Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

El Salvador has introduced a new law that permits life imprisonment for minors as young as 12 for serious crimes such as homicide, terrorism, and rape. The law, which takes effect on April 26, is part of a broader crackdown on gang violence in the country. The move has drawn criticism from human rights groups, who warn that it could lead to grave human rights abuses and perpetuate long-term consequences for child and adolescent development. The law's passage is seen as a continuation of President Nayib Bukele's hardline policies, which have included a state of emergency that has suspended certain civil liberties since March 2022. Under this state of emergency, over 90,000 people have been imprisoned, with some detainees held without charges and others processed in mass trials. Human Rights Watch estimates that nearly 1.9% of El Salvador's population is behind bars, one of the highest rates in the world. The new law allows for periodic sentence reviews and the possibility of supervised release, but UNICEF has expressed deep concern about the prospect of children being sentenced to life behind bars. The organization argues that such measures contradict the standards enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prioritizes rehabilitation and reintegration over punishment. Critics have repeatedly called on Bukele and the Salvadoran government to end the state of emergency and related anti-crime measures, citing violations of fundamental human rights. A recent report by the International Group of Experts for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations alleged that crimes against humanity had been committed over the last four years, with Bukele himself acknowledging that at least 8,000 detainees were innocent.

In a vivid display of dissent, demonstrators assembled in Paris to condemn a draft law described by opponents as a ‘liberty‑killing’ anti‑Semitism bill. The rally underscored growing concerns that the legislation could erode civil liberties while attempting to combat hate speech. Participants voiced their alarm that the bill’s provisions might set a precedent for broader restrictions on free expression, urging lawmakers to reconsider its wording.

London's Metropolitan Police arrested 523 people aged 18 to 87 during a pro-Palestinian protest in Trafalgar Square, where demonstrators showed support for Palestine Action. The arrests were made for holding placards in support of the group, which was designated a 'terrorist' organisation in July, although a High Court ruling later overturned this ban due to free speech concerns. The protest, organised by Defend Our Juries, drew hundreds of participants who oppose what they describe as the UK government's complicity in Israel's actions in Gaza and the crackdown on peaceful protests. The group criticised police for making arrests despite the government's ban being ruled unlawful. Amnesty International UK condemned the arrests as 'yet another blow to civil liberties', highlighting that police resorted to mass arrests of people holding placards, including an elderly woman with walking sticks. The ban on Palestine Action, which aims to end global participation in Israel's regime, has generated significant backlash, with nearly 3,000 arrests occurring since its imposition. Protesters, including Freya, 28, and Denis MacDermot, 73, expressed their determination to continue opposing what they described as genocide. The Metropolitan Police confirmed the arrests as part of their effort to enforce the law, despite the legal complexities surrounding the ban on Palestine Action.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the Nobel Peace Prize, has publicly condemned Moscow’s latest effort to label the human‑rights organisation Memorial as an "extremist organisation". Chairman Jørgen Watne Frydnes said the committee is "deeply alarmed" by the Russian authorities’ attempt to dismantle a co‑recipient of the 2022 Peace Prize. According to the statement released on Wednesday, Russia’s Supreme Court is set to review a petition from the Ministry of Justice that seeks to add Memorial to the nation’s list of “undesirable” entities. If approved, the designation would ban the group from operating within Russia and expose anyone associated with it to up to four years in prison and substantial fines. Memorial, already branded a “foreign agent” and ordered dissolved by the Supreme Court at the end of 2021, would see all of its activities criminalised under the new petition, Frydnes warned. He added that even sharing the organisation’s published material could lead to imprisonment. “To designate such an organisation as extremist is an affront to the fundamental values of human dignity and freedom of expression,” Frydnes asserted, urging Russian officials to withdraw the claim immediately and cease all harassment of Memorial and its members. Memorial shared the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize with Ukraine’s Centre for Civil Liberties and Belarusian activist Ales Bialiatski. Founded in 1987, Memorial specialises in documenting human‑rights violations across Russia and once operated a network of roughly 50 affiliated groups both inside and outside the country. Several of these affiliates continue their work from bases in Germany, France and Italy. Key figures from Memorial have faced criminal proceedings in Russia. Notably, activist Oleg Orlov, who was sentenced for speaking out against the war in Ukraine, was released in a 2024 prisoner exchange and now works abroad to continue documenting abuses. The committee’s statement concludes with a direct appeal: Russian authorities should immediately rescind the extremist label and halt any further intimidation of the organisation and its supporters.

Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Chris Nineham, vice‑chair of the Stop the War Coalition, were each convicted on Wednesday for breaching conditions set by the Metropolitan Police during a large‑scale pro‑Palestine rally on 18 January 2025. The court found they failed to keep the march within a police‑designated zone in central London and, in Jamal’s case, actively encouraged other demonstrators to do the same. The trial, held at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, concluded that both men were fully aware of the restrictions, given their leadership roles in planning the event. The judges noted that Jamal’s remarks amounted to “incitement” because they urged participants to disregard the stipulated boundaries, including the area surrounding the BBC headquarters on Portland Place. Supporters packed the public gallery, with former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn among those present as the verdict was read, according to the PA news agency. In response, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign described the ruling as a “disgraceful decision” and asserted that “the fight is not over.” The statement, posted on X, warned that the judgment undermines the fundamental right to protest. Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed condemned the outcome, calling it a “black mark on British democracy” and suggesting the verdict is part of a broader governmental effort to silence dissent against Israel’s actions in Gaza. The conviction arrives amid mounting tension between law‑enforcement agencies and the UK’s sizable Palestine solidarity movement. Since the conflict in Gaza escalated in October 2023, tens of thousands of Britons have taken to the streets, and thousands of peaceful demonstrators have been arrested for displaying slogans such as “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.” Human Rights Watch’s research highlights a “disproportionate targeting” of pro‑Palestine activists, arguing that the current anti‑protest legislation threatens the ability to protest without fear of harassment. Activists are already gearing up for another large gathering scheduled for 11 April, when supporters of the direct‑action group Palestine Action plan to demonstrate again in London, despite recent arrests and ongoing legal pressure. Overall, the verdict underscores a growing debate over the balance between public order and civil liberties in the United Kingdom, with implications for future demonstrations linked to the Gaza war and broader international human‑rights concerns.

Two prominent leaders in the Palestine solidarity movement in Britain have been found guilty of breaching protest conditions, in what campaigners called a “grotesque” and “shocking” decision.Ben Jamal, 62, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), and Chris Nineham, 63, vice-chair of the Stop the War Coalition, were accused of failing to comply with conditions imposed on a protest on 18 January 2025. They were subsequently charged with public order offences.The 18 January protest was one of 34 national pro-Palestine demonstrations held since the start of the war on Gaza in October 2023. On Wednesday, Jamal and Nineham were found guilty after a trial at Westminster magistrates court. Judge Sternberg said in his verdict that the conditions imposed were lawful and necessary, and that both defendants clearly knew them.Jamal was also convicted of two counts of inciting other protesters to breach police conditions. Sternberg said the speech Jamal made at the protest constituted incitement because it was “a suggestion, persuasion, and inducement” encouraging a breach of the conditions.“Protest rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and do not permit breaching lawfully imposed conditions,” the judge said in his verdict. Jamal and Nineham said they would appeal against the convictions.The Metropolitan police have faced significant criticism over their handling of the protest in central London, at which more than 70 people were arrested. Trade union leaders, legal experts, MPs and peers were among those calling for an independent inquiry into what they described as “repressive and heavy-handed policing” at the 18 January demonstration.Campaigners vowed that the protest for Palestinian rights on 16 May would go ahead, despite the guilty verdicts. The case has sparked concerns about civil liberties and the right to protest in the UK.

In a recent development, human rights groups in Canada have strongly criticized the newly passed Bill C-12, which they claim will significantly undermine refugee and migrant rights in the country.The bill, which became law on Thursday, has been condemned by over two dozen organizations, including Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Council for Refugees. These groups argue that the legislation will put thousands of individuals at risk of persecution, violence, and precarity.Key concerns about Bill C-12 include a new rule that will bar asylum seekers from getting a full hearing at an independent tribunal if they make their applications more than one year after entering Canada. Instead, they will have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, which rights groups say offers fewer protections.The bill also grants the government the power to cancel immigration documents, including permanent or temporary resident visas, and work or study permits, if it deems it in the “public interest” to do so. Critics argue that this will lead to mass cancellations of immigration documents and applications.“This government is replicating US-like anti-migrant sentiment and policies in Canada,” the rights groups said in a statement. They also expressed concerns that the bill will facilitate the sharing of personal information within and outside the country.The Canadian government has justified the legislation as part of a wider effort to reduce pressure on a strained immigration system and bolster border security. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has warned that Bill C-12 “may weaken refugee protection”.Refugee advocates say they will continue to push back against the legislation, citing concerns that it will fuel anxiety and fear among refugees and migrants. “People are here to work, to get out of [difficult situations],” said Flavia Leiva of the Welcome Collective refugee rights group. “We can’t forget that refugees are people who fled extremely difficult situations and who can’t go home.”

Two prominent US lawmakers, Senator Bernie Sanders and House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to impose a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centres. The proposed pause aims to ensure that the rapidly advancing technology does not pose a threat to the 'future of humanity'. The lawmakers argue that current regulations are insufficient to address the potential risks associated with AI, including mass government surveillance and the proliferation of sexually explicit deepfakes.The legislation seeks to address concerns about the environmental impact of data centres, which consume huge amounts of water and electricity. It also aims to protect workers' livelihoods and civil liberties. Sanders emphasized that lawmakers are 'way behind' in understanding AI and that a moratorium is necessary to prevent a handful of billionaire Big Tech oligarchs from making decisions that could reshape the economy, democracy, and the future of humanity.Ocasio-Cortez stated that Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of data centres until a framework is in place to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to society. The proposed legislation comes amid a growing grassroots backlash against the rollout of data centres in communities across the US, with at least 36 data centres blocked or delayed between May 2024 and June 2025, disrupting $162bn in investment.However, the bill faces an uphill battle in the US Congress, where Republicans control both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Democratic Senator John Fetterman dismissed the proposed moratorium, calling it 'China First' and arguing that the US should build the emerging AI infrastructure while implementing appropriate guardrails.

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.