US Democrats have urged the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to crack down on deceptive practices in the Virtual Private Network (VPN) industry, The Verge has reported. In an open letter, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) cited research indicating that three-quarters of the most popular VPNs "misrepresented their products," leading consumers to a false sense of security.

The news comes in the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade that allows states to ban abortions. That may lead people to sign up for VPN services, but Wyden and Eshoo expressed concerns about the level of privacy they can actually expect.

 "Advocacy groups have... found that leading VPN services intentionally misrepresent the functionality of their product and fail to provide adequate security to their users," they said, citing research from Consumer Reports. "We’re highly concerned that this deceptive advertising is giving abortion-seekers a false sense of security when searching for abortion-related care or information, putting them at a higher risk of prosecution."

The letter notes that "there are a lack of practical tools" to audit security claims made by VPN providers, allowing them to advertise data that may be incorrect. They also asked the FTC to develop a brochure informing anyone seeking an abortion about online privacy and the risks and benefits of using a VPN service.

"With abortion illegal or soon to be illegal in 13 states and severely restricted in many more, these abusive and exploitative data practices are simply unacceptable," according to the letter. "We urge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take immediate action... to curtail abusive and deceptive data practices in companies providing VPN services to protect internet users seeking abortions."

Congressional Democrats are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy to address the recent proliferation of cryptocurrency mining within the US. In a letter sent Friday (via The Guardian), Senator Elizabeth Warren and five other lawmakers said the two agencies should work together to require crypto mining firms to disclose their energy use and emissions.

The request comes after the group recently completed an investigation that began at the start of the year. According to the letter, data collected from seven of the largest mining companies in the US, including Stronghold, Bitfury and Riot, indicates they can collectively use more than 1 gigawatt of electricity. Put another way, that’s almost enough to power all the residential buildings in Houston.

Warren and the other lawmakers say they’re concerned about what all that power use will mean for the environment and consumers. Regarding the former, they state that emissions data from three of the surveyed companies indicate they emit approximately 1.6 million tons of CO2 annually or the equivalent of the tailpipe emissions of almost 360,000 cars. “Bitcoin miners are using huge quantities of electricity that could be used for other priority end uses that contribute to our electrification and climate goals, such as replacing home furnaces with heat pumps,” the letter states.

On the latter point, the lawmakers cite a 2021 study from the University of California, Berkeley that estimated crypto mining in upstate New York raised annual electricity bills by approximately $165 million for small businesses and $79 million for consumers. What's more, they say their investigation doesn’t even scratch the surface of the full impact of crypto mining on power use and emissions in the US. “None of the companies provided full and complete information in response to our questions,” they note.

“The results of our investigation, which gathered data from just seven companies, are disturbing, with this limited data alone revealing that crypto miners are large energy users that account for a significant – and rapidly growing – amount of carbon emissions,” the letter states. By requiring crypto mining firms to disclose their energy use and emissions, the group says the EPA and Department of Energy could provide lawmakers with better data to inform future policy decisions. The agencies have until August 15th to respond to the request.

Removing Chinese equipment from American wireless networks will cost more than anticipated. On Friday, Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel told Congress the agency needs an additional $3 billion to reimburse carriers that “rip and replace” their Huawei and ZTE infrastructure, reports Reuters.

In 2020, former President Donald Trump signed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, mandating that US telecoms replace any “suspect foreign network equipment” from their networks. The bill also required the FCC to create a program for compensating affected carriers. That same year, the agency estimated it would cost telecoms more than $1.8 billion to comply with the order, though it eventually set aside $1.9 billion for reimbursements.

After receiving 181 applications at the start of 2022, the FCC said US carriers had collectively asked for $5.6 billion to replace all their Huawei and ZTE equipment. On Friday, Rosenworcel said that funding “all reasonable and supported cost estimates” would cost a total of $4.98 billion, indicating the FCC found merit in the majority of claims it received at the start of the year.

"Absent an additional appropriation, the Commission will apply the prioritization scheme Congress specified," Rosenworcel said in a letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. She added the FCC would begin processing reimbursements “as allocations are issued in the coming days.” Without additional funding from Congress, the FCC only has enough to reimburse companies about 40 percent of their costs.

The FCC's 25Mbps broadband standard seemed fast in 2015, but that was seven years ago — and the agency's current leadership believes it's time to raise that baseline. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has proposed raising the minimum definition of broadband to 100Mbps for downloads and 20Mbps for uploads. The previous 25/3 benchmark is both outdated and hides just how many low-income and rural internet users are being "left behind and left offline," Rosenworcel said.

The chair said multiple pieces of evidence supported the hike, including requirements for new network construction stemming from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The FCC had already proposed upgrades to rural speeds through a special program, but this would affect the definition of broadband regardless of where users live in the country.

