Tag Archives: blocks

Texas judge’s ruling blocks new applications to the Obama-era program, which shields some undocumented immigrants from deportation

The ruling from Judge Andrew Hanen would bar future applications. It does not immediately cancel current permits for hundreds of thousands of people — though it once again leaves them in devastating legal limbo and is a reminder of the uncertainty they face.
DACA, created in 2012, was intended to provide temporary reprieve to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children — a group often described as “Dreamers” — many of whom are now adults.
But almost a decade since the program was established, DACA is still one of the only signs of potential relief for undocumented immigrants looking to remain and work in the US.
Hanen, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that Congress had not granted the Department of Homeland Security the authority to create DACA and that it prevented immigration officials from enforcing removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
“Congress has not granted the Executive Branch free rein to grant lawful presence outside the ambit of the statutory scheme,” Hanen wrote.
Congress remains the only body that can provide a permanent solution for DACA recipients through legislation, but immigration legislation has been stalled for years.
Democrats immediately called for Congress to act.
Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat, and his twin brother Julian Castro, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under former President Barack Obama, called the decision is “terrible.”
“The dreams of hundreds of thousands of young people who are contributing to the American economy will be put on hold for no good reason. Congress must pass a pathway to citizenship this year. We can’t wait,” Rep. Castro said on Twitter.
“Dreamers have lived in uncertainty for far too long. It’s time Congress give them the protections they deserve. We must pass the budget reconciliation bill,” Julián Castro said.
Meanwhile, New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell said on Twitter, “This rightwing hack judge in Texas is trying to unilaterally stop the DACA program. This decision must be appealed and tossed out.”
The White House, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Long legal fight

Hanen’s shocking Friday afternoon ruling is the latest dramatic twist in the nearly decade-old DACA program.
The Trump administration tried ending DACA in 2017, but the US Supreme Court blocked its attempt in June 2020.
After the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration then tried to say no new DACA applications would be accepted and renewals would be limited to one year instead of two amid an ongoing review. A separate federal judge rejected that and ordered the restoration of the program.
The lawsuit was originally brought by Texas — along with Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia — which argued that the program placed an undue burden on the states and amounted to executive overreach. Hanen heard oral arguments in the case in December.
In his ruling Friday, Hanen cited the earlier Supreme Court decision, pointing to the majority’s determination that courts have the authority to review the DACA memorandum. But Hanen also drew from a dissent written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, that said DACA was an “unlawful program.”
“Justice Thomas noted that the majority’s failure to address DACA’s creation was ‘an effort to avoid a politically controversially but legally correct decision’ that would result in future ‘battles to be fought in this Court,'” Hanen wrote. “While the controversial issue may ultimately return to the Supreme Court, the battle Justice Thomas predicted currently resides here and it is not one this Court can avoid.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.

Read more
This post originally posted here CNN.com – RSS Channel – HP Hero

Man Utd must overcome two stumbling blocks to secure Cristiano Ronaldo transfer

Manchester United’s hopes of securing a sensational return for Cristiano Ronaldo rely on the Red Devils overcoming two major hurdles in the deal that would take him from Juventus.

United boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer is interested in signing a forward this summer and has been linked with a move for the former Old Trafford star.

Ronaldo is about to enter the final year of his contract with the Serie A side and is considering his future following a disappointing campaign.

Juventus finished fourth in the Italian top-flight and had their nine-year domination of the division ended by Inter Milan.

The 36-year-old had a successful personal season and may choose to depart if he sees no sign of improvement, despite Massimiliano Allegri already replacing the sacked Andrea Pirlo as boss.

JUST IN: Man Utd target Ronaldo ‘holds Allegri talks’ with roadmap laid bare

It is believed that the Norwegian wants a defender, a midfielder and a forward.

“Of course, we’re planning as we normally do, that’s an ongoing process,” Solskjaer said after his side defeated Wolves on the final day of the season.

“We’re looking at the squad and I hope we’re going to strengthen with two or three players [who] we definitely need to challenge higher up in the table.

“We’re still too far behind to think it’s just going to come by itself.

“We’ve had a few players on loan that might come back in. There is interest in a few others going out.

“You want to come out of the transfer window strengthened. It’s difficult to say, I can’t see too many outgoings.

“We’re not where we aimed to be. But we’ve got ambitions to move up one place.

“But there’s been steady improvement. Third last season, second this season, some more points. We’ve done really well away from home.

“We know we had a difficult start to the season, losing three of the first six games and loads of them were home games, which put pressure on the team.

“The players have been very, very good.”

