TikTok ban for UK ministers | The Week UK

The government is to ban ministers and civil servants from having the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok on their work phones.

The video app “has been under increasing scrutiny over its security and data privacy”, said The Telegraph, and Parliament’s own TikTok account was shut down last August after MPs raised concerns about the app’s links to Beijing. Cabinet Office minister Oliver Dowden confirmed the ban in a statement in the House of Commons today.

“Until recently, the UK had been relaxed about TikTok,” said The Guardian. But following an initial review by a cabinet committee, experts at GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre have “assessed the app and identified risks to sensitive information”, The Sunday Times reported.

TikTok “has long maintained” that it does not store users’ data in China, but Beijing’s laws require firms, including tech companies, to aid the Communist Party and its intellectual services “when asked to do so”, said the newspaper. Western security officials have warned that “this could expose vast amounts of data” globally.

Rishi Sunak hinted at the ban on Monday. When asked if TikTok should be banned from government devices, the prime minister said that Westminster was looking “at what our allies are doing. And we’re in the process of doing all of that.”

US federal agency employees have been told to delete the app from government devices, while Belgium, the Netherlands and the European Commission have imposed bans on all official devices.

TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, has attempted to assuage concerns, said The Guardian.

Last week, it outlined a European security deal, dubbed Project Clover, that would see European user data stored on servers in Ireland and Norway, and any outside transfers “vetted by a third-party IT company”. A similar scheme, involving Oracle, is being considered in the US.

TikTok banned in Florida? What you need to know about university ...

Florida State University announced on Monday that six apps, including TikTok, have been banned from campus effective immediately following a Florida Board of Governors statewide emergency regulation.

The Tallahassee Democrat reported that FSU’s campus ban extends not only to the apps but their respective websites and technologies, too. According to the announcement, the school would enforce this policy by blocking access to the platforms on university devices or while using FSU’s Wi-Fi.

The six apps named in the block were TikTok, TencentQQ, WeChat, Vkontakte, Kaspersky and Fizz.

UWF ban:UWF joins FSU, UF in banning TikTok on university devices, Wi-Fi network

FSU Associate Provost for Strategy and Analytics Rick Burnette and interim chief information officer told the Democrat that the ban was implemented to put “safety measures in place to protect our faculty, staff and students’ personal data against any personal threats.”

FSU’s TikTok ban isn’t the first in the state or the nation. Florida A&M University’s Office of Information Technology Services sent an email on March 7 to all students, faculty and staff that the university was implementing a similar TikTok ban that blocked access on FAMU devices and its Wi-Fi network.

The University of Florida announced it was also banning TikTok on campus just hours after FSU’s announcement.

This ban is part of a series of TikTok bans sweeping across the nation. Here is why you're likely to see the trend continue.

Why does the U.S. government want to ban TikTok?

Growing privacy concerns over how the Chinese owners of TikTok handle user data, especially regarding whether the app could be infiltrated by the Chinese government to spy on its 150 million American users, is the central focal point around the ban.

Officials in Washington believe that the app could also be used by the Chinese government to spread propaganda to global audiences, and there are concerns about how harmful social media sites could be to younger users in general.

Opinion:TikTok may be fun, but you should consider removing it

Is TikTok getting banned in the U.S.?

TikTok remains freely accessible to Americans for the moment, but the video-sharing platform has been under threat of a ban by the White House dating back to 2020, when former President Donald Trump issued the company an ultimatum: Divest from its Chinese owners or face a nationwide ban.

While Trump’s threat ultimately didn’t pan out, The Wall Street Journal reported in March that the Biden administration had issued a similar demand.

TikTok maintains that protecting national security and its users privacy is an important objective for the company. And during a regular press briefing, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin said, “The U.S. side has so far failed to produce evidence that TikTok threatens U.S. national security.”

Opinion:Congress wants to ban TikTok. They have no idea what that means to the rest of us.

Negotiations between TikTok and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — a U.S. multiagency comprised of Departments of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Defense and Commerce — have stretched on for over two years without a resolution. The stalemate has prompted more aggressive measures from the Biden administration.

In 2022, Congress passed legislation that blocked access to TikTok from U.S. government devices. Several state governments have implemented similar policies.

Whether the U.S. government will (or can) ban TikTok is still up in the air.

What Florida universities have banned TikTok?

On March 29, the State University System of Florida Board of Governors approved emergency regulation that requires universities remove TikTok, TencentQQ, WeChat, Vkontakte, Kaspersky and Fizz from university devices and block them from their Wi-Fi networks.

As of publication, these are the Florida universities that have blocked the apps.

University of West Florida

Florida State University

University of Florida

New College of Florida

Florida Atlantic University

Florida International University

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University

University of South Florida

The remaining universities in the system that have not announced bans are expected to release statements in the coming days.

Is TikTok banned in Florida?

While TikTok is not currently banned in the Sunshine State, DeSantis is pushing lawmakers to approve a “digital bill of rights” that would ban its use on government-issued devices and block access to the platform on internet services provided by public schools, universities and government offices.

Federal ban:Tick-tock, TikTok: As Biden sets deadline for ban of social media app, here's what we know

What countries have banned TikTok?

The following countries have implemented full or partial TikTok bans, according to the Associated Press:

FCC commissioner calls for TikTok ban | CNN Business

Washington CNN Business —

The US government should ban TikTok rather than come to a national security agreement with the social media app that might allow it to continue operating in the United States, according to Brendan Carr, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission.

A string of news reports this year about TikTok’s handling of US user data has left Carr with “little confidence there’s a path forward,” he told CNN in a phone interview Tuesday. “Perhaps the deal CFIUS ends up cutting is an amazing, airtight deal, but at this point I have a very, very difficult time looking at TikTok’s conduct thinking we’re going to cut a technical construct that they’re not going to find a way around.”

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multi-agency government body charged with reviewing business deals involving foreign ownership, has spent months negotiating with TikTok on a proposal to resolve concerns that Chinese government authorities could seek to gain access to the data TikTok holds on US citizens. This year the company said it had migrated its US user data to servers run by Oracle, but concerns have persisted over whether China-based employees of TikTok or its parent, ByteDance, will still be able to access that information. Those bipartisan fears were again raised in September, when under pressure from US lawmakers, TikTok declined to commit to cutting off data flows to China.

“Commissioner Carr has no role in or direct knowledge of the confidential discussions with the US government related to TikTok and is not in a position to discuss what those negotiations entail” a TikTok spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. “We are confident that we are on a path to reaching an agreement with the US government that will satisfy all reasonable national security concerns.”

Carr, who spoke to CNN from Taiwan during a first-ever visit by an FCC official to that country, said he has not met with CFIUS member agencies or the White House to specifically raise the issue, though he added the topic could have arisen incidentally amid other routine discussions.

Carr’s call for a TikTok ban was first reported by Axios, and the remarks expand on his earlier calls for Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their respective app stores.

Carr acknowledged that as an FCC official, his own capacity to regulate TikTok is limited; CFIUS, the Commerce Department or the Federal Trade Commission may have greater legal authority over the company, he said.

Still, Carr said his call for a TikTok ban reflects a “natural progression in my thinking” and is informed by his own agency’s work to limit China’s influence in US telecommunications networks. The FCC has taken numerous steps to block or ban Chinese-affiliated telecom companies from selling equipment or services in the United States, over allegations that those companies could also be compelled to give up the data they hold on US communications to the Chinese government.

“For me, this is taking what I’ve learned in the Huawei, ZTE, China Mobile context, where we’re looking at possibly nefarious data flows, and bringing it to bear in terms of this issue,” Carr said.

Exclusive: Musk's SpaceX says it can no longer pay for critical ...

Washington CNN —

Since they first started arriving in Ukraine last spring, the Starlink satellite internet terminals made by Elon Musk’s SpaceX have been a vital source of communication for Ukraine’s military, allowing it to fight and stay connected even as cellular phone and internet networks have been destroyed in its war with Russia.

So far roughly 20,000 Starlink satellite units have been donated to Ukraine, with Musk tweeting on Friday the “operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year.”

