Policy

cards-against-humanity-sues-spacex,-alleges-“invasion”-of-land-on-us/mexico-border

Cards Against Humanity sues SpaceX, alleges “invasion” of land on US/Mexico border

A mockup of two cards in the style of the Cards Against Humanity game. One card says

Aurich Lawson | Cards Against Humanity

Cards Against Humanity sued SpaceX yesterday, alleging that Elon Musk’s firm illegally took over a plot of land on the US/Mexico border that the party-game company bought in 2017 in an attempt to stymie then-President Trump’s attempt to build a wall.

“As part of CAH’s 2017 holiday campaign, while Donald Trump was President, CAH created a supporter-funded campaign to take a stand against the building of a Border Wall,” said the lawsuit filed in Cameron County District Court in Texas. Cards Against Humanity says it received $15 donations from 150,000 people and used part of that money to buy “a plot of vacant land in Cameron County based upon CAH’s promise to ‘make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.'”

Cards Against Humanity says it mowed the land “and maintained it in its natural state, marking the edge of the lot with a fence and a ‘No Trespassing’ sign.” But instead of Trump taking over the land, Cards Against Humanity says the parcel was “interfered with and invaded” by Musk’s space company. The lawsuit includes pictures that, according to Cards Against Humanity, show the land when it was first purchased and after SpaceX construction equipment and materials were placed on the land.

This picture was taken in 2017, according to Cards Against Humanity:

Cards Against Humanity

Cards Against Humanity says this picture of SpaceX equipment and materials on the same land was taken in 2024:

Cards Against Humanity

The lawsuit seeks up to $15 million to cover “the cost to restore and repair the Property, the diminution in the Property’s fair market value, the reasonable value of SpaceX’s use of the Property, the loss of goodwill, damages to CAH’s reputation, and other pecuniary loss and actual damages suffered by CAH.” The suit also seeks punitive damages.

Lawsuit: SpaceX “never asked for permission”

The lawsuit said that SpaceX “acquired many of the vacant lots along the road on which the Property is situated,” and started using the Cards Against Humanity property as its own:

SpaceX and/or its contractors entered the Property and, after erecting posts to mark the property line, proceeded to ignore any distinction based upon property ownership. The site was cleared of vegetation, and the soil was compacted with gravel or other substance to allow SpaceX and its contractors to run and park its vehicles all over the Property. Generators were brought in to run equipment and lights while work was being performed before and after daylight. An enormous mound of gravel was unloaded onto the Property; the gravel is being stored and used for the construction of buildings by SpaceX’s contractors along the road.

Large pieces of construction equipment and numerous construction-related vehicles are utilized and stored on the Property continuously. And, of course, workers are present performing construction work and staging materials and vehicles for work to be performed on other tracts. In short, SpaceX has treated the Property as its own for at least six (6) months without regard for CAH’s property rights nor the safety of anyone entering what has become a worksite that is presumably governed by OSHA safety requirements.

The lawsuit said that “SpaceX has never asked for permission to use the Property, much less for the egregious appropriation of the Property for its own profit-making purposes,” and “never reached out to CAH to explain or apologize for the damage caused to the Property and CAH’s ownership interest therein.”

We contacted SpaceX about the lawsuit and will update this article if it provides a response.

Cards Against Humanity sues SpaceX, alleges “invasion” of land on US/Mexico border Read More »

senate-panel-votes-20–0-for-holding-ceo-of-“health-care-terrorists”-in-contempt

Senate panel votes 20–0 for holding CEO of “health care terrorists” in contempt

Not above the law —

After he rejected subpoena, contempt charges against de la Torre go before Senate.

Ralph de la Torre, founder and chief executive officer of Steward Health Care System LLC, speaks during a summit in New York on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2016.

Enlarge / Ralph de la Torre, founder and chief executive officer of Steward Health Care System LLC, speaks during a summit in New York on Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2016.

A Senate committee on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to hold the wealthy CEO of a failed hospital chain in civil and criminal contempt for rejecting a rare subpoena from the lawmakers.

In July, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) subpoenaed Steward Health Care CEO Ralph de la Torre to testify before the lawmakers on the deterioration and eventual bankruptcy of the system, which included more than 30 hospitals across eight states. The resulting dire conditions in the hospitals, described as providing “third-world medicine,” allegedly led to the deaths of at least 15 patients and imperiled more than 2,000 others.

The committee, chaired by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), highlighted that amid the system’s collapse, de la Torre was paid at least $250 million, bought a $40 million yacht, and owned a $15 million luxury fishing boat. Meanwhile, Steward executives jetted around on two private jets collectively worth $95 million.

De la Torre initially agreed to appear at the September 12 hearing but backed out the week beforehand. He claimed, through his lawyers, that a federal order stemming from Steward’s bankruptcy case prohibited him from discussing the hospital system’s situation amid reorganization and settlement efforts. The HELP committee rejected that explanation, but de la Torre was nevertheless a no-show at the hearing.

In a 20–0 bipartisan vote Thursday, the HELP committee held de la Torre in civil and criminal contempt, with only Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) abstaining. It is the first time in modern history the committee has issued civil and criminal contempt resolutions. The charges will now go before the full Senate for a vote.

If upheld by the full Senate, the civil enforcement will direct the Senate’s legal counsel to bring a federal civil suit against de la Torre in order to force him to comply with the subpoena and testify before the HELP Committee. The criminal contempt charge would refer the case to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to criminally prosecute de la Torre for failing to comply with the subpoena. If the trial proceeds and de la Torre is convicted, the tarnished CEO could face a fine of up to $100,000 and a prison sentence of up to 12 months.

On Wednesday, the day before the committee voted on the contempt charges, a lawyer for de la Torre blasted the senators and claimed that testifying at the hearing would have violated his Fifth Amendment rights, according to the Boston Globe.

