SoylentNews

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The Federal Communications Commission's long-standing effort to establish stronger oversight of the internet was dealt a decisive blow this week when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC lacks the authority to regulate wireless and home broadband services under the same set of rules that have traditionally governed telephone service.

The court's decision hinged on the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Chevron deference, a precedent that had previously granted federal agencies significant leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutory language. This ruling significantly curtailed the FCC's ability to implement and enforce net neutrality regulations.

Net neutrality, a principle that advocates for equal treatment of all internet traffic, has been a contentious issue in American politics for over a decade. The concept aims to prevent internet service providers from favoring certain websites or services over others – a practice that could potentially stifle competition and innovation.

The Obama administration introduced robust net neutrality rules in 2015, which were subsequently repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration. In 2021, President Biden signed an executive order calling for the reinstatement of these regulations. The FCC, under the leadership of Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, voted to restore net neutrality rules in 2024.

The Sixth Circuit Court's decision effectively nullifies the FCC's Safeguarding Order, which would have reinstated net neutrality regulations. The court declared that broadband internet service providers offer only an "information service" as defined under current US law, and therefore, the FCC lacks the statutory authority to impose net neutrality policies through the "telecommunications service" provision of the Communications Act.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the FCC cannot classify mobile broadband as a "commercial mobile service," which would have allowed the agency to impose net neutrality regulations on those services. The Sixth Circuit explicitly cited the absence of Chevron deference in its ruling, stating that they no longer afford deference to the FCC's interpretation of the statute.

In response to the court's decision, Rosenworcel called on Congress to enshrine net neutrality principles in federal law – an acknowledgment that the FCC's regulatory efforts have reached an impasse.

On the other hand, Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is set to become the agency's chair later this month, praised the court's ruling. Carr criticized the Biden administration's approach, stating that their plan relied on "persuading Americans that the internet would break in the absence of these so-called 'net neutrality' regulations."

As for the future of net neutrality, the ball is now in Congress's court. However, given the current political landscape and the other pressing issues facing the government, it remains uncertain whether Congress will take up this challenge. With Carr poised to take the helm, it also seems unlikely that the agency will pursue further regulatory action on net neutrality.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

This flavor of Scorched Earth has been dubbed the Broken Nest.

Elbridge Colby, the nominee for U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, is known to favor the destruction of Taiwan’s chip fabs in the event of a Chinese invasion. As recently as last year, Colby publicly asserted that “destroying TSMC” was imperative if an aggressive PRC attempted to capture these facilities, reports Datacenter Dynamics. Furthermore, the security policy professional asserts that TSMC’s destruction shouldn’t be left to Taiwan’s government or military.

Colby’s particular take on the Scorched Earth strategy has become known as the ‘Broken Nest’ deterrent, a term coined by a U.S. Army College paper in 2021. The full title of the paper is Broken Nest: Deterring China from Invading Taiwan, and though it is 15 pages long, you can understand the deterrent immediately from the title. A key thread throughout the paper is that China has started to find Taiwan more and more attractive as the island’s semiconductor prowess has grown, largely through TSMC's chipmaking abilities.

Would the Chinese Communist Party (mainland China, PRC) care so much about the relatively small earthquake and typhoon-prone island of Taiwan (ROC) if the semicon business were out of the equation? The linked paper thinks not, and Colby has echoed the paper’s central thrusts, repeatedly. Being unequivocal about TSMC’s destruction in the event of a Chinese invasion is thus extremely important in the minds of some policymakers.

“Disabling or destroying TSMC is table stakes if China is taking over Taiwan,” wrote Colby on Twitter/X earlier this year. “Would we be so insane as to allow the world's key semiconductor company fall untouched into the hands of an aggressive PRC?”

