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.

Despite more and more companies requiring employees to return to the office, the telework/hybrid life is still going strong. Across US-based PCMag readers who took our Business Choice ISP survey, 28% work exclusively from home. Meanwhile, 38.8% work from home multiple days a week, and a majority (54.9%) say they do so at least occasionally. No matter where employees get their jobs done, internet connectivity is paramount. If you work from home, you need to choose the best ISP to keep connected and up to speed. If you run the IT department for a large office, choosing a provider can make or break the work done there. Which ISP is right for your workplace? The answer depends on your specific needs and service availability—sadly, affordable fiber optics aren’t available to all. But we’ve got a cross-section of providers below, selected by PCMag readers, representing the best in class. For the best home internet service providers, read our Readers’ Choice 2025: ISPs coverage. The Top US ISPs for Work in 2025Home Office ISPsThe top of the chart in terms of working from home belongs to a municipal provider, Nextlight, available in a suburb of Denver, CO. Fiber-to-the-home services provided by a local utility company like this score well with home users, and more than enough of the people rating Nextlight also use it for working from home.In the subcategories where it earns a score, Nextlight is on top, even besting the bigger name GFiber, though the two tie for likelihood to recommend. “Great value, excellent customer service, excellent product,” says one work-from-home Nextlight user.Only a select few can take advantage of a muni ISP, however. So we also always pick a major ISP as a winner, and this year, that’s clearly AT&T Fiber. Of all the ISPs with a multi-state reach in the millions, AT&T Fiber has the best scores.(Note: Click the arrows in our interactive charts to view various elements of our survey results.)Respondents had favorable things to say about AT&T Fiber. “My wife works from home, and we had a fiber cut in the yard; they were quick to repair it, in three hours,” says one respondent. Another offers, “AT&T Fiber still beats any of the cable services we have tried.” When it comes to satellite-based ISPs for working from home, Starlink stands alone. The other satellite ISPs don’t even make the cut, as not enough of our readers rate them. Even so, Starlink scores incredibly well, with numbers only bested by local fiber providers. Respondents typically refer to the service as pricey—it scores lowest for value—but note that it is a step up from any other option they have available. Astound Broadband wins as the top cable company for work-from-home use. It also has high scores for mobile and home phone service, both things that telecommuters are very likely to put to use. Lastly, the T-Mobile 5G Home InternetWork ISPs We ask respondents to rate the ISPs they use in a workplace that isn’t at home. The usual suspects tend to be huge names in the internet world, like Spectrum (from Charter) or Xfinity (from Comcast), and both do indeed appear in this list. But at the bottom. Recommended by Our EditorsThis year, Astound Broadband also is the top ISP with readers for in the office outside the home.Astound seals the deal with high marks in all its subcategories, in particular ease of use, speed, and reliability. Reader comments include “Nothing but great things to say” and “These guys are the best. I had my business set up for success in no time.” IT-Managed ISPsThis list was a little larger than last year, when the award went to Astound and Fios. This time around, those two weren't in the running, leaving the field to just three players.AT&T. The company improved its scores since 2024, from 7.9 out of 10 for overall satisfaction to an 8.2. When IT adopts AT&T for use, the ISP earns very high scores for connection reliability, speed, and ease of use. It also earns a good rating for management, an important factor for an IT department.The Top Canadian ISPs for Work in 2025Home Office ISPsThe majority of Canadians use one of the big three ISPs (Bell, Rogers, and Telus) or one of their off-shoot “flanker” brands, which use their parent company's network. But there are a select few ISPs that also have their own network and are trying to grow by not just leasing lines from others. Those include companies like Cogeco, Eastlink, and Videotron. The latter is once again the top pick in our survey by Canadians who work from homeVideotron is the top ISP for overall satisfaction, speed, and ease of use; it ties with TekSavvy (an ISP that mainly uses lines owned by other providers) for customer service. Among ancillary services that business users will appreciate, Videotron rates high for its mobile phone service and the home Wi-Fi routers it provides. “Fast and worth the price,” one user says of Videotron.Other noteworthy top scores for work-from-home go to Virgin Plus (owned by Bell), which has the top scores for value, reliability, and tech support, plus ties with leader Videotron for customer service. But somehow, with all that, Virgin Plus only landed in fifth place.We also focus on the big three, since many people prefer having an ISP from a major corporation, especially for work. Bell Canada tops the list of those providers, narrowly staying ahead of Telus for overall satisfaction again this year. “Bell Canada has always been very good at offering reliable internet," says one respondent, "so we are able to get our jobs done properly and quickly.” Work and IT-Managed ISPsFor the second year in a row, Telus is the top pick for ISPs managed by IT teams. It also earns the top spot for ISPs in offices, as chosen by the employees who use it. The scores Telus earns are the best across every possible category, though it's just a couple of tenths of a point above Bell for overall satisfaction. But the spread is higher in categories like cost, reliability, tech support, customer service, and management. “Telus at my workplace [is] a seamless, positive experience with no problems,” says one survey taker. Another says it has “the best customer service in the world," adding that the "connection is amazing.” When it comes to IT-managed ISPs, Telus also wins, and with even higher numbers. In many cases, it's a full point ahead of Bell. Meanwhile, Rogers consistently comes in third in all areas in both charts, except for setup, where it beats Bell (but not Telus) both times.The PCMag Business Choice survey for ISPs in the US was in the field from Feb. 10 to May 5, 2025; the Canadian survey was conducted via a panel of users from Feb. 24 to March 3, 2025. For more information on how we conduct surveys, read our methodology. 

