Policy – Page 11

Apple must face suit over alleged policy of underpaying female workers

Apple, California, equal pay, gender pay gap, Policy, racial discrimination, sexism, sexual harassment / Kris Guyer / January 22, 2025

While some of Apple’s defense was deemed “demonstrably inaccurate” and most of its arguments “insufficient,” Apple did successfully argue against efforts to seize back pay for former female employees no longer working for Apple who were seemingly also impacted by allegedly sexist policies implemented in 2020. That claim must be dropped as the proposed class action moves forward.

Additionally, another claim alleging pay disparity that was linked to racial discrimination was suspended. But the Apple worker suing, Zainab Bori, will have a chance to amend her claim that she was fired as retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. It could survive if she adds currently missing evidence that “she suffered an adverse employment action” while working under a manager with an alleged “history of negative interactions with African American employees,” Schulman’s order said.

Apple did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

In a press release sent to Ars, Eve Cervantez, a lawyer representing Apple workers suing, celebrated the court’s ruling.

“I am really pleased with today’s ruling,” Cervantez said. “This start low, stay low practice has been a no-win situation for women working at Apple for years. So, I’m glad they will have their day in court.”

Apple accused of ignoring hostile work environment

For Justina Jong—whom the complaint noted joined Apple in 2013 and has helped lead “cross-functional teams that improve the App Review experience for global app developers”—this week’s win might be particularly encouraging after Apple allegedly refused to take her experience with sexual harassment seriously.

Jong has alleged that in 2019, Blaine Weilert, a senior member of an Apple talent development team, touched her in a sexually suggestive manner without consent. Although Weilert admitted to the act and was disciplined, Apple tried and failed to argue this was a one-time offense that didn’t constitute a hostile work environment or warrant Jong’s repeated requests to be moved away from Weilert in Apple’s offices.

Apple must face suit over alleged policy of underpaying female workers Read More »

Trump admin fires security board investigating Chinese hack of large ISPs

Cyber Safety Review Board, Policy, salt typhoon, Security, Trump / Tim Belzer / January 22, 2025

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security will no longer tolerate any advisory committee[s] which push agendas that attempt to undermine its national security mission, the President’s agenda or Constitutional rights of Americans,” the DHS statement said.

The Cyber Safety Review Board operates under the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which has been criticized by Republican lawmakers for allegedly trying to “surveil and censor Americans’ speech on social media.”

Democrat: Board will be stacked with Trump loyalists

A Democratic lawmaker said that Trump appears ready to stack the Cyber Safety Review Board with “loyalists.” House Committee on Homeland Security Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) made the criticism in his opening statement at a hearing today.

“Before I close, I would also like to express my concern regarding the dismissal of the non-government members of advisory committees inside the Department, including the Cyber Safety Review Board and the CISA Advisory Committee,” Thompson’s statement reads. “The CSRB is in the process of investigating the Salt Typhoon hack of nine major telecommunications companies, and it is a national security imperative that the investigation be completed expeditiously. I am troubled that the President’s attempt to stack the CSRB with loyalists may cause its important work on the Salt Typhoon campaign to be delayed.”

Thompson said Republicans have been trying to shut down CISA over “false allegations and conspiracy theories.” The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 alleged that “CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left.”

The DHS memo dismissing board members was published yesterday by freelance cybersecurity reporter Eric Geller, who quoted an anonymous source as saying the Cyber Safety Review Board’s review of Salt Typhoon is “dead.” Geller wrote that other advisory boards affected by the mass dismissal include the Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security Board, the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, and the Secret Service’s Cyber Investigations Advisory Board.

“The CSRB was ‘less than halfway’ done with its Salt Typhoon investigation, according to a now-former member,” Geller wrote. The former member was also quoted as saying, “There are still professional staff for the CSRB and I hope they will continue some of the work in the interim.”

House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) told Nextgov/FCW that “President Trump’s new DHS leadership should have the opportunity to decide the future of the Board. This could include appointing new members, reviewing its structure, or deciding if the Board is the best way to examine cyber intrusions.”

Trump admin fires security board investigating Chinese hack of large ISPs Read More »

Trump issues flurry of orders on TikTok, DOGE, social media, AI, and energy

Policy, president trump / Paul Patrick / January 21, 2025

A roundup of executive orders issued by Trump after his second inauguration.

US President Donald Trump after being sworn in at his inauguration on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s flurry of day-one actions included a reprieve for TikTok, the creation of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an order on social media “censorship,” a declaration of an energy emergency, and reversal of a Biden order on artificial intelligence.

The TikTok executive order attempts to delay enforcement of a US law that requires TikTok to be banned unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells the platform. “I am instructing the Attorney General not to take any action to enforce the Act for a period of 75 days from today to allow my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course forward in an orderly way that protects national security while avoiding an abrupt shutdown of a communications platform used by millions of Americans,” Trump’s order said.

