Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The families of British citizens held in the United Arab Emirates over allegations that they shared images of the conflict with Iran have expressed frustration at the British government's failure to help.Several British citizens are among more than 100 foreign nationals who have been detained under draconian Emirate rules that outlaw publishing or sharing material that could 'disturb public security'.UK government ministers have refused to condemn the arrests, amid claims they are too fearful of offending the Emirates because of their economic clout.The campaign group Dubai Watch, which is supporting nine British detainees, said their identities could not be revealed for fear of reprisals. But it has shown the Guardian anonymised correspondence from their increasingly anxious families.A mother whose daughter is being held wrote: 'This experience is exhausting, mentally and emotionally.'She described reading media reports about the continuing conflict in which Iran has retaliated against US and Israelis strikes by firing drones and missiles against its Gulf neighbours, including the UAE.She said: 'I have just read another article, and quite frankly I could do one purely on the inadequacies and sycophantic responses from this [UK] embassy.'She also expressed increasing fears for her daughter's safety as attacks continued. The mother said: 'I spoke to [my daughter] last night and they are no longer allowed to go outside in the courtyard as it's now deemed too dangerous to do so. This is an even bigger worry as they are all just sitting ducks.'Another message from a woman whose husband had been detained under the same law said the case had been 'mishandled'. She added: 'We are scared because nobody is telling us the truth. Can you please help us.'Police in Abu Dhabi said those detained had 'filmed sites and events and disseminated inaccurate information via social media platforms during the ongoing events, an action that could stir public opinion and spread rumours among community members'. In a statement, the officials said these 'violations' amounted to a 'misuse of social media'.Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, confirmed that one of the detainees was a St Albans' constituent. She said their family was frustrated by the lack of consular help.Cooper told the Guardian: 'I'm deeply concerned that my constituent has been held with very little contact with their family, with no clear access to legal counsel, and no confirmation that UK consular officials have been permitted to visit them. The family are distressed and desperate for information about their wellbeing.'Cooper also criticised the UAE's round-up of anyone it has accused of sharing images of the conflict. She said: 'The response from the authorities appears wholly disproportionate given the nature of the allegations.'The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirmed that five UK nationals were receiving consular assistance in the UAE.David Haigh, a human rights lawyer and founder of Dubai Watch, said: 'There's an awful lot more than five cases. The embassy is overwhelmed.'He added: 'There hasn't been any government intervention because it would offend the UAE and they don't want to do that. Impotent is the best way to describe the response. They're too scared – it's all about the money and investment from the UAE.'

The BBC has been accused of creating 'glossy propaganda films' for Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, Public Investment Fund (PIF), which has raised concerns about the corporation's impartiality and potential damage to its reputation.BBC Storyworks, the corporation's commercial arm, has entered into a partnership with PIF to produce a series of films and written articles lauding Saudi Arabia's progressive attitude towards women and eco-friendly credentials. These content pieces are hosted on a mini-site bearing BBC branding, but are not accessible in the UK unless users employ a VPN.Critics argue that this partnership is inappropriate, especially given Saudi Arabia's human rights record and the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The BBC's reputation as an unbiased news outlet is at risk, according to former Baghdad bureau chief Patrick Howse: 'The BBC's existence depends on its reputation as an unbiased and reliable news outlet that is beholden to no one and pursues the truth without fear or favour.'The partnership comes as the BBC seeks alternative funding sources due to a dwindling number of licence fee payers, with a loss of about £50m in revenue. Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil exporter, is also promoting its green credentials through a BBC Storyworks piece funded by PIF, despite significant investments in fossil fuels.Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have criticized PIF's investments as tools of Saudi soft power and influence, aimed at whitewashing government abuses. They argue that businesses should avoid activities that bolster the reputation of government entities or officials accused of serious abuses.In response, a BBC Studios spokesperson stated that 'BBC News maintains clear separation between its commercial and editorial departments' and that journalists continue to report impartially and without fear or favour.

A commercial court in France has dismissed Cardiff City's claim for £106m in compensation following the death of Emiliano Sala in a plane crash seven years ago. The court found that Nantes, Sala's former team, was not at fault in relation to the flight that resulted in Sala's death.The 28-year-old Argentine player was traveling from France to begin his career with Cardiff City when the single-engine Piper Malibu aircraft crashed into the sea near Guernsey, killing both Sala and pilot David Ibbotson. Cardiff had sought €122m (£106m) for loss of income and other damages from Nantes, claiming the French club was responsible because the flight was organized by an intermediary, Willie McKay.However, the court rejected Cardiff's contention, finding that McKay served as an agent for Nantes but did not organize the flight and was not aware of its illegality. The court also ruled that Nantes suffered moral damage and ordered Cardiff to pay €300,000 to the French club.Cardiff's lawyer, Céline Jones, expressed disappointment with the decision, stating that the club had initiated the process to uncover the truth and show respect for Sala's memory. In contrast, Nantes welcomed the decision, with their lawyer Jérôme Marsaudon saying the club was not responsible for the incident.This ruling follows previous decisions by Fifa and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), which have also gone against Cardiff in their legal dispute with Nantes. In 2022, Cas ruled that Sala's transfer had been finalized at the time of his death, and Fifa ordered Cardiff to pay Nantes the balance of Sala's transfer fee, amounting to just over €11m out of a total of €17m.