Rosenworcel also wanted the minimum speed to evolve over time. She proposed setting a much higher standard of 1Gbps down and 500Mbps up for some point in the future. The leader further suggested more criteria for determining the "reasonable and timely" rollout of broadband, including adoption rates, affordability, availability and equitable access.

It's unclear if the standards change will move forward. Ars Technicanotes any proposed upgrade would require a vote, and the current commission is deadlocked with two Democrats and two Republics. As the Senate has done little to advance commissioner nominee Gigi Sohn, there's no guarantee Rosenworcel (a Democrat) will get her way. Telecoms might not be thrilled, either. Comcast only last year raised the speed of its $10 Essentials tier to 50Mbps downstream — it and other carriers might have to invest in better networks to reach the 100Mbps minimum in some areas, let alone a possible 1Gbps threshold.

Twitter’s role in the January 6th insurrection is once again in the spotlight. During a hearing on Tuesday, the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack played testimony from a former Twitter employee who said they tried to warn others at the company that there would be violence on January 6th.

The committee pointed to a December 19th tweet from former President Donald Trump in which he promised a “wild” protest in Washington D.C. on January 6th. The tweet, they said, “served as a call to action, and in some cases as a call to arms” to his supporters.

By January 5th, the former Twitter employee said that it was clear the protest would turn violent, but that “no intervention was coming.” The committee didn’t identify the former employee, whose voice was obscured in the recorded testimony. Representative Jamie Raskin said the former employee “was on the team responsible for platform and content moderation policies” and worked at the company throughout 2020 and 2021.

“I had been begging and anticipating and attempting to raise the reality that if we made no intervention into what I saw, people were going to die,” the employee said. “And on January 5th, I realized no intervention was coming.”

The employee also stated that Twitter had considered changing its rules earlier in 2020 following Trump’s comments telling the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” during a presidential debate, but that the company ultimately declined to do so.

When asked if another Twitter user would have been able to take the same actions as Trump without being suspended, the employee replied “no.” They stated that Twitter enjoyed the notoriety that came with being Trump’s preferred social media platform. “I believe Twitter relished in the knowledge that they were also the favorite and most used service of the former president, and enjoyed having that sort of power within the social media ecosystem.”

In a statement, Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, VP of Public Policy at Twitter, said the company is “clear-eyed” about its role in the events leading up to January 6th. 

“We are clear-eyed about our role in the broader information ecosystem in regards to the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, and while we continue to examine how we can improve moving forward, the fact remains that we took unprecedented steps and invested significant resources to prepare for and respond to the threats that emerged during the 2020 US election,” Herrera-Flanigan said. “On January 6th, we leveraged the systems we had built leading up to the election to respond to the unprecedented attack in real-time and are committed to iterating on this work in order to address violent extremism in the US and globally.”

As of September 1st, New York residents who want to carry concealed handguns will need to submit their social media accounts as part of their permit application. They'll need to provide details of active and inactive accounts from the previous three years, along with at least four references.

The accounts will be used to review the applicant's “character and conduct,” according to the Associated Press. Those seeking a permit need to show that they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others.” Local sheriffs' staff, judges and country clerks will be tasked with looking at social media accounts for warning signs.

The measure was included in legislation that Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law last week. The legislation was passed to enact some gun restrictions following a Supreme Court ruling determining that most people have the right to carry a handgun for their own protection.

Hochul acknowledged that shooters often share details or hints of plans to harm others online. The person accused of killing 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas in May reportedly harassed and threatened to hurt girls and young women on social media apps. Suspects of other mass shootings have posted manifestos online before attacks took place.

Critics have taken issue with the social media provision of the legislation. It's unclear how the state will address concerns over privacy and free speech, and how it will assess the intent of applicants' social media posts.

Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association, argued that the law infringes rights under the Second Amendment and suggested local officials may not actually review an applicant's social media accounts. “I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe told the AP. “I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy.” Others have expressed concern about the law in relation to surveillance of people of color.

A UFO-obsessed Republican Congressman has introduced an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act to offer new protection for UFO whistleblowers. Rep. Mike Gallagher has pushed for a new rule to establish a process for receiving reports concerning Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). It’s hoped that, with these in place, soldiers and contractors will feel more comfortable sharing details of unexplained phenomena they see on the battlefield.

The Drive suggests that this could be a way of resolving the ever-present rumors that the government has evidence of extra-terrestrial life. Those who come forward should feel comfortable that they will not be breaking secrets laws, and will be protected from reprisals. There are some on the UFO speaker circuit, for instance, who say they have proof of alien life but can’t reveal it for fear of imprisonment.

The notion that the US has had secret dealings with alien life is something of a hobby-horse for Gallagher. Back in May, Politico reported that Gallagher used a House Intelligence Committee meeting to needle Pentagon officials about a glowing orb floating over Montana that briefly shut down a nuclear weapons facility in 1967. That story apparently comes from the book Unidentified: The UFO Phenomenon, from former USAF airman Robert Salas. At the time, Pentagon officials denied that there was any secret trove of evidence concerning alien life.

