Study: Indiana the 4th least called state for robocalls

first_img Twitter Study: Indiana the 4th least called state for robocalls IndianaLocalNews Pinterest Facebook Pinterest Google+ Facebook (Photo supplied/ABC 57) Robocalls are on the rise across the U.S. Nearly half the calls made from U.S. cell phones in 2019 were spam according to a report from the Federal Communications Commission.Using data from the Federal Trade Commission’s National Do Not Call Registry, Provision Living analyzed robocall complaints in every state to identify where robocalls are happening the most. In the report they analyze which states had the most robocalls in 2019 as well as the states with the most robocalls since 2015.Here’s what they found:Indiana was the 4th least called state in 2019. Indiana residents filed 64,305 robocall complaints, or 972 robocalls per 100,000 residents.Since 2015, Indiana has received the 5th fewest number of robocalls of any state. 338,438 robocalls or 5,117 robocalls per 100,000 residents.Nationwide, robocalls have seen an average increase of 14% since 2015. Indiana saw the highest increase nationwide in that time period at 35%.Top types of robocalls in Indiana since 2015 include debt reduction, imposters and medical & prescription calls.Click to see the full report. By 95.3 MNC – February 20, 2020 0 226 Previous articleSouthwest Michigan man accused of beheading grandmotherNext articleI&M approved to build, operate Michiana solar facility 95.3 MNCNews/Talk 95.3 Michiana’s News Channel is your breaking news and weather station for northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan. Google+ WhatsApp Twitter WhatsApplast_img read more

Proposed European law to ban under 16s from social media

first_imgStuff 15 December 2015A new law plans to ban children under 16 living in the European Union (EU) from social media unless they have parental consent – but New Zealand experts say it won’t have the desired effect.EU Parliament introduced the change to the proposed data protection laws last week.If the new legislation is passed it will raise the age of consent for websites to use personal data from 13 to 16.NetSafe chief executive Martin Cocker said the impetus for the law change was data protection but it was unlikely to make personal information any safer.“It’s based on the premise that children between 13 and 16 are not capable of understanding the contracts that they’re getting into with social media in terms of the treatment of their data.“I think the truth is very few people are aware of what they’re signing themselves into.”Cocker said companies like Facebook and Twitter had the most user-friendly privacy policies due to public scrutiny.“The challenge is it may drive people away from the social media platforms that are following the rules and are therefore the better behaved ones. It may be counter-productive.”Bob McCoskrie, head of conservative lobby group Family First, said he did not think the proposed law would be enforceable.Changing the age limit “has merit” but “the horse has bolted” when it comes to kids getting access to social media sites, he said.“My concern with social media is not that the kids are on it but it’s the type of people that go on masquerading as someone they’re not.”No matter what the entry point, parents should be regularly monitoring their children on social media and restricting their time online, McCoskrie said.“I liken social media to just leaving the bedroom window open and allowing anyone to just come into the bedroom.” up with family issues in NZ. Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.last_img read more

Applications being taken for Ms. Wheelchair Iowa contest

first_imgWATERLOO — A new advocate for Iowans with disabilities will be chosen next weekend in Waterloo.The Ms. Wheelchair Iowa Contest is scheduled for March 7th and contestants are still welcome to apply and compete for the crown. Jenn Wolff, of Waverly, is a former titleholder and is one of this year’s event organizers. She says you need to be a U.S. citizen who’s at least 21 and have lived in Iowa at least six months.“We are looking for women who use wheelchairs 100% of the time for mobility,” Wolff says. “We’re hoping that they want to educate the general public, advocate for others with disabilities. We’re really hoping to build this competition into a stronger community of women with disabilities.” Wolff says the winner will be picked based on her accomplishments since the onset of the disability.She notes it’s not a beauty pageant so there’s no swimsuit competition and contestants don’t need to perform some sort of talent.Wolff says, “It is really more focused on building education and empowerment and advocacy, in building a person’s confidence, public speaking ability, and civic engagement.”The winner’s duties will revolve around her platform and her ability to travel — which may take her from local parades, churches, civic groups and schools to the state capitol, the governor’s office and beyond. Wolff, who was Ms. Wheelchair Iowa 2011, says being the titleholder had a profound impact on her life — for the better.“There is power in the tiara! It gets you into rooms that you might not be able to otherwise get into to speak,” Wolff says. “It really, really helped my confidence and ability to public speak. Going to nationals is unlike anything else because you’re in a room full of women in wheelchairs and you will never, ever get that experience anywhere else. It was amazing.”The Iowa winner will represent the state at the Ms. Wheelchair America event, scheduled for August in Little Rock, Arkansas. To apply for the state contest, search for “Ms. Wheelchair Iowa Contest 2020” on Facebook and scroll down to find a link to the application.last_img read more

