Tag: crosshairs

  • CIA in Congress’ crosshairs over alleged mishandling of sex assault cases

    CIA in Congress’ crosshairs over alleged mishandling of sex assault cases

    [ad_1]

    Carroll said his client has told him that as many as 54 women at the CIA over the past decade have said they were been victims of sexual assault or misconduct by colleagues, and that their cases were improperly handled. POLITICO could not independently verify that assertion.

    “This is the CIA’s Me Too moment,” said Carroll, who is a partner at the firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and is representing the victim pro bono.

    The investigation started when one female CIA employee approached the committee in January and said that the agency had not punished a male colleague who had allegedly physically assaulted her and tried to forcibly kiss her repeatedly, according to Carroll and a copy of the complaint the woman made to local law enforcement.

    She said that she quickly reported the attack to numerous offices at the CIA, but nothing was done.

    She also said she was told by officials in the CIA’s security office that if she reported the incident to law enforcement, they would not protect her anymore from the alleged assailant. She said she was warned that moving forward with the allegation could end her career at the agency, according to Carroll and the complaint.

    He said the CIA also threatened the women who were going to Congress with adverse consequences if they spoke out.

    The CIA denied that the agency had tried to prevent the women from speaking to Congress. “This idea that there’s some threatening [of] officers who want to talk to HPSCI, that’s not true,” said the senior CIA official, referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “We haven’t threatened or blocked anybody.”

    Carroll said that the committee’s staff have been busy talking to the women, comparing it to “client intake.”

    Local county law enforcement is pursuing the first woman’s case as a misdemeanor, according to a document viewed by POLITICO, which is not sharing more details about the case in deference to her security concerns.

    “We greatly appreciate the assistance of local law enforcement,” Carroll said. “If federal law enforcement had taken a similar interest, the charge would be felony sex assault.”

    In a joint statement to POLITICO, Turner and Himes said: “Sexual assault is a heinous crime. Our committee is committed to addressing this matter and protecting those who are serving their country. We have been in contact with Director Burns, and he is fully committed to working with us on this issue.”

    When asked for comment, CIA spokesperson Tammy Kupperman Thorp said in a statement that there “can be no tolerance for sexual assault or harassment at CIA.”

    “The Director and senior CIA leaders have personally met with officers to understand their concerns and to take swift action,” she said. “We have established an office to work closely with survivors of sexual assault, and we are committed to treating every concern raised by members of the workforce with the utmost seriousness.”

    She added that Burns and the agency’s senior leadership team is fully engaged on the issue and tracking it closely. “We are committed to supporting the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation and are keeping the Committee updated on our progress,” she said.

    The senior CIA official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the agency’s inner workings, disputed that the CIA impedes alleged victims who want to approach law enforcement. The official said the agency is required by law to refer allegations of criminal sexual misconduct to law enforcement, and they do so. But the official added that in some cases, law enforcement declines to prosecute and so the CIA “takes appropriate action.”

    At the same time, the person said that even before the letter from Congress, “we obviously recognize that we have to make some changes and improvements.” The official said that the “reporting process is difficult for some people to navigate” and that the agency is in the process of hiring an expert from the outside with decades of experience on combating sexual assault in the workforce to lead its new “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.” The official said there are only a “handful of officers” who currently work in the office but that they expect to increase staffing.

    Despite the congressional investigation, the official said the issue did not seem to affect many employees. “While one incident is too many, this may not be a pervasive problem throughout the agency. We take every single one of these allegations seriously, but it does not appear to be really widespread.” The official declined to comment on any specific cases or share the numbers of how many sexual misconduct allegations have been made.

    Kevin Byrnes, a partner with the law firm FH+H, who is the Equal Employment Opportunity lawyer for the first woman who complained to the committee, said he represents several other female CIA employees who are alleging they were sexually assaulted or harassed in the workplace.

    He said the agency’s security division and EEO office discourages people from filing complaints by claiming it’s not in the best interests of the women or would trigger disclosure of classified information. The CIA also requires victims to file a complaint within 45 days.

    CIA employees go through the EEO process to vindicate their rights, according to Byrnes, as well as to secure changes in their working conditions and obtain payment for attorneys’ fees and compensation for pain and suffering.

