Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

India has initiated the world's largest national population count, a yearlong process involving over three million officials. This census, delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic, commenced on Wednesday and is set to conclude by March 31 next year. The data collected will be crucial in reshaping welfare programs and political representation across the country.Census workers will spend about a month collecting information from homes, documenting housing stock and living conditions. Information will be gathered through in-person surveys and online, allowing residents to use a smartphone application.A second phase of the counting will begin in September, during which more detailed information on people's social and economic characteristics, including religion and caste, will be surveyed. The caste system, an ancient social hierarchy in India, has been a contentious issue, with successive governments resisting a full caste count due to potential social tensions.The population data collected will underpin the distribution of government welfare programs and inform public policies. It may also lead to a redrawing of India's political map, with potential increases in seats in the lower house of parliament and state legislatures to reflect population growth. A 2023 law reserves one-third of legislative seats for women, so any expansion would raise the number of seats set aside for female representatives.The last detailed caste information was gathered in 1931 during British colonial rule. Since India's first census in 1951, only Dalits and Adivasis, members of marginalized groups, have been counted. The previous census in 2011 recorded a population of 1.21 billion, which has now grown to over 1.4 billion, making India the world's most populous nation, surpassing China in 2023.

Palantir’s claim that opposition to its NHS contract is driven by ideology was rebuked by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs Parliament’s science, innovation and technology select committee. Onwurah said it is appropriate for ministers to explore a break‑clause option in the deal, underscoring the seriousness of the concerns raised. Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK executive vice‑chair, had urged the government not to succumb to “ideologically motivated campaigners” as officials weighed a way out of a £330 million contract to deliver the Federated Data Platform (FDP) for NHS England. Ministers have now asked for advice on triggering the contract’s break clause amid growing scrutiny of Palantir’s expanding role in the public sector. The FDP is an AI‑enabled platform designed to integrate disparate health information across the NHS. Palantir already holds contracts with the Ministry of Defence, several police forces and the UK’s financial watchdog, the FCA. Onwurah’s cross‑party committee is set to publish its report in the coming weeks, covering the digital reorganisation of government services and the role of AI after a series of hearings that included experts, NHS leaders and representatives from companies such as Palantir. She identified three core issues: the manner in which the contract was awarded, the handling of patient data and the resulting trust deficit within the NHS, and the involvement of Peter Mandelson through his firm Global Counsel. “These are not fringe ideological concerns,” Onwurah told the Guardian. “They relate to contract transparency, vendor lock‑in, value for money and data security – matters that should concern everyone pushing the NHS towards digital transformation.” She added that the NHS’s post‑COVID fatigue and austerity‑driven burnout make any additional trust‑related resentment a significant barrier to progress. Onwurah noted that Palantir secured the contract after providing services to the NHS at a nominal cost – a tactic often used by large tech firms to position themselves as the most attractive government supplier. “It is right for the government to explore all options, including breaking the contract, given ongoing concerns about FDP uptake while Palantir remains at the helm,” she said. Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, also on the committee, urged the government to commission a new consortium of UK‑based tech experts to build a home‑grown NHS platform. During a previous committee appearance, Mosley accused British doctors of placing “ideology over patient interest” after they challenged the data‑processing contract. Speaking to the Times, Mosley warned that removing Palantir could jeopardise patient care and stall solutions to the NHS’s biggest challenges, arguing that the campaign against the firm would do more harm than good.

Amid the escalating United States‑Israel confrontation with Iran, parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has emerged as an unexpected voice on financial strategy, posting a series of warnings on X that market‑moving headlines are often engineered to trigger profit‑taking. Ghalibaf’s core advice is simple yet provocative: if a headline inflates prices, bet against it; if it drags prices down, go long. He describes pre‑market news bursts as a “reverse indicator” designed to manipulate investors. His posts are laced with sarcasm, referencing alleged manipulation of oil futures and even joking about turning rhetoric into “actual fuel at the pump.” Behind the humor, analysts say, lies a calculated effort to exploit the overlap between digital propaganda and real‑world conflict. The backdrop to Ghalibaf’s messaging is Iran’s use of asymmetric warfare, notably the brief shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil and LNG shipments pass. The closure sent crude prices soaring and heightened economic pressure worldwide, underscoring Tehran’s ability to influence U.S. markets by targeting critical supply routes. On March 22, Ghalibaf warned financial institutions that support U.S. military financing in the Middle East, declaring that U.S. Treasury bonds are “soaked in Iranians’ blood” and that their portfolios were under surveillance. Economist Jo Michell of the University of the West of England observes that falling equity markets, rising energy costs, and higher interest rates could eventually force President Donald Trump to seek a diplomatic exit from the conflict. Michell notes that Trump often delivers his most aggressive statements over weekends when markets are closed, only to retreat before the opening bell—a pattern traders have dubbed TACO (“Trump always chickens out”). Indeed, when Trump’s original 48‑hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz loomed, he extended it by five days and later pledged a further 10‑day pause on attacks against Iranian energy infrastructure, actions that analysts interpret as deliberate market signaling. Middle‑East specialist Zeidon Alkinani explains that the conflict’s volatility creates new leverage points beyond direct price manipulation. Even light‑hearted rhetoric from officials like Ghalibaf can exacerbate market instability, as investors scramble for any hint of the war’s trajectory. In this environment, uncertainty itself becomes a powerful market driver. Alkinani stresses that the significance of the Strait of Hormuz now extends beyond physical oil flow disruptions; it reshapes investor expectations and amplifies the impact of digital messaging, especially given Trump’s high‑visibility online presence. Overall, Ghalibaf’s social‑media campaign illustrates how Tehran is blending military pressure with information warfare, turning market sentiment into an additional front of the broader geopolitical struggle.

