Techdirt (RSS/Atom feed)

Weasel Words: OpenAI’s Pentagon Deal Won’t Stop AI‑Powered Surveillance OpenAI, the maker of ChaptGPT, is rightfully facing widespread criticism for its decisions to fill the gap the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) created when rival Anthropic [refused to][1] drop its restrictions against using its AI for surveillance and autonomous weapons systems. After protests from both [users][2] and employees who did not sign up to support government mass surveillance—early reports show that ChaptGPT uninstalls rose nearly [300% after the company announced the deal][3]—Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, conceded that the initial agreement was “[opportunistic and sloppy][4].” He then [re-published an internal memo on social media][5] stating that additions to the agreement made clear that “Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, [and] FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals.” Trouble is, the U.S. government doesn’t believe **“consistent with applicable laws”** means “no domestic surveillance.” Instead, for the most part, the government has embraced a lax interpretation of “applicable law” that has blessed mass surveillance and large-scale violations of our civil liberties, and [then fought tooth and nail][6] to prevent courts from weighing in. “Intentionally” is also doing an awful lot of work in that sentence. For years the government has insisted that the mass surveillance of U.S. persons only happens *incidentally* (read: not intentionally) because their communications with people both inside the United States and overseas are swept up in surveillance programs supposedly designed to only collect communications *outside *the United States. The company’s[ amendment to the contract continues][7] in a similar vein, “For the avoidance of doubt, the Department understands this limitation to prohibit deliberate tracking, surveillance, or monitoring of U.S. persons or nationals, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information.” Here, “deliberate” is the red flag given how often intelligence and law enforcement agencies rely on incidental or commercially purchased data to sidestep stronger privacy protections. Here’s another one: “The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with these authorities. The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law.” What, one wonders, does “unconstrained” mean, precisely—and according to whom? Lawyers sometimes call these “weasel words” because they create ambiguity that protects one side or another from real accountability for contract violations. As with the[ Anthropic negotiations][8], where the Pentagon reportedly agreed to adhere to Anthropic’s red lines only “as appropriate,” the government is likely attempting to publicly commit to limits in principle, but retain broad flexibility in practice. OpenAI also notes that the Pentagon promised the NSA would not be allowed to use OpenAI’s tools absent a new agreement, and that its deployment architecture will help it verify that no red lines are crossed. But secret agreements and technical assurances have never been enough to rein in surveillance agencies, and they are no substitute for strong, enforceable legal limits and transparency. OpenAI executives may indeed be trying, as claimed, to use the company’s contractual relationship with the Pentagon to help ensure that the government should use AI tools only in a way consistent with democratic processes. But based on what we know so far, that hope seems very naïve. Moreover, that naïvete is dangerous. In a time when governments are willing to embrace extreme and unfounded interpretations of “applicable laws,” companies need to put some actual muscle behind standing by their commitments. After all, many of the world’s most notorious human rights atrocities have historically been “legal” under existing laws at the time. [OpenAI promises][9] the public that it will “avoid enabling uses of AI or AGI that harm humanity or unduly concentrate power,” but we know that enabling mass surveillance does both. OpenAI isn’t the only consumer-facing company that is, on the one hand, seeking to reassure the public that they aren’t participating in actions that violate human rights while, on the other, seeking to cash in on government mass surveillance efforts. Despite this marketing double-speak, it is very clear that companies just cannot do both. It’s also clear that companies shouldn’t be given that much power over the limits of our privacy to begin with. The public should not have to rely on a [small group of people][10]—whether CEOs or Pentagon officials—to protect our civil liberties. *Reposted from the [EFF’s Deeplinks blog][11].* [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/tech-companies-shou… [2]: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/02/chatgpt-uninstalls-surg… [3]: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/02/chatgpt-uninstalls-surg… [4]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rz1nd0egro [5]: https://x.com/sama/status/2028640354912923739 [6]: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying [7]: https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-departmen… [8]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/03/inside-ant… [9]: https://openai.com/charter/ [10]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/anthropic-dod-confl… [11]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/03/weasel-words-openai… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/weasel-words-openais-…

