Pro

Thousands of South Dakotans have been publicly labeled as applicants for government assistance and thousands more have had their email address and phone number exposed, due to a new state law and the way the state’s election office is implementing it.

Although the legislation creating the law received some Democratic votes, it’s a product of the Republican-dominated Legislature. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed it into law and Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson is carrying out its provisions.

Several legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, are now telling South Dakota Searchlight they did not intend for the law to expose sensitive information — especially the identity of public assistance applicants.

“This is what happens when you put the wrong people in charge,” said state House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, who voted against the bill. “We talk a lot about freedom and privacy in this state, so it’s a shame that this legislation led to this type of breach.”

Dozens and perhaps hundreds of individuals who applied to visit inmates at Everglades Correctional Institution (ECI) in Miami-Dade County last weekend had their personal contact information shared with every inmate at that facility, according to five different individuals who have spoken to the Phoenix over the past four days.

The Florida Department of Corrections has not commented publicly about the incident since it occurred last week.

That data breach has frightened and infuriated some of the women who had their names, email addresses, and telephone numbers released to those incarcerated at the prison located near the Florida Everglades.

Inmates received that information via an email sent out by a staff member of the facility on Thursday. Florida inmates have access to emails through both interactive kiosks as well as secure tablets.

“It’s kind of disturbing when you think about it,” said Madeline Donate, who regularly visits her husband at the prison. “The privacy aspect of this is concerning. This is how other inmates get information and can sometimes extort family members and things like that. It’s concerning.”

Jan Thompson said she fears extortion.

“What if there’s some inmate that doesn’t like another inmate?” she said. “And he tells his family, ‘Okay, here’s his wife’s phone number. Call her and tell her if she doesn’t pay and put $500 on my book, I’m going to have her husband stabbed and killed.’ What’s stopping them from doing that?”

(Inmates can receive funds for deposit into their “inmate trust accounts” from individuals already identified on the inmate’s automated visiting record).

“I’m very worried. This is not okay,” added a woman who wanted to be identified only as Dakota, her middle name. “Someone needs to be held accountable for this. They need to take the necessary precautions to ensure that this does not happen. And what about this information that’s out there? There’s what, 1,600 [inmates] there? They all have information. God knows what they could do with it.”

A Florida jury on Friday found Tesla liable in the 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, and ordered Elon Musk’s automaker to pay $329 million to the family of a deceased woman and an injured survivor.

Jurors in Miami federal court ordered Tesla to pay $129 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon and to her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. The plaintiffs had sought $345 million.

Google has sharply reduced its support for nonprofit groups devoted to diversity, equity, and inclusion, in what appears to be another sign the company is falling in line with President Trump’s anti-DEI crusade, the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) has found.

Google publishes a list of organizations that receive the “most substantial contributions” from the company. In early 2025, Google removed more than 200 groups from the list, its biggest purge in at least five years. The largest category of removals related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), a concept that has come under sustained attack by the Trump administration. A total of 58 DEI-related groups disappeared from the list.

It is unclear if Google stopped funding these organizations or is simply seeking to hide its support for them. However, either scenario suggests Google is taking further steps to distance itself from DEI programs.

After Trump took office and began rolling back DEI efforts, Google removes references to diversity, equity, and inclusion from its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and ended diversity-related hiring goals. Like other Big Tech companies and executives, Google donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration.

Google and most of the groups removed from Google's list did not respond to questions. One of the groups, the ACLU of Illinois, declined to comment and directed questions to Google.

In a statement to CNBC, which covered this report, Google said, “We contribute to hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that advocate for pro-innovation policies, and those groups change from year to year based on where our contributions will have the most impact.”

TTP identified Google’s disappearing DEI groups while updating its Tech Funding Database. The searchable database, which is linked on TTP’s website, provides information on whether organizations have received funding from Big Tech firms, based on company disclosures. The latest update adds disclosures from 2021 to the most recent available.

Thousands of South Dakotans have been publicly labeled as applicants for government assistance and thousands more have had their email address and phone number exposed, due to a new state law and the way the state’s election office is implementing it.

Although the legislation creating the law received some Democratic votes, it’s a product of the Republican-dominated Legislature. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed it into law and Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson is carrying out its provisions.

Several legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, are now telling South Dakota Searchlight they did not intend for the law to expose sensitive information — especially the identity of public assistance applicants.

“This is what happens when you put the wrong people in charge,” said state House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, who voted against the bill. “We talk a lot about freedom and privacy in this state, so it’s a shame that this legislation led to this type of breach.”

UK’s Online Safety Push Shows What Happens When Oversight Becomes Overreach

The UK’s Online Safety Act began rolling out early 2025, introducing several new mandates, some of which are aimed at protecting children from harmful online content. Included in the Act’s mandates, however, are measures that prevent adults from encountering “illegal” content and steps to ensure age verification that limit adults’ anonymity online.

As a result, the Act’s laudable intentions are at risk of being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach. Without a more balanced, collaborative approach, free speech will suffer.

To date, regulators have taken a heavy-handed approach by rapidly increasing enforcement resources, adding layers of bureaucratic oversight and signaling an aggressive approach to ensuring compliance. Instead of specifically and collaboratively addressing a problem everyone agrees needs to be solved, many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public’s right to free expression.

This risk is not a surprise to the UK government. When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of “online safety.” It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made.

Recent events indicate the public is not comfortable with this level of intervention. For instance, a petition to repeal the Act is gaining momentum, collecting over 450,000 signatures in just the first few days after it was created.

X is among the companies to have worked hard to be in compliance. However, the timetable for meeting mandatory measures has been unnecessarily tight. And, despite being in compliance, X and its counterparts still face threats of enforcement, fines and rigid oversight, encouraging over-censorship.

Consider as well the emergence of a new "Voluntary” Code of Conduct recently enacted by the UK Home Office and the Violence Prevention Network (VPN) purportedly to address harmful online behaviors before they escalate. Supported by Ofcom, this parallel and duplicative effort was introduced at a time when companies were already pushing hard to meet the requirements in the Online Safety Act.

Government officials responded to questions about additional oversight by saying that the Online Safety Act isn’t “adequate enough to address harmful online behaviors.” This new code of conduct is specifically targeted at social media, gaming, and other interactive platforms to “encourage” proactive enforcement efforts, such as training staff and campaigns to curb “harmful content.” Because the Voluntary Code of Conduct comes so quickly on the heels of the Act’s enforcement, it inevitably creates a “double compliance” burden. Facing pressure to adopt additional measures on top of the already demanding legal obligations set forth in the Act will only lead to additional curbs to freedom of expression.

The UK government doesn't stop there. In addition to increased regulations, a new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team within the British Police will further intensify scrutiny. The team’s sole focus is monitoring social media for signs of unrest, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, to prevent real-world violence. While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent. This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterize it as excessive and potentially restrictive.

While everyone agrees protecting children is a critical responsibility, it is also clear that an overly rigorous statutory framework layered with a “voluntary” code and heightened police monitoring, oversteps the intended mission.

To be clear, X is in the business of solutions and we have been vigorously committed to providing a safe and constructive experience for users in the UK and worldwide. A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children. It’s safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK.