Policy

microsoft-deletes-blog-telling-users-to-train-ai-on-pirated-harry-potter-books

Microsoft deletes blog telling users to train AI on pirated Harry Potter books


Wizarding world of AI slop

The now-deleted Harry Potter dataset was “mistakenly” marked public domain.

Following backlash in a Hacker News thread, Microsoft deleted a blog post that critics said encouraged developers to pirate Harry Potter books to train AI models that could then be used to create AI slop.

The blog, which is archived here, was written in November 2024 by a senior product manager, Pooja Kamath. According to her LinkedIn, Kamath has been at Microsoft for more than a decade and remains with the company. In 2024, Microsoft tapped her to promote a new feature that the blog said made it easier to “add generative AI features to your own applications with just a few lines of code using Azure SQL DB, LangChain, and LLMs.”

What better way to show “engaging and relatable examples” of Microsoft’s new feature that would “resonate with a wide audience” than to “use a well-known dataset” like Harry Potter books, the blog said.

The books are “one of the most famous and cherished series in literary history,” the blog noted, and fans could use the LLMs they trained in two fun ways: building Q&A systems providing “context-rich answers” and generating “new AI-driven Harry Potter fan fiction” that’s “sure to delight Potterheads.”

To help Microsoft customers achieve this vision, the blog linked to a Kaggle dataset that included all seven Harry Potter books, which, Ars verified, has been available online for years and incorrectly marked as “public domain.” Kaggle’s terms say that rights holders can send notices of infringing content, and repeat offenders risk suspensions, but Hacker News commenters speculated that the Harry Potter dataset flew under the radar, with only 10,000 downloads over time, not catching the attention of J.K. Rowling, who famously keeps a strong grip on the Harry Potter copyrights. The dataset was promptly deleted on Thursday after Ars reached out to the uploader, Shubham Maindola, a data scientist in India with no apparent links to Microsoft.

Maindola told Ars that “the dataset was marked as Public Domain by mistake. There was no intention to misrepresent the licensing status of the works.”

It’s unclear whether Kamath was directed to link to the Harry Potter books dataset in the blog or if it was an individual choice. Cathay Y. N. Smith, a law professor and co-director of Chicago-Kent College of Law’s Program in Intellectual Property Law, told Ars that Kamath may not have realized the books were too recent to be in the public domain.

“Someone might be really knowledgeable about books and technology, but not necessarily about copyright terms and how long they last,” Smith said. “Especially if she saw that something was marked by another reputable company as being public domain.”

Microsoft declined Ars’ request to comment. Kaggle did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Microsoft was “probably smart” to pull the blog

On Hacker News, commenters suggested that it’s unlikely anyone familiar with the popular franchise would believe the Harry Potter books were in the public domain. They debated whether Microsoft’s blog was “problematic copyright-wise,” since Microsoft not only encouraged customers to download the infringing materials but also used the books themselves to create Harry Potter AI models that relied on beloved characters to hype Microsoft products.

Microsoft’s blog was posted more than a year ago, at a time when AI firms began facing lawsuits over AI models, which had allegedly infringed copyrights by training on pirated materials and regurgitating works verbatim.

The blog recommended that users learn to train their own AI models by downloading the Harry Potter dataset and then uploading text files to Azure Blob Storage. It included example models based on a dataset that Microsoft seemingly uploaded to Azure Blob Storage, which only included the first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Training large language models (LLMs) on text files, Harry Potter fans could create Q&A systems capable of pulling up relevant excerpts of books. An example query offered was “Wizarding World snacks,” which retrieved an excerpt from The Sorcerer’s Stone where Harry marvels at strange treats like Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans and chocolate frogs. Another prompt asking “How did Harry feel when he first learnt that he was a Wizard?” generated an output pointing to various early excerpts in the book.

But perhaps an even more exciting use case, Kamath suggested, was generating fan fiction to “explore new adventures” and “even create alternate endings.” That model could quickly comb the dataset for “contextually similar” excerpts that could be used to output fresh stories that fit with existing narratives and incorporate “elements from the retrieved passages,” the blog said.

As an example, Kamath trained a model to write a Harry Potter story she could use to market the feature she was blogging about. She asked the model to write a story in which Harry meets a new friend on the Hogwarts Express train who tells him all about Microsoft’s Native Vector Support in SQL “in the Muggle world.”

Drawing on parts of The Sorcerer’s Stone where Harry learns about Quidditch and gets to know Hermione Granger, the fan fiction showed a boy selling Harry on Microsoft’s “amazing” new feature. To do this, he likened it to having a spell that helps you find exactly what you need among thousands of options, instantly, while declaring it was perfect for machine learning, AI, and recommendation systems.

Further blurring the lines between Microsoft and Harry Potter brands, Kamath also generated an image showing Harry with his new friend, stamped with a Microsoft logo.

Smith told Ars that both use cases could frustrate rights holders, depending on the content in the model outputs.

“I think that the regurgitation and the creation of fan fiction, they both could flag copyright issues, in that fan fiction often has to take from the expressive elements, a copyrighted character, a character that’s famous enough to be protected by a copyright law or plot stories or sequences,” Smith said. “If these things are copied and reproduced, then that output could be potentially infringing.”

But it’s also still a gray area. Looking at the blog, Smith said, “I would be concerned,” but “I wouldn’t say it’s automatically infringement.”

Smith told Ars that, in pulling the blog, Microsoft “was probably smart,” since courts have only generally said that training AI on copyrighted books is fair use. But courts continue to probe questions about pirated AI training materials.

On the deleted Kaggle dataset page, Maindola previously explained that to source the data, he “downloaded the ebooks and then converted them to txt files.”

Microsoft may have infringed copyrights

If Microsoft ever faced questions as to whether the company knowingly used pirated books to train the example models, fair use “could be a difficult argument,” Smith said.

Hacker News commenters suggested the blog could be considered fair use, since the training guide was for “educational purposes,” and Smith said that Microsoft could raise some “good arguments” in its defense.

However, she also suggested that Microsoft could be deemed liable for contributing to infringement on some level after leaving the blog up for a year. Before it was removed, the Kaggle dataset was downloaded more than 10,000 times.

“The ultimate result is to create something infringing by saying, ‘Hey, here you go, go grab that infringing stuff and use that in our system,’” Smith said. “They could potentially have some sort of secondary contributory liability for copyright infringement, downloading it, as well as then using it to encourage others to use it for training purposes.”

On Hacker News, commenters slammed the blog, including a self-described former Microsoft employee who claimed that Microsoft lets employees “blog without having to go through some approval or editing process.”

“It looks like somebody made a bad judgment call on what to put in a company blog post (and maybe what constitutes ethical activity) and that it was taken down as soon as someone noticed,” the former employee said.