Beirut, Lebanon – On 24 March, Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi announced that Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, Mohammad Reza Sheibani, was declared persona non grata and ordered to depart by 29 March. Two days after the deadline, the envoy remained in Beirut, refusing to leave. The episode unfolds against a broader conflict that has already claimed more than 1,000 lives and displaced over 1.2 million people within a single month of Israeli military action in Lebanon. It also highlights a deepening schism in Lebanese politics between supporters of the pro‑Iranian Shia militia Hezbollah and those demanding its disarmament. Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, told Al Jazeera that the ambassador’s defiance is a symptom of a larger contest over legitimacy and authority. IRGC’s Strategic Role Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) helped forge Hezbollah in 1982 as a response to Israel’s invasion. Over the decades, Tehran’s billions of dollars in funding elevated Hezbollah to Lebanon’s most powerful political and military force. Hezbollah’s popularity peaked in 2000 after driving Israeli forces from south Lebanon, but subsequent engagements—including the 2006 war, the 2008 Beirut street battles, the Syrian civil war, and the 2019 domestic protests—have eroded its broader support. When Hezbollah entered open conflict with Israel on 8 October 2023, it enjoyed limited backing beyond the Shia community. By the November 2024 cease‑fire, the group was at a low point, with Israel having killed more than 4,000 Lebanese, including leader Hassan Nasrallah and much of Hezbollah’s command. International pressure then mounted for Hezbollah’s disarmament, prompting Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun to prioritize the issue. According to several analysts, the IRGC exploited the cease‑fire lull to dispatch officials to Lebanon, restructuring Hezbollah’s command and possibly ordering its re‑entry into the war on 2 March—just days after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was assassinated. Prime Minister Salam has publicly claimed the IRGC is “managing the military operation in Lebanon” and even accused Tehran of launching an attack on Cyprus. Ambassador Refuses to Exit In response to the perceived IRGC influence, Raggi’s declaration stripped Sheibani of diplomatic immunity. Dania Arayssi, senior analyst at the New Lines Institute, described the move as a “landmark decision” given Iran’s entrenched role in Lebanese politics. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, however, maintains that Sheibani will not depart, and Hezbollah has openly pledged to protect him, warning that any government attempt to disarm the militia will be met with “punishment.” Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri—longtime Hezbollah ally—initially backed the government’s ban on Hezbollah’s military activity after the March re‑entry, illustrating the fluidity of alliances within Lebanon’s power‑sharing system. State Authority Tested Hezbollah’s renewed campaign, which includes dozens of cross‑border attacks and direct engagements with Israeli forces on Lebanese soil, is reshaping the political calculus. The militia’s revived confidence challenges the Lebanese government’s ability to enforce disarmament. While the ambassador remains protected inside the Iranian diplomatic compound—effectively beyond the reach of Lebanese law—critics argue that Tehran’s refusal to honor the expulsion order undermines the state’s authority, already weakened by months of war. Salamey summed up the dilemma: “The state is asserting its authority on paper, but internal divisions and competing claims of legitimacy constrain its practical power, testing the limits of Lebanon’s fragile power‑sharing arrangement.”

The Israeli parliament's approval of a legislation seeking the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of deadly attacks has stoked fears among Palestinians and drawn condemnation from the international community. The law, which does not apply to Jewish citizens of Israel, has been met with jubilation among its backers in the country's far right.France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have all raised concerns over the overtly racist nature of the bill, whose wording appears to exclusively target Palestinians. Rights groups have also criticized the bill, with Amnesty International saying it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheidThe law targets Palestinians by limiting its application to military courts that only try Palestinians under occupation. Under the new legislation, anyone found guilty of killing an Israeli citizen within the occupied West Bank will, by default, be sentenced to death by the military courts. In contrast, Israeli settlers who kill Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are tried in civilian courts in Israel and have not been prosecuted since the start of this decade.Critics argue that the law is discriminatory by design and that lawmakers have no legal authority to impose it on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, who are not Israeli citizens. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has taken the matter to Israel's highest court, arguing that the measure undermines Israel's commitments to democratic principles.Human rights groups have long argued that the legal systems applying to Palestinians and Israeli settlers in the West Bank are fundamentally unequal, enabling discriminatory detention practices and selective enforcement of laws. Approximately 9,500 Palestinians are currently detained in Israeli prisons under harsh conditions, with about half held under administrative detention or labeled 'unlawful combatants,' denied trial and unable to defend themselves.

