Policy

reports:-china-hacked-verizon-and-at&t,-may-have-accessed-us-wiretap-systems

Reports: China hacked Verizon and AT&T, may have accessed US wiretap systems

AT&T, Policy, salt typoon, verizon / /

Chinese government hackers penetrated the networks of several large US-based Internet service providers and may have gained access to systems used for court-authorized wiretaps of communications networks, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday. “People familiar with the matter” told the WSJ that hackers breached the networks of companies including Verizon, AT&T, and Lumen (also known as CenturyLink).

“A cyberattack tied to the Chinese government penetrated the networks of a swath of US broadband providers, potentially accessing information from systems the federal government uses for court-authorized network wiretapping requests,” the WSJ wrote. “For months or longer, the hackers might have held access to network infrastructure used to cooperate with lawful US requests for communications data, according to people familiar with the matter.”

These “attackers also had access to other tranches of more generic Internet traffic,” according to the WSJ’s sources. The attack is being attributed to a Chinese hacking group called Salt Typhoon.

The Washington Post reported on the hacking campaign yesterday, describing it as “an audacious espionage operation likely aimed in part at discovering the Chinese targets of American surveillance.” The Post report attributed the information to US government officials and said an investigation by the FBI, other intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security “is in its early stages.”

The Post report said there are indications that China’s Ministry of State Security is involved in the attacks.

Verizon reportedly working with FBI

Verizon reportedly set up a war room at its facility in Ashburn, Virginia, where it is working with personnel from the FBI, Microsoft, and Google subsidiary Mandiant.

Reports: China hacked Verizon and AT&T, may have accessed US wiretap systems Read More »

elon-musk’s-x-loses-battle-over-federal-request-for-trump’s-dms

Elon Musk’s X loses battle over federal request for Trump’s DMs

Donald Trump, elon musk, government data requests, January 6, Policy, presidential record act, Stored Communications Act, Twitter, X, x corp / /

Prosecutors now have a “blueprint” to seize privileged communications, X warned.

Last year, special counsel Jack Smith asked X (formerly Twitter) to hand over Donald Trump’s direct messages from his presidency without telling Trump. Refusing to comply, X spent the past year arguing that the gag order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on X’s speech and an “end-run” around a record law shielding privileged presidential communications.

Under its so-called free speech absolutist owner Elon Musk, X took this fight all the way to the Supreme Court, only for the nation’s highest court to decline to review X’s appeal on Monday.

It’s unclear exactly why SCOTUS rejected X’s appeal, but in a court filing opposing SCOTUS review, Smith told the court that X’s “contentions lack merit and warrant no further review.” And SCOTUS seemingly agreed.

The government had argued that its nondisclosure order was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in stopping Trump from either deleting his DMs or intimidating witnesses engaged in his DMs while he was in office.

At that time, Smith was publicly probing the interference with a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election, and courts had agreed that “there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that disclosing the warrant” to Trump “‘would seriously jeopardize the ongoing investigation’ by giving him ‘an opportunity to destroy evidence, change patterns of behavior, [or] notify confederates,” Smith’s court filing said.

Under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the government can request data and apply for a nondisclosure order gagging any communications provider from tipping off an account holder about search warrants for limited periods deemed appropriate by a court, Smith noted. X was only prohibited from alerting Trump to the search warrant for 180 days, Smith said, and only restricted from discussing the existence of the warrant.

As the government sees it, this reliance on the SCA “does not give unbounded, standardless discretion to government officials or otherwise create a risk of ‘freewheeling censorship,'” like X claims. But the government warned that affirming X’s appeal “would mean that no SCA warrant could be enforced without disclosure to a potential privilege holder, regardless of the dangers to the integrity of the investigation.”

Court finds X alternative to gag order “unpalatable”

X tried to wave a red flag in its SCOTUS petition, warning the court that this was “the first time in American history” that a court “ordered disclosure of presidential communications without notice to the President and without any adjudication of executive privilege.”

The social media company argued that it receives “tens of thousands” of government data requests annually—including “thousands” with nondisclosure orders—and pushes back on any request for privileged information that does not allow users to assert their privileges. Allowing the lower court rulings to stand, X warned SCOTUS, could create a path for government to illegally seize information not just protected by executive privilege, but also by attorney-client, doctor-patient, or journalist-source privileges.

