According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, the majority of Americans (59%) say TikTok is a threat to the national security of the United States. Variety reports: The findings from Pew Research Center's survey of U.S. adults come as TikTok, the popular short-form video app owned by Chinese internet conglomerate ByteDance, continues to be targeted by American lawmakers wary over its ties to China and how TikTok handles user data. Just 17% of Americans say the platform is not a threat to national security, while 23% say they are unsure, per the Pew survey.

Opinions about the national security threat posed by TikTok differ by political affiliation and age. Roughly 70% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say TikTok is either a minor or major threat to national security in the U.S., compared with 53% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. The perception of TikTok as a threat also varies by age: Just 13% of adults 18-29 say TikTok is a "major" threat; that rises to 24% among those 30-49, 35% among those 50-64; and 46% among Americans 65 and older.

Not surprisingly, adults who do not use TikTok are more likely than those who do to consider it a national security risk. Among non-users, 65% say the app is a security threat, including 36% who view it as a major threat. Among TikTok users, just 9% see it as a major threat and about one-third say it's a minor threat. The Pew survey was conducted May 15-21, 2023. [...] A survey Pew Research Center conducted in March found that 50% of Americans support a U.S. government ban on TikTok, while 22% were opposed and 28% were unsure.

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has used his partial veto power to make a creative line-item change to the state budget, securing increased funding for public schools until 2425 instead of 2025. The BBC reports: Republicans have reacted with fury to what they call "an unprecedented brand-new way to screw the taxpayer." The move could however be undone by a legal challenge or future governor. It is the latest tussle between Mr Evers, a former public school teacher who narrowly won re-election last year, and a Republican-controlled state legislature that has often blocked his agenda. Their original budget proposal had raised the amount local school districts could generate via property taxes, by $325 per student, for the next two school years.

But Wisconsin allows its governors to alter certain pieces of legislation by striking words and numbers as they see fit before signing them into law - what is known as partial veto power. Both Democrats and Republicans have flexed their partial veto authority for years, with Mr Evers' Republican predecessor once deploying it to extend a state program's deadline by one thousand years.

This week, before he signed the biennial state budget into law, the governor altered language that applied the $325 increase to the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, vetoing a hyphen and a "20" to instead make the end date 2425. He also used his power to remove proposed tax cuts for the state's wealthiest taxpayers and protect some 180 diversity, equity and inclusion jobs Republicans wanted to cut at the public University of Wisconsin.

After a three-year pause, U.S. student loan repayments are set to resume on October 1st — just three months from today. But CNN reports that yesterday America's Supreme Court "struck down President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program, blocking millions of borrowers from receiving up to $20,000 in federal student debt relief."

"The court's 6 to 3 conservative majority held that the secretary of education did not have that authority under existing law," writes the Washington Post. The Guardian quotes President Biden's response: "I think the court misinterpreted the constitution."

CNN reports: No debt had been canceled, even though the Biden administration had received about 26 million applications for relief last year and approved 16 million of them. The forgiveness program, estimated to cost $400 billion, would have fulfilled a campaign promise of Biden's to cancel some student loan debt. But a group of Republican-led states and other conservative groups took the administration to court over the program, claiming that the executive branch does not have the power to so broadly cancel student debt in the proposed manner.

Critics also point out that the one-time student loan forgiveness program does nothing to address the cost of college for future students and could even lead to an increase in tuition. Some Democrats joined Republicans in voting for a bill to block the program. Both the Senate and the House passed the measure, but Biden vetoed the bill in early June...

The administration estimated that roughly 20 million borrowers would have seen their entire federal student loan balance wiped away.
UPDATE: CNBC reports the administration hasn't given up: President Joe Biden suggested on Friday that he was looking for another avenue to deliver student debt relief after the Supreme Court rejected his forgiveness plan.

"Today's decision has closed one path," Biden said during a briefing Friday. "Now we're going to pursue another."
A statement from the White House also points to other relief policies for students, noting for example that now "no one with an undergraduate loan has to pay more than 5 percent of their discretionary income." CNN reports: New rules set to take effect in July could broaden eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which is aimed at helping government and nonprofit workers. And a new income-driven repayment plan proposal is meant to lower eligible borrowers' monthly payments and reduce the amount they pay back over time. The administration said this plan was finalized Friday and borrowers will be able to take advantage of it this summer, before loan payments are due. The Department of Education has also made it easier for borrowers who were misled by their for-profit college to apply for student loan forgiveness under a program known as borrower defense to repayment, as well as for those who are permanently disabled. Altogether, the Biden administration has approved more than $66 billion in targeted loan relief to nearly 2.2 million borrowers....

