AT&T

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares187 Views

    Chinese believed to have targeted Trump’s and Vance’s phones in US telecommunications breach

    by

    Chinese government-linked hackers are believed to have targeted phones used by Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, as part of a larger breach of US telecommunications networks, according to a New York Times report.The Trump campaign was informed this week that the phone numbers of the Republican presidential and vice-presidential nominee were among those targeted during a breach of the Verizon network, the paper said, citing sources.Investigators are working to determine what data, if any, was accessed by the “sophisticated” hack, the sources said. Other current and former government officials were also targeted, according to the report.The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency confirmed an investigation was under way into the “unauthorized access to commercial telecommunications infrastructure by actors affiliated with the People’s Republic of China”. It did not name the Trump campaign in the statement.“After the FBI identified specific malicious activity targeting the sector, the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) immediately notified affected companies, rendered technical assistance, and rapidly shared information to assist other potential victims,” the agency said.The Trump campaign did not directly address whether the phones used by Trump and Vance had been targeted.In a statement, a Trump campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, criticized the White House and Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris, and sought to blame them for allowing a foreign adversary to target the campaign, the Times reported.A Wall Street Journal report last month said a cyber-attack linked to the Chinese government had infiltrated multiple US telecommunications firms and may have gained access to systems used by the federal government in court-approved wiretapping efforts.The hackers accessed at least three telecommunication companies – AT&T, Verizon and Lumen Technologies – in what may have been an attempt to find sensitive information related to national security, according to the report.The Trump campaign earlier this year revealed it had been hacked and said Iranian actors had stolen and distributed sensitive internal documents.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US justice department unsealed criminal charges in September against three members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps suspected of hacking the Trump campaign.Justice department officials said hackers were trying to undermine Trump’s campaign and intended to sow discord, exploit divisions within American society and potentially influence the outcome of the 5 November election.With the election under two weeks away, Trump and Kamala Harris are locked in a tight race. In both national head-to-head polls and surveys in the crucial swing states where the election will be decided, the pair seem almost deadlocked. More

    More stories

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      When the tech boys start asking for new regulations, you know something’s up | John Naughton

      by

      Watching the opening day of the US Senate hearings on AI brought to mind Marx’s quip about history repeating itself, “the first time as tragedy, the second as farce”. Except this time it’s the other way round. Some time ago we had the farce of the boss of Meta (neé Facebook) explaining to a senator that his company made money from advertising. This week we had the tragedy of seeing senators quizzing Sam Altman, the new acceptable face of the tech industry.Why tragedy? Well, as one of my kids, looking up from revising O-level classics, once explained to me: “It’s when you can see the disaster coming but you can’t do anything to stop it.” The trigger moment was when Altman declared: “We think that regulatory interventions by government will be critical to mitigate the risks of increasingly powerful models.” Warming to the theme, he said that the US government “might consider a combination of licensing and testing requirements for development and release of AI models above a threshold of capabilities”. He believed that companies like his can “partner with governments, including ensuring that the most powerful AI models adhere to a set of safety requirements, facilitating processes that develop and update safety measures and examining opportunities for global coordination.”To some observers, Altman’s testimony looked like big news: wow, a tech boss actually saying that his industry needs regulation! Less charitable observers (like this columnist) see two alternative interpretations. One is that it’s an attempt to consolidate OpenAI’s lead over the rest of the industry in large language models (LLMs), because history suggests that regulation often enhances dominance. (Remember AT&T.) The other is that Altman’s proposal is an admission that the industry is already running out of control, and that he sees bad things ahead. So his proposal is either a cunning strategic move or a plea for help. Or both.As a general rule, whenever a CEO calls for regulation, you know something’s up. Meta, for example, has been running ads for ages in some newsletters saying that new laws are needed in cyberspace. Some of the cannier crypto crowd have also been baying for regulation. Mostly, these calls are pitches for corporations – through their lobbyists – to play a key role in drafting the requisite legislation. Companies’ involvement is deemed essential because – according to the narrative – government is clueless. As Eric Schmidt – the nearest thing tech has to Machiavelli – put it last Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, the AI industry needs to come up with regulations before the government tries to step in “because there’s no way a non-industry person can understand what is possible. It’s just too new, too hard, there’s not the expertise. There’s no one in the government who can get it right. But the industry can roughly get it right and then the government can put a regulatory structure around it.”Don’t you just love that idea of the tech boys roughly “getting it right”? Similar claims are made by foxes when pitching for henhouse-design contracts. The industry’s next strategic ploy will be to plead that the current worries about AI are all based on hypothetical scenarios about the future. The most polite term for this is baloney. ChatGPT and its bedfellows are – among many other things – social media on steroids. And we already know how these platforms undermine democratic institutions and possibly influence elections. The probability that important elections in 2024 will not be affected by this kind of AI is precisely zero.Besides, as Scott Galloway has pointed out in a withering critique, it’s also a racing certainty that chatbot technology will exacerbate the epidemic of loneliness that is afflicting young people across the world. “Tinder’s former CEO is raising venture capital for an AI-powered relationship coach called Amorai that will offer advice to young adults struggling with loneliness. She won’t be alone. Call Annie is an ‘AI friend’ you can phone or FaceTime to ask anything you want. A similar product, Replika, has millions of users.” And of course we’ve all seen those movies – such as Her and Ex Machina – that vividly illustrate how AIs insert themselves between people and relationships with other humans.In his opening words to the Senate judiciary subcommittee’s hearing, the chairman, Senator Blumenthal, said this: “Congress has a choice now. We had the same choice when we faced social media. We failed to seize that moment. The result is: predators on the internet; toxic content; exploiting children, creating dangers for them… Congress failed to meet the moment on social media. Now we have the obligation to do it on AI before the threats and the risks become real.”Amen to that. The only thing wrong with the senator’s stirring introduction is the word “before”. The threats and the risks are already here. And we are about to find out if Marx’s view of history was the one to go for.What I’ve been readingCapitalist punishmentWill AI Become the New McKinsey? is a perceptive essay in the New Yorker by Ted Chiang.Founders keepersHenry Farrell has written a fabulous post called The Cult of the Founders on the Crooked Timber blog.Superstore meThe Dead Silence of Goods is a lovely essay in the Paris Review by Adrienne Raphel about Annie Ernaux’s musings on the “superstore” phenomenon. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US corporations gave more than $8m to election deniers’ midterm campaigns

      by

      US corporations gave more than $8m to election deniers’ midterm campaignsBrands such as the Home Depot and Boeing donated to candidates who falsely claimed that Trump won presidency in 2020 Some of the best-known corporations in the US, including AT&T, Boeing, Delta Air Lines and the Home Depot, collectively poured more than $8m into supporting election deniers running for US House and Senate seats in this month’s midterm elections.‘Extremists didn’t make it’: why Republicans flopped in once-red ArizonaRead moreA study by the non-partisan government watchdog organization Accountable.US, based on the latest filings to the Federal Election Commission, reveals the extent to which big corporations were prepared to back Republican nominees despite their open peddling of false claims undermining confidence in democracy. Though many were ultimately unsuccessful in their election bids, the candidates included several prominent advocates of Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him.At the top of the list of 20 corporations backing election deniers through their political action committees (Pacs) is a familiar name in the world of rightwing agitating – Koch Industries. According to the Accountable.US review, the Koch energy conglomerate spent $771,000 through its Pac on Republican candidates with a track record of casting doubt on elections.Koch Industries is the second-largest privately owned company in the US. It is notorious for using its largely oil-related profits to push conservative politics in an anti-government, anti-regulatory direction under its owner brothers, Charles Koch and David Koch, the latter of whom died in 2019.Close behind Koch is the American Crystal Sugar Company Pac, which spent $630,000 supporting election deniers running for federal office; the AT&T Inc Employee Federal Pac, which contributed $579,000; and the Home Depot Inc Pac, which gave $578,000. Lower down on the list comes the media giant Comcast Corporation & NBC Universal Pac, which contributed $365,000; and the Delta Air Lines Pac, which gave $278,000.The $8m contributed by the top 20 corporations was just a slice of overall corporate giving to election deniers in the 2022 cycle. An earlier analysis by Accountable.US found that, in total, election deniers benefited to the tune of $65m from corporate interests.The new study suggests that top corporations that chose to use their financial muscle to enhance the chances of election deniers waged a non-too-successful gamble. The Washington Post has chronicled how 244 Republican election deniers ran for congressional seats in the midterms, and, of those, at least 81 were defeated.Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, said that the fact that election deniers at both the federal and the state level struggled at the polls should make corporations reconsider their strategies. Backing candidates who advanced conspiracy theories harmful to democracy could damage their public reputations.“Voters’ rejection of numerous election objectors at the polls should send a clear message to corporations that prioritizing political influence over a healthy democracy could threaten their own bottom line,” Herrig said.The Guardian reached out to several of the top 20 corporate donors for their response. The Home Depot said that its associate-funded Pac supports candidates “on both sides of the aisle who champion pro-business, pro-retail positions that create jobs and economic growth”.AT&T and Delta did not immediately reply. The decision to support election-denier candidates stands in contrast with the strong public stance initially taken by several of the corporations in the wake of the 6 January 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol. Boeing released a statement days after the insurrection in which it said it “strongly condemns the violence, lawlessness and destruction that took place in the US Capitol”. In the 2022 cycle the Boeing Company Pac contributed $418,000 to support Republican candidates who had been vocal in forwarding lies questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election.Boeing declined to comment.Among the individual candidates whose bid for federal office was supported by top corporations was Derrick Van Orden, who won a close race to represent a swing district in Wisconsin with backing from Koch Industries. Van Orden, a former Navy Seal, was inside the Capitol grounds on January 6.Scott Perry received support from the Kochs, AT&T, Boeing and other corporations in his successful campaign to hold onto his House seat in Pennsylvania. Perry was deeply involved in attempts to block Biden’s victory in 2020, and in the weeks after January 6 sought a presidential pardon from Trump.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022The fight for democracyUS political financingDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsKoch brothersAT&TnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      25 corporations marking Pride donated over $10m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians – study

