When uranium was discovered in 1789 by Martin Heinrich Klaproth, its likely the German chemist didnt know how important the element would become to human life.

Used minimally in glazing and ceramics, uranium was originally mined as a byproduct of producing radium until the late 1930s. However, the discovery of nuclear fission, and the potential promise of nuclear power, changed everything.

Whats the current state of the uranium mining industry? This series of charts from Truman Du highlights production and the use of uranium using 2021 data from the World Nuclear Association (WNA) and Our World in Data.

Most of the worlds biggest uranium suppliers are based in countries with the largest uranium deposits, like Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada.

The largest of these companies is Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstani state-owned company that produced 25% of the worlds new uranium supply in 2021.

As seen in the above chart, 94% of the roughly 48,000 tonnes of uranium mined globally in 2021 came from just 13 companies.

Frances Orano, another state-owned company, was the worlds second largest producer of uranium at 4,541 tonnes.

Companies rounding out the top five all had similar uranium production numbers to Orano, each contributing around 9% of the global total. Those include Uranium One from Russia, Cameco from Canada, and CGN in China.

The majority of uranium deposits around the world are found in 16 countries with Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada accounting for for nearly 40% of recoverable uranium reserves.

But having large reserves doesnt necessarily translate to uranium production numbers. For example, though Australia has the biggest single deposit of uranium (Olympic Dam) and the largest reserves overall, the country ranks fourth in uranium supplied, coming in at 9%.

Here are the top 10 uranium mines in the world, accounting for 53% of the worlds supply.

Of the largest mines in the world, four are found in Kazakhstan. Altogether, uranium mined in Kazakhstan accounted for 45% of the worlds uranium supply in 2021.

Namibia, which has two of the five largest uranium mines in operation, is the second largest supplier of uranium by country, at 12%, followed by Canada at 10%.

Interestingly, the owners of these mines are not necessarily local. For example, Frances Orano operates mines in Canada and Niger. Russias Uranium One operates mines in Kazakhstan, the U.S., and Tanzania. Chinas CGN owns mines in Namibia.

And despite the African continent holding a sizable amount of uranium reserves, no African company placed in the top 10 biggest companies by production. Sopamin from Niger was the highest ranked at #12 with 809 tonnes mined.

Uranium mining has changed drastically since the first few nuclear power plants came online in the 1950s.

For 30 years, uranium production grew steadily due to both increasing demand for nuclear energy and expanding nuclear arsenals, eventually peaking at 69,692 tonnes mined in 1980 at the height of the Cold War.

Nuclear energy production (measured in terawatt-hours) also rose consistently until the 21st century, peaking in 2001 when it contributed nearly 7% to the worlds energy supply. But in the years following, it started to drop and flatline.

By 2021, nuclear energy had fallen to 4.3% of global energy production. Several nuclear accidentsChernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushimacontributed to turning sentiment against nuclear energy.

More recently, a return to nuclear energy has gained some support as countries push for transitions to cleaner energy, since nuclear power generates no direct carbon emissions.

Nuclear remains one of the least harmful sources of energy, and some countries are pursuing advancements in nuclear tech to fight climate change.

Small, modular nuclear reactors are one of the current proposed solutions to both bring down costs and reduce construction time of nuclear power plants. The benefits include smaller capital investments and location flexibility by trading off energy generation capacity.

With countries having to deal with aging nuclear reactors and climate change at the same time, replacements need to be considered. Will they come in the form of new nuclear power and uranium mining, or alternative sources of energy?

This article was published as a part of Visual Capitalist's Creator Program, which features data-driven visuals from some of our favorite Creators around the world.

See the rest here:

Visualizing the Uranium Mining Industry in 3 Charts - Visual Capitalist

If the pandemic taught me anything, it was that our government is filled with short-sighted, corrupt, and inept actors who will rationalize any action, no matter how damaging it may be for the majority, in the name of safety and for alleged security. Even the terms "safety," "security," and "emergency" have been bastardized to the point of it being rhetorically flexible terminology that can be adjusted to create the most desirable outcome not for the American people but for America's governmental apparatus.

