Category: Tech News

Featured Article : Dutch Tax Office Drops Microsoft 365 Cloud For In-House And Open-Source Tools

Posted on by Paul Stradling

The Netherlands’ tax authority has abandoned its planned Microsoft 365 cloud rollout in favour of infrastructure it controls and European open-source software, highlighting how concerns about sensitive information and supplier dependence can change major IT decisions.

What Has Changed?

In a letter to parliament dated 5 October, State Secretary for Finance Eelco Eerenberg confirmed that the Belastingdienst, Customs and Benefits services would adopt an on-premises approach combined with open-source tools. On-premises means software runs on servers the authority owns or controls, rather than through a supplier’s public cloud service.

Email and calendars are due to move to that in 2027, followed by European open-source tools for personal storage and collaboration later in 2027 and during 2028. The letter doesn’t name the actual replacement products, and the detailed design and implementation plan are still being developed.

Explaining the intended outcome, Eerenberg writes, “This allows targeted work towards a sustainable and more autonomous solution for these functionalities.” In practice, that should essentially mean giving the authority more control over its systems and data, with less reliance on a single big supplier.

Why Was Microsoft 365 Chosen Originally?

The reversal follows an October 2025 announcement presenting Microsoft 365 as the only realistic option available at the time. The government said maintaining the existing workplace was becoming more expensive, while the expertise needed to support it was increasingly scarce.

The planned move to Microsoft 365 covered everyday staff tools such as email, calendars and document sharing, while the systems used to assess and collect taxes were to remain in the authority’s own data centre in Apeldoorn. The reversal therefore will really only change how employees communicate and work together, rather than where the core tax systems run.

By July 2026, the Dutch government had formally paused the programme while reconsidering an internally hosted alternative. Its latest letter says increased data-centre capacity has helped make that option possible.

What Went Wrong With The Plan?

By January 2026, the new Microsoft 365 setup had reached around 5,000 of the authority’s approximately 47,500 employees. However, an independent review by the Dutch Advisory Council on ICT Assessment, known as AcICT, found that it did not adequately meet the organisation’s needs.

The reviewers identified problems with how sensitive information was classified and protected, as well as gaps in the backups. For example, some encrypted attachments could not be restored without Microsoft 365, while the backup failed to preserve all Teams content and associated information about files and their use.

These weaknesses also raised some questions about how easily the authority could leave the service. The review found no workable exit plan, an incomplete picture of costs and responsibility divided between teams in ways that made the programme harder to manage. Its criticism therefore concerned how the authority had designed and managed this rollout, rather than suggesting that every organisation using Microsoft 365 faces the same problems.

Why Does Supplier Dependence Matter?

The practical concern is whether an organisation can continue working if access to a supplier’s service changes. For example, holding a separate copy of information offers limited protection if staff can’t restore it, open it or understand how it relates to other records.

For a tax authority handling confidential information, those questions concern both privacy and continuity. Greater control over servers may help reduce some dependencies, but it still requires reliable software, skilled staff and tested recovery arrangements.

The revised plan therefore considers different tools for different functions. Eerenberg’s letter says, translated from Dutch, that this follows advice “not to assume one solution from one supplier, but to examine alternatives for each functionality”.

What Will Be Difficult About Switching?

The authority intends to reuse existing licences where possible to limit additional investment. However, changing direction doesn’t actually remove the need to modernise, and the letter acknowledges that the revised approach affects both the replacement timetable and planned records-management improvements.

Some capabilities intended to help organise and retain information were included in the Microsoft 365 package but are unavailable on-premises. The authority says it’s still assessing how to replace them and has promised a further update.

That matters because storing documents is only part of managing them properly. Staff also need to find the correct version, apply retention rules and preserve records required for accountability.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the useful lesson from all this is to examine what each service must deliver before choosing where it runs. Email, customer records and collaborative documents may have different requirements. Decisions should account for sensitivity, availability, integration and support, rather than assuming either cloud or on-premises hosting is automatically the safer choice.

Exit planning should also involve practical tests. Businesses should establish what they can export, whether permissions and document history survive, and how quickly staff could resume work elsewhere. A backup that depends on continued access to the original service may provide less independence than expected. Suppliers should explain those limitations before contracts become difficult to leave.

Also, compare the full cost of each option, including migration, training, maintenance, security and records management. Open-source software can offer flexibility, but somebody still needs to support it and keep it secure. The Dutch decision shows why reviewing an earlier choice can be sensible, provided the replacement is assessed just as carefully and delivers the control, usability and continuity the organisation actually needs.

Tech Insight : Supreme Court Weighs Limits On Data Breach Claims

Posted on by Paul Stradling

The Supreme Court is considering whether compensation claims for data protection breaches must meet a minimum level of seriousness, in a case that could affect how businesses handle demands for damages as lawyers warn that AI is making complaints easier to produce.

What Is The Court Deciding?

The court heard arguments in Farley v Paymaster on 7–8 October, and its judgment is awaited. Its central question is whether a “threshold of seriousness” applies to damages claims under the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and the Data Protection Act 2018.

In practical terms, that means the judges must decide whether someone who suffers genuine but minor harm from a breach can receive compensation, or whether the harm must first reach a minimum level. This is different from deciding that every mistake involving personal information deserves a payout.

How Did The Case Begin?

The dispute concerns pension statements sent to outdated addresses in 2019 by Paymaster, which trades as Equiniti. The 432 respondents are current or former Sussex Police officers whose statements included dates of birth, National Insurance numbers, salary information and pension details.

