<span fr-original-class="customBullet" fr-original-style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 12px; vertical-align: middle; display: inline-block;" style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 12px; vertical-align: middle; display: inline-block; box-sizing: border-box;">•&nbsp; Romania resignation: Romania's President Klaus Iohannis resigned on Tuesday, a day before he faced an impeachment vote sparked by the cancellation of the country's presidential election last year.<ul fr-original-style="padding-inline-start: 20px;" style="padding-inline-start: 20px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">A step back:&nbsp;Romania's top court in December controversially annulled the election because of Russian state meddling allegations Iohannis had helped raise. The centrist, pro-EU leader cited national security concerns, but critics and candidates in the poll said his actions were undemocratic.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Looking ahead:&nbsp;With Iohannis out of office now, attention will refocus on the re-run of the election in May. Georgescu, the radical outsider, is the strong favorite to win. Ioannis's resignation looks set to further empower his electorate, and analysts and Georgescu's supporters have called it a boost for the far-right.</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Recommended read:&nbsp;<a fr-original-style="" href="https://aposto.com/s/opinion-romanias-annulled-elections-putting-democracy-to-test" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Romania's annulled elections: Putting democracy to test</a> | Aposto World, Serkan Köybaşı</li></ul>

Aposto World

The Cybersecurity Law Proposal, submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 10, 2025, addresses a highly significant issue and grants public authorities extensive powers to intervene in individual rights. However, despite its far-reaching implications, the proposal was rushed through the National Defense Committee and approved on January 15 without allowing for public debate. Additionally, no prior announcement was made before its submission to Parliament.Legislation concerning both national security and individual data protection must undergo thorough public discussion to ensure a balanced and rights-respecting framework. Any legal regulation in this field should be in line with technological advancements, respect human rights, meet national security requirements, and include safeguards against the abuse of power. This necessitates extensive deliberation among political parties, civil society organizations, experts, and other stakeholders. However, not only was this proposal not subjected to such a preparatory process, but it also appears to have been pushed toward legislation without allowing for proper debate in Parliament.Although the proposal was referred to the Justice Committee, the Plan and Budget Committee, and the Industry, Trade, Energy, Natural Resources, Information, and Technology Committee, in addition to the National Defense Committee, none of these secondary committees examined it or issued a report. This legislative approach is evidently neither democratic nor participatory.The stated purpose of the law is to establish a comprehensive legal framework for cybersecurity and to define related policies and strategies through the creation of a Cybersecurity Council. Accordingly, the law establishes a Cybersecurity Council and regulates the duties and powers of the Cybersecurity Directorate (SGB), which was previously established by Presidential Decree.Notably, Article 6 of the proposal grants the Directorate the authority to request and access all types of information and data within its jurisdiction. This data may include not only personal information, such as health and financial records but also logs of websites visited and digital content viewed or read by individuals. The proposal stipulates that the information, documents, data, and records obtained by the Directorate may be used for up to two years before being destroyed. However, the proposal does not include any safeguards to prevent the unnecessary collection, processing, or transfer of data, nor does it contain provisions to prevent abuse of such powers.Additionally, the Directorate is granted the power to collect, store, analyze, and prepare reports based on log records from information systems and to share these reports with relevant institutions and organizations. The only safeguard provided in the law regarding data protection is a requirement that the data be deleted once its purpose has been fulfilled. However, the law does not establish any oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with the deletion requirement, nor does it provide any safeguards against the misuse of collected data.Additionally, the proposal mandates that public institutions, organizations, and critical infrastructure procure cybersecurity products, systems, and services only from cybersecurity experts and companies that have been authorized and certified by the Cybersecurity Directorate. Ensuring that this authorization and certification process is conducted objectively and impartially is of vital importance. Unfortunately, the law does not include any safeguards to guarantee such impartiality.Furthermore, Article 9 of the proposal grants the President of the Directorate the authority to order searches, data copying, and seizures in private residences, workplaces, and non-public spaces in cases where delays might be deemed harmful. These actions are subject to subsequent judicial approval, with a requirement that the collected data be destroyed if a judge refuses to authorize the operation. However, considering the state of the judiciary in general, and particularly the Criminal Peace Judgeships, the effectiveness of this safeguard is highly questionable. Moreover, when it comes to public institutions, even judicial approval is not required for searches and seizures. Such provisions, which grant authorities the power to intervene in individuals' private lives, personal data, and homes, clearly violate constitutional rights and are unquestionably unconstitutional.The proposal also introduces new criminal offenses. In this context, individuals who fail to provide the information requested by the Directorate, carry out cyberattacks, violate confidentiality obligations, or trade data obtained through cyber leaks will be subject to criminal penalties. Additionally, in a particularly problematic provision, the law criminalizes activities that aim to create the perception of a cyber leak, even if no actual data breach has occurred, thereby targeting individuals or institutions. While the phrase "creating a perception" was later amended in the Committee to "creating content as if a data breach had occurred," it is evident that this provision poses a serious threat to press freedom.Given these flaws, the proposal should be withdrawn and replaced with a law that is developed through a comprehensive participatory process and includes adequate safeguards against violations of fundamental rights.

