Romanian presidential election results are SCRAPPED by top court after intelligence reports claim hard-right outsider who surged into lead was backed by Russia By RYAN PROSSER Published: 07:36 AEDT, 7 December 2024 | Updated: 07:50 AEDT, 7 December 2024 e-mail 22 View comments Romania 's top court has annulled the first round of the country's presidential election, which was won by far-right outsider Calin Georgescu. The move comes days after declassified intelligence alleged Russia ran a coordinated online campaign to promote Mr Georgescu. The Constitutional Court's unprecedented decision - which is final - came after President Klaus Iohannis declassified intelligence on Wednesday that alleged Russia ran a sprawling campaign comprising thousands of social media accounts to promote Mr Georgescu across platforms like TikTok and Telegram. Despite being a huge outsider who declared zero campaign spending, Mr Georgescu emerged as the frontrunner on November 24. He was due to face reformist Elena Lasconi of the Save Romania Union party in a run-off on Sunday. Mr Georgescu said the country's democracy was 'under attack' after the court ruled to annul the vote. Calling the decision a 'formalised coup d'etat', the former civil servant, 62, urged Romanians to 'remain faithful to our common ideal'. Mr Iohannis said he would remain in office until a new president is elected in a fresh poll, the date of which will be set once a new government is formed. Calin Georgescu's first round victory in the Romanian presidential elections has been annulled by the nation's Constitutional Court Protesters during a pro-Europe Romania Hopes rally in Bucharest on December 6 Some 951 voting stations had already opened abroad on Friday for the runoff for Romania's large diaspora but had to be halted. As well as the presidential race, Romania also held a parliamentary election which saw pro-Western parties win the most votes but also gains for far-right nationalists. In a televised statement on Friday, Mr Iohannis said he was 'deeply concerned' by the contents of the intelligence reports, which indicated one candidate's campaign was 'unlawfully supported from outside Romania' and was a matter of national security. 'The same candidate declared zero campaign expenditures, despite running a highly sophisticated campaign,' he said. 'Intelligence reports revealed that this candidate's campaign was supported by a foreign state with interests contrary to Romania's. These are serious issues.' Mr Georgescu led the first-round poll with 22.95 per cent of the vote, followed by Ms Lasconi. EU-leaning premier Marcel Ciolacu came third and was eliminated after picking up just 19.15 per cent of votes with 99 per cent counted. Earlier, the European Union said it sent TikTok an urgent request for more information about the Romanian intelligence files suggesting that Moscow coordinated influencers on its platform to promote Mr Georgescu. The 27-nation bloc's executive branch is using its sweeping digital rulebook to scrutinise the video sharing platform's role in the election, which ended with the far-right populist Mr Georgescu seemingly coming out of nowhere to take top spot in the first round of voting. It is unclear from the intelligence release whether Mr Georgescu was aware of the alleged campaign or assisted in it. Mr Georgescu was due to face reformist Elena Lasconi in a second round run-off on Sunday The country's current president, Klaus Iohannis, said he would remain in office until a new leader was selected in a fresh poll European Commission officials said they asked the video sharing platform to comment on the files and to provide information on actions that it is taking in response. It is the second time the commission has asked TikTok for information since the election's first round of voting on November 24, and comes a day after it ordered the Chinese-owned platform to retain all election-related files and evidence. Henna Virkkunen, the commission's executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, security and democracy, said in a post on X: 'We are concerned about mounting indications of coordinated foreign online influence operation targeting ongoing Romanian elections, especially on TikTok.' TikTok has 24 hours to respond to the EU request, officials told a press briefing in Brussels. Russia TikTok Share or comment on this article: Romanian presidential election results are SCRAPPED by top court after intelligence reports claim hard-right outsider who surged into lead was backed by Russia e-mail Add commentBy HALELUYA HADERO AP Business Writer A federal appeals court panel on Friday unanimously upheld a law that could lead to a ban on TikTok in a few short months, handing a resounding defeat to the popular social media platform as it fights for its survival in the U.S. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok’s petition to overturn the law — which requires TikTok to break ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January — and rebuffed the company’s challenge of the statute, which it argued had ran afoul of the First Amendment. “The First Amendment exists to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, which was written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg. “Here the Government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to gather data on people in the United States.” TikTok and ByteDance — another plaintiff in the lawsuit — are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, though its unclear whether the court will take up the case. “The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans' right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. Unless stopped, he argued the statute “will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.” Though the case is squarely in the court system, its also possible the two companies might be thrown some sort of a lifeline by President-elect Donald Trump , who tried to ban TikTok during his first term but said during the presidential campaign that he is now against such action. The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-form video-sharing app, which the government sees as a national security threat due to