An anonymous reader shared this report from CNN: More than a year after Hyundai and Kia released new anti-theft software updates, thefts of vehicles with the new software are falling — even as thefts overall remain astoundingly high, according to a new analysis of insurance claim data. The automakers released the updates starting last February, after a tenfold increase in thefts of certain Hyundai and Kia models in just the past three years — sparked by a series of social media posts that showed people how to steal the vehicles. "Whole vehicle" theft claims — insurance claims for the loss of the entire vehicle — are 64% lower among the Hyundai and Kia cars that have had the software upgrade, compared to cars of the same make, model and year without the upgrade, according to the Highway Loss Data Institute. "The companies' solution is extremely effective," Matt Moore, senior vice president of HLDI, an industry group backed by auto insurers, said in a statement...

Between early 2020 and the first half of 2023, thefts of Hyundai and Kia models rose more than 1,000%.
The article points out that HDLI's analysis covered 2023, and "By the end of that year, only about 30% of vehicles eligible for the security software had it installed. By now, around 61% of eligible Hyundai vehicles have the software upgrade, a Hyundai spokesperson said."

The car companies told CNN that more than 2 million Hyundai and Kia vehicles have gotten the update (part of a $200 million class action settlement reached in May of 2023).

"A lawsuit has accused a Florida data broker of carelessly failing to secure billions of records of people's private information," reports the Register, "which was subsequently stolen from the biz and sold on an online criminal marketplace." California resident Christopher Hofmann filed the potential class-action complaint against Jerico Pictures, doing business as National Public Data, a Coral Springs-based firm that provides APIs so that companies can perform things like background checks on people and look up folks' criminal records. As such National Public Data holds a lot of highly personal information, which ended up being stolen in a cyberattack. According to the suit, filed in a southern Florida federal district court, Hofmann is one of the individuals whose sensitive information was pilfered by crooks and then put up for sale for $3.5 million on an underworld forum in April.

If the thieves are to be believed, the database included 2.9 billion records on all US, Canadian, and British citizens, and included their full names, addresses, and address history going back at least three decades, social security numbers, and the names of their parents, siblings, and relatives, some of whom have been dead for nearly 20 years.
Hofmann's lawsuit says he 'believes that his personally identifiable information was scraped from non-public sources," according to the article — which adds that Hofmann "claims he never provided this sensitive info to National Public Data...

"The Florida firm stands accused of negligently storing the database in a way that was accessible to the thieves, without encrypting its contents nor redacting any of the individuals' sensitive information." Hofmann, on behalf of potentially millions of other plaintiffs, has asked the court to require National Public Data to destroy all personal information belonging to the class-action members and use encryption, among other data protection methods in the future... Additionally, it seeks unspecified monetary relief for the data theft victims, including "actual, statutory, nominal, and consequential damages."

"CrowdStrike has continued doing what gave it such an expansive footprint in the first place," writes CSO Online — "detecting cyber threats and protecting its clients from them."

They interviewed Adam Meyers, CrowdStrike's SVP of counter adversary operations, whose team produced their 2024 Threat Hunting Report (released this week at the Black Hat conference). Of seven case studies presented in the report, the most daring is that of a group CrowdStrike calls Famous Chollima, an alleged DPRK-nexus group. Starting with a single incident in April 2024, CrowdStrike discovered that a group of North Koreans, posing as American workers, had been hired for multiple remote IT worker jobs in early 2023 at more than thirty US-based companies, including aerospace, defense, retail, and technology organizations.

CrowdStrike's threat hunters discovered that after obtaining employee-level access to victim networks, the phony workers performed at minimal enough levels to keep their jobs while attempting to exfiltrate data using Git, SharePoint, and OneDrive and installing remote monitoring and management (RMM) tools RustDesk, AnyDesk, TinyPilot, VS Code Dev Tunnels, and Google Chrome Remote Desktop. The workers leveraged these RMM tools with company network credentials, enabling numerous IP addresses to connect to victims' systems.

CrowdStrike's OverWatch hunters, a team of experts conducting analysis, hunted for RMM tooling combined with suspicious connections surfaced by the company's Falcon Identity Protection module to find more personas and additional indicators of compromise. CrowdStrike ultimately found that over 100 companies, most US-based technology entities, had hired Famous Chollima workers. The OverWatch team contacted victimized companies to inform them about potential insider threats and quickly corroborated its findings.
Thanks to Slashdot reader snydeq for sharing the news.

