Policy

google-mocks-epic’s-proposed-reforms-to-end-android-app-market-monopoly

Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly

android, android app marketplace, Android Apps, anticompetitive behavior, Antitrust law, App Store, epic games, epic games store, gaming, Google, Google Play Store, monopoly, Policy / /
Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly

Epic Games has filed a proposed injunction that would stop Google from restricting third-party app distribution outside Google Play Store on Android devices after proving that Google had an illegal monopoly in markets for Android app distribution.

Epic is suggesting that competition on the Android mobile platform would be opened up if the court orders Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed for six years in the Google Play Store and blocks Google from entering any agreements with device makers that would stop them from pre-loading third-party app stores. This would benefit both mobile developers and users, Epic argued in a wide-sweeping proposal that would greatly limit Google’s control over the Android app ecosystem.

US District Court Judge James Donato will ultimately decide the terms of the injunction. Google has until May 3 to respond to Epic’s filing.

A Google spokesperson confirmed to Ars that Google still plans to appeal the verdict—even though Google already agreed to a $700 million settlement with consumers and states following Epic’s win.

“Epic’s filing to the US Federal Court shows again that it simply wants the benefits of Google Play without having to pay for it,” Google’s spokesperson said. “We’ll continue to challenge the verdict, as Android is an open mobile platform that faces fierce competition from the Apple App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices, PCs, and gaming consoles.”

If Donato accepts Epic’s proposal, Google would be required to grant equal access to the Android operating system and platform features to all developers, not just developers distributing apps through Google Play. This would allow third-party app stores to become the app update owner, updating any apps downloaded from their stores as seamlessly as Google Play updates apps.

Under Epic’s terms, any app downloaded from anywhere would operate identically to apps downloaded from Google Play, without Google imposing any unnecessary distribution fees. Similarly, developers would be able to provide their own in-app purchasing options and inform users of out-of-app purchasing options, without having to use Google’s APIs or paying Google additional fees.

Notably, Epic filed its lawsuit after Google removed the Epic game Fortnite from the Google Play Store because Epic tried to offer an “Epic Direct Payment” option for in-game purchases.

“Google must also allow developers to communicate directly with their consumers, including linking from their app to a website to make purchases and get deals,” Epic said in a blog post. “Google would be blocked from using sham compliance programs like User Choice Billing to prevent competing payment options inside an app or on a developer’s website.”

Unsurprisingly, Epic’s proposed injunction includes an “anti-retaliation” section specifically aimed at protecting Epic from any further retaliation. If Donato accepts the terms, Google would be violating the injunction order if the tech giant fails to prove that it is not “treating Epic differently than other developers” by making it “disproportionately difficult or costly” for Epic to develop, update, and market its apps on Android.

That part of the injunction would seem important since, last month, Epic announced that an Epic Games Store was “coming to iOS and Android” later this year. According to Inc, Epic told Game Developers Conference attendees that its app-distribution platform will be the “first ever game-focused, multiplatform store,” working across “Android, iOS, PC and macOS.”

Google mocks Epic’s proposed reforms to end Android app market monopoly Read More »

us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

AI, Artificial Intelligence, copyright law, generative ai, generative ai disclosure act, openai, Policy, Stability AI, US Copyright Office / /

Who’s got the receipts? —

Proposed law would require more transparency from AI companies.

–

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

Amid a flurry of lawsuits over AI models’ training data, US Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would require AI companies to disclose exactly which copyrighted works are included in datasets training AI systems.

The Generative AI Disclosure Act “would require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to the release of a new generative AI system with regard to all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset for that system,” Schiff said in a press release.

The bill is retroactive and would apply to all AI systems available today, as well as to all AI systems to come. It would take effect 180 days after it’s enacted, requiring anyone who creates or alters a training set not only to list works referenced by the dataset, but also to provide a URL to the dataset within 30 days before the AI system is released to the public. That URL would presumably give creators a way to double-check if their materials have been used and seek any credit or compensation available before the AI tools are in use.

All notices would be kept in a publicly available online database.

Schiff described the act as championing “innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets.”

“This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness,” Schiff said.

Currently, creators who don’t have access to training datasets rely on AI models’ outputs to figure out if their copyrighted works may have been included in training various AI systems. The New York Times, for example, prompted ChatGPT to spit out excerpts of its articles, relying on a tactic to identify training data by asking ChatGPT to produce lines from specific articles, which OpenAI has curiously described as “hacking.”

Under Schiff’s law, The New York Times would need to consult the database to ID all articles used to train ChatGPT or any other AI system.

Any AI maker who violates the act would risk a “civil penalty in an amount not less than $5,000,” the proposed bill said.

At a hearing on artificial intelligence and intellectual property, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)—who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet—told Schiff that his subcommittee would consider the “thoughtful” bill.

Schiff told the subcommittee that the bill is “only a first step” toward “ensuring that at a minimum” creators are “aware of when their work contributes to AI training datasets,” saying that he would “welcome the opportunity to work with members of the subcommittee” on advancing the bill.

“The rapid development of generative AI technologies has outpaced existing copyright laws, which has led to widespread use of creative content to train generative AI models without consent or compensation,” Schiff warned at the hearing.

In Schiff’s press release, Meredith Stiehm, president of the Writers Guild of America West, joined leaders from other creative groups celebrating the bill as an “important first step” for rightsholders.

