Lawmakers have failed to extend a surveillance law that allows US intelligence agencies to monitor targets abroad without a warrant.
Congress rejected a vote to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to July 2, which means, for a few days at least, some surveillance will be put on hold, for the first time since the Act was passed in 2008. The next possible chance for a vote will be June 28.
This has significance for CISOs because they need to be aware of how communication between the US and other countries is being monitored. The Act permits US intelligence agencies to collect texts and emails sent to and from foreigners living outside the US without a warrant — and when those communications are to or from an US citizen, it allows them to scoop them up too.
“For too long, the FBI has been able to piggyback on a major national security tool as an unconstitutional backdoor way of reading Americans’ communications,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Matthew Guariglia wrote in article about the renewal vote this week.
It is uncertain what will happen next. Some commentators expect things will proceed as if the Act had been extended, possibly through an executive order. However, the industry may well revolt against this and we could see some tech providers take legal action.
This article first appeared on CSO.
© Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times
© The New York Times
A German court has sparked a legal controversy by ruling that Google is responsible for defamatory comments generated by its own AI system. The search giant had argued that it couldn’t be blamed for the false results, but a Munich court has deemed that not to be the case and has ruled in favor of the two unnamed plaintiffs, both publishing companies, who the Google AI Overview inaccurately said engaged in shady business practices.
Google is required to remove the comments and ensure that they are not repeated. The case is certainly going to raise some questions globally. Will this mean that other courts are going to rule against AI vendors?
Bernhard Buchner, a partner at Lausen Rechtsanwälte, the legal firm that acted for the plaintiffs, said, “I believe it shows that online providers such as Google cannot hide behind the fact that a statement was generated by AI, but rather that they can be held liable for its output. It is an important step towards ensuring that providers of AI systems have to take responsibility for their outputs.”
So, does this mean that the decision could be replicated in the US or elsewhere? Alex Shahrestani, managing partner at Austin-based Promise Legal, said, “the short answer is ‘yes’: the Munich ruling travels, because US courts are already making the same move.”
He explained that Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content, was built for computer bulletin boards, “not for a model that writes its own answers. Once the AI is the author, the company is the publisher.”
This means, he said, “businesses now need named humans at accountability nodes, verification gates before AI output ships, and audit trails that survive discovery, because ‘the model recommended it’ is a legally empty sentence.”
Does the decision mean that other AI providers could find themselves in the same position? Buchner believes it’s possible, although, he said, the situation in this case is unusual; it does not involve a classic chatbot scenario, but one where the AI-generated statements are published as an ‘AI overview’ of a search query.
“Google’s liability here is based not so much on the fact that it operates the underlying AI, but rather on the publication of its output. However, it seems entirely conceivable to me that this could also be applied generally to inaccurate or defamatory AI,” he pointed out.
Nonetheless, said Carolyn Shelby, head of SEO at Yoast, the German ruling should ensure that companies will be more circumspect in how they handle AI in the future, to protect themselves from any legal action. The first thing they should do is to separate low-risk use of AI from major decision-making.
“Using AI to summarize meeting notes, brainstorm campaign ideas, or create a first draft of something is very different from using it to make decisions about customers, employees, finance, compliance, health, legal claims, competitive positioning, or public communications,” she noted.
She pointed out that the effects of AI use could be devastating for companies. “The consequences could include customer complaints, reputational damage, regulatory attention, legal claims, correction costs, loss of trust, and internal disruption,” she said. “Even when a mistake does not become a lawsuit, the operational cost of correcting bad information can be significant.”
However, she noted, things may not change immediately. “Many companies will wait until there is a high-profile court case, regulatory action, or major corporate embarrassment before they take this seriously. That is usually how governance catches up with technology. But the better-run organizations will start treating AI governance as part of normal business risk management now.”
And, said Shahrestani, after the Google decision, everything has changed. It will become more important to ensure that employees remain part of the process.
© Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Years ago, right-wingers coined the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) to describe people who hate US President Donald J. Trump. (I think it better describes the president’s outlandish, truth-challenged statements and the followers who think he can do no wrong.) What’s really deranged is his recent AI executive order.
First, a little history. As you may recall, Trump often (and loudly) trashed his predecessor’s Executive Order 14110, which had demanded “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI. That Biden Administration order was replaced last year by Trump’s own “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” directive; it basically let US AI companies do whatever they wanted in the name of innovation.
Then, a little thing called Anthropic Mythos came along — and scared the pants off even AI’s biggest fans. Seemingly in response, someone in the federal government decided that letting AI companies do whatever they want might not be the brightest policy.
Or, did they?
True, the new order creates a process under which AI companies can give US government access to “covered frontier models” for up to 30 days before public release so experts can probe for vulnerabilities and test how the systems could be abused. It also directs agencies to set evaluation standards, establish an “AI cybersecurity clearinghouse,” and harden federal networks against rapidly advancing AI‑enabled attacks.
Some people, like Graham Brookie, vice president for technology programs and strategy at the Atlantic Council, think the order is great. “The administration’s executive order on Advanced AI Innovation and Security is a serious policy with support from necessary stakeholders across party lines and industry to ensure the government is evaluating the cybersecurity risks posed by frontier AI models. It’s a policy that can be built on.”
Really? I’m not sure Brookie read the same document I did — if, indeed, he read it at all.
I quote:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
“In addition, ‘This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.’”
In other words, AI companies won’t be required to do much of anything. And if they do submit a project for review, get the government’s blessing for it, and something goes badly wrong, it’s not the government’s fault.
So, exactly why would AI companies even mess with this performative AI security theater?
Beyond those concerns, who exactly will be judging AI projects in 30 days? In theory, it would be a cybersecurity clearinghouse made up of people from the National Security Agency, the US Treasury Department, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Most likely, CISA would do the bulk of the heavy-lifting — it’s their job, after all. But there’s this wee problem; Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last year gutted CISA. There’s virtually no one left to do the work, and certainly not in 30 days.
There’s also the question of funding for the new initiative. According to the order, “The Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.”
Spoiler: There’s no money set aside for this purpose.
Leaving aside whether the Executive Order has any teeth at all — the Brennan Center for Justice argued that under the Constitution, it doesn’t; the closer you look at the document, the less substance you’ll find.
Besides, in an industry where success is all about releasing the latest Large Language Model (LLM) as fast as possible to garner attention and investor dollars, who exactly would want to put their AI models on ice for even 30 days? (Short answer: No one.) These companies are always going to be focused first on getting the word out about their latest model as fast as humanly — Uh, AI-ly — possible.
Still, some people seem to think this executive order really will make a difference. For example, Paul Benda, the American Bankers Association executive vice president for risk, fraud, and cybersecurity, sees it “as a constructive step toward strengthening the nation’s approach to managing the cybersecurity risks and opportunities associated with advanced artificial intelligence [because it ] can help better protect critical infrastructure, including the financial sector.”
Oh, please. I’m so tired of people who skim the titles of Trump’s executive orders and then assume there’s anything real about them.
This AI order is meaningless garbage, and anyone telling you otherwise is either lying or wants to be on the Trump regime’s good (?) side. Or, both — it could always be both.
© Jes Aznar for The New York Times
The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.
The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.
Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.
Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.
Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.
“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”
The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.
Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.
For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.
Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firms launch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.
Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.
A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.
The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.
They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weapons experiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”
In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.
The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.
The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.
Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.
This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.
As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.
The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.
One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.
Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.
Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.
That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.
The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.
Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.
The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.
Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.
Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.
“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com
Login