Monthly Archives: November 2024

Indian-origin man charged in United States for conspiring to export controlled aviation components to Russia

The US government has charged a 57-year-old Indian-origin man for allegedly conspiring to export controlled aviation components with dual civilian and military applications to end users in Russia, as per the Department of Justice. The Indian-origin man was identified as 57-year-old Sanjay Kaushik. “Kaushik is also charged with attempting to illegally export a navigation and flight control system from Oregon to Russia through India, and with making false statements in connection with an export,” read the statement issued by the US Department of Justice. He was arrested in Miami, Florida, on Oct. 17, pursuant to a criminal complaint and arrest warrant issued by the District of Oregon. According to the court documents, beginning as early as March 2023, following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Kaushik conspired with others to unlawfully obtain aerospace goods and technology from the United States for entities in Russia. “The goods were purchased under the false pretence that they would be supplied to Kaushik and his Indian company, when in fact they were destined for Russian end users,” the statement said. In one such instance, Kaushik and his co-conspirators purchased an Attitude Heading Reference System (AHRS), which is a device that provides navigation and flight control data for aircraft, from an Oregon-based supplier. Components such as the AHRS require a license from the Department of Commerce to be exported to certain countries, including Russia. To obtain an export license for the AHRS, Kaushik and his co-conspirators falsely claimed that Kaushik’s Indian company was the end purchaser and that the component would be used in a civilian helicopter. Kaushik and his co-conspirators obtained the AHRS – which was ultimately detained before it was exported from the United States – on behalf of and with the intention of shipping it, through India, to a customer in Russia. If convicted, Kaushik faces maximum penalties of 20 years in prison and up to a $1 million for each count in the indictment. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Senators Hold Hearing on AI Fraud and Scams, Vow to Pass AI Bills in Coming Weeks — AI: The Washington Report

On November 19, the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security convened a hearing on “Protecting Consumers from Artificial Intelligence Enabled Fraud and Scams.”
The witnesses at the hearing testified about how AI technologies enable fraud and scams, while Senators from both parties asked questions that highlighted the need for federal laws to crack down on such activity.
The hearing comes as Senators try to pass AI legislation during the lame-duck session of this Congress. Subcommittee Chair Hickenlooper (D-CO) specifically discussed five bipartisan AI bills during the hearing that he vowed to get “across the finish line and passed into law in the coming weeks.”  

On November 19, the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security convened a hearing on “Protecting Consumers from Artificial Intelligence Enabled Fraud and Scams.” The Subcommittee heard from witnesses who testified about how AI technologies and tools enable fraud and scams, while Senators from both parties asked questions that highlighted the need for federal laws to crack down on such activity.
The hearing comes as Senators try to pass AI legislation during the lame-duck session of Congress. Subcommittee Chair Hickenlooper (D-CO) specifically discussed five AI bills during the hearing, which he noted have all received bipartisan support and vowed to get “across the finish line and passed into law in the coming weeks.”
Opening Statements
Subcommittee Chair Hickenlooper’s opening remarks, while acknowledging the many benefits that AI brings, noted that “for all those benefits, we have to mitigate and anticipate the concurrent risks that this technology brings along with it.” To this end, he specifically discussed five AI bills that he believes have bipartisan support, which we cover later in this newsletter, and vowed to get them “across the finish line and passed into law in the coming weeks.”
Subcommittee Ranking Member Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) focused on AI scams and fraud and their now widespread impact. She noted that the FTC Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book found that “scams increased a billion dollars over the last 12 months, to $10 billion… And of course we know AI is what is driving a lot of this.” To combat the fraud and scams driven in part by AI, Senator Blackburn called for an “encompassing” and “comprehensive” policy approach, including “an actual online privacy standard, which we’ve never passed.”
The Chair and Ranking Member’s statements both highlight that AI-enabled scams and other harms are a bipartisan point of concern.
Expert Testimony: Shared Concerns and Solutions
The following experts testified at the hearing:

Dr. Hany Farid, an academic who studies deepfakes and other AI-generated or digitally manipulated images
Justin Brookman, the Director of Technology Policy at Consumer Reports
Mounir Ibrahim, the Chief Communications Officer and Head of Public Policy at Truepic, a company that provides digital authenticity technology
Dorota Mani, the mother of a victim of an AI-generated deepfake  

