Mozilla has been hit with a complaint by EU privacy group noyb, accusing it of violating GDPR by tracking Firefox users by default without their consent. TechCrunch reports: Mozilla calls the feature at issue "Privacy Preserving Attribution" (PPA). But noyb argues this is misdirection. And if EU privacy regulators agree with the complaint the Firefox-maker could be slapped with orders to change tack -- or even face a penalty (the GDPR allows for fines of up to 4% of global revenue). "Contrary to its reassuring name, this technology allows Firefox to track user behaviour on websites," noyb wrote in a press release. "In essence, the browser is now controlling the tracking, rather than individual websites. While this might be an improvement compared to even more invasive cookie tracking, the company never asked its users if they wanted to enable it. Instead, Mozilla decided to turn it on by default once people installed a recent software update. This is particularly worrying because Mozilla generally has a reputation for being a privacy-friendly alternative when most other browsers are based on Google's Chromium."

Another component of noyb's objection is that Mozilla's move "doesn't replace cookies either" -- Firefox simply wouldn't have the market share and power to shift industry practices -- so all it's done is produce another additional way for websites to target ads. [...] The noyb-backed complaint (PDF), which has been filed with the Austrian data protection authority, accuses Mozilla of failing to inform users about the processing of their personal data and of using an opt-out -- rather than an affirmative "opt-in" -- mechanism. The privacy rights group also wants the regulator to order the deletion of all data collected so far. In a statement attributed to Christopher Hilton, its director of policy and corporate communications, Mozilla said that it has only conducted a "limited test" of a PPA prototype on its own websites.While acknowledging poor communication around the effort, the company emphasized that no user data has been collected or shared and expressed its commitment to engaging with stakeholders as it develops the technology further.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Super Micro Computer after short-seller Hindenburg Research alleged "accounting manipulation" at the AI server maker. Super Micro's shares fell about 12% following the report. Reuters reports: The WSJ report, which cited people familiar with the matter, said the probe was at an early stage and that a prosecutor at a U.S. attorney's office recently contacted people who may be holding relevant information. The prosecutor has asked for information that appeared to be connected to a former employee who accused the company of accounting violations, the report added.

Super Micro had late last month delayed filing its annual report, citing a need to assess "its internal controls over financial reporting," a day after Hindenburg disclosed a short position and made claims of "accounting manipulation." The short-seller had cited a three-month investigation that included interviews with former senior employees of Super Micro and litigation records. Hindenburg's allegations included evidence of undisclosed related-party transactions, failure to abide by export controls, among other issues. The company had denied Hindenburg's claims.

A New York federal court has ordered (PDF) the operators of shadow library LibGen to pay $30 million in copyright damages to publishers. The default judgment also comes with a broad injunction that affects third-party services including domain registries, browser extensions, CDN providers, IPFS gateways, advertisers, and more. These parties must restrict access to the pirate site. An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon granted the default judgment without any changes. The anonymous LibGen defendants are responsible for willful copyright infringement and their activities should be stopped. "Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct and will continue to be irreparably harmed should Defendants be allowed to continue operating the Libgen Sites," the order reads. The order requires the defendants to pay the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work, a total of $30 million, for which they are jointly and severally liable. While this is a win on paper, it's unlikely that the publishers will get paid by the LibGen operators, who remain anonymous.

To address this concern, the publishers' motion didn't merely ask for $30 million in damages, they also demanded a broad injunction. Granted by the court yesterday, the injunction requires third-party services such as advertising networks, payment processors, hosting providers, CDN services, and IPFS gateways to restrict access to the site. [...] The injunction further targets "browser extensions" and "other tools" that are used to provide direct access to the LibGen Sites. While site blocking by residential Internet providers is mentioned in reference to other countries, ISP blocking is not part of the injunction itself. In addition to the broad measures outlined above, the order further requires domain name registrars and registries to disable or suspend all active LibGen domains, or alternatively, transfer them to the publishers. This includes Libgen.is, the most used domain name with 16 million monthly visits, as well as Libgen.rs, Libgen.li and many others.

