From garage apartments and carriage houses to backyard guest suites and stand-alone home offices, ADUs are one of the most ingenious ways to maximize your property's available space—and your home's property value. Also known as an accessory dwelling unit, these outbuildings aren't a new concept, but they are becoming more prevalent, thanks to an ultra-competitive housing market. As multigenerational living has become increasingly popular among Americans and home prices continue to rise, more homeowners are looking to expand their homes' footprint with additional living spaces, whether for personal or investment purposes. Accessory dwelling units are essentially your everyday tiny homes. However, unlike tiny home floor plans, ADUs can be attached to a single-family house, depending on the type.As ADUs have become more popular, it only makes sense that interior designers are taking on more projects involving the structures. Whether you're interested in putting in an ADU or want to renovate the current one you have, keep reading to hear from two experts on what's trending in interiors for these unique living units.Related StoriesWhat is an ADU?Joey Puterbaugh and Kristian Alveo for KebonyDesigner Kim Lewis looked to the outdoors when designing this ADU, where the living room opens up to a large patio. An accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, is an independent, secondary housing unit that resides on a single-family lot. This is not your backyard shed or detached garage—but it could be. There are a few types of ADUs, but they all mainly fall into these three categories: detached, internal, and attached, according to the American Planning Association (APA). A backyard shed or detached garage that's been converted into an ADU falls into the detached category. However, a detached ADU can be a new construction, too. It just needs to be able to stand alone.An internal ADU is a converted portion of an existing home. Think of a basement apartment or a different floor of a home that's been converted into an additional independent living space.Additions to new or existing homes fall under the category of attached ADUs. These share at least one wall with the single-family home, and are also sometimes called "bump-out" ADUs. What Are ADUs Used For?When someone talks about an in-law suite or an attached Airbnb, they're likely talking about an ADU. “Home office and mother-in-law suites are still the main requests and purposes,” Kim Lewis of Kim Lewis Designs says. She's worked on a handful of ADU projects in the past, so the designer is familiar with these additions. A lot of times, homeowners who add on an ADU are doing so to expand their square footage, both for themselves or family members. Lewis explains that multigenerational living is on the rise in the United States, which is why ADUs are becoming more popular. Kori Sassower, principal agent at The Kori Sassower Team, agrees, adding, “Whether it is an aging parent or a 20-something-year-old child looking to save some money, the flexibility of an ADU has become paramount. We have a housing shortage, taxes are increasing, and ADUs are a very good, safe choice as a home improvement.”However, some homeowners are using ADUs as investment opportunities. “Depending on the area, some clients see this as an investment opportunity; utilizing the asset as a short-term rental where property restrictions allow for it,” Lewis explains. As the market for ADUs increases, Lewis predicts that there will be more legislation introduced that allows these home additions in certain jurisdictions. We have a housing shortage, taxes are increasing, ADUs are a very good, safe choice as a home improvement. ADU Trends Experts Are SeeingWhen it comes to the interiors of ADUs, they tend to follow the trends we're seeing in single-family homes. Joy-filled design, unique features, bold paint colors—they're not basic white boxes. Below, find the six biggest trends experts are seeing in ADUs. Architectural Leaps“ADUs are taking more interesting shapes in architecture,” Lewis says. As 3D printed homes become more popular, Lewis predicts that we'll see more curves in architecture with ADUs, like barrel roofs, radius rooflines, and rounded corners on decking. In a market heavily saturated with boxy, square, tiny homes, she's expecting more progressive architecture with the use of large glass walls to bring the outdoors in. Bold AppliancesChase Daniel"I love how we embraced a darker, moody palette, even though the rooms were small," Lewis says of this ADU.Colorful appliances are trending in every type of home right now, and they're not exclusive to large kitchens. Lewis says that small spaces can pack a big punch when it comes to color, and she's seeing more of that in the ADUs (and traditional interiors) she's designing. “I love a dark burgundy cabinet right now,” she adds.Vast Outdoor SpacesJoey Puterbaugh and Kristian Alveo for KebonyThe outdoor space in this ADU by Lewis would make anyone jealous. Large, open outdoor spaces are very common with ADUs, since the living quarters are smaller than those of an average single-family home. “Large decking can be used to create a more useful footprint around the perimeter of the ADU, tying the accessory space to the main home,” Lewis says. “A desire for nature, sustainable living, and more farming at home might point us to more gardening trends with ADUs.” Wellness RetreatsSassower is seeing more ADUs pop up with a focus on wellness rather than actual living. Personal spas, specifically, have been very popular as the weather gets warmer. Sports CenteredSimilar to basement or garage home gyms, ADUs can be used for more athletic purposes, too, says Sassower. She's seen everything from golf simulators and mini basketball courts to interiors that nod to a ski lodge.Personality-Based DesignThe living room of an ADU renovation that Lewis completed in Fredericksburg, TX, features a dark, moody palette. Deep olive green walls and a matching couch make the space feel sophisticated yet warm. Chase DanielThe powder room in the same Texas ADU by Lewis is a true jewel box space, with a standout fluted stone sink.Chase DanielLike regular interior trends, ADU trends have been leaning towards design with more character. “I'm looking forward to using more limewash and Venetian plasters, and I'm always here for a funky tile to add character,” Lewis says.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

The days first semifinal sees the defending champ face off against the Italian world numerous times 8.

Posted on : June 5, 2025 By Tech World Times AI  Rate this post Artificial intelligence tools now touch nearly every corner of modern business, from customer service and marketing to supply chain management and HR. These powerful technologies promise speed, accuracy, and insight, but their missteps can cause more than temporary inconvenience. A single AI-driven error can result in regulatory investigations, civil lawsuits, or public scandals that threaten the foundation of a business. Understanding how legal exposure arises from AI mistakes—and how a skilled attorney protects your interests—is no longer an option, but a requirement for any forward-thinking business owner. What Types of AI Errors Create Legal Liability? AI does not think or reason like a human; it follows code and statistical patterns, sometimes with unintended results. These missteps can create a trail of legal liability for any business owner. For example, an online retailer’s AI recommends discriminatory pricing, sparking allegations of unfair trade practices. An HR department automates hiring decisions with AI, only to face lawsuits for violating anti-discrimination laws. Even an AI-driven chatbot, when programmed without proper safeguards, can inadvertently give health advice or misrepresent product claims—exposing the company to regulatory penalties. Cases like these are regularly reported in Legal news as businesses discover the high cost of digital shortcuts. When Is a Business Owner Liable for AI Mistakes? Liability rarely rests with the software developer or the tool itself. Courts and regulators expect the business to monitor, supervise, and, when needed, override AI decisions. Suppose a financial advisor uses AI to recommend investments, but the algorithm suggests securities that violate state regulations. Even if the AI was “just following instructions,” the advisor remains responsible for client losses. Similarly, a marketing team cannot escape liability if their AI generates misleading advertising. The bottom line: outsourcing work to AI does not outsource legal responsibility. How Do AI Errors Harm Your Reputation and Operations? AI mistakes can leave lasting marks on a business’s reputation, finances, and operations. A logistics firm’s route-optimization tool creates data leaks that breach customer privacy and trigger costly notifications. An online business suffers public backlash after an AI-powered customer service tool sends offensive responses to clients. Such incidents erode public trust, drive customers to competitors, and divert resources into damage control rather than growth. Worse, compliance failures can result in penalties or shutdown orders, putting the entire enterprise at risk. What Steps Reduce Legal Risk From AI Deployments? Careful planning and continuous oversight keep AI tools working for your business—not against it. Compliance is not a “set it and forget it” matter. Proactive risk management transforms artificial intelligence from a liability into a valuable asset. Routine audits, staff training, and transparent policies form the backbone of safe, effective AI use in any organization. You should review these AI risk mitigation strategies below. Implement Manual Review of Sensitive Outputs: Require human approval for high-risk tasks, such as legal filings, financial transactions, or customer communications. A payroll company’s manual audits