US Congressional staff members can no longer use Microsoft's Copilot on their government-issued devices, according to Axios. The publication said it obtained a memo from House Chief Administrative Officer Catherine Szpindor, telling Congress personnel that the AI chatbot is now officially prohibited. Apparently, the Office of Cybersecurity has deemed Copilot to be a risk "due to the threat of leaking House data to non-House approved cloud services." While there's nothing stopping them from using Copilot on their own phones and laptops, it will now be blocked on all Windows devices owned by the Congress. 

Almost a year ago, the Congress also set a strict limit on the use of ChatGPT, which is powered by OpenAI's large language models, just like Copilot. It banned staffers from using the chatbot's free version on House computers, but it allowed them to continue using the paid (ChatGPT Plus) version for research and evaluation due to its tighter privacy controls. More recently, the White House revealed rules federal agencies have to follow when it comes to generative AI, which would ensure that any tool they use "do not endanger the rights and safety" of Americans. 

Microsoft told Axios that it does recognize government users' need for higher security requirements. Last year, it announced a roadmap of tools and services meant for government use, including an Azure OpenAI service for classified workloads and a new version of Microsoft 365's Copilot assistant. The company said that all those tools and services will feature higher levels of security that would make it more suitable for handling sensitive data. Szpindor's office, according to Axios, will evaluate the government version Copilot when it becomes available before deciding if it can be used on House devices. 

It's been five months since President Joe Biden signed an executive order (EO) to address the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. The White House is today taking another step forward in implementing the EO with a policy that aims to regulate the federal government's use of AI. Safeguards that the agencies must have in place include, among other things, ways to mitigate the risk of algorithmic bias.

"I believe that all leaders from government, civil society and the private sector have a moral, ethical and societal duty to make sure that artificial intelligence is adopted and advanced in a way that protects the public from potential harm while ensuring everyone is able to enjoy its benefits," Vice President Kamala Harris told reporters on a press call.

Harris announced three binding requirements under a new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) policy. First, agencies will need to ensure that any AI tools they use "do not endanger the rights and safety of the American people." They have until December 1 to make sure they have in place "concrete safeguards" to make sure that AI systems they're employing don't impact Americans' safety or rights. Otherwise, the agency will have to stop using an AI product unless its leaders can justify that scrapping the system would have an "unacceptable" impact on critical operations.

Impact on Americans' rights and safety

Per the policy, an AI system is deemed to impact safety if it "is used or expected to be used, in real-world conditions, to control or significantly influence the outcomes of" certain activities and decisions. Those include maintaining election integrity and voting infrastructure; controlling critical safety functions of infrastructure like water systems, emergency services and electrical grids; autonomous vehicles; and operating the physical movements of robots in "a workplace, school, housing, transportation, medical or law enforcement setting."

Unless they have appropriate safeguards in place or can otherwise justify their use, agencies will also have to ditch AI systems that infringe on the rights of Americans. Purposes that the policy presumes to impact rights defines include predictive policing; social media monitoring for law enforcement; detecting plagiarism in schools; blocking or limiting protected speech; detecting or measuring human emotions and thoughts; pre-employment screening; and "replicating a person’s likeness or voice without express consent."

When it comes to generative AI, the policy stipulates that agencies should assess potential benefits. They all also need to "establish adequate safeguards and oversight mechanisms that allow generative AI to be used in the agency without posing undue risk."

Transparency requirements

The second requirement will force agencies to be transparent about the AI systems they're using. "Today, President Biden and I are requiring that every year, US government agencies publish online a list of their AI systems, an assessment of the risks those systems might pose and how those risks are being managed," Harris said. 

As part of this effort, agencies will need to publish government-owned AI code, models and data, as long as doing so won't harm the public or government operations. If an agency can't disclose specific AI use cases for sensitivity reasons, they'll still have to report metrics

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Last but not least, federal agencies will need to have internal oversight of their AI use. That includes each department appointing a chief AI officer to oversee all of an agency's use of AI. "This is to make sure that AI is used responsibly, understanding that we must have senior leaders across our government who are specifically tasked with overseeing AI adoption and use," Harris noted. Many agencies will also need to have AI governance boards in place by May 27.

The vice president added that prominent figures from the public and private sectors (including civil rights leaders and computer scientists) helped shape the policy along with business leaders and legal scholars.

