Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Hong Kong police have been granted the authority to require individuals suspected of violating the city's national security law to provide passwords to their mobile phones or computers. This measure, which took effect on Monday, is part of the national security law imposed by Beijing in 2020. The new provisions empower police to require a person under investigation suspected of endangering national security to provide any password or decryption method for electronic devices and to provide the police “any reasonable and necessary information or assistance”. Refusing to comply could lead to up to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of up to 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,768), while providing false or misleading information could bring up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to 500,000 Hong Kong dollars ($63,840). The imposition of the 2020 national security law, supplemented by a second component in 2024, has led to a marked decline in civil liberties in the former British colony returned to China in 1997, according to human rights advocates. The new amendments have sparked concerns over the erosion of Hong Kong's autonomy and its status as an international financial and business centre. Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfered with fundamental liberties, including the privacy of communication and the right to a fair trial. “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,” Chiu told the Reuters news agency. 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.

Eritrea's national football team, popularly known as the Red Sea Camels, will host Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, in the Moroccan city of Meknes on Wednesday in the first leg of their 2027 Africa Cup of Nations qualifier. This marks the end of an 18-year absence from the premier African national team competition.The match at the 20,000-seat Stade d’Honneur was moved from East to North Africa due to Eritrea's lack of an international-standard venue. Eswatini will stage the return match on March 31, with the aggregate winners advancing to the group stage.Eritrea has not played in the Cup of Nations since a 2008 qualifier against Swaziland. The reason for their absence has not been officially explained, but it is widely believed that many players sought asylum while playing abroad, citing political repression and lengthy military service.The Eritrean National Football Federation President, Paulos Andemariam, announced that the isolation would end, saying, “After positive discussions with our government, we have registered to play in the 2027 AFCON, and I believe we will have a strong team, including many Eritreans playing outside Africa.”The Eritrean squad includes players from various countries, such as Australia, Egypt, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, and Sweden. Siem Eyob-Abraha, with English second-tier club Sheffield United, and Egypt-based striker Ali Sulieman are expected to start.Eritrea's lack of match practice could be a disadvantage, as their last competitive international was a World Cup qualifying defeat in Namibia seven years ago. FIFA has omitted Eritrea from the national team rankings, while Eswatini are 46th in Africa and 159th in the world.

Israeli analysts are expressing a sense of disappointment and confusion following US President Donald Trump's assertion that negotiations with Iran to de-escalate the conflict are ongoing. This comes as a surprise, given Trump's previous threats to launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure and Tehran's denials of any negotiations taking place.The situation has left many in Israel questioning the country's role in the conflict, particularly as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had framed the war as an existential threat to Israel, with the US joining forces to combat Iran. Netanyahu has boasted of convincing the US to support Israel's stance against Iran.In a video statement, Netanyahu mentioned that Trump believed it was possible to leverage the military achievements of both the US and Israel to secure an agreement that would safeguard their vital interests. He emphasized that Israel continues to attack Iran and Lebanon, methodically dismantling Iran's missile and nuclear programs and targeting Hezbollah.Despite Netanyahu's assertions, many Israelis are aware that the war was initially presented as an effort to overthrow the Iranian government and eliminate the threat from the country. With the Islamic Republic still standing and Iran launching deadly attacks on Israel, the prospect of a negotiated end to the conflict is unsettling.Former Israeli ambassador Alon Pinkas suggested that if Trump has pushed for negotiations over Netanyahu's objections, it may indicate that the US president has realized Netanyahu may have misled him about the feasibility and speed of a victory and the viability of regime change in Iran.Political scientist Ori Goldberg described Trump's move as a defeat for Netanyahu, essentially ditching Israel. He noted that this development undermines Israel's status as a serious player that the US or other states would want to engage with.The situation highlights the complex dynamics between Israel, the US, and Iran, with analysts suggesting that even if Israel has been sidelined in current negotiations, it has still achieved significant gains in its fight against Iran. Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flashenberg noted that Israel's primary goal may have been to downgrade Iran's military capabilities, which it has accomplished in a way that ensures long-term US commitment to maintaining this status.

Anthropic, a leading artificial intelligence company, has taken the US Department of Defense to court in a bid to overturn a ban on its AI model being used by the military and government contractors. The ban was imposed after Anthropic refused to allow its Claude AI chatbot to be used for domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous lethal weapons.The dispute centers on the company's concerns about the use of its technology for purposes that could potentially infringe on civil liberties and international humanitarian law. Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, has expressed concerns about AI being used in authoritarian ways, which has led to tensions with the US government and former President Donald Trump, who has labeled the company a "RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY".In a federal court in northern California, Judge Rita Lin presided over a hearing for a temporary injunction sought by Anthropic. The company's lawsuit claims that the government's actions are unprecedented and unlawful, and that they violate Anthropic's First Amendment rights. The government, on the other hand, argues that its decision to bar the use of Anthropic's technology is a legitimate exercise of its authority.The case has significant implications for the use of AI in military and government operations, and could set a precedent for the regulation of AI technology in the US. Anthropic's technology is deeply intertwined with government operations, including in the military, where it is reportedly being used to select and analyze targets of missile strikes in Iran. The company's AI model has been used by various government agencies over the past year, making it a challenging task to disentangle federal agencies from its use.

