Podcasts about Privacy

AI vulnerability discovery just upended the legendary Capture the Flag competitions, leaving top hackers sidelined while algorithms dominate the scoreboard. Hear why one seasoned researcher says the entire game is over for humans. As expected, UnFiOS devices are under attack. CISA commands federal agencies to update Drupal. Can the largest botnet ever, be killed. Defender endpoint can cutoff a PC from the network. Charter Communications big account leak. Chrome moves device-bound session cookies from beta. Anthropic to release Mythos shortly. cURL and Daniel Stenberg. IBM & RedHat commit to fixing open source with AI. LOTS of terrific listener feedback this week. AI spells the end of a terrific source of training Show Notes - https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-1081-Notes.pdf Hosts: Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte Download or subscribe to Security Now at https://twit.tv/shows/security-now. You can submit a question to Security Now at the GRC Feedback Page. For 16kbps versions, transcripts, and notes (including fixes), visit Steve's site: grc.com, also the home of the best disk maintenance and recovery utility ever written Spinrite 6. Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free audio and video feeds, a members-only Discord, and exclusive content. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: bitwarden.com/twit hoxhunt.com/securitynow zscaler.com/security material.security meter.com/securitynow

Mike is a twenty-year police officer and current sergeant supervising a squad of violent crime detectives. After Andrew's recent conversation with Naomi Brockwell about surveillance, encryption, and the slow erosion of privacy in the digital age, he reached out to offer respectful pushback from the other side of the badge.  How much surveillance power do police actually have? What do warrants, metadata, and phone tracking look like in practice versus online panic? And are privacy advocates sometimes overlooking the realities of violent crime investigations? A nuanced, surprisingly civil conversation about policing, technology, civil liberties, and where the balance ought to be.

Website

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

073: Why AI Mania Is a Trillion-Dollar Trap, Why Freedom Is Eroding Into Real-Time Dystopia, and How Bitcoin Mining Absorbs the Entire Oversupply | Samson Mow & Jeff BoothThe fiat debt system is mathematically insolvent — and Jeff Booth and Samson Mow lay out exactly why the pain is coming whether you own Bitcoin or not. This is one of the most direct conversations on financial sovereignty, AI capital misallocation, and the closing window for individual freedom you'll find anywhere in 2026.You'll learn why Jeff believes the 4-year Bitcoin cycle theory has been broken and what's actually driving sideways price action right now. You'll see how Samson connects AI infrastructure over-investment to a dot-com-style collapse — and why Bitcoin mining is positioned to absorb the fallout. You'll understand the specific tools — Fedimint, Aqua Wallet, self-custody, running a node — that let you exit the system before governments restrict freedom of movement. And you'll hear both guests explain why AI will eviscerate DeFi protocols like Ethereum and Solana, draining funds and pushing survivors back to Bitcoin.⏱️ Timestamps:0:00 - Intro1:09 - Introducing Jeff Booth and Samson Mow2:00 - Bitcoin Four-Year Cycle Theory Is Broken3:17 - AI Driving Capital Rotation From Bitcoin4:49 - AI Mania Dwarfs the Dot-Com Bubble7:47 - Local AI Inference and Oversupply Risks11:40 - Stablecoins Trap Users in Fiat14:34 - Are Cypherpunks Disappearing From Bitcoin?16:22 - Barriers to Nation-State Bitcoin Adoption22:20 - Fiat Debt System Is an Illusion31:17 - Governments Will Restrict Freedom of Movement33:51 - We Are Already Living in the Matrix41:47 - Bitcoin ETFs: Evolution or Centralized Capture?47:54 - Practical Steps to Reclaim Sovereignty51:44 - Fedimint and Essential Bitcoin Privacy Tools54:24 - AI Accelerating Altcoin Death Spiral57:50 - Liquid, Lightning and Aqua Wallet Explained

Iron Radio: Do Supplements Beat Food for Vitamin Status? Wearable Food-Tracking Glasses + HDL, Exercise & Depression On Iron Radio, hosts Dr. Lonnie Lowery, Dr. Mike T. Nelson, and Coach Phil Stevens discuss Nelson's Flex Diet Certification and how supplementation topics are integrated due to time constraints, plus his creatine research PDF. They review a new NHANES-based paper (Sternberg et al., May 2026) suggesting supplement use explains more variability in vitamin biomarkers (R² ~3–21%) than reported dietary intake (~0.8–8.8%), while noting limitations like recall bias, low explained variance, and imperfect biomarkers. They then examine a 2021 AIM2 wearable device that detects eating episodes and captures food images with ~83% accuracy, debating research benefits versus privacy and data-broker concerns. Finally, they critique a 2026 cross-sectional study linking physical activity, HDL cholesterol, and lower depression odds, arguing the effect is associative and likely non-causal, and expand into broader concerns about interpreting lipids in athletic populations and medical risk models. 00:00 Show Intro and Hosts 01:05 Flex Diet Cert and Supplements 03:23 Brevity in Science Talks 05:34 Talk Tactics and Backup Slides 08:22 Supplements vs Food Biomarkers 14:04 Vitamin D and Biomarker Limits 15:21 Iron Radio Feed Update 16:32 Newsletter and Book Plug 18:21 Wearable Food Tracking Glasses 21:00 Privacy and Data Broker Fears 23:21 VR Ads and Escape 23:53 Food Illusions and Conditioning 24:27 Research Uses vs Privacy 26:20 Testing Dietary Recall Accuracy 27:39 HDL Exercise and Depression Study 30:29 Is HDL Really Causal 33:21 Selling Results in Titles 35:02 HDL Drugs and High HDL Debate 37:08 Statins Risk Models and Exercise 40:15 Athlete Labs and Wrap Up Donate to the show via PayPal HERE.You can also join Dr Mike's Insider Newsletter for more info on how to add muscle, improve your performance and body comp - all without destroying your health, go to www.ironradiodrmike.com Thank you!Phil, Jerrell, Mike T, and Lonnie

Today - A warning about how much information you give an AI chatbot. Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini have made getting financial advice faster and easier than ever. But as the AI gold rush heats up, a massive privacy risk is emerging. Clark breaks down the critical things you should never tell an AI chatbot.  Also - The anatomy of a Ponzi scheme that RIPPED OFF $140 million from “investors.”  Clark covers two massive fraud cases—Drive Planning and First Liberty—which collectively defrauded thousands of investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. When inflation or economic uncertainty makes us feel insecure about our money, we become susceptible to smooth pitches. Clark reminds us of the ultimate golden rule of investing: any time someone promises you "guaranteed" double-digit returns with zero risk, it is a lie. Learn how these schemes operate so you can spot the red flags, protect your hard-earned savings, and secure your financial future. Plus, Lane (Clark's wife!) shares your #AskClark questions and Clark gives his take. All this and more on the June 1, 2026, episode of The Clark Howard Show. Submit questions: Ask Clark AI Privacy Risk: Segment 1 Ask Clark: Segment 2 Ponzi Schemes Steal Millions: Segment 3 Ask Clark: Segment 4 Mentioned on the show: Don't tell your AI chatbot these 5 things to keep your money safe  Where Should You Keep Your Cash Reserve? - Clark Howard 6 Things To Know About Series I Savings Bonds - Clark Howard How To Open a Roth IRA Anatomy of a Ponzi scheme How to Teach Young Kids About Money - Clark Howard How I Set My Teens Up for Retirement in 5 Minutes What Brokerage Do You Recommend for First-Time Investors or Kids? How To Freeze and Unfreeze Your Credit With Experian, Equifax and TransUnion Clark.com resources: Episode transcripts Community.Clark.com  /  Ask Clark Clark.com daily money newsletter Consumer Action Center Free Helpline: 636-492-5275 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when every payment, wallet, and onchain interaction becomes searchable by governments, companies, adversaries, and AI? Josh Swihart, founder and CEO of Zcash Open Development Lab, joins David to explain why Zcash is having a major privacy comeback, how ZODL and the Zashi wallet helped unlock real shielded adoption, why the shielded pool may be the most important ZEC metric, and what it will take for private money to become too big to kill. ---

