An anonymous reader quotes a report from Pitchfork: Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice and Live Nation reached a settlement in the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit against the concert giant. During the trial, which lasted only a week, representatives for Live Nation had moved to exclude a collection of Slack direct messages from 2022 between two of the company's regional directors from the evidence presented to the jury. Bloomberg and a number of other publications have, as of today (March 12), successfully petitioned New York federal judge Arun Subramanian to release the chats. The conversations are between Ben Baker, now head of ticketing for Venue Nation, and Jeff Weinhold, currently a senior director in the ticketing department. Baker and Weinhold joke about overcharging and price-gouging fans -- "Robbing them blind, baby," Baker brags in one exchange pertaining to a Kid Rock show in Tampa Bay -- as well as being able to raise prices on ancillary services such as parking seemingly at will. "These people are so stupid," Baker writes. "I almost feel bad taking advantage of them BAHAHAHAHAHA." Live Nation described the messages as "off-the-cuff banter, not policy, decision-making, or facts of consequence." In a statement the company has since added: "The Slack exchange from one junior staffer to a friend absolutely doesn't reflect our values or how we operate."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The key to working at a place like Ars Technica is solid news judgment. I'm talking about the kind of news judgment that knows whether a pet peeve is merely a pet peeve or whether it is, instead, a meaningful example of the Ways that Technology is Changing our World.

The difference between the two is one of degree: A pet peeve may drive me nuts but does not appear to impact anyone else. A Ways that Technology is Changing our World story must be about something that drives a lot of people nuts.

"But where is the threshold?" I hear you asking plaintively. "It's extremely important that I know when something crosses the line from pet peeve to important, chin-stroking journalism topic!"

Fortunately, the answer is simple. The threshold has been breached when your local public transit agency puts up a sign about the behavior in question.

Which brings me to the sign I saw yesterday in Philadelphia.

"Unless the tea is REALLY hot, keep the call off speaker," it said.

(For those not in the US, "tea" in this context means gossip or news.)

SEPTA, the local transit agency, runs the buses and commuter rail in Philadelphia, and you can tell from the light-hearted-but-seriously-don't-do-this tone of the message that speakerphone-wielding passengers are now widely complained about by their fellow riders.

I share their disdain, but for me, the dark and judgmental thoughts I have when I see this behavior are also paired with confusion. Why is it happening? Do these people not know that it is actually more work to hold your phone out in front of you than up to your ear? Do they have no common decency, manners, or taste? Do they genuinely not care if everyone in the frozen foods aisle overhears them talking about Aunt Kathy's diagnosis? It's bizarre.

At least when it comes to something like TikTok or Spotify, there's a certain logic. Perhaps you have no headphones but need to unwind after a long day, and you just can't imagine anyone who might not enjoy the soothing sounds of [Harry Styles/Cannibal Corpse/Wu-Tang Clan]?

But phone calls? People—are you aware that we can hear you and the person speaking to you?

Our long national nightmare

Ever since people began emerging from their pandemic isolation, I've seen a shocking amount of public speakerphone usage. Especially—of all places—in the grocery store. I can only assume that picking out spicy hummus and chicken tikka masala at Trader Joe's is so boring for many people that they would rather have completely unrelated conversations, on speaker, in public, as a form of distraction.

It's not just grocery stores and SEPTA trains, of course. Just yesterday, shortly after seeing the sign, I saw a woman walking along the sidewalk talking loudly into a phone held out in front of her. When will our long national nightmare finally end?

Not soon, if we can judge by that bastion of cultural reporting, the New York Post, which claimed in 2025 that speakerphone use on New York City public transit was "an unspoken act of aggression backed by the threat of violence—and everyone nearby knows it." But New Yorkers weren't going to do anything about it because people are "too scared of nasty blowback if they so much as look at the offender wrong."

Londoners aren't going to act, either, as My London noted in 2023. "Londoners being Londoners," the outlet said, "they are unlikely to approach anyone directly and ask them politely to turn the volume down, but they will spend hours and hours online discussing other ways to deal with the problem, including spending £350 on Sony noise-cancelling headphones."

I mentioned my frustrations to a friend from Chicago this week. Maybe Chicago has the answer? My friend had just encountered obnoxious speakerphone use at his local Starbucks, he said, where a couple had placed a phone on the table between them with the volume apparently on max. My friend could hear this quite clearly from two tables away, and he could not resist making his feelings known. So he marched over and told the couple that they were being loud, obnoxious, and inconsiderate… and then immediately shimmied his way out the door.

Frustrated members of the public have taken to social media to vent about the issue, hoping for good advice. But what they usually get is a warning, such as, "You think these guys don’t know they’re being obnoxious? Of course they do: they just don’t give a sh— about you or anyone else on the train. Unless you’re 6’2” and 250 pounds of anger and muscle and willing to risk eating a box cutter, put your AirPods or whatever in and ignore it like everyone else."

You might think that Philly, of all places, would be a natural spot for the public to speak up—this is the city that memorably threw snowballs at Santa, an event so famous it has its own Wikipedia entry.

But I've never seen it happen, and frankly, I don't do it either. I'm not scared of "eating a box cutter," because despite what the post above implied, most of the people I've seen on speakerphone don't seem aggressive or purposely obnoxious. Many are middle-aged, and their basic affect is just… oblivious.

Indeed, this was the explanation that USA Today came up with in 2024. People have just become (I am paraphrasing here) unconsciously self-centered jerk faces who don't even think about how annoying their behavior might be in public spaces. Perhaps the pandemic is to blame, or the solipsism of the smartphone.

Maybe. I'm not fully sold on those explanations, which appear to have no real data behind them. On the other hand, it's hard for me to think of a good reason for doing this, so who knows. Whatever the reason for it, though, people are not generally receptive to public criticism from strangers—and I'm not sure they ever were.

The search for answers

Ars readers are some of the smartest on Earth and so, when I saw the SEPTA sign validating my long-running disdain for public speakerphones, I wondered if our readers might not have scientific answers to my long-gestating questions:

• Is public speakerphone use increasing?
• If so, why? (WHY, I SAY!)
• And—most importantly—how do we spread the good word about public spaces, private conversations, and the fact that phones still work when pressed to your ear?

Read full article

Comments

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Protestors stood in the snow outside the offices of Ohio’s utility regulator in January to say they were fed up with rising electricity rates.

Even a few years ago, the scene would have been hard to imagine, considering the complexity of utility costs and the obscurity of state regulatory agencies. But rate hikes in Ohio and across the country have provoked frustrated consumers to demand answers.

“It’s just getting harder and harder now to live,” said Steve Van Kuiken, a United Church of Christ pastor in Columbus who is part of a community group opposing rate increases. “The working class is really getting squeezed, and everything’s going up.”

Van Kuiken was describing the resentment that has gripped much of the country. US residential electricity rates increased by 5 percent in 2025 compared to the prior year, according to data released February 24 by the Energy Information Administration that provides a comprehensive look at the price shift during President Donald Trump’s first full year in office. A few states, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest, saw double-digit growth, which has an extra sting because it followed a period of relatively flat growth.

Consumers are asking why, but the answers don’t come easily and vary by state and utility. One factor is utilities’ surge in spending on wires and other equipment used to deliver electricity, a trend partly attributable to rising power demand from data centers, according to researchers. Another factor is the increase in natural gas prices, which hits hardest in states such as Pennsylvania that rely heavily on gas for generating electricity.

Among the other drivers are state policies that require utilities to meet benchmarks for buying renewable energy. The effect is most evident in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and barely noticeable in other regions.

And then there are some highly local reasons, such as wildfires in California and hurricanes in Florida.

While the list of factors is long, data centers get a disproportionate share of the blame. But the problems are deeper, touching on the financial motivation of utility companies, said Charles Hua, founder and executive director of PowerLines, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce utility bills.

Credit: Inside Climate News

He explained that utilities earn a profit by investing in infrastructure such as power plants, poles, and substations—capital expenditures, or “capex.” For years, the companies were limited in their spending because electricity demand was flat.

“Now demand is growing,” he said. “So that’s a perfect excuse or opportunity for [utilities] to go to the regulators and say, ‘Hey, we need cost recovery and a return on equity on these new generation capex investments.’”

Hua said it’s worth asking whether the incentives in this system are having a perverse effect that foists unnecessary costs on consumers. For example, utilities have a financial incentive to build rather than increase the efficiency of the current grid.

Utilities have endured criticism about rising rates and said that some of the discussion lacks proper context. In a report last month, the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for electricity utilities, said price increases are in line with inflation in most states and the national average is skewed by a few states with the largest rate hikes.

The demonstrators in Ohio urged officials to reject a proposed rate plan from AEP Ohio, a Columbus-based utility. Asked for comment, AEP said many of the reasons for rising rates are beyond the company’s control, such as the costs of being part of the multi-state PJM Interconnection grid.

“We know our customers are frustrated by the high cost of energy. We are frustrated, too,” an AEP spokesperson said in an email.

So far, we’ve been talking about rates, but this may undersell the extent of hardship because it doesn’t account for the fact that electricity consumption is also growing. The average monthly electricity bill for a US household—which takes into account the rate and consumption—was $151.89 last year, an increase of 7 percent from the prior year.

Credit: Inside Climate News

Following a frigid start to winter in which Brittany Sawyer’s electricity use for heating was high, the Columbus resident is looking at a monthly bill of $643.93. Sawyer, a mother of two who works three jobs, was stunned when she saw the amount. That’s an unusually high bill considering that the average Ohio household paid $149.82 per month for electricity last year, up 11 percent from the prior year.

“I don’t know what I’m going to need to do, or how I’m gonna figure it out,” she said, adding that most likely she will cover the costs by taking on debt and reducing spending for entertainment, such as going to movies.

“You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul at this point,” she said.

It’s not surprising that electricity prices have become a key political issue in the run-up to the November midterm elections, given that Trump campaigned on a promise to cut energy prices by 50 percent within one year, sometimes saying this would include a 50 percent cut to electricity prices. Climate action advocates see prices as an energizing issue for their movement, pointing to steps the Trump administration has taken that could contribute to future rate increases, such as halting development of offshore wind and forcing older coal plants to stay open.

Here is a closer look at what’s driving the rise in electricity bills.

Utilities are spending more to deliver power

Ryan Hledik, a principal at The Brattle Group, a consulting firm, has closely examined the factors driving electricity prices and is reluctant to name a single factor as the most significant.

“It’s complicated, is the short answer,” he said.

But Hledik has found one cost driver that is significant in every state: the growth in utilities’ infrastructure spending. He explained that the companies are faced with a combination of aging equipment—some of which is 80 years old or older—and an economy in which the costs of replacing equipment have soared.

The Edison Electric Institute has tracked the growth in spending on long-lived equipment, which went from $108.6 billion in 2015 to a forecasted $207.9 billion in 2025, according to a recent report. The largest one-year percentage increase during that time was between 2024 and 2025, signaling an acceleration.

A notable shift from 2015 to 2025 is that utilities are now investing a larger share of their money in equipment for delivering electricity, including the transmission system of large power lines and the distribution system of local lines. In 2025, transmission and distribution accounted for 50 percent of this spending, up from 45 percent in 2015.

There are many possible explanations for the growing emphasis on the delivery system, including the need to repair damage from extreme weather and a desire to increase the system’s capabilities to accommodate large power consumers such as data centers.

Paying for natural gas

Natural gas was the country’s leading fuel for power plants in 2025, accounting for 41 percent of the gigawatt hours produced by US power plants.

Some states depend so heavily on natural gas for electricity that there’s not much they can do when gas prices rise. Pennsylvania stands out as a major gas producer that also has seen large percentage increases in electricity rates.

A gas well under construction. Credit: Rebecca Droke/AFP via Getty Images

The pain of high gas prices was the opposite of what some of those states experienced in the late 2010s, when prices were low.

Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at the think tank Energy Innovation, explains this with a football analogy. In the late 2010s, the low price of natural gas was like an offensive lineman, shielding consumers from some of the factors driving up electricity costs, such as infrastructure spending.

“For a long time, we were in a period of a kind of stasis,” he said, about how different factors counteracted each other. But now that gas prices are rising, “that stasis goes away.”

In other words, the offensive lineman has stopped protecting consumers.

A paper Hledik co-authored with researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab in October 2025 quantified the relationship between gas prices and states’ dependence on gas. The authors found that once a state gets at least 40 percent of its electricity from gas, it becomes much more sensitive to changes in gas prices, both when prices rise and when they fall.

About 20 states got 40 percent or more of their in-state electricity generation from gas last year. But there was substantial variation in their rate increases. Among the half-dozen states that are the most gas-reliant, Rhode Island, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Florida saw above-average power rate increases over the past five years in percentage terms, while Mississippi and Louisiana had rate increases slightly below the national average.

Forecasts, including those from the Energy Information Administration, indicate that gas prices will continue to increase through the remainder of this year and into next year.

Prices are rising for many reasons, including the increase in liquefied natural gas exports and rising demand for gas for power plants serving data centers.

The people who set rates

In early February, state utility regulators gathered in Washington, DC, during the thaw after a historic storm. Outside, sidewalks had slippery spots and ice slid in large chunks from rooftops. In a downtown hotel’s conference space, the visitors contemplated an equally treacherous landscape—the uproar over rising energy costs.

It was the annual winter summit of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, or NARUC, and attendees used the polite term “affordability” to describe the pressures facing these typically little-known state government officials.

“What I’m hearing across the board is that we are in a very unique and challenging situation for a lot of different reasons,” said Kelsey Bagot, chair of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, moderating one panel.

The more than 2,000 conference participants included not only state regulators but also officials of the investor-owned utilities they regulate, as well as energy-hungry big businesses engaged in the issues before their commissions. The corporate logos of Google, Microsoft, and power industry trade groups lined the walls as co-sponsors of the event. And some regulators took a field trip across the Potomac River to a Google facility in the data center capital of the world, Northern Virginia, where they could witness firsthand the technology explosion upending their world.

For these state public utility commissioners, tasked under federal law with ensuring that electricity rates are “just and reasonable,” 2025 was a year like no other. Electric and gas utilities requested nearly $31 billion in rate increases, more than double the $15 billion they requested in 2024, according to research by PowerLines. S&P Global’s Regulatory Research Associates said it was the highest level of utility rate requests since the early 1980s.

Credit: Inside Climate News

With an onslaught this unprecedented, how do the commissions decide what price is needed to ensure the companies can cover their costs and earn a “reasonable” return on their investments?

“First and foremost, we are looking for anything we can find that’s going to help with customer affordability,” said Kimberly Barrow, vice president of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, at a panel dedicated to boosting grid efficiency.

Are renewables to blame?

Organizations with ties to fossil fuels are often quick to blame the rapid rise of wind and solar power for electricity price increases. But researchers interviewed for this story say the effects, where they exist, are small.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio standards, which are laws that require utilities to meet benchmarks for buying renewable or carbon-free electricity. The standards play a role in electricity price increases, but not a major one in most states, Hledik said.

“It definitely was not the most significant driver of rate increases,” he said. “I think ‘modest’ is probably the best word that I would use.”

Lawrence Berkeley Lab has tracked the effects of these policies and, in a 2024 paper, found that renewable energy development far outpaced state requirements in the West, Midwest, and Texas, indicating strong market support for renewables and minimal effects on rates. The Southeast has few, if any, renewable requirements, so there is essentially no effect on rates.

That leaves the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, which stand out because the states all have renewable laws and face market challenges due to a lack of developable land or other factors that make it more difficult to meet the requirements. As a result, the policies have the greatest effect in these states, but the effect is not major.

It’s important to note that there is voluminous research on the effects of renewable portfolio standards on rates. The findings run the gamut from showing major rate increases to determining no correlation. One challenge is that the market is constantly changing, with volatile gas prices and wind and solar getting less expensive.

Gimon said renewable portfolio standards help to diversify the energy mix in gas-dependent states, and he expects that these investments are “about to pay off big time” as gas prices continue to rise.

A related question is whether high levels of wind and solar have helped reduce prices in states with the most wind and sun. For example, many of the states with the smallest rate increases, such as Iowa, also have abundant wind resources.

But it’s difficult to separate the effects of different factors. In Iowa’s case, low electricity rates probably have something to do with having inexpensive wind power, but the state also has a small share of electricity generation from natural gas, which also helps at a time when gas prices have risen.

Another factor related to renewable energy is the growth of customer-owned power sources such as rooftop solar. Several aspects of rooftop solar can contribute to increased costs for non-solar customers.

So far, the cost shifts are small. For example, economists at the University of Maryland wrote in a working paper last year that the adoption of rooftop solar has led to a 2.35 percent decrease in utility companies’ revenue, which the companies partially recovered by raising customer rates by 1.48 percent.

Different states, varied challenges

The National Academy of Engineering once named the US power system the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century. But with three interconnections, seven regional grid operators, and price decisions made in 51 jurisdictions, it has become a fragmented system under strain in an era of climate change, with each state confronting different challenges.

Wildfires are driving California’s electricity rates, which rose 39 percent in inflation-adjusted terms between 2019 and 2025, faster than those in any other state, according to an analysis by the Energy Institute at Haas at the University of California, Berkeley. California’s three big investor-owned utilities received approval to collect $40 billion in wildfire mitigation and liability costs from ratepayers since 2019, according to a January 30 report by the California Public Utilities Commission.

“Our existing system places outsized and unsustainable burdens on utilities and utility ratepayers,” said the report. California’s PUC argues that part of the problem is the state’s strict liability system—the only one in the West that holds utilities strictly liable for damages from fire involving their equipment, without regard to whether they acted negligently. The commission is urging California to consider capping or limiting tort liability for electric utilities, or to find other ways to cover the wildfire management costs now being borne by utility ratepayers.

Workers repair transmission lines destroyed by the Eaton Fire on May 15 in Altadena, Calif. Credit: VCG via Getty Images

Far from the wildfire zone, residents of Washington, DC, saw their electricity rates rise by 24 percent in 2025, more than in any state. Members of the DC Council were posting their own big February electric bills online last week ($1,100 in one councilmember’s case) to let their constituents know they were feeling the pain, and to put a spotlight on the electric utility Pepco, an Exelon company.

Pepco did get a rate increase in late 2024 that was expected to raise customer bills about $7 per month in 2025 and $3 per month this year. But Pepco said the much larger source of increased costs is the skyrocketing rates the utility had to pay to the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, the nation’s largest grid, for its electricity supply. Unlike the 13 states in PJM, Washington has no power plants of its own. Pepco must import all of the power it delivers to customers, leaving it especially vulnerable to the fast-rising prices that have had the region’s governors calling for reform.

“It’s something that we can’t control,” said Charles McDade, a Pepco spokesman. “And because we know it’s higher than it has been before, we’ve been looking at ways to help our customers, through our customer relief fund and other assistance programs to help offset those costs.”

The nation’s largest electricity rate hike proposed in 2025 was a $9.8 billion request by Florida Power & Light, which told regulators it needed to invest in new generation and battery storage to serve a growing population, to harden the grid against severe weather, and to deploy smart technology to curb outages. In November, the Florida Public Service Commission approved a reduced rate hike—about $6.9 billion over the next four years—but the plan still faces a legal challenge.

Electricity bills become political

Frustration with electricity prices has already played out at the polls, and Democrats see it as an issue that could help them retake Congress in the midterm elections.

Rising electricity costs are mentioned regularly in email blasts to voters from the Democratic National Committee’s “War Room,” including one on the eve of Trump’s State of the Union address. Trump is “personally causing families in every part of the country to pay higher prices,” wrote DNC Chair Ken Martin.

Environmental advocates have also taken up the cause, arguing that the Trump administration’s moves to choke off renewable power and boost fossil fuels have hurt consumers while adding to the burden of climate pollution.

In fact, Trump’s anti-climate moves likely have not hit consumers in the pocketbook directly—yet. None of the offshore wind projects he sought to block were in operation, and the courts have so far allowed the plans to move forward.

But experts say Trump’s moves have hindered investment in ways that are bound to make development more expensive. And the administration’s unprecedented orders to keep coal plants churning could end up on utility bills soon. In Michigan, Consumers Energy has reported operating losses of $135 million through the end of last year to keep its J.H. Campbell coal-fired power plant running beyond its scheduled May 2025 retirement. The utility is seeking to recover costs from customers across 11 states in the grid managed by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, a move being challenged by Michigan’s attorney general.

Trump, however, asserted in his State of the Union address that prices were going down. “Nobody can believe when they see the kind of numbers and especially energy, when they see energy going down to numbers like that,” he said. “It’s like another big tax cut.” He proposed what he called a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” that will require major tech companies to provide for their own power needs. It was not immediately clear how that plan would be carried out or whether it would alleviate the burden on a power system that still needs to make upgrades to replace aging equipment and address extreme-weather threats.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, blames Democrats for high electricity prices. “High electricity prices are a choice,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright has said repeatedly. On February 18, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt took up the argument, saying “red states with Republican legislatures currently enjoy lower average retail electricity prices than blue states with Democrat legislatures.”

Both are echoing a talking point that a fossil fuel industry-aligned think tank, the Institute for Energy Research, began promoting last year. The group released a report, Blue States, High Rates, that concluded 86 percent of states with above-average electricity prices voted for the Democratic presidential candidates in 2020 and 2024.

But the latest figures from the EIA show that states that voted for Trump in 2024 are sharing the pain of the power price shocks sweeping the country; 13 of the 24 states where prices rose in 2025 by more than the US average of 5 percent voted for the Republican candidate.

Last November’s elections made clear that anger about power prices crosses political fault lines. Not only did Democrats win the New Jersey and Virginia governors’ races with campaigns focused on high electricity prices, Democratic candidates also ousted two Republicans from seats on Georgia’s Public Service Commission by campaigning against recent rate hikes for Georgia Power. They were the first Democrats to win state-level office in a statewide election since 2006 in Georgia. The state will be a key midterm battleground this year, with pivotal races for US Senate and governor.

Both Democrats and climate activists are committed to the electricity cost message in their campaigns against the Trump administration and Republicans this year.

“The energy affordability crisis is not a red or blue issue,” said David Kieve, the president of Environmental Defense Fund Action, in an email last week. “It’s a pocketbook issue.”

Dan Gearino covers the business and policy of renewable energy and utilities, often with an emphasis on the midwestern United States. He is the main author of ICN’s Inside Clean Energy newsletter. He came to ICN in 2018 after a nine-year tenure at The Columbus Dispatch, where he covered the business of energy. Before that, he covered politics and business in Iowa and in New Hampshire. He grew up in Warren County, Iowa, just south of Des Moines, and lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Marianne Lavelle is the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Inside Climate News. She has covered environment, science, law, and business in Washington, D.C. for more than two decades. She has won the Polk Award, the Investigative Editors and Reporters Award, and numerous other honors. Lavelle spent four years as online energy news editor and writer at National Geographic. She spearheaded a project on climate lobbying for the nonprofit journalism organization, the Center for Public Integrity. She also has worked at U.S. News and World Report magazine and The National Law Journal. While there, she led the award-winning 1992 investigation, “Unequal Protection,” on the disparity in environmental law enforcement against polluters in minority and white communities. Lavelle received her master’s degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and is a graduate of Villanova University.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Read full article

Comments

Researchers say they have uncovered a takedown-resistant botnet of 14,000 routers and other network devices—primarily made by Asus—that have been conscripted into a proxy network that anonymously carries traffic used for cybercrime.

The malware—dubbed KadNap—takes hold by exploiting vulnerabilities that have gone unpatched by their owners, Chris Formosa, a researcher at security firm Lumen’s Black Lotus Labs, told Ars. The high concentration of Asus routers is likely due to botnet operators acquiring a reliable exploit for vulnerabilities affecting those models. He said it’s unlikely that the attackers are using any zero-days in the operation.

A botnet that stands out among others

The number of infected routers averages about 14,000 per day, up from 10,000 last August, when Black Lotus discovered the botnet. Compromised devices are overwhelmingly located in the US, with smaller populations in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Russia. One of the most salient features of KadNap is a sophisticated peer-to-peer design based on Kademlia, a network structure that uses distributed hash tables to conceal the IP addresses of command-and-control servers. The design makes the botnet resistant to detection and takedowns through traditional methods.

“The KadNap botnet stands out among others that support anonymous proxies in its use of a peer-to-peer network for decentralized control,” Formosa and fellow Black Lotus researcher Steve Rudd wrote Wednesday. “Their intention is clear: avoid detection and make it difficult for defenders to protect against.”

Distributed hash tables have long been used to create hardened peer-to-peer networks, most notably BitTorrent and the Inter-Planetary File System. Rather than having one or more centralized servers that directly control nodes and provide them with the IP addresses of other nodes, DHTs allow any node to poll other nodes for the device or server it's looking for. The decentralized structure and the substitution of IP addresses with hashes give the network resilience against takedowns or denial of service attacks.

The concept of DHTs can be hard to grasp. At a simplified level, they are data structures stored on multiple network peers, as described here. This design makes the network scalable. The more network nodes, the better the distribution of elements is. DHTs also make networks fault-tolerant. When one node leaves the network, nodes go elsewhere for location lookups. In theory, the only way to take the network down is to sever all connected nodes.

Kademlia uses a 160-bit space to designate (1) keys—which are unique bitstrings derived by hashing a chunk of data—and (2) node IDs, both of which are assigned to each node. Nodes then store the keys of other nodes. The stored keys are organized by their similarity to the ID of the node storing them. Proximity is measured by XOR distance, a mathematical means of mapping a network. When a node polls another node, it uses this metric to locate other nodes with the closest distance to the key it’s looking for until it finally finds a match. KadNap, a variant of Kademlia, obtains the key to be searched through a BitTorrent node.

Formosa explained:

DHT helps you get closer and closer to a target. You first reach out to some entry bittorrent nodes and basically say “hey I have this secret passphrase. I’m looking for who to give it to.” So you give it to a couple of nearby “neighbors” and they say “ah ok I don’t fully understand this passphrase but it’s kind of familiar and here are some people who may know what that means. So now you go to those neighbors and the process continues. Eventually you reach someone who says “Yes! This is my passphrase, welcome in.” In our case, when we reach this person they say here is a file to firewall port 22 and then here is a second file containing the C2 address you want to connect to.

Despite the resistance to normal takedown methods, Black Lotus says it has devised a means to block all network traffic to or from the control infrastructure. The lab is also distributing the indicators of compromise to public feeds to help other parties block access.

Infected devices are being used to carry traffic for Doppelganger, a fee-based proxy service that tunnels customers’ Internet traffic through the Internet connections—primarily residential—of unsuspecting people. With high bandwidth and IP addresses with clean reputations, the service provides customers with a reliable way to efficiently and anonymously visit sites that might otherwise not be accessible.

People who are concerned their devices are infected can check this page for IP addresses and a file hash found in device logs. To disinfect devices, they must be factory reset. Because KadNap stores a shell script that runs when an infected router reboots, simply restarting the device will result in it being compromised all over again. Device owners should also ensure all available firmware updates have been installed, that administrative passwords are strong, and that remote access has been disabled unless needed.

Read full article

Comments

Newly unsealed documents show that a Live Nation regional director boasted of gouging ticket buyers and "robbing them blind" with fees for ancillary services such as slight upgrades to parking.

Live Nation has tried to exclude Slack messages from a trial that seeks a breakup of Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary, claiming the messages are irrelevant to the case, "highly prejudicial," and would "inflame the jury." The US government and state attorneys general opposed the motion to exclude evidence. US District Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York hasn't ruled on the motion yet, but ordered the documents unsealed yesterday.

Live Nation has touted the experiences it offers concertgoers at amphitheaters but sought "to exclude candid, internal messages in which the individual who is currently Head of Ticketing for these amphitheaters calls fans 'so stupid,' explains that he 'gouge[s]' them, and brags that Live Nation is 'robbing them blind, baby,'" said a memorandum of law filed by the US and states.

The messages were "sent between Live Nation employees Ben Baker and Jeff Weinhold on the workplace collaboration tool known as Slack," the memorandum said. The "robbing them blind" message was sent by Baker.

"As of 2022 (when most of the messages were sent), Mr. Baker was a regional Director of Ticketing for venues including Live Nation’s MidFlorida Credit Union Amphitheatre (a major concert venue)," the brief said. "Mr. Weinhold was also a regional Director of Ticketing for venues including Jiffy Lube Live (another major concert venue). Mr. Baker is now Head of Ticketing for Venue Nation (the component of Live Nation responsible for operating its amphitheaters), and Mr. Weinhold is a Senior Director of Ticketing for Live Nation’s Capital Region."

US settlement throws trial into doubt

The brief said that "Live Nation’s excessive prices for ancillary services," like those boasted of in the internal messages, "are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims" regarding how "Live Nation monetizes its monopoly position in the amphitheater market."

The trial itself could be halted and restarted at a later date because the Trump administration decided to settle with Live Nation and Ticketmaster. The US and states filed their motion to exclude the evidence on March 8, the same day that the US and Live Nation informed the court of a proposed settlement.

The US/Live Nation settlement blindsided state attorneys general, who have said they intend to take over the lead role in litigating the case. State AGs criticized the settlement terms and asked for a mistrial to give them time to prepare for a new trial. The judge reportedly urged the state AGs and Live Nation to hold settlement talks and to be prepared to continue the trial next week if they don't reach a settlement.

The exhibits that Live Nation wanted to exclude were posted on the court docket yesterday. "I charge $50 to park in the grass lmao," said a 2022 message from Baker. "I charge $60 for closer grass."

Baker wrote, "parking alone I did almost $200K more than 2019...with LESS shows." He shared an image that showed an increase in premier parking revenue from $499,415 in 2019 to $666,230 in 2021 and added, "robbing them blind baby... that's how we do." Weinhold replied, "lol."

"I gouge them on ancil prices"

Baker complained that a Dead & Company cancellation prevented him from taking second place in a sales competition. "Gimme a plaque dammit," he wrote. In a discussion about ticket prices and promotions, Baker wrote, "I gouge them on ancil prices to make up for it."

Weinhold wrote in another chat, "I have VIP parking up to $250 lol." Baker replied, "I almost feel bad taking advantage of them." Weinhold then mentioned that he raised club prices to $125 and Baker replied, "I wonder if I can get $225."

Live Nation said the messages aren't reflective of the company's general operations. "The Slack exchange from one junior staffer to a friend absolutely doesn't reflect our values or how we operate," Live Nation said in a statement provided to Ars today. "Because this was a private Slack message, leadership learned of this when the public did, and will be looking into the matter promptly. Our business only works when fans have great experiences, which is why we've capped amphitheater venue fees at 15 percent and have invested $1 billion in the last 18 months into US venues and fan amenities."

The US and states said Live Nation is downplaying Baker's position at the company. "Defendants’ brief fails to mention this individual has since been promoted and now serves as Head of Ticketing for Venue Nation, with responsibilities relating to all of Live Nation’s venues," the plaintiffs' brief said.

Live Nation said in a March 8 filing that the messages aren't relevant to the trial because they concerned fees for things like VIP club access, premier parking, or lawn chair rentals. "These products are not primary concert tickets, are sold separately from tickets, and are not part of the ticketing services markets at issue in this trial; they bear no relevance to the parties’ claims and defenses," Live Nation told the court.

Live Nation: Messages could "inflame the jury"

Live Nation said the only purpose of using the exhibits as evidence "is to portray Defendants in an unflattering light and inflame the jury against Defendants," and that the exhibits "would confuse and mislead the jury, invite decision-making on an improper emotional basis, and cause unfair prejudice to Defendants." The company also asked the court to bar plaintiffs "from questioning Ben Baker or any other witness about the substance of these Exhibits or about similar communications concerning ancillary, fan-facing products and services not encompassed by the markets and claims proceeding to trial."

The brief from US and states said the messages about ancillary fees are highly relevant. The brief said the ancillaries "include facilities fees that Live Nation imposes on fans as part of the ticket price, portions of service fees that Live Nation imposes on fans in addition to the ticket price, and Live Nation’s sale of 'onsite' services, such as upgraded parking and access to the VIP lounge."

The brief said that Live Nation boasted in its latest annual report that ancillary revenue was over $45 per fan for the year, and that "Live Nation CEO Michael Rapino has cited 'onsite' ancillary sales [as] a 'high margin business' enabled by Live Nation’s scale."

