Policy

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

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

Biz & IT, dell, Policy, remote work, return-to-office, work from home / /

Decisions, decisions —

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dell used to be pro-WFH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy, tesla owen diaz, tesla racism / /

Owen Diaz v. Tesla —

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

–

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

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

Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Tesla factory was saturated with racism”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boeing 737 max 9, boeing door plug, boeing ntsb, Policy / /

737 Max door-plug blowout —

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

–

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

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

Getty Images | Kevin Dietsch

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

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

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

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

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

Chair called Boeing CEO to seek employee names

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

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

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

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

NTSB seeks info on Boeing quality-assurance and safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

facebook, Policy, SCOTUS, Social Media, Twitter, X / /
Public officials can block haters—but only sometimes, SCOTUS rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS test for when blocking is OK

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

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

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

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

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

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

pornhub-blocks-all-of-texas-to-protest-state-law—paxton-says-“good-riddance”

Pornhub blocks all of Texas to protest state law—Paxton says “good riddance”

Policy, pornhub texas, texas porn law / /

Pornhub protest —

Pornhub went dark in Texas and other states requiring age verification for porn.

–

Large signs that say

Enlarge / Signs displayed at the Pornhub booth at the 2024 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo at Resorts World Las Vegas on January 25, 2024 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Getty Images | Ethan Miller /

Pornhub has disabled its website in Texas following a court ruling that upheld a state law requiring age-verification systems on porn websites. Visitors to pornhub.com in Texas are now greeted with a message calling the Texas law “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous.”

“As you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website. Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas’s stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors,” Pornhub’s message said.

Pornhub said it has “made the difficult decision to completely disable access to our website in Texas. In doing so, we are complying with the law, as we always do, but hope that governments around the world will implement laws that actually protect the safety and security of users.”

The same message was posted on other sites owned by the same company, including RedTube, YouPorn, and Brazzers. Pornhub has also blocked its website in Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia in protest of similar laws. VPN services can be used to evade the blocks and to test out which states have been blocked by Pornhub.

Texas AG sued Pornhub, says “good riddance”

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the Texas law in a 2–1 decision last week. The 5th Circuit appeals court had previously issued a temporary stay that allowed the law to take effect in September 2023.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last month sued Pornhub owner Aylo (formerly MindGeek) for violating the law. Paxton’s complaint in Travis County District Court sought civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each day since the law took effect on September 19, 2023.

“Sites like Pornhub are on the run because Texas has a law that aims to prevent them from showing harmful, obscene material to children,” Paxton wrote yesterday. “We recently secured a major victory against PornHub and other sites that sought to block this law from taking effect. In Texas, companies cannot get away with showing porn to children. If they don’t want to comply, good riddance.”

The 5th Circuit panel majority held that the Texas porn-site law should be reviewed on the “rational-basis” standard and not under strict scrutiny. In a dissent, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote that the law should face strict scrutiny because it “limits access to materials that may be denied to minors but remain constitutionally protected speech for adults.”

“[T]he Supreme Court has unswervingly applied strict scrutiny to content-based regulations that limit adults’ access to protected speech,” Higginbotham wrote.

Pornhub wants device-based age verification instead

Pornhub’s message to Texas users argued that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.” Pornhub said that in other states with age-verification laws, “such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the thousands of websites, with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply.”

Pornhub’s message advocated for a device-based approach to age verification in which “personal information that is used to verify the user’s age is either shared in-person at an authorized retailer, inputted locally into the user’s device, or stored on a network controlled by the device manufacturer or the supplier of the device’s operating system.”

Pornhub says this could be used to prevent underage users from accessing age-restricted content without requiring websites to verify ages themselves. “To come to fruition, such an approach requires the cooperation of manufacturers and operating-system providers,” Pornhub wrote.

The age-verification question could eventually go to the Supreme Court. “This opinion will be appealed to the Supreme Court, alongside other cases over statutes imposing mandatory age authentication,” Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman wrote.

