Mayor Michael Melham of Belleville, New Jersey, gives an update on the mysterious drone sightings across the Garden State on ‘The Faulkner Focus.’ Lawmakers exiting a classified briefing with U.S. intelligence officials insisted they received assurances nothing "nefarious" is going on with the recent uptick in drone sightings in New Jersey. On Tuesday, U.S. officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department privately briefed members of the House Intelligence Committee in an effort to assuage growing fears over sightings of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and fresh calls for federal action. "There's no evidence that anybody acted unlawfully here, or that any of these drones, in as much as the authorities know anything about them, are associated with anybody with malign intent," Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., ranking member of the committee, told reporters after the briefing. "I don't think we have any reason to believe that they are hiding information. And, again, we asked an extraordinarily detailed series of questions of 28 people over a period of three hours." 'DRONE' SIGHTINGS IN THE NORTHEAST SPARK 'UNFOUNDED' PANIC, SAYS EXPERT Photos taken in the Bay Shore section of Toms River show what appear to be large drones hovering in the area at high altitudes in New Jersey Dec. 8, 2024. (Doug Hood/Asbury Park Press) But the uptick in alleged drone sightings along the East Coast has touched off panicked calls for an investigation from residents and state lawmakers. The FBI has received more than 6,000 tips from the public on mysterious drone sightings. One theory can definitively be ruled out, according to Himes. The drones are not the work of a classified government operation, he said. "We asked this question over and over and over again," he said, "They are not [linked to the U.S. government]. We were assured." Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder stressed to reporters that the drones seen along the East Coast are not a DOD asset. Instead, the running theory among U.S. officials seems to be that there is no one reason behind the phenomenon, and many of the sightings called in to law enforcement are planes, helicopters or hobbyist drones operating lawfully. "There is no evident threat coming from any place. These are just traditional planes, drones, stars, private planes — all the things that are typically in our skies," said Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa. Rep. Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican and outspoken critic of the Biden administration’s response to the drones, told Fox News Digital in an interview Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation as early as this week that would allow state police to better handle the drone threat, including tracking the unmanned aircraft and, if necessary, taking them down. But Smith said Tuesday he sees the bill as a "very real extension of a capability that is needed right now" in the U.S. defense space. "There's more vulnerability here that anyone wants to accept, but we need to take action — decisive action," Smith said. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., reacts to the mysterious drone sightings. (Getty/Fox News) On Friday, government agencies will lose their counter-drone authority without an FAA reauthorization from Congress. An extension of that authority is expected to be included in spending legislation to keep the government open, but security-minded lawmakers are pushing for more extensive reform to grant state and local law enforcement the authority to intercept and identify drones and equip them with radar detection capabilities. "We got a lot of answers. Quite frankly, the technology of drones has outpaced the law," said Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill. "We have to work in a bipartisan manner to plug some holes within the law in terms of who is allowed to operate drones in what manner and how do you disable or deal with drones in improper airspace." NJ DRONE SIGHTINGS COULD BE A ‘CLASSIFIED EXERCISE’: FORMER CIA OFFICER On Monday, the DHS, FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Pentagon issued a joint statement noting that, while they "recognize the concern" from the public, there is no evidence that the drones are "anomalous" or a threat to national security. The drone complaints began pouring in last month in New Jersey, where witnesses and residents first began reporting drone sightings off of coastal areas, including off of Cape May, a scenic town roughly 50 miles south of Atlantic City along the Jersey Shore. More recently, lawmakers in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Maryland have reported new drone sightings in their home states, with some witnesses claiming the aircraft in question have been the "size of cars" or seen flying above sensitive infrastructure or in restricted airspace. New Jersey State Assemblyman Paul Kanitra took a photo of what appears to be multiple drones hovering in the New Jersey sky on Thursday, Dec. 13. (Paul Kanitra/"Fox News @ Night") Krishnamoorthi insisted he was "satisfied" with the answers he got from the briefing, but the government needs to do more to assuage the concerns of the public. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "The public needs to see for themselves what these government officials have concluded and the technology that's been used." Breanne Deppisch is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the 2024 election and other national news.The EU has intensified its focus on foreign subsidies through the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR). The Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation targets subsidies from non-EU countries that distort competition in the EU market. The FSR expands the EU’s ability to address foreign subsidies affecting mergers, acquisitions, public procurement, and other commercial activities within the EU market. To prepare for potential investigations, companies should understand regulatory frameworks and consider implementing strategic measures. As the European Union increases its regulatory focus on foreign subsidies, businesses face a complex and evolving compliance landscape. This GT Alert specifically addresses the EU’s investigative actions under two key frameworks: the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1037) and the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR)(Regulation (EU) 2022/2560) and highlights notable cases, such as the investigation into Chinese-built battery electric vehicles (BEVs) under the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, which led to definitive countervailing duties, as well as inquiries into Chinese wind turbine suppliers and security technology company Nuctech under the FSR. The alert does not explore broader regulatory measures but instead focuses on the investigative processes and general strategies businesses can consider to prepare for potential EU investigations. Whether operating in the EU or entering the market, businesses should understand the differences and common themes in these cases should an investigation occur. Overview of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and FSR The Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and the FSR are two key legislative tools in the EU’s trade defense and competition policy toolkit. Both regulations aim to address competitive distortions that foreign subsidies from non-European countries cause to the EU internal market. The EU employs these instruments to maintain a level playing field for EU businesses and to ensure fair competition. The Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, in effect since 2018, empowers the European Commission (EC) to investigate such subsidies and impose countervailing duties (CVDs) on imports benefiting from them, along with other remedies. This regulation is designed to safeguard EU industries from unfair competition by neutralizing the advantage non-EU countries gain from foreign subsidies, often by raising the price of subsidized imports. While the regulation focuses on direct subsidies to specific industries or companies, it also covers other forms of financial contributions that confer a benefit, such as grants, loans, tax incentives, or the provision of goods and services below market value. It primarily relies on trade measures like CVDs to level the playing field and mitigate the unfair advantage such subsidies provide, while also allowing for other appropriate actions where necessary. The FSR, effective since 2023, expands the EU’s ability to address the distortive effects of foreign subsidies beyond the realm of traditional trade measures. It grants the EC powers to investigate foreign subsidies that may undermine competition in a wide range of scenarios, including mergers and acquisitions, public procurement processes, and other commercial activities within the EU market. M&A transactions and public procurement proceedings require ex-ante notifications only when specific thresholds are met. However, the EC can investigate every foreign subsidy during ex-officio proceedings regardless of any thresholds. This regulation is particularly relevant to the digital technology, green energy, telecommunications, transportation, and national security sectors, where fairness and competitiveness are critical to EU strategic interests. Unlike trade-focused instruments, the FSR offers flexibility by enabling the EC to deploy a variety of remedies tailored to specific situations. These measures include, among others, blocking mergers, imposing conditions on acquisitions, excluding subsidized companies from participating in public procurement tenders, and requiring companies to repay the subsidies in cases where they distort competition. In essence, the FSR builds on the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation’s foundation by broadening its scope to address emerging challenges in the global economy. It incorporates additional tools to manage foreign subsidies across various sectors, reflecting the EU’s evolving approach to market fairness. Comparing Investigations under the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and FSR Investigations under the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and the FSR aim to protect the EU market from foreign subsidies that distort competition. Each investigation underscores the EU’s commitment to maintaining a level playing field. Chinese-Built Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs): The investigation into Chinese-made BEVs falls under the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation due to concerns over foreign subsidies that may give Chinese manufacturers an