Privacy: For our analog parents, a diary or a personal letter could rarely be touched by authorities, not even by law enforcement searching for evidence of a crime. Objects such as these had protection over and above the constitutional privacy safeguards. For our digital children, however, the equivalent diaries and letters aren’t even considered worthy of basic constitutional privacy.

In most jurisdictions, there is a constitutional right to privacy. Law enforcement in such countries can’t just walk in and read somebody’s mail, wiretap their phonecalls, or track their IP addresses. They need a prior court order to do so, which in turn is based on a concrete suspicion of a serious crime: the general case is that you have a right to privacy, and violations of this rule are the exception, not the norm.

However, there’s usually a layer of protection over and above this: even if and when law enforcement gets permission from a judge to violate somebody’s privacy in the form of a search warrant of their home, there are certain things that may not be touched unless specific and additional permissions are granted by the same type of judge. This class of items includes the most private of the personal: private letters, diaries, and so on.

Of course, this is only true in the analog world of our parents. Even though the letter of the law is the same, this protection doesn’t apply at all to the digital world of our children, to their diaries and letters.

Because the modern diary is kept on a computer. If not on a desktop computer, then certainly on a mobile handheld one — what we’d call a “phone” for historical reasons, but what’s really a handheld computer.

And a computer is a work tool in the analog world of our parents. There are loads of precedent cases that establish any form of electronic device as a work tool, dating back well into the analog world, and law enforcement is falling back on all of them with vigor, even now that our digital devices are holding our diaries, personal letters, and other items far more private than an analog diary was ever capable of.

That’s right: whereas your parents’ diaries were extremely protected under the law of the land, your children’s diaries — no less private to them, than those of your parents were to your parents — are as protected from search and seizure as an ordinary steel wrench in a random workshop.

So the question is how we got from point A to point B here? Why are the Police, who know that they can’t touch an analog diary during a house search, instantly grabbing mobile phones which serve the same purpose for our children?

“Because they can”, is the short answer. “Also because nobody put their foot down” for advanced points on the civics course. It’s because some people saw short term political points in being “tough on crime” and completely erasing hard-won rights in the process.

Encrypt everything.

Privacy: Our parents, at least in the Western world, had a right to hold private conversations face-to-face, whether out in public or in the sanctity of their home. This is all but gone for our digital children.

Not long ago, it was the thing of horror books and movies that there would actually be widespread surveillance of what you said inside your own home. Our analog parents literally had this as scary stories worthy of Halloween, mixing the horror with the utter disbelief.

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being surveilled at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual device was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they listened to everybody all the time. But at any rate they could listen to you whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard.” — from Nineteen Eighty-Four

In the West, we prided ourselves on not being the East — the Communist East, specifically — who regarded their own citizens as suspects: suspects who needed to be cleansed of bad thoughts and bad conversations, to the degree that ordinary homes were wiretapped for ordinary conversations.

There were microphones under every café table and in every residence. And even if there weren’t in the literal sense, just there and then, they could still be anywhere, so you had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard.

“Please speak loudly and clearly into the flower pot.” — a common not-joke about the Communist societies during the Cold War

Disregard phonecalls and other remote conversations for now, since we already know them to be wiretapped across most common platforms. Let’s look at conversations in a private home.

We now have Google Echo and Amazon Alexa. And while they might have intended to keep your conversations to themselves, out of the reach of authorities, Amazon has already handed over living room recordings to authorities. In this case, permission became a moot point because the suspect gave permission. In the next case, permission might not be there, and it might happen anyway.

Mobile phones are already listening, all the time. We know because when we say “Ok Google” to an Android phone, it wakes up and listens more intensely. This, at a very minimum, means it’s always listening for the words “Ok Google”. IPhones have a similar mechanism listening for “Hey Siri”. While nominally possible to turn off, it’s one of those things you can never be sure of. And we carry these governmental surveillance microphones with us everywhere we go.

If the Snowden documents showed us anything in the general sense, it was that if a certain form of surveillance is technically possible, it is already happening.

