Search for a specific item: Search More Filters Close Filters. Filter the items below: Filters You may select more than one filter View results Clear all. Product Filter by Cloud based applications and platforms included in Microsoft Azure Active Directory. Azure Information Protection. Microsoft Microsoft admin center. Microsoft compliance center. Microsoft Cloud App Security. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. Microsoft Defender for Identity. Microsoft Defender for Office Microsoft Edge.

Microsoft Endpoint Manager. Microsoft Graph. Microsoft Information Protection. Microsoft Intune. Microsoft Power Apps. Microsoft Purview compliance portal. Microsoft Search. Microsoft Stream. Microsoft Teams. Microsoft To Do. Microsoft Viva. Office Office app.

Power Automate. Power BI. SharePoint Syntex. Universal Print. Windows Release phase Filter by feature or product release availability. General Availability. Targeted Release. Targeted Release Entire Organization. Targeted Release Select People. Limited Availability.

Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel Preview. Semi-Annual Enterprise Channel. Beta Channel. Current Channel Preview. Current Channel. Platform Filter by operating system and platform availability. Teams and Surface Devices. Cloud instance Filter by Cloud segment. GCC High. Worldwide Standard Multi-Tenant. New or updated Filter by features recently added or updated.

New within last week. New within last month. Changed within last week. Changed within last month. Updates that are currently in development and testing.

A footnote in Microsoft's submission opens in new tab to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority CMA has let slip the reason behind Call of Duty's absence from the Xbox Game Pass library: Sony and Activision Blizzard have a deal that restricts the games' presence on the service.

The footnote appears in a section detailing the potential benefits to consumers from Microsoft's point of view of the Activision Blizzard catalogue coming to Game Pass. What existing contractual obligations are those? Why, ones like the "agreement between Activision Blizzard and Sony," that places "restrictions on the ability of Activision Blizzard to place COD titles on Game Pass for a number of years".

It was apparently these kinds of agreements that Xbox's Phil Spencer had in mind opens in new tab when he spoke to Sony bosses in January and confirmed Microsoft's "intent to honor all existing agreements upon acquisition of Activision Blizzard". Unfortunately, the footnote ends there, so there's not much in the way of detail about what these restrictions are or how long they'd remain in effect in a potential post-acquisition world.

Given COD's continued non-appearance on Game Pass, you've got to imagine the restrictions are fairly significant if they're not an outright block on COD coming to the service. Either way, the simple fact that Microsoft is apparently willing to maintain any restrictions on its own ability to put first-party games on Game Pass is rather remarkable, given that making Game Pass more appealing is one of the reasons for its acquisition spree.

The irony of Sony making deals like this one while fretting about COD's future on PlayStation probably isn't lost on Microsoft's lawyers, which is no doubt part of why they brought it up to the CMA.

While it's absolutely reasonable to worry about a world in which more and more properties are concentrated in the hands of singular, giant megacorps, it does look a bit odd if you're complaining about losing access to games while stopping them from joining competing services.

We'll find out if the CMA agrees when it completes its in-depth, "Phase 2" investigation opens in new tab into the Activision Blizzard acquisition, which is some way off yet. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with poring over these kinds of corporate submissions for more interesting tidbits like this one. So far, we've already learned that Microsoft privately has a gloomy forecast for the future of cloud gaming opens in new tab , and that the company thinks Sony shouldn't worry so much since, hey, future COD games might be as underwhelming as Vanguard opens in new tab.

Who knows what we'll learn next? Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors.

A federal appeals court struck a major blow against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a finding that its funding mechanism is unconstitutional. The decision is likely to be challenged, setting up a major fight for the future of the top U.

consumer-finance watchdog. As set up under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve rather than congressional appropriations. But Republicans have chafed at what they view as anti-business practices and a lack of oversight.

The structure has been the target of legal challenges before. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who oversaw the CFPB's creation , responded to the ruling on Twitter, writing that "extreme right-wing judges are throwing into question every rule the CFPB enforces to protect consumers and businesses alike.

Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis, meanwhile, said the CFPB "needs the same Congressional oversight as every other government agency. The CFPB is expected to challenge the ruling, though it has yet to confirm that. To that point, the CFPB issued new guidance to credit-reporting agencies Thursday about omitting what it called "junk data" from credit reports. The CFPB has faced several challenges to its existence over its 11 years in business.

