By Dan BOSCOV-ELLEN – Joshua FRANK

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Although the social and environmental costs of renewable energy technologies are often gestured at parenthetically in left discourse about climate action, they are rarely given serious and sustained attention. It is generally assumed that because a rapid transition to renewables is necessary to avoid full-on climate disaster, we will simply have to accept these costs without too much critical scrutiny. 

In an interview with Spectre’s Dan Boscov-Ellen, Joshua Frank draws on his recent book Bad Energy: The AI Hucksters, Rogue Lithium Extractors, and Wind Industrialists Who Are Selling Off Our Future (Haymarket 2026) to highlight the dangers of that assumption.

Joshua Frank is the managing editor at CounterPunch. He is an investigative journalist and author of the recent award-winning book Atomic Days: The Untold Story of the Most Toxic Place in America (Haymarket, 2022).

+++

Thank you for speaking with me again, and congratulations on the publication of your new book Bad Energy. The book is a sobering look at the environmental costs of the transition to renewables that explores those made expendable in the name of combating climate change and pushes us to reckon with the material constraints on any construction of a sustainable postcapitalist future. Challenging the complacent path-dependency of much left energy politics without laying out a detailed blueprint for an alternative makes this a potentially unpopular line of questioning; people may not want to confront the harms involved in the only climate solutions that seem to be on offer, especially when there seems to already be so little to feel hopeful about at the moment. What prompted you to take up this project? And were there things that particularly surprised you as you began your research?

I live in California. I grew up in the West, in Montana. The majority of public lands in this country managed by the Bureau of Land Management are in the West; there are 240-some million acres that are managed by the BLM. And many of these huge so-called green energy projects are being built on these public lands. In California, for instance, a lot of big solar farm projects are popping up in the Mojave Desert. I spend a lot of time in those areas, and I see the impact that they’re having.

On a very personal level, when my wife and I moved into our current house, we adopted an endangered desert tortoise that had been living here. It was probably stolen from the Mojave decades ago, but it’s been living here through three different residents. So we’ve gotten to know this desert tortoise really well. When I started learning about what some of these big energy projects are doing to desert tortoise habitat, I really felt like I needed to tell the story and defend these creatures, which have been out there for millions of years and we’ve put them on the brink of extinction in a hundred years. They’re an indicator species of an ecosystem in crisis.

Of course, it’s not just green energy projects; there’s been mining and grazing and drought and weapons testing and all sorts of things that have happened out there. But right now, this big push for green energy has made things much, much worse. So that was really the first thing that prompted me to think about approaching this project; I felt like I needed to do it in defense of this tortoise that I am a steward of here at home.

Obviously, I support a transition away from fossil fuels. So I’ve supported solar and wind projects. But what I didn’t realize until I started my research for the book is who is behind many of these projects or the scale of the moneyed interests involved. One that I write about in the book is an enormous wind project in Wyoming that is being funded by an oil billionaire. It’s going to be five hundred square miles, and they’re going to build a seven-hundred-plus-mile-long transmission line called the Transwest Express that’s going to transmit that power from Wyoming to California. That was just mind boggling to me.

Wind energy in and of itself is not a bad thing, but a huge wind project like this that is four or five states away seems completely crazy to me. And when I visited the town where that project is being built and I talked to residents there, they feel the same way—that this is just another example of resource exploitation in their state. There are many other examples like that. So I started looking at the nuances of some of these technologies and who benefits from implementing them in one way versus another, which was enlightening to me, and hopefully will be to readers.

One of the themes of the book is that focusing too narrowly on climate change can cause us to overlook other aspects of capitalist ecocide—particularly the biodiversity crisis, which is, as you note, “in many ways as serious as climate change itself.” If you’re an oil billionaire who’s trying to diversify with more of an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, as the Democrats like to say, then perhaps it makes good sense to frame things narrowly in terms of carbon alone. But some climate activists and sections of the left seem to do the same thing unintentionally. Are there ways to talk about and organize around the climate crisis without separating it from the broader context?

I think one of the traps that we fall into is thinking about the planet in a very binary way when it comes to the climate—a problem that has been made worse by the big green outfits that are almost solely focused on climate change. And of course, this isn’t to say that climate chaos isn’t real. It is. But we can fixate on it at the expense of a lot of other problems that are also happening concurrently: industrial farming and the pollution it causes, habitat loss, all sorts of things. So the first thing we need to do is start looking at planetary health holistically. Once we start to see that all these things are interconnected, and then look for answers to climate change that take the impacts of biodiversity and everything else into consideration, we start looking at the problem differently. When we destroy biodiversity (often in the service of capital accumulation), we’re doing so at the expense of the climate, because those deserts and rainforests act as carbon sinks in many cases, too. We can’t approach the answer to one of these problems at the expense of the other.

You take the same stance here when it comes to the social impacts of energy projects. You note that “more than half of critical mining projects are on or near Indigenous lands,” and throughout the book you cover a number of specific examples where the buildout of renewables is harming Indigenous communities and, in some cases, making their existing ways of life impossible. This focus contrasts with the predominant approach of the social-democratic left in this country, which generally prefers to ignore or downplay such concerns as identitarian and politically inconvenient. Why have you centered them here, and how do they connect to the larger argument of the book?

I think if we’re talking about the fossil fuel industry and the impacts that coal mining or oil production have on people, we don’t have the same kind of conversation. There, everybody on the left would agree we need to oppose these things because they’re polluting resources, they’re poisoning water, they’re destroying communities. Well, then why can’t we use that same framework to analyze so-called green energy projects?

For example, I have done a lot of work with folks in the Navajo Nation working against uranium mining, talking to people that have been impacted by that industry, which is being resurrected under the guise of climate change. One of the things that we need to do when we’re looking at all of these projects is to give it the same attention and criticism that we would to the fossil fuel industry, because many of the impacts on the ground for these communities is very similar.

As you and I have discussed before, I also think that there is a lack of environmental ethic on parts of the left, and definitely a lack of respect for Indigenous cultures and Indigenous lifeways. There is so much we can learn from Indigenous cultures, but we also need to understand that if we’re not approaching where we get our energy in a critical way, it is going to play out like all of the earlier extractive, colonial episodes that have come before. As I detail throughout the book, these mining companies and other interests looking to profit off of the transition are using the same playbook that the fossil fuel industry has used. So we need to be critical in the same way that we would if we were talking about oil and gas production.

Part of that playbook is to frame so-called “nonproductive” uses of the land as “waste.” Even when it’s not explicitly stated, I think there’s often an attitude on parts of the left that sees Indigenous land and water protectors as irrationally obstructing necessary “progress”—a (possibly willful) misunderstanding of the concerns of Indigenous communities as they have been sounding the alarm about the dangers of repeating the same harms under a green banner if we fail to acknowledge and address the underlying causes. And those are not just capitalism and ongoing colonialism but a breakdown of proper relations and an unwillingness to acknowledge our full obligations to all those with whom we are in relation.

Often we are talking about how climate chaos is impacting these communities, but we should be talking about all of the things that are impacting these communities, and the book tries to highlight that.

While we’re talking about some of the ways that this book may push or challenge sections of the left, I wanted to ask about another inconvenient truth that you highlight in the book, which is that of non-Western imperialism. In particular, several prominent ecosocialist thinkers (I have in mind John Bellamy Foster and Jason Hickel, but there are numerous others) seem to have a real blind spot when it comes to the social and environmental harms of Chinese imperialism. Why do you think that is, and how should the left position itself vis-à-vis interimperial rivalries in global supply chains for renewables?

One thing that was very enlightening to me when doing research for the book was learning just how much of these so-called critical mineral resources globally are controlled by China and Chinese-backed companies. Congo is example of this: 80 percent of its copper and cobalt is controlled by Chinese interests. It’s a similar story in many other places in Africa and South America. This includes things like cobalt, copper, and nickel, as well as graphite, lithium, and rare earths. And not only do they control something like 70 percent of the world’s current critical mineral reserves, but they also control 90 percent of their refinement.

Of course, critical minerals are not just used in “green” technologies—they are used in military tech and AI chips and all sorts of things. They are increasingly crucial to the capitalist economic system, and so we have seen these geopolitical tensions arise over them, with Trump aiming to secure access to minerals by strong-arming countries through tariffs and threatening to withhold military aid, and so on.