The experts’ testimonies and responses to the Senators’ questions focused on four main themes:

Content Provenance. Mr. Ibrahim as well as the other panelists noted that content provenance – metadata that is attached to content that reveals whether it is AI-generated or not – is one of the most promising solutions we currently have to help people differentiate AI-generated content from real content. Senator Hickenlooper asked Mr. Ibrahim about the incentives that exist to scale content provenance technologies and make them widely available and used. Mr. Ibrahim responded that “there have not been the financial incentives…or consequences for these platforms to better protect or at least give more transparency to their consumers.”  
Comprehensive Privacy Laws. Both the Subcommittee Chair and Ranking Member pointed to the need for comprehensive data privacy laws in their remarks. Dr. Farid stated,“It should be criminal that we don’t have a data privacy law in this country.”  
Holding Creators of AI Content and AI Tools Accountable. Several Senators, as well as the panelists, discussed the need to shift the burden from consumers to companies that produce AI content and AI tools to ensure that their content or tools are not misused or harming people. “If you’re an AI company,” testified Dr. Farid, “and you’re allowing anybody to clone anybody’s voice by simply clicking a box that says, ‘I have permission to use their voice, you’re the one who’s on the hook for this.’” Senator Hickenlooper highlighted that the AI Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act, as we’ve covered, would create “a framework to hold AI developers accountable” for their content and AI tools.  
Stronger Enforcement. Mr. Brookman noted that while “fraud and scams are already illegal,” “because of insufficient enforcement – or consequences when caught – there is not enough deterrence against potential scammers.” He called on Congress to grant the FTC additional resources to hire more staff and expand its legal powers “to allow the agency to keep pace with the threats that plague the modern economy.”  

Legislation Discussed at the Hearing
Five AI bills, which we’ve covered before, were discussed during the hearing. None of these bills would constitute the comprehensive data privacy laws that the Senators and panelists called for, but they would lay the groundwork for increased transparency for AI developers and also protect consumers from deepfakes and other AI-generated harmful content:

The Future of Artificial Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024  

The Future of AI Innovation Act would permanently establish the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute, which would create voluntary standards and guidelines for AI and research AI model safety and issues. The Institute would also create a test program for vendors of foundation models to test their models “across a range of modalities.” The bill would also direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy to establish a testbed for the discovery of new materials for AI systems.  

Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy AI Act  

The VET Artificial Intelligence Act would require the director of the NIST to develop “voluntary guidelines and specifications for internal” and external artificial intelligence assurance, which is the impartial evaluation of an AI model by a third party to identify errors in the functioning and testing of the model and verify claims about the model’s functionality.  

Artificial Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act  

Regarding research and innovation, the Artificial Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act (AIRIA) would direct the Secretary of Commerce to conduct research on “content provenance and authentication for human and AI-generated works” and the Comptroller General to study “statutory, regulatory, and policy barriers to the use of AI” within the federal government. Regarding accountability, the bill would also create standardized definitions of common AI terms; transparency requirements for AI use, including disclosures that content is AI-generated and disclosure and reporting obligations for high-impact AI systems, including those involved in making decisions related to housing, employment, credit, education, health care, or insurance, among other requirements.  

The COPIED Act  

The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (The COPIED Act) would aim to address the rise of deepfakes. The bill would direct federal agencies to develop standards for AI-generated content detection, establish AI disclosure requirements for developers and deployers of AI systems, and prohibit the unauthorized use of copyrighted content to train AI models.  

TAKE IT DOWN Act  

The Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, known as the TAKE IT DOWN Act, would criminalize the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including certain AI-generated deepfakes, and also require social media platforms to establish processes by which they remove such content from their platforms.  

