An anonymous Slashdot reader shared this report from Computer Weekly: A former student at the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA) says he was hauled over the coals by the college for having acted responsibly and "with integrity" in reporting a security blunder that left sensitive information about students exposed. Bartek Wytrzyszczewski faced misconduct proceedings after alerting the college to a data breach exposing sensitive information on hundreds of past and present ICCA students...

The ICCA, which offers training to future barristers, informed data protection regulator the Information Commissioner's Office of a breach "experienced" in August 2023 after Wytrzyszczewski alerted the college that sensitive files on nearly 800 students were accessible to other college users via the ICCA's web portal. The breach saw personal data such as email addresses, phone numbers and academic information — including exam marks and previous institutions attended — accessible to students at the college. Students using the ICCA's web portal were also able to access ID photos, as well as student ID numbers and sensitive data, such as health records, visa status and information as to whether they were pregnant or had children... After the college secured a written undertaking from Wytrzyszczewski not to disclose any of the information he had discovered, it launched misconduct proceedings against him. He had stumbled across the files in error, he said, and viewed a significant number to ensure he could report their contents with accuracy.
"The panel cleared Wytrzyszczewski and found it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter," according to the article.

But he "said the experience caused him to unenroll from the ICCA's course and restart his training at another provider."

Slashdot reader storagedude shares a provocative post from the cybersecurity news blog of Cyble Inc. (a Ycombinator-backed company promising "AI-powered actionable threat intelligence").

The post delves into concerns that the new "Recall" feature planned for Windows (on upcoming Copilot+ PCs) is "a security and privacy nightmare." Copilot Recall will be enabled by default and will capture frequent screenshots, or "snapshots," of a user's activity and store them in a local database tied to the user account. The potential for exposure of personal and sensitive data through the new feature has alarmed security and privacy advocates and even sparked a UK inquiry into the issue. In a long Mastodon thread on the new feature, Windows security researcher Kevin Beaumont wrote, "I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this is the dumbest cybersecurity move in a decade. Good luck to my parents safely using their PC."

In a blog post on Recall security and privacy, Microsoft said that processing and storage are done only on the local device and encrypted, but even Microsoft's own explanations raise concerns: "Note that Recall does not perform content moderation. It will not hide information such as passwords or financial account numbers. That data may be in snapshots that are stored on your device, especially when sites do not follow standard internet protocols like cloaking password entry." Security and privacy advocates take issue with assertions that the data is stored securely on the local device. If someone has a user's password or if a court orders that data be turned over for legal or law enforcement purposes, the amount of data exposed could be much greater with Recall than would otherwise be exposed... And hackers, malware and infostealers will have access to vastly more data than they would without Recall.

Beaumont said the screenshots are stored in a SQLite database, "and you can access it as the user including programmatically. It 100% does not need physical access and can be stolen.... Recall enables threat actors to automate scraping everything you've ever looked at within seconds."
Beaumont's LinkedIn profile and blog say that starting in 2020 he worked at Microsoft for nearly a year as a senior threat intelligence analyst. And now Beaumont's Mastodon post is also raising other concerns (according to Cyble's blog post):

• "Sensitive data deleted by users will still be saved in Recall screenshots... 'If you or a friend use disappearing messages in WhatsApp, Signal etc, it is recorded regardless.'"

• "Beaumont also questioned Microsoft's assertion that all this is done locally."

The blog post also notes that Leslie Carhart, Director of Incident Response at Dragos, had this reaction to Beaumont's post. "The outrage and disbelief are warranted."

"To save itself, TikTok in 2022 offered the U.S. government an extraordinary deal," reports the Washington Post. The video app, owned by a Chinese company, said it would let federal officials pick its U.S. operation's board of directors, would give the government veto power over each new hire and would pay an American company that contracts with the Defense Department to monitor its source code, according to a copy of the company's proposal. It even offered to give federal officials a kill switch that would shut the app down in the United States if they felt it remained a threat.