The estate of late British tech tycoon Mike Lynch has been ordered to pay £920m to the technology company Hewlett-Packard (HP) two years after he died in a superyacht disaster.The ruling by London’s high court said the estate was liable to pay the sum as compensation, costs, and interest for HP’s acquisition of Lynch’s firm Autonomy, after a UK legal ruling in 2022 that he duped the US firm into paying £8.2bn for his software firm Autonomy.The deceased entrepreneur’s estate has been estimated to be worth about £500m, so the damages could leave it bankrupt.Lynch and six others, including his 18-year-old daughter Hannah, died in August 2024 on a trip with friends and family celebrating his acquittal on US fraud charges relating to HP’s $11bn takeover of Autonomy in 2011.HP accused Lynch and Autonomy’s former chief financial officer, Sushovan Hussain, of inflating the firm’s value before the takeover. HP wrote down Autonomy’s worth by $8.8bn (£6.5bn) within a year of the purchase.The US tech company has sought damages in UK civil proceedings of up to $4.55bn from the estate of the late tycoon, who was once hailed as Britain’s answer to Microsoft founder Bill Gates.However, the level of the claim was ruled last year by the high court to be “always exaggerated”, as it concluded that Lynch’s estate owed £700m in compensation. The £920m figure includes costs and interest.Lawyers for Lynch’s estate sought permission to appeal against Tuesday’s ruling, which was refused. However, the estate can apply directly to the court of appeal.HP welcomed Tuesday’s decision, which it said in a statement “brings us another step closer to resolution of the dispute”.A spokesperson for the Lynch family said: “We are disappointed by the court’s refusal and believe an application to the court of appeal should follow in the interests of justice. HP’s $5bn damages claim has already been shown to be vastly exaggerated.“Today’s judgment describes the exaggeration as ‘without foundation’ and the purposes for which it was ‘calibrated, publicised and pursued’ as objectionable, misleading shareholders and extending the litigation unnecessarily.“Dr Lynch’s acquittal in the US, where witnesses were properly cross-examined, exposed the truth. The damage to Autonomy was the result of HP’s own actions and failures, not wrongdoing at Autonomy.”

The ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has sparked concerns about the motivations behind Donald Trump's continued military actions. Kenneth Roth, a Guardian US columnist and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, draws a striking parallel between Trump's approach and that of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War. Nixon's quest for 'peace with honor' in Vietnam led to years of devastation, resulting in over 20,000 American soldiers killed and a significantly higher toll among Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian civilians. Similarly, Trump's conflict with Iran appears to be driven by a desire to assert dominance and protect his political reputation, rather than a clear military objective. The article questions the rationale behind Trump's continued bombing of Iran, citing claims that Iran's ballistic missile capacity has been functionally destroyed and its nuclear program 'obliterated.' With 7,000 Iranian protesters killed in January, the Trump administration's call for regime change seems unlikely to succeed. The current fixation on Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which carries 20% of the world's oil and gas, has led to soaring petroleum prices. Trump's threat to destroy Iran's electrical infrastructure by the end of the week, unless Tehran agrees to allow the strait to reopen, raises concerns about war crimes and humanitarian consequences. Roth suggests that a de facto ceasefire, where Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu stop bombing, could be a more fruitful path to deescalation. However, Trump's desire for 'unconditional surrender' and the Iranian regime's insistence on lifting sanctions and affirming its right to nuclear enrichment complicate negotiations. The article concludes that Trump's pursuit of 'honor' and 'victory' in the conflict may come at a significant cost to the people of Iran, the global economy, and the United States itself, echoing the lessons of the Vietnam War.

Surrender to It is a film that seems to have been made without regard for the clichés that have been established by similar movies in the past. Writer-director Tim Bryn Smith appears to have ignored the criticism that greeted films like Peter's Friends back in 1992, which featured a similar premise of actors reuniting.The story revolves around a group of former thespians who met at a drama workshop and are now reuniting for a hiking weekend. The cast includes Daemian Greaves, Melissa May Smith, Fletcher Graham, and Chantelle Lee, among others. However, their performances are marred by stiff gestural quality and amateur production values.The script, credited to Bryn Smith and Chris Wetton, feels disjointed and like it was cobbled together from improv exercises and random suggestions. The film tries to balance maudlin tones with comic subplots, but the result is a mess. One subplot involves a bereaved couple mourning their dead son, while another focuses on a movie star recovering from a scandal.The film's production values are also lacking, with scissorhand editing and poorly executed plot twists. Despite its flaws, Surrender to It will be available on digital platforms from 30 March.

Huw Edwards, the former iconic BBC newsreader, has publicly denounced Channel 5's forthcoming dramatization of his downfall. In a lengthy statement, Edwards expressed his disapproval of the drama, stating that mental illness is often misunderstood and should not be used as an excuse for criminal behavior. Edwards has been open about his struggles with persistent mental illness over the past 25 years. However, his decision to use this as an explanation for his actions has been met with criticism, particularly given the severity of his condition and the conviction for possessing multiple indecent images of children, including category A images. The drama, titled 'Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards,' stars Martin Clunes as Edwards and has sparked controversy over its portrayal of Edwards' actions. Edwards has questioned the production values of the drama and suggested that it will not accurately convey the reality of his situation. He also expressed concerns about the allegations made against him and whether those involved were paid for their contributions. Edwards' statement has been seen as an attempt to shift the focus away from his own actions and onto his mental health struggles. Critics argue that this approach downplays the severity of his crimes and the impact on his victims. The drama is part of a larger trend of 'true story' dramas that have become increasingly popular in recent years. Marina Hyde, the author of the article, criticizes Edwards for not taking responsibility for his actions and instead using his mental illness as an excuse. Hyde also questions Edwards' motives, suggesting that he is trying to rehabilitate his image and portray himself as a victim.

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.