Policy – Page 2

Montana’s Republican legislators fight back after successful youth climate lawsuit

climate change, climate lawsuit, montana, Policy, syndication / Rejus Almole / April 30, 2025

Montana Environmental Policy Act

Republican backlash could lead to changes in Montana’s courts and environmental laws.

Supporters gather at a theater next to the court house to watch the court proceedings for the nation’s first youth climate change trial at Montana’s First Judicial District Court on June 12, 2023 in Helena, Montana. Credit: William Campbell via Getty Images

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

In the wake of a high-profile court decision that upended the state of Montana’s climate policy, Republican lawmakers in the state are pushing a suite of bills that could gut the state’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The full-court legislative press targets the state’s environmental analysis, air quality regulation, and judicial system. It stems from the Held v. Montana case in which 16 young people sued the state over its contributions to climate change, claiming its fossil fuel-centric approach to energy violated the state constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” The plaintiffs won, and in December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld their victory.

The case “didn’t just make headlines,” Montana Republican Representative Greg Oblander, a sponsor of one of the bills that could hobble climate action in the state, said in a press conference. “It sent shockwaves through the Montana economy.”

He said the case “was an open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running and Montanans employed.”

The fallout of the Held decision animated the breadth of the state’s 90-day legislative session, poised to end by early May, and bills weakening the state’s bedrock environmental policy are almost certain to be signed into law by the state’s Republican governor. Nonetheless, the battle is likely to continue in the courts.

A clean and healthful environment

The Held decision hinged on Montana’s constitutional protections of the environment. Framers in the state’s 1972 Constitutional Convention took the state’s environmental woes seriously. Extractive industries like mining and logging had left a lasting environmental toll on the air, water, and land in the state, and for decades, the Anaconda Copper Mining Company wielded enormous power at the state legislature, resulting in large-scale mining, logging, and other extractive industry. Today, Montana is home to the largest complex of Superfund sites, or government toxic waste cleanups, in the country.

In response to that environmental degradation, Montana ultimately enshrined some of the strongest environmental protections in the country in its constitution, culminating in the right to “a clean and healthful environment.”

That right played a central role in the Held case. During the trial in the summer of 2023, the state argued that Montana’s contribution to greenhouse gases is but a fraction of a fraction of the world’s pool of emissions.

“Montana’s emissions are simply too minuscule to make any difference,” the state’s attorney argued. “Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of the spectator.” Meanwhile, the attorney for the young plaintiffs argued that the state’s contributions were equivalent to that of entire countries like the Netherlands, Pakistan, or Argentina, and was actively degrading Montana’s environment.

When the plaintiffs won the case, the state appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. In December 2024, that court also ruled against the state. “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system,” Judge Kathy Seeley wrote in the court’s decision.

That decision also hinged on what the state considers when it conducts environmental review.

In 2011, the Montana legislature barred analyses required by the Montana Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, from considering impacts outside the state. In 2023 the legislature honed MEPA’s focus even more, passing a provision that said greenhouse gas emissions could not be considered in the state’s environmental analyses. That limitation, the Supreme Court ruled, was unconstitutional. MEPA analyses, according to the decision, would have to account for projects’ emissions. Less than a month after the Supreme Court’s decision, Republican legislators set to figuring out how to minimize its impact.

Legislation aims to undercut the Montana Environmental Policy Act

“The backlash [to Held] is profound,” said Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), an organization dedicated to protecting the state’s land, air, and water, in an interview. The pushback, in particular, comes from Republicans in the state, who have strong majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. “Their goal is to prevent the state from being able to do anything to address climate change.”

Part of that backlash came in bills that aimed directly at MEPA. One bill, for example, limits the state to looking only at direct, proximate impacts of projects. This would make upstream or downstream impacts outside the scope of environmental analyses.

In, say, a project to expand a coal mine, the direct emissions associated with extracting the coal would be analyzed, according to the bill, but anything that happens next would be left out.

Montana produces about 5 percent of the country’s coal and contains the largest coal reserves in the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Colstrip, the largest coal plant in the state—and the dirtiest in the nation—has a footprint larger than the biggest city in Montana. In 2021 alone, the plant emitted about 11 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. But, under this particular bill, the emissions from burning that coal would not be considered as part of any required MEPA analysis of the plant or of mines that provide it with fuel.

“The Held decision was a gift-wrapped decision for radical environmental activists, an open door for endless lawsuits designed to shut down Montana’s fossil fuel industry,” the sponsor of that bill, Montana Republican Senator Wylie Galt, said in a press conference. “It had nothing to do with protecting our environment and everything to do with weaponizing the courts to strangle our economy.”

But, to opponents of the legislation, it is an intentional effort to ignore the reality of what’s driving climate change. “There’s never anything else to do with coal,” Hedges said. “You burn coal.”

