Policy

trump-revives-unpopular-ted-cruz-plan-to-punish-states-that-impose-ai-laws

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws

The FTC chairman would be required to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

When Cruz proposed a moratorium restricting state AI regulation in mid-2025, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) helped lead the fight against it. “Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens,” Blackburn said at the time.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also spoke out against the Cruz plan, saying it would preempt “good state consumer protection laws” related to robocalls, deepfakes, and autonomous vehicles.

Trump wants Congress to preempt state laws

Besides reviving the Cruz plan, Trump’s draft executive order seeks new legislation to preempt state laws. The order would direct Trump administration officials to “jointly prepare for my review a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal regulatory framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) this week said a ban on state AI laws could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Democrats are trying to keep the ban out of the bill.

“We have to allow states to take the lead because we’re not able to, so far in Washington, come up with appropriate legislation,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Semafor.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump claimed that states are “trying to embed DEI ideology into AI models.” Trump wrote, “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws Read More »

massive-cloudflare-outage-was-triggered-by-file-that-suddenly-doubled-in-size

Massive Cloudflare outage was triggered by file that suddenly doubled in size

Cloudflare’s proxy service has limits to prevent excessive memory consumption, with the bot management system having “a limit on the number of machine learning features that can be used at runtime.” This limit is 200, well above the actual number of features used.

“When the bad file with more than 200 features was propagated to our servers, this limit was hit—resulting in the system panicking” and outputting errors, Prince wrote.

Worst Cloudflare outage since 2019

The number of 5xx error HTTP status codes served by the Cloudflare network is normally “very low” but soared after the bad file spread across the network. “The spike, and subsequent fluctuations, show our system failing due to loading the incorrect feature file,” Prince wrote. “What’s notable is that our system would then recover for a period. This was very unusual behavior for an internal error.”

This unusual behavior was explained by the fact “that the file was being generated every five minutes by a query running on a ClickHouse database cluster, which was being gradually updated to improve permissions management,” Prince wrote. “Bad data was only generated if the query ran on a part of the cluster which had been updated. As a result, every five minutes there was a chance of either a good or a bad set of configuration files being generated and rapidly propagated across the network.”

This fluctuation initially “led us to believe this might be caused by an attack. Eventually, every ClickHouse node was generating the bad configuration file and the fluctuation stabilized in the failing state,” he wrote.

Prince said that Cloudflare “solved the problem by stopping the generation and propagation of the bad feature file and manually inserting a known good file into the feature file distribution queue,” and then “forcing a restart of our core proxy.” The team then worked on “restarting remaining services that had entered a bad state” until the 5xx error code volume returned to normal later in the day.

Prince said the outage was Cloudflare’s worst since 2019 and that the firm is taking steps to protect against similar failures in the future. Cloudflare will work on “hardening ingestion of Cloudflare-generated configuration files in the same way we would for user-generated input; enabling more global kill switches for features; eliminating the ability for core dumps or other error reports to overwhelm system resources; [and] reviewing failure modes for error conditions across all core proxy modules,” according to Prince.

While Prince can’t promise that Cloudflare will never have another outage of the same scale, he said that previous outages have “always led to us building new, more resilient systems.”

Massive Cloudflare outage was triggered by file that suddenly doubled in size Read More »

he-got-sued-for-sharing-public-youtube-videos;-nightmare-ended-in-settlement

He got sued for sharing public YouTube videos; nightmare ended in settlement


Librarian vows to stop invasive ed tech after ending lawsuit with Proctorio.

Librarian Ian Linkletter remains one of Proctorio’s biggest critics after 5-year legal battle. Credit: Ashley Linkletter

Nobody expects to get sued for re-posting a YouTube video on social media by using the “share” button, but librarian Ian Linkletter spent the past five years embroiled in a copyright fight after doing just that.

Now that a settlement has been reached, Linkletter told Ars why he thinks his 2020 tweets sharing public YouTube videos put a target on his back.

Linkletter’s legal nightmare started in 2020 after an education technology company, Proctorio, began monitoring student backlash on Reddit over its AI tool used to remotely scan rooms, identify students, and prevent cheating on exams. On Reddit, students echoed serious concerns raised by researchers, warning of privacy issues, racist and sexist biases, and barriers to students with disabilities.

At that time, Linkletter was a learning technology specialist at the University of British Columbia. He had been aware of Proctorio as a tool that some professors used, but he ultimately joined UBC students criticizing Proctorio, as, practically overnight, it became a default tool that every teacher relied on during the early stages of the pandemic.

To Linkletter, the AI tool not only seemed flawed, but it also seemingly made students more anxious about exams. However, he didn’t post any tweets criticizing the tech—until he grew particularly disturbed to see Proctorio’s CEO, Mike Olsen, “showing up in the comments” on Reddit to fire back at one of his university’s loudest student critics. Defending Proctorio, Olsen roused even more backlash by posting the student’s private chat logs publicly to prove the student “lied” about a support interaction, The Guardian reported.

“If you’re gonna lie bro … don’t do it when the company clearly has an entire transcript of your conversation,” Olsen wrote, later apologizing for the now-deleted post.

“That set me off, and I was just like, this is completely unacceptable for a CEO to be going after our students like this,” Linkletter told Ars.

The more that Linkletter researched Proctorio, the more concerned he became. Taking to then-Twitter, he posted a series of seven tweets over a couple days that linked to YouTube videos that Proctorio hosted in its help center. He felt the videos—which showed how Proctorio flagged certain behaviors, tracked “abnormal” eye and head movements, and scanned rooms—helped demonstrate why students were so upset. And while he had fewer than 1,000 followers, he hoped that the influential higher education administrators who followed him would see his posts and consider dropping the tech.

Rather than request Linkletter remove the tweets—which was the company’s standard practice—Proctorio moved quickly to delete the videos. Proctorio supposedly expected that the removals would put Linkletter on notice to stop tweeting out help center videos. Instead, Linkletter posted a screenshot of the help center showing all the disabled videos, while suggesting that Proctorio seemed so invested in secrecy that it was willing to gut its own support resources to censor criticism of their tools.

Together, the videos, the help center screenshot, and another screenshot showing course material describing how Proctorio works were enough for Proctorio to take Linkletter to court.

The ed tech company promptly filed a lawsuit and obtained a temporary injunction by spuriously claiming that Linkletter shared private YouTube videos containing confidential information. Because the YouTube videos—which were public but “unlisted” when Linkletter shared them—had been removed, Linkletter did not have to delete the seven tweets that initially caught Proctorio’s attention, but the injunction required that he remove two tweets, including the screenshots.

In the five years since, the legal fight dragged on, with no end in sight until last week, as Canadian courts tangled with copyright allegations that tested a recently passed law intended to shield Canadian rights to free expression, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

To fund his defense, Linkletter said in a blog announcing the settlement that he invested his life savings “ten times over.” Additionally, about 900 GoFundMe supporters and thousands of members of the Association of Administrative and Professional Staff at UBC contributed tens of thousands more. For the last year of the battle, a law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright, agreed to represent him on a pro bono basis, which Linkletter said “was a huge relief to me, as it meant I could defend myself all the way if Proctorio chose to proceed with the litigation.”

The terms of the settlement remain confidential, but both Linkletter and Proctorio confirmed that no money was exchanged.

For Proctorio, the settlement made permanent the injunction that restricted Linkletter from posting the company’s help center or instructional materials. But it doesn’t stop Linkletter from remaining the company’s biggest critic, as “there are no other restrictions on my freedom of expression,” Linkletter’s blog noted.

“I’ve won my life back!” Linkletter wrote, while reassuring his supporters that he’s “fine” with how things ended.

“It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why Proctorio is a nightmare for students,” Linkletter wrote. “I can say everything that matters about Proctorio using public information.”

Proctorio’s YouTube “mistake” triggered injunction

In a statement to Ars, Kevin Rockmael, Proctorio’s head of marketing, suggested that the ed tech company sees the settlement as a win.

“After years of successful litigation, we are pleased that this settlement (which did not include any monetary compensation) protects our interests by making our initial restraining order permanent,” Rockmael said. “Most importantly, we are glad to close this chapter and focus our efforts on helping teachers and educational institutions deliver valuable and secure assessments.”

