Policy – Page 19

Brazil judge seizes cash from Starlink to cover fine imposed on Elon Musk’s X

Forced withdrawal —

Starlink and X treated as one economic group, forcing both to pay X fines.

Jon Brodkin – Sep 16, 2024 8: 04 pm UTC

A supporter of former Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro holds a sign that has a picture of Elon Musk and the text, — Enlarge / Supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro participate in an event in the central area of Sao Paulo, Brazil, on September 7, 2024. Bolsonaro backers called for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

Getty Images | NurPhoto

Brazil seized about $2 million from a Starlink bank account and another $1.3 million from X to collect on fines issued to Elon Musk’s social network, the country’s Supreme Court announced Friday.

Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes previously froze the accounts of both companies, treating them as the same de facto economic group because both are controlled by Musk. The Starlink and X bank accounts were unfrozen last week after the money transfers ordered by de Moraes.

Two banks carried out orders to transfer the money from Starlink and X to Brazil’s government. “After the payment of the full amount that was owed, the justice (de Moraes) considered there was no need to keep the bank accounts frozen and ordered the immediate unfreezing of bank accounts/financial assets,” the court said, as quoted by The Associated Press.

The suspension of X’s social platform, formerly named Twitter, remains in place. The dispute began several months ago when Musk said he would disobey an order from de Moraes to suspend dozens of accounts accused of spreading disinformation. De Moraes later ordered the X social platform to be blocked by Internet service providers. X closed its office in Brazil and did not pay the fines.

Starlink initially said it would refuse to block X on its broadband service until the government unfroze its assets. Starlink quickly backtracked, agreeing to block X, but said it would fight the asset freeze in court. The Brazil Supreme Court’s announcement of the money transfers said that Starlink and X missed a deadline to appeal the finding that they are part of the same de facto economic group.

Shotwell accused justice of “harassing Starlink”

Starlink has called the order to freeze its assets “an unfounded determination that Starlink should be responsible for the fines levied—unconstitutionally—against X.” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell accused de Moraes of “harassing Starlink.”

X has said that de Moraes targeted the platform “simply because we would not comply with his illegal orders to censor his political opponents.” X also argued that it is not defying Brazilian law.

“We are absolutely not insisting that other countries have the same free speech laws as the United States. The fundamental issue at stake here is that Judge de Moraes demands we break Brazil’s own laws. We simply won’t do that,” X’s Global Government Affairs account wrote.

As noted by CNBC, Brazilian news agency UOL reported last week “that some of the accounts de Moraes ordered Musk to suspend at X belong to users who allegedly threatened federal police officers involved in a probe of former right-wing Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.”

Bolsonaro was accused of instigating the January 8, 2023, attack on the Brazilian Congress that occurred after Bolsonaro’s election loss. Bolsonaro and his supporters praised Musk in April of this year after Musk’s decision to defy the orders to block X accounts associated with Bolsonaro supporters.

Brazil judge seizes cash from Starlink to cover fine imposed on Elon Musk’s X Read More »

“Fascists”: Elon Musk responds to proposed fines for disinformation on X

australia, disinformation, elon musk, misinformation, Policy, syndication, Twitter, X / Mike M. / September 14, 2024

Being responsible is so hard —

“Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,” says lawmaker.

Nic Fildes, Financial Times – Sep 13, 2024 1: 32 pm UTC

Getty Images | Dan Kitwood

Elon Musk has lambasted Australia’s government as “fascists” over proposed laws that could levy substantial fines on social media companies if they fail to comply with rules to combat the spread of disinformation and online scams.

The billionaire owner of social media site X posted the word “fascists” on Friday in response to the bill, which would strengthen the Australian media regulator’s ability to hold companies responsible for the content on their platforms and levy potential fines of up to 5 percent of global revenue. The bill, which was proposed this week, has yet to be passed.

Musk’s comments drew rebukes from senior Australian politicians, with Stephen Jones, Australia’s finance minister, telling national broadcaster ABC that it was “crackpot stuff” and the legislation was a matter of sovereignty.

Bill Shorten, the former leader of the Labor Party and a cabinet minister, accused the billionaire of only championing free speech when it was in his commercial interests. “Elon Musk’s had more positions on free speech than the Kama Sutra,” Shorten said in an interview with Australian radio.

The exchange marks the second time that Musk has confronted Australia over technology regulation.

In May, he accused the country’s eSafety Commissioner of censorship after the government agency took X to court in an effort to force it to remove graphic videos of a stabbing attack in Sydney. A court later denied the eSafety Commissioner’s application.

Musk has also been embroiled in a bitter dispute with authorities in Brazil, where the Supreme Court ruled last month that X should be blocked over its failure to remove or suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hateful content.

Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to regulate the technology sector, pitting it against some of the world’s largest social media companies.

This week, the government pledged to introduce a minimum age limit for social media use to tackle “screen addiction” among young people.

In March, Canberra threatened to take action against Meta after the owner of Facebook and Instagram said it would withdraw from a world-first deal to pay media companies to link to news stories.

The government also introduced new data privacy measures to parliament on Thursday that would impose hefty fines and potential jail terms of up to seven years for people found guilty of “doxxing” individuals or groups.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government had pledged to outlaw doxxing—the publication of personal details online for malicious purposes—this year after the details of a private WhatsApp group containing hundreds of Jewish Australians were published online.

