All posts tagged "amy klobuchar"

'You're under oath!' Senator confronts Kash Patel with his own words about 'deep state'

Sen. Amy Klobuchar reminded FBI Director nominee Kash Patel he was under oath when he said he was unable to recall statements he made about enemies in the 'deep state.'

"Is Bill Barr on your list, of whatever you want to call them — what has been referred to as an enemies list? You have called them 'deep state' — after serving his country as the attorney general of the United States. Is he on your list because of a personal vendetta?" Klobuchar asked.

"Well, it's not 'whatever we want to call it.' It is not an enemies list. That is a mischaracterization," Patel shot back.

"I actually used the words you used for the list, which was 'deep state,' right? Against the attorney general of the United States," Klobuchar said. "Is it because of a personal vendetta that he is on the list? You're under oath!"

"I have no personal vendetta against Bill Barr," Patel said.

ALSO READ: Top GOPer's ‘most immediate’ priority for new committee includes probing a MAGA conspiracy

Toward the end of the first round of questioning, Klobuchar grew animated when she couldn't get an answer to her deep state question and Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) tried to move on.

"Did you say the FBI headquarters should be shut down and reopened as a museum of the deep state?" Klobuchar asked.

"Mr. Chairman, are we allowed to go on extra time?" Patel asked Grassley.

"Let's see, you get a second round," Grassley said. "Before I call on Senator — "

Klobuchar interrupted and banged on the table, "Could he just answer the question, if he said the FBI headquarters where they investigate cyber crime and terrorism should shut down and open as a museum? Did he say that the headquarters should be shut down? I deserve an answer to that question! He is asking to be head of the FBI and he said their headquarters should be shut down!"

"You got anything you want to say, Mr. Patel before I go on to Senator Lee?" Grassley asked.

Patel went on to call the accusations against him "grotesquely unfair," prompting Klobuchar to explode.

"Mr. chairman, I am quoting his own words from September of 2024. It is his own words! It is not some conspiracy. It is what Mr. Patel actually said himself! Facts matter!"

Watch the clip below via C-SPAN3 or click the link.

EXCLUSIVE: Congress raids presidential campaign fund in surprise reversal

Congress quietly drained hundreds of millions of dollars from a largely unused presidential campaign fund to provide a jolt of cash to the United States Secret Service and election security grants, Raw Story has confirmed.

The massive raid of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was included late last week in Congress’ latest government funding package, which President Joe Biden signed into law.

Raw Story could not confirm which member, or members, of Congress are responsible for inserting language in the middle of the 1,012-page bill that tapped the fund to the tune of $375 million.

But the ramifications are clear: The Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which publicly funded White House aspirants’ campaigns from the 1970s to late 2000s, will now provide $320 million to the Secret Service and $55 million for election security grants as a part of the $1.2 trillion funding package that averted a partial government shutdown, according to a Raw Story review of legislation.

The $320 million will be directed to “operations and support” for the U.S. Secret Service, according to the legislation, which provided 11th-hour funding to major government departments through September.

RELATED ARTICLE: Unused government election fund brings in another $1.3 million

The Secret Service, which provides security for the president, vice president (and such candidates), along with foreign heads of state, can use the funds for a variety of purposes — from purchasing vehicles to overtime pay to travel accommodations. Former President Donald Trump, in particular, has refused to reimburse local law enforcement at his presidential campaign rallies, and the Secret Service has previously stated that it cannot reimburse municipal governments for these public safety costs because it hasn't received money from Congress to do so.

The Secret Service acknowledged questions sent by Raw Story, including those about how the agency would use its new funding windfall. But, it did not respond by the time of publication.

The $55 million designated for “election security grants” will be distributed to states within 45 days by the Election Assistance Commission to “improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements,” the bill said.

The Election Assistance Commission, a small federal agency that has faced threats by congressional Republicans to its very existence, has experienced drastically dwindling federal funds since 2018, according to Votebeat, who first reported on the use of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund for Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) grants given to states.

Benjamin Hovland, chairman of the Election Assistance Commission told Raw Story that federal funding for HAVA grants was $380 million in fiscal year 2018, $425 million in fiscal year 2020, $75 million in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, and now $55 million for fiscal year 2024.

“When you look at that number, that's less than we've seen in recent years, but I think that one of the things that is important about it is that it shows continued federal investment into election security and election administration,” Hovland told Raw Story in a phone interview. “We regularly hear from election administrators about the need for additional federal funds and then we hear about the need for consistent federal funds.”

