Policy

fbi-fights-leaks-by-seizing-washington-post-reporter’s-phone,-laptops,-and-watch

FBI fights leaks by seizing Washington Post reporter’s phone, laptops, and watch


“Extraordinary, aggressive action”

FBI searches home and devices of reporter who has over 1,100 government contacts.

The Washington Post building on August 6, 2013 in Washington, DC, Credit: Getty Images | Saul Loeb

The FBI searched a Washington Post reporter’s home and seized her work and personal devices as part of an investigation into what Attorney General Pam Bondi called “illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor.”

Executing a search warrant at the Virginia home of reporter Hannah Natanson on Wednesday morning, FBI “agents searched her home and her devices, seizing her phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch,” The Washington Post reported. “One of the laptops was her personal computer, the other a Washington Post-issued laptop. Investigators told Natanson that she is not the focus of the probe.”

Natanson regularly uses encrypted Signal chats to communicate with people who work or used to work in government, and has said her list of contacts exceeds 1,100 current and former government employees. The Post itself “received a subpoena Wednesday morning seeking information related to the same government contractor,” the report said.

Post Executive Editor Matt Murray sent an email to staff saying that early in the morning, “FBI agents showed up unannounced at the doorstep of our colleague Hannah Natanson, searched her home, and proceeded to seize her electronic devices.” Murray’s email called the search an “extraordinary, aggressive action” that is “deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.”

The New York Times wrote that it “is exceedingly rare, even in investigations of classified disclosures, for federal agents to conduct searches at a reporter’s home. Typically, such investigations are done by examining a reporter’s phone records or email data.”

The search warrant said the probe’s target is “Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland who has a top-secret security clearance and has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports that were found in his lunchbox and his basement,” the Post article said.

“Alarming escalation” in Trump “war on press freedom”

Bondi confirmed the search in an X post. “This past week, at the request of the Department of War, the Department of Justice and FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post journalist who was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. The leaker is currently behind bars,” Bondi wrote.

Bondi said the Trump administration “will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information” that “pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country.”

Searches targeting journalists require “intense scrutiny” because they “can deter and impede reporting that is vital to our democracy,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Attorney General Bondi has weakened guidelines that were intended to protect the freedom of the press, but there are still important legal limits, including constitutional ones, on the government’s authority to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to obtain information from journalists. The Justice Department should explain publicly why it believes this search was necessary and legally permissible, and Congress and the courts should scrutinize that explanation carefully.”

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the search “an alarming escalation in the Trump administration’s multipronged war on press freedom. The Department of Justice (and the judge who approved this outrageous warrant) is either ignoring or distorting the Privacy Protection Act, which bars law enforcement from raiding newsrooms and reporters to search for evidence of alleged crimes by others, with very few inapplicable exceptions.”

In April 2025, the Trump administration rescinded a Biden-era policy that limited searches and subpoenas of reporters in leak investigations. But even the weaker Trump administration guidelines “make clear that it’s a last resort for rare emergencies only,” according to Stern. “The administration may now be in possession of volumes of journalist communications having nothing to do with any pending investigation and, if investigators are able to access them, we have zero faith that they will respect journalist-source confidentiality.”

The Washington Post didn’t say whether Perez-Lugones provided information to Natanson and pointed out that the criminal complaint against him “does not accuse him of leaking classified information he is alleged to have taken.”

Post reporter has over 1,100 government contacts

Natanson does have many sources in the federal workforce. She wrote a first-person account last month of her experience as the news organization’s “federal government whisperer.” Around the time Trump’s second term began, she posted a message on a Reddit community for federal employees saying she wanted to “speak with anyone willing to chat.”

Natanson got dozens of messages by the next day and would eventually compile “1,169 contacts on Signal, all current or former federal employees who decided to trust me with their stories,” she wrote. Natanson explained that she was previously an education reporter but the paper “created a beat for me covering Trump’s transformation of government, and fielding Signal tips became nearly my whole working life.”

In another case this month, the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena journalist Seth Harp for allegedly “doxxing” a Delta Force commander involved in the operation in Venezuela that captured President Nicolás Maduro. Harp called the doxxing allegation “ludicrous” because he had posted publicly available information, specifically an online bio of a man “whose identity is not classified.”

“There is zero question that Harp’s actions were fully and squarely within the protections of the First Amendment, as well as outside the scope of any federal criminal statutes,” over 20 press freedom and First Amendment organizations said in a letter to lawmakers yesterday.

The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward the media has also included numerous threats from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to investigate and punish broadcasters for “news distortion.”

As for Perez-Lugones, he was charged last week with unlawful retention of national defense information in US District Court for the District of Maryland. Perez-Lugones was a member of the US Navy from 1982 to 2002, said an affidavit from FBI Special Agent Keith Starr. He has been a government contractor since 2002 and held top-secret security clearances during his Naval career and again in his more recent work as a contractor.

“Currently, Perez-Lugones works as a systems engineer and information technology specialist for a Government contracting company whose primary customer is a Government agency,” the affidavit said. He had “heightened access to classified systems, networks, databases, and repositories” so that he could “maintain, support, and optimize various computer systems, networks, and software.”

Documents found in man’s car and house, FBI says

The affidavit said that “Perez-Lugones navigated to and searched databases or repositories containing classified information without authorization.” The FBI alleges that on October 28, 2025, he took screenshots of a classified intelligence report on a foreign country, pasted the screenshots into a Microsoft Word document, and printed the Word document.

His employer is able to retrieve records of printing activity on classified systems, and “a review of Perez-Lugones’ printing activity on that dates [sic] showed that he had printed innocuous sounding documents (i.e., Microsoft Word‐Document 1) that really contained classified and sensitive reports,” the affidavit said.