its connections to China. The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the proprietary algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect — a concern mirrored by the European Union on Friday as it scrutinizes the video-sharing app’s role in the Romanian elections. TikTok, which sued the government over the law in May, has long denied it could be used by Beijing to spy on or manipulate Americans. Its attorneys have accurately pointed out that the U.S. hasn’t provided evidence to show that the company handed over user data to the Chinese government, or manipulated content for Beijing’s benefit in the U.S. They have also argued the law is predicated on future risks, which the Department of Justice has emphasized pointing in part to unspecified action it claims the two companies have taken in the past due to demands from the Chinese government. Friday’s ruling came after the appeals court panel, composed of two Republican and one Democrat appointed judges, heard oral arguments in September. In the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with how TikTok’s foreign ownership affects its rights under the Constitution and how far the government could go to curtail potential influence from abroad on a foreign-owned platform. On Friday, all three of them denied TikTok’s petition. In the court’s ruling, Ginsburg, a Republican appointee, rejected TikTok’s main legal arguments against the law, including that the statute was an unlawful bill of attainder or a taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He also said the law did not violate the First Amendment because the government is not looking to “suppress content or require a certain mix of content” on TikTok. “Content on the platform could in principle remain unchanged after divestiture, and people in the United States would remain free to read and share as much PRC propaganda (or any other content) as they desire on TikTok or any other platform of their choosing,” Ginsburg wrote, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China. Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge on the court, issued a concurring opinion. TikTok’s lawsuit was consolidated with a second legal challenge brought by several content creators - for which the company is covering legal costs - as well as a third one filed on behalf of conservative creators who work with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc. Other organizations, including the Knight First Amendment Institute, had also filed amicus briefs supporting TikTok. “This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans' access to information, ideas, and media from abroad,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the organization. “We hope that the appeals court’s ruling won’t be the last word.” Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, lawmakers who had pushed for the legislation celebrated the court’s ruling. “I am optimistic that President Trump will facilitate an American takeover of TikTok to allow its continued use in the United States and I look forward to welcoming the app in America under new ownership,” said Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan, chairman of the House Select Committee on China. Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who co-authored the law, said “it’s time for ByteDance to accept” the law. To assuage concerns about the company’s owners, TikTok says it has invested more than $2 billion to bolster protections around U.S. user data. The company has also argued the government’s broader concerns could have been resolved in a draft agreement it provided the Biden administration more than two years ago during talks between the two sides. It has blamed the government for walking away from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Department argues is insufficient. Attorneys for the two companies have claimed it’s impossible to divest the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without the coveted algorithm - the platform’s secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block under any divesture plan - would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island disconnected from other global content. Still, some investors, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire Frank McCourt, have expressed interest in purchasing the platform. Both men said earlier this year that they were launching a consortium to purchase TikTok’s U.S. business. This week, a spokesperson for McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative, which aims to protect online privacy, said unnamed participants in their bid have made informal commitments of more than $20 billion in capital. —The Associated PressNEW YORK — He’s one of the most famous corporate leaders in the world, delivering products embraced by billions. But the haters give companies like Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms something to worry about. In an era when online anger and social tensions are increasingly directed at the businesses that consumers count on, Meta last year spent $24.4 million on guards, alarms and other measures to keep Zuckerberg and the company’s former chief operating officer safe. Some high-profile chief executives surround themselves with security. But the fatal shooting this week of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson while he walked alone on a New York City sidewalk has put a spotlight on the widely varied approaches companies take in protecting their leaders against threats. Thompson had no personal security and appeared unaware of the shooter lurking before he was gunned down. And today’s political, economic and technological climate is only going to make the job of evaluating threats against executives and taking action to protect them even more difficult, experts say. “We are better today at collecting signals. I’m not sure we’re any better at making sense of the signals we collect,” said Fred Burton of Ontic, a provider of threat management software for companies. After Thompson’s shooting, Burton said, “I’ve been on the phone all day with some organizations asking for consultation, saying, ’Am I doing enough?’” Since the killing, some