Archives for May 2021

Gas shortages at the pumps have spread from the South, all but emptying stations in Washington, D.C., following a ransomware cyberattack that forced a shutdown of the nation’s largest gasoline pipeline. Though the pipeline operator paid a ransom, restoring service was taking time.

As Georgia-based Colonial Pipeline reported making “substantial progress” in restoring full service, two people briefed on the matter confirmed that the company had paid the criminals a ransom of about $5 million in cryptocurrency for the software decryption key required to unscramble their data network. The people spoke on condition they not be further identified because they were not authorized to divulge the information. Bloomberg first reported the payment.

President Joe Biden declined to comment when asked by a reporter Thursday if he had been briefed about the ransom payment.

Biden also said that his administration will try to disrupt the hackers’ ability to operate.

The tracking service GasBuddy.com on Friday showed that 88% of gas stations were out of fuel in the nation’s capital, 45% were out in Virginia and 39% of Maryland stations were dry. About 65% of stations were without gas in North Carolina, and nearly half were tapped out in Georgia and South Carolina.

Colonial said Thursday that operations had restarted and gasoline deliveries were being made in all of its markets, but it would take “several days” to return to normal.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at a Friday briefing that “the vast majority of markets and affected regions are receiving fuel at gas stations for consumers, and will continue to receive more fuel throughout the weekend and into early next week.”

A gas station owner in Virginia said panic buying is the problem.

“It’s like a frenzy,” Barry Rieger, who owns a gas station in Burke, Virginia, told WJLA-TV.

In North Carolina, at least five school systems canceled in-person learning on Friday as the gasoline supply crisis continued. Businesses were also feeling the sting.

Mia Green, general manager at Dixie Speedway in Woodstock, Georgia, said she’s heard of racetracks that canceled this weekend’s races because crews might not be able to get there.

Many authorities are warning of the dangers of hoarding gas.

In South Carolina, a woman was severely burned after flipping a car that a deputy tried to pull over for a suspected stolen license plate Thursday night. The fire touched off multiple explosions due to fuel “that she was hoarding in the trunk of the vehicle,” a Pickens County sheriff’s statement said.

A cyberattack by hackers who lock up computer systems and demand a ransom to release them hit the pipeline on May 7. The hackers didn’t take control of the pipeline’s operations, but Colonial shut it down to prevent the malware from impacting its industrial control systems.

Biden said U.S. officials do not believe the Russian government was involved, but said “we do have strong reason to believe that the criminals who did the attack are living in Russia.”

Biden has promised aggressive action against DarkSide, the Russian-speaking ransomware syndicate responsible for the attack. The syndicate’s public-facing darknet site went offline on Thursday, and its operators said in a cybercriminal forum post that the group had lost access to it and would be shutting down.

This does not necessarily mean U.S. or allied cyberjockeys knocked it offline. Cybersecurity experts said that DarkSide, which rents out its ransomware to partners to carry out the actual attacks, could have taken it down to prevent Western law enforcement from tracking down the rest of its infrastructure.

It could also be an “exit scam,” many noted. Ransomware gangs have dissolved and ‘rebranded’ under different names in the past when the heat was on.

Yelisey Boguslavskiy, director of research of the cybersecurity firm Advanced Intelligence, noted that the moderator of a top darknet forum for Russian-speaking cybercriminals, XSS, said Thursday that “he was officially prohibiting all ransomware-related activity and discussion on the forum.”

That could suggest fears of a U.S. crackdown — or pressure from the Kremlin. While there is no indication the Kremlin benefits from ransomware extortion, U.S. officials say ransomware gangs are tolerated by Russia’s security services, which have employed some of their members.

DarkSide stole information from Colonial’s network prior to locking up the data on Friday. DarkSide is among the ransomware gangs that employ double extortion, threatening to dump online sensitive data they steal before activating the ransomware. In Colonial’s case, that could potentially include data on contracts with suppliers that would be of keen interest to stock and commodities traders.

The Colonial Pipeline system stretches from Texas to New Jersey and delivers about 45% of the gasoline consumed on the East Coast.

