from the take-a-stand dept

We are calling on technology companies like Meta and Google to stand up for their users by resisting the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) lawless administrative subpoenas for user data. 

In the past year, DHS has consistently targeted people engaged in First Amendment activity. Among other things, the agency has issued subpoenas to technology companies to unmask or locate people who have documented ICE’s activities in their community, criticized the government, or attended protests.   

These subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knows it. When a handful of users challenged a few of them in court with the help of ACLU affiliates in Northern California and Pennsylvania, DHS withdrew them rather than waiting for a decision. 

But it is difficult for the average user to fight back on their own. Quashing a subpoena is a fast-moving process that requires lawyers and resources. Not everyone can afford a lawyer on a moment’s notice, and non-profits and pro-bono attorneys have already been stretched to near capacity during the Trump administration.  

 That is why we, joined by the ACLU of Northern California, have asked several large tech platforms to do more to protect their users, including: 

1.  Insist on court intervention and an order before complying with a DHS subpoena, because the agency has already proved that its legal process is often unlawful and unconstitutional;  
2. Give users as much notice as possible when they are the target of a subpoena, so the user can seek help. While many companies have already made this promise, there are high-profile examples of it not happening—ultimately stripping users of their day in court;  
3. Resist gag orders that would prevent companies from notifying their users that they are a target of a subpoena. 

 We sent the letter to Amazon, Apple, Discord, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, SNAP, TikTok, and X.  

Recipients are not legally compelled to comply with administrative subpoenas absent a court order 

 An administrative subpoena is an investigative tool available to federal agencies like DHS. Many times, these are sent to technology companies to obtain user data. A subpoena cannot be used to obtain the content of communications, but they have been used to try and obtain some basic subscriber information like name, address, IP address, length of service, and session times.  

Unlike a search warrant, an administrative subpoena is not approved by a judge. If a technology company refuses to comply, an agency’s only recourse is to drop it or go to court and try to convince a judge that the request is lawful. That is what we are asking companies to do—simply require court intervention and not obey in advance. 

It is unclear how many administrative subpoenas DHS has issued in the past year. Subpoenas can come from many places—including civil courts, grand juries, criminal trials, and administrative agencies like DHS. Altogether, Google received 28,622 and Meta received 14,520 subpoenas in the first half of 2025, according to their transparency reports. The numbers are not broken out by type.   

DHS is abusing its authority to issue subpoenas 

In the past year, DHS has used these subpoenas to target protected speech. The following are just a few of the known examples. 

On April 1, 2025, DHS sent a subpoena to Google in an attempt to locate a Cornell PhD student in the United States on a student visa. The student was likely targeted because of his brief attendance at a protest the year before. Google complied with the subpoena without giving the student an opportunity to challenge it. While Google promises to give users prior notice, it sometimes breaks that promise to avoid delay. This must stop.   

In September 2025, DHS sent a subpoena and summons to Meta to try to unmask anonymous users behind Instagram accounts that tracked ICE activity in communities in California and Pennsylvania. The users—with the help of the ACLU and its state affiliates— challenged the subpoenas in court, and DHS withdrew the subpoenas before a court could make a ruling. In the Pennsylvania case, DHS tried to use legal authority that its own inspector general had already criticized in a lengthy report.  

In October 2025, DHS sent Google a subpoena demanding information about a retiree who criticized the agency’s policies. The retiree had sent an email asking the agency to use common sense and decency in a high-profile asylum case. In a shocking turn, federal agents later appeared on that person’s doorstep. The ACLU is currently challenging the subpoena.  

Read the full letter here

Originally posted to the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, administrative subpoenas, dhs, due process, privacy

Companies: amazon, apple, discord, google, meta, microsoft, reddit, snap, tiktok, x

Amazon is warning that a Russian-speaking hacker used multiple generative AI services as part of a campaign that breached more than 600 FortiGate firewalls across 55 countries in five weeks.

A new report by CJ Moses, CISO of Amazon Integrated Security, says that the hacking campaign occurred between January 11 and February 18, 2026, and did not rely on any exploits to breach Fortinet firewalls.