The 5th Circuit panel majority’s analysis relied on Ginsberg v. New York, a 1968 Supreme Court ruling about the sale of “girlie” magazines to a 16-year-old at a lunch counter. Goldman criticized the 5th Circuit for relying on Ginsburg “instead of the squarely on-point 1997 Reno v. ACLU and 2004 Ashcroft v. ACLU opinions, both of which dealt with the Internet.” Goldman argued that decisions upholding laws like the Texas one could open the door to “rampant government censorship.”

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-industry lobby group that sued Texas over its law, said it “disagree[s] strenuously with the analysis of the Court majority. As the dissenting opinion by Judge Higginbotham makes clear, this ruling violates decades of precedent from the Supreme Court.” The group is considering its “next steps in regard to both this lawsuit and others.”

Pornhub blocks all of Texas to protest state law—Paxton says “good riddance” Read More »

us-government-agencies-demand-fixable-ice-cream-machines

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines

copyright, department of justice, DMCA, DoJ, federal trade commission, ftc, ice cream, kytch, Policy, repair, right to repair, Section 1201, taylor / /

I scream, you scream, we all scream for 1201(c)3 exemptions —

McFlurries are a notable part of petition for commercial and industrial repairs.

–

Taylor ice cream machine, with churning spindle removed by hand.

Enlarge / Taylor’s C709 Soft Serve Freezer isn’t so much mechanically complicated as it is a software and diagnostic trap for anyone without authorized access.

Many devices have been made difficult or financially nonviable to repair, whether by design or because of a lack of parts, manuals, or specialty tools. Machines that make ice cream, however, seem to have a special place in the hearts of lawmakers. Those machines are often broken and locked down for only the most profitable repairs.

The Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice have asked the US Copyright Office (PDF) to exempt “commercial soft serve machines” from the anti-circumvention rules of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The governing bodies also submitted proprietary diagnostic kits, programmable logic controllers, and enterprise IT devices for DMCA exemptions.

“In each case, an exemption would give users more choices for third-party and self-repair and would likely lead to cost savings and a better return on investment in commercial and industrial equipment,” the joint comment states. Those markets would also see greater competition in the repair market, and companies would be prevented from using DMCA laws to enforce monopolies on repair, according to the comment.

The joint comment builds upon a petition filed by repair vendor and advocate iFixit and interest group Public Knowledge, which advocated for broad reforms while keeping a relatable, ingestible example at its center. McDonald’s soft serve ice cream machines, which are famously frequently broken, are supplied by industrial vendor Taylor. Taylor’s C709 Soft Serve Freezer requires lengthy, finicky warm-up and cleaning cycles, produces obtuse error codes, and, perhaps not coincidentally, costs $350 per 15 minutes of service for a Taylor technician to fix. iFixit tore down such a machine, confirming the lengthy process between plugging in and soft serving.

After one company built a Raspberry Pi-powered device, the Kytch, that could provide better diagnostics and insights, Taylor moved to ban franchisees from installing the device, then offered up its own competing product. Kytch has sued Taylor for $900 million in a case that is still pending.

Beyond ice cream, the petitions to the Copyright Office would provide more broad exemptions for industrial and commercial repairs that require some kind of workaround, decryption, or other software tinkering. Going past technological protection measures (TPMs) was made illegal by the 1998 DMCA, which was put in place largely because of the concerns of media firms facing what they considered rampant piracy.

Every three years, the Copyright Office allows for petitions to exempt certain exceptions to DMCA violations (and renew prior exemptions). Repair advocates have won exemptions for farm equipment repair, video game consoles, cars, and certain medical gear. The exemption is often granted for device fixing if a repair person can work past its locks, but not for the distribution of tools that would make such a repair far easier. The esoteric nature of such “release valve” offerings has led groups like the EFF to push for the DMCA’s abolishment.

DMCA exemptions occur on a parallel track to state right-to-repair bills and broader federal action. President Biden issued an executive order that included a push for repair reforms. The FTC has issued studies that call out unnecessary repair restrictions and has taken action against firms like Harley-Davidson, Westinghouse, and grill maker Weber for tying warranties to an authorized repair service.