unfair competitive advantage in the EU’s automotive market. This case primarily focuses on how subsidies may distort trade by lowering the price of imported vehicles, potentially harming EU producers and jobs. The investigation is data-driven, focuses on market assessments, trade-flow analysis, and competitive impact. Wind Turbine Manufacturers: The investigation into Chinese wind turbine manufacturers falls under the FSR and explores how foreign subsidies affect competition in the renewable energy sector. Unlike the BEV case, which centers on trade dynamics, this investigation adopts a broader, sector-wide approach, analyzing the impact of subsidies on the wind turbine market, including market trends and industry practices, rather than focusing solely on trade flows. Nuctech: The investigation into Nuctech, a Chinese company in the security technology sector, is an example of a case under the FSR driven by national security concerns. The EC inquiry involved a dawn raid at the company’s Dutch and Polish offices, aimed at gathering evidence of potential subsidies that could distort competition in the EU’s security sector. The FSR is appropriate for this investigation given its focus on addressing market distortions in sensitive sectors such as national security and critical infrastructure. While the investigations are all part of the EU’s broader efforts to address foreign subsidies, they differ in applicable regulations, underlying concerns, and methodologies: Applicable Regulations: The BEV inquiry falls under the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation, which focuses on foreign subsidies in the context of goods imports. Conversely, the wind turbine and Nuctech cases fall under the FSR, allowing the EU to assess whether foreign subsidies distort competition across various economic activities, from sector-specific impacts to security-related concerns. Nature of the Concerns: The BEV and wind turbine cases are primarily driven by concerns over economic fairness, aiming to ensure that subsidies in these sectors do not distort EU market competition. In contrast, the Nuctech investigation is driven by national security issues, given the sensitive nature of the security technology sector. Investigative Methods: Although both frameworks permit varied investigation methods, the nature of the concerns often dictates the approach. For example, the BEV and wind turbine investigations involved extensive data collection and market analysis, typical for economic-focused inquiries. The Nuctech investigation, however, involved a dawn raid—a tactic often reserved for cases involving urgent security or compliance concerns. Considerations for Companies Despite the differences in applicable regulations, specific concerns, and investigative methods, there are common strategies that businesses can consider to prepare for and respond to EU investigations. Businesses should consider taking proactive steps to navigate potential inquiries: Establish a Compliance Team: Form a dedicated team from legal, finance, and operations. Appoint a compliance officer to lead the team, ensuring regular monitoring and reporting of relevant information. This cohesive unit can address issues and coordinate responses to EC inquiries. Risk Assessment: Collect and process historical data on financial contributions across the whole capital group over the past three years and gather evidence to demonstrate that received subsidies could not distort the EU internal market (e.g., that the financial contributions were made on market terms). Engage Regulatory Consultants: Hire professionals well-versed in EU regulatory compliance. These may include lawyers with knowledge of legal frameworks, economists with experience in market analysis, and other consultants suited to your industry’s needs. Select consultants with proven experience in navigating EU regulations who can provide tailored advice to specific industries. Their insights can clarify the regulatory landscape and equip organizations to meet their obligations effectively. Implement Targeted Training: To reduce the risk of non-compliance, organize training sessions on EU foreign-subsidy regulations for both staff and senior management. Utilize external professionals or in-house resources to conduct workshops that incorporate case studies from past investigations and offer practical insights. Ensure that key decision-makers in senior management are involved, as their awareness is essential for cultivating a culture of compliance. Develop a Crisis Management Plan: Establish a plan detailing steps to take in the event of an investigation. Include communication strategies, designate spokespersons, and set protocols for interactions with regulatory authorities. A well-laid plan can help a company respond effectively and even mitigate risks before they escalate into formal investigations. Conclusion While EU investigations pose challenges, a proactive approach may help mitigate risks and enhance overall compliance. Staying informed and prepared is crucial for companies participating in the EU market. By understanding the regulatory landscape and implementing strategic measures, organizations can better navigate potential inquiries and safeguard their interests in an increasingly complex environment. * Special thanks to Qualified Chinese Legal Consultant Ran Chang for contributing to this GT Alert.
