An anonymous reader shared this repost from the Washington Post: It's becoming standard practice at a growing number of U.S. airports: When you reach the front of the security line, an agent asks you to step up to a machine that scans your face to check whether it matches the face on your identification card. Travelers have the right to opt out of the face scan and have the agent do a visual check instead — but many don't realize that's an option.

Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and John Neely Kennedy (R-Louisiana) think it should be the other way around. They plan to introduce a bipartisan bill that would make human ID checks the default, among other restrictions on how the Transportation Security Administration can use facial recognition technology. The Traveler Privacy Protection Act, shared with the Tech Brief on Wednesday ahead of its introduction, is a narrower version of a 2023 bill by the same name that would have banned the TSA's use of facial recognition altogether. This one would allow the agency to continue scanning travelers' faces, but only if they opt in, and would bar the technology's use for any purpose other than verifying people's identities. It would also require the agency to immediately delete the scans of general boarding passengers once the check is complete.

"Facial recognition is incredibly powerful, and it is being used as an instrument of oppression around the world to track dissidents whose opinion governments don't like," Merkley said in a phone interview Wednesday, citing China's use of the technology on the country's Uyghur minority. "It really creates a surveillance state," he went on. "That is a massive threat to freedom and privacy here in America, and I don't think we should trust any government with that power...."

[The TSA] began testing face scans as an option for people enrolled in "trusted traveler" programs, such as TSA PreCheck, in 2021. By 2022, the program quietly began rolling out to general boarding passengers. It is now active in at least 84 airports, according to the TSA's website, with plans to bring it to more than 400 airports in the coming years. The agency says the technology has proved more efficient and accurate than human identity checks. It assures the public that travelers' face scans are not stored or saved once a match has been made, except in limited tests to evaluate the technology's effectiveness.
The bill would also bar the TSA from providing worse treatment to passengers who refuse not to participate, according to FedScoop, and would also forbid the agency from using face-scanning technology to target people or conduct mass surveillance: "Folks don't want a national surveillance state, but that's exactly what the TSA's unchecked expansion of facial recognition technology is leading us to," Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., a co-sponsor of the bill and a longtime critic of the government's facial recognition program, said in a statement...

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general initiated an audit of TSA's facial recognition program. Merkley had previously led a letter from a bipartisan group of senators calling for the watchdog to open an investigation into TSA's facial recognition plans, noting that the technology is not foolproof and effective alternatives were already in use.

Microsoft has appointed a Deputy CISO for Europe to address growing regulatory pressure and reassure EU leaders about its cybersecurity commitment. "The move also highlights strong fears from European IT execs and government officials that the Trump administration may exert significant influence on cybersecurity companies," reports CSO Online. From the report: Who that Deputy CISO will ultimately be is unclear. Wednesday's statement simply said that Microsoft CISO Igor Tsyganskiy is "appointing a new Deputy CISO for Europe as part of the Microsoft Cybersecurity Governance Council," but the phrasing made it unclear when that would happen. However, Tsyganskiy made a separate announcement on LinkedIn that he has given the role to current Deputy CISO Ann Johnson. But he then said that Johnson, who is based at Microsoft's head office in Redmond, Washington, will hold that post "temporarily."

In his LinkedIn post, Tsyganskiy explained that the Cybersecurity Governance Council, which was created in 2024, consists of "our Global CISO and Deputy Chief Information Security Officers (Deputy CISOs) representing each of our technology services. This Council oversees the company's cyber risks, defenses, and compliance across regions and domains." "The Deputy CISO for Europe will be accountable for compliance with current and emerging cybersecurity regulations in Europe, including the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), the NIS 2 Directive, and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)," Tsyganskiy wrote. "These laws will prove transformative not only in EU markets, but worldwide, and Microsoft is actively engaged in preparing for what lies ahead." Microsoft said in Wednesday's statement: "the appointment of a Deputy CISO for Europe reflects the importance and global influence of EU cybersecurity regulations and the company's commitment to meeting and exceeding those expectations to prioritize cybersecurity across the region. This new position will report directly to Microsoft's CISO."

Michela Menting, France-based digital security research director at ABI Research, said when she heard on Wednesday that Microsoft was creating such a role, "I was mostly surprised that they don't already have one."

"GDPR has been in place for quite some time now and the fact they are only now putting in a European deputy CISO is concerning," Menting added. "They are playing catch up."

