Google’s Android 17 Turns Stolen Pixels Into Costly Bricks

Google has tightened the screws on phone thieves with Android 17. The latest version doesn’t just add flashy tools. It makes cracking a Pixel far tougher than before. And the changes arrive at a moment when device theft keeps draining users’ savings and peace of mind.

One headline adjustment slashes the number of passcode guesses allowed on the lock screen. Earlier Android releases permitted as many as 1,800 attempts spread over years. Android 17 cuts that figure to 20. The shift comes from new rate-limiting rules designed to thwart brute-force attacks on lockscreen knowledge factors such as PINs and passwords.

But that’s only part of the story. Google pairs the limit with longer delays between failed tries. Five wrong entries trigger a one-minute wait. By the 10th mistake the pause stretches to four hours. Reach 17 incorrect guesses and the system demands a full year before another shot. After 20 the device stays locked. No further attempts allowed. Period.

The adjustments build on lessons from real-world attacks. Most people pick predictable codes. Birthdays. Repeating digits. Attackers who know even basic details about a target succeed more often than random guessing would suggest. Mishaal Rahman, who works on Android’s community engagement team, spelled this out on X. “While this is pretty secure for PINs and passwords chosen randomly, most people don’t randomly choose their PIN or password. Attackers can achieve a significant success rate cracking into devices by entering PINs or passwords in order of decreasing frequency, and if they know anything about you (like your birthday), that success rate only increases.”

MakeUseOf reported on the change after testing the stable Android 17 release on Pixel devices. The publication noted that the new policy also reaches back to Android 16 QPR2. Duplicate guess detection offers some relief. Enter the same wrong code repeatedly and it counts only once. The lock screen now displays wait times in sensible units. No more “try again in 2,000 seconds” messages. Still, owners must stay alert. A few careless taps could lock them out for days or longer.

Google didn’t stop at the lock screen. The company expanded a whole set of anti-theft measures and turned several on by default. Theft Detection Lock activates automatically if the phone senses a sudden snatch. Remote Lock lets owners freeze the device from afar through the Find Hub. Mark as Lost now demands biometric confirmation. Even if a thief somehow learned the PIN, that extra fingerprint or face scan blocks them from disabling tracking or regaining access. Triggering the mode also conceals Quick Settings and stops new Wi-Fi or Bluetooth pairings.

Eugene Liderman, director of the Android Security and Privacy Team, explained the biometric upgrade in Google’s official blog. “We’re enhancing Find Hub’s Mark as lost feature in Android 17 with the ability to lock a phone with biometric authentication, in addition to the regular device passcode or PIN. This means that thieves who may have obtained your passcode or PIN won’t be able to turn off device tracking or re-access your phone if you mark it as lost.” The post appears at blog.google/security/whats-new-in-android-security-privacy-2026.

These protections first ran in a pilot in Brazil. Results convinced Google to roll them out globally for all new Android 17 devices, freshly reset units, and those upgraded to the latest OS. In high-theft markets such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and the UK the features now cover every phone running Android 10 or newer. The expansion aims to cut financial fraud that often follows physical theft. A lost handset doesn’t just cost the hardware price. It opens doors to banking apps, saved cards and personal data.

Seang Chau, vice president and general manager of the Android Platform, highlighted the PIN restrictions in a separate post. “To stop a thief who’s trying to guess their way into your phone, we also reduced the number of times someone can guess your PIN and added longer wait times between failed attempts,” he wrote. Help Net Security covered his comments alongside other Android 17 privacy additions such as scam detection in chat notifications and tighter controls on app behavior.

Factory Reset Protection received reinforcements too. A thief who forces a reset now faces another mandatory reset before reaching the home screen. The change destroys much of a stolen phone’s resale value. Thieves rely on quick wipes and flips on the secondary market. Making that path harder reduces the incentive to steal in the first place. Techlicious noted that these default-on tools matter more than they first appear because many users never bother to enable optional safeguards.

Android 17 also improves recovery options. On supported devices running Android 12 and above, law enforcement, manufacturers or carriers can pull the IMEI directly from the lock screen. The identifier helps prove ownership and speeds return of found phones. Users retain the choice to disable the feature in settings.

Industry observers see the collection of changes as a calculated response to shifting crime patterns. Phone snatchings in crowded cities often lead to rapid attempts to bypass security. By layering automatic locks, biometric gates and strict guess limits Google aims to make the entire process too time-consuming and unrewarding. Android Authority detailed how the Mark as Lost biometric step closes a loophole that existed in earlier releases where a known PIN granted full control.

Of course risks remain. Forgetful users might lock themselves out. Children playing with a parent’s device could burn through attempts. Google added visual cues and smarter timeout displays to soften the impact. The company also continues to refine lock screen messaging after failed entries. Yet the core message is clear. Convenience now takes a back seat to hardened defenses.

Pixel owners receive the update first. Broader Android rollout follows later in the year. Early feedback from the stable channel suggests the security upgrades feel invisible in daily use. That’s exactly the point. The best protections work without drawing attention until the moment they matter.

Recent coverage shows the momentum hasn’t slowed. In mid-July Google pushed the July 2026 security patch to Pixels on Android 17, addressing stability alongside the ongoing theft safeguards. Discussions on X highlighted the rapid beta cycle for quarterly updates, signaling that further refinements could arrive soon. One post from tech accounts noted that the combination of default protections and stricter lock limits already changes the economics for opportunistic thieves.

Google’s approach reflects a wider shift. Hardware alone no longer suffices. Software must anticipate physical threats the same way it counters malware. By making stolen devices far less useful Google doesn’t just protect data. It strikes at the profit motive behind street-level crime. The result could mean fewer incidents and faster recoveries when they do occur.

Users who upgrade gain these layers without extra setup in most cases. Those on older hardware in select countries receive backported coverage. The strategy maximizes reach while the features stay fresh. And as more brands adopt Android 17 the protections will spread across millions of devices worldwide.

Security teams inside Google spent years iterating on these ideas. Pilots revealed what worked. Adjustments followed. The final package in Android 17 shows the payoff. A phone snatched from a pocket now faces multiple independent barriers. Each one buys time for the owner to act. Each one raises the bar for the person holding the device.

The changes won’t end theft overnight. Determined attackers with physical access and specialized tools still pose dangers. Yet for the vast majority of cases the new rules tilt the odds sharply toward the owner. That represents real progress in an area long considered difficult to fix.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/1C5SrBi

Michael Burry Rejects PayPal’s $60.50 Takeover Bid as Too Low. Why a Higher Price May Follow

PayPal shares jumped 17% after reports surfaced that Stripe and Advent International offered $60.50 a share to buy the payments giant. The deal would value the company at more than $53 billion. Yet one prominent investor wasted little time pushing back.

Michael Burry called the bid “simply too low.” He owns PayPal stock. And he has no plans to sell at that price. His analysis, laid out in a Substack post, points to deeper value that the offer fails to capture. The Motley Fool first highlighted his remarks. Burry’s view carries weight. He gained fame predicting the housing crisis in “The Big Short.” Now he sees the same pattern here. An opening bid that undervalues a business with strong cash flows and strategic assets.

The offer from Stripe, a privately held payments leader, and Advent, a private equity firm, arrived this month. It represents a 28% premium to PayPal’s closing price the day before the news broke. Shares closed at $47.37 then. They soared to $55.52 on the announcement. But that still left them trading below the proposed buyout level. Investors appeared skeptical the deal would close at the stated terms. Or at all.

Burry disagreed with the market’s muted reaction. In his post on Cassandra Unchained, he broke down the numbers using his intrinsic value framework. The bid equals just 1.21 times his IV15 estimate. That metric reflects what a minority investor might pay. A full buyout demands more. Much more.

“The bid is at 1.21x IV15 and simply too low,” Burry wrote. “This validates the value in PayPal, and I believe the bid will have to rise. The company is well below intrinsic value, and any successful bid should be well above intrinsic value to account for the control premium.”

He continued. “PayPal is one of the cheapest quality businesses in the portfolio. IV15 is what a minority investor would pay. There is no control premium in my IV15 calculation. A control premium should take any buyout well above IV15, and 21% more is not nearly enough.”

Burry’s math gets specific. True intrinsic value sits around his IV8 to IV10 levels. IV10 points to $75 to $80 a share. IV8 pushes that to $110 to $115. Add a control premium to the lower figure. A realistic winning bid lands near $100 a share. That remains below his IV8 estimate. “With control over the cash flows, those businesses and the personnel, the new owner will have many levers to increase value and make for a better overall business,” he added.

“$60.50 is just too low. I am not selling, and I believe it is only an opening bid.”

Burry’s Valuation Framework Challenges the Bid

Those figures stand in sharp contrast to the offer price. PayPal generated $1.7 billion in adjusted free cash flow during the first quarter. That marked a 25% increase from a year earlier. At the current pace, the $53 billion valuation implies less than eight times annual free cash flow. The deal also values the company at roughly 11 times earnings. Those multiples appear attractive for a business with 439 million active accounts. Yet growth has slowed. Revenue rose 7% in the first quarter. Transaction margin dollars, a key profitability gauge, increased just 3%. Active accounts grew 1% year over year but dipped slightly from the previous quarter.

Management offered cautious guidance. Adjusted earnings per share could decline in the low single digits or turn slightly positive for the full year. The stock had already fallen from a 52-week high of $79.50. The bid sits 24% below that peak. So the 28% premium to the recent low feels less impressive in context.

Burry’s stance aligns with some recent coverage. Yahoo Finance reported his comments and noted that he expects a higher bid. TipRanks echoed the point. Some Wall Street analysts also anticipate an improved offer if negotiations advance. The board planned to meet as soon as July 20 to review the proposal. PayPal has not commented publicly.

The financing behind the bid looks solid. Reports indicate $50 billion in committed bank loans. Stripe and Advent would each own 50% of PayPal if the deal closes. No breakup of the business is planned. The combination pairs Stripe’s merchant-focused infrastructure with PayPal’s vast consumer network and Venmo platform. Stablecoin initiatives at both companies could gain from integration too.

But competition has intensified. Apple Pay, Block, Affirm and Klarna challenge PayPal on multiple fronts. Shares had dropped about 35% over the past year before the bid news. That decline reflected stalled user growth and pressure on margins. Burry bought in anyway. He accumulated shares around $49 earlier this year after previously calling the stock a value trap. The market, he suggested, had “attended PayPal’s wake for years” while the company repurchased shares aggressively.

Now the vultures circle. A $53 billion deal would rank among the largest in fintech history. Yet Burry sees it as insufficient. His IV estimates rest on a methodology that discounts future cash flows under varying assumptions. IV15 uses more conservative inputs suited to passive ownership. IV8 and IV10 assume different growth and margin scenarios. The gap between them highlights uncertainty. But the control premium argument holds regardless. Buyers who gain full decision-making power can cut costs, accelerate buybacks, expand partnerships or invest in new products. Those levers justify paying extra.

Recent market reaction supports some doubt. Shares traded around $56 after the initial surge. That left an 8% discount to the offer price. Traders appeared to price in the chance that PayPal’s board rejects the bid or that the parties fail to agree on terms. If talks collapse, the stock could retreat sharply. But Burry’s refusal to sell signals confidence that better offers may emerge. He is not alone in that view. Discussions on X, formerly Twitter, show investors debating a potential bidding war. Some speculate the price could reach $70 to $80. Others reference Burry’s $100 target.

The original report on the offer came from Reuters. It cited people familiar with the matter. The Wall Street Journal and CNBC soon confirmed details. PayPal’s turnaround effort under new leadership adds another layer. The company has worked to simplify its product lineup and improve efficiency. Those steps could bear fruit under new owners with fresh capital and strategic focus.

