Florida asks Supreme Court to decide fight over social media regulation

Florida is calling on the US’ highest court to settle the dispute over social media speech regulation. The Washington Postnotes the state’s attorney general has petitioned the Supreme Court to determine whether or not states are violating First Amendment free speech rights by requiring that social media platforms host speech they would otherwise block, and whether they can require explanations when platforms remove posts.

In making its case, Florida argued that the court needed to address contradictory rulings. While a 5th Circuit of Appeals court upheld a Texas law allowing users to sue social networks for alleged censorship, an 11th Circuit of Appeals court ruled that Florida was violating the First Amendment with key parts of a law preventing internet firms from banning politicians.

The backers of the Florida and Texas laws have argued that the measures are necessary to combat alleged censorship of conservative views on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Legislators have contended that social networks are common carriers, like phone providers, and thus are required to carry all speech that isn’t otherwise illegal. The companies, meanwhile, believe laws like these are unconstitutional and would force them to host hate speech, hostile governments’ propaganda and spam. They say the constitutional amendment is meant to protect against government censorship, and that private outlets have the right to decide what they host.

It’s not clear how the Supreme Court will rule. While conservative judges dominate the legislative body, the court granted an emergency request that put the Texas law on hold before it was upheld in the 5th Circuit last week. The higher court hasn’t yet issued a definitive ruling on the matter, and a decision in favor of Florida could also help more liberal-leaning states with their own proposed bills requiring greater transparency for hate speech and threats.

Iran restricts access to WhatsApp and Instagram in response to Mahsa Amini protests

Iran has blocked access to Instagram and WhatsApp as its government attempts to subdue protests that began last week following the death of a woman at the hands of local authorities. As of Wednesday, demonstrations across the country had been ongoing for four consecutive days. The protests began over the weekend after 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in the custody of Iran’s morality police on September 16th. She was arrested for allegedly violating the country’s strict dress code for women.

According to internet watchdog NetBlocks (via Reuters), the Iranian government has gradually restricted web access across much of the country in recent days. The blackout began in Tehran and other parts of Iran when protests first broke out on Friday. On the evening of September 19th, the government extended restrictions to parts of the western Kurdistan province. As of Wednesday, accessing WhatsApp and Instagram through any of the country’s major internet providers was impossible. According to NetBlocks, the current restrictions are the most severe since 2019, when Iran shut down all internet access in response to fuel protests.

Meta did not immediately respond to Engadget’s request for comment. NetBlocks suggests the disruptions are likely to significantly limit the ability of the Iranian people to communicate freely. In theory, Iran’s government may believe that restricting internet access will reduce the likelihood of protestors organizing and allow it to better control the narrative of Amini’s death. 

GM wants to help shape the EPA’s next clean car standard

GM wants to exclusively sell electric vehicles by 2035, and it’s now trying to nudge the US government toward the same goal. The automaker has teamed up with an advocacy group, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), to develop recommended principles for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) car emissions standards from the 2027 model year onward. The guidelines are meant to accelerate EV adoption in a socially conscious way — and, of course, help GM’s bottom line.

The brand wants standards that ensure at least half of new vehicles sold by are zero-emissions by 2030, with a 60 percent reduction in emissions across a lineup compared to 2021. They need to address multiple pollution sources (such as CO2, nitrogen oxides and particles) and be “performance-based,” GM argues. The company also believes there should be an optional pathway to speed up the launch of breakthrough emissions-reducing technology, and that standards should ensure the benefits of reduced pollution apply to everyone (such as vulnerable communities). Not surprisingly, GM hopes for tight coordination between the public and private realms, including complementary investments.

GM and the EDF want a quick decision process. They’d like the standards to be proposed this fall, and completed by fall 2023. The standards should last until 2032 at a minimum, the partners said, but they also hoped the EPA would extend that to 2035.

There might not be much opposition to the basic concept. President Biden already wants half of new vehicles to be emissions-free by 2030, and the EPA reversed Trump-era standards rollbacks in December. Meanwhile, California, Massachusetts and New York State expect to ban sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and frequently push for stricter standards than the federal government. The principles and resulting EPA standards would theoretically help politicians reach these targets sooner by encouraging manufacturers to electrify their fleets quickly.

