The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can move forward with its latest antitrust lawsuit against Meta, a US district judge ruled on Tuesday. The decision is a significant win for the regulator, which had seen its first complaint thrown out by Judge James Boasberg last June. Engadget reports: Per The Washington Post, Boasberg now says the agency can move forward with its complaint thanks to the "more robust and detailed" evidence it presented with its amended suit, which the FTC filed in August. "Although the agency may well face a tall task down the road in proving its allegations, the Court believes that it has now cleared the pleading bar and may proceed to discovery," the judge said.

In October, Meta asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing the FTC had failed yet again to present a "factual basis for alleging monopoly power." The agency's amended complaint is approximately two dozen pages longer than its original one, but it puts forward many of the same arguments. Specifically, the FTC alleges Facebook used the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014 to secure its dominant position in the social media market.

Security professionals will be dealing with the fallout from the Log4j bug for a long time to come, top officials for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said Monday. CNET reports: If left unpatched or otherwise unfixed, the major security flaw discovered a month ago in the Java-logging library Apache Log4j poses risks for huge swaths of the internet. The vulnerability in the widely used software could be exploited by cyberattackers to take over computer servers, potentially putting everything from consumer electronics to government and corporate systems at risk of a cyberattack. No US federal agencies have been compromised as a result of the vulnerability, CISA Director Jen Easterly told reporters on a call Monday. In addition, no major cyberattacks involving the bug have been reported in the US, though many attacks go unreported, she said.

Easterly said the sheer scope of the vulnerability, which affects tens of millions of internet-connected devices, makes it the worst she has seen in her career. It's possible, she said, that attackers are biding their time, waiting for companies and others to lower their defenses before they attack. "We do expect Log4Shell to be used in intrusions well into the future," Easterly said, using the name for the bug in the Log4j software. She noted the Equifax data breach in 2017, which compromised the personal information of nearly 150 million Americans, stemmed from a vulnerability in open-source software. Most of the attempts to exploit the bug, so far, have been focused on low-level crypto mining or attempts to draw devices into botnets, she said.

Some European carriers, including T-Mobile/Sprint in the United States, are blocking iCloud Private Relay access when connected to cellular data. As 9to5Mac reports, "This feature is designed to give users an additional layer of privacy by ensuring that no one can view the websites that they visit." From the report: Apple says that Private Relay is a feature designed to give users another layer of privacy when browsing the web. The first relay is sent through a server maintained by Apple, and the second is a third-party operator. The feature was announced at WWDC last June and initially slated for inclusion in iOS 15. Apple ultimately shipped the feature as a "public beta," meaning that it is disabled by default in the newest iOS 15 and macOS Monterey releases. You can manually enable it by going to Settings on your iPhone, tapping your name at the top, choosing iCloud, and choosing "Private Relay."

T-Mobile was among the carriers in Europe that signed an open letter expressing concern about the impact of Private Relay. The carriers wrote that the feature cuts off networks and servers from accessing "vital network data and metadata and could impact "operator's ability to efficiently manage telecommunication networks." In the UK, carriers including T-Mobile, EE, and others have already started blocking Private Relay usage when connected to cellular data. 9to5Mac has also now confirmed that T-Mobile is extending this policy to the United States. This means that T-Mobile and Sprint users in the United States can no longer use the privacy-preserving iCloud Private Relay feature when connected to cellular data. The report notes that T-Mobile appears to be "in the process of rolling it out," so some users might still be able to use the feature -- at least for now. "The situation could also could vary based on your location or plan," the report adds.

UPDATE: T-Mobile Says It Has 'Not Broadly Blocked' iCloud Private Relay, Blames iOS 15.2 Bug For Errors

Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike is stepping down as CEO of the company, he announced in a blog post on Monday. Executive chairman Brian Acton will serve as acting CEO until a replacement is found. From a report: "Every day, I'm struck by how boundless Signal's potential looks, and I want to bring in someone with fresh energy and commitment to make the most of that," Marlinspike wrote. "I now feel very comfortable replacing myself as CEO based on the team we have." The company has met with several CEO candidates "over the last few months," Marlinspike wrote, but the search remains ongoing. Founded in 2014, Signal has grown into one of the most trusted and robust apps for encrypted messaging. The service has more than 40 million monthly users and is regularly recommended in security guides. Established as a nonprofit, the company is not supported by advertising or app sales, instead relying on donations and a recently launched sustainer program.

