Policy – Page 50

FCC chair rejects call to impose Universal Service fees on broadband

federal communications commission, Policy, Universal Service Fund / Kris Guyer / April 8, 2024

Ethernet cables connected to the ports in a wireless router — Getty Images | BernardaSv

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

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

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

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

Chair fears “major upheaval”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bell Canada, cable, Canada, Cloud, Policy, streaming, Tech / Kris Guyer / April 8, 2024

“Wish I knew this before” —

Customers originally had 365 days to enjoy the recordings.

Scharon Harding – Apr 8, 2024 5: 26 pm UTC

hand holding tv remote in front of TV with static

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Absolutely ridiculous”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims of TikTok whistleblower may not add up

censorship, Policy, syndication, tiktok / Rejus Almole / April 6, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claims of TikTok whistleblower may not add up Read More »

Meta relaxes “incoherent” policy requiring removal of AI videos

ai labels, ai watermarks, ai-generated content, facebook, Instagram, made with ai, Meta, Policy, threads / Rejus Almole / April 6, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publisher: OpenAI’s GPT Store bots are illegally scraping our textbooks

AI, copyright, GPT Store, openai, Policy, syndication / Rejus Almole / April 6, 2024

For the past few months, Morten Blichfeldt Andersen has spent many hours scouring OpenAI’s GPT Store. Since it launched in January, the marketplace for bespoke bots has filled up with a deep bench of useful and sometimes quirky AI tools. Cartoon generators spin up New Yorker–style illustrations and vivid anime stills. Programming and writing assistants offer shortcuts for crafting code and prose. There’s also a color analysis bot, a spider identifier, and a dating coach called RizzGPT. Yet Blichfeldt Andersen is hunting only for one very specific type of bot: Those built on his employer’s copyright-protected textbooks without permission.

Blichfeldt Andersen is publishing director at Praxis, a Danish textbook purveyor. The company has been embracing AI and created its own custom chatbots. But it is currently engaged in a game of whack-a-mole in the GPT Store, and Blichfeldt Andersen is the man holding the mallet.

“I’ve been personally searching for infringements and reporting them,” Blichfeldt Andersen says. “They just keep coming up.” He suspects the culprits are primarily young people uploading material from textbooks to create custom bots to share with classmates—and that he has uncovered only a tiny fraction of the infringing bots in the GPT Store. “Tip of the iceberg,” Blichfeldt Andersen says.

It is easy to find bots in the GPT Store whose descriptions suggest they might be tapping copyrighted content in some way, as Techcrunch noted in a recent article claiming OpenAI’s store was overrun with “spam.” Using copyrighted material without permission is permissible in some contexts but in others rightsholders can take legal action. WIRED found a GPT called Westeros Writer that claims to “write like George R.R. Martin,” the creator of Game of Thrones. Another, Voice of Atwood, claims to imitate the writer Margaret Atwood. Yet another, Write Like Stephen, is intended to emulate Stephen King.

When WIRED tried to trick the King bot into revealing the “system prompt” that tunes its responses, the output suggested it had access to King’s memoir On Writing. Write Like Stephen was able to reproduce passages from the book verbatim on demand, even noting which page the material came from. (WIRED could not make contact with the bot’s developer, because it did not provide an email address, phone number, or external social profile.)

OpenAI spokesperson Kayla Wood says it responds to takedown requests against GPTs made with copyrighted content but declined to answer WIRED’s questions about how frequently it fulfills such requests. She also says the company proactively looks for problem GPTs. “We use a combination of automated systems, human review, and user reports to find and assess GPTs that potentially violate our policies, including the use of content from third parties without necessary permission,” Wood says.

New disputes

The GPT store’s copyright problem could add to OpenAI’s existing legal headaches. The company is facing a number of high-profile lawsuits alleging copyright infringement, including one brought by The New York Times and several brought by different groups of fiction and nonfiction authors, including big names like George R.R. Martin.