prevented the accidental overpayment of employees by catching AI-generated errors before disbursement. Update AI Systems for Regulatory Changes: Stay ahead of new laws and standards by regularly reviewing AI algorithms and outputs. An insurance brokerage avoided regulatory fines by updating their risk assessment models as privacy laws evolved. Document Every Incident and Remediation Step: Keep records of AI errors, investigations, and corrections. A healthcare provider’s transparency during a patient data mix-up helped avoid litigation and regulatory penalties. Limit AI Access to Personal and Sensitive Data: Restrict the scope and permissions of AI tools to reduce the chance of data misuse. A SaaS provider used data minimization techniques, lowering the risk of exposure in case of a system breach. Consult With Attorneys for Custom Policies and Protocols: Collaborate with experienced Attorneys to design, review, and update AI compliance frameworks. How Do Attorneys Shield Your Business From AI Legal Risks? Attorneys provide a critical safety net as AI integrates deeper into business operations. They draft tailored contracts, establish protocols for monitoring and escalation, and assess risks unique to your industry. In the event of an AI-driven incident, legal counsel investigates the facts, manages communication with regulators, and builds a robust defense. By providing training, ongoing guidance, and crisis management support, attorneys ensure that innovation doesn’t lead to exposure—or disaster. With the right legal partner, businesses can harness AI’s power while staying firmly on the right side of the law. Tech World TimesTech World Times (TWT), a global collective focusing on the latest tech news and trends in blockchain, Fintech, Development & Testing, AI and Startups. If you are looking for the guest post then contact at techworldtimes@gmail.com

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

The French Open is one of the most exciting Grand Slams—especially with this year’s lineup. Djokovic, Alcaraz, and Sinner—just those names alone promise a show. Even better, there’s a way to watch the French Open live on a free channel, so you won’t miss a single moment. In this guide, we’ll highlight two free channels for streaming Roland Garros and explain how to access them from anywhere in the world. We’ll also include a few premium streaming services from the UK, Canada, and the US that broadcast the event. Schedule May 25 to June 8 Free channels 9now (Australia) / France TV (France) The schedule for Thursday, June 5 This Thursday at Roland-Garros, we’ll be treated to the two women’s singles semifinals. Here is the detailed schedule: [1] Aryna Sabalenka vs [5] Iga Swiatek (POL) – Not before 3:00 PM CET / 9:00 AM ET / 6:00 AM PST [2] Coco Gauff (USA) vs [WC] Lois Boisson (FRA) Which free channels are broadcasting the French Open live? Reigning and upcoming champs will battle it out on the clay-filled courts and honor us with some epic showdowns. As exciting as it sounds, it doesn’t have to cost a penny. Two free channels broadcast the French Open 2025: 9Now (Australian TV channel) France TV (French TV channel) If you’re in one of these countries, you know you can boot them up and start watching. However, as these are foreign channels for many of you, it’s good to know what they actually provide. 9Now broadcasts the best French Open 2025 matches online for free every day. You’ll need a free account, which takes less than a minute to create. 9Now also offers English commentary, making it a great option for English-speaking viewers. 9Now broadcasts the French Open for free © 9now.com.au France TV is a French channel, so naturally, it features French commentary. It broadcasts all matches (you can follow the action on every court) except for the night sessions. The night sessions refer to the matches played on the Central Court after 8:15 PM Paris time. This TV channel also requires a free account, but again, creating one takes a minute or two, as you can sign up without a TV license. The main gripe with these two is that they’re region-locked to their respective regions. 9Now works only in Australia, whilst France TV works only in France. Trick to Watch the French Open 2025 on a Free Channel from Anywhere To sidestep this inconvenience, people have been relying on VPNs for years. Watching the French Open for free online was never an issue with a popular option like NordVPN. You’ve likely heard of it by this point. Watch the tournament for free with NordVPN As the world’s #1 provider by popularity (and quality), NordVPN provides quintessential servers in Australia and France. It’s also equipped with unrestricted bandwidth and fast 10 Gbps server ports built for speed. The main advantage of NordVPN, according to people online, is compatibility. It works on all desktop and mobile devices, but its VPN app for Fire TV and Apple TV is also there. This makes it easy to watch Roland Garros live for free on your