In 2020, the Pentagon released a series of videos that it had received concerning UAPs, showing pilots capturing something moving across their view. But officials added that there was nothing more to share, and that it has not been able to prove to anyone's satisfaction that the events featured are the result of alien incursion. 

Insulting someone online could land an individual in Japan a one-year prison term under an amendment to the country’s penal code enacted on Thursday morning. Following the apparent suicide of Hana Kimura and a paltry ¥9,000 (around $81) fine for one of the men accused of bullying the Terrace House star in 2020, government officials began a review of Japan’s cyberbullying laws. Under the previous version of the country’s penal code, the punishment for posting online insults was a fine of ¥10,000 or less and fewer than 30 days in prison. Now, the law allows for financial penalties of up to ¥300,000 or about $2,200.

Despite pressure from the public on the government to tackle cyberbullying, the bill that introduced the amendment was controversial. CNNreports it only passed after Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party added a provision that calls on the government to review the law in three years to examine its impact on freedom of expression. As The Verge points out, there are also concerns the law isn’t specific enough about what counts as an insult.

The country’s penal code defines insults as an effort to demean someone without referencing specific facts about them – defamation, by contrast, includes reference to specific traits. "There needs to be a guideline that makes a distinction on what qualifies as an insult," Seiho Cho, a criminal lawyer in Japan, told CNN. “At the moment, even if someone calls the leader of Japan an idiot, then maybe under the revised law that could be classed as an insult.”

After more than a year of rising tensions over the country’s sweeping 2021 IT law, Twitter is suing India’s government. The New York Times reports the company filed a complaint on Tuesday with the Karnataka High Court in Bangalore to challenge a recent order to censor content within the country. According to Twitter, it had until Monday to block about a dozen accounts and posts or face possible criminal action. While the company complied with the order, it’s now also seeking legal relief.

Twitter declined to comment. The challenge comes after the company reportedly told the Indian government last summer it was compliant with the country’s IT rules. As part of the law, Twitter was required to hire a domestic compliance officer and a point of contact for local authorities.

Before that point, Twitter’s relationship with India had been strained for much of 2021. In February, the government threatened to jail Twitter employees unless the company removed content related to the farmer protests held that year. Two months later, India ordered Twitter to pull tweets that criticized the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

More recently, the government ordered Twitter to block tweets from Freedom House, a nonprofit organization that said India was an example of a country where freedom of the press is on the decline. “Freedom House is concerned that the Indian government ordered Twitter to restrict our tweets last year,” the group said. “We think that both governments and tech companies should uphold free expression, privacy and other fundamental freedoms.”

In a letter to nine Republican senators, TikTok said it's working to "remove any doubt about the security of US user data." CEO Shou Zi Chew reiterated a claim that TikTok stores American user data on servers run by Oracle, which will be audited by a third party. Chew also said the company expects to "delete US users' protected data from our own systems and fully pivot to Oracle cloud servers located in the US."

"[We] are working with Oracle on new, advanced data security controls that we hope to finalize in the near future," Chew wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times. "That work puts us closer to the day when we will be able to pivot toward a novel and industry-leading system for protecting the data of our users in the United States, with robust, independent oversight to ensure compliance."

Chew was responding to questions in a letter sent by the Republican senators — including Roger Wicker, the ranking Republican member of the Senate Commerce Committee — following a report by BuzzFeed News. The publication reported last month that China-based engineers of ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, accessed non-public data on users in the US between at least September 2021 and January 2022.

The report also prompted Brendan Carr, the Federal Communication Commission's senior Republican commissioner, to call on Apple and Google to remove the TikTok app from their stores. Carr requested a response from the companies by July 8th if they choose not to remove TikTok from the App Store and Play Store, respectively.

In the letter, Chew refuted much of BuzzFeed News' reporting, though conceded that ByteDance workers outside the US can access American user data "subject to a series of robust cybersecurity controls and authorization approval protocols overseen by our US-based security team. In addition, TikTok has an internal data classification system and approval process in place that assigns levels of access based on the data's classification and requires approvals for access to US user data."

Legislators have been raising security concerns about TikTok over the last few years. In August 2020, then-president Donald Trump signed an executive order that would have made it difficult, if not impossible, for the app to operate in the US. The following month, Trump approved, in principle, a deal that would see Oracle and Walmart take a stake in a new company that would run TikTok's business in the US. Microsoft was also in the running to secure a deal.

A federal judge struck down Trump's order just before it was supposed to take effect. President Joe Biden rescinded the order in January 2021, but signed a separate one that required a security review of that app and WeChat. The following month, the Oracle and Walmart deal was reportedly put on hold indefinitely.