Category: All

Posted on by

Met Police challenged on claim LFR supported by ‘majority of Lewisham residents’

The Metropolitan Police has claimed its live facial-recognition (LFR) deployments in Lewisham are supported by the majority of residents and local councillors, but a community impact assessment (CIA) obtained by Computer Weekly shows there has been minimal direct consultation with residents, while elected officials continue to express concern.

In August 2024, Lewisham councillors complained there had been no engagement with the local community ahead of the controversial technology being deployed in the area, with the Met announcing the tech would be used in Tweet just a month after being urged by councillors to improve its community engagement around LFR.

Responding to Computer Weekly’s questions about the concerns raised by Lewisham councillors, a Met Police spokesperson said at the time that its LFR deployments “have been very much supported by the majority of Lewisham residents, business owners and political representatives – namely Lewisham councillors”.

The spokesperson added that over the previous six months, the force had delivered “more than six briefings at a mixture of public forums, private council and independent advisory group sessions” to explain what its LFR deployments entail and to answer all enquiries posed by committee members.

However, according to the CIA obtained under freedom of information (FoI) rules by Computer Weekly, the only mention of “residents” in the entire document is when detailing the press response given to Computer Weekly.

Despite the Met claiming its LFR deployments are supported by the majority of residents, the CIA also explicitly notes “there is mixed opinion for the operation within the community”, adding that while there is nothing to suggest there would any form of “disorder/criminality in relation” to the deployment, “there is likely to be some opposition”.

In terms of actual engagement conducted by the Met, the CIA notes the force held seven meetings between March and August 2024, including five with various council bodies, and two sets of public discussions: one at the “New Met for London event held at the Albany in Deptford”, and another held in relation to the Met’s “London Race Action Plan”.

The council bodies engaged with included a select committee tasked with scrutinising LFR deployments, the Lewisham Independent Advisory Group (IAG) for LFR, and the Safer Neighbourhoods Board (SNB).

“Members of the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee urged improved communication with residents concerning LFR deployments, as well as a need to increase stakeholder engagement,” the committee told Computer Weekly in response to the CIA document.

Many councillors are on record (as evidenced in meeting minutes) calling for improved communication with residents and stakeholders, noting there has been minimal stakeholder engagement regarding LFR deployments thus far.

Expressing her own views on the matter, independent councillor and Safer Stronger select committee member Hau-Yu Tam – who previously stressed the need to give local people the ability to scrutinise the Met’s approach – told Computer Weekly she is personally only aware of one instance of consultation between the Met and Lewisham’s SNB, the boroughs independent forum for community engagement with the police.

The CIA document confirms there has been one formal meeting with the SNB recorded, which took place on 26 March 2024.

“Policing is touted as being legitimised by community consent, so they tick the box of community consultation, but it doesn’t take much digging to find that the consultation is extremely poor,” she said, adding that the effectiveness of the consultation is limited by the fact that “not a lot of people get consulted”, and the use of leading questions by the Met when they talk to people about the technology, which are designed to sell LFR to the public, rather than understand and act on the areas of concern.

People who would be hurt or harmed by LFR don’t have the means to access the consultation, nor are their views really allowed to be registered Hau-Yu Tam, Lewisham Council

“It’s similar to a lot of large public institutions, including Lewisham Council, in that consultation is undertaken poorly because communities are not engaged. Above all, budget cuts – including to communities – are being passed down, with the political and executive leadership failing to formulate alternatives or even to believe alternatives can be possible.

An example of the leading nature of the Met’s engagement process is shown by an email to an SNB member (not recorded in the CIA), which has been shared with Computer Weekly. In it, a Met police officer explains that local policing teams are proposing to run an LFR operation in the area, highlighting only the benefits of the technology.

“This is used to identify individuals who are sought by police in relation to ongoing investigations – with a focus on violence against women and girls. Previously, this has been extremely successful in other local boroughs – e.g. identifying an individual who was sought for a serious domestic violence incident and had been evading police by changing appearance,” they said.

“Facial-recognition technology is a very valuable tool to help to catch perpetrators of crime that impact individuals and communities. Is this something that you think is a good idea, and would support? We appreciate your comments.”

Tam said the email shows the Met framing LFR solely around the prevention of violence against women and girls in a way that would appeal to the recipient, because “obviously” they would express support in that context.

She added that the biggest issue is the lack of mechanisms in place for dealing with critical comments about LFR: “What people support is safer streets and improved equity and community cohesion. They don’t necessarily support live facial recognition, which they’re not given the full rundown of, or they’re given very misleading information about.”

She further added that while the Met does seek input from legitimate voices, the same sorts of voices are over-represented: “People who would be hurt or harmed by LFR don’t have the means to access the consultation, nor are their views really allowed to be registered.”

Tam said that while the Met may have formally engaged with the SNB on LFR issues, many members of that body have raised concerns around the use of LFR by police, adding: “There’s a lot of trepidation about this.”

Met responds

Computer Weekly contacted the Met about the CIA process and every aspect of the story.

“The Met is committed to making London safer, using data and technology to help identify offenders that pose a risk to our communities,” said Lindsey Chiswick, the force’s director of performance. “We continue to engage with and listen to views from a range of voices across Lewisham on our use of LFR technology, including local residents, councillors, local businesses and retailers.”

A spokesperson for the force added that the Met is committed to transparency and community engagement in its use of LFR technology, which they described as a key tool for enhancing public safety that also enables police to identify individuals wanted for serious offences while minimising disruption to the wider public.

“Officers have conducted extensive engagement with the Lewisham community, including local residents, councillors, businesses, and advisory groups,” they said. “These sessions provide an open platform for discussion, allowing us to explain how LFR works, the intelligence-led process behind deployments, and the safeguards in place to protect privacy and human rights. We also share data, such as the number of arrests, other outcomes and false-positive alerts, to ensure accountability and transparency.