The Washington Post asks what may be the ultimate question of our times. "Whether the largest social media companies have become so critical to public debate that being banned or blacklisted by them — whether you're an elected official, a dissident, or even just a private citizen who runs afoul of their content policies — amounts to a form of modern-day censorship."

"And, if so, are there circumstances under which such censorship is justified?"

The first person cited is Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. Fighting over whether a given speech restriction is or isn't censorship, she adds, is often an excuse to avoid harder, more nuanced discussions as to exactly which types of speech ought to be restricted, and by whom, and on what authority. "There are a lot of people in the U.S. who will claim to be [free speech] absolutists but then basically be fine with censoring sexuality," she says. In contrast, expressions of sexuality are widely accepted in Germany, where York now lives, but there's broad consensus that censorship of Holocaust denial is warranted. In New Zealand, she adds, the democratically elected government has a Chief Censor who reviews the content of films and literature. "I'm very wary of censorship," York says. "But the reason is, who do you trust to do it? It's not that all speech is totally equal and valid." In other words, the problem York sees isn't social platforms banning a powerful figure such as Trump. It's their lack of legitimacy as arbiters of speech, especially when they're censoring people who lack the stature to speak out through other means.

David Kaye, a law professor at University of California-Irvine and the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, agrees that we should be wary of tech giants' power over discourse — especially in countries that lack a robust free press. But he balks at applying the term "censorship" to content moderation decisions taken by the likes of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube in the United States... We're better off, Kaye believes, reserving the term "censorship" for the many instances around the world in which speech restrictions are backed by the power of the state. That can include cases in which "the state puts demands on social media to take down content, or criminalizes individuals who tweet," as has happened in China, the United Arab Emirates, Myanmar and elsewhere...

"If we start to dilute the idea of censorship as a state-driven tool by equating it with what platforms are doing, we start to misunderstand what platforms are actually doing, and why they're doing it," Kaye said.
The Post ultimately cites three experts who agree on one point: that it's worth scrutinizing the decisions of social media platforms because of their growing influence — whether or not you end up calling it censorship. But they also cite a follow-up observation from Chinmayi Arun, a resident fellow of Yale Law School's Information Society Project.

Too often overlooked in the debates over what social networks take down is that they aren't just passive conduits of information: Their recommendation algorithms and design decisions actively shape what speech gets heard, and by how many, and how it is framed — often fueling the kind of divisive content that they later face pressure to remove.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube may or may not have censored Trump a year ago. But there's no doubt that for years prior, they amplified and enabled him.

America's Federal Aviation Administration "has published the list of 50 airports around which it wants Verizon and AT&T to create '5G buffer' zones..." reports PC Magazine: The Department of Transportation previously asked Verizon and AT&T to delay the deployment of their C-Band networks from Dec. 5, 2021 to Jan. 5 due to concerns about interference affecting the altimeters used by commercial aircraft. Then on Jan. 2 the FAA asked the carriers to push back the debut of their C-Band networks again so it could investigate those safety risks.

The FAA said at the time that it would "identify priority airports where a buffer zone would permit aviation operations to continue safely while the FAA completes its assessments of the interference potential around those airports." Verizon and AT&T agreed to delay the launch of their C-Band networks for two weeks and respect the buffer zones designated by the FAA.

The administration says in its announcement that "the wireless companies agreed to turn off transmitters and make other adjustments near these airports for six months to minimize potential 5G interference with sensitive aircraft instruments used in low-visibility landings...." Reuters reports that the FAA's list was informed by Verizon and AT&T's coverage maps — in some cases "5G towers are far enough away that a natural buffer exists," the FAA says, according to the report — as well as a given airport's existing capabilities.
"Traffic volume, the number of low-visibility days and geographic location factored into the selection," acknowledges the FAA's statement.

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader xetdog for sharing the story!

