
Brazil's Bolsonaro used intelligence agency to spy on judges, lawmakers and journalists, police say
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats need to start using AI to help save democracy
As American democracy unravels at the hands of President Trump and his enabling congressional and Supreme Court majorities, millions of Americans are desperate to identify whatever possible countermeasures remain to slow the country's descent into fascism. The outcome of the 2026 midterms is unlikely to produce meaningful change, even if the Democrats take control of the House. Without a cooperative Senate, it will be impossible either to pass legislation or secure a conviction on impeachment charges. Oversight hearings can bring public attention to things like rampant corruption, but the threats Trump poses to the rule of law and democracy are already well-known. The courts can only do so much. There's another emerging tool, however: artificial intelligence. Trump seems to understands the transformative power of AI. Last month, the administration announced an ' AI Action Plan ' for 'winning the AI race.' Among other measures, it promises to remove 'onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' As part of this initiative, the General Services Administration and OpenAI announced earlier this month that the company will be 'providing ChatGPT to the entire U.S. federal workforce' under a 'first-of-its-kind partnership.' Participating agencies will pay a nominal cost of $1 each for the first year to enable federal employees to 'explore and leverage AI.' The company is also 'teaming up with experienced partners Slalom and Boston Consulting Group to support secure, responsible deployment and trainings.' Last week, the AI company Anthropic likewise announced it had struck the same deal with GSA to enable federal agencies' access to its Claude model. The Trump administration's effort to streamline the federal government with AI models makes some sense. Research has shown that generative AI — particularly large language models, which consume vast amounts of data to understand and generate natural language content — can enhance government efficiency in data processing, analysis and drafting, among other potential advantages. But AI systems also increase the risk of widespread government surveillance, personalized misinformation and disinformation, systematic discrimination, lack of accountability and inaccuracy. According to a recent academic paper, 'although many studies have explored the ethical implications of AI, fewer have fully examined its democratic implications.' Trump's alliance with OpenAI head Sam Altman goes back to start of his second term, when he announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank to build up to 20 large AI data centers. Trump called the venture 'Stargate.' The deal's details are murky, including who will have access to Stargate and how it will possibly benefit taxpayers. Although a spokesman for OpenAI told Fox News Digital that 'Sam Altman sort of planted a flag on democratic AI versus autocratic AI,' let's not forget that Altman is not a government official or employee. As a legal matter, it is unclear whether these ' fast-tracked ' deals will fully comply with traditional oversight and procurement laws and procedures. No major AI company is currently approved under the Federal Risk And Authorization Management Program, for example, which is the process for authorizing the use of cloud technologies by federal agencies. According the GSA website, the program aims to ensure 'security and protection of federal information' by imposing strict cybersecurity controls to protect against data breaches, hacking and unauthorized access, and requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. Given that the GSA is reportedly working on 'developing a separate authorization' for generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude, the potential threats to national security and private citizens' personal information are significant. The Trump administration's lack of transparency also risks creating a black-box government run by proprietary algorithms that the public cannot inspect — centralizing control over federal AI in two companies whose interests clearly lie in market dominance, not the public good. This is why these kinds of decisions are best made through established legal procedures — including the Federal Competition in Contracting Act (requiring fair and open competition), the Privacy Act of 1974 (limiting how agencies can collect and disclose personal data), the Federal Records Act (requiring the proper retention and archiving of public records) and the Administrative Procedure Act (requiring public comment and input into major policy decisions). For now, OpenAI has promised that its 'goal is to ensure agencies can use AI securely and responsibly. ChatGPT Enterprise already does not use business data, including inputs or outputs, to train or improve OpenAI models. The same safeguards will apply to federal use.' This promise from Altman's company is no substitute for actual legal standards enforced by the federal government. Whether AI tools embedded in federal government systems could one day be used to sway elections to favor Trump and his cronies is a vital question. For now, what's clear is that Democrats need to get into the AI game, and fast. A Democratic political action committee called the National Democratic Training Committee recently unveiled on online course entitled 'AI For Progressive Campaigns,' which is designed to teach candidates how to use AI to help create social media content, draft speeches, craft