X’s “policy is to notify users about law enforcement requests ‘prior to disclosure of account information’ unless legally ‘prohibited from doing so,'” X argued.

X suggested that rather than seize Trump’s DMs without giving him a chance to assert his executive privilege, the government should have designated a representative capable of weighing and asserting whether some of the data requested was privileged. That’s how the Presidential Records Act (PRA) works, X noted, suggesting that Smith’s team was improperly trying to avoid PRA compliance by invoking SCA instead.

But the US government didn’t have to prove that the less-restrictive alternative X submitted would have compromised its investigation, X said, because the court categorically rejected X’s submission as “unworkable” and “unpalatable.”

According to the court, designating a representative placed a strain on the government to deduce if the representative could be trusted not to disclose the search warrant. But X pointed out that the government had no explanation for why a PRA-designated representative, Steven Engel—a former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel who “publicly testified about resisting the former President’s conduct”—”could not be trusted to follow a court order forbidding him from further disclosure.”

“Going forward, the government will never have to prove it could avoid seriously jeopardizing its investigation by disclosing a warrant to only a trusted representative—a common alternative to nondisclosure orders,” X argued.

In a brief supporting X, attorneys for the nonprofit digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote that the court was “unduly dismissive of the arguments” X raised and “failed to apply exacting scrutiny, relieving the government of its burden to actually demonstrate, with evidence, that these alternatives would be ineffective.”

Further, X argued that none of the government’s arguments for nondisclosure made sense. Not only was Smith’s investigation announced publicly—allowing Trump ample time to delete his DMs already—but also “there was no risk of destruction of the requested records because Twitter had preserved them.” On top of that, during the court battle, the government eventually admitted that one rationale for the nondisclosure order—that Trump posed a supposed “flight risk” if the search warrant was known—”was implausible because the former President already had announced his re-election run.”

X unsuccessfully pushed SCOTUS to take on the Trump case as an “ideal” and rare opportunity to publicly decide when nondisclosure orders cross the line when seeking to seize potentially privileged information on social media.

In its petition for SCOTUS review, X pointed out that every social media or communications platform is bombarded with government data requests that only the platforms can challenge. That leaves it up to platforms to figure out when data requests are problematic, which they frequently are, as “the government often agrees to modify or vacate them in informal negotiations,” X argued.

But when the government refuses to negotiate, as in the Trump case, platforms have to decide if litigation is worth it, risking sanctions if the court finds the platform in contempt, just as X was sanctioned $350,000 in the Trump case. If a less restrictive alternative was determined appropriate by the courts, such as appointing a trusted representative, platforms would never have had to guess when data requests threaten to expose their users’ privileged information, X argued.

According to X, another case like this won’t come around for decades, where court filings wouldn’t have to be redacted and a ruling wouldn’t have to happen behind closed doors.

But the government seemingly persuaded the Supreme Court to decline to review the case, partly by arguing that X’s challenge to its nondisclosure order was moot. Responding to X’s objections, the government had eventually agreed to modify the nondisclosure order to disclose the warrant to Trump, so long as the name of the case agent assigned to the investigation was redacted. So X’s appeal is really over nothing, the government suggested.

Additionally, the government argued that “this case would not be an appropriate vehicle” for SCOTUS’ review of the question X raised because “no executive privilege issue actually existed in this case.”

“If review of the underlying legal issues were ever warranted, the Court should await a live case in which the issues are concretely presented,” Smith’s court filing said.

X is likely deflated by SCOTUS’ call declining to review X’s appeal. In its petition, X claimed that the court system risked providing “a blueprint for prosecutors who wish to obtain potentially privileged materials” and “this end-run will not be limited to federal prosecutors,” X warned. State prosecutors will likely also be emboldened to do the same now that the precedent has been set, X predicted.

In their brief supporting X, EFF lawyers noted that the government already has “far too much authority to shield its activities from public scrutiny.” By failing to prevent nondisclosure orders from restraining speech, the court system risks making it harder to “meaningfully test these gag orders in court,” EFF warned.

