The Russian government still has a strong influence on Telegram despite lifting a ban last year. RadioFreeEuropereports Telegram has temporarily blocked all of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny's Telegram chat bots during voting in the country's parliamentary election this weekend. Company founder Pavel Durov said Telegram would obey an election law barring campaigning during elections, calling the law "legitimate."

The move comes despite the nature of the bots and Durov's past statements. One of the bots, Smart Voting, was only meant to identify candidates that could unseat the dominant United Russia party, not just Navalny's Russia of the Future party. Durov also decried Apple and Google removing the Smart Voting mobile app from their respective app stores, calling it a "dangerous precedent" that tolerated censorship.

Russia under Vladimir Putin has routinely cracked down on any political dissent, including actions against Navalny himself (such as an attempted assassination linked to Russian agents) and a long-running effort to quash the broader Smart Voting effort. Officials both threatened Apple and Google with fines and have gone so far as to try and throttle internet infrastructure providing access to Smart Voting.

Whatever the motivations, the decision underscores the fine line tech firms tend to walk in Russia. While they might object to the Putin regime's tight grips on politics and speech, they also can't afford to antagonize the government if they want to have any kind of presence in the country. Telegram may object to Russia's policies, but it risks depriving residents of a relatively safe avenue for free expression if it defies Russian laws.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Biden administration plans to implement new measures to make it more difficult for hackers to profit from ransomware attacks using cryptocurrencies. As early as next week, the Treasury Department will reportedly impose sanctions and guidance designed to discourage organizations from using digital currencies to pay for ransoms.

Per The Journal, among the measures the agency is considering are fines and other penalties aimed at businesses that cooperate with hackers. Later in the year, the Treasury Department is also expected to implement new anti-money laundering and terror-financing regulation to limit further the use of cryptocurrencies as a payment method for ransoms and other illegal activity.

The incoming sanctions will reportedly single out specific traders and exchanges instead of casting a wide net and attempting to disrupt the entire crypto ecosystem. In addition to harming organizations that may have facilitated ransomware payments in the past, the hope is that sanctions will scare most cryptocurrency platforms from processing those types of transactions in the future.

“An action of this kind would be an aggressive, proactive approach to going after those who facilitate ransomware payments,” Ari Redbord, a former Treasury Department official, told The Journal.

The measures would be the latest attempt by the Biden administration to tackle the issue of ransomware attacks following a year in which they’ve increased in frequency and severity. After the Colonial Pipeline attack led to fuel shortages in parts of the US, the president signed an executive order that called for, among other things, improved information sharing between federal agencies. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security laid out mandatory rules that call on pipeline operators to appoint cybersecurity coordinators and report incidents to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

From the opening scene of Iron Man back in 2008, the military-industrial complex has been stitched into the fabric of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Captain America, the Hulk, War Machine and Captain Marvel are all involved in it to some extent. But the portrayal has always tilted toward the positive due to Hollywood’s long-standing partnership with the US military. This week’s What If…? uses the freedom offered by animation to go a little dark on the subject and show us how easily the business of war could have overrun the narrative.

The point of divergence this time around is that Erik Killmonger is apparently assigned to an undercover mission with the Ten Rings and, in the process, ends up saving Tony Stark’s life. So Tony is never injured and forced to build the Iron Man suit, instead continuing his war profiteering ways — though now with a new BFF at his side. Instead of becoming someone who buries himself in his work (and builds a literal suit of armor to protect himself) Tony instead lashes out, with Killmonger all-too-ready to point him in the direction of taking down Wakanda.