Montana's ban on TikTok is another such episode. Last week, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill banning TikTok in the state and from Apple and Google app stores within its bordersin the name of keeping Montana residents safe from a foreign adversary and trending degeneracy. In reality, it's a tragic example of another short-sighted governmental action that promises to be the beginning of a trend of infringing on the rights of Americans.

While the bill, known as SB 419, cites concerns over alleged surveillance from the Chinese government, it also rationalizes the ban on the grounds of what Gianforte's administration believes is TikTok's habit of encouraging "dangerous activities" among younger users, things like "throwing objects at moving automobiles" and "lighting a mirror on fire and then attempting to extinguish it using only one's body parts."

While many Republicans are applauding this surface-level effort to annoy the Chinese Communist Party, I see this landmark legislation for what it really is: a Trojan horse to normalize and rationalize internet censorship.

The "Twitter Files" repeatedly showed us how desperate departments of the U.S. government are to censor the speech of regular people under the guise of protecting the American public from "misinformation." And I don't see this action made by the state of Montana as any different.

If the government can rationalize banning a website or application to "protect" Americans from a "security danger," what else could they ban on the internet for your own security? What's to stop Democrats from framing Twitter as a security risk, because they no longer play nice with the security state behind the scenes?

While I agree that government officials or anyone in any important corporate position shouldn't be using TikTok on their phones due to the risk of espionage, there is this illusion that our data is ours, when in truth, everything we do on the internet has long been sold to marketing firms and data brokers across the world decades ago.

What's to stop the CCP from purchasing this data from a third party? Nothing. Heck, the U.S. Government does it all the time.

No one can tell you exactly what will happen if the CCP has your 18-year-old son's TikTok usage data, but we're supposed to raise hell about this while Google and Apple have been data mining millions of Americans for years.

The truth is that this ban won't be nearly as effective as they claim. There is nothing to stop someone in Montana from connecting to a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection marked in a different state to continue to utilize the platform, which will mean that the next battle will be over the legality of VPNs or at the very least, regulating VPNs.

Their other rationalization for banning TikTok is TikTok's facilitation of idiotic behavior by young people. But perhaps unfortunately, the government can't legislate stupidity; if it could, a lot of politicians wouldn't have jobs.

Young people with not yet fully developed brains who are highly impulsive have been doing dumb and dangerous things well before the existence of social media. Just in my lifetime, I've seen the craze of backyard wrestling and the obsession over imitating the reckless behavior of MTV's Jackass; none of this is new.

Instead of involving the government in preventing our children from using TikTok, maybe more American parents need to act like parents and restrict it themselves.

Chinese Corporations, and by extension, the CCP, have invested over $190 billion between 2005 and 2022 in nearly every major industry in America, including real estate, energy, and entertainment. The Chinese have long embedded themselves into our economy, yet our government does nothing about it. But you're supposed to clutch your pearls and wish for censorship because they know what kind of makeup your daughter likes to apply?

It's time to see this for what it is: an excuse to begin a program of mass censorship. Don't be fooled, and don't support it.

Adam B. Coleman is the author of "Black Victim To Black Victor" and writer on Substack at adambcoleman.substack.com.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Visit link:

Banning TikTok Won't Protect Kids. It's the Opening to Mass Internet Censorship | Opinion - Newsweek

Amendments to the Mining Act () that would give more say to indigenous communities regarding mining rights in their lands passed the legislature on Friday.

The changes cleared the legislative floor without opposition after more than six years of efforts by lawmakers and environmentalists.

They require mining companies to obtain the consent of local indigenous people before launching projects on designated indigenous lands, in accordance with the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act ().

Photo courtesy of Citizen of the Earth

Mining firms that have already acquired an extraction permit on such lands without the approval of indigenous residents would be granted one year to conduct negotiations with them and seek their consent, the amendments say.

The Bureau of Mines has said the companies would be allowed to continue mining during negotiations, but if they fail to acquire approval within a year, they would be ordered to suspend operations.

According to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, 79 of the 139 mining sites in Taiwan are on indigenous land. Only 13 have obtained the approval of local indigenous communities.

The amendments include retrospective provisions subjecting large mining projects to rigorous review to ascertain their potential environmental impact, in accordance with Article 5 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act ().

