With NASA planning to launch four astronauts on Wednesday on its Artemis II mission, the race to return to the Moon is back on. The current mission will see astronauts aboard the Orion capsule travel around the Moon before returning to Earth in 10 days’ time. They’ll be testing out the hardware and systems that could soon see Americans standing on the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years in the Artemis IV mission scheduled for 2028. NASA isn’t ready to land people on the Moon just yet, but that’s the aim for the next five years: to not only get people onto the Moon but establish a lengthy human presence on its surface.
Technology
The Artemis Moon base project is legally dubious
That’s NASA’s selling point of Artemis, compared to the Apollo missions of the 1960s and ’70s — we won’t just be visiting the Moon for a few days, but rather inhabiting it for a long period of time. Exactly how long is still unclear, but the idea is to build a Moon base that allows astronauts to live on the lunar surface for weeks or even months at a time.
That makes logistics much more complicated, as astronauts won’t be able to bring all the supplies and resources they would need along with them. Instead, they would need to make use of the limited resources that exist on the Moon, in a process called in-situ resource utilization. Rather than hauling a huge amount of water along for the ride from Earth, for example, we’ll just go and find some ice on the Moon and melt that to use instead. Simple, right?
That’s the justification underlying much of Artemis: Resources are needed to support a Moon base, so we need to build a Moon base to search for them.
It’s really not. There’s the science. And there’s the law.
The Moon’s environment is harsh and inhospitable, with dangerous space radiation, dusty material called regolith that is sharp as glass and destroys equipment, and a different level of gravity to contend with. Though less of a fantasy than the wild Mars colonization plans promised by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, NASA’s aim to establish a base on the Moon by 2030 is still wildly optimistic. Throughout its messaging on Artemis, NASA has emphasized the importance of identifying and extracting resources from the Moon, including water for fuel, helium-3 for energy, and rare earth elements like scandium that are used in electronics. It’s hard to know how abundant these resources are until they’ve been more fully mapped and assessed, but there is at least potential value, as they are required for sustaining habitation on the Moon. And that’s the justification underlying much of Artemis: Resources are needed to support a Moon base, so we need to build a Moon base to search for them.
The agency has even described these efforts as a “lunar gold rush.” But this points to a problem with Artemis that isn’t solvable by developing new technologies: Some experts say that extracting resources from the Moon is a violation of international law.
There isn’t a huge amount of international law that applies to space exploration, but what there is is very clear in one regard: No one owns the Moon. The Outer Space Treaty (which was signed nearly 60 years ago but is still the main basis for international law in space today, if you can believe it) is very explicit regarding the principle of non-appropriation, meaning that nations can’t claim sovereignty over any body in space. But what about extracting resources? There, we get into sticky territory.
“The US considers that resource extraction is not appropriation … That is an incorrect interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty.”
“The US considers that resource extraction is not appropriation,” says Cassandra Steer, space law expert and founder of the Australasian Centre for Space Governance. Many international space lawyers, including Steer, have argued that this is unlawful. “That is an incorrect interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. You’re trying to carve out a loophole.” After all, if a nation started digging up resources from a territory it didn’t have claim to on Earth these days, that would cause a few legal problems.
The US has been tactical in its approach to this issue, through the use of an agreement called the Artemis Accords. This is not an international treaty, but rather an agreement signed by over 60 nations about adopting high-level principles regarding space exploration and the Moon in particular. Many of these principles are sound, reasonable approaches to space exploration, covering topics like the sharing of scientific data, consideration of safety and emergency procedures, and adherence to the peaceful use of space.
But the document also includes sections specifically allowing the extraction and use of space resources, saying that this doesn’t conflict with the principle of non-appropriation, and allowing specific nations to establish “safety zones” around areas of their lunar activity where other nations cannot interfere.
That’s not exactly saying that whoever gets to the Moon first and claims a chunk of it now owns it, but it is implicitly saying that whoever starts activities like research or mining in a certain lunar region now gets to extract resources from that region and other countries can’t stop them. It’s not owning a piece of the Moon, but it is getting priority access to it by drilling, scraping, and occupying a strategic location for its potential value.