Richard Joswick, global head of oil analytics at S&P Global Platts, said gas stations should be back to normal next week if the pipeline restart goes as planned and consumers are convinced they no longer need to panic-buy fuel. Full recovery would take several more weeks, he estimated.

—-

Bajak reported from Boston, Martin from Marietta, Ga., and Merchant in Washington. Freida Frisaro in Miami also contributed.

Copyright © 2021 . All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Tesla involved in a fatal crash on a Southern California freeway last week was operating on Autopilot at the time, authorities said.

The May 5 crash in Fontana, a city 50 miles (80 kilometers) east of Los Angeles, is under investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The probe is the 29th case involving a Tesla that the agency has responded to.

A 35-year-old man was killed when his Tesla Model 3 struck an overturned semi on a freeway at about 2:30 a.m. The driver’s name has not yet been made public. Another man was seriously injured when the electric vehicle hit him as he was helping the semi’s driver out of the wreck.

The California Highway Patrol, or CHP, announced on Thursday that the car had been operating Tesla’s partially automated driving system called Autopilot, which has been involved in multiple crashes. The Fontana crash marks at least the fourth U.S. death involving Autopilot.

“While the CHP does not normally comment on ongoing investigations, the Department recognizes the high level of interest centered around crashes involving Tesla vehicles,” the agency said in a statement. “We felt this information provides an opportunity to remind the public that driving is a complex task that requires a driver’s full attention.”

The federal safety investigation comes just after the CHP arrested another man who authorities have said was in the back seat of a Tesla that was driving this week on Interstate 80 near Oakland with no one behind the wheel.

CHP has not said if officials have determined whether the Tesla in the I-80 incident was operating on Autopilot, which can keep a car centered in its lane and a safe distance behind vehicles in front of it.

But it’s likely that either Autopilot or “Full Self-Driving” were in operation for the driver to be in the back seat. Tesla is allowing a limited number of owners to test its self-driving system.

Tesla, which has disbanded its public relations department, did not respond Friday to an email seeking comment. The company says in owner’s manuals and on its website that both Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving” are not fully autonomous and that drivers must pay attention and be ready to intervene at any time.

Autopilot at times has had trouble dealing with stationary objects and traffic crossing in front of Teslas.

In two Florida crashes, from 2016 and 2019, cars with Autopilot in use drove beneath crossing tractor-trailers, killing the men driving the Teslas. In a 2018 crash in Mountain View, California, an Apple engineer driving on Autopilot was killed when his Tesla struck a highway barrier.

Tesla’s system, which uses cameras, radar and short-range sonar, also has trouble handling stopped emergency vehicles. Teslas have struck several firetrucks and police vehicles that were stopped on freeways with their flashing emergency lights on.

For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in March sent a team to investigate after a Tesla on Autopilot ran into a Michigan State Police vehicle on Interstate 96 near Lansing. Neither the trooper nor the 22-year-old Tesla driver was injured, police said.

After the Florida and California fatal crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Tesla develop a stronger system to ensure drivers are paying attention, and that it limit use of Autopilot to highways where it can work effectively. Neither Tesla nor the safety agency took action.

In a Feb. 1 letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation, NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt urged the department to enact regulations governing driver-assist systems such as Autopilot, as well as testing of autonomous vehicles. NHTSA has relied mainly on voluntary guidelines for the vehicles, taking a hands-off approach so it won’t hinder development of new safety technology.

Sumwalt said that Tesla is using people who have bought the cars to test “Full Self-Driving” software on public roads with limited oversight or reporting requirements.

“Because NHTSA has put in place no requirements, manufacturers can operate and test vehicles virtually anywhere, even if the location exceeds the AV (autonomous vehicle) control system’s limitations,” Sumwalt wrote.

He added: “Although Tesla includes a disclaimer that ‘currently enabled features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous,’ NHTSA’s hands-off approach to oversight of AV testing poses a potential risk to motorists and other road users.”

NHTSA, which has authority to regulate automated driving systems and seek recalls if necessary, seems to have developed a renewed interest in the systems since President Joe Biden took office.

___

Krisher reported from Detroit.

Copyright © 2021 . All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Suppose you were Mark Zuckerberg, recently ordered by an advisory board to decide how long former President Donald Trump should stay banned from Facebook. How do you make that decision without alienating key constituencies — advertisers, shareholders, users, lawmakers and others — while staying true to your own sense of what Facebook should be?

It’s a hypothetical exercise, but one that illustrates the high-wire act Facebook’s leadership now has to pull off.

Facebook’s quasi-independent oversight board last week said the company was justified in suspending Trump because of his role in inciting deadly violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. But it told Facebook to specify how long the suspension would last, saying that its “indefinite” ban on the former president was unreasonable.

The ruling, which gives Facebook six months to comply, effectively postpones any possible Trump reinstatement and puts the onus for that decision squarely back on the company — the exact scenario Zuckerberg was likely trying to avoid in the first place.

For years, he and other Facebook executives have insisted that Facebook should not be the “arbiter of truth” and that as a tech company it shouldn’t be making decisions on thorny societal matters such as free speech. Zuckerberg has stated publicly numerous times that he supports government regulation, although the rules Facebook wants aren’t always the same as those regulators might seek.

The company said this week it has no updates on its plans for Trump’s accounts beyond what it said last week, when it said it will review the board’s decision and “determine an action that is clear and proportionate.” It plans to respond to the board’s recommendations within 30 days of the decision.

Here are some of the constituents that could have strong and wildly different reactions to Facebook’s ultimate decision.

USERS

Facebook has more than 2.7 billion users worldwide — most of them outside of the U.S. For most, Trump’s presence or absence on the platform is unlikely to greatly influence whether they should stay or they should go. Most people remain on Facebook even if they’re not entirely happy with it, studies show.

While some users are leaving Facebook — often citing the toxicity of political conversations and the platform’s broader actions against hate speech and misinformation — enough are staying (and joining) for the company to report rising user numbers quarter after quarter. For those who’ve left, even a decision to keep Trump off the platform forever is unlikely to make a difference.

Younger social media users are more likely to be liberal and, based on Pew Research studies, are more likely to use newer social media platforms that are still growing in the U.S. such as TikTok or Snapchat. In other words, if Facebook wants to keep expanding Instagram, its platform most popular with that demographic, banning Trump permanently is unlikely to hurt.

While many Americans might look to Facebook’s final decision as a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” on Trump, the approach the company takes could also affect its relationship with users around the world and their local and national political leaders, said David Kaye, a former United Nations special rapporteur on free speech.

“What kind of platform does Facebook want to present to the world?” asked Kaye, now a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. “A platform that cares about its users, cares about offline harm, and devotes resources to solving problems about offline harm? Or do they want to be known as the place that facilitates ethnic cleansing?”

U.S. POLITICIANS AND REGULATORS

Whatever Facebook decides will probably enrage one side of the political aisle.

That could be even messier if Trump decides to run for president again in 2024, since he’d once again be a major political figure. Facebook isn’t bound by the U.S. First Amendment, which prevents the government from muzzling free speech, so it can technically do whatever it wants under its rules. But a private company banning a major party candidate from its service could be complicated and might invite further scrutiny from antitrust enforcers over its power.

Of course, Twitter banned Trump permanently without a backward glance, and it’s still standing. Its shares, which briefly dipped after it announced the Trump ban in January, have since recovered. But a permanent silencing of the former president on Facebook would still anger Trump and his supporters.

Since before Trump was even elected, a vocal and growing set of conservative politicians have pushed the narrative, with no proof, that Facebook and other tech companies are biased against conservatives. A permanent ban would further cement this belief, possibly pushing sympathetic users to other, smaller platforms.

On the other hand, allowing Trump on Facebook again could fuel the push by some civil rights advocates to seek stricter rules against harmful misinformation — perhaps in ways that could hurt Facebook’s business model, which thrives on any kind of engagement.

SHAREHOLDERS AND ADVERTISERS

Facebook holds so much sway over how online advertisers reach consumers that whether Trump is on or off the platform is unlikely to matter much to them, said Cathy Taylor, of the London-based World Advertising Research Center.