“Greater transparency and guardrails around AI are necessary to protect writers and other creators” and address “the unprecedented and unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI systems,” Stiehm said.

Until the thorniest AI copyright questions are settled, Ken Doroshow, a chief legal officer for the Recording Industry Association of America, suggested that Schiff’s bill filled an important gap by introducing “comprehensive and transparent recordkeeping” that would provide “one of the most fundamental building blocks of effective enforcement of creators’ rights.”

A senior adviser for the Human Artistry Campaign, Moiya McTier, went further, celebrating the bill as stopping AI companies from “exploiting” artists and creators.

“AI companies should stop hiding the ball when they copy creative works into AI systems and embrace clear rules of the road for recordkeeping that create a level and transparent playing field for the development and licensing of genuinely innovative applications and tools,” McTier said.

AI copyright guidance coming soon

While courts weigh copyright questions raised by artists, book authors, and newspapers, the US Copyright Office announced in March that it would be issuing guidance later this year, but the office does not seem to be prioritizing questions on AI training.

Instead, the Copyright Office will focus first on issuing guidance on deepfakes and AI outputs. This spring, the office will release a report “analyzing the impact of AI on copyright” of “digital replicas, or the use of AI to digitally replicate individuals’ appearances, voices, or other aspects of their identities.” Over the summer, another report will focus on “the copyrightability of works incorporating AI-generated material.”

Regarding “the topic of training AI models on copyrighted works as well as any licensing considerations and liability issues,” the Copyright Office did not provide a timeline for releasing guidance, only confirming that their “goal is to finalize the entire report by the end of the fiscal year.”

Once guidance is available, it could sway court opinions, although courts do not necessarily have to apply Copyright Office guidance when weighing cases.

The Copyright Office’s aspirational timeline does seem to be ahead of when at least some courts can be expected to decide on some of the biggest copyright questions for some creators. The class-action lawsuit raised by book authors against OpenAI, for example, is not expected to be resolved until February 2025, and the New York Times’ lawsuit is likely on a similar timeline. However, artists suing Stability AI face a hearing on that AI company’s motion to dismiss this May.

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material Read More »

starting-today,-isps-must-display-labels-with-price,-speeds,-and-data-caps

Starting today, ISPs must display labels with price, speeds, and data caps

broadband labels, Policy / /

Broadband consumer labels —

ISPs comply with FCC rule after protesting requirement to list all fees.

–

A Comcast service van seen from behind.

Getty Images | Smith Collection/Gado

A sample consumer label for home Internet service.

Enlarge / A sample consumer label for home Internet service.

FCC

Starting today, home Internet and mobile broadband providers in the US are required to display consumer labels with information on prices, speeds, and data allowances.

“Today’s nationwide launch of the Broadband Consumer Labels means internet service providers are now required to display consumer-friendly labels at the point of sale,” the Federal Communications Commission said. “Labels are required for all standalone home or fixed Internet service or mobile broadband plans. Providers must display the label—not simply an icon or link to the label—in close proximity to an associated plan’s advertisement.”

The labels are required now for providers with at least 100,000 subscribers, while ISPs with fewer customers have until October 10, 2024, to comply. “If a provider is not displaying their labels or has posted inaccurate information about its fees or service plans, consumers can file a complaint with the FCC Consumer Complaint Center,” an agency webpage says.

The October 10 date will also bring an additional requirement that providers “make the labels machine-readable to enable third parties to more easily collect and aggregate data for the purpose of creating comparison-shopping tools for consumers,” the FCC said.

What to look for

The FCC issued a consumer advisory telling broadband users what to look for in the labels. Labels should include the monthly price, state whether it is an introductory rate, the amount of time that an introductory rate applies, and the price after any introductory rate expires. The labels must include any additional monthly charges, one-time fees, early termination fees, and taxes.

Speed information should include typical download speed, upload speed, and latency. For data caps, the labels should state how much data is included with the monthly price and how much consumers have to pay for additional usage.

Labels should also include links to information on discounts and service bundles, network management practices, and privacy policies.

ISPs complained, but now comply

The FCC was required to implement broadband label rules in a 2021 law passed by Congress, and the agency approved the label rules in November 2022. The rules didn’t take effect until now in part because they were subject to a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under requirements in the US Paperwork Reduction Act.

Comcast and other ISPs complained that listing every monthly fee would be too difficult, but the FCC rejected the industry’s petition to weaken the rules. Big ISPs appear to be complying with the rules so far.

Comcast set up a webpage where you can enter your address to find broadband labels for each speed tier. You can also see the Comcast labels by adding a broadband plan to your cart using the company’s standard checkout process.

We confirmed today that broadband labels are being displayed by AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Charter Spectrum on their checkout pages. Google Fiber got things rolling early by launching its labels in October 2023.

In addition to the broadband labels, the FCC is forcing TV providers to advertise “all-in” prices instead of using hidden fees to conceal the full cost of video service. The FCC voted to adopt the TV price rule last month, but it is subject to a Paperwork Reduction Act review before it can take effect.

Starting today, ISPs must display labels with price, speeds, and data caps Read More »

epa’s-pfas-rules:-we’d-prefer-zero,-but-we’ll-accept-4-parts-per-trillion

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion

clean water act, EPA, Forever chemicals, PFAS, Policy, regulation, Science / /

Approaching zero —

For two chemicals, any presence in water supplies is too much.