Sussex Police had supplied updated addresses, but the statements actually went to previous ones. The officers then sought compensation for the emotional effects of fearing their information could be misused, with some also even alleging psychiatric injury.

The High Court initially dismissed most claims because the individuals couldn’t show that their statements had been opened and read. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in August 2025, finding that proof of disclosure was not essential to a data protection claim.

Why Does The Distinction Matter?

Data protection law covers how information is collected, organised, stored and used, so a failure can occur before somebody else reads it. However, establishing that an organisation handled information incorrectly is separate from showing that the mistake caused harm for which compensation is available.

The Court of Appeal found that no minimum seriousness threshold applied, but it didn’t award compensation to everyone. For example, claims still required individual assessment, including whether fears about possible misuse were objectively justified rather than speculative.

That distinction is really central to the appeal because Equiniti wants a threshold excluding trivial harm, while the opposing argument is that requiring proof of actual harm already provides a safeguard against unsupported demands.

What Are The Competing Arguments?

Equiniti’s argument is that minor annoyance shouldn’t lead to compensation, particularly where the cost of pursuing a claim is out of proportion to the harm involved. It also questions how much distress this incident actually caused, pointing out that the statements were sent to a limited number of households and that few officers took up its offer of fraud protection.

It seems the regulator agrees that an upset reaction does not automatically justify a payout, stating that “Not all emotional responses to an infringement of the GDPR will constitute recoverable non-material damage”. However, it argues that people who can show they suffered harm should not also have to prove that it reached a particular level of seriousness.

With that approach, courts would examine the evidence behind each claim and use existing procedures to keep the time and costs appropriate to its value. Equiniti’s objections would therefore be considered when assessing the claims, rather than treated as proof that the officers had no grounds to seek compensation.

The wider concern is that one failure could affect thousands of people while causing only modest harm to each. A minimum seriousness threshold could prevent those individuals from receiving compensation, even where the same mistake had consequences across a large group.

Where Does AI Fit In?

Although the case isn’t about AI, it comes at a time when lawyers are warning that businesses are spending more time dealing with AI-generated complaints. Letters containing incorrect legal references or irrelevant arguments can make it harder to identify what’s actually gone wrong and whether the person has a valid claim.

The regulator received 76,743 data protection complaints in 2025/26, up from 42,315 the previous year. It should be noted that these were actually complaints made directly to the regulator, not compensation claims brought in court, and there’s no breakdown showing exactly how many involved AI.

AI can also help people explain genuine concerns that they might otherwise struggle to put into words. Businesses therefore need to examine what happened and the evidence of harm, rather than dismissing a complaint simply because it appears to have been generated by a chatbot.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the starting point is to reduce avoidable errors through reliable address updates, clear responsibilities between organisations and their service providers, and checks before sensitive information is sent. This case shows how an ordinary administrative failure can generate years of litigation, even when the extent of any disclosure remains disputed.

When a complaint arrives, staff should preserve relevant records, establish what happened and separate the alleged breach from the harm being claimed. A long, apparently AI-generated letter still needs careful assessment, but its length does not establish its legal strength. Appropriate specialist advice can help businesses respond proportionately without dismissing genuine concerns or accepting unsupported demands.

The eventual judgment may change which compensation claims succeed, but it won’t remove the need to protect personal information. Businesses should follow the ruling while continuing to investigate incidents, support affected people and correct underlying weaknesses. Sound complaint handling depends on evidence and fair treatment, whatever technology someone uses to write their claim.

Tech News : Microsoft Cuts Shared OneDrive Storage By Up To 4TB

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Microsoft is replacing individual OneDrive allowances on its Family and Premium subscriptions with a shared 2TB pool, cutting the maximum combined storage by 4TB and leaving some households facing extra costs or decisions about where to keep their files.

What Is Changing?

Previously, Microsoft 365 Family and Premium allowed up to six people to receive 1TB each, giving a fully shared subscription 6TB in total. Under the new arrangement, everyone draws from the same 2TB allowance.

Microsoft 365 Pro provides a shared 5TB pool, while Basic and Personal retain their individual allowances of 100GB and 1TB respectively. Additional storage purchased by subscription members is added to the shared pool.

The biggest reduction therefore affects Family and Premium subscriptions with six members making full use of their allowances. Their combined included capacity falls by two-thirds, although the practical impact depends on how much they actually store.

Why Does Microsoft Call This More Flexible?

Microsoft’s explanation is that separate allowances can leave storage unused while another member runs out of space. Its support page states, “Shared storage helps ensure that one person doesn’t run out of space while other members have unused storage available.”

That addresses a limitation of the previous arrangement. For example, someone with 1.2TB of photos and documents couldn’t simply borrow unused capacity from another member’s allocation. However, a shared pool allows that person to exceed 1TB, provided enough space remains.

That said, pooling storage and reducing its total are actually separate decisions. Six people storing 500GB each would previously have been comfortably within their individual limits, but their combined 3TB would exceed the new allowance by 1TB.

For lighter users, the flexibility may be useful. For households with several large photo libraries or document collections, it means less room to grow without paying more.

When Will Subscribers Be Affected?

The shared model applies to new and upgraded subscriptions from 8 October 2026. Existing Family and Premium subscribers generally move across when their subscriptions first renew on or after 2 May 2027, with Microsoft promising advance notification.

The renewal date matters because the change does not take effect for every existing customer on 2 May. An eligible subscription renewing later would normally move at that later renewal.

