ProPublica is reporting:

Microsoft is using engineers in China to help maintain the Defense Department’s computer systems—with minimal supervision by U.S. personnel—leaving some of the nation’s most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary, a ProPublica investigation has found.

The arrangement, which was critical to Microsoft winning the federal government’s cloud computing business a decade ago, relies on U.S. citizens with security clearances to oversee the work and serve as a barrier against espionage and sabotage...

Government spacecraft would be available for purchase under a plan being discussed by the Trump administration.

The office created under President Joe Biden to run the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund has been turned into an oversight arm.

Top Republicans say they're focused on the nuts and bolts of disaster policy in the aftermath of the deadly flash floods.

The International Court of Justice heard testimony from more than 100 nations and organizations in the lead-up to its decision.

The National Association of Counties passed a resolution opposing efforts to limit climate lawsuits against the oil and gas industry.

Democrats pared back one of the state's preeminent policies to restore trust with voters frustrated by the high cost of living.

Parliament’s centrist and left-wing forces have vowed to try to stop Ondřej Knotek from stalling work on the 2040 target.

Asian countries are offering to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas as a way to alleviate tensions over American trade deficits and forestall higher tariffs.

Interest in financial products claiming to target environmental, social and governance goals is flagging amid politically motivated attacks.

Doing your taxes can feel like a very complicated task. Even so, it might be less intricate than trying to make sense of what people think about taxes.

Several years ago, MIT political scientist Andrea Campbell undertook an expansive research project to understand public opinion about taxation. Her efforts have now reached fruition, in a new book uncovering many complexities about attitudes toward taxes. Those complexities include a central tension: In the U.S., most people say they support the principle of progressive taxation — in which higher earners pay higher shares of their income. Yet people also say they prefer specific forms of taxes that are regressive, hitting lower- and middle-income earners relatively harder.

For instance, state sales taxes are considered regressive, since people who make less money spend a larger percentage of their incomes, meaning sales taxes eat up a larger proportion of their earnings. But a substantial portion of the public still finds them to be fair, partly because the wealthy cannot wriggle out of them.

“At an abstract or conceptual level, people say they like progressive tax systems more than flat or regressive tax systems,” Campbell says. “But when you look at public attitudes toward specific taxes, people’s views flip upside down. People say federal and state income taxes are unfair, but they say sales taxes, which are very regressive, are fair. Their attitudes on individual taxes are the opposite of what their overall commitments are.”

Now Campbell analyzes these issues in detail in her book, “Taxation and Resentment,” just published by Princeton University Press. Campbell is the Arthur and Ruth Sloan Professor of Political Science at MIT and a former head of MIT’s  Department of Political Science.

Filling out the record

Campbell originally planned “Taxation and Resentment” as a strictly historically-oriented look at the subject. But the absence of any one book compiling public-opinion data in this area was striking. So, she assembled data going back to the end of World War II, and even designed and ran a couple of her own public research surveys, which help undergird the book’s numbers.

“Political scientists write a lot about public attitudes toward spending in the United States, but not so much about attitudes toward taxes,” Campbell says. “The public-opinion record is very thin.”

The complexities of U.S. public opinion on taxes are plainly linked to the presence of numerous forms of taxes, including federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and capital gains taxes. The best-known, of course, is the federal income tax, whose quirks and loopholes seem to irk citizens.

“That really seizes people’s imaginations,” Campbell says. “Keeping the focus on federal income tax has been a clever strategy among those who want to cut it. People think it’s unfair because they look at all the tax breaks the rich get and think, ‘I don’t have access to those.’ Those breaks increase complexity, undermine people’s knowledge, heighten their anger, and of course are in there because they help rich people pay less. So, there ends up being a cycle.”

That same sense of unfairness does not translate to all other forms of taxation, however. Large majorities of people have supported lowering the estate tax, for example, even though the threshold at which the federal estate tax kicks in — $13.5 million — applies to very few families.

Then too, the public seems to perceive sales taxes as being fair because of the simplicity and lack of loopholes — an understandable view, but one that ignores the way that state sales taxes, as opposed to state income taxes, place a bigger burden on middle-class and lower-income workers.

