Policy

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

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

Hidden cargo —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feds increasingly seize sites to stop gun part sales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

google’s-ad-tech-empire-may-be-$95b-and-“too-big”-to-sell,-analysts-warn-doj

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

“Impossible to negotiate” —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BalticServers.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“hail-holy-terror”:-two-us-citizens-charged-for-running-online-“terrorgram-collective”

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

out in the open —

White accelerationist terror meets social media.

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

The group's criteria for

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

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

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

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

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

An

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

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

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

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

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

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

doj-claims-google-has-“trifecta-of-monopolies”-on-day-1-of-ad-tech-trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

these-household-brands-want-to-redefine-what-counts-as-“recyclable”

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

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

Olga Pankova/Moment via Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cops-lure-pedophiles-with-ai-pics-of-teen-girl.-ethical-triumph-or-new-disaster?

Cops lure pedophiles with AI pics of teen girl. Ethical triumph or new disaster?

Who is she? —

New Mexico sued Snapchat after using AI to reveal child safety risks.

Cops lure pedophiles with AI pics of teen girl. Ethical triumph or new disaster?

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

Cops are now using AI to generate images of fake kids, which are helping them catch child predators online, a lawsuit filed by the state of New Mexico against Snapchat revealed this week.

According to the complaint, the New Mexico Department of Justice launched an undercover investigation in recent months to prove that Snapchat “is a primary social media platform for sharing child sexual abuse material (CSAM)” and sextortion of minors, because its “algorithm serves up children to adult predators.”

As part of their probe, an investigator “set up a decoy account for a 14-year-old girl, Sexy14Heather.”

  • An AI-generated image of “Sexy14Heather” included in the New Mexico complaint.

  • An image of a Snapchat avatar for “Sexy14Heather” included in the New Mexico complaint.

Despite Snapchat setting the fake minor’s profile to private and the account not adding any followers, “Heather” was soon recommended widely to “dangerous accounts, including ones named ‘child.rape’ and ‘pedo_lover10,’ in addition to others that are even more explicit,” the New Mexico DOJ said in a press release.

And after “Heather” accepted a follow request from just one account, the recommendations got even worse. “Snapchat suggested over 91 users, including numerous adult users whose accounts included or sought to exchange sexually explicit content,” New Mexico’s complaint alleged.

“Snapchat is a breeding ground for predators to collect sexually explicit images of children and to find, groom, and extort them,” New Mexico’s complaint alleged.

Posing as “Sexy14Heather,” the investigator swapped messages with adult accounts, including users who “sent inappropriate messages and explicit photos.” In one exchange with a user named “50+ SNGL DAD 4 YNGR,” the fake teen “noted her age, sent a photo, and complained about her parents making her go to school,” prompting the user to send “his own photo” as well as sexually suggestive chats. Other accounts asked “Heather” to “trade presumably explicit content,” and several “attempted to coerce the underage persona into sharing CSAM,” the New Mexico DOJ said.

“Heather” also tested out Snapchat’s search tool, finding that “even though she used no sexually explicit language, the algorithm must have determined that she was looking for CSAM” when she searched for other teen users. It “began recommending users associated with trading” CSAM, including accounts with usernames such as “naughtypics,” “addfortrading,” “teentr3de,” “gayhorny13yox,” and “teentradevirgin,” the investigation found, “suggesting that these accounts also were involved in the dissemination of CSAM.”

This novel use of AI was prompted after Albuquerque police indicted a man, Alejandro Marquez, who pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 years for raping an 11-year-old girl he met through Snapchat’s Quick Add feature in 2022, New Mexico’s complaint said. More recently, the New Mexico complaint said, an Albuquerque man, Jeremy Guthrie, was arrested and sentenced this summer for “raping a 12-year-old girl who he met and cultivated over Snapchat.”