TikTok shut down in the US for part of the weekend but re-emerged after Trump said on Sunday that he would issue an order to “extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security.” Trump also suggested that the US should own half of TikTok.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) criticized Trump’s TikTok action. “I have serious concerns with President Trump’s executive order because he is circumventing national security legislation passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress… ByteDance has had 270 days to sell TikTok to an American company, and it’s disgraceful they spent all that time playing political games rather than working to find a buyer,” Pallone said.

Trump’s order doesn’t necessarily remove liability for any company that helps TikTok stay available in the US, The Washington Post reported:

Legal experts and some lawmakers said that with the ban already in force, companies that host or distribute the app will be in violation and could be held liable, no matter what Trump says. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned Sunday after Trump detailed his TikTok plans that companies could still “face hundreds of billions of dollars of ruinous liability under the law,” even if Trump’s Justice Department does not enforce it.

Trump also issued an order revoking numerous Biden administration orders. One is an October 2023 order titled Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. That Biden order, as we wrote at the time, “includes testing mandates for advanced AI models to ensure they can’t be used for creating weapons, suggestions for watermarking AI-generated media, and provisions addressing privacy and job displacement.”

In other White House actions we wrote about yesterday and today, Trump ordered the US to withdraw from the World Health Organization and reversed steps taken to promote electric vehicles.

DOGE

Trump’s executive order establishing a Department of Government Efficiency has been expected since November, when he announced the plan and said that DOGE would be led by Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Instead of creating a brand-new department, the order gives a new name to the existing US Digital Service.

“The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President,” Trump’s order said.

The US Digital Service was launched in 2014 by the Obama administration as a “small team of America’s best digital experts” to “work in collaboration with other government agencies to make websites more consumer friendly, to identify and fix problems, and to help upgrade the government’s technology infrastructure.”

Trump said in November that DOGE “will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Yesterday’s executive order said the department will focus on “modernizing Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”

Federal agencies will have to collaborate with DOGE. “Among other things, the USDS Administrator shall work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization,” the order said. “Agency Heads shall take all necessary steps, in coordination with the USDS Administrator and to the maximum extent consistent with law, to ensure USDS has full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems. USDS shall adhere to rigorous data protection standards.”

Speech on social media

Trump tackled social media in an order titled Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship. The order targets the Biden administration’s practice of contacting social media platforms about content that government officials believe should have been moderated or blocked.

In 2023, the Supreme Court blocked an injunction that would have prevented the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content. Justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments about whether federal government officials should face limits on their communications with social media networks like Facebook and ruled in favor of the Biden administration in June 2024.

Despite the Biden court win, Trump’s order described the Biden administration’s approach as a threat to the First Amendment.

“Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve,” Trump’s order said. “Under the guise of combatting ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation,’ the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.”

The order goes on to say that federal government employees and officials are prohibited from “engag[ing] in or facilitat[ing] any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Trump further directed his administration to”identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.”

Fossil fuels good, wind bad

On the energy front, the most striking executive order is one declaring that the US is facing an energy emergency. This comes despite the fact that the US has been producing, in the words of its own agency, “more crude oil than any country, ever.” It’s also producing record volumes of natural gas. Prices for both have been low in part due to this large supply. Yet the executive order states that “identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs.”

The order describes ways to streamline permitting for all of these under emergency provisions overseen by the US Army Corps of Engineers. On the face of it, this would seem to also be good for wind and solar power, which are produced domestically and suffer from permitting barriers and a backlog of requests for connections to the grid. But toward the end of the text, “energy” is defined in a way that excludes wind and solar. “The term ‘energy’ or ‘energy resources’ means crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals,” the order says.

If the animosity toward the fastest-growing sources of renewable energy weren’t clear there, a separate executive order makes them explicit, as Trump is putting a temporary end to all offshore wind lease sales. “This withdrawal temporarily prevents consideration of any area in the [Offshore Continental Shelf] for any new or renewed wind energy leasing for the purposes of generation of electricity or any other such use derived from the use of wind,” it reads. “This withdrawal does not apply to leasing related to any other purposes such as, but not limited to, oil, gas, minerals, and environmental conservation.”

The ostensible reason for this is “alleged legal deficiencies” in the environmental reviews that were conducted prior to the leasing process. There will also be an attempt to claw back existing leases. The secretary of the interior and attorney general are instructed to “conduct a comprehensive review of the ecological, economic, and environmental necessity of terminating or amending any existing wind energy leases.”

As an added bonus, the same accusations of legal deficiencies is leveled against a single land-based project, the proposed Lava Ridge wind farm in Idaho. So all government activities related to that project are on hold until it’s reviewed.

“Burdensome” regulations targeted

When it comes to fossil fuel development on the continental shelf, a Trump order alleges that “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations” are impeding development. The order takes several steps to speed up permitting of fossil fuel projects. It also kills a grab bag of climate-related programs.

