An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Verizon lost an attempt to overturn a $46.9 million fine for selling customer location data without its users' consent. The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected Verizon's challenge in a ruling (PDF) issued today. The Federal Communications Commission fined the three major carriers last year for violations revealed in 2018. The companies sued the FCC in three different courts, with varying results.

AT&T beat the FCC in the reliably conservative US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, while T-Mobile lost in the District of Columbia Circuit. Although FCC Chairman Brendan Carr voted against (PDF) the fine last year, when the commission had a Democratic majority, his FCC urged the courts to uphold the Biden-era decisions. A ruling against the FCC could gut the agency's ability to issue financial penalties. The different rulings from different circuits raise the odds of the cases being taken up by the Supreme Court.

Today's 2nd Circuit ruling against Verizon was issued unanimously by a panel of three judges, and it comes to the same legal conclusions as the DC Circuit did in the T-Mobile case. The court did not accept the carrier's argument that the fine violated its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and that the location data wasn't protected under the law used by the FCC to issue the penalties. "We disagree [with Verizon]," the 2nd Circuit ruling said. "The customer data at issue plainly qualifies as customer proprietary network information, triggering the Communication Act's privacy protections. And the forfeiture order both soundly imposed liability and remained within the strictures of the penalty cap. Nothing about the Commission's proceedings, moreover, transgressed the Seventh Amendment's jury trial guarantee. Indeed, Verizon had, and chose to forgo, the opportunity for a jury trial in federal court. Thus, we DENY Verizon's petition." Until 2019, the ruling said Verizon operated a location-based services program that sold customer location data through intermediaries like LocationSmart and Zumigo, who then resold it to dozens of third-party entities. Instead of directly managing consent and notifications, Verizon "largely delegated those functions via contract" to its partners, a system that came under scrutiny after a 2018 New York Times report exposed security breaches.

One major misuse involved Securus Technologies, which "was misusing the program to enable law enforcement officers to access location data without customers' knowledge or consent, so long as the officers uploaded a warrant or some other legal authorization," the ruling said. Verizon argued that Section 222 of the Communications Act only covered call-location data, but the court ruled that device-location data also qualifies as protected customer information.

BrianFagioli shares a report from NERDS.xyz: Plex has alerted its customers about a security incident that may have affected user accounts. In an email sent to subscribers, the popular media server company confirmed that an unauthorized third party gained access to one of its databases. The breach exposed emails, usernames, and hashed passwords. Plex emphasized that passwords were encrypted following best practices, so attackers cannot simply read them. The company also reassured users that no credit card data was compromised, since Plex does not store that information on its servers. Still, out of caution, it is requiring all account holders to reset their credentials.

Users are being directed to reset their passwords at plex.tv/reset. During the process, Plex recommends enabling the option to sign out all connected devices. This measure logs out every device associated with the account, including Plex Media Servers, forcing a fresh login with the updated password. The company says it has already fixed the method used by the intruder to gain entry and is conducting additional security reviews. Plex is also urging subscribers to enable two-factor authentication if they have not already done so.

The former head of security for WhatsApp filed a lawsuit on Monday accusing Meta of ignoring major security and privacy flaws that put billions of the messaging app's users at risk, the latest in a string of whistle-blower allegations against the social media giant. The New York Times: In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Northern California, Attaullah Baig claimed that thousands of WhatsApp and Meta employees could gain access to sensitive user data including profile pictures, location, group memberships and contact lists. Meta, which owns WhatsApp, also failed to adequately address the hacking of more than 100,000 accounts each day and rejected his proposals for security fixes, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Baig tried to warn Meta's top leaders, including its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, that users were being harmed by the security weaknesses, according to the lawsuit. In response, his managers retaliated and fired him in February, he claims. Mr. Baig, who is represented by the whistle-blower organization Psst.org and the law firm Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris, Hoffman & Zeldes, argued in the suit that the actions violated a privacy settlement Meta reached with the Federal Trade Commission in 2019, as well as securities laws that require companies to disclose risks to shareholders.

The blog OMG Ubuntu notes that Microsoft Copilot chatbot support has been added in the latest Firefox Nightly builds. "Firefox's sidebar already offers access to popular chatbots, including OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Le Chat's Mistral and Google's Gemini. It previously offered HuggingChat too." As the testing bed for features Mozilla wants to add to stable builds (though not all make it — eh, rounded bottom window corners?), this is something you can expect to find in a future stable update... Copilot in Firefox offers the same features as other chatbots: text prompts, upload files or images, generate images, support for entering voice prompts (for those who fancy their voice patterns being analysed and trained on). And like those other chatbots, there are usage limits, privacy policies, and (for some) account creation needed. In testing, Copilot would only generate half a summary for a webpage, telling me it was too long to produce without me signing in/up for an account.