Disclosure: Kevin Purdy previously worked for iFixit. He has no financial ties to the company.

US government agencies demand fixable ice cream machines Read More »

“overwhelming-evidence”-shows-craig-wright-did-not-create-bitcoin,-judge-says

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says

Bitcoin, bitcoin creator, chatgpt, Craig Wright, Cryptocurrency, fraud, perjury, Policy, satoshi nakamoto, UK high court / /

Debate closed —

Jack Dorsey posted a “W,” as judge halts Wright’s suits against developers.

–

Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

Enlarge / Dr. Craig Wright arrives at the Rolls Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice, on February 06, 2024, in London, England.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows that Australian computer scientist Craig Wright is not bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, a UK judge declared Thursday.

In what Wired described as a “surprise ruling” at the closing of Wright’s six-week trial, Justice James Mellor abruptly ended years of speculation by saying:

“Dr. Wright is not the author of the Bitcoin white paper. Dr. Wright is not the person that operated under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. Dr. Wright is not the person that created the Bitcoin system. Nor is Dr. Wright the author of the Bitcoin software.”

Wright was not in the courtroom for this explosive moment, Wired reported.

In 2016, Wright had claimed that he did not have the “courage” to prove that he was the creator of bitcoin, shortly after claiming that he had “extraordinary proof.” As debate swirled around his claims, Wright began filing lawsuits, alleging that many had violated his intellectual property rights.

A nonprofit called the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) sued to stop Wright from filing any more lawsuits that it alleged were based on fabricated evidence, Wired reported. They submitted hundreds of alleged instances of forgery or tampering, Wired reported, asking the UK High Court for a permanent injunction to block Wright from ever making the claim again.

As a result of Mellor’s ruling, CoinDesk reported that Wright’s lawsuits against Coinbase and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s Block would be halted. COPA’s lawyer, Jonathan Hough, told CoinDesk that Wright’s conduct should be considered “deadly serious.”

“On the basis of his dishonest claim to be Satoshi, he has pursued claims he puts at hundreds of billions of dollars, including against numerous private individuals,” Hough said.

On Thursday, Dorsey posted a “W” on X (formerly Twitter), marking the win and quoting Mellor’s statements clearly rejecting Wright’s claims as false. COPA similarly celebrated the victory.

“This decision is a win for developers, for the entire open source community, and for the truth,” a COPA spokesperson told CoinDesk. “For over eight years, Dr. Wright and his financial backers have lied about his identity as Satoshi Nakamoto and used that lie to bully and intimidate developers in the bitcoin community. That ends today with the court’s ruling that Craig Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.”

Wright’s counsel, Lord Anthony Grabiner, had argued that Mellor granting an injunction would infringe Wright’s freedom of speech. Grabiner noted that “such a prohibition is unprecedented in the UK and would prevent Wright from even casually going to the park and declaring he’s Satoshi without incurring fines or going to prison,” CoinDesk reported.

COPA thinks the injunction is necessary, though.

“We are seeking to enjoin Dr. Wright from ever claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto again and in doing so avoid further litigation terror campaigns,” COPA’s spokesperson told Wired.

And that’s not all that COPA wants. COPA has also petitioned for Wright’s alleged forgeries—some of which Reuters reported were allegedly produced using ChatGPT—to be review by UK criminal courts, where he could face fines and/or prison time. Hough alleged at trial that Wright “has committed fraud upon the court,” Wired reported, asking Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service to consider prosecuting Wright for “perjury and perverting the course of justice,” CoinDesk reported.

Wright’s counsel argued that COPA would need more evidence to back such a claim, CoinDesk reported.

Mellor won’t issue his final judgment for a month or more, Wired reported, so it’s not clear yet if Wright will be enjoined from claiming he is bitcoin’s creator. The judgement will “be ready when it’s ready and not before,” Mellor said.

