Twitter owner Elon Musk pushed back at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-N.Y.) criticism of the platform’s safety measures with a nod to a popular line from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.” 

Twitter Safety claimed Tuesday that over 99 percent of the content users and advertisers see on the social media platform is “healthy,” adding that “the reach of hate speech on Twitter continues to represent an extreme small fraction of the overall conversation.” 

Ocasio-Cortez responded to the tweet, writing she has “never experienced more harassment on this platform than I do now.” She argued people are paying to give their own harassment more visibility. 

“The de-verification of journalists, civic orgs, and figures has made it impossible to follow conversations," she continued. "I wish it could be usable again."

Musk clapped back at the lawmaker, tweeting Tuesday night, “Methinks somebody doth protest too much..."

According to Twitter Safety, they partnered with Sprinklr, a unified customer experience management platform, to assess and reduce hate speech on the the social media platform using Sprinklr’s artificial intelligence (AI) model.

“Sprinklr’s independent model continues to show the reach of daily English-language hate speech impressions is even lower than Twitter’s own model represents,” Twitter Safety wrote in its update Tuesday, estimating hate speech impressions are 30 percent lower on average compared with impressions before Musk acquired Twitter last fall. 

Ocasio-Cortez has publicly criticized the platform on multiple occasions since Musk’s takeover, from blasting the billionaire over suspending several journalists from the social media platform to accusing Musk of boosting a fake Twitter account impersonating her. 

More from The Hill

• Biden video mocking Marjorie Taylor Greene speech hit more than 30M views in 12 hours
• Gaetz says he’ll offer bill to defund Jack Smith investigations of Trump
• GOP senators rattled by radical conservative populism
• Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission

Shortly after Musk purchased Twitter in a $44 billion deal last fall, Ocasio scoffed at another user’s comparison between Twitter charging users a monthly fee and large media outlets' subscription services. She later claimed her Twitter mentions and notifications "conveniently" weren’t working.

“So I was informed via text that I seem to have gotten under a certain billionaire’s skin,” the progressive lawmaker tweeted at the time. 

Musk has received backlash for some of his controversial choices since purchasing Twitter, including a new approach to content moderation measures and the Twitter Blue program, which charges users to verify their account.

The joint proposal from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) lays out 13 guidelines for how mergers would be reviewed. The agencies asked for public comment on the draft that will be open for 60 days. 

The background: FTC, DOJ launch joint inquiry aimed at blocking illegal mergers

“Unchecked consolidation threatens the free and fair markets upon which our economy is based,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement.

“These updated Merger Guidelines respond to modern market realities and will enable the Justice Department to transparently and effectively protect the American people from the damage that anticompetitive mergers cause.”

FTC Chair Lina Khan, a proponent of antitrust reform and vocal critic of the market power of tech giants, said the draft guidelines update enforcement to “reflect the realities of how firms do business in the modern economy.” 

“Informed by thousands of public comments—spanning healthcare workers, farmers, patient advocates, musicians, and entrepreneurs—these guidelines contain critical updates while ensuring fidelity to the mandate Congress has given us and the legal precedent on the books,” Khan said in a statement. 

Part of the guidelines includes a focus on “platform” companies, urging an update that would allow agencies to “examine competition between platforms, on a platform, or to displace a platform.”

Such an update focused on platforms could be critical in how the agencies take on massive tech companies. The FTC has faced recent hurdles in cases to block tech company’s acquisitions, including Microsoft’s deal to merge with Activision Blizzard and Meta’s acquisition of the virtual reality company Within. 

Appeals court denies FTC bid to temporarily halt Microsoft-Activision deal

Another proposed update would examine impacts on workers, a change from the current standards that focus on how mergers impact consumers. The agencies propose that when a merger involves “competing buyers” they examine “whether it may substantially lessen competition for workers or other sellers.”

The draft also proposes that when a merger is part of a series of multiple acquisitions, the agencies may examine the whole series.

The new guidelines are part of a joint push launched by Justice Department and FTC last year to limit mergers that could harm competition.

The Biden administration and Democratic lawmakers have sought to crack down on major corporate mergers and step up antitrust enforcement. They argue that regulators must do more to prevent mergers that could give a specific business too much power within an industry.

Most Republican lawmakers and business groups have panned the push to bolster antitrust rules, arguing that Democrats and progressive critics of major companies are overstating the harms and underrating the benefits of mergers.

The deadline, which would have been this week, has been pushed to Oct. 18, and the companies are still facing hurdles by U.K. regulators to approve the deal.

As part of the extension, there will be a higher termination fee and new commercial arrangements, according to Activision.

“The recent decision in the U.S. and approvals in 40 countries all validate that the deal is good for competition, players, and the future of gaming," an Activision Blizzard spokesperson said in a statement.