And even if Google and Apple aren’t already listening, the German police got the green light to break into phones and plant Bundestrojaner, the flower-pot equivalent of hidden microphones, anyway. You would think that Germany of all countries has in recent memory what a bad idea this is. It could — maybe even should — be assumed that the police forces of other countries have and are already using similar tools.

For our analog parents, the concept of a private conversations was as self-evident as oxygen in the air. Our digital children may never know what one feels like.

And so we live today — from what started as a habit that has already become instinct — in the assumption that every sound we make is overheard by authorities.

Privacy: The dystopic stories of the 1950s said the government would install cameras in our homes, with the government listening in and watching us at all times. Those stories were all wrong, for we installed the cameras ourselves.

In the analog world of our parents, it was taken for completely granted that the government would not be watching us in our own homes. It’s so important an idea, it’s written into the very constitutions of states pretty much all around the world.

And yet, for our digital children, this rule, this bedrock, this principle is simply… ignored. Just because they their technology is digital, and not the analog technology of our parents.

There are many examples of how this has taken place, despite being utterly verboten. Perhaps the most high-profile one is the OPTIC NERVE program of the British surveillance agency GCHQ, which wiretapped video chats without the people concerned knowing about it.

Yes, this means the government was indeed looking into people’s living rooms remotely. Yes, this means they sometimes saw people in the nude. Quite a lot of “sometimes”, even.

According to summaries in The Guardian, over ten percent of the viewed conversations may have been sexually explicit, and 7.1% contained undesirable nudity.

Taste that term. Speak it out loud, to hear for yourself just how oppressive it really is. “Undesirable nudity”. The way you are described by the government, in a file about you, when looking into your private home without your permission.

When the government writes you down as having “undesirable nudity” in your own home.

There are many other examples, such as the state schools that activate school-issued webcams, or even the US government outright admitting it’ll all your home devices against you.

It’s too hard not to think of the 1984 quote here:

The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live — did live, from habit that became instinct — in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. — From Nineteen Eighty-Four

And of course, this has already happened. The so-called “Smart TVs” from LG, Vizio, Samsung, Sony, and surely others have been found to do just this — spy on its owners. It’s arguable that the data collected only was collected by the TV manufacturer. It’s equally arguable by the police officers knocking on that manufacturer’s door that they don’t have the right to keep such data to themselves, but that the government wants in on the action, too.

There’s absolutely no reason our digital children shouldn’t enjoy the Analog Equivalent Rights of having their own home to their very selves, a right our analog parents took for granted.

Europe: Slack has updated its Terms of Service to let your manager read your private conversations in private channels. Our analog parents would have been shocked and horrified at the very idea that their bosses would open packages and read personal messages that were addressed to them. For our digital children, it’s another shrugworthy part of everyday life.

The analog plain old telephone system, sometimes abbreviated POTS, is a good template for how things should be even in the digital world. This is something that lawmakers got mostly right in the old analog world.

When somebody is on a phonecall — an old-fashioned, analog phonecall — we know that the conversation is private by default. It doesn’t matter who owns the phone. It is the person using the phone, right this very minute, that has all the rights to its communication capabilities, right this very minute.

The user has all the usage rights. The owner has no right to intercept or interfere with the communications usage, just based on the property right alone.

Put another way: just because you own a piece of communications equipment, that doesn’t give you any kind of automatic right to listen to private conversations that happen to come across this equipment.

Regrettably, this only applies to the telephone network. Moreover, only the analog part of the telephone network. If anything is even remotely digital, the owner can basically intercept anything they like, for any reason they like.

This particularly extends to the workplace. It can be argued that you have no expectation of privacy for what you do on your employer’s equipment; this is precisely forgetting that such privacy was paramount for the POTS, less than two decades ago, regardless of who owned the equipment.

Some employers even install wildcard digital certificates on their workplace computers with the specific purpose of negating any end-to-end security between the employee’s computer and the outside world, effectively performing a so-called “man-in-the-middle attack”. In a whitewashed term, this practice is called HTTPS Interception instead of “man-in-the-middle attack” when it’s performed by your employer instead of another adversary.

