Tag: technology

Supreme Court To Review Geofencing In Pivotal Case For Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on April 27 will hear oral arguments in a case with major implications for privacy rights—and how law enforcement uses Americans’ cell phone data while investigating crimes.

The case, Chatrie v. United States, centers on law enforcement’s use of “geofencing warrants”—judge-authorized requests for cell phone location data near the scene of a crime.

Okello Chatrie told the Supreme Court that the government’s use of these warrants, which resulted in a criminal conviction over his robbing a bank while his smart phone was on his person, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that such data is not protected when provided voluntarily to a “third party” like Google.

The court said it would focus on the circumstances of Chatrie’s case rather than the constitutionality of geofencing more generally. However, experts say that the Supreme Court’s decision will reverberate through future cases concerning privacy in the digital age.

Dr. David Super, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, described the case to The Epoch Times as “once-in-a-generation,” whatever the outcome.

Chatrie’s Warrant

In 2019, law enforcement received a geofence warrant from a state court seeking anonymized location data for devices within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of the bank robbery. In this form, the data couldn’t be used to identify specific cellphone users.

After Google complied with the first request, law enforcement then sought location data for devices over a longer, two-hour period, without seeking an additional court warrant. Google again provided the information.

Then—still without seeking a warrant—investigators asked Google for “de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices,” and Google complied.

One of those devices belonged to Chatrie, and the information provided the basis for Chatrie’s eventual conviction for armed robbery.

Though Chatrie confessed, his lawyers argue that the geofencing evidence should be tossed because the warrant deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights, which guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

Chatrie’s lawyers argued that the geofence warrant allowed investigators to gather the location history of people who were near the scene of the crime even though there was no other probable cause.

Super told The Epoch Times that geofencing was “pivotal” to the case against Chatrie. “The question in Chatrie is whether something as dramatic as a geofencing search is limited by the Fourth Amendment and requires the government to show specific needs with a proper basis,” he said.

Keep reading

Report: Iran Using Russian and Chinese Technology to Improve Drone Accuracy

Defense analysts and security officials told The National on Monday that Iran is “relying on Chinese and Russian-made guidance chips” to improve the accuracy of its drone and missile attacks.

“Key to the advance is special computer chips designed for sophisticated navigation systems placed in Iran’s Shahed drones and its ballistic missiles,” the report said.

These chips allow Iran’s drones and ballistic missiles to employ Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) communications, which protect the attack vehicle from electronic jamming.

CRPA is an antenna system that skips rapidly between different frequencies and signal sources to defeat jamming attempts. Combined with refinements to the navigational software of a drone or missile, CRPA antennas help remotely-guided vehicles to operate in dense electronic warfare environments that would be overwhelming for less sophisticated communications systems.

CRPA only works if the remote vehicle has been equipped with very sophisticated electronics to handle inputs from multiple onboard antennas and external transmitters, adjusting on the fly to spoofing and jamming attacks.

According to The National’s report, the Iranians acquired such chips recently from its patrons in Russia and China and rapidly began upgrading its weapons, which allowed them to perform much better than the missiles and drones Iran launched at Israel in 2024. It also seems likely that Iran enjoyed targeting assistance from Russian satellites and ground stations this time around.

“CRPA allows drones and missiles to filter out jamming signals and lock onto genuine satellite data. That means they can stay on target even in heavily defended airspace. It’s a capability that, until recently, was largely confined to more advanced military powers,” a Western official told The National.

Other analysts pointed to Iran’s lucrative exchange of drone technology with Russia, during which Iran initially supplied Russia with huge numbers of its inexpensive Shahed kamikaze drones to overcome Ukraine’s advantage in drone warfare. The Russians later began building their own versions of the Shahed, with technological improvements, and sent some of the knockoffs back to Iran.

Durham University astrophysics professor Bleddyn Bowen noted that China may also be supplying Iran with access to the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), China’s version of the Global Positioning System (GPS). China’s version of GPS is much more accurate than Russia’s, which is known as Glonass.

Keep reading

Israel Deployed Iron Dome and Troops to Support UAE Defense Amid Iran Attacks — First Deployment Abroad

Israel quietly deployed its Iron Dome air defense system along with dozens of IDF troops to the United Arab Emirates in the early days of the Iran conflict, according to reporting, marking the first operational use of the system outside Israel and the United States as Tehran unleashed a sustained and intense missile and drone barrage against the Gulf state.

According to reports published Sunday by Axios and The Jerusalem Post, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the deployment early in the conflict following a call with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, directing the Israel Defense Forces to send an Iron Dome battery, interceptors, and several dozen operators to help defend the country as Iran escalated its attacks across the region.