"Given global regulatory approvals and the companies’ confidence that CMA now recognizes there are remedies available to meet their concerns in the UK, the Activision Blizzard and Microsoft boards of directors have authorized the companies not to terminate the deal until after October 18," the spokesperson added, referring to The U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). "We’re confident in our next steps and that our deal will quickly close.”

Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, confirmed the extension and the company’s intent to go forward with the acquisition. 

“We're optimistic about getting this done, and excited about bringing more games to more players everywhere,” Spencer tweeted. 

A British judge had conditionally approved a joint request from Microsoft and regulators from the CMA to delay an appeal set in motion after the agency initially rejected the deal.

The agency later pushed back its final decision so it can consider the company’s argument that new developments should change the equation.

CMA announced in April that it blocked Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision, citing concerns that the potential merger could harm the future of cloud gaming. The agency announced in September it would launch a probe into the $68.7 billion deal to acquire the makers of the popular “Call of Duty” franchise. 

The deal has already gained the approval of the European Union and a slew of other countries.

The Associated Press contributed.

Updated at 10:11 a.m.

It wasn't the most exciting job in the world, but I believe it was important and still is. I may not work in that arena anymore, but I still follow the issues because today, everyone has to. When it comes to the digital world, the fight for freedom and privacy is never-ending, and all the concepts are just as important today as they were in 2007 

Those “free” apps, websites and services everyone loves are never actually free. Online, if you are not the paying customer, you are the product. Those apps are fishing nets for data — your data. That data is then refined into gold for the companies that collect it. 

They know what you want almost before you do, tailoring ads based on algorithms and now artificial intelligence to bring you advertisements for things you didn’t even know you need or want. And they’re very good at it — there’s a reason the number of billionaires in the United States went from 359 in 2009 to 614 in 2020, and it wasn’t because so many of them respect the privacy of the public. 

If you’re like me, you try to mess with the system as much as you can; a lame rebellious swipe at the system that ultimately means so little it means nothing at all. My birth year on Facebook, for example, is 1911. I’m no teenager, but I am not 112…at least not yet. I tend to list my location as Earth, and keep my employment and education history to myself. I may be the product, but I’m not going to give them a lot to sell me with. A moral victory, at best, but I’ll take it, if only so I can lie to myself about beating the system a little.

Being the product brings with it an ever-increasing attempt to get more information from you, which creates a never-ending kabuki dance between Big Tech companies and the public. One thing the internet pioneered was the endlessly long, overly lawyered, confusing and always changing user agreements. When was the last time you read one of those? If you’re like me, it’s never. 

But those user agreements have led to an interesting story I’ve been following for a while now out of Illinois. 

There is no user agreement that does not favor the company that wrote it, it’s just a universal truth. And not reading it isn’t going to help you should an issue arise. However, in Illinois someone actually did read the user agreement with Samsung and found a way to use it against the company. 

Samsung was accused by users in Illinois of collecting and misusing consumer’s biometric data – fingerprints, facial recognition, etc. — without properly informing them. The tech giant’s user agreement, like almost all of them do, required arbitration rather than a lawsuit. Companies hate lawsuits, especially class action lawsuits, which could easily result from allegations of violations of user agreements. 

Class-action suits have serious drawbacks. I’ve been an unwilling party to a few of them, as you likely have, too. I didn’t even know I’d been “wronged,” and it’s irritating to discover that the “righting” of whatever wrong there was involves lawyers getting rich and me getting lousy coupons for future purchases from the company that has supposedly wronged me. The lawyers never get paid in coupons.

That being said, sometimes class actions are necessary when enough people have been seriously wronged. Samsung protected itself against that with their user agreement. Creatively, users found a way to make the company pay: mass arbitration. Not mass-arbitration in the sense that there is a large class of people demanding a single arbitration, but because they are bringing tens of thousands of arbitration cases. 

Companies tend to prefer arbitration to lawsuits, but arbitration also costs money. The prospect of tens of millions in fees to cover arbitration hearings presents a mighty incentive for Samsung or any other company to reevaluate its policies, don’t you think?

Naturally, Samsung is now seeking to change the rules in their favor again. Because 50,000 customers making arbitration claims is going to leave a mark on their bottom line. I don’t know what is ultimately best for consumers and for privacy, aside from massive tech companies not violating our privacy in the first place. But I do enjoy boat-rocking, and I know that a good check against their abuses would be to use their own ever-changing, massive, lawyerly user agreements against them. 

The next step would be honesty and transparency, but that will likely have to wait until tech giants are really made to hurt. 

Derek Hunter is host of the Derek Hunter Podcast and a former staffer for the late Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

Advances in artificial intelligence technology are amplifying concerns over how campaigns spread false information, and a partisan deadlock at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is hindering a progressive-led push to put guardrails in place. 

The FEC is facing a second request — backed by Democrats in the House and Senate — to clarify that its law on fraudulent misrepresentation applies to use of AI.

The new push comes after the commission's three Republican members defeated an initial petition led by the progressive consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sens. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) sent the FEC’s general counsel a letter last week urging the commission to reconsider its decision, stating that it is “well within” the commission authority to issue AI regulations. 

How AI is changing the 2024 election

“As Members of Congress concerned about the ability of generative AI to significantly disrupt the integrity of our elections, we respectfully request that the FEC reconsider its decision and seek comment on whether the Commission should initiate a full rulemaking on a proposal in the Petition for Rulemaking from Public Citizen. Should you decline this request, please provide a detailed summary and justification as to why you reached that decision,” they wrote. 

The rise of AI in campaigns

Those pushing the FEC to clarify its rules to address AI say it is urgent to take action now in the lead up to the 2024 election, as the technology becomes more advanced and widespread. 

“Artificial intelligence is moving at a rapid clip," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president at Public Citizen. 

Pro-DeSantis group uses AI version of Trump’s voice in new ad 

Gilbert warned that AI can "create images, and audio, and video that is so real that it's very hard for the viewer to tell that it's not. And when it comes to elections, that will mean increasingly hard to unpack deepfakes which will be disseminated and could impact the election."

Some Republican presidential campaigns and super PACs are already using AI as the 2024 presidential primary heats up.

A super PAC backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) campaign used an AI-generated version of former President Trump’s voice to narrate a post he made on Truth Social. The post attacked Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R), the popular governor of a state crucial to the GOP primary.

Trump had also posted an AI-generated video targeting DeSantis after the Florida governor launched his campaign. And DeSantis’s campaign released an ad that used seemingly AI-produced images of Trump embracing Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

Senators grapple with response to AI after first classified briefing

Peter Loge, director of the Project on Ethics in Political Communication at George Washington University, said campaigns have always “cut and pasted” and tried to put their opponent in the “worst possible light,” but the advances in AI are making those images harder to detect and capable of being spread more widely. 

“The question is how do we answer these old questions given the new technologies, and the higher stakes on American elections. And the FEC is part of the answer, Congress is part of the answer, and political consultants and candidates have to be part of the answer,” Loge said. 

Public Citizen sent last week a second petition requesting the FEC clarify that the law against “fraudulent misrepresentation” applies to deceptive AI campaign communications. 

“This is going to have realtime consequences in 2024, and the Federal Election Commission is the agency that takes action to react to this kind of danger,” Gilbert said.

The updated request sought to address concerns raised by GOP commissioners during a June meeting when the request was shot down. Public Citizen sought to clarify why the group believes the commission has the authority to regulate deceptive AI-produced content and specific regulation it wishes to amend. 

Why GOP commissioners are pushing back

During a meeting in June, Republican FEC Commissioners Allen Dickerson, Sean Cooksey and James Trainor III voted to reject Public Citizen's first petition.

The deadlock between three GOP commissioners and three Democratic commissioners — Chairwoman Dara Lindenbaum, Shana Broussard and Ellen Weintraub — blocked it from going forward.

Dickerson said during the meeting that while he supported an FEC request to expand the commission's authority, “The only fraud we’re entitled to police is where an agent of one candidate pretends to be the agent of another, or where a person raises funds by fraudulently claiming to be acting on behalf of the campaign with which he or she is unaffiliated."

“Public Citizen directed its efforts to the wrong component of the government. Instead of coming to us, they should take this up with Congress. I wish it luck,” he added.

Even Lindenbaum, who voted in support of the petition, questioned the panel’s ability to take further action beyond hearing public comment. 

“I also share Commissioner Dickerson’s concerns about whether or not we have any jurisdiction here or the power to do it. I am skeptical that we do, but during the process I hope that we get some ... ideas that may help us or help Congress,” Lindenbaum said. 

Can the FEC crack down on AI?

Former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, an Obama appointee who served from 2013-17, said the commission has the power to clarify rules for AI.

Although the technology under consideration is newer, considering fraudulent misrepresentation is “not out of the scope of the commission,” she said. 

Meta releases AI tech to rival ChatGPT

Gilbert said Public Citizen is using a “straightforward regulation” to push the FEC to address the use of AI in campaigns.

"What we're talking about is a new medium that can quickly create that type of misrepresentation and the FEC should interpret their existing reg and address it," she said.

She said there are “broader” regulations she would want to see, such as requiring watermarks or clarifications to identify AI, that the FEC does not yet have the authority to put in place.

Ravel said it would have a “significant” impact if the FEC was able to take action on AI — or even attempt to do so — as a tool to influence the companies that are producing it. 

“I know there's a lot of people that think there’s good from it, but a lot of people that are really scared as well. And so having them come out with this, because of the concerns about the electoral process, I think would be a meaningful act on their part, and should be easier than getting a majority of Congress to vote for it,” Ravel said.

