Trump’s Win Turns Online Censorship Case Upside-Down
A legal battle over the Biden administration’s influence on social media companies looks set to spill into the next Trump administration — and no one knows quite how that will play out.
A district judge on Friday allowed the case known as Missouri v. Biden to resume even as the Biden administration winds down. The Supreme Court vacated his previous ruling in the case in June, but the new one means the plaintiffs can now pursue additional discovery.
That sets the stage for Donald Trump and his team to inherit the role of defendants in government censorship cases brought by some of their own political allies — including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Missouri v. Biden revolves around claims that various Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to suppress some users’ accounts and posts, including those making false claims or advancing conspiracy theories around coronavirus vaccines.
Physicians Rarely Disciplined by Medical Boards for Spreading Misinformation
Being disciplined for spreading misinformation made up less than 1% of medical board sanctions, making it the least common reason for physician discipline, a cross-sectional study found.
Among 3,128 medical board disciplinary proceedings involving physicians in the top five most populous states, sanctions for spreading misinformation to the community only occurred six times (0.1% of offenses) and spreading misinformation to patients under treatment occurred 21 times (0.3%), reported Richard Saver, JD, of the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill.
Conversely, physician negligence (28.7%), problematic record-keeping (14.9%), and inappropriate prescribing (13.5%) were the most common reasons for discipline, Saver reported in JAMA Network Open. “Misinformation offenses are not just at the bottom, but exponentially at the bottom compared to the other more common reasons medical boards are disciplining physicians,” Saver told MedPage Today.
X Fighting Biden DOJ Over Secret Subpoenas of User Data
X is fighting the Department of Justice after it apparently banned the social media platform from alerting two FBI whistleblowers that the feds seized data from their online accounts, documents unsealed in the D.C. federal appeals court on Wednesday show.
X argues that the process for obtaining “nondisclosure orders” is rife for abuse.
Prosecutors apparently convinced a D.C. judge that the FBI agents — who were suspended after making allegations that suggested politicization in the Biden FBI — were likely to flee the country or intimidate witnesses if they knew the feds were running an investigation that included subpoenaing their X data. Prosecutors didn’t have to explain their reasons for reaching that conclusion to anyone but a judge, making it impossible to contest.
The claims that prosecutors employ vague but heated language about serious risks to a judge, with no opportunity for pushback by opposing lawyers, mirrors criticism of FISA courts, which often readily authorize wiretaps — including one that targeted former Trump advisor Carter Page and which relied on evidence that was falsified by an FBI agent.
Over 70% of Websites Share Your Personal Data — Even if You Don’t Consent
More than 7 out of 10 of the most visited websites share your personal data with third parties — even when you explicitly withdraw your consent. This is the worrying finding from the 2024 State of Website Privacy Report by privacy solution provider Privado.ai.
After looking at the 100 most visited websites in the U.S. and Europe, experts found that around 75% aren’t compliant with current privacy regulations enforced across the regions.
These alarming low rates of non-compliance show how privacy laws alone aren’t enough to protect your privacy. Using one of the best VPN apps and other privacy software remains the best bet you have to take back agency over your data.
Do you have a news tip? We want to hear from you!
Roblox Will Ban Kids Under 13 From ‘Social Hangouts’
Roblox Corp. introduced new rules preventing kids under 13 from accessing online games intended just for socializing and from making some kinds of virtual content, like drawing on digital chalkboards, the latest in a series of child-safety changes at the company.
Roblox games that replicate hangout spaces, like clubs or discussion forums, will be off-limits for preteens, the company said Wednesday. Roblox is also restricting their access to games that aren’t rated for content. One of its more popular video-game categories, which involve role-playing as police officers or race-car drivers, will remain accessible.
The changes come after criticism of the company’s child safety record. The new rules go into effect on Nov. 18, the company said in an online post. Roblox sent an email to parents in October explaining that users under the age of 13 will need parental permission to access certain Roblox chat features. Kids under 9 will also need permission to play games with moderate violence or crude humor, according to the email.
Too Young to Use Instagram? Meta’s AI Classifier Could Help Catch Teens Lying About Their Age
Meta, the parent company of Instagram is being scrutinized by several government agencies around the world, accusing the platform of posing risks to the physical and mental health of children from excessive use. While some countries already have some measures in place that prevent underage users from creating an account on social media platforms, the Australian government recently went as far as proposing a ban on social media for children under the age of 16.
In a blog post, Meta announced that it is working on a new AI-powered tool that could help catch teens who are lying about their age. While Meta-owned platforms like Instagram and Facebook require users to enter their age when signing up, many users lie about their age.
Meta says the AI model, dubbed Adult Classifier can “help determine whether someone is an adult (18 or over) or a teen (13-17)” and will automatically apply the appropriate privacy settings.
U.S. May Support ‘Global Surveillance’ Treaty Hated by Everyone but Authoritarian Governments
The U.S. will support an international cybercrimes treaty that a broad coalition of businesses and human rights groups have warned will weaken global cybersecurity and make it easier for authoritarian regimes to spy on and prosecute their citizens, according to media outlets briefed on the decision.
A United Nations committee finalized the language of the proposed treaty in August after a contentious, years-long process. Broadly, the new convention encourages signatories to collect more data about potential cybercrimes, share data about suspects with each other, and make it easier to extradite criminals and seize the proceeds of their crimes.
Human rights advocates, including the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have warned that the convention applies an overly broad definition of cybercrime, allowing nations to request international assistance when investigating basically any crime enabled by technology. That could include crimes such as cyber-libel or incitement of violence which, in some countries, have been used to prosecute journalists and protestors.
Facial Recognition Deployments Must Factor in Risk v. Reward: Report
Some deployments of facial recognition technology (FRT) are more publicly acceptable than others. This, according to a new article published in the National Security Journal, written by Nicholas Dynon, an academic and “Certified Counter Terrorism Practitioner” from New Zealand.
“License to Operate: Mapping the Public Acceptability of Facial Recognition Technology” digs into the selective public acceptance of facial recognition across use cases. Dynon notes that people “tend to accept that the technology has become part of the process of passing through customs at airports, for example, yet its use by retailers has sparked frequent backlash.”
Why be fine with some uses and not others? Knowing the answer, Dynon says, could help actors within the FRT supply chain to make more informed choices about how, when and why facial recognition is appropriate and more likely to be a benefit than a reputational handicap.
South Africa Begins Work on National Digital ID to Stem Fraud
South Africa has revealed its intention to develop a national digital identity system to provide a single, unified credential for access to government services.
The South African Reserve Bank, Revenue Service (SARS) and Department of Home Affairs are collaborating on the digital ID, SARS Commissioner Edward Kieswetter said during an annual meeting of the South African Institution of Taxation last week.
Kieswetter noted that South Africans have different numbers for their national ID, tax account, business registration, health and other services. The duplication presents an opportunity for fraud, he argues. “I appear in the system in many different identities which allows for arbitrage — so I can be employed and get a social grant because the system doesn’t pick me up,” Kieswetter says, as quoted by Bloomberg.
He suggests a unique digital identifier and physical card are the answer to the country’s fraud issues, and a former finance minister referred to the positive example provided by India’s Aadhaar at the tax event, BusinessTech reports. The Home Affairs Department has also announced plans to build digital transformation into its five-year strategic plan.
