Portable Bluetooth speakers have become an easy default for listening away from your desk or living room. They're the kind of tech you grab without thinking, whether you're heading outside, cleaning the house or packing for a weekend away. The best portable options manage to sound bigger than they look, delivering clear audio without weighing down your bag.

Battery life and durability matter just as much as sound quality now. Many modern speakers are built to survive splashes, dust and the occasional drop, while still offering quick pairing and stable connections. Some are designed for solo listening, others are meant to fill a space with music and keep going for hours.

We've tested a wide mix of portable Bluetooth speakers to see which ones are actually worth carrying around. Whether you want something small and simple or a speaker that can anchor a get-together, these are the models that stood out.

Best portable Bluetooth speakers: $50 to $200

Best portable Bluetooth speakers: $200 to $450

Best portable Bluetooth speakers: $450 and higher

Factors to consider in a portable Bluetooth speaker Weather-proofing

IP ratings (Ingress Protection) are the alphanumeric indicators you often see in a product's spec sheet that define water and dust resistance. It's usually a combo of two numbers with the first indicating solid object ingress and the second being water. The former goes from 0 (no protection) to 6 (dustproof). The water-resistance rating goes from 0 (no protection) to 9 (protected against immersion and high pressure jets). When an X is used instead of a number, that means the product wasn't tested for resistance. If it's a waterproof speaker, it may have some innate resistance to solids, but there's no guarantee.

IP67 is a common rating these days indicating highly resistant and potentially rugged speakers often featured in audio products like outdoor speakers. These are safe for quick dunks in the pool or tub and should be more than OK in the rain or in the shower. They're also good options for the beach, playground and other rough environs.

Additionally, speakers with ports and a high rating will often include a tight-fitting cover over the charging or auxiliary ports. If you plan on using the ports, that may limit the product's rated ability to fend off the elements.

When looking for the best portable Bluetooth speaker, consider the IP rating and also how you plan to use your Bluetooth speaker when making your decision. It may be worth splurging on a better sounding model with a lower IP rating if you'll mostly be using it indoors, for instance.

Battery life

The focus of this guide is on the best portable speakers, and while "portable" can be a relative term, these devices are generally for people who are likely to find themselves far from a power outlet. These days, around 12 hours of playtime seems to be the baseline but obviously, the more battery life you can get out of a speaker, the better, especially if you plan to listen to podcasts or music on the go.

That said, be careful when looking at battery specs, as they frequently list a maximum runtime ("up to" x amount of hours). This usually means they tested at a low to mid volume. If you like your tunes loud with punchy bass, it can often end up cutting the expected usage time in half or more. Luckily, some manufacturers also list the expected hours of battery life when used at full volume and that transparency is appreciated. Bear in mind, however, that not all of the best Bluetooth speakers use the same charging port. Some support USB-C charging, while others use micro-USB, and some may even come with an adapter for added convenience.

Additionally, if your audio system or mini Bluetooth speaker also happens to have Wi-Fi connectivity, they're usually designed for always-on functionality. Unlike normal Bluetooth speakers that go to sleep after a short period without use, these will usually stay awake (to listen for your commands) and slowly run down the battery. If you're out and about, you'll want to remember to turn these speakers off manually when not in use to maximize battery life.

Range

Bluetooth 5 offers better range and more reliable connectivity than its predecessors, making it a great feature to look for in the best Bluetooth speaker. That said, Bluetooth range can still be tricky. Some companies list their product's longest possible range, usually outdoors and in an unobstructed line-of-sight test environment. Other companies stick with a 30-foot range on the spec sheet and leave it at that, even though they may be running Bluetooth 4.x or 5.x. That's likely underselling the speaker's potential, but unpredictable environments can affect range and there's little point in promising the moon only to get complaints.

I've seen signal drop issues when crouching down, with my phone in the front pocket of my jeans, and barely 30 feet away from a speaker inside my apartment. I ran into this issue across several devices regardless of their listed Bluetooth connectivity range.

If you're hosting a patio party and duck inside, it's wise to keep any wireless Bluetooth speakers relatively close by just in case. It's hard to gauge what aspects of any environment may interfere with a Bluetooth signal. In general, take range specs around 100 feet or more as a perfect-world scenario.

Latency

This is a minor mention for those out there who use a speaker for their computer output, or as a mini Bluetooth soundbar solution for setups like a monitor and streaming box. It's annoying to find that your speaker's latency isn't low enough to avoid lip sync issues. Luckily, it seems that most speakers these days don't often have these problems. Only a handful of the few dozen speakers I tried had persistent, noticeable lip-sync issues. Aside from occasional blips, all of our picks worked well in this regard.

If you plan to frequently use a speaker for video playback, look for devices with the most recent Bluetooth 5 technology and lower latency codecs like aptX. Also make sure the speaker is close to the source device as distance can be a factor. To avoid the issue altogether, though, consider getting one with a wired auxiliary input.

Extra features

Some speakers don't just play music — they bring the party to life with built-in LED light effects and a full-on light show that syncs to your music. If you love a bit of visual flair with your tunes, it's worth checking out models that offer LED light customization options.

Sound quality also plays a huge role in picking the right speaker. The best Bluetooth speaker should deliver a balanced mix of punchy bass, clear highs and strong vocals. Many models also include customizable sound modes that let you tweak the EQ to better suit different genres — whether you're blasting EDM, listening to a podcast, or just want a more immersive experience that would impress even an audiophile.

If aesthetics matter, many models come in a tiny size that makes them extra portable, with plenty of color options to match your personal style. Whether you want a sleek black speaker or a vibrant eye-catching design, there are plenty of choices to fit your vibe.

Other portable Bluetooth speakers we tested Sonos Roam

While there's a lot to like about the Sonos Roam, there are plenty of other Bluetooth speakers with more features and better battery life. In our review, we gave the Roam a score of 87, praising it for its good sound quality, durable waterproof design and ability to work well within an existing Sonos speaker ecosystem. But the price is just fine at $180, and we found Bluetooth speakers that offer more at lower price points. Plus, the Roam taps out at 10 hours of battery life, and all of our top picks can run for longer than that on a single charge.

Monoprice Soundstage3

The Monoprice Soundstage3 offers relatively big sound at a midrange $250 price, with a variety of inputs rarely found on a portable Bluetooth speaker. The boxy, minimalist design is no nonsense, even if it's more of a less-rugged, bookshelf-styled homebody. While the speaker puts out crisp highs alongside booming lows, we found the bass can overpower the rest of the output, so it's not for everyone. And after using the speaker for many months, we also found the low-slung, poorly labeled button panel along the top can be a bit annoying to use. If you want a speaker for road trips, favor mids and highs, and plan on using physical buttons for volume control and input selections, there are better options out there.

JBL Boombox 3

Fans of JBL's bluetooth speaker sound profile who want to crank up the volume, but also want a rugged and portable option, may enjoy the JBL Boombox 3. It's a decent grab-and-go speaker with a very loud output, although it's not as good as some of the loud-speaker styled options for long-throw sound and big outdoor areas. However, the price for this speaker line remains prohibitively expensive compared to other options with big sound that cover a bit more ground. If the JBL brand is your thing and you like the rugged, portable form factor, we recommend looking for discounts, or shopping around and exploring the available options including the (less portable) JBL PartyBox series.

Soundcore Motion X500

Soundcore speakers have generally been good and often reasonably priced. The Motion X500 loosely falls into that category. It has a tall, metallic lunchbox vibe with a fixed handle and pumps out a respectable 40 watts of crisp, clear sound for its size. It can get pretty loud and serves up a good dose of bass, although its primarily a front-facing speaker.

There's LDAC hi-res audio support for Android users, but the main selling point on this is spatial audio. This is done through an EQ change and the activation of a small, up-firing driver. There's a slight benefit from this if you're up close and directly in front of it, but it's not a total game changer for your listening experience. The original pre-order price of $130 made it a decent option in terms of bang for your buck. But it went up to $170 at launch, making it less appealing even if it's still a good middle-of-the-road option if you want small-ish, clear and loud. If you can find one on sale for the lower price, it's definitely worth considering. There's also the larger and louder X600 ($200) if the overall concept is working for you.

Portable Bluetooth speaker FAQs How does a Bluetooth speaker work?

Bluetooth technology lets devices connect and exchange data over short distances using ultra high frequency (UHF) radio waves. It's the frequency range that's carved out for industrial, scientific and medical purposes, called the 2.4GHz ISM spectrum band. This range is available worldwide, making it easy for companies to use with devices for global markets.

Bluetooth speakers include this tech, which lets them communicate with source devices like smartphones, tablets or computers in order to exchange data. The two devices pair by sharing a unique code and will work within the proscribed range for the device and Bluetooth version. 

Ever since Bluetooth 4.0 was released over a decade ago, new iterations usually improve on range, use less power and offer expanded connectivity with features like multipoint (allowing more than one device to be connected at the same time, for instance).

Who should buy a Portable Bluetooth speaker?

If you want to play music while you're out-and-about on something other than headphones, a portable Bluetooth speaker is probably what you want. There's a broad range of devices for all types of circumstances. Many adventurous people will want a relatively lightweight portable that's rugged enough to handle the elements while also packing enough charge to play for hours on end. Others may simply need a speaker they can move around the house or use in the backyard. In this case, you can choose larger less rugged models that may offer better sound. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/audio/speakers/best-portable-bluetooth-speakers-133004551.html?src=rss

Study of 11 LLMs shows they rarely refuse to answer, even when they probably should

Artificial intelligence chatbots can be too chatty when answering questions on government services, swamping accurate information and making mistakes if told to be more concise, according to research.…

Co-author Jon Kern says AI coding tools amplify strengths and expose weaknesses

Interview Twenty-five years after 17 software developers gathered at a Utah ski resort to draft the the Agile Manifesto, artificial intelligence is once again reshaping how code gets written.…

The DECwriter got me hooked in 1975. 'Clawdine' feels like a wonderful new beginning

Opinion Fifty years ago this month, I touched a computer for the first time. It was an experience that pegged the meter for me like no other - until last week.…

Dell, however, is welcome to help build a local-language LLM

Poland's Ministry of Defence has banned Chinese cars - and any others include tech to record position, images, or sound - from entering protected military facilities.…

Dr. Vinay Prasad is currently the FDA's top vaccine regulator. He's also one of many medical goons hand-picked by RFK Jr. to help lead his decidedly anti-vaxxer movement. In fact, the last time we discussed Prasad, it was over his selective censorship attempts at avoiding public criticism for his anti-vaxxer nonsense. If you show clips of Prasad spewing his anti-vaxxer views to critique them, he'll have your YouTube channel axed. If you show those same clips to praise his nonsense, you get to continue on unmolested.

He's an asshat, in other words. An anti-science, anti-medicine asshat. And he's also someone who is unilaterally keeping us from making progress on vaccines, apparently out of pure joy in exercising such power.

Moderna is producing a new influenza vaccine, this one utilizing mRNA technology, a la the COVID vaccine. Moderna sent an application to the FDA for a review of the vaccine it has produced, as well as the data from the trials the company conducted to demonstrate its efficacy. We learned last week that the FDA flatly refused to review any of this data.

