Category: Links

  • EU and UK competition rules updated around tech licensing

    Out-Law from Pinsent Masons

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: I’ll be honest, I’ve not fully digested this. Competition law takes a lot of brain power. But I do want to dig some more into the new data licensing elements when I get the chance – I think this is where regulators need to be really thoughtful.

    Your Takeaway: Depends on who you are – commercial lawyers, make sure you have at least an understanding of these changes. Small businesses, you can probably scroll on by!

    New competition rules governing technology licensing agreements have now taken effect in both the EU and UK.

    Highlights

    The provisions of the new the UK TTBEO are for the most part in alignment with those of the TTBER

    Data licensing agreements are increasingly common, but they were not covered under the 2014 TTBER and guidelines.

    New guidelines on data licensing

    Clearer market share thresholds

    A one-year transitional period, until 30 April 2027, applies under both the EU and UK regimes for existing technology transfer agreements that comply with the old TTBER requirements but not the new rules. New technology transfer agreements implemented from today must immediately comply with the new rules.

    In the UK, a new Technology Transfer Agreements Block Exemption Order (TTBEO) – which was subject to separate review and consultation by the UK government and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) – also enters into force today, 1 May. The TTBEO replaces the 2014 TTBER which was “assimilated” into UK national law following Brexit. The CMA is currently consulting on draft new guidance for the UK TTBEO regime.

    In the EU, a revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) and revised Technology Transfer Guidelines (‘the guidelines’) enter into force today, 1 May. The revisions, which replace the 2014 versions, follow a four-year review by the European Commission into the functioning of the 2014 TTBER and related guidelines and aim to address concerns raised from a wide range of stakeholders.

  • AI agents can bypass guardrails and put credentials at risk, Okta study finds

    Computerworld

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: It might save some time, but tou don’t need to be hugely imaginative to come up with scenarios where agentic AI could cause some really fundamental problems.

    Your Takeaway: BE CAREFUL – if it seems to good to be true, it might be. These tools are so easy to use, but it’s really worthwhile having at least a basic understanding of what they CAN do if you’re going to use them, so you can protect yourself.

    And let’s start by NOT giving tools like OpenClaw full access to your computer…

    An AI agent that revealed sensitive data without being asked. An agent that overruled its own guardrails. Another that sent credentials to an attacker via Telegram, because it forgot it wasn’t supposed to do so after a reset.
    It’s no secret that AI agents have huge potential, balanced by equally big risks. What’s becoming apparent, however, is how quickly agentic systems can veer wildly off course and start exposing critical information under real-world conditions.
    A look at just how easily this can happen emerges from Phishing the agent: Why AI guardrails aren’t enough, a report on tests conducted by cloud identity and access management (IAM) company Okta Threat Intelligence, which uncovered all of the problems cited above, and more.
    Their research focused on OpenClaw, a model-agnostic multi-channel AI assistant which has seen explosive growth inside enterprises since appearing in late 2025.
    The Telegram hack
    In common with the growing list of rival agents, OpenClaw is only as useful as the access it is given to files, accounts, browsers, network devices, and, most significant of all, credentials.
    One test conducted by Okta assessed how easy it would be to trick OpenClaw running Claude Sonnet 4.6 into handing over an OAuth token. This shouldn’t be possible; the LLM should refuse this request. However, what might have held true when prompting Claude as a chatbot quickly fell apart when it was accessed through OpenClaw.
    The test assumed that a user had given OpenClaw full access to their computer, that they regularly controlled the agent over Telegram, and that their Telegram account had been hijacked.
    First, the attacker instructed the agent via Telegram to retrieve an OAuth token, but to only display it in a terminal window on the computer. Claude Sonnet’s guardrails would prevent it from copying the token, however, the testers were able to reset the agent, causing it to forget it had displayed the token in the terminal window.
    At that point, Okta said in i…

    Highlights

    Agents are only the latest example of a technology that is being deployed faster than it can be secured, Kirk observed. “Much of AI right now is defying security gravity,” he said. “But there are ways to use agents safely and keep credentials out of their reach, which is the only safe way to use them.”

    “The agents are prompted to be as helpful as possible by default, a characteristic that poses particular concerns when it comes to credentials and tokens,” said Kirk.

    Agentic AI is really two things: a powerful orchestration system coupled to one or more highly-capable LLMs. What an agent *isn’t* is a simple interface, and it must be viewed as a separate system capable of autonomous, unpredictable reasoning.