Nintendo has trumpeted its latest legal success in the company's ongoing fight against pirated games as "significant" not only for itself, "but for the entire games industry." From a report: The Mario maker today confirmed it had won a final victory over French file-sharing company Dstorage, which operates the website 1fichier.com, following years of legal wrangling and repeated appeals. Nintendo's victory means European file-sharing companies must now remove illegal copies of games when asked to do so, or be held accountable and cough up potentially sizable fines as punishment.

In 2021, the Judicial Court of Paris ordered Dstorage pay Nintendo $1 million in damages after it was found to be hosting pirate games. Dstorage launched an appeal, which then failed in 2023, and was ordered to pay Nintendo further costs. But the case didn't end there. Dstorage finally took the matter to the highest French judiciary court, where it argued that a specific court order was required before it needed to remove content from its hosting services. This bid has also now failed, ending the long-running matter for good.

WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg said on a podcast he aims to eventually hand over leadership to a single successor rather than "a committee," amid growing calls for him to step down following his legal battle with hosting company WP Engine. On a recent episode of Lenny's Podcast, Mullenweg discussed his succession strategy for Automattic, the parent company of WordPress.com, WooCommerce and Tumblr. "I want to pass it to someone else who could have a role similar to mine, and really sort of try to be a steward," Mullenweg said, comparing the position to "being like a mayor than a CEO" as the leader would remain accountable to users and contributors.

California sued to fine a data-harvesting company, reports the Washington Post, calling it "a rare step to put muscle behind one of the strongest online privacy laws in the United States." Even when states have tried to restrict data brokers, it has been tough to make those laws stick. That has generally been a problem for the 19 states that have passed broad laws to protect personal information, said Matt Schwartz, a policy analyst for Consumer Reports. He said there has been only 15 or so public enforcement actions by regulators overseeing all those laws. Partly because companies aren't held accountable, they're empowered to ignore the privacy standards. "Noncompliance is fairly widespread," Schwartz said. "It's a major problem."

That's why California is unusual with a data broker law that seems to have teeth. To make sure state residents can order all data brokers operating in the state to delete their personal records [with a single request], California is now requiring brokers to register with the state or face a fine of $200 a day. The state's privacy watchdog said Thursday that it filed litigation to force one data broker, National Public Data, to pay $46,000 for failing to comply with that initial phase of the data broker law. NPD declined to comment through an attorney... This first lawsuit for noncompliance, Schwartz said, shows that California is serious about making companies live up to their privacy obligations... "If they can successfully build it and show it works, it will create a blueprint for other states interested in this idea," he said.
Last summer NPD "spilled hundreds of millions of Americans' Social Security Numbers, addresses, and phone numbers online," according to the blog Krebs on Security, adding that another NPD data broker sharing access to the same consumer records "inadvertently published the passwords to its back-end database in a file that was freely available from its homepage..."

California's attempt to regulate the industry inspired the nonprofit Consumer Reports to create an app called Permission Slip that reveals what data companies collect and, for people in U.S. states, will "work with you to file a request, telling companies to stop selling your personal information."

Other data-protecting options suggested by The Washington Post:

• Use Firefox, Brave or DuckDuckGo, "which can automatically tell websites not to sell or share your data. Those demands from the web browsers are legally binding or will be soon in at least nine states."

• Use Privacy Badger, an EFF browser extension which the EFF says "automatically tells websites not to sell or share your data including where it's required by state law."

An anonymous reader shared this report from Fortune: More than 14 million job seekers' applications went completely ignored in a single quarter last year, according to one hiring platform. Now, sites like Greenhouse and LinkedIn are experimenting with new ways to hold companies accountable for making the hiring process so miserable for applicants. Three of the biggest job search sites — LinkedIn, Indeed and Greenhouse — have put tools in place to highlight which companies frequently respond to applicants in a timely manner... According to Greenhouse, half of applicants say they've been ghosted after an interview.

Meanwhile, new artificial intelligence tools have made it easier for candidates to play a numbers game, generating tailored resumes for hundreds of roles. But that's led to an increasingly overwhelming flood of applications for companies, making it nearly impossible to process the deluge and respond to every hopeful in a timely manner — let alone find their perfect match... [LinkedIn is] refining its "job match" feature that uses AI to see how well qualified a candidate is for a given listing. The feature is designed to help cut down on the flood of applications companies are receiving by nudging users to focus their efforts on jobs where they actually have a good shot at hearing back. That, in theory, should make the hiring process more efficient for both parties...