In a news release late Tuesday, Moderna said it was blindsided by the FDA's refusal, which the FDA cited as being due to the design of the company's Phase 3 trial for its mRNA flu vaccine, dubbed mRNA-1010. Specifically, the FDA's rejection was over the comparator vaccine Moderna used.

In the trial, which enrolled nearly 41,000 participants and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Moderna compared the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1010 to licensed standard-dose influenza vaccines, including Fluarix, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The trial found that mRNA-1010 was superior to the comparators.

Moderna said the FDA reviewed and accepted its trial design on at least two occasions (in April 2024 and again in August 2025) before it applied for approval of mRNA-1010. It also noted that Fluarix has been used as a comparator vaccine in previous flu vaccine trials, which tested vaccines that went on to earn approval.

This looks for all the world like Moderna did what it was supposed to do in getting the proper sign-offs from the FDA to conduct its trials. Prasad himself sent the refusal notice to Moderna, however, and cited within it that the trials Moderna conducted, which were signed off on by the FDA, were not appropriate. The letter didn't bother to indicate why.

But in a letter dated February 3, Vinay Prasad, the FDA's top vaccine regulator under the Trump administration, informed Moderna that the agency does not consider the trial "adequate and well-controlled" because the comparator vaccine "does not reflect the best-available standard of care."

In its news release, Moderna noted that neither the FDA's regulation nor its guidance to industry makes any reference to a requirement of the "best-available standard of care" in comparators.

Everyone at Moderna was understandably confused. The company has already reached out asking to meet with the FDA, ostensibly to sit down in a conference room with them, look them in the eye, and ask "wut?".

The answer is unlikely to be satisfying. And it should be quite alarming to the rest of us. That's because the rejection of a review of all of this data reportedly came from Prasad and Prasad alone, over the objections of his own scientists at the FDA.

Vinay Prasad, the Trump administration's top vaccine regulator at the Food and Drug Administration, single-handedly decided to refuse to review Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine, overruling agency scientists, according to reports from Stat News and The Wall Street Journal.

Stat was first to report, based on unnamed FDA sources, that a team of career scientists at the agency was ready to review the vaccine and that David Kaslow, a top career official who reviews vaccines, even wrote a memo objecting to Prasad's rejection. The memo reportedly included a detailed explanation of why the review should proceed.

According to those same sources, Prasad's reason for refusing to review Moderna's vaccine makes little sense. The story goes like this. As Moderna was seeking guidance for its trials for the vaccine, it chose a currently licensed flu vaccine against which to compare its own vaccine. At one point, the FDA suggested a different comparative vaccine be used. Moderna declined that suggestion and moved forward with the comparative vaccine it originally chose. Despite that difference the FDA reviewed the company's plans for its trial on several occasions and at no point suggested its choices were a show-stopper.

That's it. That's the whole thing. Prasad is claiming that the choice Moderna made for a comparative vaccine, for which the company received only mild feedback from the FDA, is why the FDA is refusing to review this mRNA flu vaccine entirely.

Because that reasoning is almost certainly bullshit. As evidence of that, these same sources from within the FDA offered up this:

This wasn't enough for Prasad, who, according to the Journal's sources, told FDA staff that he wants to send more such refusal letters that appear to blindside drug developers. The review staff apparently pushed back, noting that such moves break with the agency's practices and could open it up to being sued. Prasad reportedly dismissed concern over possible litigation. Trump's FDA Commissioner Marty Makary seemed similarly unconcerned, suggesting on Fox News that Moderna's trial may be "unethical."

The explanation here is remarkably simple. This current government is being run by anti-vaxxers. And these anti-vaxxers are particularly anti-vaxxer-y about mRNA vaccines. And so folks like Prasad are throwing up every roadblock they can dream up to make it as difficult as possible to get new vaccines utilizing new technology approved. Or, as in this case, even reviewed.

Now, if that reads like the opposite of scientific progress to you, give yourself a gold star, because you're right. Thomas Jefferson once said "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" when, hypocritically, discussing slavery in America. I think we should tremble for our country as well when I reflect that we are getting sicker as a nation, given that we have morons at the helm of the nation's health.

On 25 February 2026, the European Commission is expected to formally present the Industrial Accelerator Act, a comprehensive proposal designed to accelerate the decarbonisation of energy-intensive industries, secure strategic supply chains, and rebuild manufacturing competitiveness amid mounting external challenges.

Behind the familiar language of climate transition and industrial resilience, however, lies something far more unsettling.

The Industrial Accelerator Act is not simply another technocratic adjustment within the routine choreography of Brussels policymaking, nor merely a regulatory attempt to smooth the frictions of a volatile global market.

Rather, it embodies the emerging ideological and geopolitical rupture within the European project itself, signalling that the continent has, albeit belatedly, that the post-Cold War settlement, which subordinated production to finance, economic planning to the whims of the free market, and sovereignty to supranational institutions dictated by the whims of Washington, is no longer sustainable under conditions of intensifying fissures.

The Industrial Accelerator Act: the end of financialisation?

For three decades, the European Union has determined its economic constellation on a fragile architecture of external guarantees provided by the rules-based order, with the US at its helm. Cheap energy flowed from Russia's abundant gas reserves, manufacturing networks extended into China, and the wider Eurasian periphery and security concerns were largely outsourced to the US.

This model, often celebrated as the triumph of liberal internationalism and popularised by figures such as Francis Fukuyama as the "End of History," was framed as the final stabilisation of the global order following the collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe.

The European Union presented itself as the laboratory of a post-political future: a space in which conflicts would be neutralised through procedure, and the market would quietly perform the task once reserved for political struggle. The violence of history, we were told, had been domesticated.

This apparent stability concealed profound contradictions. Europe's eventual transition toward a post-industrial economy was less a transcendence of its industrial preponderance than its externalisation. Manufacturing did not disappear; it was offshored.

The era of financialisation masked a structural fragility, substituting speculative expansion and asset inflation for productive renewal. Economic integration concealed asymmetries of power, while global value chains obscured the geopolitical dependencies within them. Europe increasingly occupied the position of the consumer within a system whose productive core and strategic leverage were located elsewhere.

Permacrises

The crises of the 21st century have progressively exposed this settlement as contingent and unstable.

The financial crash of 2008 revealed the systemic risks of an economy oriented solely toward financial accumulation rather than industrial resilience.

The pandemic exposed the brittleness of global supply chains, as shortages of essential goods demonstrated the strategic costs of outsourcing critical production.

The war in Ukraine shattered longstanding assumptions about energy security and forced Europe into a rapid and costly restructuring of its economic model at the behest of US imperatives.

Simultaneously, the US returned to large-scale industrial policy, crystallised in the Inflation Reduction Act, made clear that even proponents of neoliberalism had abandoned their own orthodoxy. China's ascent in renewable energy, battery production, advanced manufacturing, and critical mineral processing further underscores that control and guidance over production remain the decisive axis of power in the current world-system.

In this context, the Industrial Accelerator Act can be understood as the first attempt to reconstruct the material basis of European autonomy in global affairs.

Reconstructing autonomy via the Industrial Accelerator Act

Pushed forward by French Commissioner Stéphane Séjourné and supported by a broad coalition of industry leaders, the proposal deploys a suite of mechanisms: European preference in public procurement, low-carbon labelling for steel and cement, fast-track permitting for decarbonisation projects, and caps on foreign direct investment in emerging strategic sectors (notably a 49% limit on non-EU ownership in key greenfield investments) to foster a durable industrial ecosystem capable of sustaining a necessary ecological transition and geopolitical power.

While recent drafts have introduced flexibility, allowing "trusted partners" (such as the UK or Japan) to qualify under delegated acts and softening rigid origin thresholds to avoid immediate supply-chain ruptures, the core intent remains unmistakable: to create lead markets for cleaner, more resilient EU-made products and to prevent the hollowing-out of strategic industries by external actors.

If implemented with sufficient ambition, the Industrial Accelerator Act could underpin a genuine reindustrialisation: millions of skilled jobs in retrofitted steel mills, battery gigafactories, and hydrogen infrastructure; reduced exposure to geopolitical coercion; and a decarbonisation pathway that strengthens rather than undermines social models.

Yet the path is fraught. Internal divisions persist, between free-trade-oriented member states wary of Single Market fragmentation, industries concerned about cost increases, and those demanding bolder action. Compatibility with WTO rules remains contested, and the success of delegated acts that define thresholds and "trusted partners" will determine whether the policy is inclusive or exclusionary.

What is Europe to become?

Above all, the Industrial Accelerator Act signals a deeper ideological shift.

Europe is moving, however unevenly, from a post-historical illusion of triumphant liberalism, marked by an era of uncontested American hegemony, to an increasingly multipolar arrangement, though not in the way we expected. it.

The Industrial Accelerator Act reflects Europe's attempt to navigate this contradiction. It seeks to preserve openness while constructing resilience, to maintain integration while rebuilding production. But this effort is haunted by internal tensions. The European Union is not a unified state but a heterogeneous formation. Some member states fear protectionism; others demand more radical intervention. The result is a policy that oscillates between ambition and hesitation.

This hesitation is itself revealing. Europe does not yet know what it wants to become. It oscillates between the desire to remain within the Atlanticist world-system and the necessity of sovereignty. It fears both dependency and conflict. The Act therefore embodies a form of strategic ambiguity, an attempt to act without fully acknowledging the implications of one's actions.

The presentation on 25 February will mark not the conclusion of a legislative process, but the opening of a larger contest: whether Europe can summon the political will to reclaim the material basis of its independence, or whether it will once again defer to external forces the question of who controls its destiny. The Industrial Accelerator Act is the first gesture in that uncertain process.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rares Cocilnau

IT services companies are largely immune to AIpocalypse, although the outlook is not good for entry-level jobs

Indian think tank the Council for Research on International Economic Relations has found AI is not an immediate threat to the nation's IT services sector.…

It may have half the capacity of fused silica glass, but is faster and much cheaper

Microsoft this week detailed new research aimed at preserving data in borosilicate glass plates for thousands of years longer than conventional media like hard drives or magnetic tape, without needing to worry about bit rot.…

Surveillance technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy private donors have long helped provide local law enforcement "free" access to surveillance equipment that bypasses local oversight. The result is predictable: serious accountability gaps and data pipelines to other entities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), that expose millions of people to harm.

The cost of "free" surveillance tools — like automated license plate readers (ALPRs), networked cameras, face recognition, drones, and data aggregation and analysis platforms — is measured not in tax dollars, but in the erosion of civil liberties. 

The collection and sharing of our data quietly generates detailed records of people's movements and associations that can be exposed, hacked, or repurposed without their knowledge or consent. Those records weaken sanctuary and First Amendment protections while facilitating the targeting of vulnerable people.   

Cities can and should use their power to reject federal grants, vendor trials, donations from wealthy individuals, or participation in partnerships that facilitate surveillance and experimentation with spy tech. 

If these projects are greenlit, oversight is imperative. Mechanisms like public hearings, competitive bidding, public records transparency, and city council supervision aid to ensure these acquisitions include basic safeguards — like use policies, audits, and consequences for misuse — to protect the public from abuse and from creeping contracts that grow into whole suites of products. 

Clear policies and oversight mechanisms must be in place before using any surveillance tools, free or not, and communities and their elected officials must be at the center of every decision about whether to bring these tools in at all.

Here are some of the most common methods "free" surveillance tech makes its way into communities.