But the opposition to the United States can mask the on-the-ground reality of Chinese mining, which is no less brutal than that of US-based corporations. When you start digging into it, you see that there is rampant abuse of miners that are many times children working in horrible conditions in toxic places. I have a lot of respect for Jason and John, but I think that it’s naive to see this relationship that China has with some of these places, which generally aren’t seeing the benefit of all this extraction, and to not to see that as a form of economic imperialism.

Of course, it’s not just mining in places like the Congo; China is funding huge so-called green energy projects all over the world. And on the surface, that might seem like a good thing for those places. China is loaning billions to construct well over three hundred huge hydroelectric dam projects in seventy countries under the guise of providing energy and creating jobs. But when you look at the fine print, you see that these loans are all resource-backed loans, which means in many of the cases the funding is tied to giving China access to critical minerals and other resources. So that also is a form of economic imperialism. If the United States or the IMF or the World Bank were doing it, that’s what we’d be calling it, right? And the United States certainly wishes that they had been doing this decades ago, because China is ahead of the game.

I don’t know where the ecosocialist thinkers have lost the narrative on this, but I hope that they can look at the reality on the ground and come to a different conclusion.

Although the book challenges various kinds of complacency that we find on the left, the point is not to argue that all renewable energy is inherently “bad” energy. No energy source is without impacts, but you note that “not all renewable energies are created equal.” For example, you suggest that solar and wind are generally less harmful than nuclear reactors and large dams. You also discuss how different approaches to these technologies can lower their impact (encouraging distributed rooftop solar rather than large solar farms in the Mojave, and so on). Some of this may be context dependent—if you’re in a place that has good wind corridors that are less frequented by migratory birds, maybe it makes sense to put wind there instead of in certain sensitive offshore habitats, for instance. But are there any overarching principles to keep in mind when thinking through our energy options?

I generally think local is better in many ways. Local communities have a better sense of their needs and of what their ecology means to them. I think about an example that I wrote about in the book, which is how these big solar projects in California are rolling out. In investigating that, I came to the conclusion that it is the big utility companies in California that wanted to destroy the rooftop solar program, which was making really great strides here in the state, because it wasn’t profitable to them. They are looking to maximize profits; they’re publicly traded companies, so there’s a fiduciary responsibility for them to provide endless returns on their investments. Rooftop solar was a threat to that; and so Gavin Newsom, who is in the back pocket of these big utilities, destroyed rooftop solar. And what they’ve done instead is to open up enormous swaths—millions and millions of acres—of public lands across the West to develop solar farms, in some cases in very ecological important areas.

So I think understanding that economic dynamic is important, first and foremost, before we even start talking about the nuances of these technologies and what those impacts might be at the local level. You can contrast the placelessness of capital with the people I talked to in the book, including people from a lot of different Native American communities. People, especially in rural communities, have a lot of ideas about what their needs are and how they could be met. There’s an example in the book of a community in Northern California that has very inconsistent energy. Yet there is no guarantee that this massive wind farm that’s being proposed off the coast of Northern California is going to help bring energy to that local community.

Those kind of contradictions, I think, are really important to look at. And this gets into larger questions of democratic decision-making. These communities, in many cases Indigenous communities, are once again being set up as “sacrifice zones,” only now in the name of green energy. Once we recognize that, then it seems clear that they should have a bigger say in what happens on those lands than, say, those who live hundreds of miles away who would enjoy the fruits of their resources.

In terms of what energy strategies we choose, of course it is partly geographically dependent. Obviously in parts of the US West, sun is very plentiful. I don’t really get into geothermal in the book, but in some places geothermal can be very efficient, but that’s not possible everywhere. But I think the main thing to keep in mind is that we can’t simply replace fossil fuels with green energy without interrogating the system itself, which is the capitalist system that promotes the myth of endless growth. That we don’t have endless resources on this planet, and no matter if it’s fossil fuels or green energy, there are limits to what we can take without doing irreparable harm. And the attention to the local helps us to see that, which is part of why thinking local is really important. It might be an oversimplification, but it’s a pretty good one.

I want to come back to the question of democratic decision-making in a moment, but first, can I quickly follow-up about the question of endless growth? You write that expansionism is “the foundation of capitalist ideology…markets (both foreign and domestic) require new territory and resources to grow.” A number of ecosocialist thinkers, from James O’Connor to Jason W. Moore, have argued that the finitude you’re highlighting here is at some point going to become a fatal problem for capitalism itself—that it’s going to run out of new frontiers and it won’t be able to sustain its growth. Renewable energy seems to be part of a new frontier of accumulation; you cite a mining analyst for BNEF arguing that “the energy transition could lead to a super-cycle for the metals and mining industry,” and you look at how capitalists are scouring the planet, including the depths of the ocean, for critical minerals (some now have their eyes set on asteroids, perhaps the true “final frontier”). Could this boom keep capitalism running, despite the harm to the planet?

In the immediate future, capitalism can absolutely run on this strategy of continuing to burn fossil fuels and also expanding overall energy consumption, with renewables being a portion of that. In no way are we seeing renewables push fossil fuels out. I think that’s by intention, that’s by design. I don’t know how long that can go on despite the impacts that it will continue to have on the planet and people, but I suspect that it could still work for a long time.

If we’re talking geological time, yes, capitalism will eventually have to face physics—the reality that this planet has resources and sinks that are finite and at a certain point we will have exhausted them. I think left to its own devices, eventually capitalism will run into a wall that it doesn’t care about driving into, unfortunately. But we can’t wait for that moment to arrive on its own because we all live here, too; we need to come up with a better strategy to slow down, as Kohei Saito would say. To use less resources and try to live more equitably and comfortably. I write in the book that the world does have a population problem, and it’s the growing population of billionaires. Not regular people.

Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor have a new book coming out called End Times Fascism, and I gather that part of the argument is that many of these billionaires recognize that they’re destroying the world, but they think that they can insulate themselves and their progeny from an apocalypse that they themselves are hastening, perhaps intervening technologically where necessary to keep the profits flowing as long as possible (Elon Musk has been talking a lot about the need for geoengineering lately). On that note, one of the interesting sites of resistance today here in the United States at the moment is the growing popular movement against data centers. The companies relying on the AI boom do not want democratic oversight, and many of them are quite happy to embrace fascism—and to create the repressive technologies that enable it—if it allows them to keep profits flowing. In the book, you discuss Musk’s “we’ll coup whoever we want” attitude toward Bolivian lithium, but it’s clear that this applies equally in the imperial core too. Do you see anti-data-center organizing, which concerns the right of communities to have a say over what technological infrastructure is built and for what purposes, as a hopeful model of resistance to the narrative of inevitability the tech giants are promoting (with the help of some ecomodernists)? As it interacts with the climate movement and the fight for a free Palestine and so on, could this kind of popular movement begin to center the concerns raised in Bad Energy more comprehensively, or are there obstacles that would seem to preclude that possibility?

My hope is that people who may not have really analyzed the underlying economic system of climate chaos walk away from reading Bad Energy and begin to question more as they see that capitalism is still running the show. I think data centers is another great example of that; despite the supposedly intangible nature of the cloud, for many communities this is a very tangible thing that capitalism is throwing at us. I see the movement against data centers across this country as perhaps the biggest opening for the left and the environmental movement to fight big tech and this exploitative capitalism that is infiltrating our lives in the form of AI. I think we begin to understand capitalism in a different way when it’s in our own backyard, when big tech is in our own backyard using our resources. There are a lot of things with data centers that people talk about with energy use and water, and those are really important. But another that’s very rarely talked about is how many critical minerals are needed in these data centers. You know, a big data center, for example, uses tens of thousands of pounds of copper, and that equates to more and more mining; mining for copper is exploding because copper is used in every green energy product, in transmission lines and batteries, as well as data centers.

When we fight data centers, we’re really fighting capitalism; we’re fighting a symptom of capitalism. So I’m really hopeful that we can use this movement against data centers as a tool to help educate people about the wrath of capitalism. Poll after poll shows that Americans don’t support data centers, and many polls are also starting to show that people look at socialism as being better than capitalism. So it’s our duty to provide that alternative, and to help connect the dots. But I’m really invigorated by this movement; it’s an exciting cross-section of all sorts of people, and if we are going to save this planet, we need that kind of mobilization to do it.