Although, she said, the FEC’s deadlock and apparent wait for express authority from Congress is “typical” for the agency given the 3-3 partisan split and need for four votes to take action. 

Loge also cautioned that as regulators and lawmakers weigh AI rules, they should be wary of viewing the debate in “technological extremes.” 

“This is neither the end of the world, nor is it going to lead to a utopia full of puppies and rainbows. Emerging technology tends to be a bit more complicated, and tends not to have the extreme benefits or downfalls that people hope for or fear,” he said. 

Panic among professors and teachers has turned preparation as they look ahead to a new school year dealing with artificial intelligence.

Months removed from the initial shock of ChatGPT and other AI bots quickly infiltrating schools, educators have had an opportunity to reimagine classrooms and homework to fit the new age of technology. 

The preparation has taught educators two things: AI isn’t yet as smart as they thought, and they need to be more creative in their assignments. 

“There's been a shift from being overwhelmed with what's happening and trying to make sense of how to respond to all of the questions that they were getting about ChatGPT — whether it's cheating or jobs or what have you — and that has evolved into, I would say, an acceptance,” Alex Kotran, co-founder and CEO of the AI Education Project, said. 

The initial panic among educators largely stemmed from cheating concerns. Teachers did not know what to do with tools such as ChatGPT, that could seemingly write entire essays for students or complete their math homework. 

The backlash led some districts to ban ChatGPT completely from their school servers. In one college, a professor falsely accused an entire class of using AI bots to cheat on papers. 

Over the past seven months — as the bots expanded from ChatGPT and were added to companies across a variety of industries — educators learned that answers produced by AI are not always correct and often include some telltale signs they are autogenerated.

“I think you can often tell, if there's too many flowery adjectives or if it makes up historical facts, right? I think, now that we've all been using a little bit more, we've collectively gotten better at predicting the mistakes. And it makes it, like, easier to detect when someone's using it,” said Zarek Drozda, director of Data Science 4 Everyone. 

While catching the signs of AI-generated prompts may have gotten easier, teachers are also having to get more creative with their assignments. 

“I have seen more comfort with ... online tools generally, and more comfort with designing assignments. So, it's not about right or wrong — or it's not about something that can be replicated by ChatGPT — but it's more about skills that intersect with it. So, analysis and interpretation,” Drozda said.

“There's a difference between — you're writing an essay generally about 'The Scarlet Letter' versus writing an essay about a particular prompt on a particular page with quotes that are real from the text, right? That can be pulled out by the teacher and, like, easily recognized, and so I think that there’s more comfort, and [it's] also easier detection of scenarios in which you can spot cheating,” he added.

Educators have largely been on their own in this new realm of technology, and many have seized the opportunity.  

“There are very few things ... that will get most of academia to do some really focused thinking on one topic,” said Youngmoo Kim, director of Expressive and Creative Interactive Technologies Center at Drexel University.

AI, though, has done that, he said.

Kim, who also sits on a task force at Drexel regarding AI, says the school is preparing guidance for professors to send out in the new school year regarding ChatGPT and AI. The university will also offer workshops and individual sessions with faculty members who want more assistance on the topic.

The guidance is “not one extreme or the other," Kim said.

"We're not saying, ‘Oh, you can't use it,’ or ‘You must use it.’ That would be, ultimately, kind of silly. What we're really strongly encouraging is for our faculty to become more knowledgeable about it, to do the specific things,” he said. “That is, if you have a standard set of homeworks that you always do, or exam questions that you use often or recycle, put them in the ChatGPT [and] see what you get. Do that legwork, so that you as an instructor can have a much better familiarity of what you know, what it's capable of and what to expect there.”

This open-ended approach is going to be a common theme among both colleges and K-12 schools, as a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely. 

“There's an absence of clear directions from experts in the field," Kotran said. "We're in conversation with many of the organizations ourselves. We're thinking about, 'How do we put together guidelines and guidance for schools to reference?' But right now, there's no high-level report from the Department of Education [or a similar organization]."

While education institutions are often criticized for how slow they move, especially in the face of new topics, teachers have been quick to act on AI and learn, even without standard guidance provided to them. 

Drozda attended a conference in North Carolina where teachers gathered to talk about data literacy and AI in the classroom. 

“It was a summer boot camp where we will have, like, longer conversations about these things and talk about them in more depth,” he said.

Recently, the AI Education Project teamed up with Prince George’s County (Md.) Public Schools to announce it will provide AI education to teachers, students and school leaders, including professional learning opportunities and outreach programs. 

In the summer launch, more than 200 people attended.