Trials and Pilots

Police departments are regularly offered free access to surveillance tools and software through trials and pilot programs that often aren't accompanied by appropriate use policies. In many jurisdictions, trials do not trigger the same requirements to go before decision-makers outside the police department. This means the public may have no idea that a pilot program for surveillance technology is happening in their city. 

In Denver, Colorado, the police department is running trials of possible unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for a drone-as-first-responder (DFR) program from two competing drone vendors: Flock Safety Aerodome drones (through August 2026) and drones from the company Skydio, partnering with Axon, the multi-billion dollar police technology company behind tools like Tasers and AI-generated police reports. Drones create unique issues given their vantage for capturing private property and unsuspecting civilians, as well as their capacity to make other technologies, like ALPRs, airborne. 

Functional, Even Without Funding 

We've seen cities decide not to fund a tool, or run out of funding for it, only to have a company continue providing it in the hope that money will turn up. This happened in Fall River, Massachusetts, where the police department decided not to fund ShotSpotter's $90,000 annual cost and its frequent false alarms, but continued using the system when the company provided free access. 

In May 2025, Denver's city council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension for Flock Safety ALPR cameras after weeks of public outcry over mass surveillance data sharing with federal immigration enforcement. But Mayor Mike Johnston's office allowed the cameras to keep running through a "task force" review, effectively extending the program even after the contract was voted down. In response, the Denver Taskforce to Reimagine Policing and Public Safety and Transforming Our Communities Alliance launched a grassroots campaign demanding the city "turn Flock cameras off now," a reminder that when surveillance starts as a pilot or time‑limited contract, communities often have to fight not just to block renewals but to shut the systems off.

 Importantly, police technology companies are developing more features and subscription-based models, so what's "free" today frequently results in taxpayers footing the bill later. 

Gifts from Police Foundations and Wealthy Donors

Police foundations and the wealthy have pushed surveillance-driven agendas in their local communities by donating equipment and making large monetary gifts, another means of acquiring these tools without public oversight or buy-in.

In Atlanta, the Atlanta Police Foundation (APF) attempted to use its position as a private entity to circumvent transparency. Following a court challenge from the Atlanta Community Press Collective and Lucy Parsons Labs, a Georgia court determined that the APF must comply with public records laws related to some of its actions and purchases on behalf of law enforcement.
In San Francisco, billionaire Chris Larsen has financially supported a supercharging of the city's surveillance infrastructure, donating $9.4 million to fund the San Francisco Police Department's (SFPD) Real-Time Investigation Center, where a menu of surveillance technologies and data come together to surveil the city's residents. This move comes after the billionaire backed a ballot measure, which passed in March 2025, eroding the city's surveillance technology law and allowing the SFPD free rein to use new surveillance technologies for a full year without oversight.

Free Tech for Federal Data Pipelines

Federal grants and Department of Homeland Security funding are another way surveillance technology appears free to, only to lock municipalities into long‑term data‑sharing and recurring costs. 

Through the Homeland Security Grant Program, which includes the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Areas Security (UASI) Initiative, and Department of Justice programs like Byrne JAG, the federal government reimburses states and cities for "homeland security" equipment and software, including including law‑enforcement surveillance tools, analytics platforms, and real‑time crime centers. Grant guidance and vendor marketing materials make clear that these funds can be used for automated license plate readers, integrated video surveillance and analytics systems, and centralized command‑center software—in other words, purchases framed as counterterrorism investments but deployed in everyday policing.

Vendors have learned to design products around this federal money, pitching ALPR networks, camera systems, and analytic platforms as "grant-ready" solutions that can be acquired with little or no upfront local cost. Motorola Solutions, for example, advertises how SHSP and UASI dollars can be used for "law enforcement surveillance equipment" and "video surveillance, warning, and access control" systems. Flock Safety, partnering with Lexipol, a company that writes use policies for law enforcement, offers a "License Plate Readers Grant Assistance Program" that helps police departments identify federal and state grants and tailor their applications to fund ALPR projects. 

Grant assistance programs let police chiefs fast‑track new surveillance: the paperwork is outsourced, the grant eats the upfront cost, and even when there is a formal paper trail, the practical checks from residents, councils, and procurement rules often get watered down or bypassed.

On paper, these systems arrive "for free" through a federal grant; in practice, they lock cities into recurring software, subscription, and data‑hosting fees that quietly turn into permanent budget lines—and a lasting surveillance infrastructure—as soon as police and prosecutors start to rely on them. In Santa Cruz, California, the police department explicitly sought to use a DHS-funded SHSP grant to pay for a new citywide network of Flock ALPR cameras at the city's entrances and exits, with local funds covering additional cameras. In Sumner, Washington, a $50,000 grant was used to cover the entire first year of a Flock system — including installation and maintenance — after which the city is on the hook for roughly $39,000 every year in ongoing fees. The free grant money opens the door, but local governments are left with years of financial, political, and permanent surveillance entanglements they never fully vetted.

The most dangerous cost of this "free" funding is not just budgetary; it is the way it ties local systems into federal data pipelines. Since 9/11, DHS has used these grant streams to build a nationwide network of at least 79-80 state and regional fusion centers that integrate and share data from federal, state, local, tribal, and private partners. Research shows that state fusion centers rely heavily on the DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (especially SHSP and UASI) to "mature their capabilities," with some centers reporting that 100 percent of their annual expenditures are covered by these grants. 

Civil rights investigations have documented how this funding architecture creates a backdoor channel for ICE and other federal agencies to access local surveillance data for their own purposes. A recent report by the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) describes ICE agents using a Philadelphia‑area fusion center to query the city's ALPR network to track undocumented drivers in a self‑described sanctuary city.

Ultimately, federal grants follow the same script as trials and foundation gifts: what looks "free" ends up costing communities their data, their sanctuary protections, and their power over how local surveillance is used.

Protecting Yourself Against "Free" Technology

The most important protection against "free" surveillance technology is to reject it outright. Cities do not have to accept federal grants, vendor trials, or philanthropic donations. Saying no to "free" tech is not just a policy choice; it is a political power that local governments possess and can exercise. Communities and their elected officials can and should refuse surveillance systems that arrive through federal grants, vendor pilots, or private donations, regardless of how attractive the initial price tag appears. 

For those cities that have already accepted surveillance technology, the imperative is equally clear: shut it down. When a community has rejected use of a spying tool, the capabilities, equipment, and data collected from that tool should be shut off immediately. Full stop.

And for any surveillance technology that remains in operation, even temporarily, there must be clear rules: when and how equipment is used, how that data is retained and shared, who owns data and how companies can access and use it, transparency requirements, and consequences for any misuse and abuse. 

"Free" surveillance technology is never free. Someone profits or gains power from it. Police technology vendors, federal agencies, and wealthy donors do not offer these systems out of generosity; they offer them because surveillance serves their interests, not ours. That is the real cost of "free" surveillance.

Originally posted to EFF's Deeplinks blog.

I've talked on Techdirt about just a few of my AI-related experiments over the past few years, including how I use it to help me edit pieces, which I still write myself. I still have no intention of letting AI write for me, but as the underlying technology has continued to level up, every so often I'll run a test to see if it could write a better Techdirt post than I can. I don't think it's there (and I'm still not convinced it will ever get there), but I figured I can share the process with you, and let you be the judge.

I wanted to pick a fairly straightforward article, rather than a more complex one, just to see how well it works. In this case, I figured I'd try it with the story I published last week about Judge Boasberg ruling against the Trump administration and calling out how the DOJ barely participated in the case, and effectively told him to "pound sand" (a quote directly from the judge).

I know that just telling it to write a Techdirt article by itself will lead to pretty bland "meh" content. So before I even get to the prompt, there are some steps I need to include. First, over time I continue to adjust the underlying "system prompt" I use for editing my pieces. I won't post the entire system prompt here as it's not that interesting, but I do use it to make it clear its job is to help me be a better writer, not to be a sycophant, not to try to change things just for the sake of change, and to suggest things that will most help the reader.

I also have a few notes in it about avoiding recommending certain "AI-style" cliches like "it's not this, it's that." Also, a specific one for me: "don't suggest changing 'fucked up' to 'messed up.'" It does that a lot for my writing.

But that's not all. I also feed in Techdirt samples, which are a collection of ten of my favorite articles, so it gets a sense of what a "Techdirt article" looks like. On top of that, I give it a "Masnick Style Guide" that I had created after feeding a bunch of Techdirt articles into three different LLMs, asking for each to produce a style guide, and then having NotebookLLM combine them all into a giant "Masnick style-guide."

Then, I feed it any links, including earlier stories on Techdirt, that are relevant, before finally writing out a prompt that can be pretty long. In this test case, I fed it the PDF file of the decision. I also gave it Techdirt's previous stories about Judge Boasberg.

Finally, I gave it a starting prompt with a fair bit of explanation of what angle I was hoping to see a Techdirt post on this topic. So here's my full prompt:

Can you write a Techdirt style first draft of a post (see the attached Techdirt post samples, as well as the even more important Masnick style guide, which you should follow) about the attached ruling in the JGG v. Trump case by Judge James Boasberg. I have also attached a page of previous articles about Judge Boasberg which you should consider, especially as some reference this same case.

You may also want to highlight that Judge Boasberg just was vindicated after the DOJ filed a vexatious complaint against him because of earlier rulings in this case, but that complaint has been easily dismissed. The crux of this article, though, should be on the very strong language Boasberg uses, including the astoundingly candid statement that he felt the government "apparently was no interested in participating in this process" and how he read their response as telling "the Court to pound sand." There are other parts of the ruling that are useful as well. It should also call out the specific remedy here, and how weak it feels, given the situation explained in the ruling and the DOJ's actions. Yes, they lost the case, but this still feels like a slap on the wrist with no real consequences for the DOJ.

As always with Techdirt posts, instead of doing in-line quotes, we usually do blockquotes, often of one or even multiple paragraphs from the original sources, so please adhere to that style. Take all of this info and draft the best Techdirt post you can regarding the topic.

And… you can see the results embedded below. I've also embedded my original article (though you can just go read it on the site directly). I'm amused that it added a "from the such and such dept" line as well as tags, both of which are core parts of Techdirt posts, but not things I asked it for.

I'm extremely biased, as this is a question of who writes better, me or the machine, and I still think I'm better than the machine. But, I also have to admit it's not bad. It's decent. If I had that submitted by another writer, there are definitely changes and edits I'd make, especially to the crappy cliche'd ending. But it's way better than what most people think of as traditional ChatGPT output, in part because of all the context and detailed instructions I fed it.