Upgrading can bring the change forward. For example, Microsoft says moving from Family to Premium before May 2027 triggers the shared model, whereas a downgrade alone does not trigger an early transition. Customers considering a plan change should therefore check its storage consequences before proceeding.

Will Shared Storage Expose Private Files?

It should be noted here that sharing the allowance doesn’t give other members access to someone’s documents or photographs. As Microsoft says, “While storage quotas are shared, files remain private.”

Each person retains their own account and can access only their own files unless someone explicitly shares content. The change concerns available capacity, rather than creating a communal folder.

However, members’ storage habits become more closely connected. One person uploading a large video collection could leave less space for everyone else, making occasional checks of combined usage more important.

What Happens If The New Limit Is Exceeded?

Microsoft says affected customers will receive notifications and can free space, purchase additional capacity or change their subscription. Storage can be expanded to a total of 10TB.

Its transition guidance says customers exceeding the limit can continue accessing their files for up to one year while managing their storage. That shouldn’t be interpreted as a promise that uploading, editing and synchronisation will continue without restrictions throughout that period.

Some existing Family and Premium customers may also receive transitional bonus storage in eligible markets. However, the support page does not specify how much they will receive or provide complete eligibility details, so customers should rely on their own notification rather than assume additional capacity is guaranteed.

Anyone planning to leave should arrange alternative storage before their subscription expires. Microsoft’s cancellation guidance says the standard free cloud allowance is 5GB, meaning cancellation could create a much larger shortfall than the announced reduction.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This announcement concerns the named consumer subscriptions, rather than an equivalent reduction across Microsoft 365 business plans. Microsoft’s UK business pricing still lists 1TB of cloud storage per user. However, sole traders and small organisations should check which subscriptions actually hold their working files, particularly where personal accounts have become part of everyday operations.

The immediate task is to establish current usage, renewal dates and likely future requirements. Comparing alternatives should include the cost of moving files, maintaining access and supporting users, as well as the advertised storage price. Before deleting anything to reduce usage, customers should confirm that important files have complete, accessible copies elsewhere and understand whether deletion will also remove synchronised copies.

The key point here is that a cloud subscription’s value can change after customers have built their routines around it. Keeping clear records of where information is stored and maintaining a practical way to move it makes future changes easier to manage. Shared storage may suit some users, but decisions should reflect the capacity and access they need, rather than the flexibility promised in the announcement.

Tech News : Google Gives AI Agents Their Own Work Email

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Microsoft is replacing individual OneDrive allowances on its Family and Premium subscriptions with a shared 2TB pool, cutting the maximum combined storage by 4TB and leaving some households facing extra costs or decisions about where to keep their files.

What Is Changing?

Previously, Microsoft 365 Family and Premium allowed up to six people to receive 1TB each, giving a fully shared subscription 6TB in total. Under the new arrangement, everyone draws from the same 2TB allowance.

Microsoft 365 Pro provides a shared 5TB pool, while Basic and Personal retain their individual allowances of 100GB and 1TB respectively. Additional storage purchased by subscription members is added to the shared pool.

The biggest reduction therefore affects Family and Premium subscriptions with six members making full use of their allowances. Their combined included capacity falls by two-thirds, although the practical impact depends on how much they actually store.

Why Does Microsoft Call This More Flexible?

Microsoft’s explanation is that separate allowances can leave storage unused while another member runs out of space. Its support page states, “Shared storage helps ensure that one person doesn’t run out of space while other members have unused storage available.”

That addresses a limitation of the previous arrangement. For example, someone with 1.2TB of photos and documents couldn’t simply borrow unused capacity from another member’s allocation. However, a shared pool allows that person to exceed 1TB, provided enough space remains.

That said, pooling storage and reducing its total are actually separate decisions. Six people storing 500GB each would previously have been comfortably within their individual limits, but their combined 3TB would exceed the new allowance by 1TB.

For lighter users, the flexibility may be useful. For households with several large photo libraries or document collections, it means less room to grow without paying more.

When Will Subscribers Be Affected?

The shared model applies to new and upgraded subscriptions from 8 October 2026. Existing Family and Premium subscribers generally move across when their subscriptions first renew on or after 2 May 2027, with Microsoft promising advance notification.

The renewal date matters because the change does not take effect for every existing customer on 2 May. An eligible subscription renewing later would normally move at that later renewal.

Upgrading can bring the change forward. For example, Microsoft says moving from Family to Premium before May 2027 triggers the shared model, whereas a downgrade alone does not trigger an early transition. Customers considering a plan change should therefore check its storage consequences before proceeding.

Will Shared Storage Expose Private Files?

It should be noted here that sharing the allowance doesn’t give other members access to someone’s documents or photographs. As Microsoft says, “While storage quotas are shared, files remain private.”

Each person retains their own account and can access only their own files unless someone explicitly shares content. The change concerns available capacity, rather than creating a communal folder.

However, members’ storage habits become more closely connected. One person uploading a large video collection could leave less space for everyone else, making occasional checks of combined usage more important.

What Happens If The New Limit Is Exceeded?

Microsoft says affected customers will receive notifications and can free space, purchase additional capacity or change their subscription. Storage can be expanded to a total of 10TB.

Its transition guidance says customers exceeding the limit can continue accessing their files for up to one year while managing their storage. That shouldn’t be interpreted as a promise that uploading, editing and synchronisation will continue without restrictions throughout that period.

Some existing Family and Premium customers may also receive transitional bonus storage in eligible markets. However, the support page does not specify how much they will receive or provide complete eligibility details, so customers should rely on their own notification rather than assume additional capacity is guaranteed.

