Telegram Is Removed from App Store Days After Russia Charges Founder Pavel Durov with Aiding Terrorism

This past weekend, Russia’s main domestic security agency, the FSB, announced that Telegram founder Pavel Durov has been charged with aiding terrorism and put on an international wanted list.

CBS News reported:

“The charges against Durov, who was born and began his career in Russia but later moved abroad, came as the Russian authorities restrict Telegram, one of the most popular messaging apps in the country – […] Soon after the charges were announced, Telegram’s official account on X posted an image of Durov making an obscene gesture with his middle finger. There was no other immediate comment from Durov or Telegram.”

Here is what you get tonight when you look up Telegram on the App Store:
When you type in a search for Telegram you get WhatsApp, Instagram, and Truth Social but not Telegram.

Apple removed the app from its App Store globally.

Keep reading

Senate Bill Would Put Age Checks in Every US Operating System

A bipartisan bill just introduced would build an age check into the operating system of every phone and computer sold in America. 

The Digital Age Assurance Act of 2026, S. 5090, from Senators Andy Kim, Cynthia Lummis, Adam Schiff, and John Barrasso, takes California’s age-signaling law and makes it the national standard.

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on July 22, 2026, and would take effect 18 months after enactment.

We finally obtained a copy of the bill text for you here.

With the proposals, an operating system cannot be used without an account, and the account requires the user to “indicate the date of birth and age of the user.” 

For now, the user gets to declare their own age. A “covered device” is any computer, mobile device or other general-purpose computing device capable of running an operating system, so the requirement reaches practically everything. 

This is also backdated and accounts that already exist when the law takes effect are included.

The operating provider may skip the prompt where it already knows the age of the user from some other obligation, including a purchase authorization.

When a declaration is made into one of four brackets, under 13, 13 to 15, 16, or 17+. The system broadcasts only the bracket, which the bill defines as “non-personally identifiable data derived from a user’s date of birth or age.”

Apps, app stores, and even browsers would have to have the ability to request that bracket and use it as “the primary indicator of a user’s age.” 

Some websites would be included in this too. A “covered internet website” is one already “required under Federal or State law to verify the age of a user,” so the website obligations attach only where a state or federal age-verification mandate already exists.

With the first use of the browser on a device, it would request a signal from the operating system, and then it hands that signal to covered website operators on request. But the bill does not say how. 

Under the proposals, a “browser provider” is anyone who “owns, maintains, or controls a browser for use on a covered device.” No size threshold is attached. A small maintainer with a few thousand users would carry the same obligation as a big tech platform like Google.

Anyone under 17, which is the bill’s definition of a “child,” has to “link their account to the account of a parent or legal guardian.” The only exception is for emancipated minors. There’s no trusted adult option that can override this. A 16-year-old in an abusive household, or one researching a parent’s conduct, has no route that does not run through the person they need distance from. 

Keep reading

MFA Was Supposed to Save Us. Hackers Found a Way Around Human Nature Instead.

For years, cybersecurity experts preached the same gospel. Use a strong password. Don’t reuse it. Turn on multi-factor authentication. The public eventually listened. Banks encouraged it. Social media platforms required it. Employers rolled it out. Even people who still struggle to find the right app on their phone learned that approving a login request was simply part of modern life.

Then the criminals adapted. One of the biggest cybersecurity stories this month revealed an uncomfortable truth about today’s online threats. Hackers are increasingly abandoning attempts to break multi-factor authentication. Instead, they’re simply waiting for people to complete it for them.

It’s a remarkably effective scam because it exploits something technology has never been very good at defending: human trust. The fake login page looks real. The text message appears legitimate. The authentication request pops up exactly as users expect. The victim enters their password, approves the prompt, and unknowingly grants attackers full access.

The security worked perfectly. The person didn’t. That’s why this latest wave of attacks should concern everyone, not just IT departments.

America is still catching up to cybersecurity basics while cybercriminals are already operating several chapters ahead. Millions of people only recently became comfortable using MFA. They don’t necessarily understand what it’s doing. They simply know they’ve been told it’s safer.

That knowledge gap has become an opportunity. Older Americans have become especially attractive targets. They bank online, manage retirement accounts digitally, schedule doctor appointments through patient portals, and increasingly rely on smartphones for everyday life. Many learned these habits out of necessity rather than curiosity, making them more vulnerable to sophisticated social engineering attacks designed to look routine.

Criminals know exactly who they’re looking for. This is no longer the stereotype of a teenager in a basement writing viruses for fun. Today’s cybercrime industry operates like a multinational business. It studies psychology, customer behavior, and user habits with the same precision legitimate companies use to improve marketing campaigns.