A large mining project is defined as a mine covering more than 2 hectares and that has produced more than 50,000 tonnes of ore on average every year over the past five years.

According to economics ministry data, eight large mines would be subject to review, while 31 smaller projects would be required to conduct less rigorous reviews based on Article 28 of the same act.

Lawmakers also addressed provisions in the Mining Act that had long been criticized by environmental groups as serving the interests of mining companies.

One such provision is Article 47, which gives mineral rights holders the right to commence mining projects even if they fail to obtain consent from landowners, as long as they compensate them.

The article, as well as Article 31, which entitles mine developers to claim compensation for losses incurred if a license renewal is denied, are to be removed, the amendments say.

Another major change mandates authorities to place limits on mining activities, for example capping the amount of ore extraction in each project.

Companies that reach their limits would be required to reapply for mining permission, even if their license has not expired.

Citizen of the Earth, Taiwan said that it never sought to bring down the mining industry in Taiwan, but had been working to correct the law that was tilted heavily in favor of the industry.

Only when the negative effects of mining activity on the environment are reduced and the rights of nearby residents are ensured can the industry shed its notorious reputation in Taiwanese society, it added.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Here is the original post:

Amendments to Mining Act passed -

With the U.S. and its allies rapidly bolstering military capabilities around Taiwan, a successful Chinese invasion, let alone an occupation, of the self-ruled island is becoming an increasingly difficult proposition.

But with the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) increasingly focused on intelligent warfare a reference to artificial intelligence-enabled military systems and operational concepts experts warn that Beijing could eventually have a new card up its sleeve: cognitive warfare.

The term refers to operations based on techniques and technologies such as AI aimed at influencing the minds of ones adversaries and shaping their decisions, thereby creating a strategically favorable environment or subduing them without a fight.

This could be due to a conflict with your ad-blocking or security software.

Please add japantimes.co.jp and piano.io to your list of allowed sites.

If this does not resolve the issue or you are unable to add the domains to your allowlist, please see this FAQ.

We humbly apologize for the inconvenience.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

Read more:

Winning without fighting? Why China is exploring 'cognitive warfare.' - The Japan Times

Image Credits: Chukrut Budrul/SOPA Images/LightRocket / Getty Images

MEPs in the European Parliament had the opportunity of a rare in-person appearance by Irelands data protection commissioner, Helen Dixon, to criticize the blocs lead privacy regulator for most of Big Tech over how long its taking to investigate the video-sharing social media platform TikTok.

This concern is the latest expression of wider worries about enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) not keeping pace with usage of major digital platforms.

The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) opened two inquiries into aspects of TikToks business back in September 2021: One focused on its handling of childrens data, and another looked at data transfers to China, where the platforms parent company is based. Neither has yet concluded. Although the kids data inquiry looks relatively advanced along the GDPR enforcement rail at this stage with Ireland having submitted it to other EU regulators for review in September last year.

Per Dixon, a final decision on the TikTok kids data case should arrive later this year.

The U.K.s data protection watchdog which now operates outside the EU has taken some enforcement action in this area already, putting out a provisional finding that TikTok misused childrens data last fall. The ICO went on to issue its final decision on the investigation last month, when it levied a fine of around $15.7 million. (Albeit, its worth noting it shrunk the size of the fine imposed and narrowed the scope of the final decision, dropping a provisional finding that TikTok had unlawfully used special category data blaming resource limitations for downgrading the scope of its investigation.)

In remarks to the European Parliaments civil liberties committee (LIBE) today, which had invited Irelands data protection commissioner to talk about TikTok specifically, Dixon signaled an expectation that a decision on the TikTok childrens data probe would be coming this year, making a reference to the company as she told MEPs: 2023 is going to be an even bigger year for GDPR enforcement on foot of DPC large scale investigations.

Other large-scale cases she suggested will result in decisions being handed down this year include a very long-running probe of (TechCrunchs parent company) Yahoo (ne Oath), which was opened by the DPC back in August 2019 and which she noted is also currently at the Article 60 stage.

She added that there are many further large scale inquiries travelling closely behind without offering any detail on which cases she was referring to.

