Companies including Philips and Pandora say they plan to seek tariff reimbursements after the Supreme Court ruled Trump's sweeping duties illegal, with the U.S. potentially facing up to $175 billion in refunds. Many firms say tariffs hurt earnings, but CFO survey results suggest companies applying for refunds are unlikely to pass savings back to consumers through lower prices. CNBC reports: Companies across Europe are flagging disruption from tariffs as a factor contributing to a skewed earnings picture. "We will ask for a rebate of tariffs in line with the government policies," Roy Jakobs, CEO of healthtech firm Philips, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Wednesday morning. "We have been saying that of course we prefer a world without tariffs, without trade barriers, because we want to serve patients." Philips included the cost of tariffs within its full-year guidance and did not assume the impact from any potential refunds. Danish jeweler Pandora also announced its intention to apply for a rebate on Wednesday, with CEO Berta de Pablos-Barbier telling CNBC that tariffs were a "headwind" to earnings in the first quarter. "We have no news yet, so we cannot count on any of that refund," she told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe." "Let's wait and see." De Pablos-Barbier noted that the biggest factor impacting Pandora's profit this quarter is the cost of silver, which more than quadrupled in the last 18 months. She reiterated the firm's pivot from pure silver to platinum as a way of reducing costs. BMW, Daimler, Renishaw, Smith & Nephew and Continental all flagged tariffs as negatively impacting results in a slew of earnings updates on Wednesday, but the companies did not say whether they are applying for rebates. Businesses often bear some of the cost of tariffs, with some costs passing on to consumers through price hikes. Tariffs have had an overall inflationary impact on the economy, economists have told CNBC. Despite the refund process potentially covering more than 330,000 importers on roughly 53 million entries, per court documents, consumers are unlikely to benefit, according to the results of the latest CNBC CFO Council quarterly survey. Twelve of the 25 chief financial officers interviewed said their company plans to apply for tariff refunds, however, none intend to lower prices in response.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Apple is adding a new App Store subscription option that lets developers offer lower monthly prices in exchange for a 12-month commitment. "This model will allow developers to offer discounted rates to customers in exchange for more predictable long-term revenue," reports TechCrunch. "This also caters to how many developers have already been marketing their annual subscriptions in their apps." From the report: Often, app developers will display the lower monthly price to highlight the discount the customer would receive if they purchase the annual subscription instead of the monthly option. If the user is on the fence about a longer-term commitment, the notion that they're getting a better deal can help to push them toward the annual option. Now, Apple is essentially formalizing what these developers were already doing, which allows it to also craft a set of policies around how these subscription offers are to be displayed so as not to mislead customers about the true cost of the deals. However, the option will not be available to developers in the United States or Singapore at launch. While Apple didn't offer an explanation for this, it's still in App Store litigation in the U.S. around the specifics of the court's ruling in its case with Epic Games around how Apple can charge for subscriptions. Apple likely doesn't want to complicate the matter further until that matter is finalized. Singapore, meanwhile, also has a sophisticated payments market with strong consumer rules, which is why it may have been left out of the initial release.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

California's proposed billionaire tax appears headed for the November ballot after backers said they gathered more than 1.5 million signatures, well above the threshold needed to qualify. SF Standard reports: Backers of the initiative announced this weekend that more than 1.5 million people signed a petition to bring the one-time, 5% wealth tax to a statewide vote come November. That's well beyond the 875,000 names needed to qualify the measure, and likely sufficient to account for illegible or invalid signatures. The Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West, a union representing more than 120,000 healthcare workers, pitched the tax to make up for federal spending cuts that threaten to shutter hospitals(opens in new tab) and kick millions of people off medical insurance. Proponents of California's wealth tax estimate it would raise $100 billion in one-time revenue, even if some billionaires leave because of the measure. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office forecasts tens of billions in upfront revenue, but cautioned that the tax could cost hundreds of millions or more a year if some billionaires move out of state. The proposal, which needs a simple majority to pass, would apply to assets of people with net worth of $1 billion or more who lived in California as of Jan. 1 this year. That means it would affect about 200 people, according to the SEIU-UHW.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shared this report from Bloomberg: More than three years after acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk says he's nearing his long-stated goal of turning it into an "everything app" with a new financial services tool that he pledged to launch for the public this month... Early users testing the service have touted competitive perks, including 3% cash back on eligible purchases and a 6% interest rate on cash savings — the latter of which is roughly 15 times the national average. Musk's new product is also expected to offer free peer-to-peer transfers, a metal Visa debit card personalised with a user's X handle, and an AI concierge built by Musk's xAI startup that tracks spending and sorts through past transactions, according to reports from users with early access. Musk, who first rose to prominence in Silicon Valley by co-founding PayPal Holdings Inc, sees payments as crucial to creating a so-called super app similar to social products that have flourished in China. WeChat, for example, lets users hail a ride, book a flight and pay off their credit card... If it works, X Money would sit at the intersection of social media and finance in a way no American product has attempted at this scale... Creators who currently receive payments from X for engagement will be switched from Stripe to X Money as their payment platform, according to early users — a move that guarantees an initial base of active accounts. Some have already been testing X Money to send payments to one another through the app's chat feature or directly through their profiles, according to early participants in the rollout... X currently holds licences in 44 states, according to its website, and likely won't be able to operate in states where it hasn't obtained a licence.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Sean Plankey, the long-sidelined nominee to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, asked President Donald Trump on Wednesday to withdraw his nomination.

