In a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.” Screenshot of data After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, states were given sweeping authority to ban and even criminalize abortion. In Texas—where the officer who conducted this search is based—abortion is now almost entirely banned. But in Washington and Illinois, where many of the searched Flock cameras are located, abortion remains legal and protected as a fundamental right up to fetal viability. The post-Dobbs legal landscape has also opened the door for law enforcement to exploit virtually any form of data—license plates, phone records, geolocation data—to pursue individuals across state lines. has documented more than 1,800 agencies have deployed ALPRs, but at least 4,000 agencies are able to run searches through some agencies in Flock's network. Many agencies share the data freely with other agencies across the country, with little oversight, restriction, or even standards for accessing data.  While this particular data point explicitly mentioned an abortion, scores of others in the audit logs released through public records requests simply list "investigation" as the reason for the plate search, with no indication of the alleged offense. That means other searches targeting someone for abortion, or another protected right in that jurisdiction, could be effectively invisible. This case underscores our growing concern: that the mass surveillance infrastructure—originally sold as a tool to find stolen cars or missing persons—is now being used to target people seeking reproductive healthcare. This unchecked, warrant-less access that allows law enforcement to surveil across state lines blurs the line between “protection” and persecution. From Missing Cars to Monitoring Bodies EFF has long warned about the dangers of ALPRs, which scan license plates, log time and location data, and build a detailed picture of people's movements. Companies like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions offer law enforcement agencies access to nationwide databases of these readers, and in some cases, allow them to stake out locations like abortion clinics, or create “hot lists” of license plates to track in real time. Flock's technology also allows officers to search for a vehicle based on attributes like color, make and model, even without a plate number. The threat is compounded by how investigations often begin. A report published by If/When/How on the criminalization of self-managed abortion found that about a quarter of adult cases (26%) were reported to law enforcement by acquaintances entrusted with information, such as “friends, parents, or intimate partners” and another 18% through “other” means. This means that with ALPR tech, a tip from anyone can instantly escalate into a nationwide manhunt. And as Kate Bertash of the Digital Defense Fund explained to 404 Media, anti-abortion activists have long been documenting the plates of patients and providers who visit reproductive health facilities—data that can now be easily cross-referenced with ALPR databases. The 404 Media report proves that this isn’t a hypothetical concern. In 2023, a months-long EFF investigation involving hundreds of public records requests uncovered that many California police departments were sharing records containing detailed driving profiles of local residents with out-of-state agencies, despite state laws explicitly prohibiting this. This means that even in so-called “safe” states, your data might end up helping law enforcement in Texas or Idaho prosecute you—or your doctor.  That’s why we demanded that 75 California police departments stop sharing ALPR data with anti-abortion states, an effort that has largely been successful. Surveillance and Reproductive Freedom Cannot Coexist We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Lawmakers who support reproductive rights must recognize that abortion access and mass surveillance are incompatible.  The systems built to track stolen cars and issue parking tickets have become tools to enforce the most personal and politically charged laws in the country. What began as a local concern over privacy has escalated into a national civil liberties crisis. Yesterday’s license plate readers have morphed into today’s reproductive dragnet. Now, it’s time for decisive action. Our leaders must roll back the dangerous surveillance systems they've enabled. We must enact strong, enforceable state laws to limit data sharing, ensure proper oversight, and dismantle these surveillance pipelines before they become the new normal–or even just eliminate the systems altogether.

In “The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future,” Wall Street Journal reporter Keach Hagey examines our AI-obsessed moment through one of its key figures — Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI. Hagey begins with Altman’s Midwest childhood, then takes readers through his career at startup Loopt, accelerator Y Combinator, and now at OpenAI. She also sheds new light on the dramatic few days when Altman was fired, then quickly reinstated, as OpenAI’s CEO. Looking back at what OpenAI employees now call “the Blip,” Hagey said the failed attempt to oust Altman revealed that OpenAI’s complex structure — with a for-profit company controlled by a nonprofit board — is “not stable.” And with OpenAI largely backing down from plans to let the for-profit side take control, Hagey predicted that this “fundamentally unstable arrangement” will “continue to give investors pause.” Does that mean OpenAI could struggle to raise the funds it needs to keep going? Hagey replied that it could “absolutely” be an issue. “My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge,” she said. “But success is not guaranteed.” In addition, Hagey’s biography (also available as an audiobook on Spotify) examines Altman’s politics, which she described as “pretty traditionally progressive” — making it a bit surprising that he’s struck massive infrastructure deals with the backing of the Trump administration. “But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker,” Hagey said. “Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at.” Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW In an interview with TechCrunch, Hagey also discussed Altman’s response to the book, his trustworthiness, and the AI “hype universe.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  You open the book by acknowledging some of the reservations that Sam Altman had about the project —  this idea that we tend to focus too much on individuals rather than organizations or broad movements, and also that it’s way too early to assess the impact of OpenAI. Did you share those concerns? Well, I don’t really share them, because this was a biography. This project was to look at a person, not an organization. And I also think that Sam Altman has set himself up in a way where it does matter what kind of moral choices he has made and what his moral formation has been, because the broad project of AI is really a moral project. That is the basis of OpenAI’s existence. So I think these are fair questions to ask about a person, not just an organization. As far as whether it’s too soon, I mean, sure, it’s definitely [early to] assess the entire impact of AI. But it’s been an extraordinary story for OpenAI — just so far, it’s already changed the stock market, it has changed the entire narrative of business. I’m a business journalist. We do nothing but talk about AI, all day long, every day. So in that way, I don’t think it’s too early. And despite those reservations, Altman did cooperate with you. Can you say more about what your relationship with him was like during the process of researching the book? Well, he was definitely not happy when he was informed about the book’s existence. And there was a long period of negotiation, frankly. In the beginning, I figured I was going to write this book without his help — what we call, in the business, a write-around profile. I’ve done plenty of those over my career, and I figured this would just be one more. Over time, as I made more and more calls, he opened up a little bit. And [eventually,] he was generous to sit down with me several times for long interviews and share his thoughts with me. Has he responded to the finished book at all? No. He did tweet about the project, about his decision to participate with it, but he was very clear that he was never going to read it. It’s the same way that I don’t like to watch my TV appearances or podcasts that I’m on. In the book, he’s described as this emblematic Silicon Valley figure. What do you think are the key characteristics that make him representative of the Valley and the tech industry? In the beginning, I think it was that he was young. The Valley really glorifies youth, and he was 19 years old when he started his first startup. You see him going into these meetings with people twice his age, doing deals with telecom operators for his first startup, and no one could get over that this kid was so smart. The other is that he is a once-in-a-generation fundraising talent, and that’s really about being a storyteller. I don’t think it’s an accident that you have essentially a salesman and a fundraiser at the top of the most important AI company today, That ties into one of the questions that runs through the book — this question about Altman’s trustworthiness. Can you say more about the concerns people seem to have about that? To what extent is he a trustworthy figure?  