Australia is one of the first countries to pursue laws outlawing doxxing. It is also expected to introduce a tranche of laws in the coming months to regulate how personal data can be used by artificial intelligence.

“These reforms give more teeth to the regulation,” said Monique Azzopardi at law firm Clayton Utz.

“Fascists”: Elon Musk responds to proposed fines for disinformation on X Read More »

Biden moves to crack down on Shein and Temu, slow shipments into US

Biden, china, Consumer protection, e-commerce, online e-commerce, Policy, shein, temu, trade act / Paul Patrick / September 13, 2024

The Biden administration has proposed rules that could make it more costly for Chinese e-commerce platforms like Shein and Temu to ship goods into the US.

In his announcement proposing to crack down on “unsafe, unfairly traded products,” President Joe Biden accused China-founded e-commerce platforms selling cheap goods of abusing the “de minimis exemption” that makes shipments valued under $800 duty-free.

Platforms taking advantage of the exemption can share less information on packages and dodge taxes. Biden warned that “over the last 10 years, the number of shipments entering the United States claiming the de minimis exemption has increased significantly, from approximately 140 million a year to over 1 billion a year.” And the “majority of shipments entering the United States claiming the de minimis exemption originate from several China-founded e-commerce platforms,” Biden said.

As a result, America has been flooded with “huge volumes of low-value products such as textiles and apparel” that compete in the market “duty-free,” Biden said. And this “makes it increasingly difficult to target and block illegal or unsafe shipments” presumably lost in the flood.

Allowing this alleged abuse to continue would not just hurt US businesses like H&M and Zara that increasingly struggle to compete with platforms like Shein and Temu, Biden alleged. It would also allegedly make it “more challenging to enforce US trade laws, health and safety requirements, intellectual property rights, consumer protection rules, and to block illicit synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and synthetic drug raw materials and machinery from entering the country.”

Raising duties could make cheap goods shipped from China more expensive, potentially raising prices for consumers who clearly flocked to Shein and Temu to fulfill their shopping needs as the pandemic strained families’ wallets and the economy.

Specifically, Biden has proposed to exclude from the de minimis exemption all shipments “containing products covered by tariffs imposed under Sections 201 or 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, or Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.” That would include, Biden specified, “some e-commerce platforms and other foreign sellers” that currently “circumvent these tariffs by shipping items from China to the United States” and “claiming the de minimis exemption.”

New rules would also require e-commerce platforms to share more information on shipments, “including the 10-digit tariff classification number and the person claiming the de minimis exemption.” That would help weed out unlawful de minimis shipments, Biden suggested.

Shein and Temu defend business models

Neither Shein nor Temu seem ready to let the proposed guidance slow down their rapid growth.

“Since Temu’s launch in September 2022, our mission has been to offer consumers a wider selection of quality products at affordable prices,” Temu’s spokesperson told Ars. “We achieve this through an efficient business model that cuts out unnecessary middlemen, allowing us to pass savings directly to our customers.”

Temu’s spokesperson told Ars that the company is currently reviewing the new rule proposals and remains “committed to delivering value to consumers.”

“Temu’s growth does not depend on the de minimis policy,” Temu’s spokesperson told Ars.

Shein similarly does not seem fazed by the announcement. Starting this year, Shein began voluntarily sharing additional information on its low-value shipments into the US as part of a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pilot program. That change came after CBP expanded the pilot last year in its mission to test out ways to “identify and target high-risk shipments for inspection while expediting clearance of legitimate trade flows.”

Shein’s spokesperson told Ars that “Shein makes import compliance a top priority, including the reporting requirements under US law with respect to de minimis entries.”

Last year, Shein executive vice chairman Donald Tang proposed what he thought would be good de minimis reforms “to create a level, transparent playing field.” In a letter to an American trade association representing more than 1,000 famous brands, the American Apparel and Footwear Association, Tang called for applying the same rules evenly, no matter where a company is based or ships from.

This would enhance consumer trust, Tang suggested, while creating “an environment that allows companies to compete on the quality and authenticity of their product, the caliber of their business models, and the performance of their customer service, which has always been at the heart of American enterprise.”

Biden moves to crack down on Shein and Temu, slow shipments into US Read More »

Boeing risks losing billions as 33,000 workers vote to strike

Boeing, Boeing strike, national labor relations board, Policy, unfair labor practices / Paul Patrick / September 13, 2024

Enlarge / Union members cheer during a news conference following a vote count on the union contract at the IAM District 751 Main Union Hall in Seattle, Washington, US, on Thursday, Sept. 12, 2024.

More than 33,000 unionized Boeing workers went on strike Friday, rejecting what they say were unfair terms of a deal the embattled aerospace company tentatively reached with their union.

The rejected deal tried and failed to win over workers by offering a 25 percent wage increase and promised to build Boeing’s next jet in the Puget Sound region in Washington, which Boeing claimed offered “job security for generations to come.”

But after International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 751 president Jon Holden urged the union to accept the deal—which Boeing said was the “largest-ever general wage increase” in the company’s history—hundreds of Boeing employees immediately began resisting ahead of a Thursday vote that ultimately doomed the deal.

Instead of agreeing to a deal that compromised the desired 40 percent wage increases and eliminated workers’ annual bonuses, about 96 percent of workers voted to strike, The Washington Post reported. Rather than take what Boeing offered, workers seized rare leverage amid Boeing’s financial and production woes to pursue better terms.

