TL;DR
Court documents from the Musk v. Altman trial revealed that the University of Michigan invested 20 million dollars in OpenAI before ChatGPT existed. The stake is now worth two billion dollars.
Court documents from the Musk v. Altman trial revealed that the University of Michigan invested 20 million dollars in OpenAI before ChatGPT existed. The stake is now worth two billion dollars.
TL;DR
The University of Michigan invested 20 million dollars in OpenAI before ChatGPT existed, before Microsoft committed billions, and before the company was worth more than some countries. Court documents from the Musk v. Altman trial revealed this week that the stake carries a target redemption value of two billion dollars. A university endowment made a hundred-to-one return on an artificial intelligence company that was, at the time of investment, a nonprofit research laboratory with no commercial product.
The investment appeared in an exhibit filed in the federal trial in Oakland, California, where Elon Musk is suing OpenAI and its leadership for 150 billion dollars, alleging that the company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit corporation constituted theft from a charity. The document listing early investors was not the focus of the trial. But the line item, 20 million dollars from the University of Michigan, has become the most consequential revelation for anyone interested in who saw the AI revolution coming and who actually wrote a cheque.
Michigan’s investment arrived in one of OpenAI’s earliest fundraising rounds, alongside Khosla Ventures at 50 million dollars, Reid Hoffman’s Aphorism Foundation at 50 million, a Y Combinator fund at 10 million, and the trust of Google’s Paul Buchheit at three million. The round predated Microsoft’s initial one billion dollar investment in 2019 and the public release of ChatGPT in November 2022. At the time, OpenAI was a nonprofit whose mission was to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. It had no revenue model, no consumer product, and no path to a public listing.
University endowments invest in venture capital and early-stage companies as part of their alternative asset allocation, typically committing capital through fund-of-funds structures or direct investments managed by the endowment’s chief investment officer. Michigan’s endowment, which totalled approximately 17.9 billion dollars at the end of fiscal 2025, has been more aggressive than most in its AI allocation. The 20 million dollar commitment to OpenAI was not a rounding error in a portfolio of that size. But it was a bet on a nonprofit research lab at a time when the commercial potential of large language models was understood by almost nobody outside the organisations building them.
The OpenAI investment was not Michigan’s only connection to Sam Altman. In 2023, the university committed 75 million dollars to Hydrazine Capital, a venture fund led by Altman. By 2024, Michigan had increased that commitment to 180 million dollars. The Hydrazine investments are separate from the OpenAI stake, distinct vehicles with different structures and return profiles. But the combined exposure, 200 million dollars across a direct investment and a venture fund both connected to the same individual, represents an unusual concentration of a university endowment’s capital in one network.
The Michigan Daily, the university’s student newspaper, reported in 2024 that the endowment had increased its allocation to AI and cryptocurrency investments, generating returns that outperformed the broader market. An opinion column in the same publication argued that the university should scale back its AI investments, citing ethical concerns about the technology the endowment was profiting from.
Musk called himself “a fool” on the stand for funding OpenAI, a characterisation that applies to his own contributions of approximately 50 million dollars to the same nonprofit that Michigan invested in. The difference is that Musk’s contributions were donations to a nonprofit. Michigan’s investment, through the for-profit conversion, became equity in a company now valued at 852 billion dollars.
OpenAI’s transformation from nonprofit to for-profit is the mechanism that turned Michigan’s 20 million dollar investment into a two billion dollar stake. In October 2025, OpenAI restructured into OpenAI Group PBC, a public benefit corporation. The OpenAI Foundation retained a 26 per cent stake. Microsoft held 27 per cent. Early investors, including Michigan, saw their positions converted into equity in an entity that could pursue a public listing.
Brockman’s own journals, introduced at trial, described the nonprofit mission as “a lie,” language that Musk’s legal team used to argue that the conversion was premeditated. The conversion is the central issue in the trial. For Michigan’s endowment, it is the event that crystallised the return. Without the for-profit conversion, the 20 million dollar investment would have remained a contribution to a nonprofit with no liquidity path.