Chatbots offered in OpenAI’s GPT Store are based on the same technology as its own ChatGPT but are created by outside developers for specific functions. To tailor their bot, a developer can upload extra information that it can tap to augment the knowledge baked into OpenAI’s technology. The process of consulting this additional information to respond to a person’s queries is called retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG. Blichfeldt Andersen is convinced that the RAG files behind the bots in the GPT Store are a hotbed of copyrighted materials uploaded without permission.

Publisher: OpenAI’s GPT Store bots are illegally scraping our textbooks Read More »

FCC won’t block California net neutrality law, says states can “experiment”

california net neutrality, fcc net neutrality, Policy, zero-rating / Paul Patrick / April 5, 2024

Illustration of ones and zeroes overlaid on a US map. — Getty Images | Matt Anderson Photography

California can keep enforcing its state net neutrality law after the Federal Communications Commission implements its own rules. The FCC could preempt future state laws if they go far beyond the national standard but said that states can “experiment” with different regulations for interconnection payments and zero-rating.

The FCC scheduled an April 25 vote on Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s proposal to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump. The FCC yesterday released the text of the pending order, which could still be changed but isn’t likely to get any major overhaul.

State-level enforcement of net neutrality rules can benefit consumers, the FCC said. The order said that “state enforcement generally supports our regulatory efforts by dedicating additional resources to monitoring and enforcement, especially at the local level, and thereby ensuring greater compliance with our requirements.”

California stepped in to regulate broadband providers after then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai led a vote to repeal the federal rules. California beat ISPs in court, ensuring that it could enforce the state law even though Pai’s FCC attempted to preempt all state net neutrality rules.

The California law mostly mirrored the FCC’s repealed rules by prohibiting paid prioritization and blocking or throttling of lawful traffic, on both fixed and mobile networks. California went further than the FCC in regulating zero-rating by imposing a ban on paid data cap exemptions.

That means ISPs operating in California can’t exempt Internet traffic from customers’ data usage allowances in exchange for payment from a third party. In response to the state law, AT&T stopped exempting HBO Max from its mobile data caps and stopped its “sponsored data” program in which it charged other companies for similar exemptions from AT&T’s data caps.

FCC: No reason to preempt California

In the order scheduled for an April 25 vote, the FCC said the California law “appears largely to mirror or parallel our federal rules. Thus we see no reason at this time to preempt it.”

That doesn’t mean the rules are exactly the same. Instead of banning certain types of zero-rating entirely, the FCC will judge on a case-by-case basis whether any specific zero-rating program harms consumers and conflicts with the goal of preserving an open Internet. The FCC said it will evaluate sponsored-data “programs based on a totality of the circumstances, including potential benefits.”

The FCC order cautions that the agency will take a dimmer view of zero-rating in exchange for payment from a third party or zero-rating that favors an affiliated entity. But those categories will still be judged by the FCC on a case-by-case basis, whereas California bans paid data cap exemptions entirely.

Despite that difference, the FCC said it is “not persuaded on the record currently before us that the California law is incompatible with the federal rules.” The FCC also found that California’s approach to interconnection payments is compatible with the pending federal rule. Interconnection was the subject of a major controversy involving Netflix and big ISPs a decade ago.

Interconnection and zero-rating

The FCC’s new order addressed interconnection and zero-rating as follows:

As to the former, California prohibits BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] providers from requiring interconnection agreements “that have the purpose or effect of evading the other prohibitions” by blocking, throttling, or charging for traffic at the interconnection point. We have likewise stated in this Order that BIAS providers may not engage in interconnection practices that circumvent the prohibitions contained in the open Internet rules.

As to the latter, California restricts zero-rating when applied discriminatorily to only a subset of “Internet content, applications, services, or devices in a category” or when performed “in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party.” We have likewise explained in this Order that sponsored-data programs—where a BIAS provider zero rates an edge product in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party or where a BIAS provider favors an affiliate’s edge products—raise concerns under the general conduct standard.

The FCC said it found no evidence that the California law has “unduly burdened or interfered with interstate communications service.” When it comes to zero-rating and interconnection, the FCC said there is “room for states to experiment and explore their own approaches within the bounds of our overarching federal framework.”