“We’ve got a lot of leverage—why waste that?” Joe Philbin, a structures mechanic, told the Post ahead of the vote in a Seattle union hall Thursday. Philbin has only been with Boeing for six months but already wants changes in mandatory overtime rules.

An overwhelming majority of the union agreed that the deal was not good enough, so Holden told the gathered workers, “We strike at midnight.”

The statement incited loud cheers from workers who chanted, “Strike! Strike! Strike!”

Boeing workers have not walked out since 2008, when a 57-day strike cost Boeing about $1.5 billion, the Post reported. Analysts told Bloomberg that the current strike is estimated to last about 50 days, too, potentially costing Boeing between $3 billion and $3.5 billion.

The aerospace company cannot afford any work stoppage—let alone a strike from workers playing “a key role in assembling some of the company’s best-selling aircraft,” which the Post said could be the company’s “most disrupting challenge yet.” Analysts told the Post that on top of assembly delays in critical plants in Washington, an extended strike could hurt Boeing suppliers and Boeing’s market share.

Boeing’s spokesperson told Ars that the company is eager to get back to the bargaining table.

“The message was clear that the tentative agreement we reached with IAM leadership was not acceptable to the members,” Boeing’s spokesperson said. “We remain committed to resetting our relationship with our employees and the union, and we are ready to get back to the table to reach a new agreement.”

Why did Boeing workers reject the deal?

Boeing likely anticipated that the deal wasn’t good enough after Holden told The Seattle Times on Wednesday that workers would probably vote to strike.

Two days before that, Holden posted a message to workers after receiving “hundreds of messages and emails” expressing concerns about the tentative deal that he recommended that they accept.

“Emotions are high,” Holden acknowledged.

Holden told workers that it would have been impossible to respond to everyone individually and reassured them that the tentative deal was not binding.

“A Tentative Agreement is not certain or fixed, and it’s certainly not final,” Holden told workers. He further clarified that the deal simply represented the best terms that the union could get Boeing to agree to without a strike.

Boeing risks losing billions as 33,000 workers vote to strike Read More »

Court clears researchers of defamation for identifying manipulated data

defamation, lawsuit, Policy, Science, Scientific Misconduct / Kris Guyer / September 12, 2024

Evidence-supported conclusions aren’t defamation —

Harvard, however, will still face trial over how it managed the investigation.

John Timmer – Sep 12, 2024 9: 17 pm UTC

A formal red brick building on a college campus. — Enlarge / Harvard Business School was targeted by a faculty member’s lawsuit.

Earlier this year, we got a look at something unusual: the results of an internal investigation conducted by Harvard Business School that concluded one of its star faculty members had committed research misconduct. Normally, these reports are kept confidential, leaving questions regarding the methods and extent of data manipulations.

But in this case, the report became public because the researcher had filed a lawsuit that alleged defamation on the part of the team of data detectives that had first identified potential cases of fabricated data, as well as Harvard Business School itself. Now, the court has ruled on motions to dismiss the case. While the suit against Harvard will go on, the court has ruled that evidence-backed conclusions regarding fabricated data cannot constitute defamation—which is probably a very good thing for science.

Data and defamation

The researchers who had been sued, Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joe Simmons, run a blog called Data Colada where, among other things, they note cases of suspicious-looking data in the behavioral sciences. As we detailed in our earlier coverage, they published a series of blog posts describing an apparent case of fabricated data in four different papers published by the high-profile researcher Francesca Gino, a professor at Harvard Business School.

The researchers also submitted the evidence to Harvard, which ran its own investigation that included interviewing the researchers involved and examining many of the original data files behind the paper. In the end, Harvard determined that research misconduct had been committed, placed Gino on administrative leave and considered revoking her tenure. Harvard contacted the journals where the papers were published to inform them that the underlying data was unreliable.

Gino then filed suit alleging that Harvard had breached their contract with her, defamed her, and interfered with her relationship with the publisher of her books. She also added defamation accusations against the Data Colada team. Both Harvard and the Data Colada collective filed a motion to have all the actions dismissed, which brings us to this new decision.

Harvard got a mixed outcome. This appears to largely be the result that the Harvard Business School adopted a new and temporary policy for addressing research misconduct when the accusations against Gino came in. This, according to the court, leaves questions regarding whether the university had breached its contract with her.

However, most of the rest of the suit was dismissed. The judge ruled that the university informing Gino’s colleagues that Gino had been placed on administrative leave does not constitute defamation. Nor do the notices requesting retractions sent to the journals where the papers were published. “I find the Retraction Notices amount ‘only to a statement of [Harvard Business School]’s evolving, subjective view or interpretation of its investigation into inaccuracies in certain [data] contained in the articles,’ rather than defamation,” the judge decided.

Colada in the clear

More critically, the researchers had every allegation against them thrown out. Here, the fact that the accusations involved evidence-based conclusions, and were presented with typical scientific caution, ended up protecting the researchers.

The court cites precedent to note that “[s]cientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation” and concludes that the material sent to Harvard “constitutes the Data Colada Defendants’ subjective interpretation of the facts available to them.” Since it had already been determined that Gino was a public figure due to her high-profile academic career, this does not rise to the standard of defamation.

And, while the Data Colada team was pretty definitive in determining that data manipulation had taken place, its members were cautious about acknowledging that the evidence they had did not clearly indicate Gino was the one who had performed the manipulation.