The grants have been used by states to update voting equipment, create cybersecurity training programs, enhance physical security “to protect our election officials from physical threats” and to combat artificial intelligence disinformation, Hovland said.

The latest balance of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund was just over $404 million as of Feb. 28, according to figures from the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Election Commission has not approved matching funds for any 2024 presidential candidates, said Myles Martin, a spokesperson for the Federal Election Commission.

“The Commission will continue to evaluate submissions for either primary matching funds or general election funding for candidates who choose to apply for them, as well as continue to provide updates on the balance of the fund, which are received on a monthly basis from the Department of the Treasury,” Martin said.

The United States Treasury did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment. The Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Services acknowledged Raw Story’s questions but did not respond by the time of publication.

‘Modernized, not gutted’

Thank then-candidate Barack Obama for effectively rendering the Presidential Election Campaign Fund obsolete when he opted out of using it during the 2008 presidential election.

While the fund showered presidential candidates with public money, it also placed restrictions on how much they could raise overall — restrictions that Obama initially said he’d accept before changing his mind.

Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, accepted money from the fund. He was the last major party presidential nominee to do so.

Sen. John McCain was the last major presidential candidate to take public matching funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. (AFP Photo/Chip Somodevilla)

Since then, presidential candidates of any stature have largely declined public funding for their campaigns, whether during presidential primaries or general elections.

This is due in large part to the general loosening of campaign finance restriction during the past 15 years, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations, unions and certain nonprofits to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against candidates. It also gave rise to super PACs — political committees that may do the same.

The lack of use caused the Presidential Election Campaign Fund to balloon to $445.6 million last year.

For years, members of Congress, nonprofits and government watchdogs have called for campaign funding reform or reallocation of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which is fueled by cash from Americans selecting a voluntary $3 check-off box on their annual federal income tax forms.

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund had been “rotting on the vine due to the failure to update both the amounts and the timing of the grants” for at least a decade, said Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

“Major party candidates know that they can raise more money and have a better primary strategy without it,” Vandewalker said. “Nothing more needs to be done to kill it legislatively. What needs to be done is to have it updated to make it viable for major party candidates to use.”

Some government reform groups say decimating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is the wrong move.

“While no major party presidential candidate has used it for a number of years, this system should be updated and modernized, not gutted,” said Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at nonprofit government reform group Common Cause.

Scherb said Congress should reform the fund to meet the realities for campaign fundraising today, “not divert the money for other uses.”

“For taxpayers who check the box to have a small portion of their tax allocations go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, they did it specifically for this fund, not for some other reason,” he said.

As the government faces a $828 billion deficit and ongoing hyper-partisan battles threatening government shutdowns over the past year, it’s not surprising that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund got pulled into budget negotiations, Vandewalker said.

“It would be great if the presidential public financing funds were updated and made useful to candidates and used for its intended purpose,” Vandewalker said. “Obviously, it's understandable that as it's not getting used for its intended purpose, that it's going to be a ripe target in budgetary planning.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) previously told Raw Story the Presidential Election Campaign Fund would be better used to close the nation’s budget gap.

“It's just sitting there … This is just a small effort on many other efforts that we have in trying to tackle this budget,” Ernst said in 2023. “You’ve just got to get out there and raise money if you're gonna play, so why do we do this?”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) has advocated for a repurposing of Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. (WHO)

Ernst did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

Common Cause and the Brennan Center both support small-dollar donor match systems for funding presidential elections and the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to curb partisan gerrymandering and the influence of big money in politics.

“Too often big and dark money calls the shots in politics,” Scherb said. “Certainly, money will always play a role in politics, but this Presidential Election Campaign fund kind of provides an alternative path to give more of a megaphone to nurses and teachers and firefighters in the political system to make sure that their voice can be heard at the presidential level.”

Another bill that’s stalled in Congress, the Empowering Mass Participation to Offset the Wealthy’s Electoral Role (EMPOWER) Act, would support a small donor match system and “revitalize presidential campaign public financing,” according to a February press release.

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) reintroduced the bill alongside Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA). None responded to Raw Story’s request for comment.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) called for the complete elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in January 2023. He has sponsored the Strengthen the Pediatric Research Initiative Act, which if passed, would transfer the remaining funds into pediatric research.

Cole’s congressional office did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who serves as chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which oversees federal elections, did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

Prior to this month, the last expenditure from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund occurred in July, providing nearly $47.5 million to the National Institute of Health for the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, a 10-year initiative funding pediatric research.

In 2014, Obama signed legislation that eliminated the use of the fund for national political party conventions, diverting the money that would have otherwise been used for that purpose toward research supporting childhood cancers and diseases.