Perez-Lugones allegedly went on to access and view a “classified intelligence report related to Government operational activity” on January 5, 2026. On January 7, he was observed at his workplace taking notes on a yellow notepad while looking back and forth between the notepad and a computer that was logged into the classified system, the affidavit said.

Investigators executed search warrants on his home in Laurel, Maryland, and his vehicle on January 8. They found a document marked as SECRET in a lunchbox in his car and another secret document in his basement, the affidavit said.

Prior video surveillance showed Perez-Lugones at his cubicle looking at the document that was later found in the lunchbox, the affidavit said. Investigators determined that he “remov[ed] the classification header/footer markings from this document prior to leaving his workplace.”

The US law that Perez-Lugones was charged with violating provides for fines or prison sentences of up to 10 years. A magistrate judge ruled that Perez-Lugones could be released, but that decision is being reviewed by the court at the request of the US government.

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.

FBI fights leaks by seizing Washington Post reporter’s phone, laptops, and watch Read More »

us-gov’t:-house-sysadmin-stole-200-phones,-caught-by-house-it-desk

US gov’t: House sysadmin stole 200 phones, caught by House IT desk

The US House of Representatives, that glorious and efficient gathering of We the People, has been hit with yet another scandal.

Like most (non-sexual) House scandals, the allegations here involve personal enrichment. Unlike most (non-sexual) House scandals, though, this one involved hundreds of government cell phones being sold on eBay—and some rando member of We the People calling the US House IT help desk, which blew the lid on the whole scheme.

Only sell “in parts”

According to the government’s version of events, 43-year-old Christopher Southerland was working in 2023 as a sysadmin for the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In his role, Southerland had the authority to order cell phones for committee staffers, of which there are around 80.

But during the early months of 2023, Southerland is said to have ordered 240 brand-new phones—far more than even the total number of staffers—and to have shipped them all to his home address in Maryland.

The government claims that Southerland then sold over 200 of these cell phones to a local pawn shop, which was told to resell the devices only “in parts” as a way to get around the House’s mobile device management software, which could control the devices remotely.

It’s hard to find good help these days, though, even at pawn shops. At some point, at least one of the phones ended up, intact, on eBay, where it was sold to a member of the public.

US gov’t: House sysadmin stole 200 phones, caught by House IT desk Read More »

grok-was-finally-updated-to-stop-undressing-women-and-children,-x-safety-says

Grok was finally updated to stop undressing women and children, X Safety says


Grok scrutiny intensifies

California’s AG will investigate whether Musk’s nudifying bot broke US laws.

(EDITORS NOTE: Image contains profanity) An unofficially-installed poster picturing Elon Musk with the tagline, “Who the [expletive] would want to use social media with a built-in child abuse tool?” is displayed on a bus shelter on January 13, 2026 in London, England. Credit: Leon Neal / Staff | Getty Images News

Late Wednesday, X Safety confirmed that Grok was tweaked to stop undressing images of people without their consent.

“We have implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing such as bikinis,” X Safety said. “This restriction applies to all users, including paid subscribers.”

The update includes restricting “image creation and the ability to edit images via the Grok account on the X platform,” which “are now only available to paid subscribers. This adds an extra layer of protection by helping to ensure that individuals who attempt to abuse the Grok account to violate the law or our policies can be held accountable,” X Safety said.

Additionally, X will “geoblock the ability of all users to generate images of real people in bikinis, underwear, and similar attire via the Grok account and in Grok in X in those jurisdictions where it’s illegal,” X Safety said.

X’s update comes after weeks of sexualized images of women and children being generated with Grok finally prompting California Attorney General Rob Bonta to investigate whether Grok’s outputs break any US laws.

In a press release Wednesday, Bonta said that “xAI appears to be facilitating the large-scale production of deepfake nonconsensual intimate images that are being used to harass women and girls across the Internet, including via the social media platform X.”

Notably, Bonta appears to be as concerned about Grok’s standalone app and website being used to generate harmful images without consent as he is about the outputs on X.

Before today, X had not restricted the Grok app or website. X had only threatened to permanently suspend users who are editing images to undress women and children if the outputs are deemed “illegal content.” It also restricted the Grok chatbot on X from responding to prompts to undress images, but anyone with a Premium subscription could bypass that restriction, as could any free X user who clicked on the “edit” button on any image appearing on the social platform.

On Wednesday, prior to X Safety’s update, Elon Musk seemed to defend Grok’s outputs as benign, insisting that none of the reported images have fully undressed any minors, as if that would be the only problematic output.

“I [sic] not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok,” Musk said in an X post. “Literally zero.”

Musk’s statement seems to ignore that researchers found harmful images where users specifically “requested minors be put in erotic positions and that sexual fluids be depicted on their bodies.” It also ignores that X previously voluntarily signed commitments to remove any intimate image abuse from its platform, as recently as 2024 recognizing that even partially nude images that victims wouldn’t want publicized could be harmful.

In the US, the Department of Justice considers “any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old” to be child pornography, which is also known as child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which fields reports of CSAM found on X, told Ars that “technology companies have a responsibility to prevent their tools from being used to sexualize or exploit children.”

While many of Grok’s outputs may not be deemed CSAM, in normalizing the sexualization of children, Grok harms minors, advocates have warned. And in addition to finding images advertised as supposedly Grok-generated CSAM on the dark web, the Internet Watch Foundation noted that bad actors are using images edited by Grok to create even more extreme kinds of AI CSAM.

Grok faces probes in the US and UK

Bonta pointed to news reports documenting Grok’s worst outputs as the trigger of his probe.