    But the office “has been a mechanism for deflection and interference with … complaints,” he said.

    The senior CIA official said that the agency is working to fix how the EEO process works and is receiving recommendations for improvements. The person conceded that there have not yet been any tangible improvements made to that process.

    A second woman who has spoken to committee staff in recent months alleged she was raped by a colleague at the CIA, according to Carroll. He said that the agency did not properly punish the alleged perpetrator. A third woman said that the same thing happened when she was sexually assaulted by a colleague at work, he added.

    Allegations of sexual assault by CIA officers have surfaced publicly at times in the last 15 years. In 2009, two women said they were drugged and raped by Andrew Warren, the CIA’s former station chief in Algeria. A search of his residence found a dozen videotapes of him engaging in sexual acts with women, including some in a semi-conscious state. He pled guilty to the assault and served five years in prison.

    Two years ago, former CIA officer Brian Jeffrey Raymond pled guilty to a number of federal charges, including sexual abuse. He was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting dozens of women he had met on dating apps over a 14-year period.

    Raymond was arrested in Mexico City after local authorities responded to a naked woman screaming from his balcony. He was working for the U.S. embassy in Mexico City at the time.

    BuzzFeed also reported in late 2021 that the agency had accumulated evidence that at least 10 employees and contractors had committed sex crimes that involved children, but despite many of the cases being referred to law enforcement, only one person was charged with a crime.

    Erin Banco contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #CIA #Congress #crosshairs #alleged #mishandling #sex #assault #cases
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Twitter’s plan to charge researchers for data access puts it in EU crosshairs

    Twitter’s plan to charge researchers for data access puts it in EU crosshairs

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    Elon Musk pledged Twitter would abide by Europe’s new content rules — but Yevgeniy Golovchenko is not so convinced.

    The Ukrainian academic, an assistant professor at the University of Copenhagen, relies on the social network’s data to track Russian disinformation, including propaganda linked to the ongoing war in Ukraine. But that access, including to reams of tweets analyzing pro-Kremlin messaging, may soon be cut off. Or, even worse for Golovchenko, cost him potentially millions of euros a year.

    Under Musk’s leadership, Twitter is shutting down researchers’ free access to its data, though the final decision on when that will happen has yet to be made. Company officials are also offering new pay-to-play access to researchers via deals that start at $42,000 per month and can rocket up to $210,000 per month for the largest amount of data, according to Twitter’s internal presentation to academics that was shared with POLITICO.

    Yet this switch — from almost unlimited, free data access to costly monthly subscription fees — falls afoul of the European Union’s new online content rules, the Digital Services Act. Those standards, which kick in over the coming months, require the largest social networking platforms, including Twitter, to provide so-called vetted researchers free access to their data.

    It remains unclear how Twitter will meet its obligations under the 27-country bloc’s rules, which impose fines of up to 6 percent of its yearly revenue for infractions.

    “If Twitter makes access less accessible to researchers, this will hurt research on things like disinformation and misinformation,” said Golovchenko who — like many academics who spoke with POLITICO — are now in limbo until Twitter publicly decides when, or whether, it will shut down its current free data-access regime.

    It also means that “we will have fewer choices,” added the Ukrainian, acknowledging that, until now, Twitter had been more open for outsiders to poke around its data compared with the likes of Facebook or YouTube. “This means will be even more dependent on the goodwill of social media platforms.”

    Meeting EU commitments

    When POLITICO contacted Twitter for comment, the press email address sent back a poop emoji in response. A company representative did not respond to POLITICO’s questions, though executives met with EU officials and civil society groups Wednesday to discuss how Twitter would comply with Europe’s data-access obligations, according to three people with knowledge of those discussions, who were granted anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

    Twitter was expected to announce details of its new paid-for data access regime last week, according to the same individuals briefed on those discussions, though no specifics about the plans were yet known. As of Friday night, no details had yet been published.

    Still, the ongoing uncertainty comes as EU regulators and policymakers have Musk in their crosshairs as the onetime world’s richest man reshapes Twitter into a free speech-focused social network. The Tesla chief executive has fired almost all of the trust, safety and policy teams in a company-wide cull of employees and has already failed to comply with some of the bloc’s new content rules that require Twitter to detail how it is tackling falsehoods and foreign interference.