NEW YORK — As the International Rescue Committee copes with dramatic increases in displaced people in recent years, the refugee aid organization has looked for efficiencies wherever it can — including using artificial intelligence. Since 2015, the IRC has invested in Signpost — a portfolio of mobile apps and social media channels that answer questions in different languages for people in dangerous situations. The Signpost project, which includes many other organizations, has reached 18 million people so far, but IRC wants to significantly increase its reach by using AI tools — if they can do so safely. Conflict, climate emergencies and economic hardship have driven up demand for humanitarian assistance, with more than 117 million people forcibly displaced in 2024, according to the United Nations refugee agency. The turn to artificial intelligence technologies is in part driven by the massive gap between needs and resources. To meet its goal of reaching half of displaced people within three years, the IRC is testing a network of AI chatbots to see if they can increase the capacity of their humanitarian officers and the local organizations that directly serve people through Signpost. For now, the pilot project operates in El Salvador, Kenya, Greece and Italy and responds in 11 languages. It draws on a combination of large language models from some of the biggest technology companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic and Google. The chatbot response system also uses customer service software from Zendesk and receives other support from Google and Cisco Systems. If they decide the tools work, the IRC wants to extend the technical infrastructure to other nonprofit humanitarian organizations at no cost. They hope to create shared technology resources that less technically focused organizations could use without having to negotiate directly with tech companies or manage the risks of deployment. "We're trying to really be clear about where the legitimate concerns are but lean into the optimism of the opportunities and not also allow the populations we serve to be left behind in solutions that have the potential to scale in a way that human to human or other technology can't," said Jeannie Annan, International Rescue Committee's Chief Research and Innovation Officer. The responses and information that Signpost chatbots deliver are vetted by local organizations to be up to date and sensitive to the precarious circumstances people could be in. An example query that IRC shared is of a woman from El Salvador traveling through Mexico to the United States with her son who is looking for shelter and for services for her child. The bot provides a list of providers in the area where she is. More complex or sensitive queries are escalated for humans to respond. The most important potential downside of these tools would be that they don't work. For example, what if the situation on the ground changes and the chatbot doesn't know? It could provide information that's not just wrong, but dangerous. A second issue is that these tools can amass a valuable honeypot of data about vulnerable people that hostile actors could target. What if a hacker succeeds in accessing data with personal information or if that data is accidentally shared with an oppressive government? IRC said it's agreed with the tech providers that none of their AI models will be trained on the data that the IRC, the local organizations or the people they are serving are generating. They've also worked to anonymize the data, including removing personal information and location. As part of the Signpost.AI project, IRC is also testing tools like a digital automated tutor and maps that can integrate many different types of data to help prepare for and respond to crises. Cathy Petrozzino, who works for the not-for-profit research and development company MITRE, said AI tools do have high potential, but also high risks. To use these tools responsibly, she said, organizations should ask themselves, does the technology work? Is it fair? Are data and privacy protected? She also emphasized that organizations need to convene a range of people to help govern and design the initiative — not just technical experts, but people with deep knowledge of the context, legal experts, and representatives from the groups that will use the tools. "There are many good models sitting in the AI graveyard," she said, "because they weren't worked out in conjunction and collaboration with the user community." For any system that has potentially life-changing impacts, Petrozzino said, groups should bring in outside experts to independently assess their methodologies. Designers of AI tools need to consider the other systems it will interact with, she said, and they need to plan to monitor the model over time. Consulting with displaced people or others that humanitarian organizations serve may increase the time and effort needed to design these tools, but not having their input raises many safety and ethical problems, said Helen McElhinney, executive director of CDAC Network. It can also unlock local knowledge. People receiving services from humanitarian organizations should be told if an AI model will analyze any information they hand over, she said, even if the intention is to help the organization respond better. That requires meaningful and informed consent, she said. They should also know if an AI model is making life-changing decisions about resource allocation and where accountability for those decisions lies, she said. Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox!Kings made a hasty mistake by firing Mike Brown
Maverick McNealy birdies the last hole at Sea Island to finally become PGA Tour winner
Mike Lee Slams the Brakes on Unelected Bureaucrats' New Car Seat Seatbelt Warning Chime Rules
