Thousands Rally in Bulgaria, Demanding Judicial Overhaul
Protesters walked the central boulevard in Sofia at a demonstration coordinated by the Justice for Anyone initiative, whose leaders demand the dismissal of the country's powerful acting chief prosecutor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
How Trump's AI orders could throw states for a loop
EXAM ROOM A day after President Donald Trump unveiled plans to accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence in health care, one expert warns that some aspects of the initiative could complicate state laws aimed at preventing discrimination in health care. Dan Silverboard, a health care attorney at Holland & Knight, says the White House AI Action Plan's requirement that the National Institute of Standards and Technology remove references to diversity, equity and inclusion could create significant challenges for state regulations. As the nation's primary technology standards body, NIST suggests standards and guidance on AI development and implementation. Within the health care sector, there's considerable concern that AI could make decisions that discriminate against certain patients. In 2022, NIST addressed the concerns by releasing recommended practices for managing bias and discrimination in AI — which Silverboard says may soon disappear. To understand the implications of the upcoming changes to NIST, Ruth sat down with Silverboard to discuss the potential impact on patient care and state regulations. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How do states use the NIST AI framework? The NIST framework is basically a compliance plan for addressing risk posed by AI, including discrimination. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners came out with a model bulletin that will require insurance companies to have programs to mitigate risk caused by AI, things like unfair claims practices, unfair business practices and also algorithmic discrimination. And that bulletin has been adopted, I think, in 24 states, red and blue. If you have the NIST framework in place that would satisfy this requirement. And if the NIST framework no longer specifies how to mitigate discrimination risk? It bungles that. You also have specific state laws which prohibit insurance companies from using AI in such a way that results in algorithmic discrimination, Colorado, for example, California. The NIST changes complicate the enforcement of these laws. How else might removing DEI from NIST's AI framework impact how companies and developers are designing their technology? Multinational companies have to comply with more than just U.S. law. There is EU law out there. So, how the EU requirements might conflict with the requirements that come at a federal level is anybody's guess, but a multinational company would have no choice but to comply with other standards in place on the international level. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Silverboard isn't the only one raising concerns about the AI Action Plan. Brenda Leong, director of the AI division at legal firm ZwillGen, says the call to remove references to 'misinformation' from NIST's risk frameworks is misguided. 'AI systems' tendency to generate factually inaccurate, misleading, or confidently wrong outputs — hallucinations — is a well-documented challenge,' she said. 'The plan shifts away from acknowledging this fundamental technical and safety hazard.' Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. WORLD VIEW Hackers love Europe's hospitals, our colleague in Europe, Giedrė Peseckytė, reports. The European Union's health care sector was targeted in 309 cybersecurity incidents in 2023 — more than in any other critical sector. The cost of a major incident typically reached €300,000 or approximately $350,000. For cybercriminals, targeting health data 'is a perfect business plan,' according to Christos Xenakis, professor at the department of digital systems at the University of Piraeus, Greece. 'It's easy to steal data, and what you steal, you can sell it at a high price.' Ransomware attacks — where hackers lock data and demand a ransom — dominate the sector, an EU Agency for Cybersecurity report showed. 'They achieve two targets: One is to get the data and sell [it], and the other is to encrypt the whole system, disrupt the whole system and ask for money,' Xenakis said. Stolen data can be sold on the dark web to criminals who use it to commit identity theft, insurance fraud or blackmail. To restore disrupted systems, criminals can demand millions of euros — hackers, for instance, wanted $4.5 million for the return of the stolen data after a cyberattack on Hospital Clínic in Barcelona. The hospital refused to pay. Why it matters: Beyond the financial impact, cyberattacks pose a threat to patients' lives. The stakes became clear in a recent case in the U.K., where a patient's death was linked — among other contributing factors — to a delayed blood test result caused by a cyberattack that disrupted pathology services last summer. A critical investment: Despite the risks, only 27 percent of health care organizations in the EU have a dedicated ransomware defense program, and 40 percent don't offer any security awareness training for non-IT staff, a separate EU Agency for Cybersecurity report found. Xenakis believes the health care sector sees cybersecurity as a 'luxury,' not an essential. Health care staff are unaware of the risks, he believes, resulting in poor 'cyber hygiene.' Findings from the Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra, an independent public foundation supervised by the Finnish Parliament, back this up. While many health care organizations have cybersecurity policies in place, they're often not 'clearly communicated or consistently understood by their staff.' High personnel turnover — not just among medics but also among cybersecurity officers — further 'exacerbates training gaps and the ability to enforce cybersecurity policies.' Europe mounts a response: In response to increasing cyberattacks on health care systems, the European Commission unveiled an 'action plan' for cybersecurity in hospitals and the health care sector in January. The plan proposes establishing a European Cybersecurity Support Center for the health care sector within the EU cybersecurity agency and a specific rapid-response service. The plan also introduces 'cybersecurity vouchers,' which will enable EU countries to provide financial support to smaller health care providers for enhancing their cyber resilience. 'It's good,' said Markus Kalliola, Sitra's program director. But it 'could be stronger.' Kalliola is one of the authors of the Commission's evaluation report by Sitra, which points to murky EU governance, a lack of clear targets or budgets and a missed opportunity to establish a single functioning market for cybersecurity solutions. What's next: Whether Europe's security will feature in the commission's final hospital cybersecurity plan remains to be seen; the EU executive has just concluded a consultation and promised to put forward a refined plan by the end of the year. SMALL BYTES The Food and Drug Administration is adding more AI talent to its roster. The agency has brought on radiologist Rick Abramson to help support the agency's AI efforts, according to two current FDA staffers granted anonymity to discuss sensitive personnel matters. Abramson previously served as Vanderbilt University's first vice chair for innovation in its Department of Radiology. He also briefly served as an adviser to the Office of Management and Budget under former President Bill Clinton. The Department of Health and Human Services did not return a request for comment as of press time.