The move represents an unprecedented step in Israeli defense policy, with officials confirming it was the first time an Iron Dome system had been transferred abroad for active use. A senior Israeli official said the UAE became the first country outside Israel and the United States to deploy the system operationally, with another official noting it intercepted dozens of incoming threats.

Iran’s barrage on the UAE was among the most intense of the conflict, with more than 550 ballistic and cruise missiles and over 2,200 drones launched at the country — more than at any other nation, including Israel — with numerous strikes hitting civilian infrastructure, residential areas, and economic hubs in what analysts say reflects Tehran’s effort to pressure U.S.-aligned regional partners.

Keep reading

Harmeet Dhillon Announces DOJ’s Big Win Defending xAI from Colorado DEI Law

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced a major win for American artificial intelligence (AI) dominance after her department intervened in a lawsuit challenging a new Colorado law that prohibits “algorithmic discrimination” during an interview on Breitbart News Saturday.

Speaking with Breitbart News political editor Bradley Jaye, Dhillon revealed details on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) recent success at getting the state of Colorado to agree not to enforce SB24-205, which requires AI developers and deployers to satisfy certain disclosure, reporting, and prevention requirements when creating algorithm products designed for services like mortgage lending, student admissions, and job-candidate selection. 

The bill’s text included an explicit carveout for discriminatory algorithms designed to advance “diversity” or “redress historic discrimination,” and AI company xAI filed a lawsuit against the statute on April 9, alleging it is unconstitutional.

Marking the first time that the DOJ has intervened in a case challenging state regulations on AI, Dhillon’s team joined the case on behalf of xAI on Friday. Together, they argued that “embedding AI with state-mandated discrimination is a recipe for disaster.”

Emphasizing that the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ is meant to “protect American citizens, and even American companies, from discrimination on the basis of impermissible racial, gender, et cetera criteria,” Dhillon told Jaye that Colorado had attempted to require companies and municipalities to “look at outcomes and then racially balance and adjust their algorithms to produce outcomes that reflect the demographic population.”

“This is not required by law. In fact, it’s prohibited by federal law,” she stated. “And you know, worse, the statute actually carved out if people or companies are doing discrimination to remedy past discrimination, that’s okay. All of this is just nonsense, and it stifles innovation, and it’s illegal under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In addition to violating the Fourteenth Amendment, Dhillon noted that xAI also has First Amendment arguments against the bill, “because, effectively, the state is compelling it to utter certain speech in furtherance of these DEI goals.”

“We’re not arguing that because the government doesn’t have that obligation, but we’re stepping in to protect American citizens and American companies,” she explained, before revealing the success of her efforts on Friday. 

“We had a great result yesterday,” Dhillon announced, recounting how Colorado “agreed to not enforce the law against xAI” within just a couple of hours of the DOJ intervening. 

“And by the evening, before we went to bed, we had Colorado agree to not enforce it against anybody until they send it back to the legislature to fix it,” she explained. “So it’s pretty much a total win for American consumers and companies, and the first instance of the United States Department of Justice stepping in on an AI case to really protect this innovation and protect Americans from discrimination by AI algorithmic manipulation.”

Highlighting why civil rights work should be “important” to people on the right side of the political aisle, Dhillon told Jaye that conservatives “have come to look at civil rights as something that’s been weaponized against Americans, but civil rights are for all Americans.”

“So what we’re doing in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is exactly that — we’re standing up for all Americans, like in this xAI case.”

Keep reading

China Blocks Meta’s $2 Billion Acquisition of AI Startup Manus

The Chinese government has officially blocked Meta’s planned $2 billion acquisition of Manus, a Chinese-founded AI startup, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing technological rivalry between the United States and China.

CNBC reports that China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) foreign investment review arm issued a decision on Monday to block the sale of Manus to Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta. The regulatory body ordered all parties involved in the transaction to unwind the acquisition, effectively terminating the deal that was announced in late December.

Manus emerged as a prominent player in the AI sector when it launched in March of last year with an AI agent designed to autonomously perform complex tasks. These capabilities include writing research reports, preparing presentation slides, and building websites. The launch garnered significant attention from Chinese state media, which celebrated it as the country’s latest breakthrough AI product. This recognition came on the heels of Deepseek’s AI model launch, which had previously caused substantial fluctuations in major United States technology stocks.

Early versions of Manus were developed by Beijing Butterfly Effect Technology, a Chinese startup founded in 2022, according to the Wall Street Journal. Following its launch, the AI company made a strategic decision to relocate its headquarters and top engineers from Beijing to Singapore. This move aligned with a broader trend among Chinese AI firms seeking to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape between the United States and China. By establishing operations in Singapore, these companies believe they can circumvent some of the tensions between the two superpowers while gaining access to Western AI models and potential investors.

