Feed aggregator
Cognyte Sells a Mobile Cell Surveillance Van
Yet another Israeli mass surveillance company:
Made by Israeli surveillance company Cognyte, the tech simulates a mobile phone tower, which forces nearby phones to connect to it. That enables cops to keep tabs on any phones in the vicinity whether they’re owned by a suspect in a case or not. Cognyte’s contract with the state of Texas reveals that the simulator, called FalcoNet, can be concealed within the vehicles, hidden in a backpack for on-foot missions or attached to a helicopter. It’s the same technology as the infamous Stingray, one of the original cell-site simulators made by defense giant L3Harris...
NextEra aims to cash in on surging power demand from data centers
Heat deaths to skyrocket in countries lacking adequate electricity, study finds
EU countries clash over free carbon permits in ETS overhaul
Brazil’s government working with Peru to protect Indigenous lands
Brazil uses forensic science to tackle illegal mining in the Amazon
Giraffes given a new home in Uganda to escape oil drilling in park
Tree species richness relates to long-term forest photosynthesis increase
Nature Climate Change, Published online: 27 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02698-7
The authors integrate tree species richness with satellite-derived photosynthesis proxies to show that richness correlates with greater current levels of photosynthesis and greater increases over time. Projected biodiversity loss by 2050 could lead to cumulative forest photosynthesis loss of 4.4–35.7 PgC.Canopy-mediated climate feedbacks in the boreal continuous permafrost zone
Nature Climate Change, Published online: 27 July 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02692-z
Soil carbon stocks are greater than biomass carbon in boreal forests. This study shows that tree canopies thermally protect more carbon in permafrost from thaw than is stored in biomass, highlighting the need to consider carbon impacts of forest disturbance and conservation on an ecosystem scale.Friday Squid Blogging: Illex Squid Catch in the Falklands
Lower catch this year.
As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.
Farmers Are Getting Control Of Their Equipment Back
For years, John Deere had actively made repairing their tractors near-impossible for anyone but itself and the few "authorized" repair shops—regardless of the ability of its customers to actually visit such shops. Now, in a major win for farmers and right to repair advocates, John Deere must soon provide farmers with not just the tools and resources to finally repair their own John Deere equipment, but also access to future updates for said equipment.
In 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought a suit against farm equipment manufacturer John Deere, alleging John Deere used their control over equipment repair tools and resources to limit the ability of farmers and independent repair providers (IRPs) to repair John Deere equipment. Earlier this month, John Deere reached a settlement with the FTC in which they will immediately make available a tranche of repair resources, then continue to make further resources available until the end of the year. Five states joined the FTC in this suit, and over the next 10 years these states will work alongside the FTC to ensure John Deere complies with this settlement.
It is worth noting there is a second, farmer-initiated antitrust lawsuit against John Deere, also concerning a farmer’s right to repair their own equipment. In April, John Deere agreed to a $99 million settlement in that case, which also includes right to repair provisions.
This fight is just one example of how, as machines become increasingly computerized, companies like John Deere restrict your ability to repair machines behind software subject to legal regimes that don’t just lock down repair, but make unauthorized repair a potential criminal offense.
John Deere’s market dominance in farm equipment led to an extraordinary power over access to the tools and resources of repair. John Deere actively restricted who had access to repair tools, and monopolized who could do the repair. This revenue stream—and control of it—is built into the business models of a lot of the technology we buy today. It also encourages companies to move away from the kinds of devices that can be easily fixed at home to ones that offer bells and whistles no one wants but makes repair difficult—like app-enabled toasters.
This whole saga with John Deere has been an exemplar of the greater need for right to repair laws, policy, and enforcement. There was a time when you bought a tractor and with some know-how and a manual could fix it yourself. It is easy to envision why someone with John Deere farm equipment might find it inconvenient to wait for John Deere approved repairpeople to come and fix any broken equipment. Especially when it meant waiting for days or weeks. Especially if it meant their crop was withering on the vine. This settlement will help ensure this is no longer the case.
But it’s not just about farm equipment; If you can’t fix it, you don’t own it. While some might feel more willing to agree they “shouldn’t” futz with laptops or smartphone, it still stands that — whether it’s farm equipment, a car, a laptop, or even your phone — if you legally cannot fix it yourself, if you must go hat in hand to an “approved provider,” you are at the mercy of a corporation. It is why EFF continues to support right to repair laws that ensure people truly own what they buy. And it is why EFF continues to fight for exemptions to the law that makes it most difficult to tinker and repair your own devices.
Why AI Needs a “Genie Coefficient”
This essay was written with Barath Raghavan, and originally appeared in The Guardian.
Major benchmarks measure what AI can do. None measure whether it does what you mean: the distance between what you ask an AI to do and the unspoken assumptions about how you want the AI to do it. We propose a new metric: the Genie coefficient.
There’s often a gap between one person’s request and another’s understanding. Most of the time, we bridge it using general knowledge. For example, if you ask a friend to get you coffee, they’ll pour a cup from the pot or buy one from a coffee shop. They won’t bring you a bag of raw beans or snatch a cup from a stranger and hand it to you. You never specified any of this. You never had to...