Anyone planning to leave should arrange alternative storage before their subscription expires. Microsoft’s cancellation guidance says the standard free cloud allowance is 5GB, meaning cancellation could create a much larger shortfall than the announced reduction.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This announcement concerns the named consumer subscriptions, rather than an equivalent reduction across Microsoft 365 business plans. Microsoft’s UK business pricing still lists 1TB of cloud storage per user. However, sole traders and small organisations should check which subscriptions actually hold their working files, particularly where personal accounts have become part of everyday operations.

The immediate task is to establish current usage, renewal dates and likely future requirements. Comparing alternatives should include the cost of moving files, maintaining access and supporting users, as well as the advertised storage price. Before deleting anything to reduce usage, customers should confirm that important files have complete, accessible copies elsewhere and understand whether deletion will also remove synchronised copies.

The key point here is that a cloud subscription’s value can change after customers have built their routines around it. Keeping clear records of where information is stored and maintaining a practical way to move it makes future changes easier to manage. Shared storage may suit some users, but decisions should reflect the capacity and access they need, rather than the flexibility promised in the announcement.

Company Check : Developer Uses AI To Build Free Adobe Alternatives

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Atlanta-based developer Brandon Thomas says he has used AI to build free alternatives to seven Adobe applications, turning frustration with subscription cancellation fees into a project that could widen access to creative software, although the tools remain far from proven professional replacements.

What Has He Built?

The applications cover photo editing, video production, illustration, page design and PDF work. Released through Thomas’s Artcraft company, they include Photocraft, Filmcraft and Vectorcraft, which aim to offer alternatives to Photoshop, Premiere and Illustrator.

Lightcraft, Effectcraft, Designcraft and Printcraft target Lightroom, After Effects, InDesign and Acrobat Pro respectively. Thomas says he used Anthropic’s Claude Opus 5.5 to help develop them in Rust, a programming language used to build native applications.

As well as being free to use, the applications are open source, meaning anyone can inspect their code, make changes or contribute improvements. This gives users with the necessary technical skills more freedom to adapt the software to their needs, although most businesses would still rely on developers to maintain it and fix problems.

Why Take On Adobe?

Thomas presents the project as a response to the restrictions and costs of subscription software. For example, in his Reddit announcement, he writes, “No more subscriptions with cancellation fees. These are yours to own forever.”

That frustration has a wider backdrop. Back in June 2024, the US government actually sued Adobe over allegations that it concealed early termination charges and made subscriptions unnecessarily difficult to cancel.

Adobe announced a settlement in March 2026 involving US$75 million in payments and US$75 million in free services for qualifying customers. The proposed order also required clearer disclosure of cancellation fees and simpler cancellation arrangements. Adobe disputed the allegations and denied wrongdoing.

The dispute helps explain the appetite for these alternatives, particularly among occasional users who may struggle to justify recurring payments. Whether they can switch comfortably will depend on the work they need to complete and how reliably the new applications handle it.

How Much Has AI Changed Development?

Thomas argues that AI assistance allows an experienced developer to attempt work that would previously have required substantially more resources. He describes himself as a software industry veteran with 15 years’ experience, including about a decade working with Rust.

He also rejects the suggestion that the applications will be abandoned after attracting attention, stating, “We have a team building popular software for filmmakers, so supporting this is fully funded.”

Although Thomas says the project is fully funded, its long-term costs will depend on how much work is needed to make the applications reliable and keep them running. AI may speed up coding, but developers still need to test the software with different files and computers, fix problems and make sure it can handle the work users depend on it for.

Are The Applications Ready?

Despite Thomas’s ambitions, the project’s own documentation acknowledges that Photocraft isn’t yet ready to replace Photoshop in everyday professional work. It’s currently in early alpha, an initial stage of development, with missing tools and limitations in text editing, professional tasks and support for plug-ins, which add extra features to an application.

Even where familiar menu options are available, they may not work as users expect. For example, a designer could recognise the layout but still struggle to open a client’s file, make the required changes or export the finished work correctly. Recreating the appearance of an established application is only part of making it a useful replacement.

It seems some people commenting beneath Thomas’s announcement on Reddit have also reported crashes and problems handling video files. Those reports don’t establish how every user will find the software, but they seem to suggest businesses should test it with copies of their own files before relying on it for customer work.

Who Will Keep Them Running?

Thomas says Artcraft’s separate business selling access to AI image and video models will help cover development costs. The creative applications themselves are offered without subscription charges, while users are encouraged to report bugs and contribute fixes.

Community contributions could improve the tools, but someone still needs to review changes, maintain releases and resolve problems. The ability to copy and develop the source independently reduces dependence on one supplier, although it does not guarantee that another team will take over if support ends.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses interested in reducing software costs, the sensible starting point is perhaps a limited trial using copies of representative files. Staff should check whether documents open correctly, edits survive saving and exports meet customers’ requirements. A free application offers little saving if employees spend longer repairing files or repeating work.

The comparison should also include training, support and collaboration. An alternative may suit occasional image editing while remaining unsuitable for a team exchanging complex projects with external agencies. Keeping existing tools available during testing allows businesses to identify useful opportunities without putting deadlines or original work at risk.

The broader significance is that AI may make it easier to build competing software and challenge established subscription models. However, the work that earns customers’ confidence continues after the first release. Businesses should judge these applications by reliable results, compatibility and sustained support, rather than assuming that rapid development means the difficult parts of software are already solved.

