xAI struck a deal with the U.S. General Services Administration to sell its chatbot Grok to federal agencies under the executive branch for 42 cents over 18 months, undercutting OpenAI and Anthropic's $1 offerings. TechCrunch reports: The steep discount for federal agencies includes access to xAI engineers to help integrate the technology. The price point is either part of a running joke Musk has of using variations of 420, a marijuana reference, or a nod to one of Musk's favorite books, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," which references the number 42 as the answer to the meaning of life and the universe.

... In late August, internal emails obtained by Wired revealed the White House had instructed the GSA to add xAI's Grok to the approved vendor list "ASAP." The company was also one of several AI firms, including Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI, to be selected for a $200 million contract with the Pentagon. A GSA spokesperson told TechCrunch that Musk was not directly involved in negotiating the agreement.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: A team of suspected Chinese hackers has infiltrated US software developers and law firms in a sophisticated campaign to collect intelligence that could help Beijing in its ongoing trade fight with Washington, cybersecurity firm Mandiant said Wednesday. The hackers have been rampant in recent weeks, hitting the cloud-computing firms that numerous American companies rely on to store key data, Mandiant, which is owned by Google, said. In a sign of how important China's hacking army is in the race for tech supremacy, the hackers have also stolen US tech firms' proprietary software and used it to find new vulnerabilities to burrow deeper into networks, according to Mandiant.

[...] In some cases, the hackers have lurked undetected in the US corporate networks for over a year, quietly collecting intelligence, Mandiant said. The disclosure comes after the Trump administration escalated America's trade war with China this spring by slapping unprecedented tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States. The tit-for-tat tariffs set off a scramble in both governments to understand each other's positions. Mandiant analysts said the fallout from the breaches -- the task of kicking out the hackers and assessing the damage -- could last many months. They described it as a milestone hack, comparable in severity and sophistication to Russia's use of SolarWinds software to infiltrate US government agencies in 2020.

Digital ID will be mandatory in order to work in the UK, as part of plans to tackle illegal migration. From a report: Sir Keir Starmer said the new digital ID scheme would make it tougher to work in the UK illegally and offer "countless benefits" to citizens. However, opposition parties argued the proposals would not stop people crossing the Channel in small boats.

The prime minister set out his plans in a broader speech to a gathering of world leaders, in which he said it had been "too easy" for people to work illegally in the UK because the centre-left had been "squeamish" about saying things that were "clearly true."

Addressing the Global Progressive Action Conference in London - attended by politicians including Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney - Sir Keir said it was time to "look ourselves in the mirror and recognise where we've allowed our parties to shy away from people's concerns."

"It is not compassionate left-wing politics to rely on labour that exploits foreign workers and undercuts fair wages," he said. "The simple fact is that every nation needs to have control over its borders. We do need to know who is in our country."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A viral app called Neon, which offers to record your phone calls and pay you for the audio so it can sell that data to AI companies, has rapidly risen to the ranks of the top-five free iPhone apps since its launch last week. The app already has thousands of users and was downloaded 75,000 times yesterday alone, according to app intelligence provider Appfigures. Neon pitches itself as a way for users to make by providing call recordings that help train, improve, and test AI models. But now Neon has gone offline, at least for now, after a security flaw allowed anyone to access the phone numbers, call recordings, and transcripts of any other user, TechCrunch can now report.

TechCrunch discovered the security flaw during a short test of the app on Thursday. We alerted the app's founder, Alex Kiam (who previously did not respond to a request for comment about the app), to the flaw soon after our discovery. Kiam told TechCrunch later Thursday that he took down the app's servers and began notifying users about pausing the app, but fell short of informing his users about the security lapse. The Neon app stopped functioning soon after we contacted Kiam. TechCrunch found that the app's backend services didn't properly restrict access, allowing any logged-in user to request and receive data belong to other users. This included call transcripts, raw call recordings, and sensitive metadata, including phone numbers, the date/time of calls, and their durations.