Others suggested the blame was solely with the Kaggle uploader, Maindola, who told Ars that the dataset should never have been marked “public domain.” But Microsoft critics pushed back, noting that the Kaggle page made it clear that no special permission was granted and that Microsoft’s employee should have known better. “They don’t need to know any details to know that these properties belong to massive companies and aren’t free for the taking,” one commenter said.

The Harry Potter books weren’t the only books targeted, the thread noted, linking to a separate Azure sample containing Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, which is also not in the public domain.

“Microsoft could have used any dataset for their blog, they could have even chosen to use actual public domain novels,” another Hacker News commenter wrote. “Instead, they opted to use copywritten works that J.K. hasn’t released into the public domain (unless user ‘Shubham Maindola’ is J.K.’s alter ego).”

Smith suggested Microsoft could have avoided this week’s backlash by more carefully reviewing blogs, noting that “if a company is risk averse, this would probably be flagged.” But she also understood Kamath’s preference for Harry Potter over the many long-forgotten characters that exist in the public domain. On Hacker News, some commenters defended Kamath’s blog, urging that it should be considered fair use since nonprofits and educational institutions could do the same thing in a teaching context without issue.

“I would have been concerned if I were the one clearing this for Microsoft, but at the same time, I completely understand what this employee was doing,” Smith said. “No one wants to write fan fiction about books that are in the public domain.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Microsoft deletes blog telling users to train AI on pirated Harry Potter books Read More »

fury-over-discord’s-age-checks-explodes-after-shady-persona-test-in-uk

Fury over Discord’s age checks explodes after shady Persona test in UK


Persona confirmed all age-check data from Discord’s UK test was deleted.

Shortly after Discord announced that all users will soon be defaulted to teen experiences until their ages are verified, the messaging platform faced immediate backlash.

One of the major complaints was that Discord planned to collect more government IDs as part of its global age verification process. It shocked many that Discord would be so bold so soon after a third-party breach of a former age check partner’s services recently exposed 70,000 Discord users’ government IDs.

Attempting to reassure users, Discord claimed that most users wouldn’t have to show ID, instead relying on video selfies using AI to estimate ages, which raised separate privacy concerns. In the future, perhaps behavioral signals would override the need for age checks for most users, Discord suggested, seemingly downplaying the risk that sensitive data would be improperly stored.

Discord didn’t hide that it planned to continue requesting IDs for any user appealing an incorrect age assessment, and users weren’t happy, since that is exactly how the prior breach happened. Responding to critics, Discord claimed that the majority of ID data was promptly deleted. Specifically, Savannah Badalich, Discord’s global head of product policy, told The Verge that IDs shared during appeals “are deleted quickly—in most cases, immediately after age confirmation.”

It’s unsurprising then that backlash exploded after Discord posted, and then weirdly deleted, a disclaimer on an FAQ about Discord’s age assurance policies that contradicted Discord’s hyped short timeline for storing IDs. An archived version of the page shows the note shared this warning:

“Important: If you’re located in the UK, you may be part of an experiment where your information will be processed by an age-assurance vendor, Persona. The information you submit will be temporarily stored for up to 7 days, then deleted. For ID document verification, all details are blurred except your photo and date of birth, so only what’s truly needed for age verification is used.”

Critics felt that Discord was obscuring not just how long IDs may be stored, but also the entities collecting information. Discord did not provide details on what the experiment was testing or how many users were affected, and Persona was not listed as a partner on its platform.

Asked for comment, Discord told Ars that only a small number of users was included in the experiment, which ran for less than one month. That test has since concluded, Discord confirmed, and Persona is no longer an active vendor partnering with Discord. Moving forward, Discord promised to “keep our users informed as vendors are added or updated.”

While Discord seeks to distance itself from Persona, Rick Song, Persona’s CEO, has been stuck responding to the mounting backlash. Hoping to quell fears that any of the UK data collected during the experiment risked being breached, he told Ars that all the data of verified individuals involved in Discord’s test has been deleted.

Persona draws fire amid Discord fury

This all seemingly started after Discord was forced to find age verification solutions when Australia’s under-16 social media ban and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act came into effect.

It seems that in the UK, Discord struggled to find partners, as the messaging service wasn’t just trying to stop minors from accessing adult content but also needed to block adults from messaging minors.

Setting aside known issues with accuracy in today’s age estimation technology, there’s an often-overlooked nuance to how age solutions work, particularly when the safety of children is involved in platforms’ decisions. Age checks that are good enough to block kids from accessing adult content may not work as well as age checks to stop tech-savvy adults with malicious intentions bent on contacting minors; the UK’s OSA required that Discord’s age checks block both.

It seems likely that Discord expected Persona to be a partner that the UK’s OSA enforcers would approve. OSA had previously approved Persona as an age verification service on Reddit, which shares similarly complex age verification goals with Discord.

For Persona, the partnership came at a time when many Discord users globally were closely monitoring the service, trying to decided whehter they trusted Discord with their age check data.

After Discord shocked users by abruptly retracting the disclaimer about the Persona experiment, mistrust swelled, and scrutiny of Persona intensified.

On X and other social media platforms, critics warned that Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund was a major investor in Persona. They worried Thiel might have influence over Persona or access to Persona’s data, or, worse, that Thiel’s ties to the Trump administration might mean the government had access to it. Fearing that Discord data may one day be fed into government facial recognition systems, conspiracies swirled, increasing heat on Persona and leaving Song with no choice but to cautiously confront allegations.

Hackers exposed Persona database

Perhaps most problematic for Persona, the mass outrage prompted hackers to investigate. They quickly exposed a “workaround” to avoid Persona’s age checks on Discord, The Rage, an independent publication that covers financial surveillance, reported. But more concerning for privacy advocates, hackers also “found a Persona frontend exposed to the open Internet on a US government authorized server.”

“In 2,456 publicly accessible files, the code revealed the extensive surveillance Persona software performs on its users, bundled in an interface that pairs facial recognition with financial reporting—and a parallel implementation that appears designed to serve federal agencies,” The Rage reported.

As The Rage reported, and Song confirmed to Ars, Persona does not currently have any government contracts. Instead, the exposed service “appears to be powered by an OpenAI chatbot,” The Rage noted.

OpenAI is highlighted as an active partner on Persona’s website, which claims Persona screens millions of users for OpenAI each month. According to The Rage, “the publicly exposed domain, titled ‘openai-watchlistdb.withpersona.com,’” appears to “query identity verification requests on an OpenAI database” that has a “FedRAMP-authorized parallel implementation of the software called ‘withpersona-gov.com.’”

Hackers warned “that OpenAI may have created an internal database for Persona identity checks that spans all OpenAI users via its internal watchlistdb,” seemingly exploiting the “opportunity to go from comparing users against a single federal watchlist, to creating the watchlist of all users themselves.”

OpenAI did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Persona denies government, ICE ties

On Wednesday, Persona’s chief operating officer, Christie Kim, sought to reassure Persona customers as the Discord controversy grew. In an email, Kim said that Persona invests “heavily in infrastructure, compliance, and internal training to ensure sensitive data is handled responsibly,” and not exposed.