      by

      June is Pride month, and many US corporations are advertising their support for the LGBTQ+ community. A new study, however, has found that 25 companies otherwise eager to wave the rainbow flag have donated more than $10m to anti-LGBTQ+ federal and state politicians over the past two years.The study, released on Monday by the Popular Information newsletter, found that alongside pronouncements of LGBTQ+ support, corporations including CVS, AT&T, Walmart and Comcast have supported candidates who seek to block or otherwise restrict equal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.Many of the corporations have 100% ratings on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) 2020 Corporate Equality Index, which measures workplace policies and “public commitment to the LGBTQ community”. The index does not take political donations into account.The study found that CVS, while receiving a perfect HRC score and announcing on Twitter it was “proud to join more than 100 companies that have signed HRC’s Business Statement Opposing Anti-LGBTQ State Legislation”, also supported sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Texas, North Carolina and Tennessee, through its corporate political action committee.In Texas, CVS backed Republican state senators Dawn Buckingham and Bryan Hughes, co-sponsors of SB1646, a bill that would “change the state’s child abuse law” to make it a crime for parents to allow children to receive gender-affirming medical care.The company also backed North Carolina state senator Ralph Hise, primary sponsor of S514, which would ban anyone under 21 receiving gender-affirming treatment and which the Advocate, an LGBTQ+ outlet, called “the most repressive anti-transgender healthcare bill in the nation”.CVS’s $1,000 donation to Hise in August 2020 came four years after huge controversy over an anti-trans “bathroom bill” the senator argued was necessary “to protect the citizens of the state of North Carolina”.CVS has donated $259,000 to 54 members of Congress who received a HRC rating of zero, largely through voting against the Equality Act, over the last two years.Others named in the study include cable giant Comcast, which has donated more than $1m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019.A Comcast subsidiary, Xfinity, recently tweeted: “Pride is the love we share. And with Xfinity, it’s Pride all year.” Comcast itself has created “a virtual ‘Pride World’, where we will feature events, Pride floats, Pride flags, and even a Pronoun Guide for employees”.But according to the study by Popular Information, Comcast has also donated more than $1.1m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019, including $30,000 to the sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Florida and Texas and $1,095,500 to 149 members of Congress marked zero by HRC.AT&T, which recently said “We can #TURNUPTHELOVE for LGBTQ youth together”, also signed a HRC letter opposing anti-LGBTQ state legislation. But it has also supported sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Arkansas ($12,950), Tennessee ($4,000), North Carolina ($5,000), Texas ($22,500), and Florida ($17,500).Walmart – whose website features a “Pride & Joy” section – has donated at least $442,000 to 121 politicians who received a zero from HRC, according to campaign finance reports.Others mentioned in the study for promoting a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index and publicising support for LGBTQ+ rights while donating to anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers include United Health, Deloitte and Wells Fargo, which made a $1,000 donation to the North Carolina state senator Joyce Krawiec, who has shared anti-trans articles on social media.Wells Fargo is a corporate supporter of Heritage of Pride, the non-profit that plans and produces New York City’s Pride events. The group has also been supported by Comcast.Michael Bullock of Weekly Senator, a crowdfunding group that channels donations to Senate candidates supporting progressive causes, said LGBTQ+ organisations supported by corporations that donate to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians should be boycotted.Bullock claimed Heritage of Pride “has over time created a parade in which the main goal is to pimp out queer people and queer culture to corporations to make as much money as possible. It’s crazy that this even needs to be said, but all LGBTQ people should boycott the Heritage of Pride until they make sure none of the sponsors fund anti-gay legislation.”Dan Dimant, a spokesperson for Heritage of Pride, told the Guardian the group makes efforts to prevent “pink-washing”, including guidelines on its website, and “takes great pains to ensure that partnerships meet strict criteria and that all partners are working to further the mission of the organization”.“There is a vetting process, so we make our best effort to avoid some of these conflicts of interest but that said it’s a moving target because companies change over time,” Dimant said.While many companies named in the Popular Information study did not comment, many reaffirmed their commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.General Motors said its political contributions “do not represent an endorsement of the candidate or support for all the issues the candidate supports [and] we will continue to clearly communicate with policymakers GM’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion”.Ford said “contributions by our employee Pac are bipartisan and take into consideration many issues that are important to meeting the needs of our customers, our team and our company”.Google defended its record on supporting “the rights of all LGBTQ people” and said a contribution to a candidate “doesn’t mean that Google agrees with that candidate on every issue. In fact, we may disagree strongly on some issues.” Amazon took a similar position. More