Elon Musk has stated that his “𝕏” social media platform will cover the legal expenses and initiate lawsuits on behalf of individuals who have been treated “unfairly “by their employers due to posts or likes on the site, previously known as Twitter. Presumably, he is trying to reinvent champion the platform as a bastion of free speech and everything seems to be getting turned upside down, so with Elon Musk re-branding Twitter, we look at why the rebrand has happened, and what rebrands can do for companies.

As an aside, the symbol “𝕏” is part of the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block in Unicode. It represents a double-struck capital letter X. In mathematics, double-struck letters are often used to represent special sets or spaces. For example, the double-struck capital letter R (ℝ) is commonly used to denote the set of real numbers, and the double-struck capital letter C (ℂ) is used for the set of complex numbers.

The symbol “𝕏” itself might not have a universally recognised meaning, but it could be used in a specific context within mathematics or physics to represent a particular set or space.

For ease, we’ll stick to “X” for the remainder of this context.

From Twitter To X – What Happened?

At the end of July, Twitter replaced its familiar blue bird logo with a white X on a black background. The change is now visible in all Twitter/X accounts. What were termed ‘tweets’ will now be called “x’s.”

A Slight Hiccup 

In one unfortunate incident during the rapid re-brand, the replacing of the new sign at Twitter’s/X’s San Francisco headquarters was interrupted as the police were called over a ‘mistake’ about a possible unpermitted street closure.

Why Rebrand?  

Elon Musk explained the reason for the rebrand as: “Twitter was acquired by X Corp both to ensure freedom of speech and as an accelerant for X, the everything app.” This indicates Musk’s intention to turn what was Twitter into a ‘super app’ such as China’s ‘WeChat’.

Super apps, like WeChat, are essentially like several apps rolled into one, thereby allowing the user to open just one app to do almost everything, e.g. from messaging, payments and manging subscriptions to paying bills, ordering groceries, buying travel tickets, and more.

Creating a super app called ‘X’ was something Elon Musk had in mind when he bought Twitter, saying that buying the social media platform was an “accelerant to creating X, the everything app.”

As Musk went on to explain in a tweet / an x: “This is not simply a company renaming itself, but doing the same thing. The Twitter name made sense when it was just 140 character messages going back and forth – like birds tweeting – but now you can post almost anything, including several hours of video. In the months to come, we will add comprehensive communications and the ability to conduct your entire financial world. The Twitter name does not make sense in that context, so we must bid adieu to the bird.” 

Other Reasons? 

It’s true that Musk was eyeing the super app / everything app idea when he took over Twitter, but he may also feel the time is right for a change following the many troubles and bad headlines since he took over. For example, job cuts (moderators, bosses, and workers), warnings from America’s Federal Trade Commission, key advertising partners leaving Twitter followed by a massive 68 per cent drop in media traffic, Microsoft dropping Twitter from its advertising platform, and a user vote wanting replace Musk have been just some of the high-profile bumps in the road. The decisive factor that may have helped accelerate the rebrand may well be Meta’s success in launching a competitor to Twitter in ‘Threads’ which gained 100 million sign-ups in just five days.

To Re-Brand Or Not To Re-Brand? 

Rebranding for Twitter, given its high profile and what’s at stake, could be seen as a high-risk move, or an opportunity to move forward in a new and better direction.

Rebranding can have both positive and negative outcomes for companies. Here are some of the main strengths and weaknesses of rebranding. For example, some of the key strengths of rebranding are:

– A Fresh Start. Rebranding can allow companies to reinvent themselves and start anew. It can breathe new life into a stagnant or declining brand or (hopefully) help a company to get away from negative associations with the previous brand or something negative it may have been involved in and made the news for.

– Differentiation. A successful rebranding can help a company stand out from competitors and help to emphasise their USP(s) and positioning.

– Market Expansion. A re-brand can facilitate entry into new markets by adapting the brand to suit the preferences and cultural nuances of different regions.

– Relevance. Rebranding can make a brand more relevant to current trends and consumer preferences, thereby appealing to a broader audience.

– Publicity and Attention. A well-executed rebranding generates media coverage and attention, which can increase brand awareness and engagement.

There are, however, some well-known weaknesses of re-branding. These can include:

– Brand Confusion. A poorly executed rebranding can confuse existing customers, leading to a decline in customer loyalty and sales.

– Costs. Of course, a rebranding exercise can be very expensive, involving changes to logos, packaging, marketing materials, and more. If not managed well, it could strain financial resources.

– Loss of Brand Equity. Unfortunately, rebranding may also lead to the loss of accumulated brand equity, especially if the new image does not resonate with the target audience.

– Negative Associations. Rebranding may not always succeed in shedding negative associations linked to the previous brand identity.

– Market Resistance. In some cases, consumers may be resistant to change, and a drastic rebranding can alienate loyal customers, leading to a temporary dip in sales.

Examples Of Where Re-Brandings Have Gone Well, And Not So Well… 

Re-branding is not particularly uncommon and, in fact, as part of perhaps playing down his decision to rebrand Twitter, Elon Musk shared a Tweet by Jon Erlichman (from Bloomberg) who listed many examples of now well-known brands that resulted from re-brands. For example: “Amazon: Cadabra Best Buy: Sound of Music eBay: Auction Web Facebook: Meta Google: BackRub Instagram: Burbn Netflix: Kibble Nike: Blue Ribbon Sports Pepsi: Brad’s Drink Playboy: Stag Party 7-Eleven: Tote’m Stores Snapchat: Picaboo Starbucks: Cargo House Target: Goodfellow Tinder: Matchbox”.  

Interestingly, Elon Musk’s original online banking business was called x.com before it was rebranded to PayPal in 2000 and you may recall that (before it was required to be changed by law) Musk’s baby was originally called X (First name) AE A-XII (Middle name) Musk. Clearly the symbol has significant meaning for Mr Musk!

It’s true, of course, that there are many examples of where rebranding has helped and tuned out well but, unfortunately, there are examples of where things haven’t gone to plan at all. With this in mind, here are a few high profile examples from recent history:

Rebrands that went well …. 

– A very famous one – Apple’s rebranding in the late 1990s is often cited as a successful example. They shifted from the colourful Apple logo and a confusing product lineup to a minimalistic, monochromatic logo and a focused product range. This move emphasised simplicity, which resonated with consumers and helped to contribute to their resurgence.

– In 2011, Starbucks dropped the word “Coffee” from its logo, symbolising their expansion beyond coffee products. This rebranding showcased their diversification into other beverages and food items. The change was subtle but effective, signalling the company’s evolving identity.

– Uber rebranded in 2016, shifting from the black “U” logo to a new design featuring a white circle and stylised “Uber” text. This rebranding aimed to represent the company’s global presence and versatility. It was generally well-received and helped signify a more mature and evolved brand.

Rebrands that didn’t go quite so well …

– In one that many people might remember, in 2001, the UK’s postal service, Royal Mail, underwent a rebranding to become “Consignia.” The rebranding was supposed to emphasise the company’s expansion into a broader range of logistics and communication services. However, the name change received widespread criticism and confusion from the public. The decision was expensive, and within a year, due to the negative response and lack of public acceptance, Royal Mail reverted to its original name. The failed rebranding was considered to be a costly and embarrassing misstep for the company.

– Wonga, a (controversial) UK payday loan company in the, attempted a rebranding in 2013 to appear more responsible and customer friendly. Despite introducing a new logo and advertising campaigns, the rebranding was met with scepticism and critics argued that the underlying issues of high-interest rates and predatory lending practices were not addressed. Public perception didn’t improve, leading to regulatory challenges and reputational damage. In 2018, Wonga went into administration, showing that rebranding can fail if it doesn’t address core problems authentically.

– In 2010, Gap attempted a rebranding by introducing a new logo, replacing their iconic blue box. However, the new design received overwhelming negative feedback from consumers and the design community. As a result, Gap quickly reverted to their original logo.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Twitter’s re-brand is another big deal for the company in what has been a bumpy road since Musk took over.

Rebranding is a strategic move that has the potential can breathe new life into a company – if/when it’s done right but it’s crucial for businesses to keep some essential considerations in mind. Rebranding should serve a clear purpose and be in line with the company’s vision and values. For Twitter(‘X’), the re-branding appears to fit with Musk’s original vision of turning it into an ‘everything app.’ It’s also essential in rebranding, however, to put the customer at the centre of the rebranding process, ensuring it resonates with the target audience.

Authenticity is a key consideration and successful rebranding addresses underlying issues and avoids superficial changes. With all that’s happened at Twitter in recent times, Musk’s tried to make this change appear as non-superficial as possible, saying the platform is going to be completely changed in scope. Planning and executing a rebranding with a strategic approach is also vital, considering all aspects of the business, and many people may have been taken a little by surprise at the sudden announcement and the contrast of twittering birds with the bold black and just a mysterious X. For re-branding, businesses must also be aware of potential risks, like customer confusion or negative perceptions, and take steps to mitigate them but with trouble at Twitter recently and with the arrival of Microsoft’s Threads, it may have been more of a case of not worrying too much about that now.

A rebranding should be seen as a long-term investment in a company’s growth and reputation and, as it has done for many companies, can yield significant benefits when done right. There are, however, many examples of where it hasn’t worked out for many large businesses and Musk is gambling with high stakes that the transformation to an ‘everything app’ pays off.

It’s still early days in the rebrand – watch this space!

Following warnings about threats posed by the rapid growth of AI, the US White House has reported that seven leading AI companies have committed to developing safeguards.

Voluntary Commitments Made 

A recent White House fact sheet has highlighted how, in a bid to manage the risks posed by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and to protect Americans’ rights and safety, President Biden met with and secured voluntary commitments from seven leading AI companies “to help move toward safe, secure, and transparent development of AI technology”. 

The companies who have made the voluntary commitments are Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI.

What Commitments? 

In order to improve safety, security, and trust, and to help develop responsible AI, the voluntary commitments from the companies are:

Ensuring Products are Safe Before Introducing Them to the Public

– Internal and external security testing of their AI systems before their release, carried out in part by independent experts, to guard against AI risks like biosecurity and cybersecurity.

– Sharing information across the industry and with governments, civil society, and academia on managing AI risks, e.g. best practices for safety, information on attempts to circumvent safeguards, and technical collaboration.

Building Systems that Put Security First 

– Investing in cybersecurity and insider threat safeguards to protect proprietary and unreleased model weights (regarded as the most essential part of an AI system). The model weights will be released only when intended and when security risks are considered.

– Facilitating third-party discovery and reporting of vulnerabilities in their AI systems, e.g. putting a robust reporting mechanism in place to enable vulnerabilities to be found and fixed quickly.