“The avalanche of reports detailing the non-consensual, sexually explicit material that xAI has produced and posted online in recent weeks is shocking,” Bonta said. “This material, which depicts women and children in nude and sexually explicit situations, has been used to harass people across the Internet.”

Acting out of deep concern for victims and potential Grok targets, Bonta vowed to “determine whether and how xAI violated the law” and “use all the tools at my disposal to keep California’s residents safe.”

Bonta’s announcement came after the United Kingdom seemed to declare a victory after probing Grok over possible violations of the UK’s Online Safety Act, announcing that the harmful outputs had stopped.

That wasn’t the case, as The Verge once again pointed out; it conducted quick and easy tests using selfies of reporters to conclude that nothing had changed to prevent the outputs.

However, it seems that when Musk updated Grok to respond to some requests to undress images by refusing the prompts, it was enough for UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to claim X had moved to comply with the law, Reuters reported.

Ars connected with a European nonprofit, AI Forensics, which tested to confirm that X had blocked some outputs in the UK. A spokesperson confirmed that their testing did not include probing if harmful outputs could be generated using X’s edit button.

AI Forensics plans to conduct further testing, but its spokesperson noted it would be unethical to test the “edit” button functionality that The Verge confirmed still works.

Last year, the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence published research showing that Congress could “move the needle on model safety” by allowing tech companies to “rigorously test their generative models without fear of prosecution” for any CSAM red-teaming, Tech Policy Press reported. But until there is such a safe harbor carved out, it seems more likely that newly released AI tools could carry risks like those of Grok.

It’s possible that Grok’s outputs, if left unchecked, could have eventually put X in violation of the Take It Down Act, which comes into force in May and requires platforms to quickly remove AI revenge porn. One of the mothers of one of Musk’s children, Ashley St. Clair, has described Grok outputs using her images as revenge porn.

While the UK probe continues, Bonta has not yet made clear which laws he suspects X may be violating in the US. However, he emphasized that images with victims depicted in “minimal clothing” crossed a line, as well as images putting children in sexual positions.

As the California probe heats up, Bonta pushed X to take more actions to restrict Grok’s outputs, which one AI researcher suggested to Ars could be done with a few simple updates.

“I urge xAI to take immediate action to ensure this goes no further,” Bonta said. “We have zero tolerance for the AI-based creation and dissemination of nonconsensual intimate images or of child sexual abuse material.”

Seeming to take Bonta’s threat seriously, X Safety vowed to “remain committed to making X a safe platform for everyone and continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content.”

This story was updated on January 14 to note X Safety’s updates.

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.

Grok was finally updated to stop undressing women and children, X Safety says Read More »

lawsuit:-dhs-wants-“unlimited-subpoena-authority”-to-unmask-ice-critics

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics


Defending online anonymity

DHS is weirdly using import/export rules to expand its authority to identify online critics.

A Border Patrol Tactical Unit agent sprays pepper spray into the face of a protestor attempting to block an immigration officer vehicle from leaving the scene where a woman was shot and killed by a federal agent earlier, in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Credit: Star Tribune via Getty Images / Contributor | Star Tribune

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is fighting to unmask the owner of Facebook and Instagram accounts of a community watch group monitoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in Pennsylvania.

Defending the right to post about ICE sightings anonymously is a Meta account holder for MontCo Community Watch, John Doe.

Doe has alleged that when the DHS sent a “summons” to Meta asking for subscriber information, it infringed on core First Amendment-protected activity, i.e., the right to publish content critical of government agencies and officials without fear of government retaliation. He also accused DHS of ignoring federal rules and seeking to vastly expand its authority to subpoena information to unmask ICE’s biggest critics online.

“I believe that my anonymity is the only thing standing between me and unfair and unjust persecution by the government of the United States,” Doe said in his complaint.

In response, DHS alleged that the community watch group that posted “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that a statute regulating imports and exports empowered DHS to investigate the group’s alleged threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder” ICE agents.

DHS claims that Meta must comply with the subpoena because the government needs to investigate a “serious” threat “to the safety of its agents and the performance of their duties.”

On Wednesday, a US district judge will hear arguments to decide if Doe is right or if DHS can broadly unmask critics online by claiming it’s investigating supposed threats to ICE agents. With more power, DHS officials have confirmed they plan to criminally prosecute critics posting ICE videos online, Doe alleged in a lawsuit filed last October.

DHS seeking “unlimited subpoena authority”

DHS alleged that the community watch group posting “pictures and videos of agents’ faces, license plates, and weapons, among other things,” was akin to “threatening ICE agents to impede the performance of their duties.” Claiming that the subpoena had nothing to do with silencing government critics, they argued that DHS is authorized to investigate the group and that compelling interest supersedes Doe’s First Amendment rights.

According to Doe’s most recent court filing, DHS is pushing a broad reading of a statute that empowers DHS to subpoena information about the “importation/exportation of merchandise”—like records to determine duties owed or information to unmask a drug smuggler or child sex trafficker. DHS claims the statute isn’t just about imports and exports but also authorizes DHS to seize information about anyone they can tie to an investigation of potential crimes that violate US customs laws.

However, it seems to make no sense, Doe argued, that Congress would “silently embed unlimited subpoena authority in a provision keyed to the importation of goods.” Doe hopes the US district judge will agree that DHS’s summons was unconstitutional.

“The subscriber information for social media accounts publishing speech critical of ICE that DHS seeks is completely unrelated to the importation/exportation of merchandise; the records are outside the scope of DHS’s summons power,” Doe alleged.

And even if the court agrees on DHS’s reading of the statute, DHS has not established that unmasking the owner of the community watch accounts would be relevant to any legitimate criminal investigation, Doe alleged.