Well, he’s a salesman, so he’s really excellent at getting in a room and convincing people that he can see the future and that he has something in common with them. He gets people to share his vision, which is a rare talent. There are people who’ve watched that happen a bunch of times, who think, “Okay, what he says does not always map to reality,” and have, over time, lost trust in him. This happened both at his first startup and very famously at OpenAI, as well as at Y Combinator. So it is a pattern, but I think it’s a typical critique of people who have the salesman skill set. So it’s not necessarily that he’s particularly untrustworthy, but it’s part-and-parcel of being a salesman leading these important companies. I mean, there also are management issues that are detailed in the book, where he is not great at dealing with conflict, so he’ll basically tell people what they want to hear. That causes a lot of sturm-und-drang in the management ranks, and it’s a pattern. Something like that happened at Loopt, where the executives asked the board to replace him as CEO. And you saw it happen at OpenAI as well. You’ve touched on Altman’s firing, which was also covered in a book excerpt that was published in the Wall Street Journal. One of the striking things to me, looking back at it, was just how complicated everything was — all the different factions within the company, all the people who seemed pro-Altman one day and then anti-Altman the next. When you pull back from the details, what do you think is the bigger significance of that incident? The very big picture is that the nonprofit governance structure is not stable. You can’t really take investment from the likes of Microsoft and a bunch of other investors and then give them absolutely no say whatsoever in the governance of the company. That’s what they have tried to do, but I think what we saw in that firing is how power actually works in the world. When you have stakeholders, even if there’s a piece of paper that says they have no rights, they still have power. And when it became clear that everyone in the company was going to go to Microsoft if they didn’t reinstate Sam Altman, they reinstated Sam Altman. In the book, you take the story up to maybe the end of 2024. There have been all these developments since then, which you’ve continued to report on, including this announcement that actually, they’re not fully converting to a for-profit. How do you think that’s going to affect OpenAI going forward?  It’s going to make it harder for them to raise money, because they basically had to do an about-face. I know that the new structure going forward of the public benefit corporation is not exactly the same as the current structure of the for-profit — it is a little bit more investor friendly, it does clarify some of those things. But overall, what you have is a nonprofit board that controls a for-profit company, and that fundamentally unstable arrangement is what led to the so-called Blip. And I think you would continue to give investors pause, going forward, if they are going to have so little control over their investment. Obviously, OpenAI is still such a capital intensive business. If they have challenges raising more money, is that an existential question for the company? It absolutely could be. My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge. But success is not guaranteed. Like you said, there’s a dual perspective in the book that’s partly about who Sam is, and partly about what that says about where AI is going from here. How did that research into his particular story shape the way you now look at these broader debates about AI and society? I went down a rabbit hole in the beginning of the book, [looking] into Sam’s father, Jerry Altman, in part because I thought it was striking how he’d been written out of basically every other thing that had ever been written about Sam Altman. What I found in this research was a very idealistic man who was, from youth, very interested in these public-private partnerships and the power of the government to set policy. He ended up having an impact on the way that affordable housing is still financed to this day. And when I traced Sam’s development, I saw that he has long believed that the government should really be the one that is funding and guiding AI research. In the early days of OpenAI, they went and tried to get the government to invest, as he’s publicly said, and it didn’t work out. But he looks back to these great mid-20th century labs like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, which are private, but there was a ton of government money running through and supporting that ecosystem. And he says, “That’s the right way to do it.” Now I am watching daily as it seems like the United States is summoning the forces of state capitalism to get behind Sam Altman’s project to build these data centers, both in the United States and now there was just one last week announced in Abu Dhabi. This is a vision he has had for a very, very long time. My sense of the vision, as he presented it earlier, was one where, on the one hand, the government is funding these things and building this infrastructure, and on the other hand, the government is also regulating and guiding AI development for safety purposes. And it now seems like the path being pursued is one where they’re backing away from the safety side and doubling down on the government investment side. Absolutely. Isn’t it fascinating?  You talk about Sam as a political figure, as someone who’s had political ambitions at different times, but also somebody who has what are in many ways traditionally liberal political views while being friends with folks like — at least early on — Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. And he’s done a very good job of navigating the Trump administration. What do you think his politics are right now? I’m not sure his actual politics have changed, they are pretty traditionally progressive politics. Not completely — he’s been critical about things like cancel culture, but in general, he thinks the government is there to take tax revenue and solve problems. His success in the Trump administration has been fascinating because he has been able to find their one area of overlap, which is the desire to build a lot of data centers, and just double down on that and not talk about any other stuff. But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker. Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at. You open and close the book not just with Sam’s father, but with his family as a whole. What else is worth highlighting in terms of how his upbringing and family shapes who he is now? Well, you see both the idealism from his father and also the incredible ambition from his mother, who was a doctor, and had four kids and worked as a dermatologist. I think both of these things work together to shape him. They also had a more troubled marriage than I realized going into the book. So I do think that there’s some anxiety there that Sam himself is very upfront about, that he was a pretty anxious person for much of his life, until he did some meditation and had some experiences. And there’s his current family — he just had a baby and got married not too long ago. As a young gay man, growing up in the Midwest, he had to overcome some challenges, and I think those challenges both forged him in high school as a brave person who could stand up and take on a room as a public speaker, but also shaped his optimistic view of the world. Because, on that issue, I paint the scene of his wedding: That’s an unimaginable thing from the early ‘90s, or from the ‘80s when he was born. He’s watched society develop and progress in very tangible ways, and I do think that that has helped solidify his faith in progress. Something that I’ve found writing about AI is that the different visions being presented by people in the field can be so diametrically opposed. You have these wildly utopian visions, but also these warnings that AI could end the world. It gets so hyperbolic that it feels like people are not living in the same reality. Was that a challenge for you in writing the book? Well, I see those two visions — which feel very far apart — actually being part of the same vision, which is that AI is super important, and it’s going to completely transform everything. No one ever talks about the true opposite of that, which is, “Maybe this is going to be a cool enterprise tool, another way to waste time on the internet, and not quite change everything as much as everyone thinks.” So I see the doomers and the boomers feeding off each other and being part of the same sort of hype universe. As a journalist and as a biographer, you don’t necessarily come down on one side or the other — but actually, can you say where you come down on that? Well, I will say that I find myself using it a lot more recently, because it’s gotten a lot better. In the early stages, when I was researching the book, I was definitely a lot more skeptical of its transformative economic power. I’m less skeptical now, because I just use it a lot more.