At the moment, it's unclear how actively managed the LibGen site is, as it has shown signs of decay in recent years. However, when faced with domain seizures, sites typically respond by registering new domains. The publishers are aware of this risk. Therefore, they asked the court to cover future domain names too. The court signed off on this request, which means that newly registered domain names can be taken over as well; at least in theory. [...] All in all, the default judgment isn't just a monetary win, on paper, it's also one of the broadest anti-piracy injunctions we've seen from a U.S. court.

The Tor Project: Today the Tor Project, a global non-profit developing tools for online privacy and anonymity, and Tails, a portable operating system that uses Tor to protect users from digital surveillance, have joined forces and merged operations. Incorporating Tails into the Tor Project's structure allows for easier collaboration, better sustainability, reduced overhead, and expanded training and outreach programs to counter a larger number of digital threats. In short, coming together will strengthen both organizations' ability to protect people worldwide from surveillance and censorship.

Countering the threat of global mass surveillance and censorship to a free Internet, Tor and Tails provide essential tools to help people around the world stay safe online. By joining forces, these two privacy advocates will pool their resources to focus on what matters most: ensuring that activists, journalists, other at-risk and everyday users will have access to improved digital security tools.

In late 2023, Tails approached the Tor Project with the idea of merging operations. Tails had outgrown its existing structure. Rather than expanding Tails's operational capacity on their own and putting more stress on Tails workers, merging with the Tor Project, with its larger and established operational framework, offered a solution. By joining forces, the Tails team can now focus on their core mission of maintaining and improving Tails OS, exploring more and complementary use cases while benefiting from the larger organizational structure of The Tor Project.

This solution is a natural outcome of the Tor Project and Tails' shared history of collaboration and solidarity. 15 years ago, Tails' first release was announced on a Tor mailing list, Tor and Tails developers have been collaborating closely since 2015, and more recently Tails has been a sub-grantee of Tor. For Tails, it felt obvious that if they were to approach a bigger organization with the possibility of merging, it would be the Tor Project.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Among the first AI companies that the Federal Trade Commission has exposed as deceiving consumers is DoNotPay -- which initially was advertised as "the world's first robot lawyer" with the ability to "sue anyone with the click of a button." On Wednesday, the FTC announced that it took action to stop DoNotPay from making bogus claims after learning that the AI startup conducted no testing "to determine whether its AI chatbot's output was equal to the level of a human lawyer." DoNotPay also did not "hire or retain any attorneys" to help verify AI outputs or validate DoNotPay's legal claims.

DoNotPay accepted no liability. But to settle the charges that DoNotPay violated the FTC Act, the AI startup agreed to pay $193,000, if the FTC's consent agreement is confirmed following a 30-day public comment period. Additionally, DoNotPay agreed to warn "consumers who subscribed to the service between 2021 and 2023" about the "limitations of law-related features on the service," the FTC said. Moving forward, DoNotPay would also be prohibited under the settlement from making baseless claims that any of its features can be substituted for any professional service. "The complaint relates to the usage of a few hundred customers some years ago (out of millions of people), with services that have long been discontinued," DoNotPay's spokesperson said. The company "is pleased to have worked constructively with the FTC to settle this case and fully resolve these issues, without admitting liability."

"Looks like there's a storm brewing, and it's not good news," writes ancient Slashdot reader jd. "Whether or not the bugs are classically security defects or not, this is extremely bad PR for the Linux and Open Source community. It's not clear from the article whether this affects other Open Source projects, such as FreeBSD." From a report: A critical unauthenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability has been discovered, impacting all GNU/Linux systems. As per agreements with developers, the flaw, which has existed for over a decade, will be fully disclosed in less than two weeks. Despite the severity of the issue, no Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) identifiers have been assigned yet, although experts suggest there should be at least three to six. Leading Linux distributors such as Canonical and RedHat have confirmed the flaw's severity, rating it 9.9 out of 10. This indicates the potential for catastrophic damage if exploited. However, despite this acknowledgment, no working fix is still available. Developers remain embroiled in debates over whether some aspects of the vulnerability impact security.

As of September 11th, Russia has blocked access to OONI Explorer, citing concerns over circumvention tools. This block affects Russian users' ability to access not only circumvention data but also the extensive dataset on global internet censorship that OONI provides. From a blog post: OONI Explorer is one of the largest open datasets on internet censorship around the world. We first launched this web platform back in 2016 with the goal of enabling researchers, journalists, and human rights defenders to investigate internet censorship based on empirical network measurement data that is contributed by OONI Probe users worldwide. Every day, we publish new measurements from around the world in real-time.

