The Linkielist

Linking ideas with the world

The Linkielist

Risk and reward: Nefilim ransomware gang mainly targets fewer, richer companies and that strategy is paying off, warns Trend Micro

The Nefilim ransomware gang might not be the best known or most prolific online extortion crew but their penchant for attacking small numbers of $1bn+ turnover firms is paying off, according to some latest research.

The crew has made comparatively fewer headlines next to better-known criminals such as Darkside, perpetrators of the infamous US Colonial Pipeline attack, but analysis from security shop Trend Micro has shown the crooks appear to be going for big companies in the hope of extracting correspondingly big payouts.

“Of the 16 ransomware groups studied from March 2020 to January 2021, Conti, Doppelpaymer, Egregor and REvil led the way in terms of number of victims exposed – and Cl0p had the most stolen data hosted online at 5TB. However, with its ruthless focus on organizations posting more than $1bn in revenue, Nefilim extorted the highest median revenue,” said Trend Micro in a report released on Tuesday.

The information will be of little comfort to any of the western world’s growing number of ransomware victims, including the Irish Health Service Executive and the US Colonial Pipeline Company.

While those attacks were very high profile because of their wider impact on critical national infrastructure, other ransomware operators are still engaging in the good old-fashioned pursuit of money, and lots of it.

Nefilim is, according to Trend, a ransomware gang that was first observed in late 2019, with actual attacks being seen in March 2020 – just as the COVID-19 pandemic drove the entire world online and to remote working.

Trend Micro analysis of the Nefilim ransomware gang's targets by revenue, based on identifiable leaked files

Trend Micro analysis of the Nefilim ransomware gang’s targets by revenue, based on identifiable leaked files. Click to enlarge

Despite targeting big businesses, Nefilim’s access methods were just the same as the ones constantly warned about by the infosec industry, said Trend Micro, explaining: “In the case of Nefilim ransomware attacks, our investigations uncovered the use of exposed RDP services and publicly available exploits to gain initial access — namely, a vulnerability in the Citrix Application Delivery Controller [CVE-2019-19781].”

Trend also referred to previous research from Digital Shadows on so-called initial access brokers, essential actors in the ransomware business chain who make the first break into a target’s networks before selling that illicit access to other criminal organisations.

“The price for access varies greatly — it can range from tens of dollars for a random victim asset, to several hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a categorized asset; access to the infrastructure of a large organization can cost five to six figures,” the report states.

Trend Micro research veep Bharat Mistry told The Register that ransomware gangs’ business models are just as developed as anything in the western IT market with different elements of attacks being carried out by different groups of criminals.

“There is a full partner model that goes with it. So you know, the ransomware as a service operators, they get around 20 to 30 per cent of the profit that comes out of it, and the rest of it goes to the partner. So you can see it’s margin-rich for the affiliates.”

Criminal gangs were also said to make “widespread use of legitimate tools such as AdFind, Cobalt Strike, Mimikatz, Process Hacker, PsExec, and MegaSync, to help ransomware attackers achieve their end goal while staying hidden.” Similarly, some in the infosec world call legitimate tools turned around and used against their owners LoLBins – living off the land binaries. In other words, tools such as PowerShell, which are in common use on corporate networks but can be harnessed as part of an attack on that same network.

While nothing about Nefilim’s operations are shockingly unique, that in itself ought to be a lesson for corporate infosec bods: it’s not the big scary vulns that let miscreants rampage through your employer’s network, it’s the ones everyone’s been warning about which you haven’t got round to patching for whatever reason.

Source: Risk and reward: Nefilim ransomware gang mainly targets fewer, richer companies and that strategy is paying off, warns Trend Micro • The Register

DOJ Vows to Hunt Down Whoever Let the Public Know How Little Billionaires Pay in Taxes

This week, ProPublica released a massive scoop—a treasure trove of financial records showing how some of the U.S.’s wealthiest billionaires scamper off with virtually no tax burden. And the U.S. government knows exactly what to do in response: find whoever released those embarrassing records and incarcerate the shit out of them.

Priorities, people!

ProPublica obtained official Internal Revenue Service documents that were, admittedly, not supposed to be public knowledge and released key details about just how well various tax tricks used by the ultra-wealthy are working out for them. For example, compared to Forbes estimates, the country’s 25 richest people saw a net growth of $401 billion in wealth from 2014 to 2018 but paid just $13.6 billion in federal income tax—an effective rate of 3.4%. Berkshire Hathaway investment titan Warren Buffet saw his net worth rise by $24.3 billion over that period, paying just $23.7 million in tax. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw his net worth rise by $99 billion, paying just $973 million in tax. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ratio was $22.5 billion in net worth gains to $292 million in tax, while Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk was $13.9 billion to $455 million.

Morally obscene display of inequality and impunity as this is, the U.S. government has far more pressing concerns, such as punishing whoever squealed. Attorney General Merrick Garland assured lawmakers on Wednesday that one of his most immediate focuses will be plugging the leak, wherever or whoever it might be.

[…]

Source: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos Tax Leak: DOJ Vows to Hunt Down Leaker

US super-rich ‘pay almost no income tax’

ProPublica says it has seen the tax returns of some of the world’s richest people, including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Warren Buffett.

The website alleges Amazon’s Mr Bezos paid no tax in 2007 and 2011, while Tesla’s Mr Musk paid nothing in 2018.

A White House spokeswoman called the leak “illegal”, and the FBI and tax authorities are investigating.

ProPublica said it was analysing what it called a “vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data” on the taxes of the billionaires, and would release further details over coming weeks.

While the BBC has not been able to confirm the claims, the alleged leak comes at a time of growing debate about the amount of tax paid by the wealthy and widening inequality.

media captionG7 global tax ‘levels the playing field’

ProPublica said the richest 25 Americans pay less in tax – an average of 15.8% of adjusted gross income – than most mainstream US workers.

Jesse Eisinger, senior reporter and editor at ProPublica, told the Today Programme: “We were pretty astonished that you could get [tax] down to zero if you were a multi-billionaire. Actually paying zero in tax really floored us. Ultra-wealthy people can sidestep the system in an entirely legal way.”

“They have enormous ability to find deductions, find credits and exploit loopholes in the system,” he said.

So while the value of their wealth grows enormously through their ownership of shares in their company, that’s not recorded as income.

But there’s more than that, he said: “They also take aggressive tax deductions, often because they have borrowed to fund their lifestyle.”

He said US billionaires buy an asset, build one or inherit a fortune, and then borrow against their wealth.

Because they don’t realise any gains or sell any stock, they’re not taking any income, which could be taxed.

“They then borrow from a bank at a relatively low interest rate, live off that and can use the interest expenses as deductions on their income,” he said.

Biden plans

The website said that “using perfectly legal tax strategies, many of the uber-rich are able to shrink their federal tax bills to nothing or close to it” even as their wealth soared over the past few years.

The wealthy, as with many ordinary citizens, are able to reduce their income tax bills via such things as charitable donations and drawing money from investment income rather than wage income.

ProPublica, using data collected by Forbes magazine, said the wealth of the 25 richest Americans collectively jumped by $401bn from 2014 to 2018 – but they paid $13.6bn in income tax over those years.

President Joe Biden has vowed to increase tax on the richest Americans as part of a mission to improve equality and raise money for his massive infrastructure investment programme.

He wants to raise the top rate of tax, double the tax on what high earners make from investments, and change inheritance tax.

However, ProPublica’s analysis concluded: “While some wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, would pay more taxes under the current Biden administration proposals, the vast majority of the top 25 would see little change.”

[…]

Source: US super-rich ‘pay almost no income tax’ – BBC News

Return to Office: Employees Are Quitting Instead of Giving Up Work From Home

[…]

A May survey of 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 39% would consider quitting if their employers weren’t flexible about remote work. The generational difference is clear: Among millennials and Gen Z, that figure was 49%, according to the poll by Morning Consult on behalf of Bloomberg News.

“High-five to them,” said Sara Sutton, the CEO of FlexJobs, a job-service platform focused on flexible employment. “Remote work and hybrid are here to stay.”

The lack of commutes and cost savings are the top benefits of remote work, according to a FlexJobs survey of 2,100 people released in April. More than a third of the respondents said they save at least $5,000 per year by working remotely.

Perks of Flexibility

Not having to commute is the top benefit for remote workers.

Source: FlexJobs

Survey of 2,181 total respondents ran from March 17, 2021 through April 5, 2021.

 

[…]

At least some atop the corporate ladder seem to be paying attention. In a Jan. 12 PwC survey of 133 executives, fewer than one in five said they want to go back to pre-pandemic routines. But only 13% were prepared to let go of the office for good.

Senior Management’s View

Days in the office that executives think is needed to maintain company culture.

Source: PwC

PwC surveyed 133 US executives between Nov. 24 and Dec, 5, 2020,from public and private companies in financial services, technology, media and telecommunications and retail products.

[…]

 

Source: Return to Office: Employees Are Quitting Instead of Giving Up Work From Home – Bloomberg

EU starts protectionist measures, increasing prices of Chinese E-Commerce imports

At Amazon in Spain, France and Italy, Chinese sellers already make up more than half of the largest merchants in the marketplace, says market research firm Marketplace Pulse. The Thuiswinkel Markt Monitor shows that we in the Netherlands spent 1.1 billion euros on products from abroad in 2019. Chinese online stores, such as AliExpress, are in first place with almost 33 percent. One reason for the rise of Chinese retailers is that they supply European customers directly through platforms such as Amazon or AliExpress. They also often pay no import duties and pay little attention to product safety. At the beginning of July, new EU tax rules will come into effect for orders from non-European online retailers. The most important change is the abolition of the current exemption limit of 22 euros for direct imports. As a result, 19 percent import tax is due on all packages. In addition, dealers will have to complete a customs declaration for all shipments in the future. The prices of Chinese articles will therefore rise sharply. If you want to spend something of 22 euros, you will soon pay 4 euros 84 in VAT and approximately 13 euros in handling costs for the delivery person. Then you do not lose 22 euros for the product, but almost 40 euros. Brussels expects a lot from the measures. The tax reform will ensure “fair competition between European and foreign operators in the e-commerce market,” the Brussels government writes in a brochure. It expects an additional tax revenue of 7 billion euros per year. Organization GS1 advises retailers to let marketplaces take care of the VAT return because they know who is buying, at what price and where the package must be delivered. They can also provide the authorities with unique identifiers for the product, the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN), the sales transaction a Global Shipment Identification Number (GSIN) in which the price is recorded and the package identification code, a GS1 Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC). to enable an automated check. In this way, the customer can look forward to his package without any problems.

Source: EU verscherpt regels voor internationale onlinehandel, Chinese pakketjes fors duurder – Emerce

Italy fines Google $123 million for blocking an EV app from Android Auto

[…]

Italy’s competition watchdog has ordered Google to pay over €100 million ($123 million) for abuse of its dominant position. The regulator said Google had shut out an electric vehicle recharging app from its Android Auto infotainment platform for cars for over two years.

The company at the core of the action is Enel X — a subsidiary of Italian energy provider Enel — which through its JuicePass app gives EV drivers access to about 95,000 public charging points in Europe. The watchdog said by blocking the app for over two years Google was essentially favoring Google Maps, which also lets users search for nearby EV charging points. Along with the fine, the regulator told Google to make the JuicePass app available on Android Auto.

Echoing concerns raised by its EU and UK counterparts, the Italian authority pointed to Google’s gatekeeper status over the digital economy. The regulator said Android OS and the Google Play store had given the company a “dominant position” that allowed it to” control the access of app developers to end users.” In the case of Enel X, the watchdog said that by excluding the JuicePass app Google had put its rival’s business in jeopardy and potentially hobbled the advancement of electric mobility.

[…]

Source: Italy fines Google $123 million for blocking an EV app from Android Auto | Engadget

And this is why monopolies shouldn’t be allowed to own the market and place their own products on that market. It’s one or the other, not both.

Environmental Commodities: What Are They & How Can You Trade Them?

Commodity.com has a huge and useful page on how to get started trading in environmental commodities. Unfortunately it won’t let me paste it into here easily so below is a list of the subjects they cover. They are also very transparent about how they make their money (through links on their site), which I thought was honest of them.  Anyway, enjoy!
What Are Environmental Commodities?
Types Of Environmental Commodities
History Of Environmental Commodities
What Drives Environmental Commodity Prices?
Environmental Commodity Exchanges
Environmental Commodity Brokers
Further Reading

Source: Environmental Commodities: What Are They & How Can You Trade Them? – Commodity.com

Amazon knew seller data was used to boost company sales

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos told U.S. lawmakers last year that the company has a policy prohibiting employees from using data on specific sellers to help boost its own sales.

“I can’t guarantee you that that policy has never been violated,” he added.

Now it’s clear why he chose his words so carefully.

An internal audit seen by POLITICO warned Amazon’s senior leadership in 2015 that 4,700 of its workforce working on its own sales had unauthorized access to sensitive third-party seller data on the platform — even identifying one case in which an employee used the access to improve sales.

Since then, reports of employees using third-party seller information to bolster Amazon’s own sales and evidence of lax IT access controls at the company suggest that efforts to fix the issue have been lackluster.

The revelations come as trustbusters worldwide are increasingly targeting Amazon, including over how it uses third-party seller data to boost its own offerings. The European Commission opened an investigation into precisely this issue in November 2020, with preliminary findings suggesting Amazon had breached EU competition law.

[…]

Source: Amazon knew seller data was used to boost company sales – POLITICO

This issue has been on my agenda since early 2019 and it’s great to see the monopolies finally being busted.

Amazon had sales income of €44bn in Europe in 2020 but paid no corporation tax

Fresh questions have been raised over Amazon’s tax planning after its latest corporate filings in Luxembourg revealed that the company collected record sales income of €44bn (£38bn) in Europe last year but did not have to pay any corporation tax to the Grand Duchy.

Accounts for Amazon EU Sarl, through which it sells products to hundreds of millions of households in the UK and across Europe, show that despite collecting record income, the Luxembourg unit made a €1.2bn loss and therefore paid no tax.

In fact the unit was granted €56m in tax credits it can use to offset any future tax bills should it turn a profit. The company has €2.7bn worth of carried forward losses stored up, which can be used against any tax payable on future profits.

The Luxembourg unit – which handles sales for the UK, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden – employs just 5,262 staff meaning that the income per employ amounts to €8.4m.

[…]

Source: Amazon had sales income of €44bn in Europe in 2020 but paid no corporation tax | Amazon | The Guardian

The article goes on to blame Amazon, but tbh I don’t blame them much. It’s the EU and the tax haven system inside it that allows its member states to allow and even encourage this kind of tax avoidance that is to blame.

Russia fines Apple $12m for app market abuse

Russia said it had fined Apple $12 million for alleged [Note: why the use of this word? If the fine has been issued, then a Russian court has established guilt and there is no allleging about it!] abuse of its dominance in the mobile applications market, in the latest dispute between Moscow and a Western technology firm.

The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) said on Tuesday that U.S. tech giant Apple’s distribution of apps through its iOS operating system gave its own products a competitive advantage.

[…]

The FAS said in a statement it had imposed a turnover fine on Apple of 906.3 million roubles ($12.1 million) for the alleged violation of Russian anti-monopoly legislation.

It determined in August 2020 that Apple had abused its dominant position and then issued a directive requiring the U.S. company to remove provisions giving it the right to reject third-party apps from its App Store.

That move followed a complaint from cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, which had said that a new version of its Safe Kids application had been declined by Apple’s operating system.

[…]

Source: Russia fines Apple $12 mln for alleged app market abuse | Reuters
I have been talking about the need to break up the big tech monopolies since early 2019. It’s good to see that all the major world governments and court systems are taking it seriously.

Epic witness claims Apple’s App Store profit reaches 78%. Apple disagrees as their overall profit is “only” 42.5%

Epic Games is using its lawsuit against Apple to accuse the iPhone maker of being particularly greedy. As The Verge reports, expert witness Eric Barns testified that Apple supposedly had an App Store operating margin of 77.8 percent in 2019, itself a hike from 74.9 percent in 2018. He also rejected Apple witness’ claims that you couldn’t practically calculate profit, pointing to info from the company’s Corporate Financial Planning and Analysis group as evidence.

Apple unsurprisingly disagreed. The tech firm told The Verge the margin calculations are “simply” wrong and that it planned to fight the allegations at trial. The firm’s own witness, Richard Schmalensee, claimed that Barnes was looking at one iOS ecosystem element that distorted the apparent operating margin. The real figure was “unremarkable,” he said, adding that you couldn’t study App Store profit without looking at the broader context of devices and services.

The company doesn’t calculate profits and losses based on products and services, Schmalensee said.

There’s no guarantee the court will accept Barnes’ take. Apple’s overall gross profit margin has typically been high relative to much of the industry, but never that high — it was 42.5 percent during the company’s latest winter quarter. Apple has also tended to portray the App Store as a way to drive hardware sales rather than a money-maker in its own right.

The testimony nonetheless does more to explain how Epic will pursue its case against Apple as the court battle begins on May 3rd. The Fortnite creator not only wants to portray Apple as anti-competitive, but abusing its lock on iOS app distribution to reap massive profits.

Source: Epic witness claims Apple’s App Store profit reaches 78 percent | Engadget

Appeals Court says Amazon is responsible for the safety of third-party products

A boy rides a hoverboard on the day after Christmas, in San Pedro, California December 26, 2015. Reports of some hoverboards, also known as self-balancing, two-wheeled scooters catching fire have led to an investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  AFP PHOTO / ROBYN BECK / AFP / ROBYN BECK        (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images)
ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images

Amazon may soon be more accountable for more products than the ones it directly sells. According to the LA Times, a California state appeals court has ruled that Amazon is responsible for the safety of third-party products available through its marketplace following a 2015 hoverboard fire. While the internet giant argued that it was only connecting buyers with sellers, judges determined that there was a “direct link” in distribution that made the company liable.

The company won the initial ruling. At the time, a judge sided with Amazon’s view that it was just advertising sellers’ products rather than participating in sales.

In a statement to the Times, Amazon said it “invests heavily” in product safety by screening sellers and products. it also keeps watch on the store for hints of problems. The company declined to comment on the appeal court decision, including whether it intended to challenge the ruling at the state Supreme Court.

The decision, if it holds, could force Amazon to change policies. The tech giant may have to step up its vetting process for sellers and be ready to accept liability for safety problems, including lawsuits. Other stores with similar third-party marketplaces would have to follow suit. That, in turn, might be good news for shoppers —you could see fewer sketchy products in online stores, and you’d have a better chance of resolving safety issues.

Source: Court says Amazon is responsible for the safety of third-party products | Engadget

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick takes 50% voluntary pay cut

Bobby Kotick, the longtime CEO of “Call of Duty” and “Candy Crush” game maker Activision Blizzard, will see his base salary reduced by 50% and bonus potential slashed as part of a 15-month contract extension, the company reported Thursday in an SEC filing.

Why it matters: The cut isn’t a sign that the company is struggling. Activision, like most big gaming companies, is thriving. But it appears to show a company reacting to criticism of outsized executive compensation.

  • Kotick’s base salary will be cut in half to $875,000, and his amended contract establishes a reduction of $1.75 million in potential annual bonuses.
  • Provisions for lucrative bonuses tied to stock performance have also been removed or rewritten to limit other potential bonus payouts. That follows reports that they triggered payments of as much as $200 million earlier this year.
  • In its filing, Activison’s board said the compensation changes were made after 12 months of “extensive shareholder outreach.”

[…]

The big picture: Kotick became CEO of Activision in 1991, when the company was a struggling player in a much smaller industry. Now it is one of gaming’s most successful.

  • That success hasn’t meant labor happiness for all. Activision has laid off waves of employees each of the last three years.
  • Kotick told Gamesbeat Wednesday that Activision needs to hire some 2,500 workers.

Source: Activision CEO Bobby Kotick takes pay cut – Axios

So people are still whining that he’s making actual money but these are the types for whom no pay level will ever be acceptable, even if they even out the pay levels throughout the whole company.

I think this is a great exemplary step forwards – the top shouldn’t be earning such stupid amounts more than the lowest employees. Next step, up the earnings of the lower paid people!

EU Charges Apple With Antitrust Violations in Spotify Case

the European Union has charged Apple with allegedly “abus[ing] its dominant position” in the music streaming market.

The charges stem from an initial complaint filed by Spotify in 2019. At the time, Spotify accused Apple of having “an unfair advantage at every turn” by imposing a series of obstacles that favored its own services at the expense of competitors. As it turns out, the European Commission seems to agree with Spotify.

“By setting strict rules on the App Store that disadvantage competing music streaming services, Apple deprives users of cheaper music streaming choices and distorts competition,” the European Commission said in a tweet.

The Commission further explained in a press release that it took issue with Apple’s role as a gatekeeper to the iOS ecosystem. Because the App Store is the only venue for developers to reach iOS users, the Commission contends that elevates Apple to a dominant position within the music streaming market. In particular, it singled out Apple’s mandatory 30% commission for in-app purchases and “anti-steering provisions.” The latter refers to limitations within the App Store that prevent developers from informing consumers of alternative payment options that might be cheaper. That in turn forces rival music streaming services to raise subscription prices for consumers to make up for their higher costs—all while Apple benefits by acting as a middle man for in-app billing and communications with consumers.

[…]

It’s a no-brainer that each company would point to the other as being in the wrong here. But it’s clear that Apple’s 30% commission and control over in-app transactions is a sore point for multiple companies. Next week, Epic Games will also go to federal court to argue that Apple abused its power to kick Fortnite out of the App Store. That dramatic brouhaha last summer sparked a number of app developers—including Spotify, Tile, and Epic Games—to form the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), a nonprofit that aims to fight against the so-called Apple tax and other anticompetitive app store policies.

[…]

. If found guilty, Apple could face up to a 10% fine on its annual revenue—which, any way you slice it would be a lot of money. However, the Commission says that there are “no legal deadlines for bringing an antitrust investigation to an end” and that an investigation will last as long as it needs to, “depend[ing] on a number of factors.” In other words, while this is a major milestone in Apple’s App Store antitrust saga, it’s far, far, far from being over.

Source: EU Charges Apple With Antitrust Violations in Spotify Case

I have been talking about ending the monopoly stranglehold big tech has been excersising since early 2019 so it’s good to see the end of this is all coming together finally

Microsoft shakes up PC gaming by reducing Windows store cut to “just” 12 percent

Microsoft is shaking up the world of PC gaming today with a big cut to the amount of revenue it takes from games on Windows. The software giant is reducing its cut from 30 percent to just 12 percent from August 1st, in a clear bid to compete with Steam and entice developers and studios to bring more PC games to its Microsoft Store.

“Game developers are at the heart of bringing great games to our players, and we want them to find success on our platforms,” says Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios at Microsoft. “A clear, no-strings-attached revenue share means developers can bring more games to more players and find greater commercial success from doing so.”

These changes will only affect PC games and not Xbox console games in Microsoft’s store. While Microsoft hasn’t explained why it’s not reducing the 30 percent it takes on Xbox game sales, it’s likely because the console business model is entirely different to PC. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo subsidize hardware to make consoles more affordable, and offer marketing deals in return for a 30 percent cut on software sales.

Microsoft’s new reduction on the PC side is significant, and it matches the same revenue split that Epic Games offers PC game developers while also putting more pressure on Valve to reduce its Steam store cut. Valve still takes a 30 percent cut on sales in its Steam store, which is reduced to 25 percent when sales hit $10 million, and then 20 percent for every sale after $50 million.

[…]

Source: Microsoft shakes up PC gaming by reducing Windows store cut to just 12 percent – The Verge

Let’s be clear – it’s still taking 12% of everything it has put virtually no effort in to making. All it does is hold up an electronic store front on some servers. And the point the article is making: that it’s cheap compared to the seeming “industry standard” 30% shows really that there is and has been a price cartel between the tiny amount of major players in the electronic market place.

This is the kind of monopoloy I have been talking about since the beginning of 2019.

Tesla Loses A Lot Of Money Selling Cars, But Makes It All Back On Credits And Bitcoin

On Monday after the close of business, Tesla announced its Q1 2021 financial results in its quarterly earnings call. The company turned a surprisingly large profit this quarter, but it didn’t do it by selling cars. Q1 net profit reached a new record for Tesla, at $438 million. Revenue for the electric car company was up massively to $10.39 billion. Unfortunately, all of that profit is accounted for in the company selling $518 million in regulatory credits, and $101 million was found in buying and then later selling Bitcoin.

That second point is particularly interesting, as Tesla purchased $1.5 billion worth of BTC, announced that the company would begin accepting BTC as payment for its cars, which drove up the value of BTC, then sold enough BTC to make a hundred million in profit. Strange how that works, eh? Surely nothing untoward going on there. Not at all. DOGE TO THE MOON! #hodlgang

Without the $619 million in credits and BTC sales, Tesla would have actually managed to lose $181 million in Q1. In that time, the company shifted 184,800 3/Y units, and while it didn’t build a single X or S in Q1, it sold 2020 units from previously-built inventory. That means the company lost around $970 per car sold in Q1.

[…]

Source: Tesla Loses A Lot Of Money Selling Cars, But Makes It All Back On Credits And Bitcoin

Google Is Saving Over $1 Billion a Year by Working From Home

During the first quarter, Google parent Alphabet Inc. saved $268 million in expenses from company promotions, travel and entertainment, compared to same period a year earlier, “primarily as a result of COVID-19,” according to a company filing.

On an annualized basis, that would be more than $1 billion. Indeed, Alphabet said in its annual report earlier this year that advertising and promotional expenses dropped by $1.4 billion in 2020 as the company reduced spending, paused or rescheduled campaigns, and changed some events to digital-only formats due to the pandemic. Travel and entertainment expenses fell by $371 million.

The savings offset many of the costs that came with hiring thousands more workers. And the pandemic prudence allowed the company to keep its marketing and administrative costs effectively flat for the first quarter, despite boosting revenue by 34%.

[…]

Google is notorious for perks such as massage tables, catered cuisine and corporate retreats, which have influenced much of Silicon Valley work culture. Most Google staff have worked remotely and without those perks since March of 2020.

[…]

Source: Google Is Saving Over $1 Billion a Year by Working From Home – Bloomberg

Google used ‘double-Irish’ to shift $75.4bn in profits out of Ireland

Google shifted more than $75.4 billion (€63 billion) in profits out of the Republic using the controversial “double-Irish” tax arrangement in 2019, the last year in which it used the loophole.

The technology giant availed of the tax arrangement to move the money out of Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company via interim dividends and other payments. This company was incorporated in Ireland but tax domiciled in Bermuda at the time of the transfer.

The move allowed Google Ireland Holdings to escape corporation tax both in the Republic and in the United States where its ultimate parent, Alphabet, is headquartered. The holding company reported a $13 billion pretax profit for 2019, which was effectively tax-free, the accounts show.

A year earlier, Google Ireland Holdings paid out dividends of €23 billion, having recorded turnover of $25.7 billion.

Google has used the double Irish loophole to funnel billions in global profits through Ireland and on to Bermuda, effectively putting them beyond the reach of US tax authorities.

Companies exploiting the double Irish put their intellectual property into an Irish-registered company that is controlled from a tax haven such as Bermuda.

Ireland considers the company to be tax-resident in Bermuda, while the US considers it to be tax-resident here. The result is that when royalty payments are sent to the company, they go untaxed – unless or until the money is eventually sent home to the US parent.

The “double Irish” was abolished in 2015 for new companies establishing operations in the Republic. However, controversially, it allowed those already using it until the end of 2020 to phase it out.

Google overhauled its global tax structure and consolidated its intellectual property holdings back to the United States in early 2020, meaning 2019 was the final year in which it availed of the arrangement.

Up to late 2019, Google Ireland Holdings Unlimited Company was an intellectual property licensing company with turnover derived from the licensing of IP to subsidiaries. The accounts state it had no employees and that it was tax resident at the time in Bermuda, where the “standard rate tax is 0 per cent”.

[…]

Source: Google used ‘double-Irish’ to shift $75.4bn in profits out of Ireland

Man sues Apple for terminating Apple ID with $24K worth of content and no reason

Apple has been hit with a lawsuit alleging that its media services terms and conditions, which permit the company to terminate an Apple ID, are “unlawful” and “unconscionable.”

The complaint, filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, goes after an Apple services clause that states a user with a terminated Apple ID cannot access media content that they’ve purchased.

Through its terms and conditions, Apple retains the right to terminate an Apple ID. More than that, the lawsuit claims that Apple can terminate an account based on mere suspicion.

“Apple’s unlawful and unconscionable clause as a prohibited de facto liquidated damages provision which is triggered when Apple suspects its customers have breached its Terms and Conditions,” the lawsuit reads.

[…]

The plaintiff in the case, Matthew Price, reportedly spent nearly $25,000 on content attached to an Apple ID. When Apple terminated Price’s Apple ID for an alleged violation of its terms and conditions, Price lost access to all of that content.

Source: Man sues Apple for terminating Apple ID with $24K worth of content | AppleInsider

CEO of Turkish Crypto Platform Thodex Flees Country as Users Say They’re Locked Out

Federal police in Turkey are investigating Thodex, a cryptocurrency trading platform that handles hundred of millions of dollars in trades every day, after users complained they’d been locked out of their accounts, according to new reports from Reuters and Turkey’s TRT World news service. CEO Faruk Fatih Ozer reportedly fled Turkey on Tuesday and 62 people connected to Thodex have reportedly been detained.

Investigators raided Thodex’s headquarters in Istanbul on Thursday after
“thousands” of people in Turkey filed criminal complaints, according to TRT World. Users have been unable to access money in their accounts over the past three days and federal authorities have issued at least 78 arrest warrants, according to Reuters.

[…]

There have been thousands of criminal complaints made in many places around Turkey,” he told Reuters, adding that the platform had 400,000 users, 391,000 of whom were active.

While Reuters reports the CEO had fled to the city of Tirana, Albanian, apparently people at Thodex insist he will be returning to Turkey soon. He’s going to be returning to a lot of pissed off people.

Source: CEO of Turkish Crypto Platform Flees Country as Users Say They’re Locked Out

This New App Lets You Turn Anything and Everything Into an NFT

Well, if you have an iPhone, now you can turn practically anything into a unique, one-of-a-kind digital token. A new app is out that, by its own admission, lets you turn “every idea” into an NFT. It’s called S!NG, and it is the first and only free iOS app designed to let you create as many NFTs as you want. Where previously you would have had to pay a crypto exchange to get your asset minted, S!NG does all the minting for you, free of charge.

Founded by ex-Apple executive Geoff Osler, the company has sought to make its product really easy to use, too: it has a point-and-click function—so it’s basically as simple as taking a picture or making a recording on your phone to create them. You can also upload files.

[…]

As the name of the app might suggest, it’s being marketed to artists and musicians. A video on the company’s website claims that S!NG wants to use NFTs to protect creators from intellectual property theft—which is an interesting idea. The thinking here seems to be that because the non-fungibles designate specific ownership over a unique digital asset, they can preclude you from getting your song lyrics or digital recording copied and legally foisted away from you. Thus, the website claims S!NG is the “easiest way to put a stamp on an idea, label it as your own, convert to an NFT and stored in a centralized portfolio,” also adding that the app is a space where ideas can be shared “confidently and hesitation free, without having to lawyer up.” In other words, it’s like that old trick of sending yourself a certified letter to copyright text or song lyrics: it works, but only barely.

While this all sounds pretty good, the flip side is that it makes S!NG sound almost like a notepad app, where every note becomes an NFT. When you consider the ecological toll that NFTs purportedly are wreaking on the world, maybe it’s not a great idea to make every thought you jot down a non-fungible? Then again, people are apparently working on this problem, so maybe we can assume it’ll be a short-lived issue.

[…]

Source: This New App Lets You Turn Anything and Everything Into an NFT

I’m very curious what their business model is. Put an advert into every NFT they create?

Amazon Strong-arms Small Businesses to Share User Data

Amazon reportedly pressured smart-thermostat maker Ecobee to fork over data from its voice-enabled devices even when customers weren’t actively using them. When Ecobee pushed back, the e-commerce giant threatened to box the company out of high-profile selling events like Prime Day or refuse Alexa certification for future devices, according to a Wall Street Journal report this week.

Last year, Amazon approached Ecobee among other Alexa-enabled device sellers about sharing “proactive state” data from customers, several company executives confirmed to the Journal. With this data, Amazon would receive updates about the device’s status at all times even when customers weren’t using them, such as the temperature of their home or whether their doors are locked, among other examples.

[…]

However, when Ecobee initially refused to provide users’ proactive state data, Amazon warned that a refusal might bar the company from major selling events like Prime Day or prevent its future devices from receiving Alexa certification, said one of the people the Journal spoke with. Given that Amazon controls a huge chunk of the global e-commerce market (nearly 40% in the U.S. alone), that kind of move can bankrupt smaller companies like Ecobee.

[…]

In addition to stealing designs from other companies for its AmazonBasics line, Amazon also purportedly pressures industry partners to use its logistics arm, Fulfillment by Amazon, by threatening to make it more difficult to sell products on its marketplace, according to the Journal. Amazon even reportedly competes with the companies it invests in, of which Ecobee is one, using its position as a shareholder to access confidential information and develop similar products.

Last October, a House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee concluded what we all already knew: That Amazon and other tech giants have “monopoly power” in their respective markets and “abuse their power by charging exorbitant fees, imposing oppressive contract terms, and extracting valuable data from the people who rely on them.”

Source: Amazon Strong-arms Small Businesses to Share User Data

$291 Adobe Cancelation Fee Sees Twitter Users Argue it’s ‘Morally Correct’ to Pirate Software

A $291 Adobe cancelation fee has provoked fierce criticism of the creative software company.

A post from a customer has gone viral on Twitter, after he discovered that he would have to pay nearly $300 to bring his Creative Cloud subscription to an end.

It has sparked a discussion about Adobe’s practices, with many others coming forward to say that they too have faced extremely steep cancelation fees when they’ve tried to cut ties with the company.

A screenshot uploaded to the micro-blogging site by Twitter user @Mrdaddguy showed that they faced a $291.45 fee to cancel their Adobe Creative Cloud plan.

At the time of publication the tweet has attracted more than 13,000 retweets, more than 4,000 quote tweets, and more than 70,000 likes.

Twitter users have been almost universally in agreement in their criticism of the company, with some describing the cancelation fee as “absurd”, “disgusting,” and likening it to being held hostage by the company.

“Adobe has been holding me hostage for the better part of a year on a free trial that magically converted to a yearlong subscription with a wild cancellation fee,” wrote Twitter user Laura Hudson. “Blink twice if they have you too.”

Some have weighed into the conversation by suggesting alternatives to Adobe’s suite of products, such as Clip Studio Paint, Procreate, Blender, Krita, Paint tool Sai, many of which are either free to use or available as one-time purchases.

Others, meanwhile, are arguing that Adobe’s penalty fees are so severe that it should be considered “morally correct” to pirate the company’s software in revenge.

“Adobe on their hands and knees begging us to pirate their software,” wrote Twitter user JoshDeLearner.

“This thread is a great reminder of why it’s morally correct to pirate Adobe products,” wrote Dozing Starlight. A multitude of similar tweets can be found here.

Source: $291 Adobe Cancelation Fee Sees Twitter Users Argue it’s ‘Morally Correct’ to Pirate Software – Newsweek

FLoC, The Ad-Targeting Tech Google Plans To Drop On Us All might be using you as a test subject to spy on closely in Chrome

About two weeks ago, millions of Google Chrome users were signed up for an experiment they never agreed to be a part of. Google had just launched a test run for Federated Learning of Cohorts—or FLoC–a new kind of ad-targeting tech meant to be less invasive than the average cookie. In a blog post announcing the trial, the company noted that it would only impact a “small percentage” of random users across ten different countries, including the US, Mexico, and Canada, with plans to expand globally as the trials run on.

