A US jury has ruled against Israeli firm NSO Group, makers of Pegasus spyware, ordering it to pay $167 million to WhatsApp-owner Meta after the company was found liable for a 2019 hack affecting 1,400 users worldwide.

What Is Pegasus Spyware?

Pegasus is a form of military-grade spyware developed by the NSO Group, a cyber intelligence company headquartered in Herzliya, Israel. Marketed as a tool for governments to combat terrorism and serious crime, Pegasus is capable of remotely infiltrating smartphones without the need for the user to click a link or open a file.

Once installed, it can silently access the device’s microphone, camera, messages, emails, GPS location and more, essentially turning the phone into a pocket spy without the victim’s knowledge.

Dubious Claims

The NSO Group has repeatedly claimed that its clients are limited to “authorised government agencies” and that Pegasus is only sold under export licences approved by Israel’s Ministry of Defence. However, that claim has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, especially after multiple investigations revealed the software’s alleged use against political opponents, journalists, and activists.

What Happened With The WhatsApp Hack?

In 2019, WhatsApp discovered that Pegasus spyware had exploited a vulnerability in its system to target 1,400 individuals across at least 20 countries. The victims identified included journalists, human rights defenders, political dissidents and diplomats. Worryingly, it appears that the attack allowed hackers to inject Pegasus onto phones simply by placing a missed voice call via WhatsApp!

Meta Patch

Meta, which owns WhatsApp, quickly patched the flaw but then filed a lawsuit against NSO Group, accusing it of illegally accessing its servers in violation of both US law and WhatsApp’s terms of service. This marked one of the first high-profile legal actions taken by a tech company against a spyware developer, and set the stage for what has become a protracted six-year legal battle.

Meta Awarded $167 Million in Damages

Earlier this month, a US federal jury ruled in favour of Meta, awarding $167 million in damages for the WhatsApp hack, alongside an additional $444,000 in damages related to legal fees and expenses.

Meta has described the ruling as a “first victory against the development and use of illegal spyware” and a “critical deterrent to this malicious industry”.

A company spokesperson added: “This decision affirms the rule of law and sends a clear message that unlawful surveillance will not be tolerated.”

NSO’s Response

In response, NSO said it was “examining the verdict’s details” and intends to appeal, maintaining that Pegasus plays a “critical role in preventing serious crime and terrorism”.

However, legal experts say the case sets a precedent, i.e. it’s the first time a spyware vendor has been held financially accountable for exploiting a commercial tech platform’s vulnerabilities. This could embolden other firms, including Apple and Microsoft, both of which have reported Pegasus-related attacks, to pursue similar legal routes.

Who Else Was Targeted?

The global controversy around Pegasus escalated in 2021 when an international consortium of journalists revealed a leaked list of more than 50,000 phone numbers allegedly selected for targeting by clients of NSO Group. These included:

– Politicians and heads of state, including French President Emmanuel Macron, Iraqi President Barham Salih, and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

– Journalists from outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and Al Jazeera.

– Human rights defenders and opposition figures from Mexico, India, Hungary, and beyond.

– British government officials, including those at Downing Street and the Foreign Office, as suspected by Canada-based research group Citizen Lab.

– Also notably affected were individuals connected to Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist murdered in Istanbul in 2018. His fiancée and close associates were reportedly targeted by Pegasus both before and after his death, thereby sparking widespread condemnation.

A Spy Tool With State-Sanctioned Backing?

It seems that NSO’s close ties to Israel’s defence apparatus have raised eyebrows across the international community. For example, while the company remains privately owned, it’s been reported that it must receive government approval for each client sale, as Pegasus is officially classified as a weapon under Israeli law.

That connection has become increasingly uncomfortable for Israel’s foreign relations. For example, the US government blacklisted NSO in 2021, citing its spyware’s use to “maliciously target government officials, journalists, activists and academics.” This led to significant diplomatic tension, especially given Pegasus’s prior use by some US allies.