Today, OONI Explorer hosts more than 2 billion network measurements collected from 27 thousand distinct networks in 242 countries and territories since 2012. Out of all countries, OONI Probe users in Russia contribute the second largest volume of measurements (following the U.S, where OONI Probe users contribute the most measurements out of any country). This has enabled us to study various cases of internet censorship in Russia, such as the blocking of Tor, the blocking of independent news media websites, and how internet censorship in Russia changed amid the war in Ukraine.

In this report, we share OONI data on the blocking of OONI Explorer in Russia.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: OpenAI has pitched the Biden administration on the need for massive data centers that could each use as much power as entire cities, framing the unprecedented expansion as necessary to develop more advanced artificial intelligence models and compete with China. Following a recent meeting at the White House, which was attended by OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman and other tech leaders, the startup shared a document with government officials outlining the economic and national security benefits of building 5-gigawatt data centers in various US states, based on an analysis the company engaged with outside experts on. To put that in context, 5 gigawatts is roughly the equivalent of five nuclear reactors, or enough to power almost 3 million homes. OpenAI said investing in these facilities would result in tens of thousands of new jobs, boost the gross domestic product and ensure the US can maintain its lead in AI development, according to the document, which was viewed by Bloomberg News. To achieve that, however, the US needs policies that support greater data center capacity, the document said. "Whatever we're talking about is not only something that's never been done, but I don't believe it's feasible as an engineer, as somebody who grew up in this," said Joe Dominguez, CEO of Constellation Energy Corp. "It's certainly not possible under a timeframe that's going to address national security and timing."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required makers of web browsers and mobile operating systems to let consumers send opt-out preference signals that could limit businesses' use of personal information. The bill approved by the State Legislature last month would have required an opt-out signal "that communicates the consumer's choice to opt out of the sale and sharing of the consumer's personal information or to limit the use of the consumer's sensitive personal information." It would have made it illegal for a business to offer a web browser or mobile operating system without a setting that lets consumers "send an opt-out preference signal to businesses with which the consumer interacts."

In a veto message (PDF) sent to the Legislature Friday, Newsom said he would not sign the bill. Newsom wrote that he shares the "desire to enhance consumer privacy," noting that he previously signed a bill "requir[ing] the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish an accessible deletion mechanism allowing consumers to request that data brokers delete all of their personal information." But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill." Vetoes can be overridden with a two-thirds vote in each chamber. The bill was approved 59-12 in the Assembly and 31-7 in the Senate. But the State Legislature hasn't overridden a veto in decades. "It's troubling the power that companies such as Google appear to have over the governor's office," said Justin Kloczko, tech and privacy advocate for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit group in California. "What the governor didn't mention is that Google Chrome, Apple Safari and Microsoft Edge don't offer a global opt-out and they make up for nearly 90 percent of the browser market share. That's what matters. And people don't want to install plug-ins. Safari, which is the default browsers on iPhones, doesn't even accept a plug-in."