Plenty of Big Tech investigations remain undecided by Ireland not least major probes into Googles adtech (opened May 2019) and location tracking (February 2020), to name two. (The former of which has led to the DPC being sued for inaction.) Neither case merited a name-check by Dixon today so presumably and luckily for Google arent on the slate for completion this year.

Ireland holds an outsized enforcement role for the GDPR on Big Tech owing to how many multinational tech firms choose to locate their regional headquarters in the country (which also offers a corporate tax rate that undercuts those applied by many other EU member states). Hence why parliamentarians were so keen to hear from Dixon and get her response to concerns that enforcement of the regulation isnt holding platform giants to account in any kind of effective timeframe.

One thing was clear from todays performance: Irelands data protection commissioner did not come to appease her critics. Instead Dixon directed a large chunk of the time allocated to her for opening remarks to mount a robust defense of the DPCs busy GDPR enforcement, as she couched it rejecting attacks on its enforcement record by claiming, contrary to years of critical analysis (by rights groups such as noyb, BEUC and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties), that its legal analysis and infringement findings are generally accepted in all cases by fellow regulators who review its draft decisions.

Differences between the DPC and its fellow supervisory authorities [are] largely confined to marginal issues around the fringes, she also argued taking another swipe at what she couched as a narrative promulgated by some commentators that in many of the cross border cases in which high value fines were levied the DPC was forced to take tougher enforcement action by its fellow supervisory authorities across the EU that she claimed is inaccurate.

Back on the days topic of TikTok, she gave MEPs a status update on the data transfers decision revealing that a preliminary draft of the draft decision is now with the company to make its final submissions. The GDPRs procedural track means Ireland must submit its draft decision to other concerned data protection authorities for review (and the chance to raise objections). So there could still be considerable mileage before a final decision lands in this inquiry.

Dixon did not indicate how long it would take the TikTok data transfers inquiry to progress to the next step (aka Article 60), which fires up a cooperation mechanism baked into the GDPR that can itself add many more months to investigation timelines. But its worth noting the DPC is trailing a little behind its own recent expectation for the draft decision timeline back in November, it told TechCrunch it expected to send a draft decision to Article 60 in the first quarter of 2023.

Exports of European users data to so-called third countries (outside the bloc), which lack a high-level data adequacy agreement with the EU, have been under increased scrutiny since a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice back in July 2020. At that time, as well as striking down a flagship EU-U.S. data transfer deal, EU judges made it clear data protection authorities must scrutinize use of another mechanism, called Standard Contractual Clauses, for transfers to third countries on a case-by-case basis meaning no such data export could be assumed as safe.

And, just yesterday, a major GDPR data transfer decision did finally emerge out of Ireland possibly offering a taster of the sort of enforcement that could be coming down the pipe for TikToks data transfers in the EU with Facebook being found to have infringed requirements that Europeans information be protected to the same standard as under EU law when exported outside the bloc.

Facebooks parent company Meta was ordered to suspend unlawful data flows within six months and also issued with a record penalty of 1.2 billion for systematic breaches of the rulebook. The company has said it will appeal the decision and seek a stay on implementation of the suspension order.

Its anyones guess when such a decision might land for TikToks data transfers to China a location where digital surveillance concerns are certainly no less alive than they are for the U.S. but MEP Moritz Krner, of the Free Democratic Party, was one of several LIBE committee MEPs taking issue with the length of time its taking for the GDPR to be enforced against another data-mining, data transferring adtech giant.

Its good to hear today that you are in the final stage of your [TikTok] investigation but more than four years have gone by! he emphasized in questions to the Irish commissioner. And this is an app which millions of our citizens are using including children and young people So my question would be does data protection in Europe move quickly enough and what has happened over the past four years?

Pirate party MEP, Patrick Breyer, had even more pointed remarks for Dixon. He kicked off by calling out her refusal to meet the committee last year when she had reportedly objected to being asked to appear at a session alongside privacy campaigner, Max Schrems, who had a live legal action open against the DPC related to its procedures around his complaint about Metas data transfers which he suggested would have been the appropriate forum for her defense of the DPCs enforcement record, not a hearing on TikTok specifically. He then went on to hit out at the narrow scoping of the DPCs investigations into TikToks operations raising broader questions than the regulator is apparently inquiring into, such as the legality of TikToks tracking and profiling of users.

