India reversed a laptop licensing policy after behind-the-scenes lobbying by U.S. officials, who however remain concerned about New Delhi's compliance with WTO obligations and new rules it may issue, according to U.S. trade officials and government emails seen by Reuters. From the report: In August, India imposed rules requiring firms like Apple, Dell and HP to obtain licences for all shipments of imported laptops, tablets, personal computers and servers, raising fears that the process could slow down sales. But New Delhi rolled back the policy within weeks, saying it will only monitor the imports and decide on next steps a year later.

The U.S. government emails -- obtained under a U.S. open records request -- underline the level of alarm the Indian curbs caused in Washington, and how the U.S. scored a rare lobbying win by persuading Prime Minister Narendra Modi's usually inflexible government to reverse policy. U.S. officials have often been concerned about India's sudden policy changes which they say create an uncertain business environment. India maintains it announces policies in the interest of all stakeholders and encourages foreign investments, even though it often promotes local players over foreign ones.

Some of the language in the documents was blunt, despite the bonhomie often displayed by both sides in public. U.S. officials were upset India's changes to laptop imports came "out of the blue", without notice or consultation, and were "incredibly problematic" for the business climate and $500 million worth of annual U.S. exports, the documents and emails showed. U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai met Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal in New Delhi on Aug. 26, soon after the policy was announced. Although the USTR's public readout said Tai "raised concerns" about the policy and "noted" that stakeholders needed to be consulted, she privately told Goyal during the meeting that the U.S. wanted India to "rescind the requirement", a USTR briefing paper showed.

The Justice Department sued Apple on Thursday, alleging the tech giant blocked software developers and mobile gaming companies from offering better options on the iPhone, resulting in higher prices for consumers. WSJ: The government's antitrust complaint, filed in a New Jersey federal court, alleges Apple used its control of the iPhone to prevent competitors from offering innovative services such as digital wallets and limited the functionality of hardware products that compete with Apple's own devices. The suit also claims that Apple makes it difficult for users to switch to devices that don't use Apple's operating system, such as Android smartphones.

"Consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. Apple said it plans to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. "This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets," an Apple spokesman said in a statement. "If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple -- where hardware, software, and services intersect." The case against Apple is the last shoe to drop on the big four tech giants by U.S. antitrust officials.

sinij shares a report from the New York Post: The Biden administration finalized its crackdown on gas cars Wednesday, with the Environmental Protection Agency announcing drastic climate regulations meant to ensure more than two-thirds of passenger cars and light trucks sold by 2032 are electric or hybrid vehicles. The EPA rule imposes strict limits on tailpipe pollution, limits the agency says can be met if 56% of new vehicles sold in the US are electric by eight years from now, along with 13% that are plug-in hybrids or other partially electric cars. That would be a huge increase over current EV sales, which rose to 7.6% of new vehicle sales last year, up from 5.8% in 2022. [...] The new rule slows implementation of stricter pollution standards from 2027 through 2029, before ramping up to near the level the EPA preferred by 2032. "Personal car ownership is about to get A LOT more expensive as it will have to carry the costs of deep discounts to entice EV sales," adds Slashdot reader sinij.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: In India, a government-run agency will now monitor and undertake fact-checking for government related matters on social media even as tech giants expressed grave concerns about it last year. The Ministry of Electronics and IT on Wednesday wrote in a gazette notification that it is amending the IT Rules 2021 to cement into law the proposal to make the fact checking unit of Press Information Bureau the dedicated arbiter of truth for New Delhi matters. Tech companies as well as other firms that serve more than 5 million users in India will be required to "make reasonable efforts" to not display, store, transmit or otherwise share information that deceives or misleads users about matters pertaining to the government, the IT ministry said. India's move comes just weeks ahead of the general elections in the country. Relying on a government agency such as the Press Information Bureau as the sole source to fact-check government business without giving it a clear definition or providing clear checks and balances "may lead to misuse during implementation of the law, which will profoundly infringe on press freedom," Asia Internet Coalition, an industry group that represents Meta, Amazon, Google and Apple, cautioned last year.

Meanwhile, comedian Kunal Kamra, with support from the Editors Guild of India, cautioned that the move could create an environment that forces social media firms to welcome "a regime of self-interested censorship."