WordPress hosting service WP Engine on Monday sent a cease-and-desist letter to Automattic after the latter's CEO Matt Mullenweg called WP Engine a "cancer to WordPress" last week. From a report: The notice asks Automattic and Mullenweg to retract their comments and stop making statements against the company. WP Engine, which (like Automattic itself) commercializes the open-source WordPress project, also accused Mullenweg of threatening WP Engine before the WordCamp summit held last week. "Automattic's CEO Matthew Mullenweg threatened that if WP Engine did not agree to pay Automattic -- his for-profit entity -- a very large sum of money before his September 20th keynote address at the WordCamp US Convention, he was going to embark on a self-described 'scorched earth nuclear approach' toward WP Engine within the WordPress community and beyond, the letter read. "When his outrageous financial demands were not met, Mr. Mullenweg carried out his threats by making repeated false claims disparaging WP Engine to its employees, its customers, and the world," the letter added.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Paper or paper? In California, shoppers will have only one bag option at the checkout line starting in 2026. A decade ago, California became the first U.S. state to ban single-use plastic bags, the flimsy sacks that regularly blew into waterways, littered streets and collected in landfills. The prohibition, in the nation's most populous state, was considered a turning point in the effort to reduce plastic waste. But the move backfired in a way that few supporters expected. Californians in 2021 actually tossed nearly 50 percent more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed in 2014, according to data from CalRecycle, California's recycling agency. A loophole in the initial ban allowed retailers to provide thick-walled plastic bags and charge 10 cents a piece for them. Though technically reusable and recyclable, the heavier-duty sacks still ended up in many trash cans after a shopping trip.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation on Sunday banning the sale at grocery checkouts of all plastic bags (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source), regardless of thickness. The only option for customers who lack their own reusable shopping bags will be buying paper bags for 10 cents each. "We deserve a cleaner future for our communities, our children and our earth," said Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Democratic assemblywoman and co-author of the bill, in a statement. "It's time for us to get rid of these plastic bags and continue to move forward with a more pollution-free environment." Plastic bags are typically used for 12 minutes before being discarded, according to the California Public Interest Research Group, a consumer advocacy group. But those bags live in oceans and landfills for hundreds of years, and can contaminate drinking water and food in the form of microplastics. SB 1053 will go into effect on January 1st, 2026. It also changes the definition of a "recycled paper bag," requiring all bags with that label to be made of at least 50% post-consumer recycled materials starting January 1st, 2028.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil on Monday alleging the company carried out a "decades-long campaign of deception" in which the oil and gas giant misled the public on the merits of plastic recycling. The complaint accuses the company of using slick marketing and misleading public statements for half a century to claim recycling was an effective way to deal with plastic pollution, according to a press release from Bonta's office published Monday. It alleges the company continues to perpetuate the "myth" of recycling today. The case, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, seeks to compel ExxonMobil "to end its deceptive practices that threaten the environment and the public," the statement said.

Bonta is also asking the court to rule ExxonMobil must pay civil penalties, among other payments, for the harm inflicted by plastic pollution in California. "Plastics are everywhere, from the deepest parts of our oceans, the highest peaks on earth, and even in our bodies, causing irreversible damage -- in ways known and unknown -- to our environment and potentially our health," Bonta said. "For decades, ExxonMobil has been deceiving the public to convince us that plastic recycling could solve the plastic waste and pollution crisis when they clearly knew this wasn't possible. ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet and possibly jeopardizing our health," he said. [...]

Lawsuits against oil and gas companies for their role in climate change and air pollution are becoming more common, but Monday's is the first in the country to take on a fossil fuel company for its messaging around plastic recycling. The statement said that ExxonMobil "falsely promoted all plastic as recyclable, when in fact the vast majority of plastic products are not and likely cannot be recycled, either technically or economically." The lawsuit also alleges Exxon "continues to deceive the public by touting "advanced recycling" as the solution to the plastic waste and pollution crisis." Advanced -- or chemical -- recycling is a technology promoted by many oil companies, but which has been plagued by missed targets, closed or shelved plants and reports of fires and spills. [...] At the heart of the suit is the allegation ExxonMobil's messaging caused consumers to buy and use more single-use plastic than they otherwise would have. In response to the lawsuit, ExxonMobil pointed the finger back at California, which it said has an ineffective recycling system that officials have known about for decades: "They failed to act, and now they seek to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills."

ExxonMobil contends chemical recycling does work. "We're bringing real solutions, recycling plastic waste that couldn't be recycled by traditional methods," the company said in a statement.

A copy of the Attorney General's complaint can be found here (PDF).

In 2022 about 346,000 electric cars were reportedly sold in California. But the same year its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a whopping 9.3 million metric tons — the amount produced by 2.2 million gas-powered cars — lowering emissions 2.4% from the year before. "The biggest drop came from transportation, due largely to the increased use of renewable fuels," according to the state's Air Resources Board, touting a newly-released report. (And electricity sector emissions also fell by 2.6 million metric tons, or 4.1%, "even as electricity usage rose," according to The Hill — "a dichotomy that the regulators attributed to an increase in solar and wind power generation.")

