UK government reveals ‘robust’ plans to regulate crypto

The UK government has detailed “ambitious” plans to regulate the crypto industry, with proposals on stronger rules for trading platforms, crypto lending, new token issues and more. The goal, it says, is to protect consumers and businesses, while enabling “a new and exciting sector to safely flourish and grow,” it wrote in a press release. 

Last year saw the fall of FTX, Celsius and other crypto exchanges, along with wildly fluctuating prices for Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies. As a result, critics in the UK have been calling for new rules that protect consumers from the “crypto wild-west,” as the opposition Labour party’s Tulip Siddiq put it.  

The UK government plans to strengthen rules around the operation of crypto trading firms like FTX, along with other financial intermediaries. The primary aim, it wrote, is to enhance consumer protection and the ability of exchanges to weather storms. As part of that, it’s proposing what it calls a “crypto market abuse regime” that would create rules around money laundering and other illegal schemes. It also plans to strengthen laws around cryptocurrency lending. 

At the same time, the treasury department is introducing a time-limited exemption that would allow designated crypto firms to issue new tokens. Companies registered with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for anti-money laundering purposes would be allowed to issue coins while the new regulations are written. 

In January 2022, the UK government promised a crackdown on misleading crypto ads, but that now seems quaint given the tumultuous year that followed. At the time, the government figured that around 2.3 million people in the country owned a cryptoasset.

Today’s proposal “delivers on the original policy intention of the measure to promote innovation, enhance consumer protection and ensure that cryptoasset promotions can be held to equivalent standards as promotions of financial services products with similar risk profiles,” the government said. The consultation will close on April 30th, 2023, at which point regulators will review feedback and formulate a response. 

EU vows to get tougher on Big Tech privacy violations

The European Union is eager to crack down on Big Tech’s alleged privacy abuses, but the reliance on individual countries to enforce General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules has led to lengthy cases with punishments that are frequently modest. There will soon be pressure to act decisively, however. The European Commission will now require that EU nations share overviews of “large-scale” GDPR investigations every two months. This includes “key procedural steps” and actions taken — national regulators will have to show they’re moving forward.

The tougher approach comes after the EU Ombudsman recommended closer monitoring of Big Tech cases that fall under the Irish Data Protection Commission, which regulates Meta and other industry giants. The rights group Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) made a complaint to the Ombudsman accusing Ireland’s commission of being too slow and lenient against privacy violations. Just weeks ago, Europe’s Data Protection Board forced Ireland to raise a data processing fine against Meta from €28 million to €390 million ($30.4 million to $423.3 million).

As Bloombergobserves, the European Commission is already issuing reports every two years on the overall status of GDPR enforcement. However, it hasn’t conducted thorough, frequent reviews of individual countries’ privacy regulators. This new requirement will theoretically hold all EU member states accountable if they delay investigations or don’t apply the law when necessary. This could include legal repercussions at the European Court of Justice.

Critics might not be happy with the transparency. Ireland and other nations will share their progress on a “strictly confidential basis,” according to the Commission. The public might not know if a regulator is mishandling a case unless the EU takes visible action in response. Nonetheless, this may encourage Meta, Amazon, Google and other tech heavyweights to take European privacy laws more seriously — they may see quicker investigations and stiffer fines.

EU vows to get tougher on Big Tech privacy violations

The European Union is eager to crack down on Big Tech’s alleged privacy abuses, but the reliance on individual countries to enforce General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules has led to lengthy cases with punishments that are frequently modest. There will soon be pressure to act decisively, however. The European Commission will now require that EU nations share overviews of “large-scale” GDPR investigations every two months. This includes “key procedural steps” and actions taken — national regulators will have to show they’re moving forward.

The tougher approach comes after the EU Ombudsman recommended closer monitoring of Big Tech cases that fall under the Irish Data Protection Commission, which regulates Meta and other industry giants. The rights group Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) made a complaint to the Ombudsman accusing Ireland’s commission of being too slow and lenient against privacy violations. Just weeks ago, Europe’s Data Protection Board forced Ireland to raise a data processing fine against Meta from €28 million to €390 million ($30.4 million to $423.3 million).

As Bloombergobserves, the European Commission is already issuing reports every two years on the overall status of GDPR enforcement. However, it hasn’t conducted thorough, frequent reviews of individual countries’ privacy regulators. This new requirement will theoretically hold all EU member states accountable if they delay investigations or don’t apply the law when necessary. This could include legal repercussions at the European Court of Justice.

Critics might not be happy with the transparency. Ireland and other nations will share their progress on a “strictly confidential basis,” according to the Commission. The public might not know if a regulator is mishandling a case unless the EU takes visible action in response. Nonetheless, this may encourage Meta, Amazon, Google and other tech heavyweights to take European privacy laws more seriously — they may see quicker investigations and stiffer fines.

