Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Indian <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Narendra+Modi">Prime Minister Narendra Modi</a> has been making headlines for his unstoppable foreign visits to bring more foreign investments to the country for long. And now, our respectable Prime Minister is eyeing a share in the $800-billion sovereign fund <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=UAE">UAE</a>. If he succeeds, PM Modi will use this fund for infrastructural needs and give momentum to Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements (<keyword id="574350" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="BIPA">BIPA</keyword>) that has not functioned to its potential to attract investments, reported Economic Times. 
 The officials, requesting anonymity, indicated that buoyed by the oil economy, <keyword id="6358356" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="UAE">UAE</keyword> sovereign wealth fund is estimated at over $800 billion and PM Modi might magnetize part of this fund, imperative for the country's infrastructural needs estimated at one trillion dollars. 
 
The <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Abu+Dhabi+Investment+Authority">Abu Dhabi Investment Authority</a> (<keyword id="6482676" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="ADIA">ADIA</keyword>) is the sovereign wealth fund owned by Emirate of Abu Dhabi (in the UAE) founded for the purpose of investing funds on behalf of the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi. It manages the Emirate's excess oil reserves and is one of the world's largest investment funds. 
 
BIPA was signed by both the countries in 2013 but somehow failed to function properly. The deal was aimed to ensure protection of cross border investments by India and UAE. It aimed to accelerate investments and give a fresh impetus to stalled joint venture projects. During her visit to the UAE last year, the External Affairs Minister <keyword id="6355111" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sushma-Swaraj">Sushma Swaraj</keyword> had assured that the BJP government is strongly committed to implement BIPA. 
 
The two-way trade has declined from a record high of $75.45 billion in 2012-13 to $59.54 billion in 2013-14 due to curbs on gold imports. 
The Gulf country’s current investment in India is divided into two major parts. Of the total $8 billion investment, around $3.01 billion is in the form of foreign investment, while the rest is portfolio investment. 
 
The sectors in which the UAE in making investments includes: construction development (15.52%), power (13.09%), metallurgical industries (9.90%), services (9.58%), and IT (4.90%).