“Even a meritless gag order that is ultimately voided by a court causes great harm while it is in effect,” EFF’s lawyers said, while disclosure “ensures that individuals whose information is searched have an opportunity to defend their privacy from unwarranted and unlawful government intrusions.”

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.

Elon Musk’s X loses battle over federal request for Trump’s DMs Read More »

scotus-denial-ends-saga-of-shkreli’s-infamous-5,000%-drug-price-scheme

SCOTUS denial ends saga of Shkreli’s infamous 5,000% drug price scheme

daraprim, drug pricing, health, Marin Shkreli, Policy, Science, Shkreli / /

The legal saga over Martin Shkreli’s infamous 5,000 percent price hike of a life-saving anti-parasitic drug has ended with a flat denial from the highest court in the land.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected Shkreli’s petition to appeal an order to return $64.6 million in profits from the pricing scheme of Daraprim, a decades-old drug used to treat toxoplasmosis. The condition is caused by a single-celled parasite that can be deadly for newborns and people with compromised immune systems, such as people who have HIV, cancer, or an organ transplant.

Federal prosecutors successfully argued in courts that Shkreli orchestrated an illegal anticompetitive scheme that allowed him to dramatically raise the price of Daraprim overnight. When Shkreli and his pharmaceutical company, Vyera (formerly Turing), bought the rights to the drug in 2015, the price of a single pill jumped to $750 after being priced between $13.50 and $17.50 earlier that year. And Shkreli quickly came to epitomize callous greed in the pharmaceutical industry.

In a lawsuit filed in 2021, the Federal Trade Commission and seven state attorneys general accused Shkreli of building a “web of anticompetitive restrictions to box out the competition.” In January of 2022, US District Court Judge Denise Cote agreed, finding that Shkreli’s conduct was “egregious, deliberate, repetitive, long-running, and ultimately dangerous.”

SCOTUS denial ends saga of Shkreli’s infamous 5,000% drug price scheme Read More »

fcc-lets-starlink-provide-service-to-cell-phones-in-areas-hit-by-hurricane

FCC lets Starlink provide service to cell phones in areas hit by hurricane

Policy, starlink t-mobile / /

The Federal Communications Commission gave Starlink and T-Mobile emergency authority to provide satellite-to-phone coverage in areas hit by Hurricane Helene.

“SpaceX and T-Mobile have been given emergency special temporary authority by the FCC to enable Starlink satellites with direct-to-cell capability to provide coverage for cell phones in the affected areas of Hurricane Helene,” SpaceX said yesterday. “The satellites have already been enabled and started broadcasting emergency alerts to cell phones on all networks in North Carolina. In addition, we may test basic texting (SMS) capabilities for most cell phones on the T-Mobile network in North Carolina.”

SpaceX warned of limits since the service isn’t ready for a commercial rollout. “SpaceX’s direct-to-cell constellation has not been fully deployed, so all services will be delivered on a best-effort basis,” the company said.

Starlink is being used to provide wireless emergency alerts to cell phones from all carriers in North Carolina, according to Ben Longmier, senior director of satellite engineering for SpaceX. “We are also closely monitoring Hurricane Milton and standing by ready to take action in Florida,” he wrote.

Temporary spectrum authority

The FCC said the approval “enabl[es] SpaceX to operate Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) in the 1910–1915 MHz and 1990–1995 MHz frequency bands leased from T-Mobile in areas affected by the Hurricane Helene.” An FCC spokesperson told Ars that the approval is for all areas affected by Hurricane Helene, although it’s only active in North Carolina so far.

The FCC also said that it is granting “special temporary authorities to licensees and issuing rule waivers to help communications providers maintain and restore service, support emergency operations, and assist public safety, including search and rescue efforts.” Separately, the FCC last week waived certain Lifeline program eligibility rules to help people in disaster areas apply for discounted phone and broadband service.

SpaceX began launching satellites with direct-to-cell capabilities in January 2024 and showed a demo of text messages sent between T-Mobile phones via one of Starlink’s low-Earth orbit satellites. T-Mobile has said the Starlink service for phones will help cover gaps in areas where it has no coverage “due to terrain limitations, land-use restrictions,” and other factors.