Just for fun, I then also asked my editing tool to do its own edit on its own writing (usually not a good idea to let it grade its own homework), but here's what it had to say:

solid draft. the "pound sand" framing works well and the frustration comes through. few things:

the tension setup: you flag "frustratingly toothless" in graf 3 then say "on one level this is a win" much later. that's the right editorial instinct—there IS genuine tension here—but you're burying the lede on your own argument. consider setting up that complexity earlier so readers know they're getting nuance, not whiplash.

missing a key detail from the ruling: Boasberg notes that "even Plaintiffs' counsel could not represent how many of the 137 are still in Venezuela and how many wish to proceed with habeas." that's devastating. the chaos is so complete that the lawyers literally don't know where everyone is. worth including.

the numbered remedies block: you cut it off mid-list. the 5th point actually matters—there's a March 13 deadline for the government to file a Status Report explaining how/when they'll transport people back. that's your next milestone. either include it or acknowledge you're excerpting.

the Venezuela carve-out: you mention it but undersell it. the ruling specifically says it's "mindful" of the "situation in Venezuela remains in flux" given "the United States's recent law-enforcement action there." that's pretty ominous language from a federal judge about whatever the hell the administration is doing in Venezuela right now. might be worth a parenthetical noting this deserves its own article.

the closer: "I wouldn't hold my breath" is fine but feels like boilerplate. you've got stronger material to end on—maybe the March 13 deadline, or something that points forward rather than just shrugging.

one small thing: "a complaint that was summarily dismissed" in graf 2—might want "recently dismissed" or similar since it was just last week. "summarily" suggests procedure when really the story is how embarrassing the dismissal was.

overall structure is good. the piece does what Techdirt does well: walks through the actual document, quotes liberally, and doesn't pretend the "win" is bigger than it is.

You'll note that it also calls out its own weak ending, just like I did. It is kind of wild to see the AI call out its own weaknesses, while making you wonder—if that's the case—why did it not catch those earlier and fix them? And that then makes you wonder if it's just coming up with a critique for the sake of giving one (though, that ending really is weak).

The other thing I'll note is, again, this actually was still a fair bit of work. It was less than writing the whole thing myself, but even just writing out the prompt itself took time, and this piece would still need a fair bit of editing anyway for publication which would probably take away any time benefit.

Overall, though, you can see how the technology is certainly getting better. I still don't think it can write as well as I do, but there are some pretty good bits in there.

Once again, this tech remains quite useful as a tool to assist people with their work. But it's not really good at replacing your work. Indeed, if I asked the AI to write articles for Techdirt, I'd probably spend just as much time rewriting/fixing it as I would just writing the original in the first place. It still provides me very good feedback (on this article that you're reading now, for example, the AI editor warned me that my original ending was pretty weak, and suggested I add a paragraph talking more about the conclusions which, uh, is what I'm now doing here).

I honestly think the biggest struggle with AI over the next year or so is going to be between the people who insist it can totally replace humans, leading to shoddy and problematic work, and the smaller group of people who use it as a tool to assist them in doing their own work better. The problems come in when people overestimate its ability to do the former, while underestimating its ability to do the latter.

If you lose every football match because your goalkeeper keeps booting the ball into their own net, shouting at the other team is pointless. Inventing new tactics to get past the other keeper is pointless, because the ball will always go past yours. That was true about Jeremy Corbyn. It is true about Keir Starmer. And it's time for progressive voters to accept that it's true about the Labour Party in general. Removing Keir Starmer as leader won't change Labour enough to prevent Nigel Farage from becoming Reform prime minister.

A confession

Don't get me wrong. I was still holding out hope that Labour might save us - until last month.

I even got major egg on my face, suggesting that the Greens should stand aside in the Gorton and Denton by-election. I wanted a clear path for Andy Burnham to become an MP and then replace Keir Starmer as prime minister.

Burnham has always campaigned to ensure that all votes count equally. So, if he became prime minister and gave us a proportional voting system, the UK would genuinely be saved from fascism. Reform, who are polling around 30%, therefore wouldn't be able to gain a majority in parliament. Furthermore, parties to the left of the Tories (Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Greens) have received more than 50% of the vote in almost every election since WW2.

So, if all votes counted equally, the future of the UK would be almost permanently progressive. But Labour blocking Andy Burnham didn't just make me look foolish; it killed the Labour Party.

Labour is dead and buried

Why? Because Keir Starmer was already on borrowed time, even before he knowingly hired a child rape-trafficker's fan as our US ambassador. He already had the lowest popularity rating of any prime minister in UK history. So the Labour machine knew that Starmer was on his way out. So the decision to rule out Andy Burnham as a potential challenger was about the politics he would bring to the table.

This is a long-standing problem.

In 2020, Labour kicked me out of the party for saying that I joined the Labour Party to get them to support proportional representation. Labour members have supported proportional voting for several years and made it the party's official conference policy, yet the leadership has rejected it. Labour just published its Representation of the People Bill.

This is their flagship law to reform our democracy, yet it makes no mention of proportional representation. So Labour is committed to ensuring that most British votes don't count, because a minority-voted party always get a majority of seats in Parliament.

Wes Streeting, Starmer's most likely successor, even explicitly confirmed this when I interviewed him at the party conference. When I accused Labour of supporting a system where most votes don't count, he said, "In the grand scheme of things, I'm more worried about the NHS".

To which I replied: "So democracy doesn't matter?".

Streeting: "Democracy does matter"

Me: "So you want the majority of votes to count, then?"

Streeting "No. We're focusing on our manifesto."

No allegiance

So, we are dealing with a Labour Party that is institutionally committed to a voting system that has consistently given us governments that are more right-wing than what the majority of people voted for. Logically, our voting system is the most right-wing policy the UK has ever invented, and yet it is being supported by the party some people still call "the Left".

If you can't tell, I have no allegiance to any politician or any party. I backed Corbyn when he campaigned for Remain, opposed him for the three years where he backed Brexit, then campaigned for his Labour Party when he backed a 2nd referendum in late 2019.

I backed Starmer when he called for a referendum on the Brexit deal in early 2019, then opposed him once he became a genocidal Thatcher tribute act, so I voted Green in 2024.

So, having entered politics in 2016, I've only ever really seen Labour copy the biggest right-wing policies of the day. Whether that's Brexit under Corbyn, or austerity, bigotry and genocide under Starmer. As I said, if your keeper keeps booting the ball into your own net, complaining about the opposing team is pointless. And if you care about protecting people from what happens next (see America), then your allegiance shouldn't be to any player, whether that player is in green, red or yellow. Besides, this isn't a game.

Labour is finished

I joined the Green Party in October because they actually want to stop this car from driving to the far right, not simply say slightly nicer things from the passenger seat. Labour has become part of the problem and can't beat Nigel Farage.

What's tragic is… on balance, even Reform voters believe Brexit has made us poorer, and they don't like the Tories. But the Brexit Party changed their name to Reform UK and has populated itself almost exclusively with former Tories.

Yet somehow that's enough to convince them that they're not voting for the same Tories who already made them poorer… If simply changing Labour's leader is enough to convince you that it's become a whole new party, then stop pretending you're smarter than a Reform voter.

Featured image via the Canary

By Femi Oluwole

Southwark councillor James McAsh has defected to the Green Party from Labour with a blast at Starmer's factionalism and red-Tory austerity politics. McAsh was elected as council leader in July 2025, but the central party moved to quash the result and installed a tame Starmeroid.

In his resignation from Labour, McAsh said that he can no longer ask Southwark residents to vote for Starmer's party because the Labour-run council is:

planning for funding gaps larger than those faced in almost every year of Conservative and Liberal Democrat austerity, this time imposed by a Labour government.

Unless something changes, Labour cuts will devastate the local services that as residents of this fantastic borough, we all rely on.

McAsh added:

I grew up in a Labour household and I've devoted much of my adult life to the party. I'm proud of the work I've done in Southwark - but Labour is no longer the vehicle for social justice I once thought it was.

He is the fourth Southwark Labour councillor to join the Greens since last year's scandal and the seventh to resign from Labour. Southwark is part of a London-wide phenomenon of Labour councillors flooding to the Greens since Zack Polanski won that party's leadership — including at least one deputy mayor.

Featured image via SouthworkNews

By Skwawkbox

Murky think tanks lurking at Tufton Street and Westminster have begun the New Year with a shameful bang. That is to say, the usual way: by scapegoating benefit claimants.

Here are all the (largely) opaquely-funded organisations helping the corporate media manufacture consent for cruel welfare cuts. This is what they've been up to so far in their bid to ram forward further callous benefit 'reforms' and pit the public against people seeking state support.

Mealy-mouth-pieces in the media vilifying benefits

Shady benefit-slashing machinations abound across the mainstream media. Throughout January, the hate-mongers traded in a reprehensible assortment of stories maligning claimants. By our count, think tanks spawned these pieces in at least 56 instances:

The award for the most despicable attempts to vilify go to…The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) for puerile attempts to pit the public against migrants.

Notably, it tag-teamed with shadow Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) sec Helen Whately in an article for shitrag the Daily Mail. It made up more lies about the numbers claiming welfare to scapegoat refugees and asylum seekers.

So, the usual racist, xenophobic bullshit? We're not linking to it here.

Other dishonourable mentions included:

• A Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) report triggered no fewer than 21 stories. The analysis attempted to drive a wedge between pensioners and welfare recipients on one end, and workers on the other. Multiple outlets framed it that Labour's taxes are "hammering" working people, while pensioners and welfare claimants would be "better off". This would be thanks to inflation-linked increases due to the triple-lock and the increase in Universal Credit's standard allowance. Of course, every piece failed to mention that new disabled UC claimants will be thousands of pounds worse off after Labour cut the health element almost in half.
• The corporate media churned out no less than 13 articles for the Centre for Social Justice's (CSJ) Rewiring Education report. Headlines blurted every variation under the sun on '700,000 graduates claiming benefits'. Put simply, the report essentially set about discouraging poor kids from going to go to uni — go figure.

And it wasn't just the print press. Think tank spokespeople and research appeared in a number of TV and radio shows throughout January as well:

CSJ gears up for a vile propaganda drive against benefits claimants

An announcement from Iain Duncan-Smith's diabolical brainchild drew multiple puff pieces for its latest project to smear claimants. These made the decidedly dubious (more like: utter bullshit) claim that six million Britons would be better off on benefits.

Notably, at the end of January, the think tank decided now's a good time to amp up the antagonism on disabled welfare claimants. You know, right after a round of vicious benefit cuts that's set to make some disabled people destitute. Not enough, says blatant misnomer the CSJ.

Now, the think tank has launched its so-called Welfare 2030 enquiry to:

diagnose the causes of escalating worklessness, its harms to struggling families and the cost to the taxpayer.

It says this will involve a "Big Listen" series with its 900+ strong "CSJ Alliance of small charities" throughout spring. Then it plans to take these ideas to the major party conferences. At them, it says it will host 'debate' about the so-called "welfare crisis".

For the project, the CSJ has of course put together a dedicated webpage. There, an animated reel of right-wing foghorns screech out frontpage headlines bleating that "5 million paid not to work" and "Get a grip on welfare… or tax bomb will go off this Autumn". Foregone conclusion much?

Introducing the enquiry, the ever-ghoulish former grim reaper of the DWP, IDS, was bandying about the establishment's favourite trope. In particular, he was wanging on that:

The system must stop writing off thousands of people every day, and incentives to work must be restored to end this ruinous waste of human potential.

Hall of infamy (lobbyists not even being shy about it)

Think tanks rarely miss the opportunity to boast their role seeding regressive policy. Case in point:

The Canary's formidable chief DWP botherer Rachel Charlton-Dailey recently did a scathing and on-point take-down of the government's wilfully misleading PR about the farcical scheme. Contrary to its name, there's actually no real evidence it's actually 'working well'.

Funnily enough, that's precisely the title of its predecessor scheme, which the DWP based it on, and the Canary previously showed to be a sham. Needless to say, the CSJ has long been plugging the glorified work programme to coerce chronically ill and disabled people into work.

