A husband and wife cyber-crime team have pleaded guilty to trying to launder $4.5bn of Bitcoin that he had stolen in a hack in 2016. From a report: Heather Morgan and Ilya Lichtenstein were arrested last year in New York after police traced their riches back to the crypto heist. While evading police, Morgan masqueraded as a rapper and tech entrepreneur. As part of a plea deal, Lichtenstein admitted he was behind the hack. The couple both pleaded guilty to money laundering, but Morgan pleaded guilty to an additional count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. In spite of attempting to cover up her crimes, Morgan published dozens of expletive-filled music videos and rap songs filmed in locations around New York, under the name Razzlekhan. In her lyrics she called herself a "bad-ass money maker" and "the crocodile of Wall Street."

In articles published in Forbes, Morgan also claimed to be a successful tech businesswoman, calling herself an "economist, serial entrepreneur, software investor and rapper." But while developing her rapping and tech persona, she and her computer programmer husband were attempting to cash out their fortune stolen from the crypto firm Bitfinex. The couple now face prison sentences with Lichtenstein in line for a possible maximum 20 years in prison and Morgan a possible 10. At the time of their arrest in February 2022, the stash of 119,000 Bitcoins was worth about $4.5bn -- making it the US Department of Justice's largest single financial seizure in its history. When the hack was carried out, the Bitcoins were worth about $71m.

SoftBank sued former IRL CEO Abraham Shafi and five siblings and cousins for allegedly misleading the investor about the messaging app's growth, prompting the Japanese conglomerate to buy $150 million worth of shares in the company in 2021 at the height of a pandemic-fueled consumer internet boom. The Information: SoftBank said Shafi and his family members defrauded investors by lying about the company's millions of users, which were actually bots. The lawsuit said the defendants deleted data and communications about the fraud after U.S. securities regulators began investigating the company following a report in The Information questioning the user figures. Last month, The Information reported the company was being shut down following an external investigation initiated by its board of directors that found 95% of its users were fake. The conduct described in the lawsuit, including allegedly deleting evidence during a federal investigation, could put Shafi in further legal trouble.

Canadians will soon be able to access and apply for more federal government services online -- from passports to payments, says Canada's first minister of citizens' services. From a report: Terry Beech says he's also open to innovation and using new technologies like artificial intelligence to improve the way the government delivers services to Canadians. "I think, fundamentally, it's my job to wake up every day thinking about how we're improving the customer service experience for Canadians," Beech said in an interview with CBC News. Beech's appointment to the newly created position comes as the government has been hammered in headlines and by the opposition in recent months over problems delivering basic services to Canadians. News reports have featured images of long lineups and people camping out to apply for passports. In the House of Commons, Conservative MPs have repeatedly talked about a "broken" government, saying lineups have been getting longer, backlogs bigger and services slower.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: Travel rewards programslike those offered by airlines and hotels tout the specific perks of joining their club over others. Under the hood, though, the digital infrastructure for many of these programs -- including Delta SkyMiles, United MileagePlus, Hilton Honors, and Marriott Bonvoy -- is built on the same platform. The backend comes from the loyalty commerce company Points and its suite of services, including an expansive application programming interface (API).But new findings, published today by a group of security researchers, show that vulnerabilities in the Points.com API could have been exploited to expose customer data, steal customers' "loyalty currency" (like miles), or even compromise Points global administration accounts to gain control of entire loyalty programs. The researchers -- Ian Carroll, Shubham Shah, and Sam Curry -- reported a series of vulnerabilities to Points between March and May, and all the bugs have since been fixed.

"The surprise for me was related to the fact that there is a central entity for loyalty and points systems, which almost every big brand in the world uses," Shah says. "From this point, it was clear to me that finding flaws in this system would have a cascading effect to every company utilizing their loyalty backend. I believe that once other hackers realized that targeting Points meant that they could potentially have unlimited points on loyalty systems, they would have also been successful in targeting Points.com eventually." One bug involved a manipulation that allowed the researchers to traverse from one part of the Points API infrastructure to another internal portion and then query it for reward program customer orders. The system included 22 million order records, which contain data like customer rewards account numbers, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and partial credit card numbers. Points.com had limits in place on how many responses the system could return at a time, meaning an attacker couldn't simply dump the whole data trove at once. But the researchers note that it would have been possible to look up specific individuals of interest or slowly siphon data from the system over time.

Another bug the researchers found was an API configuration issue that could have allowed an attacker to generate an account authorization token for any user with just their last name and rewards number. These two pieces of data could potentially be found through past breaches or could be taken by exploiting the first vulnerability. With this token, attackers could take over customer accounts and transfer miles or other rewards points to themselves, draining the victim's accounts. The researchers found two vulnerabilities similar to the other pair of bugs, one of which only impacted Virgin Red while the other affected just United MileagePlus. Points.com fixed both of these vulnerabilities as well. Most significantly, the researchers found a vulnerability in the Points.com global administration website in which an encrypted cookie assigned to each user had been encrypted with an easily guessable secret -- the word "secret" itself. By guessing this, the researchers could decrypt their cookie, reassign themselves global administrator privileges for the site, reencrypt the cookie, and essentially assume god-mode-like capabilities to access any Points reward system and even grant accounts unlimited miles or other benefits.

Long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike shares a report from CNBC: On Tuesday, the Biden administration put the final nail in the coffin for incandescent light bulbs, the result of a decade-plus-long legislative path. The journey began in 2007 when the Energy Independence and Security Act passed. That law required the Department of Energy to evaluate whether efficiency standards for light bulbs needed to be set or amended and required a minimum standard of energy efficiency for light bulbs of 45 lumens per watt to be considered. The 2007 law required that if the DOE determined a new energy efficiency standard was necessary, it should go into effect by January 1, 2017. But politics intervened as the Trump administration appealed those rules.

The Biden administration picked the issue back up. And in April 2022, the Biden administration issued a rule requiring the minimum standard efficiency of 45 lumens per watt, which became effective in July. At that time, the Department of Energy said it would have a gradual transition to the new rule so that stores with inventory would not be stuck with light bulbs they could no longer sell. In Department of Energy lingo, this is called "progressive enforcement." Full enforcement of the ban for retailers took effect on Tuesday. The DOE does not disclose its techniques for enforcing these step-wise implementation of the rule. However, the agency's new regulations will be enforced in "a fair and equitable manner," and smaller retailers are advised to reach out to the DOE to speak about existing inventory they may still have on hand, a spokesperson told CNBC.

Enforcing the sale of the more energy-efficient light bulbs will save consumers nearly $3 billion per year on their utility bills, according to DOE estimates, and cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons over the next 30 years. That's about the quantity of emissions that 28 million homes generate in a year, the Department of Energy said. [...] Not all light bulbs are included in the ban. Exceptions include a whole slew of specific light bulb implications, including appliance lamps, black light lamps, bug lamps, colored lamps, general service fluorescent lamps, marine lamps, marine signal service lamps, mine service lamps, sliver bowl lamps, showcase lamps, and traffic signal lamp, to name a few.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Microsoft has once again come under blistering criticism for the security practices of Azure and its other cloud offerings, with the CEO of security firm Tenable saying Microsoft is "grossly irresponsible" and mired in a "culture of toxic obfuscation." The comments from Amit Yoran, chairman and CEO of Tenable, come six days after Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) blasted Microsoft for what he said were "negligent cybersecurity practices" that enabled hackers backed by the Chinese government to steal hundreds of thousands of emails from cloud customers, including officials in the US Departments of State and Commerce. Microsoft has yet to provide key details about the mysterious breach, which involved the hackers obtaining an extraordinarily powerful encryption key granting access to a variety of its other cloud services. The company has taken pains ever since to obscure its infrastructure's role in the mass breach.