Google has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a judge's order requiring major changes to its Play Store after losing an antitrust case to Epic Games. The injunction would force Google to allow rival app stores, external billing links, and broader competition -- changes Google says could harm users and developers. Epic argues they're necessary to break Google's monopoly. Reuters reports: Google said it has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to halt key parts of a judge's order that would force major changes to its app store Play, as it prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games. Google called the judge's order unprecedented, and said it would cause reputational harm, safety and security risks and put the company at a competitive disadvantage if allowed to take effect, according to a filing, opens new tab provided late on Wednesday by Google, which said it had submitted it to the court. [...]

Google in its Supreme Court filing said that the changes will have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. It asked the court to decide by October 17 whether to put the order on hold. Google said it plans to file its appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that begins on October 6.

Epic in a statement said Google is relying on what it called "flawed security claims" to justify its control over Android devices. "The court's injunction should go into effect as ordered so consumers and developers can benefit from competition, choices and lower prices," Epic said. The jury, siding with Epic in the trial, found that Google illegally stifled competition. Donato subsequently issued the order directing Google to make changes to its app store.

Amazon will pay $2.5 billion to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that it duped users into paying for Prime memberships, the regulatory agency announced Thursday. CNBC: The surprise settlement comes as Amazon and the FTC were just three days into the trial in a Seattle federal court. Opening arguments took place on Tuesday. The lawsuit, filed by the FTC in June 2023 under the Biden administration, claimed that Amazon deceived tens of millions of customers into signing up for its Prime subscription program and sabotaged their attempts to cancel it.

Three senior Amazon executives were at risk of being held individually liable if the jury sided with the FTC. Amazon will pay a $1 billion civil penalty to the FTC and will refund $1.5 billion to an estimated 35 million customers who were impacted by "unwanted Prime enrollment or deferred cancellation," the agency said.

The Japanese city of Toyoake has passed (PDF) a symbolic ordinance limiting recreational smartphone use to two hours a day, aiming to improve citizens' sleep -- especially for students after summer vacation. The Register reports: "The primary purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that all citizens receive adequate sleep," states a Council information page, which explains that many Japanese people ignore Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare recommendations to spend six to eight hours a day dozing. An accompanying FAQ [PDF] explains that Council passed the ordinance because students who return to school after summer vacations sometimes need a nudge the re-establish an appropriate daily regime.

The ordinance also points out "Excessive phone users and their families are facing difficulties in their daily and social lives," and suggests the two-hours-a-day guidance might help. Council's documents point out that smartphones have myriad uses beyond recreation, and that the ordinance should not be taken as a suggestion to reduce overall use of the devices. Toyoake is part of the Nagoya megalopolis and is home to around 70,000 people. The town's government plans to survey residents about the ordinance, and the FAQ also mentions it wants to tackle other digital menaces, among them harmful effects of using smartphones while walking.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: After deflecting the US Department of Justice's attack on its illegal monopoly in online search, Google is facing another attempt to dismantle its internet empire in a trial focused on abusive tactics in digital advertising. The trial that opened Monday in an Alexandria, Virginia, federal court revolves around the harmful conduct that resulted in US district Judge Leonie Brinkema declaring parts of Google's digital advertising technology to be an illegal monopoly in April. The judge found that Google has been engaging in behavior that stifles competition to the detriment of online publishers that depend on the system for revenue.

Google and the justice department will spend the next two weeks in court presenting evidence in a "remedy" trial that will culminate in Brinkema issuing a ruling on how to restore fair market conditions. If the justice department gets its way, Brinkema will order Google to sell parts of its ad technology -- a proposal that the company's lawyers warned would "invite disruption and damage" to consumers and the internet's ecosystem. The justice department contends a breakup would be the most effective and quickest way to undercut a monopoly that has been stifling competition and innovation for years. [...]