The Biden administration, however, went its own way. Officials declined the proposal, forfeiting potential influence over one of the world's most popular apps in favor of a blunter option: a forced-sale law signed last month by President Biden that could lead to TikTok's nationwide ban. The government has never publicly explained why it rejected TikTok's proposal, opting instead for a potentially protracted constitutional battle that many expect to end up before the Supreme Court... But the extent to which the United States evaluated or disregarded TikTok's proposal, known as Project Texas, is likely to be a core point of dispute in court, where TikTok and its owner, ByteDance, are challenging the sale-or-ban law as an "unconstitutional assertion of power."

The episode raises questions over whether the government, when presented with a way to address its concerns, chose instead to back an effort that would see the company sold to an American buyer, even though some of the issues officials have warned about — the opaque influence of its recommendation algorithm, the privacy of user data — probably would still be unresolved under new ownership...

A senior Biden administration official said in a statement that the administration "determined more than a year ago that the solution proposed by the parties at the time would be insufficient to address the serious national security risks presented. While we have consistently engaged with the company about our concerns and potential solutions, it became clear that divestment from its foreign ownership was and remains necessary."
"Since federal officials announced an investigation into TikTok in 2019, the app's user base has doubled to more than 170 million U.S. accounts," according to the article.

It also includes this assessment from Anupam Chander, a Georgetown University law professor who researches international tech policy. "The government had a complete absence of faith in [its] ability to regulate technology platforms, because there might be some vulnerability that might exist somewhere down the line."

If you contact Spotify's customer service with a valid receipt, the company will refund your Car Thing purchase. That's the latest development reported by Engadget. When Spotify first announced that it would brick every Car Thing device on December 9, 2024, it said that it wouldn't offer owners any subscription credit or automatic refund. From the report: Spotify has taken some heat for its announcement last week that it will brick every Car Thing device on December 9, 2024. The company described its decision as "part of our ongoing efforts to streamline our product offerings" (read: cut costs) and that it lets Spotify "focus on developing new features and enhancements that will ultimately provide a better experience to all Spotify users."

TechCrunch reports that Gen Z users on TikTok have expressed their frustration in videos, while others have complained directed toward Spotify in DMs on X (Twitter) and directly through customer support. Some users claimed Spotify's customer service agents only offered several months of free Premium access, while others were told nobody was receiving refunds. It isn't clear if any of them contacted them after last Friday when it shifted gears on refunds.

Others went much further. Billboard first reported on a class-action lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 28. The suit accuses Spotify of misleading Car Thing customers by selling a $90 product that would soon be obsolete without offering refunds, which sounds like a fair enough point. It's worth noting that, according to Spotify, it began offering the refunds last week, while the lawsuit was only filed on Tuesday. If the company's statement about refunds starting on May 24 is accurate, the refunds aren't a direct response to the legal action. (Although it's possible the company began offering them in anticipation of lawsuits.) Editor's note: As a disgruntled Car Thing owner myself, I can confirm that Spotify is approving refund requests. You'll just have to play the waiting game to get through to a Spotify Advisor and their "team" that approves these requests. You may have better luck emailing customer service directly at support@spotify.com.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Yesterday, Amazon failed to convince a US district court to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's lawsuit targeting the tech giant's alleged history of tricking people into signing up for Prime. The FTC has alleged that Amazon "tricked, coerced, and manipulated consumers into subscribing to Amazon Prime," a court order said, failing to get informed consent by designing a murky sign-up process. And to keep subscriptions high, Amazon also "did not provide simple mechanisms for these subscribers to cancel their Prime memberships," the FTC alleged. Instead, Amazon forced "consumers intending to cancel to navigate a four-page, six-click, fifteen-option cancellation process." In their motion to dismiss, Amazon outright disputed these characterizations of its business, insisting its enrollment process was clear, its cancellation process was simple, and none of its executives could be held responsible for failing to fix these processes when "accidental" sign-ups became widespread. Amazon defended its current practices, arguing that some of its Prime disclosures "align with practices that the FTC encourages in its guidance documents." But the judge apparently did not find Amazon's denials completely persuasive. Viewing the FTC's complaint "in the light most favorable to the FTC," Judge John Chun concluded that "the allegations sufficiently indicate that Amazon had actual or constructive knowledge that its Prime sign-up and cancellation flows were misleading consumers."

