Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

Train Disaster Calls for Safety Action

Photo: eddtoro/Shutterstock.com

At 7:20 a.m., Dec. 1, four people died and more than 68 were injured, 11 critically, when a speeding passenger train headed for Grand Central Terminal derailed on a steep curve.

Brake failure was cited as a possible reason for the crash, but inspections determined that the brakes were in good condition. The train’s operator, who recently had been switched to an early shift, later said he may have dozed off, failing to apply the brakes in time to avoid the crash.

buy nolvadex online healthymomsandbabes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/nolvadex.html no prescription pharmacy

The derailment is of special interest to me. The Hudson line is the one I take to work every day and is the same line that suspended service in July when 10 CSX garbage cars derailed near the same location, just north of the Spuyten Duyvil train station.

This week the Federal Railroad Administration cited the MTA’s safety record as “unacceptable.” The agency noted a series of other recent major accidents on the commuter railway: a two-train derailment May 17 in Bridgeport, Conn., where more than 70 people were injured, the death of a track worker in West Haven, Conn., who was struck by a commuter train, and the CSX train derailment, according to DNAinfo New York.

The Associated Press said that injuries from train accidents on Metro-North are higher this year than any of the past 10 years, with 123 people injured in train accidents through August. A 2012 report by the Government Accountability Office found human error to be the cause of almost one-third of train accidents from 2000 to 2009.

The question being asked is why a safety measure—an automated system that would stop a train that is out of control—was not in place, even though “positive train control” has been called for by the national safety board. In response to several fatal accidents and to combat human error, The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 mandates that positive train control for passenger and freight trains be operational by Jan. 1, 2015. Because of the costs to install the technology, estimated between $6 billion and $22 billion, however, Congress is considering an extension of the deadline until late 2018.

The GAO report described positive train control as a system designed to prevent accidents caused by human factors, including train-to-train collisions and derailments that result from trains exceeding safe speeds. It is also designed to prevent incursions into work zones and movement of trains through switches left in the wrong position.

While its safety record leaves much to be desired, the MTA was fast to resurrect its contingency plans. On Monday, thousands of commuters were transported by bus from the Yonkers train station to a Manhattan-bound subway. I made the trip, which was seamless but understandably slow-going. It took me two-and-a-half hours to get to work.

buy naprosyn online healthymomsandbabes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/naprosyn.html no prescription pharmacy

A standout were the first responders. They were fast to arrive on the scene, rescuing people from damaged cars and getting them to area hospitals. Responders and spokespeople were articulate, and did not speculate as to the cause of the crash. They were impressive.

As of yesterday service on the Hudson Line is fully restored.

buy cellcept online healthymomsandbabes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/cellcept.html no prescription pharmacy

This is an amazing feat considering that the train cars had to be removed by cranes from a tight section of track flanked by the Hudson River and a steep rock embankment, all during an intense investigation. Sections of damaged track also had to be rebuilt.

Yesterday’s train ride was thankfully uneventful and today’s even more so, but there was a sad reminder of the disaster on both days, when the train came to a crawl as it approached the deadly curve at Spuyten Duyvil. Another reminder was several pieces of heavy equipment used for cleanup, still sitting near the tracks.

Online Exclusive: How to Protect Yourself on Social Media

Add Friend on Social Media

In the October issue of Risk Management, social media and eDiscovery expert Adam Cohen chatted with me about the biggest corporate risks in sites like Facebook and Twitter, and outlined some best practices for developing and enforcing a social media policy. But behind every account sits one major risk that’s hard to control: a person.

Not all of Cohen’s advice could make the magazine, so here are some of his extra tips for how to mitigate the risks of personal social media – both to protect your company and to protect yourself.

What should employees know about their personal social media accounts?

All employees need to recognize one thing: they shouldn’t have any expectation of privacy in information that they post on social media. Even if they think they’re limiting information to a select group of friends, this stuff can all be disclosed in litigation and there are many cases where courts have required so-called non-public social media information to be disclosed. It’s fairly routine at this point.

Many employers – certainly all the major companies – have specific social media policies that give very particular and clear direction to employees on what they can and can’t do when it comes to company information on social media. That extends beyond just corporate social media and includes anything they’re doing on social media that could impact the company. And many employers are going to take the position that they have the right to monitor employees’ social media.