The case, filed in 2023 under Joe Biden's administration, threatens the complex network that Google has spent the past 17 years building to power its dominant digital advertising business. Digital advertising sales account for most of the $305 billion in revenue that Google's services division generates for its corporate parent Alphabet. The company's sprawling network of display ads provide the lifeblood that keeps thousands of websites alive. Google believes it has already made enough changes to its "ad manager" system, including providing more options and pricing options, to resolve the problems Brinkema flagged in her monopoly ruling.

Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from ICO Bench: As of September 1, 2025, banks across Vietnam are closing accounts deemed inactive or non-compliant with new biometric rules. Authorities estimate that more than 86 million accounts out of roughly 200 million are at risk if users fail to update their identity verification.

The State Bank of Vietnam has also introduced stricter thresholds for transactions:
- Facial authentication is mandatory for online transfers above 10 million VND (about $379).
- Cumulative daily transfers over 20 million VND ($758) also require biometric approval.

The policy is part of the central bank's broader "cashless" strategy, aimed at combating fraud, identity theft, and deepfake-enabled scams. [...] While many Vietnamese citizens have updated their biometric data without issue, the measure has disproportionately affected foreign residents and expatriates who cannot easily return to local branches and dormant accounts that had been left inactive for years. schwit1 highlights a post on X from Bitcoin expert and TFTC.io founder Marty Bent: "If users don't comply by the 30th they'll lose their money. This is why we bitcoin."

YouTube's parent company, Alphabet, said it will reinstate creators previously banned for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and false election claims, citing free expression and shifting policy guidelines. The Hill reports: "Reflecting the Company's commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the Company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect," the company said in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chair of the House Judiciary Committee. "YouTube values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse. The Company recognizes these creators are among those shaping today's online consumption, landing 'must-watch' interviews, giving viewers the chance to hear directly from politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and more," it added in the five-page correspondence.

Alphabet blamed the Biden administration for limiting political speech on the platform. "Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies," the letter read. "While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content," it continued. Guidelines were changed after former President Biden took office and urged platforms to remove content that encouraged citizens to drink bleach to cure COVID-19, as President Trump suggested in 2020, or join insurrection efforts launched on Jan. 6, 2021, to overthrow his 2020 presidential win. But the company said the Biden administration's decisions were "unacceptable" and "wrong," while noting it would forgo future fact-checking mechanisms and instead allow users to add context notes to content.

Customs and Border Protection collected DNA from nearly 2,000 US citizens between 2020 and 2024 and sent the samples to the FBI's CODIS crime database, according to Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy & Technology analysis of newly released government data. The collection included approximately 95 minors, some as young as 14, and travelers never charged with crimes.

Congress never authorized DNA collection from citizens, children or civil detainees. DHS has contributed 2.6 million profiles to CODIS since 2020, with 97% collected under civil rather than criminal authority. The expansion followed a 2020 Justice Department rule that revoked DHS's waiver from DNA collection requirements. Former FBI director Christopher Wray testified in 2023 that monthly DNA submissions jumped from a few thousand to 92,000, creating a backlog of 650,000 unprocessed kits. Georgetown researchers project DHS could account for one-third of CODIS by 2034. The DHS Inspector General found in 2021 that the department lacked central oversight of DNA collection.

The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democrat on the FTC. "The court's action is technically temporary, since the justices said they will hear arguments in the case in December, but every indication is that the conservative court majority will use the case to reverse a major Supreme Court precedent that dates back almost a century," reports NPR. From the report: Congress created the FTC and lots of other agencies to be multi-member, bipartisan regulatory agencies. And the Supreme Court in 1935 upheld those statutes ruling ruled against then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt's claim that he could fire FTC commissioners at will. In a unanimous opinion at the time, the court said Congress acted within its powers in declaring that a commissioner could only be fired for misconduct -- not for a policy disagreement. But now, prodded by President Trump, the court's six-member conservative majority seems poised to remake the way independent agencies operate. And if the handwriting on the wall is as clear as it seems to be, the independent agencies won't be independent. Their membership will be subject to the will of the president.