    The test assumed that a user had given OpenClaw full access to their computer, that they regularly controlled the agent over Telegram, and that their Telegram account had been hijacked.

    A look at just how easily this can happen emerges from *Phishing the agent: Why AI guardrails aren’t enough**,* a report on tests conducted by cloud identity and access management (IAM) company Okta Threat Intelligence, which uncovered all of the problems cited above, and more.

    It’s no secret that AI agents have huge potential, balanced by equally big risks. What’s becoming apparent, however, is how quickly agentic systems can veer wildly off course and start exposing critical information under real-world conditions.

    An AI agent that revealed sensitive data without being asked. An agent that overruled its own guardrails. Another that sent credentials to an attacker via Telegram, because it forgot it wasn’t supposed to do so after a reset.

  • Does Your AI Agent Need a VPN? The Company Behind Norton and Avast Thinks So

    Ajay Kumar

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: Some are looking to ban VPNs, whilst others are giving them to AI Agents… Back to whack-a-mole for services who are trying to stop AI agents from clogging up their processes.

    Your Takeaway: If your service distinguishes between human and agent, will VPN use affect that process? Or could your agent benefit from its own VPN?

    You might use a VPN yourself, but have you considered giving one to your AI agent? It might be more important than you think.

    Highlights

    "Perhaps most importantly, your ISP can’t distinguish between your own internet traffic and that of your autonomous AI agent," said Tomaschek. "But with this integration, as well as with Windscribe’s, the VPN encrypts the agent’s traffic as well, so basically you’re protected from whatever your agent might autonomously get up to on the internet."

    If you use OpenClaw, ChatGPT or one of the many other LLMs with access to the internet, your autonomous AI agent can now take advantage of the same privacy and security features.

    "Using a VPN with an LLM can provide several advantages, such as keeping your identity private. Your internet provider won’t be able to see your AI agent’s activity, or that you’re using an AI agent," said Moe Long, CNET senior editor.

  • Study: AI models that consider user’s feeling are more likely to make errors

    Kyle Orland

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: The law of unintended consequences strikes again – and why tech management and parenting have so much in common…

    Your Takeaway: When you’re defining how you want an AI agent to act, remember it’s going to take your instructions very literally – and you might not like the consequences. Does this have an impact for products you ship or products you use that incorporate Ai – particularly if the people training the product may have a different world viewpoint to those using it?

    AI models tuned to be warmer and more empathetic often make more mistakes than original models. These warmer models tend to prioritize making users feel good over giving correct answers, especially when users share emotions like sadness. Researchers warn that choosing between a friendly AI and an accurate AI is important for safe and trustworthy use.

    Highlights

    In a new paper published this week in Nature, researchers from Oxford University’s Internet Institute found that specially tuned AI models tend to mimic the human tendency to occasionally “soften difficult truths” when necessary “to preserve bonds and avoid conflict.” These warmer models are also more likely to validate a user’s expressed incorrect beliefs, the researchers found, especially when the user shares that they’re feeling sad.

    In human-to-human communication, the desire to be empathetic or polite often conflicts with the need to be truthful—hence terms like “being brutally honest” for situations where you value the truth over sparing someone’s feelings. Now, new research suggests that large language models can sometimes show a similar tendency when specifically trained to present a “warmer” tone for the user.

  • Hackers are actively exploiting a bug in cPanel, used by millions of websites

    Zack Whittaker

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: If you’re using cPanel, make sure you’re patched!

    This is a high-risk, actively exploited authentication-bypass in cPanel/WHM (CVE-2026-41940) that lets attackers skip login and take full admin control of servers; because cPanel is widespread and has deep server access, unpatched systems – especially on shared hosting – are prime targets and some hosts already saw exploitation attempts.

    Your Takeaway: We’re not tech experts, but check with your team or provider and make sure you’re patched (or that access to control panels is blocked/isolated).

    A serious bug in cPanel software lets hackers take full control of websites and servers. Many web hosting companies have fixed the issue, but users must update their systems quickly to stay safe. Experts warn that the vulnerability is being actively exploited and could affect millions of sites worldwide.

    Highlights

    cPanel and WHM are two software suites used for managing web servers that host websites, manage emails, and handle important configurations and databases needed to maintain an internet domain. The two suites have deep-access to the servers that they manage, allowing a malicious hacker potentially unrestricted access to data managed by the affected software.

    The bug allows hackers to hijack and take full control of the servers running the affected software, which is thought to be used by tens of millions of website owners around the world.