Live Nation's argument that ancillary services are irrelevant to trial questions about concert tickets "completely misses the point," the plaintiffs said. "The fact that Live Nation uses the high-margin ancillary business to monetize the amphitheater monopoly at issue in this case is sufficient on its own to demonstrate relevance. Second, Live Nation is able to degrade the fan experience by charging excessive prices for ancillary services without fear of artists switching away, which demonstrates its monopoly power in the amphitheater market."

Urging the judge to allow the chats as evidence, the brief said the messages "provide important context and insight to the jury of how Defendants in fact operate their businesses, potentially contrary to the testimony the witness may provide in the courtroom."

Read full article

Comments

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s relentless anti-vaccine agenda is getting reined in as Republicans warn that further attacks on lifesaving vaccines could harm the party during the midterms, according to a report by The Washington Post.

The Post reported Wednesday that Kennedy's hand-selected committee of vaccine advisors—who share his anti-vaccine views—have abruptly abandoned plans to attack mRNA vaccines in an upcoming meeting.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is scheduled to meet March 18–19. While no agenda has been published for the meeting, a Federal Register notice stated that the meeting would include discussion of "COVID-19 vaccine injuries," and may include a vote to change the CDC's vaccine recommendations. Sources close to the committee told the Post that Kennedy's advisors have been looking for ways to remove mRNA COVID-19 vaccines entirely from federal recommendations. And according to clearly stated goals in a meeting of Kennedy's anti-vaccine allies earlier this week, the long-term goal is to eliminate all childhood vaccine recommendations and remove the shots from the market.

Kennedy's anti-vaccine record

Kennedy has long railed against mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and mRNA vaccine technology in general. He has falsely claimed that COVID-19 vaccines have killed children and that the vaccines are the "deadliest vaccine[s] ever made." In May of last year, Kennedy unilaterally restricted the use of COVID-19 vaccines in children and during pregnancy. The decision conflicts with scientific evidence and was made without consulting ACIP, which at the time was populated by esteemed vaccine experts.

In June, Kennedy fired all 17 ACIP members and began installing anti-vaccine allies. In August, he unilaterally terminated nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines that could thwart future pandemic threats. And in September, Kennedy's new ACIP nixed the CDC's general recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines and replaced it with guidance that people ages 6–64 get vaccinated based on "shared clinical decision-making." One of the new ACIP members who heads a working group on COVID-19 vaccines, Retsef Levi—whose expertise is operations management—has publicly stated that he believes COVID-19 vaccines should be taken off the market.

Kennedy's plans were only getting started. The staunch anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist made his most brazen attack on vaccines in January, slashing the CDC's childhood vaccine schedule from 17 immunizations down to 11 to be in line with recommendations of Denmark, a much smaller country with a relatively homogenous population and universal health care. The US is now an outlier among peer nations for recommending so few childhood vaccines.

Conspiracy theories and political risks

While these and other changes to vaccine recommendations by Kennedy and his underlings have been widely decried by medical and public health experts, they are still not enough for his rabid anti-vaccine followers, who, in no uncertain terms, want all vaccines abolished.

On Monday, the MAHA Institute, a think tank stemming from Kennedy's Make America Health Again movement, held an event brimming with prominent anti-vaccine activists. Those include Del Bigtree, a prominent conspiracy theorist who leads the anti-vaccine group Informed Consent Action Network, and Mary Holland, who is CEO of the anti-vaccine group Children's Health Defense, which Kennedy founded.

The event was focused on an alleged "Massive Epidemic of Vaccine Injury," a nonexistent health crisis the MAHA institute wants to sell to the American public, branded as the catchy term "Mevi." The six-hour event was essentially an extravaganza of anti-vaccine talking points, with false claims, misinformation, and disinformation about immunizations, including that vaccines cause autism and autoimmune diseases and COVID-19 vaccines are deadly.

At the start of the event, MAHA Institute President Mark Gordon laid out his grand belief that the medical community has orchestrated an elaborate, global, decades-long conspiracy to hide the dangers of vaccines, which he called poisons, and falsify data showing their benefits. "Vaccines are the greatest scam in medical history," one of his slides proclaimed.

He concluded that "the childhood vaccination schedule needs to be eliminated and all vaccines need to be removed from the market."

While Gordon and the other speakers were not concerned about the popularity or political ramifications of their beliefs, the Trump administration appears to be. The Post noted that Trump’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, has concluded that vaccine skepticism is "rejected by most voters," and skepticism of vaccine requirements is "politically risky." His polling data, like many others, has found broad support for vaccines and vaccine requirements. Fabrizio warned in a December memo that politicians who support eliminating vaccine recommendations "will pay a price in the election."

Read full article

Comments