    Musk has publicly stated the company will comply with the bloc’s content rules.

    “Access to platforms’ data is one of the key elements of democratic oversight of the players that control increasingly bigger part of Europe’s information space,” Věra Jourová, the European Commission vice president for values and transparency, told POLITICO in an emailed statement in reference to the EU’s code of practice on disinformation, a voluntary agreement that Twitter signed up to last year. A Commission spokesperson said such access would have to be free to approved researchers.

    h 57314716
    European Commission Vice President Věra Jourová said “Access to platforms’ data is one of the key elements of democratic oversight” | Olivier Hoslet/EPA-EFE

    “If the access to researchers is getting worse, most likely that would go against the spirit of that commitment (under Europe’s new content rules),” Jourová added. “I appeal to Twitter to find the solution and respect its commitments under the code.”

    Show me the data access

    For researchers based in the United States — who don’t fall under the EU’s new content regime — the future is even bleaker.

    Megan Brown, a senior research engineer at New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics, which relies heavily on Twitter’s existing access, said half of her team’s 40 projects currently use the company’s data. Under Twitter’s proposed price hikes, the researchers would have to scrap their reliance on the social network via existing paid-for access through the company’s so-called Decahose API for large-scale data access, which is expected to be shut off by the end of May.

    NYU’s work via Twitter data has looked at everything from how automated bots skew conversations on social media to potential foreign interference via social media during elections. Such projects, Brown added, will not be possible when Twitter shuts down academic access to those unwilling to pay the new prices.

    “We cannot pay that amount of money,” said Brown. “I don’t know of a research center or university that can or would pay that amount of money.”

    For Rebekah Tromble, chairperson of the working group on platform-to-researcher data access at the European Digital Media Observatory, a Commission-funded group overseeing which researchers can access social media companies’ data under the bloc’s new rules, any rollback of Twitter’s data-access allowances would be against their existing commitments to give researchers greater access to its treasure trove of data.

    “If Twitter makes the choice to begin charging researchers for access, it will clearly be in violation of its commitments under the code of practice [on disinformation],” she said.

    This article has been updated.



    [ad_2]
    #Twitters #plan #charge #researchers #data #access #puts #crosshairs
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )

  • Three years into the pandemic, nursing home residents are still in Covid’s crosshairs

    Three years into the pandemic, nursing home residents are still in Covid’s crosshairs

    [ad_1]

    virus outbreak nursing homes 70617

    That’s still higher than most Americans: A scant 16 percent of the eligible U.S. population has gotten the updated shot. But when it comes to Covid, nursing home residents have never been like most Americans. Nursing home residents make up about one out of every six cumulative Covid deaths in the U.S., according to AARP, and hundreds of residents are still dying each week.

    Nearly three years since SARS-CoV-2 devastated residents, their families and staff, the Biden administration is struggling to ensure the country’s most vulnerable population is protected from the virus. As the federal government loosens its grip on managing the pandemic in long-term care facilities — as it has throughout society — not all nursing homes are stepping into the breach to encourage residents and staff to get boosted, raising the question of who, in a Covid-endemic America, is ultimately responsible for continuing to protect this uniquely exposed community from an unpredictable disease.

    “There’s this real disconnect between the idea that we have to be hypervigilant protecting residents, but at the same time the underlying policy isn’t reflecting that,” said Sam Brooks, director of public policy for the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care. “It’s kind of back to how things were before. And that’s sad. Because how it was before was why this happened.”

    The Trump and then Biden administrations’ first nursing home vaccination campaign was a bright spot in the early pandemic response: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention teamed up with CVS and Walgreens to stage free, on-site clinics at thousands of long-term care facilities across the country, ultimately administering some eight million shots.

    Later, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which monitors the more-than-15,000 nursing homes that receive Medicare and Medicaid dollars, introduced a requirement that those facilities’ staff must get their primary Covid vaccination.

    The two policies helped push both groups’ Covid vaccination rates far above the nursing home vaccination rates for other diseases, such as flu and pneumococcal.

    But they weren’t used again for the bivalent shot, which protects against the Covid strain that now comprises the majority of cases. Nursing home residents who are not up to date on their Covid vaccinations are up to 50 percent more likely to be infected than their peers who are, according to the CDC.

