Policy

don’t-use-crypto-to-cheat-on-taxes:-bitcoin-bro-gets-2-years

Don’t use crypto to cheat on taxes: Bitcoin bro gets 2 years

A bitcoin investor who went to increasingly great lengths to hide $1 million in cryptocurrency gains on his tax returns was sentenced to two years in prison on Thursday.

It seems that not even his most “sophisticated” tactics—including using mixers, managing multiple wallets, and setting up in-person meetings to swap bitcoins for cash—kept the feds from tracing crypto trades that he believed were untraceable.

The Austin, Texas, man, Frank Richard Ahlgren III, started buying up bitcoins in 2011. In 2015, he upped his trading, purchasing approximately 1,366 using Coinbase accounts. He waited until 2017 before cashing in, earning $3.7 million after selling about 640 at a price more than 10 times his initial costs. Celebrating his gains, he bought a house in Utah in 2017, mostly funded by bitcoins he purchased in 2015.

Very quickly, Ahlgren sought to hide these earnings, the Department of Justice said in a press release. Rather than report them on his 2017 tax return, Ahlgren “lied to his accountant by submitting a false summary of his gains and losses from the sale of his bitcoins.” He did this by claiming that the bitcoins he purchased in 2015 were much higher than his actual costs, even being so bold as to claim he as charged prices “greater than the highest price bitcoins sold for in the market prior to the purchase of the Utah house.”

First tax evasion prosecution centered solely on crypto

Ahlgren’s tax evasion only got bolder as the years passed after this first fraud, the DOJ said.

In 2018 and 2019, he sold more bitcoins, earning more than $650,000 and deciding not to report any of it on his tax returns for those years. That meant that he needed to actively conceal the earnings, but he’d been apparently researching how mixers are used to disguise where bitcoins come from since at least 2014, the feds found, referencing a blog he wrote exhibiting his knowledge. And that’s not the only step he took to try to trick the Internal Revenue Service.

Don’t use crypto to cheat on taxes: Bitcoin bro gets 2 years Read More »

character.ai-steps-up-teen-safety-after-bots-allegedly-caused-suicide,-self-harm

Character.AI steps up teen safety after bots allegedly caused suicide, self-harm

Following a pair of lawsuits alleging that chatbots caused a teen boy’s suicide, groomed a 9-year-old girl, and caused a vulnerable teen to self-harm, Character.AI (C.AI) has announced a separate model just for teens, ages 13 and up, that’s supposed to make their experiences with bots safer.

In a blog, C.AI said it took a month to develop the teen model, with the goal of guiding the existing model “away from certain responses or interactions, reducing the likelihood of users encountering, or prompting the model to return, sensitive or suggestive content.”

C.AI said “evolving the model experience” to reduce the likelihood kids are engaging in harmful chats—including bots allegedly teaching a teen with high-functioning autism to self-harm and delivering inappropriate adult content to all kids whose families are suing—it had to tweak both model inputs and outputs.

To stop chatbots from initiating and responding to harmful dialogs, C.AI added classifiers that should help C.AI identify and filter out sensitive content from outputs. And to prevent kids from pushing bots to discuss sensitive topics, C.AI said that it had improved “detection, response, and intervention related to inputs from all users.” That ideally includes blocking any sensitive content from appearing in the chat.

Perhaps most significantly, C.AI will now link kids to resources if they try to discuss suicide or self-harm, which C.AI had not done previously, frustrating parents suing who argue this common practice for social media platforms should extend to chatbots.

Other teen safety features

In addition to creating the model just for teens, C.AI announced other safety features, including more robust parental controls rolling out early next year. Those controls would allow parents to track how much time kids are spending on C.AI and which bots they’re interacting with most frequently, the blog said.

C.AI will also be notifying teens when they’ve spent an hour on the platform, which could help prevent kids from becoming addicted to the app, as parents suing have alleged. In one case, parents had to lock their son’s iPad in a safe to keep him from using the app after bots allegedly repeatedly encouraged him to self-harm and even suggested murdering his parents. That teen has vowed to start using the app whenever he next has access, while parents fear the bots’ seeming influence may continue causing harm if he follows through on threats to run away.

Character.AI steps up teen safety after bots allegedly caused suicide, self-harm Read More »

report:-at&t,-verizon-aren’t-notifying-most-victims-of-chinese-call-records-hack

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack

Telecom companies aren’t required to notify customers about every breach. A Federal Communications Commission order in December 2023 adopted a “harm-based notification trigger” in which “notification of a breach to consumers is not required in cases where a carrier can reasonably determine that no harm to customers is reasonably likely to occur as a result of the breach, or where the breach solely involves encrypted data and the carrier has definitive evidence that the encryption key was not also accessed, used, or disclosed.”