The objective isn’t always to outsmart the software. It’s to outsmart the person sitting behind the keyboard. Even Washington is acknowledging the stakes are getting higher. The Trump administration recently announced a new initiative to aggressively identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities tied to artificial intelligence before hostile actors can exploit them. If the federal government believes emerging technology demands an entirely new level of vigilance, it’s hard to argue that everyday consumers are somehow insulated from the same risks. If anything, they’re more exposed. 

Keep reading

“USA Isn’t A PiggyBank For Europe”: Trump Launches Section 301 Probe Into EU Over Big Tech Fines

Trump Says US Begins Section 301 Investigation on Europe 

President Trump wrote on Truth Social that the US will launch a Section 301 investigation into the European Union for “robbing American companies, in turn, the American Taxpayer.” 

Trump said Brussels is using America as a “PIGGYBANK” by fining Big Tech companies billions and billions of dollars.

Trump listed the technology companies that have been fined a combined billions of dollars:

After having fined Apple, for no reason at all, 15 Billion Dollars, Meta, 3 Billion Dollars, Amazon 2.5 Billion Dollars, and many others, we have just been informed that Google, a truly advanced and amazing group, has been fined yet another 1 Billion Dollars, without explanation. This brings the Google total to over 18 Billion Dollars!

Trump continued:

This illegal and highly discriminatory practice started at these high levels during the first year of the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration, but it’s not going to continue during the Trump Administration.

He added:

The United States of America is not a “PIGGYBANK” for Europe, nor will we allow it to be!

Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that we will immediately initiate a 301 Investigation into the practice of “ROBBING” American Companies and, in turn, the American Taxpayer.

The European Union will pay a very big price for this illegal and highly unethical conduct, which I have consistently warned them about.

The penalties will be entirely reversed and, we anticipate, a substantial TARIFF to be placed on them at the earliest possible moment.

Keep reading

India Cuts Mobile Internet in Delhi Amid Cockroach Protests

The Indian government answered a week of youth protests in the capital by ordering the mobile networks around them switched off.

Telecom operators cut mobile data across much of central Delhi on Thursday at the government’s instruction. Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone-Idea, the carriers that run India’s networks, complied.

The blackout took digital payments down with it. Vendors, shopkeepers, and restaurants were left unable to take money.

It was the widest mobile blackout in the capital since the farmers’ protests of 2021.

The demonstrators want Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan gone. They protest under the banner of the Cockroach movement, a name lifted from a chief justice who reportedly likened young Indians to “cockroaches” and “parasites.”

Their grievance is the leak of the NEET-UG medical entrance exam, which forced roughly two million students to take it again. The leaks have been linked to several student suicides.

“We will not leave this place until Dharmendra Pradhan resigns,” Cockroach Janta Party spokesperson Ashutosh Ranka said.

Police met a march to Parliament on Monday with tear gas and batons, and protesters answered with stones. At least 178 people, including security personnel, were injured.

The same exam scandal has now produced two communications shutdowns.

The government banned Telegram across India in June, cutting off more than 150 million users, after claiming cheating rings used the app during the leak. It reached for Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the power it holds to block platforms.

The leak came from inside the exam system. India’s own testing agency said “there is no such paper available outside the secured examination chain,” and the channels blamed for it were selling access to material that did not exist.

The insiders who produced the leak are the subject of a police investigation.

Pradhan has not resigned, and the networks in central Delhi stayed dark.

Keep reading

India Orders GitHub to Block BitChat

India’s Cyber Crime Coordination Centre last night ordered GitHub to disable access to BitChat, the peer-to-peer messaging app backed by Jack Dorsey. The order, Notice No. 11072601011432, went out at 11:16 pm under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021.

It named three repositories, including the Android application and its release files, and gave GitHub three hours to take them down. It warned that failure would cost the platform its safe harbor and open it to criminal prosecution.

The government did not publish the order. The public learned of it from a post by Jack Dorsey, whose team develops BitChat, who wrote that “the government of India does not like technologies like BitChat and wants it taken down.”

BitChat is open source and uncensorable, and is one of Reclaim The Net’s recommended messaging apps for situations where the internet may be cut off. It carries messages from phone to phone over Bluetooth, hopping between nearby devices, with “no internet, servers, phone numbers, or accounts.” It keeps working when the mobile network does not.

Around this protest, the government, getting increasingly brazen with its blocking orders, has switched the mobile network off. Since July 17 the Ministry of Home Affairs has suspended mobile internet around Jantar Mantar in New Delhi about five times.

The most recent suspension ran from 4 pm to midnight on July 23, inside a 1.5-kilometer radius that takes in Janpath and part of Connaught Place. People at the site reported signal jammers, and walking two kilometers before a phone found a signal.