Grey Areas

Critics argue that the spyware industry has flourished in legal grey areas, with few guardrails on how such powerful surveillance tools are used once deployed. This ruling may mark the beginning of a broader reckoning.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This essentially sends the message that even the most sophisticated spyware firms are not above the law. For NSO Group, the financial penalty is damaging, but the reputational fallout may prove even more significant. For example, it’s quite rare for any technology company, let alone one dealing in military-grade surveillance tools, to be held publicly and legally accountable in such a clear-cut fashion. The fact that the case was brought by Meta, a major global player, also lends it weight and visibility across both the tech sector and the legal community.

For other spyware vendors, and even governments that procure these tools, the judgement may prompt a bit of a rethink of what constitutes acceptable use, and more importantly, what might now be legally indefensible. It now appears to be a matter of legal risk as much as one of international ethics. This could, therefore, open the floodgates to further legal challenges from other tech platforms whose infrastructure has been exploited, including Microsoft, Apple, and Google, who have all raised concerns about Pegasus in recent years.

For UK businesses, especially those handling sensitive communications, the verdict is a timely reminder of just how high the stakes are when it comes to cyber resilience. Pegasus wasn’t just used against high-profile political figures but it was also reportedly used to target British government officials, raising concerns about potential exposure for those operating in sectors like legal services, defence contracting, or journalism. Organisations will need to double down on end-to-end encryption, third-party risk assessments, and proactive security patching to defend against such state-grade threats. In practical terms, this could mean more investment in mobile security, tighter controls over messaging apps, and growing pressure on suppliers to demonstrate compliance with new surveillance risk standards.

Meanwhile, the diplomatic ramifications continue to unfold. With Pegasus formally treated as a military export by Israel, and NSO now blacklisted by the US government, there’s rising concern that surveillance technology could become a new front in the global tech cold war. The blurred lines between state-sanctioned espionage, private sector innovation, and cross-border cybercrime are becoming harder to ignore, and even harder to manage without clear international frameworks.

Whether this ruling will reshape the future of spyware remains to be seen, but it appears to have raised the bar for accountability, and could prompt governments, tech firms, and businesses alike to confront uncomfortable truths about privacy, power, and protection.

Nearly a third of office staff are secretly using AI tools at work, risking data breaches, compliance failures, and loss of intellectual property.

Ivanti’s latest Technology at Work report reveals that 42 per cent of employees now use AI daily, but many do so without approval. For example, 36 per cent believe it gives them a hidden edge, while others worry about job security or fear judgement from colleagues. Crucially, even 38 per cent of IT professionals admit to using unauthorised tools, despite knowing the risks.

This covert use of AI, dubbed ‘shadow AI’, is raising red flags across the industry. As Ivanti’s legal chief Brooke Johnson warns: “Employees adopting this technology without proper guidelines or approval could be fuelling threat actors”. Also, a separate study by Veritas found over a third of UK staff had fed sensitive data into chatbots, often unaware of the potential consequences.

Several major firms, including Apple, Samsung and JP Morgan, have already restricted workplace AI use following accidental leaks, but Ivanti warns that policy alone isn’t enough i.e., businesses must assume shadow AI is already happening and act accordingly.

To reduce the risk, companies should enforce clear AI policies, educate staff, and monitor real-world usage. Without visibility and oversight, AI could turn from productivity tool to security liability.

As Europe faces a worsening housing shortage, a new generation of construction robots is being pitched as a solution, but how realistic is the idea, and what does it mean for sustainability, workers, and the industry as a whole?

Rethinking the Way We Build

Housing shortages aren’t new, but in parts of Europe (including the UK) they’ve now reached critical levels. Spiralling costs, strict planning rules, and a growing mismatch between supply and demand have pushed home ownership further out of reach for many. At the same time, the construction sector is facing a crunch of its own.