The FCC said it will reconsider preemption of California rules if “California state enforcement authorities or state courts seek to interpret or enforce these requirements in a manner inconsistent with how we intend our rules to apply.”

FCC won’t block California net neutrality law, says states can “experiment” Read More »

Elon Musk shares “extremely false” allegation of voting fraud by “illegals”

elon musk, Policy, texas, voter fraud, woke / Kris Guyer / April 4, 2024

Getty Images | Nathan Stirk

Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson yesterday issued a statement debunking claims of widespread voter fraud that were amplified by X owner Elon Musk on the social network formerly named Twitter. Election officials in two other states also disputed the “extremely false” information shared by Musk.

Musk is generally a big fan of Texas, but on Tuesday he shared a post by the account “End Wokeness” that claimed, “The number of voters registering without a photo ID is SKYROCKETING in 3 key swing states: Arizona, Texas, and Pennsylvania.” The account claimed there were 1.25 million such registrations in Texas since the beginning of 2024, over 580,000 in Pennsylvania, and over 220,000 in Arizona.

“Extremely concerning,” Musk wrote in a ~~retweet~~ re-X. The End Wokeness post shared by Musk suggested that “illegals” are registering to vote in large numbers by using Social Security numbers that can be obtained for work authorizations. The End Wokeness post has been viewed 63 million times so far, and Musk’s re-post has been viewed 58.2 million times.

Nelson’s statement on the Texas government’s website called the claim “totally inaccurate.” For one thing, the real number of voter registrations is a small fraction of the number claimed in the post shared by Musk, the secretary of state wrote:

It is totally inaccurate that 1.2 million voters have registered to vote in Texas without a photo ID this year. The truth is our voter rolls have increased by 57,711 voters since the beginning of 2024. This is less than the number of people registered in the same timeframe in 2022 (about 65,000) and in 2020 (about 104,000).

“Extremely false”

The Texas Secretary of State office reports having 17,948,242 registered voters for the March 2024 elections, a gain of just under 189,000 voters since November 2023. The total gain over the past 24 months is a little over 764,000.

Pennsylvania’s data shows the state has 8.7 million registered voters and 87,440 voter registrations so far in 2024. Most of those were applications for party changes, while the other 39,877 were new-voter registrations.

Arizona’s total number of registered voters has been declining. While Arizona had 4.28 million registered voters in 2020 and 4.14 million in 2022, the state’s tally in March 2024 was 4,096,260.

Musk’s “Extremely concerning” post got a reply from Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who called it “extremely false.”

“We haven’t even had that many new registrants TOTAL in 2024 in Arizona,” stated Richer, an elected official and Republican who has been active in calling out election misinformation on X. “And we have fewer than 35,000 registrants (out of 4.1 million registered voters in Arizona) who haven’t provided documented proof of citizenship.”

Musk’s platform has faced plenty of criticism over its moderation of misinformation on elections and other topics. After reports of deep cuts to X’s election integrity team in September 2023, Musk claimed the ex-X employees were “undermining election integrity.”

Elon Musk shares “extremely false” allegation of voting fraud by “illegals” Read More »

Google sues two crypto app makers over allegedly vast “pig butchering” scheme

crypto scams, Cryptocurrency, Google, google play, Google Play Store, Google Voice, Google Workspace, play store, Policy, racketeering, youtube / Kris Guyer / April 4, 2024

Foul Play —

Crypto and other investment app scams promoted on YouTube targeted 100K users.

Ashley Belanger – Apr 4, 2024 5: 48 pm UTC

Google has sued two app developers based in China over an alleged scheme targeting 100,000 users globally over four years with at least 87 fraudulent cryptocurrency and other investor apps distributed through the Play Store.

The tech giant alleged that scammers lured victims with “promises of high returns” from “seemingly legitimate” apps offering investment opportunities in cryptocurrencies and other products. Commonly known as “pig-butchering schemes,” these scams displayed fake returns on investments, but when users went to withdraw the funds, they discovered they could not.