“We understand the concerns raised by some community members and are committed to listening to all voices, including those critical of LFR. Engagement is intended to be inclusive, and we work with independent advisory groups [IAGs] and community leaders to reach those who may not always have access to formal consultation processes.

“Our focus is on ensuring the safety of London’s streets while maintaining open, honest dialogue about the use of LFR technology.”

Civil society reacts

Responding to the contents of the CIA, Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at human rights group Liberty, said: “Facial-recognition technology effectively enables the police to identify and track anyone they choose. But instead of reaching out to the residents of Lewisham on the impacts of this dangerous surveillance tech, the Met has redefined ‘community engagement’ as speaking to high-level officials. 

“The real community impact of facial recognition is that our privacy is undermined, our movement restricted, and our risk of being subjected to a false stop from a dodgy algorithm is increased as we just go about our lives. None of these were addressed within the assessment as the Met Police continue to push forward this unknown and unchecked technology.”

He added that the huge power LFR grants police is particularly concerning after years of high-profile scandals involving violent, racist and sexist police forces in the UK: “The government must urgently introduce safeguards to restrict the use of this invasive technology and for the police to recognise the true impact on the communities they are spying upon.” 

Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, added that it is hard to evaluate the efficacy of the Met’s community engagement in Lewisham because the CIA is so light on detail: “It doesn’t demonstrate very good engagement at all.”

Instead of reaching out to the residents of Lewisham … the Met has redefined ‘community engagement’ as speaking to high-level officials Charlie Whelton, Liberty

Echoing sentiments from Tam that the CIA is a box-ticking exercise, he further added that because there is so little genuine community engagement over LFR with people who live in Lewisham, the engagement process becomes a “rubber stamp” for the Met’s continued deployments.

“To be honest, do it properly or don’t bother,” he said, adding that the way the Met has characterised its engagement with councillors is also an issue. “We’re in conversation with councillors and a lot of them aren’t happy.”

According to a spokesperson for Lewisham Council, the local authority “will continue to carefully monitor its implementation in our borough and will continue to engage with the police and other local authorities where it’s being used”.

Hurfurt concluded that for there to be meaningful community engagement, the process needs to be done without “the Met’s thumb on the scale” by limiting its consultation to mostly high-level council meetings and officials.

“You have to properly consult people, giving them a chance to object, to raise concerns and listen to them, rather than tick a box… there’s a chance this undermines trust in the police if it’s not done properly,” he said, adding that while a number of local authorities have passed motions that express their opposition to the police deployment of LFR in their boroughs, “it’s been deployed anyway.”

In January 2023, for example, Newham Council unanimously passed a motion to suspend the use of LFR throughout the borough until biometric and anti-discrimination safeguards are in place.

While the motion highlighted the potential of LFR to “exacerbate racist outcomes in policing” – particularly in Newham, the most ethnically diverse of all local authorities in England and Wales – both the Met and the Home Office said that they would press forward with the deployments anyway.

“As part of the authorisation process and before any deployment, a specific community impact assessment is completed by the local BCU [Basic Command Unit],” said a Met police spokesperson at the time. “This assessment involves speaking to a wide number of local groups so that policing is informed of those views and can take those into consideration before any decision to deploy is made.”

The Met’s own LFR policy document states it “may be appropriate to pursue engagement opportunities with a number of stakeholders” prior to any deployments taking place.

Chiswick, speaking as the Met’s then-director of intelligence, has also previously told Lords that LFR is “a precision-based, community crime-fighting tool”, adding in a later session that because of a lack of support for police among specific community groups, there would need to be engagement with them prior to any LFR deployments to quell any fears people might have.

“You get told there’s all this engagement by the Met, but they’re just cracking on,” said Hurfurt.

On 13 November 2024, MPs held their first-ever debate on the police use of LFR technology, eight years after the Met first deployed the technology at Notting Hill Carnival in August 2016.

MPs – including members of both front benches – discussed a range of issues associated with the technology, including the impacts of LFR surveillance on privacy; problems around bias, accuracy and racial discrimination; the lack of a clear legal framework governing its use by police; and how its wider roll-out could further reduce people’s dwindling trust in police.

While there were differences of opinion about the efficacy of LFR as a crime-fighting tool, MPs largely agreed there are legitimate concerns around its use by police, with a consensus emerging on the need for proper regulation of the technology.

The majority of MPs involved in the debate openly lamented why there had been no debate about the use of the technology by police up until now.

Source

Posted on by

Galaxy Z Fold 7 will be just as thin as the Fold SE, insider claims

As soon as the Galaxy Z Fold Special Edition (SE) foldable came out a few weeks ago, I said that Samsung has no choice but to use the same ultra-thin design for the Galaxy Z Fold 7 next year. Any other option would be admitting that it can’t manufacture thin, foldable phones in large numbers or that it can’t keep up with Chinese foldable smartphone vendors.

The Galaxy Z Fold SE isn’t just thinner than any of its predecessors; it also features larger displays. The best part about the Galaxy Z Fold SE design is that Samsung managed to almost eliminate the crease. The phone is routinely sold out in Korea but is not widely available elsewhere. China is the only market that has a model of the Galaxy Z Fold SE.

Ross Young, a well-connected display analyst, said a few days ago that Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 7 will not look like the Galaxy Z Fold SE. But there will be a Galaxy Z Fold 7 SE from Samsung next year. A few days later, the same analyst corrected his previous stance. The Galaxy Z Fold 7 will inherit the Galaxy Z Fold SE design, and that’s amazing news.

Young is the CEO of Display Supply Chain Consultants (DSCC), which just released a report saying that Apple’s first foldable iPhone could hit stores in the second half of 2026. The handset will revitalize foldable phone sales, which are currently experiencing a slump.

Tech. Entertainment. Science. Your inbox.

Sign up for the most interesting tech & entertainment news out there.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.

The DSCC hinted that Samsung will use the Galaxy Z Fold SE design for next year’s Galaxy Z Fold 7, without naming the latter:

Samsung is expected to introduce a second clamshell model in 2025, more aggressively priced as well as a larger infolding model that resembles its recently introduced Z Fold 6 Special Edition.