On a related note, Mozilla has updated stable builds to let third-party chatbots summarise web pages when browsing (in-app callout alerts users to the 'new' feature). Users yet to enable chatbots are subtly nudged to do so each time they right-click on web page. [Between "Take Screenshot" and "View Page Source" there's a menu option for "Ask an AI Chatbot."] Despite making noise about its own (sluggish, but getting faster) on-device AI features that are privacy-orientated, Mozilla is bullish on the need for external chatbots.
The article suggests Firefox wants to keep up with Edge and Chrome (which can "infuse first-party AI features directly.") But it adds that Firefox's nightly build is also testing some non-AI features, like new task and timer widgets on Firefox's New Tab page. And "In Firefox Labs, there are is an option to enable JPEG XL support, a super-optimised version of JPEG that is gaining traction (despite Google's intransigence).

Other Firefox news:

• There's good news "for users still clinging to Windows 7," writes the Register. Support for Firefox Extended Support Release 115 "is being extended until March 2026."

• Google "can keep paying companies like Mozilla to make Google the default search engine, as long as these deals aren't exclusive anymore," reports the blog It's FOSS News. (The judge wrote that "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial — in some cases, crippling — downstream harms to distribution partners..." according to CNBC — especially since the non-profit Mozilla Foundation gets most of its annual revenue from its Google's search deal.)

• Don't forget you can now search your tabs, bookmarks and browsing history right from the address bar with keywords like @bookmarks, @tabs, and @history. (And @actions pulls up a list of actions like "Open private window" or "Restart Firefox").

"A federal jury has ordered Google to pay $425.7 million for improperly snooping on people's smartphones during a nearly decade-long period of intrusions," reports the Associated Press: The lawyers who filed the case had argued Google had used the data they collected off smartphones without users' permission to help sell ads tailored to users' individual interests — a strategy that resulted in the company reaping billions in additional revenue. The lawyers framed those ad sales as illegal profiteering that merited damages of more than $30 billion. Even though the jury came up with a far lower calculation for the damages, one of the lawyers who brought the case against Google hailed the outcome as a victory for privacy protection. "We hope this result sends a message to the tech industry that Americans will not sit idly by as their information is collected and monetized against their will," said attorney John Yanchunis of law firm Morgan & Morgan.
David Boies, the man who led the U.S. government's 2001 antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, was the plaintiffs' attorney. More details from Bloomberg Law: The lawsuit alleged that since 2016 Google told its users that when they turned off a privacy setting known as Web & App Activity, the company would cease collecting their data from third-party apps that use Google's back end data analytics services. Google continued that collection despite its promise to users that they had control, the plaintiffs alleged. Judge Richard Seeborg certified a class of 98 million Google users who has switched the Web & App Activity setting off...

Boies told the jury during closing statements that the case was about Google breaking its promise to users that they had control over their data. He pointed to Congressional testimony from Google CEO Sundar Pichai in 2018 who said users could clearly see what information the company had, all while internal communications and surveys said users were being misled about their privacy... During closing statements, Google attorney Benedict Hur of Cooley LLP said that as soon as a user click the tracking switch off, they were presented with an "Are You Sure?" screen that stated that users can "learn about the data Google continues to collect and why" by clicking an additional link.
A spokesperson for Google said they would appeal the verdict.

Switzerland has launched Apertus, a fully open-source, multilingual LLM trained on 15 trillion tokens and over 1,000 languages. "What distinguishes Apertus from many other generative AI systems is its commitment to complete openness," reports CyberInsider. From the report: Unlike popular proprietary models, where users can only interact via APIs or hosted interfaces, Apertus provides open access to its model weights, training datasets, documentation, and even intermediate checkpoints. The source code and all training materials are released under a permissive open-source license that allows commercial use. Since the full training process is documented and reproducible, researchers and watchdogs can audit the data sources, verify compliance with data protection laws, and inspect how the model was trained. Apertus' development explicitly adhered to Swiss data protection and copyright laws, and incorporated retroactive opt-out mechanisms to respect data source preferences.