Doe’s posts were “pretty innocuous,” lawyer says

To convince the court that the case was really about chilling speech, Doe attached every post made on the group’s Facebook and Instagram feeds. None show threats or arguably implicit threats to “assault, kidnap, or murder any federal official,” as DHS claimed. Instead, the users shared “information and resources about immigrant rights, due process rights, fundraising, and vigils,” Doe said.

Ariel Shapell, an attorney representing Doe at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, told Ars that “if you go and look at the content on the Facebook and Instagram profiles at issue here, it’s pretty innocuous.”

DHS claimed to have received information about the group supposedly “stalking and gathering of intelligence on federal agents involved in ICE operations.” However, Doe argued that “unsurprisingly, neither DHS nor its declarant cites any post even allegedly constituting any such threat. To the contrary, all posts on these social media accounts constitute speech addressing important public issues fully protected under the First Amendment,” Doe argued.

“Reporting on, or even livestreaming, publicly occurring immigration operations is fully protected First Amendment activity,” Doe argued. “DHS does not, and cannot, show how such conduct constitutes an assault, kidnapping, or murder of a federal law enforcement officer, or a threat to do any of those things.”

Anti-ICE backlash mounting amid ongoing protests

Doe’s motion to quash the subpoena arrives at a time when recent YouGov polling suggests that Americans have reached a tipping point in ending support for ICE. YouGov’s poll found more people disapprove of how ICE is handling its job than approve, following the aftermath of nationwide anti-ICE protests over Renee Good’s killing. ICE critics have used footage of tragic events—like Good’s death and eight other ICE shootings since September—to support calls to remove ICE from embattled communities and abolish ICE.

As sharing ICE footage has swayed public debate, DHS has seemingly sought to subpoena Meta and possibly other platforms for subscriber information.

In October, Meta refused to provide names of users associated with Doe’s accounts—as well as “postal code, country, all email address(es) on file, date of account creation, registered telephone numbers, IP address at account signup, and logs showing IP address and date stamps for account accesses”—without further information from DHS. Meta then gave Doe the opportunity to move to quash the subpoena to stop the company from sharing information.

That request came about a week after DHS requested similar information from Meta about six Instagram community watch groups that shared information about ICE activity in Los Angeles and other locations. DHS withdrew those requests after account holders defended First Amendment rights and filed motions to quash the subpoena, Doe’s court filing said.

It’s unclear why DHS withdrew those subpoenas but maintained Doe’s. DHS has alleged that the government’s compelling interest in Doe’s identity outweighs First Amendment rights to post anonymously online. The agency also claimed it has met its burden to unmask Doe as “someone who is allegedly involved in threatening ICE agents and impeding the performance of their duties,” which supposedly “touches DHS’s investigation into threats to ICE agents and impediments to the performance of their duties.”

Whether Doe will prevail is hard to say, but Politico reported that DHS’s “defense will rest on whether DHS’s argument that posting videos and images of ICE officers and warnings about arrests is considered criminal activity.” It may weaken DHS’s case that Border Patrol Tactical Commander Greg Bovino recently circulated a “legal refresher” for agents in the field, reminding them that protestors are allowed to take photos and videos of “an officer or operation in public,” independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported.

Shapell told Ars that there seems to be “a lot of distance” between the content posted on Doe’s accounts and relevant evidence that could be used in DHS’s alleged investigation into criminal activity. And meanwhile, “there are just very clear First Amendment rights here to associate with other people anonymously online and to discuss political opinions online anonymously,” Shapell said, which the judge may strongly uphold as core protected activity as threats of government retaliation mount.

“These summonses chill people’s desire to communicate about these sorts of incredibly important developments on the Internet, even anonymously, when there’s a threat that they could be unmasked and investigated for this really core First Amendment protected activity,” Shapell said.

A win could reassure Meta users that they can continue posting about ICE online without fear of retaliation should Meta be pressed to share their information.

Ars could not immediately reach DHS for comment. Meta declined to comment, only linking Ars to an FAQ to help users understand how the platform processes government requests.

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.

Lawsuit: DHS wants “unlimited subpoena authority” to unmask ICE critics Read More »

hegseth-wants-to-integrate-musk’s-grok-ai-into-military-networks-this-month

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month

On Monday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he plans to integrate Elon Musk’s AI tool, Grok, into Pentagon networks later this month. During remarks at the SpaceX headquarters in Texas reported by The Guardian, Hegseth said the integration would place “the world’s leading AI models on every unclassified and classified network throughout our department.”

The announcement comes weeks after Grok drew international backlash for generating sexualized images of women and children, although the Department of Defense has not released official documentation confirming Hegseth’s announced timeline or implementation details.

During the same appearance, Hegseth rolled out what he called an “AI acceleration strategy” for the Department of Defense. The strategy, he said, will “unleash experimentation, eliminate bureaucratic barriers, focus on investments, and demonstrate the execution approach needed to ensure we lead in military AI and that it grows more dominant into the future.”

As part of the plan, Hegseth directed the DOD’s Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office to use its full authority to enforce department data policies, making information available across all IT systems for AI applications.

“AI is only as good as the data that it receives, and we’re going to make sure that it’s there,” Hegseth said.

If implemented, Grok would join other AI models the Pentagon has adopted in recent months. In July 2025, the defense department issued contracts worth up to $200 million for each of four companies, including Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and xAI, for developing AI agent systems across different military operations. In December 2025, the Department of Defense selected Google’s Gemini as the foundation for GenAI.mil, an internal AI platform for military use.

