Last January the royals spent DKK 6.5 mln. on the bloodless transfer of power from the aging queen Margrethe Glücksburg to her son and hand-picked successor Frederik Montpezat. Most of the money comes from an extra one-time transfer from the state to cover the succession. In the Nordic hermit kingdom there is always extra money for celebrating a spoilt nepo-baby, unlike for education or healthcare.

The money was spent on such things as severance payments, office redecoration, new uniforms and on changing the design of monograms, orders and medals. The amount does not cover the money spent by other governmental bodies during the transition, such as the cost of security at public appearances or the cost of redesigning coinage.

The use of facial recognition identification should not be forced upon people, and service providers will be required to offer alternative ID methods, under regulations due to come into effect in China on June 1.

The new rules mark Beijing’s first major attempt to regulate facial recognition, a technology widely adopted around the country – such as at hotel check-ins, entrances to gated communities and to make digital payments.

Jointly released by the Cyberspace Administration of China and Ministry of Public Security on Friday, the final version of “regulations for the safe application of facial recognition technology” comes nearly two years after a public consultation on creating comprehensive guidelines.

The regulations aimed to address “growing concerns” among the public about the risks posed to personal data privacy and security, the authorities said.

China is a global leader in the adoption of facial recognition technology, driven by its robust internet industry and relatively lax regulatory environment on privacy protection. It has also heavily integrated facial recognition into its security surveillance network.

The new regulation mandates that “voluntary and explicit consent made on the premise of full knowledge” must be obtained “when processing facial information based on individual consent”.

Individuals shall also have the right to withdraw consent, and the body that processes the personal information should provide “a convenient way” for such withdrawal.

Also, when alternative methods to achieve the same ID verification are available, facial recognition shall not be offered as the only option. If someone refuses facial verification, “reasonable and convenient” alternatives shall be provided.

On data security, the new regulations specify that facial information shall not be transmitted externally through the internet, unless otherwise provided by laws and administrative regulations or with the individual’s separate consent.

The retention period of facial information shall also not exceed the shortest time necessary for processing.

Further, facial recognition applications shall adopt necessary security measures such as data encryption, security auditing, access control, authorisation management and intrusion detection to ensure data security.

Facial ID processors are also required to register with their provincial cyber administration body within 30 working days when they hold more than 100,000 facial data sets.

In strict moves on privacy protection, the regulations ban facial recognition equipment in private spaces such as hotel rooms, public bathrooms and dressing rooms.

The pervasive use of facial recognition technology in daily life in China has prompted increasing concerns about privacy and security.

In July 2021, the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial interpretation that effectively banned the use of the technology to verify identities in public places like shopping malls and hotels without consent. The ruling also allowed residents to request alternative methods of verification to enter their neighbourhoods, emphasising the need for consent and providing options for those who refuse facial recognition.

That November, China’s personal information protection law took effect, mandating consent for the collection of facial data and imposing heavy fines on companies that fail to comply.

In 2022, a resident of the northern city of Tianjin sued his estate management company over making facial recognition the sole ID method for entry. The court ruled in favour of the resident and ordered the company to provide alternatives.

A prominent journalist knew the US military would start bombing Houthi targets in Yemen two hours before it happened on March 15 because top Trump administration officials accidentally included the reporter on a Signal text chain in which they discussed the war plan.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, described the surprising leak of sensitive military information in an article today. The National Security Council confirmed that the messages were real and said it is investigating how Goldberg was added to a thread in which the war information was discussed.

“The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen,” Goldberg wrote. “I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”

Goldberg’s article quotes numerous messages that appeared to come from Vice President JD Vance, Hegseth, and other Trump administration officials. Goldberg was first added to the text chain on March 11 by Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser.

Goldberg initially “didn’t find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me,” though he considered that “someone could be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me.” But over the next few days, Goldberg became increasingly convinced that the messages were authentic. Vance: “I just hate bailing Europe out again”

The text chat was labeled “Houthi PC small group,” and a message from Waltz indicated that he was convening a principals committee for top officials to discuss plans.

“I had very strong doubts that this text group was real, because I could not believe that the national-security leadership of the United States would communicate on Signal about imminent war plans,” Goldberg wrote. “I also could not believe that the national security adviser to the president would be so reckless as to include the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in such discussions with senior US officials, up to and including the vice president.”

Using Signal in this way may have violated US law, Goldberg wrote. “Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story,” he wrote.

Signal is not an authorized venue for sharing such information, and Waltz’s use of a feature that makes messages disappear after a set period of time “raises questions about whether the officials may have violated federal records law,” the article said. Adding a reporter to the thread “created new security and legal issues” by transmitting information to someone who wasn’t authorized to see it, “the classic definition of a leak, even if it was unintentional,” Goldberg wrote.

