FBI Reports Hacker Group After US Law Firms (Again)

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Cyber Division (Internet Crime Complaint Center) has issued a warning that certain malicious cyber actors are targeting law firms.  Law firms are a ripe target for valuable information concerning clients, including intellectual property.  The warning states, in part:

The cyber threat actor Silent Ransom Group (SRG), also known as Luna Moth, Chatty Spider, and UNC3753, is targeting law firms using information technology (IT) themed social engineering calls, and callback phishing emails, to gain remote access to systems or devices and steal sensitive data to extort the victims. While SRG has historically victimized companies in many sectors, starting Spring 2023, the group has consistently targeted US-based law firms, likely due to the highly sensitive nature of legal industry data. . . .

As of March 2025, SRG was observed changing their tactics to calling individuals and posing as an employee from their company’s IT department. SRG will then direct the employee to join a remote access session, either through an email sent to them, or navigating to a web page. Once the employee grants access to their device, they are told that work needs to be done overnight. Once in the victim’s device, a typical SRG attack involves minimal privilege escalation and quickly pivots to data exfiltration conducted through “WinSCP” (Windows Secure Copy) or a hidden or renamed version of “Rclone.” If the compromised device does not have administrative privileges, WinSCP portable is used to exfiltrate victim data. Although this tactic has only been observed recently, it has been highly effective and resulted in multiple compromises. Similar to their phishing emails posing as a company with a subscription, once SRG exfiltrates data, they extort the victim by sending them a ransom email threatening to sell or post the data online. SRG will also call employees at a victim company to pressure them into engaging in ransom negotiations. SRG has developed a publicly available site to post victim data, however, they are inconsistent in their use of the site, and do not always follow through on posting victim data.

Governmental Best Practices Report on AI Data Security

U.S., UK, Australian and New Zealand government cybersecurity related agencies have recently released a joint report titled, “AI Data Security Best Practices for Securing Data Used to Train & Operate AI Systems.”  The report provides advice for addressing potential threats to AI data security.  Notably, for the U.S., the report provides minimum security standards that may be applicable in subsequent litigation and important in drafting contracts concerning AI use and adoption.  The report states:

Data security is of paramount importance when developing and operating AI systems. As organizations in various sectors rely more and more on AI-driven outcomes, data security becomes crucial for maintaining accuracy, reliability, and integrity. The guidance provided in this CSI outlines a robust approach to securing AI data and addressing the risks associated with the data supply chain, malicious data, and data drift. Data security is an ever-evolving field, and continuous vigilance and adaptation are key to staying ahead of emerging threats and vulnerabilities. The best practices presented here encourage the highest standards of data security in AI while helping ensure the accuracy and integrity of AI-driven outcomes. By adopting these best practices and risk mitigation strategies, organizations can fortify their AI systems against potential threats and safeguard sensitive, proprietary, and mission critical data used in the development and operation of their AI systems.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Revokes Harvard's Ability to Enroll Foreign Students

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security press release states:

Harvard University Loses Student and Exchange Visitor Program Certification for Pro-Terrorist Conduct

Harvard is being held accountable for collaboration with the CCP, fostering violence, antisemitism, and pro-terrorist conduct from students on its campus.

WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.

This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.

Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.

This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.

Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.

Facts about Harvard’s toxic campus climate:

• A joint-government task force found that Harvard has failed to confront pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.
• Jewish students on campus were subject to pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation, with no meaningful response from Harvard’s leadership.
• A protester charged for his role in the assault of a Jewish student on campus was chosen by the Harvard Divinity School to be the Class Marshal for commencement.
• Harvard’s own 2025 internal study on anti-Semitism revealed that almost 60% of Jewish students reported experiencing “discrimination, stereotyping, or negative bias on campus due to [their] views on current events.”
• In one instance, a Jewish student speaker at a conference had planned to tell the story of his Holocaust survivor grandfather finding refuge in Israel. Organizers told the student the story was not “tasteful” and laughed at him when he expressed his confusion. They said the story would have justified oppression.
• Meanwhile, Pro-Hamas student groups that promoted antisemitism after the October 7 attacks remained recognized and funded.

Instead of protecting its students, Harvard has let crime rates skyrocket, enacted racist DEI practices, and accepted boatloads of cash from foreign governments and donors.

• Crime rates at Harvard increased by 55% from 2022 to 2023.

o   From 2022 to 2023 aggravated assaults increased 295% and robberies increased 560%

• Harvard has adopted race-conscious hiring policies, potentially in violation of civil rights law.
• Harvard Received $151 Million From Foreign Governments Since January 2020 — making up more than 13 percent of the total $1.1 billion received from foreign donors over the same period.
• Harvard hosted and trained members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide, even after its 2020 designation on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals List, with engagements continuing as recently as 2024.
• Harvard researchers collaborated with China-based academics on projects funded by an Iranian government agent and partnered with Chinese universities tied to military advancements, including aerospace and optics research, using U.S. Department of Defense funds.
• Harvard partnered with individuals linked to China’s defense-industrial base, including conducting robotics research with military applications.

U.S. Budget: Artificial Intelligence and University Endowments

The U.S. budget reconciliation bill is moving through the U.S. Congress.  One part getting attention concerns artificial intelligence.  First, subsections (a) and (b) provide for funding to upgrade the federal information technology system with artificial intelligence.  Importantly, the funding should provide better cybersecurity protection for federal information technology systems.  Second, subsection (c) seems to provide a ban on enforcement of state or local regulation of artificial intelligence.  A draft of the proposed section is below.

PART 2—ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MODERNIZATION

Section 43201. Artificial intelligence and information technology modernization initiative.

Subsection (a) would appropriate $500,000,000 to the Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2025, to remain available through September 30, 2035, for the purpose of modernizing and securing federal information technology systems through the deployment of commercial artificial intelligence, automation technologies, and the replacement of antiquated business systems.

Subsection (b) states that the Secretary of Commerce shall use these funds to support the replacement and modernization of legacy business systems with state-of-the-art commercial artificial intelligence systems and automated decision systems, the adoption of artificial intelligence models that increase operational efficiency and service delivery, and improve the cybersecurity posture of Federal information technology systems through modernized architecture, automated threat detection, and integrated artificial intelligence solutions.

Subsection (c) states that no state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subsection (d) provides definitions for key terms used in the Act, including “artificial intelligence”, “artificial intelligence model”, “artificial intelligence system”, and “automated decision system”.

The House Ways and Means Committee has a list of other parts of the proposed budget bill of interest, including taxation of university endowments:

• Holds woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations and other tax-exempt entities accountable, ensuring they can no longer abuse generous benefits provided through the tax code.
• Increases the university endowment tax and subjects the largest endowments to the corporate tax rate.
• Increases tax on massive non-profits that resemble hedge funds and pay their employees huge salaries.

The National Conference of State Legislatures states: “[This a]dds to the current 1.4% excise tax on net investment income from private universities endowments that are greater than $500,000 per student. The new tax rate is based on a tiered, student-adjusted system. Universities with per-student endowments above $2,000,000 are taxed at a 21% rate, between $1,250,000 and $1,999,999 at 14%, and between $750,000 and $1,249,999 at 7%.” 

Reducing Anticompetitive U.S. Regulations Process Continues

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust are continuing their work to address anticompetitive regulations across the U.S. government.  The FTC press release states:

Today, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division issued a joint letter directing the heads of agencies across the federal government to create a list of anticompetitive regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation.

FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division issued the letter, which advances President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.

The Executive Order directs all agency heads to provide a list identifying anticompetitive regulations within their agency’s rulemaking authority to the FTC and DOJ. Along with each regulation identified, the agency must include a recommendation for deletion; a recommendation for specific modifications; or a justification for the potential anticompetitive effects.

The joint letter follows a recent Request for Information launched by the FTC inviting members of the public to comment on how federal regulations can harm competition in the American economy.

Following public feedback and the lists of anticompetitive regulations from agency heads, the FTC and DOJ will provide the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a consolidated list of regulations that should be rescinded or modified, along with recommended modifications.

Steve Blank Sounds Warning for U.S. Academic Research Decline

The very talented Steve Blank has laid out a case for why U.S. academic research is in serious trouble based on recent U.S. policy changes.  As he states, once you lose your advantage it's unlikely to be regained.  My guess is that there's a certain point at which the lead is lost and is too difficult to regain.  A March 2025 Nature article reports on a poll which indicates that of 1,600 scientists surveyed around 75% are contemplating moving with Canada or Europe as top destinations. I wonder what unintended consequences--particularly those that are beneficial for the United States--may exist in distributing U.S. researchers around the world. Could they be lured back in three years and seven months?  And, what could be some unintended negative consequences?  Do we really want to lose our best researchers during a military build-up around the world?  Gee whiz, it seems like almost everything is a national security issue and all technology is dual use.  Steve Blank's blog post is available, here.  

U.S. Department of Justice Creates Anticompetitive Regulation Task Force

On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice launched the Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force.  The Task Force is soliciting public input concerning regulations that may hinder competition.  I wonder if IP-related laws will be examined.  The Press Release states:

Today, the Justice Department launches an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force to advocate for the elimination of anticompetitive state and federal laws and regulations that undermine free market competition and harm consumers, workers, and businesses. The Antitrust Division has a long history of advocacy against laws and regulations that create unnecessary barriers to competition.  The Task Force will surge resources to these efforts and invite public comments to support the Administration’s mission to unwind laws and regulations that hinder business dynamism and make markets less competitive.    

“Realizing President Trump’s economic Golden Age will require unwinding burdensome regulations that stifle free market competition. This Antitrust Division will stand against harmful barriers to competition whether imposed by public regulators or private monopolists,” said Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “We look forward to working with the public and with other federal agencies to identify and eliminate anticompetitive laws and regulations.”

On Jan. 31, President Trump signed Executive Order 14192 declaring “the policy of the executive branch” to be that federal agencies should “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” Consistent with this policy, on Feb. 19, President Trump signed Executive Order 14219 directing agencies to “initiate a process to review all regulations” and identify regulations that, among other things, “impose undue burdens on small businesses and impede private enterprise and entrepreneurship.” Consistent with longstanding practice, the Antitrust Division will support federal agencies’ deregulatory initiatives by sharing its market expertise on regulations that pose the greatest barriers to economic growth.

Regulatory capture is a well-studied phenomenon in which agencies become “captured” by special interests and big businesses, rather than serving the interests of the American people. But when regulations serve the few and impose undue burdens on small businesses, private enterprise, and entrepreneurs, they also harm competition and ultimately hurt American consumers, workers, and businesses. For example, regulations can increase compliance costs, preventing businesses from competing on a level playing field with powerful corporations. Regulations can also discourage or even intentionally prohibit small businesses and new products from entering markets and lowering prices for American families. In contrast, eliminating unnecessary anticompetitive regulations makes it easier for businesses to compete. More competition empowers the American people — not government regulators — to drive economic progress and innovation. When every American has a fair opportunity to enjoy the benefits of competitive free markets, every American has an opportunity to realize the American dream.

By identifying and working with state and federal agencies to revise or eliminate these laws and regulations, the Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force will contribute to making the American dream a reality. As a first step, the Antitrust Division will initiate a public inquiry to identify unnecessary laws and regulations that raise the highest barriers to competition. In particular, the Division will seek information from the public about laws and regulations that make it more difficult for businesses to compete effectively, especially in markets that have the greatest impact on American households, including:

• Housing: Americans spend more than one-third of their monthly income on housing, and the cost of owning or renting a home continues to rise. Laws and regulations in housing markets can contribute to these problems by making it more difficult for companies to build and ordinary Americans to rent or buy.
• Transportation: Laws and regulations in areas like airlines, rail, and ocean shipping can grant antitrust immunities, outright monopolies, or safe harbors for conduct that undermines competition. As a result, Americans pay more for travel, fuel, and a variety of other products.
• Food and Agriculture: By the end of the Biden-Harris Administration, grocery prices were 27% higher than at the end of the first Trump Administration. Eliminating unnecessary anticompetitive regulations will help farmers, growers, and ranchers increase the amount of food they produce and unlock lower prices for American consumers.
• Healthcare: Laws and regulations in healthcare markets too often discourage doctors and hospitals from providing low-cost, high-quality healthcare and instead encourage overbilling and consolidation. These kinds of unnecessary anticompetitive regulations put affordable healthcare out of reach for millions of American families.
• Energy: Reliable and affordable energy is essential to modern American life — whether in homes, businesses, manufacturing plants, schools, hospitals, sporting events, or data centers. Laws and regulations can undermine reliability and affordability by protecting incumbent electricity providers from competition or disruptive innovation.

The public will have 60 days to submit comments at www.Regulations.gov (Docket No. ATR-2025-0001), no later than May 26. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov. All market participants are invited to provide comments in response to this inquiry, including consumers, consumer advocates, small businesses, employers, trade groups, industry analysts, and other entities that are impacted by anticompetitive state or federal laws and regulations.

In addition to reviewing responses from the public, the Task Force will bring together attorneys, economists, and other staff from across the Division, together with interagency partners, to identify state and federal laws and regulations that unnecessarily harm competition. The Antitrust Division will then take appropriate action, including helping agencies revise or eliminate these regulations.

The Task Force will also consider other ways to advocate for the removal of anticompetitive laws and regulations. The Division routinely files amicus briefs and statements of interests in private litigation, and it will continue to do so to promote competition and oppose anticompetitive laws and regulations. The Division also provides comments on proposed legislation in the states on the request of state legislators. These efforts will continue with an eye toward protecting competition and interstate commerce in light of dormant Commerce Clause principles.

The Justice Department has a long history of serving as the Executive Branch’s chief competition advocate by working with agencies to identify and eliminate unnecessary regulations. In 2018, the Justice Department released a report on how regulations can harm competition. Following this report, the Justice Department submitted dozens of comments to federal agencies supporting efforts to eliminate unnecessary regulations and increase competition. For example, the Justice Department, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, submitted a comment opposing  regulations that would have protected incumbent electricity transmission companies from much-needed competition in energy markets across the country. The Justice Department filed comments aimed at making it easier for individuals and small businesses to navigate the federal government bureaucracy. The Justice Department also provided technical assistance and trainings to federal agencies to help them analyze how new and existing regulations might affect competition, or whether competition may be a better alternative to regulation altogether.

The Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force will continue these efforts, supporting ongoing efforts across the Trump Administration to unleash competition by eliminating unnecessary, burdensome, and wasteful government regulations. For more information on the Task Force, including contact information, see Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force page on the Division’s website.

Bad Timing: Starving the University Technology Transfer System

A group of over 1000 scientists who are elected members of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has released a letter expressing concern with the Trump Administration’s handling of research funding.  The letter states, in part:

If our country’s research enterprise is dismantled, we will lose our scientific edge. Other countries will lead the development of novel disease treatments, clean energy sources, and the new technologies of the future. Their populations will be healthier, and their economies will surpass us in business, defense, intelligence gathering, and monitoring our planet’s health. The damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse. 

The AUTM, the Association of University Technology Managers, noted that the Great Recession would have been much worse if it had not been for university technology transfer.  Harming the engine that’s been creating innovation and new business may not be such a good thing right now.  Besides pushing us into a recession, I do wonder what the political fallout will be of the increased removal of research funding from universities.  Not only do universities spin-off companies to varying degrees of success but there are universities located in many, many congressional districts--and those universities are major regional employers.  The full letter is available, here.  The Scientific American discusses the full letter, here. 

US Copyright Office Report on Copyrightability of AI Output

The U.S. Copyright Office has released a report titled, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: Part 2 Copyrightability.”  The report is in response to comments by interested parties concerning the copyrightability of AI generated outputs.  The report has a helpful summary of the approach of other countries.  The full report is available, here.  The report makes several conclusions and recommendations:

• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.

• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.

• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.

• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.

• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.

• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.

• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI generated content.