“We have been very pleased, but I'm surprised with the level of engagement and productivity on the part of educators and education leaders. We have not had a single meeting with a school district where it's not clear that they urgently want to solve this problem, or this question. I think the challenge is, we just don't have enough time in the day to meet with all the schools that want to meet with us. And so we can't do this alone,” Kotran said.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is releasing its open source Llama 2 large language model, which can power artificial intelligence (AI) tools, in partnership with Microsoft. 

"We believe an open approach is the right one for the development of today’s AI models, especially those in the generative space where the technology is rapidly advancing. By making AI models available openly, they can benefit everyone," according to a Meta blog post. 

Meta first announced its Llama 1 in February. The company said Tuesday it received more than 100,000 requests for access to it from researchers. 

In addition to its partnership with Microsoft, Llama 2 will also be available through Amazon Web Services, Hugging Face and other providers. 

Meta’s launch comes on the heels of the rising popularity of OpenAI’s ChatGPT AI chatbot, which is being powered by the GPT-4 language model. 

Microsoft has also partnered closely with OpenAI. The company incorporated ChatGPT into its new version of its search engine Bing. 

Meta said it is committed to "building responsibly" as it moves forward with its AI system. The company said its models have been tested internally, and the company has commissioned third parties to conduct external adversarial testing. 

The company also released a research paper along with the announcement that disclosed "known challenges and issues" experienced and "provides insight into mitigations taken and future ones we intend to explore."

The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) released a report Tuesday detailing the elevated dangers for patients who travel for abortions or gender-affirming care.  

“Surveillance doesn’t stop at the state line,” said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of STOP. “Even as progressive states seek to protect abortion and gender affirming care within our borders, anti-choice states are continuing to expand the threat that they will prosecute residents who leave the state to find evidence-based medical treatment.”  

Cahn emphasized that it’s crucial for patients to understand how they can be tracked by law enforcement even when outside of the state, writing, “Every hotel reservation and bridge toll will be just one subpoena away from being used against a patient in court.”  

The report comes a little over a year after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the 1973 precedent granting the constitutional right to abortion. The Supreme Court granted states the authority to limit or ban the procedure.  

In the months that followed, several Republican-led states moved against residents' access to abortions.

The report found law enforcement and state officials can use license plate readers, ticket information and street cameras to track and identify residents “seeking, facilitating, or providing out-of-state care.” Furthermore, the report claims law enforcement agencies can “weaponize data,” that is already commercially available to them, while being able to buy more data from hotels and smartphones.  

STOP research director Eleni Manis said while “there’s no such thing as an open road anymore,” there are “relatively safer travel methods.” The report found mass public transportation is preferable, as prosecutors and state officials are “unlikely to leverage knowledge,” about where a patient took a specific subway or bus stop.  

Mass public transportation still does have surveillance concerns however, with some cities increasing tracking of public buses or subways and others forcing riders to pay with phone or credit card instead of cash, according to the report.  

The report found using private cars, Uber or Lyft present the risk of collecting the rider’s data including email addresses, phone numbers, payment information, app location service and destination data, while also having a camera in the vehicle. The report noted taking taxi rides could lower the risk in some cities that don’t collect ridership data.  

“Although this database is anonymized, taxi trip data can be combined with street camera footage to track an individual passenger, mitigating the anonymizing effects of paying for a tax using cash,” the report stated.

Researchers went on to detail the differing surveillance risks associated with scooter and bike share programs, airplanes, long haul buses and Amtrak.

The report also examined the risks connected with hotels and motels, which it found both volunteer or sell information to law enforcement. In comparison, the report found the U.S. Civil Code prohibits law enforcement from having access to short-term rental data, without an administrative subpoena. The report stated staying at the home "of a trusted person" is a safe option, but noted those in public housing have limited privacy from law enforcement.

In a STOP report published last year, researchers determined abortion seekers were being tracked even before Roe v. Wade was overturned.

“While these technologies have enormous potential, they also carry risks of violating fair lending laws and perpetuating the very disparities that they have the potential to address,” the Fed’s vice chair of supervision, Michael Barr, said at the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) 2023 national conference.

While new artificial intelligence tools could relatively cheaply expand credit to more people, machine learning and AI may also exacerbate bias or inaccuracies inherent in data used to train the systems or make inaccurate predictions, Barr added.

The Fed recently announced two policy initiatives to address appraisal discrimination in mortgage transactions.

On June 1, the Fed and several agencies requested public comment on a proposed rule to implement quality control standards in automated valuation models. Under the proposed rule, institutions that engage in certain credit decisions would be required to adopt policies, practices and control systems that ensure a "high level of confidence" in automated estimates and protect against manipulation of data.

A week later, the same agencies invited public comment on guidance to help financial institutions incorporate “reconsiderations of value” into their home appraisal process. Valuations may contain errors, omissions or discrimination that could affect the value of the appraisal, the agencies argued, and a reconsideration of value could help mitigate the risk of improperly valuing real estate.