In the past, police have posed as kids online to catch child predators using photos of younger-looking adult women or even younger photos of police officers. Using AI-generated images could be considered a more ethical way to conduct these stings, a lawyer specializing in sex crimes, Carrie Goldberg, told Ars, because “an AI decoy profile is less problematic than using images of an actual child.”

But using AI could complicate investigations and carry its own ethical concerns, Goldberg warned, as child safety experts and law enforcement warn that the Internet is increasingly swamped with AI-generated CSAM.

“In terms of AI being used for entrapment, defendants can defend themselves if they say the government induced them to commit a crime that they were not already predisposed to commit,” Goldberg told Ars. “Of course, it would be ethically concerning if the government were to create deepfake AI child sexual abuse material (CSAM), because those images are illegal, and we don’t want more CSAM in circulation.”

Experts have warned that AI image generators should never be trained on datasets that combine images of real kids with explicit content to avoid any instances of AI-generated CSAM, which is particularly harmful when it appears to depict a real kid or an actual victim of child abuse.

In the New Mexico complaint, only one AI-generated image is included, so it’s unclear how widely the state’s DOJ is using AI or if cops are possibly using more advanced methods to generate multiple images of the same fake kid. It’s also unclear what ethical concerns were weighed before cops began using AI decoys.

The New Mexico DOJ did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Goldberg told Ars that “there ought to be standards within law enforcement with how to use AI responsibly,” warning that “we are likely to see more entrapment defenses centered around AI if the government is using the technology in a manipulative way to pressure somebody into committing a crime.”

Cops lure pedophiles with AI pics of teen girl. Ethical triumph or new disaster? Read More »

telegram-is-not-an-“anarchic-paradise,”-ceo-pavel-durov-says-after-arrest

Telegram is not an “anarchic paradise,” CEO Pavel Durov says after arrest

The Telegram app icon on a phone screen

Getty Images | picture alliance

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov, in his first public comments since being arrested by French authorities, said that Telegram is not an “anarchic paradise” but promised that the platform will enhance its moderation of harmful content.

While Telegram has room for improvement, “the claims in some media that Telegram is some sort of anarchic paradise are absolutely untrue,” Durov wrote on Telegram yesterday. “We take down millions of harmful posts and channels every day. We publish daily transparency reports (like this or this). We have direct hotlines with NGOs to process urgent moderation requests faster.”

The links Durov provided go to Telegram channels that report the number of groups and channels banned for terrorist content and child-abuse content. Telegram has been criticized by groups such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) for allegedly not cooperating on removal of child sexual abuse material.

Durov said Telegram has heard criticism that its moderation efforts are “not enough,” adding that “Telegram’s abrupt increase in user count to 950M caused growing pains that made it easier for criminals to abuse our platform. That’s why I made it my personal goal to ensure we significantly improve things in this regard. We’ve already started that process internally, and I will share more details on our progress with you very soon.”

Durov is forbidden from leaving France after his indictment last week. Prosecutor Laure Beccuau alleged that law enforcement authorities received a near-total lack of response from Telegram to requests for cooperation in cases related to crimes against minors, drug crimes, and online hate.

FAQ signals new approach to “private” messages

Telegram already made a change to its FAQ in a section on how the company handles illegal content. The change suggests Telegram may do more moderation of private messages.

An Internet Archive capture of the FAQ page from yesterday contained the following text:

Q: There’s illegal content on Telegram. How do I take it down?

All Telegram chats and group chats are private amongst their participants. We do not process any requests related to them.

But sticker sets, channels, and bots on Telegram are publicly available. If you find sticker sets or bots on Telegram that you think are illegal, please ping us at abuse@telegram.org.

You can also use the ‘report’ buttons right inside our apps, see this post on our official @ISISwatch channel for details.

That section in the current version of the FAQ page was heavily rewritten. The statement that all chats are private and that Telegram does not “process any requests related to them” has been removed. It now says, “All Telegram apps have ‘Report’ buttons that let you flag illegal content for our moderators—in just a few taps,” and goes on to provide more specific instructions on how to report illegal content in messages.