[T]he Biden administration said Friday that it will provide a 12-month on-ramp period for borrowers reentering payment... Borrowers will not be reported to credit bureaus, be considered in default or referred to collection agencies for late, missed or partial payments during the on-ramp period, according to a fact sheet from the White House.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. senators on Thursday introduced two separate bipartisan artificial intelligence bills on Thursday amid growing interest in addressing issues surrounding the technology. One would require the U.S. government to be transparent when using AI to interact with people and another would establish an office to determine if the United States is remaining competitive in the latest technologies. Senators Gary Peters, a Democrat who chairs the Homeland Security committee, introduced a bill along with Senators Mike Braun and James Lankford, both Republicans, which would require U.S. government agencies to tell people when the agency is using AI to interact with them. The bill also requires agencies to create a way for people to appeal any decisions made by AI.

"The federal government needs to be proactive and transparent with AI utilization and ensure that decisions aren't being made without humans in the driver's seat," said Braun in a statement. Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Warner, both Democrats, introduced a measure along with Republican Senator Todd Young that would establish an Office of Global Competition Analysis that would seek to ensure that the United States stayed in the front of the pack in developing artificial intelligence. "We cannot afford to lose our competitive edge in strategic technologies like semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence to competitors like China," Bennet said.

Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he had scheduled three briefings for senators on artificial intelligence, including the first classified briefing on the topic so lawmakers can be educated on the issue. The briefings include a general overview on AI, examining how to achieve American leadership on AI and a classified session on defense and intelligence issues and implications. Further reading: Ask Slashdot: What Are Some Good AI Regulations?

President Joe Biden moved to lock in his first Democratic majority at the Federal Communications Commission, naming veteran government lawyer Anna Gomez to an open seat and proposing to extend the service of two current commissioners. From a report: The appointments poise the FCC, after more than two years of partisan deadlock under a Democratic chairwoman, to act on the party's priorities, including restoring net neutrality regulations. Such rules bar broadband providers from interfering with web traffic and were gutted by Republicans during the administration of President Donald Trump.

All three nominees, announced by the White House on Monday, need Senate confirmation. In addition to Gomez, Biden proposed a second five-year term for Democrat Geoffrey Starks, who otherwise would need to leave the agency at the end of the year. Biden also proposed another term for Republican Brendan Carr, who has been on the commission since 2017. Gomez's arrival would bring the agency to its full strength of five commissioners for the first time since January 2021, when Trump's Republican chairman departed, leaving the 2-to-2 split. An earlier Biden nominee withdrew amid opposition from Senate Republicans. FCC commissioners serve staggered five-year terms, and no more than three can be members of the president's party.

President Joe Biden intends to select veteran government lawyer Anna Gomez to serve on the Federal Communications Commission and give the agency its first Democratic majority of his presidency, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing a person briefed on the matter. From the report: Gomez's arrival would poise the FCC, after more than two years of partisan deadlock, to act on matters including restoring net neutrality rules that bar broadband providers from interfering with web traffic. Gomez's selection may be announced soon, said the person briefed on the matter, who declined to be identified because the matter hasn't been made public. The FCC has been split 2-to-2 along party lines since Biden's inauguration in 2021. An earlier nominee withdrew amid opposition from Senate Republicans. Gomez, with a long resume of Washington jobs including private law practice and work at two agencies, needs to win confirmation from the Senate where Democrats wield a narrow majority. Democrats including FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel have said they support restoring net neutrality rules that bar broadband providers from unfairly manipulating web traffic. The FCC under Republican leadership in 2017 gutted rules adopted earlier by the agency.

The Biden administration is considering creating a government-run alternative to TurboTax and H&R Block, drawing resistance from Republicans and companies fearing a loss of business. From a report: Democrats and consumer advocates have been pushing for the Internal Revenue Service to offer free online tax filing on its website, particularly for people with straightforward returns. Their core argument: Tax-preparation companies charge middle-income Americans for what advocates think should be a free public service.