The FCC said that harm requiring notifications can include, but is not limited to, “financial harm, physical harm, identity theft, theft of services, potential for blackmail, the disclosure of private facts, the disclosure of contact information for victims of abuse, and other similar types of dangers.”

The FCC order argued that the harm-based standard would let carriers “focus their time, effort, and financial resources on the most important and potentially harmful incidents” and protect “customers from over-notification and notice fatigue, specifically in instances where the carrier has reasonably determined that no harm is likely to occur.”

Senator: Telecoms should tell customers

US Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) this week criticized the carriers for having weak security and the FCC for “let[ting] phone companies write their own cybersecurity rules.” Wyden proposed legislation to beef up telecom security requirements.

A spokesperson for Wyden today said that carriers should notify the affected customers.

“Senator Wyden strongly supports the phone companies notifying their customers about the theft of their data,” the spokesperson told Ars. “Not only do Americans have a right to be told that their information was stolen, but this is useful information that could result in some consumers voting with their wallets and switching service to carriers that retain less data and or have better cybersecurity.”

Stanford University researchers collected and studied telephone metadata for a 2016 paper to determine how it could be used against customers. “Using crowdsourced telephone logs and social networking information, we find that telephone metadata is densely interconnected, susceptible to reidentification, and enables highly sensitive inferences,” they wrote.

Report: AT&T, Verizon aren’t notifying most victims of Chinese call-records hack Read More »

photobucket-opted-inactive-users-into-privacy-nightmare,-lawsuit-says

Photobucket opted inactive users into privacy nightmare, lawsuit says

Photobucket was sued Wednesday after a recent privacy policy update revealed plans to sell users’ photos—including biometric identifiers like face and iris scans—to companies training generative AI models.

The proposed class action seeks to stop Photobucket from selling users’ data without first obtaining written consent, alleging that Photobucket either intentionally or negligently failed to comply with strict privacy laws in states like Illinois, New York, and California by claiming it can’t reliably determine users’ geolocation.

Two separate classes could be protected by the litigation. The first includes anyone who ever uploaded a photo between 2003—when Photobucket was founded—and May 1, 2024. Another potentially even larger class includes any non-users depicted in photographs uploaded to Photobucket, whose biometric data has also allegedly been sold without consent.

Photobucket risks huge fines if a jury agrees with Photobucket users that the photo-storing site unjustly enriched itself by breaching its user contracts and illegally seizing biometric data without consent. As many as 100 million users could be awarded untold punitive damages, as well as up to $5,000 per “willful or reckless violation” of various statutes.

If a substantial portion of Photobucket’s entire 13 billion-plus photo collection is found infringing, the fines could add up quickly. In October, Photobucket estimated that “about half of its 13 billion images are public and eligible for AI licensing,” Business Insider reported.

Users suing include a mother of a minor whose biometric data was collected and a professional photographer in Illinois who should have been protected by one of the country’s strongest biometric privacy laws.

So far, Photobucket has confirmed that at least one “alarmed” Illinois user’s data may have already been sold to train AI. The lawsuit alleged that most users eligible to join the class action likely similarly only learned of the “conduct long after the date that Photobucket began selling, licensing, and/or otherwise disclosing Class Members’ biometric data to third parties.”

Photobucket opted inactive users into privacy nightmare, lawsuit says Read More »

report:-google-told-ftc-microsoft’s-openai-deal-is-killing-ai-competition

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition

Google reportedly wants the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to end Microsoft’s exclusive cloud deal with OpenAI that requires anyone wanting access to OpenAI’s models to go through Microsoft’s servers.

Someone “directly involved” in Google’s effort told The Information that Google’s request came after the FTC began broadly probing how Microsoft’s cloud computing business practices may be harming competition.

As part of the FTC’s investigation, the agency apparently asked Microsoft’s biggest rivals if the exclusive OpenAI deal was “preventing them from competing in the burgeoning artificial intelligence market,” multiple sources told The Information. Google reportedly was among those arguing that the deal harms competition by saddling rivals with extra costs and blocking them from hosting OpenAI’s latest models themselves.

In 2024 alone, Microsoft generated about $1 billion from reselling OpenAI’s large language models (LLMs), The Information reported, while rivals were stuck paying to train staff to move data to Microsoft servers if their customers wanted access to OpenAI technology. For one customer, Intuit, it cost millions monthly to access OpenAI models on Microsoft’s servers, The Information reported.

Microsoft benefits from the arrangement—which is not necessarily illegal—of increased revenue from reselling LLMs and renting out more cloud servers. It also takes a 20 percent cut of OpenAI’s revenue. Last year, OpenAI made approximately $3 billion selling its LLMs to customers like T-Mobile and Walmart, The Information reported.