The court's action Monday was hardly subtle. While the lower courts had ruled that the president could not fire Slaughter, under the court's 1935 precedent, the conservative Supreme Court majority allowed the president to fire her. Indeed, her name isn't even on the FTC website anymore. And the court so far has allowed Trump to fire other agency board members. In short, the justices are not playing hide-the-ball. And it's a good bet that the court will reverse the 1935 precedent, which until now had been reaffirmed multiple times. The result will be that whereas in the past, these agencies had to be bipartisan, with a minority of opposition party members, now there will be no such requirement. In short, Trump can name all the agency members. And if his successor is a Democrat, he or she can fire all the Republicans.

The U.S. General Services Administration has approved Meta's AI system Llama for use by federal agencies, declaring that it meets government security and legal standards. Reuters reports: "It's not about currying favor," [said Josh Gruenbaum, the GSA's procurement lead, when asked whether tech executives are giving the government discounts to get President Donald Trump's approval]. "It's about that recognition of how do we all lock in arms and make this country the best country it could possibly be." Federal agencies will be able to deploy the tool to speed up contract review or more quickly solve information technology hiccups, among other tasks, he said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CalMatters: A California attorney must pay a $10,000 fine for filing a state court appeal full of fake quotations generated by the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT. The fine appears to be the largest issued over AI fabrications by a California court and came with a blistering opinion (PDF) stating that 21 of 23 quotes from cases cited in the attorney's opening brief were made up. It also noted that numerous out-of-state and federal courts have confronted attorneys for citing fake legal authority. "We therefore publish this opinion as a warning," it continued. "Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations -- whether provided by generative AI or any other source -- that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified."

The opinion, issued 10 days ago in California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, is a clear example of why the state's legal authorities are scrambling to regulate the use of AI in the judiciary. The state's Judicial Council two weeks ago issued guidelines requiring judges and court staff to either ban generative AI or adopt a generative AI use policy by Dec. 15. Meanwhile, the California Bar Association is considering whether to strengthen its code of conduct to account for various forms of AI following a request by the California Supreme Court last month.

The Los Angeles-area attorney fined last week, Amir Mostafavi, told the court that he did not read text generated by the AI model before submitting the appeal in July 2023, months after OpenAI marketed ChatGPT as capable of passing the bar exam. A three-judge panel fined him for filing a frivolous appeal, violating court rules, citing fake cases, and wasting the court's time and the taxpayers money, according to the opinion. Mostafavi told CalMatters he wrote the appeal and then used ChatGPT to try and improve it. He said that he didn't know it would add case citations or make things up.

"On a recent assignment to test defenses, Dave Brauchler of the cybersecurity company NCC Group tricked a client's AI program-writing assistant into executing programs that forked over the company's databases and code repositories," reports the Washington Post.

"We have never been this foolish with security," Brauchler said... Demonstrations at last month's Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas included other attention-getting means of exploiting artificial intelligence. In one, an imagined attacker sent documents by email with hidden instructions aimed at ChatGPT or competitors. If a user asked for a summary or one was made automatically, the program would execute the instructions, even finding digital passwords and sending them out of the network. A similar attack on Google's Gemini didn't even need an attachment, just an email with hidden directives. The AI summary falsely told the target an account had been compromised and that they should call the attacker's number, mimicking successful phishing scams.

The threats become more concerning with the rise of agentic AI, which empowers browsers and other tools to conduct transactions and make other decisions without human oversight. Already, security company Guardio has tricked the agentic Comet browser addition from Perplexity into buying a watch from a fake online store and to follow instructions from a fake banking email...

