treasures or treasure
Mullins (3), Tierney-Martin, Boyle (2), Cordero Carty (2), Naughton (2) Stavile, Fusco Da Re The Italian visitors were first on the scoreboard with a try from Bautista Stavile Bravin try before Connacht seized control. Chay Mullins went over twice on his Connacht debut and Dylan Tierney-Martin added a third try to help the Irish side to a 17-5 lead at the break. Tries from Paul Boyle, Mullins and Santiago Cordero stretched Connacht's advantage in the second half. Alessandro Fusco touched down for Zebre's second try before Boyle completed his double late in the game. Connacht had the wind at their backs in the first half but Zebre were rewarded for their early pressure as Stavile Bravin went over at the corner on six minutes. The conditions were tough for kickers - Giovanni Montemauri missed the conversion and a penalty. Mullins also touched down in the corner for his opener and added a converted try six minutes later. Tierney-Martin went over from a lineout maul before Zebre's Rusiate Nasove was yellow-carded before the interval. Boyle, who was notching up his 100th Connacht appearance, sealed the bonus point by going over from a scrum. Mullins brought up his hat-trick and Cordero also touched down before Fusco took Zebre into double figures. Boyle completed the try-scoring on a night when Jack Carty and Sean Naughton each kicked two conversions for the hosts. Jennings; Mullins, Hawkshaw, Forde, Cordero; Carty, Blade; Duggan, Tierney-Martin, Aungier; Murray, Dowling; Murphy, Hurley-Langton, Boyle. De Buitlear, Lasisi, Barrett, O'Connor, McCormack, Devine, Naughton, Ralston. Montemauri; Bozzoni, Drago, Lucchin, Gesi; Da Re, Dominguez; Buonfiglio, Bigi (capt), Hasa; Canali, Krumov; Milano, Stavile Bravin, Ferrari. Ribaldi, Rizzoli, Nocera, Nasove, Andreani, Fusco, Bianchi, Gregory.
: All records related to interception, including the orders and the intercepted messages, must be securely and “with extreme secrecy” destroyed by the government’s review committee, as well as the authorising entities — Union or state home secretary — and law enforcement agencies, every six months, according to the new interception rules notified by the Centre, with experts raising questions about accountability and transparency. The Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024 — which replace Rule 419 and 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 — were brought into effect by the department of telecommunications (DoT) on Friday. The draft rules were released for public consultation on August 29. They have been issued under the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which allows the Centre to specify one or more agencies to intercept messages for five reasons — in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence and security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and preventing incitement to the commission of any offence. “While under the earlier rule, one could still hope to get some information about the interception orders by filing RTIs related to the Review Committee, that is also now gone. It will be as if the interception never existed. Where is then the scope for oversight and accountability?” Namrata Maheshwari, senior policy counsel and encryption policy lead at Access Now, said. Under the new rules, even findings of the review committee, which is responsible for assessing the legality of the interception orders, will need to be destroyed. This review committeeis empowered to set aside non-compliant interception orders. Interception records that law enforcement agencies are required to maintain include details of the intercepted messages, person whose messages have been intercepted, officer or agency to whom the message has been disclosed, number of copies of message made, date of destruction of copies, and duration for which the interception order was in force. The composition of the review committees that must confirm the interception orders at central and state level also remains the same. For Maheshwari, this is a problem as this means the review committee is not independent from the executive. “Independent judicial oversight or parliamentary oversight over surveillance orders, as in many other regions, should be the norm,” she added. DoT and the telecommunication entity must also destroy records within two months of discontinuation of interception, as is the case now and was reiterated in the draft rules. According to the rules, the interception order must specify: the authorised agency that will intercept; and one or more of the five reasons for which interception can be ordered and will limit use of intercepted messages to these reasons only. Unless revoked earlier, the order will remain in force for a maximum of 60 days but can be renewed. No order can remain in force for more than 180 days. Interception orders cannot be passed if the information can be acquired through “other reasonable means”, the rules say. An interception order can be issued by the Union or state home secretary. In “unavoidable circumstances”, a duly authorised joint secretary-level officer may issue the order. Lower threshold for orders The notified rules lower the threshold for circumstances where officers other than the Union or state home secretary, or the joint secretary-level officer, can issue interception orders. Earlier, in “emergent cases in remote areas” or “for operational reasons” when it was not feasible for the home secretaries to issue the order, the head or second senior-most officer of an authorised law enforcement or security agency, not below the rank of inspector general of police, could issue the order. Now, an officer not below the rank of an IGP at state level, or the head or second senior-most officer of an authorised agency at the Central level, in “remote areas or for operational reasons” can issue an interception order. By removing the requirement for “emergent cases”, the threshold is lowered. What constitutes an “emergent case” depends on the interpretation of the executive, Nikhil Narendran, partner at Trilegal, said, adding: “Public emergency could be one standard.” These orders will need to be confirmed by the home secretary (union or state) within seven working days from the date of issue. If not confirmed, the interception must immediately stop, the intercepted messages cannot be used for any purpose, including as evidence in court, and copies must be destroyed within two days. “There is no judicial remedy spelt out for persons affected by the orders that were not confirmed by the home secretary,” Maheshwari said. “So it is possible that an interception takes place, is then halted, and the persons affected never find out. Notice and intimation, as feasible under different circumstances, and judicial remedy are key to any surveillance framework in a democracy.” All interception orders must be sent to the relevant review committee within seven working days of being issued or confirmed. The notified rules exclude demonstration and testing of lawful interception systems and monitoring facilities that telecom entities might be required to put in place by the government, a departure from Rule 419A. The provision to fine or suspend/revoke the licence of service providers for not maintaining secrecy and confidentiality of such orders or for unauthorised interception has been removed in the notified rules. Telecom entities will now be responsible for the actions of both their employees and their vendors that result in any unauthorised interceptions. Ambiguity over entities covered As is the case with the parent act, it is not clear whether telecommunication services, and thus telecom entities, include online communication services such as WhatsApp, Signal, FaceTime, and potentially even email services such as Gmail and Outlook. While the then communications minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, after the bill was passed in Parliament in December 2023, had said that online communication services are not included within the ambit of the Act, he did not make this statement on the floor of either house, and the definitions within the act remain ambiguous enough to allow for the regulation of such services. In case of end-to-end encrypted services such as WhatsApp and Signal, the act and the interception rules thus have significant implications. “While the minister had publicly stated that OTT services would not fall within the purview of the Act, this statement is not legally binding, and the definition of telecom services in the Act is broad enough to facilitate a range of interpretations,” Maheshwari said. This ambiguity has been a significant point of confusion, so much so that in the TRAI open house discussion on how authorisations (the regime that replaces the extant system of granting licenses to telecom entities) should work, telcos like Jio and Airtel repeatedly disagreed with associations like Broadband India Forum that represent the technology companies on whether or not services such as WhatsApp need specific authorisations from the government to operate in India. The notified rules also empower the government to exempt certain telecom entities from needing to comply with obligations related to interception. “The scope of this remains unclear. How will the government exercise this exemption? Will it be determined by size of the entity? Their technical ability? This needs to be clearly defined for predictability which is expected from every policy,” Maheshwari said. How will an interception ordered Once the home secretary (or other authorised officers) issues an interception order, it will be sent to the authorised agency (the law enforcement agency doing the interception). The authorised agency will send the order either “in writing or using other secure mode of communication” determined by the central government to the DoT or the telecom entity. Orders can be physically delivered only by officers who are at least sub-inspectors. The DoT or the telecom entity must acknowledge receipt of an interception order within 2 hours. The rules require confidentiality, “extreme secrecy”, and “utmost care and precaution” to be maintained by the law enforcement agency, the DoT, and the telecom entity while dealing with interception orders. Only authorised nodal officers in each of these entities are allowed to handle any matters related to interception. The authorised agency must appoint two nodal officers, at least at the rank of superintendent of police, to send the order to the nodal officer of the DoT (two such officers in every service area) or the telecom entity (like an Airtel or a Jio). Each telecom entity is required to notify the central government of the details of two senior employees in every service area of its operation who will act as nodal officers to implement the interception orders, a requirement that Maheshwari says might prove to be too onerous for smaller entities. The notified rules require the nodal officers in DoT and the telecom entity to submit fortnightly reports on the first and sixteenth of each month. These reports must have a list of interception orders received, reference number, date of issuance or confirmation, date and time or receipt of orders, and date and time of implementation of orders.