In a statement Thursday, Sanders slammed de la Torre, saying that his wealth and expensive lawyers did not make him above the law. “If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you will be held accountable no matter who you are or how well-connected you may be,” he said.

Senate panel votes 20–0 for holding CEO of “health care terrorists” in contempt Read More »

how-to-stop-linkedin-from-training-ai-on-your-data

How to stop LinkedIn from training AI on your data

Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission? —

LinkedIn limits opt-outs to future training, warns AI models may spout personal data.

How to stop LinkedIn from training AI on your data

LinkedIn admitted Wednesday that it has been training its own AI on many users’ data without seeking consent. Now there’s no way for users to opt out of training that has already occurred, as LinkedIn limits opt-out to only future AI training.

In a blog detailing updates coming on November 20, LinkedIn general counsel Blake Lawit confirmed that LinkedIn’s user agreement and privacy policy will be changed to better explain how users’ personal data powers AI on the platform.

Under the new privacy policy, LinkedIn now informs users that “we may use your personal data… [to] develop and train artificial intelligence (AI) models, develop, provide, and personalize our Services, and gain insights with the help of AI, automated systems, and inferences, so that our Services can be more relevant and useful to you and others.”

An FAQ explained that the personal data could be collected any time a user interacts with generative AI or other AI features, as well as when a user composes a post, changes their preferences, provides feedback to LinkedIn, or uses the platform for any amount of time.

That data is then stored until the user deletes the AI-generated content. LinkedIn recommends that users use its data access tool if they want to delete or request to delete data collected about past LinkedIn activities.

LinkedIn’s AI models powering generative AI features “may be trained by LinkedIn or another provider,” such as Microsoft, which provides some AI models through its Azure OpenAI service, the FAQ said.

A potentially major privacy risk for users, LinkedIn’s FAQ noted, is that users who “provide personal data as an input to a generative AI powered feature” could end up seeing their “personal data being provided as an output.”

LinkedIn claims that it “seeks to minimize personal data in the data sets used to train the models,” relying on “privacy enhancing technologies to redact or remove personal data from the training dataset.”

While Lawit’s blog avoids clarifying if data already collected can be removed from AI training data sets, the FAQ affirmed that users who automatically opted in to sharing personal data for AI training can only opt out of the invasive data collection “going forward.”

Opting out “does not affect training that has already taken place,” the FAQ said.

A LinkedIn spokesperson told Ars that it “benefits all members” to be opted in to AI training “by default.”

“People can choose to opt out, but they come to LinkedIn to be found for jobs and networking and generative AI is part of how we are helping professionals with that change,” LinkedIn’s spokesperson said.

By allowing opt-outs of future AI training, LinkedIn’s spokesperson additionally claimed that the platform is giving “people using LinkedIn even more choice and control when it comes to how we use data to train our generative AI technology.”

How to opt out of AI training on LinkedIn

Users can opt out of AI training by navigating to the “Data privacy” section in their account settings, then turning off the option allowing collection of “data for generative AI improvement” that LinkedIn otherwise automatically turns on for most users.

The only exception is for users in the European Economic Area or Switzerland, who are protected by stricter privacy laws that either require consent from platforms to collect personal data or for platforms to justify the data collection as a legitimate interest. Those users will not see an option to opt out, because they were never opted in, LinkedIn repeatedly confirmed.

Additionally, users can “object to the use of their personal data for training” generative AI models not used to generate LinkedIn content—such as models used for personalization or content moderation purposes, The Verge noted—by submitting the LinkedIn Data Processing Objection Form.

Last year, LinkedIn shared AI principles, promising to take “meaningful steps to reduce the potential risks of AI.”

One risk that the updated user agreement specified is that using LinkedIn’s generative features to help populate a profile or generate suggestions when writing a post could generate content that “might be inaccurate, incomplete, delayed, misleading or not suitable for your purposes.”

Users are advised that they are responsible for avoiding sharing misleading information or otherwise spreading AI-generated content that may violate LinkedIn’s community guidelines. And users are additionally warned to be cautious when relying on any information shared on the platform.

“Like all content and other information on our Services, regardless of whether it’s labeled as created by ‘AI,’ be sure to carefully review before relying on it,” LinkedIn’s user agreement says.

Back in 2023, LinkedIn claimed that it would always “seek to explain in clear and simple ways how our use of AI impacts people,” because users’ “understanding of AI starts with transparency.”

Legislation like the European Union’s AI Act and the GDPR—especially with its strong privacy protections—if enacted elsewhere, would lead to fewer shocks to unsuspecting users. That would put all companies and their users on equal footing when it comes to training AI models and result in fewer nasty surprises and angry customers.

How to stop LinkedIn from training AI on your data Read More »

creator-of-fake-kamala-harris-video-musk-boosted-sues-calif.-over-deepfake-laws

Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws

Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws

After California passed laws cracking down on AI-generated deepfakes of election-related content, a popular conservative influencer promptly sued, accusing California of censoring protected speech, including satire and parody.

In his complaint, Christopher Kohls—who is known as “Mr Reagan” on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter)—said that he was suing “to defend all Americans’ right to satirize politicians.” He claimed that California laws, AB 2655 and AB 2839, were urgently passed after X owner Elon Musk shared a partly AI-generated parody video on the social media platform that Kohls created to “lampoon” presidential hopeful Kamala Harris.

AB 2655, known as the “Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act,” prohibits creating “with actual malice” any “materially deceptive audio or visual media of a candidate for elective office with the intent to injure the candidate’s reputation or to deceive a voter into voting for or against the candidate, within 60 days of the election.” It requires social media platforms to block or remove any reported deceptive material and label “certain additional content” deemed “inauthentic, fake, or false” to prevent election interference.

The other law at issue, AB 2839, titled “Elections: deceptive media in advertisements,” bans anyone from “knowingly distributing an advertisement or other election communication” with “malice” that “contains certain materially deceptive content” within 120 days of an election in California and, in some cases, within 60 days after an election.