Featured Article : 44,000 Challenge NHS Use Of Their Health Records

Posted on by Paul Stradling

More than 44,000 people have filed legal objections asking NHS England to stop its Federated Data Platform handling their health records, turning concerns about supplier Palantir into a test of patient rights, public trust and accountability.

What Are Patients Objecting To?

The objections, coordinated by not-for-profit campaign organisation 38 Degrees, ask NHS England to stop sharing, storing or using the individuals’ personal information through the platform. Participants have also requested restrictions on processing while their objections are considered.

Their concerns centre on Palantir, the US data software company (co-founded by Peter Thiel) leading the consortium supplying the system. Campaigners oppose its involvement because of its work with the Israeli military and US immigration enforcement, arguing that those relationships undermine confidence in the handling of confidential NHS information.

These objections reflect concerns about the NHS’s choice of supplier and whether patients can trust it with their information, but don’t show that their records have been shared with those organisations.

What Does The Platform Do?

The Federated Data Platform, or FDP, brings together information held in separate NHS systems so staff can coordinate work such as scheduling operations, managing waiting lists and arranging hospital discharges.

For example, knowing that a patient is ready to leave hospital is more useful when staff can also see whether the necessary follow-up arrangements are in place. Connecting that information could reduce delays without requiring teams to repeatedly telephone colleagues or reconcile separate spreadsheets.

The platform has national and local versions, with participating NHS organisations responsible for the data they process. NHS England says suppliers act under NHS instructions and cannot use the information for their own purposes, including developing their own AI models. Its published contract explanation also requires data to be stored, processed and accessed within the UK.

Can Patients Have Their Data Removed?

The campaign to stop the Federated Data Platform from handling UK health records relies on Article 21 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, which allows people to object to certain uses of their personal information, including processing based on public tasks or legitimate interests.

However, this isn’t an unconditional right to withdraw information from any system. To do so, individuals need to explain reasons relating to their particular circumstances, and an organisation can even continue processing if it demonstrates compelling legitimate grounds overriding their interests, rights and freedoms.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) says organisations must normally respond within one calendar month and explain any refusal, including how the individual can complain. A related right allows people to request restrictions while the organisation considers whether its grounds override their objection.

Submitting an objection means the NHS must consider the request, but it doesn’t mean the person’s data has already been excluded from the platform.

What Does The Campaign Expect?

38 Degrees acknowledges that the action may not secure the result participants request, stating in its published guidance, “We actually think it’s more likely that they will reject it!”

The organisation also says that even rejected requests would help show the strength of opposition to Palantir’s involvement. However, its campaign only targets NHS England’s national version of the platform, so even if a request is accepted, local NHS organisations could still use the person’s information in their own versions.

Patients who also want to limit the use of their confidential health information for purposes beyond their own care, such as research and planning, would need to consider the separate National Data Opt-Out. Taking part in the campaign doesn’t register that choice.

Why Is The Timing Important?

The objections add pressure ahead of a 2027 break point in the contract, awarded in November 2023 with provision for up to £330 million of investment over seven years. Two parliamentary committees have urged the government to seek an alternative.

The dispute also concerns whether the platform delivers enough value to justify its cost. Although participating NHS trusts have reported improvements, NHS England acknowledges that its figures don’t show how much was due to the platform and how much may have resulted from other changes.

That leaves ministers assessing performance and transition costs as well as public confidence, with benefits needing stronger support than an improvement observed after software was introduced.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses handling sensitive information, the story shows why choosing a technology supplier involves more than checking security features and contractual terms. Customers may also question the supplier’s wider activities and whether they feel comfortable with its involvement. Explaining who controls information, who can access it and what uses are prohibited should form part of introducing a service, rather than becoming an urgent exercise after objections arrive.

Organisations also need a workable process for recognising and responding to data protection requests. Staff should know where to direct an objection, while those responsible need enough information about their systems and suppliers to assess it properly. Promising privacy rights means little if the business cannot identify where someone’s data is held or implement an appropriate restriction.

The wider lesson here is that legal compliance and public confidence need continuing attention. A system may offer useful operational improvements while still facing reasonable questions about evidence, oversight and supplier choice. Businesses will be better placed if they can demonstrate benefits, explain decisions clearly and retain credible alternatives when a technology relationship no longer meets their needs.

Tech Insight : Bank Of England Warns Of AI Debt Risks

Posted on by Paul Stradling

As the Bank of England warns that growing borrowing is increasing the financial risks surrounding AI, here we look at how the technology’s expansion is being funded, why expected returns could disappoint and what businesses should consider before becoming dependent on its providers.

What Has The Bank Warned About?

The Bank’s Financial Policy Committee, which monitors threats to financial stability, discussed AI financing at its meeting on 25 September. Its published record warns that increasing borrowing and complicated financial relationships could spread losses if the technology delivers less than investors expect.

The concern extends beyond falling technology shares. For example, lenders and other investors are increasingly helping finance the infrastructure behind AI, giving them a stake in whether anticipated demand becomes profitable business. The committee warns that these arrangements could amplify losses if expectations are not met.

Why Does Borrowing Change The Risk?

Building AI services requires substantial spending before the resulting income is certain. For example, data centres need buildings, electricity supplies, cooling and computing equipment, while developers must fund research and the ongoing cost of answering customers’ requests.

When investors buy shares, they accept that their returns depend on the company’s performance. Borrowing creates repayment obligations that remain even if sales grow slowly, customers negotiate lower prices or equipment becomes outdated sooner than expected.

A company can therefore develop useful technology while struggling financially. Strong demand doesn’t automatically produce sufficient profit, particularly when serving more customers also increases operating costs and competition limits what the supplier can charge.