Another bill strikes language that connects MEPA to Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and eliminates the ability of analyses to look at long-term impacts of projects. “Montana is a resource-rich state,” that bill’s sponsor, Republican Representative Brandon Ler, said in a press conference. “We have energy, we have agriculture, and we have timber. These industries aren’t just sectors on a spreadsheet. They fund our schools, support our businesses, and keep families together.” Neither Galt nor Ler responded to interview requests for this article.

A final piece of legislation attacking the state’s climate policy, sponsored by Republican Representative Greg Oblander, prevents Montana from implementing air quality standards stricter than those of the federal government. “It’s about making sure that when businesses want to invest in our state, they can do it without fear of being buried under layers of unnecessary regulations,” Oblander said. “Montana is open for business, but only if we keep it that way.”

Taken together, the bills effectively “wash [the legislature’s] hands of the whole problem and there is no way to enforce our right to a healthy climate,” Hedges said.

Proponents of the suite of bills, including mining and oil organizations, the state’s departments of environmental quality and natural resources, chambers of commerce, and other groups, said the bills offer stability, predictability, and certainty. Montana’s emissions, they argued, are but a drop in the global bucket.

“We all share the same air,” said John Iverson, with the Treasure State Resources Association, in a hearing on the air quality bill. “Making one table in a bar the non-smoking table doesn’t do much to improve the air quality. Making one corner of the pool the non-peeing section doesn’t improve your swimming experience.”

Some lawmakers and defendants also questioned the extent to which human-caused climate change is happening at all. “There is a strong sentiment of climate denial in the Capitol,” Hedges said. “They’ll complain about droughts, they’ll complain about wildfires, they will complain about all of the impacts either caused or exacerbated by climate change… but they won’t admit what the problem is and they refuse to do anything about it.”

Other testimony by lawmakers and lobbyists in House and Senate hearings also focused on the state’s constitutionally ordained rights. Along with a clean and healthful environment, the Montana Constitution also grants rights to pursuing life’s basic necessities, protecting liberties and protecting property. The MEPA bills, their supporters argued, help strike a balance between these rights when they butt heads.

In all the hearings, voices opposing the bills—including those of MEIC; conservation groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana Audubon, and Montana Conservation Voters; physicians organizations; citizens and more—have far outnumbered those in favor of the legislation. Testimony focused on the real-time health and environmental impacts of climate change, the importance of the MEPA process and the environmental protections in the Montana constitution.

One additional bill, put forth by a coalition of Democrats, would have revised MEPA to follow the court’s ruling in the Held decision, but it was killed in committee.

Politicizing the judiciary

While legislation directly reacting to Held focused on MEPA and other statutes, another legislative push from Republicans took aim at the branch of government responsible for the decision: the judiciary. Republican frustration with the court system had been building for years, fueled by the Held saga along with other court decisions that blocked laws passed by the legislature rolling back rights for transgender people and abortion access.

After the Held decision, Montana’s Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte put out a statement: “This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy. This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy.”

An interim committee of Republican lawmakers put forth more than 27 bills to reform the judiciary ahead of this year’s legislative session. Two could have huge impacts on climate decisions in the courts by politicizing the judiciary. One bill would create a “court of chancery” specifically designed to tackle constitutional questions stemming from legislation. The three judges in that court would be appointed by the governor.

Another bill would politicize the state’s judicial races. Currently, judicial candidates—including state Supreme Court justices—are elected with no official party affiliation. The legislation would make the races partisan, meaning judges can run as Republicans or Democrats. Republican advocates of the legislation contend that through lobbying and campaign contributions, politics have entered the court system already, and this legislation would, as Gianforte argued in his “State of the State” address, “bring light into this darkness” by allowing voters to know the values of the judges for whom they’re voting.

Republican legislators have called the Held plaintiffs and the judges who decided in their favor radicals, activists, even, disparagingly, “little Greta Thunbergs.” Ler, sponsor of one of the MEPA bills, said in a press conference that the judges’ decision in the Held case was driven by an agenda beyond the desire to enforce the constitution’s requirement of a healthy environment. “This isn’t about climate,” he said. “It’s about control.”

Opponents of the judiciary bills—including Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson—stressed the importance of an independent judicial system as part of the government’s checks and balances.

“You are considering a number of bills that well-respected attorneys are telling you violate the constitutional separation of powers,” Swanson warned lawmakers. “I urge you to listen to those arguments.”

Hedges with the MEIC sees the courts as a scapegoat for those pushing bills to politicize the judiciary. Republican lawmakers, she said, “bitch about the courts on the one hand, but then they give the courts nowhere to turn except to overturn their bills that are unconstitutional. It’s like this little round robin the legislature set up.”

What’s next

All three bills designed to mitigate the impact of Held by limiting the extent to which MEPA can analyze greenhouse gas emissions and the level at which the state can regulate them have passed both chambers of the legislature on party-line votes. Gianforte’s office declined to give an interview about the climate issues being addressed in the legislature, but the governor said in a press conference that he’s looking forward to getting the MEPA bills to his desk.