–

A young person drinks from a public water fountain.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it has finalized rules for handling water supplies that are contaminated by a large family of chemicals collectively termed PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). Commonly called “forever chemicals,” these contaminants have been linked to a huge range of health issues, including cancers, heart disease, immune dysfunction, and developmental disorders.

The final rules keep one striking aspect of the initial proposal intact: a goal of completely eliminating exposure to two members of the PFAS family. The new rules require all drinking water suppliers to monitor for the chemicals’ presence, and the EPA estimates that as many as 10 percent of them may need to take action to remove them. While that will be costly, the health benefits are expected to exceed those costs.

Going low

PFAS are a collection of hydrocarbons where some of the hydrogen atoms have been swapped out for fluorine. This swap retains the water-repellant behavior of hydrocarbons while making the molecules highly resistant to breaking down through natural processes—hence the forever chemicals moniker. They’re widely used in water-resistant clothing and non-stick cooking equipment and have found uses in firefighting foam. Their widespread use and disposal has allowed them to get into water supplies in many locations.

They’ve also been linked to an enormous range of health issues. The EPA expects that its new rules will have the following effects: fewer cancers, lower incidence of heart attacks and strokes, reduced birth complications, and a drop in other developmental, cardiovascular, liver, immune, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, musculoskeletal, and carcinogenic effects. These are not chemicals you want to be drinking.

The striking thing was how far the EPA was willing to go to get them out of drinking water. For two chemicals, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), the Agency’s ideal contamination level is zero. Meaning no exposure to these chemicals whatsoever. Since current testing equipment is limited to a sensitivity of four parts per trillion, the new rules settle for using that as the standard. Other family members see limits of 10 parts per trillion, and an additional limit sets a cap on how much total exposure is acceptable when a mixture of PFAS is present.

Overall, the EPA estimates that there are roughly 66,000 drinking water suppliers that will be subject to these new rules. They’ll be given three years to get monitoring and testing programs set up and provided access to funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to help offset the costs. All told, over $20 billion will be made available for the testing and improvements to equipment needed for compliance.

The Agency expects that somewhere between 4,000 and 6,500 of those systems will require some form of decontamination. While those represent a relatively small fraction of the total drinking water suppliers, it’s estimated that nearly a third of the US’ population will see its exposure to PFAS drop. Several technologies, including reverse osmosis and exposure to activated carbon, are capable of pulling PFAS from water, and the EPA is leaving it up to each supplier to choose a preferred method.

Cost/benefit

All of that monitoring and decontamination will not come cheap. The EPA estimates that the annual costs will be in the neighborhood of $150 billion, which will likely be passed on to consumers via their water suppliers. Those same consumers, however, are expected to see health benefits that outweigh these costs. EPA estimates place the impact of just three of the health improvements (cancer, cardiovascular, and birth complications) at $150 billion annually. Adding all the benefits of the rest of the health improvements should greatly exceed the costs.

The problem, of course, is that people will immediately recognize the increased cost of their water bills, while the savings of medical problems that don’t happen are much more abstract.

Overall, the final plan is largely unchanged from the EPA’s original proposal. The biggest differences are that the Agency is giving water suppliers more time to comply, somewhat more specific exposure allowances, and the ability of suppliers with minimal contamination to go longer in between submitting test results.

“People will live longer, healthier lives because of this action, and the benefits justify the costs,” the agency concluded in announcing the new rules.

EPA’s PFAS rules: We’d prefer zero, but we’ll accept 4 parts per trillion Read More »

elon-musk-denies-knowing-who’s-suing-him-to-dodge-defamation-suit

Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit

Policy / /
Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit

After Elon Musk was accused of defaming Ben Brody—a 22-year-old Jewish man falsely linked to a neo-Nazi brawl in tweets that Musk responded to last year—the owner of X (formerly Twitter) sat for a heated Zoom deposition where he repeatedly denied ever knowing who Brody was.

When Brody’s attorney, Mark Bankston, asked Musk if he thought he ever did anything “wrong” to Brody, Musk replied, “I don’t know Ben Brody.”

“You’re aware that Ben Brody is somebody who’s sued you, right?” Bankston asked.

“I think you’re the one suing,” Musk said, adding that he views “many cases and probably this one too that the real plaintiff is the lawyer seeking money like you.” Continually, Musk emphasized, “what I think” the defamation case is “really about is about you getting a lot of money.”

Musk filed a motion to dismiss Brody’s case in January, accusing Brody of targeting “Musk’s exercise of his freedom of speech for the improper purpose of obtaining a payment ‘exceed[ing] $1,000,000,’ to which Brody is not entitled from Musk.” In the deposition, Musk accused Bankston of attacking his free speech rights, and in the motion to dismiss, Musk argued that “the public’s discussion of the identity of perpetrators of crime would be unduly trampled by the fear of liability for merely negligent speech,” if Brody won his defamation suit.

In that petition, Musk accused Brody of targeting him because he’s a billionaire, repeatedly pointing out that Brody had not sued other X users who had specifically named Brody as an alleged brawler in blogs and on X.

Musk’s tweet, the motion to dismiss argued, only claimed that a picture of one brawler “looks like” a “college student (who wants to join the govt).” Because the photo was not actually of Brody, Musk argued, and because he never names Brody, then Brody cannot claim he was defamed.

“It is not defamatory to say someone looks like someone else—that is not an accusation of a crime,” Musk’s motion to dismiss said.

But Bankston asked Musk in the deposition if “the reason that you’re saying that it looks like one is a college student” was because of other posts that Musk had seen where right-wing influencers had named Brody as involved in the brawl, describing him as a liberal college student studying political science.

“That’s probably why I’m saying this,” Musk confirmed, while arguing that he was obviously “speculating” in the tweet, which is why he tagged Community Notes to “fact-check” his own tweet.

“I can see a picture of my brother and say that looks like my brother, but it might not be my brother,” Musk argued.

Bankston told Musk that his X post garnered more than a million views, asking Musk, “Do you think you owed it to Ben Brody to be accurate as you could?”

Musk told Bankston that he aspires “to be accurate no matter who the person is,” suggesting that while it’s possible to be harmed by people posting false information, he did not think Brody was harmed by his tweet.

“I don’t think he has been meaningfully harmed by this,” Musk said, insisting to Bankston that he could not have defamed Brody because “I have no ill will to Ben Brody. I don’t know Ben Brody.”

Brody’s complaint alleged that Musk boosting a post linking him to the neo-Nazi brawl has caused permanent reputational damage and severe emotional harm. Bankston declined Ars’ request to comment on whether Brody continues to be a target for harassment and death threats.

“People are attacked all the time in the media, online media, social media, but it is rare that that actually has a meaningful negative impact on their life,” Musk said.

Brody has asked Musk to delete his post, but Musk claims he cannot recall ever being asked. In one of the few times when Alex Spiro, Musk’s attorney, advised Musk not to respond, Musk gave no answer when Bankston asked, “If you knew right now—knowing right now Ben is really upset that this tweet is still up and that he wanted there to be a retraction, how do you feel about that?”

Bankston also confirmed that Musk’s post never got fact-checked by Community Notes and thus appears to still be boosting the misinformation.

Elon Musk denies knowing who’s suing him to dodge defamation suit Read More »

epa-seeks-to-cut-“cancer-alley”-pollutants

EPA seeks to cut “Cancer Alley” pollutants

carcinogens, clean air act, EPA, Policy, pollution, Science, Sustainability, Toxicology / /

Out of the air —

Chemical plants will have to monitor how much is escaping and stop leaks.

–

Image of a large industrial facility on the side of a river.

Enlarge / An oil refinery in Louisiana. Facilities such as this have led to a proliferation of petrochemical plants in the area.

On Tuesday, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules that are intended to cut emissions of two chemicals that have been linked to elevated incidence of cancer: ethylene oxide and chloroprene. While production and use of these chemicals takes place in a variety of locations, they’re particularly associated with an area of petrochemical production in Louisiana that has become known as “Cancer Alley.”

The new regulations would require chemical manufacturers to monitor the emissions at their facilities and take steps to repair any problems that result in elevated emissions. Despite extensive evidence linking these chemicals to elevated risk of cancer, industry groups are signaling their opposition to these regulations, and the EPA has seen two previous attempts at regulation set aside by courts.

Dangerous stuff

The two chemicals at issue are primarily used as intermediates in the manufacture of common products. Chloroprene, for example, is used for the production of neoprene, a synthetic rubber-like substance that’s probably familiar from products like insulated sleeves and wetsuits. It’s a four-carbon chain with two double-bonds that allow for polymerization and an attached chlorine that alters its chemical properties.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), chloroprene “is a mutagen and carcinogen in animals and is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Given that cancers are driven by DNA damage, any mutagen would be “reasonably anticipated” to drive the development of cancer. Beyond that, it appears to be pretty nasty stuff, with the NCI noting that “exposure to this substance causes damage to the skin, lungs, CNS, kidneys, liver and depression of the immune system.”

The NCI’s take on Ethylene Oxide is even more definitive, with the Institute placing it on its list of cancer-causing substances. The chemical is very simple, with two carbons that are linked to each other directly, and also linked via an oxygen atom, which makes the molecule look a bit like a triangle. This configuration allows the molecule to participate in a broad range of reactions that break one of the oxygen bonds, making it useful in the production of a huge range of chemicals. Its reactivity also makes it useful for sterilizing items such as medical equipment.

Its sterilization function works through causing damage to DNA, which again makes it prone to causing cancers.

In addition to these two chemicals, the EPA’s new regulations will target a number of additional airborne pollutants, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride, all of which have similar entries at the NCI.

Despite the extensive record linking these chemicals to cancer, The New York Times quotes the US Chamber of Commerce, a pro-industry group, as saying that “EPA should not move forward with this rule-making based on the current record because there remains significant scientific uncertainty.”

A history of exposure

The petrochemical industry is the main source of these chemicals, so their release is associated with areas where the oil and gas industry has a major presence; the EPA notes that the regulations will target sources in Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley. But the primary focus will be on chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana. These include the area that has picked up the moniker Cancer Alley due to a high incidence of the disease in a stretch along the Mississippi River with a large concentration of chemical plants.

As is the case with many examples of chemical pollution, the residents of Cancer Alley are largely poor and belong to minority groups. As a result, the EPA had initially attempted to regulate the emissions under a civil rights provision of the Clean Air Act, but that has been bogged down due to lawsuits.

The new regulations simply set limits on permissible levels of release at what’s termed the “fencelines” of the facilities where these chemicals are made, used, or handled. If levels exceed an annual limit, the owners and operators “must find the source of the pollution and make repairs.” This gets rid of previous exemptions for equipment startup, shutdown, and malfunctions; those exemptions had been held to violate the Clean Air Act in a separate lawsuit.

The EPA estimates that the sites subject to regulation will see their collective emissions of these chemicals drop by nearly 80 percent, which works out to be 54 tons of ethylene oxide, 14 tons of chloroprene, and over 6,000 tons of the other pollutants. That in turn will reduce the cancer risk from these toxins by 96 percent among those subjected to elevated exposures. Collectively, the chemicals subject to these regulations also contribute to smog, so these reductions will have an additional health impact by reducing its levels as well.

While the EPA says that “these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants,” it was unable to come up with an estimate of the financial benefits that will result from that reduction. By contrast, it estimates that the cost of compliance will end up being approximately $150 million annually. “Most of the facilities covered by the final rule are owned by large corporations,” the EPA notes. “The cost of implementing the final rule is less than one percent of their annual national sales.”

This sort of cost-benefit analysis is a required step during the formulation of Clean Air Act regulations, so it’s worth taking a step back and considering what’s at stake here: the EPA is basically saying that companies that work with significant amounts of carcinogens need to take stronger steps to make sure that they don’t use the air people breathe as a dumping ground for them.

Unsurprisingly, The New York Times quotes a neoprene manufacturer that the EPA is currently suing over its chloroprene emissions as claiming the new regulations are “draconian.”

EPA seeks to cut “Cancer Alley” pollutants Read More »

report-details-how-russia-obtains-starlink-terminals-for-war-in-ukraine

Report details how Russia obtains Starlink terminals for war in Ukraine

Policy, russia starlink, spacex starlink, starlink ukraine / /

Starlink black market —

Russians buy from middlemen and “deliver SpaceX hardware to the front line.”

–

A Starlink terminal in front of a sign that says,

Enlarge / A Starlink terminal at the Everything Electric London conference on March 28, 2024 in England.

Getty Images | John Keeble

A report published today describes how Russia obtained Starlink terminals for its war in Ukraine despite US sanctions and SpaceX’s insistence that Russia hasn’t bought the terminals either directly or indirectly.

The Wall Street Journal report describes black market sales to Russians and a Sudanese paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently determined that the Rapid Support Forces and allied militias committed war crimes and are responsible for ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

The WSJ said it “tracked Starlink sales on numerous Russian online retail platforms,” “interviewed Russian and Sudanese middlemen and resellers, and followed Russian volunteer groups that deliver SpaceX hardware to the front line.”

The WSJ described Oleg, a salesman at Moscow-based online retailer shopozz.ru, who “supplemented his usual business of peddling vacuum cleaners and dashboard phone mounts by selling dozens of Starlink internet terminals that wound up with Russians on the front lines in Ukraine.”

Starlink terminals reportedly provide a technical upgrade to Russian troops whose radio communications were being jammed or intercepted by Ukraine troops.

“In Russia, middlemen buy the hardware, sometimes on eBay, in the US and elsewhere, including on the black market in Central Asia, Dubai or Southeast Asia, then smuggle it into Russia,” the report said. “Russian volunteers boast openly on social media about supplying the terminals to troops. They are part of an informal effort to boost Russia’s use of Starlink in Ukraine, where Russian forces are advancing.”

These “middlemen have proliferated in recent months to buy the user terminals and ship them to Russian forces,” the report said.

Lawmakers doubt SpaceX compliance with sanctions

Today’s report came about a month after two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to SpaceX alleging that Russia’s use of Starlink in Ukraine raises questions about SpaceX’s “compliance with US sanctions and export controls.”

“We are concerned that you may not have appropriate guardrails and policies in place to ensure your technology is neither acquired directly or indirectly, nor used illegally by Russia,” said the letter from US Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.).

In February, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk denied what he called “false news reports [that] claim that SpaceX is selling Starlink terminals to Russia,” saying that, “to the best of our knowledge, no Starlinks have been sold directly or indirectly to Russia.”

We contacted SpaceX today and will update this article if we get a response.

Russia has said it doesn’t allow Starlink use. A spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin said in February that Starlink “is not certified [in Russia], therefore it cannot and is not officially supplied here. It cannot be used in any way.”

The Journal report said that US adversaries have been able to connect to satellites after dealers who sell Starlink terminals “register the hardware in countries where Starlink is allowed.” SpaceX uses geofencing to limit Starlink access, and Musk has said that “Starlink satellites will not close the link in Russia.” But blocking Russian use of Starlink in Ukraine without affecting Ukraine troops’ use of the service would likely be more complicated.

Ukraine, Sudan ask SpaceX for help

Ukraine’s top military-intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, said in an interview that “Russian invasion forces in his country are using thousands of Starlink satellite Internet terminals, and that the network has been active in occupied parts of Ukraine for ‘quite a long time,'” according to a WSJ report in February.

The Journal’s new report states that “Ukrainian officials said they contacted SpaceX about Russian forces using Starlink terminals in Ukraine and that they are working together on a solution.” The report also quotes US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb as saying that the US is “working with Ukraine and we’re working with Starlink” on how to end Russian use of Starlink in Ukraine.

The RSF reportedly uses Starlink in fighting against government forces. “Sudanese military officials and unauthorized Starlink dealers said in interviews that Abdelrahim Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF’s deputy commander, has overseen the purchase of hundreds of Starlink terminals from dealers in the United Arab Emirates,” the WSJ report said.

The report also said that “Sudanese authorities have contacted SpaceX and requested help in regulating the use of Starlink, including by allowing the military to turn off service areas where it was helping the RSF. Starlink never responded to the request, Sudanese officials said.”

Report details how Russia obtains Starlink terminals for war in Ukraine Read More »

2,000-senior-women-win-“biggest-victory-possible”-in-landmark-climate-case

2,000 senior women win “biggest victory possible” in landmark climate case

climate change, climate inaction, European Court of Human Rights, Human rights, Policy, Switzerland / /
Members of Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the announcement of decisions after a hearing of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide in three separate cases if states are doing enough in the face of global warming in rulings that could force them to do more, in Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 9, 2024.

Enlarge / Members of Swiss association Senior Women for Climate Protection react after the announcement of decisions after a hearing of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to decide in three separate cases if states are doing enough in the face of global warming in rulings that could force them to do more, in Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 9, 2024.

More than 2,000 older Swiss women have won a landmark European case proving that government climate inaction violates human rights.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Tuesday that Switzerland had not acted urgently to achieve climate targets, leading victims, who are mostly in their 70s, to suffer physically and emotionally while potentially placed at risk of dying.

The women, part of a group called KlimaSeniorinnen (Senior Women for Climate Protection), filed the lawsuit nine years ago. They presented medical documents and scientific evidence that older women are more vulnerable to climate impacts, arguing that “their health and daily routines were affected” by Swiss heatwaves connected to climate change.

One woman who had to regularly measure her blood pressure and refrain from activities when temperatures were too high told the court that “the thermometer determined the way she led her life.” Another woman described how isolated she felt when “excessive heat” with “highly probable” links to climate change “exacerbated her asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.”

“Evidence showed that the life and health of older women were more severely impacted by periods of heatwaves than the rest of the population,” ECHR’s ruling said, noting that during recent warmest summers on record “nearly 90 percent of heat-related deaths had occurred in older women, almost all of whom were older than 75.”

The ECHR ruled that the Swiss government had violated these women’s rights to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to comply with climate duties or to address “critical gaps” in climate policies. Throughout the proceedings, Swiss authorities acknowledged missing climate targets, including by not properly supervising greenhouse gas emissions in sectors like building and transport, and not regulating emissions in other sectors such as agricultural and financial.

“There was a long history of failed climate action,” ECHR’s ruling said.

“This included a failure to quantify, through a carbon budget or otherwise, national greenhouse gas emissions limitations,” ECHR President Siofra O’Leary said, noting in a Reuters report that Switzerland “had previously failed to meet its past greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by failing to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner.”

As a result of the ECHR ruling, Switzerland may be forced to escalate efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption, CNN reported.

Swiss President Viola Amherd told a news conference attended by Reuters that she would be reviewing the judgment, seemingly defending the country’s current climate actions by saying that “sustainability is very important to Switzerland, biodiversity is very important to Switzerland, the net zero target is very important to Switzerland.”

The court’s judgment is binding, cannot be appealed, and could “influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK,” the BBC reported. Experts told CNN that the case could also influence other international courts, potentially opening the floodgates to more climate litigation globally.

2,000 senior women win “biggest victory possible” in landmark climate case Read More »

fcc-chair-rejects-call-to-impose-universal-service-fees-on-broadband

FCC chair rejects call to impose Universal Service fees on broadband

federal communications commission, Policy, Universal Service Fund / /
Ethernet cables connected to the ports in a wireless router

Getty Images | BernardaSv

The Federal Communications Commission chair decided not to impose Universal Service fees on Internet service, rejecting arguments for new assessments to shore up an FCC fund that subsidizes broadband network expansions and provides discounts to low-income consumers.

The $8 billion-a-year Universal Service Fund (USF) pays for FCC programs such as Lifeline discounts and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund deployment grants for ISPs. Phone companies must pay a percentage of their revenue into the fund, and telcos generally pass those fees on to consumers with a “Universal Service” line item on telephone bills.

Imposing similar assessments on broadband could increase the Universal Service Fund’s size and/or reduce the charges on phone service, spreading the burden more evenly across different types of telecommunications services. Some consumer advocates want the FCC to increase the fund in order to replace the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a different government program that gives $30 monthly broadband discounts to people with low incomes but is about to run out of money because of inaction by Congress.

The Universal Service funding question is coming up now because, on April 25, the FCC is scheduled to vote on reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service in order to re-impose the net neutrality rules scrapped during the Trump era.

Chair fears “major upheaval”

Imposing Universal Service charges on broadband would likely result in ISPs adding those costs to monthly bills and would make the net neutrality proceeding even more of a political minefield than it already is. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s net neutrality proposal takes the same stance against requiring Universal Service contributions that the FCC took in 2015 when it first imposed the net neutrality rules.

“We conclude that forbearing from imposing new universal service contribution requirements on BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] is in the public interest,” Rosenworcel’s proposal says. “For one thing, we agree with commenters who warn that suddenly and unnecessarily imposing new fees on broadband service could pose ‘major upheaval in what is actually a stable and equitable contribution system.’ Rather than risk this upheaval, we believe it in the public interest to proceed cautiously and incrementally.”

The deferral of action on Universal Service funding is welcome news to cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, even though it opposes the net neutrality plan overall. The NCTA has urged the FCC “to resist calls for immediate action and instead defer to Congress on the complex and controversial issues surrounding contribution reform.” Assessments on broadband “would almost certainly result in new passed-through fees not previously assessed on these services” and “may harm broadband adoption,” the NCTA says.