Under new Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany could impose a new 10 percent tax on major online platforms such as Google and Facebook. Reuters reported that political factions in the country struck a deal earlier this year to pursue these fees for digital service companies. "These corporations do billions in business in Germany with extremely high profit margins and benefit enormously from the country’s media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure — but they pay hardly any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to society," Germany's Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer said of the draft rule during an interview with the magazine Stern. Other nations around the world have also explored and enacted taxes on online revenue generated by the largest internet tech companies. Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Austria and Canada have similar legislation to the draft rule Germany's culture minister is proposing, according to Reuters. If the tax is passed, Germany could see retaliation from President Donald Trump's administration. Trump had said in February that he would seek tariffs on nations that impose a digital service tax on US tech businesses.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/germany-is-considering-a-10-percent-digital-service-tax-on-us-tech-giants-195705330.html?src=rss

Harvard Graduate School of Design Dean Sarah Whiting has condemned the Trump Administration’s effort to bar international students from attending Harvard University. The move, which has been temporarily halted by a federal judge, sought to prevent Harvard from enrolling students on F- or J-visas, which would effectively force international students to switch to another institution, leave the United States, or face deportation. Approximately 25% of students at Harvard University are international. According to previous reporting by college database Peterson’s, 31% of students at the Harvard GSD are international. Harvard President Alan Garber called the Trump Administration’s move “unlawful and unwarranted,” warning that it "imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams.” https://...

Frankenstein, the post-Enlightenment novel written by a teenage girl that invented modern science fiction, has long been Guillermo del Toro’s white whale. The Mexican filmmaker has eyed adapting Mary Shelley’s story of a modern day Prometheus since the 1990s. And now it’s almost here. It’s a good feeling for the filmmaker and his admirers… but it also an opportunity of mounting excitement for fans of Shelley, too, since so much of her 1818 masterpiece remains mostly associated with the page in spite of the countless film adaptations based on the story of a man and his monster. And as judged by the first remarkable teaser trailer of Frankenstein introduced by del Toro and stars Oscar Isaac and Mia Goth at Netflix’s Tudum event Saturday night, it’s safe to stay that del Toro is pulling from Shelley directly… including a wrap-around story of hers that is seldom ever attempted on the screen. “What manner of creature is that?” a shaken voice whispers in the new Frankenstein trailer. “What manner of devil made him?” We never exactly see what countenance could earn the dehumanizing term “creature” in the trailer, but we feel his presence. He is a silhouette, a shadow—a vengeful wraith—walking across a sheet of ice with the sunset to his back. And he is approaching what is demonstrably a half-mad, frostbitten Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac), who can only say in his frozen delirium “I did.” Victor is the devil who made that. For fans of Shelley’s novel, or just those with a good memory of Kenneth Branagh’s now mostly forgotten 1994 adaptation of the book, this framing device should send a chill of anticipation through the spine as giddy as any more familiar promises of gods and monsters. That’s because del Toro is adapting the cruel framing device Shelley used to introduce both Victor and the creature he pursues. Indeed, most of Frankenstein on the page is told in flashback and relayed by our protagonist Victor as a kind of last rites confession as he dies from fever and starvation after years and years of chasing his creation north. Always north. Whereas most of the novel takes place actually at the end of the Enlightenment era of the 19th century—the glory days of Mary’s famous philosophical and activist parents—the only “modern” part of the story is to compare the zeal for discovery in Victor with what was only a dawning fascination in the 19th century with discovering the North Pole (a feat that wouldn’t actually be accomplished until the early 20th century). In the book, Victor’s tale of obsession for greatness causes a captain who has led his men to becoming stuck in the Arctic ice to reflect on the potentially lethal consequences of his ambitions—especially after he meets the Monster who later verifies Victor’s story by mourning over the scientist’s body. The framing device is fascinating because of where it places the story in history, but also because it elevates the tragedy of the so-called Monster and his Creator. Who was really hunting who at the end of the world in the North Pole, and who is truly the monster? The Creature did terrible things, but how much of that is Victor’s fault for abandoning his progeny to a lifetime of loneliness hatred, and despair, including by that which gave him life? Both suffer tragic fates in the end in the cold. Unloved and unremembered, except by one sea captain no one will believe. While it remains to be seen if del Toro is doing a straight-ahead faithful adaptation of the novel—in fact we can assume he is not since Isaac’s Victor dresses more like a Victorian of the mid-19th century than a contemporary of Voltaire or Thomas Jefferson, and we also know that Burn Gorman appears in the movie as Fritz, a character created by Universal Pictures in the iconic 1931 film adaptation starring Boris Karloff—it is fascinating to see the master filmmaker returning to the source material. It also raises questions of just where he will go with Jacob Elordi’s intentionally obscured and hidden Monster. We know from the trailer’s end with the Monster attacking the crew of the North Pole-bound ship (a beat also, we might add, is not in the novel) that he has the power of speech. It will be curious indeed to learn if he proves to be a Milton-esque philosopher demon, which is also a largely ignored element of Shelley’s original story. Frankenstein is expected to premiere in November on Netflix.

Insurance is a modern necessity—and it can often be a literal lifesaver. When any sort of disaster strikes, whether it’s to your property, your business, or your health, getting a payment on your claim can mean the difference between getting through the emergency in one piece and being buried under bills for years to come.While it might seem pretty straightforward, anyone who’s actually dealt with insurance companies knows that their least favorite thing to do in this world is pay out on claims. In fact, studies have found that 17% of claims made to HealthCare.gov insurers and 18% of claims made to private insurers are denied—with some insurance companies rejecting nearly 50% of all claims.In fact, some insurers employ several legal but underhanded tricks to avoid paying out on claims. Here are five common tricks insurance companies will use against you.Moving as slowly as possibleThe simplest trick an insurance company can play is to drag their feet on your claim—there’s a reason the phrase “deny and delay” has become linked to the insurance industry as a whole. This tactic works because your insurer knows you’re desperate for a settlement on your claim; that’s the whole point of insurance. The longer they make you wait, the more likely you’ll accept whatever they offer you, even if you know it’s much less than you’re entitled to.Delay tactics vary, but can include:Documentation overload. Insurance companies sometimes request huge amounts of (sometimes unnecessary) documentation that takes a lot of time to procure and organize.Personnel swaps. Insurers may change the adjuster and other employees on your case, with each new person requiring some time to review the claim and get up to speed.Claiming no response. Your insurer asked for something, and you provided it. Weeks later they claim they never received it, and ask that you submit it again.The best way to counter these tactics is meticulous record-keeping. If you feel that your insurer is asking for unnecessary documentation, ask them to explain why they need the documents—this sometimes makes document requests magically vanish. Send all written communications via certified mail and turn on read receipts for emails and other electronic communications.Love bombingInsurers are often extremely nice to you when you initially start dealing with them. They express sympathy, use the words “I’m sorry” in the context of your injuries or loss, and generally sound warm and friendly. That’s nice, and may even be genuine. But it’s also a tactic they use to delay or eventually find reasons to deny your claim.Studies have found that apologies can be weaponized, and that people will tolerate delays and settle for less if they think the other party is taking responsibility or expressing empathy. Being excessively nice to you can fool you into thinking you can rely on the insurer to handle things on your behalf. This lets the company delay as much as possible, stringing you along. Love bombing like this can also get you to say things you shouldn’t say—as we’ll see in the next entry.Twisting your wordsAnother reason an insurance adjuster or other employee might apologize to you? Because it can gently goad you into expressing regrets of your own which can then be used against you. Any expression of apology or regret could be interpreted as an admittance of fault. And establishing a friendly, sympathetic rapport with you could be a tactic to get you to say more than you should by speculating on causes or your responsibility in a claim.For example, while speaking with a friendly adjuster about a car accident you were involved with, you might tell them you wish you’d noticed the other car driving erratically—if you had, you might have avoided the accident. This might seem like a simple observation, but it could be twisted into an admittance that you weren’t paying attention—and thus your claim is denied.Insurers will also sometimes demand that you submit a recorded statement, often very quickly after the incident covered by the claim. They will sometimes state that this is best for you, as it will get the claim moving more quickly. But a rushed recorded statement can also lead to a denied claim—if you’re wrong or inaccurate about anything in your statement, this could be used as a basis for denial.To avoid the tactics listed above, follow a few simple rules for dealing with insurers:Lawyer up. Hiring a lawyer to help you deal with insurance claims might seem like overkill, but you should always have a lawyer with you when speaking with insurers. An experienced attorney can ensure you don’t say anything that could hurt your claim.Never record. You’re typically not required to submit recorded statements, so don’t do it. Insist that all communications be done in person or over the phone, with your attorney present.Be suspicious. If an adjuster or other representative of the insurance company is overly friendly, don’t fall for it. Their sympathy might be genuine, but it can still get you into trouble if you let your guard down.RushingIronically, an effective tactic to delay and deny claims is to rush things. You file your claim, and before you can get organized, hire a lawyer, and recover from whatever happened, the insurer is on the phone, offering a settlement. This is often combined with pressure—like sending you a letter stating that you have two weeks to accept the settlement offer, or the company will “close the file.”This is usually designed to reduce the payout—that easy, fast settlement is probably for a lot less than the amount you’re actually entitled to—and to force errors on your part. By rushing to pull together information, you’ll probably make mistakes that can then be used to deny the claim.You can defend against this in two simple ways:Slow down. Ignore pressure to respond immediately or by arbitrary deadlines. Take your time, gather information, and respond when you’re ready. An attorney can help by acting as a buffer between you and the company.Know the statute. If your insurer tells you it will close your claim file, let it happen. It’s a meaningless administrative action. Your state’s laws will have a defined Statute of Limitations on your claim—a period of time when you’re legally allowed to pursue the claim. As long as you’re within that time period, you can force the insurer to re-open the claim.LowballingIf your insurer doesn’t think it can totally deny your claim, it may offer you a lowball settlement. You shouldn’t accept an insurance company’s calculations as gospel. In fact, the most important piece of information you can have about the claims process is that you are allowed to hire your own insurance adjuster. A public insurance adjuster works for you, not the insurance company, and will often arrive at a much higher figure for your claim.Hiring your own adjuster also insulates you from internal delays, as you won’t have to wait on your insurer’s processes or play phone tag with their adjuster. In addition to an experienced lawyer, a public adjuster can also ensure that you have all the support and knowledge you need to navigate the often murky world of insurance claims.

How far would you go to keep yourself private online? There’s little doubt that advances in technology over the past three decades have eroded traditional concepts around privacy and security: It was once unthinkable to voluntarily invite big companies to track your every move and decision—now, we happily let them in exchange for the digital goods and services we rely on (or are hopelessly addicted to). Most people these days either tolerate these privacy intrusions or outright don’t care about them. But there’s a growing movement that believes it’s time to claim our privacy back. Some are working piecemeal, blocking trackers and reducing permissions where they can, while not totally ditching modern digital society as a whole. Others, however, are as hardcore as can be—a modern equivalent of "going off the grid."  We put out a call looking for the latter—people who are going to great lengths to protect their privacy in today’s mass surveillance world. We received a number of insightful, fascinating, and unique situations, but for this piece, I want to highlight four specific perspectives: "Ed," "Jane," "Mark," and "Jay."Ed is "ruthless" with app choices and permissionsThe first respondent, I’ll call Ed, since their privacy journey began with the Edward Snowden leaks: “I'd known something was likely up…as early as 2006[.] I remember headlines about AT&T possibly spying, but high school me didn't take it too seriously at the time. The Snowden leaks, when I was in college, really opened my eyes. Ever since, I've taken steps to protect my privacy.”Ed says the biggest step they’ve taken towards a digitally private life has been their Proton account. If you’re not aware, Proton is a company that offers apps designed for privacy. Their email service, Proton Mail, is the most famous of the company’s products, but Proton makes other apps as well. Ed uses many of them, including Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, and Proton Drive. Ed pays for Proton Ultimate, which costs them nearly $200 every two years (a new account is now billed yearly at $119.88). You don’t have to pay for Proton, but your experience is much more limited. That’s not totally dissimilar to Google’s offers, which gives you more features if you pay, but most people can definitely get by with a free Google Account. I'm not so sure the reverse is true. Speaking of Google, Ed does have a Google Account, but rarely logs into it. They don’t keep anything attached to it, however—Ed stores all files, for example, in Proton Drive or Tresoirt (another end-to-end encrypted service).Ed uses SimpleLogin for throwaway email addresses. That’s not just for the times Ed wants to avoid giving their email address to someone. According to them, they use an alias anytime an organization asks for their email, and frequently delete it when it’s no longer useful. Each online purchase gets its own alias, and that alias is deleted once the purchase is complete. Whenever Ed travels, they use an alias for any flights, hotels, and rental cars they use. Once the trip is up, they delete the alias. If one of those aliases receives a spam message, they delete it as well.Ed’s smartphone of choice is iPhone, and although Apple arguably has the best reputation for privacy in big tech, Ed is no fan: “Apple is no bastion of privacy of course, but they seem to be the least-worst of the big tech companies.” Ed doesn’t use iCloud for any backups: Any iPhone files are kept in Tresorit. That iPhone, of course, contains apps. But each app is there for a reason, and no app gets access to permissions unless it requires it: “I'm ruthless about apps and app permissions. If I'm not going to use the app regularly, I uninstall it. I grant only those permissions I think the app reasonably needs.” Ed protects his mobile internet traffic with Proton VPN, and only accesses the web via Firefox Focus, a special version of Firefox designed for privacy. Location services are always off on Ed’s iPhone, unless they’re using Apple Maps for navigation. Once they arrive at their destination, Ed disables location services again. They also have an interesting trick for getting back home without revealing their actual address:  “Additionally, when I'm navigating home, I don't enter my home address. I enter the address down the street just as an extra layer so I'm not entering my actual home address…I'll end navigation and turn off location while still driving…if I know the rest of the way home myself."Most of us deal regularly (if not daily) with spam calls. Not Ed: They use the “Silence Unknown Callers” setting on iOS to send all numbers not in the Contacts app to voicemail. They then review all voicemails, and if they didn’t leave a message, they block the number. Our initial call out for this piece referenced how using a VPN can sometimes block incoming phone calls, but Ed isn’t bothered by that: “Since most calls these days are scams or telemarketing, and most people I do want to talk to aren't going to call me anyway, I see this as more of a feature than a bug.” For their desktop computing needs, Ed uses Windows. They admit they aren’t privacy experts when it comes to Microsoft’s OS, but they do what they can, including changing all privacy settings and uninstalling all programs they don’t use. (That includes OneDrive and Edge.) They also run a clean version of Windows 11 after following Lifehacker’s guide. Firefox is their go-to PC browser, and they use a variety of extensions, including:ClearURLs: removes trackers from links.Decentraleyes: blocks data requests from third-party networks. Disconnect: blocks trackers from "thousands" of third-party sites.Firefox Multi-Account Containers: separates your browsing into siloed "containers" to isolate each session from one another.PopUpOFF: blocks pop-ups, overlays, and cookie alerts.Privacy Badger: blocks invisible trackers.Proton VPN: Proton's Firefox add-on for its VPN.uBlock Origin: popular content blocker.Ed didn’t say how much of an impact this array of extensions and settings has on their browsing, save for YouTube, which they admit does sometimes give them trouble. However, Ed has workarounds: “When YouTube wants me to 'sign in to confirm you're not a bot,' changing VPN servers usually does the trick.” Ed also uses the audible clues for ReCAPTCHA prompts, rather than the pictures, since they don’t want to help train Google’s “braindead AI.”Ed deleted all their social media accounts, including Facebook, X, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Though they’ve never had TikTok installed on their phone, they will watch it in Firefox when a friend sends them a video. Jane uses an open-source smartphone OS designed for privacyWhile Edward Snowden may have kicked off Ed’s interest in personal privacy, "Jane" has many strong beliefs motivating their desire for privacy. They are concerned about data brokers and Meta’s practices of tracking internet activity, and how these companies build profiles based on that data to sell to third-parties; they’re concerned about the possibility of telecommunication companies tracking our locations via cellular towers; they worry about US law enforcement and agencies reviewing citizens’ social media accounts accounts and tracking people. Their focus on privacy is fueled by true concern for their own well-being, not only the value of privacy as a concept.      Jane uses a VPN on all of their devices. Instead of Proton, however, Jane opts for Mullvad. They enable ad and tracker blocking, as well as a kill switch, which blocks your internet if you lose connection with the VPN—thus protecting your connection from being leaked out of the secure network.I’m a big advocate for strong and unique passwords and proper password management, but Jane definitely beats me when it comes to secure credentials. Jane uses six to eight-word passphrases generated by diceware, a tactic that chooses words based on dice rolls. Something like this diceware generator will roll a die five times, then find a word in a bank based on that five-digit number. You can repeat this as many times as you want to come up with a passphrase built up with random words. Jane saves all of their passphrases to a password manager, except for the ones for important accounts, like their bank. They commit those to memory, just in case someone breaches their password manager.     Like Ed, Jane uses Mullvad, but instead of just using their VPN, they opt for the web browser, which has those protections built in. Mullvad’s strict privacy settings break persistent logins on websites, so any sites Jane wants to stay logged in on are kept in Brave browser. For both Mullvad and Brave, Jane uses uBlock Origin.“From time-to-time I do run into sites that will block access due to being on a VPN or blocking ads and trackers. Instead of disabling [my] VPN completely, switching my connection to one of Mullvad's rented servers instead of ones they own usually helps. Barring that, I occasionally go into [uBlock Origin] and temporarily whitelist a needed [URL] ([ReCAPTCHA] etc). This works for me to get around site blocks most of the time.”  Jane uses a Mac, and configured macOS based on various privacy guides. But instead of an iPhone, Jane opts for a Google Pixel. That might surprise readers who assumed hardcore privacy enthusiasts would break away from Google entirely. But X doesn’t run Android: Instead, they installed GrapheneOS on their Pixel, an open-source OS designed for privacy. Following a restart, Jane configured the Pixel to only unlock with a seven-word dice passphrase—for general use, they use a fingerprint scan and a six-digit PIN. If the don’t unlock their Pixel for a while, their phone automatically reboots to put it back into this “First Unlock” state. They also keep airplane mode on at all times to disable the phone’s radio communications, but maintain a wifi connection with timed automatic Bluetooth and wireless disabling. Jane also deleted all their social media accounts after downloading all data associated with those platforms.Mark uses phone and credit card masks“Mark” is perhaps the least hardcore of the respondents in this story, but that makes their experience both interesting and relatable. Unlike most of the people we spoke to, Mark is still on Facebook and Instagram. That’s due to their job, which requires them to be on the platform, but they’ve been “systematically” deleting everything they can over their 19-year Facebook history and saving the data to an external hard drive. Mark doesn’t follow anything that isn’t relevant to their job, and only uses Facebook and Instagram inside the DuckDuckGo browser. They don’t react to posts they see, and following their privacy tactics, Facebook doesn’t show them relevant ads anymore. “If there is an ad I'm actually interested in I'll search it up in a different browser rather than click it.”Mark has had four Google Accounts in their time online, and has deleted two so far. Like Facebook, they have to use Google for their job, but they delegate all their work to Chrome. All other browsing runs through Firefox, DuckDuckGo, or Tor. The latter is perhaps best known for being the browser of choice for browsing the dark web, but what makes it great for that is also what makes it a great choice for private browsing.Unlike others in this story, Mark hasn’t de-Googled themselves completely. In addition to using Chrome for work, Mark has a phone mask through Google, and has their contacts, calendar, and maps tied to the company—though they are moving away from Google as much as they can. They've been running through their old emails to find and delete outdated accounts they no longer use. Any accounts they do need now use an email mask that forwards to a Mailfence account, an encrypted email service.   Mark was the only respondent to talk about entertainment in relation to privacy: “I've also been switching to physical media over streaming, so buying CDs and DVDs, locally as much as possible. I'm lucky to have a local music store and a local bookstore...one of the owners of our bookstore wrote a book on how to resist Amazon and why. Any book I want, I can either order through them or on Alibris. For music, I use our local record store and Discogs.”When shopping online, Mark uses a credit card mask, but still uses the card itself when shopping in person. They want to start using a credit card mask in retail locations like Janet Vertesi, an associate professor of sociology at Princeton University, but they haven’t quite gotten there yet.   What really piqued my interest most about Mark, however, wasn’t their perspective on their own privacy concerns, but the concerns around the privacy of their kids: “They each have a Gmail, two of them have Snapchat. Their schools use Gaggle and Google to spy on them. I don't even know how to start disconnecting them from all this...I was a kid during the wild west of the internet and this feels like getting back to my roots. My kids are end users who understand apps and touchscreens, not torrenting their music or coding a basic website. (Is this my version of "I drank out of the garden hose"?) I feel like Big Data has its grip on the kids already and I don't have a guidebook on navigating that as a parent.”  Mark’s current focus on their kids’ privacy includes deleting their health data from their local health system. That’s in part due to a data breach impacting the health system, but also the language about autism from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services.Jay de-googled their life and uses a VoIP phone number"Jay's" origin story with personal privacy dates back to 2017. That year, Equifax suffered a major hack, where nearly 148 million Americans had sensitive data stolen and weren’t notified about the breach for months. Jay was frustrated: You don’t choose to give your data to Equifax, or any credit bureau, and yet so many people lost their data. They also felt that companies were not properly held responsible for these events, and lawmakers were simply too out of touch to do what was necessary to protect citizens’ privacy, so they took it upon themselves to protect their own data. Ever since this incident, Jay freezes their credit: “It was frustratingly difficult back then, but nowadays, it is very easy (it just requires an account, which I use a burner email for)...The freeze will not allow anyone to pull credit for large purchases in your name, even if they have your social security number (and because of the data breach, someone probably does). I decided I wanted to pursue some privacy for the things I do have a choice over.”  