Earning the Public’s Trust 

– Developing robust technical mechanisms to ensure that users know when content is AI generated, such as a watermarking system, thereby enabling creativity AI while reducing the dangers of fraud and deception.

– Publicly reporting their AI systems’ capabilities, limitations, and areas of appropriate and inappropriate use, covering both security risks and societal risks (e.g. the effects on fairness and bias).

– Prioritising research on the societal risks that AI systems can pose, including those on avoiding harmful bias and discrimination, and protecting privacy.

– Developing and deploying advanced AI systems to help address society’s greatest challenges, e.g. cancer prevention, mitigating climate change, thereby (hopefully) contributing to the prosperity, equality, and security of all.

To Be Able To Spot AI-Generated Content Easily 

One of the key aspects of more obvious issues of risk associated with AI is the fact that people need to be able to definitively tell the difference between real content and AI generated content. This could help mitigate the risk of people falling victim to fraud and scams involving deepfakes or believing misinformation and disinformation spread using AI deepfakes which could have wider political and societal consequences.

One example of how this may be achieved, with the help of the AI companies, is the use of watermarks. This refers to embedding a digital marking in images and videos which is not visible to the human eye but can be read by certain software and algorithms and give information about whether it’s been produced by AI. Watermarks could help in tackling all kinds of issues including passing-off, plagiarism, stopping the spread of false information, tackling cybercrime (scams and fraud), and more.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Although AI is a useful business tool, the rapid growth-rate of AI has outstripped the pace of regulation. This has led to fears about the risks of AI when used to deceive, spread falsehoods, and commit crime (scams and fraud) as well as the bigger threats such as political manipulation, societal destabilisation, and even the existential threat to humanity. This, in-turn, has led to the first stage action. Governments, particularly, need to feel that they can get the lid partially back on the “genie’s bottle” so that they can at least ensure safeguards are built-in early-on to mitigate risks and threats.

The Biden administration getting at least some wide-ranging voluntary commitments from the Big AI companies is, therefore, a start. Given that many of signatories to the open letter calling for 6-month moratorium on systems more powerful that GPT-4 were engineers from those big tech companies, it’s also a sign that more action may not be too far behind. Ideas like watermarking look a likely option and no doubt there’ll be more ideas.

AI is transforming businesses in a positive way although many also fear how the automation it offers could result in big job losses, thereby affecting economies. This early stage is, therefore, the best time to make a real start in building in the right controls and regulations that allow the best aspects of AI to flourish and keep the negative aspects in check, but this complex subject clearly has a long way to run.

MSE Chat GPT is a recently launched experimental AI chatbot that can answer money questions using MoneySavingExpert guides as its primary source.

MSE ChatGPT – Get Fast Answers To Money Questions 

Recently launched by TV’s consumer financial champion and founder of MoneySavingExpert (MSE), Martin Lewis CBE, MSE Chat GPT is a variant of OpenAI’s Chat GPT and can act as a fast and easy way for the public to get answer to money-related questions.

The Next Generation Of Bespoke Help 

Martin Lewis CBE, founder of MoneySavingExpert, said about the new chatbot: “This is the latest step in MSE’s pioneering history of helping consumers cut their bills and fight for financial justice. When I launched MSE in 2003, people told me ‘nobody wants a money website with a face on it’. I disagreed, I thought people wanted the personal touch, so they know where the info is coming from. And I hope this new tool is the start of the next generation of bespoke help.” 

Built To Solve Two Problems 

Mr Lewis, who founded the consumer financial help website MoneySavingExpert.com, said that the new chatbot was built to solve what some see as two problems with looking for specific financial information using normal ChatGPT.

Firstly, Mr Lewis said that although ChatGPT “answers beautifully and is great for writing a best man’s speech” it is “unsourced and can get things wrong”. This could make its answers untrustworthy, which is particularly worrying where answers relate to the finances of individuals. Also, getting answers that are outdated because they come from an “internet sweep from 2021” could be risky.

Secondly, Mr Lewis wanted to solve the problem of people being faced with “too much information”, thereby struggling to find what they want.

It is hoped, therefore, that the fact that MSE Chat GPT’s primary information source MSE itself (i.e. its many guides, blogs and information updated on a weekly basis) means that users of MSE Chat GPT can get a concise and speedy answer they can trust.

Availability 

MSE ChatGPT can be used in the free MSE App and is available on both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store for Android.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Many people now use ChatGPT at work and at home (it was the fastest growing app of all time when introduced) and are aware of how easy it is to use and how it can save time and effort by giving fast answers in conversational language on any number of subjects. That said, and with most individuals using the free version, as Martin Lewis CBE points out, it’s only trained up to 2021 so some answers may be outdated, it’s unsourced (it just uses a general Internet sweep) and can get things wrong – none of which are desirable when looking for accurate, trustworthy answers about personal finances (a high-risk subject).

Having a tailor-made version, therefore, that draws upon the regularly updated resources of MSE that have been built-up over years and which have been used and scrutinised by millions of people gives it extra relevance and value and this, coupled with the brand itself ensures it will be trusted and used. No doubt it’s a time-saver, particularly when searching for specific financial details which can often be hidden in small print or which may be confusing.