On Friday, President Trump publicly threatened a 25% tariff on all iPhones not made in the United States, catching both Apple and his own administration off guard. Now, The New York Times reports it seems the move was likely payback for Tim Cook skipping Trump’s recent Middle East trip. The President goes east You’ve probably seen a few photos from Trump’s CEO-studded tour of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. From Nvidia’s Jensen Huang to OpenAI’s Sam Altman, the president’s entourage read like a Silicon Valley star lineup. But one high-profile exec was missing: Apple CEO Tim Cook, who had been invited but declined. And according to the Times, that decision stuck with Trump throughout the trip. During a speech in Riyadh, for instance, the president praised Huang for showing up, then took a shot: “Tim Cook isn’t here, but you are.” Later, in Qatar, he told attendees he had “a little problem with Tim Cook”, as he criticized Apple’s growing manufacturing footprint in India. Hours later, the tariff threat went live: “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhone’s that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else. If that is not the case, a Tariff of at least 25% must be paid by Apple to the U.S. Thank your for your attention to this matter!” Trump and his allies have been pushing for Apple to bring iPhone manufacturing stateside, but Friday’s threat felt less like a strategic move and more like targeted punishment. Apple had just narrowly avoided a 145% China-related tariff in April, and now it’s facing a new one. As Tripp Mickle notes in the Times’ report, the recent shift in tone has put Apple in an unprecedented position regarding its relationship with Trump. During his first term, Cook managed to keep Apple out of the White House’s crosshairs by playing diplomat-in-chief, showing up when it counted and making just enough concessions to keep the peace. Now, it appears Trump is demanding that Cook, who personally donated US$1 million to his inauguration, abide by his whims further. And as Cook seems to be drawing the line, this appears to be frustrating Trump, who has always boasted about his close relationship with Apple’s CEO. Whether the new tariff actually comes to pass is still an open question. But the message has already landed: skip the photo ops, and there’s a price to pay. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Republican lawmakers have been battling over a bill that includes massive tax and spending cuts. Much of their disagreement has been over provisions intended to reduce the cost of Medicaid. The popular health insurance program, which is funded by both the federal and state governments, covers about 78.5 million low-income and disabled people—more than 1 in 5 Americans. On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly approved the tax, spending, and immigration bill. The legislation, which passed without any support from Democrats, is designed to reduce federal Medicaid spending by requiring anyone enrolled in the program who appears to be able to get a job to either satisfy work requirements or lose their coverage. It’s still unclear, however, whether Senate Republicans would support that provision. Although there are few precedents for such a mandate for Medicaid, other safety net programs have been enforcing similar rules for nearly three decades. I’m a political scientist who has extensively studied the work requirements of another safety net program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As I explain in my book, Living Off the Government? Race, Gender, and the Politics of Welfare, work requirements place extra burdens on low-income families but do little to lift them out of poverty. Work requirements for TANF TANF gives families with very low incomes some cash they can spend on housing, food, clothing, or whatever they need most. The Clinton administration launched it as a replacement for a similar program, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, in 1996. At the time, both political parties were eager to end a welfare system they believed was riddled with abuse. A big goal with TANF was ending the dependence of people getting cash benefits on the government by moving them from welfare to work. Many people were removed from the welfare rolls, but not because work requirements led to economic prosperity. Instead, they had trouble navigating the bureaucratic demands. TANF is administered by the states. They can set many rules of their own, but they must comply with an important federal requirement: Adult recipients have to work or engage in an authorized alternative activity for at least 30 hours per week. The number of weekly hours is only 20 if the recipient is caring for a child under the age of 6. The dozen activities or so that can count toward this quota range from participating in job training programs to engaging in community service. Some adults enrolled in TANF are exempt from work requirements, depending on their state’s own policies. The most common exemptions are for people who are ill, have a disability, or are over age 60. To qualify for TANF, families must have dependent children; in some states pregnant women also qualify. Income limits are set by the state and range from $307 a month for a family of three in Alabama to $2,935 a month for a family of three in Minnesota. Adult TANF recipients face a federal five-year lifetime limit on benefits. States can adopt shorter time limits; Arizona’s is 12 months. An administrative burden Complying with these work requirements generally means proving that you’re working or making the case that you should be exempt from this mandate. This places what’s known as an “administrative burden” on the people who get cash assistance. It often requires lots of documentation and time. If you have an unpredictable work schedule, inconsistent access to child care, or obligations to care for an older relative, this paperwork is hard to deal with. What counts as work, how many hours must be completed, and who is exempt from these requirements often comes down to a caseworker’s discretion. Social science research shows that this discretion is not equally applied and is often informed by stereotypes. The number of people getting cash assistance has fallen sharply since TANF replaced Aid to Families With Dependent Children. In some states caseloads have dropped by more than 50% despite significant population growth. Some of this decline happened because recipients got jobs that paid them too much to qualify. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office that provides economic research to Congress, attributes, at least in part, an increase in employment among less-educated single mothers in the 1990s to work requirements. Not everyone who stopped getting cash benefits through TANF wound up employed, however. Other recipients who did not meet requirements fell into deep poverty. Regardless of why people leave the program, when fewer low-income Americans get TANF benefits, the government spends less money on cash assistance. Federal funding has remained flat at $16.5 billion since 1996. Taking inflation into account, the program receives half as much funding as when it was created. In addition, states have used the flexibility granted them to direct most of their TANF funds to priorities other than cash benefits, such as pre-K education. Many Americans who get help paying for groceries through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are also subject to work requirements. People the government calls “able-bodied adults without dependents” can only receive SNAP benefits for three months within a three-year period if they are not employed. A failed experiment in Arkansas Lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses have debated whether to add work requirements for Medicaid before. More than a dozen states have applied for waivers that would let them give it a try. When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, during the first Trump administration, it was largely seen as a failure. Some 18,000 people lost their health care coverage, but employment rates did not increase. After a court order stopped the policy in 2019, most people regained their coverage. Georgia is currently the only state with Medicaid work requirements in effect, after implementing a waiver in July 2023. The program has experienced technical difficulties and has had trouble verifying work activities. Other states, including Idaho, Indiana, and Kentucky, are already asking the federal government to let them enforce Medicaid work requirements. What this may mean for Medicaid The multitrillion-dollar bill the House passed by a vote of 215-214 would introduce Medicaid work requirements nationwide by late 2026 for childless adults ages 19 to 64, with some exemptions. But most people covered by Medicaid in that age range are already working, and those who are not would likely be eligible for work requirement waivers. An analysis by KFF—a nonprofit that informs the public about health issues—shows that in 2023, 44% of Medicaid recipients were working full time and another 20% were working part time. In 2023, that was more than 16 million Americans. About 20% of the American adults under 65 who are covered by Medicaid are not working due to illness or disability, or because of caregiving responsibilities, according to KFF. This includes both people caring for young children and those taking care of relatives with an illness or disability. In my own research, I read testimony from families seeking work exemptions because caregiving, including for children with disabilities, was a full-time job. The rest of the adults under 65 with Medicaid coverage are not working because they are in school, are retired, cannot find work, or have some other reason. It’s approximately 3.9 million Americans. Depending on what counts as “work,” they may be meeting any requirements that could be added to the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that introducing Medicaid work requirements would save around $300 billion over a decade. Given past experience with work requirements, it is unlikely those savings would come from Americans finding jobs. My research suggests it’s more likely that the government would trim spending by taking away the health insurance of people eligible for Medicaid coverage who get tangled up in red tape. This article was updated on May 22, 2025, with details about the House of Representatives’ passage of the budget bill. Anne Whitesell is an assistant professor of political science at Miami University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The big picture: The US House of Representatives narrowly approved President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," clearing the path for sweeping changes to the country's tax code and immigration policy. The bill also contains a contentious clause that blocks states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next 10 years. The moratorium applies not only to AI models but also to any products or services integrating AI, effectively banning and overriding state regulations in those areas. The restriction affects several critical sectors, including automotive, consumer IoT, social media, medical equipment, and more. Critics argue the clause could grant rogue developers a free pass to build AI systems that harm public safety, security, and well-being. They also contend that the bill undermines the federal system by restricting states from creating and enforcing regulations and impeding their right to self-governance. Some experts – and even Republican senators – warn that the bill could jeopardize national security and economic stability in ways not fully understood. Senators Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri argue it will make it easier to create deepfakes and derail bipartisan efforts to confront AI-related threats. Non-profit advocacy groups, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have raised strong objections to the bill, calling it Big Tech's effort to dismantle guardrails around artificial intelligence. The group also urged Congress to reject what it described as a damaging proposal. Supporters of the bill argue that the moratorium is essential for US companies to compete with state-backed Chinese tech firms. They contend that regulations hinder innovation and could severely weaken America's chances of leading the world in artificial intelligence. Backers also describe the One Big Beautiful Bill as a "generational opportunity" to implement the long-term changes voters demanded. // Related Stories The bill still faces Senate approval before President Trump can sign it into law. However, political commentators across the spectrum believe Trump may struggle to convince Senators that limiting state-level legislation and infringing state sovereignty is the right approach. The outcome could have lasting implications for balancing power between federal and state governments, shaping how the country regulates emerging technologies.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from www.ola.org   Two recent bills introduced in the Ontario Legislature are poised to gut environmental protections, and severely curb the authority of municipal planners. Here’s a summary of the tabled bills 5 and 17, focused on areas of relevance to architects. Bill 5: Repealing the Endangered Species Act, introducing regulation-free Special Economic Zones The omnibus Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, is ostensibly aimed at stimulating the economy by removing barriers to development. One of its key components is replacing the province’s Endangered Species Act with a hollowed-out Species Conservation Act. The new act allows the government to pick and choose which species are protected, and narrowly defines their “habitat” as the nest or den of an animal—not the broader feeding grounds, forests, or wetlands they need to survive. Developers must currently apply for a permit when their projects threaten a species or habitat, and these applications are reviewed by environmental experts. This process would be replaced by an online registration form; when the form is submitted, a company is free to start building, including damaging or destroying habitats of listed specied, so long as the activity is registered.  The new Species Conservation Act will completely exclude migratory birds and certain aquatic species. “It’s a developer’s dream and an environmental nightmare,” writes environmental lawyers Ecojustice. Bill 5 also contains provisions for creating Special Economic Zones, where provincial and municipal laws do not apply—a status that the Province could claim for any project or proponent. This would allow work on these projects to be exempt from zoning regulations and approvals, as well as from labour laws, health and safety laws, traffic and speeding laws, and even laws preventing trespassing on private property, notes advocacy group Environmental Defence. The Bill specifically exempts the Ontario Place redevelopment from the Environmental Bill of Rights. As a result, explains lawyers from Dentons, “the public will not receive notice of, or have opportunity to, comment on proposals, decisions, or events that could affect the environment as it relates to the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project.” Advocacy group Ontario Place For All writes: “The introduction of this clause is a clear response to the overwhelming number of comments—over 2200—from the community to the Environmental Registry of Ontario regarding the Ford government’s application to cut an existing combined sewer overflow (CSO) that will be in the way of Therme’s planned beach. The application has the CSO emptying into the west channel inside the breakwater and potentially allowing raw sewage into an area used recreationally by rowers, paddlers, swimmers, and for water shows by the CNE. The Auditor General’s Report estimated the cost of moving the CSO to be approximately $60 million.” The Bill also amends the Ontario Heritage Act, allowing the Province to exempt properties from archaeological and heritage conservation requirements if they could potentially advance provincial priorities including, but not limited to, transit, housing, health, long-term care, or infrastructure. Another part of the bill would damage the clean energy transition, notes Environmental Defense. “Bill 5 would enable the government to ban all parts of energy projects that come from abroad, especially China. China makes the majority of solar panels (over 80 per cent), wind turbines (around 60 per cent) and control systems in the world,” it writes. “If enacted, Bill 5 would likely end solar power installation in Ontario and deprive Ontarians access to the cleanest source of new electricity available.” In the Legislature, Liberal member Ted Tsu noted, “They called this bill, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. However, upon studying the bill, I think a more appropriate short title would be ‘don’t protect Ontario and use tariffs as cover to unleash lobbying act.’ That is a summary of what I think is wrong in principle with Bill 5.” Bill 5 has undergone its second reading and will be the subject of a Standing Committee hearing. Bill 17: Striking down green development standards, paring down planning applications Bill 17: Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 aims to dismantle the City of Toronto’s Green Building Bylaw, along with limiting municipal authority in planning processes. These changes are proposed in the ostensible interest of speeding up construction in order to lower housing costs. The bill states that municipalities must follow the Building Code, and prohibits them for passing by-laws or imposing construction standards that exceed those set out in the Building Code. This seems to deliver a major win to development group RESCON, which has been lobbying to strike down the Toronto Green Standard. Fifteen municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area currently have green development standards. Non-profit group The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) notes that green standards do not slow housing construction. “In 2023, Toronto exceeded its housing targets by 51%, with nearly 96% of housing starts being subject to the Toronto Green Standard. Overall, Toronto’s housing starts have grown or stayed consistent nearly every year since the TGS was implemented.” The group also notes that the Ontario Building Code’s energy efficiency requirements have not been updated since 2017, and that Ontario’s cities will not meet their climate targets without more progressive pathways to low-carbon construction. Also of direct impact to architects is the proposed standardization of requirements for “complete” planning applications. Under the tabled bill, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will have the power to govern what information or material is required (or prohibited) in connection with official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval, draft plans of subdivisions, and consent applications. This would prevail over existing Official Plan requirements. Currently, the Ontario government is proposing that sun/shadow, wind, urban design and lighting studies would not be required as part of a complete planning application. The bills would also deem an application to be complete not when it’s accepted by a municipal planning authority, but solely on the basis of it being prepared by prescribed professional. The prescribed professions are not yet defined, but the government has cited Engineers as an example. Bill 17 proposes to grant minor variances “as of right” so long that they fall with a certain percentage of current setback regulations. (They are currently proposing 10%.) This would apply to urban residential lands outside of the Greenbelt. The Bill proposes amendments to the Development Charges Act that will change what municipalities can charge, including eliminating development charges for long-term care homes. The bill limits Inclusionary Zoning to apply to a maximum 5% set-aside rate, and a maximum 25-year period of affordability. Dentons notes that: “While not specifically provided for in Bill 17, the Technical Briefing suggests that, the Minister of Infrastructure will have authority to approve MZOs, an authority currently held only by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.” Environmental Defense’s Phil Pothen writes: “Some of the measures proposed in Bill 17—like deferring development charges—could help build smarter and faster if they were applied selectively to infill, mid-rise and multiplex housing. But the bill’s current language would apply these changes to sprawl and McMansion development as well.” He adds: “Bill 17 also includes provisions that seem aimed at erasing municipal urban rules and green building standards, imposing generic road-design standards on urban and suburban streets and preventing urban design. Those changes could actually make it harder to speed up housing—reversing progress toward more efficient construction and land use and the modes of transportation that support them.” The Bill would also amend the Building Code to eliminate the need for a secondary provincial approval of innovative construction products if they have already been examined by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of the National Research Council of Canada. The Ontario government is currently seeking comment on their proposed regulation to standardize complete application requirements. They are also currently seeking comment on the proposed regulation that provides for as-of-rights within 10% of current required setbacks. These comment periods are open until June 26, 2025. The post New Ontario bills gut environmental protections, eliminate green building bylaws appeared first on Canadian Architect.

Shopping has always been a battle. Companies work hard to convince you that their product is better, while also trying to ensure you pay the highest possible price for your purchase. That’s fair enough, and most of us are accustomed to researching everything we buy to make sure we’re not being ripped off.But modern technology has changed the game. Companies have been hoovering up information about us for years now, and that means they have a pretty good idea about our shopping habits—including what we’re willing to pay for specific products and services, something called Individualized Consumer Data (ICD). New tools like artificial intelligence are now making it very, very easy for companies to engage in what’s known as surveillance pricing.What is surveillance pricing?As its most basic, surveillance pricing is when companies put together a profile of you and your shopping habits, then adjust prices specifically for you. A basic example would be shopping for a television: Two people go to Amazon to look at the same television. One person sees a price of $499, while the other sees $599—for the exact same television, at the exact same moment. The discrepancy is due to their different spending habits and other information that Amazon has gathered about them—their ICD—that tells the company that one person would be willing to spend that extra $100, and the other wouldn’t.Companies create those profiles by scraping an incredibly large volume of information about you from a wide variety of sources. Internet cookies, your shopping history, your IP address (and the geographic and demographic information it provides), are just the basics—the profiling goes much deeper. Even behaviors like how far you scroll when searching for products or what you leave in your shopping cart and never buy contribute to a detailed picture of who you are as a consumer.You might be thinking that most of your personal and financial information is protected to some extent by privacy laws and policies, and you would be right. A lot of this stuff is anonymized. But the sheer amount of information that you leak when you go online—not just cookies and IP addresses, but the browser you use, the plugins you have installed, your time zone, screen size, devices, even system fonts on your computer—can be collected to create a detailed “fingerprint” of your online life. Combined with data gathered from loyalty apps and other sources, this means that an “anonymous” profile of you can be reliably created and identified. In other words, companies may not know that it’s