This week America's Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges against the former CEO of the startup social media site "IRL"

The BBC reports: IRL — which was once considered a potential rival to Facebook — took its name from its intention to get its online users to meet up in real life. However, the initial optimism evaporated after it emerged most of IRL's users were bots, with the platform shutting in 2023...

The SEC says it believes [CEO Abraham] Shafi raised about $170m by portraying IRL as the new success story in the social media world. It alleges he told investors that IRL had attracted the vast majority its supposed 12 million users through organic growth. In reality, it argues, IRL was spending millions of dollars on advertisements which offered incentives to prospective users to download the IRL app. That expenditure, it is alleged, was subsequently hidden in the company's books.
IRL received multiple rounds of venture capital financing, eventually reaching "unicorn status" with a $1.17 billion valuation, according to TechCrunch. But it shut down in 2023 "after an internal investigation by the company's board found that 95% of the app's users were 'automated or from bots'."

TechCrunch notes it's the second time in the same week — and at least the fourth time in the past several months — that the SEC has charged a venture-backed founder on allegations of fraud... Earlier this week, the SEC charged BitClout founder Nader Al-Naji with fraud and unregistered offering of securities, claiming he used his pseudonymous online identity "DiamondHands" to avoid regulatory scrutiny while he raised over $257 million in cryptocurrency. BitClout, a buzzy crypto startup, was backed by high-profile VCs such as a16z, Sequoia, Chamath Palihapitiya's Social Capital, Coinbase Ventures and Winklevoss Capital.

In June, the SEC charged Ilit Raz, CEO and founder of the now-shuttered AI recruitment startup Joonko, with defrauding investors of at least $21 million. The agency alleged Raz made false and misleading statements about the quantity and quality of Joonko's customers, the number of candidates on its platform and the startup's revenue.

The agency has also gone after venture firms in recent months. In May, the SEC charged Robert Scott Murray and his firm Trillium Capital LLC with a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the stock price of Getty Images Holdings Inc. by announcing a phony offer by Trillium to purchase Getty Images.

Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar shared this report from MacRumors: Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney commented on Apple's 'Find My' service, referring to it as "super creepy surveillance tech" that "shouldn't exist." Sweeney went on to explain that several years ago, "a kid" stole a Mac laptop out of his car. Years later, Sweeney was checking Find My, and as the Mac was still connected to his Apple ID account, it showed him the location where the thief lived.
When someone asked Sweeney if he'd at least gotten his laptop back, Sweeney answered "No. I was creeped the hell out by having unexpectedly received the kid's address, and turned off Find My iPhone on all of my devices."

Slashdot reader crmarvin42 quipped "Tell me you are stupidly rich, without telling me you are stupidly rich... Next someone will be saying that it is 'Creepy' to have security footage of someone taking your Amazon packages off of your porch." And they also questioned Sweeney's sincerity, suggesting that he's "just saying that to try and make Apple look bad because of all the lawsuits going on."

MacRumors followed the ensuing discussion: Sweeney said that the location of a device in someone's possession can't be tracked without tracking the person, and "people have a right to privacy." ["This right applies to second hand device buyers and even to thieves."] He claims that detection and recovery of a lost or stolen device should be "mediated by due process of law" and not exposed to the device owner "in vigilante fashion."
Some responded to Sweeney's comments by sharing the headline of a Vox news story about Epic's own privacy polices. ("Fortnite maker Epic Games has to pay $520 million for tricking kids and violating their privacy.")

MacRumors cited a 2014 report that thefts of iPhones dropped after the introduction of Apple's "Activation Lock" feature (which prevents the disabling of 'Find My' without a password).

But when the blog AppleInsider accused Sweeney of "an incredibly bad leap of logic" — Sweeney responded. "You're idealizing this issue as good guys tracking criminals to their lairs, but when Find My or Google's similar tech points a device owner to a device possessor's home, one must anticipate the presence of families and kids and innocent used device buyers, and ask whether it's really appropriate for a platform to use GPS and shadowy mesh network tech to set up physical confrontations among individuals."