However, Young clarified those comments on X after the report was released. He said the Galaxy Z Fold 7 will have the same display sizes as the “Fold 6 SE.” The Special Edition phone “will basically become the Fold 7.”

That’s what I was suspecting all along. Samsung has the design of a thinner Fold-type phone ready. All it needs is to update the Galaxy Z Fold 7 specs. I’d expect the 2025 Samsung foldables to feature the same Snapdragon 8 Elite chip as the Galaxy S25 series.

Young also addressed the Flip 7, saying the next-gen clamshell will feature larger displays. We’re looking at a 6.85-inch foldable panel and a 4-inch cover screen.

Also, as seen in the quote from the DSCC report, Samsung should launch a cheaper Galaxy Z Flip 7 next year, a phone Young mentioned a few days ago.

Source

Posted on by

Government agencies urged to use encrypted messaging after Chinese Salt Typhoon hack

US government agencies have been urged to use end-to-end encrypted messaging services, including WhatsApp, Signal and FaceTime, following disclosures that China has breached US telephone networks in a hacking operation that undermines US national security.

In a letter to the US Department of Defence (DOD), two prominent senators warned the DOD is placing security at risk through its continued use of unencrypted landlines, and unencrypted platforms such as Microsoft Teams.

The warning follows confirmation from the FBI and the US Cyber Security and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) that groups linked to the People’s Republic of China have compromised multiple telephone networks and had accessed private communications of a “limited number” of people in government and politics in a hacking operation dubbed Salt Typhoon.

Democratic senator Ron Wyden and republican Eric Schmitt criticised the defence department for failing to use its purchasing power to require wireless telephone service providers to provide cyber defences and accountability, in a letter on 4 December 2024.

“DOD’s failure to secure its unclassified voice, video and text communications with end-to-end encryption has left it vulnerable to foreign espionage,” they warned.

US Navy tests encrypted messaging

The senators disclosed previously classified details of a trial by the US Navy to test end-to-end encryption communications platform Matrix, an open-source, decentralised service widely used by Nato countries. The US Navy is testing Matrix to send encrypted messages from 23 ships and three on-shore sites.

“While we commend the DOD for piloting such secure, interoperable communications technology, its use remains the exception; insecure propriety tools within the DOD and the federal government generally,” the senators said.

“The widespread adoption of insecure, proprietary tools is the direct result of DOD leadership failing to require the use of default end-to-end encryption, a cyber security best practice, as well as a failure to prioritise communications security when evaluating different communications platforms.”

The Salt Typhoon attack, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, has targeted individuals including president-elect Donald Trump, vice-president-elect JD Vance and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, according to press reports. 

“This successful espionage campaign should finally serve as a wake-up call to the government’s communications security, despite repeated warnings from experts and Congress,” the senators wrote.

The FBI and CISA have recommended that people use encrypted messaging and voice services such as Signal and WhatsApp to reduce the risk of hackers intercepting text messages.

CISA executive assistant director for cyber security Jeff Greene told broadcaster NBC this week: “Encryption is your friend, whether it’s on text messaging or if you have the capacity to use encrypted voice communication. Even if the adversary is able to intercept the data, if it is encrypted, it will make it impossible.”

According to a blog by cyber security expert Bruce Schneier in October 2024, Chinese hackers appear to have accessed backdoors used by the US government to execute wire-tapping requests, which have been mandated by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 1994.

“For years, the security community has pushed back against these backdoors, pointing out that the technical capability cannot differentiate between good guys and bad guys,” he said. “And here is one more example of a backdoor access mechanism being targeted by the ‘wrong’ eavesdroppers.”

Matthew Hodgson, co-founder of Matrix.org, a non-profit foundation developing standards for end-to-end encryption, told Computer Weekly that the Salt Typhoon hack was an “unfortunate validation” of concerns raised about the impact of the UK’s Online Safety Act, which contains measures that could be used to weaken end-to-end encrypted communications services.

“It is morbidly amusing to see all of the intelligence agencies telling everybody that actually, end-to-end encryption is a good idea, and the backdoors are a bad idea, and everybody should hop on encrypted systems like Matrix or Signal rather than trust the phone network anymore,” he said.

Source

Posted on by

Podcast: Storage and AI training, inference, and agentic AI

In this podcast, we look at storage and artificial intelligence (AI) with Jason Hardy, chief technology officer for AI with Hitachi Vantara.

He talks about the performance demands on storage that AI processing brings, but also highlights the extreme context switching it can result in as enterprises are forced to pivot between training and inferencing workloads in AI.

Hardy also talks about a future that potentially includes agentic AI – AI that designs its own workflow and takes decisions for itself – that will likely result in an even greater increase in workload context switching.

Antony Adshead: What demands do AI workloads place on data storage?

Jason Hardy: It’s a two-dimensional problem. Obviously, there is that AI needs speed, speed, speed, speed and more speed. Having that level of processing, especially when talking about building LLMs and doing foundational model training, it [AI] needs extremely high performance capabilities.

That is still the case and will always be the case, especially as we start doing a lot of this stuff in volume, as we start to trend into inferencing, and RAG, and all of these other paradigms that are starting to be introduced to it. But, the other demand that I think is – I don’t want to say overlooked, but is under-emphasised – the data management side of it.

For example, how do I know what data I need to bring and introduce into my AI outcome without understanding what data I actually have? And one could say, that’s what the data lake is for, and really, the data lake’s just a big dumping ground in a lot of cases.

So, yes, we need extremely high performance, but also we need to know what data we have. I need to know what data is applicable for the use case I’m starting to target, and then how I can appropriately use it, even from a compliance requirement, or a regulatory requirement, or anything like that from those themes.

It’s really this two-headed dragon, almost, of needing to be extremely performant, but also to know exactly what data I have out there, and then having proper data management practices and tools and the like all wrapped around that.

And a lot of that burden, especially as we look at the unstructured data side, is very critical and embedded into some of these technologies like object storage, where you have these metadata functions and things like that, where it gives you a little bit more of that descriptive layer.

