Senate considers ban on data brokers selling health and location info

Politicians are determined to put a stop to brokers who compromise privacy by selling your data. Motherboard has learned Elizabeth Warren and other senators are introducing a bill, the Health and Location Data Protection Act, that would ban brokers from selling or transferring a person’s medical and positional info outside of limited circumstances. The main exceptions would include HIPAA-compliant activities (such as sharing patient records between facilities) and First Amendment-protected speech.

The legislation would also give the Federal Trade Commission $1 billion over the next decade to help fund enforcement. The FTC, state attorneys general and individuals would also have the power to sue and seek injunctions. Bill cosponsors include longtime data privacy advocate Ron Wyden as well as Bernie Sanders, finance committee chair Patty Murray and HELP committee chair Sheldon Whitehouse.

The act comes in response to numerous instances where companies and government bodies violated privacy by purchasing data through brokers. Bounty hunters bought location data from carriers, for instance, while Google banned a company last year for allegedly selling Android location data indiscriminately. Critics have also accused agencies like ICE and the Secret Service of buying location info through brokers to get data that would normally require a warrant. At the same time, lawmakers are worried about access to abortion seekers’ data when the Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This measure could limit anti-abortion politicians and activists hoping to target patients.

Protection bills like this aren’t new. Wyden’s stalled Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act would require agencies to obtain warrants for location data. This would represent one of the most sweeping data controls yet if it became law, however, and reflects mounting opposition to companies that profit from trading sensitive content.

Elon Musk is trying to get out of an SEC deal to have lawyers approve his tweets

Elon Musk has filed an appeal against a judge’s decision not to let him out of an agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which requires him to have lawyers review some of his tweets. A district court judge ruled that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO’s consent decree with the SEC should stand. Now, Musk is hoping the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan will overturn that decision, as Reuters reports.

Musk’s pact with the SEC stems from an infamous 2018 incident in which he tweeted that he had “funding secured” to make Tesla a private company, though that allegedly wasn’t the case. The SEC laid securities fraud charges against Musk, who has not deleted the tweet in question nearly four years later.

He quickly settled the case by agreeing to step down as Tesla chairman (but remain as CEO), while he and the company each paid civil fines of $20 million. On top of that, Musk agreed to let a lawyer vet tweets that might include material information about Tesla. He later claimed he was “forced” into the settlement, but attempts to get out of the tweet-screening arrangement have proven unsuccessful.

“Musk cannot now seek to retract the agreement he knowingly and willingly entered by simply bemoaning that he felt like he had to agree to it at the time but now — once the specter of the litigation is a distant memory and his company has become, in his estimation, all but invincible — wishes that he had not,” US District Judge Lewis Liman wrote in April.

Musk is in the process of buying Twitter for $44 billion, despite threatening to back out. The deal is expected to close this year, pending approval by regulators and Twitter shareholders. As things stand, Musk is on the precipice of buying a social media platform on which he cannot speak entirely freely. That’s despite Musk telling the SEC itself that his purchase of Twitter would be a boon for free speech.

Meanwhile, Musk is being sued by Tesla investors over the same incident. The shareholders have accused Musk of making false and misleading statements that caused stock prices to rise, leading to billions of dollars in damages. Musk maintains he did have funding in place, though a judge ruled in May that “there was nothing concrete” about his claims. Musk has also been sued by an investor for allegedly not sticking to the terms of the SEC deal.

YouTube Shorts has over 1.5 billion monthly users

YouTube has hinted that Shorts are doing well, but it’s now clear just what that means. As TechCrunchreports, YouTube has revealed that Shorts now has over 1.5 billion active, signed-in monthly users. For context, arch-nemesis TikTok had racked up 1 billion monthly users as of September 2021 despite being around for considerably longer (and serving as an inspiration for Shorts’ very existence).

The short-form format also appears to have helped YouTube’s more conventional videos. The Google brand said that channels posting both Shorts and longer videos were enjoying improved subscriber growth and watch time than creators only uploading lengthy clips. YouTube saw this as reflecting the “reality of today’s viewer” — that is, a tendency to watch varying content at different times and places. You might watch a Short during your commute, but a lengthier video during your lunch break.

The statistic is clearly meant to position Shorts as serious competition for TikTok and Instagram Stories. It could also attract creators who weren’t convinced Shorts could help them make money. However, the announcement also dances around the increasing overlap between products. Instagram already had the option of watching longer videos, while TikTok recently extended its maximum length to 10 minutes. YouTube’s varying video sizes aren’t unique.

With that said, YouTube’s pitch for the monthly user figure also indicates different priorities. It sees Shorts as a way to boost creators’ long-form work, while Instagram and TikTok treat long-duration videos as options for social media stars who normally focus on smaller content. YouTube’s not necessarily determined to outperform challengers in every metric — it just needs to show that Shorts are popular enough to help channels grow.

Instacart rethinks its subscription plan with a focus on family sharing

Instacart hopes to make its subscription service more alluring through a simple strategy: let everyone in on the shopping. The company has introduced an Instacart+ service (yes, yet another “+”) that replaces Express while adding family sharing features. Family accounts let another member of your household (such as a partner or roommate) participate without sharing your sign-in or subscribing on their own. Family carts, meanwhile, make it easier for others in the home to add to the grocery list.

The expanded offering also brings more perks for Chase cardholders. You can have free Instacart+ memberships, ranging from three months for Freedom and Slate holders through to a year for Sapphire Reserve. The new plan is otherwise very similar to Express. You’ll have free delivery for orders over $35, lower service fees, five percent credit back on pickup orders, and bonuses like Delta miles.

This new subscription costs the same $10 per month ($99 per year) as its predecessor. The family sharing could make it an easier choice if you’re not the only one ordering deliveries. With that said, the value proposition remains largely the same as with Express — this only really makes sense if you use Instacart every week.

DJI’s RS3 mirrorless camera stabilizer unlocks automatically and is easier to balance

DJI has significantly expanded its gimbal lineup with the RS3 and RS3 Pro models designed for mirrorless and cinema cameras. It also launched some other interesting cinema products derived from the innovative Ronin 4D camera gimbal, including a LiDAR f…