Lame-Duck Period: Potential AI Activity
Whether there is enough momentum to get AI legislation across the finish line during the lame-duck Congress is an open question. As we’ve noted, lame-duck periods are complicated, particularly where control of the Senate will shift in the next Congress. The final weeks of Democratic control may incentivize Democratic Senators to act on AI, but AI legislation will compete with other legislative priorities. Furthermore, while all of the AI bills discussed during the Subcommittee hearing have bipartisan support, Republicans may want to wait until the next Congress begins with them in the majority in both chambers to address AI. While any prospects for passing these bills remain uncertain, the three weeks remaining on the Senate’s calendar this Congress will bring clarity.
We will continue to monitor, analyze, and issue reports on AI legislation developments in the lame-duck Congress and the 119th Congress.
Matthew Tikhonovsky also contributed to this article. 

HASHING IT OUT!: Jornaya’s Data Tech Victory Over CIPA Claims

Greetings CIPAWorld!I’m back with the latest scoop to lead you all into a fantastic Thanksgiving Holiday.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a significant ruling in Williams v. DDR Media, L.L.C., No. 22-cv-03789-SI, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211342 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2024), granting summary judgment to defendants in a closely watched privacy case.
The dispute began when Loretta Williams visited snappyrent2own.com on December 10, 2021, where her interactions were processed by TCPA Guardian, a software product developed by Jornaya to help companies comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). TCPA Guardian is specifically ‘designed to help companies comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which restricts how companies contact consumers using autodialing technology without prior consent.’ This critical detail helps explain why the hashing process is necessary and legitimate.
In fact, this case was previously covered by the one and only Baroness located here. So, I’m excited to share this update.
The case has evolved substantially since its initial filing. Williams originally filed suit against DDR Media and Jornaya, alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Penal Code § 631(a), Invasion of Privacy under the California Constitution, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. After several rounds of motions and amendments, Williams filed a Second Amended Complaint focusing specifically on her claim under Penal Code § 631(a), part of CIPA. She alleged that TCPA Guardian captured her keystrokes, clicks, and other interactions, including her name, email address, and phone number, constituting wiretapping under CIPA.
Williams alleged that TCPA Guardian captured her keystrokes, clicks, and personal information, including her name, email address, and phone number, constituting wiretapping under CIPA. CIPA Section 631(a) prohibits the unauthorized “reading,” “attempting to read,” or “learning” of the contents of communications while they are in transit.
Here, the judicial analysis relied heavily on detailed testimony from Jornaya’s Chief Technology Officer, Manny Wald, regarding the technical functionality of TCPA Guardian. Let’s get technical for a minute for clarity. According to Wald, TCPA Guardian uses LeadiD Create, a JavaScript that generates a unique numerical reference for each website visit and collects basic data about the website itself, including consent disclosures and user interactions. This information is associated with the unique LeadiD. The hashing process creates a fixed-size output regardless of the input size, meaning the hash code from a single word would be the same length as one from an entire dictionary. As Wald explained, identical inputs always produce the same hash code, while even minor differences like ‘Main St.’ versus ‘Main Street’ create entirely different hashes. This verifies data matches without needing to read or understand the original content. Importantly, Wald explained that the collected data is immediately subjected to a one-way cryptographic hashing algorithm that transforms the input into a fixed-size alphanumeric string. This hashing process is automatic, irreversible, and occurs within milliseconds, with the original data being stored only temporarily in volatile memory before being overwritten.
A crucial aspect of TCPA Guardian’s functionality is how it operates in the lead marketplace. Lead sellers operate websites offering information about products or services and collecting visitor information. When a lead buyer later purchases this information, they can use TCPA Guardian to verify that the data matches what was originally collected, particularly regarding consent to receive communications, without Jornaya ever accessing the original data.
Whew, okay, now that we get the technical aspect out of the way, let’s dig into the Court’s analysis and reasoning.
First, Judge Illston evaluated whether hashing constitutes “reading” or “learning” the contents of communications under CIPA. Because the statute does not define “reading,” the Court applied its ordinary meaning as outlined in DeGeorge v. U.S. Dist. Court, 219 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) and the Oxford English Dictionary, which requires “understanding what is meant by the letters or signs.” The Court’s analysis was informed by Davis v. Facebook, Inc. (In re Facebook Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.), 956 F.3d 589, 598 (9th Cir. 2020), which emphasized that CIPA was meant to protect historical privacy rights, and Javier v. Assur. IQ, L.L.C., No. 21-16351, 2022 WL 1744107 (9th Cir. May 31, 2022), which noted that Section 631 codified the common law tort of invasion of privacy.
The Court found that TCPA Guardian’s hashing process involves no comprehension or interpretation of the original data and is, therefore, not “reading” under CIPA. This conclusion aligned with similar rulings, such as Gutierrez v. Converse Inc., 2024 WL 3511648 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2024), where the Court granted summary judgment for a defendant when the third-party vendor’s encryption of chat messages did not involve substantive interpretation.
The Court emphasized that hashing serves as a verification tool for data integrity rather than a method of accessing or understanding content. This critical distinction set TCPA Guardian apart from cases where vendors actively intercepted and analyzed user data.
As a countering measure, Williams attempted to argue that the hashing process itself constitutes “reading,” likening it to translating a letter into Pig Latin. The Court dismissed this analogy, explaining that while human translation involves understanding the meaning of words, TCPA Guardian’s hashing process is purely algorithmic and lacks the capacity for comprehension. Expanding further, the Court further distinguished this case from D’Angelo v. Penny OpCo, LLC, 2023 WL 7006793 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023), where third-party software actively analyzed communications to create live transcripts, and Valenzuela v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 686 F. Supp. 3d 969 (C.D. Cal. 2023), where the vendor’s business model relied on intercepting data for mass analysis. Conversely, TCPA Guardian facilitates hashed comparisons between lead sellers and buyers without accessing or interpreting the original data.
The Court also relied on California precedent emphasizing CIPA’s broad interpretation, including Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355, 359 (1985), highlighting the Legislature’s intent to safeguard privacy rights. However, it concluded that the automated hashing process lacked the human or machine effort to interpret or learn the contents of communications, distinguishing it from the conduct CIPA aims to regulate.
With this in mind, the Court ultimately ruled that “Jornaya is more akin to a tape recorder vendor than an eavesdropper,” reinforcing its prior dismissal of Williams’ claims under the UCL and the California Constitution. As noted in our earlier blog, the Court found that Defendant’s use of hashed data was “benign” and posed no serious invasion of privacy.
So what’s the key takeaway? Well, this is big for anyone involved in the telecommunications space and those using automated data processing tools. By clarifying that purely algorithmic processes without content interpretation fall outside CIPA’s reach, the Court has provided essential guidance for compliance in California. This is particularly significant for lead buyers, lead sellers, and the broader lead generation industry, where verifying consent and data integrity is crucial. Businesses that employ hashing technology can now operate with greater confidence, knowing that such safeguards do not constitute “reading” or “learning” under privacy laws. THIS IS HUGE.
Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones.
As always,
Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game.
Talk soon!

Air conditioning tech manufacturer to open new facility in Denton

STULZ USA, a leading provider of precision cooling technology for mission-critical applications, announced this week that its third U.S. manufacturing facility is coming to Denton, slated to commence operations in 2025.“Our decision to expand into Denton County is driven by our mission to deliver industry leading data center cooling solutions at scale while moving closer to our customers,” Brian Hatmaker, president of STULZ, said in a statement. “We have identified Denton as an ideal manufacturing location due to the strategic location and available workforce. The business-friendly environment and warm welcome we received from the state of Texas and Denton Economic Development teams, utilities and other local partners allowed us to move confidently.”
The company did not say where in Denton the facility will be. A spokesperson for the company could not be reached for comment on Friday.
Hatmaker said the company is committed to having a positive impact in the communities where it operates.
“As the ‘Manufacturer of the Year’ in Frederick County, Maryland we are excited to create jobs and become a premier business partner in Denton,” he said.
The new Denton County plant will create over 200 new jobs in the region, the company said. The new facility, over 200,000 square feet, is designed to meet the high standards of STULZ precision engineering.
“STULZ’s choice to invest in the city of Denton highlights the strength of our thriving local economy and the appeal of our growing community to a global manufacturer,” said Denton Mayor Gerard Hudspeth. “STULZ brings a strategic mindset ready to contribute to the vibrancy of Denton, which offers endless economic opportunities and a focused vision. Together, we are committed to a brighter future for our city and the North Texas region.”
The expansion is part of a larger effort by STULZ USA to address the data center industry’s growing demand for environmentally responsible and energy-efficient cooling solutions, according to a company news release. By increasing production capacity, the new Denton County facility will enable STULZ to support legacy and emerging technologies in data centers, ensuring our infrastructure solutions evolve alongside our customers’ needs.

