Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The recent landmark decisions against Meta and YouTube by two US juries have sent a strong message to tech companies. The cases, which focused on the deliberate design of addictive products that harmed a child, have been hailed as a major victory for campaigners pushing for change.In one case, Meta was found liable for $375m in civil liabilities over the use of Facebook and Instagram for child sex trafficking in New Mexico. The state's attorney general is seeking platform changes and financial penalties.The verdicts, which are expected to be appealed, demonstrate a shifting attitude towards tech companies and their responsibility to protect users, particularly children. Internal documents revealing executives' cavalier approach to young people's safety have been made public, providing critics with valuable evidence.While it is too early to declare a reckoning similar to that faced by big tobacco in the 1990s, the current push towards stronger regulation is gaining momentum. Governments and civil society are increasingly holding tech companies accountable for their impact on public health.The precautionary approach to children's safety has been highlighted as crucial, with young minds being particularly vulnerable to the attention economy's assault. Fortunately, governments and courts are taking steps to regulate social media companies and force them to take responsibility for their impact.In Australia, social media companies have been told to leave children alone, while in the UK, the government has issued guidance on screen time and is considering restricting children's use. Design features such as infinite scroll and gaming-type rewards have been identified as key factors in the addictive nature of social media.Ultimately, a whole society approach is needed to reduce our dependence on social media and work out what safeguards are needed for adults and children alike. The events of the past week have made this goal a bit more achievable.

For the first time, scientists have documented whales assisting each other during birth, a behavior previously only observed in primates. A team from Project Ceti, an international effort to understand whale communication, captured the extraordinary footage off the coast of Dominica in the Caribbean on July 8, 2023.The team observed a pod of 11 whales, including a 19-year-old female named Rounder, who was about to give birth to her second calf. Over nearly five and a half hours, the scientists documented the group's behavior, filming them with drones and recording sounds underwater. This exceptional rarity in the history of science was published in the journals Scientific Reports and Science.Out of 93 species of cetaceans, only nine have been observed giving birth in the wild. What's even rarer is that unrelated whales were helping the mother. The birth lasted 34 minutes, during which other adult females dived under Rounder's dorsal fin, often on their backs with their heads facing her genital slit.Immediately after birth, the pod's behavior changed rapidly, with all adults touching and squeezing the newborn's body with their heads, pushing it around underwater and on their bodies above the surface. This behavior is believed to help the newborn calf, which sinks after birth, prevent drowning and facilitate its first breaths.The scientists also recorded significant changes in vocalization during the birth, suggesting that the group was coordinating to support the birth or protect the newborn. Sperm whales have one of the longest pregnancies in the animal kingdom, with a gestation period of up to 16 months, and calves rely on their mother's milk for at least two years.The newborn was spotted again on July 25, 2024, with other young members of the pod, indicating that it had survived its first year, a good sign of reaching adulthood.

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.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – For over a decade, Sanjeet, a business consultant from India, considered Malaysia his home. Having grown comfortable with the country's climate, people, and lifestyle, he had begun planning long-term investments, including property purchases.However, recent government initiatives to reduce Malaysia's reliance on foreign workers have abruptly disrupted these plans for Sanjeet and thousands of other expatriates. Starting June, minimum salary requirements for foreign workers will increase by up to 100%, while their maximum permitted stay will be limited to five or ten years."What was surprising was that this came out of the blue," Sanjeet, who requested to use a pseudonym, told Al Jazeera. "It does leave room for doubt in terms of long-term plans, which include things like buying a house or car here."Malaysia has long been an attractive destination for foreign labor, with approximately 2.1 million documented foreign workers currently in the country. While many take on manual labor at the minimum wage of 1,700 ringgit ($430) monthly, a smaller but significant pool of around 140 highly-paid expatriates contributes substantially to the economy.In 2024, Home Affairs Minister Saifuddin Nasution revealed that these high-salaried expatriates injected about 75 billion ringgit ($19 billion) into the domestic economy annually while contributing approximately 100 million ringgit ($25 million) in taxes.The government's latest five-year national strategy, released in 2025, warns that Malaysia's "continuous reliance" on low-skilled foreign workers has hampered technological adoption and created "ripple effects" in the labor market, including wage distortions and slow productivity growth.To address these concerns, authorities aim to reduce the foreign workforce proportion from 14.1% in 2024 to just 5% by 2035. This ambitious target is supported by new minimum salary requirements that will see thresholds increase from 10,000 to 20,000 ringgit ($2,500 to $5,000), 5,000 to 10,000 ringgit ($1,260 to $2,520), and 3,000 to 5,000 ringgit ($760 to $1,260) for different work permit categories.UK native Thomas Mead, a 28-year-old wealth manager who recently purchased property in Kuala Lumpur, expressed shock at the sudden policy changes. "However, the jump from RM10,000 to RM20,000 was quite a shock," he said, noting that some expatriates are already considering relocation options despite their reluctance to leave.The policy changes are also raising concerns among businesses. Douglas Gan, a Singaporean founder of a venture capital fund with Malaysian portfolio companies, warned that the new rules would drive up costs and make it challenging to recruit specialized talent. "If salaries increase to 10,000 ringgit, companies definitely won't bring them here," he said, advocating for a more tailored approach rather than a "blanket solution."Leonardo, an Indonesian professional working in Malaysia's computer games sector, faces downgrading to a lower employment pass category under the new rules, potentially jeopardizing his plans to bring his mother to live in the country. "My mum is alone and living in Indonesia. There was a thought that if I could settle here, I could bring her over," he said.Economic analysts caution that the success of these policies depends on Malaysia's ability to develop its local workforce. "The long-run gain depends less on blocking expats and more on whether Malaysia can actually supply the skills," said Wan Suhaimie, head of economic research at Kenanga Investment Bank. He emphasized that foreign workers on mid-tier employment passes are not extravagant hires but "core managers, engineers and specialists."Anthony Dass, CEO of FSG Advisory, noted that while the measures align with strengthening the local talent pipeline, their effectiveness will depend on complementary reforms in capability building and industry upgrading.As these policies take shape, expatriates like Sanjeet are already considering alternatives. "If Malaysia pursues these policies without a comprehensive rationale, then people like me will look for alternatives such as Vietnam, Thailand and elsewhere, which have favourable policies for expats," he concluded.