    The CDC still partners with retail pharmacies at tens of thousands of locations around the country to administer vaccines, but has scaled back the program, putting the onus on long-term facilities to arrange most onsite vaccine clinics from pharmacies or state health departments, or administer the vaccine themselves.

    CMS also has not updated its staff vaccine mandate to include the bivalent shot or previous boosters, despite research showing that higher staff vaccination rates are associated with lower rates of infection and death among residents.

    “For the initial vaccination campaign in 2021, we saw an extraordinary effort and we got extraordinary results. For delivering Covid boosters to nursing home residents, we saw a normal effort and we got normal results,” said Ari Houser, senior methods advisor at the AARP Public Policy Institute. “I had hoped that the lesson learned from that very successful initial vaccination campaign is that we should do this more often… But it doesn’t seem to have been the way things went.”

    Everyone agrees that vaccine fatigue among residents and staff alike — as in the rest of the country — is pervasive, but nursing homes are doing an uneven job on their own navigating that challenge, advocates say.

    Administration health officials, for their part, say they have tried tackling the low booster rate from every angle.

    Nursing home residents remain the nation’s “most vulnerable” group, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said on Feb. 8 while testifying before Congress, adding that the current booster vaccination rate “is not enough.”

    In November, CMS reminded nursing homes that they are required to educate residents and staff about Covid vaccines and to offer to administer boosters. The agency also provided more assistance to facilities to help them set up on-site clinics and distribute vaccine education materials. The agency has sent a list of nursing homes’ vaccination rates to states, and last month CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure wrote to the governors of Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Texas and Mississippi — the five states with the lowest resident booster rates — and requested calls about how to improve the situation. CMS declined to say whether those have taken place.

    When asked whether CMS considered updating the staff vaccine mandate to include the latest shot, a CMS spokesperson responded that boosters were not recommended at the time the rule was made in late 2021, but that the agency has “continued to encourage all eligible individuals to remain up to date by receiving the latest updated bivalent vaccine.”

    As for the on-site clinics, when the booster was authorized, officials determined that vaccine demand wasn’t sufficient at this point in the pandemic to flood nursing homes with clinics again, particularly if relatively few residents might get vaccinated at each event.

    The CDC has instead focused its efforts on teaming up with national organizations trying to combat vaccine fatigue and hesitancy and help long-term care facilities link up with pharmacies, among other measures. Later this month, CDC is scheduled to host a “bootcamp” for long-term care facility administrators and health care providers to help them figure out how to improve vaccine confidence in their facilities.

    Nursing home representatives say the current system is working as well as can be expected three years into the pandemic. Facilities aren’t having any problem accessing or administering the vaccines, they say, but vaccine fatigue is widespread among residents, family members and the communities where staff live.

    Residents need to get boosted, but they’re not seeing the same scale of death and illness happening as they were when the first vaccine came out, said David Gifford, chief medical officer of the American Health Care Association and National Center for Assisted Living, which represents over 14,000 nursing homes and assisted living communities.

    “It’s a demand problem. You can send out the National Guard to every nursing home. You’re not going to see the vaccine go up,” he said. “How much do we want to badger the elderly to get the vaccine? That’s what it comes down to. Some people may not be badgering them as hard as other people.”

    ‘It comes down to the leadership’

    Arizona, which has the lowest resident booster rate in the nation at 35 percent, was one of the states to get a letter from Brooks-LaSure.

    “It comes down to the leadership of the facilities believing in the vaccine,” said David Voepel, CEO of the Arizona Health Care Association, a member association for nursing homes in the state. “Once you have that leadership buy-in and that education moving throughout the facility, then it spreads like wildfire — either positive or negative.”

    Voepel said that expanding the CMS staffing mandate to include the booster would probably not sit well in Arizona, a sentiment shared broadly in an industry that worries another requirement would make it even harder to recruit and retain workers amid a long-running staffing crisis.

    As for having more free, on-site clinics come to facilities, Voepel said the federal government probably should have “done more on that end, but hindsight is 20-20.”

    The Arizona Department of Health Services is worried about the steep drop between the primary vaccine numbers and booster numbers in older adults, spokesperson Steve Elliott said in a statement to POLITICO.

    “The results have been far different from the earliest phase of the COVID-19 vaccination response, when Arizona’s long-term care facilities had success getting residents the primary series of COVID-19 vaccinations through the CDC’s partnership with Walgreens and CVS,” he wrote. “Uptake of the bivalent booster is lower than everyone wishes among all Arizonans ages 65 and older.”

    The state has set up a mobile vaccination program that visits individuals in their homes and at facilities, he said. But so far, since the bivalent booster was rolled out, that service has only visited about 30 of the state’s 155 licensed long-term care facilities as of the end of last year, he said.

    “Facilities struggle to attract and retain employees, and they have faced an early surge in influenza and RSV, in addition to COVID-19 remaining active in communities,” Elliott said. “Some facilities have told us that arranging for and holding a mobile clinic is difficult for already taxed employees.”

    Older Arizonans still have a lot of questions about the vaccine, including confusion over why the bivalent shot is different from the boosters that came before it, said Voepel. Both the state and federal education campaigns are underway, he said, but there are still a lot of things they have “to work through.”

    Answering those questions — and battling vaccine misinformation and fatigue — has been a central plank of the federal effort to get more older Americans boosted this fall and winter.

    Late last year, HHS ran ads about the updated vaccine aimed at older adults in several underserved communities. The CDC ran pre-Thanksgiving and holiday campaigns to reach older adults and long-term care facilities, both by sending out flyers to distribute in facilities and through social media.

    But observers say those campaigns, however well intentioned, simply have not landed in a sprawling network of facilities where resident and staff attitudes toward the Covid vaccines are influenced by everything from the homes’ leadership to staffing numbers to local politics.

    “If you’re going to move the needle, it’s going to take a lot more than education,” said David Grabowski, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School who studies the nursing home industry. He said he was “skeptical” about the administration’s decision to focus on education in nursing homes when it came to the booster, given that recent research has shown its impact to be limited on both nursing home staff and on resident vaccination rates. “I would say put those dollars towards clinics, or something that has been shown to work,” he said.

    ‘Nothing has really changed’

    America’s nursing homes have been at the epicenter of the pandemic since its earliest days, when the nation watched as cases of a new virus spread rapidly through a nursing home in Washington State.

    That nursing home received a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars for violating infection control regulations, one of the quality of care standards that CMS measures in nursing homes that receive federal money.

    That was rare. An analysis published in May 2020 by the Government Accountability Office found that between 2013 and 2017, more than 80 percent of U.S. nursing homes had at least one infection prevention and control violation, and half of those had multiple violations.

    The state surveyors who conducted the evaluations classified almost every one of the violations as “not severe” — meaning they believed no residents were harmed — and only about 1 percent of the violations resulted in any enforcement action by CMS, like having to pay a fine.

    A year ago, the Biden administration laid out an ambitious plan to make nursing homes safer and more transparent, noting that the hundreds of thousands of Covid deaths among residents and staff “highlighted the tragic impact of substandard conditions at nursing homes.”

    But the pandemic, while raising awareness of the need for better infection prevention and control in nursing homes, did not necessarily change how some violations of best practices were evaluated and regulated.

    In 2021 and 2022, during the height of the pandemic, inspectors reported that the vast majority of infection prevention and control violations they found caused “no actual harm,” according to a CMS database. That level of citation typically requires a facility to create a “plan of correction,” but it is extremely rare for a facility to face any financial penalty, says Brooks of the National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care.

    When asked whether CMS considered changes to how it regulates infection control after the 2020 GAO report, a CMS spokesperson, in a written response, told POLITICO: “Regardless of whether there is a penalty or not, nursing homes are required to correct their noncompliance in order to continue to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Plans of correction are a critical tool in this process and play a large role, prior to fines being accessed for continued non-compliance.”

    This winter, as Covid cases began to ramp back up, CMS reminded long term care facilities about the importance of infection control, and the White House issued a “winter playbook,” urging facilities to once again try to improve booster rates, test symptomatic residents and staff, make sure treatment options were available and improve indoor air quality.

    But without stronger enforcement — and in particular, financial consequences — the industry doesn’t correct itself, said Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

    “Nothing really has changed. We still have the same deficiencies now,” said Edelman. “It’s very disheartening because this is life and death for so many people.”

    [ad_2]
    #years #pandemic #nursing #home #residents #Covids #crosshairs
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )