Policy

world’s-first-global-ai-resolution-unanimously-adopted-by-united-nations

World’s first global AI resolution unanimously adopted by United Nations

We hold these seeds to be self-evident —

Nonbinding agreement seeks to protect personal data and safeguard human rights.

The United Nations building in New York.

Enlarge / The United Nations building in New York.

On Thursday, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously consented to adopt what some call the first global resolution on AI, reports Reuters. The resolution aims to foster the protection of personal data, enhance privacy policies, ensure close monitoring of AI for potential risks, and uphold human rights. It emerged from a proposal by the United States and received backing from China and 121 other countries.

Being a nonbinding agreement and thus effectively toothless, the resolution seems broadly popular in the AI industry. On X, Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith wrote, “We fully support the @UN’s adoption of the comprehensive AI resolution. The consensus reached today marks a critical step towards establishing international guardrails for the ethical and sustainable development of AI, ensuring this technology serves the needs of everyone.”

The resolution, titled “Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development,” resulted from three months of negotiation, and the stakeholders involved seem pleased at the level of international cooperation. “We’re sailing in choppy waters with the fast-changing technology, which means that it’s more important than ever to steer by the light of our values,” one senior US administration official told Reuters, highlighting the significance of this “first-ever truly global consensus document on AI.”

In the UN, adoption by consensus means that all members agree to adopt the resolution without a vote. “Consensus is reached when all Member States agree on a text, but it does not mean that they all agree on every element of a draft document,” writes the UN in a FAQ found online. “They can agree to adopt a draft resolution without a vote, but still have reservations about certain parts of the text.”

The initiative joins a series of efforts by governments worldwide to influence the trajectory of AI development following the launch of ChatGPT and GPT-4, and the enormous hype raised by certain members of the tech industry in a public worldwide campaign waged last year. Critics fear that AI may undermine democratic processes, amplify fraudulent activities, or contribute to significant job displacement, among other issues. The resolution seeks to address the dangers associated with the irresponsible or malicious application of AI systems, which the UN says could jeopardize human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Resistance from nations such as Russia and China was anticipated, and US officials acknowledged the presence of “lots of heated conversations” during the negotiation process, according to Reuters. However, they also emphasized successful engagement with these countries and others typically at odds with the US on various issues, agreeing on a draft resolution that sought to maintain a delicate balance between promoting development and safeguarding human rights.

The new UN agreement may be the first “global” agreement, in the sense of having the participation of every UN country, but it wasn’t the first multi-state international AI agreement. That honor seems to fall to the Bletchley Declaration signed in November by the 28 nations attending the UK’s first AI Summit.

Also in November, the US, Britain, and other nations unveiled an agreement focusing on the creation of AI systems that are “secure by design” to protect against misuse by rogue actors. Europe is slowly moving forward with provisional agreements to regulate AI and is close to implementing the world’s first comprehensive AI regulations. Meanwhile, the US government still lacks consensus on legislative action related to AI regulation, with the Biden administration advocating for measures to mitigate AI risks while enhancing national security.

World’s first global AI resolution unanimously adopted by United Nations Read More »

apple’s-green-message-bubbles-draw-wrath-of-us-attorney-general

Apple’s green message bubbles draw wrath of US attorney general

The Messages app icon displayed on an iPhone screen.

Getty Images | NurPhoto

The US Department of Justice is angry about green message bubbles. Announcing today’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple, US Attorney General Merrick Garland devoted a portion of his speech to the green bubbles that appear in conversations between users of iPhones and other mobile devices such as Android smartphones.

“As any iPhone user who has ever seen a green text message, or received a tiny, grainy video can attest, Apple’s anticompetitive conduct also includes making it more difficult for iPhone users to message with users of non-Apple products,” Garland said while announcing the suit that alleges Apple illegally monopolized the smartphone market.

The attorney general accused Apple of “diminishing the functionality of its own messaging app” and that of messaging apps made by third parties. “By doing so, Apple knowingly and deliberately degrades quality, privacy, and security for its users,” Garland said. “For example, if an iPhone user messages a non-iPhone user in Apple Messages, the text appears not only as a green bubble, but incorporates limited functionality.”

When messages are presented in those telltale green bubbles, “the conversation is not encrypted, videos are pixelated and grainy, and users cannot edit messages or see typing indicators,” Garland said. “As a result, iPhone users perceive rival smartphones as being lower quality because the experience of messaging friends and family who do not own iPhones is worse—even though Apple is the one responsible for breaking cross-platform messaging.”

Garland mentioned a 2022 interview in which Apple CEO Tim Cook “was asked whether Apple would fix iPhone-to-Android messaging.” The person asking the question said, “not to make it personal, but I can’t send my mom certain videos.” Cook responded, “Buy your mom an iPhone.”

Apple touts planned RCS support

The DOJ lawsuit in US District Court for the District of New Jersey also mentions the Cook remark. The case is about more than just green bubbles and text messaging, of course. The DOJ alleges that Apple violated antitrust laws by restricting rivals’ access to iPhone features and monopolizing the smartphone market. Messaging is one of several technologies that the DOJ points to in the antitrust complaint.

Garland’s green-bubble remarks echoed complaints made by Android maker Google over the last few years. Apple today disputed the DOJ’s entire lawsuit and said the department doesn’t appear to understand how encryption in messaging works.

In a background briefing with reporters, Apple spokespeople touted the company’s recent announcement that it will support the RCS messaging standard for iMessage sometime during 2024. In order to attend Apple’s briefing and view a background document, we had to agree to paraphrase the company’s remarks instead of quoting them directly.

Apple clarified that it is not implementing RCS as it exists today because it doesn’t believe the standard offers enough privacy and security. Apple said it is working with a standards body—this is likely a reference to the GSMA—to ensure that the version of RCS it eventually implements will support encryption and strong privacy and security.

Apple said that once it adopts RCS, iPhone and non-iPhone users will be able to exchange messages with higher-resolution photos and videos, and will experience improved group texting. Apple said it hasn’t brought its own message app to non-Apple devices because the user experience wouldn’t meet the company’s standards and that it cannot ensure that a third-party device’s encryption and authentication are secure enough.

Apple’s green message bubbles draw wrath of US attorney general Read More »

sbf-repeatedly-lied-to-get-out-of-“supervillain”-prison-term,-ftx-ceo-alleges

SBF repeatedly lied to get out of “supervillain” prison term, FTX CEO alleges

SBF’s effective altruism “was a lie” —

FTX CEO: “The harm was vast. The remorse is nonexistent.”

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (R) departs Manhattan Federal Court after an arraignment hearing on March 30, 2023, in New York City.

Enlarge / FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (R) departs Manhattan Federal Court after an arraignment hearing on March 30, 2023, in New York City.

The CEO of FTX Trading, John Ray, sent a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan Wednesday to correct what he called “callously” and “demonstrably false” claims that disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried made in hopes of receiving a lighter sentence for crimes including defrauding FTX customers.

In a sentencing memo, Bankman-Fried asked the court to drastically slash his prison sentence from what he considered a “grotesque” 110-year maximum to five to six years. Prosecutors have suggested the sentence should be between 40 and 50 years, but Bankman-Fried claimed such a sentence painted him as a “depraved supervillain,” Bloomberg reported.

The lightest sentence was appropriate, Bankman-Fried claimed, because the “most reasonable estimate of loss” and “harm” to customers, lenders, and investors is “zero.”

According to Ray, “Bankman-Fried continues to live a life of delusion.” While Ray’s team continues to work to recover funds lost, which has been estimated around $10 billion, the total amount of stakeholder claims filed is $23.6 quintillion dollars.

“One quintillion is one billion billions,” Ray told Kaplan. “It is the number 1 followed by 18 zeros. The task of addressing filed claims and reducing them to their proper and ‘allowed’ amount is monumental. Mr. Bankman-Fried assumes this is a breeze. He is wrong, very wrong.”

In one of the letter’s most heated moments, Ray explained why Bankman-Fried is also wrong to claim that FTX is “solvent and safe”:

Vast sums of money were stolen by Mr. Bankman-Fried, and he was rightly convicted by a jury of his peers. That things that he stole, things he converted into other things, whether they were investments in Bahamas real estate, cryptocurrencies or speculative ventures, were successfully recovered through the enormous efforts of a dedicated group of professionals (a group unfairly maligned by Mr. Bankman-Fried and his supporters) does not mean that things were not stolen. What it means is that we got some of them back. And there are plenty of things we did not get back, like the bribes to Chinese officials or the hundreds of millions of dollars he spent to buy access to or time with celebrities or politicians or investments for which he grossly overpaid having done zero diligence. The harm was vast. The remorse is nonexistent.

Ray appears to be frustrated that Bankman-Fried chose to blame his team currently leading FTX and managing bankruptcy claims, as well as lawyers—labeling them as “enemies”—to dodge responsibility for FTX crimes.

Those crimes include: wire fraud on customers of FTX, conspiracy to commit wire fraud on customers of FTX, wire fraud on lenders to Alameda Research, conspiracy to commit wire fraud on lenders to Alameda Research, conspiracy to commit securities fraud on investors in FTX, conspiracy to commit commodities fraud on customers of FTX in connection with purchases and sales of cryptocurrency and swaps, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

“Bankman-Fried was willing to consider any narrative, including wildly conflicting narratives, that could potentially save him from this day of reckoning,” Ray told Kaplan.

Conflicting narratives Bankman-Fried considered were either focusing “exclusively on the fact” that he “could give value back to customers,” and “the Chapter 11 team is destroying it” or “go strong with the message” that “I’m really glad the Chapter 11 team has stepped in, they’re great, and even better I have funding that can help make customers more whole while the Chapter 11 team does what is needed to clean things up.”

Instead of being “enemies” stopping FTX customers from clawing back all the funds stolen, Ray told Kaplan that his team “worked tirelessly in the months following the collapse to institute governance, controls, and to preserve and protect assets.”

“The value we hope to return to creditors would not exist without the tens of thousands of hours that dedicated professionals have spent digging through the rubble of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s sprawling criminal enterprise to unearth every possible dollar, token, or other asset that was spent on luxury homes, private jets, overpriced speculative ventures, and otherwise lost to the four winds,” Ray told Kaplan, adding that “achieving anticipated recovery levels” that Bankman-Fried suggested all FTX victims are expecting is actually “by no means assured.”

“I am quite confident that but for the work of a very large team of dedicated individuals, billions of dollars would have been lost or stolen and the recoveries to customers would be a fraction of their expected recovery,” Ray told Kaplan. “I make this statement not to curry sympathy or thanks, but to accurately report on the reasons why the FTX debtors may soon be in a position to compensate victims for some of the losses caused by Mr. Bankman-Fried.”

SBF repeatedly lied to get out of “supervillain” prison term, FTX CEO alleges Read More »

michael-cohen-loses-court-motion-after-lawyer-cited-ai-invented-cases

Michael Cohen loses court motion after lawyer cited AI-invented cases

Good news, bad news —

No punishment, but judge rejects Cohen motion to end his supervised release.

Michael Cohen photographed outside while walking toward a courthouse.

Enlarge / Michael Cohen, former personal lawyer to former US President Donald Trump, arrives at federal court in New York on December 14, 2023.

Getty Images | Bloomberg

A federal judge decided not to sanction Michael Cohen and his lawyer for a court filing that included three fake citations generated by the Google Bard AI tool.

Cohen’s lawyer, David M. Schwartz, late last year filed the court brief that cites three cases that do not exist. It turned out that Cohen passed the fake cases along to Schwartz, who didn’t do a fact-check before submitting them as part of a motion in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

US District Judge Jesse Furman declined to impose sanctions on either Cohen or Schwartz in a ruling issued today. But there was bad news for Cohen because Furman denied a motion for early termination of his supervised release.

Cohen, Donald Trump’s former attorney, served time in prison after pleading guilty to five counts of evasion of personal income tax, making false statements to a bank, excessive campaign contribution, and causing an unlawful corporate contribution. Cohen was also disbarred five years ago. His supervised release is scheduled to expire in November this year.

The fake citations certainly didn’t help Cohen’s attempt to end his supervised release. The citations were intended to show previous instances in which defendants were allowed to end supervised release early. But two of them involved fictional cocaine distributors and the other involved an invented tax evader.

Cohen thought AI tool was a search engine

Furman previously ordered Schwartz to “show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned.” No such order was issued to Cohen.

“The Court’s Order to Show Cause was limited to Schwartz and did not alert Cohen to the possibility of sanctions. But even if the Court had put Cohen on notice, sanctions would not be warranted,” Furman wrote today. “Cohen is a party to this case and, as a disbarred attorney, is not an officer of the Court like Schwartz. He was entitled to rely on his counsel and to trust his counsel’s professional judgment—as he did throughout this case.”

Cohen stated that he believed Google Bard to be a “super-charged search engine” rather than a “generative text service,” and the judge found “no basis to question Cohen’s representation that he believed the cases to be real.” Bard was recently renamed Gemini.

As for Schwartz, Furman said the attorney’s “citation to non-existent cases is embarrassing and certainly negligent, perhaps even grossly negligent.”

Schwartz apparently believed, incorrectly, that the citations were reviewed by E. Danya Perry, another lawyer representing Cohen. Perry had not reviewed the citations but did provide comments on an early draft of the filing.

“Perry’s comments on the initial draft that Cohen forwarded to Schwartz provided a good faith basis for Schwartz’s belief that Perry was the source… the Court credits Schwartz’s testimony that he genuinely, but mistakenly, believed that the cases had come from Perry; that he did not independently review the cases based on that belief; that he would have researched the cases had he known that Cohen was the source; and that he did not intend to deceive the Court,” Furman wrote.

The facts may support “a finding of extreme carelessness” but not intentional bad faith, according to Furman. “In sum, as embarrassing as this unfortunate episode was for Schwartz, if not Cohen, the record does not support the imposition of sanctions in this case,” the judge wrote.

Other lawyers were sanctioned in similar incident

A similar incident happened in the same court last year when lawyers admitted using ChatGPT to help write court filings that cited six nonexistent cases invented by the AI chatbot. In that case, a judge imposed a $5,000 fine on two lawyers and their law firm and ordered them to send letters to six real judges who were “falsely identified as the author of the fake” opinions cited in their legal filings.

Cohen’s motion for early termination of supervised release cited his October 2023 testimony in the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. But Furman agreed with the US government that Cohen’s testimony provides reason to deny his motion rather than grant it.

“Specifically, Cohen repeatedly and unambiguously testified at the state court trial that he was not guilty of tax evasion and that he had lied under oath to Judge Pauley when he pleaded guilty to those crimes,” Furman wrote.

Furman’s ruling said that Cohen either committed perjury when he pleaded guilty in 2018 or committed perjury during his October 2023 testimony. “Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law,'” Furman wrote.

Michael Cohen loses court motion after lawyer cited AI-invented cases Read More »

google-balks-at-$270m-fine-after-training-ai-on-french-news-sites’-content

Google balks at $270M fine after training AI on French news sites’ content

Google balks at $270M fine after training AI on French news sites’ content

Google has agreed to pay 250 million euros (about $273 million) to settle a dispute in France after breaching years-old commitments to inform and pay French news publishers when referencing and displaying content in both search results and when training Google’s AI-powered chatbot, Gemini.

According to France’s competition watchdog, the Autorité de la Concurrence (ADLC), Google dodged many commitments to deal with publishers fairly. Most recently, it never notified publishers or the ADLC before training Gemini (initially launched as Bard) on publishers’ content or displaying content in Gemini outputs. Google also waited until September 28, 2023, to introduce easy options for publishers to opt out, which made it impossible for publishers to negotiate fair deals for that content, the ADLC found.

“Until this date, press agencies and publishers wanting to opt out of this use had to insert an instruction opposing any crawling of their content by Google, including on the Search, Discover and Google News services,” the ADLC noted, warning that “in the future, the Autorité will be particularly attentive as regards the effectiveness of opt-out systems implemented by Google.”

To address breaches of four out of seven commitments in France—which the ADLC imposed in 2022 for a period of five years to “benefit” publishers by ensuring Google’s ongoing negotiations with them were “balanced”—Google has agreed to “a series of corrective measures,” the ADLC said.

Google is not happy with the fine, which it described as “not proportionate” partly because the fine “doesn’t sufficiently take into account the efforts we have made to answer and resolve the concerns raised—in an environment where it’s very hard to set a course because we can’t predict which way the wind will blow next.”

According to Google, regulators everywhere need to clearly define fair use of content when developing search tools and AI models, so that search companies and AI makers always know “whom we are paying for what.” Currently in France, Google contends, the scope of Google’s commitments has shifted from just general news publishers to now also include specialist publications and listings and comparison sites.

The ADLC agreed that “the question of whether the use of press publications as part of an artificial intelligence service qualifies for protection under related rights regulations has not yet been settled,” but noted that “at the very least,” Google was required to “inform publishers of the use of their content for their Bard software.”

Regarding Bard/Gemini, Google said that it “voluntarily introduced a new technical solution called Google-Extended to make it easier for rights holders to opt out of Gemini without impact on their presence in Search.” It has now also committed to better explain to publishers both “how our products based on generative AI work and how ‘Opt Out’ works.”

Google said that it agreed to the settlement “because it’s time to move on” and “focus on the larger goal of sustainable approaches to connecting people with quality content and on working constructively with French publishers.”

“Today’s fine relates mostly to [a] disagreement about how much value Google derives from news content,” Google’s blog said, claiming that “a lack of clear regulatory guidance and repeated enforcement actions have made it hard to navigate negotiations with publishers, or plan how we invest in news in France in the future.”

What changes did Google agree to make?

Google defended its position as “the first and only platform to have signed significant licensing agreements” in France, benefiting 280 French press publishers and “covering more than 450 publications.”

With these publishers, the ADLC found that Google breached requirements to “negotiate in good faith based on transparent, objective, and non-discriminatory criteria,” to consistently “make a remuneration offer” within three months of a publisher’s request, and to provide information for publishers to “transparently assess their remuneration.”

Google also breached commitments to “inform editors and press agencies of the use of their content by its service Bard” and of Google’s decision to link “the use of press agencies’ and publishers’ content by its artificial intelligence service to the display of protected content on services such as Search, Discover and News.”

Regarding negotiations, the ADLC found that Google not only failed to be transparent with publishers about remuneration, but also failed to keep the ADLC informed of information necessary to monitor whether Google was honoring its commitments to fairly pay publishers. Partly “to guarantee better communication,” Google has agreed to appoint a French-speaking representative in its Paris office, along with other steps the ADLC recommended.

According to the ADLC’s announcement (translated from French), Google seemingly acted sketchy in negotiations by not meeting non-discrimination criteria—and unfavorably treating publishers in different situations identically—and by not mentioning “all the services that could generate revenues for the negotiating party.”

“According to the Autorité, not taking into account differences in attractiveness between content does not allow for an accurate reflection of the contribution of each press agency and publisher to Google’s revenues,” the ADLC said.

Also problematically, Google established a minimum threshold of 100 euros for remuneration that it has now agreed to drop.

This threshold, “in its very principle, introduces discrimination between publishers that, below a certain threshold, are all arbitrarily assigned zero remuneration, regardless of their respective situations,” the ADLC found.

Google balks at $270M fine after training AI on French news sites’ content Read More »

fcc-bans-cable-tv-industry’s-favorite-trick-for-hiding-full-cost-of-service

FCC bans cable TV industry’s favorite trick for hiding full cost of service

A person's hand aiming a cable TV remote control at a TV screen

Getty Images | stefanamer

Cable and satellite TV companies must start advertising “all-in” prices instead of using hidden fees to conceal the full cost of video service, the Federal Communications Commission said in new rules adopted last week.

The FCC voted to adopt the rules on March 14, and the final text of the order was released yesterday. The rules are aimed in particular at the Broadcast TV and Regional Sports Network fees charged by Comcast and other companies.

For years, TV providers have advertised artificially low prices that don’t include such fees. The actual bills received by subscribers thus have prices much higher than the advertised rates.

“The record indicates that approximately 24 to 33 percent of a consumer’s bill is attributable to company-imposed fees such as ‘Broadcast TV Fees,’ ‘Regional Sports Surcharges,’ ‘HD Technology Fees,’ and others, and that the ‘dollar amount of company-imposed fees has skyrocketed,'” the FCC order said.

Cable and satellite companies say the Broadcast TV and Regional Sports fees reflect the ever-rising price of acquiring content from programmers. But acquiring programming is the cost of doing business as a TV provider—with no channels to offer, there would be no reason for consumers to buy the service.

Cable lobby mad about “micromanagement”

One of the new rules states that cable and satellite TV “providers that communicate a price for video programming in promotional materials shall state the aggregate price for the video programming in a clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate manner.”

A similar rule will apply to customer bills, requiring an aggregate price in a single line item. In both advertisements and customer bills, the operator must state whether the price is a promotional rate and what the full price will be after the promotion expires.

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association claimed that the commission’s “micromanagement of advertising in today’s hyper-competitive marketplace will force operators to either clutter their ads with confusing disclosures or leave pricing information out entirely.” The NCTA previously disputed the FCC’s legal authority to issue the rules, which indicates that the industry may sue the commission in an attempt to block the order.

The TV all-in pricing rules won’t take effect immediately. Because they include information-collection requirements, they are subject to a Paperwork Reduction Act review by the US Office of Management and Budget. The rules will take effect after that review or after nine months, whichever is later.

The FCC previously adopted rules requiring broadband providers to list all of their monthly fees and other information in a format modeled after nutrition labels. The broadband label rules take effect next month.

“Beginning April 10, 2024, consumers should look for broadband labels at any point of sale, including online and in stores,” the FCC says. “The labels must disclose important information about broadband prices, introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds. They also include links to information about network management practices and privacy policies.”

FCC bans cable TV industry’s favorite trick for hiding full cost of service Read More »

supreme-court-skeptical-about-restricting-biden-contacts-with-social-networks

Supreme Court skeptical about restricting Biden contacts with social networks

Government pressure —

Louisiana lawyer faced tough questions from liberal and conservative justices.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wearing their robes as they arrive for the State of the Union address.

Enlarge / Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor arrive for President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images | Win McNamee

Supreme Court justices yesterday expressed skepticism about whether federal government officials should face limits on their communications with social media networks like Facebook.

The Supreme Court previously stayed a lower-court injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content and yesterday heard oral arguments in the case brought against the US government by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general.

Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga faced skepticism from both liberal and conservative justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a hypothetical in which Louisiana state officials are doxed and targeted by threats made on social media.

“The FBI sees these posts and calls the social media outlet, like X, Facebook, whatever, and says, ‘we really encourage you to take these down because these are significantly threatening and we see some people may be responding to them.’ That’s a problem?” Barrett asked.

Aguiñaga said that “the FBI absolutely can identify certain troubling situations like that for the platforms and let the platforms take action,” but said the specifics of each hypothetical “are very important.”

Barrett replied, “but that’s just kind of falling back on, ‘well, this case is different, this case is different, and so a different legal standard should apply.’ But, you know, what we say in this case matters for other cases, too.”

“Epidemic” of broad injunctions

In this case, an injunction against US officials said they “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Supreme Court has seen “an epidemic” of what he called “universal injunctions” that affect people who aren’t directly involved in the case at hand. “Normally, our remedies are tailored to those who are actually complaining before us and not to those who aren’t,” Gorsuch said.

Aguiñaga said he wouldn’t object to the injunction being narrowed to just the specific platforms and plaintiffs involved in the case as long as the Supreme Court says “something in our favor on the merits. The government can’t just run rampant pressuring the platforms to censor private speech.”

Missouri and Louisiana alleged that the US government violated the First Amendment by colluding with social networks “to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.” The content included posts about vaccine side effects, pandemic lockdowns, the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, allegations of election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. There were several individual plaintiffs in addition to the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general.

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the White House and FBI likely violated the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms into moderating content and changing their moderation policies. The case had gone to the 5th Circuit appeals after a US District judge issued a sweeping injunction ordering the administration to halt a wide range of communications with social media companies.

The 5th Circuit narrowed that injunction, throwing out most of it but maintaining the previously mentioned provision that says officials may not “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies.”

Debate about terrorist speech

The Biden administration has argued that its attempts to influence content moderation were persuasion, not coercion. Government officials were “urging platforms to remove COVID-19 misinformation, highlighting the risk of disinformation from foreign actors, and responding to the platforms’ inquiries about matters of public health,” the Biden administration has stated.

Yesterday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized a brief filed by Louisiana. “I have such a problem with your brief, counselor,” Sotomayor said. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to. At least in one of the defendants, it was her brother that something happened to, not her. I don’t know what to make of all this because… I’m not sure how we get to prove direct injury in any way.”

Justice Elena Kagan discussed how law enforcement officials might contact a social media company about terrorists posting on their platform. A law enforcement agency might tell the platform, “you are hosting a lot of terrorist speech, which is going to increase the chances that there’s going to be some terrible harm that’s going to take place, and we want to give you this information, we want to try to persuade you to take it down,” Kagan said.

Aguiñaga responded, “the government can absolutely do that, Justice Kagan.” He said that terrorist activity and criminal activity “is not protected speech.”

Kagan countered, “Well, that might be protected speech. I mean, terrorists engage in, you know, things that come under the First Amendment. Let’s say they’re just recruiting people for their organizations.” Kagan also said that “decades ago, it happened all the time, which is somebody from the White House got in touch with somebody from The Washington Post and said, ‘this will just harm national security,’ and The Washington Post said, ‘okay, whatever you say.'”

Supreme Court skeptical about restricting Biden contacts with social networks Read More »

facebook,-instagram-may-cut-fees-by-nearly-50%-in-scramble-for-dma-compliance

Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance

Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance

Meta is considering cutting monthly subscription fees for Facebook and Instagram users in the European Union nearly in half to comply with the Digital Market Act (DMA), Reuters reported.

During a day-long public workshop on Meta’s DMA compliance, Meta’s competition and regulatory director, Tim Lamb, told the European Commission (EC) that individual subscriber fees could be slashed from 9.99 euros to 5.99 euros. Meta is hoping that reducing fees will help to speed up the EC’s process for resolving Meta’s compliance issues. If Meta’s offer is accepted, any additional accounts would then cost 4 euros instead of 6 euros.

Lamb said that these prices are “by far the lowest end of the range that any reasonable person should be paying for services of these quality,” calling it a “serious offer.”

The DMA requires that Meta’s users of Facebook, Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and Facebook Marketplace “freely” give consent to share data used for ad targeting without losing access to the platform if they’d prefer not to share data. That means services must provide an acceptable alternative for users who don’t consent to data sharing.

“Gatekeepers should enable end users to freely choose to opt-in to such data processing and sign-in practices by offering a less personalized but equivalent alternative, and without making the use of the core platform service or certain functionalities thereof conditional upon the end user’s consent,” the DMA says.

Designated gatekeepers like Meta have debated what it means for a user to “freely” give consent, suggesting that offering a paid subscription for users who decline to share data would be one route for Meta to continue offering high-quality services without routinely hoovering up data on all its users.

But EU privacy advocates like NOYB have protested Meta’s plan to offer a subscription model instead of consenting to data sharing, calling it a “pay or OK model” that forces Meta users who cannot pay the fee to consent to invasive data sharing they would otherwise decline. In a statement shared with Ars, NOYB chair Max Schrems said that even if Meta reduced its fees to 1.99 euros, it would be forcing consent from 99.9 percent of users.

“We know from all research that even a fee of just 1.99 euros or less leads to a shift in consent from 3–10 percent that genuinely want advertisement to 99.9 percent that still click yes,” Schrems said.

In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) “requires that consent must be ‘freely’ given,” Schrems said. “In reality, it is not about the amount of money—it is about the ‘pay or OK’ approach as a whole. The entire purpose of ‘pay or OK’, is to get users to click on OK, even if this is not their free and genuine choice. We do not think the mere change of the amount makes this approach legal.”

Where EU stands on subscription models

Meta expects that a subscription model is a legal alternative under the DMA. The tech giant said it was launching EU subscriptions last November after the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) “endorsed the subscriptions model as a way for people to consent to data processing for personalized advertising.”

It’s unclear how popular the subscriptions have been at the current higher cost. Right now in the EU, monthly Facebook and Instagram subscriptions cost 9.99 euros per month on the web or 12.99 euros per month on iOS and Android, with additional fees of 6 euros per month on the web and 8 euros per month on iOS and Android for each additional account. Meta declined to comment on how many EU users have subscribed, noting to Ars that it has no obligation to do so.

In the CJEU case, the court was reviewing Meta’s GDPR compliance, which Schrems noted is less strict than the DMA. The CJEU specifically said that under the GDPR, “users must be free to refuse individually”—”in the context of” signing up for services— “to give their consent to particular data processing operations not necessary” for Meta to provide such services “without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service.”

Facebook, Instagram may cut fees by nearly 50% in scramble for DMA compliance Read More »

dell-tells-remote-workers-that-they-won’t-be-eligible-for-promotion

Dell tells remote workers that they won’t be eligible for promotion

Decisions, decisions —

Report highlights big turnaround from Dell’s previous pro-WFH stance.

A woman in a bright yellow jacket is sitting in front of a laptop in emotional tension.

Starting in May, Dell employees who are fully remote will not be eligible for promotion, Business Insider (BI) reported Saturday. The upcoming policy update represents a dramatic reversal from Dell’s prior stance on work from home (WFH), which included CEO Michael Dell saying: “If you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you’re doing it wrong.”

Dell employees will mostly all be considered “remote” or “hybrid” starting in May, BI reported. Hybrid workers have to come into the office at least 39 days per quarter, Dell confirmed to Ars Technica, which equates to approximately three times a week. Those who would prefer to never commute to an office will not “be considered for promotion, or be able to change roles,” BI reported.

“For remote team members, it is important to understand the trade-offs: Career advancement, including applying to new roles in the company, will require a team member to reclassify as hybrid onsite,” Dell’s memo to workers said, per BI.

Dell didn’t respond to specific questions Ars Technica sent about the changes but sent a statement saying: “In today’s global technology revolution, we believe in-person connections paired with a flexible approach are critical to drive innovation and value differentiation.”

BI said it saw a promotion offer that a remote worker received that said that accepting the position would require coming into an “approved” office, which would mean that the employee would need to move out of their state.

Dell used to be pro-WFH

Dell’s history with remote workers started before the COVID-19 pandemic, over 10 years ago. Before 2020, 65 percent of Dell workers were already working remotely at least one day per week, per a blog that CEO Michael Dell penned via LinkedIn in September 2022. An anonymous Dell worker who reportedly has been remote for over 10 years and that BI spoke with estimated that 10 to 15 percent “of every team was remote” at Dell.

Michael Dell used to be a WFH advocate. In his 2022 blog post, he addressed the question of whether working in an office created “an advantage when it comes to promotion, performance, engagement or rewards,” determining:

At Dell, we found no meaningful differences for team members working remotely or office-based even before the pandemic forced everyone home. And when we asked our team members again this year, 90 percent of them said everyone has the opportunity to develop and learn new skills in our organization. The perception of unequal opportunity is just one of the myths of hybrid work …

At the time, Dell’s chief described the company as “committed to allow team members around the globe to choose the work style that best fits their lifestyle—whether that is remote or in an office or a blend of the two.” But the upcoming limitations for fully remote workers could be interpreted as Dell discouraging workers from working from home.

“We’re being forced into a position where either we’re going to be staying as the low man on the totem pole, first on the chopping block when it comes to workforce reduction, or we can be hybrid and go in multiple days a week, which really affects a lot of us,” an anonymous employee told BI.

Dell’s new WFH policy follows the February 2023 layoffs of about 6,650 workers, or around 5 percent of employees. Unnamed employees that BI spoke with showed concerns that the upcoming policy is an attempt to get people to quit so that Dell can save money on human resources without the severance costs of layoffs. Others are concerned that the rule changes will disproportionately affect women.

Meanwhile, the idea of return-to-office mandates helping businesses is being challenged. For example, a study by University of Pittsburgh researchers of some S&P 500 businesses found that return-to-office directives hurt employee morale and do not boost company finances.

Dell tells remote workers that they won’t be eligible for promotion Read More »

tesla-settles-with-black-worker-after-$3.2-million-verdict-in-racism-lawsuit

Tesla settles with Black worker after $3.2 million verdict in racism lawsuit

Owen Diaz v. Tesla —

Tesla and Owen Diaz both appealed $3.2 million verdict before deciding to settle.

Aerial view of Tesla cars in a parking lot at a Tesla facility.

Enlarge / Tesla cars sit in a parking lot at the company’s factory in Fremont, California on October 19, 2022.

Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

Tesla has settled with a Black former factory worker who won a $3.2 million judgment in a racial discrimination case, a court filing on Friday said.

Both sides were challenging the $3.2 million verdict in a federal appeals court but agreed to dismiss the case in the Friday filing. The joint stipulation for dismissal said that “the Parties have executed a final, binding settlement agreement that fully resolves all claims.”

Tesla presumably agreed to pay Owen Diaz some amount less than $3.2 million, ending a case in which Diaz was once slated to receive $137 million. As we’ve previously written, a jury in US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Tesla should pay $137 million to Diaz in October 2021.

In April 2022, US District Judge William Orrick reduced the award to $15 million, saying that was the highest amount supported by the evidence and law. Diaz rejected the $15 million award and sought a new damages trial, but a new jury awarded him $3.2 million in April 2023.

Diaz’s attorney, Lawrence Organ of the California Civil Rights Law Group, told CNBC that the parties “reached an amicable resolution of their disputes.” The settlement terms are confidential, he said.

“It took immense courage for Owen Diaz to stand up to a company the size of Tesla,” Organ said. The California Civil Rights Law Group is separately representing thousands of Black workers in a class action alleging that they faced discrimination and harassment while working at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California.

“Tesla factory was saturated with racism”

Diaz operated a freight elevator at Tesla’s Fremont factory for less than a year beginning in June 2015. “In May 2016, he was ‘separated’ from Tesla without prior warning,” Orrick wrote in the April 2022 ruling that awarded Diaz $1.5 million in compensatory damages and $13.5 million in punitive damages.

“The evidence was disturbing,” Orrick wrote. “The jury heard that the Tesla factory was saturated with racism. Diaz faced frequent racial abuse, including the N-word and other slurs. Other employees harassed him. His supervisors and Tesla’s broader management structure did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation.”

A Tesla filing in March 2023 argued that “no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could award any punitive damages against Tesla on the record here.” Tesla said it “enforced a policy prohibiting racially hostile conduct,” that it “took concrete and significant steps to remedy each and every racial incident Mr. Diaz reported,” and “likewise took concrete and significant steps to remedy other racially inappropriate conduct of which it was aware.”

Tesla is also facing lawsuits from the California Civil Rights Department and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over alleged discrimination and harassment.

Tesla settles with Black worker after $3.2 million verdict in racism lawsuit Read More »

security-footage-of-boeing-repair-before-door-plug-blowout-was-overwritten

Security footage of Boeing repair before door-plug blowout was overwritten

737 Max door-plug blowout —

NTSB: Boeing “unable to find the records documenting” repair work on 737 Max 9.

NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy sitting in front of a microphone while testifying at a Senate hearing.

Enlarge / National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy testifies about the Boeing door-plug investigation before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on March 6, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Getty Images | Kevin Dietsch

A government investigation into a Boeing 737 Max 9 plane’s door-plug blowout has been hampered by a lack of repair records and security camera footage, the National Transportation Safety Board’s chair told US senators. Boeing was “unable to find the records” and told the NTSB that the security camera footage was overwritten.

“To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft,” NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy wrote Wednesday in a letter to leaders of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. “Boeing has informed us that they are unable to find the records documenting this work. A verbal request was made by our investigators for security camera footage to help obtain this information; however, they were informed the footage was overwritten. The absence of those records will complicate the NTSB’s investigation moving forward.”

A Boeing spokesperson told Ars today that under the company’s standard practice, “video recordings are maintained on a rolling 30-day basis” before being overwritten. The NTSB’s preliminary report on the investigation said the airplane was delivered to Alaska Airlines on October 31, 2023, after a repair in a Boeing factory. On January 5, the plane was forced to return to Portland International Airport in Oregon when a passenger door plug blew off the aircraft during flight.

The NTSB’s preliminary report found that four bolts were missing from the door plug, which can be used instead of an emergency exit door. There was “no evidence” that the door plug “was opened after leaving Boeing’s facility,” indicating that the bolts were not re-installed at the factory. The plane was serviced at Boeing’s Renton, Washington, facility to replace five damaged rivets in a job that required opening the door plug.

“We will continue supporting this investigation in the transparent and proactive fashion we have supported all regulatory inquiries into this accident,” Boeing said in a statement provided to Ars. “We have worked hard to honor the rules about the release of investigative information in an environment of intense interest from our employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and we will continue our efforts to do so.”

Chair called Boeing CEO to seek employee names

Homendy’s letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-Texas) responded to questions raised at a committee hearing last week. The questions were related to “whether Boeing has provided documentation on the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug,” and the identities of door crew employees, the letter noted.

“NTSB investigators first requested documents that would have contained this information from Boeing on January 9, 2024,” the letter said. “Shortly thereafter, we identified the door crew manager and were advised that he was out on medical leave. We requested status updates on February 15, 2024, and February 22, 2024, after which we were advised by his attorney that he would not be able to provide a statement or interview to NTSB due to medical issues.”

Boeing provided the names of some people who were familiar with the door-plug work, but the NTSB said it wanted a more exhaustive list to prepare for investigative interviews. On March 2, NTSB investigators asked Boeing for the names of all employees who reported to the door crew manager at the time of the repair in September 2023. Boeing provided the list but “did not identify which personnel conducted the door plug work,” the letter said.

“After NTSB received this list, I called Boeing Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun and asked for the names of the people who performed the work,” Homendy wrote. “He stated he was unable to provide that information and maintained that Boeing has no records of the work being performed.”

NTSB seeks info on Boeing quality-assurance and safety

Homendy told senators that the agency is not seeking the names for punitive purposes. “We want to speak with them to learn about Boeing’s quality-assurance processes and safety culture. Our only intent is to identify deficiencies and recommend safety improvements so accidents like this never happen again,” she wrote.

Homendy wrote that she is “increasingly concerned that the focus on the names of individual front-line workers will negatively impact our investigation and discourage such Boeing employees from providing NTSB with information relevant to this investigation.” To counter those fears, Homendy “instructed NTSB to utilize our authority to protect the identities of the door crew and other front-line employees who come forward with information relevant to the investigation.”

Homendy also sent a letter to Boeing on Wednesday reminding the company that until the investigation concludes, “only appropriate NTSB personnel are authorized to publicly disclose investigative information and, even then, the disclosure is limited to factual information verified during the course of the investigation.”

“For the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation should speak with one voice—that being the voice of the independent agency conducting it,” Homendy told Boeing in the letter.

Security footage of Boeing repair before door-plug blowout was overwritten Read More »

public-officials-can-block-haters—but-only-sometimes,-scotus-rules

Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules

Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules

There are some circumstances where government officials are allowed to block people from commenting on their social media pages, the Supreme Court ruled Friday.

According to the Supreme Court, the key question is whether officials are speaking as private individuals or on behalf of the state when posting online. Issuing two opinions, the Supreme Court declined to set a clear standard for when personal social media use constitutes state speech, leaving each unique case to be decided by lower courts.

Instead, SCOTUS provided a test for courts to decide first if someone is or isn’t speaking on behalf of the state on their social media pages, and then if they actually have authority to act on what they post online.

The ruling suggests that government officials can block people from commenting on personal social media pages where they discuss official business when that speech cannot be attributed to the state and merely reflects personal remarks. This means that blocking is acceptable when the official has no authority to speak for the state or exercise that authority when speaking on their page.

That authority empowering officials to speak for the state could be granted by a written law. It could also be granted informally if officials have long used social media to speak on behalf of the state to the point where their power to do so is considered “well-settled,” one SCOTUS ruling said.

SCOTUS broke it down like this: An official might be viewed as speaking for the state if the social media page is managed by the official’s office, if a city employee posts on their behalf to their personal page, or if the page is handed down from one official to another when terms in office end.

Posting on a personal page might also be considered speaking for the state if the information shared has not already been shared elsewhere.

Examples of officials clearly speaking on behalf of the state include a mayor holding a city council meeting online or an official using their personal page as an official channel for comments on proposed regulations.

Because SCOTUS did not set a clear standard, officials risk liability when blocking followers on so-called “mixed use” social media pages, SCOTUS cautioned. That liability could be diminished by keeping personal pages entirely separate or by posting a disclaimer stating that posts represent only officials’ personal views and not efforts to speak on behalf of the state. But any official using a personal page to make official comments could expose themselves to liability, even with a disclaimer.

SCOTUS test for when blocking is OK

These clarifications came in two SCOTUS opinions addressing conflicting outcomes in two separate complaints about officials in California and Michigan who blocked followers heavily criticizing them on Facebook and X. The lower courts’ decisions have been vacated, and courts must now apply the Supreme Court’s test to issue new decisions in each case.

One opinion was brief and unsigned, discussing a case where California parents sued school district board members who blocked them from commenting on public Twitter pages used for campaigning and discussing board issues. The board members claimed they blocked their followers after the parents left dozens and sometimes hundreds of the same exact comments on tweets.

In the second—which was unanimous, with no dissenting opinions—Justice Amy Coney Barrett responded at length to a case from a Facebook user named Kevin Lindke. This opinion provides varied guidance that courts can apply when considering whether blocking is appropriate or violating constituents’ First Amendment rights.

Lindke was blocked by a Michigan city manager, James Freed, after leaving comments criticizing the city’s response to COVID-19 on a page that Freed created as a college student, sometime before 2008. Among these comments, Lindke called the city’s pandemic response “abysmal” and told Freed that “the city deserves better.” On a post showing Freed picking up a takeout order, Lindke complained that residents were “suffering,” while Freed ate at expensive restaurants.

After Freed hit 5,000 followers, he converted the page to reflect his public figure status. But while he primarily still used the page for personal posts about his family and always managed the page himself, the page went into murkier territory when he also shared updates about his job as city manager. Those updates included sharing updates on city efforts, posting screenshots of city press releases, and soliciting public feedback, like sharing links to city surveys.

Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules Read More »