Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

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.

As Israeli settlers intensify violent attacks against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, often while Israeli forces stand by, a notable shift is occurring in US political circles. Even staunch supporters of Israel within the Democratic party are now publicly denouncing the escalating violence.In recent days, dozens of settlers have engaged in apparently coordinated attacks, torching homes and vehicles while targeting Palestinian civilians. Since the beginning of the month, Israeli settlers and police have killed at least 10 Palestinian civilians in the occupied territory, including two young brothers and their parents who were returning from a Ramadan shopping trip.Among the voices breaking ranks is Ritchie Torres, a New York Democratic representative and one of Israel's most ardent supporters in Congress. In a statement this week, he declared that "the crisis of extremist settler violence in the West Bank must be confronted, and the perpetrators must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He called for "zero tolerance for violent extremism, no matter what form it takes."Another pro-Israel Democrat, Daniel Goldman of New York, condemned the violence as an "outrage" and urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to bring to vote proposed legislation seeking to impose sanctions against those "undermining prospects for a two-state solution by committing illegal violent acts." He also criticized the Trump administration for rescinding sanctions against violent settlers that had been issued under the Biden administration.Several other Aipac-backed politicians have joined the condemnation, including Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, who called on the Israeli government to "stop being complicit," and Arizona Congressman Greg Stanton, who labeled the attacks "acts of terrorism." Ohio Democratic Congresswoman Shontel Brown accused Trump of "green-lighting settler violence," while Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen stated that "violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank is a national security threat to Israel and must be treated as such."The political shift comes as US public support for Israel has plummeted. An NBC News poll found that two-thirds of Democrats now say their sympathies lie with Palestinians over Israelis—a dramatic reversal with significant implications for upcoming elections. Meanwhile, 68% of Republicans continue to express stronger support for Israel.A Guardian analysis revealed that Israel has not prosecuted any of its citizens for killing Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank since the start of the decade. The UN has warned that the Israeli government has accelerated illegal settlement expansion, forcibly displacing approximately 36,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the past year.Political analysts suggest these pro-Israel Democrats are "trapped between the money they've relied on to make their campaigns work and the voters they actually need to win," with condemnation of settler violence offering a way to express discontent without challenging the Israeli state itself.

The UK government has pledged to invest a record £8.4bn in road maintenance in England, as part of a broader £27bn five-year investment plan for major roads and motorways. The plan, known as RIS3, aims to 'fix the foundations' of England's road network, with a focus on resurfacing a quarter of the country's strategic road network.The investment includes £1.65bn of initial public funding for the Lower Thames Crossing, a major road building project aimed at easing congestion in the south-east. The government also confirmed funding for the dualling of the A66 between Cumbria and North Yorkshire, a long-debated project championed by former prime minister Rishi Sunak.Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the investment would 'secure the future of our road network for years to come' and deliver 'smoother and faster journeys for drivers'. However, campaigners from the Transport Action Network criticized the plan, arguing that it prioritizes new road construction over sustainable transport solutions and fails to address outdated traffic forecasts.The Department for Transport said the £8.4bn investment in A-roads and motorways was on top of the £7.3bn pledged in the spending review for local authorities to fix potholes and maintain local roads. The government claims that the 16 funded schemes have been chosen for their value for money and deliverability, and are expected to 'deliver growth for left-behind communities'. However, campaigners argue that the plan's focus on new road construction will only serve to increase congestion and harm the environment.

UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves is facing pressure to raise taxes on businesses generating 'windfall' profits linked to the US-Israel war on Iran to fund emergency cost of living support for UK households.A group of leading charities, campaigners, and trade unions, including Greenpeace UK, the National Education Union, and Tax Justice UK, have written an open letter to Keir Starmer and Reeves, urging the government to strengthen its existing North Sea energy windfall tax and introduce new levies for firms in other sectors that stand to financially benefit from the conflict.The letter highlights that energy companies, banks, agricultural commodities businesses, defence companies, and tech firms are likely to profit from the economic fallout of the war. The group argues that the extra revenue generated from taxing these 'excess profits' could be used to support households struggling with the cost of living and invest in the UK's future energy security.R Reeves has signalled that the government is ready to provide targeted help for households grappling with the economic fallout from the Middle East conflict, amid a surge in energy prices since the onset of the war. The chancellor has also warned companies that she will not tolerate corporates profiteering from the crisis, telling bosses that the Competition and Markets Authority has been put on notice to detect and crack down on price gouging.The UK already has a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas firms, the energy profits levy, which is due to run until 2030. However, Reeves had been planning to ease the tax before the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February.