In some cases, Google alleged, developers would “double down on the scheme by requesting various fees and other payments from victims that were supposedly necessary for the victims to recover their principal investments and purported gains.”

Google accused the app developers—Yunfeng Sun (also known as “Alphonse Sun”) and Hongnam Cheung (also known as “Zhang Hongnim” and “Stanford Fischer”)—of conspiring to commit “hundreds of acts of wire fraud” to further “an unlawful pattern of racketeering activity” that siphoned up to $75,000 from each user successfully scammed.

Google was able to piece together the elaborate alleged scheme because the developers used a wide array of Google products and services to target victims, Google said, including Google Play, Voice, Workspace, and YouTube, breaching each one’s terms of service. Perhaps most notably, the Google Play Store’s developer program policies “forbid developers to upload to Google Play ‘apps that expose users to deceptive or harmful financial products and services,’ including harmful products and services ‘related to the management or investment of money and cryptocurrencies.'”

In addition to harming Google consumers, Google claimed that each product and service’s reputation would continue to be harmed unless the US district court in New York ordered a permanent injunction stopping developers from using any Google products or services.

“By using Google Play to conduct their fraud scheme,” scammers “have threatened the integrity of Google Play and the user experience,” Google alleged. “By using other Google products to support their scheme,” the scammers “also threaten the safety and integrity of those other products, including YouTube, Workspace, and Google Voice.”

Google’s lawsuit is the company’s most recent attempt to block fraudsters from targeting Google products by suing individuals directly, Bloomberg noted. Last year, Google sued five people accused of distributing a fake Bard AI chatbot that instead downloaded malware to Google users’ devices, Bloomberg reported.

How did the alleged Google Play scams work?

Google said that the accused developers “varied their approach from app to app” when allegedly trying to scam users out of thousands of dollars but primarily relied on three methods to lure victims.

The first method relied on sending text messages using Google Voice—such as “I am Sophia, do you remember me?” or “I miss you all the time, how are your parents Mike?”—”to convince the targeted victims that they were sent to the wrong number.” From there, the scammers would apparently establish “friendships” or “romantic relationships” with victims before moving the conversation to apps like WhatsApp, where they would “offer to guide the victim through the investment process, often reassuring the victim of any doubts they had about the apps.” These supposed friends, Google claimed, would “then disappear once the victim tried to withdraw funds.”

Another strategy allegedly employed by scammers relied on videos posted to platforms like YouTube, where fake investment opportunities would be promoted, promising “rates of return” as high as “two percent daily.”

The third tactic, Google said, pushed bogus affiliate marketing campaigns, promising users commissions for “signing up additional users.” These apps, Google claimed, were advertised on social media as “a guaranteed and easy way to earn money.”

Once a victim was drawn into using one of the fraudulent apps, “user interfaces sought to convince victims that they were maintaining balances on the app and that they were earning ‘returns’ on their investments,” Google said.

Occasionally, users would be allowed to withdraw small amounts, convincing them that it was safe to invest more money, but “later attempts to withdraw purported returns simply did not work.” And sometimes the scammers would “bilk” victims out of “even more money,” Google said, by requesting additional funds be submitted to make a withdrawal.

“Some demands” for additional funds, Google found, asked for anywhere “from 10 to 30 percent to cover purported commissions and/or taxes.” Victims, of course, “still did not receive their withdrawal requests even after these additional fees were paid,” Google said.

Which apps were removed from the Play Store?

Google tried to remove apps as soon as they were discovered to be fraudulent, but Google claimed that scammers concocted new aliases and infrastructure to “obfuscate their connection to suspended fraudulent apps.” Because scammers relied on so many different Google services, Google was able to connect the scheme to the accused developers through various business records.

Fraudulent apps named in the complaint include fake cryptocurrency exchanges called TionRT and SkypeWallet. To make the exchanges appear legitimate, scammers put out press releases on newswire services and created YouTube videos likely relying on actors to portray company leadership.

