At a Glance.
- FBI questions Israeli private eye over concerns related to “hack-for-hire” activities.
- Concerns arise in Congress over Commerce-back deal with Emirati AI firm.
FBI questions an Israeli private investigator after London arrest.
The News.
On Friday, sources stated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) questioned Israeli private investigator, Amit Forlit, regarding his work for the Washington D.C.-based firm, the DCI Group. Forlit was originally arrested on April 30th at the London Heathrow Airport over charges related to wire fraud and cybercrime but was released shortly after. At the time, London prosecutors stated that Forlit engaged in a “hack for hire scheme” for several clients, including an unidentified D.C. public relations and lobbying firm.
However, Forlit was rearrested under the same charges last Thursday having had his passport confiscated, and is barred from leaving the country. During this second arrest, sources stated that FBI agents met and questioned Forlit regarding his hacker-for-hire work for the DCI Group.
Forlit is also being currently sued in the New York federal court by aviation executive Farhad Azima, who claims Forlit of stealing his emails in 2016. While Forlit has denied these allegations, court records from Azima’s case have shown that Forlit and the DCI Group have worked together previously.
The Knowledge.
While no formal charges or actions have been taken against the DCI Group at this time, this effort is reflective of an ongoing governmental campaign to crack down on hacker mercenary efforts. For context regarding this cybermercenary business, in a lengthy expose published in 2022, reporters Raphael Satter and Christopher Bing investigated how mercenary hackers have been routinely used by companies to sway litigation efforts. In this report, Satter and Bing investigated cyber-mercenary work detailing how there have been at least thirty-five legal cases since 2013 where they found that Indian hackers were paid to obtain sensitive documents from the other side in courtroom proceedings. However, these numbers do not show the full extent of these cybermercenary operations as other documents that Satter and Bing highlight suggest that Indian hackers attempted to phish over 13,000 targets during that same time, which Satter and Bing described as the hackers’ “hit list.”
One of the most important cases that Satter and Bing discuss revolves around the previously mentioned Farhad Azima. Azima was tried in 2020 in London and was found liable for cheating his former business partner, an investment fund from the emirate Ras Al Khaimah, which resulted in him being forced to pay $4.2 million in restitution. However, during this case, several of Azima’s emails were illegally stolen by hackers and were released to the public, which were then used to heavily influence that trial. After a lengthy investigation, Satter and Bing discovered that the hackers who posted these leaked emails were directly connected fiscally to the same investment firm that was suing Azima.
As Satter and Bing highlighted, this illicit activity is not unique. During another case in 2023, United States (US) prosecutors cited how a private investigator firm hired mercenary hackers to steal emails from climate activists who were actively campaigning against Exxon Mobil. After being made publicly available, Exxon Mobil lawyers cited these emails to the New York Attorney General’s office to successfully influence investigation efforts. While US prosecutors did not officially link Exxon to these cyber-mercenaries, concerns have been made about the two's involvement with each other.
The Impact.
While no legal updates have been made regarding the DCI Group, these hacker-for-hire schemes demonstrate a concerning loophole that has been routinely exploited by organizations to unlawfully influence investigations and courtroom proceedings. With Forlit’s arrest, investigators may be able to gather more information from him over the coming months as his trial begins. While these proceedings will likely have little to no impact on the average US citizen, these developments could have significant impacts on future court cases. By targeting this illicit behavior, federal agencies will be able to hold individuals and companies accountable for their actions and ensure that legal proceedings are conducted fairly and equitably.
Concerns emerge over a Commerce-backed deal with Emirati AI firm.
The News.
Last Friday, a new plan, backed by the US Commerce Department, to work with the Emirati artificial intelligence (AI) firm, G42, drew more Congressional concerns. Members from Congress highlighted their concerns that this new deal could potentially put sensitive AI technology at risk of Chinese espionage. Specifically, these concerns revolve around G42 being able to access advanced semiconductor chips that the US has been attempting to keep from China.