In 2025, England's rivers and seas were hit by 291,492 instances of raw sewage discharge from storm overflows, a 35% reduction from the previous year. The discharges lasted for 1.8 million hours, a significant decrease from almost 4 million hours in 2024. The Environment Agency (EA) reported that some water companies achieved reductions of over 60% and 70% compared to the previous year. However, campaigners argue that the discharges, which are only supposed to occur in extreme weather conditions, are still too frequent and harmful to the environment. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated, 'When sewage is pouring out even in a dry year, you really know the system is broken.' He emphasized that rivers, lakes, and seas should not be used as pressure valves for pollution. The water industry acknowledged that dry conditions contributed to the reduction in discharges but also cited record levels of investment in the system. Water UK stated that the industry aims to halve spills over the next five years by building bigger storm tanks and expanding capacity at sewage treatment works. Michelle Walker, technical director for the Rivers Trust, highlighted that many discharges occur on dry days and are therefore illegal. She warned that the impact of these discharges will be more concentrated and damaging in already stressed ecosystems. The government and water companies face criticism for the ongoing pollution. Water minister Emma Hardy said there is still an unacceptable amount of sewage entering waterways and a long way to go in cleaning up rivers, lakes, and seas.

An Israeli airstrike targeted the Deir al-Balah camp in Gaza, killing at least one person. The incident occurred in a region that has seen significant conflict in recent times.The airstrike is part of a broader context of ongoing tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and Gaza. The Deir al-Balah camp, like many areas in Gaza, has been affected by the conflict's escalation.The situation in Gaza remains volatile, with humanitarian concerns continuing to mount. The international community has been closely monitoring developments in the region, calling for de-escalation and peace.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.

The recent story of Julie Maughan, a grieving mother who lost her eight-year-old daughter Heather Preen due to exposure to polluted water, has left an indelible mark. The Channel 4 docudrama Dirty Business brings to light the struggles of campaigners and families fighting against privatised water companies and a system that often fails to protect them.In a poignant meeting, Julie Maughan's emotional testimony, marked by grief, dignity, and determination, underscored the human cost of water privatisation. Her story starkly contrasts with the detached world of statistics and policy debates, illustrating the moral failure of a system that prioritises profit over people's lives.Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, argues that the water industry's model, which allows private companies to profit from a basic necessity while the public bears the risk, is fundamentally flawed. This has led to billions being paid to shareholders while investment falls short and pollution becomes routine.The article highlights the broader implications of water privatisation as a microcosm of a larger systemic problem. With millions of households facing another wave of pressure on their living standards due to an impending energy price surge, the question remains whether the current economic framework can adapt to address these challenges.Lewis emphasises that Labour must decide whether it stands with the electorate or the water companies, advocating for a fundamental reorientation of the economy that prioritises the public interest over profit. The story of Julie Maughan and her daughter Heather serves as a powerful reminder of the human cost of policy failures and the urgent need for change.

Egil Johansen, the landlord of the Kenton pub in Hackney, east London, describes recent incidents involving children as "like the wild west." He has now banned children entirely after a three-year-old fell down a cellar hatch while parents sat elsewhere, a five-year-old crashed into staff carrying drinks, and six parents brought 10 hyperactive children after a birthday party while ignoring their behavior."In every case, the parents blame us when something goes wrong or get really angry when we ask them to control their children," says Johansen, who has run the pub for 17 years. "I'm legally obliged to keep children safe on my premises and if the parents let their children run riot, the only answer is to not allow them in at all."Johansen initially tried banning children only after 5pm, but this interim measure failed to address the underlying issues. Despite online criticism framing him as the "baddie," he expresses sadness about the situation: "I'm a publican; I'm a people-person. It gives me no joy to ban anyone, but it's just not safe: parents don't control their children and our other customers were beginning to go elsewhere. I had no choice."The Kenton's decision reflects a growing trend among UK pubs seeking to differentiate themselves from establishments that "resemble soft play centres without the ball pit." While some welcome this shift, others view it as unwelcoming to families, creating a culture war in the pub industry.Lee Jones, landlord of the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, Worcestershire, reversed a previous child ban: "We're dog-friendly, child-friendly, adult-friendly. We're just friendly – we don't distinguish. Pubs are for the community and I don't see bans in the spirit of what we're here for." Jones reports that when children become rowdy, staff can address the issue with parents, though this is rarely needed.Stephen Boyd, who runs the Alma in south London, took a different approach after attempting to attract young families. He found families with children consumed disproportionate time and resources with special requests for diluted drinks, heated beverages, and customized meals, while adult customers waited longer for their orders."You just need a couple screaming, banging on a table or running up and down, and it dictates the whole atmosphere of the pub," Boyd says. "Parents would take massive umbrage if staff asked them to stop their children doing something." After implementing a child ban, he describes the change as "a fucking revelation" with staff retention improving and takings doubling.Despite the positive results, Boyd faced significant backlash: "I got a lot of online hate. Mainly from people who had never been to the pub but felt I was doing something morally hateful."Tom Stainer, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, acknowledges the debate is "very live" but emphasizes: "But you do have to look at the responsibility of the parents in these situations, not just at the pubs. They're the ones responsible for making sure that their children behave."Financial considerations also drive some decisions. Mandy Keefe, landlady of the Wheel Inn in Ashford, banned children partly for behavioral reasons but also financial ones: "If a third of my Sunday customers were children eating from a reduced-rate child's menu and not drinking any alcohol, that wouldn't be financially viable."Across the UK, pubs are making individual decisions based on their specific circumstances, but as Johansen's experience demonstrates, it only takes one serious incident to settle the question for good.