On Wednesday, Yoran took to LinkedIn to castigate Microsoft for failing to fix what the company said on Monday was a "critical" issue that gives hackers unauthorized access to data and apps managed by Azure AD, a Microsoft cloud offering for managing user authentication inside large organizations. Monday's disclosure said that the firm notified Microsoft of the problem in March and that Microsoft reported 16 weeks later that it had been fixed. Tenable researchers told Microsoft that the fix was incomplete. Microsoft set the date for providing a complete fix to September 28.

"To give you an idea of how bad this is, our team very quickly discovered authentication secrets to a bank," Yoran wrote. "They were so concerned about the seriousness and the ethics of the issue that we immediately notified Microsoft." He continued: "Did Microsoft quickly fix the issue that could effectively lead to the breach of multiple customers' networks and services? Of course not. They took more than 90 days to implement a partial fix -- and only for new applications loaded in the service." In response, Microsoft officials wrote: "We appreciate the collaboration with the security community to responsibly disclose product issues. We follow an extensive process involving a thorough investigation, update development for all versions of affected products, and compatibility testing among other operating systems and applications. Ultimately, developing a security update is a delicate balance between timeliness and quality, while ensuring maximized customer protection with minimized customer disruption." Microsoft went on to say that the initial fix in June "mitigated the issue for the majority of customers" and "no customer action is required."

In a separate email, Yoran responded: "It now appears that it's either fixed, or we are blocked from testing. We don't know the fix, or mitigation, so hard to say if it's truly fixed, or Microsoft put a control in place like a firewall rule or ACL to block us. When we find vulns in other products, vendors usually inform us of the fix so we can validate it effectively. With Microsoft Azure that doesn't happen, so it's a black box, which is also part of the problem. The 'just trust us' lacks credibility when you have the current track record."

Brave Software, maker of the Brave web browser, has tuned its search engine to run on a homegrown index of images and videos in an effort to end its dependency on "Big Tech" rivals. The Register reports: On Thursday, the company said that image and video results from Brave Search -- available on the web at search.brave.com and via its browser -- will be served from Brave's own index. Search indexes are made by visiting online resources -- typically web pages, images, videos, or other files -- with a crawler bot and recording the locations of these resources in a database. And when an internet user submits a query to a search engine, the search engine checks its index (and possible other sources) to find the addresses of resources that correspond to the query keywords. There's actually a lot more to it but that's the basic idea.

Brave now aims to ride the wave of discontent with "Big Tech" by highlighting its commitment to privacy and independence â" small tech. "Brave Search is 100 percent private and anonymous, which sets a high bar for image/video search to meet," the company said in a blog post provided to The Register. "Whether it's a matter of personal safety or personal preference, users should be able to discover content without their search engine reporting and profiling those results to a Big Tech company." [...] Brave argues that having its own index frees the company from content decisions made by others. "Brave is on a mission to build a user-first Web," the company said in its blog post. "That mission starts with the Brave browser and Brave Search. With the release of image and video search, we're continuing to innovate within the search industry, providing viable and preferable products for users who want choice and transparency in their search for information online."

An anonymous reader writes: Today, the US Treasury Department announced that taxpayers will have the choice to go paperless for all Internal Revenue Service (IRS) correspondence in the upcoming 2024 filing season. By 2025, the IRS plans to achieve paperless processing for all tax returns, still accepting paper documents but immediately digitizing them, to "cut processing times in half" and "expedite refunds by several weeks," the Treasury Department said. "The IRS receives about 76 million paper tax returns and forms and 125 million pieces of correspondence, notice responses, and non-tax forms each year, and its limited capability to accept these forms digitally or digitize paper it receives has prevented the IRS from delivering the world-class service taxpayers deserve," the Treasury Department said.