It’s hard not to draw a parallel between this approach and the history of land grabs across the American West in the 19th century, especially regarding access to key resources such as water. “I think the Artemis Accords might open the door for these sorts of access claims on the Moon,” says Rebecca Boyle, journalist and author of a book on the topic, Our Moon. “The accords do say that safety zones should be relevant to the activities at hand, but again, I think a creative attorney or a nifty legal argument could lead to a situation where someone who gets to a spot first uses the safety zone rule to lay claim to whatever is there.”
The smart move on the part of the US was integrating the accords into the Artemis program, so countries that wanted to be involved in Artemis had to sign the document. With a handful of key players like Canada, Japan, Australia, the UAE, and the UK signed on, many other countries, including France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, India, and Germany, followed suit.
“And so, it was a bit of a strong-arming of the US to say, if you want in on our program, you have to agree with our international law interpretation. It is forcing what we call opinio juris in international law,” Steer explains. The power of this consensus from so many countries is that, if resource extraction is tolerated in practice, the original intention of the treaty can be in effect overruled by a broadly accepted interpretation.
Steer summed up NASA’s approach bluntly: “You’re just trying to rewrite the treaty, and somehow you’ve convinced 60 countries to do it with you.”
“Why go to the Moon? And it is, to my mind, purely geopolitical.”
The real elephant in the room of this legal wrangling is China, which did not sign the Artemis Accords and is on course to set its own astronauts on the Moon perhaps even before the US can. China and the US have practically zero relationship when it comes to space activities, but China has been building its own international cooperations for its lunar program, including signing an agreement with Russia and carrying payloads from various European countries and Saudi Arabia on its lunar rovers. China has plans to build its own Moon base with Russia called the International Lunar Research Station, and the US is aggressively pushing its Moon program to try to beat its rivals to the punch.
“The multi-trillion- dollar question is, why go to the Moon? And it is, to my mind, purely geopolitical,” Steer says. That’s certainly what drove the US during the last space race, when the Cold War was in full swing and racing the Soviet Union to the Moon was not just a matter of political power but also an attempt to demonstrate who had the superior political ideology. Now, in the age of America First Trumpism, the US is attempting to prove its power and capability once again, but the nationalist rhetoric fails to capture the reality of space exploration, which is that it’s now dependent on international partnerships and cross-border cooperation.
Today, it’s not only prestige that is at stake but also access to space resources, from controlling cislunar orbits and lunar locations to controlling the materials required for the Moon’s further exploration, such as ice or helium-3. NASA, after all, has been notably circular in its justifications for Artemis: We need to send astronauts to the Moon to secure access to ice, because we need access to water to support human exploration. There are potential scientific justifications for a Moon mission, from learning about the formation of the Solar System to using the Moon as a base for building a powerful telescope, but these haven’t been well articulated or widely promoted by NASA.
“The real justification, the hidden one, is who gets to have political dominance,” Steer says. “Space is just another domain where geopolitics are playing out. It’s no different from the AI race, it’s no different from competition around other resources, around oil, around water … It’s another domain where the US is grasping at straws to remain the single dominant power, and discovering that actually it can’t.”
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
Okay, I am not a lawyer so I only understood about half of what just happened. But I am fairly sure, given the context, that Elon Musk’s lawyers may have just fucked up big.
Jared “James Brickhouse” Birchall, Musk’s finance guy and all-around fixer, took the stand after Musk today. Most of his testimony was dull and seemed to exist primarily to get some documents read into the record, which sucks but is a normal part of sitting through trials. But at the very end of his boring testimony something interesting happened. I believe we all got a surprise, something that rarely happens in courtrooms.
The lawyer conducting his direct examination was passed a note by another member of the team, and asked Birchall what was apparently contained on the note: was he familiar with the xAI bid for OpenAI’s assets?
“Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
“As I recall, a lawyer we were working with had asked the attorney general of California to ensure that in their fiduciary duty, proper value was being given to the assets of the nonprofit of OpenAI,” Birchall said. In his understanding, there was a negotiation “between Sam Altman and himself on both sides of the table, the for-profit and the non-profit, attempting to discount the value of the non-profit assets. And we made that bid in an attempt to properly account for the value the foundation had, and create a market bid that would need to be considered by the attorney general.”