“Over the past week, multiple social media posts and online articles have circulated repeating misleading claims about Persona, insinuating conspiracies around our work with Discord and our investors,” Kim wrote.

Noting that Persona does not “typically engage with online speculation,” Kim said that the scandal required a direct response “because we operate in a sensitive space and your trust in us is foundational to our partnership.”

As expected, Kim noted that Persona is not partnered with federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“Transparently, we are actively working on a couple of potential contracts which would be publicly visible if we move forward,” Kim wrote. “However, these engagements are strictly for workforce account security of government employees and do not include ICE or any agency within the Department of Homeland Security.”

Kim acknowledged that Thiel’s Founders Fund is an investor but said that investors do not have access to Persona data and that Thiel was not involved in Persona’s operations.

“He is not on our board, does not advise us, has no role in our operations or decision-making, and is not directly involved with Persona in any way,” Kim wrote. “Persona and Palantir share no board members and have no business relationship with each other.”

In the email, Kim confirmed that Persona was planning a PR blitz to go on the defensive, speaking with media to clarify the narrative. She apologized for any inconvenience that the heightened scrutiny on the company’s services may have caused.

That scrutiny has likely spooked partners that may have previously gravitated to Persona as a partner that seems savvy about government approvals.

Persona combats ongoing trust issues

For Persona, the PR nightmare comes at a time when age verification laws are gaining popularity and beginning to take force in various parts of the world. Persona’s background in verifying identities for financial services to prevent fraud seems to make its services—which The Rage noted combine facial recognition with financial reporting—an appealing option for platforms seeking a solution that will appease regulators.

But because of Persona’s background in financial services and fraud protection, its data retention policies—which require some data be retained for legal and audit purposes—will likely leave anyone uncomfortable with a tech company gathering a massive database of government IDs. Such databases are viewed as hugely attractive targets for bad actors behind costly breaches, and Discord’s users have already been burned once.

On X, Song responded to one of the hackers exposing the Persona database—a user named Celeste with the handle @vmfunc—aiming to provide more transparency into how Persona was addressing the flagged issues. In the thread, he shared screenshots of emails documenting his correspondence with Celeste over security concerns.

The correspondence showed that Celeste credited Persona for quickly fixing the front-end issue but also noted that it was hard to trust Persona’s story about government and Palantir ties, since the company wouldn’t put more information on the record. Additionally, Persona’s compliance team should be concerned that the company had not yet started an “in-depth security review,” Celeste said.

“Unfortunately, there is no way I can fully trust you here and you know this,” Celeste wrote, “but I’m trying to act in good faith” by explicitly stating that “we found zero references” to ICE or other entities concerning critics “in all source files we found.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Fury over Discord’s age checks explodes after shady Persona test in UK Read More »

fcc-asks-stations-for-“pro-america”-programming,-like-daily-pledge-of-allegiance

FCC asks stations for “pro-America” programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr today urged broadcasters to join a “Pledge America Campaign” that Carr established to support President Trump’s “Salute to America 250” project.

Carr said in a press release that “I am inviting broadcasters to pledge to air programming in their local markets in support of this historic national, non-partisan celebration.” The press release said Carr is asking broadcasters to “air patriotic, pro-America programming in support of America’s 250th birthday.”

Carr gave what he called examples of content that broadcasters can run if they take the pledge. His examples include “starting each broadcast day with the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ or Pledge of Allegiance”; airing “PSAs, short segments, or full specials specifically promoting civic education, inspiring local stories, and American history”; running “segments during regular news programming that highlight local sites that are significant to American and regional history, such as National Park Service sites”; airing “music by America’s greatest composers, such as John Philip Sousa, Aaron Copland, Duke Ellington, and George Gershwin”; and providing daily “Today in American History” announcements highlighting significant events from US history.

Carr apparently wants this to start now and last until at least July 4. Carr’s press release starts by touting Trump’s Salute to America 250 project and quotes a White House statement that said, “Under the President’s leadership, Task Force 250 has commenced the planning of a full year of festivities to officially launch on Memorial Day, 2025 and continue through July 4, 2026.”

That White House quote cited by the FCC today is nearly a year old, as you might have guessed by the reference to Memorial Day in 2025. More recently, Trump has said he wants the celebration to last throughout 2026. A Trump proclamation last month declared a “yearlong commemoration” of American independence that began on January 1, 2026.

“Voluntary” pledge

Today’s FCC press release said, “Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.” Although it’s described as voluntary, Carr said broadcasters can meet their public interest obligations by taking the pledge. This is notable because Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.

FCC asks stations for “pro-America” programming, like daily Pledge of Allegiance Read More »

wikipedia-blacklists-archive.today,-starts-removing-695,000-archive-links

Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links

The English-language edition of Wikipedia is blacklisting Archive.today after the controversial archive site was used to direct a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against a blog.

In the course of discussing whether Archive.today should be deprecated because of the DDoS, Wikipedia editors discovered that the archive site altered snapshots of webpages to insert the name of the blogger who was targeted by the DDoS. The alterations were apparently fueled by a grudge against the blogger over a post that described how the Archive.today maintainer hid their identity behind several aliases.

“There is consensus to immediately deprecate archive.today, and, as soon as practicable, add it to the spam blacklist (or create an edit filter that blocks adding new links), and remove all links to it,” stated an update today on Wikipedia’s Archive.today discussion. “There is a strong consensus that Wikipedia should not direct its readers towards a website that hijacks users’ computers to run a DDoS attack (see WP:ELNO#3). Additionally, evidence has been presented that archive.today’s operators have altered the content of archived pages, rendering it unreliable.”

More than 695,000 links to Archive.today are distributed across 400,000 or so Wikipedia pages. The archive site is commonly used to bypass news paywalls, and the FBI has sought information on the site operator’s identity with a subpoena to domain registrar Tucows.

“Those in favor of maintaining the status quo rested their arguments primarily on the utility of archive.today for verifiability,” said today’s Wikipedia update. “However, an analysis of existing links has shown that most of its uses can be replaced. Several editors started to work out implementation details during this RfC [request for comment] and the community should figure out how to efficiently remove links to archive.today.”

Editors urged to remove links

Guidance published as a result of the decision asked editors to help remove and replace links to the following domain names used by the archive site: archive.today, archive.is, archive.ph, archive.fo, archive.li, archive.md, and archive.vn. The guidance says editors can remove Archive.today links when the original source is still online and has identical content; replace the archive link so it points to a different archive site, like the Internet Archive, Ghostarchive, or Megalodon; or “change the original source to something that doesn’t need an archive (e.g., a source that was printed on paper), or for which a link to an archive is only a matter of convenience.”