TV. NordVPN allows for a swift IP address change. Once your IP originates from another country, you can overcome stubborn geo-blocks and access new content. Simply put, you’ll need an IP from Australia or France to unblock 9Now or France TV. With NordVPN installed, you just need to connect to a server in the respective country, go to the free channel that streams the French Open 2025, and enjoy. Keep in mind that NordVPN isn’t free, but in this case, it can be. After all, there’s a 30-day money-back guarantee. In this period, you can stream the entire Grand Slam and still have ample time left to request and get a full refund. If necessary, we have a tutorial that explains how to test NordVPN free of charge for 30 days. How to Stream the French Open Live in the USA Even in the USA, using the two free channels is a more sensible option. That’s because US-based streaming services are costly. Still, if you don’t want to mess around with VPNs, you can opt for one of these three: Sling TV (TNT) — at least $45.99/mo (Sling Orange or Blue) DirecTV (TNT) — at least $79.99/mo + $69.99/mo for MySports HBO Max — at least $17/mo Sling TV provides access to TNT where the stream will be available — Blue and Orange plans are both eligible. You’ll find that Orange also contains ESPN. DirecTV requires a $69.99/mo MySports package for this purpose. It includes TNT and ESPN Plus for free if you wish to stream other sports. You don’t have to have an eagle eye to see the prices. Sling TV and DirecTV are way out of many people’s budgets. Plus, they don’t have lengthy free trials that would allow you to watch the French Open for free. DirecTV has a risk-free 5-day trial, but that’s roughly a third of the event. Bear in mind that, even if you have an account with one of these three, you still won’t be able to access them abroad. HBO Max can be watched outside the USA, along with DirecTV and Sling TV, but with a caveat — you’ll need a VPN! Watch the French Open With NordVPN Watching Roland Garros 2025 in the UK Brits don’t have a vibrant selection of channels for this case. They do lack horses for the race, but there’s Discovery Plus that comes to the rescue. Unfortunately, Discovery Plus is no joke price-wise and costs £31/mo in the United Kingdom. A notable free trial is missing, as well. Once you spend your £31, you won’t be able to get it back, either. On top of that, Discovery Plus works abroad only with a VPN, even if you have an active subscription paid for regularly. It’s worth noting that Discovery Plus also provides access to Eurosport, which will broadcast the French Grand Slam for the rest of Europe. Eurosport also isn’t free and costs £3.99 for Discovery Plus subscribers. How to Watch Roland Garros Live in Canada Canadians, similarly to Brits, don’t have plenty of choices — TSN is once again there to quench their tennis thirst. Of course, at a price. TSN is relatively inexpensive, so it might be a good option if you’re in Canada. The subscription starts at $8/mo or $80/year if you pay upfront. Like 9Now and Discovery Plus, TSN provides Full HD coverage and includes English commentary for better immersion. Just bear in mind that TSN is Canada-exclusive, so being on vacation rids you of access to it. NordVPN can help you regain access risk-free if you so desire. Other than that, TSN doesn’t provide a free trial and won’t allow you to sign up as a new user without a Canadian payment method. As explained, TSN is adequate only for native Canadian tennis fans. Final Thoughts Your vacation or business trip doesn’t have to squander your plans to watch the French Open 2025 on a free channel. 9Now and France TV are there, and with risk-free NordVPN, you’ll catch up to all major matches with no issues. If you’d rather use premium platforms and don’t mind the price tag, so be it. You have a myriad of options in the US, the UK, and Canada. Sling TV, DirecTV, HBO Max, Discovery Plus, and TSN — six excellent premium channels. Try NordVPN Risk-Free for 30 days

Limited-time offer: Get more than 30% off a Vox Membership. Join today to support independent journalism. Federal civil servants are supposed to enjoy robust protections against being fired or demoted for political reasons. But President Donald Trump has effectively stripped them of these protections by neutralizing the federal agencies that implement these safeguards.An agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears civil servants’ claims that a “government employer discriminated against them, retaliated against them for whistleblowing, violated protections for veterans, or otherwise subjected them to an unlawful adverse employment action or prohibited personnel practice,” as a federal appeals court explained in an opinion on Tuesday. But the three-member board currently lacks the quorum it needs to operate because Trump fired two of the members.Trump also fired Hampton Dellinger, who until recently served as the special counsel of the United States, a role that investigates alleged violations of federal civil service protections and brings related cases to the MSPB. Trump recently nominated Paul Ingrassia, a far-right podcaster and recent law school graduate to replace Dellinger.The upshot of these firings is that no one in the government is able to enforce laws and regulations protecting civil servants. As Dellinger noted in an interview, the morning before a federal appeals court determined that Trump could fire him, he’d “been able to get 6,000 newly hired federal employees back on the job,” and was working to get “all probationary employees put back on the job [after] their unlawful firing” by the Department of Government Efficiency and other Trump administration efforts to cull the federal workforce. These and other efforts to reinstate illegally fired federal workers are on hold, and may not resume until Trump leaves office.Which brings us to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, which proposes an innovative solution to this problem.As the Owen opinion notes, the Supreme Court has held that the MSPB process is the only process a federal worker can use if they believe they’ve been fired in violation of federal civil service laws. So if that process is shut down, the worker is out of luck.But the Fourth Circuit’s Owen opinion argues that this “conclusion can only be true…when the statute functions as Congress intended.” That is, if the MSPB and the special counsel are unable to “fulfill their roles prescribed by” federal law, then the courts should pick up the slack and start hearing cases brought by illegally fired civil servants.For procedural reasons, the Fourth Circuit’s decision will not take effect right away — the court sent the case back down to a trial judge to “conduct a factual inquiry” into whether the MSPB continues to function. And, even after that inquiry is complete, the Trump administration is likely to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court if it wants to keep civil service protections on ice.If the justices agree with the circuit court, however, that will close a legal loophole that has left federal civil servants unprotected by laws that are still very much on the books. And it will cure a problem that the Supreme Court bears much of the blame for creating.The “unitary executive,” or why the Supreme Court is to blame for the loss of civil service protectionsFederal law provides that Dellinger could “be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and members of the MSPB enjoy similar protections against being fired. Trump’s decision to fire these officials was illegal under these laws.But a federal appeals court nonetheless permitted Trump to fire Dellinger, and the Supreme Court recently backed Trump’s decision to fire the MSPB members as well. The reason is a legal theory known as the “unitary executive,” which is popular among Republican legal scholars, and especially among the six Republicans that control the Supreme Court.If you want to know all the details of this theory, I can point you to three different explainers I’ve written on the unitary executive. The short explanation is that the unitary executive theory claims that the president must have the power to fire top political appointees charged with executing federal laws – including officials who execute laws protecting civil servants from illegal firings.But the Supreme Court has never claimed that the unitary executive permits the president to fire any federal worker regardless of whether Congress has protected them or not. In a seminal opinion laying out the unitary executive theory, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the president must have the power to remove “principal officers” — high-ranking officials like Dellinger who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under Scalia’s approach, lower-ranking government workers may still be given some protection.The Fourth Circuit cannot override the Supreme Court’s decision to embrace the unitary executive theory. But the Owen opinion essentially tries to police the line drawn by Scalia. The Supreme Court has given Trump the power to fire some high-ranking officials, but he shouldn’t be able to use that power as a back door to eliminate job protections for all civil servants.The Fourth Circuit suggests that the federal law which simultaneously gave the MSPB exclusive authority over civil service disputes, while also protecting MSPB members from being fired for political reasons, must be read as a package. Congress, this argument goes, would not have agreed to shunt all civil service disputes to the MSPB if it had known that the Supreme Court would strip the MSPB of its independence. And so, if the MSPB loses its independence, it must also lose its exclusive authority over civil service disputes — and federal courts must regain the power to hear those cases.It remains to be seen whether this argument persuades a Republican Supreme Court — all three of the Fourth Circuit judges who decided the Owen case are Democrats, and two are Biden appointees. But the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning closely resembles the kind of inquiry that courts frequently engage in when a federal law is struck down.When a court declares a provision of federal law unconstitutional, it often needs to ask whether other parts of the law should fall along with the unconstitutional provision, an inquiry known as “severability.” Often, this severability analysis asks which hypothetical law Congress would have enacted if it had known that the one provision is invalid.The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is essentially a severability opinion. It takes as a given the Supreme Court’s conclusion that laws protecting Dellinger and the MSPB members from being fired are unconstitutional, then asks which law Congress would have enacted if it had known that it could not protect MSPB members from political reprisal. The Fourth Circuit’s conclusion is that, if Congress had known that MSPB members cannot be politically independent, then it would not have given them exclusive authority over civil service disputes.If the Supreme Court permits Trump to neutralize the MSPB, that would fundamentally change how the government functionsThe idea that civil servants should be hired based on merit and insulated from political pressure is hardly new. The first law protecting civil servants, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which President Chester A. Arthur signed into law in 1883.Laws like the Pendleton Act do more than protect civil servants who, say, resist pressure to deny government services to the president’s enemies. They also make it possible for top government officials to actually do their jobs.Before the Pendleton Act, federal jobs were typically awarded as patronage — so when a Democratic administration took office, the Republicans who occupied most federal jobs would be fired and replaced by Democrats. This was obviously quite disruptive, and it made it difficult for the government to hire highly specialized workers. Why would someone go to the trouble of earning an economics degree and becoming an expert on federal monetary policy, if they knew that their job in the Treasury Department would disappear the minute their party lost an election?Meanwhile, the task of filling all of these patronage jobs overwhelmed new presidents. As Candice Millard wrote in a 2011 biography of President James A. Garfield, the last president elected before the Pendleton Act, when Garfield took office, a line of job seekers began to form outside the White House “before he even sat down to breakfast.” By the time Garfield had eaten, this line “snaked down the front walk, out the gate, and onto Pennsylvania Avenue.” Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled job seeker, a fact that likely helped build political support for the Pendleton Act.By neutralizing the MSPB, Trump is effectively undoing nearly 150 years worth of civil service reforms, and returning the federal government to a much more primitive state. At the very least, the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Owen is likely to force the Supreme Court to ask if it really wants a century and a half of work to unravel.See More:

Facing huge fines, Apple on Monday began a legal challenge to the European Commission’s “unreasonable” demand that it open up its platforms to rivals, arguing any such move threatens the foundations of its platforms with a costly process that also undercuts its ability to serve customers. The company is, in a word, furious. It argued that it has cooperated with the Commission’s demands under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and points to the investments it has already made in complying with that act. What Apple said “At Apple, we design our technology to work seamlessly together, so it can deliver the unique experience our users love and expect from our products,” the company said in a statement. “The EU’s interoperability requirements threaten that foundation, while creating a process that is unreasonable, costly, and stifles innovation. These requirements will also hand data-hungry companies’ sensitive information, which poses massive privacy and security risks to our EU users.” The company also noted that there is a real risk that people’s most sensitive information could be accessed, partially because it becomes so much harder to defend. These attempts are already taking place, Apple said. “Companies have already requested our users’ most sensitive data — from the content of their notifications to a full history of every stored Wi-Fi network on their device — giving them the ability to access personal information that even Apple doesn’t see. In the end, these deeply flawed rules that only target Apple — and no other company will severely limit our ability to deliver innovative products and features to Europe, leading to an inferior