Libreboot.org is publicizing an event this Tuesday of "global importance to Free Software projects, and the movement as a whole... If you live in New Hampshire or in one of the neighbouring states, especially Massachusetts, please listen up!

"If you are further away and unable to reach New Hampshire all that easily, please spread the following news anyway. It's important." An important bill is being proposed in New Hampshire, which would enshrine much of what we know as Free Software into law... [H]ere is a paraphrasing of what it proposes:


- Specifically bans state-run websites from serving non-free javaScript to clients

- Creates a commission to provide oversight, watching the use of Free Software by state agencies

- Bans state agencies from using proprietary software — maybe this could include schools, in the future!

- If a person is tried in a criminal case, they have the right to audit the source code of any proprietary software that collects evidence against them

- Encourages data portability (able to transfer data from one program to another)

- Bans certain non-compete clauses and NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) pertaining to Free Software projects

- Bans state/local law enforcement from assisting with the enforcement of copyright claims against Free Software projects

- Bans state agencies from purchasing non-free software if free software exists, for a given task....


At first glance, it may not seem that the bill affects individuals, but don't be fooled; this is a hugely positive step forward for everyone! If the state is using Free Software, that most likely means it'll be used in education as well. Although perhaps not immediately and readily apparent, this is a stake in the heart of proprietary software's current dominance, because it would remove one key element of its attack against us; its abuse of education services. If education services are using Free Software, that means they'll probably have children (the ones being educated) using it too. This is a huge step, and it will result in more Free Software developers in the future. Free Software will become more and more mainstream to the masses, which can surely only be a good thing...!

[I]magine if more states like what they see and start to copy the new legislation. Now imagine that countries besides the U.S. start doing it, inspired by the US's success (and I think it will be a resounding success). Imagine a world where Free Software, free as in freedom, is the default everywhere. Imagine a world where Free Software licensing is required reading material in schools. Imagine a world where any five year old can install a free operating system such as GNU+Linux, and Computer Science is mandatory in schools from a young age. Imagine filing your tax returns with Free Software, exclusively. Imagine not even thinking about that, because it became the norm.

Imagine a world where proprietary software doesn't exist, because it is obsolete; entire generations of people are taught to value freedom, and to staunchly defend it, helping each other learn and grow (and produce better software in the process, with less bugs, because people are now free to do that, without relying on some evil company)...

Free Software is a revolution that we in the Free Software movement have rigorously upheld and fought for, over many years, but we still face an uphill battle because children are not taught in schools about free computing, nor are they encouraged to learn; they are taught to view computers as products to throw away every 1-2 years, that they can run a few apps on but otherwise are not allowed to do anything with. The concept of a general purpose, fully reprogrammable computer is heavily suppressed in mainstream culture. Most people in the world do not run a free operating system; the idea of a computer being a mere appliance is normalized (as opposed to the idea of it being a highly liberating tool for development and the expansion of human knowledge)....

Something is happening in New Hampshire, which could redefine our movement and give free software real power instead.
The post links to a state representative's tweet describing how supporters can testify in person to support the bill. "If this bill is passed in New Hampshire, more states will likely follow," argues Libreboot.org. "It will lead to a massively renewed drive to liberate all computer users, and U.S. laws tend to be copied/pasted around the world too. This bill, if passed, will have a hugely positive impact on Free Software at a global level...

"The proprietary software companies like Microsoft and Apple will also be there, trying to argue the case against the use of Free Software."

The Register reports on a unique response to CES: Six right-to-repair advocates assembled on Friday morning to present Repair.org's second annual Worst in Show Awards, a selection of the "the least private, least secure, least repairable, and least sustainable gadgets at CES."

In a presentation streamed on YouTube, author and activist Cory Doctorow presided over the condemnation session. He said that he has been attending the Consumer Electronics Show for decades and vendors will gladly enumerate the supposed benefits of their products. "But what none of those people will ever do is tell you how it will fail," said Doctorow. "And that's kind of our job here today, to talk about the hidden or maybe not so hidden and completely foreseeable failure modes of these gadgets."