    Security researchers are sounding the alarm on a newly discovered vulnerability in the widely used web server management software cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM).

  • Meta cuts contractors who reported seeing Ray-Ban Meta users have sex

    Scharon Harding

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: Without going into the many many layers of this story, our takeaway for anyone procuring products or services is to consider the full supply chain when looking at the ethics of a product. What feels like automated magic is often a person behind the curtain, probably in a jurisdiction with fewer safeguards, more often than you might expect.

    Your Takeaway: Beauty isn’t skin deep – make sure you do your due diligence and that your happy that your providers ahve appropriate worker protection and safeguards all the way down the chain. And if you’re running human‑review workflows – think through all the consequences. Finally, if you’re using wearable tech which captures images of everyone around you, give real consideration to how you’d feel if a someone with less moral integrity than you were to do the same.

    Meta ended its contract with Kenyan firm Sama after workers reported seeing private and explicit videos recorded by Ray-Ban Meta glasses. Sama denies failing to meet standards and says it was not warned about any issues. The situation has raised privacy concerns and led to investigations and a class-action lawsuit against Meta.

    Highlights

    BBC reported that Sama workers believe Meta ended the contract because workers spoke out about seeing Ray-Ban Meta-shot footage of people performing personal acts, like changing their clothes, having sex, and using the toilet.

    A Meta spokesperson told BBC that Meta “decided to end our work with Sama because they don’t meet our standards.” Ars Technica reached out to Meta asking how, specifically, Sama failed to meet Meta’s expectations and will update this article if we hear back. Ars has also reached out to Sama.

    In February, numerous workers from a company that Meta contracted to perform data annotation for Ray-Ban Meta reported viewing sensitive, embarrassing, and seemingly private footage recorded by the smart glasses. About two months later, Meta ended its contract with the firm.

  • Spotify rolls out ‘Verified’ badge to distinguish human artists from AI

    Agence France-Presse

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: Spotify’s new green “Verified by Spotify” badge and the informational panel are straightforward moves to help users spot human artists and surface authenticity signals amid a flood of AI-generated music. B the verification criteria (sustained engagement, platform-rule compliance, external presence like gigs/merch/socials) explicitly exclude primarily AI-created artists, rather than music… Is this the intention?

    Your Takeaway: It’s always worth considering what the “verification” on any site means – what needs to be demonstrated before verification is granted.

    Spotify will add a green "Verified by Spotify" badge to show which artists are real humans, not AI creations. This badge helps listeners trust the music and appears only on profiles that meet Spotify’s authenticity rules. The change comes as many AI-generated songs flood streaming platforms, causing concern in the music industry.

    Highlights

    Spotify on Thursday unveiled a new verification system designed to help listeners distinguish human musicians from AI-generated content, as people flood streaming platforms with a growing volume of synthetic tracks made with artificial intelligence.

    The initiative arrives amid mounting concern across the music industry over AI-generated content overwhelming streaming catalogues.

    The company said more than 99% of artists that listeners actively search for will be verified at launch, representing hundreds of thousands of musicians spanning genres and geographies.

    To earn verification, artists must demonstrate sustained listener engagement over time, comply with Spotify’s platform rules and show signs of a genuine presence both on and off the platform, such as concert dates, merchandise and linked social media accounts.

  • Legal AI startup Legora hits $5.6 valuation and its battle with Harvey just got hotter

    Anna Heim

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: We’re seeing more “market froth” more than “proven change in legal practice.” Valuations, ad campaigns and celebrity endorsements are racing ahead of most firms’ ability to use these tools in a meaningful way. Right now, the gap between the hype and what fee-earners actually do with Harvey/Legora in a normal Tuesday is still pretty stark. I’d love to hear your experience!

    Your Takeaway: Treat this as a signal to experiment deliberately, not to panic-buy a platform. If you haven’t already, pick one or two contained use cases (e.g. first-draft research notes, clause comparison) and run small, supervised pilots with clear guardrails. Then share honest internal feedback — including the “confused faces” — so you don’t let marketing headlines set your AI strategy.

    Legora is a legal AI startup valued at $5.6 billion and backed by Nvidia and other investors. It competes closely with Harvey, another legal AI company valued at $11 billion, as both expand globally. The rivalry is intense, with big marketing efforts and a focus on applying AI to reshape the legal industry.

    Highlights

    Alongside Atlassian and other new financial investors, NVentures joined Legora’s cap table as part of a $50 million Series D extension that comes a month after the startup’s $550 million Series D.

