I have mostly stayed away from the whole saga surrounding the drip-drip leaks of Grand Theft Auto 6 content prior to the big reveal on Netflix because, frankly, I am quite wary of giving companies the kind of guerilla marketing wins that sometimes look like this sort of thing. That being said, I really don’t think any of this was some attempt to Streisand what is perhaps already the most anticipated game of all time into wider news coverage, and that is backed up by the DMCA blitz Take-Two has gone on to try to bury all of these leaks.

Those attempts shouldn’t surprise anyone, honestly. Take-Two and Rockstar have historically abused copyright law to try to bury all kinds of content it doesn’t like, whether it’s been game leaks in the past, or cheats for its games, or mods it doesn’t like.

But it sure would be nice if the partners Take-Two has doing the abusing of the law could bother to be somewhat accurate and not ensnare a gaming journalist for the crime of posting publicly available court documents.

On August 26, Stephen Totilo — the longtime Kotaku editor-in-chief who now runs the Game File newsletter — was locked out of his X account over a DMCA notice filed on Take-Two’s behalf. Totilo’s offense, by his own account, was an August 21 post reporting that judges in New York had cleared Take-Two to subpoena Microsoft and Discord in the leak hunt.

Attached were three screenshots: the two court orders, and a tweet from Xbox CTO Scott Van Vliet pledging Microsoft is “working closely with Take-Two and Rockstar Games.” No leaked footage. No gameplay. The orders are public records that never once use the words Grand Theft Auto.

After Totilo complained both to ExTwitter and on ExTwitter, his account and the original tweet were restored and the DMCA claim had been rescinded. There is no indication that Take-Two or the vendor it was using to police the internet for these leaks have said anything publicly or privately to Totilo. They just nuked his account over a bullshit claim that ten seconds of review would indicate contained no infringing material, then restored it when the mistake was called out, and now are trying to Homer Simpson back into the bushes as though nothing happened.

But what makes this all the more frustrating is that the DMCA notice doesn’t make a copyright claim. It appears to make a trademark claim, instead.

It asserts Take-Two’s international figurative trademark on Grand Theft Auto — a trademark on the logo — and argues there is a likelihood of confusion, the legal test for whether the public might mistake someone else’s goods for the brand’s.

In plain English: a copyright takedown form was used to make a logo complaint, against images that contain neither the logo nor a single frame of the game.

The notice describes the reported content — federal court orders included — as “video/audiovisual recording,” and certifies all of it as accurate under penalty of perjury, the line that makes knowingly lying on the form a federal offense.

Everyone in this portion of the story, save Totilo, sucks at their jobs. Take-Two has clearly partnered with a company, Ebrand, that is not up to the task of properly policing IP on the internet. Ebrand messed this up badly, asserting a trademark claim via a copyright mechanism. ExTwitter, for its part, apparently demonstrated just how little review is done on this sort of thing, having taken down the tweet and suspending a journalist’s account over this absolute mess of a DMCA claim. It’s a full cornucopia of stupid on display for the world to see.

And this isn’t a one-off. Gamestop was also ensnared in Take-Two’s DMCA blitz. Its crime appears to be sharing a promotional screenshot for GTA6 that Rockstar specifically made available for use publicly.

Its August 20 post promoting a story on the billions in market value Take-Two shed as the leaks spread got struck, and the image X wiped was Rockstar’s own official GTA 6 screenshot, straight from the press gallery on Rockstar’s site.

That exact shot has run on dozens of outlets since May 2025, IGN and Mashable included. Take-Two’s vendor filed federal paperwork against a promotional asset Rockstar distributes so that outlets will use it.

There is simply no point to the DMCA’s “under penalty of perjury” language if it can’t be employed in a situation like this. At the very, very best, Ebrand and Take-Two are guilty of unbelievable negligence in issuing these DMCA takedowns and copyright strikes. When we’re talking about even temporary takedowns of the work of journalists, the First Amendment implications become obvious.