Kyle Wiens, co-founder of iFixit, gave the new Mercedes EQS EV the award for the worst product in terms of repairability. Showing a slide of the warning screen the car presents to its driver, he said, "You cannot open the hood of the car. It is locked, warning of accident, warning of injury if you open the hood. Mercedes' perspective is, 'Hey, this is an electric car. There's nothing the owner needs to do under the hood of this car."

Wiens said this is not the first time Mercedes has gone down this road, noting that a few years ago the company removed the dipstick from its C-class vehicles, arguing that only an authorized technician should change the oil.

"So this is everything that is wrong with the future," he said.
Some other higlights (via the Register)... Nathan Proctor, national campaign director for public interest non-profit USPIRG, gave the "worst in class for the environment" award to Samsung's new NFT Aggregation Platform, which he described as "a way to buy, sell and display your NFT artwork from your huge ginormous OLED Samsung TV."

Proctor added "If you don't know what an NFT is, I am honestly jealous of your life," calling it "sort of like a Beanie Baby craze for crypto tech bros — if Beanie Babies required massive continual energy consumption on a warming planet to remain corporeal."

And the Community Choice poll for Worst in Show went to John Deere — presumably for fighting right-to-repair laws in every single state legislature — while the tractor companywas also recognized by Paul Roberts, founder of securerepairs.org, for its industry-lagging bad outreach to the security community.

Days after detailing the technical specs of the PS VR2, Sony has updated the details of a patent to include language that says would "allow players to scan real-world items into virtual reality, making anything interactive in the VR space," reports Game Rant. From the report: This patent isn't actually anything new as Sony filed it on June 23, 2021, however, the patent office took issue with some of its claims requiring the tech giant to rework some details and resubmit. It would seem that, as of yesterday, Sony and the patent office have begun moving forward with the process following updates and revisions by Sony. [...] According to the patent mock-up, it seems as if players will be able to scan larger items than the handheld ones featured in the banana patent such as full-sized lamps. The only caveat seems to be that players will need to be able to have a 360-degree view of the item in order to bring it into the digital world. As the report notes, the patent is still being processed so we "shouldn't expect this tech to be featured in games any time soon."

Senior figures in the Polish government indicated on Friday that the country had bought sophisticated spyware developed by the Israel-based NSO Group, but denied that it had been used against political opponents. Reuters reports: Reports from the Associated Press that NSO Group's Pegasus software was used to hack the phones of government critics, including a senator who ran the election campaign for the largest opposition party in 2019, have led to accusations that special services are undermining democratic norms. Government figures had previously declined to comment on whether or not Poland has access to Pegasus, citing laws on official secrets. In December, a deputy defense minister said Poland did not use Pegasus. However, in extracts from an interview with conservative weekly Sieci published on Friday, the leader of Poland's ruling nationalists Law and Justice (PiS) indicated that Polish services had the software.

"Pegasus is a program that is used by services combating crime and corruption in many countries...It would be bad if the Polish services did not have this type of tool," Jaroslaw Kaczynski [leader of the Law and Justice party] was quoted as saying. He rejected opposition claims that Pegasus had been used against political opponents as "utter nonsense." Asked about Pegasus during a news conference, Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro said it would be a "disgrace" if Polish services did not have access to such surveillance technology.

The surviving sister of Dave Patrick Underwood, a federal security guard who was killed in a drive-by shooting in 2020, has filed a lawsuit against Meta, the parent organization of Facebook. The suit seeks to hold the company accountable for connecting the two men charged in the murder plot and giving them a space online to plan the attack. Engadget reports: Underwood was shot outside a federal building in Oakland, California in May of 2020. The two men charged inn the case were later linked to so-called "boogaloo" anti-government movement, which Facebook banned from its platform in June of 2020 citing the group's history of "actively promoting violence against civilians, law enforcement and government officials and institutions."