FCC lets Starlink provide service to cell phones in areas hit by hurricane Read More »

smart-tvs-are-like-“a-digital-trojan-horse”-in-people’s-homes

Smart TVs are like “a digital Trojan Horse” in people’s homes

ads, FCC, ftc, generative ai, Policy, streaming, Tech, TVs / /

Similarly, the report’s authors describe concerns that the CTV industry’s extensive data collection and tracking could potentially have a political impact. It asserts that political candidates could use such data to run “covert personalized campaigns” leveraging information on things like political orientations and “emotional states”:

With no transparency or oversight, these practices could unleash millions of personalized, manipulative and highly targeted political ads, spread disinformation, and further exacerbate the political polarization that threatens a healthy democratic culture in the US.

“Potential discriminatory impacts”

The CDD’s report claims that Black, Hispanic, and Asian-Americans in the US are being “singled out by marketers as highly lucrative targets,” due to fast adoption of new digital media services and brand loyalty. Black and Hispanic communities are key advertising targets for FAST channels, per the report. Chester told Ars:

There are major potential discriminatory impacts from CTV’s harvesting of data from communities of color.

He pointed to “growing widespread racial and ethnic data” collection for ad targeting and marketing.

“We believe this is sensitive information that should not be applied to the data profiles used for targeting on CTV and across other platforms. … Its use in political advertising on CTV will enable widespread disinformation and voter suppression campaigns targeting these communities,” Chester said.

Regulation

In a letter sent to the FTC, FCC, California attorney general, and CPPA , the CDD asked for an investigation into the US’ CTV industry, “including on antitrust, consumer protection, and privacy grounds.” The CDD emphasized the challenges that streamers—including those who pay for ad-free streaming—face in protecting their data from advertisers.

“Connected television has taken root and grown as an unregulated medium in the United States, along with the other platforms, devices, and applications that are part of the massive internet industry,” the report says.

The group asks for the FTC and FCC to investigate CTV practices and consider building on current legislation, like the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. They also request that antitrust regulators delve deeply into the business practices of CTV players like Amazon, Comcast, and Disney to help build “competition and diversity in the digital and connected TV marketplace.”

Smart TVs are like “a digital Trojan Horse” in people’s homes Read More »

neo-nazis-head-to-encrypted-simplex-chat-app,-bail-on-telegram

Neo-Nazis head to encrypted SimpleX Chat app, bail on Telegram

Biz & IT, hate speech, Neo-nazis, Policy, privacy, SimpleX Chat, syndication, telegram / /

“SimpleX, at its core, is designed to be truly distributed with no central server. This allows for enormous scalability at low cost, and also makes it virtually impossible to snoop on the network graph,” Poberezkin wrote in a company blog post published in 2022.

SimpleX’s policies expressly prohibit “sending illegal communications” and outline how SimpleX will remove such content if it is discovered. Much of the content that these terrorist groups have shared on Telegram—and are already resharing on SimpleX—has been deemed illegal in the UK, Canada, and Europe.

Argentino wrote in his analysis that discussion about moving from Telegram to platforms with better security measures began in June, with discussion of SimpleX as an option taking place in July among a number of extremist groups. Though it wasn’t until September, and the Terrorgram arrests, that the decision was made to migrate to SimpleX, the groups are already establishing themselves on the new platform.

“The groups that have migrated are already populating the platform with legacy material such as Terrorgram manuals and are actively recruiting propagandists, hackers, and graphic designers, among other desired personnel,” the ISD researchers wrote.

However, there are some downsides to the additional security provided by SimpleX, such as the fact that it is not as easy for these groups to network and therefore grow, and disseminating propaganda faces similar restrictions.

“While there is newfound enthusiasm over the migration, it remains unclear if the platform will become a central organizing hub,” ISD researchers wrote.

And Poberezkin believes that the current limitations of his technology will mean these groups will eventually abandon SimpleX.