The account labeled “JD Vance” questioned the war plan in a Signal message on March 14. “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” the message said. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

The Vance account also stated, “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does,” and “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” The Hegseth account responded that “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC,” but added that “we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”

An account apparently belonging to Trump advisor Stephen Miller wrote, “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.” “Shocking recklessness”

Goldberg was mostly convinced that the text chain was real before the detailed war plans were sent. “After reading this chain, I recognized that this conversation possessed a high degree of verisimilitude,” Goldberg wrote. “The texts, in their word choice and arguments, sounded as if they were written by the people who purportedly sent them, or by a particularly adept AI text generator. I was still concerned that this could be a disinformation operation, or a simulation of some sort. And I remained mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence. But if it was a hoax, the quality of mimicry and the level of foreign-policy insight were impressive.”

Goldberg declined to directly quote from the Hesgeth message containing war plans. “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility,” Goldberg wrote. “What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

The Vance account responded, “I will say a prayer for victory,” and two other users posted prayer emoji, according to Goldberg. Shortly after the bombings, Waltz posted in the Signal chat that the operation was a success, and several members of the group responded positively.

“The Signal chat group, I concluded, was almost certainly real,” Goldberg wrote. He removed himself from the group and contacted administration officials about the information leak. NSC reviewing how “inadvertent number was added”

Ars contacted the White House today, and we quickly received a response containing two statements about the Goldberg incident. The statements are the same as those included in The Atlantic article.

“This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” said a statement attributed to a National Security Council spokesperson. “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security.”

The other statement came from a spokesperson for Vance. “The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations,” the statement said. “Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement.”

According to Goldberg, The Atlantic spoke with several former US officials who said they used Signal to share unclassified information, but “they knew never to share classified or sensitive information on the app, because their phones could have been hacked by a foreign intelligence service.”

“I have never seen a breach quite like this,” Goldberg wrote. “It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.”

Brazilian Liberal Party lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of indicted former President Jair Bolsonaro and South American representative for CPAC, took a leave of absence from Congress today and announced he will remain in the United States to escape “political persecution” and pressure U.S. officials to impose sanctions against Alexandre de Moraes—one of Brazil’s 11 Supreme Court Ministers—in an attempt to keep his father out of jail.

It is no secret that Eduardo Bolsonaro has been close to Steve Bannon and other key figures in Donald Trump’s circle since 2018. Similarities in billionaire-funded social media tactics used by Trump and the Bolsonaros are living testament to this, and the closeness that Eduardo has to leaders of the American far right is also demonstrated by his presence at the January 5, 2021, “war council” meeting in Washington, hosted by Mike Lindell on the eve of the U.S. Capitol invasion.

Eduardo Bolsonaro immediately swung into action, contacting friends in the Republican Party and private sector alike. The next day, Rumble and Truth Social filed a frivolous lawsuit against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who was in charge of the investigation against his father. On February 24, Republican Congressman Rich McCormick released a public letter to President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in which he called for punitive actions against Moraes, including “Magnitsky sanctions, immediate visa bans, and economic penalties.”

On February 27, Workers’ Party Congressmen Lindbergh Farias and Rogério Correia filed a criminal complaint with the Attorney General’s Office against Eduardo Bolsonaro for conspiring against Brazil with members of a foreign government.

“The individual in question, completely disconnected from reality and acting against Brazil’s national interests, is encouraging a foreign government to impose retaliatory measures against his own country and one of the justices of the Supreme Federal Court,” reads a section of the complaint. Judging him a probable flight risk due to his network of connections in the American far right, they requested that the Federal Police confiscate his passport. Time has proven them correct, but the police did not act quickly enough.

On March 13, the net began to tighten around Jair Bolsonaro as the Attorney General’s Office officially upheld the indictment against Bolsonaro and his cronies, after a procedural period in which they were allowed to present their defense arguments. The Supreme Court then set March 25 as the date for the final review of evidence before formally setting a trial date.

This put Eduardo Bolsonaro in a quandary. With a complaint already filed against him for illegally abusing the power of his office to lobby for intervention in Brazil’s internal affairs by a foreign government—a crime so serious that, in theory, it could result in charges of treason—he had to choose between keeping his position as Congressman and complying with national security laws, or renouncing and moving to Florida, like so many right-wing Latin American politicians before him.

Bolsonaro is claiming his leave will be temporary, but going on leave of absence will not shield him from criminal prosecution for abuse of authority, crimes against the judiciary, and violation of national security laws. Like all Members of Congress, he enjoys a certain level of parliamentary immunity, but can still be investigated and tried by the same Supreme Court that he has been publicly attacking for the past five years. So if, as he announced on his social media today, his plan is to stay in the U.S. to find some way to “punish Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes,” he will probably have to stay there for a long time. The question is, how much damage can he do to Brazil’s national sovereignty while he’s up there?