Free cash flow remains the story’s core. PayPal returned $6 billion to shareholders through repurchases over the trailing 12 months. That discipline supports Burry’s case for higher worth. A buyer controlling those flows could amplify returns. And PayPal’s brand, data assets and global reach retain significant appeal despite slower growth.

So the board faces a choice. Accept $60.50 and hand the company to Stripe and Advent. Or push for more. Burry has made his position clear. He sees the current offer as the start of a conversation. Not the end. Markets will watch closely as July unfolds. Any revised bid, competing interest or outright rejection could send shares moving again. For now, one of the most vocal value investors in the market has drawn a line. At $60.50, he isn’t budging.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/TGZRftr

Microsoft Ends Support for Windows 10 and Key Servers in July 2026

Microsoft has announced plans to end support for several legacy operating systems and applications as part of its July 2026 Patch Tuesday schedule. The move signals a firm commitment to modern security standards while encouraging organizations to complete their migration efforts well before the deadline arrives. According to a report published by TechRepublic, the changes will affect Windows 10, Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2, Exchange Server 2016, and older versions of SQL Server, among other products.

The July 2026 Patch Tuesday will mark the final time Microsoft delivers security updates for Windows 10, which has remained in service far longer than many earlier client operating systems. First released in July 2015, Windows 10 enjoyed an extended lifecycle thanks to multiple feature updates and the decision to treat it as a service rather than a traditional versioned release. Even so, the operating system will reach its end of support on October 14, 2025, meaning the July 2026 patches represent the last official fixes before extended security updates become the only option for those who choose to pay for them.

Organizations that continue running Windows 10 after the official cutoff face growing risks. Without regular security patches, machines become attractive targets for attackers who exploit vulnerabilities that are already known to the broader security community. Microsoft has offered paid Extended Security Updates for previous end-of-life products such as Windows 7 and Windows 8.1, and the company has indicated a similar program will be available for Windows 10. Pricing starts at an additional 10 percent of the original license cost in the first year and increases each subsequent year. For many enterprises, the expense of these updates quickly exceeds the cost of migrating to Windows 11 or adopting a cloud-based desktop solution.

The situation becomes more complex for businesses that rely on specialized applications that were never fully tested or certified for newer Windows versions. Healthcare providers, manufacturing plants, and government agencies often maintain air-gapped systems or embedded devices that cannot be upgraded easily. For these groups, the final Patch Tuesday in July 2026 serves as a hard deadline that forces difficult decisions about budgeting, testing, and potential system replacement.

Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2012 R2 will also lose mainstream support on the same timeline. Released over a decade ago, these server platforms still power countless virtual machines and physical infrastructure around the globe. Microsoft extended the support period once already, but that grace period ends in October 2023 for the base editions and will conclude entirely by 2026. After that date, organizations must either migrate workloads to Windows Server 2022 or newer, move to Azure, or purchase the paid extended security program. The TechRepublic article highlights that many companies have delayed these migrations because of the perceived stability of the 2012 platform and the complexity of updating dependent applications.

Exchange Server 2016 follows a similar path. The messaging platform reached its mainstream end of support in 2022, but extended security updates kept critical fixes flowing. By July 2026, those updates will stop unless customers pay for the premium support channel. Microsoft has been steering organizations toward Exchange Online or the latest on-premises version, Exchange Server 2022, for some time. The combination of improved security features, better integration with Microsoft 365, and reduced maintenance overhead makes the cloud option attractive for many, yet regulatory requirements around data sovereignty continue to keep some workloads on private servers.

SQL Server 2016 and older database versions face parallel challenges. While newer releases receive regular cumulative updates, the older editions will lose all patching support after the July 2026 cycle. Database administrators must evaluate whether their applications can run on SQL Server 2022 or whether a shift to Azure SQL Managed Instance offers a more sustainable route. The migration process often involves schema changes, performance testing, and updates to reporting tools, all of which require careful planning well ahead of the support cliff.

Beyond the operating systems and server products, several development tools and specialized applications will also reach end of support. Visual Studio 2015, certain versions of System Center, and older .NET Framework releases fall into this category. Developers who maintain legacy codebases will need to modernize their toolchains or accept that future security issues in the development environment will go unpatched.

The announcement carries particular weight for managed service providers and IT consultants who support hundreds of clients. Many small and medium-sized businesses still run Windows 10 workstations paired with Windows Server 2012 domain controllers. These environments often lack centralized patch management or dedicated security teams, making them especially vulnerable once official updates cease. Providers are now accelerating migration projects and offering fixed-fee Windows 11 deployment packages to help clients avoid the extended security update fees.

Microsoft’s decision to publish the 2026 dates this far in advance gives IT departments a clear runway for budgeting and project planning. Companies can schedule hardware refreshes, test application compatibility, and train staff on new features in Windows 11 such as enhanced biometric security and virtualization-based protection. The operating system’s strict hardware requirements, including TPM 2.0 and Secure Boot, have already prompted many organizations to audit their device fleets and identify machines that must be replaced rather than upgraded.

Security experts emphasize that the real danger after July 2026 will come from zero-day exploits that remain unpatched on unsupported systems. Attackers increasingly target these environments because the attack surface remains static while defensive tools evolve. Ransomware groups, in particular, scan for older Windows Server versions because they often host file shares with weak access controls. Once inside an outdated network, lateral movement becomes simpler because many of the built-in security features introduced in later Windows versions are simply absent.

Cloud migration offers one pathway around these problems. Azure Virtual Desktop and Windows 365 provide managed Windows 11 experiences without the need for on-premises hardware refreshes. These services receive automatic updates directly from Microsoft, reducing the operational burden on internal IT teams. For organizations with strict compliance needs, Azure Government and dedicated cloud regions can satisfy regulatory demands while still delivering modern security patches.

At the same time, not every workload belongs in the cloud. Industrial control systems, laboratory equipment, and certain financial trading platforms require deterministic performance and low latency that can be difficult to guarantee over public networks. For these cases, Microsoft has introduced Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC, a long-term servicing channel designed specifically for embedded and specialized devices. The edition receives security updates for up to ten years, offering a middle ground between full client support and completely unsupported legacy installations.

The July 2026 Patch Tuesday also reflects broader industry trends toward shorter support lifecycles. Where earlier Windows versions enjoyed ten or more years of patches, modern expectations favor faster innovation cycles and more frequent platform refreshes. This approach allows Microsoft to focus engineering resources on platforms that incorporate the latest hardware security features and threat intelligence. Customers benefit from stronger baseline protection but must adapt their upgrade processes accordingly.

Preparation for the support deadline should begin immediately. IT leaders can start by inventorying all systems running Windows 10, Server 2012, or Exchange 2016. Automated discovery tools can identify version numbers, patch levels, and installed applications. From there, organizations should categorize workloads into three groups: those that can migrate to Windows 11 today, those that require application remediation first, and those that must be replaced entirely.

Testing remains the most time-consuming part of any migration. Applications written for older platforms may depend on deprecated APIs, outdated drivers, or specific Internet Explorer behaviors that no longer exist in Windows 11. Microsoft provides the Application Compatibility Toolkit and the Windows App Certification Kit to help surface these issues early. In parallel, security teams should review Group Policy settings, firewall rules, and endpoint protection configurations to ensure they align with current best practices before the cutover.

Communication with business stakeholders is equally vital. Department heads need to understand why older systems cannot remain in place indefinitely and what the financial implications of extended security updates would be. Presenting concrete risk statistics, such as the percentage of known vulnerabilities that remain unpatched on end-of-life platforms, often helps secure the necessary budget and executive sponsorship.

Training programs should cover new Windows 11 productivity features, updated security protocols, and the differences in user interface elements. Many employees have grown comfortable with Windows 10 over nearly a decade of use, and a poorly managed transition can lead to frustration and reduced productivity. Offering self-service resources, lunch-and-learn sessions, and dedicated helpdesk support during the initial rollout period can ease the change.

Microsoft’s announcement through the TechRepublic coverage serves as both a warning and an opportunity. Companies that treat the July 2026 date as a project milestone rather than a distant future event will position themselves to benefit from improved security, better performance, and access to the latest collaboration tools. Those who delay risk exposure to preventable breaches, mounting technical debt, and escalating support costs.

The technology industry has seen similar transitions before. When Windows XP reached end of support in 2014, countless organizations scrambled to upgrade while attackers launched campaigns specifically targeting the abandoned platform. The same pattern repeated with Windows 7 in 2020. Each cycle reinforces the lesson that proactive planning yields better outcomes than last-minute reaction. With more than a year remaining until the July 2026 Patch Tuesday, IT departments have sufficient time to execute thoughtful, well-tested migrations that protect both corporate data and user productivity for years to come.

As the final patches roll out that month, administrators will watch the update process with mixed feelings. Relief that long-standing legacy systems will soon receive no further free fixes may be tempered by the realization that the comfortable stability of older platforms is ending. Yet the broader security community recognizes that continued support for decade-old codebases carries greater risks than the temporary disruption of an upgrade. By setting a firm date and communicating it clearly, Microsoft provides the structure organizations need to move forward with confidence. The months ahead offer a valuable window to modernize infrastructure, strengthen defenses, and prepare for the next decade of computing.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/mpkYKVW

Apple’s Explosive Suit Against OpenAI Exposes Talent Wars and Hardware Rivalry

Apple didn’t mince words. In a federal complaint filed just days ago, the iPhone maker accused OpenAI of a systematic campaign to swipe its most guarded product plans. The suit names two former Apple engineers. It paints a picture of recruitment gone wrong. And it lands at a moment when both companies chase the next big thing in consumer gadgets.

The allegations run deep. OpenAI, according to Apple, didn’t just hire talent. It pressed new recruits to bring along confidential drawings, component samples and details on manufacturing partners. One ex-engineer allegedly exploited a rare bug to keep server access weeks after his exit. That bug let him pull files on unreleased hardware. Short. Direct. Damaging if proven.

But OpenAI pushed back fast. In statements to multiple outlets, the company said it takes such claims seriously yet sees no evidence the suit holds water. “We have no interest in other companies’ trade secrets,” spokesman Drew Pusateri told The New York Times. “We remain focused on building innovative technology that empowers people everywhere.” The firm echoed similar language in AppleInsider, stressing fair competition and workers’ rights to choose employers.

Yet the numbers tell a bigger story. More than 400 former Apple staffers now work at OpenAI. That’s not coincidence, Apple argues. It’s a pattern. The suit highlights specific individuals like Tang Yew Tan and Chang Liu. Both allegedly funneled secrets before jumping ship. One carried unreleased parts to interviews. Another shared supply-chain intel. These moves, per the complaint, aimed to speed OpenAI’s 2027 hardware launch. Think devices that could rival the iPhone itself.

The Talent Pipeline Under Scrutiny

Hiring wars define Silicon Valley. Engineers switch firms constantly. Knowledge travels with them. But Apple claims this case crosses into theft. It accuses OpenAI of coordinating at every level, from technical staff to its chief hardware officer. The latter, a onetime Apple designer, sits at the center. His role? Shape OpenAI’s first consumer products, including a portable smart speaker with camera and facial recognition. Reports from today tie that device to former Apple Chief Design Officer Jony Ive. X posts from July 15 buzz with details on the pocket-sized gadget. One from @MissTrade notes its movable design and built-in biometrics.

Analysts already warn the litigation could slow OpenAI’s momentum. A Bloomberg analysis, updated this week, suggests the suit threatens hardware ambitions long before any trial. Potential injunctions might force redesigns. Recruiting could grow cautious. Red tape piles up. So does uncertainty. OpenAI insists its timeline stays intact. But legal clouds rarely help product schedules.