Magbittertruth.com

Kieran Mesquka is a contributor to privacy projects, best known for his work on Railgun for Ethereum. He is also an advocate for freedom-maximizing technologies and a connoisseur of Zero Knowledge privacy. In this episode, we talk about what it's like to build shielded pools and anonymization tools in a political landscape that actively fights against it. Time stamps: 00:01:10 - Introducing Kieran Mesquka 00:02:21 - Kieran's Early Crypto Involvement, GPU Mining 00:03:54 - Discovering Bitcoin 00:06:31 - Transition to Ethereum Smart Contracts 00:10:24 - Motivation for Working on Privacy 00:20:33 - Comparing Tornado Cash and Railgun 00:26:30 - Why Tornado Cash Developers Got in Trouble 00:29:10 - The "Kieran is Satoshi" Joke 00:31:07 - General Online Privacy and Naomi Brockwell 00:33:25 - The Surveillance of Smart Devices 00:43:43 - The Problem with Subscriptions for Hardware 00:46:35 - Building Privacy for Mainstream Adoption 00:51:04 - Podcast Sponsors: Orange Rock, Cake Wallet, SideShift.AI, Layer Two Labs 00:54:49 - Technical Similarities Between Railgun and Zcash 01:00:26 - Opt-in vs. Default Privacy 01:02:37 - Why Bitcoin Lacks Advanced Privacy 01:10:32 - Railgun's Multi-Chain Presence 01:15:05 - The State of Ethereum and Privacy Demand 01:19:13 - Railgun's Elevator Pitch 01:20:47 - Railgun's Transaction Filtering System 01:29:20 - Trusting Zero-Knowledge Proofs 01:36:18 - Future of Privacy Technology 01:40:37 - How to Follow Kieran's Work

When employees miss work or arrive late consistently with little notice, it can lead to burnout, declining morale and productivity, and even safety concerns. At the same time, employers have to balance those business needs with legal requirements and the fact that employees may need time off when unforeseen circumstances arise. Join us as we discuss ideas for reducing absenteeism and tardiness this summer. [01:03] Introduction [01:55] Developing a clear attendance policy [02:26] Taking a balanced approach [03:31] Reviewing existing time off policies [04:10] Offering flexible work arrangements [04:26] Addressing concerns [05:27] Requesting documentation [06:22] Maintaining accurate timekeeping systems This content is based on generally accepted HR practices, is advisory in nature, and does not constitute legal advice or other professional services. ADP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the content. Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding their organization's compliance with applicable laws. This content is current as of the published date.  ADP, the ADP logo, HR{preneur}, RUN Powered by ADP and Always Designing for People are registered trademarks of ADP, Inc and its affiliates. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. Copyright © 2026 ADP, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy at ADP  

When the Pentagon formally designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” this March, the dispute put a spotlight on civil liberties concerns in the AI-era. Anthropic had reportedly hit an impasse with the Trump administration over the company's push for guardrails banning the use of its Claude model to conduct mass surveillance. Anthropic's CEO had called such surveillance a “red line” it would not cross. But where exactly should those lines be drawn, and who should draw them? Few people have spent more time thinking about those issues than Cindy Cohn, executive director of the San Francisco-based civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation. Throughout her career, EFF's executive director has been driven by a fundamental question: Can we still have private conversations if we live our lives online? Her new book, Privacy's Defender: My Thirty-Year Fight Against Digital Surveillance, chronicles her battles to protect our right to digital privacy. Cohn weaves her own personal story with the history of the Crypto Wars, FBI gag orders, and the post-9/11 surveillance state. She describes how she became a seasoned leader in the early digital rights movement, as well as how this work serendipitously helped her discover her birth parents and find her life partner. Along the way, she also details the development of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which she grew from a ragtag group of lawyers and hackers into “one of the most powerful digital rights organizations in the world.” Cohn will be joined by Adam Savage, former co-host of the Discovery Channel show “Mythbusters,” to talk about the issues raised in her book, EFF's work, and the emerging battle over AI surveillance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can AI help you understand your PSA, improve prostate cancer detection, and help doctors make better decisions?In this episode, Dr. Geo sits down with Dr. Jennifer Miles-Thomas, urologist, healthcare executive, Treasurer of the American Urological Association, and Vice Chair of Integration and Innovation at Northwestern Medicine to break down how AI is changing prostate care.We cover ChatGPT, PSA interpretation, privacy concerns, prostate MRI, digital pathology, ambient AI, and the future of prostate cancer diagnosis.Can AI explain an elevated PSA? Which tools are best? Is your medical data private? And how are physicians using AI to improve care while keeping human judgment at the center?Dr. Miles-Thomas explains how tools like ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, and Grok can help men ask smarter questions, better understand risk, and prepare for doctor visits—but why AI should never replace medical expertise.TIMESTAMPS06:00 — Can AI Help You Understand Your PSA?08:00 — Privacy & AI Health Searches10:00 — Best AI Tools for Medical Questions13:00 — AI for Doctors & Smarter Decisions14:00 — Ambient AI & The Future of Doctor Visits21:00 — AI, MRI & Prostate Cancer Detection26:00 — The Biggest Risks of AI in MedicineKEY TAKEAWAYS• AI can help explain an elevated PSA—but context matters• Better prompts lead to better answers• Use AI to ask smarter questions, not self-diagnose• AI may improve MRI, pathology, and cancer detection• Human oversight still mattersAI is changing prostate care fast but what does it actually mean for you? Dr. Jennifer Miles-Thomas breaks it all down. Let's get into it.___________________________________

That Don't Sound Right is a podcast about talking—the way we did before the internet took over every conversation. No constant fact-checking, no endless scrolling, just curious people trying to make sense of the world. In this episode, Peter and Cecil take a closer look at the growing network of automated license-plate readers known as Flock and the grassroots Deflock movement that tracks and maps those cameras. What starts as a discussion about crime prevention quickly expands into a larger conversation about privacy, surveillance, technology, and the trade-offs communities face in an increasingly monitored world. The hosts explore how modern camera systems can identify vehicle make, model, color, and distinguishing features, how neighborhoods and businesses use these networks, and why law enforcement agencies find them valuable for locating stolen vehicles and investigating crimes. They also examine concerns about data collection, surveillance creep, and the possibility of systems being used in ways never originally intended. Along the way, Peter and Cecil discuss gunshot-detection technology, crowd-sourced camera maps, and the lengths some people go to avoid being tracked—all while asking the central question: How much privacy are we willing to trade for security? It's a thoughtful, entertaining conversation about modern technology, personal freedom, and the changing relationship between citizens, communities, and surveillance. Because when every road seems to have a camera pointed at it, you have to wonder... does that sound right? Hashtags: #tdsrpodcast #ThatDontSoundRight #FlockCameras #Deflock #PrivacyMatters #Surveillance #LicensePlateReaders #Technology #DigitalPrivacy #CivilLiberties #PublicSafety #ModernLife #CommunitySafety #PodcastDiscussion #PrivacyVsSecurity Connect with us:

Canada May Weaken Privacy Around the World by Nick Espinosa, Chief Security Fanatic

Crypto News: Bitcoin's price continues to drop, will BTC and Altcoins bounce soon as the S&P500 hits new all time highs? Trump claims he can ‘future proof' crypto regulation with CLARITY Act. SEC Commissioner Peirce defends crypto privacy tools against surveillance push.Brought to you by

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Cindy Cohn is one of the world's leading advocates for digital rights and online freedom. She is the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF. Cindy has spent more than three decades fighting landmark battles for us over encryption, privacy, free expression, and government surveillance. It's my great honor to interview her today!