“A regressive tax like a sales tax is more difficult to comprehend,” Campbell says. “We all pay the same rate, so it seems like a flat tax, but as your income goes up, the bite of that tax goes down. And that’s just very difficult for people to understand.”

Overall, as Campbell details, income levels do not have huge predictive value when it comes to tax attitudes. Party affiliation also has less impact than many people might suspect — Democrats and Republicans differ on taxes, though not as much, in some ways, as political independents, who often have the most anti-tax views of all.

Meanwhile, Campbell finds, white Americans with heightened concerns about redistribution of public goods among varying demographic groups are more opposed to taxes than those who do not share those redistribution concerns. And Black and Hispanic Americans, who may wind up on the short end of regressive policies, also express significantly anti-tax perspectives, albeit while expressing more support for the state functions funded by taxation.

“There are so many factors and components of public opinion around taxes,” Campbell says. “Many political and demographic groups have their own reasons for disliking the status quo.”

How much does public opinion matter?

The research in “Taxation and Resentment” will be of high value to many kinds of scholars. However, as Campbell notes, political scientists do not have consensus about how much public opinion influences policy. Some experts contend that donors and lobbyists essentially determine policy while the larger public is ignored. But Campbell does not agree that public sentiment amounts to nothing. Consider, she says, the vigorous and successful public campaign to lower the estate tax in the first decade of the 2000s.

“If public opinion doesn’t matter, then why were there these PR campaigns to try to convince people the estate tax was bad for small businesses, farmers, and other groups?” Campbell asks. “Clearly it’s because public opinion does matter. It’s far easier to get these policies implemented if the public is on your side than if the public is in opposition. Public opinion is not the only factor in policymaking, but it’s a contributing factor.”

To be sure, even in the formation of public opinion, there are complexities and nuance, as Campbell notes in the book. A system of progressive taxation means the people taxed at the highest rate are the most motivated to oppose the system — and may heavily influence public opinion, in a top-down manner.

Scholars in the field have praised “Taxation and Resentment.” Martin Gilens, chair of the Department of Public Policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, has called it an “important and very welcome addition to the literature on public attitudes about public policies … with rich and often unexpected findings.” Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has said the book is “essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what Americans actually think about taxes. The scope of the data Campbell brings to bear on this question is unparalleled, and the depth of her analysis of public opinion across time and demography is a monumental achievement.”

For her part, Campbell says she hopes people in a variety of groups will read the book — including policymakers, scholars in multiple fields, and students. Certainly, she thinks, after studying the issue, more people could stand to know more about taxes.

“The tax system is complex,” Campbell says, “and people don’t always understand their own stakes. There is often a fog surrounding taxes.”

Beautiful photo.

Difficult to capture, this mysterious, squid-shaped interstellar cloud spans nearly three full moons in planet Earth’s sky. Discovered in 2011 by French astro-imager Nicolas Outters, the Squid Nebula’s bipolar shape is distinguished here by the telltale blue emission from doubly ionized oxygen atoms. Though apparently surrounded by the reddish hydrogen emission region Sh2-129, the true distance and nature of the Squid Nebula have been difficult to determine. Still, one investigation suggests Ou4 really does lie within Sh2-129 some 2,300 light-years away. Consistent with that scenario, the cosmic squid would represent a spectacular outflow of material driven by a ...

Amid a wave of lawsuits targeting how AI companies use copyrighted works to train large language models that generate new works, a peculiar provision of copyright law is suddenly in the spotlight: Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Section 1202 restricts intentionally removing or changing copyright management information (CMI), such as a signature on a painting or attached to a photograph. Passed in 1998, the rule was supposed to help rightsholders identify potentially infringing uses of their works and encourage licensing.

Open AI and Microsoft used code from Github as part of the training data for their LLMs, along with billions of other works. A group of anonymous Github contributors sued, arguing that those LLMs generated new snippets of code that were substantially similar to theirs—but with the CMI stripped. Notably, they did not claim that the new code was copyright infringement—they are relying solely on Section 1202 of the DMCA. Their problem? The generated code is different from their original work, and courts across the US have adopted an “identicality rule,” on the theory that Section 1202 is supposed to apply only when CMI is removed from existing works, not when it’s simply missing from a new one.

It may sound like an obscure legal question, but the outcome of this battle—currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—could have far-reaching implications beyond generative AI technologies. If the rightholders were correct, Section 1202 effectively creates a freestanding right of attribution, creating potential liability even for non-infringing uses, such as fair use, if those new uses simply omit the CMI. While many fair users might ultimately escape liability under other limitations built into Section 1202, the looming threat of litigation, backed by risk of high and unpredictable statutory penalties, will be enough to pressure many defendants to settle. Indeed, an entire legal industry of “copyright trolls” has emerged to exploit this dynamic, with no corollary benefit to creativity or innovation.

Fortunately, as we explain in a brief filed today, the text of Section 1202 doesn’t support such an expansive interpretation. The provision repeatedly refers to “works” and “copies of works”—not “substantially similar” excerpts or new adaptations—and its focus on “removal or alteration” clearly contemplates actions taken with respect to existing works, not new ones. Congress could have chosen otherwise and written the law differently. Wisely it did not, thereby ensuring that rightsholders couldn’t leverage the omission of CMI to punish or unfairly threaten otherwise lawful re-uses of a work.

Given the proliferation of copyrighted works in virtually every facet of daily life, the last thing any court should do is give rightsholders a new, freestanding weapon against fair uses. As the Supreme Court once observed, copyright is a “tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers.” That tax—including the expense of litigation—can be an important way to encourage new creativity, but it should not be levied unless the Copyright Act clearly requires it.

A.B. 412, the flawed California bill that threatened small developers in the name of AI “transparency,” has been delayed and turned into a two-year bill. That means it won’t move forward in 2025—a significant victory for innovation, freedom to code, and the open web.

EFF opposed this bill from the start. A.B. 412 tried to regulate generative AI, not by looking at the public interest, but by mandating training data “reading lists” designed to pave the way for new copyright lawsuits, many of which are filed by large content companies. 

Transparency in AI development is a laudable goal. But A.B. 412 failed to offer a fair or effective path to get there. Instead, it gave companies large and small the impossible task of differentiating between what content was copyrighted and what wasn’t—with severe penalties for anyone who couldn’t meet that regulation. That would have protected the largest AI companies, but frozen out smaller and non-commercial developers who might want to tweak or fine-tune AI systems for the public good. 

The most interesting work in AI won’t necessarily come from the biggest companies. It will come from small teams, fine-tuning for accessibility, privacy, and building tools that identify AI harms. And some of the most valuable work will be done using source code under permissive licenses. 

A.B. 412 ignored those facts, and would have punished some of the most worthwhile projects. 

The Bill Blew Off Fair Use Rights

The question of whether—and how much—AI training qualifies as fair use is being actively litigated right now in federal courts. And so far, courts have found much of this work to be fair use. In a recent landmark AI case, Bartz v. Anthropic, for example, a federal judge found that AI training work is “transformative—spectacularly so.” He compared it to how search engines copy images and text in order to provide useful search results to users.

Copyright is federally governed. When states try to rewrite the rules, they create confusion—and more litigation that doesn’t help anyone.

If lawmakers want to revisit AI transparency, they need to do so without giving rights-holders a tool to weaponize copyright claims. That means rejecting A.B. 412’s approach—and crafting laws that protect speech, competition, and the public’s interest in a robust, open, and fair AI ecosystem. 

Ring founder Jamie Siminoff is back at the helm of the surveillance doorbell company, and with him is the surveillance-first-privacy-last approach that made Ring one of the most maligned tech devices. Not only is the company reintroducing new versions of old features which would allow police to request footage directly from Ring users, it is also introducing a new feature that would allow police to request live-stream access to people’s home security devices. 

This is a bad, bad step for Ring and the broader public. 

Ring is rolling back many of the reforms it’s made in the last few years by easing police access to footage from millions of homes in the United States. This is a grave threat to civil liberties in the United States. After all, police have used Ring footage to spy on protestors, and obtained footage without a warrant or consent of the user. It is easy to imagine that law enforcement officials will use their renewed access to Ring information to find people who have had abortions or track down people for immigration enforcement. 

Siminoff has announced in a memo seen by Business Insider that the company will now be reimagined from the ground up to be “AI first”—whatever that means for a home security camera that lets you see who is ringing your doorbell. We fear that this may signal the introduction of video analytics or face recognition to an already problematic surveillance device. 

It was also reported that employees at Ring will have to show proof that they use AI in order to get promoted. 

Not to be undone with new bad features, they are also planning on rolling back some of the necessary reforms Ring has made: namely partnering with Axon to build a new tool that would allow police to request Ring footage directly from users, and also allow users to consent to letting police livestream directly from their device. 

After years of serving as the eyes and ears of police, the company was compelled by public pressure to make a number of necessary changes. They introduced end-to-end encryption, they ended their formal partnerships with police which were an ethical minefield, and they ended their tool that facilitated police requests for footage directly to customers. Now they are pivoting back to being a tool of mass surveillance. 

Why now? It is hard to believe the company is betraying the trust of its millions of customers in the name of “safety” when violent crime in the United States is reaching near-historically low levels. It’s probably not about their customers—the FTC had to compel Ring to take its users’ privacy seriously. 

No, this is most likely about Ring cashing in on the rising tide of techno-authoritarianism, that is, authoritarianism aided by surveillance tech. Too many tech companies want to profit from our shrinking liberties. Google likewise recently ended an old ethical commitment that prohibited it from profiting off of surveillance and warfare. Companies are locking down billion-dollar contracts by selling their products to the defense sector or police.

Shame on Ring.

The MIT Health and Life Sciences Collaborative (MIT HEALS) has announced the establishment of the Fairbairn Menstruation Science Fund, supporting a bold, high-impact initiative designed to revolutionize women’s health research.

Established through a gift from Emily and Malcolm Fairbairn, the fund will advance groundbreaking research on the function of the human uterus and its impact on sex-based differences in human immunology that contribute to gynecological disorders such as endometriosis, as well as other chronic systemic inflammatory diseases that disproportionately affect women, such as Lyme disease and lupus. The Fairbairns, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, have committed $10 million, with a call to action for an additional $10 million in matching funds.

“I’m deeply grateful to Emily and Malcolm Fairbairn for their visionary support of menstruation science at MIT. For too long, this area of research has lacked broad scientific investment and visibility, despite its profound impact on the health and lives of over half the population,” says Anantha P. Chandrakasan, MIT provost who was chief innovation and strategy officer and dean of engineering at the time of the gift, and Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

Chandrakasan adds: “Thanks to groundbreaking work from researchers like Professor Linda Griffith and her team at the MIT Center for Gynepathology Research (CGR), we have an opportunity to advance our understanding and address critical challenges in menstruation science.”

Griffith, professor of biological and mechanical engineering and director of CGR, says the Fairbairn Fund will permit the illumination of “the enormous sex-based differences in human immunity” and advance next-generation drug-discovery technologies.

One main thrust of the new initiative will further the development of “organs on chips,” living models of patients. Using living cells or tissues, such devices allow researchers to replicate and experiment with interactions that can occur in the body. Griffith and an interdisciplinary team of researchers have engineered a powerful microfluidic platform that supports chips that foster growth of tissues complete with blood vessels and circulating immune cells. The technology was developed for building endometriosis lesions from individual patients with known clinical characteristics. The chip allows the researchers to do preclinical testing of drugs on the human patient-derived endometriosis model rather than on laboratory animals, which often do not menstruate naturally and whose immune systems function differently than that of humans.

The Fairbairn Fund will build the infrastructure for a “living patient avatar” facility to develop such physiomimetic models for all kinds of health conditions.

“We acknowledge that there are some big-picture phenomenological questions that one can study in animals, but human immunology is so very different,” Griffith says. “Pharma and biotech realize that we need living models of patients and the computational models of carefully curated patient data if we are to move into greater success in clinical trials.”