How can employees protect themselves?

buy lipitor online orthomich.com/img/blog/jpg/lipitor.html no prescription pharmacy

One of the key things employees need to do to protect themselves is only disclose information they would be comfortable disclosing to the entire world and they should not to go anywhere near business information. Being safe on this front may include publishing a disclaimer that an individual is not representing the views of the company. What else can they do? Follow the employer’s social media policy to the letter and, any time they have a question about whether one of their social media posts may be affected by the policy, they should ask. Most policies will provide a resource for questions, whether it’s a general counsel or a compliance officer or immediate supervisor.

Those are probably the main things: not having an expectation of privacy on social media and treating everything you post like it’s private, and following the policy to the letter and getting clarity and permission on anything that you think could be a violation of the policy.

As we’ve used social media more, do you think employees are using social media any more wisely?

I think it’s still too early to say that there are any improvements there. Litigation that involves social media as a factor in one form or another is just exploding. There is no information that would suggest in any way that employees have increasing awareness of this and are taking that into account when they go on social media.

What is the first thing you look for when trying to evaluate a social media account for potential liability or wrongdoing by an employee?

The first thing I would look for is the nexus between the social media and business information. Personal social media may be a concern from the perspective of the employee being seen as representing the company, even if it’s just sullying the reputation of the company – and that’s especially true the higher-ranking the employee is – but the first thing to look for is whether the employee discussing matters within the scope of their employment. And that’s difficult to monitor – the social media world is a big world, especially for a company with a lot of employees.

So then general personal misuse is relatively benign to you?

The other stuff is not benign at all. An employee who behaves in an inappropriate way on social media or is violating intellectual property rights, copyright or trademark of some other company – or, say, badmouthing a competitor – well, that’s not benign. If they’re engaged in criminal activity on social media or they’re defaming someone, that’s certainly not benign because they work for a company and that can impact the image of the company or lead to serious repercussions. That only gets more serious if you’re a prominent or higher-ranking executive.

buy arimidex online orthomich.com/img/blog/jpg/arimidex.html no prescription pharmacy

Is it benign? No, but you can’t control that.

Although, I should note, the National Labor Relations Board has said that employees have to be permitted to discuss their working conditions with other employees and that the employer can’t really control that, and if the social media policy purports to prohibit that discussion, the policy is not valid.

What is the most useful evidence in building a case against an employee?

Well, it depends on the kind of case, but social media has now been used as evidence in hundreds of cases. The most devastating use of it so far has probably been in the personal injury arena.

buy advair rotahaler online orthomich.com/img/blog/jpg/advair-rotahaler.html no prescription pharmacy

Plaintiffs have made claims of disability and emotional distress and the defendant has been able to obtain discovery or has retrieved public social media that completely contradicts those claims – for example, a video of the complainant surfing. There are a lot of cases like that and that’s just an example of really devastating use of social media.

Who do you friend at work?

Well, you don’t friend subordinates – that’s a no-no. You can get yourself into all kinds of trouble there with people making claims about what kind of a relationship you have with them. You don’t friend people at work whom you don’t know – just as you don’t in your personal life. You shouldn’t assume that, just because this person works with you, they’re the kind of person with whom you want to be associated. You also don’t want to friend somebody who you don’t want to have access to your social media. If you have privacy concerns, you want to maintain the upper limits of your reasonable expectation of privacy, so don’t friend people you’re afraid might use that access against you in an invasion of privacy.

Twitter’s Data Mining Profits Show Lesser-Known Social Media Risk

Data Mining

In an interview for this month’s issue of Risk Management magazine, lawyer and social media specialist Adam Cohen cautioned businesses that the risks of social networking sites extend beyond explosive posting faux pas.

“In most cases, corporations don’t realize that what they put on these social media services is all subject to the privacy policies and terms and conditions of the services,” said the eDiscovery expert and author of Social Media: Legal Risk and Corporate Policy. “Those provide a shocking amount of access by the social media services where they may take your data.”

As Twitter prepares for its much-anticipated IPO, the social media giant has released a torrent of information on its financial standing and practices. One of the most important tidbits for users concerns the site’s lesser-known side-business: data mining. In the first half of 2013, Twitter made $32 million by selling its data—namely, tweets—to other companies, a 53% increase from the year before.