Finally, it was striking that the researchers had protected themselves by providing links to the data sources they’d used to draw their conclusions. The decision cites a precedent that indicates “by providing hyperlinks to the relevant information, the articles enable readers to review the underlying information for themselves and reach their own conclusions.”

So, overall, it appears that, by couching their accusations in the cautious language typical of scientific writing, the researchers ended up protecting themselves from accusations of defamation.

That’s an important message for scientists in general. One of the striking developments of the last few years has been the development of online communities where scientists identify and discuss instances of image and data manipulation, some of which have ultimately resulted in retractions and other career consequences. Every now and again, these activities have resulted in threats of lawsuits against these researchers or journalists who report on the issue. Occasionally, suits get filed.

Ultimately, it’s probably good for the scientific record that these suits are unlikely to succeed.

Court clears researchers of defamation for identifying manipulated data Read More »

US sting of online gun part sales started with a shipment marked “fidget spinner”

china, china imports, clearnet, dark web, domain seizures, Glock, gun parts, homeland security investigations, Policy, silencer, Switch, website seizures / Paul Patrick / September 12, 2024

Hidden cargo —

US seizes 350 sites that masked gun part imports from China as toys, jewelry.

Ashley Belanger – Sep 12, 2024 5: 00 pm UTC

Federal authorities have seized more than 350 websites after an undercover investigation revealed that the sites were used to illegally import gun parts into the US from China. To get the illegal items through customs, the sites described the items as toys, necklaces, car parts, tools, and even a fidget spinner.

The sites violated import bans and the National Firearms Act by selling switches—which are “parts designed to convert semiautomatic pistols into fully automatic machineguns”—and silencers—which “suppress the sound of a firearm when discharged,” a Department of Justice press release said.

Some sites also marketed counterfeit Glock parts, infringing trademark laws, including a phony Glock switch that Glock confirmed to investigators was “never manufactured.”

To mask the illegal sales, some sites used domain names referencing “auto parts,” “fuel filters,” or “solvent traps,” a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) assigned to the Boston Field Office, Adam Rayho, wrote in an affidavit supporting the domain seizures. Further, some sites actually sold legitimate merchandise, including car products and home supplies, seemingly to obscure the illegal sales.

Others further infringed on Glock trademarks by including Glock or Glock products in the domain names, Rayho wrote.

“The seizure of these domains is a critical step in disrupting the flow of dangerous contraband that threatens public safety,” Acting US Attorney Joshua S. Levy said in the DOJ’s press release. “Those who attempt to exploit online platforms to traffic in highly lethal firearm parts will be held accountable. We will continue to pursue and dismantle these illicit networks wherever they operate to uphold the integrity of our laws and safeguard our communities.”

Feds increasingly seize sites to stop gun part sales

Rayho’s focus is on investigating “crimes that have a nexus to the clearnet or dark web” as part of HSI’s cybercrimes group. His team’s investigation began in August 2023, when the DOJ said that “federal authorities began targeting multiple websites, businesses, and individuals selling, offering for sale, importing, and exporting machinegun conversion devices in violation of federal law.”

This followed through on a HSI promise in 2020 to continue seizing websites to “suppress illicit commerce.” That’s when HSI first used the “novel approach” to shut down a website “wholly dedicated to illegal arms components.” Like many uncovered by Rayho’s team’s sting, that first site seized was disguised as an auto parts site. Previously, HSI had only been “aggressive in the seizure of Internet sites used to facilitate the sale of counterfeit goods.”

To shut down more sites masking illegal gun part sales, Rayho alleged that “an HSI agent acting in an undercover capacity” began visiting the targeted sites in August 2023. The agent found that some sites clearly marketed illegal gun parts while others used false descriptions with pictures and videos of the illegal merchandise. Many sites prompted users to inquire about illegal items on Telegram or WhatsApp and enabled payments by credit card, Apple Pay, or Google Pay. Some sites asked for payment in bitcoins.

Soon after learning how the websites worked, the agent began ordering gun parts, paying between $30 and $200 for shipments. By September 11, 2023, the agent received the first shipment, which contained a phony Glock switch and a silencer. US Customs and Border Protection confirmed that the cargo description for the package claimed that it contained a fidget spinner. Some sites promoted even faster delivery, promising to ship within 24 hours. Every package used a false description to fool customs, successfully pushing gun parts into the US by simply labeling them as objects unlikely to arouse suspicions, such as a tool, a motor, or a necklace. The most common false label was seemingly “toy.”

Also by September, Rayho wrote that HSI had confirmed that several of the seized domains that had been registered on GoDaddy.com appeared to be linked together, “as they had all been purchased by the same Shopper ID.” The agents “also identified additional domains purchased by the Shopper ID.” Rayho suspected that these additional domains were registered to quickly move sites to prevent forfeitures if the original domains were “seized by law enforcement or otherwise shut down.”

“Neither a restraining order nor an injunction is sufficient to guarantee” that sites would be available for forfeiture, Rayho wrote. The site owners “have the ability to move them to another computer/server or a third-party hosting service outside of the United States beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to anywhere in the world,” Rayho wrote, supporting HSI’s bid to seize the websites to prevent illegal gun part sales.

Federal authorities are unlikely to stop seizing domains, as the tactic has proven successful in improving gun safety in the US. Levy confirmed Wednesday that his office “remains committed to protecting our communities from the dangers posed by illegal firearms and firearm accessories, wherever the evidence takes us.”

Ketty Larco-Ward, the inspector in charge of the Boston division of the US Postal Inspection Service (PIS), promised that the PIS is also “committed” to helping federal authorities to “identify those who use the Postal Service to traffic these weapons, remove these illicit items from the mail, and increase the safety of our communities and the Postal Service employees who serve them.”

US sting of online gun part sales started with a shipment marked “fidget spinner” Read More »

Google’s ad tech empire may be $95B and “too big” to sell, analysts warn DOJ

adx, Antitrust law, DoubleClick, Google, google ad manager, google ad tech, google monopoly, online advertising, Policy / Mike M. / September 11, 2024

“Impossible to negotiate” —

Google Ad Manager is key to ad tech monopoly, DOJ aims to prove.

Ashley Belanger – Sep 11, 2024 6: 20 pm UTC

Enlarge / A staffer with the Paul, Weiss legal firm wheels boxes of legal documents into the Albert V. Bryan US Courthouse at the start of a Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google over its advertiing business in Alexandria, Virginia, on September 9, 2024. Google faces its second major antitrust trial in less than a year, with the US government accusing the tech giant of dominating online advertising and stifling competition.

Just a couple of days into the Google ad tech antitrust trial, it seems clear that the heart of the US Department of Justice’s case is proving that Google Ad Manager is the key to the tech giant’s alleged monopoly.

Google Ad Manager is the buy-and-sell side ad tech platform launched following Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick and AdX in 2008 for $3 billion. It is currently used to connect Google’s publisher ad servers with its ad exchanges, tying the two together in a way that allegedly locks the majority of publishers into paying higher fees on the publisher side because they can’t afford to drop Google’s ad exchange.

The DOJ has argued that Google Ad Manager “serves 90 percent of publishers that use the ad tech tools to sell their online ad inventory,” AdAge reported, and through it, Google clearly wields monopoly powers.

In her opening statement, DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood argued that acquisitions helped Google manipulate the rules of ad auctions to maximize profits while making it harder for rivals to enter and compete in the markets Google allegedly monopolized. The DOJ has argued those alleged monopolies are in markets “for publisher ad servers, advertiser ad networks, and the ad exchanges that connect the two,” Reuters reported.

Google has denied this characterization of its ad tech dominance, calling the DOJ’s market definitions too narrow. The tech company also pointed out that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigated and unconditionally approved the DoubleClick merger in 2007, amidst what the FTC described as urgent “high profile public discussions of the competitive merits of the transaction, in which numerous (sometimes conflicting) theories of competitive harm were proposed.” At that time, the FTC concluded that the acquisition “was unlikely to reduce competition in any relevant antitrust market.”

But in its complaint, the DOJ argued that the DoubleClick “acquisition vaulted Google into a commanding position over the tools publishers use to sell advertising opportunities, complementing Google’s existing tool for advertisers, Google Ads, and set the stage for Google’s later exclusionary conduct across the ad tech industry.”

To set things right, at the very least, the DOJ has asked the court to order Google to spin off Google Ad Manager, which may or may not include valuable products like Google’s Display and Video 360 (DV360) platform. There is also the possibility that the US district judge, Leonie Brinkema, could order Google to sell off its ad tech business entirely.

One problem with those proposed remedies, analysts told AdAge, is that no one knows how big Google’s ad tech business really is or the actual value of Google Ad Manager.

Google Ad Manager could be worth less if Google’s DV360 platform isn’t included in the sale or if selling either the publisher or advertiser side cuts out data allowing Google to set the prices that it wants. The CEO of an ad platform called Permutive, Joe Root, told AdAge that “it is hard to say how much of the value of Google’s ads business is because it has this advertiser product and DV360, versus how much of its value comes from Google Ad Manager alone.”

Root doubts that Google Ad Manager is “on its own that valuable.” However, based on “newly released documents for the trial,” some analysts predict that “any new entity spun out of Google” would be “almost too big for any buyer,” AdAge reported.

One estimate from an ad tech consultant who helms a strategic advisory firm called Luma Partners, Terence Kawaja, suggested that Google’s ad tech business as a standalone company “could be worth up to $95 billion” today, AdAge reported.

“You can’t divest $100 billion,” Kawaja said. “There is no buyer for it. [Google] would have to spin it off to shareholders, that’s how any forced remedy would manifest.”

Google’s ad tech empire may be $95B and “too big” to sell, analysts warn DOJ Read More »

Proposed underwater data center surprises regulators who hadn’t heard about it

AI, climate change, data centers, Policy, syndication / Paul Patrick / September 11, 2024

Data centers powering the generative AI boom are gulping water and exhausting electricity at what some researchers view as an unsustainable pace. Two entrepreneurs who met in high school a few years ago want to overcome that crunch with a fresh experiment: sinking the cloud into the sea.

Sam Mendel and Eric Kim launched their company, NetworkOcean, out of startup accelerator Y Combinator on August 15 by announcing plans to dunk a small capsule filled with GPU servers into San Francisco Bay within a month. “There’s this vital opportunity to build more efficient computer infrastructure that we’re gonna rely on for decades to come,” Mendel says.

The founders contend that moving data centers off land would slow ocean temperature rise by drawing less power and letting seawater cool the capsule’s shell, supplementing its internal cooling system. NetworkOcean’s founders have said a location in the bay would deliver fast processing speeds for the region’s buzzing AI economy.

But scientists who study the hundreds of square miles of brackish water say even the slightest heat or disturbance from NetworkOcean’s submersible could trigger toxic algae blooms and harm wildlife. And WIRED inquiries to several California and US agencies who oversee the bay found that NetworkOcean has been pursuing its initial test of an underwater data center without having sought, much less received, any permits from key regulators.

The outreach by WIRED prompted at least two agencies—the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board—to email NetworkOcean that testing without permits could run afoul of laws, according to public records and spokespeople for the agencies. Fines from the BCDC can run up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The nascent technology has already been in hot water in California. In 2016, the state’s coastal commission issued a previously unreported notice to Microsoft saying that the tech giant had violated the law the year before by plunging an unpermitted server vessel into San Luis Obispo Bay, about 250 miles south of San Francisco. The months-long test, part of what was known as Project Natick, had ended without apparent environmental harm by the time the agency learned of it, so officials decided not to fine Microsoft, according to the notice seen by WIRED.

The renewed scrutiny of underwater data centers has surfaced an increasingly common tension between innovative efforts to combat global climate change and long-standing environmental laws. Permitting takes months, if not years, and can cost millions of dollars, potentially impeding progress. Advocates of the laws argue that the process allows for time and input to better weigh trade-offs.

“Things are overregulated because people often don’t do the right thing,” says Thomas Mumley, recently retired assistant executive officer of the bay water board. “You give an inch, they take a mile. We have to be cautious.”

Over the last two weeks, including during an interview at the WIRED office, NetworkOcean’s founders have provided driblets of details about their evolving plans. Their current intention is to test their underwater vessel for about an hour, just below the surface of what Mendel would only describe as a privately owned and operated portion of the bay that he says is not subject to regulatory oversight. He insists that a permit is not required based on the location, design, and minimal impact. “We have been told by our potential testing site that our setup is environmentally benign,” Mendel says.

Mumley, the retired regulator, calls the assertion about not needing a permit “absurd.” Both Bella Castrodale, the BCDC’s lead enforcement attorney, and Keith Lichten, a water board division manager, say private sites and a quick dip in the bay aren’t exempt from permitting. Several other experts in bay rules tell WIRED that even if some quirk does preclude oversight, they believe NetworkOcean is sending a poor message to the public by not coordinating with regulators.

“Just because these centers would be out of sight does not mean they are not a major disturbance,” says Jon Rosenfield, science director at San Francisco Baykeeper, a nonprofit that investigates industrial polluters.

School project

Mendel and Kim say they tried to develop an underwater renewable energy device together during high school in Southern California before moving onto non-nautical pursuits. Mendel, 23, dropped out of college in 2022 and founded a platform for social media influencers.

About a year ago, he built a small web server using the DIY system Raspberry Pi to host another personal project, and temporarily floated the equipment in San Francisco Bay by attaching it to a buoy from a private boat in the Sausalito area. (Mendel declined to answer questions about permits.) After talking with Kim, also 23, about this experiment, the two decided to move in together and start NetworkOcean.

Their pitch is that underwater data centers are more affordable to develop and maintain, especially as electricity shortages limit sites on land. Surrounding a tank of hot servers with water naturally helps cools them, avoiding the massive resource drain of air-conditioning and also improving on the similar benefits of floating data centers. Developers of offshore wind farms are eager to electrify NetworkOcean vessels, Mendel says.

Proposed underwater data center surprises regulators who hadn’t heard about it Read More »

AI ruling on jobless claims could make mistakes courts can’t undo, experts warn

AI, AI bias, ai hallucinations, AI models, Artificial Intelligence, generative ai, Google, google ai, nevada, Policy, unemployment / Rejus Almole / September 10, 2024

Nevada will soon become the first state to use AI to help speed up the decision-making process when ruling on appeals that impact people’s unemployment benefits.

The state’s Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR) agreed to pay Google $1,383,838 for the AI technology, a 2024 budget document shows, and it will be launched within the “next several months,” Nevada officials told Gizmodo.

Nevada’s first-of-its-kind AI will rely on a Google cloud service called Vertex AI Studio. Connecting to Google’s servers, the state will fine-tune the AI system to only reference information from DETR’s database, which officials think will ensure its decisions are “more tailored” and the system provides “more accurate results,” Gizmodo reported.

Under the contract, DETR will essentially transfer data from transcripts of unemployment appeals hearings and rulings, after which Google’s AI system will process that data, upload it to the cloud, and then compare the information to previous cases.

In as little as five minutes, the AI will issue a ruling that would’ve taken a state employee about three hours to reach without using AI, DETR’s information technology administrator, Carl Stanfield, told The Nevada Independent. That’s highly valuable to Nevada, which has a backlog of more than 40,000 appeals stemming from a pandemic-related spike in unemployment claims while dealing with “unforeseen staffing shortages” that DETR reported in July.

“The time saving is pretty phenomenal,” Stanfield said.

As a safeguard, the AI’s determination is then reviewed by a state employee to hopefully catch any mistakes, biases, or perhaps worse, hallucinations where the AI could possibly make up facts that could impact the outcome of their case.

Google’s spokesperson Ashley Simms told Gizmodo that the tech giant will work with the state to “identify and address any potential bias” and to “help them comply with federal and state requirements.” According to the state’s AI guidelines, the agency must prioritize ethical use of the AI system, “avoiding biases and ensuring fairness and transparency in decision-making processes.”

If the reviewer accepts the AI ruling, they’ll sign off on it and issue the decision. Otherwise, the reviewer will edit the decision and submit feedback so that DETR can investigate what went wrong.

Gizmodo noted that this novel use of AI “represents a significant experiment by state officials and Google in allowing generative AI to influence a high-stakes government decision—one that could put thousands of dollars in unemployed Nevadans’ pockets or take it away.”

Google declined to comment on whether more states are considering using AI to weigh jobless claims.

AI ruling on jobless claims could make mistakes courts can’t undo, experts warn Read More »

“HAIL HOLY TERROR”: Two US citizens charged for running online “Terrorgram Collective”

culture, Policy, telegram, terrorgram, Terrorism, violence / Mike M. / September 10, 2024

out in the open —

White accelerationist terror meets social media.

Nate Anderson – Sep 10, 2024 9: 31 pm UTC

The US government recently announced multiple charges against the alleged leaders of the “Terrorgram Collective,” which does just what it sounds like—it promotes terrorism on the Telegram messaging platform. In this case, the terrorism was white racial terror, complete with a “hit list” of US officials and activists, a homemade “White Terror” video glorifying “saints” who had killed others, and instructions for taking down US infrastructure such as electrical substation transformers. (Read the indictment.)

The group's criteria for — Enlarge / The group’s criteria for “sainthood.”

Chaos was the point. Terrorgram promoted “white supremacist accelerationism,” which believes that society must be incited into a civil war or apocalyptic confrontation in order to bring down the existing system of government and establish a white nationalist state.

The group’s manifestos and chat rooms sometimes felt suffused with the habits of the extremely online: hand-clap emojis between every important word, instructional videos on how to make bombs, the language of trolling, catchphrases so over the top they sound ironic (“HAIL HOLY TERROR” in all caps).

Despite using technology to organize and publicize its ideology, though, the group was skeptical of technology—or at least of certain kinds. “Do not let those technophiles have a day of rest!” said one post encouraging its readers to go after the local power grid.

“LEAVE. YOUR. PHONE. AT. HOME,” said another. “Death to the grid. Death to the System,” concluded a third. The group’s accelerationist manifesto was called “Hard Reset.”

Enlarge / An “encyclopedia” of killers, produced by Terrorgram.

But they were apparently happy to use other tech to spread the word. One Terrorgram publication was called “Do it for the Gram,” and Terrorgram admins created audiobooks of shooter manifestos, such as “A White Boy Summer to Remember.”

But Telegram, which combines the wider reach of channels and chat rooms (unencrypted) with the possibility of direct messaging (which can be encrypted), was a favorite spot for recruiting and sharing information. According to the government, Dallas Humber (34) of Elk Grove, California, and Matthew Allison (37) of Boise, Idaho, were the leaders of Terrorgram, which they appear to have run out in the open.

The group constantly encouraged violence, and it stressed the need for attackers to mentally prepare themselves to kill so as not to chicken out. But neither Humber nor Allison are accused of violence themselves; they seem to have been content to cheer on new martyrs to their cause.

The government traces several real-world killers to the Terrorgram community, including a 19-year-old from Slovakia who, in 2022, killed two people at an LGBTQ+ bar in Bratislava before sending his manifesto to Allison and then killing himself in a park. The manifesto specifically listed “Hard Reset” in its “Recommended Reading” section.

“HAIL HOLY TERROR”: Two US citizens charged for running online “Terrorgram Collective” Read More »

DOJ claims Google has “trifecta of monopolies” on Day 1 of ad tech trial

ad tech, Antitrust law, Google, google ad manager, monopoly, online advertising, Policy / Mike M. / September 9, 2024

Enlarge / Karen Dunn, one of the lawyers representing Google, outside of the Albert V. Bryan US Courthouse at the start of a Department of Justice antitrust trial against Google over its advertiing business in Alexandria, Virginia, on September 9, 2024.

On Monday, the US Department of Justice’s next monopoly trial against Google started in Virginia—this time challenging the tech giant’s ad tech dominance.

The trial comes after Google lost two major cases that proved Google had a monopoly in both general search and the Android app store. During her opening statement, DOJ lawyer Julia Tarver Wood told US District Judge Leonie Brinkema—who will be ruling on the case after Google cut a check to avoid a jury trial—that “it’s worth saying the quiet part out loud,” AP News reported.

“One monopoly is bad enough,” Wood said. “But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”

In its complaint, the DOJ argued that Google broke competition in the ad tech space “by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising.”

The result of such “insidious” allegedly anti-competitive behavior is that today Google pockets at least 30 cents “of each advertising dollar flowing from advertisers to website publishers through Google’s ad tech tools … and sometimes far more,” the DOJ alleged.

Meanwhile, as Google profits off both advertisers and publishers, “website creators earn less, and advertisers pay more” than “they would in a market where unfettered competitive pressure could discipline prices and lead to more innovative ad tech tools,” the DOJ alleged.

On Monday, Wood told Brinkema that Google intentionally put itself in this position to “manipulate the rules of ad auctions to its own benefit,” The Washington Post reported.

“Publishers were understandably furious,” Wood said. “The evidence will show that they could do nothing.”

Wood confirmed that the DOJ planned to call several publishers as witnesses in the coming weeks to explain the harms caused. Expected to take the stand will be “executives from companies including USA Today, [Wall Street] Journal parent company News Corp., and the Daily Mail,” the Post reported.