Hypocrisy alert: Senators who scorched Mark Zuckerberg love Meta money

Last week, senators put the CEOs of five social media giants each in the hot seat over accusations of their platforms’ negligence toward the sexual exploitation and online safety of children.

The hottest seat of all at a multi-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing belonged to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who a senator asked to stand up and publicly apologize to victims and parents in attendance holding photos of their children they say were sexually abused, bullied or committed self harm — many dying by suicide — related to exploitation on social media platforms.

“Mr. Zuckerberg, you and the companies before us, I know you don’t mean it to be so, but you have blood on your hands,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the committee’s ranking Republican. “You have a product that’s killing people.”

ALSO READ: Senators extend their streak of never punishing other senators

“With the touch of your finger that smartphone that can entertain and inform you can become a back alley where the lives of your children are damaged and destroyed,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“You, as an industry, realize this is an existential threat to you all if we don't get it right?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said. “We can regulate you out of business if we wanted to.”

“There is literally no plausible justification, no way of defending this,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said.

Yet, Graham, Durbin, Lee and Tillis are among more than a dozen senators who grilled Zuckerberg and his tech peers but also took donations from Meta’s political action committee, company executives, lobbyists, or a combination of all three, totaling more than $120,000 combined since 2017, according to a Raw Story analysis of federal campaign records.

Who took donations from Meta?

Raw Story reached out to the offices for 15 senators who spoke at the hearing and received donations from political action committees or leaders at Meta and other social media companies represented at the hearing, including TikTok, Snap, X (formerly Twitter) and Discord.

Raw Story asked: Would the senators return donations from these social media companies or refuse future donations?

Only three responded to Raw Story’s requests for comment.

Between late 2019 and mid-2023, Graham’s campaign committee, Team Graham, received at least $15,800 from the PAC and lobbyists for Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, according to Raw Story’s review of records from the Federal Election Commission.


After a Nov. 7 Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law hearing with a Facebook whistleblower, Graham said he would refund the money his campaign received from Meta companies and other social media platforms, NTD reported.

Team Graham donated $16,000 and his Fund for America’s Future PAC donated $2,500 to the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said Kevin Bishop, a spokesperson for Graham.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation confirmed it received Graham’s committed gift, which helped bring survivors to the hearing and “will continue to be used to bring survivors to meet with legislators across the aisle so survivors have a voice to educate policymakers on the impact of sexual exploitation and the scale at which it occurs online,” said Dawn Hawkins, CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, via an emailed statement.

“We aren't aware of any similar pledges made by other legislators,” Hawkins said, noting that the center supports bipartisan legislation including the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (EARN IT) Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).

“Graham made a pledge and he fulfilled that pledge,” Bishop told Raw Story via email.

Hawkins said Big Tech companies “know the harm they are facilitating” and “continue to shirk responsibility and roll out piecemeal and ineffective solutions,” particularly in relation to vulnerable populations such as those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“These companies continue to put the burden on overwhelmed parents despite having flawed and ineffective parental controls, and they ignore children without the privilege of involved, tech-savvy caregivers, when high-level corporate actions could better protect all children,” Hawkins said.

The social media companies don’t spend enough on child safety protocols either, Hawkins said, calling the CEOs unprepared for the hearing. To them, “investment in child safety is not a priority, but an afterthought,” she said.

Tillis’ campaign committee received at least $27,200 from current and former registered lobbyists for Facebook and Meta Platforms Inc PAC (previously known as Facebook Inc. PAC), between June 2017 and March 2023, FEC records indicate.


Lee’s campaign received at least $16,800 combined in donations from Meta (and formerly Facebook) PAC and a former Facebook lobbyist, as well as from an executive for ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, between September 2019 and June 2022. The vast majority of the funds were Meta-related, and one $2,500 check from Facebook PAC went uncashed, according to FEC records.

The campaign for Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) took in at least $17,100 combined from Meta and (formerly Facebook) PAC and Sheryl Sandberg, former COO for Meta, between March 2020 and December 2023, per federal records.

Durbin’s campaign received at least $11,300 between June 2019 and December 2021 from the Facebook and Meta PAC, and Sandberg, according to Raw Story analysis of FEC data.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) received at least $7,900 from Facebook PAC and Sandberg between March 2017 and September 2018, per FEC records.

In 2017 and 2018, Facebook PAC and Sandberg combined to donate at least $7,700 to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), according to FEC records. Other Facebook lawyers donated to her campaign.