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
EU says China's links with Russia now 'determining factor' in ties
EU chief Ursula von der Leyen warned on Thursday that China's ties with Russia were now the 'determining' factor in its relations with the European Union. She was wrapping up a summit in Beijing that also saw the bloc agree to speed up exports of rare earth minerals. China's leadership has sought to draw the European Union closer as it positions itself as a more reliable partner than the United States and a bedrock of stability in a troubled world. Though nominally intended to celebrate 50 years of diplomatic ties, the long list of grievances set the stage for a contentious summit. The EU has made clear there are deep divisions over trade, fears that cheap, subsidised Chinese goods could overwhelm European markets, and Beijing's tacit support for Russia's war against Ukraine. Brussels says China's deepening political and economic relations with Russia since the 2022 invasion represent backing for Moscow that has helped its economy weather sweeping Western sanctions. READ | EU to ramp up retaliation plans as US tariff deal prospects dim Wrapping up that summit, von der Leyen told a news conference in Beijing that the bloc had made clear that the issue was now the 'determining' factor in its relations with China. 'We expressed... our expectations that China would follow up on our concerns and the expectation that it would use its influence to bring Russia to accept a ceasefire, to come to the negotiation table, enter peace talks and put an end to the bloodshed,' she said. She also said the bloc had agreed with Beijing to an 'upgraded' mechanism for Chinese exports of rare earth minerals - another key sticking point in ties. And European Council President Antonio Costa, who was also in Beijing, said the officials had raised human rights concerns with Chinese officials. 'Deepen cooperation' China, in contrast, framed Thursday's summit as a way for the bloc and Beijing to deepen trust in a turbulent world - pitching itself as a reliable partner in contrast with the United States. Welcoming von der Leyen and Costa at Beijing's ornate Great Hall of the People, President Xi Jinping said, 'the more severe and complex the international situation is, the more important it is for China and the EU to strengthen communication, increase mutual trust and deepen cooperation'. In the context of that turmoil, Xi said, Chinese and European leaders must 'make correct strategic choices'. The challenges facing Europe at present do not come from China. 'There are no fundamental conflicts of interest or geopolitical contradictions between China and the EU,' the Chinese leader said. In response, von der Leyen said 'it is vital for China and Europe to acknowledge our respective concerns and come forward with real solutions'. Ties had reached an 'inflection point', she warned. Costa also stressed to the Chinese leader that the bloc wanted to see 'concrete progress on issues related to trade and the economy, and we both want our relationship to be... mutually beneficial'. In a separate meeting on Thursday, Chinese Premier Li Qiang told the two EU leaders that 'close cooperation' was a 'natural choice' for the two major economies. 'As long as both China and the EU earnestly uphold free trade, the international economy and trade will stay dynamic', he said. Brussels had acknowledged the talks between its top bosses and Chinese leaders would be tense. 'We know that we don't see eye to eye with China on many issues,' a senior EU official told AFP last week. 'But we believe that it is essential to have this kind of very direct and open and constructive conversation sitting at the table at the highest level.' Climate agreement China and the EU also vowed to 'step up' efforts to address climate change. The warming planet has historically been an area of convergence between Brussels and Beijing, with both sides signalling a willingness to cooperate on combating climate change. Chinese and European leaders agreed on enhancing bilateral cooperation in areas such as the energy transition and committed to accelerating global renewable energy deployment, a joint statement said. READ | 'Strategic allies': EU leaders praise Ramaphosa, announce €4.7bn package for energy, vaccines Also on the agenda for the EU is the yawning trade deficit with China that stood at around $360 billion last year and which von der Leyen has described as 'unsustainable'. Beijing has dismissed those concerns, insisting that Brussels must 'rebalance its mentality' rather than its economic ties with China. If EU concerns were not addressed, 'our industry and citizens will demand that we defend our interests', von der Leyen said in Thursday's talks with Li. The EU has imposed hefty tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China, arguing that Beijing's subsidies unfairly undercut European competitors. China has rebuffed that claim and announced what were widely seen as retaliatory probes into imported European pork, brandy and dairy products.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
What's Next For Deforestation Regulation, And What Should Businesses Do About It?