Sweeney also posted a quote from Steve Jobs about how at Apple, "we worry that some 14-year-old is going to get stalked and something terrible is going to happen because of our phone."

Argentina's security forces have announced plans to use AI to "predict future crimes" in a move experts have warned could threaten citizens' rights. From a report: The country's far-right president Javier Milei this week created the Artificial Intelligence Applied to Security Unit, which the legislation says will use "machine-learning algorithms to analyse historical crime data to predict future crimes." It is also expected to deploy facial recognition software to identify "wanted persons," patrol social media, and analyse real-time security camera footage to detect suspicious activities.

While the ministry of security has said the new unit will help to "detect potential threats, identify movements of criminal groups or anticipate disturbances," the Minority Report-esque resolution has sent alarm bells ringing among human rights organisations. Experts fear that certain groups of society could be overly scrutinised by the technology, and have also raised concerns over who -- and how many security forces -- will be able to access the information.

An anonymous reader shared this report from PC World: According to a tweet sent out by the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire division (spotted by Tom's Hardware), a small band of burglars is using Wi-Fi jamming devices to nullify wireless security cameras before breaking and entering.

The thieves seem to be well above the level of your typical smash-and-grab job. They have lookout teams, they enter through the second story, and they go for small, high-value items like jewelry and designer purses. Wireless signal jammers are illegal in the United States. Wireless bands are tightly regulated and the FCC doesn't allow any consumer device to intentionally disrupt radio waves from other devices. Similar laws are in place in most other countries. But signal jammers are electronically simple and relatively easy to build or buy from less-than-scrupulous sources.
The police division went on to recommend tagging value items like a vehicle or purse with Apple Air Tags — and "talk to your Wi-Fi provider about hard-wiring your burglar alarm system."

And among their other suggestions: Don't post on social media that you're going on vacation...

Law enforcement officials have identified the criminal behind "more than 20 bomb or shooting threats to schools and other places," reports CNN.

It was an 11-year-old boy: Investigators tracked the calls to a home in Henrico County, Virginia, just outside Richmond. Local deputies searched the home this month, and the 11-year-old boy who lived there admitted to placing the Florida swatting calls, as well as a threat made to the Maryland State House, authorities said. Investigators later determined that the boy also made swatting calls in Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Tennessee and Alaska. The boy faces 29 felony counts and 14 misdemeanors, officials said. He's being held in a Virginia juvenile detention facility while Florida officials arrange for his extradition...

A 13-year-old boy was arrested in Florida in May, several days after the initial call, for making a copycat threat to Buddy Taylor Middle School, official said.

On Wednesday, Judge Nina Morrison ruled that cellphone searches at the border are "nonroutine" and require probable cause and a warrant, likening them to more invasive searches due to their heavy privacy impact. As reported by Reason, this decision closes the loophole in the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents have exploited. Courts have previously ruled that the government has the right to conduct routine warrantless searches for contraband at the border. From the report: Although the interests of stopping contraband are "undoubtedly served when the government searches the luggage or pockets of a person crossing the border carrying objects that can only be introduced to this country by being physically moved across its borders, the extent to which those interests are served when the government searches data stored on a person's cell phone is far less clear," the judge declared. Morrison noted that "reviewing the information in a person's cell phone is the best approximation government officials have for mindreading," so searching through cellphone data has an even heavier privacy impact than rummaging through physical possessions. Therefore, the court ruled, a cellphone search at the border requires both probable cause and a warrant. Morrison did not distinguish between scanning a phone's contents with special software and manually flipping through it.

And in a victory for journalists, the judge specifically acknowledged the First Amendment implications of cellphone searches too. She cited reporting by The Intercept and VICE about CPB searching journalists' cellphones "based on these journalists' ongoing coverage of politically sensitive issues" and warned that those phone searches could put confidential sources at risk. Wednesday's ruling adds to a stream of cases restricting the feds' ability to search travelers' electronics. The 4th and 9th Circuits, which cover the mid-Atlantic and Western states, have ruled that border police need at least "reasonable suspicion" of a crime to search cellphones. Last year, a judge in the Southern District of New York also ruled (PDF) that the government "may not copy and search an American citizen's cell phone at the border without a warrant absent exigent circumstances."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission today voted to lower price caps on prison phone calls and closed a loophole that allowed prison telecoms to charge high rates for intrastate calls. Today's vote will cut the price of interstate calls in half and set price caps on intrastate calls for the first time. The FCC said it "voted to end exorbitant phone and video call rates that have burdened incarcerated people and their families for decades. Under the new rules, the cost of a 15-minute phone call will drop to $0.90 from as much as $11.35 in large jails and, in small jails, to $1.35 from $12.10."

The new rules are expected to take effect in January 2025 for all prisons and for jails with at least 1,000 incarcerated people. The rate caps would take effect in smaller jails in April 2025. Worth Rises, a nonprofit group advocating for prison reform, said it "estimates that the new rules will impact 83 percent of incarcerated people (about 1.4 million) and save impacted families at least $500 million annually." The nonprofit Prison Policy Institute said that prison phone companies charge ancillary fees for things "like making a deposit to fund an account." The ban on those fees "also effectively blocks a practice that we have been campaigning against for years: companies charging fees to consumers who choose to make single calls rather than fund a calling account, and deliberately steering new consumers to this higher-cost option in order to increase fee revenue," the group said.

The ancillary fee ban is a "technical-sounding change," but will help "eliminate some of the industry's dirtiest tricks that shortchange both the families and the facilities," the group said.

A judge in the UK High Court has directed prosecutors to consider bringing criminal charges against computer scientist Craig Wright, after ruling that he lied "extensively and repeatedly" and committed forgery "on a grand scale" in service of his quest to prove he is Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of bitcoin. From a report: In a judgment published Tuesday, Justice James Mellor outlined various injunctions to be imposed upon Wright, after finding in May that he had "engaged in the deliberate production of false documents to support false claims [to be Satoshi] and use the Courts as a vehicle for fraud."

By order of the judge, Wright will be prevented from claiming publicly that he is Satoshi and from bringing or threatening legal action in any jurisdiction on that basis. He will be required to pin a notice to the front page of his personal website and X feed detailing the findings against him. The matter, Mellor writes, will also be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the body responsible for prosecuting criminal cases in the UK, "for consideration of whether a prosecution should be commenced against Dr Wright." It will be up to the CPS to decide whether the available evidence is sufficient to bring charges against Wright "for his wholescale perjury and forgery of documents" and "whether a warrant for his arrest should be issued."

AT&T paid more than $300,000 to a member of the team that stole call records for tens of millions of customers, reports Wired — "to delete the data and provide a video demonstrating proof of deletion." The hacker, who is part of the notorious ShinyHunters hacking group that has stolen data from a number of victims through unsecured Snowflake cloud storage accounts, tells WIRED that AT&T paid the ransom in May. He provided the address for the cryptocurrency wallet that sent the currency to him, as well as the address that received it. WIRED confirmed, through an online blockchain tracking tool, that a payment transaction occurred on May 17 in the amount of 5.7 bitcoin... The hacker initially demanded $1 million from AT&T but ultimately agreed to a third of that. WIRED viewed the video that the hacker says he provided to AT&T as proof to the telecom that he had deleted its stolen data from his computer...

AT&T is one of more than 150 companies that are believed to have had data stolen from poorly secured Snowflake accounts during a hacking spree that unfolded throughout April and May. It's been previously reported that the accounts were not secured with multi-factor authentication, so after the hackers obtained usernames and passwords for the accounts, and in some cases authorization tokens, they were able to access the storage accounts of companies and siphon their data. Ticketmaster, the banking firm Santander, LendingTree, and Advance Auto Parts were all among the victims publicly identified to date...

The timeline suggests that if [John] Binns is responsible for the AT&T breach, he allegedly did it when he was likely already aware that he was under indictment for the T-Mobile hack and could face arrest for it.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A court in south-west Spain has sentenced 15 schoolchildren to a year's probation for creating and spreading AI-generated images of their female peers in a case that prompted a debate on the harmful and abusive uses of deepfake technology. Police began investigating the matter last year after parents in the Extremaduran town of Almendralejo reported that faked naked pictures of their daughters were being circulated on WhatsApp groups. The mother of one of the victims said the dissemination of the pictures on WhatsApp had been going on since July.

"Many girls were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence," she told Reuters at the time. "They felt bad and were afraid to tell and be blamed for it." On Tuesday, a youth court in the city of Badajoz said it had convicted the minors of 20 counts of creating child abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims' moral integrity. Each of the defendants was handed a year's probation and ordered to attend classes on gender and equality awareness, and on the "responsible use of technology." [...] Police identified several teenagers aged between 13 and 15 as being responsible for generating and sharing the images. Under Spanish law minors under 14 cannot be charged but their cases are sent to child protection services, which can force them to take part in rehabilitation courses. Further reading: First-Known TikTok Mob Attack Led By Middle Schoolers Tormenting Teachers

Australia's government cybersecurity agency on Tuesday accused a China-backed hacker group of stealing passwords and usernames from two unnamed Australian networks in 2022, adding that the group remained a threat. From a report: A joint report led by the Australian Cyber Security Centre said the hackers, named APT40, had conducted malicious cyber operations for China's Ministry of State Security, the main agency overlooking foreign intelligence. "The activity and techniques overlap with the groups tracked as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 40," said the report, which included inputs from lead cyber security agencies for the United States, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Germany. U.S. and British officials in March had accused Beijing of a sweeping cyberespionage campaign that allegedly hit millions of people including lawmakers, academics and journalists, and companies including defense contractors. They said China-backed "APT31" was responsible for the network intrusion.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: As deep-pocketed companies like Amazon, Google and Walmart invest in and experiment with drone delivery, a phenomenon reflective of this modern era has emerged. Drones, carrying snacks and other sundries, are being shot out of the sky. Incidents are still rare. However, a recent arrest in Florida, in which a man allegedly shot down a Walmart drone, raises questions of what the legal ramifications are and whether those consequences could escalate if these events become more common. [...] While consumer drones have been proliferating for well over a decade, the question of legal ramifications hasn't been wholly clear. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) gave us a partial answer following a 2016 drone shooting in Arkansas. At the time, the FAA pointed interested parties to 18 U.S.C. 32. The law, titled "Aircraft Sabotage," is focused on the wanton destruction of "any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce."

At first glance, the law appears primarily focused on manned aircraft, including a provision that "makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft." In responding to the Arkansas drone shooting, however, the FAA asserts that such protections can be interpreted to also include UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). The language does, indeed, appear broad enough to cover drones. That means, in turn, that the penalties are potentially as stiff. The subject was revived after a 2020 incident in Minnesota. In that case, the suspect was hit with felony charges relating to criminal damage and discharging a weapon within city limits. Those would likely also be the charges in most scenarios involving property, rather than bodily damage, drone or not. Even with these examples, there is not a rigid rule that predicts if or when prosecutors might also introduce a federal charge like 18 U.S.C. 32.

As the legal blog Above the Law notes, in most cases, the federal government has deferred to state law for enforcement. Meanwhile, in most cases where 18 U.S.C. 32 has been applied, if a human crew/passengers are involved, there could be other potential charges like murder. It certainly can be argued that shooting a large piece of hardware out of the sky in a heavily populated area invites its own potential for bodily harm, though it may not be prosecuted in the same manner. As drone delivery increases in the U.S., however, we may soon have an answer to the role federal legislation like 18 U.S.C. 32 will play in UAV shootings. Adding that into the picture brings penalties, including fines and up to 20 years in prison, potentially compounding those consequences. What is clear, though, is that the consequences can be severe, whether it is invoked.

Andy Maxwell reports via TorrentFreak: On November 4, 2022, the United States Department of Justice and the FBI began seizing Z-Library's domains as part of a major operation to shut down the infamous 'shadow library' platform. A criminal investigation had identified two Russian nationals, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova, as the alleged operators of the site. On October 21, 2022, at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Sanket J. Bulsara ordered their arrest. They were detained in Argentina on November 3, 2022. After arriving at the Ambrosio Taravella International Airport, the unsuspecting couple cleared customs and hired a car from a popular rental company. The United States Embassy informed local authorities that the pair were subject to an Interpol Red Notice.

At what point the Russians' phones were tapped is unclear but, under the authority of a Federal Court arrest warrant, Argentinian law enforcement began tracking the couple's movements as they traveled south in their rented Toyota Corolla. [...] [F]ollowing a visit to El Calafate, the pair were arrested by airport security police as they arrived in Rio Gallegos, Santa Cruz. They were later transferred to Cordoba. In January 2023, Judge Miguel Hugo Vaca Narvaja authorized the Russians to be detained under house arrest. Approval from Cordoba prosecutor Maximiliano Hairabedian, who was responsible for the request to extradite Napolsky and Ermakova to the United States, was not obtained. With a federal indictment, alleging criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering offenses, waiting for them in the United States, the priority for Napolsky and Ermakova would soon be their fight against extradition. [...]

Patronato del Liberado (Patronage of the Liberated) is responsible for assisting people who have previously been detained by the authorities with family and social reintegration. It's also tasked with monitoring compliance of those on probation or subject to house arrest. According to unnamed 'judicial sources' cited by La Voz, which receives full credit for a remarkable scoop, when the group conducted a regular visit in May, to verify that Napolsky and Ermakova were in compliance with the rules set by the state, there was no trace of them. Patronato del Liberado raised the alarm and Judge Sanchez Freytes was immediately notified. Counsel for the defense during the extradition hearings said that he hadn't been able to contact the Russians either. The Judge ordered an international arrest warrant although there appeared to be at least some hope the pair hadn't left the country. However, that was many weeks ago and with no obvious news suggesting their recapture, the pair could be anywhere by now.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Business Insider: It's a political tale as old as time: put up a campaign poster in your yard, and thieves come to snatch it. But according to The Wall Street Journal, those fed up with front lawn looting are embracing a modern solution. Apple's geo-tracking AirTag devices are helping owners find their signs — and sometimes, even the people who stole them.

The practice has already led to charges. In one example cited by the outlet, Florida politician John Dittmore decided to hide the coin-sized gadget on one of his posters after waking up to a number of thefts in May... [Two teenagers were charged with criminal mischief and the theft of nine signs.]

In other cited cases, stolen signs don't end up with teens, but in the homes of electoral opponents. After Chris Torre became the victim of poster snatching, AirTags led him to the residence of Renee Rountree, the Journal said. Both were running for a seat on the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors in Virginia. Her son-in-law was charged with a misdemeanor for stealing the property, while Rountree faced a misdemeanor for receiving stolen goods. In a December trial, she noted plans to return the signs. Rountree has since been ordered to 250 hours of community service.

"I would like to think that this will have a huge deterrent effect," the trial's judge said in the court's transcript, quoted by WSJ.

Top Eurocops are appealing for help from lawmakers to undermine a privacy-enhancing technology (PET) they say is hampering criminal investigations -- and it's not end-to-end encryption this time. Not exactly. From a report: Europol published a position paper today highlighting its concerns around SMS home routing -- the technology that allows telcos to continue offering their services when customers visit another country. Most modern mobile phone users are tied to a network with roaming arrangements in other countries. EE customers in the UK will connect to either Telefonica or Xfera when they land in Spain, or T-Mobile in Croatia, for example.

While this usually provides a fairly smooth service for most roamers, Europol is now saying something needs to be done about the PETs that are often enabled in these home routing setups. According to the cops, they pointed out that when roaming, a suspect in a criminal case who's using a SIM from another country will have all of their mobile communications processed through their home network. If a crime is committed by a Brit in Germany, for example, then German police couldn't issue a request for unencrypted data as they could with a domestic operator such as Deutsche Telekom.

"A federal grand jury has indicted an embattled Alzheimer's researcher for allegedly falsifying data to fraudulently obtain $16 million in federal research funding from the National Institutes of Health for the development of a controversial Alzheimer's drug and diagnostic test," writes Beth Mole via Ars Technica. "Wang is charged with one count of major fraud against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of false statements. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for the major fraud charge, 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud, and five years in prison for the count of false statements [...]." From the report: Hoau-Yan Wang, 67, a medical professor at the City University of New York, was a paid collaborator with the Austin, Texas-based pharmaceutical company Cassava Sciences. Wang's research and publications provided scientific underpinnings for Cassava's Alzheimer's treatment, Simufilam, which is now in Phase III trials. Simufilam is a small-molecule drug that Cassava claims can restore the structure and function of a scaffolding protein in the brain of people with Alzheimer's, leading to slowed cognitive decline. But outside researchers have long expressed doubts and concerns about the research.