“SimpleX is a communication network rather than a service or a platform where users can host their own servers, like in OpenWeb, so we were not aware that extremists have been using it,” says Poberezkin. “We never designed groups to be usable for more than 50 users and we’ve been really surprised to see them growing to the current sizes despite limited usability and performance. We do not think it is technically possible to create a social network of a meaningful size in the SimpleX network.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Neo-Nazis head to encrypted SimpleX Chat app, bail on Telegram Read More »

x-fails-to-avoid-australia-child-safety-fine-by-arguing-twitter-doesn’t-exist

X fails to avoid Australia child safety fine by arguing Twitter doesn’t exist

australia, child sexual abuse materials, csam, elon musk, online child safety, Online safety, Policy, Twitter, X, x corp / /

“I cannot accept this evidence without a much better explanation of Mr. Bogatz’s path of reasoning,” Wheelahan wrote.

Wheelahan emphasized that the Nevada merger law specifically stipulated that “all debts, liabilities, obligations and duties of the Company shall thenceforth remain with or be attached to, as the case may be, the Acquiror and may be enforced against it to the same extent as if it had incurred or contracted all such debts, liabilities, obligations, and duties.” And Bogatz’s testimony failed to “grapple with the significance” of this, Wheelahan said.

Overall, Wheelahan considered Bogatz’s testimony on X’s merger-acquired liabilities “strained,” while deeming the government’s US merger law expert Alexander Pyle to be “honest and ready to make appropriate concessions,” even while some of his testimony was “not of assistance.”

Luckily, it seemed that Wheelahan had no trouble drawing his own conclusion after analyzing Nevada’s merger law.

“I find that a Nevada court would likely hold that the word ‘liabilities'” in the merger law “is broad enough on its proper construction under Nevada law to encompass non-pecuniary liabilities, such as the obligation to respond to the reporting notice,” Wheelahan wrote. “X Corp has therefore failed to show that it was not required to respond to the reporting notice.”

Because X “failed on all its claims,” the social media company must cover costs from the appeal, and X’s costs in fighting the initial fine will seemingly only increase from here.

Fighting fine likely to more than double X costs

In a press release celebrating the ruling, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant criticized X’s attempt to use the merger to avoid complying with Australia’s Online Safety Act.

X fails to avoid Australia child safety fine by arguing Twitter doesn’t exist Read More »

why-trolls,-extremists,-and-others-spread-conspiracy-theories-they-don’t-believe

Why trolls, extremists, and others spread conspiracy theories they don’t believe

conspiracy theories, misinformation, Policy, Science, syndication, trolling / /

Some just want to promote conflict, cause chaos, or even just get attention.

Picture of a person using an old Mac with a paper bag over his head. The bag has the face of a troll drawn on it.

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

Coaxing conspiracists—the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58 percent were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

Combative conspiracists—the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side. Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

Chaos conspiracists—the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

Commercial conspiracists—the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

Common conspiracists—the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family, and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7 percent to 20 percent of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write—and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

H. Colleen Sinclair is Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology at Louisiana State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Photo of The Conversation

The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community. Our team of editors work with these experts to share their knowledge with the wider public. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues, and hopefully improve the quality of public discourse on them.

Why trolls, extremists, and others spread conspiracy theories they don’t believe Read More »

youtube-fixes-glitch-that-wrongly-removed-accounts,-deleted-videos

YouTube fixes glitch that wrongly removed accounts, deleted videos

Google, Policy, youtube, YouTube bug, youtube music, YouTube Premium, youtube TV / /

As a message highlighted above the thread warned YouTube users that there were “longer than normal wait times” for support requests, YouTube continually asked for “patience” and turned off the comments.

“We are very sorry for this error on our part,” YouTube said.

Unable to leave comments, thousands of users mashed a button on the support thread, confirming that they had “the same question.” On Friday morning, 8,000 users had signaled despair, and as of this writing, the number had notched up to nearly 11,000.

YouTube has not confirmed how many users were removed, so that’s likely the best estimate we have for how many users were affected.

On Friday afternoon, YouTube did update the thread, confirming that “all channels incorrectly removed for Spam & Deceptive Practices have been fully reinstated!”