The Israeli Knesset has approved a law allowing the death penalty for Palestinians, a move likely to exacerbate tensions in the region and draw international criticism. The decision comes amid ongoing debates about human rights and capital punishment.The new law has sparked concerns among human rights groups and Palestinian communities, who argue that it undermines the principles of justice and equality. The international community is also expected to weigh in on the issue, with many countries likely to express their disapproval of the death penalty.

Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has passed a controversial bill that will instruct military courts to impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis in acts of 'terror'. The law, which enters into effect within 30 days, was approved by 62 lawmakers, with 48 voting against it and one abstention.The new law targets only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens, and instructs military courts to impose the draconian sentence for lethal attacks on Israelis. Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute's Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, noted that 'Jews will not be indicted under this law'.The Palestinian Authority called the bill 'a war crime against the Palestinian people', saying that it breached the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rights group B'Tselem pointed out that the conviction rate for Palestinians tried in military courts is about 96 percent, with many convictions based on 'confessions' obtained through pressure and torture during interrogations.The law has been condemned by international critics, including the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, and Amnesty International, which said it would make the death penalty 'another discriminatory tool in Israel's system of apartheid'. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has filed a petition with Israel's Supreme Court to challenge the law, describing it as 'discriminatory by design' and 'enacted without legal authority'.

The UK government is faced with a critical decision on whether to adopt a new law that would require online pornography providers to verify the consent of participants in their content. This move is aimed at curbing the rampant abuse and exploitation prevalent in the industry. The need for such a law has become increasingly evident following several high-profile cases, including a New York Times investigation into Pornhub, which found that the platform hosted videos featuring underaged and sex-trafficked subjects. Similarly, the trial of Dominique Pelicot exposed the horrific abuse of a woman who was raped while unconscious, with the perpetrator sharing videos of the assault online. The proposed legislation, championed by Conservative peer Gabby Bertin, would compel digital pornography businesses to verify the identities of all those featured and confirm that their consent has been obtained. This measure has garnered support from senior Labour figures and influential peers, including Beeban Kidron and Helena Kennedy. The UK's online safety act, introduced last year, brought in age verification for sites hosting user-generated content and gave the regulator, Ofcom, powers to fine or block businesses. However, concerns about consent in relation to professionally produced pornography remain. The Labour MP Diana Johnson was the first to propose consent verification and a new right for performers to withdraw it. The government now faces a choice: accept the bill as amended and make the UK a pioneer in online pornography regulation, or strip the new clause out. The outcome is far from guaranteed, but the pressure from Bertin and her allies has already led ministers to agree to outlaw strangulation imagery and scenes purporting to show incest. Campaigners argue that the regulation is crucial in tackling online misogyny and the soaring rate of child sexual abuse in the UK. The National Crime Agency has blamed online image-sharing and chatrooms for the increase in child sexual abuse, with livestreams featuring children available for as little as £20. The proposed law would also address the issue of deepfake pornographic images, which were outlawed last year thanks to the courage of survivors and a group of women in parliament. As the bill returns to the Commons, the government should throw its weight behind a new, stronger model of consent, ensuring that those who agree to be filmed having sex have the right to withdraw permission for others to watch.

Australia's government has taken swift action to alleviate the financial burden on its citizens, announcing a plan to cut petrol and diesel taxes by half from April 1 to June 30. This move comes as the international benchmark for crude oil surged above $116 a barrel, its highest level in nearly two weeks, amid the escalating conflict in the Middle East.Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the announcement on Monday, stating that the fuel excise would be reduced by half in recognition of the 'financial stress' caused by rising energy prices. The cut is expected to reduce the cost of petrol by 26.3 Australian cents ($.18) per litre, saving motorists nearly $19 ($13) on a 65-litre (17-gallon) tank of fuel.Albanese emphasized that the government is acting to be 'over-prepared' as the impact of the war on the other side of the world plays out in Australia. The government will also suspend its charge on heavy vehicles for three months. While Australia is a major exporter of coal and natural gas, the country sources about 80 percent of its refined fuel needs from overseas.However, some critics argue that the tax cut may not have a significant impact, as petrol prices have risen by about 33 cents ($0.21) per litre in the past two weeks alone. The National Roads and Motorists' Association in Australia noted that a similar tax cut after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was barely felt by motorists.Despite these concerns, the Australian government remains committed to supporting its citizens during this challenging time. Minister for Energy Chris Bowen assured parliament that Australia's energy supply remains secure, with all expected fuel deliveries arriving as scheduled, and that the country has 39 days of petrol in emergency stockpiles, as well as about 30 days each of diesel and jet fuel reserves.