An attack in Lebanon reportedly killed eight people and injured over 2,700. Hundreds of pagers belonging to Hezbollah members detonated simultaneously on Tuesday, leading the Iran-backed militant organization to blame Israel. The New York Times reported that Israel was behind the attacks and conducted it by hiding explosive material inside the pagers. A second wave of attacks, these targeting handheld radios used by Hezbollah members, was reported on Wednesday by The Washington Post.

A day after Israeli leaders warned of escalating its military campaign against Hezbollah, pagers belonging to the Lebanese group’s members exploded at once. Witnesses reported seeing smoke emanating from the victims’ pockets, followed by sounds reminiscent of fireworks or gunshots.

Lebanon’s health minister said 200 of the injured were in critical condition. He added that many victims had facial injuries, especially to the eyes. Hand and stomach injuries were also common, according to the health minister. Among those wounded was Mojtaba Amini, Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, according to Iranian state media.

A second wave of attacks across different areas of Lebanon on Wednesday reportedly killed one person and injured over 100 others. The latest attacks reportedly targeted “wireless devices.” One of the explosions, triggered by a handheld radio, was reported at a funeral for four victims of Tuesday’s blasts. “Anyone who has a device, take out the battery now!” The Washington Post reported that Hezbollah security members yelled at the mourners. “Turn off your phones, switch it to airplane mode!”

Israel hasn’t commented on the attacks. But NYT reports that officials (including American ones) briefed on the operation said Israel was behind them. They claim as little as one to two ounces of explosive material were planted next to each pager’s battery, along with a switch allowing for remote detonations. At 3PM in Lebanon on Tuesday, the pagers received a message (appearing to be from Hezbollah leadership) that triggered the coordinated explosions, according to officials. The devices allegedly beeped for several seconds before detonating.

The Washington Post reports that the logo of Taiwanese pager maker Gold Apollo was seen on the sabotaged pagers. However, Gold Apollo claimed the devices were “entirely handled” by a Hungarian company, BAC Consulting Kft, which was authorized to use Gold Apollo’s branding in some regions. “That product isn’t ours,” Gold Apollo’s founder and president, Hsu Ching-Kuang, told The New York Times. “They just stick on our company brand.”

Officials speaking with NYT claimed the devices were tampered with before reaching Lebanon. Most were Gold Apollo’s AR924 model, which the company displayed an image of on its website before removing them on Wednesday.

The attacks sparked a wave of fear of using mobile devices. NYT reports some in Lebanon were scared to use their phones after Tuesday’s attacks, with one resident crying out, “Please hang up, hang up!” to their caller.

The Times reports that Hezbollah, long suspicious of cellphone use near the Israeli border due to the devices’ geolocation capabilities, recently switched from mobile phones to pagers. In February, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah reportedly warned the group that their phones were dangerous and could be used by Israel as spy tools. He advised the group that they should “break or bury them.”

Experts reportedly don’t yet know precisely how the pagers were distributed to Hezbollah’s members. They say that Iran, given its history of supplying Hezbollah with arms, tech and other military aid, would have been pivotal to their adoption and delivery.

Update, September 18, 2024, 11:48AM ET: This story has been updated to add new details about Tuesday’s attacks and the second wave of reported blasts on Wednesday.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/mobile/pagers-explode-simultaneously-in-hundreds-of-hezbollah-members-pockets-190304565.html?src=rss

Nevada has a new helper in its quest to plow through a backlog of unemployment claims: Google AI. Gizmodo reports that the initiative will task one of the company’s cloud-based AI models with analyzing appeals hearing transcripts and suggesting whether cases should be approved. Welcome to the future, where a robot weighs in on whether you get the government money you requested.

The Nevada Independent wrote in June that the AI model, trained on the state’s unemployment law and policies, will analyze transcripts of virtual appeals hearings. It will then spit out a ruling, which a state employee will review for mistakes and decide whether to honor.

It replaces the current Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) process, which averages three hours for a real-life human to complete. Carl Stanfield, DETR’s IT administrator, told the Nevada Independent that Google’s AI (which uses the company’s Vertex cloud system) can rule within five minutes. “The time saving is pretty phenomenal,” Stanfield said.