This post originally appeared on Daily Express :: Sport Feed

Samsung blocks all Android updates from some Galaxy smartphones

The Samsung Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus launched back in April 2017. These handsets were too old to get the latest feature-filled versions of Android for some time, however, Samsung has been updating these devices every quarter with the most important security fixes. That is now coming to an end, Samsung has announced.

That means the Korean tech firm will no longer issue updates to the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8 Plus – even if new vulnerabilities are discovered by hackers in the last version of the operating system on these handsets.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that will happen. But if it does, you could have a smartphone in your pocket – with banking apps, credit cards, personal text messages, family photos and more stored on its memory – that will remain open to cyber attacks for the rest of its lifetime. That’s really not ideal.

The good news is that anyone who decides to trade in their Galaxy S8 for the latest flagship smartphone series from Samsung will be able to hold onto their new handset for even longer.

When the Galaxy S8 hit the market back in 2017, Samsung promised to release two major Android operating system upgrades for its priciest handsets. Indeed, the Galaxy S8 series enjoyed a bump to Android 8.0 in February 2018, before getting its final major upgrade to Android 9.0 one year later. Since then, it has only received stability, performance and security updates.

Samsung now pledges to update its flagship smartphones to three major Android operating system upgrades.

So, if you buy a Galaxy S21 running Android 11 out of the box today, you’re guaranteed to get all of the exciting new features coming with Android 12 later this year, as well as Android 13 and 14 (as they will presumably be called… unless Google decides to ditch the number branding and return to the dessert names of yore). After that, these handsets will presumably still receive security features every quarter, before switching to a biannual release schedule.

Interestingly, if you still have a Galaxy S8 Active or Galaxy S8 Lite in your pocket, these handsets will continue to receive software updates. The Galaxy S8 Active arrived on store shelves around four months after the Galaxy S8 in August 2017, so will probably receive one final update before it too will be dropped from these updates.

This post originally appeared on Daily Express :: Life and Style Feed
Read More

Sky TV blocks thousands from watching free streams in 'landmark' crackdown

Sky’s ongoing crackdown on viewers streaming paid-for content – from the likes of Sky Sports, Sky Cinema, and exclusive Sky shows, like The Undoing, Westworld, and Game Of Thrones – for free without permission has taken a dramatic new turn. Over the past few years, successive blocks ordered by the courts have made it harder to tune into premium content without paying for the privilege.
The pirated shows, which were accessible via hyperlinks sent out to paying subscribers, were made categorised with labels, so users simply had to click on whatever title they wanted to watch.

In a judgment, the Court of Session granted an interim interdict – a Scottish term to describe an injunction – that prevents Alex Cherrie from breaching Sky’s copyright in the future. Not abiding by the ruling could mean time in jail for the Scot, the Court warned.

This landmark case means those who were regularly tuning in to watch via Cherrie’s lethal broadcasts on YouTube streams will now be blocked from viewing any more content. Shows that were being offered via Cherrie’s links included Gangs of London, Cop Squad, Thronecast, The Russell Howard Hour, Portrait Artist of The Year, and A League of Their Own.

In her ruling, The Hon Lady Wolffe, said: “The defender’s activities demonstrate infringement on a large scale. The defender has in excess of 51,000 users across the Subreddits and had 95,000 users on the YouTube account. The number of users of the Subreddits continues to grow: between July and November 2020 there had been a 17% growth. There could be no legitimate purpose in the defender’s activities on the two online platforms other than to benefit financially from his 19 repeated copyright infringements. Infringement at this volume materially impairs the pursuer’s business model.”

Some experts now believe this case could mean streaming content online without permission could become even harder in the future.

Speaking about the case, Kieron Sharp, ex-police officer and CEO of FACT, said: “This is another landmark case in the fight against piracy and will set a positive precedent for future hearings. We have seen a significant rise in Popular online forums such as Reddit are being used to illegally stream and pirate content, so it is encouraging to see for the first time a user being held to account for sharing content illegally on the platform. This is another example of the actions taken against myriad different illegal streaming activities.

“Piracy is not a grey area – it is illegal and so will result in consequences not only for consumers but for those who upload content. This case will help consumers to understand the very real risks that are involved in pirating content.”

Millions of WhatsApp users face blocks from sending messages NEXT MONTH

WhatsApp users haven’t got long left to accept the messaging app’s updated terms and conditions, or face finding themselves blocked from the service completely. That’s the latest warning from Facebook, which owns WhatsApp, that reiterates that users only have until May 15, 2021 to hit the “agree” button. Based on the number of WhatsApp users on social media who have voiced concerns about the new terms and conditions, there are plenty of people who regularly use WhatsApp that could find themselves blocked in the coming weeks.
Posting on Twitter, one WhatsApp user said: “I have been using Signal since WhatsApp threatened me with the new terms. My privacy is respected at Signal and therefore, it earns a loyal user.”