But when it comes to traditional NAS, that’s a lot more of a challenge, but also a lot more of where the data’s coming from. So, it’s, again, this double-sided thing of, “I need to be extremely fast, but I also need to have proper data management tools wrapped around it.”

Features for AI use cases

That leads me nicely to my next question, which is, what features do enterprise data storage arrays need for AI use cases?

Hardy: You’re absolutely right. One is leading into the other, where, just like we said, we need to be extremely performant, but what we also need to be is performant at scale.

If you look at it from, for example … if we talk about model training, model training was always about, “I need a massive amount of volume and a huge amount of throughput so I can just crunch and learn from this data and go from there.”

Now what we’re seeing is [that] we’re starting to operationalise and bring a level of enterprise-ness into these AI outcomes that requires a lot more of the compliance side of it and the data visibility side of it, while also being very performant.

But the performance side is also changing a bit, too. It’s saying, yes, I need high throughput and I need to be able to constantly improve on or fine-tune these models … But then it’s also [that] I now have an indescribable workload that my end users or my applications or my business processes are starting to integrate into and creating this inferencing-level workload.

And the inferencing-level workload is a little bit more unpredictable, especially as we start to step into context switching. Like, “Hey, I always need to be fine-tuning and improving on my models by injecting the latest data, but I also need to introduce retrieval augmentation into this, and so I now have the RAG workload associated with it.”

So, I need to be able to do this high-throughput, high-IOPS context switching back and forth, and be able to support this at enterprise scale.

But also, as new data is introduced into the ecosystem – generated through applications and normal business processes – I need to understand, not necessarily in real time, but almost in real time, what new data is made available so I can incorporate that.

[That’s] as long as it’s the right data and it has the right wrapper and controls and everything around it. Depending again on the data type, to allow for me to embed or improve on my RAG processes or whatever, but [also] how I can incorporate a lot of that data into it.

And then at the same time, too, is the source systems that we’re pulling this information from. Whether it’s an OLTP environment like an SQL or some sort of structured environment, or if it’s an unstructured environment, those source systems also need to be equipped to be able to support this additional workload as well.

I need to have this data awareness, but I need to have performance even outside of just what’s generally made available to the GPU directly from the high performance file system that’s supporting directly against the GPU workload. So, one is really the other, and it’s not a mystery, this major epiphany or anything. These are common data practices that we at Vantara have always been practicing and preaching for a long time, [that] data has value.

You need to understand that data is [using] proper indexing, proper tagging – again, all of those data processes – and proper data hygiene. But also now, how do you do that at scale and do that very performantly?

Training and inference needs

How do the needs of training and inference in AI differ when it comes to storage?

Hardy: That’s a great question. And like I said, we’ve been focused so heavily on – “we” being the market – I’ve been so focused on how to build models and how to integrate in and create these foundational models that can start to really revolutionise how we do business. That was all well and good; massive amounts of volume. Hitachi ourselves are creating these for a lot of the markets that we work inside of from the big Hitachi perspective.

But now what’s happening is we’re shifting from – and we’re going to start to see this trend in 2025 and 2026 … just [being] exclusively about building models into how we integrate in and we do inferencing at scale.

Inferencing at scale, like I said, is very random because it’s driven by end users or applications or processes, not in a predictable fashion like, “Hey, I’m going to start a training process, and I’m going to evaluate it and do another training process where it’s very regimented and scheduled in a way.”

This is kind of at the whim of how the business operates and almost at the whim of, “I have a question that I want to ask the system” … and then it now spins up all these resources and processes to be able to support that workload.

So, this becomes a lot more random. Additionally, it’s not just one use case. We’re going to see many use cases where the infrastructure needs to support this all simultaneously.

It’s loading the proper model up, it’s tokenising, it’s then being able to get the output from what’s being interfaced into, and then being able to portray that back to the customer or the consumer, and then the back and forth nature of that. So, from our perspective, what you’re going to see here is inferencing is going to drive a huge level of random workload that is also going to be more impactful to the source data sides as well, not just the model.

So, again, like I mentioned earlier, retrieval augmentation, agentic AI, things like that.

These are spinning up all sorts of different levels of consumption against the storage platform that is specifically being driven by inferencing.

Agentic AI, this new trend that’s starting to appear, is going to make this more of an exponential problem as well, because now, instead of traditionally, if I’m going to interface with a system, I ask it a question, a model gets loaded, it does its tokenisation, I get the result back, etc, etc. That whole process.

Well, now what’s happening is that same level of communication of working with the system is turning into not just one model, but many different models, many different queries or the same queries being done against many different models to try to get to the best outcome or the best answer for that specific question.

Now what’s happening is this is spinning up that exponential level of more workload. And then, once that’s done, you need to spin that down and shift back over to doing your fine-tuning or your training or whatever other workload, because you don’t just have an idle set of resources there that are just going to wait. It’s going to be constantly used for both sides now, the inferencing and the training workloads.

This context switching is going to put a big burden on the storage platform to be able to support really high-speed checkpointing so that I can stop my tuning or stop my model training and then shift into using those resources to fulfil the end user or the process demand as quickly as possible, because that is a real-time interface.

Then that gets spun down because the inferencing is done, and then I spin back up and I continue with where I left off on the training and tuning side. So, you’re going to see now this really weird, random level of workload that both of these types of demands are going to place onto the storage systems.

Source

Posted on by

What do the Home Secretary’s policing reforms mean for the future of the Police Digital Service?

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has become a landing zone for Whitehall’s various digital functions since the new government came to power in July 2024.

Responsibility for running the Government Digital Service (GDS) and the Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) has transferred from the Cabinet Office to DSIT, but it seems the government’s digital reshuffle might not be over yet.

On 19 November 2024, home secretary Yvette Cooper released a statement about the government’s plans to take a more “active leadership role” to restore the public’s waning confidence in UK policing.

“Confidence in policing has fallen in recent years,” she said. “Visible neighbourhood policing has been decimated. At the same time, crime has become more complex, and policing lacks the systems and technology to respond. Police, and the public they serve, need a system that is fit for purpose and fit for the future.”

The policing sector needs to be reformed, she continued, to ensure it can operate effectively and efficiently – and so that local forces can improve the level of service they provide to the public.

The statement outlines the various actions the Home Office will take to achieve its goals, including the creation of a National Centre of Policing (NCoP) that will have IT in its purview.

“We are determined to work with policing to consult on the creation of a new National Centre of Policing to bring together crucial support services, such as IT and forensics, that local police forces can draw upon, to raise standards and improve efficiency,” it said.

The Home Office’s involvement in UK police IT

What is notable about this is that the Home Office already has a hand in directing the UK’s policing sector’s technology use, through its funding of the privately owned Police Digital Service (PDS).

According to the most recent set of accounts, filed with Companies House on 28 November 2024, the Home Office National Police Capabilities Unit provided PDS with a £32m grant during the financial year ending 31 March 2024.

Previous accounts from PDS have neglected to provide details of the exact size of the grants or funding the Home Office has provided the organisation with.

However, Computer Weekly understands the department defines the £32m grant as being a single-year funding stream, issued on the “basis of need”. As such, there are no guarantees PDS will receive a Home Office grant from one financial year to the next.

For context, during the financial period this grant was issued, PDS made a loss of just over £1m in 2024, having posted a profit of £2.4m in 2023. Its staffing costs also increased from £11.9m to £20.4m during the same 12-month period.

The organisation is tasked with the development and delivery of the National Policing Digital Strategy, which is focused on enabling forces through technology to tackle increasingly complex crimes and, in turn, improve public safety.

With the Home Secretary emphasising the need for more efficiency in policing, does it make sense for two organisations with similar-sounding responsibilities to exist when there is a risk that they could be duplicating efforts?

PDS reform

Owen Sayers, an independent security consultant and enterprise architect with over 20 years’ experience in delivering national policing systems, told Computer Weekly back in mid-July 2024 that he expected the new Labour government would seek to reform PDS when they came to power.

Several months on and it appears his prediction could be coming true, with Sayers now of the view that PDS, or at least its responsibilities, will most likely end up getting folded into NCoP. “I do not doubt the Home Office will seek to build on the work that PDS has done thus far, just as the new administration has lifted the entirety of the CDDO and GDS and placed them into DSIT to ‘continue their good work’ and ‘rely on their expertise’,” he said.

That said, PDS does “carry significant baggage”, he continued, which might make it difficult for the government to “base any new central service upon them”.

To this point, two individuals working for PDS were arrested and bailed in July 2024 on suspicion of bribery, fraud and misconduct in public office – and within two weeks of this news being made public, the organisation’s CEO – Ian Bell – resigned.

The organisation has also been heavily and repeatedly criticised in the past for championing the use of US-based hyperscale cloud services by the policing sector, despite there being a persistent misalignment between how these platforms operate and the policing sector’s own data protection laws.

“PDS, in particular, has overseen and promoted adoption of technologies that breach UK data laws, and that’s not a great CV,” said Sayers. “In addition, there remains serious questions as to whether a body packaged as a profit-making limited company, operating in the heart of government, is an acceptable model to build upon.”

Particularly one that is losing money and receiving multimillion-pound grants from the government. “Making a loss for a public body is nearly as bad as making a profit,” he added.

Invoice data

Invoice data from public sector market watcher Tussell shows that – despite reporting a loss of over £1m for the 12 months to 31 March 2024 – PDS brought in £29.6m of business.  

Computer Weekly contacted the Home Office for clarification on what the creation of NCoP means for the future of PDS, but the department did not directly answer the question.

Computer Weekly also contacted PDS to see if it had received any indication from the Home Office about what the creation of the NCoP means for its future, and received a statement in response from its interim CEO, Tony Eastaugh.

There is no detail in the statement about how PDS and the NCoP will be expected to coexist, but Eastaugh said his organisation “hugely welcomes” the prospect of the NCoP’s creation, describing it as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for the policing sector to “design, build and deliver a new construct” that will make communities safer.

“PDS exists solely to support our policing colleagues in that mission – and so we welcome the prospect of being asked to bring our skills, experience and expertise to the discussions on how digital, data and technology in law enforcement needs to look over the coming years,” he said.

“It’s genuinely an exciting opportunity for all of us to deliver tangible change – and PDS is fully committed to doing everything it can to help build that new body with colleagues from across the sector.”

The need for reform

On the same day Cooper’s statement about the need for policing reform went public, she gave a speech at the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners annual conference, where she shared a few more details about the NCoP’s remit.

“As a starting point, I see this body [NCoP] taking on responsibility for existing shared services [and] national IT capabilities,” she said, having talked about “outdated technology holding policing back” earlier on in her speech.

As an example of this, she pointed to the 50-year-old Police National Computer (PNC). “It was cutting-edge when I was five,” said Cooper.

The government is already working with the sector to create a “collaboration and efficiencies” programme that will seek to cut the costs of IT contracts, among other things, in the interests of saving “hundreds of millions of pounds over the next few years” that can be reinvested in frontline policing, she continued.

“[We’re also] working with you on tackling the bureaucracy that drags policing down – including reforms on redaction, and use of new technology – to free up more time for officers to get back on the frontline,” said Cooper.

Expanding on this point, she said technology procurement is an area that every force wrestles with repeatedly, “with the same questions about new software, IT changes or records management – wasting time, pushing up costs and creating news systems that aren’t even interoperable”.

“Instead of technology driving great leaps forward in policing, too often it is holding policing back,” said Cooper.

Technological changes

Calum Baird is a digital forensics incident response consultant at managed security services provider Systal Technology Solutions, who previously served as a detective constable specialising in cyber investigations for Police Scotland. Speaking to Computer Weekly, he said there are myriad ways that forces are hampered in their ability to fight crime and protect the public because of IT limitations, but also because of how quickly changes to the technological landscape occur.

