Investigation into new Meta smart glasses brings privacy concerns
The “next-generation Ray Ban Meta smart glasses” secretly captured hundreds of photos of individuals in parks, on trains, and hiking trails, without their knowledge. These covertly taken photos are sparking significant privacy concerns.
In the experiment, Chen explored how the new glasses are raising privacy concerns, especially now that they are integrated with livestream and artificial intelligence technology.
“Starting in the U.S., you’re going to get this state-of-the-art AI that you can interact with hands-free wherever you go,” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said when he unveiled the new glasses.
Zuckerberg also posted a video to Instagram showing how the smart glasses can help translate signs and pick out a pair of pants to match an outfit.
The glasses feature a small LED light that shines from the right frame to indicate that the glasses are recording. When the glasses take a photo, a flash goes off as well. There is also “tamper-detection technology” to prevent a user from covering the LED light with tape.
“As I shot 200 photos and videos with the glasses in public, no one looked at the LED light or confronted me about it,” Chen wrote. “And why would they? It would be rude to comment on a stranger’s glasses, let alone stare at them.”
Meta’s collaboration with Ray-Ban is just one example of tech giants tapping into new products that shift what consumers do with their devices. Recent changes shifted technology to a more personal experience, now often interactive with the help of AI.
According to Chen, someone could unknowingly be part of that experience too, if they fail to see the LED light shining from the rim of a stranger’s glasses.
“Sleek, lightweight and satisfyingly hip, the Meta glasses blend effortlessly into the quotidian,” Chen wrote. “No one — not even my editor, who was aware I was writing this column — could tell them apart from ordinary glasses, and everyone was blissfully unaware of being photographed.”
FBI probes NYC Mayor Adams’ pressure to open consulate for Turkish government
Amid an FBI investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ campaign, a new report has surfaced alleging Adams pressured NYC fire officials in July 2021 to sign off on a 35-story high-rise Turkish consulate despite documented safety concerns. The New York Times reported that sources said Adams pushed for the consulate to open at the request of the Turkish Consulate General.
I have not been accused of wrongdoing, and I will continue to cooperate with investigators.
NYC Mayor Eric Adams
The mayor wanted the building open by September 2021 while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in the city for the United Nations General Assembly. According to the Times report, the problem was that it wasn’t up to fire safety standards.
The FBI is now considering Mayor Adams’ apparent intervention in its broader corruption investigation, looking into whether the Adams campaign team illegally funneled money from Turkey into Adams’ mayoral campaign.
“I hold my campaign to the ethical standards; any inquiry that is done, we are going to fully participate and make sure that it’s done correctly,” Adams said. “I have not been contacted by anyone from any law enforcement agency, and that is why I came back from D.C. to be here, to be on the ground and look at this inquiry as it was made.”
In his statement, the mayor asserted that he had not been accused of wrongdoing.
“As a borough president, part of my routine role was to notify government agencies of issues on behalf of constituents and constituencies. I have not been accused of wrongdoing, and I will continue to cooperate with investigators,” Adams said.
This news comes days after Mayor Adams’ office announced its own internal investigation into its campaign contributions. Adams is standing by his campaign’s chief fundraiser, Suggs, adding that her position on the campaign team is still hers.
NY Times editors admit paper got it wrong on the Gaza hospital blast
At a time of war, when concise, accurate, and reliable reporting is most needed, many media outlets have added further confusion to a complicated, contentious conflict. Since the Israel-Hamas war began, multiple outlets have published conflicting reports out of Gaza.
Consider outlets’ reporting on the Gaza hospital blast. Straight Arrow News covered it on Friday, Oct. 20, including where the blast occurred, how many were killed, and who was believed to be responsible for the attack.
The details of that attack spread quickly on social media, but there was one problem; nearly all of the “facts” initially reported turned out to be false.
Experts now suggest that neither Hamas nor Israel were responsible for the blast; rather, they suggest a radical religious extremist group called Islamic Jihad bears responsibility.
Additionally, experts the blast was likely accidental, not intentional, and it primarily impacted the hospital’s parking lot, not the hospital itself. Experts and authorities have also revised the estimated death toll below the initial estimate of 500.
Eminem vs. Vivek: Cease-and-desist letter adds to history of musician-politician battles
The chorus from Eminem’s Oscar-winning song “Lose Yourself” sounds like this – Lose yourself in the music, the moment, you own it. The “you own it” line is quite topical this week. See, the thing is – if you’re a politician using a musician’s work at a campaign event, and if you don’t own it, that could cause confusion and possible legal ramifications.