“There’s not many places for them to go to spend their ad dollars,” she said. “They kind of are backed into being on Facebook whether they like it or not.”

Taylor said major marketers did get the company’s attention last summer when they launched a boycott pushing Facebook to take a stronger stand against hate speech, but those big brands — from Starbucks to Unilever — still accounted for less than 1% of Facebook’s revenue in the U.S.

The company’s stock is trading close to last week’s record high, despite some skittishness due to regulatory pressure on Facebook’s plans for an Instagram aimed at children. Its advertising revenue is soaring, thanks in large part to a boost in online ads during the pandemic. Revenue grew 48% to $26.17 billion in the first three months of this year — a pace more typical for startups than for massive global corporations.

And as long as Facebook profits from advertising spending, the company’s shareholders will stay happy, too.

“Facebook in particular has tons of small and mid-sized businesses that don’t even enter into these big political conversations,” Taylor said. “There’s no sign that anything is changing with these social media sites based on whether or not Donald Trump is on the platform.”

Copyright © 2021 . All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency is revoking a Trump-era rule that overhauled how the agency evaluates air pollutants, a move the Biden administration says will make it easier to enact limits on dangerous and climate-changing emissions.

EPA said Thursday it reviewed a rule issued by the Trump administration last year and found that it imposed procedural restrictions and other requirements that would have limited EPA’s ability to use the best available science in developing regulations under the Clean Air Act.

“EPA has critical authority under the Clean Air Act to protect the public from harmful air pollution, among other threats to our health. Revoking this unnecessary and misguided rule” by the Trump administration is “proof positive” of the Biden administration’s commitment to science, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement.

Officials “will continue to fix the wrongs of the past and move forward aggressively” to deliver on President Joe Biden’s commitment to protect public health and the environment, Regan said.

The action on the so-called benefit-cost rule follows an executive order Biden signed on his first day in office, directing EPA to review all regulations and policies undertaken by the previous administration. The review concluded that the Trump-era rule, finalized in December, should be rescinded in its entirety.

EPA said the previous rule imposed broad restrictions and requirements on when and how the agency conducts cost-benefit analyses, without explaining why the requirements were needed. The Trump rule was unnecessary to carry out provisions of the Clean Air Act, because EPA already conducts cost-benefits analyses for clean air rules, the agency said.

The previous rule was part of a wave of deregulatory actions under President Donald Trump, who rolled back dozens of environmental rules he considered overly burdensome on businesses. Many of the regulations were designed to protect the environment and public health, but were viewed by the Trump administration as costly and unnecessary.

Trump EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the Trump-era rule on costs and benefits increased transparency on how the agency analyzed the impacts of its rule-making, but environmental groups argued that the Trump administration was gaming cost-benefit calculations to loosen environmental and public health protections. The Trump-era rules would have justified rollbacks on emissions requirements for power plants, motor vehicles and other pollution sources, environmentalists said.

Environmental and public health groups hailed the rule change as a return to EPA’s responsibility to follow science and prioritize public health.

The rule change “is good news, because steps the nation takes to clean up toxic air pollutants — including mercury and acid gases — have saved thousands of lives,” said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

Cost-benefit analyses are complicated and involve projections that weigh likely costs of implementing a clean-air regulation against potential public health benefits, including fewer asthma attacks, hospital visits or deaths.

The Trump rule discounted or undervalued the public health benefits of regulatory action, compared with compliance costs for business, said Hayden Hashimoto, an attorney for the Clean Air Task Force, an advocacy group.

“EPA’s action is an important step toward clearing away another Trump midnight rule that put a finger on the scale to favor industry concerns over public protections in Clean Air Act rules,” he said.

But Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said the Trump-era rule corrected a previous EPA bias that often was “improperly used to target the coal industry through unjustifiable regulations that imposed tremendous compliance costs that significantly outweighed the environmental benefits.”

He urged a more transparent regulatory process and fair accounting practices for the future.

The interim rule proposed by Regan will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. EPA said it invites public comments and intends to issue a final rule later this year.

Copyright © 2021 . All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.