“Legislative change can take time, and often technology advances at a faster pace, [and] this means that police and legal professionals have to identify how potentially criminal acts fit into existing legislation,” said Baird.

“[Also] think about recent advancements, such as generative AI, cryptocurrency and cloud computing – many of which lack explicit mentions in existing legislation,” he said.

At the same time, forces are often on the back foot when it comes to tackling online forms of crime, because officers need a mix of both investigative and technical skillsets to do so effectively.

“These can be a challenge to develop individually, and even more challenging to develop continually,” said Baird. “Investigative skills take time to develop in law enforcement, and whilst they can be taught, much is learned through practical experience.”

“Cyber security technical skills [as an example] can be developed, but require considerable dedication and often funding to do so,” he said.

What the future holds

For the time being, it remains to be seen how PDS will fit in with the Home Office’s vision of what the future of policing should look like.

However, Secon Solutions’ Sayers said the Home Office would be wise to “turn back the clock” and seek inspiration from how IT was delivered across the policing and criminal justice sector during the latter stages of the last Labour government. “[Back then] the UK had services that were internationally considered to be at the leading edge – both in terms of their technology adoption and exemplars of good governance,” he said.

Sayers cited the Labour government’s early 2000s “Joined-Up Justice” Criminal Justice IT (CJIT) programme that sought to link up the IT systems used by the police and court system. The National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) was another example called out by Sayers.

The latter was a non-departmental public body created in 2007 that was set up to support police by providing expertise in IT and data-sharing, among other areas. It closed down during the 2012–2013 financial year.

“During NPIA and CJIT’s tenure, they introduced over 30 national systems, and a host of lesser-known, but still critical, public safety systems,” he said.  

“They worked hand-in-hand to deliver on the joined-up justice agenda, reflecting the reality that criminal justice has many participants, but that for the bulk of cases, the data journey begins in policing,” said Sayers. “This means if the integrity of the data or IT is compromised there, it will never regain good provenance, and the justice process suffers accordingly.

“Rebuilding police technology has to be recognised as foundational to rebuilding all justice IT, and requires organisations to be modelled more on NPIA and CJIT models than police-centric structures like PDS,” he added.

More specifically, Sayers said he would like to see the NCoP change the direction of travel for policing IT, which has seen the sector develop a growing reliance on the US-based cloud hyperscalers, despite their services being “wholly unsuitable” for police and justice use.

“Those technologies are familiar, popular and helped the UK to manage Covid, but the pandemic is behind us now, and we need to build technology platforms suitable for a more diverse operating future,” he said. “Tactical decisions hastily made to address times of urgent need are rarely the right fit for strategic use and growth.

“That is, however, exactly where we are today in policing – where systems born out of our need to react to Covid are being increasingly built upon to form, and constrain, our future thinking,” said Sayers. “We need to be brighter than that.”

We also need the policing sector to start adopting technology offerings that are “optimised for UK laws” because they are built by homegrown providers.

“This does not mean we revert to monolithic and non-interoperable systems … nor should we continue to invest in single-provider technology stacks that lock UK criminal justice into generic commercial services requiring us to compromise on the UK’s mandatory security and vetting requirements – or require UK laws to be changed for use,” said Sayers.

“Whatever the NCoP’s form, it should be tasked to include delivery of a future technology landscape that is based on open standards and federated services, and can provide services at a national scale independent of a reliance on a primary supplier,” he said.

“The next five years can see a renaissance of UK-bred justice technology innovation, but only if the government are brave enough to choose to do so.”

Source

Posted on by

TfL cyber attack cost over £30m to date

The September 2024 cyber attack that forced Transport for London (TfL) to suspend multiple services across the capital has cost it more than £30m to date, it has emerged.

In a financial update to its board, TfL said that previous forecasts of an operating surplus of £61m had now been slashed to £23m, largely due to the financial impact of the security incident. It currently has an operating deficit of £37m, which is £122m lower than initially budgeted for.

The organisation revealed that it has spent £5m on incident response, investigation and remedial cyber security measures in the past three months.

The incident began on 1 September when defenders detected suspicious activity on TfL’s network. Likely fearing ransomware, the IT security teams limited and shut off several systems to ensure the impact was minimised.

Fortunately, the impact of the incident on London’s bus, Tube and other services was limited, but multiple other services were affected. Most prominently, passengers were left unable to access their account logins for contactless and Oyster payment services, APIs used by third parties including Citymapper went offline, and the Dial-a-Ride service for disabled people had to be briefly suspended.

Although initially TfL said that it did not believe passenger data had been affected,, it later found that data on 5,000 people was accessed, including names, contact details and in some cases bank account data. All of these people have been contacted and the incident has been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Subsequently, the National Crime Agency (NCA) arrested and later bailed a 17-year-old boy on suspicion of offences under the Computer Misuse Act.

In the report, TfL commissioner Andrew Lord thanked the thousands of TfL employees who have “really pulled together” in recent weeks to address the disruption and maintain key services, and passengers for their patience.

Lord added that TfL had received wide praise and recognition for its response, but said that the consequences of the incident will continue for some months to come. He promised a full review of the incident in due course, although stressed that publicly available information will remain limited as it relates to an ongoing criminal case.

More services restored

In recent days, TfL has been able to restart a number of services that were disrupted during the cyber attack, including the contactless.tfl.gov.uk service.

This means passengers who use pay-as-you-go with a contactless credit or debit card, or on their smartphones, are now able to see their full journey history again.

Additionally, it means that TfL can also once again provide photocards for Zip cards for five to 17 year-olds, 60+ London Oyster, and 18+ Student Oyster. It has already dispatched over 30,000 Zip passes, 40,000 new student passes and 13,000 pensioners’ passes since reopening applications.

TfL said that it was encouraging parents and guardians to apply for updated Zip photocards as a matter of urgency – expired 5-10 and 11-15 Zips are being accepted on TfL and surface rail services in London at present, but this concession will end on New Year’s Eve.