To the long list of sustainability-focused regulations now caught in the crosshairs of political debate, we may now add the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). In the latest round, the European Parliament voted to reject a regional risk benchmarking scheme that would categorize countries by their relative level of deforestation risk. Meanwhile, several of the major corporations whose businesses would be most affected by the EUDR are taking diametrically opposed views on what the future of the regulation should look like. What's next For deforestation regulation? That's not an easy question to answer. In order to fully understand the potential impacts of the EUDR and why business and political leaders care so deeply about it, some background is necessary. The regulation, which was initially introduced by the European Commission (EC) in November of 2021, and was set to take effect from the end of December 2024, required companies selling cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya and wood and their derived products into the EU, to prove their supply chains do not contribute to the destruction of forests anywhere else in the world. Companies that could not show that their related products adhered to this new set of standards would have them banned from being sold in the Union's 27 Member States. Then, in October of 2024, just two months before the EUDR was slated to come into force, the EC proposed a one-year delay. In an explanatory memorandum, the EC said the delay was necessary to allow 'exporting partner countries, operators and traders to be better prepared and for the latter to fully establish the necessary due diligence systems covering all relevant commodities products.' Behind that sentiment, there was a loud chorus of complaints from the United States, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Indonesia and Malaysia, along with several EU Member States, who have challenged everything from negative effects the EUDR would have on key commodity producers to inaccuracies in the geolocation mapping data Europe is using to determine boundaries for enforcing it. Now, with the clock ticking on the one-year delay, EU lawmakers have proposed removing a core component of the EUDR – the regional classification system that would assign different deforestation risk scores to different countries. Those countries determined to be at low risk of deforestation would be subject to more simplified due diligence requirements, while high-risk countries would be subject to much more rigorous scrutiny. Questioning the accuracy of data being used to determine risk and suggesting the lack of precision in classifying countries into blanket, low-, standard- and high-risk categories, Parliament voted to remove the classification system altogether. Immediately following the vote, members of the European People's Party (EPP) renewed their call for the introduction of a 'no-risk' category for countries that pose a negligible deforestation risk. EU lawmakers have also proposed changes to EUDR reporting requirements, suggesting that companies disclose their deforestation risks in a single, annual statement instead of including a report with every shipment. Lawmakers estimate this step would reduce the administrative burden of the EUDR by upwards of 30%. Meanwhile, several EU Member States and some major corporations are urging a simplification and further postponement of the EUDR. Notably, the global food giant Mondelēz has taken a lead role in lobbying for a one-year delay 'to enable practical, inclusive, and effective implementation,' as reported by Reuters. That does not mean all corporate stakeholders are hoping for a delay, however. A letter co-signed by rival chocolate makers Nestlé, Ferrero and Tony's Chocolonely urged the EC to ensure "the full preservation and swift, ambitious implementation" of the EUDR. So, where does this leave potentially impacted business leaders who need to be ready to comply with a sweeping regulatory reform that was supposed to take effect in 2025, may now end up taking effect in 2026 or may be postponed for yet another year, or maybe simplified in ways not yet fully agreed? The simple advice is to be ready for anything. Whichever form the EUDR ends up taking, and whenever it comes into effect, large corporations importing these commodities into the EU will still need to have some yet to be determined level of transparency into their supply chains and the ability to accurately determine the level of deforestation risk these imports pose. A more nuanced approach, however, will involve reading the tea leaves of all of the other environmental and sustainability risk-related regulations and standards currently making their way through the critical review process. Business leaders should not be surprised if the EUDR ends up in a process similar to the Omnibus Simplification Package, whereby the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are being simplified to address changing marketplace and political dynamics. The initiative could also get caught up in the newly announced Call for Evidence issued by the EC, whereby regulators are seeking stakeholder input on measures to simplify environmental legislation and reduce administrative burdens at the implementation level. Business leaders should also not be surprised if European regulators take a page from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) playbook by potentially introducing a sector-based approach to evaluating deforestation risk. The challenge for business leaders trying to run their businesses in the midst of all this uncertainty is that adjusting course on sweeping regulatory changes with moving target deadlines is not easy. The only real way to be ready for whatever comes next is to invest now in making sure you have the data and visibility necessary to identify sustainability risks across your entire global supply chain. Importantly, this information is becoming increasingly necessary not only for regulators, but for wider stakeholders, such as customers, investors and employees, who have come to expect a certain level of environmental responsibility on the part of businesses.
