YunoBlog

Author: tio

  • Anna’s Archive Hit With $19.5m Default Judgment and Global Domain Takedown Order

    Anna’s Archive Hit With $19.5m Default Judgment and Global Domain Takedown Order

    Earlier this month, a group of high-profile publishers, including Penguin Random House, Elsevier, and HarperCollins, asked a federal court in New York for a broad default judgment against Anna’s Archive.

    The publishers argued that, in addition to sharing pirated books with the public, the shadow library is serving as a primary training data hub for AI companies like Meta and NVIDIA.

    Because the site’s operators failed to show up in court to defend themselves, the publishers requested the court to rule in their favor.

    Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff signed a default judgment granting the publishers exactly what they asked for. This includes a multi-million-dollar damages award and a far-reaching technical injunction to take out the site’s surviving domain names.

    A $19.5 Million Paper Victory

    At first glance, the damages award is the headline figure. Judge Rakoff granted the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 for each of the 130 “Works in Suit”.

    This brings the final damages bill amount to a staggering $19,500,000. However, as with the $322 million judgment won by the music industry against Anna’s Archive in the related Spotify case, it’s highly unlikely that this money will be recouped.

    $19,500,000

    default granted

    For now, the operators of Anna’s Archive remain strictly anonymous, which doesn’t help either. The default judgment addresses this and requires the operators to unmask their identities and provide a sworn statement with valid contact information to the court within 10 days.

    However, since the operators have previously stated they hide their identities to avoid “decades of prison time,” it is safe to assume that the operators will simply ignore this request.

    Targeting Global Intermediaries

    The true power of this default judgment lies in the permanent injunction. Anna’s Archive is known to evade enforcement and change domain names when needed, so the injunction targets the technical intermediaries that keep the site online.

    Specifically, the injunction orders “all domain name registries and registrars of record” to permanently disable access to Anna’s Archive’s domains and prevent their transfer to anyone other than the publishers or the music industry plaintiffs in the related case.

    In addition to domain name services, the order also extends to international hosting providers, who are also ordered to stop working with the site.

    Leaving no room for interpretation, the order specifically names more than twenty companies and organizations. This includes familiar names like Cloudflare, Njalla, and DDOS-Guard, as well as the domain name registries of the site’s current active domains:

    – TELE Greenland/Tusass (managing the .gl domain)

    – PKNIC (managing the .pk domain)

    – National Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (managing Grenada’s .gd domain)

    The names include some intermediaries that were already listed in the Spotify default judgment, as well as new ones.

    Named intermediaries

    named intermediaries

    Unlike the Spotify scrape, which Anna’s Archive removed after the music industry’s lawsuit, the publishers’ books remain actively available on the site. That distinction may make this injunction harder for intermediaries to ignore.

    The injunction will be most effective against American companies that are subject to the jurisdiction of the New York federal court. That includes Cloudflare and OwnRegistrar, among others.

    However, most of the intermediaries are foreign entities. Whether they voluntarily comply with a U.S. court order remains to be seen. While some foreign companies have taken action following U.S. injunctions, others have historically ignored them, citing a lack of local jurisdiction.

    For now, however, the publishers have gotten everything they asked for from the court, which gives them a chance to take action against the shadow library’s current setup. If history is any indicator, Anna’s Archive will likely have a new batch of backup domains ready to deploy.

    At the time of writing, Anna’s Archive’s three domain names remain active and online.

    —

    A copy of the default judgment, signed by Judge Rakoff on May 19, 2026, is available here (pdf).

