Se revela plan de vigilancia del gobierno sobre los datos de los usuarios | NTD RESUMEN

Bienvenidos a NTD Noticias, soy Mayra Jaime. La campaña presidencial de Trump es un éxito hasta ahora según una encuesta, pero para los congresistas no lo es tanto ya que decenas de legisladores están renunciando a su reelección. El expresidente Trump amplía su ventaja sobre el presidente Biden en un hipotético enfrentamiento electoral para el 2024. Eso es según la destacada encuesta de la Universidad Emerson. En noviembre del año pasado, la encuesta reveló que Biden aventajaba a Trump por un margen del 45% al 41%. Hace un mes, Trump ganaba por un 47% a 45%. Ahora la ventaja de Trump aumentó en dos puntos, situándose en un 47% a 43%. Biden sufrió un duro golpe en el apoyo de las minorías, perdiendo un total de 26 puntos porcentuales en el último año. La congresista californiana Anna Eshoo anunció esta semana su renuncia después de tres décadas. Hasta ahora, más de 30 legisladores anunciaron este año que no se presentarán a la reelección. Esto se produce después de dos agotadoras contiendas por la presidencia de la Cámara de Representantes, casi dos cierres del gobierno y múltiples intentos de destituir, censurar y expulsar a funcionarios. Y todo eso mientras el Congreso aún está en su primera sesión. Varios legisladores están insatisfechos con la situación en el Congreso. El representante Earl Blumenauer, que lleva más de 25 años en el Congreso, declaró a Punchbowl News, Es una locura y no añade ningún valor a mi vida. Las cosas que me preocupan puedo hacerlas mejor en otra parte. Pasemos ahora a las elecciones locales. En Carolina del Sur, la ciudad de Charleston votó a un alcalde republicano por primera vez desde 1877. El ex representante republicano de Carolina del Sur, William Cogswell, ganó la elección el martes. Y en Nueva York, el ex gobernador Andrew Cuomo estaría considerando presentarse a la alcaldía de Nueva York. Según político, Cuomo podría presentarse si Adams dimite o decide no presentarse a la reelección. Hay miles de millones de registros telefónicos abiertamente accesibles a las fuerzas de seguridad, incluso sin una orden judicial. Un senador propone sacar a la luz este programa y exigir respuestas. El senador Ron Wyden está en una misión para exponer el programa Hemisferio. El programa permite que trillones de registros telefónicos estadounidenses sean rastreados por las fuerzas de seguridad. Los registros pueden incluir los números de teléfono, fechas, horas, duraciones y ubicaciones de las llamadas y mensajes de texto, así como la cantidad y el tipo de datos transferidos. La gente puede usarlo para ver a dónde vas, con quién hablas y con qué frecuencia hablas con ellos. Los registros no incluyen el contenido de las llamadas y los mensajes de texto. Un acuerdo entre la Casa Blanca y AT&T lo hizo posible durante la última década. Los registros muestran que la Casa Blanca dio al programa más de seis millones de dólares. La investigación del senador Wyden descubrió que los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley se referían al programa como Superbuscador de AT&T y Google con esteroides. Descubrió que puede identificar los números alternativos de una persona, así como los registros telefónicos de todas las personas con las que esa persona habló. The outrage is coming from the fact that most Americans don't realize that by signing up and accepting the terms of these cell phone providers, they're agreeing to this level of surveillance. Brian Hornung is the General Director of Exact IT Solutions. He's worried that the data might fall into the wrong hands. Our government might not have control of that data in the future. And that could happen through a cyber attack or by some other way in your imagination, right? But that data does exist and it needs to be protected. The data can come together to form a profile of a person, all without a judicial order. What Senator Wyden considers an illegal invasion of privacy. Wyden wrote a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, asking him to make public the information about the program. He says that the discovery so far would outrage many Americans and other members of Congress. A legal group says that Macy's is hiring based on explicit gender and race identity quotas. And now they're asking an employment commission to investigate. And on the other hand, a Christian group is boycotting the Thanksgiving Day parade. America First Legal filed a complaint for discrimination against Macy's, for what they consider systemic discrimination against possible employees. In a letter sent on Tuesday, the group said that Macy's established explicit racial and other gender quotas for hiring and similar functions that seem to violate the federal law. For example, it says that in 2019, Macy's created a new policy with the aim of increasing ethnic diversity by 30% in high-ranking positions. They were looking for high talents of black, African-American, Hispanic, Latin, Native American and Asian descent, and a representation of 50% of gender, gender identity, ethnicity, age and size. The letter says that these commitments were reinforced in an annual diversity, equity and inclusion report for 2022. The company commits to integrating diversity, equity and inclusion in all aspects of its operations. The legal group said that people should be judged by their merits and not by their own characteristics. They ask the commission to investigate. Meanwhile, thousands of citizens plan to boycott the Thanksgiving Day parade. More than 41,000 people signed a petition sponsored by the Christian group One Million Mothers. The group says that this year's parade will present a transgender extravagance and will expose tens of millions of viewers at home to the LGBTQ liberal agenda. It is expected that the parade will feature two Broadway musical performances with key actors who identify as transsexual or non-binary. The petitioners say that Macy's is not concerned about the superior interest of its children and that they are not buying what Macy's is selling. And this November 22, 60 years of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy were celebrated. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was driving in a convertible limousine to a lunch with the tickets sold out in Dallas. When shots were heard from a window on the sixth floor, Kennedy was shot twice. The FBI later discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the shooting. In June of this year, the National Archives concluded its review of classified documents related to the murder and are now available to the public. A court of appeals ruled that California can share personal information of gun owners with investigators. Let's see. A state court of appeals ruled that California can continue to provide personal information of gun owners to investigators to study armed violence. This reverts to last year's decision by a judge of a lower court who said that such data exchange violates privacy rights. In 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that allowed the State Department of Justice to share information from more than 4 million gun owners in California with qualified research institutions to help them better study armed violence, accidents and suicides. The information that the state collects with each sale of firearms to verify records includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and any criminal record, among other things. According to the law, investigators can use the information and make their results public, but they cannot disclose any identifiable data from gun owners. In response, gun owners and organizations sued the state, arguing that the disclosure of their information violates their privacy rights. The judge of the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, Katherine Bacall, temporarily decided to block the law in October. In his ruling, Judge Julia C. Kellety returned the case to the lower court and said that the preliminary judicial order should be revoked. A court of appeals discussed the terms of a restriction order against Trump, and although it did not come to a decision, the panel revealed that certain limitations are required. A lawyer for former President Trump faced a panel of three judges after appealing a silence order that, according to him, limits Trump too much. The order is unprecedented and sets a terrible precedent for future restrictions on core political speech. District Judge Tanya Chutkan stood by federal prosecutors last month when she signed an order that established restrictions on public statements made by Trump, statements that federal prosecutors argued threatened and harassed possible witnesses and public figures. At this time, the Court of Appeals suspended the order while Trump continues to fight it. Sauer refused to give in to his argument that the order strictly violates Trump's freedom of expression rights. A judge on the panel of Democratic Judicial Names mentioned the responsibility of protecting witnesses in the case. And speak with that person without counsel present, that would violate the restriction undoubtedly. Would the First Amendment protect that communication under your test? We have not contended that. It's not what I am asking. I'm asking you to apply the test that you propose us, because we have to write a test that can be applied, and we have to know how it's going to be applied. So I'm asking your position, your legal position. Mordaza's order also prevents Trump from making statements about Special Attorney Jack Smith or his staff. The court pressured the government's lawyer in search of answers as to why Trump cannot criticize prosecutors. Why can't the defendants say, A, B, and C, whoever is the prosecutorial team in the particular case, biased? Racist, anti-American, whatever deplorable adjectives. I think in context, I think you'd have to view that as basically the meddlesome priest problem. Why is he mentioning individual line prosecutors, but for holding them up to scorn in the public? And Argentina is preparing for a change from left to right after Libertarian Javier Milley won the presidential elections. Let's see how this will also affect the United States. Javier Milley, a right-wing narco-capitalist, won the presidential elections in Argentina on Sunday night with almost 56% of the votes. His opponent got a little more than 44%. This is the biggest victory difference in a presidential election since the return to democracy in Argentina in 1983. Milley is ready to succeed a left-wing president in power while Argentina is experiencing extremely high inflation, as can be seen in the graph. Before winning the elections, Milley drew international attention through videos like this, where he describes how he would cut government spending. Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity, out! Ministry of Public Works, out! Even if you resist! And because of clips like this, people in Argentina, and around the world, frankly, now seem confident that Milley can change Argentina and improve the lives of millions of people. But can he do it? I spoke with Fergus Hodgson, editor of the Impunity Observer, a medium specializing in the United States and Latin America. I don't expect any one man to be able to change an entire nation on his own. However, this is still a historical moment. This is really the beginning of the battle. At least there's an opening here. And he, with the right support, can make big changes. He says that the previous presidents of Argentina implemented three policies that must be changed. A unionized economy, not allowing trade with other nations, and the politicization of the central bank. We really need shock measures that free up all areas. He added that Argentina is already making the transition to use the US dollar instead of its own