Some of the key language removed from the section on illegal content remains in the FAQ section on how to report copyright infringement. The copyright section still contains the statement that all chats are private and that Telegram does not “process any requests related to them.” Despite that, testing the app today showed that clicking “Report” on a Telegram message provides an option to report copyright infringement. Users can also report messages for spam, violence, pornography, child abuse, illegal drugs, or personal details.

Telegram messages do not have end-to-end encryption by default, but the security feature can be enabled for one-on-one conversations. The app has social-network features letting users create groups of up to 200,000 people and channels for posting of public messages to audiences of any size. Telegram users cannot enable end-to-end encryption on group messages.

Telegram is not an “anarchic paradise,” CEO Pavel Durov says after arrest Read More »

verizon-to-buy-frontier-for-$9.6-billion,-says-it-will-expand-fiber-network

Verizon to buy Frontier for $9.6 billion, says it will expand fiber network

Verizon/Frontier merger —

Verizon once sold part of its network to Frontier; now it’s buying the company.

A Verizon FiOS box truck on a street in New York City.

Enlarge / A Verizon FiOS truck in Manhattan on September 15, 2017.

Verizon today announced a deal to acquire Frontier Communications, an Internet service provider with about 3 million customers in 25 states. Verizon said the all-cash transaction is valued at $20 billion.

Verizon agreed to pay $9.6 billion and is taking on over $10 billion in debt held by Frontier. Verizon said the deal is subject to regulatory approval and a vote by Frontier shareholders and is expected to be completed in 18 months.

“Under the terms of the agreement, Verizon will acquire Frontier for $38.50 per share in cash, representing a premium of 43.7 percent to Frontier’s 90-Day volume-weighted average share price (VWAP) on September 3, 2024, the last trading day prior to media reports regarding a potential acquisition of Frontier,” Verizon said.

Assuming regulatory and shareholder approval, Verizon will be buying back a former portion of its network that it sold to Frontier eight years ago. In 2016, Frontier bought Verizon’s FiOS and DSL operations in Florida, California, and Texas. The 2016 changeover was marred by technical problems that caused weeks of outages for tens of thousands of customers.

Frontier, which had also purchased the Connecticut portion of AT&T’s network, struggled for many years and filed for bankruptcy in April 2020. It was criticized by regulators for not properly maintaining its copper phone network. Frontier emerged from bankruptcy in 2021 with a plan to upgrade many of its outdated copper DSL locations with fiber-to-the-home service.

“Frontier’s 2.2 million fiber subscribers across 25 states will join Verizon’s approximately 7.4 million FiOS connections in 9 states and Washington, D.C.,” Verizon said. “In addition to Frontier’s 7.2 million fiber locations, the company is committed to its plan to build out an additional 2.8 million fiber locations by the end of 2026.”

Combined, the Verizon and Frontier fiber networks pass over 25 million premises in 31 states and the District of Columbia, the companies said. Verizon and Frontier both “expect to increase their fiber penetration between now and closing,” they said.

Frontier “complementary” to Verizon’s Northeast market

Frontier has 2.05 million residential fiber customers and 721,000 residential copper DSL customers, according to an earnings report. In the business and wholesale category, Frontier has 134,000 fiber customers and 102,000 copper customers. Frontier reported $1.48 billion in revenue in Q2 2024 and a net loss of $123 million.

Verizon said Frontier’s recent investment in fiber made it a more attractive acquisition target. “Over approximately four years, Frontier has invested $4.1 billion upgrading and expanding its fiber network, and now derives more than 50 percent of its revenue from fiber products,” Verizon said.

Verizon FiOS is available in parts of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. Verizon said Frontier’s footprint is “highly complementary to Verizon’s core Northeast and Mid-Atlantic markets,” and will help grow the number of customers who purchase both home Internet and mobile service.