In his order (PDF), Chun also denied individual motions to dismiss from Amazon executives Russell Grandinetti, Neil Lindsay, and Jamil Ghani, who oversaw Prime operations. Executives had urged the court to dismiss the FTC's claims against them. They argued that the FTC "singled them out 'for an 'unprecedented sanction'" when the agency had "only recently started prosecuting companies for using 'dark patterns'" under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA) and the FTC Act. They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law? According to Chun, however, the FTC sufficiently alleged that each of these executives knew they were violating consumer protection laws when prioritizing profits over eliminating dark patterns triggering "accidental" or "nonconsensual" Prime sign-ups. Chun explained that executives may be "personally liable for corporate violations of the FTC Act if the individual 'participated directly in, or had the authority to control, the unlawful acts or practices at issue.'"

For example, when Lindsay -- who in 2016 had the "most responsibility for the Prime subscription program" -- was "asked about Amazon's use of dark patterns during the Prime enrollment process," Lindsay justified the dark patterns. "Lindsay explained that once consumers become Prime members -- even unknowingly -- they will see what a great program it is and remain members, so Amazon is 'okay' with the situation," Chun's order said. And when Grandinetti, who "oversaw the Prime subscription program" in 2018, was told that the sign-up process and auto-renew feature frustrated customers, he "vetoed any changes that would reduce enrollment." Because executives seemingly prioritized profits over reducing customer friction, the FTC alleged that reasonable customers got sucked into Prime without their consent. Sometimes customers understandably got confused by the "discrepancy in size, location, and color" of Amazon's disclosures, Chun suggested. Other times, confusion struck when Amazon tried to upsell customers on Prime at checkout -- pairing their enrollment with their other shopping experience.

Former FTX executive Ryan Salame has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison, "the first of the lieutenants of failed cryptocurrency mogul Sam Bankman-Fried to receive jail time for their roles in the 2022 collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange," reports the Associated Press. From the report: Salame, 30, was a high-ranking executive at FTX for most of the exchange's existence and, up until its collapse, was the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets. He pleaded guilty last year to illegally making unlawful U.S. campaign contributions and to operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. The sentence of 7 1/2 years in prison, plus three years of supervised release, was more than the five to seven years prosecutors had asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to impose on Salame in their pre-sentencing memo.

While Salame was a high-level executive at FTX, he was not a major part of the government's case against Bankman-Fried at his trial earlier this year and did not testify against him. In a bid for leniency, Salame said during the sentencing hearing that he cooperated and even provided documents that aided prosecutors in their cross examination of Bankman-Fried, as well as in his own prosecution. Along with helping Bankman-Fried hide the holes in FTX's balance sheet that ultimately led to the exchange's failure, Salame was used as a conduit for Bankman-Fried to make illegal campaign contributions to help shape U.S. policy on cryptocurrencies. On the surface, Bankman-Fried mostly gave political contributions to Democrats and liberal-leaning causes, while Salame gave contributions to Republicans and right-leaning causes. But ultimately the funds that Salame used for those contributions came from Bankman-Fried.