Raoul Peck's documentary about George Orwell and his enduring relevance takes as its keynote the heretical masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four and its famous scene about the state compelling people to believe whatever it says is the truth: that two and two make five. This Orwellian anti-arithmetic of tyranny has become a political meme often repeated in social media debates.The simple experience of hearing Orwell's prose, both from his published work and letters and diaries, read aloud by Damian Lewis, is invigorating and refreshing. There's an interesting emphasis on Orwell's physical frailty, with him effectively composing his masterwork in the shadow of death. Peck amusingly juxtaposes Orwell's sickness with Winston Smith being made to do exercises and the infatuation of tyrannical regimes with public displays of physical fitness.Peck cites various movie and TV adaptations of Nineteen Eighty-Four and includes footage of Jura, where Orwell went to live, and archive photo records of Orwell's childhood and early working life as a policeman in Burma. The film also shows how Orwell predicted the rise of AI in propaganda and in soulless bread-and-circuses for the masses.The film falls down in not focusing on actual theocracies of the present day and the Orwellian qualities of Isis and Hamas. The question of how far Orwell renounced his own earlier antisemitic tendencies is not entirely addressed in this film.Orwell was disliked by some on the left for daring to write Nineteen Eighty-Four and disliked still more with the revelation 30 years ago that in 1949 he had handed over to British authorities the names of 38 public figures he considered 'crypto-communists' – a fact from which this film averts its eyes. But Orwell's complications don't compromise his genius for truth-telling.

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 Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has accused Crispin Odey, a former hedge fund manager, of attempting to manipulate a victim of sexual assault into silence. According to evidence presented in court, Odey sent a text to his former employee in January 2022, warning her that the FCA could question her about him.Odey, who has previously accepted that he groped the woman without her consent in 2005, claimed he was under the influence of sedatives at the time. He now faces a number of sexual harassment allegations and has launched a £79m libel lawsuit against the Financial Times.The FCA's lawyer, Clare Sibson, argued that Odey was trying to manipulate the victim into silence and had a clear motive to discourage her from providing her account to the FCA. Odey, however, claimed he only wanted to ensure the woman would "tell the truth".The hearing continues, with Odey hoping to overturn the FCA's decision to ban him from the UK's financial services industry. In addition to the libel lawsuit, Odey is also facing civil personal injury claims by five women, including one who accused him of rape.

The estate of late British tech tycoon Mike Lynch has been ordered to pay £920m to the technology company Hewlett-Packard (HP) two years after he died in a superyacht disaster.The ruling by London’s high court said the estate was liable to pay the sum as compensation, costs, and interest for HP’s acquisition of Lynch’s firm Autonomy, after a UK legal ruling in 2022 that he duped the US firm into paying £8.2bn for his software firm Autonomy.The deceased entrepreneur’s estate has been estimated to be worth about £500m, so the damages could leave it bankrupt.Lynch and six others, including his 18-year-old daughter Hannah, died in August 2024 on a trip with friends and family celebrating his acquittal on US fraud charges relating to HP’s $11bn takeover of Autonomy in 2011.HP accused Lynch and Autonomy’s former chief financial officer, Sushovan Hussain, of inflating the firm’s value before the takeover. HP wrote down Autonomy’s worth by $8.8bn (£6.5bn) within a year of the purchase.The US tech company has sought damages in UK civil proceedings of up to $4.55bn from the estate of the late tycoon, who was once hailed as Britain’s answer to Microsoft founder Bill Gates.However, the level of the claim was ruled last year by the high court to be “always exaggerated”, as it concluded that Lynch’s estate owed £700m in compensation. The £920m figure includes costs and interest.Lawyers for Lynch’s estate sought permission to appeal against Tuesday’s ruling, which was refused. However, the estate can apply directly to the court of appeal.HP welcomed Tuesday’s decision, which it said in a statement “brings us another step closer to resolution of the dispute”.A spokesperson for the Lynch family said: “We are disappointed by the court’s refusal and believe an application to the court of appeal should follow in the interests of justice. HP’s $5bn damages claim has already been shown to be vastly exaggerated.“Today’s judgment describes the exaggeration as ‘without foundation’ and the purposes for which it was ‘calibrated, publicised and pursued’ as objectionable, misleading shareholders and extending the litigation unnecessarily.“Dr Lynch’s acquittal in the US, where witnesses were properly cross-examined, exposed the truth. The damage to Autonomy was the result of HP’s own actions and failures, not wrongdoing at Autonomy.”

Huw Edwards, the former BBC presenter, has publicly criticized Channel 5 for producing a drama about his downfall without first verifying the facts with him. The two-part show, titled Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards and starring Martin Clunes, aired on Channel 5.Edwards was suspended from his role as a leading news anchor in 2023 after allegations surfaced that he had paid a teenager £35,000 for intimate images and conversations. He has since disputed the principal allegations made in the Sun.In a statement, Edwards expressed his disapproval of the production company Wonderhood, stating that they made no attempt to check the truth of their narrative before producing the drama. He also criticized Channel 5 for not allowing him to respond to the allegations before the show aired.Edwards added that he plans to produce his own account of the events and expressed deep regret and remorse for his crimes, having received a six-month sentence suspended for two years for possessing indecent images of children.A Channel 5 spokesperson defended the drama, stating that it was based on extensive interviews with the victim, his family, and court reporting, and that all allegations were put to Edwards via his solicitors before transmission.