I agree, which makes it all the more baffling when ecosocialists like Matt Huber and Holly Buck come out against the anti-data-center protests as being somehow naïve or misinformed, arguing that what we really need is a socialist version of AI development. It seems not just ecologically wrongheaded, but incredibly politically short-sighted not to see the opening in this genuinely grassroots popular resistance to help advance a mass socialist politics based in local democratic decision-making about energy and growth. On that note, I have one final question for you. A central theme throughout the book is the importance of making informed decisions about the relative benefits and harms of various energy sources, and that leaving these decisions to capitalists is a recipe for disaster. Yet even democratic decision-making may fail to adequately register the interests of the nonhuman world and future generations when faced with the exigencies of present poverty (often the legacy of racialized and colonial exploitation). For example, as you detail in the book, some Indigenous communities are split on whether to support mining or infrastructure projects that could bring even temporary income. This pressure can understandably override concern for nonhuman beings and future generations. You mentioned earlier that you started this project in part because you felt a responsibility to speak for the desert tortoise you adopted (and to whose species this book is dedicated) because it can’t represent itself. Do you have any thoughts about how the interests of those who cannot speak for themselves, but who have a great deal at stake in these decisions, could be more consistently integrated into left energy politics?

To harken back to our discussion of Musk a moment ago, some of these billionaires do consider themselves to be environmentalists. The discourse of environmentalism isn’t exclusive to the left, and it can be a very slippery slope into ecofascism as resources are scarcer, things get worse, and capitalism continues to wreak havoc. So I think it is very important to challenge that through democratic processes, and to pull everybody into the conversation. The more people that are part of the conversation, the less chance there is of slipping into a sort of ecofascist hellscape.

It’s true that people often think first about the needs most pressing for them and their communities, and it’s easy not to connect that to the larger picture. It’s easy to be totally disconnected from the farmers that grow your food, or the people that assemble your iPhones, or the mines where the copper in your electric vehicle engine came from. Being more democratic about that process is inherently anticapitalist, because capitalism doesn’t want us to think about any of that: it doesn’t want us to be connected to the people that supply these things to us and the wreckage that is left behind. So I think part of our job as activists and as writers and as academics and people on the left is to bring those conversations forward for people. If we can do that, I think that we will ultimately have a bigger and deeper conversation about what’s really going on and what’s really at stake. And I think that we can together develop a better approach to this problem that we face.

Josh, thank you again for taking the time to speak with me. I hope people will pick up Bad Energy; I think it’s mandatory reading for those who want to understand the constraints within which we’ll need to operate as we try to envision, and ultimately to build, a more sane and livable future.

Original article:  www.counterpunch.org

Europe’s “strategic autonomy” is a project through which Europe is rebuilding its own imperial and militarist capabilities.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

We remember Nokia as the company behind some of the most popular mobile phones of the past, as well as its famous slogan, “Connecting people.”

Founded in Finland in 1865 and now operating as a multinational company in telecommunications and information technology, Nokia continues to work in the field of communications – that is, to “connect people.” But with its latest project, it appears that the company is now preparing to connect people in uniform.

Nokia has teamed up with ICEYE, another Finnish company specializing in the production of microsatellites that provide high-resolution Earth observation data day and night and in all weather conditions.

The two companies have partnered to develop secure and sovereign satellite communications systems for governments and defense customers, with the first communications satellites planned for launch in 2028.

Defense, border security, emergency response…

Announced on October 1, the project envisages satellite systems operating in low Earth orbit (LEO) for use in areas including defense, border security, emergency services and disaster response.

Under the project, governments will be able to own and control not only the satellites themselves, but also the ground infrastructure and user terminals.

Rafal Modrzewski, co-founder and CEO of ICEYE, said countries should not leave control over their communications infrastructure in the hands of foreign commercial satellite operators, emphasizing that the project is ultimately aimed at reducing external dependence.

As part of the partnership, Nokia will contribute its expertise in secure networking technologies and network management, while ICEYE will provide its experience in satellite platforms, satellite constellation operations and ground infrastructure.

The cooperation between Nokia and ICEYE is not entirely new. Nokia was among the companies that participated in an investment round announced by ICEYE in June 2026, through which the company secured more than €1 billion in financing.

First satellites planned for 2028

The first satellites are scheduled to be launched in 2028. If the project is implemented, ICEYE will expand its activities in government-controlled satellite intelligence into the communications sector, while Nokia will strengthen its presence in Europe’s rapidly growing defense and space communications market.

Europe’s “strategic autonomy”: the militarization of civilian technology

The new partnership between Nokia and ICEYE is a striking example of where the concepts of “strategic autonomy” and “technological sovereignty,” which Europe has increasingly embraced in recent years, are actually heading.

The satellite communications systems being developed by the two Finnish companies may initially appear to be nothing more than a technological investment. Yet the companies themselves explicitly list defense, border security and government operations among the project’s intended areas of use. With the first satellites planned for launch in 2028, the system is also designed to remain under government control, including its satellites, ground stations and terminals.

What is significant here is not simply that two companies are entering the defense sector. The boundary between civilian and military technology is increasingly disappearing in Europe.

Companies operating in telecommunications, artificial intelligence, satellite technology, data analysis and digital infrastructure are being turned into direct components of European states’ rearmament and security policies.

This transformation is being marketed under the rhetoric of “European independence.” Yet what is emerging is not a Europe moving away from militarism. On the contrary, Europe is building its own militarized infrastructure.

Reducing dependence on the U.S. does not eliminate militarism

Europe’s basic argument is that it should not remain dependent on U.S.-based companies for its security and communications infrastructure. That is why European states are seeking to develop their own satellite systems, defense technologies and secure communications networks.

But there is a serious contradiction here.

The infrastructure being developed to reduce dependence on U.S. companies is being used to expand the military capabilities of European states. In other words, the question of “militarism or peace?” is being reduced to a choice between “American militarism or European militarism.”

The EU’s IRIS² program is a larger-scale example of this transformation. Although the system was initially presented as a secure communications and digital infrastructure project, the program was expanded in August 2026 to include 66 additional LEO satellites for defense, security and emergency services, bringing the total planned core constellation to 348 satellites. The European Commission has also explicitly identified defense and security applications as among the main drivers behind the changes.

What we are therefore witnessing is not simply a European space program designed to “improve internet access.” Space infrastructure is being transformed into a component of Europe’s security and defense architecture.

Companies are becoming part of the war economy

More importantly, this transformation is not taking place solely through state institutions.

The European model places private companies at the center of this process. As in the case of Nokia and ICEYE, private technology companies are developing infrastructure designed to meet the defense and security needs of governments. Public-private partnerships are also at the heart of the IRIS² model.

The program’s total cost over 12 years has been set at €10.6 billion, with €6 billion expected to be provided by the EU and more than €4 billion by the private sector.

Thus, the expansion of Europe’s “defense capacity” does not simply mean larger state budgets. Private capital is becoming a direct partner in Europe’s emerging security economy.

This transformation is also changing the fields in which technology companies operate. Technologies once associated primarily with consumer communications, the internet, software or civilian infrastructure are now becoming integrated into border surveillance, military communications, intelligence and crisis-management systems.

This is not the neutralization of Europe’s technology sector. It is its militarization.

The technological infrastructure of “Fortress Europe”

All of these developments cannot be considered separately from the increasingly powerful concept of “Fortress Europe.”

Tighter border controls, the treatment of migration as a security issue, increased military spending and the expansion of Europe’s own defense industry are different components of the same political direction.

Satellite technology is no exception. Indeed, border surveillance is explicitly listed among the intended uses of IRIS² in EU documents.

In this way, seemingly positive concepts such as “digital sovereignty,” “technological independence” and “strategic autonomy” are, in practice, becoming technological instruments for building a stronger European security apparatus.

The fundamental issue here is not that Europe is reducing its dependence on the United States. There is nothing inherently wrong with any country developing its own technological capabilities. The question is what those capabilities are being developed for.