PM Modi eyeing $800-billion funds from UAE

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Five Illinois residents are suing Pimeyes.</li><li>The plaintiffs say the state's privacy law by including them in search results.</li></ul>A group of five Illinois residents is suing Pimeyes, which offers a publicly available facial recognition tool, under the state's privacy law. They say the company violated their privacy by collecting and using their photos in face search results.The lawsuit alleges "intentional or reckless" violations of their privacy.They are also asking for Pimeyes to change its practices going forward to comply with Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The 2008 law makes it illegal for companies to collect or store data, including data about Illinois residents' faces, without their consent.The complaint, filed in the Madison County Third Judicial Circuit Court, claims that when Pimeyes made photos and information of the residents available in search results, allowing unauthorized people to view and use them, the company caused "great and irreparable injury." The complaint doesn't detail specific incidents of harm.Pimeyes acts as a search engine that uses an input picture to locate other pictures of that person online. It can be used as a digital hygiene tool for yourself, or as a weapon for stalkers. People have used Pimeyes to stalk and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.404media.co/the-end-of-privacy-is-a-taylor-swift-fan-tiktok-account-armed-with-facial-recognition-tech/">unmask the identities of strangers</a> and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wired.com/story/kashmir-hill-privacy-surveillance-facial-recognition/">porn actors</a>. They've also used it to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.wired.com/story/kashmir-hill-privacy-surveillance-facial-recognition/">surface compromising images</a> of targeted individuals. Cher Scarlett, one critic of the company, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/technology/pimeyes-facial-recognition-search.html">tested Pimeyes on herself</a> and found images from a years-old pornography audition that she soon regretted. In October, the company started <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/technology/pimeyes-blocks-searches-childrens-faces.html">blocking images of children</a> in search results, fearing nefarious use cases.Multiple tech companies have been sued under BIPA and been forced to make major settlements and concessions. In 2020, Meta (then still called Facebook) <a target="_blank" href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/01/facebook-illinois-class-action-bipa/">paid $650 million to settle</a> a class action BIPA lawsuit that alleged its automatic face-tagging system, powered by facial recognition, violated the law. The facial recognition company Clearview AI, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html">known for making a database</a> from billions of scraped photos from the open web, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/big-win-settlement-ensures-clearview-ai-complies-with-groundbreaking-illinois">settled a BIPA lawsuit in 2022</a>. It escaped paying millions in fines, but had to agree to remove Illinois residents from its database and to restrict businesses and private actors from using its database (though Clearview can sell other products to private customers).The Pimeyes complaint, which seeks $15,000 for each victim harmed, names the company, its Polish cofounders Lucasz Kowalczyk and Denis Tatina, and its current CEO Giorgi Gobronidze as defendants. It also names EMEARobotics and Carribex LTD, companies Gobronidze registered in Dubai and Belize while acquiring Pimeyes in 2021.The case also names "Public Mirror," a company that appears to have been founded by Kowalczyk and Tatina in 2020, shortly before they sold Pimeyes. The company, which advertised itself as the <a target="_blank" href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/public-mirror-implements-algorithm-face-185100059.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAh5hmNe3sVIEewkzylRaZfcDSmwGWjL9yG3vdz7aqLEkWecYw9kj3W4RQhwDFQklalCLuoDDt_6Lbhu-8_d3XVQUE0fc3QWJAc5lHdClQinSLLFknFwIi_VEat5OkbzCIRtdOo_O0mnYhGK_HGtqMCzSJs6S1C3sB6yrMINHXUe">"next generation of media monitoring,"</a> had almost identical features to Pimeyes, but it also allowed users to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbRvAqW9mj8">get email notifications</a> about each new time a face appeared on the internet.Unlike Pimeyes, which allows users to search for anyone's face, Public Mirror asked that users only searched for their own face. To do so, it asked users to verify their identities by uploading three photos of themselves at different angles before searching. Similar systems <a target="_blank" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwCNG9KFdXs">have been bypassed</a> using methods such as 3D printing. The company <a target="_blank" href="https://rejestr.io/krs/855054/public-mirror">dissolved and began liquidation</a> in May 2023, according to a Polish business registry, but public documents don't indicate what led to its dissolution.Kowalczyk and Tatina went on to found Expertum LTD, which sells a facial recognition algorithm to clients without a facial recognition database. Several former Public Mirror employees appear to have joined Expertum LTD, according to their LinkedIn profiles.The Pimeyes lawsuit in Illinois had a hearing on Wednesday. The lead attorney on the case, Brandon Wise, told Business Insider that Pimeyes has not been officially served yet. The Wednesday hearing focused on updates of the attempts to serve papers to the Pimeyes-related business entities around the world, which has to be done in that country and in its native language.Kowalczyk and Tatina did not respond for comment. Reached by email, Gobronidze said Business Insider's request for comment was the first time he had heard of the lawsuit."Unfortunately I have absolutely no information related to the lawsuit, I have read it in your email for the first time and honestly I am [a] bit surprised," Gobronidze said in an email to Business Insider. "I will hesitate to give any official comment, till we receive any official information related to the lawsuit."The complaint argues that under BIPA, Pimeyes did not obtain permission from Illinois residents before collecting and storing their information.Pimeyes notes on its website that its database doesn't contain photos, but "faceprints" of photos. "Faceprints," sometimes called "facial geometry," refers to the data derived from a face photo, such as the distances between different parts of the face. Facial recognition systems identify people by making matches between those mathematical measurements.However, under BIPA, both photos of a person's face and facial geometry data from a picture are protected as biometric information.Wise told Business Insider that he believes Pimeyes exemplifies "a pretty clear violation" of BIPA. He added that there's an additional risk because Pimeyes, whose headquarters is in the country Georgia, is not based in the US."Especially when it's a foreign company, we don't know who has access to this data, what's going on, how it's being used," he said.

Facial recognition tool Pimeyes — which has been used to unmask pornstars and stalk people — is sued by 5 Illinois residents for 'irreparable injury'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Whole Foods will pay out almost $300,000 in a lawsuit settlement over voice technology.</li><li>Workers at an Illinois warehouse had to record their voices in a system that directed their work.</li></ul>Whole Foods has agreed to pay nearly $300,000 to settle a lawsuit over a system that requires warehouse employees to speak into a computer system that records their voices. The grocery chain uses the system to make and track work assignments but workers complained that it captured their "voiceprints" without their consent, in violation of an Illinois privacy law. The Amazon-owned grocer would pay $297,000 to current and former employees who worked in a Whole Foods warehouse in Chicago and used headsets to record their voices and complete tasks, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class-action/whole-foods-to-pay-297-000-to-settle-voiceprint-privacy-suit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg Law first reported on Thursday</a>. The class-action settlement received preliminary approval from a circuit court in Cook County, Illinois, <a href="https://www.law360.com/classaction/articles/1562886/whole-foods-to-pay-300k-in-voice-tracking-bipa-deal-" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Law360 reported.</a> Affected workers would receive payments of roughly $545 each, according to the publication. Whole Foods declined to comment to Insider on the case or the settlement.At Whole Foods warehouses, employees are given a headset that they wear while at work. The employees use these headsets to talk to a computer, telling it when they have completed tasks and listening for directions. The headsets are a substitute for screen-based systems and "free up employees' hands and eyes with voice-guided workflows," according to the website of <a href="https://sps.honeywell.com/us/en/software/productivity/order-picking-fulfillment/voice-picking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Honeywell,</a> the company that manufactured the headsets that the Whole Foods warehouses use.Whole Foods uses the system at its warehouses because "it increases the overall efficiency at distribution and fulfillment centers by identifying the individual's voice patterns as they give commands," the workers argued, according to the <a href="https://classactionsreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/Whole-Foods-Biometrics-Vocollect-System-BIPA-Compl.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original complaint</a> in the lawsuit.<h2>System is capturing biometric information, plaintiffs say</h2>At the Chicago warehouse, employees had to submit recordings of their voices before they started using the system so that it could understand them, per the complaint. But those recordings, which are called "voiceprints" in the lawsuit, are biometric data, similar to a person's fingerprints, the plaintiffs said.Whole Foods had to provide workers at the warehouse with information on how their voiceprints would be kept and treated under the <a href="https://www.jacksonlewis.com/sites/default/files/docs/IllinoisBIPAFAQs.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act</a>, or BIPA. But the workers "were never first asked for their consent, nor were they ever provided with a written policy regarding the use of their biometric identifiers as required under BIPA," the complaint reads."Moreover, they were never told whether their voiceprints would be deleted from the Defendant's systems or when they would be deleted," according to the complaint.Other companies, including <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=13726c7d-7f96-42f0-83b5-523f0a07d2e3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Walmart</a> and PetSmart, are also facing lawsuits over their use of voice command technology at facilities in Illinois.Using biometric data is just one way that some employers, including many retail companies, track and guide workers' productivity. Amazon warehouse workers have been tracked by the amount of time they spend doing things other than working, such as going to the bathroom. At Amazon, that's known as <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-amazon-monitors-employees-ai-cameras-union-surveillance-spy-agency-2021-4">"time off task"</a> and was referenced by workers in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-faces-fresh-union-battle-albany-warehouse-2022-8">union drives</a> at Amazon warehouses in 2022.Do you work in a warehouse operated by Whole Foods or another retailer and use voice technology to do your job? Reach out to Alex Bitter at abitter@insider.com or via the encrypted messaging app Signal at (808) 854-4501.

Whole Foods must pay $300,000 over accusations that a system meant to track productivity captured warehouse workers' voices without their consent

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Luxury <keyword id="11893588" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="retail" source="Orion">retail</keyword> <keyword id="12627304" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="lvmh" source="Orion">LVMH</keyword> is accused of illegally collecting customers' facial data in a new lawsuit.</li><li>Consumers can virtually try on glasses using an online tool which collects the data, the lawsuit said.</li></ul>Luxury retailer LVMH has been accused of collecting facial scans of its customers without their permission, breaching state privacy laws, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in a New York court.We first saw the <keyword id="11893589" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="news" source="Orion">news</keyword> via <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-09/lvmh-eyewear-virtual-try-on-tool-draws-biometric-privacy-suit?sref=lAVQtUwz">Bloomberg</a>.The <keyword id="12258840" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="louis-vuitton" source="Orion">Louis Vuitton</keyword> North America unit is accused in the suit of collecting "detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including complete facial scans." US consumers can use a virtual try-on tool on Louis Vuitton's website that allows them to check out how a pair of glasses or sunglasses looks on their face. A shopper can switch their smartphone or laptop camera on in selfie mode, and the tool digitally overlays the glasses over their face.According to the suit, the site conducts a facial scan to do this and fails both to ask permission for this data and to explain what it's being used for. The data is translated into code and sent to and stored at an external server, the suit claimed. The suit points to Illinois biometric privacy law, BIPA, uniquely strict state rules that protect consumers' biometric data. Breaching the regulation can mean fines of up to $5,000 per violation.Louis Vuitton violates these laws "each and every time a website visitor based in Illinois uses the Virtual Try-On tool," the lawsuit claimed, because it doesn't receive informed consent from shoppers.Insider approached LVMH for comment.This isn't the first proposed class-action suit to cite Illinois' biometric privacy laws.In February 2021, Meta — then called Facebook — <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-settlement-pay-650-million-privacy-lawsuit-biometrics-face-tagging-2021-2?r=US&amp;IR=T">paid a $650 million settlement</a> to users who sued the firm over its photo-tagging feature. Meta was then hit by a separate suit involving its photo app Instagram by users who claimed the app has a face-tagging tool that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/technology/facebook-facial-recognition-privacy.html">uses facial recognition to identify people</a>. A judge recently ruled that Instagram users must arbitrate their claims individually, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/facebook-scores-arbitration-of-instragram-users-privacy-case">Bloomberg Law reported</a>.