One of the most prominent efforts is to do away with the emissions waivers, allowed under the Clean Air Act, which enable states like California to set stricter rules than the federal government. The Supreme Court recently declined even to consider an attempt to challenge these waivers. Yet as part of an attack on electric vehicles, the administration is adopting a policy of “terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles.”

Also targeted for termination is the American Climate Corps, a job training program focused on people entering the workforce. The Biden administration’s effort to determine and consider the social cost of carbon emissions during federal rulemaking will also be ended.

Several federal rules and executive orders will be targets, notably those on implementing the energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which have subsidized renewable energy and funded programs like carbon capture and hydrogen production. Many of these are already formal rules published in the Federal Register, which means that new rulemaking processes will be required to eliminate them, something that typically takes over a year and can be subject to court challenge.

In a separate part of the order, titled “Terminating the Green New Deal,” the Order suspends funding provided under two laws that were not part of the Green New Deal: the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Given those funds have already been allocated by Congress, it’s not clear how long Trump can delay this spending.

Finally, Trump decided he would attack the foundation of US efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions: the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gasses are a threat to the public as defined by the Clean Air Act. The endangerment finding is solidly based on well-established science, so much so that attempts to challenge it during the first Trump administration were reportedly abandoned as being unrealistic. Now, the incoming EPA administrator is given just 30 days to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of [Office of Management and Budget] on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings.”

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Trump issues flurry of orders on TikTok, DOGE, social media, AI, and energy Read More »

Trump orders US withdrawal from the World Health Organization

health, Policy, Trump, WHO, withdrawal / Tim Belzer / January 20, 2025

The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states. In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments. China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.

Health experts fear that a US withdrawal from the agency would significantly diminish the agency’s resources and capabilities, leave the world more vulnerable to health threats, and isolate the US, hurting its own interests and leaving the country less prepared to respond to another pandemic. The New York Times noted that a withdrawal would mean that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would lose, among many things, access to global health data that the WHO compiles.

It remains legally unclear if Trump can unilaterally withdrawal the country from the WHO, or if the withdrawal also requires a joint act with Congress.

Trump orders US withdrawal from the World Health Organization Read More »

TikTok is mostly restored after Trump pledges an order and half US ownership

bytedance, Donald Trump, Policy, President Donald Trump, Tech, tiktok / Paul Patrick / January 20, 2025

At a rally Sunday, he did not clarify if this meant a US-based business or the government itself. “So they’ll have a partner, the United States, and they’ll have a lot of bidders … And there’s no risk, we’re not putting up any money. All we’re doing is giving them the approval without which they don’t have anything,” Trump said Sunday.

Legal limbo

Trump’s order, and TikTok’s return to service, both seem at odds with the law—and leadership in the Republican party. Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that Congress would “enforce the law.” Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) issued a joint statement Sunday, commending Apple, Microsoft, and Google for “following the law,” and noting that other companies “face ruinous bankruptcy” for violating it.

“Now that the law has taken effect, there’s no legal basis for any kind of ‘extension’ of its effective date,” the statement read. The law states that “A path to executing a qualified divestiture” has to be determined before a one-time extension of 90 days can be granted.

TikTok’s best chance at avoiding a shutdown vanished in last week’s unanimous Supreme Court decision upholding the divest-or-sell law. Aimed at protecting national security interests from TikTok’s Chinese owners having access to the habits and data of 170 million American users, the law was ruled to be “content-neutral,” and that the US “had good reason to single out TikTok for special treatment.”

Reports at Forbes, Bloomberg, and elsewhere have suggested that ByteDance and its Chinese owners could be seeking to use TikTok as a bargaining chip, with maneuvers including a sale to Trump ally Elon Musk as a means of counteracting Trump’s proposed tariffs on Chinese imports.

One largely unforeseen side effect of Congress’ TikTok-centered actions is that Marvel Snap, a mobile collectible card and deck-building game, disappeared in similar fashion over the weekend. The game, developed by a California-based team, is published by ByteDance’s Nuverse mobile game division. With no web version available, Snap remained unavailable on app stores Monday morning. A message to players with the game installed noted that “This outage is a surprise to us and wasn’t planned,” though it pledged to restore the game.

TikTok is mostly restored after Trump pledges an order and half US ownership Read More »

Has Trump changed the retirement plans for the country’s largest coal plants?

coal, coal power, Policy, power plant, Science, syndication / Paul Patrick / January 18, 2025

A growth in electricity demand is leading to talk of delayed closures.

A house is seen near the Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, Ohio. Credit: Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

There is renewed talk of a coal power comeback in the United States, inspired by Donald Trump’s return to the presidency and forecasts of soaring electricity demand.

The evidence so far only shows that some plants are getting small extensions on their retirement dates. This means a slowdown in coal’s rate of decline, which is bad for the environment, but it does little to change the long-term trajectory for the domestic coal industry.

