#policy administration software

[asuryachoudharyblr]

Driving Broker Success with Policy Administration Software

Success for brokers today depends heavily on using the right technology, and policy administration software plays a key role in this transformation. This powerful tool simplifies workflows, allowing brokers to manage policies, handle endorsements, and oversee renewals more efficiently. By automating routine tasks and centralizing information, brokers benefit from increased accuracy, quicker processing times, and improved client service. Advanced policy administration software also provides valuable insights, enabling brokers to make data-driven decisions and customize their services to meet client expectations. With integration capabilities that bring together different systems, it breaks down operational barriers, creating a more unified workflow. In the end, policy administration software allows brokers to concentrate on growth and deliver top-notch service in a competitive industry.

Read more — Driving Broker Success: The Power of Advanced Policy Administration Software

[techdirectarchive]

Harden your Veeam Backup Server with Microsoft AppLocker

In this article, we shall be leveraging Zero Trust to harden the Veeam Backup Server with Microsoft AppLocker. Zero Trust principles include explicit verification, minimal privilege access, and assuming breach. Please see how to Configure Multiple IP Addresses on a Single or Multiple NICs, and “Demystifying Zero Trust with Veeam: Design your Architecture“. AppLocker enables System Administrators…

[insurancetechsworld]

Upgrade your insurance operations using state-of-the-art life insurance software solutions. Contact us today to find out how we can revolutionize your business. Visit:

[medinyx-tech]

Revolutionizing the Insurance Landscape: Unveiling the Power of Life Insurance Software Systems

In an era where technological advancements are reshaping industries, the insurance sector is no exception. Life insurance companies are leveraging cutting-edge solutions to streamline their operations, enhance customer experience, and stay ahead in a competitive market. At the forefront of this technological revolution is "MedinyX Software Solutions," a trailblazing company providing comprehensive life insurance software solutions to top insurance companies worldwide.

Unlocking Efficiency with Life Insurance Software

Life Insurance Software: A Game-Changer for the Industry

Life insurance software has emerged as a transformative force, offering a complete spectrum of custom solutions that redefine the way insurance companies operate. At MedinyX, we take pride in our flagship product, the M360 system for insurance. This robust software is designed to optimize processes, enhance decision-making, and elevate overall efficiency in the management of life insurance policies.

Insurance Policy Administration Systems for Seamless Operations

Our cutting-edge life insurance policy administration systems ensure that every facet of policy management is seamlessly integrated. From policy issuance to premium collection, our software simplifies complex administrative tasks, allowing insurance companies to focus on what matters most – serving their clients.

Life Insurance Management System: A Comprehensive Approach

A key highlight of our offerings is the Life Insurance Management System, providing insurers with a centralized platform for holistic policy management. This system empowers insurers to efficiently handle smart underwriting, claim processing, and direct sales distribution, thus streamlining operations and improving customer satisfaction.

Elevating the Customer Experience

Client Portal (B2B): Empowering Insurers and Policyholders

MedinyX understands the importance of a seamless user experience. Our B2B client portal ensures that insurers and policyholders have real-time access to critical information. This not only enhances communication but also fosters transparency, building trust between insurers and their clients.

Mobile App and Chatbot Integration: Meeting Customers Where They Are

In an age where convenience is key, our life insurance software solutions extend beyond traditional platforms. With mobile app integration and chatbot capabilities, insurers can engage with clients on their terms, providing instant support and information.

Unraveling the Power of Data: AI, BI & MIS Reporting

Harnessing the Potential of Artificial Intelligence

MedinyX incorporates Artificial Intelligence (AI) into its life insurance software to enable data-driven decision-making. From predictive analytics for risk assessment to personalized customer interactions, our AI capabilities empower insurers to stay ahead in a rapidly evolving market.

Business Intelligence (BI) & MIS Reporting: Insights that Drive Success

Our software goes beyond mere data storage. With robust BI and MIS reporting features, insurers gain valuable insights into their operations. Real-time dashboards, smart analytics, and customized reports empower decision-makers to make informed choices that drive business success.