voter outreach messaging and phone-banking scripts, conduct research into their constituencies and opponents, and develop internal training materials. The founder and CEO of the group, Kelly Dietrich, stated that 'thousands of Democratic campaigns can now leverage AI to compete at any scale.' This effort, although laudable, does not go far enough to capitalize on AI's potential to help outmaneuver authoritarianism in the U.S. There's much more that might be done, including using AI to educate citizens on the benefits of democracy, how institutions work and the facts underlying important issues; to create large-scale, moderated public deliberation and consensus around divisive issues; to detect and alert the public to manipulated media, thus combatting misinformation and disinformation and fostering public trust in an alternative to Trump; and to create and implement effective messaging strategies for alternative visions for the future of the country. AI could be American voters' best friend, not their enemy. It just needs to be asked.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Teachers Union Lawsuits in 5 States Challenge Private School Vouchers
Across the country, teachers unions have been challenging the constitutionality of their states' private school voucher programs in court. And in at least two cases, they've won. Since 2022, when the Supreme Court allowed Maine private schools to receive public funds, at least five lawsuits have been filed by teachers unions, in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Missouri and South Carolina. Additional legal challenges have been mounted by advocacy groups and parent organizations. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter The Supreme Court's Carson v. Makin ruling, combined with growing interest among parents in alternatives to traditional public schools post-COVID, has fueled the rise of voucher programs and led to a tug-of-war in state courts between public educators and school choice advocates. Heading into the 2025 legislative session, at least 33 states had some form of private school choice, according to the Georgetown University think tank FutureEd. Most union lawsuits have focused on voucher programs, in which public dollars pay for children to attend private schools — including religious schools — and cover other education-related expenses such as homeschooling. In Wyoming and Utah, judges ruled in favor of the unions — at least for now. In South Carolina, the program was retooled after a court declared its previous version unconstitutional. The Wyoming Education Association, which represents roughly 6,000 public school teachers, landed a win in July after District Court Judge Peter Froelicher granted a preliminary injunction against the state's universal voucher program. The union and nine parents had sued the state in June on grounds that the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act is unconstitutional because it violates a state regulation that it must provide a 'uniform system of public instruction.' Related The union decided to sue after lawmakers made the voucher program universal this spring. It was originally created with a family income cap of 250% of the federal poverty level. 'No income guidelines, in essence, means that you could be someone in Jackson who owns an $18 million property, and the state's giving you money,' said union President Kim Ame. 'Our constitution clearly says that we cannot give public money to private entities, so that's why we challenged that.' The injunction temporarily stops the distribution of $7,000 scholarships — which are funded from a state appropriation of $30 million — until the court determines the program's constitutionality. The state has since filed an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court. 'I am disheartened at the court's written order granting the WEA's injunction. As one of nearly 4,000 Wyoming families, you have had your lives unnecessarily upended through no fault of your own,' Megan Degenfelder, state superintendent of public instruction, wrote in a July statement to parents. The case is similar to the one in Utah, where a judge ruled a $100 million voucher program unconstitutional in April, following a lawsuit by the state teachers union. Related The Utah Education Association sued the state last year, arguing the Utah Fits All Scholarship Program violates the state constitution by diverting tax money to private schools that aren't free, open to all students and supervised by the state board of education. The Utah Supreme Court is set to consider an appeal later this year. Lawsuits in other states are still working their way through the courts. In July, the Montana Federation of Public Employees, which represents the state's public school teachers, joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the statewide voucher program that funds private education expenses for special education students. 'Even voucher programs like [this one] that are targeted to students with disabilities deprive them of crucial legal protections and educational resources,' the plaintiffs said in a legal brief. In Missouri, the state teachers union is suing over the MOScholars program, which started as a tax credit scholarship in 2021. It currently relies on nonprofits to collect donations that are turned into scholarships. Donors can receive a tax credit amounting to 100% of their contribution, but it can't exceed more than half of their state tax liability. This year, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe dedicated $50 million in taxpayer dollars for the scholarships and $1 million for program marketing, according to the suit. The Missouri National Education Association, which has 28,000 members, sued in June in an effort to block the appropriation. 'The General Assembly has far overstepped its authority and violated five provisions of the Missouri Constitution by using an appropriations bill to construct out of whole cloth a scheme to divert general revenues to what are essentially vouchers for the payment of private school tuition for elementary and secondary school students,' wrote Loretta Haggard, the union's attorney, in the suit. On July 30, EdChoice Legal Advocates — part of a national nonprofit that advocates for school choice — filed a motion to join the suit as defendants. Thomas Fisher, litigation director, said in a press release that the program helps Missouri families afford an education that fits their children's needs. 'The recent expansion of the program is constitutional and will expand education freedom for low-income families and students with learning differences,' he said. In South Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that its Education Trust Fund Scholarship Program was unconstitutional following a lawsuit from the state teachers union, parents and the NAACP. The program resumed this year after lawmakers revised it to funnel money from the lottery system instead of the general fund. Unions have also been involved in school choice lawsuits in Alaska and Wisconsin. In 2023, National Education Association Alaska funded a suit over a state system that sent cash payments to the parents of homeschool students. That same year, Wisconsin's largest teachers union asked the state Supreme Court to hear its case challenging the constitutionality of the statewide voucher program, but the request was denied. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former Mountie made unlawful arrest, N.S. judge rules
A retired Nova Scotia RCMP constable has been found liable for an unlawful arrest seven years ago of a man who sued the officer and the force after he said the Mountie injured his shoulder. In a decision released last week, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Ann Smith found Const. Daniel MacDonald, who retired from the force in 2023, did not have lawful grounds to arrest Sean Naugle in June 2018. On June 3, 2018, MacDonald was responding to a 911 call about a fight at a home in Pictou County. He was the first police officer to arrive on the scene and placed one of the fighters under arrest. In the course of that arrest, MacDonald learned the man had concealed an axe in a nearby car. It was as he approached that car that MacDonald encountered Naugle. What happened between them was at the root of the legal dispute. MacDonald alleged that Naugle was obstructing his efforts to search the car for weapons and he placed him under arrest. Naugle said the arrest violated his Charter rights. Excessive force? In her decision, Smith said she had to determine whether MacDonald had lawful grounds to make the arrest and whether he used excessive force. In addition to the civil lawsuit, Naugle also filed a formal complaint with the RCMP, which, according to the court decision, investigated the incident but took no further action. The investigating officer was one of the witnesses in the civil hearing, which was held in late January of this year. Smith said she found the investigating officer, Cpl. Ronald Bryce, to be a credible witness, in part because he did not go out of his way to defend MacDonald's actions. One example cited by the judge was Bryce questioning MacDonald's search for weapons. Bryce said he found it strange that MacDonald started searching in the front of the vehicle when the axe was reported to be concealed under a blanket in the trunk. The search eventually turned up both the axe and a replica handgun. Bryce also admitted under cross-examination by Naugle's lawyer that MacDonald may not have been truthful when he told the corporal that Naugle had shoved him prior to the arrest. 'Fabricated' portion of evidence The judge was also skeptical of MacDonald's account of when and where he spotted weapons in the car. "When considering the totality of the evidence on this point, in my view, Cst. MacDonald's evidence that he viewed weapons in the rear of the vehicle prior to the search does not accord with the 'preponderance of probabilities,'" Smith wrote. "Considering the evidence before the court, I conclude that Cst. MacDonald fabricated this portion of his evidence to justify and bolster his grounds for arresting Mr. Naugle." The judge found MacDonald could not have spotted the weapons because they were concealed under a blanket. She also found Naugle was shouting about the legality of the search from about three metres away from the constable and so he did not obstruct him. The judge found MacDonald lacked "probable and reasonable grounds" for arresting Naugle, and "is liable for tortious battery and the Charter breaches claimed." "This case really highlights why the civil justice system is essential," said lawyer Mike Dull, who represented Naugle in his civil suit. "You know, in this case, our court carefully examined all the evidence, even when it comes to the evidence of a police officer, and after doing that came to the conclusion that the police officer's version of events was not credible." Dull said an agreement was made before the judge's decision that if Naugle was successful, he would be paid compensation. However, Dull said the amount of that compensation is confidential. In a statement, the RCMP said it is still studying the court decision and has 25 days to decide whether it might appeal. MORE TOP STORIES