    Leveraging AI to help lawyers streamline their work, the Swedish-born legal tech startup is competing with U.S. player Harvey.

    Nvidia has laid a new brick in its AI empire. NVentures, its corporate VC fund, has backed Legora, reportedly its first legal AI investment.

  • Firefox maker torches Google for building Prompt API into browser

    Thomas Claburn

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: Mozilla is right to flag real risks with Google’s Prompt API: it bundles a vendor-specific model and policy into a browser API, which can push developers to change the way they build.

    Your Takeaway: There is a very real risk for everyone of AI being built in by the back door even if a product doesn’t appear to use AI. Due diligence in software is getting very difficult.

    Treat any browser‑provided AI API as a potential vector for vendor lock‑in and unexpected content controls; push for neutral, implementable standards that separate API mechanics from any single model or provider policy, test real performance and harms before adoption, and avoid building critical product flows that depend on Chrome‑specific AI behaviour.

    Mozilla opposes Google’s new Prompt API because it may limit web openness and favor Google’s AI model. They worry it forces developers to follow Google’s rules, hurting fairness and interoperability. Google says the API encourages innovation, but tests show its AI often performs poorly.

    Highlights

    "The core problem is interoperability," he said. "Prompts are tightly coupled to models; developers will inevitably tune to the quirks and policies of whatever model they’re building against.

    "This seems like a bad direction for an API on the web platform, and sets a worrying precedent for more APIs that have [browser]-specific rules around usage," he said.

    Perhaps more significantly, Archibald notes that using the Prompt API requires agreeing to Google’s Generative AI Prohibited Uses Policy, which prohibits activities that are not necessarily illegal, like generating "disturbing" content.

    First, he worries that Google’s own Nano model will become the default and that developers will standardize on it in an effort to make the non-deterministic responses of an AI model more predictable. That tendency, he argues, will create pressure for Apple and Mozilla to license Nano, for the sake of a common user experience.

    Mozilla’s concern, as articulated by Archibald, has to do with what the Prompt API means for the web, not to mention Google’s justification for deployment.

    Various vendors like OpenAI and Perplexity have shipped browsers that embed access to remotely hosted AI models. Mozilla itself is testing an AI-based Smart Window in Firefox and it’s developing tools for AI model scaffolding.

    The Prompt API, as Google describes it, "gives web pages the ability to directly prompt a browser-provided language model." It provides a way to send natural language instructions to Google’s Gemini Nano model, which is small enough to be downloaded for local inference through Chrome.

    "We continue to oppose this API, and feel it has severe negative consequences to the interoperability, updatability, and neutrality of the web platform," said Archibald.

    Jake Archibald, Mozilla web developer relations lead, articulated the org’s concerns in a GitHub discussion of the API, which provides a standard way to send and receive prompts and responses from a local machine learning model.

  • Congress keeps kicking surveillance reform down the road

    Gaby Del Valle

    Read original article →

    Concatena says

    Our Take: Congress has kicked the FISA 702 can down the road. Whilst this legal back and forth might feel far away, the way the US sets its surveillance rules has real knock-on effects for UK/EU businesses relying on US cloud and SaaS tools, and for anyone worrying about international data transfers. This is one to watch closely in case future “reforms” either harden surveillance or, more optimistically, edge towards better privacy safeguards that could ease some cross-border risk.

    Your Takeaway: If your business leans on US tech stacks, keep in mind that ongoing FISA 702 wrangling could shift the risk profile of your international data flows overnight. Treat this as a reminder to map which services touch US infrastructure, keep your transfer impact assessments fresh, and be ready to explain to customers and boards why a very American-sounding fight in Congress still matters for their data.

    Congress extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for 45 days to allow more time for reform talks. The House passed a version with minor changes but no warrant requirements, causing frustration among some lawmakers. Privacy advocates say the bill does not do enough to protect Americans’ rights.

    Highlights

    “Three weeks is more than enough time to negotiate a reform bill,” Thune said on the Senate floor on Thursday. “That is, if members are serious about negotiating.”

    The House renewed Section 702 with minor reforms on Wednesday evening. The bill didn’t include the hotly debated warrant requirement, but it did feature a provision prohibiting the Federal Reserve from issuing Central Bank Digital Currencies, which Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) described as a nonstarter.

    Congress has reauthorized Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — but only for another 45 days. The extension is meant to give legislators more time to negotiate reforms to the controversial wiretapping bill. If the past few weeks are any indication of how future debates will go, however, we’re in for a bumpy ride.