Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged to take on social media companies in a bid to protect children from addiction, as new guidelines recommend limiting screen time for children under five to no more than an hour a day. The guidelines, developed by a panel led by the children's commissioner, Rachel de Souza, and children's health expert Prof Russell Viner, advise that children under two should avoid screen time except for shared activities. Ministers are also exploring Australia-style measures to limit or ban social media for under-16s, as part of a broader effort to regulate social media companies and protect children. Starmer emphasized that regulating social media companies will require a 'fight' to ensure they do not prioritize profits over children's well-being. 'Some of this will require a fight,' he said. 'If we're going to do more to protect children, we're going to have to fight some of the platforms that are putting the material up there because they're putting this addictive stuff up there for a reason.' The guidelines advise families to avoid fast-paced social media-style videos and toys or tools that use artificial intelligence for children aged two to five. They also recommend screen-free bedtimes and mealtimes, and encourage shared screen activities like video calling or looking through photos together. According to the government, about 98% of children watch screens daily by the age of two. Infants with high screen time are less likely to be read to or go on outdoor trips, which can impact language development. Experts have welcomed the guidelines, with Dr. Mike McKean, vice-president for policy at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, saying they will help parents protect 'short, but developmentally crucial early years.'

The Coruna and DarkSword Threat For years, the prevailing narrative among iPhone security experts was that breaking through Apple's defenses was a rare, high-barrier event requiring significant resources. However, recent investigations by Google, iVerify, and Lookout have shattered this assumption. Researchers have documented broad-scale hacking campaigns utilizing two specific tools, Coruna and DarkSword, which have been used to target victims globally who are not running the latest software updates. Attack Vectors: Hackers are compromising legitimate websites and creating fake pages to deliver spyware. Key Actors: Involvement of Russian spies and Chinese cybercriminals. Tool Availability: The source code for these tools has leaked online, allowing anyone to launch attacks against older iPhones. The Two-Tier iPhone Security Landscape The discovery of Coruna and DarkSword highlights a critical data point in the current security ecosystem: the existence of two distinct classes of iPhone users. This bifurcation is driven by the introduction of Memory Integrity Enforcement in iOS 26, a feature designed to prevent memory corruption bugs—the very vulnerabilities exploited by DarkSword. Class A (Secure): Users on the latest iPhone 17 models running iOS 26 are protected by memory-safe code and Lockdown Mode, making them resistant to these specific memory-based hacks. Class B (Vulnerable): Users running iOS 18 or older versions remain exposed to memory corruption attacks, as these older systems lack the new safety enforcement layers. Challenging the 'Rare Hack' Myth The widespread use of these leaked tools suggests that spyware attacks are becoming more common and less exclusive. This shift is fueled by a thriving "second-hand" market for exploits, where brokers resell vulnerabilities before they are patched. Experts argue that the rarity of iPhone hacks has been overstated simply because they are rarely documented. As noted by Patrick Wardle, the baseline capability for such attacks is now accessible to a wider range of actors, moving beyond state-sponsored actors to include cybercriminals. The End of the 'Rare Hack' Era The future of mobile security appears to be one of continuous escalation. With the code for Coruna and DarkSword now public, the barrier to entry for launching attacks against older devices has lowered significantly. This indicates that memory-based exploits will continue to plague lagging users, and the market for exploit development will likely expand as brokers seek to monetize vulnerabilities before updates are applied.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced a new eligibility policy for female category events at the Olympics, excluding transgender women athletes from competing in women's sports. This decision aligns with US President Donald Trump's executive order on sports, which aims to keep biological males out of women's sports.The IOC's policy, set to take effect at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, requires a mandatory gene test once in an athlete's career to determine eligibility. The test screens for the SRY gene, typically found on the Y chromosome, which initiates male sex development.According to the IOC, biological males have a performance advantage of 10-12% in most running and swimming events, and at least 20% in most throwing and jumping events. This advantage can be greater than 100% in explosive power events, such as punching sports.The policy change has been met with criticism from human rights experts and activist groups, who argue that the mandatory gender screening is invasive and discriminatory. The IOC has stated that the policy aims to protect "fairness, safety, and integrity in the female category."Caster Semenya, a two-time Olympic champion runner from South Africa, has been a prominent figure in the debate over female eligibility. The IOC's policy document details its research on the physical advantages retained by biological males, which it believes are retained even after transitioning.The US Olympic body has updated its guidance to national sports bodies, citing an obligation to comply with the White House's executive order. President Trump signed the order in February 2023, pledging to deny visas to athletes attempting to compete at the LA Olympics if they do not comply with the new rules.