health insurers have taken steps to safeguard their executives and rank-and-file workers. Medica, a Minnesota-based nonprofit healthcare firm, said Friday that it was temporarily closing its six offices for security reasons and would have its employees work from home. “Although we have received no specific threats related to our campuses, our office buildings will be temporarily closed out of an abundance of caution,” the company said in a statement. A Medica spokesman said the company had also removed biographical information about its executives from its website as a precaution. UnitedHealth Group, parent of the insurer Thompson led, removed photos of its top executives from its website hours after the shooting, later removing their names and biographies. But well before the attack, some of the biggest U.S. companies, particularly those in the tech sector, were spending heavily on personal and residential security for their top executives. Meta, whose businesses include Facebook and Instagram, reported the highest spending on personal security for top executives last year, filings culled by research firm Equilar show. Zuckerberg “is synonymous with Meta and, as a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr. Zuckerberg,” the Menlo Park, California, company explained earlier this year in an annual shareholder disclosure. At Apple, the world’s largest tech company by stock valuation, CEO Tim Cook was tormented by a stalker who sent him sexually provocative emails and even showed up outside his Silicon Valley home at one point before the company’s security team successfully took legal action against her in 2022. Cook is regularly accompanied by security personnel when he appears in public. Still, the $820,000 the company allotted last year to protect top executives is a fraction of what other tech giants spent for CEO security. Just over a quarter of the companies in the Fortune 500 reported spending money to protect their CEOs and other top executives. Of those that did, the median payment for personal security doubled over the last three years to about $98,000. In many companies, investor meetings like the one UnitedHealthcare’s Thompson was walking to when he was shot are viewed as very risky because details on the location and who will be speaking are highly publicized. “It gives people an opportunity to arrive well in advance and take a look at the room, take a look at how people would probably come and go out of a location,” said Dave Komendat, president of DSKomendat Risk Management Services, which is based in the Seattle area. Some firms respond by beefing up security. For example, tech companies routinely require everyone attending a major event, such as Apple’s annual unveiling of the next iPhone or a shareholder meeting, to go through airport-style security checkpoints before entering. Others forgo in-person meetings with shareholders. Government health insurance provider Centene Corp. joined that group Thursday, citing the UnitedHealthcare executive’s death in announcing that its upcoming investor day will be held online, rather than in person as originally planned. “But there are also company cultures that really frown on that and want their leaders to be accessible to people, accessible to shareholders, employees,” Komendat said. Depending on the company, such an approach may make sense. Many top executives are little known to the public, operating in industries and locations that make them far less prone to public exposure and to threats. “Determining the need for and appropriate level of an executive-level protection program is specific to each organization,” said David Johnston, vice president of asset protection and retail operations at the National Retail Federation. “These safeguards should also include the constant monitoring of potential threats and the ability to adapt to maintain the appropriate level of security and safety.” Some organizations have a protective intelligence group that uses digital tools such as machine learning or artificial intelligence to comb through online comments to detect threats not only on social media platforms such as X but also on the dark web, Komendat said. They look for what’s being said about the company, its employees and its leadership to uncover risks. “There are always threats directed towards senior leaders at companies. Many of them are not credible,” Komendat said. “The question always is trying to determine what is a real threat versus what is someone just venting with no intent to take any additional action.” Burton, a former special agent with the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service, points out that despite the current climate, there is little in the way of organized groups that target companies. Today, one of the primary worries are loners whose rantings online are fed by others who are like-minded. It’s up to corporate security analysts to zero in on such dialogue and decide whether or not it represents a real threat. And CEOs aren’t the only targets of disgruntled customers. In the U.S., there were 525 workplace fatalities due to assault in 2022, according to the National Safety Council. Industries including healthcare, education and service providers are more prone to violence than others, and taxi drivers are more than 20 times more likely to be murdered on the job than other workers, the group said. But the ambush of UnitedHealthcare’s Thompson this week is bound to get some CEOs second-guessing. “What invariably happens at moments like this in time is you will get additional ears listening” to security professionals seeking money to beef up executive protection, Burton said. “Because I can guarantee you there’s not a CEO in America who’s not aware of this incident.” Geller, Bussewitz and Liedtke write for the Associated Press.Video Quick Take: Schneider Electric’s Charise Le on Working In Sustainability - SPONSOR CONTENT FROM SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC
"VyStar Credit Union Earns Top 3 Nationally on Computerworld's 2025 Best Places to Work in IT List"
WuKong Education Named to the 2025 GSV 150 for Leading the Way in Education TechnologyTrump's immigration and border team is filling out.
