Background Screening Regulations

🔍Mastering NDT Acceptance Criteria Across Industries – A Must-Know for QA/QC Professionals🔍 Whether you're inspecting a pressure vessel, piping system, valve, or cross-country pipeline, understanding the right Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) acceptance criteria is critical for ensuring quality, compliance, and—most importantly—safety. As QA/QC engineers and inspectors, we often face multiple code requirements across ASME, API, and other international standards. Here's a quick yet detailed rundown to keep you aligned: ✅ Pressure Vessels – Governed by ASME Section VIII, these demand rigorous NDT across multiple methods: 🔹Radiographic Testing (RT): Mandatory Appendix 8-4, Clause 4-3 for weld integrity. 🔹Ultrasonic Testing (UT): Appendix 12-3 for thickness and internal flaws. 🔹Penetrant Testing (PT): Surface-breaking cracks controlled under Appendix 8-4. 🔹Magnetic Particle Testing (MT): For ferromagnetic material flaws, Appendix 6-4 applies 🔹Visual Testing (VT): Welds and fabrication checked under UW-35 🔹Leak Testing (LT): Pressure boundary integrity verified as per ASME Sec. V, Article 10 🔹Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL): Used as a screening tool, criteria per Appendix 6-4 ✅ Piping Systems (Process) – Under ASME B31.3, acceptance criteria vary by service category: 🔹RT & VT: Refer to Table 341.3.2 for defect type, size, and location 🔹UT: Para 344.6.2 defines how flaws are assessed in place of RT 🔹PT/MT: Para 344.4.2 outlines flaw size limits; linear and clustered indications are critical 🔹LT: Hydrostatic and pneumatic testing as per Para 345.2.2(a) ensures leak-tightness ✅ Valves (Flanged, Threaded & Welding End) – ASME B16.34 focuses on mechanical integrity: 🔹RT: Appendix I details internal flaw acceptance in cast/welded components 🔹UT: Appendix IV governs ultrasonic acceptance levels 🔹PT/MT: Cracks or irregularities are unacceptable per Appendices II & III 🔹LT & VT: Often supplemented by API 598, though B16.34 doesn’t explicitly define criteria ✅ Pipelines – API 1104 is the go-to standard for cross-country and field welds: 🔹RT (Clause 9.3) and UT (Clause 9.6): Acceptance based on flaw size and location 🔹MT/PT: Surface and subsurface flaws assessed under Clauses 9.4 and 9.5 🔹VT (Clause 9.7): Reinforcement, undercut, and surface conditions closely monitored 🔹LT: Usually dictated by project specs or referenced ASME B31.8 🔗 Always cross-check project-specific requirements, code editions, and client standards to stay compliant and confident ✨ Found this valuable? 🔔 Follow me Krishna Nand Ojha and my quality guru & mentor Govind Tiwari,PhD for more insights on Quality Management, Continuous Improvement, and Strategic Leadership in the world of QMS. Let’s grow and lead the quality revolution together! 🌟 #NDT #QAQC #PressureVessel #Piping #WeldingInspection #API1104 #ASME #QualityControl #OilAndGas #Inspection #Engineering #VisualTesting #UltrasonicTesting #Radiography #ProjectQuality #PipelineInspection #MechanicalEngineering

Our paper on transparency reports for large language models has been accepted to AI Ethics and Society! We’ve also released transparency reports for 14 models. If you’ll be in San Jose on October 21, come see our talk on this work. These transparency reports can help with: 🗂️ data provenance ⚖️ auditing & accountability 🌱 measuring environmental impact 🛑 evaluations of risk and harm 🌍 understanding how models are used   Mandatory transparency reporting is among the most common AI policy proposals, but there are few guidelines available describing how companies should actually do it. In February, we released our paper, “Foundation Model Transparency Reports,” where we proposed a framework for transparency reporting based on existing transparency reporting practices in pharmaceuticals, finance, and social media. We drew on the 100 transparency indicators from the Foundation Model Transparency Index to make each line item in the report concrete. At the time, no company had released a transparency report for their top AI model, so in providing an example we had to build a chimera transparency report with best practices drawn from 10 different companies.   In May, we published v1.1 of the Foundation Model Transparency Index, which includes transparency reports for 14 models, including OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude 3, Google’s Gemini 1.0 Ultra, and Meta’s Llama 2. The transparency reports are available as spreadsheets on our GitHub and in an interactive format on our website. We worked with companies to encourage them to disclose additional information about their most powerful AI models and were fairly successful – companies shared more than 200 new pieces of information, including potentially sensitive information about data, compute, and deployments. 🔗 Links to these resources in comment below!   Thanks to my coauthors Rishi Bommasani, Shayne Longpre, Betty Xiong, Sayash Kapoor, Nestor Maslej, Arvind Narayanan, Percy Liang at Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI), MIT Media Lab, and Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy

Let’s get practical! What can we do to make our workplaces fairer and where people are actually hired and promoted because of their competencies, skills and value that they add? In my co-authored book, ‘Leading through Bias’, we focus on what we can do to block bias in each of the following stages of the employee life cycle: - Attracting - Recruitment & Selection - Onboarding - Retention and development - Separation Based on best practices, here are some steps you can take to ensure that you are blocking bias across some of the key stages of the employee life cycle: In the attracting stage: 🎯Check competencies in job description for similarity to yourself/ your favourite colleagues. 🎯Neutralise the language used in job advertisements. 🎯Ask applicants to not include their picture and personal data in their CV. 🎯Advertise positions externally and widely, and search for talent in new places.   In the recruitment and selection stage: 🎯Mask CVs to remove personal data and picture from the first screening. 🎯Use a diverse and trained hiring committee. 🎯Use structured interview guides.            🎯Rate the candidates.                    🎯Use bias-buddies to test your decision.                       In the retention and development stage:            🎯Check for bias in pay. 🎯Ensure that policies and practices are inclusive.            🎯Use standardised measures when evaluating performance. 🎯Offer continuous training and learning opportunities to all, not just a select few. 🎯Make social activities inclusive. ❓Which of these can you ✅ off as being done in your company? To hold leaders accountable, we provide a list of metrics in the book that can be used to assess their progress in blocking bias to nurture inclusion at each stage of the employee life cycle. The employee life cycle is just one area (albeit an important one) of organisational life that is fraught with bias. If you are looking to expand your efforts, consider reviewing your design processes for product and service development, and your marketing campaigns. There are plenty of opportunities there to block the influence of bias! #WednesdayWisdom

Background Checks on Job Applicants: A GDPR Perspective Opinion 2/2017 on data processing at work, adopted in June 2017 by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, was still more or less clear in highlighting the limitations for using publicly available data, including from social media. However, in today's competitive job market, conducting background checks on applicants has become a crucial step for employers. Here are some considerations: Legal Basis for Online Research and Social Network Checks: Under GDPR, the processing of personal data is generally prohibited unless a legal basis is established. For background checks, this could be consent from the applicants (Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR) or the necessity for the employment relationship (Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR). Additionally, Section 26(1) BDSG may apply if the processing is essential for the employment decision. Pre-Employment Screening Based on Consent: Consent for data processing must meet the requirements of Art. 7 GDPR, ensuring it is freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. Given the inherent power imbalance in employer-applicant dynamics, obtaining genuine consent can be challenging. Moreover, consent can be revoked at any time (Art. 7(3) GDPR), posing a risk for employers relying solely on this basis. Is Googling Applicants Allowed? The use of publicly available data from search engines like Google is contentious. Generally, accessing publicly available data can be permissible if it does not infringe on the applicant’s privacy rights and serves a legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR). Employers must ensure that only job-relevant information is processed. So stick away from special categories of personal data! Automated Background Checks Using Software (Scraping): Automated systems that gather data from various online sources to create profiles must also comply with GDPR. The legal basis here may include legitimate interest (Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR) or explicit consent (Art. 9(2)(e) GDPR) for processing sensitive data. If profiling (Art. 22(1) GDPR) occurs, explicit consent is typically required. Transparency and Information Obligations: Employers must inform applicants about the data processing activities, ideally before they begin (Art. 14 GDPR). Transparency can positively influence the balancing of interests required by GDPR. Additionally, it is crucial to delete this data as soon as it is no longer needed for its intended purpose to comply with the data minimization and storage limitation principles of GDPR. #GDPR #DataPrivacy

The U.S. Department of State has lifted the temporary pause on scheduling new visa interview appointments for F, J, and M visa applicants, specifically for student and exchange visitor visas. Initially implemented on May 27, 2025, to facilitate the development of new social media vetting guidance, this pause has now been lifted. Despite the resumption of scheduling, some delays may persist as embassies and consulates adapt to the updated procedures. Here's a breakdown of the situation: - The Pause: In late May, the State Department paused the scheduling of new visa interview appointments for F, J, and M visa applicants to introduce enhanced social media vetting measures for these visa categories. - Lifting the Pause: The temporary pause has been lifted, signaling a readiness for embassies and consulates to recommence interview scheduling. - Potential Delays: While the pause has concluded, there may still be processing delays as consulates acclimate to the revised social media vetting protocols. - Staying Informed: Prospective students and exchange visitors intending to pursue studies in the U.S. are advised to monitor embassy or consulate websites for updates on interview availability. Additionally, seeking guidance from their school's international student office is recommended. - Importance of Vigilance: It is crucial for international students to anticipate potential delays and maintain awareness of their visa status and associated regulations to ensure a smooth process.