The companies, meanwhile, are boosting lobbying spending and leaning on lawmakers to fight a change that could shrink their revenue, and they are emphasizing free options already available for taxpayers. They see the changes under consideration as a first step toward an even bigger threat in which the IRS could use information it gets from employers and other sources to prepare a first draft of taxpayers' returns for them. The IRS is due to release a report this week on a possible Direct File system -- think TurboTax but on the agency's website -- and the Biden administration will then decide whether to pursue it.

Yesterday, Colorado eliminated a 2005 law that required local governments to hold an election before offering cable television or telecommunications service, "a process that pitted city and town leaders against well-funded broadband industry lobbying campaigns," reports Ars Technica. From the report: Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, signed a bill to eliminate that law yesterday. The bill had been approved by the State House in a 48-14 vote and in the Senate by a 31-4 vote. Both chambers have Democratic majorities, but the votes didn't go entirely along party lines; all of the "no" votes came from Republicans, but other Republicans joined Democrats in approving the bill. The bill signed by Polis "gives local governments the authority to provide broadband service, either on their own or by partnering with industry service providers, without holding a local election," the Governor's Office of Information Technology said.

"Each local government is in a unique position or different phase of connecting residents to high-speed Internet, and this bill allows them to establish broadband plans that meet the needs of their communities," Colorado Broadband Office Executive Director Brandy Reitter said. Going forward, cities and towns won't have to hold elections to opt out of the 2005 restriction on municipal broadband. A vote to opt out of the state law didn't guarantee that a city or town would build a network, but the vote was a necessary step and in some cases resulted in a municipal broadband service.

Microsoft's headquarters are in the state of Washington — and this year when the state legislature considered a right-to-repair bill, Microsoft showed its support.

The nonprofit "climate solutions" site Grist reports that the committee considering that bill received an email from Microsoft's senior director of government affairs, saying that the bill "fairly balances the interests of manufacturers, customers, and independent repair shops and in doing so will provide more options for consumer device repair." The Fair Repair Act stalled out a week later due to opposition from all three Republicans on the committee and Senator Lisa Wellman, a Democrat and former Apple executive. (Apple frequently lobbies against right-to-repair bills, and during a hearing, Wellman defended the iPhone maker's position that it is already doing enough on repair.) But despite the bill's failure to launch this year, repair advocates say Microsoft's support — a notable first for a major U.S. tech company — is bringing other manufacturers to the table to negotiate the details of other right-to-repair bills for the first time.

"We are in the middle of more conversations with manufacturers being way more cooperative than before," Nathan Proctor, who heads the U.S. Public Research Interest Group's right-to-repair campaign, told Grist. "And I think Microsoft's leadership and willingness to be first created that opportunity...."

Like other consumer tech giants, Microsoft has historically fought right-to-repair bills while restricting access to spare parts, tools, and repair documentation to its network of "authorized" repair partners. In 2019, the company even helped kill a repair bill in Washington state. But in recent years the company has started changing its tune on the issue. In 2021, following pressure from shareholders, Microsoft agreed to take steps to facilitate the repair of its devices — a first for a U.S. company. Microsoft followed through on the agreement by expanding access to spare parts and service tools, including through a partnership with the repair guide site iFixit. The tech giant also commissioned a study that found repairing Microsoft products instead of replacing them can dramatically reduce both waste and carbon emissions. Microsoft has also started engaging more cooperatively with lawmakers over right-to-repair bills. In late 2021 and 2022, the company met with legislators in both Washington and New York to discuss each state's respective right-to-repair bill. In both cases, lawmakers and advocates involved in the bill negotiations described the meetings as productive...

When Washington lawmakers revived their right-to-repair bill for the 2023 legislative cycle, Microsoft once again came to the negotiating table. From state senator and bill sponsor Joe Nguyen's perspective, Microsoft's view was, "We see this coming, we'd rather be part of the conversation than outside. And we want to make sure it is done in a thoughtful way." Proctor, whose organization was also involved in negotiating the Washington bill, said that Microsoft had a few specific requests, including that the bill require repair shops to possess a third-party technical certification and carry insurance. It was also important to Microsoft that the bill only cover products manufactured after the bill's implementation date, and that manufacturers be required to provide the public only the same parts and documents that their authorized repair providers already receive. Some of the company's requests, Proctor said, were "tough" for advocates to concede on. "But we did, because we thought what they were doing was in good faith."