In October, I wrote about how five of the country’s 10 largest coal-fired power plants had retirement dates. Today, I’m revisiting the list, providing some updates and then taking a few steps back to look at US coal plants as a whole. Consider this the “before” picture that can be judged against the “after” in four years.

Some coal plant owners have already pushed back retirement timetables. The largest example, this one from just before the election, is the Gibson plant in Indiana, the second-largest coal plant in the country. It’s set to close in 2038 instead of 2035, following an announcement in October from the owner, Duke Energy.

But the changes do not constitute a coal comeback in this country. For that to happen, power companies would need to be building new plants to replace the many that are closing, and there is almost no development of new coal plants.

That said, there have been some changes since October.

As recently as a few months ago, Southern Co. was saying it intended to close Plant Bowen in Georgia by 2035 at the latest. Bowen is the largest coal plant in the country, with a summer capacity of 3,200 megawatts.

Southern has since said it may extend the plant’s life in response to forecasts of rising electricity demand. Chris Womack, Southern’s CEO, confirmed this possibility when speaking at a utility industry conference in November, saying that the plant may need to operate for longer than previously planned because of demand from data centers.

Southern has not yet made regulatory filings that spell out its plans, but this will likely occur in the next few weeks, according to a company spokesman.

In October, I reported that the Gavin plant in Ohio was likely to get a 2031 date to retire or switch to a different fuel once the plant’s pending sale was completed. The person who shared that information with me was involved with the plans and spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale was not final.

Since then, the prospective buyer of the plant has said in federal regulatory filings that it has no timetable for closing the plant or switching to a different fuel. The plant is changing hands as part of a larger deal between investment firms, with Lightstone Holdco selling to Energy Capital Partners, or ECP. Another company, coal exporter Javelin Global Commodities, is buying a minority share of the Gavin plant.

I went back to the person who told me about the 2031 retirement date. They said forecasts of rising electricity demand, as well as the election of Trump, have created enough uncertainty about power prices and regulations that it makes sense to not specify a date.

The 2031 timeline, and its abandonment, makes some sense once you understand that the Biden administration finalized power plant regulations last spring that gave coal plant operators an incentive to announce a retirement date: Plants closing before 2032 faced no new requirements. That incentive is likely to go away as Trump plans to roll back power plant pollution regulations.

Gavin’s sale is still pending. Several parties have filed objections to the transaction with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, arguing that the sellers have not been clear enough about their plans.

An ECP spokesman said the company has no comment beyond its filings.

Other than the changes to plans for Bowen and Gavin, the outlook has not shifted for the rest of the plants among the 10 largest. The Gibson and Rockport plants in Indiana still have retirement dates, as do Cumberland in Tennessee and Monroe in Michigan, according to the plants’ owners.

The Amos plant in West Virginia, Miller in Alabama, Scherer in Georgia, and Parish in Texas didn’t have retirement dates a few months ago, and they still don’t.

But the largest coal plants are only part of the story. Several dozen smaller plants are getting extensions of retirement plans, as Emma Foehringer Merchant reported last week for Floodlight News.

One example is the 1,157-megawatt Baldwin plant in Illinois, which was scheduled to close this year. Now the owner, Vistra Corp., has pushed back the retirement to 2027.

A few extra years of a coal plant is more of a stopgap than a long-term solution. When it comes to building new power plants to meet demand, developers are talking about natural gas, solar, nuclear, and other resources, but I have yet to see a substantial discussion of building a new coal plant.

In Alaska, Gov. Mike Dunleavy has said the state may build two coal plants to provide power in remote mining areas, as reported by Taylor Kuykendall of S&P Global Commodity Insights. Flatlands Energy, a Canadian company, has also talked about building a 400-megawatt coal plant in Alaska, as Nathaniel Herz reported for Alaska Beacon. These appear to be early-stage plans.

The lack of development activity underscores how coal power is fading in this country, and has been for a while.

Coal was used to generate 16 percent of US electricity in 2023, down by more than half from 2014. In that time, coal went from the country’s leading fuel for electricity to trailing natural gas, renewables, and nuclear. (These and all the figures that follow are from the US Energy Information Administration.)

The United States had about 176,000 megawatts of coal plant capacity as of October, down from about 300,000 megawatts in 2014.

The coal plants that do remain are being used less. In 2023, the average capacity factor for a coal plant was 42 percent. Capacity factor is a measure of how much electricity a plant has generated relative to the maximum possible if it was running all the time. In 2014, the average capacity factor was 61 percent.

Power companies are burning less coal because of the availability of less expensive alternatives, such as natural gas, wind, and solar, among others. The think tank Energy Innovation issued a report in 2023 finding that 99 percent of US coal-fired power plants cost more to operate than the cost of replacement with a combination of wind, solar, and batteries.

The Trump administration will arrive in Washington with promises to help fossil fuels. It could extend the lives of some coal plants by weakening environmental regulations, which may reduce the plants’ operational costs. It also could repeal or revise subsidies that help to reduce the costs of renewables and batteries, making those resources more expensive.

I don’t want to minimize the damage that could be caused by those policies. But even in extreme scenarios, it’s difficult to imagine investors wanting to spend billions of dollars to develop a new coal plant, much less a fleet of them.

Has Trump changed the retirement plans for the country’s largest coal plants? Read More »

European Union orders X to hand over algorithm documents

elon musk, EU, European Commission, Policy, syndication, Twitter, X / Rejus Almole / January 18, 2025

Earlier in the week, Germany’s defence ministry and foreign ministry said they were suspending their activity on X, with the defence ministry saying it had become increasingly “unhappy” with the platform.

When asked if the expanded probe was a response to a discussion Musk conducted last week with AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, in which she was given free rein to promote her party’s platform and make false claims about Adolf Hitler, a Commission spokesperson said the new request helped “us monitor systems around all these events taking place.”

However, he said it was “completely independent of any political considerations or any specific events.”

“We are committed to ensuring that every platform operating in the EU respects our legislation, which aims to make the online environment fair, safe, and democratic for all European citizens,” said Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s digital chief.

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Commission had been under recent political pressure to be tough on Musk’s X ahead of the Weidel interview.

Last week Damian Boeselager, member of the European parliament, wrote to Virkkunnen to demand a probe into whether the social media platform’s use of algorithms met the EU’s transparency requirements.

“There are allegations that Musk is boosting his own tweets,” Boeselager told the Financial Times last week. “The guy can be crazy but it is unfair if he’s amplifying who must listen to him.”

This story was updated shortly after publication with additional details.

European Union orders X to hand over algorithm documents Read More »

Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated child sex abuse images

AI, csam, Darrin Bell, Policy, sacramento / Rejus Almole / January 17, 2025

Late last year, California passed a law against the possession or distribution of child sex abuse material (CSAM) that has been generated by AI. The law went into effect on January 1, and Sacramento police announced yesterday that they have already arrested their first suspect—a 49-year-old Pulitzer-prize-winning cartoonist named Darrin Bell.

The new law, which you can read here, declares that AI-generated CSAM is harmful, even without an actual victim. In part, says the law, this is because all kinds of CSAM can be used to groom children into thinking sexual activity with adults is normal. But the law singles out AI-generated CSAM for special criticism due to the way that generative AI systems work.

“The creation of CSAM using AI is inherently harmful to children because the machine-learning models utilized by AI have been trained on datasets containing thousands of depictions of known CSAM victims,” it says, “revictimizing these real children by using their likeness to generate AI CSAM images into perpetuity.”

The law defines “artificial intelligence” as “an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments.”

Under new law, cops bust famous cartoonist for AI-generated child sex abuse images Read More »

GM faces ban on selling driver data that can be used to raise insurance rates

Cars, data brokers, General Motors, OnStar, Policy / Paul Patrick / January 17, 2025

The FTC said its complaint alleged that “GM used a misleading enrollment process to get consumers to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and the OnStar Smart Driver feature.” Lina Khan, who is in her final week as FTC chair, said that “GM monitored and sold people’s precise geolocation data and driver behavior information, sometimes as often as every three seconds.”

Settlement not quite finalized

The proposed settlement was approved in a closed meeting by the FTC’s three Democrats, with the two Republicans recorded as absent. The pending agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and a final FTC decision will be made under the Trump administration.

In addition to location data, the GM/FTC settlement covers “radio listening data regarding specific content, channel, or station; hard braking, hard acceleration, hard cornering, crossing of a designated high-speed threshold, seat belt usage, or late-night driving; and trip time and duration for such events.” GM and OnStar agreed to delete data collected before the settlement and ask third parties to delete data previously shared with them.

GM also “must allow consumers to disable the collection of Location Data from their Vehicles to the extent the Vehicle is equipped with the necessary technology.”

GM issued a press release on the settlement. “Last year, we discontinued Smart Driver across all GM vehicles, unenrolled all customers, and ended our third-party telematics relationships with LexisNexis and Verisk,” GM said. “In September, we consolidated many of our US privacy statements into a single, simpler statement as part of our broader work to keep raising the bar on privacy… As part of the agreement, GM will obtain affirmative customer consent to collect, use, or disclose certain types of connected vehicle data (with exceptions for certain purposes).”

Affirmative consent is not required for purposes such as providing driver data to emergency responders, responding to customer-initiated communications, complying with government requests and legal requirements, and investigating product quality or safety problems. While the ban on sharing driving data lasts only five years, the overall settlement would be in place for 20 years.

GM faces ban on selling driver data that can be used to raise insurance rates Read More »

TikTok loses Supreme Court fight, prepares to shut down Sunday

bytedance, china, Donald Trump, First Amendment, free speech, national security, Online speech, Policy, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, tiktok, TikTok ban / Paul Patrick / January 17, 2025

TikTok has said it’s preparing to shut down Sunday.