In , the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on when its leader can be removed were unconstitutional, but rejected a plea to strike down the agency as a whole.

The most significant fear from progressive lawmakers and consumer groups is that the CFPB could see its resources chopped if left to the whims of Congress. Public Interest Research Group. The new court decision comes as the CFPB, under Biden-appointed director Rohit Chopra , has taken a more aggressive stance toward the financial industry than his Trump administration predecessors.

Chopra has also promised scrutiny over the way large technology companies are expanding into financial services. But the agency is also taking up initiatives with fintech industry support, including finally setting up open-banking rules to guide data-sharing between financial institutions and tech companies. What the ruling means for the fintech industry remains to be seen. While regulators and companies can occasionally come into conflict, the agencies also serve an important role in providing rules of the road and certainty for business models.

His decisions on major cryptocurrency cases have quoted "The Big Lebowski," "SNL," and "Dr. The ways Zia Faruqui right has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster. Veronica Irwin vronirwin is a San Francisco-based reporter at Protocol covering fintech. Previously she was at the San Francisco Examiner, covering tech from a hyper-local angle. Before that, her byline was featured in SF Weekly, The Nation, Techworker, Ms.

Magazine and The Frisc. One hundred percent electronic. The author is Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui. His rulings have made smart references to "The Big Lebowski," "Dr. Strangelove," and "SNL" parodies of the McLaughlin Group.

Rather, before taking the judge position Faruqui was one of a group of prosecutors in the U. There, Faruqui prosecuted cases that involved terrorism, child pornography, and weapons proliferation.

But the ways Faruqui has weighed on cases that have come before him can give lawyers clues as to what legal frameworks will pass muster. Crypto lawyers have drawn on his prior decisions in the context of the Tornado Cash sanctions, for example. Faruqui spoke with Protocol about the power of his position, and what people in crypto should understand about the law. There was another prosecutor, Christopher Brown — you know, the other Chris Brown — and he had taken an interest in this when we were both working on financial crime in the Washington, D.

Our U. attorney at the time, Jessie Liu, had this idea of using financial investigations in a way that was not limited to just white collar crime, or even narcotics cases, but also for cyber investigations, to national security investigations, and in civil cases. A lot of what we were investigating was related to following the money and so she wanted us to be this multidisciplinary unit. But I have to say, we started with the goal of wanting to make T-shirts, and we never did that while I was there.

Your decisions have also gotten a lot of attention. We're public servants! And in order for the public to have faith and trust us, they need to understand what it is that we're doing and what we're saying.

Humor is one way, not using a lot of legalese is another way. But I think there are many judges who are trying to make the judiciary more accessible, and so people can see the work that we're doing and understand what we're doing and then make their own opinions about if it's right or wrong.

But at least, if it's understandable, then there's still some trust in the framework even if you don't agree with how our decisions are stated. We are ambassadors for the judiciary to the people in our courtroom — it's a very frightening proposition being in court if you've been federally charged, and people have perceptions of what they think can happen there in terms of fairness or unfairness. But then it goes far beyond that. I do a lot of work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, our central body doing civic education and outreach to high schools, because I want college and high school students and law students to have an experience where they get a chance to talk to a judge.

So my goal is certainly not just getting to one segment of the population, but it's making decisions accessible to whoever's interested in reading them. What has it felt like for you switching from that prosecutor role to magistrate judge? Lawyers are trying to take different frameworks from one topic and apply them to another, and then convince you that that is or is not appropriate.

Being a judge is very different because you're evaluating what the parties present to you as the applicable legal frameworks, and deciding how new, groundbreaking technology fits into legal frameworks that were written 10 or 15 years ago.

But that's not really a place where judges get involved in saying how it ought to be regulated. There was, famously, a judge in Florida that said cryptocurrency was not money because you couldn't put it underneath your bed, and that's what money is: something that is tangible.

So different people are going to have different decisions. And that's not just true for crypto, but also other areas of the law. Your best-known crypto decisions strongly assert that crypto is traceable.

One way people try to make it less traceable is with mixers, and Tornado Cash was sanctioned by OFAC not too long ago. Do you think the legal reasoning was sound enough for similar sanctions to be applied to other mixers, or decentralized exchanges? I don't know. I think there's been some discussion that people may litigate some of these things, so I can't comment, because those frequently do come to our courthouse.