From a privacy perspective, Apertus represents a compelling shift in the AI landscape. The model only uses publicly available data, filtered to exclude personal information and to honor opt-out signals from content sources. This not only aligns with emerging regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act, but also provides a tangible example of how AI can be both powerful and privacy-respecting. According to ETH Zurich's Imanol Schlag, technical lead of the project at ETH Zurich, Apertus is "built for the public good" and is a demonstration of how AI can be deployed as a public digital infrastructure, much like utilities or transportation. The model is available via Swisscom's Sovereign Swiss AI Platform. It's also available through Hugging Face and the Public AI Inference Utility.

Futurism reports: Earlier this week, buried in the middle of a lengthy blog post addressing ChatGPT's propensity for severe mental health harms, OpenAI admitted that it's scanning users' conversations and reporting to police any interactions that a human reviewer deems sufficiently threatening.

"When we detect users who are planning to harm others, we route their conversations to specialized pipelines where they are reviewed by a small team trained on our usage policies and who are authorized to take action, including banning accounts," it wrote. "If human reviewers determine that a case involves an imminent threat of serious physical harm to others, we may refer it to law enforcement."

The announcement raised immediate questions. Don't human moderators judging tone, for instance, undercut the entire premise of an AI system that its creators say can solve broad, complex problems? How is OpenAI even figuring out users' precise locations in order to provide them to emergency responders? How is it protecting against abuse by so-called swatters, who could pretend to be someone else and then make violent threats to ChatGPT in order to get their targets raided by the cops...? The admission also seems to contradict remarks by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who recently called for privacy akin to a "therapist or a lawyer or a doctor" for users talking to ChatGPT.
"Others argued that the AI industry is hastily pushing poorly-understood products to market, using real people as guinea pigs, and adopting increasingly haphazard solutions to real-world problems as they arise..."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

Remember those Harvard dropouts who built smart glasses for covert facial recognition — and then raised $1 million to develop AI-powered glasses to continuously listen to conversations and display its insights?

"People Are REALLY Mad," writes Futurism, noting that some social media users "have responded with horror and outrage." One of its selling points is that the specs don't come with a visual indicator that lights up to let people know when they're being recorded, which is a feature that Meta's smart glasses do currently have. "People don't want this," wrote Whitney Merill, a privacy lawyer. "Wanting this is not normal. It's weird...."

[S]ome mocked the deleterious effects this could have on our already smartphone-addicted, brainrotted cerebrums. "I look forward to professional conversations with people who just read robot fever dream hallucinations at me in response to my technical and policy questions," one user mused.
The co-founder of the company told TechCrunch their glasses would be the "first real step towards vibe thinking."

But there's already millions of other smart glasses out in the world, and they're now drawing a backlash, reports the Washington Post, citing the millions of people viewing "a stream of other critical videos" about Meta's smart glasses.

The article argues that Generation Z, "who grew up in an internet era defined by poor personal privacy, are at the forefront of a new backlash against smart glasses' intrusion into everyday life..." Opal Nelson, a 22-year-old in New York, said the more she learns about smart glasses, the angrier she becomes. Meta Ray-Bans have a light that turns on when the gadget is recording video, but she said it doesn't seem to protect people from being recorded without consent... "And now there's more and more tutorials showing people how to cover up the [warning light] and still allow you to record," Nelson said. In one such tutorial with more than 900,000 views, a man claims to explain how to cover the warning light on Meta Ray-Bans without triggering the sensor that prevents the device from secretly recording.
One 26-year-old attracted 10 million views to their video on TikTok about the spread of Meta's photography-capable smart glasses. "People specifically in my generation are pretty concerned about the future of technology," the told the Post, "and what that means for all of us and our privacy."

The article cites figures from a devices analyst at IDC who estimates U.S. sales for Meta Ray-Bans will hit 4 million units by the end of 2025, compared to 1.2 million in 2024.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: WhatsApp said on Friday that it fixed a security bug in its iOS and Mac apps that was being used to stealthily hack into the Apple devices of "specific targeted users." The Meta-owned messaging app giant said in its security advisory that it fixed the vulnerability, known officially as CVE-2025-55177, which was used alongside a separate flaw found in iOS and Macs, which Apple fixed last week and tracks as CVE-2025-43300.

Apple said at the time that the flaw was used in an "extremely sophisticated attack against specific targeted individuals." Now we know that dozens of WhatsApp users were targeted with this pair of flaws. Donncha O Cearbhaill, who heads Amnesty International's Security Lab, described the attack in a post on X as an "advanced spyware campaign" that targeted users over the past 90 days, or since the end of May. O Cearbhaill described the pair of bugs as a "zero-click" attack, meaning it does not require any interaction from the victim, such as clicking a link, to compromise their device.