How Large Is The Financing?

The scale of the borrowing is already pretty substantial, with the Bank citing Morgan Stanley’s estimate that AI-related businesses worldwide had raised around US$450 billion through debt by early September, more than double the total for 2025. That borrowing could grow considerably, with JPMorgan forecasting that debt will fund approximately US$4.1 trillion of investment in AI infrastructure and equipment between 2026 and 2030.

It should be noted here, though, that both figures cover the wider AI sector, rather than a single company, and the longer-term estimate depends on how investment develops over the next few years.

What Are Circular Financing Arrangements?

The financial picture becomes a bit more complicated when a company invests in an AI developer that then uses the money to buy cloud services or computing equipment from that same investor. These arrangements aren’t necessarily improper, but they can make it harder to tell how much of the reported growth reflects demand from independent customers and how much relies on investment flowing back to the companies providing it.

For example, an infrastructure supplier may benefit from a developer’s spending while also depending on that developer becoming successful enough to keep paying. If funding dries up, both sides could face pressure, with consequences for other companies relying on them.

What Does Anthropic’s Reported Spending Show?

Details reported from Anthropic’s IPO prospectus illustrate how rapidly an AI company’s costs can grow even as sales increase. The document sets out its plans for an initial public offering, through which it would sell shares to public investors.

The reported figures show that Anthropic generated nearly US$4.6 billion in revenue in 2025 but recorded an operating loss exceeding US$8 billion. Its overall net loss was much larger at around US$42 billion, although roughly US$34 billion of that came from accounting charges linked to financing arrangements, rather than money spent running the business.

The prospectus also reportedly sets out US$518 billion in future cloud and infrastructure commitments, showing the scale of spending planned over the coming years rather than a bill due in a single year.

Could Competition Make Repayment Harder?

As competing AI models improve, customers may be able to get the results they need at lower prices, putting pressure on the profits providers are relying on to recover their investment. That competition includes open-weight models, which make the settings learned during training available for others to use or adapt, allowing businesses to run them themselves or choose a company to host them.

However, running these models still involves costs for hardware, technical support and security, so a cheaper alternative is not automatically cheaper overall. Businesses need to compare the full cost of getting a task done reliably, including connecting the model to existing systems, supervising its work and correcting mistakes, before deciding whether a lower price represents a worthwhile saving.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses buying AI services, the warning highlights how supplier resilience should be part of the purchasing decision. A convincing demonstration should be followed by questions about service continuity, pricing commitments and what happens if the provider changes ownership or withdraws a product. Where an intermediary supplies the service, businesses should also understand which underlying model and cloud providers it depends on.

Contracts and implementation choices should preserve a practical way to move elsewhere. Keeping accessible copies of business information, documenting integrations and testing alternatives can reduce disruption if prices rise or service quality falls. That doesn’t require avoiding newer suppliers, but the importance of the task should determine how much dependence is acceptable.

Businesses should really base their own AI spending on what the technology can do for them, using a limited trial to test whether improvements in speed and accuracy justify the cost of subscriptions, setup and staff time spent checking the work. Even if some AI investors lose money, customers could still benefit from useful services, provided the savings or improvements hold up in everyday use and do not depend on prices staying artificially low.

Tech News : Pentagon Plans New Command For Autonomous Warfare

Posted on by Paul Stradling

The US military plans to create a command dedicated to drones, robots and autonomous systems, aiming to get technology into service faster while raising questions about funding, reliability and responsibility when machines take on more military tasks.

AutoWarCom Announced

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans for Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom, during his State of the Force address at Marine Corps Base Quantico on 30 September. Led by a four-star officer, it would support all military branches and have powers similar to those of the armed services, giving it a direct role in developing autonomous technology and getting it into use.

The Pentagon aims to establish the command by 1 October 2027 and is working with Congress on the necessary arrangements. However, its leader has yet to be named and its detailed structure is still being decided, so it remains a planned command rather than an operational one.

Why Create A Separate Command?

The Pentagon wants to get drones and other autonomous systems into service faster, arguing that its existing purchasing and development processes struggle to keep pace with the technology. It’s thought that bringing this work under one command could help the military branches coordinate their efforts, supported by new specialist roles for personnel operating and maintaining the equipment.

However, the proposal is also possibly about influence over military spending. For example, a dedicated command could give autonomous systems stronger backing when competing for money with established aircraft, ships and other programmes. Seen this way, AutoWarCom may be an attempt to change the Pentagon’s priorities as much as its technology, although that will depend on how much authority and funding it actually receives.

It’s also worth noting here that there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in creating another headquarters while promising to reduce bureaucracy. Some critics have questioned whether the officers, civilian staff and management structures needed for AutoWarCom could add costs and complicate decisions rather than speed them up. The test will be whether it helps troops receive reliable equipment sooner, rather than giving existing programmes another chain of approval to navigate.

What Is Project Agincourt?

To begin that work before the command exists, the Pentagon is launching Project Agincourt through its existing office overseeing unmanned systems. It will continue current work while testing a different approach to acquiring equipment and preparing the command’s foundations.

The intention seems to be to bring military users and technology developers closer together, so experience from operations can influence improvements more quickly. Giving those using the equipment a stronger voice could help avoid purchasing systems that perform well in demonstrations but prove difficult to maintain or adapt.

However, speed will depend on whether responsibilities, funding and standards are clear. Creating another organisation will only help if it removes delays rather than adding another approval stage.

How Does Project Meridian Fit In?