Both bills were signed into law on September 17, and Kohls filed his complaint that day, alleging that both must be permanently blocked as unconstitutional.

Elon Musk called out for boosting Kohls’ video

Kohls’ video that Musk shared seemingly would violate these laws by using AI to make Harris appear to give speeches that she never gave. The manipulated audio sounds like Harris, who appears to be mocking herself as a “diversity hire” and claiming that any critics must be “sexist and racist.”

“Making fun of presidential candidates and other public figures is an American pastime,” Kohls said, defending his parody video. He pointed to a long history of political cartoons and comedic impressions of politicians, claiming that “AI-generated commentary, though a new mode of speech, falls squarely within this tradition.”

While Kohls’ post was clearly marked “parody” in the YouTube title and in his post on X, that “parody” label did not carry over when Musk re-posted the video. This lack of a parody label on Musk’s post—which got approximately 136 million views, roughly twice as many as Kohls’ post—set off California governor Gavin Newsom, who immediately blasted Musk’s post and vowed on X to make content like Kohls’ video “illegal.”

In response to Newsom, Musk poked fun at the governor, posting that “I checked with renowned world authority, Professor Suggon Deeznutz, and he said parody is legal in America.” For his part, Kohls put up a second parody video targeting Harris, calling Newsom a “bully” in his complaint and claiming that he had to “punch back.”

Shortly after these online exchanges, California lawmakers allegedly rushed to back the governor, Kohls’ complaint said. They allegedly amended the deepfake bills to ensure that Kohls’ video would be banned when the bills were signed into law, replacing a broad exception for satire in one law with a narrower safe harbor that Kohls claimed would chill humorists everywhere.

“For videos,” his complaint said, disclaimers required under AB 2839 must “appear for the duration of the video” and “must be in a font size ‘no smaller than the largest font size of other text appearing in the visual media.'” For a satirist like Kohls who uses large fonts to optimize videos for mobile, this “would require the disclaimer text to be so large that it could not fit on the screen,” his complaint said.

On top of seeming impractical, the disclaimers would “fundamentally” alter “the nature of his message” by removing the comedic effect for viewers by distracting from what allegedly makes the videos funny—”the juxtaposition of over-the-top statements by the AI-generated ‘narrator,’ contrasted with the seemingly earnest style of the video as if it were a genuine campaign ad,” Kohls’ complaint alleged.

Imagine watching Saturday Night Live with prominent disclaimers taking up your TV screen, his complaint suggested.

It’s possible that Kohls’ concerns about AB 2839 are unwarranted. Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon told Politico that Kohls’ parody label on X was good enough to clear him of liability under the law.

“Requiring them to use the word ‘parody’ on the actual video avoids further misleading the public as the video is shared across the platform,” Gardon said. “It’s unclear why this conservative activist is suing California. This new disclosure law for election misinformation isn’t any more onerous than laws already passed in other states, including Alabama.”

Creator of fake Kamala Harris video Musk boosted sues Calif. over deepfake laws Read More »

patents-for-software-and-genetic-code-could-be-revived-by-two-bills-in-congress

Patents for software and genetic code could be revived by two bills in Congress

Patently retro —

PERA and PREVAIL want to re-enable patents struck down by Supreme Court rulings.

Image from the patent office of a patent for

Enlarge / An image from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where in 1874, the newest thing was not software or genetic compositions, but shutter fastenings from H.L. Norton.

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider two bills Thursday that would effectively nullify the Supreme Court’s rulings against patents on broad software processes and human genes. Open source and Internet freedom advocates are mobilizing and pushing back.

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (or PERA, S. 2140), sponsored by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), would amend US Code such that “all judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.” That would include the 2014 ruling in which the Supreme Court held, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing, that simply performing an existing process on a computer does not make it a new, patentable invention. “The relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer,” Thomas wrote. “They do not.”

That case also drew on Bilski v. Kappos, a case in which a patent was proposed based solely on the concept of hedging against price fluctuations in commodity markets.

Open source groups hunker down

Software and Internet advocates have taken notice. This week, the Linux Foundation, working with the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), announced an expanded partnership with Unified Patents, intended to defend open source software against what it gamely calls “non-practicing entities” (NPEs), but most people would term patent trolls. “As the risk and volume of frivolous litigation against open source projects grows, the need to provide accessible protection from NPEs has become crucial,” the Linux Foundation writes.

In interviews with The Register, leaders at CNCF and Unified Patents described patent trolls as actively chasing any widespread technology, aiming for settlements over the cost of trials. Nearly 98 percent of NPE claims are settled, according to Unified Patents, but NPE claims challenged at the US Patent and Trademark Appeals Board lose 67 percent of the time.

Challenging patent claims, however valid, could get tougher under the PREVAIL Act, the other bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. PREVAIL would, among other changes, limit patent challenge petitions to 14,000 words, hampering attempts to debunk complex patents. The Act would also eliminate clearance patents, which companies can use to clear any infringement claims prior to their own products’ release.

Clearing the way for genome patents

Another wrinkle in the PERA bill involves genetic patents. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2013 that pieces of DNA that occur naturally in the genomes of humans or other organisms cannot, themselves, be patented. Myriad Genetics had previously been granted patents on genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, which were targeted in a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The resulting Supreme Court decision—this one also written by Thomas—found that information that naturally occurs in the human genome could not be the subject to a patent, even if the patent covered the process of isolating that information from the rest of the genome. As with broad software patents, PERA would seemingly allow for the patenting of isolated human genes and connections between those genes and diseases like cancer.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) describes PERA and PREVAIL as “a huge gift to patent trolls, a few tech firms that aggressively license patents, and patent lawyers. For everyone else, it will be a huge loss.” The EFF maintains a collection of stories of people claiming their jobs or avocations were “Saved by Alice” (the Supreme Court ruling).