Hinchas del Bayern Múnich protestan contra Al-Khelaifi, el presidente del PSG
None
NoneTimeline: Jimmy Carter, 1924-2024Man City Set Unwanted UCL Record After Dramatic 3-3 Draw With FeyenoordCHICAGO — Shoplifting rates in the three largest U.S. cities — New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — remain higher than they were before the pandemic, according to a last month from the nonpartisan research group Council on Criminal Justice. The sharp rise in retail theft in recent years has made shoplifting a hot-button issue, especially for politicians looking to address public safety concerns in their communities. Since 2020, when viral videos of smash-and-grab robberies flooded social media during the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans have expressed fears that crime is out of control. Polls show that perceptions have improved recently, but a majority of Americans crime is worse than in previous years. “There is this sense of brazenness that people have — they can just walk in and steal stuff. ... That hurts the consumer, and it hurts the company,” said Alex Piquero, a criminology professor at the University of Miami and former director of the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, in an interview. “That’s just the world we live in,” he said. “We need to get people to realize that you have to obey the law.” At least eight states — Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New York and Vermont — passed a total of 14 bills in 2024 aimed at tackling retail theft, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The measures range from redefining retail crimes and adjusting penalties to allowing cross-county aggregation of theft charges and protecting retail workers. Major retailers have responded to rising theft since 2020 by locking up merchandise, upgrading security cameras, hiring private security firms and even closing stores. Still, the report indicates that shoplifting remains a stubborn problem. In Chicago, the rate of reported shoplifting incidents remained below pre-pandemic levels throughout 2023 — but surged by 46% from January to October 2024 compared with the same period a year ago. Shoplifting in Los Angeles was 87% higher in 2023 than in 2019. Police reports of shoplifting from January to October 2024 were lower than in 2023. Los Angeles adopted a new crime reporting system in March 2024, which has likely led to an undercount, according to the report. In New York, shoplifting rose 48% from 2021 to 2022, then dipped slightly last year. Still, the shoplifting rate was 55% higher in 2023 than in 2019. This year, the shoplifting rate increased by 3% from January to September compared with the same period last year. While shoplifting rates tend to rise in November and December, which coincides with in-person holiday shopping, data from the Council on Criminal Justice’s sample of 23 U.S. cities shows higher rates in the first half of 2024 compared with 2023. Researchers found it surprising that rates went up despite retailers doing more to fight shoplifting. Experts say the spike might reflect improved reporting efforts rather than a spike in theft. “As retailers have been paying more attention to shoplifting, we would not expect the numbers to increase,” said Ernesto Lopez, the report’s author and a senior research specialist with the council. “It makes it a challenge to understand the trends of shoplifting.” In downtown Chicago on a recent early afternoon, potential shoppers shuffled through the streets and nearby malls, browsing for gifts ahead of the holidays. Edward Johnson, a guard at The Shops at North Bridge, said that malls have become quieter in the dozen or so years he has worked in mall security, with the rise of online retailers. As for shoplifters, Johnson said there isn’t a single type of person to look out for — they can come from any background. “I think good-hearted people see something they can’t afford and figure nothing is lost if they take something from the store,” Johnson said as he patrolled the mall, keeping an eye out for lost or suspicious items. Between 2018 and 2023, most shoplifting in Chicago was reported in the downtown area, as well as in the Old Town, River North and Lincoln Park neighborhoods, according to a separate by the Council on Criminal Justice. Newly sworn-in Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke this month lowered the threshold for charging retail theft as a felony in the county, which includes Chicago, from $1,000 to $300, aligning it with state law. “It sends a signal that she’s taking it seriously,” Rob Karr, the president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, told Stateline. Nationally, retailers are worried about organized theft. The National Retail Federation’s latest attributed 36% of the $112.1 billion in lost merchandise in 2022 to “external theft,” which includes organized retail crime. Organized retail crime typically involves coordinated efforts by groups to steal items with the intent to resell them for a profit. Commonly targeted goods include high-demand items such as baby formula, laundry detergent and electronics. The