From here, Jay de-googled their life, including both Google Search as well as YouTube. They’ve found no issue with using alternative search engines, and, in fact, sees Google getting worse, as it tries to show you results based on what it thinks it knows about you, not what is most relevant to your actual query: “The internet was supposed to be a place you went to find information, not where you became the information that companies take instead."Jay uses tools to prevent fingerprinting, where companies identify you and track you across the internet, but worries that going too far with things like ad blockers puts a target on your back as well. Jay chooses to pick “a couple of effective tools,” and runs with those.For their smartphone needs, Jay goes with Apple. Like Ed, Jay doesn’t believe Apple is perfect, and even considers their privacy policies a bit of a gimmick, but sees them as the better alternative to Android. Jay likes the security of the App Store, and the array of privacy features in both Safari and Apple Accounts as a whole. They highlight Safari’s “Advanced Tracking and Fingerprinting Protection” feature, which helps block trackers as you browse the web; iCloud’s Private Relay, which hides your IP address; and “Hide My Email,” which generates email aliases you can share with others without giving your true email address away.Most of us are plagued with spam calls, but following the Robinhood data breach in 2021, Jay started receiving a flood of them. They decided to change their phone number and made a point of never sharing it with businesses. For the times they need to give out their number to parties they don’t trust, they use a number generated by My Sudo, which, for $20 per year, gives them a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) phone number. It works with most services that rely on SMS, but it won’t function for two-factor authentication. (Which is fine, seeing as SMS-based 2FA is the weakest form of secondary authentication.) My Sudo lets you change your number for an additional $1, so if Jay’s number ever was compromised or started receiving too much spam, they could swap it.        Jay, like many respondents, deleted all social media services: “It has its place in society for a lot of people, and is no doubt a great way to connect. However, I found that the fear of deleting it was a lot worse than actually deleting it. The people you care about won’t forget you exist.” That said, Jay doesn't mind any of the obstacles this lifestyle does throw their way: “It is a challenging topic, as most people consider you a little bit 'out there' if you take steps to make your life a little less convenient, but more private. The modern world sells you convenience, while pretending it is free, and harvesting your data for so much more than you actually get out of your relationship to them.”      What it takes to be private on the modern internetThere's no one way to tackle personal privacy. Every one of the respondents to our query had something unique about their approach, and many had different motivations behind why they were so concerned about their privacy.There are plenty of common through lines, of course. Most privacy people love Proton, which makes sense. Proton seems to be the only company that offers a suite of apps most closely resembling Google's while also prioritizing privacy. If you want your email, calendar, word processor, and even your VPN all tied up nicely under one privacy-focused umbrella, that's Proton. But not everyone wants an ecosystem, either. That's why you see respondents using other VPNs, like Mullvad, or other private storage options, like Tresorit. These apps and services exist—they might just not be owned by one company, like Apple or Google (or Proton).Google and Meta are more commonalities, in that most privacy enthusiasts ditch them entirely. Some, like Mark, haven't been able to fully shake off these data-hungry companies. In Mark's case, that's because they need these platforms for work. But while most hardcore privacy people delete their Google and Meta accounts, most of us have trouble de-Googling and de-Metaing our digital lives. In general, though, the keys to privacy success include the following: Use a VPN to protect your internet traffic; prioritize privacy in your web browser, both through the browser itself, as well as extensions that block ads and protect your traffic; shield your sensitive information whenever possible, by using email aliases, alternate phone numbers, or credit card masks; use strong and unique passwords for all accounts, and store those passwords in a secure password manager; use two-factor authentication whenever possible (perhaps passkeys, when available); and stick to end-to-end encrypted chat apps to communicate with others. While there's always more you can do, that's the perfect storm to keep your digital life as private as reasonably possible. Some might read through the examples here and see steps that are too much effort to be worth it. It might seem out of reach to ditch Gmail and Instagram, break certain websites, and force your friends and family to learn new numbers and email addresses to protect your privacy, especially if you don't feel your privacy has that much of an impact on your life. But even if you aren't sold on the concept of privacy itself, there are real-world results from sticking with these methods. Jay no longer receives spam calls and texts; Mark no longer sees ads that are freakishly relevant to their likes. It's a lifestyle change, to be sure, but it's not just to serve some concept of privacy. You can see results by changing the way you interact with the internet, all without having to actually disconnect from the internet, and, by extension, the world at large.

Microsoft and Google are taking distinctive approaches with AI agents in their productivity suites, and enterprises need to account for the differences when formulating digital labor strategies, analysts said. In recent months, both companies have announced a dizzying array of new agents aimed at extracting value from corporate documents and maximizing efficiency. The tech giants have dropped numerous hints about where they’re headed with AI agents in their respective office suites, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. Microsoft is reshaping its Copilot assistant as a series of tools to create, tap into, and act on insights at individual and organizational levels. The Microsoft 365 roadmap lists hundreds of specialized AI tools under development to automate work for functions such as HR and accounting. The company is also developing smaller AI models to carry out specific functions. Google is going the opposite way, with its large-language model Gemini at the heart of Workspace. Google offers tools that include Gems for workers to create simple custom agents that automate tasks such as customer service, and Agentspace in Google Cloud to build more complex custom agents for collaboration and workflow management. At the recent Google I/O developer conference, the company added real-time speech translation to Google Meet. “For both, the goal is to bring usable and practical productivity and efficiency capabilities to work tools,” said Liz Miller, vice president and principal analyst at Constellation Research. But the differing AI agent strategies are heavily rooted in each company’s philosophical approaches to productivity. Although Microsoft has long encouraged customers to move from its traditional “perpetual-license” Office suite to the Microsoft 365 subscription-based model, M365 notably retains the familiar desktop apps. Google Workspace, on the other hand, has always been cloud-based. Microsoft users are typically a bit more tethered to traditional enterprise work styles, while Google has always been the “cloud-first darling for smaller organizations that still crave real-time collaboration,” Miller said. When it comes to the generative AI models being integrated into the two office suites, “Google’s Gemini models are beating out the models being deployed by Microsoft,” Miller said. “But as Microsoft expands its model ‘inventory’ in use across M365, this could change.” Microsoft has an advantage, as many desktop users live in Outlook or Word. The intelligence Copilot can bring from CRM software is readily available, while that integration is more complex in the