Hearing that what you are investigating in relation to TikTok is only childrens data and data transfers to China this addresses only a fraction of what is being criticized and debated about the service and this app, he argued. For one thing using TikTok comes with pervasive first party and third party tracking of our every action or every click based on forced consent, which is not necessary for using the service and for providing it. This pervasive tracking has been found to be both a risk to our privacy but also to national security in the case of certain officials. And do you consider this content freely given and valid?

Secondly, the app reportedly uses excessive permissions and device information collection, including hourly checking of our location, device mapping, external storage access, access to our contacts, third party apps data collection, none of which is necessary for the app to function. Will you act to protect us from these violations of our privacy? Breyer continued. If you remain as inactive as this, as you have been for years, you know this will continue to call into question your competence for [overseeing] the social media companies in Ireland and it will result in more outright bans [by governments on services like TikTok] which is not in the interest of industry either. So I call on you to expand your investigations and to speed them up and cover all these issues of pervasive tracking and excessive surveillance.

Another MEP, Karolin Braunsberger-Reinhold of the Christian Democratic Union, also touched on the issue of TikTok bans such as one imposed by the Indian government, back in 2020 but with apparently less concern about the prospect of a regional ban on the platform than Breyer since she wanted to know what the Dixon was considering beyond fines. Data protection is very important in the European Union so why are we allowing TikTok to send data back to China when we have no information on how that data is being dealt with once it goes back there? she wondered.

MEPs on the LIBE committee also queried Dixon about what had happened with a TikTok task force set up at the start of 2020, by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), following earlier concerns raised about privacy and security issues linked to its data collection practices.

Such task forces are typically focused on harmonizing the application of the GDPR in cases where a data processor is not main established in an EU member state. But TikTok went on by December 2020 to be granted main establishment status in Ireland, which meant data protection investigations would now be funneled via Ireland as its lead authority for the GDPR. This revised oversight structure most likely led to a disbanding of the EDPB TikTok task force, since the GDPR contains an established mechanism for cooperation, although Dixon did not provide an obvious response to MEPs on this point.

The clear message from the LIBE committee to Ireland today, in its capacity as TikToks lead privacy regulator in the EU, boiled down a simple question: Where is the enforcement?

For her part, Dixon sought to dodge the latest flurry of critical barbs rejecting accusations (and insinuations) of inaction by arguing that the length of time the DPC is taking to work through the TikTok inquiries is necessary given how much material its examining.

She also sought to characterize cross-border GDPR enforcement as shared decision-making, as a result of the structure imposed through the regulations one-stop-shop mechanism looping concerned authorities into reviewing a lead authoritys draft decisions also referring to this process as decision making by committee. Her point there being that group decision-making inevitably takes longer.

I do want to assure you were working as quickly as we can, she told MEPs at one point during the session. We have well over 200 expert staff at the Irish Data Protection Commission. Were recruiting more. Were conscious of turning these decisions around We transmitted that draft decision last October to our concerned authorities. It will be almost a year later now before we have the final decision. That is the form of decision making by committee that the GDPR lays down and it does take time.

In the case of the TikTok data transfers probe, Dixon leaned on the requirement handed down by the CJEU that regulators examine legality on a case by case basis as justifying what she implied was a careful, fact-sifting approach.

The Court of Justice has obliged us to look at the specific circumstances and the factual backdrop of any specific set of of transfers before we can conclude and so while to some people the answers all seem obvious thats not the process in which we must engage. We must step, case by case, through on the specifics. And thats what we have done now and submitted a preliminary draft of our decision to TikTok for submissions, she argued.

As I said in my opening statement, were far from inactive, she also asserted, before mounting another fierce defense of the DPCs record claiming: We are by any measure the most active enforcer of data protection law in the EU. Two thirds of all enforcement delivered across the EU/EEA and UK last year was delivered by the Irish Data Protection Commission and thats verifiable facts.

Responding to another question from the committee, regarding what sanctions the DPC is looking at if it finds TikTok has infringed the GDPR, Dixon emphasized it has a whole range of corrective measures up to bans on data processing that we can apply, not just fines.

