VodafoneThree’s networks director says UK mobile quality is not ready for AI traffic and that planning rules, not money, are the obstacle, with more than half of its upgrades to existing masts requiring permission. The EU’s Gigabit Infrastructure Act has since November given authorities four months to decide a permit, after which it is deemed granted.

The UK’s largest mobile operator says its own network is not good enough. “I am embarrassed today at the level of quality of our network,” Andrea Donà of VodafoneThree told the Guardian.

He was describing what happens when AI traffic arrives. His comparison was the signal loss people get at a stadium, made permanent.

The starting position is poor. UK mobile coverage is worse than every EU member state and every other G7 country, on Opensignal data compiled for Which?. The same analysis puts it 57th globally for network performance.

Money is not the obstacle. VodafoneThree has committed £11B to upgrading masts, and it is cutting its mast count by 30%.

Almost none of the work needs a new site. About 96% of the upgrades are on existing structures, and more than half of those still require planning permission.

Donà’s ask is procedural rather than financial. “Planning reform is the lowest possible cost growth policy, it doesn’t require any government money,” he said.

The European Union legislated exactly that in 2024. The remedy he is describing is already on the statute book across the Channel.

Under the Gigabit Infrastructure Act, national authorities have four months to decide a permit application for a very high capacity network, and the permit is deemed granted if they miss the deadline.

It has applied since November last year. Member states may opt out of the automatic approval, but they have to offer compensation or a right to sue instead.

Brussels is going further. The Digital Networks Act proposes indefinite spectrum licences, use it or share it rules, and simpler deployment in exchange for tougher coverage duties.

The UK is bound by none of it. Its operators also point out that mobile networks are critical national infrastructure without the reliefs data centres receive on business rates and energy.

Elsewhere the gap is being attacked from a different direction. A Spanish startup raised €150M to beam 5G to ordinary phones from orbit, which needs no local consent at all.

Which is the shape of the problem. Britain protects the building where the model runs and not the network that has to reach it.

offbeat

Spike drone defense system is designed to be carried in a rucksack or mounted on top of a vehicle

A defense startup has raised $7 million to develop its counter-drone system that uses small interceptors to defend against swarms of FPV (First-Person View) drone swarms, the kind causing heavy battlefield casualties in Ukraine.

San Francisco-based Mara says it has secured the funding to bring its Spike drone defense system to market, aiming to provide a cost-effective counter to small FPV attack drones – typically quad-copters with an explosive payload.

The system comprises separate Spotter sensor / targeting units and multiple Seeker kinetic interceptors. The latter are small (250g / half a pound), fast (200 kmph / 124 mph), tube-launched, and have onboard intelligence to help find their way to the target.

Mara claims that deployments can scale from a single rucksack kit to protect a squad of troops, to a vehicle-mounted launcher, up to a multi-kilometer perimeter shield for a base or site.

A launcher can be fitted with up to 48 of the Seeker interceptors, and reloaded in less than a minute, or so the firm says.

The Spotter detection and tracking sensor combines electro-optical and acoustic sensors with an optional low-signature radar, for day and night all-weather protection.

“Small drones changed the battlefield because they distributed the cost and capability of precise attack,” Mara co-founder and CEO Daniel Kofman said in a statement.

Yet many defensive countermeasures are concentrated into one costly point solution, he claims. “Spike creates a distributed mesh of small, cheap nodes that can each aim and shoot in multiple directions at once.”

The components of its Spike system have already been tested by potential customers, Mara says. Seeker completed intercepts cued through US Army systems at an exercise in Texas, while Spotter has been operated on an armored vehicle during another Army exercise in Europe.

Most recently, Ukrainian forces operated Spotter near to the front line in their country, where it tracked multiple FPV drones.

Mara says it has research and testing agreements with three US defense organizations, and is in early-stage engagements with international military partners in the UK, Czech Republic and Ukraine.

The $7 million funding round was led by Khosla Ventures.

We asked Mara for further details, such as the range of its Seeker interceptors and just how inexpensive they are, and will update if we get answers. ®

The big picture: South Korea is preparing to offer free generative AI services to its entire population, using the technology to help people handle everyday tasks such as booking medical appointments, finding housing, and sorting out taxes. The program is intended to expand access to homegrown AI systems while giving the government a larger role in how they are used for everyday services.