Here’s some lore: in February 2025, a Musk-led coalition made a $97.4 billion bid for the non-profit that controls OpenAI. The bid was submitted by Marc Toberoff, one of Musk’s lawyers in the current case. This bid happened as OpenAI was restructuring itself so that the for-profit arm could be cleared to go public. In Birchall’s testimony, that bid was made because Musk, Birchall, and others, thought Altman might undervalue the nonprofit as the company restructured itself. (I’m not really sure why that would be a problem for Musk and xAI, frankly, but whatever.)
The defense counsel objected, and Birchall’s rant was struck for lack of foundation. So we did this piece by piece to establish the foundation, ending with Birchall saying, again, “Sam Altman was on both sides of the table.”
On cross-examination, Bradley Wilson from Wachtell Lipton — OpenAI’s lawyers — picked the thread back up. Wilson asked how much of this Birchall had learned from sources other than lawyers. Birchall said he’d have a hard time being able to untangle that. After a few more exchanges, Wilson moved to strike all of Birchall’s testimony about the xAI bid on grounds that would not be discussed in front of the jury.
“You must have been very convincing. You’re not very convincing today.”
The jury got to leave early while the lawyers duked it out, and this is where it got weird. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers started asking Birchall questions herself, and it clearly was making Birchall nervous. Birchall said he doesn’t remember discussing the xAI bid with Musk or Shivon Zilis or any other principal of the Musk organization. It sure sounded like Musk’s lawyers hadn’t given OpenAI proper discovery on this topic in the depositions, and so we were doing a fast and dirty deposition with the judge right then. At one point, Gonzalez Rogers told the plaintiff’s counsel to quit coaching the witness.
Birchall said he’d spoken to the other members of the consortium about the bid, but that he wasn’t involved in discussions with Musk about when to send the bid letter. He claimed he’d heard some things from Toberoff, but that he wasn’t aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders. He didn’t know if xAI was aware that Toberoff represented some of the other bidders, either.
Birchall didn’t know whether other investors had first-hand information about OpenAI, he claimed. No one had documents from inside OpenAI as far as he knew. Gonzalez Rogers remained unconvinced. “I’m still struggling with how you can have conversations with these individuals to raise $97.5 billion but have no recollections even in a general sense,” she said. Birchall said he had a general sense — he called each of the people involved to see if they were interested in joining Musk on the bid.
“Why would they do that?” Gonzales Rogers asked. Birchall said these were people with whom Musk et al had longstanding relationships. “You must have been very convincing,” she said. “You’re not very convincing today.”
Birchall said there were no numbers besides the topline one floated when he called prospective investors, and that after speaking with him, they were passed off to lawyers. He didn’t remember who chose the $97.4 billion number, and said he got it from the legal team, telling Gonzalez Rogers he didn’t get it from Musk. Gonzalez Rogers asked if that analysis was created by anyone besides Toberoff. Birchall said not that he could recall.
“Did a lawyer tell you this was part of litigation?” Gonzalez Rogers asked.
No, Birchall said. It was strictly a business deal.
Apparently Steven Molo, who’d been defending Musk during the deposition, had made multiple objections to questions about the deal, citing privileged communications. Business deals, apparently, aren’t privileged. But all discovery into the xAI bid for OpenAI had been blocked before the trial began. Unfortunately, by asking Birchall about the xAI deal at the very end of the direct examination, Musk’s team may have opened the door for more digging into it. You may be wondering, “open the door to what” and your guess is as good as mine. More discovery? Maybe something about anticompetitive behavior from Musk? It doesn’t sound like it’s going to be good for Musk, I can tell you that much.
Gonzalez Rogers then asked who’d passed the note, and all the lawyers just sat there like guilty children. Finally, the guy responsible said he’d passed it, but he didn’t write it; a junior lawyer did. Who wrote it? More silence. Finally Toberoff — hardly a junior lawyer — stood up and took responsibility. Why had he done it? “I thought it was appropriate.”
“Sounds like you wanted to open the door, then,” Gonzalez Rogers said. We adjourned while she said she’d consider what to do with this testimony. She will probably rule on it tomorrow.
Correction, April 30th: It is Shivon Zilis, not Sharon Zilis.
Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Most people download an insurance app for a simple reason. They want a discount. Maybe it is a safe driving program. Maybe it is a wellness incentive. Either way, the pitch sounds simple. Share a little data and save a little money. But what exactly are you sharing?