While YouTube claims that all channels are back online, not all the videos mistakenly removed were reinstated, YouTube said. Although most of the users impacted were reportedly non-creators, and therefore their livelihoods were likely not disrupted by the bug, at least one commenter complained, “my two most-viewed videos got deleted,” suggesting some account holders may highly value the videos still missing on their accounts.

“We’re working on reinstating the last few videos, thanks for bearing with us!” YouTube’s update said. “We know this was a frustrating experience, really appreciate your patience while we sort this out.”

It’s unclear if paid subscribers will be reimbursed for lost access to content.

YouTube did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

YouTube fixes glitch that wrongly removed accounts, deleted videos Read More »

apple-couldn’t-tell-fake-iphones-from-real-ones,-lost-$2.5m-to-scammers

Apple couldn’t tell fake iPhones from real ones, lost $2.5M to scammers

Apple, counterfeit iPhone, fake iPhone, IPhone, iPhone repairs, iPhone returns, iPhone scam, mail fraud, Policy / /

Two men involved in an elaborate scheme duping Apple into replacing about 6,000 counterfeit iPhones with genuine iPhones were sentenced to prison this week, the US Department of Justice announced Thursday.

Together with their co-conspirators, the 34-year-old scammers, Haotian Sun and Pengfei Xue, squeezed Apple for about $2.5 million, as employees for years failed to detect what the DOJ described as a rather “sophisticated” scheme between 2017 and 2019.

Now Sun has been sentenced to 57 months in prison and must pay more than $1 million to Apple in restitution. For his part, Xue was sentenced to 54 months and ordered to pay $397,800 in restitution, the DOJ said. Additionally, both men must also serve three years of supervised release and forfeit thousands more following the judgment.

The scheme depended on tricking Apple into accepting bogus phones during returns by spoofing serial numbers or International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers linked to real customers’ iPhones that were still under warranty. (Apple provides a one-year warranty for new iPhones discovered to have defects and sells insurance plans to extend the warranties.)

The scammers were caught and convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud after an Apple investigator tipped law enforcement off, a 2019 affidavit from postal inspector Stephen Cohen said.

Law enforcement intercepted packages and confirmed that thousands of counterfeit phones were being shipped from China, then submitted to Apple for repairs either by mail or in person. These counterfeit phones, Cohen said, were either out of warranty or contained counterfeit parts, but Apple “wrongly” believed that they were real phones under real warranties, often replacing dozens of fake phones fraudulently returned in a single shipment, Cohen said.

Apple couldn’t tell fake iPhones from real ones, lost $2.5M to scammers Read More »

automattic-demanded-web-host-pay-$32m-annually-for-using-wordpress-trademark

Automattic demanded web host pay $32M annually for using WordPress trademark

automattic, Policy, wordpress, wp engine / /

Automattic founder Matt Mullenweg called WP Engine “a cancer to WordPress.”

Matt Mullenweg of WordPress company Automattic sits in front of a laptop adorned with a WordPress logo.

Automattic founder and WordPress co-author Matt Mullenweg in San Francisco on July 24, 2013.

Automattic Inc. and its founder have been sued by a WordPress hosting company that alleges an extortion scheme to extract payments for use of the trademark for the open source WordPress software. Hosting firm WP Engine sued Automattic and founder Matt Mullenweg in a complaint filed yesterday in US District Court for the Northern District of California.

“This is a case about abuse of power, extortion, and greed,” the lawsuit said. “The misconduct at issue here is all the more shocking because it occurred in an unexpected place—the WordPress open source software community built on promises of the freedom to build, run, change, and redistribute without barriers or constraints, for all.”

The lawsuit alleged that “over the last two weeks, Defendants have been carrying out a scheme to ban WPE from the WordPress community unless it agreed to pay tens of millions of dollars to Automattic for a purported trademark license that WPE does not even need.”

The complaint says that Mullenweg blocked WP Engine “from updating the WordPress plugins that it publishes through wordpress.org,” and “withdrew login credentials for individual employees at WPE, preventing them from logging into their personal accounts to access other wordpress.org resources, including the community Slack channels which are used to coordinate contributions to WordPress Core, the Trac system which allows contributors to propose work to do on WordPress, and the SubVersion system that manages code contributions.”