Apple seeks more than damages. It wants OpenAI to destroy any stolen materials and stop using them. The complaint details how ex-employees maintained access post-termination. One bug exposed secrets for weeks. “Rare,” Apple called it. Yet effective. That access allegedly covered future product roadmaps and supplier lists. Such info holds massive value in the race to build AI-native devices.

Reactions poured in across X. Some posts highlighted TSMC’s record revenues from AI chips, framing the suit amid booming demand. Others labeled it one of the biggest AI legal battles yet. @nikhil_rathod1 tied the poaching to competing device frameworks. @pulsealpha_ quoted OpenAI firing back, claiming no evidence of wrongdoing. The chatter shows how quickly this dispute captured attention. But facts remain in the court filings.

Apple’s suit also names OpenAI directly, not just the individuals. It alleges the company encouraged candidates to share secrets during interviews. Bring prototypes. Discuss unreleased components. The pattern, Apple says, accelerated OpenAI’s shift from software to hardware. No longer content with chat interfaces, the firm eyes physical products. A speaker. Perhaps more. All powered by its advanced models.

Broader Implications for Tech’s Future

This fight reveals deeper tensions. Apple and OpenAI once partnered on features like Apple Intelligence. Now they compete head-on. The suit escalates those strains. It follows months of simmering issues, per Reuters. Suppliers, recruiters, executives. All caught in the crosshairs.

Trade secret cases rarely reach full trial. Many settle quietly. Yet this one carries weight. Success for Apple could reshape how firms hire from rivals. It might deter aggressive poaching. Or spark more lawsuits. Failure could embolden talent flows and weaken protections for proprietary designs.

OpenAI, for its part, frames the matter as standard industry practice. People move. They bring experience. Competition drives progress. But Apple counters that experience crossed into stolen blueprints. The difference matters. Courts will sort it. In the meantime, both sides push forward. Apple refines its ecosystem. OpenAI readies its speaker and whatever follows.

And the stakes? Consumer trust. Device innovation. Billions in potential revenue. A portable AI companion from OpenAI could disrupt markets. If it relies on pilfered ideas, though, that foundation cracks. Apple aims to expose those cracks now. Its complaint reads like a warning. Don’t shortcut the hard work of invention. Build your own path.

Recent coverage adds layers. Ars Technica detailed the bug that kept access alive. CNBC called the scheme coordinated “at every level.” Fortune highlighted the suit’s boldest claims. Each piece draws from the same complaint. Yet together they show the suit’s reach. It targets not one lapse but a strategy.

Watch this case closely. Outcomes here could set precedents for AI hardware races. Talent mobility. Intellectual property defense. The industry shifts fast. Legal systems scramble to keep pace. Apple bets its suit forces that pace. OpenAI bets its denials hold. Neither blinks yet. The fight has only begun.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/kHSBQK4

New York Enacts First US Moratorium on New Data Centers Starting 2026

New York has taken a significant step by becoming the first state to enact a temporary halt on new data center developments, a measure set to begin in 2026. The decision reflects growing concerns about the massive energy demands these facilities place on the electrical grid and their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions at a time when the state aims to meet ambitious climate targets. According to a report from Reuters, lawmakers approved the moratorium after months of debate over how rapidly expanding artificial intelligence infrastructure could undermine progress toward cleaner energy sources.

The legislation imposes a two-year pause on approving large-scale data centers that consume more than five megawatts of power. This threshold captures most modern facilities built to support cloud computing, cryptocurrency operations, and the surging needs of AI model training. During this period, state agencies will study the full environmental impact of these operations, including water usage for cooling systems, contributions to peak electricity demand, and effects on local communities. Officials hope the findings will shape future regulations that balance technological growth with environmental protection.

Data centers have multiplied across New York in recent years, drawn by the state’s dense population of technology firms, financial institutions, and research universities. Northern Virginia may host the largest concentration in the United States, yet New York has carved out its own share, particularly in the Hudson Valley and upstate regions where land remains relatively affordable and fiber optic connections reach major metropolitan areas. Companies ranging from established cloud providers to startups racing to build AI capabilities have sought permits to construct facilities that often span hundreds of thousands of square feet and require constant, high-volume electricity.

The moratorium arrives as electricity consumption by data centers nationwide has climbed sharply. Projections from various industry analysts suggest that by the end of the decade, these facilities could account for as much as eight percent of total U.S. power demand, a figure that rivals the current usage of entire states. In New York, where lawmakers passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019, the target remains clear: generate seventy percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions across the economy by 2050. Many observers question whether those goals can hold if unchecked data center expansion continues to rely on natural gas and other fossil fuels during periods of high demand.

Supporters of the moratorium argue that the pause creates necessary breathing room for policymakers. Without detailed assessments, they say, the state risks locking in long-term commitments to energy sources that contradict its climate commitments. Data centers often operate under long-term power purchase agreements, and once built, they tend to remain in place for decades. The two-year study period will allow experts to examine how these facilities interact with the grid during extreme weather, measure their actual carbon footprints, and evaluate whether current incentive programs encourage wasteful consumption rather than efficiency.

Critics from the technology sector warn that the decision could drive investment away from New York toward states with fewer restrictions. Industry groups have pointed out that data centers bring substantial economic benefits, including high-paying jobs in construction, operations, and maintenance, as well as increased tax revenue for local governments. Some facilities also contribute to community projects, such as broadband expansion or workforce training programs. Business leaders fear that signaling hesitation about new projects might prompt companies to locate their next campuses in neighboring states like Pennsylvania or New Jersey, where officials have actively courted data center developers with tax breaks and streamlined permitting.