The convenience and speed offered by the chatbot is also a fast way of improving the usability of the website and perhaps extending the reach and the use of MSE via the app. Although customer service chatbots are already part of many websites, tailor-made more powerful chatbots are likely to spring up on many more websites and platforms where they can enable customers to extract information quickly. The speed and convenience of AI chatbots are valued by customers and help brands by giving customers better experiences when interacting with them thereby adding value and aiding retention.

Following the recent Nigel Farage and Coutts Bank row, we look at what a Subject Access Request (SAR) is, how to make one, and why there appears to have been an explosion of them in recent times.

What Happened Between Nigel Farage and Coutts? 

To summarise in a way that’s relevant this article, in a chain of events starting at the end of June, British broadcaster and former UK politician Nigel Farage was informed by Coutts bank that, due to a “commercial decision”, it would no longer do business with him and was closing his account. The NatWest-owned Coutts bank is widely regarded as being a bank for wealthy people because to be a customer you famously need to maintain at least £1m in investments or borrowing (mortgage), or £3m in savings.  Following several allegations and theories about why Coutts may have done this, Mr Farage submitted a SAR to find out exactly why. The 40-page document sent back to him by the bank revealed that staff at the bank had spent time compiling evidence on the “significant reputational risks of being associated with him”. The document was reported to have suggested that the bank didn’t want him as a customer because his views didn’t align with the firm’s “values”, e.g. Mr Farage’s position on LGBTQ+ rights and his friendship with former US president Donald Trump. In short, the document suggested that Mr Farage’s views were at odds with the bank’s position as an inclusive organisation.

Although there are other aspects to this story, the relevant point here in terms of this tech-insight is that Mr Farage would not have known the reason or have received an apology – as he did (as well as heads rolling at the bank) were it not for the SAR.

What Is A Subject Access Request (SAR)? 

A SAR (sometimes called a DSAR – data subject access request) allows an individual to ask an organisation for copies of any personal information that it holds about them. This legal right was granted under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 with the intention of empowering people to be aware of and understand how their personal data is being processed by organisations.

How Do You Make A SAR? 

You can make a SAR in writing or electronically, i.e. by email or via an online form (check that it’s the right and appropriate form first).

What Should You Write? 

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), says that a SAR should include:

– A clear title in the email / form subject line e.g., ‘subject access request’.

– A comprehensive list, which it may be best to compile beforehand, of what personal data you want to access, and how you would like to receive the information.

– It’s also important to include your full name and contact details (email address and phone number).

It’s worth noting that a template request is available on the ICO website here.

Then What Happens? 

Upon receiving a SAR, the organisation must respond within one month. In some cases, however, this period can be extended to two months if the request is complex or if the organisation receives multiple requests from the same individual.

When responding to a SAR, an organisation must provide a copy of the requested personal data in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format. The response should include information about the purposes of the processing, the recipients or categories of recipients of the data, and the retention period for the data.

Some Exemptions To Note 

There are, however, some exemptions to organisations having to send you a copy of the requested data, for example if the disclosure would reveal information about another individual or if it could prejudice criminal investigations or legal proceedings.

Is It Free To Make A SAR? 

In most cases, organisations can’t charge a fee for handling a SAR. However, if the request is clearly unfounded, excessive, or repetitive, an organisation could decide to charge a reasonable fee or refuse to comply with the request.

What If You’re Not Happy With The Response Or If There’s No Response? 

It’s a legal right so, unless an exemption can be proved, the organisation should respond. If, however, an individual believes that an organisation has not responded appropriately to their SAR or has mishandled their personal data, they can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

That said, from April 2022 to March 2023, 15,848 complaints related to Subject Access were reported to the ICO, prompting the ICO to publish a new guide to on responding to subject access requests, and warning companies not to get “caught out” by not responding / responding poorly and risking a fine or reprimand.

Surge In SARs 

The press coverage over the Nigel Farage and Coutts story highlighted SARs and how useful and important they can be, and how they allow individuals to stand up to powerful organisations and have control and transparency over the use of their personal data will, no doubt, add to what could be described as an explosion of SARs since the legal right was granted with GDPR. For example, SARs are now often used by employees in dispute with their employer looking for information to use in their defence in negotiations or at an employment tribunal, and by celebrities, public figures, and politicians (e.g., to find out the plans and motives of opposition parties).

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

For any individual, SARs gives them legal power to challenge organisations, gives them a means for greater control and understanding about how their personal data is being processed by organisations, and a way to complain and get satisfaction if they’re not happy. SARs are a way to greater transparency and, as highlighted above, can be very useful in many situations, e.g. for employment tribunals. For businesses, SARs are a reminder of their data protection responsibilities under GDPR and of the need to comply or face financial and reputational consequences.

Several years down the line from the introduction of GDPR, businesses should already have a more organised and compliant way of handling data and should have processes in place to ensure that SARs requests are assessed quickly and accurately and that the requested data is sent promptly in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format. With SARs now widely used, businesses need to be prepared.

The recent announcement by Thames Water that it may restrict water flows to London data centres and charge them more at times of peak demand may be the shape of things to come.

Thames Water Ltd – Considering Restrictions 

The announcement follows an investigation last year into how much water was being used by London and M4 corridor datacentres. At the time, Thames Water’s Strategic Development Manager, John Hernon, said that he was looking to work closely “with those consultants planning for new datacentres in the Slough area” and saying, “Our guidance has already resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of water requested by these new centres due to guidance on additional storage and cooling procedures”. 

What’s The Issue? 