The lawsuit makes accusations, including libel, slander, and attempted extortion, and demands a jury trial. The lawsuit was filed along with an exhibit that shows Automattic’s demand for payment. A September 23 letter to WP Engine from Automattic’s legal team suggests “a mere 8% royalty” on WP Engine’s roughly $400 million in annual revenue, or about $32 million.

“WP Engine’s unauthorized use of our Client’s trademarks… has enabled WP Engine to unfairly compete with our Client, leading to WP Engine’s unjust enrichment,” Automattic alleged in the letter.

Mullenweg: WP Engine “a cancer to WordPress”

Mullenweg co-authored the WordPress software first released in 2003 and founded Automattic in 2005. Automattic operates the WordPress-based publishing platform WordPress.com. Meanwhile, the nonprofit WordPress Foundation, also founded by Mullenweg, says it works “to ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects we support.”

Last month, Mullenweg wrote a blog post alleging that WP Engine is “a cancer to WordPress” and that it provides “something that they’ve chopped up, hacked, butchered to look like WordPress, but actually they’re giving you a cheap knock-off and charging you more for it.”

Mullenweg criticized WP Engine’s decision to disable the WordPress revision management system. WP Engine’s “branding, marketing, advertising, and entire promise to customers is that they’re giving you WordPress, but they’re not,” Mullenweg wrote. “And they’re profiting off of the confusion. WP Engine needs a trademark license to continue their business.”

In another blog post and a speech at a WordPress conference, Mullenweg alleged that WP Engine doesn’t contribute much to the open source project. He also pointed to WP Engine’s funding from private equity firm Silver Lake, writing that “Silver Lake doesn’t give a dang about your Open Source ideals. It just wants a return on capital.”

WP Engine alleges broken promises

WP Engine’s lawsuit points to promises made by Mullenweg and Automattic nearly 15 years ago. “In 2010, in response to mounting public concern, the WordPress source code and trademarks were placed into the nonprofit WordPress Foundation (which Mullenweg created), with Mullenweg and Automattic making sweeping promises of open access for all,” the lawsuit said.

Mullenweg wrote at the time that “Automattic has transferred the WordPress trademark to the WordPress Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to promoting and ensuring access to WordPress and related open source projects in perpetuity. This means that the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company.”

WP Engine alleges that Automattic and Mullenweg did not disclose “that while they were publicly touting their purported good deed of moving this intellectual property away from a private company, and into the safe hands of a nonprofit, Defendants in fact had quietly transferred irrevocable, exclusive, royalty-free rights in the WordPress trademarks right back to Automattic that very same day in 2010. This meant that far from being ‘independent of any company’ as Defendants had promised, control over the WordPress trademarks effectively never left Automattic’s hands.”

WP Engine accuses the defendants of “misusing these trademarks for their own financial gain and to the detriment of the community members.” WP Engine said it was founded in 2010 and relied on the promises made by Automattic and Mullenweg. “WPE is a true champion of WordPress, devoting its entire business to WordPress over other similar open source platforms,” the lawsuit said.

Firm defends “fair use” of WordPress trademark

The defendants’ demand that WP Engine pay tens of millions of dollars for a trademark license “came without warning” and “gave WPE less than 48 hours to either agree to pay them off or face the consequences of being banned and publicly smeared,” according to the lawsuit. WP Engine pointed to Mullenweg’s “cancer” remark and other actions, writing:

When WPE did not capitulate, Defendants carried out their threats, unleashing a self-described “nuclear” war against WPE. That war involved defaming WPE in public presentations, directly sending disparaging and inflammatory messages into WPE customers’ software and through the Internet, threatening WPE’s CEO and one of its board members, publicly encouraging WPE’s customers to take their business to Automattic’s competing service providers (for a discounted fee, no less), and ultimately blocking WPE and its customers from accessing the wordpress.org portal and wordpress.org servers. By blocking access to wordpress.org, Defendants have prevented WPE from accessing a host of functionality typically available to the WordPress community on wordpress.org.