A TikTok influencer holds a sign that reads “Keep TikTok” outside the US Supreme Court Building as the court hears oral arguments on whether to overturn or delay a law that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the U.S., on January 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Kayla Bartkowski / Stringer | Getty Images News

TikTok has lost its Supreme Court appeal in a 9–0 decision and will likely shut down on January 19, a day before Donald Trump’s inauguration, unless the app can be sold before the deadline, which TikTok has said is impossible.

During the trial last Friday, TikTok lawyer Noel Francisco warned SCOTUS that upholding the Biden administration’s divest-or-sell law would likely cause TikTok to “go dark—essentially the platform shuts down” and “essentially… stop operating.” On Wednesday, TikTok reportedly began preparing to shut down the app for all US users, anticipating the loss.

But TikTok’s claims that the divest-or-sell law violated Americans’ free speech rights did not supersede the government’s compelling national security interest in blocking a foreign adversary like China from potentially using the app to spy on or influence Americans, SCOTUS ruled.

“We conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights,” the SCOTUS opinion said, while acknowledging that “there is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community.”

Late last year, TikTok and its owner, the Chinese-owned company ByteDance, urgently pushed SCOTUS to intervene before the law’s January 19 enforcement date. Ahead of SCOTUS’ decision, TikTok warned it would have no choice but to abruptly shut down a thriving platform where many Americans get their news, express their views, and make a living.

The US had argued the law was necessary to protect national security interests as the US-China trade war intensifies, alleging that China could use the app to track and influence TikTok’s 170 million American users. A lower court had agreed that the US had a compelling national security interest and rejected arguments that the law violated the First Amendment, triggering TikTok’s appeal to SCOTUS. Today, the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

According to SCOTUS, the divest-or-sell law is “content-neutral” and only triggers intermediate scrutiny. That requires that the law doesn’t burden “substantially more speech than necessary” to serve the government’s national security interests, rather than strict scrutiny which would force the government to protect those interests through the least restrictive means.

Further, the government was right to single TikTok out, SCOTUS wrote, due to its “scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects.”

“Preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170 million US TikTok users” is a “decidedly content agnostic” rationale, justices wrote.

“The Government had good reason to single out TikTok for special treatment,” the opinion said.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew posted a statement on TikTok reacting to the ruling, thanking Trump for committing to “work with TikTok” to avoid a shut down and telling users to “rest assured, we will do everything in our power to ensure our platform thrives” in the US.

Momentum to ban TikTok has shifted

First Amendment advocates condemned the SCOTUS ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union called it a “major blow to freedom of expression online,” and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties director David Greene accused justices of sweeping “past the undisputed content-based justification for the law” to “rule only based on the shaky data privacy concerns.”

While the SCOTUS ruling was unanimous, justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “precedent leaves no doubt” that the law implicated the First Amendment and “plainly” imposed a burden on any US company that distributes TikTok’s speech and any content creator who preferred TikTok as a publisher of their speech.

Similarly concerned was justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote in his concurring opinion that he harbors “serious reservations about whether the law before us is ‘content neutral’ and thus escapes ‘strict scrutiny.'” Gorsuch also said he didn’t know “whether this law will succeed in achieving its ends.”

“But the question we face today is not the law’s wisdom, only its constitutionality,” Gorsuch wrote. “Given just a handful of days after oral argument to issue an opinion, I cannot profess the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us. All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional.”

For TikTok and content creators defending the app, the stakes were incredibly high. TikTok repeatedly denied there was any evidence of spying and warned that enforcing the law would allow the government to unlawfully impose “a massive and unprecedented speech restriction.”

But the Supreme Court declined to order a preliminary injunction to block the law until Trump took office, instead deciding to rush through oral arguments and reach a decision prior to the law’s enforcement deadline. Now TikTok has little recourse if it wishes to maintain US operations, as justices suggested during the trial that even if a president chose to not enforce the law, providing access to TikTok or enabling updates could be viewed as too risky for app stores or other distributors.

The law at the center of the case—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—had strong bipartisan support under the Biden administration.

But President-elect Donald Trump said he opposed a TikTok ban, despite agreeing that US national security interests in preventing TikTok spying on or manipulating Americans were compelling. And this week, Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has introduced a bill to extend the deadline ahead of a potential TikTok ban, and a top Trump adviser, Congressman Mike Waltz, has said that Trump plans to stop the ban and “keep TikTok from going dark,” the BBC reported. Even the Biden administration, whose justice department just finished arguing why the US needed to enforce the law to SCOTUS, “is considering ways to keep TikTok available,” sources told NBC News.

“What might happen next to TikTok remains unclear,” Gorsuch noted in the opinion.

Will Trump save TikTok?

It will likely soon be clear whether Trump will intervene. Trump filed a brief in December, requesting that the Supreme Court stay enforcement of the law until after he takes office because allegedly only he could make a deal to save TikTok. He criticized SCOTUS for rushing the decision and suggested that Congress’ passage of the law may have been “legislative encroachment” that potentially “binds his hands” as president.