The Freedom Observer

The Cybersecurity Law Proposal, submitted to the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 10, 2025, addresses a highly significant issue and grants public authorities extensive powers to intervene in individual rights. However, despite its far-reaching implications, the proposal was rushed through the National Defense Committee and approved on January 15 without allowing for public debate. Additionally, no prior announcement was made before its submission to Parliament.

What Does the Cybersecurity Law Proposal Introduce?

By Anne O. Krueger&nbsp;WASHINGTON, DC – The world is embroiled in a megacrisis comprising the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, high inflation, recession fears, and rising debt distress across emerging markets and developing countries. The last thing we need is an additional source of economic harm. But that’s what we may get, in the form of another destructive trade war.Trade wars are immensely damaging because the countries involved tend to retaliate by erecting ever-higher trade barriers. This vicious cycle was blamed for greatly prolonging the Great Depression in the 1930s, which is why the United States led the effort to develop a new world trading system after 1945, setting the stage for the most successful period of global economic growth in history. For 70 years, global commerce was underpinned by the rule of law, with an international organization – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was succeeded by the World Trade Organization – ensuring impartial adjudication of disputes.But starting in 2017, Donald Trump’s administration effectively withdrew US support for the WTO and started a trade war with China. In addition to slapping discriminatory tariffs on imports, it also imposed more sweeping levies on items such as steel and aluminum, dubiously citing “national security” concerns. Though most trade lawyers believed these measures to be illegal under WTO rules, US trading partners abstained from retaliation in the hope that the next administration would roll back Trump’s protectionist policies.Unfortunately, US President Joe Biden’s administration has neither rescinded Trump’s trade measures nor restored important WTO functions such as the dispute-settlement mechanism. And if that wasn’t bad enough, this year’s US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and CHIPS and Science Act will inflict so much damage on major trading partners and allies that they will almost certainly have to retaliate. The US will then find itself in a trade war not only with China but also with its own allies, and the world will be confronted with yet another major crisis: the breakdown of the international trading system.Both the IRA and the CHIPS Act are openly protectionist and discriminatory, violating agreements that the US has made through successive rounds of multilateral tariff-reduction negotiations. For example, the IRA provides a <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-ira-s-electric-vehicle-and-battery-3876820/&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw30Bh2lGb-DcF85fUvefIs0" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-ira-s-electric-vehicle-and-battery-3876820/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">$7,500 subsidy</a> to US purchasers of electric vehicles, provided that they are both made in America and composed predominantly of American parts (and these components must include batteries, which <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.livemint.com/auto-news/battery-swapping-for-electric-vehicles-and-ways-to-lead-the-change-11652604393940.html&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw0iaXTarC1E_tRqJFSWEq4g" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.livemint.com/auto-news/battery-swapping-for-electric-vehicles-and-ways-to-lead-the-change-11652604393940.html" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">constitute</a> 40% of EVs’ cost. Similarly, the CHIPS Act allocates $52 billion to finance investment in “fabs” (chip-making factories) built by private companies in the US.It is doubtful that the EV subsidy, which strongly discriminates against foreign-made cars (as well as batteries and other auto components) from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea, is warranted. Nor is it likely to fulfill its intended purpose of “creating good jobs” and accelerating the shift away from internal combustion engines.The CHIPS Act is even less likely to achieve its backers’ desired results. There is already a looming semiconductor supply glut, and that has led some leading producers (both American and foreign) to declare that they will follow through on plans to build new production facilities <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-shows-limits-of-chips-act-11659105553&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw2xCiqlAzEJVrQ1wtYMGoJl" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-shows-limits-of-chips-act-11659105553" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">only if they receive subsidies</a>.From the perspective of foreign political leaders, the auto industry is too economically important for them to stand by and do nothing in the face of unfair US practices. They simply cannot allow their own auto-assembly plants to lose market share as a result of US subsidies. As French President <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/emmanuel-macron&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw3hDYQox2SveWOo70Gr01Nj" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/emmanuel-macron" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Emmanuel