"Senator Klobuchar has long been the leading advocate for bipartisan competition and safety legislation that the tech companies have opposed. Any question of her integrity when it comes to tech can be refuted by the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on TV and in lobbying against her and her legislation,” said Ben Hill, a spokesperson for Klobuchar’s campaign, in a statement to Raw Story.

ALSO READ: Kevin McCarthy just got jacked

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) did not receive donations for his campaign from the PACs for the social media companies, but hundreds of individual employees from Snap, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and ByteDance donated to his campaign, according to FEC records.

In particular, Isaac Bess, an executive at ByteDance, and Jerry Hunter, an executive at Snapchat, each donated $1,000 to him in January 2021. Michael Lynton, Snapchat chairman, donated nearly $2,000 in December 2020 to his campaign committee.

Other individuals who identified themselves in leadership positions such as directors, business leads and attorneys donated more than $35,000 combined to the Jon Ossoff for Senate committee.

“Sen. Ossoff does not accept contributions from corporations, corporate PACs or federal lobbyists,” said Jake Best, an Ossoff campaign spokesperson, who did not address Ossoff's campaign accepting money from individual social media executives.

ALSO READ: This Capitol Police officer has a new mission

The campaign for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) received at least $4,500 from Facebook PAC in 2017 and 2018, per federal campaign records.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) did not receive PAC donations from the social media companies, but his campaign took in at least $1,250 in donations combined from registered lobbyists for Twitter (now known as X) and TikTok. Other attorneys and leaders in public policy or risk management from ByteDance (the parent company of TikTok), Twitter and Facebook donated at least $3,700 combined, according to FEC records.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) got $2,000 from Facebook PAC between 2018 and 2019, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) received at least $1,500 from a Facebook lobbyist between October 2018 and October 2022, according to FEC records.

Sens. Peter Welch (D-VT) — when he was running for the House — Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and John Kennedy (R-LA) each got $1,000 for their campaigns from Facebook PAC or executives between 2018 and 2021, records show.

Meta did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.

‘Abuse’: Politicians are fretting about AI stealing their faces and voices

WASHINGTON — We’re in the midst of the first deepfake election in U.S. history, and, if Congress keeps up at its current pace, expect to be bombarded with disinformation guised as the nation’s politicians.

"Republicans have been trying to push nonpartisan and Democratic voters to participate in their primary,” some New Hampshire voters heard a voice strikingly similar to President Joe Biden saying when they picked up their phone ahead of Tuesday’s primary. “What a bunch of malarkey.”

The generative AI-assisted fake president was convincing enough to alarm members of Congress who’ve been asleep at the digital wheel, but, now that we’re in the throes of the 2024 election, passing any election related measures has only gotten more difficult, which means this year’s real election may prove to be the fakest contest in history.

Realistically faking the president’s voice was surely a wake-up call in the Senate.

“I think all of us paid a lot of attention to that and we have members who've been warning about it for a while,” Sen. Tom Kaine (D-VA) told Raw Story at the Capitol this week.

Senators took notice, but that doesn’t mean senators are acting.

“I haven't heard discussion of Senate action about it,” Kaine said.

New Hampshire officials are investigating who made the Biden deepfake and whether it was an illegal attempt to depress voter turnout using artificial intelligence. By definition, a deepfake is an “image or recording that has been convincingly altered and manipulated to misrepresent someone as doing or saying something that was not actually done or said,” according to Merriam-Webster.

While the Biden deepfake could be the handiwork of a foreign actor — think Russia or even North Korea — generative AI platforms such as Chat GTP are now accessible to all people. Both major political parties would be foolish not to be experimenting with how the new tech, which is revolutionizing everything from wars to the workplace, can give them an electoral assist.

But with that opportunity comes great risk. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump learned that in December, when a shady, scammy business entity used an almost pitch-perfect replica of the former president’s voice to hawk Trump-themed — and unauthorized — “gold bars,” Raw Story revealed.

And that is what’s complicating congressional action.

ALSO READ: Racism, fascism and cruelty: Donald Trump’s New Hampshire performance in nine quotes

“There's plenty of impetus to act, the problem is that people will act according to what's in their interests, you know, at the moment. So is there a broader impetus to act? I don’t know,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Raw Story. “I don't think anybody likes it.”

Last year, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tried to compel senators to focus on generative AI. Schumer and a bipartisan group of senators even hosted rare all-Senate briefings that tackled AI issues. (The briefings were closed-press — and thus, closed to the public.