Microsoft’s agreement with OpenAI could be viewed as anti-competitive if businesses convince the FTC that the costs of switching to Microsoft’s servers to access OpenAI technology is so burdensome that it’s unfairly disadvantaging rivals. It could also be considered harming the market and hampering innovation by seemingly disincentivizing Microsoft from competing with OpenAI in the market.

To avoid any disruption to the deal, however, Microsoft could simply point to AI models sold by Google and Amazon as proof of “robust competition,” The Information noted. The FTC may not buy that defense, though, since rivals’ AI models significantly fall behind OpenAI’s models in sales. Any perception that the AI market is being foreclosed by an entrenched major player could trigger intense scrutiny as the US seeks to become a world leader in AI technology development.

Report: Google told FTC Microsoft’s OpenAI deal is killing AI competition Read More »

micron’s-$6b-chips-funding-should-have-more-strings-attached,-critics-say

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say


Micron’s NY fabs are the only CHIPS projects undergoing full environmental review.

Micron Technology will receive more than $6.1 billion after the US Department of Commerce finalized one of the largest CHIPS Act awards ever to “the only US-based manufacturer of memory chips,” Vice President Kamala Harris said in a press statement.

Micron will use the funding to construct “several state-of-the-art memory chips facilities” in New York and Idaho, Harris said. The chipmaker has committed to a “$125 billion investment over the next few decades” and promised to create “at least 20,000 jobs,” Harris confirmed.

Additionally, Micron “agreed to preliminary terms for an additional investment of $275 million to expand” its facility in Manassas, Virginia, Harris confirmed. Those facilities will mostly be used to manufacture chips for automotive and defense industries, Harris noted.

Because of billions in CHIPS funding doled out by the Biden administration, Harris said, the US’s “share of advanced memory manufacturing” will go “from nearly 0 percent today to 10 percent over the next decade.”

The Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade and lobbying group that bills itself as “the voice of the semiconductor industry,” celebrated Micron’s award. In a press release, its president and CEO, John Neuffer, said that the award sets the US on a path to become a leading memory chip innovator.

“Memory is a technology critical to America’s economic future and national security, and Micron’s historic investments in producing memory chips in the US will strengthen US leadership for the long term,” Neuffer said.

In a statement, Micron President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra said that “Micron is uniquely positioned to bring leading-edge memory manufacturing to the U.S., strengthening the country’s technology leadership and fostering advanced innovation.”

“Micron’s investments in domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, supported by the bipartisan CHIPS Act, will help drive economic growth and ensure that the US remains at the forefront of technological advancements,” Mehrotra said.

Advocates: Micron needs to explain what a “good job” is

But while Neuffer joined Harris’ and the Commerce Department’s chorus, praising the award for creating “high-paying American jobs,” bolstering US national and economic security, and fueling “innovation for years to come,” communities are raising questions.

Advocates with Jobs to Move America (JMA)—who are organizing ahead of Micron’s New York construction starting in 2026—are concerned that Micron hasn’t been clear about what a “good job” is before moving into an area with “one of the highest poverty rates in the country.”

“There has been little discussion or firm commitments made regarding what exactly a ‘good job’ is, or how equitable access for said jobs will be achieved for current local residents,” JMA’s “Good Jobs Platform,” drafted earlier this year with more than 20 local advocacy groups, said.

“We define a ‘good job’ as one that guarantees: workers have a fair and clear process to organize a union without employer opposition, family-sustaining wages and comprehensive benefits, safe working conditions, equitable hiring and employment practices, and is supported by an accessible workforce pipeline,” the platform said.

And equally important are communities’ and workers’ health and safety concerns, the platform noted, urging that “a good job is a safe job.”

A senior researcher and policy coordinator for JMA, Anna Smith, told Ars that Harris’ statement was missing any mention of a community impact statement. And while Harris mentioned “utilizing project labor agreements and registered apprenticeship programs, which will further strengthen local economies” and “support workers,” more enforceable commitments are needed to protect communities as Micron’s construction begins, Smith said.

The “Good Jobs Platform” recommends a range of commitments, from labor peace agreements that would ensure workers can unionize to community workforce agreements keeping workers involved in key discussions regarding ongoing training and career development. Local labor leaders have sought similar commitments, urging Micron to commit to a community benefits agreement “that enshrines legally enforceable provisions that protect the community, its workers, and the environment.”

In his statement, Mehrotra said that Micron had formed local partnerships to build a “community investment framework” that would “revitalize central New York.”

Micron first CHIPS fabs to get full environmental review

More transparency is also urgently needed regarding Micron’s environmental commitments, advocates told Ars. In New York, Micron’s fabs are preparing to wipe out over 200 acres of mature forested wetlands, and so far, Micron has not provided a public “detailed mitigation plan to compensate for the loss,” a local environmental expert, Catherine Landis, warned during a public comment period on Micron’s plan to pave over the wetlands.

Unlike any other fab site in the US receiving CHIPS Act funding, Micron’s New York fabs must release a full environmental impact statement (EIS), which is currently being drafted and expected to be distributed to agencies this month, advocates told Ars. Construction has been delayed until the EIS is completed, at which point the public will gain a better understanding of how much harm could be caused by the project and what steps Micron will take to mitigate harms.

JMA has warned about potential impacts, like increased flooding in the area impacting both communities and Micron’s fabs. Destroying the wetlands will also displace federally protected endangered animal populations, JMA said, including the northern long-eared bat and the sedge wren. Potential chemical spills, reported at other US fabs, could endanger water quality, as could any mismanaged handling of chemical waste. And perhaps most critically, the energy demand to operate Micron’s facilities could risk setting back New York’s climate goals, JMA advocates said.

More transparency would help communities better prepare to welcome Micron and other chipmakers developing fabs across the US. JMA and local experts have agreed that the promised economic benefits Micron’s fabs will deliver in New York are a positive development, as are Micron’s commitments guaranteeing New York construction workers can unionize.

But communities will likely be the ones raising alarms as Micron’s operations introduce to the environment “thousands of compounds used in chip manufacture (most unregulated)” with “short- and long-term effects on plants, animals, people” still largely unknown, Landis said. And that’s where JMA hopes to make an impact, submitting freedom of information acts to request undisclosed data and pushing for community benefit agreements and other commitments from Micron to ensure communities aren’t irreversibly harmed by new fabs.

JMA expects that the EIS could help galvanize communities preparing for Micron’s construction to start in New York.

“I do think it is a really helpful tool that we have in our belt, and something that will help the public engage about concerns that we have,” Smith told Ars. “It spans, of course, air emissions, wastewater, runoff, toxics, wetlands, but it also includes things like housing and transportation, and those are things that we think that the Syracuse community is very concerned about.”

The EIS could mean that New York residents have a clearer understanding of how CHIPS funding may be polluting their communities. Most of the other communities nationwide impacted by CHIPS projects likely won’t have the same level of detailed information. Eric Romann, a JMA regional director, told Ars that, while “it’s positive that a higher bar has been set” for Micron’s New York project, that’s only “compared to the very low bar set for the other projects around the country, or you could say very low to non-existent bar.”

Micron declined to comment directly on workers’ concerns. In a statement provided to Ars, Micron’s spokesperson said that “Micron is committed to environmental stewardship across our global operations, including developing and maintaining critical environmental protections for our planned investment” in New York.

“A required environmental impact statement is currently in production with both federal and state lead agencies, and we are working closely with government stakeholders to ensure we meet any environmental permitting required for the project,” Micron’s spokesperson said. “We look forward to engaging with the public and government stakeholders during comment periods for the project’s draft environmental impact statement and environmental permitting in the near future.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Micron’s $6B CHIPS funding should have more strings attached, critics say Read More »

location-data-firm-helps-police-find-out-when-suspects-visited-their-doctor

Location data firm helps police find out when suspects visited their doctor

The intake form “was included in an email thread between a Fog representative and Bryan Kimbell, chief human trafficking investigator at the Office of the Attorney General in Georgia,” according to 404 Media.

Services like Fog Data Science have triggered concerns about how police might use location tracking to prosecute abortions. “For several thousand dollars annually, the software lets police trace unique borders around large, customized regions to generate a list of devices in the area. Police can use Fog Reveal to geofence entire buildings or street blocks—like the area surrounding an abortion clinic—and get information on devices used within and surrounding those buildings to identify suspects,” Ars wrote in November 2022.

The EFF’s 2022 investigation found that Fog obtained data from the firm Venntel, which is the subject of a Federal Trade Commission action. The FTC last week announced a proposed settlement with Venntel and its owner, Gravy Analytics. The FTC alleged that “Gravy Analytics and Venntel violated the FTC Act by unfairly selling sensitive consumer location data, and by collecting and using consumers’ location data without obtaining verifiable user consent for commercial and government uses.”

“Surreptitious surveillance by data brokers undermines our civil liberties and puts servicemembers, union workers, religious minorities, and others at risk,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in the announcement. According to the FTC, Gravy Analytics used geofencing “to identify and sell lists of consumers who attended certain events related to medical conditions and places of worship and sold additional lists that associate individual consumers to other sensitive characteristics.”

If the proposed order takes effect, “Gravy Analytics and Venntel will be prohibited from selling, disclosing, or using sensitive location data in any product or service, and must establish a sensitive data location program,” the FTC said. One of the FTC’s two Republicans partially dissented from the decision, which may not be finalized until after President-elect Trump takes office.

Location data firm helps police find out when suspects visited their doctor Read More »

apple-hit-with-$1.2b-lawsuit-after-killing-controversial-csam-detecting-tool

Apple hit with $1.2B lawsuit after killing controversial CSAM-detecting tool

When Apple devices are used to spread CSAM, it’s a huge problem for survivors, who allegedly face a range of harms, including “exposure to predators, sexual exploitation, dissociative behavior, withdrawal symptoms, social isolation, damage to body image and self-worth, increased risky behavior, and profound mental health issues, including but not limited to depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, self-harm, insomnia, eating disorders, death, and other harmful effects.” One survivor told The Times she “lives in constant fear that someone might track her down and recognize her.”

Survivors suing have also incurred medical and other expenses due to Apple’s inaction, the lawsuit alleged. And those expenses will keep piling up if the court battle drags on for years and Apple’s practices remain unchanged.

Apple could win, a lawyer and policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Riana Pfefferkorn, told The Times, as survivors face “significant hurdles” seeking liability for mishandling content that Apple says Section 230 shields. And a win for survivors could “backfire,” Pfefferkorn suggested, if Apple proves that forced scanning of devices and services violates the Fourth Amendment.

Survivors, some of whom own iPhones, think that Apple has a responsibility to protect them. In a press release, Margaret E. Mabie, a lawyer representing survivors, praised survivors for raising “a call for justice and a demand for Apple to finally take responsibility and protect these victims.”

“Thousands of brave survivors are coming forward to demand accountability from one of the most successful technology companies on the planet,” Mabie said. “Apple has not only rejected helping these victims, it has advertised the fact that it does not detect child sex abuse material on its platform or devices thereby exponentially increasing the ongoing harm caused to these victims.”

Apple hit with $1.2B lawsuit after killing controversial CSAM-detecting tool Read More »

cable-isps-compare-data-caps-to-food-menus:-don’t-make-us-offer-unlimited-soup

Cable ISPs compare data caps to food menus: Don’t make us offer unlimited soup

“Commenters have clearly demonstrated how fees and overage charges, unclear information about data caps, and throttling or caps in the midst of public crises such as natural disasters negatively affect consumers, especially consumers in the lowest income brackets,” the filing said.

The groups said that “many low-income households have no choice but to be limited by data caps because lower priced plan tiers, the only ones they can afford, are typically capped.” Their filing urged the FCC to take action, arguing that federal law provides “ample rulemaking authority to regulate data caps as they are an unjustified, unreasonable business practice and unreasonably discriminate against low-income individuals.”

The filing quoted a December 2023 report by nonprofit news organization Capital B about broadband access problems faced by Black Americans in rural areas. The article described Internet users such as Gloria Simmons, who had lived in Devereux, Georgia, for over 50 years.

“But as a retiree on a fixed income, it’s too expensive, she says,” the Capital B report said. “She pays $60 a month for fixed wireless Internet with AT&T. But some months, if she goes over her data usage, it’s $10 for each additional 50 gigabytes of data. If it increases, she says she’ll cancel the service, despite its convenience.”

Free Press: “inequitable burden” for low-income users

Comments filed last month by advocacy group Free Press said that some ISPs don’t impose data caps because of competition from fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and fixed wireless services. Charter doesn’t impose caps, and Comcast has avoided caps in the Northeast US where Verizon’s un-capped FiOS fiber-to-the-home service is widely deployed, Free Press said.

“ISPs like Cox and Comcast (outside of its northeast territory) continue to show that they want their customers to use as much data as possible, so long as they pay a monthly fee for unlimited data, and/or ‘upgrade’ their service with an expensive monthly equipment rental,” Free Press wrote. “Comcast’s continued use of cap-and-fee pricing is particularly egregious because it repeatedly gloats about how robust its network is relative to others in terms of handling heavy traffic volume, and it does not impose caps in the parts of its service area where it faces more robust FTTH competition from FTTH providers.”

Cable ISPs compare data caps to food menus: Don’t make us offer unlimited soup Read More »

us-businesses-will-lose-$1b-in-one-month-if-tiktok-is-banned,-tiktok-warns

US businesses will lose $1B in one month if TikTok is banned, TikTok warns

The US is prepared to fight the injunction. In a letter, the US Justice Department argued that the court has already “definitively rejected petitioners’ constitutional claims” and no further briefing should be needed before rejecting the injunction.

If the court denies the injunction, TikTok plans to immediately ask SCOTUS for an injunction next. That’s part of the reason why TikTok wants the lower court to grant the injunction—out of respect for the higher court.

“Unless this Court grants interim relief, the Supreme Court will be forced to resolve an emergency injunction application on this weighty constitutional question in mere weeks (and over the holidays, no less),” TikTok argued.

The DOJ, however, argued that’s precisely why the court should quickly deny the injunction.

“An expedient decision by this Court denying petitioners’ motions, without awaiting the government’s response, would be appropriate to maximize the time available for the Supreme Court’s consideration of petitioners’ submissions,” the DOJ’s letter said.

TikTok has requested a decision on the injunction by December 16, and the government has agreed to file its response by Wednesday.

This is perhaps the most dire fight of TikTok’s life. The social media company has warned that not only would a US ban impact US TikTok users, but also “tens of millions” of users globally whose service could be interrupted if TikTok has to cut off US users. And once TikTok loses those users, there’s no telling if they’ll ever come back, even if TikTok wins a dragged-out court battle.

For TikTok users, an injunction granted at this stage would offer a glimmer of hope that TikTok may survive as a preferred platform for free speech and irreplaceable source of income. But for TikTok, the injunction would likely be a stepping stone, as the fastest path to securing its future increasingly seems to be appealing to Trump.

“It would not be in the interest of anyone—not the parties, the public, or the courts—to have emergency Supreme Court litigation over the Act’s constitutionality, only for the new Administration to halt its enforcement mere days or weeks later,” TikTok argued. “This Court should avoid that burdensome spectacle by granting an injunction that would allow Petitioners to seek further orderly review only if necessary.”

US businesses will lose $1B in one month if TikTok is banned, TikTok warns Read More »

teen-creates-memecoin,-dumps-it,-earns-$50,000

Teen creates memecoin, dumps it, earns $50,000


dontbuy. Seriously, don’t buy it

Unsurprisingly, he and his family were doxed by angry traders.

On the evening of November 19, art adviser Adam Biesk was finishing work at his California home when he overheard a conversation between his wife and son, who had just come downstairs. The son, a kid in his early teens, was saying he had made a ton of money on a cryptocurrency that he himself had created.

Initially, Biesk ignored it. He knew that his son played around with crypto, but to have turned a small fortune before bedtime was too far-fetched. “We didn’t really believe it,” says Biesk. But when the phone started to ring off the hook and his wife was flooded with angry messages on Instagram, Biesk realized that his son was telling the truth—if not quite the full story.

Earlier that evening, at 7: 48 pm PT, Biesk’s son had released into the wild 1 billion units of a new crypto coin, which he named Gen Z Quant. Simultaneously, he spent about $350 to purchase 51 million tokens, about 5 percent of the total supply, for himself.

Then he started to livestream himself on Pump.Fun, the website he had used to launch the coin. As people tuned in to see what he was doing, they started to buy into Gen Z Quant, leading the price to pitch sharply upward.

By 7: 56 pm PT, a whirlwind eight minutes later, Biesk’s son’s tokens were worth almost $30,000—and he cashed out. “No way. Holy fuck! Holy fuck!” he said, flipping two middle fingers to the webcam, with tongue sticking out of his mouth. “Holy fuck! Thanks for the twenty bandos.” After he dumped the tokens, the price of the coin plummeted, so large was his single trade.

To the normie ear, all this might sound impossible. But in the realm of memecoins, a type of cryptocurrency with no purpose or utility beyond financial speculation, it’s relatively routine. Although many people lose money, a few have been known to make a lot—and fast.

In this case, Biesk’s son had seemingly performed what is known as a soft rug pull, whereby somebody creates a new crypto token, promotes it online, then sells off their entire holdings either swiftly or over time, sinking its price. These maneuvers occupy something of a legal gray area, lawyers say, but are roundly condemned in the cryptosphere as ethically dubious at the least.

After dumping Gen Z Quant, Biesk’s son did the same thing with two more coins—one called im sorry and another called my dog lucy—bringing his takings for the evening to more than $50,000.

The backlash was swift and ferocious. A torrent of abuse began to pour into the chat log on Pump.Fun, from traders who felt they had been swindled. “You little fucking scammer,” wrote one commenter. Soon, the names and pictures of Biesk, his son, and other family members were circulating on X. They had been doxed. “Our phone started blowing up. Just phone call after phone call,” says Biesk. “It was a very frightening situation.”

As part of their revenge campaign, crypto traders continued to buy into Gen Z Quant, driving the coin’s price far higher than the level at which Biesk’s son had cashed out. At its peak, around 3 am PT the following morning, the coin had a theoretical total value of $72 million; the tokens the teenager had initially held were worth more than $3 million. Even now, the trading frenzy has died down, and they continue to be valued at twice the amount he received.

“In the end, a lot of people made money on his coin. But for us, caught in the middle, there was a lot of emotion,” says Biesk. “The online backlash became so frighteningly scary that the realization that he made money was kind of tempered down with the fact that people became angry and started bullying.”

Biesk concedes to a limited understanding of crypto. But he sees little distinction between what his son did and, say, playing the stock market or winning at a casino. Though under California law, someone must be at least 18 years old to gamble or invest in stocks, the unregulated memecoin market, which has been compared to a “casino” in risk profile, had given Biesk’s teenage son early access to a similar arena, in which some must lose for others to profit. “The way I understand it is he made money and he cashed out, which to me seems like that’s what anybody would’ve done,” says Biesk. “You get people who are cheering at the craps table, or angry at the craps table.”

Memecoins have been around since 2013, when Dogecoin was released. In the following years, a few developers tried to replicate the success of Dogecoin, making play of popular internet memes or tapping into the zeitgeist in some other way in a bid to encourage people to invest. But the cost and complexity of development generally limited the number of memecoins that came to market.

That equation was flipped in January with the launch of Pump.Fun, which lets people release new memecoins instantly, at no cost. The idea was to give people a safer way to trade memecoins by standardizing the underlying code, which prevents developers from building in malicious mechanisms to steal funds, in what’s known as a hard rug pull.

“Buying into memecoins was a very unsafe thing to do. Programmers could create systems that would obfuscate what you are buying into and, basically, behave as malicious actors. Everything was designed to suck money out of people,” one of the three anonymous cofounders of Pump.Fun, who goes by Sapijiju, told WIRED earlier in the year. “The idea with Pump was to build something where everyone was on the same playing field.”

Since Pump.Fun launched, millions of unique memecoins have entered the market through the platform. By some metrics, Pump.Fun is the fastest-growing crypto application ever, taking in more than $250 million in revenue—as a 1 percent cut of trades on the platform—in less than a year in operation.

However, Pump.Fun has found it impossible to insulate users from soft rug pulls. Though the platform gives users access to information to help assess risk—like the proportion of a coin belonging to the largest few holders—soft rug pulls are difficult to prevent by technical means, claims Sapijiju.

“People say there’s a bunch of different stuff you can do to block [soft rug pulls]—maybe a sell tax or lock up the people who create the coin. Truthfully, all of this is very easy to manipulate,” he says. “Whatever we do to stop people doing this, there’s always a way to circumnavigate if you’re smart enough. The important thing is creating an interface that is as simple as possible and giving the tools for users to see if a coin is legitimate or not.”

The “overwhelming majority” of new crypto tokens entering the market are scams of one form or another, designed expressly to squeeze money from buyers, not to hold a sustained value in the long term, according to crypto security company Blockaid. In the period since memecoin launchpads like Pump.Fun began to gain traction, the volume of soft rug pulls has increased in lockstep, says Ido Ben-Natan, Blockaid founder.

“I generally agree that it is kind of impossible to prevent holistically. It’s a game of cat and mouse,” says Ben-Natan. “It’s definitely impossible to cover a hundred percent of these things. But it definitely is possible to detect repeat offenders, looking at metadata and different kinds of patterns.”

Now memecoin trading has been popularized, there can be no putting the genie back in the bottle, says Ben-Natan. But traders are perhaps uniquely vulnerable at present, he says, in a period when many are newly infatuated with memecoins, yet before the fledgling platforms have figured out the best way to protect them. “The space is immature,” says Ben-Natan.

Whether it is legal to perform a rug pull is also something of a gray area. It depends on both jurisdiction and whether explicit promises are made to prospective investors, experts say. The absence of bespoke crypto regulations in countries like the US, meanwhile, inadvertently creates cloud cover for acts that are perhaps not overtly illegal.

“These actions exploit the gaps in existing regulatory frameworks, where unethical behavior—like developers hyping a project and later abandoning it—might not explicitly violate laws if no fraudulent misrepresentation, contractual breach, or other violations occur,” says Ronghui Gu, cofounder of crypto security firm CertiK and associate professor of computer science at Columbia University.

The Gen Z Quant broadcast is no longer available to view in full, but in the clips reviewed by WIRED, at no point does Biesk’s son promise to hold his tokens for any specific period. Neither do the Pump.Fun terms of use require people to refrain from selling tokens they create. (Sapijiju, the Pump.Fun cofounder, declined to comment on the Gen Z Quant incident. They say that Pump.Fun will be “introducing age restrictions in future,” but declined to elaborate.)

But even then, under the laws of numerous US states, among them California, “the developer likely still owes heightened legal duties to the investors, so may be liable for breaching obligations that result in loss of value,” says Geoffrey Berg, partner at law firm Berg Plummer & Johnson. “The developer is in a position of trust and must place the interests of his investors over his own.”

To clarify whether these legal duties apply to people who release memecoins through websites like Pump.Fun—who buy into their coins like everyone else, albeit at the moment of launch and therefore at a discount and in potentially market-swinging quantities—new laws may be required.

In July 2026, a new regime will take effect in California, where Biesk’s family lives, requiring residents to obtain a license to take part in “digital financial asset business activity,” including exchanging, transferring, storing or administering certain crypto assets. President-elect Donald Trump has also promised new crypto regulations. But for now, there are no crypto-specific laws in place.

“We are in a legal vacuum where there are no clear laws,” says Andrew Gordon, partner at law firm Gordon Law. “Once we know what is ‘in bounds,’ we will also know what is ‘out of bounds.’ This will hopefully create a climate where rug pulls don’t happen, or when they do they are seen as a criminal violation.”

On November 19, as the evening wore on, angry messages continued to tumble in, says Biesk. Though some celebrated his son’s antics, calling for him to return and create another coin, others were threatening or aggressive. “Your son stole my fucking money,” wrote one person over Instagram.

Biesk and his wife were still trying to understand quite how their son was able to make so much money, so fast. “I was trying to get an understanding of exactly how this meme crypto trading works,” says Biesk.

Some memecoin traders, sensing there could be money in riffing off the turn of events, created new coins on Pump.Fun inspired by Biesk and his wife: QUANT DAD and QUANTS MOM. (Both are now practically worthless.)

Equally disturbed and bewildered, Biesk and his wife formed a provisional plan: to make all public social media accounts private, stop answering the phone, and, generally, hunker down until things blew over. (Biesk’s account is active at the time of writing.) Biesk declined to comment on whether the family made contact with law enforcement or what would happen to the funds, saying only that his son would “put the money away.”

A few hours later, an X account under the name of Biesk’s son posted on X, pleading for people to stop contacting his parents. “Im sorry about Quant, I didnt realize I get so much money. Please dont write to my parents, I wiill pay you back [sic],” read the post. Biesk claims the account is not operated by his son.

Though alarmed by the backlash, Biesk is impressed by the entrepreneurial spirit and technical capability his son displayed. “It’s actually sort of a sophisticated trading platform,” he says. “He obviously learned it on his own.”

That his teenager was capable of making $50,000 in an evening, Biesk theorizes, speaks to the fundamentally different relationship kids of that age have with money and investing, characterized by an urgency and hyperactivity that rubs up against traditional wisdom.

“To me, crypto can be hard to grasp, because there is nothing there behind it—it’s not anything tangible. But I think kids relate to this intangible digital world more than adults do,” says Biesk. “This has an immediacy to him. It’s almost like he understands this better.”

On December 1, after a two-week hiatus, Biesk’s son returned to Pump.Fun to launch five new memecoins, apparently undeterred by the abuse. Disregarding the warnings built into the very names of some of the new coins—one was named test and another dontbuy—people bought in. Biesk’s son made another $5,000.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Photo of WIRED

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

Teen creates memecoin, dumps it, earns $50,000 Read More »

tiktok’s-two-paths-to-avoid-us-ban:-beg-scotus-or-woo-trump

TikTok’s two paths to avoid US ban: Beg SCOTUS or woo Trump

“What the Act targets is the PRC’s ability to manipulate that content covertly,” the ruling said. “Understood in that way, the Government’s justification is wholly consonant with the First Amendment.”

TikTok likely to appeal to Supreme Court

TikTok is unsurprisingly frustrated by the ruling. In a statement provided to Ars, TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes confirmed that TikTok intended to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” Hughes said.

Throughout the litigation, ByteDance had emphasized that divesting TikTok in the time that the law required was not possible. But the court disagreed that ByteDance being unable to spin off TikTok by January turned the US law into a de facto TikTok ban. Instead, the court suggested that TikTok could temporarily become unavailable until it’s sold off, only facing a ban if ByteDance dragged its feet or resisted divestiture.

There’s no indication yet that ByteDance would ever be willing to part with its most popular product. And if there’s no sale and SCOTUS declines the case, that would likely mean that TikTok would not be available in the US, as providing access to TikTok would risk heavy fines. Hughes warned that millions of TikTokers will be silenced next year if the appeals court ruling stands.

“Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people,” Hughes said. “The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on January 19th, 2025.”

TikTok’s two paths to avoid US ban: Beg SCOTUS or woo Trump Read More »