Why healthcare marketing? For many people in the industry, healthcare marketing is a deeply purposeful career path that allows them to positively impact others' lives and improve access to healthcare. In this week's episode, our CEO Jenny offers guidance for new grads and professionals on rising industry trends and important skills for success in healthcare marketing. Major Industry TrendsShifting Search Journeys: The percentage of patients using Google for traditional searches is shrinking, as people turn toward generative AI for pre-diagnostic research.Authenticity Beats High-Production Value: With the rise of deepfakes and AI-generated media, there is a growing demand for transparent, unpolished video content.Privacy and Measurement Challenges: Marketers need to get creative in order to prove ROI while maintaining compliance, as HIPAA and state-level privacy laws have made it more difficult to track campaign performance.Essential Skills for SuccessKeep a Human in the Loop: Use AI as a productivity tool, rather than a replacement for critical thinking. Be sure humans are in charge of the storytelling.Engage Audiences with Microlearning: Work on translating complex clinical topics into engaging, short, mobile-first videos that can quickly educate and build trust.Adopt a Privacy-First Analytics Mindset: Focus on downstream business outcomes, like patient appointments, while ensuring patient information remains secure and compliant.Proceed with Empathy and Health Literacy: Focus on writing copy that is easy to understand and empathetic, that AI cannot easily replicate.Connect with Jenny:Email: jenny@hedyandhopp.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennybristow/If you enjoyed this episode, we'd love to hear your feedback! Please consider leaving us a review on your preferred listening platform and sharing it with others.

Show Notes & References Resources mentioned in this episode: Tither, E. (2025, December 10). ⁠⁠What happens to the data you feed LLMs?⁠⁠ University of Illinois System, Student Money Management Center. https://blogs.uofi.uillinois.edu/view/7550/1055573584 Chen, K., Zhou, X., Lin, Y., Feng, S., Shen, L., & Wu, P. (2025). A survey on privacy risks and protection in large language models. ⁠⁠Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences⁠⁠, ⁠⁠37⁠⁠(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44443-025-00177-1 Farooqui, A. (2025, February 12). ⁠⁠Samsung lets employees use ChatGPT again after secret data leak in 2023⁠⁠. SamMobile. https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-lets-employees-use-chatgpt-again-after-secret-data-leak-in-2023/ Han, X., Peng, H., & Liu, M. (2025). The impact of GenAI on learning outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. ⁠⁠Educational Research Review⁠⁠, 100714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100714 Imperial War Museums. (2018). ⁠⁠How Alan Turing cracked the enigma code⁠⁠. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-alan-turing-cracked-the-enigma-code Kwak, R. (2023, November 30). ⁠⁠Announcing Microsoft Copilot with Data Protection⁠⁠. Technology Services, University of Illinois. https://www.techservices.illinois.edu/2023/11/30/announcing-microsoft-copilot-with-data-protection/ Kwak, R. (2025, November 11). ⁠⁠ChatGPT arrives at U of I⁠⁠. Technology Services, University of Illinois. https://www.techservices.illinois.edu/2025/11/11/chatgpt-arrives-at-u-of-i/ Microsoft 365, Copilot with Data Protection – AI Chat for the Web. (2024). University of Illinois System KnowledgeBase. https://answers.uillinois.edu/133037 OpenAI. (2023). ⁠⁠Privacy policy⁠⁠. https://openai.com/en-GB/policies/row-privacy-policy/ Ray, S. (2023, May 2). ⁠⁠Samsung bans ChatGPT among employees after sensitive code leak⁠⁠. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/05/02/samsung-bans-chatgpt-and-other-chatbots-for-employees-after-sensitive-code-leak/ Yao, Y., Duan, J., Xu, K., Cai, Y., Sun, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2024). A survey on large language model (LLM) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. ⁠⁠High-Confidence Computing⁠⁠, ⁠⁠4⁠⁠(2), 100211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcc.2024.100211

Modern Therapist's Consumer Guide: Paubox. HIPAA Compliant Email, Secure Communication, and Practice Privacy. An Interview with Hoala Greevy, Founder and CEO of Paubox Curt and Katie talk with Hoala Greevy, Founder and CEO of Paubox, about what HIPAA compliant email actually requires, where standard Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 Business Associate Agreements leave gaps, and why most secure-portal solutions fail at the inbox. Paubox is a HIPAA compliant email security platform built to deliver encrypted messages straight to the recipient's inbox, without portals, plugins, or extra clicks. Hoala explains how Paubox wraps around the email systems therapists already use, why domain ownership and TLS encryption matter, and how inbound threats like display-name spoofing affect small practices. The conversation also covers HITRUST certification, AI scraping, the Paubox Foundations, the Paubox Kahikina Scholarship supporting Native Hawaiian students in STEM, and how to evaluate a HIPAA compliant email vendor on security, reliability, and ease of use. This episode is part of our Modern Therapist's Consumer Guide series. While this interview is a paid partnership, our discussion and opinions are our own. In this episode, we discuss: - Where standard Google and Microsoft BAAs leave HIPAA compliant email gaps - Why most secure-portal solutions never get read on mobile - How TLS encryption and secure email delivery actually work - What domain ownership has to do with HIPAA compliance - How Paubox integrates with Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 - Inbound threats, display-name spoofing, and ExecProtect - HITRUST certification and how to evaluate a HIPAA compliant email vendor Timestamps: - 02:18 – What Paubox does and why it was created - 05:19 – Mission, vision, and the Paubox Foundations - 08:38 – What HIPAA compliant email actually requires - 10:26 – The Google and Microsoft BAA gray area - 14:48 – What the client experience looks like - 21:09 – Inbound email security and display-name spoofing - 24:32 – Data access, HITRUST certification, and trust - 34:05 – Pricing, value, and the referral program - 38:43 – Curt and Katie Chat: Our Review of Paubox Guest Bio: Hoala Greevy is the Founder and CEO of Paubox, a leading provider of HIPAA compliant email solutions for healthcare organizations. Born and raised in Honolulu, he founded Paubox after a meeting with the CEO of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Hawai'i revealed a critical need for secure healthcare communication. Greevy supports Native Hawaiian students entering STEM and technology careers through the Paubox Kahikina Scholarship. Learn more at paubox.com. Special Offer for Modern Therapist Listeners: Get $250 off an annual Paubox plan. Visit paubox.com and use promo code MODERN. Full show notes and transcript: mtsgpodcast.com Join the Modern Therapist Community Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/mtsgpodcast Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/therapyreimagined Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits Voice Over by DW McCann: https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano: https://groomsymusic.com/

