The evolution of emerging technologies that use Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) has increased the interest of the scientific community and society regarding the possible adverse effects on human health and the environment. This article provides NextGEM’s vision to assure safety for EU citizens when employing existing and future EMF-based telecommunication technologies. This is accomplished by generating relevant knowledge that ascertains appropriate prevention and control/actuation actions regarding RF-EMF exposure in residential, public, and occupational settings. Fulfilling this vision, NextGEM commits to the need for a healthy living and working environment under safe RF-EMF exposure conditions that can be trusted by people and be in line with the regulations and laws developed by public authorities. NextGEM provides a framework for generating health-relevant scientific knowledge and data on new scenarios of exposure to RF-EMF in multiple frequency bands and developing and validating tools for evidence-based risk assessment. Finally, NextGEM’s Innovation and Knowledge Hub (NIKH) will offer a standardized way for European regulatory authorities and the scientific community to store and assess project outcomes and provide access to findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) data.
By analysing intelligence-gathering reform legislation this article discusses access to justice for communications interception by the intelligence and security services. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, sophisticated oversight systems for bulk communications surveillance are being established across the globe. In the Netherlands prior judicial consent and a binding complaint procedure have been established. However, although checks and balances for targeted communications interference have been created, accountability mechanisms are less equipped to effectively remedy indiscriminate interference. Therefore, within the context of mass communications surveillance programs, access to justice for complainants remains a contentious issue.
MULTIFILE
It is argued that full social accessibility has become too complicated. We don't really need to apply lifelong literacy to low-literate people. Instead, we must curb the proliferation of increasingly complex systems with double (or even triple) authorization and lots of jargon. I therefore think that 18% low literacy is simply too little, only when 50% of the people belong to the low-literate group we may finally throw these systems aside. Where is sustainable living in human connection? If this is supposedly illiteracy, and our systems are so complex, it seems rather to indicate that we have drastically misplaced our priorities for people and their usefulness.
MULTIFILE
