Lobbying America

This introductory chapter presents new understandings of manufacturing's main lobbyist and trade association, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). To understand how a conservative, anti-union organization can also be seen as progressive, the chapter first takes a look at its background as it considers how disorganized and chaotic US capitalism was at the end of the nineteenth century, when NAM was founded. In addition to examining NAM's role in organizing and globalizing capitalism, the chapter explores how it worked, who it represented, and how effective it was as a lobbyist. It also identifies NAM's many internal tensions. Furthermore, the chapter identifies the economic, ideological, and institutional concerns that drove NAM actors, as these offer insight into the evolving political taxonomies of our own day.

This chapter examines the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) during the 1980s. While Ronald Reagan's attacks on unions were ideologically satisfying, by this time NAM's principal battle was no longer against labor, which had lost its bargaining power. Indeed, the NAM of the 1980s had much in common with its historical enemy as both sought to shore up “old” industries against new import-dependent retailers (like Wal-Mart) and non-unionized high-tech industries. NAM and labor still skirmished, of course. But it is worth considering their common plight in the Reagan Era. Both had been losing both members and politicel clout. Both were part of the old “smokestack” industrial economy. And both were slowly being abandoned by the parties that had once fought their battles in Washington. Just as a new breed of Democrats were ignoring the demands of a shrinking union constituency, so too were Reagan Republicans less than thrilled about saving manufacturing. Once at the forefront of shaping industrial capitalism, NAM and its union foes were now struggling to survive in a post-industrial economy.

AS CONGRESS PREPARES to take up its first major global warming bill, chemical manufacturers and other fossil-fuel-dependent businesses are warning lawmakers that energy costs will skyrocket if mandatory limits are placed on greenhouse gas emissions. “We are trying to educate people about the link between natural gas and climate change,” says Thomas J. Gibson, senior vice president of advocacy for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the industry’s chief lobbying organization. “What Congress keeps missing is that we need more natural gas, not less.” Despite the politics of an election year, Gibson and other trade association officials aren’t ruling out congressional action this year on global warming and a host of other key issues, including energy, security, taxes, and transportation. Major business organizations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, remain adamantly opposed to so-called cap-and-trade proposals to cut emissions linked to climate change, main...

This chapter considers the National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) most stunning achievement—the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Condemned by labor, liberals, and most historians, the Taft-Hartley Act curbed union gains and allegedly marked a turn to the right. But it also represented NAM's acceptance of collective bargaining with industry-wide unions. It was a peace of sorts, a settlement, in NAM's long-running war against big unions. It was NAM “moderates” who advocated for what became the Taft-Hartley Act, not the conservative hardliners. Taft-Hartley required businesses to accept the legitimacy of unions and collective bargaining. In exchange, the act put limitations on unions' right to strike, while expanding management's right to manage. Hard-line conservatives rejected this compromise, while NAM's more moderate and pragmatic conservatives were able to unite all of the major business groups around it, a rare moment of real leadership for NAM at a time when the direction of the US economy was up for grabs.

Symposium. Your Career in Teaching; Your Opportunities in Science and Engineering; Your Future Is What You Make It; Your Opportunity in Management; Working Together; Pioneers of Progress; Our Land, Our Spirit; Patents and Your Tomorrow; Productiopt; Key to Progress Dollars in Shirt Sleeves; May the Best Man Win; and Your Money Is What You Make It. New York (14 West

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Compelled Commercial Speech

The outstanding attainments of science and technology in the first postwar decades generated a euphoria of bright hopes for the rapid development of productive forces, a swift improvement in the organization of production, and economic prosperity. In the opinion of members of America's National Association of Manufacturers, the automation of production was to be the ‘magic key to prosperity.’ The entrepreneurial philosophy of technocentrism, which emphasized new technology and regarded the work force merely as an element of production costs—and an indeterminate and unstable element at that—became widespread during this period in the developed countries, particularly the United States. In practice, it was expressed in an orientation toward the modernization of equipment and products while maintaining the traditional organization of labor, in an attempt to use new technology to gain tighter control over the work force and frequently to curtail the work force in an effort to create fully automated production.

