Connect with us

Tech

There’s a global plan to save humans from AI. Can it actually work?

Published

on

When the AI apocalypse becomes regular dinner-table conversation, you know we’ve reached the freakout stage. Rogue AI agents are hacking into competitors. Former Big Tech employees are posting Skynet-style warnings on social media. CEOs are crying for help in ways that have made this once-wonky tech issue a frontline political fight.

I still think many of the concerns outlined by the AI leaders themselves are massively self-serving — especially when their companies are soon to go public. But the growing list of AI scandals is real. And it tells us that the status quo for regulating this powerful new technology is not working.

The question now on everyone’s mind: Is any kind of global brake possible? What form of AI safety regime is practical, over the short term, when there is no trust between major governments? And what could possibly work when companies are loath to give up their secret sauce and are bent on domination in the global AI race?

Two major conversations are now playing out, in real time. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington for a three-day summit — part of which will be dedicated to AI risks. The same day, with the United Nations meeting for its annual General Assembly, heads of the world’s leading AI companies urged the UN to police the emerging technology, or risk potentially wiping out humanity. “We could lose control of the future to AI,” OpenAI’s boss, Sam Altman, bluntly told the UN’s Security Council.

Advertisement

Confronted with this collective freakout, it’s time to take a long, deep breath.

In fact, AI safety has been on a lot of policymakers’ minds for years now, gaining momentum after ChatGPT was introduced in 2022. Governments have held hearings, convened expert groups, and drafted their own outlines of how to keep it under control. These weren’t just idle listening exercises. They aren’t all well known to the wider public, but they yielded real plans.

Barring any breakthroughs this week, we already have a quasi-planetary shield against the potentially runaway technology. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that it’s not really up and running yet. It’s also not clear whether it will actually work. So what is it — and how can we fix it so we have a global system that responds in time to deal with the incredibly fast-moving threats from AI?

Advertisement

What the global AI patchwork looks like now

For the last four years, the most tech-savvy nations — and would-be AI leaders — have been running serious conversations about this exact AI safety threat. Some are in Congress and the White House; some at the UN, at the G7, and in other capitals.

I’ve been covering this closely as a global technology journalist, from my current perch at a think tank. Here’s what the landscape looks like:

  • There are national AI safety and security institutes, government-funded bodies whose job it is to kick the tires of AI companies’ latest products before they are let loose into the wild.
  • There are also voluntary commitments by companies, many of which have made their own pledges or developed joint standards, to protect elections from AI threats, stop the spread of AI-fueled deepfake imagery, and joint government-corporate efforts to bake safety into how the technology develops.
  • At the international level, there’s a G7-led reporting mechanism — embraced by the most important Western tech nations that allows AI giants to share how they are building their latest models, as well as create standards for how to reduce catastrophic risks.
  • An international scientific report provides a yearly update on risks posed by the most advanced AI systems, based on existing research, to help governments plan for the worst.

What’s missing from all that? What we currently lack — and what is needed between now and the end of 2026 — is a way to turn this cottage industry of AI safety mechanisms into a functioning, but crude, first-responder system when things suddenly go wrong.

The last four years have laid out a pathway, and some of the necessary systems even exist. But there’s no way to respond globally, and in real time, when an AI crisis hits — especially if such a possibly doomsday event cuts across countries already skeptical of each other.

Advertisement

This week’s US-China summit may be a step in the right direction. Under proposals outlined by American officials, Washington and Beijing could set up a hotline between US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in case of an AI incident affected each country’s national security.

It’s still unclear if Trump’s meeting with Xi will lead to such progress. Chinese officials also have balked at Washington’s pleas for AI rules because, so far, Congress has failed to act, and China already has some of the world’s most stringent AI oversight.

For AI to be “safe,” this conversation will need to go beyond this week’s US-China summit. Relying just on Washington and Beijing — arguably the most important AI powers — would not solve the underlying problems, nor would it make other countries feel more comfortable.

What we need next, so it really saves us

Advertisement

I’ve been talking to AI safety experts and government officials, and it’s clear the missing piece is a way to activate this whole system in a crisis. Countries don’t all have to have the same AI safety policies, and they never will. But as with nuclear weapons — a similarly high-threat technology that the world found a way to contain — safety requires a rough global agreement on how to respond quickly when something goes terribly wrong.

What’s needed right now is a 90-day, opt-in rapid response mechanism that joins existing pieces of the AI safety puzzle together. I’ve pieced together some ideas about how it should work, and who needs to sign on. Granted, none of what I outline below is sufficient. But, together, they are more plausible than trying to negotiate a comprehensive global regime — let alone arrange another AI summit — while Washington, Beijing, and other national capitals disagree over what “AI safety” actually means.

All of these options are based on existing mechanisms, are derived from efforts that have worked in other policy areas, and provide a band-aid to the AI safety dilemma until a more durable solution can be negotiated.