But those charitable contributions could be coming to an end, as SpaceX has warned the Pentagon that it may stop funding the service in Ukraine unless the US military kicks in tens of millions of dollars per month.

Documents obtained by CNN show that last month Musk’s SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon saying it can no longer continue to fund the Starlink service as it has. The letter also requested that the Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine’s government and military use of Starlink, which SpaceX claims would cost more than $120 million for the rest of the year and could cost close to $400 million for the next 12 months.

“We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales wrote to the Pentagon in the September letter.

Among the SpaceX documents sent to the Pentagon and seen by CNN is a previously unreported direct request made to Musk in July by the Ukrainian military’s commanding general, General Valerii Zaluzhniy, for almost 8,000 more Starlink terminals.

In a separate cover letter to the Pentagon, an outside consultant working for SpaceX wrote, “SpaceX faces terribly difficult decisions here. I do not think they have the financial ability to provide any additional terminals or service as requested by General Zaluzhniy.”

The documents, which have not been previously reported, provide a rare breakdown of SpaceX’s own internal numbers on Starlink, detailing the costs and payments associated with the thousands of terminals in Ukraine. They also shed new light on behind-the-scenes negotiations that have provided millions of dollars in communications hardware and services to Ukraine at little cost to Kyiv.

The Pentagon confirmed they received correspondence from SpaceX about the funding of the Starlink satellite communications product in Ukraine, a statement from Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said Friday.

Earlier in the day, Singh confirmed the Pentagon had been in communication with SpaceX but did not say whether it was over the funding of the Starlink satellite communication product.

Musk on Friday said that in asking the Pentagon to pick up the bill for Starlink in Ukraine, he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who responded to Musk’s Ukraine peace plan earlier this month, before the letter was sent to the Pentagon, with: “F*** off.”

Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, responded earlier this month to Musk’s claimed peace plan for Russia’s Ukraine war by saying: “F*** off is my very diplomatic reply to you @elonmusk.”

“We’re just following his recommendation,” Musk said on Friday, responding to a tweet that referenced CNN’s reporting and Melnyk’s comments, even though the letter SpaceX sent to the Pentagon was sent before the Twitter exchange.

Reports of outages

The letters come amid recent reports of wide-ranging Starlink outages as Ukrainian troops attempt to retake ground occupied by Russia in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

Sources familiar with the outages said they suddenly affected the entire frontline as it stood on September 30. “That has affected every effort of the Ukrainians to push past that front,” said one person familiar with the outages who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. “Starlink is the main way units on the battlefield have to communicate.”

This photograph taken on September 25 shows an antenna of the Starlink satellite-based broadband system donated by US tech billionaire Elon Musk in Izyum, Kharkiv region, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images

There was no warning to Ukrainian forces, a second person said, adding that now when Ukraine liberates an area a request has to be made for Starlink services to be turned on.

The Financial Times first reported the outages which resulted in a “catastrophic” loss of communication, a senior Ukrainian official said. In a tweet responding to the article, Musk didn’t dispute the outage, saying that what is happening on the battlefield is classified.

SpaceX’s suggestion it will stop funding Starlink also comes amid rising concern in Ukraine over Musk’s allegiance. Musk recently tweeted a controversial peace plan that would have Ukraine give up Crimea and control over the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky raised the question of who Musk sides with, he responded that he “still very much support[s] Ukraine” but fears “massive escalation.”

Musk also argued privately last month that Ukraine doesn’t want peace negotiations right now and that if they went along with his plan, “Russia would accept those terms,” according to a person who heard them.

“Ukraine knows that its current government and wartime efforts are totally dependent on Starlink,” the person familiar with the discussions said. “The decision to keep Starlink running or not rests entirely in the hands of one man. That’s Elon Musk. He hasn’t been elected, no one decided to give him that power. He has it because of the technology and the company he built.”

On Tuesday Musk denied a report he has spoken to Putin directly about Ukraine. On Thursday, when a Ukrainian minister tweeted that Starlink is essential to Ukraine’s infrastructure, Musk replied: “You’re most welcome. Glad to support Ukraine.”

“The gall to look like heroes”

More than seven months into the war, it’s hard to overstate the impact Starlink has had in Ukraine. The government in Kyiv, Ukrainian troops as well and NGOs and civilians have relied on the nimble, compact and easy-to-use units created by SpaceX. It’s not only used for voice and electronic communication but to help fly drones and send back video to correct artillery fire.

CNN has seen it used at numerous Ukrainian bases.

Elon Musk pauses and looks down as he speaks during a press conference at SpaceX's Starbase facility near Boca Chica Village in South Texas on February 10, 2022. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

“Starlink has been absolutely essential because the Russians have targeted the Ukrainian communications infrastructure,” said Dimitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the Silverado Policy Accelerator, a think tank. “Without that they’d be really operating in the blind in many cases.”

Though Musk has received widespread acclaim and thanks for responding to requests for Starlink service to Ukraine right as the war was starting, in reality, the vast majority of the 20,000 terminals have received full or partial funding from outside sources, including the US government, the UK and Poland, according to the SpaceX letter to the Pentagon.

SpaceX’s request that the US military foot the bill has rankled top brass at the Pentagon, with one senior defense official telling CNN that SpaceX has “the gall to look like heroes” while having others pay so much and now presenting them with a bill for tens of millions per month.

According to the SpaceX figures shared with the Pentagon, about 85% of the 20,000 terminals in Ukraine were paid – or partially paid – for by countries like the US and Poland or other entities. Those entities also paid for about 30% of the internet connectivity, which SpaceX says costs $4,500 each month per unit for the most advanced service. (Over the weekend, Musk tweeted there are around 25,000 terminals in Ukraine.)

In his July letter to Musk, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Gen. Zaluzhniy, praised the Starlink units’ “exceptional utility” and said some 4,000 terminals had been deployed by the military. However, around 500 terminals per month are destroyed in the fighting, Zaluzhniy said, before asking for 6,200 more terminals for the Ukrainian military and intelligence services and 500 per month going forward to offset the losses.

SpaceX said they responded by asking Zaluzhniy to instead take up his request to the Department of Defense.

On September 8, the senior director of government sales for SpaceX wrote the Pentagon saying the costs have gotten too high, approaching $100 million. The official asked the Department of Defense to pick up Ukraine’s new request as well as ongoing service costs, totaling $124 million for the remainder of 2022.

Those costs, according to the senior defense official, would reach almost $380 million for a full year.

SpaceX declined repeated requests for comment on both the outages and their recent request to the Pentagon. A lawyer for Musk did not reply to a request for comment. Defense Department spokesman Bob Ditchey told CNN, “The Department continues to work with industry to explore solutions for Ukraine’s armed forces as they repel Russia’s brutal and unprovoked aggression. We do not have anything else to add at this time.”

Breaking down the costs

Early US support for Starlink came via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) which according to the Washington Post spent roughly $3 million on hardware and services in Ukraine. The largest single contributor of terminals, according to the newly obtained documents, is Poland with payment for almost 9,000 individual terminals.

US Pentagon in Washington DC building looking down aerial view from above Ivan Cholakov/iStockphoto/Getty Images

The US has provided almost 1,700 terminals. Other contributors include the UK, NGOs and crowdfunding.

The far more expensive part, however, is the ongoing connectivity. SpaceX says it has paid for about 70% of the service provided to Ukraine and claims to have offered that highest level – $4,500 a month – to all terminals in Ukraine despite the majority only having signed on for the cheaper $500 per month service.

The terminals themselves cost $1500 and $2500 for the two models sent to Ukraine, the documents say, while consumer models on Starlink’s website are far cheaper and service in Ukraine is just $60 per month.

That’s just 1.3% of the service rate SpaceX says it needs the Pentagon to start paying.

“You could say he’s trying to get money from the government or just trying to say ‘I don’t want to be part of this anymore,’” said the person familiar with Ukraine’s requests for Starlink. Given the recent outages and Musk’s reputation for being unpredictable, “Feelings are running really high on the Ukrainian side,” this person said.

Musk is the biggest shareholder of the privately-held SpaceX. In May, SpaceX disclosed that its valuation had risen to $127 billion and it has raised $2 billion this year, CNBC reported.

Last week, Musk faced a barrage of criticism on Twitter – including from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – after presenting in a series of tweets his peace plan to end the war. It would include giving Crimea to Russia and re-do referenda, supervised by the United Nations this time, in the four regions Russia recently illegally annexed.

It echoed comments he’d made last month at an exclusive closed-door conference in Aspen, Colorado called “The Weekend,” at which Musk told a room full of attendees that Ukraine should seek peace now because they’ve had recent victories.

“This is the time to do it. They don’t want to do it, that’s for sure. But this is the time to do it,” he said, according to a person in the room. “Everyone wants to seek peace when they’re losing but they don’t want to seek peace when they’re winning. For now.”

Queen Elizabeth funeral plans: Operation Unicorn and beyond

Unlike most American presidents, British monarchs die in office, meaning there is plenty of time to plan a suitably grand funeral far in advance of the mournful day.

And in the case of the late Queen Elizabeth II, who died Thursday at age 96 after 70 years on the throne, those plans in fact have been in place since the 1960s.

The funeral plan for the late sovereign is a characteristically Windsor blend of ancient tradition and modern practicalities, featuring tolling bells and half-mast flags with a ban on retweets and social media accounts gone dark.

Operation London Bridge, as the queen's funeral plan is known, gets a military-style name in part because the military is heavily involved in organizing and carrying out many of the processions and ceremonies.

Queen Elizabeth II dies 'peacefully':William, Harry traveled to be by her side

The world reacts:King Charles expresses 'greatest sadness' over mother Queen Elizabeth II's death

But another set of plans kicks into gear because the queen died at her beloved estate in Balmoral, Scotland. Dubbed Operation Unicorn, those plans, reports say, include having the queen's body remain in Scotland for a number of days before eventually being transported, likely by plane, to London.

The death of the monarch is simultaneously the birth of a new reign; as one set of Britain's ceremonial maestros prepares for the funeral of the queen, another set is working on Operation Spring Tide, the separate plan for the rituals accompanying the accession of her son, now known as King Charles III.

When the queen's husband, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, died in April 2021, his funeral plan was called Operation Forth Bridge after a bridge in Edinburgh, Scotland, and he was deeply involved in laying out details of what he did and didn't want for his send-off.

Her previous health concerns:Injured Queen Elizabeth II didn't attend Remembrance Sunday, her scheduled return to public

The monarch's funeral plans are supposed to be top secret, but inevitably details get leaked because multiple palace officials and government departments are responsible for drafting sections or circulating them in advance.

It's been so long since the death of the last monarch (the queen's father, King George VI, died in 1952), relatively few people alive today have experienced a sovereign's funeral. That makes the elaborate ritual big news for a ceremony-obsessed nation, not to mention the rest of the world.

Details of Operation London Bridge first leaked in The Guardian in May 2017, describing what would happen during the 10-day period from the day after the death and the funeral at Westminster Abbey followed by interment in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.

In September 2021, another leak splashed into headlines, apparently after the plan was updated to account for the coronavirus pandemic, social media and other changes, this time it was in Politico.

"The documents show the extraordinary level of action required by all arms of the British state, including a vast security operation to manage unprecedented crowds and travel chaos that could see, in the words of one official memo, London becomes 'full' for the first time ever," Politico reported.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment or confirm to USA TODAY any reports on the queen's funeral plan. Based on the Guardian and Politico reports, here are some of the things to expect:

What's next?:What happens to the other royals under King Charles III and his new slimmed-down monarchy?

'London Bridge is down': What happens when the queen dies

The moment the queen died, her eldest son and heir, the Prince of Wales, instantly became Britain's 42nd monarch, a tradition dating back to William the Conqueror in 1066. If he and his three siblings all were in fact at the bedside of their mother when she died, they would have acknowledged his new position by kissing his hand.

The late monarch's private secretary would then have called the prime minister on a secure line to say the code phrase, "London Bridge is down," followed by a number of similar calls to cabinet officials and other high-ranking officials in the United Kingdom and in the 15 Commonwealth countries where the British sovereign is head of state.

Emails will follow to lower-ranking civil servants, urging "discretion" until the PM officially announces the death.

The royal household notify the Press Association, which flash the news to the world's media (if they don't already know it from leaks). At the same time, a footman in mourning dress emerges from Buckingham Palace and post a black-edged death notice near the gates.

Within 10 minutes of the death, all the flags across Whitehall are supposed to be lowered to half-mast. The bells at St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey toll for hours. The military will arrange gun salutes across London, including a 41-gun fusillade from Hyde Park.

Royal websites and social media will change to a black page with a short statement confirming the queen’s death. All government websites and social media pages will show a black banner. Non-urgent content will not be published and retweets by government officials will be banned without prior approval by the government communications chief.

At some point after the death, the prime minister will meet with Charles, who is expected to deliver a broadcast to the nation, his first as king.

What to know:Who succeeds Queen Elizabeth II, more questions answered after her death

Proclamation confirms Charles as king on Day One

The Accession Council will meet at St. James’s Palace to proclaim the new sovereign, attended by scores of high-ranking officials and privy councilors, "lords spiritual and temporal," including the prime minister, many in morning dress.

Although Charles is already king at that point, the proclamation read (by an official in an antique costume) from the Friary Court balcony at St. James’s Palace and at the Royal Exchange in the City of London confirms him as the new monarch.

It also signals the religious significance of the British monarch: Charles' first official duty of his reign will be to swear three oaths: to protect the Church of Scotland; the Accession Oath, to be a true and faithful Protestant; and the coronation oath, promising to uphold the rights and privileges of the Church of England as its symbolic head.

Trumpeters from the Life Guards, wearing red plumes on their helmets, will step onto the balcony to give three blasts, followed by the Garter King of Arms who will begin the ritual proclamations of the king. Costumed heralds will then fan out around the city and the nation, blasting their trumpets and declaiming proclamations.

Subsequent days: Queen's coffin transfer

After the queen rests in state among family and friends in Scotland, the queen's coffin will be transferred from the place of death to the throne room at Buckingham Palace overlooking the northwest corner of the Quadrangle interior courtyard. The plan calls for an altar, the pall (a large cloth draping the coffin), the royal standard and four Grenadier Guards, their bearskin hats inclined, their rifles pointing to the floor, standing watch.

Charles' tour of the kingdom, procession

The new king will receive Parliament's motion of condolence at Westminster Hall, then depart on a tour of the kingdom to meet his people.

He is expected to visit Edinburgh in Scotland, Belfast in Northern Ireland and Cardiff in Wales, to attend services of remembrance for the queen and to meet the leaders of the kingdom's devolved governments.

Meanwhile, rehearsals will take place for the procession of the coffin from Buckingham Palace to the Palace of Westminster, the sprawling complex also known as the Houses of Parliament.

The actual procession will take place along a ceremonial route in the first major military parade of the funeral: Down the Mall, through Horse Guards and past the Cenotaph, at a slow march, expected to take just under 30 minutes. The route is thought to hold around a million people, based on what was learned during the London 2012 Olympics.

The procession will be followed by a service in Westminster Hall, the magnificent building that is the oldest part of the Parliamentary complex (more than 900 years old) and is today used for state occasions.

'I remain committed to serving you':Queen Elizabeth II's most memorable, poignant quotes

Queen lies in state in London for a number of days

The queen will lie in state on a purple-draped catafalque in Westminster Hall. The coffin will have a false lid with a high rim to hold the Crown Jewels, the orb, the scepter and the Imperial Crown, in place. Soldiers will stand guard while the public shuffles past, 23 hours a day; up to a half-million people are expected. (VIPs may go to the head of the line.)

In 1936, the four sons of George V (the queen's grandfather) revived what's known as the Prince’s Vigil, in which members of the royal family arrive unannounced and stand watch. The queen’s children and grandchildren, including women for the first time, are expected to do the same.

Meanwhile, rehearsals will take place for the state funeral procession, while government departments work to deal with potential problems of security threats, overcrowding in the transportation network and crowd control.

The queen's funeral at Westminster Abbey

The state funeral will be at Westminster Abbey, where British kings and queens traditionally were married, mourned and buried. The queen will be the first British monarch to have her funeral in the abbey since George II in 1760 (he was also buried there).

Inside the abbey, 2,000 guests will be assembled when the coffin arrives. Outside, Big Ben's muffled bell will toll. The day will be declared a Day of National Mourning and two minutes of silence will be marked across the nation.

When the coffin emerges from the abbey, the pallbearers will place it on the green gun carriage that was used for the funerals of the queen’s father, grandfather and great-grandfather, all kings. From Hyde Park Corner, the hearse will go about 25 miles to Windsor Castle.

There will be a committal service in St. George’s Chapel, followed by burial in the royal vault's King George VI Memorial Chapel, where the queen will join her parents and sister, and be reunited with her beloved late husband.

CNN Exclusive: FBI investigation determined Chinese-made ...

Washington CNN —

On paper, it looked like a fantastic deal. In 2017, the Chinese government was offering to spend $100 million to build an ornate Chinese garden at the National Arboretum in Washington DC. Complete with temples, pavilions and a 70-foot white pagoda, the project thrilled local officials, who hoped it would attract thousands of tourists every year.

But when US counterintelligence officials began digging into the details, they found numerous red flags. The pagoda, they noted, would have been strategically placed on one of the highest points in Washington DC, just two miles from the US Capitol, a perfect spot for signals intelligence collection, multiple sources familiar with the episode told CNN.

Also alarming was that Chinese officials wanted to build the pagoda with materials shipped to the US in diplomatic pouches, which US Customs officials are barred from examining, the sources said.

Federal officials quietly killed the project before construction was underway. The Wall Street Journal first reported about the security concerns in 2018.

The canceled garden is part of a frenzy of counterintelligence activity by the FBI and other federal agencies focused on what career US security officials say has been a dramatic escalation of Chinese espionage on US soil over the past decade.

Since at least 2017, federal officials have investigated Chinese land purchases near critical infrastructure, shut down a high-profile regional consulate believed by the US government to be a hotbed of Chinese spies and stonewalled what they saw as clear efforts to plant listening devices near sensitive military and government facilities.

Among the most alarming things the FBI uncovered pertains to Chinese-made Huawei equipment atop cell towers near US military bases in the rural Midwest. According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, the FBI determined the equipment was capable of capturing and disrupting highly restricted Defense Department communications, including those used by US Strategic Command, which oversees the country’s nuclear weapons.

While broad concerns about Huawei equipment near US military installations have been well known, the existence of this investigation and its findings have never been reported. Its origins stretch back to at least the Obama administration. It was described to CNN by more than a dozen sources, including current and former national security officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

F.E. Warren Air Force Base, a strategic missile base, is located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, an area near a host of cell towers using Huawei equipment. From F.E. Warren Air Force Base/Facebook

It’s unclear if the intelligence community determined whether any data was actually intercepted and sent back to Beijing from these towers. Sources familiar with the issue say that from a technical standpoint, it’s incredibly difficult to prove a given package of data was stolen and sent overseas.

The Chinese government strongly denies any efforts to spy on the US. Huawei in a statement to CNN also denied that its equipment is capable of operating in any communications spectrum allocated to the Defense Department.

But multiple sources familiar with the investigation tell CNN that there’s no question the Huawei equipment has the ability to intercept not only commercial cell traffic but also the highly restricted airwaves used by the military and disrupt critical US Strategic Command communications, giving the Chinese government a potential window into America’s nuclear arsenal.

“This gets into some of the most sensitive things we do,” said one former FBI official with knowledge of the investigation. “It would impact our ability for essentially command and control with the nuclear triad. “That goes into the ‘BFD’ category.”

“If it is possible for that to be disrupted, then that is a very bad day,” this person added.

Turning doves into hawks

Former officials described the probe’s findings as a watershed moment. The investigation was so secret that some senior policymakers in the White House and elsewhere in government weren’t briefed on its existence until 2019, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

That fall, the Federal Communications Commission initiated a rule that effectively banned small telecoms from using Huawei and a few other brands of Chinese made-equipment. “The existence of the investigation at the highest levels turned some doves into hawks,” said one former US official.

In 2020, Congress approved $1.9 billion to remove Chinese-made Huawei and ZTE cellular technology across wide swaths of rural America.

But two years later, none of that equipment has been removed and rural telecom companies are still waiting for federal reimbursement money. The FCC received applications to remove some 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made communications equipment—but according to a July 15 update from the commission, it is more than $3 billion short of the money it needs to reimburse all eligible companies.

Absent more money from Congress, the FCC says it plans to begin reimbursing approved companies for about 40 percent of the costs of removing Huawei equipment. The FCC did not specify a timeframe on when the money will be disbursed.

In late 2020, the Justice Department referred its national security concerns about Huawei equipment to the Commerce Department, and provided information on where the equipment was in place in the US, a former senior US law enforcement official told CNN.

After the Biden administration took office in 2021, the Commerce Department then opened its own probe into Huawei to determine if more urgent action was needed to expunge the Chinese technology provider from US telecom networks, the former law enforcement official and a current senior US official said.

That probe has proceeded slowly and is ongoing, the current US official said. Among the concerns that national security officials noted was that external communication from the Huawei equipment that occurs when software is updated, for example, could be exploited by the Chinese government.

Depending on what the Commerce Department finds, US telecom carriers could be forced to quickly remove Huawei equipment or face fines or other penalties.

Reuters first reported the existence of the Commerce Department probe.

“We cannot confirm or deny ongoing investigations, but we are committed to securing our information and communications technology and services supply chain. Protecting US persons safety and security against malign information collection is vital to protecting our economy and national security,” a Commerce Department spokesperson said.

Inside Huawei's connection to rural America 02:55 - Source: CNN

US counterintelligence officials have recently made a priority of publicizing threats from China. This month, the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center issued a warning to American businesses and local and state governments about what it says are disguised efforts by China to manipulate them to influence US policy.

FBI Director Christopher Wray just traveled to London for a joint meeting with top British law enforcement officials to call attention to the Chinese threats.

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Wray said the FBI opens a new China counterintelligence investigation every 12 hours. “That’s probably about 2,000 or so investigations,” said Wray. “And that’s not even talking about their cyber theft, where they have a bigger hacking program than that of every other major nation combined, and have stolen more of Americans’ personal and corporate data than every nation combined.”

Asked why after years of national security concerns raised over Huawei, the equipment is still largely in place atop cell towers near US military bases, Wray said that, “We’re concerned about allowing any company that is beholden to a nation state that doesn’t adhere to and share our values, giving that company the ability to burrow into our telecommunications infrastructure.”

He noted that in 2020, the DOJ indicted Huawei with racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to steal trade secrets.

“And I think that’s probably about all I can say on the topic,” said Wray.

Critics see xenophobic overreach

Despite its tough talk, the US government’s refusal to provide evidence to back up its claims that Huawei tech poses a risk to US national security has led some critics to accuse it of xenophobic overreach. The lack of a smoking gun also raises questions of whether US officials can separate legitimate Chinese investment from espionage.

“All of our products imported to the US have been tested and certified by the FCC before being deployed there,” Huawei said in its statement to CNN. “Our equipment only operates on the spectrum allocated by the FCC for commercial use. This means it cannot access any spectrum allocated to the DOD.”

“For more than 30 years, Huawei has maintained a proven track record in cyber security and we have never been involved in any malicious cyber security incidents,” the statement said.

In its zeal to sniff out evidence of Chinese spying, critics argue the feds have cast too wide a net — in particular as it relates to academic institutions. In one recent high-profile case, a federal judge acquitted a former University of Tennessee engineering professor whom the Justice Department had prosecuted under its so-called China Initiative that targets Chinese spying, arguing “there was no evidence presented that [the professor] ever collaborated with a Chinese university in conducting NASA-funded research.”

And on Jan. 20, the Justice Department dropped a separate case against an MIT professor accused of hiding his ties to China, saying it could no longer prove its case. In February, the Biden administration shut down the China Initiative entirely.

The federal government’s reticence across multiple administrations to detail what it knows has led some critics to accuse the government of chasing ghosts.

“It really comes down to: do you treat China as a neutral actor — because if you treat China as a neutral actor, then yeah, this seems crazy, that there’s some plot behind every tree,” said Anna Puglisi, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “However, China has shown us through its policies and actions it is not a neutral actor.”

Chinese tech in the American heartland

As early as the Obama administration, FBI agents were monitoring a disturbing pattern along stretches of Interstate 25 in Colorado and Montana, and on arteries into Nebraska. The heavily trafficked corridor connects some of the most secretive military installations in the US, including an archipelago of nuclear missile silos.

For years, small, rural telecom providers had been installing cheaper, Chinese-made routers and other technology atop cell towers up and down I-25 and elsewhere in the region. Across much of these sparsely populated swaths of the west, these smaller carriers are the only option for cell coverage. And many of them turned to Huawei for cheaper, reliable equipment.

Beginning in late 2011, Viaero, the largest regional provider in the area, inked a contract with Huawei to provide the equipment for its upgrade to 3G. A decade later, it has Huawei tech installed across its entire fleet of towers, roughly 1,000 spread over five western states.

As Huawei equipment began to proliferate near US military bases, federal investigators started taking notice, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Of particular concern was that Huawei was routinely selling cheap equipment to rural providers in cases that appeared to be unprofitable for Huawei — but which placed its equipment near military assets.

Federal investigators initially began “examining [Huawei] less from a technical lens and more from a business/financial view,” explained John Lenkart, a former senior FBI agent focused on counterintelligence issues related to China. Officials studied where Huawei sales efforts were most concentrated and looked for deals that “made no sense from a return-on-investment perspective,” Lenkart said.

“A lot of [counterintelligence] concerns were uncovered based on” those searches, Lenkart said.

By examining the Huawei equipment themselves, FBI investigators determined it could recognize and disrupt DOD-spectrum communications — even though it had been certified by the FCC, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

“It’s not technically hard to make a device that complies with the FCC that listens to nonpublic bands but then is quietly waiting for some activation trigger to listen to other bands,” said Eduardo Rojas, who leads the radio spectrum lab at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida. “Technically, it’s feasible.”

To prove a device had clandestine capabilities, Rojas said, would require technical experts to strip down a device “to the semi-conductor level” and “reverse engineer the design.” But, he said, it can be done.

And there was another big concern along I-25, sources familiar with the investigation said.

Weather camera worries

Around 2014, Viaero started mounting high-definition surveillance cameras on its towers to live-stream weather and traffic, a public service it shared with local news organizations. With dozens of cameras posted up and down I-25, the cameras provided a 24-7 bird’s eye view of traffic and incoming weather, even providing advance warning of tornadoes.

But they were also inadvertently capturing the movement of US military equipment and personnel, giving Beijing — or anyone for that matter — the ability to track the pattern of activity between a series of closely guarded military facilities.

The intelligence community determined the publicly posted live-streams were being viewed and likely captured from China, according to three sources familiar with the matter. Two sources briefed on the investigation at the time said officials believed that it was possible for Beijing’s intelligence service to “task” the cameras — hack into the network and control where they pointed. At least some of the cameras in question were running on Huawei networks.

Viaero CEO Frank DiRico said it never occurred to him the cameras could be a national security risk.

“There’s a lot of missile silos in areas we cover. There is some military presence,” DiRico said in an interview from his Colorado office. But, he said, “I was never told to remove the equipment or to make any changes.”

In fact, DiRico first learned of government concerns about Huawei equipment from newspaper articles — not the FBI — and says he has never been briefed on the matter.

DiRico doesn’t question the government’s insistence that he needs to remove Huawei equipment, but he is skeptical that China’s intelligence services can exploit either the Huawei hardware itself or the camera equipment.

“We monitor our network pretty good,” DiRico said, adding that Viaero took over the support and maintenance for its own networks from Huawei shortly after installation. “We feel we’ve got a pretty good idea if there’s anything going on that’s inappropriate.”

Scouring the country for Chinese investments

By the time the I-25 investigation was briefed to the White House in 2019, counterintelligence officials begin looking for other places Chinese companies might be buying land or offering to develop a piece of municipal property, like a park or an old factory, sometimes as part of a “sister city” arrangement.

In one instance, officials shut down what they believed was a risky commercial deal near highly sensitive military testing installations in Utah sometime after the beginning of the I-25 investigation, according to one former US official. The military has a test and training range for hypersonic weapons in Utah, among other things. Sources declined to provide more details.

Federal officials were also alarmed by what sources described as a host of espionage and influence activities in Houston and, in 2020, shut down the Chinese consulate there.

US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Richard P. Donoghue announcing indictments against China's Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, several of its subsidiaries and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou on January 28, 2019. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

Bill Evanina, who until early last year ran the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, told CNN that it can sometimes be hard to differentiate between a legitimate business opportunity and espionage — in part because both might be happening at the same time.

“What we’ve seen is legitimate companies that are three times removed from Beijing buy [a given] facility for obvious logical reasons, unaware of what the [Chinese] intelligence apparatus wants in that parcel [of land],” Evanina said. “What we’ve seen recently — it’s been what’s underneath the land.”

“The hard part is, that’s legitimate business, and what city or town is not going to want to take that money for that land when it’s just sitting there doing nothing?” he added.

A complicated problem

After the results of the I-25 investigation were briefed to the Trump White House in 2019, the FCC ordered that telecom companies who receive federal subsidies to provide cell service to remote areas — companies like Viaero — must “rip and replace” their Huawei and ZTE equipment.

The FCC has since said that the cost could be more than double the $1.9 billion appropriated in 2020 and absent an additional appropriation from Congress, the agency is only planning to reimburse companies for a fraction of their costs.

Given the staggering strategic risk, Lenkart said, “rip and replace is a very blunt and inefficient remediation.”

DiRico, the CEO of Viaero, said the cost of “rip and replace” is astronomical and that he doesn’t expect the reimbursement money to be enough to pay for the change. According to the FCC, Viaero is expected to receive less than half of the funding it is actually due. Still, he expects to start removing the equipment within the next year.

“It’s difficult and it’s a lot of money,” DiRico said.

Some former counterintelligence officials expressed frustration that the US government isn’t providing more granular detail about what it knows to companies — or to cities and states considering a Chinese investment proposal. They believe that not only would that kind of detail help private industry and state and local governments understand the seriousness of the threat as they see it, but also help combat the criticism that the US government is targeting Chinese companies and people, rather than Chinese state-run espionage.

“This government has to do a better job of letting everyone know this is a Communist Party issue, it’s not a Chinese people issue,” Evanina said. “And I’ll be the first to say that the government has to do better with respect to understanding the Communist Party’s intentions are not the same intentions of the Chinese people.”

A current FBI official said the bureau is giving more defensive briefings to US businesses, academic institutions and state and local governments that include far more detail than in the past, but officials are still fighting an uphill battle.

“Sometimes I feel like we’re a lifeguard going out to a drowning person, and they don’t want our help,” said the current FBI official. But, this person said, “I think sometimes we [the FBI] say ‘China threat,’ and we take for granted what all that means in our head. And it means something else to the people that we’re delivering it to.”

“I think we just need to be more careful about how we speak about it and educate folks on why we’re doing what we’re doing.”

In the meantime, the “rip and replace” program has remained fiercely controversial.

“It’s not going to be easy,” DiRico said. “I’m going to be up nights worrying about it, but we’ll do what we’re told to do.”

This story has been updated to reference Wall Street Journal reporting.

Google and Russia's delicate dance | CNN Business

San Francisco CNN Business —

Russia has spent months either driving out American tech firms or watching them leave of their own accord over its war in Ukraine. But the country now finds itself stuck in a stalemate with one big tech company: Google.

Many of Google’s services, including search, maps, Gmail and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube, continue to be available in Russia at a time when Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are not. The situation illustrates the difficult position both sides now find themselves in and the tenuous current state of Russia’s internet ecosystem. Russia has attempted to wall off its internet from the world but appears to recognize the potential backlash from citizens for banning the most popular services. For its part, Google has spoken out against Russia’s actions but also has strategic and moral incentives to remain.

The Russian government continues to try to squeeze the Silicon Valley company, opening a new case against Google last Friday for its alleged failure to store data of Russian users inside the country. (Google did not respond to a request for comment on Russia’s move.) Weeks earlier, Google’s Russia subsidiary filed for bankruptcy and paused most of its commercial operations after the government seized control of its bank accounts in the country.

“The Russian authorities’ seizure of Google Russia’s bank account has made it untenable for our Russia office to function, including employing and paying Russia-based employees, paying suppliers and vendors, and meeting other financial obligations,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement to CNN Business.

However, Google has stopped short of pulling out of Russia altogether and Russia has stopped short of forcing it to do so.

“People in Russia rely on our services to access quality information and we’ll continue to keep free services such as Search, YouTube, Gmail, Maps, Android and Play available,” the spokesperson added. (Google has taken some steps to pull back its services in Russia, banning Russian state media channels and preventing them from selling ads while also cracking down on misinformation around the war in Ukraine.)

Meanwhile, Russia’s minister of digital development, Maksut Shadayev, ruled out a total ban on YouTube — one of Russia’s most popular online services. “We are not planning to block YouTube,” Shadayev was quoted as saying by Russian news agency Interfax. “Whenever we block anything, we should clearly understand that no harm will be done to our users,” he added.

‘Last man standing’

For Google, there is a clear strategic value to keeping its services active in a country with more than 100 million internet users — and a market in which it already has a strong position.

“Various Google services have obtained a significant market share in Russia, which the company may wish to maintain in the hope of an end to the war and lifting of sanctions,” said Mariëlle Wijermars, an assistant professor of cybersecurity and politics at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, whose work focuses on Russian internet policy. “Given Russia’s push towards establishing digital sovereignty, it may be difficult to re-enter the market.”

But some internet governance experts argue Google’s choice to keep services running in the country may have more of a moral imperative than a business one.

“I think the moral side is a bigger deal,” said Daphne Keller, director of the program on platform regulation at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center. “Keeping information flowing to dissidents in Russia, or people who want information from a source other than state media, is incredibly important.”

Google did not respond to questions about its motives for keeping its services active in Russia, but YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki last week laid out the role the video platform sees itself playing in the country.

“The reason we are still serving in Russia and we believe that that is important is that we’re able to deliver independent news into Russia,” Wojcicki told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “And so the average citizen in Russia can access for free the same information that you can access here from Davos, which we believe is really important to be able to help citizens know what’s going on and have perspectives from the outside world.”

YouTube is used by roughly three quarters of Russia’s online population, or more than 77 million people, according to estimates from Insider Intelligence. Despite continued warnings from the Russian government to take down content, YouTube remains one of the few digital links between Russia and the outside world, especially since other global platforms were blocked.

“YouTube in particular is kind of the last man standing, if you will,” Alina Polyakova, president and CEO of the Washington DC-based Center for European Policy Analysis, told CNN Business. “Google finds itself the last company standing in this broader battle between an authoritarian government and a Western technology company that provides one of the last remaining spaces for free expression in Russia.” (Google is one of several companies that CEPA receives “a small part” of its funding from in the form of donations, according to Polyakova.)

Why Russia blinked with Google

Russia has used the war in Ukraine to step up its effort to wall off its internet from the rest of the world, building what some have described as a digital Iron Curtain. But its decision not to ban Google’s various services shows the limitations of Russia’s more restricted, homegrown internet.

Not only is YouTube popular in the country, but Russian authorities have long used the platform to spread their own messaging, with state media channels such as RT and Sputnik reaching millions of subscribers before they were taken down.

“Russia actively uses YouTube to disseminate propaganda,” Wijermars said. “For reaching younger generations who watch less traditional television, online dissemination of both TV shows and more tailored online formats has been important in order to expand the reach of its narratives.”

Unlike the homegrown social network VK and search engine Yandex, no comparable local alternatives to YouTube exist in Russia (government-backed RuTube has failed to achieve the same level of popularity).

“They don’t have a real domestic alternative, and I do think they fear a backlash because so many Russians use it,” Polyakova said. “And frankly that gives YouTube a lot of leverage.”

YouTube is not the only popular western tech platform Russia has left alone. WhatsApp, the mobile messenger owned by Facebook’s parent company Meta, is still operational, with the Russian government saying it is exempt because it is a private messaging service rather than a public social network. But while Russia’s leniency towards YouTube has thus far extended to Google as a whole, Meta’s other platforms Facebook and Instagram were among the first to be blocked.

YouTube is also just one of a number of Google services that Russians rely on.

“It is unclear what would happen, for example, to its Android operating system, which is widely used in Russia, if Russia forces YouTube out,” said Wijermars. “The long list of technology firms that have announced they will leave the Russian market, together with the impact of sanctions, makes Russia’s digital economy very vulnerable to such disruptions.”

For the moment, it appears that Russia and Google are both willing to drag their feet and dare the other side to cut the cord.

“I think certainly the Russian government is playing a very delicate game here,” said Polyakova. “There’s obviously a line that they don’t want to cross and force this company out completely.”

Social media platforms tread carefully when it comes to the Russian ...

CNN Business —

As its troops have gotten bogged down in Ukraine, the Russian government has been fueling a conspiracy theory on social media about the purpose of US-funded biolabs in Ukraine.

In posts spread across Facebook, Twitter and YouTube viewed by CNN this week, Russia’s foreign and defense ministries have repeated claims that Ukraine had been researching biological weapons — an assertion that’s previously been rejected as false by the United States, its allies and a top United Nations disarmament official.

In fact, the US-supported labs are part of a program to develop vaccines and perform peaceful research, the United States has said, while White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has described the Russian claim as “propaganda” and a potential pretext for Russia to deploy chemical or biological weapons itself in Ukraine.

The issue marks yet another front in the sprawling information war over Ukraine. And it highlights the challenge for social media platforms posed by Russian government accounts that critics say are freely allowed to spew disinformation to millions of users, even as those same platforms have moved to restrict Russian state media content over similar concerns.

Rather than announce blanket restrictions on Russian government accounts, as they’ve done with Russian state media, tech platforms have instead taken a more surgical approach by removing individual posts by government accounts that violate platform rules.

However, as the information war continues, and as US officials increasingly blast the Russian government for spreading false claims, tech platforms may come under more pressure to crack down on accounts linked to the Kremlin, disinformation experts say.

“We’re in a serious crisis situation right now, and we’re in an information warfare situation where maybe suspending these accounts, if not banning them for all eternity, would make a lot of sense,” said Alina Polyakova, president of the Center for European Policy Analysis, a think-tank that receives support from some tech giants including Google and Microsoft. “For now [the platforms] have stuck to a more free-speech approach rather than a blocking approach, which I also understand, but again, we’re in a very different situation when it comes to what’s happening in Ukraine right now.”

California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell put it more bluntly in a tweet last week: “RT NOW if @twitter should BAN the baby-killing country of Russia from its platform.”

Earlier this week, Facebook removed a post by Russia’s embassy in the UK for disputing reported facts about the bombing of a hospital in Mariupol. The post violated Facebook’s policy against denying violent events, said Drew Pusateri, a spokesperson for Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.

Similar posts by Russian embassy officials were also removed from Twitter for violating that platform’s policy against denying violent events, company spokesperson Katie Rosborough told CNN.

The affected Russian accounts remain active on both websites, along with the Russian foreign ministry and ministry of defense. On Twitter, an account run by the office of Russian President Vladimir Putin still shares Kremlin promotional photos and links to press releases. And on YouTube, a Russian government channel broadcasts speeches by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

“We don’t remove accounts even when we disagree with the content they post — but we do take action when they violate our rules,” said Meta’s Pusateri. “The world deserves the opportunity to hear and scrutinize the content of Russian leaders at this moment.”