Renuka Rayasam | (TNS) KFF Health News In April, just 12 weeks into her pregnancy, Kathleen Clark was standing at the receptionist window of her OB-GYN’s office when she was asked to pay $960, the total the office estimated she would owe after she delivered. Clark, 39, was shocked that she was asked to pay that amount during this second prenatal visit. Normally, patients receive the bill after insurance has paid its part, and for pregnant women that’s usually only when the pregnancy ends. It would be months before the office filed the claim with her health insurer. Clark said she felt stuck. The Cleveland, Tennessee, obstetrics practice was affiliated with a birthing center where she wanted to deliver. Plus, she and her husband had been wanting to have a baby for a long time. And Clark was emotional, because just weeks earlier her mother had died. “You’re standing there at the window, and there’s people all around, and you’re trying to be really nice,” recalled Clark, through tears. “So, I paid it.” On online baby message boards and other social media forums , pregnant women say they are being asked by their providers to pay out-of-pocket fees earlier than expected. The practice is legal, but patient advocacy groups call it unethical. Medical providers argue that asking for payment up front ensures they get compensated for their services. How frequently this happens is hard to track because it is considered a private transaction between the provider and the patient. Therefore, the payments are not recorded in insurance claims data and are not studied by researchers. Patients, medical billing experts, and patient advocates say the billing practice causes unexpected anxiety at a time of already heightened stress and financial pressure. Estimates can sometimes be higher than what a patient might ultimately owe and force people to fight for refunds if they miscarry or the amount paid was higher than the final bill. Up-front payments also create hurdles for women who may want to switch providers if they are unhappy with their care. In some cases, they may cause women to forgo prenatal care altogether, especially in places where few other maternity care options exist. It’s “holding their treatment hostage,” said Caitlin Donovan, a senior director at the Patient Advocate Foundation . Medical billing and women’s health experts believe OB-GYN offices adopted the practice to manage the high cost of maternity care and the way it is billed for in the U.S. When a pregnancy ends, OB-GYNs typically file a single insurance claim for routine prenatal care, labor, delivery, and, often, postpartum care. That practice of bundling all maternity care into one billing code began three decades ago, said Lisa Satterfield, senior director of health and payment policy at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists . But such bundled billing has become outdated, she said. Previously, pregnant patients had been subject to copayments for each prenatal visit, which might lead them to skip crucial appointments to save money. But the Affordable Care Act now requires all commercial insurers to fully cover certain prenatal services. Plus, it’s become more common for pregnant women to switch providers, or have different providers handle prenatal care, labor, and delivery — especially in rural areas where patient transfers are common. Some providers say prepayments allow them to spread out one-time payments over the course of the pregnancy to ensure that they are compensated for the care they do provide, even if they don’t ultimately deliver the baby. “You have people who, unfortunately, are not getting paid for the work that they do,” said Pamela Boatner, who works as a midwife in a Georgia hospital. While she believes women should receive pregnancy care regardless of their ability to pay, she also understands that some providers want to make sure their bill isn’t ignored after the baby is delivered. New parents might be overloaded with hospital bills and the costs of caring for a new child, and they may lack income if a parent isn’t working, Boatner said. In the U.S., having a baby can be expensive. People who obtain health insurance through large employers pay an average of nearly $3,000 out-of-pocket for pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum care, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker . In addition, many people are opting for high-deductible health insurance plans, leaving them to shoulder a larger share of the costs. Of the 100 million U.S. people with health care debt, 12% attribute at least some of it to maternity care, according to a 2022 KFF poll . Families need time to save money for the high costs of pregnancy, childbirth, and child care, especially if they lack paid maternity leave, said Joy Burkhard , CEO of the Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, a Los Angeles-based policy think tank. Asking them to prepay “is another gut punch,” she said. “What if you don’t have the money? Do you put it on credit cards and hope your credit card goes through?” Calculating the final costs of childbirth depends on multiple factors, such as the timing of the pregnancy , plan benefits, and health complications, said Erin Duffy , a health policy researcher at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. The final bill for the patient is unclear until a health plan decides how much of the claim it will cover, she said. But sometimes the option to wait for the insurer is taken away. During Jamie Daw’s first pregnancy in 2020, her OB-GYN accepted her refusal to pay in advance because Daw wanted to see the final bill. But in 2023, during her second pregnancy, a private midwifery practice in New York told her that since she had a high-deductible plan, it was mandatory to pay $2,000 spread out with monthly payments. Daw, a health