So far this year, the company has raked in $47.5 million from selling user data to companies that analyze the social media posts for insights into news events and trends. Because of its real-time nature, Twitter is the primary contributor to data mining, though other social networks are frequently used in professional analysis.

This analysis is then sold to businesses for a slew of uses. “The types of ways that businesses are using Twitter data has gone deeper and deeper,” Chris Moody, the CEO of original Twitter data mining company Gnip, told Time. “We’re seeing it in supply chain and inventory management. It’s not just consumer brands that are engaging on Twitter.”The United Nations uses Twitter algorithms to pinpoint areas of social unrest. Burger chain Five Guys used “social intelligence technology” from New Brand Analytics to monitor quality in restaurants across the country and evaluate the appeal of a new fry size offering. Wall Street subscribers to one service, Dataminr, got a leg up on the S&P Index drop following the Navy Yard shooting. Five minutes before the news broke, users received an alert to take action after the company’s algorithms picked up on eyewitness reports and deduced from their timing, influence, and location that something urgent was taking place.

Clearly, there’s money to be made on both sides. According to the Wall Street Journal, the “social listening” business is booming, partially funded by millions of dollars in venture capital. Research firm IDC estimates that the entire “big data” market has grown seven times as quickly as the information technology sector as a whole, and may be valued at $16.9 billion in two years.

Data is mined for a variety of purposes – ones your company may even want to explore – but while there are benefits to the ends, the means translate into cyber exposures of which you may never know the details or depth. While the reputational risk of social media garners a lot of the attention – and rightfully so – there are increasingly tremendous exposures that lay in the forms just to sign up. With Twitter going public, there will only be further incentive to maximize revenue by selling user data, and more reason to approach corporate social media with caution.

Companies Ignore Whistle-blower Protections

Whistle-blowers are in the news more and more, but some organizations don’t seem to have caught up with the trend, or the fact that retaliation is illegal. They don’t seem to realize that negative reactions to a whistle-blower can make them look petty—and guilty.

Take two front page stories in our area newspaper on the same day this week. Both were about whistle-blowers who put their jobs on the line to come forward. One was fired, the other was suspended and later resigned.

In one case, The Journal News reported, a member of a New York town’s financial staff, the supervisor of fiscal services for more than 10 years, testified at a hearing that she notified several of her superiors that the town’s revenue projections were overestimated—on a financial statement needed for a bond application. She also reported improper money transfers—one made to the town supervisor. The woman was ignored, told to keep quiet, and eventually fired.

Not only did the town officials make no move to right the wrongs she reported to them, one official denied ever being told of potential corruption or fraud. Meanwhile, the town, which is also being investigated by the FBI, has filed perjury and other charges against this former employee.

The second newspaper article is about a former security expert at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York. Because he feared the plant was vulnerable to a terrorist attack, he voiced his concerns to supervisors. In June he was suspended.

He filed a 76-page lawsuit in the U.S. District Court alleging misconduct and retaliation against him. The Indian Point employee alleged that security was inadequate and that documents and internal reports were falsified.

Unfortunately these sound like other stories in the news over the past few years following the financial crisis. At Lehman Brothers, the company’s chief risk officer, Madelyn Antoncic warned Dick Fuld, the CEO, that their risk in mortgage-backed security bets was too great. Her warnings were ignored. Her reward was to be fired.

The knee-jerk reaction of many organizations seems to be; get rid of the employee, blame the employee and then go to court. It appears that the whistle-blower protections under the Dodd-Frank Act, such as prohibiting retaliation against whistle-blowers, is still a mystery to some organizations.

Fraud experts contend that the burden is on the organization to see that employees are comfortable in coming forward and that their concerns are addressed. They advise companies to have hotlines available for employees to provide whistle-blower tips—and to act on those tips.

Whether or not a company is guilty of fraud, firing an employee for coming forward can make the organization look guilty and cause a whole host of other problems, including risk to the company’s reputation. Public entities and corporations would do well to study Dodd-Frank and put a plan in place before an employee does come forward. Have organizations learned nothing from Watergate? The cover-up always leads to exposure of the crime.