weight. It is an incremental positive step in terms of, let's say, preserving the status of the dollar as a reserve currency. Milley will take office in three weeks. What changes can we expect for Argentina under Javier Milley's term? How will his presidency change Argentina's relations with other countries, including the United States? Let's see. Marcos Xotges, thank you very much for being with us. Thank you for having me. The new president of Argentina was described by the Washington Post as a leap to the unknown. The United States is interested, as our trade with Argentina rises to $30 billion. How do you think this election will affect the United States? Well, it has a lot of impact on the United States. And, first of all, isn't it a leap to the unknown a little better than the inflation of the 140% inter-annual that they have right now? I mean, the country's economy is in ruins. This affects the United States in several ways. First of all, the previous government, the previous administration, was very, very favorable to China. And geopolitically, China gained a lot of influence in Argentina. They have a space station in the province of Neuquén. And even talking about rare earth minerals, Argentina has the resources for lithium-ion batteries. So this is one aspect. Apart from that, it is also interesting in the sense that Argentina, it is not known if it will be able to improve its debt, but it was doing it very badly. So a change is welcome in the way it deals with its external debt. But apart from that, the previous regime was also very favorable to Cuba, very favorable to Iran. It even excused, to a certain extent, the actions of Iran and Hezbollah. So I think that geopolitically, and even in terms of debt, the previous administration was not doing a good job in terms of American interests. I want to talk about geopolitics, but first about the economy, because you mention that inflation is 140%. That means that two out of every five inhabitants live in poverty. Milley is an economist. He has no experience in politics. He promised to get rid of the central bank to go to a currency competition. To what extent do you think the economy influenced the results of these elections? Well, I think it was actually one of the determining factors for Javier Milley to be elected, especially because, curiously, despite the fact that the economy is down, the Peronist Party, the local left, elected the current Minister of Economy to run for office. Many people even wonder why the current president, Alberto Fernández, did not run for office, but it is because his approval rates were so low that it was like a failed bet. It was like a failed bet. That is why they elected Sergio Massa to rival Milley, who is the Minister of Economy. Many people argued that he, Massa, was not responsible for the economy being bad. He inherited the problem. He took office late, but either way, he was the Minister of Economy. So I think it was a very determining factor. One thing that is a very delicate formula to balance right now is the fact that Argentina is really a country prone to assistentialism. The left-wing populist leaders have a long history there, getting a lot of support through social assistance, which is completely opposite to what Milley is preaching. So we will see how he is able to balance Congress, popular support and get things going. But the economy, yes, was a very important factor. And Marcos, as you mentioned, Argentina has a lot of debt to China. And just before these elections, China lent Argentina 6.5 billion, hoping that the former Minister of Economy would win. But Javier Milley promised that under his administration, Argentina would not do business with communist countries, including China. What are the chances that this will happen, given the amount of debt we are talking about? So the way he expressed it was more in the sense that he would not promote economic ties or anything like that, with what he calls murderous regimes. He even called socialists garbage, and textually, human excrement, which was very, very badly seen in the left-wing press in South America, even reading the press in Spanish and Portuguese. Now, if you take this in relation to China, the competition between the great powers of the region is very likely that Milley will not promote ties in a strict sense. But he also said that he was not going to prohibit citizens from trading, something that by definition would go against his libertarian ideology. But Argentina has a more complex situation, if we talk about debt. Now, let's talk about China. Let's talk about the PSECHE. If we limit ourselves to Chinese debt, Argentina has a problem with what they call cross-cancellation clauses. What the cross-cancellation clause basically means is that if you want to cancel something in a contract, 10 of the other state banks of the PSECHE will have to be reviewed or may have to be cancelled. The PSECHE gained so much influence in Argentina in this way that it was able to get away with it when former President Mauricio Macri tried to expel the People's Army from the management of the Neuquén province's space station, whose access is restricted even to the President himself and the local authorities. So the influence is very great. We will see how it develops. It is unlikely that it will soon deal with the problem of debt, because of what the contracts themselves say and because of the way they influence local politics. But I think it could have some influence when it comes to stopping the promotion of bonds, perhaps leaving the initiative of the strip and the route, perhaps leaving the block of the BRICS, which are all things that it suggested it would do, so to reduce the influence to a certain extent. But they are long-term contracts that it will not be able to push out so soon, in my opinion. Quite interesting. Marcos Eshotges, thank you very much for your time. Thank you for inviting me.