Indeed chose to focus on encouraging employer responsiveness after the issue showed up as the biggest pain point for job seekers in a recent survey. While the platform has issued "responsive employer" badges since 2018 to recognize companies that consistently reply to more than half of all messages, it started releasing even more detail in 2023, including labels that share the employer's median response time with candidates... Greenhouse, meanwhile, is testing a set of four badges that would verify an employer meets the platform's respectful, communicative, prepared and fair hiring process standards for a given job posting... For "communicative," they're expected to clear out active candidates on closed jobs and send out rejection emails.
LinkedIn is also adding "responsiveness insights," according to the article, which "show applicants which listings are being actively reviewed by employers.

"It's testing the insights on a small number of job postings before rolling them out sitewide in the coming months."

Thursday New York's governor signed new legislation "to hold polluters responsible for the damage done to our environment" by establishing a Climate Superfund that's paid for by big fossil-fuel companies.

The money will be used for "climate change adaptation," according to New York state senator Liz Krueger, who notes that the legislation follows "the polluter-pays model" used in America's already-existing federal and state superfund laws. Spread out over 25 years, the legislation collects an average of $3 billion each year — or $75 billion — "from the parties most responsible for causing the climate crisis — big oil and gas companies."

"The Climate Change Superfund Act is now law, and New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable," said Senator Krueger. "Too often over the last decade, courts have dismissed lawsuits against the oil and gas industry by saying that the issue of climate culpability should be decided by legislatures. Well, the Legislature of the State of New York — the 10th largest economy in the world — has accepted the invitation, and I hope we have made ourselves very clear: the planet's largest climate polluters bear a unique responsibility for creating the climate crisis, and they must pay their fair share to help regular New Yorkers deal with the consequences.

"And there's no question that those consequences are here, and they are serious," Krueger continued. "Repairing from and preparing for extreme weather caused by climate change will cost more than half a trillion dollars statewide by 2050. That's over $65,000 per household, and that's on top of the disruption, injury, and death that the climate crisis is causing in every corner of our state. The Climate Change Superfund Act is a critical piece of affordability legislation that will deliver billions of dollars every year to ease the burden on regular New Yorkers...."

Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made "remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet." Yet for years, "the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change."
"The oil giant Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia could be slapped with the largest annual assessment of any company — $640 million a year — for emitting 31,269 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020," notes the New York Post.

And "The law will also standardize the number of emissions tied to the fuel produced by companies," reports the Times Union newspaper. "[F]or every 1 million pounds of coal, for example, the program assigns over 942 metric tons of carbon dioxide. For every 1 million barrels of crude oil, an entity is considered to have produced 432,180 metric tons of carbon dioxide." Among the infrastructure programs the superfund program aims to pay for: coastal wetlands restoration, energy efficient cooling systems in buildings, including schools and new housing developments, and stormwater drainage upgrades.
New York is now the second U.S. state with a "climate Superfund" law, according to Bloomberg Law, with New York following the lead of Vermont. "Maryland, Massachusetts, and California are also considering climate Superfund laws to manage mounting infrastructure costs." The American Petroleum Institute, which represents about 600 members of the industry, condemned the law. "This type of legislation represents nothing more than a punitive new fee on American energy, and we are evaluating our options moving forward," an API spokesperson said in an emailed statement... The bills — modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as Superfund — would almost certainly spur swift litigation from fossil fuel companies upon enactment, legal educators say.

Hundreds of websites will be shut down on the day that Britain's Online Safety Act comes into effect, in what are believed to be the first casualties of the new internet laws. From a report: Microcosm, a web forum hosting service that runs 300 sites including cycling forums and local community hubs, said that the sites would go offline on March 16, the day that Ofcom starts enforcing the Act.

Its owner said they were unable to comply with the lengthy requirements of the Act, which created a "disproportionately high personal liability." The new laws, which were designed to crack down on illegal content and protect children, threaten fines of at least $23 million for sites that fail to comply with the laws. On Monday, Ofcom set out more than 40 measures that it expects online services to follow by March, such as carrying out risk assessments about their sites and naming senior people accountable for ensuring safety.