If the result of technological independence is more military satellites, more sophisticated border surveillance systems, stronger military communications networks and larger defense budgets, then what is being created is not simply independence. It is the expansion of the militarist capacity of European states and European capital.

From this perspective, the Nokia-ICEYE agreement represents more than a technological partnership.

As Europe seeks to create an alternative to the United States’ military and technological dominance, it is simultaneously building its own military-technological complex.

And perhaps the most important feature of this process is that the war economy is no longer built solely in arms factories.

Telecommunications companies, satellite companies, artificial intelligence firms and other high-tech corporations are becoming increasingly important actors in this economy.

Europe’s “strategic autonomy” therefore cannot be understood merely as a project to become independent from Washington. It is also a project through which Europe is rebuilding its own imperial and militarist capabilities.

The European Union’s technology chief expects countries that oppose stricter artificial intelligence rules to change course, as AI systems are becoming more capable and harder to evaluate.

“I’m sure that all those countries who are not willing to regulate the use of AI, they will come back to that quite soon,” European Commission Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen told the European Newsroom (enr) on Friday. She warned of a “risk of very serious incidents” in the absence of any guardrails and called for the establishment of safeguards at an international level.

Concerns about the risks of AI have been at the centre of public attention for weeks, sparked mainly by hacking attacks carried out by AI software that acted autonomously during test runs. Some industry insiders have sounded the alarm, warning that artificial intelligence could potentially cause large numbers of deaths if the technology were to spiral out of control.

Virkkunen warned that fierce global competition is creating a risk that “companies are coming to the markets with products that they haven’t been testing enough.” She pointed to incidents in which AI agents had escaped from test “sandboxes” and service providers or developers had been unable to control their own systems.

At the same time, she said, some AI models “have become so capable that it’s more and more difficult also to evaluate them.” Adequate testing required highly qualified experts, sufficient expertise and enough time, she added.

The EU began enforcing its AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive legal framework to regulate AI based on the level of risk it poses, in August. Virkkunen said that the Commission had already sent a Request for Information (RFI) to two major US-based AI companies – OpenAI, known for ChatGPT, and Anthropic, known for Claude – as well as to some Chinese companies not further specified.

An RFI is a formal investigative tool used by the Commission to gather facts, data, and internal documentation from businesses, governments, or member states.

Global AI race

China and the United States have emerged as frontrunners in the development of AI systems, showing no signs of hitting the breaks. Governments in both countries have rejected calls to slow down its development, arguing it would create a competitive, strategic and economic disadvantage.

“Currently the risks are mainly focused and related to cyber security,” Virkkunen said, but she warned of more serious risks in future, including the possibility that highly capable models could be used in connection with biological weapons or fall into the hands of terrorists.

The Finnish politician called for the establishment of international rules to mitigate the risks of AI. She said the security of AI models had already been discussed within the Group of Seven (G7) this year as well as among G20 countries, and that the discussions would continue.

Talking about the EU’s role in AI development, Virkkunen said the Union should avoid dependence on a single company or third country for critical technologies and develop AI systems based on European values, languages and culture.

In the second of our special podcast series focused on Digital Industries, MWL‘s Chris Donkin delves into the operational realities of deploying private networks alongside experts from Druid Software, Boldyn Networks and Vodafone Business.

0:00 Meet the Panel
3:00 What’s Taking Off
12:00 4G or 5G?
21:00 The Messy Reality
28:00 Beyond the POC
35:00 Q&A and the Future

The post Podcast: Peering into the private network appeared first on Mobile World Live.

The parent company of agentic AI specialist Manus secured more than $500 million in a funding round conducted a little more than a month after it resumed independent operations following the unwinding of an acquisition by Meta Platforms.

Butterfly Effect, which developed the AI company, did not reveal how it plans to use the money or a valuation.

However, Bloomberg reported last month a potential $500 million raise would give it a valuation of around $4 billion, double the sum Meta Platforms paid for the company in an agreement struck in December 2025, before the deal was cancelled on orders from the Chinese government.

Existing investors Tencent, HSG and ZhenFund were involved in the funding round, along with Boyu Capital and IDG Capital.

Investment rules
Manus formally resumed independent operations in September after China’s National Development and Reform Commission told all parties to cancel the deal with Meta Platforms, following an investigation which cited concerns over foreign investment rules.

Manus’ founding investors then moved to buy the company back at the same $2 billion valuation.

China’s concerns related to the fact Butterfly Effect was founded in the country in 2022 but moved its corporate base to Singapore in 2025.

The post AI start-up Manus raises $500M after Meta split appeared first on Mobile World Live.

Indian authorities pushed back against Elon Musk’s claims that unnamed oligarchs were blocking Starlink from launching in the country, stating all three prospective operators remain broadly at the same stage of the regulatory process.

In a post on X, Musk accused “certain oligarchs” of trying to maintain a “monopolistic chokehold on the Indian people”, adding “you can guess who they are…” without naming the parties involved. “This is a crime against the people of India!” he wrote.

In a statement, India’s Ministry of Communications rejected the allegation, explaining its satellite communications framework is “fair and non-discriminatory”. It said assessments are currently underway for all licensed operators in India, with each required to meet security conditions before it can seek spectrum.

“At present, all the three entities are at broadly the same regulatory stage,” the ministry said, calling claims of discriminatory treatment “baseless and misconceived”.

The country’s telecoms sector is dominated by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Jio and Sunil Mittal’s Bharti Airtel. Both operators, alongside Musk’s Starlink, have secured initial approvals for satellite services but are awaiting spectrum assignment and final clearances.

Starlink’s approval process has stretched over four years, with security requirements and spectrum access among the key issues under scrutiny. Musk has previously clashed with Ambani over India’s satellite spectrum allocation, although both Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel later struck agreements with the tech mogul to distribute Starlink services in the country.

The US satellite venture’s regulatory wait has also been marred by security concerns. Local media reports stated authorities recovered illegal Starlink equipment in two separate operations in late 2024, including a drug seizure in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and an army search in the northeastern state of Manipur.

This week, Musk also disputed any suggestion the equipment was connected to an active Starlink service in India, posting on X that its satellite beams were “turned off over India” and “never on in the first place”.

The post India hits back at Musk over Starlink oligarch claims appeared first on Mobile World Live.

Samsung Electronics forecast consolidated operating profit of KRW107.4 trillion ($80.2 billion) in preliminary Q3 figures, the first time it would surpass the KRW100 trillion milestone.

With its chip business continuing to thrive, Samsung’s projected quarterly operating profit figure is a 782% increase year-on-year.

Revenue is expected to hit around KRW195 trillion, up almost 127%.

It would be the South Korean company’s fourth straight quarter of record operating profit, fuelled by an ongoing memory chip shortage driven by rising demand for AI services.

Josh Gilbert, lead analyst for APAC at investment platform eToro, told CNBC with “AI spending driving demand for memory and supply remaining tight, the larger story of the chip sector remains intact”, pointing to the fact emerging AI agents would require more memory than chatbots.

“Memory buyers are also committing to multi-year supply agreements, giving Samsung greater visibility over demand in a business where investors have always worried about the next downturn,” CNBC reported Gilbert as saying.

Samsung posted revenue of KRW171.5 trillion and operating profit of KRW89.5 trillion in Q2.

The post Samsung forecasts $80B profit in record quarter appeared first on Mobile World Live.

Widespread availability of Wi-Fi makes the technology an ideal candidate for inclusion in future 6G standards, the Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA) argued.

The specialist Wi-Fi industry body believes the next connectivity shift will fall short without the technology and called on the wider telecoms industry to look at ways it can work alongside mobile networks to deliver ubiquitous coverage.

WBA president and CEO Tiago Rodrigues branded Wi-Fi “fundamental” to ubiquitous coverage ambitions, highlighting indoor connectivity as a prime example.

The WBA recently released a report explaining why it believes Wi-Fi should be a core element of 6G and detailing various means of incorporating it, which Rodrigues said offers a “practical framework that can reduce cost and complexity”.

Convergence is a core element of the WBA’s strategy. It argued Wi-Fi could be central to providing the “consistent user experience and deep indoor coverage” detailed in the ITU’s IMT-2030 framework for 6G because it is “already a common technology” for internal connectivity.