By accelerating paperless processing, the IRS expects to simplify how Americans access their taxpayer data and save millions historically spent on storing more than a billion documents. Digitization can also help eliminate errors, the Treasury Department said, which can "result from manually inputting data from paper returns." And it will help taxpayers more quickly get answers to questions, as IRS customer service employees "do not currently have easy access to the information from paper returns." Starting in 2024, they will. Next filing season, taxpayers will have the option to e-file 20 additional tax forms among the most commonly submitted when amending returns, including forms used to submit information on things like identity theft or proof of eligibility for "key credits and deductions that help low-income households."

"Taxpayers who want to submit paper returns and correspondence can continue to do so," the Treasury Department said, but "all paper will be converted into digital form as soon as it arrives at the IRS." In 2024, the IRS estimates that "more than 94 percent of individual taxpayers will no longer ever need to send mail to the IRS." Once taxpayers arrive at the 2025 filing season, they'll have the option to e-file "an additional 150 of the most used non-tax forms," the Treasury Department said, which "will be available in digital, mobile-friendly formats that make them easy for taxpayers to complete and submit." The IRS prioritized mobile-friendly formats because the agency estimates that "15 percent of Americans rely solely on mobile phones for their Internet access." "When combined with an improved data platform, digitization and data extraction will enable data scientists to implement advanced analytics and pattern recognition methods to pursue cases that can help address the tax gap, including wealthy individuals and large corporations using complex structures to evade taxes they owe," the Treasury Department added.

Kenya's Ministry of the Interior has issued a decree suspending Worldcoin enrollment in the country, citing concerns with the "authenticity and legality" of its activities in the areas of security, financial services and data protection. TechCrunch reports: The suspension covers both Worldcoin and "any other entity that may be similarly engaging the people of Kenya" and will remain in place until the authorities determine "the absence of any risks to the general public whatsoever." Up until today, Kenya had one of the largest collections of venues -- at least 18, according to the company's directory last week -- where you could visit an "Orb," as the company's spherical and mirrored iris scanners are called, "and verify your World ID." Now there is only one listed -- after Orb operators, overwhelmed by the huge turnout, shifted their stations on Sunday to Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC), a bigger ground in Kenya's capital that could accommodate the thousands of people streaming in.

"Relevant security, financial service and data protection agencies have commenced inquiries and investigations to establish the authenticity and legality of the aforesaid activities, and the safety and protection of the data being harvested, and how the harvesters intend to use the data," said Kithure Kindiki, Kenya's cabinet secretary for the ministry of interior and national administration. The news come amid separate reports that Worldcoin plans to expand its operations to sign up more users globally and allow other organizations to use its iris-scanning and identity-verifying technology.

Further reading: Sam Altman's Worldcoin Eyeball-Scanning Crypto Project Launches

Worldcoin will expand its operations to sign up more users globally and aims to allow other organisations to use its iris-scanning and identity-verifying technology, a senior manager for the company behind the project told Reuters. From the report: "We are on this mission of building the biggest financial and identity community that we can," said Ricardo Macieira, general manager for Europe at Tools For Humanity, the San Francisco and Berlin-based company behind the project.

Macieira said Worldcoin would continue rolling out operations in Europe, Latin America, Africa and "all the parts of the world that will accept us." Worldcoin's website mentions various possible applications, including distinguishing humans from artificial intelligence, enabling "global democratic processes" and showing a "potential path" to universal basic income, although these outcomes are not guaranteed. Most people interviewed by Reuters at sign-up sites in Britain, India and Japan last week said they were joining in order to receive the 25 free Worldcoin tokens the company says verified users can claim.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: President Joe Biden has determined that Colorado Springs will be the permanent headquarters of U.S. Space Command, reversing a Trump administration decision to move the facility to Alabama, the Pentagon announced Monday. The decision will only intensify a bitter parochial battle on Capitol Hill, as members of the Colorado and Alabama delegations have spent months accusing each other of playing politics on the future of the four-star command.