According to the New York Times, Saudi Arabia's government plans to create a fund of about $40 billion to invest in artificial intelligence. Reuters reports: Representatives of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) have discussed a potential partnership with U.S. venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and other financiers in recent weeks, the newspaper reported. Andreessen Horowitz and PIF governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan have discussed the possibility of the U.S. firm setting up an office in Riyadh, according to the report. PIF officials also discussed what role Andreessen Horowitz could play and how such a fund would work, the newspaper said, adding the plans could still change. Other venture capitalists may participate in kingdom's artificial intelligence fund, which is expected to commence in the second half of 2024, the newspaper said.

Saudi representatives have indicated to potential partners that the country is interested in supporting a variety of tech start-ups associated with artificial intelligence, including chip makers and large-scale data centers, the report added. Last month, PIF's Al-Rumayyan pitched the kingdom as a prospective hub for artificial intelligence activity outside U.S., citing its energy resources and funding capacity. Al-Rumayyan had said the kingdom had the "political will" to make artificial intelligence projects happen and ample funds it could deploy to nurture the technology's development.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from InfoWorld: C++ creator Bjarne Stroustrup has defended the widely used programming language in response to a Biden administration report that calls on developers to use memory-safe languages and avoid using vulnerable ones such as C++ and C. In a March 15 response to an inquiry from InfoWorld, Stroustrup pointed out strengths of C++, which was designed in 1979. "I find it surprising that the writers of those government documents seem oblivious of the strengths of contemporary C++ and the efforts to provide strong safety guarantees," Stroustrup said. "On the other hand, they seem to have realized that a programming language is just one part of a tool chain, so that improved tools and development processes are essential."

Safety improvement always has been a goal of C++ development efforts, Stroustrup stressed. "Improving safety has been an aim of C++ from day one and throughout its evolution. Just compare the K&R C language with the earliest C++, and the early C++ with contemporary C++. My CppCon 2023 keynote outlines that evolution," he said. "Much quality C++ is written using techniques based on RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization), containers, and resource management pointers rather than conventional C-style pointer messes." Stroustrup cited a number of efforts to improve C++ safety. "There are two problems related to safety. Of the billions of lines of C++, few completely follow modern guidelines, and peoples' notions of which aspects of safety are important differ. I and the C++ standard committee are trying to deal with that," he said. "Profiles is a framework for specifying what guarantees a piece of code requires and enable implementations to verify them. There are documents describing that on the committee's website -- look for WG21 -- and more are coming. However, some of us are not in a mood to wait for the committee's necessarily slow progress."

Profiles, Stroustrup said, "is a framework that allows us to incrementally improve guarantees -- e.g., to eliminate most range errors relatively soon -- and to gradually introduce guarantees into large code bases through local static analysis and minimal run-time checks. My long-term aim for C++ is and has been for C++ to offer type and resource safety when and where needed. Maybe the current push for memory safety -- a subset of the guarantees I want -- will prove helpful to my efforts, which are shared by many in the C++ standards committee." Stroustrup previously defended the safety of C++ against the NSA, which recommended using memory-safe languages instead of C++ and C in a November 2022 bulletin.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a comprehensive ban on asbestos, a carcinogen that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year but is still used in some chlorine bleach, brake pads and other products. The final rule marks a major expansion of EPA regulation under a landmark 2016 law that overhauled regulations governing tens of thousands of toxic chemicals in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture. The new rule would ban chrysotile asbestos, the only ongoing use of asbestos in the United States. The substance is found in products such as brake linings and gaskets and is used to manufacture chlorine bleach and sodium hydroxide, also known as caustic soda, including some that is used for water purification. [...]

The 2016 law authorized new rules for tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, including substances such as asbestos and trichloroethylene that for decades have been known to cause cancer yet were largely unregulated under federal law. Known as the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, the law was intended to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1976 law that had remained unchanged for 40 years. The EPA banned asbestos in 1989, but the rule was largely overturned by a 1991 Court of Appeals decision that weakened the EPA's authority under TSCA to address risks to human health from asbestos or other existing chemicals. The 2016 law required the EPA to evaluate chemicals and put in place protections against unreasonable risks. Asbestos, which was once common in home insulation and other products, is banned in more than 50 countries, and its use in the U.S. has been declining for decades. The only form of asbestos known to be currently imported, processed or distributed for use in the U.S. is chrysotile asbestos, which is imported primarily from Brazil and Russia. It is used by the chlor-alkali industry, which produces bleach, caustic soda and other products. Most consumer products that historically contained chrysotile asbestos have been discontinued. While chlorine is a commonly used disinfectant in water treatment, there are only eight chlor-alkali plants in the U.S. that still use asbestos diaphragms to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The plants are mostly located in Louisiana and Texas.