This pulls Wakanda into the narrative a lot sooner than its main-timeline debut in 2006’s Captain America: Civil War. The country’s isolationist policy has been used as the retcon for why we never heard a peep from Wakanda sooner but it quickly comes to the forefront here, in lieu of all the stories that spun out of the initial attack on Stark: the conflict with Obadiah Stane and Tony’s palladium poisoning in the first two Iron Man films, and then later the attack on Sokovia in Age of Ultron and Baron Zemo’s revenge scheme in Civil War. General Ross even makes an appearance here, casting doubt on whether the events of The Incredible Hulk even still happened the same way. Instead of being introduced to Wakanda through a UN peace conference, instead they’re a country on the defensive against a horde of mechanical forces.

Marvel Studios

The episode makes it quickly apparent how much of the MCU was dependent on Tony Stark’s participation, though not in a feel-good George Bailey It’s a Wonderful Life way. In Civil War, Vision points out that the power shown since Iron Man’s debut invites challenge. Here, we end up in a major conflict anyway, showing that the aggressive energy that created the MCU’s Heroic Age already existed, spurred on by advancing technology. Without superheroes to pick up the banner, it’s the military that becomes the beneficiary of all that power.

Marvel Studios

However, the military is a system as much as it is people, and there’s a weird sense throughout the episode that responsibility isn't in any particular person’s hands, even Eric Killmonger’s. We’re clearly shown where he’s pulling the strings, but characters like Tony Stark and General Ross are all too willing to be tugged along. But even they don’t feel fully in control of what happens. The conflict just escalates quickly and disproportionately in the episode’s half-hour runtime, perhaps a victim of the show’s need for expedited storytelling.

It’s no coincidence that the war that started the MCU was the conflict in Afghanistan, though it is happenstance that this episode aired only a month after the US brought its involvement to a messy close. It’s been a way of life for so long that it’s easy to feel swept away by the whole thing, especially if you were born after 9/11. This episode reinforces the MCU’s role as escapism during this era, a place where we could move beyond all this ugly terrestrial conflict and address more cosmic issues. By removing the heroes from the equation, the MCU becomes a grim mirror of the mindset we’ve been living in for two decades.

In 14 years' time, no fossil fuel-powered vehicles will be sold in New York anymore. The state has passed a new law that bans the sale of gas vehicles starting in 2035, requiring all new cars to be zero emission. New York's Senate and Assembly passed the bill and Governor Kathy Hochul signed it into law last week. The move will help reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent and help it achieve its climate targets, including an 85 reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

As Ars Technica notes, though, the state has a lot of work ahead of it, considering only around one percent of new vehicles sold in New York at the moment is fully electric. That's why, under the new law, several state agencies are required to work together to conjure a zero-emissions vehicle market development strategy by the end of next year. They'll have to find a feasible way to make sure that even off-road vehicles and equipment sold in the state are emissions-free by 2035. The law also requires all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in New York to be emissions-free by 2045.

In addition to having to convince people to buy electric within the next 14 years, New York will also have install an extensive charging network across the state. That includes installing charging stations at apartments, groceries, malls and parking lots. 

California also banned the sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035 last year, and Massachusetts followed suit earlier this year. Meanwhile, Washington lawmakers tried to pass a law that prohibits sales of gas-powered cars by 2030, but it was ultimately vetoed by Governor Jay Inslee.

Stablecoins are ostensibly safer than regular cryptocurrency thanks to their ties to less volatile assets, but US regulators apparently aren't convinced. Bloombergsources hear the Treasury Department and other federal agencies are close to a possible crackdown on stablecoins through a review from the Financial Stability Oversight Council. Officials are reportedly concerned the digital money is largely unregulated and could ultimately destabilize the financial system, not protect it.

A presidential Working Group on Financial Markets is believed to be most concerned about Tether. The cryptocurrency's operators said they stabilize their funds by holding large amounts of corporate debt. That could be vulnerable to "chaotic investor runs" if cryptocurrency values tank, according to Bloomberg.

While a firm decision isn't expected until December, when the Working Group is believed to be issuing recommendations, there's reportedly a "consensus" in favor of an Oversight Council review. If that happens, the council could label stablecoins as threats that warrant strict regulation. Numerous cryptocurrencies could be forced to change their business models or even shut down.