Walking into Scisters Salon & Apothecary in southern California reveals what's immediately absent: no wall of plastic bottles, no chemical tang, and minimal waste. The salon's shelves feature large refill containers of shampoo and conditioner, houseplants adorn the space, and hair clippings are composted. The only trash can is a small basket mostly collecting clients' personal items, creating an environment that co-owner Melissa Parker notes clients immediately comment on: 'It smells good in here.' That never happens in a conventional salon.Opened 15 years ago by Parker and Easton Bajsec in La Mesa near San Diego, Scisters has evolved into one of the region's most prominent low-waste salons, diverting up to 99% of its refuse from landfills. Their business transformation addresses a significant industry problem: the beauty sector generates substantial waste, with North American salons sending an estimated 63,000lbs of hair to landfills daily, plus hundreds of tons of used foil and leftover hair dyes.The turning point came when Bajsec watched a documentary about the zero-waste movement while Parker developed health problems linked to prolonged exposure to salon chemicals. Studies have found that hairdressers' exposure to harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde, ammonia and sulfates puts them at higher risk of asthma, skin conditions, reproductive illnesses and cancer. Rather than leave the industry, they transformed their business.They eliminated perms due to formaldehyde exposure and moved away from big-name products despite green marketing claims. When existing alternatives didn't meet their standards for performance, ingredient transparency and waste reduction, they created their own line. Element, launched in 2019, is made in a California lab and sold in refillable glass and aluminum containers, featuring recognizable ingredients like organic aloe, wheat protein and castor oil.The salon's waste reduction strategies extend beyond product packaging. They implemented hair composting, foil recycling, and replaced waxing with sugaring—a compostable hair-removal technique. They switched to LED lighting, installed water-efficient showerheads, and use washable cloths instead of paper towels. Though they still offer hair bleaching (which releases ammonia), they mitigate risks with industrial air filtration and air-purifying plants.Bajsec acknowledges that 100% zero waste is impossible due to regulatory constraints on reusable gloves and plastic pump tops. The salon ships its minimal plastic waste to Green Circle Salons for specialized processing, paying $200 per box. Despite this cost, Parker notes the overall approach has been financially beneficial: 'Overall, it's actually less expensive. We're not outsourcing to other beauty brands. We're mindful about systems.'Their commitment to sustainability proved critical during the COVID-19 pandemic. When mandatory closures threatened their survival, they pivoted to refill sales, meeting clients in the parking lot. This refill model kept revenue flowing, allowing them to pay full rent while many neighboring tenants struggled. 'Going green has been the greatest thing we've done for our business financially,' Parker says. 'We accidentally created a point of differentiation.'Denise Baden, a professor of sustainable business at the University of Southampton, confirms that eco-friendly practices often reduce costs. 'It's a misunderstanding that to be eco-friendly, you have to spend more money. In fact, usually, it's the reverse,' she notes, adding that hairdressers are uniquely positioned to influence their communities.Now, Parker and Bajsec are helping other salons adopt similar practices through speaking engagements and an online guide. 'We get calls from other salons all the time,' Bajsec says. 'It's not sustainable if we're the only ones doing it.'