“Homeownership is an important way for families to build wealth, and we should give them every opportunity to share in those benefits,” Barr said, noting he was “fully supportive” of both policy initiatives.

A quartet of federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the civil rights division at the Department of Justice, announced in April their commitment to cracking down on automated systems that cause harmful business practices.

“Fair lending is safe and sound lending,” Barr said, soliciting applause from the audience.

“When have you ever heard a vice chair of the board of governors speak against algorithmic bias?” NFHA President and CEO Lisa Rice asked. “I’m telling you, I’m excited.”

Kennedy’s long-shot Democratic primary bid against President Biden’s reelection campaign has caught the attention of some of Silicon Valley’s wealthy tech executives, The Wall Street Journal reported this week.

In addition to Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey, who publicly supported Kennedy’s campaign on Twitter last month, the Journal reported that venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, PayPal founding executive David Sacks and LimeWire founder Mark Gorton have given support to Kennedy’s bid. 

Palihapitiya and Sacks co-hosted a fundraiser at Sacks’s mansion in affiliation with Common Sense, a group that is supporting Kennedy, last month, with tickets for a cocktail reception of $2,000 and dinner for $10,000, the Journal reported. 

Most of the 75 guests at the San Francisco event were from the tech and crypto industries, Common Sense treasurer and actress Sofia Karstens told the Journal. 

Sacks and Palihapitiya did not comment to the Journal. 

Gorton, founder of the now shut-down file-sharing site LimeWire, created a super PAC that is supporting Kennedy’s candidacy, the Journal reported. Gorton told the Journal his American Values 2024 super PAC started as an organization focused on combating “pharmaceutical industry corruption.” 

“It disgusts me that the Democratic Party has become the party of the neocons and the party of big pharma,” Gorton told the Journal. 

He told the paper it is “noble” for Kennedy to run to “reclaim the Democratic party from the corrupt interests.” 

Kennedy announced his campaign in April. 

The prominent anti-vaccine activist has also had criticism piled on, including from his own sister, over recent remarks about COVID-19. 

In a video obtained by the New York Post, Kennedy said COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” to attack “certain rates disproportionately.” 

“COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese,” he said. 

After backlash, Kennedy appeared to walk back the comments. On Twitter, he said the New York Post story was “mistaken” and that he “never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews.”

The global cyberattack that targeted a number of federal agencies should be seen as a wake-up call for the government, as the constant threat of cyberattacks for both the public and private sector is unlikely to abate.

According to an IBM report, a data breach could cost government agencies on average $2.07 million per incident. It also said that in 2018, cyberattacks cost the U.S. government $13.7 billion, Security Intelligence reports. 

The Russian-speaking ransomware group, which is reportedly behind the hack, exploited a vulnerability in a software application known as MOVEit, which is widely used by government agencies to transfer files. 

HHS among targets in government hacking attack

Rex Booth, chief information security officer at tech company SailPoint, said that people should remain concerned as the software is widely used across the federal government and private companies and may hold sensitive information, including HR files containing personal identifiable information or audit reports.

Although the impact and scope of the attack is still under investigation, the fact that the hackers targeted multiple agencies simultaneously should be of great concern, experts said. 

“In simple terms, U.S. agencies and businesses worldwide are under constant cyber threat,” said Ryan Lasmaili, CEO and co-founder of Vaultree, a data encryption company.

“The recent attack by the CLoP group is the latest reminder of this fact,” Lasmaili said in an email. 

Hack shares similarities to SolarWinds incident

Emil Sayegh, president and CEO of data security firm Ntirety, said the attack was a significant event with far-reaching implications as the hackers targeted several U.S. federal agencies, which are responsible for critical functions and hold sensitive information.

“The attack demonstrated the vulnerability of our infrastructure and the potential for serious breaches, reminiscent of the SolarWinds attack,” Sayegh said. 

In 2020, SolarWinds, a Texas-based software firm, was breached when Russian state-sponsored hackers exploited vulnerabilities in software updates from the tech company to penetrate the networks of nine federal agencies and at least 100 private sector organizations for nearly a year. 

Multiple federal agencies hit in cyberattack: report

Sayegh added that cyberattacks like this raise concerns about the country’s national security, the protection of sensitive information and the potential disruption of essential services.

Jason Blessing, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the recent cyberattack shows that the lessons from the SolarWinds hack are still “highly relevant” three years later. 

“While the MOVEit hack did not approach the scale of Solarwinds, the formula for protecting government networks and critical infrastructure is the same: interagency communication and cooperation, a quick response time from the private sector and imposing costs on the perpetrators to alter their calculus for future hacking attempts,” Blessing said.