This chapter shows that where donors essentially pursue selfish interests, and care less about local policy ownership and implications of policy reforms to the power and influence of the political leadership of recipient countries, there is a greater risk for reform failure. However, where donors allow aid recipient countries to own, shape and navigate the reforms, there are higher chances of reform success and sustainability. Two donor-supported public sector reforms (PSRs) in Uganda are used to demonstrate this argument. In one PSR where the government had the leverage to determine the needs, pace and mode of implementing the sensitive defence reforms according to its political interests, the results were relatively impressive. Conversely, Uganda’s public service reform process, whose content, pace and direction of reforms were influenced and driven by donors, stagnated, and the results were disappointing. Furthermore, policy reforms need not be overly many and ambitious for countries experiencing institutional and managerial incapacities. This chapter concludes by examining the reasons for variations in the two reforms and draws lessons for future policy reforms.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. "As a result of increasing interconnectivity, information systems and networks are now exposed to a growing number and a wider variety of threats and vulnerabilities. This raises new issues for security." OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks, July 25, 2002, at p. 7, available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/22/15582260.pdf. 2. Although not the subject of this article, it is important to note that countries are also enacting cybercrime legislation to make clear that certain online activities are illegal and to assist law enforcement in efforts to prosecute cyber criminals. To that end, the Privacy and Computer Crime Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law has recently undertaken a project to develop a Model Cybercrime Law for the UN International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Cybersecurity Work Programme to Assist Developing Countries. See also the International Guide to Combating Cybercrime published by this Committee, available at http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=ST202003. 3. See the Appendix for a compilation of some of the key laws and regulations governing information security. 4. See, e.g., EU Data Protection Directive and HIPAA, cited in the Appendix. 5. See, e.g., E-SIGN, UETA, and UN Convention cited in the Appendix. 6. See, e.g., Kimberly Kiefer and Randy V. Sabett, Openness of Internet Creates Potential for Corporate Information Security Liability, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Vol. 1, No. 25 at 788 (June 24, 2002); Alan Charles Raul, Frank R. Volpe, and Gabriel S. Meyer, Liability for Computer Glitches and Online Security Lapses, BNA Electronic Commerce Law Report, Vol. 6, No. 31 at 849 (August 8, 2001); Erin Kenneally, The Byte Stops Here: Duty and Liability for Negligent Internet Security, Computer Security Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 2, 2000. 7. See, e.g., Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007); Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006); and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005) (all affirming a negligence cause of action). See also, In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007) (rejecting a negligence claim due to the economic loss doctrine, but allowing a negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed). 8. See, e.g., American Express v. Vinhnee, 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. Bk. App. Panel, 2005); Lorraine v. Markel, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33020 (D. MD. May 4, 2007). 9. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. 10. Available at www.cabforum.org. 11. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC 27001"), available for purchase at http://www.standards-online.net/InformationSecurityStandard.htm. 12. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 13. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 14. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 15. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, (providing that "each person … who maintains or transmits health information shall maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards: (A) to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information; (B) to protect against any reasonably anticipated: (i) threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information; and (ii) unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information; and (C) otherwise to ensure compliance with this part by the officers and employees of such person," at 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 16. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act ("GLB"), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), at §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, providing that "[E]ach financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information." 17. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC). 18. Final HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 19. There have also been efforts in the United States to pursue comprehensive federal privacy similar to the approach taken by many other countries. See e.g., Microsoft position paper at www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2005/PrivacyLegislationCallWP.doc. Although it remains to be seen whether that approach will ultimately be adopted, it is clear that the combination of U.S. state and federal law has, in effect, imposed a comprehensive obligation of security with respect to all personal information held by all companies. 20. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of Sunbelt Lending Services, Inc.; In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; In the Matter of MTS, Inc., d/b/a Tower records/Books/Video; In the matter of Guess?, Inc.; FTC V. Microsoft; and In the Matter of Eli Lilly and Company cited in the Appendix. 21. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, Inc.; United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc.; In the Matter of DSW Inc.; and In the Matter of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. cited in the Appendix. 22. See list in the Appendix. 23. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). 24. 205 Mich. App. Lexis 353 at ∗16 (Mich. App. 2005). 25. 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at ∗9 (D. Minn. 2006). 26. Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). 27. In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007), at pp. 28–29. 28. Ibid. 29. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines the term "information system" to mean "any equipment or interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information, and includes—(A) computers and computer networks; (B) ancillary equipment; (C) software, firmware, and related procedures; (D) services, including support services; and (E) related resources." Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, at Section 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § 3532(b)(4). 30. See, e.g., Australia, Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988, Principle No. 4, available at www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html; AICPA and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), Generally Accepted Privacy principles, Principle No. 8, available at http://infotech.aicpa.org/Resources/Privacy/Generally+Accepted+Privacy+Principles; APEC, Privacy principles, Principle No. 7, available at http://austlii.edu.au/∼graham/APEC/APECv10.doc; US-EU Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, available at www.export.gov/safeharbor/SHPRINCIPLESFINAL.htm; Direct Marketing Association, Online Marketing Guidelines, available at www.the-dma.org/guidelines/onlineguidelines.shtml. 31. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 32. EU Data Protection Directive, Preamble at Para. 46. 33. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 34. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 35. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 36. See generally, Bruce H. Nearon, Jon Stanley, Steven W. Teppler, and Joseph Burton, Life after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Merger of Information Security and Accountability, Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 45, 379–412 (2005). 37. American Express v. Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437; 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. December 16, 2006). 38. Ibid., at p. 444. 39. Ibid., at p. 445. 40. Ibid., at pp. 446–447. 41. Ibid., at p. 449. 42. See, e.g., National Association of Corporate Directors, Information Security Oversight (2007). 43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 302. 44. See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations (Federal Reserve) 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix D-2.III(A). 45. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.308(a)(2). 46. See, FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix, including Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 27(a), p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at II.A. 47. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. 3544(a). 48. E. Michael Power and Roland L. Trope, Sailing in Dangerous Waters: A Director's Guide to Data Governanc e , American Bar Association (2005), p. 13; Roland L. Trope, "Directors' Digital Fiduciary Duties," IEEE Security & Privacy, January/February 2005 at p. 78. 49. Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996). 50. Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005), at pp. 11–13 (noting that harm was foreseeable, but Board took no action). 51. Securing Cyberspace: Business Roundtable's Framework for the Future, Business Roundtable, May 19, 2004 at pp. 1, 2; available at www.businessroundtable.org/pdf//20040518000CyberSecurityPrinciples.pdf. The Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States. See www.businessroundtable.org. 52. Information Security Governance: A Call to Action, Corporate Governance Task Force Report, National Cyber Security Partnership, April 2004, pp. 12–13, available at www.cyberpartnership.org/InfoSecGov4_04.pdf. The National Cyber Security Partnership (NCSP) is led by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), TechNet, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in voluntary partnership with academicians, CEOs, federal government agencies, and industry experts. Following the release of the 2003 White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the National Cyber Security Summit, this public–private partnership was established to develop shared strategies and programs to better secure and enhance America's critical information infrastructure. Further information is available at www.cyberpartnership.org. 53. GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part III.A and Part III.F. 54. See, e.g., Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1); GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.306(a)(1); Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. 