Disabling or destroying TSMC is table stakes if China is taking over Taiwan. Would we be so insane as to allow the world's key semiconductor company fall untouched into the hands of an aggressive PRC? Taiwanese should realize that would be *the least* of their problems. https://t.co/Z8qmKxjWe9 href="https://twitter.com/cantworkitout/status/1761514916224139737" data-url="https://twitter.com/cantworkitout/status/1761514916224139737" target="_blank" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade" data-hl-processed="none">February 24, 2024

However, destroying TSMC and other advanced semiconductor facilities might not be easy. China would likely make great efforts to shield these locations from any wider aggression. Moreover, in 2023, we learned that Taiwan’s Minister for National Defense, Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正), would not tolerate any U.S. attempts to destroy TSMC in the event of a war with China. If the US and China are in a high-stakes game of chicken, Taiwan isn't (or wasn't) playing.

Colby, who was picked by Trump as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy over the weekend, has some other views that could cause a stir across the Taiwan Strait. A report published by the Taiwan News this week says he would be in favor of pushing Taiwan to increase its defense spending from 2.5 to 5% of GDP. Interestingly, he also recently suggested that the U.S. should prioritize arming Taiwan rather than Ukraine. Europe should do more for its neighbor, he argued.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

Investments in semiconductor manufacturing and innovation matter more than bans and sanctions.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said in an interview that the country should focus more on investments in domestic innovation than applying bans and sanctions. “Trying to hold China back is a fool’s errand,” said the politician. She also added that the Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act, which led the country to spend more money on building out its chip infrastructure than the past 28 years combined, “matters more than export controls.” Nevertheless, the Wall Street Journal says President Biden still pushed for bans and sanctions against Chinese firms and even urged its allies, including the Netherlands and Japan, to stop China from acquiring advanced tech, especially those containing American tech.

“The only way to beat China is to stay ahead of them,” said Sec. Raimondo. “We have to run faster, out innovate them. That’s the way to win.” Despite the various export controls that the U.S. has applied against several Chinese companies, many of its companies are still able to procure banned chips through the black market and unofficial conduits. Aside from that, Chinese innovation is seemingly continuing, with many businesses and organizations forced to be creative in pursuing their goals despite the roadblocks posed by American sanctions.

Sec. Raimondo said these statements in the interview as President Trump is about to return to the White House in early 2025. The CHIPS and Science Act had bipartisan support when it passed Congress, and some states that are Republican strongholds have seen the benefits of the federal government’s investments. However, the incoming President was quoted saying in October, “That chip deal is so bad.” Instead of direct government funding, Trump spokesman Kush Desai said that he prefers “enacting tariffs, cutting taxes, slashing regulations, and unleashing American energy.”

Because of the uncertainty about the future of the CHIPS Act, many subsidy applicants are rushing to get their funding in place before January 20. Nevertheless, Trump plans to expedite permits for any company that plans to invest at least a billion dollars in the U.S., with some regulations and reviews potentially getting waived. This is likely the reason why SoftBank plans to invest $100 billion in AI and other technologies in the country. But even if Sec. Raimondo agrees that some regulations hold back the competitiveness of American industry, she still believes that Washington shouldn’t let companies act with impunity, even if they have a huge war chest.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

We’ve noted for decades that U.S. telecom security and privacy standards aren’t great. T-Mobile has been hacked so many times in the last five years it’s easy to lose count. AT&T not long ago had a breach impacting the data of 73 million users it initially tried to pretend hadn’t happened.

Telecoms have lobbied relentlessly to dismantle much in the way of corporate oversight, so when hacks or breaches or bad choices manifest, executives and companies alike routinely see little in the way of real, meaningful accountability. Which, of course, ensures nothing much changes.