The main issue is that datacentres require vast amounts of water for cooling and the water they currently use is drinking water from supply pipes. This can put pressure on supply and infrastructure during hot weather when demand for water surges. It should also be noted that datacentres also require substantial amounts of electricity.

Restrictions 

To address these issues, Thames Water Ltd has announced that it has discussed with at least one datacentre operator in London about physically restricting the water flow at peak times. John Hernon has been reported as saying that this could involve introducing flow restrictions on pipes.

What Are The Alternatives To Physically Restricting Water? 

Although Thames Water has discussed restricting water flow to the datacentres, the company has said it would prefer to take a collaborative approach with datacentres, encouraging them to look at water reusage and recycling options on-site. This could involve reusing final effluent from the company’s sewage treatment works or intercepting and surface water before it reaches treatment plants.

Thames Water first raised the issue of datacentres using raw water in August 2022. At the time, a drought had led them to introduce a hosepipe ban affecting 15 million customers in the southeast (including London and the Thames Valley area), bringing the issue of how much drinking water datacentres were using into sharp focus.

In Other Countries 

Although water is the traditional cooling method for data centres, in some other countries and regions they also use different cooling methods depending on factors like climate, local regulations, and available resources. For example, some common cooling methods include air cooling, or specialised cooling solutions like chilled water systems. Some recent experiments in data centre cooling methods have also included immersing servers in liquid / engineered fluid, i.e. immersion cooling (which Microsoft now uses at its datacentre in Quincy, WA in the US), and underwater datacentres such as Microsoft’s Project Natick. Other recent and innovative data centre cooling ideas have included a decentralised model whereby homeowners are incentivised to have business servers attached to their home water tanks for cooling.

Criticism 

Even though it would make sense for datacentres to get their large water requirements from somewhere other than the drinking water supply, some have criticised Thames Water for scapegoating the datacentre industry when the water company doesn’t appear to be doing much about losing 600 million litres of water a day (nearly a quarter of its daily supplies) through leaks.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Pressures such as climate change, the growth of the digital society, cloud computing, the IoT, and the newer pressures of widescale use of generative AI have all fed the demand for more datacentres and have exacerbated the cooling challenges faced by them. Although some innovative alternatives are being tried, datacentres predominantly have huge water and power requirements and, as the Tames Water area example shows, the fact that they tap into drinking water can be a big problem in drought or at peak general demand times. Businesses require reliable computing and access to their cloud resources as well as water (and power) illustrating the importance to the wider economy and society of finding a solution that enables data centres to function reliably while not negatively impacting other infrastructure, businesses, and the economy or, indeed, climate targets.

Using raw water may be one alternative that could help (as could fixing leaks as some critics argue). Some other methods such as immersion cooling or underwater datacentres look promising, but these may take some time to scale up. AI may also prove to be helpful in helping to improve the management of datacentre cooling.

There are, in fact, many methods that could ultimately all help tackle the problem, such as optimising airflow management, implementing intelligent monitoring systems, utilising computational fluid dynamics simulations, and exploring innovative architectural designs. All these methods could help by enhancing airflow efficiency, preventing hotspots, improving heat dissipation, proactively adjust cooling parameters, informing cooling infrastructure design, and dynamically adapting to workload demands to meet the modern cooling challenges faced by data centres.

For Thames water, the idea of working collaboratively with datacentres rather than simply imposing water restrictions sounds a sensible way forward because datacentre cooling is a challenge that now affects all of us and needs intelligent solutions that work and can be put into practice soon.

The Wonderful Wizard of Woz!

Steve Wozniak – business partner of Steve Jobs and co-founder of Apple – was born on August 11, 1950.

Most people know that Apple went on to become one of the most valuable companies in the world and even though Steve the company way back in left in 1985, there are numerous other projects and charities he contributed to without diminishing his love of computing and engineering as he got older.

However, some of the details of his earlier life before 1985 are worthy of note, so here are 10 fun facts about this energetic engineer :

 1 – He was born in San Jose, California to Francis Jacob Wozniak and Margaret Louise Wozniak. He possibly got his love of engineering from his father, who was an engineer for Lockheed Martin and was of Polish descent. Wozniak is a common surname in Poland, and it’s derived from the Polish word “woźny,” which means a driver or a carriage man.

2 – Steve Wozniak (‘Woz’) is a well-known fan of Star Trek and has often spoken about how the show influenced him as a child. He has attributed Star Trek with inspiring him to think about the future and the possibilities of technology.

3 – He has talked about his prosopagnosia, also known as ‘face blindness’. Prosopagnosia is a cognitive disorder that affects a person’s ability to recognise faces, including faces of people they know well.

4 – Woz attended the University of Colorado Boulder, for a year from 1968 to 1969, studying electrical engineering before expelled for hacking into the university’s computer system! This was part of Wozniak’s early interest in computers and electronics. He later went back to university (5).

5 – Steve Wozniak attended the University of California, Berkeley, but he dropped out in 1972 to work with Steve Jobs. They later co-founded Apple Inc. in 1976.

6 – Like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak also worked at Hewlett-Packard.  Wozniak worked at HP from 1971 to 1976. During his time at HP, Wozniak worked as an engineer in the calculator division. It was during this period that he began attending meetings of the ‘Homebrew Computer Club’ with Jobs. He developed the early design of what would become the Apple I computer while still employed at HP. Wozniak actually offered his design for the Apple I to HP while he was still an employee, but the company declined his offer.