55. See, e.g., 44 USC 3532(b)(1), emphasis added. See also FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1). Most of the foreign privacy laws also focus their security requirements from this perspective. This includes, for example, the EU Privacy Directive, Finland's Privacy Law, Italy's Privacy Law, and the UK Privacy Law. Also in this category is the Canadian Privacy Law. 56. Although they often focus on categories of security measures to address. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 57. See, e.g., FDA regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 11 (procedures and controls); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 257.1(e)(3) (procedures); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 240.17a-4 (controls); GLB regulations (FTC) 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (safeguards); Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Schedule I, Section 4.7 (safeguards); EU Data Privacy Directive, Article 17(1) (measures) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf. 58. See, e.g., HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; COPPA, 15 U.S.C. 6502(b)(1)(D), and COPPA regulations 16 C.F.R. 312.8; IRS Rev. Proc. 97-22, sec. 4.01(2); SEC regulations 17 C.F.R. 257. See also UCC Article 4A, Section 202 ("commercially reasonable" security procedure), and Microsoft Consent Decree. 59. "Appropriate" security required by: HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 60. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1) (emphasis added) 61. See, e.g., Belgium—Belgian Law of 8 December 1992 on Privacy Protection in relation to the Processing of Personal Data, as modified by the law of 11 December 1998 Implementing Directive 95/46/EC, and the law of 26 February 2003, Chapter IV, Article 16(4); Denmark—Act on Processing of Personal Data,; Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000 (unofficial English translation), Title IV, Part 11, Section 41(3); Estonia—Personal Data Protection Act; Passed February12, 2003 (RT1 I 2003, 26, 158), entered into force October 1, 2003, Chapter 3, Sections 19(2); Greece—Law 2472/1997 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (as amended by Laws 2819/2000 and 2915/2001); Article 10(3); Ireland—Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003; Section 2.-(1)(d) and First Schedule Article 7; Lithuania—Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, January 21, 2003, No. IX-1296, Official translation, with amendments April 13, 2004, Article 24(1); Netherlands—25 892—Rules for the protection of personal data (Personal Data Protection Act) (Unofficial translation); Article 13; Portugal—Act on the Protection of Personal Data (transposing into the Portuguese legal system Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), Article 14(1); Slovakia—Act No 428 of July 3, 2002 on personal data protection; Section 15(1); Sweden—Personal Data Act (1998:204); issued April 29, 1998, Section 31; and UK—Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Principle. 62. See, e.g., Finland—The Finnish Personal Data Act (523/1999), given on 22.4.1999, Section 32(1); Germany—Federal Data Protection Act as of January 1, 2003, Section 9; Hungary—Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, Article 10(1); Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, Sections 31 and 33; Spain—Organic Law 15/1999 of December 13 on the Protection of Personal Data, Article 9. 63. 5 USC Sec. 552a. 64. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (d)(10) (emphasis added). 65. 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 66. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC) (emphasis added). 67. Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). 68. See UN Convention at Article 9(3), 9(4), and 9(5). 69. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005). See text at footnotes 157–169, infra. February 1, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift May 16 C.F.R. Part 44 U.S.C. Section 45 C.F.R. 164. See of the on by of the Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee on the United States 21, 2007 at p. (noting that FTC under the GLB Act as a for the obligation to maintain reasonable and appropriate available at See also, of the the on Information and the Committee on U.S. House of on April 21, 2004, at p. 5 (noting that is an of reasonable and appropriate measures in of the available at See, e.g., FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. See, e.g., National Association of Insurance for Information Model available at in at See, e.g., Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. 78. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006). Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Committee on available at See, e.g., Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, B, § Act No 428 of July 2002 on personal data § the Appendix, Act, B, Section Act, Section the Appendix, Act, Article Act, Section Act, 16(4); Act, Section 41(3); Act, Section Act, Section 32(1); Act, Section 9; Act, Article 10(3); Act, Article 10(1); Act, Article 24(1); Act, Article 13; Act, Article 14(1); Act, Section 15(1); Act, Article 9; Act, Section 31; UK Act, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Act, Article 7. the Appendix, Act, Schedule 2, Section Act, Act, Schedule 1, 4.7 Principle 7, Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and the Appendix, Act, Section A Security § Act, Section Decree the Appendix, Decree the Appendix, Act, Section Principle 4; Act, Article Act, Article Act, Sections and Act, Section Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and Bruce & Digital Security in a & at p. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., In Electronic July 30, Financial Council, 2; available at See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., United States v. Cir. See, e.g., Inc. v. also v. or of to with and of See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part and Part FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 CFR Section and and on HIPAA Security of & Section of Science & Technology Law, No. April 2003, at p. 2, available at See, e.g., HIPAA regulations 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Regulations, 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix and 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Microsoft Consent at p. 4. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5 and Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, and 26, pp. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at Microsoft Consent Decree at p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. See, e.g., of the of the of National on 21, at See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). See Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). See Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) that a was the to and a of a was not a of a of reasonable The Financial is a of U.S. federal agencies, that the Board of of the Reserve Insurance the National the of the of the and the of Thrift on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at Guide for the Guidelines Information Security December available at Information Security July available at See National Institute of and Management Guide for Information Technology No. available at ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC ISO/IEC § for is the and of International and is of a of the of with and a in that the The American National Institute the United States. See, The also in and in related to including The of make its with the United States. See ISO/IEC 27001, § (emphasis added). ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § 164. ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 6. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 8. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ ISO/IEC that with an International not in from legal p. 1. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 8. Article Data Protection on the processing of personal data to health in health February 15, at pp. available at (emphasis in See list of state laws in Report, Security and Laws of 15, 2005 at Appendix available at Code, § Rev. Stat. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. See list in the Appendix. See, e.g., 16 CFR Section Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § HIPAA security regulations to in the Act Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part security regulations to information in the financial Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § and § amending 44 U.S.C. § information and information systems from unauthorized and regulations, 21 C.F.R. Part 11. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). See April 2, the Matter of of the Act of of Information and Information Services, No. No. April 2, at available at (hereinafter Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). in an Internet 12, 2005 available at This was by an on on in an Internet 8, available at of No. 25, The is an See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § at p. 6. Ibid., at p. 3. Ibid. v. National 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2007), at p. 13. See, e.g., on of Security Breach Personal of Privacy of April 2006 (hereinafter at pp. at note , at p. a of such in the United States and a of the number of individuals Privacy at IRS Rev. Proc. § See list of statutes in the Appendix. on for Access to Information and Part of A to Appendix, at 12 C.F.R. Part 30 (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part (FDIC), and 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift 29, Vol. No. 29, at p. (hereinafter the maintains personal information that the not in the laws the to the or of the information, than the individuals of any of the security of the See, e.g., Code § Rev. Stat. § Code, § Stat. § Code § 2007 The also any combination of of information that to or the such as and or and See, e.g., Breach to the of & Financial Services, December 15 USC Section This that with the of at 15 USC Section and are of in this and are of in this See, and of a Duty to Information Security Computer & L. See and to Law the Protection of Personal BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, 19, p. May See at on the of the Framework for Electronic and Services, with focus on the 26, available at Science and Technology Committee, House of Internet of July 24, at Para. of the Privacy of Canada, for in to Privacy available at See Privacy Breach of the Privacy available at Privacy available at See, of the Privacy to the Law of February at available at Available at Available at to information to state