    From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

  • How philanthropy is helping promising cancer treatments reach clinical trials sooner

  • Dr. Margaret Connolly: “Irish People Are Behind the Palestinian Cause”

    Dr. Margaret Connolly: “Irish People Are Behind the Palestinian Cause”

    Dr. Margaret Connolly is a humanitarian activist with the newest version of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which has been sailing to Gaza in an attempt to deliver food and medical aid to besieged Palestinian civilians since April 10. Over the past two days, the Israeli military intercepted the entire flotilla, boarding its vessels approximately 250 nautical miles from the coast of Gaza in a blatant act of piracy. Dr. Connolly, along with many other volunteers from around the world, is now a political prisoner in Israeli custody. Coincidentally, she is also the sister of Ireland’s President Catherine Connolly, who says she is “very proud” of her sibling.

  • Microsoft Took a Step Toward Human Rights Accountability. Google and Amazon (and Others) Should Pay Attention!

    For years, civil society organizations, workers, journalists, and human rights experts have warned that major technology companies risk enabling grave human rights abuses when they provide cloud computing, AI, and surveillance infrastructure to governments implicated in violations of international and humanitarian law. While many companies pay lip service to evaluating customers and contracts for human rights implications (lip service Exhibit A: Palantir!), too often those processes fail to provide any meaningful accountability when their standards are not met or are simply ignored. But recent developments at Microsoft suggest that accountability for failing to uphold the human rights standards that a company itself sets, even if incomplete, is possible. 

    According to recent reporting, Microsoft’s Israel chief has departed amid an escalating ethical controversy surrounding the company’s business relationships with the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The move follows months of scrutiny, internal dissent, and sustained pressure from inside the organization along with press and civil society, especially after a report by The Guardian revealed that Microsoft technologies were used in systems connected to mass surveillance and military targeting operations in Gaza in ways that appeared to violate Microsoft’s own standards. This did not happen overnight.

    In September 2025, Microsoft reportedly suspended certain services after initial investigations raised serious concerns about how its cloud and AI infrastructure may have been used. That alone distinguished Microsoft from many of its peers. Rather than simply dismissing mounting concerns or hiding behind vague claims of neutrality, Microsoft appeared to recognize that providing technology in conflict settings creates real human rights responsibilities. Now, after additional investigation and continued public scrutiny, it appears the company has taken another step, one that should send a strong signal to others that violating Microsoft’s human rights commitments could cost you your job. This is important. 

    There is still much more Microsoft should do, of course. The company has yet to fully disclose the scope of its findings, explain exactly which services were suspended, or clarify what safeguards remain in place to prevent its technologies from contributing to human rights abuses in the future. We shouldn’t have to infer the connection between this employment action and the company’s investigation. 

    Just prior to reports that Microsoft had fired its Israel Country General Manager, EFF joined Access Now, Amnesty International, Fight for the Future, and 7amleh in a joint May 7, 2026 letter to Microsoft leadership calling on the company to publicly release the findings of its investigation, suspend business relationships tied to serious human rights abuses, and implement meaningful safeguards to prevent its technologies from contributing to further harm. The letter detailed allegations regarding Microsoft’s reported provision of Azure cloud and AI services to Israeli military and intelligence units involved in surveillance and targeting operations, while also pressing the company to take concrete human rights due diligence measures going forward. Those demands remain urgent, even as Microsoft appears to be taking some of the steps we urged.

    But even as we push for more, it is important to recognize when a company takes steps in the right direction. Because this is what it means to put human rights commitments into practice. It means acknowledging that human rights policies are not just branding exercises or transparency reports. It means accepting that companies providing cloud infrastructure and AI services have responsibilities when credible evidence emerges that their technologies may be enabling violations of international law. And it means taking concrete action when those risks become known.

    The allegations facing Microsoft are serious. Human rights organizations and investigative reporting have documented claims that Microsoft Azure services were used by Israeli military and intelligence units to process large-scale surveillance data, support AI-assisted targeting systems, and sustain military cloud infrastructure during the war in Gaza. The concerns raised extend beyond ordinary business risk; they implicate potential complicity in violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

    Faced with these allegations, Microsoft could have chosen the path many tech companies take: deny everything, attack critics, suppress worker dissent, and continue business as usual. Instead, the company appears to have begun responding to the evidence.