you shopping for that TV, but they know that a unique consumer with specific habits is shopping for one, and thus they can tweak their pricing as needed very effectively.The signs to look out forWhat’s fun about surveillance pricing is how hard it is to tell it’s happening. After all, you surf to a site to buy something, you see a price, you assume that’s just the price that’s been calculated. How can you know that someone else will see a higher or lower price?It’s not easy. You can look for a few subtle signs and try a few experiments if you suspect you’re running into surveillance pricing:Changed prices. If you go back to a specific website regularly and notice that the price changes, it might be because you’re using a different device or because some other aspect of your online fingerprint has changed. Or it might be because your ICD tells the company that you always visit multiple times looking for a lower price.Inconsistent pricing. If you know someone who is shopping for the same item on the same platform and they’re getting different pricing, that’s a potential clue.Reactive advertising. Even if you haven’t noticed price changes, seeing ads that are narrowly targeted to you can be a sign that ICD is being collected and used on you. For example, if web searches or comments on your social media channels seem to inspire related ads, there’s a good chance that your online fingerprint is specific enough to be used for surveillance pricing.Defending against surveillance pricingSurveillance pricing is harmful to consumers because it means you wind up paying more for items simply because of where you live or other extraneous factors—it’s inherently unfair. Defending against it, however, can be challenging—there are basically four strategies you can employ against surveillance pricing, and none of them are magic bullets.Comparison shopThe simplest way to combat suspected surveillance pricing is to shop around for items at different stores—including physical locations, if possible—to get a clear idea of what the “normal” price should be. This can be time-consuming and not always effective, as different online platforms may all use similar surveillance techniques against you.Another aspect of this is to engage your friends and family who live in different areas and use different devices (Android phones versus iPhones, for example). A news station recently had several people from around the country check the prices of different products online, and found prices swung by several hundred dollars depending on location and other factors. If you can ask people who live in different areas to check prices, you can at least determine if you’re getting an okay deal, comparatively.Use a VPNOne of the most common pieces of advice whenever pricing issues come up is to use a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to mask your location—you’ve probably seen this advice in conjunction with finding the lowest airline prices for trips. It seems to make sense: If retailers are charging more for people living in affluent zip codes, changing your reported location should defend against that.I tried this, using a VPN to change my IP address to locations in Mexico, the Netherlands, Japan, and different areas of the U.S., and actually saw no price changes whatsoever. One reason this might not work is because your IP address and associated location are just one piece of your online fingerprint, and companies can still track you when you mask it (your browser gives away a lot of information—you can see just how much at this site). Another reason this might not work as well as you expect is because companies can pretty easily tell that you’re using a VPN because the IP addresses they assign their users are used over and over again, often by several people at the same time. This creates patterns that allow companies to flag those IP addresses as VPNs.However, that doesn’t mean that using a VPN is pointless in the fight against surveillance pricing. If you routinely surf the net behind a VPN and combine that with other steps like incognito browsing, regularly clearing cookies from your browser, and deleting your internet history, you deny trackers a wealth of information about you, which can help cloak your identity, making it harder to create that online fingerprint.Avoid loyalty appsLoyalty apps that offer coupons and discounts to regular shoppers are, of course, data vacuums that make it very easy to create a profile about you and your shopping habits. For a few measly discounts, you’re basically giving companies everything they could possibly need to track and profile you—and they can (and do) sell that information to other retailers. If you want to make it harder for them to use surveillance pricing against you, giving up those little perks is probably necessary.Use different devicesThe final piece of advice for defeating surveillance pricing is the one thing that did actually make a difference when I tested it. I randomly searched Amazon for a 65-inch TV made by TCL. On my desktop browser, it was listed at $469.95. When I switched to my phone, it was suddenly $479.00. Less than $10 isn’t a huge difference, but changing devices was the only strategy that yielded any results at all for me, and indicates that checking prices on different devices is an effective strategy for ensuring you’re getting the best possible price despite what your profile might say about your shopping habits.Of course, all of this checking and device-swapping takes time and effort, so you have to consider whether the money you might save by getting around surveillance pricing is worth the time you put into it. Using a VPN with an incognito browser regularly is probably the best passive strategy you can employ to frustrate attempts to profile you without making it into a second job.Last year the Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation into surveillance pricing, which could lead to new rules and enforcement to end the practice, and several states have some kind of legislation to regulate or ban the practice in the works. But until those become reality, keep your eyes open.

Everywhere you look within the Google universe these days, it’s Gemini, Gemini, Gemini. Just this past week, El Googleton devoted essentially its entire Google I/O conference keynote to — yep, you guessed it — Gemini. We heard about all sorts of futuristic-sounding ways the generative AI assistant will, like, totally revolutionize our lives, with endlessly technical explanations of how the latest and greatest Gemini models will move into more and more Google services and take over more and more of our day-to-day doings. That’s all fine and dandy — in theory. In reality, of course, these genAI engines are far less capable, consistent, and reliable than they’re made out to be, and most of those more advanced functions (including anything involving any manner of info seeking, answer providing, or text processing) are generally more of a liability than an asset. But while it’s best to take most of the breathless hype with a hefty grain of salt, Gemini does have some genuinely useful capabilities. They just tend to be much more basic and narrowly focused than the overly ambitious ideas Google’s goin’ gaga for (and, as far as I can tell, most normal people have no idea what to do with in the real world). Fittingly enough, this week, I accidentally stumbled onto a perfect example. It’s a simple-as-can-be Gemini feature that handles one basic task and handles it extraordinarily well. It won’t upend the world, revolutionize your life, or give you a glimpse of our allegedly inevitable AI-laden future. Honestly, it’s debatable as to whether it actually even qualifies as AI at all. But it’s incredibly useful, in a way that’ll instantly fit into your workflow and make your days easier. And, if you ask me, that’s a much more meaningful measure of success than what any complex AI-assessing metric can measure. [Want even more actually practical Android knowledge? Check out my free Android Shortcut Supercourse to learn tons of time-saving tricks.] Gemini as your on-demand memo machine This Gemini gem is so simple, in fact, that it’s actually something our beloved old Google Assistant also used to be able to handle. But I had no idea it had carried over into Gemini in an updated form until I randomly happened to try it whilst playing around with something unrelated. So here it is: With a simple spoken — or, if you prefer, typed out — command, Gemini can remember anything you tell it. And then, at any point down the road, it can recall that info for you and bring it back to your attention with a quick ‘n’ easy ask. It’s essentially your own on-demand memo machine, in other words. And it’s already right there in your pocket, waiting to be called into action. Here’s all you’ve gotta do to tap into its tucked-away powers: Summon Gemini on whatever Android phone or tablet is in front of you. Depending on the device and its settings, you might be able to do this by saying Hey Google, by pressing and holding your power button, or by tapping a shortcut on your home screen — or, no matter what device you’re using or how it’s configured, you can always ​download the standalone Gemini app and open it up that way, too. Type or say remember that [something] is [something] — filling in your own description and item to be remembered in those two spots. So, for instance, you might say remember that the door code is 77773, remember that my boss’s husband is named Hubert, remember that my rental car license plate is PORKY292, or remember that lot 3 is the best place to park. In the blink of an eye, you should see a confirmation that Gemini has remembered what you asked. Once you’ve asked it to remember something, Gemini will confirm that it’s made a (metaphorical) mental note.JR Raphael, Foundry Now, ready for the cool part? Total Gemini recall The next time you need to recall whatever info you told Gemini, you can simply summon the service once more — exactly as you did a moment ago — and ask it for whatever you provided.  To follow our same examples from earlier, then, you might ask things like: What’s the door code? What’s my boss’s husband named? What’s my rental car license plate? Where is the best place to park? And, shazam: So long as your inquiry is reasonably close to the description you used when you saved the info, Gemini will cough it back up for you anytime, anywhere. One quick command will recall anything you’ve asked Gemini to remember.JR Raphael, Foundry You can even access the same info via Gemini on any device where you’re signed into the same Google account — phone, tablet, or any kind of computer, too. It works the same exact way, no matter what specific setup you’re using. And one extra little tip: If you ever want to see and optionally also edit the entire list of everything you’ve ever asked Gemini to remember, you can do so by pulling up this page in any browser where you’re signed in. All of your saved info in a single spot — available on any device, anytime.JR Raphael, Foundry As you may notice, this feature is officially meant for telling Gemini things that’ll affect how it interacts with you — like, for instance, that you prefer short and concise responses or that you’d like it to include a translation to Spanish with every answer it serves up. But within that ambitious architecture exists a delightfully simple memo-making superpower. And sometimes, it’s the simplest stuff that’s the most useful of all. Get six full days of advanced Android knowledge with my free Android Shortcut Supercourse. Tons of time-saving tricks await!