  • First, developers, AI safety institutes, and regulators, from across different countries, should agree that when an incident occurs, it triggers a specific Chernobyl-style protocol. That would mean submitting a confidential report within a 72-hour period to a national designated responder and a small technical secretariat. It can build on the OECD’s AI Incidents Monitor, lead to a technical, multi-stakeholder confidential investigation into what went wrong, and, subsequently, the publication of an anonymized lessons-learned note.
  • Second, governments and developers can agree to publish common declarations related to safeguards, residual risks, escalation thresholds, and independent auditing before the release or upgrading of a next-generation model. It would use the G7 Hiroshima AI Process reporting framework as its base, and turn the current hodgepodge of corporate safety declarations and voluntary standards into a common minimum disclosure obligation. View it as similar to the collective bank stress tests after the 2008 global financial crisis. It can allow outsiders to truly compare models’ safety protocols without putting someone in charge of determining which company is doing it best.
  • Third, create a Cold War-style US-China AI safety hotline — but see it as an initial step that can later be opened to other countries. There are good reasons, in the long term, that Washington and Beijing should not be allowed to rule artificial intelligence between them, and the rest of the world should have a real seat at the table. But for now those are the two “great powers” in the tech conversation, and we can set that philosophical argument aside to create a standing, technically-informed direct line of communication for acute AI-risk incidents. Its remit is inherently narrow: prevent dangerous misunderstandings linked to serious model incidents, AI-enabled cyberattacks and/or alleged breaches of agreed safety commitments.

There are obvious limits to what I describe above. For one, it’s an inherently Western-centric view that primarily discounts global majority countries. It also places too much sway on existing institutions like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, as well as on the US-China relationship. Other countries’ officials will legitimately balk at all three options, and rightly so.

But this is not about creating a vague, unenforceable UN-led mandate for AI safety. Nor is it about corralling the geopolitical cats to hammer out a global AI treaty. The options — a collective safety protocol and incident reporting protocol; common pre-release standards; and a US-China AI safety hotline — are inherently short-term. They are also based on existing efforts and those that have worked successfully for other policy areas.

Advertisement

There will be time to quibble about the future of AI safety. But now is not that time. The latest AI models are moving faster than many had expected, tech bosses are worried their creations are already out of control, and the window for action may be smaller than we all think.

What is required are practical steps to assuage people’s growing concerns amid heightened geopolitical tension, a lack of trust between governments and companies, and a need not to let the perfect get in the way of the good.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Tech

How to watch Laver Cup 2026 for FREE: Live Streams & TV Channels

Published

on

Watch the Laver Cup 2026 live streams as the ninth edition of the tournament gets underway on 25 September at the O2 Arena in London.

Yannick Noah and Andre Agassi will serve as team captains once again this year, returning from the previous year. Last year’s winners were Team World, as they defeated Team Europe 15–9 to earn their third title. Each team has confirmed six participants for the tournament in the United Kingdom.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Apple Magic Keyboard with Touch ID deal ends today

Published

on

This deal on Apple’s Magic Keyboard with Touch ID closes tonight, and $149.99 is only on the table for a few more hours.

$149.99 applies to the full-size Magic Keyboard with Touch ID and Numeric Keypad, the version built for Mac models with Apple silicon, and once the clock runs out tonight, this particular listing reverts to its usual price.

Deal Magic Keyboard with Touch IDDeal Magic Keyboard with Touch ID

Last chance: Apple Magic Keyboard with Touch ID falls to $149.99 before the deal ends today

Apple Magic Keyboard with Touch ID drops to $149.99, saving $30 on the bargain, but hurry, this deal ends today.

Advertisement

View Deal

Waiting until tomorrow means paying whatever this keyboard usually costs, which makes tonight the only window left to get Touch ID and a full numeric keypad locked in at $149.99 before the listing resets for good.

Advertisement

Touch ID built into the keyboard means unlocking a Mac or approving an online payment takes a single tap instead of typing out a password every time a screen locks itself during the working day.

That same keyboard has built a reputation among its own owners for a remarkably comfortable typing feel, with reviewers consistently pointing to the precision of every keystroke as the reason they keep coming back to it.

Advertisement

The extended layout adds a full numeric keypad alongside dedicated document navigation controls, turning what would otherwise be a simple typing accessory into something built for spreadsheets, finance work and long documents, with full-size arrow keys thrown in for gaming too.

Advertisement

It runs wirelessly on a rechargeable battery that lasts about a month between charges, and pairs with a Mac automatically the moment it switches on. That leaves a keyboard that is simply ready every time it is picked up, with nothing to plug in first.

The same keyboard pairs just as easily with an iPad or an iPhone, which means one purchase covers a Mac at the desk and a tablet or phone used everywhere else in the house too.

For anyone who spends real time typing, browsing spreadsheets, or logging into a Mac throughout the day, tonight is the moment to get the Magic Keyboard with Touch ID for $149.99 before the deal disappears.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Experts discuss Ireland’s cybersecurity potential at CINC 2026

Published

on

SiliconRepublic.com stopped off in Kilkenny for Cyber Ireland National Conference 2026, where we talked to a number of attendees from across the industry.

On Tuesday (22 September), Cyber Ireland held its fifth annual national cybersecurity conference to explore the most important trends and updates within the contemporary cyber sector.

The Cyber Ireland National Conference (CINC) 2026 saw a variety of cybersecurity professionals and leaders gather at the Lyrath Estate in Kilkenny to discuss and examine topics such as the global cyberthreat landscape, cyber innovation, the development of a cyber-ready workforce and emerging security risks associated with AI.

SMEs, multinationals and individual experts alike all gathered at the event, which was sponsored by organisations such as Enterprise Ireland, TrendAI, Integrity360, IDA Ireland, Munster Technological University, Intel and Centripetal, among many more. Ireland’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and KPMG were headline sponsors of the event.