LVMH collects people's facial scans without asking when they use its virtual try-on tool for glasses, lawsuit claims

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="12343174" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="clearview-ai" source="Orion">Clearview AI</keyword> is now banned from selling its <keyword id="12320770" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="facial-recognition" source="Orion">facial recognition</keyword> database to private US businesses, according to a court settlement. </li><li>The settlement, filed Monday, also bans sales of Clearview AI's software to all <keyword id="11948397" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="illinois" source="Orion">Illinois</keyword> state agencies for five years.</li></ul>The facial recognition company Clearview AI will no longer be allowed to sell its database of faces to US-based businesses and private entities, according to <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/big-win-settlement-ensures-clearview-ai-complies-with-groundbreaking-illinois">a settlement agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union</a> that was <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/exhibit_2_signed_settlement_agreement.pdf">filed in an Illinois court</a> on Monday.Per the terms of the settlement, Clearview AI — which maintains a database of more than <a href="https://www.clearview.ai/clearview-ai-releases-2-version-of-industry-leading-facial-recognition-platform-for-law-enforce">20 billion faces scraped from the internet</a>, according to the company — is also restricted from selling its facial recognition software to any Illinois State agency, including law enforcement, for five years. The settlement does not restrict Clearview AI's contracts with federal agencies, or with contractors working on behalf of federal agencies, even within Illinois. The company, which mostly markets to <a href="https://www.clearview.ai/principles">law enforcement</a>, has <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-fbi-ice-global-law-enforcement">given its software to more than 200 private entities</a> in the past, according to reporting from BuzzFeed <keyword id="11893589" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="news" source="Orion">News</keyword>. Employees from Walmart, Bank of America, Equinox, and other companies collectively ran thousands of facial recognition searches using Clearview AI. The billionaire CEO of grocery chain Gristedes reportedly had private access to Clearview AI's software and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gristedes-billionaire-catsimatidis-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-daughter-2020-3">used it to spy on his daughter's dates</a>.The suit against Clearview AI, which was filed by the <keyword id="12034502" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="aclu" source="Orion">ACLU</keyword> and several other organizations in February 2020, argued that the company violated Illinois's Biometric Information <keyword id="6355135" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="privacy" source="Orion">Privacy</keyword> Act, which protects Illinois residents from having their biometric information, which includes pictures of faces, from being sold without their consent. "I hope other states see how effective this law can be and join Illinois soon in protecting state residents," Nathan Freed Wessler, a deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told Insider.Lawyers representing Clearview AI said in statements to Insider that the settlement is a "huge win" for the company and requires no material changes to its business model. In a statement, CEO Hoan Ton-That said, "We would only sell to private entities in a manner that complies with BIPA."Clearview AI recently rode a wave of positive publicity after <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-ukraine-has-started-using-clearview-ais-facial-recognition-during-war-2022-03-13/">it announced</a> that Ukrainian soldiers were using its software to identify soldiers killed during Russia's invasion. Still, the settlement shows it still faces serious image and legal compliance issues domestically.In the US, the company has had its fair share of scandals, including <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-alt-right_n_5e7d028bc5b6cb08a92a5c48">Ton-That's ties to the far-right</a> and accusations it involuntarily <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/18/technology/clearview-privacy-facial-recognition.html">scrapes people's pictures</a> from the internet. <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-international-search-table">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearview-ai-google-youtube-send-cease-and-desist-letter-to-facial-recognition-app/">Google</a>, <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-cops-run-wild-facial-recognition-lawsuits">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearview-ai-google-youtube-send-cease-and-desist-letter-to-facial-recognition-app/">Venmo</a>, and <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clearview-ai-google-youtube-send-cease-and-desist-letter-to-facial-recognition-app/">LinkedIn</a> have all issued cease-and-desist orders against the company, demanding it stop harvesting their images. Clearview AI has also been <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/surveillance-technology-industry-quietly-complains-about-clearview-ai-facial-recognition-2021-10">criticized by other biometric companies</a> for giving the surveillance industry a bad name.The settlement does not restrict Clearview AI from selling to foreign-based companies, which the company has done in the past. For example, Clearview AI <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-fbi-ice-global-law-enforcement">gave its software</a> to the AI Center of Advanced Studies, a privately run research center based in Saudi Arabia, BuzzFeed News previously reported. The center's <a href="https://thakaa.edu.sa/en/">clients include</a> Saudi Arabia's General Investment Authority.The company has also offered <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-international-search-table">free trials of its software</a> to <keyword id="11894211" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="police" source="Orion">police</keyword> departments in dozens of countries around the world. It once <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolinehaskins1/clearview-ai-facial-recognition-authoritarian-regimes-22">bragged about "rapid international expansion"</a> to at least 22 countries, according to previous reporting from BuzzFeed News.The terms of the settlement also ban Clearview AI from giving free trials to individual police officers or government employees who aren't acting "in their official capacity" as a public employee. Wessler told Insider that this language prevents police officers from getting free trials without the explicit knowledge and approval of a higher-up beforehand.Clearview AI started requiring this approval in March 2020. Before then, Clearview AI gave free trials to thousands of individual police officers, who used the software without the knowledge of their departments, per <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-local-police-facial-recognition" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reporting from BuzzFeed News</a>.Got a tip? Contact this reporter via email at chaskins@insider.com or caroline.haskins@protonmail.com, or through secure messaging app Signal at +1 (785) 813-1084. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/insider-guide-to-securely-sharing-whistleblower-information-about-powerful-institutions-2021-10">Check out Insider's source guide</a> for suggestions on how to share information securely.Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the limitations on Clearview AI's sales to private companies. The settlement primarily limits sales of the company's face database from private entities. It does not bar sales of all of Clearview AI's software.

Controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI banned from selling face database to private US businesses

<ul class="summary-list"><li>US residents who used <keyword id="11894125" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="tiktok" source="Orion">TikTok</keyword> prior to October may be eligible for part of a $92 million settlement.</li><li>The settlement follows a class-action data privacy lawsuit filed in Illinois.</li></ul>If you were a TikTok user prior to October 1 and are a United States resident, you may be eligible to receive part of a $92 million payout as part of a class action settlement. TikTok notified users on Monday via an in-app notification that they may be eligible and directed them to visit a <a href="https://www.tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com/">link to a website about a Data Privacy Settlement payment.</a>The settlement follows a class-action lawsuit alleging that TikTok had collected personal data from users and shared it with third parties without users' consent. TikTok denied the allegations in the lawsuit but agreed to pay $92 million to settle. Here's what you need to know about the settlement, including how to submit a claim to receive a payout.<h2>The decision applies to roughly 89 million users</h2>The settlement, which applies to approximately 89 million TikTok users in the United States, is the result of 21 federal lawsuits that were filed primarily on behalf of minors, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971460327/tiktok-to-pay-92-million-to-settle-class-action-suit-over-theft-of-personal-data">NPR reported in February</a>. Some of those minors were as young as 6 years old.<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20491862-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-approval-of-class-action-settlement">In court documents filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and published by NPR</a>, plaintiffs alleged that TikTok violated state and federal <keyword id="11899820" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="law" source="Orion">law</keyword> by taking and transmitting "private legally protected data." The lawsuit also alleges that TikTok "extracts a broad array of private data" that the company uses to "track and profile TikTok users" for ad targeting. In an amended class action complaint, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20492025-amended-complaint-tiktok-consumer-privacy-litigation">which was published by NPR</a>, lawyers alleged that TikTok also collected information from users' unpublished draft videos. The lawsuit also specifically alleges that TikTok violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, claiming that the company "maintains a competitive advantage over other social media apps and profits from its use of improperly obtained data, all while failing to comply with the minimum requirements for handling users' biometric data established by BIPA.""While we disagree with the assertions, we are pleased to have reached a settlement agreement that allows us to move forward and continue building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok community," a TikTok spokesperson told Insider. <a href="https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.TikTokDataPrivacySettlement.com/docs/Settlement+Agreement+and+Release.pdf">As part of the settlement agreement,</a> unless explicitly disclosed in its privacy policy, TikTok agreed to not use its app to collect or store biometric information on users and not collect geolocation data. The company also agreed to not use the app to transmit or store US users' data outside of the country. TikTok also agreed to delete all "pre-uploaded user-generated content" — drafts of posts that aren't uploaded — that it previously collected and not to collect such data in the future. <h2>How to submit a claim to receive part of the settlement payout</h2>To receive any money as part of the settlement, eligible users must <a href="https://www.tiktokdataprivacysettlement.com/submit-claim.php">submit a claim</a> by March 1, 2022, and those eligible can choose if they want to receive payments via Mastercard, PayPal, or Venmo.Users also have the option to exclude themselves from the settlement by <a href="https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.TikTokDataPrivacySettlement.com/docs/TikTok+Exclusion+Form+Draft+v2+20211019.pdf">filling out an exclusion form</a> and postmarking it by January 31, 2022. If you do so, you will receive no benefits from the settlement but retain the right to sue for the legal issues within the class action lawsuit, <a href="https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.TikTokDataPrivacySettlement.com/docs/TikTok+Long+Form+Notice+(website)+v3+draft+20211019.pdf">per the settlement notice.