SoylentNews

day of the dalek writes:

The Real ID Act was passed in 2005 on the grounds that it was necessary for access control of sensitive facilities like nuclear power plants and the security of airline flights. The law imposed standards for state- and territory-issued ID cards in the United States, but was widely criticized as an attempt to create a national ID card and would be harmful to privacy. These concerns are explained well in a 2007 article from the New York Civil Liberties Union:

Real ID threatens privacy in two ways. First, it consolidates Americans' personal information into a network of interlinking databases accessible to the federal government and bureaucrats throughout the 50 states and U.S. territories. This national mega-database would invite government snooping and be a goldmine for identity thieves. Second, it mandates that all driver's licenses and ID cards have an unencrypted "machine-readable zone" that would contain personal information on Americans that could be easily "skimmed" by anybody with a barcode reader.

These concerns are based on what happens when criminals access the data, but also how consolidating data from many government agencies into a central database makes it easier for bad actors within the government to target Americans and violate their civil liberties. These concerns led to a 20 year delay in enforcing Real ID standards nationally, and as a USA Today article from 2025 warns, once Americans' data is stored on a central repository for one purpose, mission creep is likely. If the centralized database is used to make student loan applications and income tax processing more efficient, what's to stop law enforcement from accessing it to identify potential criminals? Over the past two decades, criticism of the Real ID Act has come from across the political spectrum, with many people and organizations on both the left and right decrying it as a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties.

Much of these concerns have never been realized about the Real ID Act, but they are renewed with Executive Order #14143, signed by Donald Trump on March 20, 2025. This directs for the sharing of government data between agencies except when it is classified for national security purposes. The executive order does not include any provisions to protect the privacy of individuals.

Although Trump has not commented on how this data sharing will be achieved, the Trump Administration has hired a company called Palantir to create a central registry of data, which would include a national citizen database. Recent reporting describes a database with wide-ranging information about every American that is generally private:

Foundry's capabilities in data organization and analysis could potentially enable the merging of information from various agencies, thereby creating detailed profiles of American citizens. The Trump administration has attempted to access extensive citizen data from government databases, including bank details, student debt, medical claims, and disability status.

Palantir does not gather data on their own, but they do provide tools to analyze large repositories of data, make inferences about the data, and provide easy-to-use reports. There are serious concerns about the lack of transparency about what data is being integrated into this repository, how it will be used, the potential for tracking people in various segments of the population such as immigrants, and the ability to use this data to target and harass political opponents. Concerns about how Trump's national citizen database will be used echo fears raised from across the political spectrum about the Real ID Act, except that they are apparently now quite close to becoming reality.

Additional reading:

• Trump appears to be building an unprecedented spy machine that could track Americans (MSNBC)
• What is Palantir? The secretive tech company behind Trump's data collection efforts (Mashable)
• Former Palantir workers condemn company's work with Trump administration (NPR)
• Palantir filed to go public. The firm's unethical technology should horrify us (The Guardian)
• The Gleeful Profiteers of Trump's Police State (Mother Jones)
• Donald Trump's Reported Database Move Sparks Alarm: 'Dystopian' (Newsweek)

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after agency concluded that builders of AI models use of copyrighted material went beyond existing doctrines of fair use.

The office’s opinion on fair use came in a draft of the third part of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The first part considered digital replicas and the second tackled whether it is possible to copyright the output of generative AI.

The office published the draft [PDF] of Part 3, which addresses the use of copyrighted works in the development of generative AI systems, on May 9th.

The draft notes that generative AI systems “draw on massive troves of data, including copyrighted works” and asks: “Do any of the acts involved require the copyright owners’ consent or compensation?”

That question is the subject of several lawsuits, because developers of AI models have admitted to training their products on content scraped from the internet and other sources without compensating content creators or copyright owners. AI companies have argued fair use provisions of copyright law mean they did no wrong.

As the report notes, one test courts use to determine fair use considers “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. If a judge finds an AI company’s use of copyrighted material doesn’t impact a market or value, fair use will apply.

The report finds AI companies can’t sustain a fair use defense in the following circumstances:

When a model is deployed for purposes such as analysis or research… the outputs are unlikely to substitute for expressive works used in training. But making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.

The office will soon publish a final version of Part 3 that it expects will emerge “without any substantive changes expected in the analysis or conclusions.”

Arthur Wellesley writes:

The XKCD cartoon 'PhD Timeline' ( https://xkcd.com/3081/ ) with its rollover, protests.

Original Submission

canopic jug writes:

Harvard University is pushing back via a lawsuit against micromanagement and censorship attempts emanating from the White House.

What is the rationale for the IRS revisiting Harvard's exemption status? A theory is needed, because section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code says that an organization "shall"—not "may"—be exempt from taxation if it meets criteria listed in the statute. One of those criteria is for an institution to be organized exclusively for "educational purposes."

— The Conservative Case for Leaving Harvard Alone.   The Atlantic.

The university's sudden decision to stand up, according to insiders, wasn't the plan a week earlier—and came about because the White House sent a list of demands so detailed, so humiliating, and so crudely anti-intellectual that Harvard was left with no option but to reject it. (There is growing suspicion here that Trump's demands were deliberately crafted to be rejected, setting the stage for more Trumpian melodrama and hysteria.)