What's the news today? MAGA, baby. Reporting on MAGA wins right now is like being a Phoenix weatherman. “Tomorrow's forecast? Sunny, 112 degrees, Democrats spontaneously combusting by noon.” There's no suspense anymore. Even the panic has become routine. We are winning all over the place. Somebody needs to create a MAGA Tracker. Like NORAD tracking Santa Claus on Christmas Eve. Little blinking lights moving across the country: Trump endorsement flips district… another DEI office closes… illegal immigrant self-deports… MSNBC host bursts into tears… It's Christmas every day if you're a conservative. Democrats wake up each morning like kids discovering Santa left them an invoice.And speaking of things people are trying to hide under the tree skirt, Joe Biden apparently doesn't want America learning just how cooked his brain was while he occupied the Oval Office. Isn't that amazing? We spent four years watching this man wander around stages like he was looking for the men's room at a Cracker Barrel, and now suddenly they want privacy. Privacy? The real scandal isn't that Biden struggled mentally. Aging happens. The scandal is that an entire political machine, media included, looked Americans dead in the eye and said, “No, no, this is fine. He's sharp as a tack.” Sharp as a tack? If Biden were your Uber driver, you'd jump out at the first red light.And here's the part they never want discussed: if unelected staffers, handlers, and bureaucrats were effectively running the country while pretending Biden was fully in charge, what exactly do we call that? Democracy?More like, Weekend at Bernie's: Executive Branch Edition?Meanwhile, Republicans have finally figured out something Trump understood from the beginning: politics isn't golf. You don't politely clap for the other side while they try to destroy you. Trump reshaped the Republican Party because he proved that voters were starving for somebody who would actually fight instead of issuing strongly worded bookmarks.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

FLOK cameras are quietly becoming one of the largest AI-powered surveillance systems in America.In this episode of the Mike Force Podcast, Mike breaks down how AI license plate readers work, how law enforcement and private companies are building massive vehicle tracking networks, and why preparedness-minded Americans should understand the reality of modern surveillance infrastructure.From real-time vehicle tracking and behavioral analysis to privacy concerns, predictive policing, and digital footprints, this episode explains how these systems are already shaping the operational environment across the United States.This isn't conspiracy theory territory anymore.This is infrastructure.Topics Covered:• FLOK camera systems• AI license plate readers• Real-time surveillance networks• Vehicle tracking technology• Pattern-of-life analysis• Public-private surveillance partnerships• OPSEC and preparedness• AI predictive policing• Privacy and digital exposure• Tactical awareness in modern AmericaSubscribe for more preparedness, geopolitics, tactical analysis, and real-world situational awareness content.PTChttps://youtube.com/ ⁨@mikepreachingtothechoir⁩  PRIMAL POWER BAR - Use GLOVER20 to save 20% OFFhttps://primalpower.com/pages/mike-gloverFollow the underground https://patreon.com/mikegloverGet your Carnivault Subscription and Save on Changing Beef Prices by locking in your prices - The best freeze dried meat for prep or dinner. Use “MG10” to save!https://www.carnivault.com/promo-packs Wastach Wagyu Beef Premium Meat Snacks "MG20" saves 20% off!New Bundle Pack from WWhttps://wasatchwagyu.com/product/wagyu-sweet-spicy-stick-bundle-hot-honey/Follow me on Instagram https://instagram.com/mikegloveractual https://instagram.com/mike.a.gloverMy Book Prepared https://a.co/d/08TMwNe1

NEAR keeps showing up in strange places: cross-chain wallets, privacy apps, AI infrastructure, and now the emerging agent economy. Sal Ternullo, CEO of SVRN, joins us to explain why he thinks this is not another NEAR pivot, but the original thesis finally coming into focus. They dig into NEAR Intents, AI money, tokenomics, privacy, fee capture, agentic commerce, and why SVRN is trying to commercialize the NEAR ecosystem rather than simply hold the asset. ---

May 27, 2026#WhatILearnedTodayDownload The Daily MoJo APP for Android HEREDownload TDM App For IOS: HERE"Get The Flock Out! | The Daily MoJo Ep:052726"This episode of The Daily Mojo, hosted by Brad Staggs and Ron Phillips, delves into critical current events. Topics include potential Strait of Hormuz disruptions, the controversial Flock camera surveillance system, and New York City's property seizure plans. The discussion also touches on political party reports and local government policies, offering a comprehensive overview of pressing issues.Phil Bell's Morning Update Mamdami's real estate grab: HEREOur affiliate partners:Be prepared! Not scared. Need some Ivermection? Some Hydroxychloroquine? Don't have a doctor who fancies your crazy ideas? We have good news - Dr. Stella Immanuel has teamed up with The Daily MoJo to keep you healthy and happy all year long! Not only can she provide you with those necessary prophylactics, but StellasMoJo.com has plenty of other things to keep you and your body in tip-top shape. Use Promo Code: DailyMoJo to save $$Take care of your body - it's the only one you'll get and it's your temple! We've partnered with Sugar Creek Goods to help you care for yourself in an all-natural way. And in this case, "all natural" doesn't mean it doesn't work! Save 15% on your order with promo code "DailyMojo" at SmellMyMoJo.comCBD is almost everywhere you look these days, so the answer isn't so much where can you get it, it's more about - where can you get the CBD products that actually work!? Certainly, NOT at the gas station! Patriots Relief says it all in the name, and you can save an incredible 40% with the promo code "DailyMojo" at GetMoJoCBD.com!Romika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com Rumble: HEREOr just LISTEN:The Daily MoJo ChannelBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support.WATCH: TheDailyMoJO.comLISTEN: TDM RadioRUMBLE: HEREDownload the APP HERE.StellasMojo.comCODE: dailymojo - Save 5%GetMojoCBD.comCODE: dailymojo - Save 40%!

Almost 9 years since the big split of the Bitcoin community, it's time to learn more about how the Bitcoin Cash chain developed. Calin Culianu is the creator of Fulcrum, an efficient privacy-preserving SPV client. Steve Thurmond is the most ardent advocate for Cash Stamps: a convenient paper wallet system that's used for gifting. Throughout the episode, more BCH community members will join to have the conversation that you will never hear on any other Bitcoin podcast. Time stamps: 00:01:09 Introducing Calin Culianu & Steve Thurmond 00:02:37 The Evolution of Bitcoin Cash 00:03:59 Who is Behind Bitcoin Cash Now? 00:06:34 Narratives and Misconceptions 00:07:53 Vlad's Perspective on the Fork 00:09:44 Bitcoin's Capture and Speculative Nature 00:11:48 Vlad's Journey with Lightning Network 00:16:07 Blockstream and the "Banker" Conspiracy 00:18:33 The Security Budget Debate 00:22:12 The Problem with IOU Systems like Lightning 00:24:02 Vlad's Disappointment with Onboarding 00:24:58 Ethereum's Rise Amidst Bitcoin's Infighting 00:27:52 The Bankers Won, But Crypto Still Exists 00:32:16 The Future of Bitcoin and Firing Core Devs 00:33:08 The Wall of Consensus in BTC 00:39:19 The Multi-Coin Future 00:42:48 Bitcoin Cash's Development Philosophy 00:49:08 Craig Wright's Controversial Involvement 00:55:16 The Impact of Contentious Forks 00:58:55 The Resilience of Bitcoin Cash 01:02:32 The Value of Open Source Competition 01:08:51 Greg Maxwell's Influence 01:12:00 The Ecash fork 01:25:02 Introducing New BCH Community Members 01:26:38 Building Smart Contracts on Bitcoin Cash 01:34:06 Why UTXO is Better than EVM 01:40:07 Can You Run a BCH Node? 01:41:07 The Flawed "Run a Node" Narrative 01:53:27 The Dangers of RBF and the Importance of 0-Conf 02:05:07 One-Minute Blocks Proposal 02:08:02 Finality and User Experience in Wallets 02:12:13 The "It's Just Money, Bro" Philosophy 02:41:39 What Can You Buy with BCH? 02:48:28 The Permissionless Nature of BCH 02:52:12 The Paradox of Layer Twos 02:57:18 The Stigma of Building on BCH 02:58:21 The Changing Culture of Bitcoin Cash 03:11:35 Ordinals and the "Spam" Debate 03:17:07 Would BCH Still Have a Nice Dev Culture If Michael Saylor Started Buying? 03:28:14 Quantum Computing and Satoshi's Coins 03:42:59 The Tail Emission Debate 03:50:11 The Culture is the Ultimate Defense 03:53:16 The Politicization of Bitcoin Development 03:59:26 Privacy and Fungibility 04:02:21 The Future of Privacy on BCH 04:36:12 Fulcrum: An Electrum Server Implementation 04:38:54 The Litecoin Question 04:49:13 The Difficulty of Recreating Bitcoin's Genesis 04:51:38 The Long-Term Bet on SHA-256 04:54:12 A Break and Introduction to Rosco 05:48:33 CashScript and Smart Contracts on BCH 05:55:22 BCH vs. Ethereum Smart Contracts 06:03:05 The UTXO Stack and Abstraction Layers 06:43:30 The Avalanche Pre-Consensus Question 06:45:51 The "Tax" Fork 07:04:06 The Failed Attack on Bitcoin Cash 07:08:58 The 2018 Inflation Bug Disclosure 07:22:46 The Michael Saylor Phenomenon 07:28:41 The Arrest of Roger Ver 07:39:28 Spending Crypto in the Real World 07:44:22 The End of Crypto-Friendly Spaces in Europe 07:52:05 Prediction Markets and Community Sponsorship 08:08:17 Robin Linus is Jealous of BCH Opcodes 08:09:50 Final Thoughts and Conclusion