Weaseling into Westminster

Of course then, this nebulous back-scratching ecosystem would not be complete without Westminster. MPs and peers will regularly lean on think tank talking points that the mainstream media has propagated.

In this way, think tanks and the press are collaborators in manufacturing consent for benefit cuts and other punitive welfare policies. For instance, in January, Conservative MP Harriet Baldwin paraded the CSJ's latest rotten report on graduates claiming benefits (mentioned above).

However, it's not only think tank talking points getting around the Palace's hallowed halls. It's also the former think tank brains themselves.

As the Canary's brilliant HG reported, the DWP has set the fox among the henhouse with the appointment of Policy Exchange senior fellow Jean Andre-Prager to the Timms Review steering group.

Meanwhile, former Labour Together bigwigs have also been sneaking their way into the department too.

Serving the interests of billionaires

Ultimately, the point is: from Westminster to the media, think tank ideologues are moving in all the right circles to spread vicious benefit claimant propaganda. The deluge of demonising stories across the pages of the mainstream rumour mill is no accident.

These elitist and covertly-funded capitalist front organisations are driving the attacks on the working class and disabled people from the shadows. All the while, the Labour Party has continued to flirt with ever-more alarming policy ideas these very shady groups have been cooking up.

It's more than time to shine a searing spotlight on the hidden forces colluding with the billionaire press to dismantle the welfare state.

Featured image via the author

By Hannah Sharland

'Potential data protection incident' at an 'independent licensing partner,' we're told

Adidas has confirmed it is investigating a third-party breach at one of its partner companies after digital thieves claimed they stole information and technical data from the German sportswear giant.…

Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Wednesday in a high-profile jury trial over social media addiction. In an appearance that was described by NBC News as "combative," the Facebook founder reportedly said that Meta's goal was to make Instagram "useful" not increase the time users are spending in the app. 

On the stand, Zuckerberg was questioned about a company document that said improving engagement was among "company goals," according to CNBC. But Zuckerberg claimed that the company had "made the conscious decision to move away from those goals, focusing instead on utility," according to The Associated Press. "If something is valuable, people will use it more because it's useful to them," he said. 

The trial stems from a lawsuit brought by a California woman identified as "KGM" in court documents. The now 20-year-old alleges that she was harmed as a child by addictive features in Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok. TikTok and Snap opted to settle before the case went to trial. 

Zuckerberg was also asked about previous public statements, including his remarks on Joe Rogan's podcast last year that he can't be fired by Meta's board because he controls a majority of the voting power. According to The New York Times, Zuckerberg accused the plaintiffs' lawyer of "mischaracterizing" his past comments more than a dozen times.  

Zuckerberg's appearance in court also apparently prompted the judge to warn people in the courtroom not to record the proceedings using AI glasses. As CNBC notes, members of Zuckerberg's entourage were spotted wearing Meta's smart glasses as the CEO was escorted into the courthouse. It's unclear if anyone was actually using the glasses in court, but legal affairs journalist Meghann Cuniff reported that the judge was particularly concerned about the possibility of jurors being recorded or subjected to facial recognition. (Meta's smart glasses do not currently have native facial recognition abilities, but recent reports suggest the company is considering adding such features.)

The Los Angeles trial has been closely watched not just because it marked a rare in-court appearance for Zuckerberg. It's among the first of several cases where Meta will face allegations that its platforms have harmed children. In this case and in a separate proceeding in New Mexico, Meta's lawyers have cast doubt on the idea that social media should be considered a real addiction. Instagram chief Adam Mosseri previously testified in the same Los Angeles trial that Instagram isn't "clinically addictive."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-testifies-in-social-media-addiction-trial-that-meta-just-wants-instagram-to-be-useful-234332316.html?src=rss

HPE and Cisco are adjusting terms and conditions

If you like the price of that server, PC, or storage array, you'd better act fast.…

Last year Dyson introduced the PencilVac, which it immediately declared the "world's slimmest vacuum cleaner." Presumably, then, the title of world's slimmest wet floor cleaner goes to the newly unveiled PencilWash.

Promising a "lighter, slimmer and smaller solution to wet cleaning without compromising on hygiene," the PencilWash is designed to let you clean everywhere you need to with minimal hassle. Like the vacuum cleaner with which it shares the first part of its name, the handle measures just 1.5 inches in diameter from top to bottom, and the whole thing weighs little more than 2kg.

The ultra-thin design allows the cleaner to lie almost completely flat, allowing you to get into tight corners or under low furniture, where more traditionally bulky devices might struggle. Its slender proportions also make it easier to store if your home is on the smaller side.

Dyson says the PencilWash only applies fresh water to floors, and after swiftly eliminating spills and stains it should dry up pretty quickly. Its high-density microfiber roller is designed to tackle both wet and dry debris in one pass, and because it doesn't have a traditional filter, you won't have to worry about trapped dirt or lingering smells.

Above the power buttons there's a screen displaying remaining battery level, and the handle can be slotted into a charging dock when not in use.

The Dyson PencilVac will cost $349, with a release date yet to be announced.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/home/dyson-announces-the-pencilwash-wet-floor-cleaner-230152299.html?src=rss

Arms Trade Corruption Tracker (ATCT) have exposed reported Elbit contract suspensions at the behest of NATO's Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA). In a decision taken last year, the NSPA took action to suspend over a dozen contracts linked to the Israeli arms company after anti-corruption investigations involving former NSPA staff.

They add that:

not all investigations appear to link directly to Elbit but details are still emerging.

ATCT further added, in a 'spicy detail', that the US had coincidentally dropped its investigation into some of those implicated. This came two weeks after a meeting between US President Trump and Turkish President Erdogan. Funnily enough, one of the investigations dropped refers to a Turkish officer formerly employed by NSPA.

Once again, the right-wing US President appears to be choosing to cover up corruption, as opposed to trying to tackle it.

#UnravellingTuesday: Israeli arms giant Elbit Systems faced reported contract suspensions from NATO's Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) in relation to several anti corruption investigations involving former NSPA staff. New case link below. pic.twitter.com/W67cfTcTJt

— Corruption Tracker (@ArmsTradeCT) February 17, 2026

Elbit — NATO's 'highest-profile corruption scandal'

ATCT reported that the contracts were suspended by NATO in July 2025 following four investigations into possible corruption. These investigations involved eleven suspects and stated that 'not all cases appear to directly involve Elbit'. They further stated that the evidence of corruption gathered represents:

the highest-profile corruption scandal the Alliance [NATO] had faced since its founding.

The Corruption Tracker website has published a detailed timeline outlining the countries, weapons, and equipment linked to the suspended contracts. The investigations implicate arms sellers, naming Israel's Elbit Systems and its subsidiary Orion Advanced Systems, as well as Global Defence Logistics (GDL) and an unnamed Italian company. The contracts reportedly involve officials in Israel, Italy, Turkey, Romania, and Luxembourg, who appear positioned to benefit financially.

ATCT stated:

Authorities from the US, Romania, Belgium and the Netherlands had been investigating eleven suspects accused of bribery, accepting bribes, money laundering and illegal kickbacks, tied to military procurement contracts awarded between 2015 to 2024.

A wave of arrests followed across Spain, Romania, Belgium and the Netherlands. Yet despite the scale of the investigation and the seriousness of the charges, the consequences proved remarkably limited. None of the detainees served more than six months in prison. Most were released under conditional liberty, while others ultimately saw the charges against them dropped altogether.

Referring to the meeting between Trump and Erdogan, and subsequent shady actions taken, ATCT added:

The case took a dramatic turn in early July 2025. Just two weeks after the US and Turkish presidents met on 25 June 2025 at the Hague NATO Summit - and only two days before the extradition of suspects was due to take place - the US abruptly withdrew all charges. Those cleared included Manousos Bailakis and Ioannis Gelasakis, accused of bribing a NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) official, as well as Scott Everett Willason alleged to have paid bribes, and Ismaïl Terlemez, accused of accepting them in order to steer NATO procurement decisions in favour of Willason's client portfolio.

Suggesting internal whistleblowers are facing typical abuse and negative consequences as a result of raising concerns about internal corruption, they added:

The fallout did not stop with the suspects. Inside the alliance, senior officials began raising alarms of their own. The NSPA's Director of Human Resources and its Chief Audit Executive and Head of Investigations flagged internal corruption and wrongdoing within NATO's structures. Their interventions came at a cost: both saw their positions either suspended or left unrenewed.

Whilst the US step away, the rest of us must step up

The US and its "diplomatic might" sit under the control of a shameless, unrestrained leader who has made clear he will pursue financial gain at any cost. However, the ATCT point out that the US shows precious little concern for corruption. Instead, Trump seems happy for it to continue, leaving smaller countries in the alliance with the huge responsibility of exposing such a sinister web of corruption.

They added:

With Washington stepping away from the case, responsibility for its resolution now rests with Dutch, Belgian and Romanian authorities, who continue to handle the remaining proceedings. Questions remain about accountability at the highest levels of the alliance.

Since the deliverables under these contracts lead to the mutilation, trauma, and deaths of innocent civilians, conducting this investigation is essential in the interest of humanity.

Arms trade corruption investigator Andrew Feinstein spoke to the Canary about the clear corruption within the report from ATCT, stating emphatically:

Elbit is one of the deadliest company's on the planet. It is central to Israel's genocide in Gaza.

Israel is both a materially & morally corrupt country.

This is seen most explicitly in its defence sector of which Elbit is a leading part. The company is the corrupt fulcrum at the heart of this murderous country.

Powerful elite might delay justice, but they cannot prevent it indefinitely

We have to face it: the US has abandoned justice and fully descended into a dog-eat-dog mentality where the richest and strongest are always right. Even though they're so evidently and deplorably wrong.

These findings support yet another call for the UK to disentangle itself from US-led foreign policy rather than risk being dragged into its consequences. The powerful may delay justice, but they cannot prevent it indefinitely. After all, history books will not look kindly on those who permit corruption. Particularly when its consequences include civilian deaths in Gaza and throughout the Global South and Middle East.

We must demand that our government suspend all contracts with Elbit Systems now. Citizens must insist on a thorough and independent investigation into the relationship between Elbit and government officials. There are already serious concerns already raised about transparency and political conduct under the government of Keir Starmer, specifically in relation to Israel.

Therefore, there is ample reason to insist on scrutiny here at home as well.

You can read the Corruption Tracker's full investigation and findings here.

Featured image via Twitter

By Maddison Wheeldon

Former PM, genocide supporter and on-the-loose war criminal Tony Blair has said another ridiculous thing — it must be a day ending in a 'Y'. The hyper-wealthy friend of a cast of dictators, maniacs and war criminals to rival the steering committee of SPECTRE reckons his favourite film is Schindler's List.

The 1993 film centres on the Nazi Holocaust and contains powerful lessons from history…

Not a single fucking one of which Big Tony has grasped in any way whatsoever given he has signed up to the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Blair was one of the first names on the list for Donald Trump's Board of Peace initiative.

Blair said the film's greatest lesson for him was

You cannot be a bystander.

To which we must say 'Jesus, Mary and Joseph, what on earth are you talking about, you rictus-grinned narcissist prat?'

He added that not being a bystander:

can lead you to right judgments and wrong judgments but it is not just your job to look after your country… you owe some responsibility to the bigger world.