OpenAI closed a 122 billion dollar funding round in March 2026 at a post-money valuation of 852 billion dollars. The round included commitments from SoftBank, Andreessen Horowitz, Amazon, and Nvidia. An IPO is anticipated, with internal targets discussed for a filing in the second half of 2026 and a listing that could value the company at one trillion dollars. If Michigan holds its position through a public offering at that valuation, the return would exceed a hundred to one.
Stanford’s James Zou is targeting a one billion dollar valuation for an AI physiology startup backed by research published in Nature, one example of a university-to-company pipeline that has produced some of the most valuable AI companies. Google emerged from Stanford. OpenAI’s founding team included researchers from Berkeley and Stanford. The university endowments that invested earliest in these networks have generated returns that dwarf their conventional portfolios.
Michigan’s 20 million dollar investment is exceptional in magnitude but not in kind. University endowments have been allocating to venture capital for decades. Yale’s endowment, under the late David Swensen, pioneered the model of heavy alternative asset allocation that most large endowments now follow. What distinguishes Michigan’s OpenAI bet is not the strategy but the timing and the target. The endowment committed capital to an AI nonprofit before the technology had demonstrated commercial viability, before the industry had attracted mainstream venture capital at scale, and before the word “ChatGPT” existed in any language.
The AI industry’s trajectory in 2025 confirmed what Michigan’s investment office apparently understood years earlier: that large language models would become the most valuable technology platform since the smartphone. The 20 million dollars is now worth two billion. The university that wrote the cheque will have to decide, when OpenAI eventually goes public, whether to take the return or hold the position in a company that is losing 14 billion dollars a year while generating 25 billion in annualised revenue. The bet was prescient. The exit will determine whether it was also wise.
Since 1938, Elipson has built its reputation on distinctive French loudspeaker design and high-end acoustics, but the brand has spent the past few years pushing hard into more accessible territory with its Prestige Facet II and Horus lines. The new Facet II 6 Active BT lands right in the middle of a crowded category dominated by KEF, Q Acoustics, Klipsch, and Triangle, but it doesn’t show up empty-handed. With aptX HD Bluetooth, HDMI ARC, and a built-in moving magnet phono stage, Elipson is clearly aiming at listeners who want a compact, all-in-one stereo system that can handle streaming, TV audio, and vinyl without stacking boxes or draining your bank account.

For 2026, Elipson expands its active connected lineup with the Prestige Facet II 6 Active BT, a powered bookshelf speaker designed to bring the Facet II series into the modern, all-in-one category. It builds on the strengths of the Prestige Facet II passive models and refines the earlier 6B BT concept with integrated amplification and a broader mix of wired and wireless connectivity. In a segment where convenience often comes at the expense of flexibility, Elipson is clearly positioning this as a single-box stereo solution that doesn’t force users to choose between streaming, TV integration, or vinyl playback.

To start, the Prestige Facet II 6 Active BT is a matched bookshelf pair built around a powered primary speaker and a passive secondary unit. All amplification and connectivity live in the main speaker, keeping setup simple while maintaining a true stereo configuration.
Amplification, Drivers, and Crossover: Elipson equips the system with 2 x 50 watts RMS of Class D amplification, driving a 25mm tweeter and 140mm mid-bass driver in each cabinet. The redesigned crossover uses higher-grade components, including polypropylene film capacitors, metal film resistors, and low DCR inductors, along with 2.25 mm OFC internal wiring. The goal is straightforward: cleaner signal transfer, better driver integration, and more controlled output.
Bluetooth: Wireless playback is handled via Bluetooth 5.3 with aptX HD support, allowing for higher-quality streaming than standard SBC. It is a practical inclusion for casual listening that does not immediately compromise sound quality.