Actuarial Precision and Cost Containment

Actuarial System and Services: Precision in Risk Assessment

Medinyx understands the critical role of actuarial precision in the insurance industry. Our software incorporates advanced actuarial systems and services to ensure accurate risk assessment, helping insurers make informed decisions on policy pricing and coverage.

Cost Containment: Maximizing Efficiency, Minimizing Expenses

In a competitive market, cost containment is paramount. Our life insurance software is engineered to streamline processes, reduce operational costs, and enhance overall efficiency, ensuring that insurers can provide competitive products while maintaining financial stability.

Conclusion

In a world where technological innovation is reshaping industries, Medinyx Software Solutions stands at the forefront of revolutionizing the life insurance sector. Our comprehensive life insurance software systems, including the M360 system, client portal, AI capabilities, and more, are designed to empower insurers to thrive in an ever-changing landscape. Join us in embracing the future of insurance – where efficiency, customer satisfaction, and data-driven decision-making converge to create a new standard of excellence.

[xtruss]

This picture taken on January 23, 2023 in Toulouse, Southwestern France, shows screens displaying the logos of OpenAI and ChatGPT. — ChatGPT is a Conversational Artificial Intelligence Software Application Developed By OpenAI. Lionel Bonaventure/AFP Via Getty Images

Opinion: Want Protection From AI? The First Step Is a National Privacy Law

— By Suzan K. DelBene, Democratic Congresswoman Washington | August 28, 2023

In the six months since a new chatbot confessed its love for a reporter before taking a darker turn, the world has woken up to how artificial intelligence can dramatically change our lives—and how it can go awry. AI is quickly being integrated into nearly every aspect of our economy and daily lives. Yet in our nation's capital, laws aren't keeping up with the rapid evolution of technology.

Policymakers have many decisions to make around artificial intelligence, like how it can be used in sensitive areas such as financial markets, health care, and national security. They will need to decide intellectual property rights around AI-created content. There will also need to be guardrails to prevent the dissemination of mis- and disinformation.

But before we build the second and third story of this regulatory house, we need to lay a strong foundation and that must center around a national data privacy standard.

To understand this bedrock need, it's important to look at how artificial intelligence was developed. AI needs an immense quantity of data. The generative language tool ChatGPT was trained on 45 terabytes of data, or the equivalent of over 200 days' worth of HD video. That information may have included our posts on social media and online forums that have likely taught ChatGPT how we write and communicate with each other. That's because this data is largely unprotected and widely available to third-party companies willing to pay for it. AI developers do not need to disclose where they get their input data from because the U.S. has no national privacy law.

While data studies have existed for centuries and can have major benefits, they are often centered around consent to use that information. Medical studies often use patient health data and outcomes, but that information needs the approval of the study participants in most cases. That's because in the 1990s, Congress gave health information a basic level of protection, but that law only protects data shared between patients and their health care providers. The same is not true for other health platforms like fitness apps, or most other data we generate today, including our conversations online and geolocation information.

Currently, the companies that collect our data are in control of it. Google for years scanned Gmail inboxes to sell users targeted ads, before abandoning the practice. Zoom recently had to update its data collection policy after it was accused of using customers' audio and video to train its AI products. We've all downloaded an app on our phone and immediately accepted the terms and conditions window without actually reading it. Companies can and often do change the terms regarding how much of our information they collect and how they use it.

A national privacy standard would ensure a baseline set of protections, no matter where someone lives in the U.S. And it would restrict companies from storing and selling our personal data.

Ensuring there's transparency and accountability in what data goes into AI is also important for a quality and responsible product. If input data is biased, we're going to get a biased outcome, in other words, "garbage in, garbage out." Facial recognition is one application of artificial intelligence. These systems have by and large been trained by and with data from white people. That's led to clear biases when communities of color interact with this technology.

The United States must be a global leader on artificial intelligence policy.