Hegseth wants to integrate Musk’s Grok AI into military networks this month Read More »

starlink-tries-to-stay-online-in-iran-as-regime-jams-signals-during-protests

Starlink tries to stay online in Iran as regime jams signals during protests

The Iranian government’s jamming of Starlink has apparently gotten more sophisticated, degrading uploads to make it hard for users to distribute information and images of protests. “I believe that they are using some military-grade jamming tools to jam the radio frequency signals, particularly jamming any videos, any content, any reports coming out of Iran,” Ahmad Ahmadian, executive director of US-based nonprofit Holistic Resilience, told The Washington Post.

“You don’t need a global kill switch to cripple the network,” Kimberly Burke, director of government affairs at consulting firm Quilty Space, told the Post. “You just make it unstable, slow and unreliable enough that it barely even works. Think intermittent dial-up speeds.”

Internet monitoring group NetBlocks told Reuters that Starlink access is reduced but not eliminated in Iran. “It is patchy, but still there,” NetBlocks founder Alp Toker said.

Internet traffic “effectively dropped to zero”

NetBlocks has been posting updates on Mastodon, saying that Iran’s connectivity to the outside world has remained at about 1 percent of ordinary levels. “Iran has now been offline for 120 hours,” NetBlocks said today. “Despite some phone calls now connecting, there is no secure way to communicate and the general public remain cut off from the outside world.”

Cloudflare’s monitoring reached similar conclusions. “In the last few days, Internet traffic from Iran has effectively dropped to zero,” Cloudflare Head of Data Insight David Belson wrote in a blog post today.

Although connectivity was restored for brief periods on January 9, “no significant changes have been observed in Iran’s Internet traffic since January 10,” he wrote. “The country remains almost entirely cut off from the global Internet, with internal data showing traffic volumes remaining at a fraction of a percent of previous levels.”

A fundraising page for sending Starlink terminals to Iran and covering subscription costs says that “over 100,000 people in Iran are already using Starlink to bypass censorship.” Since the government can’t fully block the service, it has used bans and banking sanctions to make it “extremely difficult for users inside Iran to pay for their subscriptions,” the fundraising page says.

NasNet said today that service is now being made available for free. “After weeks of continuous efforts, negotiations, and discussions with the Starlink team and United States authorities, we have successfully provided access to Starlink for free to serve the revolution,” NasNet wrote on X, according to a translation. “All you need to do is turn on the device. Don’t forget physical camouflage, hiding the Starlink IP, and changing the wireless network name!”

Starlink tries to stay online in Iran as regime jams signals during protests Read More »

paramount-sues-wbd-over-netflix-deal-wbd-says-paramount’s-price-is-still-inadequate.

Paramount sues WBD over Netflix deal. WBD says Paramount’s price is still inadequate.

Paramount Skydance escalated its hostile takeover bid of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) today by filing a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against WBD, declaring its intention to fight Netflix’s acquisition.

In December, WBD agreed to sell its streaming and movie businesses to Netflix for $82.7 billion. The deal would see WBD’s Global Networks division, comprised of WBD’s legacy cable networks, spun out into a separate company called Discovery Global. But in December, Paramount submitted a hostile takeover bid and amended its bid for WBD. Subsequently, the company has aggressively tried to convince WBD’s shareholders that its $108.4 billion offer for all of WBD is superior to the Netflix deal.

Today, Paramount CEO David Ellison wrote a letter to WBD shareholders informing them of Paramount’s lawsuit. The lawsuit requests the court to force WBD to disclose “how it valued the Global Networks stub equity, how it valued the overall Netflix transaction, how the purchase price reduction for debt works in the Netflix transaction, or even what the basis is for its ‘risk adjustment’” of Paramount’s $30 per share all-cash offer. Netflix’s offer equates to $27.72 per share, including $23.25 in cash and shares of Netflix common stock. Paramount hopes the information will encourage more WBD shareholders to tender their shares under Paramount’s offer by the January 21 deadline.

Before WBD announced the Netflix deal, Paramount publicly questioned the fairness of WBD’s bidding process. Paramount has since argued that its bid wasn’t given fair consideration or negotiation.

In his letter today, Ellison wrote:

We remain perplexed that WBD never responded to our December 4th offer, never attempted to clarify or negotiate any of the terms in that proposal, nor traded markups of contracts with us. Even as we read WBD’s own narrative of its process, we are struck that there were few actual board meetings in the period leading up to the decision to accept an inferior transaction with Netflix. And we are surprised by the lack of transparency on WBD’s part regarding basic financial matters. It just doesn’t add up – much like the math on how WBD continues to favor taking less than our $30 per share all-cash offer for its shareholders.

Additionally, Paramount plans to nominate board directors for election at WBD’s annual shareholder meeting who will fight against the Netflix deal’s approval. The window for nominations opens in three weeks, Ellison’s letter noted.

Paramount sues WBD over Netflix deal. WBD says Paramount’s price is still inadequate. Read More »

verizon-to-stop-automatic-unlocking-of-phones-as-fcc-ends-60-day-unlock-rule

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule


FCC waives rule that forced Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

The Federal Communications Commission is letting Verizon lock phones to its network for longer periods, eliminating a requirement to unlock handsets 60 days after they are activated on its network. The change will make it harder for people to switch from Verizon to other carriers.

The FCC today granted Verizon’s petition for a waiver of the 60-day unlocking requirement. While the waiver is in effect, Verizon only has to comply with the CTIA trade group’s voluntary unlocking policy. The CTIA policy calls for unlocking prepaid mobile devices one year after activation, while devices on postpaid plans can be unlocked after a contract, device financing plan, or early termination fee is paid.

Unlocking a phone allows it to be used on another carrier’s network. While Verizon was previously required to unlock phones automatically after 60 days, the CTIA code says carriers only have to unlock phones “upon request” from consumers. The FCC said the Verizon waiver will remain in effect until the agency “decides on an appropriate industry-wide approach for the unlocking of handsets.”