As such, the industry body wants to see tweaks to access models to provide agnostic set-ups which can run on Wi-Fi or mobile as required.

The WBA also argues any convergence of Wi-Fi and 6G must tackle commercial considerations including network costs; customer experience; increased automation; and fresh service opportunities.

It stated the approach would benefit operators and device makers, alike.

Keeping costs in mind would also remove barriers the WBA stated hindered uptake of previous convergence plays involving Wi-Fi, 4G and 5G.

Getting it right could have big implications for autonomous networks, industrial and emergency service connectivity and various digital logistics plays, the WBA stated.

The post WBA pitches Wi-Fi as core of 6G appeared first on Mobile World Live.

Aerospace and defence groups are reportedly pushing back against a SpaceX-backed effort to overhaul wireless spectrum coordination for rocket launches.

Bloomberg reported the proposed changes would replace the third-party frequency-coordination system overseeing how government agencies and commercial entities share key telemetry bands.

The FCC sought public comment on modernising launch spectrum coordination following an August 2026 Presidential Memorandum and a petition filed by the Commercial Space Federation (CSF).

According to filings highlighted by outlet Vertical Aviation International, CSF asked the FCC to replace the existing flight-test frequency coordination process with direct coordination and an automated, near-real-time database across shared telemetry bands.

A coalition representing aerospace and defence organisations, commercial aircraft manufacturers including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and flight-test operators submitted formal comments urging the FCC to proceed cautiously.

In a joint submission, the Aerospace & Defense Industry Spectrum Coalition warned the proposed coordination changes could increase the risk of harmful electromagnetic interference.

The coalition stated these shared frequencies are vital for real-time safety telemetry during prototype aircraft evaluations, electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) certification flights, and defence readiness testing.

It also argued the FCC’s expedited comment schedule did not allow sufficient time for comprehensive technical studies to verify non-interference.

The clash leaves the FCC balancing faster rocket launch schedules against the need to protect aerospace and defence users of the same spectrum from harmful interference.

FCC bird approval
SpaceX notched a regulatory win after it secured Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to launch 15,000 next-gen satellites for its direct-to-device (D2D) mobile service, creating a path to compete directly with AT&T, T-Mobile US and Verizon.

SpaceX filed its application with the FCC in September 2025 ahead of rebranding its D2D satellite offering as Starlink Mobile earlier this year.

Elon Musk-controlled SpaceX is targeting a download speed of 150Mb/s for its D2D service compared to about 4Mb/s on the downlink for the Starlink provisioned offering by T-Mobile.

Instead of relying on a terrestrial network with cell towers, SpaceX plans to pair its satellites with ground-based femtocells to provide 5G mobile coverage, a plan many executives in the industry consider far-fetched.

“With this action, SpaceX’s planned deployments will reshape spectrum-based connectivity by improving competition, allowing more consumers more choices in more places to further the Commission’s goal to connect everyone, everywhere to modern communications services,” the agency stated on 6 October

The FCC also issued SpaceX a waiver to offer its service through satellites without entering into a leasing agreement with a terrestrial mobile operator.

The post SpaceX-backed spectrum push draws aerospace opposition appeared first on Mobile World Live.

For Oakland Review of Books, Stephanie Uchino-Beach writes about getting laid off at an education tech company that transformed into an “AI-first outfit.” As as customer success manager, she acted as a liaison to district administrators, school principals, and teachers. While AI could automate some of her tasks, what about the core responsibilities of her CSM role: building real relationships and understanding an educator’s needs? An AI sees data points, not people. This is a sobering read from a former tech worker living in the Bay Area, and an edtech company that has gone all in on AI and forgotten about its mission.

Before I went to work for Silicon Valley, I was a lot of things. A few jobs before this last one, I was an elementary school teacher in Chicago, helping kids learn to read, creating units, planning lessons, and buying supplies with my own money on the weekends, like countless other teachers around the country. I grew up on the Peninsula, and I made the move into Customer Success to get a job that would let me move home. Tech was never my dream; it was a means to an end. My dad studied computer science and still works in tech to this day and enjoys it, so it seemed like a satisfying and fruitful career was plausible. I figured that once I broke in, all my problems would be solved: I could get a house, have a kid, and fulfill every middle-class dream that had always felt slightly out of reach for a millennial like myself. 

And yet, job after job, I consistently left feeling unsatisfied. Unsatisfied by how I wasn’t growing and wasn’t developing my skills. Unsatisfied with poor managers who were just in the right place at the right time to be promoted but so often lacked the skills to provide the same success for their employees. Unsatisfied with how the products I worked on could do wrong by the communities we sold them to, even though every company said they were “mission-driven” and “put our customers first.” 

A Bruxelles stanno prendendo in considerazione una proposta che potrebbe aumentare i fastidi di Washington. Sul tavolo della Commissione europea c’è infatti la possibilità di modificare il contributo forfettario sulle grandi imprese, già inserito all’interno del bilancio comunitario per il settennato 2029-2034. L’idea è di alzare la soglia di accesso e aumentare il peso a carico delle aziende. Tra queste, ovviamente, anche quelle digitali. In questo modo, scrive il Financial Times, le Big Tech verrebbero tassate senza aggiungere una nuova imposta sui servizi digitali. Un sotterfugi per evitare che l’amministrazione di Donald Trump batta di nuovo i pugni sul tavolo. A giugno la Casa Bianca aveva minacciato di introdurre dazi al 100% per quei Paesi che introducevano una tassa sui servizi digitali – con un esplicito riferimento all’Europa. Difficilmente però il presidente statunitense non si accorgerà del trucco.

Il contributo, pensato a luglio scorso, prevede di tassare le aziende con un fatturato superiore ai 100 milioni di euro che operano sul territorio comunitario. La modifica si concentrerà sull’allargamento delle società da includere, ritoccando quindi i requisiti necessari per rientrare nella tassazione, e allo stesso tempo sull’importo che dovrebbero versare. Al momento, il sistema imporrebbe il pagamento di 100mila euro per le aziende – tutte, non solo quelle tecnologiche – con un fatturato netto compreso tra i 100 e i 250 milioni, fino a un massimo di 750mila euro per quelle che hanno ricavi minimi di 750 milioni. Il totale della cifra che finirà nelle tasche dell’Ue è pari a 6,8 miliardi di euro.

Passare dalla teoria alla pratica non sarà semplice. La discussione è accesa, proprio perché potrebbe potenzialmente comportare conseguenze non del tutto positive. C’è chi non è propenso a introdurre una tassa digitale per non inimicarsi gli americani, sostiene una fonte riservata al Ft. E c’è chi è contrario al versamento di una somma forfettaria, come previsto dal Corporate Resource for Europe (Core) per le società che offrono servizi digitali che hanno una filiale sul territorio comunitario. Da qui l’idea di estendere una tassa già esistenti a tutte le aziende, senza discriminazioni settoriali. In questo modo il risultato sarebbe duplice: verrebbe garantito un gettito in entrata superiore, senza scontentare nessuno. Almeno sulla carta.

Da quando Trump ha messo di nuovo piede alla Casa Bianca, gli europei fanno gli equilibristi per provare a tenere insieme l’interesse comunitario con un’alleanza storica. Trump e la sua amministrazione sono stati però piuttosto chiari: nessuna azienda americana deve essere trattata peggio delle altre. Il tycoon non fa sconti a nessuno. Austria, Francia, Italia e Spagna sono state già oggetto di indagine da parte di Washington a causa della loro imposta sui servizi digitali. Leggere che l’Ue ha trovato un modo per aggirare i suoi paletti non gli farà di certo piacere.

Why did the machines suffer a kind of breakdown, if they had been rigorously tested?

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The counting of votes in the first round of Brazil’s general elections was the subject of great controversy. Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, was ahead of Lula in the official count, with 49.6%, against 42.2% for the president seeking re-election.

64.8% of the polling stations had been tallied up to that point. But the count was halted for more than an hour. Strangely, the votes for governor, senator and deputies continued to be counted normally. Only the presidential count was halted.

And, even more strangely, when the presidential count resumed, Flávio Bolsonaro’s upward trend and Lula’s downward trend were reversed. The opposition candidate’s votes plummeted, while those of the current president rose. Flávio Bolsonaro was less than 0.5% away from the victory that would hand him the presidential sash. He lost more than 2%, ending with 47.03%, while Lula gained almost 3%, ending with 45.16%.