"The shooting was not a random act of violence," the lawsuit states. "It was the culmination of an extremist plot hatched and planned on Facebook by two men who Meta connected through Facebook's groups infrastructure and its use of algorithms designed and intended to increase user engagement and, correspondingly, Meta's profits." The lawsuit alleges the two men would never have met if not for Facebook's recommendations, which pushed them both to join groups that "openly advocated for violence." A spokesperson for Meta said in a statement to The New York Times that the "claims are without legal basis," and pointed to the company's work to ban "militarized social movements."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from XDA Developers: In January of 2020, Sonos filed two lawsuits against Google, claiming that the latter stole its multiroom speaker technology and infringed on 100 patents. In September, Sonos then sued Google alleging that the company's entire line of Chromecast and Nest products violated five of Sonos' wireless audio patents. A judge (preliminarily) ruled in favor of Sonos. Now it's gone from bad to worse for Google, as the preliminary findings have been finalized by the U.S. International Trade Commission. As a result, Google is not allowed to import any products that violate patents owned by Sonos, which Sonos argues includes Google Pixel phones and computers, Chromecasts, and Google Home/Nest speakers.

These products produced by Google are often made outside of the United States and imported, hence why this is a big deal for Google. In the ruling (PDF) (via The New York Times), Google was also served a cease & desist in order to stop violating Sonos' patents. It has been theorized that as a result of the lawsuit, Google had removed Cast volume controls in Android 12, though it was recently added back with the January 2022 security patch. Sonos has previously said that it had proposed a licensing deal to Google for patents the company was making use of, but that neither company was able to reach an agreement. [...] There are still two more lawsuits pending against Google filed by Sonos, meaning that it's unlikely this is the last we've heard of this spat.

Snap is suing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for rejecting its application to trademark the word "spectacles" for its digital eyewear camera device. But the USPTO has maintained that "spectacles" is a generic term for smart glasses and that Snap's version "has not acquired distinctiveness," as required for a trademark. The Verge reports: In its complaint filed Wednesday in US District Court in California, Snap claims that the Spectacles name "evokes an incongruity between an 18th century term for corrective eyewear and Snap's high-tech 21st century smart glasses. SPECTACLES also is suggestive of the camera's purpose, to capture and share unusual, notable, or entertaining scenes (i.e., "spectacles") and while also encouraging users to make 'spectacles' of themselves." Snap first introduced its camera-equipped Spectacles in 2016 ("a wearable digital video camera housed in a pair of fashionable sunglasses," according to its complaint), which can take photos and videos while the user wears them and connects with the Snap smartphone app. [...]

Snap's new complaint posits that there's been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word "spectacles" with the Snap brand. Snap first filed a trademark application for Spectacles in September 2016, "for use in connection with wearable computer hardware" and other related uses "among consumer electronics devices and displays." During several rounds of back-and-forth with the company since then, the USPTO has maintained that the word "spectacles" appeared to be "generic in connection with the identified goods," i.e. the camera glasses. Snap continued to appeal the agency's decision. In a November 2021 opinion, the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (pdf) upheld the decision, reiterating that the word "spectacles" was a generic term that applied to all smart glasses, not just Snap's version. Despite the publicity Snap claimed its Spectacles had received from its marketing and social media, the board noted in its opinion that Spectacles' "social media accounts have an underwhelming number of followers, and the number of followers is surprisingly small," which didn't support the company's argument that there had been a high enough level of consumer exposure to Snap's Spectacles to claim that consumers associated the word with Snap's brand.

In its Tuesday complaint, Snap's attorneys argued that "spectacles is an old-fashioned term popular in the 18th century," and that it "is not often used today in the United States," especially by Snapchat's young audience. "This indicates that modern-day usage of "spectacles" in the United States -- especially among a younger demographic of consumers who are the relevant consumers of Snap's SPECTACLES camera product -- is not commonly understood to mean eyeglasses, and certainly not a wireless-enabled video camera product." But the USPTO appeal board said in November that the evidence didn't support that argument, and that the word "spectacles" still retains its generic meaning and therefore can't be trademarked. The board noted that in its own marketing, Snap had demonstrated that its Spectacles "eyeglasses form is a feature, function and characteristic of the camera, not only functionally but aesthetically." Snap's lawsuit, which names acting USPTO director Drew Hirshfeld, seeks to have the appeal board's November decision reversed.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On the eve of the new year, tragedy struck in Manhattan: Chelsea art gallery owner Todd Kramer had 615 ETH (about $2.3 million) worth of NFTs, primarily Bored Apes and Mutant Apes, stolen by scammers and listed on the peer-to-peer NFT marketplace OpenSea. Kramer quickly took to Twitter and begged for help from OpenSea and the NFT community for help regaining his NFTs. Unsurprisingly, he was ripped to shreds by others in the community for not storing his valuable JPEGs in an offline wallet; however, OpenSea froze trading of the stolen NFTs on its platform. More than a few commentators pointed out that OpenSea's intervention here -- and especially Kramer's pleas for a centralized response -- seemed to go against a key tenet of the industry that often bumps up against usability: the idea that "code is law," and once your tokens are in someone else's digital wallet, that's the end of the game. While OpenSea did not actually reverse the transaction on the blockchain, it did block the stolen NFT's sale on its own platform, which is the most popular marketplace for NFTs.