The two bugs chained together allow an attacker to deliver a malicious exploit through WhatsApp that's capable of stealing data from the user's Apple device. Per O Cearbhaill, who posted a copy of the threat notification that WhatsApp sent to affected users, the attack was able to "compromise your device and the data it contains, including messages." It's not immediately clear who, or which spyware vendor, is behind the attacks. When reached by TechCrunch, Meta spokesperson Margarita Franklin confirmed the company detected and patched the flaw "a few weeks ago" and that the company sent "less than 200" notifications to affected WhatsApp users. The spokesperson did not say, when asked, if WhatsApp has evidence to attribute the hacks to a specific attacker or surveillance vendor.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Valve has started to comply with the UK's Online Safety Act, by rolling out a requirement for all Brits to verify their age with a credit card to access "mature content" pages and games on Steam. UK users won't even be able to access the community hubs of mature content games unless a valid credit card is stored on a Steam account.

While platforms like Reddit, Bluesky, and Discord have opted for age verification checks using selfies, Valve is restricting its age checks to just credit cards, according to a support article. "Among all age assurance mechanisms reviewed by Valve, this process preserves the maximum degree of user privacy," says Valve. "Having the credit card stored as a payment method acts as an additional deterrent against circumventing age verification by sharing a single Steam user account among multiple persons."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Credit reporting giant TransUnion has disclosed a data breach affecting more than 4.4 million customers' personal information. In a filing with Maine's attorney general's office on Thursday, TransUnion attributed the July 28 breach to unauthorized access of a third-party application storing customers' personal data for its U.S. consumer support operations.

TransUnion claimed "no credit information was accessed," but provided no immediate evidence for its claim. The data breach notice did not specify what specific types of personal data were stolen. In a separate data breach disclosure filed later on Thursday with Texas' attorney general's office, TransUnion confirmed that the stolen personal information includes customers' names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. [...] It's not clear who is behind the breach at TransUnion, or if the hackers made any demands to the company.

Anthropic will start training its AI models on user data, including new chat transcripts and coding sessions, unless users choose to opt out. The Verge: It's also extending its data retention policy to five years -- again, for users that don't choose to opt out. All users will have to make a decision by September 28th. For users that click "Accept" now, Anthropic will immediately begin training its models on their data and keeping said data for up to five years, according to a blog post published by Anthropic on Thursday.

The setting applies to "new or resumed chats and coding sessions." Even if you do agree to Anthropic training its AI models on your data, it won't do so with previous chats or coding sessions that you haven't resumed. But if you do continue an old chat or coding session, all bets are off.

Nevada has been crippled by a cyberattack that began on August 24, taking down state websites, intermittently disabling phone lines, and forcing offices like the DMV to close. The Register reports: The Office of Governor Joseph Lombardo announced the attack via social media on Monday, saying that a "network security incident" took hold in the early hours of August 24. Official state websites remain unavailable, and Lombardo's office warned that phone lines will be intermittently down, although emergency services lines remain operational. State offices are also closed until further notice, including Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) buildings. The state said any missed appointments will be honored on a walk-in basis.

"The Office of the Governor and Governor's Technology Office (GTO) are working continuously with state, local, tribal, and federal partners to restore services safely," the announcement read. "GTO is using temporary routing and operational workarounds to maintain public access where it is feasible. Additionally, GTO is validating systems before returning them to normal operation and sharing updates as needed." Local media outlets are reporting that, further to the original announcement, state offices will remain closed on Tuesday after officials previously expected them to reopen. The state's new cybersecurity office says there is currently no evidence to suggest that any Nevadans' personal information was compromised during the attack.

Starting with Word for Windows version 2509, Microsoft is making cloud saving the default behavior. New documents will automatically save to OneDrive (or another cloud destination), with dated filenames, unless users manually revert to local saving in the settings. From the report: "Anything new you create will be saved automatically to OneDrive or your preferred cloud destination", writes Raul Munoz, product manager at Microsoft on the Office Shared Services and Experiences team. Munoz backs up the decision with half a dozen advantages for saving documents to the cloud. From never losing progress and access anywhere to easy collaboration and increased security and compliance. While cloud saving is without doubt beneficial in some cases, Munoz fails to address the elephant in the room. Some users may not want that their documents are stored in the cloud. There are good reasons for that, including privacy.

Summed up:
- If you do not mind that Word documents are stored in the cloud, you do not need to become active.
- If you mind that Word documents are stored in the cloud by default, you need to modify the default setting.

The FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies around the world warned Wednesday that a Chinese-government hacking campaign that previously penetrated nine U.S. telecommunications companies has expanded into other industries and regions, striking at least 200 American organizations and 80 countries. From a report: The joint advisory was issued with the close allies in the Five Eyes English-language intelligence-sharing arrangement and also agencies from Finland, Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic, an unusually broad array meant to demonstrate global resolve against what intelligence officials said is a pernicious campaign that exceeds accepted norms for snooping.

"The expectation of privacy here was violated, not just in the U.S., but globally," FBI Assistant Director Brett Leatherman, who heads the bureau's cyber division, told The Washington Post in an interview. Chinese hackers won deep access to major communication carriers in the U.S. and elsewhere, then extracted call records and some law enforcement directives, which allowed them to build out a map of who was calling whom and whom the U.S. suspected of spying, Leatherman said. Prominent politicians in both major U.S. parties were among the ultimate victims.

The Michigan Supreme Court has drawn a firm line around digital privacy, ruling that police cannot use overly broad warrants to comb through every corner of a person's phone. From a report: In People v. Carson, the court found [PDF] that warrants for digital devices must include specific limitations, allowing access only to information directly tied to the suspected crime. Michael Carson became the focus of a theft investigation involving money allegedly taken from a neighbor's safe. Authorities secured a warrant to search his phone, but the document placed no boundaries on what could be examined.

It permitted access to all data on the device, including messages, photos, contacts, and documents, without any restriction based on time period or relevance. Investigators collected over a thousand pages of information, much of it unrelated to the accusation. The court ruled that this kind of expansive warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires particularity in describing what police may search and seize.

Farmers Insurance disclosed a breach affecting 1.1 million customers after attackers exploited Salesforce in a widespread campaign involving ShinyHunters and allied groups. According to BleepingComputer, the hackers stole personal data such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. From the report: The company disclosed the data breach in an advisory on its website, saying that its database at a third-party vendor was breached on May 29, 2025. "On May 30, 2025, one of Farmers' third-party vendors alerted Farmers to suspicious activity involving an unauthorized actor accessing one of the vendor's databases containing Farmers customer information (the "Incident")," reads the data breach notification (PDF) on its website. "The third-party vendor had monitoring tools in place, which allowed the vendor to quickly detect the activity and take appropriate containment measures, including blocking the unauthorized actor. After learning of the activity, Farmers immediately launched a comprehensive investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Incident and notified appropriate law enforcement authorities."

The company says that its investigation determined that customers' names, addresses, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, and/or last four digits of Social Security numbers were stolen during the breach. Farmers began sending data breach notifications to impacted individuals on August 22, with a sample notification [1, 2] shared with the Maine Attorney General's Office, stating that a combined total of 1,111,386 customers were impacted. While Farmers did not disclose the name of the third-party vendor, BleepingComputer has learned that the data was stolen in the widespread Salesforce data theft attacks that have impacted numerous organizations this year. Further reading: Google Suffers Data Breach in Ongoing Salesforce Data Theft Attacks

"Good news, everyone! The new version of Mozilla's browser now makes even more extensive use of AI," writes the Register, "providing summaries of linked content and offering developers the ability to add LLM support to extensions." Firefox 142 brings some visible shininess, but due to the combination of regional restrictions and Mozilla's progressive rollout system, not everybody can see all the features just yet... Not geofenced but subject to phased rollout are link previews, for various native-English-speaking regions. Hover over, long-press, or right-click a link and pick Preview Link, and a summary should appear. Mozilla's summary says: "Previews can optionally include AI-generated key points, which are processed on your device to protect your privacy."
"Link Previews is gradually rolling out to ensure performance and quality," Firefox says in their release notes, "and is now available in en-US, en-CA, en-GB, en-AU for users with more than 3 GB of available RAM." (The notes also add a welcome for "the developers who contributed their first code change to Firefox in this release, 20 of whom were brand new volunteers!")

The Register notes that Firefox 142 also gives developers the ability to add LLM support to extensions using wllama, a Wasm binding interfacing with llama.cpp, which lets you run Meta's Llama LLM and other models, locally or in the cloud.

"James Cameron has a confession: he can't write Terminator 7..." according to the Guardian, "because reality keeps nicking his plotlines." "I'm at a point right now where I have a hard time writing science-fiction," Cameron told CNN this week. "I'm tasked with writing a new Terminator story [but] I don't know what to say that won't be overtaken by real events. We are living in a science-fiction age right now...."

What Cameron should be looking for is a complete system reboot to reinvigorate the saga in the way Prey brought fans back to Predator and Alien: Romulus restored interest in slimy Xenomorphs. All evidence suggests that the 70-year-old film-maker is far more interested in the current challenges surrounding AI, superintelligences and humankind's constant efforts to destroy itself, which doesn't exactly lend itself to the sort of back-to-basics, relentless-monsters-hunt-a-few-unlucky-humans-for-two-hours approach that has worked elsewhere. The challenge here seems to be to fuse Terminator's core DNA — unstoppable cyborgs, explosive chase sequences, and Sarah Connor-level defiance — with the occasionally rather more prosaic yet equally scary existential anxieties of 21st-century AI doom-mongering. So we may get Terminator 7: Kill List, in which a single, battered freedom fighter is hunted across a decimated city by a T-800 running a predictive policing algorithm that knows her next move before she does. Or T7: Singularity's Mom, in which a lone Sarah Connor-type must protect a teenage coder whose chatbot will one day evolve into Skynet. Or Terminator 7: Terms and Conditions, in which humanity's downfall comes not from nuclear warfare but from everyone absent-mindedly agreeing to Skynet's new privacy policy, triggering an army of leather-clad enforcers to collect on the fine print.

Or perhaps the future just looks terrifying enough without Cameron getting involved — which, rather worryingly for the future of the franchise, seems to be the director's essential point.
"The only way out is through," Cameron said in the CNN interview, "by using our intelligence, by using our curiosity, by using our command of technology, but also, by really understanding the stark probabilities that we face."

In the meantime, Cameron is working on a new film inspired by the book Ghosts of Hiroshima, a book written by Charles Pellegrino, one of the consultants on Titanic. "I know what a meticulous researcher he is," Cameron told CNN in a recent interview. (Transcript here.) CAMERON: He's talked about this book for ages and ages and sent me early versions of it. So, I've read it with interest, great interest a number of times now. What compels me out of all that and what I think the human hook for understanding this tragedy is, is to follow a handful, specifically two will be featured of survivors, that actually survived not only the Hiroshima blast, but then went to Nagasaki and three days later were hit again.... This film scares me. I fear making this film. I fear the images that I'm going to have to create, to be honest and to be truthful.
CNN also spoke to former U.S. Energy secretary Ernest Moni, who is now a CEO at the nonprofit global security organization, the Nuclear Threat Initiative: MONI: There remains a false narrative that the possession of these nuclear weapons is actually making us safer when they're not. That's the narrative I think, ultimately, we need to change. Harry Truman said, quite correctly, these nuclear weapons, they are not military weapons. Dropped on a city, they indiscriminately kill combatants, non-combatants, women, children, etc. They should not be thought of as military weapons, but as weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate mass destruction when certainly dropped in an urban center.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.

Bluesky has blocked access to its service in Mississippi rather than comply with a new state law requiring age verification for all social media users. TechCrunch reports: In a blog post published on Friday, the company explains that, as a small team, it doesn't have the resources to make the substantial technical changes this type of law would require, and it raised concerns about the law's broad scope and privacy implications. Mississippi's HB 1126 requires platforms to introduce age verification for all users before they can access social networks like Bluesky. On Thursday, U.S. Supreme Court justices decided to block an emergency appeal that would have prevented the law from going into effect as the legal challenges it faces played out in the courts. As a result, Bluesky had to decide what it would do about compliance.

Instead of requiring age verification before users could access age-restricted content, this law requires age verification of all users. That means Bluesky would have to verify every user's age and obtain parental consent for anyone under 18. The company notes that the potential penalties for noncompliance are hefty, too -- up to $10,000 per user. Bluesky also stresses that the law goes beyond child safety, as intended, and would create "significant barriers that limit free speech and disproportionately harm smaller platforms and emerging technologies." To comply, Bluesky would have to collect and store sensitive information from all its users, in addition to the detailed tracking of minors. This is different from how it's expected to comply with other age verification laws, like the U.K.'s Online Safety Act (OSA), which only requires age checks for certain content and features.

Mississippi's law blocks anyone from using the site unless they provide their personal and sensitive information. The company notes that its decision only applies to the Bluesky app built on the AT Protocol. Other apps may approach the decision differently.