New York City's public hospital system has announced that it will not be renewing its contract with Palantir, a data analytics and AI firm, amid growing controversy over its government contracts in the UK. The decision comes as health officials in the UK express concerns over data privacy issues related to Palantir's £330m agreement with the National Health Service (NHS).The contract between NYC Health + Hospitals and Palantir, which focused on recovering money for insurance claims, was set to expire in October. According to documents shared with the Guardian, Palantir has paid nearly $4m to the hospital system since November 2023. The contract allowed Palantir to review patient health notes and help the hospital claim more money in public benefits through programs like Medicaid.Despite assurances from NYC Health + Hospitals that there was an 'absolute firewall' preventing Palantir from sharing information with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), activists and data privacy experts have raised concerns over the potential risks of Palantir accessing de-identified patient data for purposes other than research.As New York City prepares to part ways with Palantir, the company is expanding its influence in the UK, despite backlash from activists and lawmakers. Palantir has contracts with the British government's Ministry of Defence and is seeking access to sensitive national financial regulation data through a contract with the Financial Conduct Authority.Medact, a health justice charity, has raised concerns that Palantir's software could enable 'data-driven state abuses of power', including US-style ICE raids. In response, Palantir has denied that its data could be used in this way, citing that it would be illegal and a breach of contract.The decision by NYC Health + Hospitals to drop Palantir has been hailed as a victory by activists, who are now calling on the NHS to follow suit and terminate its £330m contract with the company. The 'Purge Palantir' campaign, which involves nurses, pro-Palestinian activists, and social and climate justice groups, aims to stop Palantir from contracting with government agencies, universities, and corporations.

The connection between boxing and cinema dates back to the early days of film, with the first sports film being a 1894 short of a six-round match between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. Since then, boxing has been a staple of the big screen, captivating audiences with its high-stakes emotion, physical intensity, and personal turbulence.The British Film Institute's new season, The Cinematic Life of Boxing, curated by Clive Chijioke Nwonka, an amateur boxer since his childhood in London, explores this symbiotic relationship. Nwonka believes that an uncompromising hunt for realism is central to the relationship between the sport and artform, with films that interact with human experience, poverty, struggle, triumph, and boxing as a way of life.Boxing films often capture a political zeitgeist, as seen in the 1974 'Rumble in the Jungle' heavyweight championship match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, which was not just a fight but a referendum on ideology during the civil rights era. This fight was documented in the 1996 film When We Were Kings, described by Nwonka as 'probably the greatest sports documentary of all time'.The Rocky franchise, which has spanned six films and a spin-off series, Creed, under the direction of Ryan Coogler, is a barometer for all the films captured in its wake. The first film remains the hallmark of sporting cinema, successfully capturing the habitual experience of the sport outside its more glamorous moments.Despite the genre's popularity, boxing films are not immune to clichés, with many relying on stock characters and familiar arcs. However, the best film-makers are able to return to the core of these films: the stakes of signing up for a fight, and the physical, psychological, and real monetary costs of endurance.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has made a significant U-turn on its policy regarding transgender athletes, effectively banning them from competing in female events at the Olympics. This decision marks a major shift from their previous stance, which allowed transgender women to compete with certain conditions.In 2020, the IOC permitted Laurel Hubbard, a transgender weightlifter, to compete at the Tokyo Olympics, issuing a framework that stated transgender women “should not be deemed to have an unfair or disproportionate competitive advantage” over biological women. However, in a recent policy document, the IOC has stated that the female category must be protected for fairness and safety reasons, and will use SRY screening – a sex test using saliva or a cheek-swab – to determine biological sex.This new policy means that transgender women and athletes with differences in sex development (DSD), who were reported as female at birth but have internal testes and have undergone male puberty, are now banned from the female category at all future Olympics. The decision has caused anger among some groups and joy among others.According to Kirsty Coventry, the newly elected IOC president, this policy change was a priority for her, and she had set up a working group to examine the issue shortly after taking office. Coventry emphasized that the decision was based on scientific consensus and the need to protect the female category.The IOC's decision is based on scientific research showing that males have a performance advantage in sports, even after hormone treatment. The policy document states that the advantage is 10-12% in most running and swimming events, and greater than 100% in events that involve explosive power. This has led to sports such as athletics, swimming, and boxing introducing policies to protect the female category.While this decision applies only to elite sport, there could still be future challenges at the Court of Arbitration for Sport if transgender or DSD athletes decide to appeal. Nevertheless, the IOC's U-turn marks a seismic shift in the ongoing debate about transgender athletes and their participation in sports.