    Technology companies are not powerless bystanders. Cloud providers and AI companies make choices every day about who gets access to their infrastructure, under what conditions, and with what oversight. When companies claim to uphold human rights principles, those commitments should have operational consequences. Too many companies, in both international and domestic policing contexts, provide technology to institutions that violate people’s human rights and civil liberties, then fall back on the claim that they are merely providing a service that their customers can use how they see fit. This is an ethical failing that falls short of most companies’ publicly expressed commitments. Microsoft’s recent actions suggest that sustained public pressure, worker organizing, investigative journalism, and civil society advocacy can force even the world’s largest technology companies to respond.

    Google and Amazon should especially see this as a clear example to follow. Both companies also provide services to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and have faced years of criticism over those contracts and services, including from EFF. Yet neither has demonstrated the level of responsiveness or accountability that Microsoft has shown. If Microsoft can suspend services, investigate allegations, and make leadership changes amid mounting evidence and ethical concerns, then other cloud giants can no longer pretend that meaningful action is impossible.

    The technology industry has spent years insisting that ethics and human rights matter. The real test has always been whether those principles survive when profits, government contracts, and geopolitical pressure are on the line. Microsoft’s recent steps are not the end of that story, but they may mark the beginning of what real accountability can look like.

    We’re looking at you, Amazon and Google. If Microsoft can do it, why can’t you?

  • Why Democrats Need to Fight the Crypto Industry

    Why Democrats Need to Fight the Crypto Industry

    Let’s be brutally honest. At this point, nearly two decades in, there are still no—I repeat, no—significant legal use cases for cryptocurrency. Bitcoin, the supposed genesis of this revolution, was conjured in 2008. In tech years, that’s practically prehistoric—barely younger than the iPhone, positively ancient compared to Apple Pay. For 17 agonizing years, crypto advocates have shrieked from the rooftops that blockchain tokens will imminently displace conventional finance with widespread legal use cases. “Any day now,” they crow. Yet “any day” stubbornly refuses to arrive.

  • EU Prosecutor Investigates €3.5 Million Farm Subsidy Fraud in Romania

    European prosecutors are investigating 22 individuals over alleged subsidy fraud involving non-repayable EU funds meant to support small farms and young farmers in Romania, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) stated.

    The probe centers on an authorized consultant suspected of submitting false and inaccurate documents for 237 funding applications. While the total value of the requested funding amounted to approximately 5.7 million euros ($6.6 million), the EPPO estimates the actual damage to the EU budget at roughly 3.5 million euros ($4 million).

    The funding was requested from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, a program designed to support the establishment of young farmers and the development of small farms. According to the EPPO, the consultant—the primary suspect—was arrested following searches on May 13. Three other individuals have been indicted and placed under judicial control.

  • Review Confirms Telegram Tracking Vulnerability

    An independent cybersecurity review has confirmed a critical Telegram vulnerability previously reported by OCCRP and its Russian partner Important Stories, finding that the messaging app exposes persistent device identifiers that could allow users to be tracked across networks and locations.

    The review, conducted by Symbolic Software and obtained by Important Stories, found that Telegram clients transmit messages in a way that exposes an identifier known as ‘auth_key_id’ in cleartext or in a form that can be easily deobfuscated. The identifier remains stable across sessions, IP address changes, network switches, and geographic locations.

    That means an internet service provider, network administrator, state surveillance system, or other actor with passive access to Telegram traffic could collect the identifiers without breaking encryption, intercepting certificates, or actively manipulating the connection.

    The experts said such access could allow an observer to build a database linking specific devices to network locations, timestamps, and traffic patterns. If the user’s identity is known through other means, the same data could be used to track that person’s device over time.

    In 2025 the investigation by OCCRP and IStories found that Russian network engineer Vladimir Vedeneev had served as Telegram’s chief financial officer, had power of attorney to sign documents on behalf of Telegram and founder Pavel Durov, and operated companies with links to Russian state and security-linked clients, including the FSB.