Whether or not GM and the EDF get their way isn’t clear. The EPA isn’t guaranteed to take the principles to heart, and a change of presidents could lead to weaker rules. We’d add that GM has altered its stance on emissions reductions depending on who’s in office. The firm backed the Trump administration’s efforts to revoke waivers letting California set tougher requirements, only to change its tune after Biden won the 2020 election. Still, we wouldn’t expect GM to back out any time soon. The company has staked its future on EVs, and it stands to profit if the market shifts to eco-friendly vehicles a little sooner.

US Treasury asks regulators to take more action against crypto scams

The Treasury Department is keenly aware that crypto scams and hacks remain serious problems, and it’s pressuring the rest of the US government to respond. As The Washington Postnotes, the Treasury has issued a report calling on other federal regulators to further crack down on scams and other illegal crypto activity. Officials want agencies to “expand and increase” investigations and enforcement, issue clearer guidance and help crypto users understand both risks and the reporting tools at their disposal.

In all cases, the Treasury asked for more coordination between government divisions. The department also asked for greater transparency on illegal activity to help spot trends in scams and other crimes.

The tougher stance is necessary given the dangers, according to the report. While proponents argue crypto can democratize financial services by making them more affordable and accessible, the Treasury found that there wasn’t much evidence to support the claim. If anything, the department found that low-income households were particularly vulnerable to ripoffs — 29 percent of crypto investors had an annual income below $50,000, according to Federal Reserve Board data.

It’s not clear that the findings will lead to decisive action. The Treasury didn’t outline a concrete strategy for battling crypto scams and security breaches, and regulators have their own sometimes-conflicting views of how to govern digital assets. The Securities Exchange Commission sees most crypto tokens as securities it can monitor, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission unsurprisingly wants to treat tokens as commodities. Although the bureaus might not be fighting, this report doesn’t do much to establish common ground.

US border forces are seizing Americans’ phone data and storing it for 15 years

If a traveler’s phone, tablet or computer ever gets searched at an airport, American border authorities could add data from their device to a massive database that can be accessed by thousands of government officials. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leaders have admitted to lawmakers in a briefing that its officials are adding information to a database from as many as 10,000 devices every year, The Washington Post reports. 

Further, 2,700 CBP officers can access the database without a warrant and without having to record the purpose of their search. These details were revealed in a letter Senator Ron Wyden wrote to CBP Commissioner Chris Magnus, where the lawmaker also said that CBP keeps any information it takes from people’s devices for 15 years. 

In the letter, Wyden urged the commissioner to update CBP’s practices so that device searches at borders are focused on suspected criminals and security threats instead of allowing “indiscriminate rifling through Americans’ private records without suspicion of a crime.” Wyden said CBP takes sensitive information from people’s devices, including text messages, call logs, contact lists and even photos and other private information in some cases. 

While law enforcement agencies are typically required to secure a warrant if they want to access the contents of a phone or any other electronic device, border authorities are exempted from having to do the same. Wyden also pointed out that travelers searched at airports, seaports and border crossings aren’t informed of their rights before their devices are searched. And if they refuse to unlock their electronics, authorities could confiscate and keep them for five days.

As The Post notes, a CBP official previously went on record to say that the agency’s directive gives its officers the authority to scroll through any traveler’s device in a “basic search.” If they find any “reasonable suspicion” that a traveler is breaking the law or doing something that poses a threat to national security, they can run a more advanced search. That’s when they can plug in the traveler’s phone, tablet or PC to a device that copies their information, which is then stored in the Automated Targeting System database.

CBP director of office of field operations Aaron Bowker told the publication that the agency only copies people’s data when “absolutely necessary.” Bowker didn’t deny that the agency’s officers can access the database, though — he even said that the number was bigger than what CBP officials told Wyden. Five percent of CBP’s 60,000 personnel have access to the database, he said, which translates to 3,000 officers and not 2,700.

Wyden wrote in his letter:

“Innocent Americans should not be tricked into unlocking their phones and laptops. CBP should not dump data obtained through thousands of warrantless phone searches into a central database, retain the data for fifteen years, and allow thousands of DHS employees to search through Americans’ personal data whenever they want.”

Two years ago, the Senator also called for an investigation into the CBP’s use of commercially available location data to track people’s phones without a warrant. CBP had admitted back then that it spent $500,000 to access a commercial database containing “location data mined from applications on millions of Americans’ mobile phones.”