The battle between musical artists and political leaders has been going on for decades. It’s a clash between lyricist and lawmaker — performer and pundit — rapper and representative — which brings regulations on copyright, trademark and image use to the forefront. Republican presidential candidate and political newcomer Vivek Ramaswamy is the latest to join the list of politicians to get a less-than-cordial response from the artist behind the music featured at their campaign events.
Ramaswamy is no stranger to singing himself — actually, rapping.
During his college years at Harvard University, he rapped under the stage name “Da Vek.” But, as he told The New York Times, he identifies with one rapper in particular — Eminem.
“I did not grow up in the circumstances he did,” Ramaswamy told the Times. “But the idea of being an underdog, people having low expectations of you, that part speaks to me.”
That was evident during an appearance at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 12 when Ramaswamy took the microphone and began singing the lyrics Marshall Mathers made famous in the 2002 film “8 Mile.”
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds had asked him moments earlier what his favorite walkout song would be. Ramaswamy replied, “Lose Yourself.” After their chat ended, the song was played over the loudspeakers and the business mogul proceeded to put on an impromptu karaoke performance.
This was not a shock to anyone who knew of Ramaswamy’s history with the song. As Politico reports, during his time at Harvard, he would rap at open-mic nights, sometimes changing the lyrics to libertarian themes. He performed the rap during a vacation in Canada and at a holiday party for Strive, the asset management firm he founded.
“In Eminem, he found an insurgent-like figure, the kind of persona Ramaswamy aspired to and still seems to draw at least some inspiration from,” Politico reported.
The presidential hopeful even rapped a few lines of the song during his interview.
Source: AP Images
But it was the state fair performance that caught the attention of Eminem himself, and the 15-time Grammy Award winner was not amused. He sent Ramaswamy a cease-and-desist letter through the performing rights organization BMI.
The letter, which was first obtained by the Daily Mail, was dated Aug. 23, 11 days after the performance. It read, in part, that BMI “has received a communication from Marshall B. Mathers, III, professionally known as Eminem, objecting to the Vivek Ramaswamy campaign’s use of Eminem’s musical compositions…BMI will consider any performance of the Eminem Works by the Vivek 2024 campaign from this date forward to be a material breach of the Agreement for which BMI reserves all rights and remedies with respect thereto.”
Source: Daily Mall
“Will The REAL Slim Shady Please Stand Up? He didn’t just say what I think he did, did he,” Ramaswamy posted on X, referring to lyrics in Eminem’s 2000 song “The Real Slim Shady.”
A spokesperson for Ramaswamy’s campaign issued a statement saying, “To the American people’s chagrin, we will have to leave the rapping to the real Slim Shady.”
History of Politician vs. Musician Battles
Ramaswamy does not have to look too far to find other politicians who have suffered a similar fate when choosing a catchy tune for their events – though, most of the time, they were not performing it as he did.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan had planned to use Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” as the theme for his reelection campaign. When an adviser for the president asked if they could use the song, the New Jersey singer said no.
That didn’t stop Reagan from referencing the rocker during a stump speech in the Garden State, saying “America’s future rests in the message of hope in the songs of a man so many young Americans admire — New Jersey’s own, Bruce Springsteen.”
In 1989, Bobby McFerrin asked George H.W. Bush’s team to stop playing his song “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” as the vice president vied for the highest office. The Bush campaign stopped using it and switched to Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land.”
Former President Donald Trump has received backlash from a few musicians whose work was used at his political events. In 2015, as Trump announced his run for the presidency, Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” blared through Trump Tower.
Young’s representatives released a statement saying Trump was “not authorized” to use his song.
The future president’s team said that he did have permission through a licensing agreement with the performance rights organization ASCAP. Trump, however, stopped using the song, as his campaign manager at the time said they would respect Young’s wishes because “it’s the right thing to do.”
In 2020, The Rolling Stones enlisted BMI to keep its track “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” from playing at Trump rallies as he sought reelection.
“BMI (has) notified the Trump campaign on behalf of the Stones that the unauthorized use of their songs will constitute a breach of its licensing agreement. If Donald Trump disregards the exclusion and persists, then he would face a lawsuit for breaking the embargo and playing music that has not been licensed,” a statement from The Stones’ representatives said.