</a>Those eligible may also object to the settlement by writing a letter to the court, which must be postmarked by January 31, 2022. <h2>How much can I receive from the settlement?</h2>While the full settlement is $92 million, the amount that users receive will vary depending on how many people submit a claim. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/971460327/tiktok-to-pay-92-million-to-settle-class-action-suit-over-theft-of-personal-data">As NPR reported in February,</a> the settlement applies to 89 million TikTok users in the United States. <a href="https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.TikTokDataPrivacySettlement.com/docs/TikTok+Long+Form+Notice+(website)+v3+draft+20211019.pdf">The settlement addresses two different classes</a>: the nationwide class, which includes United States residents who used TikTok prior to October 1, and the Illinois subclass, which encapsulates Illinois residents who used TikTok to create videos prior to October 1. Parents are allowed to submit claims on behalf of their minor children who used the app. The nationwide class is eligible for one share of the divided settlement payment, while those in the Illinois subclass are eligible for six shares. The settlement also covers attorney's fees, which can go up to a third of the payment. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/need-know-tiktoks-class-action-lawsuit-rcna5781">NBC News reported</a> that if every eligible person submits a claim, those in the nationwide class would receive up to $0.96, while those in the Illinois subclass would receive up to $5.75. Per the settlement agreement, the individual payout will vary depending on how many users submit a valid claim — if fewer people do, the individual payout could be more. The settlement is still pending final approval at a hearing scheduled for May 18 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. <a href="https://www.insider.com/culture" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read more stories from Insider's Digital Culture desk.</a>

TikTok may owe you money from its $92 million data privacy settlement

Tax demand against Vodafone and <keyword id="128650" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Cairn-Energy">Cairn Energy</keyword> can’t be disputed, said CBDT. CBDT today said they should promptly avail the one-time dispute resolution scheme announced in the Budget to close the issue by paying the principal tax and getting waiver on interest and penalty. 

	CBDT Chairman Atulesh Jindal told PTI "as long as" the retrospective amendment of the IT Act passed by Parliament remains valid, the "demand (of tax against them) remains valid."
 Jindal, in an interview to PTI, said apart from UK's Vodafone Group plc and Cairn Energy plc, there are about a dozen more such companies which are facing similar demands due to the retrospective amendment of the <keyword id="6354751" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Income-Tax">Income Tax</keyword> Act. 

	"They (companies) are basically challenging the retrospective amendment. Retrospective amendments have been passed by Parliament. They have not gone against passing of retrospective amendment before any court...so, as long as the retrospective amendment is valid, the demand (of the IT department) remains valid.
 Finance Minister <keyword id="42575" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="Arun-Jaitley">Arun Jaitley</keyword>, in his <keyword id="117156" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Budget-speech">Budget speech</keyword> yesterday, announced a new dispute resolution mechanism for such companies who are in confrontation with the taxman's action. 