In one YouTube video promoting SkypeWallet, the supposed co-founder of Skype Coin uses the name “Romser Bennett,” which is the same name used for the supposed founder of another fraudulent app called OTCAI2.0, Google said. In each video, a completely different presumed hired actor plays the part of “Romser Bennett.” In other videos, Google found the exact same actor plays an engineer named “Rodriguez” for one app and a technical leader named “William Bryant” for another app.

Another fraudulent app that was flagged by Google was called the Starlight app. Promoted on TikTok and Instagram, Google said, that app promised “that users could earn commissions by simply watching videos.”

The Starlight app was downloaded approximately 23,000 times and seemingly primarily targeted users in Ghana, allegedly scamming at least 6,000 Ghanian users out of initial investment capital that they were told was required before they could start earning money on the app.

Across all 87 fraudulent apps that Google has removed, Google estimated that approximately 100,000 users were victimized, including approximately 8,700 in the United States.

Currently, Google is not aware of any live apps in the Play Store connected to the alleged scheme, the complaint said, but scammers intent on furthering the scheme “will continue to harm Google and Google Play users” without a permanent injunction, Google warned.

Google sues two crypto app makers over allegedly vast “pig butchering” scheme Read More »

Man pleads guilty to stealing former coworker’s identity for 30 years

ancestry.com, Identity theft, Policy / Kris Guyer / April 3, 2024

“My life is over” —

Victim was jailed for 428 days after LA cops failed to detect true identity.

Ashley Belanger – Apr 3, 2024 8: 08 pm UTC

A high-level Iowa hospital systems administrator, Matthew Kierans, has admitted to stealing a coworker’s identity and posing as William Donald Woods for more than 30 years, The Register reported.

On top of using Woods’ identity to commit crimes and rack up debt, Kierans’ elaborate identity theft scheme led to Woods’ incarceration after Kierans’ accused his victim of identity theft and Los Angeles authorities failed to detect which man was the true William Donald Woods. Kierans could face up to 32 years in prison, The Register reported, and must pay a $1.25 million fine.

According to a proposed plea agreement with the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Iowa, Kierans met Woods “in about 1988” when they worked together at a hot dog stand in New Mexico. “For the next three decades,” Kierans used Woods’ “identity in every aspect of his life,” including when obtaining “employment, insurance, a social security number, driver’s licenses, titles, loans, and credit,” as well as when paying taxes. Kierans even got married and had a child using Woods’ name.

Kierans apparently hatched the scheme in 1990 when he was working as a newspaper carrier for the Denver Post. That’s when he first obtained an identification document in Woods’ name. The next year, Kierans bought a vehicle for $600 using two checks in Woods’ name, the plea agreement said. After both checks bounced, Kierans “absconded with the stolen vehicle to Idaho, where the car broke down and he abandoned it.” As a result, an arrest warrant was issued in Woods’ name, while Kierans moved to Oregon and the whereabouts of the real Woods was seemingly unknown.

Eventually in summer 2012, Kierans relocated to Wisconsin, researching Woods’ family history on Ancestry.com and then fraudulently obtaining Woods’ certified birth certificate from the State of Kentucky, seemingly to aid his job hunt. Sometime in 2013, Kierans was hired by a hospital in Iowa City to work remotely from Wisconsin as a “high level administrator in the hospital’s information technology department,” using Woods’ birth certificate and a fictitious I-9 form to pass the hospital background check.

Over the next decade, Kierans earned about $700,000 in that role, while furthering his identity theft scheme. Between 2016 and 2022, Kierans used Woods’ name, Social Security number, and date of birth and “repeatedly obtained” eight “vehicle and personal loans” from two credit unions, each one totaling between $15,000 and $44,000.

Woods only discovered the identity theft in 2019, when he was homeless and discovered that he inexplicably had $130,000 in debt to his name. Woods attempted to close bank accounts that Kierans had opened in Woods’ name, and that’s when Kierans went on the defense, successfully pushing to get Woods arrested to conceal Kierans’ decades of identity theft.