The Judiciary Committee is set to debate and potentially amend or rewrite PREVAIL and PERA (i.e. mark up) on Thursday. Tillis told Axios that the bills are necessary for “Biotech, a number of emerging sectors [needing] relief, or we’re just going to stifle innovation.” Most Judiciary Committee members have not indicated their votes on the bills. Pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA supports the bills, while numerous advocates for lower-cost drugs and biosimilars oppose them.

Patents for software and genetic code could be revived by two bills in Congress Read More »

isps-tell-supreme-court-they-don’t-want-to-disconnect-users-accused-of-piracy

ISPs tell Supreme Court they don’t want to disconnect users accused of piracy

The US Supreme Court building is seen on a sunny day. Kids mingle around a small pool on the grounds in front of the building.

Enlarge / The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, in May 2023.

Getty Images | NurPhoto

Four more large Internet service providers told the US Supreme Court this week that ISPs shouldn’t be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.

While the ISPs worry about financial liability from lawsuits filed by major record labels and other copyright holders, they also argue that mass terminations of Internet users accused of piracy “would harm innocent people by depriving households, schools, hospitals, and businesses of Internet access.” The legal question presented by the case “is exceptionally important to the future of the Internet,” they wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Monday.

The amici curiae brief was filed by Altice USA (operator of the Optimum brand), Frontier Communications, Lumen (aka CenturyLink), and Verizon. The brief supports cable firm Cox Communications’ attempt to overturn its loss in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Sony. Cox petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case last month.

Sony and other music copyright holders sued Cox in 2018, claiming it didn’t adequately fight piracy on its network and failed to terminate repeat infringers. A US District Court jury in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in December 2019 that Cox must pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels.

Cox won a partial victory when the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the $1 billion verdict, finding that Cox wasn’t guilty of vicarious infringement because it did not profit directly from infringement committed by users of its cable broadband network. But the appeals court affirmed the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement and ordered a new damages trial.

Future of Internet at stake, ISPs say

The Altice/Frontier/Lumen/Verizon brief said the 4th Circuit ruling “imperils the future of the Internet” by “expos[ing] Internet service providers to massive liability if they do not carry out mass Internet evictions.” Cutting off a subscriber’s service would hurt other residents in a home “who did not infringe and may have no connection to the infringer,” they wrote.

The automated processes used by copyright holders to find infringement on peer-to-peer networks are “famously flawed,” ISPs wrote. Despite that, the appeals court’s “view of contributory infringement would force Internet service providers to cut off any subscriber after receiving allegations that some unknown person used the subscriber’s connection for copyright infringement,” the brief said.

Under the 4th Circuit’s theory, “an Internet service provider acts culpably whenever it knowingly fails to stop some bad actor from exploiting its service,” the brief said. According to the ISPs, this “would compel Internet service providers to engage in wide-scale terminations to avoid facing crippling damages, like the $1 billion judgment entered against Cox here, the $2.6 billion damages figure touted by these same plaintiffs in a recent suit against Verizon, or the similarly immense figures sought from Frontier and Altice USA.”

Potential liability for ISPs is up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each work that is infringed, the brief said. “Enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers could seek to hold Internet service providers liable for every bad act that occurs online,” they wrote. This threat of financial liability detracts from the ISPs’ attempts “to fulfill Congress’s goal of connecting all Americans to the Internet,” the ISPs said.

ISPs tell Supreme Court they don’t want to disconnect users accused of piracy Read More »

backlash-over-amazon’s-return-to-office-comes-as-workers-demand-higher-wages

Backlash over Amazon’s return to office comes as workers demand higher wages

Warehouse workers at the STL8 Amazon Fulfillment Center marched on the boss Wednesday to demand a $25 an hour minimum wage for all workers.

Enlarge / Warehouse workers at the STL8 Amazon Fulfillment Center marched on the boss Wednesday to demand a $25 an hour minimum wage for all workers.

via Justice Speaks

Amazon currently faces disgruntled workers in every direction.

Office workers are raging against CEO Andy Jassy’s return to office mandate, Fortune reported—which came just as a leaked document reportedly showed that Amazon is also planning to gut management, Business Insider reported. Drivers by the hundreds are flocking to join a union to negotiate even better work conditions, CNBC reported, despite some of the biggest concessions in Amazon’s history. And hundreds more unionized warehouse workers are increasingly banding together nationwide to demand a $25 an hour minimum wage. On Wednesday, workers everywhere were encouraged to leave Jassy a voicemail elevating workers’ demands for a $25 minimum wage.

Putting on the pressure

This momentum has been building for years after drivers unionized in 2021. And all this collective fury increasingly appears to be finally pressuring Amazon into negotiating better conditions for some workers.

Just last week, Amazon ponied up $2.1 billion—its “biggest investment yet”—to improve driver safety and increase drivers’ wages.

Unionizing warehouse workers told Ars that they’re seeking a similar investment from Amazon, which currently pays on average a $20.50 minimum wage.

“We work at a breakneck pace,” Christine Manno, an Amazon Fulfillment Center worker at Amazon site STL8 in St. Louis, Missouri, who was injured and never expects to work again, told Ars. “We put smiles on the billionaire’s faces, and we feel it’s prime time for a real raise for the employees. There’s too many of us struggling with food and housing, yet Andy Jassy took home over $14,000 an hour last year and Amazon is making billions in profit.”

On Wednesday, Amazon seemed to finally bend to the warehouse workers’ pressure, announcing a compromise on wage increases. The company said it was investing $2.2 billion to raise the base salaries of hourly fulfillment workers to “more than $22 an hour, and more than $29 an hour including benefits,” Reuters reported. Amazon’s spokesperson told Ars that STL8 workers’ starting wage “increased to $19 per hour coupled with our industry-leading benefits” and claimed that the company’s “biggest ever investment” in fulfillment workers was simply “part of an annual process where we review wages and benefits to ensure they stay competitive—and in many cases industry-leading.”

