The controversial EARN IT Act, first introduced in 2020, is returning to Congress after failing twice to land on the president’s desk. The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, (EARN IT) Act is intended to minimize the proliferation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) throughout the web, but detractors say it goes too far and risks further eroding online privacy protections.

Here's how it would work, according to the language of the bill's reintroduction last year. Upon passing, EARN IT would create a national commission composed of politically-appointed law enforcement specialists. This body would be tasked with making a list of best practices to ostensibly curb the digital distribution of CSAM. If online service providers do not abide by these best practices, they would potentially lose blanket immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, opening them up to all kinds of legal hurdles — including civil lawsuits and criminal charges.

Detractors say EARN IT places a whole lot of power to regulate the internet in the hands of the commission the bill would create as well as state legislatures. Additionally, language in last year's bill suggests that these guidelines would likely extend to encrypted information, so if an encrypted transmission runs afoul of any guidelines, the platform is on the hook. This will force providers to monitor encrypted communications, which goes against the whole point of encryption in the first place. Additionally, end-to-end encryption is designed so that not even the platform can read the contents. In other words, providers might not be able to offer those protections. 

“This was a dangerous bill two years ago, and because it’s doubled down on its anti-encryption stance, it’s even more dangerous now,” The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School wrote in a blog post last year, a stance also mirrored by the Center for Democracy and Technology. The American Civil Liberties Union, pushing back on a prior version of the bill, said that it "threatens our online speech and privacy rights in ways that will disproportionately harm LGBTQ people, sex workers and others who use the internet to privately communicate and share information and resources."

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) has come out in defense of the bill, saying that it will “incentivize technology companies to proactively search for and remove” CSAM materials. “Tech companies have the technology to detect, remove, and stop the distribution of child sexual abuse material. However, there is no incentive to do so because they are subject to no consequences for their inaction,” wrote Erin Earp, RAINN’s interim vice president for public policy.

The bipartisan Senate bills have consistently been introduced by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal, and their companion bills in the House likewise have been sponsored by Republican Representative Ann Wagner and Democrat Representative Sylvia Garcia. The full text of H.R.2732 is not publicly available yet, so it's unclear if anything has changed since last year's attempt, though when reintroduced last year it was more of the same. (We've reached out to the offices of Reps. Wagner and Garcia for a copy of the bill's text.) A member of Senator Graham's office confirmed to Engadget that the companion bill will be introduced within the next week. It also remains to be seen if and when this will come up for a vote. Both prior versions of EARN IT died in committee before ever coming to a vote.

Arkansas has become the second state to pass a law requiring social media platforms to verify the ages of their users. Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has signed the “Social Media Safety Act” into law, which requires companies verify the ages of users under 18 and to gain parental consent before minors create new accounts.

Utah recently passed similar measures, which also impose strict rules on how social media platforms handle the accounts of their youngest users, including an age verification requirement. The laws are part of a growing movement to enforce age verification measures and other age-based restrictions for social media companies. At least three other states are currently considering similar legislation.

The laws are also controversial. While lawmakers have for years called for more protections for teens on social media, privacy advocates and civil rights groups have opposed age verification mandates. Likewise, some child safety groups have argued that comprehensive privacy legislation would be a more effective way to protect children.

Under the Arkansas law, slated to take effect in September, companies are required to check the ages of their users via government-issued IDs like a driver’s license or “any commercially reasonable age verification method.” But, as CNNnotes, it’s not entirely clear which companies will be forced to comply with the law. The legislation includes a number of exemptions that would seem to excuse some prominent platforms.

For example, it states that platforms focused on “professional networking” and “career development” are exempt, which would seem to be a direct reference to LinkedIn. It also has exceptions for gaming-focused companies, as well as companies that allow “a user to generate short video clips of dancing, voice overs, or other acts of entertainment in which the primary purpose is not educational or informative,” which could be interpreted as excluding TikTok.

The Biden-Harris administration has proposed stricter pollution standards across the auto industry as part of their goal to increase EV production and slow climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new guidelines would mean that, by 2032, 67 percent of new light-duty vehicles, such as sedans and light trucks, and 46 percent of new medium-duty vehicles sold will be EVs. The proposed changes could also lead to almost 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions to be avoided through 2055 — about double the US's 2022 emissions. 