In any investigation were open minded in relation to what the applicable and effective measures will be when we conclude an investigation with infringement so, I can assure you, where we have considered in the [TikTok] case that weve already concluded the childrens data thats now with our fellow authorities we have looked across the range of measures available to us in relation to that investigation, she told MEPs.

The issue of fines that the DPC may (or may not) choose to impose for GDPR breaches is particularly topical given its emerged as a key detail in the aforementioned Meta data transfers enforcement.

In the Meta transfers case, Dixon and the DPC had not wanted to levy any financial penalty on the tech giant for a multi-year breach affecting hundreds of millions of Europeans. However, it was forced to include a fine in the final decision in order to implement a binding decision by the EDPB which had ordered it to impose a fine of between 20% and 100% of the maximum possible under the GDPR (which is 4% of annual revenue). In the event Ireland opted for the lower bar setting the penalty at around 1% of Metas annual revenue.

In her remarks to MEPs today, Dixon defended the DPCs decision not to propose fining Meta for its illegal transfers however, she offered no substantial argument for why it took such a position.

As Im sure youll be aware, the DPC respectfully disagreed with the proposal to apply a fine. In our view, a meaningful change, if it was to be delivered, in this area required the suspension of transfers. No administrative fine could guarantee the kind of change required, she told MEPs, offering a straw man argument in defense of wanting to let Meta go without any financial sanction, which seems to imply theres an either/or equation for GDPR enforcement that is, corrective measures or punishment when, very clearly, the regulation allows for both (and, indeed, intends that enforcement is dissuasive against future law breaking). Hence the EDPBs binding decision requiring Ireland to impose a substantial fine on Meta for such a systematic and sustained infringement of the GDPR.

Instead of elaborating on the rationale for choosing not to fine Meta, Dixon switched gears into a swipe of her own directed at the EDPB by making an observation that all the Boards binding decisions in cases in which the DPC had acted as lead supervisory authority are subject to annulment proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, before adding (somewhat acidly): As such the CJEU, rather than the EDPB, will have the final say on the correct interpretation and application of the law.

In questions to Dixon, social democrat MEP, Birgit Sippel, picked her up on what she implied was a repeated lack of clarity emanating from the DPC on fines also flagging a lack of clear answers from the Irish commissioner in her remarks to the committee today on why it had failed to propose any penalty at all for Metas illegal data transfers.

There was no comeback from Dixon to that point.

In her questioning, Sippel also wondered whether TikTok was cooperating with the DPCs investigations or whether the DPC had adequate access to information from it in order to conduct proper oversight. On this Dixon said the company is cooperating with the two investigations, while noting TikTok has from time to time been asking for extensions to submission deadlines, which she implied were typically granted as she considered they were merited on account of the amount of volume of material involved providing a small glimpse of GDPR enforcement timeline creep in action.

Asked for a response to views expressed by MEPs during the LIBE committee hearing, a TikTok spokesperson told us: We welcome the Data Protection Commissioners acknowledgement that TikTok has been cooperative and responsive with the regulator. As a company we are readily available to meet with lawmakers and regulators to address any concerns.

In a press release about Dixons appearance in front of the committee today, the DPC wrote:

The Data Protection Commission (the DPC) was today delighted to be invited to make its first address before the European Parliaments Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (the LIBE Committee). The address coincided with the five-year anniversary of the application of the General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR) and covered a wide-range of topics, including the extensive enforcement work of the DPC over the last five years and the progress of some of the large-scale investigations it currently has on-hand; in particular those relating to TikTok.

Todays address by Commissioner for Data Protection, Helen Dixon, built on the ongoing positive engagement between the DPC and the LIBE Committee, following the visit of a LIBE delegation to the DPCs offices last September. Welcoming the chance to highlight the successful enforcement work of the DPC to date, Commissioner Dixon reflected on the constructive and useful nature of engagement with the LIBE Committee as we each, from our respective remits, pursue the drive for fair and effective enforcement of data protection law and protection of fundamental rights.

Commissioner Dixon was also pleased to answer questions from the MEPs in attendance and provide additional clarity as to the nature and scale of the DPCs work.

The rest is here:

TikToks lead privacy regulator in Europe takes heat from MEPs - TechCrunch