Broadband industry lobby group USTelecom has called for Big Tech firms to pay into the Universal Service Fund, an argument that has also been made repeatedly by Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Rosenworcel may be inclined to let Congress tackle broadband contributions to Universal Service. Her draft plan also raises the possibility of the FCC addressing the issue on its own in a separate proceeding:

Contrary to the assumption of some commenters, Commission efforts remain ongoing in this area. Congress has also been actively deliberating on legislative proposals to reform the USF contribution and funding mechanisms. USF contribution reform is an immensely complex and delicate undertaking with far-reaching consequences, and we believe that any decisions on whether and how to make BIAS providers contribute to USF funding are best addressed holistically in those ongoing discussions of USF contribution reform, on a full record and with robust input from all interested parties, rather than in this proceeding.

FCC chair rejects call to impose Universal Service fees on broadband Read More »

after-pushing-cloud-storage,-tv-provider-to-auto-delete-61-day-old-dvr-recordings

After pushing cloud storage, TV provider to auto-delete 61-day-old DVR recordings

Bell Canada, cable, Canada, Cloud, Policy, streaming, Tech / /

“Wish I knew this before” —

Customers originally had 365 days to enjoy the recordings.

–

hand holding tv remote in front of TV with static

Canadian telecom Bell Canada has been pushing its cloud-based DVR service to its Fibe TV subscribers for years. While it has given customers advantages, like the ability to view their recordings from more devices, such as phones, compared to using local DVR storage, users don’t have as much control over the recordings as they thought they had.

On May 1, Fibe TV will automatically delete recordings stored on its Cloud PVR (personal video recorder) offering once the recordings hit 61 days of age, as confirmed by Canadian online newspaper Daily Hive. Currently, customers maintain access to recordings stored via Cloud PVR for 365 days.

Fibe TV apparently started alerting customers of the upcoming change this month.

A Bell Canada spokesperson, Jacqueline Michelis, minimized the idea of disruption to customers, telling Daily Hive: “The viewing of nearly all recordings takes place within 60 days, so there is minimal impact to customers.” Michelis didn’t provide more details on how Bell Canada arrived at this conclusion.

An X user (formerly Twitter) user going by SimonDingleyTV shared what he said was a notice he received from Fibe TV about the policy change. He claimed that a company representative told him that the reason for the change was to “save space.”

Bell updated its website to acknowledge the time limit and noted that Cloud PVR also has a limit of up to 320 hours of recordings. If users surpass that limit, the oldest recordings will start getting deleted.

“Absolutely ridiculous”

Customers have turned to Bell Canada’s online support forum to share their discontent with the changes, with some saying that they don’t align with the services they expected to receive when signing up for Fibe TV. Thankfully, Bell Canada won’t be able to delete recordings stored on DVR hardware inside customers’ homes.

Other complaints are coming from users whose recordings are being deleted even when they haven’t come close to maxing out their cloud storage or if their recordings aren’t available on demand.

A user going by camisotro on Bell Canada’s online support forum called the announcement “absolutely ridiculous” and condemned what they perceived to be years of telecoms pushing back against users’ ability to record content:

… Bell eliminated the option for any device that actually records TV locally, forcing customers onto an inferior TV box with ‘Cloud PVR.’ Now they are nerfing it to a nearly useless 60 days of recording. This is not the service I signed up for on contract, and yet I am still continuing to pay increasing prices.

Like rivals, Bell pushed customers toward cloud-based DVR, with its website stating, “Fibe TV has evolved to a cloud-based storage system for all your recordings.”

However, some users may not have realized the trade-offs.

“Wish I knew this before I traded PVRs to change to cloud storage! No one told us that !!!,” a forum user known as Crazy aunt said.

Another user, Thornquills, called the news a “deal-breaker” because they’re “paying $10.00/month for cloud storage,” and “2 months is too restrictive, in my opinion.”

Meanwhile, Bell Canada rival Rogers Ignite confirmed to The Canadian Press that it will continue allowing its customers to keep DVR recordings stored in the cloud for one year, as its cloud PVR offering exists to “help manage storage capacity.”

Fibe TV’s policy change comes about two months after Bell Canada announced that it was laying off 4,800 workers and selling 45 of its 103 radio stations.

After pushing cloud storage, TV provider to auto-delete 61-day-old DVR recordings Read More »

claims-of-tiktok-whistleblower-may-not-add-up

Claims of TikTok whistleblower may not add up

censorship, Policy, syndication, tiktok / /
TikTok logo next to inverted US flag.

The United States government is currently poised to outlaw TikTok. Little of the evidence that convinced Congress the app may be a national security threat has been shared publicly, in some cases because it remains classified. But one former TikTok employee turned whistleblower, who claims to have driven key news reporting and congressional concerns about the app, has now come forward.

Zen Goziker worked at TikTok as a risk manager, a role that involved protecting the company from external security and reputational threats. In a wrongful termination lawsuit filed against TikTok’s parent company ByteDance in January, he alleges he was fired in February 2022 for refusing “to sign off” on Project Texas, a $1.5 billion program that TikTok designed to assuage US government security concerns by storing American data on servers managed by Oracle.