Don’t Ban Kids From Using Chatbots Laws prohibiting minors from accessing AI-powered chatbots like ChatGPT would violate the First Amendment. But that’s not stopping lawmakers from [trying][1]. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced the [Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act of 2025][2] (GUARD Act), which would require AI companies to “prohibit” minors under “18 years of age” from “accessing or using” AI chatbots that “produce[] new expressive content” in response to “open-ended natural-language or multimodal user input.” Earlier this year, [Virginia][3] and [Oklahoma][4] introduced similar bills, as did [California][5] last September. The crux is the same: to prohibit minors from accessing chatbots capable of producing human-like speech. If passed, these bills will get struck down in court for violating the [First Amendment][6], which prohibits laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” Specifically, minors have a First Amendment [right][7] to receive information. The Supreme Court has explained, “minors are [entitled][8] to a significant measure of First Amendment protection, and only in relatively narrow and well-defined circumstances may government bar public dissemination of protected materials to them.” This right [applies][9] to the Internet with full force. When [analyzing][10] these laws under the First Amendment, a court would start by asking whether the government is regulating speech. Speech is a broad concept, including written and spoken words, photos, music, and other forms of expression like [computer code][11] and [video games][12]. Chatbot outputs are speech; they comprise all these forms of expression. Laws prohibiting minors from accessing chatbots regulate speech by cutting off young users from the ideas and information communicated in outputs. Next, a court would assess whether minor chatbot bans regulate [protected or unprotected][13] speech. The vast majority of outputs are protected speech: Teens [use][14] chatbots to search for information, get help with schoolwork, for fun or entertainment, and to get news. Here, the only relevant category of unprotected speech is content that is [obscene][15] to minors. The GUARD Act, for example, states that “chatbots can generate and disseminate harmful or sexually explicit content to children,” and the Virginia bill would block chatbots “capable of … [e]ngaging in erotic or sexually explicit interactions with the minor user.” Sexually explicit outputs to minors are likely unprotected speech, but the bills go much further by blocking all youth access to chatbots. Because these bills regulate a mix of protected and unprotected speech, the court would then assess whether the prohibition on teen usage is [content-based or content-neutral][16]. Content-based restrictions target speech based on its viewpoint, subject matter, topic, or substantive message. On the other hand, content-neutral laws regulate nonsubstantive aspects of speech, like its time, place, or manner. These bills are content-based because they prohibit access based on the subject matter of chatbot outputs. The GUARD Act would prohibit minors from accessing chatbots capable of “interpersonal or emotional interaction, friendship, companionship, or therapeutic communication.” The Oklahoma bill would block chatbots that “express[] or invit[e] emotional attachment” or “form ongoing social or emotional bonds with users, whether or not such systems also provide information.” Similarly, the Virginia bill would ban minors from accessing chatbots “capable of … offering mental health therapy.” Regardless of the pros and cons of minors accessing such information, the prohibitions are based on the content of the outputs — not on merely nonsubstantive aspects of the speech. Because these bills are content-based, the court would apply [strict scrutiny][17]. The government would have to prove the bills are narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest and that they are the least restrictive means of serving that interest. Banning minors from accessing chatbots arguably advances “a [compelling][18] interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors” by “shielding minors from the influence of” obscene outputs. Strict scrutiny, however, [requires][19] lawmakers to use a [less restrictive][20] means than bans to protect minors. Lawmakers could, for example, require AI companies to provide parental controls or strict [safeguards][21] preventing their models from engaging in sexually explicit conversations with young users. In fact, AI [companies][22] [already][23] [have][24] [policies][25] and [features][26] to [protect][27] minor users. Because these bills aren’t narrowly tailored, a court would strike them down for violating the First Amendment. Banning minors from using chatbots is also bad policy. Last October, California Governor Gavin Newsom [vetoed][28] the state’s proposed ban, stating, “AI is already shaping the world, and it is imperative that adolescents learn how to safely interact with AI systems … We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether.” Most U.S. teens [use][29] AI chatbots. These young users have a First Amendment right to receive the information the AIs output, which is generally protected speech. Prohibiting access to chatbots would violate minors’ constitutional rights and deprive them of the vast benefits of AI. *Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.* [1]: https://itif.org/publications/2025/11/19/bans-on-ai-compa… [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/… [3]: https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1115796.PDF [4]: https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20INT/hB/HB3… [5]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xh… [6]: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ [7]: https://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=jennerblockmemo&… [8]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/205/ [9]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/case.pdf [10]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IG10063 [11]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/… [12]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/786/ [13]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11072 [14]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/02/24/how-teens… [15]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/629/ [16]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-3-… [17]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47986#_Toc177042153 [18]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/115/ [19]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/803/ [20]: https://www.cato.org/blog/no-we-shouldnt-ban-ai-chatbots [21]: https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2025/10/newsom-… [22]: https://www.thorn.org/blog/generative-ai-principles/ [23]: https://support.character.ai/hc/en-us/articles/4264556178… [24]: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/OAI%20Teen%20Safety%20Blueprin… [25]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/child-safety-principles [26]: https://openai.com/index/updating-model-spec-with-teen-pr… [27]: https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16109150?hl=en#a… [28]: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AB-1064… [29]: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/12/09/teens-soc… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/dont-ban-kids-from-us…

The Wyden Siren Goes Off Again: We’ll Be “Stunned” By What the NSA Is Doing Under Section 702 Senator Ron Wyden says that when a secret interpretation of Section 702 is eventually declassified, the American public “will be stunned” to learn what the NSA has been doing. If you’ve followed Wyden’s career, you know this is not a man prone to hyperbole — and you know his track record on these warnings is perfect. Just last month, [we wrote about the Wyden Siren][1] — the pattern where Senator Ron Wyden sends a cryptic public signal that something terrible is happening behind the classification curtain, can’t say what it is, and then is eventually proven right. Every single time. The catalyst then was a two-sentence letter to CIA Director Ratcliffe expressing “deep concerns about CIA activities.” Well, the siren is going off once again. This time, Wyden took to the Senate floor to [deliver a lengthy speech][2], ostensibly about the since approved (with support of many Democrats) nomination of Joshua Rudd to lead the NSA. Wyden was protesting that nomination, but in the context of Rudd being unwilling to agree to basic constitutional limitations on NSA surveillance. But that’s just a jumping off point ahead of Section 702’s upcoming reauthorization deadline. Buried in the speech is a passage that should set off every alarm bell: > *There’s another example of secret law related to Section 702, one that directly affects the privacy rights of Americans. For years, I have asked various administrations to declassify this matter. Thus far they have all refused, although I am still waiting for a response from DNI Gabbard. I strongly believe that this matter can and should be declassified and that Congress needs to debate it openly before Section 702 is reauthorized. In fact,* ***when it is eventually declassified, the American people will be stunned*** *that it took so long and that Congress has been debating this authority with insufficient information.* You can [see the full video here][3] if you want. Here’s a sitting member of the Senate Intelligence Committee — someone with access to the classified details — is telling his colleagues and the public that there is a secret interpretation of Section 702 that “directly affects the privacy rights of Americans,” that he’s been asking multiple administrations to declassify it, that they’ve all refused, and that when it finally comes out, people will be *stunned*. If you’ve followed Wyden for any amount of time, this all sounds very familiar. In 2011, Wyden warned that the government had [secretly reinterpreted the PATRIOT Act][4] to mean something entirely different from what Congress and the public understood. He couldn’t say what. Nobody believed it could be that bad. Then the Snowden revelations showed the NSA was engaged in bulk collection of essentially every American’s phone metadata. In 2017, he caught the Director of National Intelligence [answering a different question][5] than the one Wyden asked about Section 702 surveillance. The pattern repeats. The siren sounds. Years pass. And then, eventually, we find out it was worse than we imagined. Now here he is, doing the exact same thing with Section 702 yet again, now that it’s up for renewal. Congress is weeks away from a reauthorization vote, and Wyden is explicitly telling his colleagues (not for the first time) they are preparing to vote on a law whose actual meaning is being kept secret from them as well as from the American public: > *The past fifteen years have shown that, unless the Congress can have an open debate about surveillance authorities, the laws that are passed cannot be assumed to have the support of the American people. And that is fundamentally undemocratic. And, right now, the government is relying on secret law with regard to Section 702 of FISA. I’ve already mentioned the provision that was stuck into the last reauthorization bill, that could allow the government to force all sorts of people to spy on their fellow citizens. I have explained the details of how the Biden Administration chose to interpret it, and how the Trump Administration will interpret it, are a big secret. Americans have the right to be confused and angry that this is how the government and Congress choose to do business.* That’s a United States senator who has a long history of calling out secret interpretations that lead to surveillance of Americans — standing on the Senate floor and warning, once again, that there’s a secret interpretation of Section 702 authorities. One that almost certainly means mass surveillance. And Wyden knows exactly how this plays out. He’s been through the reauthorization cycle enough times to know the playbook the intelligence community runs every time 702 is up for renewal: > *I’ve been doing this a long time, so I know how this always goes. Opponents of reforming Section 702 don’t want a real debate where Members can decide for themselves which reform amendments to support. So what always happens is that a lousy reauthorization bill magically shows up a few days before the authorization expires and Members are told that there’s no time to do anything other than pass that bill and that if they vote for any amendments, the program will die and terrible things will happen and it will be all their fault.* > > *Don’t buy into that.* He’s right. Every time reauthorization is on the table, no real debate happens, and then just before the authorization is about to run out, some loyal soldier of the surveillance brigade in Congress will scream “national security” at the top of their lungs, insist there’s no time to debate this or people will die, and then promises that we need to just re-authorize for a few more years, at which point we’ll be able to hold a debate on the surveillance. A debate that never arrives. But even setting aside the secret interpretation Wyden can’t discuss, his speech highlights something almost as damning: just how spectacularly the supposed “reforms” from the last reauthorization have failed. Remember, one of the big “concessions” to get the last reauthorization across the finish line was a requirement that “sensitive searches” — targeting elected officials, political candidates, journalists, and the like — would need the approval of the FBI’s Deputy Director. This was in response to some GOP elected officials being on the receiving end of investigations during the Biden era, freaking out that the NSA appeared to be doing the very things plenty of civil society and privacy advocates had been telling them about for over a decade while they just yelled “national security” back at us. So how are those small “reforms” working out? Here’s Wyden: > *The so-called big reform was to require the approval of the Deputy FBI Director for these sensitive searches.* > > *Until two months ago, the Deputy FBI Director was Dan Bongino. As most of my colleagues know, Mr. Bongino is a longtime conspiracy theorist who has frequently called for specious investigations of his political opponents. This is the man whom the President and the U.S. Senate put in charge of these incredibly sensitive searches. And Bongino’s replacement as Deputy Director, Andrew Bailey, is a highly partisan election denier who recently directed a raid on a Georgia election office in an effort to justify Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories. I don’t know about my colleagues, but this so-called reform makes me feel worse, not better.* So the grand reform that was supposed to provide meaningful oversight of the FBI’s most sensitive surveillance activities ended up placing that authority in the hands of a conspiracy theorist, followed by a partisan election denier. And just to make the whole thing even more farcical, Wyden notes that the FBI has refused to even keep a basic record of these searches: > *But it’s even worse than it looks. The FBI has refused to even keep track of all of the sensitive searches the Deputy Director has considered. The Inspector General urged the FBI to just put this information into a simple spreadsheet and they refused to do it. That is how much the FBI does not want oversight.* They won’t maintain a *spreadsheet*. The Inspector General asked them to track their use of a sensitive surveillance power using what amounts to a basic Excel file, and the FBI said no. That’s the state of “reform” for Section 702 after the last re-auth. Wyden has also been sounding the alarm about the expansion of who can be forced to spy on behalf of the government, thanks to a provision jammed into the last reauthorization that expanded the definition of “electronic communications service provider” to cover essentially anyone with access to communications equipment. As Wyden explained: > *Two years ago, during the last reauthorization debacle, something really bad happened. Over in the House, existing surveillance law was changed so that the government could force anyone with “access” to communications to secretly collect those communications for the government. As I pointed out at the time, that could mean anyone installing or repairing a cable box, or anyone responsible for a wifi router. It was a jaw-dropping expansion of authorities that could end up forcing countless ordinary Americans to secretly help the government spy on their fellow citizens.* The Biden administration apparently promised to use this authority narrowly. But, of course, the Trump administration has made no such promise. As we say with every expansion of executive authority, just imagine how the worst possible president from the opposing party would use it. And now we don’t have to wonder any more. Wyden correctly points out that secret promises from a prior administration are worth exactly nothing: > *But here’s the other thing – whatever secret promise the Biden Administration made about using these vast, unchecked authorities with restraint, the current administration clearly isn’t going to feel bound by that promise. So whatever the previous administration intended to accomplish with that provision, there is absolutely nothing preventing the current administration from conscripting those cable repair and tech support men and women to secretly spy on Americans.* So to tally this up: Congress is about to vote on reauthorizing Section 702 with a secret legal interpretation that Wyden says will stun the public when it’s eventually revealed, with “reforms” that placed surveillance approval authority in the hands of conspiracy theorists who won’t even keep a spreadsheet, with a massively expanded definition of who can be forced to help the government spy, with secret promises about restraint that the current administration has no intention of honoring, and with a nominee to lead the NSA who won’t commit to following the Constitution. The Wyden Siren is blaring. And if history is any guide — and it has been, without exception — whatever is behind the classification curtain is worse than what we can see from the outside. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/05/the-wyden-siren-senat… [2]: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-ca… [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2b4oxeX3R8 [4]: https://www.techdirt.com/2011/05/26/senators-reveal-that-… [5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2017/06/15/wyden-siren-coats-is-… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/the-wyden-siren-goes-…

Daily Deal: The All-in-One Super-Sized Ethical Hacking Bundle To completely understand computer security, it’s vital to step outside the fence and to think outside the box. Computer security is not just about firewalls, Intrusion Prevention Systems, or anti-viruses. It’s also about tricking people into doing whatever a hacker wishes. A secure system, network, or infrastructure is also about informed people. The [All-in-One Super-Sized Ethical Hacking Bundle][1] will help you learn to master ethical hacking techniques and methodologies over 14 courses. It’s on sale for $28 for a limited time. *Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.* [1]: https://deals.techdirt.com/sales/the-all-in-one-2021-supe… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/daily-deal-the-all-in…