In the U.S., at least three early candidates for president from both parties "want to make it clear they would not support any proposals for a central bank-backed digital US dollar," reports Bloomberg — which may be a little premature, because "A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, is far from reality in the U.S." Some officials at the Federal Reserve have expressed doubt over the need for one, especially for use by everyday Americans. The Fed has also said it would want approval from Congress before moving forward with a digital dollar. But that hasn't stopped the relatively niche issue from emerging as a flash point for individuals eyeing a presidential run.

The idea of a digital dollar has already faced backlash from Wall Street and other banks, because lenders are worried about it acting as a direct competitor to private bank deposits. Digital-asset companies like Circle Internet Financial LLC that issue stablecoins — a form of cryptocurrency traditionally tied to reserve assets like the US dollar or gold and that offers similar features to a retail digital dollar — have also pushed back against certain CBDCs. Circle's Head of Global Policy Dante Disparte said he'd be opposed to a digital dollar if it allows the Fed to control users' access to funds, compromises privacy or disrupts a two-tiered banking and payments system. "I've gone as far as saying that's the version that is un-American," he said in an interview. In a report published last year in response to a Federal Reserve discussion paper, Circle also warned that a digital dollar could "destabilize" the banking sector.

In Congress, Republicans on Capitol Hill have introduced legislation to ban such direct-to-consumer CBDCs, saying they could be used by the federal government to surveil US citizens.

Proponents of a CBDC have argued that it could offer real benefits, including making payments — especially cross-border payments — faster and ensuring the dollar's dominance in the global economy. It could be particularly useful for settling certain financial-market transactions, such as interbank transfers, some Fed officials have said. The government has also indicated it would prefer to have private-sector intermediaries offer accounts and facilitate CBDC payments, rather than taking on that role itself. Supporters have argued it can be tailored in a way to protect consumer privacy, which the Fed has also said is critical if it decides to move forward.
Bloomberg also summarized the analysis of one political consultant specializing in cryptocurrency. "In addition to the potential appeal to libertarian voters and to constituents in banking and crypto, pushing back against a U.S. digital dollar can provide a relatively safe avenue for candidates to attract votes from conspiracy theorists who have rallied around the anti-CBDC movement."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: President Biden on Thursday will pledge $500 million over five years to fight deforestation in Brazil, a White House official said, in a move that would make the United States one of the largest donors to the global Amazon Fund. But the pledge would require approval from Congress, where Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to international climate assistance and have made it difficult for President Biden to deliver on his promises to help poorer nations cope with climate change. Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has been working with the Biden administration on several issues, including climate change, despite Mr. Lula's criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

The Amazon Fund, a conservation program, was established by Brazil in 2008 and has bankrolled efforts to curb deforestation in the world's largest rainforest. Norway, the first and largest contributor to the fund, has donated more than $1.2 billion. Germany recently announced a $217 million donation. But the fund was suspended under Mr. Lula's far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who weakened environmental protections and saw annual average deforestation rates soar, reaching levels the country hadn't experienced in more than a decade.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Parler, the self-described "uncancelable free speech platform," has been sold and shut down while its new owner conducts a "strategic assessment." The platform will be back eventually, new owner Starboard says. The Parler website is now a simple page containing only today's press release announcing the acquisition, which was completed without financial terms being disclosed. "No reasonable person believes that a Twitter clone just for conservatives is a viable business any more," the acquisition announcement said, promising a revamp.

"While the Parler app as it is currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment, we at Starboard see tremendous opportunities across multiple sectors to continue to serve marginalized or even outright censored communities -- even extending beyond domestic politics," the press release said. No timing for a return was mentioned. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Starboard founder and CEO Ryan Coyne said that Parler is "going to take a breath of fresh air." Ars notes that Starboard was formerly called Olympic Media and owns conservative news sites American Wire News and BizPac Review.

The previous owner, Parlement Technologies, tried to strike a deal to sell to Ye (formerly Kanye West) in mid-October but canceled the deal after Ye praised Hitler and Nazis. The company laid off a majority of its staff earlier this year.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Biden administration's $80 billion overhaul of the Internal Revenue Service is facing a new line of attack, this time from lobbyists representing tax preparers who fear that the agency's growing power will cripple their businesses and infringe upon taxpayer privacy. The fight is over a potential plan for the I.R.S. to create its own tax-filing system that would allow taxpayers to submit their returns directly to the federal government at no cost. That type of free service could diminish the need for those provided by tax preparation companies like H&R Block and TurboTax. The idea, which is still being studied, is stoking backlash from Republicans and business groups who argue that President Biden's plans to bolster the I.R.S. will give it even more power over ordinary taxpayers.