So despite a growing economy, "the latest data underscores a continued trend of steady emissions decline..." according to a statement from the Board. "Between 2000 to 2022, emissions fell by 20% while California's gross domestic product increased by 78%, pointing to the effectiveness of the state's climate change and air quality programs." And the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per unit of economic output ("carbon intensity") has also dropped 55% in the last 20 years: [In 2022] the electricity sector had its lowest carbon intensity since 2000. Wind and solar now represent 30% of generation and in-state solar increased by 15% from 2021, driven by requirements under the state's Cap-and-Trade Program and Renewables Portfolio Standard. Furthermore, California increased its battery storage by 757% from 2019 through 2023, bolstering its renewable energy efforts. The storage capacity is enough to power 6.6 million homes for up to four hours.

Industrial emissions declined by 2%, also falling to the lowest level in 22 years. While refinery emissions remained essentially flat, emissions from oil and gas extraction declined, as did emissions from other fuel use, cement manufacturing, and cogeneration facilities. [The Hill says 2022's industrial emissions were 21.7% below year-2000 levels, according to the report.]

Livestock emissions, which are responsible for 70% of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions, peaked in 2012 and once again saw reductions in 2022. The decrease is driven by the use of methane digesters funded by the California Climate Investments and incentivized by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which capture emissions at the source and convert them to clean fuel.

Landfill methane emissions also continued to decline in 2022. This decline can be attributed in part to the state's efforts to reduce disposal of organic waste, as well as the California Landfill Methane Regulation, which requires landfill operators to monitor and capture emissions escaping from their facilities.
One local news site calls the drop in emissions "shocking," but adds that "the trend is expected to continue. In the second quarter of 2024, 118,181 zero-emission vehicles were purchased in the state, good for about one-quarter of all new car sales."

California governor Gavin Newsom said his state "is proving that climate action goes hand-in-hand with economic growth. We've slashed carbon pollution by a whopping 20% since the turn of the century all while building the world's fifth largest economy. Cleaner air, more good jobs — that's the California way."

German law enforcement seized 47 cryptocurrency exchange services "that facilitated illegal money laundering activities for cybercriminals," according to BleepingComputer, "including ransomware gangs."

Long-time Slashdot reader Arrogant-Bastard shares their report: The platforms allowed users to exchange cryptocurrencies without following applicable "Know Your Customer" regulations, meaning that users remained completely anonymous when making transactions. This created a low-risk environment for cybercriminals to launder their proceeds without fearing prosecution or being tracked. "Exchange services that enable such anonymous financial transactions and thus money laundering represent one of the most relevant building blocks in the criminal value chain of the cybercrime phenomenon," reads a Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) announcement... When visiting any of the seized exchanges, you are now redirected to a warning page titled "Operation Final Exchange," which warns visitors that they have been deceived by the promises of anonymity by the operators of these platforms.
The new site notes years-long promises from the exchanges "that their hosting cannot be found, that they do not store any customer data and that all data is deleted immediately after the transaction...

"We have found their servers and seized them — development servers, production servers, backup servers. We have their data — and therefore we have your data. Transactions, registration data, IP addresses.

"Our search for traces begins. See you soon."

In the antitrust trial alleging Google had an ad-selling monopoly, "government lawyers have said some of their strongest evidence is in Google's own internal communications," reports the Wall Street Journal: [In 2010] a new crop of ad-tech companies were threatening Google's bottom line. "One way to make sure we don't get further behind in the market is picking up the one with the most traction and parking it somewhere..." [wrote YouTube Chief Executive Neal Mohan, who previously ran Google's display-ads business]. Google ended up buying one such company, AdMeld, for $400 million in 2011. Google shut down AdMeld two years later, after incorporating some of the startup's technology into its ad exchange, known commonly as AdX.

The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another... In a 2016 email introduced by the government, Google executive Jonathan Bellack asked colleagues: "Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]...." The Justice Department also cited a 2018 email from another then-executive, Chris LaSala, who raised concerns internally over the 20% cut that Google takes from many of its AdX customers, saying Google was extracting "irrationally high rent" from users. "I don't think there is 20% of value in comparing two bids," wrote LaSala. "AdX is not providing additional liquidity to the market. It is simply running the auction."