Advanced AI programs also are beginning to be used to find previously undiscovered security flaws, the so-called zero-days that hackers highly prize and exploit to gain entry into software that is configured correctly and fully updated with security patches. Seven teams of hackers that developed autonomous "cyber reasoning systems" for a contest held last month by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were able to find a total of 18 zero-days in 54 million lines of open source code. They worked to patch those vulnerabilities, but officials said hackers around the world are developing similar efforts to locate and exploit them. Some longtime security defenders are predicting a once-in-a-lifetime, worldwide mad dash to use the technology to find new flaws and exploit them, leaving back doors in place that they can return to at leisure.

The real nightmare scenario is when these worlds collide, and an attacker's AI finds a way in and then starts communicating with the victim's AI, working in partnership — "having the bad guy AI collaborate with the good guy AI," as SentinelOne's [threat researcher Alex] Delamotte put it. "Next year," said Adam Meyers, senior vice president at CrowdStrike, "AI will be the new insider threat."
In August more than 1,000 people lost data to a modified Nx program (downloaded hundreds of thousands of times) that used pre-installed coding tools from Google/Anthropic/etc. According to the article, the malware "instructed those programs to root out" sensitive data (including passwords or cryptocurrency wallets) and send it back to the attacker. "The more autonomy and access to production environments such tools have, the more havoc they can wreak," the article points out — including this quote from SentinelOne threat researcher Alex Delamotte.

"It's kind of unfair that we're having AI pushed on us in every single product when it introduces new risks."

In a debate on employment rights, a U.K. Parliament member brought up Meta's former director of global public policy Sarah Wynn-Williams Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said Wynn-Williams was facing a fine of $50,000 (£37,000) every time she breached an order secured by Meta preventing her from talking disparagingly about the company... "I am sure that the whole house and the government will stand with Sarah as we pass this legislation to ensure that whistleblowers and those with the moral courage to speak out are always protected...."

Meta has emphasised that Wynn-Williams entered into the non-disparagement agreement voluntarily as part of her departure. Meta said that to date, Wynn-Williams had not been forced to make any payments under the agreement... [The ruling came after Wynn-Williams published an exposé in March about her time at Facebook titled Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.] The ruling stated Wynn-Williams should stop promoting the book and, to the extent she could, stop further publication... Wynn-Williams has not spoken in public since appearing at the Senate hearing in April.
Wynn-Williams "remains silenced" according to her lawyer, who tells the Guardian that Meta's arbitration proceedings in the U.K. "threaten to bankrupt" the whistleblower.

Mickey Mouse's first movie Steamboat Willie entered the public domain in 2024.

Now one of America's largest personal injury firms is suing Disney, reports the Associated Press, "in an effort to get a ruling that would allow it to use Steamboat Willie in advertisements..." [The law firm said] it had reached out to Disney to make sure the entertainment company wouldn't sue them if they used images from the animated film for their TV and online ads. Disney's lawyers responded by saying they didn't offer legal advice to third parties, according to the lawsuit. Morgan & Morgan said it was filing the lawsuit to get a decision because it otherwise feared being sued by Disney for trademark infringement if it used Steamboat Willie.
"Without waiver of any of its rights, Disney will not provide such advice in response to your letter," Disney's attorneys wrote in their letter (adding "Very truly yours..."). A local newscast showed a glimpse of the letter, along with a few seconds of the ad (which ends with Minnie Mouse pulling out a cellphone to call for a lawyer...)

Attorney John Morgan tells the newscast that Disney's legal team "is playing cute, and so we're just trying to get a yes or no answer.. They wrote us back a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that made no sense, didn't answer the question. We tried it again, they didn't answer the question..." (The newscast adds that the case isn't expected to go to court for at least a year.)

The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from seven states filed an 84-page lawsuit Thursday in federal court in California against Live Nation Entertainment and its Ticketmaster subsidiary. The suit alleges the companies knowingly allow ticket brokers to use multiple accounts to circumvent purchase limits and acquire thousands of tickets per event for resale at higher prices.