The I.R.S. received a giant infusion of money as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act, a sweeping climate and energy bill that Congress passed last year. That legislation set aside $15 million for the I.R.S. to conduct a study to determine how it could develop a program that would let Americans file their tax returns directly with the agency. The I.R.S. is expected in the coming days to release its plan for how it intends to spend the $80 billion that it was allocated as part of that legislation. Republican lawmakers have maintained firm opposition to the funding, which will help the agency hire 87,000 employees, and have been taking steps to claw it back. [...] Democrats have long pushed to make filing free for everyone, seeing that as a way to make the process easier and less costly. But that ambition could upend the business models of the multibillion-dollar tax preparation industry, which earns hefty fees for helping people navigate the tax code.

Several companies already provide free tax-filing services through the I.R.S. website to those who earn less than $73,000, and the agency provides forms that taxpayers who do not need any guidance can use to file their returns for free. Some other software platforms offer limited free services for simple tax returns that also do not offer guidance through the process. Initially, a tax-filing system developed by the I.R.S. would be similar to the existing free options. But proponents of the idea believe that over time it could evolve to become a more comprehensive system that would provide taxpayers with returns that are already filled out based on wage data that the I.R.S. tracks. At that point, taxpayers could just sign off on their returns as easily as responding "yes" to a text message.

Republican Senator Rand Paul on Wednesday opposed efforts in Congress to ban popular Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, which is used by more than 150 million Americans. From a report: A small but growing number of Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns, citing free speech and other issues and have objected to legislation targeting TikTok as overly broad. Republican Senator Josh Hawley said this week he hoped to get unanimous consent for a TikTok ban bill. "Congressional Republicans have come up with a national strategy to permanently lose elections for a generation: Ban a social media app called TikTok that 94 million, primarily young Americans, use," Paul said in an opinion piece published Wednesday in Louisville, Kentucky's Courier-Journal. "Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China's government already bans TikTok. Hmmm ... do we really want to emulate China's speech bans?" Paul added: "If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them. But don't think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them."

Today U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Silicon Valley Bank would not be bailed out by the federal government. But the government is working on helping depositors, Yellen said on the CBS News show Face the Nation.

The Associated Press reports that deposits insured by the federal government are supposed to be available by Monday morning... The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits up to $250,000, but many of the companies and wealthy people who used the bank — known for its relationships with technology startups and venture capital — had more than that amount in their account. There are fears that some workers across the country won't receive their paychecks....

[Yellen] emphasized that the situation was much different from the financial crisis almost 15 years ago, which led to bank bailouts to protect the industry. "We're not going to do that again," she said. "But we are concerned about depositors, and we're focused on trying to meet their needs...."

Silicon Valley Bank is the nation's 16th-largest bank. It was the second biggest bank failure in U.S. history after the collapse of Washington Mutual in 2008. The bank served mostly technology workers and venture capital-backed companies, including some of the industry's best-known brands.... Yellen said she expected regulators to consider "a wide range of available options," including the acquisition of Silicon Valley Bank by another institution. So far, however, no buyer has stepped forward.
CNBC reports that just hours before regulators seized the failing bank — employees were paid their annual bonuses, "according to people with knowledge of the payments."

And the Intercept reports that earlier the bank had successfully lobbied for the rollback of protective rules established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. "The lobbying effort managed to exempt banks the size of Silicon Valley Bank from more stringent regulations, including stress tests aimed at uncovering the type of weaknesses that led to the bank's implosion Friday."

But the Washington Post reported that as dramatic as the seizure is, "one thing it doesn't seem likely to do — at least for now — is trigger a wider financial meltdown, banking experts said." Unlike the giant banks that ignited a global crisis in 2008, SVB was heavily dependent upon a single risky sector of the economy for both its depositors and its customers. That concentrated bet proved to be very bad news for the ambitious start-ups that dominate the high-technology world. But it means that the tech-friendly bank lacked the sophisticated financial entanglements with other institutions that can turn one bank's losses into a threat to the entire industry.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The White House said Tuesday it backs a bill in Congress to give the Biden administration new powers to ban Chinese-owned video app TikTok and other foreign technologies that could pose security threats. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said the bipartisan bill sponsored by a dozen senators "would strengthen our ability to address discrete risks posed by individual transactions, and systemic risks posed by certain classes of transactions involving countries of concern in sensitive technology sectors."