While AutoWarCom is intended to get autonomous systems into military use faster, Project Meridian will examine what equipment and technologies future conflicts might require. The Pentagon has commissioned MITRE, a not-for-profit research organisation, to lead the study, drawing on expertise from technology, business and national security.

Its remit reaches beyond drones to AI, robotics, biotechnology and directed energy, which includes technologies such as lasers. The commissioning memorandum calls for researchers to identify “critical capability gaps” and propose “actionable solutions”, with recommendations due by 28 January 2027.

That could help the Pentagon look beyond the equipment it already buys, but forecasting future warfare inevitably involves some uncertainty. The value of the study will depend on whether it explains which ideas deserve testing, what they could realistically achieve and where the risks lie, rather than simply producing a list of ambitious technologies.

Meridian’s recommendations could therefore influence future investment, while Project Agincourt tackles the more immediate work of preparing the new command. Keeping those roles clear matters, because identifying a promising technology does not establish that it is reliable, affordable or ready for military use.

What About Funding And Human Control?

The scale of the Pentagon’s ambition is reflected in its request for approximately US$54.6 billion for the existing Defense Autonomous Warfare Group in fiscal year 2027, compared with around US$226 million for 2026. However, that request still depends on Congress and should not be confused with an approved budget for AutoWarCom.

Even if the funding is secured, deploying more autonomous equipment will require clear decisions about what each system can do and when people must intervene. A machine might navigate or carry out surveillance without constant instructions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can independently select and attack targets.

The Pentagon’s published weapons policy requires systems to allow “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force”, supported by testing and operator training. Putting that into practice means checking how equipment behaves when conditions change or an enemy interferes with it, so the push to deploy systems faster must still leave time to establish whether they can be used reliably and responsibly.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For technology suppliers, the plans suggest potential demand extending beyond drones to communications, sensors, software, maintenance and cybersecurity. However, businesses should distinguish announced ambitions from funded contracts before committing resources. Understanding purchasing routes, security requirements and how products connect with existing systems will matter more than assuming a large headline budget guarantees orders.

For organisations introducing civilian robotics or autonomous software, the practical lesson is that equipment needs people and processes around it. A trial should establish who authorises actions, who monitors performance and what happens when communications fail or results become unreliable. Staff also need time and training to recognise when the technology has reached its limits.

The wider significance is that autonomy is becoming an organisational commitment rather than an isolated experiment. Its value will depend on whether systems can be supported, updated and controlled throughout their working lives, making clear responsibility and evidence from realistic testing as important as the capabilities demonstrated at launch.

Tech News : Met Police Faces Questions Over Data Training Failures

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Most Metropolitan Police personnel had not completed mandatory data protection training, according to figures discussed at the London Assembly, raising questions about how the force protects sensitive information after breaches exposed victims’ identities and contact details.

What Has Been Revealed?

At the Assembly’s Police and Crime Committee on 23 September, Kenny Bowie, director of strategy and MPS oversight at the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, faced questions about training compliance.

Although coverage has highlighted a worryingly low completion rate of 30 per cent, his reported account put the earlier figure at around 30–40 per cent. That indicates a substantial shortfall, but should not be presented as a precise, current measurement of every officer’s training status.

Bowie acknowledged that completion needed to improve, pointing to responsibilities for individuals and supervisors, supported by technical safeguards. However, he didn’t give a firm timetable for achieving substantial compliance, leaving questions about how quickly the gap would close.

Why Does The Training Gap Matter?

The discussion follows enforcement action announced on 5 August by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK’s data protection regulator. Its investigation identified weaknesses in training, monitoring and management following two disclosures involving highly sensitive police cases.

These findings make the completion figures more than an administrative concern. For example, officers handle information that could expose someone to intimidation, unwanted contact or harm if shared incorrectly, making safe handling part of protecting the people who approach the police for help.

As the ICO’s Jo Stones said, “These incidents were foreseeable and preventable.” The regulator found wider organisational weaknesses rather than treating the disclosures as unrelated mistakes.

A Stalking Victim’s Details Exposed

In one case, an officer sent documents supporting a Stalking Protection Order application to the defendant without removing confidential information. They included the victim’s new address and telephone number, together with names and contact details belonging to three witnesses.

The victim had changed her contact details because of the risks she faced, but the defendant subsequently contacted her using the new number and said the information had come from police documents.

The ICO found that relevant officers had not received the required specialist training and that arrangements for preparing and checking the documents were inadequate. The failure therefore involved both what staff knew and whether the process could catch an error before information left the organisation.

When An Email Reveals More Than Its Contents

The second case involved an email sent to 18 people linked to Parliament who had been targeted through WhatsApp messages in a suspected attempt to gather compromising information. While updating them about a suspect’s bail date, an officer placed their addresses in the “To” field, exposing their names and email addresses to everyone receiving the message.

Although the email didn’t explicitly disclose sensitive details about each person, identifying them as part of the investigation could reveal information about their circumstances. The ICO therefore concluded that the force should have contacted them using a more appropriate method rather than sending one bulk email.

Its investigation also found that the officer hadn’t completed data protection training for more than four years, while the line manager had gone almost four years without relevant training, highlighting failures in both staff preparation and supervision.

What Has The Met Changed?

In response to the breaches, the Met notified those affected and offered further support to the stalking victim. It also provided additional specialist training and strengthened checks on Stalking Protection Order applications to help prevent confidential details being disclosed again.

Following the email incident, the force reminded personnel to complete mandatory training and introduced a tool that warns staff when they are emailing multiple external recipients. However, the ICO found that training completion remained low and that some wider safeguards had either not been fully introduced or had yet to be shown to work effectively.