Hmm…

Tony Blair — like a bad smell

To be fair Blair has never been a bystander when it comes to war, invasion and empire. He's usually been an enthusiastic participant.  The interview was part of an interview series which nobody wanted or needed, but Channel 4, in their infinite middle class wisdom, decide to make anyway… head-in-hands…

The general public are less inclined to see Blair on TV:

Imagine watching Schindler's List and your takeaway is that you should participate in the next genocide you see pic.twitter.com/TR3eYFw3xN

— Council Estate Media (@cem_uk_) February 17, 2026

One Blair fan described the ex-PM as:

an absolute utter fucking piece of Shit.

Say what you feel, mate.

Tony Blair is an absolute utter fucking piece of Shit.

He was happy to see hundreds of thousands of people die for a lie in Iraq and he was happy to see people murdered in Gaza. And yet he's sitting here talking about Schindler's list never again it meant to be never again for… https://t.co/SbsOdGuJzi

— Hussain "Hoz" Shafiei (@HussainShafiei) February 17, 2026

Another discouraged us from watching the series with reference to Blair's famously terrifying Christmas card:

You don't need to watch The Tony Blair Story. You just need to google "Narcissistic Sociopath" who poses for a Christmas card like it's a fight outside a Wetherspoons at 2am and leave it at that.#LeaveItTony pic.twitter.com/kuKiTNYtBs

— Niecy O'Keeffe (@NiecyOKeeffe) February 17, 2026

Someone else said that given Blairite ghoul John Rentoul has endorsed the film it was probably about as veracious as Flat Earth Theory:

if John "Blairite truths are eternal" Rentoul has seen your Tony Blair documentary and liked it, it may be something of a whitewash pic.twitter.com/oJUMsJeFg9

— Jack FR (@FrayneJack34043) February 16, 2026

Another was buzzing for Series Two which will presumably see Blair in a war crimes court. We hope and pray:

I'm looking forward to Series 2 of The Tony Blair Story.

The one where he and Alastair Campbell are tried in The Hague for war crimes, and the Dr Kelly 'suicide' files they had put away for 70 years, to be released many years after their deaths, are released to the public. pic.twitter.com/9dHcToibmD

— MacPhisto (@BulletBlueSky2) February 18, 2026

In fact — big shocker — the war crimes thing was something of a theme:

Tonight 9pm The Tony Blair Story.
The only Tony Blair Story I want to see is when he's sharing a cell with Radovan Karadzic.

— Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (@alfienoakes63) February 18, 2026

Another X user made the connection with, ahem, current events in the Massive Nonce… sorry… Labour Party:

It's an Epstein Files who's who in The Tony Blair Story on Channel 4 tonight

Who needs to express themselves through music when a bot will do it for you with nothing but a prompt?

If you've ever wanted to make music but have neither the talent nor the inspiration, Google has the AI tool for you. Gemini will now generate a 30-second song for you directly from a text prompt, photo, or video. …

Latest in a rash of grab-and-leak data incidents

CarGurus allegedly suffered a data breach with 1.7 million corporate records stolen, according to a notorious cybercrime crew that posted the online vehicle marketplace on its leak site on Wednesday.…

Google has announced that using its newly incorporated Lyria 3 model, Gemini users will be able to generate 30-second music tracks based on a prompt, or remix an existing track to their liking. The new model builds on Gemini's pre-existing ability to generate text, images and video, and will also be available in YouTube's "Dream Track" feature, where it can be used to generate detailed backing tracks for Shorts.

Like some other music generation tools, prompting Gemini doesn't require a lot of detail to produce serviceable results. Google's example prompt is "a comical R&B slow jam about a sock finding their match," but after playing with Lyria 3, you can definitely get more granular about individual elements of a track — changing the tempo or the style of drumming, for example — if you want to. Outside of text, Gemini can also generate music based on a photo or video, and tracks can be paired with album art created by Google's Nano Banana image model.

Google says that Lyria 3 improves on its previous audio generation models in its ability to create more "realistic and musically complex" tracks, give prompters more control over individual components of a song and automatically generate lyrics. Gemini's outputs are limited to 30-second clips for now, but given how Google's promotional video shows off the feature, it's not hard to imagine those clips getting longer or the model getting incorporated into other apps, like Google Messages.

Like Gemini's other AI-generated outputs, songs made with Lyria 3 are also watermarked with Google's SynthID, so a Gemini clip can't as easily be passed off as a human one. Google started rolling out its SynthID Detector for identifying AI-generated content at Google I/O 2025. The sample tracks Google included alongside its announcement are convincing, but you might not need the company's tool to notice their machine-made qualities. The instrumental parts of Gemini's clips often sound great, but the composition of the lyrics Lyria 3 produces sounds alternately corny and strange.

If you're curious to try Lyria 3 for yourself, Google says you can prompt tracks in Gemini starting today, provided you're 18 years or older and speak English, Spanish, German, French, Hindi, Japanese, Korean or Portuguese.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/gemini-can-now-generate-a-30-second-approximation-of-what-real-music-sounds-like-204445903.html?src=rss

The ICE surge in Minneapolis, Minnesota was instigated by a far-right click bait artist and encouraged by the president's portrayal of Somali immigrants as "garbage" people from a "garbage" country. And those were some of the nicer words Trump used to describe the people his agencies would be hunting down first.

Several weeks later, a draw-down has begun, prompted by two murders committed by federal officers, an inability to obtain indictments against protesters, and every narrative about violence perpetrated by federal officers disintegrating the moment the government was asked to provide some evidence of its claims to the court.

Hundreds of judges in hundreds of immigration cases have found that the government has routinely violated the due process rights of the immigrants it has arrested. This dates all the way back to the beginning of Trump's second term, but months of roving patrols by masked men with guns has created a massive influx of cases courts are still trying to sort out. But one thing is clear: the government will do anything it can to keep the people it arrests from availing themselves of their constitutional rights.

This starts with the arrests themselves, which most often occur without a judicial warrant. The same goes for the invasion of people's houses and places of business. With the Supreme Court giving its tacit blessing to casual racism (the so-called "Kavanaugh stops"), anyone who looks less than white or whose English has a bit of an accent is considered reasonably suspicious enough to detain.

The government has been on the losing end of hundreds of cases involving due process rights. This decision [PDF], coming to us via Politico's Kyle Cheney, details the massive amount of constant movement this government engages in to keep people separated from their rights and physical freedom.

It opens with this:

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") recognizes that noncitizen detainees have a constitutional right to access counsel. But in recent weeks, ICE has isolated thousands of people—most of them detained at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building—from their attorneys. Plaintiffs, who are noncitizen detainees and a nonprofit that represents noncitizens, have presented substantial, specific evidence detailing these alleged violations of the United States Constitution. In response, Defendants offer threadbare declarations generally asserting, without examples or evidence, that ICE provides telephone access to counsel for noncitizens in its custody. The Plaintiffs' declarations provide specifics of the opposite. The gulf between the parties' evidence is simply too wide and too deep for Defendants to overcome.

It's not like ICE can't provide detainees with access to attorneys or respect their due process rights. It's that they choose not to, now that Trump is in charge. The access is theoretically possible. It's just being purposefully denied. And it's not even just being denied in the sense that phone call requests are being refused. People detained by ICE are placed into a constant state of flux for the sole purpose of making it as difficult as possible for them to avail themselves of their rights.

The devil is in the details. And the court brings plenty of those, all relating to the administration's "Operation Metro Surge" that targeted Minneapolis, Minnesota:

Detainees are moved frequently, quickly, without notice,and often with no way for attorneys to know where or how long they will be at a given facility. (ECF No. 20 ("Boche Decl.") ¶¶ 9, 13, 18; ECF No. 24 ("Edin Decl.") ¶ 6; Heinz Decl. ¶ 5 (explaining that of eleven clients initially detained at Whipple, ten were transferred out of the state within twenty-four hours); Kelley Decl. ¶ 19.) Once a person has been transferred out of Minnesota, "representation becomes substantially more difficult"—attorneys must secure local counsel to sponsor a pro hac vice application and navigate additional barriers.

This is a key part of the administration's deliberate destruction of constitutional rights. Moving people quickly helps prevent habeas corpus motions from being filed, since they need to be filed in the jurisdiction where they're being held. If detainees are shifted from place to place quickly enough, their counsel needs to figure out where they're being held and hope that their challenge lands in court before their clients are moved again. And with the Fifth Circuit basically codifying the denial of due process to migrants, more and more people arrested elsewhere in the nation are being sent to detainment centers in Texas as quickly as possible.

All of this is intentional:

Defendants transfer people so quickly that even Defendants struggle to locate detainees. Often, Defendants do not accurately or timely input information into the Online Detainee Locator System. This prevents Minnesota-based attorneys from locating and speaking with their clients.The locator either produces no search results or instructs attorneys to call for details, referencing a phone number that ICE does not answer. Often, Defendants do not update the locator until after detainees areout of state. Attorneys frequently learn of their client's location for the first time when the government responds to a habeas petition.

These are not the good faith efforts of a government just trying to get a grasp on the immigration situation. These are the bad faith efforts of government hoping to violate rights quickly enough that the people it doesn't like will be remanded to the nearest war-torn nation/foreign torture prison before the judicial branch has a chance to catch up.

There's more. There's the phone that detainees supposedly have access to for their one phone call. It's the same line used to receive calls for inmates, so that means lawyers calling clients back either run into a busy signal or a ringing phone that detainees aren't allowed to answer and ICE officers certainly aren't interested in answering.

Lawyers seeking access to their clients have been refused access. In some cases, they've been threatened with arrest by officers simply for showing up. Even if they happen to make it inside the Whipple Detention Center, ICE officers and detention center employees usually refuse them access to their clients.

And when people try to work within the unconstitutional limitations of this deliberately broken system, they're mocked for even bothering to avail themselves of their rights.

When an attorney told an agent that she sent a copy of a releaseorder to the specified email address, the agent laughed and said "something to the effect of 'yeah we really need to get someone to check that email.'"

To sum up, the government is exactly what the court thinks it is: a set of deliberate rights violations pretending it's a legitimate government operation that's just trying to do the best it can in these troubling times:

It appears that in planning for Operation Metro Surge, the government failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees. The government suggests—with minimal explanation and even less evidence—that doing so would result in "chaos." The Constitution does not permit the government to arrest thousands of individuals and then disregard their constitutional rights because it would be too challenging to honor those rights.

The administration has long lost the "presumption of regularity" that courts have utilized for years while handling lawsuits and legal challenges against the government. It no longer is considered to be acting in good faith in much of the country (Fifth Circuit excluded, for the most part). This is the "rule of law" party making it clear that it will only follow the rules and laws it likes. And it will continue to do so because courts can't actually physically free people or force the government to respect their rights. The Trump administration is fine with losing in court and losing the hearts and minds of most of America as long as those in power keep getting to do what they want.

Yesterday we noted how CBS fecklessly tried to prevent Stephen Colbert from broadcasting an interview with Texas Democratic State Representative James Talarico. Which, as you've probably already seen, resulted in the interview on YouTube getting way more viewers than it would have normally, and Texas voters flocking to Google to figure out who Talarico is:

This may end up being a massive own goal for the Trump administration.