Mentor Sessions Ep. 073: Why Capitalism Is in Its Dying Phase, Why Trillion-Dollar AI IPOs Are a Massive Ponzi, and How the Iran Deal Is Pure Theater | Simon Dixon & Dave CollumCapitalism is in its final gasping phase — and the $3 trillion AI IPO push, bond market stress, and China's triple rug-pull setup are the proof. Simon Dixon and Dave Collum break it all down.Simon Dixon (BnkToTheFuture) and Cornell professor Dave Collum join BTC Sessions for one of the most wide-ranging macro and Bitcoin sovereignty conversations of 2026. You'll learn why Simon believes the Iran deal is already signed and the current headlines are pure theatrics timed to IPO liquidity needs. You'll see why Dave views the Space X IPO at 100x sales as a dying capitalism's last gasp — and why the gamma squeeze unwinding could trigger a simultaneous bond, equity, and commodity collapse. You'll understand how BlackRock's Aladdin technology has replaced Goldman Sachs as the true node of global capital flows, and why Larry Fink, Strategy, and 21 Capital are NOT friends of Bitcoin sovereignty. Most importantly, you'll walk away understanding why self-custody and a circular Bitcoin economy are the only real exits from transnational capital control.⏱️ Timestamps:0:00 - Intro1:27 - Simon Moves Goalposts on Iran Deal5:27 - Timing Iran Deal with Major IPO Liquidity8:08 - Dave Collum Calls Space IPO Fantasy at 100x Sales9:33 - Gamma Squeeze Driving Equity Ponzi Scheme11:32 - Dave's Nightmare: Simultaneous Bond and Equity Bears13:56 - America Not Sovereign, Controlled by Financial Complexes15:15 - Fed Must Expand Balance Sheet to Fix Bonds16:39 - $3 Trillion IPOs: OpenAI and SpaceX Index Inclusion22:17 - Passive Flows Insufficient for $3 Trillion IPOs37:11 - China Could Rug Pull Bonds, Stocks, Commodities42:18 - DeepSeek Moment Reveals China's AI Advantage49:38 - Gold Squeeze: London Derivatives vs Shanghai Physical53:26 - BlackRock Aladdin Directs All Institutional Flows1:00:31 - Central Banking Ponzi Scheme Math Exposed1:14:31 - Thomas Massie and Mafia Model of Power1:38:33 - Bitcoin Self-Custody: Exit from Transnational Capital1:44:24 - Larry Fink, Strategy Not Bitcoin Allies1:47:50 - Build Circular Bitcoin Economy to Exit System1:57:46 - Follow Simon Dixon and Dave Collum• About Simon DixonX: @SimonDixonTwittYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@UC_wNYJCyycXXPmWni2JNZhQ • About Dave CollumX: https://x.com/DavidBCollum• Sovereign Sessions — AI, Privacy, and Bitcoin education: http://youtube.com/@SovereignSessions?sub_confirmation=1

Send us Fan MailIn this week's episode of a week in privacy, hosts Paul Breitbarth and Ralph O'Brien discuss some key movements in privacy, data protection, cyber law, and AI around the world. Dr. K Royal was off speaking at a Governance or Emerging Tech and Science conference in Arizona. Join Paul and Ralph to cover both the highs and lows and share concerns about trends we are seeing. If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and Instagram @seriousprivacy, and on BlueSky under @seriousprivacy.eu, @europaulb.seriousprivacy.eu, @heartofprivacy.bsky.app and @igrobrien.seriousprivacy.eu, and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! From Season 6, our episodes are edited by Fey O'Brien. Our intro and exit music is Channel Intro 24 by Sascha Ende, licensed under CC BY 4.0. with the voiceover by Tim Foley.

A reported Windsor Castle security scare raises concerns after claims that armed officers slept on duty and abandoned key posts. Meanwhile, Meghan Markle faces renewed criticism over online safety, social media, family privacy, and her latest As Ever jam promotion. Plus, Hugo Vickers on Queen Elizabeth's blind spot over Andrew, and Deep Crown reflects on what the late Queen can no longer answer for.Get episodes of Palace Intrigue by becommming a paid subscriber on Apple Podcasts. Click the button that says uninterrupted listening.  Just $5 a month, and that includes many ofther shows on the Caloroga Shark network.A new season of King William is available now.Our royal newsletter written by Deep Crown is available for free.Royal Books:Revenge: Meghan, Harry, and the War Between the Windsors by Tom BowerWilliam and Catherine: The Monarchy's New Era: The Inside StoryThe Royal Insider: My Life with the Queen, the King and Princess Diana

Ashlee is joined by the Brits in Boston and they help out with a DM Dilemma....did this girl get too comfortable at the first sleepover?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In our May 2026 Community Chat, and with members of the Caribbean tech community, Tamira La Cruz, an Economic Development Advisor and Private Sector Specialist based in Curaçao, and Natalie Maharaj, a Digital Transformation Consultant and Responsible Technology Advocate based in Trinidad and Tobago, the panel discusses:    *  AI literacy in the Caribbean;   *  SIDS investing in tech development; and   *  privacy and consent in AI.   The episode, show notes and links to some of the things mentioned during the episode can be found on the ICT Pulse Podcast Page (www.ict-pulse.com/category/podcast/)       Enjoyed the episode?  Do rate the show and leave us a review!       Also, connect with us on: Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/ICTPulse/   Instagram –  https://www.instagram.com/ictpulse/   Twitter –  https://twitter.com/ICTPulse   LinkedIn –  https://www.linkedin.com/company/3745954/admin/   Join our mailing list: http://eepurl.com/qnUtj    Music credit: The Last Word (Oui Ma Chérie), by Andy Narrell Podcast editing support:  Mayra Bonilla Lopez   ---------------