    Vedeneev himself acknowledged having an FSB handler and responding to security service requests involving Russian internet users. Vedeneev has denied that the vulnerability described by reporters exists and said he does not provide Telegram data to the FSB.

    Telegram rejected the latest conclusions. In a response to Important Stories, the company said the ‘auth_key_id’ parameter changes regularly and does not reveal user information, message contents, recipients, or private data. Telegram also said its infrastructure is managed exclusively by its internal engineering teams and denied that Vedeneev or his company GNM are connected to the FSB.

  • Spain’s Former PM Investigated in Airline Bailout Probe

    Former Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is under investigation for influence peddling and potential money laundering in connection with a government airline bailout, a court spokesperson confirmed to OCCRP Tuesday. 

    Zapatero, a socialist who led the country from 2004 to 2011, has been summoned to testify before Spain’s National Court on June 2. The summons makes him the first Spanish prime minister since the country’s return to democracy to face a formal corruption probe.

    The accusation stems from an investigation into the alleged misuse of 53 million euros ($61.52 million) spent by the Spanish government for the financial bailout of the airline Plus Ultra. 

    The National Court, which specializes in organized crime and major corruption cases, launched the investigation after receiving judicial requests from authorities in France and Switzerland indicating the rescue funds were likely used to launder money embezzled from Venezuela.

    Court documents accuse Zapatero of being the alleged leader of “a stable and hierarchical influence-peddling structure” whose purpose was “to obtain economic benefits through intermediation and the exercise of influence before public bodies in favor of third parties.”

    According to the presiding judge, José Luis Calama, the scheme involved shell companies, falsified documents, and opaque financial channels “to exert illicit influence, conceal the origin and destination of funds, and obtain economic benefits for third parties and the network itself.”

    The judge stated that the investigation confirmed the existence of “an organized network of illicit influence peddling, structurally organized and led by…Zapatero,” who allegedly used his personal contacts and access to high-ranking government officials to benefit third parties seeking favorable decisions.

    The influence peddling was not aimed at securing general favorable treatment, Calama added, but was specifically directed at achieving a specific administrative resolution: the approval and disbursement of the public aid for Plus Ultra through a state Solvency Support Fund established after the COVID-19 pandemic. 

    A timeline of meetings, contacts, and communications—including early access to privileged information about the imminent granting bailout—demonstrates the network acted with the explicit intent to sway the government’s decision, according to the judge.

    The investigation also uncovered financial kickbacks channeled through a corporate network controlled by Julio Martínez Martínez, a personal friend of the former prime minister and owner of the company Analisis Relevante. The funds were allegedly moved via ad hoc consulting contracts and direct and indirect payments from Plus Ultra and related companies.

    Zapatero allegedly received 600.000 euros ($696,169) for consulting work provided to Analisis Relevante. Police suspect a portion of the funds paid to the former prime minister was routed through his daughter’s company, Whathefav SL.

    According to Calama, this provides significant evidence of a direct link between the influence peddling and the intended financial gain. The use of shell companies, such as Caletón Consultores and Summer Wind, to triangulate payments using frontmen reinforces the existence of a structure designed to hide the money trail, the judge added.

    Spanish media reported that economic crime police were actively searching the former prime minister’s office, as well as the Whathefav SL headquarters. 

    Zapatero released a video statement denying the accusations against him.

    “All my public and private activities have always been conducted with absolute respect for the law,” he said and added that his income and compensation have always been declared “with absolute transparency and legality.”

    “I have never conducted any business with any public administration or the public sector regarding the Plus Ultra bailout, nor with any other administration,” he said.

    Current Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez quickly rallied to his defense, sending a message to the Socialist Party’s Federal Executive Committee that urged members to “defend the good name” of his predecessor.

    Government spokesperson Elma Saiz also defended Zapatero’s political legacy and called for his presumption of innocence to be respected. Meanwhile, the Socialist Party formally denounced the allegations, describing the situation as a “judicial persecution” targeting both the former leader and the broader organization.