Goziker worked at TikTok for only six months. He didn’t hold a senior position inside the company. His lawsuit, and a second one he filed in March against several US government agencies, makes a number of improbable claims. He asserts that he was put under 24-hour surveillance by TikTok and the FBI while working remotely in Mexico. He claims that US attorney general Merrick Garland, director of national intelligence Avril Haines, and other top officials “wickedly instigated” his firing. And he states that the FBI helped the CIA share his private information with foreign governments. The suits do not appear to include evidence for any of these claims.

“This lawsuit is full of outrageous claims that lack merit and comes from an individual who significantly exaggerates his role with a company he worked at for merely six months,” TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes said in a statement.

Yet court records and emails viewed by WIRED suggest that when Goziker raised the alarm about his ex-employer’s links to China, he found a ready audience. After he was fired, Goziker says he began meeting with elected officials, law enforcement agencies, and journalists to allege that, court documents say, he had discovered proof that TikTok’s software could send US data to Toutiao, a ByteDance app in China. That claim directly conflicted with TikTok executives’ assertions that the two companies operated separately.

Goziker says in court filings that what he saw made it necessary to reassess Project Texas. He also alleges that his account of the internal connection to China formed the basis of an influential Washington Post story published in March last year, which said the concerns came from “a former risk manager at TikTok.”

TikTok officials were quoted in that article as saying the allegations were “unfounded,” and that the employee had discovered “nothing more than a naming convention and technical relic.” The Washington Post said it does not comment on sourcing.

“I am free, I am honest, and I am doing this only because I am an American and because USA desperately need help and I cannot keep this truth away from PUBLIC,” Goziker said in an email to WIRED.

His March lawsuit alleging US officials conspired with TikTok to have him fired was filed against Garland, Haines, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and the agencies they work for.

“Goziker’s main point is that the executives in the American company TikTok Inc. and certain executives from the American federal government have colluded to organize a fraud scheme,” Sean Jiang, Goziker’s lawyer in the case against the US government, told WIRED in an email. The lawsuits do not appear to contain evidence of such a scheme. The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Jiang calls the House’s recent passage of a bill that could force ByteDance to sell off TikTok “problematic,” because it “blames ByteDance instead of TikTok Inc for the wrongdoings of the American executives.” He says Goziker would prefer to see TikTok subjected to audits and a new corporate structure.

Claims of TikTok whistleblower may not add up Read More »

meta-relaxes-“incoherent”-policy-requiring-removal-of-ai-videos

Meta relaxes “incoherent” policy requiring removal of AI videos

ai labels, ai watermarks, ai-generated content, facebook, Instagram, made with ai, Meta, Policy, threads / /
Meta relaxes “incoherent” policy requiring removal of AI videos

On Friday, Meta announced policy updates to stop censoring harmless AI-generated content and instead begin “labeling a wider range of video, audio, and image content as ‘Made with AI.'”

Meta’s policy updates came after deciding not to remove a controversial post edited to show President Joe Biden seemingly inappropriately touching his granddaughter’s chest, with a caption calling Biden a “pedophile.” The Oversight Board had agreed with Meta’s decision to leave the post online while noting that Meta’s current manipulated media policy was too “narrow,” “incoherent,” and “confusing to users.”

Previously, Meta would only remove “videos that are created or altered by AI to make a person appear to say something they didn’t say.” The Oversight Board warned that this policy failed to address other manipulated media, including “cheap fakes,” manipulated audio, or content showing people doing things they’d never done.

“We agree with the Oversight Board’s argument that our existing approach is too narrow since it only covers videos that are created or altered by AI to make a person appear to say something they didn’t say,” Monika Bickert, Meta’s vice president of content policy, wrote in a blog. “As the Board noted, it’s equally important to address manipulation that shows a person doing something they didn’t do.”

Starting in May 2024, Meta will add “Made with AI” labels to any content detected as AI-generated, as well as to any content that users self-disclose as AI-generated.

Meta’s Oversight Board had also warned that Meta removing AI-generated videos that did not directly violate platforms’ community standards was threatening to “unnecessarily risk restricting freedom of expression.” Moving forward, Meta will stop censoring content that doesn’t violate community standards, agreeing that a “less restrictive” approach to manipulated media by adding labels is better.

“If we determine that digitally created or altered images, video, or audio create a particularly high risk of materially deceiving the public on a matter of importance, we may add a more prominent label so people have more information and context,” Bickert wrote. “This overall approach gives people more information about the content so they can better assess it and so they will have context if they see the same content elsewhere.”

Meta confirmed that, in July, it will stop censoring AI-generated content that doesn’t violate rules restricting things like voter interference, bullying and harassment, violence, and incitement.

“This timeline gives people time to understand the self-disclosure process before we stop removing the smaller subset of manipulated media,” Bickert explained in the blog.

Finally, Meta adopted the Oversight Board’s recommendation to “clearly define in a single unified Manipulated Media policy the harms it aims to prevent—beyond users being misled—such as preventing interference with the right to vote and to participate in the conduct of public affairs.”

The Oversight Board issued a statement provided to Ars, saying that members “are pleased that Meta will begin labeling a wider range of video, audio, and image content as ‘made with AI’ when they detect AI image indicators or when people indicate they have uploaded AI content.”

“This will provide people with greater context and transparency for more types of manipulated media, while also removing posts which violate Meta’s rules in other ways,” the Oversight Board said.

Meta relaxes “incoherent” policy requiring removal of AI videos Read More »