But other countries are not waiting as we sit still. The European Union has moved faster on AI regulations, because it passed its privacy law in 2018. The Chinese government has also moved quickly on AI, though in an alarmingly anti-democratic way. If we want a seat at the international table to set the long-term direction for AI that reflects our core American values, we must have our own national data privacy law to start.

The Biden administration has taken some encouraging steps to begin putting guardrails around AI, but it has been constrained by Congress' inaction. The White House recently announced voluntary artificial intelligence standards, which include a section on data privacy. Voluntary guidelines don't come with accountability, and the federal government can only enforce the rules on the books, which are woefully outdated.

That's why Congress needs to step up and set the rules of the road. Strong national standards like privacy must be uniform throughout the country, rather than the state-by-state approach we have now. It has to put people back in control of their information instead of companies. It must also be enforceable so that the government can hold bad actors accountable.

These are the components of the legislation I have introduced over the past few Congresses and the bipartisan proposal the Energy & Commerce Committee advanced last year.

As with all things in Congress, it comes down to a matter of priorities. With artificial intelligence expanding so fast, we can no longer wait to take up this issue.

We were behind on technology policy already, but we are falling further behind as other countries take the lead. We must act quickly and set a robust foundation. That has to include a strong, enforceable national privacy standard.

— Congresswoman Suzan K. DelBene represents Washington's 1st District in the United States House of Representatives.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Who Broke the Internet? Part III

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in PDX on Jun 20 at BARNES AND NOBLE with BUNNIE HUANG. After that, it's LONDON (Jul 1) and MANCHESTER (Jul 2).

Episode 3 of "Understood: Who Broke the Internet?" (my new CBC podcast about enshittification) just dropped. It's called "In God We Antitrust," and it's great:

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/cbc-podcasts/1353-the-naked-emperor/episode/16147052-in-god-we-antitrust

The thesis of this four-part series is pretty straightforward: the enshittification of the internet was the result of an enshittogenic policy environment. Platforms always had the technical means to scam us and abuse us. Tech founders and investors always included a cohort of scumbags who would trade our happiness and wellbeing for their profits. What changed was the consequences of giving in to those impulses. When Google took off, its founders' mantra was "competition is just a click away." If someone built a better search engine, users could delete their google.com bookmarks, just like they did to their altavista.com bookmarks when Google showed up.

Policymakers – not technologists or VCs – changed the environment so that this wasn't true anymore:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/08/who-broke-the-internet/#bruce-lehman

In last week's episode, we told the story of Bruce Lehman, the Clinton administration's Copyright Czar, who swindled the US government into passing a law that made it illegal to mod, hack, reverse-engineer or otherwise improve on an existing technology:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/13/ctrl-ctrl-ctrl/#free-dmitry

This neutralized a powerful anti-enshittificatory force: interoperability. All digital tech is born interoperable, because of the intrinsic characteristics of computers, their flexibility. This means that tech is inherently enshittification-resistant. When a company enshittifies its products or services, its beleaguered users and suppliers don't have to wait for a regulator to punish it. They don't have to wait for a competitor to challenge it.

Interoperable tools – ad-blockers, privacy blockers, alternative clients, mods, plugins, firmware patches and other hacks – offer immediate, profound relief from enshittification. Every ten foot pile of shit that a tech company drops into your life can be met with an eleven foot ladder of disenshittifying, interoperable technology.

That's why Lehman's successful attack on tinkering was so devastating. Before Lehman, tech had achieved a kind of pro-user equilibrium: every time a company made its products worse, they had to confront a thousand guerrilla technologists who unilaterally unfucked things: third party printer ink, file-format compatibility, protocol compatibility, all the way up to Unix, a massive operating system that was painstakingly re-created, piece by piece, in free software.

Lehman offered would-be enshittifiers a way to shift this equilibrium to full enshittification: just stick a digital lock on your product. It didn't even matter if the lock worked – under Lehman's anticircumvention law, tampering with a lock, even talking about weaknesses in a lock, became a literal felony, punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500K fine. Lehman's law was an offer no tech boss would refuse, and enshittification ate the world.

