Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Hong Kong police have been granted new powers to demand that individuals suspected of breaching the city's national security law provide mobile phone or computer passwords. This move is part of a further crackdown on dissent in the city.The amendments to the law, published by the city government, also empower customs officers to seize items deemed to have a 'seditious intention', regardless of whether any person has been arrested for an offence endangering national security.Refusing to comply with the demand for passwords could lead to up to one year's jail and a fine of up to HK$100,000 ($12,773), while providing false or misleading information could bring up to three years' imprisonment and a fine of up to HK$500,000.The sweeping national security law, imposed by Beijing in 2020, punishes acts including subversion and collusion with foreign forces with up to life imprisonment. The law has sparked criticism from western governments and rights groups, but Beijing and Hong Kong officials say it was needed to restore stability after months of pro-democracy protests in 2019.Urania Chiu, a law lecturer in the UK researching Hong Kong, said the new provisions interfere with fundamental liberties, including the privacy of communication and the right to a fair trial. Chiu stated that '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.'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.

The Trump administration has formally opposed Anthropic's legal challenge, arguing that the Pentagon's decision to blacklist the AI firm was both lawful and necessary for national security. In a court filing submitted on Tuesday, the Justice Department contended that Anthropic’s refusal to remove guardrails preventing its technology from being used in autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance constituted conduct rather than protected speech.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the creator of the Claude AI assistant, a "national security supply chain risk" on March 3. This move effectively excludes the company from a limited set of military contracts. The administration’s legal team asserts that the dispute is rooted in contract negotiations and national security imperatives, not retaliation. They argue that no constitutional rights were violated because the government did not restrict the company's expressive activities.However, legal experts suggest Anthropic may have a strong case regarding potential overreach. The company is currently challenging the Pentagon's decision in California federal court. The implications of this conflict extend beyond the courtroom; Anthropic executives have warned that the blacklisting could cause billions of dollars in losses this year and severely damage the company's reputation.In a statement, Anthropic emphasized its commitment to national security while acknowledging the necessity of the lawsuit to protect its business interests and partners. The company is also pursuing a separate legal challenge in a Washington, DC, appeals court regarding a broader supply chain risk designation.

The Trump administration has taken a significant step in its efforts to transform free speech rights, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr threatening to revoke the licenses of broadcasters that cover the Iran war in a way deemed 'hoaxes and news distortions'.Carr's statement, which was a response to Trump's criticism of US news coverage of the war, was cheered by the president, who said he was 'thrilled' to see Carr investigating 'Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic 'News' Organizations'. This move is seen as one of the most extreme examples of the Trump administration's approach to free speech.Free speech advocates argue that the FCC's actions are a threat to constitutionally protected speech rights, and that the commission is overstepping its authority. The FCC's efforts to control media narratives are part of a broader shift in the US media landscape, where beleaguered companies are increasingly eyeing new business deals and mergers.The Trump administration's approach to free speech has been multi-pronged, using immigration law to target individuals for their speech, and pursuing a largely-defunct effort to punish law firms that employed Trump's perceived political enemies.Critics argue that the FCC's threats have come amid a broader shift in the US media landscape, where media owners are trying to make deals and exert pressure on people below them to make sure they're not overly adversarial towards the Trump administration.