	"In order to give an opportunity to the past cases which are ongoing under the retrospective amendment, I propose a one-time scheme of Dispute Resolution for them," Jaitley had said while presenting the Budget for 2016-17 in Parliament. 

	The scheme entails paying up of the principal tax by the company that has been served with a tax notice and at the same time getting a waiver on interest and penalty.
 

	The CBDT boss said government has always made it clear that tax disputes "are not" covered under the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPA).
 

	"It is a different matter that they (companies) have gone under BIPA and our stand is that tax disputes are not covered under BIPA. That's the situation. Hence, a sort of opportunity has been given to settle these disputes (in the Budget)," the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Chairman said.
 

	He said the department cannot go back on the tax demand raised against these firms as assessment orders were "already passed" and "demands raised" before the IT Act was amended with a retrospective effect.
 

	When told that the companies involved have not shown much initial enthusiasm to the proposal, Jindal said he is hopeful and thinks "they (companies) should come forward."
 

	Commenting on the Budget proposal, Cairn spokesperson had said that "while international arbitration proceedings have commenced to seek resolution of the tax dispute, Cairn notes the efforts of the Government of India to resolve the retrospective tax issue and will study the text of the Budget speech."
 

	A Vodafone spokesperson had said: "We will of course study the details of what the Finance Minister has proposed today, while continuing to seek resolution of this matter through international arbitration.
 "Vodafone has always maintained that there was no tax to pay at the time it completed its acquisition of Hutchison business in 2007... Vodafone was the acquirer in this transaction. The company made no capital gains whatsoever." While Cairn Energy is facing a tax demand of Rs 10,247 crore on a 2006 business re-organisation it carried out in its India unit before getting it listed, Vodafone is facing tax liability over its USD 11 billion acquisition of a 67 per cent stake in the mobile-phone business owned by <keyword id="127031" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Hutchison-Whampoa">Hutchison Whampoa</keyword> in 2007. 

	Jindal said a few of the other such cases of indirect transfer of assets coming under the ambit of the retrospective amendment where IT demands have not been raised proceedings are pending due to reasons like 're-opening' of the case or some other procedure, will have to go through the "approvals" and "clearances" of a Budget announced committee which will be headed by the Revenue Secretary and have the CBDT Chairman as a Member.
 

	When the Finance Minister was yesterday asked if government hopes to arrive at the desired settlement, when the involved companies are disputing the principal liability in first place, he had said: "They have two options- either to litigate or settle."

	 
	 
	(Image credits: indiatimes)

Tax demand against Vodafone and Cairn Energy remains valid

Bishwajit Bhattacharyya, former additional solicitor general, has moved the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>, seeking to restrain the government from going ahead with arbitration over recovering about Rs 20,000 crore as tax dues from the UK-based telecom company, <keyword id="15492" type="CITY" weightage="100" keywordseo="Vodafone">Vodafone</keyword>. The plea sought a directive from the court, asking the government to recover the amount immediately. 
	Bhattacharyya filed his petition before a vacation bench led by Justice Vikramajit Sen. The case will be heard on July 1.<o:p></o:p>

	Bhattacharyya said the Centre was not implementing the rule, amended in 2012, to claim the taxes and requested the court to direct the Centre to implement the Income Tax Act “impartially, even-handedly and without fear or favour.”<o:p></o:p>

	“It amounts to arbitrariness of state action not to enforce law (Section 9 of IT Act) for 27 months after its enactment. This violates Article 14 of the Constitution,” the petition said, adding, “Allowing arbitration proceedings under India-Netherlands BIPA (Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement) would flagrantly violate rule of law.”<o:p></o:p>

PIL Filed In SC Against Vodafone Arbitration

In a significant transition with respect to comprehensive trade and investment agreements, the Indian government is likely to stop treating overseas investors on par with domestic ones until they establish a business in the country. 
 
Technically, the government is unlikely to allow what is known as 'pre-establishment national treatment' in trade and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=investment+">investment</a> agreements. With the government looking to overhaul India's strategy for trade engagement, the view is that this level playing field should be available to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=foreign+investors+">foreign investors</a> only once they have a presence — 'post-establishment' — not when they're still considering investment, reported the Economic Times. 
 