The debate has highlighted tensions between immediate economic gains and longer-term sustainability objectives. Electricity rates in New York already rank among the highest in the nation, partly because of infrastructure upgrades and renewable energy mandates. Adding large data centers that run servers around the clock could push those rates even higher for residential and small business customers who lack the negotiating power of major technology firms. During heat waves or cold snaps, when air conditioning and heating systems strain the grid, data centers can represent a significant portion of peak load. Some utilities have already warned that without major investments in transmission lines and generation capacity, brownouts or service interruptions could become more common.

Water usage presents another area of concern. Many data centers rely on evaporative cooling systems that consume millions of gallons annually, particularly in regions experiencing drought or competing demands from agriculture and drinking water supplies. In parts of upstate New York, where some proposed facilities would draw from the same watersheds that feed rivers and reservoirs, environmental advocates have raised alarms about potential impacts on aquatic ecosystems. The forthcoming study mandated by the moratorium is expected to include detailed modeling of these water demands under different climate scenarios.

The legislation does include exemptions for certain projects already far along in the approval process, as well as smaller facilities below the five-megawatt threshold. This carve-out aims to avoid disrupting ongoing economic activity while still capturing the largest and most energy-intensive developments. Lawmakers also directed the state energy agency to accelerate research into alternative cooling technologies, such as liquid immersion or advanced air circulation methods that reduce water consumption. Additionally, the bill encourages exploration of how data centers might support grid stability by participating in demand-response programs or incorporating on-site energy storage and renewable generation.

Public opinion on the issue appears divided. Polls conducted in the months leading up to the vote showed that many residents support action on climate change yet also value the job opportunities associated with technology infrastructure. In communities where data centers have already been constructed, opinions often split between those who appreciate the tax revenue and those who resent the constant hum of cooling fans or the sight of large industrial buildings in formerly rural areas. Local governments have sometimes found themselves caught between these perspectives, eager for the economic boost but wary of long-term infrastructure burdens.

The New York decision could influence policy discussions in other states facing similar pressures. California, Virginia, Texas, and Illinois have all seen rapid data center growth and are confronting comparable questions about energy reliability and emissions. If New York’s study produces actionable recommendations, such as stricter efficiency standards or requirements to match power consumption with new renewable capacity, those findings might serve as a template for legislators elsewhere. Conversely, if the moratorium leads to significant lost investment, other states may choose to maintain more permissive approaches.

Beyond the immediate policy implications, the moratorium underscores a broader challenge facing the technology industry. Artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models and generative tools, require enormous computational resources. Training a single advanced model can consume electricity equivalent to the annual usage of hundreds of households. Once deployed, these models continue to draw power every time users interact with them. As adoption spreads across sectors including healthcare, finance, transportation, and education, the cumulative energy footprint expands rapidly. Industry leaders have begun acknowledging that sustainability must become a core consideration in hardware design, data center architecture, and software optimization.

Some companies have responded by investing in renewable energy projects specifically intended to offset their data center consumption. Others have explored locating facilities near sources of clean power, such as hydroelectric dams in upstate New York or wind farms along the Great Lakes. Still, critics argue that purchasing renewable energy credits or signing virtual power purchase agreements does not always translate into additional clean generation on the grid, especially when data centers increase overall demand that utilities meet with whatever sources are available at the moment.

The two-year moratorium offers an opportunity to examine these dynamics more closely. Researchers will likely assess not only direct energy and water usage but also the indirect effects, such as the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing servers and building facilities. They may also evaluate whether current building codes and energy efficiency standards adequately address the unique operating patterns of data centers, which differ markedly from traditional office buildings or manufacturing plants.

As the study period unfolds, stakeholders from multiple sectors will have chances to provide input. Utility companies, technology firms, environmental organizations, academic researchers, and local community representatives are expected to participate in public hearings and technical workshops. The goal remains to develop a regulatory framework that supports continued innovation while ensuring that growth aligns with the state’s legal commitments to reduce emissions and protect natural resources.

New York’s action arrives at a pivotal moment in the relationship between digital infrastructure and environmental policy. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has accelerated demand for computing power far beyond earlier forecasts. At the same time, the visible effects of climate change, from more intense storms to shifting weather patterns, have made many policymakers less willing to accept projects that could complicate emissions reduction efforts. The outcome of this moratorium and the accompanying research will help determine whether these two forces can be reconciled or whether harder trade-offs lie ahead.

For now, the legislation sends a clear signal that unchecked expansion of data centers will not continue without scrutiny. By taking time to gather comprehensive data and consider multiple perspectives, New York positions itself to make more informed decisions about how to accommodate technological progress within the boundaries set by its climate objectives. The coming months will reveal whether this approach serves as a model for other states or stands as an outlier in a nation hungry for the economic and innovative benefits that data centers can provide. The balance struck in New York may influence technology deployment patterns for years to come, affecting everything from the pace of artificial intelligence development to the affordability and reliability of electricity for ordinary citizens.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/tC2dqJX

Markey’s Data Center Bill Takes Aim at AI’s Growing Pollution and Power Toll

Senator Edward J. Markey released a discussion draft last week that could reshape how America builds the massive facilities powering artificial intelligence. The proposal, part of his broader AI Accountability Agenda, targets the surge in data centers that consume vast electricity, strain local grids and spew emissions. Communities near these projects have complained for years. Now federal rules may force operators to prove they won’t make things worse.

The Massachusetts Democrat has long pushed back against lax oversight. His new measure, the Protecting Communities from Data Center Impacts Act, demands a federal certificate before any permitting or construction. Operators must show the project won’t harm public interest. Minimum standards cover energy use, pollution and economic fallout. Short. Direct. And overdue, according to critics of the current pace.

Data centers already rival nations in their appetite for power. Last year they used 448 trillion watt-hours globally. That topped electricity consumption in all but 10 countries. The facilities produced 208 million tons of carbon dioxide, matching Argentina’s annual output. They also consumed 1.2 trillion gallons of water. AP News reported these figures from a United Nations University study. Projections look starker. By 2030 consumption could hit 935 trillion watt-hours. That equals nearly 3 percent of worldwide electricity. Emissions would double to about 440 million tons.