The organisation warned customers would still see some residual delays when contacting customer services, particularly with regard to refunds for overpayments for concessionary cardholders affected by the cyber attack.

Shashi Verma, chief technology officer at TfL, said: “We’re pleased that customers can now access their contactless journey history again, meaning that all TfL fares services impacted by the recent cyber incident are now reinstated. We apologise for any inconvenience that this incident has caused our customers,” said TfL CTO Shashi Verma.

“We are now able to process contactless and Oyster refunds for those requiring them, though customers should anticipate there may be some delays due to the expected backlog. We have also contacted all new photocard customers who were impacted by not being able to apply for their new photocard. I want to also personally thank our engineers and customer services teams who have worked hard during this incident to support customers and restore services.”

SonicWall EMEA executive vice-president, Spencer Starkey, commented: “Due to [its] importance, safeguarding critical national infrastructure [CNI] is vital to maintain order and prevent potential disasters caused by threats such as cyber attacks.

“Ensuring the cyber security of critical national infrastructure requires a comprehensive and ongoing effort. The ramifications of an attack and ensuing outage on CNI can be disastrous and it’s important to place the utmost amount of time, money and efforts on securing them.

“In a divisive landscape, we’re seeing a continued geo-migration of threats, and governments are under constant cyber threat. These cyber attacks raise concerns about a country’s own national security, critical national infrastructure as well as the safety of sensitive information.

“Protecting government networks relies on constant communication and cooperation, working together with the private sector and imposing strict punishments, to deter future attacks,” he added.

Source

Posted on by

Trains delayed due to ‘nationwide fault’ with comms system

A “nationwide fault” with the onboard radio communications system used by train drivers and signal operators has caused major disruption across the UK’s rail network, according to National Rail.

The Global System for Mobile Communications-Railway(GSM-R) failure – which is designed to allow continuous digital communication between drivers and signallers in areas such as tunnels that were previously unreachable by analogue systems – was linked to the overnight installation of new hardware at a major telecommunications hub in Stoke.

The unspecified hardware was installed as part of an upgrade to the system, which was rolled out to increase the safety of the UK’s train network and reduce the costs associated with running a patchwork of legacy systems.

National Rail said the fault – which specifically disrupted the GSM-R’s automated login process – “meant trains were unable to register onto their route for the start of service and deregister to end their service”.

This prompted staff to connect manually via a “wild card” code, akin to a Wi-Fi password, that allowed them to once again communicate with the national network. However, use of the manual process delayed many trains by up to 15 minutes, while others were subject to cancellations or alterations as a result.

The BBC reported that the “well-rehearsed” implementation of the manual backup system meant no safety-critical issues occurred while the fix was underway.

The problem affected at least 10 rail lines across the country, including Great Northern, Northern, ScotRail, Southeastern, Southern, South Western Railway, Thameslink, Gatwick Express, Heathrow Express and the Elizabeth tube line.

Although the problem was fixed within around three hours of being reported, National Rail said there may be some residual disruption while timetables are restored.

For those seeking compensation, it added that customers should keep hold of train tickets and make a note of their journey, as both would support any claim.

Source

Posted on by

Apple’s first smart display might launch much later than expected

Reports last month said that Apple would introduce a wall-mountable smart display for the home as soon as March 2025. The device would look like an iPad, though it would be smaller than the iPad mini. It would run a new homeOS operating system that would feature elements from watchOS and iOS.

Those reports already gave us an idea of how Apple’s smart display will work, but the software experience might not be ready for a March launch. That’s what Ming-Chi Kuo said in a new note, indicating that the smart display’s release date was postponed to the second half of 2025.

Kuo wrote on Medium that the “display-equiped HomePod” mass production had been delayed multiple times.

Apple supposedly wanted to release it in 2024 but postponed it to the first quarter of 2025. More recently, Apple moved the smart display’s release to after WWDC 2025 or to the third quarter of 2025.

Tech. Entertainment. Science. Your inbox.

Sign up for the most interesting tech & entertainment news out there.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.

“The delay in production is mainly due to software development,” Kuo said without offering specifics.

Kuo did mention some of the smart display’s specs, which are in line with previous reports. The display-equipped Homepod should feature an A18 processor and a 6-inch to 7-inch screen. That A18 chip means the smart display will support Apple Intelligence. Previous reports also said that Apple Intelligence will be available on the device.

Kuo also says the smart display will “emphasize smart home functionalities more.” That’s what other reports have also claimed. The smart display will act as the central hub of the smart home, allowing users to control various features and devices from a single place.

The analyst also reiterated that Apple will make a smart home surveillance camera in 2026. The camera will eventually connect to the smart display wirelessly.

Kuo estimates that Apple will sell about 500,000 units in the second half of 2025. If the smart display becomes popular, annual shipments could reach million-unit levels. In a separate report, Kuo identified BYD Electronic and Tianma Microelectronics as the main beneficiaries of Apple’s orders for the smart display.

The only thing missing from these reports is the price of Apple’s home display. It’ll be interesting to see how much Apple will charge for a device that will essentially be a smaller iPad for the home.

Source

Posted on by

How AI can help you attract, engage and retain the best talent in 2025

As we move into 2025, the landscape of human resources (HR) is heading for a significant transformation. Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to revolutionise workforce collaboration, efficiency, and talent management.

For HR leaders, harnessing the power of AI will be essential to attract, engage, and retain top talent in an increasingly competitive market.

Enhancing HR performance

AI is reshaping and revamping HR by automating routine and mundane tasks such as interview scheduling, data entry, and CV screenings. This automation allows HR teams to focus on strategic initiatives that add real value to employees, such as developing diverse cultures, offering tailored development programmes, and increasing engagement.

AI-powered analytics can identify workforce trends, predict employee turnover, and suggest to retain top talent. These insights enable HR leaders to make data-driven decisions to support a high-performance culture, ultimately improving employee engagement and organisational performance.