The OMB suggests that, by adopting the safeguards, the Transportation Security Administration may have to let airline travelers opt out of facial recognition scans without losing their place in line or face a delay. It also suggests that there should be human oversight over things like AI fraud detection and diagnostics decisions in the federal healthcare system.

As you might imagine, government agencies are already using AI systems in a variety of ways. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is working on artificial intelligence models to help it more accurately forecast extreme weather, floods and wildfires, while the Federal Aviation Administration is using a system to help manage air traffic in major metropolitan areas to improve travel time.

"AI presents not only risk, but also a tremendous opportunity to improve public services and make progress on societal challenges like addressing climate change, improving public health and advancing equitable economic opportunity," OMB Director Shalanda Young told reporters. "When used and overseen responsibly, AI can help agencies to reduce wait times for critical government services to improve accuracy and expand access to essential public services."

This policy is the latest in a string of efforts to regulate the fast-evolving realm of AI. While the European Union has passed a sweeping set of rules for AI use in the bloc, and there are federal bills in the pipeline, efforts to regulate AI in the US have taken more of a patchwork approach at state level. This month, Utah enacted a law to protect consumers from AI fraud. In Tennessee, the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act (aka the Elvis Act — seriously) is an attempt to protect musicians from deepfakes i.e. having their voices cloned without permission.

The New York Times reports that Israel’s military intelligence has been using an experimental facial recognition program in Gaza that’s misidentified Palestinian civilians as having ties to Hamas. Google Photos allegedly plays a part in the chilling program’s implementation, although it appears not to be through any direct collaboration with the company.

The surveillance program reportedly started as a way to search for Israeli hostages in Gaza. However, as often happens with new wartime technology, the initiative was quickly expanded to “root out anyone with ties to Hamas or other militant groups,” according to The NYT. The technology is flawed, but Israeli soldiers reportedly haven’t treated it as such when detaining civilians flagged by the system.

According to intelligence officers who spoke to The NYT, the program uses tech from the private Israeli company Corsight. Headquartered in Tel Aviv, it promises its surveillance systems can accurately recognize people with less than half of their faces exposed. It can supposedly be effective even with “extreme angles, (even from drones) darkness, and poor quality.”

But an officer in Israel’s Unit 8200 learned that, in reality, it often struggled with grainy, obscured or injured faces. According to the official, Corsight’s tech included false positives and cases where an accurately identified Palestinian was incorrectly flagged as having Hamas ties.

Three Israeli officers told The NYT that its military used Google Photos to supplement Corsight’s tech. Intelligence officials allegedly uploaded data containing known persons of interest to Google’s service, allowing them to use the app’s photo search feature to flag them among its surveillance materials. One officer said Google’s ability to match partially obscured faces was superior to Corsight’s, but they continued using the latter because it was “customizable.”

Engadget emailed Google for a statement, but we haven’t heard back from them at the time of publication. We’ll update this story if we get a response.

One man erroneously detained through the surveillance program was poet Mosab Abu Toha, who told The NYT he was pulled aside at a military checkpoint in northern Gaza as his family tried to flee to Egypt. He was then allegedly handcuffed and blindfolded, and then beaten and interrogated for two days before finally being returned. He said soldiers told him before his release that his questioning (and then some) had been a “mistake.”

The Things You May Find Hidden in My Ear: Poems From Gaza scribe said he has no connection to Hamas and wasn’t aware of an Israeli facial recognition program in Gaza. However, during his detention, he said he overheard someone saying the Israeli army had used a “new technology” on the group with whom he was incarcerated.

China has introduced guidelines that bar the the use of US processors from AMD and Intel in government computers and servers, The Financial Times has reported. The new rules also block Microsoft Windows and foreign database products in favor of domestic solutions, marking the latest move in a long-running tech trade war between the two countries.

Government agencies must now use "safe and reliable" domestic replacements for AMD and Intel chips. The list includes 18 approved processors, including chips from Huawei and the state-backed company Phytium — both of which are banned in the US. 

The new rules — introduced in December and quietly implemented recently — could have a significant impact on Intel and AMD. China accounted for 27 percent of Intel's $54 billion in sales last year and 15 percent of AMD's revenue of $23 billion, according to the FT. It's not clear how many chips are used in government versus the private sector, however. 

The moves are China's most aggressive yet to restrict the use of US-built technology. Last year, Beijing prohibited domestic firms from using Micron chips in critical infrastructure. Meanwhile, the US has banned a wide range of Chinese companies ranging from chip manufacturers to aerospace firms. The Biden administration has also blocked US companies like NVIDIA from selling AI and other chips to China. 

The US, Japan and the Netherlands have dominated the manufacturing of cutting-edge processors, and those nations recently agreed to tighten export controls on lithography machines from ASL, Nikon and Tokyo Electron. However, Chinese companies, including Baidu, Huawei, Xiaomi and Oppo have already started designing their own semiconductors to prepare for a future wherein they could longer import chips from the US and other countries.

As the Senate considers the bill that would force a sale or ban of TikTok, lawmakers have heard directly from intelligence officials about the alleged national security threat posed by the app. Now, two prominent senators are asking the office of the Director of National Intelligence to declassify and make public what they have shared.

“We are deeply troubled by the information and concerns raised by the intelligence community in recent classified briefings to Congress,” Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal and Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn write. “It is critically important that the American people, especially TikTok users, understand the national security issues at stake.”

The exact nature of the intelligence community's concerns about the app has long been a source of debate. Lawmakers in the House received a similar briefing just ahead of their vote on the bill. But while the briefing seemed to bolster support for the measure, some members said they left unconvinced, with one lawmaker saying that “not a single thing that we heard … was unique to TikTok.”

According to Axios, some senators described their briefing as “shocking,” though the group isn’t exactly known for their particularly nuanced understanding of the tech industry. (Blumenthal, for example, once pressed Facebook executives on whether they would “commit to ending finsta.”) In its report, Axios says that one lawmaker “said they were told TikTok is able to spy on the microphone on users' devices, track keystrokes and determine what the users are doing on other apps.” That may sound alarming, but it’s also a description of the kinds of app permissions social media services have been requesting for more than a decade.

TikTok has long denied that its relationship with parent company ByteDance would enable Chinese government officials to interfere with its service or spy on Americans. And so far, there is no public evidence that TikTok has ever been used in this way. If US intelligence officials do have evidence that is more than hypothetical, it would be a major bombshell in the long-running debate surrounding the app.

A year ago, I visited TikTok’s US headquarters to preview its new “transparency center,” a central piece of its multibillion-dollar effort to convince the US its meme factory isn’t a national security threat. That effort has failed. The company’s negotiations with the government stalled out and the company is now facing its most serious threat to a future in the United States yet.

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that, if passed into law, would force ByteDance to sell TikTok or face an outright ban in the US. That lawmakers view TikTok with suspicion is nothing new. Because TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based in China, they believe the Chinese government could manipulate TikTok’s algorithms or access its users’ data via ByteDance employees. But what has been surprising about the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is that it managed to gather so much support from both sides of the aisle seemingly out of nowhere.

After a surprise introduction, the bipartisan bill cleared committee in two days with a unanimous 50 - 0 vote, and was approved by the full House in a 352 - 65 vote less than a week later. Of the dozens of bills attempting to regulate the tech industry in recent years, including at least two to ban TikTok, none have gained nearly as much momentum.

But the renewed support for banning or forcing a sale of TikTok doesn’t seem to be tied to any newly uncovered information about TikTok, ByteDance or the Chinese Communist Party. Instead, lawmakers have largely been rehashing the same concerns that have been raised about the app for years.

One issue often raised is data access. TikTok, like many of its social media peers, scoops up large amounts of data from its users. The practice has gotten the company into hot water in the past when many of those users were discovered to be minors. Many lawmakers cite its large cache of user data, which they claim could be obtained by Chinese government officials, as one of the most significant risks posed by TikTok.

“Our bipartisan legislation would protect American social media users by driving the divestment of foreign adversary-controlled apps to ensure that Americans are protected from the digital surveillance and influence operations of regimes that could weaponize their personal data against them,” Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, on the bill’s co-sponsors, said in a statement.

TikTok has repeatedly denied sharing any data with the Chinese government and says it would not comply if they were requested to do so. However, ByteDance has been caught mishandling TikTok user data in the past. In 2022, ByteDance fired four employees, including two based in China, for accessing the data of reporters who had written stories critical of the company. There’s no evidence those actions were directed by the Chinese government.

In fact the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act would do little to address the data access issue, experts say. Even if the app was banned or controlled by a different company, Americans’ personal information would remain readily available from the largely unregulated data broker industry.

Data brokers gain access to vast troves of Americans’ personal data via scores of apps, websites, credit card companies and other businesses. Currently, there are few restrictions on what data can be collected or who can buy it. Biden Administration officials have warned that China is already buying up this data, much of it more revealing than anything TikTok collects.