"We take theft seriously and have policies in place to meet our obligations to the community and deter theft on our platform. We do not have the power to freeze or delist NFTs that exist on these blockchains, however we do disable the ability to use OpenSea to buy or sell stolen items. We've prioritized building security tools and processes to combat theft on OpenSea, and we are actively expanding our efforts across customer support, trust and safety, and site integrity so we can move faster to protect and empower our users." OpenSea did not answer, however, why it had frozen the trading of these NFTs and not others stolen just weeks ago that were announced on Twitter by Bored Ape Yacht Club and Jungle Freak NFT owners.

OpenSea's interventions, when they do happen, leave some users in the lurch. For example, another Twitter user recounted in a viral post how they unwittingly purchased a stolen NFT on OpenSea for 1.5 ETH (around $5000) only to have it frozen. OpenSea wasn't quick to help them out, they said -- although, it's unclear what the company could really do at that point -- and the NFT project Alien Frens reimbursed them 1 ETH. In these and other cases, "self-sovereignty" is offered up as an attempt to reframe what actually happened. Yes, the victims are ridiculed for falling prey to a hack or scam, expected to learn from their mistake by using cold storage, and in the best scenario able to buy the NFTs back at a discount because they're not sold on major marketplaces. But at least there was no centralized intervention. Kramer himself was able to buy at least two of his NFTs back with the help of users who had unwittingly bought them from the scammer. OpenSea's interventions in the cases of stolen NFTs show how centralized intermediaries often have an important role wherever the decentralized world of the blockchain meets the real world. It's also not the first time that similar moves have happened elsewhere in crypto, even though they break from the core dogma of immutability and self-sovereignty. "Scams have always been a part of the cryptocurrency industry, and so has the uncomfortable question of centralized interventions," writes Motherboard's Edward Ongweso Jr in closing. "It increasingly feels like the inconsistent application of rules in this space more often results in protecting wealth transfer schemes than protecting all users equally, and obscuring the deep centralization already present: less than one percent of users (institutional investors) account for 64 percent of Coinbase's trading volume (PDF), and 10 percent of traders account for 85 percent of NFT transactions and trade 97 percent of all NFTs at least once."

"It's not clear how this contradiction will be resolved. Uncritically believing decentralization is a salve that immediately transforms something's politics endangers not only users but crypto's fever dream of disruption..."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Accounts of more than three million users of the U.S.-based FlexBooker appointment scheduling service have been stolen in an attack before the holidays and are now being traded on hacker forums. The same intruders are offering databases claiming to be from two other entities: racing media organization Racing.com and Redbourne Group's rediCASE case management software, both from Australia. Among FlexBooker's customers are owners of any business that needs to schedule appointments, which is everything from accountants, barbers, doctors, mechanics, lawyers, dentists, gyms, salons, therapists, trainers, spas, and the list goes on.

Claiming the attack seems to be a group calling themselves Uawrongteam, who shared links to archives and files with sensitive information, such as photos, driver's licenses, and other IDs. According to Uawrongteam, the database contains a table with 10 million lines of customer information that ranges from payment forms and charges to driver's license photos. The actor notes that some "juicy columns" in the database are names, emails, phone numbers, password salt, and hashed passwords. FlexBooker has sent a data breach notification to customers, confirming the attack and that the intruders "accessed and downloaded" data on the service's Amazon cloud storage system. "On December 23, 2021, starting at 4:05 PM EST our account on Amazon's AWS servers was compromised," reads the notification, adding that the intruders did not access "any credit card or other payment card information."

