A atividade política, para os antigos, estava associada à prática das virtudes e à busca por uma ordem moral duradoura. A corrupção, por sua vez, era identificada com vícios como a ambição, a ganância pelo poder, a covardia etc., ou seja, tudo aquilo que causa caos social, desordem e violência.

Essa noção de corrupção associada ao desvirtuamento e à falta de cuidado com o bem comum atravessaria a Idade Média e chegaria até o início da modernidade com os teóricos políticos do Renascimento. Contudo, com a ampliação das relações comerciais decorrentes das grandes navegações, o crescimento urbano, o advento da indústria, a ascensão da burguesia como classe política — por meio de revoluções como a inglesa (1640-1668) e a francesa (1789-1799) —, o sistema político começou a ser pensado de forma diferente.

A concepção antiga das virtudes como guias da política não funcionava mais na modernidade. Era necessária uma concepção de política que levasse em conta os interesses individuais e as ambições, que faziam parte do mundo moderno. Mas como fazer isso sem deixar que tais interesses e ambições degenerassem o sistema político? Montesquieu foi quem ofereceu o melhor modelo, que, em grande parte, ainda se faz presente até hoje nos regimes democráticos.

Segundo Montesquieu, para que os interesses pessoais dos governantes não triunfassem sobre o bem público e para que o corpo político não se corrompesse, seriam necessárias as leis positivas, isto é, um conjunto de medidas jurídicas que se ajustassem à realidade dos interesses de determinada sociedade e impusesse controle sobre ela, sendo capaz de intermediar os homens e suas necessidades.

Esse modelo foi seguido pelas democracias liberais do século XIX. No entanto, desde a transição do século XIX para o século XXI, o mundo ficou cada vez mais integrado, tanto econômica quanto politicamente, sobretudo após as guerras mundiais. Essa integração, apesar de ter trazido inúmeros benefícios, também trouxe grandes dificuldades.

Internet: <https://brasilescola.uol.com.br> (com adaptações).

A atividade política, para os antigos, estava associada à prática das virtudes e à busca por uma ordem moral duradoura. A corrupção, por sua vez, era identificada com vícios como a ambição, a ganância pelo poder, a covardia etc., ou seja, tudo aquilo que causa caos social, desordem e violência.

Essa noção de corrupção associada ao desvirtuamento e à falta de cuidado com o bem comum atravessaria a Idade Média e chegaria até o início da modernidade com os teóricos políticos do Renascimento. Contudo, com a ampliação das relações comerciais decorrentes das grandes navegações, o crescimento urbano, o advento da indústria, a ascensão da burguesia como classe política — por meio de revoluções como a inglesa (1640-1668) e a francesa (1789-1799) —, o sistema político começou a ser pensado de forma diferente.

A concepção antiga das virtudes como guias da política não funcionava mais na modernidade. Era necessária uma concepção de política que levasse em conta os interesses individuais e as ambições, que faziam parte do mundo moderno. Mas como fazer isso sem deixar que tais interesses e ambições degenerassem o sistema político? Montesquieu foi quem ofereceu o melhor modelo, que, em grande parte, ainda se faz presente até hoje nos regimes democráticos.

Segundo Montesquieu, para que os interesses pessoais dos governantes não triunfassem sobre o bem público e para que o corpo político não se corrompesse, seriam necessárias as leis positivas, isto é, um conjunto de medidas jurídicas que se ajustassem à realidade dos interesses de determinada sociedade e impusesse controle sobre ela, sendo capaz de intermediar os homens e suas necessidades.

Esse modelo foi seguido pelas democracias liberais do século XIX. No entanto, desde a transição do século XIX para o século XXI, o mundo ficou cada vez mais integrado, tanto econômica quanto politicamente, sobretudo após as guerras mundiais. Essa integração, apesar de ter trazido inúmeros benefícios, também trouxe grandes dificuldades.