Instead, the threat actor targeted exposed management interfaces and weak credentials that lacked MFA protection, then used AI to help automate access to other devices on the breached network.

Moses says the compromised firewalls were observed across South Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, West Africa, Northern Europe, and Southeast Asia, among other regions.

An AI-powered hacking campaign

Amazon says it learned about the campaign after finding a server hosting malicious tools used to target Fortinet FortiGate firewalls.

As part of the campaign, the threat actor targeted FortiGate management interfaces exposed to the internet by scanning for services running on ports 443, 8443, 10443, and 4443. The targeting was reportedly opportunistic rather than against any specific industries.

Rather than exploiting zero-days, as we commonly see targeting FortiGate devices, the actor used brute-force attacks with common passwords to gain access to devices.

Once breached, the threat actor extracted the device’s configuration settings, which include:

• SSL-VPN user credentials with recoverable passwords
• Administrative credentials
• Firewall policies and internal network architecture
• IPsec VPN configurations
• Network topology and routing information

These configuration files were then parsed and decrypted using what appears to be AI-assisted Python and Go tools.

“Following VPN access to victim networks, the threat actor deploys a custom reconnaissance tool, with different versions written in both Go and Python,” explained Amazon.

“Analysis of the source code reveals clear indicators of AI-assisted development: redundant comments that merely restate function names, simplistic architecture with disproportionate investment in formatting over functionality, naive JSON parsing via string matching rather than proper deserialization, and compatibility shims for language built-ins with empty documentation stubs.” 

“While functional for the threat actor’s specific use case, the tooling lacks robustness and fails under edge cases—characteristics typical of AI-generated code used without significant refinement.”

These tools were used to automate reconnaissance on the breached networks by analyzing routing tables, classifying networks by size, running port scans using the open-source gogo scanner, identifying SMB hosts and domain controllers, and using Nuclei to look for HTTP services.

The researchers say that while the tools were functional, they commonly failed in more hardened environments.

Operational documentation written in Russian detailed how to use Meterpreter and mimikatz to conduct DCSync attacks against Windows domain controllers and extract NTLM password hashes from the Active Directory database. 

The campaign also specifically targeted Veeam Backup & Replication servers using custom PowerShell scripts, compiled credential-extraction tools, and attempted to exploit Veeam vulnerabilities.

On one of the servers found by Amazon (212[.]11.64.250), the threat actor hosted a PowerShell script named “DecryptVeeamPasswords.ps1” that was used to target the backup application.

As Amazon explains, threat actors often target backup infrastructure before deploying ransomware to prevent the restoration of encrypted files from backups.

The threat actors’ “operational notes” also contained multiple references to trying to exploit various vulnerabilities, including CVE-2019-7192 (QNAP RCE), CVE-2023-27532 (Veeam information disclosure), and CVE-2024-40711 (Veeam RCE).

The report says that the attacker repeatedly failed when attempting to breach patched or locked-down systems, but instead of continuing to try to gain access, they moved on to easier targets.

While Amazon believes the threat actor has a low-to-medium skill set, that skill set was greatly amplified through the use of AI.

The researchers say the threat actor utilized at least two large language model providers throughout the campaign to:

• Generate step-by-step attack methodologies
• Develop custom scripts in multiple programming languages
• Create reconnaissance frameworks
• Plan lateral movement strategies
• Draft operational documentation

In one instance, the actor reportedly submitted a full internal victim network topology, including IP addresses, hostnames, credentials, and known services, to an AI service and asked for help spreading further into the network.

Amazon says the campaign demonstrates how commercial AI services are lowering the barrier to entry for threat actors, enabling them to carry out attacks that would normally be outside their skill set.

The company recommends that FortiGate admins not expose management interfaces to the internet, ensure MFA is enabled, ensure VPN passwords are not the same as those for Active Directory accounts, and harden backup infrastructure.

Google recently reported that threat actors are abusing Gemini AI across all stages of cyberattacks, mirroring what Amazon observed in this campaign.

Modern IT infrastructure moves faster than manual workflows can handle.

In this new Tines guide, learn how your team can reduce hidden manual delays, improve reliability through automated response, and build and scale intelligent workflows on top of tools you already use.

Advertisement

Get the guide

Audio Group Denmark doesn’t launch products so much as drop financial gravity wells. Last week in Aalborg, a select group of high-end press was flown in, not for a polite demo, but for a full-scale statement: the debut of Aavik’s new M-880 Monoblock Power Amplifier, now available to order at $115,000, alongside the equally subtle Børresen M8 Gold Signature loudspeakers, priced at $1,150,000 per pair. If that number made you blink, congratulations, you’re still connected to reality.

Aavik and Børresen may share DNA under the Audio Group Denmark umbrella, but they each stay in their own lane. Aavik handles the electronics. Borresen builds the loudspeakers. Six-figure systems aren’t aspirational here; they’re Tuesday. This is a group staffed by people with very serious résumés, including deep roots in Gryphon Audio Designs, another Danish name synonymous with “because we can” engineering and prices that don’t ask for permission.

The M-880 isn’t about chasing trends or filling a market gap. It reflects Aavik deliberately stepping outside its established lane; one it has navigated very well with its Class D designs to explore something more ambitious and more experimental. Based on what we heard and discussed at T.H.E. Show: NYC 2025, Aavik has earned credibility in modern amplification. The M-880 is what happens when a company with that foundation decides to see how far it can push its ideas when cost is no longer the primary governor.

Whether that exploration is worth $115,000 per channel is not a question for most people and pretending otherwise is pointless. That decision belongs to Persian Gulf emirs, Wall Street and tech executives, and a very small circle of listeners for whom six-figure components are a rational option, not a punchline. Dismissing the M-880 simply because almost no one can afford it misses the point. Ninety-nine point nine percent of the world can’t afford this level of audio engineering, but rarity alone doesn’t invalidate innovation.

Is it excessive? Absolutely. Does it make practical sense to assemble a $2 million system around amplifiers like these? Probably not. Would we do it if given the chance? Probably not. But excess has always been part of how the high-end moves forward, and among the components unveiled in Aalborg, the amplifiers are the more intellectually interesting statement. Loudspeakers at that level aim for spectacle. The M-880 aims for execution.

The M-880 was developed in direct response to the performance demands of the Børresen M8 Gold Signature loudspeaker. As the M8 Gold evolved toward higher levels of speed, resolution, and scale, Aavik concluded that conventional stereo amplifier architectures were no longer sufficient to fully exploit what the loudspeaker was capable of delivering.

The result is the M-880: a true monoblock amplifier conceived not as a standalone component, but as part of a unified system. Rather than treating amplification and loudspeaker design as separate exercises, Aavik engineered the M-880 to operate as a coherent counterpart to the M8 Gold Signature so power delivery, control, and dynamic behavior are aligned with the loudspeaker’s capabilities from the outset.

From Michael Børresen, Co-founder & CTO, Audio Group Denmark: “The M-880 is the result of pursuing absolute performance without compromise, while breaking visual conventions in the unmistakable style that only Flemming can create. For the M8 loudspeakers, nothing less would suffice — and I’m proud of what we achieved.”

Class A Amplification

The Aavik M-880 is designed to push Class A amplifier performance further than conventional implementations. Its output stage maintains a precisely controlled 0.63 V bias, exceeding the current required for operation and ensuring true Class A performance at all times, regardless of load or signal dynamics.

This approach enables the use of smaller, locally positioned capacitor banks. Each of the eight output transistor pairs is supported by its own dedicated local reservoir placed immediately adjacent to the devices, minimizing current travel, shortening signal paths, and reducing noise.

By stabilizing the bias at this level, Aavik preserves the purity, linearity, and harmonic integrity typically associated with Class A designs, while allowing the amplifier to operate at significantly lower temperatures than traditional high-bias Class A amplifiers. The result is improved long-term stability and reliability without sacrificing performance. And for the buyers this amplifier is aimed at, concerns about efficiency or electrical bills are predictably, not part of the conversation.

Power Output: So… How Much Power Are We Talking About?

Each Aavik M-880 mono amplifier is rated to deliver 400 watts into 8 ohms, 800 watts into 4 ohms, and approximately 1,300 watts into 2 ohms. Its very low output impedance results in a damping factor exceeding 1,000 into 8 ohms, underscoring the level of control this amplifier is designed to exert over demanding loudspeaker loads.

That kind of output delivered in a true Class A operating regime is not common. At all. And while the M-880 was developed specifically to meet the requirements of the $1,150,000 Børresen M8 Gold Signature loudspeakers (ahem… very nice house), the amplifier itself opens up some rather interesting and far more flexible pairing possibilities. For listeners who may find the amplifiers more compelling than the speakers, there are flagship options from MartinLogan, Wilson Audio, Magico, Sonus faber, KEF, and DALI that would still leave room in the budget for… well, everything else.

The Power Supply 

Rather than using a traditional linear power supply, the M-880 employs four high-speed, low-noise switching power supplies, each rated at 500 W / 20 A—twice the number used per channel in the earlier Aavik P-880 two-channel power amplifier.

These supplies are supported by a 266 mF local energy storage bank capable of storing up to 1,050 J and delivering peak currents of up to 130 A. The result is a power system that adapts dynamically to audio demand while maintaining an extremely low noise floor, contributing to greater stability, improved control, and a wider dynamic range.

Current Paths and Noise Suppression 

The M-880 has reduced power dissipation, which enables the use of locally placed capacitor banks, with each output transistor pair supported by its own dedicated energy storage positioned directly adjacent to the devices. This results in exceptionally short current paths, reduced noise, and improved efficiency. 

Noise rejection is system-wide through proprietary Aavik and Ansuz technologies, including Active Tesla Coils (ATC), Active Square Tesla Coils (AST), third-generation Analog Dither Technology (ADT), and Anti-Aerial Resonance Coils (AARC) applied to internal wiring. 

Tesla coils in Aavik amplifiers are proprietary active, double-inverted, or square coils. The coils eliminate high-frequency noise and lower the noise floor, enhancing musical detail and transparency. 

Mechanical Grounding and Enclosure Design 

Each M-880 incorporates four Ansuz Darkz Z3w resonance control devices, providing mechanical isolation.

The enclosure, developed by Flemming Erik Rasmussen in collaboration with Michael Børresen, follows a form-follows-function philosophy. 

Its multi-layer construction features a wood-based laminate between a titanium base plate and an upper stainless-steel plate, topped by a internal copper chamber. This provides a controlled resonance behavior alongside exceptional EMI/RFI shielding. 

Designed and Built in Denmark 

Each Aavik M-880 monoblock amplifier is made at Audio Group Denmark’s facility in Aalborg, Denmark. The manufacturing process includes advanced CNC machining, cryogenic processing, and meticulous hand assembly. Each unit undergoes extensive electrical verification and final listening comparison against a reference before shipment. 

Comparison

The Bottom Line 

The Aavik M-880 exists at the intersection of extreme engineering and unapologetic excess, but it’s not empty spectacle. What makes it genuinely interesting are the technical choices: a true Class A output stage with tightly controlled bias, unusually high power delivery for a Class A design, extremely low output impedance, massive current capability, and a power architecture built around multiple high-speed switching supplies with large local energy storage placed exactly where it matters.

This is not a scaled-up version of a conventional amplifier; it’s a deliberate rethink of how Class A can be executed when thermal limits, noise, and stability are engineered rather than tolerated.

This amplifier is for a very specific audience: listeners who already own reference-grade loudspeakers, have dedicated rooms, reinforced floors, and zero interest in compromise or efficiency. At 31.26 × 13.46 × 20.07 inches and 70.0 kg / 154.3 lbs per chassis, each M-880 is effectively a small floor-standing speaker made of metal. You’ll need two for most stereo systems, and if you’re thinking about bi-amping, start counting in fours. 

Is it rational? No. Is it serious? Absolutely. The M-880 isn’t meant to be relatable; it’s meant to explore what’s possible when experience, resources, and ambition align. For most people, this will remain a thought experiment. For a very small few, it’s a statement piece that also happens to be one of the more technically ambitious Class A amplifiers to emerge from Denmark—where, apparently, there is something in the herring. 

Price & Availability

The Aavik M-880 Mono Power Amplifier is priced at $115,000 USD and available through Authorized Aavik Dealers.