But Lehman's not the only policymaker who was warned about the consequences of his terrible plans, who ignored the warnings, and who disclaims any responsibility for the shitty world that followed. Long before Lehman's assault on tech policy, another group of lawyers and economists laid waste to competition policy.

In the 1960s and 1970s, a group of Chicago School economists conceived of an absurd new way to interpret competition law, which they called "the consumer welfare standard." Under this standard, the job of competition policy was to encourage monopolies to form, on the grounds that monopolies were "efficient" and would lower prices for "consumers."

The chief proponent of this standard was Robert Bork, a virulent racist whose most significant claim to fame was that he was the only government lawyer willing to help Richard Nixon illegally fire officials who wouldn't turn a blind eye to his crimes. Bork's long record of unethical behavior and scorching bigotry came back to bite him in the ass when Ronald Reagan tried to seat him on the Supreme Court, during a confirmation hearing that Bork screwed up so badly that even today, we use "borked" as a synonym for anything that is utterly fucked.

But Bork's real legacy was as a pro-monopoly propagandist, whose work helped shift how judges, government enforcers, and economists viewed antitrust law. Bork approached the text of America's antitrust laws, like the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, with the same techniques as a Qanon follower addressing a Q "drop," applying gnostic techniques to find in these laws mystical coded language that – he asserted – meant that Congress had intended for America's anti-monopoly laws to actually support monopolies.

In episode three, we explore Bork's legacy, and how it led to what Tom Eastman calls the internet of "five giant websites, each filled with screenshots of the other four." We got great interviews and old tape for this one, including Michael Wiesel, a Canadian soap-maker who created a bestselling line of nontoxic lip-balm kits for kids, only to have Amazon shaft him by underselling him with his own product.

But the most interesting interview was with Lina Khan, the generational talent who became the youngest-ever FTC chair under Joe Biden, and launched an all-out assault on American monopolies and their vile depredations:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

Khan's extraordinary rise to power starts with a law review paper she wrote in her third year at Yale, "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," which became the first viral law review article in history:

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox

"Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" was a stinging rebuke to Bork and his theories, using Amazon's documented behavior to show that after Amazon used its monopoly power to lower prices and drive rivals out of the market, it subsequently raised prices. And, contrary to Bork's theories, those new, high prices didn't conjure up new rivals who would enter the market with lower prices again, eager to steal Amazon's customers away. Instead, Amazon's demonstrated willingness to cross-subsidize divisions gigantic losses to destroy any competitor with below-cost pricing created a "kill zone" of businesses adjacent to the giant's core enterprise that no one dared enter:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/how-biden-can-clean-up-obamas-big

The clarity of Khan's writing, combined with her careful research and devastating conclusions dragged a vast crowd of people who'd never paid much attention to antitrust – including me! – into the fray. No wonder that four years later, she was appointed to serve as the head of the FTC, making her the most powerful consumer rights regulator in the world.

We live in an age of monopolies, with cartels dominating every part of our lives, acting as "autocrats of trade" and "kings over the necessaries of life," the corporate dictators that Senator John Sherman warned about when he was stumping for the 1890 Sherman Act, America's first antitrust law:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/20/we-should-not-endure-a-king/

Bork and his co-religionists created this age. They're the reason we live in world where we have to get our "necessaries of life" from a cartel, a duopoly or a monopoly. It's not because the great forces of history transformed the economy – it's because of these dickheads:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

This episode of "Understood: Who Borked the Internet?" draws a straight line from those economists and their ideas to the world we live in today. It sets up the final episode, next week's "Kick 'Em in the Dongle," which charts a course for us to escape from the hellscape created by Bork, Lehman, and their toadies and trolls.

You can get "Understood: Who Broke the Internet?" in any podcast app, even the seriously enshittified ones (which, let's be real here, is most of them). Here's a direct link to the RSS:

https://www.cbc.ca/podcasting/includes/nakedemperor.xml

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/05/19/khan-thought/#they-were-warned

[saywhat-politics]

"Unfortunately tossing a scarf over the GDP numbers doesn't change the fact that their policies have us careening toward a downturn."