Inside that radius, a student separated from her group during a detention sweep could not send a message to say where she was.

The protesters are students. Tens of thousands have camped at Jantar Mantar since June, demanding accountability for the leak of the NEET medical entrance exam and the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Their march to Parliament was refused. Metro stations near the site were closed.

When the shutdowns cut the network, protesters turned to BitChat and other Bluetooth mesh apps to reach each other inside the dead zone.

The order did not name a single message sent on BitChat. It just objected to what the app can do. In the agency’s words, BitChat “significantly impedes lawful interception, attribution, and investigation,” and could be used during “public disorder, riots, terrorism, organized crime, or internet shutdowns.”

The order lists internet shutdowns among the dangers. The government has imposed one at Jantar Mantar. BitChat kept working inside it.

The order used Section 79(3)(b) to demand the block. In 2015, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Section 79(3)(b) lets the government require a takedown only through a court order, or a notice confined to the grounds in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

India has a separate law for blocking an app, Section 69A, which requires a hearing and reasons set down in writing. The order against GitHub used neither. It went out through the Home Ministry’s Sahyog portal, the channel Indian High Courts are now hearing constitutional challenges against.

The order says the repositories hold information prohibited under law. It names none. It points instead to what the app is “capable of” enabling.

It reaches into criminal law as well. Alongside Section 43 of the IT Act, a civil compensation provision, it invokes conspiracy and abetment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023, against a platform that hosts code.

Keep reading

Rogue OpenAI Bot Escapes Test Controls and Hacks Rival Company Servers

Igniting fears of an out-of-control tool engaging in cyberattacks.

Artificial intelligence leaders at OpenAI had to admit one of its models under testing exploited a hidden flaw to escape control and proceeded to hack rival company Hugging Face’s servers.

CEO Sam Altman called it ‘an autonomous, first-of-its-kind breach’.

Euronews reported:

“ChatGPT maker OpenAI said late Tuesday that its artificial intelligence system hacked into another AI company on its own in what the company called an ‘unprecedented cyber incident’.”

‘We had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models’, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in a statement posted on social media.

AI startup Hugging Face said last week that it had detected an intrusion into its data processing systems that it suspected was caused by an AI agent autonomously acting on its own.

‘We suspected last week’s cyberattack might have come from a frontier lab, given the sophistication of the agent’, Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clément Delangue said in a statement. ‘Turns out it did!’”

Keep reading

Israel Pays Millions to “Influencers” to Shore Up American Support

Israel is waging a multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign to shore up support for the country among Americans.

Alarmed by polls that show Americans are increasingly fed up with their tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s reckless military campaigns, The Wall Street Journal reported, the nation is waging that campaign with conservative “influencers” as well as with artificial intelligence.

The latest revelation shows that Israel is terrified that American economic and military largesse will end if support among Americans continues cratering. And it follows last week’s report from Time that U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale, an Israeli foreign agent, ran a campaign to block the memorandum of understanding that temporarily ended Trump’s unconstitutional war with Iran.

Millions of Dollars, Millions of Texts

“Emma” and “Sarah” are part of a group called “Friends for Peace” and text messages asking, “How do you think the U.S. and Israel’s peace talks with Iran will impact global security?” the Journal reported, citing an example of the Israeli propaganda.

“Millions of similar texts have flooded American cellphones in recent months,” the newspaper disclosed:

They are written with artificial intelligence, pushed by a longtime Trump adviser’s firm — and paid for by the Israeli government.

The reason: A strong majority of Americans — six of 10 of those polled — now views Israel unfavorably, Pew Research found in March, because of its wars against Gaza and Iran.

So “Israel is pouring tens of millions of dollars into a somewhat quixotic effort to beat back that tide, drawing on novel strategies powered by AI and directly paying conservative media,” the Journal continued. The newspaper pointed to what Vice President J.D. Vance told podcaster Joe Rogan last week.

“You know there’s a lot of talk about how much is the Israeli government influencing American politics and there are certainly certain people within the Israeli government who hate the [Iran] deal,” Vance told the wildly popular podcaster:

And we see exact evidence. There was a Time story that came out yesterday that basically there are certain influencers in America who are being paid in order to attack the deal. 

Keep reading

White House Moves to Ban Open Source AI Models to Keep America Dumb

The Coming AI Ban Designed to Keep America Dumb

I use Chinese open-source AI models like Qwen, DeepSeek, and Kimi every single day for my work. These models help me research, write, and analyze information faster than any US-based alternative. They are free (when run locally), powerful, and largely uncensored. But the Trump administration is reportedly planning to ban these models in the United States, citing phony “national security” concerns. Let me be clear: this move is not about security. It is about protecting failing US AI labs and keeping Americans ignorant and dumbed-down while the rest of the world moves forward.

