Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The global super-rich may have as much as $3.55 trillion hidden away from tax authorities, according to estimates by Oxfam. This staggering amount is more than 3% of global GDP and is likely to be owned by the richest 0.1% of households.Oxfam's latest analysis reveals that total wealth held offshore has increased significantly to $13.25 trillion in 2023. While the share of secretive holdings hidden from tax authorities has fallen since the introduction of a new system of automatic information exchange between jurisdictions in 2016, Oxfam estimates that a substantial amount remains shielded from tax.The charity's lead on tax, Christian Hallum, emphasized that this isn't just about clever accounting, but about power and impunity. When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens, they place themselves above the obligations that bind the rest of society.Oxfam is part of a global campaign to mobilize calls for a global progressive wealth tax, including through negotiations at the UN on a framework for tax cooperation. The charity is also calling for countries in the global south to be included in the Common Reporting Standard – the system that allows for information exchange between jurisdictions.In the UK, Oxfam is urging Labour to implement a wealth tax, with the Green leader in England and Wales, Zack Polanski, suggesting a tax levied annually at a rate of 1% on assets worth more than £10m, and 2% above £100m. The Green party claims this policy would raise about £15 billion a year.

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

A recent investigation has exposed a vast illegal casino network targeting UK gamblers, operating with impunity in jurisdictions like Curaçao. The network, linked to Santeda International, includes brands such as MyStake, Velobet, and Goldenbet, which have attracted an average of 2.3 million monthly unique visitors from the UK.The investigation reveals that these illegal casinos are not licensed by the UK's Gambling Commission, a legal requirement for serving UK customers. They offer a range of games, from football betting to classic casino games and slot machines, and have been linked to fraud, financial harm, and even suicide.The network's digital trail leads to Santeda International BV, a company with a licence from Curaçao, and Upgaming AG, a Swiss-based business. Georgian businessmen, including Tornike Tvauri, Alexander Makashvili, and Mikheil Merebashvili, appear to be involved in the operation.The UK's Gambling Commission has been criticized for its limited success in stopping these illegal casinos. The regulator has targeted affiliates recommending these sites and sent takedown requests to Google. However, the vast majority of these sites remain easily accessible from the UK.The Labour MP Alex Ballinger has called on the Gambling Commission to take urgent action, stating that these sites deliberately target vulnerable people trying to stop gambling. The Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith has also urged the regulator to liaise with authorities in countries where these operators are based.The investigation highlights the significant economic costs of gambling harm in the UK, estimated to be between £1bn and £2bn. The chancellor has allocated an extra £26m over three years to tackle illicit gambling sites.

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

Anthropic, a leading AI developer, has suffered a significant source code leak of its AI-powered coding assistant, Claude Code. The incident occurred due to "human error" during a software update, which mistakenly included an internal-use file pointing to an archive containing nearly 2,000 files and 500,000 lines of code.The leaked code was quickly copied to the developer platform GitHub, where a post sharing a link to the code garnered over 29 million views. A rewritten version of the source code rapidly became GitHub's fastest-ever downloaded repository. In response, Anthropic issued copyright takedown requests to try to contain the code's spread.Analysis of the leaked code revealed blueprints for a Tamagotchi-esque coding assistant and an always-on AI agent. Anthropic assured that the exposed code did not contain confidential data from Claude, the underlying AI model. However, some experts worry that the leak suggests internal security vulnerabilities within Anthropic, which could be particularly troubling for a company focused on AI safety.The leak could also benefit competitors like OpenAI and Google by providing them with insights into Claude Code's AI system. This incident is the second data leak for Anthropic in recent weeks, following a separate breach that exposed thousands of internal files on publicly accessible systems.The US government has designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk, a designation the company is contesting in court. This latest breach comes at a critical time for Anthropic, as its paid subscriber base continues to grow and its Claude chatbot gains popularity.

Chelsea Football Club has reported a staggering £262.4m pre-tax loss for the 2024-25 season, shattering the previous English football record held by Manchester City. The substantial loss is primarily attributed to increased operating costs compared to the previous season. The club's financial report reveals a significant downturn from the £128.4m profit recorded in the 2023-24 season, which was largely bolstered by the sale of Chelsea's women's team for nearly £200m. In contrast, Chelsea's latest financial statements reflect a challenging period for the club. According to a UEFA report, Chelsea's losses for the 2024-25 season were even higher, estimated at €407m (£355m). However, club sources indicate that these figures are influenced by differing reporting requirements in European football. In addition to the financial loss, Chelsea disclosed that they had spent £65.1m on agents' fees, the highest in the Premier League, with Aston Villa being the next biggest spenders at £38.4m. The total spend on agents' fees across English top-flight clubs rose by 13% to £460.3m. Despite the record loss, Chelsea assured compliance with the Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules (PSR), which permit maximum losses of £105m over three years, with certain expenditures like infrastructure and youth development being 'added back.' Chelsea reported revenue of £490.9m, the second-highest on record for the club, including earnings from their participation in the Club World Cup. The club is forecasting revenue of over £700m for the 2025-26 season. Sources close to Chelsea express confidence in their financial structuring and anticipate compliance with all regulatory requirements, including UEFA's football earnings rule, following a €20m fine for previous breaches.

The families of British citizens held in the United Arab Emirates over allegations that they shared images of the conflict with Iran have expressed frustration at the British government's failure to help.Several British citizens are among more than 100 foreign nationals who have been detained under draconian Emirate rules that outlaw publishing or sharing material that could 'disturb public security'.UK government ministers have refused to condemn the arrests, amid claims they are too fearful of offending the Emirates because of their economic clout.The campaign group Dubai Watch, which is supporting nine British detainees, said their identities could not be revealed for fear of reprisals. But it has shown the Guardian anonymised correspondence from their increasingly anxious families.A mother whose daughter is being held wrote: 'This experience is exhausting, mentally and emotionally.'She described reading media reports about the continuing conflict in which Iran has retaliated against US and Israelis strikes by firing drones and missiles against its Gulf neighbours, including the UAE.She said: 'I have just read another article, and quite frankly I could do one purely on the inadequacies and sycophantic responses from this [UK] embassy.'She also expressed increasing fears for her daughter's safety as attacks continued. The mother said: 'I spoke to [my daughter] last night and they are no longer allowed to go outside in the courtyard as it's now deemed too dangerous to do so. This is an even bigger worry as they are all just sitting ducks.'Another message from a woman whose husband had been detained under the same law said the case had been 'mishandled'. She added: 'We are scared because nobody is telling us the truth. Can you please help us.'Police in Abu Dhabi said those detained had 'filmed sites and events and disseminated inaccurate information via social media platforms during the ongoing events, an action that could stir public opinion and spread rumours among community members'. In a statement, the officials said these 'violations' amounted to a 'misuse of social media'.Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, confirmed that one of the detainees was a St Albans' constituent. She said their family was frustrated by the lack of consular help.Cooper told the Guardian: 'I'm deeply concerned that my constituent has been held with very little contact with their family, with no clear access to legal counsel, and no confirmation that UK consular officials have been permitted to visit them. The family are distressed and desperate for information about their wellbeing.'Cooper also criticised the UAE's round-up of anyone it has accused of sharing images of the conflict. She said: 'The response from the authorities appears wholly disproportionate given the nature of the allegations.'The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirmed that five UK nationals were receiving consular assistance in the UAE.David Haigh, a human rights lawyer and founder of Dubai Watch, said: 'There's an awful lot more than five cases. The embassy is overwhelmed.'He added: 'There hasn't been any government intervention because it would offend the UAE and they don't want to do that. Impotent is the best way to describe the response. They're too scared – it's all about the money and investment from the UAE.'

Police in Wuhan reported a sudden "system malfunction" that immobilised several autonomous robotaxis operated by Baidu’s Apollo Go service, leaving passengers stuck on an elevated highway for up to an hour and a half.Local authorities said they received a flood of calls on Tuesday night from riders whose vehicles froze in the middle of the road. A police statement confirmed that “multiple Apollo Go cars stopped in the middle of the road, unable to move,” and preliminary investigations point to a technical failure.Baidu maintains a fleet of more than 500 driverless cars in Wuhan, though the exact number affected was not disclosed. One commuter shared a 90‑minute ordeal on the Chinese platform RedNote, describing how the vehicle stalled at 9 p.m. on an overpass, surrounded by dump trucks, while customer‑service lines remained unanswered.The rider eventually was rescued after the order was cancelled at 10:30 p.m., but criticized Apollo Go’s support team for offering “useless platitudes” instead of concrete solutions. Social‑media users also posted videos captioned “Apollo Go, are you paralysed?” showing futile attempts to contact the company via the in‑car tablet.This is not Baidu’s first controversy. In December, authorities in Zhuzhou halted robotaxi operations after a Baidu‑manufactured autonomous vehicle struck two pedestrians, sending them to intensive care.Despite these setbacks, Baidu’s autonomous‑mobility arm continues to grow. Company filings reveal that Apollo Go delivered 3.4 million driverless rides in the fourth quarter of 2025, a jump of over 200 % compared with the same period in 2024. The firm is also pursuing international expansion, having announced partnership deals with rideshare giants Lyft and Uber to deploy its vehicles on their platforms.When approached for comment, Baidu did not respond, according to Reuters.Additional reporting by Yu‑chen Li

The recent waiving of Jaden Ivey by the Chicago Bulls following his anti-LGBTQ+ and religiously charged comments on social media was presented as a response to 'conduct detrimental to the team.' However, this situation exposes a more nuanced reality about player expendability and the league's priorities.On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward case of a player making controversial statements and facing consequences. Yet, there's an alternative scenario where Ivey, with the help of his publicist, issues a swift apology, participates in inclusion education, and possibly pays a fine or makes a donation. In this scenario, he could have potentially continued his career in the NBA, a league that has been pro-LGBTQ+ for over a decade.Ivey's comments revealed his beliefs, and the subsequent actions of the Bulls shed light on how NBA teams decide which voices to protect and which to discard. The situation raises questions about the league's commitment to inclusion and how it handles controversial player behavior.As a former NFL player, the author notes that locker room discussions often avoid sensitive topics like queer acceptance and religious beliefs. However, when such topics are broached, they usually involve players sharing how their faith has positively impacted their lives. The author suggests that Ivey's comments were not surprising and might have been shared by some of his teammates.The key difference in Ivey's case was that his comments were made outside the locker room, making them public and subject to scrutiny. The author recalls instances of ignorant comments in locker rooms but notes that peer conversations and diverse perspectives can lead to growth and learning.The swift release of Ivey was likely due to his lack of star power and a career marked by injuries and unremarkable performances. In contrast, superstars like Anthony Edwards, Rajon Rondo, and the late Kobe Bryant faced fewer consequences for similar behavior, with the league giving them time to apologize and make amends.The NBA's response to Ivey's comments does not necessarily indicate a solution to homophobia in locker rooms. Instead, it shows that teams know how to react when a player's behavior becomes visible and when that player is expendable enough to be made an example of. The culture within locker rooms won't shift simply because one voice is removed, especially when the underlying beliefs are not isolated.Ultimately, the NBA manages tensions rather than eliminating them. The gap between public statements and private actions will continue to exist, and incidents like Ivey's will keep surfacing in new ways until this gap closes.