POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND

PSNI accused of acting like Stasi after documents reveal eight ‘troublemaker’ journalists were under surveillance

‘The industrial-scale harvesting of sensitive journalistic comms data by the PSNI is akin to East German secret police in the early 1980s,’ Trevor Birney’s solicitor said.



Journalists Barry McCaffrey (left) and Trevor Birney (right) speaking to media after leaving the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, following an Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) hearing over claims they were secretly monitored by police, on Tuesday May 7, 2024

 (Credit: Victoria Jones/PA Wire)

Allison Morris

Today 

Eight journalists based in Northern Ireland considered “troublemakers” were under routine surveillance by the PSNI, according to documents released as part of a high-profile case being heard in London this week.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), sitting in the Royal Court of Justice, heard that the PSNI was engaging in six-monthly trawls of journalists’ phone data.

The IPT is examining allegations that two investigative reporters in Northern Ireland were subject to unlawful covert intelligence by the police as part of Operation Yurta.

Evidence presented to the tribunal today suggested that the PSNI spying operation extended to several other reporters operating in Northern Ireland.

The documents show the surveillance started in 2007/8 and went on for a decade, involving a small group of journalists who were, in the words of one detective, “always looking for a story”.

Documents seen by the Belfast Telegraph show eight redacted names of those under surveillance by the PSNI.

Documentary makers Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney were controversially arrested in 2018 by police investigating the alleged leaking of confidential documents that appeared in a film they made about the Loughinisland Massacre.

The PSNI was later forced to apologise and agreed to pay £875,000 in damages to the journalists and the film company behind the documentary No Stone Unturned.

In 2019, Mr Birney and Mr McCaffrey lodged a complaint with the IPT asking it to establish whether there had been any unlawful surveillance of them.

The PSNI had asked Durham Constabulary to take the lead in the investigation into the leaked Police Ombudsman document that appeared in the documentary on the 1994 loyalist paramilitary gun attack.

Last week it was revealed that journalist Vincent Kearney was also under surveillance during his time at the BBC.

The BBC has now instructed lawyers to contact the tribunal over claims one of its ex-investigative reporters, now working as RTE’s Northern Editor, was spied on by police.

New evidence released to the tribunal included a Durham Constabulary minute of a meeting between the senior investigating officer Darren Ellis, and two PSNI detective sergeants working in intelligence operations.

Ben Jaffey KC, representing Mr McCaffrey, revealed that the note made reference to what was described as a PSNI “defensive operation” against journalists in the region.

“It appears to disclose the existence of what the PSNI call a defensive operation involving the cross-referencing of billing with police telephone numbers on a six-monthly basis of what appears to be a group of Northern Irish journalists who have written unobliging things about the PSNI," he told the tribunal.

Mr Jaffey said the PSNI had yet to offer a response to the material disclosed by Durham Constabulary.

“But if this is what has been going on, we obviously say it's unlawful to go and take a list of troublemaker journalists, get their billing every six months and cross-reference it with a list of police telephone numbers, and see if those journalists have got any new police sources is plainly unlawful.

“A defensive operation can only be what we say is a slightly Orwellian euphemism.”

Mr Jaffey said the fresh evidence disclosed to the tribunal suggested Mr McCaffrey could have been subjected to many more covert spying bids.

“I think I made a cheap joke last time around that I'd lost count of the number of times that Mr McCaffrey has had his communications data obtained,” he said.

“That's no longer really, unfortunately, a joke.”

The barrister said the documents also raised a series of other incidents of concern, including:An attempt by police to access data from Mr Birney's wife,
A police consideration of accessing his solicitor Niall Murphy's personal data; and
A bid to secure international intelligence on Mr McCaffrey in relation to a trip he and Mr Birney had taken to France in 2016.

Mr Birney said the hearing made clear that the PSNI was “absolutely obsessed with journalists and their sources”.

“And I think we need to remind the PSNI and remind the authorities back in Belfast that journalism isn't a crime, that journalists all over the world have sources and that is lawful and that is absolutely what journalists are there to do,” he added.

His solicitor Niall Murphy said: “The revelations exposed in court are chilling. The industrial-scale harvesting of sensitive journalistic comms data by the PSNI is akin to East German secret police in the early 1980s.

"I fear that this is the thin edge of a wedge and that in time, a Kafkaesque systemic policy of police surveillance of journalists and lawyers will be exposed.”

Following the hearing, Mr McCaffrey said the PSNI had been practising the “dark arts”.

“The dark arts were supposed to be gone after the Good Friday Agreement, it seems that they're still here and they're thriving and they seem to be in charge, that can't be allowed to go on.”

His solicitor John Finucane added: “Durham police have provided the legal teams with disclosure which points to PSNI undertaking routine and industrial-scale surveillance on a six monthly basis against those journalists they criticised as “always looking a story”.

“The PSNI stands accused of unlawfully going after journalists and their sources on numerous occasions over a prolonged period.

"They also stand accused of lacking candour in how they have met these proceedings and that includes the potential compromising of Chief Constable John Boutcher, whose previous public statement on the scale of surveillance on journalists has been undermined by the disclosure we have received.

“Journalism is not a crime despite the actions and intent of PSNI, Durham and the MET,” he added.

The PSNI has been asked for a comment.

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) spokesman Ian McGuinness said: “Journalists exist to hold power to account and that includes writing stories about the PSNI which that force may not like.

“Writing a story about the PSNI and protecting your confidential sources whilst doing so is not a crime.

"The NUJ is calling, yet again, for the PSNI to come clean. In particular, the force needs to state when it started spying on multiple journalists’ phone data, who the journalists were, and how many times each journalist was spied upon and must give a commitment that it will desist from doing this ever again, simply to uncover legitimate sources for stories.”

RSF calls on police in Northern Ireland to fully cooperate with investigation into alleged surveillance of journalists

Barry McCaffrey (L) and Trevor Birney (R) outside London's High Court on 8 May

Police in Northern Ireland may have regularly checked the phone records of multiple journalists in an attempt to uncover their sources, a London tribunal investigating the alleged surveillance of journalists has heard. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on police to cooperate fully with the long-overdue tribunal, and account for any breaches of journalists’ vital right to protect their sources.

The UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) - a body which hears complaints about surveillance by public bodies - is investigating the treatment by police of two journalists from Northern Ireland, Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey, who were arrested in 2018 on suspicion of stealing police documents - arrests that were later ruled unlawful by Northern Ireland’s High Court.

At a hearing on Wednesday 8 May attended by RSF, McCaffrey’s lawyer Ben Jaffey KC said that last week he received 600 new pages of evidence which threw up yet more questions about Police Service Northern Ireland (PSNI)’s covert surveillance. One document mentioned “defensive operations”, apparently in place at the end of 2017, against a small group of local journalists which involved “cross-referencing billing with police telephone numbers on a six-monthly basis”. Eight names - redacted in the document shown in court - were listed.

Calling for a full explanation of the new allegations, Jaffey also pointed to a request to access data from Birney’s wife, a request to secure intelligence on a trip Birney and McCaffrey had taken to France, and inconsistencies between the dates when data was obtained and the dates authorisations for that data collection were issued.

Next month will mark five years since Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney lodged a complaint with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal yet they are still waiting for clear answers about what appear to be deeply shocking breaches of their rights as journalists. The right of reporters to protect their sources is fundamental to public interest journalism, and if police have acted unlawfully, the public has a right to know. The PSNI must stop dragging its feet and fully cooperate with the tribunal, so that any serious violations of press freedom in Northern Ireland come to light.
Fiona O'Brien
Bureau Director, RSF UK

Three UK police forces - Durham Constabulary, PSNI and the Metropolitan Police - are implicated in the IPT’s investigation. Lawyers for Birney and McCaffrey have repeatedly complained about delays in the production of evidence, in particular from PSNI. Birney said what had emerged at the tribunal was revealing of the underlying attitude of police to journalists.

“It’s shocking that journalists going about their business lawfully were treated by the PSNI so unprofessionally,” he said after the hearing. “Ultimately, I think it’s an undermining of freedom of the press in Northern Ireland, an undermining of the relationship between the PSNI and journalists. Why did the police think this was acceptable?”

Last week, lawyers for the BBC said they had also contacted the tribunal over claims the PSNI had also tried to identify the sources of a former BBC reporter, Vincent Kearney, when he worked on a programme about the Police Ombudsman’s Office in 2011.

Wednesday’s hearing of the secretive tribunal was only the second to be held in public. The substantive hearing is scheduled to begin in October.

The UK is ranked 23rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index. Northern Ireland is one of the most difficult regions for journalists to operate.

USCIS and DOL Policy Updates May Allow More Employers to Circumvent Protections for American Workers

By Elizabeth Jacobs on May 8, 2024

USCIS issued a policy update on April 10, 2024, that may expand which types of occupations can circumvent U.S. labor market protections that are required by federal law for employers to sponsor a foreign worker for a green card. By adopting the Department of Labor’s (DOL) definition of which occupations are considered “Schedule A”, USCIS is attempting to streamline how employers can petition foreign workers for green cards at the expense of the already minimal U.S. worker protections. This policy update comes at the same time DOL is considering amending its own regulations to add STEM occupations to the “Schedule A” list. Notably, an employer trying to fill a position in a “Schedule A” occupation may petition USCIS for a foreign worker without first trying to hire an American worker for that position.

Typically, federal law requires employers who wish to petition for an immigrant worker to conduct a labor market test and submit a permanent labor certification application to the DOL Employment and Training Administration (ETA) in a process known as PERM. This process, when completed, allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States and allows that foreign worker to receive a green card (i.e., obtain lawful permanent resident status). Green card holders may eventually become citizens or may live and work in the United States as LPRs indefinitely if they choose not to naturalize.

The purpose of the PERM labor certification is to both protect the U.S. labor market from unfair competition and to maintain the working conditions of domestic jobs. While the PERM program is far from perfect and subject to substantial fraud, as reported by the DOL Office of Inspector General (OIG), it is the main tool used by the U.S. government to prevent U.S. workers from being replaced with foreign workers benefiting from the employment-based immigrant visa categories. (The PERM process does not apply to foreign workers seeking to enter the United States on nonimmigrant (temporary) visas.)

What Does the PERM Process Require? The PERM process requires DOL ETA to certify to USCIS that there are: (1) not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment; and (2) that the employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. Only after a PERM case is certified can an employer file a Form I-140 to petition USCIS to classify the beneficiary as an immigrant worker. Generally, PERM certification is required for employment-based 2nd and 3rd preference petitions (EB-2 and EB-3 immigrant visas).

Before an employer can file a PERM application with ETA, the employer must request and obtain a prevailing wage rate from ETA using the prevailing wage determination form. The prevailing wage rate is the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the geographic area of intended employment.

Additionally, regulations require that employers attempt to hire a U.S. worker first by advertising the open position in a local paper as a recruiting announcement for the opportunity twice. The employer must also place a job posting for 30 days with the State Workforce Agency (SWA). After the pre-filing recruitment process is completed, the employer must prepare a report describing the steps taken and the results achieved, including the number of hires and number of applicants rejected, categorized by reasons for any rejection.

What Is a “Schedule A” Occupation? For certain occupations, however, DOL has predetermined that there are not sufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to fill positions in these occupations. These occupations are referred to as “Schedule A” occupations. Employers, in these cases, may bypass the DOL certification process and, instead, submit their labor certification directly to USCIS.

DOL regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 654.15(b)(2) require, however, that the employer provide its bargaining representative or its employees with notice that an Application for Permanent Employment Certification was filed. The notice must be posted for at least 10 consecutive business days in a clearly visible place at the location of employment.

Currently, DOL has designated two groups of occupations under Schedule A: registered nurses and physical therapists; and beneficiaries with exceptional ability in the science or arts (except performing arts) and beneficiaries with exceptional ability in the performing arts subject to certain conditions. (DOL has also determined that sheepherders are eligible for this type of processing.) DOL regulations define a science or art as “any field of knowledge or skill in which colleges and universities commonly offer specialized courses leading to a degree in the knowledge and/or skill”.

The regulation clarifies that an alien “need not have studied at a college or university in order to qualify for the Group II occupation”. The beneficiary, however, must demonstrate “exceptional ability” in their occupation by providing evidence of widespread acclaim and international recognition by experts in their field to qualify, as well as meet other eligibility requirements, such as demonstrating that the intended job in the United States will require exceptional ability.

Why Is USCIS Adopting DOL’s Definition of “Science or Arts”? USCIS made this policy clarification as an attempt to streamline the green card application process. As of March 2024, DOL reported that, on average, a PERM certification takes ETA about 397 days to issue. This does not include the time required for USCIS to process the beneficiary’s Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers. USCIS reports that the agency is currently taking as long as 10 months to process 80 percent of Form I-140 submissions. My colleague Andrew R. Arthur and I have both written about how Biden administration priorities have hindered USCIS’s ability to efficiently administer the legal immigration system.

What’s Next? DOL is expected to propose to amend its regulations to expand the list of occupations that may be considered “Schedule A” or exempt from PERM labor certification requirements. DOL issued what is known in the regulatory world as an RFI or a “request for information”, to request input from the public on “evaluating the utility of expanding Schedule A to include STEM occupations”, and provide input on “the appropriate data sources and methods for determining whether labor shortages exist, whether Schedule A should be used to alleviate any labor shortages in STEM occupations should it be determined from these data sources and methods that such shortages exist, and if so, how the Department could establish a reliable, objective, and transparent methodology for identifying STEM occupations that are experiencing labor shortages”.

DOL’s request for public input was issued expressly because DOL’s current data sets do not demonstrate a labor shortage of U.S. workers in STEM. Nevertheless, DOL is considering extending “Schedule A” status to STEM employers.

Why Does This Matter? Both USCIS and DOL’s policy initiatives indicate a clear objective to expand the types of employers that may circumvent the PERM certification process. By expanding the types of employers who may qualify for Schedule A, more employers will be allowed to hire foreign workers without first advertising the employment opportunity to U.S. workers. As stated above, however, DOL has not produced data that demonstrates that the U.S. labor market’s needs justify sidestepping procedures designed to protect jobs for U.S. workers in additional occupations.

DOL Should Prioritize Strengthening the PERM Process Before Expanding Schedule A List. Improving protections for U.S workers should be DOL’s primary goal for its regulatory agenda. Many improvements can be made without the enactment of new legislation.

For example, DOL could strengthen PERM by updating the required recruiting methods that employers must undergo to list job openings to make it easier for U.S. workers to find such listings. Current regulations require employers to list their openings twice in Sunday papers and list their posting for 30 days with the SWA — but, today, U.S. workers are more likely to seek employment opportunities using the internet rather than from paper newspapers.

DOL should also amend its regulations to require employers to submit documentation to ETA to support their attestation that they are complying with all PERM requirements. In 2020, DOL OIG found that,


An application does not provide ETA enough information to make an informed decision on whether there were no able, available, qualified, and willing U.S. workers for the job opportunity and the job opportunity would not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers similarly employed. The application does not require the employer to submit the information included in the original advertisement (i.e., the job location, position description, job requirements, wage, and where to send resumes). Additionally, the application does not require the employer to document the number of all applicants who applied for the job opportunity, the interviewed applicants’ names, and why the employer did not hire the individuals interviewed.

ETA could also engage in a post-adjudication review to confirm the veracity of the employer’s attestations and verify that a bona fide, full-time opening actually exists and is available to U.S. workers.

Without strengthening this process, DOL cannot faithfully certify to the USCIS that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment and that employment of the foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
Topics: Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

House bill calls on EPA to update IT systems that store air quality data

The “Clean Air in the Cloud Act” would codify recommendations from a Government Accountability Act report released in September 2023.


BY CAROLINE NIHILL
MAY 8, 2024

Rep. Gerry Connolly. (House Oversight Flickr)

The Environmental Protection Agency would be required to update the legacy IT platform it uses to store air quality data systems under new legislation in the House.

The “Clean Air in the Cloud Act,” introduced Tuesday by Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., pushes the EPA to update the IT system for storing AirNow and the Air Quality System (AQS). The bill’s requirements come directly from recommendations in a September 2023 Government Accountability Office study that Connolly requested.

“I requested the GAO report on this issue because the federal government is only as good as the IT it utilizes,” Connolly said in a press release. “That’s true across government and it’s certainly true for the EPA. It is my hope that, with this legislation, the EPA can resolve the challenges posed by AQS and AirNow to best deliver results for the American people they service.”

The watchdog recommended that the EPA consider an operational analysis along with developing and documenting a business case for a new IT system. Those would be rooted in considerations for how a system would be able to address challenges posed by the existing legacy systems. The agency agreed with both recommendations.

However, the EPA disagreed with a GAO recommendation that the agency should identify factors for assessing if the agency’s systems are ready for either replacement or retirement.

The GAO found that the use of multiple systems for air quality monitoring “results in inefficient use of resources” for EPA and other monitoring agencies. Agency officials reported that finding and retaining IT staff who could work with AQS’s “outdated software” was “particularly challenging.”

While the EPA declined to comment on the new legislation, a spokesperson said that the agency is “happy to provide technical assistance when asked.”

CANADIAN CRIMINAL CRYPTO CAPITALI$T

Crypto tycoon is Canada's richest person, but U.S. prison stay awaits

Changpeng Zhao is Canada’s richest person, but the crypto tycoon is about to spend four months inside a U.S. prison.

Author of the article:Postmedia News
Published May 08, 2024 • 

Former Binance CEO Changpeng "CZ" Zhao arrives at U.S. federal court in Seattle on April 30, 2024. PHOTO BY JASON REDMOND / AFP /Getty Images

The 47-year-old Chinese-born businessman, founder of the world’s largest cryptocurrency-exchange Binance, ranks 30th in the world with a net worth of $40.5 billion as of Tuesday, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Zhao’s family immigrated to Vancouver in the late 1980s when he was 12 after his father, a university instructor in China, was hired by the University of British Columbia

By 16, Zhao was learning how to code and eventually attended McGill University in Montreal where he majored in computer science.