— Harvard Stands Up.   The Nation.

The Harvard Crimson has started to cover this lawsuit:

"The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions," Harvard's lawyers wrote in the Monday filing.

The 51-page complaint, filed in a United States district court, asks for the court to halt and declare unlawful the $2.2 billion freeze, as well as any freezes made in connection with "unconstitutional conditions" in the Trump administration's April 3 and April 11 letters outlining demands to Harvard.

— Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over $2.2 Billion Funding Freeze.   The Harvard Crimson.

upstart writes:

The Israeli spyware maker, still on the US Commerce Department's "blacklist," has hired a new lobbying firm with direct ties to the Trump administration, a WIRED investigation has found:

Shortly after Donald Trump declared victory in November, NSO Group cofounder and majority owner Omri Lavie rushed to X to congratulate him, speaking of a "new chapter where the world goes back to common sense," while accusing the outgoing Biden administration of being "weak." In another tweet, he gushed in Hebrew that Republicans "won in every category: the presidency, Congress, Senate, and the popular vote."

Lavie's enthusiasm is understandable. His company—frequently associated with alleged human rights abuses, most recently in February when journalists in Serbia were targeted with its Pegasus spyware—had a significant stake in a Trump victory, with the hopes of regaining the ability to freely do business with US entities. In a comment to Amnesty International, NSO stated, in part, that its "commitment to maintain the highest standard of ethical conduct as well as confidentiality towards our customers is paramount and is consistent with industry norms and our legal obligations."

The Israeli spyware vendor has been on the US Commerce Department's "blacklist" for more than three years, meaning it cannot do business with US companies without specific government approval. NSO Group poured at least $1.8 million into an aggressive pre-election lobbying effort, focusing primarily on Republican senators and representatives, with some meetings occurring as often as eight times. Yet the company remains on the Entity List.

Now, with a new occupant in the White House, NSO Group appears to be shifting its political strategy.

The company seems to have either terminated or altered its engagement with several of its previous lobbying consultancies in Washington—some of which were closely aligned with the Democrats—and has started working with a key new lobbying partner: the Vogel Group.

Founded by Alex Vogel, who served as chief counsel to former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, the Vogel Group is providing NSO Group with "strategic advisory on cybersecurity policy matters," according to lobbying disclosure documents filed on March 10.

[...] NSO Group's recent lobbying efforts appear to have mainly focused on Republican lawmakers, more than executive branch power players, particularly as the Biden administration had been engaged in a crackdown on commercial spyware. The company previously worked with several lobbying contractors, with whom it appears to have either terminated or altered its registrations.

[...] As of early March—before Vogel Group's registration as a lobbyist for NSO Group—there had been no indication that the Trump administration intended to remove the company from the Entity List, according to a source familiar with the administration's moves regarding spyware, who asked not to be named in order to discuss confidential matters. However, recent comments by NSO Group's Lavie soft-peddled the impact of the Entity List on the company's ability to operate in the US.

[...] ​​Lobbying efforts can target different parts of the US government. By lobbying the executive branch (the president and agencies), lobbyists can influence how laws are enforced rather than what the laws say. In contrast, when lobbying Congress, the focus is on passing, blocking, or amending laws by influencing legislators.

[...] Asked whether the Trump administration intends to uphold the EO, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to comment.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

More doubt is being cast over the US CHIPS Act program with the Trump administration threatening to halt payments unless companies in line to receive funding commit to substantially expand their own investments.

President Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order to establish a new office within the Department of Commerce titled the United States Investment Accelerator.

The office's aim is "to encourage companies to make large investments in the United States," and among its powers will be oversight of the CHIPS Program to maximize the benefits for taxpayers, the White House states.

This move follows earlier calls by President Trump to scrap CHIPS Act funding entirely, and any remaining money to be allocated to cutting federal debt.

According to reports, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has indicated that he intends to withhold CHIPS Act grants already agreed in order to push the companies involved to substantially expand the projects they have planned.

The aim is to force semiconductor makers promised grants and subsidies for building new manufacturing facilities on American soil to invest even more, without increasing the size of federal grants. This follows the example of TSMC, which earlier this month pledged to spend $100 billion to expand its US fabrication plants.

However, that $100 billion figure disclosed by TSMC chief CC Wei during his meeting with Trump was merely an estimated price tag for plans the company had in the pipeline anyway. Intel's former boss, Pat Gelsinger, also pointed out recently that while TSMC is building fabs in the US, it is keeping its research and development in Taiwan.

"If you don't have R&D in the US, you will not have semiconductor leadership in the US," Gelsinger said at the end of last week.

His old company finalized an agreement with the Department of Commerce in November to receive up to $7.86 billion from the CHIPS Act, which would make it the largest beneficiary of the federal government's cash, if it actually receives it all.

That was also conditional on Intel retaining control of its foundries, amid talk that the troubled Santa Clara-based biz was potentially looking to spin them off as part of a restructure. Intel has since announced it is delaying some of its fab buildout, such as pushing back the completion of its $28 billion Ohio plant until at least 2030.

Gelsinger had previously stated that without CHIPS Act funding, Intel would continue to build new fabs in Arizona and Ohio, however the expansion would take longer, and it wouldn't be as comprehensive.