Frontier is available in parts of Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Verizon to buy Frontier for $9.6 billion, says it will expand fiber network Read More »

internet-archive’s-e-book-lending-is-not-fair-use,-appeals-court-rules

Internet Archive’s e-book lending is not fair use, appeals court rules

Internet Archive’s e-book lending is not fair use, appeals court rules

The Internet Archive has lost its appeal after book publishers successfully sued to block the Open Libraries Project from lending digital scans of books for free online.

Judges for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected the Internet Archive (IA) argument that its controlled digital lending—which allows only one person to borrow each scanned e-book at a time—was a transformative fair use that worked like a traditional library and did not violate copyright law.

As Judge Beth Robinson wrote in the decision, because the IA’s digital copies of books did not “provide criticism, commentary, or information about the originals” or alter the original books to add “something new,” the court concluded that the IA’s use of publishers’ books was not transformative, hobbling the organization’s fair use defense.

“IA’s digital books serve the same exact purpose as the originals: making authors’ works available to read,” Robinson said, emphasizing that although in copyright law, “[n]ot every instance will be clear cut,” “this one is.”

The appeals court ruling affirmed the lower court’s ruling, which permanently barred the IA from distributing not just the works in the suit, but all books “available for electronic licensing,” Robinson said.

“To construe IA’s use of the Works as transformative would significantly narrow―if not entirely eviscerate―copyright owners’ exclusive right to prepare (or not prepare) derivative works,” Robinson wrote.

Maria Pallante, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, the trade organization behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling. She said the court upheld “the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest.”

“If there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that under fair use jurisprudence there is nothing transformative about converting entire works into new formats without permission or appropriating the value of derivative works that are a key part of the author’s copyright bundle,” Pallante said.

The Internet Archive’s director of library services, Chris Freeland, issued a statement on the loss, which comes after four years of fighting to maintain its Open Libraries Project.

“We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere,” Freeland said. “We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.”

IA’s lending harmed publishers, judge says

The court’s fair use analysis didn’t solely hinge on whether IA’s digital lending of e-books was “transformative.” Judges also had to consider book publishers’ claims that IA was profiting off e-book lending, in addition to factoring in whether each work was original, what amount of each work was being copied, and whether the IA’s e-books substituted original works, depriving authors of revenue in relevant markets.

Ultimately, for each factor, judges ruled in favor of publishers, which argued that granting IA was threatening to “‘destroy the value of [their] exclusive right to prepare derivative works,’ including the right to publish their authors’ works as e-books.”

While the IA tried to argue that book publishers’ surging profits suggested that its digital lending caused no market harms, Robinson disagreed with the IA’s experts’ “ill-supported” market analysis and took issue with IA advertising “its digital books as a free alternative to Publishers’ print and e-books.”

“IA offers effectively the same product as Publishers―full copies of the Works―but at no cost to consumers or libraries,” Robinson wrote. “At least in this context, it is difficult to compete with free.”

Robinson wrote that despite book publishers showing no proof of market harms, that lack of evidence did not support IA’s case, ruling that IA did not satisfy its burden to prove it had not harmed publishers. She further wrote that it’s common sense to agree with publishers’ characterization of harms because “IA’s digital books compete directly with Publishers’ e-books” and would deprive authors of revenue if left unchecked.

“We agree with Publishers’ assessment of market harm” and “are likewise convinced” that “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by [IA] would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market” for publishers’ e-books, Robinson wrote. “Though Publishers have not provided empirical data to support this observation, we routinely rely on such logical inferences where appropriate” when determining fair use.

Judges did, however, side with IA on the matter of whether the nonprofit was profiting off loaning e-books for free, contradicting the lower court. The appeals court disagreed with book publishers’ claims that IA profited off e-books by soliciting donations or earning a small percentage from used books sold through referral links on its site.

“Of course, IA must solicit some funds to keep the lights on,” Robinson wrote. But “IA does not profit directly from its Free Digital Library,” and it would be “misleading” to characterize it that way.

“To hold otherwise would greatly restrain the ability of nonprofits to seek donations while making fair use of copyrighted works,” Robinson wrote.