It’s easy to understand why Nevada would be eager to lean on the emerging tech. As recently as June, the state reportedly had a backlog of over 10,000 unprocessed appeals, about 1,500 of which were left over from the pandemic. And if the tech’s reviews are accurate — or the human reviewers catch its mistakes — it could be an enormous timesaver.

However, there could be psychological pressure for the employees reviewing the cases to rubber-stamp the AI’s conclusions. “If a robot’s just handed you a recommendation and you just have to check a box and there’s pressure to clear out a backlog, that’s a little bit concerning,” Michele Evermore, a former deputy director for unemployment modernization policy at the Department of Labor, told Gizmodo.

Stanfield told Gizmodo that a governance committee will meet weekly while the state is fine-tuning the model and quarterly after it goes live to monitor for hallucinations and bias. The stakes could be high for claimants as the AI-powered system could affect their ability to appeal bogus decisions. “In cases that involve questions of fact, the district court cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the appeal referee,” Elizabeth Carmona, a senior attorney with Nevada Legal Services, told Gizmodo. In other words, if the human reviewing the decision misses the AI’s mistakes, a court may not have the legal standing to overturn it.

One Nevada politician put it a bit more bluntly. “Are we out of our ever-loving minds?” NV state senator Skip Daly (D-Reno) said to the Nevada Independent this summer. “I’m just dubious of the whole concept of overreliance on algorithms and computers. I hope that we are cautious about it, and think before we just say, ‘We got to be faster or better than the next guy.’”

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/nevada-will-use-google-ai-to-process-a-backlog-of-unemployment-cases-202718427.html?src=rss

Meta’s Oversight Board has weighed in on its first Threads case and reversed the company’s initial decision and first appeal. Regarding a post about the outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, using a phrase that translates to “drop dead / die” in English, the board determined the phrase was used figuratively and not as a literal threat or call to violence.

The case was sparked by a Threads post showing a news article about Kishida and his reaction to his political party’s (ahem) “fundraising irregularities.” The caption criticized the Prime Minister, accusing him of tax evasion. The user’s reply demanded an explanation from the government leader and, calling him a tax evader, used the phrase “死ね,” or “drop dead / die.” The post also included “hah” and derogatory language about people who wear glasses. (Watch yourself there, partner!)

The post went largely unnoticed, with no likes. But someone reported it under Meta’s Bullying and Harassment rules. After three weeks, one of Meta’s reviewers determined it instead broke the Violence and Incitement rules. The user appealed, and another reviewer agreed with the first that it violated the policy. One more appeal teed up the issue for the board, which accepted the case and overruled the two human reviewers who removed it.

The Government of Japan

“In this case, the threat against a political leader was intended as non-literal political criticism calling attention to alleged corruption, using strong language, which is not unusual on Japanese social media,” Meta’s Oversight Board wrote in its explanation. “It was unlikely to cause harm.” The board considered the poster’s use of “hah” to help determine its figurative sense.

The board said that, despite speaking Japanese and understanding local content, the moderators who removed the post were “in error.” It recommends Meta clarify its internal guidelines and offer more guidance for reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”

Meta’s Oversight Board added that the Violence and Incitement policy includes a rule prohibiting the phrase “death to” against “high-risk persons” isn’t clear enough. It said that while the company’s policy rationale suggests context matters in threat evaluation, its reviewers aren’t empowered to assess cases involving the “death to” phrase. The board echoed its 2022 recommendation for Meta to explain that rhetorical threats using the phrase are “generally allowed, except when directed at high-risk individuals, and to provide criteria on when threatening statements directed at heads of state are permitted to protect rhetorical political speech.”

Further, the board recommended that Meta clarify how the policy differs for “public figures” vs. “high-risk persons.” It calls out the confusion over why threats against public figures are only removed when “credible.” In contrast, those against others are axed “regardless of credibility.”

The Oversight Board has had a busy September after deciding on only 53 cases last year. Last week, it ruled that the phrase “From the River to the Sea” shouldn’t be banned and, in a case with some parallels to this one, it separated death threats from “aspirational statements” in Venezuela.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/in-its-first-threads-case-metas-oversight-board-asked-for-clarity-on-death-threats-170630647.html?src=rss