The FCC rejected a request to at least limit the locking period to 180 days. The agency’s order said the CTIA code provides “an adequate threshold of ensuring Verizon consumers have competitive options and that granting this waiver will not impede those competitive options. We thus decline to limit today’s waiver to a period of 180 days.”

Until today’s waiver order, Verizon faced strict unlocking requirements that didn’t apply to other carriers. But that was by choice, as Verizon gained significant benefits in exchange for agreeing to unlocking requirements in 2008 when it purchased licenses to use 700 MHz spectrum, and again in 2021 when it agreed to merger conditions to obtain approval for its purchase of TracFone.

Goodbye, automatic unlocking

Verizon used to sell phones that were already unlocked, but in 2019 it obtained a waiver that allowed it to lock phones for 60 days in order to deter fraud. In March 2025, Verizon said the 60-day locking period wasn’t long enough to stop fraud and asked the FCC to waive the requirement.

In a press release today, the FCC said the Verizon rule “required one wireless carrier to unlock their handsets well earlier than standard industry practice, thus creating an incentive for bad actors to steal those handsets for purposes of carrying out fraud and other illegal acts.”

A statement from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said, “Sophisticated criminal networks have exploited the FCC’s handset unlocking policies to carry out criminal acts—including transnational handset trafficking schemes and facilitating broader criminal enterprises like drug running and human smuggling. By waiving a regulation that incentivized bad actors to target one particular carrier’s handsets for theft, we now have a uniform industry standard that can help stem the flow of handsets into the black market.”

Verizon’s current policy is for phones to be “remotely unlocked automatically 60 days after paid activation and 60 days of paid active service.” Phones already activated on the Verizon network won’t be affected by the waiver, according to the FCC.

“The terms of this waiver apply to all handsets that become active on Verizon’s network beginning the day after the release date of this Order,” the FCC ruling said. “The prospective application of this waiver will minimize customer confusion and interference with existing contractual arrangements and service agreements. Upon the release of this waiver, Verizon has stated that it will change its unlocking policies to follow those set out in the CTIA Consumer Code.”

Man sued Verizon to get phone unlocked

We recently wrote about a Kansas resident, Patrick Roach, who sued Verizon and complained to the FCC after the carrier refused to unlock an iPhone he purchased. Although the FCC took no action on Roach’s complaint, a small claims court ruled in his favor because Verizon tried to retroactively enforce a locking policy implemented in April 2025 on a phone Roach had bought before the policy change.

Verizon’s April 2025 policy change required “60 days of paid active service” before Verizon would unlock a customer’s phone. Roach alleged that this violated the FCC condition, which required Verizon to unlock phones 60 days after activation and did not say that Verizon may refuse to unlock a phone when a customer has not maintained paid service for 60 days. Going forward, today’s FCC ruling will render that distinction moot and make it easier for Verizon to avoid unlocking phones.

The Verizon petition was opposed in a filing by Public Knowledge, the Benton Foundation, Consumer Reports, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and other groups. The automatic unlocking enforced through the FCC condition was good for consumers and competition, the groups said.

“Automatic unlocking reduces switching costs, enhances competition, and promotes a more efficient and sustainable device marketplace,” the groups said. “It facilitates the resale and reuse of mobile devices, reduces e-waste, and enables low-cost carriers and MVNOs to compete on a more level playing field. The opposite, which Verizon seeks through its waiver request, merely serves as a way to keep customers locked in one provider.”

FCC cites law enforcement arguments

The consumer groups’ filing argued that “Verizon offers no specific evidence that a longer lock period would have prevented the fraudulent acquisition of the devices it identifies,” and said the carrier is capable of detecting and responding to fraud during the 60-day locking period.

“It can flag suspicious purchases, deny unlocking to devices that show signs of trafficking, and pursue legal or contractual remedies against fraudulent actors,” the groups said. “The Commission has previously found that 60 days is a reasonable and sufficient period to allow providers to identify and act upon fraudulent behavior. Verizon has not shown that these prior determinations were in error or that its current loss mitigation measures are being overwhelmed solely because of the unlocking rule.”

The FCC rejected these arguments, saying it found that the 60-day period has been insufficient to deter fraud. “Verizon explains that the globalization of 4G LTE and 5G technologies in recent years has created a ready overseas market for fraudulently obtained handsets, and stolen handsets are frequently sold or distributed to a secondary black market in countries that do not participate in GSMA blocking,” the FCC said.

The agency said the waiver will address concerns of law enforcement associations that supported Verizon’s petition. “Law enforcement commenters have convincingly linked our handset unlocking policies and public safety matters on the basis that the current 60-day policy has impacted law enforcement lives and requires that law enforcement entities dedicate significant resources to investigating stolen handsets rather than focus on other public safety matters,” the FCC said.

Verizon issued a statement thanking the FCC for the waiver. “The FCC’s action will end bad actors’ ability to exploit the FCC’s unlocking rules to profit from easier access to expensive, heavily subsidized devices in the US that they traffic and sell to other parts of the world,” Verizon said. “Before today’s decision, the FCC’s rules have benefitted these international criminal gangs at the expense of legitimate American consumers.”

Cable lobby group NCTA was not pleased by the FCC decision. Cable companies have increasingly been competing against large mobile carriers by offering wireless service in recent years.

“Mobile phone unlocking delivers clear pro-consumer benefits, saving billions of dollars across the mobile marketplace by expanding choice, competition, and affordability,” the NCTA said. “Today’s decision delays these benefits, underscoring the need for a clear, uniform framework so all wireless providers operate under the same rules.” The NCTA has urged the FCC to implement a 180-day unlocking requirement.

