump vowed revenge against the 10 who crossed party lines on the impeachment vote, and he endorsed party challengers to them in the midterm elections.

In other races, Rep. Haley Stevens ousted Rep. Andy Levin in their Democratic primary in Michigan. Democratic Reps. Cori Bush of Missouri and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, both members of the progressive “Squad” in Congress, sailed through. In Arizona, a leading figure in the QAnon conspiracy movement fell way short.

Some of the top elections:


Gibbs defeated Meijer despite the first-term incumbent having a large fundraising advantage. Gibbs cast Meijer as not a true Republican because of the impeachment vote. He also chastised Meijer for supporting bipartisan gun control legislation that President Joe Biden signed into law in June.

Meijer, a member of the Army Reserves who served in Iraq, had criticized Biden over the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as his handling of the economy.

“A Constitutional Republic like ours requires leaders who are willing to take on the big challenges, to find common ground when possible, and to put their love of country before partisan advantage,” Meijer said in a statement. “Though this was not the outcome we hoped for, I will continue to do everything possible to move the Republican Party, West Michigan, and our country in a positive direction.”

Gibbs will face Democrat Hillary Scholten in November in the Democratic-leaning 3rd Congressional District.

Herrera Beutler and Newhouse had an advantage over Meijer because their primaries are nonpartisan, and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will move on to the general election in November. Each incumbent faced multiple Republican candidates.

Herrera Beutler, who has been in Congress since 2011, was in second place in early returns in the 3rd Congressional District, trailing Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez but slightly ahead of fellow Republican Joe Kent. Kent, a former Green Beret whose wife was killed by a suicide bomber in 2019 in Syria, was endorsed by Trump. He heavily promoted the former president’s lies that the 2020 election was stolen.

In a Zoom call with reporters after early returns posted, Herrera Beutler said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the results that indicate she could advance.

“If I get through this, I’m not going to change, I’m not going to be a different person,” she said. “No one will work harder for this district than I will.”

Newhouse had a narrow lead over Democrat Doug White in the 4th Congressional District, which Newhouse has represented since 2015. Republican Loren Culp, a former small-town police chief endorsed by Trump, was in third place in early returns.

Of the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, four opted not to run for reelection. Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina lost to a Trump-endorsed challenger in June and Rep. David Valadao of California survived a primary challenge. Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming is bracing for defeat in her Aug. 16 primary against a Trump-backed rival.



Ron Watkins, one of the most prominent figures in the QAnon conspiracy movement, will not be heading to Congress this year.

Watkins was last in early returns in his Republican primary for Arizona's sprawling 2nd Congressional District. He served as the longtime administrator of online message boards that helped seed the conspiracy movement whose adherents believe a group of satanic, cannibalistic child molesters secretly runs the globe.

Watkins no longer runs the message boards and has denied fueling the QAnon movement. He said he was running for Congress because he hopes to “fix the machine from the inside.”

He was considered a long shot in the crowded GOP field, having been outpaced in campaign fundraising by the other candidates.

State Rep. Walter Blackman and Eli Crane, a former Navy SEAL who owns a bottle opener business and was endorsed by Trump, were at the top of the field. The winner will take on Democratic Rep. Tom O′Halleran in November in a district that favors Republicans.



Stevens' victory over Levin came in a newly drawn 11th Congressional District in suburban Detroit that favors Democrats, which means Stevens will likely win the seat in November.

Stevens got a financial boost from the United Democracy Project, a super PAC launched by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly called AIPAC. Levin, a progressive member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has been highly critical of Israel’s record on human rights.

The congresswoman flipped a district in 2018 that was long held by Republicans. Before running for office, she led the auto bailout under President Barack Obama.



Tlaib defeated three Democratic challengers in her quest for a third term. Because of redistricting, she is running in the newly drawn Detroit-area 12th Congressional District that favors Democrats and is expected to prevail in November. Tlaib’s main competition came from longtime Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey, who had strong name recognition in the city.

Bush's win in the 1st Congressional District was against state Sen. Steve Roberts, who hedged his campaign on the idea that Bush, a vocal advocate for defunding the police and moving money to social services and mental health programs, was too liberal even for heavily Democratic St. Louis.

Bush promoted her accomplishments, including persuading the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up radioactive waste near a St. Louis County creek, pushing for climate change action and standing against evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.



Daniel Hernandez Jr., the intern credited with saving then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' life after an attempted assassination in 2011, lost in the Democrat primary for her former seat.

Hernandez was a 20-year-old college student in his first week interning for Giffords when he went to her “Congress on your corner” constituent event. A gunman there opened fire, killing six and injuring 13. Hernandez kept the Democratic congresswoman conscious and applied pressure to her head wound until paramedics arrived.


Associated Press writers Sara Burnett in Chicago, Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, Joey Cappelletti in Lansing, Michigan, Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix, Rachel La Corte in Olympia, Washington, and Jim Salter in St. Louis contributed to this report.


Follow AP for full coverage of the midterms at and on Twitter at


Mon, 01 Aug 2022 20:22:00 -0500 en-US text/html
HP0-T21 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List