All signs are pointing to a coming recession as U.S. President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on close trading partners, oversees mass firings of civil servants, and pushes for cuts to public services—but by firing economists, advisers, and other experts tasked with advising federal agencies on economic shifts, the administration is working to ensure that the government and the public can't read those signs.

As Politico reported Friday, experts serving on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Technical Advisory Committee were informed this week that they were no longer needed, leaving the BLS without a panel that has long advised the Labor Department on how economic changes can impact data collection.

A page for the committee was removed from the Labor Department's website, along with one that had information about the Data Users Advisory Committee, which has advised on how businesses and policymakers can use the agency's economic reports.

"It would be a bad sign for a software company to cancel all beta testing if you expect to keep making better software," Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the data users committee, told Politico. "This feels like the same sort of thing."

[political-us]

The Dow is on track for its worst April since 1932—the bleakest year of the Great Depression. Nearly a century later, markets are once again facing economic turbulence on a historic scale.

Trump's approval rating drops to 42%, the lowest it's been since he became president, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

A cutting-edge microscope at Harvard Medical School could pave the way for major breakthroughs in cancer detection and aging research—but its progress is now at risk. The scientist who created the software to analyze its images, 30-year-old Russian-born Kseniia Petrova, has been held in immigration detention for two months. Arrested in February at a Boston airport, Petrova is now detained in Louisiana, facing possible deportation to Russia, where she says she fears imprisonment for protesting the war in Ukraine. Her case highlights the tension between immigration policy and the U.S.'s reliance on global scientific talent.

The Department of Homeland Security denied Mahmoud Khalil permission to be present for the birth of his first child, which took place Monday at a hospital in New York. Instead, Khalil had to experience the moment over the phone from Jena, Louisiana—more than 1,000 miles away from his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, who delivered their baby boy. The case has sparked criticism over DHS's handling of family and humanitarian considerations.

The White House is considering policies to encourage more Americans to marry and have children, including a potential $5,000 “baby bonus,” according to The New York Times. The proposals align with a broader conservative push to address falling birth rates and promote traditional family values. Other ideas on the table include reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for applicants who are married or have children, and funding educational programs that teach women about fertility and ovulation.

A group of Venezuelan migrants facing removal under a broad wartime authority challenged the Trump administration’s deportation process at the Supreme Court, arguing the notices they received don’t meet legal standards. The ACLU, representing the migrants, said the English-only notices—often given less than 24 hours before deportation—violate a recent Supreme Court ruling requiring enough time for individuals to seek habeas review.

The Education Department announced it will start collecting student loan payments from over 5 million borrowers who are in default. This means it will begin taking money from federal wages, Social Security checks, and tax refunds. This move comes as pandemic-era protections for student loan borrowers continue to wind down.

Tensions are rising within the Arizona Democratic Party as the state party chair is at odds with the governor and U.S. senators. In response, officials are considering shifting 2026 campaign funds to local county Democrats.

​The U.S. Department of Commerce has announced substantial tariffs on solar panel imports from four Southeast Asian countries—Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia—following a year-long investigation into alleged trade violations by Chinese-owned manufacturers operating in these nations. The tariffs, which vary by country and company, are as follows:​

Cambodia: Facing the steepest duties, with tariffs reaching up to 3,521%, due to non-cooperation with the investigation.

Vietnam: Companies may face duties up to 395.9%.​

Thailand: Tariffs could be as high as 375.2%.​

Malaysia: Duties are set at 34.4%.​

Senator Adam Schiff is urging the National Archives to investigate the Trump administration's use of Signal and similar messaging apps. He emphasized the need for NARA to reach out to every federal agency involved to make sure all relevant records are preserved. This comes amid growing concerns over transparency and potential violations of federal recordkeeping laws.

[mpreglover225]

Meet the Dads of River Glen Community College

River Glen Community College has become well-known in recent years for its supportive programs assisting expecting dads under 25. With flexible class schedules, academic counseling tailored to their needs, and an on-campus child-care center in the works, it’s no wonder young fathers feel at home there. Lets meet some students here at the college!