Internet Archive’s e-book lending is not fair use, appeals court rules Read More »

doj-subpoenas-nvidia-in-deepening-ai-antitrust-probe,-report-says

DOJ subpoenas Nvidia in deepening AI antitrust probe, report says

DOJ subpoenas Nvidia in deepening AI antitrust probe, report says

The Department of Justice is reportedly deepening its probe into Nvidia. Officials have moved on from merely questioning competitors to subpoenaing Nvidia and other tech companies for evidence that could substantiate allegations that Nvidia is abusing its “dominant position in AI computing,” Bloomberg reported.

When news of the DOJ’s probe into the trillion-dollar company was first reported in June, Fast Company reported that scrutiny was intensifying merely because Nvidia was estimated to control “as much as 90 percent of the market for chips” capable of powering AI models. Experts told Fast Company that the DOJ probe might even be good for Nvidia’s business, noting that the market barely moved when the probe was first announced.

But the market’s confidence seemed to be shaken a little more on Tuesday, when Nvidia lost a “record-setting $279 billion” in market value following Bloomberg’s report. Nvidia’s losses became “the biggest single-day market-cap decline on record,” TheStreet reported.

People close to the DOJ’s investigation told Bloomberg that the DOJ’s “legally binding requests” require competitors “to provide information” on Nvidia’s suspected anticompetitive behaviors as a “dominant provider of AI processors.”

One concern is that Nvidia may be giving “preferential supply and pricing to customers who use its technology exclusively or buy its complete systems,” sources told Bloomberg. The DOJ is also reportedly probing Nvidia’s acquisition of RunAI—suspecting the deal may lock RunAI customers into using Nvidia chips.

Bloomberg’s report builds on a report last month from The Information that said that Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) and other Nvidia rivals were questioned by the DOJ—as well as third parties who could shed light on whether Nvidia potentially abused its market dominance in AI chips to pressure customers into buying more products.

According to Bloomberg’s sources, the DOJ is worried that “Nvidia is making it harder to switch to other suppliers and penalizes buyers that don’t exclusively use its artificial intelligence chips.”

In a statement to Bloomberg, Nvidia insisted that “Nvidia wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, who can choose whatever solution is best for them.” Additionally, Bloomberg noted that following a chip shortage in 2022, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has said that his company strives to prevent stockpiling of Nvidia’s coveted AI chips by prioritizing customers “who can make use of his products in ready-to-go data centers.”

Potential threats to Nvidia’s dominance

Despite the slump in shares, Nvidia’s market dominance seems unlikely to wane any time soon after its stock more than doubled this year. In an SEC filing this year, Nvidia bragged that its “accelerated computing ecosystem is bringing AI to every enterprise” with an “ecosystem” spanning “nearly 5 million developers and 40,000 companies.” Nvidia specifically highlighted that “more than 1,600 generative AI companies are building on Nvidia,” and according to Bloomberg, Nvidia will close out 2024 with more profits than the total sales of its closest competitor, AMD.

After the DOJ’s most recent big win, which successfully proved that Google has a monopoly on search, the DOJ appears intent on getting ahead of any tech companies’ ambitions to seize monopoly power and essentially become the Google of the AI industry. In June, DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter confirmed to the Financial Times that the DOJ is examining “monopoly choke points and the competitive landscape” in AI beyond just scrutinizing Nvidia.

According to Kanter, the DOJ is scrutinizing all aspects of the AI industry—”everything from computing power and the data used to train large language models, to cloud service providers, engineering talent and access to essential hardware such as graphics processing unit chips.” But in particular, the DOJ appears concerned that GPUs like Nvidia’s advanced AI chips remain a “scarce resource.” Kanter told the Financial Times that an “intervention” in “real time” to block a potential monopoly could be “the most meaningful intervention” and the least “invasive” as the AI industry grows.

DOJ subpoenas Nvidia in deepening AI antitrust probe, report says Read More »