“The data that's been collected about you will almost certainly live longer than you will, and there's really nothing you can do to delete it or get rid of it,” Justin Cappos, an NYU computer science professor and member of the NYU Center for Cybersecurity, told Engadget. “If the US really wants to solve this, the way to do it isn't to blame a social media company in China and make them the face of the problem. It's really to pass the meaningful data privacy regulations and go after [data] collection and go after these data brokers.”

The House recently passed a bill that would bar data brokers from selling Americans’ personal information to “adversary” countries like China. But, if passed, the law wouldn’t address the sale of that data to other entities or the wholesale collection of it to begin with.

Digital rights and free speech advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have also raised the possibility that the US forcing a ban or sale of TikTok could give other countries cover to enact similar bans or restrictions on US-based social media platforms. In a letter to lawmakers opposing the measure, the EFF, American Civil Liberties Union and other groups argued that it would “set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

David Greene, a senior staff attorney at the EFF notes that the United States has forcefully criticized nations that have banned social media apps. “The State Department has been highly critical of countries that have shut down services,” Greene told Engadget, noting that the US condemned the Nigerian government for blocking Twitter in 2021. “Shutting down a whole service is essentially an anti-democratic thing.”

Intelligence officials held a classified briefing with members of Congress about TikTok shortly before the vote on the House floor. That’s led some pundits to believe that there must be new information about TikTok, but some lawmakers have suggested otherwise.“Not a single thing that we heard in today’s classified briefing was unique to TikTok,” Representative Sara Jacobs told the Associated Press. “It was things that happen on every single social media platform.” Likewise, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Jim Hines, said that TikTok is “largely a potential threat … if Congress were serious about dealing with this threat, we would start with a federal privacy bill.”

The House of Representatives approved a measure targeting data brokers’ ability to sell Americans’ personal data to “adversary” countries, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. The Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act passed with a unanimous 414 - 0 vote.

The bill, which was introduced alongside a measure that could force a ban or sale of TikTok, would prohibit data brokers from selling Americans’ “sensitive” data to people or entities in “adversary” countries. Much like a recent executive order from President Joe Biden targeting data brokers, the bill specifically covers geolocation, financial, health, and biometric data, as well as other private information like text logs and phone call history.

If passed — the bill will need Senate approval before landing on Biden's desk — it would represent a significant check on the relatively unregulated data broker industry. US officials have previously warned that China and other geopolitical rivals of the United States have already acquired vast troves of Americans’ information from brokers and privacy advocates have long urged lawmakers to regulate the multibillion-dollar industry.

The bill is the second major piece of bipartisan legislation to come out of the House Energy and Commerce this month. The committee previously introduced the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” which would require TikTok to divest itself from parent company ByteDance or face a ban in the US. In a statement, Representatives Frank Pallone and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, said that the latest bill “builds” on their work to pass the measure targeting TikTok. “Today’s overwhelming vote sends a clear message that we will not allow our adversaries to undermine American national security and individual privacy by purchasing people’s personally identifiable sensitive information from data brokers,” they said.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled its final pollution emissions standards for the auto industry on Wednesday. The regulations, which include a looser timeframe than those proposed last year, mandate that by 2032, most new passenger car and light truck sales in the US must be electric or hybrid.

Earth is on a disastrous trajectory with climate change, and no amount of baseless conspiracy theories or talking points from the oil and gas industry, Donald Trump or anyone else will change that. Only phasing out fossil fuels and emissions will beat back its worst effects. The Biden Administration’s EPA is trying to do that — while throwing a bone to stakeholders like unions and automakers to navigate the landmines of today’s political realities.

The final rules present a timeline to wind down gas-powered vehicle purchases, making most US auto sales fully electric, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or advanced gasoline by 2032. The transition begins in 2027 but moderates the pace until after 2030. That’s a key change from last April’s proposed standards, which called for EVs to make up two-thirds of vehicle sales by 2032.

The shift was an election-year compromise for Biden, who has to balance the crucial battle against climate change with 2024 auto union endorsements. Labor unions had pushed for the more relaxed pace out of fears that a more aggressive transition, like the EPA proposed last year, would lead to job losses. EVs typically require fewer assembly workers than traditional gas-powered vehicles.

Last year, United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain withheld support for Biden’s reelection due to concerns about the EV transition. But (perhaps after hearing assurances about the revised rules) the UAW endorsed his reelection bid in January.

“The EPA has made significant progress on its final greenhouse gas emissions rule for light-duty vehicles,” the UAW wrote in a statement about the new rules published by the EPA. “By taking seriously the concerns of workers and communities, the EPA has come a long way to create a more feasible emissions rule that protects workers building ICE vehicles, while providing a path forward for automakers to implement the full range of automotive technologies to reduce emissions.”

Contrary to what online misinformation or your uncle may tell you, the rules — aimed at the auto industry and not consumers — don't make gas-powered cars and trucks illegal. Instead, they require automakers to meet specific emissions standards throughout their product lines. The rules apply to new vehicle sales, not used ones.

The EPA says the final rule will lead to $99 billion in benefits and save the average American driver $6,000 in fuel and maintenance over the life of their vehicles. Other advantages include avoiding 7.2 billion additional tons of CO2 emissions through 2055 and offering “nearly $100 billion of annual net benefits to society.” The reduction in fine particulate matter and ozone will allegedly prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths in 2055 while reducing associated health problems like heart attacks, asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” President Biden wrote in a statement supplied by The White House to Engadget. “I brought together American automakers. I brought together American autoworkers. Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead. Today, we’re setting new pollution standards for cars and trucks. U.S. workers will lead the world on autos making clean cars and trucks, each stamped ‘Made in America.’”

Intel is getting a huge boost from the US government under the CHIPS and Science Act. The company could get up to $8.5 billion in direct funding from the government, according to the preliminary agreement it has reached with the Department of Commerce. That money will go towards the chipmaker's efforts to expand its manufacturing facilities in the United States, particularly plants designed to make leading-edge semiconductor chips meant for use in AI and other advanced applications.

The government's investment is expected to support Intel projects across four states, including the construction of two new leading-edge logic fabrication facilities and the modernization of another one in Chandler, Arizona, as well as the construction of two more fabs in New Albany, Ohio. It will also help Intel modernize two existing fabs in Rio Rancho, New Mexico and expand its facilities in Hillsboro, Oregon. The government's $8.5 billion funding will augment the company's $100 billion investment in US manufacturing over the next five years. And in case the company needs more money, it can borrow up to $11 billion from the US under the agreement. 

The Biden administration signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law back in 2022 in hopes of fostering domestic semiconductor research and manufacturing and of lessening American companies' reliance in Chinese suppliers. This is the administration's fourth CHIPS investment, and it's largest yet. If you combine Intel's own money with the government's funding, this is one of the biggest investments announced in US semiconductor manufacturing overall. In February, the government also announced that it was granting GlobalFoundries with $1.5 billion in funding under the CHIPS Act to help the AMD spinoff build new fab facilities. 

Intel's projects in those aforementioned regions are expected to create 20,000 construction and 10,000 manufacturing jobs. To help ensure that the local population can benefit from those projects, the government will also earmark $50 million in dedicated funding to train and develop the local workforce. The parties have agreed to these terms under a preliminary agreement only, though, and the Department of Commerce might change them, depending on the results of a comprehensive due diligence process on the proposed projects and any future renegotiations. 

One day after a bill that could lead to a ban of TikTok in the United States passed the House of Representatives, the company is doubling down on its strategy of urging users to call lawmakers. The app began pushing new in-app messages to users asking them to "tell your Senator how important TikTok is to you” and to “ask them to vote not on the TikTok ban.”

The new alerts are the second such message TikTok has pushed to users about the bill. Prior to the House vote, the company prompted users to call their representatives in the House. The step may have backfired as lawmakers accused the company of trying to “interfere” with the legislative process as Congressional offices were reportedly overwhelmed with calls, many of which came from somewhat confused teenagers.

The latest notifications are even more direct. “The House of Representatives just voted to ban TikTok, which impacts 170 million Americans just like you,” it says. “Now, if the Senate votes, the future of creativity and communities you love on TikTok could be shut down.” Like the previous alerts, users can choose to “call now,” and the app will find phone numbers if a zip code is provided.

Screenshot via TikTok

TikTok didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But the message underscores just how big a threat the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is to the company. If passed, TikTok would have about six months to sell itself or face a ban in the US. Though there have been several previous attempts to ban the app or force a sale, no measure has received as much bipartisan support so quickly. If passed by the Senate, President Joe Biden has said he would sign it into law.

TikTok CEO Shou Chew has also appealed directly to users, telling them to “protect your constitutional rights” and promising that the company would “do all we can including exercising our legal rights to protect this amazing platform.”