After graduation, Zhao — also known as CZ — moved to Shanghai in 2005 and founded a technology startup company that automated high-frequency trading platforms and systems for stockbrokers.

In 2013, he learned about Bitcoin and was so enamoured by its potential that he invested all of his money in the cryptocurrency.

Four years later, Zhao launched Binance and his wealth exploded. He was named one of the richest people in cryptocurrency a year later by Forbes.

However, in March 2023, a federal lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission against Binance and Zhao, which accused the company and founder of breaking rules intended to thwart money laundering operations after alleging transactions by Palestinian militant group Hamas and other suspected criminals were using the crypto exchange

Fallen Crypto Mogul Sam Bankman-Fried Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison for a cryptocurrency fraud that a prosecutor has described as one of the biggest financial frauds in U.S. history. His parents left the courthouse without comment.

Three months later, Zhao and Binance were also sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, accused of 13 violations of securities rules.

Zhao resigned as Binance CEO after pleading guilty last November to one count of failing to maintain an anti-money-laundering program. He was sentenced in April to four months in prison.

Binance agreed to pay $4.3 billion to settle related allegations from the U.S. government.

“I failed here,” Zhao told a Seattle court Tuesday. “I deeply regret my failure, and I am sorry.”

Zhao also agreed to a fine of $50 million while avoiding what a U.S. Justice Department’s request for three years behind bars upon conviction.

FTX says most customers will get all money back, less that 2 years after collapse

HUNTER: Billion dollar crypto crook Scam Bankman-Fried caged 25 years

In a letter to the court, Zhao wrote that there was “no excuse for my failure to establish the necessary compliance controls at Binance.”

“I wish I could change that part of Binance’s story,” he added. “But under my direction, Binance has now implemented the most stringent anti-money laundering controls of any non-U.S. exchange, and those controls have been in place since 2022.”

— with files from the Associated Press.

In a rare move, Biden administration withholds bombs to Israel in effort to influence Rafah operation

BY RON KAMPEAS MAY 8, 2024 JTA

Palestinians leave their homes in Rafah, in the southern 

Gaza Strip, May 8, 2024.

(Abed Rahim Khatib/Flash90)

WASHINGTON (JTA) — As Israel prepared last week to launch a major operation in Rafah over the concerns of the White House, the Biden administration made rare use of a pressure tactic and held up the delivery of large bombs.

“We have paused one shipment of weapons last week,” a senior administration official told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency Wednesday in an email.

The shipment, the official said, included 1,800 bombs weighing 2,000 pounds each, and 1,700 bombs weighing 500 pounds each. The official said the White House was concerned about how Israel would deploy the bombs among Rafah’s crowded population and began reviewing weapons shipments last month.

“We are especially focused on the end-use of the 2,000-lb bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza,” the official said.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed the pause in Senate testimony later Wednesday morning, less than two days after Israel announced that its invasion of Rafah had begun.

“We are currently reviewing some near-term security assistance equipment in the context of unfolding events in Rafah,” Austin said in the testimony. “As we have assessed the situation, we paused one shipment of high payload munitions.”

The pause in U.S. aid to Israel is the first to be confirmed in decades and marks a shift in the Biden administration’s posture toward the war. In the seven months since Hamas attacked Israel, President Joe Biden has supported Israel — including in a speech at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday — and had previously resisted ending or conditioning American military aid.

The official said the pause has yet to be reversed, adding that Israel will still receive all the aid allocated by Congress.

“We have not made a final determination on how to proceed with this shipment,” said the official, adding that officials are also reviewing the delivery of devices that add guidance to bombs, called JDAMs.

The announcement of the pause set off alarms among pro-Israel organizations.

“Delaying this arms transfer is a dangerous and counterproductive message,” the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC said Wednesday on X, formerly Twitter. “It emboldens Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and undermines America’s commitments to all our allies. Congress must demand the Biden Admin reverse this delay and ensure Israel has what it needs to win this war.”

The holdup last week came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was indicating that the military would invade Rafah, a city on Gaza’s border with Egypt that Israel says is the final redoubt of Hamas. The invasion commenced on Monday after another attempt at a ceasefire agreement fell through.

Biden and other world leaders have opposed the invasion because more than 1 million displaced Palestinians have sought refuge there.

“The U.S. position has been that Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go,” the White House official said. “We have been engaging in a dialogue with Israel in our Strategic Consultative Group format on how they will meet the humanitarian needs of civilians in Rafah, and how to operate differently against Hamas there than they have elsewhere in Gaza.”

In his Senate testimony, Austin said the safety of the civilians was paramount. “I think we’ve also been very clear about the steps that we’d like to see Israel take to account for and take care of those civilians before major combat takes place,” he said.

The statements by Austin and the official appeared to confirm reports that the meetings have not gone well, because, in the administration’s view, Israel has not adequately explained how it plans to safely evacuate and house the displaced Palestinians.

“Those discussions are ongoing and have not fully addressed our concerns,” the official told JTA.

Biden has been under pressure from some progressives within and outside of his party to suspend assistance to Israel as Palestinian casualties have mounted, now topping 34,000, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry. Austin was reminded of those pressures during his testimony when protesters shouting, “Free Palestine!” were removed from the gallery.

Biden has said Israel’s bombing of Gaza, which has reduced large parts of the enclave to rubble, has been “indiscriminate.” Israel says the bombs are necessary to reach an enemy that has built a massive militarized infrastructure in an underground network of tunnels.

The confirmation of the pause came a day after the president, in a Holocaust Remembrance Day speech, reaffirmed what he called his “ironclad” commitment to Israel. And the White House official emphasized that the $26 billion Congress allocated last month in emergency and humanitarian assistance to Israel and Gaza remains untouched.

“We are committed to ensuring Israel gets every dollar appropriated in the supplemental,” the official said.

Now, Biden administration officials are watching the Rafah operation unfold and expressing cautious optimism that Israel appears to be limiting its attacks to minimize civilian casualties.

“We’re going to be watching it closely, but how they [Israeli officials] have described this is not of a size, scale, duration and scope that one could equate to a major ground operation,” John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, said Tuesday in a call with reporters.