user experience for our European customers. We are appealing these decisions on their behalf, and in order to preserve the high-quality experience our European customers expect.” A one-sided approach What seems to really upset Apple is that some aspects of the demands mean the company will effectively be forced to hand its innovations out to businesses with which it is in direct competition — at no charge. That means Apple does not get to draw the full benefits of its work and makes it far more difficult to introduce products in Europe. What makes matters worse is that while Apple is being forced to open up in ways that advantage competitors, quite literally at its expense, it is not being given the opportunity to do the same back. Apple is the only company that these demands have been made of, meaning it is being forced to give its intellectual property away to others who do not need to play by the same rules. Some data hungry companies are already attempting to exploit the DMA to gain unfettered access to sensitive customer data. All the while, Apple is left alone and isolated in its quest to ensure user privacy consistent with GDPR regulation. It’s attempts to protect privacy are about protecting customers. Compliance? We are compliant While critics will continue to sneer and jeer at the company in their quest to rid the world of the “Apple Tax” only the world’s largest developers actually pay, Apple would argue that it has been making serious efforts to comply with the DMA. The company has opened up a portal developers can use to request additional interoperability with hardware and software features inside iPhones and iPads. Apple consistently opens up API access to iPhone, including opening up SMS messaging to RCS, HomeKit features and messaging services support. It has also put in place numerous other enhancements in response to the DMA, and while the warning messages it places when using third-party stores may be stark, this makes them no less true. Europe seems to want customers to use third-party stores with no warning at all that this is what is going on, which seems weird. Malicious regulatory compliance There is a degree to which much of the situation seems to reflect political, rather than economic or moral pressures. The fact that Europe is using Apple as a high profile example, while also refusing to be totally transparent about what it wants before levying any fines, suggests that the Commission is not so much deciding on facts as implementing a political decision using a set of laws that seem designed almost solely to punish one company. That’s the kind of malicious regulatory compliance Apple is furious about — a compliance regime that will now be tested in the courts. Will it make a difference?  Who knows? But the existential battle will decide the future of technology in Europe, and if the market is worth doing business in when compared to the cost of doing so. It will also determine the future of Apple, which will use its considerable resources to find some way to change the nature of the game. One group it seems unlikely to help will be those of Apple’s European customers who are happy and accustomed to the Apple ecosystem, and don’t particularly want to use third-party services, as Apple’s right to offer that “pure Apple” experience seems a likely sacrifice to Europe’s politically-driven zeal. That is, unless cooler heads do curtail the Commission’s attacks. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.

A U.S. trade court ruled that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs were illegal on Wednesday, but the administration has been granted a temporary stay until arguments are filed.Tariffs could affect iPhone prices in the fallThe Trump administration implemented wide-ranging and incredibly high tariffs throughout its initial weeks of being in power. After a lot of back and forth, exemptions, threats of new tariffs, and a lot of uncertainty, the madness seemed to be ending thanks to a U.S. trade court ruling.That respite was short-lived, however, as CNBC reports that an appeals court has stayed the permanent injunction until June 9. That's the deadline for both parties to file arguments about the case, and the courts will then decide if a longer stay is in order during appeal. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Just hours after courts allowed the "liberation day" tariffs to continue pending appeal, President Donald Trump is claiming that China has violated a preliminary trade agreement with the US.Apple's stock has been hit hard by the Trump tariff battle with ChinaIn a post on Truth Social, the President claims that the 90-day tariff pause resulted in already-closed factories, and "civil unrest" in the country — neither of which appear to have happened. The post on Friday also says that China has violated whatever agreement was in place for a 90-day pause in tariffs presently in place. Continue Reading on AppleInsider | Discuss on our Forums