The use of asbestos diaphragms has been declining and now accounts for less than one-third of the chlor-alkali production in the U.S., the EPA said. The EPA rule will ban imports of asbestos for chlor-alkali as soon as the rule is published but will phase in prohibitions on chlor-alkali use over five or more years to provide what the agency called "a reasonable transition period." A ban on most other uses of asbestos will effect in two years. A ban on asbestos in oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings and other gaskets will take effect in six months. The EPA rule allows asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to be used until 2037 at the U.S. Department of Energy's Savannah River Site in South Carolina to ensure that safe disposal of nuclear materials can continue on schedule. Separately, the EPA is also evaluating so-called legacy uses of asbestos in older buildings, including schools and industrial sites, to determine possible public health risks. A final risk evaluation is expected by the end of the year.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC News: An array of advanced tests found no brain injuries or degeneration among U.S. diplomats and other government employees who suffer mysterious health problems once dubbed "Havana syndrome," researchers reported Monday. The National Institutes of Health's (NIH) nearly five-year study offers no explanation for symptoms including headaches, balance problems and difficulties with thinking and sleep that were first reported in Cuba in 2016 and later by hundreds of American personnel in multiple countries. But it did contradict some earlier findings that raised the spectre of brain injuries in people experiencing what the State Department now calls "anomalous health incidents."

"These individuals have real symptoms and are going through a very tough time," said Dr. Leighton Chan, NIH's chief of rehabilitation medicine, who helped lead the research. "They can be quite profound, disabling and difficult to treat." Yet sophisticated MRI scans detected no significant differences in brain volume, structure or white matter -- signs of injury or degeneration -- when Havana syndrome patients were compared to healthy government workers with similar jobs, including some in the same embassy. Nor were there significant differences in cognitive and other tests, according to findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Leading western and Chinese AI scientists have issued a stark warning that tackling risks around the powerful technology requires global co-operation similar to the cold war effort to avoid nuclear conflict. From a report: A group of renowned international experts met in Beijing last week, where they identified "red lines" on the development of AI, including around the making of bioweapons and launching cyber attacks. In a statement seen by the Financial Times, issued in the days after the meeting, the academics warned that a joint approach to AI safety was needed to stop "catastrophic or even existential risks to humanity within our lifetimes."

"In the depths of the cold war, international scientific and governmental co-ordination helped avert thermonuclear catastrophe. Humanity again needs to co-ordinate to avert a catastrophe that could arise from unprecedented technology," the statement said. Signatories include Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, who won a Turing Award for their work on neural networks and are often described as "godfathers" of AI; Stuart Russell, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley; and Andrew Yao, one of China's most prominent computer scientists. The statement followed the International Dialogue on AI Safety in Beijing last week, a meeting that included officials from the Chinese government in a signal of tacit official endorsement for the forum and its outcomes.

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared skeptical of a challenge on free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration encouraged social media platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19. From a report: The justices heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms. The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration.

They argued that the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X. The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.

The Guardian reports that this week "Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who twice ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, introduced a bill to establish a four-day US working week." "Moving to a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay is not a radical idea," Sanders said on Thursday. "Today, American workers are over 400% more productive than they were in the 1940s. And yet millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages than they were decades ago. "That has got to change. The financial gains from the major advancements in artificial intelligence, automation and new technology must benefit the working class, not just corporate chief executives and wealthy stockholders on Wall Street.

"It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. It is time for a 32-hour workweek with no loss in pay."
The proposed bill "has received the endorsement of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, United Auto Workers, the Service Employees International Union, the Association of Flight Attendants" — as well as several other labor unions, reports USA Today: More than half of adults employed full time reported working more than 40 hours per week, according to a 2019 Gallup poll... More than 70 British companies started to test a four-day workweek last year, and most respondents reported there has been no loss in productivity.
A statement from Senator Sanders: Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, predicted last year that advancements in technology would lead to a three or three-and-a-half-day workweek in the coming years. Despite these predictions, Americans now work more hours than the people of most other wealthy nations, but are earning less per week than they did 50 years ago, after adjusting for inflation.
"Sanders also pointed to other countries that have reduced their workweeks, such as France, Norway and Denmark," adds NBC News.

USA Today notes that "While Sanders' role as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee places a greater focus on shortening the workweek, it is unlikely the bill will garner enough support from Republicans to become federal law and pass in both chambers."

And political analysts who spoke to ABC News "cast doubt on the measure's chances of passage in a divided Congress where opposition from Republicans is all but certain," reports ABC News, "and even the extent of support among Democrats remains unclear."

In 2020 Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs.

But now "America's most radical experiment with drug decriminalization has ended," writes the Atlantic, "after more than three years of painful results." Oregon Governor Tina Kotek has pledged to sign legislation repealing the principal elements of the ballot initiative... Possessing hard drugs is again a crime in Oregon, and courts will return to mandating treatment for offenders. Oregonians had supported Measure 110 with 59 percent of the vote in 2020, but three years later, polling showed that 64 percent wanted some or all of it repealed...

More than $260 million were allocated to services such as naloxone distribution, employment and housing services, and voluntary treatment... Once drugs were decriminalized and destigmatized, the thinking went, those who wanted to continue using would be more willing to access harm-reduction services that helped them use in safer ways. Meanwhile, the many people who wanted to quit using drugs but had been too ashamed or fearful to seek treatment would do so. Advocates foresaw a surge of help-seeking, a reduction in drug-overdose deaths, fewer racial disparities in the health and criminal-justice systems, lower rates of incarceration, and safer neighborhoods for all...

Measure 110 did not reduce Oregon's drug problems. The drug-overdose-death rate increased by 43 percent in 2021, its first year of implementation — and then kept rising. The latest CDC data show that in the 12 months ending in September 2023, deaths by overdose grew by 41.6 percent, versus 2.1 percent nationwide. No other state saw a higher rise in deaths... Neither did decriminalization produce a flood of help-seeking. The replacement for criminal penalties, a $100 ticket for drug possession with the fine waived if the individual called a toll-free number for a health assessment, with the aim of encouraging treatment, failed completely. More than 95 percent of people ignored the ticket, for which — in keeping with the spirit of Measure 110 — there was no consequence. The cost of the hotline worked out to about $7,000 per completed phone call, according to The Economist. These realities, as well as associated disorder such as open-air drug markets and a sharp rise in violent crime — while such crime was falling nationally — led Oregonians to rethink their drug policy.
The article notes that Oregon was the first U.S. state to decriminalize marijuana back in 1973, and had long shown low rates of imprisonment for non-violent crimes (diverting offenders into so-called "drug courts" which could mandate treatment or order court-directed supervision). "However, after Measure 110 was passed and the threat of jail time eliminated, the flow of people into these programs slowed."

But "One thing Measure 110 got right, at least in principle, is that Oregon's addiction-treatment system was grossly underfunded," the article concludes. And it adds that the newly-passed law now "provides extensive new funding for immediate needs, including detox facilities, sobering centers, treatment facilities, and the staff to support those services."

They recommend other states adopt "adequately funded, evidence-based prevention and treatment" — and instead of punitive incarcerations, "use criminal justice productively to discourage drug use."

A PBS reporter "digs into a new report covering the plastic industry's tactics to push recycling — and avoid regulation," according to a new video from PBS News Weekend: A new report by the Center for Climate Integrity, an environmentalist group, says newly uncovered statements from oil and plastics executives underscore the industry's decades-long secret skepticism about the viability and efficacy of recycling. The authors of the report reviewed old investigations and new documents, including previously unknown assertions from industry executives. In 1994, one Exxon Chemical executive put the industry's support for plastics recycling in blunt terms, saying "we are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results."

Another representative from Dupont noted in 1992 that recycling goals were set knowing full well "they were unlikely to meet them."
In the video NPR correspondent Michael Copley says "I think it's always striking, when you see a report like this that unearths new statements, new quotes, and to see the way in which they really seem to view recycling as sort of public relations tool, as opposed to an environmental tool that they sort of presented publicly..." I think the other reason why this matters is, it could potentially be legally problematic for the industry. And by that I mean the oil and gas industry right now is facing dozens of lawsuits from states and localities, based in part on statements it made about climate change and fossil fuel, going back decades. We know that the state of California has opened an investigation into the role of oil and gas companies and the petrochemical industry in the creation of the plastic waste crisis that we're facing. And the group that put out the report, the Center for Climate Integrity, was upfront, saying that it was compiling this to serve as kind of the fact basis, or the basis of evidence, for potential legal action.
A plastics trade group accused the report of citing "outdated, decades-old technologies" and "mischaracterizing the current state of the industry," saying they're looking to have all plastic packaging be "reused, recycled, and recovered by 2040."

But PBS's reporter counters that there's "deep skepticism" of the economics from market analysts — as well as from material scientists. "Obviously the industry has put out this promise. I think that its critics will say, 'We have been hearing these promises, or promises like it, for decades now, and that there's nothing in the record to think that now is any different."

He adds that activists and businesses agree that government regulation will ultimately play a big role. "That gets back in large part to the economics of this. If companies don't have to deal with these costs, it's hard to imagine that they will in a sustained way create systems to deal with this if they don't have to."

So what's the solution? Some ideas being seriously discussed:

• Reducing plastic production "to a level that is more manageable with recycling systems."
• Getting rid of types of plastic that are "especially hard to recycle or you can't recycle."
• "Being more transparent about what chemicals go into this stuff that again make recycling hard."

A new EFF web page is urging U.S. readers to "Tell Congress: Stop the TikTok Ban," arguing the bill will "do little for its alleged goal of protecting our private information and the collection of our data by foreign governments." Tell Congress: Instead of giving the President the power to ban entire social media platforms based on their country of origin, our representatives should focus on what matters — protecting our data no matter who is collecting it... It's a massive problem that current U.S. law allows for all the big social media platforms to harvest and monetize our personal data, including TikTok. Without comprehensive data privacy legislation, this will continue, and this ban won't solve any real or perceived problems. User data will still be collected by numerous platforms and sold to data brokers who sell it to the highest bidder — including governments of countries such as China — just as it is now.

TikTok raises special concerns, given the surveillance and censorship practices of the country that its parent company is based in, China. But it's also used by hundreds of millions of people to express themselves online, and is an instrumental tool for community building and holding those in power accountable. The U.S. government has not justified silencing the speech of Americans who use TikTok, nor has it justified the indirect speech punishment of a forced sale (which may prove difficult if not impossible to accomplish in the required timeframe). It can't meet the high constitutional bar for a restriction on the platform, which would undermine the free speech and association rights of millions of people. This bill must be stopped.

Newsweek points out that a Chinese government post arguing the bill is "on the wrong side of fair competition" was flagged by users on X. "TikTok is banned in the People's Republic of China," the X community note read. (The BBC reports that "Instead, Chinese users use a similar app, Douyin, which is only available in China and subject to monitoring and censorship by the government.")

Newsweek adds that China "has also blocked access to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Google services. X itself is also banned — though Chinese diplomats use the microblogging app to deliver Beijing's messaging to the wider world."

From the Wall Street Journal: Among the top concerns for [U.S.] intelligence leaders is that they wouldn't even necessarily be able to detect a Chinese influence operation if one were taking place [on TikTok] due to the opacity of the platform and how its algorithm surfaces content to users. Such operations, FBI director Christopher Wray said this week in congressional testimony, "are extraordinarily difficult to detect, which is part of what makes the national-security concerns represented by TikTok so significant...."

Critics of the bill include libertarian-leaning lawmakers, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), who have decried it as a form of government censorship. "The Constitution says that you have a First Amendment right to express yourself," Paul told reporters Thursday. TikTok's users "express themselves through dancing or whatever else they do on TikTok. You can't just tell them they can't do that." In the House, a bloc of 50 Democrats voted against the bill, citing concerns about curtailing free speech and the impact on people who earn income on the app. Some Senate Democrats have raised similar worries, as well as an interest in looking at a range of social-media issues at rival companies such as Meta Platforms.

"The basic idea should be to put curbs on all social media, not just one," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) said Thursday. "If there's a problem with privacy, with how our children are treated, then we need to curb that behavior wherever it occurs."
Some context from the Columbia Journalism Review: Roughly one-third of Americans aged 18-29 regularly get their news from TikTok, the Pew Research Center found in a late 2023 survey. Nearly half of all TikTok users say they regularly get news from the app, a higher percentage than for any other social media platform aside from Twitter.

Almost 40 percent of young adults were using TikTok and Instagram for their primary Web search instead of the traditional search engines, a Google senior vice president said in mid-2022 — a number that's almost certainly grown since then. Overall, TikTok claims 150 million American users, almost half the US population; two-thirds of Americans aged 18-29 use the app.
Some U.S. politicians believe TikTok "radicalized" some of their supporters "with disinformation or biased reporting," according to the article.

Meanwhile in the Guardian, a Duke University law professor argues "this saga demands a broader conversation about safeguarding democracy in the digital age." The European Union's newly enacted AI act provides a blueprint for a more holistic approach, using an evidence- and risk-based system that could be used to classify platforms like TikTok as high-risk AI systems subject to more stringent regulatory oversight, with measures that demand transparency, accountability and defensive measures against misuse.
Open source advocate Evan Prodromou argues that the TikTok controversy raises a larger issue: If algorithmic curation is so powerful, "who's making the decisions on how they're used?" And he also proposes a solution.

"If there is concern about algorithms being manipulated by foreign governments, using Fediverse-enabled domestic software prevents the problem."

"Workers at an Amazon air hub in Kentucky celebrated a victory Thursday," reports the Washington Post, "after federal labor regulators found that Amazon violated labor law by trying to prevent workers there from unionizing." The employees have been demanding higher pay, more flexible schedules and safer working conditions since 2022. After a months-long investigation, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against Amazon last week, alleging the e-commerce behemoth illegally attempted to curtail those efforts by interrogating workers, threatening to call the police on them and demoting workers involved in union organizing.

The complaint is a victory for union organizers at a crucial air cargo hub in Kentucky who have been alleging that Amazon has been unfairly interfering with their unionization efforts there for months.... Amazon workers at various sites around the country have been trying to unionize for years, with little to show for it. Many have accused Amazon of using illegal tactics to discourage workers from supporting unions — more than 240 such charges have been filed with the labor board, workers said... Amazon employee Marcio Rodriguez said he was threatened with termination for his union-organizing activity along with 10 co-workers. For two weeks, Rodriguez said, Amazon management would "show up to where I was working out on the ramp in front of my co-workers in a truck and take me to the HR office," where they would interrogate him...

Amazon workers in Kentucky are seeking to form Amazon Labor Union, an independent but associated branch of the group that won a historic victory at an Amazon warehouse on Staten Island in 2021. Lawyers for the union there are still battling Amazon, which has yet to come to the bargaining table and continues to argue that the NLRB unfairly sided with workers during that election. More recently, the company has argued in another New York case that the National Labor Relations Board itself is structured unconstitutionally, following legal arguments set forth by lawyers for SpaceX and Trader Joe's...

Amazon is scheduled to appear at a hearing before labor regulators regarding its alleged anti-union activities in Kentucky on April 22.

When it comes to TikTok, "The Chinese government is signaling that it won't allow a forced sale..." reported the Wall Street Journal Friday, "limiting options for the app's owners as buyers begin lining up to bid for its U.S. operations..."

"They have also sent signals to TikTok's owner, Beijing-based ByteDance, that company executives have interpreted as meaning the government would rather the app be banned in the U.S. than be sold, according to people familiar with the matter."

But that's not always how it plays out. McClatchy notes that in 2019 the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. ordered Grindr's Chinese owners to relinquish control of Grindr. "A year later, the Chinese owners voluntarily complied and sold the company to San Vicente Acquisition, incorporated in Delaware, for around $608 million, according to Forbes."

And CNN reminds us that the world's most-populous country already banned TikTok more than three years ago: In June 2020, after a violent clash on the India-China border that left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead, the government in New Delhi suddenly banned TikTok and several other well-known Chinese apps. "It's important to remember that when India banned TikTok and multiple Chinese apps, the US was the first to praise the decision," said Nikhil Pahwa, the Delhi-based founder of tech website MediaNama. "[Former] US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had welcomed the ban, saying it 'will boost India's sovereignty.'"

While India's abrupt decision shocked the country's 200 million TikTok users, in the four years since, many have found other suitable alternatives. "The ban on Tiktok led to the creation of a multibillion dollar opportunity ... A 200 million user base needed somewhere to go," said Pahwa, adding that it was ultimately American tech companies that seized the moment with their new offerings... Within a week of the ban, Meta-owned Instagram cashed in by launching its TikTok copycat, Instagram Reels, in India. Google introduced its own short video offering, YouTube Shorts. Homegrown alternatives such as MX Taka Tak and Moj also began seeing a rise in popularity and an infux in funding. Those local startups soon fizzled out, however, unable to match the reach and financial firepower of the American firms, which are flourishing.
In fact, at the time India "announced a ban on more than 50 Chinese apps," remembers the Washington Post, adding that Nepal also announced a ban on TikTok late last year.

Their article points out that TikTok has also been banned by top EU policymaking bodies, while "Government staff in some of the bloc's 27 member states, including Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, have also been told not to use TikTok on their work phones." Canada banned TikTok from all government-issued phones in February 2023, after similar steps in the United States and the European Union.... Britain announced a TikTok ban on government ministers' and civil servants' devices last year, with officials citing the security of state information. Australia banned TikTok from all federal government-owned devices last year after seeking advice from intelligence and security agencies.
A new EFF web page warns that America's new proposed ban on TikTok could also apply to apps like WeChat...

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: India is walking back on a recent AI advisory after receiving criticism from many local and global entrepreneurs and investors. The Ministry of Electronics and IT shared an updated AI advisory with industry stakeholders on Friday that no longer asked them to take the government approval before launching or deploying an AI model to users in the South Asian market. Under the revised guidelines, firms are instead advised to label under-tested and unreliable AI models to inform users of their potential fallibility or unreliability.

The March 1 advisory also marked a reversal from India's previous hands-off approach to AI regulation. Less than a year ago, the ministry had declined to regulate AI growth, identifying the sector as vital to India's strategic interests. The new advisory, like the original earlier this month, hasn't been published online, but TechCrunch has reviewed a copy of it. The ministry said earlier this month that though the advisory wasn't legally binding, it signals that it's the "future of regulation" and that the government required compliance.

The advisory emphasizes that AI models should not be used to share unlawful content under Indian law and should not permit bias, discrimination, or threats to the integrity of the electoral process. Intermediaries are also advised to use "consent popups" or similar mechanisms to explicitly inform users about the unreliability of AI-generated output. The ministry has retained its emphasis on ensuring that deepfakes and misinformation are easily identifiable, advising intermediaries to label or embed content with unique metadata or identifiers. It no longer requires firms to devise a technique to identify the "originator" of any particular message.

India will lower import taxes on certain electric vehicles for companies committing to invest at least $500 million and setting up a local manufacturing facility within three years, a policy shift that could potentially bolster Tesla's plans to enter the South Asian market. From a report: Companies must invest a minimum of $500 million in the country and will have three years to establish local manufacturing for EVs with at least 25% of components sourced domestically, according to a government press release on Friday. Firms meeting these requirements will be allowed to import 8,000 EVs a year at a reduced import duty of 15% on cars costing $35,000 and above. India currently levies a tax of 70% to 100% on imported cars depending on their value.

The policy change is likely going to pave the way for Tesla to enter India, as the Elon Musk-led company has been in talks with the government to lower import duties on its electric cars for years. The move also aligns with India's goal to boost the adoption of EVs and reduce its dependence on oil imports, with the country setting a target of achieving 30% electric car sales by 2030.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Two years into office, President Donald Trump authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to launch a clandestine campaign on Chinese social media aimed at turning public opinion in China against its government, according to former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the highly classified operation. Three former officials told Reuters that the CIA created a small team of operatives who used bogus internet identities to spread negative narratives about Xi Jinping's government while leaking disparaging intelligence to overseas news outlets. The effort, which began in 2019, has not been previously reported.

The CIA team promoted allegations that members of the ruling Communist Party were hiding ill-gotten money overseas and slammed as corrupt and wasteful China's Belt and Road Initiative, which provides financing for infrastructure projects in the developing world, the sources told Reuters. Although the U.S. officials declined to provide specific details of these operations, they said the disparaging narratives were based in fact despite being secretly released by intelligence operatives under false cover. The efforts within China were intended to foment paranoia among top leaders there, forcing its government to expend resources chasing intrusions into Beijing's tightly controlled internet, two former officials said. "We wanted them chasing ghosts," one of these former officials said. [...]

The CIA operation came in response to years of aggressive covert efforts by China aimed at increasing its global influence, the sources said. During his presidency, Trump pushed a tougher response to China than had his predecessors. The CIA's campaign signaled a return to methods that marked Washington's struggle with the former Soviet Union. "The Cold War is back," said Tim Weiner, author of a book on the history of political warfare. Reuters was unable to determine the impact of the secret operations or whether the administration of President Joe Biden has maintained the CIA program.