Docs Expose CBP’s Use Of Ad Data To Track People’s Movements Every phone is a narc whether you realize it or not. The private sector certainly knows what information a cell phone can divulge and has leveraged the always-on nature of these devices to maximize profitability. The public sector — mainly law enforcement agencies, both local and federal — have caught onto this as well. With court decisions making it less than absolutely clear things like geofence warrants and long-term location tracking are actually lawful, they’re turning to third parties to give them the data they can’t easily obtain without trying to talk judges into approving their warrants. Data brokers will sell to anyone willing to pay, which means plenty of federal agencies are obtaining location data this way, bypassing the restraints created by courts and the oversight Congress is supposed to provide. The DHS has been doing this for years, as have several other federal law enforcement agencies. It finally attracted enough attention on Capitol Hill that even CBP (Customs and Border Protection) [pinky-promised Senator Ron Wyden][1] and other lawmakers that it wouldn’t continue to [bypass constitutional protections][2] by throwing its money at private sector data brokers. The extent of this surveillance hasn’t always been clear. [404 Media has obtained some information via FOIA requests][3] that reduces a bit of the fog of war on privacy. > *Customs and Border Protection (CBP) bought data from the online advertising ecosystem to track peoples’ precise movements over time, in a process that often involves siphoning data from ordinary apps like video games, dating services, and fitness trackers, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document obtained by 404 Media.* > > *The document shows in stark terms the power, and potential risk, of online advertising data and how it can be leveraged by government agencies for surveillance purposes. The news comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [purchased similar tools][4] that can monitor the movements of phones in entire neighbourhoods. ICE also recently said in [public procurement documents][5] it was interested in sourcing more “Ad Tech” data for its investigations. * CBP told Senator Wyden that it would stop purchasing location data from data brokers back in 2023. There’s no reason to believe this assertion is still true, now that Trump has made hunting down non-whites a prominent part of his domestic policy. In fact, there’s every reason to believe CBP has gone back to buying up whatever it can from third-party data brokers. [A letter][6] signed by 58 Congressional members (including Sen. Wyden and author Rep. Adriano Espaillat) notes that the CBP has refused to discuss its current data broker-enabled location tracking efforts with Congressional oversight. > *ICE is now stonewalling congressional oversight into its purchase of location data. Senator Wyden’s office requested a briefing from ICE soon after this contract was revealed in the press, in October, which was scheduled in December, for February 10, 2026. **One day before that briefing was to take place, ICE cancelled it with no explanation and without any offer to reschedule.*** It’s another DHS power move — albeit one put in play before [Kristi Noem was sidelined][7] by Trump. It’s one that says again, quite clearly, that federal agencies (under Trump) feel no compunction to answer to anyone, *especially* not their direct oversight. What separates this reporting from earlier reporting on federal agency use of data brokers is this: prior efforts involved purchasing location data obtained via installed apps that tracked users’ locations with or without the explicit knowledge or permission of app users or even the developers of these apps. These efforts utilized built-in tracking tools contained in some SDK (software development kits) frequently used by developers. This collection involves device information gathered and tracked by ad brokers and their customers. AdID (advertising identification) tracks unique device info to serve up targeted advertising to users, which obviously includes nudging them towards goods and services in their area. While it doesn’t link device info specifically to the people using these devices, it does allow the government to buy data generated by these ad RTB (real-time bidding) markets to collect location info. This can be used to track people’s movements because it only takes a little extra effort (some of that already being performed for the government [by companies like Palantir][8]) to tie a device to a person. 404 Media’s reporting is first to show federal agencies have moved past data brokers to directly collect information that’s perpetually generated multiple times per minute to generate information these companies can sell to marketing firms… or, apparently, the government itself. Here’s how this works: > *In essence, the AdID acts as the digital glue between a person’s device and their location data, allowing marketers—or a surveillance contractor or DHS—to attribute a set of movements to a specific device. From there, investigators can draw geofences to see all phones at a particular area over a period of time. Many smartphone location data tools then let officials see where else those devices went, potentially revealing where their owners live or work, [or other sensitive locations][9].* While this information is drawn from a DHS-produced PTA (Privacy Threshold Analysis), the PTA generated after the “pilot program” closed in 2021, CBP has yet to produce the PIA (Privacy Impact Assessment) that is supposed to *precede* rollouts of programs like this, whether they’re “pilots” or not. That report *still* doesn’t seem to exist. And while *this* report claims this was only a “pilot” program that was not used to engage in any *actual* surveillance, the facts on the ground say otherwise: > *Although CBP described the move as a pilot, the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) [later found both CBP and ICE][10] did not limit themselves to non-operational use. The OIG found that CBP, ICE, and the Secret Service [all illegally used][11] the smartphone location data, and found a CBP official used the data to track coworkers with no investigative purpose. CBP and ICE went on to repeatedly purchase access to location data.