An Italian mafia boss on the run for 20 years was tracked down to a Spanish town after being spotted on Google Street View. The Guardian reports: Gioacchino Gammino, a convicted murderer listed among Italy's most wanted gangsters, was arrested in Galapagar, a town near Madrid, where over the years he had married, changed his name to Manuel, worked as a chef and owned a fruit and vegetable shop. Sicilian police carried out several investigations in their search for Gammino, 61, and a European arrest warrant was issued in 2014. The fugitive was traced to Spain, but it was Google Street View that helped to pinpoint his precise location.

The navigation tool, accessible through Google Maps, had captured an image of two men chatting outside a fruit and vegetable shop called El Huerto de Manu, or Manu's Garden, in Galapagar. Police believed one of the men closely resembled Gammino, but his identity was only confirmed when they came across a listing for a nearby restaurant called La Cocina de Manu or Manu's Kitchen. The shop and the restaurant are now closed, but the police found a photo of Gammino, dressed in his chef's garb, on a still-existing Facebook page for La Cocina de Manu. He was recognisable by the scar on the left side of his chin. The restaurant's menu included a dish called Cena Siciliana or Sicilian dinner. Gammino was arrested on 17 December but the details surrounding his capture did not come to light until they were reported by La Repubblica on Wednesday. Upon his arrest, Gammino reportedly told police: "How did you find me? I haven't even called my family for 10 years!"

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Aviation Administration tentatively agreed not to seek any more 5G delays from AT&T and Verizon, potentially ending a battle over the aviation industry's unproven claim that 5G transmissions on C-Band frequencies will interfere with airplane altimeters. The commitment came Monday night, when AT&T and Verizon agreed to one more delay of two weeks, pushing their deployment off until January 19. They had previously agreed to a delay from December 5 until January 5. Terms of Monday's deal were described in an attachment to a letter (PDF) that Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg sent to the carriers. "In light of the foregoing, and subject to any unforeseen aviation safety issues, DOT and FAA will not seek or demand any further delays of C-Band deployment," the deal terms say.

Buttigieg thanked the AT&T and Verizon CEOs, writing, "Your voluntary agreement both to delay initial deployment by two weeks, and to subsequently adopt some additional mitigations, will give us additional time and space to reduce the impacts to commercial flights... We are confident that your voluntary steps will support the safe coexistence of 5G C-Band deployment and aviation activities." The deal incorporates voluntary commitments that AT&T and Verizon previously made, including "C-Band radio exclusion zones" around airports for six months. The aviation industry will give carriers "a list of no more than 50 priority airports" where the exclusion zones will apply.

AT&T and Verizon will provide data on base stations, operating characteristics, and planned deployment locations. They will also "continue to work in good faith with aviation stakeholders to support the technical assessment of individual altimeters and airport environments," the deal says. The FAA previously said it "will safely expedite the approvals of Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOCs) for operators with high-performing radio altimeters to operate at those airports," signaling that airlines may already be using altimeters that can co-exist with C-Band transmissions. AT&T and Verizon's C-Band spectrum licenses are for the frequencies from 3.7 GHz to 3.98 GHz, but the companies don't plan to deploy between 3.8 GHZ and 3.98 GHz until 2023. The radio altimeters used to determine airplane altitudes rely on spectrum from 4.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz. "Assuming there are no further problems, AT&T and Verizon would be able to use their spectrum licenses without extra restrictions after July 5," the report says.

"At the end of the commitment period specified in the Voluntary Commitments (i.e. through July 5, 2022), Licensees intend to deploy 5G base stations in any manner consistent with their C-Band Licenses, all customary rules and regulations, and any additional airport-specific mitigation measures Licensees have committed to take based on their continued engagement with the FAA and the aviation industry," the agreement said.