While other industries have embraced automation and innovation, it seems that construction has remained largely unchanged. For example, today’s building sites largely feature bricks, mortar, manual labour, just as they would decades ago (although there are modern hoists and plant machinery). Arguably, the result is that building is still relatively slow, and is suffering from higher costs and dwindling productivity.

One telling statistic is that, although since 1945 productivity in manufacturing has increased more than eightfold, in construction, it’s only risen by just 10 per cent, and in some cases, has actually gone backwards. For example, building a single-family home now takes longer and costs more than it did 50 years ago, even after adjusting for size. Labour shortages are also compounding the issue. In the UK, the number of bricklayers recently hit a 25-year low, with a third expected to retire within the next decade.

This stagnation is feeding into the wider housing crisis. The shortage of skilled workers delays projects and drives up costs. Meanwhile, urban populations continue to grow, and government targets, such as the UK’s pledge to build 300,000 new homes a year, are consistently missed.

It seems, therefore, that the response by some technologists to propose a different approach may be welcome at this point, i.e. rather than simply trying to build more with the tools that have always been used, suggesting that a total rethink on building is needed.

Robot Builders?

The newest suggestion by some scientists is that autonomous robots, guided by AI and precision software, could take on repetitive and labour-intensive tasks, e.g. laying bricks, moving materials, and even assembling entire walls.

The idea is that robots could help us build faster, more affordably, and with less waste. This is a vision that blends technological ambition with an urgent social need, but the real question is whether this kind of innovation can change things for the better, or whether it’s another idea that will get stuck at the planning stage.

Bricklaying

Amsterdam-based startup Monumental is among those exploring whether robotics could reshape construction. The company has developed a suite of autonomous, electric robots designed to handle one of the most repetitive and labour-intensive tasks on site, i.e. bricklaying.

The system combines:

– Ground-based electric robots that move materials around a site.

– Small crane-like arms that place bricks and apply mortar.

– Computer vision and sensors to track exact positioning.

– A software platform, called Atrium, that maps the environment and guides the robots with millimetre precision.

Each robot is connected to a central coordination system that plans movements, detects site changes, and ensures accuracy in real time. Before building starts, a full 3D scan of the site is taken and aligned with digital building plans. From there, the robots get to work, layer by layer and brick by brick.

Work Alongside Human Builders

It should be noted here that the system is actually designed to work alongside human builders rather than to replace them. For example, labourers still prepare the site, oversee quality, and step in where needed. Monumental calls its approach “software-defined construction”, aiming for flexibility and integration rather than wholesale automation.

Does It Work?

So far, Monumental reports that the robots have built house façades, retaining walls, and other real-world structures across the Netherlands. For example, in 2023, the system completed its first full-scale 15-metre wall, and the company says performance has improved significantly with each iteration, helped by rapid software and hardware updates based on field testing.

The real aim, according to co-founder Salar al Khafaji, is to lay the groundwork for much broader automation, i.e. rather than just bricks, the robots also being able to work with concrete blocks, window frames, door frames, roofing elements, and more.

For now, Monumental appears to be focusing on reliability and practical deployment. The system is offered as a service where clients simply specify the bricks and mortar, and Monumental delivers the finished wall.

Who Else Is Building With Robots?

Globally, construction robotics is actually gaining momentum. In the US for example, Built Robotics offers autonomous trenching and earthmoving systems for infrastructure projects. ICON, known for its 3D-printed homes, has built houses for disaster relief and was recently awarded a $57 million NASA contract to develop construction tech for the Moon.

In Japan, the Shimizu Corporation is experimenting with robots that can handle everything from interior finishing to welding. Closer to home, the UK’s Construction Innovation Hub is exploring off-site manufacturing techniques that integrate robotics for modular building components.

Each approach varies, but the end goal is to make construction faster, more precise, and less dependent on scarce labour.

What It Could Mean for Sustainability

As well as being slow and expensive, traditional construction methods are also environmentally costly. According to the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, construction and building operations are responsible for nearly 40 per cent of annual global carbon emissions!