But while workers claimed the victory, they’re not going to sit back and take the pay bump. An STL8 worker on the organizing committee with Manno, Ash Judd, told Ars that workers “made this $1.50 raise happen through our tireless organizing, and we’ll keep fighting until we reach $25.”

Because of recent gains and the increasingly dire economic plight of workers, Amazon workers likely won’t be easing off the e-commerce giant any time soon. Some office workers told Fortune they are seeking other remote work to avoid returning to the office, threatening to “soft quit” and claiming that Amazon is going “backwards” with a stricter office policy than pre-COVID times. “This is a layoff in disguise,” one apparent worker complained on Reddit. “Return to the office or you’re fired and we don’t have to pay any severance or unemployment.”

With so many workers upset, it could now be a question of when Amazon will cave to their growing demands—not if—according to Beth Gutelius, the research director of the University of Illinois Chicago’s Center for Urban Economic Development.

“Research shows that the presence of collective bargaining agreements creates upward pressure on wages and working conditions, both in facilities that are unionized and those that are not,” Gutelius told Ars. “Based on that evidence, I would expect working conditions at Amazon to improve.”

Gutelius co-authored a May report documenting the financial insecurity of Amazon warehouse workers by surveying more than 1,400 across 42 states.

Backlash over Amazon’s return to office comes as workers demand higher wages Read More »

amazon-“tricks”-customers-into-buying-fire-tvs-with-false-sales-prices:-lawsuit

Amazon “tricks” customers into buying Fire TVs with false sales prices: Lawsuit

Fire TV pricing under fire —

Lawsuit claims list prices only available for “extremely short period” sometimes.

A promotional image for Amazon's 4-Series Fire TVs.

Enlarge / A promotional image for Amazon’s 4-Series Fire TVs.

A lawsuit is seeking to penalize Amazon for allegedly providing “fake list prices and purported discounts” to mislead people into buying Fire TVs.

As reported by Seattle news organization KIRO 7, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification and filed in US District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 12 [PDF] claims that Amazon has been listing Fire TV and Fire TV bundles with “List Prices” that are higher than what the TVs have recently sold for, thus creating “misleading representation that customers are getting a ‘Limited time deal.'” The lawsuit accuses Amazon of violating Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

The plaintiff, David Ramirez, reportedly bought a 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV in February for $299.99. The lawsuit claims the price was listed as 33 percent off and a “Limited time deal” and that Amazon “advertised a List Price of $449.99, with the $449.99 in strikethrough text.” As of this writing, the 50-inch 4-Series 4K TV on Amazon is marked as having a “Limited time deal” of $299.98.

A screenshot from Amazon taken today.

Enlarge / A screenshot from Amazon taken today.

Camelcamelcamel, which tracks Amazon prices, claims that the cheapest price of the TV on Amazon was $280 in July. The website also claims that the TV’s average price is $330.59; the $300 or better deal seems to have been available on dates in August, September, October, November, and December of 2023, as well as in July, August, and September 2024. The TV was most recently sold at the $449.99 “List Price” in October 2023 and for short periods in July and August 2024, per Camelcamelcamel.

The 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV's Amazon price history, according to Camelcamelcamel.

Enlarge / The 50-inch 4-Series Fire TV’s Amazon price history, according to Camelcamelcamel.

Amazon’s website has an information icon next to “List Prices” that, when hovered over, shows a message stating: “The List Price is the suggested retail price of a new product as provided by a manufacturer, supplier, or seller. Except for books, Amazon will display a List Price if the product was purchased by customers on Amazon or offered by other retailers at or above the List Price in at least the past 90 days. List prices may not necessarily reflect the product’s prevailing market price.”

The lawsuit against Amazon alleges that Amazon is claiming items were sold at their stated List Price within 90 days but were not:

… this representation is false and misleading, and Amazon knows it. Each of the Fire TVs in this action was sold with advertised List Price that were not sold by Amazon at or above those prices in more than 90 days, making the above statement, as well as the sales prices and percentage discounts, false and misleading. As of September 10, 2024, most of the Fire TVs were not sold at the advertised List Prices since 2023 but were instead consistently sold well below (often hundreds of dollars below) the List Prices during the class period.

When contacted by Ars Technica, an Amazon spokesperson said that the company doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction against Amazon.

“Amazon tricks its customers”

The lawsuit claims that “misleading” List Prices harm customers while also allowing Amazon to create a “false” sense of urgency to get a discount. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon has used misleading practices for 15 Fire TV models/bundles.

The lawsuit claims that in some cases, the List Price was only available for “an extremely short period, in some instances as short as literally one day.

The suit reads:

Amazon tricks its customers into buying Fire TVs by making them believe they are buying Fire TVs at steep discounts. Amazon omits critical information concerning how long putative “sales” would last, and when the List Prices were actually in use, which Plaintiff and class members relied on to their detriment. Amazon’s customers spent more money than they otherwise would have if not for the purported time-limited bargains.

Further, Amazon is accused of using these List Price tactics to “artificially” drive Fire TV demand, putting “upward pressure on the prices that” Amazon can charge for the smart TVs.

The legal document points to a similar 2021 case in California [PDF], where Amazon was sued for allegedly deceptive reference prices. It agreed to pay $2 million in penalties and restitution.

Other companies selling electronics have also been scrutinized for allegedly making products seem like they typically and/or recently have sold for more money. For example, Dell Australia received an AUD$10 million fine (about $6.49 million) for “making false and misleading representations on its website about discount prices for add-on computer monitors,” per the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.

Now’s a good time to remind friends and family who frequently buy tech products online to use price checkers like Camelcamelcamel and PCPartPicker to compare products with similar specs and features across different retailers.