During calls on September 17 and 19, “Automattic CFO Mark Davies told a WPE board member that Automattic would ‘go to war’ if WPE did not agree to pay its competitor Automattic a significant percentage of WPE’s gross revenues—tens of millions of dollars—on an ongoing basis,” the lawsuit said. WP Engine says it doesn’t need a license to use the WordPress trademark “and had no reasonable expectation that Automattic had a right to demand money for use of a trademark owned by the separate nonprofit WordPress Foundation.”

“WPE’s nominative uses of those marks to refer to the open-source software platform and plugin used for its clients’ websites are fair uses under settled trademark law, and they are consistent with WordPress’ own guidelines and the practices of nearly all businesses in this space,” the lawsuit said.

Automattic alleged “widespread unlicensed use”

Exhibit A in the lawsuit includes a letter to WP Engine CEO Heather Brunner from a trademark lawyer representing Automattic and a subsidiary, WooCommerce, which makes a plugin for WordPress.

“As you know, our Client owns all intellectual property rights globally in and to the world-famous WOOCOMMERCE and WOO trademarks; and the exclusive commercial rights from the WordPress Foundation to use, enforce, and sublicense the world-famous WORDPRESS trademark, among others, and all other associated intellectual property rights,” the letter said.

The letter alleged that “your blatant and widespread unlicensed use of our Client’s trademarks has infringed our Client’s rights and confused consumers into believing, falsely, that WP Engine is authorized, endorsed, or sponsored by, or otherwise affiliated or associated with, our Client.” It also alleged that “WP Engine’s entire business model is predicated on using our Client’s trademarks… to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between WP Engine and Automattic.”

The letter threatened a lawsuit, saying that Automattic “is entitled to file civil litigation to obtain an injunction and an award of actual damages, a disgorgement of your profits, and our Client’s costs and fees.” The letter demands an accounting of WP Engine’s profits, saying that “even a mere 8% royalty on WP Engine’s $400+ million in annual revenue equates to more than $32 million in annual lost licensing revenue for our Client.”

WP Engine’s lawsuit asks the court for a “judgment declaring that Plaintiff does not infringe or dilute any enforceable, valid trademark rights owned by the Defendants.” It also seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

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

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.

Automattic demanded web host pay $32M annually for using WordPress trademark Read More »

elon-musk-claims-victory-after-judge-blocks-calif.-deepfake-law

Elon Musk claims victory after judge blocks Calif. deepfake law

AI, ai-generated content, California, deceptive content, Deepfakes, disinformation, election laws, election misinformation, elon musk, Gavin Newsom, Policy, Twitter, X, youtube / /

“Almost any digitally altered content, when left up to an arbitrary individual on the Internet, could be considered harmful,” Mendez said, even something seemingly benign like AI-generated estimates of voter turnouts shared online.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has held that “even deliberate lies (said with ‘actual malice’) about the government are constitutionally protected” because the right to criticize the government is at the heart of the First Amendment.

“These same principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered: civil penalties for criticisms on the government like those sanctioned by AB 2839 have no place in our system of governance,” Mendez said.

According to Mendez, X posts like Kohls’ parody videos are the “political cartoons of today” and California’s attempt to “bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment” is not justified by even “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape.” If officials find deepfakes are harmful to election prospects, there is already recourse through privacy torts, copyright infringement, or defamation laws, Mendez suggested.

Kosseff told Ars that there could be more narrow ways that government officials looking to protect election integrity could regulate deepfakes online. The Supreme Court has suggested that deepfakes spreading disinformation on the mechanics of voting could possibly be regulated, Kosseff said.

Mendez got it “exactly right” by concluding that the best remedy for election-related deepfakes is more speech, Kosseff said. As Mendez described it, a vague law like AB 2839 seemed to only “uphold the State’s attempt to suffocate” speech.

Parody is vital to democratic debate, judge says

The only part of AB 2839 that survives strict scrutiny, Mendez noted, is a section describing audio disclosures in a “clearly spoken manner and in a pitch that can be easily heard by the average listener, at the beginning of the audio, at the end of the audio, and, if the audio is greater than two minutes in length, interspersed within the audio at intervals of not greater than two minutes each.”

Elon Musk claims victory after judge blocks Calif. deepfake law Read More »