“Overwhelming evidence” shows Craig Wright did not create bitcoin, judge says Read More »

epic-asks-court-to-block-apple’s-27%-commission-on-website-purchases

Epic asks court to block Apple’s 27% commission on website purchases

Apple, Apple App Store, epic games apple, Policy / /
iPhones on display at an Apple Store

Getty Images | Justin Sullivan

Epic Games yesterday urged a federal court to sanction Apple for alleged violations of an injunction that imposed restrictions on the iOS App Store. Epic cited a 27 percent commission charged by Apple on purchases completed outside the usual in-app payment system and other limits imposed on developers.

“Apple is in blatant violation of this Court’s injunction,” Epic wrote in a filing in US District Court for the Northern District of California. “Its new App Store policies continue to impose prohibitions on developers that this Court found unlawful and enjoined. Moreover, Apple’s new policies introduce new restrictions and burdens that frustrate and effectively nullify the relief the Court ordered.”

The permanent injunction issued by the court in September 2021 said that Apple may not prohibit app developers from including external links to alternate sales channels “or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms” that aren’t Apple’s in-app purchasing system. The injunction also said that Apple may not prohibit developers from “communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.”

Epic pointed out that the iPhone maker requires developers to “pay Apple a new fee of 27% on any purchases users make outside the app up to one week after clicking a Link.” The fee alone “is enough to frustrate the very purpose of the Injunction; if Apple is allowed to tax out-of-app purchases, those purchases could never constrain Apple’s pricing of IAP [in-app purchases], and developers and consumers would not have any reason to use these alternative transacting options,” Epic said.

The case began in August 2020 when Fortnite maker Epic filed a lawsuit claiming that Apple monopolizes the iOS app distribution and in-app payment markets and was guilty of anti-competitive conduct. A federal judge determined after trial that Apple violated California’s competition laws and “that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice.”

An appeals court upheld the injunction in April 2023, and the Supreme Court decided not to take up the case. The injunction applies nationwide.

Apple: We’re complying

Apple said in a January 2024 filing that it is complying with the 2021 injunction. Apple said it now “expressly permits developers with apps on the iOS or iPadOS App Store US storefronts to include buttons or external links with calls to action within their apps that direct users to alternative, out-of-app purchasing mechanisms.” Apple also said it “does not limit developers’ ability to send out-of-app communications to users regarding alternative purchasing methods.”

Regarding the 27 percent commission, Apple said the charge “complies with the Injunction’s plain terms” and is “consistent with the Court’s rationale for upholding Apple’s other App Store policies.” Apple’s website says the commission applies to proceeds for sales “on your website after a link out.”

Epic argues that “Apple’s new scheme so pervasively taxes, regulates, restricts and burdens in-app links directing users to alternative purchasing mechanisms on a developer’s website (‘External Links’ or ‘Links’) as to make them entirely useless. Moreover, Apple continues to completely prohibit the use of ‘buttons… or other calls to action’ in direct contravention of this Court’s Injunction.”

Epic argues that the “plain button style” required by Apple “is not a button at all.” Epic provided this illustration, saying the only allowed button types are the ones in the green box:

The original version of that illustration comes from Apple’s website. On another page, Apple says that external purchase links must use the plain button style.

“With these new policies, Apple continues to charge unjustified fees and intentionally prevent the ‘open flow of information,'” Epic said. “Apple’s goal is clear: to prevent purchasing alternatives from constraining the supracompetitive fees it collects on purchases of digital goods and services. Apple’s so-called compliance is a sham.”

Epic asks court to block Apple’s 27% commission on website purchases Read More »

amid-paralyzing-ransomware-attack,-feds-probe-unitedhealth’s-hipaa-compliance

Amid paralyzing ransomware attack, feds probe UnitedHealth’s HIPAA compliance

Change Healthcare, cyberattack, health, HHS, HIPAA, Policy, ransomware, Science, unitedhealth / /

most significant and consequential incident —

UnitedHealth said it will cooperate with the probe as it works to restore services.