Activision has filed a federal lawsuit against German cheat makers EngineOwning and associated individuals for "trafficking in technologies that circumvent or evade anti-cheat technologies used by Activision to protect the integrity of [Call of Duty] games." From a report: EngineOwning charges 13 euros per month or more for subscription access to individualized suites of cheating tools designed for Call of Duty games -- and also Battlefield, Titanfall 2, and Star Wars Battlefront. The software promises abilities like automated aimbots, auto-firing triggerbots, "2D radar" that shows enemy locations on the HUD, and "3D radar" that can track and display opposing players even behind cover.

EO promises its software is undetectable by automated tools, including Activision's recently launched Ricochet kernel-level anti-cheat tools. The software also includes built-in tools to make cheating less obvious to human moderators and recording software, making users "look like a legit player." The company separately sells "hardware ID spoofer" software that promises to get around hardware-based bans in Call of Duty and other games. In its lawsuit, Activision says these tools have been used "thousands of times by players in the United States," earning EngineOwning "hundreds of thousands of dollars or more." Thus, the software has led to "at least tens of thousands of breaches" of the terms of use players must agree to before playing online.

The crackdown is killing the entrepreneurial drive that made China a tech power and destroying jobs that used to attract the country's brightest. From a report: Like many ambitious young Chinese, Zhao Junfeng studied hard in college and graduate school so he could land a coveted job as a programmer at a big Chinese internet company. After finishing graduate school in 2019, he joined an e-commerce company in the eastern Chinese city of Nanjing, got married and adopted a cat named Mango. In November of 2021, he moved to Shanghai to join one of China's biggest video platforms, iQiyi. He was on track to achieve a much-desired middle-class life, documenting his rise on his social media account. Then barely a month into his new job, he was let go when iQiyi laid off more than 20 percent of its staff.

The ranks of the unemployed technology workers are swelling, as China's once vibrant internet industry is hit by a harsh and capricious regulatory crackdown. Under the direction of China's top leader, Xi Jinping, the government's unbridled hand is meddling in big ways and small, leaving companies second-guessing their strategies and praying to not become the next targets for crackdown. In place of the pride and ambition that dominated a few years ago, fear and gloom now rule as many tech companies lower their growth targets and lay off young, well-educated workers. Like their American counterparts, China's biggest tech companies are regulated to limit abuses of power and to mitigate systemic risks. But Beijing's hyper-political approach shows that it's more about the Communist Party taking control of the industry than about leveling the playing field.

The crackdown is killing the innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit that made China a tech power in the past decade. It is destroying companies, profits and jobs that used to attract China's best and brightest. Even people within the system are alarmed by the heavy-handed approach. The former head of China's sovereign wealth fund urged restrictions on the power of regulators. Hu Xijin, the newly retired editor of the official newspaper Global Times and an infamous propagandist, said he hoped that regulatory actions should help make most companies healthier instead of leaving them "dying on the operating table." The damage has been done. Some internet companies have been forced to shut down, while others are suffering from huge losses or disappointing earnings. Many publicly listed companies have seen their share prices fall by half, if not more.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in California against Google, Apple and the CEOs of both tech giants for allegedly violating antitrust laws, according to a press release. The complaint calls for the breakup of Google and Apple into separate and independent companies in keeping with the precedent of the of Standard Oil company into Exxon, Mobile, Conoco, Amoco, Sohio, Chevron and others, the release stated. PYMNTS.com reports: Charges in the suit allege that Google and Apple have agreed that Apple would keep out of the internet search business against Google, according to the release. It also claims Google shares its search profits with Apple and gives Apple preferential treatment for all Apple devices; annual multi-billion-dollar payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business; suppression of smaller competitors to keep them from the search sector; and acquiring competing companies. Allegations also include higher advertising rates than rates that would be in a competitive system, the release stated.

Attorneys are seeking an end to the alleged billion-dollar payments to Apple from Google and asking the court to prohibit non-compete agreements between the two companies and end the profit-sharing agreement and the preferential treatment for Google on Apple devices, according to the release. "These powerful companies abused their size by unlawfully foreclosing and monopolizing major markets which in an otherwise free enterprise system would have created jobs, lowered prices, increased production, added new competitors, encouraged innovations and increased the quality of services in the digital age," Joseph M. Alioto of Alioto Law, who is representing the plaintiffs, said in the release.