policy researcher at Columbia University, delivered in September 2023 and got a refund check that November for $640 to cover the difference between the estimate and the final bill. “I study health insurance,” she said. “But, as most of us know, it’s so complicated when you’re really living it.” While the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover some prenatal services, it doesn’t prohibit providers from sending their final bill to patients early. It would be a challenge politically and practically for state and federal governments to attempt to regulate the timing of the payment request, said Sabrina Corlette , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. Medical lobbying groups are powerful and contracts between insurers and medical providers are proprietary. Because of the legal gray area, Lacy Marshall , an insurance broker at Rapha Health and Life in Texas, advises clients to ask their insurer if they can refuse to prepay their deductible. Some insurance plans prohibit providers in their network from requiring payment up front. If the insurer says they can refuse to pay up front, Marshall said, she tells clients to get established with a practice before declining to pay, so that the provider can’t refuse treatment. Related Articles Health | Which health insurance plan may be right for you? Health | Your cool black kitchenware could be slowly poisoning you, study says. Here’s what to do Health | Does fluoride cause cancer, IQ loss, and more? Fact-checking Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claims Health | US towns plunge into debates about fluoride in water Health | Vallejo City Council passes smoking ordinance Clark said she met her insurance deductible after paying for genetic testing, extra ultrasounds, and other services out of her health care flexible spending account. Then she called her OB-GYN’s office and asked for a refund. “I got my spine back,” said Clark, who had previously worked at a health insurer and a medical office. She got an initial check for about half the $960 she originally paid. In August, Clark was sent to the hospital after her blood pressure spiked. A high-risk pregnancy specialist — not her original OB-GYN practice — delivered her son, Peter, prematurely via emergency cesarean section at 30 weeks. It was only after she resolved most of the bills from the delivery that she received the rest of her refund from the other OB-GYN practice. This final check came in October, just days after Clark brought Peter home from the hospital, and after multiple calls to the office. She said it all added stress to an already stressful period. “Why am I having to pay the price as a patient?” she said. “I’m just trying to have a baby.” ©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) — Dallion Johnson scored 25 points and made seven 3-pointers to help FGCU defeat CSU Bakersfield 74-54 on Friday. Johnson went 9 of 14 from the field for the Eagles (1-4). Zavian McLean scored 12 points, going 4 of 9 from the floor, including 1 for 5 from 3-point range, and 3 for 4 from the line. Jevin Muniz went 3 of 10 from the field (2 for 5 from 3-point range) to finish with 10 points, while adding eight rebounds. Marvin McGhee led the Roadrunners (3-2) in scoring, finishing with 15 points. Fidelis Okereke added 10 points. The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar .As per the guidelines of the Andhra Pradesh State Level Recruitment Board (APSLRB), the Guntur district police will conduct Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for the police constable aspirants from December 30, 2024, to January 22, 2025, at the Police Parade Grounds. “In all, 9,084 candidates — 7,483 men and 1,601 women — have qualified for the tests from the district after clearing the preliminary examination,” Guntur Superintendent of Police S. Satish Kumar said in a statement on December 28, 2024 (Saturday). Arrangements had been made to ensure a smooth, transparent and impartial recruitment process, he said. “Candidates are required to report at their allotted time slots between 5 a.m. and 10 a.m. They must carry original documents of SSC and Intermediate mark sheets, community certificate, and other relevant credentials as specified in the call letter. Failure to produce the documents will result in disqualification,” Mr. Satish Kumar said. To ensure efficiency and transparency in the process, advanced technology, including CCTV cameras, was being used. Medical facilities, including ambulance service, were also arranged. Step-by-step instructions would be issued to the candidates through display boards at the test venue, he added. Height and chest measurements, a 1,600-metre run, a 100-metre sprint, and long jump would be conducted as part of the tests. Verification of biometric data, NCC certificates, and local status claims would also be conducted, Mr. Satish Kumar said. Assuring that no inconvenience would be caused to the candidates, he advised them to be wary of the fraudulent agents’ claims of securing a job in exchange for money. “Dial 112 to report such activities, or reach out to the local police. Details of the informants will be kept confidential,” he said. “The Guntur police aim to execute a fair and robust recruitment process, while upholding the integrity of the system,” the official said. Published - December 28, 2024 06:28 pm IST Copy link Email Facebook Twitter Telegram LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Andhra Pradesh / police / physical fitness / test/examination
Montana women's basketball suffers blowout loss at undefeated MinnesotaRockingstone Advisors LLC Raises Stock Position in Microsoft Co. (NASDAQ:MSFT)AI may help, hurt in humanitarian responses
US finally breaks silence over China’s sixth-generation fighter jet J-36, it could tilt power balance in favour of...