Amazon “tricks” customers into buying Fire TVs with false sales prices: Lawsuit Read More »

at&t-fined-$13m-for-data-breach-after-giving-customer-bill-info-to-vendor

AT&T fined $13M for data breach after giving customer bill info to vendor

A man with an umbrella walking past a building with an AT&T logo.

AT&T agreed to pay a $13 million fine because it gave customer bill information to a vendor in order to create personalized videos, then allegedly failed to ensure that the vendor destroyed the data when it was no longer needed. In addition to the fine, AT&T agreed to stricter controls on sharing data with vendors in a consent decree announced today by the Federal Communications Commission.

In January 2023, years after the data was supposed to be destroyed, the vendor suffered a breach “when threat actors accessed the vendor’s cloud environment and ultimately exfiltrated AT&T customer information,” the FCC said. Information related to 8.9 million AT&T wireless customers was exposed.

Phone companies are required by law to protect customer information, and AT&T should not have merely relied on third-party firms’ assurances that they destroyed data when it was no longer needed, the FCC said.

“AT&T used the vendor to generate and host personalized video content, including billing and marketing videos, for AT&T customers,” an FCC press release said. “Under AT&T’s contracts, the vendor should have destroyed or returned AT&T customer information when no longer necessary to fulfill contractual obligations, which ended years before the breach occurred. AT&T failed to ensure the vendor: (1) adequately protected the customer information, and (2) returned or destroyed it as required by contract.”

The data “remained in the vendor’s cloud environment for many years after it should have been deleted or returned to AT&T and was ultimately exposed” in the January 2023 breach, an FCC Enforcement Bureau order said.

Data should have been deleted in 2018

AT&T told the FCC that it shared customer data with the vendor between 2015 and 2017, and that data was supposed to be “securely destroyed or deleted” by 2018. The exposed data included “line count for all impacted customers, and bill balance and payment information and rate plan name and features for approximately one percent of impacted customers,” the FCC said.

AT&T told Ars today that the data “did not contain credit card information, Social Security Numbers, account passwords or other sensitive personal information.” AT&T said it notified customers of the breach in March 2023.

“AT&T stated that it monitored impacted customer accounts following the incident and identified no evidence of AT&T account-related fraud or other unlawful or unauthorized activity tied to the Breach,” the consent decree said. “According to AT&T, porting, SIM swap, and equipment fraud rates for impacted customers following the incident were consistently less than the rates for the general population of AT&T Mobility customers across all account types.”

When contacted by Ars, AT&T did not respond directly to the FCC’s allegation that it failed to ensure the vendor protected customer information. AT&T provided us with a statement saying, “A vendor we previously used experienced a security incident last year that exposed data pertaining to some of our wireless customers. Though our systems were not compromised in this incident, we’re making enhancements to how we manage customer information internally, as well as implementing new requirements on our vendors’ data management practices.”

AT&T fined $13M for data breach after giving customer bill info to vendor Read More »

zynga-owes-ibm-$45m-after-using-1980s-patented-technology-for-hit-games

Zynga owes IBM $45M after using 1980s patented technology for hit games

A bountiful harvest awaits —

Zynga plans to appeal and confirms no games will be affected.

Zynga owes IBM $45M after using 1980s patented technology for hit games

Zynga must pay IBM nearly $45 million in damages after a jury ruled that popular games in its FarmVille series, as well as individual hits like Harry Potter: Puzzles and Spells, infringed on two early IBM patents.

In an SEC filing, Zynga reassured investors that “the patents at issue have expired and Zynga will not have to modify or stop operating any of the games at issue” as a result of the loss. But the substantial damages owed will likely have financial implications for Zynga parent company Take-Two Interactive Software, analysts said, unless Zynga is successful in its plans to overturn the verdict.

A Take-Two spokesperson told Ars: “We are disappointed in the verdict; however, believe we will prevail on appeal.”

For IBM, the win comes after a decade of failed attempts to stop what it claimed was Zynga’s willful infringement of its patents.

In court filings, IBM told the court that it first alerted Zynga to alleged infringement in 2014, detailing how its games leveraged patented technology from the 1980s that came about when IBM launched Prodigy.

But rather than negotiate with IBM, like tech giants Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook have, Zynga allegedly dodged accountability, delaying negotiations and making excuses to postpone meetings for years. In that time, IBM alleged that rather than end its infringement or license IBM’s technologies, Zynga “expanded its infringing activity” after “openly” admitting to IBM that “litigation would be the only remaining path” to end it.

This left IBM “no choice but to seek judicial assistance,” IBM told the court.

IBM argued that its patent, initially used to launch Prodigy, remains “fundamental to the efficient communication of Internet content.” Known as patent ‘849, that patent introduced “novel methods for presenting applications and advertisements in an interactive service that would take advantage of the computing power of each user’s personal computer (PC) and thereby reduce demand on host servers, such as those used by Prodigy,” which made it “more efficient than conventional systems.”

According to IBM’s complaint, “By harnessing the processing and storage capabilities of the user’s PC, applications could then be composed on the fly from objects stored locally on the PC, reducing reliance on Prodigy’s server and network resources.”

The jury found that Zynga infringed that patent, as well as a ‘719 patent designed to “improve the performance” of Internet apps by “reducing network communication delays.” That patent describes technology that improves an app’s performance by “reducing the number of required interactions between client and server,” IBM’s complaint said, and also makes it easier to develop and update apps.

The company told the court that licensing these early technologies helps sustain the company’s innovations today.

As of 2022, IBM confirmed that it has spent “billions of dollars on research and development” and that the company vigilantly protects those investments when it discovers newcomers like Zynga seemingly seeking to avoid those steep R&D costs by leveraging IBM innovations to fuel billions of dollars in revenue without paying IBM licensing fees.

“IBM’s technology is a key driver of Zynga’s success,” IBM argued back in 2022, and on Friday, the jury agreed.

“IBM is pleased with the jury verdict that recognizes Zynga’s infringement of IBM’s patents,” IBM’s spokesperson told Ars.