cloud-native Google Workspace. “Microsoft still has an edge in a foundational understanding of work and the capacity to extend Copilot connections across applications as expansive as the Office suite through to Dynamics, giving AI a greater opportunity to be present in the spaces and presentation layers where workers enjoy working,” Miller said. Microsoft’s Copilot Agents and Google’s Gems and Agentspace are in their early stages, but there have been positive developments, said J.P. Gownder, a vice president and principal analyst on Forrester’s Future of Work team. Microsoft recently adopted Google’s A2A protocol, which makes it easier for users of both productivity suites to collaborate and unlock value from stagnant data sitting on other platforms. “That should be a win for interoperability,” Gownder said. But most companies that are Microsoft shops have years or decades of digital assets that hold them back from considering Google, he said. For example, Excel macros, pivot tables, and customizations cannot be easily or automatically migrated to Google Sheets, he said. “As early as this market is, I don’t think it’s fair to rank either player — Microsoft or Google — as being the leader; both of them are constructing new ecosystems to support the growth of agentic AI,” Gownder said. Most Microsoft Office users have moved to M365, but AI is helping Google is making inroads into larger organizations, especially among enterprises that are newer and less oriented toward legacy Microsoft products, said Jack Gold, principal analyst at J. Gold Associates. Technologies like A2A blur the line between on-premises and cloud productivity. As a result, “Google Workspace is no longer perceived as inferior, as it had been in the past,” Gold said. And for budget-constrained enterprises, the value of AI agent features is not the only consideration. “There is also the cost equation at work here, as Google seems to have a much more transparent cost structure than Microsoft with all of its user classes and discounts,” Gold said. Microsoft does not include Copilot in its M365 subscriptions, which vary in price depending on the type of customer. The Copilot business subscriptions range from $30 per user per month for M365 Copilot to $200 per month for 25,000 messages for Copilot Studio, which is also available under a pay-as-you-go model. Google has flat subscription pricing for Workspace, starting at $14 per user per month for business plans with Gemini included.

Greg Petronzi is a psychologist and a watchmaker. True Patina 2025-05-31T09:50:02Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Greg Petronzi was a psychologist and professor when he got into watchmaking on the side. Now he repairs vintage Rolex watches and works on pieces worth six figures. Petronzi said his watchmaking out-earns his work in psychology. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Greg Petronzi of True Patina, a watchmaker specializing in vintage Rolex repairs. He is also a licensed psychologist and professor at New York University. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.I've always had a fascination with watches, starting at a young age. Around middle school, I had a Swatch with a see-through plastic case and an automatic movement. You could see all of the parts of the watch as it was working, and I always found that so interesting.In college, I pursued psychology. That was my practical career path. I got a master's and a Ph.D. Overall, it was a 12-year path to becoming a licensed psychologist. But I never lost my interest in watches.After I finished school, I got into watchmaking, which ended up becoming my main gig. Psychology became my part-time gig, which I never anticipated happening, but it's super exciting. I love both disciplines.I got into watchmaking with an informal apprenticeshipWatchmaking was never really on my radar. As a grad student, I started getting involved in the world of watches and meeting other watch enthusiasts through forums and meetups.I made friends with a watchmaker out of Florida named Rik Dietel, who has 35-plus years of experience in watchmaking and specifically with vintage Rolex, which is the niche that I was very passionate about. I started asking him how to fix this or change that on my own watches. Little by little, Rik started teaching me, and it turned into an informal, remote apprenticeship.Over the next several years, while I was working as a psychologist and professor, my skillset started to really develop, and it started to become apparent to me that this might be more than just a hobby. I was working on my own stuff, then friends' watches, then friends of friends' watches. Then I started getting requests from people I didn't know. That's when I said, "I'd better take this a bit more seriously." Greg Petronzi in his workshop. True Patina During the pandemic, my psychology work went remote, and I was able to put more time and energy into watchmaking. I also had an income, which helped me afford the tools. I just recently spent about $15,000 on one tool to do a very nuanced repair.I built up my watchmaking workshop and started to develop a niche in cosmetic repair — dials and hands. Because I started as a watch collector, I understand the importance of preserving the originality of a watch. While a lot of more modern watchmakers have the disposition of "repair and replace," I have the disposition of "restore and retain."I started to showcase my work on Instagram and build trust in the community. I ended up working with some really important watch collectors and dealers, like Eric Wind of Wind Vintage, and auction houses like Phillips.There was a moment when I realized I'd made a name for myself in the watch world: Someone sent me an eBay listing that said, "Watch just serviced by True Patina." I had no idea who the seller was, but I thought, "Wow, my company name is actually carrying so much weight that people are using this as a flex toward selling their watch." That felt really good. Watchmaking can be challenging to get into, but it's really rewardingWatchmaking has more often than not outperformed what the Ph.D and psychology have allowed me to earn, which I'm astounded by and grateful for.If someone's interested in learning watchmaking, I'd say it's possible, but there are some challenges. The tools are expensive, and the formal education options are limited. Most people either find an apprenticeship or start by working for an established brand while slowly building up their own workshop.My pricing varies a lot based on how much restoration is needed. Repairs typically range between $1,000 and $2,000, but some go up to $6,000 or more, especially if a rare part needs to be sourced.I service watches that range in price from a few thousand dollars upward to six-figure watches. It's not uncommon for me to work on a watch that costs $200,000 and occasionally even up to $500,000. Most commonly, they are a few thousand up to $20,000. But what's most meaningful to me is working on sentimental pieces — watches that have been in families for generations.Becoming a watchmaker never crossed my mind as a kid or even as a college student. But all of a sudden, it organically became reality for me, and it's a very, very meaningful and enjoyable existence.Watchmaking is a very rewarding field. It can be very stressful, especially when the repair might not be cooperating the way you want it to, but when things do fall in line, it can be a very mindful activity. You get into this flow where time just sort of ceases. It's kind of ironic.Do you have a story to share about watches or watchmaking? Contact this reporter at kvlamis@businessinsider.com.