The agreement also covers the migration of the company’s connectivity with international ticketing joint... Source: RealWire
eProseed will participate as a Supporting Partner in the 11th MENA Regulatory Summit on February 5th & 6th in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
The summit will cover the main topical challenges faced by the regulatory authorities and the GRC community, a debate in which eProseed has a pivotal role to play as the publisher of FSIP, a comprehensive financial supervision solution dedicated to Central Banks, Financial Regulators and Supervisory Authorities.
The 11th MENA Regulatory Summit will take place in Dubai, UAE, in association with the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) and under the patronage of H.E.
Sultan bin Saeed Al Mansouri, the UAE Minister of Economy.
Formerly known as the GCC Regulators' Summit, the event has been renamed in an effort to ensure the utmost involvement of the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) community across the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, and to expand the dialogue to neighboring countries that share the same topical risk challenges and regulatory outlook.
"With increasing demands from many international regulatory bodies, financial supervisory authorities are required to monitor the compliance of their financial institutions against numerous new national and international requirements.
In the MENA region, the recent macroeconomic developments have also triggered an unprecedented demand for collection of high precision data at high frequency from all financial institutions to support a better risk based supervision", comments Geoffroy de Lamalle, Chief Executive Officer of eProseed.
MENA: an increasing role in global compliance and combating financial crime
The 11th MENA Regulatory Summit will be attended and supported by regional and international regulators, financial services professionals, law practitioners, advisors and market players.
The participants will highlight the recent macroeconomic developments in the MENA region including the US election, Brexit aftermath, regional regulatory responses to the financial crisis, the digital revolution in financial services, block chain technology, and crowd funding.
The speakers will set the landscape for international anti-financial crime trends, FATF perspective on terrorist financing and emergent types of financial crimes, and the dangers of withdrawal of correspondent banking relationships. Panelists will also discuss trade-based money laundering and trade finance activities, compliance culture, business conduct, business ethics, and compliance conflicts.
eProseed, the Solution Provider for Financial Supervision
Leveraging the proven expertise in developing and implementing end-to-end business solutions based on Oracle's world-class software technology stack and a close collaboration with major Financial Institutions and Regulators, eProseed has developed eProseed Financial Supervision Insight Platform (FSIP), an end-to-end financial supervision solution dedicated to Central Banks, Financial Regulators and Supervisory Authorities.
"In essence, eProseed FSIP is a comprehensive, highly agile, and plug-and-play financial supervision solution, enabling efficient and pro-active collection of high precision data at high frequency from all financial institutions, as well as automating and integrating all regulatory and supervisory functions in one single software solution", says Geoffroy de Lamalle.
eProseed is an ICT services provider and a software publisher. Honored with 8 Oracle ACE Directors and 14 Oracle Excellence Awards in the last 7 years, eProseed is an Oracle Platinum Partner with in-depth expertise in Oracle Database, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Oracle Engineered Systems.
eProseed’s portfolio of business applications and business accelerators is built on state-of-the-art, reliable technologies and sound knowledge of today’s challenges, developed and maintained with the highest standards in mind.
Comprehensive training and support are provided by eProseed’s experts for both applications and underlying technologies.
Headquartered in Luxembourg, in the heart of Europe, eProseed has offices in Beirut (LB), Brussels (BE), Dubai (AE), London (UK), New York (USA), Porto (PT), Riyadh (SAU), Sydney (AU), and Utrecht (NL).
At least 32 people died in the Brussels attack and about 130 in the attack in Paris. The suit alleges that Twitter has violated, and continues to violate, the U.S.
The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and monetary damages to be determined at trial. Twitter did not reply to a request for comment. “Twitter’s social media platform and services provide tremendous utility and value to ISIS as a tool to connect its members and to facilitate the terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies,” the suit alleges. “ISIS has used Twitter to cultivate and maintain an image of brutality, to instill greater fear and intimidation, and to appear unstoppable ...” The lawsuit also contends that specifically for the Brussels and Paris attacks, ISIS used Twitter to issue threats, as well as to announce and celebrate the attacks. The lawsuit was filed by the family of siblings Alexander Pinczowski and Sascha Pinczowski, who were killed in Brussels, and the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in Paris. Last year, another lawsuit was filed by Gonzalez’s father against Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for allegedly knowingly allowing ISIS to “use their social networks as a tool for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits.” In December, the families of three victims of the June shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, sued Facebook, Twitter and Google, the owner of YouTube, for allegedly ”providing support to the Islamic State.” Forty-nine people were killed in the attack. The question, if either case goes to trial, is whether a social network can be held responsible for the actions of any of its users. “While I certainly can sympathize with the families, it’s hard for me to see how Twitter can be held responsible for the rise of ISIS and their terror activities,” said Dan Olds, an analyst with OrionX. “Let’s imagine the world a few decades ago, before the internet. Would someone try to hold AT&T responsible for criminal activities that were planned over the telephone? Or is the printing press manufacturer responsible for magazines that encourage terrorism that were printed using presses they built and sold? “ In response to the attacks, Twitter took steps to prevent terrorists from using its network. In August, the company reported that in the previous six months, it had suspended 235,000 accounts for violating its policies related to the promotion of terrorism. That was in addition to 125,000 accounts that been suspended since mid-2015, bringing the total number of terrorist-related suspended accounts to 360,000. “We strongly condemn these acts and remain committed to eliminating the promotion of violence or terrorism on our platform,” the company said in a blog post at the time. Judith Hurwitz, an analyst with Hurwitz & Associates, said it would be a significant challenge for Twitter to keep terrorists completely off its site. “Perhaps Twitter could do a better job identifying users who are terrorists,” she said, saying the company would likely need advanced machine learning tools to weed out the bad players. “Of course, it would have to be advanced… Remember that terrorists are very good at adapting.