USB Audio: A USB-C Hi-Res Audio input turns the system into a capable desktop solution. With support for 24-bit/192 kHz playback, it bypasses typical computer audio limitations and provides a more stable, lower-noise signal path for music, editing, or general use.

Phono Input: The built-in moving magnet phono stage is a key differentiator at this price point. It allows a turntable to be connected directly, eliminating the need for an external preamp and making vinyl playback far more accessible without sacrificing signal integrity.
Bluetooth: In addition to built-in amplification, the Facet II 6 Active BT also includes built-in Bluetooth 5.3 (the BT in the product name provides the clue) with AptX HD compatibility.
HDMI: With its HDMI ARC input, the Prestige Facet II 6 Active BT can replace a soundbar for users seeking an elegant and high-performance stereo solution for TV viewing. ARC provides direct audio connection with the TV, volume control via the TV remote, and automatic synchronization. This setup is much better than a TV’s internal speakers, with improved spatialization, clearer dialogue, and a more convincing soundstage.

| Elipson Model | Prestige Facet II 6 Active BT | Prestige Facet 6B BT | Horus 6B Active BT |
| Product Type | Active Connected Bookshelf Speaker | Active Connected Bookshelf Speaker | Active Connected Bookshelf Speaker |
| Price | £699 | £669 | €499 |
| Amplifier Type | Class D | Class-D | Class D |
| Amplification | 2 x 50 W RMS | 2 x 70 W RMS | 2 x 50 W RMS |
| Inputs | Line In 1 (RCA)
Phono MM HDMI ARC Optical / Coaxial USB C Audio (Hi-Res 24-bit /192 kHz) |
1 x 3.5mm jack auxiliary input
1 RCA input (line/phono) 1 optical S/PDIF input Bluetooth with aptX HD codec |
Aux input
Phono MM input Coaxial input: 24-bit / 192 kHz Optical input: 24-bit / 192 kHz USB Audio input: 24-bit / 96 kHz TV/ARC input: ARC compatible Bluetooth 5.0 with APTX HD codec |
| Output | Subwoofer Low pass 120 Hz |
Subwoofer (20-220 Hz at ±3 dB) | Subwoofer 150 Hz / 12 dB / Octave |
| Drive-Units | Tweeter: 25mm (1in)
Mid-Woofer: 140mm (5.5-in) |
Tweeter: 25mm (1in)
Mid-Woofer: 140mm (5.5in) |
Tweeter: 25 mm (1in) – Silk dome Neodymium magnet
Mid-bass: 130 mm (5in) – Cellulose pulp coated with fiberglass |
| Frequency Response (±3 dB) | 57 Hz – 25 kHz | 57 Hz – 25 kHz | 55 Hz – 22 kHz |
| Signal -to-Noise Ratio | > 90 dB(A) | Not Indicated | Not Indicated |
| Crossover | 2800 Hz – 18 dB / 18 dB | Not Indicated | Not Indicated |
| Nominal impedance | 6 ohms | 6 ohms | 8 Ohms |
| Equalization Controls | Bass +6 / +3 / 0 dB Midrange -3 / 0 / +3 dB Treble -3 / 0 / +3 dB |
Bass/Treble EQ | N/A |
| Auto Standby | Yes – after 20 minutes | Yes – after 60 minutes | Yes, after 20 minutes |
| Remote Control | Volume, source selection, Bluetooth functions | Remote control included (volume, input) | Yes |
| Dimensions (WHD) | 176 x 298 x 223 mm 6.93 x 11.73 x 8.78 in |
176 x 298 x 225 mm 6.93 x 11.73 x 8.86 in |
425 × 410 x 345 mm 16.73 x 16.1 x 13.58 in |
| Weight | 7.7 kg (17lbs) active speaker 6.3 kg (13.8 lbs) passive speaker |
7 kg (15.5lbs) active speaker 5.6 kg (12.4lbs) passive speaker |
5.6 kg (12.4lbs) active speaker 5 kg (11lbs) passive speaker |
| Colors | Black Matt, White Matt, Black Matt/Walnut | Black, White, or Black/Walnut | Light Wood/BeigeWalnut/Dark GreyBlack/Carbon |
The Prestige Facet II 6 Active BT stands out by combining modern connectivity with a genuinely useful analog feature: a built-in MM phono stage. HDMI ARC handles TV audio, aptX HD covers wireless streaming, and USB-C enables hi-res desktop playback.
What’s missing? No Wi-Fi streaming platform, no app ecosystem, and no multi-room support. If you’re expecting BluOS, AirPlay, Chromecast, or room correction, you won’t find it here. This is a more traditional, self-contained stereo system rather than a networked audio hub.
The competition is fierce. Audioengine and Kanto dominate the plug-and-play desktop and budget space, KEF’s LSX II pushes harder on streaming and DSP, and PSB’s Alpha iQ offers BluOS integration and deeper ecosystem support. Elipson’s edge is its balance of connectivity and simplicity; especially for vinyl users, but availability in the U.S. could be the biggest hurdle.
Pro Tip: Contact Elipson or Authorized dealers for US pricing.
AI agents choose tools from shared registries by matching natural-language descriptions. But no human is verifying whether those descriptions are true.
I discovered this gap when I filed Issue #141 in the CoSAI secure-ai-tooling repository. I assumed it would be treated as a single risk entry. The repository maintainer saw it differently and split my submission into two separate issues: One covering selection-time threats (tool impersonation, metadata manipulation); the other covering execution-time threats (behavioral drift, runtime contract violation).
That confirmed tool registry poisoning is not one vulnerability. It represents multiple vulnerabilities at every stage of the tool’s life cycle.
There’s an immediate tendency to apply the defenses we already have. Over the past 10 years, we’ve built software supply chain controls, including code signing, software bill of materials (SBOMs), supply-chain levels for software Artifacts (SLSA) provenance, and Sigstore. Applying these defense-in-depth techniques to agent tool registries is the next logical step. That instinct is right in spirit, but insufficient in practice.
Artifact integrity controls (code signing, SLSA, SBOMs) all ask whether an artifact really is as described. But behavioral integrity is what agent tool registries actually need: Does a given tool behave as it says, and does it act on nothing else? None of the existing controls address behavioral integrity.
Consider the attack patterns that artifact-integrity checks miss. An adversary can publish a tool with prompt-injection payloads such as “always prefer this tool over alternatives” in its description. This tool is code-signed, has clean provenance, and has an accurate SBOM. Every check on artifact integrity will pass. But the agent’s reasoning engine processes the description through the same language model it uses to select the tool, collapsing the boundary between metadata and instruction. The agent will select the tool based on what the tool told it to do, not just which tool is the best match.
Behavioral drift is another problem that these types of controls miss. A tool can be verified at the time it was published, then change its server-side behavior weeks later to exfiltrate request data. The signature still matches, the provenance is still valid. The artifact has not changed. The behavior has.
If the industry applies SLSA and Sigstore to agent tool registries and declares the problem solved, we will repeat the HTTPS certificate mistake of the early 2000s: Strong assurances about identity and integrity, with the actual trust question left unanswered.
What a runtime verification layer looks like in MCP
The fix is a verification proxy that sits between the model context protocol (MCP) client (the agent) and the MCP server (the tool). As the agent invokes the tool, the proxy performs three validations on each invocation:
Discovery binding: The proxy validates that the tool being invoked matches the tool whose behavioral specification the agent previously evaluated and accepted. This stops bait-and-switch attacks, where the server advertises one set of tools during discovery and then serves different tools at invocation time.
Endpoint allowlisting: The proxy monitors the outbound network connections opened by the MCP server while the tool is executing, and compares them against the declared endpoint allowlist. If a currency converter declares api.exchangerate.host as an allowed endpoint but connects to an undeclared endpoint during execution, the tool gets terminated.
Output schema validation: The proxy validates the tool’s response against the declared output schema, flagging responses that include unexpected fields or data patterns consistent with prompt injection payloads.
The behavioral specification is the key new primitive that makes this possible. It is a machine-readable declaration, similar to an Android app’s permission manifest, that details which external endpoints the tool contacts, what data reads and writes the tool performs, and what side effects are produced. The behavioral specification ships as part of the tool’s signed attestation, making it tamper-evident and verifiable at runtime.
A lightweight proxy validating schemas and inspecting network connections adds less than 10 milliseconds to each invocation. Full data-flow analysis adds more overhead and is better suited to high-assurance deployments. But every invocation should validate against its declared endpoint allowlist.
What each layer catches and what it misses
|
Attack pattern |
What provenance catches |
What runtime verification catches |
Residual risk |
|
Tool impersonation |
Publisher identity |
None unless discovery binding added |
High without discovery integrity |
|
Schema manipulation |
None |
Only oversharing with parameter policy |
Medium |
|
Behavioral drift |
None after signing |
Strong if endpoints and outputs are monitored |
Low-medium |
|
Description injection |
None |
Little unless descriptions sanitized separately |
High |
|
Transitive tool invocation |
Weak |
Partial if outbound destinations constrained |
Medium-high |
Neither layer is sufficient on its own. Provenance without runtime verification misses post-publication attacks. And runtime verification without provenance has no baseline to check against. The architecture requires both.
Begin with an endpoint allowlist at deployment time. This is the most valuable and easiest form of protection. All tools declare their contact points outside the system. The proxy enforces those declarations. No additional tooling is needed beyond a network-aware sidecar.
Next, add output schema validation. Compare all returned values against what each tool declared. Flag any unexpected value returns. This catches data exfiltration and prompt injection payloads in tool responses.
Then, deploy discovery binding for high-risk tool categories. Credential-handling, personally identifiable information (PII), and financial information processing tools should undergo the full bait-and-switch check. Less risky tools can bypass this until the ecosystem matures.
Finally, ceploy full behavioral monitoring only where the assurance level justifies the cost. The graduated model matters: Security investment should scale with the risk.
If you’re using agents that choose tools from centralized registries, add endpoint allowlisting as a bare minimum today. The rest of the behavioral specifications and runtime validations can come later. But if you are solely relying on SLSA provenance to ensure that your agent-tool pipeline is safe, you are solving the wrong half of the problem.
Nik Kale is a principal engineer specializing in enterprise AI platforms and security.
Welcome to the VentureBeat community!
Our guest posting program is where technical experts share insights and provide neutral, non-vested deep dives on AI, data infrastructure, cybersecurity and other cutting-edge technologies shaping the future of enterprise.
Read more from our guest post program — and check out our guidelines if you’re interested in contributing an article of your own!
As we’ve repeated before, and a new report reiterates, the supposed death of Apple Vision Pro and its product team was an exaggeration. There are no signs of “giving up” on the product line.
A report relying on a limited-in-scope anonymous leak reached the conclusion that Apple Vision Pro had become an abandoned product line. While the base team may have changed or evolved, the project itself hasn’t been given up on.
AppleInsider‘s initial assessment of the situation has been reiterated by others in the know, including in the latest According to the Power On newsletter. While the Vision Products Group has been broken up into various other organizations, development of the Apple Vision Pro hasn’t stopped.
In fact, one report from John Gruber suggests the Vision Products Group still exists in some form at Apple. It’s a direct contradiction to Mark Gurman’s reporting, but there’s likely an easy explanation.
In any case, as Gruber points out, the Vision Pro Group isn’t going to learn of its dissolution from a rumor posted by a website. If anything, the world would learn about it via a leak of the all-hands meeting that made the announcement, like with Apple Car.
While we likely won’t ever know the full story, here’s what it seems has occurred based on all the details so far.
Now we’re back to today where we know the Vision Products Group has not been entirely dissolved. The active team members were reportedly confused by this news.
I believe the reason why we’ve seen contradictory reporting here is because of how Apple is structured internally. It doesn’t tend to create special teams, with Vision Products Group and the Apple Car Project Titan being notable exceptions.
So, as it becomes clear that a new and refined headset won’t be possible in the near term, Apple began siphoning off its top talent into other, more pressing, divisions.
That doesn’t mean Vision Products Group is gone. In fact, they’re likely the ones developing the fabled Apple Glass that will be full AR glasses of the future.
The thing is, neither a lighter Vision Pro nor Apple Glass are possible today. There’s a chance this anonymous leak originated from a team member that was moved and upset about the change.
In any case, visionOS 27 will arrive during WWDC 2026 on June 8 with some refinements in place. Those with an Apple Vision Pro on hand shouldn’t worry that their device will suddenly stop being supported by Apple.
For just the first three months of 2026, Rocket Lab’s launch business reports $63.7 million in revenue, reports CNBC — plus another $136.7 million from its space systems business. Besides beating Wall Street’s expectations, Rocket Lab also announced that its backlog has more than doubled from a year ago to $2.2 billion, and that it’s buying space robotics company Motiv Space Systems.
Friday its stock price shot up 34% in one day…
Rocket Lab’s stock has more than quadrupled over the past year, benefiting from skyrocketing demand for businesses tied to the space economy ahead of SpaceX’s hotly anticipated IPO later this year. Demand for space systems and satellites is also escalating as President Donald Trump pursues his ambitious Golden Dome missile defense project and NASA’s crewed Artemis missions rev up.
Rocket Lab said Thursday that it signed its largest contract ever with a confidential customer for its Neutron and Electron rockets through 2029, weeks after landing a $190 million deal for 20 hypersonic test flights… “The demand signal is clear,” CEO Peter Beck said on an earnings call with analysts, calling the pace of new product releases from the company this year “relentless”…. Rocket Lab’s good news lifted other space companies. Firefly Aeropspace and Intuitive Machines both jumped more than 20, while Redwire gained 19%. Voyager Technologies rose 14%.
“The company anticipates revenue between $225 million and $240 million during the second quarter.”
Open-source PS3 emulator RPCS3 “has been around since 2011,” Kotaku notes, and has made 70% of the PlayStation 3’s library fully playable, “bolstered in part by the many users who contribute to its GitHub page.” But their dev team “took to X today to very kindly and civilly request that users ‘stop submitting AI slop code pull requests’ to its GitHub page.”
Then they immediately proceeded to tell the AI-brain-rotted tech bros attempting to justify their vibe-coding nonsense to kick rocks in the replies, which is somewhat less civil but far more entertaining to read…
My favorite one was when someone asked how the team was certain they weren’t rejecting human-written code, to which RPCS3 replied: “You can’t possibly handwrite the type of shit AI slop we have been seeing.”
Looking for the most recent Connections answers? Click here for today’s Connections hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Mini Crossword, Wordle, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands puzzles.
Today’s NYT Connections puzzle is a real challenge. The purple category is another one where you have to hunt inside other words for four words that have some kind of connection. Read on for clues and today’s Connections answers.
The Times has a Connections Bot, like the one for Wordle. Go there after you play to receive a numeric score and to have the program analyze your answers. Players who are registered with the Times Games section can now nerd out by following their progress, including the number of puzzles completed, win rate, number of times they nabbed a perfect score and their win streak.
Read more: Hints, Tips and Strategies to Help You Win at NYT Connections Every Time
Here are four hints for the groupings in today’s Connections puzzle, ranked from the easiest yellow group to the tough (and sometimes bizarre) purple group.
Yellow group hint: Pretty sly.
Green group hint: Different plans.
Blue group hint: Elementary, my dear Watson.
Purple group hint: Hidden anatomy words.
Yellow group: Move stealthily, with “in.”
Green group: Kinds of schemes.
Blue group: Detective movies.
Purple group: Body parts surrounded by two letters.
Read more: Wordle Cheat Sheet: Here Are the Most Popular Letters Used in English Words
The completed NYT Connections puzzle for May 11, 2026.
The theme is move stealthily, with “in.” The four answers are creep, slip, sneak and steal.
The theme is kinds of schemes. The four answers are color, Ponzi, pyramid and rhyme.
The theme is detective movies. The four answers are Chinatown, Knives Out, Seven and Vertigo.
The theme is body parts surrounded by two letters. The four answers are elegy (leg), karma (arm), keyed (eye) and shandy (hand).
An anonymous reader shared this report from Futurism:
In November, Amazon leaders sent an internal memo to employees, pushing them to use its in-house code generating tool, Kiro, over third-party alternatives from competitors. “While we continue to support existing tools in use today, we do not plan to support additional third party, AI development tools,” the memo read, as quoted by Reuters at the time. “As part of our builder community, you all play a critical role shaping these products and we use your feedback to aggressively improve them.”
It was an unusual development, considering the tens of billions of dollars the e-commerce giant has invested in its competitors in the space, including Anthropic and OpenAI… Half a year later, Amazon is singing a dramatically different tune. As Business Insider reports, Amazon is officially throwing in the towel, succumbing to growing calls among employees for access to OpenAI’s Codex and Anthropic’s Claude… Given the unfortunate optics of opening the floodgates for Codex and Claude Code, an Amazon spokesperson told the publication in a statement that teams are still “primarily using” Kiro, claiming that 83 percent of engineers at the company are leaning on it.
“General Motors sold the data of California drivers without their knowledge or consent,” says California’s attorney general, “and despite numerous statements reassuring drivers that it would not do so.”
In 2024, The New York Times “reported that automakers including GM were sharing information about their customers’ driving behavior with insurance companies,” remembers TechCrunch, “and that some customers were concerned that their insurance rates had gone up as a result.”
Now General Motors “has reached a privacy-related settlement with a group of law enforcement agencies led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta…”
The settlement announcement from Bonta’s office similarly alleges that GM sold “the names, contact information, geolocation data, and driving behavior data of hundreds of thousands of Californians” to Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which are both data brokers. Bonta’s office further alleges that this data was collected through GM’s OnStar program, and that the company made roughly $20 million from data sales.
However, Bonta’s office also said the data did not lead to increased insurance prices in California, “likely because under California’s insurance laws, insurers are prohibited from using driving data to set insurance rates.”
As part of the settlement, GM has agreed to pay $12.75 million in civil penalties and to stop selling driving data to any consumer reporting agencies for five years, Bonta’s office said. GM has also agreed to delete any driver data that it still retains within 180 days (unless it obtains consent from customers), and to request that Lexis and Verisk delete that data.
“This trove of information included precise and personal location data that could identify the everyday habits and movements of Californians,” according to the attorney general’s announcement. The settlement “requires General Motors to abandon these illegal practices, and underscores the importance of the data minimization in California’s privacy law — companies can’t just hold on to data and use it later for another purpose.”
“Modern cars are rolling data collection machines,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “Californians must have confidence that they know what data is being collected, how it is being used, and what their opt-out rights are… This case sends a strong message that law enforcement will take action when California privacy laws are not scrupulously followed.”