LAPD fails to detect true identity

In 2019, Woods walked into the branch of a national bank in Los Angeles, telling an assistant branch manager that “he had recently discovered that someone was using his credit and had accumulated large amounts of debt,” the plea agreement said.

Woods presented his real Social Security card and an authentic state of California ID card, but the assistant branch manager became suspicious when Woods could not answer security questions that Kierans had set for the bank accounts.

The bank employee called the phone number listed on the accounts, which was Kierans’ number. At that point, Kierans correctly answered the security questions, and the assistant branch manager contacted the Los Angeles Police Department to investigate Woods.

As a result of LAPD’s investigation—which included contacting Kierans and reviewing Kierans’ fraudulent documents, which at times used a different middle name—Woods was arrested for unauthorized use of personal information. Subsequently, Woods was charged with committing felony crimes of identity theft and false impersonation, facing as much as three years’ incarceration for each count.

Woods continued insisting that he was the real victim of identity theft, while the California court system insisted he was actually Kierans. This continued until December 2019 when a state public defender told a court that Woods did not have the mental competency to stand trial. The court ordered Woods to be detained in a publicly funded California mental hospital until his mental competency improved, where he was given psychotropic medication in 2020.

Ultimately, in March 2021, Woods was convicted of the felony charges and after his release, he was ordered to “use only” what California decided was his “true name, Matthew Kierans.” In total, Woods spent 428 days in jail and 147 days in a mental hospital because California officials failed to detect his true identity.

Man pleads guilty to stealing former coworker’s identity for 30 years Read More »

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says

elon musk, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, media matters for America, online hate speech, Policy, texas, Twitter, X / Paul Patrick / April 2, 2024

Ever since Elon Musk’s X Corp sued Media Matters for America (MMFA) over a pair of reports that X (formerly Twitter) claims caused an advertiser exodus in 2023, one big question has remained for onlookers: Why is this fight happening in Texas?

In a motion to dismiss filed in Texas’ northern district last month, MMFA argued that X’s lawsuit should be dismissed not just because of a “fatal jurisdictional defect,” but “dismissal is also required for lack of venue.”

Notably, MMFA is based in Washington, DC, while “X is organized under Nevada law and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, where its own terms of service require users of its platform to litigate any disputes.”

“Texas is not a fair or reasonable forum for this lawsuit,” MMFA argued, suggesting that “the case must be dismissed or transferred” because “neither the parties nor the cause of action has any connection to Texas.”

Last Friday, X responded to the motion to dismiss, claiming that the lawsuit—which Musk has described as “thermonuclear”—was appropriately filed in Texas because MMFA “intentionally” targeted readers and at least two X advertisers located in Texas, Oracle and AT&T. According to X, because MMFA “identified Oracle, a Texas-based corporation, by name in its coverage,” MMFA “cannot claim surprise at being held to answer for its conduct in Texas.” X also claimed that Texas has jurisdiction because Musk resides in Texas and “makes numerous critical business decisions about X while in Texas.”

This so-called targeting of Texans caused a “substantial part” of alleged financial harms that X attributes to MMFA’s reporting, X alleged.

According to X, MMFA specifically targeted X in Texas by sending newsletters sharing its reports with “hundreds or thousands” of Texas readers and by allegedly soliciting donations from Texans to support MMFA’s reporting.

But MMFA pushed back, saying that “Texas subscribers comprise a disproportionately small percentage of Media Matters’ newsletter recipients” and that MMFA did “not solicit Texas donors to fund Media Matters’s journalism concerning X.” Because of this, X’s “efforts to concoct claim-related Texas contacts amount to a series of shots in the dark, uninformed guesses, and irrelevant tangents,” MMFA argued.

On top of that, MMFA argued that X could not attribute any financial harms allegedly caused by MMFA’s reports to either of the two Texas-based advertisers that X named in its court filings. Oracle, MMFA said, “by X’s own admission,… did not withdraw its ads” from X, and AT&T was not named in MMFA’s reporting, and thus, “any investigation AT&T did into its ad placement on X was of its own volition and is not plausibly connected to Media Matters.” MMFA has argued that advertisers, particularly sophisticated Fortune 500 companies, made their own decisions to stop advertising on X, perhaps due to widely reported increases in hate speech on X or even Musk’s own seemingly antisemitic posting.

Ars could not immediately reach X, Oracle, or AT&T for comment.

X’s suit allegedly designed to break MMFA

MMFA President Angelo Carusone, who is a defendant in X’s lawsuit, told Ars that X’s recent filing has continued to “expose” the lawsuit as a “meritless and vexatious effort to inflict maximum damage on critical research and reporting about the platform.”

“It’s solely designed to basically break us or stop us from doing the work that we were doing originally,” Carusone said, confirming that the lawsuit has negatively impacted MMFA’s hate speech research on X.

MMFA argued that Musk could have sued in other jurisdictions, such as Maryland, DC, or California, and MMFA would not have disputed the venue, but Carusone suggested that Musk sued in Texas in hopes that it would be “a more friendly jurisdiction.”

X filing “thermonuclear lawsuit” in Texas should be “fatal,” Media Matters says Read More »

Apple wouldn’t let Jon Stewart interview FTC Chair Lina Khan, TV host claims

AI, Apple, Apple TV, culture, ftc, jon stewart, lina khan, paramount, Policy, Tech, The Daily Show / Paul Patrick / April 2, 2024

The Problem with Jon Stewart —

Tech company also didn’t want a segment on Stewart’s show criticizing AI.

Samuel Axon – Apr 2, 2024 6: 28 pm UTC

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with FTC Chair Lina Khan. The conversation about Apple begins around 16: 30 in the video.

Before the cancellation of The Problem with Jon Stewart on Apple TV+, Apple forbade the inclusion of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan as a guest and steered the show away from confronting issues related to artificial intelligence, according to Jon Stewart.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of this rift between Apple and Stewart. When the Apple TV+ show was canceled last October, reports circulated that he told his staff that creative differences over guests and topics were a factor in the decision.

The New York Times reported that both China and AI were sticking points between Apple and Stewart. Stewart confirmed the broad strokes of that narrative in a CBS Morning Show interview after it was announced that he would return to The Daily Show.

“They decided that they felt that they didn’t want me to say things that might get me into trouble,” he explained.

Stewart’s comments during his interview with Khan yesterday were the first time he’s gotten more specific publicly.

“I’ve got to tell you, I wanted to have you on a podcast, and Apple asked us not to do it—to have you. They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her,'” Stewart said while interviewing Khan on the April 1, 2024, episode of The Daily Show.

Khan appeared on the show to explain and evangelize the FTC’s efforts to battle corporate monopolies both in and outside the tech industry in the US and to explain the challenges the organization faces.

She became the FTC chair in 2021 and has since garnered a reputation for an aggressive and critical stance against monopolistic tendencies or practices among Big Tech companies like Amazon and Meta.

Stewart also confirmed previous reports that AI was a sensitive topic for Apple. “They wouldn’t let us do that dumb thing we did in the first act on AI,” he said, referring to the desk monologue segment that preceded the Khan interview in the episode.

The segment on AI in the first act of the episode mocked various tech executives for their utopian framing of AI and interspersed those claims with acknowledgments from many of the same leaders that AI would replace many people’s jobs. (It did not mention Apple or its leadership, though.)

Stewart and The Daily Show‘s staff also included clips of current tech leaders suggesting that workers be retrained to work with or on AI when their current roles are disrupted by it. That was followed by a montage of US political leaders promising to retrain workers after various technological and economic disruptions over the years, with the implication that those retraining efforts were rarely as successful as promised.

The segment effectively lampooned some of the doublespeak about AI, though Stewart stopped short of venturing any solutions or alternatives to the current path, so it mostly just prompted outrage and laughs.

The Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s segment criticizing tech and political leaders on the topic of AI.

Apple currently uses AI-related technologies in its software, services, and devices, but so far it has not launched anything tapping into generative AI, which is the new frontier in AI that has attracted worry, optimism, and criticism from various parties.

However, the company is expected to roll out its first generative AI features as part of iOS 18, a new operating system update for iPhones. iOS 18 will likely be detailed during Apple’s annual developer conference in June and will reach users’ devices sometime in the fall.

Listing image by Paramount

Apple wouldn’t let Jon Stewart interview FTC Chair Lina Khan, TV host claims Read More »

Google agrees to delete Incognito data despite prior claim that’s “impossible”

chrome incognito, data privacy, Google, google incognito, Policy / Paul Patrick / April 1, 2024

Deleting files —

What a lawyer calls “a historic step,” Google considers not that “significant.”

Ashley Belanger – Apr 1, 2024 7: 11 pm UTC

To settle a class-action dispute over Chrome’s “Incognito” mode, Google has agreed to delete billions of data records reflecting users’ private browsing activities.

In a statement provided to Ars, users’ lawyer, David Boies, described the settlement as “a historic step in requiring honesty and accountability from dominant technology companies.” Based on Google’s insights, users’ lawyers valued the settlement between $4.75 billion and $7.8 billion, the Monday court filing said.

Under the settlement, Google agreed to delete class-action members’ private browsing data collected in the past, as well as to “maintain a change to Incognito mode that enables Incognito users to block third-party cookies by default.” This, plaintiffs’ lawyers noted, “ensures additional privacy for Incognito users going forward, while limiting the amount of data Google collects from them” over the next five years. Plaintiffs’ lawyers said that this means that “Google will collect less data from users’ private browsing sessions” and “Google will make less money from the data.”

“The settlement stops Google from surreptitiously collecting user data worth, by Google’s own estimates, billions of dollars,” Boies said. “Moreover, the settlement requires Google to delete and remediate, in unprecedented scope and scale, the data it improperly collected in the past.”

Google had already updated disclosures to users, changing the splash screen displayed “at the beginning of every Incognito session” to inform users that Google was still collecting private browsing data. Under the settlement, those disclosures to all users must be completed by March 31, after which the disclosures must remain. Google also agreed to “no longer track people’s choice to browse privately,” and the court filing said that “Google cannot roll back any of these important changes.”

Notably, the settlement does not award monetary damages to class members. Instead, Google agreed that class members retain “rights to sue Google individually for damages” through arbitration, which, users’ lawyers wrote, “is important given the significant statutory damages available under the federal and state wiretap statutes.”

“These claims remain available for every single class member, and a very large number of class members recently filed and are continuing to file complaints in California state court individually asserting those damages claims in their individual capacities,” the court filing said.

While “Google supports final approval of the settlement,” the company “disagrees with the legal and factual characterizations contained in the motion,” the court filing said. Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Ars that the tech giant thinks that the “data being deleted isn’t as significant” as Boies represents, confirming that Google was “pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed was meritless.”

“The plaintiffs originally wanted $5 billion and are receiving zero,” Castañeda said. “We never associate data with users when they use Incognito mode. We are happy to delete old technical data that was never associated with an individual and was never used for any form of personalization.”

While Castañeda said that Google was happy to delete the data, a footnote in the court filing noted that initially, “Google claimed in the litigation that it was impossible to identify (and therefore delete) private browsing data because of how it stored data.” Now, under the settlement, however, Google has agreed “to remediate 100 percent of the data set at issue.”

Mitigation efforts include deleting fields Google used to detect users in Incognito mode, “partially redacting IP addresses,” and deleting “detailed URLs, which will prevent Google from knowing the specific pages on a website a user visited when in private browsing mode.” Keeping “only the domain-level portion of the URL (i.e., only the name of the website) will vastly improve user privacy by preventing Google (or anyone who gets their hands on the data) from knowing precisely what users were browsing,” the court filing said.

Because Google did not oppose the motion for final approval, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is expected to issue an order approving the settlement on July 30.

Google agrees to delete Incognito data despite prior claim that’s “impossible” Read More »