Details on the proposed emissions standards aren’t fully clear, but are set to include targets for EV sales and new rules that punish automakers who exceed CO2 standards within the next five to ten years. "Specifically, EPA is proposing stronger CO2 standards for MY 2027 HD vehicles that go beyond the current standards that apply under the HD Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas program," the agency said in a statement. "EPA is also is proposing an additional set of CO2 standards for HD vehicles that would begin to apply in MY 2028, with progressively lower standards each model year through 2032." 

This year has already seen continued progress for EV manufacturing and sales. Tesla reported increased first quarter sales that were 36 percent higher than the same period in 2022, and four percent higher than the last quarter. Volkswagen pledged $193 billion dollars towards EV technology, including batteries and raw materials, over the next five years.

EV purchases are clearly heading in the direction the Biden administration hopes: EV sales accounted for 5.6 percent in 2022, compared to 1.8 percent in 2020. In California, EVs made up almost 19 percent of yearly new car sales. That upswing is set to continue in 2023 with 225,000 EVs sold in the first quarter — about seven percent of all new vehicles. The same period saw used EV purchases increase by almost a third, thanks potentially to their prices decreasing.

At the same time, cost is still a huge barrier for making EVs mainstream. Last year, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, providing EV buyers subsidies up to $7,500 for SUVs, trucks, and vans under $80,000 and cars under $55,000. Even used EV purchases could get up to $4,000. Recent updated guidance from the US Treasury Department, however, limited how many EVs would qualify for a subsidy. 

Another issue is making sure people have somewhere to charge all these EVs while they're on the go. Currently, there are 130,000 public charging stations across the United States, with President Biden aiming to tackle demand by building another 500,000 by 2030. Part of this plan entails teaming with local officials to build them in widely accessible spaces, with regional governments needing to apply for funds by May 30th. If all goes well, no one would live farther than 50 miles from a charger. 

American officials are taking further steps to set rules for AI systems like ChatGPT. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is asking for public comments on possible regulations that hold AI creators accountable. The measures will ideally help the Biden administration ensure that these models work as promised "without causing harm," the NTIA says.

While the request is open-ended, the NTIA suggests input on areas like incentives for trustworthy AI, safety testing methods and the amount of data access needed to assess systems. The agency is also wondering if different strategies might be necessary for certain fields, such as healthcare.

Comments are open on the AI accountability measure until June 10th. The NTIA sees rulemaking as potentially vital. There's already a "growing number of incidents" where AI has done damage, the overseer says. Rules could not only prevent repeats of those incidents, but minimize the risks from threats that might only be theoretical.

ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have already been tied to sensitive data leaks and copyright violations, and have prompted fears of automated disinformation and malware campaigns. There are also basic concerns about accuracy and bias. While developers are tackling these issues with more advanced systems, researchers and tech leaders have been worried enough to call for a six-month pause on AI development to improve safety and address ethical questions.

The Biden administration hasn't taken a definitive stance on the risks associated with AI. President Biden discussed the topic with advisors last week, but said it was too soon to know if the technology was dangerous. With the NTIA move, the government is closer to a firm position — whether or not it believes AI is a major problem.

California will require more than half of all heavy trucks sold in the state to be electric by 2035. The rule received approval from the Biden administration today, allowing it to take effect next year, according toThe New York Times. California approved the mandate in 2020 but needed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waiver because it exceeded federal standards.

The rule aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. By 2035, it requires 55 percent of delivery vans and small trucks sold in California to be entirely electric-powered. Similarly, 40 percent of tractor-trailers and 75 percent of buses and larger trucks must be all-electric by the same deadline.

California Governor Gavin Newsom sees the mandate as a bellwether for the nation. “This is a moment to mark because it’s a preview of the order of magnitude of the change in the industry,” Newsom told The New York Times. “There’s a power in these waivers and that power is emulation. We adopt through these waivers the principles and policies that lead to innovation and investment.” Given the size and centrality of California’s economy (it would be the world’s fifth-biggest economy if it were a sovereign nation), the rule would, in practice, essentially apply nationwide — similar to the state’s ban on sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

The trucking industry has criticized the move for its costs and infrastructure requirements. “Drivers don’t want to work in California anymore,” said Jay Grimes, director of federal affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association. “They’re skeptical of the rapid timeline on this transition to electric trucks. Can a trucker get a charge that will take them on a highway for two or three days? Is the technology ready for prime time?” He adds that batteries for electric trucks can weigh thousands of pounds more than combustion engines, potentially limiting hauls. Other truckers have questioned whether the charging station rollout will be adequate for long trips. Finally, electric trucks are more expensive, starting at around $100,000 and stretching into high six figures (although the pricing discrepancies compared to gas trucks could drop over time).