“As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means,” Trump’s brief said.

TikTok’s CEO Chew signaled to users that Trump is expected to step in.

“On behalf of everyone at TikTok and all our users across the country, I want to thank President Trump for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States,” Chew’s statement said.

Chew also reminded Trump that he has 60 billion views of his content on TikTok and perhaps stands to lose a major platform through the ban.

“We are grateful and pleased to have the support of a president who truly understands our platform, one who has used TikTok to express his own thoughts and perspectives,” Chew said.

Trump seemingly has limited options to save TikTok, Forbes suggested. At trial, justices disagreed on whether Trump could legally decide to simply not enforce the law. And efforts to pause enforcement or claim compliance without evidence that ByteDance is working on selling off TikTok could be blocked by the court, analysts said. And while ByteDance has repeatedly said it’s unwilling to sell TikTok US, it’s possible, one analyst suggested to Forbes, that ByteDance might be more willing to divest “in exchange for Trump backing off his threat of high tariffs on Chinese imports.”

On Tuesday, a Bloomberg report suggested that China was considering whether selling TikTok to Elon Musk might be a good bargaining chip to de-escalate Trump’s attacks in the US-China trade war.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

TikTok loses Supreme Court fight, prepares to shut down Sunday Read More »

Girl strangled by her own wheelchair as bus monitor texted, checked Instagram

distracted driving, New Jersey, Policy, texting / Tim Belzer / January 16, 2025

Cell phones are magnets for our attention, but you can, of course, face significant legal jeopardy for giving them that attention. Just ask the “safety driver” of an Uber self-driving vehicle, which hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona in 2018. According to authorities, the driver was watching The Voice on Hulu just before the crash—and was then charged with negligent homicide.

These kinds of cases are always tragic because they feel so easily avoidable, but they also happen with enough regularity that it’s easy to tune them out. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 3,308 people were killed by distracted drivers in 2022 alone—and “texting is the most alarming distraction.”

That’s why states continue to crack down on cell phone use while driving. A Colorado law that went into effect on January 1, for instance, bans a driver from using any mobile electronic device unless it is hands-free. Thirty US states now have such bans in place.

But a trial that wrapped up in New Jersey this week caught my attention, because it is one of the sadder and stranger examples of cell phone-mediated distraction while in a vehicle. A young girl died, and a 28-year-old woman is probably going to jail, but this is not your typical tale of texting while driving. Texting was involved—34 times, in fact—but driving had nothing to do with what happened.

Child endangerment

The trial was about an incident in Franklin Township, New Jersey, on July 17, 2023, when a 6-year-old girl named Fajr Williams got on a bus to attend a summer program. Williams had disabilities and was confined to her wheelchair. The bus had a spot for anchoring wheelchairs to the ground, and it had a ride-along bus monitor named Amanda Davila, 28, who was supposed to watch and assist kids like Williams.

According to state prosecutors, Williams was properly strapped into her wheelchair and had been taken down to the bus by her older sister. Williams was then loaded onto the bus, but her chair was not allegedly attached to the floor correctly, nor were the proper seatbelts used. As a result, while the bus drove its route to school that morning, Williams began to slide down the seat of her wheelchair. (She could not control her trunk movements normally, and so she was unable to sit back up.) At some point in the ride, she slid low enough that her chair’s own four-point harness, which was meant to keep her upright, began to choke her. By the time the bus arrived at school, William had been strangled to death.

Girl strangled by her own wheelchair as bus monitor texted, checked Instagram Read More »

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations

brendan carr, Donald Trump, FCC, jessica rosenworcel, Policy / Paul Patrick / January 16, 2025

FCC not the president’s speech police (yet)

Chair: Complaints “seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC.”

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel testifies during a House hearing on Thursday, May 16, 2024. Credit: Getty Images | Tom Williams

Taking action in the final days of the Biden administration, the Federal Communications Commission dismissed three complaints and a petition filed against broadcast television stations. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said the action is important because “the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage.”

“Today, I have directed the FCC to take a stand on behalf of the First Amendment,” she said. “We draw a bright line at a moment when clarity about government interference with the free press is needed more than ever. The action we take makes clear two things. First, the FCC should not be the president’s speech police. Second, the FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s chosen replacement for Rosenworcel, Commissioner Brendan Carr, wants the FCC to punish news broadcasters that he perceives as being unfair to Trump or Republicans in general. Backing Trump’s various complaints about news stations, Carr has threatened to revoke licenses by wielding the FCC’s authority to ensure that broadcasters using public airwaves operate in the public interest.