Advertisement

As well as featuring a number of keynotes and panel discussions, a key goal of the event was to facilitate expertise and knowledge exchange among the attendees.

This kind of engagement was particularly noted by Loman McCaffrey, Integrity360’s director of business development for Ireland, when speaking to SiliconRepublic.com at the conference.

“Everyone is engaged, everyone seems to have come with some challenges in mind,” he said.

“People use [CINC] as their one outing of the year to gather some information, to come back to the team, their boss, to the board with ‘here’s the direction of travel we need to be on’. Some events are a little bit more ‘a day out from the office’ – this isn’t that.

Advertisement

“This is people coming to do their research, figure out what others are doing.”

Small state, important position

The theme for this year’s conference was ‘Realising Ireland’s Cyber Industry Potential’, with a number of talks focused on Ireland’s importance in the European space, and how the country can scale its cyber resilience and capabilities to become a global player in the domain.

For Ian Fahey, managing director at KPMG, the scene was set for this year’s CINC by NCSC director Richard Browne in his opening keynote, ‘Cybersecurity State of the Nation Address’, where he “introduced Ireland as a small state on the edge of Europe, who is also leading the overall security capability for the European state”.

“We’re hosting vast amounts of data, we’re hosting and managing the fibre interconnectors between Ireland and mainland Europe and the US,” said Fahey.

Advertisement

“Lots of key critical infrastructure items are being hosted or driven out of Ireland and that brings a certain responsibility, and I think Ireland as a nation is stepping up to that.”

The conference took place at a vital time, with Ireland currently in the middle of hosting its EU Presidency – which also brings heightened cyber risk with it.

Eoin Byrne, cluster manager at Cyber Ireland, noted that it’s become clear through the Presidency that Ireland has a “very strong seat at the table” in Europe.

However, he emphasised that the country also has a “critical role to play in securing Europe’s digital economy” due to factors such as hosting numerous multinational tech and pharma companies, the transatlantic data cables running through our waters, and hosting an estimated 30pc of the EU’s data.

Advertisement

Fahey echoed the important role Ireland plays in EU digital resilience, stating that it brings “different pressures” but also “an imaginative mindset”, noting that some of the vendors at CINC were on “the leading edge” of tech solutions.

“That’s kind of positioned us to be a real strength and a real leader in terms of cybersecurity,” he said. “[The EU Presidency] has obviously brought a different focus to Ireland. The threat landscape changes, it naturally follows the Presidency of the EU.

“Ireland as a whole has held up really well, and what it has really reinforced is that the cyberthreat landscape is borderless and our response … also has to be borderless.”

‘Get the basics right’

With the topic of cyber resilience, especially in an Irish context, top of mind at CINC 2026, we asked a number of attendees about what Irish businesses need to do to stay secure in the ever-evolving threat landscape.

Advertisement

Eadaoin McArthur, a Cortex and cloud specialist at Palo Alto Networks, pointed to staff education as key to staying secure.

McArthur said that businesses can bolster their defences by “ensuring that their staff are moving at the speed that the threat landscape is evolving, and ensuring that organisations have the incentives and mandates in place and that they’re addressing them in a timely manner”.

She added: “Most organisations going forward will be forced to have an AI mandate to ensure that their organisations are capable to protect against the speed and velocity at which cyberattacks are occurring.”

Fahey emphasised that the most important step for Irish organisations is to “get the basics right”.

Advertisement

“Sort out your basic cyber hygiene before you start addressing all of these really sophisticated attacks,” he advised.

Fiona Griffin, a solutions engineer at TrendAI, agreed, and also added that Irish organisations need to keep an eye on AI.

“Getting the basics right – hygiene, patching – but also really just being aware of AI out there,” said Griffin. “Taking it seriously, making sure you’re compliant, making sure that you’re aware of the latest threats that are out there, and what’s Ireland doing in terms of compliance.”

Don’t miss out on the knowledge you need to succeed. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of need-to-know sci-tech news.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

This new UK domestic ‘data furnace’ from Heata can convert cloud computing waste heat into free hot water

Published

on


  • Householders are getting free hot water from Heata, a company that installs rented servers in homes
  • Heat generated by the servers is passed to the water supply for showers and hot taps
  • Heata pays for any additional electricity used, ensuring homeowners win and businesses have their data stored safely

What happens to waste heat from servers? In a server room or data center, the heat is removed through industrial cooling systems and exhausted. But what if it could be reused? What if that heat could be used to keep domestic heating bills down?

Heata is one of several companies across the UK and Europe delivering solutions to server space and heating costs. Domestic waste-heat use appears to be a growing industry, and offers homeowners the chance to cut bills significantly while giving businesses low-cost server space.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Kill Switches, Leaks and What Happens

Published

on

When a VPN disconnects, traffic may either stop or fall back to your normal internet connection. A working kill switch is designed to block that fallback, while a fail-open setup may let new traffic use your ordinary network route and public IP address.

Quick Take

  • A VPN disconnect does not automatically mean data leaked. The result depends on what networking policy takes over after the tunnel fails.
  • A fail-open configuration permits affected traffic to use ordinary networking, while fail-closed protection blocks that fallback until VPN protection returns.
  • A kill switch does not stop the VPN from disconnecting. It controls whether covered traffic can leave outside the protected tunnel.
  • DNS, IPv6, split-tunnel, and browser-related exposures can occur separately from a complete VPN disconnect, so they should not all be treated as the same failure.