Internet: <https://brasilescola.uol.com.br> (com adaptações).

Information technology (IT) serves a critical role in state operations. State agencies and higher education institutions are increasingly reliant on the automated processing of information. It is important that the IT applications that process information have controls to ensure and protect the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and confidentiality of the State’s information.

Due to the increased reliance on IT applications, a significant portion of the audits the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) performs include an IT component. Auditors select IT controls for testing during an audit based on a risk assessment. The risk assessment considers, among other factors, the objectives and scope of the audit. Therefore, the SAO does not test all IT controls in every audit, with the high-risk and high-impact IT controls being tested more frequently. In addition, to minimize security risks, the SAO does not publicly report sensitive IT audit issues, in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Section 552.139.

Texas state auditor’s office report. Internet: <sao.texas.gov> (adapted).

Leaders at tech companies around the world could face up to two years in prison in the United Kingdom if they do not comply with new online safety laws.

Draft legislation aims to crack down on social media and other online entities to ensure safety and privacy for users, particularly children. The laws were drafted to prevent uploading and spreading of harmful content such as racism, bullying, fraud and sexual abuse.

While the legislation has been criticized by Parliament members in the past, the new draft has received bipartisan support.

The bill has to be voted on by British lawmakers.

The legislation has been updated several times since its inception. Among the changes are hefty fines or blockages if networks fail to remove harmful content after being notified of its existence, as well as the labeling of sending unsolicited nudes as a criminal offense.

The fines could be up to 10 percent of the affected company’s annual global income. The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the bill’s regulator, has been granted legal grounds to request information from companies they suspect of not following the bill’s rules.

If Ofcom is able to prove that the companies withheld information or have not responded properly to notifications of inappropriate or illegal content, the executives would be held criminally liable. This part of the law will be enforced two months after the law itself is enacted, meaning companies and websites will have time to crack down on their content before facing legal consequences.

Some U.K. residents have pushed back against the new version of the bill, including memes from the Open Rights Group. The organization claims that, despite good intentions, the regulations could result in a slippery slope that could end up violating free speech.

Internet:<www.newsweek.com> (adapted).

Leaders at tech companies around the world could face up to two years in prison in the United Kingdom if they do not comply with new online safety laws.

Draft legislation aims to crack down on social media and other online entities to ensure safety and privacy for users, particularly children. The laws were drafted to prevent uploading and spreading of harmful content such as racism, bullying, fraud and sexual abuse.

While the legislation has been criticized by Parliament members in the past, the new draft has received bipartisan support.

The bill has to be voted on by British lawmakers.

The legislation has been updated several times since its inception. Among the changes are hefty fines or blockages if networks fail to remove harmful content after being notified of its existence, as well as the labeling of sending unsolicited nudes as a criminal offense.

The fines could be up to 10 percent of the affected company’s annual global income. The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the bill’s regulator, has been granted legal grounds to request information from companies they suspect of not following the bill’s rules.

If Ofcom is able to prove that the companies withheld information or have not responded properly to notifications of inappropriate or illegal content, the executives would be held criminally liable. This part of the law will be enforced two months after the law itself is enacted, meaning companies and websites will have time to crack down on their content before facing legal consequences.

Some U.K. residents have pushed back against the new version of the bill, including memes from the Open Rights Group. The organization claims that, despite good intentions, the regulations could result in a slippery slope that could end up violating free speech.

Internet:<www.newsweek.com> (adapted).

Leaders at tech companies around the world could face up to two years in prison in the United Kingdom if they do not comply with new online safety laws.

Draft legislation aims to crack down on social media and other online entities to ensure safety and privacy for users, particularly children. The laws were drafted to prevent uploading and spreading of harmful content such as racism, bullying, fraud and sexual abuse.

While the legislation has been criticized by Parliament members in the past, the new draft has received bipartisan support.

The bill has to be voted on by British lawmakers.