same report found that retailers’ fear of violence associated with theft also is on the rise, with more retailers taking a “hands-off approach.” More than 41% of respondents to the organization’s 2023 survey, up from 38% in 2022, reported that no employee is authorized to try and stop a shoplifter. (The federation’s reporting has come under criticism. It a claim last year that attributed nearly half of lost merchandise in 2021 to organized retail crime; such theft accounted for only about 5%. The group announced this fall it will no longer publish its reports on lost merchandise.) Policy experts say shoplifting and organized retail theft can significantly harm critical industries, drive up costs for consumers and reduce sales tax revenue for states. Those worries have driven recent state-level action to boost penalties for shoplifting. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a package of 10 bills into law in August aimed at addressing retail theft. These measures make repeated theft convictions a felony, allow aggregation of crimes across multiple counties to be charged as a single felony, and permit police to arrest suspects for retail theft even if the crime wasn’t witnessed directly by an officer. In September, Newsom an additional bill that imposes steeper felony penalties for large-scale theft offenses. California voters also overwhelmingly a ballot measure in November that increases penalties for specific drug-related and theft crimes. Under the new law, people who are convicted of theft at least twice may face felony charges on their third offense, regardless of the stolen item’s value. “With these changes in the law, really it comes down to making sure that law enforcement is showing up to our stores in a timely manner, and that the prosecutors and the [district attorneys] are prosecuting,” Rachel Michelin, the president and CEO of the California Retailers Association, told Stateline. “That’s the only way we’re going to deter retail theft in our communities.” In New Jersey, a bipartisan making its way through the legislature would increase penalties for leading a shoplifting ring and allow extended sentences for repeat offenders. “This bill is going after a formally organized band of criminals that deliver such destruction to a critical business in our community. We have to act. We have to create a deterrence,” Democratic Assemblymember Joseph Danielsen, one of the bill’s prime sponsors, said in an interview with Stateline. The legislation would allow extended sentences for people convicted of shoplifting three times within 10 years or within 10 years of their release from prison, and would increase penalties to 10 to 20 years in prison for leading a retail crime ring. The bill also would allow law enforcement to aggregate the value of stolen goods over the course of a year to charge serial shoplifters with more serious offenses. Additionally, the bill would increase penalties for assaults committed against retail workers, and would require retailers to train employees on detecting gift card scams. Maryland legislators considered a similar during this year’s legislative session that would have defined organized retail theft and made it a felony. The bill didn’t make it out of committee, but Cailey Locklair, president of the Maryland Retailers Alliance, said the group plans to propose a bill during next year’s legislative session that would target gift card fraud. Better, more thorough reporting from retailers is essential to truly understanding shoplifting trends and its full impact, in part because some retail-related crimes, such as gift card fraud, are frequently underreported, according to Lopez, of the Council on Criminal Justice. Measuring crime across jurisdictions is , and the council does not track organized retail theft specifically because law enforcement typically doesn’t identify it as such at the time of arrest — if an arrest even occurs — requiring further investigation, Lopez said. The council’s latest report found conflicting trends in the FBI’s national crime reporting systems. The FBI’s older system, the Summary Reporting System, known as SRS, suggests that reported shoplifting hadn’t gone up through 2023, remaining on par with 2019 levels. In contrast, the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System, or NIBRS, shows a 93% increase in shoplifting over the same period. The discrepancy may stem from the type of law enforcement agencies that have adopted the latter system, Lopez said. Some of those communities may have higher levels of shoplifting or other types of property crime, which could be what is driving the spike, Lopez said. Despite the discrepancies and varying levels of shoplifting across the country, Lopez said, it’s important for retailers to report these incidents, as doing so could help allocate law enforcement resources more effectively. “All law enforcement agencies have limited resources, and having the most accurate information allows for not just better policy, but also better implementation — better use of strategic resources,” Lopez said. ©2024 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.