The command was reestablished in 2019 and given temporary headquarters in Colorado while the Air Force evaluated a list of possible permanent sites. With an eye on Russia and China, its job is to oversee the military's operations of space assets and the defense of satellites. Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said Biden notified the Department of Defense on Monday that he had made the decision, after speaking with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and weighing the input of senior military leaders. "Locating Headquarters U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs ultimately ensures peak readiness in the space domain for our nation during a critical period," Ryder said in a statement. "It will also enable the command to most effectively plan, execute and integrate military spacepower into multi-domain global operations in order to deter aggression and defend national interests." Austin, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and U.S. Space Command chief Gen. James Dickinson all support Biden's decision, Ryder added.

The most significant factor Biden weighed in making the decision was the impact such a move would have on the military's ability to confront the changing threat from space, according to a senior administration official, who like others was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations. Keeping the headquarters at Colorado Springs "maintains operational readiness and ensures no disruption to its mission or to its personnel," according to the official. The command is set to achieve "full operational capability" this month, the official said. A move to Alabama, by contrast, would have forced the command to transition to a new headquarters in the mid-2020s, and the new site would not have been open until the early to mid-2030s, the official said. "The president found that risk unacceptable, especially given the challenges we may face in the space domain during this critical time period," according to the official.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Film companies lost another attempt to force Reddit to identify anonymous users who discussed piracy. A federal court on Saturday quashed a subpoena (PDF) demanding users' names and other identifying details, agreeing with Reddit's argument that the film companies' demands violate the First Amendment. The plaintiffs are 20 producers of popular movies who are trying to prove that Internet service provider Grande is liable for its subscribers' copyright infringement because the ISP allegedly ignores piracy on its network. Reddit isn't directly involved in the copyright case. But the film companies filed a motion to compel Reddit to respond to a subpoena demanding "basic account information including IP address registration and logs from 1/1/2016 to present, name, email address and other account registration information" for six users who wrote comments on Reddit threads in 2011 and 2018.

"The issue is whether that discovery is permissible despite the users' right to speak anonymously under the First Amendment," US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler wrote in her ruling against the film copyright holders. "The court denies the motion because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a compelling need for the discovery that outweighs the users' First Amendment right to anonymous speech." The film companies seeking Reddit users' identities include After II Movie LLC, Bodyguard Productions, Hitman 2 Productions, Millennium Funding, Nikola Productions, Rambo V Productions, and Dallas Buyers Club LLC. As Beeler's ruling on Saturday noted, they sought the identities of two users who wrote about torrenting on Grande's network in 2018 [...]. The companies also sought identities of four users who commented in a 2011 thread. "I have grande. No issues with torrent or bandwidth caps," one user comment said. Another Reddit user wrote, "I have torrented like a motherfucker all over grande and have never seen anything." Reddit's filing (PDF) pointed out that the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years. The film companies said (PDF) the statute of limitations is irrelevant to whether the comments can provide evidence in the case against Grande.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Starting today, Facebook users may feel a little less safe posting anonymously. The Court of the Hague in The Netherlands ruled that Meta Ireland must unmask an anonymous user accused of defaming the claimant, a male Facebook user who allegedly manipulated and made secret recordings of women he dated. The anonymous Facebook user posted the allegedly defamatory statements in at least two private Facebook groups dedicated to discussing dating experiences. The claimant could not gain access but was shown screenshots from the groups, one with about 2,600 members and one with around 61,000 members. The claimant argued that his reputation had suffered from the repeated postings that included photos of the man and alleged screenshots of his texts.

The claimant tried to get Meta to remove the posts, but Meta responded with an email saying that it would not do so because "it is not clear to us that the content you reported is unlawful as defamation." At that point, Meta suggested that the man contact the anonymous user directly to resolve the matter, triggering the lawsuit against Meta. Initially, the claimant asked the court to order Meta to delete the posts, identify the anonymous user, and flag any posts in other private Facebook groups that could defame the claimant. While arguing the case, Meta had defended the anonymous user's right to freedom of expression, but the court decided that the claimant -- whose name is redacted in court documents -- deserved an opportunity to challenge the allegedly defamatory statements. Partly for that reason, the court ordered Meta to provide "basic subscriber information" on the anonymous user, including their username, as well as any names, email addresses, or phone numbers associated with their Facebook account. The court did not order Meta to remove the posts or flag any others that may have been shared in private groups, though.