The judge also chastised Salame for pulling $5 million in cryptocurrencies out of FTX as the exchange was failing. "You tried to withdraw tens of millions more," Kaplan said. "It was me first. I'm getting in the lifeboat first. To heck with all those customers."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The defense lawyer minced no words as he addressed a room full of plastic-industry executives. Prepare for a wave of lawsuits with potentially "astronomical" costs. Speaking at a conference earlier this year, the lawyer, Brian Gross, said the coming litigation could "dwarf anything related to asbestos," one of the most sprawling corporate-liability battles in United States history. Mr. Gross was referring to PFAS, the "forever chemicals" that have emerged as one of the major pollution issues of our time. Used for decades in countless everyday objects -- cosmetics, takeout containers, frying pans -- PFAS have been linked to serious health risks including cancer. Last month the federal government said several types of PFAS must be removed from the drinking water of hundreds of millions of Americans. "Do what you can, while you can, before you get sued," Mr. Gross said at the February session, according to a recording of the event made by a participant and examined by The New York Times. "Review any marketing materials or other communications that you've had with your customers, with your suppliers, see whether there's anything in those documents that's problematic to your defense," he said. "Weed out people and find the right witness to represent your company."

A wide swath of the chemicals, plastics and related industries are gearing up to fight a surge in litigation related to PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of nearly 15,000 versatile synthetic chemicals linked to serious health problems. [...] PFAS-related lawsuits have already targeted manufacturers in the United States, including DuPont, its spinoff Chemours, and 3M. Last year, 3M agreed to pay at least $10 billion to water utilities across the United States that had sought compensation for cleanup costs. Thirty state attorneys general have also sued PFAS manufacturers, accusing the manufacturers of widespread contamination. But experts say the legal battle is just beginning. Under increasing scrutiny are a wider universe of companies that use PFAS in their products. This month, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against Bic, accusing the razor company for failing to disclose that some of its razors contained PFAS. Bic said it doesn't comment on pending litigation, and said it had a longstanding commitment to safety.

The Biden administration has moved to regulate the chemicals, for the first time requiring municipal water systems to remove six types of PFAS. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency also designated two of those PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup at contaminated sites from taxpayers to polluters. Both rules are expected to prompt a new round of litigation from water utilities, local communities and others suing for cleanup costs. "To say that the floodgates are opening is an understatement," said Emily M. Lamond, an attorney who focuses on environmental litigation at the law firm Cole Schotz. "Take tobacco, asbestos, MTBE, combine them, and I think we're still going to see more PFAS-related litigation," she said, referring to methyl tert-butyl ether, a former harmful gasoline additive that contaminated drinking water. Together, the trio led to claims totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. Unlike tobacco, used by only a subset of the public, "pretty much every one of us in the United States is walking around with PFAS in our bodies," said Erik Olson, senior strategic director for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And we're being exposed without our knowledge or consent, often by industries that knew how dangerous the chemicals were, and failed to disclose that," he said. "That's a formula for really significant liability."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Some of the most infamous so-called shadow libraries have increasingly faced legal pressure to either stop pirating books or risk being shut down or driven to the dark web. Among the biggest targets are Z-Library, which the US Department of Justice has charged with criminal copyright infringement, and Library Genesis (Libgen), which was sued by textbook publishers last fall for allegedly distributing digital copies of copyrighted works "on a massive scale in willful violation" of copyright laws. But now these shadow libraries and others accused of spurning copyrights have seemingly found an unlikely defender in Nvidia, the AI chipmaker among those profiting most from the recent AI boom.

Nvidia seemed to defend the shadow libraries as a valid source of information online when responding to a lawsuit from book authors over the list of data repositories that were scraped to create the Books3 dataset used to train Nvidia's AI platform NeMo. That list includes some of the most "notorious" shadow libraries -- Bibliotik, Z-Library (Z-Lib), Libgen, Sci-Hub, and Anna's Archive, authors argued. However, Nvidia hopes to invalidate authors' copyright claims partly by denying that any of these controversial websites should even be considered shadow libraries.