The computational models of patient data that Griffith refers to are a key element in choosing how to design the patient avatars and determine which therapeutics to test on them. For instance, by using systems biology analysis of inflammation in patient abdominal fluid, Griffith and her collaborators identified an intracellular enzyme called jun kinase (JNK). They are now working with a biotech company to test specific inhibitors of JNK in their model. Griffith has also collaborated with Michal “Mikki” Tal, a principal scientist in MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering, on investigating a possible link between prior infection, such as by the Lyme-causing bacterium Borrelia, and a number of chronic inflammatory diseases in women. Automating assays of patient samples for higher throughput could systematically speed the generation of hypotheses guiding the development of patient model experimentation.

“This fund is catalytic,” Griffith says. “Industry and government, along with other foundations, will invest if the foundational infrastructure exists. They want to employ the technologies, but it is hard to get them developed to the point they are proven to be useful. This gets us through that difficult part of the journey.”

The fund will also support public engagement efforts to reduce stigma around menstruation and neglect of such conditions as abnormal uterine bleeding and debilitating anemia, endometriosis, and polycystic ovary syndrome — and in general bring greater attention to women’s health research. Endometriosis, for instance, in which tissue that resembles the uterine lining starts growing outside the uterus and causes painful inflammation, affects one in 10 women. It often goes undiagnosed for years, and can require repeated surgeries to remove its lesions. Meanwhile, little is known about what causes it, how to prevent it, or what could effectively stop it.

Women’s health research could further advance in many areas of medicine beyond conditions that disproportionately affect females. Griffith points out that the uterus, which sheds and regenerates its lining every month, demonstrates “scarless healing” that could warrant investigation. Also, deepened study of the uterus could shed light on immune tolerance for transplants, given that in a successful pregnancy an implanted fetus is not rejected, despite containing foreign material from the biological father.

For Emily Fairbairn, the fund is a critical step toward major advances in an often-overlooked area of medicine.

“My mission is to support intellectually honest, open-minded scientists who embrace risk, treat failure as feedback, and remain committed to discovery over dogma. This fund is a direct extension of that philosophy. It’s designed to fuel research into the biological realities of diseases that remain poorly understood, frequently dismissed, or disproportionately misdiagnosed in women,” Fairbairn says. “I’ve chosen to make this gift to MIT because Linda Griffith exemplifies the rare combination of scientific integrity and bold innovation — qualities essential for tackling the most neglected challenges in medicine.”

Fairbairn also refers to Griffith collaborator Michal Tal as being “deeply inspiring.”

“Her work embodies what’s possible when scientific excellence meets institutional courage. It is this spirit — bold, rigorous, and fearless — that inspired this gift and fuels our hope for the future of women’s health,” she says.

Fairbairn, who has suffered from both Lyme disease and endometriosis that required multiple surgeries, originally directed her philanthropy, including previous gifts to MIT, toward the study of Lyme disease and associated infections.

“My own experience with both Lyme and endometriosis deepened my conviction that science must better account for how female physiology, genetics, and psychology differ from men’s,” she says. “MIT stands out for treating women’s health not as a niche, but as a frontier. The Institute’s willingness to bridge immunology, neurobiology, bioengineering, and data science — alongside its development of cutting-edge platforms like human chips — offers a rare and necessary seriousness of purpose.”

For her part, Griffith refers to Fairbairn as “a citizen scientist who inspires us daily.”

“Her tireless advocacy for patients, especially women, who are dismissed and gas-lit, is priceless,” Griffith adds. “Emily has made me a better scientist, in service of humanity.”

The Chinese have a new tool called Massistant.

• Massistant is the presumed successor to Chinese forensics tool, “MFSocket”, reported in 2019 and attributed to publicly traded cybersecurity company, Meiya Pico.
• The forensics tool works in tandem with a corresponding desktop software.
• Massistant gains access to device GPS location data, SMS messages, images, audio, contacts and phone services.
• Meiya Pico maintains partnerships with domestic and international law enforcement partners, both as a surveillance hardware and software provider, as well as through training programs for law enforcement personnel...

New data shows record numbers of Californians cannot get coverage from insurance companies and must rely on the state insurer of last resort.

DOJ and its Republican allies urged the Maryland Supreme Court to ditch three cases accusing the oil industry of misleading the public about climate change.

The rescission package passed by Republicans early Friday gives the White House a free hand to pull back money for the popular environmental treaty.