Ram responds to CoI Chairman Cites procedural disregard and injustice as reason for Bar…

first_imgAfter being labelled childish by Prison Commission of Inquiry (CoI) Chairman, Justice James Patterson, Guyana Bar Association (GBA) President Christopher Ram has finally responded, explaining his Association’s reason for withdrawing from the Inquiry, which is seeking to determine what led to the deadly prison riot on March 3.Last month, Justice Patterson scolded Ram, who had stormed out of the CoI, withdrawing the group’s participation from the investigation. Patterson had said Ram’s behaviour was childish.At the time, Ram was of the view that some lawyers at the CoI were being sidelined, and more ‘privileges’ were being given to the Guyana Prison Service’s and Guyana Fire Service’s legal representatives.In his response on Thursday, Ram said the Bar Association could not be allowed to be “perceived as compromised or complicit in an exercise that paid little regard to basic standards of procedure and fairness in this matter”.He said the Chairman, the only legal person on the Commission, could not escape responsibility for the shortcomings that did a disservice to those who died or were injured or otherwise affected by the events of March 3.Ram said the statement issued by Patterson, two days after he walked out of the CoI, failed to address the issues at hand, but rather was replete with personal attacks and invective.“Since I only read about the statement in the press, I wrote to the Chairman on April 26 asking for a copy of the statement and for him to indicate to me from the detailed transcripts of the proceedings the instances where my conduct fell short of professional standards. So far, Mr Patterson has failed to respond to my request. Without engaging in any ad hominem accusations, I wish to clarify the position of the Guyana Bar Association on the decision to cease participation in the Commission,” Ram said.He posited that after observing a number of weaknesses in the proceedings of the Commission days after it began taking evidence, the Bar Association on March 11, 2016 applied for and received standing from the Commission to appear before it. Some of the weaknesses, he said,  were commencing public hearings without any adequate preparation, including placement of advertisements inviting witnesses; the absence of basic information gathering; the absence of Rules of Conduct; the non-appointment of a Commission Counsel; the selection of witnesses, and the conflicts of interest among Commissioners.“In an effort to assist the Commission, the Bar Association soon thereafter provided the Commission with a copy of the Rules of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry and other literature and authorities on Commissions of Inquiry, including the role and authority of the Chairman in a Commission of Inquiry.”Ram said the Counsel for the Bar Association and inmates had expressed their dissatisfaction repeatedly, but out of public duty and an obligation to contribute to the search for the truth, continued its participation in the Inquiry. The situation became entirely intolerable when a key witness, the Senior Superintendent of Prisons was being examined by opposing Counsel, he added.The Bar Association President said as a result, following consultations with Glenn Hanoman who regularly appeared at the hearings on behalf of the Association, and with other Attorneys at the Commission, it was agreed that the Association’s continued participation in the Inquiry only served to give legitimacy to a seriously flawed process.Attorneys were particularly struck by the repeated and ill-informed comment of one Commissioner that the Commission was not a court of law and the insistence for procedural proprieties was time-consuming, unproductive and unnecessary. On the other hand, it was becoming increasingly apparent that the Commission was more concerned about an artificially imposed deadline rather than a genuine pursuit of its Terms of Reference.“It is my contention that any Commission of Inquiry, and certainly one investigating the worst prison deaths in the history of any Commonwealth country, cannot be fettered in its search for the truth. Truth is often hidden and its discovery takes painstaking examination. Unless there is clear evidence of irrelevance, obstructionism or time wasting, Commissioners ought to carry out their duties diligently and fairly to all the parties with not even a semblance of injudiciousness, arbitrariness, capriciousness or ignorance of the relevant rules.“The Attorneys representing the Bar Association did not take the decision to withdraw lightly and we remain committed to the cause of justice in this matter. We could not, however, allow the Bar Association to be perceived as compromised or complicit in an exercise that paid little regard to basic standards of procedure and fairness in this matter,” Ram said.last_img read more