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.

Verizon to stop automatic unlocking of phones as FCC ends 60-day unlock rule Read More »

judge:-trump-violated-fifth-amendment-by-ending-energy-grants-in-only-blue-states

Judge: Trump violated Fifth Amendment by ending energy grants in only blue states

The Trump administration violated the Fifth Amendment when canceling billions of dollars in environmental grants for projects in “blue states” that didn’t vote for him in the last election, a judge ruled Monday.

Trump’s blatant discrimination came on the same day as the government shut down last fall. In total, 315 grants were terminated in October, ending support for 223 projects worth approximately $7.5 billion, the Department of Energy confirmed. All the awardees, except for one, were based in states where Donald Trump lost the majority vote to Kamala Harris in 2024.

Only seven awardees sued, defending projects that helped states with “electric vehicle development, updating building energy codes, and addressing methane emissions.” They accused Trump officials of clearly discriminating against Democratic voters by pointing to their social media posts boasting about punishing blue states.

On X, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, bragged that nearly “$8 billion in Green NewScam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” then listed only states that did not vote for Trump. Meanwhile on Truth Social, Trump confirmed he met with Vought to “determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut” during the shutdown.

On Monday, US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his opinion that the case was “unique” because ordinarily “the mere presence of political considerations in an agency action” does not mean that officials have run “afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.”

Judge: Trump violated Fifth Amendment by ending energy grants in only blue states Read More »

supreme-court-takes-case-that-could-strip-fcc-of-authority-to-issue-fines

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could invalidate the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to issue fines against companies regulated by the FCC.

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile challenged the FCC’s ability to punish them after the commission fined the carriers for selling customer location data without their users’ consent. AT&T convinced the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to overturn its fine, while Verizon lost in the 2nd Circuit and T-Mobile lost in the District of Columbia Circuit.

Verizon petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse its loss, while the FCC and Justice Department petitioned the court to overturn AT&T’s victory in the 5th Circuit. The Supreme Court granted both petitions to hear the challenges and consolidated the cases in a list of orders released Friday. Oral arguments will be held.

In 2024, the FCC fined the big three carriers a total of $196 million for location data sales revealed in 2018, saying the companies were punished “for illegally sharing access to customers’ location information without consent and without taking reasonable measures to protect that information against unauthorized disclosure.” Carriers challenged in three appeals courts, arguing that the fines violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Carriers claim FCC violates right to jury trial

The carriers’ cases against the FCC rely on the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which held that a similar but not identical SEC system for issuing fines violated the right to a jury trial.

The conservative-leaning 5th Circuit appeals court decided that the FCC violated AT&T’s rights while “act[ing] as prosecutor, jury, and judge.” But the 2nd Circuit and District of Columbia Circuit courts found that each carrier could have obtained a jury trial if it simply decided not to pay the fine.

Supreme Court takes case that could strip FCC of authority to issue fines Read More »

conservative-lawmakers-want-porn-taxes-critics-say-they’re-unconstitutional.

Conservative lawmakers want porn taxes. Critics say they’re unconstitutional.


Half the country has enacted age-verification laws to prevent minors from viewing porn.

As age-verification laws continue to dismantle the adult industry—and determine the future of free speech on the internet—a Utah lawmaker proposed a bill this week that would enforce a tax on porn sites that operate within the state.

Introduced by state senator Calvin Musselman, a Republican, the bill would impose a 7 percent tax on total receipts “from sales, distributions, memberships, subscriptions, performances, and content amounting to material harmful to minors that is produced, sold, filmed, generated, or otherwise based” in Utah. If passed, the bill would go into effect in May and would also require adult sites to pay a $500 annual fee to the State Tax Commission. Per the legislation, the money made from the tax will be used by Utah’s Department of Health and Human Services to provide more mental health support for teens.

Musselman did not respond to a request for comment.

A new age of American conservatism commands the political arena, and more US lawmakers are calling for additional restrictions on adult content. In September, Alabama became the first state to impose a porn tax on adult entertainment companies (10 percent) following the passage of age-verification mandates, which require users to upload an ID or other personal documentation to verify that they are not a minor before viewing sexually explicit content. Pennsylvania lawmakers are also eyeing a bill that would tax consumers an additional 10 percent on “subscriptions to and one-time purchases from online adult content platforms,” despite already requiring them to pay a 6 percent sales and use tax for the purchase of digital products, two state senators wrote in a memo in October. Other states have flirted with the idea of a porn tax in the past. In 2019, Arizona state senator Gail Griffin, a Republican, proposed taxing adult content distributors to help fund the border wall, a key priority during Donald Trump’s first presidential term. So far, 25 US states have passed a form of age verification.

Although efforts to criminalize participants in the sex work industry have been ongoing for years—with new regulations unfolding at a moment of heightened online surveillance and censorship—targeted taxes have failed to gain widespread approval because the legality of such laws is up for debate.

“This kind of porn tax is blatantly unconstitutional,” says Evelyn Douek, an associate professor of law at Stanford Law School. “It singles out a particular type of protected speech for disfavored treatment, purely because the legislature doesn’t like it—that’s exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect against. Utah may not like porn, but as the Supreme Court affirmed only last year, adults have a fully protected right to access it.”

Utah, Alabama, and Pennsylvania are among the 16 states that have adopted resolutions declaring porn a public health crisis. “We realize this is a bold assertion not everyone will agree on, but it’s the full-fledged truth,” Utah governor Gary Herbert tweeted in 2016 after signing the resolution. One of Utah’s earliest statewide responses to the proliferation of adult content happened in 2001, when it became the first state to create an office for sexually explicit issues by hiring an obscenity and pornography complaints ombudsman. The position—dubbed the “porn czar”—was terminated in 2017.