Cost of pre-Internet IBM licenses

In its defense, Zynga tried and failed to argue that the patents were invalid, including contesting the validity of the 1980s patent—which Zynga claimed never should have been issued, alleging it was due to “intent to deceive” the patent office by withholding information.

It’s currently unclear what licensing deal IBM offered to Zynga initially or how much Zynga could have paid to avoid damages awarded this week. IBM did not respond to Ars’ request to further detail terms of the failed deal.

But the 1980s patent in particular has been at the center of several lawsuits that IBM has raised to protect its early intellectual property from alleged exploitation by Internet companies. Back in 2006, when IBM sued Amazon, IBM executive John Kelly vowed to protect the company’s patents “through every means available.” IBM followed through on that promise throughout the 2010s, securing notable settlements from various companies, like Priceline and Twitter, where terms of the subsequent licensing deals were not disclosed.

However, IBM’s aggressive defense of its pre-Internet patents hasn’t dinged every Internet company. When Chewy pushed back on IBM’s patent infringement claims in 2021, the pet supplier managed to beat IBM’s claims by proving in 2022 that its platform was non-infringing, Reuters reported.

Through that lawsuit, the public got a rare look into how IBM values its patents, attempting to get Chewy to agree to pay $36 million to license its technologies before suing to demand at least $83 million in damages for alleged infringement. In the end, Chewy was right to refuse to license the tech just to avoid a court battle.

Now that some of IBM’s early patents have become invalid, IBM’s patent-licensing machine may start slowing down.

For Zynga, the cost of fighting IBM so far has not restricted access to its games or forced Zynga to redesign its platforms to be non-infringing, which were remedies sought in IBM’s initial prayer for relief in the lawsuit. But overturning the jury’s verdict to avoid paying millions in damages may be a harder hurdle to clear, as a jury has rejected what may be Zynga’s best defense, and the jury’s notes and unredacted verdict remain sealed.

According to Take-Two’s SEC filing, the jury got it wrong, and Take-Two plans to prove it: “Zynga believes this result is not supported by the facts and the law and intends to seek to overturn the verdict and reduce or eliminate the damages award through post-trial motions and appeal.”

Zynga owes IBM $45M after using 1980s patented technology for hit games Read More »

russian-state-media-outlet-rt-banned-by-facebook-“for-foreign-interference”

Russian state media outlet RT banned by Facebook “for foreign interference”

Still on X, though —

US said Russian media worked with Kremlin to influence election, foment unrest.

Russia President Vladimir Putin hands a bouquet of flowers to editor-in-chief of Russian broadcaster RT Margarita Simonyan.

Enlarge / Russia President Vladimir Putin presents flowers to editor-in-chief of Russian broadcaster RT Margarita Simonyan after awarding her with the “Order of Alexander Nevsky” during a ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 23, 2019.

Getty Images | Evgenia Novozhenina

Meta yesterday announced a ban on Russian state media outlets RT (formerly Russia Today) and Rossiya Segodnya, taking action three days after the US government imposed sanctions on the outlets for covert influence activities.

“After careful consideration, we expanded our ongoing enforcement against Russian state media outlets: Rossiya Segodnya, RT and other related entities are now banned from our apps globally for foreign interference activity,” Meta said in a statement provided to Ars. Meta is the owner of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads.

Meta already blocked RT and Rossiya Segodnya’s Sputnik network across Europe in March 2022, following a ban imposed by European Union government officials. YouTube blocked the channels worldwide. At the time, Vladimir Putin’s government was telling Russian media outlets not to call the invasion of Ukraine “an attack,” “invasion,” or “declaration of war.”

Although Meta didn’t block RT worldwide in 2022, it did impose worldwide restrictions on Russian state media. Meta said today that those restrictions prevented Russian state media from running ads, placed the state media content lower in people’s feeds, and added “nudges” asking users to confirm that they want to share or navigate to content from those outlets.

US says RT worked with Kremlin to foment unrest

Meta’s new worldwide ban comes after the US State Department said on Friday that it was designating Russian state media outlets “for their connection to Russia’s destabilizing actions abroad.” The US said it obtained new information from employees of RT and other sources showing that RT has “engaged in information operations, covert influence, and military procurement. These operations are targeting countries around the world, including in Europe, Africa, and North and South America.”

The US State Department said the government is “not taking action against these entities and individuals for the content of their reporting, or even the disinformation they create and spread publicly. We are taking action against them for their covert influence activities. Covert influence activities are not journalism.”

The US alleged that “RT and employees, including Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, have directly coordinated with the Kremlin to support Russian government efforts to influence the October 2024 Moldovan election. Specifically, in coordination with the Kremlin, Simonyan leverages the state-funded platforms for which she serves in leadership positions… to attempt to foment unrest in Moldova, likely with the specific aim of causing protests to turn violent. RT is aware of and prepared to assist Russia’s plans to incite protests should the election not result in a Russia-preferred candidate winning the presidency.”

The US also said that people “affiliated with Rossiya Segodnya coordinated with the Kremlin to attempt to foment unrest in Moldova, likely with the specific aim of causing protests to turn violent.” While RT is funded by Russia, Rossiya Segodnya is both state-owned and state-funded, the US said.

The US action blocks most transactions involving the designated entities, and “all property and interests in property of the designated persons described above that are in the United States or in possession or control of US persons are blocked and must be reported to the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control,” the US said. The designation applies to Rossiya Segodnya and TV-Novosti, the latter of which is a federally funded organization that is “associated with Rossiya Segodnya and controls the RT media channel,” the US said. The US also designated Dmitry Konstantinovich Kiselev, the director general of Rossiya Segodnya.

RT: “We’ve been broadcasting straight out of the KGB”

RT has issued sarcastic responses to the US government and Meta actions. “RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan joked that RT had learned from the Americans, rather than from Russian intelligence officers,” an RT article on the Meta ban said today.