–

Multistory glass-and-brick building with UnitedHealthcare logo on exterior.

As health systems around the US are still grappling with an unprecedented ransomware attack on the country’s largest health care payment processor, the US Department of Health and Human Services is opening an investigation into whether that processor and its parent company, UnitedHealthcare Group, complied with federal rules to protect private patient data.

The attack targeted Change Healthcare, a unit of UnitedHealthcare Group (UHG) that provides financial services to tens of thousands of health care providers around the country, including doctors, dentists, hospitals, and pharmacies. According to an antitrust lawsuit brought against UHG by the Department of Justice in 2022, 50 percent of all medical claims in the US pass through Change Healthcare’s electronic data interchange clearinghouse. (The DOJ lost its case to prevent UHG’s acquisition of Change Healthcare and last year abandoned plans for an appeal.)

As Ars reported previously, the attack was disclosed on February 21 by UHG’s subsidiary, Optum, which now runs Change Healthcare. On February 29, UHG accused the notorious Russian-speaking ransomware gang known both as AlphV and BlackCat of being responsible. According to The Washington Post, the attack involved stealing patient data, encrypting company files, and demanding money to unlock them. The result is a paralysis of claims processing and payments, causing hospitals to run out of cash for payroll and services and preventing patients from getting care and prescriptions. Additionally, the attack is believed to have exposed the health data of millions of US patients.

Earlier this month, Rick Pollack, the president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, called the ransomware attack on Change Healthcare “the most significant and consequential incident of its kind against the US health care system in history.”

Now, three weeks into the attack, many health systems are still struggling. On Tuesday, members of the Biden administration met with UHG CEO Andrew Witty and other health industry leaders at the White House to demand they do more to stabilize the situation for health care providers and services and provide financial assistance. Some improvements may be in sight; on Wednesday, UHG posted an update saying that “all major pharmacy and payment systems are up and more than 99 percent of pre-incident claim volume is flowing.”

HIPAA compliance

Still, the data breach leaves big questions about the extent of the damage to patient privacy, and the adequacy of protections moving forward. In an additional development Wednesday, the health department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it is opening an investigation into UHG and Change Healthcare over the incident. It noted that such an investigation was warranted “given the unprecedented magnitude of this cyberattack, and in the best interest of patients and health care providers.”

In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated Wednesday, the OCR explained that the investigation “will focus on whether a breach of protected health information occurred and Change Healthcare’s and UHG’s compliance with the HIPAA Rules.” HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which establishes privacy and security requirements for protected health information, as well as breach notification requirements.

In a statement to the press, UHG said it would cooperate with the investigation. “Our immediate focus is to restore our systems, protect data and support those whose data may have been impacted,” the statement read. “We are working with law enforcement to investigate the extent of impacted data.”

The Post notes that the federal government does have a history of investigating and penalizing health care organizations for failing to implement adequate safeguards to prevent data breaches. For instance, health insurance provider Anthem paid a $16 million settlement in 2020 over a 2015 data breach that exposed the private data of almost 79 million people. The exposed data included names, Social Security numbers, medical identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, email addresses, and employment information. The OCR investigation into the breach discovered that the attack began with spear phishing emails that at least one employee of an Anthem subsidiary fell for, opening the door to further intrusions that went undetected between December 2, 2014, and January 27, 2015.

“Unfortunately, Anthem failed to implement appropriate measures for detecting hackers who had gained access to their system to harvest passwords and steal people’s private information,” OCR Director Roger Severino said at the time. “We know that large health care entities are attractive targets for hackers, which is why they are expected to have strong password policies and to monitor and respond to security incidents in a timely fashion or risk enforcement by OCR.”

Amid paralyzing ransomware attack, feds probe UnitedHealth’s HIPAA compliance Read More »

bytedance-unlikely-to-sell-tiktok,-as-former-trump-official-plots-purchase

ByteDance unlikely to sell TikTok, as former Trump official plots purchase

Activision Blizzard, bytedance, china, Policy, steven Mnuchin, tiktok, TikTok ban / /
ByteDance unlikely to sell TikTok, as former Trump official plots purchase

Aurich Lawson | Getty Images Pool

Former US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is reportedly assembling an investor group to buy TikTok as the US comes closer to enacting legislation forcing the company to either divest from Chinese ownership or face a nationwide ban.

“I think the legislation should pass, and I think it should be sold,” Mnuchin told CNBC Thursday. “It’s a great business, and I’m going to put together a group to buy TikTok.”

Mnuchin currently leads Liberty Strategic Capital, which describes itself as “a Washington DC-based private equity firm focused on investing in dynamic global technology companies.”

According to CNBC, there is already “common ground between Liberty and ByteDance,” as Softbank—which invested in ByteDance in 2018—partnered with Liberty in 2021, contributing what Financial Times reported was an unknown amount to Mnuchin’s $2.5 billion private equity fund.

TikTok has made no indication that it would consider a sale should the legislation be enacted. Instead, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is continuing to rally TikTok users to oppose the legislation. In a TikTok post viewed by 3.8 million users, the CEO described yesterday’s vote passing the law in the US House of Representatives as “disappointing.”

“This legislation, if signed into law, WILL lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States,” Chew said, seeming to suggest that TikTok’s CEO is not considering a sale to be an option.

But Mnuchin expects that TikTok may be forced to choose to divest—as the US remains an increasingly significant market for the company. If so, he plans to be ready to snatch up the popular app, which TikTok estimated boasts 170 million American monthly active users.

“This should be owned by US businesses,” Mnuchin told CNBC. “There’s no way that the Chinese would ever let a US company own something like this in China.”

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has said that a TikTok ban in the US would hurt the US, while little evidence backs up the supposed national security threat that lawmakers claim is urgent to address, the BBC reported. Wang has accused the US of “bullying behavior that cannot win in fair competition.” This behavior, Wang said, “disrupts companies’ normal business activity, damages the confidence of international investors in the investment environment, and damages the normal international economic and trade order.”

Liberty and Mnuchin were not immediately available to comment on whether investors have shown any serious interest so far.

However, according to the Los Angeles Times, Mnuchin has already approached a “bunch of people” to consider investing. Mnuchin told CNBC that TikTok’s technology would be the driving force behind wooing various investors.

“It would be a combination of investors, so there would be no one investor that controls this,” Mnuchin told CNBC. “The issue is all about the technology. This needs to be controlled by US businesses.”

Mnuchin’s group would likely face competition to buy TikTok. ByteDance—which PitchBook data indicates was valued at $223.5 billion in 2023—should also expect an offer from former Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick, The Wall Street Journal reported.

It’s unclear how valuable TikTok is to ByteDance, CNBC reported, and Mnuchin has not specified what potential valuation his group would anticipate. But if TikTok’s algorithm—which was developed in China—is part of the sale, the price would likely be higher than if ByteDance refused to sell the tech fueling the social media app’s rapid rise to popularity.

In 2020, ByteDance weighed various ownership options while facing a potential US ban under the Trump administration, The New York Times reported. Mnuchin served as Secretary of the Treasury at that time. Although ByteDance ended up partnering with Oracle to protect American TikTok users’ data instead, people briefed on ByteDance’s discussions then confirmed that ByteDance was considering carving out TikTok, potentially allowing the company to “receive new investments from existing ByteDance investors.”

The Information provided a breakdown of the most likely investors to be considered by ByteDance back in 2020. Under that plan, though, ByteDance intended to retain a minority holding rather than completely divesting ownership, the Times reported.

ByteDance unlikely to sell TikTok, as former Trump official plots purchase Read More »

meta-sues-“brazenly-disloyal”-former-exec-over-stolen-confidential-docs

Meta sues “brazenly disloyal” former exec over stolen confidential docs

data center, facebook, Meta, omniva, Policy / /
Meta sues “brazenly disloyal” former exec over stolen confidential docs

A recently unsealed court filing has revealed that Meta has sued a former senior employee for “brazenly disloyal and dishonest conduct” while leaving Meta for an AI data startup called Omniva that The Information has described as “mysterious.”