In 2008, Sam Moore of the R&B duo Sam & Dave requested Obama to stop playing “Hold On, I’m Coming” at his rallies, saying that it may look like he was endorsing the presidential candidate at the time.
“I have not agreed to endorse you for the highest office in our land…My vote is a very private matter between myself and the ballot box,” Moore said.
The Obama campaign agreed to stop using the song, but the following year Moore performed at the president’s inaugural ball.
Legalities of politicians using artist’s music
There are rules and regulations when it comes to a musician’s work being played at events, it’s just that these rules and regulations can sometimes be misinterpreted, misunderstood, ignored or applied differently depending on the circumstances.
Inductee Eminem performs on stage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame Induction Ceremony at Microsoft Theater on November 05, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. Photo by Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic). Source: Getty Images.
Leslie A. Farber is a New Jersey attorney whose areas of practice include business matters. Though she was not affiliated with any of these particular instances, she has written on the subject of whether politicians have the legal right to play any songs at their events. Her conclusion: “The answer is not clear cut.”
“Artists rarely have full control over where and when their music can be played. The writer (or writers) of a song automatically receives copyright for their original creation, and U.S. copyright statutes prohibit the dissemination of copyrighted work online without permission,” she wrote.
Copyright comes into play, for example, if a politician uses an artist’s song without permission in a social media video.
Farber said no permission is needed for a song to be played at a public venue like a stadium that has a public performance license, which is granted through organizations like BMI and ASCAP.
However, she pointed out, “ASCAP recommends that political campaigns seek permission from the musicians or songwriters, as these licenses exclude music played during conventions or campaign events.”
Jodie Thomas, BMI’s executive director of corporate communications, told Variety in 2020 that the Political Entities License was created to cover music used by political campaigns.
“Since many political events and rallies are often held at places that don’t typically require a music license, such as airport hangars or community fields, a Political Entities License ensures that wherever the campaign stops, it is in compliance with copyright law,” Thomas said. “A venue license was never intended to cover political campaigns. So if a campaign attempts to rely on a venue license to cover its music use, there’s risk involved.”
Thomas said political campaigns “cannot and should not try to circumvent BMI’s withdrawal of musical works under its Political Entities License by attempting to rely on another license.”
Farber said “savvy campaign managers” purchase the rights to play the music at political events through licensing agreements.
“If an artist’s song is part of the licensing agreement and is played at a campaign event, they have traditionally had little legal recourse outside of sending a cease-and-desist letter,” Farber said.
This is approach is seen in Eminem’s cease-and-desist letter to the Ramaswamy campaign.
BMI says the letter served as notice that Eminem’s songs are excluded from the Music License for Political Entities or Organizations between its organization and the Vivek 2024 team effective immediately. According to the letter, the licensing agreement between the two parties was entered on May 24, almost three months before the “Lose Yourself” viral moment.
According to Farber, other avenues artists can take to keep politicians’ hands off their songs are objecting on the basis of their Right of Publicity, “a legal argument that covers how their image is portrayed,” and the Lanham Act, which covers trademark infringement.
Farber said infringement can occur if the use of the song could confuse the audience into thinking the musician is endorsing the candidate, which is an argument many artists have used to stop their music from being played.
In July 2020, Gospel singer and songwriter Yolanda Adams testified before the Senate’s subcommittee on intellectual property about musicians’ work being used by political campaigns.
The four-time Grammy winner said, “I am not a copyright attorney. But after decades of watching debates about music in campaigns, I can offer a songwriter’s advice in lieu of legal advice. Musicians run the spectrum of political views. If candidates want to use music in their campaigns, work with us – the artists and songwriters – to find the right match. I am often asked for the use of my music for all kinds of uses: services, weddings, alas, even funerals. And I almost always give my permission.
“But the operative word is permission. Legal battles and cease and desist letters will never be as effective as good old-fashioned cooperation.”
FTX filed a lawsuit against founder Sam Bankman-Fried and other former company executives. Other listed defendants include Caroline Ellison, who led Bankman-Fried’s Alameda Research hedge fund; former FTX technology chief Zixiao “Gary” Wang; and former FTX engineering director Nishad Singh.
The company is looking to recoup more than $1 billion lost before it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022. The lawsuit accused Bankman-Fried and the other executives of misappropriating the money.
In the lawsuit, FTX said the executives used the funds to finance luxury condominiums, political contributions, speculative investments and other “pet projects.” The lawsuit alleges Bankman-Fried sent $10 million in company funds to his personal accounts and is now using that money to pay for his criminal defense. Bankman-Fried is also accused of gifting his father another $10 million.