And I think there are certainly people opining on that, yes and no. So much of what judges do is that we rely on the parties that are before us to tell us what's right and what's wrong.

And then, you know, obviously, they'll have different views, and we make a decision based on what people say in front of us. Are you aware that some legal analysis of the Tornado Cash sanctions references your recent decision in a cryptocurrency sanctions case?

That's what good lawyers will always do. Even legislators might look at that as they try to think about where the gaps are. As a prosecutor I had a case where we sued three Chinese banks to give us their bank records, and it had never been done before. Afterwards, Congress passed a new law, using the decisions from judges in this court and the D.

circuit court, the court above us. So I'm sure people look at prior decisions and try to apply them in the ways that they want to. Are there any misconceptions about how the law applies to crypto, or how your decisions should be interpreted, that you wish you could get across? One misconception is that the judges can't understand this technology — we can. People have these views in two extremes. The lawyer's fundamental job is to take super complex and technical things and boil them down to very easily digestible arguments for a judge, for a jury, or whoever it might be.

The financial technology transformation is driving competition, creating consumer choice, and shaping the future of finance. Hear from seven fintech leaders who are reshaping the future of finance, and join the inaugural Financial Technology Association Fintech Summit to learn more. Financial technology is breaking down barriers to financial services and delivering value to consumers, small businesses, and the economy. Fintech puts American consumers at the center of their finances and helps them manage their money responsibly.

From payment apps to budgeting and investing tools and alternative credit options, fintech makes it easier for consumers to pay for their purchases and build better financial habits. Fintech also arms small businesses with the financial tools for success, including low-cost banking services, digital accounting services, and expanded access to capital.

We advocate for modernized financial policies and regulations that allow fintech innovation to drive competition in the economy and expand consumer choice. Spots are still available for this hybrid event, and you can RSVP here to save your seat. Join us as we discuss how to shape the future of finance. In its broadest sense, Open Banking has created a secure and connected ecosystem that has led to an explosion of new and innovative solutions that benefit the customer, rapidly revolutionizing not just the banking industry but the way all companies do business.

Target benefits are delivered through speed, transparency, and security, and their impact can be seen across a diverse range of use cases. Sharing financial data across providers can enable a customer individual or business to have real-time access to multiple bank accounts across multiple institutions all in one platform, saving time and helping consumers get a more accurate picture of their own finances before taking on debt, providing a more reliable indication than most lending guidelines currently do.

Companies can also create carefully refined marketing profiles and therefore, finely tune their services to the specific need. Open Banking platforms like Klarna Kosma also provide a unique opportunity for businesses to overlay additional tools that add real value for users and deepen their customer relationships.

The increased transparency brought about by Open Banking brings a vast array of additional benefits, such as helping fraud detection companies better monitor customer accounts and identify problems much earlier. The list of new value-add solutions continues to grow.

The speed of business has never been faster than it is today. For small business owners, time is at a premium as they are wearing multiple hats every day.

Macroeconomic challenges like inflation and supply chain issues are making successful money and cash flow management even more challenging. This presents a tremendous opportunity that innovation in fintech can solve by speeding up money movement, increasing access to capital, and making it easier to manage business operations in a central place.

Fintech offers innovative products and services where outdated practices and processes offer limited options. For example, fintech is enabling increased access to capital for business owners from diverse and varying backgrounds by leveraging alternative data to evaluate creditworthiness and risk models.

Microsoft Teams: Start a Teams Chat with Distribution Groups, Mail-enabled Security Groups, and O Groups You will now be able to start a Teams Chat with Distribution Groups, Mail-enabled Security Groups, and O Groups. So, in general, there's significant cost savings by running on AWS, and that's what our customers are focused on. Companies can also create carefully refined marketing profiles and therefore, finely tune their services to the specific need. I'm able to bring back a real insider's view, if you will, about where that world is heading — data, analytics, databases, machine learning, and how all those things come together, and how you really need to view what's happening with data as an end-to-end story. As Californians prepare to vote in the upcoming midterm election, fewer than half of adults and likely voters are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States—and few are very satisfied. Forty-nine percent are optimistic, while 46 percent are pessimistic.

Categories:

• Binary Options
• Forex Bitcoin
• Binary Options online
• Forex
• Forex Brokers