Whilst another tweeted: “Anyone in the same boat as me; not keen to agree with the new Whatsapp terms? ”

WhatsApp has confirmed to Express.co.uk that it will not be deleting any accounts that refuse to agree to the small-print, but those who refuse will lose some of the most important features found within the app. Explaining more, WhatsApp said: “WhatsApp will not delete your account. However, you won’t have full functionality of WhatsApp until you accept. For a short time, you’ll be able to receive calls and notifications, but won’t be able to read or send messages from the app.”

So, if you love chatting with friends and family and don’t want to miss out on the latest gossip you only have around six weeks to make the decision on whether you’re happy to accept WhatsApp changes.

READ MORE: WhatsApp reveals eight simple things every iPhone and Android user must do TODAY

WhatsApp will, no doubt, be pushing more notifications out to those who haven’t agreed and if that’s you then here is what is changing and whether you need to be concerned.

When WhatsApp first announced its updated terms towards the end of last year, many loyal users were concerned that it signalled more data-sharing between the chat app and its parent company Facebook.

However, WhatsApp has stressed to users that this is not the case. The upcoming changes do not enable Facebook to access any more data from your personal chats. In fact, it will only impact conversations with a business account – like a customer care line for an online brand, for example. Even then, the data that can be accessed between these optional interactions with business accounts will not apply in the UK or mainland Europe, thanks to tough EU regulations on data-sharing practices.

So, you shouldn’t have any concerns moving forward – provided you’re already comfortable with the amount of data stored by the app.

To help fans feel more confident with the changes, WhatsApp said in its recent blog post: “As a reminder, we’re building new ways to chat or shop with a business on WhatsApp that are entirely optional. Personal messages will always be end-to-end encrypted, so WhatsApp can’t read or listen to them.

“In the coming weeks, we’ll display a banner in WhatsApp providing more information that people can read at their own pace. We’ve also included more information to try and address concerns we’re hearing. Eventually, we’ll start reminding people to review and accept these updates to keep using WhatsApp.”

Sadly, if you want to keep messaging after May 15 you are going to have to accept the new terms as not doing so will leave you without access to the most popular chat app on the planet. If you think it’s time to turn your back on WhatsApp and want to start messaging friends and family using a more privacy-focused option, Express.co.uk has got you covered.

Find our recommendations for the most secure WhatsApp alternatives on iPhone and Android here.

Hillicon Valley: Supreme Court rules Facebook text alerts not akin to robocalls | Republicans press Google, Apple, Amazon on Parler removals | Texas Senate blocks social media platforms from banning users based on politics

Welcome to Hillicon Valley, The Hill’s newsletter detailing all you need to know about the tech and cyber news from Capitol Hill to Silicon Valley. If you haven’t already, be sure to sign up for our newsletter by clicking HERE. [1]

Welcome! Follow our cyber reporter, Maggie Miller (@magmill95), and tech team, Chris Mills Rodrigo (@chrisismills) and Rebecca Klar (@rebeccaklar_), for more coverage.[2][3][4]

The Supreme Court issued an unanimous ruling Thursday siding with Facebook over the platform’s notification system to alert users of suspicious logins. Meanwhile, Google, Apple and Amazon received letters from two Republicans questioning the companies’ actions taken against the social media platform Parler. Top tech platforms were also the target of a Texas Senate bill that passed Thursday that aims to block social media platforms from banning residents based on political views.


SIDING WITH FACEBOOK: The Supreme Court on Thursday sided unanimously with Facebook, ruling that a notification system the social media giant employs to alert users to suspicious logins does not run afoul of a federal law aimed at curbing robocalls and automated text messages.

The decision derailed a proposed class-action lawsuit that sought to hold Facebook liable under a 1991 law that imposed a general ban on automated calls.

The justices found that Facebook’s opt-in security notification feature fell outside the law, even though the program was found to have transmitted unwanted text messages.

The court rejected an argument from a recipient of unwanted Facebook texts, who claimed that the company’s messaging program amounted to an “autodialer,” which generally involves the use of a random or sequential number generator. 

Read more about the ruling.[5]

PRESSED ON PARLER: Rep. Ken BuckKenneth (Ken) Robert BuckHouse panel advances bill to repeal 2002 war authorization 14 Republicans vote against resolution condemning Myanmar military coup Bipartisan group of lawmakers backs bill ‘to save local news’ MORE[7][8][9][10][11][6] (R-Colo.) and Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeThe Hill’s Morning Report – Biden shifts on filibuster GOP looks to squeeze Biden, Democrats on border Senate passes extension of popular small-business loan program MORE[13][14][15][16][17][12] (R-Utah), the top Republicans on the House and Senate antitrust subcommittees sent letters to Google, Apple and Amazon pressing the tech giants over their actions to remove from their platforms the fringe social media site Parler after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. 