The Dual Threat: Coruna and DarkSwordSecurity researchers have identified two distinct but equally dangerous hacking toolkits, Coruna and DarkSword, that have leaked onto the open web. These advanced exploit kits, capable of breaking into iPhones and iPads, were originally developed for high-level government surveillance but are now available for anyone to download.Coruna: Targets iOS 13 through 17.2.1. Linked to Trenchant, a unit within U.S. defense contractor L3Harris, and previously used in Operation Triangulation against Russian targets.DarkSword: Targets iOS 18.4 and 18.7. Leaked on GitHub, making it "plug-and-play" for cybercriminals.The Scale of VulnerabilityThe scale of this exposure is staggering. According to Apple's statistics, nearly one-in-three iPhone and iPad users are still not running the latest software. With over 2.5 billion active devices globally, this implies hundreds of millions of users are susceptible to these attacks.DarkSword is particularly concerning because it targets newer devices running iOS 18.4 and 18.7. Researchers have already tested the leaked code, successfully hacking their own devices to demonstrate the ease of use.From State-Sponsored Espionage to Public ExploitationThis leak marks a dangerous shift in the cybersecurity landscape. Historically, sophisticated tools like Coruna were the domain of state-sponsored actors targeting specific regions, such as the Uyghurs in China or activists in Hong Kong.However, the release of DarkSword represents a move toward indiscriminate cybercrime. The tool is written in web languages like HTML and JavaScript, allowing attackers to launch attacks simply by hosting a malicious website. Victims in China, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine have already been targeted.The Future of Zero-Day WeaponizationThe leak of these tools mirrors the infamous 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack, which was fueled by leaked NSA exploits. Once powerful zero-day vulnerabilities are released into the wild, they are nearly impossible to fully contain.Experts recommend immediate action: users must update to iOS 18.7.6 or iOS 26.3.1. For high-risk individuals, enabling Lockdown Mode remains the most effective defense, as there is currently no public evidence of hackers bypassing its protections.

Two prominent US lawmakers, Senator Bernie Sanders and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to impose a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centres. The proposed pause aims to ensure that the rapidly advancing technology does not pose a threat to the 'future of humanity'. The lawmakers argue that current regulations are insufficient to address the potential risks associated with AI, including mass government surveillance and the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes.The legislation seeks to address concerns about the environmental impact of data centres, which consume huge amounts of water and electricity. It also aims to protect workers' livelihoods and civil liberties. Sanders emphasized that lawmakers are 'way behind' in understanding AI and that a moratorium is necessary to prevent a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs from making decisions that could reshape the economy, democracy, and the future of humanity.Ocasio-Cortez stated that Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of data centres until a framework is in place to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to society. The proposed legislation comes amid a growing grassroots backlash against the rollout of data centres in communities across the US, with at least 36 data centres blocked or delayed between May 2024 and June 2025, disrupting $162bn in investment.However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the US Congress, where Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democratic Senator John Fetterman dismissed the proposed moratorium, calling it 'China First' and arguing that the US should build the emerging AI infrastructure while implementing appropriate guardrails.

A recent jury verdict in California has held Meta and YouTube liable for the harm caused to a young woman, KGM, due to the addictive nature of their platforms. The plaintiff claimed that her social media use, which began at the age of six, led to injuries including body dysmorphia and thoughts of self-harm.The jury's decision marks a significant milestone in the ongoing debate about the impact of social media on young people. The verdict suggests that companies like Meta and YouTube, which have been accused of designing features to keep users engaged, can be held accountable for the harm caused by their platforms.Critics of the judgment argue that it could lead to a flood of lawsuits against social media companies, while others see it as a necessary step to protect young people from the potential dangers of social media. The verdict may also prompt regulatory changes and increased scrutiny of social media companies' practices.According to a report from Brown University, social media can be addictive due to its ability to activate the brain's reward system, releasing feel-good hormones such as dopamine. This can lead to a vicious cycle of use and addiction, particularly among young people who spend many hours a day on social media.In response to growing concerns, some countries have taken action to protect young people. Australia, for example, has banned children under 16 from using social media. In the US, there have been calls for social media companies to be required to put warning labels on their sites, but such proposals have yet to gain traction.The verdict is also significant given the close ties between the tech industry and the US administration. The appointment of Mark Zuckerberg to the president's council of advisers on science and technology has raised concerns about the influence of tech companies on policy decisions.Ultimately, the jury verdict sends a clear message to tech titans that they will be held accountable for the impact of their platforms on young people. As the debate about social media regulation continues, this verdict is likely to have far-reaching implications for the industry and for the protection of young people online.