Responding to Rockmael, Linkletter clarified that the settlement upholds a modified injunction, noting that Proctorio’s initial injunction was significantly narrowed after a court ruled it overly broad. Linkletter also pointed to testimony from Proctorio’s former head of marketing, John Devoy, whose affidavit “mistakenly” swearing that Linkletter was sharing private YouTube videos was the sole basis for the court approving the injunction. That testimony, Linkletter told Ars, suggested that Proctorio knew that the librarian had shared videos the company had accidentally made public and used it as “some sort of excuse to pull the trigger” on a lawsuit after Linkletter commented on the sub-Reddit incident.

“Even a child understands how YouTube works, so how are we supposed to trust a surveillance company that doesn’t?” Linkletter wrote in his blog.

Grilled by Linkletter’s lawyer, Devoy insisted that he was not “lying” when he claimed the videos Linkletter shared came from a private channel. Instead—even though he knew the difference between a private and public channel—Devoy claimed that he made a simple mistake, even suggesting that the inaccurate claim was a “typo.”

Linkletter maintains that Proctorio’s lawsuit had nothing to do with the videos he shared—which his legal team discovered had been shared publicly by many parties, including UBC, none of which Proctorio decided to sue. Instead, he felt targeted to silence his criticism of the company, and he successfully fought to keep Proctorio from accessing his private communications, which seemed to be a fishing expedition to find other critics to monitor.

“In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, one of the purposes of the lawsuit was to have a chilling effect on public discourse around proctoring,” Linkletter told Ars. “And it worked. I mean, a lot of people were scared to use the word Proctorio, especially in writing.”

Joe Mullin, a senior policy analyst who monitored Linkletter’s case for the nonprofit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agreed that Proctorio’s lawsuit risked chilling speech.

“We’re glad to see this lawsuit finally resolved in a way that protects Ian Linkletter’s freedom to speak out,” Mullin told Ars, noting that Linkletter “raised serious concerns about proctoring software at a time when students were subjected to unprecedented monitoring.”

“This case should never have dragged on for five years,” Mullin said. “Using copyright claims to retaliate against critics is wrong, and it chills public debate about surveillance technology.”

Preventing the “next” Proctorio

Linkletter is not the only critic to be targeted by Proctorio, Lia Holland, campaigns and communications director for a nonprofit digital rights group called Fight for the Future, told Ars.

Holland’s group was subpoenaed in a US fight after Proctorio sent a copyright infringement notice to Erik Johnson, a then-18-year-old college freshman who shared one of Linkletter’s screenshots. The ensuing litigation was similarly settled after Proctorio “threw every semi-plausible legal weapon at Johnson full force,” Holland told Ars. The pressure forced Johnson to choose between “living his life and his life being this suit from Proctorio,” Holland said.

Linkletter suspected that he and Johnson were added to a “list” of critics that Proctorio closely monitored online, but Proctorio has denied that such a list exists. Holland pushed back, though, telling Ars that Proctorio has “an incredibly long history of fudging the truth in the interest of profit.”

“We’re no strangers to Proctorio’s shady practices when it comes to oppressing dissent or criticism of their technologies,” Holland said. “I am utterly not shocked that they would employ tactics that appear to be doing the same thing when it comes to Ian Linkletter’s case.”

Regardless of Proctorio’s tactics for brand management, it seems clear that public criticism has impacted Proctorio’s sales, though. In 2021, Vice reported that student backlash led some schools to quickly abandon the software. UBC dropped Proctorio in 2021, too, citing “ethical concerns.”

Today, Linkletter works as an emerging technology and open education librarian at the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT). While he considers himself an expert on Proctorio and continues to give lectures discussing harms of academic surveillance software, he’s ready to get away from discussing Proctorio now that the lawsuit has ended.

“I think I will continue to pay attention to what they do and say, and if there’s any new reports of harm that I can elevate,” Linkletter told Ars. “But I have definitely made my points in terms of my specific concerns, and I feel less obliged to spend more and more and more time repeating myself.”

Instead, Linkletter is determined to “prevent the next Proctorio” from potentially blindsiding students on his campus. In his role as vice chair of BCIT’s educational technology and learning design committee, he’s establishing “checks and balances” to ensure that if another pandemic-like situation arises forcing every student to work from home, he can stop “a bunch of creepy stuff” from being rolled out.

“I spent the last year advocating for and implementing algorithmic impact assessments as a mandatory thing that the institute has to do, including identifying how risk is going to be mitigated before we approve any new ed tech ever again,” Linkletter explained.

He also created the Canadian Privacy Library, where he posts privacy impact assessments that he collects by sending freedom-of-information requests to higher education institutions in British Columbia. That’s one way local students could monitor privacy concerns as AI use expands across campuses, increasingly impacting not just how exams are proctored, but how assignments are graded.

Holland told Ars that students concerned about ed tech surveillance “are most powerful when they act in solidarity with each other.” While the pandemic was widely forcing remote learning, student groups were able to successfully remove harmful proctoring tech by “working together so that there was not one single scapegoat or one single face that the ed tech company could go after,” she suggested. Those movements typically start with one or two students learning how the technology works, so that they can educate others about top concerns, Holland said.

Since Linkletter’s lawsuit started, Proctorio has stopped fighting with students on Reddit and suing critics over tweets, Holland said. But Linkletter told Ars that the company still seems to leave students in the dark when it comes to how its software works, and that “could lead to academic discipline for honest students, and unnecessary stress for everyone,” his earliest court filing defending his tweets said.

“I was and am gravely concerned about Proctorio’s lack of transparency about how its algorithms work, and how it labels student behaviours as ‘suspicious,’” Linkletter swore in the filing. One of his deleted tweets urged that all schools have to demand transparency and ask why Proctorio was “hiding” information about how the software worked. But in the end, Linkletter saw no point in continuing to argue over whether two deleted tweets re-posting Proctorio’s videos using YouTube’s sharing tool violated Proctorio’s copyrights.

“I didn’t feel too censored,” Linkletter told Ars. “But yeah, I guess it’s censorship, and I do believe they filed it to try and censor me. But as you can see, I just refused to go down, and I remained their biggest critic.”

As universities prepare to break ahead of the winter holidays, Linkletter told Ars that he’s looking forward to a change in dinner table conversation topics.

“It’s one of those things where I’m 41 and I have aging parents, and I’ve had to waste the last five Christmases talking to them about the lawsuit and their concerns about me,” Linkletter said. “So I’m really looking forward to this Thanksgiving, this Christmas, with this all behind me and the ability to just focus with my parents and my family.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

He got sued for sharing public YouTube videos; nightmare ended in settlement Read More »

gop-overhaul-of-broadband-permit-laws:-cities-hate-it,-cable-companies-love-it

GOP overhaul of broadband permit laws: Cities hate it, cable companies love it

US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, defended the bills at today’s hearing. “These reforms will add much-needed certainty, predictability, and accountability to the broadband permitting process and help expedite deployment,” he said.

Cable lobby group NCTA called the hearing “important progress” toward “the removal of regulatory impediments that slow deployment to unserved areas.” Another cable lobby group, America’s Communications Association, said the permitting reform bills “will strip away red tape and enable broadband, cable, and telecommunications providers to redirect resources to upgrading and expanding their networks and services, especially in rural areas.”

$42 billion program delays

Much of the debate centered on a $42 billion federal program that was created in a November 2021 law to subsidize broadband construction in areas without modern access. The Trump administration threw out a Biden-era plan for distributing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funds, forcing state governments to rewrite their plans and cut costs, delaying the projects’ start. Money still hasn’t been distributed, though the Trump administration today said it approved the rewritten plans of 18 states and territories.

Hudson alleged that BEAD suffered from “four years of delays caused by the Biden-Harris administration,” though the Biden administration had approximately three years to set up the program. Hudson said that “permitting reform is essential” to prevent the money from being “tied up in further unnecessary reviews and bureaucratic delays.”

The bills set varying deadlines for different types of network projects, ranging from 60 days to 150 days. One bill demands that permit fees for BEAD construction projects be based on the local government’s “actual and direct costs.” Another stipulates that certain environmental and historical preservation reviews aren’t required when removing equipment targeted by a 2019 law on foreign technology deemed to be a security risk.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the subcommittee’s top Democrat, said during the hearing that she won’t support “proposals that force local governments to meet tight deadlines without any extra staff or funding.” She said that if the “shot clock” specified in the legislation “runs out, the project is automatically approved. That may sound like a way to speed things up but in reality, it cuts out community input, leads to mistakes and sets us up for more delays down the road. If we want faster reviews, we should give local communities more help, not take away their say.”

GOP overhaul of broadband permit laws: Cities hate it, cable companies love it Read More »

faced-with-naked-man,-doordasher-demands-police-action;-they-arrest-her-for-illegal-surveillance

Faced with naked man, DoorDasher demands police action; they arrest her for illegal surveillance

“The only justice I’m getting is exposing this man and having posted that video,” she added. “And it has gone viral. Now he can live with shame and embarrassment if people have seen it.”

“I’m the victim!” she said. “Is this making sense to any-fucking-body?”

Her numerous videos attracted huge followings—anywhere from 5 million to 30 million views each—and DoorDash eventually felt the need to respond.

“DoorDash never deactivates someone for reporting [sexual assault]—full stop,” said the company.

But, it added, “posting a video of a customer in their home, and disclosing their personal details publicly, is a clear violation of our policies. That is the sole reason that this Dasher’s account was deactivated, along with the customer’s, while we investigated. We’ve also ensured that the Dasher has full access to their earnings.”

Meanwhile, the police were doing something—but not something that Henderson wanted.

The cops determined that the nude man in question “was incapacitated and unconscious on his couch due to alcohol consumption.” Being drunk and naked inside your own home apparently does not qualify as sexual assault on a delivery driver, and the police department said in a press release yesterday that “the investigation by the Oswego Police Department determined that no sexual assault occurred.”

As part of their investigation, the cops found that Henderson had filmed the man and “subsequently posted the video to social media, where it drew significant attention.” This shifted their attention to Henderson’s decision to film and upload the video without the man’s consent.

The police eventually arrested Henderson, who is now charged with two felonies: “Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree” and “Dissemination of an Unlawful Surveillance Image in the First Degree.” She was released after being charged, and her case will be heard by the Oswego City Court.

Henderson has stopped releasing videos on TikTok about the situation.

Faced with naked man, DoorDasher demands police action; they arrest her for illegal surveillance Read More »

meta-wins-monopoly-trial,-convinces-judge-that-social-networking-is-dead

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead


People are “bored” by their friends’ content, judge ruled, siding with Meta.

Mark Zuckerberg arrives at court after The Federal Trade Commission alleged the acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 gave Meta a social media monopoly. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

After years of pushback from the Federal Trade Commission over Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta has defeated the FTC’s monopoly claims.

In a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge James Boasberg said the FTC failed to show that Meta has a monopoly in a market dubbed “personal social networking.” In that narrowly defined market, the FTC unsuccessfully argued, Meta supposedly faces only two rivals, Snapchat and MeWe, which struggle to compete due to its alleged monopoly.

But the days of grouping apps into “separate markets of social networking and social media” are over, Boasberg wrote. He cited the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who “posited that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” while telling the FTC they missed their chance to block Meta’s purchase.

Essentially, Boasberg agreed with Meta that social media—as it was known in Facebook’s early days—is dead. And that means that Meta now competes with a broader set of rival apps, which includes two hugely popular platforms: TikTok and YouTube.

“When the evidence implies that consumers are reallocating massive amounts of time from Meta’s apps to these rivals and that the amount of substitution has forced Meta to invest gobs of cash to keep up, the answer is clear: Meta is not a monopolist insulated from competition,” Boasberg wrote.

In fact, adding just TikTok alone to the market defeated the FTC’s claims, Boasberg wrote, leaving him to conclude that “Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market.”

The FTC is not happy about the loss, which comes after Boasberg determined that one of the agency’s key expert witnesses, Scott Hemphill, could not have approached his testimony “with an open mind.” According to Boasberg, Hemphill was aligned with figures publicly calling for the breakup of Facebook, and that made “neutral evaluation of his opinions more difficult” in a case with little direct evidence of monopoly harms.

“We are deeply disappointed in this decision,” Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, told CNBC. “The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment. We are reviewing all our options.”

For Meta, the win ends years of FTC fights intended to break up the company’s family of apps: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

“The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition,” Jennifer Newstead, Meta’s chief legal officer, said. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”

Reels’ popularity helped save Meta

Meta app users clicking on Reels helped Meta win.

Boasberg noted that “a majority of Americans’ time” on both Facebook and Instagram “is now spent watching videos,” with Reels becoming “the single most-used part of Facebook.” That puts Meta apps more on par with entertainment apps like TikTok and YouTube, the judge said.

While “connecting with friends remains an important part of both apps,” the judge cited Meta’s evidence showing that Meta had to pump more recommended content from strangers into users’ feeds to account for a trend where its users grew increasingly less inclined to post publicly.

“Both scrolling and sharing have transformed” since Facebook was founded, Boasberg wrote, citing six factors that he concluded invalidated the FTC’s market definition as markets exist today.

Initial factors that shifted markets were due to leaps in innovation. “First, smartphone usage exploded,” Boasberg explained, then “cell phone data got better,” which made it easier to watch videos without frustrating “freezing and buffering.” Soon after, content recommendation systems got better, with “advanced AI algorithms” helping users “find engaging videos about the things” they “care most about in the world.”

Other factors stemmed from social changes, the judge suggested, describing the fourth factor as a trend where Meta app users started feeling “increasingly bored by their friends’ posts.”

“Longtime users’ friend lists” start fresh, but over time, they “become an often-outdated archive of people they once knew: a casual friend from college, a long-ago friend from summer camp, some guy they met at a party once,” Boasberg wrote. “Posts from friends have therefore grown less interesting.”

Then came TikTok, the fifth factor, Boasberg said, which forced Meta to “evolve” Facebook and Instagram by adding Reels.

And finally, “those five changes both caused and were reinforced by a change in social norms, which evolved to discourage public posting,” Boasberg wrote. “People have increasingly become less interested in blasting out public posts that hundreds of others can see.”

As a result of these tech advancements and social trends, Boasberg said, “Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have thus evolved to have nearly identical main features.” That reality undermined the FTC’s claims that users preferred Facebook and Instagram before Meta shifted its focus away from friends-and-family content.

“The Court simply does not find it credible that users would prefer the Facebook and Instagram apps that existed ten years ago to the versions that exist today,” Boasberg wrote.

Meta apps have not deteriorated, judge ruled

Boasberg repeatedly emphasized that the FTC failed to prove that Meta has a monopoly “now,” either actively or imminently causing harms.

The FTC tried to win by claiming that “Meta has degraded its apps’ quality by increasing their ad load, that falling user sentiment shows that the apps have deteriorated and that Meta has sabotaged its apps by underinvesting in friend sharing,” Boasberg noted.

But, Boasberg said, the FTC failed to show that Meta’s app quality has diminished—a trend that Cory Doctorow dubbed “enshittification,” which Meta apparently successfully argued is not real.

The judge was also swayed by Meta’s arguments that users like seeing ads. Meta showed evidence that it can only profitably increase its ad load when ad quality improves; otherwise, it risks losing engagement. Because “the rate at which users buy something or subscribe to a service based on Meta’s ads has steadily risen,” this suggested “that the ads have gotten more and more likely to connect users to products in which they have an interest,” Boasberg said.

Additionally, surveys of Meta app users that show declining user sentiment are not evidence that its apps are deteriorating in quality, Boasberg said, but are more about “brand reputation.”

“That is unsurprising: ask people how they feel about, say, Exxon Mobil, and their answers will tell you very little about how good its oil is,” Boasberg wrote. “The FTC’s claim that worsening sentiment shows a worsening product is unpersuasive.”

Finally, the FTC’s claim that Meta underinvested in friends-and-family content, to the detriment of its core app users, “makes no sense,” Boasberg wrote, given Meta’s data showing that user posting declined.

“While it is true that users see less content from their friends these days, that is largely due to the friends themselves: people simply post less,” Boasberg wrote. “Users are not seeing less friend content because Meta is hiding it from them, but instead because there is less friend content for Meta to show.”

It’s not even “clear that users want more friend posts,” the judge noted, agreeing with Meta that “instead, what users really seem to want is Reels.”

Further, if Meta were a monopolist, Boasberg seemed to suggest that the platform might be more invested in forcing friends-and-family content than Reels, since “Reels earns Meta less money” due to its smaller ad load.

“Courts presume that sophisticated corporations act rationally,” Boasberg wrote. “Here, the FTC has not offered even an ordinarily persuasive case that Meta is making the economically irrational choice to underinvest in its most lucrative offerings. It certainly has not made a particularly persuasive one.”

Among the critics unhappy with the ruling is Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, who suggested that Boasberg’s ruling was “a colossally wrong decision” that “turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it.”

“Judge Boasberg has purposefully ignored the overwhelming evidence of how Meta became a monopoly—not by building a better product, but by buying its rivals to shut down any real competitors before they could grow,” Hegde said. “These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family. By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”

On the other side, industry groups cheered the ruling. Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, suggested that Boasberg concluded “what every Internet user knows—that Meta competes with a number of platforms and the company’s relevant market shares are therefore nowhere close to those required to establish monopoly power.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead Read More »

ucla-faculty-gets-big-win-in-suit-against-trump’s-university-attacks

UCLA faculty gets big win in suit against Trump’s university attacks


Government can’t use funding threats to override the First Amendment.

While UCLA has been most prominently targeted by the Trump Administration, the ruling protects the entire UC system. Credit: Myung J. Chun

On Friday, a US District Court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the United States government from halting federal funding at UCLA or any other school in the University of California system. The ruling came in response to a suit filed by groups representing the faculty at these schools challenging the Trump administration’s attempts to force UCLA into a deal that would substantially revise instruction and policy.

The court’s decision lays out how the Trump administration’s attacks on universities follow a standard plan: use accusations of antisemitism to justify an immediate cut to funding, then use the loss of money to compel an agreement that would result in revisions to university instruction and management. The court finds that this plan was deficient on multiple grounds, violating legal procedures for cutting funding to an illegal attempt and suppressing the First Amendment rights of faculty.

The result is a reprieve for the entire University of California system, as well as a clear pathway for any universities to fight back against the Trump administration’s attacks on research and education.

First Amendment violations

The Judge overseeing this case, Rita Lin, issued separate documents describing the reasoning behind her decision and the sanctions she has placed on the Trump administration. In the first, she lays out the argument that the threats facing the UC system, and most notably UCLA, are part of a scripted campaign deployed against many other universities, one that proceeds through several steps. The Trump administration’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism is central to this effort, which starts with the opening of a civil rights investigation against a university that was the site of anti-Israel protests during the conflict in Gaza.

“Rooting out antisemitism is undisputedly a laudable and important goal,” Judge Lin wrote. But the investigations in many cases take place after those universities have already taken corrective steps, which the Trump administration seemingly never considers. Instead, while the investigations are still ongoing, agencies throughout the federal government cancel funding for research and education meant for that university and announce that there will be no future funding without an agreement.

The final step is a proposed settlement that would include large payments (over $1.2 billion in UCLA’s case) and a set of conditions that alter university governance and instruction. These conditions often have little to no connection with antisemitism.

While all of this was ostensibly meant to combat antisemitism, the plaintiffs in this case presented a huge range of quotes from administration officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, saying the goal was to suppress certain ideas on campus. “The unrebutted record in this case shows that Defendants have used the threat of investigations and economic sanctions to… coerce the UC to stamp out faculty, staff, and student ‘woke,’ ‘left,’ ‘anti-American,’ ‘anti-Western,’ and ‘Marxist’ speech,” Lin said.

And even before any sort of agreement was reached, there was extensive testimony that people on campus changed their teaching and research to avoid further attention from the administration. “Plaintiffs’ members express fear that researching, teaching, and speaking on disfavored topics will trigger further retaliatory funding cancellations against the UC,” Lin wrote, “and that they will be blamed for the retaliation. They also describe fears that the UC will retaliate against them to avoid further funding cuts or in order to comply with the proposed settlement agreement.”

That’s a problem, given that teaching and research topics are forms of speech, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. “These are classic, predictable First Amendment harms, and exactly what Defendants publicly said that they intended,” Lin concluded.

Beyond speech

But the First Amendment isn’t the only issue here. The Civil Rights Act, most notably Title VI, lays out a procedure for cutting federal funding, including warnings and hearings before any funds are shut off. That level of coercion is also limited to cases where there’s an indication that voluntary compliance won’t work. Any funding cut would need to target the specific programs involved and the money allocated to them. There is nothing in Title VI that enables the sort of financial payments that the government has been demanding (and, in some cases, receiving) from schools.

It’s pretty obvious that none of these procedures are being followed here. And as Lin noted in her ruling, “Defendants conceded at oral argument that, of the billions of dollars of federal university funding suspended across numerous agencies in recent months, not a single agency has followed the procedures required by Title VI and IX.”

She found that the government decided it wasn’t required to follow the Civil Rights Act procedures. (Reading through the decision, it becomes hard to tell where the government offered any defense of its actions at all.)

The decision to ignore all existing procedures, in turn, causes additional problems, including violations of the Tenth Amendment, which limits the actions that the government can take. And it runs afoul of the Administrative Procedures Act, which prohibits the government from taking actions that are “arbitrary and capricious.”

All of this provided Lin with extensive opportunities to determine that the Plaintiffs, largely organizations that represent the faculty at University of California schools, are likely to prevail in their suit, and thus are deserving of a preliminary injunction to block the federal government’s actions. But first, she had to deal with a recent Supreme Court precedent holding that cases involving federal money belong in a different court system. She did so by arguing that this case is largely about First Amendment and federal procedures rather than any sort of contract for federal money; money is being used as a lever here, so they ruling must involve restoring the money to address the free speech issues.

That issue will undoubtedly be picked up on appeal as it makes its way through the courts.

Complete relief

Lin identified a coercive program that is being deployed against many universities and is already suppressing speech throughout the University of California system, including on campuses that haven’t been targeted yet. She is issuing a ruling that targets the program broadly.

“Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants are coercing the [University of California] as a whole, through the Task Force Policy and Funding Cancellation, to stamp out their members’ disfavored speech,” Lin concluded. “Therefore, to afford Plaintiffs complete relief, the entirety of the coercive practice must be enjoined, not just the suspensions that impact Plaintiffs’ members.”

Her ruling indicates that if the federal government decides it wants to cut any grants to any school in the UC system, it has to go through the entire procedure set out in the Civil Rights Act. The government is also prohibited from demanding money from any of these schools as a fine or payment, and it can’t threaten future funding to the schools. The current hold on grants to the school by the government must also be lifted.

In short, the entire UC system should be protected from any of the ways that the government has been trying to use accusations of antisemitism to suppress ideas that it disfavors. And since those primarily involve federal funding, that has to be restored, and any future threats to it must be blocked.

While this case is likely to face a complicated appeals process, Lin’s ruling makes it extremely clear that all of these cases are exactly what they seemed. Just as members of the administration stated in public multiple times, they decided to target some ideas they disfavored and simply made up a process that would let them do so.

While it worked against a number of prominent universities, its legal vulnerabilities have been there from the start.

Photo of John Timmer

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

UCLA faculty gets big win in suit against Trump’s university attacks Read More »

us-spy-satellites-built-by-spacex-send-signals-in-the-“wrong-direction”

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction”


Spy satellites emit surprising signals

It seems US didn’t coordinate Starshield’s unusual spectrum use with other countries.

Image of a satellite in space and the Earth in the background.

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

About 170 Starshield satellites built by SpaceX for the US government’s National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have been sending signals in the wrong direction, a satellite researcher found.

The SpaceX-built spy satellites are helping the NRO greatly expand its satellite surveillance capabilities, but the purpose of these signals is unknown. The signals are sent from space to Earth in a frequency band that’s allocated internationally for Earth-to-space and space-to-space transmissions.

There have been no public complaints of interference caused by the surprising Starshield emissions. But the researcher who found them says they highlight a troubling lack of transparency in how the US government manages the use of spectrum and a failure to coordinate spectrum usage with other countries.

Scott Tilley, an engineering technologist and amateur radio astronomer in British Columbia, discovered the signals in late September or early October while working on another project. He found them in various parts of the 2025–2110 MHz band, and from his location, he was able to confirm that 170 satellites were emitting the signals over Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Given the global nature of the Starshield constellation, the signals may be emitted over other countries as well.

“This particular band is allocated by the ITU [International Telecommunication Union], the United States, and Canada primarily as an uplink band to spacecraft on orbit—in other words, things in space, so satellite receivers will be listening on these frequencies,” Tilley told Ars. “If you’ve got a loud constellation of signals blasting away on the same frequencies, it has the potential to interfere with the reception of ground station signals being directed at satellites on orbit.”

In the US, users of the 2025–2110 MHz portion of the S-Band include NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as nongovernmental users like TV news broadcasters that have vehicles equipped with satellite dishes to broadcast from remote locations.

Experts told Ars that the NRO likely coordinated with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ensure that signals wouldn’t interfere with other spectrum users. A decision to allow the emissions wouldn’t necessarily be made public, they said. But conflicts with other governments are still possible, especially if the signals are found to interfere with users of the frequencies in other countries.

Surprising signals

A man standing outdoors in front of two large antennas.

Scott Tilley and his antennas.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Scott Tilley and his antennas. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley previously made headlines in 2018 when he located a satellite that NASA had lost contact with in 2005. For his new discovery, Tilley published data and a technical paper describing the “strong wideband S-band emissions,” and his work was featured by NPR on October 17.

Tilley’s technical paper said emissions were detected from 170 satellites out of the 193 known Starshield satellites. Emissions have since been detected from one more satellite, making it 171 out of 193, he told Ars. “The apparent downlink use of an uplink-allocated band, if confirmed by authorities, warrants prompt technical and regulatory review to assess interference risk and ensure compliance” with ITU regulations, Tilley’s paper said.

Tilley said he uses a mix of omnidirectional antennas and dish antennas at his home to receive signals, along with “software-defined radios and quite a bit of proprietary software I’ve written or open source software that I use for analysis work.” The signals did not stop when the paper was published. Tilley said the emissions are powerful enough to be received by “relatively small ground stations.”

Tilley’s paper said that Starshield satellites emit signals with a width of 9 MHz and signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of 10 to 15 decibels. “A 10 dB SNR means the received signal power is ten times greater than the noise power in the same bandwidth,” while “20 dB means one hundred times,” Tilley told Ars.

Other Starshield signals that were 4 or 5 MHz wide “have been observed to change frequency from day to day with SNR exceeding 20dB,” his paper said. “Also observed from time to time are other weaker wide signals from 2025–2110 MHz what may be artifacts or actual intentional emissions.”

The 2025–2110 MHz band is used by NASA for science missions and by other countries for similar missions, Tilley noted. “Any other radio activity that’s occurring on this band is intentionally limited to avoid causing disruption to its primary purpose,” he said.

The band is used for some fully terrestrial, non-space purposes. Mobile service is allowed in 2025–2110 MHz, but ITU rules say that “administrations shall not introduce high-density mobile systems” in these frequencies. The band is also licensed in the US for non-federal terrestrial services, including the Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Relay Service, and Local Television Transmission Service.

While Earth-based systems using the band, such as TV links from mobile studios, have legal protection against interference, Tilley noted that “they normally use highly directional and local signals to link a field crew with a studio… they’re not aimed into space but at a terrestrial target with a very directional antenna.” A trade group representing the US broadcast industry told Ars that it hasn’t observed any interference from Starshield satellites.

“There without anybody knowing it”

Spectrum consultant Rick Reaser told Ars that Starshield’s space-to-Earth transmissions likely haven’t caused any interference problems. “You would not see this unless you were looking for it, or if it turns out that your receiver looks for everything, which most receivers aren’t going to do,” he said.

Reaser said it appears that “whatever they’re doing, they’ve come up with a way to sort of be there without anybody knowing it,” or at least until Tilley noticed the signals.

“But then the question is, can somebody prove that that’s caused a problem?” Reaser said. Other systems using the same spectrum in the correct direction probably aren’t pointed directly at the Starshield satellites, he said.

Reaser’s extensive government experience includes managing spectrum for the Defense Department, negotiating a spectrum-sharing agreement with the European Union, and overseeing the development of new signals for GPS. Reaser said that Tilley’s findings are interesting because the signals would be hard to discover.

“It is being used in the wrong direction, if they’re coming in downlink, that’s supposed to be an uplink,” Reaser said. As for what the signals are being used for, Reaser said he doesn’t know. “It could be communication, it could be all sorts of things,” he said.

Tilley’s paper said the “results raise questions about frequency-allocation compliance and the broader need for transparent coordination among governmental, commercial, and scientific stakeholders.” He argues that international coordination is becoming more important because of the ongoing deployment of large constellations of satellites that could cause harmful interference.

“Cooperative disclosure—without compromising legitimate security interests—will be essential to balance national capability with the shared responsibility of preserving an orderly and predictable radio environment,” his paper said. “The findings presented here are offered in that spirit: not as accusation, but as a public-interest disclosure grounded in reproducible measurement and open analysis. The data, techniques, and references provided enable independent verification by qualified parties without requiring access to proprietary or classified information.”

While Tilley doesn’t know exactly what the emissions are for, his paper said the “signal characteristics—strong, coherent, and highly predictable carriers from a large constellation—create the technical conditions under which opportunistic or deliberate PNT exploitation could occur.”

PNT refers to Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) applications. “While it is not suggested that the system was designed for that role, the combination of wideband data channels and persistent carrier tones in a globally distributed or even regionally operated network represents a practical foundation for such use, either by friendly forces in contested environments or by third parties seeking situational awareness,” the paper said.

Emissions may have been approved in secret

Tilley told us that a few Starshield satellites launched just recently, in late September, have not emitted signals while moving toward their final orbits. He said this suggests the emissions are for an “operational payload” and not merely for telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C).

“This could mean that [the newest satellites] don’t have this payload or that the emissions are not part of TT&C and may begin once these satellites achieve their place within the constellation,” Tilley told Ars. “If these emissions are TT&C, you would expect them to be active especially during the early phases of the mission, when the satellites are actively being tested and moved into position within the constellation.”

Whatever they’re for, Reaser said the emissions were likely approved by the NTIA and that the agency would likely have consulted with the Federal Communications Commission. For federal spectrum use, these kinds of decisions aren’t necessarily made public, he said.

“NRO would have to coordinate that through the NTIA to make sure they didn’t have an interference problem,” Reaser said. “And by the way, this happens a lot. People figure out a way [to transmit] on what they call a non-interference basis, and that’s probably how they got this approved. They say, ‘listen, if somebody reports interference, then you have to shut down.’”

Tilley said it’s clear that “persistent S-band emissions are occurring in the 2025–2110 MHz range without formal ITU coordination.” Claims that the downlink use was approved by the NTIA in a non-public decision “underscore, rather than resolve, the transparency problem,” he told Ars.

An NTIA spokesperson declined to comment. The NRO and FCC did not provide any comment in response to requests from Ars.

SpaceX just “a contractor for the US government”

Randall Berry, a Northwestern University professor of electrical and computer engineering, agreed with Reaser that it’s likely the NTIA approved the downlink use of the band and that this decision was not made public. Getting NTIA clearance is “the proper way this should be done,” he said.

“It would be surprising if NTIA was not aware, as Starshield is a government-operated system,” Berry told Ars. While NASA and other agencies use the band for Earth-to-space transmissions, “they may have been able to show that the Starshield space-to-Earth signals do not create harmful interference with these Earth-to-space signals,” he said.

There is another potential explanation that is less likely but more sinister. Berry said it’s possible that “SpaceX did not make this known to NTIA when the system was cleared for federal use.” Berry said this would be “surprising and potentially problematic.”

Digital rendering of a satellite in space.

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite.

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite. Credit: SpaceX

Tilley doesn’t think SpaceX is responsible for the emissions. While Starshield relies on technology built for the commercial Starlink broadband system of low Earth orbit satellites, Elon Musk’s space company made the Starshield satellites in its role as a contractor for the US government.

“I think [SpaceX is] just operating as a contractor for the US government,” Tilley said. “They built a satellite to the government specs provided for them and launched it for them. And from what I understand, the National Reconnaissance Office is the operator.”

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

TV broadcasters conduct interference analysis

TV broadcasters with news trucks that use the same frequencies “protect their band vigorously” and would have reported interference if it was affecting their transmissions, Reaser said. This type of spectrum use is known as Electronic News Gathering (ENG).

The National Association of Broadcasters told Ars that it “has been closely tracking recent reports concerning satellite downlink operation in the 2025–2110 MHz frequency band… While it’s not clear that satellite downlink operations are authorized by international treaty in this range, such operations are uncommon, and we are not aware of any interference complaints related to downlink use.”

The NAB investigated after Tilley’s report. “When the Tilley report first surfaced, NAB conducted an interference analysis—based on some assumptions given that Starshield’s operating parameters have not been publicly disclosed,” the group told us. “That analysis found that interference with ENG systems is unlikely. We believe the proposed downlink operations are likely compatible with broadcaster use of the band, though coordination issues with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) could still arise.”

Tilley said that a finding of interference being unlikely “addresses only performance, not legality… coordination conducted only within US domestic channels does not meet international requirements under the ITU Radio Regulations. This deployment is not one or two satellites, it is a distributed constellation of hundreds of objects with potential global implications.”

Canada agency: No coordination with ITU or US

When contacted by Ars, an ITU spokesperson said the agency is “unable to provide any comment or additional information on the specific matter referenced.” The ITU said that interference concerns “can be formally raised by national administrations” and that the ITU’s Radio Regulations Board “carefully examines the specifics of the case and determines the most appropriate course of action to address it in line with ITU procedures.”

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) told Ars that its “missions operating within the frequency band have not yet identified any instances of interference that negatively impact their operations and can be attributed to the referenced emissions.” The CSA indicated that there hasn’t been any coordination with the ITU or the US over the new emissions.

“To date, no coordination process has been initiated for the satellite network in question,” the CSA told Ars. “Coordination of satellite networks is carried out through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulation, with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) serving as the responsible national authority.”

The European Space Agency also uses the 2025–2100 band for TT&C. We contacted the agency but did not receive any comment.

The lack of coordination “remains the central issue,” Tilley told Ars. “This band is globally allocated for Earth-to-space uplinks and limited space-to-space use, not continuous space-to-Earth transmissions.”

NASA needs protection from interference

An NTIA spectrum-use report updated in 2015 said NASA “operates earth stations in this band for tracking and command of manned and unmanned Earth-orbiting satellites and space vehicles either for Earth-to-space links for satellites in all types of orbits or through space-to-space links using the Tracking Data and Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). These earth stations control ninety domestic and international space missions including the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station.”

Additionally, the NOAA “operates earth stations in this band to control the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) meteorological satellite systems,” which collect data used by the National Weather Service. We contacted NASA and NOAA, but neither agency provided comment to Ars.

NASA’s use of the band has increased in recent years. The NTIA told the FCC in 2021 that 2025–2110 MHz is “heavily used today and require[s] extensive coordination even among federal users.” The band “has seen dramatically increased demand for federal use as federal operations have shifted from federal bands that were repurposed to accommodate new commercial wireless broadband operations.”

A 2021 NASA memo included in the filing said that NASA would only support commercial launch providers using the band if their use was limited to sending commands to launch vehicles for recovery and retrieval purposes. Even with that limit, commercial launch providers would cause “significant interference” for existing federal operations in the band if the commercial use isn’t coordinated through the NTIA, the memo said.

“NASA makes extensive use of this band (i.e., currently 382 assignments) for both transmissions from earth stations supporting NASA spacecraft (Earth-to-space) and transmissions from NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to user spacecraft (space-to-space), both of which are critical to NASA operations,” the memo said.

In 2024, the FCC issued an order allowing non-federal space launch operations to use the 2025–2110 MHz band on a secondary basis. The allocation is “limited to space launch telecommand transmissions and will require commercial space launch providers to coordinate with non-Federal terrestrial licensees… and NTIA,” the FCC order said.

International non-interference rules

While US agencies may not object to the Starshield emissions, that doesn’t guarantee there will be no trouble with other countries. Article 4.4 of ITU regulations says that member nations may not assign frequencies that conflict with the Table of Frequency Allocations “except on the express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions.”

Reaser said that under Article 4.4, entities that are caught interfering with other spectrum users are “supposed to shut down.” But if the Starshield users were accused of interference, they would probably “open negotiations with the offended party” instead of immediately stopping the emissions, he said.

“My guess is they were allowed to operate on a non-interference basis and if there is an interference issue, they’d have to go figure a way to resolve them,” he said.

Tilley told Ars that Article 4.4 allows for non-interference use domestically but “is not a blank check for continuous, global downlinks from a constellation.” In that case, “international coordination duties still apply,” he said.

Tilley pointed out that under the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, states must report the general function of a space object. “Objects believed to be part of the Starshield constellation have been registered with UNOOSA [United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs] under the broad description: ‘Spacecraft engaged in practical applications and uses of space technology such as weather or communications,’” his paper said.

Tilley told Ars that a vague description such as this “may satisfy the letter of filing requirements, but it contradicts the spirit” of international agreements. He contends that filings should at least state whether a satellite is for military purposes.

“The real risk is that we are no longer dealing with one or two satellites but with massive constellations that, by their very design, are global in scope,” he told Ars. “Unilateral use of space and spectrum affects every nation. As the examples of US and Chinese behavior illustrate, we are beginning from uncertain ground when it comes to large, militarily oriented mega-constellations, and, at the very least, this trend distorts the intent and spirit of international law.”

China’s constellation

Tilley said he has tracked China’s Guowang constellation and its use of “spectrum within the 1250–1300 MHz range, which is not allocated for space-to-Earth communications.” China, he said, “filed advance notice and coordination requests with the ITU for this spectrum but was not granted protection for its non-compliant use. As a result, later Chinese filings notifying and completing due diligence with the ITU omit this spectrum, yet the satellites are using it over other nations. This shows that the Chinese government consulted internationally and proceeded anyway, while the US government simply did not consult at all.”

By contrast, Canada submitted “an unusual level of detail” to the ITU for its military satellite Sapphire and coordinated fully with the ITU, he said.

Tilley said he reported his findings on Starshield emissions “directly to various western space agencies and the Canadian government’s spectrum management regulators” at the ISED.

“The Canadian government has acknowledged my report, and it has been disseminated within their departments, according to a senior ISED director’s response to me,” Tilley said, adding that he is continuing to collaborate “with other researchers to assist in the gathering of more data on the scope and impact of these emissions.”

The ISED told Ars that it “takes any reports of interference seriously and is not aware of any instances or complaints in these bands. As a general practice, complaints of potential interference are investigated to determine both the cause and possible resolutions. If it is determined that the source of interference is not Canadian, ISED works with its regulatory counterparts in the relevant administration to resolve the issue. ISED has well-established working arrangements with counterparts in other countries to address frequency coordination or interference matters.”

Accidental discovery

Two pictures of large antennas set up outdoors.

Antennas used by Scott Tilley.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Antennas used by Scott Tilley. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley’s discovery of Starshield signals happened because of “a clumsy move at the keyboard,” he told NPR. “I was resetting some stuff, and then all of a sudden, I’m looking at the wrong antenna, the wrong band,” he said.

People using the spectrum for Earth-to-space transmissions generally wouldn’t have any reason to listen for transmissions on the same frequencies, Tilley told Ars. Satellites using 2025–2100 MHz for Earth-to-space transmissions have their downlink operations on other frequencies, he said.

“The whole reason why I publicly revealed this rather than just quietly sit on it is to alert spacecraft operators that don’t normally listen on this band… that they should perform risk assessments and assess whether their missions have suffered any interference or could suffer interference and be prepared to deal with that,” he said.

A spacecraft operator may not know “a satellite is receiving interference unless the satellite is refusing to communicate with them or asking for the ground station to repeat the message over and over again,” Tilley said. “Unless they specifically have a reason to look or it becomes particularly onerous for them, they may not immediately realize what’s going on. It’s not like they’re sitting there watching the spectrum to see unusual signals that could interfere with the spacecraft.”

While NPR paraphrased Tilley as saying that the transmissions could be “designed to hide Starshield’s operations,” he told Ars that this characterization is “maybe a bit strongly worded.”

“It’s certainly an unusual place to put something. I don’t want to speculate about what the real intentions are, but it certainly could raise a question in one’s mind as to why they would choose to emit there. We really don’t know and probably never will know,” Tilley told us.

How amateurs track Starshield

After finding the signals, Tilley determined they were being sent by Starshield satellites by consulting data collected by amateurs on the constellation. SpaceX launches the satellites into what Tilley called classified orbits, but the space company distributes some information that can be used to track their locations.

For safety reasons, SpaceX publishes “a notice to airmen and sailors that they’re going to be dropping boosters and debris in hazard areas… amateurs use those to determine the orbital plane the launch is going to go into,” Tilley said. “Once we know that, we just basically wait for optical windows when the lighting is good, and then we’re able to pick up the objects and start tracking them and then start cataloguing them and generating orbits. A group of us around the world do that. And over the last year and a half or so since they started launching the bulk of this constellation, the amateurs have amassed considerable body of orbital data on this constellation.”

After accidentally discovering the emissions, Tilley said he used open source software to “compare the Doppler signal I was receiving to the orbital elements… and immediately started coming back with hits to Starshield and nothing else.” He said this means that “the tens of thousands of other objects in orbit didn’t match the radio Doppler characteristics that these objects have.”

Tilley is still keeping an eye on the transmissions. He told us that “I’m continuing to hear the signals, record them, and monitor developments within the constellation.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction” Read More »

us-may-owe-$1-trillion-in-refunds-if-scotus-cancels-trump-tariffs

US may owe $1 trillion in refunds if SCOTUS cancels Trump tariffs


Tech industry primed for big refunds if SCOTUS rules against Trump tariffs.

If Donald Trump loses his Supreme Court fight over tariffs, the US may be forced to return “tens of billions of dollars to companies that have paid import fees this year, plus interest,” The Atlantic reported. And the longer the verdict is delayed, the higher the refunds could go, possibly even hitting $1 trillion.

For tech companies both large and small, the stakes are particularly high. A Trump defeat would not just mean clawing back any duties paid on imports to the US that companies otherwise can use to invest in their competitiveness. But, more critically in the long term, it would also end tariff shocks that, as economics lecturer Matthew Allen emphasized in a report for The Conversation, risked harming “innovation itself” by destabilizing global partnerships and diverse supply chains in “tech-intensive, IP-led sectors like semiconductors and software.”

Currently, the Supreme Court is weighing two cases that argue that the US president does not have unilateral authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Defending his regime of so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” Trump argued these taxes were necessary to correct the “emergency” of enduring trade imbalances that he alleged have unfairly enriched other countries while bringing the US “to the brink of catastrophic decline.”

Not everyone thinks Trump will lose. But after oral arguments last week, prediction markets dropped Trump’s odds of winning from 50 to 25 percent, Forbes reported, due to Supreme Court justices appearing skeptical.

Dozens of economists agreed: Trump’s tariffs are “odd”

Justices may have been swayed by dozens of leading economists who weighed in. In one friend of the court brief, more than 40 economists, public policy researchers, and former government officials argued that Trump’s got it all wrong when he claims that “sustained trade deficits” have “fostered dependency on foreign rivals and gutted American manufacturing.”

Far from being “unusual and extraordinary,” they argued that trade deficits are “rather ordinary and commonplace.” And rather than being a sign of US weakness, the deficits instead indicate that the US has a “foreign investment surplus,” as other countries clearly consider the US “a superior investment.”

Look no further than the tech sector for a prominent example, they suggested, noting that “the United States has the dominant technology sector in the world and, as a result, has been running a persistent surplus in trade in services for decades.” Citing a quip from Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow—“I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn’t buy a darned thing from me”—economists argued that trade deficits are never inherently problematic.

“It is odd to economists, to say the least, for the United States government to attempt to rebalance trade on a country-by-country basis,” economists wrote, as Trump seems to do with his trade deals imposing reciprocal tariffs as high as 145 percent.

SCOTUS urged to end “perfect storm of uncertainty”

Trump has been on a mission to use tariffs to force more manufacturing back into the US. He has claimed that the court undoing his trade deals would be an “economic disaster” and “would literally destroy the United States of America.” And the longer it takes for the verdict to come out, the more damage the verdict could do, his administration warned, as the US continues to collect tariffs and Trump continues to strike deals that hinge on reciprocal tariffs being in play.

However, in another friend-of-court brief, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and the Chamber of Commerce (CoC) argued that the outcome is worse for US businesses if the court defers to Trump.

“The current administration’s use of IEEPA to impose virtually unbounded tariffs is not only unprecedented but is causing irreparable harm” to each group’s members by “increasing their costs, undermining their ability to plan for the future, and in some cases, threatening their very existence,” their filing said.

“The tariffs are particularly damaging to American manufacturing,” they argued, complaining that “American manufacturers face higher prices for raw materials than their foreign competitors, destroying any comparative advantage the tariffs were allegedly meant to create.”

Further, businesses face decreased exports of their products, as well as retaliatory tariffs from any countries striking back at Trump—which “affect $223 billion of US exports and are expected to eliminate an additional 141,000 jobs,” CTA and CoC estimated.

Innovation “thrives on collaboration, trust and scale,” Allen, the economics lecturer, noted, joining critics warning that Trump risked hobbling not just US tech dominance by holding onto seemingly misguided protectionist beliefs but also the European Union’s and the United Kingdom’s.

Meanwhile, the CTA and CoC argued that Trump has other ways to impose tariffs that have been authorized by Congress and do not carry the same risks of destabilizing key US industries, such as the tech sector. Under Section 122, which many critics argued is the authority Trump should be using to impose the reciprocal tariffs, Trump would be limited to a 15 percent tariff for no more than 150 days, trade scholars noted in yet another brief SCOTUS reviewed.

“But the President’s claimed IEEPA authority contains no such limits” CTA and CoC noted. “At whim, he has increased, decreased, suspended, or reimposed tariffs, generating the perfect storm of uncertainty.”

US may end up owing $1 trillion in refunds

Economists urged SCOTUS to intervene and stop Trump’s attempt to seize authority to impose boundless reciprocal tariffs—arguing the economic impact “is predicted to be far greater than in two programs” SCOTUS previously struck, including the Biden administration’s $50 billion plan for student loan forgiveness.

In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned justices that “the amount to be refunded could be between $750 billion and $1 trillion if the court waits until next summer before issuing a ruling that says the tariffs have to be repaid,” CNBC reported.

During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett fretted that undoing Trump’s tariffs could be “messy,” CNBC reported.

However, some business owners—who joined the We Pay Tariffs coalition weighing in on the SCOTUS case—told CNBC that they think it could be relatively straightforward, since customs forms contain line items detailing which tariffs were paid. Businesses could be paid in lump sums or even future credits, they suggested.

Rick Muskat, CEO of family-run shoe company DeerStags, told CNBC that his company paid more than $1 million in tariffs so far, but “it should be simple for importers to apply for refunds based on this tariff itemization.” If the IRS can issue repayments for tax overpayments, US Customs should have “no problem” either, he suggested—especially since the agency automatically refunded US importers with no issue during a 2018 conflict, CNBC reported.

If there aren’t automatic refunds, though, things could get sticky. Filing paperwork required to challenge various tariffs may become “time-consuming and difficult” for some businesses, particularly those dealing with large shipments where only some products may have been taxed.

There’s also the issue that some countries’ tariffs—like China’s—changed “multiple times,” Joyce Adetutu, a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins, told CNBC. “It is going to take quite a bit of time untangling all of that, and it will be an administrative burden,” Adetutu said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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

US may owe $1 trillion in refunds if SCOTUS cancels Trump tariffs Read More »

“how-about-no”:-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-says-he-won’t-end-news-distortion-probes

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr says he won’t scrap the agency’s controversial news distortion policy despite calls from a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and commissioners.

“How about no,” Carr wrote in an X post in response to the petition from former FCC leaders. “On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”

The petition filed yesterday by former FCC chairs and commissioners asked the FCC to repeal its 1960s-era news distortion policy, which Carr has repeatedly invoked in threats to revoke broadcast licenses. In the recent Jimmy Kimmel controversy, Carr said that ABC affiliates could have licenses revoked for news distortion if they kept the comedian on the air.

The petition said the Kimmel incident and several other Carr threats illustrate “the extraordinary intrusions on editorial decision-making that Chairman Carr apparently understands the news distortion policy to permit.” The petition argued that the “policy’s purpose—to eliminate bias in the news—is not a legitimate government interest,” that it has chilled broadcasters’ speech, that it has been weaponized for partisan purposes, that it is overly vague, and is unnecessary given the separate rule against broadcast hoaxes.

“The news distortion policy is no longer justifiable under today’s First Amendment doctrine and no longer necessary in today’s media environment… The Commission should repeal the policy in full and recognize that it may not investigate or penalize broadcasters for ‘distorting,’ ‘slanting,’ or ‘staging’ the news, unless the broadcast at issue independently meets the high standard for broadcasting a dangerous hoax under 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217,” the petition said.

News distortion policy rarely enforced

The petition was filed by Mark Fowler, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1981 to 1987; Dennis Patrick, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1987 to 1989; Alfred Sikes, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1989 to 1993; Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who chaired the FCC from 2013 to 2017; Andrew Barrett, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1989 to 1996; Ervin Duggan, a Democrat who served as a commissioner from 1990 to 1994; and Rachelle Chong, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1994 to 1997.

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes Read More »

google-claims-win-for-everyone-as-text-scammers-lost-their-cloud-server

Google claims win for everyone as text scammers lost their cloud server

The day after Google filed a lawsuit to end text scams primarily targeting Americans, the criminal network behind the phishing scams was “disrupted,” a Google spokesperson told Ars.

According to messages that the “ringleader” of the so-called “Lighthouse enterprise” posted on his Telegram channel, the phishing gang’s cloud server was “blocked due to malicious complaints.”

“We will restore it as soon as possible!” the leader posted on the channel—which Google’s lawsuit noted helps over 2,500 members coordinate phishing attacks that have resulted in losses of “over a billion dollars.”

Google has alleged that the Lighthouse enterprise is a “criminal group in China” that sells “phishing for dummies” kits that make it easier for scammers with little tech savvy to launch massive phishing campaigns. So far, “millions” of Americans have been harmed, Google alleged, as scammers disproportionately impersonate US institutions, like the Postal Service, as well as well-known brands like E-ZPass.

The company’s lawsuit seeks to dismantle the entire Lighthouse criminal enterprise, so the company was pleased to see Lighthouse communities go dark. In a statement, Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google’s general counsel, told Ars that “this shutdown of Lighthouse’s operations is a win for everyone.

Google claims win for everyone as text scammers lost their cloud server Read More »

openai-slams-court-order-that-lets-nyt-read-20-million-complete-user-chats

OpenAI slams court order that lets NYT read 20 million complete user chats


OpenAI: NYT wants evidence of ChatGPT users trying to get around news paywall.

Credit: Getty Images | alexsl

OpenAI wants a court to reverse a ruling forcing the ChatGPT maker to give 20 million user chats to The New York Times and other news plaintiffs that sued it over alleged copyright infringement. Although OpenAI previously offered 20 million user chats as a counter to the NYT’s demand for 120 million, the AI company says a court order requiring production of the chats is too broad.

“The logs at issue here are complete conversations: each log in the 20 million sample represents a complete exchange of multiple prompt-output pairs between a user and ChatGPT,” OpenAI said today in a filing in US District Court for the Southern District of New York. “Disclosure of those logs is thus much more likely to expose private information [than individual prompt-output pairs], in the same way that eavesdropping on an entire conversation reveals more private information than a 5-second conversation fragment.”

OpenAI’s filing said that “more than 99.99%” of the chats “have nothing to do with this case.” It asked the district court to “vacate the order and order News Plaintiffs to respond to OpenAI’s proposal for identifying relevant logs.” OpenAI could also seek review in a federal court of appeals.

OpenAI posted a message on its website to users today saying that “The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations” in order to “find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall.”

ChatGPT users concerned about privacy have more to worry about than the NYT case. For example, ChatGPT conversations have been found in Google search results and the Google Search Console tool that developers can use to monitor search traffic. OpenAI today said it plans to develop “advanced security features designed to keep your data private, including client-side encryption for your messages with ChatGPT. ”

OpenAI: AI chats should be treated like private emails

OpenAI’s court filing argues that the chat log production should be narrowed based on the relevance of chats to the case.

“OpenAI is unaware of any court ordering wholesale production of personal information at this scale,” the filing said. “This sets a dangerous precedent: it suggests that anyone who files a lawsuit against an AI company can demand production of tens of millions of conversations without first narrowing for relevance. This is not how discovery works in other cases: courts do not allow plaintiffs suing Google to dig through the private emails of tens of millions of Gmail users irrespective of their relevance. And it is not how discovery should work for generative AI tools either.”

A November 7 order by US Magistrate Judge Ona Wang sided with the NYT, saying that OpenAI must “produce the 20 million de-identified Consumer ChatGPT Logs to News Plaintiffs by November 14, 2025, or within 7 days of completing the de-identification process.” Wang ruled that the production must go forward even though the parties don’t agree on whether the logs must be produced in full:

Whether or not the parties had reached agreement to produce the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs in whole—which the parties vehemently dispute—such production here is appropriate. OpenAI has failed to explain how its consumers’ privacy rights are not adequately protected by: (1) the existing protective order in this multidistrict litigation or (2) OpenAI’s exhaustive de-identification of all of the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs.

OpenAI’s filing today said the court order “did not acknowledge OpenAI’s sworn witness declaration explaining that the de-identification process is not intended to remove information that is non-identifying but may nonetheless be private, like a Washington Post reporter’s hypothetical use of ChatGPT to assist in the preparation of a news article.”

The New York Times provided a statement today after being contacted by Ars. “The New York Times’s case against OpenAI and Microsoft is about holding these companies accountable for stealing millions of copyrighted works to create products that directly compete with The Times,” the company said. “In another attempt to cover up its illegal conduct, OpenAI’s blog post purposely misleads its users and omits the facts. No ChatGPT user’s privacy is at risk. The court ordered OpenAI to provide a sample of chats, anonymized by OpenAI itself, under a legal protective order. This fear-mongering is all the more dishonest given that OpenAI’s own terms of service permit the company to train its models on users’ chats and turn over chats for litigation.”

Chats stored under legal hold

The 20 million chats consist of a random sampling of ChatGPT conversations from December 2022 to November 2024 and do not include chats of business customers, OpenAI said in the message on its website.

“We presented several privacy-preserving options to The Times, including targeted searches over the sample (e.g., to search for chats that might include text from a New York Times article so they only receive the conversations relevant to their claims), as well as high-level data classifying how ChatGPT was used in the sample. These were rejected by The Times,” OpenAI said.

The chats are stored in a secure system that is “protected under legal hold, meaning it can’t be accessed or used for purposes other than meeting legal obligations,” OpenAI said. The NYT “would be legally obligated at this time to not make any data public outside the court process,” and OpenAI said it will fight any attempts to make the user conversations public.

A NYT filing on October 30 accused OpenAI of defying prior agreements “by refusing to produce even a small sample of the billions of model outputs that its conduct has put in issue in this case.” The filing continued:

Immediate production of the output log sample is essential to stay on track for the February 26, 2026, discovery deadline. OpenAI’s proposal to run searches on this small subset of its model outputs on Plaintiffs’ behalf is as inefficient as it is inadequate to allow Plaintiffs to fairly analyze how “real world” users interact with a core product at the center of this litigation. Plaintiffs cannot reasonably conduct expert analyses about how OpenAI’s models function in its core consumer-facing product, how retrieval augmented generation (“RAG”) functions to deliver news content, how consumers interact with that product, and the frequency of hallucinations without access to the model outputs themselves.

OpenAI said the NYT’s discovery requests were initially limited to logs “related to Times content” and that it has “been working to satisfy those requests by sampling conversation logs. Towards the end of that process, News Plaintiffs filed a motion with a new demand: that instead of finding and producing logs that are ‘related to Times content,’ OpenAI should hand over the entire 20 million-log sample ‘via hard drive.’”

OpenAI disputes judge’s reasoning

The November 7 order cited a California case, Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, in which US District Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen ordered the production of 5 million records. OpenAI consistently relied on van Keulen’s use of a sample-size formula “in support of its previous proposed methodology for conversation data sampling, but fails to explain why Judge [van] Keulen’s subsequent order directing production of the entire 5 million-record sample to the plaintiff in that case is not similarly instructive here,” Wang wrote.

OpenAI’s filing today said the company was never given an opportunity to explain why Concord shouldn’t apply in this case because the news plaintiffs did not reference it in their motion.

“The cited Concord order was not about whether wholesale production of the sample was appropriate; it was about the mechanism through which Anthropic would effectuate an already agreed-upon production,” OpenAI wrote. “Nothing about that order suggests that Judge van Keulen would have ordered wholesale production had Anthropic raised the privacy concerns that OpenAI has raised throughout this case.”

The Concord logs were just prompt-output pairs, “i.e., a single user prompt followed by a single model output,” OpenAI wrote. “The logs at issue here are complete conversations: each log in the 20 million sample represents a complete exchange of multiple prompt-output pairs between a user and ChatGPT.” That could result in “up to 80 million prompt-output pairs,” OpenAI said.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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

OpenAI slams court order that lets NYT read 20 million complete user chats Read More »