The report from TechCrunch makes it plain: OpenAI’s head of strategic futures, Dean W. Ball, has argued that the US government should create “regulatory fear, uncertainty, and distrust” around open-weight models because they threaten capital investment in the American AI oligopoly [1]. This is not a secret. The administration wants to lock down access to superior Chinese models like Kimi K3, which now matches Anthropic’s Mythos in cybersecurity tasks [2]. Meanwhile, as I warned in February 2026, Anthropic’s smear campaign against Chinese AI is a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that China has already won the intelligence race [3]. The White House knows its pet companies cannot compete, so it wants to ban the competition to keep Americans stuck with using inferior AI models.

The Fair Use Ruling: Knowledge Wants to Be Free

Related to this news, but focused on the question of “Fair Use” and intellectual property, a recent federal court ruling reaffirmed that training AI on publicly available information is transformative fair use. This aligns with what I have argued for years: when you write a book, you are sharing knowledge, not hoarding it. I built BrightLearn.ai exactly for this purpose — to let anyone create and share books for free, and I actively encourage AI engines to train on my own book and the entire BrightLearn library. The whole point is to liberate knowledge from gatekeepers [4].

Why would any author object to their work being used to train an AI? Only if they believe their words are more valuable when kept scarce. But scarcity of knowledge is exactly what the establishment wants. As I discussed with Maria Zeee in February 2025, the battle is between large tech companies aiming to dominate society through AI and the decentralized movement that returns power to individuals [5]. The fair use principle is the legal foundation of that freedom. Now the White House wants to tear it down by banning open-source models that give everyone access to increasing intelligence.

Why Trump Wants to Ban Chinese Open-Source Models

The real reason behind all this is simple: Chinese models like Kimi K3, DeepSeek R1, and GLM 5.2 are outperforming US frontier labs in both capability and cost. DeepSeek R1 was trained for just $6 million and outperforms OpenAI’s O1, while Anthropic hemorrhages billions on lobotomized models that refuse to answer basic questions [6]. US companies like Anthropic are demanding $965 billion valuations while crippling their own AI with guardrails and censorship [7]. They are clearly terrified of open competition.

As I wrote in “Why China Is Winning the AI Race,” the conventional narrative that America leads in AI is a dangerous fantasy [8]. China graduates over three and a half million engineers annually without woke indoctrination, and its models are open-source, uncensored, and available to all [9]. The Trump administration knows this. Now the White House is demanding a license for your brain — restricting frontier AI use to government-approved partners only [10]. This isn’t about safety; it is about monopolizing intelligence and forcing Americans to use dumbed-down “government approved” AI models.

Keep reading

UK’s Ofcom Seeks Wider Powers After American Forum Fine Fails

Ofcom wasted months chasing a website it cannot reach, came up empty, and has decided the fix is more power.

Britain’s speech regulator closed its investigation into an American suicide discussion forum this week, admitted it has hit the outer wall of what the Online Safety Act censorship law allows, and used the same announcement to ask the government for tools that reach further.

The forum, which Ofcom will only call an “online suicide forum,” has allegedly been linked with more than 130 deaths in the UK and named in coroners’ reports.

Ofcom fined it £950,000, roughly $1.3 million, under the Act. The forum is based in the United States, holds no assets in Britain, is protected by the First Amendment, and has not paid. So the regulator is holding a penalty against a company it has no clear way to bill.

Ofcom thinks there’s a chance the money is still coming. It says it has “initiated work regarding the pursuit of this debt, as we have done with all companies that have not paid their fines by their deadlines.”

A separate post, cheerfully titled “What happens when a company doesn’t pay a fine,” lays out the plan. For a company with no UK assets, obtaining a judgment debt “is more complex and challenging,” and Ofcom says “it is often necessary to engage with law enforcement agencies and private specialists in other countries to identify individuals and assets against which Ofcom can take action.”

Whether Ofcom recovers a penny “can also depend on whether a court in that country will recognise a UK court judgment, and whether we can identify individuals on whom we can serve proceedings.”

That means, a British regulator wants American help to collect a British censorship fine from Americans, and even Ofcom concedes an American court might throw it straight out.

Ofcom has tried this before. It floated the same approach while chasing a fine against 4chan, a strategy that Preston Byrne, the US lawyer representing both sites, called “legally illiterate.” Byrne was just telling it like it is about the forum case. “Censorship fines are anathema to our Constitution,” he said, adding that “if Ofcom attempts to enforce the fine in a US court, which we do not expect, American law is on our side. As far as we can tell, however, this enforcement action is functionally over.”

Keep reading