"Nvidia denies the characterization of the listed data repositories as 'shadow libraries' and denies that hosting data in or distributing data from the data repositories necessarily violates the US Copyright Act," Nvidia's court filing said. The chipmaker did not go into further detail to define what counts as a shadow library or what potentially absolves these controversial sites from key copyright concerns raised by various ongoing lawsuits. Instead, Nvidia kept its response brief while also curtly disputing authors' petition for class-action status and defending its AI training methods as fair use. "Nvidia denies that it has improperly used or copied the alleged works," the court filing said, arguing that "training is a highly transformative process that may include adjusting numerical parameters including 'weights,' and that outputs of an LLM may be based, at least in part, on such 'weights.'" "Nvidia's argument likely depends on the court agreeing that AI models ingesting published works in order to transform those works into weights governing AI outputs is fair use," notes Ars. "However, authors have argued that 'these weights are entirely and uniquely derived from the protected expression in the training dataset' that has been copied without getting authors' consent or providing authors with compensation."

"Authors suing Nvidia have taken the next step, linking the chipmaker to shadow libraries by arguing that 'these shadow libraries have long been of interest to the AI-training community because they host and distribute vast quantities of unlicensed copyrighted material. For that reason, these shadow libraries also violate the US Copyright Act.'"

UPI reports that the British government covered up "a multi-decade tainted blood scandal, leading to thousands of related deaths, a report published Monday found." Britain's National Health Service allowed blood tainted with HIV and Hepatitis to be used on patients without their knowledge, leading to 3,000 deaths and more than 30,000 infections, according to the 2,527-page final report by Justice Brian Justice Langstaff, a former judge on the High Court of England and Wales. Langstaff oversaw a five-year investigation into the use of tainted blood and blood products in Britain's healthcare system between 1970 and 1991. The report blames multiple administrations over the time period for knowingly exposing victims to unacceptable risks...

In several cases, health officials lied about the risks to patients... The NHS also gave patients false reassurances, an attempt to "save face," failing victims "not once but repeatedly...." The situation could "largely, though not entirely, have been avoided," Langstaff found...

The British government on Monday began operating a support phone line for people and their families affected by the tainted blood scandal.
The article notes that Langstaff described the coverup as "subtle" but "pervasive" and "chilling in its implications...

"To save face and to save expense, there has been a hiding of much of the truth."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.

Exactly one year after the fatal shooting of 19 elementary school students in Texas, their parents filed a lawsuit against the publisher of the videogame Call of Duty, against Meta, and against the manufacturer of the AR-15-style weapon used in the attack, Daniel Defense.

The Washington Post says the lawsuits "may be the first of their kind to connect aggressive firearms marketing tactics on social media and gaming platforms to the actions of a mass shooter." The complaints contend the three companies are responsible for "grooming" a generation of "socially vulnerable" young men radicalized to live out violent video game fantasies in the real world with easily accessible weapons of war...

Several state legislatures, including California and Hawaii, passed consumer safety laws specific to the sale and marketing of firearms that would open the industry to more civil liability. Texas is not one of them. But it's just one vein in the three-pronged legal push by Uvalde families. The lawsuit against Activision and Meta, which is being filed in California, accuses the tech companies of knowingly promoting dangerous weapons to millions of vulnerable young people, particularly young men who are "insecure about their masculinity, often bullied, eager to show strength and assert dominance."

"To put a finer point on it: Defendants are chewing up alienated teenage boys and spitting out mass shooters," the lawsuit states...

The lawsuit alleges that Meta, which owns Instagram, easily allows gun manufacturers like Daniel Defense to circumvent its ban on paid firearm advertisements to reach scores of young people. Under Meta's rules, gunmakers are not allowed to buy advertisements promoting the sale of or use of weapons, ammunition or explosives. But gunmakers are free to post promotional material about weapons from their own account pages on Facebook and Instagram — a freedom the lawsuit alleges Daniel Defense often exploited.