When contacted by Ars today, RT’s press office gave us a statement saying the organization will “find the cracks to crawl through” despite the Meta ban. RT’s statement read in full:

It’s cute how there’s a competition in the West—who can try to spank RT the hardest, in order to make themselves look better. Meta/Facebook already blocked RT in Europe two years ago, now they’re censoring information flow to the rest of the world. Don’t worry, where they close a door, and then a window, our ‘partisans’ (or in your parlance, guerrilla fighters) will find the cracks to crawl through—as by Biden administration’s admission we are apt at doing.

After the State Department action last week, “RT responded with a mocking email that read in part: ‘We’ve been broadcasting straight out of the KGB headquarters all this time,'” according to CNN.

RT is still active on X, formerly Twitter. “On behalf of our team: Silence us all you want, but there’s no way to silence the truth,” the organization said.

We contacted Rossiya Segodnya today and will update this article if it provides comment.

Russian state media outlet RT banned by Facebook “for foreign interference” Read More »

us-can’t-ban-tiktok-for-security-reasons-while-ignoring-temu,-other-apps

US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps

Andrew J. Pincus, attorney for TikTok and ByteDance, leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman US Court House with members of his legal team as the U.S. Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in the case <em>TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland</em> on September 16 in Washington, DC. ” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/GettyImages-2172424134-800×620.jpg”></img><figcaption>
<p><a data-height=Enlarge / Andrew J. Pincus, attorney for TikTok and ByteDance, leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman US Court House with members of his legal team as the U.S. Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in the case TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland on September 16 in Washington, DC.

The fight to keep TikTok operating unchanged in the US reached an appeals court Monday, where TikTok and US-based creators teamed up to defend one of the world’s most popular apps from a potential US ban.

TikTok lawyer Andrew Pincus kicked things off by warning a three-judge panel that a law targeting foreign adversaries that requires TikTok to divest from its allegedly China-controlled owner, ByteDance, is “unprecedented” and could have “staggering” effects on “the speech of 170 million Americans.”

Pincus argued that the US government was “for the first time in history” attempting to ban speech by a specific US speaker—namely, TikTok US, the US-based entity that allegedly curates the content that Americans see on the app.

The government justified the law by claiming that TikTok may in the future pose a national security risk because updates to the app’s source code occur in China. Essentially, the US is concerned that TikTok collecting data in the US makes it possible for the Chinese government to both spy on Americans and influence Americans by manipulating TikTok content.

But Pincus argued that there’s no evidence of that, only the FBI warning “about the potential that the Chinese Communist Party could use TikTok to threaten US homeland security, censor dissidents, and spread its malign influence on US soil.” And because the law carves out China-owned and controlled e-commerce apps like Temu and Shein—which a US commission deemed a possible danger and allegedly process even more sensitive data than TikTok—the national security justification for targeting TikTok is seemingly so under-inclusive as to be fatal to the government’s argument, Pincus argued.

Jeffrey Fisher, a lawyer for TikTok creators, agreed, warning the panel that “what the Supreme Court tells us when it comes to under-inclusive arguments is” that they “often” are “a signal that something else is at play.”

Daniel Tenny, a lawyer representing the US government, defended Congress’ motivations for passing the law, explaining that the data TikTok collects is “extremely valuable to a foreign adversary trying to compromise the security” of the US. He further argued that a foreign adversary controlling “what content is shown to Americans” is just as problematic.

Rather than targeting Americans’ expression on the app, Tenny argued that because ByteDance controls TikTok’s source code, the speech on TikTok is not American speech but “expression by Chinese engineers in China.” This is the “core point” that the US hopes the appeals court will embrace, that as long as ByteDance oversees TikTok’s source code, the US will have justified concerns about TikTok data security and content manipulation. The only solution, the US government argues, is divestment.

TikTok has long argued that divestment isn’t an option and that the law will force a ban. Pincus told the court that the “critical issue” with the US government’s case is that the US does not have any evidence that TikTok US is under Chinese control. Because the US is only concerned about some “future Chinese control,” the burden that the law places on speech must meet the highest standard of constitutional scrutiny. Any finding otherwise, Pincus warned the court, risked turning the First Amendment “on its head,” potentially allowing the government to point to foreign ownership to justify regulating US speech on any platform.

But as the panel explained, the US government had tried for two years to negotiate with ByteDance and find through Project Texas a way to maintain TikTok in the US while avoiding national security concerns. Because every attempt to find a suitable national security arrangement has seemingly failed, Congress was potentially justified in passing the law, the panel suggested, especially if the court rules that the law is really just trying to address foreign ownership—not regulate content. And even though the law currently only targets TikTok directly, the government could argue that’s seemingly because TikTok is so far the only foreign adversary-controlled company flagged as a potential national security risk, the panel suggested.

TikTok insisted that divestment is not the answer and that Congress has made no effort to find a better solution. Pincus argued that the US did not consider less restrictive means for achieving the law’s objectives without burdening speech on TikTok, such as a disclosure mechanism that could prevent covert influence on the app by a foreign adversary.

But US circuit judge Neomi Rao pushed back on this, suggesting that disclosure maybe isn’t “always” the only appropriate mechanism to block propaganda in the US—especially when the US government has no way to quickly assess constantly updated TikTok source code developed in China. Pincus had confirmed that any covert content manipulation uncovered on the app would only be discovered after users were exposed.

“They say it would take three years to just review the existing code,” Rao said. “How are you supposed to have disclosure in that circumstance?”

“I think disclosure has been the historic answer for covert content manipulation,” Pincus told the court, branding the current law as “unusual” for targeting TikTok and asking the court to overturn the alleged ban.

The government has given ByteDance until mid-January to sell TikTok, or else the app risks being banned in the US. The appeals court is expected to rule by early December.

US can’t ban TikTok for security reasons while ignoring Temu, other apps Read More »