7 – Wozniak left HP in 1976 to co-found Apple Inc. with Steve Jobs and Ronald Wayne. Apple revolutionized the tech industry with a series of innovative products including the Apple I and II computers, the Macintosh, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, transforming personal computing, music, and mobile communications, and (as we all know), becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world.

8 – To gather funds for their initial Apple prototype, which would eventually evolve into the Apple I, both Wozniak and Jobs had to make sacrifices. Jobs sold his Volkswagen van, while Wozniak decided to sell his HP scientific calculator. These sales collectively generated over $1,000, providing the necessary capital to kickstart their venture.

9 – In 1981, he was involved in a crash when the plane (that he was piloting), stalled while taking off. Wozniak suffered several injuries, including a concussion. The concussion caused him to lose his short-term memory, meaning he couldn’t remember things that had happened since the crash. This memory loss lasted for several weeks, but Wozniak eventually made a full recovery.

The crash had a significant impact on Wozniak’s life. He took time off from Apple to recover and also began to reevaluate his life and his priorities, which eventually led him to reduce his role at Apple and focus on other interests and projects.

10 – Later that same year (1981) he decided to go back to school to complete his degree at the University of California, Berkeley. He re-enrolled under the pseudonym Rocky Raccoon Clark to avoid attention and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1986. The university also awarded him an honorary Doctor of Engineering degree in 2000.

So, quite a few inspirations there from his formative years before Apple became massive, not least of which is that when it comes to University, it’s never to late to finish what you started!

In this first instalment of a three-part look at how staff can maintain the right level of security when using their devices in the summer holidays:

– Secure Your Devices. Ensure that all your devices (laptops, smartphones, tablets) are password-protected and have the latest security updates installed. This includes your operating system, antivirus software, and all applications.

– Secure Your Home Network: If you’re working from home in the holidays, make sure your home network is secure. Change your router’s default password and enable WPA3 encryption.

– Use a VPN. If you’re out and about and using public Wi-Fi networks, make sure you use a Virtual Private Network (VPN). This will encrypt your internet connection, making it harder for hackers to intercept your data. Also, turn off the auto-connect feature on your devices to prevent them from automatically connecting to public Wi-Fi networks, which can be insecure.

– Be Aware of Phishing Attempts. Cybercriminals often take advantage of holidays to launch phishing campaigns. Be wary of any unexpected emails, especially those asking for personal or financial information.

Google’s updated Password Manager in Chrome allows you check if any of your passwords have been compromised or involved in a data breach. Here’s how to use it:

– In Chrome, click on the three dots (top right).

– Select ‘Passwords’ (in iOS) or ‘Google Password Manager’ in desktop browser.

– Click on ‘Check Now’.

– Google will list which (if any) passwords have been compromised and need to be changed.

The recent amendment to the Online Safety Bill which means a compulsory report must be written for Ofcom by a “skilled person” before encrypted app companies are forced to scan messages has led to even more criticism of this rather controversial bill to bypass security in apps and give the government (and therefore any number of people) more access to sensitive and personal information.

What Amendment? 

In the House of Lords debate, which was the final session of the Report Stage and the last chance for the Online Safety Bill to be amended before the Bill becomes law, Government minister Lord Parkinson amended the bill by calling for the need for a report to be written for Ofcom by a “skilled person” (appointed by Ofcom) before powers can be used to force a provider / tech company (e.g. WhatsApp or Signal), to scan its messages. The stated purpose of scanning messages using the powers of the Online Safety Bill is (ostensibly) to uncover child abuse images.

The amendment states that “OFCOM may give a notice under section 111(1) to a provider only after obtaining a report from a skilled person appointed by OFCOM under section 94(3).” 

Prior to the amendment, the report had been optional.

Why Is A Compulsory Report Stage So Important? 

The amendment says that the report is needed before companies can be forced to scan messages “to assist OFCOM in deciding whether to give a notice…. and to advise about the requirements that might be imposed by such a notice if it were to be given”. In other words, the report will be to assess the impact of scanning on freedom of expression or privacy, and to explore whether other less intrusive, less alternative technologies could be used instead.

It is understood, therefore, that the report’s findings will be used to help decide whether to force a tech firm to scan messages. Under the detail of the amendment, a summary of the report’s findings must be shared with the tech firm concerned.

Reaction 

Tech companies may be broadly in agreement of the aims of the bill. However, the detail of the bill that companies such as encrypted messages operators (e.g. WhatsApp and Signal and others) have always opposed being forced into scanning user messages before they are encrypted (client-side scanning). Operators say that this completely undermines the privacy and security of encrypted messaging, and they object to the idea of having to run government-mandated scanning services on their devices. Also, they argue that this could leave their apps more vulnerable to attack.

The latest amendment, therefore, has not changed this situation for the tech companies and has led to more criticism and more objections. Many objections have also been aired by campaign and rights groups such as Index on Censorship and The Open Rights Group, who have always opposed what they call the “spy clause” in the bill for example:

– The Ofcom appointed “skilled person” could simply be a consultant or political appointee, and having these people oversee decisions about free speech and privacy rights would not amount to effective oversight.

– Judicial oversight should be a bare minimum and a report written by just a “skilled person” wouldn’t be binding and would lack legal authority.

Other groups, however, such as the NSPCC, have broadly backed the bill in terms of finding ways to make tech firms mitigate the risks of child sexual abuse when designing their apps or adding features, e.g. end-to-end encryption.

Another Amendment 

Another House of Lords amendment to the bill requires Ofcom to look at the possible impact of the use of technology on journalism and the protection of journalistic sources. Under the amendment, Ofcom would be able to force tech companies to use what’s been termed as “accredited technology” to scan messages for child sexual abuse material.

This has also been met with similar criticisms over the idea of government-mandated scanning technology’s effects on privacy, freedom of speech, and potentially being used as a kind of monitoring and surveillance. WhatsApp, Signal, and Apple have all opposed the scanning idea, with WhatsApp and Signal reportedly indicating that they would not comply.

Breach Of International Law? 

The clause 9(2) of the Online Safety Bill which requires platforms to prevent users from “encountering” certain “illegal content” has also been soundly criticised recently. This clause means that platforms which host user-generated content will need to immediately remove any such content, which has a broad range, or face considerable fines, blocked services, or even jail for executives. Quite apart from the technical and practical challenges of being able to achieve this effectively at scale, criticisms of the clause include that it threatens free speech in the UK, and it lacks the detail for legislation.

Advice provided The Open Rights Group suggests that the clause may even be a breach of international law in that there could be “interference with freedom of expression that is unforeseeable” and goes against the current legal order on platforms.

It’s also been reported that Wikipedia could withdraw from the UK over the rules in the bill.

Investigatory Powers Act Objections (The Snooper’s Charter) 

Suggested new updates to the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) 2016 (sometimes called the ‘Snooper’s Charter’) have also come under attack from tech firms, not least Apple. For example, the government wants messaging services, e.g. WhatsApp, to clear security features with the Home Office before releasing them to customers. The update to the IPA would mean that the UK’s Home Office could demand, with immediate effect, that security features are disabled, without telling the users/the public. Currently, a review process with independent oversight (with the option of appeal by the tech company) is needed before any such action could happen.

The Response 

The response from tech companies has been and swift and negative, with Apple threatening to remove FaceTime and iMessage from the UK if the planned update to the Act goes ahead.

Concerns about granting the government the power to secretly remove security features from messaging app services include:

– It could allow government surveillance of users’ devices by default.

– It could reduce security for users, seriously affect their privacy and freedom of speech, and could be exploited by adversaries, whether they are criminal or political.

– Building backdoors into encrypted apps essentially means there is no longer end-to-end encryption.

Apple 

Apple’s specific response to the proposed updates/amendments (which will be subject to an eight-week consultation anyway) is that:

– It refuses to make changes to security features specifically for one country that would weaken a product for all users globally.

– Some of the changes would require issuing a software update, which users would have to be told about, thereby stopping changes from being made secretly.

– The proposed amendments threaten security and information privacy and would affect people outside the UK.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

There’s broad agreement about the aims of UK’s Online Safety Bill and IPA in terms of wanting to tackle child abuse, keep people safe, and even making tech companies take more responsibility and measures to improve safety. However, these are global tech companies where UK users represent only a small part of their total user base, and ideas like building in back doors into secure apps, running government approved scanning of user content and using reports written by consultants/political appointees to support scanning all go against ideas of privacy, one of key features of apps like WhatsApp.

Allowing governments access into apps and granting them powers to turn off security ‘as and when’ raise issues and suspicions about free speech, government monitoring and surveillance, legal difficulties, and more. In short, even though the UK government want to press ahead with the new laws and amendments there is still a long way to go before there is any real agreement with the tech companies. In fact, it looks likely that they won’t comply and some, like WhatsApp have simply said they’ll pull out of the UK market, which could be very troublesome for UK businesses, charities, groups and individuals.

The tech companies also have a point in that it seems unreasonable to expect them to alter their services just for one country in a way that could negatively affect their users in other countries. As some critics have pointed out, if the UK wants to be a leading player on the global tech stage, alienating the big tech companies may not be the best way to go about it. It seems that a lot more talking and time will be needed to get anywhere near real-world workable laws and, at the moment, with the UK government being seen by many as straying into areas that are alarming rights groups, some tech companies are suggesting the government ditch their new laws and start again.

Expect continued strong resistance from tech companies going forward if the UK government doesn’t slow down or re-think many aspects of these new laws – watch this space.

Here we look at what deepfake videos are, why they’re made, how they (might) be quickly and easily detected using a variety of deepfake detection and testing tools.

What Are Deepfake Videos? 

Deepfake videos are a kind of synthetic media created using deep learning and artificial intelligence techniques. Making a deepfake video involves manipulating or superimposing existing images, videos, or audio onto other people or objects to create highly realistic (but typically fake) content. The term “deepfake” comes from the combination of “deep learning” and “fake.”

Why Make Deepfake Videos? 

People create deepfake videos for various reasons, driven by both benign and malicious intentions. Here are some of the main motivations behind the creation of deepfake videos:

– Entertainment and art. Deepfakes can be used as a form of artistic expression or for entertainment purposes. AI may be used, for example, to create humorous videos, mimic famous movie scenes with different actors, or explore creative possibilities.

– Special effects and visual media. In the film and visual effects industry, deepfake technology is often used to achieve realistic visual effects, such as de-aging actors or bringing deceased actors back to the screen (a contentious point at the moment, give the actors strike over AI fears). That said, some sportspeople, actors and celebrities have embraced the technology and are allowing their deepfake identities to be used by companies. Examples include Lionel Messi by Lay’s crisps and Singapore celebrity Jamie Yeo agreeing a deal with financial technology firm Hugosave.