The Carnegie Endowment for Peace, a nonpartisan international affairs think tank, points out that when subsea internet cables were cut in November, Europe was more prepared: Where in the past there were no contingency plans for sabotage, there are now more maritime patrols, an attempt to forge deeper intelligence connections, and the beginnings of a new relationship with the private sector...

Even before the October 2023 incident, NATO, the EU, and certain European governments began to increase their efforts to boost subsea cable resilience and security. In February 2023, NATO stood up a new Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell in Brussels to convene stakeholders and enhance coordination between the public and private sectors. In July 2023, NATO allies at the Vilnius Summit established a Maritime Center for the Security of Critical Undersea Infrastructure as part of the alliance's Maritime Command in Northwood, UK. In October 2023, after the first incident, NATO defense ministers endorsed a new Digital Ocean Vision, an initiative aimed at improving undersea surveillance. And in February 2024, the European Commission released its first "Recommendation on Secure and Resilient Submarine Cable Infrastructures," encouraging member states to conduct regular stress tests, improve information sharing amongst themselves, and improve cable maintenance and repair capabilities.
The article points out that the Chinese ship suspected in the 2023 cable cutting "ignored requests from Finnish and Estonian authorities to halt" and returned to China. But the Chinese ship suspected in November's cable-cutting "remains in international waters in the Kattegat, with naval and coast guard vessels from Denmark, Germany, and Sweden circling close by." Yet "Under international maritime law, these countries' authorities are not allowed to board..." Current provisions of international law are neither formulated to adequately protect subsea data cables from sabotage nor hold perpetrators accountable. This reality should lead the EU, as a body inherently focused on the resilience of international legal regimes, to push for updates that are better suited for the current geopolitical reality... Lawmakers should also explore ways to increase penalties for subsea cable damage, in part to deter acts of sabotage in the first place....

A forthcoming Carnegie Endowment report will detail more in-depth recommendations on how Europe can both protect itself against future subsea cable damage and help expand trusted networks around the world.
The article also notes that "Of the hundreds of disruptions to cables that occur each year, the vast majority are caused by accidental human activity, like fishing, or natural events, like earthquakes."

An anonymous reader shared this report from the Los Angeles Times: Los Angeles County has filed suit against the world's largest beverage companies — Coca-Cola and Pepsi — claiming the soda and drink makers lied to the public about the effectiveness of plastic recycling and, as a result, left county residents and ecosystems choking in discarded plastic... The Los Angeles County suit alleges — in a vein similar to that of [California attorney general] Bonta's suit against Exxon Mobil — that the global beverage companies misrepresented the environmental impact of their plastic bottles, "despite knowing that plastics cannot be readily disposed of without associated environmental impacts."

"Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems" their products are causing, said Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey P. Horvath... Currently, just 9% of the world's plastics are recycled. The rest ends up being incinerated, sent to landfills, or discarded on the landscape, where they are often flushed into rivers or out to sea. At the same time, there is growing concern about the health and environmental consequences of microplastics — the bits of degraded plastic that slough off as the product ages, or is used, or washed. The tiny particles have been detected in every ecosystem on the planet that has been surveyed, as well as nearly every living organism examined... According to the county's statement, the two companies have consistently ranked as the world's "top plastic polluters...."

The beverage maker lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison on behalf of the people of the state of California... "The goal of this lawsuit is to stop the unfair and illegal conduct, to address the marketing practices that deceive consumers, and to force these businesses to change their practices to reduce the plastic pollution problem in the County and in California," Harrison said in a statement. "My office is committed to protecting the public from deceptive business practices and holding these companies accountable for their role in the plastic pollution crisis."

JPMorgan Chase is suing customers who exploited an ATM glitch that allowed them to withdraw funds before a check bounced. CNBC reports: The bank on Monday filed lawsuits in at least three federal courts, taking aim at some of the people who withdrew the highest amounts in the so-called infinite money glitch that went viral on TikTok and other social media platforms in late August. [...] JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, is investigating thousands of possible cases related to the "infinite money glitch," though it hasn't disclosed the scope of associated losses. Despite the waning use of paper checks as digital forms of payment gain popularity, they're still a major avenue for fraud, resulting in $26.6 billion in losses globally last year, according to Nasdaq's Global Financial Crime Report.

The infinite money glitch episode highlights the risk that social media can amplify vulnerabilities discovered at a financial institution. Videos began circulating in late August showing people celebrating the withdrawal of wads of cash from Chase ATMs shortly after bad checks were deposited. Normally, banks only make available a fraction of the value of a check until it clears, which takes several days. JPMorgan says it closed the loophole a few days after it was discovered.