After those briefings — which included one classified briefing — Schumer and Co. hosted a series of AI forums, which were also closed to the press corps and public, even as the likes of Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and other titans of tech were, quite literally, seated at the head table — or dais, such as it was. Senators, meanwhile, sat in the audience looking more like middle schoolers than policy makers (at least for the minute or so photographers were allowed in at the top of the secret meeting).

With sarcasm dripping from his voice, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Raw Story: “All those forums, they were critical. That really built momentum. It's important to have those cocktail parties with all of the biggest companies in the world, because they always want us to take action.

“Those were a total joke,” Hawley added, all but rolling his eyes.

Pre-Chat GPT, Hawley was one of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill calling to overhaul the internet. He wanted to end the blanket protection from prosecutions tech companies are afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields websites from the content others publish in them.

Now, Hawley says the threat of lawsuits would force Silicon Valley’s finest to fall in line and finally police their content for, say, child porn and AI-driven deepfakes alike.

“We need a change in legislation to make it clear that AI companies cannot hide behind Section 230,” Hawley said.

Hawley says the Biden deeepfake in New Hampshire is nothing compared to what’s coming ahead of elections in November.

“The voice is bad, but the videos are going to be really bad because they're at a point … I mean, you can't tell the difference. A lot of them now they're gonna get better and better and better, more and more quickly, and when you add the voice with the video, I mean, it's gonna be impossible for people not to know,” Hawley said.

So why hasn’t Congress acted?

“The companies,” Hawley said. “What’s going to have to happen is public outrage.”

And those tech companies surely have allies in Congress, including the relatively powerful ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

ALSO READ: Deadline demolished: Illinois congressman violates federal financial disclosure law

While many AI innovators — such as Chat GPT founder Sam Altman, to name one of many — have called for smart, proactive AI regulations, Cruz and other Republicans reject calls for new regulations for these new, ever-evolving technologies.

“If the Democrats push through restrictions on innovation and AI, it would be disastrous for America,” Cruz told Raw Story last year after leaving one of Schumer’s AI briefings.

While Hawley and others on the Senate Judiciary Committee have focused on the broader battle to unwind Silicon Valley’s current litigation shield, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is the main sponsor of an effort aimed specifically at combating deepfakes.

“I guess it's gotten front page interest now,” Klobuchar told Raw Story. “This is what I've said — hair on fire. We can't wait until next year to get this done. This is just going to keep happening.”

Klobuchar’s measure is the Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act, which would outlaw fake AI generated content.

While state officials hope to prosecute the presidential spoofer in New Hampshire, Klobuchar argued that if her measure was law, the Department of Justice would also have a role to play in the investigation.

“It would have been banned,” Klobuchar said. “So at least going into it, people that might think that they could participate in something like that would know that it was against the law from the very beginning.”

While Congress has dithered, Klobuchar says some states are being proactive.

“They've done it in states blue and red. They've done it in Texas like that, but those things only apply to state campaigns,” Klobuchar said, adding that she hopes it can be taken up alone or as a part of a broader — and yet to crafted or introduced — AI measure. “That’s why this has got to be a priority in our AI legislation is doing it on its own or doing it as part of a package.”

Much of the focus in the media, and even among lawmakers, has been on watermarking AI generated content — think of it as a permanent digital stamp so anyone can trace the origins of suspect online material.

But Klobuchar says that only goes so far.

“That is not going to be enough, you're not going to have a fake Joe Biden make a call — or a fake Donald Trump — and then at the end, you go, ‘Oh, by the way, this was created by AI.’ It's just, it's not gonna work,” Klobuchar said. “So that's why you have to ban the actual deepfakes.”

Klobuchar says there’s no need to reinvent the wheel, either.

“TV does this all the time. TV decides there's ads they can allow, they look at them and say ‘do they meet the FCC standards or not?’” Klobuchar said. “Well, this would be the same kind of thing for deepfakes.”

Thing is, senators were warned — if behind closed doors — about the potential for a tidal wave of deepfakes.

“We could all predict that this was going to happen, so I hope that this will be a bipartisan effort to make sure that people are not lied to in this way. It’s terrible,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) told Raw Story. “Since it's already upon us, we should do something about it to prevent this kind of abuse.”

While being in the midst of the 2024 election makes naysayers dismiss the efforts chances of passing this year, Hirono says the opposite should be true.

“I should think that there's more of an imperative to do something about it,” Hirono said.

Proposed legislation calls for all new cellphones to have built-in 'kill switch'

New smartphones sold in the United States would have to contain a mechanism to brick the devices remotely, wiping data and rendering them inoperable, under legislation proposed Friday by four Democratic U.S. senators.

Keep reading...Show less