After this announcement, Republican Senator Marco Rubio stated that he had “serious concerns that the Biden Commerce Department…is not [adequately] safeguarding our advanced technologies and pushing US companies to cut deals that may end up endangering our national security.” Democrat Senator Mark Warner responded to these concerns by stating that “American innovation and American values should be leading the world, and deal like this are one of the ways we accomplish that, [but] at the same time, we have to make sure any agreement…protects the crown jewels of our intellectual property.”
The Knowledge.
While the deal may have only recently been signed, this new deal was originally announced in January earlier this year. For context, this AI deal was officially signed last month with Microsoft making a $1.5 billion investment with G42. When the deal was formally signed, the Chairman of G42, H.H. Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, stated that “Microsoft’s investment in G42 marks a pivotal moment in our company’s journey of growth and innovation, signifying a strategic alignment of vision and execution between the two organizations.” In this announcement, Microsoft also stated that this deal will enable the companies to deliver advanced AI solutions and bring advanced AI and digital infrastructure to countries worldwide.
However, despite the deal's major investment, concerns have been raised since it was originally announced in January. At the time, the head of the China Select Committee strongly urged the Commerce Department to probe G42 to ensure that risks were managed especially regarding export control citing concerns about the company’s ties to an “expansive network” of firms that utilize Chinese security services. These concerns were also echoed by notable officials within the Biden administration, including Gina Raimondo and Jake Sullivan. Due to the pressure from the federal government, these concerns caused G42 to divest its stakes in Chinese companies in February and replace their telecommunications gear made by Chinese vendors with American alternatives. However, despite the concerns raised by the Biden administration and the positive responses made by G42, Congress members remain concerned and have voiced skepticism surrounding how effective these safeguards will be and have raised concerns regarding the mixed messaging that they have been given by all parties involved with the deal.
The Impact.
While nothing has been done to hamper this deal, the concerns surrounding how AI is being handled and developed are reflective of the federal government’s concerns surrounding the emerging technology. Coupling these concerns with previous actions, such as President Biden further restricting what chips can be exported or through the variety of different federal agencies releasing new guidelines for developing and utilizing AI, it is clear that federal lawmakers are significantly concerned about securing US intellectual property and ensuring that the nation’s technological advancements remain secure, especially from China.
While these concerns and actions are unlikely to impact the average American citizen, they could potentially disrupt business operations or AI developers depending on the actions taken by the government over the coming months and years. Regardless of what actions are taken, it is clear that the federal government is only looking to further expand its oversight over emerging technologies, especially when approaching AI.
Other Noteworthy Stories.
OpenAI creates new safety panel.
What: OpenAI has announced that the company is creating a new safety panel to make recommendations to the company’s board.
Why: On Tuesday, OpenAI announced that this new safety board will be tasked with providing the executive board with recommendations related to “critical safety and security decisions.” This new panel will be led by the company’s chief executive, Sam Altman, and directors Adam D’Angelo, Nicole Seligman, and Bret Taylor. With this announcement, the company also stated that the board's first directive will be to “evaluate and further develop” the company’s existing processes and safeguards over the next ninety days and then provide their recommendations, which will be shared with the public.
This safety board comes after a few months ago, the former researcher, Jan Leike, resigned stating that safety had “taken a backseat to shiny products.”
Lobbying for AI-related issues surges in 2023.
What: A new report was published that details the extent of AI-related lobbying efforts in 2023 and how that year's trend compares to previous years.
Why: On Wednesday, a report was published by The Hill that details the current state of AI-related lobbying efforts. In this report, researchers from Public Citizen found that both the number of clients paying for AI-related lobbying and the number of lobbyists being hired by clients increased by 120% from 2022. These same researchers expect this level of lobbying engagement to continue to rise throughout 2024 as more federal agencies become involved with managing AI. Mike Tanglis, the research director at Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, stated how he believed that “we’re reaching a point where the policies that are going to shape AI policy in the next ten years are really being decided now.”
A wide spectrum of industries have employed lobbyists for AI-related issues including organizations from the financial, education, transportation, defense, media, and healthcare industries.