Meta has already agreed to comply with the order, the court's ruling said. However, if Meta fails to provide the Facebook user's identifying information, the social media company risks a penalty of approximately $1,200 daily. The maximum fine that Meta could face is less than $130,000. [...] Meta's defense of the anonymous user's right to free speech failed, the court said, because freedom of speech is not unlimited. "Someone who, without evidence, repeatedly makes serious and clearly traceable accusations, must take into account, partly in the light of the conditions applied by Facebook, that he or she may be confronted with a measure whereby his or her anonymity is lifted," the court order said. Although the key concern for The Court in the Hague appeared to be that the statements posted anonymously were plausibly defamatory, the order also noted that the content would not have to necessarily be unlawful for Facebook to be ordered to identify the user posting it. "According to settled case law, under certain circumstances Meta has an obligation to provide identifying data, even if the content of the relevant messages is not unmistakably unlawful," the court order said.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TIME: U.S. and European officials are growing increasingly concerned about China's accelerated push into the production of older-generation semiconductors and are debating new strategies to contain the country's expansion. President Joe Biden implemented broad controls over China's ability to secure the kind of advanced chips that power artificial-intelligence models and military applications. But Beijing responded by pouring billions into factories for the so-called legacy chips that haven't been banned. Such chips are still essential throughout the global economy, critical components for everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military hardware. That's sparked fresh fears about China's potential influence and triggered talks of further reining in the Asian nation, according to people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified because the deliberations are private. The U.S. is determined to prevent chips from becoming a point of leverage for China, the people said.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo alluded to the problem during a panel discussion last week at the American Enterprise Institute. "The amount of money that China is pouring into subsidizing what will be an excess capacity of mature chips and legacy chips -- that's a problem that we need to be thinking about and working with our allies to get ahead of," she said. While there's no timeline for action to be taken and information is still being gathered, all options are on the table, according to a senior Biden administration official. The most advanced semiconductors are those produced using the thinnest etching technology, with 3-nanometers state of the art today. Legacy chips are typically considered those made with 28-nm equipment or above, technology introduced more than a decade ago.

Senior E.U. and U.S. officials are concerned about Beijing's drive to dominate this market for both economic and security reasons, the people said. They worry Chinese companies could dump their legacy chips on global markets in the future, driving foreign rivals out of business like in the solar industry, they said. Western companies may then become dependent on China for these semiconductors, the people said. Buying such critical tech components from China may create national security risks, especially if the silicon is needed in defense equipment. "The United States and its partners should be on guard to mitigate nonmarket behavior by China's emerging semiconductor firms," researchers Robert Daly and Matthew Turpin wrote in a recent essay for the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University. "Over time, it could create new U.S. or partner dependencies on China-based supply chains that do not exist today, impinging on U.S. strategic autonomy."

A proposed state tax in Massachusetts on streaming video services could increase prices for popular platforms like Netflix and Hulu, as the 5 percent fee would support approximately 200 community access cable channels struggling due to declining cable subscriptions. The Boston Globe reports: In July, the Joint Committee on Advanced Information Technology held hearings on legislation filed by Democratic State Representative Joan Meschino and Republican Representative Mathew J. Muratore, both of Plymouth. Their bill would require streaming video companies to pay a 5 percent fee on the gross revenues generated in the state. The estimated $65 million a year raised by the fee would support roughly 200 community access channels, the most in any state. The community channels are run by nonprofit organizations or town governments, and funded by cable TV companies, which are assessed a fee by local governments for the right to run their cables through city property. The cable companies pass the cost on to subscribers.