The bills targeting the judiciary, however, have died—despite being championed by the governor and other powerful Republicans in the legislature. However, things could change. The legislative session will wrap up by early May, and there’s a chance the bills could be revived in another form.

Hedges said the MEPA and air quality bills in particular continue to infringe on Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment, and they’re likely to end up in the courts.

“It’s depressing,” she said. “It’s going to take us years to unwind what they’re doing here. And they [Republican lawmakers] know it; to them, that’s a win.”

Montana’s Republican legislators fight back after successful youth climate lawsuit Read More »

Trump’s hasty Take It Down Act has “gaping flaws” that threaten encryption

ai porn, child safety, ncii, non-consensual intimate imagery, Policy, revenge porn, take it down act / Mike M. / April 29, 2025

Legal challenges will likely immediately follow law’s passage, experts said.

Everyone expects that the Take It Down Act—which requires platforms to remove both real and artificial intelligence-generated non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) within 48 hours of victims’ reports—will likely pass a vote in the House of Representatives tonight.

After that, it goes to Donald Trump’s desk, where the president has confirmed that he will promptly sign it into law, joining first lady Melania Trump in strongly campaigning for its swift passing. Victims-turned-advocates, many of them children, similarly pushed lawmakers to take urgent action to protect a growing number of victims from the increasing risks of being repeatedly targeted in fake sexualized images or revenge porn that experts say can quickly spread widely online.

Digital privacy experts tried to raise some concerns, warning that the law seemed overly broad and could trigger widespread censorship online. Given such a short window to comply, platforms will likely remove some content that may not be NCII, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned. And even more troublingly, the law does not explicitly exempt encrypted messages, which could potentially encourage platforms to one day break encryption due to the liability threat. Also, it seemed likely that the removal process could be abused by people who hope platforms will automatically remove any reported content, especially after Trump admitted that he would use the law to censor his enemies.

None of that feedback mattered, the EFF’s assistant director of federal affairs, Maddie Daly, told Ars. Lawmakers accepted no amendments in their rush to get the bill to Trump’s desk. There was “immense pressure,” Daly said, “to quickly pass this bill without full consideration.” Because of the rush, Daly suggested that the Take It Down Act still has “gaping flaws.”

While the tech law is expected to achieve the rare feat of getting through Congress at what experts told Ars was a record pace, both supporters and critics also expect that the law will just as promptly be challenged in courts.

Supporters have suggested that any litigation exposing flaws could result in amendments. They’re simultaneously bracing for that backlash, while preparing for the win ahead of the vote tonight and hoping that the law can survive any subsequent legal attacks mostly intact.

Experts disagree on encryption threats

In a press conference hosted by the nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation, Slade Bond—who serves as chair of public policy for the law firm Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP—advocated for the law passing, warning, “we should not let caution be the enemy of progress.”

Bond joined other supporters in suggesting that apparent threats to encryption or online speech are “far-fetched.”

On his side was Encode’s vice president of public policy, Adam Billen, who pushed back on the claim that companies might break encryption due to the law’s vague text.

Billen predicted that “most encrypted content” wouldn’t be threatened with takedowns—supposedly including private or direct messages—because he argued that the law explicitly covers content that is published (and, importantly, not just distributed) on services that provide a “forum for specifically user generated content.”

“In our mind, encryption simply just is not a question under this bill, and we have explicitly opposed other legislation that would explicitly break encryption,” Billen said.

That may be one way of reading the law, but Daly told Ars that the EFF’s lawyers had a different take.

“We just don’t agree with that reading,” she said. “As drafted, what will likely pass the floor tonight is absolutely a threat to encryption. There are exemptions for email services, but direct messages, cloud storage, these are not exempted.”

Instead, she suggested that lawmakers jammed the law through without weighing amendments that might have explicitly shielded encryption or prevented politicized censorship.

At the supporters’ press conference, Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu suggested that, for lawmakers facing a public vote, opposing the bill became “totally untenable” because “there’s such obvious harm” and “such a visceral problem with fake porn, particularly of minors.”

Supporter calls privacy fears “hypothetical”

Stefan Turkheimer, vice president of public policy for the anti-sexual abuse organization RAINN, agreed with Wu that the growing problem required immediate regulatory action. While various reports have indicated for the past year that the amount of AI-generated NCII is rising, Turkheimer suggested that all statistics are severely undercounting and outdated as he noted that RAINN’s hotline reports are “doubling” monthly for this kind of abuse.

Coming up for a final vote amid an uptick in abuse reports, the Take It Down Act seeks to address harms that most people find “patently offensive,” Turkheimer said, suggesting it was the kind of bill that “can only get killed in the dark.”

However, Turkheimer was the only supporter at the press conference who indicated that texting may be part of the problem that the law could potentially address, perhaps justifying critics’ concerns. He thinks deterring victims’ harm is more important than weighing critics’ fears of censorship or other privacy risks.

“This is a real harm that a lot of people are experiencing, that every single time that they get a text message or they go on the Internet, they may see themselves in a non-consensual image,” Turkheimer said. “That is the real problem, and we’re balancing” that against “sort of a hypothetical problem on the other end, which is that some people’s speech might be affected.”

Remedying text-based abuse could become a privacy problem, an EFF blog suggested, since communications providers “may be served with notices they simply cannot comply with, given the fact that these providers cannot view the contents of messages on their platforms. Platforms may respond by abandoning encryption entirely in order to be able to monitor content—turning private conversations into surveilled spaces.”

That’s why Daly told Ars that the EFF “is very concerned about the effects of Take It Down,” viewing it as a “massive privacy violation.”

“Congress should protect victims of NCII, but we don’t think that Take It Down is the way to do this or that it will actually protect victims,” Daly said.

Further, the potential for politicians to weaponize the takedown system to censor criticism should not be ignored, the EFF warned in another blog. “There are no penalties whatsoever to dissuade a requester from simply insisting that content is NCII,” the blog noted, urging Congress to instead “focus on enforcing and improving the many existing civil and criminal laws that address NCII, rather than opting for a broad takedown regime.”

“Non-consensual intimate imagery is a serious problem that deserves serious consideration, not a hastily drafted, overbroad bill that sweeps in legal, protected speech,” the EFF said.

That call largely fell on deaf ears. Once the law passes, the EFF will continue recommending encrypted services as a reliable means to protect user privacy, Daly said, but remains concerned about the unintended consequences of the law’s vague encryption language.

Although Bond said that precedent is on supporters’ side—arguing “the Supreme Court has been abundantly clear for decades that the First Amendment is not a shield for the type of content that the Take It Down Act is designed to address,” like sharing child sexual abuse materials or engaging in sextortion—Daly said that the EFF remains optimistic that courts will intervene to prevent critics’ worst fears.

“We expect to see challenges to this,” Daly said. “I don’t think this will pass muster.”

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.

Trump’s hasty Take It Down Act has “gaping flaws” that threaten encryption Read More »

Mike Lindell’s lawyers used AI to write brief—judge finds nearly 30 mistakes

Artificial Intelligence, mike lindell, mypillow, Policy / Mike M. / April 26, 2025

A lawyer representing MyPillow and its CEO Mike Lindell in a defamation case admitted using artificial intelligence in a brief that has nearly 30 defective citations, including misquotes and citations to fictional cases, a federal judge said.

“[T]he Court identified nearly thirty defective citations in the Opposition. These defects include but are not limited to misquotes of cited cases; misrepresentations of principles of law associated with cited cases, including discussions of legal principles that simply do not appear within such decisions; misstatements regarding whether case law originated from a binding authority such as the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; misattributions of case law to this District; and most egregiously, citation of cases that do not exist,” US District Judge Nina Wang wrote in an order to show cause Wednesday.

Wang ordered attorneys Christopher Kachouroff and Jennifer DeMaster to show cause as to why the court should not sanction the defendants, law firm, and individual attorneys. Kachouroff and DeMaster also have to explain why they should not be referred to disciplinary proceedings for violations of the rules of professional conduct.

Kachouroff and DeMaster, who are defending Lindell against a lawsuit filed by former Dominion Voting Systems employee Eric Coomer, both signed the February 25 brief with the defective citations. Kachouroff, representing defendants as lead counsel, admitted using AI to write the brief at an April 21 hearing, the judge wrote. The case is in the US District Court for the District of Colorado.

“Time and time again, when Mr. Kachouroff was asked for an explanation of why citations to legal authorities were inaccurate, he declined to offer any explanation, or suggested that it was a ‘draft pleading,'” Wang wrote. “Not until this Court asked Mr. Kachouroff directly whether the Opposition was the product of generative artificial intelligence did Mr. Kachouroff admit that he did, in fact, use generative artificial intelligence.”

Mike Lindell’s lawyers used AI to write brief—judge finds nearly 30 mistakes Read More »

Comcast president bemoans broadband customer losses: “We are not winning”

Comcast, Policy / Kris Guyer / April 25, 2025

Comcast executives apparently realized something that customers have known and complained about for years: The Internet provider’s prices aren’t transparent enough and rise too frequently.

This might not have mattered much to cable executives as long as the total number of subscribers met their targets. But after reporting a net loss of 183,000 residential broadband customers in Q1 2025, Comcast President Mike Cavanagh said the company isn’t “winning in the marketplace” during an earnings call today. The Q1 2025 customer loss was over three times larger than the net loss in Q1 2024.

While customers often have few viable options for broadband and the availability of alternatives varies widely by location, Comcast faces competition from fiber and fixed wireless ISPs.

“In this intensely competitive environment, we are not winning in the marketplace in a way that is commensurate with the strength of the network and connectivity products that I just described,” Cavanagh said. “[Cable division CEO] Dave [Watson] and his team have worked hard to understand the reasons for this disconnect and have identified two primary causes. One is price transparency and predictability and the other is the level of ease of doing business with us. The good news is that both are fixable and we are already underway with execution plans to address these challenges.”

The 183,000-subscriber loss lowered Comcast’s residential Internet subscribers to 29.19 million. Comcast also reported a first-quarter drop of 17,000 business broadband subscribers, lowering that category’s total to 2.45 million.

Comcast’s stock price fell 3.7 percent today even though its overall profit beat analyst expectations and domestic broadband revenue rose 1.7 percent year over year to $6.56 billion—a sign that Comcast is extracting more money from customers on average. “Analysts peppered Comcast executives with questions on Thursday regarding its Xfinity-branded broadband and mobile, and how the company will pivot the business,” CNBC wrote.

“We are simplifying our pricing”

Cavanagh said that Comcast plans to make changes in marketing and operations “with the highest urgency.” This means that “we are simplifying our pricing construct to make our price-to-value proposition clearer to consumers across all broadband segments,” he said.

Comcast last week announced a five-year price guarantee for broadband customers who sign up for a new package. Comcast said customers will get a “simple monthly price starting as low as $55 per month,” without having to enter a contract, giving them “freedom and flexibility to cancel at any time without penalty.” The five-year guarantee also comes with one year of Xfinity Mobile at no charge, Comcast said.

Comcast president bemoans broadband customer losses: “We are not winning” Read More »

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death

AI, Artificial Intelligence, department of education, Donald Trump, education, Policy / Paul Patrick / April 25, 2025

Trump pushes for industry involvement

It seems clear that Trump’s executive order was a reaction to China’s announcement about AI education reforms last week, as Reuters reported. Elsewhere, Singapore and Estonia have laid out their AI education initiatives, Forbes reported, indicating that AI education is increasingly considered critical to any nation’s success.

Trump’s vision for the US requires training teachers and students about what AI is and what it can do. He offers no new appropriations to fund the initiative; instead, he directs a new AI Education Task Force to find existing funding to cover both research into how to implement AI in education and the resources needed to deliver on the executive order’s promises.

Although AI advocates applauded Trump’s initiative, the executive order’s vagueness makes it uncertain how AI education tools will be assessed as Trump pushes for AI to be integrated into “all subject areas.” Possibly using AI in certain educational contexts could disrupt learning by confabulating misinformation, a concern that the Biden administration had in its more cautious approach to AI education initiatives.

Trump also seems to push for much more private sector involvement than Biden did.

The order recommended that education institutions collaborate with industry partners and other organizations to “collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K–12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills.” These partnerships will be announced on a “rolling basis,” the order said. It also pushed students and teachers to partner with industry for the Presidential AI Challenge to foster collaboration.

For Trump’s AI education plan to work, he will seemingly need the DOE to stay intact. However, so far, Trump has not acknowledged this tension. In March, he ordered the DOE to dissolve, with power returned to states to ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Were that to happen, at least 27 states and Puerto Rico—which EdWeek reported have already laid out their own AI education guidelines—might push back, using their power to control federal education funding to pursue their own AI education priorities and potentially messing with Trump’s plan.

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death Read More »

New Android spyware is targeting Russian military personnel on the front lines

android, Biz & IT, malware, Policy, russia, Security, spyware, Ukraine / Paul Patrick / April 25, 2025

Russian military personnel are being targeted with recently discovered Android malware that steals their contacts and tracks their location.

The malware is hidden inside a modified app for Alpine Quest mapping software, which is used by, among others, hunters, athletes, and Russian personnel stationed in the war zone in Ukraine. The app displays various topographical maps for use online and offline. The trojanized Alpine Quest app is being pushed on a dedicated Telegram channel and in unofficial Android app repositories. The chief selling point of the trojanized app is that it provides a free version of Alpine Quest Pro, which is usually available only to paying users.

Looks like the real thing

The malicious module is named Android.Spy.1292.origin. In a blog post, researchers at Russia-based security firm Dr.Web wrote:

Because Android.Spy.1292.origin is embedded into a copy of the genuine app, it looks and operates as the original, which allows it to stay undetected and execute malicious tasks for longer periods of time.

Each time it is launched, the trojan collects and sends the following data to the C&C server:

the user’s mobile phone number and their accounts;

contacts from the phonebook;

the current date;

the current geolocation;

information about the files stored on the device;

the app’s version.

If there are files of interest to the threat actors, they can update the app with a module that steals them. The threat actors behind Android.Spy.1292.origin are particularly interested in confidential documents sent over Telegram and WhatsApp. They also show interest in the file locLog, the location log created by Alpine Quest. The modular design of the app makes it possible for it to receive additional updates that expand its capabilities even further.

New Android spyware is targeting Russian military personnel on the front lines Read More »

FCC Democrat slams chairman for aiding Trump’s “campaign of censorship”

FCC, fcc news distortion, First Amendment, Policy / Kris Guyer / April 24, 2025

The first event is scheduled for Thursday and will be hosted by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The events will be open to the public and livestreamed when possible, and feature various speakers on free speech, media, and telecommunications issues.

With Democrat Geoffrey Starks planning to leave the commission soon, Republicans will gain a 2–1 majority, and Gomez is set to be the only Democrat on the FCC for at least a while. Carr is meanwhile pursuing news distortion investigations into CBS and ABC, and he has threatened Comcast with a similar probe into its subsidiary NBC.

Gomez’s press release criticized Carr for these and other actions. “From investigating broadcasters for editorial decisions in their newsrooms, to harassing private companies for their fair hiring practices, to threatening tech companies that respond to consumer demand for fact-checking tools, the FCC’s actions have focused on weaponizing the agency’s authority to silence critics,” Gomez’s office said.

Gomez previously criticized Carr for reviving news distortion complaints that were dismissed shortly before Trump’s inauguration. “We cannot allow our licensing authority to be weaponized to curtail freedom of the press,” she said at the time.

FCC Democrat slams chairman for aiding Trump’s “campaign of censorship” Read More »

AI secretly helped write California bar exam, sparking uproar

AI, AI ethics, AI law, machine learning, Policy / Mike M. / April 24, 2025

On Monday, the State Bar of California revealed that it used AI to develop a portion of multiple-choice questions on its February 2025 bar exam, causing outrage among law school faculty and test takers. The admission comes after weeks of complaints about technical problems and irregularities during the exam administration, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The State Bar disclosed that its psychometrician (a person or organization skilled in administrating psychological tests), ACS Ventures, created 23 of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions with AI assistance. Another 48 questions came from a first-year law student exam, while Kaplan Exam Services developed the remaining 100 questions.

The State Bar defended its practices, telling the LA Times that all questions underwent review by content validation panels and subject matter experts before the exam. “The ACS questions were developed with the assistance of AI and subsequently reviewed by content validation panels and a subject matter expert in advance of the exam,” wrote State Bar Executive Director Leah Wilson in a press release.

According to the LA Times, the revelation has drawn strong criticism from several legal education experts. “The debacle that was the February 2025 bar exam is worse than we imagined,” said Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. “I’m almost speechless. Having the questions drafted by non-lawyers using artificial intelligence is just unbelievable.”

Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, called it “a staggering admission.” She pointed out that the same company that drafted AI-generated questions also evaluated and approved them for use on the exam.

State bar defends AI-assisted questions amid criticism

Alex Chan, chair of the State Bar’s Committee of Bar Examiners, noted that the California Supreme Court had urged the State Bar to explore “new technologies, such as artificial intelligence” to improve testing reliability and cost-effectiveness.

AI secretly helped write California bar exam, sparking uproar Read More »

Trump is “desperate” to make a deal—China isn’t, analysts say

china, Donald Trump, Japan, Policy, tariffs, us-china trade war / Rejus Almole / April 24, 2025

Donald Trump has started signaling that he’s ready to slash tariffs on Chinese imports, but economists have warned that the US softening its stance now likely cedes power to China, which perhaps benefits from dragging out trade talks.

On Tuesday, Trump confirmed that he is willing to reduce 145 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports. A senior White House official told The Wall Street Journal that the tariffs may come “down to between roughly 50 percent and 65 percent.” Or perhaps the US may use a tiered approach, charging a 35 percent tax on goods that don’t threaten national security, while requiring 100 percent tariffs on imports “deemed as strategic to America’s interest,” other insiders told the WSJ.

For now, Trump is being vague, only confirming that tariffs “won’t be that high” or “anywhere near” 145 percent. Attempting to maintain a tough veneer, Trump warned that China must act quickly to make a deal to end the trade war or else risk making concessions that China may not consider ideal.

“If they don’t make a deal, we’ll set the deal,” he said.

But analysts told the South China Morning Post that Trump appears “anxious” and “panicked,” rushing to make a deal that China can afford to delay until more favorable terms are offered.

So far, Trump has not met with China’s president Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported, which will be essential to inking a deal. Instead, US officials have been in contact with underlings who have not helped advance the deal. Last week, Trump confirmed the deal was not “imminent,” the South China Morning Post reported, despite meeting a “number of times” to discuss opening up negotiations.

On Wednesday, while analysts suggested that Trump appeared “desperate” for a “quick deal,” China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, warned that the only path to a deal required the US to “stop making threats and resorting to coercion.” According to Alicia Garcia-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at Natixis, China is well-positioned to get a better deal.

“[Trump] needs a quick deal,” Garcia-Herrero told the South China Morning Post. “China does not need to offer anything big in such circumstances, because the US is so desperate for a deal. With a few billion in imports from the US, China might manage to lower the tariffs. The deal might be sweeter for China than in 2019.”

Trump is “desperate” to make a deal—China isn’t, analysts say Read More »

Taxes and fees not included: T-Mobile’s latest price lock is nearly meaningless

Policy, T-Mobile, t-mobile plans, t-mobile price guarantee / Tim Belzer / April 23, 2025

“Price” is locked, but fees aren’t

T-Mobile makes 5-year price guarantee after refusing to honor lifetime price lock.

A T-Mobile store on April 3, 2020, in Zutphen, Netherlands.

T-Mobile is making another long-term price guarantee, but wireless users will rightfully be skeptical since T-Mobile refused to honor a previously offered lifetime price lock and continues to fight a lawsuit filed by customers who were harmed by that broken promise. Moreover, the new plans that come with a price guarantee will have extra fees that can be raised at any time.

T-Mobile today announced new plans with more hotspot data and a five-year price guarantee, saying that “T-Mobile and Metro customers can rest assured that the price of their talk, text and data stays the same for five whole years, from the time they sign up.” The promise applies to the T-Mobile “Experience More” and “Experience Beyond” plans that will be offered starting tomorrow. The plans cost $85 or $100 for a single line after the autopay discount, which requires a debit card or bank account.

The price-lock promise also applies to four new Metro by T-Mobile plans that launch on Thursday. T-Mobile’s announcement came three weeks after Verizon announced a three-year price lock.

If the promise sounds familiar, it’s because T-Mobile made lifetime price guarantees in 2015 and 2017.

“Now, T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan,” T-Mobile said in January 2017. When a similar promise was made in 2015, then-CEO John Legere said that “the Un-contract is our promise to individuals, families and businesses of all sizes, that—while your price may go down—it won’t go up.”

Taxes and fees not included

T-Mobile raised prices on the supposedly price-locked plans about a year ago, triggering a flood of complaints to the Federal Communications Commission and a class action lawsuit. There were also complaints to the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces laws against false advertising. But so far, T-Mobile hasn’t faced any punishment.

Besides the five-year price guarantee, there’s at least one more notable pricing detail. T-Mobile’s previous plans had “taxes and fees included,” meaning the advertised price was inclusive of taxes and fees. With the new Experience plans, taxes and fees will be in addition to the advertised price.

This will make the plans cost more initially than customers might expect, and it gives T-Mobile wiggle room to raise prices during the five years of the price guarantee since it could increase any fees that are tacked onto the new plans. The fine print in today’s press release describes taxes and fees as “exclusions” to the price guarantee.

“Fees” can refer to virtually anything that a carrier chooses to add to a bill and isn’t limited to the carrier’s actual costs from taxes or government mandates. For example, T-Mobile has a “Regulatory Programs and Telco Recovery Fee,” which it acknowledges “is not a government tax or imposed by the government; rather, the fee is collected and retained by T-Mobile to help recover certain costs we have already incurred and continue to incur.”

This can include the cost of complying with legal obligations, “charges imposed on us by other carriers for delivery of calls,” and the cost of leasing network facilities that are needed to provide service, T-Mobile says. In other words, T-Mobile charges a separate fee to cover the normal expenses incurred by any provider of telecommunications services.

The promise is thus that the base price of a service plan won’t change, but T-Mobile gives itself wide discretion to add or increase fees on customers’ monthly bills. “Guarantee means that we won’t change the price of talk, text, and 5G smartphone data on our network for at least 5 years while you are on an Experience plan,” T-Mobile said today. T-Mobile’s terms and conditions haven’t been updated, but the terms address price promises in general, saying that price locks do not include “add-on features, taxes, surcharges, fees, or charges for extra Features or Devices.”

T-Mobile Consumer Group President Jon Freier, who has been with T-Mobile for about two decades, seemed to recognize in an interview with Fierce that customers are likely to be wary of new promises. “One of the things that we’ve heard from customers is that the more definition that we can put in terms of timing around the guarantee, the more believable and useful that guarantee is,” he said. “So we chose to roll out with five years.” Freier asserted that “we are absolutely signing up for the guarantee for the next five years.”

Freier even mentioned the 2015 guarantee in a video announcement today, saying that T-Mobile is now “evolving this promise and expanding it across our portfolio.”

T-Mobile fights price lock lawsuit

There is a better chance that T-Mobile will keep the latest promise, since it is limited in scope and lasts only five years, while the lifetime price lock was supposed to last for as long as customers chose to keep their plans. The lifetime price lock did last for more than five years, after all. But T-Mobile has shown that when it breaks a promise, it is willing to accept the public backlash and fight users in court.

A class action lawsuit over the nullified lifetime price lock is still pending in US District Court for the District of New Jersey. T-Mobile is trying to force plaintiffs into arbitration, and the sides are proceeding with discovery on the matter of whether the named plaintiffs “executed valid opt-outs of Defendant’s arbitration agreement.”

A joint status update in March said that T-Mobile refused to produce all the documents that plaintiffs requested, arguing that the “burden of collecting these documents far outweighs their potential relevance to the allowed scope of discovery.”

T-Mobile tried to give itself a way out when it introduced the 2017 lifetime price lock. Although a press release issued then made the promise sound absolute, a separate FAQ essentially nullified the promise by saying that T-Mobile was only promising to pay a customer’s final bill “if we were to raise prices and you choose to leave.” Customers who tried to hold T-Mobile to the lifetime price promise were not mollified by that carveout, given that it was published on an entirely separate page and not part of the price-lock announcement.

While customers may find it difficult to fully trust T-Mobile’s new guarantee, they can at least take a look at the carveouts to get a sense of how solid the new pledge is. We already noted the taxes and fees caveat, which seems to be the biggest thing to watch out for. This category on its own makes it easy for T-Mobile to raise your bill without technically breaking its promise not to raise the price of “talk, text and data.”

Guarantee “worthless based on T-Mobile’s previous actions”

The new plans are not yet live on T-Mobile’s website, so it’s possible a more detailed breakdown of caveats could be revealed tomorrow when the plans are available. The website for T-Mobile’s separate Metro brand has a slightly more detailed description than the one in the press release. While details could differ between the main T-Mobile brand and Metro, the Metro page says:

5-year guarantee means we won’t change the price of talk, text, and 5G smartphone data on our network for at least 5 years while you are on an eligible plan. Guarantee also applies to price for data on wearable/tablet/mobile Internet lines added to your plan. Your guarantee starts when you activate or switch to an eligible plan and doesn’t restart if you add a line or change plans after that. Per-use charges, plan add-ons, third-party services, and network management practices aren’t included.

As you might expect, wireless users commenting on the T-Mobile subreddit were not impressed by the price promise. “Price guarantee is worthless based on T-Mobile’s previous actions. They might as well save the ink/electrons,” one user wrote.

Many users remarked on the removal of “taxes and fees included,” and the specific end date for the price lock that applies only to the base price. “This is them saying we are sorry we screwed consumers,” one person wrote. “Now we will be more transparent about when in the future we will increase your rates.”

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.

Taxes and fees not included: T-Mobile’s latest price lock is nearly meaningless Read More »

Harvard sues to block government funding cuts

First Amendment, Harvard, lawsuit, Policy, research funding, Science, Title VI, trump administration / Paul Patrick / April 23, 2025

The suit also claims that the funding hold, made in retaliation for Harvard’s letter announcing its refusal to accept these conditions, punishes Harvard for exercising free speech.

Separately, the lawsuit focuses on Title VI, part of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits the government from funding organizations that engage in racial discrimination. It’s Harvard’s alleged tolerance for antisemitism that would enable the government to put a hold on these funds. But the suit spells out the requirements for cutting funding—hearings, a 30-day waiting period, notification of Congress—that the law requires before funding can be cut. And, quite obviously, the government has done none of them.

Harvard also alleges that the government’s decision to hold research funds is arbitrary and capricious: “The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen.”

Finally, the court is asked to consider an issue that’s central to a lot of the questions regarding Trump Administration actions: Can the executive branch stop the flow of money that was allocated by Congress? “Defendants do not have any inherent authority to terminate or freeze appropriated federal funding,” the suit claims.

Remedies

The suit seeks various remedies. It wants the government’s actions declared illegal, the freeze order vacated, and prohibitions put in place that will prevent the government from accomplishing the freeze through some other means. Harvard would also like any further reactions to allegations of antisemitism to follow the procedures mandated by Title VI and to have the government cover its attorney’s fees.

It also wants the ruling expedited, given the potential for damage to university-hosted research. The suit was filed in the District of Massachusetts, which is the same venue that has been used for other suits seeking to restrain the Trump administration’s attack on federally funded research. So far, those have resulted in rapid responses and injunctions that have put damaging funding cuts on hold. So, there’s a good chance we’ll see something similar here.

Harvard sues to block government funding cuts Read More »

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown”

Donald Trump, national security, Policy, signal, signalgate / Kris Guyer / April 22, 2025

“Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer,” Ullyot forecasted.

According to NPR—which has been the target of Trump threats to rescind funding—four of Hegseth’s senior advisors abruptly quit after The Times report was published. “They have all released public statements suggesting infighting within the department of defense,” NPR reported.

But Trump and Hegseth are presenting a united front against the public backlash. Trump confirmed that he considers any discussion of Hegseth’s chats a “waste of time,” The New York Times reported. And on Sunday, Hegseth told reporters gathered for a White House Easter event that he and Trump are “on the same page all the way.”

Hegseth labeled The Times’ latest report as a “hit piece.” Citing four people familiar with his family Signal chat, NYT report noted that Hegseth updated both Signal groups about the attack plans at about the same time, and these “were among the first big military strikes of Mr. Hegseth’s tenure.”

The implication is that if the media hadn’t outed the Signal use, perhaps Hegseth may have continued risking leaks of confidential military information. And although he and Trump hope the backlash will die down soon, his inclusion of his wife and brother on the second chat likely raises additional flags and “is sure to raise further questions about his adherence to security protocols,” the NYT suggested.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, joined the White House in pushing back against reports, claiming the NYT’s sources are “disgruntled” former employees and insisting on X that “there was no classified information in any Signal chat.”

According to The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally copied on the initial Signal chat that sparked the backlash, Hegseth shared “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” two hours before the attack.

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown” Read More »