As it stands, stablecoins are at risk from government competition. The Federal Reserve is exploring the possibility of launching a central bank cryptocurrency. Such a move could render private options moot in the US — there wouldn't be much point to them if there was an official, potentially more reliable equivalent. Whatever happens, it's safe to say the existing stablecoin market might not last long as-is if a review goes forward.

California's state senate has passed AB-701 — a bill that aims to regulate warehouse productivity quotas. It will require companies to give government agencies detailed descriptions of the targets workers are expected to meet, along with the repercussions of missing them. If it becomes law, it would also prohibit quotas that force workers to skip safety techniques or anything that prevents them from having state-mandated meal or toilet breaks. While AB-701 covers all warehouse owners, its proponents targeted Amazon, in particular. 

The bill's author, California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, said that she and the bill's other backers are "absolutely targeting the practices of Amazon that are being picked up... by other retailers. Amazon drew flak after workers spoke out about the enormous productivity expectations they have to meet, forcing them to skip breaks to be able to keep up. Further, because they're expected to move as fast as the machines they're working with, repetitive strain injuries are a huge issue.

As Financial Times notes, Amazon's rate of injury is more than double that of the national warehousing industry average, based on figures submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Eric Frumin, director of health and safety for the Strategic Organizing Center, told the publication: "If Amazon complies with the law, workers will now have an unparalleled ability to fight back against abusive workloads."

AB-701 passed despite fierce opposition from business and trade groups. Rachel Michelin, the president of the California Retailers Association, warned that consumers will pay the price if it becomes a law, as it would apparently increase manufacturing, storage and distribution costs. Meanwhile, the bill's supporters believe there's more to be done, especially since they had to remove some provisions to get those on the fence to vote for it. One of the provisions they killed would require Cal/OSHA to create a rule aiming to minimize musculoskeletal injuries among workers.

The bill is pending final approval this week in the Assembly, which is usually just a formality. After that, it's in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who can either sign it into law or veto it.

The Biden administration's focus on science will include a strong emphasis on artificial intelligence. The Commerce Department, National AI Initiative Office and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are forming a National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (NAIAC) to advise the President and federal officials on AI-related issues.

NAIAC will provide guidance on several AI concerns, including "competitiveness," employment, scientific progress, the viability of national strategy and future initiative revisions. The committee will also address ethical issues ranging from workforce equity to accountability and algorithmic bias.

Members will come from a "broad and interdisciplinary" pool including academics, companies, non-profits and federal labs. They'll be accepted on a continuous basis, with any eventual vacancies filled as they pop up.

This isn't the first major organization influencing the US government's use of AI. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has been urging officials to treat AI as a major concern. Members of Congress have also been pushing for greater adoption of AI in government. However, NAIAC could make AI a frequent consideration in government policy, not to mention shape AI-specific policies.

Whether or not the committee satisfies enough people is another matter. Some in Congress want hard limits on the use of AI, including a Democrat call for an outright ban on facial recognition in federal government. It should still lead to more informed decisions on AI — it's just uncertain whether or not those decisions will include all the right voices.

On Wednesday, security researchers from Google and cybersecurity firm Mandiant disclosed that a network of fake pro-China social media accounts tried to mobilize Americans to attend anti-racism protests in response to the coronavirus pandemic. According to a report the two organizations published, the network “did not appear to achieve any success,” but in one instance it tried to push Asian-Americans to attend an April 24th protest that sought to “fight back” against claims the virus was engineered in a Chinese lab.

They did not directly attribute the campaign to the Chinese government. However, John Hultquist, vice president of analysis at Mandiant, told The Wall Street Journal the operation was “almost certainly supported by a government sponsor, either directly through a government agency or a third-party contractor.” Additionally, the scale of the campaign suggests the network had significant resources at its disposal.

Researchers say the campaign may suggest an intention to motivate real-world action outside of the borders of China. At the very least, the scope of the activity is far broader than previous efforts this network has conducted. In 2019, it was linked to efforts to discredit the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

This time around, they did not limit their efforts merely to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Instead, they cast a wide net, creating accounts across more than 30 social media platforms and 40 additional websites and “niche” forums, including places like LiveJournal and Vimeo. They also tried to reach a global audience by posting in Russian, German, Spanish, Korean and Japanese, in addition to Chinese and English.

"Over the past two years, we have seen this threat actor evolve, from the types of content they publish to the tactics they use to amplify it. However, the most significant features of this network remain its scale and persistence, in spite of low engagement levels,” Shane Huntley, the director of Google’s Threat Analysis Group, told Engadget. “... We anticipate they will continue to experiment to drive higher engagement and encourage others in the community to continue tracking this actor, shedding light on their operations and taking action against them."

El Salvador is officially the first country in the world to accept Bitcoin as legal currency. CNBCreports the Central American nation's Bitcoin law took effect on September 7th, letting Salvadorans use the cryptocurrency in physical and online shops. Accordingly, locals can use a Chivo wallet app on their phones to make purchases and manage their funds.

The government has been eager to give itself a good start. President Nayib Bukele revealed El Salvador had bought 550 Bitcoin as of this writing (about $26 million), and the country's Congress passed a law last week establishing a $150 million fund to aid conversions from Bitcoin to US dollars (also accepted in El Salvador).

Bukele previously claimed the move would not only foster investment, tourism and overall economic development, but would make El Salvador's financial system more inclusive by courting the 70 percent of residents who don't have bank accounts. It's also an acknowledgment of the financial reality of the country. Its economy relies in part on remittances from migrants, and Bitcoin theoretically streamlines those transfers.

Not everyone is thrilled with the decision, though. Cointelegraphnoted that some Salvadorans have protested the adoption of Bitcoin, arguing that politicians didn't consult with the public. They're also worried cryptocurrency's volatility could pose a serious risk next to the relative stability of the US dollar. Reutersadded that police briefly held an outspoken critic of the Bitcoin law, Mario Gomez. Officials said it was related to a financial fraud investigation, but supporters were concerned this was an act of intimidation meant to silence political opposition.

We wouldn't count on other countries rushing to join El Salvador. Countries like the US are exploring central bank cryptocurrencies, potentially more stable and easily regulated than Bitcoin. Other countries are hostile. China banned many companies and institutions from handling cryptocurrency, and India has looked into banning private currencies. There's also the simple matter of varying economic conditions. Successful Bitcoin adoption in El Salvador wouldn't guarantee success elsewhere — other countries might gain little if anything from embracing digital money.

The United States created a biometric system to register as many Afghans as possible over 15 years ago, and it's become a cause for concern now that the Taliban has taken over. According to NBC News, privacy advocates are worried [PDF] about the possibility of the Taliban using the database to identify and target individuals who worked with the US-backed Afghan government and organizations that champion women's rights. The system's database, which the US shared with the Afghan government, reportedly contains millions of fingerprints, iris scans and face photos collected throughout the years.

While the exact number of individuals in the database is unclear, an Air Force medic the publication talked to said he was instructed to scan the irises, take the fingerprints and photograph the face of every Afghan who came through the hospital doors while he was in service. Other military officers had to the same thing. The goal was to have an extensive database of fingerprints that authorities can search in the event a bomb is found.

That said, since the US military scanned anyone and everyone, one of the vets who helped collect Afghans' biometrics said it could be difficult to use the database to find specific individuals to target. Someone being in the database doesn't necessarily mean they worked with the US government or women's rights organizations. Department of Defense spokesperson Eric Pahon also denied that Afghans' biometric data is at risk. He told NBC News that "The U.S. has taken prudent actions to ensure that sensitive data does not fall into the Taliban's hands. This data is not at risk of misuse,"