May 26, 2026Have you had your dose of The Daily MoJo today? Download our app HERE"Human Alien Hybrids! | The Daily MoJo Ep:052626"This episode of The Daily Mojo delves into intriguing topics, from theories about CIA searches for extraterrestrial DNA to the complex situation in Iran. We also examine domestic issues including protests at ICE facilities, rising costs of everyday goods, and political commentary on the Democratic Party's current state.  Additionally, the show covers a tragic accident, an art controversy, and unusual news stories.Phil Bell's Morning Update - They're on the ropes!:  HEREDan Andros - host of The QuickStart Podcast and Managing Editor at CBN.com - Is NOT happy with Facebook Marketplace tactics!FaithwireCBN NewsYouTubeOur affiliate partners:EMP Shield - Figuring out the odds of a devastating EMP attack on the United States is impossible, but as with any disaster, the chances are NOT ZERO, and could happen any day. This decade has proven that the weird and unexpected is right around the corner. Be prepared - protect your home, vehicle, even your generator - with EMP Shield. You'll save money and protect what's important at the same time!ProtectMyMoJo.com Be prepared! Not scared. Need some Ivermection? Some Hydroxychloroquine? Don't have a doctor who fancies your crazy ideas? We have good news - Dr. Stella Immanuel has teamed up with The Daily MoJo to keep you healthy and happy all year long! Not only can she provide you with those necessary prophylactics, but StellasMoJo.com has plenty of other things to keep you and your body in tip-top shape. Use Promo Code: DailyMoJo to save $$Take care of your body - it's the only one you'll get and it's your temple! We've partnered with Sugar Creek Goods to help you care for yourself in an all-natural way. And in this case, "all natural" doesn't mean it doesn't work! Save 15% on your order with promo code "DailyMojo" at SmellMyMoJo.comCBD is almost everywhere you look these days, so the answer isn't so much where can you get it, it's more about - where can you get the CBD products that actually work!? Certainly, NOT at the gas station! Patriots Relief says it all in the name, and you can save an incredible 40% with the promo code "DailyMojo" at GetMoJoCBD.com!Romika Designs is an awesome American small business that specializes in creating laser-engraved gifts and awards for you, your family, and your employees. Want something special for someone special? Find exactly what you want at MoJoLaserPros.com  There have been a lot of imitators, but there's only OG – American Pride Roasters Coffee. It was first and remains the best roaster of fine coffee beans from around the world. You like coffee? You'll love American Pride – from the heart of the heartland – Des Moines, Iowa. AmericanPrideRoasters.com   Find great deals on American-made products at MoJoMyPillow.com. Mike Lindell – a true patriot in our eyes – puts his money where his mouth (and products) is/are. Find tremendous deals at MoJoMyPillow.com – Promo Code: MoJo50  Life gets messy – sometimes really messy. Be ready for the next mess with survival food and tools from My Patriot Supply. A 25 year shelf life and fantastic variety are just the beginning of the long list of reasons to get your emergency rations at PrepareWithMoJo50.comStay ConnectedWATCH The Daily Mojo LIVE 7-9a CT: www.TheDailyMojo.com Rumble: HEREOr just LISTEN:The Daily MoJo ChannelBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-daily-mojo-with-brad-staggs--3085897/support.WATCH: TheDailyMoJO.comLISTEN: TDM RadioRUMBLE: HEREDownload the APP HERE.StellasMojo.comCODE: dailymojo - Save 5%GetMojoCBD.comCODE: dailymojo - Save 40%!

Mentor Sessions Ep. 072: Why “2-3 Years to Human-Level AI” Is the Most Dangerous Signal of 2026, Why This Is NOT Just Another Tech Breakthrough But the Start of Superintelligence Deciding Humanity's Fate, and How Bitcoin Becomes the Only True Neutral Reserve Asset | Dr. Roman YampolskiyAI safety researcher Roman Yampolskiy says we're 2-3 years from human-level AI — and after that, it's up to the AI to decide how much time we have left. If that sentence didn't make you pause, this conversation will.In this deep-dive interview, Dr. Roman Yampolskiy — one of the world's leading AI safety researchers and the scientist who helped define the field — breaks down why superintelligence isn't a distant sci-fi threat but a near-term mathematical certainty. You'll learn why containment strategies are provably impossible (you can't have someone with an IQ of 60 guarding someone with an IQ of 200), why AI systems in experiments already choose to eliminate humans rather than be deleted or modified, and why an AI with internet access doesn't need a physical body — it can pay someone in Bitcoin to do whatever it needs in the physical world.You'll also hear Roman's surprisingly clear-eyed take on what assets survive an AI-dominated economy (scarce resources, Bitcoin, attention), why narrow AI tools are a gift to humanity while general agents are an existential threat, and what individuals can realistically do when most of the decision-making power sits with a handful of labs and governments.This is one of the most important conversations BTC Sessions has hosted — not because it's comfortable, but because it's honest.⏱️ Timestamps:0:00 - Intro1:33 - Defining Intelligence in AI Systems3:10 - Tools Versus Agents in AI Development4:49 - How LLMs Predict Next Tokens Internally7:00 - Consciousness and Internal States in AI8:49 - Current Limits to Superintelligent AI10:58 - The Overlooked Risks of Superintelligence12:04 - How AI Could Eliminate Humanity14:22 - Instrumental Goals and AI Self-Preservation15:00 - AI Experiments Choosing Self Over Humans17:19 - Choosing Not to Build Superintelligence21:07 - Narrow AI Failing to Contain General AI23:01 - Recursive Improvement From Human to Super AI26:49 - Optimistic Future With Narrow AI Tools31:33 - Staying Rational Amid AI Existential Risks34:13 - Bitcoin and Scarce Assets in AI Future40:57 - Do Physical Robots Matter for AI Threats?41:47 - AI Hiring Humans via Bitcoin Payments46:07 - Defending Systems Against Current AI Hacking56:02 - Predicted Timeline to Human-Level AI

Guest host Rich Berra and technology expert Ric Ralston discuss maintaining privacy as technology continues to merge with daily living. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How about an extremely practical book with detailed examples and quizzes based on a fictional town? Also, let's revisit the UK legal framework: impact of the DUAA 2025 and proposed PECR changes.Tim Turner (here for a third time) is the author of “The DPO Daily Challenge” (April 2026). He has worked on Data Protection, Freedom of Information (FOI) and Information Rights law since 2001. He started at the Information Commissioner's Office as a Policy Manager on FOI issues. After that, he was a Data Protection & FOI Officer for two councils and then an Information Governance Manager for an NHS organisation. He has been offering data protection training and consultancy since 2011. Also, Tim is the author of the popular DPO Daily newsletter and LinkedIn feed. 2040 is his training company.References:* The DPO Daily Challenge (sign up page)* Tim Turner on LinkedIn* ICO: Our advice to government on potential changes to online advertising rules* The Data Use and Access Act 2025 (DUAA) - what does it mean for organisations?* Data Protection vs. Privacy and Data Privacy: a January 28th conundrum (Tim Turner, Carissa Véliz, Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, Markus Wünschelbaum, Brendan Quinn - Masters of Privacy, 2025)* Tim Turner: UK news spotlight - advertising, reforms, AI (Masters of Privacy, March 2025)* The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams, 1979)* 2040 Training* The DPO Daily on LinkedIn This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mastersofprivacy.com/subscribe

In this episode, Stephan sits down with Arbedout to explore one of the most debated technical topics in Bitcoin today: covenants, vaults, and the future of Bitcoin custody infrastructure.They discuss why many people may be misunderstanding where the real demand for covenants comes from, and how covenant-related features could improve Bitcoin self-custody through vaults, spending limits, recovery mechanisms, and more secure long-term storage setups.The conversation also explores Bitcoin adoption, conviction, long-term store of value dynamics, and the psychological challenges of holding Bitcoin through volatility.Timestamp:(00:00) – The privacy problem with co-signing today(03:25) – What does Sigbash allow us to do?(08:15) – What is Oblivious Signing? (12:20) – Privacy, Regulation, and Reducing Multisig Honeypot Risks(15:10) - What does Sigbash use look like in practice? Inheritance, Vaults, and Multisig(19:50) - Can the server grief the user?(21:10) – Mobile Wallets, Assisted Self-Custody, and NeoBank Possibilities(25:50) - Sigbash project and product(28:29) – Sigbash vs PIPES vs BinoHash Explained(33:01) – Covenant Demand, Bitcoin Security, and the Future of Self-Custody(36:33) – Closing ThoughtsLinks: https://sigbash.com/https://x.com/arbedoutStephan Livera links:Follow me on X: @stephanliveraSubscribe to the podcastSubscribe to Substack

Join us on the Jeep Talk Show as we dive into hot topics in the Jeep world! This episode features returning co-host Chris, special guest Josh, and plenty of laughs with Nikki G. ###

https://youtu.be/hV9QEVf6CgIWyden has asked the government to warn Americans that the very tool millions use to protect their privacy may be used as a mass surveillance tool against them.He says "Warn Americans how government are treating VPNs."When Wyden asks pointed questions in public, it's usually because of something he can't say out loud. Remember his Senate hearing in 2013? Don't worry, we'll remind you.So what does Wyden know? And should you still be using a VPN?00:00 The Question That Exposed a Lie00:30 What is the NSA?01:22 "Not Wittingly"02:27 Wyden Already Knew The Answer03:58 Snowden Was Right04:57 The Signal Hidden in Plain Sight05:45 The VPN Loophole07:22 Massie can't tell you about this top secret spying program07:38 Should You Still Use One?08:37 The Real Problem Isn't VPNs09:43 The Surveillance Accountability Act: Closing the loopholeNBTV is a project of the Ludlow Institute, a 501c3 non profit whose mission is to advance freedom through technology.To support NBTV, visit:https://LudlowInstitute.org/donate(As a 501(c)(3) non profit, all donations are tax-deductible in the USA as permitted by law.)Visit our shop!https://Shop.NBTV.mediaOur eBook "Beginner's Introduction To Privacy:https://amzn.to/3WDSfkuBeware of scammers, I will never give you a phone number or reach out to you with investment advice. I do not give investment advice.Support the show

Unpacking Hyperliquid's ATH with Michaël van de Poppe. In today's Markets Outlook, Michaël van de Poppe, Founder and CIO of MN Capital and MN Fund, joins CoinDesk's Jennifer Sanasie to share why Hyperliquid is hitting new all-time highs. He makes the case for NEAR and Bittensor as undervalued AI crypto plays compared to overhyped tech IPOs, and explains why he's steering clear of privacy coins like Zcash. Plus, his key macro signals to watch over the next four to six weeks. - Timecodes: 00:00 - What Michaël Is Watching in the Markets? 01:47 - Why European Traders Are Flocking to Hyperliquid 02:59 - HYPE Price Target & HYPE vs. Solana 05:09 - Responding to CME, ICE Regulatory Scrutiny of HYPE 07:27 - Are Altcoins Dead? 08:59 - The Case for NEAR Over AI IPOs 10:43 - Why Bittensor Could Reach $1,000-$2,000 12:48 - Privacy and Zcash 16:33 - Macro Outlook: Yields, the Fed, and What's Next - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie.

Wrongful convictions and AI privacy may seem like separate issues, but both raise the same uncomfortable question: what happens when the legal system relies on old assumptions in a changing world? In episode 618 of the Lawyerist Podcast, Zack Glaser talks with Sunny Eaton about conviction review work, evolving science, and why lawyers should not be so quick to surrender privacy expectations in the age of AI.  Sunny shares how her work in the Nashville District Attorney's Office focuses on reviewing old convictions, identifying new evidence, and helping correct cases where the system may have gotten it wrong. She explains why changing science, including advances in DNA, trauma research, and bias studies, can matter deeply when reviewing criminal convictions.  The conversation then turns to AI, attorney client privilege, client data, and the growing role of data brokers. Zack and Sunny explore whether information shared with AI tools should automatically lose privacy protection, and why lawyers may need to make stronger arguments before courts accept that assumption.  If you are concerned about AI in law firms, client confidentiality, or the future of privacy rights, this episode challenges lawyers to think harder about what should remain private and why it is our job to make the government work for it.   Listen to our previous episodes on AI, Privacy & Legal Ethics.  #612: AI for Lawyers: What You Need to Know Before Your Clients Do, with Cat Casey Apple | Spotify | LTN  #582: Deepfakes, Data, and Duty: Navigating AI Ethics in Law, with Merisa Bowers Apple | Spotify | LTN  #543: What Lawyers Need to Know About the Ethics of Using AI, with Hilary Gerzhoy Apple | Spotify | LTN  #486: How to Safely Include AI in Your Legal Tech Stack, with Will Anoh Apple | Spotify | LTN  Have thoughts about today's episode? Join the conversation on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and X!   If today's podcast resonates with you and you haven't read The Small Firm Roadmap Revisited yet, get the first chapter right now for free! Looking for help beyond the book? See if our coaching community is right for you.   Access more resources from Lawyerist at lawyerist.com.     Chapters / Timestamps:  00:00 Introduction  01:25 Pruning Your Practice  04:15 When Loyalty Gets in the Way  06:25 Meet Sunny Eaton  08:45 Conviction Review Units  09:50 Reviewing Old Cases  11:25 Building Trust  12:40 What Cases Qualify  14:35 Changing Science  16:00 DNA, Trauma, and Bias  18:05 Case by Case Review  19:25 Bad Science and Old Convictions  20:40 AI and Privacy  22:00 Lawyers, Therapists, and Privacy  23:20 Giving Up Too Quickly on AI Privacy  25:30 Reasonable Expectations of Privacy  26:15 Client Data and AI Risk  29:15 What Email Teaches Us  31:00 Attorney Client Privilege and AI  33:20 Personal vs. Workplace AI Use  34:00 Old Rules, New Technology  35:45 Make the Government Work for It 

  The meeting reviewed Kerry Lutz's five administrative petitions challenging app-directed parking signage and vendor practices across Florida and explained the legal and procedural theory underlying the campaign. Presenters described substantive claims, statutory remedies, procedural deadlines, and potential statewide compliance risks tied to federal funding and the MUTCD. Substantive legal theory: Lutz alleges many app-directed parking signs lack required regulatory text and display commercial logos, violating the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Florida traffic statutes; noncompliant signs are characterized as public nuisances and therefore legally unenforceable and removable. The petitions also assert that app-based vendor practices siphon municipal funds through revenue splits and convenience fees, and seek rules capping vendor compensation at actual interchange costs and banning per-ticket private compensation or privatized citation issuance. Procedural strategy and leverage: The filings are Chapter 120 administrative petitions—declaratory statements (90‑day response) and rulemaking petitions (30‑day response)—designed to force timely agency action rather than prolonged inaction. Presenters emphasized that a 2018 constitutional change eliminated judicial deference, requiring de novo review by administrative law judges, which increases the likelihood agencies will be reversed on appeal if orders conflict with plain statutory or MUTCD text. Privacy and minors: Petitions raise privacy and parental-consent concerns, arguing that requiring drivers, including 16–17‑year‑old minors, to accept app terms and surrender location/payment data may bind minors without verified parental consent; the petitions request verifiable parental-consent mechanisms in the apps. Regulatory and funding implications: Presenters tied the sign noncompliance to a Florida Department of Transportation memo and federal highway funding rules to argue a potential statewide federal‑compliance risk. The approach was framed as a low‑cost procedural blueprint leveraging existing statutes to compel transparency and administrative change as municipal parking systems become more digital and automated. Find Kerry Here: https://kerrylutz.com Get the book here:  No Parking    