In 2023, Science magazine obtained a 50-page report from an internal investigation at CUNY that looked into 31 misconduct allegations made against Wang in 2021. According to the report, the investigating committee "found evidence highly suggestive of deliberate scientific misconduct by Wang for 14 of the 31 allegations," the report states. The allegations largely centered around doctored and fabricated images from Western blotting, an analytical technique used to separate and detect proteins. However, the committee couldn't conclusively prove the images were falsified "due to the failure of Dr. Wang to provide underlying, original data or research records and the low quality of the published images that had to be examined in their place." In all, the investigation "revealed long-standing and egregious misconduct in data management and record keeping by Dr. Wang," and concluded that "the integrity of Dr. Wang's work remains highly questionable." The committee also concluded that Cassava's lead scientist on its Alzheimer's disease program, Lindsay Burns, who was a frequent co-author with Wang, also likely bears some responsibility for the misconduct.

In March 2022, five of Wang's articles published in the journal PLOS One were retracted over integrity concerns with images in the papers. Other papers by Wang have also been retracted or had statements of concern attached to them. Further, in September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection of the analytical work and techniques used by Wang to analyze blood and cerebrospinal fluid from patients in a simufilam trial. The investigation found a slew of egregious problems, which were laid out in a "damning" report (PDF) obtained by Science. In the indictment last week (PDF), federal authorities were explicit about the allegations, claiming that Wang falsified the results of his scientific research to NIH "by, among other things, manipulating data and images of Western blots to artificially add bands [which represent proteins], subtract bands, and change their relative thickness and/or darkness, and then drawing conclusions" based on those false results.

An anonymous reader quotes an op-ed written by Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022) and a visiting professor at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs: Julian Assange's lengthy detention has finally ended, but the danger that his prosecution poses to the rights of journalists remains. As is widely known, the U.S. government's pursuit of Assange under the Espionage Act threatens to criminalize common journalistic practices. Sadly, Assange's guilty plea and release from custody have done nothing to ease that threat. That Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act, a U.S. law designed to punish spies and traitors, should not be considered the normal course of business. Barack Obama's justice department never charged Assange because it couldn't distinguish what he had done from ordinary journalism. The espionage charges were filed by the justice department of Donald Trump. Joe Biden could have reverted to the Obama position and withdrawn the charges but never did.

The 18-count indictment filed under Trump accused Assange of having solicited secret U.S. government information and encouraged Chelsea Manning to provide it. Manning committed a crime when she delivered that information because she was a government employee who had pledged to safeguard confidential information on pain of punishment. But Assange's alleged solicitation of that information, and the steps he was said to have taken to ensure that it could be transferred anonymously, are common procedure for many journalists who report on national security issues. If these practices were to be criminalized, our ability to monitor government conduct would be seriously compromised. To make matters worse, someone accused under the Espionage Act is not allowed to argue to a jury that disclosures were made in the public interest. The unauthorized disclosure of secret information deemed prejudicial to national security is sufficient for conviction regardless of motive.

To justify Espionage Act charges, the Trump-era prosecutors stressed that Assange was accused of not only soliciting and receiving secret government information but also agreeing to help crack a password that would provide access to U.S. government files. That is not ordinary journalistic behavior. An Espionage Act prosecution for computer hacking is very different from a prosecution for merely soliciting and receiving secret information. Even if it would not withdraw the Trump-era charges, Biden's justice department could have limited the harm to journalistic freedom by ensuring that the alleged computer hacking was at the center of Assange's guilty plea. In fact, it was nowhere to be found. The terms for the proceeding were outlined in a 23-page "plea agreement" filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, where Assange appeared by consent. Assange agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of violating the Espionage Act, but under U.S. law, it is not enough to plead in the abstract. A suspect must concede facts that would constitute an offense. "One effect of the guilty plea is that there will be no legal challenge to the prosecution, and hence no judicial decision on whether this use of the Espionage Act violates the freedom of the media as protected by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution," notes Roth. "That means that just as prosecutors overreached in the case of Assange, they could do so again."

"[M]edia protections are not limited to journalists who are deemed responsible. Nor do we want governments to make judgments about which journalists deserve First Amendment safeguards. That would quickly compromise media freedom for all journalists."

Roth concludes: "Imperfect journalist that he was, Assange should never have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. It is unfortunate that the Biden administration didn't take available steps to mitigate that harm."