The lawsuits are likely to be just the start of a wave of litigation meant to force customers to repay their debts and signal broadly that the bank won't tolerate fraud, according to the people familiar. JPMorgan prioritized cases with large dollar amounts and indications of possible ties to criminal groups, they said. The civil cases are separate from potential criminal investigations; JPMorgan says it has also referred cases to law enforcement officials across the country. "Fraud is a crime that impacts everyone and undermines trust in the banking system," JPMorgan spokesman Drew Pusateri said in a statement to CNBC. "We're pursuing these cases and actively cooperating with law enforcement to make sure if someone is committing fraud against Chase and its customers, they're held accountable."

Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an op-ed written by Michael R. Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, UN Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions, and chair of the Defense Innovation Board: There are government boondoggles, and then there's NASA's Artemis program. More than a half century after Neil Armstrong's giant leap for mankind, Artemis was intended to land astronauts back on the moon. It has so far spent nearly $100 billion without anyone getting off the ground, yet its complexity and outrageous waste are still spiraling upward. The next US president should rethink the program in its entirety. As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money. [...]

A celestial irony is that none of this is necessary. A reusable SpaceX Starship will very likely be able to carry cargo and robots directly to the moon -- no SLS, Orion, Gateway, Block 1B or ML-2 required -- at a small fraction of the cost. Its successful landing of the Starship booster was a breakthrough that demonstrated how far beyond NASA it is moving. Meanwhile, NASA is canceling or postponing promising scientific programs -- including the Veritas mission to Venus; the Viper lunar rover; and the NEO Surveyor telescope, intended to scan the solar system for hazardous asteroids -- as Artemis consumes ever more of its budget. Taxpayers and Congress should be asking: What on Earth are we doing? And the next president should be held accountable for answers.

Meta's Oversight Board "is spinning off a new appeals center," reports the Washington Post, "to handle content disputes from European social media users on multiple platforms".

It will operate under Europe's Digital Services Act, "which requires tech companies to allow users to appeal restrictions on their accounts before an independent group of experts." "I think this is really a game changer," Appeals Centre Europe CEO Thomas Hughes said in an interview. "It could really drive platform accountability and transparency."

The expansion arrives as the Oversight Board, an independent collection of academics, experts and lawyers funded by Meta, has been seeking to expand its influence beyond the social media giant... [The Board] has tried for years to court other major internet companies, offering to help them referee debates about content, The Post has reported...

Oversight Board members and Oversight Board Trust Chairman Stephen Neal said in statements that both the Appeals Centre Europe and the Oversight Board will play critical but complimentary roles in holding tech companies accountable for their decisions on content. "Both entities are committed to improving user redress, transparency and upholding users' rights online," Neal said...

Hughes, who used to be the Oversight Board's administration director, said that he was "proud" of what the Oversight Board is accomplishing but that it is different from what the Appeals Centre Europe will offer. When Facebook, YouTube or TikTok removes a post, European social media users will be able to appeal the decision to the center. Users also will also be able to flag the center with posts they think violate the rules but were not removed. While the Appeals Centre Europe's decisions will be nonbinding, the group will generate data that could power decisions by regulators, civil society groups and the general public, Hughes said. By contrast, the Oversight Board's decisions on Meta content are binding.
Last year the original Oversight Board completed more than 50 cases, "and is on track to exceed that number in 2024," according to the article. But this board is different, CEO Hughes told the Post. They'll have about two dozen staffers, with expertise in human rights and tech policy — or fluency in various languages.

And he added that though the center is funded by an initial grant, future operating costs will be covered by the fees social media companies pay the appeal center — roughly 90 euros ($100) per case.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: In late September, Shield AI cofounder Brandon Tseng swore that weapons in the U.S. would never be fully autonomous -- meaning an AI algorithm would make the final decision to kill someone. "Congress doesn't want that," the defense tech founder told TechCrunch. "No one wants that." But Tseng spoke too soon. Five days later, Anduril cofounder Palmer Luckey expressed an openness to autonomous weapons -- or at least a heavy skepticism of arguments against them. The U.S.'s adversaries "use phrases that sound really good in a sound bite: Well, can't you agree that a robot should never be able to decide who lives and dies?" Luckey said during a talk earlier this month at Pepperdine University. "And my point to them is, where's the moral high ground in a landmine that can't tell the difference between a school bus full of kids and a Russian tank?"