Macron</a> <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2450187/macron-blasts-biden-subsidies-at-start-of-us-state-visit&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw3N-Pt2B6y7B_HKW2whVOkX" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2450187/macron-blasts-biden-subsidies-at-start-of-us-state-visit" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">made clear</a> to Biden during his recent state visit at the White House, America’s unilateral protectionism risks triggering a broader trade war. Equally, other governments are under mounting political pressure to subsidize chip production in response to the recent US moves, and several foreign manufacturers are <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/taiwan-tsmc-must-balance-diversification-with-deterrence-by-jason-hsu-2022-12&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw3taVtPXfGMHv-Hb_6aaVxm" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/taiwan-tsmc-must-balance-diversification-with-deterrence-by-jason-hsu-2022-12" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">announcing</a> plans to build factories in the US to avoid the unfair competition.If the IRA and CHIPS Act go into effect on January 1, as planned, America’s allies will almost certainly retaliate, which in turn will invite US countermoves. And far from being confined to autos and semiconductors, this tit-for-tat escalation could affect more and more export categories, increasing the scale of the economic damage. Macron has already <a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.barrons.com/news/macron-urges-eu-to-act-more-quickly-to-counter-us-subsidies-01671093608&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw0ilkNwOwy36x2V5Ah7rO-E" fr-original-style="" href="https://www.barrons.com/news/macron-urges-eu-to-act-more-quickly-to-counter-us-subsidies-01671093608" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">indicated</a> that Europe should start discriminating in favor of its industries.The world’s major trading powers must act quickly to prevent the eruption of a full-blown trade war. The chips issue should be taken to the WTO, and the US should abide by a likely ruling that the subsidies are illegal. Chip producers could jointly agree on a pact specifying export rules for machinery and chips and an enforcement mechanism. The US could substitute much-needed additional investment in education and training, which would enable domestic producers to hire well-trained workers more readily, for some of the physical investment now contemplated.The new facilities under construction are for chips already in production, and inventories of those chips could be built up in lieu of investment in new fabs, especially now when demand for chips seems to have fallen. It is highly unlikely that all of the machinery and knowhow embodied in other countries’ production of machines to make chips and of chips themselves can in any event be brought back to the US. Any of these measures would almost certainly achieve results closer to the US objectives than the subsidies currently envisaged.For EVs and batteries, too, foreign and domestic producers must compete on a level playing field. Car-exporting countries could subsidize all purchasers of new EVs by the same amount as the Americans; the Biden administration could seek an amendment to the law to provide subsidies to purchases of all EVs, including imports. In addition, the American domestic content requirements for batteries would also need to be adjusted.As with chips, any of these measures would enable a far superior outcome for the global economy. Protectionism sets the bar low.<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;">Anne O. Krueger, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is Senior Research Professor of International Economics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Development at Stanford University.<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;">Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022.<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.project-syndicate.org&source=gmail&ust=1672910938098000&usg=AOvVaw0KZ_gPIANNPZyrwxEWJw31" fr-original-style="" href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">www.project-syndicate.org</a>

Aposto Finance

For 70 years after World War II, global growth was underpinned by ongoing efforts to boost international trade by eliminating self-defeating trade barriers. Sadly, the United States started dismantling this source of shared prosperity under Donald Trump, and it has now accelerated the process under Joe Biden.

Sleepwalking Into a Global Trade War

• <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.axios.com/2022/10/13/fcc-ban-huawei-zte-equipment" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">The Federal Communications Commission</a> plans to ban all sales of new Huawei and ZTE telecommunications devices in the US, as well as some sales of video surveillance equipment from three other Chinese firms, out of national security concerns. The ban comes after warnings that the Chinese government could use Chinese-made telecommunications equipment to spy on Americans.

• <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us-orders-12-russian-un-diplomats-leave-by-march-7-russian-envoy-2022-02-28/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s ease 0s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">The US has expelled 12 Russian diplomats at the UN</a> over national security concerns, describing the diplomats as "intelligence operatives" who had been engaging in "espionage activities". They are expected to leave the US by March 7th.

national security ile ilgili hikayeler