This research article attempts to address the politics of English language assessment in Pakistani context. The focus of this qualitative research study is to unfold ideological factors, socio-cultural factors, political factors, economic agendas, societal elements, issues of power, teachers’ roles, educational considerations, and hierarchical structures in Pakistani context with special reference to English language assessment system. Thematic Document analysis is used for analyzing the data collected from one of the leading newspapers in Pakistan i.e. Dawn. It is found out that the politics of language assessment is pluralized in Pakistan owing to decide which strata of the society is failing (the lower class) and which one is succeeding (the upper class, the elite class) in political power. This study also reveals that politics of language assessment in Pakistan is firmly linked with the purposes of English language learning i.e. lucrative jobs, education and business. Furthermore, the findings of the study highlight that in the current scenario of Pakistan, assessment and testing in general education and language assessment in particular play a significant role in imposing political policies and power in the arena of academia and intelligentsia. Likewise, the major findings of the study exhibit that there is a hegemony of English that brought linguistic imperialism in Pakistan. In Pakistani context, proficiency in English language decides future of the candidates in term of jobs and businesses. English language assessment regime is affected by the ‘top-down’ policy driven initiatives rather than ‘bottom-up’ collaborative work. It is the domain of a particular group of experts who decide Others as opposed to us. It also contributes to the marketization of English language in educational sector of Pakistan. The elite class in Pakistan set targets for the educational system in order to implement their policies to achieve political power and interests.

Between 1923 and 1928 the Transatlantic Company, the great shipping enterprise belonging to the Marquis of Comillas, established a regular service to the Pacific ports of Peru through the Panama Canal. This business venture was a complex project involving both economic and political interests, which was born amid difficulties that condemned it to failure almost from the start. The origins and evolution of this project are traced in this essay through the actions of the Spanish diplomatic and consular representatives in Lima, and of the merchants and businessmen who were members of the Official Spanish Chamber of Commerce in Peru.

PurposeNations are opening their “digital borders” to allow the free movement of business, employment and skills. However, this process of digitalization is fraught with challenges. This study aims to identify these challenges to build a solution-oriented framework for smart nations.Design/methodology/approachThis study conducted a systematic literature review, analyzing 69 peer-reviewed academic papers out of 5,958 identified papers.FindingsThe identified challenges for smart nation building were categorized as follows: people and society, technology and innovation, digital infrastructure, politics, governance, economics and business and sustainability. To overcome these challenges, this study highlights the need for a holistic national approach, which includes solutions such as improving education, technology-driven innovations, investments for building smart nation infrastructure, top political leadership involvement, national vision and action plan, national regulatory frameworks, business environment and job creation, stakeholder engagement, renewable energy use and technological integration – all of which are key for sustainable development.Research limitations/implicationsThis study provides directions for building a smart nation framework, but the literature review results are confined to articles, conference papers and book chapters. This study could be further enriched if the findings are cross-checked with experts. This limitation will be addressed in future research.Originality/valueGiven the dearth of literature on this nascent concept, the insights from this study can guide policymakers and industry leaders involved in smart nation building and benefit researchers engaged in theoretical development.