Like Facebook, Twitter labels government-run accounts, including Russia’s, for transparency. Twitter added Wednesday that its moves to restrict Russian state media has led to a 30% decrease in that content’s reach, and that it has also begun labeling accounts belonging to the Ukrainian and Belarusian governments.

“While we’ve had a policy around state-affiliated media and government accounts for years, the war in Ukraine raises a complicated set of challenges in how we handle the accounts,” Rosborough said in a statement. “Our goal is to consistently enforce our rules while balancing the public interest.”

Ivy Choi, a spokesperson for YouTube, said the platform’s policies apply equally to all users, including Russian government channels, and that “our teams continue to monitor the situation closely.” Asked to name an account linked to Russia that has been banned from the platform, Choi said YouTube had terminated Vladimir Solovyov, a pro-Russia broadcaster, for repeatedly violating YouTube policies, including its policy against incitement. But the company did not identify any official Russian government accounts that have been banned.

Russia has objected to what it’s described as censorship at the hands of western tech platforms, and has moved to block Facebook, Instagram, and to a lesser extent, Twitter within its borders. Russian internet users have flocked to digital circumvention tools in response to defeat the government’s information blackout.

Differences among platforms and how they work have in some cases led to varying policies and approaches to enforcement, said Polyakova, adding that greater regulation could lead to more uniform policies across the industry.

“We’ve seen this hodgepodge approach that hasn’t always been coordinated or consistent; in general, this creates a lot of vulnerabilities and openings for spreaders of disinformation,” Polyakova said.

Social media sites’ handling of Russian government accounts also echoes how the companies have dealt with individual politicians for years.

Tech companies famously grappled with how to handle claims by Donald Trump — both before and during his presidency — with most platforms arguing it was important for users to hear what public figures have to say, if only to help keep them accountable. While some may argue it’s in the public interest for Russia’s claims to be documented and preserved, said Polyakova, there will always be ways to access Russia’s propaganda without giving it a megaphone on social media.

The posts viewed by CNN this week containing the debunked claims about Ukrainian biolabs were not accompanied by content warnings or labels, though the platforms did label the Russian accounts as government-run in accordance with existing policies.

The rapidly unfolding military, political and diplomatic situation may prompt platforms to hesitate in many scenarios, said Karen Kornbluh, a disinformation expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“It’s a tough balancing act for platforms,” Kornbluh said. “They do not want to call the shots in foreign policy disputes.”

But even though tech companies may be wary of getting caught in an uncomfortable position, Kornbluh said, social media platforms should nevertheless consider applying to Russian government accounts some of the same restrictions they’ve applied to Russian state-run media, “especially when that same government is criminalizing truth in Russia with the new ‘fake news’ law” that threatens over a decade of jail time for contradicting official narratives about the war.

Zelle fraud is rising. And banks aren't coming to the rescue

This story is part of CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free, here.

New York CNN Business —

Zelle, the popular payment app, is under fire for how it handles (or rather, doesn’t handle) fraud and scams that have exploded on the platform in recent years.

The New York Times called Zelle out in two reports earlier this year. That grabbed the attention of US senators, who pressed the CEOs of the nation’s large banks that own the platform in hearings last month and began an investigation into the service.

Here’s the deal: On Monday, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office said its investigation into Zelle showed that fraud and theft are not only rampant but getting worse. And once people report fraudulent transactions, banks are reimbursing only a small fraction of the swindled customers.

Sen. Warren questions bank CEOs about Zelle during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Sept. 22. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

“Big banks own and profit from Zelle but are failing to make their customers whole for both authorized and unauthorized fraudulent activity on the platform, despite their claims that it is safe,” Warren’s office wrote.

Key things to know:

Zelle (rhymes with “tell”) was created in 2017 as the banking industry’s answer to Venmo and Cash App.

The fintech companies behind those apps were doing what big banks had failed to do for decades — make transferring money to your friend who just paid for dinner easy and free and fast.

So the big banks got together and created Zelle, which was lame and almost no one used it till around 2020, when digital payments took off in response to the pandemic.

Zelle is now by far the largest peer-to-peer payment system in America. Last year, according to Zelle, transactions totaled $490 billion, up 59% from the year before. (PayPal-owned Venmo, its closest rival, handled $230 billion.)

The service is operated by Early Warning Systems, a fintech company owned by seven of the US’s largest banks.

Naturally, where the internet and money collide is where scammers get to work.

Zelle’s size and accessibility — it’s built right into participating banks’ apps — make it the “preferred tool of fraudsters and other bad actors,” according to the report from Warren’s office.

Among the investigation’s key findings, which corroborate anecdotal evidence reported by the Times:

Banks are not repaying 90% of cases in which customers were tricked into making payments on Zelle.

An estimated $440 million was lost by Zelle users through frauds and scams in 2021. But banks “appear not to have provided sufficient recourse to their customers.”

“Authorized” vs “Unauthorized:” Under the a federal rule known as Regulation E, banks are technically only liable to cover fraudulent activity when it involves “unauthorized” transactions. Say, when someone steals your credit card and makes purchases without your permission. But if someone persuades you to send them $500 through a phishing scam, banks consider that “authorized” and won’t reimburse those funds.

BUT… The bank data reviewed by Warren’s office suggest even the bulk of unauthorized cases are going unpaid. For example: PNC Bank indicated that its customers reported 10,683 cases of unauthorized payments totaling over $10.6 million. It refunded only 1,495 cases, totaling $1.46 million.

Zelle sought to downplay the report and didn’t specifically address Warren’s allegations Monday. In a statement, the company said: “Tens of millions of consumers use Zelle without incident, with more than 99.9% of payments completed without any report of fraud or scam,” adding that the proportion of fraud and scams has steadily decreased as its user numbers have climbed.

The Bank Policy Institute, a banking industry group, also disputed Warren’s findings and claimed that Zelle’s rivals Venmo and CashApp receive more reports of disputed transactions.

“Zelle is the safest peer-to-peer network,” it said in a statement Monday. “For any real discussion of online fraud, the focus belongs elsewhere.”

BOTTOM LINE

It’s kind of crazy to remember how anyone moved money among friends before the advent of payment apps. Did I actually carry cash with me? On the first every month did I take my little checkbook out and literally write out my portion of the rent on a magic slip of paper and then just hand it to my roommates? Wild. It would not surprise me if the original idea for a payments app came from a restaurant server who was fed up with splitting bills unevenly across eight different cards.

But that’s the pre-internet world Regulation E was made for. It’s a 1978 rule that only got a 21st century electronic payments update by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau late last year. It wasn’t made for the world of instant payments, and could hardly have envisioned how easy the internet would make it to swindle people out of their money.

Warren’s report on Zelle could add pressure on regulators including the CFPB to update its guidance.

“Given this uncertain landscape and the banks’ abdication of responsibility, regulatory clarity is needed to further protect Zelle users,” researchers wrote in the report, noting that the CFPB has regulatory authority over peer-to-peer platforms including Zelle.

NUMBER OF THE DAY: $1.26 million

Kim Kardashian, the reality TV star, cosmetics entrepreneur and budding private-equity manager, was hit with a $1.26 million fine for touting what turned out to be a worthless crypto token to her millions of Instagram followers.

Kardashian failed to disclose that she was paid $250,000 for the endorsement. Her hashtag “#ad” in the June 2021 post wasn’t enough to satisfy the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition to the fine, Kardashian agreed to refrain from any crypto asset promotions for three years.

“This case is a reminder that, when celebrities or influencers endorse investment opportunities, including crypto asset securities, it doesn’t mean that those investment products are right for all investors,” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler.

UK U-Turn

In a development that I can only assume means that Liz Truss is a Nightcap reader, the British government is reversing part of its tax proposal that was so unpopular it nearly tanked the UK bond market last week.