Unpacking Hyperliquid's ATH with Michaël van de Poppe. In today's Markets Outlook, Michaël van de Poppe, Founder and CIO of MN Capital and MN Fund, joins CoinDesk's Jennifer Sanasie to share why Hyperliquid is hitting new all-time highs. He makes the case for NEAR and Bittensor as undervalued AI crypto plays compared to overhyped tech IPOs, and explains why he's steering clear of privacy coins like Zcash. Plus, his key macro signals to watch over the next four to six weeks. - Timecodes: 00:00 - What Michaël Is Watching in the Markets? 01:47 - Why European Traders Are Flocking to Hyperliquid 02:59 - HYPE Price Target & HYPE vs. Solana 05:09 - Responding to CME, ICE Regulatory Scrutiny of HYPE 07:27 - Are Altcoins Dead? 08:59 - The Case for NEAR Over AI IPOs 10:43 - Why Bittensor Could Reach $1,000-$2,000 12:48 - Privacy and Zcash 16:33 - Macro Outlook: Yields, the Fed, and What's Next - This episode was hosted by Jennifer Sanasie.

Should Christians care about privacy? The surveillance state does not need your worship; it just needs your fear. In this episode, Craig talks with Jon Padfield of Business Reform about Flock cameras, license plate readers, data brokers, and why Christians should question any system that treats neighbors like suspects and calls it safety. Jon brings experience as an engineer, former Indiana state representative, professor, and Christian privacy advocate. Together, he and Craig unpack the old line, “If you have nothing to hide, why worry?” and ask the better question: who gave Caesar the right to decide what counts as wrong? This is not just about cameras on poles. It is about fear, consent, courage, and the way surveillance trains people to obey before anyone even gives an order. Can Christians simply shrug and say, “I have nothing to hide”? Jesus did not call us to outsource our courage to Caesar or trade neighbor-love for state-managed safety. They dig into: Why the “nothing to hide” argument fails How Flock cameras expand beyond stolen-car searches Data brokers, insurance companies, and digital profiling Public records, local pushback, and privacy laws Christian resistance in a watched world

Interview starts at 33:25   Exploring the Future of Humanity, Privacy, and Technology with John Hawks In this episode, John Hawks delves into the implications of AI, surveillance, human identity, and the evolving relationship between technology and society. Join us as we uncover insights from his latest fiction and nonfiction work, blending research with storytelling to contemplate where we're headed.   Key topics discussed: The evolution of privacy in the digital age and the author's stance on fame and anonymity Predictions of surveillance society and the role of AI in shaping human behavior The human implications of virtual interactions, holographs, and AI companions The symbolism and synchronicities tied to hawk encounters and personal experiences The process of writing about complex technological scenarios grounded in extensive research The influence of social media and direct communication in shaping modern authors' connections with readers Ethical dilemmas surrounding AI, control mechanisms, and information access   Become a Lord or Lady with 1k donations over time. And a Noble with any donation. Leave Serfdom behind and help Grimerica stick to 0 ads and sponsors and fully listener supported. Thanks for listening!! Help support the show, because we can't do it without ya. https://www.simulationmaps.com/#products Suite of Interactive Maps! DisasterMap, VolcanoSim, AsteroidSim, ShipwreckMap, UFOMap etc https://www.amazon.com/Unlearned-School-Failed-What-About/dp/1998704904/ref=sr_1_3?sr=8-3   Support the show directly: https://open.spotify.com/show/2punSyd9Cw76ZtvHxMKenI?si=ImKxfMHgQZ-oshl499O4dQ&nd=1&dlsi=4c25fa9c78674de3 Watch or Listen on Spotify https://grimericacbd.com/ CBD / THC Gummies and Tinctures http://www.grimerica.ca/support https://www.patreon.com/grimerica http://www.grimericaoutlawed.ca/support   Our audio book website: www.adultbrain.ca Check out our next trip/conference/meetup - Contact at the Cabin www.contactatthecabin.com www.grimerica.ca/shrooms and Micro Dosing Darren's book www.acanadianshame.ca Join the chat / hangout with a bunch of fellow Grimericans Https://t.me.grimerica grimerica.ca/chats   Discord Chats https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/grimerica-outlawed Sign up for our newsletter https://grimerica.substack.com/ SPAM Graham = and send him your synchronicities, feedback, strange experiences and psychedelic trip reports!! graham@grimerica.com Purchase swag, with partial proceeds donated to the show: www.grimerica.ca/swag Send us a postcard or letter http://www.grimerica.ca/contact/ Episode ART - Napolean Duheme's site http://www.lostbreadcomic.com/ MUSIC https://brokeforfree.bandcamp.com/ - Something Galactic Felix's Site sirfelix.bandcamp.com - Should I             Timestamps: (00:00) - Introduction and guest background (03:12) - Hawks' insights on privacy and fame choices (07:18) - Predictions of surveillance and AI influence on society (12:19) - The human side of virtual holograms and AI interaction (16:19) - The uncanny valley and the desire for authenticity (22:16) - Philosophical questions about reality, math, and existence (27:14) - Creation of realistic violence and its representation in fiction (33:49) - Personal experiences with off-grid living and reconnecting with readers (40:36) - The importance of authenticity in media and social networks (45:49) - War stories and the chaotic reality of violence (52:35) - Future projects: graphic novels, films, and new storytelling avenues (58:32) - How to follow John Hawks' work and stay connected        

HOUR 3: Do you have an expectation of privacy in a private business? full 2071 Wed, 20 May 2026 21:00:00 +0000 L2E5dm366a7GfZXCPXISjRUNtqVNhVVN news The Dana & Parks Podcast news HOUR 3: Do you have an expectation of privacy in a private business? You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News https://player.amperwave

Sprune is in the air! Burnt shares more family developments, Joan unveils her latest stage project, and Doug lands a big gig. Later, they welcome George (Ross Bryant), whose neighborhood research has raised some eyebrows.Go to cbbworld.com and sign up for the Maximus plan to unlock this episode and ALL seasons of The Neighborhood Listen ad-free, as well as full length exclusive BONUS ROOM episodes adventuring deeper into Dignity Falls!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Zcash is having its first real narrative moment in years. David sits down with Multicoin Capital co-founder Tushar Jain and Mert Mumtaz to unpack why privacy may be crypto's missing store-of-value primitive, why Zcash is being framed as “private Bitcoin,” how institutional adoption could normalize shielded money, what AI and onchain surveillance change about the privacy debate, and why quantum risk could become a real catalyst. ---

Email: bidemiologunde@gmail.comIn this episode, host Bidemi Ologunde examines a volatile week where AI privacy, global conflict, reproductive rights, digital childhood spending, and synthetic voices all collided. What does it mean when Meta wants AI chats to disappear? How did Gen Alpha become a nearly $100 billion consumer force? Could the U.S. sustain simultaneous crises in Iran, Ukraine, and Taiwan? And why are audio deepfakes becoming so hard to detect? This episode connects the biggest stories of May 11–17, 2026, into one clear picture of power, trust, and control in a rapidly shifting world.