Agencies team up to be ready next time

Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), said during a press call last month that her agency has been working with the FBI to understand how prevalent the issue is and provide support to the federal agencies impacted by the hack.

“While our teams are urgently focused on addressing risks posed by this vulnerability, it’s important to clarify the scope and nature of this campaign,” Easterly said. “Specifically, as far as we know, these actors are only stealing information that is being stored on the file transfer application at the precise time that the intrusion occurs.”

“These intrusions are not being leveraged to gain broader access, to gain persistence into targeted systems, or to steal specific high value information. In sum, as we understand it, this attack is largely an opportunistic one,” she added. 

The FBI told The Hill in a statement that it was aware of the cyberattack and was conducting an investigation. 

“We highly encourage the public and all organizations using MOVEit software to read the FBI and CISA’s joint cybersecurity advisory to learn more about the threat and how to mitigate potential cyber attacks,” The FBI said. 

The Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were among the federal agencies impacted. 

Although it was originally reported that none of the federal agencies affected was asked to pay a ransom, Reuters later reported that Energy did receive such requests at two facilities that were breached by the CLoP ransomware group. 

“The wide-scale nature of this attack underscores the importance of bolstering the ability of industry specific federal agencies to secure America’s critical infrastructure and respond to complex attacks,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), in a statement. 

“We continue to monitor the situation and are requesting briefings from the Biden administration, including from DOE, in order to gain a complete understanding of the severity of this attack,” the lawmakers said. 

Booth said the CLoP ransomware group is known for its double extortion scheme where it encrypts the stolen data and then threatens to leak the information unless the victim pays a ransom.  

Booth also said he doesn’t believe that the breach was a targeted attack but was more so a target of opportunity.

“These attackers figured out that there was a vulnerability in the software and then started hunting for instances where they could try to exploit it,” Booth said. 

“It just so happens that a handful of federal agencies got swept up in that hunt. But to my knowledge, there's no indication that federal agencies were specifically targeted,” he added. 

How should the government respond?

Cyrus Walker, the founder and managing principal at cybersecurity firm Data Defenders, said federal agencies should have more coordinated and up-to-date countermeasures in place, including real-time threat intelligence sharing across agencies and with private sector industries. 

He also said that having leadership in place is as important as it ensures better coordination, enforcement and accountability.

“Having someone in a key leadership role would certainly ensure that there is appropriate coordination happening across the various domains at the federal level,” he said. 

Booth added that like any other organization, federal agencies need to improve the way in which they secure its software supply chain. 

He said the government should start by having an inventory list of their vendors and establishing a relationship with them to ensure timely notification for any security issues as well as testing the software every so often.  

“This is a good reminder for all of us that we need to take our software supply chains seriously,” Booth said. 

“The more data that we have out there, whether it's in a file transfer system or somewhere else, the higher the risk exposure,” he added. 

The FBI urged people to use its Cybersecurity Advisory as a way to report and learn about possible cyberattack risks.

"This CSA can be found at IC3.gov," the agency said in a statement to The Hill. "Anyone affected should report immediately to their local FBI field office and IC3.gov."

The White House has announced plans to launch a new program aimed at helping Americans understand which devices they may use in their home that are less vulnerable to cyberattacks.

As part of the effort, internet or Bluetooth-connected devices like baby monitors, home security cameras and refrigerators that meet U.S. government cybersecurity requirements will have an identifier mark, or "trust mark," put on them.

QR codes placed on products will link to a national registry of certified devices, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also considering an annual recertification for products and a way for consumers to be updated on new product information.

The “U.S. Cyber Trust Mark” program is being launched in coordination with the FCC and participating companies, which include major electronics and appliances manufacturers and retailers, according to the White House.

Participating companies include Amazon, Best Buy, Cisco Systems, Consumer Technology Association, Google, Qualcomm and Samsung, among others.

The program is expected to be active in late 2024 and have products identified on the marketplace shortly thereafter.

Before it is rolled out, the program will undergo a public comment period to determine the criteria used for granting the trust marks.

Additionally, the administration is still working to figure out liability if a company were to use the label and their product wasn’t actually secure, according to senior administration officials.

The FCC is currently applying to register a national trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that would be applied to products meeting the cybersecurity criteria.

A top executive of the company that runs former President Trump's app Truth Social has resigned, Reuters reported, the latest stumble in the app's struggle to gain traction.

Alex Gleason was reportedly hired as the head of engineering for Truth Social in January 2022 to adapt his social media software, Soapbox, to the former president's app. Gleason said in a statement that he is leaving Trump Media & Technology Group to work full-time to expand Soapbox, which aims to spread "the freedom of decentralized social media," to social network Nostr.

Truth Social was founded by Trump after Facebook and Twitter suspended his accounts for his posts related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The app was intended as an alternative to mainstream social media networks and touted itself as "free from political discrimination."