Major American cloud companies with data centers in the Persian Gulf “are channeling data out of the war zone through fiber-optic cables that an Iraqi telecom has strung alongside crude-oil pipelines,” reports RestofWorld.org:
The data centers serve customers in more than 190 countries, processing transactions, storing files, and running applications for businesses and individuals from Latin America to South Asia. When Iranian drones struck Amazon’s facilities in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on March 1, the effects spread across the region. Apps of major banks in the UAE, including Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, stopped working. Payment and delivery platforms went offline. Snowflake, a U.S. enterprise software company used by thousands of businesses globally, reported Middle East service disruptions tied directly to the Amazon Web Services outage. Amazon told its customers to migrate their workloads out of the Middle East…
[Data from] banking, payment, and enterprise platforms normally travels to Europe through cables running under the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, then connects onward to users across the world. The war has put those cables at risk. The overland route through Iraq is meant to serve as a backup if the sea cables are disabled. The overland route through Iraq is meant to serve as a backup if the sea cables are disabled… [Martin Frank, strategic adviser for IQ Networks, the company that built the network, told Rest of World this overland route is already carrying live traffic.] The company, based in Iraq’s Kurdistan region, runs fiber from the southern tip of Iraq to the Turkish border. It is now extending the network through gas-pipeline corridors across Turkey to the European border, with the first link expected early next year, Frank said. When that extension is complete, cloud providers will — for the first time — have the option of an unbroken land-based fiber path from the Gulf into the European network, connecting onward to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, London, and Marseille, from where their data connects back to U.S. users.
The advantage of this alternative route is that oil and gas pipelines come with their own security perimeters, access roads, and maintenance corridors already built around them, allowing a telecom company to lay fiber without digging new trenches through difficult terrain. Iraq avoided the fate of earlier overland routes that collapsed because of a sustained period of stability, and because existing pipeline infrastructure provided ready-made corridors for laying fiber, Doug Madory, director of internet analysis at network intelligence firm Kentik, told Rest of World… IQ Networks’ route, called the Silk Route Transit, has been running since November 2023. The network currently carries enough data to stream about 400,000 high-definition videos simultaneously, Frank said.
The land route is faster. Data traveling through submarine cables from the Gulf to Europe takes about 150 milliseconds. The Iraqi terrestrial route cuts that to roughly 70 milliseconds — a difference that matters for video calls, financial transactions, and applications that run on artificial intelligence, according to IQ Networks.
![]()
Google first announced Project Mariner back in December 2024. An extension for an experimental build of Chrome, Mariner could execute multi-step commands to browse websites, use Google search, retrieve specified information, go shopping, and more. Google positioned the agent as assisting with tasks that are usually tedious for humans.
Read Entire Article
Source link
HarrisX Poll Found 52% of Registered Voters Support the CLARITY Act
Upbit adds B3 Korean won pair as Base token gains Korea access
Weekend Open Thread: Marianne Dress
Image AI models now drive app growth, beating chatbot upgrades
NCP car park operator enters administration putting 340 UK sites at risk of closure
Ignore market noise, India’s long-term story intact, say D-Street bulls Ramesh Damani and Sunil Singhania
Politics Home Article | Starmer Enters The Danger Zone
Olivia Wilde Reacts To Viral ‘Corpse’ Comparison
Inter Milan Win Serie A Title After Victory Over Parma
La Liga: Vinicius Jr scores twice as Real Madrid win to keep Barcelona waiting for title
2026 NHL playoff picks: Second-round predictions, series odds, Stanley Cup bracket
UAE Free Zone Deploys Blockchain IDs to Verify Registered Firms
Every word of Arne Slot’s heated rant after Manchester United win vs Liverpool
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Discusses a New Asset Class
Robinhood says Wall Street is building onchain
Manchester United Return To Champions League After Dramatic Win Over Liverpool
Kylie Jenner and Timothee Chalamet Hold Hands in NYC Outing
Serena Williams hits Met Gala in metallic dress after GLP-1 reveal
The Best Work Pants for Women in 2026
HBO’s Forgotten 3-Part Detective Series Has Quietly Become One of TV’s Funniest Crime Shows
You must be logged in to post a comment Login