A recent ruling by the Labour Court in the case of CONNOR V LEXISNEXIS (PTY) LTD highlighted that not all criminal convictions should automatically disqualify individuals from job opportunities. In January 2024, an applicant, seeking a position as a Senior Data Discovery and Enrichment Expert, disclosed a past criminal charge for theft in 2001, which had been expunged. Despite this, the employer extended a 9-month contract offer contingent upon background checks. However, after discovering additional historical convictions, including theft and fraud, the employer retracted the offer. The applicant, rightfully concerned, pursued legal action citing unfair dismissal and discrimination. In a victory for fair employment practices, the Labour Court ruled in favour of the applicant, highlighting the irrelevance of past convictions to the job at hand. Consequently, the employer was ordered to honour the original offer, with adjustments for time elapsed. This case underscores a crucial point: when considering candidates, employers must evaluate the relevance of past convictions to the job role. For more insights into this case and its implications for employment law, check out my latest newsletter article below. #EmploymentLaw #FairOpportunity #LegalInsights Global Business Solutions SA Grant Wilkinson John Botha

Harvard is advising incoming international students to skip Boston’s Logan International Airport and carefully manage their social media and digital devices when entering the U.S., a response to increasing scrutiny at border checkpoints. The guidance was shared in a closed-door briefing organized by Harvard University’s International Office and Law School immigration clinic. 📌 What students should know - Due to heightened screenings, students are encouraged to land at JFK, O’Hare, or LAX instead of Logan. - U.S. Customs and Border Protection may inspect your phone, laptop, and even deleted files. Wiping devices can raise more red flags than sensitive posts. - State Department officials are reviewing public profiles dating back 5 years; posts criticizing the U.S. or empathizing with contentious causes may lead to denied entry. 📌 Why this matters - U.S. Department of State now mandates public social media access for all student visa applicants, a Trump-era rule designed for broader vetting. - This advisory follows Harvard’s recent injunction halting Trump administration efforts to limit its international enrolment, underscoring the administrative scrutiny still in play. - Students recount delays, device searches, and even detentions. 📌 What Students Should Do - Opt for JFK, O’Hare, or LAX when possible; Harvard guests report smoother entry procedures there. - Make accounts public, remove posts critical of the U.S., and review past activity for potential red flags. - Don’t erase devices before travel; have them inspected instead. Carry all supporting documents: visa, I-20, and university offer letters. - Visa appointments and fall-entry plans remain fluid; delay could be costly. Harvard advises booking the first available slot and watching for expedited options. This is a wake-up call. Legal wins on admissions don’t eliminate border-level scrutiny or logistical complications for students. For those hoping to study in the U.S., plan entry points carefully. Audit online presence. Carry the right documents. Expect heightened scrutiny, but with preparation, prevent delays and disruptions. #harvard #education #USA #students #visa #security #immigration #safety

❓ How good are the #AIsystems used by online platforms at detecting illegal hate speech? How long did it take for an online marketplace to take down a listing containing counterfeit goods? How many people are employed by a social media platform to carry out content moderation in Maltese?   📣 Today, the Commission adopted the Implementing Regulation on transparency reporting under the #DigitalServicesAct (DSA) to help answer these and other fundamental questions. This Regulation is a concrete, key piece of the transparency and accountability puzzle in the #digitalregulation space.   📜 By introducing harmonized templates for their transparency reports, the act enables providers of intermediary services and online platforms to provide comprehensive and comparable information about their content moderation practices. It addresses key challenges we've seen in the current transparency reports, including the lack of standardization, machine-readability, and aligned reporting periods.   🔎 According to the DSA, providers of intermediary services and of online platforms must break down certain information in the transparency reports by type of illegal content or violation of the terms and conditions. The Implementing Regulation introduces a #taxonomy for the classification of illegal content.   📅 Intermediary services, hosting services, and online platforms must report every year, covering the period from January 1 to December 31. Very large online platforms and very large online search engines must report at least every six months, covering periods from January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31. Reports must be made publicly available within two months after the conclusion of each reporting period. Providers will need to start using the new templates as of July 1, 2025, and retain them for at least five years. The first harmonized transparency reports are expected to be published by the end of February 2026.   🙌 I'm so proud of the teamwork, commitment and passion that made this possible and look forward to seeing the impact of this act in creating a more transparent and accountable digital ecosystem.