This all came to a head recently with the Salt Typhoon hack, which involved 8 major U.S. telecom operators suffering a major intrusion by Chinese hackers. The hack, oddly getting far less attention than the TikTok moral panic did, was leveraged to help spy on U.S. political officials. It was so severe and extensive that the involved, unnamed telecoms have yet to fully remove the intruders from their networks:

This is par for the course for a country that’s literally too corrupt to pass even a baseline privacy law for the internet era, or hold telecom giants meaningfully accountable for much of anything. At best, telecoms have grown fat and comfortable with a paradigm that involves a tiny fine and wrist slap for their incompetence, assuming they get challenged over it at all.

Enter Senator Ron Wyden, who is proposing a new law that would require the FCC to take broader ownership of telecom cybersecurity.

His Secure American Communications Act would more clearly establish FCC authority to monitor telecoms for privacy and cybersecurity violations, require they conduct routine testing of their networks and systems, and contract outside independent auditors to make sure they’re doing a competent job. They’d also have to submit formal annual reviews to the FCC.

“It was inevitable that foreign hackers would burrow deep into the American communications system the moment the FCC decided to let phone companies write their own cybersecurity rules,” Wyden said. “Telecom companies and federal regulators were asleep on the job and as a result, Americans’ calls, messages, and phone records have been accessed by foreign spies intent on undermining our national security. Congress needs to step up and pass mandatory security rules to finally secure our telecom system against an infestation of hackers and spies.”

Of course the last thing AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, T-Mobile and Charter want is additional (or any) government oversight, so even if perfectly designed to minimize headaches and problems, the bill likely has zero real chance of passing a corrupt Congress.

fliptop writes:

An Idaho mine will be the only US source of the key mineral antimony after 18 years of permitting:

The Chinese government in recent weeks expanded its ban on exports of a handful of minerals found in critical military and energy technologies in America. The move puts a spotlight on America's domestic mineral supplies, many of which are locked in years-long federal permitting and regulatory reviews.

One such case is a project located at an abandoned gold mine in the heart of Idaho. That mine contains some of the nation's largest known deposits of the rare mineral antimony, which is among those affected by China's export restrictions. But after a staggering 14 years, the federal government has yet to give the Idaho project a green light to begin production.

Perpetua Resources, the developer of the Stibnite gold mine in Valley County, Idaho, first initiated study, engineering, and community engagement on the project in 2010. Since then, it has faced mountains of permit filings and lengthy environmental reviews conducted by at least five separate federal agencies.

Experts and legislators say the federal regulatory and permitting behemoth with which developers like Perpetua must contend is both costly and detrimental to American national security. And they have pointed to the project as an example of why they say Congress must take up permitting reform legislation as soon as possible.

"China has weaponized the world's mineral supply chains," Rich Nolan, the president and CEO of the National Mining Association, told the Washington Free Beacon. "Again and again, Beijing has reached for the minerals lever to exert geopolitical leverage."

[...] Antimony, like the other minerals targeted by China, has significant defense and energy applications—it is a key component of munitions, night-vision goggles, and military uniforms and is required for both utility-scale and electric vehicle batteries.

The United States, though, imports 100 percent of its antimony supplies, 63 percent of which comes from China. China supplies the international market with about half of its antimony.

According to Perpetua, the Stibnite mine—which contains roughly 67,000 metric tons of antimony—could account for 35 percent of the nation's antimony demand in its first six years of production and fulfill long-term defense needs.

Original Submission

Freeman writes:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/trump-says-elon-musk-will-lead-doge-a-new-department-of-government-efficiency/

President-elect Donald Trump today announced that a new Department of Government Efficiency—or "DOGE"—will be led by Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

[...] DOGE apparently will not be an official federal agency, as Trump said it will provide advice "from outside" of government. But Musk, who has frequently criticized government subsidies despite seeking public money and obtaining various subsidies for his own companies, will apparently have significant influence over spending in the Trump administration.

[...] Trump's statement said the department, whose name is a reference to the Doge meme, "will drive out the massive waste and fraud which exists throughout our annual $6.5 Trillion Dollars of Government Spending." Trump said DOGE will "liberate our Economy" and that its "work will conclude no later than July 4, 2026" because "a smaller Government, with more efficiency and less bureaucracy, will be the perfect gift to America on the 250th Anniversary of The Declaration of Independence."