– Education and research. Deepfakes can be used for research and educational purposes, helping researchers, academics, and institutions study and understand the capabilities and limitations of AI technology.

– Memes and internet culture. In recent times, deepfakes have become part of internet culture and meme communities, where users create and share entertaining or humorous content featuring manipulated faces and voices.

– Face swapping and avatar creation. Some people use deepfakes to swap faces in videos, such as putting their face on a character in a movie or video game or creating avatars for online platforms.

– Satire and social commentary. Deepfake videos are also made to satirise public figures or politicians, creating humorous or critical content to comment on current events and societal issues.

– Privacy and anonymity. In some cases, people may use deepfakes to protect their privacy or identity by concealing their face and voice in videos.

– Spreading misinformation and disinformation. Unfortunately, deepfake technology has been misused to spread misinformation, fake news, and malicious content. Deepfakes can be used to create convincing videos of individuals saying or doing things they never did, including political figures, leading to potential harm, defamation, and the spread of falsehoods.

– Fraud and scams. This is a very worrying area as criminals can now use deepfakes for fraudulent activities, e.g. impersonating someone in video calls to deceive or extort others. For example, deepfake testing company Deepware says: ”We expect destructive use of deepfakes, particularly as phishing attacks, to materialise very soon”.

What Are Deepfake Testers? 

With AI deepfakes becoming more convincing and easier to produce thanks to rapidly advancing AI developments and many good AI video, image, and voice services widely available online (many for free), tools that can quickly detect deepfakes have become important. In short, deepfake testers are online tools that can be used to scan any suspicious video to discover if it’s synthetically manipulated. In the case of deepfakes made to spread misinformation and disinformation or for fraud and scams, these can be particularly valuable tools.

How Do They Work? 

For the user, deepfake testers typically involve copying and pasting the URL of a suspected deepfake into the online deepfake testing tool and hitting the ‘scan’ button to get a quick opinion about whether it’s likely to be a deepfake video.

Behind the scenes there a number of technologies used by deepfake testers, such as:

– Photoplethysmography (PPG), for detecting changes in blood flow, because deepfake faces don’t give out these signals. This type of detection is more difficult if the deepfake video is pixelated.

– Eye movement analysis. This is because deepfake eyes tend to be divergent, i.e. they don’t look at a central point like real human eyes do.

– Lip Sync Analysis can help highlight a lack of audio and visual synchronisation, something which is a feature of deepfakes.

– Facial landmark detection and tracking algorithms to assess whether the facial movements and expressions align realistically with the audio and overall context of the video.

– Testing for visual irregularities, e.g. unnatural facial movements, inconsistent lighting, or strange artifacts around the face.

Examples 

Some examples of deepfake testers include:

DeepwareAI 

This is only for detecting AI-generated face manipulations and can be used via the  website, API key, or in an offline environment via SDK. There is also an Android app. There is a maximum limit of 10 minutes for each video.

Intel’s FakeCatcher

With a reported 96 accuracy rate, Intel’s deepfake detection platform, introduced last year, was billed as “the world’s first real-time deepfake detector that returns results in milliseconds.” Using Intel hardware and software, it runs on a server and interfaces through a web-based platform.

Microsoft’s Video Authenticator Tool

Announced 3 years ago, this deepfake detecting tool uses advanced AI algorithms to detect signs of manipulation in media and provides users with a real-time confidence score. This tool was created using a public dataset from Face Forensic++ and was tested on the DeepFake Detection Challenge Dataset, both of which are key models for training and testing deepfake detection technologies.

Sentinel

This AI-based protection platform is used by governments, defence agencies, and enterprises. Users upload their digital media through the website or API, whereupon Sentinel uses advanced AI algorithms to automatically analyse the media. Users are given a a detailed report of its findings.

DeepFake-O-Meter

This is an open platform allowing users to upload a video (.wav video, maximum size is 50MB), input their email address, and get an assessment of whether a video is fake.

DuckDuckGoose DeepDetector Software 

This is fully automatised deepfake detection software for videos and images which uses explainable output powered by AI to help users understand how the detection was made. It detects deepfake videos and images in real-time and provides explainable outputs

WeVerify

This project aims to develop intelligent human-in-the-loop content verification and disinformation analysis methods and tools whereby social media and web content is analysed and contextualised within the broader online ecosystem. The project offers, for example, a chatbot to guide users through the verification process, an open-source browser plugin, and other open source AI tools, as well as proprietary tools owned by the consortium partners.

What Does This Mean For Your Business? 

Deepfake videos can be fun and satirical, however there are real concerns that with AI advancements, deepfake videos are being made for spreading misinformation and disinformation. Furthermore, fraud and scam deepfakes can be incredibly convincing and, therefore dangerous.

Political interference such as spreading videos of world leaders and politicians saying things they didn’t say, plus using videos to impersonate someone to deceive or extort are now very real problems. With it being so difficult to tell for sure just by watching a video whether it’s fake or not, these deepfake testing tools can have a real value both as a safety measure for businesses, or for anyone who needs a fast way to check out their suspicions.

Deepfake testers, therefore, can contribute to cybercrime prevention and countering of fake news. The issue of deepfakes as a threat is only going to grow, so the hope is that as deepfake videos become ever-more sophisticated, the detection tools are able to keep up in their ability to be able to tell with certainty whether a video is fake.