The weapons holdup is the first confirmed, on-the-record pause in U.S. defense assistance to Israel since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan delayed the delivery of combat aircraft to Israel to pressure Israel into withdrawing from Lebanon.  Another oft-cited pause — in the delivery of Hellfire missiles during the last major war in Gaza in 2014 — was later said to be a technical issue, not one of policy

The American Jewish Committee, like AIPAC, called for ending the pause but also thanked Biden for supporting Israel since Oct. 7.

“AJC is grateful for the unprecedented security assistance the U.S. administration has surged to Israel as it defends itself against Hamas terrorists, and for the ongoing, close collaboration between U.S. and Israeli officials,” the group said in a tweet.

“This support must continue without any additional conditions or delays, so Israel can defend itself from the multiple threats it faces and prevent Hamas’ stated goal of continued, repeated attacks,” it said. “We expect the Administration to swiftly ensure all necessary assistance is delivered.”

JEWISH TELEGRAPH AGENCY 

Acceptance of animals in urban environments

Date: May 8, 2024

Source: Technical University of Munich (TUM)

Summary:

How do city residents feel about animals in their immediate surroundings? A recent study shows how different the acceptance of various wild animals in urban areas is. Important factors are the places where the animals are found and their level of popularity -- squirrels and ladybugs come out on top here. The results have important implications for urban planning and nature conservation.

FULL STORY

How do city residents feel about animals in their immediate surroundings? A recent study by the Technical University of Munich (TUM), the University of Jena and the Vienna University of Technology shows how different the acceptance of various wild animals in urban areas is. Important factors are the places where the animals are found and their level of popularity -- squirrels and ladybugs come out on top here. The results have important implications for urban planning and nature conservation.

The relationship between city inhabitants and urban animals is complex, as the study shows. The researchers conducted a survey to find out how Munich residents rate 32 urban animal species and where in the city they would prefer to see them. In general, respondents liked most of the animals. 23 of the 32 animal species received positive approval ratings. The majority of birds and mammals were very popular. The respondents also rated arthropods, lizards and frogs positively. Exceptions were martens, rats, wasps, slugs and urban pigeons. Cockroaches were the least popular. Respondents had a neutral attitude towards ants, spiders and snakes.

Acceptance depends on the animal and its location

According to the survey, all animals have a place in the city -- except for the very few, very unpopular species. In the survey, city residents were able to choose from various locations in different proximity to their homes where the animals should be found. In most cases, participants placed the animals in urban areas such as their neighborhood, city parks, in the city in general and in the surrounding countryside. In contrast, they rarely mentioned their immediate living environment, such as in the garden, on the balcony or in the apartment. Participants placed some animals, such as squirrels and ladybugs, in all or almost all locations. They placed many species in several locations, while three species were often not placed at all: Cockroaches, rats and slugs. "It turns out that city residents' preferences for locations clearly correlate with their attitudes towards animals," explains researcher Dr. Fabio Sweet. The animals that were generally more popular were on average placed closer to home by the respondents.

Planning cities for people and animals

Prof. Wolfgang Weisser, head of the Chair of Terrestrial Ecology, emphasizes: "Increasing urbanization makes it necessary to actively care for animals in the city and to design urban development accordingly. If we know where people prefer or dislike certain animals, we can anticipate potential points of conflict. This allows us to identify places where species conservation in cities is accepted by people." The results show, for example, that human-wildlife conflicts are unlikely in city parks because the animals are accepted by most people there. Animals are also tolerated in the wider residential environment. Conversely, wildlife protection in the immediate proximity of the living space, such as the balcony, could meet with resistance.

Measures to promote urban biodiversity are most successful when they are not only ecologically sensible but also socially acceptable. It is therefore necessary to combine knowledge about the way these animals live and people's acceptance of them. In this way, urban planning can simultaneously promote animal welfare in cities and avoid conflicts between humans and animals.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Technical University of Munich (TUM). Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:Fabio S T Sweet, Anne Mimet, Md Noor Ullah Shumon, Leonie P Schirra, Julia Schäffler, Sophia C Haubitz, Peter Noack, Thomas E Hauck, Wolfgang W Weisser. There is a place for every animal, but not in my back yard: a survey on attitudes towards urban animals and where people want them to live. Journal of Urban Ecology, 2024; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1093/jue/juae006


Cite This Page:

MLA
APA
Chicago
Technical University of Munich (TUM). "Acceptance of animals in urban environments." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 May 2024. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240508093730.htm>.

Libcom.orglibcom.org/article/beasts-burden-antagonism-and-practical-history

Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History | libcom.org

Beasts of burden - Antagonism and Practical History. An attempt to rethink the separation between animal liberationist and communist politics. (Published ...

IRAN

Asking for ‘concrete measures’ on nuke facilities

There is a deep suspicion in the West that Iran is set to enrich the uranium to weapons-grade and be in a position to make several nuclear bombs.

Rafael Grossi, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), urged Iran on Tuesday that it take “concrete” steps to improve ties between the UN nuclear watchdog and Iran. Grossi said, “What we are looking at is concrete measures that could make this [deal] operational.” He said that Iran could take “very practical and tangible measures that can be implemented in order to accelerate.”

Last September, Iran withdrew accreditation of the IAEA inspectors. In October, IAEA submitted a report saying that Iran possessed three times the enriched uranium that was permissible in the 2015 deal made with the United States and other European powers including France and Germany, apart from Russia and the United Kingdom. Grossi was in Isfahan to attend an international science conference hosted by Iran, where its civilian nuclear facility in Natanz near Isfahan is located. Atomic Energy Organisation (AEO) of Iran head Mohammad Eslami said at the joint press conference with Grossi in Isfahan, “We continue interactions over unresolved issues. The important point is that Mr. Grossi takes the necessary actions to settle the problems that are mainly political.”

When Donald Trump became president of the US in 2016, he pulled out of the nuclear cooperation deal signed with Iran under President Barack Obama. Ever since the return of Joe Biden in 2021, efforts had been on to revive the deal. Israel has been opposing the deal tooth and nail. The attempt of the IAEA is to restore the inspector regime with Iran’s nuclear facilities. There is a deep suspicion in the West that Iran is set to enrich the uranium to weapons-grade and be in a position to make several nuclear bombs.