According to the complaint, the Robb school shooter downloaded a version of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare," in November 2021 that featured on the opening title page the DDM4V7 model rifle [shooter Salvador] Ramos would later purchase. Drawing from the shooter's social media accounts, Koskoff argued he was being bombarded with explicit marketing and combat imagery from the company on Instagram... The complaint cites Meta's practice, first reported by The Washington Post in 2022, of giving gun sellers wide latitude to knowingly break its rules against selling firearms on its websites. The company has allowed buyers and sellers to violate the rule 10 times before they are kicked off, The Post reported.
The article adds that the lawsuit against Meta "echoes some of the complaints by dozens of state attorneys general and school districts that have accused the tech giant of using manipulative practices to hook... while exposing them to harmful content." It also includes a few excerpts from the text of the lawsuit.

• It argues that both Meta and Activision "knowingly exposed the Shooter to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as the solution to his problems, and trained him to use it."

• The lawsuit also compares their practices to another ad campaign accused of marketing harmful products to children: cigarettes. "Over the last 15 years, two of America's largest technology companies — Defendants Activision and Meta — have partnered with the firearms industry in a scheme that makes the Joe Camel campaign look laughably harmless, even quaint."

Meta and Daniel Defense didn't respond to the reporters' requests for comment. But they did quote a statement from Activision expressing sympathy for the communities and families impacted by the "horrendous and heartbreaking" shooting.

Activision also added that "Millions of people around the world enjoy video games without turning to horrific acts."

Emma Roth reports via The Verge: The UK could subject big tech companies to hefty fines if they don't comply with new rules meant to promote competition in digital markets. On Thursday, lawmakers passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill (DMCC) through Parliament, which will let regulators enforce rules without the help of the courts. The DMCC also addresses consumer protection issues by banning fake reviews, forcing companies to be more transparent about their subscription contracts, regulating secondary ticket sales, and getting rid of hidden fees. It will also force certain companies to report mergers to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The European Union enacted a similar law, called the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Only the companies the CMA designates as having Strategic Market Status (SMS) have to comply. These SMS companies are described as having "substantial and entrenched market power" and "a position of strategic significance" in the UK. They must have a global revenue of more than 25 billion euros or UK revenue of more than 1 billion euros. The law will also give the CMA the authority to determine whether a company has broken a law, require compliance, and issue a fine -- all without going through the court system. The CMA can fine companies up to 10 percent of the total value of a business's global revenue for violating the new rules.

Messaging app Signal's president Meredith Whittaker criticized rival Telegram's security on Friday, saying Telegram founder Pavel Durov is "full of s---" in his claims about Signal. "Telegram is a social media platform, it's not encrypted, it's the least secure of messaging and social media services out there," Whittaker told TechCrunch in an interview. The comments come amid a war of words between Whittaker, Durov and Twitter owner Elon Musk over the security of their respective platforms. Whittaker said Durov's amplification of claims questioning Signal's security was "incredibly reckless" and "actually harms real people."

"Play your games, but don't take them into my court," Whittaker said, accusing Durov of prioritizing being "followed by a professional photographer" over getting facts right about Signal's encryption. Signal uses end-to-end encryption by default, while Telegram only offers it for "secret chats." Whittaker said many in Ukraine and Russia use Signal for "actual serious communications" while relying on Telegram's less-secure social media features. She said the "jury is in" on the platforms' comparative security and that Signal's open source code allows experts to validate its privacy claims, which have the trust of the security community.

Australia's media regulator is taking legal action against telecom carrier Optus, owned by Singapore Telecommunications, over a cyber attack it faced in September 2022, the telecom operator said on Wednesday. From a report: Australia's No.2 telco, had in September 2022 faced a massive data breach which exposed customers' personal information, including home addresses, passport and phone numbers. Following the incident, the country's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called for tougher privacy rules to force companies to notify banks faster when they experience similar data breaches.

About 10 million Australians, 40% of the population, are Optus customers and could not use smartphones, broadband internet or landlines for much of the day of the breach. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is alleging that Optus Mobile failed to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information of its customers from unauthorised interference or unauthorised access.