* So… [business as usual][12]. The government says it’s just test-driving something but then we found out it was used to actually engage in surveillance. The government says it will stop buying data from data brokers in contravention of Supreme Court rulings on location data and then it just keeps doing it. And when the government is told by a co-equal branch to explain itself, it ghosts its oversight and goes back to doing the extremely dirty business of being a rogue administration that openly embraces any bit of authoritarianism it can hammer into place while the system of checks and balances sputters in disbelief. There are solutions still available to stem the authoritarian tide. We just need a few GOP representatives to care more about the country they’re supposed to be serving than the guy who’s blundering around the Oval Office in hopes of being next-gen Hitler, albeit one that includes Israel in his genocidal plans, rather than making it a target. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/22/cbp-tells-senator-ron… [2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/06/22/supreme-court-says-wa… [3]: https://www.404media.co/cbp-tapped-into-the-online-advert… [4]: https://archive.ph/o/W7ulV/https://www.404media.co/inside… [5]: https://archive.ph/o/W7ulV/https://sam.gov/workspace/cont… [6]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/27715032/wyden-led… [7]: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/06/podcasts/the-daily/tru… [8]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/11/how-palantir-is-mappi… [9]: https://archive.ph/o/W7ulV/https://www.404media.co/inside… [10]: https://archive.ph/o/W7ulV/https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/… [11]: https://archive.ph/o/W7ulV/https://www.404media.co/ice-cb… [12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/17/ice-has-an-internet-s… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/docs-expose-cbps-use-…

David Ellison Pinky Swears CNN Will Retain Editorial Independence, Points To CBS We’ve already all seen what the Ellison family’s version of “editorial independence” [looks like over at CBS][1], where contrarian troll Bari Weiss has turned the already [very Republican friendly][2] news giant into a [safe space for right wing zealots and autocrats][3]. All overseen by a [Brendan Carr chosen censor][4] tasked with ensuring the channel **always makes Donald Trump happy**. As always with authoritarian regimes (and corporate ownership), this is all presented to the public as an effort to restore balance, eliminate (nonexistent) “[liberal bias][5],” and reach out to **real** Americans. As if billionaires and their useful idiots could care less about everyday Americana. After being gifted two Hollywood studios and two major news empires by [daddy and Donald Trump][6], fail-upward nepobaby David Ellison made the rounds last week to insist that CNN’s “editorial independence” [would be retained under Paramount/CBS ownership][7]. His evidence? CBS: > *“So, look, I’ve said this since the beginning, which is, you know, for — when it really comes to — editorial independence will absolutely be maintained. It’s maintained at CBS. It’ll be maintained at CNN. And, really, who we want to talk to is the 70% of Americans and really around the world that identify as center-left, as center-right. And we want to be in the truth business. We want to be in the trust business. And that’s not going to change.”* Of course, if anybody had actually been paying attention to CBS, they’d see how the network under Weiss has already tried to [repeatedly kill stories that aren’t favorable to Donald Trump][8], gone out of its way to [normalize right wing opportunists like Erika Kirk][9], and has driven away a lot of remaining CBS journalists with Weiss’ obvious efforts to pander to Trump and Netanyahu. Like CBS, CNN **already** goes well out of its way to be extra friendly to authoritarians. The network has routinely faced criticism for consistently airing [sneering MAGA devotee Scott Jennings][10]. Under Ellison ownership there’s zero serious doubt, by anyone, that CNN will become even more friendly to autocrats. After they get done firing [untold thousands of people to try and pay down the deal’s immense debt][11]. Traditionally there’s **only one editorial direction U.S. journalism usually goes under consolidated corporate ownership**. U.S. media owners like tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, access, and merger approvals, so corporate media’s editorial slant generally follows the financial interests of ownership. The pretense that U.S. media suffers from widespread “liberal bias,” or the belief that there are *still functional firewalls between ownership and editorial*, are long-deceased relics. Larry Ellison clearly wants to hoover up what’s left of corporate media (including CBS, CNN, HBO) — and fuse it with his [co-ownership of TikTok][12] to create a sort of [Hungary-esque autocratic state media][13], where administration allies praise dear leader while the government strangles independent and public media just out of frame. The only thing saving us from the full and terrible vision of this outcome to date is the fact that very few of the weird nepobabies and brunchlords being tasked with its creation have *anything you’d mistake for competence*. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-wo… [2]: https://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-news-exec-says-hiring… [3]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-wo… [4]: https://popular.info/p/cbs-news-hires-trump-loyalist-to [5]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/21/bari-weiss-gets-to-wo… [6]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/11/trump-doj-launches-bu… [7]: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/… [8]: http://Weiss’ inaugural “town hall” with opportunistic right wing grifter Erika Kirk was a ratings dud, her new nightly news broadcast has been an error-prone hot mess, and her murder of a 60 Minutes story about Trump concentration camps — and the network’s decision to air a story lying about the ICE murder of Nicole Good — spurred a revolt among the CBS journalists who hadn’t quit yet. [9]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/16/nobody-including-adve… [10]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-staff-furious-after-mag… [11]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/06/the-double-whammy-of-… [12]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/19/tiktok-deal-done-and-… [13]: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/how-hu… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/12/david-ellison-pinky-s…

Beavers Are Not Moose: Buc-ee’s Sues Competitor Over Cartoon Moose Branding Alright, I think it might be time for a wellness check on the people running Buc-ee’s. I realize that these chain of gas and convenience stores has a strange cult following in the south. I won’t pretend to understand why that is, but whatever. Unfortunately, the company also appears to be run by a bunch of trademark bullying jackwagons. I’ve [referred][1] to Buc-ee’s as the Monster Energy of gas stations, because the company appears to think that trademark law allows it to own the concept of a cartoon animal mascot in any tangential industry. They have bullied and/or sued many, many companies under this premise. Because most of its victims are smaller companies, they have gotten a lot of settlements out of these bullying efforts. But those settlements don’t make the bullying legitimate. Buc-ee’s views on what trademark law allows it to own and control are fantasy. They’re still out here doing their bullying thing, though, with the latest example being [its decision to sue a company][2] that runs a gas station called “Mickey’s”. I’ve embedded the suit below, but here is a sample of the claims in the filing made against the gas station chain. > *Like the Buc-ee’s Marks, Defendant’s Logos incorporate a cartoon animal facing right with wide eyes and a smile, overlaying a round background…also uses red as a predominant color in its interior and exterior signage, as well as employee uniforms and anthropomorphic representations of its cartoon moose mascot…also uses red as a predominant color in its interior and exterior signage, as well as employee uniforms and anthropomorphic representations of its cartoon moose mascot.* > > *Consumers are likely to perceive a connection or association as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the parties’ products and services, when in fact none exists, given the similarity of the parties’ logos, trade channels, and consumer bases.* And here, dear readers, is the very similar branding that the lawsuit references. Once again, as with past Buc-ee’s trademark suits, the claims simply fall apart on inspection of the evidence. These logos are not similar. They *don’t* use the same overall color schemes. They feature easily distinguishable cartoon animals as mascot. A beaver is not a moose, which is a sentence I never thought I’ve have to type out on a keyboard. Likewise, a hexagon is not round, another thing I’d never thought I’d have to write. This is all very, very stupid, and not at all concerning from a customer confusion standpoint. Despite that, the suit alleges that Mickey’s has “used” the Buc-ee’s logos to enrich themselves. It’s bonkers. In addition, Buc-ee’s has petitioned the USPTO to *cancel* the trademark registrations Mickey’s has for its branding. Why is this company so beloved? They truly seem like craven bullies above all else. None of this is trademark infringement and I certainly hope the owners of Mickey’s are prepared to fight this fight. Because Buc-ee’s doesn’t somehow have a monopoly on cartoon character mascots. Not for its industry, never mind others. [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/16/buc-ees-gas-station-c… [2]: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/bucee… https://www.techdirt.com/2026/03/11/beavers-are-not-moose…