Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Hong Kong police have been granted new powers to demand that individuals suspected of breaching the city's national security law provide mobile phone or computer passwords. This move is part of a further crackdown on dissent in the city.The amendments to the law, published by the city government, also empower customs officers to seize items deemed to have a 'seditious intention', regardless of whether any person has been arrested for an offence endangering national security.Refusing to comply with the demand for passwords could lead to up to one year's jail and a fine of up to HK$100,000 ($12,773), while providing false or misleading information could bring up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to HK$500,000.The sweeping national security law, imposed by Beijing in 2020, punishes acts including subversion and collusion with foreign forces with up to life imprisonment. The law has sparked criticism from western governments and rights groups, but Beijing and Hong Kong officials say it was needed to restore stability after months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfere with fundamental liberties, including the privacy of communication and the right to a fair trial. Chiu stated that 'the sweeping powers given to law enforcement officers without any need for judicial authorisation are grossly disproportionate to any legitimate aim the bylaw purports to achieve.'A Hong Kong government spokesperson said the amended rules conform to the city's mini-constitution, the Basic Law, and its human rights provisions, and 'will not affect the lives of the general public or the normal operation of institutions and organisations'. According to the Security Bureau, a total of 386 people have been arrested for national security crimes so far, with 176 people and four companies convicted.

The trial in San Francisco centers on a class-action lawsuit filed against Elon Musk, who is accused of engaging in a pattern of deceptive behavior that misled investors as he attempted to back out of his $44bn deal to buy Twitter, now known as X, in 2022.Musk's claims about the number of bots on Twitter were a key part of his argument for backing out of the deal. He testified that Twitter had a much higher number of fake and spam accounts than the 5 percent it disclosed in regulatory filings, claiming it was actually around 20 percent. However, Twitter's former CFO Ned Segal disputed this claim, saying the number was closer to 1 percent.The trial has significant implications for Musk, whose fortune is now estimated at $839bn. If the court rules in favor of the shareholders, Musk could be liable for damages. The case highlights the challenges of navigating complex financial deals and the importance of transparency in corporate transactions.Closing arguments are set to begin on Tuesday, with the jury instructed to consider the evidence presented during the trial. The case has been closely watched by investors and observers, who are eager to see how the court will rule on the matter.

Palantir, one of the world's biggest tech companies, has been accused of launching an intimidation campaign against a small Swiss magazine, Republik, after it published an investigative report on the company's activities in Switzerland.The report, which was a collaboration between Republik and the independent Swiss research collective WAV, alleged that Palantir had persistently courted Switzerland but had been rejected. The investigation found that Palantir had pitched itself to Switzerland's chancellor during the Covid-19 pandemic to help with data tracking, approached the Swiss army, and met Switzerland's then finance minister, Ueli Maurer.Palantir was not happy with the report and filed a lawsuit in a Swiss commercial court demanding that Republik print a detailed rebuttal. The company claims that the report paints a false and misleading narrative about Palantir and sets back important discourse on European software modernisation.The journalists behind the report say they had interviewed company executives and sent a full list of questions before publication, but that Palantir demanded they print a detailed rebuttal that went beyond the scope of their investigation. The lawsuit has sparked concerns about Palantir's tactics and the impact on journalism, with the European Federation of Journalists claiming that the legal action is an attempt at intimidation aimed at discouraging critical analysis of Palantir's activities."It does feel like an intimidation campaign," says Marguerite Meyer, a journalist who works with WAV. "However, we adhered to all journalistic standards, and had a thorough factcheck done. They are suing for an absurd list of changes."The investigation, which was published in December, gave an account of Palantir's years-long efforts to try to sell itself to the Swiss government. The journalists found that despite Palantir's efforts, no government contracts had been reported."We tried to find out, is there any kind of government agency that uses this software? I mean, they are in Switzerland, eventually some government official maybe thought they could use this Palantir," says Balz Oertli, who is also with WAV.The lawsuit has raised questions about Palantir's influence and the limits of journalistic scrutiny. Swiss law allows the subjects of a story to request a right of reply, but this has caveats: the right of reply has to be concise and stick to the facts of the story."This lawsuit for a right of reply is not about whether Republik was technically inaccurate or not. It is only about whether Palantir is allowed to place its view of the facts alongside that of Republik and whether Republik must publish it," says Dominique Strebel, an expert in media law and the editor-in-chief of Beobachter, another Swiss magazine.