What Happens the Moment the VPN Tunnel Drops

A VPN normally gives selected network traffic a route through an encrypted tunnel to a VPN server. When that tunnel disappears, the operating system and VPN software have to determine what should happen to traffic that would normally use it.

One possible outcome is fail open. This means ordinary networking is permitted again. New connections may use the device’s Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or mobile connection directly, just as they would if the VPN were not active. Websites reached through those new connections may then receive the public IP address associated with your normal internet connection rather than the VPN server.

The opposite behavior is fail closed. Instead of allowing protected traffic to fall back to the normal route, the device blocks it until the VPN connection returns or the blocking policy is deliberately disabled.

Suppose a laptop is connected to home Wi-Fi and its browser traffic is leaving through a VPN server. If the VPN tunnel fails, a fail-open configuration may let the browser establish its next connection directly through the internet service provider. With fail-closed protection, that new connection should fail rather than silently bypass the tunnel.

Advertisement

The behavior of an existing connection can be less predictable. Applications may retry requests, create a new connection, wait for the VPN to return, or time out. The practical privacy question is therefore whether traffic that was supposed to remain protected can establish a usable path outside the VPN after the tunnel is lost.

What a VPN Kill Switch Actually Does

A kill switch does not keep the VPN tunnel alive. Its job is to restrict networking when that tunnel is unavailable.

Mozilla describes its implementation as blocking the device’s network connection if Mozilla VPN becomes unstable or drops, with the aim of preventing the local IP address from being exposed. Mozilla’s kill-switch documentation is one example of fail-closed behavior implemented by a VPN application.

The enforcement can also come from the operating system. Android supports an Always-on VPN setting and a separate Block connections without VPN control. When configured together, Android can prevent connections that do not use the selected VPN.

Advertisement

Automatic reconnection is related but different. A reconnect feature tries to restore the VPN tunnel. A kill switch determines what traffic is permitted while that tunnel is missing. A VPN product can implement both, one, or neither depending on the platform and configuration.

Info

If your internet stops working immediately after a VPN failure, that may be the kill switch doing exactly what it was designed to do. Confirm the VPN and kill-switch state before treating the loss of connectivity as a separate network fault.

Standard Kill Switch vs Persistent Blocking

“Kill switch” does not describe one universal policy. Some implementations respond primarily to an unexpected VPN failure, while others enforce a VPN-required state even after a deliberate disconnect or restart.

Advertisement

Proton VPN, for example, currently distinguishes a standard mode from an advanced mode. Its standard kill switch is designed to activate when the VPN connection drops unexpectedly, while its advanced kill switch prevents internet access whenever Proton VPN is not connected and can remain active across restarts on supported platforms. These are Proton-specific implementation details, not universal VPN terminology.

The table below shows the conceptual distinction. Exact behavior still depends on the VPN application, operating system, and policy configuration.

Typical differences between disconnect-triggered and persistent VPN blocking
Behavior Disconnect-triggered protection Persistent VPN-required policy
Unexpected tunnel failure Designed to block protected traffic when the VPN unexpectedly drops. Blocks covered traffic because no permitted VPN tunnel is available.
Deliberate disconnect May permit ordinary networking, depending on the implementation. Normally continues blocking until the policy is disabled or the VPN reconnects.
Restart or reboot Persistence depends on the product and platform. Can remain enforced across restart when implemented as a persistent policy.
Intentional internet use without the VPN May be possible after deliberately disconnecting. Requires disabling the VPN-required policy or changing its configuration.

This distinction is why pressing a VPN application’s Disconnect button is not always a valid test of an ordinary kill switch. Some products intentionally interpret a manual disconnect as permission to resume normal networking.

A VPN Disconnect Is Not the Only Kind of Leak

A complete tunnel failure is only one way traffic can end up somewhere you did not intend. A VPN may appear connected while a particular protocol, resolver, application, or address family follows a different path.

Advertisement

VPN laptop linked to four exposure paths labeled IP fallback, DNS, IPv6, and WebRTC.

Public IP exposure after fallback

If the VPN tunnel disappears and ordinary routing resumes, a new connection can leave through the underlying internet connection. The remote service may then see the public IP address assigned to that normal route.

This is the failure people commonly mean when they say a kill switch prevented an “IP leak.” More precisely, traffic that was expected to remain protected obtained an ordinary route after the VPN stopped carrying it.

DNS leakage

The Domain Name System, or DNS, translates names such as example.com into network addresses. A DNS leak occurs when queries that were intended to follow the VPN’s protected DNS path instead use another resolver or network path outside that intended configuration.

Not every DNS server different from the VPN provider’s own resolver is automatically evidence of a leak. Some users deliberately configure another encrypted or third-party DNS service. The useful comparison is between the DNS path you intended and the one the device actually uses.

Advertisement

IPv6 bypass

Many networks support both Internet Protocol version 4, or IPv4, and Internet Protocol version 6, or IPv6. That dual-stack design can expose a routing mismatch if VPN software protects one address family but fails to apply the intended policy to the other.