It seemed that Flávio Bolsonaro would dethrone Lula right in the first round. But, after more than an hour of halted counting, Lula managed to recover and the race will only be decided in the second round.

The count was halted at 7:06 p.m. (Brasília time), with 64.8% of the ballots tallied. Only at 8:08 p.m. were the new results presented, already with 84.96% of the ballots tallied.

The official justification was given by the president of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), Kassio Nunes Marques, who is also a justice on the Supreme Federal Court (STF). “What happened was a data congestion. In every election, we are surprised by some incident, which is natural for those who deal with complex and highly varied systems,” he said. “At first, it is not known whether this was derived from another problem. What our IT found was a flow [of data] above the normal level, and that congestion caused a delay,” he added.

There is an aggressive propaganda campaign in Brazil, spearheaded by the Electoral Justice, to convince citizens that elections are 100% clean. The main focus of this propaganda is precisely the electronic voting machines. Judicial institutions and media outlets give wide dissemination to the Electoral Justice’s claims about the total reliability of the electronic voting machines, even highlighting that they are tested before the election and then sealed so that no one can access them.

So why did the machines suffer a kind of breakdown, if they had been rigorously tested? Well, the oh-so-wise TSE has full knowledge of the number of eligible voters and of the number of votes that can be recorded in the machines, including in each polling station. The Electoral Justice’s propaganda tells the public that the machines are fully prepared in advance to record and tally voters’ votes perfectly.

No flow of data “above the normal level” that would lead to system congestion should occur, because the most varied data and statistics regarding vote recording are known and the calculations are perfectly feasible. The infallibility of the electronic voting machines requires that all possible outcomes be predictable and that, therefore, there be no anomaly whatsoever.

So how is it possible, then, that such a perfect system – as it is portrayed by the institutions of the Brazilian State – suffers a failure which, once supposedly resolved, so radically changed the trend of the presidential votes?

It may be a coincidence that Flávio Bolsonaro plummeted and Lula rose after the voting machines failed. But who knows? The TSE president acknowledged that the electronic voting system is “complex.” Only highly qualified specialists, from the TSE itself and from technology companies, can access it and understand it, according to the Electoral Justice. Thus, the fate of an entire country for the next four years rests in the hands of these specialists – 150 technicians unknown to the public. The tally of votes from the machines is fully automated; it passes through no human being. An even more select number of 22 employees access the automated vote totalization.

This means that 214 million Brazilians need to trust those 150 or 22 Egyptian priests to interpret that occult science. They must be the most enlightened beings on planet Earth – 100% honest, upright, immaculate and virginal. Even the STF justices, who over the past 15 years have been presented as impeccable, virtuous and chaste individuals, now appear embroiled in the biggest corruption scandal in Brazil’s recent history, yet those anonymous specialists deserve citizens’ most absolute trust.

It was for reasons such as these that the Supreme Court of Germany declared electronic voting unconstitutional: “every citizen must be able to understand and verify the central stages of elections in a reliable manner and without any prior specialized technical knowledge.”

The verdict, dated 2009, concludes:

“An electoral procedure in which the voter cannot reliably understand whether his or her vote was recorded in an unfalsifiable manner and included in the tally of the election result, and how the total of votes cast is assigned and counted, excludes central elements of the electoral procedure from public scrutiny and therefore fails to meet constitutional requirements.”

The Brazilian judicial system is mired in its greatest crisis in history and is living through a true Wild West, with partisan feuds interfering in the functioning of its work. Partisanship, in fact, has contaminated most of the judiciary, including the TSE. In the final stretch of these elections, decisions by the Electoral Justice, backed by the dominant wing of the STF, favored Lula.

It is evident that this dominant wing (represented by justices Alexandre de Moraes, Gilmar Mendes and Flávio Dino) does not want a victory of Bolsonarismo, for it is their declared political enemy. These justices have acted, in recent years, as true vigilantes against Bolsonarismo. Now that they themselves have been caught in extremely promiscuous dealings with a banker who corrupted countless high-ranking state officials, their bureaucratic careers are threatened. Lula’s continuity is a hope of salvation for these gentlemen, for the president is beholden to them and cannot break that commitment without risking his own neck, given the level of dependence Lula has contracted toward the STF’s top brass. Meanwhile, a Flávio Bolsonaro victory would tend to lead to a clash with the heads of these institutions – although the opposition candidate himself has shown little willingness to confront them, because those who control elections in Brazil (international financial capital) demand moderation and pacification, otherwise they will make life difficult for anyone elected president.

And the people are treated like cattle, victims of a system they cannot understand, so that their exploitation may be perpetuated through the staging of the “festival of democracy.”

US prosecutors say an American forensic tool concealed its Russian owners and its development in Russia.

Used by numerous security agencies in Europe, Oxygen Forensics helps investigators worldwide access data from mobile phones and computers.

Many bodies are now suspending use of the software following recent revelations.

The Slovak interior ministry bought the software in 2018 when links to Russia were not yet publicly known, then renewed the license multiple times. Now, the ministry said IT department officials are investigating the issue.

The tool was also sold to other government bodies across Europe.

Russian ownership via Cyprus

In the US, Virginia-based Oxygen Forensics CEO Lee Reiber was arrested at the end of September, along with Oleg Davydov, one of the Russian owners.

The company was headquartered in the US state of Virginia, appearing American.

According to federal prosecutors in the US, the company hid its Russian ownership through a shell company in Cyprus and that its software was developed in Russia.

Allegedly, this scam helped secure contracts for the forensic tool in the US, UK, Czech Republic, Latvia, Romania, and Slovakia.

Reiber, a 55-year-old American, was arrested in Idaho on Sunday. On Tuesday (22 September), he appeared before a federal court there and was released on bail. He is expected to appear before a federal court in Los Angeles soon.

Davydov, a 52-year-old from Moscow, was arrested on that same day at London Heathrow before he could board a flight to Istanbul. And the US plans to seek extradition. Both face charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

The group of five also owned a Russian company co-founded by Davydov in 2000. Until September 2022, it was called Oxygen Software and now operates under the name MKO Systems.

Its programmers worked in Russia, where the company sold the software under other names. According to investigative files, its clients included Russia’s secret service (FSB), investigative committee (SKR) and interior ministry.

Davydov, the company’s technical director, was responsible for software development. In 2013, he helped establish Oxygen Forensics in Virginia with Reiber joining the company in August 2015.

Prosecutors say that following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and US sanctions after, the duo agreed to hide both the real owners and that it was developed in Russia. In March 2022, Reiber became CEO and director.

Then, Russian owners were removed from public company records.

However, investigators said the Russians continued to control the company, making key decisions, determining Reiber’s pay, and outvoting him on the board.

The charges concern the concealment of the software’s ownership and origin in securing public contracts.

A network of deception

Two companies were found to have supplied the Slovak interior ministry with Oxygen Forensic tools.

In 2018, the sale was part of a broader procurement by the ministry for computers, laptops, servers, monitors and printers, ordered from the Czech company Risk Analysis Consultants for €125,000, the forensic tool itself costing €10,000.

The Prague-based company did not respond for comment.

An invoice issued to the Slovak interior ministry in 2022 by the Slovak company Microcomp–Computersystém indicates the renewal of a licence for this software. At the time, the minister responsible was Roman Mikulec.

The Slovak ministry also ordered a licence renewal in July 2024, under his successor Matúš Šutaj Eštok. Microcomp–Computersystém did not respond for comment.

Authorities warned

On Friday (2 October), the Slovak national security authority (NBÚ) warned of the risks posed by using software from Oxygen Forensics and connected companies such as MKO Systems and Prostranstvo IT.

Their software helps investigators search for and examine data from digital devices. It can process vast amounts of information, including evidence, which makes it important who owns, controls and develops it. According to the NBÚ, this is important both for data protection and for the reliability of analysis results.

The warning came after the US case was made public.

The NBÚ considers links to Russia significant in assessing the security risk, also in view of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.

However, the warning itself does not mean that data leaked through the software. US prosecutors explicitly stated that the charges did not concern malicious code or unauthorised access to customer data.