This move would be of a piece with the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Finance+Ministry">Finance Ministry</a>—concerned that the country has given too much away in such accords—gaining a role in the negotiation of investment agreements. 
 
An official told the financial daily: "The thinking is that only post-establishment treatment entailed in the bilateral investment promotion agreements should be offered in such trade deals." 
 
Trade experts have welcomed the move, describing it as a course correction. "There was an unnecessary rush to formalise trade deals and India offered pre-establishment national treatment to many of them," said Biswajit Dhar, trade expert and professor at <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Jawaharlal+Nehru+University+%28JNU%29">Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).</a> 
 
"Pre-establishment national treatment gives foreign investors far more rights than domestic investors," he said, adding such treatment allows foreign investors to pursue international arbitration against the government over regulatory clearances such as environmental approvals, something that domestic investors can't do. 
 
Ram Upendra Das, professor at Research and Information System for Developing Countries, said that foreign direct investment-related pre-establishment rights to foreign investors can scuttle a government's sovereign policy-making space vis-a-vis foreign investment inflows. 
 <keyword id="47209" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Finance-Ministry">FINANCE MINISTRY</keyword>'S ROLE 
 The Finance Ministry had never been ready to allow pre-establishment national treatment under the India-Asean trade deal but was overruled by the <keyword id="6359397" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Manmohan-Singh">Manmohan Singh</keyword> cabinet. 
 
Many countries don't allow pre-establishment treatment as it takes away government flexibility in regulating foreign investments. The argument in its favour is that it increases investor comfort. The Finance Ministry, which is the administrative agency in charge of all forms of investment, will now be part of the country's team negotiating investment agreements beginning with the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). 
 
The ministry takes care of all bilateral investment promotion agreements that give post-establishment national treatment to foreign investors. 
 
CHEQUERED HISTORY 
 The dispute over post and pre-establishment treatment of investment brought to the fore sharp differences between the Finance Ministry and the <keyword id="105668" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Commerce-and-Industry-Ministry">Commerce and Industry Ministry</keyword> over this crucial aspect of the country's engagement with the world in the <keyword id="83449" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="United-Progressive-Alliance">United Progressive Alliance</keyword> government. 
 
A fierce war ensued between the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/searchresult.cms?query=Departments+of+Industrial+Policy+and+Promotion+%28DIPP%29+">Departments of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)</a> and Economic Affairs as the latter was not consulted before commitments were made regarding the investment component in the IndiaAsean Comprehensive Economic Promotion Agreement. DIPP is part of the Commerce Ministry while the Economic Affairs department is in the Finance Ministry. 
 
A formal note on the matter was issued and forwarded by the Cabinet to the Finance Ministry by the Prime Minister's Office after its views weren't found in the previous note. 
 The Asean deal was passed by Cabinet after overruling the finance ministry's concerns. Subsequently, the DIPP claimed authority to negotiate bilateral investment promotion agreements that had been under the domain of the finance ministry, citing administrative control of the foreign direct investment policy. It even sought control of the <keyword id="62529" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="80" keywordseo="Foreign-Investment-Promotion-Board">Foreign Investment Promotion Board</keyword> (FIPB), housed in the finance ministry. 
 After taking over in May last year, Prime Minister <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> decided that the inter-ministerial body would continue to be part of the finance ministry and it will have the mandate with regard to bilateral investment promotion agreements (BIPAs). 
 
(Image: Indiatimes)

You Searched For "BIPA" and got 9 results

PM Modi eyeing $800-billion funds from UAE

BI India Bureau

Facial recognition tool Pimeyes — which has been used to unmask pornstars and stalk people — is sued by 5 Illinois residents for 'irreparable injury'

Caroline Haskins

Whole Foods must pay $300,000 over accusations that a system meant to track productivity captured warehouse workers' voices without their consent

Alex Bitter

LVMH collects people's facial scans without asking when they use its virtual try-on tool for glasses, lawsuit claims

Jyoti Mann

Controversial facial recognition company Clearview AI banned from selling face database to private US businesses

Caroline Haskins

TikTok may owe you money from its $92 million data privacy settlement

Palmer Haasch

Tax demand against Vodafone and Cairn Energy remains valid

BI India Bureau

PIL Filed In SC Against Vodafone Arbitration

BI India Bureau

Foreign investors to get less weightage over domestic ones

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides