2026-04-29 21:01:22
Last week Apple fixed an issue that let the FBI forensically extract copies of incoming Signal messages from a defendant’s iPhone, even after the app had been deleted, because copies of those messages were stored in the iPhone’s notification database. The move comes directly in response to 404 Media’s coverage of a case in which the FBI was able to extract a suspect’s deleted Signal messages. Apple’s fix means iPhones should no longer save copies of deleted messages from Signal or other apps, and Apple said the patch also purges already saved and related notifications.
While Apple described the issue as a bug, it is one that the FBI has leveraged multiple times to recover the content of Signal messages, according to court records.
“We are very happy that today Apple issued a patch and a security advisory. This comes following 404 Media reporting that the FBI accessed Signal message notification content via iOS despite the app being deleted,” Signal posted on social media on April 22.
Apple’s advisory, which the company sent to 404 Media on the same day, is focused solely on the saved messages issue. It says, “A logging issue was addressed with improved data redaction.” In a follow-up email, Apple said it identified a bug that could cause iPhones to unexpectedly save notifications that were marked for deletion, and that the new patch also retroactively purges any of those saved notifications. Apple said it is the company’s policy to remove any associated notifications when a user has deleted an app.
The case 404 Media covered was related to the ICE Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, in which a group of people set off fireworks and vandalized property, and one person shot a police officer in the neck. It was the first time authorities charged people for alleged “Antifa” activities after President Trump designated the umbrella term a domestic terrorist organization in September.
404 Media spoke to two people who were present for the testimony of FBI Special Agent Clark Wiethorn during a related trial. They both said the FBI was able to recover incoming Signal messages; that was even though the user had deleted the Signal app from her phone. Harmony Schuerman, an attorney representing defendant Elizabeth Soto, shared notes she took with 404 Media. “They were able to capture these chats bc [because] of the way she had notifications set up on her phone—anytime a notification pops up on the lock screen, Apple stores it in the internal memory of the device,” she wrote in those notes.
A supporter of the defendants said, “We learned that specifically on iPhones, if one’s settings in the Signal app allow for message notifications and previews to show up on the lock screen, [then] the iPhone will internally store those notifications/message previews in the internal memory of the device.” 404 Media granted this person anonymity to protect them from retaliation.
404 Media also highlighted another case in which the FBI was able to recover incoming Signal messages saved in an iPhone’s notification database. A court record in that case included a long list of Signal messages, and said, “Phone notifications that captured incoming Signal messaging.” Some of those messages were several lines long, indicating that the iPhone’s notification database captured not just a small preview of incoming messages, but their entire content.
Signal’s social media post added: “Note that no action is needed for this fix to protect Signal users on iOS. Once you install the patch, all inadvertently-preserved notifications will be deleted and no forthcoming notifications will be preserved for deleted applications.”
“We’re grateful to Apple for the quick action here, and for understanding and acting on the stakes of this kind of issue. It takes an ecosystem to preserve the fundamental human right to private communication,” it concluded.
2026-04-29 20:56:30
This week, Jason explains the conspiracy theory circulating behind a trippy stock image that went viral after the White House Correspondents’ Dinner—was it sent here by a time traveler? (Spoiler: No.) Then Sam unpacks what’s happening at Arizona State University with a messy rollout of a new AI-powered tool that generates lessons by scraping professors’ lectures without their knowledge. In the second for subscribers at the Supporter level, Emanuel gets philosophical with a discussion about the question of machine consciousness and how it relates to a new paper from a Google-affiliated scientist.
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism.
If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.
University Professors Disturbed to Find Their Lectures Chopped Up and Turned Into AI Slop
2026-04-29 01:19:29
If you’ve ever visited a haunted house or a paranormal hotspot, you may have experienced a weird sense of unease that you couldn’t quite explain. While it’s tempting to imagine that these feelings signal the presence of ghosts or other supernatural entities, they may actually be caused by acoustic frequencies below 20 hertz, known as infrasound, according to a study published on Monday in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
The human ear is not tuned to pick up infrasound, yet a growing body of research has shown that exposure to these frequencies nonetheless causes negative feelings in humans and many other animals. Now, scientists have probed this mysterious link with a new experimental approach involving 36 volunteers who self-reported their moods while listening to various musical styles that sometimes included infrasound.
In addition, the volunteers provided saliva samples for measuring their cortisol levels, which provided empirical evidence that they were more stressed when exposed to infrasound. The results clearly demonstrate that “infrasound may be aversive to humans, acting as a potential environmental irritant and contributing to more negative subjective experience,” according to the study.
“A lot of the literature seemed to tackle either one side of the conversation or the other, where people are looking at surveys and doing interviews with people, or they're looking into the physiology,” said Kale Scatterty, a PhD student at the Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute at the University of Alberta who led the study, in a call with 404 Media. “We wanted to use this as a first step in combining those approaches to get a whole picture of exactly what was happening with this effect.”
“It was surprising and exciting to see a significant difference in cortisol when the infrasound was turned on,” added Trevor Hamilton, a professor of psychology at MacEwan University who co-authored the study, in the same call.
For decades, scientists have linked infrasound to negative effects on humans and many other animals, though it is still not known how humans pick up on these sounds, or why we might have evolved an aversion to this frequency range. Given that natural sources of infrasound include dangerous events like volcanic eruptions, landslides, avalanches, intense storms, or stampeding animals, researchers speculate that humans and other species may have learned to interpret infrasound as a warning sign for incoming disaster.
Becky Ferreira
But, you may be asking yourself, where do the ghosts come in? Infrasound is also produced by a wide range of human-caused noise pollution, such as industrial machinery, wind farms, air conditioning units, busy roads and railways, or military activity in war zones. For this reason, many scientists have wondered if locations that are considered haunted or cursed in some way may sometimes be polluted by infrasound.
Rodney Schmaltz, a co-author of the study and a professor of psychology at MacEwan University, even organizes classes around taking his students to paranormal hotspots, such as the haunted house Deadmonton, to search for scientifically-grounded explanations of their spooky allure. These fun field experiments revealed that playing infrasound at Deadmonton motivates visitors to move more rapidly through the house.
In the new study, the interdisciplinary team combined their expertise by recruiting 36 undergraduate psychology students at MacEwan University (27 women and nine men). Each participant sat in a room alone while calming or unsettling music was played, and gave saliva samples before and after their session. Half of the participants were exposed to infrasound at 18 hertz while listening to both types of music. The participants were asked to report their feelings, their emotional rating of the music, and whether they thought infrasound had been played in their session.
The participants couldn’t consciously tell whether infrasound was played, but the elevated cortisol levels in the exposed group suggests that some part of their brain picked up on the frequencies, regardless of the type of music that accompanied it. Unlike many past studies, this research didn’t link infrasound exposure to heightened anxiety, though the exposed group reported more irritability, less interest in the music, and a sense that the music was sadder with infrasound.
The sample size of 36 is relatively small due to budget constraints—salivary cortisol tests are not cheap—but Scatterty’s team hopes their study offers a roadmap toward similar experiments that aim to pinpoint the mechanisms that cause infrasound to raise our hackles.
Becky Ferreira
“We get very excited when we find something really positive like this, but for every single question we answer, we tend to have five more questions come up,” Scatterty said. “It's really hard to give any definitive answers. But for those who have curious minds, it's exciting to see where this kind of work could go. People who are interested in haunted houses and the paranormal might be having something to chew into here. People who are looking at the ecological side of things might interpret it as a noise pollutant for either humans or animals in nature.”
“It's really exciting for the potential it offers for future research,” he concluded.
2026-04-28 23:59:23
An AI-powered tool designed to target trademark violations on social media was used to silence critics of SXSW, the massive annual tech, music and film conference in Austin, Texas.
Each year in March, SXSW takes over Austin. This year, thanks to the demolition of the city’s aging convention center, events sprawled to more locations than usual, from hotel ballrooms to vacant lots. But the character of SXSW has changed, growing more corporate and less accessible since its relatively humble origins in 1987, and today it has numerous detractors. This year some of those dissenting voices found themselves targeted by BrandShield, a “digital risk protection” service that claims to use artificial intelligence to automate the process of identifying and removing social posts that misuse trademarks.
Among the groups to receive a social media takedown notice was Vocal Texas, a nonprofit dedicated to ending homelessness, HIV, poverty and the war on drugs. On March 12, members of the group set up a mock encampment in downtown Austin, to draw attention to the possessions that unhoused people can lose during “sweeps,” when police and city officials clear out and destroy or confiscate their tents and other lifesaving supplies.
An Instagram post by Vocal Texas read, “SXSW means unhoused Austinites in downtown face encampment sweeps, tickets and arrests while the City makes room for billionaires and corporations to rake in profits.” The accompanying image promised an art installation called “Sweep the Billionaires,” and does not use SXSW’s logos.
Even so, the mere mention of SXSW was apparently enough to flag BrandShield’s trademark detection service, resulting in the post’s fully automated removal from Instagram. Cara Gagliano, a senior staff attorney who specializes in trademark and intellectual property law at the Electronic Frontier Foundation said that posts like these do not violate SXSW’s trademark.
“You’re allowed to use a company’s name to talk about the company, right?” Gagliano told 404 Media. “How else are you going to do it?”
Gagliano noted that trademark law has specific carveouts for exactly this kind of critical speech. “Examples like that, where it's not (for example) advertising a concert with a name similar to South by Southwest ... are pretty clearly over-enforcement,” she said.
EFF interceded in March 2024 when the Austin for Palestine coalition received a cease and desist letter from SXSW, accusing them of infringing on the conference’s trademark and copyright. The coalition, which was involved with organizing successful protests against the festival’s sponsorship by the U.S. military, had made social media posts featuring SXSW’s trademarked arrow logo reimagined with bloodstains, fighter jets, and other warlike imagery. The EFF wrote a letter on the coalition’s behalf, and the group never heard from SXSW again.
But Gagliano explained that this situation is different from the takedown notices sent by BrandShield. “When it's a threat sent to ... the person who made the allegedly infringing use, them going away is a victory for the client because nothing bad happens to them, but when you have these takedowns ... [while] it's good that they didn't go even further and file a lawsuit, they also don't have any incentive to retract the complaint, and so the content stays down.”
This year, many of the protests and “counter events” were organized by a very loosely associated coalition of groups called Smash By Smash West, which included Vocal Texas along with many others, from musicians and independent movie directors to event venues.
404 Media reached a representative of Smash By Smash West via Signal who used the name “Burnice.” We agreed to protect their anonymity, but verified that they were involved with the organizing of Smash By events. Operating since 2024, Smash By has no leaders and essentially anyone can organize an event under its umbrella. This year, there were over 100 events, according to Burnice. “It is a decentralized call to action and a platform that enables promotion and connecting together all of these different events.”
Smash By Smash West provided us with dozens of screenshots of Instagram takedown notices as well as many of the posts which had been removed.
BrandShield’s software enables mass reporting of potentially infringing content, with reports in turn evaluated by Instagram’s automated moderation systems. Despite their obviously automated nature, BrandShield claims to use a “dedicated enforcement team of IP lawyers” to ensure that takedowns are “timely, targeted and fully compliant.”
The BrandShield website reads, “Whether it's a distorted logo, a counterfeit image, or a cloned storefront, our proprietary image recognition technology scans marketplaces, social media, paid media, and mobile environments to catch threats at the source.”
However, despite these assurances, it seems clear that BrandShield’s trademark targets with a very broad brush, and seems incapable of distinguishing between trademark violations and protected free speech. Although BrandShield initially connected us with their public relations department, they did not respond to repeated requests for comment including an emailed list of inquiries.
Instagram’s automatically generated takedown notices include the sentence, “If you think this content shouldn’t have been removed from Instagram, you can contact the complaining party directly to resolve your issue.” However, there is a link allowing the recipient to appeal the takedown, which then leaves it up to Instagram moderators’ discretion if it returns.
Gagliano explained that this is a crucial area where trademark differs from copyright law. Thanks to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), there’s a clear (though often arduous) path to contesting false claims of copyright violations which allows content creators to get their posts put back. There’s no similar, mandatory pathway written into trademark law. “There's no counter notice process where they say, ‘Okay, you told us this is fair use, so we'll put it back up.’ And that's a really frustrating thing,” Gagliano said.
Mathew Zuniga, who does most of the booking for Tiny Sounds Collective, an organization that throws free DIY music shows and publishes zines, said he struggled with the process offered by Instagram after a post about a Tiny Sounds’ Smash By concert was taken down.
“I tried to do it,” he said. “It didn't really go through.“
When he reposted the same image and text, but without tagging Smash By Smash West’s Instagram account as a collaborator, the post remained online.
“I think it’s silly, as if these DIY shows in a bookstore are pulling anyone away from South By,” Zuniga said. “I think it was more of a deliberate attempt to take down anti-South By Southwest rhetoric online.”
When reached for comment, SXSW’s PR team sent back a prepared statement, noting that the law requires them to “take reasonable steps” to enforce their trademarks.
“SXSW’s efforts are not intended to limit commentary, criticism, or independent reporting, and we respect the importance of free expression,” the spokesperson’s statement continued. “We use third-party services, including BrandShield, to help identify potential issues at scale, and we recognize that errors can occur."
By contrast, Burnice explained that, rather than trying to steal SXSW’s trademark, Smash By Smash West makes it a condition that participants can’t describe their events as free or alternative SXSW events. “Smash By ... was an attempt to politicize the DIY scene, the ‘unofficial’ South By shows, and make them explicitly anti-South By.”
Smash By provides alternative logos, some of which are wholly unique but others based on parodying or “detournements” of the SXSW logo, similar to what the Austin for Palestine coalition did in 2024. Burnice expressed their frustration with the automated nature of the quashing of dissent this year.
“All of that is actually just happening by robots talking to robots,” they said. “It's an AI system that mass reports these accounts, and then, you know, probably an AI system at Instagram that just sorts through, and approves or rejects.”
For her part, Gagliano expressed skepticism over whether artificial intelligence plays a major or important role at companies like BrandShield beyond just its current popularity as a tech buzzword. ”I haven't seen any kind of change in the volume of requests for help that we're getting, and this is one thing where I'm a little skeptical that it's really made much difference, because they were already using automated tools before, and I think in any instance, the tools are not going to be able to reliably determine what's actually infringement.”
2026-04-28 06:29:33
Arizona State University rolled out a platform called Atomic that creates AI-generated modules based on lectures taken from ASU faculty by cutting long videos down to very short clips then generating text and sections based on those clips.
Faculty and scholars I spoke to whose lectures are included in Atomic are disturbed by their lectures being used in this way—as out-of-context, extremely short clips some cases—and several said they felt blindsided or angered by the launch. Most say they weren’t notified by the school and found out through word of mouth. And the testing I and others did on Atomic showed academically weak and even inaccurate content. Not only did ASU allegedly not communicate to its academic community that their lectures would be spliced up and cannibalized by an AI platform, but the resulting modules are just bad.
AI in schools has been highly controversial, with experiments like the “AI-powered private school” Alpha School and AI agents that offer to live the life of a student for them, no learning required. In this case, the AI tool in question is created directly by a university, using the labor of its faculty—but without consulting that faculty.
2026-04-28 03:12:09
The number of pro se legal cases, meaning trials where a defendant or plaintiff represents themselves in court without an attorney, have increased dramatically since the wide adoption of generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude, according to a pre-print research paper.
The authors of the paper, titled “Access to Justice in the Age of AI: Evidence from U.S. Federal Courts,” which has yet to undergo peer review, argue more people are representing themselves in court because they’re able to use AI to do a lot of the work that previously required a lawyer. The authors, Anand Shah and Joshua Levy, also say that these pro se cases are “heavier,” meaning each case includes more motions that demand more work out of judges and the justice system. Overall, they argue, the use of AI tools and the increase in pro se cases could put a new burden on the courts.
“If generative AI dramatically lowers the cost of self-represented litigation, the resulting surge in filings could overwhelm a system that depends on human judgment at every stage of adjudication,” Shah and Levy say in the paper.
The paper draws on administrative records covering more than 4.5 million non-prisoner civil court cases between 2005 and 2026 and 46 million Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) docket entries matching those cases. It found the share of pro se cases was pretty stable at 11 percent until 2022, after LLMs like ChatGPT became widely used, at which point it started to rise sharply, up to 16.8 percent in 2025.
“This stability seems to reflect a structural barrier: for most people, self-representation is prohibitively hard,” the paper says. “Filing a federal civil complaint requires identifying the correct jurisdictional basis, pleading sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss, and navigating procedural requirements that vary by context and case type. The widespread, public diffusion of capable LLMs changes that calculus. Without a law degree and at de minimis cost, any person with an internet connection can not only obtain interactive, case-specific legal guidance—drafting complaints, identifying statutes, navigating procedure—but also generate passable legal documents, particularly so after the release of GPT-4 in March 2023.”
The researchers note that the paper is necessarily descriptive, meaning it assumes the rise is due the the prevalence of AI tools, but does not link individual cases to individual LLMs. “We do not claim to identify a causal effect of GPT-4 on pro se filing, only that the observed time series is difficult to rationalize without generative AI playing a role,” the paper says.
To support their argument, the researchers also used a random sample of 1,600 complaints drawn from the eight year period between 2019 (prior to the prevalence of generative AI) and 2026 which they ran through the AI detection software Pangram. They found a rise from "essentially zero” in the pre-AI period to more than 18 percent in 2026.
Notably, it’s not just that there are more pro se cases, but that the “intra-case activity” for those cases, meaning the total volume of activity in those cases as measured by docket entries—filings, motions—are up by 158 percent from the pre-AI period. This means the workload for courts could be even higher that it appears based on the rise in pro se cases alone.
The paper also found that the post-AI rise in self-representation is mostly coming from plaintiffs as opposed to defendants, meaning people are mostly using AI to file complaints rather than respond to them. “Plaintiff-side pro se case counts averaged 19,705 per year from FY2015 to FY2022 and reach 39,167 in FY2025, nearly doubling,” the paper says. “Defendant-side pro se counts fall slightly over the same window, from 4,650 to 3,896.”
“Imagine that you have just a latent level of complaints that could exist in the world, people are constantly getting hurt at work whatever it happens to be,” Levy told me on a call. “But that distribution of potential cases is sort of unchanged over time. But what LLM allowed people to do was it lowered the cost of entry to the courts. Basically, it made it much easier to file many templatable complaints.”
On the one hand, the increase in the number of cases is good because it potentially gives more people with legitimate grievances access to the justice system that they didn’t have previously. On the other hand, a dramatic increase like this could burden the system and make all cases, not just AI-enabled pro se cases, take longer to resolve
“Whether or not it's a net social benefit is an open question,” Levy said. “But if we remain democratically committed to people having access to the courts as a matter of course then we think that the LLMs have this trade-off. The door to the courts opens wider but maybe the queue to enter gets longer.”
Anecdotally, when we were writing an article about lawyers getting caught using AI in court, we decided to not include pro se cases because there were so many, and to focus only on cases in which actual lawyers were caught using AI. The database we used for that article currently contains 1,353 cases; 804 of them are from pro se cases.
To handle this surge in demand for the Federal courts, Federal courts have to somehow increase its supply, or the courts’ capacity to take on cases. Unfortunately, as the paper notes, “there is no easy margin along which to ‘buy’ extra judge capacity. Already case backlog is becoming a persistent feature of the federal judicial system, there is no coming influx of judges to supply additional capacity, and federal courts in the United States cannot wholesale decline to hear cases.”
Levy suggested that one possible solution is to allow judges to use AI tools to do some of their “templatable” work as well, while still ensuring that human judges do the actual judging.
We’ve covered many instances of lawyers getting caught using AI in court, often because the AI hallucinated a citation of a case that didn’t actually exist. Judges are pretty mad when this happens and have issued fines for this behavior several times.