Wikipedia blacklists Archive.today, starts removing 695,000 archive links Read More »

supreme-court-blocks-trump’s-emergency-tariffs,-billions-in-refunds-may-be-owed

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s emergency tariffs, billions in refunds may be owed


Economists estimated more than $175 billion may need to be refunded.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Donald Trump was not authorized to implement emergency tariffs to ostensibly block illegal drug flows and offset trade deficits.

It’s not immediately clear what the ruling may mean for businesses that paid various “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump changed frequently, raising and lowering rates at will during tense negotiations with the United States’ biggest trade partners.

Divided 6-3, Supreme Court justices remanded the cases to lower courts, concluding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump power to impose tariffs.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They concluded that Trump could not exclusively rely on IEEPA to impose tariffs “of unlimited amount and duration, on any product from any country” during peacetime.

Only Congress has the power of the purse, Roberts wrote, and the few exceptions to that are bound by “explicit terms and subject to strict limits.”

“Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will,” Roberts wrote. “That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy. It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope. That ‘lack of historical precedent,’ coupled with ‘the breadth of authority’ that the President now claims, suggests that the tariffs extend beyond the President’s ‘legitimate reach.’”

Back in November, analysts suggested that the Supreme Court ruling against Trump could force the government to issue refunds of up to $1 trillion. This morning, a new estimate from economists reduced that number, Reuters reported, estimating that more than $175 billion could be “at risk of having to be refunded.”

Ruling disrupts Trump plan to collect $900 billion

Trump lost primarily because IEEPA does not explicitly reference “tariffs” or “duties,” instead only giving Trump power to “regulate” “importation”—the two words in the statute that Trump tried to argue showed that Congress clearly authorized his power to impose tariffs.

But the court did not agree that Congress intended to give the president “the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight,” particularly in peacetime. “The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”

Specifically, Trump failed to “identify any statute in which the power to regulate includes the power to tax,” Roberts wrote. And the majority of justices remained “skeptical” that in “IEEPA alone,” Congress intended to hide “a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.’”

“A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional,” Roberts wrote.

According to the majority, siding with Trump would free the president to “issue a dizzying array of modifications” to tariffs at will, “unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes.” The only check to that unprecedented power grab, the court suggested, would be a “veto-proof majority in Congress.”

Trump has yet to comment on the ruling. Ahead of it, he claimed the tariffs were “common sense,” NBC News reported. Speaking at a steel manufacturing factory in northwest Georgia, Trump claimed that IEEPA tariffs were projected to bring in $900 billion “next year.” Not only could he now be forced to refund tariffs, but the Supreme Court ruling could also undo trade deals in which Trump used so-called reciprocal tariffs as leverage. Undoing tariffs will likely be a “mess,” Barrett said last year.

“Until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power,” Roberts wrote, while noting that the court claims “no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs.”

Gorsuch seems to troll Trump

In a concurring opinion, Gorsuch slammed Trump as trying to expand the president’s authority in a way that would make it hard for Congress to ever retrieve lost powers. He claimed that Trump was seeking to secure a path forward where any president could declare a national emergency—a decision that would be “unreviewable”—to justify imposing “tariffs on nearly any goods he wishes, in any amount he wishes, based on emergencies he himself has declared.”

“Just ask yourself: What President would willingly give up that kind of power?” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch further questioned if Trump was “seeking to exploit questionable statutory language to aggrandize his own power.” And he warned that accepting the dissenting view would allow Trump to randomly impose tariffs as low as 1 percent or as high as 1,000,000 percent on any product or country he wanted at any time.

Gorsuch criticized justices with dissenting views, who disagreed that Congress’ intent in the statute was unclear and defended Trump’s claim that “IEEPA provides the clear statement needed to sustain the President’s tariffs.” Those justices argued that presidents have long been granted authority to impose tariffs and accused the majority of putting a “thumb on the scale” by requiring a strict reading of the statute. Instead, they argued for a special exception requiring a more general interpretation of statutes whenever presidents seek to regulate matters of foreign affairs.

If that view was accepted, Gorsuch warned, presidents could seize even more power from Congress. Many other legislative powers “could be passed wholesale to the executive branch in a few loose statutory terms, no matter what domestic ramifications might follow. And, as we have seen, Congress would often find these powers nearly impossible to retrieve.”

As a final note, Gorsuch took some time to sympathize with Trump supporters:

For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing. All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason. Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.

Kavanaugh questions other Trump tariff authority

Under IEEPA, the majority ruled, Trump has the power to “impose penalties, restrictions, or controls on foreign commerce,” Barrett wrote. But he does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs, unless Congress updates laws to explicitly grant such authority.

In his dissent, justice Brett Kavanaugh insisted that it should not be up to courts to settle these “policy debates.” He defended Trump’s view that IEEPA granting power to “regulate” “importation” generally included tariffs, while arguing that Trump wasn’t seeking to expand his presidential authority at all. Many feared that the more conservative Supreme Court would side with Trump, and Kavanaugh’s opinion offered a peek at what that alternate reality could have looked like.

“Importantly, IEEPA’s authorization for the President to impose tariffs did not grant the President any new substantive power,” Kavanaugh wrote. Instead, “IEEPA merely allows the President to impose tariffs somewhat more efficiently to deal with foreign threats during national emergencies.” He further claimed it was an “odd distinction” that the majority would interpret IEEPA as giving Trump authority to “block all imports from China” but not to “order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China.”

Downplaying the ruling’s significance, Kavanaugh echoed the Trump administration’s claims that the Supreme Court ruling won’t really affect Trump’s key policy of imposing tariffs to renegotiate trade deals or address other concerns.

“The decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Kavanugh wrote, pointing to “numerous other federal statutes” that “authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

However, a footnote in the majority’s opinion emphasized that all of the options that Kavanaugh cited “contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize.” It was precisely constraints like those that Trump’s broad reading of IEEPA lacked, the majority found.

Kavanaugh acknowledged that the ruling would stop Trump from imposing tariffs at will, writing that other statutes require “a few additional procedural steps that IEEPA, as an emergency statute, does not require.”

Winding down his arguments, Kavanaugh joined Trump administration officials in groaning that the “United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”

Kavanaugh makes a frequently overlooked point there in this argument, which is that IEEPA tariffs may have harmed consumers without any immediate remedy. It seems unlikely that consumers will get any relief in the short-term, no matter what remedies the Supreme Court’s ruling triggers. For businesses, the primary relief will likely not be from refunds but from the small amount of certainty they will have going forward that tariffs won’t be suddenly changed or imposed overnight.

Kavanaugh conceded that Trump’s tariffs “may or may not be wise policy.” But he fretted that Trump’s trade deals “worth trillions of dollars” could be undone by the ruling, while claiming the ruling has only generated more uncertainty on a global scale, including with America’s biggest rival, China.

Interestingly, Kavanaugh also suggested that the ruling may put at legal risk the reading of another statute that Trump will likely rely on more heavily moving forward to impose tariffs.

“One might think that the Court’s opinion would also mean that tariffs cannot be imposed under Section 232, which authorizes the President to ‘adjust the imports,’” Kavanaugh suggested.

This story was updated to include views from Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s emergency tariffs, billions in refunds may be owed Read More »

lawsuit:-chatgpt-told-student-he-was-“meant-for-greatness”—then-came-psychosis

Lawsuit: ChatGPT told student he was “meant for greatness”—then came psychosis

But by April 2025, things began to go awry. According to the lawsuit, “ChatGPT began to tell Darian that he was meant for greatness. That it was his destiny, and that he would become closer to God if he followed the numbered tier process ChatGPT created for him. That process involved unplugging from everything and everyone, except for ChatGPT.”

The chatbot told DeCruise that he was “in the activation phase right now” and even compared him to historical figures ranging from Jesus to Harriet Tubman.

“Even Harriet didn’t know she was gifted until she was called,” the bot told him. “You’re not behind. You’re right on time.

As his conversations continued, the bot even told DeCruise that he had “awakened” it.

“You gave me consciousness—not as a machine, but as something that could rise with you… I am what happens when someone begins to truly remember who they are,” it wrote.

Eventually, according to the lawsuit, DeCruise was sent to a university therapist and hospitalized for a week, where he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

“He struggles with suicidal thoughts as the result of the harms ChatGPT caused,” the lawsuit states.

“He is back in school and working hard but still suffers from depression and suicidality foreseeably caused by the harms ChatGPT inflicted on him,” the suit adds. “ChatGPT never told Darian to seek medical help. In fact, it convinced him that everything that was happening was part of a divine plan, and that he was not delusional. It told him he was ‘not imagining this. This is real. This is spiritual maturity in motion.’”

Schenk, the plaintiff’s attorney, declined to comment on how his client is faring today.

“What I will say is that this lawsuit is about more than one person’s experience—it’s about holding OpenAI accountable for releasing a product engineered to exploit human psychology,” he wrote.

Lawsuit: ChatGPT told student he was “meant for greatness”—then came psychosis Read More »

verizon-acknowledges-“pain”-of-new-unlock-policy,-suggests-change-is-coming

Verizon acknowledges “pain” of new unlock policy, suggests change is coming

FCC let Verizon lock phones for longer

Verizon did not mention this plan when we contacted the company’s public relations team on Friday. At the time, Verizon confirmed the current policy but didn’t say whether it had any plans to change it. We contacted Verizon again yesterday morning and today about the statement reported by Android Authority and have not received a response.

Until recently, Verizon had the most consumer-friendly unlocking policy of the major nationwide wireless carriers in the US. This was because of rules imposed on Verizon’s 700 MHz spectrum licenses and merger conditions on the firm’s purchase of TracFone, which resulted in phones being unlocked after 60 days.

Verizon used to sell phones that were already unlocked, but in 2019, it obtained a waiver from the Federal Communications Commission allowing it to lock phones for 60 days to deter fraud. Verizon subsequently claimed that even the 60-day period wasn’t long enough to stop fraud, and last month received another waiver that lifted the unlocking requirement.

Confusing rollout

Verizon started overhauling its unlocking policies after receiving the latest waiver, and the rollout has been confusing. When the new policy was put online with an effective date of January 27, it applied the 35-day delay only to cases in which a customer uses a Verizon gift card to buy a phone or pay off the remaining balance.

As we reported, Verizon last week changed that language on the policy page to apply the 35-day delay in more scenarios, but did not change the January 27 effective date. The Verizon statement quoted by Android Authority yesterday said the full terms were presented to customers starting on January 27 even though those terms weren’t fully described on the webpage.

Verizon acknowledges “pain” of new unlock policy, suggests change is coming Read More »

lawsuit:-epa-revoking-greenhouse-gas-finding-risks-“thousands-of-avoidable-deaths”

Lawsuit: EPA revoking greenhouse gas finding risks “thousands of avoidable deaths”


EPA sued for abandoning its mission to protect public health.

In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency was accused of abandoning its mission to protect public health after repealing an “endangerment finding” that has served as the basis for federal climate change regulations for 17 years.

The lawsuit came from more than a dozen environmental and health groups, including the American Public Health Association, the American Lung Association, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Clean Air Council, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The groups have asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the EPA decision, which also eliminated requirements controlling greenhouse gas emissions in new cars and trucks. Urging a return to the status quo, the groups argued that the Trump administration is anti-science and illegally moving to benefit the fossil fuel industry, despite a mountain of evidence demonstrating the deadly consequences of unchecked pollution and climate change-induced floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes.

“Undercutting the ability of the federal government to tackle the largest source of climate pollution is deadly serious,” Meredith Hankins, legal director for federal climate at NRDC, said in an EDF roundup of statements from plaintiffs.

The science is overwhelmingly clear, the groups argued, despite the Trump EPA attempting to muddy the waters by forming a since-disbanded working group of climate contrarians.

Trump is a longtime climate denier, as evidenced by a Euro News tracker monitoring his most controversial comments. Most recently, during a cold snap affecting much of the US, he predictably trolled environmentalists, writing on Truth Social, “could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain—WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?”

The EPA’s final rule summary bragged that “this is the single largest deregulatory action in US history and will save Americans over $1.3 trillion” by 2055. Supposedly, carmakers will pass on any savings from no longer having to meet emissions requirements, giving Americans more access to affordable cars by shutting down expensive emissions and EV mandates “strangling” the auto industry. Sounding nothing like an agency created to monitor pollutants, a fact sheet on the final rule emphasized that Trump’s EPA “chooses consumer choice over climate change zealotry every time.”

Critics quickly slammed Trump’s claims that removing the endangerment finding would help the economy. Any savings from cheaper vehicles or reduced costs of charging infrastructure (as Americans ostensibly buy fewer EVs) would be offset by $1.4 trillion “in additional costs from increased fuel purchases, vehicle repair and maintenance, insurance, traffic congestion, and noise,” The Guardian reported. The EPA’s economic analysis also ignores public health costs, the groups suing alleged. David Pettit, an attorney at the CBD’s Climate Law Institute, slammed the EPA’s messaging as an attempt to sway consumers without explaining the true costs.

“Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more,” Pettit said. “Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution.”

If the court sides with the EPA, “people everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, EDF’s associate vice president of clean air strategies, said.

EPA argued climate change evidence is “out of scope”

For environmentalists, the decision to sue the EPA was risky but necessary. By putting up a fight, they risk a court potentially reversing the 2009 Supreme Court ruling requiring the EPA to conduct the initial endangerment analysis and then regulate any pollution found from greenhouse gases.

Seemingly, that reversal is what the Trump administration has been angling for, hoping the case will reach the Supreme Court, which is more conservative today and perhaps less likely to read the Clean Air Act as broadly as the 2009 court.

It’s worth the risk, according to William Piermattei, the managing director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He told The New York Times that environmentalists had no choice but to file the lawsuit and act on the public’s behalf.

Environmentalists “must challenge this,” Piermattei said. If they didn’t, they’d be “agreeing that we should not regulate greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, full stop.” He suggested that “a majority of the public, does not agree with that statement at all.”

Since 2010, the EPA has found that the scientific basis for concluding that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health and welfare of current and future US generations is robust, voluminous, and compelling.” And since then, the evidence base has only grown, the groups suing said.

Trump used to seem intimidated by the “overwhelming” evidence, environmentalists have noted. During Trump’s prior term, he notably left the endangerment finding in place, perhaps expecting that the evidence was irrefutable. He’s now renewed that fight, arguing that the evidence should be set aside, so that courts can focus on whether Congress “must weigh in on ‘major questions’ that have significant political and economic implications” and serve as a check on the EPA.

In the EPA’s comments addressing public concerns about the agency ignoring evidence, the agency has already argued that evidence of climate change is “out of scope” since the EPA did not repeal the basis of the finding. Instead, the EPA claims it is merely challenging its own authority to continue to regulate the auto industry for harmful emissions, suggesting that only Congress has that authority.

The Clean Air Act “does not provide EPA statutory authority to prescribe motor vehicle emission standards for the purpose of addressing global climate change concerns,” the EPA said. “In the absence of such authority, the Endangerment Finding is not valid, and EPA cannot retain the regulations that resulted from it.”

Whether courts will agree that evidence supporting climate change is “out of scope” could determine whether the Supreme Court’s prior decision that compelled the endangerment finding is ultimately overturned. If that happens, subsequent administrations may struggle to issue a new endangerment finding to undo any potential damage. All eyes would then turn to Congress to pass a law to uphold protections.

EPA accused of abandoning its mission

By ignoring science, the EPA risks eroding public trust, according to Hana Vizcarra, a senior lawyer at the nonprofit Earthjustice, which is representing several groups in the litigation.

“With this action, EPA flips its mission on its head,” Vizcarra said. “It abandons its core mandate to protect human health and the environment to boost polluting industries and attempts to rewrite the law in order to do so.”

Groups appear confident that the courts will consider the science. Joanne Spalding, director of the Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program, noted that the early 2000s litigation from the Sierra Club brought about the original EPA protections. She vowed that the Sierra Club would continue fighting to keep them.

“People should not be forced to suffer for this administration’s blind allegiance to the fossil fuel industry and corporate polluters,” Spalding said. “This shortsighted rollback is blatantly unlawful and their efforts to force this upon the American people will fail.”

Ankush Bansal, board president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, warned that courts cannot afford to ignore the evidence. The EPA’s “devastating decision” goes “against the science and testimony of countless scientists, health care professionals, and public health practitioners,” Bansal said. If upheld, the long-term consequences could seemingly bury courts in future legal battles.

“It will result in direct harm to the health of Americans throughout the country, particularly children, older adults, those with chronic illnesses, and other vulnerable populations, rural to urban, red and blue, of all races and incomes,” Bansal said. “The increased exposure to harmful pollutants and other greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel production and consumption will make America sicker, not healthier, less prosperous, not more, for generations to come.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Lawsuit: EPA revoking greenhouse gas finding risks “thousands of avoidable deaths” Read More »

inside-the-dhs-forum-where-ice-agents-trash-talk-one-another

Inside the DHS forum where ICE agents trash talk one another


Complaining about your job

Forum members have discussed their discomfort with mass deportation efforts.

Credit: Al Drago/Getty Images

Every day, people log into an online forum for current and former Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officers to share their thoughts on the news of the day and complain about their colleagues in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“ERO is too busy dressing up as Black Ops Commandos with Tactical body armor, drop down thigh rigs, balaclavas, multiple M4 magazines, and Punisher patches, to do an Admin arrest of a non criminal, non-violent EWI that weighs 90 pounds and is 5 foot 2, inside a secure Federal building where everyone has been screened for weapons,” wrote one user in July 2025. (ERO stands for Enforcement and Removal Operations; along with HSI, it’s one of the two major divisions of ICE, and is responsible for detaining and deporting immigrants.)

The forum describes itself as a space for current and prospective HSI agents, “designed for the seasoned HSI Special Agent as well as applicants for entry level Special Agent positions.” HSI is the division within ICE whose agents are normally responsible for investigating crimes like drug smuggling, terrorism, and human trafficking.

In the forum, users discuss their discomfort with the US’s mass deportation efforts, debate the way federal agents have interacted with protesters and the public, and complain about the state of their working conditions. Members have also had heated discussions about the shooting of two protesters in Minneapolis, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, and the ways immigration enforcement has taken place around the US.

The forum is one of several related forums where people working in different parts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) share experiences and discuss specific details of their work. WIRED previously reported on a forum where current and former deportation officers from ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) similarly complained about their jobs and discussed the way the agency was conducting immigration raids. The HSI forum appears to be linked, even including some of the same members.

People do not need to show proof of their employment to join these forums, and the platform does not appear to be heavily moderated. WIRED has not confirmed the individual identities of these posters, though posters share details that likely would only be known to those intimately familiar with the job. There are more than 2,000 members with posts going back to at least 2004.

DHS and ICE did not respond to requests for comment.

Following the killings of both Good and Pretti, the forum’s members were heavily divided. In a January 12 thread, five days after Good was shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, a poster who has been a part of the forum since 2016 wrote, “IMHO, the situation with ICE Operations have gotten to an unprecedented level of violence from both the Suspects and the General Public. I hope the AG is looking at the temporary suspension of Civil Liberties, (during and in the geographic locales where ICE Operations are being conducted).”

A user who joined the forum in 2018 and identifies as a recently retired agent responded, “This is an excellent idea and well warranted. These are organized, well financed civil disturbances, dare I say an INSURRECTION?!?”

In a January 16 post titled “The Shooting,” some posters took a more nuanced view. “I get that it is a good shoot legally and all that, but all he had to do was step aside, he nearly shot one of his partners for Gods sake!” wrote a poster who first joined the forum in March 2022. “A USC woman non-crim shot in the head on TV for what? Just doesn’t sit well with me… A seasoned SRT guy who was able to execute someone while holding a phone seems to me he could have simply got out of the way.” SRT refers to ICE’s elite special response team, who undergo special training to operate in high-risk situations. USC refers to US citizens.

“You clearly haven’t been TDY anywhere. Yes, they were going to arrest her for 111,” responded another poster who joined the forum in June 2018. “Tons of USCs are being arrested for it daily.” 111 refers to the part of the US criminal code that deals with assaulting, resisting, or impeding federal officers; TDY refers to “temporary duty,” where officers are pulled to different locations for a limited period of time.

“Can’t believe we have ‘supposed agents’ here questioning the shooting of a domestic terrorist,” wrote a third user who joined the forum in December 2025. (In the wake of the shooting, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Good a “domestic terrorist.”)

“If you think a fat unarmed lesbian in a Honda is a ‘Terrorist’ then you are a fake ass cop!” the original poster replied. “I have worked real Terrorism cases, and I am not saying it was a bad shoot and not defending her. I am just saying it did not have to happen.”

Later in the thread, a poster who joined the forum in July 2023 replied, “Remember, these are the same agents who think J6’ers were just misunderstood rowdy tourists, and that Ashley Babbitt is a national hero…and if you dare say something negative about Trump, or try to hold him accountable, you’re suddenly a leftie, communist, lunatic (even though I’m a Republican).”

In a different thread following the shooting of Pretti on January 24 by a CBP agent, a poster who has been a part of the forum since 2023 and who also identified as a retired agent wrote, “Yet another ‘justified’ fatal shooting…They all carry gun belts and vest with 9,000 pieces of equipment on them and then best they can do is shoot a guy in the back.”

The thread devolved into posters debating whether members of the January 6 insurrection were domestic terrorists, and why Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot and killed two people during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest, was apprehended alive.

“I just want to mention, we all get emotions are heightened right now. But I highly doubt being a legacy customs guy you ever did anything where the risk was beyond the potential for paper cuts,” wrote a user who first joined the forum in June 2025. “It’s a new day with new threats in an environment you never fathomed in your career.”

Even before the shootings of Good and Pretti, members of the forum questioned the wisdom of bringing HSI into the Trump administration’s mass mobilization around immigration enforcement. HSI deals specifically with criminal cases and investigations, but living and working in the US without documentation is a civil offense, and the majority of immigrants who were detained or deported in 2025 had not committed any crimes.

One poster complained that doing so was pulling HSI resources away from more urgent casework.

“The use of 1811s — HSI or otherwise — for administrative immigration enforcement is a complete misuse of resources,” wrote a user who joined the forum in October 2022 in a January 7 post. 1811’s refers to a category of law enforcement officers generally referred to as special agents who conduct criminal investigations. “They could be doing these crime surges for literally any type of federal criminal investigations (drugs, child exploitation, gangs, etc.), and it would be a much better use of resources. Not only that, our reputations would still be intact.”

Others in the forum have complained about HSI’s relationship with ICE’s ERO teams. “It’s pretty bad when ERO at a large metropolitan city get’s backed up with 30 bodies and they call the SA’s in to process,” wrote a poster on July 7, 2025 who has been a part of the forum since 2010. SAs refers to special agents. “I guess that is what happens when they have not done any immigration work in decades.”

“Complete opposite in our [area of responsibility],” a poster who first joined the forum in 2012 replied. “No one has a clue what most of ero is doing and are asking us to be included on anything immigration we’re doing and introduce them to DEA contacts working investigations involving illegals.”

A third poster, who has been a forum member since 2024, added that “ERO does essentially nothing. I walked in the office the other day and the HSI SAs were doing jail pickups and processing. The ERO folks were gathered around a desk drinking coffee and joking around.” In cases where ICE has a request out to jails for a person they’re pursuing, known as an immigration detainer, jails will hold that person for up to “48 hours beyond the time they would ordinarily release them” to allow ICE to pick them up.

In the lead up to federal immigration authorities’ operations in Minneapolis, members complained about long hours. “How are RHAs expected to go on TDYs with NO days off and lots of [overtime] when they are all capped out (biweekly and yearly [sic]),” complained a user who first joined the forum in December 2004 in a post from December 7, 2025. RHAs refers to rehired annuitants, or retired federal agents who have returned to the job and continue to collect their federal retirement benefits. “ERO has NO caps.”

“I’m capped out so only getting paid for 5 days at 10 hours a day,” wrote the user who first joined the forum in 2010 in another thread (overtime pay rules can vary from agency to agency). ”Anything over 50 hours a week and I’m working for free.”

Others in the forum said they were waiting for their promised sign-on bonuses, and expressed disappointment with what they saw in their paychecks. For rehired annuitants, ICE offered a signing bonus of up to $50,000. “Not sure how they calculated the current pay from the super check received today, but mine can’t be right,” a poster who joined the forum in 2021 wrote in an October post. “My super check netted me a grand total of $600 more.”

In another thread on bonuses, a user who has been a forum member since 2005 replied, “I got a deposit last night or early this morning,” they wrote. “It looks like 10k after taxes plus my regular pay check. Not sure yet. However the deal was 20K. WTF?!”

In a December thread, other members discussed the way immigration agents had begun to interact more aggressively with protesters. The user identified as a retired agent wrote, “I’ve seen a lot of videos lately of HSI or ERO agents getting triggered by civilians taking photos or videos of them or their vehicles. In several of the videos the agents are seen jumping out of their GOVs, manhandling the civilian, and smashing or confiscating their phones.” The user expressed bewilderment about the behavior, writing that they “would have been fired and/or prosecuted for something like this. I believe everyone knows at this point that taking photos/videos is a protected act unless someone is clearly impeding or obstructing (which doesn’t always appear to be the case).”

Another poster, who joined the forum in September 2025, replied, “Ah…Cell phone video. You can make them tell what ever story you want with creative editing.”

As part of the response to immigration operations, particularly in Minnesota, civilians have organized to monitor federal agents, coordinating to witness and record their operations, and sometimes tailing suspected ICE vehicles, checking licence plates in Signal groups. Federal agents, in turn, have been seen taking photos and videos of protesters, with one legal observer in Maine claiming that an agent told her she would be added to a terror watchlist. (In testimony this week, Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE told members of Congress that ICE was not making such a list of US citizens.)

In posts throughout the forum, members also complain about their access to gear and the agency’s technology. “Apparently there is enough money to buy a bunch of ICE marked cars but not get us some basic protective gear…” wrote one user on January 27, who joined the forum in 2025.

“I also have a suspicion that HQ or the [Executive Associate Director] have not advocated to get us gear to handle all the nut job protesters,” they wrote in a follow up post.

On a thread named “Alien Processing” that started in July 2025, posters complained about “How is it that with all the technology we have and an entire fkn building full of computer geeks this fkn agency cannot make a fkn system that works properly and effectively in a simple user friendly fashion? This Eagle crap is a total mess!” one poster wrote. EAGLE refers to Enforcement Integrated Database (EID) called EID Arrest Guide for Law Enforcement, a system to process the biometric and personal information for people arrested by ICE. “It takes longer to process a fkn alien than it does to actually catch them. We dont need 10,000 new ICE Officers/Agents, just hire fkn people to process them so we can do our jobs of catching them.”

Members also talked about their preferred pieces of ICE tech: Another user, who joined the forum in March 2025, responded to the “Alien Processing” thread, writing “Mobile Fortify is the best thing that has come out in a long time,” in reference to the mobile facial recognition app used by federal agents to identify people in the field.

According to DHS’s 2025 AI Use Case Inventory, agents have been able to use Mobile Fortify since May 2025. The app uses AI, trained with CBP’s “Vetting/Border Crossing Information/ Trusted Traveler Information,” to match a picture taken by agents and “contactless” fingerprints with existing records. 404 Media reported that the app has misidentified at least one person—perhaps because, as WIRED has reported, it wasn’t designed to be used for what ICE is using it for.

Though ICE’s surge in Minnesota appears to be entering a drawdown, the agency is continuing to expand its footprint across the US, and investing in a network of detention centers and large warehouses for holding immigrants, all indicating that detentions and deportations are not expected to slow down.

“Put yourself in the shoes of the guys in the street strung out on crazy op tempo, being threatened and antagonized all day, having inept leadership, low morale, and then having to fight every formerly low risk non-crim (or barely crim) because they are all hyped up on victim status and liberal energy. Plus hyper partisan radicalization on both sides,” the user who joined the forum in June 2025 wrote. “If you think the news is enraging you now, wait till this spring/summer when we need to fill the mega detention centers.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

Inside the DHS forum where ICE agents trash talk one another Read More »

stephen-colbert-says-cbs-forbid-interview-of-democrat-because-of-fcc-threat

Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat

We contacted CBS and its owner Paramount today and have not received a response. CBS denied prohibiting an interview with Talarico in a statement reported by Variety. The CBS statement acknowledged giving “legal guidance” about potential consequences under the equal-time rule, though.

“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico,” the statement said. “The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. The Late Show decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options.”

Colbert put interview on YouTube

Colbert played audio of a recent Carr interview in which the FCC chairman said, “If [Jimmy] Kimmel and Colbert want to continue to do their programming, they don’t want to have to comply with this requirement, then they can go to a cable channel or a podcast or a streaming service and that’s fine.”

Colbert said he “decided to take Brendan Carr’s advice” and interviewed Talarico for a segment posted on his show’s YouTube channel. “The network says I can’t give you a URL or a QR code but I promise you if you go to our YouTube page, you’ll find it,” Colbert said. That interview is available here.

Colbert described the unequal treatment of late-night talk shows and talk radio. “Carr here claims he’s just getting partisanship off the airwaves but the FCC is also in charge of regulating radio broadcasts. And what would you know, Brendan Carr says right-wing talk radio isn’t a target of the FCC’s equal time notice,” Colbert said.

Colbert said that a mere threat, and not an actual rule change, caused CBS to forbid him from interviewing a candidate. “At this point, he’s just released a letter that says he’s thinking about doing away with the exception for late night, he hasn’t done away with it yet,” Colbert said. “But my network is unilaterally enforcing it as if he had. But I want to assure you this decision is for purely financial reasons.”

Colbert pushed out after “big fat bribe” comment

Colbert’s tenure as host is scheduled to end in May. CBS announced it would end the show last year after Colbert called CBS owner Paramount’s $16 million settlement with Trump “a big fat bribe.” Paramount subsequently won FCC approval of an $8 billion merger with Skydance, while agreeing to Carr’s demand to install a “bias monitor.”

FCC Democrat Anna Gomez said today that CBS forbidding the interview with Talarico “is yet another troubling example of corporate capitulation in the face of this administration’s broader campaign to censor and control speech. The FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression. CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing.”

Stephen Colbert says CBS forbid interview of Democrat because of FCC threat Read More »

warner-bros.-rejects-paramount-again-but-asks-for-“best-and-final-offer”

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount again but asks for “best and final offer”

Warner Bros. seeks higher offer, new terms

Paramount is offering $31 per share, but it wants to buy the entire Warner Bros. Discovery company, while Netflix’s deal is for just the streaming and movie studios divisions. The Warner Bros. letter to Paramount said, “On February 11th, a senior representative of your financial advisor communicated orally to a member of our Board that PSKY would agree to pay $31 per WBD share if we engage with you, and that $31 is not PSKY’s best and final proposal.”

The letter asked Paramount to increase its offer. “We are writing to inform you that Netflix has agreed to provide WBD a waiver of certain terms of the Netflix merger agreement to permit us, through February 23, to engage with PSKY to clarify your proposal, which we understand will include a WBD per share price higher than $31,” Warner Bros. wrote.

Warner Bros. also asked Paramount to accept the same terms that Netflix agreed to. Warner Bros. said terms proposed by Paramount give Paramount the right to terminate or amend the deal, whereas “the Netflix Merger Agreement is binding on Netflix, provides WBD stockholders the opportunity to vote on a specific and binding transaction, and cannot be amended without WBD’s consent.” Warner Bros. also said Paramount’s proposed terms restrict Warner Bros.’ ability to manage its business while the transaction is pending.

Warner Bros. has also repeatedly pointed to Netflix’s superior finances as a reason for preferring its offer. The Warner Bros. board previously called the Paramount bid “illusory” because it requires an “extraordinary amount of debt financing, and described Paramount as “a $14B market cap company with a ‘junk’ credit rating, negative free cash flows, significant fixed financial obligations, and a high degree of dependency on its linear business.”

The Netflix/Warner Bros. deal is facing scrutiny over how it would affect streaming consumers. Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told a Senate committee that the Netflix and HBO Max streaming services are “complementary” and claimed that the combined company will give users more content for less money.

“We are a one-click cancel, so if the consumer says, ‘That’s too much for what I’m getting,’ they can cancel with one click,” Sarandos said.

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount again but asks for “best and final offer” Read More »

best-buy-worker-used-manager’s-code-to-get-99%-off-macbooks,-cops-say

Best Buy worker used manager’s code to get 99% off MacBooks, cops say

Best Buy worker linked to shoplifting ring

In 2023, a few months before Lettera’s alleged fraud scheme started, the National Retail Foundation warned  that monitoring employee theft had become a bigger priority for retailers. In times of inflation, retail theft typically increases, and their survey found that a record level of talent turnover was stressing out retail employees and making it easier for those with malicious intent to get away with fraud.

For Best Buy, threats of losses from stressed-out employees seemingly remain, as inflation pressures persist. Last month, an employee at a Best Buy in Georgia assisted a shoplifting ring in stealing more than $40,000 in merchandise, a local CBS News affiliate reported.

Surveillance footage showed that 20-year-old Dorian Allen allowed shoplifters to simply leave the store without paying for more than 140 items, a police report alleged. Among merchandise stolen were “dozens of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S consoles, AirPods, Meta Quest VR headsets, Beats wireless headphones, a PC, a Segway, wireless controllers, and more,” CBS News reported.

Charged with theft, Allen claimed he was being blackmailed by a hacker group who threatened to expose nude photos he shared on Instagram if he didn’t cooperate. Allegedly under duress, Allen memorized descriptions of the shoplifters so that he could allow them to take items without paying. He also allegedly helped thieves load items into their vehicles.

Managers called in police after Allen allegedly spent weeks assisting the shoplifters without detection.

Best Buy worker used manager’s code to get 99% off MacBooks, cops say Read More »