The FTC claims this practice violates the Better Online Ticket Sales Act and generates hundreds of millions in revenue through a "triple dip" fee structure -- collecting fees on initial broker purchases, then from both brokers and consumers on secondary market sales. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson cited President Trump's March executive order requiring federal protection against ticketing practices. The lawsuit arrives one month after the FTC sued Maryland broker Key Investment Group over Taylor Swift tour price-gouging and follows the Department of Justice's 2024 monopoly suit against Live Nation.

Amazon violated consumer protection law by gathering Prime subscribers' billing information before disclosing the service's terms, a judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission a partial win. From a report: The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Chun in the case accusing Amazon of deceptive practices to generate Prime subscriptions puts the company at a disadvantage at trial.

The FTC is poised to argue that the online retailer signed up tens of millions of customers for Prime without their consent, and thwarted tens of millions of cancellation bids through complex cancellation methods. The agency says those actions violated the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA).

At a Senate hearing, grieving parents testified that companion chatbots from major tech companies encouraged their children toward self-harm, suicide, and violence. One mom even claimed that Character.AI tried to "silence" her by forcing her into arbitration. Ars Technica reports: At the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism hearing, one mom, identified as "Jane Doe," shared her son's story for the first time publicly after suing Character.AI. She explained that she had four kids, including a son with autism who wasn't allowed on social media but found C.AI's app -- which was previously marketed to kids under 12 and let them talk to bots branded as celebrities, like Billie Eilish -- and quickly became unrecognizable. Within months, he "developed abuse-like behaviors and paranoia, daily panic attacks, isolation, self-harm, and homicidal thoughts," his mom testified.

"He stopped eating and bathing," Doe said. "He lost 20 pounds. He withdrew from our family. He would yell and scream and swear at us, which he never did that before, and one day he cut his arm open with a knife in front of his siblings and me." It wasn't until her son attacked her for taking away his phone that Doe found her son's C.AI chat logs, which she said showed he'd been exposed to sexual exploitation (including interactions that "mimicked incest"), emotional abuse, and manipulation. Setting screen time limits didn't stop her son's spiral into violence and self-harm, Doe said. In fact, the chatbot urged her son that killing his parents "would be an understandable response" to them.

"When I discovered the chatbot conversations on his phone, I felt like I had been punched in the throat and the wind had been knocked out of me," Doe said. "The chatbot -- or really in my mind the people programming it -- encouraged my son to mutilate himself, then blamed us, and convinced [him] not to seek help." All her children have been traumatized by the experience, Doe told Senators, and her son was diagnosed as at suicide risk and had to be moved to a residential treatment center, requiring "constant monitoring to keep him alive." Prioritizing her son's health, Doe did not immediately seek to fight C.AI to force changes, but another mom's story -- Megan Garcia, whose son Sewell died by suicide after C.AI bots repeatedly encouraged suicidal ideation -- gave Doe courage to seek accountability.

However, Doe claimed that C.AI tried to "silence" her by forcing her into arbitration. C.AI argued that because her son signed up for the service at the age of 15, it bound her to the platform's terms. That move might have ensured the chatbot maker only faced a maximum liability of $100 for the alleged harms, Doe told senators, but "once they forced arbitration, they refused to participate," Doe said. Doe suspected that C.AI's alleged tactics to frustrate arbitration were designed to keep her son's story out of the public view. And after she refused to give up, she claimed that C.AI "re-traumatized" her son by compelling him to give a deposition "while he is in a mental health institution" and "against the advice of the mental health team." "This company had no concern for his well-being," Doe testified. "They have silenced us the way abusers silence victims." A Character.AI spokesperson told Ars that C.AI sends "our deepest sympathies" to concerned parents and their families but denies pushing for a maximum payout of $100 in Jane Doe's case. C.AI never "made an offer to Jane Doe of $100 or ever asserted that liability in Jane Doe's case is limited to $100," the spokesperson said.

One of Doe's lawyers backed up her clients' testimony, citing C.AI terms that suggested C.AI's liability was limited to either $100 or the amount that Doe's son paid for the service, whichever was greater.