The government’s “AI for All” program will begin beta testing in September, followed by a broader launch later this year. On Friday, Seoul named three technology consortia to provide the services. They include groups led by the country’s two largest telecom companies and the operator of Kakao, one of South Korea’s most widely used consumer platforms.

The services are expected to connect to government systems rather than function solely as standalone chatbots. Residents will be able to use them to book doctor appointments, search for apartments, and get tax guidance. Small businesses will be able to calculate taxes and check whether they qualify for government support. Parents will receive recommendations for educational content.

Each consortium plans to introduce its own AI app and add generative AI features to existing products. Users will have unlimited access, with no token limits under the government-supported plans.

Seoul will supply some of the computing capacity needed to run the services. The government plans to distribute up to 512 Nvidia B200 chips among the three consortia and help cover operating costs. The Ministry of Science and ICT has not disclosed the program’s total cost.

The initiative is part of South Korea’s effort to build a stronger domestic AI industry and reduce its reliance on systems developed in the US and China. The government is trying to steer more consumers toward locally developed AI products by making premium-level services widely available at no cost.

South Korea already has a large market for generative AI. A government survey earlier this year found that about one-quarter of South Koreans pay for AI services. By comparison, a PNC Bank survey found that about 2% of Americans pay for such services. Seoul estimates that more than 20 million people in South Korea use free generative AI tools.

The rollout is backed by a broader increase in AI spending. President Lee Jae Myung’s administration has set aside about 10 trillion won, or $7.2 billion, for AI-related spending in 2026. That is three times the amount allocated the previous year.

For South Korea, the project will test whether generative AI can become part of the country’s basic digital infrastructure. Its success will depend on whether the systems are reliable enough for people to use them for practical, routine tasks.

The government has not set an adoption target for the new service.

The growing backlash against surveillance companies like Flock may have reached a tipping point. A new survey has found that more Americans oppose these surveillance cameras than support them.

According to a new YouGov survey of 20,000 people across the U.S. that was shared exclusively with The Washington Post, 46% of respondents opposed the company’s surveillance cameras in their communities, while 38% supported them. This is a reversal from last year, when the majority of survey respondents said they were in favor.

Flock is one of the more visible surveillance companies, operating more than 120,000 license plate readers across the U.S. that can track the whereabouts of vehicles. The company has been embroiled in controversy following reports of police abusing the cameras’ surveillance, which resulted in dozens of U.S. communities rejecting Flock’s cameras or canceling their contracts amid privacy concerns.

The survey also reported that more respondents said the surveillance would not make them feel any safer.

When reached by TechCrunch, Flock claimed there was wide support for its surveillance technology, but acknowledged that “support isn’t unconditional,” and touted the rollout of its recent safeguards. Critics, like the ACLU, have said the company’s new safeguards amount to little, and Flock remains a major threat to civil liberties.

Amid the intensifying backlash, Flock CEO Garrett Langley last week called for a “compromise” between surveillance and privacy, following a rise in vandalism targeting Flock cameras.

US Open 2026 has served up a sensational Round 1 draw, headlined by Matteo Berrettini vs Stan Wawrinka, Rafael Jodar vs Thanasi Kokkinakis and Carlos Alcaraz vs Roman Safiullin. The hard-hitting Russian is a less-than-ideal opponent for the No.2 seed and reigning champion, who’s been out of action since April with a wrist injury.

The tie that looks set to steal the show, however, is Berrettini’s clash with 2016 champion Wawrinka. They met for the very first time at Wimbledon two months ago – and produced the match of the tournament. With Wawrinka set to hang up his racket this year, it could end up being his final ever appearance at a major.

There’s no getting around the fact that AI is everywhere. From our smartphones to even our fridges, it seems like all modern gadgets are equipped with AI that promises to make life easier.

AI has also been steadily gaining traction within the beauty industry. Whether it’s an app that scans a selfie to determine potential skin issues or a pair of straighteners that use AI to adapt its temperature to your hair type, the guesswork is being taken out of skincare and beauty.

But can you really trust AI to correctly diagnose a skin issue and provide you with the right advice? Or is this just another elaborate marketing scheme to get consumers to buy from certain brands?

How can AI help with skincare and beauty?