Here’s the deal: The newly installed government of Prime Minister Liz Truss had announced a massive slate of tax cuts that have amounted to a windfall for the nation’s wealthiest people, slashing the top rate of income tax to 40% from 45%.

That provision “had become a distraction,” the finance minister said Sunday.

The proposed cuts of more than $50 billion were aimed at turbo-boosting growth. Instead, it caused panic. The pound plunged to its lowest level against the US dollar, and sparked chaos in the market for UK debt because they will require a large increase in government borrowing.

It was a dumpster fire of a plan that no mainstream economist supported.

But, as my colleague Mark Thompson writes, the about-face is more of a symbolic gesture than a genuine reckoning. It will likely reduce the overall size of the tax-cutting package by about £2 billion.

“This move is rather symbolic, being less about the amount of money it will save (low billions) and more about the poor signal it had delivered of ideological (unfunded) tax cuts,” wrote Chris Turner, global head of UK markets at ING.

Bottom line: The Truss government’s unfunded tax cuts, which set off a panic in financial markets and put Downing Street in a standoff with the Bank of England, remain, uh, unfunded. The BOE’s bond-buying intervention may have bought the government some time, but Truss has shown no signs of budging on her fringe trickle-down economic theory.

Truss’ finance minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, “still has a lot of work to do if he is to display a credible commitment to fiscal sustainability,” said Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, on Monday.

“Unless he also U-turns on some of his other, much larger tax announcements, he will have no option but to consider cuts to public spending: to social security, investment projects, or public services.”

Enjoying Nightcap? Sign up and you’ll get all of this, plus some other funny stuff we liked on the internet, in your inbox every night. (OK, most nights — we believe in a four-day work week around here.)

Russian internet users are learning to beat Putin's internet ...

CNN Business —

A digital Iron Curtain may be descending on Russia, as President Vladimir Putin struggles to control the narrative about his war in Ukraine. The Kremlin has already moved to block Facebook and Twitter, and its latest step in that direction came Friday as the government announced plans to block Instagram in the country, as well.

But despite Putin’s efforts to clamp down on social media and information within his borders, a growing number of Russian internet users appear determined to access outside sources and circumvent the Kremlin’s restrictions.

To defeat Russia’s internet censorship, many are turning to specialized circumvention technology that’s been widely used in other countries with restricted online freedoms, including China and Iran. Digital rights experts say Putin may have inadvertently sparked a massive, permanent shift in digital literacy in Russia that will work against the regime for years.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russians have been flocking to virtual private networks (VPNs) and encrypted messaging apps, tools that can be used to access blocked websites such as Facebook or safely share news about the war in Ukraine without running afoul of new, draconian laws banning what Russian authorities consider to be “fake” claims about the conflict.

A rapid rise in downloads

During the week of February 28, Russian internet users downloaded the five leading VPN apps on Apple and Google’s app stores a total of 2.7 million times, a nearly three-fold increase in demand compared to the week before, according to the market research firm SensorTower.

That growth dovetails with what some VPN providers have reported. Switzerland-based Proton, for example, told CNN Business it has seen a 1,000% spike in signups from Russia this month. (The company declined to provide a baseline figure for comparison, however.)

VPN providers are just one type of application seeing higher uptake in Russia. Since March 1, a range of messaging apps including Meta’s Messenger and WhatsApp services have seen a gradual increase in traffic, said the internet infrastructure company Cloudflare, a trend consistent with an increase in traffic to global social media platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

But perhaps the fastest-growing messaging app in Russia may be the encrypted messaging app Signal. SensorTower said Signal was downloaded 132,000 times in the country last week, an increase of more than 28% from the week before. Russian internet traffic to Signal has seen “significant growth” since March 1, Cloudflare told CNN Business.

Other private messaging apps, such as Telegram, saw a relative slowdown in growth that week but still witnessed more than half a million downloads in that timeframe, SensorTower said.

In recent weeks, Russian internet users also appear to have increased their reliance on Tor, a service that anonymizes internet browsing by scrambling a user’s traffic and bouncing it through multiple servers around the world. Beginning the day of the Ukraine invasion, Tor’s metrics page estimated that thousands more Russian users were accessing the web through secret servers connected to Tor’s decentralized network.

Tor users got a helping hand from Twitter on Tuesday, as the social network — which has been partially blocked in Russia following the invasion — added the ability to access its platform through a specialized website designed for Tor users. Facebook, for its part, has had its own Tor site since 2014.

And Lantern, a peer-to-peer tool that routes internet traffic around government firewalls, began seeing more downloads from Russia starting about two months ago, said Sascha Meinrath, a communications professor at Penn State University who sits on the board of Lantern’s parent company, Brave New Software.

Lantern has seen a 2,000% increase in downloads from Russia alone over the past two months, Meinrath said, with the service going from 5,000 monthly users in Russia to more than 120,000. By comparison, Meinrath said, Lantern has between 2 million and 3 million users globally, mostly in China and Iran.

“Tor, Lantern, all the VPNs, anything that’s masking who you are or where you’re going —Telegram — everything, downloads are increasing dramatically,” said Meinrath. “And it’s a bootstrapping thing, so the people that are on Telegram, they’re using that to swap notes about what else you should download.”

The most tech-savvy and privacy-conscious users, said Meinrath, know how to combine multiple tools together to maximize their protection — for example, by using Lantern to get around government blocks while also using Tor to anonymize their activity.

The war for information technology

The growing prominence of some of these tools highlights the stakes for Russian internet users as the Kremlin has detained thousands of people for protesting the war in Ukraine. And it contrasts with the steps Russia has taken to clamp down on social media, from blocking Facebook entirely to passing a law that threatens up to 15 years behind bars for those who share what the Kremlin deems “fake” information about the war.

Natalia Krapiva, a lawyer at the digital rights group Access Now, said some Russian internet users have been using secure communications tools for years, as the Russian government began restricting internet freedoms more than a decade ago.

In the past, the Russian government has tried to block Tor and VPN providers, Krapiva said. But it hasn’t been very successful, she said, due to Tor’s open, decentralized design that hinges on many distributed servers and the willingness of new VPN providers to fill the gap left behind by banned ones. What Russia faces now is an intensifying game of cat and mouse, Krapiva said.

But while Putin may not be able to shut down censorship-resistant technologies entirely, supporters of the Kremlin can still try to drag it into Russia’s wider information war and hinder adoption.

On February. 28, Signal said it was aware of rumors suggesting the platform had been compromised in a hack — a claim the company flatly denied. Without blaming Russia directly, Signal said it suspected the rumors were being spread as “part of a coordinated misinformation campaign meant to encourage people to use less secure alternatives.”

Signal’s claim underscores how quickly the information war has evolved from being about the news coming out of Ukraine to being about the services people use to access and discuss that news.

If only a small minority of Russians end up embracing circumvention technologies to get access to outside information, it may allow Putin to dominate the information space within the country. And while there are many indications of growing interest in these tools, it appears to be on the scale of thousands, not millions, at least for now.

“The concern, of course, is that the majority of the people, the general population, might not necessarily know about those tools,” said Krapiva. “[They] can be complex if your digital literacy is quite low, so it’s going to remain a challenge to have a bigger section of the population really adopt these tools. But I’m sure there will be more education and I want to remain hopeful they will persevere.”

Normalizing censorship-resistant tech

Some digital rights experts say it’s important for these tools to be used for ordinary and innocuous internet activities, too, not just potentially subversive ones. Performing mundane tasks like checking email, accessing streaming movies or talking to friends using these technologies makes it harder for authoritarian regimes to justify cracking down on them, and can make it more difficult to identify efforts to violate government restrictions on speech and access.

“The more that regular users use censorship-resistant technology for everyday activities like unblocking movies, the better,” said John Scott-Railton, a security and disinformation researcher at The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab.

And this may only be the start. Meinrath said the government restrictions will likely trigger not just broader adoption of circumvention tools in Russia but also further research and development of new tools by Russia’s highly skilled and tech-savvy population.

“We’re at the beginning of a J-curve,” Meinrath said, adding: “This is a one-way transformation in Russia.”