Unsurprisingly, attorneys general from 17 Republican-led states are suing to block the legislation. That list includes (among others) Texas AG Ken Paxton, who has received over $3.9 million in fossil fuel donations since 2002, and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry, who has raked in over $875,000 from oil and gas industries. Their lawsuit is scheduled for the US Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, later this year and could move to the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court afterward.

Clean energy groups acknowledge the mandate’s difficulties but strike an optimistic tone. “There’s a great deal of challenge with the electrification of heavy-duty vehicles,” said Drew Kodjak, executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation. “But there are elements that lead to optimism.” For example, he points out that government tax incentives and savings from not having to buy gasoline will help with long-term costs. “Companies like FedEx look at the bottom line over the total life span of a vehicle. And when they look long-term, the calculations for this become more optimistic.”

Last year, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (then Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced that the Royal Mint would issue an official NFT (non-fungible token) as a "forward-looking approach" toward crypto. Now, with the shine well off the technology, the Treasury has announced that it's "not proceeding with the launch" after all, the BBC reported. 

NFTs were still the crypto trend du jour when the government said it would create a "dynamic regulatory landscape," to nurture a bustling industry. It also planned legislation to introduce stablecoins into the country's payment infrastructure, while considering the legal status of exchanges and investment funds based around cryptocurrency.

The Treasury isn't as enthusiastic now, though, as Select Committee chair Harriet Baldwin expressed in a juicy quote: "We have not yet seen a lot of evidence that our constituents should be putting their money in these speculative tokens unless they are prepared to lose all their money. So perhaps that is why the Royal Mint has made this decision in conjunction with the Treasury." 

The rejection follows a reported drop in the NFT market to the tune of 83 percent in sales in a single year. It also coincides with the failure of key crypto exchanges, particularly FTX — which saw untold sums of investor money go up in smoke. 

While aware of the potential for scams, bubbles and environmental harms, UK's economic secretary at the time, John Glen, saw the NFT project as an opportunity to "get in on the ground floor" of a potential crypto industry boom. And despite the recent collapse, current economy secretary Andrew Griffiths said the department is still keeping a government backed NFT "under review." 

In an executive order signed Monday, President Biden barred federal agencies from using commercial spyware that threatens US national security or carries a risk of improper use by foreign governments and individuals. The order applies to all departments, including those involved in law enforcement, defense and intelligence. It also prohibits the use of spyware that in the past was used to disclose non-public information about the US government.

The executive order the Biden administration published on the White House website doesn’t include a list of affected spyware vendors. Per TechCrunch, government officials declined to name specific firms when asked by reporters. However, the administration said the order includes US and foreign-made spyware. Judging from the criteria laid out in the order, known government spyware makers like Isreal’s NSO Group and Macedonia’s Cytrox are likely affected.

As TechCrunch notes, security researchers have long warned of the dangers posed by commercial spyware. Such programs frequently target previously undisclosed vulnerabilities that make entire software ecosystems unsafe. In the case of NSO Group’s infamous Pegasus spyware, the firm exploited a CoreGraphics vulnerability in iOS that allowed the program to infect an iPhone without the victim needing to tap anything. Moreover, while many governments claim to use spyware sparingly to investigate serious crimes, that hasn’t stopped some from using the software for domestic surveillance and to target political dissidents.

“We are very concerned about the threat of digital authoritarianism and practices around the world but we are also very cognizant that the misuse of technology can occur in any state,” a White House official told The Hill. “So, we are taking steps to make sure that the way that we would like technology to be used is aligned with human rights and democratic principles all around the world.”

On Monday, the Biden administration said at least 50 US federal employees in 10 countries are either suspected or confirmed of having had their devices compromised by spyware. In one recent example, an unknown assailant used the Pegasus spyware to infect iPhones belonging to at least nine US State Department officials stationed in Uganda or whose work involved the East African country. The order follows questions about the US government’s alleged use of commercial spyware. Last fall, The New York Times reported that the FBI had considered using Pegasus in criminal investigations. Between late 2020 and early 2021, agency officials were reportedly in the “advanced” stages of developing plans to brief FBI leadership on the software.

It's no shock to see another country banning TikTok from government phones, but France is taking the restrictions a step further. Le Mondereports the French government is banning "recreational" apps like TikTok, Twitter, Netflix and even Candy Crush from public servants' devices. The apps represent cybersecurity risks that could jeopardize data for both the employees and the administration, according to the office of public service minister Stanislas Guerini.