If they are thrown off of the system, they can come back with a different persona and try to game the system.” Brad Shimmin, an analyst with Current Analysis, said social networks like Twitter, Facebook and Google can’t be held responsible for their users’ actions. “There is no way of effectively policing those sites based upon affiliation or behavior,” Shimmin said. “Twitter itself has gone to some extreme measures to single out and remove accounts engaged in this sort of thing.
That will help, and I think such efforts are a moral responsibility for Twitter and other social networking vendors, but those actions can’t rule out future misuse.” Olds said it would be impossible for Twitter to keep terrorists from using its site 100% of the time, but the company could do a better job of curtailing it. “Terrorist messages should be able to be rooted out with some solid language processing software,” Olds said. “I’d like to see them do more along these lines.
The technology is there, they just need to adapt it to anti-terrorist tasks.” If Twitter loses the lawsuit and is ordered to pay significant damages, the impact on other social networks would be chilling, he said. “Social networks would be forced to keep a much closer eye on user activities and crack down on anything that could be interpreted as ‘bad,’ “ Olds said. “The end result would be self-imposed censorship on the part of the nets, which would greatly upset many users.
But I just don’t see this happening—at least not with this case.” This story, "Families of ISIS victims sue Twitter for being 'weapon for terrorism' " was originally published by Computerworld.
The commission said that this needed to change: Important technological and economic developments took place in the market since the last revision of the ePrivacy Directive in 2009.
Consumers and businesses increasingly rely on new Internet-based services enabling inter-personal communications such as Voice over IP, instant messaging, and Web-based e-mail services, instead of traditional communications services... Accordingly, the Directive has not kept pace with technological developments, resulting in a void of protection of communications conveyed through new services. The EC is also planning to kill the heavily ridiculed cookies consent pop-up system.
It said, in an embarrassing—if long overdue—climbdown that users would be given more control to allow or prevent websites from tracking them depending on "privacy risks." Last summer, a big coalition of tech firms lobbied for the cookie law to be scrapped. Under the new proposal, the commission said: "no consent is needed for non-privacy intrusive cookies improving Internet experience (e.g. to remember shopping cart history).
Cookies set by a visited website counting the number of visitors to that website will no longer require consent." But it could also hit the bottom line of Facebook, Google, and chums because tracking consent may be harder to obtain if lots of users reject third party cookies.
The commission said that, following public consultation on the issue, 81.2 percent of citizens agreed that obligations should be imposed on "manufacturers of terminal equipment to market products with privacy-by-default settings activated." It also warned that "additional costs" could hit some Web browser makers because they would be required to develop software with privacy settings built in. The new proposals also call on consent to process electronic communications metadata, such as device location data to allow for the "purposes of granting and maintaining access and connection to the service," the commission said.
It means that telcos "will have more opportunities to use data and provide additional services." Translation: new ways to make more cash. Companies that flout confidentiality of communications rules face fines of up to four percent of their global annual turnover, under the commission's planned e-privacy measures—the same penalty that will be dished out to firms that violate the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which comes into action in April 2018. "The European data protection legislation adopted last year sets high standards for the benefit of both EU citizens and companies," said EC justice chief Věra Jourová. "Today we are also setting out our strategy to facilitate international data exchanges in the global digital economy and promote high data protection standards worldwide." But the latest proposals cannot become law until the bloc's 28 member states and the European Parliament agree to wave them through—leaving plenty of wiggle room for industry lobbying. Separately, the commission is seeking views from the public on how to best tackle data mining as part of its Digital Single Market strategy. This post originated on Ars Technica UK
As expected, Brussels will no longer mandate that websites receive the user’s consent for placing cookies on your device. Scrapping the consent form is one of the options floated in the European Commission new public consultation on data processing rules, aka “Building the European data economy”. (Portal - Press Release). The initiative “addresses restrictions on the free flow of data, including legal barriers on the location of data for storage and/or processing purposes, and a series of emerging issues relating to data such as ownership, access, reuse, portability and liability” but does not cover personal data. It was introduced today by Estonia robo-commish Andrus Ansip, a man so digital he communicates through Word Clouds. Making the most of #opendata across Atlantic: a new EU-US open-source product.