Since we’re looking at difference between analog and digital, and how privacy rights have vanished in the transition to digital, it’s worth looking at the code of law for the oldest of analog correspondences: the analog letter, and whether your boss could open and read it just because it was addressed to you at your workplace.

Analog law differs somewhat between different countries on this issue, but in general, even if your manager or workplace were allowed to open your mail (which is the case in the United States but not in Britain), they are typically never allowed to read it (even in the United States).

In contrast, with electronic mail, your managers don’t just read your entire e-mail, but typically has hired an entire department to read it for them. In Europe, this went as far as the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that it’s totally fine for an employer to read the most private of correspondence, as long as the employer informs of this fact (thereby negating the default expectation of privacy).

Of course, this principle about somewhat-old-fashioned e-mail applies to any and all electronic communications now, such as Slack.

So for our digital children, the concept of “mail is private and yours, no matter if you receive it at the workplace” appears to have been irrevocably lost. This was a concept our analog parents took so for granted, they didn’t see any need to fight for it.

Today, privacy remains your own responsibility.

Privacy: In a series of posts on this blog, we have shown how practically everything our parents took for granted with regards to privacy has been completely eliminated for our children, just because they use digital tools instead of analog, and the people interpreting the laws are saying that privacy only applies to the old, analog environment of our parents.

Once you agree with the observation that privacy seems to simply not apply for our children, merely for living in a digitally-powered environment instead of our parents’ analog-powered one, surprise turns to shock turns to anger, and it’s easy to want to assign blame to someone for essentially erasing five generations’ fight for civil liberties while people were looking the other way.

So whose fault is it, then?

It’s more than one actor at work here, but part of the blame must be assigned to the illusion that that nothing has changed, just because our digital children can use old-fashioned and obsolete technology to obtain the rights they should always have by law and constitution, regardless of which method they use to talk to friends and exercise their privacy rights.

We’ve all heard these excuses.

“You still have privacy of correspondence, just use the old analog letter”. As if the Internet generation would. You might as well tell our analog parents that they would need to send a wired telegram to enjoy some basic rights.

“You can still use a library freely.” Well, only an analog one, not a digital one like The Pirate Bay, which differs from an analog library only in efficiency, and not in anything else.

“You can still discuss anything you like.” Yes, but only in the analog streets and squares, not in the digital streets and squares.

“You can still date someone without the government knowing your dating preferences.” Only if I prefer to date like our parents did, in the unsafe analog world, as opposed to the safe digital environment where predators vanish at the click of a “block” button, an option our analog parents didn’t have in shady bars.

The laws aren’t different for the analog and the digital. The law doesn’t make a difference between analog and digital. But no law is above the people who interpret it in the courts, and the way people interpret those laws means the privacy rights always apply to the analog world, but never to the digital world.

It’s not rocket science to demand the same laws to apply offline and online. This includes copyright law, as well as the fact that privacy of correspondence takes precedence over copyright law (in other words, you’re not allowed to open and examine private correspondence for infringements in the analog world, not without prior and individual warrants — our law books are full of these checks and balances; they should apply in the digital too, but don’t today).

Going back to blame, that’s one actor right there: the copyright industry. They have successfully argued that their monopoly laws should apply online just as it does offline, and in doing so, has completely ignored all the checks and balances that apply to the copyright monopoly laws in the analog world. And since copying movies and music has now moved into the same communications channels as we use for private correspondence, the copyright monopoly as such has become fundamentally incompatible with private correspondence at the conceptual level.

The copyright industry has been aware of this conflict and has been continuously pushing for eroded and eliminated privacy to prop up their crumbling and obsolete monopolies, such as pushing for the hated (and now court-axed) Data Retention Directive in Europe. They would use this federal law (or European equivalent thereof) to literally get more powers than the Police themselves in pursuing individual people who were simply sharing music and movies, sharing in the way everybody does.

There are two other major factors at work. The second factor is marketing. The reason we’re tracked at the sub-footstep level in airports and other busy commercial centers is simply to sell us more crap we don’t need. This comes at the expense of privacy that our analog parents took for granted. Don’t even get started on Facebook and Google.

Last but not least are the surveillance hawks — the politicians who want to look “Tough on Crime”, or “Tough on Terrorism”, or whatever the word of choice is this week. These were the ones who pushed the Data Retention Directive into law. The copyright industry were the ones who basically wrote it for them.

These three factors have working together, and they’ve been very busy.

It’s going to be a long uphill battle to win back the liberties that were slowly won by our ancestors over about six generations, and which have been all but abolished in a decade.

Our children are right to demand Analog Equivalent Privacy Rights — the civil liberties our parents not just enjoyed, but took for granted.

I fear the failure to pass on the civil liberties from our parents to our children is going to be seen as the greatest failure of this particular current generation, regardless of all the good we also accomplish. Surveillance societies can be erected in just ten years, but can take centuries to roll back.

Privacy remains your own responsibility today. We all need to take it back merely by exercising our privacy rights, with whatever tools are at our disposal.

Image from the movie “Nineteen-Eighty Four”; used under fair use for political commentary.

Activism: In the ever-evolving landscape of politics, we often find ourselves confined to the traditional left-right spectrum. This binary view, with its emphasis on economic and social policies, sometimes obscures deeper motivations driving voter behavior and political trends. As a result, we might miss crucial insights that could enhance our understanding of why people vote the way they do, why political movements gain momentum, and why some ideas resonate while others falter. I have found an alternative framework to be far more helpful: the Maslow Pyramid.

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, typically illustrated as a pyramid, categorizes human needs into five levels: physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow famously hypothesized, that a lower-level need must be satisfied before we start attempting to fulfill the needs of the next level — as an example, while we’re starving and live in fear of being robbed (level one), we’re not so much concerned with having the respect of the community (level four). By examining political trends through this lens, we can gain a richer, more nuanced perspective on what drives societal shifts and voter preferences.

Physiological Needs and the Politics of Survival

At the base of Maslow’s pyramid are physiological needs: food, water, warmth, and rest — as well as immediate physical safety. In times of economic crisis, political discourse often gravitates towards these fundamental concerns. Populist movements frequently gain traction by promising to address the immediate needs of the people. For instance, during the Great Recession, there was a surge in support for policies focused on job creation, healthcare access, and basic economic security. Politicians who can convincingly address these basic needs often see significant support from constituencies facing hardship just getting from one day to the next without getting beaten, robbed, or starved. Fear of getting to this state (fear of getting robbed on your way to/from work, school, etc.) will also suffice to place oneself at this level.

However, if established parties fail to address these concerns, voters will inevitably turn to whomever offers a solution, even if it’s an atrocious one. It’s like choosing Comcast for your Internet connection when no other provider is available—you know the service is subpar, but having some connection is better than none. Similarly, in politics, when mainstream parties neglect the foundational needs of the populace, fringe or extremist parties can gain support by simply acknowledging and addressing these unmet needs — and that is regardless of how flawed their solutions to said problems may be.

Safety Needs and the Demand for Stability

Moving up the pyramid, once the physical needs are met, then safety needs encompass longer-term personal security, employment, and health. Political rhetoric around law and order, immigration control, and national security taps into these safety concerns. When people feel their safety is threatened, whether by crime, terrorism, or economic instability, they are more likely to support policies and leaders who promise to restore stability and protect them from perceived threats. The post-9/11 era (just after 2001), with its heightened focus on national security, is a prime example of how safety needs can dominate the political agenda.

Yet again, if traditional parties fail to provide a sense of security, voters may gravitate towards any party that promises to deliver it, even if their methods are draconian and/or frankly ridiculous.

Love and Belonging: The Politics of Identity

The middle tier of the pyramid addresses social needs: relationships, friendships, and a sense of belonging. Identity politics, which includes movements advocating for the rights of specific social groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and more, finds its roots here. Political movements that foster a sense of community and belonging can galvanize supporters by addressing these intrinsic needs. The LGBPQRST+ rights movement, for instance, not only fights for legal rights but also seeks to create a supportive community for its members.

When mainstream parties overlook these social needs, people will seek out any group or party that offers them a sense of belonging, even if that party’s overall agenda is problematic. It’s a matter of seeking connection where it’s available.