[...] The Wall Street Journal wrote today that "Musk isn't expected to become an official government employee, meaning he likely wouldn't be required to divest from his business empire."

Obligatory SolyentNews Articles:
Elon Musk Reveals Real Reason He Supports Dogecoin, Says Many People at Tesla and Spacex Own DOGE - 20211030
Dogecoin: Inside the Joke Cryptocurrency That Somehow Became Real - 20210222
Hacker Exploits Synology NAS Box Vulnerabity, Mines $620k in Dogecoin - 20140620

Original Submission

NotSanguine writes:

ProPublica is reporting on a number of ad networks posting fake/deceptive/scam ads on Meta properties.

Reporting highlights from TFA:

• Deceptive Political Ads: Eight deceptive advertising networks have placed over 160,000 election and social issues ads across more than 340 Facebook pages in English and Spanish.
• Harmed Users: Some of the people who clicked on ads were unwittingly signed up for monthly credit card charges or lost health coverage, among other consequences.
• Spotty Enforcement: Meta removed some ads after first approving them, but it failed to catch others with similar or identical content — or to stop networks from launching new pages and ads.

More from TFA:

In December, the verified Facebook page of Adam Klotz, a Fox News meteorologist, started running strange video ads.

Some featured the distinctive voice of former President Donald Trump promising "$6,400 with your name on it, no payback required" just for clicking the ad and filling out a form.

In other ads with the same offer, President Joe Biden's well-known cadence assured viewers that "this isn't a loan with strings attached."

There was no free cash. The audio was generated by AI. People who clicked were taken to a form asking for their personal information, which was sold to telemarketers who could target them for legitimate offers — or scams.
[...]
Klotz's page had been co-opted by a sprawling ad account network that has operated on Facebook for years, churning out roughly 100,000 misleading election and social issues ads despite Meta's stated commitment to crack down on harmful content, according to an investigation and analysis by ProPublica and Columbia Journalism School's Tow Center for Digital Journalism, as well as research by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that researches large tech platforms. The organizations combined data and shared their analyses. TTP's report was produced independently of ProPublica and Tow's investigation and was shared with ProPublica prior to publication.

The network, which uses the name Patriot Democracy on many of its ad accounts, is one of eight deceptive Meta advertising operations identified by ProPublica and Tow. These networks have collectively controlled more than 340 Facebook pages, as well as associated Instagram and Messenger accounts. Most were created by the advertising networks, with some pages masquerading as government entities. Others were verified pages of people with public roles, like Klotz, who had been hacked. The networks have placed more than 160,000 election and social issues ads on these pages in English and Spanish. Meta showed the ads to users nearly 900 million times across Facebook and Instagram.
[..]
Most of these networks are run by lead-generation companies, which gather and sell people's personal information. People who clicked on some of these ads were unwittingly signed up for monthly credit card charges, among many other schemes. Some, for example, were conned by an unscrupulous insurance agent into changing their Affordable Care Act health plans. While the agent earns a commission, the people who are scammed can lose their health insurance or face unexpected tax bills because of the switch.

The ads run by the networks employ tactics that Meta has banned, including the undisclosed use of deepfake audio and video of national political figures and promoting misleading claims about government programs to bait people into sharing personal information. Thousands of ads illegally displayed copies of state and county seals and the images of governors to trick users. "The State has recently approved that Illinois residents under the age of 89 may now qualify for up to $35,000 of Funeral Expense Insurance to cover any and all end-of-life expenses!" read one deceptive ad featuring a photo of Gov. JB Pritzker and the Illinois state seal.

There's much, much more, so please do read TFA.

What say you Soylentils? What's the solution to this sort of thing? My solution was to leave Facebook (in 2014) and never return.

Original Submission