“At this point in time, I am asking the President to remove my nomination from consideration,” he said in a notification letter seen by CyberScoop. “After thirteen months since my initial nomination, it has become clear that the Senate will not confirm me.”

Plankey’s request comes weeks after the Senate confirmed MarkWayne Mullin to lead the Department of Homeland Security, CISA’s parent agency.

“The Nation and Department of Homeland Security Secretary MarkWayne Mullin requires a confirmed director of CISA without further delay,” Plankey wrote, adding thanks to Trump himself. “While I humbly request the removal of my nomination, I wholeheartedly support President Trump’s upcoming nomination for CISA and look forward to the continued success of the United States of America.”

Plankey’s nomination was considered dead by most at the end of last year. His renomination this year caught many by surprise, with CBS reporting the paperwork filing was an accident. The White House denied that.

Numerous senators had placed holds on his nomination, including GOP senators who held him up over matters unrelated to cybersecurity. Most prominently, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla, had placed a hold on his nomination over a Coast Guard contract with a Florida company that DHS had partially canceled.

Plankey had been serving as an adviser to then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Coast Guard matters. He retired from the Coast Guard last month.

While Plankey awaited confirmation, Bridget Bean, then Madhu Gottumukkala, served as acting director. Gottumukkala recently left the position for another at DHS amid widespread complaints about his leadership. Nick Andersen is currently serving as acting director.

Plankey told CyberScoop he had discussed withdrawing his nomination with Mullin. He said he has a “positive relationship” with Mullin and supported his leadership of DHS. And Plankey called Andersen “one of the most competent cybersecurity people in the country.”

Politico first reported Plankey’s withdrawal request. The White House and CISA did not respond to an official request for comment. When asked for a comment, a DHS spokesperson said the department doesn’t comment on personnel matters.

Plankey’s plans leave the agency with yet more upheaval. Trump has dramatically cut personnel and budget at CISA, with many top officials pushed out or otherwise departing. He has proposed deeper budget cuts still for fiscal year 2027.

Updated 4/22/26: to include DHS response.

The post CISA director pick Sean Plankey withdraws his nomination appeared first on CyberScoop.

"After a Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Feb. 2026, many tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were declared illegal because the president overstepped his authority," writes Slashdot reader hcs_$reboot. "As a result, the U.S. government now has to refund a massive amount of money, around $160-170+ billion, paid mainly by importers." According to the New York Times, the administration has now begun accepting refund requests, "surrendering its prized source of revenue -- plus interest." From the report: For some U.S. businesses, the highly anticipated refunds could be substantial, offering critical if belated financial relief. Tariffs are taxes on imports, so the president's trade policies have served as a great burden for companies that rely on foreign goods. Many have had to choose whether to absorb the duties, cut other costs or pass on the expenses to consumers. By Monday morning, those companies can begin to submit documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs. In a sign of the demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, have already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds, with some cases filed even before the Supreme Court's ruling. But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump's policies -- including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought -- are not able to apply for direct relief. The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do. Some have started to band together in class-action lawsuits in the hopes of receiving a payout. Many business owners said they weren't sure how easy the tariff refund process would be, particularly given Mr. Trump's stated opposition to returning the money. The administration has suggested that it may be months before companies see any money. Adding to the uncertainty, the White House has declined to say if it might still try to return to court in a bid to halt some or all of the refunds. The money will mostly go to importers and companies, since they were the ones that directly paid the tariffs. While individual refunds with interest could take around 60 to 90 days to process, the overall effort will probably move much more slowly because of how large and complicated it will be. There are also legal questions around whether companies would have to pass any of that money on to consumers. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo commented: "This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history. Most of those companies will just pocket the refund and not pass any of it on to the consumer. If prices go down at all, they won't be back to pre-tariff levels. You paid the tariffs, but you ain't getting the refund."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Congress is grappling with renewal of a surveillance law set to expire at the end of this month that critics say is a mystery on how much of a difference it has made for controversial government spying authorities — for better or worse.

The 2024 law reauthorized so-called Section 702 powers of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorizes warrantless surveillance of electronic communications of foreign targets. Most controversially, the law allows U.S. officials to search (“query”) those communications databases using Americans’ personal information, as long as the American is  in contact with someone overseas, which raises significant privacy concerns.

Backers of the 2024 law, known as the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), point to 56 changes it made to deal with criticisms of Section 702, following a period where abuses came to light, including hundreds of thousands of improper searches. At the same time, the law made changes that some feared could actually expand Section 702 powers.

The House voted to extend the law as-is for 10 days early Friday. The Senate then did the same. The Trump administration has sought a 180-day “clean” reauthorization.

As Congress weighs potential extensions of the 2024 law without making changes to it, “I don’t think we know” what good has come of it, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program. By the same token, it’s difficult to know whether some of the expansion fears have come to fruition, she said: “We don’t have reliable information on this.”

Added Jake Laperruque of the Center for Democracy and Technology: “There’s a lot of black boxes here.”

Examining Past Changes

Both Goitein and Laperruque are skeptical of any positive change from RISAA, though, and have long advocated for a warrant requirement for U.S. person searches. Intelligence agencies have resisted that addition, claiming that it would dramatically slow down time-sensitive national security investigations.

By contrast, Glenn Gerstell, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, said RISAA constituted “the most significant set of reforms to the statute since its adoption in 2008.” and that “those reforms have had a dramatic effect.” 

One major point of dispute is to what degree the number of U.S. person searches dropped, particularly because of a conclusion in last year’s Justice Department inspector general report finding that an “advanced filtering tool generated queries that were not tracked by the FBI.” 

As the report outlines, an FBI system has an “‘advanced filter function’ that allows users to select a specific FBI casefile number or ‘facility’ (e.g., a phone number or email address), using a drop-down menu or search bar, to review communications with targeted facilities.

“This functionality enables users to select from lists of ‘participants’ in communication with targeted facilities and review communications of those participants.In or around August 2024,” the report continues. The National Security Division of the Justice Department “became aware of the participants filter function in [the system] and was concerned that searches conducted through use of the participants filter constituted separate queries that must satisfy the query standard and comply with all query procedural requirements.”

By the intelligence community’s count, the number of U.S. person searches has otherwise mostly declined even going back to before the 2024 law’s passage: 119,383 in 2022, 57,094 in 2023, 5,518 in 2024 and 7,413 in 2025.

“It is quite clear that the searches that were run using this filter function met the statutory definition of queries, and yet the FBI for some significant period of time decided to not count them as queries,” Goitein said.

Laperruque, deputy director of CDT’s security and surveillance project, said an audit mandate in the 2024 law was potentially useful, but hasn’t proven to be in reality.

“At least it should mean that it should help try to detect abuse if it is happening,” he said. “The problem there, though, is you’re still relying on the FBI to properly log all of its quarries and hand them over for DOJ to be checked, which hasn’t happened. You’re trusting DOJ and the executive to engage in self-policing, and that’s something where folks rightfully have a lot of skepticism based on how DOJ has conducted itself recently.”

Gerstell, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points to numerous reviews — including a staff report from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) — that indicate a drop in U.S. person searches. It’s the biggest change of RISAA, he said.

“The most significant one is a very substantial drop in the number of queries of the database for U.S. person information, which has been a big focus for privacy advocates, and there’s been a dramatic drop, so much so that both the Inspector General for the Department of Justice and the staff of the PCLOB have said, ‘I wonder if we’re overdoing it.’ … Every single one of them presents those numbers, without caveat.”

On the advanced filter function count, Gerstell acknowledged the ambiguity, but referred to reports that said, as he summarized, “If they had been considered queries, it appears that most would have been compliant anyway… because they were a subset of something that was already compliant. But we don’t know if any of them were noncompliant, and we don’t have the data.”

On the other side of the RISAA debate, critics argued that its revised definition of “electronic communications service provider” could dramatically expand surveillance to include businesses like coffee shops or landlords. The reported, but formally undisclosed, real target of the change was data centers.

“That was a pretty big expansion with a lot of potential abuse,” Laperruque said. But “we don’t really know much about how it’s changed” anything, he said.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, sought to advance clarifying language about that subject after RISAA’s passage, and the Biden administration said it would confine the provision’s use to the kind of undisclosed businesses that prompted the provision in the first place. Laperreque noted that the Trump administration has made no such promises, and Warner’s clarifying language never became law.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has issued its annual opinion re-certifying the Section 702 program for another year. However, the court reportedly took issue with the program’s f filtering systems, saying that when such a system is used to look for information on Americans it must be counted as a query, subjecting it to additional restrictions. The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling.

Other critiques of the 2024 law include that many of its biggest changes weren’t changes at all, but instead codifications of changes that then-FBI Director Christopher Wray had implemented. Abuses continued after those changes, Goitein said.

Gerstell said enshrining those changes into law wasn’t a bad thing. “The statute expressly codified some but not all of Wray reforms — and some went beyond that in many ways,” he said. Those changes included requiring FBI deputy director approval of U.S. person queries that target elected officials, government appointees, political candidates or organizations, or media. Those were some of the more criticized prior targeting abuses.

The fight still ahead

Republicans remain divided over extending the law. Some who had reservations about a clean reauthorization have come on board, such as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who had taken issue with limitations on congressional attendance of FISC proceedings but since has had that concern resolved.

Others may have been swayed by direct lobbying from the Trump administration, including a social media post from Trump himself this week, where he wrote, “I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!” Still others have had their position against a clean extension hardened by the FISC court opinion and additional concerns.

Other issues have become enmeshed in the reauthorization debate, such as calls to block government agencies from purchasing information from data brokers. But “this has nothing to do with this authority,” said George Barnes, former deputy director of the NSA. 

But lawmakers of both parties have complained for months that the administration was silent for too long as the law’s expiration loomed.

Only recently did the Trump administration share new examples of the law’s successes, including that it had thwarted a 2024 terrorist attack on a Taylor Swift concert. Barnes said releasing such examples might offer a public case for the law, but has its downsides, too.

“I was always understanding but frustrated by the need to release examples just because they choreographed to the adversary what we could do,” said Barnes, now Red Cell’s cyber practice president. 

Reauthorizing Section 702 is urgent, though, for cybersecurity purposes, he said.

“A lot of the impact that I saw the authority having over my time was in cybersecurity as well,” he said. “And so when you have foreign entities that are targeting the U.S., or U.S. interests overseas, that authority can be positioned to help eliminate those activities.”

The post The surveillance law Congress can’t quit — and can’t explain appeared first on CyberScoop.

Newly unsealed records in California's antitrust case against Amazon allegedly show the company pressured third-party sellers to raise prices on rival sites like Walmart, Target, and Wayfair so Amazon could maintain the appearance of offering the lowest price. California says Amazon used tools like Buy Box suppression to punish cheaper listings elsewhere. The Guardian reports: [...] In one previously redacted deposition, marked "highly confidential," Mayer Handler, owner of a clothing company called Leveret, testified that he received an email in October 2022 from Amazon notifying him that one of his products was "no longer eligible to be a featured offer" through Amazon's Buy Box. The tech giant, he testified, had suppressed the item, a tiger-themed, toddler's pajama set, because his company was selling it for $19.99 on Amazon, a single cent higher than what his company was offering it for on Walmart. Afterwards, Handler testified, his company "changed pricing on Walmart to match or exceed Amazon's price" or changed the item's product code to try to throw off Amazon's price tracking system. In response to a question from the Guardian, Handler criticized Amazon for tracking prices across the internet and "shadow" blocking his company's products -- tactics which he said were depriving consumers of "lower prices." "Maybe that's capitalism," he wrote. "Or that's a monopoly causing price hikes on the consumer." In another unsealed deposition, Terry Esbenshade, a Pennsylvania garden store supplier, testified in October 2024 that whenever his products lost Amazon's Buy Box because of lower prices elsewhere on the internet, his sales on Amazon would plummet by about 80%. This financial reality forced him to try to raise his products' prices with other retailers elsewhere, he said. In one instance, Esbenshade testified, he discovered that one of his company's better-selling patio tables had "become suppressed" on Amazon. Esbenshade wasn't sure why, he recalled, until someone at Amazon suggested he look at Wayfair, another online retailer that happened to be selling his patio table below Amazon's price. The businessman went online and set up a new minimum advertised price for the table on Wayfair to ensure it was higher than Amazon's. "So that raised the price up, and, voila, my product came back" on Amazon, he said, thanks to the reinstatement of the Buy Box.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Microsoft has sharply raised prices across its Surface lineup as RAM and component costs keep climbing. "Both its midrange and flagship Surface lines are now significantly more expensive than they were just a few weeks ago, with the flagship Surface Laptop 7 and Surface Pro 11 now starting at $500 more than they launched at in 2024," reports Windows Central. From the report: The Surface Pro 12-inch, which was previously Microsoft's cheapest modern Surface PC at $799, now starts at $1,049. The flagship Surface Pro 13-inch, which originally launched for $999, now starts at an eyewatering $1,499. It's the same story for the Surface Laptop lines, with the entry-level 13-inch model originally priced at $899, now starting at $1,149. The 13.8-inch flagship Surface Laptop launched at $999, but now costs $1,499, with the 15-inch model now starting at $1,599. This means that Microsoft's midrange devices now cost more than the flagships did when they launched in 2024. [...] Microsoft has raised prices for all SKUs on offer, meaning the high end models are now more expensive too. A top end Surface Laptop 15-inch with Snapdragon X Elite, 64GB RAM and 1TB SSD storage now costs a staggering $3,649. To compare, the 16-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 Pro, 64GB RAM, and 1TB SSD is $3,299, and that comes with a significantly better display and much more power under the hood.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

175 million people in Brazil now use its instant-payment system "Pix", developed by the country's central bank for real-time payments using QR codes or keys, and American Banker notes that the central banks of Argentina and Costa Rica also have developed their own widely used digital systems for instant payments. Latin America has been able to build up sleek and effective payment systems in record time because it is not held back by legacy payment technology that isn't built for instant money movement. In the likes of the U.K., U.S. and Europe, payment systems are built on infrastructure that is often decades old. The process of building new systems is therefore incredibly operationally complex. Money must continue moving, so these systems can't just be "switched off." Emerging markets, such as those in Latin America, did not have to contend with legacy technology on the same scale. Many of these communities were cash dominant until recently, due to the high fees associated with card usage and the lack of banking infrastructure in rural regions. However, while many people didn't have a local bank on their corner, they did have mobile phones... Through these digital channels, money moves instantly, via account-to-account transfers, QR codes and mobile wallets... Beyond this, real-time and traceable digital payments generate valuable cash-flow data that can transform credit underwriting for small and medium-size businesses, or SMEs. Historically, many SMEs in emerging and cash-reliant markets have struggled to access credit due to a lack of documented transaction histories, audited accounts or formal credit records... Mexico is now poised to be the next success story. In Mexico, a third of people are unbanked, but 96% of the population owns a mobile phone. This creates the perfect launchpad for a digital-first payment system that can reach those historically excluded from traditional banking systems. In fact, something already changed in 2025. Bloomberg reports that for the first time, digital payment transfers in the U.S.-to-Mexico remittance corridor exceeded cash transfers (with physical pickup locations like Western Union), according to Mexico's central bank. It's part of a Latin American market "worth more than $160 billion a year, roughly $62 billion of which goes to Mexico." And Mexico's digitalization efforts will continue, according to the country's president, who said at a March banking conference that digital payments will now be encouraged for gasoline and tolls.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Cybercrime remains a booming business. 

Annual cybercrime losses amounted to almost $20.9 billion last year, reflecting a 26% increase from 2024, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) said in its annual report Tuesday.

The comprehensive study exposes a worsening digital crime environment that is driving financial losses, with momentum moving in the wrong direction and compounding at an alarming rate. Annual cybercrime losses have jumped almost 400% from $4.2 billion in 2020, and cumulative losses in that five-year period surpassed $71.3 billion.

The FBI’s IC3, which formed as the country’s central hub for cybercrime reporting in 2000, is busier than ever. “We now average almost 3,000 complaints per day,” Jose Perez, the FBI’s operations director for its criminal and cyber branch, wrote in the report. 

The annual internet crime report highlights growing and sustaining trends. Yet, the scope of the study is limited and relies entirely on cybercrime incidents submitted to the FBI. 

The full impact of cybercrime remains murky, as an unknown number of victims suffer in the shadows and never report the crimes they endure.

The FBI received more than 1 million complaints last year, with victims aged over 60 reporting the largest amount of crimes that also resulted in the greatest amount of total losses by age group. Victims at least 60 years old filed 201,000 complaints with losses totaling nearly $7.75 billion, or about 37% of all cybercrime-related losses last year.

Investment-related fraud remained the largest component of cybercrime losses in 2025, reaching almost $8.65 billion. Business email compromise took the No. 2 spot with almost $3.05 billion in losses, followed by tech support scams at more than $2.1 billion. 

Cryptocurrency was the primary conduit for fraud linked to investment and tech support scams last year, while wire transfers composed the bulk of fraud resulting from business email compromise, according to the report.

Phishing was the most commonly reported type of cybercrime last year, followed by extortion, investment scams and personal data breaches. The FBI tallied losses amounting to $122.5 million from extortion and $32.3 million from ransomware last year.

The FBI also received more than 75,000 reports of sextortion last year, including more than 5,700 submissions that were referred to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

The top five cyber threats reported to IC3 in 2025 included data breaches at 39%, ransomware at 36%, SIM swapping at 10%, malware at 9% and botnets at 7%. 

The FBI received more than 3,600 complaints reporting ransomware last year. The five most reported variants included Akira, Qilin, INC, BianLian and Play.

Each of the 16 critical infrastructure sectors reported ransomware attacks last year, and the most heavily targeted included health care, manufacturing, financial services, government and IT.

The IC3 primarily receives complaints from U.S. residents and businesses, but it also received complaints from more than 200 countries last year, which accounted for nearly $1.6 billion in total losses. 

While losses and the sheer amount of cybercrime continued to climb last year, “the FBI continues to disrupt and deter malicious cyber actors — and shift the cost from victims to our adversaries,” Perez wrote in the report.

“It has never been more important to be diligent with your cybersecurity, social media footprint, and electronic interactions,” he added. “Cyber threats and cyber-enabled crime will continue to evolve as the world embraces emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.”

The post Cybercrime losses jumped 26% to $20.9 billion in 2025 appeared first on CyberScoop.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: President Javier Milei of Argentina promoted a cryptocurrency last year that quickly skyrocketed in value then cratered just as fast, costing investors millions of dollars and setting off a scandal and an investigation. Mr. Milei said he was simply highlighting a private venture and had no connection to the digital coin called $Libra. New evidence is now raising questions about his assertion. Phone logs from a federal investigation by Argentine prosecutors into the coin's collapse show seven phone calls between Mr. Milei and one of the entrepreneurs behind the cryptocurrency on the night in 2025 when Mr. Milei posted about $Libra on X. The contents of the calls, which took place before and after Mr. Milei's post, are not known. But the phone logs -- which were obtained by The New York Times and first reported by a local cable news channel, C5N -- suggest a greater degree of communication between Mr. Milei and the entrepreneurs who launched the token than what the president has publicly acknowledged. Newly uncovered messages also suggest Mr. Milei received regular payments from one of the entrepreneurs while he was a congressman. Mr. Milei has not publicly commented on the call logs and other documents, and he did not respond to a request for comment. He is named as a person of interest in the federal prosecutor's continuing investigation into the digital coin, according to court documents reviewed by The Times, but has not been formally charged with any crime. The latest revelations have revived a scandal that threatens the very foundation of a president who rose to power and was elected president in 2023 by attacking a political class he called corrupt.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An elusive hacker who went by the handle “UNKN” and ran the early Russian ransomware groups GandCrab and REvil now has a name and a face. Authorities in Germany say 31-year-old Russian Daniil Maksimovich Shchukin headed both cybercrime gangs and helped carry out at least 130 acts of computer sabotage and extortion against victims across the country between 2019 and 2021.

Shchukin was named as UNKN (a.k.a. UNKNOWN) in an advisory published by the German Federal Criminal Police (the “Bundeskriminalamt” or BKA for short). The BKA said Shchukin and another Russian — 43-year-old Anatoly Sergeevitsch Kravchuk — extorted nearly $2 million euros across two dozen cyberattacks that caused more than 35 million euros in total economic damage.

Germany’s BKA said Shchukin acted as the head of one of the largest worldwide operating ransomware groups GandCrab and REvil, which pioneered the practice of double extortion — charging victims once for a key needed to unlock hacked systems, and a separate payment in exchange for a promise not to publish stolen data.

Shchukin’s name appeared in a Feb. 2023 filing (PDF) from the U.S. Justice Department seeking the seizure of various cryptocurrency accounts associated with proceeds from the REvil ransomware gang’s activities. The government said the digital wallet tied to Shchukin contained more than $317,000 in ill-gotten cryptocurrency.

The GandCrab ransomware affiliate program first surfaced in January 2018, and paid enterprising hackers huge shares of the profits just for hacking into user accounts at major corporations. The GandCrab team would then try to expand that access, often siphoning vast amounts of sensitive and internal documents in the process. The malware’s curators shipped five major revisions to the GandCrab code, each corresponding with sneaky new features and bug fixes aimed at thwarting the efforts of computer security firms to stymie the spread of the malware.

On May 31, 2019, the GandCrab team announced the group was shutting down after extorting more than $2 billion from victims. “We are a living proof that you can do evil and get off scot-free,” GandCrab’s farewell address famously quipped. “We have proved that one can make a lifetime of money in one year. We have proved that you can become number one by general admission, not in your own conceit.”

The REvil ransomware affiliate program materialized around the same as GandCrab’s demise, fronted by a user named UNKNOWN who announced on a Russian cybercrime forum that he’d deposited $1 million in the forum’s escrow to show he meant business. By this time, many cybersecurity experts had concluded REvil was little more than a reorganization of GandCrab.

UNKNOWN also gave an interview to Dmitry Smilyanets, a former malicious hacker hired by Recorded Future, wherein UNKNOWN described a rags-to-riches tale unencumbered by ethics and morals.

“As a child, I scrounged through the trash heaps and smoked cigarette butts,” UNKNOWN told Recorded Future. “I walked 10 km one way to the school. I wore the same clothes for six months. In my youth, in a communal apartment, I didn’t eat for two or even three days. Now I am a millionaire.”

As described in The Ransomware Hunting Team by Renee Dudley and Daniel Golden, UNKNOWN and REvil reinvested significant earnings into improving their success and mirroring practices of legitimate businesses. The authors wrote:

“Just as a real-world manufacturer might hire other companies to handle logistics or web design, ransomware developers increasingly outsourced tasks beyond their purview, focusing instead on improving the quality of their ransomware. The higher quality ransomware—which, in many cases, the Hunting Team could not break—resulted in more and higher pay-outs from victims. The monumental payments enabled gangs to reinvest in their enterprises. They hired more specialists, and their success accelerated.”

“Criminals raced to join the booming ransomware economy. Underworld ancillary service providers sprouted or pivoted from other criminal work to meet developers’ demand for customized support. Partnering with gangs like GandCrab, ‘cryptor’ providers ensured ransomware could not be detected by standard anti-malware scanners. ‘Initial access brokerages’ specialized in stealing credentials and finding vulnerabilities in target networks, selling that access to ransomware operators and affiliates. Bitcoin “tumblers” offered discounts to gangs that used them as a preferred vendor for laundering ransom payments. Some contractors were open to working with any gang, while others entered exclusive partnerships.”

REvil would evolve into a feared “big-game-hunting” machine capable of extracting hefty extortion payments from victims, largely going after organizations with more than $100 million in annual revenues and fat new cyber insurance policies that were known to pay out.

Over the July 4, 2021 weekend in the United States, REvil hacked into and extorted Kaseya, a company that handled IT operations for more than 1,500 businesses, nonprofits and government agencies. The FBI would later announce they’d infiltrated the ransomware group’s servers prior to the Kaseya hack but couldn’t tip their hand at the time. REvil never recovered from that core compromise, or from the FBI’s release of a free decryption key for REvil victims who couldn’t or didn’t pay.

Shchukin is from Krasnodar, Russia and is thought to reside there, the BKA said.

“Based on the investigations so far, it is assumed that the wanted person is abroad, presumably in Russia,” the BKA advised. “Travel behaviour cannot be ruled out.”

There is little that connects Shchukin to UNKNOWN’s various accounts on the Russian crime forums. But a review of the Russian crime forums indexed by the cyber intelligence firm Intel 471 shows there is plenty connecting Shchukin to a hacker identity called “Ger0in” who operated large botnets and sold “installs” — allowing other cybercriminals to rapidly deploy malware of their choice to thousands of PCs in one go. However, Ger0in was only active between 2010 and 2011, well before UNKNOWN’s appearance as the REvil front man.

A review of the mugshots released by the BKA at the image comparison site Pimeyes found a match on this birthday celebration from 2023, which features a young man named Daniel wearing the same fancy watch as in the BKA photos.

Update, April 6, 12:06 p.m. ET: A reader forwarded this English-dubbed audio recording from a ccc.de (37C3) conference talk in Germany from 2023 that previously outed Shchukin as the REvil leader (Shchuckin is mentioned at around 24:25).

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget would slash the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s total by $707 million, according to a summary released Friday, which would deeply chop down an agency that already took a big hit in Trump’s first year.

Another budget document suggests a smaller — but still substantial — hit of $361 million, with the discrepancy possibly due to the comparison points amid budget uncertainty for CISA’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security. DHS and CISA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.

“At the time the Budget was prepared, the 2026 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security was not enacted, and funding provided by the last continuing resolution it had been operating under (Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026, division A of Public Law 119-37, as amended by division H of Public Law 119-75) had lapsed,” the budget summary notes. “References to 2026 spending in the text and tables for programs and activities normally provided for in the full-year appropriations bill reflect the annualized level provided by the last continuing resolution.”

By either measurement, the proposed budget would cut deeply into an agency that started the Trump administration at roughly $3 billion, and would be substantially below that if Congress enacts the latest blueprint. The budget appendix says CISA would end up with slightly more than $2 billion in discretionary funding under Trump’s plan. For fiscal 2026, appropriators sought to mitigate some of Trump’s proposed CISA reductions.

The 2027 budget summary recycles identical language from the 2026 budget summary, and makes references to ending programs that CISA has already shuttered.

“The Budget refocuses CISA on its core mission — Federal network defense and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure — while eliminating weaponization and waste,” the summary states in both the 2026 and 2027 documents.

It makes references to getting rid of things that have already been cut, like “external engagement offices such as council management, stakeholder engagement, and international affairs.” It talks about ending programs focused on censorship, something CISA under the Biden administration said it never had, and on “so-called” misinformation, which CISA said it ended during the former president’s term.

Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the budget proposal for CISA.

“Like the President’s cyber strategy, the President’s CISA budget reflects his utter lack of understanding of the urgency of the cyber threats we face and how to mobilize the government to help confront them,” he said in a statement to CyberScoop. “As of 2023, CISA was spending $2 million on countering information operations, an effort initially launched at the behest of Congressional Republicans during the first Trump Administration.

“There is nothing that justifies a reckless $700 million cut to CISA, particularly at a time of heightened tensions with Iran and an increasingly aggressive China,” he continued. “I am committed to working with my colleagues to push back against these cuts and ensure we can protect government and critical infrastructure networks.”

The post Trump budget proposal would cut hundreds of millions more from CISA appeared first on CyberScoop.

A Rome court ruled that several Netflix price hikes in Italy were unlawful because the company's contracts didn't adequately explain or justify future pricing changes. As a result, Netflix has been ordered to issue refunds that could total roughly 500 euros for some long-term subscribers. Ars Technica reports: The lawsuit was brought by Italian consumer advocacy group Movimento Consumatori, which alleged that the price hikes violate the Consumer Code, Italian legislation that aims to protect consumer rights. The Consumer Code says it's unlawful for a "professional to unilaterally modify the clauses of the contract, or the characteristics of the product or service to be provided, without a justified reason indicated in the contract itself," according to a Google-provided translation. The court's April 1 ruling determined that Netflix's contracts were required to explain in advance why prices or other terms might change in the future. Because the price hikes were found to be imposed without providing customers with valid justifications, the court ruled that the new prices are invalid and ordered Netflix to refund affected subscribers. This comes despite Netflix reportedly providing a 30-day advance notice of the higher fees and allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions to avoid price hikes. The court gave Netflix 90 days to inform millions of current and former customers via email, mail, its website, and Italian newspapers of their right to refunds or else face a penalty of 700 euros per day, Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore reported today. Per Italian law, price increases that Netflix has issued or will issue beyond April 2025 are legal. At that time, Netflix adjusted its terms to state that contract terms could one day change due to technological, security, or regulatory needs, to clarify clauses, or to provide changes to the service, Il Sole 24 Ore reported.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

schwit1 shares a report from the Kathmandu Post: In Nepal, helicopter rescue on high altitude is, by any measure, a genuine lifesaving operation. At high altitude, where oxygen thins and weather changes without warning, the ability to airlift a stricken trekker to Kathmandu within hours has saved countless lives. But threaded through that legitimate system, exploiting its urgency, its opacity, and its distance from oversight, is one of the most sophisticated insurance fraud networks in the world. Nepal's fake rescue scam is not new. The Kathmandu Post first exposed it in 2018. Months later, the government convened a fact-finding committee, produced a 700-page report, and announced reforms. In February 2019, The Kathmandu Post published a long investigative report. Last year, Nepal Police's Central Investigation Bureau reopened the file, and what they found is that the fraud did not stop -- instead it was growing. The mechanics of the fake rescue racket are straightforward: stage a medical emergency, call in a helicopter, check a tourist into a hospital, and file an insurance claim that bears little resemblance to what actually happened. But the sophistication lies in how each link in the chain is compensated, and how difficult it is for a foreign insurer -- operating from Australia and the United Kingdom -- to verify events that occurred at 3,000 metres in a remote Himalayan valley. The CIB investigation identifies two primary methods for manufacturing an "emergency." The first involves tourists who simply don't want to walk back. After completing a demanding trek -- an Everest Base Camp trek, for instance, can take up to two weeks on foot -- guides offer an alternative: pretend to be sick, and a helicopter will come. The guide handles the rest. The second method is more troubling. At altitudes above 3,000 meters, mild symptoms of altitude sickness are common. Blood oxygen saturation can drop, hands and feet tingle, headaches develop. In most cases, rest, hydration or a gradual descent is all that is needed. But guides and hotel staff, according to the CIB investigation, have been trained to terrify trekkers at precisely this moment. They tell them they are at risk of dying, that only immediate evacuation will save them. In some cases, investigators found that Diamox (Acetazolamide) tablets, used to prevent altitude sickness, were administered alongside excessive water intake to induce the very symptoms that would justify a rescue call. In at least one case cited in the investigation, baking powder was mixed into food to make tourists physically unwell. Once a "rescue" is called, the financial choreography begins. A single helicopter carries multiple passengers. But separate, full-price invoices are submitted to each passenger's insurance company, as if each had their own dedicated flight. A $4,000 charter becomes a $12,000 claim. Fake flight manifests and load sheets are fabricated. At the hospital, medical officers prepare discharge summaries using the digital signatures of senior doctors who were never involved in the case. In some cases, these are done without those doctors' knowledge. Fake admission records are created for tourists who were, in some documented instances, drinking beer in the hospital cafeteria at the time they were supposedly receiving treatment. In one case, an office assistant at Shreedhi Hospital admitted that he had provided his own X-ray report taken about a year ago at a different hospital, to be used as a case for treatment of foreign trekkers to claim insurance. The commission structure that holds the network together was described in detail during police interrogations. Hospitals pay 20 to 25 percent of the insurance payment to trekking companies and a further 20 to 25 percent to helicopter rescue operators in exchange for patient referrals. Trekking guides and their companies benefit from inflated invoices. In some cases, tourists themselves are offered cash incentives to participate.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Amazon will start charging sellers who use its shipping services a 3.5% "fuel and logistics" surcharge later this month, joining the ranks of shipping companies raising prices as the war in Iran pushes oil prices higher. The fees take effect on April 17 for customers of the company's Fulfillment by Amazon service -- which is used by many of the independent sellers who list their products on Amazon's retail sites -- in the US and Canada. Items shipped by Amazon on behalf of merchants who sell on their own sites or at other retailers will carry the surcharge beginning May 2. "Elevated costs in fuel and logistics have increased the cost of operating across the industry," Ashley Vanicek, an Amazon spokesperson, said on Thursday. "We have absorbed these increases so far, but similar to other major carriers, when costs remain elevated we implement temporary surcharges to partially recover these costs." Vanicek notes that the fee will apply to the sum Amazon charges to ship an item, not the product's sale price. Last month, USPS announced that it would impose its first-ever fuel surcharge on packages.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

AmiMoJo shares a report from Phoronix: Raspberry Pi prices are going up yet again due to the continued memory squeeze on the industry. To help offset the memory prices for some use-cases, Raspberry Pi also announced the introduction of the Raspberry Pi 4 3GB model at $83 to help fill the void between the 2GB and 4GB options. The 3GB Raspberry Pi 4 was announced at $83.75 USD for those not needing quite 4GB of RAM and looking to save some memory given the ongoing price increases. The Raspberry Pi 4 and Raspberry Pi 5 4GB models are seeing new $25 price increases, the 8GB models seeing $50 price increases, and the 16GB Raspberry Pi 5 is going up by $100. The Raspberry Pi 500+ is seeing a $150 price increase. The Raspberry Pi Compute Modules are also seeing increases from $11.25 to $100 USD.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: A global ban on taxing digital streaming and downloads across national borders expired on Monday, after members of the World Trade Organization concluded an annual meeting without agreeing to extend it. U.S. representatives had pushed to extend the ban, which prevents the more than 160 members of the W.T.O. from issuing duties related to e-commerce. But Brazil and Turkey blocked a motion for a longer extension. U.S. representatives excoriated the outcome as further proof of the organization's irrelevance. The W.T.O. provides a forum for trade negotiations and setting rules for global trade. But U.S. officials have long criticized the group for its failure to police unfair trade practices by countries like China. Over the past year, the Trump administration has further abandoned W.T.O. by issuing its own global framework of tariffs instead. [...] Brazil had pushed for a two-year extension of the moratorium on e-commerce duties, while the United States wanted a permanent one. The countries couldn't come to a compromise, but negotiations are set to continue in Geneva this spring. W.T.O. members also failed to reach an agreement on future reforms for the organization. Bernd Lange, the chair of the international trade committee for the European Parliament, wrote in a post on X that "supporters of the multilateral trading system are waking up with a hangover." "We knew that a breakthrough might not materialize, but that doesn't make it any less painful," he wrote, adding that "without an agreement to extend moratorium on digital tariffs, a period of great uncertainty could soon begin for businesses and consumers." Jonathan McHale, the vice president of digital trade at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, called the outcome "deeply disappointing." He said: "For more than two decades, W.T.O. members have recognized that imposing tariffs on electronic transmissions would be counterproductive, but allowed the issue to become a negotiating football."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

CERN has confirmed it will host an expanded version of Open Research Europe, the EU-backed fee-free open access publishing platform that works to "keep knowledge in public hands." Research Professional News reports: A little over a year ago, 10 European research organizations announced that they would add their support to Open Research Europe, to broaden eligibility beyond only those researchers funded by the EU research program. Earlier this year, RPN reported that this group had expanded further and that Cern was set to host the broadened version of ORE, currently provided by the publisher F1000. On March 26, Cern itself finally announced the news, saying it will "provide the technical and operational infrastructure" for the broader version. It said this will build on its "longstanding experience in developing and maintaining open science infrastructures and community-governed services." [...] In its own announcement, the Commission said ORE will have a budget of 17 million euros for 2026-31, with the EU providing 10 million euros. Since it launched five years ago, ORE has published more than 1,200 articles. Cern said the platform is "expected to support a growing number of research outputs each year." Last month, experts told RPN they thought uptake of the increased eligibility will depend on how the newly participating national organizations engage with their communities. Eleven members of Science Europe, a group of major research funding and performing organizations, are part of the expansion.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.