Iran denies that it intends to make nuclear weapons and insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful pursuits. At the first international conference on Nuclear Science and Technology held at Isfahan, Eslami said that Iran was ready to share the nuclear technology with other countries.

The liberal moderates in Europe and the US believe that it is better to deal with Iran directly and keep its nuclear programme within the range of the IAEA inspectors, instead of keeping it out which could be more dangerous. There are hardliners in the West, and Trump is only an extreme example, who think that Iran should not be given any leeway, and that Tehran must keep its nuclear facilities open to full inspection of international teams. Iran considers this a challenge to its sovereignty. The 2015 deal was a compromise, where the West’s economic sanctions against Iran are withdrawn in return for Iran’s cooperation. But equations between Iran and the West have always been volatile, and each side feels provoked by the other.

The IAEA has been trying to tread a balanced line between the two sides, though many believe that the UN nuclear watchdog was under the influence of Western powers, and that it was not a neutral body which it should have been. What is lacking between Iran and the West, and Iran and IAEA, is trust. There is a huge trust deficit, which is very unfortunate.

But the efforts of IAEA chief Grossi to keep the tenuous ties between the two sides is laudable. Iran has also been trying to be open to the overtures of the UN body. But there is little that the IAEA can do to deal with the present deadlock. The Americans and the Iranians have to speak directly to each other to resolve the differences. The back channels between the two sides have always been open, and it is a breakthrough here that will be reflected in the official stances of the two sides.

Trump’s Plans for the Fed Would Revive 1970s-Style Inflation



May 8, 2024

PS

MAURICE OBSTFELD

Former US President Donald Trump, whose preference for lower interest rates and a weaker dollar was evident during his first term, is reportedly planning to override the Federal Reserve’s independence if he returns to the White House in 2025. The result would be a toxic inflationary cocktail.

BERKELEY – If the past three years have taught us anything, it is that low inflation cannot be taken for granted. Even though US inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for price stability, former President Donald Trump’s advisers are discussing a new and dangerous approach to monetary policy. If implemented during a second Trump presidency, it would undo the decades of hard work that allowed the Fed to reduce annualized inflation by nearly four percentage points since 2022, to roughly 3%, at little or no cost to the real economy.

India’s Despotic Election
DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY explains how Prime Minister Narendra Modi has eroded democratic safeguards and stacked the deck in his favor.


Trump’s advisers are reportedly considering two complementary policy changes. One proposal reportedly involves increasing direct presidential control over the Fed’s interest-rate decisions and rulemaking. Simultaneously, Trump’s trade team, led by former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, apparently wants to weaken the dollar’s exchange rate.

While some Trump advisers have denied any plans to devalue the dollar, Trump’s preference for lower interest rates and a weaker currency was evident during his first term. The proposed policies would make it easier for him to override the Fed’s independence and achieve both objectives. The result would be a potent inflationary cocktail.

Trump’s desire for a weaker dollar is driven by his belief, shared by Lighthizer, that the dollar is “too strong.” This, in turn, makes US exports expensive in foreign markets and imports cheaper for American consumers, resulting in a large trade deficit. Both Trump and Lighthizer see this as problematic because, in the absence of balanced trade where imports equal exports in value, the United States is funding its trade deficit by borrowing from or effectively ceding domestic assets to foreign entities.

But this interpretation reflects a myopic, seventeenth-century understanding of trade and the economy. In reality, the inflows of money that sustain trade deficits can be used to build new factories, promote better use of existing US assets, or finance new domestic investments and enterprises, with positive spillovers to American workers and firms.

To be sure, one could argue that a lower trade deficit boosts demand for US products, thereby creating jobs. But with the US already at full employment, the Fed is maintaining higher interest rates precisely to curb demand and bring inflation down. While the Fed was aided in that task by a stronger dollar, a weaker currency would have the opposite effect. Moreover, like the import tariffs favored by Trump and Lighthizer, a weaker dollar would hurt consumers by driving up prices for goods containing imported components.

Even if a weaker dollar and balanced trade were worthwhile goals, the policy options for achieving them range from infeasible to harmful. For example, the US Treasury and the Fed could purchase foreign-currency securities and sell dollar-denominated bonds. But given that the foreign-exchange market’s daily turnover is close to $8 trillion, these purchases would need to be implemented on a massive scale, which would expose the US government’s balance sheet to huge losses if the dollar were to strengthen.

Currency-market intervention could be more effective if America’s allies supported it, as they supported the 1985 Plaza Accord. But while countries like Japan and Korea are becoming increasingly nervous about the weakness of their currencies, most others are not and would require convincing. And good luck organizing a cooperative international effort while Trump is threatening to withdraw from NATO.

US threats to impose tariffs on countries perceived to have weak currencies would introduce further uncertainty into global trade, potentially damaging investment and growth. Moreover, it is doubtful that any of this would significantly improve the US trade balance.

Adjusting interest rates is a more reliable way to influence the dollar’s value. But given that foreign central banks are unlikely to raise interest rates and risk pushing their economies into recession just to accommodate Trump, the Fed would be under pressure to lower rates prematurely. This strategy would be inflationary and self-defeating, as higher domestic prices would offset any potential cost savings for foreign buyers that a weaker dollar might otherwise provide. Nevertheless, this might be the path of least resistance if Trump manages to establish greater presidential control over Fed policy, although it could just as easily worsen the US trade balance as improve it.

A surefire way to weaken the dollar and reduce the US trade deficit is to shrink the federal government’s yawning fiscal deficit, enabling the Fed to lower interest rates sooner while controlling inflation. Although this policy would yield long-term benefits for the US and the global economy, it has virtually no political support from either Democrats or Republicans, including Trump.

As global inflation spiked following the COVID-19 pandemic, some observers feared a return to the 1970s, when high and persistent inflation made economic life more unpredictable and stressful for households and businesses. Back then, it took a deep international recession to restore price stability. This time, however, inflation fell rapidly without the need for deep recessions, as supply-chain pressures eased and the Fed, along with other central banks, acted decisively to restrain demand by hiking interest rates.

Central to this success was the fact that markets’ longer-term inflation expectations remained anchored. The actions of central banks, together with their consistent track records over several decades and institutional independence, fostered confidence that their efforts to tame inflation would be effective.

These positive developments would have been impossible in a world where monetary policy was politicized, under presidential control, and focused on the dollar’s external value rather than its far more crucial internal value. Trump’s plans for the Fed and the dollar are a one-way ticket back to the inflationary chaos of the 1970s.




MAURICE OBSTFELD
Writing for PS since 2017
Maurice Obstfeld, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley.

SPACE

The New Space Race Is On and Congress Is Panicked

The prospect of a “doomsday weapon” has some lawmakers worried that the U.S. isn’t ready to win the star wars.


Administration officials said earlier this year that Russia’s work on a space weapon with nuclear capabilities was a concerning development but not an immediate threat. 

Noah Berger/AP

CONGRESS

Haley Byrd Wilt
May 07, 2024 

There’s a new space race underway, and Congress is worried the United States is losing it.

Officials say Russia is still developing what Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence panel, described in an interview with NOTUS as a “doomsday weapon”: an anti-satellite device with nuclear capabilities. Any kind of nuclear detonation in orbit would threaten satellites the United States depends on for GPS, banking, military operations, intelligence gathering and communications.

Lawmakers have been fretting about the potential weapon since Rep. Mike Turner warned of a serious national security threat in February, referring to information lawmakers had been given about it. Administration officials also had the weapon in mind as they requested tens of billions of dollars for more U.S. space security funding this year. News of its development has even prompted some American satellite companies to change how they build spacecraft.

While members of Congress from both parties agree on throwing money at the problem, some worry the U.S. government isn’t moving quickly enough.

“Both China and Russia have weaponized space, and we must catch up to contend with this new reality,” Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, said during a hearing last week.

Turner, who chairs the House intelligence panel, sparked a panic on Capitol Hill when he urged the administration to make public details of the weapon, declining to say what it was. (Some lawmakers are still furious: Last week, Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat, slammed Turner’s statement as an “intelligence leak from Congress.”)

Administration officials said at the time that Russia’s work on the weapon was a concerning development but not an immediate threat. Since then, details have been scarce. Asked by lawmakers last week if Russia is already prepared to launch such a weapon, a space policy official said he would rather answer in a classified session.

But that official, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb, confirmed in his testimony that Russia is working on the weapon and said radiation from a nuclear blast would harm satellites the U.S. depends on, perhaps making some orbits inaccessible for up to a year.

When the American military conducted a test in 1962, detonating a nuclear device in space, the radiation damaged several satellites, rendering them unusable in the following days and weeks. That was before the space age had begun in earnest. With thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit now, such an explosion would have far-reaching effects, especially for commercial space equipment.

Getting GPS directions, sending messages and collecting satellite imagery would all be uncertain, if not impossible.

The administration says it is taking any threats seriously. President Joe Biden has requested more than $30 billion for space activities and capabilities in the coming fiscal year. Some of that money would enable launches of new national security satellites, among other priorities.

Nuclear-armed powers could launch a nuclear weapon into space from the ground already, but sending one into space may provide more flexibility and set an alarming precedent.

“Nuclear detonation in space is a very blunt weapon,” said Rubio.

“It’s not targeted. It would knock out everybody’s satellites,” he told NOTUS in an interview. “There’s not much you can do to defend against something like that, which is why it would be concerning to a lot of people, and why I think you’re going to see international efforts to ban or at least get countries to commit to not doing it.”

He declined to say whether he thinks the United States has done enough to respond, telling NOTUS those discussions are classified.

The U.S. military has tried to prepare for conflict by practicing faster launches. But the most successful tests have come with months of preparation and multiple simulations beforehand. In a real conflict, officials wouldn’t have that luxury.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb confirmed Russia is working on a weapon that could harm satellites the U.S. depends on. Jose Luis Magana/AP

The military is also trying to diversify its assets in space and recently launched 27 new satellites, including eight for missile warning and tracking, Frank Calvelli, assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration, told lawmakers. Officials argue that numerous systems create redundancy that could help in any kind of space-based conflict.

That strategy comes with its own risks. More satellites in orbit increase the odds of spacecraft crashing into each other with disastrous domino effects. Debris from a collision between two vehicles (or an anti-satellite missile strike) might destroy other spacecraft and could grow into a cloud of shrapnel that destroys even more satellites.

Chinese spacecraft have shown an ability to clean up some of the space junk already in orbit. A Chinese satellite in 2022 was reported to have grabbed a defunct satellite and thrown it far away from most orbital traffic, no longer posing a collision risk.

American lawmakers see demonstrations like those through the lens of great power conflict, raising alarms about China’s ability to grapple other satellites. Moulton, for one, said during last week’s hearing that many of China’s new satellites have inherently offensive capabilities.

Commercial space providers have geopolitics in mind too. Joe Latrell, founder of the start-up satellite company Quub Inc., told NOTUS that most commercial satellites in low Earth orbit don’t have to take radiation in mind as much as other spacecraft because they are still shielded from much of the sun’s radiation by the Earth’s atmosphere. They’re now working on shielding most or all of their new satellites because of reports about Russia’s plans — and dramatically increasing the timeline to do so.

“It is going to change the way we build things,” Latrell said, estimating that the company will have implemented radiation proofing in six months. The materials will be more expensive, and launches will weigh 15% more, he said, but “to do otherwise is not a smart move.”

Even so, it’s unclear if the extra shielding would be enough to withstand a nuclear detonation. Military satellites are almost certainly battle-hardened already, but many weather satellites and commercial spacecraft aren’t, he said. And adjusting in the middle of production is much more difficult for larger satellites that take several years to build.

Ideally, lawmakers told NOTUS, the weapon would never be launched. But Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who sits on the intelligence committee, said he believes launching the weapon and using it to any effect “may be more difficult” than Russia “might think.”

If Russia does pursue a nuclear anti-satellite weapon, Rounds added, “there will be retribution for it.”

—
Haley Byrd Wilt is a reporter at NOTUS.

TikTok Asks Court To Declare Ban Unconstitutional

Congress is "silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate," the company argues.

ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN | 

5.8.2024 
REASON

(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)


A new law banning TikTok if it doesn't divorce its parent company is "obviously unconstitutional," TikTok Inc. and ByteDance argue in a new federal court filing.

The Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, passed and signed into law late last month, singles out ByteDance and its subsidiary TikTok Inc., requiring the former to divest itself of the latter within 270 days. If ByteDance doesn't, the TikTok app will be banned in the U.S.

Congress is "silencing the 170 million Americans who use [TikTok] to communicate," and "crafted a two-tiered speech regime" that is unconstitutional, TikTok argues.

The new law allows a similar ultimatum to be applied to other social media platforms with ties to "foreign adversaries" if the president deems them a threat. But this process requires at least some nominal checks and balances that don't apply in TikTok's case. And no other app or company is explicitly named in the new legislation.

"For the first time in history, Congress has enacted a law that subjects a single, named speech platform to a permanent, nationwide ban, and bars every American from participating in a unique online community with more than 1 billion people worldwide," states TikTok's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The company is asking the court to review the constitutionality of the law, which it argues is both a violation of the First Amendment and an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Bills of attainder, which regulate or punish a particular entity (without the benefit of due process), are barred by the Constitution.

TikTok also argues that the law violates its "rights under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it singles Petitioners out for adverse treatment without any reason for doing so."
An American Company With American Rights

Opponents of TikTok often argue that as a Chinese company, TikTok is afforded no free speech protections and the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

This is wrong in two ways. First, because American TikTok users have First Amendment rights which are not in question here.

Second, because TikTok Inc. is a U.S. company. It's incorporated in California and has its main office there, with additional offices in New York, San Jose, Chicago, and Miami.

TikTok Inc. is a subsidiary of ByteDance, which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands (not China) and its leadership is based in Singapore and the U.S. (not China).

ByteDance was founded in China back in 2012. But today, ByteDance's founder—a Chinese national based in Singapore—only has a 21 percent ownership stake in the company. Another 21 percent is owned by employees of the company (including around 7,000 Americans, per the petition) and 58 percent is owned by institutional investors, including BlackRock (an American company), General Atlantic (an American company), and Susquehanna International Group (headquartered in Pennsylvania).

It's hard to pin down TikTok (the platform, not the American company) as belonging to any particular nation. But the idea that it's purely a "Chinese app" is demonstrably false.
A Ban By Any Other Name

TikTok rejects the idea—often cited by politicians in support of the law—that this isn't a ban and therefore isn't actually censorship.

"Banning TikTok is so obviously unconstitutional, in fact, that even the Act's sponsors recognized that reality, and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all, but merely a regulation of TikTok's ownership," notes the petition. "They claim that the Act is not a ban because it offers ByteDance a choice: divest TikTok's U.S. business or be shut down."

"But in reality, there is no choice," the company argues. "The 'qualified divestiture' demanded by the Act to allow TikTok to continue operating in the United States is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally. And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act."

The petition lays out multiple reasons why divestiture isn't feasible, including the fact that the source code is massive and complicated, making "moving all TikTok source code development from ByteDance to a new TikTok owner…impossible as a technological matter."

"It would take years for an entirely new set of engineers to gain sufficient familiarity with the source code to perform the ongoing, necessary maintenance and development activities for the platform," states TikTok's petition. "Moreover, to keep the platform functioning, these engineers would need access to ByteDance software tools, which the Act prohibits." The petition also notes that "the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States."

"Like the United States, China regulates the export of certain technologies originating there," notes the petition. "China's official news agency has reported that under these rules, any sale of recommendation algorithms developed by engineers employed by ByteDance subsidiaries in China, including for TikTok, would require a government license." The petition notes that "China adopted these enhanced export control restrictions between August and October 2020, shortly after President [Donald] Trump's August 6, 2020 and August 14, 2020 executive orders targeting TikTok."

No Due Process

Even if divesture could happen, the act "would still be an extraordinary and unconstitutional assertion of power," TikTok argues. It opens the door to the government simply declaring that companies they don't like must divest of particular products—including platforms for speech—or else those products will be banned. "If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down."

"By banning all online platforms and software applications offered by 'TikTok' and all ByteDance subsidiaries, Congress has made a law curtailing massive amounts of protected speech," it concludes. But "the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, dictate the ownership of newspapers, websites, online platforms, and other privately created speech forums."

In this case, the lawmakers' ploy to ban TikTok has been undertaken without a single non-hypothetical finding of danger by Congress, nor any consideration of less restrictive means of allaying any concerns, the company argues.

TikTok Inc. "worked with the government for four years on a voluntary basis to develop a framework to address the government's concerns," it points out. As part of this engagement, the company "voluntarily invested more than $2 billion to build a system of technological and governance protections—sometimes referred to as 'Project Texas'—to help safeguard U.S. user data and the integrity of the U.S. TikTok platform against foreign government influence."

The company also committed to a draft National Security Agreement developed with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. "Congress tossed this tailored agreement aside, in favor of the politically expedient and punitive approach of targeting for disfavor one publisher and speaker (TikTok Inc.), one speech forum (TikTok), and that forum's ultimate owner (ByteDance Ltd.)," the petition states.

TikTok Inc. and ByteDance are now asking the court to "issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the U.S. Constitution" and an order stopping the U.S. Attorney General from enforcing the act.

More Sex & Tech News

• Check out Reason's new Artificial Intelligence issue.

• The fight over an Idaho "abortion trafficking" law continues in a federal appeals court.

• Alabama's Attorney General "cannot constitutionally prosecute people for acts taken within the State meant to facilitate lawful out-of-state conduct, including obtaining an abortion," writes U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson, declining to dismiss a case against Attorney General Steve Marshall's pledge to prosecute people who help Alabama residents obtain out-of-state abortions. Reason's Emma Camp has more.

• Microsoft is building an AI tool to compete with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini.

• Minnesota "spends $100 million a year to detain about 750 individuals who are deemed 'likely' to commit sex offenses," notes Jacob Sullum.

Today's Image

Chinatown, NYC | 2013 (ENB/Reason)