I think many can agree that finding the perfect skincare routine is a pretty tough task. Despite there being plenty of recommendations out there, a product that works for one person may simply not work as well for another – even if you share similar skin concerns. 

Advertisement

I’ve spent more money than I’d like to admit on products that either friends or TikTokkers (I know) swear changed their lives for the better, only to find that they didn’t really work for me. In fact that’s sometimes the best case scenario, as I’ve even got a blacklist of products that did the exact opposite of what they promised and made me break out. 

Advertisement

I’m not alone in this, as L’Oreal reported in a survey of over 2,000 skincare users, it was revealed that almost 80% relied on “trial and error” to find their holy grail – and usually took around seven products to do so. 

In an ideal world, the perfect thing to do would be to visit a dermatologist who can diagnose and offer expert advice based on your exact needs. But seeing a dermatologist takes time and, usually, a fair bit of money too. So that’s where AI comes in. 

Advertisement

There are countless apps and services available that promise to assess your skin needs and offer so-called personalised product recommendations, all through a simple selfie or face scan. Cetaphil offers one of the fastest AI skincare tools I’ve used, and doesn’t require any registration. Instead, you simply take a selfie and it gives you a mark out of 100 based on factors like hydration, blemish and redness, oiliness, dark circles and wrinkles, to name a few. 

You can even click through all the different factors and see all the “issues” mapped out on your face. 

From here, you’re provided with a handful of Cetaphil products that are chosen according to your results. So, for example, my report said my skin was shiny – though I prefer the term “glowing”, but whatever – so I was advised to try Cetaphil’s oily skin cleanser. But is that really the best product for me, or is this just Cetaphil trying to get me to invest in its products?

Advertisement

It’s not just skincare that AI has infiltrated. Brands like Dcypher promise to create a shade of foundation specifically for your exact skin tone and undertone. 

Advertisement

I recently went on an epic forage through the streets of London in an attempt to find a new foundation shade, after discovering my tried-and-tested formula was recently discontinued. Discovering Dcypher sooner could have saved me both time and, unfortunately, money, as I’d made the silly mistake of buying a few bottles that looked good in-store but didn’t quite sit right in the broad light of day.

Limitations of AI skincare

But how accurate are these AI apps? At surface level, while they might note wrinkles or detect spots, can they really assess the root cause of the issues simply by looking at your skin alone?

Personally, I like the idea of L’Oreal’s Cell BioPrint, which was unveiled at CES back in 2025, but is yet to become readily available. Essentially, the Cell BioPrint is a tabletop device that provides users with a personalised skin analysis. To receive your analysis, you need to put a facial tape strip on your cheek, place it into L’Oreal’s buffer solution and then load this into the machine to receive an analysis. 

While it’s processing, the device will then take images of your face to correspond with the sample. 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Will AI become a regular part of our skincare routines?

I’m not convinced that AI should be an integral part of our skincare routines at this stage. Yes, apps and scanners can detect obvious potential skin concerns, but I don’t think that’s particularly groundbreaking – yet. 

Until AI-powered skin tools can assess the root causes of conditions, and offer more in-depth advice on how to help your skin, rather than just providing general product recommendations, then I don’t think it should be something to be relied on. Having said that, it’s fair to say that if you’re not sure where to begin with a new skincare routine, then using an AI scanner could be a good place to start.

The Irish company said its existing identity services and resources will be integrated with the CyberIAM team to form a new identity managed services practice.

Irish-founded and -headquartered cybersecurity company Integrity360 has acquired CyberIAM, a South African cyber identity services company, for an undisclosed amount.

CyberIAM, founded in 2016, employs around 120 in the UK’s London and Chester, and South Africa’s Cape Town.

It specialises in solutions for identity access management; identity governance and administration; privileged access management; and customer identity and access management.

Its enterprise customers come from areas such as financial services, retail, healthcare, insurance, energy, legal and the public sector, according to the companies.

Integrity360 said the acquisition would “significantly strengthen” its capability around identity security in the age of AI deployments, which it said represents a new and prevailing cybersecurity challenge for businesses and organisations.

The Irish company said its existing identity services and resources will be integrated with the CyberIAM team to form a new identity managed services practice – led by current CyberIAM CEO Michael Ribaudo – that will operate from the group’s global security operations centre.