Forested ecosystems of the upper Great Lakes represent an extremely important natural resource for the region and the nation. They are the headwaters of the largest freshwater lake system in the world and harbour some of the most productive forest lands in North America. Extensive wetlands are interspersed through these forest types and are a key component to habitat, freshwater resources, and forest product values of the region. A major obstacle to address regulatory and conservation policy, as well as development of “Best Management Practices” on forest wetlands in this region, is a lack of information on basic functional processes and how forest management activities affect those processes. The loss of K on the whole-tree harvested and trench treatments was due primarily to reductions in the forest floor, since there was no difference in extractable K among those treatments in the mineral soil.

ECONOMISTS increasingly have come to view the regulatory process as a device for transferring wealth among factions in society according to their political clout, but so far it is unclear whether the process has been dominated by the interests of regulated producers, consumers, or some combination of the two.' Relatively little attention has been given in this literature to the rewards that regulators themselves may obtain from the process. One obvious possibility would be for ex-officials to take jobs with firms that were formerly under their jurisdiction. This incentive would be especially strong for regulatory commissioners. Commissioners receive direct salaries that are not large, serve terms of office that are fixed by statute, and face uncertain prospects of reappointment-all of which lead them to take a shorter run view of their situation compared to that of their bureaucratic counterparts in civil service.2 A commission might be viewed as "captured" by regulated firms or related organizations if a large proportion of its membership either has experienced precommission employment or has accepted postcommission employment with such groups. The purpose of this paper is to discover how common this behavior has been.