Exclusive Poll: 74% Are Very or Somewhat Concerned About Big Tech’s Power

President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to curtail big tech’s power aligns with about three-quarters of Americans who are concerned about its vast influence, according to a JL Partners poll obtained exclusively by Breitbart News.
Seventy-four percent of Americans are very or somewhat worried about big tech’s influence on politics, the economy, and the lives of average Americans, the poll found. Fifteen percent are a little concerned, with just seven percent not at all concerned.

Seventy-eight percent are worried about big tech’s expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to influence government policymaking.
Sixty-nine percent back antitrust lawsuits against big tech, arguing its size and market power harm competition and limit consumer choice.
The poll sampled 1,000 registered voters from November 15-18 with a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

The survey comes as Trump vowed to reduce big tech’s power if he won reelection.
Trump was a victim of big tech’s censorship when social media platforms censored the New York Post’s “laptop from hell” story. Seventy-one percent of Americans believe accurate reporting of the story could have altered the 2020 presidential election, a poll found in 2022.
Trump warned Facebook during the 2024 campaign against a repeat performance.
“CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation!” Trump posted in September. “Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON’T!”
[embedded content]
Trump has a history of pushing back against big tech. During Trump’s first term, his Justice Department and several Republican-controlled states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google.

When Trump lost reelection in 2020, the Biden administration kept the pressure on Google, but the massive search engine appeared to still support the Biden administration. In search result rankings, Google appeared to give Vice President Kamala Harris special treatment.
Trump called the search results “election interference.”
“It has been determined that Google has illegally used a system of only revealing and displaying bad stories about Donald J. Trump, some made up for this purpose while, at the same time, only revealing good stories about Comrade Kamala Harris,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This is an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, and hopefully the Justice Department will criminally prosecute them for this blatant Interference of Elections.”
“If not, and subject to the Laws of our Country, I will request their prosecution, at the maximum levels, when I win the Election, and become President of the United States!” he concluded.
Wendell Husebo is a political reporter with Breitbart News and a former RNC War Room Analyst. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality. Follow Wendell on “X” @WendellHusebø or on Truth Social @WendellHusebo.

FoodNavigator-USA’s glow up: Our new look gives you more of what you love

We are thrilled to announce FoodNavigator-USA moved to a new platform. Our expert coverage of the packaged food and beverage industry will not change, but the look and feel of the site brings improved navigation, more content-rich articles, enhanced search capabilities and a better browsing experience.We have been working hard behind the scenes to ensure it is a seamless transfer for our readers.It will be effortless for our registered users too – your account remains the same and all your existing login details, preferences, and subscriptions have been carried over to the new platform so you can continue enjoying all our content without interruption. If you have not yet registered, now is the time. It is free and frictionless and means you can opt-in to receive our must-read newsletters.Here is what else you can expect to see.AI powered searchThanks to our investment in new technology, our archive of news articles and features are more accessible than ever. You can now search by keyword and order the results by relevance or recency, search within a certain timeframe and filter by content type and category. In short, if we wrote about it, you will be able to find it.Clearer navigationOur design team also improved our home page and section pages, which allows editors to curate our content to keep you up to date with all the most consequential news. We have also introduced a quick find menu (top left beside the home button) so you can navigate to a specific area of interest with greater ease.A bespoke browsing experienceLike you, we have been actively researching the latest AI technology to improve our products. Some of this innovation is already live for registered users, meaning we are able to serve up more of the content and topics that are valuable to you. Over the coming months we will continue to explore machine learning to further personalize and tailor content to your needs.More in-depth storiesOur new platform has been designed by journalists, for journalists. That means our teams of editors are empowered to elegantly deliver all the data and detail that will keep your business one step head of the competition. From social media posts from key industry leaders, to infographics, images and audio and video files we hope to elevate your reading experience across all your devices.Thank you for your continued readership and loyalty and please let me know what you think of FoodNavigator-USA’s new look. I would love to hear from you. Email me at [email protected].