The US government is reportedly cracking down harder on exports to Huawei

The United States government has reportedly stopped issuing licenses that allow companies in the country to export to Huawei, according to The Financial Times. If you’ll recall, the Trump administration added the company to the “entity list,” making it ineligible from receiving exports from the US without a license. The US commerce department issued some companies like Qualcomm licenses to provide Huawei with American tech unrelated to 5G networks since then — Qualcomm, for instance, supplies Huawei with 4G chips for smartphones. But the government is reportedly looking to impose a total ban on the sale of American tech to the Chinese firm, and this expanded restriction is a step towards making that happen. 

The US government adds companies to the entity list if it believes they are involved in or “pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.” It has previously accused Huawei of having deep ties with the Chinese government and warned allies that the 5G equipment it makes could be used to spy on other countries and companies. Huawei has repeatedly denied the accusation. 

It’s not entirely clear why the US government is moving towards a total ban, if this report is indeed true, but the Biden administration seems to be taking a tougher stance on China compared to its predecessor. Last year, it introduced new rules that prohibit the export of powerful semiconductors that could be repurposed for military use, as well as chipmaking equipment, to China and Russia. One possible reason is that Huawei, The Times says, is backing projects that aim to build a semiconductor supply chain in its country that doesn’t rely on imports. A former CIA official also told the publication that the government is probably looking to expand the existing export ban, because Huawei is a totally different company from when it was added to the entity list.

Huawei’s focus back then was on 5G technology, but it has since changed gears to prioritize its enterprise and government businesses, including a cloud service, to survive the trade ban. Being added to the blacklist had a huge impact on Huawei’s revenues in 2021, but company executive Eric Xu said the manufacturer was able to pull itself “out of crisis mode” in 2022 and expects to go back to “business as usual” this year. A total ban could very well put Huawei back into crisis mode, and it would likely affect the revenues of its US suppliers, as well. That said, the Chinese company might have some time to prepare, depending on when the export licenses that had already been issued will expire.

A commerce department spokesperson didn’t confirm whether it has truly stopped issuing licenses to American firms, telling The Times that it “continually assess[es] its policies and regulations.” A source told Reuters, however, that US officials are in the midst of crafting new policies that would prohibit shipments to Huawei below the 5G level. The new restrictions would reportedly cover products and components related to 4G, WiFi 6 and 7, AI, as well as cloud and high-performance computing. 

TikTok’s CEO will testify before a congressional committee in March

Shou Zi Chew, the CEO of TikTok, will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 23rd. Chow will discuss the app’s privacy and data security measures, its impact on kids and ties to China (parent company ByteDance is headquartered in the country). This will be Chew’s first appearance in front of a congressional panel, the committee said. TikTok COO Vanessa Pappas faced similar questions from lawmakers in September.

“ByteDance-owned TikTok has knowingly allowed the ability for the Chinese Communist Party to access American user data,” committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers said in a statement. “Americans deserve to know how these actions impact their privacy and data security, as well as what actions TikTok is taking to keep our kids safe from online and offline harms. We’ve made our concerns clear with TikTok. It is now time to continue the committee’s efforts to hold Big Tech accountable by bringing TikTok before the committee to provide complete and honest answers for people.”

Engadget has contacted TikTok for comment.

TikTok’s security and relationship with Chinese authorities have drawn the attention of US officials over the last few years. However, as CNBC notes, discussions between the US and TikTok appear to have stalled, as officials remain concerned about the possibility of China forcing it to hand over user data.

The company has tried to placate concerns from regulators and elected officials by storing US user data on domestic Oracle servers and deleting such data from its own servers in the US and Singapore. Oracle has been reviewing TikTok’s algorithms and content moderation models for signs of Chinese interference.

Last month, TikTok said it fired four employees (two each in China and the US) who accessed the data of several journalists. They were said to be looking for the sources of leaks to reporters.

Also in December, lawmakers passed a mammoth spending bill. The legislation bans TikTok from federal government-owned devices. More than half of all states have implemented similar bans on local government devices. Meanwhile, senators and members of Congress have renewed efforts to ban TikTok in the US entirely.

News of Chew’s appearance before the panel comes on Data Privacy Day. In a blog post, TikTok laid out some of its efforts to bolster user privacy, including a plan to set up a data center in Dublin this year to store UK and European Economic Area data.

Donald Trump will get his Facebook and Instagram accounts back ‘in the coming weeks’

More than two years after Meta extended former President Donald Trump’s “indefinite” suspension from Facebook, the company has opted to reinstate his account. In a statement, Meta said Trump would be able to access his Facebook and Instagram accounts in the “coming weeks,” but that there would be “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”

The decision comes after Trump’s campaign had reportedly pushed for the former president to be allowed back on Facebook ahead of the upcoming presidential primaries.

Trump was originally booted from Facebook in the aftermath of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021, after publicly praising the rioters. Meta’s handling of the initial suspension, which it quickly extended from a 24-hour ban to an “indefinite” suspension, was heavily criticized, including by its own Oversight Board. In its decision weighing in on Trump’s suspension, the board slammed Meta for not following its own rules and trying to “avoid its responsibilities.”

Meta then revisited the suspension, and said it would last for at least two years. However, the company confirmed that Trump would eventually be allowed back on Facebook. Nick Clegg, Meta’s top policy official, said at the time the former president would be “subject to new enhanced penalties” for future policy violations.

Now, Clegg says that Trump and other public figures who have been reinstated following suspensions “related to civil unrest” will face new suspensions, lasting for at least a month, for future offenses. He added Meta would also take steps to limit the reach of Trump’s posts if they contribute “to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6th, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon.” While Meta may not remove those posts entirely, he said the company would consider removing the share button and blocking them from the company’s advertising and recommendations systems.

Clegg also confirmed that the company’s controversial “newsworthiness” policies could continue to apply to Trump. “In the event that Mr. Trump posts content that violates the letter of the Community Standards but, under our newsworthy content policy, we assess there is a public interest in knowing that Mr. Trump made the statement that outweighs any potential harm, we may similarly opt to restrict the distribution of such posts but leave them visible on Mr. Trump’s account,” Clegg wrote. 

Meta’s decision comes just months after Elon Musk also restored the former president’s Twitter account. Trump has so far declined to restart his Twitter habit — he decamped to Truth Social last year — but is reportedly planning to return, according to a recent report in Rolling Stone. While the former president was known to favor Twitter, his Facebook following was also an important asset to both of his previous campaigns. 

Trump’s suspension was also the first major test of Meta’s Oversight Board, which the company formed to help it weigh in on thorny content moderation and policy decisions. In a statement Wednesday, the board said that it had “no role” in the company’s decision to reinstate Trump, and that it plans to “publish a fuller analysis of this case in a future quarterly transparency report.”

Senator Manchin aims to close battery loophole around the $7,500 EV tax credit

Senator Joe Manchin, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced a new bill that squashes a small loophole around the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) $7,500 EV tax credit. The new credits are restricted to cars with final assembly in the US, as well as those with a certain amount of North American battery content (an amount that increases every year). But, the U.S. Treasury has delayed its final rules on battery guidance until March, which means EVs with foreign batteries can still receive the full $7,500 in credits until then. Manchin’s legislation, dubbed the American Vehicle Security Act (AVSA), would push the battery requirement back to January 1st.

“It is unacceptable that the U.S. Treasury has failed to issue updated guidance for the 30D electric vehicle tax credits and continues to make the full $7,500 credits available without meeting all of the clear requirements included in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Manchin wrote a statement. “The Treasury Department failed to meet the statutory deadline of December 31, 2022, to release guidance for the 30D credit and have created an opportunity to circumvent stringent supply chain requirements included in the IRA. The IRA is first-and-foremost an energy security bill, and the EV tax credits were designed to grow domestic manufacturing and reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains for the critical minerals needed to produce EV batteries.”

If it’s passed, the bill would be disappointing news for anyone who rushed out to buy an EV before March (something plenty of car publications were suggesting). As Autoblog notes, the AVSA doesn’t touch on the other IRA loophole, which also allows for the full credit for leased cars built outside of the US. But given Manchin’s early obstruction to the IRA, as well as his push against lax battery rules, it wouldn’t be surprising to see another bill in the works.

Massachusetts bills would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers

Massachusetts politicians are still pushing for better working conditions for ridesharing drivers. New bills in the state House and Senate would not only pursue collective bargaining rights across companies, as with past measures, but would guarantee a minimum wage, paid sick leave and other benefits. Companies like Uber and Lyft would also have to cover some driver expenses and pour money into the government’s unemployment insurance system.

The new legislation wouldn’t decide whether drivers are employees or independent contractors. However, Senate bill co-sponsor Jason Lewis told the State House News Service his bill would establish requirements that apply regardless of a driver’s status. Previous bills would have tasked workers with negotiating for benefits that are now included, Lewis says.

Massachusetts sued Uber and Lyft in 2020 for allegedly misclassifying drivers as contractors and denying protections granted under state labor law. The companies responded with a proposed ballot measure that would have offered benefits in return for requiring that drivers be treated as contractors. The state’s Supreme Judicial Court rejected that proposal last June.

We’ve asked Uber and Lyft for comment. In a statement, the Service Employees International Union (a bill proponent) says the bill “rewrites the rules” and gives condition drivers have sought for over a decade. The Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work, an industry-run organization that opposes the legislation, previously claimed that measures granting employee status don’t reflect a “vast majority” of drivers that want to remain contractors. The coalition prefers bills that would bring the anti-employee ballot proposal to the legislature as well as create portable benefit accounts.

The state has been one of the major battlegrounds for ridesharing work conditions, but it’s only one part of a larger fight. Uber and New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission have fought over pay raises, while a California law meant to reclassify many gig economy workers as employees has faced unsuccessful attempts to carve out exemptions for companies like Uber and Lyft.