Another former Google executive, Eisar Lipkovitz, testified that Google's omnipresence in ad-tech gives rise to conflicts of interest. Lipkovitz was rebuffed when he tried to get Google to lower the cut it took from AdX, he testified in a prerecorded deposition. The Justice Department finished presenting its case on Friday. Other witnesses included Google customers. One was Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, who said she felt she had no choice but to use Google technology because the search giant has such market power that switching to another ad server would have meant losing out on millions in advertising revenue.
Google's lawyer countered that "There will be no witness in this case who can say with clarity where this industry is going in the next five years."

Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."

Salon looks closer at a new $51,744-per-violation AI regulation officially approved one month ago by America's FTC — calling it a financial blow "If you're a digital media company whose revenue comes from publishing AI-generated articles and fake product reviews.

But they point out the rules also ban "product review suppression." Per the ruling, that means it's a violation for "anyone to use an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation, or a public false accusation in response to a consumer review... to (1) prevent a review or any portion thereof from being written or created, or (2) cause a review or any portion thereof to be removed, whether or not that review or a portion thereof is replaced with other content."

Finally... The rule makes it a violation for a business to "provide compensation or other incentives in exchange for, or conditioned expressly or by implication on, the writing or creation of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, whether positive or negative, regarding the product, service or business...." [T]he new rule also prevents secretly advertising for yourself while pretending to be an independent outlet or company. It bars "the creation or operation of websites, organizations or entities that purportedly provide independent reviews or opinions of products or services but are, in fact, created and controlled by the companies offering the products or services."

In an earlier statement, FTC Consumer Protection Bureau head Sam Levine, said the new rule "should help level the playing field for honest companies. We're using all available means to attack deceptive advertising in the digital age," he said.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.

UPDATE (9/28): California's governor vetoed the bill.

Below is Slashdot's original story...

"Exceed the speed limit in one of the 27 European Union countries, and you may get some pushback from your vehicle," reports Car and Driver. "As of July, new cars sold in the EU must include a speed-warning device that alerts drivers if they exceed the posted limit."

The warnings can be ither acoustic or haptic, "though the European Commission gives automakers the latitude to supplant those passive measures with either an active accelerator pedal that applies counterpressure against the driver's foot or a governor that restricts the vehicle's speed to the legal limit." Drivers can override or deactivate these admonishments, but the devices must default to their active state at startup.

Now California is looking to emulate the EU with legislation that would mandate in-car speed-warning devices [for driving more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit — in "just about every 2030 model-year vehicle equipped with either GPS or a front-facing camera"].
The article cites statistics that 18% of those drivers involved in fatal crashes were speeding.

Although the projects director at the European Transport Safety Council also acknowledges the systems may struggle to identify speed limits from passing signs — and that their testing shows the systems generally irritate drivers, who often deactivate the systems...

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

Friday America's Federal Trade Commission brought action against three companies for "anticompetitive and unfair" practices "that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin."

For years, many of the millions of Americans who need insulin to survive "have been forced to pay exorbitant prices for a product that's inexpensive to make," writes NPR. "Now, the federal government is targeting one part of the system behind high insulin prices." While out-of-pocket costs have gone down for many people to $35 a month, questions remain on how the drug became so expensive in the first place. In a new lawsuit filed Friday, the Federal Trade Commission said it's going after one link in the chain: pharmacy benefit managers. The FTC brought action against the top pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna's Express Scripts, and United Health Group's OptumRx — saying the companies created a "perverse drug rebate system" that artificially inflates the cost of insulin. If the suit is successful, it could further drive down costs for patients at the pharmacy counter.

PBMs are essentially the middlemen between drug manufacturers and insurance providers. Their job is to reduce drug prices. But the process is complex and opaque, and critics say they're actually driving prices up for patients. The FTC said a big issue is that PBMs' revenue is tied to rebates and fees — which are based on a percentage of a drug's list price. Essentially, in the case of insulin, when the drug costed more, it generated higher rebates and fees for PBMs. "Even when lower list price insulins became available that could have been more affordable for vulnerable patients, the PBMs systemically excluded them in favor of high list price, highly rebated insulin products," the FTC said in a press release on Friday.