— Laura Bassett (@lebassett.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T23:15:21.231Z

In short, Brendan Carr's continual threats and unconstitutional distortion of the FCC's "equal opportunity" rule (also known as the "equal time" rule) resulted in a candidate getting exponentially more attention than they ever would have if Brendan Carr wasn't such a weird, censorial zealot.

If only there was a name for this sort of phenomenon?

Despite a lot of speculation to the contrary, there's no evidence the GOP specifically targeted Talarico in any coherent, strategic sense. This entire thing appears to have occurred because CBS lawyers — focused on numerous regulatory issues before the Trump administration, didn't want to offend the extremist authoritarian censors at Trump's FCC. It's always about the money.

CBS (and ABC, NBC, and Fox) have been lobbying the FCC for years to get ride of rules preventing them from merging. CBS (read: Larry Ellison) has managed to get his friend Trump conducting a fake DOJ antitrust inquiry into Netflix's planned acquisition of Warner Brothers, so they can then turn around and buy Warner (and CNN) instead. They'll need to remain close with the administration for that to work out.

CBS tried to do damage control and claim they never directly threatened Colbert, but you can tell by the way they're being a little dodgy about ownership of those claims (demanding no direct attribution to a specific person "on background") they likely aren't true:

Phil Gonzalez from CBS, welcome to the Verge's background policy www.theverge.com/policy/88000…

— nilay patel (@reckless.bsky.social) 2026-02-17T23:16:07.640Z

Colbert's response to the claim he wasn't threatened was… diplomatic:

Amusingly some of the news outlets covering this story (like Variety here) couldn't be bothered to even mention that CBS has numerous regulatory issues before the Trump FCC, which is why they folded like a pile of rain-soaked street corner cardboard at the slightest pressure from the Trump FCC.

As we've noted repeatedly, Brendan Carr has absolutely no legal legs to stand on here. His abuse of the equal opportunity rule is equal parts unconstitutional and incoherent. CBS (and any other network with bottomless legal budgets) could easily win in court (I wager they could even get many lawyers to defend them pro bono), but Ellison (and his nepo baby son) have a much bigger ideological mission in mind.

The Luminar Neo Bundle includes a one time purchase of the software, an introductory course on how to use it, and 6 add-ons. Luminar Neo is an easy-to-use photo editing software that empowers photography lovers to express the beauty they imagined using innovative tools. Luminar Neo was built from the ground up to be different from previous Luminar editors. It keeps your favorite LuminarAI tools and expands your arsenal with more state-of-the-art technologies and important changes at its core. Meanwhile, the recognizable Luminar design is retained, making Neo simple to use and fun to explore. It's on sale for $69.97.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

More than 25,000 people have now signed a petition calling on NatureScot to stop licensing the controversial guga hunt. And pressure continues to mount on Scotland's nature agency.

The guga hunt - killing young gannets

Each autumn, a group of men from the Isle of Lewis travel to the remote uninhabited island of Sula Sgeir to capture and kill flightless gannet chicks ("guga") for food. The hunters use poles to dislodge the young birds from the cliffs and then batter them to death.

The activity is part of a historical tradition and takes place under authorisation from public body NatureScot. The agency decides whether to grant a licence each year there's an application, subject to conservation tests.

Protect the Wild created the petition. It argues that NatureScot is failing to meet evidential thresholds when issuing these licences and should not continue authorising the guga hunt.

Mounting public pressure recently prompted NatureScot to issue a public statement. It acknowledged the "strong feelings" about the guga hunt and confirmed that its board is considering people's concerns.

In its statement, NatureScot said:

We understand there are strong feelings about the guga hunt, and that some people will disagree with it taking place. The hunt is recognised in law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act…Our role is to make licensing decisions based on the most recent scientific evidence.

NatureScot confirmed that in 2025 it reduced the permitted take from 2,000 birds to 500 following survey data collected after avian flu outbreaks. And it said that it granted a licence on the condition that the hunters killed the birds "humanely".

Insufficient monitoring

But Protect the Wild says the Sula Sgeir gannet colony remains in decline and that allowing even a reduced guga hunt risks further damage. It also questions how NatureScot can guarantee the killing is humane when it does not directly monitor the process.

Devon Docherty, Scottish Campaigns Manager at Protect the Wild said:

Sula Sgeir is now the only Special Protection Area for gannets in Scotland that has fallen below its official citation level.

NatureScot continues to grant licences knowing the gannet colony is vulnerable, the hunt harms other breeding seabirds, and that they cannot verify whether the chicks are killed humanely - they simply take the hunters' word for it.

With tens of thousands of people now calling for it to stop, the continued licensing of the guga hunt is becoming increasingly difficult for NatureScot to justify.

NatureScot has stated that if a new licence application is received for 2026, it will be brought before its Board for decision.

Protect the Wild says it will continue urging NatureScot to reject future licence applications. And it's calling on the Scottish government to remove the legal exemption that allows the guga hunt to take place.

Featured image via John Ranson / the Canary

By The Canary

Two years after a war that left widespread destruction across the Gaza Strip, Ramadan returns amid an extremely complex humanitarian crisis. Feelings of joy at the arrival of the holy month are mixed with grief, displacement and the collapse of basic services.

The population welcomes Ramadan burdened by loss. Longstanding traditions have been replaced by tents and queues for aid.

Ramadan in Gaza — a pressing humanitarian situation

More than two million Palestinians are living in severe hardship. There are acute shortages of food and drinking water, and purchasing power has fallen to unprecedented levels amid widespread unemployment. A large segment of the population now relies on soup kitchens and relief aid to meet daily needs. Even then, supplies cover only a fraction of demand.

The health sector faces serious challenges. There are ongoing shortages of medicines, medical supplies and laboratory materials. These gaps threaten to increase health risks during the holy month, particularly for chronically ill patients, children and the elderly.

Medical authorities warn of the consequences of continued restrictions on humanitarian supplies. Ramadan is traditionally a season of solidarity and support, yet conditions remain dire.

Modest meals and absent rituals

Each evening, families gather for modest iftar meals. These are often limited to bread, vegetables and whatever relief supplies are available. Before the war, the holy month was marked by large family feasts. Extended families rarely gather now. Many have been scattered by displacement and the loss of their homes.

Street decorations and festive lanterns have largely disappeared. Children no longer roam markets buying Ramadan lights. Instead, small temporary lamps replace traditional decorations.

Some families craft handmade ornaments inside their tents. It is a small attempt to preserve the spirit of the month despite harsh conditions.

Mosques between destruction and temporary alternatives

Many mosques were damaged during the war. Some remain completely out of service, depriving residents of a central part of Ramadan.

In response, residents have set up temporary prayer spaces inside tents or damaged schools. Prayers are performed with whatever resources are available. Despite ongoing security concerns and tensions, many remain determined to perform Taraweeh prayers. For some, these rituals provide rare moments of peace amid instability.

Childhood in Gaza looks different this year. Children who have lost homes or family members play between rows of tents. They carry simple lanterns made from available materials.

They try to recreate the joy they associate with Ramadan, even while surrounded by rubble.

Parents strive to create moments of warmth within the family. They prepare simple meals together or organise small group prayers to maintain social bonds.

Between the 'yellow line' and the expanding buffer zone

Ramadan's arrival coincides with ongoing changes on the ground. These shifts have altered Gaza's demographic map.

A 9 February report by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Observatory described what it called a "silent and slow genocide." It said this goes beyond bombardment to include structural changes. According to the report, the buffer zone is expanding along the so-called "yellow line," dividing the Strip into two areas. Israel controls land to the east, which the report says represents more than half of Gaza's territory.

The line, previously expected to remain fixed, has reportedly advanced around 1.5 kilometres into residential areas. Additional neighbourhoods have been annexed, forcing more families to flee.

Ramadan in Gaza, between loss and resilience

Ramadan in Gaza this year is not only a month of worship. It is also a test of resilience.

Homes have been destroyed, families dispersed and daily life remains under pressure. The holy month feels very different from before the war. Yet residents continue to observe Ramadan as best they can. They stress that its spirit lies in patience and solidarity rather than outward celebration.

Between forced hunger and religious fasting, Gazans are redefining Ramadan. Even amid devastation, many see it as a space for hope and quiet endurance.

Featured image via Aljazeera

By Alaa Shamali

Seven Kent County councillors and two North Northamptonshire County Councillors have joined Restore Britain. Reform UK previously expelled six of them.

Most of these were thrown out of Reform UK when @LeaderofKCC had her meltdown in the 'suck it up' cabinet meeting and the video was leaked. https://t.co/w5NmJN5AH8

— Reform Party UK Exposed

Serious UK prime ministers should be afraid to discipline special forces troops over war crimes because they are so popular with the public. That's according to Dr. Simon Anglim, who wrote a lengthy essay on the UK's new ranger and special operations units.

The essay makes a range of (in fairness, very interesting) points about shadowy deployments overseas — including to Ukraine. But the King's College War Studies lecturer — yes, it's the KCL War Studies people again — also warned that the current Haddon-Cave inquiry into war crimes in Afghanistan could have serious implications for the use of UK Special Forces (UKSF).

UKSF is distinct from the ranger units and remains heavily protected from even basic democratic scrutiny. The government refuses to comment on what they do — even in parliament.

It's a distinctly British practice. None of our major allies refuse point blank to comment on their special forces operations. Yet we do. As the now-defunct Remote Control project pointed out in a 2016 report:

this blanket opacity policy is not standard practice, and the UK is lagging behind its allies on transparency over its use of Special Operations Forces (SOF). The US, Australia, and Canada are all more transparent about their deployment of SOF than the UK.

The practice is also deeply undemocratic:

This leaves the British public, and the parliament that represents them, among the least-informed of their foreign allies about the government's current military activities in places like Syria and Libya stymying informed debate about the UK's role in some of the most important conflicts of our age.

So what's happening then?

Special Forces afraid of the light

Anglim said the threat of accountability over the Afghan allegations was "a shadow hanging over UKSF":

The ongoing Inquiry, presided over by Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, investigating allegations that UKSF members committed unlawful killings in Afghanistan in 2010.

Ireland legacy allegations were also an issue. The SAS investigation:

runs concurrently with the Northern Ireland Coroner's ruling that soldiers of 22 SAS were 'not justified' in killing three members of the Irish Republican Army in an ambush at Clonoe in Northern Ireland in 1992, and the stream of further allegations of unlawful conduct it has set off.

As Anglim pointed out, the cases are sub judice — ongoing — currently. But he expressed a concern they:

could strengthen demands for UKSF to face greater Parliamentary scrutiny, possibly via a Select Committee similar to the one overseeing Intelligence.

Clearly, public scrutiny is a terrifying prospect.

Scrutiny and pressure

This, Anglim said, could result in political pressures which might limit the use of SF:

Given the potential for security breaches and increased hostile scrutiny, this may have a freezing effect on future UKSF deployments and could alter the relationship between the Directorate and its political masters.

Presumably by 'hostile scrutiny' he means from the press and public. Anglim suggested he might write about it more once the cases are resolved:

but it is worth noting that, given their high status with the British public, no serious Prime Minister would want to impose collective punishment on Britain's Special Forces and besides, they are too valuable as national assets to do this too severely if at all.

Anglim makes some very good points in his essay. He is also the definition of an establishment academic. He has worked with the US Department of Defence (currently ridiculously rebranded as the Department of War), the Sultanate of Oman, various establishment think-tanks and has given evidence on readiness to the defence committee.