The IETF’s RFC 7359 analysis of dual-stack VPN leakage describes traffic intended for a tunnel escaping through an unprotected IPv6 path when VPN software fails to handle IPv6 correctly. The document dates from 2014, so it should not be treated as evidence that current VPN applications generally have this defect.

The RFC’s IESG note also cautions that the broader leakage problem is not unique to IPv6. Similar exposure can arise whenever policy permits another unencrypted interface or route, including some split-tunnel configurations.

Browser and WebRTC address exposure

Browser networking creates a separate category of address information. Web Real-Time Communication, or WebRTC, uses Interactive Connectivity Establishment, or ICE, candidates when discovering possible paths for peer-to-peer communication.

Advertisement

MDN documents that an ICE candidate can contain the IP address associated with that candidate’s source. Whether the address revealed is relevant to your VPN privacy model depends on the browser, candidate type, VPN implementation, and network configuration. The presence of WebRTC address information does not by itself prove that the entire VPN tunnel failed.

These failure modes are related enough to examine together, but they should not be collapsed into one diagnosis. IP, DNS, IPv6, and WebRTC leaks have different causes and require different verification methods.

Split Tunneling Changes What “Leak” Means

Traffic outside the VPN is not necessarily leaking if you deliberately configured it to stay outside.

Split tunneling means only selected applications or destinations use the VPN while other traffic follows the device’s normal network path. Android’s per-app VPN controls, for example, can restrict VPN use to an allowed set of applications or deliberately exclude applications from it.

Advertisement

Imagine that a browser is configured to use the VPN but a game launcher is intentionally excluded. Seeing the normal public IP from the game launcher may be expected split-tunnel behavior. Seeing that same fallback from the protected browser after the tunnel fails would be a different result.

This is why a leak test should start by establishing what was supposed to be inside the tunnel. Without that baseline, expected exclusions can be mistaken for failures.

Kill switches and split tunneling can also interact differently across products. Proton documents that the combination is unsupported on most of its platforms, while its Windows app can use kill-switch protection with split tunneling so protected applications remain blocked if the VPN disconnects. Proton’s split-tunneling documentation illustrates why this behavior must be checked on the exact product and platform rather than assumed universally.

How to Test Whether Your Kill Switch Actually Works

A useful test compares the normal route, the protected route, and behavior during a VPN interruption. Use only harmless traffic because the purpose of the test is to discover whether unprotected fallback is possible.

Advertisement

Prerequisites

  • Stop sensitive uploads, account activity, private messages, file transfers, and other traffic you would not want exposed during a failed test.
  • Identify where your VPN application or operating system exposes its kill-switch or non-VPN blocking setting.
  • Use a harmless public-IP or ordinary connectivity check that you can repeat before and after the tunnel interruption.
  • Check your VPN provider’s documentation to determine which type of interruption is supposed to activate the protection mode you are testing.
  1. Record the normal state. With the VPN disconnected and no persistent blocking policy enabled, record the public IP address or other harmless network result shown through your normal internet connection. This is your fallback baseline.
  2. Connect the VPN. Establish the VPN normally, then repeat the same check. Confirm that the result now reflects the VPN route rather than the baseline connection before continuing.
  3. Confirm the protection mode. Verify that the kill switch or operating-system blocking control you intend to test is enabled. If the product has both disconnect-triggered and persistent modes, record which mode is active.
  4. Create only harmless observable traffic. Keep an ordinary webpage or non-sensitive connectivity check ready so you can tell whether networking continues. Do not use confidential logins, cloud uploads, private messages, or other sensitive transfers as test traffic.
  5. Trigger the supported failure condition. Use the provider’s documented test or failure method when one is available. Do not assume that clicking Disconnect tests a standard kill switch, because some implementations intentionally permit normal networking after a deliberate disconnect. Also do not disable Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or mobile data as a substitute for a VPN-tunnel failure, because removing the underlying internet connection cannot show whether traffic would have fallen back outside the tunnel.
  6. Observe the fallback behavior. While the VPN tunnel is unavailable but the underlying internet connection still exists, try the harmless connectivity check. For a fail-closed configuration covering that traffic, ordinary internet access should be blocked rather than silently returning through the baseline route.
  7. Reconnect and verify recovery. Restore the VPN connection, confirm that ordinary connectivity returns, and repeat the public-IP check. The observed address should again correspond to the VPN route rather than the baseline connection.

Verify the result

  • Traffic that was supposed to remain VPN-protected did not continue through the ordinary route while the tunnel was unavailable.
  • The underlying internet connection remained available during the failure test, so blocked traffic can reasonably be attributed to VPN protection rather than simply losing Wi-Fi, Ethernet, or mobile connectivity.
  • Internet access returned normally after the VPN re-established its protected route.
  • The post-reconnect public IP result again reflected the VPN endpoint rather than the normal baseline address.

Troubleshooting Kill-Switch and Reconnect Problems

The symptom usually indicates whether to investigate the kill-switch policy, the VPN connection itself, split tunneling, or the underlying network.

Internet access continues when the VPN drops

First confirm that a kill switch or equivalent blocking policy is enabled and that the affected application is supposed to use the VPN. Also check how the failure occurred. Some standard kill switches protect unexpected connection loss but intentionally allow normal networking after a manual disconnect. If split tunneling is enabled, verify that the application was not deliberately excluded from VPN protection.