For more information: audiogroupdenmark.com

Related Reading:

from the history-in-the-unmaking dept

The Trump administration’s project for erasing the parts of American history they find inconvenient continues unabated. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit the occasional roadblock.

In January, the administration removed portions of an exhibit at the former Philadelphia home of George Washington that made reference to 9 slaves he owned that spent time at the house. That Washington owned slaves is not a matter of opinion. He did. That he also rotated those slaves in and out of the home, moving them elsewhere for short periods of time, all to get around laws in Pennsylvania that slaves within its borders for a certain period of continuous time would be automatically freed, is also uncontroversial to state. He did that. One of our founding fathers that brought “freedom” to America was also a slave owner. He wasn’t alone.

The Trump administration doesn’t like being reminded of that history. It also prefers that younger generations never learn of that history. I’d call it jingoism, but that doesn’t feel sufficient. This rings as something far more dastardly, fit for the musings of George Orwell.

Well, the city sued to have the exhibit restored and it appears the Judge in the case, a George W. Bush appointee, agrees with my assessment. You can read as much in her blistering opening in her ruling, in which she also orders the government to restore the exhibit to its previous state.

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not.

The ruling, which you can read embedded below, is actually quite technical. It turns out that the agreements, under which these specific sites operate, are shared between the city and federal governments, and they are both old and complicate the government’s efforts.

The layman’s version of this is that several historical sites in Philadelphia were created by an act of Congress in the 1940s. Ownership of the site is retained by the city, while curation of the exhibits are maintained only under the agreement of both the federal government and city government. Adding to the complication is that a 2006 updated agreement between both parties had a short term attached to it, but there is also a survivabilty clause, which states that the expiration of the term of the agreement doesn’t mean that the city loses its rights to agreement on the curation of the exhibits.

Although the 2006 Agreement, as updated by the Third Amendment, ceased as of May 1, 2010,94 the terms in its Project Development Plan remained effective under the Third Amendment Survival Clause. The Survival Clause states that “provisions which, by themselves or their nature are reasonably expected to be performed after the expiration or termination of this Third Amendment shall survive.”95 Because the President’s House project was not contemplated to be completed by the expiration of the Third Amendment, it was reasonably expected that terms relating to the Project Development Plan would remain in effect to ensure that the commemorative exhibit was realized in accordance with the parties’ initial plan. While the Third Amendment granted NPS the right to interpret the exhibit after it was completed, it is the Project Development Plan that established the interpretive framework that NPS would employ. Profound alterations to that framework, seen here in the effort to remove all references to slavery, AfricanAmerican Philadelphia, and the move to freedom for the enslaved, would, under the Project Development Plan, require the written approval of both the City and NPS.

Whoops.

Now, this doesn’t mean that this judge spared words of disgust at the general plan that the federal government is attempting to carry out.

Defendants have completely ignored their legislatively imposed duties. They have disregarded statutory authority, compelled by Congress, by taking unilateral action without seeking agreement from the City of Philadelphia. An agency, part of the Executive branch, is not entitled to act solely as it wishes. Rather, it is the Legislative branch which authorizes agency action, and the Executive branch must comply with that direction.

There’s a lot more in there, but it’s largely legally technical in nature. What is obvious from the analysis in the ruling is that, at least in this one case, the federal government acted outside of its authority due to agreements struck as a result of legislation from Congress that are in good standing. I fully expect the Trump administration to waste time and resources by appealing this decision, but this is fairly straightforward stuff.

Trump, no matter how hard he pretends, is not a king. He does not have as much power as he desires. He cannot change history. In far too many places, he is hiding that history, but he can’t change it.

And, at least in this case, at this moment, he has found the limits to his power.

Filed Under: donald trump, george washington, history, orwell, philadelphia, slavery, trump admin

Automation has become an unquestioned priority for IT and service-led organizations. AI sits in the center of service desks, sales workflows, security operations, and modern cloud environments. Leaders are under pressure to move faster, cut costs, and boost output through every tool available.

Yet the rapid shift has created an unexpected consequence: many teams are realizing that efficiency alone doesn’t build trust.