Esteem: The Quest for Recognition

Esteem needs encompass respect, self-esteem, status, and recognition. Political leaders who can validate the contributions and worth of their supporters often build strong, loyal followings. This is evident in political campaigns that emphasize the dignity of work, the importance of patriotism, and the recognition of personal achievements. Policies aimed at rewarding hard work and providing opportunities for personal advancement resonate deeply with voters seeking validation and respect.

Self-Actualization: The Pursuit of Fulfillment

At the peak of the pyramid is self-actualization — the realization of one’s potential and the pursuit of personal growth and fulfillment. Politics at this level involves visionary thinking and appeals to higher ideals. Environmental movements with or without solutions based in reality, space exploration initiatives, and educational reforms often engage this need. Leaders who inspire through their vision of a better future, who challenge citizens to think beyond their immediate concerns and contribute to something greater than themselves, tap into this highest level of human motivation.

It’s rather telling that the biggest telltale sign for voters (and media), who are personally at this level of human needs, is that they often and happily paint the political parties and movements answering to level-one and level-two human needs as brutish, uneducated, simpleton and backwards — when in reality, what such name-calling voters who pretend to hold themselves to some sort of higher standard are really doing, is disacknowledging that other people’s most basic needs are simply not being met. Talk about being overprivileged in ivory towers! “Let them eat cake”, anyone?

If mainstream political parties neglect to engage voters at this level, people will align with any party that inspires them, even if the broader agenda is not entirely sound. It can be somewhat like signing up for a self-help seminar led by a guy who lives in his mom’s basement because he speaks so passionately about “unlocking your potential.”

A Holistic Approach to Political Analysis

By applying the Maslow Pyramid to our understanding of political trends, we gain a multi-dimensional view that goes beyond the simplicity of left versus right. This approach allows us to see how different policies and political messages resonate with various segments of the population based on their current needs and aspirations.

For instance, a comprehensive healthcare reform policy can address physiological needs by ensuring access to medical care, safety needs by providing financial security, love and belonging by reducing social disparities, esteem by recognizing healthcare as a right, and self-actualization by promoting a healthier society capable of achieving its full potential.

It’s further important to realize that an individual voter would vote for completely different parties, even at opposite ends of the traditional spectrum, depending on where they feel the most urgency in their personal needs at the moment, and that this is not a contradiction or uncertainty on policies.

In conclusion, the Maslow Pyramid provides a valuable framework for understanding the complex and dynamic nature of political trends. It reminds us that politics is fundamentally about people and their needs. By considering these needs in our political analysis, we can develop more empathetic, effective, and inclusive strategies that resonate deeply with the human condition. And crucially, we must remember that when these needs are ignored, voters will turn to any party that promises to meet them, even if it means accepting a deeply flawed solution. After all, in the absence of better options, you might just end up with Comcast.

It's hard to find the right words here. Dennis Enarson has set it in his head to leave a lasting mark in the BMX world with his new video. To this end, Dennis has teamed up with none other than Rich Forne. Eight months of filming regardless of losses have definitely paid off and will leave your mouth open. By the way: Dennis also has a new pair of Signature shoes by VANS, which you can find below.

Have fun with the video, your kunstform BMX Shop Team!

Video: Richard Forne/VANS

Related links:

• all products of VANS
• all signature products of Dennis Enarson

The Biden administration's strategy of seeking to manage geopolitical competition with China is not working and should be replaced with a policy of achieving victory, according to Matthew Pottinger, former White House deputy national security adviser.

Maryland voters overwhelmingly passed a sweeping proposal adding abortion rights to the state constitution.

Religious Right-Christian Politics offers a Biblical perspective on conservative political activism by followers of Jesus. A look at abortion, homosexuality and other political issues in light of our evangelical mission. How does what we're doing advance His kingdom?

Taiwan's top diplomat in the United States tells The Washington Times in an exclusive interview that China's communist government is intensifying its campaign to pressure countries not to recognize the legitimacy of the island democracy and to block it from participating in the United Nations and other key international organizations.

About half of Americans believe the public education system is headed in the wrong direction.

