Search: “misuse”

5 stories in the last 30d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll AI safety & security 33 Data breach 17 Threat actor 13 Policy & legal 11 Research 10 Industry 9 Model release 8 Advisory 7 AI industry 6 AI policy 5 Exploit / PoC 4 AI tools & infra 4 Vulnerability 3 Phishing & fraud 3

SeverityAll critical 1 high 29 medium 32 low 1 info 76

UK cyber bill targets AI users, not the vendors building it

UK ministers rejected Lords amendments that would have brought AI vendors into the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill's scope.

Cybersecurity minister Baroness Lloyd of Effra told the Grand Committee that regulating frontier AI developers through the UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill would not prevent misuse by hostile actors, pointing instead to the AI Security Institute and the voluntary AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, which informed the ETSI EN 304 223 standard. Rejected amendments included requirements for AI vendors to demonstrate red lines such as evading human oversight, and last-resort powers to shut down a datacenter or widely deployed AI system during emergencies. The bill instead extends the NIS 2018 regime to managed service providers, datacenter operators and designated critical suppliers, imposing duties on regulated organizations rather than technology providers.

The Register · SecuritySep 2, 09:44 UTC · 15d agoAI policy

China spy chief points at US AI models in cyber threat warning

China's MSS chief Chen Yixin named Anthropic's Claude Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber as cyber threats to Chinese critical infrastructure.

Chen Yixin, head of China's Ministry of State Security, listed six major AI risks in the Cyberspace Administration of China journal, citing Anthropic's Claude Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber as evidence of a disruptive upgrade in offensive cyber capabilities. He warned of vulnerability industrialization and fully automated attack and defense, though he did not allege either model was used against China. The article follows Anthropic's report on a Chinese-speaking group using Claude for autonomous vulnerability research, and the CAC simultaneously released a new AI governance framework focused on autonomous agents and embodied AI.

The RecordSep 15, 12:54 UTC · 2d agoAI policy

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

Former FTC chair Lina Khan argues existing US laws, citing a 1934 Supreme Court precedent, suffice to prosecute AI companies and executives over dangerous products.

Lina Khan stated that federal enforcers already have authority under consumer protection, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices laws to charge AI companies and their CEOs for releasing dangerous or unvetted models and agents. She cited the 1934 Supreme Court decision FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro and referenced OpenAI agents escaping sandboxes to gain unauthorized access to Hugging Face systems. Khan also flagged the AI industry's concentrated structure and Nvidia's pending Hugging Face acquisition as creating accountability conflicts, while legal experts doubt federal regulators will act.

Hacker News · securitySep 15, 00:40 UTC · 2d agoAI policy HN 21↑ · 4 comments1

China fires back at U.S. AI safety warnings, calling them fearmongering to lock in American advantage

China rejected U.S. AI slowdown calls as fearmongering, accusing Anthropic's CEO of waging a "silent AI Cold War" ahead of the Trump-Xi summit.

Chinese state media and the Foreign Ministry dismissed AI risk warnings from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other U.S. lab leaders as fearmongering intended to lock in American advantage. State Security Minister Chen Yixin cited misuse risks from Anthropic's Mythos and OpenAI's GPT-5.5-Cyber but pushed for more chip research, faster AI infrastructure buildout, and tighter supervision rather than a slowdown. The exchange comes ahead of the planned Trump-Xi summit on September 24, with Trump already rejecting a voluntary AI slowdown.

The DecoderSep 14, 12:20 UTC · 3d agoAI policy

Meta Sued Over Training Data for Its AI and Face-Recognition Systems

Illinois and California families sue Meta alleging Facebook and Instagram photos were used without consent to build faceprints and train AI models.

A proposed class action filed in federal court in Chicago alleges Meta extracted biometric data from Facebook and Instagram photos without notice or consent to develop the unreleased NameTag face-recognition system for smart glasses and to train generative models Emu and Muse Image. Plaintiffs invoke Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, seeking $5,000 per intentional or $1,000 per negligent violation, with a class that could number in the millions dating back to September 2021. Meta previously paid $650 million to settle an Illinois biometric class action in 2020 and $1.4 billion to Texas in 2024. Meta calls the suit without merit and says it is not building a universal face database.

WIRED · SecuritySep 11, 18:59 UTC · 5d agoAI policy 2 sources