The regulator therefore required further improvements to training, monitoring and oversight, with deadlines of three and 12 months for different measures. As Stones explained, “Policies and reminders are not enough if they are not followed, checked and enforced.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For businesses, the immediate lesson here is to check whether mandatory training is actually being completed, including by managers. Someone should be responsible for following up overdue courses, making time available and checking that employees understand how the guidance applies to their work. A completion certificate has limited value if staff remain unsure how to redact a document or contact several customers without revealing their identities.

The incidents also show why training needs practical support. Sensitive documents should have appropriate checks before release, while confidential group communications may require individual messages or a secure service. Email warnings can help catch mistakes, but businesses should test whether staff understand and respond to them rather than assuming that installing a tool resolves the risk.

Also, reviews after a breach should examine the conditions that allowed it to happen. Workload, unclear instructions, weak supervision and unsuitable software can all undermine careful handling, even where an employee made the final mistake. Treating information protection as a management responsibility gives businesses a better chance of preventing repeat incidents and preserving the confidence of customers who trust them with personal details.

Company Check : McDonald’s Faces Questions Over AI Pricing

Posted on by Paul Stradling

McDonald’s is facing scrutiny over its reported use of AI to recommend menu prices, raising questions about how algorithms influence what customers pay even as the company denies using personalised prices or changing charges throughout the day.

What’s Been Reported?

There have been recent allegations of McDonald’s using a pricing system that analyses transactions and local market information to recommend prices at individual restaurants. The reporting has focused on the US and some international markets, rather than establishing that the same arrangements apply throughout the UK.

The system reportedly considers how customers in an area respond to prices and includes publicly available competitor pricing. It’s also been reported that some franchisees, the independent operators running restaurants under the McDonald’s brand, say they feel pressure to follow its recommendations, although the company maintains that pricing decisions remain theirs.

What Does McDonald’s Say?

In a statement published on 1 October, McDonald’s rejected claims that (AI) software automatically determines what customers are charged, saying, “The tool provides information. People make the final pricing decisions.”

Its explanation describes recommendations based on conditions affecting particular restaurants, including geography, local costs, competition and demand. The company says operators decide whether to use those suggestions and are not required to accept them.

McDonald’s says restaurant operators make the final decision, but some franchisees reportedly feel under pressure to follow the suggested prices, raising questions about how much freedom they have to reject recommendations they believe are wrong for their customers or business.

Is This Really Dynamic Pricing?

Describing McDonald’s approach as ‘dynamic pricing’ could suggest that the price of a meal rises when a restaurant gets busy, much as fares can increase on ride-hailing apps during periods of high demand. That’s actually known as surge pricing, while personalised pricing is different, i.e., using information about an individual customer to decide what they are charged.

However, McDonald’s says it does neither, explaining that its tool “does not change prices in real-time or at different hours during the day” and does not recommend prices for individual customers. Instead, it says the recommendations reflect conditions at each restaurant, where rent, wages and competition can vary even between nearby branches.

A price difference between two restaurants therefore doesn’t establish that either is using surge or personalised pricing. The question raised by the reporting is how much influence AI recommendations have on those local prices and whether operators feel able to choose a different price when they believe it would better suit their customers.

Why Use AI To Recommend Prices?

For a large restaurant network, pricing involves many decisions across products, locations and changing costs. Analysing sales patterns can help operators estimate whether an increase would reduce purchases or whether a discount might attract enough extra customers to be worthwhile.

Used well, that could help a restaurant preserve affordable options while covering higher operating costs. There’s no reason a recommendation must always involve an increase, because lowering a price can sometimes generate more business.

However, the result depends on what the system is asked to achieve. Increasing revenue, improving profit and encouraging repeat visits are related goals, but a price that helps one may undermine another.

What Can Sales Figures Miss?

A completed purchase shows that someone accepted a price on that occasion, but it doesn’t really establish that they considered it good value or that they intend to return. In fact, someone buying food during a rushed journey may pay more than they would when choosing where to eat near home.

That creates a potential weakness if recommendations focus too heavily on existing transactions. Customers who have stopped visiting are no longer generating purchases, even though understanding why they left could be essential to maintaining the business.

Operators therefore really need to assess prices against repeat visits, customer feedback and profit after costs, rather than treating an immediate increase in takings as proof that a decision worked.

Who Has The Final Say?

The reports (allegations) of pressure on franchisees raise questions about how freely they can set prices, although McDonald’s says it assesses the overall customer experience rather than price alone and states, “Franchisees are not required to accept a pricing recommendation.”

For that freedom to actually work in practice, operators need to understand why a price has been suggested and be able to reject it based on their knowledge of local customers and costs. The same applies to any business using automated advice, where human approval only provides useful oversight if the person involved can question the recommendation and act on their own judgement.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Businesses considering pricing software should first define the result they want, whether that is sustainable profit, more repeat customers or better use of spare capacity. A limited trial should measure those outcomes over time, including whether an apparent improvement simply reflects customers buying sooner or switching to cheaper products.

Suppliers should explain which information feeds their recommendations and how uncertainty is handled. Managers also need clear authority to reject or reverse changes, with records showing why decisions were made. Where software uses information from other businesses, its sources and permitted uses deserve scrutiny before recommendations become routine.

The key point here is really that customers judge the price they encounter, not the sophistication of the system behind it. AI can support better decisions, but businesses should remain able to explain their approach and recognise when a short-term gain risks weakening the trust that brings customers back.