"We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President's desk," he said. The bill in question is called the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act."

The bill, introduced by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sen. John Thune (R-SD), doesn't single out TikTok to be banned. "Instead, Warner avoids making his bill all about TikTok," reports Ars Technica. "His office told Reuters that the RESTRICT Act will 'comprehensively address the ongoing threat posed by technology from foreign adversaries,' citing TikTok as an example of tech that could be assessed as a threat."

"[T]he RESTRICT Act is superior to the DATA Act because it provides a legal framework for the US to review all 'foreign technology coming into America,' not just from China, but also from Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba. It's designed to give the US 'a systemic approach to make sure we can ban or prohibit' emerging technology threats 'when necessary.'"

A bipartisan group of 12 U.S. senators will introduce legislation on Tuesday that would give Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo new powers to ban Chinese-owned video app TikTok and other foreign-based technologies if they pose national security threats, Senator Mark Warner said. From a report: "I think it is a national security threat," Warner said on CNBC, adding that the bill would give Raimondo "the ability to do a series of mitigation up to and including banning" TikTok and other technologies that pose national security risks. Warner said it would apply to foreign technologies from six nations -- China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. The group, led by Warner and Republican Senator John Thune, includes Democrats Tammy Baldwin, Joe Manchin, Michael Bennett, Kirsten Gillibrand and Martin Heinrich along with Republicans Deb Fischer, Jerry Moran, Dan Sullivan, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney, Warner's office said. TikTok, the ByteDance-owned app used by more than 100 million Americans, has come under increasing fire over fears user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government, undermining Western security interests. TikTok Chief Executive Shou Zi Chew is due to appear before Congress on March 23.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: The US can stop Twitter from releasing details about the government's demands for user information in national security investigations, a court ruled (PDF), in the same week House Republicans are to grill national security officials over surveillance. Twitter had protested the government's redactions to a 2014 "transparency report" that featured a numerical breakdown of national security-related data requests from the previous year. The US appeals court in San Francisco on Monday agreed with a lower-court judge that the Justice Department had shown a "compelling" interest in keeping that information secret. Based on classified and unclassified declarations provided by government officials, the court was "able to appreciate why Twitter's proposed disclosure would risk making our foreign adversaries aware of what is being surveilled and what is not being surveilled -- if anything at all," US Circuit Judge Daniel Bress wrote for the three-judge panel.

Although the case is almost a decade old, the ruling comes just as lawmakers and US national security agencies gear up for a bruising fight over making changes to a key surveillance program. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, described by intelligence officials as a key authority, expires on Dec. 31 unless Congress votes to renew it. US agencies use the authority to compel internet and technology companies to turn over information about suspected foreign terrorists and spies. Changes to Section 702 could include altering what companies like Twitter are required to do in response to government demands. "The case at issue in Monday's decision involved efforts by Twitter to share information about two types of federal law enforcement demands on the social media company: 'national security letters' for subscriber information, which would cover metadata but not the substance of any electronic communications, and orders under FISA, which could include content," adds Bloomberg.

Judge Daniel Bress wrote: "The government may not fend off every First Amendment challenge by invoking national security. But we must apply the First Amendment with due regard for the government's compelling interest in securing the safety of our country and its people."

FTX co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried was hit Thursday with four new criminal charges, including ones related to commodities fraud and making unlawful political contributions, in a superseding indictment filed in New York federal court. A source familiar with the new counts said that SBF, as he is popularly known, could face an additional 40 years in prison if convicted in the case, where he is accused of "multiple schemes to defraud." CNBC reports: The charging document lays out how Bankman-Fried allegedly operated an illegal straw donor scheme as he moved to use customers funds to run a multimillion-dollar political influence campaign. Bankman-Fried and fellow FTX executives combined to contribute more than $70 million toward the 2022 midterm elections, according to campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets. The indictment claims that Bankman-Fried and his co-conspirators "made over 300 political contributions, totaling tens of millions of dollars, that were unlawful because they were made in the name of a straw donor or paid for with corporate funds." "To avoid certain contributions being publicly reported in his name, Bankman-Fried conspired to and did have certain political contributions made in the names of two other FTX executives," the new filing claims.

The document refers to one such example, in 2022, when Bankman-Fried and "others agreed that he and his co-conspirators should contribute at least a million dollars to a super PAC that was supporting a candidate running for a United States Congressional seat and appeared to be affiliated with pro-LGBTQ issues." The group of conspirators, according to the document, selected an individual only identified in the document as "CC-1" or co-conspirator 1, to be the donor. However, in 2022, then-FTX Director of Engineering Nishad Singh contributed $1.1 million to the LGBTQ Victory Fund Federal PAC, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

SBF's alleged campaign finance scheme included efforts to keep his contributions to Republicans "dark," according to the new indictment. And, the alleged straw donor scheme was coordinated, at least in part, "through an encrypted, auto-deleting Signal chat called 'Donation Processing,'" according to the indictment. The document says another unnamed co-conspirator "who publicly aligned himself with conservatives, made contributions to Republican candidates that were directed by Bankman-Fried and funded by Alameda," the crypto tycoon's hedge fund. Again, the document does do not name the alleged second FTX co-conspirator who contributed to Republican candidates.

The indictment alleges that Bankman-Fried and his allies allegedly tried to "further conceal the scheme" by recording "the outgoing wire transfers from Alameda to individuals' bank accounts for purposes of making contributions as Alameda 'loans' or 'expenses.'" The document says that "while employees at Alameda generally tracked loans to executives, the transfers to Bankman-Fried, CC-1, and CC-2 in the months before the 2022 midterm elections were not recorded on internal Alameda tracking spreadsheets." The internal Alameda spreadsheets, however, "noted over $100 million in political contributions, even though FEC records reflect no political contributions by Alameda for the 2022 midterm elections to candidates or PACs."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Two Republican lawmakers in Idaho have introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor for anyone in the state to administer mRNA-based vaccines -- namely the lifesaving and remarkably safe COVID-19 vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. If passed as written, it would also preemptively ban the use of countless other mRNA vaccines that are now in development, such as shots for RSV, a variety of cancers, HIV, flu, Nipah virus, and cystic fibrosis, among others. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Tammy Nichols of Middleton and Rep. Judy Boyle of Midvale, both staunch conservatives who say they stand for freedom and the right to life. But their bill, HB 154, proposes that "a person may not provide or administer a vaccine developed using messenger ribonucleic acid [mRNA] technology for use in an individual or any other mammal in this state." If passed into law, anyone administering lifesaving mRNA-based vaccines would be guilty of a misdemeanor, which could result in jail time and/or a fine.

While presenting the bill to the House Health & Welfare Committee last week, Nichols said their anti-mRNA stance stems from the fact that the COVID-19 vaccines were initially allowed under emergency use authorizations (EUAs) from the Food and Drug Administration, not the agency's full regulatory approval. "We have issues that this was fast-tracked," she told fellow lawmakers, according to reporting from local news outlet KXLY.com. [...] "They ultimately were approved under the ordinary approval process and did ultimately, you know, survive the scrutiny of being subjected to all the normal tests," Rep. Ilana Rubel, a democrat from Boise, said. Nichols seemed unswayed by the point, however, with KTVB7 reporting that she responded that the FDA's approval "may not have been done like we thought it should've been done."

To date, more than 269 million people in the US have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine, and over 700 million doses of mRNA-based vaccines have gone into American arms, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The agency keeps close tabs on safety through various national surveillance systems. Although the shots do carry some risk (as is the case for any medical intervention), they have proven remarkably safe amid widespread use of hundreds of millions of doses in the US and worldwide. A study released late last year found that COVID-19 vaccination in the US alone averted more than 18 million additional hospitalizations and more than 3 million additional deaths from the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. The National Human Genome Research Institute notes that mRNA "is a type of single-stranded RNA involved in protein synthesis. mRNA is made from a DNA template during the process of transcription. The role of mRNA is to carry protein information from the DNA in a cell's nucleus to the cell's cytoplasm (watery interior), where the protein-making machinery reads the mRNA sequence and translates each three-base codon into its corresponding amino acid in a growing protein chain."

mRNA-based vaccines made their public debut amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but researchers have been "working toward these vaccines for decades beforehand," adds Ars.