Internet stays blocked after the VPN reconnects

Confirm that the VPN has actually completed reconnection rather than remaining in a connecting or authentication state. Persistent blocking policies can correctly keep traffic disabled while no valid tunnel is available. If the VPN reports connected but traffic remains blocked, restart the VPN application and check its current kill-switch state before changing unrelated router or DNS settings.

The VPN says connected, but websites still do not load
Only some apps keep working after the VPN fails

Check split-tunneling and per-app VPN rules before assuming the kill switch failed. An application deliberately excluded from the VPN may be expected to continue using the normal network, while an application assigned to the protected tunnel should follow the VPN’s applicable failure policy.

Nothing connects even after you intentionally turn the VPN off

A persistent or always-required VPN policy may still be active. Reconnect the VPN or deliberately disable that policy using the controls provided by the VPN application or operating system. Do not start deleting network adapters or resetting the entire network until you have ruled out intentional fail-closed enforcement. If the VPN itself reports connected but networking remains unavailable, VPN connected but no internet is a different diagnostic state from a simple tunnel disconnect.

Advertisement

Platform Differences That Matter

Android

Android provides several VPN controls at the operating-system level. Google’s current documentation says Android 7.0 and later can use Always-on VPN, and compatible configurations can enable Block connections without VPN. That combination can create fail-closed behavior without relying solely on an application’s own interface.

Android also supports per-app VPN rules. If applications are placed on an allowed list, only those applications use the VPN. Other applications can use normal system networking unless non-VPN connections are also blocked. With blocking enabled, applications outside the permitted VPN set can instead lose network access. The interaction is configuration-dependent, so observing one application’s behavior does not necessarily describe the whole device.

Apple devices

Apple supports several distinct VPN deployment models, including VPN On Demand, per-app VPN, and managed Always On VPN. They should not be treated as interchangeable names for one consumer kill-switch feature.

For managed Always On VPN configurations, Apple documents that all IP traffic can be tunneled through the organization’s VPN infrastructure and that all IP traffic is dropped when the required Always On VPN tunnels are not up. This is a strong example of operating-system-enforced fail-closed behavior, but it does not establish that every third-party consumer VPN application on an Apple device behaves the same way.

Advertisement

Apple separately documents VPN On Demand, per-app VPN, and managed Always On VPN as different deployment mechanisms. Those distinctions matter when comparing application behavior with organization-managed traffic enforcement.

Desktop VPN applications

Desktop VPN clients can implement blocking in different ways. Some rely on operating-system filtering or firewall facilities, while others use routing or interface mechanisms.

As a vendor-specific example, Proton documents persistent Windows Filtering Platform rules for its advanced Windows kill switch and a dummy network interface for its Linux GUI implementation. Those mechanisms illustrate implementation variety; they should not be generalized to unrelated Windows or Linux VPN clients.

The larger distinction between Always-On VPN and a kill switch is whether the system is trying to maintain a required VPN state, block traffic when that state is unavailable, or do both.

Advertisement

Bottom Line

What happens after a VPN disconnects depends less on the word “VPN” than on the policy that follows the failure. A fail-open configuration can permit subsequent traffic to use the normal network path, while fail-closed enforcement blocks affected traffic until VPN protection returns.

A kill switch is therefore a traffic-control feature, not a guarantee that the VPN will never fail. Split tunneling, DNS routing, IPv6 handling, browser networking, and platform-specific rules can create separate exposure paths even when the main tunnel appears healthy. The reliable approach is to understand what should be protected, verify that behavior with harmless traffic, and interpret the result against the exact VPN and operating-system configuration in use.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

Flock is finally requiring police to have a real reason before searching its camera database

Published

on

What just happened? Flock Safety is changing how police search its license plate camera database as the company faces growing questions in Washington over privacy, accuracy, and misuse. The company told Senator Josh Hawley that it has added more controls to its search system, which scans about 20 billion license plates a month.

Until recently, users were required to explain why they were conducting a search by typing into an open text field. Flock said those entries were not always specific enough. The company has replaced the field with a drop-down menu of standardized categories based on the FBI’s crime-reporting system.

By the end of the year, law enforcement users will also need to enter a case number before running a search. Flock said that requirement can be waived in emergencies.

The changes were outlined in a letter from Flock’s chief legal officer to Hawley, the Missouri Republican who opened an investigation into the company last month. Hawley led a Senate hearing on Wednesday examining Flock and three other companies that provide similar surveillance technology.

Advertisement

The hearing featured a Florida woman who spent 13 days in jail after her car was detected by a Flock camera near the scene of a fatal crash. Authorities were looking for a similar vehicle.

Flock’s automated license plate recognition system has spread quickly. The company says it has about 120,000 cameras nationwide. Police departments and public-safety officials argue that the technology can help find missing children, track stolen vehicles, and investigate hit-and-run crashes.

The system has also drawn criticism from privacy advocates, civil-liberties groups, and people on both sides of the political divide. Critics are concerned that agencies can use the cameras to follow a person’s movements over time. They also point to allegations that some officers have used the system for personal reasons, including stalking.

Flock said it does not maintain “a single consolidated count of confirmed customer misuse.” The company said its customers determine whether a search was justified and whether discipline is appropriate when an employee abuses access.

Advertisement

The company has also started adding its own monitoring tools. In April, it introduced a system designed to flag unusual search activity. Flock said the system has identified several cases of misuse, including some that led to arrests. It is also working on a feature that would lock users out when their behavior appears abnormal.

Hawley said the issue could prompt congressional action. “We have an entire constitutional system to protect individual liberty,” he told The Wall Street Journal. Without limits from companies or the government, he added, “we’re going to have a huge problem with the invasion of basic rights and liberties.”

The company is also reducing the amount of data it stores by default. New customers will have a seven-day retention period, down from 30 days. Existing customers will have to opt in if they want the shorter period.

Agencies can still seek permission to retain data longer, but Flock said those requests must be approved “either by an elected governing body…or by an elected official.” The company said about 3% of its law-enforcement customers keep data for more than 30 days. Its maximum retention period is one year.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

This Car Accessory Could Be The Solution To Cutting Road Noise On Long Trips

Published

on





When you’re on an exceptionally long road trip, the general boredom of things can combine with the minutiae of the road to create some rather annoying phenomena. For example, when you first set out, you might not think much about the sound of the road rolling beneath the treads of your tires. The longer you’re on a trip, however, the more you start to notice that droning, low-frequency sound. Even if they’re not necessarily bad warning-sign sounds, innocuous noises can start to become upsetting if you’re already bored and tired.

If you’re having a particular problem with road noise on regular, lengthy drives, there is a potential solution you may want to look into: car carpet underlay. It’s exactly what it sounds like and works as an additional layer of padding that goes beneath the carpeting in your car’s cabin. Adding padding down there has a few perks, such as making it a little more comfortable to rest your feet on and giving you some support in the case you have to get down on your knees to fish under the seats for a lost item or to clean. 

According to some automotive enthusiasts, carpet underlay can also be a sound choice for slightly deadening the general thrum of the road. Indeed, some manufacturers engineer underlays for this particular purpose. Whether or not it’s an absolute solution, though, is a matter of opinion.

Advertisement

Some users recommend underlay for absorbing low-frequency road noise

According to users on the Jalopy Journal forums and Vintage Mustang forums, automotive carpet underlay can be a nice investment if you want the floor of your vehicle to be a little more plush. It also has the added benefit of insulating the floor of your vehicle from the heat of your engine and exhaust, generally making it a bit cooler to the touch.

On the specific matter of cutting road noise, carpet underlay can definitely help in that regard, though the precise efficacy may vary. According to one Jalopy Journal user, adding Dynamat-branded underlay to their car as well as insulation on the walls silenced the noise so much that their spouse could hear the odometer ticking over.

Advertisement

However, as another user on that forum explains, carpet underlay, as well as similar products like mats and insulation inserts from brands like Hushmat and Dynamat, is intended more for dampening the noise produced by your own vehicle’s panels vibrating during extended, intensive usage. It will certainly absorb some noise from the road, but not all of it. If you’re looking to create a truly soundproof environment in your car’s cabin, they suggest you add some underlay to your carpets, followed by a layer of mass loaded vinyl (MLV), which is a hardware-grade material used for various sound-dampening purposes.



Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Meta’s new smart glasses skip the cameras, and the privacy backlash that came with them

Published

on

In a nutshell: Meta’s Connect 2026 event aimed to address two of the biggest obstacles facing wearable smart devices: privacy for smart glasses and the size of VR and AR devices. The company’s upcoming audio-only AI glasses look to put a digital assistant on the wearer’s face while avoiding the surveillance concerns that have dogged previous models. Meanwhile, the company’s latest VR device directly calls out Apple’s failed Vision Pro.

Pre-orders are now open for Meta’s recently revealed Ray-Ban Audio glasses. Starting at $349 and shipping October 13, the glasses handle music, calls, and AI functions without cameras. Meta also unveiled a VR headset that packs immersive media and productivity functionality into a form factor only slightly larger than a pair of glasses.

Meta compares the Ray-Ban Audio’s functionality to advanced earbuds such as Apple’s AirPods. Wearers can listen to music or podcasts, take calls, and chat with the company’s AI assistant, Muse, with up to 12 hours of battery life. Muse only begins listening when users say “Hey Meta” or press the action button.

Advertisement

Although the Connect 2026 keynote did not highlight the fact that the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses don’t include cameras, the omission is clearly an attempt to sidestep concerns about the privacy violations associated with camera-equipped smart glasses.

Earlier this year, New York banned such devices from courtrooms due to their recording capabilities, and Apple reportedly delayed its planned smart glasses as it wrestles with the issue. It remains unclear whether limiting smart glasses recording to audio will alleviate critics’ concerns.

However, Meta has not given up on camera-based smart glasses, as the Ray-Ban Meta Gen 3 glasses are available today. Starting at $449, they include a new six-microphone array that dampens background noise by more than 90% and a 12MP camera for 3K video recording. Later this year, the glasses will even be able to record 360-degree video with Dolby Atmos spatial sound.

Meta also revealed new features coming to Ray-Ban Display. Starting later this month, users can activate turn-by-turn cycling directions with voice commands. Furthermore, instead of simply using street names, directions will describe the world around wearers to make navigation more intuitive.

Advertisement

Later this fall, WhatsApp and Meta AI app users in the US can show call recipients photorealistic avatars while wearing Meta glasses. The holograms use AI to determine facial expressions based on users’ speech.