But subscriptions are plummeting as US consumers abandon pay TV for streaming services. Cable and satellite subscribers now number about 70 million, down more than 25 percent from 95.5 million a decade ago, according to Leichtman Research Group, a New Hampshire research and analysis company specializing in media, entertainment, and broadband industries. "The next three to five years it's really going to dry up even more so," said Muratore. Meschino said citizens can't afford to lose access to community media channels, because so many local newspapers have shut down. "There's literally no other way to consume that sort of hyperlocal programming," Meschino said.

About a dozen US states levy sales taxes on consumers' streaming video bills. But Meschino said that sales tax money goes into each state's general fund. Instead, she wants the streaming fee to be dedicated entirely to support for community media services, just like the fee paid by traditional cable TV companies. Some or all of the fees would likely be passed on to consumers. Gauthier estimates that a typical household's costs could rise about $2.40 a month, spread among several streaming networks. "Maybe it'll be 75 cents for your Amazon," he said. "Maybe it'll be 80 cents for your Disney."

This week America's Department of Energy announced $100 million to support states, local governments, and public utilities "in purchasing products derived from converted carbon emissions."

The hope is to jumpstart the creation of a market for "environmentally sustainable alternatives in fuels, chemicals, and building products sourced from captured emissions from industrial and power generation facilities." U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm says it will "help transform harmful pollutants into beneficial products." "State and local grants, made possible through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, will help demonstrate the economic viability of innovative technologies, resulting in huge net reductions in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, while bringing new, good-paying jobs and cleaner air to communities nationwide." States, local governments, and public utilities purchase large quantities of products, therefore providing an incentive to purchase products made from carbon emissions is an important method to drive emissions reductions...

[T]he Carbon Utilization Procurement Grants program will help offset 50% of the costs to states, local governments, and public utilities or agencies to procure and use products developed through the conversion of captured carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide emissions. The commercial or industrial products to be procured and used under these grants must demonstrate a significant net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to incumbent products via a life cycle analysis...

Projects selected under this opportunity will be required to develop and implement strategies to ensure strong community and worker benefits, and report on such activities and outcomes.

Friday America's Department of Energy announced plans to re-purpose some of the land it owns — "portions of which were previously used in the nation's nuclear weapons program" — for generating clean energy. They'll be leasing them out for "utility-scale clean energy projects" in an initiative called "Cleanup to Clean Energy."

The agency has identified 70,000 acres for potential development, in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington: "We are going to transform the lands we have used over decades for nuclear security and environmental remediation by working closely with tribes and local communities together with partners in the private sector to build some of the largest clean energy projects in the world," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "Through the Cleanup to Clean Energy initiative, the Department of Energy will leverage areas that were previously used to protect our national security and will repurpose them to the same end — this time, generating clean energy that will help save the planet and protect our energy independence."
The announcement notes that in December 2021, President Biden directed U.S. federal agencies to "authorize use of their real property assets, including land for the development of new clean electricity generation and storage through leases, grants, permits, or other mechanisms."

"As the leading Federal agency on clean energy research and development, DOE has both a unique opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example and identify creative solutions to achieve the President's mandate."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: Italy's brand new anti-piracy law has just received full approval from telecoms regulator AGCOM. In a statement issued Thursday, AGCOM noted its position "at the forefront of the European scene in combating online piracy." The new law comes into force on August 8 and authorizes nationwide ISP blocking of live events and enables the state to issue fines of up to 5,000 euros to users of pirate streams .

In a statement published Thursday, AGCOM welcomed the amendments to Online Copyright Enforcement regulation 680/13/CONS, which concern measures to counter the illegal distribution of live sports streams, as laid out in Resolution 189/23/CONS. The new provisions grant AGCOM the power to issue "dynamic injunctions" against online service providers of all kinds, a privilege usually reserved for judges in Europe's highest courts. The aim is to streamline blocking measures against unlicensed IPTV services, with the goal of rendering them inaccessible across all of Italy.