The Republicans questioned whether the companies followed “procedural fairness” in pulling Parler, and framed the actions as “three of the largest technology companies in the world” targeting “one small business.” 

Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores just days after the deadly riot at the Capitol, after the platform was found to be rife with posts about storming the building. The companies cited Parler’s lack of content moderation policies and public safety concerns in making the decision. 

Shortly afterward, Amazon Web Services suspended Parler’s platform, citing concerns the platform could not adequately screen out potential incendiary content, including material that incites violence. 

Read more about the letter[18]

TEXAS TARGETS TECH: The Texas Senate on Thursday passed a bill blocking social media platforms from banning residents based on their political views.

The Texas Tribune reported that Senate Bill 12 passed shortly after 2 a.m. on Thursday. The measure now heads to the state House, where there are two identical bills that have not moved out of their committee, according to the Tribune.[19]

The bill bans platforms from censoring a “user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on their viewpoints or geographical location, according to its text. The measure also requires social media companies to publicly disclose information regarding their practices around how they target content for users, promote content and services and moderate content.[20]

Read more about the bill[21]

GOOGLE’S LATEST EFFORT TO FIGHT MISINFO: Google on Wednesday announced that it will be spending nearly $ 30 million in Europe to combat misinformation and fake news.

“Google is contributing €25 million to help launch the European Media and Information Fund to strengthen media literacy skills, fight misinformation and support fact checking,” Matt Brittin, the president of Google in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, said in a blog post.[22]

The money is coupled with a commitment over the next five years to work with the European University Institute, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European Digital Media Observatory.

Read more here[23]


Lighter click: Ooh yuh get it I guess[24]

An op-ed to chew on: Flying blind: Data infrastructure needed to fight the next pandemic[25]


Facebook Built the Perfect Platform for Covid Vaccine Conspiracies (Bloomberg / Sarah Frier and Sarah Kopit)[26]

Asian Americans in tech say they face ‘a unique flavor of oppression’ (Protocol / Megan Rose Dickey)[27]

The Right Curriculum? How PragerU Infiltrates Schools. (The American Prospect / Amelia Pollard)[28]

[email protected] (Rebecca Klar,Maggie Miller and Chris Mills Rodrigo)

Texas Senate blocks social media platforms from banning users based on politics

The Texas Senate on Thursday passed a bill blocking social media platforms from banning residents based on their political views.

The Texas Tribune reported[1] that Senate Bill 12 passed shortly after 2 a.m. on Thursday. The measure now heads to the State House, where there are two identical bills that have not moved out of their committee, according to the Tribune.

Texas Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), the Senate bill’s sponsor, said in a video posted to Twitter that the bill will “get Texans back online.”


“I think we all have to acknowledge that social media companies are the new town square. A small group of people in San Francisco can’t dictate free speech for the rest of us,” Hugues said. “It needs to be an open exchange of ideas and Senate Bill 12 is going to get Texans back online.”

SB 12 bans platforms from censoring a “user, a user’s expression, or user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on their viewpoints or geographical location, according to its text.[9] The measure also requires social media companies to publicly disclose information regarding their practices around how they target content for users, promote content and services, and moderate content.

The bill would also allow the state Attorney General to bring action against platforms that violate the law, and recover costs incurred in bringing the action if successful.


The measure applies to any platforms and services that “functionally has more than 100 million active users in a calendar month.”

The measure comes as conservatives complain that “Big Tech” companies, including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, target their content over their political views.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott[10] (R) expressed his concern about “censorship” in a statement[11] in early March supporting the state Senate bill.

“America was built on freedom of speech and healthy public debate, and efforts to silence conservative viewpoints on social media are wrong and weaken public discourse,” Abbot said.

“With SB 12, Senator Hughes is taking a stand against Big Tech’s political censorship and protecting Texans’ right to freedom of expression,” he said.


  1. ^ Texas Tribune reported (www.texastribune.org)
  2. ^ #txlege (twitter.com)
  3. ^ #SB12 (twitter.com)
  4. ^ #SB7 (twitter.com)
  5. ^ @Scott_SanfordTX (twitter.com)
  6. ^ @BriscoeCain (twitter.com)
  7. ^ pic.twitter.com/HdQPc2FBy7 (t.co)
  8. ^ April 1, 2021 (twitter.com)
  9. ^ text. (capitol.texas.gov)
  10. ^ Greg Abbott (thehill.com)
  11. ^ in a statement (gov.texas.gov)

[email protected] (Jordan Williams)