Latest news with #PatriotAct
Yahoo
12-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Crypto privacy tests limits of Trump's deregulatory push
A version of this article appeared in our The Decentralised newsletter on August 12. Sign up here. Donald Trump's deregulatory blitz has its limits. It doesn't seem to like financial privacy, an omission that appears to have galvanised crypto devs and policy experts. To recap: Last week, Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm was convicted of a federal crime. The week before, the developers of Samourai Wallet pleaded guilty to the same crime. The same day the Samourai devs threw in the towel, Trump's crypto policy team came out with a 166-page report titled 'Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.' Not everyone liked what they saw. The report recommended expanding the infamous Patriot Act to cover crypto technology, labelling certain tools 'primary money laundering concerns.' It suggested to force DeFi protocols to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and its anti-money laundering provisions. 'This could include services that custody assets or have centralised governance, including through instances in which governance tokens are held by one or a small group of persons that can effectively assert control,' the report reads. There is a cost to privacy. As one of Storm's prosecutors put it, 'Isn't anonymity just another word for concealment?' The argument appeared to be that we've all got something to hide, but that criminals have more to hide. There's also a cost to not having privacy. As one of Storm's attorneys put it, 'How would you feel if someone took your bank account and published it on the internet?' The received wisdom of the DeFi community is that blockchain-based finance will never go mainstream without privacy. The devs are fighting back. 'To me, the medium-term target is to make privacy [the] default in wallets,' Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said in a recent appearance on the Bankless podcast. 'The biggest mistake that we're making as an ecosystem right now is that we came up with this concept of a privacy wallet. We should not have privacy wallets — privacy should be a feature of wallets.' Buterin added that the Ethereum Foundation has started working on the issue, and more information can be expected in the next several months. It has also pledged an additional $500,000 towards Storm's legal costs. Last week, Electric Coin Company CEO Josh Swihart asked senators to protect financial privacy in a forthcoming mega-bill. 'This is not about hiding crime; it is about protecting law-abiding citizens from constant surveillance, data breaches, and unjust profiling,' Swihart wrote. 'Treating all privacy-oriented digital assets as suspect would be akin to banning locks because criminals might hide behind closed doors.' Top DeFi stories of the week This week in DeFi governance PROPOSAL: Uniswap DAO considers incorporation in Wyoming PROPOSAL: Lido DAO considers token buyback program PROPOSAL: Polygon DAO considers raising validators' required minimum stake Post of the week Trump promised a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve stocked with crypto seized by US law enforcement. According to one rumour, the first contribution will come from a crypto developer. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. Got a tip? Email at aleks@ Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille
The Hill
01-08-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Biden's autopen controversy says more about AI than you might think
Would a love letter mean the same if you knew it was written by a robot? What about a law? Republicans are asking similar questions in their investigations into former President Joe Biden's use of the autopen — an automatic signature machine that the former president used to sign a number of clemency orders near the end of his term. Trump and his allies claim that Biden's use of the autopen may have been unlawful and indicative of the former president's cognitive decline. If Biden had to offload the work of signing the orders to a machine, then how can we know he actually approved of what was signed? And if Biden wasn't approving these orders, then who was? It is unclear what the outcomes of these investigations will be. More importantly, however, these probes get at a larger concern around how different kinds of communication can lose their meanings when robots or AI enter the mix. Presidents have used the autopen for various purposes (including signing bills into law) for decades. In fact, the prevalence of the autopen highlights how, today, a presidential signature represents more than just ink on paper — it symbolizes a long process of deliberation and approval that often travels through various different aides and assistants. The Justice Department under George W. Bush said as much in a 2005 memo advising that others can affix the president's signature to a bill via autopen, so long as the president approves it. Trump himself has admitted to using the autopen, albeit only for what he called 'very unimportant papers.' House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) even used digital signatures to sign subpoena notices related to the investigation for his committee. President Obama used the autopen in 2011 to extend the Patriot Act. Even Thomas Jefferson used an early version of the autopen to replicate his handwriting when writing multiple letters or signing multiple documents. But the dispute around the use of the autopen is more than just partisan bickering; it is an opportunity to consider how we want to incorporate other automating systems like artificial intelligence into our democratic processes. As a researcher who studies the impacts of AI on social interaction, my work shows how automating legal, political, and interpersonal communications can cause controversy, whether via a low-tech robotic arm holding a pen, or through complex generative-AI models. In our study, we find that autopen controversies illustrate that although automation can make things more efficient, it can also circumvent the very processes that give certain things — like signatures — their meaning. Generative AI systems are posed to do the same as we increasingly use them to automate our communication tasks, both within and beyond government. For instance, when an office at Vanderbilt University revealed that it had used ChatGPT to help pen a condolence letter to students following a mass shooting at Michigan State University, students were appalled. After all, the whole point of the condolence letter was to show care and compassion towards students. If it was written by a robot, then it was clear the university didn't actually care — its words were rendered empty. Using GenAI to automate communication can therefore threaten our trust in one another, and in our institutions: In interpersonal communications, one study suggests that when we suspect others are covertly using AI to communicate with us, we perceive them more negatively. That is, when the use of automation comes to light, we trust and like each other less. The stakes of this kind of breach are especially high when it comes to automating political processes, where trust is paramount. The Biden fiasco has led some, like Rep. Addison McDowell (R-N.C.), to call for a ban on the use of the autopen in signing bills, executive orders, pardons and commutations. Although Rep. McDowell's bill might prevent future presidents from experiencing the kind of entanglement the Biden administration has gotten caught up in, it doesn't address how other kinds of emerging technologies might cause similar problems. As attractive automating technologies like generative AI become more and more popular, public figures should understand the risks involved in their use. These systems may promise to make governing more efficient, but they still come at a significant cost.
13-07-2025
- Politics
A year after Trump rally shooting: Remembering a fallen hero and reckoning with a security breakdown
One year ago, the attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, marked a pivotal and deeply troubling moment for the nation—and especially for the U.S. Secret Service, the agency charged with protecting America's top leaders. The attack, which occurred at a campaign rally, claimed the life of fire chief Corey Comperatore, who was shielding his family during the gunfire. His death underscored the tragedy of what many now describe as a catastrophic security lapse. For an agency with what has been described as a "zero-fail mission," the events of July 13, 2024, raised urgent questions about systemic failures. In the days and months that followed, at least five separate investigations were launched, including internal reviews by the Secret Service, FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as probes by both chambers of Congress. The findings highlighted a range of failures, from lapses in intelligence sharing to gaps in event coordination and local enforcement communication. One year later, the Secret Service released a public update outlining 37 reform measures in response to those findings. These recommendations were echoed in reports from the House Task Force and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. However, what remains unanswered is a more fundamental question: How did a globally renowned protective agency allow such a breakdown to happen? A long road from 9/11 to Butler To understand the present, many experts point to the past- -- specifically the post-9/11 restructuring of America's homeland security apparatus. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were the result of detailed planning by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who had long viewed the U.S. presidency as a primary target, according to an ABC News analysis. The federal government responded with sweeping reforms, including creating the Department of Homeland Security in 2003. Agencies, including the Secret Service—formerly under the Treasury Department—were absorbed into DHS. The change significantly expanded the Secret Service's responsibilities. Not only did the agency's protective mission double, but it also took on an enhanced investigative role under the Patriot Act. Yet, unlike other federal agencies that received substantial boosts in budget and staffing, the Secret Service's resources grew only modestly. For example, in 2001, the FBI operated with a $3.3 billion budget and around 25,000 personnel. By 2025, the agency reported it requested $11.3 billion and employs over 37,000 staff. In contrast, the Secret Service's budget rose from $859 million in 2001 to just over $3 billion today, with a workforce of about 8,000, according to a Homeland Security report. Despite its expanded mission, the agency faced persistent recruitment and retention challenges similar to police staffing shortages seen throughout the U.S, according to the non-profit International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Contributing factors include staffing challenges, high turnover and public criticism stemming from the pandemic, reported misconduct incidents and the 'defund the police' movement," the IACP said. Reforms delayed, warnings ignored The Secret Service's structural issues were not unknown. A series of high-profile incidents—including White House perimeter breaches and security threats during the 2016 campaign —prompted calls by legislators for reform. In 2015, a House Oversight Committee report titled "The Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis" laid out key recommendations, including expanded training, staffing increases, technology integration, and a more unified federal protective strategy. The agency embraced those recommendations, but implementation was uneven and often hamstrung by lack of congressional funding. A 2016 report by the National Academy of Public Administration further emphasized that the Secret Service was still in "early stages of transformation" and warned that "budget and staffing constraints inevitably lead to trade-offs." According to recent congressional data, the number of personnel assigned to protective missions has decreased—dropping from 4,027 in FY2014 to 3,671 today. What's changing now and what isn't In the wake of the Butler shooting, Secret Service director Sean Curran unveiled a strategic overhaul built on five pillars: Operations, Human Capital, Resources and Physical Assets, Training, and Technology. Read the Secret Service Strategic Plan The agency says its reforms include: Clearer lines of command for protective events, enhanced coordination with local law enforcement, improved intelligence sharing, recording of radio transmissions at protective events and integration of new surveillance and threat-detection technologies. Still, at least 10 of the 37 recommendations require congressional or executive action. These include reassessing whether the Secret Service should remain under DHS, increasing its budget and staffing, and narrowing the scope of individuals eligible for protection under 18 U.S. Code § 3056—a legacy of expanded protection following 9/11. Many of these issues were flagged a decade ago in the 2014 DHS Protective Mission Panel report, but substantive legislative follow-through has remained elusive. The mission must be matched with resources While mistakes were clearly made in Butler, it's also true that President Trump survived because of the extraordinary bravery of Secret Service agents, who placed themselves between the shooter and the former president. Their selflessness stands as a powerful reminder of the agency's mission and the personal risk involved in fulfilling it. But as policymakers continue to investigate and debate long-term reforms, one thing is clear: The Secret Service's "no-fail" mission must be matched with "no-fail" support—from both Congress and the White House. Until then, the events of Butler will remain a stark warning of what happens when an elite agency is allowed to operate without the resources, staffing, and clarity of mission it so clearly deserves.
Politico
08-06-2025
- Automotive
- Politico
American presidents have long used autopens. Just ask Trump.
Donald Trump has repeatedly slammed Joe Biden's use of an autopen during his presidency, going so far as to center its usage in a broad investigation Trump announced Wednesday into his predecessor. But politicians on both sides of the aisle are deeply familiar with the tool. The autopen — also referred to as the robot pen — replicates an individual's signature using a writing utensil, rather than a scanned and printed version of it. The tool, which resembles a small printer with a long arm that allows users to attach a pen to the center, has a long history of use in American politics. The device was first patented in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, an independent research organization that collects original manuscripts and historical documents. Iterations of the autopen have been used by presidents as far back as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that 'I could not, now therefore, live without' the device he used to duplicate letters. 'The Autopen has long been a tool for the world's most influential leaders, allowing them to more effectively apply their time and attention to important issues without compromising the impact of personalized correspondence,' according to The Autopen Co., which sells the machines. U.S. leaders on both sides of the aisle have used the autopen for decades — and have faced criticism for their use of the tool. During Lyndon Johnson's administration, the autopen was featured in The National Enquirer for an article headlined 'One of the Best Kept Secrets in Washington: The Robot That Sits In For The President.' Even Trump himself has said he used autopens, but 'only for very unimportant papers.' 'We may use it, as an example, to send some young person a letter because it's nice,' Trump said in March, according to The Associated Press. 'You know, we get thousands and thousands of letters, letters of support for young people, from people that aren't feeling well, etcetera. But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful.' In 2004, George W. Bush's secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, faced criticism from some veterans for using an autopen to sign condolence letters to families of troops killed in the Iraq War. In 2011, Barack Obama used an autopen to sign a Patriot Act extension — becoming the first known, apparent use of the tool by a president for legislation — and used it subsequently in his administration. The move resulted in Republicans questioning the constitutionality of Obama's decision, though Bush's Office of Legal Counsel, which is part of the Department of Justice, had already concluded the use of autopens was constitutional. 