"With such measures, it will be possible to disable access to pirated content in the first 30 minutes of the event broadcast by blocking DNS resolution of domain names and blocking the routing of network traffic to IP addresses uniquely intended for illicit activities," AGCOM says. "With this amendment, in perfect synchrony with the changes introduced by Parliament, AGCOM is once again at the forefront of the European scene in combating online piracy activity," says AGCOM Commissioner Massimiliano Capitanio.

Katie Malone writes via Engadget: "Tor" evokes an image of the dark web; a place to hire hitmen or buy drugs that, at this point, is overrun by feds trying to catch you in the act. The reality, however, is a lot more boring than that -- but it's also more secure. The Onion Router, now called Tor, is a privacy-focused web browser run by a nonprofit group. You can download it for free and use it to shop online or browse social media, just like you would on Chrome or Firefox or Safari, but with additional access to unlisted websites ending in .onion. This is what people think of as the "dark web," because the sites aren't indexed by search engines. But those sites aren't an inherently criminal endeavor.

"This is not a hacker tool," said Pavel Zoneff, director of strategic communications at The Tor Project. "It is a browser just as easy to use as any other browser that people are used to." That's right, despite common misconceptions, Tor can be used for any internet browsing you usually do. The key difference with Tor is that the network hides your IP address and other system information for full anonymity. This may sound familiar, because it's how a lot of people approach VPNs, but the difference is in the details. VPNs are just encrypted tunnels hiding your traffic from one hop to another. The company behind a VPN can still access your information, sell it or pass it along to law enforcement. With Tor, there's no link between you and your traffic, according to Jed Crandall, an associate professor at Arizona State University. Tor is built in the "higher layers" of the network and routes your traffic through separate tunnels, instead of a single encrypted tunnel. While the first tunnel may know some personal information and the last one may know the sites you visited, there is virtually nothing connecting those data points because your IP address and other identifying information are bounced from server to server into obscurity.

Accessing unindexed websites adds extra perks, like secure communication. While a platform like WhatsApp offers encrypted conversations, there could be traces that the conversation happened left on the device if it's ever investigated, according to Crandall. Tor's communication tunnels are secure and much harder to trace that the conversation ever happened. Other use cases may include keeping the identities of sensitive populations like undocumented immigrants anonymous, trying to unionize a workplace without the company shutting it down, victims of domestic violence looking for resources without their abuser finding out or, as Crandall said, wanting to make embarrassing Google searches without related targeted ads following you around forever.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: U.S. government services contracting giant Maximus has confirmed that hackers exploiting a vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer accessed the protected health information of as many as 11 million individuals. Virginia-based Maximus contracts with federal, state and local governments to manage and administer government-sponsored programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, healthcare reform and welfare-to-work. In an 8-K filing on Wednesday, Maximus confirmed that the personal information of a "significant number" of individuals was accessed by hackers exploiting a zero-day vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer, which the organization uses to "share data with government customers pertaining to individuals who participate in various government programs."

While Maximus hasn't yet been able to confirm the exact number of individuals impacted -- something the company expects to take "several more weeks" -- the organization said it believes hackers accessed the personal data, including Social Security numbers and protected health information, of "at least" 8 to 11 million individuals. If the latter, this would make the breach the largest breach of healthcare data this year -- and the most significant data breach reported as a result of the MOVEit mass-hacks. Maximus has not confirmed which specific types of health data were accessed and has not responded to TechCrunch's questions. In its 8-K filing, the company said it began notifying impacted customers and federal and state regulators, adding that it expects the security incident to cost approximately $15 million to investigate and remediate. Clop, the Russia-linked data extortion group responsible for the MOVEit mass-hacks, claims to have stolen 169 gigabytes of data from Maximus, which it has not yet published. The report notes that "more than 500 organizations have so far been impacted by the MOVEit mass-hacks, exposing the personal information of more than 34.5 million people."