According to Meta, its former vice president of infrastructure, Dipinder Singh Khurana (also known as T.S.), allegedly used his access to “confidential, non-public, and highly sensitive” information to steal more than 100 internal documents in a rushed scheme to poach Meta employees and borrow Meta’s business plans to speed up Omniva’s negotiations with key Meta suppliers.

Meta believes that Omniva—which Data Center Dynamics (DCD) reported recently “pivoted from crypto to AI cloud”—is “seeking to provide AI cloud computing services at scale, including by designing and constructing data centers.” But it was held back by a “lack of data center expertise at the top,” DCD reported.

The Information reported that Omniva began hiring Meta employees to fill the gaps in this expertise, including wooing Khurana away from Meta.

Last year, Khurana notified Meta that he was leaving on May 15, and that’s when Meta first observed Khurana’s allegedly “utter disregard for his contractual and legal obligations to Meta—including his confidentiality obligations to Meta set forth in the Confidential Information and Invention Assignment Agreement that Khurana signed when joining Meta.”

A Meta investigation found that during Khurana’s last two weeks at the company, he allegedly uploaded confidential Meta documents—including “information about Meta’s ‘Top Talent,’ performance information for hundreds of Meta employees, and detailed employee compensation information”—on Meta’s network to a Dropbox folder labeled with his new employer’s name.

“Khurana also uploaded several of Meta’s proprietary, highly sensitive, confidential, and non-public contracts with business partners who supply Meta with crucial components for its data centers,” Meta alleged. “And other documents followed.”

In addition to pulling documents, Khurana also allegedly sent “urgent” requests to subordinates for confidential information on a key supplier, including Meta’s pricing agreement “for certain computing hardware.”

“Unaware of Khurana’s plans, the employee provided Khurana with, among other things, Meta’s pricing-form agreement with that supplier for the computing hardware and the supplier’s Meta-specific preliminary pricing for a particular chip,” Meta alleged.

Some of these documents were “expressly marked confidential,” Meta alleged. Those include a three-year business plan and PowerPoints regarding “Meta’s future ‘roadmap’ with a key supplier” and “Meta’s 2022 redesign of its global-supply-chain group” that Meta alleged “would directly aid Khurana in building his own efficient and effective supply-chain organization” and afford a path for Omniva to bypass “years of investment.” Khurana also allegedly “uploaded a PowerPoint discussing Meta’s use of GPUs for artificial intelligence.”

Meta was apparently tipped off to this alleged betrayal when Khurana used his Meta email and network access to complete a writing assignment for Omniva as part of his hiring process. For this writing assignment, Khurana “disclosed non-public information about Meta’s relationship with certain suppliers that it uses for its data centers” when asked to “explain how he would help his potential new employer develop the supply chain for a company building data centers using specific technologies.”

In a seeming attempt to cover up the alleged theft of Meta documents, Khurana apparently “attempted to scrub” one document “of its references to Meta,” as well as removing a label marking it “CONFIDENTIAL—FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY.” But when replacing “Meta” with “X,” Khurana allegedly missed the term “Meta” in “at least five locations.”

“Khurana took such action to try and benefit himself or his new employer, including to help ensure that Khurana would continue to work at his new employer, continue to receive significant compensation from his new employer, and/or to enable Khurana to take shortcuts in building his supply-chain team at his new employer and/or helping to build his new employer’s business,” Meta alleged.

Ars could not immediately reach Khurana for comment. Meta noted that he has repeatedly denied breaching his contract or initiating contact with Meta employees who later joined Omniva. He also allegedly refused to sign a termination agreement that reiterates his confidentiality obligations.

Meta sues “brazenly disloyal” former exec over stolen confidential docs Read More »

eu-votes-to-ban-riskiest-forms-of-ai-and-impose-restrictions-on-others

EU votes to ban riskiest forms of AI and impose restrictions on others

Artificial Intelligence Act, Europe AI Act, Policy / /

Europe’s AI Act —

Lawmaker hails “world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence.”

–

Illustration of a European flag composed of computer code

Getty Images | BeeBright

The European Parliament today voted to approve the Artificial Intelligence Act, which will ban uses of AI “that pose unacceptable risks” and impose regulations on less risky types of AI.

“The new rules ban certain AI applications that threaten citizens’ rights, including biometric categorisation systems based on sensitive characteristics and untargeted scraping of facial images from the Internet or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases,” a European Parliament announcement today said. “Emotion recognition in the workplace and schools, social scoring, predictive policing (when it is based solely on profiling a person or assessing their characteristics), and AI that manipulates human behavior or exploits people’s vulnerabilities will also be forbidden.”

The ban on certain AI applications provides for penalties of up to 35 million euros or 7 percent of a firm’s “total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher.” Violations of other provisions have lower penalties.

There are exemptions to allow law enforcement use of remote biometric identification systems in certain cases. A European Commission summary of the legislation said:

All remote biometric identification systems are considered high-risk and subject to strict requirements. The use of remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces for law enforcement purposes is, in principle, prohibited.

Narrow exceptions are strictly defined and regulated, such as when necessary to search for a missing child, to prevent a specific and imminent terrorist threat or to detect, locate, identify or prosecute a perpetrator or suspect of a serious criminal offence.

“Strict obligations” for high-risk AI

The AI Act was supported by 523 members of the European Parliament (MEPs), while 46 voted against and 49 abstained. The legislation classifies AI into four categories of risk: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, and minimal or no risk.

“High-risk AI systems will be subject to strict obligations before they can be put on the market,” the legislation summary said. Obligations include “adequate risk assessment and mitigation systems,” “logging of activity to ensure traceability of results,” “appropriate human oversight measures to minimise risk,” and other requirements.

The law drew opposition from the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a tech-industry lobby group.

“The agreed AI Act imposes stringent obligations on developers of cutting-edge technologies that underpin many downstream systems, and is therefore likely to slow down innovation in Europe,” the group said when a deal on the law was agreed to in December 2023. “Furthermore, certain low-risk AI systems will now be subjected to strict requirements without further justification, while others will be banned altogether. This could lead to an exodus of European AI companies and talent seeking growth elsewhere.”

The law will officially be on the books 20 days after its publication in the official Journal, the European Parliament announcement said. The law’s ban on prohibited practices will apply six months after that, but other regulations won’t take effect until later. The “obligations for high-risk systems” will only take effect after 36 months, the announcement said.

“We finally have the world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence, to reduce risks, create opportunities, combat discrimination, and bring transparency,” said MEP Brando Benifei, the Internal Market Committee co-rapporteur. An AI office will be formed “to support companies to start complying with the rules before they enter into force,” he said.

Risky AI categories

Examples of high-risk AI include AI used in robot-assisted surgery; credit scoring systems that can deny loans; law enforcement that may interfere with fundamental rights, such as evaluation of the reliability of evidence; and automated examination of visa applications.

The limited-risk category has to do with applications that aren’t transparent about AI usage. “The AI Act introduces specific transparency obligations to ensure that humans are informed when necessary, fostering trust,” the European Commission said. “For instance, when using AI systems such as chatbots, humans should be made aware that they are interacting with a machine so they can take an informed decision to continue or step back. Providers will also have to ensure that AI-generated content is identifiable.”

AI-generated text that is “published with the purpose to inform the public on matters of public interest must be labelled as artificially generated,” and this requirement “also applies to audio and video content constituting deep fakes.”

AI with minimal or no risk “includes applications such as AI-enabled video games or spam filters. The vast majority of AI systems currently used in the EU fall into this category,” the commission said. There would be no restrictions on this category.

EU votes to ban riskiest forms of AI and impose restrictions on others Read More »