'The President need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law,' the office's 2005 ruling stated. 'Rather, the President may sign a bill within the meaning of Article I, Section 7 by directing a subordinate to affix the President's signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.' There is no specific law governing a president's use of an autopen. But the ruling from the Department of Justice hasn't stopped Trump from accusing Biden and his team of illegally using the tool, alleging that Biden's team used an autopen to sign documents without Biden's permission or knowledge. Trump has also claimed that Biden's round of pardons — including 'preemptive pardons' of Jan. 6 investigators, his son Hunter Biden and Anthony Fauci — were illegal and are 'void' and 'vacant.' However, most legal scholars are in agreement that pardons cannot be overturned once granted. In 1869, a federal court ruled, 'The law undoubtedly is, that when a pardon is complete, there is no power to revoke it, any more than there is power to revoke any other completed act.' Biden has denied the claims that any decision was ever made or issued in his name without his approval or knowledge. Trump and other Republican accusers have provided no evidence that aides used an autopen without the former president's approval. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,' Biden told POLITICO in a statement. 'I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false. This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations.'
USA Today
05-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trump hurls allegations at Biden over autopen: whoever 'used it \nwas the president'
Trump hurls allegations at Biden over autopen: whoever 'used it was the president' Show Caption Hide Caption Biden talks Hunter Biden pardon and Trump in exclusive exit interview USA TODAY Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page discusses her exclusive interview with President Biden on the election, his family and his legacy. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has fixated so much on his predecessor's use of the autopen during his presidency to sign official documents that he called for an investigation this week into former President Joe Biden's reliance on the mechanical device. Presidential use of the autopen has not been outlawed or ruled unconstitutional. And Trump himself has acknowledged allowing his staff to use it to sign letters on his behalf. Yet the president has come down repeatedly on Biden for using an autopen amid fresh allegations that the ex-president's health was in decline while he was in office. He has accused former White House aides, without evidence, of signing documents, including presidential pardons, without Biden's knowledge. "Whoever used the autopen was the president," he told reporters on June 5, implying aides were assuming the role of commander-in-chief. "And that is wrong, it's illegal, it's so bad." Which presidents have used the autopen? Presidents are thought to have employed the autopen for more than 200 years, since the time of Thomas Jefferson, who obtained one of the machines after it came under patent in 1803, according to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation. Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama are all known to have made use of the device. Obama became the first president to rely on an autopen to sign a piece of legislation in 2011, in order to push through a bill extending the Patriot Act that arrived on his desk while he was on a trip to France. Trump orders investigation of Joe Biden's alleged 'cognitive decline' and use of autopen The dispute with Biden goes further: Trump and his aides have accused Biden's staff of illegal activity. "It's whether or not the president of the United States knew it was being used, and if not, who was using it in his name, which is clearly illegal behavior," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a June 3 briefing. The former president knocked down the allegations, calling them a "distraction," in a June 4 statement in response to Trump's latest assault on him. Biden said he "made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations" during his presidency. Is the autopen legal? The Justice Department in 2005 determined that use of the autopen was legal. "We find that, pursuant to this understanding, a person may sign a document by directing that his signature be affixed to it by another," a DOJ memo said. Legal scholars have further argued that nothing in the Constitution requires presidents to sign pardons, even if Biden did use an autopen. Elaborating on his views, Trump said on June 5 that he believes it's "inappropriate" to use the autopen for documents, even for relatively minor directives such as ambassador appointments. "I think it's very disrespectful to people when they get an autopen signature," he said. What about Trump? Trump admitted in his remarks to reporters that he uses the autopen, too. But he suggested he does not use the device that mimics his signature when he signs important documents. "Autopens, to me, are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country," Trump said. He said the president of the United States receives thousands of letters a week, and it's not possible for him to respond to each one individually. "To me, that's where autopens start and stop," he said. "I'm not a big autopen person," Trump declared. "It's an easy way out."