Political consultant Steven Kramer faces a $6 million fine and over two dozen criminal charges for using AI-generated robocalls mimicking President Joe Biden's voice to mislead New Hampshire voters ahead of the presidential primary. The Associated Press reports: The Federal Communications Commission said the fine it proposed Thursday for Steven Kramer is its first involving generative AI technology. The company accused of transmitting the calls, Lingo Telecom, faces a $2 million fine, though in both cases the parties could settle or further negotiate, the FCC said. Kramer has admitted orchestrating a message that was sent to thousands of voters two days before the first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 23. The message played an AI-generated voice similar to the Democratic president's that used his phrase "What a bunch of malarkey" and falsely suggested that voting in the primary would preclude voters from casting ballots in November.

Kramer is facing 13 felony charges alleging he violated a New Hampshire law against attempting to deter someone from voting using misleading information. He also faces 13 misdemeanor charges accusing him of falsely representing himself as a candidate by his own conduct or that of another person. The charges were filed in four counties and will be prosecuted by the state attorney general's office. Attorney General John Formella said New Hampshire was committed to ensuring that its elections "remain free from unlawful interference."

Kramer, who owns a firm that specializes in get-out-the-vote projects, did not respond to an email seeking comment Thursday. He told The Associated Press in February that he wasn't trying to influence the outcome of the election but rather wanted to send a wake-up call about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence when he paid a New Orleans magician $150 to create the recording. "Maybe I'm a villain today, but I think in the end we get a better country and better democracy because of what I've done, deliberately," Kramer said in February.

Apple executive Phil Schiller admitted in court on Wednesday that the company's court-mandated changes to its iPhone app store payment system have not significantly increased competition. The ongoing hearings in Oakland, California, are determining whether Apple is properly complying with an antitrust order to allow developers to display links to alternative payment options. Despite Apple's implementation of the changes in January, only a small number of apps have sought approval for external payment links.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has expressed frustration with Apple executives, questioning whether they understand the order's intent to increase competition. Schiller defended Apple's response as well-intentioned but acknowledged the need for further action to encourage more apps to utilize external payment options.

The Justice Department on Thursday said it was suing Live Nation Entertainment [non-paywalled link], the concert giant that owns Ticketmaster, asking a court to break up the company over claims it illegally maintained a monopoly in the live entertainment industry. From a report: In the lawsuit, which is joined by 29 states and the District of Columbia, the government accuses Live Nation of dominating the industry by locking venues into exclusive ticketing contracts, pressuring artists to use its services and threatening its rivals with financial retribution. Those tactics, the government argues, have resulted in higher ticket prices for consumers and have stifled innovation and competition throughout the industry.

"It is time to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster," Merrick Garland, the attorney general, said in a statement announcing the suit, which is being filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is a direct challenge to the business of Live Nation, a colossus of the entertainment industry and a force in the lives of musicians and fans alike. The case, filed 14 years after the government approved Live Nation's merger with Ticketmaster, has the potential to transform the multibillion-dollar concert industry. Live Nation's scale and reach far exceed those of any competitor, encompassing concert promotion, ticketing, artist management and the operation of hundreds of venues and festivals around the world.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau declared on Wednesday that customers of the burgeoning buy now, pay later industry have the same federal protections as users of credit cards. From a report: The agency unveiled what it called an "interpretive rule" that deemed BNPL lenders essentially the same as traditional credit card providers under the decades-old Truth in Lending Act. That means the industry -- currently dominated by fintech firms like Affirm, Klarna and PayPal -- must make refunds for returned products or canceled services, must investigate merchant disputes and pause payments during those probes, and must provide bills with fee disclosures.

"Regardless of whether a shopper swipes a credit card or uses Buy Now, Pay Later, they are entitled to important consumer protections under long-standing laws and regulations already on the books," CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a release. The CFPB, which last week was handed a crucial victory by the Supreme Court, has pushed hard against the U.S. financial industry, issuing rules that slashed credit card late fees and overdraft penalties. The agency, formed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, began investigating the BNPL industry in late 2021.