But the numbers tell only part of the story. AI now drives roughly 20 percent of data center energy demand. That share may reach 40 percent in four years. Servers run hotter. Cooling systems gulp more water. And many projects turn to fossil fuels for quick supply. A fresh report examined 74 planned gas-fired plants meant to serve data centers directly. Their combined capacity? 143 gigawatts. Annual greenhouse gas emissions could total 662 million tons. That matches the yearly output of Australia or France. Nearly half the plants would sit in Texas. Others cluster in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Reuters covered the Environmental Integrity Project analysis, published July 1.

Jen Duggan, the group’s executive director, put it plainly. “An industry of the future should not be chained to dirty fuels of the past and the air pollution from fossil fuels that cause real harm to communities.” Pollutants like nitrous oxide and benzene threaten nearby residents. Developers counter that off-grid plants dodge some standard rules. They move faster. Yet the health costs linger.

Markey’s draft doesn’t leave these burdens to chance. Facilities would pay for grid upgrades themselves. They must sign agreements to cut demand during peak stress. No more shifting extra costs onto households. Data centers would also fund renewable generation and storage to match their needs. On-site diesel backups? Off limits under the plan. Construction must meet high labor standards too. Grants would help communities hire experts to track air quality, water use, noise and health effects. Technical aid would build local capacity to push back or mitigate damage.

From Local Complaints to National Policy

Residents have organized in Virginia, Georgia, Oregon and beyond. They cite higher bills, diesel fumes, constant hum and strained water supplies. Markey hosted a roundtable in July 2025 titled “The Data Center Next Door.” It spotlighted hidden costs of AI and cryptomining. He released a storybook that same day. Families described living beside these complexes. The tales weren’t abstract. They detailed disrupted nights, respiratory issues and unexpected rate hikes.

The senator has kept pressure on regulators. In June he urged EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to scrap a proposed rule that eases Clean Air Act permitting for data centers and related fossil infrastructure. Last September he opposed rollback of the New Source Review program. November 2025 brought a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Markey warned against unjust rate increases for families. March 2026 saw him call on state utility regulators to shield ratepayers. He reintroduced the AI Environmental Impacts Act in June. That bill requires operators to disclose full environmental footprints or face fines. Markey’s Senate office detailed the agenda and history July 10.

States haven’t waited. More than 300 bills appeared across 30 legislatures early this year. New York weighs a three-year halt on new builds while agencies craft rate protections. Massachusetts considers a commission to study load growth from AI facilities. Pennsylvania lawmakers debate local moratoria. These efforts vary. Yet they share frustration with unchecked expansion. Markey’s draft draws lessons from them. It aims to knit patchwork rules into one national standard. But, some industry voices worry added requirements could slow AI progress. Others see efficiency gains. Operators who optimize code and hardware may face lighter compliance loads.

The Guardian spoke with Markey around the release. He stressed immediate harms over distant promises. “We need to make sure these datacenters don’t turn into pollution bombs.” The paper highlighted personal stories driving his agenda. One involved a teen’s suicide linked to an AI chatbot. Another described rural water shortages near proposed sites. A discrimination lawsuit tied to biased algorithms. A nurse veteran distressed by workplace AI. These anecdotes ground the policy in lived experience. They also signal Markey’s decade-long fight to curb Big Tech power. His agenda spans worker surveillance, child safety, civil rights, healthcare judgment and wealth sharing. Data centers form one pillar. Yet they anchor the physical reality behind digital hype.

Recent coverage shows momentum. Google’s 2026 environmental report revealed its electricity use jumped more than 250 percent since 2019. The company hit 43 terawatt-hours in 2025, up 37 percent in a single year. AI and cloud services drive the spike. Other hyperscalers report similar trends. Meanwhile a Carnegie Mellon economist calculated U.S. data centers imposed $25 billion in pollution and health damages last year. That figure could rise 85 percent soon. U.S. News & World Report examined the analysis in May. Without grid decarbonization, emissions may exceed prior forecasts by 57 percent. Allianz Trade projected 286 million tons of CO2 from centers in 2025 alone.

Markey’s certificate requirement stands as the draft’s sharpest tool. It flips the script. Instead of reacting after construction, agencies review impacts first. Air and water quality. Noise levels. Energy draw on the local grid. Effects on jobs and taxes. Ecosystem strain. Failure to meet standards blocks the project. The approach echoes environmental justice principles. Communities gain resources to monitor and respond. They no longer absorb costs alone.

Critics of the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan see the draft as direct rebuttal. That plan favored speed over safeguards. Markey called it a “race to the bottom.” His legislation insists on accountability now. AI’s benefits exist. Faster drug discovery. Improved weather models. Enhanced accessibility tools. Yet infrastructure supporting those gains carries trade-offs. Water diverted from farms. Power plants built near homes. Bills that rise for everyone else. The senator’s plan forces those trade-offs into daylight before concrete pours.

Passage faces hurdles. Industry lobbyists argue strict rules could push projects overseas. Some Republicans favor streamlined permitting to maintain U.S. leadership in AI. Bipartisan interest in child online safety and bias protections may open doors. COPPA 2.0 cleared the Senate unanimously earlier this year. Markey hopes similar common ground emerges here. Still, the data center bill touches energy policy, environmental law and economic development. Compromise won’t come easy. And time matters. New facilities break ground monthly. Emissions climb. Grids strain.

So the discussion draft invites input. Markey pledged to consult communities, workers and state leaders. He wants to refine the text before formal introduction. That process could incorporate ideas from New York’s moratorium debate or Virginia’s ratepayer complaints. It may tighten labor language or expand grant programs. Whatever the final shape, the proposal marks a shift. Federal government would no longer treat data centers as invisible infrastructure. They become regulated actors with duties to neighbors and the climate.

Projections grow more urgent each quarter. One study warned data center land footprint could exceed 14,500 square kilometers by decade’s end. Water consumption for cooling and power might equal basic domestic needs of 1.3 billion people. These scales demand coordinated response. Markey’s bill offers one model. It pairs transparency with enforcement, local aid with operator accountability. Success depends on execution. Yet the direction feels clear. The AI boom cannot ignore its physical costs. Communities have waited long enough.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/DUJdnYr

Christopher Nolan’s Flip Phone Era: Why the Director Still Rejects Smartphones Amid ‘The Odyssey’

Christopher Nolan has never owned a smartphone. He has never used email. These facts, once quirks of a prominent filmmaker, now stand out sharply in an industry and culture tethered to constant digital connection.

The director behind Oppenheimer, Inception and the upcoming The Odyssey carries a flip phone when he travels. At home and on set, he relies on others. Assistants print emails for him. Colleagues hand him phones when needed. “I do not,” he told Complex in May, recounting his 60 Minutes exchange. “I never have.”

Nolan’s Practical Resistance

His stance isn’t born from outright rejection of technology. Nolan embraces tools that serve his stories. Practical effects, large-format film, intricate VFX — these define his work. Yet personal devices that demand attention? Those he avoids. “I worry the world is eventually going to wear me down,” he said in a recent Telegraph interview. “Partly because I know I’d become horribly addicted to them if I had one.”

Short. Direct. The admission lands with force. Addiction lurks there, he believes. Not in some abstract moral panic. In the quiet moments that fuel his scripts.

Waiting for a train. Sitting between takes. Those pockets of time once sparked ideas. Now, many fill them scrolling. Nolan opts out. “I actually really like not having one because it gives me time to think,” he explained to The Hollywood Reporter years ago. “You know, when you have a smartphone and you have 10 minutes to spare, you go on it and you start looking at stuff.” Longer analytical sentences follow that thought. The distraction compounds. Ideas that might have formed stay buried under notifications and feeds.

But it’s getting harder. QR codes returned after COVID. Menus, tickets, check-ins — all demand a smartphone now. “The return of the QR code has been quite… quite tricky,” Nolan said on 60 Minutes, as reported by Complex. “QR code had sort of gone away, but COVID brought it back and now it’s kind of everywhere. And if you don’t have a smartphone, you can’t do much with a QR code.” He carries the flip phone for travel. Otherwise, he lives as many once did. “I feel very fortunate to not be wearing the digital shackles, but such is life.”

And his team adapts. Printed emails pile up. “People are like, ‘You’ve got to take a look at this.’ Alright,” he noted. “But no, I’ve just never been particularly interested in that as a form of communication.” Face-to-face still matters. So does privacy. He hands off scripts in person. No leaks from careless forwards. No digital trail that could expose an unfinished idea.

His children notice. “My kids would probably say I’m a complete Luddite,” Nolan told The Hollywood Reporter in 2023. He pushes back on the label. “I would actually resist that description. I think technology and what it can provide is amazing. My personal choice is about how involved I get. It’s about the level of distraction. If I’m generating my material and writing my own scripts, being on a smartphone all day wouldn’t be very useful for me.”

That computer he writes on? No internet connection. Security and focus both win. Rumors swirl anyway. A Blue Thunder remake? Nolan heard it secondhand. No urge to log on and correct the record. “I have absolutely no idea where it came from. And besides, I was always more of an Airwolf fan,” he quipped recently, per posts referencing the Telegraph.

His approach influences sets too. Strict no-phone policies during shoots preserve concentration. Matt Damon highlighted this in a recent appearance, noting Nolan’s habit preserves deep thinking time. Actors and crew focus without the pull of devices. “Phones have become a huge distraction, and people work much better without them,” Nolan once shared with Esquire, as cited across coverage.

Yet he doesn’t ban phones from theaters out of puritanism. He praises venues like Quentin Tarantino’s that enforce the rule. The big screen demands attention. Distractions diminish the experience. His films reward that focus — intricate plots, practical spectacle, sound design that envelops.

Recent coverage shows the conversation evolving. As AI tools generate content at scale, Nolan’s children spot the difference immediately. They’ve grown up online enough to recognize low-effort output. “Slop,” they call it. Their father steers clear, using technology where it elevates narrative, not replaces craft. In The Odyssey, engineering challenges for IMAX filming demanded ingenuity from actors and crew alike. No digital shortcuts there.

Industry insiders watch closely. Nolan’s output remains prolific. Blockbusters built on original stories. No endless franchises. His method — analog where it counts, selective with the rest — yields results that stand apart. Others chase virality and algorithmic favor. He thinks. He writes offline. He shoots on film when possible.

Critics once called it eccentricity. Now some see wisdom. Phone addiction studies mount. Attention spans shrink. Executives admit their own devices colonize time. Damon, in conversation with Conan O’Brien, pointed to Hong Kong streets where screens dominate all ages. “I see it with myself, how quickly I’ll allow my attention to kind of get colonized by these devices,” he said. Nolan offers the counterexample. Preserve the quiet. Let ideas form.

Of course, not everyone can opt out. Nolan’s success affords assistants and buffers. A working parent juggling schedules might struggle without apps. He acknowledges the shift. Life pushes forward. QR codes multiply. Services assume connectivity. “It’s getting harder and harder,” he concedes.

Still, he persists. No digital shackles. Flip phone in pocket. Ideas in head. The approach feels increasingly radical. And surprisingly practical. In a profession fueled by imagination, protecting the space for it matters. Nolan doesn’t preach. He simply lives it. Others debate the trade-offs. His films keep arriving. Grand in scale. Human in detail.

The Digital Trends piece captured it well last week. His take resists the binary — neither Luddite nor enthusiast. Practical. Thoughtful. A reminder that technology serves us best when we dictate the terms.

from WebProNews https://ift.tt/XIY69te