FTC wants to protect gig workers from ‘unfair or deceptive’ algorithms

The Federal Trade Commission is making its own bid to protect gig workers against exploitation. The regulator has adopted a policy statement detailing how it will tackle gig workers’ problems. The FTC plans to step in when there are misrepresentations about pay, costs, benefits and work terms. Officials also expect to intervene with “unfair or deceptive” algorithms, harsh contracts and anti-competitive behavior such as wage fixing and monopoly-creating mergers.

The Commission said the classification of workers wouldn’t affect enforcement, so companies can’t avoid repercussions by classifying people as contractors instead of employees. Violators may have to pay fines and change their practices, and the FTC could partner with other government bodies (such as the Justice Department and National Labor Relations Board) to address issues.

There are gaps. It could be difficult for the FTC to prove algorithm-driven abuse, for instance, and it’s not clear which non-contractual “restraints” might hurt workers’ freedom of movement. However, this could still serve as a warning to gig companies that might hide steep operating costs, fight unionization efforts or collude with rivals to keep wages low.

The FTC isn’t alone in hoping to improve the lot of gig workers. A bipartisan measure in Congress, introduced to the House and Senate this February, is meant to provide portable benefits to gig workers. Last year, the Labor Department revoked a rule that made it harder to protect those workers’ labor rights. States and cities have also filed lawsuits and otherwise taken efforts to bolster working conditions. However, the FTC’s policy provides an extra, nationwide safeguard that might further discourage attempts to exploit the gig economy.

Lawmakers press TikTok about China and user data in Senate hearing

Top executives from Meta, Twitter, YouTube and TikTok just wrapped up a three-hour hearing in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The hearing, which featured Meta CPO Chris Cox, YouTube CPO Neal Mohan, TikTok COO Vanessa Pappas and Twitter’s GM of consumer product (known as “Bluebird”), was meant to be focused on how their services impact national security issues.

Notably, the hearing is only the second time representatives for TikTok and YouTube had ever appeared at such a hearing — Meta and Twitter execs have been hauled in front of Congress far more often — and the first dedicated to security. The hearing also came one day after Twitter’s former security chief turned whistleblower told a different Senate committee that the company had been previously warned by the FBI it had a Chinese spy on its payroll. Yet not one senator on the Homeland Security Committee asked Sullivan about the allegation.

To be clear, Sullivan was unlikely to have given a substantive answer. When asked about whistleblower Peiter Zatko’s claim that Twitter lied to the FTC, he would only say that “Twitter disputes the allegations.” But it was still somewhat shocking that the issue was not raised in a hearing dedicated to social media platforms’ impact on national security. 

Lawmakers did, however, spend considerable time questioning Pappas on TikTok’s connections to China, which has long been a source of suspicion among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.”TikTok does not operate in China,” Pappas said more than once.

At one point, Sen. Josh Hawley got into a heated exchange with Pappas over whether the company has China-based employees who are members of the Chinese Communist Party. “We’ve said many times, Senator, that we do have Chinese engineers based in China,” Pappas said. “I don’t think there’s any platform up here that would be able to speak to what you’re talking about as it relates to the political affiliation of an individual.” She later added that the company’s leadership team is based in the United States and Singapore.

Pappas was also asked about a BuzzFeed News story that TikTok user data had been repeatedly accessed by employees based in China. She said that “those allegations were not found,” and emphasized the company’s “strict access controls” and its work with Oracle.

The TikTok COO was also questioned about the app’s use of biometric data. “We do not use any sort of a facial, voice, audio or body recognition that would identify an individual,” Pappas told Sen. Kristen Sinema. She added that facial recognition is used for augmented reality effects in creators’ videos.

There was a lot less discussion of other security-related issues, including social media companies’ handling of domestic extremism. Committee Chairman Sen. Gary Peters pressed Cox and Mohan and why Meta and YouTube didn’t crack down on QAnon more quickly. Both side-stepped the question by focusing on their current policies. Other lawmakers chose to spend their time questioning the companies about their handling of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic and other content moderation issues. 

And, as with previous hearings, the executives were often reluctant to provide specific answers even to seemingly straightforward questions. Peters repeatedly asked each executive how many engineers each company had on staff — a question he said they were notified would be coming in advance — but none would give a direct answer. “I’ll be honest, I’m frustrated that chief product officers — all of you have a prominent seat at the table where these business decisions are made — were not more prepared,” Peters said. “Your companies continue to really avoid you sharing some very important information with us.”