Just look at Unilever, which uses AI to streamline its recruitment process. By using AI-driven assessments and video interview analytics, Unilever has significantly reduced time-to-hire while enhancing the candidate experience. Additionally, AI can streamline performance management by providing continuous feedback and personalised development plans. This shift towards real-time performance management fosters a culture of continuous improvement, where the team receives timely feedback and support to achieve their goals, leading to higher engagement levels and better retention rates.

Talent attraction and retention

As the demand on sourcing talent with scarce skills continues in 2025, attracting top talent needs innovative strategies. AI can play a pivotal role in enhancing the candidate experience. Imagine AI-driven chatbots engaging with candidates in real-time, answering their questions and providing personalised information about the company and the role. This immediate engagement can significantly improve the candidate experience, making the organisation more attractive.

AI can also help create a more inclusive hiring processes by eliminating unconscious biases from recruitment. AI algorithms can analyse job descriptions to ensure they are free from biased language and assess candidates based on objective criteria. This is an incredibly important step to support organisations in attracting and growing a more diverse and inclusive workforce, which is crucial for driving innovation and business success.

Retaining your team is equally important as attracting it. AI can help HR leaders identify early signs of people’s disengagement or dissatisfaction. For instance, AI-powered sentiment analysis can monitor employee communications and flag any negative sentiments, allowing HR and managers to intervene proactively. By addressing issues before they escalate, organisations can improve the satisfaction, happiness and ultimately retention of the team.  

AI can also facilitate personalised employee development. By analysing skills, performance data, and career aspirations, AI can recommend tailored development programmes and career paths for each individual. This personalised approach to development can help people feel valued and supported.

Upskilling your team in the New Year

24% of all workers are worried that AI will soon make their job obsolete. HR leaders have a crucial role in addressing these concerns and ensuring their teams are ready for AI integration. Providing training and the right tools to integrate AI smoothly is essential. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement and responsible AI use, HR can drive greater efficiency and empower the entire workforce.

AI is more likely to enhance roles rather than replace them, and HR leaders should embrace AI ethically and transparently. This involves being clear about how AI is used, ensuring data privacy, and maintaining a human touch in all interactions. By doing so, HR can build trust and create a positive environment where AI is seen as a tool for empowerment rather than a threat.

2025 – the future of AI in HR

As we approach 2025 and beyond, the integration of AI in HR will continue to evolve. Future trends may include more sophisticated AI-driven talent management systems, enhanced predictive analytics for workforce planning, and even more personalised employee experiences powered by AI. HR leaders who stay ahead of these trends and continually innovate will be well-positioned to lead their organisations into the future.

Looking to the New Year, AI will play a pivotal role in enhancing HR functions, making them more efficient, strategic, and employee centric. By leveraging AI to attract, engage, and retain top talent, organisations can stay competitive in a rapidly evolving job market. HR leaders who embrace AI responsibly and proactively will be well-positioned to drive their organisations forward, creating workplaces that are both productive and fulfilling for their team.

Toria Walters is chief people officer at ANS, a digital transformation provider and Microsoft’s UK Services Partner of the Year 2024. Headquartered in Manchester, it offers public and private cloud, security, business applications, low code, and data services to thousands of customers, from enterprise to SMB and public sector organisations.

Source

Posted on by

New iPad Pro won’t be Apple’s first product with an M5 chip

Apple won’t follow the trend of introducing a brand new chip with its best new iPad models, as it did with the M4 iPad Pro. According to the latest reports, the M5 iPad Pro won’t arrive before late 2025 or even early 2026.

Top insider Ming-Chi Kuo wrote a blog post on Medium saying the M5 iPad Pro is expected to enter mass production in the second half of 2025. “The iPad Pro equipped with the M5 processor is expected to enter mass production in 2H25,” he wrote. “The company’s business momentum in 2H25 is anticipated to benefit significantly from Apple’s new product launches.”

While this might not mean much, Kuo is likely talking about the significant refreshes expected by this time of the year, such as the iPhone, Apple Watch, and possibly a new version of the Apple Vision Pro. That said, users shouldn’t be that worried about their M4 iPad Pro becoming an obsolete product in the near future.

If rumors are accurate, the iPad Pro with the M4 processor could be almost two years old before Apple introduces a new variant. Even when that happens, we don’t expect significant changes. Based on what we’ve heard so far, it seems that the iPad Pro will only get a specs bump with the M5 processor, and the next-generation chip won’t even be such a big deal.

Tech. Entertainment. Science. Your inbox.

Sign up for the most interesting tech & entertainment news out there.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.

Image source: Apple Inc.

While the M4 greatly improves over the M3, Apple has apparently canceled the M5 with the newer 2nm process developed by TSMC due to cost concerns. According to The Elec, the M5 chip will adopt a new System On Integrated Chip technology, which enhances thermal management and reduces electrical leakage.

With that, we could see enhancements in performance and efficiency and a broader focus on Neural Engine tasks for AI and Apple Intelligence. While knowing that Apple has moved on to producing its newer processors, we still have several months with M4 products, including some new ones that need to be unveiled.

When will Apple start introducing new M5 products?

If the company follows the schedule analysts predict, the M5 family won’t be available before the end of next year. Here’s what we expect:

  • Late 2025: Apple should unveil at least new M5 MacBook Pro models with the M5 Pro and M5 Max options; the company could also update the Mac mini and iMac, although it’s unclear at this moment;
  • Late 2025/Early 2026: Apple introduces the M5 iPad Pro;
  • Early 2026/Mid 2026: Cupertino unveils new MacBook Air models with the M5 processor;
  • Mid 2026/Late 2026: Apple expands the M5 chips for the Mac Studio and potentially to Mac Pro, depending on the upgrades expected for this processor.

It’s important to note that bigger changes are expected to start appearing by 2026 or 2027, when Apple will unveil a new OLED display technology for the MacBook Pro, followed by an improved display on the iPad Pro. In the next couple of years, we could also see Apple unveiling its first foldable products as well.

Source