To allow these companies to simply slink away without penalty is why this sort of thing keeps happening. If there are no consequences to a carpet-bomb approach to copyright (trademark?) takedowns, then they will, and do, continue.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You might assume that what you tell a doctor stays between you, your physician and perhaps your insurer. But the reality is more complicated.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the federal privacy law that governs health information and is commonly known as HIPAA, is narrower than its reputation suggests. It regulates hospitals, physicians, insurers and their business associates, but not the health data you generate everywhere else: not the period-tracking application on your phone, the internet search you ran about a diagnosis, the DNA you mailed to a genealogy company or the wearable that counts your heartbeats.

Even the records HIPAA does cover can be shared, sold or handed to the government in ways that might surprise you.

This gap in protection matters more than ever because the U.S. government is pushing hard to gather health data domestically and abroad. This is happening even as a growing body of research shows that the safeguard which these efforts to collect data lean on – anonymizing data by removing identifying information to make it difficult to trace back to an individual – is far weaker than officials claim.

As a professor of law at Indiana University, I study health information privacy and medical data regulation, which includes tracing how sensitive health information moves among clinics, government agencies and law enforcement. As a co-investigator on a federally funded study about opioid prescribing, I rely on health data in my own research. I appreciate its value for science, and I also see the danger of collecting it without meaningful safeguards.

Limits of medical privacy

HIPAA gives you several rights: You can see your health records, demand corrections and expect that a covered provider will not casually disclose your information.

But the law also permits release of some information without your consent. A hospital fully bound by HIPAA may release certain types of records without your authorization and without telling you. There are roughly a dozen such categories. Information about treatment, payment and routine healthcare logistics require no sign-off. Neither does information released for public health reporting, law enforcement, judicial and administrative proceedings, health plan oversight, research or the broad catchall of essential government functions.

The statute is also thick with additional exceptions. In practice, much of your health information can be shared through these many open doors. And once data is sent outside the system covered by HIPAA, the HIPAA limits fall away.

For instance, prescription drug monitoring programs, which every state now operates, assemble detailed logs of who filled which controlled substance prescription and when. Federal law enforcement can often access these logs with a self-issued administrative subpoena – an order that doesn’t require a judge’s approval or oversight.

These programs have expanded beyond opioids into a dragnet that shares health data across state lines, exposing patients who seek reproductive or gender-affirming healthcare to surveillance far from home.

Health records can flow to many destinations under different rules. A given disclosure might feel more like a violation depending on who decides where it can go and who can then see it.

RFK Jr.’s push to access Americans’ health records

Since the spring of 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has sought federal access to Americans’ medical records to investigate whether vaccines cause autism. The scientific community has studied this question for decades and has shown decisively that they do not.

According to KFF Health News, HHS has been courting state health information exchanges – the little-known systems that let hospitals and clinics swap detailed, identifiable patient records – and asking how those records might be used for vaccine research. One proposal floated by state organizations would give HHS data on 90% of Americans’ medical records by 2028. In Nebraska, millions of federal grant dollars have flowed to a statewide health information exchange nonprofit that has cooperated with the effort.

Large health datasets can be useful. Pooled records can expose drug side effects, track outbreaks and reveal disparities in care that smaller studies miss. Public health has always depended on some surrender of individual privacy for collective benefit.

The concern is not that the government should never collect health data. It is that meaningful safeguards have not kept pace with the scale of collection and capabilities of modern data analytics.

In seeking access to Americans’ medical records for a vaccine and autism study, HHS has declined to say how many states are involved, what data it collects, who can see it or how it will be protected.

Building a comprehensive repository to chase a question that science has already answered inverts the logic of research. Usually a hypothesis justifies the data collected, rather than the reverse.

Collecting identifiable records for tens of millions of people in a single database also creates a target for breaches, secondary uses that no one consented to and abuses by current or future administrations with different priorities.

‘Anonymized’ doesn’t protect your health privacy

Officials have offered reassurances that data will be aggregated and stripped of identifiers so no individual can be singled out.

Decades of computer science research undercuts that promise. A study published in Nature in June 2026 sharpened the point, showing that in this age of artificial intelligence, stripping identifiers from patient records to protect identity does not protect all patients equally.

The researchers audited AI diagnostic models trained on clinical data, including chest X-rays, electrocardiograms and electronic health records. They asked whether an outsider could tell if a particular person’s data had been used to build the model. For instance, confirming that someone’s record helped train a cancer-prediction tool can reveal that that person has cancer. This exploit is known as a membership inference attack.

The research team found that while the average risk of being identified from data stripped of identifying information often looked reassuringly low, some patients faced near-certain reidentification The burden fell unevenly: Underrepresented groups, sorted by race, insurance status or diagnosis, were most at risk. Those most exposed were frequently already most vulnerable to discrimination.

Researchers have long established that removing identifiers from rich datasets does not reliably protect the people in them, and that identification gets easier the more information you have. Today’s AI technology makes it possible to carry out these attacks remotely and quickly.

The same privacy problems, exported

The U.S. government’s appetite for health data does not stop at the border. As ProPublica reported in June 2026, the State Department has been conditioning lifesaving aid to African nations on access to their citizens’ health data.

Under the Trump administration’s global health plan, Uganda agreed to give the United States real-time access to nine of its health data systems for seven years, including the central repository of the nation’s health information and the system managing individual electronic medical records, in exchange for up to US$1.7 billion over five years, a sum that shrinks each year and falls below prior U.S. support. Kenya struck a similar deal; Zambia, Zimbabwe and Ghana walked away from the initial terms.

The U.S. government has promised that the data will be aggregated and anonymized, but privacy experts warn that the agreements are vague and omit standard limits on how much data is taken and how it can be used. A Ugandan digital rights lawyer called the choice his country faced the essence of digital colonialism: Accept the deal and risk exploitation, or refuse it and watch people die.

The common thread

Domestic records collection and foreign data-for-aid deals rest on the same faith that anonymization neutralizes the risk of pooling sensitive health data.

The evidence says otherwise. This does not mean health data should never be gathered or studied, but I believe that the reassurances deserve skepticism, the safeguards deserve scrutiny, and the people whose bodies generated the data deserve a say. To safeguard privacy, a government seeking sensitive medical records should have to show why it needs them and how the safeguards it relies on hold up.

Privacy law was built for a world where data resided in filing cabinets. Governments from Kalamazoo to Kampala now operate in a world where even an anonymized digital record can point back to you.

Jennifer D. Oliva is Professor of Law, Indiana University

Ctrl-Alt-Speech is a weekly podcast about the latest news in online speech, from Mike Masnick and Everything in Moderation‘s Ben Whitelaw.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed. To get extended episodes with additional coverage, support us on Patreon.

In this week’s episode, Mike and Ben cover:

• FBI Probes Service Selling 153M+ Drivers Licenses (Krebs on Security)
• Introducing ChatGPT for Teens: Built for learning, backed by protections (OpenAI)
• OpenAI Says ChatGPT Is Safer for Teens. Now It Needs to Show Proof (RAND)
• ‘AI is less judgmental’ (Washington Post)

And in the extended episode for Patreon supporters, they cover:

• AI safety is designed in the West, and failing users everywhere (Rest of World)
• Why the global push to break free from Big Tech keeps falling short (Rest of World)
• Meta accepts U.S. safety rules while pitching softer tools abroad (Rest of World)
• How AI is mapping the tree of life (Basecamp Research/Microsoft)

Our fun links this week include a Korean AI dance generator and defrag your Windows PC.

Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Bluesky for video clips from this week’s episode!

If you’re already a Patreon supporter, you can get the extended episode on Patreon.

There is a flood of lawsuits against social media, from a variety of different parties, all claiming some kind of harm. Would you feel differently about some of those lawsuits if you found out the plaintiffs bringing them were talking amongst themselves about how they were doing it just to become rich?

Because we just found out that at least one of the key cases, involving a teenager who claimed he was addicted to social media ended with that kid dropping the case, right after he had to reveal during discovery that he had asked ChatGPT what his father meant when he said the kid needed to keep pursuing the case because it was going to make him a million dollars.

It increasingly looks like many of these cases brought against the companies are by money hungry lawyers and questionably competent parents exploiting children to try to get a big payday. There was some hint of this in the big California bellwether case regarding a teenager who sued Meta, claiming it made her addicted to social media, even though it came out that the teen suffered very real trauma from her own mother. Of course, at trial, pointing out that the child’s mother likely was the cause of some of her trauma doesn’t often play well in front of a jury.

But the story of another teenager’s lawsuit against all the big social media companies seems even more damning. Back in July there was some surprise that the teen, named only as “RKC” in the case, suddenly dropped the case just before it was set to go to trial. In the media, the claims were that it was just too stressful for RKC, but that seemed… odd. The real story appears to be what Meta turned up in discovery: evidence that the suit was part of the family’s get rich quick scheme, egged on by lawyers happy to keep it going.

Last week the Washington Post wrote about how everything you type into ChatGPT can get swept into discovery in a lawsuit. That’s a big deal on its own for anyone treating a chatbot as a diary. But buried in that story was something specifically revealing about the RKC case:

When a teenage boy identified in court filings as R.K.C. didn’t understand his father, he turned to ChatGPT for help.

“My dad Said that I’m will get a settlement worth of 1million dollar,” R.K.C. said to the chatbot in October 2024, according to court filings. “He said that If that doesn’t make me happy what does. What does he mean.”

Unlike the California case, where the trauma came from the teen’s own mother, here Meta got something much closer to a smoking gun: a kid so confused about why a million dollar settlement was supposed to make him happy that he had to ask a chatbot what his father meant. I imagine that would not play particularly well in front of a jury.

But, once again, it should raise some serious questions about these cases, and the motivations of those bringing them. Even if you believe that the companies could do a better job, the whole reason why Section 230 is supposed to stop these cases cold at the beginning is to stop grifting lawyers and grifting plaintiffs from filing these sorts of lawsuits as a shakedown. This is why we’ve warned people that, even if you hate Meta, the results of the California case are bad news.

The point of Section 230, again, was supposed to be that it prevented “death by a thousand duck bites,” but increasingly the courts are saying “eh, we can allow the ducks to bite away and sort it out later.” And that’s an open invitation for more suits like this one, where the lawyers get a contingency fee, the parents get a settlement, and the troubled kid gets deposed about their worst year.

Hell, in the RKC case, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube all paid off the family (and its lawyers) before the trial even started. So the plan appears to have worked, even if Meta escaped, thanks to the ChatGPT transcript that was revealed during discovery.

I understand that big tech companies are unsympathetic here, and Mark Zuckerberg has made a ton of terrible choices over the years. I honestly hope that the company collapses and users find other, more user-empowering places to connect with family and friends. But these lawsuits all seem incredibly sketchy. And, again, Meta can afford to fight these cases for years. With something like 2,500 of them already pending in this one mass tort, the sites that can’t afford that fight — including the smaller ones that actually take kid safety seriously — will settle or shut down, which is precisely the outcome Section 230 was written to prevent.

CyberTraining 365 is the best training destination for you and your team. Here you can Master Cyber Security techniques such as Analyzing Malware, Penetration Testing, Advanced Persistent Threats, Threat Intelligence Research, Reverse Engineering, and much more. This online academy offers 3,877 up-to-date modules on all the latest technologies and industry standards. These courses are aligned with the National Cybersecurity Workforce Framework developed by the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE). It’s on sale for $80.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

You have to know you’re fucking up when your largest and best-paying customer base is increasingly noping out of contract renewals. That more than anything is probably what provoked ALPR maker Flock Safety to start implementing a few guardrails for use.

It seemingly had no problem with being the target of negative press for most of the past couple of years. Every time the press (or politicians) came gunning for it, it would either claim the reporting was misleading or suggest those criticizing it were opposed to public safety.

For the first time ever, Flock has finally added some stuff to its products that’s meant to address months of reporting on abusive use by cops and abusive actions by the company itself. Flock’s tech has aided and abetted acts of stalking by police officers all over the nation, with new incidents seemingly reported daily. To that end, Flock has added some new default settings that limit retention periods, demand more info from officers performing searches, and flag potential misuse for review by police departments using its tech.

But it’s too little and far too late. “Too little” because while these new restrictions are on by default, they don’t seem to affect any systems already in use and can easily be switched off by law enforcement agencies. While you’d think more cops shops would welcome additional reporting that might flag misuse of ALPR databases, most seem perfectly content to allow local journalists to operate as unofficial, unpaid interns who will do the work Internal Affairs doesn’t seem interested in doing itself.

And it really doesn’t matter whether or not Flock’s CEO believes the company is the “first” to do anything about police misconduct. The rest of the country doesn’t believe him. Nor does it trust Flock. Flock is getting kicked to the curb with escalating frequency, as Cyrus Farivar reports for Ars Technica.

New data compiled by a Bay Area anti-surveillance advocacy group shows that not only are American localities dropping cameras from Flock Safety, but they are doing it at an accelerating rate.

Communities from Lansing, Michigan, to Pflugerville, Texas, are ending their relationship with Flock, largely over concerns regarding out-of-control surveillance, unwanted data sharing, high expenses, and reports of police abusing the tool.

Secure Justice, an Oakland-based advocacy group, has recorded 214 cities and counties that have dropped Flock since 2021. Of those, 90 ended their relationship with Flock in August 2026 alone, a fourfold increase compared to the previous month.

If you like your charts with hockey sticks, Secure Justice has one for you — one that has already been updated twice since Ars Technica first published its piece on August 28:

Here’s a closer look at the updated chart, which tallies another 10 Flock drops since August 26, bringing the new total to 96 in August alone.

This trend will continue. Flock doesn’t seem capable — much less willing — to provide ALPR tech that can be trusted by the public or even the law enforcement agencies utilizing it.

If you want more anecdotal evidence of Flock’s apparent desire to engage in self-destructive actions, just ask a cop.

In a public letter, Bellingham (MA) Police Chief Kenneth Fitzgerald stated that last year, Flock “tried to modify some of the terms of our service and access, while the contract was still in place.” He said this “raised concerns for me about our relationship with the company.”

Then, during a recent criminal investigation, Fitzgerald was further incensed when the department learned a feature called Flock “Free Form” was available through the cameras used by the department — an “Al-powered tool that can search video information using plain-language searches,” the chief said.

He said he was unaware of the AI features on the cameras and does not believe Flock “clearly explained or identified” them to the department.

“Those features go beyond what most people would think of as a traditional license plate reader,” Fitzgerald said. “That concerned me because I had previously told the public, based on our understanding of the system, that our Flock technology was a license plate reader only.”

Looks like hubris to me — the thing that seems to plague nearly every tech company that secures a dominant position in the market. Flock assumes all cops will want their surveillance tech to be increasingly pervasive and invasive. So, it implements new features without giving anyone a head’s up and then plays the victim when legislators, the general public, and even cops themselves decide they no longer want Flock in their cities.

And that makes Belligham only one of four PDs in Massachusetts that have chosen to terminate Flock contracts since the beginning of this month. Flock is losing ground everywhere in the nation and due to its willingness to ignore everything up to this point, it’s not going to be able to prevent the bleeding from continuing indefinitely.

And while this is certainly good news for Americans’ privacy, rest assured there are plenty of smaller companies that aren’t nearly as nationally infamous waiting to fill the void Flock leaves behind.

Just so we’re clear: pre-merger promises (especially in the media and telecom sectors) are absolutely worthless. There’s fifty years of indisputable evidence that all of the “synergies” and innovative improvements promised on the front end of major media mergers mean absolutely nothing. Especially in a country dead-set on defanging its labor and consumer protection regulators.

To sell their unpopular $111 billion merger with Warner Brothers, Paramount/CBS executives continue to make the promise that the newly-merged company will produce 30 major films per year. It’s again a worthless promise that ignores all the massive pressures the bigger debt-riddled company will face in a sector where broadcast TV is dying and brick and mortar theaters are struggling.

There’s very little indication that this megadeal even ends with a functional company, much less 30 films a year. The massive debt from these transactions always results in higher prices, mass layoffs, and shoddier quality product due to corner cutting. 30 films a year simply isn’t something you can promise.

But the kind of Hollywood insiders that have tethered their horses to David Ellison have unsurprisingly come on in defense of what’s abjectly a terrible deal. Director James Cameron, for example, came out last April in full-throated support of the deal, propping up the Ellison family’s claim that significantly more media consolidation will result in bold new storytelling and a healthier Hollywood.

Now it’s apparently Tom Cruise’s turn to prop up the shitty deal. The Scientologist movie star went on The Pat McAfee Show to help sell Larry and David Ellison’s empty promise:

“They’re going to deliver 30 movies,” Cruise said on The Pat McAfee Show of the Paramount CEO’s sometimes-mocked vow to increase film production and releases. “It’s a community to me. It’s not an industry. The people in these studios are not just people in the studios. They’re my family.”

I think Cameron and Cruise really do love traditional movies in traditional theaters, and probably do think they’re “helping.” I suspect they haven’t really done the math or spent much time studying the academic literature on U.S. media consolidation, and are just basing their support on their personal financial ties to Ellison (who has thrown a lot of money into Cruise’s Top Gun revival in particular).

The 30 film promise exists to largely get traditional theater owners and guys like Cruise and Cameron on board. Though nobody will confirm this and they’re not sharing the actual document, there’s some talk they put the promise in writing for major theater chains. But that’s again meaningless if the company’s high-debt load, incompetence, and sagging viewership derail the company’s finances.

For what it’s worth, another top U.S. male lead, George Clooney, has taken the opposite tack, last week proclaiming he didn’t see how the deal or its promises make any coherent financial sense.

Clooney’s right to worry. The deal will result in untold thousands of layoffs as Paramount attempts to shift the debt load of this deal to consumers and labor. We know this because this is what always happens. You might recall the AT&T DirecTV/Warner series of mergers resulted in 50,000 people losing their jobs, something curiously left unmentioned by most press coverage of Paramount’s latest merger promises.

Pretending that mass layoffs aren’t going to happen is like boldly declaring you’re going to win a boxing match with the Colorado river. Mass layoffs are simply physics when it comes to this sort of debt-heavy consolidation.

And that’s before you get to potential price hikes, corner cutting eroding product quality, the deal’s dodgy funding by a bunch of Middle-East autocrats with a history of killing journalists, or the fact that billionaire Larry Ellison is a Trump-ally keen on converting both CNN and CBS into right wing oligarch-friendly agitprop machines aimed at undermining foundational Democracy.

What kind of gift is that to give your purported “family?” A recent survey indicated that most Americans aren’t buying the consumer benefits Paramount is selling, which is why the company has resorted to using fake consumer groups wielding fake AI-generated support to try and scuttle the 12-state antitrust lawsuit aimed at slowing harmful U.S. media consolidation.

To quote the opening line from the court opinion that this post is based upon, “Millions of American teenagers have sex.” This post is has nothing to do with whether that sort of thing is good or bad, natural or otherwise, nor the moral implications of it all. Whatever you think about that opening line, I think we can at least agree that teenagers engaging in sexual activity that results in unwanted pregnancies is something we collectively would want to avoid. The government, and HHS specifically, has offered up grants for programs that seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies in teenagers and, as the court notes, those programs appear to have worked.

Alarmed by the country’s rising teenage birth rate, Congress funded grants through the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (“TPP”) Program to support local initiatives proven to reduce teen pregnancy, as well as promising approaches that might also prove effective after further observation and study. Congress intended for these programs to employ a range of strategies, from encouragement of abstinence and delayed sexual activity to education about contraceptives. The effort seems to be working: The teen pregnancy rate has plummeted since Congress began funding the grants in 2010.

Good news all around, it would seem. But since the Trump administration never seems to miss an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, HHS has decided to reinterpret, or you could say simply make up, what Congress intended to do with the money appropriated for these grants. Specifically, HHS has decided that this money will only be used for grants to fund programs that focus solely on abstinence and whatever the fuck “body literacy” is. The general idea is that any education or proliferation of tried and true forms of contraception are now verboten.

Several state counties, a nonprofit focusing on sex education, and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland filed suit to get the grant solicitation paperwork restored to its original state. As the lawsuit notes, neither HHS nor the Executive Branch are allowed to simply rewrite the mandates given alongside money appropriated by Congress. That is law-making by the Executive Branch by any plain reading.

And, to make matters worse, it appears that HHS wrote the grant criteria citing some studies that flatly don’t exist and citing others that don’t say what HHS says they say. The court agreed and issued a preliminary injunction putting a hold on the grant changes for now.

In his opinion granting a preliminary injunction as the lawsuit continues, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper called the changes “likely arbitrary and capricious” and said the government had failed to provide sufficient evidence for its policy. He wrote that grant solicitations for the program“(remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited — a hallmark of AI-generated citations.” In seven cited articles, two appeared to be entirely made up and three others did not exist in the journals they were attributed to, according to Cooper, a judge who was appointed to the federal court in Washington, D.C., in 2014.

This has become a pattern for HHS under RFK Jr. In June of last year, Kennedy issued a report to Congress to support the changes his hand-picked CDC team made to COVID vaccine recommendations. That report included several studies that were unpublished, or that indicated within the study itself that it shouldn’t be cited because more research needed to be done, or which said something completely different than what HHS claimed they said. In May of last year, HHS released a “MAHA Report” on American health that once again claimed certain studies said something other than what they actually said, but which also included cited studies that could not be found upon inspection. The wide speculation was that the report was generated in part using AI that was going through one of its hallucination episodes. One wonders if the AI was doing drugs off a toilet seat with Kennedy himself.

In a real, functioning government, this sort of embarrassment would result in action by somebody, somewhere, somehow. Sadly, we don’t have that. We have a bunch of con-artists cosplaying as government officials instead. But as Kennedy stacks up the losses when it comes to his work and credibility, the calls for his resignation or firing are only getting louder.

At this point all fifty states have considered passing “right to repair” law aimed at making it easier and cheaper for consumers (and independent repair shops) to repair their tech. That said, only Massachusetts, New York, Texas, Minnesota, Colorado, California, Oregon, and Washington have actually passed laws. And of those states, none have seen any enforcement despite no shortage of offenders.

So it’s interesting to see the first lawsuit filed in Colorado. Colorado technically has three right to repair laws: one protecting wheelchairs passed in 2022; one covering agricultural equipment passed in 2023; and one expanding coverage to HVAC equipment and most tech in 2024.

A company named Acme Revival, which connects customers with electronics repair technicians, has sued three companies for violating Colorado’s right to repair laws. Three different lawsuits are targeting Toast, a point-of-sale system provider, Owl Labs, a maker of meeting cameras, and Blackmagic Design, a maker of digital camera equipment — claiming they’re violating the law.

The three different lawsuits state that all three companies have made it very difficult for customers to obtain tools, parts, manuals, and firmware/software needed to upgrade and repair point-of-sale terminals, card readers, cameras, and other restaurant-related hardware:

“Acme Revival has received hundreds of requests from owners seeking repairs for Toast devices. The reported problems have included failed batteries and charging systems, damaged housings and touchscreens, malfunctioning card readers and buttons, circuit-board failures, loose or damaged connectors, damaged cables, damaged ports, and other defects requiring replacement parts or technical repair materials.

Acme Revival alleges that it has been unable to complete certain repairs because Toast failed or refused to provide the necessary repair materials.”

There’s really no shortage of large offenders who make it difficult to find parts and tools, buy up independent repair centers to try and monopolize repair (see: John Deere), leverage annoying DRM to make repair difficult or impossible, or engage in the practice of “parts pairing,” which ensures hardware owners can only access large and costly parts assemblages — not individual parts.

The bipartisan anger at such practices has resulted in the right to repair movement seeing the most meaningful traction of any consumer rights issue in the country. Hopefully enforcement steadily scales up to match the full scale of public annoyance.

If you’re worried about the bad optics of working with ICE, the federal government is here to help subsidize your recovery from mass deportation conjunctivitis. If you’re worried about the personal negative side effects of buddying up to ICE’s masked kidnapping squads, the administration is here to assure cops that it might cover some of the legal costs of doing business with ICE.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pitching a plan to help shield local police officers who make immigration arrests from possible financial consequences if they are accused of on-duty misconduct.

The agency is proposing to subsidize liability insurance for state and local officers who are trained and deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, according to a planning document published Friday.

This offer is not valid in sanctuary cities or anywhere cops shops haven’t signed agreements to do ICE’s detention/arrest work for it. To get this extra coverage, law enforcement agencies will have to sign 287(g) agreements. These agreements make local law enforcement agencies part of mass deportation machinery. It requires agencies to hold arrested migrants and tell ICE to come pick them up. It also allows local cops to act as immigration officers by permitting them to perform arrests using ICE administrative “warrants.”

That word is in scare quotes because administrative warrants are just pieces of paper that say ICE knows of someone subject to a removal order. They are not reviewed by magistrate judges. And, unlike what ICE would have you believe, they do not authorize searches of private property.

This is where some of ICE’s (new) billions of dollars might be going. ICE officers don’t need this sort of insurance because they’re defended and indemnified by the federal government. (And they don’t need it anyway because the Supreme Court has made it pretty much impossible to successfully sue a federal officer for rights violations.)

Local cops aren’t nearly as immune as federal officers, so they might appreciate some insurance coverage in the extremely unlikely chance they are sued successfully for violating rights while doing ICE’s work for it. But the payout seems pretty fucking low considering ICE now commands the largest budget of any federal law enforcement agency.

Under the plan, officers would purchase insurance covering up to $500,000 in personal liability, which typically funds legal fees, settlements and judgments. Officers would be reimbursed up to $250 annually — roughly what the insurance is expected to cost.

The administration that claims to love cops (that love ICE) the most, this minimal payout should be viewed as insulting. First, the administration “allows” officers to spend their own money to purchase insurance coverage they wouldn’t otherwise need if their employing agencies had decided signing a 287(g) agreement wasn’t worth the trouble.

Second, tossing cops $250 a year does a whole lot of nothing when it comes to premiums for this specific sort of insurance. And, in other cases, partnering with ICE will automatically void these policies.

Pennsylvania’s risk pool, for instance, recently made clear that it would exclude “proactive immigration enforcement activities” from coverage, forcing several participating counties to search for other insurance options.

Butler County Sheriff Michael Slupe said he found insurance to cover his 13 deputies participating in the program at a cost of $20,000 in annual premiums.

In the first instance, there is no coverage to be had even if the DHS is willing to cough up a measly $250 a year for ICE buddy cops. In the second instance, a local agency is paying $1,538/year per officer to cover officers it has willingly lent to ICE’s anti-migrant activities. That means it’s still on the hook for the other $1,250/year. $3,250 (for 13 officers) looks like a down payment, rather than a meaningful contribution.

But the facts on the ground don’t bother Sheriff Slupe, apparently. He’s sure Trump will come riding the rescue with a fat stack of greenbacks.

“I want to make sure the guys are additionally covered, so we had to spend the money,” he said, adding that federal funding would cover the cost.

Technically almost true, if you read this to mean the federal government will cover an almost-insignificant portion of the cost. But it’s weird to see Sheriff Slupe offer to pitch in on immigration enforcement when his agency was thrown under the bus a bit following an alleged assassination attempt targeting Trump during his 2024 election campaign.

It’s all very stupid and unnecessary. It’s already pretty difficult to successfully sue law enforcement officers, thanks to the ever-expanding coverage of the qualified immunity doctrine (not actually a law!). Furthermore, the federal government’s pitch for additional liability insurance makes you wonder which Trump donors might profit from this push for new premiums. ICE already claims any officers participating in the 287(g) program are “acting under the color of federal authority,” which vastly increases the level of lawsuit immunity. Going even further, the federal government has already pretty much promised local law enforcement officers they’ll be well-defended should they be sued for boarding the ICE bang bus.

The agreements also state that local officers who face civil lawsuits can ask the US Department of Justice to represent them, and that ICE will generally support their requests. 

Adding all of this up, we can only assume none of this adds up. The stipend is too small. The government says local officers should present themselves as federal officers in court proceedings. And these officers seem unlikely to ever need to hire their own representation should they be sued for their ICE-adjacent activities. And now ICE is encouraging participants in the 287(g) program to buy insurance they’ll likely never need or, in some cases, not be able to use due to limits enacted by insurance providers.

It comes across as a blend of stupid and performative. As such, it fits in perfectly with this administration’s MO. But if I were a cop doing ICE’s dirty work, I’d be demanding full coverage paid with federal tax dollars, rather than assume this cock-up of a hybrid will actually do anything when I’ve been sued by competent plaintiffs.