Denver Nuggets power forward Aaron Gordon is expected to miss multiple weeks with a strained right calf, two people familiar with the injury told The Associated Press.

Full article available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-S15-S1 

Boston College senior, Sarah Dansreau, takes us through her perfect day in Boston's Brighton neighborhood.

The post How to spend the perfect day in Brighton appeared first on Boston.com.

Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.

The post Abortion rights advocates win in 7 states and clear way to overturn Missouri ban but lose in 3 appeared first on Boston.com.

"He puts himself in some bad situations, which he needs to learn from those. But we just love how combative he is."

The post Are the Bruins making the right call sending Matt Poitras to Providence? appeared first on Boston.com.

Former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont and five other separatist leaders from the region have appealed to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva, denouncing what they call the “suspension” of their political rights by Spanish authorities.

SWISSINFO

Decembrer 20, 2018

(© KEYSTONE / MARTIAL TREZZINI)

Speaking to journalists in the Swiss city on Thursday, Puigdemont said that the joint appeal to the rights body aimed to denounce the “serious violation of rights and freedoms in Spain, something unacceptable in the framework of European Union law”.

Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, Raul Romeva, Josep Rull, Jordi Sanchez, and Jordi Turull are all members of Catalonia’s parliament, but were charged and suspended from taking office by the Spanish Supreme Court for their role in organizing an October 2017 independence referendum in Catalonia in northeast Spain.

“Six people, democratically-elected and not yet convicted – five of whom have been detained for over a year – cannot exercise their rights,” said Puigdemont.

Having been accused of rebellion and sedition by Spanish authorities after the unauthorized referendum, Puigdemont has since lived in Belgium. An international arrest warrant against him was withdrawn last July.

Puigdemont and Sanchez, president of the independent association ANC, had already filed a separate complaint to the same UN rights body in March 2018 to denounce their "impossibility of running for president of the Generalitat” [the Catalan government]. The UN committee has yet to take any decision on the complaints.

+ Puigdemont said the Swiss federal model could offer a vision for Spain

It’s not the first time the emblematic Catalan figure has visited Geneva; an international human rights film festival hosted him for a debate on self-determination in March, a visit from which cantonal authorities distanced themselves.

Several other ‘wanted’ separatists, including Anna Gabriel and Marta Rovira, have sought exile in Switzerland following their condemnation in Spain.

Thursday’s action in Geneva comes as the Catalan separatist row shows no signs of ending. This week, four imprisoned leaders of the movement ended an almost three-week hunger strike, while Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez has chosen to hold this Friday’s cabinet meeting in Barcelona – a deliberate “provocation”, for some Catalan supporters.

The alcohol-free beer garden comes from Dray Drinks, Boston's first NA bottle shop.

The post A non-alcoholic beer garden pops up in Brighton this weekend appeared first on Boston.com.

Your guide to some of the best scary movies to watch streaming from your couch.

The post 23 must-watch horror movies streaming right now appeared first on Boston.com.

“While an increase in population is hopeful, the North Atlantic right whales washing up dead on our shores speak for themselves — we must stop killing them."

The post Right whale population grows 4 percent but extinction remains a threat appeared first on Boston.com.

Fright Fest opens on Sept. 21.

The post Six Flags New England to debut a new haunted attraction for Fright Fest appeared first on Boston.com.

We speak with Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy, who is advocating on behalf of Syrian refugees as other American politicians try to turn them away. Then, we sit in on a cooking class that teaches people in Boston how to eat healthier with traditional African dishes. And, the US wants to give peanuts to malnourished kids in Haiti — we find out why that idea is so controversial.

Plus: a US army officer sues President Obama over the legality of the war against Islamic State; Italy’s most prominent transgender politician weighs in on North Carolina’s controversial ‘bathroom bill’; and a Sudanese human rights activist finds inspiration in America's civil rights movement.

Image: A refugee mother and son from the Syrian town of Kobani walk beside their tent in a camp in Sanliurfa, Turkey. October 19, 2014. (Credit: Gokhan Sahin/Getty Images)

Former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend says we need new methods of addressing gun violence.

Also: we learn how the gun lobby brought gun violence research to a halt in one US agency; a constitutional scholar puts America’s right to bear arms in a global context; Russian bots seize on the Parkland shooting to amplify divisions; gun rights supporters say Israel could serve as a model for the US but some Israelis disagree; and what does a year of mass shootings sound like ... in piano notes? Listen here.

(Image: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Emma Gonzalez speaks at a rally for gun control at the Broward County Federal Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on February 17, 2018. Credit: Rhona Wise/Getty Images)

The best of what's new streaming on Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney Plus, and more.

The post 5 must-watch movies & TV shows streaming right now appeared first on Boston.com.

Have you ever had a worship team member that just goes too far?  We have.  And one of them may be on this show!

Join Dustin, James and special guest, Erica, as we talk about how to best manage your worship teams in the most dire situations. Being a worship leader means working with people and people aren't always perfect! How do you handle those issues?  How do you keep things right on your team with God, but also care about the individuals?  We talk through hypotheticals, but for some of you listening, these circumstances might not be hypothetical.  Have a listen and see if you can relate.

We'd love to hear from some of our listeners about situations you've found yourselves in, and how you handled them with your team!

-----------------

The Worship Podcast is powered by All About Worship in partnership with WeAreWorship.

Subscribe to the podcast:
theworshippodcast.com
linktr.ee/theworshippodcast 

You can also connect with The Worship Podcast on social media:
The Worship Podcast on Facebook
The Worship Podcast on Instagram
The Worship Podcast on Twitter

The Red Sox need to add a right-handed-hitting slugger or two to balance out their left-handed-heavy lineup. Here are the top 10 right-handed hitters set to hit free agency.

The Wall You Install Will Need To Be Able To Stand Up To Various Climate Challenges, So How Do You Choose Materials That Guarantee High Performance?

Boards should take the lead in creating the right organisational culture

It might sound easy, but there are dangers for charities that do not have effective expenses policies

Oakland, CA – Two new fact sheets from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, also known as Cal/OSHA, outline worker safety rights and employer requirements for protecting temporary workers.

How do I find the right shoe for the job, according to personal protective equipment standards for footwear?

Customers never have to come home to a dark house when the lighting is turned on by this wireless controller.Widely perceived as a residential crime deterrent, lighting is a natural

Guest columnist James D. Berkeley details why a U.S. federal court dismissed an inventor’s attempt to copyright artwork produced by an image generator he designed.

Amherst, MA — The long-standing approach that “the customer is always right” can take a toll on workers’ mental health and limit their capacity to serve customers, according to a recent study.

Washington — A series of new resources on worker rights and employer and union responsibilities under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 are now available in 17 languages.

Washington – OSHA has released information bulletins on personal protective equipment and whistleblower protection rights as part of the agency’s Temporary Worker Initiative.

Washington — Retaliation against workers who report unsafe or unhealthy conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic is illegal, OSHA is reminding employers.

How do you decide which training software is right for your team? Here are factors to consider in making this important investment.

Houston — For older workers, the right job fit can benefit overall health and well-being, while a poor fit is more likely to push them into retirement, according to researchers from Rice University and Colorado State University.

Many gloves on the market today are considered multi-purpose. For what applications should I wear these gloves, and what protection will they provide?

What are some of the underlying reasons why hand injuries are still so common?

What should I take into consideration when choosing the right leather to protect welders?

What do termites, diamonds and security have in common? All three are components of the history of this year’s SDM Dealer of the Year. Sonitrol began when Al Cronk, a police officer, was interested in verifying alarms using audio; Bob Baxter invented microphones to detect termites in trees.

Learn about some common configurations of cloud video and questions to ask to determine the best one for your customers’ operations.

There are many brand-name, sector-agnostic business solutions on the market, but security companies ultimately find that getting them to function at a baseline level is expensive, time-consuming and frustrating.

Flat is a four-letter word when it comes to the economic performance of the security installation channel in 2011. Despite predictions last year for a meager, yet optimistic 1 percent uptick in 2011, expectations did not materialize and total industry revenue neither grew nor fell — keeping at $43.9 billion. Perhaps because of this, integrators and security dealers are now ultra cautious, offering flat projections for 2012.