According to the Financial Times, the NDRC had initially approved Manus’ relocation to Singapore. However, complications arose when Meta and the startup failed to inform Chinese authorities before finalizing their acquisition agreement in December. This appears to have triggered the subsequent regulatory scrutiny and ultimate rejection of the deal.

The Chinese government’s response to the Meta-Manus transaction was swift and decisive. In January, mere days after the two companies publicly announced the acquisition, Chinese officials launched an investigation into potential national security concerns and possible export control violations. The probe intensified last month when the NDRC reportedly summoned the startup’s co-founders, Xiao Hong and Ji Yichao, to meet with its officials to discuss the acquisition details. Both co-founders were subsequently instructed not to leave China until the regulatory review concluded.

In a statement to Breitbart News, a Meta spokesperson wrote: “The transaction complied fully with applicable law. We anticipate an appropriate resolution to the inquiry.”

This regulatory intervention occurs against a backdrop of heightened tensions between Washington and Beijing over advanced AI technologies. The timing is particularly notable as it comes just weeks before President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Beijing for a summit meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The upcoming meeting takes place amid an ongoing trade war and escalating geopolitical tensions between the world’s two largest economies, with artificial intelligence emerging as a central battleground.

Keep reading

Your Car Could Soon Become a Federal Surveillance Device — What to Know

New cars will automatically disable themselves when they detect a drunk or tired driver. The tech promises to save lives, but also raises privacy, cost and other concerns.

Starting in 2027, federally mandated safety technology will begin rolling out in new cars that monitor eye and steering movements and use passive breathalyzers to detect whether a driver is drunk, fatigued or otherwise impaired.

“Yes, you read that right,” says cybersecurity expert Rafay Baloch. “A new active driver alertness system is coming to a car near you in the next three years. But who will actually want it?”

Here is what to know about this new vehicle surveillance tech, from its history, to what it means for road safety, personal privacy and cost.

History of the Laws Leading Here

The push for preemptive surveillance tech began in 2008, with a project called DADSS, or Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety. The effort was a collaboration between the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and automakers. Back in 2015, the advocacy group MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) also began lobbying for the tech.

Their efforts came to fruition with the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, which directed NHTSA to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” to be used in all new passenger vehicles.

Originally, the new tech was supposed to be implemented by the 2026 to 2027 model year window, but as of yet, the tech isn’t ready. So while a few brands are launching preview options, it will probably be another few years before it’s fully in place.

What the Surveillance Tech Does

The system uses passive breath sensors to detect the driver’s blood alcohol concentration. It also uses infrared cameras to monitor eye movement, head position and steering behavior. If it detects impairment from drugs, alcohol, fatigue or health events, the system can lock the ignition or restrict the vehicle’s speed.

Keep reading

Silicon Valley has forgotten what normal people want

One of the most mortifying things about knowing a lot of techies is listening to them tell me excitedly about some very important discovery that they believe they have made. Recently, I ran into an acquaintance of mine, who began talking my ear off about an amazing discovery he’d made with LLMs. Knowledge, it turns out, is structured into language! You could put one word into ChatGPT and it might understand what you wanted, or make up a word and see if it understood what you meant! These amazing new tools have revealed that the English corpus contains so much about its speakers!

He concluded that LLMs are a discovery on par with writing.

Regular humans hit on this idea about a century ago; my most generous interpretation of what he was telling me was that he’d hit on a kind of naive, confused version of Structuralism; Saussure via a game of telephone. (There has been recent work on a similar point, which argues that one needs to understand LLMs via literary theory, but it starts with Saussure.) I tried to get out of the conversation as quickly as I could, not least because he seemed frustrated that I didn’t see things exactly as he did — a new behavior and likely a symptom of LLM overuse.

Not every discovery that’s new to you is actually new. For instance, there’s Elon Musk marvelling at the complexity of hands; I could point to a variety of disciplines for which this is 101-level stuff: artists, who have to figure out how to draw them; surgeons, who have to figure out how to operate on them; musicians and magicians, who rely on extremely fine motor skill to produce their work; neuroscientists and psychologists, who doubtless encountered the cortical homunculus early in their careers. Or Palmer Luckey claiming that “no one has done a postmortem” on the One Laptop Per Child computing project — because he didn’t know there’s a whole book about it called The Charisma Machine.

At its most absurd nadir, one is reminded of Juicero, a company that sold a $400 juicer that did the same work as squeezing its proprietary juice packs with one’s bare hands.

Look, discovering something that’s new to you is exciting — ask anyone who listened to me yell about the joys of European (higher-fat) butter — but you can’t take for granted that something that’s new to you is new to everyone. These things have in common a certain incuriosity that I have found endemic among a certain kind of tech enthusiast, particularly the ones who are most interested in startups and entrepreneurship. Perhaps they have been so siloed that they did not realize their “discovery” was well -known elsewhere, or perhaps their self-conception is that they are the smartest, and if they don’t know something, no one knows it.

Keep reading

The Technate Was Always Coming

And what you can do about it (besides complaining).

Palantir dropped a manifesto last weekend. 22 bullet points distilled from Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic, posted to X with the casual framing of “because we get asked a lot.” I haven’t seen a reaction so widespread, unanimously opposed and viscerally aghast since James Damore’s infamous “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”.

The usual suspects lost their shit. Engadget called it “the ramblings of a comic book villain.”

TechCrunch clutched its pearls at the bits about “regressive” cultures and “vacant and hollow pluralism.”

Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins observed, (via Bluesky, of course), that these aren’t philosophical musings floating in the ether: they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.

He’s not wrong, Palantir sells to ICE, DoD, NYPD, and the intelligence community. It may be a manifesto, but it’s also product literature.

Even Alexander Dugin, the Russian “Fourth Political Theory” philosopher, not exactly known for having a libertarian bent, seemed triggered by it, calling it “the plan of the Western techno-fascism” on X, “Pure Satanism” on his Substack.

Former Greek FM Yanis Varoufakis called it “evil” and put out his own point-for-point on it – he calls it a refutation, it’s actually more of a rant.

So everybody across the horseshoe is big mad. Fine.

The thing is, none of this should surprise anyone. Let’s now look at why the policy this “manifesto” outlines was always going to arrive, with or without Karp’s prosaic stylings.

Karp Didn’t Invent “The Technate”

The merger of corporate power and state apparatus, the “technate” that people are suddenly discovering with horror on a Sunday afternoon, is not a new idea. It’s not even a recent one.

Back in 2013, Eric Schmidt (then Google’s executive chairman) and Jared Cohen (Google Ideas, ex-State Department advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton) published The New Digital Age. The book was blurbed by Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, and General Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA. That’s an elite-class blurb list for a book that explicitly argued for the intersection of Silicon Valley and state power, the fusion of corporate infrastructure with national security logic, and the reshaping of diplomacy through private platforms.

In 2013 it was called “transformational.” Kissinger gushing that it was, “a searching meditation on technology and world order” (he would go on to co-author The Age of AI with Eric Schmidt that should be every bit as concerning as Karp’s Technological Republic).

Not too long after that, Google’s Sergey Brin and Klaus Schwab held a fireside in Davos where Herr Schwab pontificated that with the advent of AI, since the algos would be able to predict election outcomes with 100% certainty, they may as well pick the winners anyway and we could do away with elections altogether.

Nobody batted an eye. My timeline certainly wasn’t overflowing with rage over it and the people who were calling attention to it were using facing all kinds of headwinds.

Keep reading

The Rise of AI in Payments Is Not About Convenience

Visa has just unveiled a new suite of artificial intelligence tools designed to overhaul how credit card disputes are handled, and once again this is being presented as a simple evolution toward efficiency and improved customer experience, yet when you step back and examine the scale of what is unfolding, this is clearly part of a much broader structural shift within the financial system toward centralization and automation.

The numbers alone should make that obvious, with Visa processing over 106 million disputes globally in 2025, representing a 35% increase since 2019, and that type of exponential growth is not something that can be resolved through incremental improvements, it requires a complete restructuring of how the system functions, which is precisely what Visa is now implementing.

They are introducing six AI-driven tools split between merchants and financial institutions, designed to intercept disputes before they even occur, automate responses, and consolidate the entire process into a unified framework where decisions are guided by network-wide data rather than individual judgment, and once you move into that framework, the human element is steadily removed and replaced by algorithmic consistency.

Keep reading

DOJ joins Musk’s AI company in suing Colorado for new ‘DEI’ regulatory law

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced its support for Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, as it sues the state of Colorado over a new law set to go into effect in June that would regulate AI technology.

The company filed a suit against Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Thursday to prevent the enforcement of the law, which would impose new requirements on AI programs to protect users from “algorithmic discrimination” in education, employment, healthcare, housing and financial services, and other sectors.

xAI argued that the statute “severely burdens the development and use of AI” and infringes on First Amendment free speech protections.

“Its provisions prohibit developers of AI systems from producing speech that the State of Colorado dislikes, while compelling them to conform their speech to a State-enforced orthodoxy on controversial topics of great public concern,” the lawsuit reads.

It also claims that the law would force Musk’s company to rework its AI chatbot called Grok, which can be found on the social media platform X, to “conform to a controversial, highly politicized viewpoint” instead of maintaining its objectivity.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced on Friday that it partnered with the Civil Division to file a motion to intervene in the suit.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said in a video posted to social media that the state law in question requires companies to comply with its “crazy, woke, DEI goals,” referring to the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” policies instated widely across left-leaning and liberal organizations.

Keep reading