The FTX lawsuit was filed the same day federal prosecutors accused Bankman-Fried of witness tampering. The prosecutors asked a judge to issue an order that would bar Bankman-Fried and other parties from making public statements that could interfere with a fair trial.
The letter to the judge referenced a New York Times article that included excerpts from Ellison’s personal Google documents. Prosecutors said it was apparent Bankman-Fried shared documents with the Times, and his lawyers have since confirmed to the government that he met with one of the article’s authors in person and shared documents “that were not part of the government’s discovery material.”
NYT report on Justice Thomas and ethical standards sparks partisan debate
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has found himself in the spotlight once again, though this time it has nothing to do with his decisions on the bench. The New York Times published a lengthy article this week that has raised questions about Thomas’s ethical standards and his relationship with an elite nonprofit organization, sparking further divisions in opinions from both the left and the right on what is deemed acceptable behavior for Supreme Court members.
The New York Times frames the issue by stating that Thomas has “entered an elite circle and opened a door to the Court.” The piece focuses on Thomas’s relationship with the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit organization that offers scholarships to low-income youth.
According to the New York Times, Thomas may have crossed an ethical boundary in his relations with the group and its members. It was revealed that Thomas allows the nonprofit access to the courtroom every year to hold an annual ceremony for new members. Thomas also received VIP tickets to college and NFL football games, in addition to invites for luxurious retreats at the mansion of wealthy businessman David Sokol in Florida and his ranch in Montana.
The Times highlights that none of these perks were reported in Thomas’s financial disclosures.
Meanwhile, the New York Post editorial board criticized the Times’ reporting, calling it a “hefty hit piece” and “character assassination.” However, the Times did not explicitly claim that Thomas’s personal relationships have influenced any of his decisions on the bench and did not suggest that the justice was breaking any ethical rules by not disclosing information about them.
In terms of the court’s record, despite what is perceived as a 6-3 conservative majority, half of all cases ruled on this year were decided unanimously with a 9-0 vote. Additionally, nine out of 10 cases had a liberal justice voting in the majority.
New York Times Editorial Board calls on Sen. Feinstein to resign
Members of the New York Times Editorial Board joined a growing number people calling on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to resign. Sen. Feinstein has been absent from Capitol since late February as she recovers from a shingles infection. The board published an opinion piece titled “Dianne Feinstein Has to Act” on Friday, May 5.
“If she cannot fulfill her obligations to the Senate and to her constituents, she should resign and turn over her responsibilities to an appointed successor,” the board wrote in the piece. “If she is unable to reach that decision on her own, Mr. Schumer, the majority leader, and other Democratic senators should make it clear to her and the public how important it is that she do so.”
With the piece, the New York Times’ opinion board joined several Democratic lawmakers who are also calling on Feinstein to resign. They include:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.
Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn.
Earlier in the week of April 30, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he spoke to Feinstein over the previous weekend. He added he was “hopeful” she can return to Capitol Hill next week.
“While the Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced eight strong nominees during my absence, I’m disappointed that Republicans are blocking a few in committee,” Feinstein tweeted on Thursday, May 4. “I’m confident that when I return, we will be able to move the remaining qualified nominees to the Senate floor for a vote.”
ChatGPT threatens Google as Microsoft looks to invest in the AI giant
It took Netflix more than three years to reach a million users but it took this new artificial intelligence tool just five days. ChatGPT is Big Tech’s latest gold mine. It’s a state-of-the-art natural language processing model developed by San Francisco based startup OpenAI.
It can put together detailed responses in a way that mimics human conversation. It can write entire essays, solve math problems and even generate complex computer code.
Plus, the tool gets smarter as more people use it, which means some students have been taking advantage by using ChatGPT to write their school papers. This trend prompted New York City schools to issue a ban on the chatbot, and universities in Australia are switching over to pen and paper altogether.
This latest frenzy has Google issuing a “code red.” According to the New York Times, the tech giant is worried about ChatGPT upending their business. Meanwhile, Microsoft is leaning into those fears. They are reportedly looking to invest $10 billion into ChatGPT with the aim of making it part of their Bing search engine.
The Information reports Microsoft hopes to launch the new feature before the end of March in a bid to compete with Google, which has been the world’s largest search engine for over 20 years.