Since launching the social media app in February 2022, Truth Social has failed to gain as many users as it initially projected, coming up short compared to its older competitors. While Truth Social set out to attract 81 million users by 2026, the app is only home to about 2 million active users as of last month, compared to around 450 million and 2.91 billion active users on Twitter and Facebook, respectively.

So can your job track what you are doing on your phone, including how much time you are or aren't devoting to your work?

The answer is complicated, but The Hill has broken down the main points you need to know about your rights and what your job can expect when it comes to mobile device surveillance.

Can my employer track my phone?

Essentially, yes, as they have the legal right to do so if it’s a company phone.

Like any other company device, an employer can use phones to monitor the activity of their employees, including their call history, the content of their emails and text messages and which apps they use. 

An employer can also track your personal phone under certain circumstances. First, the company has to receive consent from the employee allowing the employer to monitor their personal device. 

Bossware: Your employer may be tracking you during remote work

An employer may also monitor an employee’s personal phone if they’re using company-provided apps like Slack. 

“I would assume that everything you do within a work application like Outlook or Teams, as well as anything over the office wifi, is monitored,” said Mike Sexton, a senior policy adviser for cyber at Third Way’s national security program.

Is it worth it to have a work phone and a personal phone?

From an employer’s standpoint, having control of all the devices an employee uses for work helps with security matters, Sexton said.

It is still helpful even though it could be expensive and labor-intensive as well as inconvenient for some employees. 

“On the other hand, as an employee, having a designated work device can help compartmentalize their work and personal digital environments and improve cyber hygiene and policy adherence,” he added. 

What spyware is used to track a phone?

Employers can use a variety of spyware to monitor their employees, including InterGuard, Mobile Spy and Spyzie. 

These spywares can look into phone call history, text messages, emails and browsing history. Spyzie can also track employee activity and their work schedule.

What can my employer track?

Employers can also track if employees are using their time efficiently and not slacking off on the job. 

More companies are installing software that detects keystrokes and clicks on computers which could determine whether and how much employees are working. 

Last year, a Canadian accounting firm ordered one of its employees to repay for “time theft” after she was allegedly not working when she claimed to be.

The firm used a tracking software that concluded that she was conducting personal tasks while she was supposed to be working, CBS News reported. 

The employee initially sued the accounting firm for wrongful termination and asked her former employer to pay her $5,000 in unpaid wages and severance pay. The firm countersued and sought over $2,600 in wages for the hours she wasn’t working. 

Ultimately, the court dismissed her claim and sided with the firm, ordering her to pay about $1,500. 

What does spyware track?

Spyware is a type of malware that is installed on devices to spy on users and monitors their activity. 

Cybercriminals and certain governments have used this type of malware to collect personal and sensitive information including bank account details, Social Security numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and login credentials. 

Governments have also used the malware to spy on dissidents, journalists and human rights activists. 

Pegasus is known to be one of the most invasive spyware often used to spy on political opponents and government officials. The spyware is manufactured and sold by Israeli firm NSO Group.

“For Pegasus, there is no limit to what it can track, any data the phone has can be siphoned away,” Sexton said. “All your messages, pictures and videos, location, all the data in every application; it can also turn on your camera and microphone to literally see and hear you.” 

“Pegasus even monitors battery life and adapts to avoid draining it too much,” he added. 

Ford Motor Co. has cut the prices on its line of electric vehicle (EV) pickup trucks in an effort to challenge EV market leader Tesla. 

CNBC reported on Monday that the Detroit-based automaker said the reasoning behind the price reduction is to boost production of the vehicles, noting they saw improvements when the company achieved lower costs for battery material. 

Prices for the least expensive version of its versions of the F-150 Lighting will now start at $50,000, a $10,000 cut. 

Ford said prices for all versions of its F-150 truck series will drop by at least $6,000 from levels set in March 2024, according to CNBC. Now, the most expensive version of the Lighting F-150 model will start at $92,000, down from about $98,000.

“Shortly after launching the F-150 Lightning, rapidly rising material costs, supply constraints and other factors drove up the cost of the EV truck for Ford and our customers,” said Marin Gjaja, Ford's Model e chief customer officer, in a Monday statement, Reuters reported. 

Gjaja reportedly added that the company will continue “to work in the background to improve accessibility and affordability.”

Ford’s move comes as the automaker is in a price war with Tesla, which is the industry leader in EV sales. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to Ford’s latest initiative, saying in a tweet that, "The Ford Lightning is a good vehicle, just somewhat expensive, especially given the high interest rates these days for any kind of loan." 

Increasing the production of the Lightning and other Ford EVs has been a priority for CEO Jim Farley, though the automaker has sold fewer than 5,000 Lightning models in the second quarter of this year after a fire in one of the EV trucks led to production to be shut down for five weeks, CNBC reported.