SoylentNews

USA bombs Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan
US President Donald Trump says American forces have conducted "very successful" strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan and that all US planes are now out of Iranian airspace.

Trump's Truth Social
"We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter."

[Updated 22 Jun 1313z - following statements by Secretary of Defence and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--JR]

Operation Midnight Hammer

75 x TLAMs - Precision Guided Weapons (PGW), 14 x MOPs GBU-57 used by 7 B2s, operational feint by sending 6 x B2s westward into the Pacific area, 7 x B2s continued eastwards. The B2s are still airborne and were observed refuelling over the Azores a few hours ago on FlightRadar24 (at least 18 tanker aircraft operating racetracks but the B2s were still radio silent). TLAMs were also fired by USN assets in the southern Persian Gulf. Over 120 aircraft involved in the mission including F16, F22, F35, ISTAR, AAR. Battle damage assessment will take time to collect and analyse.

US forces involved in the attack were not engaged and appear to have achieved total surprise. All assets are accounted for but some are still airborne.

Original Submission

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.