The case concerns the alleged concealment of the software’s ownership and origin. And no court has yet ruled on the case.

“The ministry will proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the National Security Authority,” the Slovak interior ministry said.

The NBÚ recommended that public bodies identify this company’s presence and report it to the authority.

Belgian Green MEP Saskia Bricmont also called for the use of Oxygen to be stopped immediately and for an inquiry into whether sensitive information could have reached Russia after it was found that Romania, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and Hungary had purchased the software.

European police shed tool

Several European security agencies are suspending the use of Oxygen Forensics software or taking steps to terminate their contracts after the company’s Russian ties came to light.

The tool was also used by Czech police. Czech security agencies continued to purchase licences for the computer software after 2022, when the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Czech authorities are awaiting further information from the United States. For now, they have prohibited software updates.

London’s Metropolitan Police has suspended the use of Oxygen tools and launched a comprehensive review. British police forces, including specialised units, had used the software.

And Latvian police suspended its use and is assessing whether it will continue using it.

Romania’s anti-corruption agency, too, took steps to terminate its contract with the Russia-linked tool.

La paralización del recuento en Brasil revirtió la tendencia y salvó a Lula: las urnas electrónicas, opacas e inauditables, no son confiables.

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

El escrutinio de los votos en la primera vuelta de las elecciones generales en Brasil fue motivo de gran controversia. Flávio Bolsonaro, hijo del expresidente Jair Bolsonaro, iba por delante de Lula en el recuento oficial, con un 49,6% contra un 42,2% para el presidente que busca su reelección.

Habían sido computadas el 64,8% de las secciones electorales hasta ese momento. Pero el recuento se paralizó por más de una hora. Extrañamente, los votos para gobernador, senador y diputados continuaron siendo contabilizados con normalidad. Solo el recuento presidencial se paralizó.

Y, aún más extrañamente, cuando el recuento presidencial se reanudó, la tendencia ascendente de Flávio Bolsonaro y la tendencia descendente de Lula se revirtieron. Los votos del candidato opositor cayeron, mientras que los del actual presidente aumentaron. Flávio Bolsonaro estaba a menos del 0,5% de la victoria que le otorgaría la banda presidencial. Perdió más de un 2%, terminando con un 47,03%, mientras que Lula ganó casi un 3%, terminando con un 45,16%.

Parecía que Flávio Bolsonaro destronaría a Lula ya en la primera vuelta. Pero, tras más de una hora de paralización en los recuentos, Lula logró recuperarse y la disputa se decidirá recién en la segunda vuelta.

El recuento se paralizó a las 19h06 (hora de Brasilia), con el 64,8% de las urnas escrutadas. Recién a las 20h08 se presentaron los nuevos resultados, ya con el 85% de las urnas escrutadas.

La justificación oficial fue dada por el presidente del Tribunal Superior Electoral (TSE), Kassio Nunes Marques, quien también es ministro del Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). «Lo que ocurrió fue una congestión de datos. En cada elección, nos vemos sorprendidos por alguna contingencia, lo cual es natural para quien lida con sistemas complejos y tan variados», dijo. «A priori, no se sabe si esto fue derivado de otro problema. Lo que nuestra tecnología de la información constató fue un flujo [de datos] superior a lo normal, y esa congestión generó un atraso», completó.

Existe una propaganda violenta en Brasil, encabezada por la Justicia Electoral, para presentar a los ciudadanos que las elecciones son 100% limpias. El principal foco de esa propaganda son justamente las urnas electrónicas. Las instituciones judiciales y los medios de comunicación dan gran difusión a las palabras de la Justicia Electoral sobre la total confiabilidad de las urnas electrónicas, destacando, incluso, que son sometidas a pruebas antes del plebiscito y luego selladas para que nadie pueda acceder a ellas.

Entonces, ¿por qué las urnas sufrieron una especie de pánico, si habían sido rigurosamente examinadas? Pues, el sapientísimo TSE tiene pleno conocimiento del número de electores aptos para votar y del número de votos que pueden ser registrados en las urnas, incluso en cada sección electoral. La propaganda de la Justicia Electoral indica al público que las urnas están plenamente preparadas con anticipación para registrar y computar perfectamente los votos de los electores.

No debería ocurrir ningún flujo de datos «superior a lo normal» que llevara a la congestión del sistema, porque los datos y estadísticas más variados en relación con el registro de votos son conocidos y los cálculos son perfectamente realizables. La infalibilidad de las urnas electrónicas exige que todos los resultados posibles sean previsibles y que, por tanto, no haya ninguna anomalía.

¿Cómo es posible, entonces, que un sistema tan perfecto, como es el propagado por las instituciones del Estado brasileño, presente una falla que, después de ser supuestamente resuelta, haya modificado tan radicalmente la tendencia de los votos presidenciales?

Puede ser una coincidencia que Flávio Bolsonaro se haya desplomado y Lula haya subido después de la falla de las urnas. Pero, ¿quién sabe? El presidente del TSE reconoció que el sistema electrónico de votación es «complejo». Solo especialistas altamente capacitados, del propio TSE y de empresas de tecnología, consiguen acceder a él y comprenderlo, de acuerdo con la Justicia Electoral. Así pues, está en manos de esos especialistas —que son 150 técnicos desconocidos del público— el destino de un país entero para los próximos cuatro años. El cálculo de los votos que salen de las urnas es totalmente automatizado, no pasa por ningún ser humano. Un número aún más selecto de 22 funcionarios accede a la totalización automatizada de los votos.

Esto significa que 214 millones de brasileños necesitan confiar en esos 150 o 22 sacerdotes egipcios para interpretar esa ciencia oculta. Deben ser los seres más iluminados del planeta Tierra, 100% íntegros, honestos, inmaculados y vírgenes. Incluso los ministros del STF, presentados a lo largo de los últimos 15 años como individuos impecables, probos y castos, aparecen ahora envueltos en el mayor escándalo de corrupción de la historia reciente de Brasil, pero esos especialistas anónimos merecen la más absoluta confianza de los ciudadanos.

Fue por motivos así que la Corte Suprema de Alemania declaró el voto electrónico inconstitucional: «cada ciudadano debe ser capaz de comprender y verificar las etapas centrales de las elecciones de forma confiable y sin ningún conocimiento técnico previo especializado».

El veredicto, fechado en 2009, concluye:

«Un procedimiento electoral en el que el elector no pueda comprender, de manera confiable, si su voto fue registrado de forma infalsificable e incluido en el escrutinio del resultado de la elección, y cómo el total de los votos expresados es atribuido y computado, excluye elementos centrales del procedimiento electoral de la vigilancia pública y, por tanto, no cumple los requisitos constitucionales.»

El sistema judicial brasileño está sumido en su mayor crisis histórica y vive un verdadero western, con peleas partidistas interfiriendo en el funcionamiento de los trabajos. El partidismo, de hecho, contaminó a la mayor parte del poder judicial, incluido el TSE. En la recta final de estas elecciones, decisiones de la Justicia Electoral, apoyadas por el ala dominante en el STF, favorecieron a Lula.

Es evidente que esa ala dominante (representada por los ministros Alexandre de Moraes, Gilmar Mendes y Flávio Dino) no quiere la victoria del bolsonarismo, pues este es su enemigo político declarado. Esos ministros actuaron, en los últimos años, como verdaderos justicieros contra el bolsonarismo. Ahora que ellos mismos fueron sorprendidos en relaciones extremamente promiscuas con un banquero que corrompió a incontables altos funcionarios del Estado, su carrera burocrática está amenazada. La continuidad de Lula es una esperanza de salvación para estos señores, pues el presidente está comprometido con ellos y no puede romper ese compromiso sin arriesgar la propia cabeza, dado el nivel de dependencia que Lula contrajo en relación con los mandamases del STF. Ya una elección de Flávio Bolsonaro tendería a conducir a un choque con los cabezas de esas instituciones, aunque el propio candidato opositor no ha demostrado gran disposición a enfrentarlos, porque los que controlan las elecciones en Brasil (el capital financiero internacional) exigen moderación y pacificación; de lo contrario, dificultarán la vida de cualquiera que se elija presidente.