Robotic construction could offer several environmental benefits, such as:

– Electric robots like Monumental’s generate zero on-site emissions and reduce noise pollution.

– Precision placement, which can reduce material waste and rework.

– Faster builds, thereby lowering the overall energy footprint of each project.

By reducing reliance on diesel-powered machinery and minimising disruption, robotic systems could also be better suited to urban infill projects, where sustainability and community impact are closely scrutinised.

That said, the broader carbon impact also depends on material choices, energy sources, and supply chain factors, which robots alone can’t fix.

How Ready Is the Technology?

Despite the progress, fully autonomous building sites remain a long way off. Most current systems (including Monumental’s) focus on specific, repetitive tasks such as bricklaying or trench digging. Complex structural work, finishing, and systems integration still require human expertise.

Performance metrics are still emerging, but Monumental’s field projects suggest the technology is edging closer to commercial viability. The company claims its robots can build continuously, avoid common errors, and scale up with multiple units on one site.

Crucially, it has opted to work within existing construction norms, using conventional bricks, mortar, and pricing structures. This has helped reduce resistance among cautious builders, though long-term data on cost savings and productivity is still limited.

Implications for the Industry and Workforce

With labour shortages biting across Europe (19 countries were reporting a bricklayer shortage in 2022), automation may fill some urgent gaps. In the UK, where one-third of bricklayers are due to retire in the next decade, demand is unlikely to ease.

However, using robots raises familiar questions around job displacement. Even if robots assist rather than replace workers, fewer may be needed on site. That could reshape the training landscape, shift demand towards tech-savvy roles, and put pressure on traditional trades.

For construction firms, although automation could help meet delivery targets, especially for large-scale housing projects, costs, reliability, and integration still weigh heavily. Monumental’s “robot-as-a-service” model, which avoids capital investment and ties pricing to output, is one attempt to lower that barrier. Whether others will follow remains to be seen.

Governments, Policy, and the Housing Crisis

In places like Monumental’s home country, the Netherlands, where the government has committed to building one million homes by 2030, robotic construction may offer a helpful lever, but not a panacea.

In the UK, housing policy remains politically fraught, and delivery targets have repeatedly been missed. If robotic systems can offer faster build times, safer sites, and lower carbon footprints, they could become part of the toolkit for councils and developers alike.

Still, regulation, standards, and public trust are likely to play a major role. Construction robots may be technically impressive, but mass adoption will depend on how convincingly they can be integrated into real, everyday projects.

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation?

It seems there’s no single fix for Europe’s housing crisis, but the slow pace and inefficiency of traditional construction methods have clearly become part of the problem. As this article has highlighted, robotic systems like Monumental’s offer one possible route towards building more homes, more quickly, and with fewer emissions. What’s striking is not just the innovation itself, but the way it’s being packaged, i.e. pragmatic, incremental, and designed to slot into existing workflows rather than disrupt them completely.

In the UK, developers under pressure to meet housing targets may find robotic services attractive, particularly for repetitive or labour-intensive parts of the build. Construction firms willing to engage with these tools early on could gain a competitive edge, especially as skilled labour becomes harder to find. Also, tech providers, equipment suppliers, and training organisations may see growing demand for systems integration, on-site support, and workforce upskilling.

That said, the adoption curve is unlikely to be smooth. Much depends on how well these technologies perform under real-world pressures, how quickly costs come down, and whether builders, regulators and insurers are willing to adapt. Jobs will change (i.e. some may go, others will evolve) and this raises big questions for education, employment policy, and worker protections.

For policymakers and local authorities, there will need to be a balance between embracing robotic construction to help unlock stalled housing developments and support sustainability goals, and rethinking procurement, planning frameworks, and public trust in new technologies. If done carefully, it could support a more resilient and forward-looking housing system. If rushed or poorly managed, it may risk further complicating an already difficult landscape.

What’s clear is that the conversation has moved on from theoretical hype to practical possibility where, although robots aren’t going to replace the construction industry, they may quietly start rebuilding how it works.

Microsoft Copilot Pages is a new editable workspace, like Word, integrated with Copilot. It enables AI-assisted content creation, editing, sharing, tagging, and collaboration across documents on desktop and mobile.

[Note – To Watch This Video without glitches/interruptions, It may be best to download it first]

This tech tip shows you how to effortlessly block unwanted contacts and silence annoying unknown callers, giving you peace of mind and distraction-free messaging.

Blocking Unwanted Contacts:

– Open WhatsApp and go to the chat with the contact or number you want to block.

– Tap the contact’s name or number at the top of the chat.

– Scroll down and tap “Block” or “Block Contact”.

– Confirm that you want to block the contact.

Muting Unknown Callers:

– Go to WhatsApp Settings (three dots or gear icon).

– Tap “Account” > “Privacy”.

– Scroll down to “Calls” and toggle on “Silence Unknown Callers”.

By following these simple steps, you can effectively manage unwanted contacts and calls on WhatsApp, saving yourself time and hassle.

Despite the whirlwind of hype, new research suggests that generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Claude have, so far, made barely a ripple in the labour market, leaving jobs and wages largely untouched.

A Grounded Reality Check

A comprehensive study by economists Anders Humlum (University of Chicago) and Emilie Vestergaard (University of Copenhagen) has found that the economic impact of generative AI chatbots on workers has been negligible. Their paper, Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects, analysed data from over 25,000 workers across 7,000 Danish workplaces between 2023 and 2024, focused on 11 occupations considered highly susceptible to AI disruption, including software developers, journalists, legal professionals, and teachers.

No Significant Impact

According to findings published in the paper, despite widespread adoption, most firms encouraged chatbot use, 38 per cent deployed in-house models, and 30 per cent of employees received AI training. Crucially, the study found no significant changes in earnings or working hours across any occupation. The researchers, therefore, concluded that “AI chatbots have had no significant impact on earnings or recorded hours in any occupation.”

Just Modest Productivity Gains

It seems that while users reported modest productivity gains, averaging time savings of 2.8 per cent to 5.4 per cent of their weekly hours, these did not translate into reduced workloads. In fact, AI adoption led to new tasks for 8.4 per cent of workers, such as supervising AI outputs or adapting workflows to accommodate the technology.

Other Research Supporting The Findings

Other recent research has also reached similar conclusions. For example, a separate analysis by Barclays, led by economist Mark Cus Babic, examined AI exposure across various occupations and industries in the U.S. and Europe. The study found that less than 10 per cent of core job tasks could be better performed by AI. Interestingly, occupations most exposed to AI were not always at risk of being replaced. For example, while roles like proofreaders and typists are more susceptible to automation, professions requiring significant interpersonal skills, such as translators, are less replaceable.

Contrary to fears of widespread job losses, therefore, the Barclays analysis found that AI exposure correlated with employment growth, not reduction.

However, this study also noted that AI exposure was linked to slower wage growth, with rising AI exposure reducing annualised wage growth by up to 0.74 percentage points.

Contrasting Findings

While these studies suggest a limited immediate impact of generative AI on jobs and wages, other recent research presents a more nuanced picture. For example:

– A 2024 PwC report found that sectors with high AI penetration experienced nearly fivefold greater labour productivity growth compared to less exposed sectors. In the UK, job postings requiring AI skills were growing significantly faster, with employers offering a 14 per cent wage premium, particularly in legal and IT roles. The findings were based on global employment and productivity data tracked by PwC’s Economic Outlook research team.

– A 2023 study by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Copenhagen, analysing online labour market data from platforms like Upwork and Freelancer, observed a decline in demand for text-related and programming-related jobs following the introduction of ChatGPT. However, the remaining jobs in these submarkets became more complex, and competition among freelancers increased, suggesting a shift in the nature rather than the volume of work.