When asked for further comment, Shannon Prior, a spokesperson for Anduril said that Luckey didn't mean that robots should be programmed to kill people on their own, just that he was concerned about "bad people using bad AI." In the past, Silicon Valley has erred on the side of caution. Take it from Luckey's cofounder, Trae Stephens. "I think the technologies that we're building are making it possible for humans to make the right decisions about these things," he told Kara Swisher last year. "So that there is an accountable, responsible party in the loop for all decisions that could involve lethality, obviously." The Anduril spokesperson denied any dissonance between Luckey (pictured above) and Stephens' perspectives, and said that Stephens didn't mean that a human should always make the call, but just that someone is accountable.

Last month, Palantir co-founder and Anduril investor Joe Lonsdale also showed a willingness to consider fully autonomous weapons. At an event hosted by the think tank Hudson Institute, Lonsdale expressed frustration that this question is being framed as a yes-or-no at all. He instead presented a hypothetical where China has embraced AI weapons, but the U.S. has to "press the button every time it fires." He encouraged policymakers to embrace a more flexible approach to how much AI is in weapons. "You very quickly realize, well, my assumptions were wrong if I just put a stupid top-down rule, because I'm a staffer who's never played this game before," he said. "I could destroy us in the battle."

When TC asked Lonsdale for further comment, he emphasized that defense tech companies shouldn't be the ones setting the agenda on lethal AI. "The key context to what I was saying is that our companies don't make the policy, and don't want to make the policy: it's the job of elected officials to make the policy," he said. "But they do need to educate themselves on the nuance to do a good job." He also reiterated a willingness to consider more autonomy in weapons. "It's not a binary as you suggest -- 'fully autonomous or not' isn't the correct policy question. There's a sophisticated dial along a few different dimensions for what you might have a soldier do and what you have the weapons system do," he said. "Before policymakers put these rules in place and decide where the dials need to be set in what circumstance, they need to learn the game and learn what the bad guys might be doing, and what's necessary to win with American lives on the line." [...] "For many in Silicon Valley and D.C., the biggest fear is that China or Russia rolls out fully autonomous weapons first, forcing the U.S.'s hand," reports TechCrunch. "At the Hudson Institute event, Lonsdale said that the tech sector needs to take it upon itself to 'teach the Navy, teach the DoD, teach Congress' about the potential of AI to 'hopefully get us ahead of China.' Lonsdale's and Luckey's affiliated companies are working on getting Congress to listen to them. Anduril and Palantir have cumulatively spent over $4 million in lobbying this year, according to OpenSecrets."

Amazon, Meta, and Tesla were named by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) as some of the worst corporate underminers of democracy . These companies were accused of union busting, monopolizing media and technology, violating human rights, contributing to climate change, and fostering political movements that threaten democratic institutions. The full list of "corporate underminers of democracy for 2024" is Amazon, Blackstone Group, ExxonMobil, Glencore, Meta, Tesla and the Vanguard Group. The Register reports: The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) today published a list of seven companies it said were "emblematic" of the ways large international corporations have begun tossing their weight around to influence global affairs. Those businesses, ITUC noted, violate trade union and alleged human rights, monopolize media and technology, exacerbate the climate catastrophe and try to privatize public services in a way that "protects and expands [their] own profits by undermining democracy." "These companies deploy complex lobbying operations to undermine popular will and disrupt existing or nascent global policy that could hold them accountable," ITUC wrote. The desire for greater corporate power, the Confederation added, invariably puts corporate interests in bed with anti-democratic political movements like the modern far-right. Right-wing politicians, ITUC noted, tend to lower taxes, undercut higher wages for workers, crack down on trade unions, and the like - all things sure to please the likes of corporations like Amazon, Tesla, and Meta as evidenced by plenty of prior reporting and research. For Amazon, the ITUC criticized the company for becoming "notorious for its union busting and low wages, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS [datacenters], corporate tax evasion and lobbying."

Meta was accused of exploiting user data, undermining privacy laws, manipulating global information, and failing to regulate harmful content on its platforms. "Meta's algorithms can quite literally alter humanity's perceptions of reality," ITUC said. "Its revenue model exploits trillions of personalized data points to deliver highly effective advertising." Some have referred to the company as "a foreign state, populated by people without sovereignty, ruled by a leader with absolute power."