The three PBMs named in the FTC lawsuit make up about 80% of the market. According to the suit, the PBMs collected billions of dollars in rebates and fees while insulin became increasingly unaffordable. Over the last two decades, the cost of the lifesaving drug shot up 600% — forcing many Americans with diabetes to ration their medication and jeopardize their health. In 2019, one 1 of 4 insulin patients was unable to afford their medication, according to the FTC. Some people have died.
The FTC's statement says the companies "have abused their economic power by rigging pharmaceutical supply chain competition in their favor, forcing patients to pay more for life-saving medication... While PBM respondents collected billions in rebates and associated fees according to the complaint, by 2019 one out of every four insulin patients was unable to afford their medication..."

"[A]ll drug manufacturers should be on notice that their participation in the type of conduct challenged here raises serious concerns, and that the Bureau of Competition may recommend suing drug manufacturers in any future enforcement actions."

X's struggles in Brazil got this update from the Guardian Wednesday: In a statement tweeted from X's global government affairs account, the company said the restoration of service was an "inadvertent and temporary" side-effect of switching network providers.
But Friday "After defying court orders in Brazil for three weeks, Mr. Musk's social network, X, has capitulated," writes the New York Times. "In a court filing on Friday night, the company's lawyers said that X had complied with orders from Brazil's Supreme Court in the hopes that the court would lift a block on its site."

"The company's lawyers said X had complied with the court's orders — blocking designated accounts, paying fines, and naming a new formal representative in the country," writes TechCrunch (citing reporting by the New York Times): In a filing of its own, the Supreme Court reportedly responded by telling X it had not provided the proper paperwork and giving it five days to do so....

X came back online in Brazil earlier this week, although Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince told TechCrunch that the timing of the company's recent switch to Cloudflare infrastructure is just a "coincidence." During the ban, Brazilian users sought out social media alternatives, leading to dramatic growth at Bluesky and Tumblr.
The New York Times believes "The moment showed how, in the yearslong power struggle between tech giants and nation-states, governments have been able to keep the upper hand."

Although I'm curious about that missing paperwork...

Meta (the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) announced Monday that Russian state media outlets like RT are now "banned from our apps globally for foreign interference activity," reports CNN.

CNN adds that Meta is alleging that the "Kremlin-controlled networks" have "engaged in deceptive influence operations and attempted to evade detection... Prior to Monday's ban, RT had 7.2 million followers on Facebook and 1 million followers on Instagram." The move comes days after the US Justice Department announced charges against two RT employees for funneling nearly $10 million into a US company, identified by CNN as Tenet Media, to create and amplify content that aligned with Russian interests. The covert influence campaign was aimed at the American public ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, US officials said.
Last week the U.S. State department "revealed declassified U.S. intelligence findings that suggest RT is fully integrated into Russia's intelligence operations around the world," CNN reported earlier" In addition to its covert influence operations, the leaders of RT also administered an online crowdfunding effort to supply military equipment to Russian soldiers in Ukraine, Blinken alleged. The crowdfunding effort supplied "sniper rifles, suppressors, body armor, night vision equipment, drones, radio equipment, personal weapon sights, diesel generators" to Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, according to Blinken.

The goal of the U.S. announcement — and private discussions with allied diplomats — is to make sure that countries know that RT and Russian intelligence agencies are working together to sow division and harm democratic processes, while simultaneously making it much more difficult for RT to operate globally, a senior administration official said...

Asked for comment by CNN, RT responded with a mocking email that read in part: "We've been broadcasting straight out of the KGB headquarters all this time."
More from Reuters: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday that countries should treat RT's activities as they do covert intelligence operations... In briefing materials shared with Reuters, Meta said it had seen Russian state-controlled media try to evade detection in their online activities in the past and expected them to continue trying to engage in deceptive practices going forward.
A YouTube spokesperson told Reuters they've also terminated over 230 channels affiliated with Kremlin-controlled outlets — channels which were previously only blocked from viewers.

YouTube "began blocking Russian state-sponsored news channels globally in 2022," reports NBC News, "including those tied to RT and Sputnik. Over the years, according to YouTube, the platform has blocked thousands of channels and millions of videos." James Rubin, coordinator for the State Department's Global Engagement Center, said RT is "where propaganda, disinformation and lies are spread to millions, if not billions, of people around the world."