Andrew Carter, 19 Andrew is a quiet History major who discovered his passion for teaching after volunteering at a local museum. River Glen’s lenient attendance policies and free tutoring sessions have allowed him to thrive academically—even while managing morning sickness and evening study sessions. He is 7 months pregnant with his boyfriends baby. The pregnancy was unplanned but taken well from family and friends.

Kai Simmons, 20 We meet Kai who is an arts major who doodles tattoo designs in the margins of his lecture notes. The school’s open-minded faculty and frequent mental health workshops have helped him stay focused through the ups and downs of pregnancy. He attributes his newfound confidence to the supportive campus culture that lets him be both an artist and an expectant father.

Julian Park, 23 Julian a computer science student eyeing a future in software development, he navigates back-to-back coding labs while planning for parenthood. With River Glen’s flexible online courses, he can write code from home on days when exhaustion or prenatal checkups demand a lighter schedule. His professors, well-versed in the college’s pro-family policies, always accommodate him with extended deadlines when needed.

Devin Brooks, 21 We meet Devin who is studying business administration, he’s spearheading a new student-run fundraiser for the upcoming child-care center. River Glen’s scholarship system—which awards aid based on student-led community initiatives—has helped him stay financially stable and on track to finish his degree before the baby arrives.

Each of these four future dads credits River Glen Community College’s unique approach—offering flexible class times, easy re-enrollment for those who pause their studies, and a judgment-free atmosphere—for helping them balance classes with prenatal appointments and occasional bouts of morning fatigue

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Vittoria Elliott at Wired:

Elon Musk’s takeover of federal government infrastructure is ongoing, and at the center of things is a coterie of engineers who are barely out of—and in at least one case, purportedly still in—college. Most have connections to Musk and at least two have connections to Musk’s longtime associate Peter Thiel, a cofounder and chairman of the analytics firm and government contractor Palantir who has long expressed opposition to democracy. WIRED has identified six young men—all apparently between the ages of 19 and 24, according to public databases, their online presences, and other records—who have little to no government experience and are now playing critical roles in Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, tasked by executive order with “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.” The engineers all hold nebulous job titles within DOGE, and at least one appears to be working as a volunteer. The engineers are Akash Bobba, Edward Coristine, Luke Farritor, Gautier Cole Killian, Gavin Kliger, and Ethan Shaotran. None have responded to requests for comment from WIRED. Representatives from OPM, GSA, and DOGE did not respond to requests for comment. Already, Musk’s lackeys have taken control of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and General Services Administration (GSA), and have gained access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, potentially allowing him access to a vast range of sensitive information about tens of millions of citizens, businesses, and more. On Sunday, CNN reported that DOGE personnel attempted to improperly access classified information and security systems at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and that top USAID security officials who thwarted the attempt were subsequently put on leave. The AP reported that DOGE personnel had indeed accessed classified material. “What we're seeing is unprecedented in that you have these actors who are not really public officials gaining access to the most sensitive data in government,” says Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “We really have very little eyes on what's going on. Congress has no ability to really intervene and monitor what's happening because these aren't really accountable public officials. So this feels like a hostile takeover of the machinery of governments by the richest man in the world.”

[...] “To the extent these individuals are exercising what would otherwise be relatively significant managerial control over two very large agencies that deal with very complex topics,” says Nick Bednar, a professor at University of Minnesota’s school of law, “it is very unlikely they have the expertise to understand either the law or the administrative needs that surround these agencies.” Sources tell WIRED that Bobba, Coristine, Farritor, and Shaotran all currently have working GSA emails and A-suite level clearance at the GSA, which means that they work out of the agency’s top floor and have access to all physical spaces and IT systems, according a source with knowledge of the GSA’s clearance protocols. The source, who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity because they fear retaliation, says they worry that the new teams could bypass the regular security clearance protocols to access the agency’s sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), as the Trump administration has already granted temporary security clearances to unvetted people. This is in addition to Coristine and Bobba being listed as “experts” working at OPM. Bednar says that while staff can be loaned out between agencies for special projects or to work on issues that might cross agency lines, it’s not exactly common practice.