The legislation has been updated several times since its inception. Among the changes are hefty fines or blockages if networks fail to remove harmful content after being notified of its existence, as well as the labeling of sending unsolicited nudes as a criminal offense.

The fines could be up to 10 percent of the affected company’s annual global income. The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the bill’s regulator, has been granted legal grounds to request information from companies they suspect of not following the bill’s rules.

If Ofcom is able to prove that the companies withheld information or have not responded properly to notifications of inappropriate or illegal content, the executives would be held criminally liable. This part of the law will be enforced two months after the law itself is enacted, meaning companies and websites will have time to crack down on their content before facing legal consequences.

Some U.K. residents have pushed back against the new version of the bill, including memes from the Open Rights Group. The organization claims that, despite good intentions, the regulations could result in a slippery slope that could end up violating free speech.

Internet:<www.newsweek.com> (adapted).

Leaders at tech companies around the world could face up to two years in prison in the United Kingdom if they do not comply with new online safety laws.

Draft legislation aims to crack down on social media and other online entities to ensure safety and privacy for users, particularly children. The laws were drafted to prevent uploading and spreading of harmful content such as racism, bullying, fraud and sexual abuse.

While the legislation has been criticized by Parliament members in the past, the new draft has received bipartisan support.

The bill has to be voted on by British lawmakers.

The legislation has been updated several times since its inception. Among the changes are hefty fines or blockages if networks fail to remove harmful content after being notified of its existence, as well as the labeling of sending unsolicited nudes as a criminal offense.

The fines could be up to 10 percent of the affected company’s annual global income. The Office of Communications (Ofcom), the bill’s regulator, has been granted legal grounds to request information from companies they suspect of not following the bill’s rules.

If Ofcom is able to prove that the companies withheld information or have not responded properly to notifications of inappropriate or illegal content, the executives would be held criminally liable. This part of the law will be enforced two months after the law itself is enacted, meaning companies and websites will have time to crack down on their content before facing legal consequences.

Some U.K. residents have pushed back against the new version of the bill, including memes from the Open Rights Group. The organization claims that, despite good intentions, the regulations could result in a slippery slope that could end up violating free speech.

Internet:<www.newsweek.com> (adapted).

State and local governments regularly disclose financial information to the public so that the current financial status of the government is recognized publicly. The purpose of such disclosure is to achieve accountability and inform citizens about governments’ financial decisions. Despite the efforts to improve the accessibility and readability of financial information, we do not know whether and how the financial information is processed by citizens. This study investigates how citizens assess the financial condition of governments when different financial information is presented. We conduct an online survey experiment to understand how disclosed financial information shapes citizens’ perceived level of a government’s fiscal stress and their attitudes toward governments’ revenue-raising strategies. We find that citizens prioritize the financial indicators that they are familiar with, such as debt and surplus ratios. While both historical and social reference points play an important role, social reference is more effective in influencing citizens’ perception. We only find limited evidence to support the relationship between citizens’ perception of fiscal stress and their support toward governments’ decisions to raise revenues.

Internet: <www.sciencedirect.com> (adapted).

State and local governments regularly disclose financial information to the public so that the current financial status of the government is recognized publicly. The purpose of such disclosure is to achieve accountability and inform citizens about governments’ financial decisions. Despite the efforts to improve the accessibility and readability of financial information, we do not know whether and how the financial information is processed by citizens. This study investigates how citizens assess the financial condition of governments when different financial information is presented. We conduct an online survey experiment to understand how disclosed financial information shapes citizens’ perceived level of a government’s fiscal stress and their attitudes toward governments’ revenue-raising strategies. We find that citizens prioritize the financial indicators that they are familiar with, such as debt and surplus ratios. While both historical and social reference points play an important role, social reference is more effective in influencing citizens’ perception. We only find limited evidence to support the relationship between citizens’ perception of fiscal stress and their support toward governments’ decisions to raise revenues.

Internet: <www.sciencedirect.com> (adapted).