Android Authority's Mishaal Rahman reports that the group speaker volume controls feature is back in Android 15 Beta 2. "Google intentionally disabled this functionality on Pixel phones back in late 2021 due to a legal dispute with Sonos," reports Rahman. "In late 2023, Google announced it would bring back several features they had to remove, following a judge's overturning of a jury verdict that was in favor of Sonos." From the report: When you create a speaker group consisting of one or more Assistant-enabled devices in the Google Home app, you're able to cast audio to that group from your phone using a Cast-enabled app. For example, let's say I make a speaker group named "Nest Hubs" that consists of my bedroom Nest Hub and my living room Nest Hub. If I open the YouTube Music app, start playing a song, and then tap the cast icon, I can select "Nest Hubs" to start playback on both my Nest Hubs simultaneously.

If I keep the YouTube Music app open, I can control the volume of my speaker group by pressing the volume keys on my phone. This functionality is available no matter what device I use. However, if I open another app while YouTube Music is casting, whether I'm able to still control the volume of my speaker group using my phone's volume keys depends on what phone I'm using and what software version it's running. If I'm using a Pixel phone that's running a software version before Android 15 Beta 2, then I'm unable to control the volume of my speaker group unless I re-open the YouTube Music app. If I'm using a phone from any other manufacturer, then I won't have any issues controlling the volume of my speaker group.

The reason for this weird discrepancy is that Google intentionally blocked Pixel devices from being able to control the volume of Google Home speaker groups while casting. Google did this out of an abundance of caution while they were fighting a legal dispute. [...] With the release of last week's Android 15 Beta 2, we can confirm that Google finally restored this functionality.

In what's believed to be the first case of its kind, the U.S. Department of Justice arrested a Wisconsin man last week for generating and distributing AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Even if no children were used to create the material, the DOJ "looks to establish a judicial precedent that exploitative materials are still illegal," reports Engadget. From the report: The DOJ says 42-year-old software engineer Steven Anderegg of Holmen, WI, used a fork of the open-source AI image generator Stable Diffusion to make the images, which he then used to try to lure an underage boy into sexual situations. The latter will likely play a central role in the eventual trial for the four counts of "producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transferring obscene material to a minor under the age of 16." The government says Anderegg's images showed "nude or partially clothed minors lasciviously displaying or touching their genitals or engaging in sexual intercourse with men." The DOJ claims he used specific prompts, including negative prompts (extra guidance for the AI model, telling it what not to produce) to spur the generator into making the CSAM.

Cloud-based image generators like Midjourney and DALL-E 3 have safeguards against this type of activity, but Ars Technica reports that Anderegg allegedly used Stable Diffusion 1.5, a variant with fewer boundaries. Stability AI told the publication that fork was produced by Runway ML. According to the DOJ, Anderegg communicated online with the 15-year-old boy, describing how he used the AI model to create the images. The agency says the accused sent the teen direct messages on Instagram, including several AI images of "minors lasciviously displaying their genitals." To its credit, Instagram reported the images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which alerted law enforcement. Anderegg could face five to 70 years in prison if convicted on all four counts. He's currently in federal custody before a hearing scheduled for May 22.

Apple said on Tuesday it plans to ask a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and 15 states in March that alleged the iPhone maker monopolized the smartphone market, hurt smaller rivals and drove up prices. From a report: In a letter to U.S. District Judge Julien X. Neals in New Jersey, Apple said "far from being a monopolist, Apple faces fierce competition from well-established rivals, and the complaint fails to allege that Apple has the ability to charge supra-competitive prices or restrict output in the alleged smartphone markets." In the letter to the judge, Apple said the DOJ relies on a new "theory of antitrust liability that no court has recognized."

The government is expected to respond within seven days to the Apple letter, which the court requires parties to submit, hoping to expedite cases before advancing to a potentially more robust and expensive effort to dismiss a lawsuit. The Justice Department alleges that Apple uses its market power to get more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses and merchants. The civil lawsuit accuses Apple of an illegal monopoly on smartphones maintained by imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access from, developers.