Daily Dose of Social Media: Denis Shapovalov’s hilarious encounter with Bernard Tomic, Casper Ruud announces engagement,
With America's presidential transition, Syria's conflict presents a unique geopolitical challenge
Trump’s Cabinet And Key Jobs: Kevin Hassett Expected For Key Economic Council JobDonald Trump and Emmanuel Macron mimicked "superheroes" or "battleground comrades" ahead of the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on Saturday. Body language expert Judi James said President-elect Donald Trump and French leader Emmanuel Macron put their "bros" relationship on full display as they tightly shook hands in front of Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy . The meeting, which took place at around 6 p.m. local time at the Palais de l'Élysée ahead of the grand opening ceremony for the newly refurbished Notre Dame Cathedral , featured an hour-long meeting between Trump and Macron before Zelenskyy joined them for the last 35 minutes. Notre Dame under ring of steel with surface-to-air missiles for Donald Trump and Prince William's visit Elon Musk blew more than a quarter of a billion dollars helping Donald Trump win US election When Trump and Macron met, they tightly clasped hands in what body language expert Judi James called a show of "valor, courage and bonding." Trump reportedly said it was a "great honor" to reconnect with the French president, with whom he said he enjoys a "great relationship." The encounter was photographed as part of a red carpet event ahead of their meeting inside the historic presidential palace, where they discussed a world he said has gone "a little crazy." "The 'bros' relationship between Trump and Macron seems to hold true with a very macho bonding greeting ritual that you'd normally see between superheroes in movies or battleground comrades, with the tight clutching of the upright hands hinting at valor, courage and bonding," Judi James told TheMirror.com, referencing the greeting on the red carpet. Macron was likely trying to win Trump's favor as he hosted the former and future president as part of the global ceremony that came five years after a fire burned down the historic monument. He and other world leaders have been attempting to win Trump's political favor as they attempt to persuade him to maintain support for Ukraine as it works to defend against Russia following the February 2022 invasion. They also planned to discuss the conflicts playing out in the Middle East . Click here to follow the Mirror US on Google News to stay up to date with all the latest news, sports and entertainment stories. The topic of the war in Ukraine what prompted the unplanned meeting between Macron and Trump and Zelenskyy, who joined the two to discuss it. Trump has previously pledged to end the war in Ukraine swiftly, but he hasn't specified how, though he raised concerns in Kyiv about what terms may be laid out for any future negotiations. James said the greeting between Trump and Zelenskyy appeared "frosty," detailing the "very difficult, frosty-looking body language" between them as Macron seemed to "place himself in the role of mediator and, at one point, pacifier." " Trump looks subdued but not submissive here, standing upright with his arms hanging at his sides, looking ahead but not into the cameras, with a jutting of his lower lip giving an expression of sulky displeasure," she said of the president-elect's body language. "He looks unwilling to socialize or to showboat here, looking distant rather than present and socially active in the moment." Zelenskyy, on the other hand, appeared "keen to address the cameras with his facial expression." What piqued James' interest, however, was the body language of all three world leaders as they sat together in the palace. "There is a pose where the three leaders sit together and, as Trump leans forward to make his point with an index finger point of authority, Macron leans a hand across to hold Zelenskyy’s arm in what looks like an appeasement gesture, as though stepping in to diffuse a fight or disagreement," she said. At the end of the meeting, Zelenskyy and Trump shook hands and chatted briefly, and then Trump waved at photographers before turning and leaving. Trump was joined in Paris by a small contingent of staff that included incoming chief of staff Susie Wiles. It was the Republican's first trip to Paris since becoming president-elect and one of his first abroad.