Jan emailed us with a question that many people have probably wondered about:
“To get lower insurance, they have the app, and I use Travels, but I know other ones have it. When I opened it up, I noticed that it looks like they can access your health information and all kinds of things, and I don’t know if there’s a way to prevent them from following everything that’s on there. I am sure you have an opinion on this, and if it’s worth the 10% off from the get-go, and the following year.”
Jan, you’re not alone. Many insurance companies now offer programs that promise lower premiums if you install their app and agree to share certain types of data. That can include how you drive, where you travel and, in some cases, limited health or fitness information if the app connects to systems like Apple Health. The key point is that these programs are usually optional, and the data sharing is part of the trade.
TOP 20 APPS TRACKING YOU EVERY DAY
Insurance apps may offer lower premiums, but many also collect location, driving behavior and, in some cases, limited health data. (Neil Godwin/Future via Getty Images)
The good news is that you can often limit what these apps can see. The bigger question is whether the discount is worth the access.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
How insurance apps track your driving and health data
CyberGuy has previously covered telematics programs where insurers track driving behavior through smartphone apps or connected car data. Those programs monitor things like speed, braking patterns and the time of day you drive. In another report, we explained how your car may be sharing driving data with insurance companies.
We’ve also reported on how apps collect and sell personal data, including sensitive health information many users assume stays private. What has not always been discussed together is the broader pattern. Insurance companies are increasingly using smartphone apps to gather behavior data about both how you drive and how you live. Your phone becomes the measurement tool. For you, that raises a simple question. How much personal data are you willing to trade for a discount?
What data insurance apps can track about you
The details vary depending on the program. However, many insurance apps collect several types of information.
For driving programs, apps may monitor:
- Location
- Speed
- Braking and acceleration
- Time of day you drive
- Motion patterns detected by your phone
The goal is to calculate a driving score. Safer drivers may receive a discount when the policy renews. Some insurance apps also ask for access to other phone data, such as Motion & Fitness or camera permissions.
On the health side, programs may connect to health and fitness platforms. If you grant permission, the app may read data such as:
- Steps or activity levels
- Workout information
- Limited health metrics stored in Apple Health
It is important to understand that apps typically cannot see this data unless you grant access during setup. Still, many people click through permission screens quickly and later wonder what they agreed to share.
Why insurance app tracking raises privacy concerns
Location data alone can reveal a surprising amount about a person’s life. It can show where you live, where you work and where you travel every day. Driving patterns can also reveal how often you are on the road at night or during busy traffic periods.
Health and fitness data can paint an even more personal picture. That does not mean insurers are secretly spying on everything in your phone. But the more permissions you grant, the more insight the app may gain into your routines and habits.
That is why we encourage you to review app permissions carefully.
Are insurance tracking apps optional?
In most cases, yes. Insurance companies typically frame these programs as voluntary discount opportunities. If you enroll, you agree to share certain data that helps calculate a risk score.
If the data shows safe driving or healthy activity levels, you may receive a discount at renewal. However, if you decide you are uncomfortable with the tracking, you can usually opt out. Just keep in mind that the associated discount may disappear.
BLUE SHIELD EXPOSED 4.7M PATIENTS’ HEALTH DATA TO GOOGLE
Drivers looking for discounts through insurance apps are being urged to review app permissions and understand what personal data they are sharing. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
How to limit what an insurance app can access
The good news for Jan and anyone else wondering about this is that you can adjust permissions on your phone. These controls exist on both iPhone and Android devices. A smart approach is to review every permission the app requests and only allow what is truly necessary.
Limit location tracking
On iPhone:
- Go to Settings
- Tap Privacy & Security
- Click Location Services
Find the insurance app and adjust its access. You can often set location access to:
On Android:
Settings may vary depending on your Android phone’s manufacturer
- Go to Settings
- Tap Location
- Click App permissions
or
- Go to Settings
- Tap Security and Privacy
- Tap More privacy settings at the very bottom
- Click Permission Manager
- Tap Location
Find the insurance app and choose a more limited option, such as:
- Allow only while using the app
- Don’t allow
These settings help prevent constant background location tracking.
Check health data access
If an insurance app connects to Apple Health or Google Health Connect, you can manage that separately.
On iPhone:
- Go to Settings
- Scroll down to the bottom and tap Apps
- Tap Health
- Click Data Access & Devices
Select the insurance app to see what information it can read. You can turn off specific categories of health data.
On Android:
Settings may vary depending on your Android phone’s manufacturer
- Go to Settings
- Click Privacy or Security and privacy
- You might have to click More privacy settings at the bottom of the screen
- Tap Health Connect
- Tap App permissions
There, you can see which apps have permission to read or write health and fitness data, such as activity or workout information. You can turn those permissions off if you prefer.
Review other permissions insurance apps request
While you are already in your phone’s Settings reviewing permissions, it is also worth checking access to:
- Camera
- Motion & Fitness
- Contacts
Only allow the permissions the app truly needs to function. This follows a simple security principle called least privilege. Give an app the minimum access it needs to work. Not every permission it asks for. For example, a driving app may need motion data to measure braking. But it may not need continuous location tracking or access to health records. By limiting permissions, you reduce how much information the app collects.
Is the discount worth it?
This brings us back to Jan’s question. Is a 10% discount worth the trade? For some people, the answer is yes. If you are comfortable sharing driving data and the program is transparent about how it works, the savings can add up. For others, the trade may feel too intrusive. The most important thing is understanding what the app can access and deciding whether the benefit outweighs the data you share. A discount can be helpful. But privacy has value too.
5 MYTHS ABOUT IDENTITY THEFT THAT PUT YOUR DATA AT RISK
Telematics and wellness apps promise insurance discounts, but the tradeoff may include access to detailed data about how you drive and live. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
Pro tip: Reduce how much of your data is available online
Insurance apps are only one way companies can collect information about you. Data brokers also gather location patterns, behavioral details, and personal information from apps and online activity. Using a data removal service can help reduce how much of that information is available online.
While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.
Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting CyberGuy.com.
Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: CyberGuy.com.
Kurt’s key takeaways
Insurance apps reflect a bigger shift in how companies assess risk. Instead of relying only on traditional factors like age or claims history, insurers can now measure behavior through the device in your pocket. That can reward safe drivers and active lifestyles. It can also create new privacy questions that many of you never expected to face when you downloaded an app. Jan’s instinct to question what the app could access was exactly right. Before accepting a discount, take a few minutes to review permissions and decide what level of tracking you are comfortable with. Your phone holds a lot of personal information. It is worth making sure you stay in control of it.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Here is the question for you: Would you trade detailed data about your driving or health for a lower insurance bill? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
- Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox.
- For simple, real-world ways to spot scams early and stay protected, visit CyberGuy.com – trusted by millions who watch CyberGuy on TV daily.
Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide free when you join.
Copyright 2026 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
Autonomous vehicles roving California’s roads will no longer be immune to traffic tickets starting on July 1st. New regulations announced by the California DMV this week allow law enforcement to give AV manufacturers a “notice of AV noncompliance” when one of their cars commits a traffic violation, like running a red light or failing to stop for school buses.
The updated regulations come after years of viral traffic violations and multiple safety investigations involving robotaxis. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) system is also under investigation for running red lights and driving in the wrong direction. Now, driverless vehicle companies can get cited for those violations, at least in California.
California’s new regulations could also help prevent driverless cars from getting in the way during emergencies, like an incident in San Francisco last year when Waymos blocked traffic during a power outage. AV companies will now have to answer first-responder calls within 30 seconds and must allow emergency responders to “issue electronic geofencing directives,” which will block AVs from entering active emergency areas. Any driverless cars already in the area will have to leave.
The new regulations also allow AV companies to test and deploy heavy-duty autonomous trucks and include “licensing qualifications and permitting and training requirements for remote drivers and assistants.”
-
New York1 hour agoProtesters Tried to Block an Eviction. But Was It a Case of Deed Theft?
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoDetroit Lions NFL Draft roundtable: Favorite pick
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoDeadly hospital stabbing puts Newsom under pressure over ICE detainer fight
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas firefighter injured while battling house fire near Fair Park, officials say
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoExclusive | Inside Alix Earle and ex Braxton Berrios’ reunion at star-studded Miami Grand Prix party
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoIn a hot housing market, Boston buyers are being more strategic
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoTop 3 Priorities for Denver Nuggets During 2026 NBA Offseason
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoHow notable ex-Seattle Mariners are doing with new teams