Following Donald Trump's recent claims that the US is engaged in 'strong talks' to end the war with Iran, Qatar took the unusual step of publicly distancing itself from any alleged diplomatic negotiations. The Gulf state's government spokesperson Majed al-Ansari explicitly stated, 'Qatar was not involved in any mediation efforts,' adding pointedly, 'If they exist.'This represents a significant departure from Qatar's traditional role as a chief mediator in Middle East conflicts, having previously facilitated negotiations between Israel and Hamas, the US and the Taliban, and peace deals in Lebanon and Sudan.Over the past three weeks, Gulf states have found themselves on the frontlines of the conflict after their mediation efforts to prevent war were ultimately rejected by the US. The pattern of broken negotiations is particularly telling: the US attacked Iran twice during talks aimed at halting the Iranian nuclear program, which were championed by Oman. Discussions last June were halted as the US and Israel conducted strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, and revived talks in February were similarly undermined when Trump began bombing Tehran before the final round of meetings.Since the war began, Gulf states have been forced to spend billions defending against daily Iranian missile and drone attacks, with their economies and sovereignty suffering substantial damage. Analysts suggest their reluctance to engage with the alleged ceasefire efforts reflects both the heavy toll of continued warfare and lingering suspicion about whether Trump's peace initiatives are genuine or merely a pretext for further escalation.As Bilal Saab, senior managing director of advisory group Trends US and former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration, explained: 'They've been burned by their previous experience. They previously thought they played a useful mediating role – until they realised that it was all for naught. Not to mention that they have been directly implicated in the war and are still being attacked by the Iranians. So there's a lot of pent-up frustration and disappointment.'By Wednesday night, the Iranian regime had outright rejected Trump's 15-point plan to end the war, submitted to Tehran via Pakistani generals, as 'extremely unreasonable' and presented their own substantially different proposal.The concern among Gulf states is that any negotiations could become a front for military escalation or even the assassination of additional Iranian leaders. This anxiety is compounded by the simultaneous deployment of thousands of US troops to the region and the persistent fear of being used as pawns in the US and Israel's Middle East strategy.Professor Bader al-Saif of Kuwait University noted: 'Whenever the word negotiation was used by the Trump administration, we unfortunately ended up under the rubric of war.' He emphasized that while Gulf states are reluctant to engage with what they perceive as a potential Trumpian charade, they recognize the critical importance of shaping any realistic peace negotiations that could affect their future.The existential threat to Gulf economic ambitions is particularly concerning. The prospect of Trump ending the war with the current Iranian regime still in place—potentially more vengeful than before and acutely aware of the damage its missiles can inflict on multi-billion-dollar infrastructure—poses significant risks. Additionally, there remains no clear solution to Iran's effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which most of the region's oil and gas exports flow.Analysts suggest that beyond relying on US-led negotiations, Gulf states should pursue their own separate dialogue with Iran. As al-Saif stated: 'They shouldn't only count on the US to do the negotiation. They should go and strike a deal with Iran for themselves. This was not our war, and if we can shield ourselves from being impacted any further, we should do it to protect our own national interests.'

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a temporary waiver allowing the sale of a higher-ethanol fuel blend, known as E15, in an effort to alleviate soaring gas prices that have been exacerbated by the ongoing Iran war.E15, which contains a higher percentage of ethanol than standard gasoline, has been prohibited during warm weather months due to concerns over its potential to worsen smog. However, the EPA's decision, supported by the US agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, aims to provide relief to consumers at the pump.“President Trump is unleashing American Energy Dominance, and today’s action will directly lower prices at the pump and gives a clear demand signal to our domestic biofuels producers,” Rollins stated.The summer waiver for E15 has become a recurring measure in recent years, with both Republicans and Democrats advocating for its permanent implementation to reduce fuel costs. Currently, E15 is already permitted in several states, including Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, Wisconsin, and most of South Dakota.However, not all experts are convinced that the move will significantly lower gas prices. Kenneth Gillingham, a professor at the Yale School of the Environment, pointed out that E15 is not widely available in all states, and some areas lack the necessary infrastructure or sufficient ethanol supply to support increased use.Gillingham also highlighted potential risks associated with E15, particularly for older vehicles, boats, and all-terrain vehicles, due to its higher corrosive ethanol content. Additionally, increased corn usage for ethanol production could lead to higher costs for animal feed and, subsequently, grocery prices.“I think it’s difficult to see when the ledger’s settled how this is a benefit for US consumers,” said Jason Hill, a professor at the University of Minnesota.The decision has also drawn criticism over its potential environmental impacts, with concerns about increased ozone issues, respiratory problems, and even premature deaths.While the oil industry has generally opposed the expansion of E15, citing costly biofuel blending and potential price increases, the American Petroleum Institute has expressed support for the temporary waiver, emphasizing its role in ensuring affordable and reliable energy for American consumers.

The European Commission has initiated an investigation into Snapchat over concerns that the social messaging app is putting children at risk of grooming, sexual exploitation, and other criminal activities. This probe is part of the EU's efforts to enforce its Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to protect European society from a wide range of internet harms, including child safety provisions to combat cyberbullying, exposure to adult content, and illegal products.In a separate decision, the commission also accused four pornographic websites - Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX, and XVideos - of failing to prevent minors from accessing adult content, which could lead to mental health issues, negative gender attitudes, and increased tolerance of violent sexual behaviors.The investigations follow a landmark ruling in a Los Angeles court that found two social media companies, Meta and YouTube, had deliberately created addictive products that harmed a young user. The EU is now considering whether to follow Australia and ban social media for under-16s.Snapchat reports 94.7 million monthly users in the EU and is hugely popular among teenagers and young people. However, EU regulators believe the company is failing to ensure its age limit of 13 is respected, and users are not given adequate guidance on privacy and safety features.The commission's tech spokesperson, Thomas Regnier, described the situation as 'quite terrible' in EU member states, citing statistics on the prevalence of minors accessing pornographic websites. The companies may now examine the findings and mount a defense, before any final decision is taken. If the complaint is upheld, the four websites could be fined up to 6% of global annual turnover.