  • EU Eases Sanctions on Syrian State Institutions but Keeps Squeeze on Assad-Era Tycoons

    The E.U. on Monday removed seven Syrian entities from its blacklist, including the country’s defense and interior ministries, as part of a broader easing of measures, a move it said is designed to “support the strengthening of the EU’s engagement with Syria.”

    The delisted entities represent pillars of the Syrian state apparatus that are now under the control of the new transitional government and include the defense and interior ministries as well as three intelligence agencies and an institute for science and technology.

    The easing of these institutional restrictions is the latest in a series of diplomatic thaws following the December 2025 overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and the installation of a transitional government led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa. Just last week, the bloc restored formal trade ties with Damascus, terminating the partial suspension of a long-frozen cooperation agreement. The Council noted that the restoration of trade sends a “clear political signal of the EU’s commitment to re-engage with Syria and support its economic recovery.”

    While the institutional slate is being wiped clean to aid the transitional government, the European Council warned that the shadow of the Assad era still looms over the country’s fragile recovery.

    The Council extended sanctions against 11 individuals deeply linked to the former government until June 1, 2027. These figures include Assad-era oligarchs Mohammad Hamcho and Samer Foz, who are accused of exploiting the country’s brutal, decade-long civil war for personal enrichment.

    Hamcho, who has also been sanctioned by the U.S. since 2011 and is blacklisted by the U.K., is accused of trading rubble from bombed civilian neighborhoods. He allegedly served as a prominent financial front for Maher al-Assad, the former president’s brother and the ex-commander of the elite Fourth Armored Division, which has been heavily linked to Syria’s notorious multi-billion-dollar Captagon drug trade.

    In justifying the extension, the Council struck a balance between optimism for Syria’s future and pragmatism regarding its present vulnerabilities.

    “While the Council acknowledges the progress made by the Syrian Transitional Authorities, state institutions are still on a path of consolidation,” the Council’s statement read. “The risk of undermining that process posed by leading businesspersons linked to the former al-Assad regime has yet to be fully addressed.”

    European officials warned that these oligarchs have amassed substantial wealth and power, maintaining networks that pose a direct threat to the country’s democratic stabilization. Because of these enduring ties, the Council noted, “those individuals carry an inherent risk of violent repression of the civil society and the peaceful transition in Syria.”

    “In light of the ongoing process of transitional justice, the Council should maintain its cautious approach,” the statement concluded, “ensuring continuous support for an inclusive transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”

    The EU previously lifted its broader economic sanctions on Syria in May 2025, while maintaining targeted security measures and restrictions against members of the former Assad administration.

  • Your Privacy Shouldn’t Be A Corporate Decision

    “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.”-Meta Internal Document on face recognition software for smart glasses, 2025

    It’s unsurprising that a company would plan to release yet another privacy-invasive product. What is surprising is that they think we aren’t watching. You can help us keep them in check.

    JOIN EFF

    Meta isn’t the only company actively eroding your privacy. We found that Google has broken its promise to some users to inform them about government surveillance. And Palantir is completely failing to live up to its purported human rights commitments.

    Corporations bear responsibility for violating user trust and human rights, and EFF is holding them accountable with your support.

    Watching the Watchers

    We’re suing DHS and ICE to reveal their efforts to unmask online critics, creating privacy-enhancing free software, and pushing for stronger privacy laws for everyone. This is all thanks to over 30,000 EFF members—a community you can join today.

    Claw back your privacy with EFF’s new member t-shirt!

    We’ve seen collective action rein in companies and bring them back on track to protect users. With you by our side, we can do it again.

    Join EFF today and be part of the community making this work possible.

    ____________________

    EFF is a member-supported U.S. 501(c)(3) organization. We’ve received top ratings from the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator since 2013! Your donation is tax-deductible as allowed by law.