Rosenworcel said the complaints and petition she is dismissing “come from all corners—right and left—but what they have in common is they ask the FCC to penalize broadcast television stations because they dislike station behavior, content, or coverage.” After Trump criticized CBS in October, Rosenworcel said the agency “does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Chair: Complaints aim to “weaponize” FCC authority

The Center for American Rights filed complaints supporting Trump’s claims of bias regarding ABC’s fact-checking during a presidential debate, the editing of a CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, and NBC putting Harris on a Saturday Night Live episode. Separately, the Media and Democracy Project filed a petition to deny a license renewal for WTXF-TV in Philadelphia, a station owned and operated by Fox, alleging that Fox willfully distorted news with false reports of fraud in the 2020 election that Trump lost.

Rejecting all four, Rosenworcel said “the facts and legal circumstances in each of these cases are different. But what they share is that they seek to weaponize the licensing authority of the FCC in a way that is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. That is why we reject it here.”

Dismissing complaints isn’t likely to end the cases, said Jeffrey Westling, a lawyer at the conservative American Action Forum who has urged Congress to “limit or revoke the FCC’s authority to impose content-based restrictions on broadcast television.”

Westling said he agrees “substantively” with Rosenworcel, but added that “the DC Circuit Court has made clear that the FCC has to consider news distortion complaints (see Serafyn vs FCC) and not just dismiss them outright. If I am the complainants, I challenge these dismissals in court, win, and get more attention.”

When contacted by Ars today, the Center for American Rights provided a statement criticizing Rosenworcel’s decision as “political and self-serving.”

“We fundamentally believe that several actions taken by the three major networks were partisan, dishonest and designed to support Vice President Harris in her bid to become President,” the group said. “We will continue to pursue avenues to ensure the American public is protected from media manipulation of our Republic. The First Amendment does not protect intentional misrepresentation or fraud.”

The group previously touted the fact that Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington urged FCC leadership to take its complaints seriously.

Fox ruling will be challenged

The Media and Democracy Project criticized Rosenworcel’s decision to dismiss its complaint against the Fox station in Philadelphia.

“We look forward to presenting on appeal the multiple court decisions that raise serious questions about the Murdochs’ and Fox’s character qualifications to remain broadcast licensees,” the Media and Democracy Project said in a statement provided to Ars. “As renowned First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated in his filing with the Commission, the First Amendment is no bar to Commission action given the facts of this case. Our petition is clearly distinct from the other politically motivated complaints.”

The group’s petition pointed to a court ruling that found Fox News aired false statements about Dominion Voting Systems. Fox later agreed to pay Dominion $788 million to settle a defamation lawsuit.

“Our Petition to Deny is based on judicial findings that Fox made repeated false statements that undermined the electoral process and resulted in property damage, injury, and death; that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch engaged in a ‘carefully crafted scheme’ in ‘bad faith’ to deprive Lachlan’s siblings of the control to which they are entitled under an irrevocable trust; and that ‘Murdoch knowingly caused the corporation to violate the law,'” the Media and Democracy Project said today.

The FCC order denying the petition also granted the station’s application for a license renewal. The order said the allegations regarding “material carried on a cable network under common control with the Licensee that a state court found to be false” aren’t grounds to deny the individual station’s license renewal. While some “non-FCC-related misconduct” can be considered by the FCC in an evaluation of a licensee’s character, the finding in the defamation suit doesn’t qualify, the order said.

Former FCC official objects

Gigi Sohn, a longtime advocate whose nomination to the FCC was rejected by the Senate, also criticized the FCC today. Sohn, who also served as counselor for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler during the Obama administration, called the dismissal of the Fox petition a “failure to lead.”

“As [Rosenworcel] herself points out, the facts of these petitions are very different,” Sohn wrote. “The [Media and Democracy Project] petition seeks a hearing on Fox Philadelphia licenses because they allege that Fox lacks the character to hold them because it lied to the American people about the 2020 election. The conservative complaints are all based on disagreements with editorial judgments of the various broadcast networks.”

“The decision to lump these filings together and overturn years of FCC precedent that broadcasters’ character is central to holding a license is contrary to the Communications Act’s mandate that licenses be granted in ‘the public interest, convenience and necessity,'” Sohn also wrote. The FCC rationale would mean that “anything and everything a broadcast licensee does or says would be a First Amendment issue that warrants automatic license renewal,” she added.

Media advocacy group Free Press agreed with the FCC’s decision. “We have an incoming administration quite literally threatening to jail journalists for doing their jobs, and an incoming FCC chairman talking about revoking broadcast licenses any time he disagrees with their political coverage,” the group said.

Free Press sided with the FCC despite noting that the Fox case involved “false information [that] had devastating consequences in the January 6 attack on the peaceful transition of power four years ago.”

“Lies knowingly aired by Fox News Channel and some Murdoch-owned Fox affiliates present a significantly different challenge to regulators than merely fact-checking, editing or scheduling equal time for candidates in ways that displease the president-elect,” Free Press said. “Yet we agree with the urgent need to prevent the weaponization of the government against journalists and media companies on the eve of the inauguration, and in light of the dire threats the new administration poses.”

FCC chair makes one last stand against Trump’s call to punish news stations Read More »