WIRED’s report on the 6 college-aged men between 19 and 24 that are shaping up DOGE in aiding and abetting in co-”President” Elon Musk’s technofascist takeover.

[asuryachoudharyblr]

Replacing insurance policy software is a strategic decision that impacts operational efficiency, customer experience, and compliance. Key considerations include assessing the software’s scalability, ensuring it aligns with current and future business needs, and its ability to integrate with existing systems like CRM and claims management platforms. Robust data security, compliance with industry regulations, and support for automation are critical factors. User-friendliness, vendor support, and cost-effectiveness also play a significant role in selecting the right solution. Careful evaluation of these aspects ensures seamless transitions and long-term success in insurance operations with a reliable Insurance Policy Administration Software.

[mariacallous]

Following a White House edict effectively banning federal employees from disclosing their personal pronouns in email signatures, sources within multiple federal agencies say pronouns are now being systemically blocked across multiple email clients and other software.

WIRED confirmed various automated efforts with employees at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the General Services Administration (GSA), the US Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The employees spoke to WIRED on condition of anonymity, citing fears of retaliation.

Multiple agency directors sent emails over the weekend telling staff that, due to President Donald Trump’s executive order, their offices would be removing the pronoun capability from Office 365. Employees were told they’d also need to remove pronouns from their email signatures in order to comply with the directive.

A staffer at USAID says the formal deactivation of their ability to list pronouns occurred last week, in response to executive orders defining sexes issued by President Trump on his first day in office. A GSA staffer says pronouns were wiped from employees’ email signatures after hours on Friday and were also no longer visible in Slack, the workplace messaging app. At the CDC, there used to be a section for employees to share their pronouns on their Teams profiles, another workplace app. That field no longer exists.

Reached for comment, the White House transferred WIRED to OPM communications director McLaurine Pinover, who pointed to January 29 memorandum ordering agencies to disable all features “that prompt users for their pronouns.”

The ban on personal pronouns follows sweeping efforts by the White House to eliminate programs that encourage diversity and social justice within the federal government, as well as other references to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in federal employees’ discourse.

In a striking example of the policy in action, an image surfaced last week of a wall being painted over at the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Quantico, Virginia, academy due to it listing "diversity" among the bureau's core values. (According to an email from the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance obtained by Mother Jones, the bureau no longer counts "diversity" among its core values.)

The Trump administration began a radical campaign last week aimed at inducing members of the federal workforce to leave their jobs ahead of threatened reductions. The effort is spearheaded by Elon Musk, leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force that has effectively seized control of several federal agencies and sensitive government systems with apparent clearance from the White House.

WIRED reported last week that Musk’s outfit had effectively taken over the Office of Personnel Management, the US government’s human resources department. In this and other efforts, it is employing inexperienced young engineers whose ages range from 19 to 24—many of whom, public records show, are former interns or have been affiliated with Musk-aligned companies.

OPM emailed federal workers on January 28 with a “deferred resignation offer,” sparking widespread confusion among federal workers. (DOGE’s own new HR chief was unable to answer basic questions about the offer in a contentious staff meeting last week, WIRED reported.) In an email to staff Sunday evening, OPM clarified whether the deferred resignation program complied with existing privacy laws. “Yes,” read the answer. “The deferred resignation program uses only basic contact information about federal employees, like name and government address, along with short, voluntary email responses. The information is stored on government systems. To the extent that the Privacy Act applies, all information relevant to the program is covered by existing OPM System Records Notices.”

Multiple agency sources told WIRED last week that several of Musk's lieutenants had been granted access to key computer systems controlled by the GSA, an independent agency tasked by Congress with overseeing federal buildings and providing equipment, supplies, and IT support across the government.

[insurancetechsworld]

Retrieving data. Wait a few seconds and try to cut or copy again.Advance your insurance operations—explore our state-of-the-art policy management solutions now! Visit: https://www.damcogroup.com/insurance/policy-management-software