“Age restriction is a very complex subject that brings with it data privacy concerns and the potential for uneven and inconsistent application for different digital platforms,” Alex Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Pornhub, told WIRED in a previous conversation. In November, the company urged Google, Microsoft, and Apple to enact device-based verification in their app stores and across their operating systems. “We have seen several states and countries try to impose platform-level age verification requirements, and they have all failed to adequately protect children.” To comply with the new age gate mandates, Pornhub has currently blocked access to users in 23 states.

Critics argue that age verification has never been about protecting children but rather scrubbing porn from the internet. A video leaked in 2024 by the Centre for Climate Reporting showed Russell Vought, a Trump ally and Project 2025 coauthor, calling age verification laws a “back door” tactic to a federal porn ban.

Sites like OnlyFans and Pornhub have brought platform-dependent sex work into the mainstream, but they have also made it easier to police adult entertainers and consumers. As more states begin to implement added tariffs on sex work, creators will bear the brunt of the new laws more than anyone.

The skewed ideology of cultural conservatism that is taking shape under Trump 2.0 wants to punish sexual expression, says Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult industry in the US. “When we talk about free speech, we generally mean the freedom to speak, the ability to speak freely without government interference. But in this case, free also means not having to pay for the right to do so. A government tax on speech limits that right to those who can afford it.”

According to company policy, OnlyFans complies with all tax requirements in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Creators are responsible for their own tax affairs. Pornhub, which is currently blocked in Utah and Alabama, did not respond to a request for comment.

Douek notes that following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold age-verification laws in Texas, states can legally regulate minors’ access to sexually explicit material, “but a porn tax does nothing to limit minors’ access to this speech—it simply makes it more expensive to provide this content to adults.” A 2022 report from Common Sense Media, a youth advocacy nonprofit, found that 73 percent of teens age 13 to 17 have watched adult content online. Today, young people regularly access NSFW content via social media, on platforms like X and Snap. Last year, a survey by the UK’s Office of the Children’s Commissioner reported that 59 percent of minors are being exposed to porn by accident, primarily via social media, up from 38 percent in 2023.

In Alabama, as would be the case with Utah, revenue raised by the tax is being used for behavioral health services, including prevention, treatment, and recovery support for young people.

Alabama state representative Ben Robbins, the bill’s Republican sponsor, said in an interview last year that adult content was “a driver in causing mental health issues” in the state. It’s a common argument among lawmakers pushing for a nationwide porn ban. Some scientific studies suggest that adolescent exposure to porn increases rates of depression, low self-esteem, and normalized violence, but health professionals have never reached a consensus on the matter.

With lawmakers working to reframe the issue around underage harm, Stabile says it’s critical to remember that adult content isn’t different from any other kind of protected speech, noting that content-specific taxes on speech have repeatedly been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional censorship.

“What if a state decided that Covid misinformation was straining state health resources and taxed newsletters who promoted it? What if the federal government decided to require a costly license to start a podcast? What if a state decided to tax a certain newspaper it didn’t like?” he says. “Porn isn’t some magical category of speech separate from movies, streaming services, or other forms of entertainment. Adult businesses already pay taxes on the income they earn, just as every other business does. Taxing them because of imagined harms is not only dangerous to our industry, it sets a dangerous precedent for government power.”

This story originally appeared on WIRED.com

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

Conservative lawmakers want porn taxes. Critics say they’re unconstitutional. Read More »

spacex-gets-fcc-permission-to-launch-another-7,500-starlink-satellites

SpaceX gets FCC permission to launch another 7,500 Starlink satellites

T-Mobile is using Starlink in the US, and the satellite operator has partnerships with carriers overseas. With today’s FCC authorization, Starlink will be able to provide both fixed and mobile service from all 15,000 second-generation satellites.

SpaceX wants to launch another 15,000 satellites

SpaceX also recently struck a $17 billion deal to buy spectrum licenses from EchoStar, which will give it 50 Mhz of mobile spectrum and reduce its reliance on cellular carriers. SpaceX has been leasing 10 MHz of spectrum from T-Mobile to provide supplemental service in the US.

Starlink is separately planning to launch yet another 15,000 satellites that are designed for mobile service. SpaceX asked the FCC to approve this plan in September 2025, saying the “new system will offer a new generation of MSS connectivity, supporting voice, texting, and high-speed data.”

Starlink requests for FCC authorization often face opposition from other satellite firms, and the application for 15,000 more satellites is no exception. Viasat filed a petition to deny the application on Monday this week.

“This proposed expansion of SpaceX’s operating authority would give it an even greater ability and incentive to foreclose other operators from accessing and using limited orbital and spectrum resources on a competitive basis,” Viasat told the FCC. “At the same time, the proposed operations would generate insurmountable interference risks for other spectrum users and the customers they serve, preclude other operators from accessing and using scarce spectral and orbital resources on an equitable basis, undermine and foreclose competition and innovation, and otherwise harm the public.”

Globalstar also filed a petition to deny, and several other satellite operators raised objections. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has generally been a supporter of SpaceX and Elon Musk, however. Carr alleged that the Biden administration targeted Musk’s companies for “regulatory harassment,” and in his current role as chairman Carr pressured EchoStar into selling the spectrum licenses that SpaceX is now buying.

In today’s press release announcing the latest authorization, Carr said that “the FCC has given SpaceX the green light to deliver unprecedented satellite broadband capabilities, strengthen competition, and help ensure that no community is left behind.”

SpaceX gets FCC permission to launch another 7,500 Starlink satellites Read More »