These users probably won’t notice anything different when they click around on Chrome, but behind the scenes, that browser is quietly keeping a close eye on every site they visit and ad they click on. These users will have their browsing habits profiled and packaged up, and shared with countless advertisers for profit. Sometime this month, Chrome will give users an option to opt-out of this experiment, according to Google’s blog post—but as of right now, their only option is to block all third-party cookies in the browser.

That is if they even know that these tests are happening in the first place. While I’ve written my fair share about FLoC up until this point, the loudest voices I’ve seen pipe up on the topic are either marketing nerds, policy nerds, or policy nerds that work in marketing. This might be due to the fact that—aside from a few blog posts here or there—the only breadcrumbs Google’s given to people looking to learn more about FLoC are inscrutable pages of code, an inscrutable GitHub repo, and inscrutable mailing lists. Even if Google bothered asking for consent before enrolling a random sample of its Chrome user base into this trial, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t know what they were consenting to.

(For the record, you can check whether you’ve been opted into this initial test using this handy tool from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.)

[…]

The trackers that FLoC is meant to replace are known as “third-party cookies.” We have a pretty in-depth guide to the way this sort of tech works, but in a nutshell: these are snippets of code from adtech companies that websites can bake into the code underpinning their pages. Those bits of code monitor your on-site behavior—and sometimes other personal details—before the adtech org behind that cookie beams that data back to its own servers.

[…]

The catch is that Google still has all that juicy user-level data because it controls Chrome. They’re also still free to keep doing what they’ve always been doing with that data: sharing it with federal agencies, accidentally leaking it, and, y’know, just being Google.

[…]

“Isn’t that kind of… anti-competitive?”

It depends on who you ask. Competition authorities in the UK certainly think so, as do trade groups here in the US. It’s also been wrapped up into a Congressional probe, at least one class action, and a massive multi-state antitrust case spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Their qualms with FLoC are pretty easy to understand. Google already controls about 30% of the digital ad market in the US, just slightly more than Facebook—the other half of the so-called Duopoly—that controls 25% (for context, Microsoft controls about 4%).

While that dominance has netted Google billions upon billions of dollars per year, it’s recently netted multiple mounting antitrust investigations against the company, too. And those investigations have pretty universally painted a picture of Google as a blatant autocrat of the ad-based economy, and one that largely got away with abhorrent behavior because smaller rivals were too afraid—or unable—to speak up. This is why many of them are speaking up about FLoC now.

“But at least it’s good for privacy, right?”

Again, it depends who you ask! Google thinks so, but the EFF sure doesn’t. In March, the EFF put out a detailed piece breaking down some of the biggest gaps in FLoC’s privacy promises. If a particular website prompts you to give up some sort of first-party data—by having you sign up with your email or phone number, for example—your FLoC identifier isn’t really anonymous anymore.

Aside from that hiccup, the EFF points out that your FLoC cohort follows you everywhere you go across the web. This isn’t a big deal if my cohort is just “people who like to reupholster furniture,” but it gets really dicey if that cohort happens to inadvertently mold itself around a person’s mental health disorder or their sexuality based on the sites that person browses. While Google’s pledged to keep FloC’s from creating cohorts based on these sorts of “sensitive categories,” the EFF again pointed out that Google’s approach was riddled with holes.

[…]

Source: What You Need To Know About FLoC, The Ad-Targeting Tech Google Plans To Drop On Us All

Actor in Hollywood Ponzi Scheme “sold” Netflix exculsives for $690 million

Zachary Horwitz never made it big on the Sunset Strip — there was the uncredited part in Brad Pitt’s “Fury” and a host of roles in low-budget thrillers and horror flicks. But federal charges suggest he had acting talent, duping several financial firms out of hundreds of millions of dollars and enabling him to live the Hollywood dream after all.

That meant chartered flights and a $6 million mansion — replete with wine cellar and home gym. Horwitz even included a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label, which retails for more than $200, as a gift to investors along with his company’s “annual report.”

The claims are outlined in legal documents that U.S. prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission released this week alleging Horwitz, 34, was running a massive Ponzi scheme. His scam: a made-up story that he had exclusive deals to sell films to Netflix Inc. and HBO. Dating back to 2014, the SEC said he raised a shocking $690 million in fraudulent funds. On Tuesday, Horwitz was arrested.

Horwitz, who went by the screen name “Zach Avery,” used fabricated contracts and fake emails to swindle at least five firms, according to the government. Investors were issued promissory notes through his firm 1inMM Capital to acquire the rights to movies that would be sold to Netflix and HBO for distribution in Latin America, Australia, New Zealand and other locations.

The claims of business relationships with the media companies were bogus, according to prosecutors, with a Netflix executive going so far as to send a cease-and-desist order to Horwitz and his attorney in February.

While Horwitz promised returns in excess of 35%, he was actually relying on new investors to pay off old ones, according to the SEC, which won a court order to freeze his assets. Ryan Hedges, Horwitz’s attorney, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

[…]

Source: Actor in Hollywood Ponzi Scheme Sent Scotch With Annual Reports – Bloomberg