Y el pueblo es tratado como ganado, víctima de un sistema que no puede comprender, para perpetuar su explotación a través de la escenificación de la «fiesta de la democracia».

Dell’Oro Group reported worldwide telecom capex rose 5% year-on-year in the first half of the year, exceeding expectations following several years of declining investments.

Despite the promising start to the year, Dell’Oro’s long-term outlook remained largely unchanged by forecasting telecom capex growth of up to 1% CAGR through 2030.

Telecom equipment performance continued to closely mirror capex trends. Combined vendor revenue from the six telecom equipment segments monitored by Dell’Oro, comprised of Broadband Access, Microwave Transmission, Optical Transport, Mobile Core Network (MCN), Radio Access Network (RAN), and High-End Router & Aggregation, also increased by about 5% over the same timeframe.

Dell’Oro VP Stefan Pongratz explained operators have greater capacity following the 5G and fibre investment cycles and are gradually redirecting spending from coverage to capacity, modernisation, automation and efficiency.

“At the same time, improving operator revenues are helping to reduce capital intensity ratios even as network investments remain flat,” he stated.

Capital intensity, which peaked at 18% in 2022, is forecast to decline to around 14% in 2028, ahead of increasing slightly as early 6G investment starts.

Overall, telecom equipment revenue is projected to grow at a 2% to 3% CAGR between 2025 and 2030, outpacing CSP capex, partly due to incremental demand from cloud providers.

The post Worldwide telecom capex surges in first half of 2026 appeared first on Mobile World Live.

AT&T, Global Infrastructure Partners and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board are creating a fibre joint venture (JV) by combining the Forged Fiber 37 and Gigapower assets, in a boost to the operator’s goal of providing connectivity to more than 60 million locations by 2030.

The JV will operate as a wholesale fibre commercial open access company. The operator stated it will utilise AT&T’s fibre assets and investor capital to expand fibre and 5G services across 16 states, enhancing customer experience with converged connectivity. The JV is expected to close in the first half of 2027.

Forged Fiber 37 is a wholly owned subsidiary created by AT&T to house the mass-markets fibre business, customer relationships, network assets, and build engine which AT&T acquired from Lumen Technologies.

Global Infrastructure Partners is a subsidiary of Black Rock. AT&T and Black Rock formed Gigapower, a wholesale open-access fibre network JV, in 2022.

AT&T will retain 50% ownership of the JV while GIP and CPP Investments will collectively hold the remaining stake.

AT&T CEO John Stankey is bullish on the convergence of fibre broadband and 5G services and has long held wherever it has fibre deployed “it wins”.

Stankey stated fibre is essential in an AI-driven world as demand for symmetrical, high-capacity and low-latency connectivity grows. He added the offering will extend reliable, high-speed fibre to more US consumers, increase AT&T’s scale and service reach and strengthen its position in converged fibre and 5G connectivity.

Last month the operator announced a multi-year fibre and cable deal valued at more than $3 billion with glass-specialist Corning to advance its converged strategy of mobile and broadband services.

The post AT&T forges fibre JV to expand reach across US appeared first on Mobile World Live.

Wikimedia also said that the OpenAI agents made unauthorized edits to Wikimedia wiki sites, including "potentially malicious edits" to a citation tool.

Wikimedia also said that the OpenAI agents made unauthorized edits to Wikimedia wiki sites, including "potentially malicious edits" to a citation tool.

The GSMA lined up the board which will guide the organisation through key decisions around 6G, satellite connectivity and spectrum, with six new companies represented and fresh faces at some existing members.

Its overall board remains at 26 members, though the company representation is shifted with Axiata Group; Millicom; NTT Docomo; Ooredoo Group; stc; and Telstra joining the ranks.

By contrast, Ethio Telecom; KDDI; KT; Telenor; TIM; and Veon are not among the names of the next board.

Companies remaining on board but with different representatives comprise AT&T; China Telecom; China Unicom; China Mobile; Deutsche Telekom; e&; Globe Telecom; and Telefonica.

America Movil; Bharti Airtel; BT Group, Liberty Global; MTN Group; Orange; Reliance Jio; Personal (previously Telecom Argentina); Turkcell; Verizon; and Vodafone Group continue with the same representatives.

GSMA director general Vivek Badrinath rounds the board out.

The technical developments scheduled for the next board’s tenure include setting initial 6G standards, establishing regulatory frameworks for satellite and NTN communications, and spectrum allocations. The ITU’s WRC-27 is scheduled to take place in October and November 2027.

A key focus for the GSMA’s next board is the impact of AI on the mobile sector. Current chair Gopal Vittal said the technology and “open digital platforms” are opportunities to “create significant economic and societal value”, which the organisation would work to unlock.

Vittal is keen to see a continued focus on “digital safety and trust”, along with tackling connectivity and usage gaps.

The post GSMA readies board for AI, 6G eras appeared first on Mobile World Live.

On Thursday, October 1, health workers, patients, and activists protested Palantir’s role in the National Health Service (NHS) at more than 40 locations across England. Their demonstrations were part of a global week of action demanding that governments cut ties with the spy-tech firm over human rights and privacy concerns.

Rallies took place in front of Palantir’s London headquarters, as well as in Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and many more cities.

“Palantir’s tools are used by the Israeli military in Gaza and by ICE to track and surveil migrants in the US,” campaign groups – including Just Treatment, Health Workers for a Free Palestine, Medact, and Global Justice Now – stated. “A company profiting from human rights violations has no place in the NHS or in any of our public services.”

Palantir’s track record opposes core health values

Palantir currently holds a £330 million (approximately USD 436 million) NHS contract and has rolled out the service’s Federated Data Platform (FDP), managing sensitive patient data. The project has drawn criticism from virtually every group involved in the NHS: data workers say it lags behind local systems; patients share privacy and data ownership fears; and health workers insist Palantir’s record opposes the very values their profession embodies.

“I cannot stay true to that [Hippocratic] oath and tolerate Palantir continuing to profit from, and grow its malign business model through an NHS contract,” said physician Rhiannon Osborne from Medact at Thursday’s rally. “Every pound we give them helps to legitimize and sustain human rights abuses and erosion of democratic rule of law across the world.”

Read more: The global economic benefit from the genocide of Palestinians

A central concern is the company’s support for Israel throughout the genocide in Gaza. “When we strive to save every possible life, they champion their ability to kill and celebrate their role in the repeated war crimes committed by Israel – including unprecedented deliberate attacks on the doctors, nurses, and paramedics I worked with,” pediatric neurologist Omar Abdel-Mannan stated. “No moral government should tolerate their involvement in our NHS or indeed any of our public services.”

Campaigners repeated calls for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to end the contract as soon as possible. Under an exit clause in the original agreement, that moment could arrive as early as February 2027. Campaigners and several commissions are pressing the government to notify Palantir of its intention to withdraw ahead of this date.

“The government only has two months to say no to Palantir and the momentum is all with us,” Good Law Project activists said at the rally in London. “All the energy is to say no to Palantir, say no to their global human rights abuses, say no to their crap technology that doesn’t work and get Palantir out of the NHS.”

Unions back appeal to bar Palantir from public sector contracts

Calls to break Palantir’s grip on public services resonate beyond Britain. On September 28, more than 120 groups and unions called upon European governments and the European Commission to “scrap all existing public sector contracts with the US tech company Palantir.” As reported by the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), the appeal seeks to end current agreements and bar the firm from future public contracts. It also urges governments to develop “alternative data solutions compatible with public service,” echoing NHS data workers’ recommendations.

Read more: Palantir profits from European public services but avoids millions in taxes that fund them, new report shows

“Palantir’s ramping up of ‘war-related’ support for Israel during the genocide in Gaza and the apparent disdain of its leadership for democracy are just two clear signs that this company serves the interests of the rich and powerful, not the general public,” said Tim Bierley of Global Justice Now. “Yet it has been allowed to embed dubious technologies across our public services, giving it access to sensitive data and creating worrying new technical dependencies.” 

“The UK must work with other countries to end dependence on companies involved in human rights abuses, and end the outsourcing of the public sphere to a dangerous class of big tech oligarchs.”

People’s Health Dispatch is a monthly bulletin published by the People’s Health Movement and Peoples Dispatch. For more articles and subscription to People’s Health Dispatch, click here.