“We could not be more delighted to be welcoming Michael and the whole CyberIAM team to Integrity360,” said Ian Brown, executive chair at Integrity360.

“Identity is now the primary control plane for cybersecurity, and by strengthening our identity capabilities, we are helping customers build the secure foundation they need to embrace AI with confidence.”

Integrity360 said it now projects a revenue run rate of around €230m – with the addition of €18m in revenue from CyberIAM – and has a new total headcount of around 900 working from 16 locations across the UK, Europe, Africa and Canada.

“Thanks to the support of our customers and employees, CyberIAM has grown to become one of the leading experts in identity services helping businesses control and protect human and machine identities,” said Ribaudo.

“With the backing of Ian and the considerable resources, capability and track record of the entire Integrity360 team, we are excited about what we can further achieve for our customers and our employees, and we look forward to expanding further into international markets.”

The acquisition is the latest of many by Integrity360 in recent times, including Canada’s Advantus360 in January, Belgium’s Cresco last December, South Africa’s Redshift the same month, France’s Holiseum in March 2025 and Nclose in January 2025.

In June, Integrity360’s CTO Richard Ford spoke to us about how cyber teams can prepare for the continuing emergence of increasingly powerful and capable AI models. In May, the company’s Matthew Olney wrote about the importance of security in both information technology and operational technology.

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.

security

Polling finds two-thirds don’t trust this government, or any future one, with access to their encrypted chats

Brits have delivered a fairly unambiguous verdict on giving the government access to their encrypted messages: no, thanks.

New polling commissioned by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) found that 93 percent of British adults believe they have a right to private conversations online, while 89 percent think nobody should be able to access their personal messages without a court order.

Perhaps more awkwardly for Westminster, two-thirds said they would not trust either the current government or any future one with the power to access encrypted messages.

That distrust crosses political lines. Among people who voted in the 2024 general election, 58 percent of Labour voters said they wouldn’t trust any government with the power, alongside 59 percent of Conservatives, 56 percent of Liberal Democrats, 69 percent of Greens and 75 percent of Reform voters.

Public First did the asking, polling 2,000 British adults for CDT in April and weighting the results to reflect the wider population. The margin of error is 2.2 percentage points.

The findings land as the UK government’s appetite for slurping encrypted data continues to collide with the tech industry’s insistence that encryption works best when nobody has a spare key lying around.

That fight became particularly public when Apple withdrew Advanced Data Protection from UK users after receiving a secret Technical Capability Notice (TCN) under the Investigatory Powers Act. Apple challenged the order, and while the US government later said Britain had withdrawn its demand for access to Americans’ encrypted data, reports have since suggested another TCN was issued focusing on British users.

Despite the international row, 55 percent of those polled hadn’t heard about the Apple notice at all. Once presented with the idea, enthusiasm remained thin.

Just 12 percent backed the government being able to secretly order companies to provide access to users’ information while preventing those companies from revealing the order. A third said the government shouldn’t have that power at all, while another 41 percent wanted greater transparency or parliamentary oversight.

Nor were respondents particularly sold on sacrificing security for law enforcement. 53 percent said the security risks of accessing encrypted messages outweighed the benefits, compared with 28 percent who thought the benefits came out on top.

The reasons will sound familiar to anyone who has followed the encryption debate for more than five minutes. 84 percent worried that mechanisms allowing access to encrypted messages could introduce vulnerabilities for hackers and criminals, while 82 percent were concerned the powers could be abused.

Knowing someone might be watching could also change how people behave. 65 percent said they’d become more cautious about what they liked, shared or commented on, while 41 percent said they’d self-censor criticism of public institutions or government officials.

CDT is not a disinterested observer: the digital rights group campaigns for strong encryption and commissioned the research as part of that work. The polling itself, however, was carried out independently.

Commenting on the research, Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “The British public instinctively know that being able to communicate privately is crucial to our individuality and to the survival of a free and open society.

“The government persists with the myth that it can weaken encryption to target the bad guys only. Attacks on the security of our phones, security tools and messaging apps harm us all and make our democracy weaker.”

None of this is likely to end Westminster’s long-running pursuit of encrypted communications. But if ministers were hoping the public was enthusiastically behind them, the numbers suggest otherwise. ®