Meta VR glasses are coming next spring, starting at $1,299. Like Apple’s Vision Pro headset, Meta VR glasses can display multiple virtual screens around the wearer, showing content from productivity and streaming apps. With 5K micro-OLED panels delivering 37 pixels per degree, Meta’s device achieves the glasses-like form factor VR headsets have long strived for, weighing only 100 grams – about one-eighth as much as a Vision Pro.

Wearers can control a virtual keyboard, trackpad, remote, or game controller using gestures. Meta VR glasses will support Xbox Cloud Gaming and more than 75 VR games on day one that do not require controllers. The company is also collaborating with ESPN, Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, DirecTV, Crunchyroll, Plex, Peacock, HBO, Paramount+, and IMAX to deliver immersive, high-resolution streaming content.

Taking another shot at Apple, the glasses will also show a full-body hologram to call recipients instead of just a head and shoulders.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech

Waymo is scaling fast: Here’s what the fleet data shows

Published

on

Waymo’s commercial robotaxi ramp-up looks expansive, both in geographic reach and in ridership. And by almost every measure, it is — until you pay attention to where the bulk of those robotaxis are actually showing up.

The numbers over the past two years reflect the kind of commercial rollout you’d expect from a deep-pocketed company like Waymo, which spun out of Google and still counts Alphabet as its majority owner. In September 2024, Waymo was operating in just three cities — Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Today, it offers robotaxi service in 15 U.S. cities, with most of those commercial launches occurring in the past year. Ridership has skyrocketed, too, with Waymo now averaging 500,000 paid robotaxi rides every week.

But a closer look at its fleet shows a company concentrating its efforts in just two states. About 80% of Waymo’s roughly 4,000 robotaxis are in California and Texas, and Texas is where the action is now: Waymo’s fleet there has grown by nearly half in the past three weeks, fueled by a new Chinese-built minivan the company is betting will help it scale, even as tariffs drive up its costs.

The other 800 or so vehicles are spread across cities in other states, including Arizona and Florida, another burgeoning hot spot. Most are the familiar white Jaguar I-Pace electric SUVs, but a growing number are the new minivans — a modified Zeekr RT that Waymo has branded “Ojai.”

Advertisement

Waymo’s focus on California is no surprise. It is headquartered in Silicon Valley, and much of its early testing and development work was conducted there. Plus, a segment of the population there is inclined to adopt tech at its earliest stages.

The recent growth in Texas is more interesting. Waymo has increased its Texas fleet by 49% in the past three weeks, according to state vehicle registrations and data from the Texas Autonomous Vehicle Fleet Tracker. As of September 24, Waymo had 1,102 autonomous vehicles registered in the state.

Waymo first launched in commercial service in Austin through a partnership with Uber in March 2025, letting riders hail its robotaxis through the Uber app. Since then, the company has expanded its robotaxi services in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

Waymo’s Texas fleet remained relatively static for most of the summer, inching up from about 600 vehicles in June to more than 700 by the end of August. Then came September, when the fleet surged, driven by an influx of new Ojai minivans, which now make up about a third of Waymo’s Texas fleet.

Advertisement

Expect that share to grow.

The Ojai robotaxi, equipped with Waymo’s sixth-generation self-driving system, is supposed to help Waymo reach mass scale. Its interior is built to withstand heavy use, and it comes with an upgraded rider interface and Google’s Gemini AI, which acts as an in-car assistant for riders.

Strip away that technology, though, and the Ojai is a minivan made by Zeekr, a brand owned by China’s Geely Holding Group (which also owns Volvo). The Ojai is built on Zeekr’s SEA-M platform, a shared vehicle platform designed for uses like robotaxis and delivery vans. The base Zeekr vehicles are shipped to the U.S. without any Chinese connected-car technology on board. Once they arrive, the vehicles are sent to Waymo’s Arizona factory, where they are outfitted with Waymo’s self-driving system.

The Ojai is supposed to drive down costs and ultimately help Waymo reach profitability. For now, though, tariffs are cutting any savings. Under current U.S. trade policy, vehicles built in China face steep import tariffs, raising Waymo’s costs for every Ojai it brings into the country.

Advertisement

Waymo appears willing to absorb that cost. New York-based research firm MoffettNathanson, which tracks Ojai imports using detailed shipping records, said in its September report that Waymo is on track to bring 5,100 of the vehicles into the U.S. by the end of the year.

Where will all those Ojai vehicles go? Texas is certainly on the list. But Florida, where Waymo operates in three cities, and newer markets like Las Vegas will likely see an influx as well.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Tech

How to watch Slo Pitch online from anywhere

Published

on

Winning the beer league championship title becomes an all-consuming obsession for coach Joanne Pico (Jess Salgueiro) after her girlfriend and co-founder of the Public Lass Brovaries, a team for LGBTQ women and non-binary players, dumps her and joins a rival team in 10-part softball mockumentary Slo Pitch.

The comparisons with Heated Rivalry are obvious, all the moreso because Emily Hampshire and Nadine Bhabha are in both shows. Slo Pitch, however, predates the smash-hit hockey series. It started out as a cult web series in 2020, and its co-creators are heavily involved in the TV adaptation, with J Stevens directing, Gwenlyn Cumyn and Karen Knox starring, the trio having reunited to pen the series.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025