Morning rundown: Congress avoids shutdown; defense bill passes
Congress avoids a government shutdown; the military vaccine mandate gets dropped as defense bill passes; a massive winter storm surges on; and nearly half of young adults are living with their parents. These stories and more highlight the morning rundown for Thursday, Dec. 16, 2022.
Congress averts government shutdown
The Senate and the House have both voted to keep the government open long enough to try and come to a compromise on a long-term spending bill. The two chambers will now debate how to divvy up funds to federal agencies that would last through September of 2023.
“I’m optimistic that we will enact a strong omnibus next week. On Tuesday, as you know, a bicameral, bipartisan framework was announced. This crucial step puts us on a path to a yearlong government spending bill,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
It’s projected to be a massive package at around $1.7 trillion, if the politicians can agree on how to spend it and pass it by next Friday.
Defense bill passes
It was a busy night in the Senate Thursday as lawmakers also passed the Defense Authorization bill. It now goes to President Joe Biden for signature. The $858 billion defense bill had bipartisan support.
It drops the U.S. military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, includes a 4.6% pay-raise to service members, and bolsters support for Ukraine and Taiwan.
DHS plan once Title 42 ends
The Biden administration has unveiled its plan on how to handle an expected immigration surge once Title 42 is lifted next week. The Department of Homeland Security will add more personnel at the U.S.-Mexico border, including processing coordinators. They will add more holding facilities and add hundreds of flights and bus routes to take migrants to other less crowded facilities.
While Title 42 is set to end Wednesday, a judge ruled Thursday the Trump-era remain-in-Mexico policy will remain on hold while other legal challenges play out. President Biden wants to end the policy while Republicans have fought to reinstate it.
The policy requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico until their hearings in U.S. immigration court.
Winter storm threatens Northeast
Although the winter season technically doesn’t begin until next week, the weather that blanketed our country this week was an unwelcoming early start. Mounds of snow have piled up in the Midwest, as blizzard warnings now cover most of the Northeast. Heavy snow and a significant amount of ice are expected to come down on 15 million Americans.
Ice storms threaten electricity and power with unbearable freezing temperatures outside. The winter storm threat is expected to last in the Northeast through the weekend.
Twitter suspends journalists’ accounts
Elon Musk went on a suspension spree of Twitter accounts belonging to half a dozen journalists. Including journalists from CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.
Musk said any Twitter user posting live-location information will disappear from the platform. He added that the journalists continued to post that information, calling it “basically assassination coordinates” for him and his family.
Nearly half of young adults living with parents
A new study shows nearly half of young adults are still living with their parents: 48% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 are living at home with their parents.
Ninety percent of those living at home say it’s to save money or they can’t afford living on their own.
Of the young adults living at home, only one in five are paying rent to their parents. And most of them are paying less than $500 to cover their living expenses.
NYT: FBI had up to 8 Proud Boys informants
Leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the FBI had as many as eight informants inside the Proud Boys organization. This week, lawyers for five Proud Boy members charged with seditious conspiracy said the information those informants gave the FBI could clear their clients.
There are five Proud Boy members, including the group’s former leader Enrique Tarrio, charged with seditious conspiracy by the FBI. To win their case, prosecutors must prove the men had a premeditated plan to use force to overthrow, put down, destroy or oppose the authority of the U.S. government or to block the execution of a law.
According to court documents and reporting from the New York Times, government prosecutors recently released hundreds of pages of records to defense lawyers. The records are sealed so the public doesn’t know exactly what they said. However, lawyers for the Proud Boy members argue the information contained could be “exculpatory” for their clients, meaning it proves there was no seditious conspiracy.
The defense said the government was improperly suppressing the information and asked Judge Timothy J. Kelly to dismiss the charges outright, or at least delay the December trial. Government prosecutors countered the records weren’t immediately given to the defense because they weren’t directly relevant to the case.
Judge Kelly has yet to make a ruling on whether to dismiss charges or delay the trial, but the revelation the FBI had as many as eight informants in the Proud Boys is renewing criticisms of the federal agency.
For instance, many in Washington are wondering why the informants didn’t give enough advanced warning to stop the reportedly coordinated Jan. 6 attack. And now, almost two years later, what is stopping the informants from corroborating the accusations of a conspiracy to attack the Capitol?
In the absence of answers, conspiracy theories have sprouted that the FBI was using the informants to encourage the storming of the Capitol and entrap others. Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray said any suggestion that an agent or confidential human sources “in some way instigated or orchestrated the January 6th attack is categorically false.”