– Joint research published in 2023 by the International Labour Organisation and the World Bank indicated that generative AI could potentially automate between 2 per cent and 5 per cent of jobs across Latin America and the Caribbean. The study warned that women and younger workers in formal employment sectors were likely to be disproportionately affected, especially in roles involving routine cognitive tasks.

The Implications

In terms of the implications of the most recent University of Copenhagen research, the minimal immediate impact on jobs and wages may prompt AI developers to reassess their value propositions. It seems that while the technology holds promise for enhancing productivity, the anticipated economic benefits have yet to materialise at scale.

Also, based on these findings, companies investing in AI may want to temper expectations regarding short-term labour cost savings. Instead, the focus could shift towards leveraging AI for incremental efficiency gains and exploring new business models that integrate AI capabilities.

In terms of what this could mean for governments and policymakers, the findings appear to suggest that fears of an imminent AI-induced employment crisis may be overstated. However, the potential for AI to reshape job tasks and create new roles underscores the need for policies that support workforce adaptability, such as reskilling initiatives and education reforms.

As for workers, while it seems (according to this study) that AI has not yet led to significant job displacement, its integration into the workplace is undoubtedly altering job responsibilities. This could mean that workers may need to adapt by acquiring new skills and embracing lifelong learning to remain competitive in an evolving job market.

Perception vs Reality?

One of the more striking contrasts emerging from this research is the growing gulf between how AI is perceived and how it’s actually performing in economic terms. It seems that public debate has largely centred around the threat of mass job displacement, with headlines warning of “white-collar extinction events” and sweeping automation of knowledge work. Yet the data so far simply doesn’t back that up.

For example, a 2024 Ipsos MORI survey found that 61 per cent of UK workers believe AI will significantly reduce job availability within the next decade. However, this fear appears to be driven more by speculation and media narratives than current evidence. Researchers like Humlum and Vestergaard stress that even in sectors with widespread chatbot adoption, measurable labour impacts have been “remarkably muted”.

This mismatch between expectations and evidence could have real consequences, potentially fuelling anxiety, political pressure, or misaligned policy responses. It also raises a challenge for AI companies and advocates, i.e. how to communicate realistic use cases and limitations without losing investor interest or public trust.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What this research ultimately seems to reveal is a still-unfolding story, and one that is far less dramatic than the early hype may have suggested. While it’s true that generative AI is being widely adopted across white-collar industries, it looks as though the impact on wages and jobs appears, for now, to be largely neutral. That’s not to say AI isn’t changing the workplace (far from it). However, the kind of sweeping disruption that many predicted simply hasn’t (yet) arrived.

For UK businesses, this latest research provides a valuable window of clarity. It means that rather than expecting AI to deliver immediate cost savings through workforce reductions, firms may find more tangible returns in using chatbots to refine workflows, support staff with repetitive tasks, and free up time for more valuable work. In practical terms, that means revisiting where AI fits in the broader business model, not as a silver bullet for efficiency, but as a support tool, and one that still needs oversight, training, and adaptation to work effectively.

For governments, the findings highlight the importance of measured, evidence-based policymaking. While it’s right to prepare for potential shifts in the labour market, it seems there’s currently no need for panic. The real focus might be better placed on supporting agility within the workforce, e.g. through investment in digital skills, better access to lifelong learning, and guidance for employers on effective technology adoption.

Meanwhile, for AI developers, the study is a reminder that user adoption doesn’t always equal economic impact. The technology may be advancing rapidly, but converting that into broad-based value remains a work in progress. As such, the next wave of innovation may need to focus less on scaling up infrastructure, and more on proving real-world outcomes, especially for sectors still unsure how to integrate these tools meaningfully.

In short, this research invites recalibration and puts things a little more in perspective. Generative AI is here, it’s being used, and it’s shaping how work gets done, yet its impact (at least for now) appears to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The real question may no longer be whether AI will replace jobs, but whether we’re ready to redesign the way we work alongside it.