The ad tech trial, which is expected to last four to six weeks, may be the most consequential of the monopoly trials Google has recently faced, experts have said.

That’s because during the DOJ’s trial proving Google’s monopoly in search, it remained unclear what remedies the DOJ sought. Some ways to destroy Google’s search monopoly could be “unlikely to create meaningful competition” or hurt Google’s bottom line, experts told Ars, but a more drastic order to spin out its Chrome browser or Android operating system could really impact Google’s revenue. It won’t be until December that the DOJ will even provide a rough outline of proposed remedies in that case, Reuters reported, with the judge not expected to rule until next August.

But the DOJ has been very clear about the remedies needed in the ad tech case, “asking Brinkema to order a divestment of Google’s Ad Manager suite of services, which is responsible for many of the rectangular ads that populate the tops and sides of webpages across the Internet,” the Post reported.

Because the most “obvious” remedy would be to require Google to sell off parts of its ad business, experts told AP News that the ad tech trial “could potentially be more harmful to Google” than the search trial. Perhaps at the furthest extreme, antitrust expert Shubha Ghosh told Ars that “if this case goes against Google as the last one did, it could set the stage for splitting it into separate search and advertising companies.”

In the DOJ’s complaint, prosecutors argued that it “is critical to restore competition in these markets by enjoining Google’s anticompetitive practices, unwinding Google’s anticompetitive acquisitions, and imposing a remedy sufficient both to deny Google the fruits of its illegal conduct and to prevent further harm to competition in the future.”

Ghosh said that undoing Google’s acquisitions could lead to Google no longer representing both advertisers’ and sellers’ interests in each ad auction—instead requiring Google to either pick a side or perhaps involve a broker.

Although the Post reported that Google has argued that “customers prefer the convenience of a one-stop shop,” the DOJ hopes to prove that Google’s alleged monopoly has shuttered newspapers across the US and threatens to do more harm if left unchecked.

DOJ claims Google has “trifecta of monopolies” on Day 1 of ad tech trial Read More »

These household brands want to redefine what counts as “recyclable”

plastics, Policy, recycling, syndication / Kris Guyer / September 9, 2024

This story was originally published by ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Most of the products in the typical kitchen use plastics that are virtually impossible to recycle.

The film that acts as a lid on Dole Sunshine fruit bowls, the rings securing jars of McCormick dried herbs, the straws attached to Juicy Juice boxes, the bags that hold Cheez-Its and Cheerios—they’re all destined for the dumpster.

Now a trade group representing those brands and hundreds more is pressuring regulators to make plastic appear more environmentally friendly, a proposal experts say could worsen a crisis that is flooding the planet and our bodies with the toxic material.

The Consumer Brands Association believes companies should be able to stamp “recyclable” on products that are technically “capable” of being recycled, even if they’re all but guaranteed to end up in a landfill. As ProPublica previously reported, the group argued for a looser definition of “recyclable” in written comments to the Federal Trade Commission as the agency revises the Green Guides—guidelines for advertising products with sustainable attributes.

The association’s board of directors includes officials from some of the world’s richest companies, such as PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, Land O’Lakes, Keurig Dr Pepper, Hormel Foods Corporation, Molson Coors Beverage Company, Campbell Soup, Kellanova, Mondelez International, Conagra Brands, J.M. Smucker, and Clorox.

Some of the companies own brands that project health, wellness, and sustainability. That includes General Mills, owner of Annie’s macaroni and cheese; The Honest Co., whose soaps and baby wipes line the shelves at Whole Foods; and Colgate-Palmolive, which owns the natural deodorant Tom’s of Maine.

ProPublica contacted the 51 companies on the association’s board of directors to ask if they agreed with the trade group’s definition of “recyclable.” Most did not respond. None said they disagreed with the definition. Nine companies referred ProPublica back to the association.

“The makers of America’s household brands are committed to creating a more circular economy which is why the industry has set sustainability goals and invested in consumer education tools” with “detailed recycling instructions,” Joseph Aquilina, the association’s vice president and deputy general counsel, wrote in an email.

The Green Guides are meant to increase consumer trust in sustainable products. Though these guidelines are not laws, they serve as a national reference for companies and other government agencies for how to define terms like “compostable,” “nontoxic” and “recyclable.” The Federal Trade Commission is revising the guides for the first time since 2012.

Most of the plastic we encounter is functionally not recyclable. It’s too expensive or technically difficult to deal with the health risks posed by the dyes and flame retardants found in many products. Collecting, sorting, storing and shipping the plastic for reprocessing often costs much more than plowing it into a landfill. Though some newer technologies have pushed the boundaries of what’s possible, these plastic-recycling techniques are inefficient and exist in such limited quantities that experts say they can’t be relied upon. The reality is: Only 5 percent of Americans’ discarded plastic gets recycled. And while soda bottles and milk jugs can be turned into new products, other common forms of plastic, like flimsy candy wrappers and chip bags, are destined for trash heaps and oceans, where they can linger for centuries without breaking down.

The current Green Guides allow companies to label products and packaging as “recyclable” if at least 60 percent of Americans have access to facilities that will take the material. As written, the guidelines don’t specify whether it’s enough for the facilities to simply collect and sort the items or if there needs to be a reasonable expectation that the material will be made into something new.

These household brands want to redefine what counts as “recyclable” Read More »