Here he is talking about how Covid and Brexit affected the military:

But his warnings that some sort of basic accountability could reduce Britain's ability to conduct secret military operations are telling. As with all things the British establishment says you must turn them upside down to understand them.

Public and journalistic scrutiny are good, actually, because they are a threat to the British ruling class's hunger for war, war-profits — and for staying close to US imperial foreign policy whatever the cost and whoever is president. The more scrutiny, then, the better. And if 'serious' prime ministers would be afraid of the light of said scrutiny, let's hope for an 'unserious' one.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Eighteen defendants from Palestine Action have now been acquitted of aggravated burglary. Earlier this month, a jury cleared six of the Filton24 of aggravated burglary, while leaving the charges of criminal damage and violent disorder undecided. These charges are in relation to direct-action taken targeting Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems in Bristol.

Middle East Eye reported that:

Following the decision to drop the charges, five of the defendants  - William Plastow, Ian Sanders, Madeline Norman, Julia Brigadirova and Aleksandra Herbich - were granted conditional bail.

Plastow, Sanders and Norman have been held on remand for the longest period of the 18- spending 18 months in prison. Birgadirova and Herbich has been imprisoned since November 2024.

Bail applications for another eight defendants will be held on Friday.

Palestine Action targeting

Today's announcement comes as the prosecution have "reconsidered the sufficiency of the evidence". This move appears to suggest it would be unlikely to achieve the guilty verdicts it is clearly aiming for. However, at this late a stage in a criminal case, the prosecution could not just drop the aggravated burglary charge against the remaining defendants. This left it no option but to concede defeat on that charge if it wished to change course.

Consequently, concerns have resurfaced that the prosecution and government could reconsider their strategy and pursue different charges with a stronger likelihood of conviction.

All of the Filton24 were acquitted of aggravated burglary. SAY IT. https://t.co/ohMIDuUYVb

— Huda Ammori (@HudaAmmori) February 18, 2026

Victory: for now

The Palestine Action defendants have received popular support amongst pro-Palestinian activists and groups. In fact, many pensioners across the country have been seen risking arrest for daring to show public support for then proscribed Palestine Action (PA). The direct-action group has protested against Israel's settler colonialism for many years, and its members have long sought to call attention to those arming the Zionist entity. The case against them refers to a break-in near Bristol of an Elbit Systems site known to be providing arms and supplies to Israel.

Citizens across the UK have taken to protests in every city since October 7th, 2023, making it clear that the majority of British people do not support the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Moreover, leading Holocaust scholars across the globe and the International Court of Justice in The Hague have identified this as a genocide, while the International Criminal Court has moved forward with arrest warrants at the direction of Prosecutor Karim Khan.

We wrote a few days ago on the court ruling that the proscription of Palestine Action, brought because of their acts of protest, was deemed disproportionate. Yet little has really changed, as Skwawkbox wrote:

The decision was made by a panel of judges who all have strong links to Israel, underscoring just how far the Starmer regime overstepped human rights legislation. It is almost certain to try to appeal, despite the exposed web of lies it created to try to justify the ban.

Nevertheless, people are rightfully celebrating this reprieve across social media:

Victory after victory … what an incredible start to Ramadan, the month of victory https://t.co/zrI9NkAiNi

— Fahad Ansari

Plants expected to begin operations as early as 2028 pending approval by state government

Datacenter power consumption has surged amid the AI boom, forcing builders to get creative in order to prevent their capex-heavy bit barns from running out of steam. But at least in some parts of the world, the answer to abundant clean energy may be hiding just a few thousand feet below the surface of the earth.…

Data Loss Prevention? Yeah, about that...

The bot couldn't keep its prying eyes away. Microsoft 365 Copilot Chat has been summarizing emails labeled "confidential" even when data loss prevention policies were configured to prevent it.…

Yo dawg, we heard you like missiles, so we put some missiles in your missile so you can boom while you zoom

It's taken about five years, but DARPA's missile-launching missile has become the government's latest experimental X-plane and is advancing toward flight testing.…

The long-awaited cyberpunk platformer Replaced just got hit with a short delay. The pixel-art game was supposed to come out on March 12, but will now be released on April 14. That's just a month, which isn't that big of a deal considering this game has been on our radar for five years.

Why the delay? Developer Sad Cat Studios notes that the game is "technically finished" but the team needs a few more weeks for polish. The company says it wants the day-one release to be "polished, stable and true to the vision" of the original concept. This is something to be commended, in my opinion, given the sad state of many game launches in recent years.

pic.twitter.com/8BbiNxRqUb

— REPLACED (@REPLACEDGame) February 18, 2026

This is just the latest delay for the game. However, previous delays have been for a very good reason. The development team had to relocate from Belarus to Cyprus after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Replaced is an absolutely gorgeous-looking 2.5D platformer set in a dystopian alternative 1980s America. You play as an AI unwillingly trapped in a human body. There looks to be plenty of cinematic action, with a blurb promising a combination of "precise melee strikes with satisfying ranged attacks."

The game will be available for Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One and PC via Steam, Epic Games Store, GOG and the Microsoft Store. It'll also be a day-one Xbox Game Pass release.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/cyberpunk-platformer-replaced-has-once-again-been-delayed-190621246.html?src=rss

For the last five years, we had to endure an endless, breathless parade of hyperbole regarding the so-called "censorship industrial complex." We were told, repeatedly and at high volume, that the Biden administration flagging content for review by social media companies constituted a tyrannical overthrow of the First Amendment.

In the Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri) case, Judge Terry Doughty—in a ruling that seemed to consist entirely of Twitter threads pasted into a judicial ruling—declared that the White House sending angry emails to Facebook "arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history."

Never mind that the Supreme Court later reviewed the evidence and found that the platforms frequently ignored those emails, showing a lack of coercion, leading them to reverse the lower courts for lack of standing. To the "Twitter Files" crowd and the self-anointed "free speech absolutists," the mere existence of government officials simply requesting private companies to look at terms of service violations was a sign of the end of the Republic.

So, surely, now that the Department of Homeland Security is issuing administrative subpoenas—legal demands that bypass judges entirely—to unmask the identities of anonymous political critics, these same warriors are storming the barricades, right?

Right? Riiiiight?

According to a disturbing new report from the New York Times, DHS is aggressively expanding its use of administrative subpoenas to demand the names, addresses, and phone numbers of social media users who simply criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In recent months, Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have received hundreds of administrative subpoenas from the Department of Homeland Security, according to four government officials and tech employees privy to the requests. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Google, Meta and Reddit complied with some of the requests, the government officials said. In the subpoenas, the department asked the companies for identifying details of accounts that do not have a real person's name attached and that have criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents. The New York Times saw two subpoenas that were sent to Meta over the last six months.

This is not a White House staffer emailing a company to say, "Hey, this post seems to violate your COVID misinformation policy, can you check it?" This is the federal government using the force of law—specifically a tool designed to bypass judicial review—to strip the anonymity from domestic political critics.

If Judge Doughty thought ignored emails were the "most massive attack on free speech in history," I am curious what he would call the weaponization of the surveillance state to dox critics of law enforcement. Or… would he think it's fine, because it's coming from his team?

As the Times reveals, this is really all about intimidation.

Mr. Loney of the A.C.L.U. said avoiding a judge's ruling was important for the department to keep issuing the subpoenas without a legal order to stop. "The pressure is on the end user, the private individual, to go to court," he said.

The DHS claims this is about "officer safety," but documenting the public actions of law enforcement officers in public spaces is a foundational First Amendment right. The moment these subpoenas are actually challenged in court by competent lawyers, the DHS cuts and runs.

The account owner alerted the A.C.L.U., which filed a motion on Oct. 16 to quash the government's request. In a hearing on Jan. 14 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the A.C.L.U. argued that the government was using administrative subpoenas to target people whose speech it did not agree with.

[….]

Two days later, the subpoena was withdrawn.

This is the government effectively admitting that its demands are legally baseless. They are relying on the high cost of litigation to intimidate both the companies and the individuals. It is a bluff backed by the seal of the Department of Homeland Security.

And this brings us to the most glaring hypocrisy of the current moment: the absolute silence of Elon Musk and X.

Years ago, the "old" Twitter—the one Musk falsely derided as a haven for censorship—was the gold standard for fighting these exact types of demands. In 2017, Twitter famously sued the federal government to stop an administrative subpoena that sought to unmask an anonymous account critical of the Trump administration. Twitter argued, correctly, that unmasking a critic violated the First Amendment. They won. The government withdrew the subpoena.

Twitter (the old company, not the new monstrosity known as X) has a long history of this. In 2012, they challenged a court ruling that said users had no standing to protect their data. In 2014, they sued the DOJ for the right to be transparent about surveillance requests.

Contrast that with today. The Times report notes that Google, Meta, and Reddit have received these subpoenas. It mentions that Twitter previously fought them. But there is zero indication that Elon Musk's X—the platform ostensibly dedicated to "free speech absolutism"—is lifting a finger to stop this.

While Musk is busy personally promoting racist ahistorical nonsense, the actual surveillance state is knocking on the door, demanding the identities of political critics. And we've yet to see anything suggesting Elon is even remotely willing to push back on his friends in the administration he helped get elected, and then gleefully was a part of for a few months.

And where are the scribes of the "Twitter Files"? Where is the outrage from the people who told us that the FBI warning platforms about foreign influence operations was a crime against humanity?

Matt Taibbi, who has spent the last few years on the confused idea that platform moderation is state censorship, offered a tepid, hedging response on X, saying "if true" this is terrible, before immediately pivoting to a strange whataboutism regarding investigations into actual proven Russian attempts at election interference.

It is true, Matt. The New York Times saw the subpoenas. The ACLU is fighting them in court. This isn't a vague "if." This is the government using administrative power to bypass the Fourth Amendment to violate the First Amendment.

It seems like we actually found that "censorship industrial complex," huh?

Meanwhile, Michael Shellenberger and Bari Weiss seem to have nothing to say. Weiss now runs CBS News, which has its own problems with government pressure on speech—the network just pulled a Colbert interview with a Democratic politician after Brendan Carr threatened consequences for talk shows that don't coddle Republicans. As far as I can tell, neither CBS News nor Weiss's Free Press has mentioned the DHS subpoena story. The Free Press is instead running think pieces on how we may "regret" the release of the Epstein files.

Really speaking truth to power there.

This is what so many of us kept pointing out throughout the "Twitter Files" hysteria: the "free speech" grift was never about protecting individuals from the state. It was about protecting a specific type of speaker from the social consequences of their speech. The framework was always selectively deployed—outrage when a platform enforces its own rules against their allies, silence when the surveillance state comes for their critics.

The Trump administration is betting on that asymmetry. They're betting that Google, Meta, Reddit, and Discord will quietly comply rather than spend millions in litigation over users who aren't famous enough to generate headlines. They're betting that the "free speech absolutists" will look the other way because the targets are the wrong kind of dissident.

Right now, the only institution consistently fighting these subpoenas is the ACLU. The platforms are folding. The "Twitter Files" journalists are hedging. And the man who bought a social media company specifically to be a "free speech" champion is busy posting memes.

Turns out we found the censorship industrial complex. And everyone who spent years warning us about it just shrugged.