As for Tesla, it was condemned for poor labor practices, anti-union politics, unsafe working conditions, human rights violations, and environmental damage in its supply chain. "The world's most highly-valued automaker has quickly become known as one of its most belligerent employers. Tesla's rapid market success has been outpaced only by the descent of its corporate leaders into anti-democratic, anti-union politics."

The Washingon Post reports that a regulatory dispute in Ohio may help answer a big question about America's power grid: who will pay for the huge upgrades needed to meet soaring energy demand "from the data centers powering the modern internet and artificial intelligence revolution?" Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta are fighting a proposal by an Ohio power company to significantly increase the upfront energy costs they'll pay for their data centers, a move the companies dubbed "unfair" and "discriminatory" in documents filed with Ohio's Public Utility Commission last month. American Electric Power Ohio said in filings that the tariff increase was needed to prevent new infrastructure costs from being passed on to other customers such as households and businesses if the tech industry should fail to follow through on its ambitious, energy-intensive plans. The case could set a national precedent that helps determine whether and how other states force tech firms to be accountable for the costs of their growing energy consumption... The energy demands of data centers have created similar concerns in other hot spots such as Northern Virginia, Atlanta and Maricopa County, Arizona, leaving experts concerned that the U.S. power grid may not be capable of dealing with the combined needs of the green energy transition and the computing boom that artificial intelligence companies say is coming...

Energy customers must sometimes make a monthly payment to a utility that is a percentage of the maximum amount of electricity they predict that they could need. In Ohio, data center companies had agreed to pay 60 percent of the projected amount. But in May, the power company proposed a new, 10-year fee structure raising the charges to 90 percent of the expected load, even if they don't end up using that much. The major tech companies — all of whom are increasing spending on data center infrastructure to compete in AI — strenuously opposed the proposed contract in documents filed last month... According to testimony from AEP Ohio Vice President Lisa Kelso, there are 50 pending requests from data center customers seeking electric service at more than 90 sites, a potential 30,000 megawatts of additional load — enough to power more than 20 million households. That additional demand would more than triple the utility's previous peak load in 2023, she said. Between 2020 and 2024, the data center energy load in central Ohio increased sixfold, from 100 to 600 megawatts, her testimony reads. By 2030, that amount will reach 5,000 megawatts, according to the utility's signed agreements, she testified...

Meeting that demand will require AEP Ohio to build new transmission lines, an expensive and time-consuming process... Chief among the power company's concerns, according to the documents, is what will happen if it invests billions of dollars into new grid infrastructure only for the data centers to leave for greener pastures, or for the AI bubble to burst and the facilities to need much less power than initially projected. If the power company spends big on new infrastructure but the power demand it was built to serve doesn't materialize, other customers — including business and residential payers — will be stuck with the bill, the utility said... AEP Ohio's testimony in the case also questions whether data centers bring as much to local communities as factories or other high-energy-load businesses. Since 2019, non-data center businesses have created approximately 25 jobs for every megawatt of power requested, while data centers have created less than one job per megawatt, according to Kelso's testimony.

The tech companies rejected this criticism, saying the number of jobs they create is not relevant to how much power they have a right to purchase, and highlighted their other contributions to local economies... Amazon said in filings that it pays fees as high as 75 percent of projected demand in some states but that Ohio's proposal to bill it 90 percent goes too far.
"Should the Ohio tariff be approved, Microsoft and Google both threatened in their testimony to leave Ohio." (Although at the same time, "pressure on the electric grid is mounting all over the country...")

And the article points out that on Thursday, "the White House announced measures intended to speed up data center construction for AI projects, including by accelerating permitting."

Messaging app Telegram has said its CEO Pavel Durov, who was detained in France on Saturday, has "nothing to hide." From a report: Mr Durov was arrested at an airport north of Paris under a warrant for offences related to the app, according to officials. The investigation is reportedly about insufficient moderation, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram. The app is accused of failure to co-operate with law enforcement over drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud.

Telegram said in a statement that "its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving." The app added: "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform." Telegram said Mr Durov travels in Europe frequently and added that it abides by European Union laws, including the Digital Services Act, which aims to ensure a safe and accountable online environment. "Almost a billion users globally use Telegram as means of communication and as a source of vital information," the app's statement read. "We're awaiting a prompt resolution of this situation. Telegram is with you all." Judicial sources quoted by AFP news agency say Mr Durov's detention was extended on Sunday and could last as long as 96 hours.