The government hasn't provided an exact list of banned apps. However, Guerini said certain there could be some exceptions for the sake of necessary communication. This won't prevent a social media team from posting content, in other words. The ban takes effect immediately, but the penalties for defying the rule can be decided at the "managerial level," Guerini's office says. The approach doesn't affect personal devices.

The clampdown comes after the US federal government, dozens of states, Canada, the European Commission and the UK have banned TikTok on their workers' devices. In those cases, the rationale has been similar: officials are worried the Chinese government could collect data about important individuals, spread propaganda and compel ByteDance (TikTok's parent company) to hand over sensitive information.

TikTok has repeatedly denied collaborating with the Chinese government. In testimony before a House committee yesterday, CEO Shou Chew said ByteDance was "not an agent of China" and that American user data wouldn't be accessible to staff in other countries by the time a migration project wraps up later this year.

The French policy, however, isn't aimed at any one country or app category. Instead, it represents a general concern that entertainment apps may put government data at unnecessary risk. That's not so hot for employees hoping to watch Netflix during lunch, but it may reassure politicians worried employees might inadvertently expose info through their social media accounts.

Any images that are produced by giving a text prompt to current generative AI models, such as Midjourney or Stable Diffusion, cannot be copyrighted in the US. That's according to the US Copyright Office (USCO), which has equated such prompts to a buyer giving directions to a commissioned artist. "They identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output," the USCO wrote in new guidance it published to the Federal Register.

"When an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology — not the human user," the office stated.

It noted that the level of human creativity involved in a work is a significant consideration as to whether it will grant copyright protection. It suggested that current AI models can't generate copyrightable work. "Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material," the USCO said. "In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity." In one famous case, the office ruled that it couldn't allow selfies taken by a monkey to be copyrighted.

When it comes to works that contain material generated by an AI, the USCO looks at whether the model's contributions to the work are the result of "mechanical reproduction" (i.e., generated in response to text prompts) or if they represent the author's "own mental conception." Current rules state that the USCO “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.”

However, the office has left the door open to granting copyright protections to work with AI-generated elements. "The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work," it said. "This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry. If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it."

Last month, the USCO determined that images generated by Midjourney and used in a graphic novel were not copyrightable. However, it said the text and layout of Kris Kashtanova's Zarya of the Dawn could be afforded copyright protection. The office said there was too much “distance” between Kashtanova's inputs and Midjourney's output for the images to be copyrightable. Kashtanova's lawyers have said that by focusing on the output rather than the input, the office "applied the wrong legal standard."

Meanwhile, the USCO has started an initiative to further explore copyright law and policy issues related to AI following requests from Congress and the public. It will host several panel discussions on the topics in April and May. The office plans to solicit public comments later this year on a swathe of copyright issues relating to the use of AI.

The UK has become the latest major jurisdiction to ban TikTok from government devices. The measure is in place with immediate effect following a security review ordered by ministers. The move is part of broader restrictions on third-party apps on government devices.

"The security of sensitive government information must come first, so today we are banning this app on government devices," Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Oliver Dowden, the government's second highest-ranking minister, said in a statement. "The use of other data-extracting apps will be kept under review."

Dowden noted in Parliament that this is a precautionary measure. "We know there is already limited use of TikTok across government, but it is also good cyber hygiene," he said.

The ban is intended to protect sensitive data on government devices as well to prevent things like location data harvesting. The measure doesn't apply to personal devices belonging to government employees, ministers or the public. In addition, the UK government will only allow its staff to use a third-party app on an official device if it's on an approved list.

There will be exceptions to the TikTok ban in cases where the app is needed for work purposes, such as for law enforcement or those working on projects related to online harms. These exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis and security measures will need to be in place.

The government noted that people should be aware of each app's data policies. It said TikTok requires users to give permission for the app to access certain information stored on a phone or tablet, such as geolocation data and contacts. Officials say they are worried about how this data may be used.

Leaders in many countries and other territories have expressed concern that China may gain access to their residents' or officials' data through TikTok. ByteDance, which owns TikTok, is headquartered in Beijing. Many legislatures have banned TikTok from government-owned devices in recent months, including the US, dozens of states, Canada and the European Commission.

On Wednesday, it was widely reported (and confirmed by TikTok) that the US government has told ByteDance to sell the app or face a complete ban in the country. There are several pieces of legislation in progress that seek to grant President Joe Biden or the Commerce Secretary the power to ban TikTok. The reported development comes almost three years after former President Donald Trump attempted to force ByteDance to sell TikTok and a week before TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew will testify before a House committee.