This blog explains more - https://t.co/sXi909azuP #Ansipblogs pic.twitter.com/auhvipjCcO — Andrus Ansip (@Ansip_EU) December 30, 2016 The emphasis is on data use and reuse, although some consent is still required. My verdict on #Eprivacy reg: Prior consent still needed (though not for first-party analytics e.g. Piwik).
But now #GDPR level fines apply! — Mike O'Neill (@incloud) January 10, 2017 As before, storage use needs consent, with new exception for 1st party analytics.
Special (but ambiguous) rules for IP addresses #eprivacy pic.twitter.com/7pZFg30728 — Valerie O'Neill (@minabird) January 10, 2017 Browsers will have to ask user on installation about preferences re: #DoNotTrack & third-party cookies #eprivacy pic.twitter.com/xhWXBkuYzb — Valerie O'Neill (@minabird) January 10, 2017 #ePrivacy : "Privacy by design" was scrapped from the text compared to @POLITICOEUTech's earlier draft. — Laurens Cerulus (@laurenscerulus) January 10, 2017 We’ll have a fuller analysis tomorrow. ® Sponsored: Want to know more about Privileged Access Management? Visit The Register's hub
Facebook now has the opportunity to respond." Facebook has been slapped with a so-called Statement of Objections by the commission, which claims that the multinational "intentionally, or negligently, submitted incorrect or misleading information" to the competition wing of the EC, thereby allegedly breaching its obligations under the EU Merger Regulation. It comes after WhatsApp confirmed in August that it planned to merge user phone numbers with Facebook user accounts—much to the chagrin of privacy campaigners in Europe. At the time, it claimed that the information would be used to offer users "more relevant" Facebook ads, new "ways for people to communicate with businesses" via the app, and new friend suggestions. By mid-November, Facebook had stopped sharing WhatsApp user data across Europe, after it was forced to respond to regulatory pressure in the UK and Germany. Weeks earlier, data watchdogs across the EU who sit on the Article 29 Working Group urged Facebook "not to proceed with the sharing of users' data until the appropriate legal protections can be assured." Now Vestager's office has separately entered the fray with tentative charges brought against Facebook that could lead to it being fined up to one percent of its annual turnover. The commission also explained the rationale behind its decision to wave through Facebook's buyout of WhatsApp unchallenged in late 2014.
It said: With respect to consumer communications services, the commission found that Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp were not close competitors and that consumers would continue to have a wide choice of alternative consumer communications apps post-merger.
Although consumer communications apps are characterised by network effects, the investigation showed that a number of factors mitigated the network effects in that case. As regards social networking services the commission concluded that, no matter what the precise boundaries of the market for social networking services are and whether or not WhatsApp is considered a social network, the companies are, if anything, distant competitors. With respect to online advertising, the commission concluded that, regardless of whether Facebook would introduce advertising on WhatsApp and/or start collecting WhatsApp user data for advertising purposes, the transaction raised no competition concerns.
She said that following close scrutiny, Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and Facebook's buyout of WhatsApp both got the go-ahead, adding that data issues did not, and should not, be linked only to investigations into alleged privacy abuses. However, her concerns about the lack of clarity around how much data is being used by online services, such as messaging apps and video-streaming sites, clearly left the commission flat-footed given that it has only now spotted an alleged discrepancy with Facebook's takeover of WhatsApp. This post originated on Ars Technica UK
The deal has already received regulatory clearance Stateside, however. He claimed that Microsoft's play for LinkedIn was an anticompetitive swoop on the data pumped into business productivity software.
And Benioff has apparently made his feelings known to Vestager.
It's understood that Salesforce submitted a response to a European Commission questionnaire, which sought views from interested parties who may have been concerned about LinkedIn being wedded to Microsoft. In October, the EC said: "On preliminary examination, the commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved." Salesforce foreshadowed its submission to the bloc's competition boss in late September, when its legal chief Burke Norton argued: "By gaining ownership of LinkedIn’s unique dataset of over 450 million professionals in more than 200 countries, Microsoft will be able to deny competitors access to that data, and in doing so obtain an unfair competitive advantage." Vestager's office is now looking at Microsoft's so-called "commitments proposal," and will seek the views of the company's rivals. Her spokesperson told us that "the new decision deadline is 6 December." Microsoft declined to comment on the makeup of its concessions package to the commission when quizzed by Ars. This post originated on Ars Technica UK