The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) fined T-Mobile $60 million, its largest penalty ever, for failing to prevent and report unauthorized access to sensitive data tied to violations of a mitigation agreement from its 2020 merger with Sprint. "The size of the fine, and CFIUS's unprecedented decision to make it public, show the committee is taking a more muscular approach to enforcement as it seeks to deter future violations," reports Reuters. From the report: T-Mobile said in a statement that it experienced technical issues during its post-merger integration with Sprint that affected "information shared from a small number of law enforcement information requests." It stressed that the data never left the law enforcement community, was reported "in a timely manner" and was "quickly addressed." The failure of T-Mobile to report the incidents promptly delayed CFIUS' efforts to investigate and mitigate any potential harm to U.S. national security, they added, without providing further details. "The $60 million penalty announcement highlights the committee's commitment to ramping up CFIUS enforcement by holding companies accountable when they fail to comply with their obligations," one of the U.S. officials said, adding that transparency around enforcement actions incentivizes other companies to comply with their obligations.

America's Senate "overwhelmingly passed major online safety reforms to protect children on social media," reports the Guardian.

"But with ongoing pushback from the tech industry and freedom of speech organizations, the legislation faces an uncertain future in the House." "It's a terrible idea to let politicians and bureaucrats decide what people should read and view online," freedom of speech group the Electronic Frontier Foundation said of the Senate's passage of Kosa... Advocates of Kosa reject these critiques, noting the bill has been revised to address many of those concerns — including shifting enforcement from attorneys general to the federal trade commission and focusing the "duty of care" provisions on product design features of the site or app rather than content specifically. A number of major LGBTQ+ groups dropped their opposition to the legislation following these changes, including the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the Trevor Project.

After passing the Senate this week, the bill has now moved onto the House, which is on a six-week summer recess until September. Proponents are now directing their efforts towards House legislators to turn the bill into law. Joe Biden has indicated he would sign it if it passes. In a statement Tuesday encouraging the House to pass the legislation, the US president said: "We need action by Congress to protect our kids online and hold big tech accountable for the national experiment they are running on our children for profit...."

House speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has expressed support for moving forward on Kosa and passing legislation this Congress, but it's unclear if he will bring the bill up in the House immediately. Some experts say the bill is unlikely to be passed in the House in the form passed by the Senate. "Given the concerns about potential censorship and the possibility of minors' lacking access to vital information, pausing KOSA makes eminent sense," said Gautam Hans, associate clinical professor of law and associate director of the First Amendment Clinic at Cornell Law School. He added that the House may put forward its own similar legislation instead, or modify KOSA to further address some of these concerns.
The political news site Punchbowl News also noted this potentially significant quote: A House GOP leadership aide told us this about KOSA: "We've heard concerns across our Conference and the Senate bill cannot be brought up in its current form."
TechDirt argues that "Senator Rand Paul's really excellent letter laying out the reasons he couldn't support the bill may have had an impact."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike for sharing the news.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Puerto Rico filed suit against fossil fuel companies this week, alleging that the oil and gas giants have misled the public about climate change and delayed a transition to clean energy. The suit seeks $1 billion in damages to help Puerto Rico defend itself against climate disasters. In a complaint (PDF) filed in San Juan yesterday, Puerto Rico's Department of Justice says that the companies violated trade law by promoting fossil fuels without adequately warning about the dangers. The defendants include ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and other energy companies.

In the complaint, Puerto Rico says it expects to pay billions of dollars in the future to cope with catastrophes made worse by climate change -- including storms like Hurricane Maria, which killed thousands of people in 2017 and triggered monthslong power outages. The suit asks defendants to contribute to a fund that would be used to mitigate the consequences of climate change and pay for measures to strengthen Puerto Rico's infrastructure against future climate-related calamities. After Hurricane Maria devastated the island in 2017, thirty-seven municipalities in Puerto Rico and the capital city of San Juan filed suit against fossil fuel companies, "seeking to hold them accountable for the devastation," notes The Verge.

Last week, Portland's Multnomah County filed a lawsuit against several fossil fuel companies, blaming their emissions for the 2021 heat dome that resulted in the deaths of 69 people.