The US House of Representatives just narrowly passed a budget bill, which has been referred to by President Trump and others as "one big, beautiful bill." Hidden amongst the cuts to health care, debt add-ons and tax breaks for the rich is a ten-year ban of state AI laws. You read that right. States would be banned by the federal government from enforcing laws that regulate AI for the next decade.The vote fell largely along party lines, with nearly every Republican member of the House approving the bill. This marks one of the most significant federal actions on technology policy in decades and it was buried in a budget bill that has nothing to do with AI.This isn't law just yet. The budget bill has to pass through the Senate and it could have a difficult road. It's expected that Democratic lawmakers will challenge the AI regulation ban under what's called the Byrd Rule, which prohibits "extraneous" provisions to the federal budget during the reconciliation process.To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so.Even some Senate Republicans seem wary of the ban. Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee expressed concern that it would override state legislation that protects artists from deepfakes in her state. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has also pushed back on the idea on the grounds that it could "tamp down on people's efforts to address" issues posed by AI.ADVERTISEMENTAdvertisementSupporters of the ban argue that it would stop a potentially confusing patchwork of differing state AI laws until Congress can craft its own federal legislation. This is pretty odd coming from the "states' rights" crowd, but whatever.Opponents, like many Democratic lawmakers and advocacy organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, call it a dangerous giveaway to big tech firms, as these companies stand to benefit the most from a completely unregulated market. They also say it poses a serious danger to Americans, as it would leave the citizenry unprotected from any associated risk. Current state laws address issues including deepfakes and discrimination in automated hiring.“Make no mistake, the families who have come to this committee and begged for us to act won't benefit from this proposal,” said Democratic Rep. Lori Trahan during a subcommittee hearing on the matter. “But you know who will? The big tech CEOs who are sitting behind Donald Trump at his inauguration."To view this content, you'll need to update your privacy settings. Please click here and view the "Content and social-media partners" setting to do so.The budget bill, as passed by the House, also includes cuts to Medicaid totaling an estimated $625 billion and cuts to SNAP, otherwise called food stamps, totaling $300 billion. It could also force $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, which serves senior citizens, as a byproduct of adding nearly $4 trillion to the national deficit. It also ends the EV tax credit. All of this pays for an extension and expansion of previous tax cuts that disproportionately favor high-income earners.If you buy something through a link in this article, we may earn commission.

The second decade of the 21st century has given us a treasure trove of bonkers ideologies and obsessive subcultures. From Marc Andreessen's fanatic Techno-Optimists to the violent rationalist sect of the Zizians, would-be cultists are spoiled for choice in 2025.Now, it seems there's a new one on the scene: the self-described "pro-mortalists."The philosopher Thaddeus Metz, at the University of Pretoria, describes pro-mortalism as the "view that it is often prudent for individuals to kill themselves and often right for them to kill others, even without their consent."On its own, pro-mortalism isn't really viewed as a developed ideology. Rather, it's an idea stemming from a fringe philosophy known as "negative utilitarianism," the principle that we should limit human suffering while maximizing pleasure.That sounds lovely on paper. But in practice, critics of negative utilitarianism like Metz highlight its tendency to lead to anti-natalism — the extremist view that it's wrong to bring new life into the world — and pro-mortalism.The two ideas seem to be used interchangeably by forum philosophers and YouTube theorists, though anti-natalism once had a decent following on Reddit, whose discussions centered around the ethics of bringing children into the world without their consent.Among its pro-mortalism's acolytes was Guy Edward Bartkus, the 25-year-old man who recently carried out a terrorist attack on a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California.Late last Saturday, Bartkus detonated a car bomb outside of the American Reproductive Centers building, an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic — a medical practice that helps people get pregnant using various biotech tricks, basically — east of Los Angeles.Bartkus died while attempting to record and upload the attack, while four others were injured, according to NBC. The clinic's embryos were undamaged, and IVF treatment is reportedly continuing this week.Though his footage didn't make it to the web, authorities found writings as well as a pro-mortalism website that are shedding light on Bartkus' radical anti-life beliefs. "Welcome! Here, you can download the recorded stream of my suicide and bombing of an IVF clinic!" the website greets.In a section labeled "possible FAQs," Bartkus makes his case for pro-mortalism, addressing the audience he seemed to anticipate would flock to his site after the attack."Understand your death is already a guarantee, and you can thank your parents for that one," Bartkus wrote. "All a pro-mortalist is saying is let's make it happen sooner rather than later (and preferably peaceful rather than some disease or accident), to prevent your future suffering, and, more importantly, the suffering your existence will cause to all the other sentient beings."Bartkus is notably cautious to distance himself from nihilism — an older and better-established school of thought — calling pro-mortalism the "polar opposite" of that "nonsense."Instead, he claims the suicide of a fellow negative utilitarian friend sent him over the edge.Meanwhile, questions have been raised online regarding an alleged FBI presence in the town of Twentynine Palms where the suicide bomber lived, in the days leading up to the explosion.When a KESQ 3 reporter asked if the FBI could confirm the presence of federal agents in Twentynine Palms prior to the bombing, a spokesman said he "cannot," before abruptly ending the twenty-minute press conference.Local police Chief Andy Mills also revealed that Bartkus was "chatting with people in online groups, in online forums, as well as posting stuff on YouTube where he was experimenting with different types of explosive materials," but added that he was "very confident" Barkus acted alone.More on crime: Crypto Tycoon's Daughter Narrowly Escapes Kidnappers in ParisShare This Article